'Against humanity'

The North's latest launches come as South Korea is in a period of national mourning after more than 150 people – mostly young women in their 20s – were killed in a crowd crush in Seoul on Saturday. (Le Monde)

Editor's Pick:

What if Every Moment Since Jan. 6 Was Just the Calm Before the Storm?

November 3, 2022

Richard Ringer, a 69-year-old Democratic state House candidate in Pennsylvania, is an early riser, and on Monday he was up before 5 a.m. when he heard someone at his garage door. He looked out the window, saw a man with a flashlight, and assumed it was the same person who had twice vandalized his house in the past month.

Just a couple of weeks earlier, Ringer says, he found a message spray-painted on his garage door; though the rain partly rinsed it off, the words “Your Race” and “Dead” were visible. Then, last Thursday night, he says he came home to a brick thrown through his window.

So when Ringer saw the intruder on Monday, he says, he ran outside and tackled him. But the man was quickly able to pin Ringer down, and beat him unconscious. Ringer doesn’t know for certain that the violence was political — the police are investigating — but given the graffiti, and the fact that his neighborhood in Fayette County, in southwestern Pennsylvania, is usually quiet and safe, he suspects it was. “I’m not really surprised that this is happening locally, and is happening to me, just because of what has been going on and the enthusiasm for Trump around here,” he told me.

Ringer’s assault made the local news, but hasn’t been much of a story nationally. Perhaps that’s because it’s just a small detail in a growing tapestry of menace. All over this febrile country, intimations of mayhem are gathering. Vigilantes in Arizona, some armed and wearing tactical gear, have harassed and intimidated voters at the sites of ballot drop boxes, cheered on by Mark Finchem, the Republican candidate for secretary of state. In Nevada, where a millionaire far-right Republican official named Robert Beadles has systemically targeted election workers, Reuters reported that the top election officials in 10 of the state’s 17 counties have resigned, retired or declined to run again.

And, most notably, a MAGA fanatic named David DePape broke into Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home and assaulted her 82-year-old husband with a hammer, leaving him unconscious in a pool of his own blood. More shocking than the attack itself has been the response to it from the Trumpist wing of the Republican Party. Some officials spread lurid lies that Pelosi was attacked by a gay lover. Others jeered about it. “Nancy Pelosi, well, she’s got protection when she’s in D.C. — apparently her house doesn’t have a lot of protection,” Kari Lake, Arizona’s Republican candidate for governor, said to laughter at a campaign event. Donald Trump Jr.

It’s hard to feel sanguine about a society whose political class cannot muster the solidarity to universally condemn the terroristic bludgeoning of an old man. It’s why Joe Biden’s speech on Wednesday night, in which he spoke about the attack on Pelosi and the role that Trump’s big lie is playing in the midterms, was at once so necessary and so unpromising. He was trying to appeal to a patriotic consensus about democracy that simply no longer exists.

“Disunion and chaos are not inevitable,” said Biden, standing at a podium in Union Station. “There’s been anger before in America. There’s been division before in America. But we’ve never given up on the American experiment. And we can’t do that now.”

Biden wasn’t warning that America might spiral into either autocracy or low-level civil war. He was trying to offer hope that it might not. The very fact that he had to insist there’s an alternative to disunion and chaos is a sign of how bad things have gotten.

Political violence is not exclusively perpetrated by conservatives. The recent beating in Florida of a Marco Rubio canvasser — a man who turned out to have ties to white supremacists — appears to have been motivated by anti-Republican animus. But, as my colleagues on the editorial board wrote on Thursday, the right is far more violent than the left, and Republicans wink at assaults committed by extremists in a way that Democrats do not.

The message of all the chuckling about Paul Pelosi is clear: The right believes its enemies have no rights, and no longer sees the need to pretend otherwise. Donald Trump taught the Republican Party that it needn’t bother with hypocritical displays of decency, that it can revel in cruelty, transgression and the thrill of violence. Now it’s taking that lesson into the first post-Jan. 6 election. The tense calm of the last 20 months has often felt like being in the eye of a hurricane. Now the terrible weather is coming back.

In a widely cited essay, the centrist pundit Josh Barro criticized Biden’s speech because it implied that voters concerned about democracy must vote for Democrats whatever their policy preferences. “The message is that there is only one party contesting this election that is committed to democracy — the Democrats — and therefore only one real choice available,” he wrote, adding, “This amounts to telling voters that they have already lost their democracy.” I find this argument bizarre. It is simply a fact that only one party tried to overturn the 2020 election, and only one party is trying to insulate itself from the will of voters in future elections. As the Wisconsin Republican candidate Tim Michels put it recently, “Republicans will never lose another election in Wisconsin after I’m elected governor.”

It may be that Biden’s efforts to alert the country about what’s coming are doomed. In a recent CBS poll, 56 percent of likely voters said they believe that if Republicans win in the midterms, they will try to overturn Democratic election victories. The same poll showed that, if the election were held today, 47 percent plan to vote for Republicans, and only 45 percent for Democrats. Those who prioritize the preservation of democracy in America are probably already Democratic voters. Still, Biden had an obligation to try to focus our attention on a mounting threat.

Though Republicans are likely to do well on Tuesday, many elections will probably remain unsettled. Leigh Chapman, Pennsylvania’s acting secretary of state, wrote that because of a state law prohibiting the counting of mail-in ballots before Election Day, results there will probably take several days. Nevada will also take several days after the election to count mail-in ballots. Some Republicans, including Lake and Finchem, won’t commit to accepting the result if they lose. We can expect others to sow doubt about the process if they start falling behind as mail-in votes come in.

As the Democratic strategist Michael Podhorzer put it, “When it comes to the postelection crisis, 2020 was like the beginning of ‘The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,’ and 2022 will be more like the part where the walking mops multiply out of control.” We should be ready for what could soon be unleashed.

The post What if Every Moment Since Jan. 6 Was Just the Calm Before the Storm? appeared first on New York Times.

You can share an article by clicking on the share icons at the top right of it.
The total or partial reproduction of an article, without the prior written authorization of Le Monde, is strictly forbidden.
For more information, see our Terms and Conditions.
For all authorization requests, contact droitsdauteur@lemonde.fr.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/11/04/south-korea-scrambles-jets-after-detecting-180-north-korean-warplanes_6002933_4.html

South Korea scrambles jets after detecting 180 North Korean warplanes

The North Korean aircraft flew north of the military border, South Korea's military said in a statement.

Le Monde with AFP

Published on November 4, 2022 at 08h39

A South Korean Air Force F-35A fighter jet during a US-South Korea joint aerial drill called "Vigilant Storm" at Gunsan Air Base in Gunsan, October 31, 2022/ HANDOUT / AFP

South Korea's military scrambled stealth jets on Friday, November 4, after detecting the mobilization of 180 North Korean warplanes, Seoul said as it conducted large-scale joint air drills with the United States which have infuriated Pyongyang.

North Korea has launched a record-breaking blitz of missile launches this week, including a failed intercontinental ballistic missile test on Thursday. Seoul and Washington extended their largest-ever joint air drills through Saturday in response to the North's flurry of projectiles.

"Our military detected around 180 North Korean warplanes" mobilized in Pyongyang's airspace, Seoul's Joint Chiefs of Staff said, adding that Seoul "scrambled 80 fighter jets including F-35As" while jets involved in the joint drills were also "maintaining readiness".

Shortly after South Korea announced the decision to extend the joint drills on Thursday, Pyongyang launched three more short-range ballistic missiles, calling the move "a very dangerous and wrong choice". Hours later, the North fired 80 artillery rounds that landed in a maritime "buffer zone", Seoul's military said.

The barrage was a "clear violation" of the 2018 agreement that established the buffer zone in a bid to reduce tensions between the two sides, Seoul's Joints Chiefs of Staff said.

Read more North Korea continues missile barrage, triggers evacuation warning in Japan

The artillery fire came after Pyongyang fired about 30 missiles Wednesday and Thursday, including an intercontinental ballistic missile and one that landed near South Korea's territorial waters for the first time since the end of the Korean War in 1953.

US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin described Pyongyang's ICBM launch as "illegal and destabilizing," and Seoul and Washington vowed to pursue new measures to demonstrate their "determination and capabilities" against the North's growing threats.

Experts and officials have said Pyongyang is ramping up its tests in protest over the US-South Korean drills. Washington and Seoul have repeatedly warned that Pyongyang's recent launches could be a precursor to a nuclear test, which would be its seventh.

Pyongyang has called the joint air drills, dubbed Vigilant Storm, "an aggressive and provocative military drill targeting" North Korea, and threatened that Washington and Seoul would "pay the most horrible price in history" if it continued.

'Against humanity'

The North's latest launches come as South Korea is in a period of national mourning after more than 150 people – mostly young women in their 20s – were killed in a crowd crush in Seoul on Saturday.

Pyongyang's provocations, "especially during our national mourning period, are against humanity and humanitarianism", Lee Hyo-jung, a vice spokesperson at Seoul's unification ministry, said Friday.

"The government strongly condemns North Korea for continuing threats and provocations, citing our annual and defensive drills, raising tensions on the Korean peninsula," she said, blaming the current tension on Pyongyang's "reckless nuclear and missile development".

Read more North Korea fires at least 23 missiles, one crosses maritime border with South for first time We are interested in your experience using the site. Send feedback

In addition to extending Vigilant Storm through Saturday, Seoul's military announced that the annual Taegeuk exercise – which focuses on "improving wartime transition performance" and crisis management – would be held next week.

The computer-simulated exercise will be carried out to strengthen "the ability to carry out practical mission capability in preparation for various threats such as North Korea's nuclear weapons, missiles, and recent provocations", it said.

Le Monde with AFP

The 1973 Oil Shock - What if anything did we learn?

Jean-Marie Questiaux

Consultant

The growing demand for oil in the past 100 years is a reflection of the world’s growing economy coupled to an exponential growth in its population. Of course, the demand for a commodity like oil is one thing, its supply and price is another. Yet its supply and price have a direct repercussion on the world’s economies, inflation, food prices and ultimately on social stability, which can range from peaceful street demonstrations to all out regional wars.

Amazingly, oil prices were incredibly stable in the period 1880 to 1973 (Figure 1), even showing a general decrease with time (in real terms). This probably because oil was so plentiful with discoveries far outweighing production until 1981 (Figure 2) that is when the trend reversed.

The world enjoyed low and stable prices that major world events such as the crash of 1929 and two world wars barely made a ripple on the oil price (Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Historical oil prices 1881 to 2017. Price normalised to constant 2017 US$

Figure 2 – Oil Discoveries versus Oil Production

All this changed in October 1973 when the Yum Kippur war broke out between Egypt and Israel. A short but fierce and bitter conflict which ended with a truce 3 weeks after the start of hostilities. Frustrated and angered by the support shown to Israel by the US and most western countries, the Middle Eastern countries holding the largest oil reserves and making up the bulk of OPEC member countries, slapped an oil embargo on the countries allied to Israel.

OPEC production was reduced by 25% from 5th November and further to 30% by 9th December 1973. Not surprisingly the oil price rocketed, quadrupling from $3 to $12/bbl ($17 to $61/bbl in 2017 US$). The period of low, stable and predictable oil prices had come to an abrupt end. Nothing but “oil” hardship and pain seemed to lay ahead from that date.

OPEC’s action was immediately and vociferously condemned by western governments describing it as blackmail and was depicted as nothing short of extorsion by a very hostile western press.

As brutal as the embargo was, OPEC’s behaviour and immediate actions thereafter deserve far more praise than the criticism it continues to attract to this day. Firstly, to the credit of OPEC, the embargo was extremely short lived, ending after 5 months in March 1974. The harm was limited and short-term, which for those who remember was queues at gas stations, reduced speed limits, no driving on Sundays and other fuel saving rules enforced in those 5 months. However, with the benefit of hindsight, the embargo's repercussions were significant and turned out in the longer term to be far more beneficial than harmful. It acted as a wakeup call to the world (consumer countries mainly) reminding them of the strategic importance of a reliable low cost energy supply to maintain healthy economic growth, while making all aware for the first time that the era of limitless oil was coming to an end.

The balance between access to cheap and plentiful energy (oil mainly) and its price is of enormous importance to the world and should not be left solely to the market forces of supply and demand to control it as many believe. Oil prices must be set such that producing countries can generate their fair share of revenue, that oil companies can likewise make a fair profit on finding and producing the stuff, while oil should be sufficiently affordable to the world's factories to keep industry and the economy rolling and healthy. This is a noble objective, but a diabolically difficult act to balance, especially in a global economy where the needs of the producing and consuming countries vary widely between them as does the production costs of oil.

What good came out of the 1973 Oil shock?

1.     An understanding that a fair price for oil, would sustain world industrial activity and its economic wellbeing. In other words, a win-win situation of a continued well-oiled industrial machine, in return for a fair, steady and continued income from oil.

2.     The higher oil price triggered by the 1973 oil shock spurred countries to seek greater energy independence which in turn launched successful exploration and production in non-OPEC countries

3.     World production was 55 MMstb/d in 1973 and reached 100 MMstb/d in 2018, with demand growing at ~1.7%/year. Covid-19 has reduced this to 95MMstb/d for 2020 which frankly is not much. Without the spur for additional production brought on by the 1973 oil shock, the present demand could probably never have been met today, and the world would likely be in much greater turmoil now as a result.

4.     The realisation that discoveries would soon be overtaken by production and that peak oil was on the horizon

5.     This growth in production has maintained low oil prices since to the benefit and delight of industry and consumers alike

What did OPEC learn and gain from the 1973 Oil shock?

Although the growth in non-OPEC production did cause OPEC to lose some of its clout and power on the energy market, there were major gains and benefits too:

1.     First realisation that voluntary production cuts can have a very dramatic impact on oil prices. Demonstration that a 25% cut in production could quadruple oil prices overnight. Even if, it must be said, the quadrupling a small number remains a small number.

2.     Realisation that volatility in supply and price leads to economic chaos, damaging to all parties (consumers & producers). A lose-lose scenario. Probably explains why the embargo was short-lived

3.     Realisation that oil prices in 1973 were ridiculously low. The (sharp) adjustment was necessary, long overdue, and hugely beneficial to the oil producing countries, with minimal damage to consuming countries

4.     Gained greater control over its oil and its production.

For example, and as incredible as it sounds, 1973 marked the first year in which an agreement between a producing country and a producer (foreign oil company) was more beneficial to the oil producing country than to the oil company.

It was Colonel Muammar Gaddafi who demanded in a renewal of a production agreement with Occidental Oil, that the production ratio of 40:60 to the benefit of Oxy be reversed to the benefit of the state of Libya, something Armand Hammer (CEO at Oxy at the time) readily signed to.

No one today would argue that producing countries (OPEC or non-OPEC) should be the greatest beneficiary of their oil.

5.    The imbalance in favour of new discoveries versus produced oil was rapidly coming to an end.

Production overtook discoveries in 1981 and the gap has widened ever since (Figure 2)

6.     Maintaining world economies in good health comes from affordable energy prices and requires establishing a fair price to make it a win-win situation

What did the world learn and gain from the 1973 Oil shock?

1.     That a fair price for oil is necessary for the benefit of producing and consuming countries

2.     There is for now plenty of oil and the 1973 oil shock is largely responsible for that. No so confident on the future but that is another debate

What now?

There is still much to do, especially in rectifying some of the imbalances which persist to this day

1.    Oil prices continue to show excessive volatility, unlike the era before 1973

2.    OPEC producers are constantly solicited and Saudi Arabia in particular, to cut back production when oil prices are low and open the taps when prices and/or demand is high. Not sure what flexibility or capacity Saudi Arabia enjoys to do that

This is a very heavy burden to carry for OPEC and Saudi Arabia in particular, especially as there is very little reciprocity from non-OPEC producers, including the US or North Sea to do likewise

3.     Consuming countries impose variable but generally high duty/tax on refined petroleum products and could use these tariffs as levers to encourage or stifle demand which could have an equally important impact on oil prices, rather than expecting OPEC countries to carry the burden and responsibility to stabilise oil prices

Conclusions

1.     The 1973 oil shock was almost certainly far more beneficial than harmful in the long term

2.     OPEC should not be considered as a rival or competitor, but rather as a partner to ensure stability on the energy market

3.     There should be far greater research done to establish the range of what constitutes the fair value of oil as economic conditions and metrics change. This to ensure that both producing and consuming countries best benefit from oil production and in the most equitable manner

Verizon profit declines as pricier plans result in subscriber loss

PUBLISHED FRI, OCT 21 20221:02 PM EDT

SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email

KEY POINTS

• Verizon Communications Inc’s profit fell 23% and it added fewer-than-expected wireless subscribers in the third quarter.

• The largest U.S. wireless carrier said on Friday it lost 189,000 monthly bill-paying phone subscribers in its consumer business after it included additional charges in June.

• Shares fell 6% to their lowest in over a decade.

By Paul Sakuma

Verizon Communications Inc’s profit fell 23% and it added fewer-than-expected wireless subscribers in the third quarter as its raised prices drove some customers to cheaper plans from fast-growing rivals AT&T Inc and T-Mobile US Inc.

The largest U.S. wireless carrier said on Friday it lost 189,000 monthly bill-paying phone subscribers in its consumer business after it included additional charges in June, over and above its pricey plans.

Shares fell 6% to their lowest in over a decade as finance chief Matt Ellis said higher prices for plans led to disconnections and warned the pressure would continue into the next quarter.

Competition in the U.S. telecoms markets is heating up after Verizon and AT&T offloaded their media businesses and T-Mobile completed its merger with Sprint Corp to become wireless-focused companies.

While higher spending on 5G infrastructure has jacked up costs, the companies are forced to keep their plans affordable as rising inflation hammers consumer spending.

Verizon, whose plans are the most expensive, added 8,000 net new monthly bill paying wireless phone subscribers in the quarter, well below Factset estimates of 35,400 additions.

Some analysts feared competition is catching up, while many said its high price must been seen as its strength.

“The thing people forget is the biggest company in the industry, they have the most customers to lose each quarter,” Michael Hodel, director of telecom and media research at Morningstar said.

Its net subscriber addition was powered by an increase in its business segment, which added 197,000 customers.

“Verizon’s ability to maintain pricing power is a key strength as it navigates a fairly saturated wireless market,” Jamie Lumley, Third Bridge analyst said.

While its third-quarter revenue and profit beat Refinitiv estimates, subcriber loss remains an overhang as analysts said iPhone upgrades in the holiday season are expected to be weaker.

Net income fell to $5 billion, prompting Verizon to announce a plan to reduce annual costs of between $2 billion and $3 billion by 2025.