- Orders Plunge For Italy's Luxury Suppliers Amid Nationwide Lockdown
Orders Plunge For Italy’s Luxury Suppliers Amid Nationwide Lockdown
Industry sources told Reuters on Tuesday that global luxury brands, including Louis Vuitton, Parada, and others, have significantly reduced orders with top Italian suppliers as Covid-19 disruptions are seen across the world.
Italy has imposed unprecedented travel restrictions on 60 million of its people to contain the fast-spreading virus, which has so far resulted in 9,172 confirmed cases, with 463 deaths.
Reuters spoke with high-end clothing suppliers in Veneto, an area nearby Tuscany and affected by the new travel restrictions. Suppliers said a perfect storm of factors has been building since late January, as demand for luxury goods from China crashed, and Italian suppliers are suspending operations or running at less than full capacity because of a nationwide lockdown to contain the virus.
“We were producing 800-1,000 handbags a month for Gucci. In February we made 450 and we have no orders for March,” said the operator of a small handbag supplier in Scandicci, an area outside Florence that is home to a major hub for leather goods production. “We don’t have orders for April or May either. The company has been brought to a standstill and we are having to put our workers on temporary redundancy schemes.”
The virus has severely damaged the global luxury goods industry, already dealing with waning demand that started with the Hong Kong riots in the second half of 2019. Then the virus outbreak in China at the start of the year delivered an even larger blow to the industry as the world’s largest consumer was forced into quarantine.
Flavio Cereda, an industry analyst at Jefferies, noted on Monday that he slashed his 2020 sales forecast for the global luxury goods market because of the virus outbreak in China, the Middle East, Europe, and the Americas.
Cereda expects luxury goods sales will decline 3% on the year, as opposed to his earlier forecast of 1% growth.
“Prolonged disruption of economic activity may well result in supply chain issues for most brands,” he said, adding, however, that he had no evidence of that happening yet.
The Scandicci manufacturing hub is an area home to top suppliers for LVMH, Kering, and Prada has had strict travel restrictions go into effect to start the week, which has forced some companies to operate at less than full capacity.
Massimiliano Guerrini is the owner of Almax, a Scandicci-based luxury goods supplier for top luxury brands, said orders noticeably decreased when China started shutting down in late January due to the virus outbreak.
“I thought things were not too bad given the circumstances, but now this new alarm in Italy risks making more casualties among businesses than among people and disrupting the supply chain for the orders that are still in the pipeline,” he said.
“We have 270 employees and have diversified our customers, so we managed to mitigate the impact so far. But some of the smaller suppliers are not going to make it.”
Reuters spoke with an operator of another supplier in Veneto, who reported a 30% slump in orders from Louis Vuitton.
Claudio Marenzi, President of Confindustria Moda, a trade organization in Italy, said the Italian textiles industry could see rapid consolidation this year as the virus crisis across the world is causing severe demand shocks that are also resulting in supply shocks as suppliers in Italy idle plants on a nationwide lockdown.
“Since the virus emerged in China we knew there was going to be a slowdown in the first quarter. But now the whole year risks going up in smoke for us,” Marenzi said.
Italy is Europe’s third-largest economy, and the lockdown across the country could result in a recession.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/11/2020 – 02:45 - Merkel Expects 60-70% Of Germans To Be Infected With Coronavirus
Merkel Expects 60-70% Of Germans To Be Infected With Coronavirus
Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,
Angela Merkel says she expects around 60-70 per cent of Germans will be infected with the coronavirus, which equates to about 53 million people.
Reportedly, the German Parliament fell completely silent when Merkel stated the number.
News outlet Bild reported the German Chancellor’s comments, which echoed numbers forecast by Berlin virologist Christian Drosten, who added that such a total could take 2 years or longer to reach.
Given the fact that coronavirus has a mortality rate of around 1 per cent, this could equate to over half a million deaths, although new methods of fighting the virus could reduce this number.
The World Health Organization’s director general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus claimed that the death rate was higher at 3.4 per cent, although this has been disputed.
Germany, which has recorded 1,565 coronavirus cases and two deaths so far, has yet to impose the kind of quarantine measures seen in Italy, where the entire country has been placed on lockdown.
German health authorities have said that people should avoid attending concerts, clubs or football games to limit the spread of the illness.
* * *
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/11/2020 – 02:00 - Covid-19, AIDS, & The Politics Of Viral Fear
Covid-19, AIDS, & The Politics Of Viral Fear
Authored by Peter van Buren via TheAmericanConservative.com,
In the 1980’s, agenda-driven panic around the HIV epidemic set back the public health response by years…
Nothing is more viral than fear. Fear – fight or flight – is a terrible way to make decisions that call for time, science, and rational thinking. Want to screw up a public health crisis? Let fear drive.
Democrats, Pavlovian conditioned by years of believing everything Trump does is “an existential threat,” are about twice as likely as Republicans to say the coronavirus poses an imminent danger. Make a joke of it—pandemic or Dempanic—but one’s political party should not affect how we respond to an epidemic.
“Our hyper-polarization is so strong that we don’t even assess a potential health crisis in the same way. And so it impedes our ability to address it,” saidsaid Jennifer McCoy, a Georgia State political science professor who studies polarization.
“I am not scared of Covid-19,” Abdu Sharkawy, an infectious disease expertat the University of Toronto in Canada,an infectious disease expert wrote.
“I am scared about the loss of reason and wave of fear that has induced the masses of society into a spellbinding spiral of panic.”
This is not about downplaying something serious. It is about preventing mistakes that will make things worse. Trump Derangement Syndrome might actually help kill us this time, as fear makes for poor public health decisions. Remember the 1980’s?
In 1981 the CDC reported five cases of a new pneumonia. The disease didn’t even have a name until the next year, and wasn’t isolated in the lab until 1984. AIDS would go on to kill over 500,000 Americans. Yet while a horrible disease and a miserable way to die, in retrospect “the problem with AIDS was really two epidemics—the real health epidemic and the epidemic of the mind,” said Boston’s WBZ-TV station manager Tom Goodgame, quoted in Time. Meanwell, The New York Timesconcluded, “in the 1980’s, fear spread faster than AIDS.”
America paid the price in lives.
The fear was measurable. In the mid-80’s 60 percent of Americans wanted HIV+ people to carry a card noting their status; one in three said employers should fire employees who had AIDS. Some 21 percent said people with AIDS should be isolated from the rest of society in leper colonies. Even a professional medical journal wrote, “A specter is haunting our streets — the specter of AIDS, a remorseless and incurable disease whose nature, transmission and effects still contain elements of mystery.”
Those mysteries are always the most dangerous elements in shaping public health policy via fear, and with AIDS, centered on exaggerating the problem. When early cases surfaced inside communities already viewed as modern day Sodoms, many sought to exaggerate the crisis from a quasi-religious point of view: God was smiting the gays. Tragically, too many felt the more who died of AIDS the better, and played up the deaths as “Judgement.” The rest of us, God-fearing, were safe. Homophobia manifested as fear crushed human compassion. It’s almost like hoping the current economy goes into recession, destroying the savings of millions of Americans, so Trump’s chances of reelection fall. Or one politician hoping the virus infects those at MAGA rallies.
In the 1980’s, the Reagan administration, with its political debt to newly-empowered evangelical voters, was indifferent at best toward the study or prevention of AIDS. Congress agreed; in 1987 it banned the use of federal funds for AIDS prevention and education that “promoted or encouraged, directly or indirectly, homosexual activities.”
Years were lost as the virus spread, and too many died because of the delay in funding.
We were not innocent. In the mid-to-late 1980s “AIDS hysteria” was a familiar term in the media and public life, and popular comedians made crude jokes to amuse us. A study found “health care trainees and professionals demonstrated their level of empathy and caring for HIV/AIDS is negatively affected by the knowledge that the person being treated is homosexual.” A 1985 Time magazine story, “The New Untouchables,” focused on an incident in New York where parents refused to send their children to a school after one student was identified as HIV+. “What about somebody sneezing in the classroom? What about the water fountain? What about kids who get in a fight with a bloody nose? They don’t know!” said one frightened parent.
Gay activists also sought to drive public opinion through fear. The fear of a “heterosexual breakout” was employed to coax a Middle American audience toward political awareness. The community also exaggerated the crisis as spur to more government funding. In 1988, after New York revised its estimates of HIV+ citizens significantly downward, members of AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power were arrested at a sit-in at the Health Department. Hecklers trailed the Health Commissioner demanding he resign. His home was picketed and spray-painted. There were death threats against him. Yet statistical studies some 30 years later showed even his lower numbers from the 1980s overestimated the extent of the epidemic by some 50 percent. The Commissioner had been right to tamp down the threat.
Activists justify their use of fear as the only way to have focused attention on the disease. But that ignores the tragic results of their actions. While funding did increase, much of the government’s early AIDS-prevention budget was used to raise awareness among hetero college students, women, and others who faced relatively low risk. Money was diverted away from the communities that needed it most.
Even today, AIDS and other fear-mongered diseases soak up a disproportionate share of research funds. Diseases that account for 84 percent of deaths in the U.S. get less than half of NIH funding. Cancer and HIV/AIDS in particular receive a disproportionately large amount, while chronic diseases like diabetes and obesity receive less funding relative to the costs they impose on society.
The worry is always the unknown, and on Day One of an epidemic nearly everything is unknown. Mistakes get made as protocols are created (in reality, field tested) on the fly. Japan, with an excellent universal health care system and a non-partisan public health bureaucracy, miserably mishandled a cruise ship quarantine, turning the boat into a virus incubator. Remember when people believed they should not shake hands with a gay man for fear of catching the disease? Only when science replaced fear did AIDS subside to where today the disease is a manageable element of public health.
“AIDS is grim enough without exaggeration,” cited one New York Times editorial 1987. It continued:
“Why has the truth disappeared so far from view? Perhaps because the chief interpreters of the data want to reflect their own messages. Public health experts see a unique chance to reduce all sexually transmitted diseases. Medical researchers demand $1 billion in new Federal spending against AIDS, hoping to refurbish their laboratories. Government epidemiologists, seeking to protect homosexuals and drug addicts, fear the Reagan Administration may acquire the notion that these are the only people at risk. Moralists see a heaven-sent chance to preach fire, brimstone and restricted sex. Homosexuals have no desire to carry the stigma of AIDS alone.”
While fear as a political manipulative tool is nothing new, the coronavirus panic appears at a new place in America. Social media encourages people Joker-like to pour fuel on fires. MSM pursues an unambiguous political agenda when it is not just peddling raw anxiety as a profit center. We are ever more diverse and ever more subreddit separated. It isn’t safe anymore for us to have common fears.
Wash your hands. Ask questions. But keep fear in check. As you encounter information focusing on worst-case scenarios, which seems to exaggerate unknowns, uses terms like surge, crash, skyrocket, Katrina, is more White House gossip than science, anything that starts with Report: ask yourself if the primary purpose is peddling fear — to sell you a product, to get you to click, to influence your vote. Socially isolate yourself from that source.
And stop reading political journalists to learn about a health issue.
Politico, currently bleating out Trump isn’t doing enough and is bungling what he is doing, was only recently criticizing Trump’s prescient travel ban for China travelers as ineffective, and worried it would antagonize Chinese leaders. I write this from New York, under a declared state of emergency. Yet for all the screaming headlines one finds the primary motivation for the declaration was simply “a more expedited purchasing and testing protocol.” It’s more about a better bureaucracy now than something with sirens and flashing lights now.
The numbers will go up until they start going down (new cases are declining in China and South Korea.) There is nothing investors fear more than uncertainty, kryptonite to the markets. Right now that is all there is and volatility in the markets will continue until uncertainty, and then fear, back off. Before you blame someone or something, figure out how to blame away the virus in China, Italy, Iran, and elsewhere where they don’t have Trump, and do have universal healthcare, sick leave or whatever other partisan talking point is being pushed. Panic is easy, a measured response hard. We need to make good decisions. Lives depend on it.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/11/2020 – 00:05 - Visualizing The Most Loved Brands, By Generation
Visualizing The Most Loved Brands, By Generation
When it comes to buying into brands, consumers are spoiled for choice, but, as Visual Capitalist’s Katie Jones notes, the vast amount of options available makes it increasingly difficult for brands to build meaningful emotional connections with them.
But for the brands that do, the payoff can be huge.
Today’s graphic pulls data from MBLM’s 2020 Brand Intimacy Report and visualizes the top 10 brands that different generations connect with the most.
Can Emotion Be Measured?
Brands that tap into consumers’ emotions can establish higher levels of trust. This in turn creates a culture of loyalty that could ensure a unique standing in the market and long-term growth.
In fact, intimate brands that have a strong emotional bond with their consumers tend to outperform top companies listed on the S&P 500 and Fortune 500 in both revenue and profit. To measure how brands emotionally connect with consumers, MBLM looked at four key factors:
-
Users: The existing relationship between a brand and a consumer
-
Emotional Connection: The degree of positive feelings the user has for a brand, and the extent to which their personal values align with the brand’s values
-
Archetype: The six markers that are present among intimate brands, which include fulfillment, identity, enhancement, ritual, nostalgia, and indulgence
-
Stage: The degree of intensity in the relationship across three phases: sharing, bonding, and fusing
-
Intimacy Score: Based on these four components, a score is assigned, ranging from 0-100
The total score also reveals which brands rank the highest across different age groups. While there are some commonalities across each generation, can brands be all things to all people?
The Chosen One
There are very few brands that have the luxury of retaining loyal customers from different age brackets. Amazon, however, manages to transcend age. The retail giant appears in the top five for Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers—with the latter awarding the brand their #1 spot.
Every generation named “enhancement” as Amazon’s defining trait, meaning their lives have improved as a result of the relationship. The “ritual” trait also scored high, with users claiming the brand has become ingrained into their daily behavior.
Ranked: Top Brands by Generation
Gen Z and Millennials (18-34)
Sony-owned PlayStation holds the title for the most intimate brand among Millennials, climbing up from the 8th spot in 2019. Impressively, more than 50% of Millennials have an emotional connection to the brand, with men having a particularly strong affinity for it.
Having recently celebrated its 25th anniversary, the gaming brand’s success has been fueled by the increasing popularity of multiplayer and professional gaming, as well as new product innovation—with five of the ten best selling consoles owned by PlayStation.
Interestingly, when Gen Z (18-24) are singled out, Microsoft-owned Xbox ranks as #1, increasing its score to 73.5 in 2020 from 49.7 in 2018.
Gen X (35-54)
As the generational middle child, Gen X did not grow up with the same access to technology. However, their tech adoption is almost on par with Millennials, with similar adoption rates across tablet and smartphone ownership.
It is no surprise therefore, that Apple has captured the hearts of this generation, sitting proudly in first place. When the iPhone launched in 2007, this group was between 22-41 years old, so they have likely been loyal followers of the tech brand since its earlier days.
While this generation has no qualms about shopping online, 72% of them shop in brick and mortar stores and are satisfied with doing so—which may be part of the reason why retail giant Walmart joins Amazon in the top 10.
Baby Boomers (55-64)
Controlling almost 70% of disposable income in the U.S., Baby Boomers are arguably the most influential of all consumer groups.
While they feel the most emotionally connected to Amazon, it’s also true that Apple was another tech brand to win the affection of this age group.
This generation dominates almost 50% of consumer packaged goods (CPG) sales in the U.S.—which likely explains why the rest of their top brands are more traditional household names, such as Macy’s, Hershey’s, and Kellogg’s.
It is also clear from the ranking that this group values brands with nostalgic qualities, as well as the ability to provide them with moments of indulgence.
The Changing Brand Landscape
The brand and consumer relationship has shifted with the ages, but each generation’s unique value system has remained the most important piece of the puzzle.
It is worth noting that none of the Baby Boomer’s favorite brands appear in the ranking for those aged 18-24 (Gen Z). Are the preferences of younger generations signalling a cultural shift, in which we place more value on distraction rather than satisfaction?
Note: The 2020 Brand Intimacy Report covers an age range of 18-64. The way that the ranking is structured makes it difficult to reflect conventional demographic groups (e.g. Gen Z, the Silent Generation etc.)
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 23:45 -
- This Is A Test: How Will The Constitution Fare During A Nationwide Lockdown?
This Is A Test: How Will The Constitution Fare During A Nationwide Lockdown?
Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“It takes a remarkable force to keep nearly a million people quietly indoors for an entire day, home from work and school, from neighborhood errands and out-of-town travel. It takes a remarkable force to keep businesses closed and cars off the road, to keep playgrounds empty and porches unused across a densely populated place 125 square miles in size. This happened … not because armed officers went door-to-door, or imposed a curfew, or threatened martial law. All around the region, for 13 hours, people locked up their businesses and ‘sheltered in place’ out of a kind of collective will. The force that kept them there wasn’t external – there was virtually no active enforcement across the city of the governor’s plea that people stay indoors. Rather, the pressure was an internal one – expressed as concern, or helpfulness, or in some cases, fear – felt in thousands of individual homes.”
– Journalist Emily Badger, “The Psychology of a Citywide Lockdown”
This is a test.
This is not a test of our commitment to basic hygiene or disaster preparedness or our ability to come together as a nation in times of crisis, although we’re not doing so well on any of those fronts.
No, what is about to unfold over the next few weeks is a test to see how well we have assimilated the government’s lessons in compliance, fear and police state tactics; a test to see how quickly we’ll march in lockstep with the government’s dictates, no questions asked; and a test to see how little resistance we offer up to the government’s power grabs when made in the name of national security.
Most critically of all, this is a test to see whether the Constitution—and our commitment to the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights—can survive a national crisis and true state of emergency.
Here’s what we know: whatever the so-called threat to the nation—whether it’s civil unrest, school shootings, alleged acts of terrorism, or the threat of a global pandemic in the case of COVID-19—the government has a tendency to capitalize on the nation’s heightened emotions, confusion and fear as a means of extending the reach of the police state.
This coronavirus epidemic, which has brought China’s Orwellian surveillance out of the shadows and caused Italy to declare a nationwide lockdown, threatens to bring the American Police State out into the open on a scale we’ve not seen before.
If and when a nationwide lockdown finally hits—if and when we are forced to shelter in place— if and when militarized police are patrolling the streets— if and when security checkpoints have been established— if and when the media’s ability to broadcast the news has been curtailed by government censors—if and when public systems of communication (phone lines, internet, text messaging, etc.) have been restricted—if and when those FEMA camps the government has been surreptitiously building finally get used as quarantine detention centers for American citizens—if and when military “snatch and grab” teams are deployed on local, state, and federal levels as part of the activated Continuity of Government plans to isolate anyone suspected of being infected with COVID-19—and if and when martial law is enacted with little real outcry or resistance from the public—then we will truly understand the extent to which the government has fully succeeded in recalibrating our general distaste for anything that smacks too overtly of tyranny.
This is how it begins.
The coronavirus epidemic may well be a legitimate health concern, but it’s the government’s response to it that worries me more in the long term.
Based on the government’s track record and its long-anticipated plans for instituting martial law (using armed forces to solve domestic political and social problems) in response to a future crisis, there’s good reason to worry.
This is not a government with a rosy view of the future.
To the contrary, the government’s vision of the future is particularly ominous if a Pentagon training video created by the Army for U.S. Special Operations Command is anything to go by.
Obtained by The Intercept through a FOIA request, the training video titled “Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity” provides a chilling glimpse of what the government expects the world to look like in 2030, a world bedeviled by “criminal networks,” “substandard infrastructure,” “religious and ethnic tensions,” “impoverishment, slums,” “open landfills, over-burdened sewers,” a “growing mass of unemployed,” and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have nots.
Add health contagions to the mix, and we’re arrived there, ten years ahead of schedule.
The training video is only five minutes long, but it says a lot about the government’s mindset and the way its views the citizenry. Even more troubling, however, is what this military video doesn’t say about the Constitution and the rights of the citizenry: nothing at all.
In typical fashion, the government seems to consider the Constitution only when forced to do so. It complies with the dictates of the Constitution even less frequently. Indeed, the government’s efforts to systematically lock down the nation and shift us into martial law have not been stymied one iota by the restraints imposed upon it by the Constitution: when it’s not bulldozing its way through the Fourth Amendment, the government just sidesteps it (with the help of the courts).
So what should you expect if the government decides to declare a national state of emergency and institute a nationwide lockdown?
More of the same of what we’ve been seeing in recent years.
After all, like the proverbial boiling frogs, the government has been gradually acclimating us to the specter of a police state for years now: Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality.
This is how you prepare a populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully.
You don’t scare them by making dramatic changes. Rather, you acclimate them slowly to their prison walls. Persuade the citizenry that their prison walls are merely intended to keep them safe and danger out. Desensitize them to violence, acclimate them to a military presence in their communities, and persuade them that only a militarized government can alter the seemingly hopeless trajectory of the nation.
It’s happening already.
The sight of police clad in body armor and gas masks, wielding semiautomatic rifles and escorting an armored vehicle through a crowded street, a scene likened to “a military patrol through a hostile city,” no longer causes alarm among the general populace.
We’ve allowed ourselves to be acclimated to the occasional lockdown of government buildings, Jade Helm military drills in small towns so that special operations forces can get “realistic military training” in “hostile” territory, and Live Active Shooter Drill training exercises, carried out at schools, in shopping malls, and on public transit, which can and do fool law enforcement officials, students, teachers and bystanders into thinking it’s a real crisis.
Still, you can’t say we weren’t warned.
Back in 2008, an Army War College report revealed that “widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.” The 44-page report went on to warn that potential causes for such civil unrest could include another terrorist attack, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”
In 2009, reports by the Department of Homeland Security surfaced that called on the government to subject right-wing and left-wing activists and military veterans to full-fledged pre-crime surveillance.
Meanwhile, the government has been amassing an arsenal of military weapons, including hollow point bullets, for use domestically and equipping and training their “troops” for war. Even government agencies with largely administrative functions such as the Food and Drug Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Smithsonian have been acquiring body armor, riot helmets and shields, cannon launchers and police firearms and ammunition. In fact, there are now at least 120,000 armed federal agents carrying such weapons who possess the power to arrest.
Rounding out this profit-driven campaign to turn American citizens into enemy combatants (and America into a battlefield) is a technology sector that has been colluding with the government to create a Big Brother that is all-knowing, all-seeing and inescapable. It’s not just the drones, fusion centers, license plate readers, stingray devices and the NSA that you have to worry about. You’re also being tracked by the black boxes in your cars, your cell phone, smart devices in your home, grocery loyalty cards, social media accounts, credit cards, streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, and e-book reader accounts.
All of this has taken place right under our noses, funded with our taxpayer dollars and carried out in broad daylight without so much as a general outcry from the citizenry.
And then you have the government’s Machiavellian schemes for unleashing all manner of dangers on an unsuspecting populace, then demanding additional powers in order to protect “we the people” from the threats. Almost every national security threat that the government has claimed greater powers in order to fight—all the while undermining the liberties of the American citizenry—has been manufactured in one way or another by the government.
We have made it way too easy for the government to lockdown the nation.
Consider that it was seven years ago when the city of Boston was locked down while police carried out a military-style manhunt for suspects in the 2013 Boston Marathon explosion.
Six years ago, the city of Ferguson, Missouri, was locked down, with government officials deploying a massive SWAT team, an armored personnel carrier, men in camouflage pointing heavy artillery at the crowd, smoke bombs and tear gas to quell citizen unrest over a police shooting of a young, unarmed black man.
Five years ago, the city of Baltimore was put under a military-enforced lockdown after civil unrest over police brutality erupted into rioting. More than 1,500 national guard troops were deployed while residents were ordered to stay inside their homes and put under a 10 pm curfew.
Three years ago, it was Charlottesville, Va., population 50,000, that was locked down while government officials declared a state of emergency and enacted heightened security measures tantamount to martial law, despite the absence of any publicized information about credible threats to public safety.
Fast forward to the present moment, with the world on the verge of a possible coronavirus pandemic, and growing numbers of Americans are already voluntarily sheltering in place in an effort to avoid falling ill.
For those like myself who have studied emerging police states, the sight of any American city placed under martial law—its citizens essentially under house arrest (officials used the Orwellian phrase “shelter in place” in Boston to describe the mandatory lockdown), military-style helicopters equipped with thermal imaging devices buzzing the skies, tanks and armored vehicles on the streets, and snipers perched on rooftops, while thousands of black-garbed police swarmed the streets and SWAT teams carried out house-to-house searches—leaves us in a growing state of unease.
Watching the events of the various lockdowns unfold, I couldn’t help but think of Nazi Field Marshal Hermann Goering’s remarks during the Nuremberg trials. As Goering noted:
It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
It does indeed work the same in every country.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t take much for the American people to be terrorized into compliance by the government’s latest and greatest scare tactic, even if it means being stripped of one’s constitutional rights at a moment’s notice.
This continual undermining of the rules that protect civil liberties has far-reaching consequences on a populace that not only remains ignorant about their rights but is inclined to sacrifice their liberties for phantom promises of safety.
It may be that we’ve already gone too far down this road. However, don’t let this latest “crisis” cause you to panic to such an extent that you relinquish your fundamental right to make decisions for yourself and your loved ones and willingly surrender what remains of your freedoms.
This too shall pass.
Remember, a police state does not come about overnight.
Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, no matter how it starts, with a questionable infringement justified in the name of safety or a nationwide lockdown to guard against a global pandemic, it always ends the same: by pushing us one step closer to a future in which the government has all the power and “we the people” have none.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 23:25 - The Size Of America's Immigrant Electorate Doubled Since 2000
The Size Of America’s Immigrant Electorate Doubled Since 2000
With Super Tuesday swiftly approaching, Pew Research released some new data about the immigrant electorate in the United States.
The U.S. had approximately 12 million foreign-born eligible voters back in 2000 and that increased to 22 million by 2018. It is expected to grow even further this year, hitting 23.2 million. That’s a 93 percent increase since the turn of the century. As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, by the time Americans head to the polls in November, 9.8 percent of eligible voters will be foreign born, a record high. The U.S. born eligible voter population has also grown since 2000 but at a slower place, rising 18 percent from 181 million to 215 million by 2018.
You will find more infographics at Statista
Two key developments are behind the trend.
-
The nation’s immigrant population has increased from 9.6 million (5 percent of the population) to 45 million (13.9 percent of the population) since the Immigration and Nationality Act became law in 1965.
-
The second is the rising share and number of immigrants becoming naturalized U.S. citizens.
Some 7.2 million immigrants naturalized and became citizens between 2009 and 2019 alone.
Today, people from Latin America (34 percent) and Asia (31 percent) make up the vast majority of immigrant eligible voters. Mexico comes first in terms of origin countries with 31 percent of the immigrant electorate or 3.5 million voters. The Philippines has the second highest absolute number with 1.4 million while India comes third with 1.4 million.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 23:05 -
- You Can Get Paid $10,000 To Move To Tulsa…Will Other Cities Follow?
You Can Get Paid $10,000 To Move To Tulsa…Will Other Cities Follow?
Submitted by Market Crumbs,
When you think of Tulsa, Oklahoma, you may not think it’s becoming a hotbed for coworking spaces filled with young professionals working remotely. The landlocked city with a population of about 400,000 people is often referred to as the “Oil Capital of the World.”
Thanks to a program called Tulsa Remote, that’s exactly what is happening.
The program, which is funded by the George Kaiser Family Foundation – an influential Tulsa-based philanthropy, is attracting people to Tulsa by paying them $10,000 in cash, providing desk space and offering other perks. The program is one of the first of its kind in the U.S., with similar ones implemented in Vermont, Alabama and Kansas.
After seeing its population peak in 2016, Tulsa Remote is seen as a way to lure in talent to help reverse the declining population and boost the city’s economy.
“The last few years have been the slowest population growth [in the state] since the late ‘80s, early ‘90s,” said Chad Wilkerson, branch executive of the Kansas City Fed’s Oklahoma City Branch office. “A good amount of it is driven by the downturn of the energy sector in 2014 and 2015, and people seeking jobs elsewhere.”
Tulsa Remote is touting the city’s cost of living as its selling point to attract people from expensive coastal cities. The median home price in Tulsa is $157,200—43% below the national average, while the average rent for a 2 bedroom apartment is $658 per month.
Tulsa Remote’s website even compares Tulsa’s cost of living to popular coastal cities that are facing affordability crises. Compared to San Francisco, the cost of living in Tulsa is 50% lower with the median home price 83% lower. Compared to Seattle, the cost of living and median home price in Tulsa are 38% and 68% lower, respectively. Compared to New York, the cost of living in Tulsa is a staggering 61% lower with the median home price 60% lower.
“The citizens of Tulsa have invested substantial public funds to build the types of things that we believe make Tulsa a more appealing place for a new generation of workers,” said Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum.
“And the Tulsa Remote program is really a great way to introduce the very kinds of workers that we’re hoping to appeal to, to the city that we’ve been building for the last decade to appeal to them.”
Given some of the fastest-growing cities in the country are in states such as Texas, Arizona and Nevada, Tulsa Remote knows exactly what it’s doing by literally paying people to come work in a place that is significantly cheaper than most cities. Given Tulsa Remote is now accepting more workers than it did when it began in November 2018, it won’t be surprising to see more cities across the country introduce similar programs.m
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 22:45 - US Home Flipping Soars Despite Profitability Plunging To 2011 Lows
US Home Flipping Soars Despite Profitability Plunging To 2011 Lows
While home-flipping activity soared to an eight-year high in 2019, profits cratered to an eight-year, according to a new report from Attom Data Solutions.
There were $32.5 billion in financed flips in 2019, up 21% from 2018 to a 13-year high. The $32.5 billion was the value of more than 245,864 single-family homes and condos that were flipped.
The number of homes flipped last year accounted for 6.2% of all homes sold across the country, an 8-year high. This is up from 5.8% of all homes sold in 2018.
With more and more Americans piling into the home-flipping game as mortgage rates decline, profit margins continued to deteriorate. The average flipper generated roughly $62,900 in gross profit last year, down 3.2% from $65,000 in 2018 and 6% from the peak of $66,899 in 2017.
“Home-flipping profits across the US dropped again in 2019 as the business of buying and selling houses absorbed its worst year since the housing market was mired in the fallout from the Great Recession. This happened as the cost of buying properties continued to rise faster than gains on resale,” said Todd Teta, chief product officer at ATTOM Data Solutions.
“That’s not to say that the home-flipping industry is tanking or losing its allure for investors because home flipping rates are higher than they’ve been in eight years. But profits did continue to decline again for investors,” Teta said.
The average gross flipping profit of $62,900 translated into a 40.6% ROI for flippers. This was down from 45.8% ROI in 2018 and down from 51.4% ROI in 2017. The latest returns have declined to levels not seen since 2011.
We noted in Sept 2019 that “the end is near” for home-flippers. Nobel laureate Robert Shiller sat down with Bloomberg late last summer and said, “I wouldn’t be surprised if home prices started falling, and it could be accompanied by a recession.”
Nobel laureate Robert Shiller said he “wouldn’t be at all surprised” if U.S. house prices start to fall https://t.co/tqjfeGfo1l pic.twitter.com/mknbODH4Iq
— Bloomberg Economics (@economics) September 5, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
As there is simply no logic in why more people would get into the home-flipping game as profitability sags, maybe the jump in financed flips because of lax lending standards has ushered in a wave of dumb money trying to make a quick buck in a market that is waning.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 22:25 - Saudi-Initiated All-Out Oil War Could Lead To Collapse Of Kingdom Itself
Saudi-Initiated All-Out Oil War Could Lead To Collapse Of Kingdom Itself
Submitted by South Front,
Saudi Arabia launched an all-out oil war offering unprecedented discounts and flooding the market in an attempt to capture a larger share and defeat other oil producers. This “scorched earth” approach caused the biggest oil price fall since the war in the Persian Gulf in 1991.
It all began on March 8 when Riyadh cut its April pricing for crude sales to Asia by $4-$6 a barrel and to the U.S. by $7 a barrel. The Kingdom expanded the discount for its flagship Arab Light crude to refiners in northwest Europe by $8 a barrel offering it at $10.25 a barrel under the Brent benchmark. In comparison, Russia’s Urals crude trades at a discount of about $2 a barrel under Brent. These actions became an attack at the ability of Russia to sell crude in Europe. The Russian ruble immediately plummeted almost 10% falling to its lowest level in more than four years.
Another side that suffered from Saudi actions is Iran. The Islamic country is facing a strong US sanctions pressure and often selling its oil via complex schemes and with notable discounts already.
Saudi Arabia is planning to increase its output above 10 million barrel per day. Currently, it pumps 9.7 million barrels per day, but has the capacity to ramp up to 12.5 million barrels per day. According to OPEC and Saudi sources of The Wall Street Journal, Riyadh’s actions are part of an “aggressive campaign” against Moscow.
The formal pretext of this campaign became the inability of the OPEC+ (a meeting of representatives of member states of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and non-OPEC members) to extend output agreements.
Saudi Arabia was seeking up to 1.5 million b/d in further oil production cuts, but this proposal was rejected by Russia. After the inability to reach the new OPEC+ deal, Saudi Arabia became the frist and only power that took aggressive actions on the market. However, it is hard to imagine that Saudi Arabia would go for such an escalation without at least an order or approval from Washington.
This came amid the detention of two senior members of the Saudi royal family – Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz, the younger brother of King Salman, and Mohammed bin Nayef, the king’s nephew – on March 7. This development took place just ahead of the Saudi offensive on the oil market, and was likely a tip of the ongoing undercover struggle between the pro-US and pro-national factions of the Saudi elites; and the pro-US bloc seems to have the upper hand in this conflict.
In this case, the real goal of the Saudi campaign is not only to secure larger share of the oil market and punish Moscow for its unwillingness to accept the proposed OPEC+ deal, but to deliver a powerful blow to Washington’s geopolitical opponents: Russia and Iran. Pro-Western and anti-government forces existing in both Russia and Iran would try to exploit this situation to destabilize the internal situation in the countries.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia may soon find out that its actions have backfired. Such economic and geopolitical games amid the acute conflict with Iran, military setbacks in Yemen and the increasing regional standoff with the UAE could cost too much for the Kingdom itself.
If the oil prices fall any further and reach $20 per barrel, this will lead to unacceptable economic losses for Russia and Iran, and they could and will likely opt to use nonmarket tools of influencing the Saudi behavior. These options include the increasing support to Yemen’s Houthis with intelligence, weapons, money, and even military advisers, that will lead to the resumption of Houthi strikes on Saudi oil infrastructure.
On top of these, the Saudi leadership may suddenly find that the internal situation in the Kingdom is being worsened by large-scale protests rapidly turning into an open civil conflict.
Such a scenario is no secret for international financial analysts. On March 8, shares of Saudi state oil company Aramco slumped below their initial public offering (IPO) and closed 9.1% lower. On March 9, it continued the fall plunging another 10%. There appears to be a lack of buyers. The risks are too obvious.
At the same time, the range of possible US actions in support of Saudi Arabia in the event of such an escalation is limited by the ongoing presidential campaign. Earlier, President Donald Trump demonstrated that a US military base could become a target of direct missile strike and Washington will not order a direct military action in response. Taking into account other examples of the US current approach towards non-Israeli allies, Riyadh should not expect any real support from its American allies in this standoff.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 22:05 - "Dead Bat Bounce" Dies – Dow Futs Down Over 500 Pts, Treasury Yields Are Tumbling
“Dead Bat Bounce” Dies – Dow Futs Down Over 500 Pts, Treasury Yields Are Tumbling
Well that re-escalated quickly…
A disappointing lack of detail -despite promises of unlimited spending – appears to have upset the market’s vibe from a day of panic-buying to very technical level of resistance.
Dow futures are now down 550 points…
And 10Y Treasury yields are down 12bps…
Is anyone really surprised?
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 21:49 - Coronavirus Threatens To Crash The Gig Economy
Coronavirus Threatens To Crash The Gig Economy
Millions of Americans are working in the gig-economy could soon discover their side hustle jobs, such as being an Uber driver, Amazon delivery driver, and or completing odd tasks for Handyman, could come to a halt (temporarily) as the Covid-19 outbreak disrupts local economies across the country.
We’ve noted in the past, more than 50 million Americans, or about 44% of all US workers, aged 18-64, are considered low-wage and low-skilled, have insurmountable debts (with limited savings), including auto, student, and credit card debts, are working in the gig-economy via side hustles and are most vulnerable to job losses. Many of these folks are also employed in the services sector, another corner of the job market that is high-risk of job loss if the virus outbreak starts forcing consumers to pull back on discretionary spending.
The dark side of the gig economy could soon be realized as virus impacts are starting to mount, especially in West Coast cities. Millions of gig economy workers are low paid and lack proper health insurance. Some of these folks have barebone policies that require them to pay the first few thousand dollars of medical bills.
The obvious risk to the gig economy so far is cities shutting down that forces a decline in the need for certain services, many of these folks don’t have a financial safety net nor health care for if they contract the virus. It’s simple: American workers aren’t prepared for a pandemic.
“Tales of sky-high bills are buzzing in the media. A Miami man says he received a $3,270 bill for a voluntary coronavirus test; an American evacuated from the outbreak’s epicentre in Wuhan China received a $3,918 bill for mandatory quarantine in San Diego,” said the Financial Times.
As cases and deaths soar in Seattle this week, the first views of the gig economy and services sector grinding to a halt is in downtown Seattle. The area has transformed into a ghost town, as the lack of tourists and people quarantined at home has created a demand shock for the local economy.
Seattle is rapidly approaching post apocalyptic ghost town levels. Pike Place and Westlake are the emptiest I’ve ever seen pic.twitter.com/XRPCTL5t3F
— Kate: my steam buns bring Lu Bu to the yard (@ArmyOfMeat) March 3, 2020
Lakshman Achuthan, the co-founder of the Economic Cycle Research Institute, told CBS This Morning that further virus impacts on American cities could put a squeeze on household budgets and lead to a decline in discretionary spending.
ECRI comments on CBS: If there are mass school closings many household budgets will feel a squeeze, hurting discretionary spending. https://t.co/VIscAiZW0Z
— Lakshman Achuthan (@businesscycle) March 5, 2020
CNBC explains that gig economy workers aren’t just some of the most exposed people to contract the virus, they also have no safety net as regular jobs do, such as sick days, health care, and covered expenses. CNBC’s Deirdre Bosa said some gig economy workers have already seen their business halved in the last several weeks due to virus fears.
Putting this all together, as cases and deaths soar in cities across the country, local economies could grind to a halt, and this could crash the gig economy and every millennial in it, who, frankly, many of which aren’t prepared for financial Armageddon unless they read ZeroHedge.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 21:45 - Wikipedia Slashes Spanish Flu Death Rate
Wikipedia Slashes Spanish Flu Death Rate
Authored by Catte Black via Off-Guardian.org,
We’ve had a couple of people take issue with us regarding the case fatality rate (CFR) of the 1918 Spanish Flu. Citing Wikipedia and the CDC we gave that rate as being between 10-20%. A couple of commenters, however, insisted the actual CFR was 2-3%, and this led us to look further.
What we found was quite interesting.
This is the pre-February 22 2020 opening paragraph of the ‘Mortality’ section on the Wiki page for the Spanish flu (our emphasis):
The global mortality rate from the 1918–1919 pandemic is not known, but an estimated 10% to 20% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio). About a third of the world population was infected, and 3% to 6% of the entire global population of over 1800 million[51] died.[2]
This is how the same paragraph reads now:
It is estimated that one third of the global population was infected,[2] and the World Health Organization estimates that 2–3% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio).
That’s quite a big change in a pretty short time.
What’s going on? Why is the CFR suddenly being downgraded so dramatically?
The WHO report they use as a source is not about the Spanish Flu, but simply mentions it in passing. It does indeed say 2-3% of those infected died, but gives no source for this, and also claims this represents 20-50 million people.
The trouble with that is the higher range of this estimate (50 million as 2% of total cases) gives a figure of 2.5 billion total cases. Which is higher than the entire population of the world at the time!(1.8 billion).
So something is clearly amiss.
Worse still, the WHO is the only source we have found so far that claims a death toll of 20 million. Most sources, such as the CDC (and see here), broadly agree that between 50 million and 100 million people died of the Spanish Flu (although one recent study wildly differs, see below). In order for 50-100 million deaths to be 2-3% of total cases there would have had to be 2.5 billion – 5 billion cases.
Obviously totally impossible.
Clearly there is something wrong with that newly revised figure of 2-3%. The only way to make it work is to also dramatically revise downward the number of deaths. And indeed there’s evidence of editors trying to do that on Wiki with someone citing a December 2018 study which used a controversial “new methodology” to establish a mortality figure of just 17 million. Given that this number has previously been estimated for India alone, this is remarkable revisionism.
Now, of course, there are debates about numbers of infections versus fatalities in every case study in epidemiology. It’s not an exact science. It’s fluid. Of course, estimates will vary and errors will be made and corrected. There’s more to be said about the inherent uncertainties in these cases, and we are currently talking to a respected virologist with the intention of covering the question further in future. Maybe the previous estimates of infection and fatality were too high. Maybe there is a rational case to be made for lowering them.
But is that what we are seeing on Wiki?
We all know Wikipedia is a micro-managed propaganda organ, so the fact its page on the Spanish Flu began a huge uptick of edits in December 2019, rising steadily until February 2020, and that the bulk of these edits seem concerned with – subtly and overtly – downgrading the severity of the 1918 pandemic has to be of interest.
Why the sudden decision to vastly downgrade the estimated CFR for the 1918 pandemic and source to a rather obscure WHO article that doesn’t even focus on that issue? And, more importantly, why does this extreme downgrade still exist on the page even when editors are pointing out the impossibility of the figures?
At least this new editorial policy by Wiki is well-timed for those looking to stoke fear, and unfortunate for those trying to bring reason to bear. It allows the media and others to cite the newly downgraded 2-3% CFR as evidence that COVID19 is as dangerous as, or more dangerous than, the Spanish Flu and will end up killing millions. That’s some nice clickbait right there.
Is it just human confusion? Maybe.
There is a report by a virologist, and cited by the CDC, that confirms the heretofore commonly accepted 500 million cases and 50-100 million deaths and adds this is a CFR of ‘over2.5%’. Which of course it is. It’s a CFR of 10-20%, as he would be the first to recognise. And 10-20% is over 2.5%.
Maybe his slightly ambiguous wording has led people astray? Maybe people consulting his work, as many do, including the Wiki editors, have taken ‘over 2.5%’ to mean just over, or even to mean exactly2.5%? Maybe that’s all this is.
Maybe.
But at any rate, the error, whatever it is, wherever it came from, isn’t ours. We didn’t make up the 10-20% CFR of Spanish Flu. It was the standard assessment until very, very recently. It still exists, though somewhat hidden now by ambiguous wording and confusion.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 21:25 - "The Math Is Now Clear" – Super Tuesday 2 Primaries Dominated By Biden
“The Math Is Now Clear” – Super Tuesday 2 Primaries Dominated By Biden
Update (21115ET): It appears it’s all over bar the crying for Bernie Sanders as Joe Biden sweeps the early states on Super Tuesday 2. The former vice-president has dominated the socialist in Mississippi, Missouri, and now Michigan:
Results
-
Michigan (125 delegates): Winner: Biden.
-
Missouri (68 delegates): Winner: Biden.
-
Mississippi (36 delegates): Winner: Biden.
Notably, despite all the snowflakery, turnout among younger voters, according to exit polls, was down in Missouri and Mississippi from four years ago.
As 538’s Nate Silver noted, the polling swing toward Biden is probably the fastest in the history of the primaries.
We have him gaining 36.2 points in national polls over the past 14 days. The previous record is John Kerry, who gained 32.3 points from 1/21 to 2/24/04 in our retrospective national average.
On the question of electability, CNN exit polls showed that 80% of voters thought Biden was the candidate that could beat Donald Trump, versus 17% for Sanders.
The math is now clear. Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee for President and @prioritiesUSA is going to do everything we can to help him defeat Donald Trump in November. I hope others will join us in the fight.
— Guy Cecil (@guycecil) March 11, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The Trump campaign has issued a statement on tonight, via Brad Parscale:
“It has never mattered who the Democrat nominee turns out to be, and now that there are only two options left, it is clear that they are two sides of the same coin. The Democrat candidate for president will be running on a big government socialist agenda regardless of the name on the ballot. It is also clear that the Democrat establishment has rallied around the confused Joe Biden in an effort to deny the nomination to Bernie Sanders. Either way, President Trump is on an unstoppable drive toward re-election.”
* * *
Six states are holding primaries today – with Michigan awarding the most delegates, followed by Washington State, Missouri, Mississippi, Idaho and North Dakota. Results are expected to begin rolling in around 8 p.m. Eastern time.
-
Michigan allocates 125 pledged delegates to the convention, making up 3.5% of the total allocated throughout the process. Polls close in most of the state of 8 p.m. ET. In four of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula counties located in the Central Time Zone, polls just closed at 8 p.m. Central and 9 p.m. ET.
-
Mississippi allocates 36 pledged delegates to the convention. Polls closed at 7 p.m. local time and 8 p.m. ET.
-
North Dakota allocates 14 pledged delegates to the convention. Polls in the state’s Firehouse Caucuses closed at 7 p.m. Central time and 8 p.m. ET.
-
Missouri allocates 68 pledged delegates to the convention. Polls closed at 7 p.m. local time and 8 p.m. ET.
-
Idaho allocates 20 pledged delegates to the convention. Polls close at 8 p.m. local time, 10 p.m. ET.
-
Washington, which allocates 89 pledged delegates to the convention, conducts its elections entirely by mail. Voters must either mail in a ballot postmarked by election day or drop off their ballot in person in their county elections office no later than 8 p.m. local time on the day of the election.
Former VP Joe Biden has 664 delegates under his belt going into tonight’s voting, while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) trails with 573. After Sanders’ lost an early delegate lead on Super Tuesday, the Vermont democratic socialist needs a big win in Michigan to put him back in the game with its 125 delegates. If that doesn’t happen, it’s curtains for Bernie.
As the NY Post notes, Sanders won Michigan in 2016 in a stunning victory over Hillary Clinton by 18,000 votes. That said, “there are doubts Sanders can recreate that victory, with speculation rampant that Michigan this time could sound the death knell for his campaign.“
The reality of the situation is not lost on PredictIt betters, who have Biden sharply in the lead as the likely Democratic nominee.
Stay tuned for results as they roll in…
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 21:16 -
- "That Would Stink!" – IOC, Japan Face Billions In Losses As Olympic Cancellation Concerns Go Global
“That Would Stink!” – IOC, Japan Face Billions In Losses As Olympic Cancellation Concerns Go Global
Several weeks after Japan started canceling sport and cultural events amid the broadening of the Covid-19 outbreak, Japanese Olympic organizers discussed on Tuesday the possibility the Games could be postponed.
Haruyuki Takahashi, one of the Tokyo 2020 organizing committee’s executive board members, said the Games could be delayed for one or two years. Takahashi said canceling the Games would have significant financial ramifications.
“I don’t think the Games could be canceled. It’d be a delay,” Takahashi told The Wall Street Journal. “The International Olympic Committee (IOC) would be in trouble if there’s a cancellation. American TV rights alone provide them with a huge amount.”
Kazuhiro Tateda, an infectious disease expert of the Japanese government, said the fast-spreading virus could be sticking around a lot longer than many have anticipated, despite the upcoming warmer season.
“Unlike the flu that disappears with warmer weather, the response to the new coronavirus, I think, will have to continue for half a year or a year,” Tateda told NHK on Tuesday.
For their part, the International Olympic Committee and local organizers say the games are on, but the clock is ticking…
“From what we know from numerous other mass-gathering events including sporting events, it is very easy to spread diseases worldwide from such events – from meningitis to Zika,” Dr. Ali Khan. an epidemiologist and dean of the College of Public Health at the University of Nebraska, told the AP.
“Besides welcoming athletes and spectators with their tiny microbes, there is and may be ongoing disease in Japan.”
To safeguard against any unexpected events, such as a continuation of the virus crisis that could extend into the July period when the Games start, the IOC can postpone the two-week event and float expenses through 2022. The IOC has, in the past, bought an insurance policy on the Games that will help cover financial losses associated with a delay or cancellation.
The IOC’s annual reports show it paid almost $14.4 million in an insurance premium to protect against canceling the 2016 Rio Olympics and $12.8 million for a policy to cover the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea.
But, it is unclear if such a policy is in place for Tokyo as when IOC President Thomas Bach was asked last week after an executive board meeting if the insurance premium has risen to as much as $20 million for a Tokyo policy, he replied: “I don’t know, it wasn’t discussed at this EB.”
Although it would be shocking if they had not.
Not only would a cancellation of the Games would cause major disruptions to the international sporting calendar, it would have severe financial implications not just for the IOC, but for Japan and the world.
As AP reports, Tokyo is officially spending $12.6 billion to organize the Olympics, although a national government audit office says it’s at least twice that much. Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College in Massachusetts, said construction cost for one venue in Japan was $1.43 billion. The local organizing committee budget of $5.6 billion is private money, with the rest coming from Japanese taxpayers. About $1 billion in the local operating budget is to come from ticket sales, which would be lost if the games go ahead without fans in empty stadiums.
“Some combination of the IOC, the broadcasters, and the insurers will lose big,” Victor Matheson, a sports economist at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, said.
“That loss is coming out of someone’s pocket depending on how all of the contracts are written.”
Matheson adds that athletes are the most vulnerable from the financial shock:
“For athletes, their career length isn’t long and in many sports success in the Olympics is your one shot at a financial return.”
Aside from government officials coffers, athletes, coaches and sports officials, local organizers, and fans will be gutted too…
“I’ve heard things about possibly the Olympics being canceled, and I think that would stink,” J’den Cox, a two-time world champion wrestler and an Olympic bronze medalist, told AP News.
“It would probably break everybody’s heart if that were to happen.”
The AP notes that 73% of IOC’s income is derived from selling broadcast rights. NBC made up at least half of those broadcast payments in the last Olympic cycle. Another 18% of the IOC income is from selling sponsorships. NBC parent company Comcast said its contract with the IOC and insurance would allow it to escape losses if cancelation was seen. However, NBC would lose hundreds of million dollars in ad money.
While there’s billions of dollars on the line, if it is with the IOC, Japan, broadcasters, sponsors, etc., there’s a strong possibility that at this point in time, if the virus continues to spread across the world, the Games would likely be delayed.
For now, an Irish bookmaker is showing odds leaning slightly toward the Olympics not going forward. Odds are 4-6 it will not open on July 24 in Tokyo, and even that it will.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 21:05 - And Then Came The Lawsuits: Pandemic In A Litigious Society
And Then Came The Lawsuits: Pandemic In A Litigious Society
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,
This is the upside of hyper-litigiousness: prevention is prioritized as the most effective means of limiting future liability.
Never mind prevention or vaccines; the big question is “who can we sue after this blows over to rake in millions of dollars?” Yes, this is pathetic, tragic, perverse and evil, but that’s reality in a hyper-litigious society like the U.S.
Many people are struck by the apparent over-reaction of Corporate America to the Covid-19 threat, but this is the only rational response in a hyper-litigious society: the number one priority in a hyper-litigious society is to limit liability. Everything–and yes, we mean everything–flows from this obsessive concern with limiting future liability.
Imagine the lawsuit brought by an employee of Corporate America who could have worked from home but was ordered by her employer to come to the workplace, and who was subsequently infected by the virus.
The corporation’s defense team would naturally claim there was no evidence the employee caught the virus at work, but alas, one employee in the building was confirmed as a carrier of Covid-19, so that defense won’t work: the employee could have been infected by this other employee in the workplace, and lacking any solid evidence to the contrary, it’s clear the company failed to protect its employees from exposure to the virus by forcing employees to work in a virus-infected work place when they could have worked from home.
By forcing an employee who could have worked from home to come to the office, the company is liable for damages. Multiply this case by thousands, and it’s easy to see why Corporate America has proactively moved so aggressively to a “work at home” policy and why corporate legal, HR and risk management teams are quickly issuing press releases and internal memos stressing all the measures the company is taking to lower the risks for employees and customers.
Future court cases will likely come down to basic tests, such as: did the corporation act promptly, prudently and in good faith? Did it pursue its preventative policies rigorously, or in a piecemeal, slapdash manner? Did the management quickly correct flawed execution, or did management fail to provide the necessary oversight, accountability and problem-solving to address the flawed execution of preventative measures? Did the company follow accepted industry protocols and standards? Did it make every available practical effort to reduce the risks to employees and customers?
If the measures are practical, coherent and applied consistently, this is a good thing. In prevention against a highly contagious virus, half-measures and window-dressing will not be effective: the execution of preventative measures must be 100%.
Thus it would be prudent to instruct all employees to wear masks, wash their hands often, conduct digital-online meetings, limit company gatherings, hire crews to regularly disinfect company facilities, etc. Companies that fail to impose and promote preventative policies and execute preventative measures uniformly will be opening Pandora’s Door to lawsuits that could stretch on for years.
This is the upside of hyper-litigiousness: prevention is prioritized as the most effective means of limiting future liability. The downside–extortionist lawsuits seeking quick out-of-court settlements as the cheaper way out of costly litigation–is an ugly reality of conducting commerce in America. But the upside–practical preventative policies that impose “social distancing” and high standards of personal hygiene and the regular disinfecting of common areas–could have a profound impact in lowering the spread of the virus.
* * *
My recent books:
Audiobook edition now available:
Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World ($13)
(Kindle $6.95, print $11.95) Read the first section for free (PDF).Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 (Kindle), $12 (print), $13.08 ( audiobook): Read the first section for free (PDF).
The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake $1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)
Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the first section for free (PDF).
* * *
If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 20:45 - Cheap Flights Bonanza & Near Empty Airlines – Chicago To San Francisco: $137
Cheap Flights Bonanza & Near Empty Airlines – Chicago To San Francisco: $137
Amid the broader travel, hotel, aviation, tourism and cruise line carnage, airlines are canceling domestic flights left and right while waiving cancellation fees.
And as expected, ticket prices are plummeting given that as the International Air Transport Association has predicted demand for global air travel looks to decline in a first since 2009 over coronavirus fears, resulting in a potential loss of up to $113 billion in 2020 in revenue for the industry. Covid-19 is slashing airfares worldwide, as this brief list of examples suggests, culled from around the web:
- New York to Miami: $51
- Chicago to San Francisco: $137
- New York to London: under $500
- New York-Paris Return: $285
- In China: Shanghai to Chongqing for merely 29 yuan, or $4.10
Nearly empty British Airways fligtht from London to Milan, via ABC News. Flyers have over the past week posted images of cabins nearly completely devoid of passengers.
Reporting Live from Oslo: @RashaAlAqeedi and I have the entire flight to NYC to ourselves. #CoronavirusOutbreak pic.twitter.com/cfxsD8JEwb
— Eliza (@elizableu) March 7, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) predicts a devastating year for the industry:
IATA now sees 2020 global revenue losses for the passenger business of between $63 billion (in a scenario where COVID-19 is contained in current markets with over 100 cases as of 2 March) and $113 billion (in a scenario with a broader spreading of COVID-19).
This after airline share prices have already fallen nearly 25% since the start of the outbreak.
A review of the price plunge in Forbes says the following:
The coronavirus is slashing airfares worldwide. Currently there are some great deals to be had for flying between the U.S and Europe. Tap in New York Paris return for example on Google Flights and it turns up startlingly low prices with leading airlines, American, United, Delta and Air France, for as low as $284 round trip, flying on April 5 to April 15. Go direct to Delta’s website and the picture is the same, with the lowest return fare for the same dates of $285.
Currently the deals site Airfarewatchdog.com reveals price drops of $26-$49 for a number of popular US city to city trips.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 20:25 - Only 4 Shale Drillers Are Still Profitable At $31 Oil
Only 4 Shale Drillers Are Still Profitable At $31 Oil
Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,
Most shale oil wells drilled in the United States are unprofitable at current oil prices, Rystad Energy has warned. The Norwegian consultancy said, as quoted by Bloomberg, that drilling new wells would be loss-making for more than 100 companies.
Just four shale drillers – Exxon, Chevron, Occidental, and Crownquest – can drill new wells at a profit at $31 per barrel of West Texas Intermediate.
The problem is the nature of shale oil wells: while quick to start production and expand it, they are also quick to run out of oil, so drillers need to keep drilling new ones to maintain production, which is what U.S. shale patch players have been doing for years.
However, this has affected investor returns, Bloomberg notes, and now it is affecting spending plans.
“Companies should not be burning capital to be keeping the production base at an unsustainable level,” Tom Loughrey from shale oil data company Friezo Loughrey Oil Well Partners LLC told Bloomberg.
“This is swing production — and that means you’re going to have to swing down.”
The situation is more positive for drilled but uncompleted wells, according to Rystad. The consultancy said yesterday that as much as 80 percent of DUCs in the U.S. shale patch have a breakeven price of less than $25 per barrel of WTI. Yet this is dangerously close to current prices.
“If nobody blinks in this supply war, prices may have to go this low in order to properly reduce production and get supply-demand back in balance,” Rystad’s head of shale research, Artem Abramov, said in the news release.
“This could turn out to be one of the greatest shocks ever faced by the oil industry, as coronavirus containment measures will add to the headache of producers fighting for market share. And OPEC has clearly stated that it won’t be coming to the rescue in the second quarter of 2020,” he also said.
“Even the best operators will have to reduce activity, it’s almost impossible to be fully cash flow neutral this year with this price decline” he concluded.
Even before this, America’s shale producers already had a profitability problem. It just got a lot worse.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 20:05 - Coachella Postponed Due To Coronavirus, Organizers Offer Refunds
Coachella Postponed Due To Coronavirus, Organizers Offer Refunds
The Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival in Indio, California was postponed on Tuesday afternoon as global cases of COVID-19 top 118,000. Organizers moved the April 10-12 and April 17-19 dates to October 9-11 and 16-18 on the hopes that the coronavirus scourge will be behind us by then.
“At the direction of the County of Riverside and local health authorities, we must sadly confirm the rescheduling of Coachella and Stagecoach due to COVID-19 concerns,” the organizers said in a statement. “All purchases for the April dates will be honored for the rescheduled October dates. Purchasers will be notified by Friday, March 13 on how to obtain a refund if they are unable to attend.”
The cancellation comes after over 18,000 people signed a Change.org petition calling for the event’s cancellation in order to “protect ourselves and California residents by do the right thing before it’s too late.”
Headliners include Rage Against The Machine, Frank Ocean and Travis Scott, who are reportedly all on board for the new date, according to TMZ.
Maybe Elon will fire up the Berlin Gigafactory cave in the meantime?
With an epic sound system & woofers the size of a car
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 10, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Looks like attendees will just have to wait for their annual dose of herpies.
At present there are 175 documented cases in California and 2 deaths according to the New York Times.
Top 10 US states with coronavirus, via NYT
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 19:45 - Bank Of Japan Buys Record Amount Of ETFs, Admits 'Paper Losses', Plans Program Expansion
Bank Of Japan Buys Record Amount Of ETFs, Admits ‘Paper Losses’, Plans Program Expansion
Having blown over two trillion yen since October in purchasing stocks (ETFs) in the open market to “support Japan’s economy,” markets are rife with speculation the Band of Japan (BoJ) could pledge next week to buy ETFs at a faster pace than the current commitment to do so by roughly 6 trillion yen ($58.12 billion) per year.
Following pressure from Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe,
“Markets are making nervous movements amid uncertainty over the global economic outlook. Based on agreements made among G7 and G20 nations, the government will work closely with the BOJ and authorities of other countries to respond appropriately,” Abe said in a meeting with ruling party executives on Tuesday.
Reuters reports that such a step is among options the central bank may consider if it approaches the ceiling as a result of aggressive purchases, according to sources familiar with the BOJ’s thinking.
In a somewhat surprising moment of transparency for the Japanese central bank, BOJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda told parliament the BoJ had bought a cumulative 2.04 trillion yen worth of ETFs since October last year.
Kuroda also revealed the BoJ’s own estimate showed its holdings of ETFs may incur paper losses once Tokyo’s Nikkei stock average falls below 19,000 – 19,500. The Nikkei stood around 19,665 on Tuesday after briefly slipping below 19,000 in morning trade.
In accordance with Abe’s wishes, since BoJ issued an emergency statement on March 2 pledging to offer ample liquidity via market operations and asset buying, Kuroda has been accelerating the pace of ETF buying.
The BoJ bought 100.2 billion yen ($979 million) on Monday, matching a record pace of purchases made twice last week.
Eiji Maeda, the BOJ’s executive director, said the central bank was scrutinising daily price moves and taking appropriate action to stabilise markets.
“We of course won’t hesitate to take additional measures if needed, depending on future market developments,” he said.
So this clearly failed plan – of buying stocks directly in the market – has done nothing for the economy or the people’s wealth and is now actually destroying central bank capital…
But they believe they should just do more of it… and this is the same shit that is now being casually discussed in US banking circles.
Einstein would be proud.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/10/2020 – 19:25
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/covid19emptyflights.jpg?itok=l6P1StV8){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/corona%20top%2010.png?itok=mT4G35AC){kind=link}