newswars--2020-03-04--Language police want to rewrite ‘sexist’ dictionaries

The language war is in full swing .
An open letter signed by leaders of Women ’ s Aid and the Women ’ s Equality Party demands that Oxford Dictionaries change their “ sexist ” definition of the word ‘ woman.
’ The authors of the letter published this week complain that the dictionary refers to a woman as a “ bitch ” or a “ maid ” , while a man is described as “ a person with the qualities associated with males , such as bravery , spirit , or toughness.
” Like all serious dictionaries , Oxford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are used in relation to a word .
The campaign — which started last year with a petition by Maria Beatrice Giovanardi — wants the dictionary to drop terms such as “ bitch ” , “ wench ” , “ bird ” or “ frail ” in its historical definition of a woman .
The aim of this campaign is not simply to get Oxford University Press to erase references to words it does not like .
Its main objective is to alter the way that people think about men , women , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the petition clearly resent the fact that the term ‘ man ’ still conveys positive attributes .
It complains that Oxford ’ s definition of a ‘ man ’ is much more exhaustive than that of a ‘ woman ’ — with 25 examples for men , compared to only 5 for women .
Implicit in this criticism is the aspiration to define man downwards .
Although the focus of the campaign is on challenging sexist language , it is actually about promoting a fundamental revision of the way people speak , behave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This objective becomes clear in its demand to “ enlarge the dictionary ’ s entry for ‘ woman ’ , ” as the petition puts it .
To illustrate what the enlargement of the entry for “ woman ” means , it demands the inclusion of “ examples representative of minorities , for example , a transgender woman , a lesbian woman , etc ” .
In other words it seeks to alter the meaning of woman by including men who identify as female in the definition .
Dictionaries have become an important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wars .
Campaigners are constantly placing pressure on dictionaries to include words that they like and censor those that they don ’ t .
A few years ago , a campaign sought to get the OED to remove its reference to “ Essex Girls ” on the ground that it was a lazy sexist stereotype .
In this instance the OED stood its ground .
Trans activists have been more successful .
In September 2019 , Merriam-Webster dictionary announced that it will update the meaning of the pronoun “ they ” to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identity is non-binary ” .
Not to be outdone , Collins Dictionary reported that it was adding the word “ non-binary ” to the dictionary .
A few months later , Merriam-Webster declared that the non-binary pronoun “ they ” was their word of the year .
In their study , Forbidden words : taboo and censoring language , the authors Keith Allen and Kate Burridge stated that unlike normal censoring activities , which are aimed at the maintenance of the status quo , the current form of linguistic policing seeks to promote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are oriented towards the objective of altering how people behave and in particular how they identify themselves .
For that reason their strategy of verbal purification is particularly directed towards influencing the socialisation of young people .
As the authors of the petition note , “ we can take a serious step towards reducing the harm this is causing our young women and girls by looking at our language — and this starts with the dictionary ” .
Unfortunately it does not end with the dictionary .
In recent months , there has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the language police .
To take one example , at Leicester University students who expected to celebrate International Women ’ s Day have discovered that instead the event has been rebranded as International Womxn Day .
The university justified the the move by stating ‘ ‘ We use the term ‘ womxn ’ as a more inclusive spelling of ‘ women ’ that includes any person who identifies as a womxn ” .
That ’ s another way of saying that the age-long the meaning of a woman has become the casualty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How long before campaigners insist that womxn becomes Oxford Dictionary ’ s word of the year ?
In his important essay , ‘ Politics and the English Language ’ , George Orwell foresaw the corrosive impact of verbal purification on human life .
He warned that : “ If thought corrupts language , language can also corrupt thought .
A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.
” At present , far too many people who do know better have opted for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the corruption of language .
They need to realize that if we allow them to decide what words we can and can not use , they will end up controlling our most intimate thoughts .

The language war is in full swing.
An open letter signed by leaders of Women’s Aid and the Women’s Equality Party demands that Oxford Dictionaries change their “sexist” definition of the word ‘woman.’
The authors of the letter published this week complain that the dictionary refers to a woman as a “bitch” or a “maid”, while a man is described as “a person with the qualities associated with males, such as bravery, spirit, or toughness.”
Like all serious dictionaries, Oxford draws attention to the different terms that are used in relation to a word. The campaign — which started last year with a petition by Maria Beatrice Giovanardi — wants the dictionary to drop terms such as “bitch”, “wench”, “bird” or “frail” in its historical definition of a woman.
The aim of this campaign is not simply to get Oxford University Press to erase references to words it does not like. Its main objective is to alter the way that people think about men, women, gender and identity.
The authors of the petition clearly resent the fact that the term ‘man’ still conveys positive attributes. It complains that Oxford’s definition of a ‘man’ is much more exhaustive than that of a ‘woman’ — with 25 examples for men, compared to only 5 for women. Implicit in this criticism is the aspiration to define man downwards.
Although the focus of the campaign is on challenging sexist language, it is actually about promoting a fundamental revision of the way people speak, behave and think about gender and sex.
This objective becomes clear in its demand to “enlarge the dictionary’s entry for ‘woman’,” as the petition puts it. To illustrate what the enlargement of the entry for “woman” means, it demands the inclusion of “examples representative of minorities, for example, a transgender woman, a lesbian woman, etc”. In other words it seeks to alter the meaning of woman by including men who identify as female in the definition.
Dictionaries have become an important site for the waging of the language wars. Campaigners are constantly placing pressure on dictionaries to include words that they like and censor those that they don’t.
A few years ago, a campaign sought to get the OED to remove its reference to “Essex Girls” on the ground that it was a lazy sexist stereotype. In this instance the OED stood its ground.
Trans activists have been more successful. In September 2019, Merriam-Webster dictionary announced that it will update the meaning of the pronoun “they” to “refer to a single person whose gender identity is non-binary”.
Not to be outdone, Collins Dictionary reported that it was adding the word “non-binary” to the dictionary. A few months later, Merriam-Webster declared that the non-binary pronoun “they” was their word of the year.
In their study, Forbidden words: taboo and censoring language, the authors Keith Allen and Kate Burridge stated that unlike normal censoring activities, which are aimed at the maintenance of the status quo, the current form of linguistic policing seeks to promote political and social change. Such campaigns are oriented towards the objective of altering how people behave and in particular how they identify themselves. For that reason their strategy of verbal purification is particularly directed towards influencing the socialisation of young people.
As the authors of the petition note, “we can take a serious step towards reducing the harm this is causing our young women and girls by looking at our language — and this starts with the dictionary”.
Unfortunately it does not end with the dictionary. In recent months, there has been a veritable explosion in the activities of the language police. To take one example, at Leicester University students who expected to celebrate International Women’s Day have discovered that instead the event has been rebranded as International Womxn Day. The university justified the the move by stating ‘‘We use the term ‘womxn’ as a more inclusive spelling of ‘women’ that includes any person who identifies as a womxn”. That’s another way of saying that the age-long the meaning of a woman has become the casualty of the Leicester University language police. How long before campaigners insist that womxn becomes Oxford Dictionary’s word of the year?
In his important essay, ‘Politics and the English Language’, George Orwell foresaw the corrosive impact of verbal purification on human life. He warned that:
“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.”
At present, far too many people who do know better have opted for an easy life, and have acquiesced to the corruption of language. They need to realize that if we allow them to decide what words we can and cannot use, they will end up controlling our most intimate thoughts.


newswars--2020-03-04--Is the Fed Ready for a Recession?

Is the Fed Ready for a Recession?

On February 11 , 2020 , Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell delivered a semiannual report discussing the economy and laying out the good , the bad , and the precautions that the Fed must take in the event of a future economic downturn .
Although Powell spoke on a lot of positive features that are occurring in the United States economy , he raised a few risks that the Fed has taken that have put it in a challenging predicament to face the next recession .
Reflecting on last year ’ s monetary policy , Powell noted that the Fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of a boost to the United States economy in response to a lackluster global growth of 2.4 percent in the first half of the year .
In the second half of the year , the Fed felt that the economy had stabilized itself and decided to keep rates unchanged following the uncertainty surrounding the trade deal with China .
As a result of keeping rates artificially low , the Fed helped bolster equity markets , which rose to all-time highs , with the S & P 500 returning 28.9 percent last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.7 percent .
In the report , Powell discussed the risky situation that the Fed has put itself in as a result of lowering interest rates , saying , “ This low interest rate environment may limit the ability of central banks to reduce policy interest rates enough to support the economy during a downturn.
” He stressed the importance of the federal government becoming more fiscally responsible in order for it to provide additional support during an economic downturn .
To summarize Powell ’ s speech , interest rates are historically low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be lowered to help stimulate the economy out of the downturn .
In consequence , the Fed will require a government that is addicted to spending to be more fiscally conservative to provide additional support when the need arises .
Currently , the status of the Fed isn ’ t too sensational ; it is more concerning than anything else , as its most recent quarterly report shows that it is overleveraged at $ 100.74 in debt for every dollar in liquid cash .
Meanwhile , the federal government that the Fed hopes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deficit of $ 984 billion last year and is expected to hit $ 1 trillion this year , while holding a national debt that has ballooned to over $ 23.22 trillion .
The situation of the Fed can likened to that of an individual with $ 500 in their savings account who is driving an old vehicle whose repairs could cost well over $ 500 hoping that their gambling-addicted relative will pay for the shortfall .
The danger of our present situation is that interest rates are nearing zero ( the fed funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Figure 1.1. shows ) while nonfinancial corporate debt is over $ 10 trillion , which had increased by over 50 percent when we came out of the crisis in 2009 at $ 6.5 trillion .
The more the Fed suppresses rates , the higher they will have to rise , and the longer they are held down , the lengthier the correction could be .
When interest rates begin to rise , the cost to borrow into the future and possibly to sustain existing debt becomes higher , resulting in less capital for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many business ventures that were profitable when rates were low may become unprofitable as rates go up .
Why Rates Would Need to Go down to Keep the Bubble from Popping As a result of the increase in rates , businesses that borrowed too much or are not adequately funded will have to cut expenses to survive , resulting in layoffs .
If a corporation can not cover the cost via layoffs , it will eventually go bust and shut down , causing further unemployment .
The situation begins to trickle outward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resulting in less discretionary income for individuals to spend on goods and services .
Moreover , pessimistic investors begin to sell their equity positions , ushering in a bear market and decimating corporate valuations in many cases .
The position that the Fed finds itself in today , in which it is artificially boosting the market by suppressing rates , means that it faces a risk in terms of its ability to be a lender of last resort and provide the economic stability that it was designed to provide .
After all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , markets remain near multi-year highs and remain sensitive to news and even minor disruptions .
One slipup from the Fed in monetary policy or a statement by the chairman that questions its ability to perform its role could possibly lead the entire market into a long , sustained sell-off .
As a result , the Fed is walking on thin ice while telling the public that it ’ s standing on a rock-solid foundation .

On February 11, 2020, Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell delivered a semiannual report discussing the economy and laying out the good, the bad, and the precautions that the Fed must take in the event of a future economic downturn.
Although Powell spoke on a lot of positive features that are occurring in the United States economy, he raised a few risks that the Fed has taken that have put it in a challenging predicament to face the next recession.
Reflecting on last year’s monetary policy, Powell noted that the Fed embarked on lowering rates to provide a bit of a boost to the United States economy in response to a lackluster global growth of 2.4 percent in the first half of the year. In the second half of the year, the Fed felt that the economy had stabilized itself and decided to keep rates unchanged following the uncertainty surrounding the trade deal with China. As a result of keeping rates artificially low, the Fed helped bolster equity markets, which rose to all-time highs, with the S&P 500 returning 28.9 percent last year even though earnings growth lagged at just 1.7 percent.
In the report, Powell discussed the risky situation that the Fed has put itself in as a result of lowering interest rates, saying, “This low interest rate environment may limit the ability of central banks to reduce policy interest rates enough to support the economy during a downturn.” He stressed the importance of the federal government becoming more fiscally responsible in order for it to provide additional support during an economic downturn.
To summarize Powell’s speech, interest rates are historically low but not high enough for them to be lowered to help stimulate the economy out of the downturn. In consequence, the Fed will require a government that is addicted to spending to be more fiscally conservative to provide additional support when the need arises.
Currently, the status of the Fed isn’t too sensational; it is more concerning than anything else, as its most recent quarterly report shows that it is overleveraged at $100.74 in debt for every dollar in liquid cash. Meanwhile, the federal government that the Fed hopes will be more fiscally conservative ran a deficit of $984 billion last year and is expected to hit $1 trillion this year, while holding a national debt that has ballooned to over $23.22 trillion.
The situation of the Fed can likened to that of an individual with $500 in their savings account who is driving an old vehicle whose repairs could cost well over $500 hoping that their gambling-addicted relative will pay for the shortfall. The danger of our present situation is that interest rates are nearing zero (the fed funds rate is currently 1.5 percent, as Figure 1.1. shows) while nonfinancial corporate debt is over $10 trillion, which had increased by over 50 percent when we came out of the crisis in 2009 at $6.5 trillion.
The more the Fed suppresses rates, the higher they will have to rise, and the longer they are held down, the lengthier the correction could be. When interest rates begin to rise, the cost to borrow into the future and possibly to sustain existing debt becomes higher, resulting in less capital for businesses to spend on production. Also, many business ventures that were profitable when rates were low may become unprofitable as rates go up.
Why Rates Would Need to Go down to Keep the Bubble from Popping
As a result of the increase in rates, businesses that borrowed too much or are not adequately funded will have to cut expenses to survive, resulting in layoffs. If a corporation cannot cover the cost via layoffs, it will eventually go bust and shut down, causing further unemployment. The situation begins to trickle outward as more individuals leave the workforce, resulting in less discretionary income for individuals to spend on goods and services. Moreover, pessimistic investors begin to sell their equity positions, ushering in a bear market and decimating corporate valuations in many cases.
The position that the Fed finds itself in today, in which it is artificially boosting the market by suppressing rates, means that it faces a risk in terms of its ability to be a lender of last resort and provide the economic stability that it was designed to provide. After all, even considering last week’s sell-off, markets remain near multi-year highs and remain sensitive to news and even minor disruptions. One slipup from the Fed in monetary policy or a statement by the chairman that questions its ability to perform its role could possibly lead the entire market into a long, sustained sell-off. As a result, the Fed is walking on thin ice while telling the public that it’s standing on a rock-solid foundation.


newswars--2020-03-04--Coronavirus: Central Banks Stand Ready with More “Stimulus”

The nearest example in modern history to the present medical emergency supply shock is the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries ( OPEC ) oil embargo of autumn and winter 1973 .
That earlier shock was the catalyst to the Federal Reserve leading the world ( except for Germany ) along the path of intensified monetary inflation .
Now , in response to the COVID-19 ( coronavirus disease 2019 ) shock , the US is set to take the world into a new severe phase of fiat money degradation .
All of this is subject to the normal proviso that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A note on supply shocks : their essence is a sudden dislocation impeding the application of resources , whether labor or capital , to creating output .
In the present situation , the spread of illness and enforced quarantines have been the first cause of production stops , starting in China .
Global supply chains have seized up .
The second cause has been a more general affliction—the sudden inability of a wide range of firms around the world to deliver services free of serious infection risk or of emergency restrictive action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential spreaders become quarantined ) .
We can think here of travel , hospitality , big events , education , and entertainment .
In these supply shocks there is huge uncertainty as to the extent of disruption ahead .
No one knew how long OPEC would maintain its embargo or whether it would intensify .
In the case of COVID-19 the uncertainty has much to do with the unknown nature of the virus , whether it will recede seasonally , the effectiveness and speed of any vaccine yet to be developed , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actions ( either in recognizing defeat or victory in the fight to contain the illness ) .
Commonly during these supply shocks the lead managers of the fiat money regime respond with “ stimulus.
” Decisions are made in the corridors of the central banks and governments regarding emergency loans to financial institutions which could become immersed in “ transitory illiquidity ” related to their exposure to businesses that suddenly experience cash flow crisis .
Deliberations proceed quickly to countering economic downturn with monetary stimulus .
The realization is widespread , even in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ club , that money printing can not miraculously bring back lost supply .
In any event , the amount of output foregone is itself highly uncertain .
Very likely , when the dislocations recede , there will be some catch-up , with production well above trend as depleted inventories are rebuilt and stacked orders delivered against .
Even in the service sector the amelioration of supply conditions ( which will occur if the pandemic recedes or emergency action fades and people come to an “ accommodation ” with the virus ) could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ households determined to make up for the rigors of recent self-enforced isolations .
The rationale for a monetary response according to central bankers is to counter supposed demand depression stemming from the original supply disruption .
In the case of the oil shock of 1973 , one narrative of the would-be stimulators was that the payment of oil tax to OPEC over many years to come would depress consumer spending in the oil importing world while the new rich among the oil exporters would have endemically high savings rates .
A more urgent-sounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full-blown recession that was already on its way before the oil embargo struck ; the Arthur Burns Fed had reacted to data shock revealing double-digit core consumer price rises by violently reversing from spring 1973 its earlier policy of powerful monetary inflation .
Now the urgent argument advanced by the central bankers for monetary stimulus is to resist a serious fall in asset prices , which could aggravate and extend the economic downturn .
Some also whisper a longer-term argument—the countering of a possibly entrenched weakness of household and business spending beyond the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once dislocations ease , as firms and households maimed during the disruption phase seek to rebuild their finances .
Who knows ?
There may be long-lingering brakes on investment spending as globalization slows and on consumer spending in a world where social events never recover their previous scale as participants remain subject to substantial infection risk .
The idea that central bankers by using monetary instruments can fine tune the cycle ahead and counter a presumed episode of spending weakness has no basis in fact or principle .
For the record , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the oil embargo ended in a new bout of double-digit inflation during the economic expansion of 1975–79 , with inflation barely falling at first to 5 percent ( in 1976 ) .
The alternative purpose of monetary action , to prevent “ asset market disinflation ” such as would occur if speculative temperatures eased on a sustained basis from recent speculative highs , could well end in tears long before the November 2020 US election ( and the elections in Japan and Germany scheduled for 2021 ) .
The full extent of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regime that central bankers around the globe , led by the Fed , could bring becomes more apparent when we consider the hypothetical world of sound money as comparison .
If subjected suddenly to pandemic , a world on the gold standard would not respond by generating monetary stimulus .
Yes , there could be some serious swings in the prices of goods and services—both relative to each other and on average through the various stages of adjustment .
During a lull in economic activity following the catch-up period , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level .
Long-term interest rates could fall during phases of weakened demand for long-term credit .
Yes , there could be some adverse events in credit markets .
But that would all be par for the course , with invisible hands steering the market economy through these hazards .
Back to the real world : as the COVID-19 supply shock is erupting , the globe is already steeped in a long monetary inflation ( albeit more evident in asset than in goods markets ) , with the Fed ’ s faint attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The dose of monetary inflation now starting to be administered will most likely not prevent the National Bureau of Economic Research ( NBER ) determining a US recession with a start in 2020 and a finish in 2020 or 2021 ( and included in this recession would be an intermediate phase of rebound from the most intense supply-side dislocations ) .
Beyond looms a powerful rise in goods and services inflation as nonmonetary forces of disinflation weaken .
We should think here of a slowdown in globalization , a completion of labor market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth ( the consequence of huge cumulative malinvestment ) .
Alongside , by contrast , asset inflation could lose some of its virulence of recent years as once popular narratives sour while credit events and increased market volatility take their toll on irrational exuberance .

The nearest example in modern history to the present medical emergency supply shock is the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo of autumn and winter 1973.
That earlier shock was the catalyst to the Federal Reserve leading the world (except for Germany) along the path of intensified monetary inflation. Now, in response to the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) shock, the US is set to take the world into a new severe phase of fiat money degradation. All of this is subject to the normal proviso that history echoes but does not repeat itself.
A note on supply shocks: their essence is a sudden dislocation impeding the application of resources, whether labor or capital, to creating output. In the present situation, the spread of illness and enforced quarantines have been the first cause of production stops, starting in China. Global supply chains have seized up. The second cause has been a more general affliction—the sudden inability of a wide range of firms around the world to deliver services free of serious infection risk or of emergency restrictive action (in which buyers later identified as potential spreaders become quarantined). We can think here of travel, hospitality, big events, education, and entertainment.
In these supply shocks there is huge uncertainty as to the extent of disruption ahead. No one knew how long OPEC would maintain its embargo or whether it would intensify. In the case of COVID-19 the uncertainty has much to do with the unknown nature of the virus, whether it will recede seasonally, the effectiveness and speed of any vaccine yet to be developed, and length of time until governments rescind emergency actions (either in recognizing defeat or victory in the fight to contain the illness).
Commonly during these supply shocks the lead managers of the fiat money regime respond with “stimulus.” Decisions are made in the corridors of the central banks and governments regarding emergency loans to financial institutions which could become immersed in “transitory illiquidity” related to their exposure to businesses that suddenly experience cash flow crisis. Deliberations proceed quickly to countering economic downturn with monetary stimulus.
The realization is widespread, even in the private rooms of the central bankers’ club, that money printing cannot miraculously bring back lost supply. In any event, the amount of output foregone is itself highly uncertain. Very likely, when the dislocations recede, there will be some catch-up, with production well above trend as depleted inventories are rebuilt and stacked orders delivered against. Even in the service sector the amelioration of supply conditions (which will occur if the pandemic recedes or emergency action fades and people come to an “accommodation” with the virus) could bring about a similar catch-up, with households determined to make up for the rigors of recent self-enforced isolations.
The rationale for a monetary response according to central bankers is to counter supposed demand depression stemming from the original supply disruption. In the case of the oil shock of 1973, one narrative of the would-be stimulators was that the payment of oil tax to OPEC over many years to come would depress consumer spending in the oil importing world while the new rich among the oil exporters would have endemically high savings rates. A more urgent-sounding narrative was the need to counter a full-blown recession that was already on its way before the oil embargo struck; the Arthur Burns Fed had reacted to data shock revealing double-digit core consumer price rises by violently reversing from spring 1973 its earlier policy of powerful monetary inflation.
Now the urgent argument advanced by the central bankers for monetary stimulus is to resist a serious fall in asset prices, which could aggravate and extend the economic downturn. Some also whisper a longer-term argument—the countering of a possibly entrenched weakness of household and business spending beyond the catch-up of economic activity that will occur once dislocations ease, as firms and households maimed during the disruption phase seek to rebuild their finances. Who knows? There may be long-lingering brakes on investment spending as globalization slows and on consumer spending in a world where social events never recover their previous scale as participants remain subject to substantial infection risk.
The idea that central bankers by using monetary instruments can fine tune the cycle ahead and counter a presumed episode of spending weakness has no basis in fact or principle. For the record, the Arthur Burns experiment in the aftermath of the oil embargo ended in a new bout of double-digit inflation during the economic expansion of 1975–79, with inflation barely falling at first to 5 percent (in 1976). The alternative purpose of monetary action, to prevent “asset market disinflation” such as would occur if speculative temperatures eased on a sustained basis from recent speculative highs, could well end in tears long before the November 2020 US election (and the elections in Japan and Germany scheduled for 2021).
The full extent of the further potential decay in our fiat monetary regime that central bankers around the globe, led by the Fed, could bring becomes more apparent when we consider the hypothetical world of sound money as comparison. If subjected suddenly to pandemic, a world on the gold standard would not respond by generating monetary stimulus. Yes, there could be some serious swings in the prices of goods and services—both relative to each other and on average through the various stages of adjustment. During a lull in economic activity following the catch-up period, for example, prices could fall to a transitorily lower level. Long-term interest rates could fall during phases of weakened demand for long-term credit. Yes, there could be some adverse events in credit markets. But that would all be par for the course, with invisible hands steering the market economy through these hazards.
Back to the real world: as the COVID-19 supply shock is erupting, the globe is already steeped in a long monetary inflation (albeit more evident in asset than in goods markets), with the Fed’s faint attempt to pull back in 2018 long aborted. The dose of monetary inflation now starting to be administered will most likely not prevent the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) determining a US recession with a start in 2020 and a finish in 2020 or 2021 (and included in this recession would be an intermediate phase of rebound from the most intense supply-side dislocations).
Beyond looms a powerful rise in goods and services inflation as nonmonetary forces of disinflation weaken. We should think here of a slowdown in globalization, a completion of labor market adjustment to digitalization, and anemic productivity growth (the consequence of huge cumulative malinvestment). Alongside, by contrast, asset inflation could lose some of its virulence of recent years as once popular narratives sour while credit events and increased market volatility take their toll on irrational exuberance.


newswars--2020-03-04--“Political Anarchy” Is How the West Got Rich

It is not uncommon to encounter political theorists and pundits who insist that political centralization is a boon to economic growth .
In both cases , it is claimed the presence of a unifying central regime—whether in Brussels or in Washington , DC , for example—is essential in ensuring the efficient and free flow of goods throughout a large jurisdiction .
This , we are told , will greatly accelerate economic growth .
In many ways , the model is the United States , inside of which there are virtually no barriers to trade or migration at all between member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been falling rapidly in recent decades .
The historical evidence , however , suggests that political unity is not actually a catalyst to economic growth or innovation over the long term .
In fact , the European experience suggests that the opposite is true .
Why Did Europe Surpass China in Wealth and Growth ?
A thousand years ago , a visitor from another planet might have easily overlooked European civilization as a poor backwater .
Instead , China and the Islamic world may have looked far more likely to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why is it , then , that Europe became the wealthiest and most technologically advanced civilization in the world ?
Indeed , the fact that Europe had grown to surpass other civilizations that were once more scientifically and technologically advanced had become apparent by the nineteenth century .
Historians have debated the question of the origins of this “ European miracle ” ever since .
consists in a simple but momentous fact : It was in Europe—and the extensions of Europe , above all , America—that human beings first achieved per capita @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
In this way , European society eluded the “ Malthusian trap , ” enabling new tens of millions to survive and the population as a whole to escape the hopeless misery that had been the lot of the great mass of the human race in earlier times .
The question is : why Europe ?
Across the spectrum of historians , theories about Europe ’ s economic development have been varied , to say the least .
But one of the most important characteristics of European civilization—ever since the collapse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s political decentralization .
Although geographical factors played a role , the key to western development is to be found in the fact that , while Europe constituted a single civilization—Latin Christendom—it was at the same time radically decentralized .
In contrast to other cultures—especially China , India , and the Islamic world—Europe comprised a system of divided and , hence , competing powers and jurisdictions .
Although modern EU centralizers are attempting it , at no point has European civilization ever fallen under the dominion of a single state as has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the early modern period , as some polities managed to form absolutist states , much of Europe — such as the highly dynamic areas in the Low Countries , Northern Italy , and the German cities — remained in flux and highly decentralized .
The rise of the merchant classes , banking , and an urban middle class — which began as early as the Middle Ages and were so essential in building the a future industrial Europe — thrived without large states .
After all , while a large polity with few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ markets with fewer transaction costs , concentrating power in one place brings big risks ; a state that can facilitate trade across a large empire is also a state that can stifle trade through regulation , taxation , and even expropriation .
The former vast kingdoms and empires of Asia may have once been well positioned to foster the creation of a wealthy merchant class and middle class .
But the fact is this didn ’ t happen .
Those states instead focused on stifling threats to state power , centralizing political control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the imposition of fines and penalties on those who were disfavored by the ruling classes .
In contrast , Europe was relatively anarchic compared to other world civilizations and became the home of the great economic leap forward that we now take for granted .
This isn ’ t “ anarchy ” in the sense of “ chaos , ” of course .
This is anarchy as understood by political scientists : the lack of any single controlling state or authority .
In key periods of the continent ’ s development—as now—there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and no European empire .
Thus , in his book The Origins of Capitalism , historian Jean Bachler concludes : The first condition for the maximization of economic efficiency is the liberation of civil society with respect to the state….The expansion of capitalism owes its origins and raison d ’ être to political anarchy .
( emphasis in original ) For many years , economic historians have attempted to find correlations between this political anarchy and Europe ’ s economic success .
Many have found the connection to be undeniable .
Economist Douglass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The failures of the most likely candidates , China and Islam , point the direction of our inquiry .
Centralized political control limits the options—limits the alternatives that will be pursued in a context of uncertainty about the long-run consequences of political and economic decisions .
It was precisely the lack of large scale political and economic order that created the environment essential to economic growth and ultimately human freedoms .
In the competitive decentralized environment lots of alternatives were pursued ; some worked , as in the Netherlands and England ; some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Portugal ; and some , such as France , fell in between these two extremes .
But why exactly does this sort of radical decentralization “ limit the options ” for ruling princes and kings ?
Freedom increases , because under a decentralized system , there are more “ alternatives ” —to use North ’ s term—available to those seeking to avoid what E.L. Jones calls “ predatory government tax behavior.
” Thus , historian David Landes emphasized the importance of “ multiple , competing polities ” in Europe in setting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possess [ ing ] a social and political vitality without precedent or counterpart .
This varied , needless to say , from one part of Europe to another…And sometimes adventitious events like war or a change of sovereign produced a major alteration in the circumstances of the business classes .
On balance , however , the place of private enterprise was secure and improving with time ; and this is apparent in the institutional arrangements that governed the getting and spending of wealth .
It was this “ latent competition between states , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pursue policies designed to attract capital .
More competent princes and kings adopted policies that led to economic prosperity in neighboring polities , and thus “ freedom of movement among the nation-states offered opportunities for ‘ best practices ’ to diffuse in many spheres , not least the economic.
” Since European states were relatively small and weak—yet culturally similar to many neighboring jurisdictions—abuses of power by the ruling classes led to declines in both revenue and in the most valuable residents .
Rulers sought to counter this by guaranteeing protections for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean there were never abuses of power , of course , but as Landes observed : To be sure , kings could , and did , make or break men of business ; but the power of the sovereign was constrained by the requirements of states…and international competition .
Capitalists could take their wealth and enterprise elsewhere and even if they could not leave , the capitalists of other realms would not be slow to profit from their discomfiture .
Nor was decentralization limited to the international system of separate sovereign states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ state and the church , and between kings and nobles , decentralization was common even within polities .
Raico continues : Decentralization of power also came to mark the domestic arrangements of the various European polities .
Here feudalism—which produced a nobility rooted in feudal right rather than in state-service—is thought by a number of scholars to have played an essential role….Through the struggle for power within the realms , representative bodies came into being , and princes often found their hands tied by the charters of rights ( Magna Carta , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grant their subjects .
In the end , even within the relatively small states of Europe , power was dispersed among estates , orders , chartered towns , religious communities , corps , universities , etc.
, each with its own guaranteed liberties .
Over the long term , however , it was the system of international anarchy that appears to have ensured that states were constrained in their ability to tax and extort the merchant classes and middle classes , who were such a key component of Europe ’ s rising economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smaller Polities Even today , we continue to see these factors at work .
Small states—especially in Europe and the Americas—tend to have higher incomes and have greater openness .
We can see this in the microstates of Europe and in the Caribbean .
Small states , seeking to attract capital , often undercut larger neighbors in terms of taxes .
It is true that one of the most economically successful polities in the world today is a large one : the United States .
The US ’ s success , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of political decentralization internally—especially during the nineteenth century—and to the latent , albeit receding , economic liberalism esteemed by much of its population .
Europe , of course , was already rich—and relatively politically free compared to the despotic regimes of the East—long before it began to centralize political power under the banner of the European Union .
Today , however , we are seeing the impoverishing downside of decades of political centralization in both the US and Europe .
Government regulations decreed from Brussels and Washington continue to stifle innovation and entrepreneurship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down on low taxes in smaller member states .
Both the EU and the US are erecting trade barriers to producers outside their trading blocs .
The antidote to all of this is to decentralize .
Decentralization , after all , has never been a true barrier to economic growth .
If anything , the rise of mobile capital and global trade has made economic success more attainable for small states than ever before .
Moreover , the implosion of the Soviet Union provides yet another example of how the disintegration of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic progress than had been thought possible .
Unfortunately , those in power , who benefit from the status quo and from holding the reins of large states , are unlikely to relinquish their power without a fight .

It is not uncommon to encounter political theorists and pundits who insist that political centralization is a boon to economic growth.
In both cases, it is claimed the presence of a unifying central regime—whether in Brussels or in Washington, DC, for example—is essential in ensuring the efficient and free flow of goods throughout a large jurisdiction. This, we are told, will greatly accelerate economic growth.
In many ways, the model is the United States, inside of which there are virtually no barriers to trade or migration at all between member states. In the EU, barriers have been falling rapidly in recent decades.
The historical evidence, however, suggests that political unity is not actually a catalyst to economic growth or innovation over the long term. In fact, the European experience suggests that the opposite is true.
Why Did Europe Surpass China in Wealth and Growth?
A thousand years ago, a visitor from another planet might have easily overlooked European civilization as a poor backwater. Instead, China and the Islamic world may have looked far more likely to be the world leaders in wealth and innovation indefinitely.
Why is it, then, that Europe became the wealthiest and most technologically advanced civilization in the world?
Indeed, the fact that Europe had grown to surpass other civilizations that were once more scientifically and technologically advanced had become apparent by the nineteenth century. Historians have debated the question of the origins of this “European miracle” ever since.
This “miracle,” historian Ralph Raico tells us,
consists in a simple but momentous fact: It was in Europe—and the extensions of Europe, above all, America—that human beings first achieved per capita economic growth over a long period of time. In this way, European society eluded the “Malthusian trap,” enabling new tens of millions to survive and the population as a whole to escape the hopeless misery that had been the lot of the great mass of the human race in earlier times. The question is: why Europe?
Across the spectrum of historians, theories about Europe’s economic development have been varied, to say the least. But one of the most important characteristics of European civilization—ever since the collapse of the Western Roman Empire—has been Europe’s political decentralization.
Raico continues:
Although geographical factors played a role, the key to western development is to be found in the fact that, while Europe constituted a single civilization—Latin Christendom—it was at the same time radically decentralized. In contrast to other cultures—especially China, India, and the Islamic world—Europe comprised a system of divided and, hence, competing powers and jurisdictions.
Although modern EU centralizers are attempting it, at no point has European civilization ever fallen under the dominion of a single state as has been the case in China. Even during the early modern period, as some polities managed to form absolutist states, much of Europe — such as the highly dynamic areas in the Low Countries, Northern Italy, and the German cities — remained in flux and highly decentralized. The rise of the merchant classes, banking, and an urban middle class — which began as early as the Middle Ages and were so essential in building the a future industrial Europe — thrived without large states.
After all, while a large polity with few internal borders can indeed lead to large markets with fewer transaction costs, concentrating power in one place brings big risks; a state that can facilitate trade across a large empire is also a state that can stifle trade through regulation, taxation, and even expropriation.
The former vast kingdoms and empires of Asia may have once been well positioned to foster the creation of a wealthy merchant class and middle class. But the fact is this didn’t happen. Those states instead focused on stifling threats to state power, centralizing political control of markets, and extorting the public through the imposition of fines and penalties on those who were disfavored by the ruling classes.
The Benefits of “Anarchy”
In contrast, Europe was relatively anarchic compared to other world civilizations and became the home of the great economic leap forward that we now take for granted. This isn’t “anarchy” in the sense of “chaos,” of course. This is anarchy as understood by political scientists: the lack of any single controlling state or authority. In key periods of the continent’s development—as now—there was no ruler of “Europe” and no European empire. Thus, in his book The Origins of Capitalism, historian Jean Bachler concludes:
The first condition for the maximization of economic efficiency is the liberation of civil society with respect to the state….The expansion of capitalism owes its origins and raison d’être to political anarchy. (emphasis in original)
For many years, economic historians have attempted to find correlations between this political anarchy and Europe’s economic success. Many have found the connection to be undeniable. Economist Douglass North, for instance, concludes:
The failures of the most likely candidates, China and Islam, point the direction of our inquiry. Centralized political control limits the options—limits the alternatives that will be pursued in a context of uncertainty about the long-run consequences of political and economic decisions. It was precisely the lack of large scale political and economic order that created the environment essential to economic growth and ultimately human freedoms. In the competitive decentralized environment lots of alternatives were pursued; some worked, as in the Netherlands and England; some failed as in the case of Spain and Portugal; and some, such as France, fell in between these two extremes.
Competition among Governments Means More Freedom
But why exactly does this sort of radical decentralization “limit the options” for ruling princes and kings? Freedom increases, because under a decentralized system, there are more “alternatives”—to use North’s term—available to those seeking to avoid what E.L. Jones calls “predatory government tax behavior.” Thus, historian David Landes emphasized the importance of “multiple, competing polities” in Europe in setting the stage for
private enterprise in the West possess[ing] a social and political vitality without precedent or counterpart. This varied, needless to say, from one part of Europe to another…And sometimes adventitious events like war or a change of sovereign produced a major alteration in the circumstances of the business classes. On balance, however, the place of private enterprise was secure and improving with time; and this is apparent in the institutional arrangements that governed the getting and spending of wealth.
It was this “latent competition between states,” Jones contends that drove individual polities to pursue policies designed to attract capital. More competent princes and kings adopted policies that led to economic prosperity in neighboring polities, and thus “freedom of movement among the nation-states offered opportunities for ‘best practices’ to diffuse in many spheres, not least the economic.” Since European states were relatively small and weak—yet culturally similar to many neighboring jurisdictions—abuses of power by the ruling classes led to declines in both revenue and in the most valuable residents. Rulers sought to counter this by guaranteeing protections for private property.
This doesn’t mean there were never abuses of power, of course, but as Landes observed:
To be sure, kings could, and did, make or break men of business; but the power of the sovereign was constrained by the requirements of states…and international competition. Capitalists could take their wealth and enterprise elsewhere and even if they could not leave, the capitalists of other realms would not be slow to profit from their discomfiture.
Nor was decentralization limited to the international system of separate sovereign states.
Thanks to the longtime tug-of-war between the state and the church, and between kings and nobles, decentralization was common even within polities. Raico continues:
Decentralization of power also came to mark the domestic arrangements of the various European polities. Here feudalism—which produced a nobility rooted in feudal right rather than in state-service—is thought by a number of scholars to have played an essential role….Through the struggle for power within the realms, representative bodies came into being, and princes often found their hands tied by the charters of rights (Magna Carta, for instance) which they were forced to grant their subjects. In the end, even within the relatively small states of Europe, power was dispersed among estates, orders, chartered towns, religious communities, corps, universities, etc., each with its own guaranteed liberties.
Over the long term, however, it was the system of international anarchy that appears to have ensured that states were constrained in their ability to tax and extort the merchant classes and middle classes, who were such a key component of Europe’s rising economic fortunes.
We Need a Return to Smaller Polities
Even today, we continue to see these factors at work. Small states—especially in Europe and the Americas—tend to have higher incomes and have greater openness. We can see this in the microstates of Europe and in the Caribbean. Small states, seeking to attract capital, often undercut larger neighbors in terms of taxes.
It is true that one of the most economically successful polities in the world today is a large one: the United States. The US’s success, however, can be attributed to the enduring presence of political decentralization internally—especially during the nineteenth century—and to the latent, albeit receding, economic liberalism esteemed by much of its population. Europe, of course, was already rich—and relatively politically free compared to the despotic regimes of the East—long before it began to centralize political power under the banner of the European Union.
Today, however, we are seeing the impoverishing downside of decades of political centralization in both the US and Europe. Government regulations decreed from Brussels and Washington continue to stifle innovation and entrepreneurship. The EU has sought to crack down on low taxes in smaller member states. Both the EU and the US are erecting trade barriers to producers outside their trading blocs.
The antidote to all of this is to decentralize. Decentralization, after all, has never been a true barrier to economic growth. If anything, the rise of mobile capital and global trade has made economic success more attainable for small states than ever before. Moreover, the implosion of the Soviet Union provides yet another example of how the disintegration of a large state can lead to far more economic progress than had been thought possible.
Unfortunately, those in power, who benefit from the status quo and from holding the reins of large states, are unlikely to relinquish their power without a fight.


newswars--2020-03-04--Lockheed Martin Stops F-35 Manufacturing in Japan, Italy Due to Coronavirus Outbreak

Local production of Lockheed Martin ’ s F-35 Lightning II jet has been temporarily paused in Italy and Japan following the outbreak of the COVID-19 novel coronavirus in those countries .
Local governments have directed workers to stay home , if possible .
Manufacturing work on F-35 stealth jets for the Japanese and Italian air forces has been temporarily paused , US Undersecretary of Defense for acquisition and sustainment Ellen Lord told reporters on Wednesday at the McAleese/Credit Suisse conference in Washington , DC .
Both countries have recorded self-sustaining communities of people infected by COVID-19 , meaning the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recent travel from China , where the disease broke out late last year .
“ In Japan , I believe they shut down the FACO for a week , ” Lord said of the final assembly and checkout ( FACO ) facilities , where the jets are assembled for use by the Japan Air Self-Defense Force .
She further noted that at the Leonardo FACO facility and Pratt & Whitney engine plant in Cameri , Italy , “ Lockheed has directed their employees to work from home.
” “ Right now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is affecting deliveries ” of the F-35 , Lord said .
“ Right now we have not seen any effects.
” In Japan , there are 304 recorded coronavirus cases and six deaths so far .
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ordered the closure of schools across the country on Thursday , and major firms like Panasonic , NEC and Mitsubishi – the latter of which produces F-35s for Lockheed – are mandating remote work for thousands of employees , Fortune reported .
Until late last year , it wasn ’ t clear whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington or build its own .
Only when Mitsubishi announced changes to the assembly process at its Nagoya plant , which reduced program costs by nearly $ 500 million , did the Defense Ministry sign off on the deal , Nikkei Asian Review reported at the time .
In Italy , more than 3,000 coronavirus cases have been reported , and 107 people have died .
Italian health authorities said Wednesday they were considering setting up new quarantine zones in an effort to contain the outbreak .
Two such zones already exist : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ southeast of Milan , and another in Veneto , near Venice .
Like Tokyo , Rome ordered the closure of the country ’ s education system on Wednesday , which will last until March 15 , Civil Protection Agency chief Angelo Borrelli said .
Italy is expected to receive 60 F-35As , which use ordinary airfields , and 30 F-35Bs , which have short takeoff/vertical landing ( STOVL ) capabilities , according to Lockheed Martin .
Japan is expected to receive 105 F-35As and 42 F-35Bs .
On Tuesday , the defense contractor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aircraft , the bulk of which have gone to the US Air Force , Marine Corps and Navy , the latter of which uses its own version , the F-35C .
Alex Jones breaks down why and how America ’ s economic infrastructure will be put to the ultimate test by the panic created by the coronavirus outbreak .

Local production of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II jet has been temporarily paused in Italy and Japan following the outbreak of the COVID-19 novel coronavirus in those countries. Local governments have directed workers to stay home, if possible.
Manufacturing work on F-35 stealth jets for the Japanese and Italian air forces has been temporarily paused, US Undersecretary of Defense for acquisition and sustainment Ellen Lord told reporters on Wednesday at the McAleese/Credit Suisse conference in Washington, DC.
Both countries have recorded self-sustaining communities of people infected by COVID-19, meaning the virus is spreading locally and not directly connected to recent travel from China, where the disease broke out late last year.
“In Japan, I believe they shut down the FACO for a week,” Lord said of the final assembly and checkout (FACO) facilities, where the jets are assembled for use by the Japan Air Self-Defense Force. She further noted that at the Leonardo FACO facility and Pratt & Whitney engine plant in Cameri, Italy, “Lockheed has directed their employees to work from home.”
“Right now, it doesn’t look like it is affecting deliveries” of the F-35, Lord said. “Right now we have not seen any effects.”
In Japan, there are 304 recorded coronavirus cases and six deaths so far. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ordered the closure of schools across the country on Thursday, and major firms like Panasonic, NEC and Mitsubishi – the latter of which produces F-35s for Lockheed – are mandating remote work for thousands of employees, Fortune reported.
Until late last year, it wasn’t clear whether Tokyo would buy its F-35 fleet from Washington or build its own. Only when Mitsubishi announced changes to the assembly process at its Nagoya plant, which reduced program costs by nearly $500 million, did the Defense Ministry sign off on the deal, Nikkei Asian Review reported at the time.
In Italy, more than 3,000 coronavirus cases have been reported, and 107 people have died. Italian health authorities said Wednesday they were considering setting up new quarantine zones in an effort to contain the outbreak. Two such zones already exist: one encompassing 10 towns in Lombardy, southeast of Milan, and another in Veneto, near Venice. Like Tokyo, Rome ordered the closure of the country’s education system on Wednesday, which will last until March 15, Civil Protection Agency chief Angelo Borrelli said.
Italy is expected to receive 60 F-35As, which use ordinary airfields, and 30 F-35Bs, which have short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) capabilities, according to Lockheed Martin. Japan is expected to receive 105 F-35As and 42 F-35Bs. On Tuesday, the defense contractor announced it had delivered its 500th F-35 aircraft, the bulk of which have gone to the US Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, the latter of which uses its own version, the F-35C.
Alex Jones breaks down why and how America’s economic infrastructure will be put to the ultimate test by the panic created by the coronavirus outbreak.


newswars--2020-03-04--Governments Are Using the Coronavirus to Distract From Their Own Failures

The Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Global Cases Monitor shows that the mortality rate of the epidemic is very low .
At the writing of this article , there have been 92,818 cases , 3,195 deaths , and 48,201 recoveries .
It is normal for the media to focus on the first two figures , but I think that it is important to remember the last one .
The recovered figure is more than ten times the deceased one .
This should not make the reader ignore the epidemic , but it is worth reading the scientific study that shows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 60 is less than 1.3 percent , 0.2 percent in the young population , and a maximum of 4 percent on average .
I have attended several debates in international media where scientists repeat these important factors to prevent panicked reactions from the population .
History shows us that these epidemics have diminishing mortality rates and are contained relatively quickly .
We must remember the victims and their families and pray for a quick response from the scientific community , a solution that will surely arrive….Although not in the time that market participants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact is completely different .
There is more logic in the negative reaction of markets , because the coronavirus impact adds to an already weak and bloated global economy that was showing poor growth , high debt , and an evidently disappointing earnings season before any epidemic was included in estimates .
The ramifications are not small .
China has closed 21 provinces that account for about 90 percent of exports and 80 percent of GDP .
At this writing , 13 provinces , which account for around 51 percent of China ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic activity , but at a very slow pace .
China purchasing managers indexes ( PMIs ) came to the lowest level in decades , even below 2008 figures .
Manufacturing PMI fell to 35.7 in February , compared to the previous 50 and estimates of 46 .
More importantly , nonmanufacturing PMI collapsed to an all-time low of 29.6 compared to the previous 54.1 .
Few analysts expected to see China posting recession figures , even in their most negative estimates .
China may print a zero GDP in the first quarter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic shutdown .
The previously mentioned PMIs are important for two reasons : Manufacturing , which was already poor and in contraction in most leading economies , is likely to slump in the first quarter .
However , the second conclusion is even more worrying .
The nonmanufacturing and service sectors have kept the global economy afloat in an earnings and manufacturing contraction , and this time services will be hit harder and for longer .
Why ?
Because the only action that authorities can take to prevent a collapse in the health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down borders , limit travel , cancel large gatherings and events as well as reduce international trading activity to reduce the speed of the virus ’ s spread—not because the mortality rate is high , but to avoid a massive flow of citizens into hospitals and hoarding of medicines .
The reaction of the authorities in many countries and the fear of the unknown generate a domino effect of cancelations of investment decisions as well as a slump in international trade .
As such , we can not fall into the unjustified panic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complacency of thinking , as we read in some economic research papers in February , that all this will be solved in a month and in two months world growth will be relaunched .
We must be cautious because the coronavirus card will be used , as the Brexit and trade war cards before , to slash already optimistic global growth estimates .
Before the epidemic news broke , economies such as Spain , France , Italy , Germany , Japan , or China were already showing weakness in the fourth quarter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which have now entered into a correction phase , had already started the year with weak price action .
We can not forget important signals such as the Baltic Dry index , which reflects the enormous global overcapacity and the collapse in the pricing of maritime freights , or the poor volumes posted by exporters in copper , oil , coal , and iron ore .
In its analysis of economic risks , PricewaterhouseCoopers showed an estimate of the global economic impact that the coronavirus may generate .
It stated that it could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of global GDP , using the methodology of Johns Hopkins and McKibbins and Lee .
However , that impact may well be seen as conservative once we have taken into account the global loss of market value in stocks and the China PMIs .
Bloomberg raised the impact to $ 1 trillion , considering that the effect on commodities , industries , and services will likely be greater than feared in the short term and the recovery may not to be the V-shape that most analysts would want , but slower .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of many economies , especially the eurozone , due to excess debt , low growth , and high interventionism .
We can not forget the impact on emerging markets , either , as they face a massive wall of maturities of more than $ 1.4 trillion in dollar-denominated debt just as the price of commodities collapses and exported volumes slump to new lows .
Deutsche Bank analyzed the economies most exposed to the epidemic and concluded that South Korea , Japan , and Mexico will likely be the most affected , while the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 11 percent of GDP , more or less ) is less impacted .
The biggest mistake , and one that is almost guaranteed to be made , is to try to disguise the economic impact of the epidemic by cutting interest rates ( consensus already discounts a 68 percent probability of Fed rate cuts ) and injecting more liquidity .
No company will invest more with lower-than-zero rates if they are facing a sales decline from an epidemic , and there is an excess of complacency in governments that see their bond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sovereign bond yields make governments believe they are doing the right thing and that there is no risk , two big mistakes , and a very negative combination .
Low bond yields are a signal of high risk aversion , not of excellent government policies .
China and Hong Kong have promised massive spending programs to “ offset the economic impact.
” Huge white elephants , unnecessary public spending projects to disguise the economic impact of an event , can generate a much worse effect and accelerate the path to stagflation .
Core @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact and economic growth stalls .
Let us not forget the lessons from Japan .
the country spent more than $ 6 trillion in massive infrastructure plans after the burst of its real estate bubble and the economy became less dynamic and more debt ridden .
I am convinced that we will have a medical solution to this epidemic , but the real economy and science do not move as fast as market participants would desire .
The excess of pessimism reflected these days can only be explained by the previous and imprudent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial market agents , had at the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020 when stock markets reached new all-time-high levels despite the coronavirus headlines in China , poor earnings , and weak macro news .
In the coming weeks , we have to start thinking about important side effects , such as increased default rates and risks in emerging countries exposed to large monetary and commercial imbalances and analyze them calmly .
Central banks and governments are not going to disguise the real economic impact of the epidemic , rather the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an already weak economic trend .
Many call it “ uncertainty , ” but we have a lot of certainties : • This epidemic ’ s impact will be longer than most would like .
• Central banks and governments will try to disguise the risks with more financial and monetary repression and drown the issue in a sea of spending .
As in all episodes of panic , one of the greatest risks is governments that feel the need to do something quick and massive , probably contributing to that same panic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unnecessary interventionist measures , closing the economy , and disguising the risk with bricks and mortar may be even worse as a solution than the problem itself .
I trust the scientific community and global collaboration networks , but don ’ t forget this : the coronavirus card will be used as an excuse to cut growth and employment estimates , blame an outside enemy , and present the government as the solution by throwing billions into more debt-fueled spending .

The Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Global Cases Monitor shows that the mortality rate of the epidemic is very low.
At the writing of this article, there have been 92,818 cases, 3,195 deaths, and 48,201 recoveries. It is normal for the media to focus on the first two figures, but I think that it is important to remember the last one. The recovered figure is more than ten times the deceased one. This should not make the reader ignore the epidemic, but it is worth reading the scientific study that shows that the death rate in citizens under age 60 is less than 1.3 percent, 0.2 percent in the young population, and a maximum of 4 percent on average.
I have attended several debates in international media where scientists repeat these important factors to prevent panicked reactions from the population. History shows us that these epidemics have diminishing mortality rates and are contained relatively quickly.
We must remember the victims and their families and pray for a quick response from the scientific community, a solution that will surely arrive….Although not in the time that market participants and media would desire.
The economic impact is completely different. There is more logic in the negative reaction of markets, because the coronavirus impact adds to an already weak and bloated global economy that was showing poor growth, high debt, and an evidently disappointing earnings season before any epidemic was included in estimates.
The ramifications are not small. China has closed 21 provinces that account for about 90 percent of exports and 80 percent of GDP. At this writing, 13 provinces, which account for around 51 percent of China’s GDP, have begun to recover economic activity, but at a very slow pace. China purchasing managers indexes (PMIs) came to the lowest level in decades, even below 2008 figures. Manufacturing PMI fell to 35.7 in February, compared to the previous 50 and estimates of 46. More importantly, nonmanufacturing PMI collapsed to an all-time low of 29.6 compared to the previous 54.1.
Few analysts expected to see China posting recession figures, even in their most negative estimates. China may print a zero GDP in the first quarter, which shows the extent of the economic shutdown.
The previously mentioned PMIs are important for two reasons: Manufacturing, which was already poor and in contraction in most leading economies, is likely to slump in the first quarter. However, the second conclusion is even more worrying. The nonmanufacturing and service sectors have kept the global economy afloat in an earnings and manufacturing contraction, and this time services will be hit harder and for longer.
Why? Because the only action that authorities can take to prevent a collapse in the health systems of their countries is to shut down borders, limit travel, cancel large gatherings and events as well as reduce international trading activity to reduce the speed of the virus’s spread—not because the mortality rate is high, but to avoid a massive flow of citizens into hospitals and hoarding of medicines.
The reaction of the authorities in many countries and the fear of the unknown generate a domino effect of cancelations of investment decisions as well as a slump in international trade. As such, we cannot fall into the unjustified panic of a global health disaster or the complacency of thinking, as we read in some economic research papers in February, that all this will be solved in a month and in two months world growth will be relaunched.
We must be cautious because the coronavirus card will be used, as the Brexit and trade war cards before, to slash already optimistic global growth estimates.
Before the epidemic news broke, economies such as Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, or China were already showing weakness in the fourth quarter of 2019. Energy and industrial commodities, which have now entered into a correction phase, had already started the year with weak price action. We cannot forget important signals such as the Baltic Dry index, which reflects the enormous global overcapacity and the collapse in the pricing of maritime freights, or the poor volumes posted by exporters in copper, oil, coal, and iron ore.
In its analysis of economic risks, PricewaterhouseCoopers showed an estimate of the global economic impact that the coronavirus may generate. It stated that it could shave off up to about 0.7 percent of global GDP, using the methodology of Johns Hopkins and McKibbins and Lee. However, that impact may well be seen as conservative once we have taken into account the global loss of market value in stocks and the China PMIs. Bloomberg raised the impact to $1 trillion, considering that the effect on commodities, industries, and services will likely be greater than feared in the short term and the recovery may not to be the V-shape that most analysts would want, but slower.
It is essential to remember the previous weakness of many economies, especially the eurozone, due to excess debt, low growth, and high interventionism. We cannot forget the impact on emerging markets, either, as they face a massive wall of maturities of more than $1.4 trillion in dollar-denominated debt just as the price of commodities collapses and exported volumes slump to new lows.
Deutsche Bank analyzed the economies most exposed to the epidemic and concluded that South Korea, Japan, and Mexico will likely be the most affected, while the United States, which exports very little (11 percent of GDP, more or less) is less impacted.
The biggest mistake, and one that is almost guaranteed to be made, is to try to disguise the economic impact of the epidemic by cutting interest rates (consensus already discounts a 68 percent probability of Fed rate cuts) and injecting more liquidity. No company will invest more with lower-than-zero rates if they are facing a sales decline from an epidemic, and there is an excess of complacency in governments that see their bond yields reach even lower levels. Falling sovereign bond yields make governments believe they are doing the right thing and that there is no risk, two big mistakes, and a very negative combination. Low bond yields are a signal of high risk aversion, not of excellent government policies.
China and Hong Kong have promised massive spending programs to “offset the economic impact.” Huge white elephants, unnecessary public spending projects to disguise the economic impact of an event, can generate a much worse effect and accelerate the path to stagflation. Core prices rise due to the supply chain impact and economic growth stalls.
Let us not forget the lessons from Japan. the country spent more than $6 trillion in massive infrastructure plans after the burst of its real estate bubble and the economy became less dynamic and more debt ridden.
I am convinced that we will have a medical solution to this epidemic, but the real economy and science do not move as fast as market participants would desire.
The excess of pessimism reflected these days can only be explained by the previous and imprudent excess optimism that all of us, financial market agents, had at the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020 when stock markets reached new all-time-high levels despite the coronavirus headlines in China, poor earnings, and weak macro news.
In the coming weeks, we have to start thinking about important side effects, such as increased default rates and risks in emerging countries exposed to large monetary and commercial imbalances and analyze them calmly.
Central banks and governments are not going to disguise the real economic impact of the epidemic, rather the opposite. Aggressive shutdown measures will worsen an already weak economic trend.
Many call it “uncertainty,” but we have a lot of certainties:
This epidemic’s impact will be longer than most would like.
Central banks and governments will try to disguise the risks with more financial and monetary repression and drown the issue in a sea of spending.
As in all episodes of panic, one of the greatest risks is governments that feel the need to do something quick and massive, probably contributing to that same panic that they call to mitigate. Taking unnecessary interventionist measures, closing the economy, and disguising the risk with bricks and mortar may be even worse as a solution than the problem itself.
I trust the scientific community and global collaboration networks, but don’t forget this: the coronavirus card will be used as an excuse to cut growth and employment estimates, blame an outside enemy, and present the government as the solution by throwing billions into more debt-fueled spending.


newswars--2020-03-04--‘You Will Pay The Price!’: Chuck Schumer Threatens Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch & Kavanaugh

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened conservative Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday over abortion .
Speaking at a Planned Parenthood rally outside of the Court in Washington D.C. , Schumer launched a veiled threat at the two Justices over how they may vote in an upcoming abortion-related case .
“ I want to tell you Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch : You have unleashed a whirlwind , and you will pay the price , ” Schumer yelled to a cheering audience .
“ You won ’ t know what hit you if you go forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added .
This comes as the Supreme Court is set to hear a case Wednesday about a law in Louisiana that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges to local hospitals .
Democrat State Senator Katrina Jackson , the sponsor of the bill , argues that it will protect women with emergency medical care in case of abortion complications .
But pro-choice advocates say the bill will restrict women ’ s access to abortions .
“ What is happening in Louisiana is part of a dangerous national trend , ” Planned Parenthood said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same dangerous restrictions enacted in neighboring states , the United States is becoming a country where a woman ’ s ability to make personal medical decisions without interference from politicians will be dependent upon where she lives.
” This will be the first abortion-related case heard by the two new Justices chosen by President Trump .
Given Supreme Court Justices serve lifetime appointments and aren ’ t faced with elections , it ’ s unclear how exactly they would “ pay the price.
” Chief Justice John Roberts issued a response , charging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only inappropriate , they are dangerous.
” “ Justices know that criticism comes with the territory , but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate , they are dangerous , ” Robert wrote .
“ All Members of the Court will continue to do their job , without fear or favor , from whatever quarter.
” Schumer is no stranger to veiled threats .
In 2017 , Schumer hinted that the intelligence community would come after Trump following his historic election if he didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ You take on the intelligence community , they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you , so even for a practical supposedly hard-nosed businessman he ’ s being really dumb to do this , ” Schumer had said on MSNBC .
Alex Jones breaks down the latest delusion of the left to justify their partisan crusade to overthrow President Trump and the will of the American People .

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened conservative Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday over abortion.
Speaking at a Planned Parenthood rally outside of the Court in Washington D.C., Schumer launched a veiled threat at the two Justices over how they may vote in an upcoming abortion-related case.
“I want to tell you Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch: You have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer yelled to a cheering audience.
Did Senate Democrat leader Schumer just threaten two conservative justices? Where is the media? “I want to tell you Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch: You have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price”pic.twitter.com/MellytNNp5 — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) March 4, 2020
“You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions!” Schumer added.
This comes as the Supreme Court is set to hear a case Wednesday about a law in Louisiana that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges to local hospitals.
Democrat State Senator Katrina Jackson, the sponsor of the bill, argues that it will protect women with emergency medical care in case of abortion complications.
But pro-choice advocates say the bill will restrict women’s access to abortions.
“What is happening in Louisiana is part of a dangerous national trend,” Planned Parenthood said on its website. “With these same dangerous restrictions enacted in neighboring states, the United States is becoming a country where a woman’s ability to make personal medical decisions without interference from politicians will be dependent upon where she lives.”
This will be the first abortion-related case heard by the two new Justices chosen by President Trump.
Given Supreme Court Justices serve lifetime appointments and aren’t faced with elections, it’s unclear how exactly they would “pay the price.”
Chief Justice John Roberts issued a response, charging that Schumer’s threats are “not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.”
“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” Robert wrote.
BREAKING from Chief Justice Roberts: pic.twitter.com/qO5PuHgLjr — Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) March 4, 2020
“All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”
Schumer is no stranger to veiled threats.
In 2017, Schumer hinted that the intelligence community would come after Trump following his historic election if he didn’t play ball with the establishment.
“You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, so even for a practical supposedly hard-nosed businessman he’s being really dumb to do this,” Schumer had said on MSNBC.
Twitter: Follow @WhiteIsTheFury
Gab: https://gab.com/WhiteIsTheFury
Minds: https://www.minds.com/whiteisthefury
Alex Jones breaks down the latest delusion of the left to justify their partisan crusade to overthrow President Trump and the will of the American People.


newswars--2020-03-04--Another Illegal Alien Accused of Rape Protected By Sanctuary Policies

An illegal immigrant from Guatemala was recently set free by the New York Police Department after being charged with felony rape in the second degree and sexual abuse of a person under 14 .
Thanks to the city ’ s sanctuary policies , the NYPD refused to honor the Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer lodged against the suspect and released him following his arraignment .
Miguel Federico Ajqui-Ajtzalam , a 20-year-old Guatemalan , was arrested on Feb. 27 in Brooklyn on charges of felony rape in the second degree , sexual abuse in the second degree for sexual contact with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a manner to injure a child under 17 .
Ajqui-Ajtzalam ’ s first documented encounter with American authorities came in September of 2016 when he was detained by Border Patrol for illegally entering the country .
Because he was underage at the time , the Guatemalan national was processed as an unaccompanied alien child and released from ICE custody after a month under an order of recognizance .
Following the NYPD ’ s release of the suspect , ICE agents were able to find and arrest Ajqui-Ajtzalam on Monday .
Meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streets , Democrat politicians and voters have promoted the “ Abolish ICE ” movement , accusing the agency of being racist and calling for its elimination .
“ He is currently detained in ICE custody pending removal proceedings before a federal immigration judge , ” according to the agency ’ s website .
ICE spokesman Thomas Decker released a statement on the apprehension , saying , “ It ’ s inconceivable that a individual who was arrested for local charges of rape and sexual abuse of a child would be released back into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ICE , who had a detainer in place.
” “ It ’ s frightening that our detainer was ignored and he was released onto New York City streets to possibly reoffend , ” Decker continued .
“ The safety of city residents , especially the more vulnerable , continues to be a priority for ICE enforcement.
” Acting ICE Director Matthew Albence tried reaching out to NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio in February , hoping to work with him on keeping the city ’ s residents safe .
However , Albence ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city ’ s anti-ICE policies continue to put New Yorkers in harm ’ s way .
For example , in January , a 92-year-old legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic was sexually assaulted and murdered by an illegal alien from Guyana who was previously released by NYC officials that ignored an ICE detainer request .
Another liberal-run megacity boasting sanctuary city status , Chicago , also recently denied an ICE detainer for an illegal immigrant who then went on to molest a three-year-old girl in a McDonald ’ s bathroom .
2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and vote out the individuals who have put these atrocious policies in place .

An illegal immigrant from Guatemala was recently set free by the New York Police Department after being charged with felony rape in the second degree and sexual abuse of a person under 14.
Thanks to the city’s sanctuary policies, the NYPD refused to honor the Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer lodged against the suspect and released him following his arraignment.
Miguel Federico Ajqui-Ajtzalam, a 20-year-old Guatemalan, was arrested on Feb. 27 in Brooklyn on charges of felony rape in the second degree, sexual abuse in the second degree for sexual contact with a person under 14, and acting in a manner to injure a child under 17.
Ajqui-Ajtzalam’s first documented encounter with American authorities came in September of 2016 when he was detained by Border Patrol for illegally entering the country.
Because he was underage at the time, the Guatemalan national was processed as an unaccompanied alien child and released from ICE custody after a month under an order of recognizance.
Following the NYPD’s release of the suspect, ICE agents were able to find and arrest Ajqui-Ajtzalam on Monday.
Meanwhile, as the agency takes rapists off the streets, Democrat politicians and voters have promoted the “Abolish ICE” movement, accusing the agency of being racist and calling for its elimination.
“He is currently detained in ICE custody pending removal proceedings before a federal immigration judge,” according to the agency’s website.
ICE spokesman Thomas Decker released a statement on the apprehension, saying, “It’s inconceivable that a individual who was arrested for local charges of rape and sexual abuse of a child would be released back into the community instead of being transferred to ICE, who had a detainer in place.”
“It’s frightening that our detainer was ignored and he was released onto New York City streets to possibly reoffend,” Decker continued. “The safety of city residents, especially the more vulnerable, continues to be a priority for ICE enforcement.”
Acting ICE Director Matthew Albence tried reaching out to NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio in February, hoping to work with him on keeping the city’s residents safe.
However, Albence’s letter was ignored by the mayor and the city’s anti-ICE policies continue to put New Yorkers in harm’s way.
For example, in January, a 92-year-old legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic was sexually assaulted and murdered by an illegal alien from Guyana who was previously released by NYC officials that ignored an ICE detainer request.
Another liberal-run megacity boasting sanctuary city status, Chicago, also recently denied an ICE detainer for an illegal immigrant who then went on to molest a three-year-old girl in a McDonald’s bathroom.
2020 is the year for Americans to wake up and vote out the individuals who have put these atrocious policies in place.


newswars--2020-03-04--New Theory Finally Sheds Light on Dark Matter

The universe has more mass than we can account for .
A lot more .
One of the greatest mysteries that has eluded scientists for decades is where all this mass comes from .
One brand new theory suggests we may have cracked the case .
We can only tell all this mass ( which makes up the majority of the universe ) is there by observing its gravitational effects on objects around it , for which we use the stand-in term ‘ dark matter.
’ Now physicists think they have identified one potential culprit that might explain the mysterious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive objects , as well as the rotation of entire galactic discs , both at a higher rate than we can account for .
As always , they have opted for catchiest of names : the subatomic particle known as a ‘ d-star hexaquark ’ or d* ( 2380 ) , for short .
The new theory goes that shortly after the Big Bang vast numbers of this d-star hexaquark might have come together to create dark matter .
Dark matter neither absorbs , emits , nor reflects any kind of electromagnetic radiation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , as these are precisely the factors we observe in the universe around us via probes and telescopes to figure it all out .
Up to 85 percent of the universe may be made up of dark matter .
If we can ’ t prove it exists , that would mean a return to the drawing board , as our standard model of the universe would be fundamentally flawed , along with much of the theoretical physics at the edge of our current understanding .
Not ideal .
“ Our first calculations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feasible new candidate for dark matter .
This new result is particularly exciting since it doesn ’ t require any concepts that are new to physics , ” says nuclear physicist Daniel Watts of the University of York in the UK .
Quarks are the building blocks of protons and neutrons .
They usually combine in threes to form baryons which make up most of the observable matter in the universe , like you , the screen you ’ re reading this on and so on .
However , when six quarks combine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hexaquark… we think , as we haven ’ t actually seen any yet .
These hexaquarks are Bosons , fundamental particles that obey Bose-Einstein statistics .
Basically , they ’ re the kind of thing we need vast , multi-billion dollar particle accelerators like the one at CERN to observe for even a split second .
Given that scientists believe that hexaquarks behave this way , they likely form the mysterious fifth state of matter , called a Bose-Einstein condensate , formed when low density boson gas is cooled to just above absolute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer move around like normal but become quite still , which almost never happens in the universe .
So the latest theory proposes that , in the aftermath of the Big Bang , an unfathomably vast cloud of d-star hexaquarks was floating around and eventually cooled to form these Bose-Einstein condensates , providing the vast majority of the mass in the universe , while simultaneously boggling the minds of theoretical physicists and researchers for the past century or so .
The team behind the latest theory are planning to hunt for these d-star @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outer space to either prove or disprove their new theory — science can be maddening like that .
“ The next step to establish this new dark matter candidate will be to obtain a better understanding of how the d-stars interact — when do they attract and when do they repel each other , ” said University of York physicist Mikhail Bashkanov .
“ We are leading new measurements to create d-stars inside an atomic nucleus and see if their properties are different to when they are in free space.
” Mike Adams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down the news of a national emergency in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic .

The universe has more mass than we can account for. A lot more. One of the greatest mysteries that has eluded scientists for decades is where all this mass comes from. One brand new theory suggests we may have cracked the case.
We can only tell all this mass (which makes up the majority of the universe) is there by observing its gravitational effects on objects around it, for which we use the stand-in term ‘dark matter.’
Now physicists think they have identified one potential culprit that might explain the mysterious bending of light around stars and other massive objects, as well as the rotation of entire galactic discs, both at a higher rate than we can account for.
As always, they have opted for catchiest of names: the subatomic particle known as a ‘d-star hexaquark’ or d*(2380), for short.
The new theory goes that shortly after the Big Bang vast numbers of this d-star hexaquark might have come together to create dark matter.
Dark matter neither absorbs, emits, nor reflects any kind of electromagnetic radiation, which renders us effectively blind to it, as these are precisely the factors we observe in the universe around us via probes and telescopes to figure it all out.
Up to 85 percent of the universe may be made up of dark matter. If we can’t prove it exists, that would mean a return to the drawing board, as our standard model of the universe would be fundamentally flawed, along with much of the theoretical physics at the edge of our current understanding. Not ideal.
“Our first calculations indicate that condensates of d-stars are a feasible new candidate for dark matter. This new result is particularly exciting since it doesn’t require any concepts that are new to physics,” says nuclear physicist Daniel Watts of the University of York in the UK.
NASA
Quarks are the building blocks of protons and neutrons. They usually combine in threes to form baryons which make up most of the observable matter in the universe, like you, the screen you’re reading this on and so on.
However, when six quarks combine, they create a dibaryon or a hexaquark… we think, as we haven’t actually seen any yet. These hexaquarks are Bosons, fundamental particles that obey Bose-Einstein statistics. Basically, they’re the kind of thing we need vast, multi-billion dollar particle accelerators like the one at CERN to observe for even a split second.
Given that scientists believe that hexaquarks behave this way, they likely form the mysterious fifth state of matter, called a Bose-Einstein condensate, formed when low density boson gas is cooled to just above absolute zero. Atoms in this state no longer move around like normal but become quite still, which almost never happens in the universe.
So the latest theory proposes that, in the aftermath of the Big Bang, an unfathomably vast cloud of d-star hexaquarks was floating around and eventually cooled to form these Bose-Einstein condensates, providing the vast majority of the mass in the universe, while simultaneously boggling the minds of theoretical physicists and researchers for the past century or so.
The team behind the latest theory are planning to hunt for these d-star hexaquarks in both the lab and in outer space to either prove or disprove their new theory — science can be maddening like that.
“The next step to establish this new dark matter candidate will be to obtain a better understanding of how the d-stars interact — when do they attract and when do they repel each other,” said University of York physicist Mikhail Bashkanov.
“We are leading new measurements to create d-stars inside an atomic nucleus and see if their properties are different to when they are in free space.”
Mike Adams joins The Alex Jones Show to break down the news of a national emergency in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.