Select Page

Author:

The Real Climate Debate

The Real Climate Debate Via Cliff Mass Weather and Climate Blog, The real climate debate is not between “believers” and “deniers”. And not between Republicans and Democrats. The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed.  Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that. The real rebate is between two groups: 1.   A confident, non-political group that believes technology, informed investments, rational decision making, and the use of the best scientific information will lead to a solution of the global warming issue.  An optimistic group that sees global warming as a technical problem with technical solutions.  I will refer to these folks as the ACT group (Apolitical/Confident/Technical) 2.  A group, mainly on the political left, that is highly partisan, anxious and often despairing, self-righteous, big on blame and social justice, and willing to attack those that disagree with them.  They often distort the truth when it serves their interests.  They also see social change as necessary for dealing with global warming, requiring the very reorganization of society.  I call these folks the ASP group (Anxious, Social-Justice, Partisan). There is no better way to see the profound difference between these two groups than to watch a video of the testimony of young activists at the recent House Hearing on Climate Change, which included Greta Thunberg, Jamie Margolin, Vic Barrett, and Benji Backer. Jamie...

Read More

Americans Need To Earn $500,000 A Year To Qualify For The ‘1%’

Americans Need To Earn $500,000 A Year To Qualify For The ‘1%’ If you’re an American, and you want that precious membership card to the ‘1%’ (in terms of annual income, that is, not overall wealth, but we’ll get more into that later) you’re going to need to work a little bit harder, and earn a little bit more. According to Bloomberg’s wealth team, the income needed to enter the top 1% of taxpayers was $515,371 in 2017, according to IRS data released this week. That’s up 7.2% from a year earlier. Remember, ‘the 1%’ became our modern capitalist boogeyman back in 2011 during the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement, when thousands of college students joined forces with criminals and the chronically unemployed to camp out in Lower Manhattan’s Zucotti Park. The park remained the epicenter of the movement for weeks, until Mike Bloomberg finally ordered police to clear the encampment. Thousands of solidarity rallies were held around the country, and even a few other ‘occupations’ emerged, as dedicated members of the movement gathered in other public grounds in a show of solidarity with their comrades in Zucotti Park (Remember all that news footage of bedraggled-looking young people in beanies carrying signs and shouting slogans like “We are the 99%”?). The phrase ‘the 1%’ remained embedded in our popular culture long after Occupy fizzled out. Bernie Sanders embraced the term...

Read More

Democrats Have No Answer For Trump’s Anti-War Posture

Democrats Have No Answer For Trump’s Anti-War Posture Authored by Danny Sjursen via TruthDig.com, I hate to say I told you so, but well… as predicted, in the wake of Trump’s commanded military withdrawal from northeast Syria, the once U.S.-backed Kurds cut a deal with the Assad regime. (And Vice President Mike Pence has now brokered a five-day cease-fire.) Admittedly, Trump the “dealmaker” ought to have brokered something similar before pulling out and before the Turkish Army—and its Sunni Arab Islamist proxies—invaded the region and inflicted significant civilian casualties. One must admit that a single phone call between Trump and President Erdogan of Turkey has turned the situation in Syria upside down in just over a week. The Kurds have requested protection from Assad’s army, Russian troops are now patrolling between the Kurds and invading Turks, and the U.S. is (for once) watching from the sidelines. The execution has been sloppy, of course—a Trumpian trademark—and the human cost potentially heavy. Nonetheless, the U.S. withdrawal represents a significant instance of the president actually following through on campaign promises to end an endless American war in the Mideast. The situation isn’t simple, of course, and for the Kurds it is yet another fatalistic event in that people’s tragic history. Still, while the situation in Northeast Syria constitutes a byzantine mess, it’s increasingly unclear that a continued U.S. military role there would be productive or strategic in the long term. After all, if...

Read More

Goldman: The Fed Was The Main Driver Of Markets In 2019

Goldman: The Fed Was The Main Driver Of Markets In 2019 Having been repeatedly branded “conspiracy theorists” over the past decade for daring to suggest what was painfully obvious to anyone, we have found it delightfully enjoyable watching as one “expert” after another caved, admitting that when one strips away all the “made for TV” bullet points, all the profound analysis about fundamentals, all the fancy squiggles that pass for technical analysis, and virtually any other theory meant to ‘explain’ why stocks do this or that, the market’s performance has been nothing more than a function of central banks intervention and, increasingly more often, manipulation. And it’s not just the past decade that has been a direct function of the Fed’s intervention in markets – the Fed’s all too visible hand has been obvious across the past 50 years! As Bank of America showed one week ago, when paraphrasing a certain politician saying “It’s the Fed, stupid” and highlighting the 1968-76 period of Vietnam, end of Bretton Woods, credit events, oil shock, Nixon impeachment – just like now, so then the Dow Jones slavishly followed path of Fed policy, as easing caused rallies, and tightening caused corrections. What about a closert timeframe? Well, as Goldman’s Christian Mueller-Glissmann confirmed last week, “Monetary policy” was the main driver of risk appetite YTD, “first with the Fed dovish pivot at the beginning...

Read More

The Speculative Case For $1000 ETH (If Ethereum Is Valued As A Fiat Payment & FinTech Platform)

The Speculative Case For $1000 ETH (If Ethereum Is Valued As A Fiat Payment & FinTech Platform) Authored by Omid Malekan via Medium.com, I’ve already written about how investors in the red hot payments sector are underestimating the disruptive threat of stablecoins and thus overvaluing the existing business models of proprietary networks. Today I’m going to argue crypto investors are making a similar mistake, and thus undervaluing ETH. Ethereum is increasingly becoming a fiat payment platform thanks to the plethora of stablecoins that reside on top of it. Tether’s $4B in coins have mostly migrated over from the Omni protocol. All of the next few biggest stablecoins are of the ERC-20 variety, including the new Binance once. Then there’s Dai, the first ever decentralized and uncensorable digital dollar. It’s early days, but stablecoins may have already surpassed Venmo in quarterly volume of dollars moved. It’s only a matter of time until “fiat on the blockchain” becomes a dominant force in payments. Yes, these products are new and clunky, and the networks they ride on are slow and have scaling problems. But so was every other payment method in its infancy. What matters is the long term potential, and there stablecoins have a lot more to offer, because an open network always beats out a restricted pipe. The first differentiator is the variety of options. A user on Ethereum who wants to make a...

Read More