Connect with us

Government

Dollar Rises After Yellen Warns “Job Market Is Stalling” In Defense Of Biden’s Massive Stimulus

Dollar Rises After Yellen Warns "Job Market Is Stalling" In Defense Of Biden’s Massive Stimulus

The USDollar rose in early Asian trading against most G-20 peers after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen doubled-down on the key ask of Biden’s…

Published

on

Dollar Rises After Yellen Warns "Job Market Is Stalling" In Defense Of Biden's Massive Stimulus

The USDollar rose in early Asian trading against most G-20 peers after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen doubled-down on the key ask of Biden's agenda, demanding that Congress pass a massive stimulus (over the growing objections of such progressive economists as Larry Summers), and warning that the US risks a slower rebound in jobs and the economy if it fails to enact a robust stimulus package.

Speaking to CBS’s "Face the Nation" one of her two Sunday-morning interviews along with CNN, the former Fed chair who in 2017 predicted that there would be no financial crisis in her lifetime said “I’m afraid that the job market is stalling" the only thing that can return the US to full employment in 2022 is "sufficient" stimulus, by which she meant the full $1.9 trillion plan demanded by Joe Biden.

Going straight for the virtue signaling angle, Yellen - who as former head of the Fed has done more damage to US household wealth and income than almost any other person - said that low-wage earners, minorities and women are suffering the most and could face “permanent” damage from a prolonged slowdown. “We’re in a deep hole with respect to the job market and a long way to dig out,” she said. Without adequate support, it could take until 2025 for the U.S. labor market to recover."

She repeated the same warning to CNN's Jake Tepper, "we need a package that’s big enough to address this full range of needs and I believe that the American Rescue Plan is up to the job," adding that “we face a huge economic challenge... and tremendous suffering in the country." Which of course is laughable since the biggest beneficiaries of the recent trillions inject by Congress have been billionaires (and soon trillionaires) like Elon Musk who have seen a parabolic increase in their net wealth in 2020 while the middle class has to fight for scrap "stimmies."

While Yellen conceded that Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus isn’t specifically aimed at job creation, she said that “the spending it will generate will create demand for workers." Which is wrong: instead what it will do is many more short squeezes and more market chaos as millions of Americans directly funnel the newly created funds into the stock market, making the bubble even bigger.

The 74-year-old height-challenged Yellen was trotted out on the media circuit to defend Biden's mammoth $1.9 trillion stimulus after objections to its size unexpectedly emerged last week not only from the economist community but the Democrat economist community, after Larry Summers warned the stimulus sought by Biden would overheat the US economy and came with “big risks,” including inflation. As we noted yesterday, commodities are already rising at a rate of 25% which coincides with overall headline inflation of 4%.

Many other economists agreed with Summers, including Republican Douglas Holtz-Eakin and former IMF head economist Olivier Blanchard, currently a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute, who tweeted on Friday that "the 1.9 trillion program could overheat the economy so badly as to be counterproductive."

Sparing no vivid imagery, Blanchard warned that Biden's plan would "increase in demand could be accommodated, it would lead to a level of output at 14% above potential.   It would take the unemployment rate very close to zero. This would not be overheating; it would be starting a fire."

While these economists agree that more needs to be done, they also agree that $1.9 trillion is too much,  as it would leak to much faster inflation and an even bigger stock market bubble. Politically it could reduce the appetite in Congress for future fiscal action to tackle longer-term priorities such as infrastructure spending and fighting climate change.

Yellen pushed back on Summers' laims, saying they were small compared to the “scarring” the economy faces by not spending enough now to emerge strongly from the coronavirus pandemic.

Repeating a laughable line uttered by Ben Bernanke a decade ago, Yellen said that If inflation becomes a problem, “I can tell you we have the tools to deal with that risk," citing her own academic work and experience at the Federal Reserve, where she held various positions over 16 years, including chair. “As Treasury secretary I have to worry about all of the risks to the economy,” Yellen said.

Meanwhile, Biden doubled down on his pitch for a big package on Friday:

“Some in Congress think we’ve already done enough to deal with the crisis in the country. Others think that things are getting better and we can afford to sit back and either do little or nothing at all,” he told reporters at the White House. “That’s not what I see. I see enormous pain.”

Despite the fiery bombast, Biden’s plan has gotten little support from Republicans, whom Biden's promised to work with. Ten Republicans -- the number needed to join all 50 Senate Democrats to pass a bill -- last week proposed a $618 billion stimulus plan, which Democrats have said is wholly inadequate.

“What you hear is these broad generalities about, well, people are suffering, so let’s spend another $2 trillion. It’s not the right solution,” Pat Toomey said Sunday on CNN, suggesting a more targeted approach. And while Yellen was seen as bringing at least some "intellectual heft" (in the words of Bloomberg) to Biden’s stimulus pitch to Congress after decades of work at an independent Fed, Toomey pushed back on viewing her as a non-partisan player.

“She is not the leader of the independent Federal Reserve any more. She is now the Treasury secretary,” he said. “Her job is to be the biggest cheerleader for whatever economic policy the President Biden wants.”

One key sticking point is the fate of $1,400 economic impact payments that Biden has promised. The president is negotiating with Congress on how best to target those payments to families who most need the money and are most likely to inject it straight into the economy, according to Yellen. She said the stimulus must “go to people in households that do need the money, and that is lower-income households. We need an appropriate cutoff.”

Even if Democrats decide on a go-it-alone reconciliation bill, negotiating will be difficult because of the Senate’s razor-thin margin. All 50 Senate Democrats, plus Vice President Kamala Harris as a tiebreaker, will be needed to pass a bill. At least one Democrat -- Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia -- has been skeptical about some elements of the Biden plan. Like Toomey he wants stimulus payments to be more targeted and he’s also said he doesn’t support a $15 minimum wage.

Finally, for those who missed it, on Friday we published an op-ed by Joseph Carson, former chief economist at Alliance Bernstein who also sided with Summers warning that after a sugar high boom in 2021 and 2022, the US economy will face a bust in 2023 when the stimulus dries up. We republish it again below:

Fiscal Stimulus:  How Much Is Too Much?  Boom/Bust!, submitted by Joseph Carson, former chief economist at Alliance Bernstein

Suppose Congress passes something close to Biden's Administration stimulus proposal of $1.9 trillion. In that case, that will lift the cumulative amount of fiscal stimulus in the past 12 months to $5 trillion---three tranches $2.2 trillion, $900 billion, and $1.9 trillion.

In the past year, nominal GDP totaled $21 trillion, so the cumulative injection of fiscal stimulus amounts to almost 25%.

Nothing in modern times comes close, especially during peace times. CBO published a report in 2010 on the military costs of significant wars. The military war costs of World War 1 amounted to 13.6% of GDP and World War 11 35.8%----so the current spending/stimulus is in the middle of the two World Wars.

During World Wars, activity in the private sector is depressed. That's not the case today. The housing sector is booming, with housing starts at the highest levels in 15 years, and prices are rising double-digit to record levels. At the same time, the manufacturing sector is experiencing a mini-boom in orders and production.

Given the scale of fiscal stimulus, one would expect the Fed to be thinking of "leaning against the wind." But not this Fed--the Fed is using the same playbook from the Great Financial Recession, providing unneeded stimulus to the red-hot housing market.

What's the economic and financial endgame? It's hard to see anything but a "boom-bust" scenario playing out with fast growth and rising market interest rates in 2021 and early 2022, followed by a bust in late 2022/23 when the fiscal stimulus/support dries up.

The US experienced mild recessions following the sharp drop in government military spending after the Korean and Vietnam wars----and back then, the scale of military expenditures amounted between 2% and 4% of GDP. The "sugar-high" today is unprecedented, raising the odds of a harder landing.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/07/2021 - 15:54

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with inadequate…

Published

on

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with inadequate iron levels in their blood due to a COVID-19 infection could be at greater risk of long COVID.

(Shutterstock)

A new study indicates that problems with iron levels in the bloodstream likely trigger chronic inflammation and other conditions associated with the post-COVID phenomenon. The findings, published on March 1 in Nature Immunology, could offer new ways to treat or prevent the condition.

Long COVID Patients Have Low Iron Levels

Researchers at the University of Cambridge pinpointed low iron as a potential link to long-COVID symptoms thanks to a study they initiated shortly after the start of the pandemic. They recruited people who tested positive for the virus to provide blood samples for analysis over a year, which allowed the researchers to look for post-infection changes in the blood. The researchers looked at 214 samples and found that 45 percent of patients reported symptoms of long COVID that lasted between three and 10 months.

In analyzing the blood samples, the research team noticed that people experiencing long COVID had low iron levels, contributing to anemia and low red blood cell production, just two weeks after they were diagnosed with COVID-19. This was true for patients regardless of age, sex, or the initial severity of their infection.

According to one of the study co-authors, the removal of iron from the bloodstream is a natural process and defense mechanism of the body.

But it can jeopardize a person’s recovery.

When the body has an infection, it responds by removing iron from the bloodstream. This protects us from potentially lethal bacteria that capture the iron in the bloodstream and grow rapidly. It’s an evolutionary response that redistributes iron in the body, and the blood plasma becomes an iron desert,” University of Oxford professor Hal Drakesmith said in a press release. “However, if this goes on for a long time, there is less iron for red blood cells, so oxygen is transported less efficiently affecting metabolism and energy production, and for white blood cells, which need iron to work properly. The protective mechanism ends up becoming a problem.”

The research team believes that consistently low iron levels could explain why individuals with long COVID continue to experience fatigue and difficulty exercising. As such, the researchers suggested iron supplementation to help regulate and prevent the often debilitating symptoms associated with long COVID.

It isn’t necessarily the case that individuals don’t have enough iron in their body, it’s just that it’s trapped in the wrong place,” Aimee Hanson, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cambridge who worked on the study, said in the press release. “What we need is a way to remobilize the iron and pull it back into the bloodstream, where it becomes more useful to the red blood cells.”

The research team pointed out that iron supplementation isn’t always straightforward. Achieving the right level of iron varies from person to person. Too much iron can cause stomach issues, ranging from constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain to gastritis and gastric lesions.

1 in 5 Still Affected by Long COVID

COVID-19 has affected nearly 40 percent of Americans, with one in five of those still suffering from symptoms of long COVID, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Long COVID is marked by health issues that continue at least four weeks after an individual was initially diagnosed with COVID-19. Symptoms can last for days, weeks, months, or years and may include fatigue, cough or chest pain, headache, brain fog, depression or anxiety, digestive issues, and joint or muscle pain.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 12:50

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending