Kashkari Wants to Bury You in Debt

August 3, 2020

Mr. Kashkari (ironic name for this guy), president of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank is claiming that we will have a better economic recovery if we lock down again in an effort to contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus:

“Neel Kashkari, president of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank, said the nation needs to control the spread of the virus, which is increasing across much of the country, to get back on a path to economic health.”

He went on to say this:

‘He also said that Congress can afford large sums for coronavirus relief efforts, though Republican lawmakers are looking to lessen the amount of supplemental aid for unemployed Americans as part of the next relief bill.

“Right now, the U.S. can fund itself at very, very low rates. Congress should use this opportunity to support the American people and the American economy. I’m not worried about it,” he said. “If we get the economy growing, we will be able to pay off the debt.”’

I think this is a banker’s game – bury people in debt and make them slaves. There is a reason that debt instruments are called “bonds” – they put people in bondage. What does Mr. Kashkari think will happen to loans, mortgages and leases as businesses are closed for another month to six weeks?

We also get this line of malarkey from MSN Money:

“It’s a rapid reversal in fortune. Early on in the pandemic, the dollar soared after investors sought safety in U.S. assets like Treasuries while the virus stormed through Europe. But with cases now exploding at home, the ineffectual American response to the disease has become a millstone for the currency, spurring concern about lasting damage to the U.S. economy that could keep interest rates and growth low for years.”

MSN Money blames dollar weakness on “…the ineffectual American response to the disease….”

I do not believe this for one second. I don’t know about you, but I like to buy low and sell high. Right now the dollar’s price or purchasing power is declining. Here is why:

“Absolute power and lack of accountability by the Fed are generally defended on one ground alone: that any change would weaken the Federal Reserve’s allegedly inflexible commitment to wage a seemingly permanent “fight against inflation.” This is the Johnny-one-note of the Fed’s defense of its unbridled power. The Gonzalez reforms, Fed officials warn, might be seen by financial markets “as weakening the Fed’s ability to fight inflation” (New York Times, October 8, 1993). In subsequent Congressional testimony, Chairman Alan Greenspan elaborated this point. Politicians, and presumably the public, are eternally tempted to expand the money supply and thereby aggravate (price) inflation. Thus to Greenspan:

‘The temptation is to step on the monetary accelerator or at least to avoid the monetary brake until after the next election. Giving in to such temptations is likely to impart an inflationary bias to the economy and could lead to instability, recession, and economic stagnation.’”

Mr. Greenspan told us here that “money” printing is the cause of “…an inflationary bias to the economy….” I think he misused the term “inflation” here to refer to a general rise in prices or general decline in the purchasing power of the USD.

Lets take a look at how hard the Fed stepped on “the monetary accelerator” beginning in February 2020. The week ended February 19, 2020 the total assets held by the twelve Federal Reserve Banks stood at $4,171,570 millions (4.171 trillion). That means the twelve Federal Reserve Banks had the exact same amount in liabilities. The liabilities are basically “money”. Some of that “money” is what the banks call reserves and that “money” stays on “deposit” at the Fed for the most part. Now we will fast forward to the week ended June 4, 2020. The total assets held by the twelve Federal Reserve Banks at that time was $7,165,217 millions (7.165 trillion).

In the space of twelve weeks the Fed nearly doubled its liabilities. This means that the “money” supply nearly doubled. The increase in twelve short weeks was only slightly less than what occurred over about three years from 12/2007 to 12/2014 ($3.623 trillion). I know that a substantial portion of that increase will stay within the banks and will not come out to Main Street, although in theory it could. Historically the banks held almost nothing in “reserves”. It wasn’t until September 2008 that the banks began to hold such a huge amount of “reserves”.

Here is why banks are willing to leave those “reserves” on “deposit” at the Fed:

“On October 3, 2008, Section 128 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 allowed the Federal Reserve banks to begin paying interest on excess reserve balances (“IOER”) as well as required reserves. The Federal Reserve banks began doing so three days later.[5] Banks had already begun increasing the amount of their money on deposit with the Fed at the beginning of September, up from about $10 billion total at the end of August, 2008, to $880 billion by the end of the second week of January, 2009.[6][7] In comparison, the increase in reserve balances reached only $65 billion after September 11, 2001 before falling back to normal levels within a month.”

What we have seen is a huge and unprecedented increase in “bank money”. Essentially this was stepping on “…the monetary accelerator….” Mr. Kashkari and his shill MSN Money are using the SARS-CoV-2 as cover. The strategy recommended by Mr. Kashkari will simply create MOAR “assets” for the banks or IOU’s as the Congress borrows every MOAR “money” to bail out the locked down businesses. Oh, and I wonder what businesses will receive that bailout “money”. Will small “Main Street” businesses receive it? I doubt it. I suspect it will be the large corporations that are important to our “representatives” in Washington.

So, as the supply of “money” goes up, its price or purchasing power goes down. It may be too late to sell already, but it is no wonder that dollar is being sold.

Have a nice day!

Meaningless “Data”

July 24, 2020

We are bombarded daily with “statistics” regarding “new cases”. These “statistics” are worthless and in-fact are harmful. These “statistics” incite panic. We do not get meaningful statistics until we speak about people with clinical signs of the disease (symptoms).

Here is a perfect example from Reuters:

“July 20 (Reuters) – Florida reported 10,347 new cases of COVID-19 on Monday, the sixth day in a row the state has announced over 10,000 new infections.

Florida reported 92 new deaths on Monday, bringing the state’s death toll to 5,183. (Writing by Lisa Shumaker)”

That is the entire “story”. It is utterly worthless. Obviously the intent here is to create fear. There was no discussion regarding the identification of the new “infections” and it was only implied that “92 new deaths on Monday,” were from COVID-19. This article by Neil A. Kurtzman, MD explains why these “statistics” are worse than worthless:

“It should be obvious from the data above that all the testing we have done and continue to do has likely confused more than enlightened. The virus is real and in the wild. How should we effectively deal with it? The best indicator of our status is how many people are in the hospital because of a clinical diagnosis of viral pneumonia. More specifically, how many are in the ICU. Note that testing here is unnecessary, as the assumption today is that any case of viral pneumonia is caused by the coronavirus.”

Have a good day!

Repetition and Practice Bring Fluency and Understanding

July 15, 2020

Barbara Oakley wrote an interesting article that asserts, “The building blocks of understanding are memorization and repetition.”

I totally agree with her. True knowledge of any subject comes from intimacy with it and that means spending a lot of time with it or “memorization and repetition.” It is hard work.

The problem with focusing relentlessly on understanding is that math and science students can often grasp essentials of an important idea, but this understanding can quickly slip away without consolidation through practice and repetition. Worse, students often believe they understand something when, in fact, they don’t. By championing the importance of understanding, teachers can inadvertently set their students up for failure as those students blunder in illusions of competence. As one (failing) engineering student recently told me: “I just don’t see how I could have done so poorly. I understood it when you taught it in class.” My student may have thought he’d understood it at the time, and perhaps he did, but he’d never practiced using the concept to truly internalize it. He had not developed any kind of procedural fluency or ability to apply what he thought he understood.

Tesla v. Toyota and “Green” v. Nuclear

Wed 08 Jul 2020

Here is an interesting comparison of Toyota v. Tesla. Toyota builds practical, reliable and energy efficient automobiles, while Tesla sells a dream of “green” energy.

“Currently, Tesla’s market cap is worth $259 billion compared to $206 billion for Toyota. Why did investors push Tesla’s stock up to $1,400 a share ($259 billion market cap) when its total revenues in 2019 were only a little more than Toyota’s net income profits? As you can see, Toyota posted $19 billion in net income profits on total revenues of $278 billion compared to Tesla’s $862 million net income loss on $24.3 billion in revenues.

Again, a perfect example of the investor mindset today. Profits don’t matter, just technology, regardless if it continues to lose money.

And, if we look at the comparison of car sales, Tesla’s U.S. EV sales were only 8% of Toyota’s North American sales in 2019. Toyota sold nearly 2.4 million cars and trucks versus 192,500 units for Tesla.”

I realize that a Tesla has no emissions at its tail pipe, so it looks good, but there are emissions. The emissions just take place out of sight. Think of the emissions involved in the mining and shipping of the materials for the batteries. There are emissions from generating the electricity to charge the batteries. Most electricity is still generated by some fossil fuel. Many people don’t realize that wind power and solar power actually cause us to burn more fossil fuel.

We are accustomed to having a constant supply of electricity, so that when we flip a light switch, the light immediately shines. We also want a steady supply of electricity at a relatively constant voltage for our computers and televisions. If the voltage dips too much they shut off. Wind and solar do not provide a steady supply of electricity, like we
desire. The reason we have a steady supply is fossil fuel power plants.

Fossil fuel power plants cannot come on line and begin to deliver electricity at the “flick of a switch”. It takes substantial time to get them up and running. Therefore, fossil fuel power plants have to be “standing by” to take up the slack when the wind stops blowing or the sun goes behind clouds and the output from “green” sources drops. This means that we are burning fossil fuels just to keep the “back-up” power plants idling. This is very inefficient.

Another question is how much fossil fuel does it take to build the equipment for solar and wind and then to put it in place along with all the wires for transmission.

Here you can watch a former “green” energy reformer explain why “green” energy does not work and damages the environment.

He had data that showed nuclear power is cheaper and safer than all the other competitors, including wind. He compared Germany, which has a lot of wind and solar, with France, which is mostly nuclear. France had much lower electricity costs and had a steady supply of it, consistent with modern demands. Nuclear power plants emit nothing to the atmosphere.

If our aim is to reduce CO2 emissions, our best bet is probably nuclear power plants. They produce steady power, as we demand, and produce no CO2 while running. They cost less, are more efficient and their waste is contained.

I think what we are seeing with Tesla stock is a maniacal bubble, like the Dutch Tulip mania.

“Lame Street” Media Prefers This Not Be Seen

An article was written in 2005 (15 years ago) on NCBI (a government website), which supports the notion that chloroquine is effective against SARS – a coronavirus:

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.
Results

We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.
Conclusion

Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.

Alina Chan on SARS-CoV-2

May 21, 2020

J.C. on a Bike discussed a recent preprint of a paper by Alina Chan. Here is some of it:

“…Our observations suggest that by the time SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in late 2019, it was already pre-adapted to human transmission to an extent similar to late epidemic SARS-CoV. However, no precursors or branches of evolution stemming from a less human-adapted SARS-CoV-2-like virus have been detected. The sudden appearance of a highly infectious SARS-CoV-2 presents a major cause for concern that should motivate stronger international efforts to identify the source and prevent near future re-emergence.”

“SARS-CoV was observed to adapt under selective pressure that was highest as it crossed from Himalayan palm civets (intermediate host species) to humans and diminished towards the end of the epidemic (15–18); this series of adaptations between species and in humans culminated in a highly infectious SARS-CoV that dominated the late epidemic phase. In comparison, SARS-CoV-2 exhibits genetic diversity that is more similar to that of late epidemic SARS-CoV (Figure 1, Supplementary Table). In fact, the exceedingly high level of identity shared among SARS-CoV-2 isolates makes it impractical to model site-wise selection pressure. As more mutations occur and, ideally, when SARS-CoV-2-like viruses from an intermediate host species are identified, it will become possible to model selection pressure as was done for SARS-CoV.”

A virus’s host environment tends to select against most random mutations. In other words, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If a virus finds itself in a new host environment, it needs to change as was observed with SARS-CoV, or it can’t replicate. Ms. Chan’s findings suggest SARS-CoV-2 was already well “adapted” to human hosts and right now no one has identified the host that preceded humans. This suggests/supports the idea that SARS-CoV-2 came from GoF studies.

Deep State Discredited? or Washington Shills

May 21, 2020

We have been watching the Washington D.C. circus since January or February of 2020. It appears probable that their GoF research into coronaviruses unleashed a global pandemic. After it got out they appear clueless regarding a response to it. Since they probably caused this, I think it might be best if they shut their traps and let individuals deal with it as best they can. There is good news, though. The Washington circus is revealing itself for what it really is – a flock of money grubbing profiteers, busily making unsubstantiated claims and riding the stock market waves. Here is something from Zero Hedge:

Haseltine’s interview is perfect lead into his opinion piece in todays’ Washington Post:

Faith in medicine and science is based on trust. But today, in the rush to share scientific progress in combating covid-19, that trust is being undermined.

Private companies, governments and research institutes are holding news conferences to report potential breakthroughs that cannot be verified. The results are always favorable, but the full data on which the announcements are based are not immediately available for critical review. This is “publication by press release,” and it’s damaging trust in the fundamental methods of science and medicine at a time when we need it most.

The most recent example is Moderna’s claim Monday of favorable results in its vaccine trial, which it announced without revealing any of the underlying data. The announcement added billions of dollars to the value of the company, with its shares jumping almost 20 percent. Many analysts believe it contributed to a 900-point gain in the Dow Jones industrial average. (emphasis supplied)

The Moderna announcement described a safety trial of its vaccine based on eight healthy participants. The claim was that in all eight people, the vaccine raised the levels of neutralizing antibodies equivalent to those found in convalescent serum of those who recovered from covid-19. What to make of that claim? Hard to say, because we have no sense of what those levels were. This is the equivalent of a chief executive of a public company announcing a favorable earnings report without supplying supporting financial data, which the Securities and Exchange Commission would never allow.

There is a legitimate question regarding what Moderna’s unsupported assertion means. The scientific and medical literature reports that some people who have recovered have little to no detectable neutralizing antibodies. There is even existing scientific literature that suggests it is possible neutralizing antibodies may not protect animals or humans from infection or reinfection by coronaviruses.

Such “publication by press release” seems to be a standard practice lately. “

If you are Washington Compost subscriber, I am sure you can read Dr. Haseltine’s interview there.

Here is some information on their “pet” drug remdesivir:

“The National Institutes of Health announced last month that the drug remdesivir offered a clear benefit to covid-19 patients with moderate disease, shortening the length of their hospital stay by several days. But did it really? Twenty days after the announcement, the supporting data has still not been published. Without the data, no doctor treating a patient can be sure they are doing the right thing.

Another paper, published the same day, found that remdesivir had no measurable effect on patient survival or the amount of virus detectable in nasopharynx and lung secretions. What then should a practicing physician do? Follow the unsupported advice of a news announcement or a medical report published in a leading scientific journal? This is not an idle question: The NIH announcement triggered a global stampede for limited supplies of the drug.”

What about a vaccine? WHO are they kidding?

“The case is more nuanced for the vaccine developed by the Jenner Institute at Oxford University, though the mileposts remain the same: It started with a public pronouncement of favorable results from an early study, this time in monkeys, well before any data was publicly released. An NIH scientist working on a trial of the Oxford vaccine gave an interview to the New York Times, claiming the drug was a success.

But the data, released as a prepublication version more than two weeks after the story ran, didn’t quite live up to the early claim. All of the vaccinated monkeys became infected when introduced to the virus. Though there was some reduction in the amount of viral RNA detected in the lungs, there was no reduction in the nasal secretions in the vaccinated monkeys. So the positive result reported by the Oxford group turned out not to be protection from infection at all, something most would agree is what a successful vaccine would do. Instead, it lowered only the amount of virus recoverable from the vaccinated monkey’s lung.
To the Jenner Institute’s credit, it does warn visitors to its website that there have been many false reports about the progress of its vaccine trial. Still, having a scientist working on the trial paint preliminary results in such a positive manner without having yet released the full data is cause for concern.”

Anyone not watching “the news” is smart. We don’t get “news”. We get people shilling their products.

Deep State – Evil or Incompetent?

May 18, 2020

You have to love what some people call “reporting”. Are we supposed to believe that “reporters” have some kind of wisdom that no one else has? Today Mediaite reported about a 60 Minute interview of a former government employee, Mr. Bright. Mr. Bright was quoted as saying that President Trump chose politics over “science”. Mr. Bright hid behind the idea that government is hard working and is promoting “science”, when the reality is the Deep State (army of career government employees, like Mr. Fauci, who has been employed by government since 1968) either has a sick sadistic agenda, or it has failed spectacularly. Here is Mediaite quoting 60 Minutes:

“Dr. Rick Bright is the highest-ranking government scientist to charge the federal government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has been slow and chaotic. He says it has prioritized politics over science, and has cost people their lives,” O’Donnell reported on 60 Minutes. “It has cost Dr. Bright his job.”

How should we interpret, “He says it has prioritized politics over science…”? Does Mr. Bright know of a cure that he is not sharing?

Here is another very funny quote or perhaps sad and sick quote:

“The best scientists that we have in our government who are working really hard to try to figure this out aren’t getting that clear, cohesive leadership, strategic plan message yet,” Bright told CBS. “Until they get that, it’s still gonna be chaotic.”

First, does Mr. Bright want politics to lead or science (I don’t mean to imply that “science” is always so objective that “it” should be in charge)? You can bet that when the President leads with “clear, cohesive, leadership”, that will be “politics” to Mr. Bright. Why is it funny or perhaps sad and sick?

These Deep State scientists have already been doing GOF (Gain Of Function – trying to get it to infect other hosts – like people) studies on coronaviruses for years and that very “work” is probably what caused this pandemic! We know this from a 12/19/17 NIH announcement:

“Today, the National Institutes of Health announced that it is lifting a funding pause dating back to October 2014 on gain-of-function (GOF) experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses. GOF research is important in helping us identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to public health.”

The virus causing this pandemic is SARS-CoV-2. Before you conclude the NIH was correct and this virus “rapidly” evolved, check this out (RBD = Receptor Binding Domain – the key to entering human cells):

“As an expert as Shi is, she only needed to take one peek at the sequence of RaTG13’s RBD and immediately realize: this virus closely resembles SARS in its RBD and has a clear potential of infecting humans. If Shi’s public statement is true and she indeed intends to discover bat coronaviruses with a potential to cross-over to humans, how could she possibly overlook this extremely interesting finding of RaTG13? If this RaTG13 was discovered SEVEN years ago in 2013, why did Shi not publish this astonishing finding earlier and yet let the “less-attractive” viruses take the stage? Why did she decide to publish such a sequence only when the current outbreak took place and people started questioning the origin of the Wuhan coronavirus?

None of these makes sense. These facts only add to the suspicion – Zhengli Shi either was directly involved in the creation of this virus/bioweapon, or helped cover it up, or both.

Of course, these facts also add to the claim that RaTG13 is a fake virus – it exists on Nature (the journal) but not in nature.”

Check into the biases of Nature Magazine:

“Many of the early editions of Nature consisted of articles written by members of a group that called itself the X Club, a group of scientists known for having liberal, progressive, and somewhat controversial scientific beliefs relative to the time period.[12] Initiated by Thomas Henry Huxley, the group consisted of such important scientists as Joseph Dalton Hooker, Herbert Spencer, and John Tyndall, along with another five scientists and mathematicians; these scientists were all avid supporters of Darwin’s theory of evolution as common descent, a theory which, during the latter half of the 19th century, received a great deal of criticism among more conservative groups of scientists.[14]”

Nature Magazine was basically in the business of promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution. It would appear to me that this publication would favor that SARS-CoV-2 “evolved” from RaTG13 by random mutations rather than “intelligent” design in the laboratory.

What is your interpretation? Sick, sadistic agenda of control and depopulation by “intelligent design”, or spectacular failure to protect us from randomly mutating (random mutations can also make these things less infectious to humans) and “rapidly evolving” pathogens?

It’s Only a Model!

Its Only a Model!
April 28, 2020

CNN is wringing their hands over the latest models:

“(CNN)Seven coronavirus models show US deaths from coronavirus will keep rising in the coming weeks. But how sharply the death toll rises depends on how much “contact reduction” Americans practice, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
The models estimate the forecast numbers of cases and deaths on the state and national levels, and one model from the University of Texas at Austin makes metro-area projections.”

Watch the first 10 seconds of this clip from the “Holy Grail”.

I think the prior models have been shown to be wildly pessimistic.

Central Planning and the Coronavirus

March 29, 2020

Here is an opinion piece that shows the futility of central planning by our beloved Federal government. It is impossible for “it” to “understand” the problem confronting us and thus to make reasonable plans for dealing with it. Yes, this is an opinion piece, but it is opinion that is “guiding” government “policy” and this rings true.

(Bloomberg Opinion) — It doesn’t matter that the United States surpassed China this week in reported Covid-19 cases because those numbers (83,507 and 81,782 respectively as of March 26) don’t tell us how many people actually became infected in either country. Nor do they tell us how fast the disease is spreading, since only a tiny portion of the population in the United States has been tested.

“The numbers are almost meaningless,” says Steve Goodman, a professor of epidemiology at Stanford University. There’s a huge reservoir of people who have mild cases, and would not likely seek testing, he says. The rate of increase in positive results reflect a mixed-up combination of increased testing rates and spread of the virus.

We will need more complete data, smarter data and more coordinated data to communicate something meaningful about the extent of Covid-19 in the United States, how many people are likely to die, which hospitals are likely to be swamped and whether drastic changes in the way Americans live will start to slow down the spread of the virus.

Here is MOAR:

Stanford’s Goodman said that he’s confident scientists will eventually collect the data we need to understand this pandemic and how it’s playing out in the United States. “Right now we are floundering in a sea of ignorance about who is infected and the fate of people who are infected,” he says.

Though death rate figures of around 1% have been tossed around, Goodman says he’s skeptical that anyone knows the death rate of this disease since we don’t know the true rates of infection.
And we can’t identify the most vulnerable groups. “There’s this delusion being disseminated that it’s all about age,” he says. He thinks that since 95% of deaths to date in New York City were of people who had pre-existing conditions, this is the bigger risk factor. But since age is a risk factor for many of those conditions, the two are correlated.

He could figure it out if he could get data on pre-existing conditions broken down by age, but says the New York health department won’t release that data. It matters a lot, he says, since we’re shaping policies around who is most vulnerable. We should find out who they are. They should know who they are.

Leviathan (the state) does not know what it is doing.

Enough panic already.