Headline CPI print +8.5% YOY.
Hottest since 1981.
Evidence continues to suggest that the West condones war in Ukraine. This weekend an EU diplomat stated that, "This war will be one on the battlefield."
To which Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov responded that this hardly sounded like a diplomatic position.
He's right.
Add to that further news about NATO beefing arms up and down its eastern front and continued efforts to ship military resources to Ukraine--along with no leadership (especially US) to convene diplomatic talks and it is difficult not to conclude that the West supports war over peace in Ukraine.
Public health officials are changing reporting standards for CV19 hospitalizations. Rather than including all with a positive CV19 tests, reports now count only patients who are being actively treated for CV19 in the hospital.
The rationale being offered is along the lines of 'we're merely evolving with the virus."
Several questions seem to have escaped those reporting this story for Associated Press, including:
Why does a change in the virus justify a change in reporting standards? Isn't a valid standard robust to various situations?
Doesn't this amount to a change in reporting hospitalizations 'from' rather than 'with' CV19--something many 'skeptics' argued in favor of early in the pandemic?
Will you be going back and adjusting historical data to reflect the new standard? If not, then when we review the series longitudinally, we're not comparing apples to apples, are we? Why isn't this another case of manipulating (or corrupting) CV19 data?
Isn't the new standard more in line with what historically counted as a 'case' in viral accounting? Stated differently, why wasn't the 'new' standard the previous standard as well?
What is really evolving here is the degree of corruption with the reporting system.
This article highlights problems for the federal government should the Fed engage in quantitative tightening (QT) in earnest. QT involves reducing the ~$9 trillion in assets on the Fed's balance sheet. These assets, primarily Treasury and agency securities, were accumulated during various quantitative easing (QE) campaigns waged since 2009.
The Fed can shrink its balance sheet in two ways. It can simply sell the bonds on the market. Or it can let maturing bonds roll off the books without replacing them.
Either approach is problematic for the federal government. Every bond that the Fed sheds will need a buyer. Because the Fed was by far the biggest buyer of newly issued federal government paper over the past few years, thus artificially elevating the price, it seems unlikely that there will be buyers willing to purchase these bonds unless the price is much lower.
Consequently, Treasury prices are likely to fall, which is bad news for a federal government seeking to finance $trillions in spending this year.
Falling bond prices raise interest rates, which creates another problem for the federal government: higher debt servicing costs. Higher interest expense means more federal dollars must be spent to service the debt. It wouldn't take much to break the already burgeoning federal budget.
By monetizing debt via QE, the Fed financed the federal government's profligacy. Should the Fed engage in QT, the federal government would be forced into austerity.
Given the chickenhawks at the Fed, this seems a pipe dream.
Various Fed heads have recently hit the tape with hawkish comments. They insist that rates must go much higher and balance sheet sales (a.k.a. 'quantitative tightening') must proceed much quicker in order to stem the inflation tide.
As Peter Schiff observes, the people at the Fed have not suddenly got religion. They are not hawks; they are chickenhawks.
By their hawkish rhetoric, Fed heads present the facade of inflation fighters--an inflation that they admit no blame for instigating.
They surely also hope that markets will do work for them. Markets that anticipate huge interest rate hikes might tank, thereby relieving some inflationary pressures and impetus for Fed action.
Schiff argues that if the Fed heads were sincere about fighting big inflation, then they would have already acted aggressively. Big rate increases. Big balance sheet asset sales. But they haven't done so. All of the big moves that they are talking about will take place at some future, yet to be named date.
We also know that when markets do tank, then all semblance of hawkishness will disappear as the Fed resumes their customarily accommodative policy.
When facing a game of chicken with oncoming economic and market collapse, chickenhawks at the Fed will invariably flinch.
Elon Musk recently accumulated a ~10% stake in Twitter (TWTR) and, as the largest single shareholder, has been named to the board of directors. An outspoken critic of Twitter's censorship policies, Musk has vowed to change things at the company.
Anti-free speech leftists are in freak out mode. They fear that the days of silencing dissent on their cherished social networking platform is coming to an end.
The differences between political parties on this issue are stark and growing. Not only do Democrats see little or no problem with censoring speech on Twitter...
...but they increasingly believe that government and tech companies should restrict freedom of speech online.
Although the left's proclivity to censor is becoming well-known, I'm still taken aback by data like this. Hard to believe this is America.
Here's hoping that Musk is up for the task at hand.
no positions
Must admit that I'm increasingly persuaded by this argument. As we recently suggested, proponents of the Great Reset believe that they need crisis to push their agenda ahead.
So why wouldn't they be the ones to manufacture chaos? Elections, Covid, Ukraine, etc.
Can be seen as a variation of the Leninist philosophy that, to make an omelet, you need to break a few eggs.
One of the better investigative journalism pieces in some time, published in Vanity Fair, details the great lengths to which Anthony Fauci and other officials colluded to suppress dissent on the question of natural vs lab origins of CV19. This group kept scientific papers from being posted on pre-print servers, held Zoom sessions meant to intimidate authors of studies with controversial conclusions, and energetically attempted to build a 'united front' that opposed the lab-leak theory.
While reviewing the article's findings, Jeff Tucker asks a central question: What motivated actions to suppress the emergence of lab leak evidence? He suggests some possibilities. Perhaps the Fauci cabal wanted to avoid culpability concerning a linkage between US funding of Chinese lab actions that created the virus. Or maybe they needed to forge a single narrative that would support widespread lockdowns.
But why would lockdowns be desirable? After all, prior scientific work leaned away from lockdowns as effective countermeasures. The Fauci group ignored customary practices for coping with infectious disease spread such as developing ways to keep vulnerable populations (e.g., nursing home residents) safe, and discovering therapeutics that minimize severity in the general population.
Tucker lightly hints at one plausible explanation. A presidential election was on the horizon, and lockdowns along with other atypical countermeasures would support partisan political objectives. To obtain public support for those countermeasures, the Fauci group felt that it could not afford to lend legitimacy to the lab leak theory.
If so, then the motivation for suppressing dissent about CV19's origin goes far beyond the maintenance of 'reputations and professional standing' that Tucker offers at the end of his piece.
Suppression of the lab leak theory was a necessary precedent for committing crimes against humanity to achieve political gains.
This past week the yield on two-year Treasuries exceeded the yield on ten-year Treasuries. This is unusual. Normally investors demand higher interest rates on longer dated debt. When the yield relationship flips over, or 'inverts,' it often seen as a harbinger of forthcoming economic recession.
Indeed, a review of past occurrences of inversions between 'twos and tens' suggests a good predictive track record. Even if the relationship subsequently 'un-inverts' (which it often does), recession appears imminent.
However, it should be noted that many maturities comprise the complete Treasury yield curve--beginning with 1-3 month T-bills all the way out to 30 yr Treasury bonds. Currently, only the twos and tens relationship is upside down.
For example, the spread between 12 month and 10 year Treasuries has yet to invert. Yet, note that the 12 month/10 yr relationship has also been a good predictor of recession.
What this suggests is that the relationship between twos and tens, and subsequent recession may be a spurious one when viewed in isolation. The recessionary signal sent by the inversion phenomenon is likely stronger when more of the yield curve joins in.
Consequently, look for shorter duration yields to continue rising relative to long duration yields before confidently concluding that the inverted yield curve/recession warning is in play.
Article questions whether Russia is truly the target of recent sanctions. The thought has crossed my mind as well.
If the West truly wanted to hurt Russia, then it would increase production of oil and flood the world with supply. Not only would this crush prices and cripple the Russian economy, but it would provide relief for consumers struggling with inflationary concerns.
But Western countries have not done so. In fact, they have acted in manners that squeeze oil prices higher.
Sanctions that restrict Russian food exports also make little sense. Because Russia is a net food exporter, restrictions on trade mean Russia has more food and its trading partners have less.
Consequently, the sweeping sanctions ostensibly meant to cripple the Russian economy are driving up prices in the West and increasing risk of shortages in economies already facing inflationary pressures not seen in generations.
On the other hand, higher prices and economic disruptions play into the hands of proponents of the Great Reset. The thinking is that higher oil prices will motivate more investment in green energy. And that economic turbulence will increase dependence on 'enlightened' one world government--while trimming some population deemed to be 'excess' in the process.
Because the Great Resetters believe that they assimilate power in times of crisis, they are endeavoring to create them. Elections, Covid, Ukraine.
Manufactured chaos.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tgw6NuQC7_Jr5z7IF6VsU6-XvlGfsFZfZGZiDH6gfUlNRsu_4i0gQMmR6wJO_wT3TDuvlS_cgdIfq25Clx78Eb0BbzdMLD1VTpPxEBwX078MQQ6wJDSHMA6uVw2B0lqdoQig=s0-d)
