Connect with us

International

COVID19 vaccine makers’ pledge no better than NRA’s promises

COVID19 vaccine makers’ pledge no better than NRA’s promises

Published

4 years ago

on

Vaccine Covid 19 vaccine covid19

COVID19 Vaccine Makers’ Pledge No Better Than NRA’s Promises; Standard Same As Playing Russian Roulette With 3 Out of 6 Bullets

Know more about Russia than your friends:

Get our free ebook on how the Soviet Union became Putin's Russia.

Russia eBook

Q2 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

COVID19 Vaccine Makers To Hold Back Seeking FDA Approval

WASHINGTON, D.C. (September 8, 2020) -  Today's pledge by nine COVID19 vaccine makers that they will hold back seeking FDA approval until their product is proven to be both safe and effective is unlikely to persuade either the public nor a growing number of spectacle experts, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who predicts that it will be seen like an assurance from the NRA that gun owners will use assault rifles responsibly, or from the Hell's Angles that its members will obey traffic regulations.

Indeed, says Banzhaf, since the standard to establish effectiveness is only 50% - in contrast, most routine childhood vaccines are effective for 85% to 95% of recipients - 50% reliability is like playing Russian roulette with a revolver loaded with 3 out of 6 bullets.

Despite this new pledge by vaccine manufacturers, a promise by FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, and assurances by an FDA advisory committee of a thorough review of the safety and effectiveness of any COVID19 vaccine before widespread immunization is authorized, Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris said she wouldn't trust any vaccine released before the election.

Thus she appears to join growing demands for some kind of independent commission - entirely free of political, economic, or other biases - to review the data if approval for widespread distribution is sought before normal and extensive phase three trials are completed, says Banzhaf, who has proposed an alternative.

FDA's Emergency-Use Authorization

A fierce debate has erupted, reports the Washington Post, over whether the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] should use its emergency authority to authorize the distribution of a COVID19 vaccine before it is thoroughly tested and finally approved; a step which many warn could pose safety dangers (if the vaccine itself triggered adverse reactions in some populations, or failed to provide adequate protection), and also inflame existing anti-vaccination sentiment and cause even more people to refuse to be vaccinated.

As a result, there is a growing chorus within the medical community - as reported by CNN, the Washington Post, CBS, WebMD, STAT, The Independent, and others - calling for an independent commission, free from bias, including pressure from the President - to review the safety and effectiveness of any vaccine before it is widely distributed.

This concern comes in response to a statement by FDA Commissioner Hahn that the FDA could well consider emergency use authorization or approval for a COVID19 vaccine before phase three trials are complete - and much earlier than virtually all experts believe that safety and effectiveness for all major population groups can be reliably established - and also a letter from the FDA suggesting that it might grant such an approval just prior to election day ("late October").

This is despite warnings, such as this from the New York Times, that "if a vaccine turns out to have dangerous side effects for some people, the fallout could be catastrophic, damaging their corporate reputations, putting their broader portfolio of products at risk and broadly undermining trust in vaccines, one of the great public health advances in human history."

The companies' draft statement says the drug makers will submit applications for government emergency-use authorization or licensure of vaccines only if they conclude there is "substantial evidence of safety and efficacy" from apparently interim results.

But "substantial evidence" is very far short of the standard of proof usually sought in medical and scientific studies, or even political polling, which is to a confidence level of 95%, notes Banzhaf, an expert in statistics and the creator of the "Banzhaf Index."

While pleas for an independent commission are unlikely to be effective at an agency which - unlike independent federal agencies such as the FCC, FTC, etc. - is headed by a commissioner who serves at the pleasure of the President and can be fired by him at any time and without cause, there is a way to protect the public from a possibly ineffective or even harmful vaccine, notes Banzhaf.

Large Scale Phase Three Trials

Indeed, as a professor of Torts, he points out that any physician, hospital, medical insurance company, or other entity which took part in administering a vaccine which had not been fully tested as it normally is through large scale phase three trials - and where there was strong and ever-growing reason to believe that any premature FDA emergency authorization was rushed for political reasons and not based upon established medical testing procedures - could be held legally liable if a person receiving the vaccine suffered an adverse reaction (including coming down with COVID19 as a direct result), or whose reasonable reliance on the vaccine caused them (e.g., hospital workers) to risk exposure to the virus which then turned out to be harmful if not deadly.

These potentially very costly legal risks are multiplied many times by recent medical findings that, in addition to killing a tiny percentage of those (mostly the elderly and those with pre-existing medical conditions) who become infected, many if not most even younger healthy victims who experience symptoms of COVID-19 suffer permanent medical problems - including some disabilities - because of damage to their hearts or lungs, and perhaps also to kidneys and even brains (now beginning to be called "brain fog").

However, if one or more major medical organizations - such as the American Medical Association, American College of Physicians, American Academy of Family Physicians, National Medical Association, etc. - were to announce that it would consider recommending that its members not administer any COVID19 vaccine which had not fully completed phase three trials unless a responsible body independent of the federal government and the President had endorsed it, that announcement would probably force the FDA to permit such a review, or effectively prevent premature widespread distribution of a potentially deadly vaccine, argues Banzhaf.

The same result would also probably occur if several of the major hospital chains, or large health insurance carriers, were to take the same position, he adds.

Public's Distrust Of The FDA

Among the numerous reasons for many reasonable members of the public to distrust the FDA and its head regarding the pandemic, Prof. Banzhaf lists the following:

  • the very name of the COVID19 vaccine program - "Operation Warp Speed" - strongly suggests rushing to judgment at all costs, and possibly not insisting upon sufficient testing to fully establish safety and effectiveness
  • the FDA bungled in initially getting COVID-19 tests on the market, and then allowing antibody tests which proved inaccurate to be made available
  • it hastily approved hydroxychloroquine as a treatment after it was touted by the President but before it was fully tested, and then had to withdraw the authorization only shortly thereafter
  • it authorized the use of convalescent plasma, likewise strongly recommended by the President, despite the strong and continuing reservations of many medical experts
  • FDA Commissioner Hahn just made a clearly misleading public statement which greatly overstated the effectiveness of the convalescent plasma in treating COVID-19
  • the agency recently changed its testing guidelines in ways which concerned many public health experts, and without even consulting infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci
  • many observers have suggested that it appears that top governmental pandemic experts are being pressured to take scientifically unjustified positions because of pressures from the White House

To counter the call for a new independent commission, the FDA has argued that it "has committed to use an advisory committee composed of independent experts to ensure deliberations about authorization or licensure are transparent for the public" - although its recommendations are not binding and can be ignored by the agency, notes Banzhaf.

But critics such as Dr. Kathryn Stephenson of Harvard Medical School, bioethicist Arthur Caplan of NYU, and others say that a public already skeptical about COVID19 vaccines and the FDA itself is unlikely to trust this FDA advisory committee because some of its members work for pharmaceutical companies or government agencies, and thus are subject to pressure from the President and others.

The same is probably true with regard to promises of the growing number of FDA employees - such as Dr. Moncef Slaoui and Dr. Peter Marks - who claim that they would resign rather than cooperating in permitting an unsafe or ineffective vaccine to be distributed.

Indeed, in a recent survey, 78% of respondents said they were worried that the approval process for a COVID19 vaccine was being influenced more by politics than by science.  Thus two-thirds of American voters say they would not take a COVID19 vaccine when it first comes out, and some 25% claim they would never accept it - actions which would very substantially delay any return to pre-COVID normalcy.

While getting and distributing a safe and effective vaccine as early as possible is obviously important, virtually all of the experts say that it almost certainly could not be done before the end of the year.

To now rush it for release just prior to election day, without completing the basic phase three trials necessary to show whether it is both safe and effective in all major population groups, would only increase the existing distrust of the public regarding the government's handling of the entire COVID-19 crisis, and could substantially prolong the hardship of the pandemic if even more people simply refused to use the vaccine once the FDA authorized it on an emergency basis -what is being called "vaccine hesitancy."

It could also make it more difficult to find people willing to participate in any other clinical trials for that vaccine - or for the many other experimental vaccines still being tested - because participants might not want to take the risk of getting a placebo offering no protection at all when they could get a shot of an arguably effective vaccine authorized (at least on an emergency basis) by the FDA.

So Prof. Banzhaf suggests that it would be appropriate for major medical organizations, large hospital chains, and big medical insurance companies to consider what their role should be regarding the distribution and administration of any COVID19 vaccine without the satisfactory completion and unbiased evaluation of clinical trials.

The post COVID19 vaccine makers’ pledge no better than NRA’s promises appeared first on ValueWalk.

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Government

Mistakes Were Made

Mistakes Were Made

Authored by C.J.Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

Make fun of the Germans all you want, and I’ve certainly done that…

Published

18 hours ago

on

March 17, 2024

By

Mistakes Were Made

Authored by C.J.Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

Make fun of the Germans all you want, and I’ve certainly done that a bit during these past few years, but, if there’s one thing they’re exceptionally good at, it’s taking responsibility for their mistakes. Seriously, when it comes to acknowledging one’s mistakes, and not rationalizing, or minimizing, or attempting to deny them, and any discomfort they may have allegedly caused, no one does it quite like the Germans.

Take this Covid mess, for example. Just last week, the German authorities confessed that they made a few minor mistakes during their management of the “Covid pandemic.” According to Karl Lauterbach, the Minister of Health, “we were sometimes too strict with the children and probably started easing the restrictions a little too late.” Horst Seehofer, the former Interior Minister, admitted that he would no longer agree to some of the Covid restrictions today, for example, nationwide nighttime curfews. “One must be very careful with calls for compulsory vaccination,” he added. Helge Braun, Head of the Chancellery and Minister for Special Affairs under Merkel, agreed that there had been “misjudgments,” for example, “overestimating the effectiveness of the vaccines.”

This display of the German authorities’ unwavering commitment to transparency and honesty, and the principle of personal honor that guides the German authorities in all their affairs, and that is deeply ingrained in the German character, was published in a piece called “The Divisive Virus” in Der Spiegel, and immediately widely disseminated by the rest of the German state and corporate media in a totally organic manner which did not in any way resemble one enormous Goebbelsian keyboard instrument pumping out official propaganda in perfect synchronization, or anything creepy and fascistic like that.

Germany, after all, is “an extremely democratic state,” with freedom of speech and the press and all that, not some kind of totalitarian country where the masses are inundated with official propaganda and critics of the government are dragged into criminal court and prosecuted on trumped-up “hate crime” charges.

OK, sure, in a non-democratic totalitarian system, such public “admissions of mistakes” — and the synchronized dissemination thereof by the media — would just be a part of the process of whitewashing the authorities’ fascistic behavior during some particularly totalitarian phase of transforming society into whatever totalitarian dystopia they were trying to transform it into (for example, a three-year-long “state of emergency,” which they declared to keep the masses terrorized and cooperative while they stripped them of their democratic rights, i.e., the ones they hadn’t already stripped them of, and conditioned them to mindlessly follow orders, and robotically repeat nonsensical official slogans, and vent their impotent hatred and fear at the new “Untermenschen” or “counter-revolutionaries”), but that is obviously not the case here.

No, this is definitely not the German authorities staging a public “accountability” spectacle in order to memory-hole what happened during 2020-2023 and enshrine the official narrative in history. There’s going to be a formal “Inquiry Commission” — conducted by the same German authorities that managed the “crisis” — which will get to the bottom of all the regrettable but completely understandable “mistakes” that were made in the heat of the heroic battle against The Divisive Virus!

OK, calm down, all you “conspiracy theorists,” “Covid deniers,” and “anti-vaxxers.” This isn’t going to be like the Nuremberg Trials. No one is going to get taken out and hanged. It’s about identifying and acknowledging mistakes, and learning from them, so that the authorities can manage everything better during the next “pandemic,” or “climate emergency,” or “terrorist attack,” or “insurrection,” or whatever.

For example, the Inquiry Commission will want to look into how the government accidentally declared a Nationwide State of Pandemic Emergency and revised the Infection Protection Act, suspending the German constitution and granting the government the power to rule by decree, on account of a respiratory virus that clearly posed no threat to society at large, and then unleashed police goon squads on the thousands of people who gathered outside the Reichstag to protest the revocation of their constitutional rights.

Once they do, I’m sure they’ll find that that “mistake” bears absolutely no resemblance to the Enabling Act of 1933, which suspended the German constitution and granted the government the power to rule by decree, after the Nazis declared a nationwide “state of emergency.”

Another thing the Commission will probably want to look into is how the German authorities accidentally banned any further demonstrations against their arbitrary decrees, and ordered the police to brutalize anyone participating in such “illegal demonstrations.”

And, while the Commission is inquiring into the possibly slightly inappropriate behavior of their law enforcement officials, they might want to also take a look at the behavior of their unofficial goon squads, like Antifa, which they accidentally encouraged to attack the “anti-vaxxers,” the “Covid deniers,” and anyone brandishing a copy of the German constitution.

Come to think of it, the Inquiry Commission might also want to look into how the German authorities, and the overwhelming majority of the state and corporate media, accidentally systematically fomented mass hatred of anyone who dared to question the government’s arbitrary and nonsensical decrees or who refused to submit to “vaccination,” and publicly demonized us as “Corona deniers,” “conspiracy theorists,” “anti-vaxxers,” “far-right anti-Semites,” etc., to the point where mainstream German celebrities like Sarah Bosetti were literally describing us as the inessential “appendix” in the body of the nation, quoting an infamous Nazi almost verbatim.

And then there’s the whole “vaccination” business. The Commission will certainly want to inquire into that. They will probably want to start their inquiry with Karl Lauterbach, and determine exactly how he accidentally lied to the public, over and over, and over again …

And whipped people up into a mass hysteria over “KILLER VARIANTS” …

And “LONG COVID BRAIN ATTACKS” …

And how “THE UNVACCINATED ARE HOLDING THE WHOLE COUNTRY HOSTAGE, SO WE NEED TO FORCIBLY VACCINATE EVERYONE!”

And so on. I could go on with this all day, but it will be much easier to just refer you, and the Commission, to this documentary film by Aya Velázquez. Non-German readers may want to skip to the second half, unless they’re interested in the German “Corona Expert Council” …

Look, the point is, everybody makes “mistakes,” especially during a “state of emergency,” or a war, or some other type of global “crisis.” At least we can always count on the Germans to step up and take responsibility for theirs, and not claim that they didn’t know what was happening, or that they were “just following orders,” or that “the science changed.”

Plus, all this Covid stuff is ancient history, and, as Olaf, an editor at Der Spiegel, reminds us, it’s time to put the “The Divisive Pandemic” behind us …

… and click heels, and heil the New Normal Democracy!

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/16/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

International

“Extreme Events”: US Cancer Deaths Spiked In 2021 And 2022 In “Large Excess Over Trend”

"Extreme Events": US Cancer Deaths Spiked In 2021 And 2022 In "Large Excess Over Trend"

Cancer deaths in the United States spiked in 2021…

Published

1 day ago

on

March 16, 2024

By

"Extreme Events": US Cancer Deaths Spiked In 2021 And 2022 In "Large Excess Over Trend"

Cancer deaths in the United States spiked in 2021 and 2022 among 15-44 year-olds "in large excess over trend," marking jumps of 5.6% and 7.9% respectively vs. a rise of 1.7% in 2020, according to a new preprint study from deep-dive research firm, Phinance Technologies.

Algeria, Carlos et. al "US -Death Trends for Neoplasms ICD codes: C00-D48, Ages 15-44", ResearchGate, March. 2024 P. 7

Extreme Events

The report, which relies on data from the CDC, paints a troubling picture.

"We show a rise in excess mortality from neoplasms reported as underlying cause of death, which started in 2020 (1.7%) and accelerated substantially in 2021 (5.6%) and 2022 (7.9%). The increase in excess mortality in both 2021 (Z-score of 11.8) and 2022 (Z-score of 16.5) are highly statistically significant (extreme events)," according to the authors.

That said, co-author, David Wiseman, PhD (who has 86 publications to his name), leaves the cause an open question - suggesting it could either be a "novel phenomenon," Covid-19, or the Covid-19 vaccine.

"The results indicate that from 2021 a novel phenomenon leading to increased neoplasm deaths appears to be present in individuals aged 15 to 44 in the US," reads the report.

The authors suggest that the cause may be the result of "an unexpected rise in the incidence of rapidly growing fatal cancers," and/or "a reduction in survival in existing cancer cases."

They also address the possibility that "access to utilization of cancer screening and treatment" may be a factor - the notion that pandemic-era lockdowns resulted in fewer visits to the doctor. Also noted is that "Cancers tend to be slowly-developing diseases with remarkably stable death rates and only small variations over time," which makes "any temporal association between a possible explanatory factor (such as COVID-19, the novel COVID-19 vaccines, or other factor(s)) difficult to establish."

That said, a ZeroHedge review of the CDC data reveals that it does not provide information on duration of illness prior to death - so while it's not mentioned in the preprint, it can't rule out so-called 'turbo cancers' - reportedly rapidly developing cancers, the existence of which has been largely anecdotal (and widely refuted by the usual suspects).

While the Phinance report is extremely careful not to draw conclusions, researcher "Ethical Skeptic" kicked the barn door open in a Thursday post on X - showing a strong correlation between "cancer incidence & mortality" coinciding with the rollout of the Covid mRNA vaccine.

Phinance principal Ed Dowd commented on the post, noting that "Cancer is suddenly an accelerating growth industry!"

Continued:

Bottom line - hard data is showing alarming trends, which the CDC and other agencies have a requirement to explore and answer truthfully - and people are asking #WhereIsTheCDC.

We aren't holding our breath.

Wiseman, meanwhile, points out that Pfizer and several other companies are making "significant investments in cancer drugs, post COVID."

Phinance

We've featured several of Phinance's self-funded deep dives into pandemic data that nobody else is doing. If you'd like to support them, click here.

 

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/16/2024 - 16:55

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Gen Z, The Most Pessimistic Generation In History, May Decide The Election

Gen Z, The Most Pessimistic Generation In History, May Decide The Election

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Young adults are more…

Published

1 day ago

on

March 16, 2024

By

Gen Z, The Most Pessimistic Generation In History, May Decide The Election

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Young adults are more skeptical of government and pessimistic about the future than any living generation before them.

This is with reason, and it’s likely to decide the election.

Rough Years and the Most Pessimism Ever

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on The Rough Years That Turned Gen Z Into America’s Most Disillusioned Voters.

Young adults in Generation Z—those born in 1997 or after—have emerged from the pandemic feeling more disillusioned than any living generation before them, according to long-running surveys and interviews with dozens of young people around the country. They worry they’ll never make enough money to attain the security previous generations have achieved, citing their delayed launch into adulthood, an impenetrable housing market and loads of student debt.

And they’re fed up with policymakers from both parties.

Washington is moving closer to passing legislation that would ban or force the sale of TikTok, a platform beloved by millions of young people in the U.S. Several young people interviewed by The Wall Street Journal said they spend hours each day on the app and use it as their main source of news.

“It’s funny how they quickly pass this bill about this TikTok situation. What about schools that are getting shot up? We’re not going to pass a bill about that?” Gaddie asked. “No, we’re going to worry about TikTok and that just shows you where their head is…. I feel like they don’t really care about what’s going on with humanity.”

Gen Z’s widespread gloominess is manifesting in unparalleled skepticism of Washington and a feeling of despair that leaders of either party can help. Young Americans’ entire political memories are subsumed by intense partisanship and warnings about the looming end of everything from U.S. democracy to the planet. When the darkest days of the pandemic started to end, inflation reached 40-year highs. The right to an abortion was overturned. Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East raged.

Dissatisfaction is pushing some young voters to third-party candidates in this year’s presidential race and causing others to consider staying home on Election Day or leaving the top of the ticket blank. While young people typically vote at lower rates, a small number of Gen Z voters could make the difference in the election, which four years ago was decided by tens of thousands of votes in several swing states.

Roughly 41 million Gen Z Americans—ages 18 to 27—will be eligible to vote this year, according to Tufts University.

Gen Z is among the most liberal segments of the electorate, according to surveys, but recent polling shows them favoring Biden by only a slim margin. Some are unmoved by those who warn that a vote against Biden is effectively a vote for Trump, arguing that isn’t enough to earn their support.

Confidence

When asked if they had confidence in a range of public institutions, Gen Z’s faith in them was generally below that of the older cohorts at the same point in their lives. 

One-third of Gen Z Americans described themselves as conservative, according to NORC’s 2022 General Social Survey. That is a larger share identifying as conservative than when millennials, Gen X and baby boomers took the survey when they were the same age, though some of the differences were small and within the survey’s margin of error.

More young people now say they find it hard to have hope for the world than at any time since at least 1976, according to a University of Michigan survey that has tracked public sentiment among 12th-graders for nearly five decades. Young people today are less optimistic than any generation in decades that they’ll get a professional job or surpass the success of their parents, the long-running survey has found. They increasingly believe the system is stacked against them and support major changes to the way the country operates.

Gen Z future Outcome

“It’s the starkest difference I’ve documented in 20 years of doing this research,” said Twenge, the author of the book “Generations.” The pandemic, she said, amplified trends among Gen Z that have existed for years: chronic isolation, a lack of social interaction and a propensity to spend large amounts of time online.

A 2020 study found past epidemics have left a lasting impression on young people around the world, creating a lack of confidence in political institutions and their leaders. The study, which analyzed decades of Gallup World polling from dozens of countries, found the decline in trust among young people typically persists for two decades.

Young people are more likely than older voters to have a pessimistic view of the economy and disapprove of Biden’s handling of inflation, according to the recent Journal poll. Among people under 30, Biden leads Trump by 3 percentage points, 35% to 32%, with 14% undecided and the remaining shares going to third-party candidates, including 10% to independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Economic Reality

Gen Z may be the first generation in US history that is not better off than their parents.

Many have given up on the idea they will ever be able to afford a home.

The economy is allegedly booming (I disagree). Regardless, stress over debt is high with younger millennials and zoomers.

This has been a constant theme of mine for many months.

Credit Card and Auto Delinquencies Soar

Credit card debt surged to a record high in the fourth quarter. Even more troubling is a steep climb in 90 day or longer delinquencies.

Record High Credit Card Debt

Credit card debt rose to a new record high of $1.13 trillion, up $50 billion in the quarter. Even more troubling is the surge in serious delinquencies, defined as 90 days or more past due.

For nearly all age groups, serious delinquencies are the highest since 2011.

Auto Loan Delinquencies

Serious delinquencies on auto loans have jumped from under 3 percent in mid-2021 to to 5 percent at the end of 2023 for age group 18-29.Age group 30-39 is also troubling. Serious delinquencies for age groups 18-29 and 30-39 are at the highest levels since 2010.

For further discussion please see Credit Card and Auto Delinquencies Soar, Especially Age Group 18 to 39

Generational Homeownership Rates

Home ownership rates courtesy of Apartment List

The above chart is from the Apartment List’s 2023 Millennial Homeownership Report

Those struggling with rent are more likely to be Millennials and Zoomers than Generation X, Baby Boomers, or members of the Silent Generation.

The same age groups struggling with credit card and auto delinquencies.

On Average Everything is Great

Average it up, and things look pretty good. This is why we have seen countless stories attempting to explain why people should be happy.

Krugman Blames Partisanship

OK, there is a fair amount of partisanship in the polls.

However, Biden isn’t struggling from partisanship alone. If that was the reason, Biden would not be polling so miserably with Democrats in general, blacks, and younger voters.

OK, there is a fair amount of partisanship in the polls.

However, Biden isn’t struggling from partisanship alone. If that was the reason, Biden would not be polling so miserably with Democrats in general, blacks, and younger voters.

This allegedly booming economy left behind the renters and everyone under the age of 40 struggling to make ends meet.

Many Are Addicted to “Buy Now, Pay Later” Plans

Buy Now Pay Later, BNPL, plans are increasingly popular. It’s another sign of consumer credit stress.

For discussion, please see Many Are Addicted to “Buy Now, Pay Later” Plans, It’s a Big Trap

The study did not break things down by home owners vs renters, but I strongly suspect most of the BNPL use is by renters.

What About Jobs?

Another seemingly strong jobs headline falls apart on closer scrutiny. The massive divergence between jobs and employment continued into February.

Nonfarm payrolls and employment levels from the BLS, chart by Mish.

Payrolls vs Employment Gains Since March 2023

  • Nonfarm Payrolls: 2,602,000

  • Employment Level: +144,000

  • Full Time Employment: -284,000

For more details of the weakening labor markets, please see Jobs Up 275,000 Employment Down 184,000

CPI Hot Again

CPI Data from the BLS, chart by Mish.

For discussion of the CPI inflation data for February, please see CPI Hot Again, Rent Up at Least 0.4 Percent for 30 Straight Months

Also note the Producer Price Index (PPI) Much Hotter Than Expected in February

Major Economic Cracks

There are economic cracks in spending, cracks in employment, and cracks in delinquencies.

But there are no cracks in the CPI. It’s coming down much slower than expected. And the PPI appears to have bottomed.

Add it up: Inflation + Recession = Stagflation.

Election Impact

In 2020, younger voters turned out in the biggest wave in history. And they voted for Biden.

Younger voters are not as likely to vote in 2024, and they are less likely to vote for Biden.

Millions of voters will not vote for either Trump or Biden. Net, this will impact Biden more. The base will not decide the election, but the Trump base is far more energized than the Biden base.

If Biden signs a TikTok ban, that alone could tip the election.

If No Labels ever gets its act together, I suspect it will siphon more votes from Biden than Trump. But many will just sit it out.

“We’re just kind of over it,” Noemi Peña, 20, a Tucson, Ariz., resident who works in a juice bar, said of her generation’s attitude toward politics. “We don’t even want to hear about it anymore.” Peña said she might not vote because she thinks it won’t change anything and “there’s just gonna be more fighting.” Biden won Arizona in 2020 by just over 10,000 votes. 

The Journal noted nearly one-third of voters under 30 have an unfavorable view of both Biden and Trump, a higher number than all older voters. Sixty-three percent of young voters think neither party adequately represents them.

Young voters in 2020 were energized to vote against Trump. Now they have thrown in the towel.

And Biden telling everyone how great the economy is only rubs salt in the wound.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/16/2024 - 11:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending