newswars--2020-03-30--The Last Thing We Need Right Now Is Bernie’s Proposed Tax on Financial Transactions

When one imagines working on Wall Street , he envisions stock traders scrambling to place buy or sell orders , perhaps even some puts or options .
Today ’ s powerful artificial intelligence tools allow traders to game stock market trading .
In some ways , this computer-driven high-frequency trading resembles actual gaming in that it may seem as if one is simulating various trading scenarios .
Unexpectedly , politicians view this sort of behavior as providing little value to society , thus some progressives are seeking to institute a Wall Street speculation tax or a financial transaction tax .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) of the 116th Congress introduced the “ Inclusive Prosperity Act of 2019 , ” which imposes “ a tax on certain trading transactions to invest in our families and communities…strengthen our financial security , [ and ] expand opportunity and reduce market volatility.
” Finding 9 of the introduced bill delineates Congress ’ interest in limiting “ high frequency trading which may be as high as 70 percent of the market and results in declining market stability through extreme price volatility , distorted market prices , and structural vulnerability to speculation far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commercial hedgers.
” Senator Bernie Sanders has spearheaded this effort to end computer-driven high frequency trading .
According to the Tax Policy Center , this trading constitutes “ roughly half [ of ] all stock market volume.
” High-frequency trading relies on “ arbitraging tiny spreads in stock prices , ” which Sanders seeks to tax .
In addition to high-frequency trading , some investors engage in stock market speculation .
The Tax Policy Center continues , “ thanks to lower transactions costs , the rise of investment vehicles such as mutual funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the growth of 401 ( k ) s and IRAs , middle-income households have been able to enjoy some of the benefits of investing in the stock market.
” Moreover , losses on Wall Street can result in large losses for those outside of the financial sector as well .
Pension funds , 401 ( k ) s and IRAs , mutual funds , exchange traded funds , and college endowments rely on investing through the stock and bond market .
Similarly , some employees are paid in stock options .
Financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the business of everyday Americans .
Barron ’ s makes note of the irony of this tax : “ a levy on transactions would come just when there has been a race among investment firms to slash costs to individual investors through such things as free commissions and zero-expense exchange-traded funds .
A trading tax would more than offset those advantages.
” While some seek to portray high-frequency trading as doing little or nothing to improve market liquidity , a financial transaction tax is likely to discourage trading and have wide-reaching effects .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the following : You spend $ 20,000 on a stock investment .
The financial transaction tax for stocks is 20 basis points or 0.2 percent .
Your initial investment is $ 20,000 but you incur an initial tax of $ 40 .
In five years , you sell your stocks for the price of $ 40,000 .
The sale of stocks also requires a financial transactions tax , so you owe $ 80 .
In addition , a capital gains tax applies to your $ 20,000 you made from the sale .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gains tax rate of 20 percent requires you to pay $ 4,000 in addition to the $ 120 you have paid for the financial transaction tax .
Never mind that the $ 20,000 in capital gains is only the nominal value because of inflation over the course of five years .
Of course , if you are fortunate enough to afford a top-quality lawyer and accountant , you can use the bevy of tax loopholes that exist to help taxpayers avoid taxes .
Proponents of a financial transactions tax note that the tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect larger investors .
While this may appear true on the surface , this cost would be passed on to consumers inevitably .
It is incredibly naïve to believe that financial investors are going to “ eat the costs ” associated with this tax .
As the Investment Company Institute stated , the initial tax would be “ very modest , ” but it “ becomes very tempting to increase it .
You ’ re on a slippery slope.
” Past Problems Might Be Indicative of Future Concerns Between 1914 and 1966 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the issuance and transfer of stocks .
According to a National Tax Journal paper , the taxation rate increased over time .
The financial transactions tax ( FTT ) is meant to curb stock market speculation ; however , during the 1920s , the tax did not “ reduce speculation sufficiently to avert the stock market crash.
” The paper ’ s authors note that in recent years several developed nations “ have repealed FTTs…presumably because of competitive pressures stemming from globalization and technological changes that have made shifting trading to other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FTT would likely argue that investors will not materially shift trading outside of the United States , especially given the low tax rate .
“ With adequate international coordination , offshore transactions by United States taxpayers could still be captured by a transaction tax , just as an out-of-state Internet purchase can face the sales tax that prevails in the purchaser ’ s states , ” writes the New York Times .
Of course , “ a transaction tax would be more effective if it were adopted worldwide , ” the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a financial transactions tax is highly contentious given the possibility of negative externalities on unexpecting parties .
Section 2 of Inclusive Prosperity Act of 2019 outlines numerous findings pertaining to demonstrate how Wall Street ’ s alleged greed was the sole contributor to the Great Recession .
Unfortunately for Senator Sanders , a financial transactions tax would not eliminate or even adequately address the overwhelming structural policies that contributed greatly to the crisis .
For example , as Martin Mayer writes in The Greatest-Ever Bank Robbery : The Collapse of the Savings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has proved to be the crack cocaine of American finance.
” Sanders in his typical , antiwealth rhetoric is equating wealth generation in general with the greed of some .
This approach to politics may amp up his base in the Democratic primary , but it is sure to rattle the establishment and Wall Street Democrats .

When one imagines working on Wall Street, he envisions stock traders scrambling to place buy or sell orders, perhaps even some puts or options.
Today’s powerful artificial intelligence tools allow traders to game stock market trading. In some ways, this computer-driven high-frequency trading resembles actual gaming in that it may seem as if one is simulating various trading scenarios. Unexpectedly, politicians view this sort of behavior as providing little value to society, thus some progressives are seeking to institute a Wall Street speculation tax or a financial transaction tax.
Progressives Introduce a “Sales Tax” on Financial Transactions
Progressive members (including Senator Bernie Sanders) of the 116th Congress introduced the “Inclusive Prosperity Act of 2019,” which imposes “a tax on certain trading transactions to invest in our families and communities…strengthen our financial security, [and] expand opportunity and reduce market volatility.” Finding 9 of the introduced bill delineates Congress’ interest in limiting “high frequency trading which may be as high as 70 percent of the market and results in declining market stability through extreme price volatility, distorted market prices, and structural vulnerability to speculation far in excess of the liquidity needs of commercial hedgers.”
Senator Bernie Sanders has spearheaded this effort to end computer-driven high frequency trading. According to the Tax Policy Center, this trading constitutes “roughly half [of] all stock market volume.” High-frequency trading relies on “arbitraging tiny spreads in stock prices,” which Sanders seeks to tax. In addition to high-frequency trading, some investors engage in stock market speculation. The Tax Policy Center continues, “thanks to lower transactions costs, the rise of investment vehicles such as mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and the growth of 401(k)s and IRAs, middle-income households have been able to enjoy some of the benefits of investing in the stock market.”
Moreover, losses on Wall Street can result in large losses for those outside of the financial sector as well. Pension funds, 401(k)s and IRAs, mutual funds, exchange traded funds, and college endowments rely on investing through the stock and bond market. Similarly, some employees are paid in stock options. Financial transactions and investments have far-reaching influence into the business of everyday Americans. Barron’s makes note of the irony of this tax: “a levy on transactions would come just when there has been a race among investment firms to slash costs to individual investors through such things as free commissions and zero-expense exchange-traded funds. A trading tax would more than offset those advantages.” While some seek to portray high-frequency trading as doing little or nothing to improve market liquidity, a financial transaction tax is likely to discourage trading and have wide-reaching effects.
Think of a financial transactions tax as the following: You spend $20,000 on a stock investment. The financial transaction tax for stocks is 20 basis points or 0.2 percent. Your initial investment is $20,000 but you incur an initial tax of $40. In five years, you sell your stocks for the price of $40,000. The sale of stocks also requires a financial transactions tax, so you owe $80. In addition, a capital gains tax applies to your $20,000 you made from the sale. For the ease of calculation, the capital gains tax rate of 20 percent requires you to pay $4,000 in addition to the $120 you have paid for the financial transaction tax. Never mind that the $20,000 in capital gains is only the nominal value because of inflation over the course of five years. Of course, if you are fortunate enough to afford a top-quality lawyer and accountant, you can use the bevy of tax loopholes that exist to help taxpayers avoid taxes.
Proponents of a financial transactions tax note that the tax rates are fairly low and would only affect larger investors. While this may appear true on the surface, this cost would be passed on to consumers inevitably. It is incredibly naïve to believe that financial investors are going to “eat the costs” associated with this tax. As the Investment Company Institute stated, the initial tax would be “very modest,” but it “becomes very tempting to increase it. You’re on a slippery slope.”
Past Problems Might Be Indicative of Future Concerns
Between 1914 and 1966, the United States had a transaction tax on the issuance and transfer of stocks. According to a National Tax Journal paper, the taxation rate increased over time. The financial transactions tax (FTT) is meant to curb stock market speculation; however, during the 1920s, the tax did not “reduce speculation sufficiently to avert the stock market crash.” The paper’s authors note that in recent years several developed nations “have repealed FTTs…presumably because of competitive pressures stemming from globalization and technological changes that have made shifting trading to other markets less costly.”
Proponents of the FTT would likely argue that investors will not materially shift trading outside of the United States, especially given the low tax rate. “With adequate international coordination, offshore transactions by United States taxpayers could still be captured by a transaction tax, just as an out-of-state Internet purchase can face the sales tax that prevails in the purchaser’s states,” writes the New York Times . Of course, “a transaction tax would be more effective if it were adopted worldwide,” the New York Times continues. Overall, the idea of a financial transactions tax is highly contentious given the possibility of negative externalities on unexpecting parties.
Section 2 of Inclusive Prosperity Act of 2019 outlines numerous findings pertaining to demonstrate how Wall Street’s alleged greed was the sole contributor to the Great Recession. Unfortunately for Senator Sanders, a financial transactions tax would not eliminate or even adequately address the overwhelming structural policies that contributed greatly to the crisis. For example, as Martin Mayer writes in The Greatest-Ever Bank Robbery: The Collapse of the Savings and Loan Industry, “deposit insurance has proved to be the crack cocaine of American finance.” Sanders in his typical, antiwealth rhetoric is equating wealth generation in general with the greed of some. This approach to politics may amp up his base in the Democratic primary, but it is sure to rattle the establishment and Wall Street Democrats.


newswars--2020-03-30--Economist Warns: Fed Destroying Dollar

Economist Warns: Fed Destroying Dollar

All eyes have been on the stock market in recent weeks as it has reflected the fears about the coronavirus-induced economic shutdown and the hopes of massive stimulus .
It ’ s been quite a rollercoaster ride .
But in his podcast on March 27 , Peter Schiff said there ’ s an even bigger problem looming on the horizon that people aren ’ t paying any attention to – the potential destruction of the dollar .
He said Americans are in for a rude awakening .
The Dow Jones finished its best week since the Great Depression with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that big plunge , the Dow was up about 13 % on the week , all on the strength of the spectacular rally on Tuesday , Wednesday and Thursday .
In fact , the Dow had a bull market condensed into three days .
But Peter said it was not really a bull market .
He called it a “ vicious correction in a horrific bear market.
” And he said that bear market is “ a long way from over.
” But while most eyes are on the stock market , Peter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant looming bear market — the bear market we ’ re going to have in the US dollar .
Peter has already explained how the actions of the Federal Reserve and the US government has set the stage to devalue the dollar , saying the dollar is cooked .
He said that with the central bank and government response to the coronavirus , hyperinflation has gone from being the worst-case scenario to the most likely scenario .
A bear market in the dollar can mask some of the other problems in the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollar fell by nearly 70 % .
That means that while nominal stock market losses in the decade weren ’ t terrible , the real losses were significantly larger .
It was a destruction of the value of US stocks and Peter said it ’ s going to happen again .
A plunge in the dollar means losses on all dollar-denominated assets — stocks , bonds , real estate .
It also means price inflation and rising interest rates , which pushes down the value of bonds even lower .
Peter said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot weaker in this decade than it was in the 1970s .
“ I think the US is certainly starting off the decade in a much worse financial position.
” The main reason the dollar fell in the 1970s was because the US went off the gold standard .
But the dollar remained the reserve currency , even though it was backed by nothing .
“ It got marked down , but it didn ’ t get knocked out.
” During the 80s , the US enjoyed the privilege of being able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without having to back it by gold .
“ That basically gave us a license to print and we ’ ve been abusing that ever since.
” Peter said this time he thinks the world is going to kick out the dollar as the reserve currency .
If that happens , the dollar will just be another currency .
“ And that means Americans are going to have to have to abide by the same economic rules that govern everybody else .
That means if we want to consume , we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to borrow , we ’ ve got to save .
And Americans are going to be in for a rude awakening.
” Peter said this may well crush the retirement dreams of many Americans .
With the erosion of the dollar ’ s purchasing power , retiring simply won ’ t be an option for many people .
“ Most Americans who are already retired , well , they ’ re going to have to go back to work .
And the people who were planning on stopping working , well , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep working until they ’ re dead , basically .
Unless you can do something now to protect yourself.
” Peter also talked about the passage of the massive stimulus bill .
He said it ’ s possible the most socialist bill ever passed .
Basically , America is already a socialist nation .
New reports suggest the CCP bioweapon may be for mass sterilization .

All eyes have been on the stock market in recent weeks as it has reflected the fears about the coronavirus-induced economic shutdown and the hopes of massive stimulus.
It’s been quite a rollercoaster ride. But in his podcast on March 27, Peter Schiff said there’s an even bigger problem looming on the horizon that people aren’t paying any attention to – the potential destruction of the dollar. He said Americans are in for a rude awakening.
The Dow Jones finished its best week since the Great Depression with a 915.39 point drop. But even with that big plunge, the Dow was up about 13% on the week, all on the strength of the spectacular rally on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. In fact, the Dow had a bull market condensed into three days. But Peter said it was not really a bull market. He called it a “vicious correction in a horrific bear market.” And he said that bear market is “a long way from over.”
But while most eyes are on the stock market, Peter said we’re missing a more significant looming bear market — the bear market we’re going to have in the US dollar.
Peter has already explained how the actions of the Federal Reserve and the US government has set the stage to devalue the dollar, saying the dollar is cooked. He said that with the central bank and government response to the coronavirus, hyperinflation has gone from being the worst-case scenario to the most likely scenario.
A bear market in the dollar can mask some of the other problems in the economy. Consider in the 1970s, the dollar fell by nearly 70%. That means that while nominal stock market losses in the decade weren’t terrible, the real losses were significantly larger. It was a destruction of the value of US stocks and Peter said it’s going to happen again.
A plunge in the dollar means losses on all dollar-denominated assets — stocks, bonds, real estate. It also means price inflation and rising interest rates, which pushes down the value of bonds even lower. Peter said he thinks the dollar is going to be a lot weaker in this decade than it was in the 1970s.
“I think the US is certainly starting off the decade in a much worse financial position.”
The main reason the dollar fell in the 1970s was because the US went off the gold standard. But the dollar remained the reserve currency, even though it was backed by nothing.
“It got marked down, but it didn’t get knocked out.”
During the 80s, the US enjoyed the privilege of being able to issue the world’s currency without having to back it by gold.
“That basically gave us a license to print and we’ve been abusing that ever since.”
Peter said this time he thinks the world is going to kick out the dollar as the reserve currency. If that happens, the dollar will just be another currency.
“And that means Americans are going to have to have to abide by the same economic rules that govern everybody else. That means if we want to consume, we’ve got to produce. If we want to borrow, we’ve got to save. And Americans are going to be in for a rude awakening.”
Peter said this may well crush the retirement dreams of many Americans. With the erosion of the dollar’s purchasing power, retiring simply won’t be an option for many people.
“Most Americans who are already retired, well, they’re going to have to go back to work. And the people who were planning on stopping working, well, they’re just going to have to keep working until they’re dead, basically. Unless you can do something now to protect yourself.”
Peter also talked about the passage of the massive stimulus bill. He said it’s possible the most socialist bill ever passed. Basically, America is already a socialist nation.
New reports suggest the CCP bioweapon may be for mass sterilization.


newswars--2020-03-30--URGENT: Breaking News From The Mistrial Of Roger Stone

Tyler Nixon joins David Knight to discuss the latest developments in the miscarriage of justice that was the trial of @ @ @

Tyler Nixon joins David Knight to discuss the latest developments in the miscarriage of justice that was the trial of Roger Stone.


newswars--2020-03-30--Canada Has Abolished Civil Liberties in the Name of “Safety”

To limit the spread of COVID-19 in Canada , “ The federal government has advised Canadians to stay at home and limit their contact with others if they have been diagnosed with the virus , exposed to someone who has or if they traveled outside the country within the past 14 days.
” However , on March 21 , Patty Hajdu , Canada ’ s minister of health , promised more draconian measures if people do not accept the government ’ s recommendations—which means that the government ’ s recommendations are actually commands , backed by the use of force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Quebec City , police arrested a woman Friday who was infected with the virus and who was walking around outside after being mandated to stay indoors .
The arrest was the first time Quebec City ’ s public health director issued an order to police under emergency powers granted after Premier Francois Legault declared a public health emergency March 14 .
Dr. Horacio Arruda , the province ’ s chief medical officer , told reporters Saturday that regional health directors across the province “ will have no problem ” ordering police to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are isolated .
In Ontario the provincial police issued a notice Friday warning people that they could face fines of $ 750 if they defy the “ expert advice provided by the chief medical officer of health to close certain businesses and institutions and limit gatherings to 50 people or less.
” Corporations defying orders can face a fine of $ 500,000 .
In Saskatchewan , people not following isolation orders can also face fines or arrest .
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that everyone has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To forcibly confine someone in their own home is to deny them these freedoms .
However , Section 1 of the Charter says that these freedoms are “ subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
” This means the Charter is a sham , because the government reserves the right to arbitrarily decide when it will grant civil liberties and when it will deny them .
Thus , Health Minister Hajdu said : When people are playing loose and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like this it does actually put our civil liberties at jeopardy .
It makes governments have to look at more and more stringent measures to actually contain people in their own homes .
In other words , Hajdu is telling us that our civil liberties will remain intact as long as we obey the government ’ s quarantine orders .
However , she fails to acknowledge that it is the quarantine order itself which violates civil liberties by presuming to restrict the freedom of assembly/association .
Moreover , even without quarantine orders a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government prohibited large gatherings and ordered many private businesses to shut down .
Therefore , to disobey a government quarantine order is not the act which gives rise to a loss of civil liberties , but simply reflects an attempt by individuals to exercise the few civil liberties they have left .
Has it occurred to the health minister and the various provincial authorities that their draconian measures may be counterproductive ?
When people read about arrests , fines , and forcible confinement , is it not likely that many of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , fearing that a positive test will put them in the crosshairs of the authorities ?
It is possible that a positive test would otherwise prompt them to voluntarily isolate themselves—perhaps not 100 percent isolation , but close to it .
In contrast , when faced with the jackboot of government , many people may simply skip the test and convince themselves that they do not have the coronavirus , and thus make little effort to isolate themselves .
Politicians and Bureaucrats Are Not Omniscient The political response to the spread of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognize any limits to its authority .
Politicians consider themselves to be omniscient as they formulate policy , i.e.
, the government is always right .
The reality is that the various aspects of the pandemic—as with all pandemics—are incredibly complex .
There is much that we do not know , meaning that politicians and bureaucrats do NOT have access to a sufficient amount of reliable data on which to justify their policies .
However , we do know that millions of Canadians get the flu—which is contagious—resulting in about 3,500 deaths annually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus as of March 22 .
But we don ’ t see the government violating civil liberties under the pretense of stopping the spread of the flu .
More to the point , there is no justification for any government policy which violates civil liberties .
If the government has any role in the coronavirus crisis , it should be limited to the dissemination of information and advice—advice , not orders .
Individuals should be free to consider this information and advice , as well as that provided by other sources .
Naturally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk differently , just as we assess risk differently in other aspects of our lives .
We must be free to make our own decisions based on our own personal circumstances .
Those who believe that there is a high risk of contracting the virus , and a high risk of severe symptoms or death , will rarely leave their homes and will likely wear gloves and a mask if they do venture out .
Those who believe that these risks are low will stick to their normal daily routines .
Still others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Decisions must remain in the hands of those affected by them .
In the past , whenever I made a decision to attend a hockey game , a baseball game , or a music concert surrounded by thousands of other people , I accepted the fact that my decision could have unpleasant consequences .
I could catch the flu from the person sitting next to me .
Among the many thousands of people in attendance at these events , the odds are that one or more of them will have something that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that most adults realize this .
Moreover , I think that it is fair to say that the vast majority of people have , on one or more occasions during their lives , gone to school , to a job , to a game or concert , to a party , to the mall , when they have a cold or the flu or something else that is contagious .
We all know this .
We have seen it with our own eyes .
The risk of infection can not be eliminated , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , governments often make things worse when they “ take action ” in response to a supposed crisis .
Aside from the violation of civil liberties , the government appears oblivious to other likely consequences of its policies .
On March 12 , the National Hockey League temporarily suspended its season and players were asked to isolate themselves .
One week later , Ritch Winter , a player ’ s agent , said : One player I reached on the phone was driving somewhere and I said , “ where are you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t know , but my wife needed me to get out of the house as much as I needed to get out of the house.
” Though this player was not under a government quarantine order , he left his home after just one week , and it is not surprising .
We should expect serious consequences if the government continues to violate civil liberties .
Forcible confinement in one ’ s home may result in high levels of mental stress and anxiety , not only for those confined , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This compounds the stress and anxiety which many of them may already be experiencing as a result of losing employment income because the government has shut down numerous businesses .
Furthermore , stress and anxiety weakens the immune system , which means that these people will be easier targets for COVID-19 , which is contrary to the government ’ s supposed goal of limiting its spread .
Finally , will high levels of stress and anxiety lead to more suicides , homicides , domestic violence , and divorces ?
The various levels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus pandemic .
Their ill-advised solutions are to inflict economic hardship and withdraw civil liberties .
The longer these authoritarian policies persist , the greater the risk to the social fabric .

To limit the spread of COVID-19 in Canada, “The federal government has advised Canadians to stay at home and limit their contact with others if they have been diagnosed with the virus, exposed to someone who has or if they traveled outside the country within the past 14 days.”
However, on March 21, Patty Hajdu, Canada’s minister of health, promised more draconian measures if people do not accept the government’s recommendations—which means that the government’s recommendations are actually commands, backed by the use of force, which has already begun:
In Quebec City, police arrested a woman Friday who was infected with the virus and who was walking around outside after being mandated to stay indoors. The arrest was the first time Quebec City’s public health director issued an order to police under emergency powers granted after Premier Francois Legault declared a public health emergency March 14.
Dr. Horacio Arruda, the province’s chief medical officer, told reporters Saturday that regional health directors across the province “will have no problem” ordering police to make arrests and ensure people carrying the virus are isolated.
In Ontario the provincial police issued a notice Friday warning people that they could face fines of $750 if they defy the “expert advice provided by the chief medical officer of health to close certain businesses and institutions and limit gatherings to 50 people or less.” Corporations defying orders can face a fine of $500,000.
In Saskatchewan, people not following isolation orders can also face fines or arrest.
Civil Liberties
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that everyone has the freedom of assembly and freedom of association. To forcibly confine someone in their own home is to deny them these freedoms. However, Section 1 of the Charter says that these freedoms are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” This means the Charter is a sham, because the government reserves the right to arbitrarily decide when it will grant civil liberties and when it will deny them. Thus, Health Minister Hajdu said:
When people are playing loose and hard [sic] with the rules like this it does actually put our civil liberties at jeopardy. It makes governments have to look at more and more stringent measures to actually contain people in their own homes.
In other words, Hajdu is telling us that our civil liberties will remain intact as long as we obey the government’s quarantine orders. However, she fails to acknowledge that it is the quarantine order itself which violates civil liberties by presuming to restrict the freedom of assembly/association. Moreover, even without quarantine orders a significant loss of civil liberties occurred when the government prohibited large gatherings and ordered many private businesses to shut down.
Therefore, to disobey a government quarantine order is not the act which gives rise to a loss of civil liberties, but simply reflects an attempt by individuals to exercise the few civil liberties they have left.
Has it occurred to the health minister and the various provincial authorities that their draconian measures may be counterproductive? When people read about arrests, fines, and forcible confinement, is it not likely that many of them will be discouraged from seeking a diagnosis, fearing that a positive test will put them in the crosshairs of the authorities? It is possible that a positive test would otherwise prompt them to voluntarily isolate themselves—perhaps not 100 percent isolation, but close to it. In contrast, when faced with the jackboot of government, many people may simply skip the test and convince themselves that they do not have the coronavirus, and thus make little effort to isolate themselves.
Politicians and Bureaucrats Are Not Omniscient
The political response to the spread of the coronavirus demonstrates that the government does not recognize any limits to its authority. Politicians consider themselves to be omniscient as they formulate policy, i.e., the government is always right.
The reality is that the various aspects of the pandemic—as with all pandemics—are incredibly complex. There is much that we do not know, meaning that politicians and bureaucrats do NOT have access to a sufficient amount of reliable data on which to justify their policies.
However, we do know that millions of Canadians get the flu—which is contagious—resulting in about 3,500 deaths annually, compared to 21 deaths from the coronavirus as of March 22. But we don’t see the government violating civil liberties under the pretense of stopping the spread of the flu.
More to the point, there is no justification for any government policy which violates civil liberties. If the government has any role in the coronavirus crisis, it should be limited to the dissemination of information and advice—advice, not orders. Individuals should be free to consider this information and advice, as well as that provided by other sources. Naturally, each of us will assess the risk differently, just as we assess risk differently in other aspects of our lives. We must be free to make our own decisions based on our own personal circumstances.
Those who believe that there is a high risk of contracting the virus, and a high risk of severe symptoms or death, will rarely leave their homes and will likely wear gloves and a mask if they do venture out. Those who believe that these risks are low will stick to their normal daily routines. Still others will modify their behaviour to various degrees.
Decisions must remain in the hands of those affected by them. In the past, whenever I made a decision to attend a hockey game, a baseball game, or a music concert surrounded by thousands of other people, I accepted the fact that my decision could have unpleasant consequences. I could catch the flu from the person sitting next to me. Among the many thousands of people in attendance at these events, the odds are that one or more of them will have something that is contagious. I am pretty sure that most adults realize this.
Moreover, I think that it is fair to say that the vast majority of people have, on one or more occasions during their lives, gone to school, to a job, to a game or concert, to a party, to the mall, when they have a cold or the flu or something else that is contagious. We all know this. We have seen it with our own eyes. The risk of infection cannot be eliminated, not even by the government. In fact, governments often make things worse when they “take action” in response to a supposed crisis.
Cabin Fever
Aside from the violation of civil liberties, the government appears oblivious to other likely consequences of its policies. On March 12, the National Hockey League temporarily suspended its season and players were asked to isolate themselves. One week later, Ritch Winter, a player’s agent, said:
One player I reached on the phone was driving somewhere and I said, “where are you headed?” and he said “I don’t know, but my wife needed me to get out of the house as much as I needed to get out of the house.”
Though this player was not under a government quarantine order, he left his home after just one week, and it is not surprising. We should expect serious consequences if the government continues to violate civil liberties. Forcible confinement in one’s home may result in high levels of mental stress and anxiety, not only for those confined, but also for their families or roommates. This compounds the stress and anxiety which many of them may already be experiencing as a result of losing employment income because the government has shut down numerous businesses. Furthermore, stress and anxiety weakens the immune system, which means that these people will be easier targets for COVID-19, which is contrary to the government’s supposed goal of limiting its spread. Finally, will high levels of stress and anxiety lead to more suicides, homicides, domestic violence, and divorces?
The various levels of government in Canada have responded to the coronavirus pandemic. Their ill-advised solutions are to inflict economic hardship and withdraw civil liberties. The longer these authoritarian policies persist, the greater the risk to the social fabric.


newswars--2020-03-30--Trump Unloads On Fake News CNN Reporter For Misquoting Him

During the March 29th Chinese Corona-virus press conference , a 3rd-string CNN reporter started to badger the president with a @ @ @ @ @ took the opportunity to admonish him in front of his colleagues .

During the March 29th Chinese Corona-virus press conference, a 3rd-string CNN reporter started to badger the president with a fake quote. President Trump took the opportunity to admonish him in front of his colleagues.
Mirror:


newswars--2020-03-30--Ron Paul: Will Coronavirus End the Federal Reserve?

September 17 , 2019 was a significant day in American economic history .
On that day , the New York Federal Reserve began emergency cash infusions into the repurchasing ( repo ) market .
This is the market banks use to make short-term loans to each other .
The New York Fed acted after interest rates in the repo market rose to almost 10 percent , well above the Fed ’ s target rate .
The New York Fed claimed its intervention was a temporary measure , but it has not stopped pumping money into the repo market since September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been expanding its balance sheet since September .
Investment advisor Michael Pento called the balance sheet expansion quantitative easing ( QE ) “ on steroids.
” I mention these interventions to show that the Fed was taking extraordinary measures to prop up the economy months before anyone in China showed the first symptoms of coronavirus .
Now the Fed is using the historic stock market downturn and the ( hopefully ) temporary closure of businesses in the coronavirus panic to dramatically increase its interventions in the economy .
Not only has the Fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the repo market , it is purchasing unlimited amounts of Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities .
This was welcome news to Congress and the president , as it came as they were working on setting up trillions of dollars in spending in coronavirus aid/economic stimulus bills .
This month the Fed announced it would start purchasing municipal bonds , thus ensuring the state and local government debt bubble will keep growing for a few more months .
The Fed has also created three new loan facilities to provide hundreds of billions of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chairman Jerome Powell has stated that the Fed will lend out as much as it takes to revive the economy .
The Fed is also reducing interest rates to zero .
We likely already have negative real interest rates because of inflation .
Negative real interest rates are a tax on savings and thus lead to a lack of private funds available for investment , giving the Fed another excuse to expand its lending activities .
The Fed ’ s actions may appear to mitigate some of the damage of the coronavirus panic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with new money , expanding asset purchases , and facilitating Congress and the president ’ s spending sprees , the Fed is exacerbating America ’ s long-term economic problems .
The Federal Reserve is unlikely to end these emergency measures after the government declares it is safe to resume normal life .
Consumers , businesses , and ( especially ) the federal government are so addicted to low interest rates , quantitative easing , and other Federal Reserve interventions that any effort by the Fed to allow rates to rise or to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recession .
Eventually the Federal Reserve-created consumer , business , and government debt bubbles will explode , leading to a major crisis that will dwarf the current coronavirus shutdown .
The silver lining is that this next crisis could finally demolish the Keynesian welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system .
The Federal Reserve ’ s unprecedented interventions in the marketplace make it more urgent than ever that Congress pass , and President Trump sign , the Audit the Fed bill .
This would finally allow the American people to learn the truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monetary policy .
Audit the Fed is a step toward restoring health to our economic system by ending the fiat money pandemic that facilitates the welfare-warfare state and the unstable , debt-based economy .
This article first appeared at RonPaulInstitute.org .
Alex Jones discusses Trump , the Federal Reserve , and more on this Special Saturday Report !

September 17, 2019 was a significant day in American economic history. On that day, the New York Federal Reserve began emergency cash infusions into the repurchasing (repo) market. This is the market banks use to make short-term loans to each other. The New York Fed acted after interest rates in the repo market rose to almost 10 percent, well above the Fed’s target rate.
The New York Fed claimed its intervention was a temporary measure, but it has not stopped pumping money into the repo market since September. Also, the Federal Reserve has been expanding its balance sheet since September. Investment advisor Michael Pento called the balance sheet expansion quantitative easing (QE) “on steroids.”
I mention these interventions to show that the Fed was taking extraordinary measures to prop up the economy months before anyone in China showed the first symptoms of coronavirus.
Now the Fed is using the historic stock market downturn and the (hopefully) temporary closure of businesses in the coronavirus panic to dramatically increase its interventions in the economy. Not only has the Fed increased the amount it is pumping into the repo market, it is purchasing unlimited amounts of Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities. This was welcome news to Congress and the president, as it came as they were working on setting up trillions of dollars in spending in coronavirus aid/economic stimulus bills.
This month the Fed announced it would start purchasing municipal bonds, thus ensuring the state and local government debt bubble will keep growing for a few more months.
The Fed has also created three new loan facilities to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in credit to businesses. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has stated that the Fed will lend out as much as it takes to revive the economy.
The Fed is also reducing interest rates to zero. We likely already have negative real interest rates because of inflation. Negative real interest rates are a tax on savings and thus lead to a lack of private funds available for investment, giving the Fed another excuse to expand its lending activities.
The Fed’s actions may appear to mitigate some of the damage of the coronavirus panic. However, by flooding the economy with new money, expanding asset purchases, and facilitating Congress and the president’s spending sprees, the Fed is exacerbating America’s long-term economic problems.
The Federal Reserve is unlikely to end these emergency measures after the government declares it is safe to resume normal life. Consumers, businesses, and (especially) the federal government are so addicted to low interest rates, quantitative easing, and other Federal Reserve interventions that any effort by the Fed to allow rates to rise or to stop creating new money will cause a severe recession.
Eventually the Federal Reserve-created consumer, business, and government debt bubbles will explode, leading to a major crisis that will dwarf the current coronavirus shutdown. The silver lining is that this next crisis could finally demolish the Keynesian welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system.
The Federal Reserve’s unprecedented interventions in the marketplace make it more urgent than ever that Congress pass, and President Trump sign, the Audit the Fed bill. This would finally allow the American people to learn the truth about the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy. Audit the Fed is a step toward restoring health to our economic system by ending the fiat money pandemic that facilitates the welfare-warfare state and the unstable, debt-based economy.
This article first appeared at RonPaulInstitute.org.
Alex Jones discusses Trump, the Federal Reserve, and more on this Special Saturday Report!


newswars--2020-03-30--“Cost Cutting” Is Necessary to Expand Investment

Some commentators regard cost cutting by companies in order to secure profits as a major threat to the economy .
They hold that if everyone tries to cut costs and save more , demand for goods and services from retrenched workers will fall , which in turn will hurt corporate revenues and thus profits .
This allegedly sets in motion new layoffs and again eats into revenues and makes profits disappear .
The process supposedly continues until there are not enough workers and salaries left to generate sales and profits .
Economists call this the “ corporate paradox of thrift.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and save more , then eventually no one saves more .
Therefore , if every company decides to cut costs , this will ultimately hurt revenues and hence profits .
The conclusion , then , is that collectively it is impossible to raise profits through cost cutting .
On the contrary , it will lead to an economic slump .
What these economists recommend , then , is that the central bank counter the negative side effect of cost cutting through easy monetary policy .
The “ corporate paradox of thrift ” follows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” which asserts that an attempt by an economy as a whole to increase aggregate savings not only will not succeed , but also in fact may lower aggregate output , income , and employment .
This is because increased savings at a given level of aggregate income means decreased consumption .
With a fall in aggregate income , people will find it much harder to save .
This implies that aggregate savings in the economy will decline because people have decided to save more .
According to Keynes : “ Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumption will so affect incomes that the attempt necessarily defeats itself.
”  In this theory , although saving may pave the road to riches for an individual , if the nation as a whole were to decide to save more , the result could be poverty for all .
Does the “ Paradox of Thrift ” Make Sense ?
According to mainstream thinking , saving is seen as a leakage that weakens the flow of spending , thereby weakening the overall economic growth .
But this is not necessarily so .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and consumes one , his saving is nine loaves of bread .
The baker may decide to do several things with his saved bread .
He could use it to sustain himself over the coming week , he could exchange some of it for other consumer goods , or he could exchange it for various parts that will enhance his oven .
Contrary to conventional thinking , at no point does his saved bread cause a “ leakage , ” and hence a fall , in economic activity .
On the contrary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When the baker exchanges his bread for shoes and shirts , he enhances his well-being and that of the shoemaker and the shirt producer .
His saved bread sustains the shoemaker and the shirt producer , enabling them to continue in their production of shoes and shirts .
By exchanging his bread for various parts that improve his oven , the baker ’ s productivity increases and more bread production follows .
This enables the baker to save more and acquire a greater variety of goods and services .
There are , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perishable goods , and this is where money comes in handy .
Instead of storing his bread , the baker can now exchange his bread for money .
His unconsumed production is now stored , so to speak , in money .
Money here fulfills the role of medium of saving .
It is fully backed by the goods that the producer has produced .
There is , however , one prerequisite for all of this—that the flow of the production of goods and services continues unabated .
This means that whenever a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that money for goods , those goods are there for him , and that whenever a producer who has exchanged his production for money decides to exchange the money for the goods that he requires , he can always do so .
Note that when the baker exchanges his nine loaves of bread for five dollars with a shoemaker , he in fact supplies the shoemaker with his real savings , which is nine loaves of bread .
These loaves of bread will sustain the shoemaker during the production of shoes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ exchange his five dollars for the services of a technician to enhance his oven , he is in fact supplying the technician with access to various unconsumed goods , i.e.
, the real savings of other producers .
For instance , when he exchanges the five dollars for vegetables , the technician in fact exchanges them for a proportionate amount of the vegetable ’ s real savings .
These vegetables , in turn , sustain the technician .
Again , at no point has saving caused a “ leakage ” that weakens economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reinforces its pace .
Does Money Hoarding Curtail Demand for Goods and Services ?
What would happen if people were to decide to hold on to their money and not spend it ?
Would this curtail the demand for goods and services and collapse economic activity ?
Hoarding of money is not saving ; it is merely raising the demand for money .
What would it mean if people had an unlimited demand to hold money ?
It would mean that they would not use it to trade for the goods and services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a realistic scenario .
So long as people want to stay alive , they will exchange money for goods .
Moreover , they will have to produce goods and services and trade them .
The exchange of one good for others requires the use of money .
The whole idea of hoarding money for its own sake , i.e.
, not using money in exchange , does not correspond to the nature of human beings in that they must consume in order to live .
Now , if everyone were to decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ i.e.
, to raise the amount of final consumer goods supplied to the market , how could this lower the pace of economic activity ?
On the contrary , a greater production of goods would only support a greater demand for goods .
After all , when a baker produces bread , he is not producing everything for his personal consumption .
He exchanges most of the bread that he makes for other goods and services that he needs .
Hence , his production enables him to acquire goods and services .
Thus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paradox of thrift is a questionable idea .
Why Cost Cutting Is Good for the Economy If a company trims costs in order to make a profit , what is wrong with this ?
By making the transition from a loss to a profit , the company in fact makes more efficient use of its resources .
The use of its resources now generates a positive return—i.e.
, the company has created real wealth .
According to Mises , The only goal of all production activities is to employ the factors of production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the highest possible output .
The smaller the input required for the production of an article becomes , the more of the scarce factors of production is left for the production of other articles .
Consider a farmer who plants ten seeds and harvests only five seeds .
Obviously , he can not continue this practice for long before he eventually runs out of seeds .
One he does , he will be faced with the threat of starvation .
Hence , the farmer is forced to alter his conduct , i.e.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way of planting his seeds .
So why would a change that generates a surplus be bad ?
With a greater crop , the farmer could improve his well-being and also increase his savings , thus giving rise to a much greater future crop , all other things being equal .
The principle of the example we have employed can be applied to any company .
The crux of the matter remains the same : profit adds to real wealth and hence raises the living standards of individuals in the economy .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cutting by an initial wealth producer will strengthen his demand for the goods and services of another wealth producer .
This , in turn , will likely boost the demand for the goods and services of a third wealth producer , etc .
What about all the workers who were made redundant by the change ?
Are not their incomes are likely to fall , weakening the demand for goods and services ?
In fact , a general rise in profits as a result of cost cutting lifts the overall real wealth in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In a market economy , retrenched workers would have to adjust to new conditions and find jobs elsewhere ; they would have to find jobs that contribute to wealth creation .
Actions aimed at trimming costs are the only way companies can correct erroneous past decisions .
When they take these actions in the face of past business errors that resulted in losses , companies are trying to normalize the situation through the liquidation of various excesses .
Any attempt , therefore , to stifle their adjustment measures by means of monetary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the economy and to impoverishment .
The way to eliminate the pain of adjustment is not to increase the dosage of monetary pumping , but to forbid the central bank to pump money and tamper with interest rates in the first place .
Also , all the loopholes that allow the banking sector to create credit out of “ thin air ” must be completely sealed off .
Cost cutting by companies is an important means of correcting previous erroneous decisions in order to return to a situation of real wealth generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employ monetary pumping to stimulate demand to counter businesses ’ cost cutting measures and keep economic activity “ going ” is , in fact , a recipe for economic disaster .

Some commentators regard cost cutting by companies in order to secure profits as a major threat to the economy.
They hold that if everyone tries to cut costs and save more, demand for goods and services from retrenched workers will fall, which in turn will hurt corporate revenues and thus profits. This allegedly sets in motion new layoffs and again eats into revenues and makes profits disappear. The process supposedly continues until there are not enough workers and salaries left to generate sales and profits.
Economists call this the “corporate paradox of thrift.” If everyone tries to cut costs and save more, then eventually no one saves more. Therefore, if every company decides to cut costs, this will ultimately hurt revenues and hence profits. The conclusion, then, is that collectively it is impossible to raise profits through cost cutting. On the contrary, it will lead to an economic slump. What these economists recommend, then, is that the central bank counter the negative side effect of cost cutting through easy monetary policy.
The “corporate paradox of thrift” follows the famous Keynesian “paradox of thrift,” which asserts that an attempt by an economy as a whole to increase aggregate savings not only will not succeed, but also in fact may lower aggregate output, income, and employment. This is because increased savings at a given level of aggregate income means decreased consumption. With a fall in aggregate income, people will find it much harder to save. This implies that aggregate savings in the economy will decline because people have decided to save more. According to Keynes: “Every such attempt to save more by reducing consumption will so affect incomes that the attempt necessarily defeats itself.”
In this theory, although saving may pave the road to riches for an individual, if the nation as a whole were to decide to save more, the result could be poverty for all.
Does the “Paradox of Thrift” Make Sense?
According to mainstream thinking, saving is seen as a leakage that weakens the flow of spending, thereby weakening the overall economic growth. But this is not necessarily so. When a baker produces ten loaves of bread and consumes one, his saving is nine loaves of bread. The baker may decide to do several things with his saved bread. He could use it to sustain himself over the coming week, he could exchange some of it for other consumer goods, or he could exchange it for various parts that will enhance his oven.
Contrary to conventional thinking, at no point does his saved bread cause a “leakage,” and hence a fall, in economic activity. On the contrary, saving is exactly what sustains economic activity.
When the baker exchanges his bread for shoes and shirts, he enhances his well-being and that of the shoemaker and the shirt producer. His saved bread sustains the shoemaker and the shirt producer, enabling them to continue in their production of shoes and shirts.
By exchanging his bread for various parts that improve his oven, the baker’s productivity increases and more bread production follows. This enables the baker to save more and acquire a greater variety of goods and services.
There are, of course, difficulties in saving various perishable goods, and this is where money comes in handy. Instead of storing his bread, the baker can now exchange his bread for money. His unconsumed production is now stored, so to speak, in money. Money here fulfills the role of medium of saving. It is fully backed by the goods that the producer has produced.
There is, however, one prerequisite for all of this—that the flow of the production of goods and services continues unabated. This means that whenever a holder of money decides to exchange some of that money for goods, those goods are there for him, and that whenever a producer who has exchanged his production for money decides to exchange the money for the goods that he requires, he can always do so.
Note that when the baker exchanges his nine loaves of bread for five dollars with a shoemaker, he in fact supplies the shoemaker with his real savings, which is nine loaves of bread. These loaves of bread will sustain the shoemaker during the production of shoes. Likewise, when a baker decides to exchange his five dollars for the services of a technician to enhance his oven, he is in fact supplying the technician with access to various unconsumed goods, i.e., the real savings of other producers.
For instance, when he exchanges the five dollars for vegetables, the technician in fact exchanges them for a proportionate amount of the vegetable’s real savings. These vegetables, in turn, sustain the technician. Again, at no point has saving caused a “leakage” that weakens economic activity; on the contrary, it reinforces its pace.
Does Money Hoarding Curtail Demand for Goods and Services?
What would happen if people were to decide to hold on to their money and not spend it? Would this curtail the demand for goods and services and collapse economic activity?
Hoarding of money is not saving; it is merely raising the demand for money. What would it mean if people had an unlimited demand to hold money? It would mean that they would not use it to trade for the goods and services they require. Obviously, this is not a realistic scenario.
So long as people want to stay alive, they will exchange money for goods. Moreover, they will have to produce goods and services and trade them. The exchange of one good for others requires the use of money. The whole idea of hoarding money for its own sake, i.e., not using money in exchange, does not correspond to the nature of human beings in that they must consume in order to live.
Now, if everyone were to decide to raise their level of savings, i.e., to raise the amount of final consumer goods supplied to the market, how could this lower the pace of economic activity?
On the contrary, a greater production of goods would only support a greater demand for goods. After all, when a baker produces bread, he is not producing everything for his personal consumption. He exchanges most of the bread that he makes for other goods and services that he needs. Hence, his production enables him to acquire goods and services. Thus, we can conclude that the so-called paradox of thrift is a questionable idea.
Why Cost Cutting Is Good for the Economy
If a company trims costs in order to make a profit, what is wrong with this? By making the transition from a loss to a profit, the company in fact makes more efficient use of its resources. The use of its resources now generates a positive return—i.e., the company has created real wealth. According to Mises,
The only goal of all production activities is to employ the factors of production in such a way that they render the highest possible output. The smaller the input required for the production of an article becomes, the more of the scarce factors of production is left for the production of other articles.
Consider a farmer who plants ten seeds and harvests only five seeds. Obviously, he cannot continue this practice for long before he eventually runs out of seeds. One he does, he will be faced with the threat of starvation. Hence, the farmer is forced to alter his conduct, i.e., to find better land or a better way of planting his seeds. So why would a change that generates a surplus be bad?
With a greater crop, the farmer could improve his well-being and also increase his savings, thus giving rise to a much greater future crop, all other things being equal.
The principle of the example we have employed can be applied to any company. The crux of the matter remains the same: profit adds to real wealth and hence raises the living standards of individuals in the economy. An expansion in real wealth due to cost cutting by an initial wealth producer will strengthen his demand for the goods and services of another wealth producer. This, in turn, will likely boost the demand for the goods and services of a third wealth producer, etc.
What about all the workers who were made redundant by the change? Are not their incomes are likely to fall, weakening the demand for goods and services? In fact, a general rise in profits as a result of cost cutting lifts the overall real wealth in an economy. This generates employment opportunities. In a market economy, retrenched workers would have to adjust to new conditions and find jobs elsewhere; they would have to find jobs that contribute to wealth creation.
Actions aimed at trimming costs are the only way companies can correct erroneous past decisions. When they take these actions in the face of past business errors that resulted in losses, companies are trying to normalize the situation through the liquidation of various excesses. Any attempt, therefore, to stifle their adjustment measures by means of monetary pumping only amounts to a further stifling of the economy and to impoverishment.
The way to eliminate the pain of adjustment is not to increase the dosage of monetary pumping, but to forbid the central bank to pump money and tamper with interest rates in the first place. Also, all the loopholes that allow the banking sector to create credit out of “thin air” must be completely sealed off.
Conclusion
Cost cutting by companies is an important means of correcting previous erroneous decisions in order to return to a situation of real wealth generation. The suggestion that the central bank employ monetary pumping to stimulate demand to counter businesses’ cost cutting measures and keep economic activity “going” is, in fact, a recipe for economic disaster.


newswars--2020-03-30--How Governments (and the Fed) Make Life Harder for Young Families

Young people today are delaying starting “ adult ” life until later and later .
The median age of first marriage has climbed to nearly 30 , up from the mid-20s a generation ago .
The median age of the first-time homebuyer hit a record 33 in 2019 , while the average age for women having a baby climbed to 26.9 in 2018 , up from 22.7 in 1980 .
Clearly there are plenty of cultural changes that influence such shifts , but we shouldn ’ t underestimate the added burdens created by government overreach that make it more difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start a family .
In higher education , as with healthcare , a system increasingly reliant on third-party payers for the expenses has been a major driver of exploding tuition costs .
As summed up in this College Board article “ with third parties paying part or all of the bills ( via government and private ‘ scholarships , ’ subsidized loans , and subsidies of institutions ) , schools can often raise fees without dire financial or academic consequences.
” In 2018–19 , according to College Board , undergraduate and graduate students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in student aid in the form of grants , tax credits and loans .
Indeed , there ’ s been a stunning 416 percent rise in total federal , state and institutional student aid loans since 1989 , adjusted for inflation .
Pell Grants , the federal government ’ s largest college grant tuition assistance program nearly tripled in real terms during that time .
With billions in federal student aid , grants and below-market interest loans courtesy of the US Department of Education artificially inflating demand for college , tuition prices were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , consumer expenditures on higher education exploded by 260 percent , roughly 4.5 times as fast as overall consumer expenditures .
One obvious result is higher student loan debt .
In an article published by Salon , former Labor Secretary Robert Reich notes , “ the average graduate carries a whopping $ 28,000 in student loan debt , ” and that as a generation , “ millennials are more than one trillion dollars in the red.
” Making matters worse is that a significant share of recent graduates are not earning enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are often drawn into college on the promise that a college degree is their only ticket to career success .
But increasingly , it is not .
As Ohio University economist Richard Vedder has written , “ The Federal Reserve Bank of New York said that 41.4 percent of recent college graduates in December 2018 were ‘ underemployed , ’ doing jobs mostly held by those with lesser education.
” In other words , more than two-fifths of recent grads are in jobs that don ’ t require a college degree .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ ( W ) e actually have too many college graduates for the number of professional , managerial , and technical jobs available.
” With a glut of college graduates flooding the job market , there is little bargaining power for millennials entering the job market , outside of those with degrees in highly technical areas .
In too many cases , a college degree simply does not translate into earning power sufficient enough to pay off formidable student loans .
And that glut can in no small part be attributed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programs .
With many young folks already strapped with large college loan debts and starting salaries ill equipped to pay it back , taking on a mortgage is something many are increasingly reluctant to do .
And taking that next step is made even more difficult by rapidly rising housing prices .
Housing expenditures climbed by 95 percent from 1993 to 2018 , far outpacing overall consumer expenditures .
Overly zealous housing regulations have restricted supply , especially in growing urban areas where new professionals tend to migrate .
Even the left-leaning Brookings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article that “ increasingly strict local government regulations have driven up the cost of building new homes in many large metro areas along both the East and West Coasts.
” Meanwhile , the Federal Reserve ’ s dovish monetary policy has meant more money supply inflation and more dollars chasing the housing stock .
Given that the Fed has kept interest rates extremely low for an extended period of time , this has led to that new money naturally finding its way into the housing market as the demand for mortgages is particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies worked to direct all that newly printed money toward the housing market as well .
Programs such as the Community Reinvestment Act and government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae buying up and guaranteeing mortgages are well documented .
Young potential homebuyers are priced out of the housing market by spiraling prices , despite the low interest rates .
Moreover , many are reluctant to add a mortgage to their already imposing student loan debt .
As if struggling with student loans and escalating housing costs wasn ’ t enough , young people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raising children .
Specifically , costs of day care have been soaring , thanks in large part to government intervention in that market .
According to a 2019 Atlantic article , “ per-child spending on childcare increased by a factor of 21 from the 1970s to the 2000s.
” And more recently , “ The Census Bureau has found that child-care expenditures rose more than 40 percent from 1990 to 2011 , during a period when middle-class wages stagnated .
Since the 1990s , childcare costs have grown twice as fast as overall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of child care ’ s hefty price tag to the industry being “ highly regulated , ” further noting that “ states with strict labor laws tend to have the most expensive facilities.
” Caregiver-to-child ratio requirements are probably the most expensive regulatory mandate .
But state licensed child care centers are burdened with massive amounts of intricate , complex , and often puzzling regulations .
If you ever want to fully appreciate the busybody tendencies of the nanny state , try thumbing through your state ’ s child care regulation book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is 197 pages of “ child care rules ” from the state of North Carolina for your reading pleasure ) .
Such requirements limit the supply of day cares .
The more personnel required per child ( and thus per facility ) means the available workers must be consolidated into fewer facilities .
Moreover , the dizzying maze of red tape serves as a disincentive for potential entrepreneurs to even open a day care facility in the first place , further restricting supply .
Meanwhile , rapidly growing government subsidies serve to inflate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Office of Child Care within the US Department of Health and Human Services , the major federal program subsidizing child care is the Child Care Development Fund ( CCDF ) .
The discretionary portion of this fund is called the Child Care and Development Block Grant ( CCDBG ) , and between the two total federal subsidies came to about $ 8.1 billion in 2018 .
Head Start , the federal government ’ s cornerstone free day care program for low-income children , spent nearly $ 9.9 billion in 2018 .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day care programs spent just over $ 18 billion in 2018 .
Head Start spending has exploded from $ 4.3 billion in 1998 , more than doubling in twenty years , and in 2018 1.3 million children received subsidies from the Child Care Development Fund program alone .
Naturally , with so much government funding being directed into the day care industry , demand is propped up significantly .
States also add subsidies and free day care programs of their own .
Furthermore , the free Head Start facilities divert scarce day care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could otherwise be used for paying customers , further restricting the supply .
The significant government interventions restricting supply and inflating demand will naturally serve to drive prices upward .
Middle class families are squeezed the most , as they are taxed to pay for the subsidies and free programs but earn too much to receive the benefits—and then are forced to pay the inflated prices to boot .
The trends are clear : young people today are starting “ adult life ” and families at a later age .
The debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for society is beyond the scope of this article .
But like many other broad cultural shifts , this too can in no small part be attributed to the influence of a leviathan government .

Young people today are delaying starting “adult” life until later and later. The median age of first marriage has climbed to nearly 30, up from the mid-20s a generation ago.
The median age of the first-time homebuyer hit a record 33 in 2019, while the average age for women having a baby climbed to 26.9 in 2018, up from 22.7 in 1980.
Clearly there are plenty of cultural changes that influence such shifts, but we shouldn’t underestimate the added burdens created by government overreach that make it more difficult for young people to settle down and start a family.
College Debt
In higher education, as with healthcare, a system increasingly reliant on third-party payers for the expenses has been a major driver of exploding tuition costs. As summed up in this College Board article “with third parties paying part or all of the bills (via government and private ‘scholarships,’ subsidized loans, and subsidies of institutions), schools can often raise fees without dire financial or academic consequences.”
In 2018–19, according to College Board, undergraduate and graduate students received a total of $246 billion in student aid in the form of grants, tax credits and loans.
Indeed, there’s been a stunning 416 percent rise in total federal, state and institutional student aid loans since 1989, adjusted for inflation. Pell Grants, the federal government’s largest college grant tuition assistance program nearly tripled in real terms during that time.
With billions in federal student aid, grants and below-market interest loans courtesy of the US Department of Education artificially inflating demand for college, tuition prices were sure to explode.
From 1993 to 2018, consumer expenditures on higher education exploded by 260 percent, roughly 4.5 times as fast as overall consumer expenditures.
One obvious result is higher student loan debt. In an article published by Salon, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich notes, “the average graduate carries a whopping $28,000 in student loan debt,” and that as a generation, “millennials are more than one trillion dollars in the red.”
Making matters worse is that a significant share of recent graduates are not earning enough to afford the debt payments.
Young people are often drawn into college on the promise that a college degree is their only ticket to career success.
But increasingly, it is not. As Ohio University economist Richard Vedder has written, “The Federal Reserve Bank of New York said that 41.4 percent of recent college graduates in December 2018 were ‘underemployed,’ doing jobs mostly held by those with lesser education.”
In other words, more than two-fifths of recent grads are in jobs that don’t require a college degree. As Vedder notes, this is because “(W)e actually have too many college graduates for the number of professional, managerial, and technical jobs available.”
With a glut of college graduates flooding the job market, there is little bargaining power for millennials entering the job market, outside of those with degrees in highly technical areas. In too many cases, a college degree simply does not translate into earning power sufficient enough to pay off formidable student loans.
And that glut can in no small part be attributed to the massive sums of money flowing from government programs.
Housing
With many young folks already strapped with large college loan debts and starting salaries ill equipped to pay it back, taking on a mortgage is something many are increasingly reluctant to do.
And taking that next step is made even more difficult by rapidly rising housing prices. Housing expenditures climbed by 95 percent from 1993 to 2018, far outpacing overall consumer expenditures.
Overly zealous housing regulations have restricted supply, especially in growing urban areas where new professionals tend to migrate. Even the left-leaning Brookings Institution had to acknowledge in this 2019 article that “increasingly strict local government regulations have driven up the cost of building new homes in many large metro areas along both the East and West Coasts.”
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve’s dovish monetary policy has meant more money supply inflation and more dollars chasing the housing stock. Given that the Fed has kept interest rates extremely low for an extended period of time, this has led to that new money naturally finding its way into the housing market as the demand for mortgages is particularly sensitive to interest rates.
Other government policies worked to direct all that newly printed money toward the housing market as well. Programs such as the Community Reinvestment Act and government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae buying up and guaranteeing mortgages are well documented.
Young potential homebuyers are priced out of the housing market by spiraling prices, despite the low interest rates. Moreover, many are reluctant to add a mortgage to their already imposing student loan debt.
Day Care
As if struggling with student loans and escalating housing costs wasn’t enough, young people are then confronted with the high costs of raising children. Specifically, costs of day care have been soaring, thanks in large part to government intervention in that market.
According to a 2019 Atlantic article, “per-child spending on childcare increased by a factor of 21 from the 1970s to the 2000s.” And more recently, “The Census Bureau has found that child-care expenditures rose more than 40 percent from 1990 to 2011, during a period when middle-class wages stagnated. Since the 1990s, childcare costs have grown twice as fast as overall inflation.”
The Atlantic article attributes a part of child care’s hefty price tag to the industry being “highly regulated,” further noting that “states with strict labor laws tend to have the most expensive facilities.”
Caregiver-to-child ratio requirements are probably the most expensive regulatory mandate. But state licensed child care centers are burdened with massive amounts of intricate, complex, and often puzzling regulations. If you ever want to fully appreciate the busybody tendencies of the nanny state, try thumbing through your state’s child care regulation book some time (for example, here is 197 pages of “child care rules” from the state of North Carolina for your reading pleasure).
Such requirements limit the supply of day cares. The more personnel required per child (and thus per facility) means the available workers must be consolidated into fewer facilities. Moreover, the dizzying maze of red tape serves as a disincentive for potential entrepreneurs to even open a day care facility in the first place, further restricting supply.
Meanwhile, rapidly growing government subsidies serve to inflate the demand for childcare. According to the Office of Child Care within the US Department of Health and Human Services, the major federal program subsidizing child care is the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF). The discretionary portion of this fund is called the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), and between the two total federal subsidies came to about $8.1 billion in 2018.
Head Start, the federal government’s cornerstone free day care program for low-income children, spent nearly $9.9 billion in 2018.
All told, the three subsidized and free day care programs spent just over $18 billion in 2018. Head Start spending has exploded from $4.3 billion in 1998, more than doubling in twenty years, and in 2018 1.3 million children received subsidies from the Child Care Development Fund program alone.
Naturally, with so much government funding being directed into the day care industry, demand is propped up significantly. States also add subsidies and free day care programs of their own.
Furthermore, the free Head Start facilities divert scarce day care resources (like personnel and facilities) that could otherwise be used for paying customers, further restricting the supply.
The significant government interventions restricting supply and inflating demand will naturally serve to drive prices upward. Middle class families are squeezed the most, as they are taxed to pay for the subsidies and free programs but earn too much to receive the benefits—and then are forced to pay the inflated prices to boot.
Conclusion
The trends are clear: young people today are starting “adult life” and families at a later age. The debate of whether this is good or bad for society is beyond the scope of this article. But like many other broad cultural shifts, this too can in no small part be attributed to the influence of a leviathan government.


newswars--2020-03-30--The New Euro Stimulus Won’t Save the Greek Economy

With fear of the coronavirus continuing to wreak havoc on every country in the West , almost all governments have taken radical measures for containment of the virus : mandatory quarantines for many , the closing of businesses , and the prohibition of many economic and social activities .
I am not going to pretend that I am a medical expert and share my thoughts about how serious the virus really is .
I will , however , focus on its economic consequences .
The New Stimulus and QE for the Greek Economy On Thursday , the European Central Bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programs , saying that it could buy up to €750 billion ( $ 820 billion ) in state and corporate bonds .
This news comes just a week after it announced the last stimulus package .
The aim is clearly to keep borrowing costs low and to provide money for European countries to deal with the current crisis .
This is the first time that Greece has been included in an ECB QE program in a long time .
Shortly after the announcement , the Greek prime minister said that the Greek economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This will be followed with other interventionist policies , the most notable of which provides an €800 subsidy to private workers , entrepreneurs affected by the current crisis , and every worker fired after March 1 .
But the madness doesn ’ t end there .
There will also be new welfare benefits for almost every Greek , and a 40 percent discount on all rent payments has been enacted for the months of March , April , and May .
The government has also made it illegal to fire employees during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
There is an old saying that you ’ ve got to save for a bad day .
This means that you need to save some money so that you have the proper funds to get through a tough time .
The problem that Greece and the EU face is that they don ’ t have any savings .
Instead the Greek economy—and most European economies—are dependent on debt and on people spending money that they don ’ t have .
In a healthy economy people would be able to afford not working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency , because they would have savings , something that mainstream economists hate and have waged a huge war against .
The Fed the ECB have artificially pushed down interest rates , prompting government , corporations , and consumers to borrow unsustainable amounts of money .
Their response is more spending and “ showering ” the economy with money .
Bailing out one or two specific industries , although definitely bad economically , is at least feasible , because there are others to pay for it .
But bailing out everyone is another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from for that ?
And where will it come from when the government decides to suspend tax payments because of the virus ?
There is no free lunch .
If you cut taxes , you have to cut spending , and if you want to increase spending , you have to tax more .
In the end , the deficit will have to be paid by future taxpayers .
The money won ’ t come from lenders .
After all , the bond market is crashing , since every country is facing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all this free money that remains is the ECB , which just like its American counterpart creates money “ out of thin air.
” But this won ’ t solve supply shortages in the market , which are sure to result from so few people working .
An Economy That Never Recovered In Greece things are worse than in most of Europe .
The country ’ s two biggest industries are tourism and sailing , which provide almost half of GDP .
These have been hit hard as virus fears have mounted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ already weak position .
According to the Heritage Foundation ’ s economic freedom index , government spending already amounts to 48 percent of GDP , layered over the still massive public debt , equivalent to 183 percent of GDP .
The economy never really recovered from the recession .
Labor laws make hiring very expensive and risky .
Public union cartels are the ones that really control the country , and they undermine production and entrepreneurship given any chance .
The agricultural sector is heavily subsidized , and the the service industry is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the years of the “ austerity ” government surpluses were minimal and were overtaken by deficits from future years .
Indeed , the governments failed to cut spending and taxes , and in fact the massive debt has only increased .
Basically , the Greek economy is just a huge bubble of debt and spending .
This was situation was sustained by endless bailouts from European taxpayers and low interest rates ( even though they were some of the highest in the EU ) .
If it had not been for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and less likely to be fooled by cheap credit , or it would have had to deal with consequences alone , becoming Europe ’ s Argentina .
After all , if other Europeans were lending them money , the Greeks would have to print the money themselves .
Or just stop spending .
But the Greeks never saved or produced enough to justify their high standard of living compared to other countries .
In other words , we are living beyond our means .
Its not that Greeks are lazy ; once again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is undermining production and fuels Greece ’ s famous anticapitalist mentality .
But the ECB ’ s repeated bouts of QE really do make things worse .
It ’ s foolish to think that businesses that aren ’ t sustainable at 1.5 percent interest rate will suddenly become productive at 0 percent .
If the economy runs on a 0 percent interest rate and doesn ’ t recover , what will happen when interest rates rise to 0.5 percent ?
Panic will ensue , making another European debt crisis likely .
An economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for debts and expenses even with 0 percent interest is an economy ready to collapse .
Conclusion The Greek state needs to stop its unsustainable policies involving ever growing handouts .
Government spending always undermines the private sector ’ s production , which is made possible by saving .
Instead , government policies should be encouraging saving .
In order for Greece to survive the economic fallout of the coronavirus it needs to realize that it needs to let the bubble pop .
This means that there will be even harder years ahead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term , it makes more sense .
With unsustainable bubble businesses evicted from the market , resources and capital can be used less wastefully .
Greece needs more production of goods and services .
That ’ s what makes a nation and its citizens wealthy .
Paper money isn ’ t wealth .
If Greece doesn ’ t do this , then , yes , in the short term it will be less painful .
But this means more pain in the long run .

With fear of the coronavirus continuing to wreak havoc on every country in the West, almost all governments have taken radical measures for containment of the virus: mandatory quarantines for many, the closing of businesses, and the prohibition of many economic and social activities.
I am not going to pretend that I am a medical expert and share my thoughts about how serious the virus really is. I will, however, focus on its economic consequences.
(Two very informative articles on healthcare policies for the virus are “Government Is No Match for the Coronavirus” and “The ‘Bootleggers and Baptists’ of the Coronavirus Crisis.”)
The New Stimulus and QE for the Greek Economy
On Thursday, the European Central Bank (ECB) announced massive new stimulus programs, saying that it could buy up to €750 billion ($820 billion) in state and corporate bonds. This news comes just a week after it announced the last stimulus package. The aim is clearly to keep borrowing costs low and to provide money for European countries to deal with the current crisis. This is the first time that Greece has been included in an ECB QE program in a long time.
Shortly after the announcement, the Greek prime minister said that the Greek economy will receive a €10 billion stimulus package. This will be followed with other interventionist policies, the most notable of which provides an €800 subsidy to private workers, entrepreneurs affected by the current crisis, and every worker fired after March 1. But the madness doesn’t end there. There will also be new welfare benefits for almost every Greek, and a 40 percent discount on all rent payments has been enacted for the months of March, April, and May. The government has also made it illegal to fire employees during the crisis.
Why Will It Fail?
There is an old saying that you’ve got to save for a bad day. This means that you need to save some money so that you have the proper funds to get through a tough time. The problem that Greece and the EU face is that they don’t have any savings. Instead the Greek economy—and most European economies—are dependent on debt and on people spending money that they don’t have.
In a healthy economy people would be able to afford not working for a few weeks during such an emergency, because they would have savings, something that mainstream economists hate and have waged a huge war against. The Fed the ECB have artificially pushed down interest rates, prompting government, corporations, and consumers to borrow unsustainable amounts of money. Their response is more spending and “showering” the economy with money.
Bailing out one or two specific industries, although definitely bad economically, is at least feasible, because there are others to pay for it. But bailing out everyone is another matter. Where will the money come from for that? And where will it come from when the government decides to suspend tax payments because of the virus? There is no free lunch. If you cut taxes, you have to cut spending, and if you want to increase spending, you have to tax more. In the end, the deficit will have to be paid by future taxpayers. The money won’t come from lenders. After all, the bond market is crashing, since every country is facing the same crisis.
The only source for all this free money that remains is the ECB, which just like its American counterpart creates money “out of thin air.” But this won’t solve supply shortages in the market, which are sure to result from so few people working.
An Economy That Never Recovered
In Greece things are worse than in most of Europe. The country’s two biggest industries are tourism and sailing, which provide almost half of GDP. These have been hit hard as virus fears have mounted.
And Greece is facing this from an already weak position. According to the Heritage Foundation’s economic freedom index, government spending already amounts to 48 percent of GDP, layered over the still massive public debt, equivalent to 183 percent of GDP. The economy never really recovered from the recession. Labor laws make hiring very expensive and risky. Public union cartels are the ones that really control the country, and they undermine production and entrepreneurship given any chance. The agricultural sector is heavily subsidized, and the the service industry is subjected to many price controls. Even during the years of the “austerity” government surpluses were minimal and were overtaken by deficits from future years. Indeed, the governments failed to cut spending and taxes, and in fact the massive debt has only increased.
Basically, the Greek economy is just a huge bubble of debt and spending. This was situation was sustained by endless bailouts from European taxpayers and low interest rates (even though they were some of the highest in the EU). If it had not been for that, Greece might have been more rational and less likely to be fooled by cheap credit, or it would have had to deal with consequences alone, becoming Europe’s Argentina. After all, if other Europeans were lending them money, the Greeks would have to print the money themselves. Or just stop spending. But the Greeks never saved or produced enough to justify their high standard of living compared to other countries. In other words, we are living beyond our means. Its not that Greeks are lazy; once again, it’s the state that is undermining production and fuels Greece’s famous anticapitalist mentality.
But the ECB’s repeated bouts of QE really do make things worse. It’s foolish to think that businesses that aren’t sustainable at 1.5 percent interest rate will suddenly become productive at 0 percent. If the economy runs on a 0 percent interest rate and doesn’t recover, what will happen when interest rates rise to 0.5 percent? Panic will ensue, making another European debt crisis likely. An economy in which business can’t pay for debts and expenses even with 0 percent interest is an economy ready to collapse.
Conclusion
The Greek state needs to stop its unsustainable policies involving ever growing handouts. Government spending always undermines the private sector’s production, which is made possible by saving. Instead, government policies should be encouraging saving. In order for Greece to survive the economic fallout of the coronavirus it needs to realize that it needs to let the bubble pop.
This means that there will be even harder years ahead for Greeks. But in the long term, it makes more sense. With unsustainable bubble businesses evicted from the market, resources and capital can be used less wastefully. Greece needs more production of goods and services. That’s what makes a nation and its citizens wealthy. Paper money isn’t wealth. If Greece doesn’t do this, then, yes, in the short term it will be less painful. But this means more pain in the long run.


newswars--2020-03-30--Oil Hits $20 For The First Time In 18 Years

Oil prices plunged on Monday to their lowest levels in eighteen years , below $ 20 per barrel , as the coronavirus pandemic continues to cripple global oil demand with no signs of Saudi Arabia backing down on its promised supply surge .
At 11:25 a.m. EDT on Monday , WTI Crude had plunged to the $ 20 mark—and traded at $ 20.29 , down by 5.67 percent on the day .
Brent Crude prices had tumbled below $ 26—at $ 25.71 , down by 8.01 percent today .
Oil prices have lost more than 60 percent so far this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level since 2002 as travel restrictions and lockdowns in major economies wipe out millions of barrels of oil per day of global oil demand .
Analysts and market participants are currently anticipating an oil demand collapse of around 20 million bpd in April , but it ’ s anyone ’ s guess now how long lockdowns and travel restrictions will remain in place , so the toll on oil demand could be higher .
While demand is plunging , there are no signs that the world ’ s top oil exporter and OPEC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saudi Arabia , would back down from the oil price war it started earlier this month .
The Saudis continue to signal an aggressive supply surge amid heavily depressed global demand , with another statement out on Monday to additionally roil the market .
“ [ T ] he Kingdom intends to increase its crude oil exports , starting from May , by about 600 thousand barrels per day , bringing the total of Saudi petroleum exports to 10.6 million barrels per day , ” an official at the Saudi Arabian Energy Ministry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the official Saudi Press Agency .
On Friday , a Saudi Arabian official denied to Reuters reports that the Kingdom was in contact with Russia about potential talks to reach some kind of deal to influence the oil prices .
According to analysts , any talks or even a deal to support the market will be futile right now , considering the huge demand destruction .
Trump unleashing the energy sector , the Saudi ’ s increasing production in their oil war with Russia and the nation wide lock down due to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of gas to under $ 1 per gallon in some parts of the country .

Oil prices plunged on Monday to their lowest levels in eighteen years, below $20 per barrel, as the coronavirus pandemic continues to cripple global oil demand with no signs of Saudi Arabia backing down on its promised supply surge.
At 11:25 a.m. EDT on Monday, WTI Crude had plunged to the $20 mark—and traded at $20.29, down by 5.67 percent on the day. Brent Crude prices had tumbled below $26—at $25.71, down by 8.01 percent today. Oil prices have lost more than 60 percent so far this year and hit on Monday their lowest level since 2002 as travel restrictions and lockdowns in major economies wipe out millions of barrels of oil per day of global oil demand.
Analysts and market participants are currently anticipating an oil demand collapse of around 20 million bpd in April, but it’s anyone’s guess now how long lockdowns and travel restrictions will remain in place, so the toll on oil demand could be higher.
While demand is plunging, there are no signs that the world’s top oil exporter and OPEC’s top producer and leader, Saudi Arabia, would back down from the oil price war it started earlier this month. The Saudis continue to signal an aggressive supply surge amid heavily depressed global demand, with another statement out on Monday to additionally roil the market.
“[T]he Kingdom intends to increase its crude oil exports, starting from May, by about 600 thousand barrels per day, bringing the total of Saudi petroleum exports to 10.6 million barrels per day,” an official at the Saudi Arabian Energy Ministry said on Monday, as carried by the official Saudi Press Agency.
On Friday, a Saudi Arabian official denied to Reuters reports that the Kingdom was in contact with Russia about potential talks to reach some kind of deal to influence the oil prices.
According to analysts, any talks or even a deal to support the market will be futile right now, considering the huge demand destruction.
By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com
Trump unleashing the energy sector, the Saudi’s increasing production in their oil war with Russia and the nation wide lock down due to the corona-virus are going to drive the price of gas to under $1 per gallon in some parts of the country.