Connect with us

Government

“Transitory” Inflation? – Sublime Yet Ridiculous

"Transitory" Inflation? – Sublime Yet Ridiculous

Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via GoldSwitzerland.com,

History is a funny thing, almost as funny as human nature. The policy makers, including their latest meme of “transitory inflation,”…

Published

on

"Transitory" Inflation? - Sublime Yet Ridiculous

Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via GoldSwitzerland.com,

History is a funny thing, almost as funny as human nature. The policy makers, including their latest meme of “transitory inflation,” are no exception to such psychological tragi-comedy.

In short, we don’t see inflation as “transitory.”

Transitory Hope, Timeless Lies

It’s sometimes helpful to step outside of market history to gain perspective on human behavior, and hence, measure leadership trends at other desperate turning points similar to the one markets are now careening toward.

By late 1864, for example, as Union forces under General Grant bore closer to Richmond at the tail-end of a long and passionate civil war which a grossly outnumbered Confederate Army was (by then) destined to lose, hope nevertheless sprung eternal from an increasingly discredited leadership. 

Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States, described the mounting casualties, dying currency and withering food supplies as only “transitory.”

Less than 100 years later, as the German Wehrmacht lost its 6th Army to the cold winter and red-hot resistance of the Red Army, the propaganda machine in Berlin described that war-ending turning point in 1943 as merely a “temporary setback.”

Speaking of dying armies, Napoleon’s 1812 march into Russia with 360,000 soldiers ended in disaster when he marched out with just under 15,000 soldiers left, prompting the infamous (and shivering) Bonaparte to declare, “It’s only a small step from the sublime to the ridiculous.”

Transitory Inflation: More Fantasies from On High

Fast-forward to the Fed’s current war against natural market forces and we see yet another ridiculous example of a losing war whose inflationary death toll is being otherwise touted by our financial leadership as “transitory” or “temporary.”

Like the foregoing military examples, market bulls, sell-siders, politicians and central bankers share an uncanny capacity to ignore the obvious and promote the fantastical—as fantasy is often easier to bear (and sell to the masses) than reality.

Fantasy, after all, is as effective a tool for re-election, Fed-tenure and advisory fees in a losing market war as it is a patriotic weapon in a losing military war.

The most recent example of fantasy as policy is now evident in the popular meme that the +4% year-on-year inflation numbers in April and May are merely “transitory.”

In short, we are now being told not to worry about inflation.

That is, we can all calm down, for inflation, we are asked to believe, is as “temporary” today as the year 1-year cap on QE we were promised from Bernanke as far back as 2009, when the Fed’s balance sheet was under $1T rather than the current $7+T.

So much for promises of the “temporary” …

As for inflation being anything but “transitory,” we’ve given countless warnings, proofs and solutions to current and increasing inflation to come.

Like Robert E. Lee’s outnumbered army, the math makes future of inflation, and the slow death of the dollar, inevitable rather than theoretical.

And yet now more than ever there are those telling us not to worry about inflation or its implications.

Defending the Dis-Inflationary

In fact, and in all fairness to those who feel deflation rather than inflation is ahead, we’ve given fair voice to their viewsas well.

Nevertheless, and sadly, it seems necessary, yet again, to return to history, economic Real Politik and math to help the inflationary truth sink in.

That is, it’s time to fact-check the hope-peddlers so common to the main stream financial propaganda that surrounds us today as markets move from the Fed-supported sublime to the inflationary ridiculous.

In all fairness to the great inflation vs. deflation debate (or war), there are, again, fair arguments to be made against inflation as a long-term reality.

The latest and most common arguments against current inflation include the popular belief that supply-chain disruptions on everything from lumber to computer chips are only “temporary.”

Once these “transitory” disruptions are resolved, supply will recover and inflationary forces will vanish.

Fair enough.

Another argument gaining bullish momentum against inflation is blaming the “temporary” climb in the CPI measure of inflation on rising car prices.

Fair enough.

Deflationary pundits will also remind us that inflation numbers are un-naturally high because they measure rising prices in silly little things like food and energy. Thus, if you take them out of the equation, then inflation is really closer to 2%, so why panic?

Then again, if you have a report card with 3 A’s and 2 F’s, that too is not a problem if you simply disregard the 2 F’s… Besides, who needs food or energy anyway?

Deflationists (as well MMT fantasy pushers) will further remind that even the extreme monetary expansion unleashed by central bank money printers is not inflationary, as all that printed money never hits “velocity speed” in the real economy, and thus has no inflationary impact.

Fair enough.

Finally, the pro-deflationist camp will rightfully remind us that massive debt levels, decades of Uncle Sam’s ability to export inflation overseas and the slow economic growth of the pandemic economy will cool demand and keep prices low rather than high—all anti-inflationary forces.

Fair enough.

But here’s the rub: “Fair enough” is not the same as “true enough,” and whether one chooses to believe it or not, inflation is not only coming, it’s already here and it isn’t going to be “transitory.”

Inflation: Anything but “Transitory”

Ok, so how can we be so certain in a world of uncertainty?

Well, for one thing, the very CPI scale used to measure inflation is the open joke on Wall Street, and measures inflation about as well as Lance Armstrong’s lie detector measures truth.

We’ve addressed this topic ad nauseum.

Thus, dis-inflationary pundits can defend all day long the “transitory” nature of rising prices on everything from computer chips to used trucks, but they are ignoring the larger fact of defending their non-inflationary case with a discredited CPI witness…

Adding to the inflationary reality which is anything but “transitory” is the very definition of inflation itself, which hinges less upon that bogus CPI scale and far more upon a single metric: Increases in the broad money supply.

In case such an evidentiary (as well as mathematically obvious) increase doesn’t give you an inflationary chill, just consider the following increase in the M1 money supply. A picture, after all, says 1000 words (or billions) …

Furthermore, even if one discredits money printing (i.e., monetary policy) as inflationary due to the lack of “velocity” of printed dollars trapped behind the Hoover-like dam of the Fed, Treasury Department and TBTF banks, one simply can’t deny the inflationary effects of fiscal policy—that is: money pouring directly (and at increasing velocity) into the real economy.

Biden, for example, is proposing a $6T budget to Congress. Will it pass? Or will it be watered down to a meager $5.5T or $4.8T?

But what’s a trillion here or a trillion there in this surreal new abnormal? Given all the money spewing out of DC, trillions have become banalized to mean almost nothing to a nation and market addicted to fake money.

Then again, we all know how addictions end: You either quit or die.

Furthermore, and quite telling, is the simple fact that the Fed itself favors inflation, as there’s no better way to get themselves out of a $30T public debt hole of their own digging than by sucker-punching the masses with deliberate inflation to pay off their own debt binge with increasingly inflation-debased dollars.

The FOMC, like any general staff in a losing war, will pretend that such a currency casualty is “transitory,” or that they otherwise have the “temporary inflation battle” under control.

The Fed calls their battle plan “symmetrical inflationary targeting,” pretending to the world that they can order inflation around like a cadet at West Point.

But then again, if the Fed controls the very scale that measures inflation, perhaps they can keep bluffing (lying) their way around otherwise obvious inflation a bit longer. Either way, the end result is unavoidable.

But think about that for a second: The Fed measuring its own inflationary policy is like the Wuhan Lab measuring its own viral leaks…

An Ode to Fed Apologists

Fed apologists/cheerleaders, however, will continue with their fantasy defense that the Fed will eventually “tackle” the inflationary problem once they have full confirmation that it’s running too hot.

We discussed the open dishonesty as well as mathematical impossibility of the Fed tackling the debt (and hence inflation) problem “down the road” in a recorded interview here.

Despite such contrary math, the cheerleaders tell us the Fed will eventually step in with some needed “tapering” to keep inflation under control.

Furthermore, the Fed itself will make even more comical claims that they are very worried about unemployment, and that if jobs reports (and non-farm payrolls) continue to disappoint, the FOMC superheroes will need to keep printing money to buy bonds and keep rates low.

After all, the Fed was created to help the little guy, right? The Fed’s entire mission is to keep employment strong, right?

Well, if you believe that, do a little more research on who created the Fed and why…

The Fed’s Real Mandate: Faking It

But even if historical research on the Fed’s true origins and mission are of no interest, then just stick to current math and basic realism.

As I’ve written so many times elsewhere, the Fed is not holding back its “tapering” option just to help improve employment.

Nope.

Instead, the Fed is going to hold back tapering because they have taken our nation to the highest levels of debt danger ever seen in its history; thus, if they were to ever “taper” and allow rates to naturally rise, Uncle Sam (and the markets) would be insolvent faster than Powell can mince words on 60 Minutes.

In short, “tapering” is not an option, it’s a fantasy buzz-word for troops otherwise losing morale.

This means the money printers will continue to run hot to the tune of billions per month and deficit spending (along with Fed balance sheets) will continue run hot to the tune of trillions per year, which means inflation is and will be anything but “transitory.”

Does this mean that the year-over-year rate of change in inflation will be 4%, then 5% then 6% with each passing month on a never-ending rise to the north?

No.

Inflation numbers, including the fictional ones coming out of DC, will see peaks and valleys, and I’m not suggesting inflation will hit 18% by the time you read this.

Nor am I suggesting that periods of disinflationary “relief” won’t make the headlines soon if, for example, lumber and car prices revert to their means, which is always possible, if not likely, once bottlenecks at saw mills and shipping ports are reduced.

And hey, maybe Fauci et all will be able to lock us all down with ever-knew COVID variant headlines which crush demand and alas, dis-inflate the CPI.

Again, nothing moves in a straight line, including inflation, but the trends and realities (monetary and fiscal excess) discussed above are not “transitory” and thus neither is (or will be) inflation.

Of course, inflation is a deadly enemy. It eats away at market returns, savings accounts, currency power and hence spending power.

Like the winter outside of Moscow, Borodino, Petersburg or Stalingrad, it’s a silent killer.

And like Napoleon’s army in Russia or Lee at Gettysburg, our financial leaders now stand before a cannonade of fatal money supply levels and yet still think (or tell us) they are winning…

In short, they have already taken our markets, economies and currencies over that fine line from the sublime to the ridiculous.

But like many of their faithful soldiers and current investors, those with the most to lose just don’t know the danger they are already in or the war their currencies will inevitably lose.

That’s neither sublime nor ridiculous; just tragic.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/10/2021 - 06:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

AstraZeneca antibody cocktail fails to prevent Covid-19 symptoms in large trial

AstraZeneca said a late-stage trial failed to provide evidence that the company’s Covid-19 antibody therapy protected people who had contact with an infected person from the disease, a small setback in its efforts to find alternatives to vaccines.

Published

on

Astra antibody cocktail fails to prevent COVID-19 symptoms in large trial

(Reuters; )

June 15 (Reuters) – AstraZeneca (AZN.L) said on Tuesday a late-stage trial failed to provide evidence that its COVID-19 antibody therapy protected people who had contact with an infected person from the disease, a small setback in its efforts to find alternatives to vaccines.

The study assessed whether the therapy, a cocktail of two types of antibodies, could prevent adults who had been exposed to the virus in the past eight days from developing COVID-19 symptoms.

The therapy, AZD7442, was 33% effective in reducing the risk of people developing symptoms compared with a placebo, but that result was not statistically significant — meaning it might have been due to chance and not the therapy.

The Phase III study, which has not been peer reviewed, included 1,121 participants in the United Kingdom and the United States. The vast majority, though not all, were free of the virus at the start of the trial.

Results for a subset of participants who were not infected to begin with was more encouraging but the primary analysis rested on results from all participants.

FILE PHOTO: A computer image created by Nexu Science Communication together with Trinity College in Dublin, shows a model structurally representative of a betacoronavirus which is the type of virus linked to COVID-19, better known as the coronavirus linked to the Wuhan outbreak, shared with Reuters on February 18, 2020. NEXU Science Communication/via REUTERS

“While this trial did not meet the primary endpoint against symptomatic illness, we are encouraged by the protection seen in the PCR negative participants following treatment with AZD7442,” AstraZeneca Executive Vice President Mene Pangalos said in a statement.

The company is banking on further studies to revive the product’s fortunes. Five more trials are ongoing, testing the antibody cocktail as treatment or in prevention.

The next one will likely be from a larger trial testing the product in people with a weakened immune system due to cancer or an organ transplant, who may not benefit from a vaccine.

TARGETED ALTERNATIVES

AZD7442 belongs to a class of drugs called monoclonal antibodies which mimic natural antibodies produced by the body to fight off infections.

Similar therapies developed by rivals Regeneron (REGN.O) and Eli Lilly (LLY.N) have been approved by U.S. regulators for treating unhospitalised COVID patients.

European regulators have also authorised Regeneron’s therapy and are reviewing those developed by partners GlaxoSmithKline (GSK.L) and Vir Biotechnology (VIR.O) as well as by Lilly and Celltrion (068270.KS).

Regeneron is also seeking U.S. authorisation for its therapy as a preventative treatment.

But the AstraZeneca results are a small blow for the drug industry as it tries to find more targeted alternatives to COVID-19 inoculations, particularly for people who may not be able to get vaccinated or those who may have an inadequate response to inoculations.

The Anglo-Swedish drugmaker, which has faced a rollercoaster of challenges with the rollout of its COVID-19 vaccine, is also developing new treatments and repurposing existing drugs to fight the virus.

AstraZeneca also said on Tuesday it was in talks with the U.S. government on “next steps” regarding a $205 million deal to supply up to 500,000 doses of AZD7442. Swiss manufacturer Lonza (LONN.S) was contracted to produce AZD7442.

Shares in the company were largely unchanged on the London Stock Exchange.

The full results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal, the company said.

Reporting by Vishwadha Chander in Bengaluru; Editing by Shounak Dasgupta

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

 

Reuters source:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/astrazeneca-says-its-antibody-treatment-failed-in-preventing-covid-19-exposed-2021-06-15

 

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Former FDA Head Takes on Exec Role at Flagship’s Preemptive Health Initiative

Stephen Hahn, the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under former President Donald Trump, took on a new role as chief medical officer of a new health security initiative launched by Flagship Pioneering, a life sciences venture firm…

Published

on

Former FDA Head Takes on Exec Role at Flagship’s Preemptive Health Initiative

 

Stephen Hahn, the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under former President Donald Trump, has taken on a new role as chief medical officer of a new health security initiative launched by Flagship Pioneering, a life sciences venture firm that incubates and curates biopharma companies.

First announced Monday, Flagship’s Preemptive Medicine and Health Security initiative aimed at developing products that can help people before they get sick. This division will focus on infectious disease threats and pursue bold treatments for existing diseases, including cancer, obesity, and neurodegeneration. 

In a brief statement, Hahn, who served as commissioner from December 2019 until January 2021, said the importance of investing in innovation and preemptive medications has never been more apparent. 

“In my career I have been a doctor and a researcher foremost and it is an honor to join Flagship Pioneering in its efforts to prioritize innovation, particularly in its Preemptive Medicine and Health Security Initiative. The more we can embrace a “what if …” approach the better we can support and protect the health and well-being of people here in the U.S. and around the world,” Hahn said in a statement. 

During his time at the FDA, Hahn was at the forefront of the government’s effort to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. His office oversaw the regulatory authorization of antivirals, antibody therapeutics and vaccines, as well as diagnostics and other tools to battle the novel coronavirus. 

Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images

Hahn bore the brunt of verbal barbs aimed at the FDA by the former president for not rushing to authorize a vaccine for COVID-19 ahead of the November 2020 election. The second vaccine authorized by the FDA for COVID-19 was developed by Moderna, a Flagship company. 

Prior to his confirmation as FDA Commissioner, Hahn, a well-respected oncologist, served as chief medical executive of the vaunted The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Hahn was named deputy president and chief operating officer in 2017. In that role, he was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the cancer center, which includes managing more than 21,000 employees and a $5.2 billion operating budget. He was promoted to that position two years after joining MD Anderson as division head, department chair and professor of Radiation Oncology. Prior to MD Anderson, Hahn served as head of the radiation oncology department at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine.

Flagship Founder and Chief Executive Officer Noubar Afeyan said the COVID-19 pandemic that shut down economies and caused the deaths of more than 3.8 million people across the world was an important reminder that health security is a top global priority. In addition, the ongoing pandemic brings into “stark focus” the importance of preemptive medications. 

Hahn, who helmed the FDA for three years and before that served as chief medical executive at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, has extensive experience overseeing clinical and administrative programs. Afeyan said the new division would benefit from Hahn’s experience as FDA Commissioner and help steer the Preemptive Medicine and Health Security initiative as it explores Flagship’s “growing number of explorations and companies in this emerging field.”

It is not unusual for former FDA heads to take prominent roles with companies. For example, former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, Trump’s first FDA Commissioner, took a position on the Pfizer Board of Directors weeks after departing his government role. He has also taken positions on other boards since then, including Aetion, FasterCures and Illumina.

 

BioSpace source:

https://www.biospace.com/article/former-fda-head-stephen-hahn-takes-cmo-role-at-flagship-pioneering-preemptive-health-initiative-

 

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Five U.S. states had coronavirus infections even before first reported cases – study

At least seven people in five U.S. states were infected with the novel coronavirus weeks before those states reported their first cases, a new government study showed.

Published

on

Five U.S. states had coronavirus infections even before first reported cases – study

(Reuters) – At least seven people in five U.S. states were infected with the novel coronavirus weeks before those states reported their first cases, a new government study showed.

Participants who reported antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were likely exposed to the virus at least several weeks before their sample was taken, as the antibodies do not appear until about two weeks after a person has been infected, the researchers said.

The latest results build on findings from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that suggested the novel coronavirus may have been circulating in the United States last December, well before the first COVID-19 case was diagnosed on Jan. 19, 2020.

A protective face mask lays, as the global outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continues, beside leaves at the lakefront in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., December 6, 2020. REUTERS/Shannon/File Photo

The positive samples came from Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and were part of a study of more than 24,000 blood samples taken for a National Institutes of Health research program between Jan. 2 and March 18, 2020.

Samples from participants in Illinois were collected on Jan. 7 and Massachusetts on Jan. 8, suggesting that the virus was present in those states as early as late December.

“This study allows us to uncover more information about the beginning of the U.S. epidemic,” said Josh Denny, one of the study authors.

The findings were published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

Reporting by Mrinalika Roy in Bengaluru; Editing by Anil D’Silva

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

 

Reuters source:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/five-us-states-had-coronavirus-infections-even-before-first-reported-cases-study-2021-06-15

 

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending