|From: Don Green||11/23/2021 8:29:51 AM|
|JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon and Tesla’s Elon Musk Feud Behind the Scenes|
Bank’s lawsuit against electric-vehicle maker brings the CEOs’ long-simmering tensions into open
Tesla CEO Elon Musk rarely backs down after offering sharp words for critics.Photo: Patrick Pleul/Zuma Press
Elon Musk and Jamie Dimon don’t get along.
Mr. Musk has spurned Mr. Dimon’s JPMorgan JPM 2.13% Chase & Co. for years, turning to other banks while expanding Tesla Inc. TSLA 1.74% and his broader empire. Conversations over the years between the two companies have often upset one side or the other, according to people familiar with the matter.
Messrs. Musk and Dimon have tried to patch things up but clashed instead, the people said. JPMorgan decided some time ago that it is better off without Tesla, according to people familiar with the matter.
A small part of the quiet feud, which pits America’s most valuable car maker against its biggest bank, spilled into the open last week when JPMorgan sued Tesla. In its lawsuit, JPMorgan said Tesla owes it $162 million from a trade the bank helped arrange in 2014. Typically, bankers seek to avoid public fights with big clients and even potential clients, anxious about winning fees and worried the slightest insult could cost them access.
“We have provided Tesla multiple opportunities to fulfill its contractual obligations, so it is unfortunate that they have forced this issue into litigation,” JPMorgan said last week.
“If JPM doesn’t withdraw their lawsuit, I will give them a one star review on Yelp,” Mr. Musk said in response to The Wall Street Journal. “This is my final warning!”
Both chief executives are commanding presences inside their companies and industries. And both have had public fights with rivals or sharp words for critics and regulators, though Mr. Dimon has often wound up expressing regret over what he admits are uncareful slips while Mr. Musk has rarely backed down.
Tesla has captured the market’s imagination about the future of electric cars and become one of the first companies valued at more than $1 trillion, making it the kind of client Wall Street fights over.
JPMorgan’s investment bankers haven’t worked on any Tesla offering or transaction since 2016, according to public records. When JPMorgan worked on Tesla’s 2010 initial public offering of stock and several capital-markets transactions in the following years, it was usually ranked behind rivals such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS 2.26% and Morgan Stanley.
JPMorgan has been paid about $15 million by Tesla for advice and capital-markets work in the past decade, while Goldman has made about $90 million, according to Dealogic.
Mr. Musk has used Morgan Stanley, Goldman and Bank of America Corp. for the personal loans he has pledged his stockholdings against, according to public filings.
JPMorgan’s Chase consumer bank is a big auto lender, but it was hesitant to be an early backer of Teslas and other electric vehicles, people familiar with the matter said. Bankers raised concerns about the long-term value of electric-vehicle batteries.
Later, Chase executives approached Mr. Musk about an agreement to make Chase the primary lender to Tesla buyers at dealerships, the people said. The bank has similar deals with Maserati and Jaguar Land Rover. Mr. Musk said no, the people said.
The bank recently signed a similar pact with a Tesla rival, the electric-truck maker Rivian Automotive Inc. RIVN -8.16% It has also been financing more Teslas recently for its customers, the people said.
Last week’s lawsuit is likely to increase the tension. Tesla will be represented by Alex Spiro, the lawyer who successfully defended Mr. Musk in a defamation lawsuit.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: Don Green who wrote (28313)||11/23/2021 8:30:58 AM|
|From: Don Green|
|RFK Jr.: Fauci And Bill Gates Should Be Criminally Prosecuted For Gross Negligence And Profiting Off COVID|
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Big Pharma and the media have divided the political parties and created racial animus so nobody will notice they are making billions to "execute the controlled demolition of American constitutional democracy." In an interview with Michael Cohen on his podcast, RFK Jr. argued you are no longer allowed to criticize government policies or you will be removed from YouTube.
RFK Jr. said Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates should be criminally prosecuted for gross negligence and profiting off of the COVID-19 pandemic.
MICHAEL COHEN, HOST: Does it concern you then that your book and its views are being given the most prominent airtime from people like Tucker Carlson who believe that the January 6th insurrection was an inside job created to crack down on the far right?
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: I'll talk to anybody. I'll talk to the biggest idiot in the world and I'll talk to criminals if their the only way that I can get my message out, you know, Anderson Cooper's not going to put me on CNN because CNN is run by pharmaceutical companies that gives, you know, 70% of revenues the evening news are coming from, from NPR is, you know, Bill Gates giving $319 million to the public television and, and the so-called independent news. Anybody who wants to criticize pharmaceutical products or government or question government policies cannot do that on a normal network TV, social media. They're thrown off. If you're a person who has suffered a vaccine injury, and you talk about that on Facebook, you will be evicted. You're not, you will never get on a TV program to talk about that.
When Ron Johnson, Senator from Wisconsin, had a group of people, of physicians and people who've been injured -- clearly injured by vaccines, including people who were part of clinical trial, ended up public hearing in front of the United States Senate committee last week and recorded their sworn testimony. And all of that was removed from YouTube.
Cause you are no longer are allowed to criticize government policies. Oh yeah. I will go to places that, you know, people -- I've always done that. I've always been willing to talk to people who don't agree with me on virtually anything. I've been on Hannity probably a dozen times. Hannity and I agree on literally zero.
I think democracy is about building bridges to people with whom you don't agree. With creating, you know, finding where there is common ground with other human beings. The biggest thing. The most important productive strategy or the big talk around the oligarchs and the intelligence agencies and the pharmaceutical companies who are trying to impoverish us and, you know, and, and dramatically, and, and obliterate democracy, their strategy is to create fear and division.
So orchestrated fear and divide Republicans from Democrats and blacks from whites and get a lot of infighting so nobody notices that they are making themselves billions and billions, and while they
impoverish the rest of us and, and, and execute the controlled demolition of American constitutional democracy.
And we need to talk, I probably agree with you on almost nothing. I came on here because I'm willing to talk to anybody who is willing to listen about this. Uh, you know, I think we need to start talking
to each other even about with people we don't agree. My father told me that partisanship is poison and it's intellectually dishonest. It's tribalism. It's bad for democracy.
Now we need to start talking to people as human beings, not as Republicans and Democrats. Now I don't have to agree with Tucker Carlson on, on anything. If he invites me on a show, I'm going to go on it. Because he has a big audience. And I don't. have to agree with you, Michael. I appreciate you letting me talk to your audience. It does not mean I am endorsing your views.
COHEN: Based on your findings, do you believe that Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates should be investigated for criminal wrongdoing?
RFK JR.: Yes.
COHEN: Plain and simple?
RFK JR.: Of course. I mean, I think Fauci's policies -- 80% of the people who died from COVID should not have died.
We should've been doing early treatment like the Chinese did. The Chinese put early treatment protocols with chloroquine, which is hydroxy -- the cousin of the hydroxychloroquine.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: Les H who wrote (28312)||11/23/2021 11:53:44 AM|
|From: Les H|
|How conspiracists exploited COVID-19 science|
Kathleen Hall Jamieson
Nature Human Behaviour volume 5, pages1464–1465 (2021)
During the COVID-19 pandemic, conspiracy theorists have exploited the provisional nature of scientific consensus and the realities of how science is conducted to paint scientists and public health leaders as malign actors.
Instead of envisioning an untidy world filled with randomness, unintended consequences, innocent action gone awry and new evidence, conspiracists envision one that is inhabited by powerful individuals who conceal malign activities and intent. The fluid nature of emergent science provides fuel for conspiracy theorists who offer certainty in place of the provisional, sometimes-updated statements of health experts. At the same time, conspiracy proponents question the trustworthiness and motives of those in the federal agencies, philanthropic institutions and pharmaceutical companies who fund basic research and develop, deliver and, in the case of some of the federal agencies, regulate public access to medical treatments, including vaccines.
Filtering the world through these lenses, during the pandemic conspiracists have drawn on and manipulated statements and actions by public health experts, such as Dr Anthony Fauci (director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), on topics that range from mask wearing and COVID-19 treatments to vaccine safety and the funding of coronavirus research. Understanding the susceptibilities that conspiracists exploit should help us to identify ways to better safeguard both the trustworthiness of health science and public trust in it.
The updating of scientific knowledge
Statements and updates by Dr Fauci about mask wearing and hydroxychloroquine were among those used by conspiracy theorists during the pandemic. As indications accumulated that individuals without symptoms can transmit SARS-CoV-2, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Surgeon General and Dr Fauci did an about-face on the advisability of routine mask wearing in public settings. When randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials found that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective as a COVID-19 treatment, Dr Fauci’s agnosticism about its value shifted to opposition. He was not alone. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also withdrew its Emergency Use Authorization of it. “Much of what Fauci said about this virus, the drugs that could treat it, and the measures that could be taken to slow the spread was untrue”, said Fox News’s Laura Ingraham on the 2 June 2021, “He knew it was untrue”. After listing “cruise ships, masks, lockdowns, the origins of COVID-19, [and] the models and projections” as topics on which Dr Fauci had been “wrong”, on 2 June 2021, Fox News’s Sean Hannity asked “What did Dr Fauci know and [w]hen did Dr Fauci know it, and was he engaged in some kind of scientific cover-up?”.
For conspiracists of an ideologically conservative bent, some of conclusions of the science community did not reflect science but instead a desire to undercut Trump’s re-election prospects. “The partisan Democrats, the conjugal media, and the scientists, the deep state scientists want America sick through November”, alleged Michael Caputo, who was appointed by Trump as assistant health and human services secretary for public affairs. Among the decisions at issue were whether the whole population other than essential workers needed to be ‘locked down’ to ‘bend the curve’, the speed with which the economy should be re-opened after the ‘lockdown’ and when a vaccine would be available for distribution. The insistence of experts such as Dr Fauci that decisions about the use of proposed treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma, and the authorization of a COVID-19 vaccine, should await high-quality clinical trial data was also interpreted as being anti-Trump in intent. “The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics. Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd”, tweeted President Trump on 22 August 2020.
Funding structures in science
A desire to sabotage the electoral prospects of the incumbent US president was not the only motive that conspiracists saw at work. Greed and abuse of power and trust were assumed to be at play as well. Presuppositions of self-interested collusion among actors in federal agencies, philanthropic institutions and the biopharmaceutical industry incorporate two accurate premises: they are all major funders of health science, and the pharmaceutical companies commercialize federally funded research. But what is actually going on, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the head of the anti-vaccination organization Children’s Health Defence, is more sinister: philanthropist Bill Gates pays Dr Fauci, who in turn develops drugs and passes them to drug companies in which Gates is invested. Gates then guarantees markets in Africa through his control of the World Health Organization (WHO), which requires those countries to buy the drugs and vaccines1.
The process of generating conspiracy theories interweaves uncontested facts about ongoing activities in the government, philanthropic institutions and biopharmaceutical companies (for example, that the Gates Foundation funds vaccine development or that post-vaccination deaths have been reported to the US government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System); historical instances in which a pattern of allegedly comparable behaviour occurred (for example, that the US government authorized the 1932–1972 syphilis experiments at Tuskegee or that babies of colour were given an unlicensed vaccine in the early 1990s without their parents’ informed consent2); and pre-existing unwarranted conspiracy theories (for example, that the CDC is covering up evidence that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism). A conspiracy theory may also convert temporal associations into causal inferences (as in a since-deleted Instagram post3 claiming that Hank Aaron and Marvelous Marvin Hagler “died after taking the COVID-19 vaccine.” The COVID vaccine killed both!). “Coincidence is turning out to be quite lethal to COVID vaccine recipients”, noted Kennedy4.
Into this brew, conspiracists add conjecture (“maybe [the COVID-19 vaccine] doesn’t work and they’re simply not telling you that”5) and insinuations that are intended to identify a conspirator’s motive (for example, that Dr Fauci is a registered Democrat6, a past CEO of Moderna7 and a vaccine shareholder8). Such factors are interlaced to warrant context-specific conspiracy theories (for example, that the FDA is covering up the fact that the mRNA vaccines cause serious side effects and death9; or that, in league with ‘Big Pharma’, Dr Fauci mandates vaccines from which he, Big Pharma, the Gates Foundation, Chan-Zuckerberg, WHO, CDC and the Chinese Communist Party benefit10).
Personal greed is one ascribed motive, and sociopathy or lust for power, glory and knowledge are others. Accordingly, one theory accuses Dr Fauci of opposing the approval of hydroxychloroquine — a drug that Trump cast as a possible “game changer”11 — because Dr Fauci wanted the virus to spread until a vaccine could be developed and named after him12. On another front, by terming the nation’s leading infectious disease specialist the ‘father of the virus’, conspiracists assumed the motive explored in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein — an arrogant search for knowledge unmindful of the risks or consequences. The meme ‘Fauci Lied. Millions Died’13 capsulizes the conspiracy assertion that by denying that a US$600,000 National Institutes of Health (NIH) subaward from EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology14 involved gain-of-function research, Dr Fauci and compatriots such as NIH director Dr Francis Collins are covering up (that is, ‘Fauci Lied’) the supposed reality that the resulting explorations created SARS-CoV-2 and with it the pandemic (that is, ‘Millions Died’).
Here, conspiracists are exploiting uncertainty about the genesis of SARS-CoV-2. As the presidents of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine noted in a statement on 15 June 2021, “The origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and the circumstances of the first cases of human infection, remain unknown”. Whether intended as parody or not, former Daily Show host Jon Stewart reinforced the broader inference when, appearing on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on 14 June 2021, he told the host Stephen Colbert, “I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to science. Science has, in many ways, helped ease the suffering of this pandemic — which was more than likely caused by science”.
Proactively reducing susceptibility
Because those with a conspiratorial world view can readily cast their critics as part of the conspiracy15 and massage evidence that contravenes a particular theory into proof of it16, they are unlikely to be persuaded by counterevidence17. However, as David Robert Grimes has suggested, acceptance of “medico-scientific consensus” is a spectrum that includes those who are reachable18. Our goal should be reaching them.
To minimize conspiracists’ exploitation of instances in which scientific authorities update scientific knowledge, health experts ought to note routinely that their statements are based on ‘what we now know’. When, as in the case of mask wearing, fresh evidence prompts an apparent U-turn, public health spokespersons should justify the change by repeatedly explaining ‘what we know now that we didn’t know then’.
Scientists and journalists also should showcase the ways in which the scientific norms of transparency and critique both forestall and make it possible to uncover the effects of human bias and venality on the research enterprise. Federal grants are not only subject to extensive review by multiple parties, but also — as press review of the EcoHealth Alliance’s NIH award attests — their provisions are subject to public scrutiny. Moreover, it was institutionalized forms of disclosure (for example, the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s database) that made it possible for fact checkers to confirm that Dr Fauci is not a vaccine shareholder. Fact checkers used other open sources to undercut claims that he is a registered Democrat or a past CEO of Moderna. And publications were retracted that “relied on a significant amount of data” from what Retraction Watch characterized as “a questionable company....which is now famous for refusing to share its data in articles published in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine”19.
By exploiting the provisional nature of scientific knowledge, its inevitable updating and the realities of the scientific funding structures, conspiracists eroded the trust of some susceptible individuals in the recommendations of public health authorities about lifesaving behaviours including mask wearing and vaccination. Their success in doing so made community immunity, and with it an end to the pandemic, more elusive. Understanding the vulnerabilities that conspiracists exploit should help us to identify ways to better safeguard both the trustworthiness of health science and public trust in it.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: Les H who wrote (28317)||11/23/2021 4:27:43 PM|
|From: Les H|
|Will US shale oil operators forget capital discipline and produce a lot more oil next year as oil prices reach a seven-year high?|
As demand has recovered, resulting in higher and sustained oil prices, Capex has also increased but significantly less than in previous years. This year, despite a 70% increase in oil prices operators are only increasing Capex by 9% and are expected to have a similar increase next year. Average oil prices in 2021 are higher than in 2018 but Capex is only 65% of what was spent in 2018. The main reason is capital discipline, which is suppressing activity despite high oil prices. Another factor is the well efficiencies achieved by operators since 2018. Despite high oil prices, rigs are 22% below pre-Covid-19 levels and frack crews 10% below.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: Les H||11/23/2021 8:30:28 PM|
|Dollar Tree makes it official: Items will now cost $1.25|
Faced with the rising cost of goods and freight, discount retail chain Dollar Tree says it will be raising its prices to $1.25 for the majority of its products
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: Les H||11/24/2021 10:47:14 AM|
|Big Oil Is Finally Exercising Restraint, And Biden Is Pissed|
By Haley Zaremba - Nov 20, 2021, 4:00 PM CST
Gasoline prices are rising to their highest levels in years, and Biden is facing increasing pressure to find a fall man.
Biden has already taken aim at OPEC+ and Russia, but now he’s looking in his own backyard.
This week, Biden asked federal regulators to open an investigation into the U.S. oil and gas industry to determine if it’s engaging in “illegal conduct”.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|