It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
A doctor fired from Phoenix Children's Hospital for social media posts in which she condemned Israel and accused Zionists of having a "thirst to kill our Palestinian children" has filed a job discrimination complaint with the Arizona Attorney General's Office, according to documents obtained by The Arizona Republic.
"A state based on atrocity, inhumanity, racism and cannibalism never lasts long," Wishah continued. "Hey #israel ... your end is coming sooner than you think."
Liora Rez, executive director of StopAntisemitism.org, issued a statement to The Republic on Wednesday congratulating the hospital for "taking a brave step in fighting antisemitism and making sure their patients are protected from hatred and bigotry."
StopAntisemitism.org tweeted about Wishah's posts on June 21, prompting a response from Phoenix Children's Hospital on June 23 that said children in its care "receive hope, healing and the best possible health care, regardless of race, color, disability, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or national origin."
"After a thorough review of the facts related to this matter, this individual is no longer providing care at Phoenix Children's," the hospital said.
Rez said medical providers are obligated to provide care "free of prejudice" and added that her organization calls on all companies to "take a similar strong stance against antisemitism."
"When scrolling through Fidaa Wishah's social media posts her disdain for the Jewish people and their homeland, Israel, becomes clear and undeniable," Rez wrote.
In a written statement to The Republic, Wishah said her posts stemmed from her experiences as a Palestinian woman who grew up in a refugee camp in Gaza. She said she "witnessed the death, destruction and suffering of so many members of my community" before leaving Gaza when she was 17, determined to make a difference in the world by becoming a doctor.
Wishah said despite her experiences and positions on the conflict, she has "never discriminated against a Jewish person in my personal or professional life." She added that a "plain and honest reading" of her posts make it "abundantly clear" that her criticism is directed toward the State of Israel and not Jewish people.
"I am an activist," she wrote. "I do not just pay lip service to social justice issues. It is part of my being."
Phoenix Children's Hospital did not respond to The Republic's repeated requests for comment.
Wishah says she was 'singled out' for social media posts
The complaint, provided to The Republic by the Council on American-Islamic Relations Arizona chapter, indicates it was filed with the Arizona Attorney General's Office's Civil Rights Division in late July. It alleges that Wishah was subjected to "discrimination, retaliation, disparate treatment and unlawful termination" based on her sex, race, color, religion and national origin.
Attorney General's Office spokesperson Katie Conner told The Republic that complaints filed with the Civil Rights Division are confidential pursuant to Arizona law and that the office therefore "cannot confirm or deny if a complaint was filed or if there is or was any investigation."
Wishah wrote in the complaint that she was "singled out" for her social media posts regarding the "atrocities committed by the State of Israel against Palestinian people."
She went on to say that in the time since she began working at the hospital two years prior, she and other co-workers were encouraged to attend a solidarity gathering during work hours in support of Black Lives Matter and in opposition to systemic racism.
On June 21, Wishah said her supervisor informed her about complaints the hospital received because of her social media posts from the month prior. She said her supervisor, who was not named in the complaint, told her that he "supported my cause and ... knew I was not anti-Semitic."
During a human resources meeting later in the day, Wishah said she was shown the complaints and told that the hospital's social media policy was "vague and that I had not violated any policies" but that they would be reviewing the situation because of the volume of complaints.
Wishah was suspended with pay on June 22 and terminated the next day "under the pretext that I lacked professional judgement, inconsistent with the Hospital's mission and allegedly diverted resources away from the hospital's patients," she wrote in the complaint.
She went on to allege that the hospital acted on "racially and religiously-motivated criticism" in firing her but that it hadn't fired other employees who commented publicly about "civil and human rights abuses."
Azza Abuseif, executive director of CAIR's Arizona chapter, issued a statement to The Republic on Aug. 20 in which she claimed that the hospital "jumped at the opportunity to destroy the livelihood of a Palestinian woman."
Abuseif said there was a "willful misrepresentation" of Wishah's statements and that the hospital's response was "bigoted" and retaliatory. She called the complaint the "first step in remedying this injustice."
FORWARD TO THE PAST
Conservative leader rejects Canada's new emissions target, favours previous goal
Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole is rejecting Canada’s new target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in favour of a lower one first set by Stephen Harper.
It comes as Canada prepares to attend the United Nations Climate Change conference this fall, where countries are expected to commit more ways to tackle the issue.
In anticipation of the meeting, the Liberal government recently increased its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to between 40% and 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, up from 30%.
The 30% goal was set by former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and was the commitment the country was held to under the 2015 Paris Agreement.
O’Toole says the Conservatives’ climate change plan “will meet the Paris objectives” of 30%, despite the United Nations specifying the agreement works by countries coming up with “increasingly ambitious climate action” every five years.
“In the 10 days after I launched our plan in April, [Trudeau] changed his targets three times with no plan,” O’Toole said at a campaign stop in Corner Brook, NL.
The Conservative leader touted his plan, which proposes charging a carbon price on fuel and putting more electric vehicles on the road, as one that strikes a balance between combating climate change and protecting jobs and economic growth.
“If people want to get the country working again, there’s only one option in this election: the Conservative party,” said O’Toole. But Michael Bernstein, executive director of Clean Prosperity, which advocated for the party to adopt carbon pricing, said O’Toole’s planned cut of 30% “would be a step backwards” compared to the commitments made by other G7 allies.
“If O’Toole sticks to the 30% target he will be forced to revise the climate target that the current federal government has already submitted to the UN as part of the Paris treaty,” he wrote in a statement to The Canadian Press.
“This would be a violation of the Paris treaty and, while there’d be no legal impact, it would send the wrong signal to the rest of the world, including potential investors, about our commitment to climate action.”
Caroline Brouillette, a policy manager at Climate Action Network Canada, said in a statement that weakening Canada’s target submitted to the UN “would not only be a diplomatic disaster, but a failure to recognize that Canada should do its fair share of the global effort to limit global warming to 1.5C.”
“Raising ambition is at the heart of the Paris Agreement. Levelling down would violate its spirit,” she said.
Trudeau announced a higher emissions-reduction target for Canada earlier this year while attending a virtual climate summit convened by US President Joe Biden, who pledged to slash his country’s greenhouse gas pollution levels by 50 to 52%.
The Liberal government recently inked the new goal into legislation committing Canada to hit net-zero emissions by 2050. Parliament passed the bill before its summer break despite the Conservatives voting against it.
The government, however, has yet to detail how it plans to meet its strengthened goals.
O’Toole entered the 13th day of the campaign by making a swing along the East Coast, stopping first in western Newfoundland, where the party hopes to win its first seat on the island in years.
The last time Newfoundland and Labrador was home to a Conservative MP was in Harper’s final term.
During an announcement in Corner Brook, where O’Toole promised to increase EI benefits for sick workers, he sidestepped questions about whether he would uphold a $5.2 million deal Ottawa struck with the province ahead of the election call over the long-troubled Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.
The leader later clarified that he would.
“A Conservative government under my leadership will honour the deal in place with the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador for the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project,” O’Toole said in a statement afterwards.
“We will also create jobs and boost the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador by supporting the offshore industry – a sharp contrast with the other parties who have been clear they want to shut that industry down.”
Economists Are Vastly Underestimating the Economic Impact of Climate Change
Economists are expecting a tiny reduction in GDP despite climate science suggesting far more dramatic consequences, according to a new study.
When it comes to the climate emergency, the scientific consensus is clear: human activity is heating Earth more rapidly now than at any point in the last 2,000 years. This is causing rapid, widespread changes to our oceans, our atmosphere and our biosphere.
The effects will continue for decades, possibly centuries, to come with dramatic increases in extreme weather events, such as heat waves, forest fires, hurricanes, flooding, ice melts and sea level rises. Indeed, this increase in extreme events is already upon us.
Parts of the planet are likely to become uninhabitable, where temperature increases will make it impossible to live or grow food. And that is likely to trigger patterns of migration with global consequences.
It’s easy to imagine that these changes will have a huge impact on the global economy and our ability to maintain the quality of life we enjoy today.
But according to economists, the economic impact of all this climate change is likely to be minimal. “Economists have predicted that damages from global warming will be as low as 2.1 percent of global economic production for a 3◦C rise in global average surface temperature, and 7.9 percent for a 6◦C rise,” say Steve Keen, at University College London and a group of colleagues.
Now, this team has examined the approach that economists have taken and say it is riddled with misconceptions and lacking in a basic understanding of climate science. And the predictions of economists have led to a number of significant missteps by policy makers, for example, in the pricing of carbon. Evidence-Based Science
That needs to change. Instead, the team say predictions about the future of the global economy must be based on evidence-based science so that policy makers can best decide how to plan for the future.
First some background. Predicting the future of the global economy is notoriously difficult. Nevertheless, economists have developed a number of models to evaluate the potential impact of climate change. Perhaps the most influential is the Dynamic Integrated Climate Economy, or DICE, model developed by William Nordhaus, an economist at Yale University in New Haven.
The DICE model has hugely influenced thinking about the economic impact of climate change. In 2018, Nordhaus received the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on “integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis”.
But now Keen and colleagues say there are serious flaws in the way this and other models represent the impact of climate change. That’s why they predict such a small impact when the change to the climate and our way of life will be massive.
The team says that these models do not properly take scientific thinking into account. For example, climate scientists agree that an important property of Earth’s climate is the existence of tipping points in which climate subsystems switch from one state to another, often in ways that cannot easily be reversed.
These are important because they amplify the effects of warming, creating conditions in which other systems can flip in a tipping point cascade. Examples include the disappearance of summer ice cover in the Arctic Sea and the irreversible shrinkage of the Greenland ice sheet.
Tipping Points
The big fear is that we are much closer than expected to these tipping points. The team point to one influential paper that suggested “a variety of tipping elements could reach their critical point within this century.”
Curiously, tipping points do not feature in most economic analyses of the impact of climate change. Keen and co say that Nordhaus asserts that there are “no critical tipping elements with a time horizon less than 300 years until global temperatures have increased by at least 3◦C.”
Another problem is that the DICE model assumes that the economic effects of climate change will be small compared to other factors such as new technology, population changes and so on. This does not seem reasonable when some cities and regions are likely to become uninhabitable after an increase of just 4◦C.
Indeed, the model assumes that climate change will influence just a small part of the economy. Keen and co say this is because Nordhaus seems to consider only those industries affected by the weather, which make up just 13 percent of the economy. The rest will seemingly experience negligible effects.
However, Keen and co point out that confusing weather with climate in this way is a serious mistake. “This assumption that only economic activities that are exposed to the weather will be affected by climate change can be rejected on at least three grounds,” they say.
For example, wildfires can significantly impact the output from nearby factories, not least because many people will be unable to work there. And higher outdoor temperatures that make regions uninhabitable will certainly affect factory output. “Factories without workers produce zero output,” they say. And changes in biodiversity will influence the availability of resources and have significant economic impact.
If economic models do not consider these possibilities, they are bound to under-estimate the impact of climate change.
One line of thought is that when some regions become less productive, others will become more productive. For example, crops could be grown at higher latitudes.
But Keen and co say this is unlikely to make up the difference or come anywhere near to it. They give the example of a commodity such as grain and imagine a scenario in which America’s breadbasket regions such as Idaho become hotter and less productive for grain. But in that case, grain production “will not be replaced at higher latitudes due to the poorer topsoil,” they say.
In all these cases, the economic impact is likely to be huge and devastating.
The withering conclusion from this study is that economic models are not fit for purpose. “We conclude that there are fundamental and insurmountable weaknesses in estimates by economists of the damages from climate change, such that they should not be used to assess the risks from climate change,” says Keen and co.
That’s a damning assessment and one that policy makers would do well to consider in more detail before setting out their response to climate change. These are decisions we need to make now; we cannot afford to get them wrong.
Plymouth MP Johnny Mercer has shared his dismay at news that the Taliban have seized $85 billion worth of US military equipment.
In a press conference this week, Republican Jim Banks, who served in Afghanistan, launched a stinging attack on president Joe Biden and his administration.
“My job there was as a foreign military sales officer so I was on the front lines of acquiring the equipment that the Americans turned over to the Afghan army and the Afghan police,” Banks says in the video.
“I’m going to read to you what is so painful for me and so many other Afghan veterans who served in that capacity, others who served as part of the train, advise and assist equip effort as part of helping the Afghans. Black hawk helicopters
“We now know that, due to the negligence of this administration, the Taliban now has access to over $85billion worth of US military equipment.
“That includes 75,000 vehicles, over 200 aeroplanes and helicopters, over 600,000 small arms and light weapons.
“The Taliban now has more black hawk helicopters than 85 per cent of the countries in the world.
“But they don’t just have weapons, they also have night-vision goggles, body armour and medical supplies.
“And unbelievably, unfathomably to me and so many others, is that the Taliban now has biometric devices which have the finger prints, eye scans and the biographical information of the Afghans who helped us over the last 20 years.
“And here’s what we just learned again in the briefing that we just walked out of. This administration still has no plan to get this military equipment or these supplies back.” Reaction
Mercer tweeted on Thursday: “This will stop you in your tracks. Unbelievable.
“We gave them the names of those we trained to fight them. And some we will leave behind to the violence we see at the airport. An appalling day, verging from rage to tears.”
Reaction elsewhere has been similarly fierce.
Here’s what people had to say:
US STATE DEPARTMENT ABANDONS SEVEN CH-46ES IN KABUL
27th August 2021
Seven Boeing Vertol CH-46E Sea Knight helicopters operated by the US Department of State Air Wing (DoSAW) have been abandoned in Afghanistan. They had most recently been used on August 15 to ferry personnel evacuating the US Embassy in Kabul out to Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport to board outbound flights.
Following a request on their status, a background statement provided to Key.Aero by a State Department official on August 25 said: “We can confirm that the Department left seven CH-46 helicopters behind in Afghanistan which were rendered inoperable. These helicopters were already being phased out of the Department’s inventory and were slated for eventual destruction due to age and supportability issues. As of August 15, 2021, the Department no longer operates any aircraft in Afghanistan.”
US Department of State Air Wing CH-46E Sea Knight N431WR in the US Embassy compound in Kabul, Afghanistan, during then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit on March 23, 2020. Note the 7.62mm M240D machine gun in the forward cabin door and the decoy flare dispensers. This is most likely one of seven left behind after evacuating Embassy staff from that very same compound on August 15. US State Department/Ronny Przysucha
The elderly CH-46s are all former US Marine Corps (USMC) examples, which were extensively refurbished before entering DoSAW service from 2012. In 2018, there were 23 in the DoSAW inventory, but by August this year, only 11 were still officially registered to the Department of State, including those now left to their fate in Afghanistan. It is not known whether any of the other CH-46s remain operational, but it seems most likely that the majority are now out of service and the Kabul embassy evacuation could well have been their swansong.
The Sea Knight is the same type used by the USMC in the evacuation of the US Embassy following the fall of Saigon in South Vietnam in 1975. Coincidentally, one of the DoSAW CH-46Es used in the recent Kabul evacuation was N38TU, which was formerly BuAer 154038 with the USMC. This was one of the helicopters deployed on the USS Hancock (CV-19) in 1975 to support evacuation of Saigon in Operation Frequent Wind.
By Dave Allport
Afghanistan: US ‘blew up military equipment’ after Kabul bomb attack to stop it falling into wrong hands
There are fears that billions of pounds worth of weapons, aircraft and vehicles, meant to aid the Afghan National Army, could now be used by the Taliban
A US soldier fires a pistol into the air as Afghans hoping to flee sit on a roadside near Kabul airport (Photo: Wakil Kohsar/AFP via Getty)
American soldiers have reportedly blown up US military equipment in Afghanistan in order to avoid it falling into the wrong hands as evacuation flights draw to a close.
Blasts heard shortly after two suicide bombers and gunmen targeted crowds of Afghans outside Kabul airport were US forces attempting to destroy weapons and ammunition, the Taliban said.
Isis-K has claimed responsibility for the terror attacks, which have so far killed killed at least 95 Afghans and 13 American troops, according to Afghan and US officials. At least 150 people were injured.
Two explosions tore through crowds of people desperately trying to make it onto the final flights out of Afghanistan, one at the Abbey Gate entrance to Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport, and another at the nearby Baron Hotel, which British officials had been using as a processing centre for those wanting to flee.
Shortly after the two attacks, other explosions could be heard some miles away from the airport, causing confusion among witnesses.
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said the blasts were carried out by US forces attempting to destroy their equipment amid the chaotic exit.
According to the Associated Press, the US had left behind small weapons and ammunition for the Afghan military in the lead up to the Taliban takeover as the troop withdrawal began. US forces took heavy weapons with them, but any ammunition for arms not being left behind was blown up before troops left.
With the 31 August deadline set by Joe Biden giving troops in the country just hours before evacuations end, there are fears that billions of pounds worth of US military equipment, used to aid the Afghan National Army, could now land in the hands of Taliban militants.
It includes 75,000 vehicles, 200 aeroplanes and helicopters, and 600,000 small arms, according to former US Navy reservist Jim Banks.
“The Taliban now has more Black Hawk helicopters than 85 per cent of the countries in the world,” he told The Telegraph.
“Unfathomable to me and so many others, the Taliban now has biometric devices which have the fingerprints, eye scans and biographical information of all the Afghans who helped us and were on our side in the last 20 years.”
Evacuation efforts will run until August 31, prioritising the removal of US troops and military equipment in the last days.
The President vowed to avenge the 13 US service members killed in attacks, saying: “We will not forgive, we will not forget, we will hunt you down and make you pay.”
The Pentagon confirmed that the US losses included 11 Marines, one Navy medic and another service member who was providing support to evacuating Americans.
After taking over Kabul, Taliban take US Black Hawk chopper for a joyride (VIDEO)
Friday, 27 Aug 2021 BY SYLVIA LOOI
A clip showing the members of the Taliban taking a US Blackhawk for a joyride has gone viral on social media. — Screencapture from Twitter/ @JosephHDempsey
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates.
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 27 — A video has been going around social media showing the Taliban taking a US Black Hawk helicopter for a joyride.
They, however, failed to get the aircraft off the ground, The Sun reported.
The footage is said to have been taken at Kandahar Airport showing the chopper taxied on the tarmac.
According to the portal, the Taliban are now parading in their captured equipment and uniforms after making off with some £13 billion (RM74 billion) worth of abandoned weapons and vehicles, including 200,000 firearms and 20,000 Humvees seized from the Afghan army.
Fox News reported that the footage came about after President Joe Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan reportedly said the Taliban had seized a “fair amount” of US weaponry after it took over the country earlier this month.
“We don’t have a complete picture, obviously, of where every article of defence material has gone,” Sullivan said.
“But certainly, a fair amount of it has fallen into the hands of the Taliban, and, obviously, we don’t have a sense that they are going to readily hand it over to us at the airport.”
The station added that the US had spent about US$83 billion (RM347.8 billion) since 2001 on training and equipment for Afghan forces, including US$147 million (RM615.9 million) on Black Hawk helicopters and US$2 billion (RM8.4 billion) on Humvees.
Other photos and videos show Taliban soldiers carrying US and US ally-made weapons and gear that appear to be stolen from allied militaries while patrolling parts of Kabul.
Biden urged to scrap Trump ‘Remain in Mexico’ migrant policy after court ruling
Leading Democratic senator calls for end of ‘disgraceful policy’
Supreme court ruled Biden must revive MPP program
Migrants camp at El Chaparral shelter in the city of Tijuana, Mexico, this week. Photograph: Joebeth TerrÃquez/EPA
Guardian staff and agencies Thu 26 Aug 2021
Democratic lawmakers and immigration advocates are pressing Joe Biden to take new steps to end an immigration policy begun by his predecessor, Donald Trump, after the US supreme court ordered that the controversial “Remain in Mexico” program be reinstated.
The policy put in place by Trump, forced thousands of asylum seekers to stay in Mexico to await US hearings, instead of being allowed to cross the US-Mexico border and follow their legal process, which can take years to play out, on American soil.
The conservative-majority supreme court on Tuesday ordered that Biden must comply with a Texas-based federal judge’s ruling to revive the program, although federal officials retain some discretion on how to do that.
Authorities in the Republican-led states of Texas and Missouri had challenged Biden’s ending of the program, saying his administration failed to follow the correct legal process.
The MPP was a cornerstone of Trump’s hardline immigration policies. Biden promised what he called a more humane approach to immigration.
The US Senate foreign relations committee chairman, Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, called on Biden’s administration “to curtail and put a lawful end to the implementation of this disgraceful policy”.
Lucille Roybal-Allard, a Democratic US Representative for California, also urged the administration to roll back “an inhumane policy that forced asylum seekers, including women and children, to wait in dangerous border cities, placing them in greater risk of exploitation by cartels and criminal organizations”.
The US government has already been in touch with Mexico over the issue, a senior Mexican foreign ministry official, Roberto Velasco, said on Twitter, calling the judicial process a “unilateral measure” by the US.
Mexico is not bound by the court’s decision and will exercise sovereignty over its migration policies, the Mexican foreign ministry said in a statement.
Mexican officials have privately expressed concern that the policy strains Mexico’s ability to shelter migrants.
Economic benefits of Tokyo Games estimated at over $55 billion
(Mainichi Japan)
Fireworks are set off during the Paralympic Opening Ceremony over Japan National Stadium for the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games, on Aug. 24, 2021. (Bob Martin for OIS via AP)
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The economic benefits of the Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics will be about 6.14 trillion yen ($55.75 billion) but Japanese organizers will incur a loss of more than 2 trillion yen, a scholar's estimates showed Thursday.
Of the benefits, about 3.27 trillion yen from spending on the construction of facilities, including the National Stadium and the athletes' village, have already spilled over into society, according to Katsuhiro Miyamoto, a professor emeritus of theoretical economics at Kansai University, who released the projections.
The remainder will come from consumption during the Tokyo Games and positive "legacy-related" effects expected to be seen after the end of the games early next month, Miyamoto said.
Miyamoto also looked into the organizers' revenues since Tokyo won the bid to host the Olympics and Paralympics in 2013 and expenditures associated with the games. He found that their total deficit is expected to be 2.37 trillion yen.
Of the deficit, the Tokyo metropolitan government's loss stands at 1.41 trillion yen and the central government's at 874 billion yen, with the rest incurred by the organizing committee.
"Based on figures publicly announced by responsible institutions, I objectively calculated them," he said.
The professor said his estimates do not include adverse effects stemming from the spread of the coronavirus.
As a precaution against the virus, the Olympics were held behind closed doors at almost all venues for 17 days until they ended on Aug. 8.
The Paralympics, which started Tuesday and will run through Sept. 5, have become a largely TV-only event as well, with spectators barred from attending due to an alarming rise of COVID-19 cases in recent weeks.
Now, after a significant social media outcry, the star has reportedly responded, with a source telling The Sun the singer is ‘aware of the criticism and is disappointed and angry that she wasn’t made aware of questions about its history.’
The iconic 128.54 carat $30 million canary yellow Tiffany Diamond was ‘discovered’ in South Africa in the 19th century, and has been the subject of criticism for many years over its less-than-transparent origins. The term ‘blood diamond’ refers to gems that are mined in conflict zones and sold to fund military action.
Many diamond mines in Africa have historically been run by colonialists and warlords who often relied on slaves and child labourers, with the Kimberly mine in which the Tiffany Diamond was discovered known to have forced its workers to live in abject conditions.
‘How many of you socially conscious activist[s] own diamonds? I thought so! Well guess what did you go to try to check to see where the diamond came from? Probably not,’ Knowles wrote.
‘So when you guys get engaged you won’t have a diamond you gonna put on a sterling silver band And you better check out where it came from and the origin of where came from and why you add it check out the calls for the Leather that you weird (sic) because they made it came from another country to ban and not buy diamonds right because your (sic) righteous!’ she continued
US shares reach for record highs as investors take comfort in stimulus
The S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 rose during the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell’s, much-anticipated address
Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell: Stock investors take assurance from speech
FRI, 27 AUG, 2021 - 17:54
US equities gained to record highs as investors took assurance from comments by Jerome Powell that the withdrawal of stimulus would be gradual.
The S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 rose during the Federal Reserve chairman’s much-anticipated address from Jackson Hole, where he reinforced the message that it would be appropriate to begin tapering bond purchases by the end of the year.
The Stoxx Europe 600 index gained, on track for the seventh straight month of gains, the longest streak in eight years.
Mr Powell said the economy has now met the test of “substantial further progress” toward the Fed’s inflation objective while the labor market has also made “clear progress”.
“Investors are breathing a sigh of relief as Powell suggests a kinder, gentler Fed tightening,” said Mike Bailey, director of research at FBB Capital Partners.
“Judging by the equity move, my sense is mainstream investors expected a harder line from Powell about tapering starting in the fall and rate hikes locked in for late 2022 or early 2023,” Mr Bailey said.
Senior market analyst Joshua Mahony at online broker IG said the comments came as a relief to stock markets which had worried all week about the speech.
"Jerome Powell’s Jackson Hole appearance helped lift spirits, with the chairman laying out a slow and steady data-driven approach" and sending tech shares rallying, he said.
"However, the decision to state that tapering would be dependent upon continued economic improvements does highlight the possibility that we could see further delays if rising Covid cases further spur growth," Mr Mahony said.
Stocks climbed in China, where the central bank signaled targeted steps to cushion the economy.
Oil prices rose more than 2% and were on track for their biggest weekly gains in over a year as energy firms began shutting production in the US Gulf of Mexico ahead of a major hurricane expected to hit early next week.
Brent crude climbed 2.2% to $72.63 a barrel.
"Energy traders are pushing crude prices higher in anticipation of disruptions in output in the Gulf of Mexico and on growing expectations Opec+ might resist raising output given the recent Delta variant impact over crude demand," Edward Moya, senior market analyst at Oanda, said.
US oil and gas companies raced to complete evacuations from offshore Gulf of Mexico platforms as Tropical Storm Ida, which is expected to strengthen into a major hurricane before slamming into Louisiana early next week, advanced towards oilfields that provide about 17% of the nation's oil production.
“Clearly, the hurricane is what the market is focusing on now, at least in the short-term. We are going to be losing supply from refiners and some demand,” said Andrew Lebow, senior partner at Commodity Research Group. “The market had expected what the Federal Reserve was planning and had discounted it.”
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE U.S. ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND WHAT COMES NEXT
Johns Hopkins economist Jonathan Wright shares insights on key indicators for recovery amid the COVID-19 pandemic as well as thoughts on what was learned during the Great Recession
By Saralyn Cruickshank / Published 2 hours ago
Even as the U.S. Federal Reserve abruptly canceled plans for its annual in-person conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, due to rising coronavirus cases, Fed Chair Jerome Powell has been staunch in his opinion that the delta variant poses no substantial risk to U.S. economic recovery. During the now virtual event this weekend, the Fed is expected to announce rollbacks to financial and policy supports issued during the peak of the U.S. COVID-19 transmission, but the question still remains: How will the U.S. economy recover from a historic pandemic?
For insights, the Hub reached out to Johns Hopkins economist Jonathan Wright. An expert in econometrics, empirical macroeconomics, and empirical finance, Wright is also experienced in economic forecasting and analysis. The longtime university professor shared his thoughts about what the U.S. economic recovery might look like, what he'll be watching for, and what parts of the economy have already recovered—and might even be booming.
What are the economic challenges that have arisen this past year because of COVID-19?
The level of output (gross domestic product), which for the second quarter is back to where it was in 2019, is still below what we'd want it to be. Output is supposed to grow over time. And so there has been a period of a year and a half where there was no net growth, but worse than that, the level of employment is down by 7 million people. A lot of that is down to the labor force having shrunk—people aren't just not working, they're also not actively looking for a job. They may have retired earlier, for example. People are still afraid of getting sick, and that's driving them to stay out of the labor force. They have child care problems. And one other thing I think belongs on the list (though I wouldn't put it at top) is that the level of unemployment benefits might be discouraging some people from going back to work. The fact that the level of employment is still 7 million below where it was—including many people of so-called prime age, the 25-to-54-year-old group—that's still a big worry.
So, the reopening of the economy, perhaps not too surprisingly, has proved to be a slow and difficult process, even with all the stimulus in place. The recession ended in April 2020 as the economy has been growing since then, but the economy was in a very deep hole. The first part of the recovery was fast, but over the last year or so, has proceeded more gradually.
Last year there was a lot of talk about supply chain constraints causing economic problems. Are we still facing those?
Yes, we are still facing those as well. There are certain sectors with bottlenecks, semiconductors being one, and although it's not pervasive, there certainly are constraints which have affected some sectors like the automobile sector. International trade has been affected, so that would be another thing that's a part of restarting the economy that's running slowly. Supply chain constraints are causing inflation in some sectors. As a result, the Fed's preferred inflation measure is now running at 3.5%, which is above the long-run target. But firms are adapting to supply disruptions and will probably build more robust supply chains in the future.
What are some of the things that our economic institutions like the Federal Reserve can do to jump-start our economic recovery?
One thing is monetary policy, which is the level of interest rates, and the Fed has done all it can do there. The level of interest rates has been set to zero. It's not practical, at least in the U.S., to have rates below zero. They have also bought Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities to try to directly lower longer-term interest rates. The Fed has effectively done everything it can to put the pedal to the metal.
The other thing is fiscal policy, which includes emergency spending and enhanced unemployment benefits. This has helped a great deal. It enabled people to maintain their spending when they otherwise would not have been able to. One person's spending is another person's income, and not having unemployment insurance is exactly the kind of thing that would have brought about a more intractable recession.
So fiscal policy has done a lot. Now, the question becomes, at what point does the fiscal policy, which is boosting demand, become too much? Becomes such that it just drives up prices because the productive capacity of the economy has been reached? I don't think we're there, but I think that's a legitimate question. Economists talk about the output gap, which is the difference between what the economy produces and what it is capable of producing. I think there is still an output gap—I think there are still unused resources. But a debate is appropriate about how far fiscal stimulus can go before it generates inflation. And by inflation, I'm not talking about temporary inflation to do with supply chain disruptions and that kind of thing, but a more persistent form of inflation.
"THAT IS THE WORRY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE IN THE BACK OF OUR HEADS AS THE ECONOMY GETS BACK TO HEALTH—THAT THE VALUATIONS OF OUR FINANCIAL ASSETS ARE IN SOME CASES VERY HARD TO JUSTIFY."
One unfortunate potential side effect of everything that's been done is that asset markets—stock prices, prices of corporate bonds, securities, housing prices—are now very frothy and expensive. I don't worry too much about seeing consumer prices going up in an unsustainable way. To the extent that that happens, the Fed will have the means to slow the economy and to bring inflation under control, and will much prefer to do this than to worry about an economy stuck at zero interest rates. But I think there are worries about asset prices, and to some extent that may be setting up problems down the road. Not that it would have been appropriate for monetary policy to do any less because of those concerns, but asset prices are extremely elevated. That is the worry that we should have in the back of our heads as the economy gets back to health—that the valuations of our financial assets are in some cases very hard to justify.
Are there sectors where we already have recovered, or are we, across the board, still recovering compared to 2019?
I think there are many sectors that have not only recovered but have boomed relative to 2019. Obviously IT would be a good example of that. In many ways, what the pandemic has done has been to accelerate into the space of 18 months a lot of changes and productivity growth that would otherwise have taken place over many years. But, of course, there are other sectors that are a long way off recovery—the obvious ones being hospitality and travel. It'll be a long time before they get back to where they were. So it's a very uneven recovery, and that uneven recovery is what I think drives the difficulty in getting people from old jobs into new jobs. Say you were working before in the airline industry, and that job has gone and is not coming back for several years, then finding an alternative match that works for the employer and employee is going to take time. On the bright side, the fact that the economy is producing about the same amount as it did at the end of 2019, but with far fewer workers, means that productivity per worker is up. Some of that higher productivity is likely to stay even as people get back to work. The pandemic has in a sense forced firms to find higher productivity solutions.
What do you look at as key indicators of economic health? What should we be watching for?
I'll be looking at the output of the economy, gross domestic product. That's actually the one, which as I say, seems to be in the best shape, although it's still only about where it was in 2019, which is far from ideal.
The other things that I would look at in particular would be the labor force participation rate. What fraction of people are working or looking for a job, particularly in the 25-to-54 age cohort, the prime age cohort. We know that the population is aging, so labor force participation is trending down very slowly as baby boomers are retiring. There's nothing worrisome or unexpected about that. But the decline in labor force participation among the middle age cohort, that's more worrisome. And I think that would be my single biggest indicator of economic health. The unemployment rate, while way down from its highs, is still a good way away from full employment. For now, although wages are up, they are up slower than inflation notwithstanding productivity growth. Wages rising faster than inflation with productivity continuing to rise would together be a sign of a very healthy recovery.
"THE ECONOMY HAS LEARNED TO ADAPT, TO LIVE ALONGSIDE THE VIRUS TO SOME EXTENT."
I think it's also important to look at measures of unemployment rate across different groups. In recessions, the unemployment rates of minorities rise faster, and that's been shown on this occasion again. So that's an indicator that I think is particularly important to see coming down as we move back toward full employment. And it's also important to keep an eye on inflation. Inflation is high, but there are good reasons to think that's a temporary problem and that inflation will come back down next year. But there is a risk that it does not, and if so that indicates more persistent inflation pressures that should not be dismissed as transitory special factors.
How do you expect the delta variant and rising breakthrough cases of coronavirus to affect economic recovery plans?
The news over the last month on the virus has been disappointing and means a slower recovery in employment and output than we had hoped for. It also means that stimulus is likely to stay in place a bit longer than seemed likely earlier in the summer. For example, the Fed seemed to be moving toward phasing out its asset purchases, and that may now come more slowly. The economy has learned to adapt, to live alongside the virus to some extent. It seems to me most likely that the delta variant will slow—but not derail—the recovery. But there are downside risks, and particularly in financial markets because they seem to be pricing a very optimistic outlook.
What do you wish more people understood about the current economic status of the country? What do you know, as an economist, that you wish more people understood?
I think economists and policymakers learned a lot from the mistakes after the Great Recession. Too little was done to restart the economy, there was too much worry about government debt, too little worry about an economy running below capacity for a long time, and too much worry about inflation, which didn't exist. And policymakers and economists have certainly taken that lesson to heart. This time fiscal stimulus has been much larger, much faster, and monetary policy was extremely front-loaded and made clear that it was going to do what it takes. We were not obsessed with the debt-to-GDP ratio the way we were, mistakenly, in 2009 and 2010.
Having said all that, I think it's important to remember that there are resource constraints in the world. Debt to GDP is not something that has some arbitrary cap at 90% that beyond which there's disaster, but there are limits to it. And the pandemic has used up a certain amount of fiscal space, and over the very long run, that leaves less fiscal space for other things. So I guess I would try to remind people that resource constraints still exist. Fiscal and monetary policy can do a lot, and it's done a lot, and it's done well, but resource constraints are still real.
OOPS FRIENDLY FIRE
Russian fighter jets have attacked Bashar al-Assad’s troops
DAMASCUS, ($1= 1,257.86 Syrian Pounds) – The Syrian news agency Massar Media Network, which was founded in 2012, issued a message on its Twitter account that Russian fighter jets had attacked the positions of the militias for the national defense of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. The airstrikes were by mistake, but there are Syrian soldiers killed and wounded. The incident happened in the Syrian province of Raqqa.
Military experts suggest the reason for the “wrong attack” is the lack of coordinated action between the Russian Air Force and Bashar al-Assad’s forces. It is alleged that Syrian Arab Army soldiers were misidentified by their Russian allies as members of the Islamic State.
According to a Russian expert, such a mistake is quite possible. Such mistakes have happened before, and not only with Russian participation. Speaking to a reporter for the Russian newspaper Aviapro, the expert said that Russia has the task of controlling, monitoring, and intelligence the situation in the desert regions of Syria. These are vast territories, and therefore any activity, especially if the actions are not coordinated with the Russian military command, leads to immediate attacks by space forces.
The Russian strikes were aimed at striking certain positions of Islamic State terrorists amid yesterday’s several deadly and devastating attacks in Kabul. Political analysts say Moscow has decided to anticipate a possible US response to terrorists in Syria.
Earlier, BulgarianMilitary.com reported that, according to Russian intelligence, at least four US bombers were flying to Afghanistan and the region, and were expected to strike not only in Afghanistan but also at Islamic State positions in Iraq and Syria. The US president has already issued an order to conduct an operation to detect and eliminate Islamic State terrorists.
The civil war in Syria
The Syrian civil war has been going on for almost a decade. Attempts by movements such as the Syrian Democratic Forces to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have failed.
The Syrian democratic forces are armed by allies and the United States, while the Syrian army is armed mainly by Russia. Russia is the only country officially invited to Syria by President Bashar al-Assad.
In 2017, the United States launched a massive missile strike on Bashar al-Assad’s forces after a report emerged that the Syrian president had used chemical weapons to attack his people in the country. Syria and Russia deny such actions.
During his tenure, US President Donald Trump decided to withdraw much of US troops from Syria, leaving several troops to guard Syria’s oil fields on the pretext of “falling into the hands of Islamic State.”
With the withdrawal of the United States, Turkey comes to the fore, declaring it necessary to deal with the Kurds and the PKK movement in the northern part of the country, which borders Turkey. That is why Erdogan is sending troops in an attempt to build a stable and secure 30km zone between Syria and Turkey, which will prevent future terrorist attacks on Turkish territory, as it is. Ceasefire
In February 2020, Turkey lost at least 62 troops killed in Syria. Nearly 100 soldiers were wounded, Syrian-backed forces destroyed dozens of Turkish armored vehicles, and more than ten drones, including drones, were shot down. Washington has repeatedly accused Moscow of involvement in the deaths of Turkish soldiers, Russia rejects these allegations.
In early March 2020, the presidents of Russia and Turkey, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, agreed that a ceasefire came into force in the Idlib de-escalation zone. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad later said that if the US and Turkish military did not leave the country, Damascus would use military power.
The reason for the Russian-Turkish negotiations was a sharp aggravation of the situation in Idlib, where in January, a large-scale offensive by the Syrian army against the positions of the armed opposition and terrorists began.
Government forces recaptured nearly half of the Idlib de-escalation zone and left behind several Turkish observation posts. After that, Ankara sharply increased its military contingent in the region and launched the operation “Spring Shield” to push the Syrian troops. Militants are loyal to Ankara and support Turkey.
2017: US launched Tomahawks in Syria, but Russia didn’t use the S-400 defense
PANAGYURISHTE, (BM) – Our “History” section will take you back four years on April 7, 2017, when the United States decided to launch a missile strike on Syria. The reason for then US President Donald Trump’s decision was a revelation that Syria and especially President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons on its citizens and the opposition.
Photo credit: Wikipedia
The attack
On April 7, Washington saw a decision to counter the spread of information from various intelligence agencies, including US intelligence, that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used a gas chemical attack against his people and especially against opposition forces.
The military advisers to Donald Trump, then president of the United States, decided to use the Tomahawk cruise missiles. This missile name has a history and is confusing some of Washington’s opponents. Syrian Arab Army air bases are targeted. Footage from the then-attack spread among television channels showing large-scale missile strikes, but more like explosive fireworks.
A little later in the year, military analysts from the United States and Russia said that the attacks in question had caused minimal damage to the attacked Syrian targets. NBC News reports, for example, that one of the attacked airbases suffered damage to buildings and the amount of stored kerosene fuel. Some of the planes and runways were intact.
In reality, the runway reconstruction would seem to be a difficult task if Syria did not have an ally like Russia, which can repair the damage within weeks. However, the runways’ damage remains in the same condition to this day and continues to be used, which speaks of only one thing – a well-tailored theater. Russia does not even use the S-300 or S-400
The theory of a well-tailored theater is supported by a significant and unshakable fact – the Russian defense forces never decided to use the S-300 and S-4-00 anti-aircraft missile systems.
With these two anti-aircraft missile systems, Russia could easily “blow out” American Tomahawks, the Palmer Report said. But Moscow’s passivity is perhaps another sign – the Kremlin knew very well about the planned attacks, especially that the damage would not be what the Pentagon would want.
Moscow’s non-commitment to protect Syria from US Tomahawk missiles speaks volumes – the likelihood of an agreement between the United States and Russia on the attack and future damage exists, with a relatively high percentage. Wasn’t the attack aimed at manipulating the world community that this was a brutal blow to Assad, but was, in fact, a hidden agreement between the two most significant powers in the world?
Many experts say the following: Despite the US desire to avenge Assad, Russia’s non-participation in defense of Syrian airbases “stinks” of a well-directed theater.
What is the truth? Only three people know her – Trump, Putin, and Assad. Everything else is a guess, but adequate, right?
War in Syria continues
In February 2020, Turkey lost at least 62 troops killed in Syria. Nearly 100 soldiers were wounded, Syrian-backed forces destroyed dozens of Turkish armored vehicles, and more than ten drones, including drones, were shot down. Washington has repeatedly accused Moscow of involvement in the deaths of Turkish soldiers, Russia rejects these allegations.
In early March, the presidents of Russia and Turkey, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, agreed that a ceasefire came into force in the Idlib de-escalation zone. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad later said that if the US and Turkish military did not leave the country, Damascus would use power.
The reason for the Russian-Turkish negotiations was a sharp aggravation of the situation in Idlib, where in January, a large-scale offensive by the Syrian army against the positions of the armed opposition and terrorists began.
Government forces recaptured nearly half of the Idlib de-escalation zone and left behind several Turkish observation posts. After that, Ankara sharply increased its military contingent in the region and launched the operation “Spring Shield” to push the Syrian troops. Militants are loyal to Ankara and support Turkey.
