- WHO's Tedros Self-Quarantines After COVID-19 Exposure
WHO's Tedros Self-Quarantines After COVID-19 Exposure
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/02/2020 – 00:30World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is self-quarantining following an exposure to someone with COVID-19. In a late Sunday tweet, the WHO figurehead said that he’s feeling well and without symptoms.
“I have been identified as a contact of someone who has tested positive for #COVID19. I am well and without symptoms but will self-quarantine over the coming days, in line with @WHO protocols, and work from home,” he said, adding that “it is critically important that we all comply with health guidance.”
Ghebreyesus took a swipe at the Trump administration’s shift from a containment strategy to treating and managing the disease, writing “This is how we will break chains of #COVID19 transmission, suppress the virus, and protect health systems.”
It is critically important that we all comply with health guidance. This is how we will break chains of #COVID19 transmission, suppress the virus, and protect health systems.
— Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) November 1, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
My @WHO colleagues and I will continue to engage with partners in solidarity to save lives and protect the vulnerable. Together!
— Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) November 1, 2020
After giving conflicting advice in the early days of the Pandemic and reportedly assisting China in covering up the disease’s severity and spread (an allegation published in Der Spiegel which has been denied), tho WHO is recommending that people be vigilant about hand-washing, wearing masks and social distancing. The organization has also called on local and federal governments to locate, isolate, test, treat and trace the contacts of the infected.
- The Autocratic Future Of The United States?
The Autocratic Future Of The United States?
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/02/2020 – 00:00Authored by Guy Millière via The Gatestone Institute,
There seems to have been an attempt for the last four years to instill among the population a hatred of America and of the president, to present them both as a criminal and to try to overthrow them.
In any event, it is the first time in American history that there has been an attempted coup d’état against a duly elected president.
If institutions of democracy — the state, the judiciary, opposition parties and the free press — suppress verifiable information instead of informing the public about it — as has just taken place for more than two weeks regarding alleged financial corruption and the possible resultant compromise — by China, Russia, and Ukraine among other countries — of an allegedly financially compromised family as possible a national security threat — these institutions of democracy instead become vehicles to sabotage a democracy.
A danger to American democracy in the past years — with threats to undo the Constitution by, for example, abolishing the electoral college, banning guns and, in 2014, eliminating free speech — has therefore become imminent.
In 2026, the FBI, under the leadership at the time of James Comey, used a fraudulent document bought and paid for by the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign to launch a two year “investigation” in search of a crime against the president. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, at the time of his appointment, on May 17, 2017, knew, or should have known — along with the leadership of the CIA, the FBI, and other key agencies, in extremely dubious, possibly even criminal, actions — that the document on which is investigation was based, the Steele dossier, was fraudulent.
Now we have the later round. After a political experiment in California successfully used late, fraudulent voting to turn Orange County from red to blue, the effort, with the complicity of the Supreme Court, seems to have expanded. There were worries that mail-in voting might rig the election, and if the military might be needed to remove a reluctant incumbent from office. No one, of course, asked what the opposition would do if it lost the election and refused to leave. The only recommendation so far seems to have been threatening more riots.
In a recent article, Abe Greenwald, executive editor of Commentary magazine, described what is happening as “a revolution against the United States of America and all it stands for”.
Roger Kimball has described in his book The Long March how, from the 1960s onwards, members of the radical left gradually took control of the universities, the educational system, culture, media. The takeover of their preferred party followed. The method pursued was defined by the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, who advocated the infiltration of the existing civil society to destroy it from within and lead it to collapse. The tactics were set out in Saul Alinsky’s 1971 book, Rules for Radicals.
Former US President Barack Obama, a disciple of Saul Alinsky, said, before being elected in 2008, that his followers were “five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”. He did not say into what. Hillary Clinton, another disciple of Alinsky, was expected to win and continue what Obama had started. To these self-appointed elites, whoever seems to have taken their lace seemed to become the enemy –the obstacle that had prevented them from taking what they appear to hope will be irreversible control of the United States.
There has been talk about killing the filibuster, to pass just about anything with a simple majority, and talk about enlarging the Senate by adding more states, presumably to enable one side to hold a permanent majority. Also on the agenda has been adding more members to the Supreme Court to turn it into a branch of legislative government, eliminating America’s historic system of checks and balances. There are also plans to raise taxes on everyone (remember, “You can keep your healthcare“?), abolish fossil fuels and fracking, and establish a Marxist-socialist economy of redistribution to replace a free economy.
These ideas appear to have the support of hundreds of professors, mainstream journalists, and members of the so called “cultural elites“, as well as the leading social networking services, such as Twitter and Facebook, that are practicing with impunity suppression of factual information and censorship of anything that might run counter to their preferred policies, especially if it threatens to reveal national security concerns about issues they would rather keep from public view.
Many if these ideas also have the support of international financiers and entrepreneurs, who are seeking above all, to keep hiring cheap labor, and to gain easy entry into China’s vast market share of 1.5 billion consumers. The long-term threat of China, outspokenly determined to unseat America and control the world, seems less of a threat than a slightly-less-spectacular quarterly report for their shareholders.
Communist China is ruled by leaders who have been stealing information for decades and using a kind of state capitalism to enrich themselves and those close to them, meanwhile ruling over millions of “serfs” who are increasingly deprived of information and freedom.
If the American people do not fight to defend their institutions and democracy, the United States could soon be ruled by an “expert” class, tech oligarchs, and other autocrats, and, although what will happen if the US government changes hands remains to be seen, many Americans could be forced to follow the usual autocratic road to serfdom.
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Claremont Institute Thomas Klingenstein noted that “We are in a fight for our lives”.
When you see proposals to disrupt elections and plans about destroying a free economy, believe them.
- Black Americans Hesitant On Vaccine
Black Americans Hesitant On Vaccine
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 23:30Many researchers and experts around the world are in agreement that a safe, effective and cheap COVID-19 vaccine is still months away. Still, that isn’t stopping politicians from pressuring vaccine makers, misinformation from spreading across social media and the digital realm, and Kamala Harris casting doubt on any vaccine under Trump.
In fact, as Statista’s Willem Roper points out, new data shows how the public is growing more skeptical of a potential vaccine, and how that skepticism is being amplified within Black communities in the country.
According to a joint survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation and The Undefeated, 49 percent of Black respondents said they either probably won’t or definitely won’t get a COVID-19 vaccine even if it was deemed safe by scientists and provided for free. That’s a large discrepancy when compared to Hispanic and white respondents, with 37 percent and 33 percent, respectively, saying they probably or definitely won’t take the vaccine.
You will find more infographics at Statista
The survey and writers with The Undefeated focus on Black American’s distrust with the current health care system, as well as with politicians in charge of informing people on vaccine plans. The survey goes on to show how 46 percent of Black parents say the pandemic has had a major impact on the ability to afford basic necessities, with a third of Black parents saying the pandemic has had a major negative impact on the ability to care for their children.
- Krayden: What's At Stake On Tuesday
Krayden: What's At Stake On Tuesday
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 23:00Authored by David Krayden via HumanEvents.com,
If you’re in the unfortunate habit of watching the mainstream media, you might be forgiven for being unaware that there is a presidential election next Tuesday. You see, the network newscasts and most of the cable news stations have been treating Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s daily activities as those of a man approaching his coronation—not of a politician going into battle with an adversary. As far as the media is concerned, President Donald Trump is already defeated, and the Democrats have secured control of the House and taken a majority of the Senate. God is in His Heaven, and the (Democratic) order in the United States has been restored.
When the former Vice President emerges from his basement for a news conference or one of those drive-in campaign events (the kind that attracts a handful of participants, unsure whether this is a campaign event or a movie premier), there are never any questions forwarded by the fourth estate that even approach the levels of difficulty one would expect in the context of a presidential race. Much of the media is not just in the bag for Biden—it might as well be writing his speeches.
A study released this week from MRC Newsbusters found, unsurprisingly, that while Trump received 92% negative coverage from ABC, CBS, and NBC nightly newscasts during the period of July 29th through October 20nd, 2020, Biden enjoyed 66% positive reporting.
“This time around, it’s obvious that the networks are pouring their energy into confronting and criticizing the President, not equally covering both campaigns. During the twelve weeks we examined, Trump received 839 minutes of coverage, compared to just 269 minutes of airtime for Biden, a three-to-one disparity,” the report reads.
That trend has continued, both in terms of their treatment of him, and in terms of their selective amnesia given recent scandals that would have left similar campaigns in embers.
Since last Thursday’s presidential debate, Hunter Biden’s former business partner Tony Bobulinski has appeared on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” in an hour-long interview that exposed Joe Biden as a globe-trotting politician with his hands in everyone’s pocket—a would-be businessman with nothing to sell but his influence.
But if you’re not watching Fox or reading select conservative media, you might be asking, “Bubba who?” Carlson might have the largest audience in cable news history, but he might as well have been interviewing his grocer for all they cared over at CNN or MSNBC. All of the networks, the cable news stations (except Fox of course), as well as the stalwartly liberal New York Times and Washington Post boycotted the story.
For whatever reason, Joe Biden seems to have curried favor with the Democratic electorate, the mainstream media—even some so-called Republicans who see the career politician as a way to undo the recent gains of popular nationalism. Voters should not be hoodwinked. A Biden victory would be a loss for all Americans—all Americans who aren’t also Bidens, anyway.
BEWARE THE MACHINATIONS OF TURNCOAT REPUBLICANS
Perhaps the most odious of Biden’s supporters are turncoat Republicans, who are so blinded by their hatred of President Trump, and supposedly so fastidious about GOP purity, that they are prepared to roll the dice on a Biden administration that forebodes left-wing activism and socialist policy.
Take Michael Steele (please). The former chairman of the Republican National Committee is now a spokesman for The Lincoln Project – a Never Trumper enterprise that has absolutely nothing to do with the late, great President Abraham Lincoln, and everything to do with vilifying Donald Trump and ousting him from public service.
“This ballot is how we restore the soul of our nation,” the oleaginous Steele stated in a Lincoln Project ad promoting Biden’s candidacy. He suggested that Americans have a clear choice this November, between “electing a good man, Joe Biden, and a trailblazer, [California Sen.] Kamala Harris and ensure an orderly transfer of power, or plunge our country into chaos.”
“America or Trump?” he further provoked. “I choose America.”
What Steele and The Lincoln Project are choosing, in fact, is the Democratic Party and a socialist America—as evidenced by the millions they’ve spent on negative ad campaigns, not just against President Trump, but against Republican targets they deem too friendly with the Administration.
What about the widow of the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Cindy McCain, who now thinks the hapless Joe Biden is the very beacon of the American spirit. When endorsing Biden, McCain tweeted:
“My husband John lived by a code: country first. We are Republicans, yes, but Americans foremost. There’s only one candidate in this race who stands up for our values as a nation, and that is @JoeBiden.”
Apparently, Cindy Biden lives by a code too: that of a sell-out. Is she expecting a political reward from Biden for betraying the party that her late husband served, and that selected him as its 2008 standard-bearer? We can only assume.
We could go on and on about RINO (Republican In Name Only) legislators, like Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who have destroyed their reputations in large part because of their status as Never Trumpers. Romney has not only refused to endorse President Trump’s re-election, he voted to impeach him on one of the Articles of Impeachment. Flake, for his part, released an ode to Joe Biden video this week where the retired has the gall to call himself a “conservative Republican.”
Former Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) should be publicly ridiculed for his fawning admiration of Joe Biden. Kasich is most known for his failed attempts at the GOP presidential nomination, in 2000 and then again 2016, and his role as a fill-in host for Fox’s “The O’Reilly Factor” when former Fox News star Bill O’Reilly was on vacation. Why is this former conservative and formerly credible individual actively hoping a socialist administration seizes power in Washington? Kasich went as far as to make an appearance at the Democratic National Convention this year, delivering a speech that urged Republicans to put on their “nation first” hats and vote Democrat. Of course, Kasich never stops to ask, when did Joe Biden ever put on his “nation first” hats—instead of the “Biden above all” one he’s donned for 47 years?
It is noteworthy that the Republican resistance is rooted in a personal animus towards Donald Trump, and not owing to any real objection to policy, let alone specific criticism of administration objectives. These cowering so-called conservatives have traded integrity to gain political advantage, going all-in on anyone by Trump—no matter how corrupt, senile, or ineffectual.
LET’S FACE IT: MOST DAYS, BIDEN LOOKS LIKE HE JUST DOESN’T GIVE A DAMN
This is a seminal and potentially catastrophic election. This is nothing like, say, the 1960 contest between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon—a time in history when the two candidates who were almost identical in policy objectives, if not in temperament and personality, and it really didn’t matter who won.
Exactly 60 years later, it very much matters who wins. Donald Trump and Joe Biden might be of the same generation and may have experienced much of the same history, but these two candidates stand in polar opposition to one another. Joe Biden is the nominal leader of a Democratic Party that would have been aligned with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It is a party dominated by hardline socialists like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—and, yes, even Biden’s running-mate Sen. Kamala Harris, who was recognized as the most liberal senator of 2019.
There are many reasons why Joe Biden should not be the next President of the United States—here are some of my favorites:
He’s too old. President Ronald Reagan was on the verge of turning 78 when he left office in 1989. Joe Biden, if elected, will be the same age on inauguration day. Given his age, it’s no wonder that he’s frequently demonstrated impaired mental acuity, failing to remember basic facts such as where he is and who he is with. (He once memorably thought that Bernie Sanders was the President of the United States—while on a stage competing with him for that very title).
Joe Biden’s best days are not just behind him—they are a distant memory. Biden’s campaign schedule has resembled that of a high school student cutting classes—giving new life to the term senioritis. He has not worked anywhere near as hard as he should have to win the presidency. In fact, on most days, he looks like he just doesn’t give a damn.
Of course, if age was the only factor to bring opprobrium against Biden, it might be forgiven, if he at least espoused sound policies. But he does not. Biden has promised that, if elected, he is going to raise taxes and repeal the Trump tax cuts. He is going to shut down the economy. He is going to pursue a green energy plan, one that not only envisions the end of fossil fuels but pretends that solar, wind, and electric power can actually power a modern economy and a state with the population and energy needs of the United States. A disastrous premise because, until that miracle fuel is discovered that can replace oil and gas, the economy will not function without them, and shutting down our oil economy will have cascading effects on everything from how we drive to the grocery store to what will be on the shelves once we get there. Though he’s been careful not to stand beside a Green New Deal sign (during his two hours a day of campaigning), he has signed off on the policy, and has appointed Ocasio-Cortez—the plan’s apparent author—as his “climate change advisor.”
Under Biden, America’s borders will ostensibly disappear, and the country will lose its sovereignty to illegal immigrants streaming across the border, demanding taxpayer-funded health care and government benefits. During a June 2019 Democratic presidential debate, Biden’s endorsement of government-run health care that covers illegal immigrants did not go unnoticed. Now, as a presidential candidate, his lackadaisical views on immigration seems only to escalate: in April, suggested the country implement a 100-day deportation freeze in order to “take stock.” This was just after he revealed, during a town hall in South Carolina, that he wanted all detention centers for illegal immigrants to be shut down.
A Democratic administration will pack the Supreme Court: you can be certain of it. Joe Biden will expand the court, and use the newly-created seats to appoint leftist judges to turn the Court into a legislative appendage of Congress that enforces and promotes left-wing policies. Sure, he’s recently been suggesting some nonsense of appointing some bipartisan “commission” to “study” the matter for half, in the hopes of “reforming” the legislative body—but that’s just more of his campaign larder. There is a good reason that Biden repeatedly refused to answer the question and even said voters don’t deserve to know!
This move to control the Court is in lockstep with a greater project of transforming the constitutional order of this country. Your Second Amendment rights are endangered by Biden. For evidence of that, we need look no further than his campaign website to see what Biden has planned in terms of confiscating “assault rifles” and getting “weapons of war off our streets.” His campaign website continues:
“Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.”
Joe Biden has spent 47 years “serving” the American people at the public trough. He has looked after himself and his family, endlessly promoting and exchanging his influence for favors and cold, hard cash. A cache of Hunter Biden’s emails reportedly found in a laptop indicate that in April 2015, Biden met with a top official of a Ukrainian natural gas company where Hunter eventually sat on the board of directors. One of those emails was authenticated by a cybersecurity expert after being submitted by the Daily Caller News Foundation. If the emails are authentic, it means that Joe Biden has been lying when he said he didn’t know about his son’s business activities and almost certainly mixed that business with his political position.
He’s a serial plagiarizer who once lifted a speech whole cloth from a British Labour Party leader, and who cannot seem to distinguish between what he did and what he imagined he did—what he wrote and what he stole from someone else. At the heart of his being, Biden is an archetypical politician who has never believed so strongly in any belief or conviction that he could not jettison it for sheer political expediency. Without politics, he would most probably have been an acute failure at every legal venture that he attempted. And, if the Democrats and their so-called Republican Never Trumper associates have their way, he’ll continue to fail up—all the way into the White House.
TRUMP PROMISED TO GOVERN LIKE A CONSERVATIVE—AND HE HAS
Maybe you, like the mainstream media and the Never Trumpers, find it hard to like Donald Trump. You might find his speeches a little overbearing at times, his talk somewhat coarse and his manners underdeveloped. You could even think he appeals to the kind of folks who populate a late-night comedy show in Las Vegas.
But he came to the White House and promised to govern like a conservative. And he has done just that: He’s lowered taxes for the middle class and is promising more of the same in his second term, he fought to keep the economy open during the coronavirus pandemic, he rehabilitated the military, he appointed three conservative judges to the Supreme Court and 200 to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He fearlessly defended the lives of the unborn and was perhaps the most pro-life president since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States.
President Trump stands in stark opposition to Joe Biden, who remains ever committed to another cycle of endless wars. But his refusal to continue in his predecessors’ custom of deploying American soldiers around the world has not made President Trump an isolationist president. He doesn’t ignore foreign threats, and he is keenly aware that the United States has enemies that need to be defeated. He believes in military action when required and has effectively built a third-way of policing the world. But he is not a proponent of occupying other nations for decades in the vain hope that they will adopt and nurture democratic institutions while obsequiously thanking American soldiers for their efforts. As Commander in Chief, President Trump has exhibited strength of character.
Joe Biden, meanwhile, has been hiding in his basement and scared witless of catching COVID-19.
President Trump deserves to win on November 3rd—not just because he has delivered on his promises, but because he has worked hard on his re-election—campaigning three to four times as hard as his indolent Democratic opponent. Hand Biden a victory, and he won’t even bother (let alone remember) to thank the people who waged the campaign on his behalf.
- Meet The Man Who Thinks Robots Are The Only Way To Make American Manufacturing Great Again
Meet The Man Who Thinks Robots Are The Only Way To Make American Manufacturing Great Again
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 22:30Bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. has been a hotbutton issue on the campaign trail this year. Despite the fact that President Trump ran on the idea back in 2016 and has been repatriating manufacturing (or at least trying to) for the better part of his entire term, Joe Biden is now also trying to campaign on the issue.
We wonder if either candidate has considered the automation that is likely going to be necessary for a broad manufacturing move back to the United States.
One man who definitely has is Arnold Kamler, best known for being the man behind Kent Bicycles. He thinks that the only way manufacturing can come back to the U.S. in full force, is going to be through the use of robotics. His company employs 150 people at a plant in South Carolina, but still does most of its manufacturing in Taiwan and China.
Kamler (Source: BBG) Kamler told Bloomberg that while he wants to potentially 4x his output in the U.S., he isn’t getting help from the U.S. government. He claims that actions taken by President Trump and promises made by Joe Biden – both relating to taxes and tariffs – simply don’t help him. What would help him, however, is automation.
He said: “Everyone on both sides likes to make big announcements of taxes and tariffs -– that doesn’t help. The very first thing the U.S. government should do is to help U.S. companies automate.”
He said of the tariffs: “We went months of shipping lots of bicycles and losing money. Now, business is off-the-charts crazy good.”
And he’s right. The U.S. has “one of the lowest rates of automation among the world’s top industrial powers” according to Bloomberg.
While the U.S. used to be an industrial powerhouse decades ago, manufacturing and costs related to it have evolved. Instead of yearning for the days of old, lawmakers and business owners should be embracing a new hybrid model of production involving more robotics.
That’s what Kamler is doing. While human workers assemble bikes by threading brake cables or installing chains, machines are tasked with painting the bike frames.
He commented: “If we’re going to make bicycles in a big way, we need a lot more automation. We just can’t do it the way we used to do it years ago.”
Kamler aims to automate even more of his process and, ironically, says he will need to hire more workers to oversee the robotics he intends to buy. The Manufacturing Institute, which represents executives in the industry, shows that Kamler is representative of a larger trend. 75% of manufacturers are planning on boosting “smart factory” technology investments over the next year.
Carolyn Lee of TMI said: “One of the prime benefits of automation is that it replaces tasks that are repetitive or physically taxing, freeing people to focus on tasks that require human skills and creativity and creating even more jobs along the way.”
She says there are about 400,000 new openings to tend to manufacturing equipment and that 4.6 million new, similar positions will need to be filled by 2028.
- Doug Casey On Whether Your Vote Can Prevent A Civil War?
Doug Casey On Whether Your Vote Can Prevent A Civil War?
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 22:00Democracy is vastly overrated.
It’s not like the consensus of a bunch of friends agreeing to see the same movie. Most often, it boils down to a kinder and gentler variety of mob rule, dressed in a coat and tie. The essence of positive values like personal liberty, wealth, opportunity, fraternity, and equality lies not in democracy, but in free minds and free markets where government becomes trivial. Democracy focuses people’s thoughts on politics, not production; on the collective, not on their own lives.
Although democracy is just one way to structure a state, the concept has reached cult status; unassailable as political dogma. It is, as economist Joseph Schumpeter observed, “a surrogate faith for intellectuals deprived of religion.” Most of the founders of America were more concerned with liberty than democracy. Tocqueville saw democracy and liberty as almost polar opposites.
Democracy can work when everyone concerned knows one another, shares the same values and goals, and abhors any form of coercion. It is the natural way of accomplishing things among small groups.
But once belief in democracy becomes a political ideology, it’s necessarily transformed into majority rule. And, at that point, the majority (or even a plurality, a minority, or an individual) can enforce their will on everyone else by claiming to represent the will of the people.
The only form of democracy that suits a free society is economic democracy in the laissez-faire form, where each person votes with his money for what he wants in the marketplace. Only then can every individual obtain what he wants without compromising the interests of any other person. That’s the polar opposite of the “economic democracy” of socialist pundits who have twisted the term to mean the political allocation of wealth.
But many terms in politics wind up with inverted meanings. “Liberal” is certainly one of them.
The Spectrum of Politics
The terms liberal (left) and conservative (right) define the conventional political spectrum; the terms are floating abstractions with meanings that change with every politician.
In the 19th century, a liberal was someone who believed in free speech, social mobility, limited government, and strict property rights. The term has since been appropriated by those who, although sometimes still believing in limited free speech, always support strong government and weak property rights, and who see everyone as a member of a class or group.
Conservatives have always tended to believe in strong government and nationalism. Bismarck and Metternich were archetypes. Today’s conservatives are sometimes seen as defenders of economic liberty and free markets, although that is mostly true only when those concepts are perceived to coincide with the interests of big business and economic nationalism.
Bracketing political beliefs on an illogical scale, running only from left to right, results in constrained thinking. It is as if science were still attempting to define the elements with air, earth, water, and fire.
Politics is the theory and practice of government. It concerns itself with how force should be applied in controlling people, which is to say, in restricting their freedom. It should be analyzed on that basis. Since freedom is indivisible, it makes little sense to compartmentalize it; but there are two basic types of freedom: social and economic.
According to the current usage, liberals tend to allow social freedom, but restrict economic freedom, while conservatives tend to restrict social freedom and allow economic freedom. An authoritarian (they now sometimes class themselves as “middle-of-the-roaders”) is one who believes both types of freedom should be restricted.
But what do you call someone who believes in both types of freedom? Unfortunately, something without a name may get overlooked or, if the name is only known to a few, it may be ignored as unimportant. That may explain why so few people know they are libertarians.
A useful chart of the political spectrum would look like this:
A libertarian believes that individuals have a right to do anything that doesn’t impinge on the common-law rights of others, namely force or fraud. Libertarians are the human equivalent of the Gamma rat, which bears a little explanation.
Some years ago, scientists experimenting with rats categorized the vast majority of their subjects as Beta rats. These are basically followers who get the Alpha rats’ leftovers. The Alpha rats establish territories, claim the choicest mates, and generally lord it over the Betas. This pretty well-corresponded with the way the researchers thought the world worked.
But they were surprised to find a third type of rat as well: the Gamma. This creature staked out a territory and chose the pick of the litter for a mate, like the Alpha, but didn’t attempt to dominate the Betas. A go-along-get-along rat. A libertarian rat, if you will.
My guess, mixed with a dollop of hope, is that as society becomes more repressive, more Gamma people will tune in to the problem and drop out as a solution. No, they won’t turn into middle-aged hippies practicing basket weaving and bead stringing in remote communes. Rather, they will structure their lives so that the government—which is to say taxes, regulations, and inflation—is a non-factor. Suppose they gave a war and nobody came? Suppose they gave an election and nobody voted, gave a tax and nobody paid, or imposed a regulation and nobody obeyed it?
Libertarian beliefs have a strong following among Americans, but the Libertarian Party has never gained much prominence, possibly because the type of people who might support it have better things to do with their time than vote. And if they believe in voting, they tend to feel they are “wasting” their vote on someone who can’t win. But voting is itself another part of the problem.
None of the Above
At least 95% of incumbents in Congress typically retain office. That is a higher proportion than in the Supreme Soviet of the defunct USSR, and a lower turnover rate than in Britain’s hereditary House of Lords where people lose their seats only by dying.
The political system in the United States has, like all systems which grow old and large, become moribund and corrupt.
The conventional wisdom holds a decline in voter turnout is a sign of apathy. But it may also be a sign of a renaissance in personal responsibility. It could be people saying, “I won’t be fooled again, and I won’t lend power to them.”
Politics has always been a way of redistributing wealth from those who produce to those who are politically favored. As H.L. Mencken observed, every election amounts to no more than an advance auction on stolen goods, a process few would support if they saw its true nature.
Protesters in the 1960s had their flaws, but they were quite correct when they said, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” If politics is the problem, what is the solution? I have an answer that may appeal to you.
The first step in solving the problem is to stop actively encouraging it.
Many Americans have intuitively recognized that government is the problem and have stopped voting. There are at least five reasons many people do not vote:
-
Voting in a political election is unethical. The political process is one of institutionalized coercion and force. If you disapprove of those things, then you shouldn’t participate in them, even indirectly.
-
Voting compromises your privacy. It gets your name in another government computer database.
-
Voting, as well as registering, entails hanging around government offices and dealing with petty bureaucrats. Most people can find something more enjoyable or productive to do with their time.
-
Voting encourages politicians. A vote against one candidate—a major, and quite understandable, reason why many people vote—is always interpreted as a vote for his opponent. And even though you may be voting for the lesser of two evils, the lesser of two evils is still evil. It amounts to giving the candidate a tacit mandate to impose his will on society.
-
Your vote doesn’t count. Politicians like to say it counts because it is to their advantage to get everyone into a busybody mode. But, statistically, one vote in scores of millions makes no more difference than a single grain of sand on a beach. That’s entirely apart from the fact that officials manifestly do what they want, not what you want, once they are in office.
Some of these thoughts may impress you as vaguely “unpatriotic”; that is certainly not my intention. But, unfortunately, America isn’t the place it once was, either. The United States has evolved from the land of the free and the home of the brave to something more closely resembling the land of entitlements and the home of whining lawsuit filers.
The founding ideas of the country, which were highly libertarian, have been thoroughly distorted. What passes for tradition today is something against which the Founding Fathers would have led a second revolution.
This sorry, scary state of affairs is one reason some people emphasize the importance of joining the process, “working within the system” and “making your voice heard,” to ensure that “the bad guys” don’t get in. They seem to think that increasing the number of voters will improve the quality of their choices.
This argument compels many sincere people, who otherwise wouldn’t dream of coercing their neighbors, to take part in the political process. But it only feeds power to people in politics and government, validating their existence and making them more powerful in the process.
Of course, everybody involved gets something out of it, psychologically if not monetarily. Politics gives people a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves and so has special appeal for those who cannot find satisfaction within themselves.
We cluck in amazement at the enthusiasm shown at Hitler’s giant rallies but figure what goes on here, today, is different. Well, it’s never quite the same. But the mindless sloganeering, the cult of the personality, and a certainty of the masses that “their” candidate will kiss their personal lives and make them better are identical.
And even if the favored candidate doesn’t help them, then at least he’ll keep others from getting too much. Politics is the institutionalization of envy, a vice which proclaims “You’ve got something I want, and if I can’t get one, I’ll take yours. And if I can’t have yours, I’ll destroy it so you can’t have it either.” Participating in politics is an act of ethical bankruptcy.
The key to getting “rubes” (i.e., voters) to vote and “marks” (i.e., contributors) to give is to talk in generalities while sounding specific and looking sincere and thoughtful, yet decisive. Vapid, venal party hacks can be shaped, like Silly Putty, into salable candidates. People like to kid themselves that they are voting for either “the man” or “the ideas.” But few “ideas” are more than slogans artfully packaged to push the right buttons. Voting for “the man” doesn’t help much either since these guys are more diligently programmed, posed, and rehearsed than any actor.
This is probably more true today than it’s ever been since elections are now won on television, and television is not a forum for expressing complex ideas and philosophies. It lends itself to slogans and glib people who look and talk like game show hosts. People with really “new ideas” wouldn’t dream of introducing them to politics because they know ideas can’t be explained in 60 seconds.
I’m not intimating, incidentally, that people disinvolve themselves from their communities, social groups, or other voluntary organizations; just the opposite since those relationships are the lifeblood of society. But the political process, or government, is not synonymous with society or even complementary to it. Government is a dead hand on society.
So where does that leave us for the election coming up in a few days?
It’s likely to be the most important one in the country’s history, including that of 1860. Unfortunately, no matter how you vote, it’s unlikely to head off what history likely has in store for us. Something wicked this way comes.
* * *
The political trajectory is troubling. Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion. Do you want to know exactly what you should be doing differently with your portfolio and in your personal life? It reveals what you can do to prepare so that you can avoid getting caught in the crosshairs. Click here to watch it now.
-
- Associated Press Blames France's "Secular Policies" For Terror Beheadings, Then Deletes Tweet
Associated Press Blames France's "Secular Policies" For Terror Beheadings, Then Deletes Tweet
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 21:30Here’s how the Associated Press responded to the latest terrorist beheadings to rock France which has placed the country in a state of ‘maximum security alert’: the major US-based international news organization essentially blamed France itself.
This despite that in the two decapitation attacks and stabbings which came within two weeks of each other (leaving multiple innocent French citizens dead), the perpetrators made it very clear they were committing the brutal murders in the name of Islam as revenge against President Macron and France’s supposed ‘anti-Islamic’ stance and statements, specifically free speech related remarks made in defense of Charlie Hebdo cartoons which depicted Muhammad in a mocking fashion.
AP Explains: Maybe France’s skirt is just too short pic.twitter.com/pzLIBsZ3sK
— Ben McDonald (@Bmac0507) October 31, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Astoundingly, AP’s verified Twitter account appeared to offer some level of ‘justification’ for the killings that included blame of the country’s “staunch secular policies” and the “tough-talking president” who appears “insensitive” to Muslims.
While linking to an article the prominent news outlet wrote: “AP Explains: Why does France incite anger in the Muslim world? Its brutal colonial past, staunch secular policies and tough-talking president who is seen as insensitive toward the Muslim faith all play a role.”
The backlash was so immediate and fierce that the AP soon deleted its outrageous tweet, replacing it with this:
This replaces a tweet about France and the Muslim world that asked why France “incites” anger. The word was not intended to convey that France instigates anger against it.
— The Associated Press (@AP) November 1, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Though short of an apology, the fact that it was deleted constitutes a rare, embarrassing moment for the press agency. However, the follow-up message did little to alleviate suspicions that this is yet another case of media elites trying to downplay or ignore Islamic terrorism.
More worrisome, the outlet is in reality “inciting hatred against France and its people” – as one journalist observed.
Protesters in Islamabad, Pakistan via EPA The article itself that the original tweet link to also seemed to lay blame for the slayings on France’s secular traditions and on the government and people themselves.
Many angry commenters underscored that it was a blatant and unbelievable case of victim blaming, while simultaneously failing to condemn the murderers and essentially ignoring their own statements and motives. One emphasized that it was no less than a “justification for decapitation”.
This paragraph from the @AP is astonishing for where it selects to place its emphasis. It glances at the beheading, but only as a means of teeing up the real rebuke of Macron for not renouncing cartoons. There’s not even a hint of awareness that decapitations must stop first. pic.twitter.com/Pan4DcL1Kd
— Thomas Chatterton Williams 🌍 🎧 (@thomaschattwill) November 1, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Especially in the case of French school teacher Samuel Patty’s murder, his killer made it abundantly clear what his motives were.
The 18-year old murderer was shot and killed by police just after the Oct. 16 attack. But just prior to the shoot-out he posted a gruesome image of the aftermath of the beheading to social media as a “message” to others who promote the Charlie Hebdo cartoons or “insults” to Muhammad.
- Hedge Fund CIO: To Markets It No Longer Matters Who Wins The Election
Hedge Fund CIO: To Markets It No Longer Matters Who Wins The Election
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 21:00By Eric Peters, CIO Of One River Asset Management
When 2020 started, Trump seemed destined to win. The economy was strong, unemployment low, markets were priced accordingly. The odds of a Democrat victory were low, though market consequences of such an outcome seemed clear – higher taxes and re-regulation would knock equities lower. A 25% S&P 500 decline, give or take 10%, seemed reasonable.
Then came Covid. When stocks bottomed on March 23rd, Trump narrowly led Biden in betting markets. But pandemics have consequences and this catastrophe hit a nation that had spent decades optimizing its economy to spur asset price appreciation. America’s financial system was as overleveraged as it was unstable. A depression was inevitable in the absence of something utterly unprecedented.
On March 27th Trump signed the $2.2trln CARES Act, and this, combined with a breathtaking array of asset purchase programs marked the effective start of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) – with the Fed and Treasury coordinating policy.
And ever since, it has mattered less who wins this election. Because you see, once the link is broken between what the government must collect and what it can spend, who leads the nation is less consequential – at least to stock markets in the near-term.
Tuesday’s election will be a critical one for the nation. No matter who wins, investors can rest easy knowing there will still be long-term opportunities in the market—and Jerome Powell will still be running the Fed. In this week’s issue: pic.twitter.com/gsFIQI5teO
— Barron’s (@barronsonline) October 31, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
But to a nation descending into tribalism, who wins elections matters greatly. And by early September, with betting markets showing Trump and Biden tied, a new risk emerged: a contested election that would tear the nation to shreds. Provoking civil conflict. War. Stocks declined. But since the first presidential debate on Sept 29th, Biden gained on Trump in the polls.
This is how a decisive Biden victory that had once been seen to be bearish has now become bullish, thanks to MMT which ensures that whoever runs the nation will spend money with reckless abandon.
And we are thus left to trade the impact of a virus that is not finished with us, even if we are desperate to be done with it. As we all pray for a decisive electoral outcome.
Anecdote:
Ten years from today, what will market historians write about the present time? This is among the most important questions.
In 2012, they wrote that Gordon Brown sold half of the UK government’s gold between 1999-2002 at 20yr lows, around $300/ounce. The world had lost its mind, wildly overvaluing intangibles, shunning hard assets. No sooner had Brown hit sell then gold began a 10yr rally to $1,915/ounce.
What will market historians write in 2029 about the 2019 Saudi Aramco IPO with oil at $75/barrel? That was the world’s largest exporter puking reserves. They’re nowhere near finished. The pain for exporters has only just begun.
But far more importantly, what will historians write about the panic adoption of today’s new policy paradigm? Without even a brief public debate, the US government chose to borrow somewhere between 15-20% of GDP from the central bank, which itself engaged in all sorts of financial asset purchases to inflate their prices.
And this shielded those people least touched by the pandemic from pain, as those who hold no stocks and bonds were simultaneously devastated. And this dramatically amplified the inequality that was already tearing the nation’s fabric to shreds.
Traders who spent a decade watching quantitative easing and low interest rates fuel stock price gains, applied yesterday’s lessons to tomorrow. Equity prices surged. While this felt somehow wrong, they could no longer bear the pain of underperformance and convinced themselves that there is no alternative.
But never in the history of humanity has a state of no alternatives sustained for long. For decades, an ever-growing share of the economy’s profits had been awarded to capital owners at the expense of laborers. And as financial asset prices were lifted to record highs, forming a secular top, the system that had driven itself to a state of severe imbalance, instability, was facing tumultuous change. And lurking below, suspended in those watery vaults, a white whale.
- Oregon Is On The Verge Of Decriminalizing Heroin, Cocaine, And LSD
Oregon Is On The Verge Of Decriminalizing Heroin, Cocaine, And LSD
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 20:30In a move we are sure won’t have any negative repercussions on the state’s quality of life going forward, Oregon looks slated to the be the first state in the U.S. to decriminalize “hard drugs” like heroin, cocaine and LSD.
The move could come as part of a ballot measure that voters will decide on during election day.
The initiative, called Measure 110, could “drastically change” the state’s justice system, ABC News noted. Those who are caught with hard drugs would now have the option of paying a $100 fine or attending new addition recovery centers, paid for with taxes from retail marijuana sales.
Under the new measure, possession of less than 1 gram of heroin or meth, 2 grams of cocaine, 12 grams of psilocybin, 40 doses of LSD, oxycodone or methadone and 1 gram of MDMA would all be decriminalized.
Countries like Portugal, the Netherlands and Switzerland have already implemented similar decriminalizations. In Portgual, the change saw “no surge” in new drug use. In fact, drug deaths fell while the number of people in the country treated for addiction rose 20% between 2001 and 2008. Then, the number stabilized.
The U.N. Chief Executives Board for Coordination announced in 2019 that it would also “promote alternatives to conviction and punishment in appropriate cases, including the decriminalization of drug possession for personal use” in order to “address prison overcrowding and overincarceration by people accused of drug crimes.”
The new proposed measure in Oregon has the backing of “the Oregon Nurses Association, the Oregon chapter of the American College of Physicians and the Oregon Academy of Family Physicians,” according to ABC.
The groups contend that: “Punishing people for drug use and addiction is costly and hasn’t worked. More drug treatment, not punishment, is a better approach.”
On the other side of the argument is 24 district attorneys, who claim the measure “recklessly decriminalizes possession of the most dangerous types of drugs (and) will lead to an increase in acceptability of dangerous drugs.”
Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt argued back: “Misguided drug laws have created deep disparities in the justice system. Arresting people with addictions is a cruel punishment because it slaps them with a lifelong criminal record that can ruin lives.”
Jimmy Jones, executive director of Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action, a group that helps the homeless, said: “Every time that this happens, not only does that individual enter the criminal justice system but it makes it very difficult for us, on the back end, to house any of these folks because a lot of landlords won’t touch people with recent criminal history.”
He continued: “They won’t touch people with possession charges.”
So now, landlords simply won’t know when their renters have a hard drug problem. That should fix things, Jimmy.
- Anti-Lockdown Epidemiologist Intimidated, Shamed By Contagion Of Hatred And Hysteria
Anti-Lockdown Epidemiologist Intimidated, Shamed By Contagion Of Hatred And Hysteria
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 20:00Authored by Professor Sunetra Gupta, op-ed via The Daily Mail,
Lockdown is a blunt, indiscriminate policy that forces the poorest and most vulnerable people to bear the brunt of the fight against coronavirus. As an infectious diseases epidemiologist, I believe there has to be a better way.
That is why, earlier this month, with two other international scientists, I co-authored a proposal for an alternative approach — one that shields those most at risk while enabling the rest of the population to resume their ordinary lives to some extent.
I expected debate and disagreement about our ideas, published as the Great Barrington Declaration.
As a scientist, I would welcome that. After all, science progresses through its ideas and counter-ideas.
But I was utterly unprepared for the onslaught of insults, personal criticism, intimidation and threats that met our proposal. The level of vitriol and hostility, not just from members of the public online but from journalists and academics, has horrified me.
I am not a politician. The hurly-burly of political life and being in the eye of the media do not appeal to me at all.
I am first and foremost a scientist; one who is far more comfortable sitting in my office or laboratory than in front of a television camera.
Of course, I do have deeply held political ideals — ones that I would describe as inherently Left-wing. I would not, it is fair to say, normally align myself with the Daily Mail.
I have strong views about the distribution of wealth, about the importance of the Welfare State, about the need for publicly owned utilities and government investment in nationalised industries.
But Covid-19 is not a political phenomenon. It is a public health issue — indeed, it is one so serious that the response to it has already led to a humanitarian crisis. So I have been aghast to see a political rift open up, with outright abuse meted out to those who, like me, question the orthodoxy.
At the heart of our proposal is the recognition that mass lockdowns cause enormous damage.
We are already seeing how current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.
The results — to name just a few — include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health.
Such pitfalls of national lockdowns must not be ignored, especially when it is the working class and younger members of society who carry the heaviest burden.
I was also deeply concerned that lockdowns only delay the inevitable spread of the virus. Indeed, we believe that a better way forward would be to target protective measures at specific vulnerable groups, such as the elderly in care homes.
Of course, there will be challenges, such as where people are being cared for in their own multi-generational family homes.
I am certainly not pretending I have all the answers, but these issues need to be discussed and thrashed out thoroughly.
That is why I have found it so frustrating how, in recent weeks, proponents of lockdown policies have seemed intent on shutting down debate rather than promoting reasoned discussion.
It is perplexing to me that so many refuse even to consider the potential benefits of allowing non-vulnerable citizens, such as the young, to go about their lives and risk infection, when in doing so they would build up herd immunity and thereby protect the lives of vulnerable citizens.
Yet rather than engage in serious, rational discussion with us, our critics have dismissed our ideas as ‘pixie dust’ and ‘wishful thinking’.
This refusal to cherish the value of the scientific method strikes at the heart of everything I, as a scientist, hold dear. To me, the reasoned exchange of ideas is the basis of civilised society.
So I was left stunned after being invited on to a mid-morning radio programme recently, only for a producer to warn me minutes before we went on air that I was not to mention the Great Barrington Declaration. The producer repeated the warning and indicated that this was an instruction from a senior broadcasting executive.
I demanded an explanation and, with seconds to go, was told that the public wouldn’t be familiar with the meaning of the phrase ‘Great Barrington Declaration’.
And this was not an isolated experience. A few days later, another national radio station approached my office to set up an interview, then withdrew the invitation. They felt, on reflection, that giving airtime to me would ‘not be in the national interest’.
But the Great Barrington Declaration represents a heartfelt attempt by a group of academics with decades of experience in this field to limit the harm of lockdown. I cannot conceive how anyone can construe this as ‘against the national interest’.
Moreover, matters certainly are not helped by outlets such as The Guardian, which has repeatedly published opinion pieces making factually incorrect and scientifically flawed statements, as well as borderline defamatory comments about me, while refusing to give our side of the debate an opportunity to present our view.
I am surprised, given the importance of the issues at stake — not least the principle of fair, balanced journalism — that The Guardian would not want to present all the evidence to its readers. After all, how else are we to encourage proper, frank debate about the science?
On social media, meanwhile, much of the discourse has lacked any decorum whatsoever.
I have all but stopped using Twitter, but I am aware that a number of academics have taken to using it to make personal attacks on my character, while my work is dismissed as ‘pseudo- science’. Depressingly, our critics have also taken to ridiculing the Great Barrington Declaration as ‘fringe’ and ‘dangerous’.
But ‘fringe’ is a ridiculous word, implying that only mainstream science matters. If that were the case, science would stagnate. And dismissing us as ‘dangerous’ is equally unhelpful, not least because it is an inflammatory, emotional term charged with implications of irresponsibility. When it is hurled around by people with influence, it becomes toxic.
But this pandemic is an international crisis. To shut down the discussion with abuse and smears — that is truly dangerous.
Yet of all the criticisms flung at us, the one I find most upsetting is the accusation that we are indulging in ‘policy-based evidence-making’ — in other words, drumming up facts to fit our ideological agenda.
And that ideology, according to some, is one of Right-wing libertarian extremism.
According to Wikipedia, for instance, the Great Barrington Declaration was funded by a Right-wing think-tank with links to climate-change deniers.
It should be obvious to anyone that writing a short proposal and posting it on a website requires no great financing. But let me spell it out, since, apparently, I have to: I did not accept payment to co-author the Great Barrington Declaration.
Money has never been the motivation in my career. It hurts me profoundly that anyone who knows me, or has even a passing professional acquaintance, could believe for a minute that I would accept a clandestine payment for anything.
I am very fortunate to have a house and garden I love, and I couldn’t ask for more material wealth than that. Far more important to me are my family and my work. Yet the abuse continues to flood in, increasingly of a personal nature.
I have been accused of not having the right expertise, of being a ‘theoretical’ epidemiologist with her head in the clouds. In fact, within my research group, we have a thriving laboratory that was one of the first to develop an antibody test for the coronavirus.
We were able to do so because we have been working for the past six years on a flu vaccine, using a combination of laboratory and theoretical techniques. Our technology has already been patented and licensed and presents a rare example of a mathematical model leading to the development of a vaccine.
Even more encouraging, however, is that there is now a groundswell of movements — Us For Them, PanData19 and The Price of Panic, to name but three — seeking to give a voice to those, like me, who believe that the collateral damage of lockdown can be worse than the virus itself.
On Thursday, a broad coalition was launched under the banner of Recovery. Drawing people from across the mainstream of political views, the movement is calling for balance and moderation in our response to Covid-19, backed by a proper public debate and a comprehensive public inquiry.
I am delighted that it has received such a level of support.
For, ultimately, lockdown is a luxury of the affluent; something that can be afforded only in wealthy countries — and even then, only by the better-off households in those countries.
One way to go about shifting our perspective would be to catalogue all the ways in which lockdowns across the world are damaging societies. At present, I am collaborating with a number of colleagues to do just this, under the banner www.collateralglobal.org.
For the simple truth is that Covid-19 will not just go away if we continue to impose enough meaningless restrictions on ourselves. And the longer we fail to recognise this, the worse will be the permanent economic damage — the brunt of which, again, will be borne by the disadvantaged and the young.
When I signed the Great Barrington Declaration on October 4, I did so with fellow scientists to express our view that national lockdowns won’t cure us of Covid.
Clearly, none of us anticipated such a vitriolic response.
The abuse that has followed has been nothing short of shameful.
But rest assured. Whatever they throw at us, it won’t do anything to sway me — or my colleagues — from the principles that sit behind what we wrote.
* * *
Professor Sunetra Gupta is an infectious disease epidemiologist and a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford.
- Morgan Stanley: "There Is A Way For Markets To Know Relatively Quickly Who Is The Next President"
Morgan Stanley: "There Is A Way For Markets To Know Relatively Quickly Who Is The Next President"
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 19:30As discussed earlier, the record-shattering growth in vote-by-mail which means that the bulk of votes in key battleground states has already been cast…
… is likely to distort the pattern of vote counting and reporting on election night that we’ve become accustomed to. And, as we also touched upon in an earlier post, there’s potential for many twists and turns, with candidates seemingly ahead falling back quickly behind as different types of votes are counted at different times.
But, according to Morgan Stanley, there’s an increasingly viable path to knowing the result on election night. For investors, the bank laconically notes that “knowing the result is all about when markets will conclude who has won, not necessarily when a candidate has conceded or when media networks call the winner.” And the road to having a result on election night goes through Florida and North Carolina.
According to Morgan Stanley’s chief political strategist Michael Zezas, 65% of Florida mail-in ballots have been returned, as have 56% of NC ballots. Both states can count those votes ahead of Election Day, and have stated publicly those counts will be quickly released upon poll closing. Hence, both states could return quick results, which opens the possibility of knowing the election outcome early in the night. For example, President Trump’s path to victory without Florida is a much more narrow one. In fact, if he appears to have lost Florida, markets may quickly conclude he has probably lost the presidency.
Similarly, if the North Carolina senate race is won by Cal Cunningham (the Democratic candidate), then that, Morgan Stanley believes, will be an indicator to markets that Democrats have taken control of the Senate by also winning seats in other close races, like Colorado or Arizona where polls close later in the night. And while networks likely won’t call it that early because there are slow-counting states with enough electoral votes in play still out there, in particular Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Morgan Stanley thinks “markets would bake it in relatively quickly.“
Still, the bank sees as more likely that markets will need 24 hours or more to form a reliable view. If President Trump wins Florida or keeps the vote count close, both of which are viable possibilities given close polling numbers, then the Electoral College outcome may depend on those slower-counting states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
And while they have substantial amounts of mail-in ballots already returned, 65%, 62%, and 50%, respectively, they can’t count these votes until Election Day, so those results could take a few days to come in reliably.
As a result, Morgan Stanley is adjusting its election night timing probabilities, and while it no longer sees the odds of an “election week” at 70% as it did last month, it still gives 65% odds that we will not know the result on election night.
- In Defense Of The Electoral College
In Defense Of The Electoral College
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 19:00Authored by Don Brown via AmericanThinker.com,
In the last twenty years, Democrats have twice lost presidential elections when the Electoral College has “trumped” the popular vote, leading to Republican victories. First came George W. Bush’s presidential victory over Al Gore in 2000, then Trump’s shocker over Hillary Clinton in 2016.
You will find more infographics at Statista
Thus, radical Democrats demand the abolition of the Electoral College.
“It’s undemocratic,” they say. “The will of the people should rule,” they cry.
Yes, it’s undemocratic, which, believe it or not, is an exceptionally good thing.
That’s because the United States is not, and never has been a “democracy.”
The word “democracy” is not in the Constitution. In fact, the founders hated pure, unrestrained democracies.
Instead, Article 4, Section 4, states that the Constitution provides a “Republican” form of government. Not a democracy. There’s a difference.
“Democracy” equals mob rule, where angry, fist-shakers “vote” for or demand whatever they want. Imagine that, against the rights and interests of others. Think of the mobs burning Portland and Seattle.
“Republic” equals freedom and the rule of law, featuring internal checks-and-balances against overconcentration of power.
Remember that phrase, checks-and-balances. It’s key to understanding the Electoral College.
That’s because the Electoral College erects a constitutional check-and-balance to prevent corrupt urban politicians and voters from wielding disproportionate power over the less powerful. In this case, that means rural and small-town America.
Though the Constitution contains 7 Articles and 27 Amendments, two powerful concepts emerge as keys to understanding the Constitution.
1. To Protect Freedom
First, the Constitution establishes government’s primary role, which is to protect individual freedom. The broadest freedoms designated for governmental protection are found at the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, guaranteeing Americans the right to life, liberty and property. Jefferson expresses a similar concept in the Declaration of Independence, discussing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So, protecting freedom is the government’s principal role, not to become a giant lollypop factory dispensing free goodies as the Democrats advocate.
2. A Restraining Device Against Overconcentration of Power
Here’s the second concept: The Constitution is also a restraining device against over-concentrated governmental power.
When lecturing on the Constitution, to illustrate a point, I often show a photograph of a drunk driver, just after being arrested by police officers, with handcuffs clamping his hands behind his back.
Likewise, the Constitution handcuffs government on multiple levels, restraining excessive governmental power to protect citizens.
That’s because the Founders understood an age-old concept: “Power corrupts absolutely, and absolute power corrupts.” So, to deter overconcentrated governmental power, the Constitution features many internal restraining devices known as checks-and-balances.
Some of these checks-and-balances we may know, like divided government.
Our federal government is divided to prevent overconcentrated power. Congress passes bills. The president signs bills into law, or vetoes bills. Congress may override vetoes. The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, etc, etc. The courts decide cases based on federal law. It’s about dividing power.
The Bill of Rights places even more restraints on power. The First Amendment provides that Congress cannot pass any laws infringing upon (1) freedom of religion, or (2) of the press, or (3) speech, or (4) the right of the people to peaceably assemble, (5) or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
The Constitution creates many other checks against government: No search without a warrant. No warrant without probable cause. No taking property without just compensation. No criminal trial without a right to confront witnesses. These are but a few of many governmental checks in the Bill of Rights.
3. The Electoral College – The Ultimate Check-and-Balance
Then comes the Electoral College.
The Founders understood that festering like a deadly cancer, political corruption metastasizes within large cities. They were right. Urban corruption has been a common thread since the beginning of the Republic.
In recent years, we’ve seen graft in Chicago, New York, Detroit, and others, run by corrupt city bosses like Richard Daley.
More recently, we’ve seen big-city Democrat corruption on national television after George Floyd died while in police custody. We’ve seen Portland, Chicago, Seattle, New York, Minneapolis, and other cities burn and get looted while corrupt city governments don’t lift a finger to protect citizens.
In fact, liberal big-city leaders encouraged the violence, by ordering police stand-downs, and allowing thugs to burn and destroy property and lives without legal consequence.
Understanding this danger of urban graft, the founders created the Electoral College to protect small-town and rural America from being overrun by faraway, big-city corruption.
Perhaps the founders’ crystal ball foresaw modern-day Democrat urban corruption.
Consider this partial list of major Democrat mayors and city council members convicted on corruption-type charges in recent years: Dwaine R. Caraway, Dallas; Megan Barry, Nashville; Ray Nagin, New Orleans; Patrick Cannon, Charlotte; Kwame Kilpatrick Detroit; Larry Langford, Birmingham; Sheila Dixon, Baltimore; Joe Ganim, Bridgeport, CT; Gerald McCann,Jersey City; Hugh Addonizio, Newark; Isaac Carothers, William Carothers, Wallace Davis – Chicago; Monica Conyers, Detroit; Miguel Martinez, Larry Seabrook, Alex Rodriguez – New York.
And the list goes on.
Electoral maps of the country from 2000 and 2016 show most of the nation’s counties voting red, with dots of blue concentrated around major urban cities. Geographically, it’s not even close. America remains an overwhelmingly red tapestry in terms of land.
Without the Electoral College, corrupt mobs in big cities like New York and Chicago, and shady socialist mayors like Bill DeBlasio and Lori Lightfoot who control election machines and graft in their cities, could always manipulate presidential elections, and control and manipulate the lives of farmers in Kansas, of coal miners in West Virginia, of fishermen working off the Carolina coast, of natural gas workers in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas.
The Electoral College remains one of America’s last defenses to protect middle America against corrupt urban power, and a great check-and-balance against totalitarian rule-by-the mob.It must be defended at all costs.
- Pentagon Begins Draw Down Of Generals From Africa Posts & Other Hot Spots
Pentagon Begins Draw Down Of Generals From Africa Posts & Other Hot Spots
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 18:30The Pentagon is said to have “quietly begun withdrawing” high ranking military officers from posts in Africa and the Middle East as part of a broader strategy of shifting resources to prioritize countering China and Russia, also as congressional caps which designate max numbers of generals and admirals in any given year must be met. However some say it will do the opposite – that is, the move will actually embolden US rivals in developing and politically restive parts of the globe.
This includes military attachés being withdrawn from multiple countries in West Africa, according to a new report in The Wall Street Journal. The role of a military attaché connected to the embassy’s mission is crucial where the US works closely with a host country’s military in fighting terrorism and maintaining political stability.
File image via AFRICOM/US Army According to the WSJ report, “The position of defense attaché, the senior U.S. military representative in American diplomatic posts, is being downgraded in rank in eight key allied countries—including the U.K. and Saudi Arabia—according to an Aug. 24 order signed by Defense Secretary Mark Esper.”
In many cases this will see generals or admirals replaced with colonels or Navy captains, which Congressional and defense critics of the move have said will harm US relationships and clout with the host countries, who will be less willing to coordinate key operations and intelligence sharing with lower ranking American officers.
Esper’s order means that by December 2022 110 general or admiral positions must be cut, but without specifying the particular countries where that will take place. The African continent (where AFRICOM has had a growing post-9/11 presence) will reportedly see a large reduction of top commanders.
Congressional and defense Russia and China hawks fear that when it comes to the Mideast-Africa regions especially, this will mean “ceding ground” and influence to Washington rivals.
- Crude Crashes In Early Asia Trading On European Lockdowns, Goldman Warning
Crude Crashes In Early Asia Trading On European Lockdowns, Goldman Warning
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 18:25WTI just tumbled to a $33 handle in early trading (after being above $40 just 3 days ago) as demand fears (European lockdowns) and supply concerns (Libya ramped up its production) combined to spark anxiety about the energy complex outlook.
Dec WTI Futs are down over 5%…
This is the lowest front-month oil price since May…
… and follows the worst month for WTI since March.
Additionally some have suggested that waning odds of a Biden victory are also perhaps adding to supply concerns as the end of fracking is delayed.
Late on Sunday, Goldman published a new piece titled “Lockdowns rattle patient bulls” in which the bank appears to be tempering its bullish outlook on the black gold, writing that the price drop is due to “the uncertain path of the second COVID wave, the still high level of excess inventories and the lack of corporate hedging which all leave the market unanchored.”
So after succumbing to a wall of worry, what now for oil prices according to Goldman:
We estimate that the move lower in prices since last Friday is equivalent to a downward revision of demand expectations by 2 mb/d in Nov-Dec and by 0.5 mb/d in 2021 (c. 0.7% of global GDP). This is in addition to the 1.2% strengthening of the broad USD TWI and also assumes Libya already producing at 1mb/d. Such a demand repricing into year-end is equivalent to European consumption falling to May levels, when stricter lockdowns were just ending. While this is an already aggressive repricing – with new lockdowns less restrictive and potentially inflecting the likely virus spread in a few weeks – virus uncertainty, lockdown headlines and the aftermath of the US election all point to further price volatility through November and potential near-term downside.
Fundamentally, however, we estimate that the oil market can likely stay in an average deficit through the winter given the current deficit starting point (-2.5 mb/d) and with rising heating (+0.5 bm/d) and EM demand which is coming out of its first COVID wave (+ 1 mb/d inc. China) helping absorb the hit from European lockdowns. In fact, high demand uncertainty and the lag in fundamental oil data leads us to expect that OPEC+ will likely delay its 2 mb/d production ramp-up past January when it meets in a month, which would help secure a large deficit through 1Q21 then the rest of 2021 given this delayed ramp-up.
While the recent price gyrations have little fundamental consequences in the short-run given the inventory buffer, sustained low prices would have binding economic impacts over the long-run for supply. This sets the stage for a material rally above current forwards when the recovery in demand owing to vaccines and record-large fiscal stimuli faces supply under-investment and a changed shale reaction function. For example, we estimate that Dec-21 Brent prices of $41/bbl currently reflect through 2021: (1) a full linear return of Iran production of 2 mb/d, (2) OPEC+ increasing output by 2 mb/d in January then July and (3) demand of 95.5 mb/d for all of 2021, only 2 mb/d higher than current levels.
Such pessimism driving speculative length likely below the April lows is ultimately the offset to higher expected price volatility. From current levels, a rally of Dec-21 Brent prices to our $65/bbl forecast at the current level of spot price volatility (40%) would generate a 1.4 sharpe ratio. While our initial recommendation for our long Dec-21 Brent trade recommendation proved untimely, this still remains our preferred macro expression for oil’s inevitable 2021 rally. Our second lower beta implementation remains a Jun-21 vs. Jun-22 Brent timespread trade, which will benefit from our expected deficit through 1H21.
* * *
Finally, with the 2020 presidential election looming – and with many claims and counterclaims about a president’s impact on the oil industry – OilPrice.com’s Robert Rapier thought it might be of interest to review the history of U.S. oil production and consumption over the past 50 years.
Here are the highlights from each president’s term in office.
Richard Nixon was inaugurated as the 37th president on January 20, 1969. When President Nixon took office, U.S. oil production was nearing a peak after over 100 years of increasing production. Imports made up 10% of U.S. consumption. In 1970, U.S. oil production reached 9.6 million barrels per day (BPD) and began a long, steady decline.
Richard Nixon began his second term on January 20, 1973. U.S. oil production had declined to 9.2 million BPD while consumption had increased by 3 million BPD from the first year of Nixon’s first term. As a result, oil imports would more than double during Nixon’s presidency, and American citizens would learn the danger of the dependence on imports with the OPEC oil embargo of 1973.
Gerald Ford was inaugurated as the 38th president on August 9, 1974 after Nixon resigned in disgrace. During President Ford’s term in office, domestic oil production continued to decline. U.S. oil consumption and imports continued to grow, and both were at all-time highs during Ford’s last year in office.
Jimmy Carter was inaugurated as the 39th president on January 20, 1977. Recent trends in consumption, production, and imports all reversed themselves during President Carter’s term. Consumption fell by 2%, U.S. production increased by 6%, and imports—after initially rising to record highs during his first year in office—were a fraction of a percentage lower at the end of his term than during Ford’s last year in office. Factors beyond Carter’s control—such as the Iranian Revolution and the Iran–Iraq War—heavily influenced the oil markets.
Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the 40th president on January 20, 1981. Oil consumption continued to decline during most of President Reagan’s first term, and oil production crept back to levels that had not been seen in a decade. Oil imports fell by 35% during his first term.
Ronald Reagan began his second term on January 21, 1985. The trends from his first term all reversed themselves, as consumption rose 10%, domestic production fell by 8%, and oil imports increased by 49%.
George H. W. Bush was inaugurated as the 41st president on January 20, 1989. Consumption fell slightly during his term, but domestic production fell even more—down 12%. Imports increased by 19%, back above 6 million BPD for the first time since the 1970s.
Bill Clinton was inaugurated as the 42nd president on January 20, 1993. During his first term, consumption increased by another 7%, domestic production fell by 10%, and imports increased by another 23%—exceeding 7 million bpd for the first time in U.S. history.
Bill Clinton began his second term on January 20, 1997. His second term trends were almost identical to those of his first term. Consumption rose by another 8%, domestic production fell by another 10%, and imports increased by an additional 21%. Consumption and oil imports were at all-time highs, and production had fallen 40% from the 1970 production peak.
George W. Bush was inaugurated as the 43rd president on January 20, 2001. During his first term, consumption climbed above 20 million BPD for the first time in the nation’s history. Imports also reached new highs, above 10 million BPD. Domestic production continued to fall.
George W. Bush began his second term on January 20, 2005. During Bush’s second term, consumption began to decline as the nation entered a recession and oil prices reached record highs. Imports fell back to below 10 million BPD. The decline in domestic production continued, albeit at a slower rate of decline than during his first term. This marked the first trickle of oil production from hydraulic fracturing, which would make a major impact during the terms of the next two presidents. During Bush’s last year in office, the level of imports reached just over 50% of U.S. consumption.
Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th president on January 20, 2009. The economic sluggishness initially continued, but the impact of hydraulic fracturing began to be felt in President Obama’s first year in office. In a reversal of the long decline that began in 1970, crude oil production would rise all four years of Obama’s first term.
President Obama began his second term on January 21, 2013. The fracking boom caused oil production to accelerate until 2015. But then overproduction led OPEC to initiate a price war that ultimately crashed prices and production. Production began to decline in 2015, but 2016 — the last year of Obama’s second term — was the first year of his presidency that annual oil production declined.
Between 2009 and 2015 oil production had increased by 4.4 million BPD. This was the fastest increase in oil production in U.S. history, and marked the largest increase in oil production during a single term of any president. If natural gas liquids (NGLs) are included, the gains during Obama’s first seven years were 6 million BPD. U.S. net imports of finished products like gasoline turned into net exports during Obama’s second term, and next imports of finished products plus crude oil fell by over 6 million BPD.
Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president on January 20, 2017. Oil production had declined during President Obama’s last year in office as the average annual price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) fell to $43.34/bbl. But in 2017 that rose to $50.79/bbl, and then to $65.20/bbl in 2018. Oil production followed prices higher. During the first three years of President Trump’s first term, annual U.S. oil production gained 3.4 million BPD. Net imports of crude oil and finished products turned into net exports in late 2019. U.S. oil production eclipsed the previous 1970 peak (although if you include NGLs, that peak was eclipsed in 2013).
But then the Covid-19 pandemic crushed oil demand. Now, less than a month before the election, U.S. oil production is at 10.5 million BPD — a significant decline from the 12.2 million BPD of 2019.
The net impact of the past 50 years of U.S. presidents was a long, slow decline of oil production that was only reversed when the hydraulic fracturing revolution began.
U.S. oil production didn’t fall under Bush and rise under Obama based on the policies of these presidents. Production behaved according to policies that had been put in place years earlier, and in accordance with the behavior of oil prices in previous years. Jimmy Carter experienced a rise in oil production because the Alaska Pipeline—approved by Nixon—was completed while Carter was in office. Obama and Trump experienced a rise in oil production following years of climbing oil prices — which led to a fracking boom.
Presidents publicly fretted for decades about the loss of energy independence for the U.S. They tried many different approaches to solving this problem—from serious intervention in the energy markets to letting the free market solve the problem. Many billions of dollars were spent on programs with the intent of eliminating dependence on foreign oil.
Yet in 1969, Americans depended on oil imports for 10% of their consumption, and in 2008 that number had risen to over 50% of consumption. That trend was only reversed when fracking caused U.S. oil production to surge.
Thus, a president may have some impact on U.S. oil production, but it is mostly a factor of influences well beyond their control.
- Congress, Not The Fed, Is The New Driver Of Financial Markets
Congress, Not The Fed, Is The New Driver Of Financial Markets
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 18:00Submitted by Howard Wang at Convoy Investments
For as long as you’ve known me, I’ve been saying the Fed is the single most dominant player in the markets. That changed as of this year. The chart below may surprise you. Since the start of the pandemic, the ups and downs of the markets have exactly tracked changing inflation expectations.
Why is this significant? While the Fed can control short-term or long-term interest rates, they cannot directly control inflation. They can only influence inflation by changing interest rates, which are already anchored at close to zero. So the Fed is largely helpless in stimulating the economy and the markets. It is now in an era where it must rely on Congress bills in order to enact expansionary monetary policy.
Up until 2008, the Fed controlled the economy and the markets through short-term interest rates. By setting expectations of future short rates, the Fed can also indirectly influence long rates, thus impacting the financing rates of capital transfers over various time frames.
This approach was effective until 2008 when short rates hit zero and the Fed could no longer use this lever. In 2009, the Fed had to move further out on the yield curve and began to directly control long rates by buying bonds via quantitative easing. Because of the size of the bond market, these operations had to be in the $trillions in order to be effective. But ultimately it worked to lower borrowing rates and discount rates, propping up the economy and boosting financial assets.
When the pandemic hit this year and we saw historic levels of deterioration in the economy and the markets, QE was the lever the Fed immediately went to, quickly lowering long rates down to close to zero. Yet that wasn’t nearly enough stimulation for the economy.
At that point, the Fed had two options to avoid a deflationary depression, keep the same QE approach which would mean forcing long rates into the negative territory like Europe, or keep nominal interest rates low and steady and manage inflation expectations in order to force real interest rates negative. As you can see in the chart below, the Fed chose the second route. They kept the nominal interest rate nearly constant while stimulus checks from Congress boosted inflation expectations, thus suppressing real interest rates to be materially negative.
To the extent the US can, they will continue to prefer the second route because it is much less disruptive to the financial system to have low and steady nominal interest rates than negative ones, especially as the reserve currency of the world. While this second option seems more palatable, they both punish savers in the form of negative real returns. So what does this new era of monetary policy mean for the economy and markets?
First and foremost, the Fed is now no longer in control of monetary policy. Despite explicitly changing their mandate to target long-term average inflation, the Fed no longer has the tools to actually control inflation. All they can do is keep nominal interest rates steady and low, like they’ve been doing. To stimulate the economy during a downturn like the potential second COVID wave, they rely on the Congress passing fiscal stimulus to boost inflation expectations and drop real interest rates. Expansionary monetary policy relies solely on continued growth of US federal debt. This is why the Fed Chair Powell has been so desperately calling for more help from Congress recently.
Second, instead of economists fine tuning interest rates on a daily basis, monetary policy now depends on politicians passing stimulus bills. If the easing is overdone, the Fed can always increase interest rates or lower their bond holdings, but it is harder to take stimulus checks back once they are issued. This type of monetary policy is like doing a delicate surgery with a machete. Further, as we see in the recent gridlock around the second round of stimulus, the stability of the economy is often not the only goal in politics. I believe we are in an era of heightened volatility.
Finally, I believe market will dance to a new rhythm. In the 2010s, markets did well when the Fed bought bonds and did poorly when the Fed tapered buying. Now markets depend more on the timing of fiscal stimulus. As stimulus is being handed out, inflation expectations improve, commodity markets boom, real rates drop and almost all financial assets do well. When stimulus runs out, commodities markets drop, inflation expectations fall, real rates rise, and almost all financial assets lose money. Lack of political coordination on a second round of fiscal stimulus is why the markets have been so choppy in the last few months leading up to the US election. I expect continued market volatility until there is more coordination among the branches of the government.
- Watch: Caravan Of Vehicles For Trump Shut Down New Jersey Highway
Watch: Caravan Of Vehicles For Trump Shut Down New Jersey Highway
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 17:30Days after a vehicle convoy of President Trump’s supporters escorted the Biden-Harris Bus down a Texas highway, another caravan of Trump supporters shut down a stretch of New Jersey roadway on Sunday.
Videos surfaced on Twitter Sunday afternoon of what appears to be hundreds of vehicles, could be a lot more, of Trump supporters shutting down a stretch of Garden State Parkway in New Jersey.
One Trump supporter could be heard saying: “We shut it down.”
NJ: Trump vehicle convoy shuts down the Garden State Parkway. @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/djgi96aZFk
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) November 1, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Around noon, it appears one stretch of the Garden State Parkway was in gridlock,
Garden State Parkway in Democratic New Jersey at a standstill in support of President Trump. @TeamTrump @EricTrump @DonaldJTrumpJr @POTUS pic.twitter.com/3tAL8oC3Tv
— The Lakewood Scoop (@LakewoodScoop) November 1, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
One Twitter user said: “whoever organized the trump parade on the garden state parkway, f**k you man, now i’m late to work.”
whoever organized the trump parade on the garden state parkway, fuck you man, now i’m late to work pic.twitter.com/LCvLo4Ispe
— bert (@_____Bert_____) November 1, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Someone said the traffic jam is “miles long.”
Rally for @POTUS on the Garden State Parkway NOW! @PeteHegseth @dbongino Miles long…. pic.twitter.com/heQskl9zk1
— JC Cole & Folsom ‘68: A Johnny Cash Tribute (@68Cash) November 1, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Many of the president’s supporters’ vehicles had flags that read “Trump 2020.”
Ironically, some Trump supporters have previously complained about radical leftists shutting down highways; so it seems, no matter the political affiliation, shutting down roads and cities to make a political point appears to be a way to be heard.
- Nate Silver Hedges On Biden Win After Trump Draws Megacrowds In Pennsylvania
Nate Silver Hedges On Biden Win After Trump Draws Megacrowds In Pennsylvania
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 17:00Last week, pollster Nate Silver was so confident in a Biden win that he suggested the only way Trump is reelected would be through a ‘major polling error’ or cheating.
Nate Silver is spreading unfounded speculation that the only way Trump can win is to steal the election. This is irresponsible and will ensure a Trump victory isn’t accepted by Democrats.
— @amuse (@amuse) October 27, 2020
This weekend, however, Silver shoehorned a giant caveat into weeks of confidently proclaiming a Biden win: Pennsylvania.
“Pennsylvania has not bumped up to a 7- or 8-point Biden lead like we see in Michigan and Wisconsin. It’s 5 points,” Silver told ABC‘s “This Week” (sporting a new ‘battle beard’) adding that if Trump were to win, “it would come down to Pennsylvania.”
Silver then sets the expectation for an unfair vote, saying “Among the votes that were sent in by mail, there are some provisions about a naked ballot, a security envelope. That could make things more complicated. You could have the courts involved. You have some protests, looting in Philadelphia. There’s lots of stuff going on.”
And then, Silver says that if Biden doesn’t win PA, he’ll become the underdog.
“Maybe a lot of little things add up and Biden loses Pennsylvania by half a point, and then he doesn’t quite pull off Arizona or North Carolina. He does have other options. … But still, without Pennsylvania, then Biden becomes an underdog.”
Just days ahead of November 3, the @FiveThirtyEight presidential election forecast has Joe Biden with a 90 in 100 chance of winning the Electoral College.@NateSilver538 breaks down the forecast: https://t.co/5MmblAJP8o pic.twitter.com/wrDdKLFdA6
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) November 1, 2020
About that…
On Sunday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette endorsed President Trump – its first GOP endorsement in nearly 50 years.
This newspaper has not supported a Republican for president since 1972. But we believe President Trump, for all his faults, is the better choice this year.
Via @pgopinions https://t.co/dZYEQp3pGY
— Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (@PittsburghPG) November 1, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
BOOM! Philadelphia Police and Fire Fighters Union endorses Trump! They have never endorsed a Republican Presidential Candidate.
— FloridaDude297 (@FloridaDude297) November 1, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Meanwhile, Trump drew massive crowds across Pennsylvania, including Butler County where tens of thousands of supporters turned out in what the Epoch Times described as “a scene more reminiscent of a rock concert than a political event.”
Reacting to the crowds, PA Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D) said: “Donald Trump is doing things that have never been done in Pennsylvania politics in terms of the raw barnstorming across small county Pennsylvania,” adding “It’s hard to predict with certainty how that’s going to activate not only his base of voters from 2016, but also those that sat it out, too.”
Fetterman then sounded the alarm to fellow Democrats who are pinning their hopes on Democratic nominee Joe Biden winning the Keystone State. Pennsylvania and its 20 Electoral College votes would provide a significant boost toward winning the 270 needed to win the White House.
“I’m not saying Donald Trump is going to win Pennsylvania, but what I am saying is he’s doing everything that he can to maximize his chances,” he said. –Epoch Times
She is with Politico. This is not MAGA propaganda.
Can’t fake a crowd like that. But you *can* make sure you show up and get every vote in.
Every Vote Matters.
Get Them In.
— John Fetterman (@JohnFetterman) November 1, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Silver has given Trump a 10% chance of winning, down from the 28.6% chance he gave Trump vs. Clinton in 2016.
vs.
And here’s Nate’s giant hedge:
- The Complete Election Cheat Sheet: What Happens On And After November 3
The Complete Election Cheat Sheet: What Happens On And After November 3
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 16:30It’s after midnight on Nov 3, the US population has voted, and the election results are popping up across the media landscape. When will we know who is the next president? Well, due to the special circumstances surrounding this election including a record number of mail in ballots and countless court challenges involving the voting process, we may have to wait…. a while.
Below we lay out a timeline of key events and catalysts that everyone should be aware of.
After Election Day on November 3, the results of the election need to generally be finalized by December 8, which is known as the Safe Harbor Day, as this is when states select their EC Voters.
As Bank of America’s Michelle Meyer writes, in the 2000 election, this date proved to be an important factor for why the Supreme Court stopped the controversial Florida recount, which gave President Bush the win. Those selected EC voters will then officially cast their votes on December 14, to be counted by the next Congress on January 6 who will then declare the winner. Finally, January 20 is Inauguration Day which will begin the next presidential term.
The battle for the Senate
According to the Iowa Electronic Markets, the probability of the Democrats taking over the Senate and maintaining the House (Democratic Sweep) is the mostly likely outcome with a 57.5% probability, although this probability slumped on PredictIt last week sparking the furious Monday Selloff as traders braced for the risk of gridlock. But back to the IEM, the second most likely outcome with an 18.5% probability is a continued split Congress with the Republicans holding the Senate and the Democrats holding the House.
In the Senate, there are 35 seats up for grabs with 12 currently held by Democrats and 23 by Republicans. 10 of the Democrat seats are in solid Democrat states and 11 Republican seats are in likely or solid Republican states, according to the Cook Political Report. As we have discussed extensively in the past few months, there are a few seats that are at risk to flip parties. Specifically, current polling suggest Arizona (McSally) and Colorado (Gardner) are likely to turn Democrat, while Alabama (Jones) should turn Republican. That would at the very least whittle the Republican majority by 1 to 52-48. That said, 7 of the Republican seats are currently rated as toss ups with 4 in battleground states, leaving open the possibility of a Democratic majority.
That said, the overall composition of the Senate is unlikely to be determined until sometime in January due to election rules in Georgia which stipulates the race goes to a runoff if no candidates garners 50% majority in the general election and currently no candidate is projected hit the 50% threshold.
And with that in mind, here is a key primer for…
How to follow the news on Election Day. Here are a few tips from Bank of America:
Here are a few tips:
- Be wary of exit polls: The track record of exit polls is tenuous at best. In 2004, exit polls showed John Kerry winning the popular vote by 51% to 48% only to ultimately lose by the same margin. Similarly, there were major flaws in the 2016 exit polls which substantially underestimated the number of white working-class voters while overestimating the number of college-educated white voters, leading to bias results favoring Hilary Clinton. Pollsters claim they have fixed the issues ailing Election Day polls but the better mouse trap is yet unproven. Moreover, there has been unprecedented surge in early voting (both in person and mail-in) with over 70mn votes cast nationwide to-date and there is a major skew in voter day preference by party. Admittedly, pollster are aware of this issue and will enhance their methodology by polling at large and early voting centers but nevertheless this creates greater uncertainty in their estimates.
- Brace for head fakes: Results from battleground states should begin to trickle in just after polls close within each state (Table 3). First battleground states to report will be Florida, Georgia and New Hampshire where polls close at 7pm EDT (polls in Florida’s panhandle will close at 8 pm), followed by North Carolina, Ohio and Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Type of ballots reported first will vary across states. For example, according to reporting done by the Upshot blog of the New York Times, battleground states such as Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Arizona, and Iowa will report early in-person and processed mail-in votes first. Meanwhile, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Nevada will not follow any specific order. Getting a clear sense of who is winning will be difficult given the large number of early voting by mail and absentee ballots and different rules around processing ballots, which we discuss below.
- Key demographics: In 2016, President Trump was able to tip the election by winning the older and suburban vote. A post-mortem of the 2016 election by the Pew research center showed that Trump won the age groups 50-64 and 65+ by a margin of 6 and 9 points, respectively and edged out the suburban vote by 2 points. During the 2020 election cycle, polls have shown President Trump consistently running below his 2016 election numbers in these key demographic groups. In this context, keep an eye on results coming out of suburban areas such as Maricopa County in Arizona and Peach County in Georgia and older leaning regions such as Sumter County and Pinellas County in Florida. Results in these regions could prove to be a canary in the coalmine.
For those who need a cheat sheet, here is a table summarizing the key election details including poll closing times, ballot processing and deadlines, heatmap of Electoral College votes, and competitive Senate races (Battleground states highlighted in blue, bold Senators indicate predicted flipped seat)
Of course, the one biggest features of this election is the record number of early voters, which at last check were over 93 million between 59 million ballots and 34 million in-person votes as of Nov 1, a whopping 67.6% of the total votes counted in the 2016 general election.
So how are the mail in ballots being counted?
According to BofA, states could have a challenging time working through such a large number of mail-in ballots. The rules also vary by state in terms of when the ballot can be sent and counted. The most common state deadline is on Election Day when the polls close (see Table 3 above).
However, some states will accept a mailed ballot if it is received after Election Day as long as it is postmarked prior. The rules differ in terms of when the ballots can be counted. Some states do not allow mail-in ballots to be opened before Election Day which could mean counting delays. This includes a few of the critical swing states – such as PA and WI. Moreover, mail-in ballots may be contested for signatures that don’t match voter registration cards.
A risk is that the lead in the race swings back and forth between Democrat and Republican candidate depending on what kinds of ballets are being counted. A recent WSJ/NBC poll found that 47% of Biden supporters plan to vote by mail whereas 86% of Trump supporters will vote in person (see here). Indeed, according to the US Elections Project website, there have been over 48 million ballots returned and of the states that identify party affiliation, 48% were Democrats, 29% were Republicans and 22% had no party affiliation. As these votes are tallied it could potentially give a lead to Biden, then in-person voting could swing the election toward Trump, then Biden could regain ground as officials work their way through remaining mail-in votes. In other words, political analysts may not feel comfortable calling the winner despite the data on hand.
Addressing this issue, Reuters has an article today discussing the “Red mirage, blue mirage”, in which it warns of early U.S. election wins:
Imagine that the polls have closed in Florida, counties are beginning to report early vote counts, and it looks like former Vice President Joe Biden is way ahead. An hour later, Pennsylvania counties begin to report and it seems to be a slam dunk for U.S. President Donald Trump.
Don’t be fooled, voting experts and academics say. Early vote counts in the most competitive, battleground states can be particularly misleading this election because of the surge in mail-in or absentee ballots, and the different ways that they are processed.
The states that count mail-in votes before Election Day are likely to give Biden an early lead, since opinion polls and early voting data suggest those ballots favor the Democrat. Conversely, the states that do not tally mail-in votes until Nov. 3 will likely swing initially for Trump.
These so-called red or blue mirages will disappear as more ballots are counted, though experts say it may take days or even weeks to process the huge number of mail-in ballots, spurred by voters seeking to avoid crowded polling stations because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Be patient,” said Gerry Cohen, a member of the Wake County Board of Elections in North Carolina. “You need to count all of the votes, and that’s going to take some time.”
As Reuters expands, here is what to expect in some of the most bitterly contested states :
Blue Mirage
Florida and North Carolina allow election officials to begin processing mail-in ballots weeks before Election Day, and the results of those counts are expected to be released as soon as polls close on Nov. 3. If both states follow that schedule, it is likely that Biden will appear to be ahead initially, as the latest Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll shows that people who already have voted in Florida and North Carolina support the Democratic challenger by a more than 2-to-1 margin over the president.
In both states, a majority of people who plan to vote in person on Election Day support Trump. A blue mirage is not expected to last long in either state. Experts say they expect Florida and North Carolina to finish counting most of their mail-in and in-person ballots before the end of the night.
Texas, Iowa and Ohio – which Trump won easily in 2016 but polls show could be competitive this year – also allow early processing of mail ballots, so could show a similar blue mirage, according to experts. All three states are expected to finish counting most ballots on Nov. 3.
Red Mirage
In Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, mail-in ballots cannot be counted until Election Day. While Michigan did recently pass a law that allows many cities to start processing mail-in ballots, such as opening ballot envelopes, the day before the election, they cannot begin to count votes. Because mail-in ballots typically take longer to count than ballots cast in person, the initial results could skew Republican. Then, some experts say, expect a “blue shift” as election officials wade through the piles of mail-in ballots.
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin may be slowed by their lack of experience with high volumes of mail-in ballots. About one in 20 votes in the two states were cast by mail in the 2018 congressional election, compared to a quarter of Michigan’s votes and about a third of Florida’s.
Pennsylvania’s vote counting could go on for days. Democrats in the state recently won a victory in the U.S. Supreme Court to allow officials to accept mail-in ballots up to three days after the election as long as they are postmarked by Nov. 3.
“Something I’m prepared for on election night is for Pennsylvania to look more Republican than it may actually be, whoever ends up winning the state,” said Kyle Kondik, a political analyst at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.
Ballots in Wisconsin and Michigan must arrive by Election Day, although litigation is under way over whether the states should count ballots that arrive late if postmarked by Nov. 3.
Expect to wait for Arizona
On election night in 2018, Arizona Republican Martha McSally appeared to be on the road to victory in the state’s U.S. Senate race, telling her supporters she was going “to bed with a lead of over 14,000 votes.” Six days later, McSally conceded the race to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema as election officials tallied hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots, including many from the Democratic-leaning metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Tucson that were handed in at voting centers on Election Day.
Arizona officials said they hope it will take less time to count ballots this year as Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, has upgraded its equipment and added an extra week to handle early mail-in ballots. But if the race is close, it could still take days to fully count the votes. That would be “an indication of things going the way they’re supposed to,” said C. Murphy Hebert, a spokeswoman for the Arizona Secretary of State. “The process is complex, and we would just invite folks to be patient.”
* * *
The risk of a contested election
As is becoming clear, it is possible if not probable that we don’t have a result of the election on November 4th. The economic implications will depend on the reason and duration of the delay. We see three scenarios:
- Benign: Results are delayed due to counting backlogs given the large number of absentee and mail-in ballots but a result is expected within days.
- Painful: If the count is close, it could result in a dispute about ballot validity and lead to a recount at the state level. C
- Crisis: Either side refuses to accept the results, leading to a legislative battle and a high degree of government dysfunction
According to Bank of America, the outcome of the election will impact the economy through two critical dimensions: confidence and stimulus expectations.
An uncertainty shock
Uncertainty about result of the election could mean the following: 1) businesses delay hiring and investment; 2) households may increase precautionary savings; 3) financing costs could rise due to market stress or concern over credit losses. Since the global financial crisis, there has been increased attention on the impact of uncertainty on the economy with substantial research coming out of academia and the Federal Reserve System. One of the most commonly referenced measures of uncertainty is the Economic Policy Uncertainty (EPU) index from Baker, Bloom and Davis.
In a recent paper, Baker, Bloom, and Davis (2015) quantify the impact that uncertainty can have on the economy, using their news-based EPU measure. Using a VAR model, they found that a 90 point increase in the EPU index would lead to a peak GDP drag of 1.2pp. To put that into perspective, the news-based EPU index spiked to a high of 504 in May (on a monthly average basis) from a February level of 216 – a 288 point increase (Chart 3). Fortunately, uncertainty has come back down to 290 as of September, but this is still a net increase of 74 points.
It may not be that simple, however. Research by Jackson, Kliesen, and Owyang (2018) at the St. Louis Fed found that there are nonlinear effects of uncertainty. In order to trigger the nonlinearity of this model, uncertainty must rise above recent historical highs – as such, the potential damage from an election uncertainty shock will be lessened so long as the EPU index does not surpass the prior peak. Based on our read of the literature, if the EPU jumps half way back to the COVID peak as a result of a contested election, it could theoretically drag down GDP growth in 1H between 1-1.5pp. But this could be tempered by the fact that it is following a highly uncertain event, so there is already some degree of uncertainly already priced in. It also depends on how long the shock persists; presumably it would fade early next year. As such, we would assume something smaller than what the models imply, perhaps in the order of a 0.5-1.0pp hit to 1H GDP growth, all else equal.
The drag to the economy from heightened uncertainty would show through as a hit to confidence –confidence measures are still depressed with a modest improvement in business confidence. These confidence measures are vulnerable to the potential double whammy of a contested election + increase in the spread of the virus.
The story for stimulus
The first order impact of the election will be on the trajectory for additional stimulus. Here are our expectations:
- Biden win + Democratic Congress (‘Blue wave’): $2.0 – 2.5tr in stimulus, including additional funds for the COVID health response. Passed right after inauguration.
- Biden win + divided Congress: $500bn – 1tr in stimulus. Passed after inauguration but with some delay. There is also some chance of continued gridlock in this scenario.
- Trump win + divided Congress (‘Status quo’): $1.5 – 2.0tr in stimulus. Passed in the lame duck session because neither side gains an advantage by waiting for a new government to form.
Needless to say, a clear victory could accelerate stimulus negotiations. This is particularly the case if it returns the status quo so neither side has a reason to delay. The two sides are not that far apart — both agree on additional unemployment insurance (around 100% replacement income which is about $300-400 additional/week) and aid for small businesses. They disagree over state & local aid and liability protections for businesses but these appear surmountable hurdles. It is even possible that stimulus is passed in the lame duck session with a status quo result.
The worst case scenario, and one which could lead to a 20% drop in markets according to BofA, a scenario of a Biden victory with a Republican Senate could make it harder to get any package through, creating a risk of sustained gridlock. By contrast, a “Blue Wave” would make a stimulus package very likely by February, one that is likely in excess of $2tr. Under any election result, there will be much more clarity on the path for fiscal stimulus with a fading of the uncertainty shock.
In the event of a contested election that looks like either scenario 2 or 3, the political environment creates a challenge for additional stimulus. Markets will likely become discouraged about the prospects for compromise. However, there is a threshold. If markets sell off violently and the economic data deteriorate, we could see Washington facilitate the passage of stimulus even in a highly contentious environment.
To summarize, BofA believes that an election result of status quo could lead to an earlier passage of stimulus (in lame duck), a “Blue Wave” makes a stimulus package very likely but only after inauguration and a highly contested election would likely create an impediment to stimulus but if the markets and economy deteriorate, an emergency stimulus could be triggered. A clear victory would be a net positive for the economy as it reduces some of the negative risk from higher uncertainty. A Blue Wave likely means greater stimulus which thereby provides the greatest near-term boost to the economy.
The Fed wild card
If there is not a result and financial conditions tighten due to a contested election, BofA believes the Fed’s credit facilities will once again be needed. The Fed could consider easing terms to facilitate the flow of credit. The Fed could also ramp up the QE program, buying Treasuries and MBS at a faster rate, as well as corporate credit as needed, particularly if it sees concerns over market liquidity. Ultimately the focus could be on credit (MBS and corporate credit) versus USTs in a risk-off scenario. Or as BofA recaps, “the Fed has tools and will use them.”
Legislation
The timeline for legislation action will depend on who controls the Senate. If there is a Blue wave, we can assume there will be parallels to the first 200 days of Presidents Obama and Trump in which both had a united Congress. When Obama took office in 2009 he faced an economic collapse from the Global Financial Crisis requiring immediate passage of stimulus. Indeed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed on January 28, 2009, just 9 days after the inauguration. He then tackled his number one legislative priority – health care reform – but the Affordable Care Act wasn’t signed into law until March 2010. Similarly, Trump still faced obstacles in passing the Tax Cuts and Job Act, which was signed into law on December 22, 2017. Thus, even with a sweep, we therefore think it is reasonable to assume that the legislative agenda won’t be realized until early 2022
The Biden-Harris team has proposed a detailed agenda including increasing spending on child care and education, health care, retirement, disability benefits, R&D, infrastructure and climate change among others. This would be partly financed by increasing taxes on high-income households and corporations. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), Biden’s spending programs would total $10.65tr over a 10 year period but would be offset by tax revenues of $4.3tr and $750bn in savings from immigration reform (Table 5). The CRFB also come up with a potential path under a Trump second term, although they admit that there is more guesswork. They find that there would be a $5.1tr increase in spending with the bulk focused on infrastructure of $2.7tr. Tax policy would also be deficit negative, costing $1.7tr.
Depending on the political environment, the economy might receive another boost in early 2021 from legislative changes. However, despite potentially a large price tag, it is unlikely to provide the same jolt to the economy as the COVID-related stimulus. The policies focus on the medium term, particularly infrastructure spending and education reform. The most fiscal restraint will likely be under a scenario of Biden and a divided Congress while the easiest path to fiscal expansion should be under a Blue wave.
- Watch: Young Minority Trump Voters Respond To Being Called "Traitors"
Watch: Young Minority Trump Voters Respond To Being Called "Traitors"
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/01/2020 – 16:00Authored by Jezzamine Wolk via Campus Reform,
Campus Reform spoke with young minority college students who plan to vote for President Donald Trump.
For part three of the four-part series, students condemn the narrative that they are “traitors” to their community.
Each student interviewed said that they have faced criticism for their political beliefs and that many times it comes from White liberals.
“I’m not trying to put down White people, but it usually is a White liberal who comes up to me and tries to tell me all Black people need to x,” said Wayne State University senior Christopher Gaffrey.
“That’s the same mentality that kept people of color, and like you and other people, oppressed for countries and all over the world,” he added.
University of Utah student Seodam Kwak said,
“They believe that your identity basically dictates your political view.”
WATCH:
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/carra.jpg?itok=Ol4JsbGx){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](/s3/files/inline-images/anti-franceprotests.jpg?itok=BGG9Q5Tv){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](/s3/files/inline-images/usafricom.jpg?itok=teMFYzcC){kind=link}