A Tiny Cryptocurrency Called Omicron Is Suddenly Rocketing Even As The New Covid-19 Variant Tanks The Bitcoin Price And Crypto Markets

A new, fast-spreading Covid-19 variant dubbed omicron has sent bitcoin, cryptocurrency and traditional markets into meltdown this week, with investors being warned to “be on guard.”

The bitcoin price lost more than 5% in a matter of hours this week, taking its decline from all-time highs of around $69,000 per bitcoin to 20% and plunging bitcoin into a technical bear market that’s wiped billions of dollars from the combined cryptocurrency market capitalization.

However, the price of one tiny cryptocurrency, coincidently named omicron, is suddenly soaring, adding around 500% in the days since the World Health Organization named the new Covid-19 variant—recalling the sudden rise and fall of a scam Squid Game-inspired cryptocurrency last month.

The bubbly cryptocurrency market—that can mean even larger and more established coins regularly record sudden, double-digit percentage gains and losses—often sees tiny cryptocurrencies rocket in value only to collapse a short time later.

Last month, an amateurish crypto project inspired by the viral Squid Game TV show but unaffiliated with it or Netflix NFLX +1.1%, saw its squid cryptocurrency add many thousands of percent before crashing back to almost nothing.

This year, a torrent of meme-based cryptocurrencies, led by dogecoin and its biggest rival shiba inu, have rocketed up the cryptocurrency price charts as traders bet hype helped on by the likes of Tesla billionaire Elon Musk will translate to longer-term value.

The price of omicron’s omic coin has soared from around $50 to almost $400 in the last few days, as measured by cryptocurrency price data tracker CoinGecko. Despite its surge, neither CoinGecko nor the Crypto.com bitcoin and crypto exchange have enough data on omicron to give it a market capitalization.

Omicron, described as “a decentralized treasury-backed currency protocol” built on ethereum scaling technology Arbitrum and launched just weeks ago, can only be traded on the controversial decentralized exchange SushiSwap. Such exchanges, whose decentralized nature means there isn’t a central authority in charge, are known to be often hit by hacks, exploits and so-called rug pulls that see users funds stolen.

Meanwhile, bitcoin and crypto market watchers are broadly upbeat despite the new Covid-19 variant sending the bitcoin price into meltdown this week.

“The news of a new Covid variant coming out of South Africa led to a broad-based sell-off across asset classes,” Martha Reyes, head of research at digital asset prime brokerage and exchange Bequant, said in emailed comments. “If lockdowns do ensue, which is not our base case scenario, that will lead to further helicopter money, which ultimately benefits digital assets.”

The crypto sell-off this week, which saw the bitcoin price fall in line with traditional markets, surprised some in the crypto industry who are used to crypto prices moving independently of stocks and traditional assets.

“The cryptocurrency market, for the most part, doesn’t correlate with the traditional markets,” Tally Greenberg, head of business development at blockchain company Allnodes, said in emailed comments.

“However, there come times when even cryptocurrency follows world events. The news of a new Covid-19 variant has shaken the world with yet another uncertainty about our global road to recovery, which caused a major dip for large and small cryptocurrencies and plummeting stocks and bonds across all nations.”

Follow me on Twitter.

I am a journalist with significant experience covering technology, finance, economics, and business around the world. As the founding editor of Verdict.co.uk I reported on how technology is changing business,

Source: A Tiny Cryptocurrency Called Omicron Is Suddenly Rocketing—Even As The New Covid-19 Variant Tanks The Bitcoin Price And Crypto Markets

.

More Contents:

“Out in the Open: Teenage Hacker Transforms Web Into One Giant Bitcoin Network”. Wired.com. Retrieved July 24, 2017.

There’s No ‘Supply-Chain Shortage,’ Or Inflation. There’s Just Central Planning

It’s great that so many have copies of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, but very unfortunate that so few have read it. The alleged “supply chain” problems we’re enduring right now were explained by Smith in the book’s opening pages.

Smith wrote about a pin factory, and the then remarkable truth that one man in the factory working alone could maybe – maybe – produce one pin each day. But several men working together could produce tens of thousands.

Work divided is what enables the very work specialization that drives enormous productivity. If this was true in an 18th century pin factory, imagine how vivid the truth is today. Figure that something as basic as the creation of a pencil is the consequence of global cooperation, so what kind of remarkable global symmetry leads to the creation of an airplane, car, or computer?  The kind that can’t be planned is the short answer, but more realistically the only answer.

Please keep this in mind as you read media coverage of the so-called “supply-chain disruptions” resulting in “shortages” that are said to be causing “inflation.” If you want a bigger laugh, read about what President Biden wants to do in order to get “supply” back on the market with an eye on replenishing U.S. retail shelves that are increasingly bare. He’s decreed 24-hour port operations! Yes, thanks to the 46th president we now know what held the Soviets back, and ultimately destroyed the Soviet Union: their ports weren’t open long enough; thus the shortages of everything

All of the above would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Media members, “experts,” economists, and politicians don’t even disappoint anymore. To say they do would be to flatter them.

Either they think we have inflation, shortages, or a combination of both. Wrong on all counts. Really, who was talking about supply-chain shortages or the impossibility that is demand-driven inflation in early 2020? Very few were, and that’s because the U.S. economy was largely free then. At which point politicians panicked. And in panicking, they imposed a rather draconian form of command-and-control on the U.S. economy.

Some were free to work, some weren’t, and more still were free to work and operate their businesses within strict political limits. From freedom to central planning in a very small amount of time. At which point it’s worth considering once again the simple pin factory that Smith witnessed in the 18th century versus the global cooperation that was the norm 19 months ago.

The supply lines of February 2020 were impossibly complicated structures that no politician could ever hope to design. Think billions of individuals around the world pursuing their narrow work specialization on the way to enormous global plenty. Put another way, the shelves in economically free countries were heaving with all manner of products based on economic cooperation that was staggering in scope. Brilliant as some experts claim to be, and brilliant as some politicians think they are as they look in the mirror, they could never construct the web of trillions of economic relationships that prevailed before the lockdowns. But they could destroy the web. And they did; that, or they severely impaired it.

In which case let’s please not insult reason by talking about “shortages” or “inflation” now. Let’s instead be realistic and talk about central planning. We know from the 20th century that when politicians, authoritarians or both substitute their intensely narrow knowledge for that of the marketplace that immense want for very little (and lousy) supply is the logical result. Yes it is. When we’re not economically free, bare shelves are the inevitable result.

Conversely, product and service abundance is a certain consequence yet again of the infinite actions and trillions of economic relationships entered into by billions of people. These commercial tie-ups were constructed by consenting individuals over many years and many decades only for them to be wrecked by a political class arrogantly seeking to protect us from ourselves. That’s what happens when command-and-control replaces voluntary order. The remunerative ties that bind us fray, or vanish altogether. Consenting, profitable economic activity was suddenly illegal. Yet politicians and other experts are only now wringing their hands about a lack of supply?

Really, what did they think was going to happen? While politicians couldn’t ever create or legislate billions working together around the world, they could and can surely break voluntary economic arrangements. When you have guns, handcuffs, the power to quite literally shut off power sources to the productive, not to mention the wealth produced by the productive, you have the power to impose command-and-control. And so they did, only for the “supply chains” painstakingly created in self-interested but spontaneous form over many decades to suddenly break apart. Just don’t call it inflation, or shortages.

Inflation is a devaluation of the unit of account. In our case it’s the devaluation of the dollar. And while Treasury hasn’t always done a great job as the dollar’s steward over the decades, that’s just the point. Devaluation was routine problem in the 1970s, it ceased to be in the 80s and 90s, but it reared its ugly head once again during the George W. Bush administration in the early 2000s. To say inflation is a “now” thing is to ignore that it’s more realistically been a 21st century-long thing.

We don’t suddenly have an inflation problem. To say we do is the equivalent of saying that the Soviets had inflation because all the goods worth getting were both difficult to find, and incredibly expensive if they could be found. In our case we’ve had a lockdown problem care of nail-biting politicians that suffocated commercial cooperation around the world. And with work divided less than it used to be care of government force, productivity is naturally lower than it used to be.

Please consider modern productivity in terms of Smith’s pin factory example yet again, and ask what it would do to supply. The only thing is supply shortfalls are not evidence of inflation. A rise in one price due to lack of supply implies a fall in other prices. Yes, we have a central planning problem. Were he around today, Adam Smith could diagnose this in seconds.

Follow me on Twitter.

I’m the editor of RealClearMarkets, and a senior economic adviser to Applied Finance Advisors. I’m also the author of five books. The most recent released in March is When Politicians Panicked: The New

Source: www.forbes.com

.

More Contents:

Modern Monetary Theory Isn’t the Future. It’s Here Now

The infrastructure act signed into law last week marked a defeat for the faction of progressive economists in ascendancy in 2020. For these advocates of modern monetary theory, the insistence by both political parties that all the $550 billion of new spending be matched by offsetting revenue, known as “payfors,” goes against their belief that money is merely a tool for government.

This is a temporary rhetorical setback. The reality is that MMT’s ideas have insinuated themselves deep into government, central banking and even Wall Street—and the infrastructure act is in fact deficit-financed anyway.

MMTers detest payfors as wrongheaded thinking about money. Money only exists because of government spending, and under MMT, the government should just create as much as it needs to finance its projects. In a tight economy—like we have now—MMT might want offsets to new spending. But higher taxes or lower spending elsewhere would be aimed at avoiding inflation, not at balancing the budget.

The government hasn’t embraced MMT. But important elements of it are now accepted by much of the economic and financial establishment, with major implications for how the economy is run.The most important claim of MMT is that a government need never default on debt issued in its own currency. The lesson of 2020 was that MMT is right.

“We got five or six trillion dollars of spending and tax cuts without anyone worrying about payfors, so that was a good thing,” says L. Randall Wray, an economics professor at Bard College in New York and a leading MMT academic. “In January [2020], MMT was a crazy idea, and then in March, it was, OK, we’re going to adopt MMT.”

It isn’t just MMTers who say the world took a turn toward a new way of thinking.

“Governments have lost their fear of debt,” says Karen Ward, chief market strategist for EMEA at JPMorgan Chase’s asset-management arm. “They were terribly worried about bond markets and investors punishing them. What they saw last year was record high levels of debt at record low levels of interest rates.”

Central banks that had struggled for a decade to boost inflation using monetary tools found that fiscal tools were far more powerful. Government spending does far more for inflation than quantitative easing, it turns out, and central-bank calls for more fiscal action to boost the economy are more likely to be accepted next time deflation looms.

Key parts of MMT haven’t been adopted, particularly its call for government to guarantee everyone a job. But the MMT critique of the status quo, where the central bank modulates the number of unemployed people to control inflation, hit a nerve. The Federal Reserve shifted in favor of running the economy hot to reduce inequality. Employment has become more important in its thinking, and its move to a target of average inflation means it is willing to accept higher inflation than previously.

Still, the Fed is (rightly) worried about inflation and is tweaking its tools to try to influence the economy with monetary policy, something MMTers think just doesn’t work. As Mr. Wray points out, it wasn’t when trillions in benefit checks landed in bank accounts last year that inflation went up; prices went up when the recipients went out and spent the money. “Money doesn’t cause inflation,” Mr. Wray argues, a view that infuriates monetarist economists. “Spending causes inflation.”

In the next downturn it is going to be very difficult for governments to resist calls to provide huge support, now that it has been shown that bond markets don’t care. That should mean recessions are shallower, debt is higher, the government is more involved in the economy and, assuming the Fed doesn’t accept that its tools are useless, interest rates are higher on average than in the past. Bond markets aren’t pricing in anything of the sort, though. The 30-year Treasury yield is only 2%, well below the 3.2% average of the 10 years up to 2020.

Under full-blown MMT, payfors would be ditched for a mix of micro-planning of the resources needed for new projects, and an assessment of the overall impact on the economy—and potentially, higher taxes.

MMT is both right and wildly optimistic that higher taxes could slow an overheated economy and bring down inflation. The flip side of last year’s demonstration of the power of fiscal policy is that higher taxes can suck demand out of the economy much more effectively than the Fed’s interest-rate tools.

There was a brief moment when it looked as though Democrats might impose higher taxes on billionaires as part of the payfors for the roughly $2 trillion social-spending bill, although they were dropped on first contact with reality. MMTers mostly aren’t worried about  Biden’s spending plans causing inflation anyway. But MMT prescribes that if tax rises are needed to slow demand, billionaires wouldn’t be the target: The rest of us would.

“It makes more sense to have a broad-based tax that would reduce demand across the broader economy, especially people who have a propensity to spend of 98%, which is the majority of Americans,” Mr. Wray said.

Other MMT ideas have infiltrated their way into the heart of the establishment, but the idea that the government should raise taxes on ordinary Americans, let alone that it should do so to control inflation, is exceptionally unlikely to be accepted.

That is a bad thing, because MMT’s ideas encourage more spending, and if that results in more inflation in the longer run, MMT is right that higher taxes are the simplest way to reduce demand and prevent a surge in prices.

James Mackintosh

By: James Mackintosh / Senior columnist, markets, The Wall Street Journal

Source: Modern Monetary Theory Isn’t the Future. It’s Here Now. – WSJ

.
More Contents:

Stock Futures Point to Losses for Tech Shares

U.S. stock futures ticked lower, with big technology stocks on track to lead losses after the opening bell.S&P 500 futures declined 0.5%, Dow Jones Industrial Average futures slipped 0.2% and Nasdaq-100 futures fell 0.8%. The contracts don’t necessarily predict movements after the opening bell.

In Europe, the Stoxx Europe 600 fell 0.4% in morning trade. Consumer staples and healthcare sectors notched the biggest losses while industrials and energy sectors rose.

Anheuser-Busch InBev slipped 2.7% snapping a run of gains of more than a week and Smith & Nephew declined 3.8%.

The U.K.’s FTSE 100 lost 0.4%. Other stock indexes in Europe also mostly fell as France’s CAC 40 was lower 0.2%, the U.K.’s FTSE 250 shed 0.3% and Germany’s DAX was down 0.4%.

The Swiss franc gained 0.1% against the U.S. dollar, with 1 franc buying $1.10. The euro depreciated 0.1% against the dollar, with 1 euro buying $1.17. The British pound was flat against the U.S. dollar, with 1 pound buying $1.38.

In commodities, international benchmark Brent crude strengthened 0.4% to $84.00 a barrel. Gold slipped 0.3% to $1,797.90 a troy ounce.

German 10-year bond yields were up to minus 0.105% and the yield on 10-year U.K. government debt known as gilts was up to 1.040%. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield gained to 1.606% from 1.568%. Yields move inversely to prices.

In Asia, indexes were mixed as Japan’s Nikkei 225 index climbed 0.3% after falling as much as 1.2% during the session and China’s benchmark Shanghai Composite rose 0.8%, whereas Hong Kong’s Hang Seng declined 0.7%.

Source: Stock Futures Point to Losses for Tech Shares – WSJ

.

Related Contents:

Economy Week Ahead: Inflation, Jobless Claims, Retail Sales

The outlook for the global economy darkened as a stream of data from Europe and Asia suggested growth faltered in the third quarter, hobbled by world-wide supply-chain snarls, sharply accelerating inflation and the impact of the highly contagious Delta variant.

U.S. inflation accelerated last month and remained at its highest rate in over a decade, with price increases from pandemic-related labor and materials shortages rippling through the economy from a year earlier.

The Labor Department said last month’s consumer-price index, which measures what consumers pay for goods and services, rose by 5.4%

The gap between yields on shorter- and longer-term Treasury’s narrowed Wednesday after data showed inflation accelerated slightly in September, fueled by investors’ bets that the Federal Reserve may need to tighten monetary policy sooner than expected. Measures of inflation in China and the U.S. highlight this week’s economic data.

China’s exports, long a growth engine for the country’s economy, are expected to increase 21% from a year earlier in September, according to economists polled by The Wall Street Journal. That is down from a 25.6% gain in August. Meanwhile, inbound shipments are forecast to rise 19.1% from a year earlier, retreating from the 33.1% jump in August.

The International Monetary Fund releases its World Economic Outlook report during annual meetings. The latest forecasts are likely to underscore the relatively quick economic rebound of advanced economies alongside a slower recovery in developing nations with less access to Covid-19 vaccines.

China’s factory-gate prices for September are expected to surge 10.4% from a year earlier, a pace that would surpass its previous peak in 2008, according to economists polled by The Wall Street Journal. Higher commodity costs have led to the rise in producer prices this year, but so far that hasn’t fed through to consumer inflation. Economists forecast the consumer-price index rose only 0.7% from a year earlier in September.

September’s U.S. consumer-price index is expected to show inflation remained elevated as companies passed along higher costs for materials and labor. Rising energy prices likely contributed to the headline CPI, while core prices, which exclude food and energy, might start to reflect climbing shelter costs.

The Federal Reserve releases minutes from its September meeting, potentially offering additional insight on plans to start reducing pandemic-related stimulus.

U.S. jobless claims are forecast to fall for the second consecutive week as employers hold on to workers in a tight labor market. The data on claims, a proxy for layoffs, will cover the week ended Oct. 9.

U.S. retail sales are expected to fall in September. U.S. consumers appear to be in decent financial shape, but Covid-related caution, rising prices and widespread supply-chain disruptions are tamping down purchases. The auto industry has been especially hard hit by a semiconductor shortage—separate data released earlier this month show U.S. vehicle sales in September fell to their lowest level since early in the pandemic.

By: WSJ staff

Source: Economy Week Ahead: Inflation, Jobless Claims, Retail Sales – TechiLive.in

.

Related Contents:

%d bloggers like this: