Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear President Joe Biden’s appeal of a judge’s ruling that blocked his student debt relief program and found it unlawful, taking up the matter alongside another lawsuit against the policy.

The Biden administration appealed a recent decision handed down by Texas-based U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman to block the program, siding with an advocacy group. An appeals court also ruled against the relief program and placed it on hold.

The case the court announced Monday it would take up involves two holders of student loan debt – Alexander Taylor and Myra Brown – who said the federal government did not follow the right procedure in announcing and implementing the plan earlier this year. In an order, the Supreme Court wrote that it would determine whether Taylor or Brown had standing to file their lawsuit and will then hear the merits of it.

On Dec. 1, the Supreme Court confirmed would hear arguments on the legality of the debt relief program in another case pursued by six mostly Republican-led states. At the same time, the court will keep Biden’s multi-billion-dollar program on hold as it hears arguments next year.

The forgiveness program, which was announced by Biden in August, included up to $20,000 in loan relief for low- and middle-income debt holders. Some 26 million individuals already applied for relief, according to the Department of Education, which said that about 16 million of those have been approved.

The Texas lawsuit was filed by two borrowers who were partially or fully ineligible for the loan forgiveness, backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy group founded by Bernie Marcus, a co-founder of Home Depot Inc.

Pittman, appointed as a judge by former President Donald Trump, ruled that the administration overstepped its authority to order debt cancellation under a 2003 law called the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, which can “waive or modify” student financial assistance during war or national emergency.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit later ruled to allow the judge’s injunction to stay until a final ruling in the case is issued. That prompted the Biden administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Attorneys general in Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina filed a lawsuit against the relief plan several weeks after it was unveiled to the public. Those states had claimed that they have the legal standing to challenge the plan, which they also argued exceeds the federal government’s authority.

According to the Supreme Court order issued Monday, the Brown case will be “deferred pending oral argument,” which reports say is slated for February of next year, alongside Biden v. Nebraska, the suit that was filed by the six states. No specific date was given.

Under a separate COVID-19-related order, those with student loan debt currently don’t have to make payments. Last week, the White House pushed back the payment pause until mid-2023 while the lawsuits are resolved.

President Joe Biden announces student loan relief with Education Secretary Miguel Cardona on Aug. 24, 2022. (Oliver Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)

Other Challenges

“The act requires a real connection to a national emergency,” the states’ lawyers wrote in court papers in late November. “But the department’s reliance on the COVID-19 pandemic is a pretext to mask the president’s true goal of fulfilling his campaign promise to erase student-loan debt.”

Lawyers for the administration, in asking the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s injunction against the program on Nov. 18,  wrote that the injunction should be lifted because it means that millions of people won’t be able to pay back their loans.

Because the plan won’t be implemented in the immediate future, the injunction “leaves millions of economically vulnerable borrowers in limbo, uncertain about the size of their debt and unable to make financial decisions with an accurate understanding of their future repayment obligations,” argued U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in favor of the White House.

Prelogar asserted that the six states do not have the legal standing to file the lawsuit, she said, adding that the federal government acted within its authority to set up a debt-relief program.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated (pdf) that the program could total $400 billion over about 10 years. Because of the hefty price tag, Republicans criticized the program, while they also claimed the Biden administration announced the relief plan to coincide with the Nov. 8 midterm elections.

“These responsible Americans paid off their student debt, worked their way through college, or chose a career path that did not require student debt—but Biden is now forcing them to pay off other people’s loans,” Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who recently won her reelection, told The Epoch Times on Oct. 21.

Read more here…

Just hours after refusing to attend a Senate hearing on his role in the collapse of FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried has been arrested by The Royal Bahamian Police Force, according to a statement from the Attorney General of The Bahamas Sen. Ryan Pinder KC.

The arrest came after the U.S. filed criminal charges against Bankman-Fried, the statement said, and the nation expects the U.S. to request The Bahamas extradite Bankman-Fried in short order.

“As a result of the notification received and the material provided therewith, it was deemed appropriate for the Attorney General to seek SBF’s arrest and hold him in custody pursuant to our nation’s Extradition Act.

At such time as a formal request for extradition is made, The Bahamas intends to process it promptly, pursuant to Bahamian law and its treaty obligations with the United States.”

Responding to SBF’s arrest, Prime Minister Davis stated:

“The Bahamas and the United States have a shared interest in holding accountable all individuals associated with FTX who may have betrayed the public trust and broken the law. While the United States is pursuing criminal charges against SBF individually, The Bahamas will continue its own regulatory and criminal investigations into the collapse of FTX, with the continued cooperation of its law enforcement and regulatory partners in the United States and elsewhere.”

Presumably this means he will not be attending tomorrow’s Congressional hearing with Maxine Waters.

*  *  *

Official Statement below:

Source

Authored by Alex Kimani via OilPrice.com,

• Supertanker rates reached record levels earlier this year.

• Very Large Crude Carrier rates have plunged to just $38,000 per day, falling some 62% from a few weeks ago. 

• OPEC+ cuts and waning SPR releases are short-term volume headwinds in the oil transportation sector.

Earlier in the year, supertanker freight rates hit record levels as traders scrambled to park crude in storage to take advantage of a record gap between spot and future prices shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine. Freight rates for very large crude-oil carriers (VLCC) along the Middle East Gulf to China route reached as high as $180,000 a day while VLCC time charter rates for floating storage jumped to as much as $120,000 per day.

But the situation has now reversed with supertanker rates plunging sharply. According to Bloomberg, ships capable of hauling 2 million barrels of crude are now earning about $38,000 a day, down 62% from just weeks ago after OPEC+ cut production and reduced releases from US reserves lowered seaborne volumes, Bloomberg reports.

“Clearly OPEC+ cuts and waning SPR releases would both be short-term volume headwinds. They cut production from the first of November and you would expect some lag, and we are seeing activity in the Middle East cooling off somewhat. That’s the simple explanation,” Lars Bastian Ostereng, an analyst at Arctic Securities has told Bloomberg.

Lower freight rates are encouraging some crude to travel longer distances. For instance, Bloomberg has reported that a South Korean refiner bought 2 million barrels of U.S. crude for March arrival. Meanwhile, offers for long-haul U.S. cargoes for delivery to Asia have declined partly due to lower shipping costs.

But things could not be more different in the natural gas arena.

Energy Crisis Sparks Mad Dash For Floating LNG Terminals

Demand for LNG floating storage and regasification units (LNG-FSRUs) has increased sharply this year, with Europe facing an energy supply squeeze as Russia has progressively cut pipeline gas flows. 

Demand for LNG imports has intensified after the ruptures on the key Nord Stream pipeline system quashed any prospect of Russia turning its gas taps back on. This has forced dozens of countries in Europe to turn to FSRUs or floating LNG terminals, which are essentially mobile terminals that unload the super-chilled fuel and pipe it into onshore networks.

Currently, there are 48 FSRUs in operation globally, with Rystad Energy revealing that all but six of them are locked into term charters. 

According to energy think-tank Ember, the EU has lined up plans for as many as 19 new FSRU projects at an estimated cost of €9.5bn. 

The biggest beneficiaries are Korean shipbuilding, for whom FSRUs are a major revenue-generator. Korea is the definitive world leader in this field. According to local media, Korean shipbuilders managed to book 46% more orders so far, YoY. And the government’s goal is for the country to grab 75% of the market share by 2030. 

The setup couldn’t be better. With the supply of these vessels so tight, the cost of charters into Germany has doubled year-on-year to $200,000 a day. 

“Last year there was a surplus of FSRUs and this year there is a deficit. Up until now there have been sufficient vessels in the market, but as most have now been taken, it’s becoming more challenging,” Per Christian Fett, the global head of LNG at shipbrokers Fearnley LNG in Oslo, has told Bloomberg.

Texas-based Excelerate Energy Inc. is sending three FSRUs to Europe with combined throughput capacity to import 15 billion cubic meters of gas, or about 10% of the pipeline and LNG imports from Russia in 2021. Demand for the terminals in Europe is so strong that it could make it less affordable for emerging nations to use FSRUs for their own needs.

“The risk is real that underutilized facilities in other regions of the world could be relocated to Europe, existing charter terms permitting,”Kaushal Ramesh, a senior analyst at consultant Rystad Energy, has said.

New Dutch terminal

The Netherlands has taken its first delivery of LNG at a new terminal, boosting Europe’s efforts to wean itself off Russian gas. Previously, the Netherlands could only import LNG through Rotterdam; however, that has changed with the commissioning of two FSRUs, the Golar Igloo and Eemshaven LNG, moored in Eemshaven. The FSRU project was completed in record time Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. With the pair of floating ships now supplying gas to the landlocked Czech Republic and Germany.

“The arrival of the new LNG terminal is an important step not only for the Netherlands, but for the whole of Europe to completely phase out the dependence on energy from Russia as quickly as possible,” Rob Jetten, Dutch minister for climate and energy, has declared. FRSUs offer the quickest and most efficient way for Europe to end its reliance on the pipelines that bring in large quantities of natural gas from Russia.

Europe has been working hard to wean itself off Russian energy commodities ever since the latter invaded Ukraine. The European Union has banned Russian coal and plans to block most Russian oil imports by the end of 2022 in a bid to deprive Moscow of an important source of revenue to wage its war in Ukraine.

But ditching Russian gas is proving to be more onerous than Europe would have hoped for. Whereas supplies of Russian pipeline gas–the bulk of Europe’s gas imports before the Ukraine war–are down to a trickle, Europe has been hungrily scooping up Russian LNG. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the bloc’s imports of Russian liquefied natural gas jumped by 41% Y/Y in the year through August.

“Russian LNG has been the dark horse of the sanctions regime,” Maria Shagina, research fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, has told WSJ. Importers of Russian LNG to Europe have argued that the shipments are not covered by current EU sanctions and that buying LNG from Russia and other suppliers has helped keep European energy prices in check. 

Source: WSJ

LNG Deluge

Maybe Europe’s LNG imports from Russia can be justified on a purely economic basis.

Natural gas prices in Europe have plunged over the past few weeks with CNBC reporting that a  “Wave of LNG tankers is overwhelming Europe in an energy crisis and hitting natural gas prices.” According to MarineTraffic via CNBC, 60 LNG tankers, or  ~10% of the LNG vessels in the world, are currently sailing or anchored around Northwest Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Iberian Peninsula. 

It’s a fair bet that a good chunk of those vessels originated from the United States.

Europe’s natural gas demand has skyrocketed as the EU tries to lower its reliance on Russian natural gas following its invasion of Ukraine. Europe has displaced Asia as the top destination for the U.S. LNG, and now receives 65% of total exports. The EU has pledged to reduce its consumption of Russian natural gas by nearly two-thirds before the year’s end while Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have vowed to eliminate Russian gas imports outright. Unlike pipeline gas, supercooled LNG is much more flexible and can be shipped from far-flung regions, including the U.S. and Qatar. 

Europe is not alone here. Shipping data has revealed that China has imported nearly 30% more gas from Russia so far this year, typically at a steep discount.

Thankfully, there’s a clear upside to imports of Russian LNG to Europe: the continent has managed to fill its gas stores well ahead of schedule, with Reuter’s gas meter revealing that 90% of the EU gas storage is currently filled.

Authored by Kyle Anzalone via The Libertarian Institute, 

A delegation from the Congressional Progressive Caucus met with the Cuban president, in a rare high-level meeting among government officials. Washington maintains a Cold War-era embargo against Havana.

The Associated Press reported Representatives James McGovern (D-MA), Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Troy Carter (D-LA) met with Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel in Havana on Sunday. Miguel Díaz-Canel tweeted, “we address our differences and topics of common interest. The shared will to improve bilateral relations was ratified. I expressed the need to put an end to measures that harm the Cuban population.”

“In the past year, Cuban arrivals to the U.S.-Mexico border have skyrocketed, and a growing number of boats packed with migrants have been found off of Florida’s coast,” the AP has noted. “In October, Cubans replaced Venezuelans as the second most numerous nationality after Mexicans arriving at the border. U.S. authorities stopped Cubans 28,848 times, up 10% from the previous month, the latest data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows.”

Havana was a client of Moscow throughout much of the Cold War. Washington first sanctioned weapon sales to Cuba in 1958. Two years later, Cuba nationalized American-owned businesses. The US responded by placing an embargo on Cuba. 

In February 1962, Washington extended the blockade of Cuba to include nearly all exports. Eight months later, the US and USSR nearly engaged in a nuclear exchange over strategic missiles deployed in Cuba. 

Near the end of his second term, Barack Obama took a number of steps to normalize relations with Cuba. President Donald Trump walked back nearly all of Obama’s détente policies. The Trump administration justified the U-turn claiming American diplomats in Cuba were targeted with a mysterious weapon that caused a wide variety of symptoms.

The US government dubbed the so-called disease ‘Havana Syndrome.’ However, a recording of the alleged weapon was identified to be the sound of native crickets. Joe Biden was expected to adopt the policy of his former boss for Cuba, but the White House has been slow to return to diplomacy with Havana.

In July 2021, the US imposed sanctions on Cuba over human rights abuses committed by government forces. While the Cuban government is repressive, the worst human rights abuses in Cuba occur at Guantanamo Bay. The US military occupies a portion of the island and has operated the infamous torture prison at the base for two decades. 

In June, the White House eased some sanctions on Havana, signaling some loosening of the embargo. Last month at the UN, the US voted to keep the blockade against Cuba. Recent talks between Washington and Havana have focused on slowing Cuban immigration to the US.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant – unless you’re Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Gary Gensler – who scrubbed evidence of a meeting with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from his calendar, along with key details of a meeting with Billionaire leftist-operative George Soros.

He also concealed September 21 meetings with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and former Bill Clinton White House official-turned-DC consultant, Minyon Moore.

Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs executive, Obama administration official, Clinton’s 2016 campaign CFO, and FTX associate, essentially had two calendars. His public calendar showed that on Aug. 7, 2021, he only had a staff meeting, while his private calendar lists a meeting with Hillary Clinton, Fox News reports.

Thirteen days later on Aug. 20, 2021, Gensler’s public calendar does list a meeting with Soros, but the agenda was hidden. His private calendar reveals that the meeting was held to discuss an upcoming WSJ op-ed Soros was planning to write in which he slammed BlackRock for launching investment products for Chinese customers, while also applauding the company’s ESG policies.

Gensler’s private calendar revealing the discrepancies was obtained by the watchdog group Energy Policy Advocates and shared with Fox News Digital. The group was only able to obtain the internal records after filing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the SEC.

In recent days, around the time Fox News Digital contacted the SEC, the agency updated Gensler’s public calendar to include his meeting with Clinton in August 2021. As recently as Wednesday the public calendar didn’t include the meeting, and archived copies of the webpage from April also list just a meeting with staff. -Fox News

When contacted for comment, the SEC initially lied – saying that the Clinton meeting was visible on Gensler’s public calendar. When confronted with screenshots to the contrary, the spokesperson said that the agency updates calendars “from time to time” when inaccuracies are discovered (by watchdog groups?). 

Gensler also concealed several September 2021 meetings with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and Minyon Moore – both of which have been now updated on Gensler’s public calendar.

“That even George Soros is calling out progressive darling BlackRock for craven blundering is striking — even if it did carry the requisite, tribal praise for BlackRock’s truly damaging ‘ESG’ (environmental, social and governance) campaigning to impose their shared ‘climate’ agenda on the U.S., an agenda also much to China’s delight,” said Chris Horner, a lawyer representing Energy Policy Advocates. “That it appears Soros received counsel from Gary Gensler on the mega-donor’s call for more SEC powers as a result is truly astonishing.”

“This gives further credence to the widespread concern that Gensler is deeply politicizing a supposedly independent commission,” he continued. “He may have been Hillary Clinton’s ‘Progressive Beacon’ not long ago, but Gary Gensler is now the SEC chairman, and his calendar indicates he knew the purpose of the meeting. It seems important to know whose idea this was, why, what was said arranging it and through what channel.”

According to the SEC spokesperson, Gensler has never asked anyone to ‘draft or submit’ an op-ed, but declined to comment on the meeting with Soros.

Gensler has faced heavy criticism from business groups and Republican lawmakers for pushing progressive policies, including a climate disclosure rule that would require publicly traded companies to share carbon emissions data and other climate information.

Reps. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., and Andy Barr, R-Ky., two top GOP members on the House Financial Services Committee, introduced legislation this month that would limit the SEC’s ability to require such climate disclosures. -Fox News

“That this and Gensler’s consultation with Hillary were scrubbed from the public version of his calendar is frankly the least surprising aspect of this,” Horner continued. “The SEC first told Energy Policy Advocates that the publicly posted calendars were all they would get.”

“Energy Policy Advocates challenged that, pointing out that these sanitized versions, typically posted months after the fact, were certainly not produced from memory and the group wanted the originals. Here you see the reason for the scrubbing these internal versions receive.“

Authored by Carmen Reinhart via Project Syndicate,

Few would doubt that, after 15 years of ultra-low interest rates, reining in inflation by restoring real positive rates will be difficult. And with 2023 expected to bring heightened global financial and economic risks, monetary tightening will almost certainly become even more complicated.

The advanced economies are experiencing their highest inflation in 40 years, with a median rate of nearly 9% for the 12 months ending in September 2022. For central banks and financial markets, the expectation – or, more accurately, the hope – that the inflation spike would be transitory has been broadly replaced by the sobering realization that price growth is a persistent problem that demands significant and sustained monetary tightening. With the exception of the Bank of Japan, the major central banks are now raising interest rates and moving to stabilize or reverse balance-sheet growth

Few would doubt that, after 15 years of exceptionally low interest rates, this policy shift will be difficult, especially with the global economy teetering on the edge of recession. But with 2023 expected to bring heightened global financial and economic risks – not to mention rising geopolitical tensions – it will almost certainly become even more complicated.

A historical perspective illuminates some of the challenges that are likely to emerge as international financial conditions tighten. Real policy interest rates (nominal interest rates minus inflation) in the world’s financial center, the United States, have been consistently negative since the 2008-09 global financial crisis.

Real interest rates have remained negative for multiyear periods in a global financial center only four times since the mid-1800s (at least). The first three episodes were during the two world wars and in the aftermath of the OPEC oil shock from 1974-1980. In these three cases, average inflation in the US ranged from 7% to 15%, and the restoration of positive real interest rates was part of an effort to tackle inflation.

The current period of prolonged negative real interest rates is the longest of the four. Moreover, real rates in other advanced economies have been even more deeply negative. In much of Europe and Japan, nominal interest rates were also negative – a historical novelty.

Yet another historically anomalous feature of the recent “low-for-long” interest-rate era is that, under the heading of quantitative easing (QE), advanced-economy central banks have purchased massive amounts of government (or government-guaranteed) debt, setting new peacetime records. While central-bank balance sheets shrank modestly after the global financial crisis ended, they remained far larger than they were before the crisis, and swelled to new highs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This exceptional accommodation explains why, despite significant rate hikes, the US federal funds rate remains well below the 12-month inflation rate of about 8%. Likewise, the European Central Bank’s policy rate remains well below the US federal funds rate, while eurozone inflation nears double digits.

Against this backdrop, restoring positive real interest rates – thereby stabilizing inflation – may require monetary policy to be kept tighter for longer than many policymakers and market participants seem to expect. Yet it is far from clear that central banks will maintain their commitment to tightening in the face of weakening economic activity. The persistence of inflation in the 1970s can be explained partly by the US Federal Reserve’s tendency to do too little too late or to waver in the tightening process.

Experience also points to another underappreciated risk: the return of volatility in fixed-income (bond) markets. The recent turmoil in the United Kingdom, which forced the Bank of England to launch an emergency bond-buying program, is a case in point.

Price volatility is standard in global commodity markets, regardless of the interest rate. But, in fixed-income markets, higher volatility is the handmaiden of higher and more unstable inflation rates. The variation in inflation rates across the major advanced economies was about seven times higher in 1974-89 than in 2008-21.

This means that, in the era of sustained ultra-low interest rates, fixed-income-market volatility declined steadily. Low and stable inflation rates across the advanced economies also contributed significantly to a reduction in exchange-rate volatility after 2008, as Kenneth Rogoff, Ethan Ilzetski, and I have shown.

Persistent ultra-low interest rates shaped balance sheets by encouraging private-sector and government borrowing and aggressive risk-taking in search of yield (increasing the likelihood of asset-price bubbles). While ultra-low rates technically strengthen government balance sheets, they may have created or aggravated off-balance-sheet losses, including by undermining pension-fund solvency (especially among local governments). “Low for long” has, in some cases, weakened fiscal discipline and delayed reforms.

For countries with very high debts (such as Italy), negative interest rates – together with massive debt purchases by central banks – may have replaced debt restructuring, which at least in principle can deliver faster and greater progress on debt reduction. It remains to be seen how that gap will be filled in an era of tighter monetary policy.

The message is clear: the risks posed by the exit from sustained negative real interest rates extend well beyond recession. The question is how central banks will respond when those risks manifest.

Central-bank independence seems to have eroded – not necessarily de jure, but possibly de facto, as officials weigh the broader consequences of their actions. If leverage (public and private) and risk exposures raise doubts about financial stability, will central banks return to accommodation? What if fears of a market crash emerge, or sovereign insolvencies seem imminent (as might occur in the eurozone)? In the 1970s, economies endured years of high inflation before the exit from negative real interest rates was complete.

And yet more risks loom in 2023. China – a key engine of global economic growth after the last global financial crisis – is grappling with financial and political fragilities. Tighter global financial conditions could severely damage emerging-market and developing economies in the short run. Those with large US-dollar-denominated debts will suffer even more. Already, more than 60% of low-income countries are either at high risk of distress or already there.

But just as the exit from the “low-for-long” interest-rate era raises grave risks, so, too, does persistent high inflation, which, among other things, exacerbates inequality within and across countries. To say that this is a challenging time for governments and central banks would be a massive understatement.

The Bank of America has predicted that Brent could quickly go past $90 per barrel on the back of a dovish pivot in the U.S. Federal Reserve and successful economic reopening by China.

BofA’s chief commodity strategist Francisco Blanche forecast that Brent prices–currently trading around $78–will average $100/bbl in 2023 thanks to Chinese oil demand recovery on a post-COVID reopening coupled with a drop in Russian supplies of about 1 million barrels per day (bpd). According to the investment bank, OPEC+ is likely to fully implement a 2 million bpd output cut in a bid to boost oil prices.

The forecast has come at a time when oil prices have been steadily declining due to fears that a weakening global economy would curb fuel demand. Last week, Beijing announced the most sweeping changes to its strict Covid-19 guidelines, including relaxing testing requirements and travel restrictions. Further, people infected with Covid-19 but have only mild or no symptoms are now allowed to isolate at home instead of convalescing in centrally managed facilities.

“Our oil demand and price projections for 2023 rely heavily on robust China and India demand growth, so any Asia reopening delays could affect our expected price trajectory,” said Blanch, adding that the path to a post-pandemic environment may not be easy “given the low levels of immunity in China.”

Upside aside, how much lower could oil prices fall from here? According to BofA, “downside should be limited (see $80 is the new $60 for oil), as Saudi Arabia has historically shifted crude oil production up and down in line with Brent prices (Exhibit 15) and the US government could also come in to replenish reserves.”

Additionally, western sanctions may lead to a 1mn b/d output loss according to BofA, which also notes that supply disruptions keep piling up in global oil markets. “The current period is witnessing the largest structural disruptions in the oil market since Libya went offline in 2020 due to an internal political strife. But there are also major output dislocations in other corners of the world (Exhibit 18), including Venezuela, Nigeria, or Iran. In that sense, we note the remarkable recovery in Russian crude oil runs during the past 12 months. While volumes came down at first, Russia’s refineries still have to see crude runs fall in a significant way to make a dent on balances.“

Last week, crude oil futures surrendered all gains for the year, posting their largest weekly losses in more than eight months, as restarts for key pipelines eased supply concerns coupled with ongoing worries about a global recession and weaker crude demand from China. Front-month Nymex crude for January delivery finished the week -11.2% lower to $71.02/bbl, extending its losing streak to six straight sessions, while February Brent crude closed -11% to $76.10/bbl, the biggest weekly percentage decline for both benchmarks since April.

Full report available to pro subscribers in the usual place.

Authored by Mike Valles via The Epoch Times,

The final stimulus checks in California are currently being sent out. Distributing the money started in October when it was sent via direct deposit. The program is called the Middle Class Tax Refunds (MCTR), and recipients will receive between $200 and $1,050.

The reason for the California state stimulus checks is to help residents cope with high inflation occurring across the nation. It is a one-time payment, and they should all be made between October 2022 and January 2023, says the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB)—the agency responsible for distributing the money.

People that have not yet received their California stimulus check can expect to receive a debit card in the mail. Most everyone expecting money should have already received it. Only some debit cards remain to be mailed, but most have already been sent.

How Much to Expect

The amount of the California economic stimulus checks for inflation relief will vary based on the situation and income. Single taxpayers making less than $75,000 and couples filing jointly earning less than $150,000 a year will receive $350 each.

If there are dependent children, CBSNews says, an additional $350 will be added per child—up to two children. The result is that a couple with two children earning less than $100,000 would get a check for $1,050.

Singles earning between $75,000 and $125,000 and couples earning between $150,000 and $250,000 can expect to receive $250, plus an equal amount for a family, for a total of $750.

Singles earning between $125,000 and $250,000 and couples earning between $250,000 and $500,000 will get $200, plus an equal amount for a family, for a total of $600.

Singles that earn more than $250,000 and couples earning more than $500,000 do not qualify for the new stimulus check.

Direct Deposit Payments

Direct deposit payments for the MCTR started in early October and were sent to those who received the Golden State Stimulus (GSS) checks by mail. Others that did not receive a GSS check have also received their MCTR direct deposit by Nov. 14.

Debit Card Payments

If you did not receive a direct deposit of the MCTR yet, you will likely get it in the form of a debit card in the mail. Debit cards started being mailed out on October 24, 2022, but will not be completed until January 14, 2023.

People that did not qualify for the GSS checks will receive their debit cards after Dec. 5, 2022, through the end of the month. Others who have changed their banking information will have their cards sent out last—sometime between Dec. 17, 2022, and Jan. 14, 2023.

Qualifications for the MCTR

Qualifying for the MCTR is simple enough. You just had to have been a California resident in 2020 for more than half a year, and on the date the payment is sent to you. You also must have filed your 2020 taxes by Oct. 15, 2021. Also, you cannot be claimed as a dependent and not have a California adjusted gross income of more than $75,000.

What to Do If Stimulus Payment Not Received

There may be several reasons why you have not received a stimulus check yet. ABC10 says that some reasons could include not qualifying for the stimulus payment, a change of address, or a change of bank.

When to Expect Your Stimulus Payment

Californians that qualify should already have received their stimulus check. Those who will be getting a debit card should have it mailed by the end of the year—but it may take up to two weeks to have it delivered.

Other States Also Have Stimulus Payments

California is not the only state that is trying to help its residents. Other states have found different ways to help people cope with the high inflation rates, but in most places, the help ends in December.

Forbes mentions that 19 states have offered some kind of stimulus payment to help those in need. The state offering the biggest refund is Alaska, where they are giving up to $3,284 and an additional $650 as an energy relief payment.

One state—Minnesota—limited sending out stimulus payments to front-line workers. They needed to have worked a minimum of 120 hours between Mar. 15, 2020 and June 30, 2021 to receive the payment.

Rhode Island paid $250 per child as a rebate. Residents could claim up to three children.

Two states offered a low cash rebate or a percentage of your state taxes—whichever one was larger. Idaho offered $75, or 12 percent of their state taxes, and Massachusetts residents received a rebate of 14 percent of their tax liability. Some states sent stimulus checks to everyone in their state—regardless of their income.

Several other states started making incentive proposals, but nothing has been determined yet. Most likely, a final decision probably will not be made before the end of the year.

The state accepting the latest tax return to determine stimulus check eligibility is South Carolina. This state, according to Kiplinger, is giving residents with a tax liability up to Feb. 15, 2023, to file a South Carolina income tax return for 2021. People that file their return after Oct. 17 will have their rebate payment (up to $800) sent before Mar. 31, 2023.

Tracking Your Stimulus Rebate

Although everyone would like to know exactly when they will receive their stimulus payment, there is no way to do it. KTLA says there is currently no way to track it, but FTB.CA.gov can give you a good idea when to expect it.

With long-term inflation expectations (those 3-Years ahead or more) peaking more than a year ago, and even shorter inflation expectations – at least according to the NY Fed Survey of consumers – now sliding after hitting a record high 6.8% in June and dropping alongside 2Y breakevens which recently hit the lowest level in 2 years…

… it is hardly a surprise that the latest just released NY Fed survey showed a continued drop in inflation expectations, as median one-, three-, and five-year-ahead inflation expectations decreased to 5.23%, 3.00%, and 2.3%. Of those, the former saw the biggest drop on record, plunging more than 0.7% from October’s 5.94% print, and well on their way to the pre-covid levels around 3.0%

Median inflation uncertainty—or the uncertainty expressed regarding future inflation outcomes—decreased at the short-term and medium-term horizons.

Separately, the median home price growth expectation dropped to 1.0% from 2.0%, the lowest reading since May 2020 a decrease which “was broad-based across education and income groups but most pronounced for respondents from the South” and yet still a 1% increase which is laughable when 30Y mortgages are about 6-7%…

… while labor market expectations paradoxically strengthened (apparently no tech workers were surveyed)…

… and household income growth expectations increased to 4.48%, up from 4.32% and a new series high. Not surprisingly, the increase was driven exclusively by respondents with no more than a high school education.

Amusingly, these improvements in income and labor market expectations are taking place even as a larger percentage of consumers, 11.79% vs 11.56% in prior month, expect to not be able to make minimum debt payment over the next three months.

Remarkably, despite the worst bear market in years, 35.7% of respondents, an increase from 33.9% last month, expect stocks to rise in the next 12 months. Then again, 40% expected higher stock prices one year ago: that didn’t work out too well.

Looking at various prices, over the next year consumers expect gasoline prices to rise 4.75%; food prices to rise 8.27%; medical costs to rise 9.59%; the price of a college education to rise 9.41%; rent prices to rise 9.82%

More in the full NY Fed survey which can be found here.

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

Senator Rand Paul warned Friday that under Democratic government young people in America are falling prey to a rapidly worsening mental health crisis.

In an appearance on The Ingraham Angle, Paul raised the issue of doctors carrying out transgender surgeries on children, and the propaganda that has prompted a massive increase in Americans feeling they do not have the ‘right’ body.

“Who is responsible for telling a four-year-old that we need to talk about their gender and whether they’re in the appropriate body?” Paul asked.

“Who’s talking about giving picture books to six-year-olds with illustrations of surgery to remove their genitalia?” the Senator continued.

“It’s Democrat politicians and woke left-wing people,” Paul asserted.

“There’s not one Republican — look, Republicans are not perfect. But Republicans are not pushing your child to have surgery to remove their genitalia as early as elementary school. No Republican is pushing this,” Paul reiterated.

Transgender Health Secretary Says Biden White House Will “Empower” Children to Get Puberty Blockers, Sex Change Surgery

Watch: Planned Parenthood Cartoon Touts Puberty Blockers For Children

“These are crazy left-wing Democrats. It was also crazy left-wing Democrats who were for the lockdown across America,” Paul continued.

“There’s no secret who was involved with the lockdowns, and they have had an impact,” Paul also noted, adding that three months into the pandemic when it became clear that children were not becoming seriously ill from COVID he advocated reopening schools.

Watch:

In the same interview, Paul commented on the disturbing threats that emerged last week toward him and school children in Kentucky, noting that he has urged the FBI to “leave no stone unturned,” to prevent another potential mass shooting.

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.