Will Trump's Proposed Ban Of Tik Tok Finally Drive The Youth Vote To A Biden Win?

Colorado College students yell 'Obamanos!' on their way to the polls in November, 2008. Will the youth vote be this energized with Biden in November?

Back in 2008 one of the most stirring sights in Colorado political history was that of angry students from Colorado College (in Colorado Springs)  pouring out of their dorms and classes to vote in the 2008 elections.  These youngsters had had enough of the Bush-Republican epoch of nonstop wars, killing, and torture (e.g. of the Abu Ghraib prisoners in Iraq) and knew in their hearts merely marching in the streets wouldn't be enough. They knew while marches and protests might have a 'feel good' elixir effect they really needed to get out, register, and then vote!  And so it was their massive youth vote revival that swept Barack Obama to the presidency.

Will a similar 'youth wave' sweep Joe Biden to victory this year?  We have to wait and see but so far Trump's move to ban Tik Tok  may well be the tipping point to finally drive a youth vote beyond the 20 percent mark and in Biden's favor.  Do the young who use Tik Tok the most even know how Trump has their favorite social app in his sights?

According to the WSJ ('Security Concerns, Anger Fuel Trump's Move Against Apps', August 8, p. A6):

"Mr. Trump signed two executive orders late Thursday, to take effect in 45 days, that will bar Americans from transactions with  the Tik Tok video app."

We learned the reason for Trump's aggressive actions  (ibid.) are:

"his frustration over the pandemic and China's failure to contain it.'

In fact, China DID contain it using draconian measures for its own (e.g. Wuhan) shutdowns, including moving infected people from their homes into separate quarters, and temporary isolation - quarantine centers. As NY Times columnist Don McNeil wrote back in March:

"In contrast to the halting steps taken here, China shut down Wuhan — the epicenter of the nation’s outbreak — and restricted movement in much of the country on Jan. 23, when the country had a mere 500 cases and 17 deaths. Its rapid action had an important effect: With the virus mostly isolated in one province, the rest of China was able to save Wuhan."

So, no, Trump's rationale - if that's what it can be called - is simply bogus. He's simply vexed that the pandemic has got the better of him and his lackeys and he's failed to respond to it, as journalist Laurie Garret has pointed out, e,.g.

 Trump Has Sabotaged America's Coronavirus Response

Excerpt:

" In 2018, the Trump administration fired the government’s entire pandemic response chain of command, including the White House management infrastructure. In numerous phone calls and emails with key agencies across the U.S. government, the only consistent response I encountered was distressed confusion."

Trump has also been irate about  his botched Tulsa rally which had less than two thirds the turnout expected.  He blames young wise guys for using Tik Tok to create more virtual  demand for attendees than the actual physical persons who showed up.

In any case it would be great if the young 18- 35 youth demographic finally have something to light a fire under them to get out and vote.  Earlier, I had noted a depressing article (Denver Post, 'Young in U.S.  Question  Value of Voting', June 7, p. 3A) noting that American youth weren't too enthralled by the present offering of candidates.   They mostly found Biden about as interesting as a wet dish rag or soggy oatmeal.  In other words their current attitude was kind of 'meh' on voting.

But as I warned in my June 16 post this is not the time, not the year, to be picky or purist.   Our one main goal has to be to remove Trump and do it in a blowout. Sitting on the sidelines and failing to summon the energy to cast a ballot - even a mail ballot - is simply not an option.  

See Also:

2020 Elections | Donald Trump

Mission Imperative: Come November, Trump Must Go

by Michael Winship | May 13, 2020 - 5:50am | permalink

Excerpt:

"There must be one mission above all, one goal supreme: Vote this monster out of the White House. And along with him, tow to the nearest dump the clown car of malefactors who gave him license to cripple our republic.

And:

Covid-19 | Donald Trump | Jobs

Racist Trump Blames China, Declares Victory (Again) on Jobs, Ignores Surging Covid-19 Infections

A 40 Percent Stock Rise Since March - Does That Signal A New Bull Market? Try "Bear Market Rally" (Temporary!)

As the mind virus of misplaced optimism and irrational exuberance continues to spark a rise in both the S&P 500 and the DOW, some of their mesmerized investors have been arguing a new bull market is dawning.  But that is premature, as I will show, especially given these investors may not fully appreciate the extent to which the economy (and stocks) hinge on controlling the virus, and hence the success of reopening without further lockdowns.  Let's say the jury is still out.

What we do know (cf. WSJ. July 7, p. C2) is that between February 19 and March 22, the S&P 500 fell by more than 30 percent, putting into Bear market territory. (By general definition, a "bear market" is taken to be a drop of at least 20 percent .  Similarly, a 20 percent recovery puts an index back in a bull market. However, if you've fallen thirty feet into a hole, does getting two thirds of the way out of the whole count as being "out of and above" the hole? Not really.

To be fair, the market has now rallied 40 % since March 22 - thanks to near zero interest rates (signaling cheap money, and other Fed support, i.e. buying up bonds)  to enter what many regard as legitimate bull market status.  So many are thinking, "Hey, we're out of the hole and now really in a proper bull market!"  But not so fast.  As the WSJ 'Business & Investing'  piece observes:

"Such rallies can be robust but short -lived. The bear market during the 2007-08 recession included a rebound from early March, 2008 to mid May 2008.  Then the downtrend continued."

That may well happen in this cycle as well. Recall in an earlier post I warned about the risks of excessive leverage, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2020/06/is-financial-repression-solution-to.html

Noting:

"Both individual investors and whole companies have now taken to the leverage 'drug'  to place their market bets using borrowed money.  The losses they have accrued, along with decades of trillion dollar tax cuts,  have helped to monumentally add to the $164 trillion in global debt.  But WHO is being asked to pay now, even with the party still going on? Well, the average Joe and Jane on Main Street.

In a separate WSJ piece, Paul Hannon warns us:

"In the U.S. and elsewhere, government debt is set to soar this year, reflecting lower tax revenue and the cost of financial aid to households during lockdown. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that U.S. government debt will reach 131%  of annual economic output this year, up from 109% in 2019."

Hannon makes clear Joe and Jane American are going to have to pay the piper, especially if we are to avoid bank collapses" (Warned about in  a sobering article for The Atlantic’s July/August 2020 issue )"


The argument I made then and which I believe applies now, is that these hyper optimistic investors feeding the current rally are not factoring in the immense risks if we are unable to get the virus under control.  All they see now is a light at the end of the tunnel, but that light may well be illusory- especially if there's no real vaccine for 2 years or even more.   Couple that with Senate Republicans blocking any further stimulus even as the last financial cushion expires at the end of this month (not to mention the eviction moratorium ending in two weeks) and you have a debt bomb going off and utter calamity.

This is also reinforced by the recent Business & Investing WSJ piece ('Crisis Upends Corporate borrowing Binge',  June 24, p. C1) noting how companies "had loaded up on debt after years of low interest rates, buyouts and increasingly lax lending standards."  Worse, with much of that debt "bankrolled by an elaborate ecosystem of debt funds called collateralized loan obligations, or CLOs".  Which we then learn (ibid.):

"Buy up risky corporate loans and turns them into supposedly safe  bonds, bought by banks".

Sound familiar It should because the "elaborate ecosystem of debt funds" also appeared back in 2007-08 but under the name credit default swaps, e.g.

The Financial Black Hole

 And those financial entities nearly brought the entire financial system crashing down.  See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-equation-that-nearly-brought.html


The point being it is way, way too early to proclaim a viable bull market, given so many countervailing factors many of which carry vast hidden risk if elements go sideways.   Perhaps one of the few rational inputs on the situation comes from Anupam Damani, portfolio manager at Nuveen, who terms what we are seeing a "bear market rally".     As expressed in the earlier (July 7) WSJ piece:

"She says the rally since March was the result of extra liquidity provided by the Fed, and she sees a disconnect between the fundamental weakness in the economy and the strength of the stock market."

In other words, the investors already betting on a bull market are living in a fool's paradise.  Maybe that will change when they behold consumption dry up because of lack of stimulus $$$, and  millions tossed out onto the streets after being evicted from their apartments in the midst of a pandemic.  Oh yeah, and when they see the banks stuck with over a trillion in toxic business loans on their books.

Stay tuned.

See  Also:

Economic Policy | Wall Street

Indecent Stock Market Boom Exposes Riot-inducing Inequality, Not Economic Positives

Can We Help Bill Maher Increase His COVID IQ?

Have  the last remaining sane and rational neurons ensconced in Bill Maher's 3 pounds of gray matter finally been eviscerated?  This is the question one must ask after watching yet another round of his lockdown criticism and deliberate diminution of Covid 19 on his last Real Time episode,  June 5th).   In the latest iteration questioning the severity by comparing the coronavirus to yearly deaths from medical errors (100,000) and the Hong Kong flu of 1968 (100,000) he faced only mild pushback from guest Michael Steele - former RNC chair - and now MSNBC commentator.

I had the Hong Kong flu - desperately ill for a good 3 weeks in December of '68- but I would argue it's nothing like the worst cases of Covid, where intubation is often the key to survival for the very ill. Also, it leaves those intubated patients with major cognitive and other deficiencies (see WaPo link at bottom of this post).  In other words, the respiratory difficulties I faced with the Hong Kong flu were nothing compared to what moderate and severe Covid patients experience.  But Maher in his several episodes denying or diminishing the impact of Covid 19 has yet to process any of this. Invariably choosing to diminish its effects by invoking sketchy relative to 'x' "arguments".

Though Hong Kong flu had a comparable  R0  (est. 1.o6- 2.06 for first wave)  the data remain  elusive and most of the transmissibility aspects have been derived from the 2nd wave.   All I can say here is that as I recall, ICUs were not flooded by patients as they have been with Covid. Even now as I write this warnings from state medical authorities have gone out in Arizona, as well as Mississippi and 19 other states,  that  ICUs are close to being overrun and patients may have to be redirected to other facilities.

Regarding medical errors being compared to Covid 19, that's a gross false analogy.  The reason is that as deadly as medical errors are they are distributed over lengthy time and don't occur in massive waves which demand extraordinary medical resources - like N95 masks, ventilators, face shields, protective gowns and other ppe.

On the blurring of lockdown vs. non-lockdown stats (i.e. infection rates, fatalities) Maher succumbs to a favorite trope of contrarians, i.e. that the data indicates none of the lockdowns have worked. However, this is a misguided statistical comparison, often like literally comparing apples to oranges. Take the matter of timing. We have the data - incontrovertible - showing that those that acted earlier (like South Korea) were more successful in containing the epidemic. In S. Korea's case a draconian lockdown wasn't needed because it had developed a suitable infrastructure for testing, contact tracing in combination with suitable quarantine. Meanwhile, the U.S. with Trump loafed for two weeks, messed up on the use of tests and tracing - so was more or less forced into the "bludgeon" response of total lockdown.

The case of Sweden is also invoked  - usually by the Rightists to push for premature U.S.  reopening - but we now know Sweden has the highest fatality rate of the Nordic nations as well as northern  European nations. Besides,  the experiment is still not over. What will a 2nd wave do? What manner of havoc will it wreak?  Will deaths double, triple?   We don't know but may find out in 2-3 months, and by then the praise of Sweden by the 'Murican Right may not be so loud and goofy.

Sadly, given all the above - using the fallacy of composition, multiple false analogies, non sequiturs galore,  Maher seems to be going along the same backward IQ arc as the FOXites and WSJ anti-lockdown toads  like Holman Jenkins Jr.  Like Jenkins Jr. Maher, to support his specious contentions, has either cited or actually had quacks on his show to prop him up.  (It's a wonder, given his aversion to vaccines, he hasn't had a prominent anti-vaxxer on yet).

Maher's  main quack of choice thus far has been David Katz, featured on Real Time about 6 weeks ago. .  Katz bloviated for 10-15 minutes along similar lines to Dr. John  Ioannidis of Stanford, and mostly just reinforcing Maher's  Covid  "meh" confirmation bias. That is,  that this virus isn't much worse than flu and certainly that a lockdown  is an overreaction.   Oh yeah, and if people just stopped eating so many cheese burgers all would be okay, their immune systems would kick in. 

All Maher succeeded in doing is reveal "even more dangerous quackery" -  his own - in hyping Katz. This from a guy (supposedly high IQ) but still leery of vaccines, e.g.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bill-maher-believes-people-should-want-to-get-coronavirus

As noted from the above link:

On Friday night, instead of opting for a despicably racist rant against China over the novel coronavirus or blaming the media, Bill Maher welcomed Dr. David Katz, a doctor and ex-instructor at the Yale School of Medicine, onto his show Real Time.

Dr. Katz, who consistently flaunts his Yale ties despite the fact that they were severed in 2016, has become something of a right-wing darling after penning a controversial New York Times op-ed on March 20 titled “Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?” In it, Katz argues against the self-isolation policies put in place by most of the U.S., instead saying the country should isolate the elderly and infirm, which would thus “allow most of society to return to life as usual and perhaps prevent vast segments of the economy from collapsing. Healthy children could return to school and healthy adults go back to their jobs. Theaters and restaurants could reopen, though we might be wise to avoid very large social gatherings like stadium sporting events and concerts.”

Following his op-ed, Katz has made appearances on Fox News touting his hole-filled theory, thereby co-signing a network that’s called the pandemic a “hoax”; repeatedly downplayed it; and spent hours and hours pushing hydroxychloroquine as a miracle cure, even though it’s been determined by most of the medical community to do way more harm than good following a series of poisonings and deaths. On top of that, a convincing refutation of Katz’s ill-advised piece was published in The New York Times from those currently at the Yale School of Public Health that read, in part: 'it is not yet known who all of the most vulnerable people are. We believe that  it is easier, quicker and more efficient to reduce transmission over all than to permit high levels of transmission in the community but somehow keep it from afflicting susceptible people in our highly networked world.'

Despite all this, there was Katz on Maher’s HBO show regurgitating the arguments he made in his ridiculed Times piece—which he wrote when we were at 200 deaths nationwide; we’re now at 52,400 deaths and climbing with strict shutdowns and social distancing in place. "

To Katz’s argument that everyone should want to get infected with COVID-19, Maher actually  replied, “Yeah, I think you make a lot of sense there. And I think it’s a shame—you talk about politicization, that people like you who sound reasonable, maybe it’s not the exact one true opinion you hear somewhere else, has to go on Fox News.”     Seriously, Bill?  Hey, he had to go on FOX News because that is the domain for pushing hoaxes, hoax "cures" (like hydroxychloroquine), oh and quacks like David Katz.

 Another aspect of Katz and why he bears distrust and scrutiny: He was rightly pilloried by skeptics back in 2008 for propounding the concept of  "fluidity of evidence".  In fact there is no such thing. Evidence either exists in an objective form or it does not, there is no 'fluidity' about it.   As noted from Science Blogs (June 18, 2008)

"No, he is not happy at all. Specifically, he is not happy with the skeptical blogosphere. He apparently feels that we nasty, close-minded skeptics have been so very unfair in our discussions of him. Specifically, he is not happy how several of us have called him to task for his remarks at the 1st Annual Integrative Medicine Scientific Symposium held in April at Yale University. In particular, what stood out (and provoked the sarcasm and contempt of several bloggers devoted to discussing scientific medicine and going after quackery) was Dr. Katz's fanatastically Orwellian advocating for a more "fluid concept of evidence" in evaluating so-called "complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM) or "integrative" medicine. His remarks were lambasted in particular by Professor David Colquhoun (who characterized his remarks as "not science" and "not even common sense"), 



Incredibly,  Katz also claimed  on that Real Time segment that it’s “the liberal ideology that seems to be so resistant to talking about unemployment and the economy,” when amid the COVID-19 crisis, the progressive left wing of the Democratic Party—Bernie Sanders, AOC and the like—have been fighting hard for workers and arguing for rent cancellation as well as giving $2,000 a month to each household during the shutdown.  Maher's response? A bot -like nod of the head, no challenge, no criticism - despite having interviewed Sen. Sanders only a few weeks earlier (April 3rd Real Time) and being told first hand the mission. 

All of which explains why Janice is no longer able to watch Maher, as he  has allowed an original welcome independence of thought to descend into a form of stupidity in the name of misplaced political incorrectness. 

No doubt there still might be some small probability of getting Bill Maher to rise from the "moron" level of Covid -19 intelligence levels. (Janice suggests "imbecile" level.)  but I would not hold my breath waiting for him to demonstrate it anytime soon. 

 In the meantime, I suggest Bill read the WaPo piece showing that shutdown orders prevented about 60 million novel coronavirus infections in the United States and 285 million in China.  This according to a research study published Monday that examined how stay-at-home orders and other restrictions limited the spread of the contagion.

See Also:

Hugo Sosa survived the ICU. But for many like him, that’s just the start of recovery

Why Is The Stock Market Going Up As More Millions File For Jobless Claims?

Graph showing the rapid increase of jobless claims, and the rise of the S&P 500 over the same period (From The Wall Street Journal, May 9-10, p. A5).

It may seem to be a mystery wrapped in an enigma: Why has the stock market (e.g. the S&P 500, see graphic) continued to go up as jobless claims have now reached 33 million? It it a serious manifestation of cognitive dissonance that deserves some kind of explanation.  

One explanation offered by the finance pundits is the extremely low interest rates, next to zero.  These historically low rates mean trillions can be borrowed, as they have, but the borrowing costs mean the blowback will not terrify investors as much as they otherwise would.  Add to that the fact that the Fed is committed to protecting the commercial paper niche - as connected to money market mutual funds- and one has loads of investor confidence that things will not go totally south.  

But there are other factors to also consider (cf. WSJ, May 9-10, 'Investors Shrug Off Jobs Data') .  Chief among these is the reopening of the economy, which moves "have encouraged investors that the economy is poised for a rapid rebound by early 2021''  According to one equity investor, R.J. Grant, quoted in the piece:

"People are making the bet that this is the bottom."

Well, maybe, but not necessarily, and even Grant had to concede (ibid.):

"The market is really divorced from economic reality right now."

  Well, of course it is, never mind the media hype and endless scenes of yahoos and morons crowding into restaurants on Mother's Day, such as at one place in Castle Rock - about 40 miles north of us.  The State Health Dept. - using its authority and order from Gov. Jared Polis- has since forced the place - C&C Breakfast  and Korean Kitchen-  to remain shuttered for 30 days. Its license has also been suspended for 30 days. Some lessons are learned the hard way!  This sense was reinforced this morning as Dr. Ben Gupta - on 'Morning Joe' - noted only two states, Montana and Vermont, have actually met the standards to reopen at any level. 

As for Trump's deranged claims yesterday that the U.S. leads in testing, Dr. Gupta quickly thumped them. He noted on a  per capita basis (the only basis that counts) we are being beaten by every major country, and even the Czech Republic has 7 times more testing efficacy.   Trump was so unhinged after a CBS reporter (Weija Jiang) put him on the ropes that he stalked out of the briefing like the coward he is, e.g.

Donald Trump

‘Very, Very Ugly Ending’: CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Is Stunned as Trump Storms out of Press Briefing

by Cody Fenwick | May 12, 2020 - 6:53am | permalink

— from Alternet

Again proving his briefings and pressers aren't worth an ounce of doggie lickspittle.  Every network that airs them ought to first present a warning: "Viewing this could be hazardous to your brain!"

As Dr. Gupta observed, if some places open too early, before even a week's decline in cases is evident, there would well be a renewed outbreak such as now occurring in S. Korea.  That could well trigger the worst of both worlds: a 2nd wave which mandates another lockdown in many states, coupled with an economy that is re-cratering.  Further, these investors are making an assumption that may not be valid, i.e. that customers, people will readily fill the stores, restaurants etc. That may not be the case at all and in fact - despite the noisy protests on TV- a  solid majority of Americans sees too early reopening as the real threat.

Reinforcing this, we learn that Goldman Sachs analysts tracking measures  such as traffic in restaurants, have found "only very small gains".  In other words, it is way too early for investors to display such irrational exuberance.  This take was further bolstered by a piece today ('Hopes Dim For Speedy Rebound', WSJ, p. A2) where we learn:

"According to a survey by market research firm Coresight Research, more than 70 percent of people in the U.S. expect to avoid some public places after the lockdowns ease, with more than half saying they expect to stay away from shopping malls for more than six months."

That is definitely a blow - and reality check- for all those malls opening now, from Georgia to Texas.

Back to the stock market:  the other takeaway is the rise is uneven,  as well as divided.  As per the initial WSJ piece again:

"The stock market is increasingly divided between the haves and the have nots - and the recent rally reflects the outperformance of a handful of stocks.  Big technology companies, which re heavily weighted in the indexes, have driven much of the rebound, continuing a trend which was prevalent during the nearly 11-year bull market."

To fix ideas, five big tech stocks: Apple Inc., Amazon Inc., Microsoft Corp., Alphabet Inc. and Facebook Inc. together make up 20 percent of the S&P 500.  All have been benefiting as Americans have sheltered at home, and virtual home schooling, combined with corporate work at home, have become the norm.

In the words of Giorgio Caputo, a portfolio manager at J.O.  Hambro Capital Management (ibid.):

"The whole market is not up. It's the best of times for some firms and the worst of times for some firms."

As if to confirm that, we further read that the energy sector - which has taken the greatest hit - constitutes just about 3 percent of the broad stock index.  In effect, their losses are disguised because "the stocks that have suffered the most have little sway over the market's direction."

The bottom line is that most stock investors can rejoice even as their compatriots on Main Street suffer with job losses, because they are "counting on a quick rebound next year."

But if a second wave of Covid- 19 strikes because of mass stupidity - and failure to appreciate the biology of the virus - all those nice hopes and dreams for another Bull  market maybe flushed right down the toilet. 

See Also:

Fauci: Reopening too quickly could lead to ‘really serious’ consequences

And:

• A tiny ice cream parlor gets an unwelcome lesson in American 'entitlement' 

And

• Two female reporters send Trump running from his own press conference