Connect with us

Did CBDCs affect the crypto space in 2020, and what’s next in 2021? Experts answer

CBDCs are one of the major topics in crypto this year, and the experts that Cointelegraph spoke to have a lot to say about it.
It is hard to imagine that just two years ago, the general discourse around central bank digital currencies,

Published

on

CBDCs are one of the major topics in crypto this year, and the experts that Cointelegraph spoke to have a lot to say about it.

It is hard to imagine that just two years ago, the general discourse around central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs, was mainly focused on the potential and possibility of issuing them. Even in 2019, the question was about whether we need state-owned cryptocurrencies, with only 70% of central banks worldwide studying the potential of issuing a CBDC, according to a survey published by the Bank for International Settlements at the beginning of 2019. But this year, everything is indeed different. 

2020 started with a major event within the financial world: the World Economic Forum in Davos, where the WEF released a toolkit for policymakers regarding the creation of CBDCs. And according to a recent BIS report, 80% of the world’s central banks have already been evaluating CBDC adoption. The news that central banks worldwide had started actively researching, studying, testing, etc., kept coming every month this year: Australia, Brazil, Cambodia, Estonia, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lithuania, Russia, South Korea, Sweden, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates, to name a few. Even Japan, which two years ago was among the major critics of central bank digital currency, changed its mind.

Although the inevitability of central bank digital currency becoming a global phenomenon became certain this year, there is an important trend that has also become clear: Central banks in emerging market economies are moving toward issuing CBDCs more rapidly than developed countries, which are taking a more cautious stance. For example, the European Central Bank is discussing launching a consideration phase for a digital euro next year, and launching a digital euro is at least a five-year plan. Canada is also developing a CBDC at "a good pace,” according to Timothy Lane, deputy governor of the Bank of Canada. Japan’s digital yen will take years to issue, according to a former Bank of Japan official, while this fall, the Bahamas became one of the first countries in the world to officially launch a CBDC. Russia is expected to launch the first pilots for its digital ruble next year.

The situation is quite different for the world’s major economies, the United States and China, whose technological competition has resulted in a “digital cold war.” The Chinese digital yuan project — referred to as the Digital Currency Electronic Payment, or DCEP — already has years of history, and this year, the project made a lot of progress, although many details remain limited. Concerns about issuing a digital dollar ahead of the digital yuan opened the year and soon enough were followed by the Digital Dollar Project’s white paper release. The conversation of this tech competition between the two countries was even brought to the U.S Senate. Some even controversially argued that the 2020 U.S. election sealed China’s victory in CBDC leadership. Though, the question of whether being the first in launching a CBDC will be enough to win global reserve currency status remains open. Most importantly, China does not intend to replace the U.S. dollar with the digital yuan, and collaborative efforts between the two great powers on developing CBDCs might be indeed the best option for the world.

There may be many reasons for such rapid CBDC development all over the world, but the major reason is the COVID-19 pandemic, which was highlighted by the European Central Bank, the Bank for International Settlements and many other experts. The coronavirus pandemic, which has driven humanity’s technology development at least 20 years forward, has become a serious challenge for global economies, and CBDCs have started to be seen as an appropriate tool to fix the financial system.

Related: How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected the crypto space? Experts answer

And while some are raising serious privacy concerns in regard to CBDCs and emphasizing that they would be a step toward a more centralized system, the potential of national digital currencies is surely becoming our present reality, not just the financial system of the future. CBDCs are a serious step in financial system development, as they can improve bank accounts, alter traditional finance entirely, reshape world economies, change our conceptions of money and how we use it by replacing cash, and even become a part of a “new monetary order.” And as 2020 will be ending soon, Cointelegraph reached out to experts in the blockchain and crypto space for their opinions on the impact of CBDCs on the crypto space and beyond.

How did CBDC development affect the crypto space this year, and what can we expect in 2021?

Brian Behlendorf, executive director of Hyperledger:

“The level of competency within the technical teams at central banks, particularly in regard to CBDCs and their potential and limitations, would astound many in the crypto community who would assume otherwise. This year, we have seen not just hints dropped and research projects engaged, we’ve seen pilots and even some production systems and complementary institutions like the BIS and OECD tackling the regulatory issues head-on. A key question is whether these networks will be accounts-based or bearer-based — the latter being what most in the crypto community intuitively understand as ‘Not your keys, not your coins.’

There’s a substantial risk that the regulatory imperatives to fight crime and fraud clash with the freedom to run the software of one's choice, echoing the long battles to be able to run the cryptography of one’s choice as a first principle, and we may find regulators hurtling toward banning noncustodial wallets. That would be a bad thing for everyone, from the crypto community to CBDCs and all other sorts of digital assets.

My belief is that regulators and central banks will be satisfied by KYC/AML implemented using digital identity systems — probably of the self-sovereign variety, often running on these same networks — to make those kinds of regulatory decisions ‘late binding’ at the time of transaction, no matter where keys are stored, for matters of sheer practicality. Banks in countries whose regulators understand that better than others will have a competitive advantage, and that might not be the countries we think of today as being furthest along in CBDC deployment.”

Brian Brooks, acting comptroller of the currency of the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency:

“Central bank digital currencies are among the most important topics being discussed right now. The question at this point is not whether but how to accomplish the digitization of the dollar and other fiat currencies.

The United States usually wins when we unleash the power of our innovative, dynamic private sector, with the government setting the rules rather than building the products. But either way, given the intense focus of other countries in this area, let me say that because of the important role of the U.S. dollar, we need the United States to step forward on this field.”

Da Hongfei, founder of Neo, founder and CEO of Onchain:

“It will certainly be a boon to the blockchain space as the rapid development of CBDCs further affirms the integral role blockchain will play in building the world of tomorrow. As blockchain innovation accelerates, I believe countries around the world are increasingly recognizing the need to build a truly digital future that will resolve the current inefficiencies and shortcomings of today’s global order. As asset digitization picks up steam, I am confident that we will move toward the smart economy of the future.”

Denelle Dixon, CEO and executive director of the Stellar Development Foundation:

“CBDCs can and will be a huge innovation in our lifetimes, particularly as a tool for financial inclusion. This year, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how impactful CBDCs could be. Policymakers, governments and central banks increasingly are recognizing there are ways to better serve citizens and create more equitable access to the financial system in a way that’s faster, cheaper and more efficient.

From our discussions with governments around the world exploring this technology, I think 2021 will see central banks take the learnings from this year and start putting CBDCs into practice.

As for which countries will take the lead, China seems to have a head start, but development will likely be slower and more complicated in less restrictive societies. There are so many countries exploring the possibilities of CBDCs at the moment that it is hard to pick a front-runner, but the increased focus around the globe makes that an exciting race to follow.”

Dominik Schiener, co-founder of the Iota Foundation:

“CBDCs will be developed in parallel to advancements in the crypto space. While CBDCs are very interesting, they tackle a very different use case than familiar crypto assets like Bitcoin or Iota. They are issued and backed by a central bank with the authority to print new capital at will. They are also not necessarily intended for consumers or everyday people. Crypto assets, by contrast, are generally controlled by a public algorithm that manages their supply and distribution.

In 2021, we will see central banks piloting internal tests of CBDCs. However, they will probably be doing so on private or even non-blockchain networks. They may even decide to launch their own networks. CBDCs will not be hampered by technical hurdles but regulatory uncertainty. This will drag out the deployment of CBDCs in the real world past 2021 and into 2022, or even 2024 and beyond.

China is clearly the leader when it comes to CBDCs. They are taking the technology way more seriously than other countries and seem to have less regulatory controls blocking innovation of blockchain and digital-asset technology.”

Emin Gün Sirer, CEO of AvaLabs, professor at Cornell University, co-director of IC3:

“Libra really kicked monetary authorities and central banks into gear, as the existential threat of Facebook’s network triggered a ‘fight or flight’ response. Regardless of the catalyst for their efforts, it is indisputably positive to see the gatekeepers of the traditional financial system realize the importance of crypto.

China has been the clear leader thus far in activating public and private organizations to try and seize the first-mover advantage. By public accounts and information, it has made significant strides.

I can think of few clearer motivations for U.S. politicians and regulators to accelerate their own efforts and fend off the first real threat to the hegemony of the U.S. dollar in decades.”

Heath Tarbert, chairman and chief executive of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission:

“We have seen a lot of countries touch CBDCs in 2020. An impetus for a lot of work was the COVID-19 pandemic. We saw how a CBDC helped with government payments to individuals that could not access them otherwise due to the pandemic. I could imagine a lot of other countries are going to be looking at what has been learned during this pandemic and identify how to move forward with their own CBDC.

Here in the United States, U.S. dollar CBDCs are principally a matter for the Federal Reserve. We are tracking the work of the Boston Fed and MIT on exploring CBDC design and technology. We are also encouraged by the work of the BIS’s Innovation Hub on CBDCs.

My personal belief is that America must lead here. However, we must not just look to our government for the solution. The private sector moves faster; partnering with it while we determine a regulatory solution is probably the best path to move things forward.”

James Butterfill, investment strategist at CoinShares:

“We believe CBDCs are highly unlikely to replace crypto assets such as Bitcoin due to their inherent differences, primarily with the latter being distributed ledger, peer-to-peer systems. Bitcoin, in particular, has a predetermined monetary policy where the supply cannot be altered, making it far more attractive as a non-sovereign store of value compared with a CBDC, which will be designed to replicate its respective central bank’s fiat currency.

The concept of central bank digital currencies has garnered considerable attention from central banks in the second half of 2020. We expect there to be increased hype and confusion in 2021 as the details on how they are structured are revealed. There are considerable challenges to overcome.

A central bank issuing a CBDC would have to ensure the fulfillment of Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorist Financing as well as satisfy the public policy requirements of other supervisory and tax regimes.

Some proposals have suggested the central banks administer the core ledger with an interface for regulated entities such as banks to connect to, but this hardly achieves the promised efficiency gains that a peer-to-peer ledger system should have.

If a central bank becomes a wallet provider, it runs the risk of hollowing out commercial banks, depriving them of a cheap, stable source of funding like retail deposits. In crisis periods, this could lead to a run on weaker banks as clients prefer the safety of a central-bank-backed wallet.

As the ledger will be central rather than distributed, can they ever be as secure and trustworthy?

Many of these issues will be difficult and time-consuming to resolve, and therefore, CBDCs aren’t coming anytime soon. Furthermore, while they are likely to come with efficiency gains that digital currencies offer, they are much closer to their underlying fiat currencies, not offering the diversification benefits and store-of-value features that digital assets such as Bitcoin offer.”

James Wallis, vice president of central bank engagements at Ripple:

“National CBDCs have been a positive development for the crypto space and have served as confirmation at the highest level that digital currencies are the future. In 2021, I expect to see a world where cryptocurrencies, stablecoins and CBDCs each have their place in finance and payments, with more defined use cases. As governments continue to pilot CBDCs and test new technology in the space, I think it’s likely that more regulatory clarity in those jurisdictions will follow suit and become more defined. It’s likely this will have an impact on other countries’ regulatory bodies that have been slower to embrace cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology.

The focus of CBDCs in 2020 was primarily on domestic solutions. The true potential for CBDCs is in interoperability among CBDCs and between CBDCs and other digital currencies and cryptos. This will require collaboration between central bank networks and private blockchains and will foster innovative use cases. We’re going to see a growing demand for a neutral bridge for currencies to provide liquidity and instant settlement for cross-border transactions.

China has led the charge for retail CBDCs by tying into e-commerce platforms — expect further expansion, including cross-border into Macau, Hong Kong and more. We will certainly see others following suit in 2021 and testing solutions that have the option to interoperate with private companies. Similarly, I think we will see more CBDCs that address specific use cases, like replacing cash as we have seen in Sweden with the e-krona project or the Sand Dollar implementation in the Bahamas that aims to bring inclusive access to regulated payments and other financial services for underserved communities.

To keep up with other CBDC projects and to address the issues raised with the COVID-19 pandemic, we should expect more central banks to accelerate their CBDC initiatives, including the EU, South Africa, Brazil, the U.K. and, hopefully, the U.S., which has been lagging behind.

Due to the Chinese DC/EP initiative, we expect many more countries/regions to accelerate their CBDC efforts. China may be leading, but others will be moving quickly. Europe is actively exploring the feasibility of a digital euro, with several member states, including France, conducting experiments currently. In the United States, the Fed has an active collaboration with MIT’s Digital Currency Initiative to perform research related to CBDCs. We think these developments are positive and will lead to better designed, better functioning CBDCs.

Many developing countries are already leading the way with CBDC applications; it’s a natural next step that these governments will develop standardized digital wallets for every citizen. Whereas many developed countries — like the U.S. — are still debating the benefits of CBDCs. It’s unlikely that we will see anything of that scale deployed and adopted by its citizens in the next five or more years.”

Jimmy Song, instructor at Programming Blockchain:

“I don’t think it affects crypto that much, other than maybe bringing more people in that don’t like surveillance. CBDCs are a way for central banks to control our financial lives more than they do already.

I suspect that China will be one of the first, as it’s very authoritarian. I imagine it will cut out banks altogether and give each citizen a direct bank account with the central bank.”

Joseph Lubin, co-founder of Ethereum, founder of ConsenSys:

“When ConsenSys published its white paper ‘Central Banks and the Future of Digital Money’ at the World Economic Forum in January, the backdrop was a dramatic shift in the mechanics of money. Since then, the COVID-19 pandemic has only accelerated technological changes to how money moves. Privately issued stablecoins have nearly doubled from the beginning of the year, now with a market capitalization of $23 billion.

It’s really interesting what’s going on in that space, which has actually been ongoing for several years now. China’s DC/EP approach already had live trials in four major cities. This year, the Bahamas and Cambodia became the first nations to use digital currencies in their financial infrastructure. And in November, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde signaled that her institution could create a digital currency within years and that policymakers intend to decide around mid-2021 whether to prepare for a possible launch. ConsenSys also announced four separate CBDC projects with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, Societe Generale - Forge, the Bank of Thailand and the Reserve Bank of Australia in the third quarter of this year.

In this era of rapid advancements in the way that money moves is the recognition that we need systems to collaborate and trade with one another. Motivations for a CBDC around the world will be different — in some cases to provide greater control and in other countries, more efficient systems. Banks have monopolies and will compete for reserve status, and we’ll see about the regulation of stablecoins. But I firmly believe that blockchain-based systems can end up becoming the foundation for increased trustworthy collaboration.”

Mance Harmon, co-founder and CEO of Hedera Hashgraph and Swirlds Inc.:

“CBDCs are, in essence, a validation of the overall crypto space, given that they borrow many of the same concepts from cryptocurrency. In this regard, central bank digital currencies will continue to put a spotlight on the broader cryptocurrency and distributed ledger industry. However, they are likely to differ in one primary, fundamental way — and that is they will remain centralized, rather than embracing the public, transparent nature of cryptocurrencies.

In 2021, we will see small countries issue their first digital currencies — probably using private, permissioned ledgers — and we will continue to see advancement from China with regard to the digital yuan, where it seems to enjoy a first-mover advantage over other digital currencies.”

Paul Brody, principal and global innovation leader of blockchain technology at Ernst & Young:

“When it comes to central bank digital currencies, China already has the lead and is likely to stay in that position for the foreseeable future as it deploys this tokenized currency. It has a clear roadmap, it has been conducting tests, and it also has clear policy objectives bound up in the deployment of the Digital Currency Electronic Payment program.

Even though other countries are mostly just studying the concept, real-world experimentation is also going on with the use of stablecoins in smart contracts on Ethereum. This is a real-life laboratory for how CBDCs are likely to be used, if they are made accessible to the public, and I think the decision by the Bank of England to build a regulatory framework for them is a really good step to start understanding and managing the likely impact of CBDCs.”

Roger Ver, executive chairman of Bitcoin.com:

“That’s the fun part about being in this ecosystem: We don’t know where the next big thing will come from. It could be from a nation-state anywhere in the world, a Facebook or a lone wolf like Satoshi Nakamoto. The one thing we do know is that the pace of innovation is going to increase.”

Samson Mow, chief strategy officer of Blockstream:

“CBDCs don’t compete with Bitcoin; they compete with stablecoins and commercial banks.

China is definitely leading the way in CBDC development, and I would expect other nations to attempt to follow quickly. We've also seen the government of Bermuda experimenting with a stimulus token issued on the Liquid Network, which is very exciting.”

Sheila Warren, head of blockchain and DLT at the World Economic Forum:

“We’ve certainly seen increased attention in 2020 toward the digital currency space, especially from regulators and economists, which is slowly moving us toward normalizing crypto. In contrast, when we released our CBDC Policy-Maker Toolkit in January, these conversations were not yet as prominent in the public sphere.

This year, we’re starting to see things moving into production and the results of experiments becoming increasingly clear. Emerging economies continued to take the lead on experimentation and deployment — with interesting work out of Bermuda, the Eastern Caribbean and Cambodia — and of course, China remains the country to watch.”

Todd Morakis, co-founder and partner of JST Capital:

“There will likely be a number of CBDCs that launch in some limited form over the next year or two. We also expect continued growth in the number of banks issuing their own digitized currencies, with a particular focus in developing parts of the world.

We think that 2021 will be an interesting year for the adoption of digitized currencies and how that intersects with the evolving DeFi world.”

Vinny Lingham, CEO of Civic:

“China will take the early lead on central bank digital currencies. It has been clear that it wants to be the global unit of account. So, at some point in the future, we’ll see China and the U.S. duel to become the world leader on this front.

In terms of the effects on the crypto space, it’s important to remember that CBDCs are fundamentally different from crypto. A central promise of Bitcoin is that it’s non-political, and that’s important to many people who use Bitcoin. They do not want the currency to be open to manipulation by the state. Governments, by nature, cannot be non-political. So, CBDCs and crypto may coexist, but they will never be the same.

Further, I think there’s less than a 1% chance that any government-sanctioned fork would replace Bitcoin. And if this ever did happen, it would likely strengthen Bitcoin.”

These quotes have been edited and condensed.

The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the authors’ alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

"Beware the Ides of March,” Shakespeare…

Published

on

Four Years Ago This Week, Freedom Was Torched

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

"Beware the Ides of March,” Shakespeare quotes the soothsayer’s warning Julius Caesar about what turned out to be an impending assassination on March 15. The death of American liberty happened around the same time four years ago, when the orders went out from all levels of government to close all indoor and outdoor venues where people gather. 

It was not quite a law and it was never voted on by anyone. Seemingly out of nowhere, people who the public had largely ignored, the public health bureaucrats, all united to tell the executives in charge – mayors, governors, and the president – that the only way to deal with a respiratory virus was to scrap freedom and the Bill of Rights. 

And they did, not only in the US but all over the world. 

The forced closures in the US began on March 6 when the mayor of Austin, Texas, announced the shutdown of the technology and arts festival South by Southwest. Hundreds of thousands of contracts, of attendees and vendors, were instantly scrapped. The mayor said he was acting on the advice of his health experts and they in turn pointed to the CDC, which in turn pointed to the World Health Organization, which in turn pointed to member states and so on. 

There was no record of Covid in Austin, Texas, that day but they were sure they were doing their part to stop the spread. It was the first deployment of the “Zero Covid” strategy that became, for a time, official US policy, just as in China. 

It was never clear precisely who to blame or who would take responsibility, legal or otherwise. 

This Friday evening press conference in Austin was just the beginning. By the next Thursday evening, the lockdown mania reached a full crescendo. Donald Trump went on nationwide television to announce that everything was under control but that he was stopping all travel in and out of US borders, from Europe, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. American citizens would need to return by Monday or be stuck. 

Americans abroad panicked while spending on tickets home and crowded into international airports with waits up to 8 hours standing shoulder to shoulder. It was the first clear sign: there would be no consistency in the deployment of these edicts. 

There is no historical record of any American president ever issuing global travel restrictions like this without a declaration of war. Until then, and since the age of travel began, every American had taken it for granted that he could buy a ticket and board a plane. That was no longer possible. Very quickly it became even difficult to travel state to state, as most states eventually implemented a two-week quarantine rule. 

The next day, Friday March 13, Broadway closed and New York City began to empty out as any residents who could went to summer homes or out of state. 

On that day, the Trump administration declared the national emergency by invoking the Stafford Act which triggers new powers and resources to the Federal Emergency Management Administration. 

In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a classified document, only to be released to the public months later. The document initiated the lockdowns. It still does not exist on any government website.

The White House Coronavirus Response Task Force, led by the Vice President, will coordinate a whole-of-government approach, including governors, state and local officials, and members of Congress, to develop the best options for the safety, well-being, and health of the American people. HHS is the LFA [Lead Federal Agency] for coordinating the federal response to COVID-19.

Closures were guaranteed:

Recommend significantly limiting public gatherings and cancellation of almost all sporting events, performances, and public and private meetings that cannot be convened by phone. Consider school closures. Issue widespread ‘stay at home’ directives for public and private organizations, with nearly 100% telework for some, although critical public services and infrastructure may need to retain skeleton crews. Law enforcement could shift to focus more on crime prevention, as routine monitoring of storefronts could be important.

In this vision of turnkey totalitarian control of society, the vaccine was pre-approved: “Partner with pharmaceutical industry to produce anti-virals and vaccine.”

The National Security Council was put in charge of policy making. The CDC was just the marketing operation. That’s why it felt like martial law. Without using those words, that’s what was being declared. It even urged information management, with censorship strongly implied.

The timing here is fascinating. This document came out on a Friday. But according to every autobiographical account – from Mike Pence and Scott Gottlieb to Deborah Birx and Jared Kushner – the gathered team did not meet with Trump himself until the weekend of the 14th and 15th, Saturday and Sunday. 

According to their account, this was his first real encounter with the urge that he lock down the whole country. He reluctantly agreed to 15 days to flatten the curve. He announced this on Monday the 16th with the famous line: “All public and private venues where people gather should be closed.”

This makes no sense. The decision had already been made and all enabling documents were already in circulation. 

There are only two possibilities. 

One: the Department of Homeland Security issued this March 13 HHS document without Trump’s knowledge or authority. That seems unlikely. 

Two: Kushner, Birx, Pence, and Gottlieb are lying. They decided on a story and they are sticking to it. 

Trump himself has never explained the timeline or precisely when he decided to greenlight the lockdowns. To this day, he avoids the issue beyond his constant claim that he doesn’t get enough credit for his handling of the pandemic.

With Nixon, the famous question was always what did he know and when did he know it? When it comes to Trump and insofar as concerns Covid lockdowns – unlike the fake allegations of collusion with Russia – we have no investigations. To this day, no one in the corporate media seems even slightly interested in why, how, or when human rights got abolished by bureaucratic edict. 

As part of the lockdowns, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was and is part of the Department of Homeland Security, as set up in 2018, broke the entire American labor force into essential and nonessential.

They also set up and enforced censorship protocols, which is why it seemed like so few objected. In addition, CISA was tasked with overseeing mail-in ballots. 

Only 8 days into the 15, Trump announced that he wanted to open the country by Easter, which was on April 12. His announcement on March 24 was treated as outrageous and irresponsible by the national press but keep in mind: Easter would already take us beyond the initial two-week lockdown. What seemed to be an opening was an extension of closing. 

This announcement by Trump encouraged Birx and Fauci to ask for an additional 30 days of lockdown, which Trump granted. Even on April 23, Trump told Georgia and Florida, which had made noises about reopening, that “It’s too soon.” He publicly fought with the governor of Georgia, who was first to open his state. 

Before the 15 days was over, Congress passed and the president signed the 880-page CARES Act, which authorized the distribution of $2 trillion to states, businesses, and individuals, thus guaranteeing that lockdowns would continue for the duration. 

There was never a stated exit plan beyond Birx’s public statements that she wanted zero cases of Covid in the country. That was never going to happen. It is very likely that the virus had already been circulating in the US and Canada from October 2019. A famous seroprevalence study by Jay Bhattacharya came out in May 2020 discerning that infections and immunity were already widespread in the California county they examined. 

What that implied was two crucial points: there was zero hope for the Zero Covid mission and this pandemic would end as they all did, through endemicity via exposure, not from a vaccine as such. That was certainly not the message that was being broadcast from Washington. The growing sense at the time was that we all had to sit tight and just wait for the inoculation on which pharmaceutical companies were working. 

By summer 2020, you recall what happened. A restless generation of kids fed up with this stay-at-home nonsense seized on the opportunity to protest racial injustice in the killing of George Floyd. Public health officials approved of these gatherings – unlike protests against lockdowns – on grounds that racism was a virus even more serious than Covid. Some of these protests got out of hand and became violent and destructive. 

Meanwhile, substance abuse rage – the liquor and weed stores never closed – and immune systems were being degraded by lack of normal exposure, exactly as the Bakersfield doctors had predicted. Millions of small businesses had closed. The learning losses from school closures were mounting, as it turned out that Zoom school was near worthless. 

It was about this time that Trump seemed to figure out – thanks to the wise council of Dr. Scott Atlas – that he had been played and started urging states to reopen. But it was strange: he seemed to be less in the position of being a president in charge and more of a public pundit, Tweeting out his wishes until his account was banned. He was unable to put the worms back in the can that he had approved opening. 

By that time, and by all accounts, Trump was convinced that the whole effort was a mistake, that he had been trolled into wrecking the country he promised to make great. It was too late. Mail-in ballots had been widely approved, the country was in shambles, the media and public health bureaucrats were ruling the airwaves, and his final months of the campaign failed even to come to grips with the reality on the ground. 

At the time, many people had predicted that once Biden took office and the vaccine was released, Covid would be declared to have been beaten. But that didn’t happen and mainly for one reason: resistance to the vaccine was more intense than anyone had predicted. The Biden administration attempted to impose mandates on the entire US workforce. Thanks to a Supreme Court ruling, that effort was thwarted but not before HR departments around the country had already implemented them. 

As the months rolled on – and four major cities closed all public accommodations to the unvaccinated, who were being demonized for prolonging the pandemic – it became clear that the vaccine could not and would not stop infection or transmission, which means that this shot could not be classified as a public health benefit. Even as a private benefit, the evidence was mixed. Any protection it provided was short-lived and reports of vaccine injury began to mount. Even now, we cannot gain full clarity on the scale of the problem because essential data and documentation remains classified. 

After four years, we find ourselves in a strange position. We still do not know precisely what unfolded in mid-March 2020: who made what decisions, when, and why. There has been no serious attempt at any high level to provide a clear accounting much less assign blame. 

Not even Tucker Carlson, who reportedly played a crucial role in getting Trump to panic over the virus, will tell us the source of his own information or what his source told him. There have been a series of valuable hearings in the House and Senate but they have received little to no press attention, and none have focus on the lockdown orders themselves. 

The prevailing attitude in public life is just to forget the whole thing. And yet we live now in a country very different from the one we inhabited five years ago. Our media is captured. Social media is widely censored in violation of the First Amendment, a problem being taken up by the Supreme Court this month with no certainty of the outcome. The administrative state that seized control has not given up power. Crime has been normalized. Art and music institutions are on the rocks. Public trust in all official institutions is at rock bottom. We don’t even know if we can trust the elections anymore. 

In the early days of lockdown, Henry Kissinger warned that if the mitigation plan does not go well, the world will find itself set “on fire.” He died in 2023. Meanwhile, the world is indeed on fire. The essential struggle in every country on earth today concerns the battle between the authority and power of permanent administration apparatus of the state – the very one that took total control in lockdowns – and the enlightenment ideal of a government that is responsible to the will of the people and the moral demand for freedom and rights. 

How this struggle turns out is the essential story of our times. 

CODA: I’m embedding a copy of PanCAP Adapted, as annotated by Debbie Lerman. You might need to download the whole thing to see the annotations. If you can help with research, please do.

*  *  *

Jeffrey Tucker is the author of the excellent new book 'Life After Lock-Down'

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/11/2024 - 23:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

CDC Warns Thousands Of Children Sent To ER After Taking Common Sleep Aid

CDC Warns Thousands Of Children Sent To ER After Taking Common Sleep Aid

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A…

Published

on

CDC Warns Thousands Of Children Sent To ER After Taking Common Sleep Aid

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) paper released Thursday found that thousands of young children have been taken to the emergency room over the past several years after taking the very common sleep-aid supplement melatonin.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, on April 23, 2020. (Tami Chappell/AFP via Getty Images)

The agency said that melatonin, which can come in gummies that are meant for adults, was implicated in about 7 percent of all emergency room visits for young children and infants “for unsupervised medication ingestions,” adding that many incidents were linked to the ingestion of gummy formulations that were flavored. Those incidents occurred between the years 2019 and 2022.

Melatonin is a hormone produced by the human body to regulate its sleep cycle. Supplements, which are sold in a number of different formulas, are generally taken before falling asleep and are popular among people suffering from insomnia, jet lag, chronic pain, or other problems.

The supplement isn’t regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and does not require child-resistant packaging. However, a number of supplement companies include caps or lids that are difficult for children to open.

The CDC report said that a significant number of melatonin-ingestion cases among young children were due to the children opening bottles that had not been properly closed or were within their reach. Thursday’s report, the agency said, “highlights the importance of educating parents and other caregivers about keeping all medications and supplements (including gummies) out of children’s reach and sight,” including melatonin.

The approximately 11,000 emergency department visits for unsupervised melatonin ingestions by infants and young children during 2019–2022 highlight the importance of educating parents and other caregivers about keeping all medications and supplements (including gummies) out of children’s reach and sight.

The CDC notes that melatonin use among Americans has increased five-fold over the past 25 years or so. That has coincided with a 530 percent increase in poison center calls for melatonin exposures to children between 2012 and 2021, it said, as well as a 420 percent increase in emergency visits for unsupervised melatonin ingestion by young children or infants between 2009 and 2020.

Some health officials advise that children under the age of 3 should avoid taking melatonin unless a doctor says otherwise. Side effects include drowsiness, headaches, agitation, dizziness, and bed wetting.

Other symptoms of too much melatonin include nausea, diarrhea, joint pain, anxiety, and irritability. The supplement can also impact blood pressure.

However, there is no established threshold for a melatonin overdose, officials have said. Most adult melatonin supplements contain a maximum of 10 milligrams of melatonin per serving, and some contain less.

Many people can tolerate even relatively large doses of melatonin without significant harm, officials say. But there is no antidote for an overdose. In cases of a child accidentally ingesting melatonin, doctors often ask a reliable adult to monitor them at home.

Dr. Cora Collette Breuner, with the Seattle Children’s Hospital at the University of Washington, told CNN that parents should speak with a doctor before giving their children the supplement.

“I also tell families, this is not something your child should take forever. Nobody knows what the long-term effects of taking this is on your child’s growth and development,” she told the outlet. “Taking away blue-light-emitting smartphones, tablets, laptops, and television at least two hours before bed will keep melatonin production humming along, as will reading or listening to bedtime stories in a softly lit room, taking a warm bath, or doing light stretches.”

In 2022, researchers found that in 2021, U.S. poison control centers received more than 52,000 calls about children consuming worrisome amounts of the dietary supplement. That’s a six-fold increase from about a decade earlier. Most such calls are about young children who accidentally got into bottles of melatonin, some of which come in the form of gummies for kids, the report said.

Dr. Karima Lelak, an emergency physician at Children’s Hospital of Michigan and the lead author of the study published in 2022 by the CDC, found that in about 83 percent of those calls, the children did not show any symptoms.

However, other children had vomiting, altered breathing, or other symptoms. Over the 10 years studied, more than 4,000 children were hospitalized, five were put on machines to help them breathe, and two children under the age of two died. Most of the hospitalized children were teenagers, and many of those ingestions were thought to be suicide attempts.

Those researchers also suggested that COVID-19 lockdowns and virtual learning forced more children to be at home all day, meaning there were more opportunities for kids to access melatonin. Also, those restrictions may have caused sleep-disrupting stress and anxiety, leading more families to consider melatonin, they suggested.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/11/2024 - 21:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Red Candle In The Wind

Red Candle In The Wind

By Benjamin PIcton of Rabobank

February non-farm payrolls superficially exceeded market expectations on Friday by…

Published

on

Red Candle In The Wind

By Benjamin PIcton of Rabobank

February non-farm payrolls superficially exceeded market expectations on Friday by printing at 275,000 against a consensus call of 200,000. We say superficially, because the downward revisions to prior months totalled 167,000 for December and January, taking the total change in employed persons well below the implied forecast, and helping the unemployment rate to pop two-ticks to 3.9%. The U6 underemployment rate also rose from 7.2% to 7.3%, while average hourly earnings growth fell to 0.2% m-o-m and average weekly hours worked languished at 34.3, equalling pre-pandemic lows.

Undeterred by the devil in the detail, the algos sprang into action once exchanges opened. Market darling NVIDIA hit a new intraday high of $974 before (presumably) the humans took over and sold the stock down more than 10% to close at $875.28. If our suspicions are correct that it was the AIs buying before the humans started selling (no doubt triggering trailing stops on the way down), the irony is not lost on us.

The 1-day chart for NVIDIA now makes for interesting viewing, because the red candle posted on Friday presents quite a strong bearish engulfing signal. Volume traded on the day was almost double the 15-day simple moving average, and similar price action is observable on the 1-day charts for both Intel and AMD. Regular readers will be aware that we have expressed incredulity in the past about the durability the AI thematic melt-up, so it will be interesting to see whether Friday’s sell off is just a profit-taking blip, or a genuine trend reversal.

AI equities aside, this week ought to be important for markets because the BTFP program expires today. That means that the Fed will no longer be loaning cash to the banking system in exchange for collateral pledged at-par. The KBW Regional Banking index has so far taken this in its stride and is trading 30% above the lows established during the mini banking crisis of this time last year, but the Fed’s liquidity facility was effectively an exercise in can-kicking that makes regional banks a sector of the market worth paying attention to in the weeks ahead. Even here in Sydney, regulators are warning of external risks posed to the banking sector from scheduled refinancing of commercial real estate loans following sharp falls in valuations.

Markets are sending signals in other sectors, too. Gold closed at a new record-high of $2178/oz on Friday after trading above $2200/oz briefly. Gold has been going ballistic since the Friday before last, posting gains even on days where 2-year Treasury yields have risen. Gold bugs are buying as real yields fall from the October highs and inflation breakevens creep higher. This is particularly interesting as gold ETFs have been recording net outflows; suggesting that price gains aren’t being driven by a retail pile-in. Are gold buyers now betting on a stagflationary outcome where the Fed cuts without inflation being anchored at the 2% target? The price action around the US CPI release tomorrow ought to be illuminating.

Leaving the day-to-day movements to one side, we are also seeing further signs of structural change at the macro level. The UK budget last week included a provision for the creation of a British ISA. That is, an Individual Savings Account that provides tax breaks to savers who invest their money in the stock of British companies. This follows moves last year to encourage pension funds to head up the risk curve by allocating 5% of their capital to unlisted investments.

As a Hail Mary option for a government cruising toward an electoral drubbing it’s a curious choice, but it’s worth highlighting as cash-strapped governments increasingly see private savings pools as a funding solution for their spending priorities.

Of course, the UK is not alone in making creeping moves towards financial repression. In contrast to announcements today of increased trade liberalisation, Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers has in the recent past flagged his interest in tapping private pension savings to fund state spending priorities, including defence, public housing and renewable energy projects. Both the UK and Australia appear intent on finding ways to open up the lungs of their economies, but government wants more say in directing private capital flows for state goals.

So, how far is the blurring of the lines between free markets and state planning likely to go? Given the immense and varied budgetary (and security) pressures that governments are facing, could we see a re-up of WWII-era Victory bonds, where private investors are encouraged to do their patriotic duty by directly financing government at negative real rates?

That would really light a fire under the gold market.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/11/2024 - 19:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending