From Pre IPO Swap:

Cell-based meats are becoming increasingly popular as our food system is being disrupted by innovation.

Subscribe to the Crunchbase Daily

Many of the facets of its future were discussed this week at the virtual Future Food-Tech conference, which gathered food business leaders, venture capital investors and food tech innovators into conversations around innovation and investment in food.

The growing global population is expected to increase the need for food by 70 percent to 100 percent by 2050, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Many of the panelists at the conference discussed how big of a need it is to be able to create proteins and other foods to meet this demand.

Over the last six months or so, I’ve written about companies developing meat from cells and plants. Most recently, Future Fields developing a first-of-its-kind cellular growth medium — the most important component of cellular agriculture — raised $2.2 million in seed funding led by Bee Partners.

The Future Food-Tech conference explored the concepts of hybrid meat and alternative proteins. In fact, one of the first panels was a discussion between two founders creating plant-based products that aim to mimic the texture and taste of chicken.

While hybrid meat seems like a new concept, it is actually not, and many consumers will know this as a “filler,” said Ido Savir, co-founder and CEO of SuperMeat. The Israel-based company has raised $4.2 million in known funding since it was founded in 2015, according to Crunchbase data.

“We’ve seen this for centuries, so that food can have a better structure, be a lower cost and have a better shelf life,” Savir said. “We are doing it for the same reasons. When this will be branded and presented to consumers, it will be as a meat product because that’s what it is.”

San Francisco-based Eat Just, which raised $220 million in known funding since it was founded in 2011, announced in December that the use of its cultured chicken as an ingredient in chicken bites was approved to sell in Singapore, which is the first country in the world to commercialize cell-based meat products, the company said.

Company co-founder and CEO Josh Tetrick said on the panel that the concept of hybrid meat is becoming more mainstream, but what isn’t is eating meat where you didn’t have to kill an animal.

“The thing we need to move from ‘bizarre’ to ‘boring’ is where no animals or trees were destroyed to eat meat,” Tetrick said. “Consumers are open to the idea, but when they begin double-clicking, they want to know if this is natural, if it is modified and what does it mean you are using cells? Those are the questions we need to be all over.”

Savir said cultured meat is one of the easier products to make and allows companies to use existing production lines.

“The complexity is not high, it is just a matter of investing the right resources,” he added. “Eat Just did a lot to get their product approved, and they bridged the barrier.”

The agriculture and food technology sector continues to attract more entrants and investor attention. Since 2015, investors have planted just over $27 billion of known funding into companies focused on these spaces, according to Crunchbase data. Although total investments per year was creeping up, investments made in 2020 saw a massive increase to $8.1 billion.

Some of the winners in this space include China-based Meicai, which last raised $800 million in Series F funding in 2018 to sell agricultural products online. More recently, plant-based substitute developer Impossible Foods closed a $200 million Series G round last August.

Meanwhile, Richard Freeman, commercial manager for Roslin Technologies, a U.K.-based agriculture biotechnology company, told me via email that more attention is being paid to cultivated meat, with huge interest from investors and regulatory authorities. This is driven by trying to feed a growing population while also caring about the planet, he said.

However, there is still a gap in cost and the ability to scale up, but companies are working on that, and in time, cultivated meat will be able to supply the world’s protein needs while protecting the environment.

“As food poverty becomes more widespread, the opportunity to boost collective human health by being able to produce affordable and plentiful protein becomes ever more clear,” Freeman said. “Whilst there are still several hurdles to overcome before cultivated meat becomes commercially available on a large scale, the recent leaps forward in both affordability and regulatory approval mean that it’s closer than ever to being served up to diners around the world.”

Illustration: Li-Anne Dias

 By Michael Every of Rabobank

Biblical, Lean, and Mean: 'Dreams' of an agri-commodity super-cycle

Then Pharaoh said to Joseph: “Behold, in my dream I stood on the bank of the river. Suddenly seven cows came up out of the river, fine looking and fat; and they fed in the meadow. Then behold, seven other cows came up after them, poor and very ugly and gaunt, such ugliness as I have never seen in all the land of Egypt. And the gaunt and ugly cows ate up the first seven, the fat cows. When they had eaten them up, no one would have known that they had eaten them, for they were just as ugly as at the beginning. So I awoke.”

- Genesis 41:17-21

Summary

• Key feed and food prices have been pulled to 9-month and 7-year highs 

• We explore the ‘dream’ of Biblical scarcity; its origins and impacts; and draw comparisons with Joseph, the trader and central planner who avoided starvation for ancient Egypt

• One point is clear: global food insecurity falls heaviest on lower income, importing nations, who spend a far greater share of their income on food than the richer ones

• The Fed would play an ironic role in this process even as it embraces fighting poverty and inequality alongside inflation

• This could exacerbate (geo)political risk – potentially even regarding institutional architecture

Our Base Commodity Call

At time of writing, our forecasts for three of the world’s key agri commodities, soybeans, corn, and wheat are as follows:

The First Big Commodity Call

In the Bible, Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream as meaning great abundance for seven years would be followed by an equal famine. He was then entrusted with ensuring Egypt’s storehouses were full of grain so the country could survive – which he, and it, did.
In short, Joseph made the first agri commodity cycle call, where survival came before profits. Today we have seed technology, automated agriculture, and global markets. Yet we still have lean and fat years for reasons meteorological, logistical, political, and geopolitical. This report will try to do several things:

1. Summarise price action in key agri commodities to consider if we are seeing anything unusual – we will show we are, reflected in our elevated base price forecasts;

2. Disaggregate and define the main drivers of these price movements. While the agri market is very old, new developments could produce striking new price patterns;

3. Imagine what a Biblical scarcity would look like, putting forward simplified assumptions to estimate what each of them in isolation could do to food prices;

4. Look at global food insecurity to ascertain how many countries are suffering already and would do so in the scenario that prices rise higher; and

5. Consider the worrying (geo)political implications.

1) Supplies Shaken, not Stored

For key feed and food commodities, the message for markets and institutions is a simple one: they are going up. The S&P global agricultural index is up for a 9th straight month, to its highest level in 7 years (see Figure 1). Even though we are coming off a low base of comparison, which helps the base effects, the last period to see such a rapid rise was 2011, and prior to that 2007.

When we look at key commodities one by one the picture is similar, whether it is grains, vegetable oils, dairy, meat, or sugar (see Figure 2). This correlation makes sense, especially as many of these products share characteristics, are complementary, or are planted on the same land.

Most of the above markets have shifted into strong backwardation, indicating near-term supply scarcity that should ease with harvest replenishment. However, we remain sceptical about the resupply.

Rabobank’s price forecasts for soy, corn, and wheat --the critical building blocks for bread, meat, dairy, biofuels, and more-- are in line with present levels and above the futures curve into 2022.

2) A Bull-run of Many Colors

Today’s elevated price trajectories shows nobody had the foresight, fortitude or financial power to stockpile in the years of plenty, but there are many more factors at play. Rabobank’s recent report already covered the key drivers of the agri bull market. We will quickly reprise them as follows:

1. Exporters stocks have fallen rapidly to 7-year lows;

2. China is importing on a vast scale;;

3. It’s hard to increase supply rapidly;

4. Adverse weather conditions;

5. Countries are engaging in food protectionism;

6. Logistical costs are rising, notably in freight; and

7. Speculators are holding more commodities futures.

#1 Seven years of plenty ironically leave global agri commodity stocks low. Before the recent run-up, the S&P GS Agri Commodities Market Index had fallen over the last seven years as the price shock of 2010-12 incentivized diversified supplies and a shift from high cost to low cost producers/exporters. This was good news for importers, but bad for the high-cost US, who saw its stocks steadily increase through 2019. The US-China trade war and Covid-19 also saw US farmers adjust acreage lower in response.
When demand then surged in mid-2020, higher cost exporters, especially the US, sold both their production and stores. In short, the US --the global food reserve bank-- has seen its grain and oilseed stockpiles slip nearly 30% y/y (see Figure 3), primarily in corn and soybeans. Moreover, we forecast only a slight increase in 2021 as our base case.

#2 China is driving demand. It is aggressively bidding for supplies to fill shortfalls and pad inventories (see Figure 4). Convalescence from dual pandemics --African Swine Fever and Covid-19-- has led to a surge in agri import demand, and hence global prices. The most remarkable increases have been in feed grain, the energy source for animal protein and ethanol: China’s imports of these have risen almost three-fold in a year to address a structural supply gap that cannot be addressed by domestic production. Indeed, China is so stretched for feed it is resorting to using old domestic wheat reserves for livestock -- 35m metric tonnes this year alone, equivalent to Canada’s production-- in addition to vegetable oil, and even pig lard.

China’s moves are singlehandedly testing supply chains to their limits. The saving grace for global markets has been that world demand across many of China’s favoured imports was absent or squeezed until now; when it returns, global supplies could be stretched further.

#3 Supplies are on a tight-rope. Coming months will see a scramble by farmers to plant and harvest. With many products facing scarcity, competition for limited arable land will limit the potential resupply. The US, for example, can only increase its summer plantings by about 5%; any production on top needs to come from yield improvement.

#4 Everything depends on the weather, where key exporters face an uphill battle. Large swathes of South America are too dry or too wet; meanwhile, much of the spring planting area in the US faces significant dryness.

#5 There is a heightened risk of protectionist policies. Many critical agri exporters are already putting up tariffs or export quotas, threatening free trade and curtailing local farm prices and domestic production to keep prices affordable. Rather than fulfilling their critical global role, such exporters are increasingly insulating themselves from global markets: Russia, the world’s largest exporter of wheat, has implemented grain export taxes; Ukraine export quotas; and Argentina, the largest exporter of protein feed, has dabbled in export quotas too.

#6 Logistics are tight. If a rising tide lifts all boats, a lack of boats lifts prices. ASF, Covid, and weather events all drive demand shifts that suppliers have been unable to anticipate or react to easily. Freight prices have jumped to a record for containers: bulk (measured by the Baltic Dry Index) has also seen large increase, and this has delayed and displaced shipments: naturally, these higher prices fall heavily on importers.

#7 Speculators. Wall Street funds already hold in-the-money positions in soy and corn – by far their largest net long position. Financial market investors currently hold contracts of grains, oilseeds and livestock worth almost 50bn USD net length or 35% of the value of all US agricultural exports in 2020. (see Figure 5.)

What makes this significant, apart from the scale, is that this is happening due to the actions of central banks. While Joseph was second only to Pharaoh, so central banks are second only to governments: yet they are not helping to smooth out food cycles like Joseph did.

Markets have grown used to extreme monetary policy since 2008. However, the aggressiveness of the Fed’s current policy stance, now aimed to let the economy “run hot”, and the shift to massively expansionary US fiscal policy too, has altered market perceptions of future inflation risks. Investors have responded by holding assets as a hedge: stocks, property, and gold/ Bitcoin.

Yet Wall Street is now holding/speculating with agri commodities too - even though this pushes up inflation!

3) A Biblical rally

Having then listed the various structural reasons for agri commodity prices to have risen so fast, we free our minds to ‘dream’ (if that is the right word) of a Biblical price rally. Our bull market stands on four legs:

• (i) Normal supply and demand (which is how day-to-day markets are supposed to work);

• (ii) China (given its import appetite makes it the marginal buyer that matters most);

• (iii) Politics (covering changes to trade flows, protectionism/tariffs, and export controls); and

• (iv) ‘Wall Street’ (where could equally say ‘the Fed’)

Leg one: Normal supply and demand:

As noted, the FAO price index at 7-year highs is supported by rises in all of its components; sugar, cereals, meat, oils and dairy. In our dream we ruminate on the products who’ve risen the most, and are thus closest to scarcity: cereals and oilseeds. They are currently so tightly balanced a small weather issue --a regular occurrence in agricultural markets-- could tip the scales towards global scarcity.

The USDA, today’s high priests of agriculture, expect maximum acreage and healthy yields in the US to maintain, but not reflate, stocks. Yet they are arguably dreaming! The US has seen two consecutive disappointing summer crops (feed grains: 359 and 375 million metric tons, soy: 93 and 113 million metric tons); and yields can often worsen, rather than improve, on expanded --less ideal-- acreage. Imagine a third consecutive lacklustre US summer harvest.

Even if last year’s average, not poor, yields were repeated in corn or soy, supplies would fall below 2012 levels, a time prices were 35% higher than today. All else equal, even a 3-4% drop in production could move soy and corn prices up by a third.

In normal times, alternative grain and oilseed export surpluses might help cushion the blow of a US supply shock – but if we take these into account too, cumulative exporter stocks-to-use are still close to 2012 levels (see Figure 6).

We started with soy and corn: but feed grains and oilseeds compete for acreage with other commodities. Moreover, soy and corn are the primary feed components for both animal protein and dairy, and produce cooking oil and biofuels.

Wheat, for one example, exhibits slow demand growth in line with slowing global population growth, but also little elasticity. The upside is that there are so many substantive exporters, which distributes supply risk. Yet global exporter stocks are again already near 2012 lows: a 10% production cut in major suppliers like the EU, US, or Russia could lift prices 30% to levels last seen in 2012.

Can this Pharaoh’s dream be interpreted to see any one commodity evading inflationary capture? Current futures market positioning may be too somnolent.

As noted, adverse weather is already affecting major production areas. Over 90% of the US Northern Plains (the area most likely to boost overall acreage), 50% of the Midwest, and 59% of the South are already in some form of drought (see Figure 7).

With winter wheat emerging, and soy, corn, and cotton about to be planted, the terrain looks nothing like the promised land the USDA is projecting. Perhaps they shouldn’t have slept on the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association report predicting three months of dry, warm US conditions ahead.

And what if we were to get a real US drought, as in ancient Egypt? Obviously this would be far, far worse on all fronts.

Leg two: Politics

Any crisis in food inflation risks being exacerbated by food politics. Emergent food export heavyweights like Argentina, Ukraine, and Russia have played a role in driving prices higher through export taxes and controls; and trade wars have been destabilizing and inefficient for agri flows.

In short, global supply chains appear bereft of the underlying geopolitical stability assured until recently.

In the case of a future supply issue, however modest, there is a risk of heavier exports controls. For one key hypothetical example, if Russia re-implemented its ban of 10 years ago on even half its export potential – 19m tons, the ensuing burden on the US and others could double wheat prices to the USD12/bushel last seen back in 2008.

A further ‘political’ catalyst is biofuels, beneficial for farmers and the environment, but which exacerbate agri commodity supply stresses by shifting production from food towards renewable energies made from agri commodities: namely biodiesel and ethanol. Figure 8 shows higher income nations employing over 12% of their caloric inputs (primarily vegetable oil and feed grains) for biofuel ingredients.

The ethanol market was largely absent last year amid a surge in feed demand; its return could exacerbate supply pressures. For the US, a 500 million bushel rise in ethanol usage fully offsets potential acreage expansion in 2021, for example. Assuming a doubling of ethanol exports (to China), it would not be unrealistic to assume corn prices could potentially rise a further 15%. Full implementation of biodiesel and renewable diesel mandates in Indonesia, Europe, Brazil and others, supported by high diesel prices, would potentially drive support for key component vegetable oils like palm and soy near or to record levels.

In short, in the short term --where politics happens-- the Green transition could mean higher food prices.

Leg three: China

China is the single biggest swing factor besides weather/production. It has the potential to disrupt global agri balance sheets for years to come.

In the past, China has implemented Joseph-like policies and holds large stockpiles of wheat and rice, However, amid elevated domestic prices and imports of dairy, pork, oils, and grains, it is far from apparent that China is purely engaging in strategic “restocking”: rather in our ‘dream’ we interpret that China is rapidly destocking in products including feed grains and oilseeds.

Higher imports and domestic production increases are the apparent solution. China is expected to import 35-45 million metric tonnes of feed grains per year for the coming years - much more if rosy production expectations are unfulfilled. If China’s domestic output disappoints, it would exacerbate a structural deficit requiring yet higher imports of grains and oilseeds --by as much as 15m metric tonnes-- and raise global prices of corn and soy by additional 30%.

Leg four: Wall Street

As already noted, Wall Street is an established player in the agri commodity space and has room to grow its inflation-hedging bets from here. Despite current long positions, the overall net position is still nearly 10% below the record.

Wall Street probably wouldn’t increase its positions in a vacuum: but if any of the above ‘legs’ come to pass, it would likely respond. Funds could easily extend their speculative length, not just in feed, but also wheat. This ‘dream’ could help push agri prices up to the 2012 peak 40% higher from here.

Moreover, should US ultra-loose monetary and fiscal policy produce significant US inflation, or stagflation, and/or yield curve control to peg the long-term cost of borrowing, Wall Street would again likely increase its agri commodity inflation hedges.

We summarize the relative impact on soy, corn, and wheat in this (bad) dream scenario below:

For soy, the primary price driver ahead is weather (5 from a maximum 7), then China and Wall Street equally (3), then potential political actions (2). For corn, China is the largest potential factor (5), followed by weather (4), then Wall Street (3) and politics (2). For wheat, weather (3), politics (3), and China (3) are all equally important, with Wall Street relatively less so (2).

Of course, all cows stand on four legs, and any one of the factors above could play out individually for any one commodity to significant effect. Yet as with any cow, where one leg goes, the others usually follow.

In short, if we were to see bad weather; and protectionism/sustainability-related regulations; and further heavy buying from China; and a surge in Wall Street speculation then it is hard to say just how high prices could reach before demand destruction kicked in.

(4) Food Security

The impact on food security should be obvious: indeed, it already is:

• In the MENA countries --the highest per capita consumers of bread-- the 30% increase in international wheat prices seen so far in 2021 leaves them just shy of levels seen during the revolutionary Arab Spring;

• Asia’s burgeoning middle class is grappling with 30-50% increases in pork, cooking oil, sugar, and dairy prices; and

• Africa, with lower GDP per capita, has an even clearer predicament.

Yet in our dream, things get worse. The impact of price increases will fall disproportionately on poorer, importing countries, reversing the improved economic outlook for some of the new global middle class - and even lower income deciles in the wealthiest countries would feel it. We attempted to summarise these risks with simple snapshots.

World Bank data from 2017 show USD income per capita around the world at purchasing power parity. The same data also show the amount spent on food per capita. One can then calculate the percentage of income allocated to food (see Figure 10). Obviously, the figures vary between wealthy regions, such as North America, and poorer ones, like Africa, where the differential is over a factor of four.

Holding income figures constant (as this is just an indicative exercise), we then change agri commodity inflation. Although such agri price changes have and will vary by commodity, we use the aggregate index as a base to avoid having to break down the complexities of varying national diet patterns.

As we showed, since 2017, agri commodity inflation has been substantial (45%). We then project a hypothetical doubling of the agri commodity basket for our ‘lean cows’ dream on top.

We must then consider how much of the change in price in the agri commodity basket is actually passed on to higher food prices. One might be surprised how little of the cost of the foods we eat actually reflects the raw ingredients as opposed to labour, rent, logistics, etc. (See Figure 11.)

Keeping all of these factors unchanged, we presume that agri commodity inflation of around 100% would translate into recorded global food price inflation of around 12%. This reflects OECD food inflation of 6-8% in recent scarcity events, while recognizing that in some sectors and markets this has tended to be higher, in particular for import dependent countries.

As can be seen in Figure 12, on a regional basis we can see that for East Asia and the Pacific, the percentage of individual incomes spent on food rises from 9.3% to 10.4%; in Europe and central Asia from 8.6% to 9.6%, Latin America from 11.5% to 12.9%; the Middle East the same 11.5% to 12.9%; North America 5.1% to 5.7%; South Asia from 16.9% to 19.0%; and sub-Saharan Africa from 20.7% to 23.2%.

Of course, the actual impact may be less given incomes would have risen in most places in the past four years in line with GDP growth – but then again Covid-19 could well have seen these gains partially reversed in many locations.

To put this into perspective, one also needs to consider where a crisis threshold lies in terms of food affordability.

Although this again varies for a number of reasons, if one selects the 20% of income as the key level, double the world average, then the global impact of this ‘dream’ agri commodity price shift cannot be understated.

Figure 13 shows the total number of countries in each region that were already at risk of food insecurity using the World Bank’s 2017 data compared to the number projected ahead using our “lean cows” assumption. As can be seen, Central Asia sees 1 additional country slip into food scarcity; Latin America 1; MENA 1; and Africa 2. Again, this is presuming a 12% increase in food prices: if more lean cows were to emerge, more people would also get leaner.

Even as is, 42 countries globally would be food insecure: and a staggering 102 countries would see a relative decline in their purchasing power of food, representing a step backwards down the pyramid – Maslow’s pyramid of basic needs. We would be back below 2011 levels in terms of food affordability, representing over a lost decade in the fight against hunger.

At the very least, steady progress experienced by much of the emerging world’s middle class could be frozen or reversed. That’s a process we have seen end in populism in Western economies already.

‘Yum’ Kippur?

We are talking here about a potential surge in parts of the agri-commodity complex. However, our global macro inflation thesis remains very different.

We continue to recognise the significant near-term upwards price pressures in many areas of the economy, which stem from a combination of base effects, Covid-related supply disruptions, genuine demand increases - or shifts, and looming US fiscal stimulus. Yet as we have argued for many years, structurally one only sees inflation sustained if either supply is too weak (and outside agri commodities and semiconductors, this is not an issue), or demand too strong – and workers still do not have the bargaining power to push for pay rises in most sectors of most economies. The present US fiscal stimulus does not address this issue at all.

Indeed, the greater likelihood is still that after an upwards surge in H1 2021, there will be a downshift in aggregate inflation pressures again into 2022. Were we to see a bounce in the US dollar on the back of higher long end US rates, this would exacerbate that trend: it could also partially weigh against some of the bullish agri-commodity trends we consider.

Moreover, were we to see an economic slump after the current US fiscal ‘sugar rush’, then presumably agri commodity prices would come under further downward pressure: note that previous spikes have often been rapidly followed by just such a slump. (More like seven lean then seven fat months in that case!) In that case, the Wall Street speculation we have already underlined would also be rapidly reversed: and what has helped make for fat markets would then make for lean ones. In short, volatility would be amplified in both directions.

Nonetheless, let’s dream agri commodity prices stay high for structural/political factors even as aggregate inflation falls back due to a weak global economy. We have seen something similar to this hypothetical backdrop previously if one shifts the kind of oil one is thinking of.

Indeed, think of the oil price spike experienced after the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and Arab oil producers responding with reduced supply into what was then a far more Keynesian, fiscally-driven world economy.

WTI oil, for example, jumped from USD3.56 in July 1973 to USD4.31 at the end of that year --a 21% increase-- and then again to UDS10.11 --a 293% increase from the July 1973 price-- at the start of 1974 in response to Arab oil-state’s actions (see Figure 13). This necessarily pushed general inflation much higher in tandem globally.

As we know, the demand-led policies of Western economies, which were still far more regulated, far less globalised, and had far stronger unions at that time, led to inflation-matching pay rises, so setting off a wage-price spiral. Consequently, oil prices marched as high as USD39.50 --a 390% increase over January 1974 and 1,109% over July 1973-- before eventually declining.

What is critical to recall is that this episode was arguably the key political driver of the structural reforms put in place to globalise and liberalise Western economies in order reduce the power of labour in favour of capital, capping inflation pressures in the process. With global populism rising, and critics pointing out those reforms have gone too far, producing socio-economic problems of an entirely different but just as damaging kind, the key hypothetical to ponder is this:

Could a sustained rise in agri-commodity prices prompt a political backlash away from neoliberalism and back towards deglobalisation and regulation? Could the Yom Kippur-driven reforms be reversed by a ‘Yum’ Kippur?

Of course, nobody knows. However, you don’t have to be Joseph to see that political developments such as Brexit, and obvious examples of agri protectionism, mean it would be dangerously naïve to rule this risk out entirely.

This in itself would then open up a new discussion of what such a structural shift might mean for the increasingly-turbulent geopolitical backdrop, and how that then might flow back to markets.

After all, there was open talked of an Arab “oil weapon” after the 1970s: and the emergence of the “Petro-dollar” was intimately linked to how the huge oil surpluses Arab states then began to accumulate were recycled: in short, into the US, in exchange for US military protection.

This brings us firmly to geopolitics.

And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.”

5) Not Just Any Dream Will Do

After all, let’s not forget that Egypt was the ancient world’s superpower because of its grain harvests: the flow-through from food prices to geopolitics today should be obvious:

First, weaker states could find themselves at risk of significant instability: it’s not a coincidence the last global agri commodity price surge coincided with the Arab Spring. Given even developed economies have experienced major socio-political unrest, the risks should be self-evident. In short, an agri commodity price spike, like Covid-19, could be an accelerant to pre-existing political trends.

Second, we live in a new age of Great Power politics, centred around an unfolding US-China rivalry, in which US food production and a Chinese food deficit plays no small part. Would higher agri prices mean the US-China Phase One Trade Deal holds, or breaks, for example?

More broadly, a key question is whether an agri commodity price shift higher would help force changes in the structure of the global economy and financial system. We have covered the likelihood of a paradigm shift away from the USD many times, and have always been highly sceptical. Yet hunger is a powerful incentive for action.

Such a ‘lean’ backdrop could accelerate efforts to shift the global trading system away from the USD. Both China and Europe could push for adoption of alternative payments systems, or at the very least for commodity pricing in EUR or CNY.

China is already trying to boost local agri production and diversify its agri imports. However, it would require an entire network of major agri producing countries to make a FX/trading paradigm shift away from the USD in tandem with it in order to break free from the US(D) yoke in agri markets. Until then China would remain in a relatively weaker position vis-à-vis the US on this key front. Its huge appetite for agri commodities (and by extension, USD) would remain: and if it were to continue to snap up global agri supplies, then resentment could rise against it too along with said prices.

On one hand, this suggests a weaker CNY, as we saw under previous periods of structural stress (over exports to the US, and technology controls): on the other hand, a stronger CNY would help make agri imports cheaper. In short, China would have difficult strategic choices to make, with each option coming with major trade-offs.

Europe would be better placed in terms of food security due to its comfortable agri surplus and high incomes. It also has plans to broaden the international usage of EUR. Yet its twin Achilles’ Heels are still that relies on a US-controlled Eurodollar and a US-owned defence umbrella.

Emergent global middle powers would have to adapt to a multipolar, volatile geopolitical environment, and ponder what food (in)security means for their own strategic positioning: for exporters and importers it obviously implies very different opportunities/risks. More concretely, would they side with the US or China if forced to make a choice in the global trade/FX paradigm?

Meanwhile, there would likely be a new “Race for Africa”. China has been extremely active there in recent years; so has Russia; and Turkey; and the EU sees itself as having a major role in both Africa and the Middle East. America is also likely to be involved, albeit under the guise of national security – which in a way it of course is.

Ultimately, however, just as the gold-pegged USD segued to a new, bigger fiat role as the “Petro-dollar”, backed by US military might, so the stronger global “Eurodollar” would be supported by the US being a major net food producer and exporter (and military power). Indeed, global food insecurity would underline the extent to which the US can ride out food price cycles that batter other economies, supporting its hegemon status.

For countries unable to afford food imports priced in USD, the US would be in the position to bail them out with FX swaps or loans as it saw geopolitically advantageous – or to support multilateral organisations doing the same. It might not be able to produce extra food at short notice, but it could produce the USD to buy existing food, even if it forced prices to spiral even higher in the process.

Yet at the same time, however, global resentment of the US would likely rise if these actions did not materialise; and/or on the perception that the old adage of “the dollar is our money and your problem” were the US starting point. How much global patience would there be for the Fed (and US government) to echo Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I have a dream” on equality if the global outcome was greater food insecurity? How does one sell helping the poorest in one of the world’s richest economies if it also hurts the poor in the world’s poorest economies?

In short, it is the stuff of (bad) dreams: but high global food prices would deepen and widen pre-exiting geopolitical fault lines, and open up new ones. This could easily flow back to agri commodity markets in a reflexive process.

What Dreams May Come

Although nobody’s dreams correctly tell the future, there appears a worrying risk that many individual factors (weather, politics, China, and Wall Street) could individually --and in a worst case, collectively-- push up global agri commodity prices significantly on top of the marked increase that we have already seen in 2021 to date.

Were this to prove the case, food insecurity would obviously increase, with the impact potentially felt by billions, most so in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia: we would face a potential lost decade for reducing food insecurity and improvements in disposable income; and the rapid growth of their middle classes could be stunted for years. In terms of food affordability, 42 countries would be worryingly insecure, and 102 would be worse off than they were in 2011.

Critically, this would not be something the current global political economy would passively accept. Shortages of luxuries or electronics are one thing: food is quite another. Rising populism among a weakened middle class in the West, 2020’s scramble for PPE, and 2021’s dash for vaccines already all show just how easily the rules of the global trading order can be up-ended when local politics dictates.

All of this would only exacerbate geopolitical tensions that are already evident across various locations.

Moreover it could, in some scenarios, such as last seen in the 1970s, shift our global political economy and financial architecture in new (or rather, old) directions: at least it may see attempts at such, even if not successful.

Food for thought (Joseph), as we consider how Pharaoh this rally still has to run.

 From Rense.com

3-12-21

Mark Trozzi MD There is only one courageous, honest doctor in Ontario, who takes the Hippocratic Oath seriously. "B oth in my  regular ER and my "COVID-19 designated" ER, there were almost no patients, and almost no work. I had multiple long ER shifts without a single patient."  " I have never seen a patient sick with COVID-19." "My research into the PCR test has convinced me personally that it is misleading, manipulatable, and being used to drain endless taxpayer's money and future debt, to dramatically enrich the very criminals running this scandal." My Personal Testimony  My name is Mark Trozzi.  I am a medical doctor; I graduated in 1990 from The University of Western Ontario.  I have been practicing Emergency Medicine for the past twenty-five years; and I have been on call in multiple emergency units since the onset of the so-called "pandemic", including one ER designated specifically for COVID-19.  I am an Advanced Trauma Life Support Professor with the College of Surgeons of America, and I hold teaching positions at Sunnybrook Health Sciences in the Advanced Life Support Department, as well as with both Queen's University and The University of Ottawa. What follows is my  observations and opinions; I am bound by my personal and religious convictions to speak openly and honestly.  I do not have authority to tell you "the truth", but I will share my honest experiences, perceptions, and digests of hundreds of hours of research on the subject of covid-19. At the onset of this "pandemic", I was cautious and hence meticulous with N95 mask use, hand washing, social isolation and distancing etc. I studied coronavirus science and was deeply involved in many emergency department drills to modify our practice in profound ways to deal with the "killer virus" we were advertised. However, various things soon made me consider that we were being deceived and manipulated.  Here are a few: The "first wave" of the "pandemic"  was absolutely the quietest time in my career. I have worked very hard and been very busy over the past twenty-five years in ER.  However, both in my regular ER and my "COVID-19 designated" ER, there were almost no patients, and almost no work. I had multiple long ER shifts without a single patient .  Meanwhile, when I would go to the local grocery store, the propagandized public, God bless them, would usher me to the front of the antisocial distance line, thanking me for everything I was going through as a front-line emergency doctor.  They believed that the ER's and hospitals were full of patients dying from CoVID, and that I must be exhausted and at risk of dying myself from exposure. I began contacting doctors and friends all over Canada and the US, and found the same pattern: empty hospitals, and propaganda saying that they were full of patients dying of covid. Early in my studies, I investigated zinc and hydroxychloroquine, which based on sound physiology, may genuinely help those rare persons who get very sick with this cold virus.  I was surprised that this treatment was simply brushed aside and dismissed by most of the medical community. Researching the World Health Organization, of the UN, I learned that the Chinese dictatorship (PRC) had propped up a ******* communist "Dr" Tedros, as the head of the WHO; and I learned how the PRC had been involved in: the virus release; the cover-up for weeks; the disappearing and suppression of honest Chinese doctors and scientist; the spreading of the virus to the world (sparing Beijing where the PRC elite live);  and dramatic abuse of the Chinese people in their well-timed lockdown, which was filmed and transmitted to the world to create the panic that herded all of us into surrendering our economies and civil rights. I learned how Canada's chief public health officer, Dr Tam, is on the oversight committee of the WHO with Dr Tedros, essentially making her a ******-agent; and I listened to her often-******* dissertations to Canadians regarding covid-19. At every level, hospital administration has had no apparent choice, other than to submit to the endless top-down roll out from governments, of questionable new rules, protocols, and procedures . My honest conversations with coworkers about my research and observations, became a problem. Caught in this quandary, an important administrator who I greatly respect, told me that "my thoughts made others uncomfortable, and made it difficult to keep everyone motivated and compliant" with all the new protocols and restrictions.  Sympathetic to the sad situation, I maintained my clinical position by promising to "bite my tongue any time I thought I was going to speak about COVID-19" in the hospital. This was ultimately ethically impossible for me, and I have recently removed myself from the ER to avoid conflict. I have never seen a patient sick with COVID-19. I have seen some positive PCR tests in asymptomatic people, and watched people be imprisoned in their own homes and isolated from family and friends.  My research into the PCR test has convinced me personally that it is misleading, able to be manipulated, and being used to drain endless taxpayer's money and future debt, to dramatically enrich the very criminals running this scandal.  My province alone has performed ~50,000 PCR tests daily.  Meanwhile our federal government is bringing in hundreds of thousands of doses of potentially dangerous experimental injections of modified viral genetic material, calling them "vaccines", and having the military manage them. Is this reasonable for a predominantly mild and non-fatal viral illness. I have watched the suppression of doctors and scientists who performed serum antibody studies, whose findings showed that the virus was much more widespread, yet generally nonfatal, and asymptomatic or very mild in most cases; and that in many regions we had likely already achieved natural herd immunity by summer 2020. Look at this study  performed in Wuhan itself, which shows that the virus was done there by June 1, 2020 just two months after their brief lockdowns ended, and no one was spreading it, not even the very few people with a positive PCR "test" (and they were not sick):  I noticed that after China's theatric lockdown, they quickly went back to business as usual, while all our economies were frozen; they gained tremendous control over the world's marketplace. It seems a great, though evil strategy! POLITICAL MANIPULATION OF HEALTH CARE WORKERS I perceive that many things we learned in medical school about infectious disease, have been brushed aside and replaced by constantly expanding lists of often ******* mandates by public health officials. Doctors, nurses, and teachers are especially important to the success of this COVID-19 deception, as we are leaders in society and people trust our advice.  So, it is no surprise that I have found free speech and thought have been very suppressed in our ranks. Rather than endure the punishments of dissenting, we can choose to experience the short-sighted perks like extremely quiet days in the ER, replacing our traditional hands-on work with Zoom sessions from home; and accessing a variety of new COVID-19 ******* codes.  At one point, an option existed to make more money than I normally make working in a busy  ER, to just stay home and be available in case the covid swabbing nurse needed to video conference with me. There are many positive and negative motivators being used to manipulate Canadian doctors, nurses and teachers, to inadvertently participate in this grand covid deception; but  this is destroying our society. To use a Titanic metaphor: "even the luxury suites on the Titanic end up at the bottom of the ocean when she sinks". Also, much of what is being done, including the experimental viral genetic injections, seem to violate the Nuremberg code regarding medical experimentation with full informed consent by the participants. Doctor's and nurses face tough decisions. My career as an emergency physician always provided me an opportunity to practice my religious and ethical beliefs of honesty and kindness, while making a good living. Now maintaining the career I love,  would require participating in the deception, violating my oath and spiritual beliefs, and in my opinion committing crimes against humanity as defined by  the Nuremberg Code. I empathize with all my fellow doctors and nurses. We are all victims of the covid abuse. I researched and perceived how  corrupt oligarchs seem to have planned this crime against humanity. This planning included Event 201 which was a simulation of a corona pandemic conducted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins University in October 2019; and the Rockefeller Foundation's 2010 Viral outbreak simulation planning called "Operation Lockstep".  Both these projects described how a viral outbreak would be used to bring in an authoritarian system with the loss of our human rights and freedoms. I also observed how their cohorts in big tech like Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube worked to censor and deceive us all; it's genuine propaganda. FACE MASKS AND VACCINATIONS The forced wearing of masks by most of the world's population is not unanimously supported by real science. These masks cause significant harm to our psychological, social, dermatological, dental and otolaryngotical health. Though I generally have great health, the masks have given me rashes and nasal symptoms whenever I have had to wear them for prolonged periods, which resolve whenever I  do not wear them for a few days. What I find most disturbing is the elimination of facial expressions, and hence normal visual social interaction. The history of past attempts at vaccines for coronaviruses, revealed some very dangerous side effects in animal models, and the efforts were abandoned.  Why would we take a dangerous vaccine for a generally mild illness, to which we develop herd immunity anyways?  The current roll-out of fast tracked expensive experimental "vaccines" is burying the taxpayers in endless debt to the rich and powerful villains of this story. Yet, we the people who have been imprisoned and abused in this scandal, are being manipulated into taking  new strange injections, in hopes that we might regain some of our freedom.  Additionally the so called "vaccines" are not vaccines (unless we change the definition of vaccines). Rather they are injections of Corona virus genes. See the section  This Is Not A Vaccine Experimental mRNA Gene Therapy Covid-19 - Dr. TrozziVaccine. n. A preparation of a weakened or killed pathogen, such as a bacterium or virus, or of a portion of the... Recently, I have made some tough personal decisions; surrendering income and personal security, to choose an ethical and honest path forward, that may help contribute to an outcome that is true and just; and to the return of our free society and civil liberties.  I believe that we are almost all victims in this, regardless of where we are on the path for the recovery of truth. ---------- Thanks to DL! I asked Mark about the financial cost of exposing the covid hoax: "Regarding the financial costs of my current actions to counter this criminal covid enterprise, I have suspended all clinical work, and forfeited all hospital privileges, to hopefully protect my license while I do this, so that's about $200,000 a year that I am no longer making as of January. However, to compensate for this, I have sold my home, and we have downsized to a small shared space. The costs of the technology, website, and resources is only a few thousand dollars. I am living off some small savings and hoping to continue to support my family, including a son in university.  It is indeed a tenuous situation;  but the need to do this is absolute.  I am very grateful for your help." https://drtrozzi.com/donate/ First Comment from Gabriel- I've been a fly on the wall of the doctor's office for 25 years.   Working as a telephonic language medical interpreter.  Everyday, after working, I am disgusted. The medical industry is the most evil of all.  It's a meat grinder.  It's all about drugs and mutilation.  It's just a vassal of the powers that be, used to slowly torture and kill people.  You know those cabalists, they love sacrifice.   So avoid the doctor like the plague.  This is what they do:  perfectly healthy people go for a stupid check up; The good doc tells them:  "this is what we saw in your blood and urine tests: your sugar is a little high, to prevent diabetes I will prescribe you Metformin, take one every day.   Also I noticed your cholesterol is a little high, to prevent heart problems I will prescribe you Simvastatin, take one every day.  Your blood pressure was a little high as well, I will prescribe you Lyssinopril to keep it under control, take one everyday"  This kind of scenario goes on all the time. Most of the time the fools believe everything the doctor says and follow their directions.  So these perfectly healthy people now are destroying themselves with these extremely toxic drugs, taking them, potentially, for life.  So avoid the doctor like the plague.  Emergency medical services are wonderful and very necessary, the rest of allopathic medicine is, with few exceptions, a genocidal enterprise.  Also there are good docs out there, but few and far between.  For the most part they have no personality, they are very robotic; totally brainwashed and indoctrinated by medical school.

 From Humansarefree

The CDC added more data today into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a U.S. Government funded database that tracks injuries and deaths caused by vaccines.

The data goes through March 5, 2021, with 31,079 recorded adverse events, including 1,524 deaths following injections of the experimental COVID mRNA shots by Pfizer and Moderna.

Besides the recorded 1,524 deaths, there were 5,806 visits to Emergency Room doctors, 630 permanent disabilities, and 3,477 hospitalizations.

The CDC also updated their Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination page on March 9th this past week, and according to this report, VAERS has received 1,637 reports of death following COVID “vaccinations” – more than 100 deaths than are in the VAERS data dump released today.

The CDC continues to state that not one of these recorded deaths following experimental COVID injections are related to the shots.

“A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths.” (Source)

AstraZeneca COVID Vaccine Inoculations Halted In Many Countries Due To Fatal Blood Clots

As we reported yesterday, many countries in Europe (and now also Thailand) have halted the vaccinating of people with the AstraZeneca experimental vaccine after reports of fatal blood clots following the injections.

And while the AstraZeneca COVID shots are not yet authorized for emergency use in the U.S., some have commented that the side effects for the mRNA “vaccines” currently issued EUAs in the U.S. for Pfizer and Moderna have just as many, if not more, adverse side effects, questioning whether any of these new experimental and non-FDA-approved COVID vaccines should be continued.

So we searched today’s CDC data on adverse reactions to the two COVID “vaccines” being used in the U.S. for “pulmonary embolism,” which is an “acute lung disease caused by a dislodged blood clot,” and the reason why the AstraZeneca COVID shot is now being halted in about a dozen countries worldwide after two fatalities and others injured.

The CDC is reporting 120 cases of pulmonary embolisms, including 12 DEATHS following injections of the two experimental COVID mRNA injections currently in the U.S.

Seven of the deaths followed the Moderna mRNA COVID shot, while five deaths followed the Pfizer mRNA COVID shot.

This number is obviously far greater than the two deaths reported so far from pulmonary embolism following the AstraZeneca COVID shots being distributed around the world right now.

Must-read: Up To 10 European Nations Reportedly Halt AstraZeneca Jabs On Reports Of ‘Serious’ Blood Clots

Can We Trust The CDC That NONE Of These 1,637 Recorded Deaths Are Caused By The Experimental COVID MRNA Shots?

The CDC has been caught many times since COVID-19 started elevating that death counts attributed to COVID by declaring that ALL deaths where there was a positive PCR test for COVID were assumed to be caused by COVID, even if the patient had pre-existing conditions, and even in some cases where the patient died due to an accident, such as a traffic accident.

Now it appears that they are doing the exact opposite, particularly with those over the age of 65 where the vast majority of recorded deaths have occurred following the experimental COVID injections, stating that pre-existing conditions are what caused the patient to die, and that in ZERO cases was the experimental COVID “vaccine” responsible.

However, there is probably a good reason why a majority of healthcare workers who work with seniors are refusing the experimental COVID shots, since they have a front row seat to see exactly how these patients react in the days and weeks following COVID injections.

One CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) has gone public with what he has seen with the residents he has worked with, and the video of his testimony has now been viewed over 280,000 times on our Rumble Channel, and over 88,000 times on our Bitchute Channel.

One viewer offered their own observations with their mother after she received a COVID injection in the comment section on the Rumble video:

My 90 year old mother HAD beginning stages of dementia. Nothing terribly serious. She forgot things a lot, and would often tell you the same things over again whenever you talked to her.

But her mind was still pretty good for being 90. She liked to do Sudoku puzzles and Jumbles.

She had eye issues that she was dealing with for about a year. She had gotten periodic shots in her eyes this past year to help her with her eye issues. She could still see things, but maybe not as clearly as she should.

But…then she took the vaccine, when she had told me previously that she no intention of taking the vaccine. She would further state that she had never even taken a flu vaccine.

Less than 1 month later, her health has spiraled downward since then. Now her speech is slurred (as if she had a stroke–but she has not); her vision has gone down so much this past month, such that all she sees is colors and shapes; and her dementia has spiraled to the point that she thinks it’s 1935 or 1945.

She recently fell in her home and knocked over the TV and either broke or bruised her ribs–I assume because she couldn’t see, though she may be having balance issues now, as well.

Doctors are preparing to send her to a rehab facility for 3-4 weeks.

I doubt I’ll ever see her alive again–especially if she gets the second shot.

I don’t expect to be allowed to visit her in a facility in KY, which is backwards when it comes to dealing with COVID restrictions and lockdowns.

So, when I see a reasonably healthy 90 year old exhibit stroke signs (without having had a stroke), almost totally lose their vision, and begin exhibiting signs of advanced dementia all within a month period after having taken the experimental mRNA COVID Vaccine, I don’t think I can blame this all on a brown recluse spider bite or vitamin deficiency.

I only hope that this post will give you pause if you or someone elderly you know is preparing for this shot.

My one question is if you are not elderly, and are in somewhat good health and you don’t feel that you are in any danger from taking this shot, is it possible that side effects will just show up at a later time with you, perhaps when you are already sick and your health is compromised.

I mean, it’s not like my Mom had immediate side effects. Stories I have read indicate that it has often taken 3-4 weeks.

Again, no way will I ever take this shot. But I sincerely wish those getting the shot the best of luck!

This kind of information is being censored by the corporate media and Big Tech, and now they have begun to call those of us who publish this kind of information “domestic terrorists” for even daring to say or publish anything negative about these experimental COVID shots.

Please make an effort to share your own experiences with these experimental shots. The lives of many people are now at stake, and truthful information is empowering.

Source: HealthImpactNews.com / Reference: MedAlerts.org; MedAlerts.org

 Authored by Charlotte Cuthbertson via The Epoch Times,

The amount of fentanyl seized while coming through the southern border during the first 5 months of fiscal year 2021 is already higher than all of fiscal year 2020, according to the latest statistics from Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

CBP has seized more than 5,000 pounds of fentanyl since Oct. 1, 2020, said acting CBP Commissioner Troy Miller during a March 10 media call.

“We are seeing a dramatic increase in fentanyl seizures this fiscal year, more than 360 percent higher than this time last year,” Miller said.

“Nationwide drug seizures increased 50 percent in February from January. Cocaine interceptions increased 13 percent, seizures of methamphetamine increased 40 percent, seizures of heroin went up 48 percent.”

Fentanyl is the synthetic opioid attributed to the escalating overdose death rate in the United States. It is most often manufactured in Mexico using chemicals supplied by China. It’s mixed with other narcotics to increase potency as well as pressed into counterfeit pain pills commonly known as “Mexican oxys.”

“The cartels are dominating the distribution of this poison and it’s really, really alarming,” Derek Maltz, former head of the DEA’s special operations division, told The Epoch Times.

“I do anticipate the crisis continuing on this escalating path. And to be honest with you, it’s really sad, because I’ve been communicating with a lot of parents who have lost their young kids, especially to the counterfeit pills. And it’s all coming from Mexico.”

Overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids (other than methadone) between 2005 and 2018. (DEA 2021 report)

The Rio Grande City Border Patrol station takes care of a 68-mile strip of international border in south Texas. It sits within the Rio Grande Valley Sector and in 2019 was the busiest of the nation’s 135 stations for drug seizures and the second busiest for illegal alien apprehensions.

Then-deputy chief Border Patrol agent for the Rio Grande Valley sector Raul Ortiz, said in March 2019 “we’re not even probably catching about 10 percent of it [drugs].”

Border experts have said it’s likely Border Patrol drug seizures will decrease as illegal immigration surges—agents will be tied up with large groups of people rather than interdicting drugs. Border Patrol highway checkpoints are also closing in many areas as agents are sent to the border to help with processing the increased numbers.

The Biden administration has said there’s no crisis on the border and urges potential migrants not to come in illegally. But the latest illegal crossing numbers show that February hit a 14-month high with more than 100,000 Border Patrol apprehensions.

Mexico’s president has expressed concern that President Joe Biden’s policies are encouraging illegal immigration and human trafficking along the border with the United States.

“They see him as the migrant president, and so many feel they’re going to reach the United States,” Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said of Biden the morning after a virtual meeting with his U.S. counterpart on March 1, according to Reuters.

Maltz said, “perception is reality. People around the world look at Biden as a softie on immigration.”

“The open border is a disaster. It just increases the [cartels’] ability to move drugs freely into America,” he said.

“Also, most importantly, it allows them to get their command and control operatives in the [United States] to establish the stash houses, the distribution outlets, the money collection points, so they have lots of people in America who are able to operate freely around the country.”

Areas of influence of major Mexican cartel within the United States. (DEA report 2021)

The cartels control the south side of the U.S.–Mexico border and anyone who crosses illegally has to pay them. Many can’t afford the smuggling fees and become indentured to the cartels once they reach the United States. Others realize it’s more lucrative to become involved in transnational crime rather than get a job at a fast food restaurant, for example, Maltz said.

“This didn’t start under Donald Trump. It didn’t start under Barack Obama. It didn’t start under George Bush. This drug crisis has been escalating for years,” he said.

“But they’re doing it at levels that we’ve never seen in the history of the country.”

 Authored by Adam Andrzejewski via RealClearPolicy (emphasis ours)

In 2019, we highlighted a tripling in reported human waste in the public way. Citizens filed 10,644 complaints in 2014 and the number of complaints escalated to 30,996 cases by 2019.

Our auditors mapped 118,352 case reports of human waste on city streets – from 2011 to 2019.

Certainly, the poop was deep in San Francisco, but then things really hit the fan.

And the FBI stepped in.

Mohammed Nuru, the public works director and self-titled @MrCleanSF, was in charge of keeping city streets clean and oversaw a $500 million budget. He was indicted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2020. 

Nuru was charged with one count of alleged public corruption and is innocent until proven guilty. “The complaint describes a web of corruption involving bribery, kickbacks, and side deals by one of San Francisco’s highest-ranking city employees,” said U.S. Attorney David L. Anderson. “The public is entitled to honest work from public officials, free from manipulation for the official’s own personal benefit and profit.”

Nuru was well paid in his futile attempt to keep San Francisco streets clean. His total taxpayer-funded cash compensation in 2019 was $380,120, and his base salary had jumped by $65,000 over eight years. Our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com compiled Nuru’s pay based on Freedom of Information Act requests filed with the City of San Francisco.

Currently, the federal investigation that snared Nuru has charged nine people with one already sentenced.

It seems the streets might not be the only thing dirty in the Bay Area.

The #WasteOfTheDay is presented by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com.

 From Zero Hedge

In 2014, Peter Daszak, president of New York-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, received a grant from Dr. Anthony Fauci's National Institutes of Health (NIH) to work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and others to research how bat coronaviruses can 'evolve and jump into the human population.'

The grant's initial funding of $666,442 began in June 2014 with an end date of May 2019, and had paid annually to the tune of $3.7 million under the "Understanding The Risk Of Bat Coronavirus Emergence" project. Notably, the Obama administration cut funding for "gain-of-function" research in October, 2014, four months after Daszak's contract began, while the Wuhan Institute of Virology "had openly participated in gain-of-function research in partnership with U.S. universities and institutions" for years under the leadership of Dr. Shi 'Batwoman' Zhengli, according to the Washington Post's Josh Rogin.

After Rogin exposed diplomatic cables last April expressing grave concerns over safety at WIV, he says (in a new book): "many of the scientists who spoke out to defend the lab were Shi’s research partners and funders, like the head of the global public health nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak; their research was tied to hers, and if the Wuhan lab were implicated in the pandemic, they would have to answer a lot of tough questions."

In short, Daszak - who has insisted the 'lab escape' theory is impossible, and that random natural origin via intermediary animal species is the only answer - has a massive conflict of interest.

Last August, the NIH reportedly cut funding to Daszak amid the COVID-19 pandemic, only to reverse its termination of the grant while suspending funding until EcoHealth met several requirements - including an in-person inspection of the Wuhan Institute of Virology by an outside team.

(August 19): According to a Wall Street Journal report and a statement by EcoHealth Alliance, NIH reversed its termination of the grant but suspended funding until EcoHealth meets new requirements, including arranging an inspection of the Wuhan Institute of Virology by an outside team. “NIH’s letter does not represent a good faith effort to understand the nature of our ongoing research,” EcoHealth says in its statement, but “imposes on us a series of demands that the NIH is fully aware many governments and the World Health Organization alike have been unable to successfully satisfy.” -TheScientist

As it turns out, Daszak (who, again, insists SARS-CoV-2 couldn't have come from the lab he worked with) was the most prominent member of the World Health Organization (WHO)'s media blitz super legitimate 'inspection' of Wuhan and said now-infamous virology institute he'd been collaborating with for years. A trip which coincidentally checked Daszak's box to continue receiving his NIH funding.

Unsurprisingly, Daszak says the WHO team learned during their Wuhan trip that "meat from animals known to carry coronaviruses belonging to the same family as the pandemic virus were sold in the Hunan market," adding that the leading hypothesis is that "a bat or other wildlife species carrying a progenitor, or closely related virus, infected a farm animal or a person, who then carried it to the Huanan market," according to the Wall Street Journal.

Dutch virologist Marion Koopmans echoed Daszak's position, reiterating that the team considered it "extremely unlikely" that the virus may have escaped from a lab - because they don't have evidence of it doing so (which is somehow different from the lack of natural origin evidence).

"There was a conduit from Wuhan to the provinces in South China, where the closest relative viruses to SARS-CoV-2 are found in bats," Daszak claimed, adding "And that's a really important clue."

So now - with that bit of context - you'll forgive the audible laughter after Daszak on Wednesday said that 'it might be a few years' before we find out exactly where COVID-19 came from.

"I’m convinced we’re going to find out fairly soon," he said during a webinar organized by London think tank Chatham House - defining 'soon' as: "Within the next few years," when "we’ll have real significant data on where this came from and how it emerged" [ZH: and which, in a stroke of unimaginable coincidence, began on the doorstep of WIV - where they were experimenting on how to make bat coronaviruses more easily infect humans].

Daszak also noted that he didn't ask WIV researchers about a mysteriously missing bat virus database.

And before anyone goes having their own thoughts on the matter, bear in mind that you may be censored, throttled or canceled for expressing deviant opinions which run counter to Silicon Valley's uber-establishment doctrine. Of course, as top commenters frequently ask - why are you on social media in the first place?

 From Zero Hedge:

Another week, another massive inflow into equity funds... just as the Nasdaq was about to get hammered with a painful 10% correction.

According to BofA Chief Investment Strategist Michael Hartnett's latest Flow Show note, $22.2Bn in new money flowed into equities last week, following the previous week's massive $46.2Bn inflow which was the 3rd biggest on record, bringing the total 16 week inflow to $436BN, a stunning outlier as shown in the chart below.

Addressing this massive tide of money, Wayne Wicker, chief investment officer at Vantagepoint Investment Advisers said that "Investors are looking at the market today and saying, ‘Wow, this is going to come back faster than I thought. I need to position myself accordingly. There’s a fear of missing out, of being under-invested."

“We’ve seen for many reasons that people have been trained to buy the dips,” Kim Forrest, chief investment officer of Bokeh Capital Partners, told Bloomberg. “Just about every economist out there thinks the U.S. GDP is going to be 6% or above and that says growth. And yes, there’s some specter of inflation that may bubble up,” but, she said, “people are not afraid of inflation because we haven’t had that horrible really life-changing inflation.”

“We would admit to still seeing some pockets of speculative excess out there,” said Leo Grohowski, chief investment officer at BNY Mellon Wealth Management. “When we reach levels of maximum bullishness, that is usually a better time to pare back,” he added. “Market pullbacks like we’ve had this week serve as wake-up calls for investors that buy first and ask questions later.”

And yet, it's very likely that next week this massive inflow won't be repeated. In fact, it's far more likely that next week we will see a massive outflow because as Hartnett notes, "the price is now right":  he points to the >100bps rise in 10Y TSY yields since Aug 4th low - as a reminder the plunge in 10Y prices since last March has been the 2nd worst bear market for bond in recent history... 

... with credit (LQD, EMB) and tech (NDX -11%, SOX -15% from highs) having been hammered. The result is a sharp drop in froth (TAN -32%, TSLA -33%) while at the same time inflation assets are increasing sharply (oil 37%, banks 33%). And pointing to the chart below, Hartnett says that his "investment clock" says once inflation visible = yield curve bear flattens = +ve volatility, dividend-yielders, defensives.

As an aside demonstrating the tremendous inflationary pressures which the Fed simply refuses to acknowledge as St Louis Fed Chair James Bullard idiotically commented on earlier when he said that " Commodity price inflation does not equal sustained inflation", Hartnett points out a price increase notification to CA real estate developer which said that

“Our worldwide supply chain, and ability to provide products and services to you, is being significantly impacted by increased prices resulting from labor and raw material shortages, escalating raw material prices, manufacturing delays and transit interruptions. Stated directly, our costs are increasing and are much more volatile than in the past.”

Someone please forward this to Bullard.

But going back to Hartnett, it's what he said next that was stunning. In the weekly note aptly titled "Throwing in the Powell"...

... Hartnett calmly lays it out that "debt deflation + 982 rate cuts and $21tn QE since Lehman = financial repression = low and stable interest rates = bull market in credit & stocks 2009-2021." But the epochal policy panic of past 12 months ($29tn global fiscal/monetary stimulus)

... has created an addictive Wall St-Fed dependency culture (everyone bullish) and beginning of Main St-Treasury dependency culture, which will spiral higher with $8tn US govt spending for stimulus checks, welfare, financed by $8tn Fed balance sheet.

This pernicious combination means that asset price inflation is mutating into Main Street inflation...

... and more importantly according to the rates strategist, means that rates are no longer “anchored”; Indeed, the best measure of interest rate uncertainty is 10-year Treasury term premium and it has surged by 120bps in the past 12 months...

... staring "a new era of volatility."

Which brings us to the punchline of the Hartnett report: what will the Fed do? As Hartnett notes, the 10-year Treasury yield low was just 0.51% on Aug 4th with bonds looking "big, fat & trendy." However this has changed and "the immediate outlook is excess fiscal stimulus + “boom” data (10% GDP, 30% EPS, 4% CPI in Q2) + subservient Fed + social/political desire for more inflation & less inequality."

As a result, BofA predicts that the bond bear is likely not over and that markets will now likely push the Fed via higher yields (i.e. 10Y rising above 2%) into Yield Curve Control policy announcement, something we have been pounding the table on for months...

... but first bond yields have to go even higher and stocks lower. Conveniently, Hartnett also lays out the key trigger to watch to determine if the current 10% tech correction will turn into a bear market:

XHB<$55, HYG<$80 could turn tech correction into deeper 10-20% correction of equities (SPX<3600, CCMP <12,000) which this time would likely include cyclicals (e.g. small cap, banks, energy, EM).

It's at this point that the Fed, facing the stark reality of being unable to let market drop as financial assets represents 600%+ of global GDP...

... will - in Hartnett's words - inevitably move to YCC. Some math:

• a 1% rise in US Treasury yields (as occurred past 6 months) increases deficit in 12 months (interest payments) by amount equivalent 2X budget for NASA;
• a 1% rise in yields above CBO baseline adds a remarkable $9.7tn to deficit between 2021-30 (10X the annual US defense budget of $0.9tn).

That's why the Fed's next step is clear.

So one Powell does launch YCC, BofA believes that it will trigger:

1. Asset Volatility - all historic government policies to fix asset prices end with hubris, leverage, abnormal valuations; YCC (as Australia is learning) is new ERM (Europe’s failed Exchange Rate Mechanism of 80s/90s); era of speculative assaults on central bank policy has begun. BofA's reco: "own volatility"
2. Dollar Debasement - while the US dollar may rally in advance of YCC (EM vulnerable short-term – see BRL), the YCC announcement "will likely trigger start of great bear market in US dollar."

Which all brings us to the conclusion, namely BofA's look at the regime shift between 2020 and the rest of the decade... and what to do ahead of the Fed's historic nationalization fo the entire bond market.

First, a look back at 2020:

Bigger picture secular low point for both inflation & interest rates; coming years will be marked by bigger government (public sector monopolistic), smaller world (globalization to localization), dollar debasement (inflation solves debt), a populist electorate (voting for UBI & MMT); all in an attempt to fight the War on Inequality (taxes, regulation, redistribution); "buy humiliation, sell hubris" = inflation assets to beat deflation in coming years.

And finally, Hartnett's views on the rest of the 2020s:

1. We expect low, volatile, clustered, 3-5% long-run returns, like 1970s;
2. We say optimal AA is 25/25/25/25in bond/stock/cash/commodities and/or in growth/yield/quality/inflation in 2020s;
3. While we worry in very short-term inflation overpriced, we still think AA need to raise inflation hedges as US dollar weakens medium-term (commodities, gold, real assets, TIPS, small cap value, volatility);
4. Tech leadership is over, but YCC should provide good entry point into small cap tech.