Is the election over?

Over in the sense that 100% of the votes have been counted.  I am ignoring recounts and challenges.  Let's see:

First, let's look at North Carolina, which had to wait another 12 days after election day.  Yes, they say 100% of the vote is in and Trump won by about 75,000 votes.

Arizona.  RealClearPolitics says that Arizona is 98% done, but I think they gave up.   The AP says it is 99% counted.  The AZ SOS says that 100% of the vote is in, and Biden won by about 10,500.

Georgia. We already know they were going to do a recount, but now they discovered another 2,600 votes in Floyd County (about 2/3 of which were for Trump) which had not been counted.  So Georgia is not done.

Michigan. They are still at 99%, which is really weird. No Michigan is not done.

Nevada.  This is only at 99%, so no, Nevada is not done. 

Pennsylvania.  Also only at 99%.

Wisconsin.  According to the AP, this is also at 99%.

So no, the election is not over.  What a disgrace.  Each of these states should conduct a post-election audit and make huge reforms, no matter who wins.

And I'm not even talking about round two - the playoffs (in court).  Come on guys, hurry up.  It's now 13 days since the election and you still haven't finished counting.

The media has already proclaimed the winner, and they are probably correct, but let's wait until all the votes are counted, ok?

=================

Update: Sidney Powell claims she has evidence that the voting machines could be used to manipulate the election results.

I don't want to go there yet.  Let's count the votes first. I will check back tomorrow night and see if they are done.

Maximizing Autophagy

 

So Dr Jason Fung was asked the question:  Is there a time over which you should fast to maximize authophagy?  (In this video jump to 9:36).

He answered, and I paraphrase, we don't really know, but I would guess 24 to 36 hours.  He also recommends occasional longer fasts.

I started to transcribe his answer and he went on and on and on, so you can watch the video, but this is his full answer, which I am posting because I spent the time to transcribe it.

Again, we don't know but I can guess, but we don't know. So if you look at what happens during fasting we know that you mostly use glycogen during the initial sort of 24 hours - it lasts roughly 24 hours. And then there's that period of gluconeogenesis from 24 to 36 hours.  So that's the period of time that my guess is that there's going to be the most sort of autophagy and so on because you're breaking down the proteins at that point for gluconeogenesis.  And again that's the whole sort of sticking point with a lot of people in fasting is that oh hey you're breaking down protein, you're going to burn your muscle at 24 to 36 hours sort of thing.  It's possible but I don't think the research on alternate daily fasting really bears that out.  However, I think that's actually a good thing because one you're taking down old protein and then because of growth hormone increases you're going to rebuild new proteins so I think it's actually not a breaking down process, I think it's actually a renewal process.  If you look only at the breakdown from 24 to 36 hours and you miss that sort of refeeding sort of burst activity then you're going to miss the whole picture, you're going to say, oh well you know you're just breaking it down, but you don't see the fact that it's actually balanced now. 

Keeping in mind that the body always works this way so if you look at bones for example, your bones are not static, there are osteoclasts and osteoblasts, so when you go through life, you actually have cells called osteoclasts which eat away at your bone and you might say oh wow that's terrible.  No, because when you eat away the bone it actually stimulates the osteoblasts to produce new bone.  But if you only look at one side of it you'd say whoa these cells are terrible, let's just murder all these normal osteoclasts.  It's like yeah you're going to have terrible brittle bones that's in fact what happened with some of the drugs that we use bisphosphonates we starting seeing really really brittle bones after like 10 years. It was because the bones might have more calcium but they're old and were not renewed. 

So the same thing happens - you get this 24 to 36 hour period of time where you are breaking down protein and it's not necessarily protein it's also connective tissue and all that and I think you know to me that makes the most sense.  And this is a pure guess so keep that in mind nobody actually knows.  That is my guess as the best place for this sort of autophagy to maximize itself.  So I would guess that if you are trying to maximize this sort of thing for whether you're trying to break down skin or connective tissue or alzheimer's disease where you have sort of excessive protein in the brain my guess is that it would be most beneficial to do these sort of 24 to 36 hour fasts and then once in a while like once every month once every couple of months do an extended fast.  And that the reason we do this so maybe I have done this for a few patients is that I don't know where the best sort of benefits lie so therefore I'm going to cover all my bases.  Do an occasional long fast with some of these alternate daily fasts 24 to 36 hour fasts to try to focus in on this sort of protein breaking down period of time.  And when you do these 24 to 36 hour fasts, there's no coffee there's no anything but water and salt, right.  That's for the autophagy people.  I means there's a few specific people who come to us and they say and we're like ok you know to our knowledge this is going to be the best protocol for you but no you know somebody always goes oh have you proven this - like no, nobody's proven any of this but you can do it or you cannot do it it's up to you.  

How to do a 36-hour fast

 

The most important thing is to break the fast with bone broth.  He recommends a brand called Kettle & Fire (paid promotion), but there are other good brands too. He says that the 16-28 hour timeframe is the sweet spot where your body burns both glucose and ketones.

From personal experience, doing a 36-hour fast once a week is very easy to do, and I see dramatic weight loss (with of course some weight regain when I eat again).  I don't see the benefits of going longer than 36 hours, since the weight loss slows down on the second day of fasting.  Also, with just a 36-hour fast, your metabolism remains high, whereas with a longer fast it will slow down. 

Updated Electoral Map

 

Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/

The gray states have unofficially been called for Biden, but they are really up in the air at this point.  What is the difference in official vote counts at this point, per the states electoral boards?

Arizona: Biden’s lead dwindled to 11,635 with 99% of votes counted.  But they are still counting, and may do a recount.

Georgia: Democratic presidential challenger Joe Biden’s lead in Georgia has grown to 14,148 votes, with over 99 percent of votes counted, according to Decision Desk HQ.  They are going to do a full recount.

Michigan:  Biden is leading by about 146,000 votes, with 99% reporting.

Nevada: Biden is leading by about 47,000 votes, with 97% reporting.

Pennsylvania:  Biden is leading by about 55,000 votes with 99% reporting.  Rudy Giuliana claims that 650,000 votes were done illegally and should be removed.

Wisconsin: Biden won by 20,000 votes with 100% reporting.

North Carolina: Trump is ahead by 73,000 votes with 97% reporting.  

So lets speculate - if Trump ends up winning Georgia (because the recount changes things), Arizona, and Pennsylvania (through court challenges), will that be enough for him to win? Yes, it sure will.  But he would need all 3 states to win.

It still is possible, but extremely unlikely, that Trump will win.  We won't know for sure until each states certifies their results on December 8.  

The mainstream news has zero credibility.  I do think that Biden has about a 95% chance of being successful at this point, but he can't claim to be president-elect yet.

The October 2020 deficit was $284 billion

 The government recorded a deficit of $284 billion in October, CBO estimates, $149 billion more than the shortfall recorded in the same month last year. Revenues fell by $8 billion (or 3 percent), largely because of a decline in collections of individual income taxes. Outlays this October were $141 billion (or 37 percent) higher than in the same month last year because of greater spending for many government programs, in part driven by the government’s response to the pandemic.  https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-11/56746-MBR.pdf

This doesn't seem like a shocking number, but if every month had a $284 billion deficit, that is $3.4 trillion.  This is more than the $3.1 trillion deficit for FY 2020. 

=======================

Update:  If the government had a deficit of $284 billion, but M5 only increased by $88 billion, then where did the extra cash come from?  From its savings account at the Fed.

On 9/30/20, Treasury had $1,782 billion in its account.

On 10/30/20, Treasury had $1,599 billion in its account.

So its cash decreased by $183 billion during October.

Question: Is cash that the Treasury has in its Fed account inflationary?  Obviously not.  So maybe I should have a new measure, call it M6, which is M5 less the Treasury cash.  This would give you the total of cash that is "in the wild", excluding both Fed holdings of Treasury bonds and Treasury cash stored at the Fed.  And if this number increases while GDP decreases, this would obviously be inflationary because you have more cash chasing fewer goods.

M5 for October 31

M5 is a measure of money that includes M2, plus debt held by the public, less Treasuries owned by the Fed. Here is the current measure:

As of 10/31/2020:
M2 (as of 10/19/20) = 18,815.20
Pub Debt (as of 10/30/20) = 21,097.0
Fed held (as of 10/28/20) = -4,527.2
-----------------------
Total: 35,385.0

On 9/30/20, this was at 35,296.8, so it is up 88.2 or 0.25%.

For once, we have some good news. This is below the limit of 0.58%, so it is SUSTAINABLE. If every month were like October, there would be nothing to worry about.

Projection: Biden Wins

 

Time Nov 4, 2020 at 8:00 AM.

Here is the most likely scenario at this point.  Details:

Nevada (6) - Biden 49.2%, Trump 48.6% (75%)

Arizona (11) - Biden 51.0%, Trump 47.6% (84%)

Wisconsin (10) - Biden 49.6%, Trump 48.9%, (100%)

Michigan (16) - Biden 49.4%, Trump 49.1% (91%)

Pennsylvania (20) - Biden 44.8%, Trump 54.1% (80%)

North Carolina (15) - Biden 48.7%, Trump 50.1% (100%)

Georgia (16) -  Biden 48.3%, Trump 50.5% (100%)

It looks like it will all depend on the final count (and recount) in Michigan.  When is Michigan supposed to finish counting?   By later tonight, say 7pm EST.  So we will have a tentative winner by tonight.

When will we have an official winner?  North Carolina has to count absentee ballots until Nov. 12, so it won't declare a winner until then.  Pennsylvania won't declare a winner until "later this week", so it should be by Friday night.  But Biden doesn't need those states to win..

Will this be challenged?  Absolutely, since there are allegations of voter fraud, and it will go up to the Supreme Court.  So we won't know the actual winner until that case is decided, probably in early December.

===================

How does this compare to my previous predictions?  

1. My initial prediction on June 18, called "Sleepy Joe is going to win", predicted that Biden would win 318-220 overall and winning Florida and Pennsylvania.  So I was way off.

2. My second prediction on Oct. 9, called "Trump could still win", predicted a Trump win 274-264 with Trump winning Arizona and Michigan and Biden winning Pennsylvania.  I said that Trump had to win both Arizona and Michigan and I gave him 30% odds of winning.  So this was still projecting a Biden win.  I said "It could come down to a few thousand people in Michigan."

3. My third prediction on Oct 16, called "Revised election odds" presented the same scenario (of Trump winning Arizona and Michigan and Biden winning Pennsylvania) and gave it a 35% change.  So this was also projecting a Biden win.

4. On Oct 21, I wrote a post called "Florida is the key state", and said that Trump had a 30% chance of winning Florida, but a 77% chance of winning the election if he did win Florida.  The 77% chance included Trump winning Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada.  I said there was a 23% overall chance of Trump doing so, so this was projecting a Biden win.

5. On Oct 30, I wrote a post called "Arizona will decide the election".  This saw Biden winning Pennsylvania and Trump winning Michigan, in which case Arizona was need to break the tie.  I said Trump had a 12.5% overall of winning, so this was projecting a Biden win.

6. On Oct 31, I wrote a post called "Contested Election Very Likely".  I said that if Biden didn't sweep on election night then Trump had a 60% chance of winning. 

So at this point I have to say that I was wrong on every single prediction, because I never seriously thought Trump would win Pennsylvania or that Biden would win Arizona.

But I was much better than the delusional pollsters at FiveThirtyEight.com.

It's crazy that I would have to give odds of winning, the day after the election, but my confidence level is only 51% that Biden will win Michigan, and thus the election.  This is turning into a repeat of 2000, however, Michigan is the state where you have to count and recount every vote instead of Florida.

========================

Update:  Trump's campaign manager believes that Trump could still win Nevada and Arizona, because not all the votes have been counted.  And Trump will ask for a recount in Wisconsin and Michigan.  So it's not over yet.  So it's too early to declare a tentative winner until we get a final count of Nevada and Arizona.

Love Bites by Def Leppard

 

When you make love, do you look in your mirror?
Who do you think of? Does he look like me?
Do you tell lies? And say that it's forever?
Do you think twice, or just touch and see?

When you're alone, do you let go?
Are you wild and willing, or is it just for show?

I don't want to touch you too much baby
making love to you might drive me crazy
I know you think that love is the way you make it
I don't want to be there when you decide to break it, 
no, Love bites, love bleeds, It's bringing me to my knees, 
love lives, love dies, It's no surprise, 
Love begs, love pleads, It's what I need

When I'm with you are you somewhere else?
Am I getting through or do you please yourself?
When you wake up will you walk out?
It can't be love if you throw it about

Ooh babe, I don't want to touch you too much baby
making love to you might drive me crazy, oh
love bites,love bleeds,It's bringing me to my knees 
love lives, love dies, It's no surprise 
Love begs, love pleads,It's what I need

Oh yeah, I don't want to touch you too much baby
making love to you might drive me crazy
I know you think that love is the way you make it
I don't want to be there when you decide to break it, 
no, love bites, love bleeds, It's bringing me to my knees
love lives, love dies
Love bites, love bleeds, It's bringing me to my knees 
love lives, love dies, It's no surprise 
love begs, love pleads,It's what I need

If you've got love in your sights
Watch out, love bites
Yes it does, (it will be hell)

Nate Silver is delusional

 Nate Silver's website, FiveThirtyEight.com, thinks that this is the most likely outcome on November 3:

He thinks that the electoral map will look like this:

I think he is completely delusional.  I am screenshotting this so I can laugh about how wrong he is on November 4.  I think most of the light blue states on that map will be red.

If Biden's map looks anywhere near this, then we will know by midnight on election day tomorrow and certainly by Wednesday morning at 8 AM, and I will eat crow.  I think there is a 20% chance of Biden having a clear victory on election day.

As I said, the most likely result is complete confusion and chaos with no clear winner, and warnings to wait until EVERY SINGLE VOTE HAS COUNTED, which will take at least another week, and then the riots and the court challenges will begin.  In this scenario, Trump has a 60% chance of winning.

Contested Election Very Likely

Remarkably, if the polls are as wrong as they were in 2016, Trump would win with 279 of the 538 electoral votes, while Biden would get 259. Still, the margin of victory would be within 0.5 percentage points in Wisconsin (for Biden) and Georgia (for Trump), which would trigger an automatic recount and delay results. In addition, the margin in Pennsylvania and Florida would be less than 1.0%, likely resulting in a bitter post-election night fight and contested outcomes.  In short, no matter what happens on Nov 3, expect recounts and extensive delays before we have a clear winner. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/here-result-if-polls-are-wrong-2020-they-were-2016

We know that if Trump apparently wins on election day that Biden will not concede without a recount and same thing for Trump.  So there is probably an 80% of a contested election, similar in some ways to 2000, and we won't know the winner until December 14, when the electoral college votes.

According to this, expect recounts in Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Florida.  And probably Michigan and Arizona as well.  So that is 6 states where the election will be fought in the courtroom and it will almost certainly go up to the Supreme Court. Will Amy Cony Barrett (the notorious ACB) recuse herself?  Don't bet on it. 

Will there be riots?  Absolutely.  The riots this summer were just previews.  I don't know why they would riot in Portland, but the Antifa are idiots.  

I really hope that the winner is declared on election night, but I think there is only 20% chance of that happening.

Oh by the way if there is a contested election, I think Trump will be the winner.  Let's say 60% chance that Trump wins in the courts. The Republicans are smarter when it comes to the courtroom and they have the majority in the Supreme Court.

So my new forecast is a 48% chance of Trump winning.  Biden's best bet is a sweep on election night because if he doesn't win on election night, I think the odds are that he loses in the end.

=================

Update: There is also the possibility of a tie 269-269 if Biden wins Michigan and Trump wins Arizona and Wisconsin.  In which case Trump wins.

The Glenn Greenwald Censored Article

Glenn Greenwald, Fearless Investigative Journalist

 Read it here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored

Publication by the New York Post two weeks ago of emails from Hunter Biden's laptop, relating to Vice President Joe Biden's work in Ukraine, and subsequent articles from other outlets concerning the Biden family's pursuit of business opportunities in China, provoked extraordinary efforts by a de facto union of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these stories.

One outcome is that the Biden campaign concluded, rationally, that there is no need for the front-running presidential candidate to address even the most basic and relevant questions raised by these materials. Rather than condemn Biden for ignoring these questions -- the natural instinct of a healthy press when it comes to a presidential election -- journalists have instead led the way in concocting excuses to justify his silence.

Arizona will decide the election

 

Some people think Trump will win in Michigan.  If this is accurate, (I went on Nate Silver's projection and only clicked on two states, Florida and Michigan for Trump to win), then Trump has a 95% chance of winning (because Trump would then also win Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota).

I think FiveThirtyEight.com is too cocky and overdoes the correlations.  They are overstating Biden's chances now and they are also overstating the correlation effect.

So revised forecast.  Trump has a 50% chance of winning each of Florida, Michigan and Arizona, which gives him a 12.5% chance overall of winning.  Actually FiveThirtyEight says Trump's odds are 10%, so that's pretty close.  Anyways I think this will be the map the day after the election.

The Oceanwide Center Fiasco

 

Oceanwide Center

The Oceanwide Center is a 61-story mixed-use skyscraper complex (made of 2 towers) under development in San Francisco.  The tower pictured, with the triangles on it, is supposed to be 910 ft (280 m) tall, which would make it the second-tallest building in San Francisco, after the Salesforce Tower, which is 1070 ft (326 m).

Cool huh?  Not so fast.  The project broke ground in 2016, and was originally supposed to be completed in 2021, then delayed until 2023.  The second tower, which was supposed to be 605 ft, has been cancelled ("suspended indefinitely").  I can't find a current picture of the site, but apparently some work has been done.  Work on it was delayed for some reason and stopped in late 2019.  The project was behind schedule and over budget, and the owner apparently ran out of money.  With the pandemic, the demand for commercial space has disappeared, and the project is no longer commercially viable.

The owner, Oceanwide Holdings, a Chinese company, reached a deal in January 2020 to sell it to another Chinese company (SPF Capital) for $1 billion, subject to due diligence.  However, the sale still has not been finalized.   Another article says that SPF Capital backed out of the deal and another Chinese buyer, Hony Capital, wants to buy it for $1.2 billion ($700 million in cash and the remaining $500 million dependent on future performance of the project).  Now Hony Capital is postponing the deal until November 30th.

Meanwhile, the project sits abandoned, at least for now.  Chinese projects don't necessarily have to be profitable and they may see a skyscraper as an asset, even if no one wants to lease space there.  So there is hope yet that the project will be completed.  But for now, it's an eyesore in the middle of downtown San Francisco.

There is also a failed Oceanwide project in downtown Los Angeles where no work has been done since January 2019.

Florida is the key state

Whoever wins Florida is likely to become the next president.  Florida has 29 electoral votes and counts its vote quickly, so we are likely to know the winner of Florida by midnight on election day and thus who the next president will be.  By the way, Biden has a 70% chance of winning Florida, so we can state that he has a 70% chance of being the next president.

I am playing around with the  270ToWin map, and also the FiveThirtyEight map, and this is what happens to the winner of Florida.  

========================

1. If Biden wins Florida, then he is the next President.  He will have at least 319 electoral votes and there is no way Trump can win.

=======================

2. If Trump wins Florida, then the pathway isn't as clear but it sets off a chain reaction that results in a Trump victory.  The first chain is that other states that are highly correlated with Florida will also go for Trump. These states are Georgia, Iowa and Ohio.  The next chain is that two states that are leaning Biden will go for Trump because of correlation - Arizona and North Carolina.  Also Maine's 2nd District.  Now stop at this point - it looks like Biden has 279 electoral votes and Trump has 259.

But see what happens when probabilities become certainties. Let's choose the winner of each state in this order:  1. Georgia, 2. Iowa, 3. Ohio, 4. North Carolina, 5. Arizona.

At this point, Trump has an 81% chance of getting Maine's 2nd Congressional District so lets give that to him.  Now Trump has a 69% chance of winning Nebraska's 2nd District so give that to him. At this point Trump has a 75% chance of winning Pennsylvania and a 72% chance of winning Wisconsin, so Trump wins.

======================

3. The Nebraska 2nd District seems to be another tipping point, so see what happens if Trump wins Florida but we don't know the winner in NE2.  Go through the first 6 steps above.  At this point, Trump has a 63% chance of winning Pennsylvania, 60% chance of Wisconsin, and 53% chance in Nevada. 538 predicts Trump's overall odds at this point are 77%.  If Trump wins either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, he has it.  

=====================

4. What is the most likely scenario if Trump wins Florida, and then Georgia, Iowa and Ohio?  Well, he will probably win North Carolina, Arizona and ME-2, but that isn't enough.  It looks like Biden 279 to Trump 259.  So Trump needs just a little more magic besides Florida.  And that is most likely to happen in Pennsylvania.  Trump's best case scenario involves winning these two states.

So let's recalculate.  Trump has a 30% chance of winning Florida and a 13% chance of winning Pennsylvania, calculated separately.  If Trump wins Florida, his chance of winning Pennsylvania jumps to 35%.  Multiply 30% by 35% and you get about a 10% chance of Trump winning.  So I understand Nate Silver's math a little better.

======================

On the other hand, you could say that Trump has a 30% chance of  Florida, and this would give him a 77% chance of winning under the 3rd scenario.  So this would make Trump's odds 23%.  This makes sense to me, so I will say that as of now, Trump has a 23% chance of winning.

Does the United States own the Moon?

The United States is the only country that has sent men to walk on the Moon, with 12 astronauts on 6 space missions between Apollo 11 (which landed on July 20, 1969) and Apollo 17 (which landed on December 11, 1972).  On each landing the astronauts planted a U.S. flag.  No other country has had men walk on the moon or planted flags there.

Does the US claim to own the moon through right of conquest?  There is the Moon Treaty which the US has not ratified and so which is effectively meaningless.  The US did sign the Outer Space Treaty, formally named  "the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies". This treaty provides that no nation can claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body.  So it seems that the answer is no.

However, does the Outer Space Treaty prevent the US from licensing companies to mine asteroids and the moon and effectively control it?  The US passed the Space Act of 2015 (formally known as the Commercial Space Competitiveness Act of 2015) which allows US citizens and industries to "engage in the commercial exploration and exploitation of space resources" including water and minerals.  This Act may violate the Outer Space Treaty, but who would decide that?  Could Russia sue the US in the International Court of Justice in The Hague and claim that the Space Act is a violation?  Maybe, but they haven't.  I would argue that the Space Act allows the US to effectively control the moon and asteroids as long as they don't formally claim sovereignty over them.  What is to stop any other country from passing a similar law?  Nothing, but none have except for Luxembourg, which passed an asteroid mining law in 2017. 

Critics of the Space Act claim that: Space exploration is a universal activity and therefore requires international regulation. The act represents a full-frontal attack on settled principles of space law which are based on two basic principles: the right of states to scientific exploration of outer space and its celestial bodies and the prevention of unilateral and unbriddled commercial exploitation of outer-space resources. https://www.iflscience.com/space/who-owns-space-us-asteroid-mining-act-dangerous-and-potentially-illegal/

In 1856, the US passed the Guano Islands Act, which allowed U.S. citizens to take possession, in the name of the United States, of any unclaimed island anywhere on earth, so long as it contained guano.  I think there are certain commonalities between the Guano Islands Act and the Space Act.  We can imagine private space explorers roaming the galaxy looking for gold and minerals and flying the flag of either the United States or Luxembourg.

With this background, read the following article:  "For Sale: The Moon".  This editorial claims that NASA, through its Artemis Accords project, effectively claims ownership of the moon, and is creating private treaties with other countries that recognize this claim and want to share in the bounty.  And thus NASA is creating international space law, effectively violating the Outer Space Treaty and the role of the United Nations.

The Artemis Accords are not merely a code of conduct for foreign space agencies wishing to join NASA's moon program. They represent another prong in what has become a sustained American campaign to legislate international space law unilaterally. That NASA has begun to act as a diplomatic surrogate for the United Nations is a significant — and potentially harmful — milestone in the commercialization of outer space. --https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/521864-for-sale-the-moon

I think NASA would argue that this is a misinterpretation.  The Artemis Accords project is a joint program to land the next man and woman on the moon.  This will be done with the participation of Europe, Japan, Canada, Italy, Australia, UK and the United Arab Emirates.  And the Artemis Accords is their agreement to work together.

I think this is an interesting question - Is the Artemis Accords a "private international space law treaty" or is it just an agreement to go to the moon?  You can read the text of the Artemis Accords here: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis-accords/img/Artemis-Accords-signed-13Oct2020.pdf

See also: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/10/nasa-builds-support-for-artemis-by-signing-accords-with-seven-countries/

So, to answer the question posed by the title of this post - no, the US doesn't technically own the moon, but it does claims the right to control it, at least for the purpose of exploring it, mining it, and developing it commercially.

The Pollster Who Believes Trump Will Win

 

Robert Cahaly

Robert Cahaly, of Trafalgar Group, believes that Trump will win the election in a couple of weeks.  Here is what he thinks will happen: Trump will win in Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Arizona.  He thinks Trump will win Michigan because people don't like the governor.  

And in Pennsylvania, he thinks Trump has a 50% chance of winning. Trump isn’t there yet in Pennsylvania, according to Cahaly. “Right now, we’ve got him down in Pennsylvania,” he says, “I think if it were held today, the undecided would break toward Trump and there’d be some hidden vote. He’d probably win Pennsylvania. But I’m going to give a caveat on only Pennsylvania. I believe Pennsylvania to be the No. 1 state that Trump could win and have stolen due to voter fraud.”

But if Trump wins in Michigan and the other states listed above (and loses Pennsylvania) then he will still win.

Revised election odds - Trump has a 35% chance of winning

 I am using as a starting point The Economist projections at https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president.  They think Trump only has an 8% chance of winning.

They see the following swing votes.  Here is the list, their odds and my odds:

• Pennsylvania, D 89%.
• Michigan, D 92%.  The polls have this wrong and this is closer than predicted.  I give Trump a 40% chance of winning Michigan (and Biden 60%).  The Trafalgar poll predicts that Trump will win Michigan 47-46.
• Florida, D 76%.  I think this is virtually a tie with Biden having a slight edge.  I think the odds are D 51% and R 49%.
• Wisconsin, D 91%.  This is much closer than the polls predict.
• Minnesota, D 95%
• North Carolina, D 64%.  I think this is basically a tie.  D 51% and R 49%.
• Arizona, D 67%.  This is fairly close, with the edge to Biden.  I call it D 55%, R 45%.
• Ohio, R 65%
• Georgia, R 55%
• Iowa, R 64%
• Nevada. D 88%
• Texas. R 71%.

To simplify this, I will just assume Trump wins Georgia, Iowa and Ohio (and Texas).  In my previous analysis, I said that Trump had to win, of the remaining states, Arizona, Michigan, Florida, and North Carolina.  So give the rest, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota (and Nevada) to Biden. Note that if Trump wins Wisconsin, he could swap that for Michigan.

So using my probably flawed methodology, I come up with a 35% chance of Trump winning.  This is also similar to what the gamblers predict.

As usually, the pollsters are way overconfident.

The Fiscal Year 2020 deficit was $3,132 billion

Total revenue for FY2020 was $3,420 billion and total expenditures were $6,552 billion.  See the September 2020 Monthly Treasury Statement. Compare these to FY2019 revenue of $3,462 billion and expenditures of $4,447 billion.  For only the month of September 2020, revenue was $373 billion (compared to $374 billion in Sept 2019) and outlays were $498 billion (compared to $291 billion in Sept 2019).

What was the biggest change from 2019?  The 2020 results were actually pretty similar to 2019, with the exception of April, May, and June.  The expenditures were fairly similar, adjusted for inflation, except for these major areas:

• Dept of Labor: $477 billion in 2020 vs $36 billion in 2019.  This was for unemployment compensation. 
• Dept of Health and Human Services: $1,504 billion in 2020 v $1,204 bn 2019.
• Dept of Education: $204 bn v $104 bn
• Dept of Treasury - Other: $629 bn vs $117 bn.  I think this was for the stimulus payments.
• Small Business Administration: $577 bn vs $456 million.  This was for PPP loans.

So I see 3 major areas of stimulus that show up on the financial statement: 1) Unemployment compensation ($441 bn more than 2019), Treasury ($512 bn more than 2019), and SBA ($577 bn more).  So a total stimulus of $1,530.  So everything else being equal, the 2021 budget would show a deficit of about $1.6 billion, without any stimulus.  Add in a $2 trillion stimulus bill (and it could be a lot more than that) and you are looking at a $3.6 billion deficit in 2021. 

The death of movies

 Movie theaters became popular during the 1920s when ticket prices during a quarter.  During the Great Depression, ticket prices dropped to a dime, but most of the theaters survived.  Today however, the entire industry is dying.  There will be a few specialty theaters that remain open, but almost every mall movie theater and mega cineplex will close forever.  Let's just quickly look at the 3 largest chains: 

AMC is the largest and it will run out of cash by the end of the year and then file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. AMC's revenues are down 85% for the year.  Regal Cinemas, the second largest cinema chain, will close all 536 theaters indefinitely until things return to normal (which may be never).  Cinemark is in denial and claims that things are fine, but the stock market believes that it is facing similar problems to AMC and Cinemark stock dropped 10% on Oct 13.  Marcus Theaters are a very distant 4th, with about 10% of the number of screens as Cinemark and about 72 locations nationwide.  They have more specialty theaters like Movie Tavern, but they have "temporarily" closed 17 locations.

The paradox of fossil fuel shortages

 We (the western world) may run short of oil, coal and other fossil fuels by 2025, and this will cause the economy to decline (or it may be an effect of a shrinking economy that requires less fuel).  This isn't an actual shortage, as there will still be lots of fuel in the ground, instead it is a lack of fuel available for sale because the price is too low to pay for the cost of extraction.

Now if the price is too low, you would assume that raising the price would take care of the shortages.  But this is the paradox - that oil prices remain too low despite shortages.  Why is this?  Because the economy has become bifurcated between industrial workers, who work at energy-intensive jobs, and the elite, who don't require as much electricity.  

That is my explanation of Gail Tverberg's theory:

As the economy approaches limits, prices tend to fall too low for producers, rather than rise too high for consumers. Energy prices tend to fall too low because, as the economy gets more complex, wage and wealth disparity tend to grow, reflecting differences in training and responsibility. The problem occurs because low-paid workers cannot afford to buy very large quantities of goods and services produced by the economy. For example, many cannot afford a car or a home of their own. The spending of high-paid workers does not offset the loss of demand by low-paid workers because high-paid workers tend to spend their wages more on services, such as advanced education, which require proportionately less energy consumption. Ultimately, the lack of demand by low-paid workers tends to pull down the prices of oil and other commodities below the level required by producers.

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2020/09/23/reaching-the-end-of-early-stimulus-whats-ahead/

Henry Ford paid his auto workers more than the going wage rate so that they could afford their own cars, in a virtuous cycle.  This is that cycle in reverse - low paid workers cannot afford to buy what the economy produces, leading to a shrinking in the real economy.