• Did Trump Just Solve The Border Crisis: Mexican President "Agreed To Stop Migration Through Mexico" Trump Claims
  Did Trump Just Solve The Border Crisis: Mexican President “Agreed To Stop Migration Through Mexico” Trump Claims

  Did Trump solve the border crisis two months before even being sworn in as the 47th president?

  Two days after surprising markets – and sending the peso plummeting – by announcing he would enact 25% import duties on Mexican goods if the country doesn’t stop the flow of drugs and migrants across the border.

  tariffs on Mexican goods in response to the flood of drugs across the porous southern border, best known for allowing millions of illegal immigrants to enter the US in the past four ears, Trump’s unexpected gambit may have already paid off.

  In a post on Truth Social network, Trump announced that after a “wonderful” conversation with Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum, she “agreed to stop Migration through Mexico, and into the United States, effectively closing our Southern Border.”

  

  He added that the two also talked about “what can be done to stop the massive drug inflow into the United States” concluding that it was a “very productive” conversation which of course, it would be, if indeed Trump – who again is still two months away from inauguration – managed to solve the US border crisis just 48 hours after using targeted tariffs as a bargaining chip.

  While it remains to be confirmed on the Mexican side if Trump’s recollection of the conversation is accurate, Trump’s announcement comes just hours after the legacy media reported that Mexico would take on a more aggressive posture, with the AP reporting that Sheinbaum had suggested that “Mexico could retaliate with tariffs of its own” and that while she was willing to engage in talks on the issues, drugs were a U.S. problem.

  “One tariff would be followed by another in response, and so on until we put at risk common businesses,” Sheinbaum said, referring to U.S. automakers that have plants on both sides of the border.

  She said Tuesday that Mexico had done a lot to stem the flow of migrants, noting “caravans of migrants no longer reach the border.” However, Mexico’s efforts to fight drugs like the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl – which is manufactured by Mexican cartels using chemicals imported from China – have weakened in the last year.

  Amusingly, Sheinbaum also said Mexico suffered from an influx of weapons smuggled in from the United States, and said the flow of drugs “is a problem of public health and consumption in your country’s society” which judging by the libs ongoing reaction to Trump’s victory is pretty much spot on.

  As noted, there is still no official confirmation or full context of the agreement from President Sheinbaum’s side, but the market certainly reacted with the peso surging, and almost wiping out all losses from the past 48 hours after Trump’s first unveiled his 25% tariff threat.

  

  If confirmed, this would be the second time Trump has managed to convince Mexico to suspend migrants from crossing its territory to enter the US. Back in 2018, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador – a charismatic, old-school politician – developed a chummy relationship with Trump. The two were eventually able to strike a bargain in which Mexico helped keep migrants away from the border – and received other countries’ deported migrants – and Trump backed down on similar threats.

  While Sheinbaum, who took office Oct. 1, has been seen as a stern leftist ideologue trained in radical student protest movements, and appeared less willing to pacify or mollify Trump, it seems she too has capitulated just 48 hours after Trump unveiled what was coming.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 23:17

• The Top States Where Americans Are Looking to Buy Homes Heading Into 2025
  The Top States Where Americans Are Looking to Buy Homes Heading Into 2025

  A new study has revealed where Americans are most likely to buy a home heading into the end of 2024. Highland Cabinetry conducted a comprehensive analysis of all 50 U.S. states to determine where homebuying is most preferred.

  The study utilized search data from Google’s Keyword Explorer Tool to gauge interest and incorporated additional factors such as home sale prices, mortgage rates, average rent, and home value changes over the past year. Data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau, Business Insider, Zillow, and others.

  A preference score was then assigned to each state, combining these metrics to create a comparative ranking.

  California emerges as the most sought-after state for homebuyers, boasting a preference score of 75.8. Despite its high average home sale price of $782,695, the Golden State saw the largest home value decrease at 2.8% over the past year. Coupled with over 5.6 million searches for terms like “buy a house,” this drop signals growing interest in the state as a potential investment opportunity. However, California remains the priciest state to rent, with average monthly rent at $1,870, presenting challenges for renters but opportunities for landlords.

  Texas and Ohio stand out for their affordability. Texas, with a preference score of 55.8, recorded nearly 4.8 million home-buying searches and offers one of the lowest average home sale prices at $303,352. Monthly rent in Texas is relatively low at $1,290, making it an attractive choice for both buyers and renters.

  Ohio, ranked eighth with a score of 51.1, is the cheapest state to rent, with an average monthly rent of $949. It also boasts the lowest home sale price among the top states at $221,816, combined with a 3.5% rise in home values, signaling strong investment potential.

  

  Florida, New York, and New Jersey round out the top states for homebuying interest. Florida’s reasonable home prices, averaging $396,318, and moderate rent costs of $1,525 earned it a score of 62.2, while New York secured second place despite its high mortgage rates and modest home value growth, according to Highland Cabinetry.

  New Jersey, with a significant 5.2% increase in home values and one of the lowest mortgage rates at 4.84%, remains a strong competitor, though its average home sale price of $508,430 places it in the mid-range.

  While California leads in overall interest, states like Texas and Ohio highlight the appeal of affordability. The findings suggest that prospective buyers balance various factors, including potential long-term value, cost of living, and market trends.

  A Highland Cabinetry spokesperson emphasized the importance of looking beyond upfront costs: “If you’re considering purchasing a home, look beyond just the price tag. While states with declining home values, like California, may seem attractive, remember to weigh other factors such as mortgage rates, average rent, and potential long-term value growth.”

  They concluded: “A state with a modest initial investment can become a hidden gem if its home value trends upward, offering a better return in the long run. Diversifying your search can help you spot opportunities that align with your financial goals and lifestyle needs.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 23:00

• A Single Point Of Failure
  A Single Point Of Failure

  Submitted by Ahmed Bin Sulayem, Kimberly Process Chair 2024

  The global diamond industry once again finds itself at a crossroads, and while the need to curb conflict diamonds and ensure ethical sourcing remains paramount, the European Union’s proposal for a single diamond control node in Antwerp raises serious concerns about sovereignty and efficiency, while undermining the integrity of the Kimberley Process (KP).

  In a statement issued by the Diplomatic Service of the European Union, my comments made during the KP Plenary meeting in my capacity as the KP Chair were described as “regrettable” and that the Kimberley Process had “failed, for a third year in a row, to address the implications of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine on the global rough diamond sector.”

  As an organization, the KP serves a very specific function – to unite administrations, civil societies, and industry in reducing the flow of conflict diamonds. It has no mandate to endorse political sanctions against sovereign nations. As a process that has proven its purpose and function, particularly by identifying all diamonds at source, the EU should first ask themselves why now they wish to displace an operation they have trusted for a generation with a less effective proposal that is untried, untested, and unrequired. It should also question why its position has isolated itself within the global diamond community, which increasingly sees its proposal as a play for hegemony over the holistic needs of the industry.  

  Contrary, the KP’s decentralized solution is overwhelmingly supported by industry members, KP observers, including the World Diamond Council, civil society, and numerous Belgian stakeholders, many of whom are afraid to speak out in fear of reprisal. As the Kimberley Process Chair, I have consistently voiced my concern about this centralized approach. Not only does it disrupt the established KP framework, a decentralized network of 59 nodes, (60 if you include recently onboarded Uzbekistan), that has functioned effectively for over two decades, but worse, undermines the trust and collaboration that has upheld the equitable participation and sovereignty of all member states.

  Conversely, the single-node model imposes a Eurocentric lens on the global diamond trade by placing disproportionate burdens on African producers, requiring them to channel their diamonds through Antwerp for verification before accessing G7 markets. This not only adds logistical and financial costs but also undermines the ability of African nations to self-regulate and manage their own natural resources. In other words, the EU’s agenda can only be seen to be self-serving as a way of preserving its relevance in an industry that overwhelmingly rejects supervision and bureaucracy in favour of decentralised collaboration.

  Frankly, it is disheartening to see that despite vocal opposition from African nations, including Botswana, Namibia, and Angola, and the concerns raised by the African Diamond Producers Association (ADPA), Europe remains deaf and committed to its single-node concept, setting a troubling precedent reminiscent of its imperial past. Even in terms of practical efficiency, this centralised approach creates a single point of failure, making the system vulnerable to corruption, bottlenecks, and inefficiencies; vulnerabilities for which Antwerp already has a demonstrable track record.

  And what logic selects Antwerp? Not consensus. Not its track record.

  Belgium, and specifically Antwerp, was long considered the heart of the global diamond trade. However, this glittering reputation is tarnished by a history of corruption, smuggling, and ethical breaches. The Monstrey Case exposed a network of 220 corrupt diamond dealers, of which 107 were charged for large-scale forgery, including fraudulent Kimberley Process certificates and money laundering. Other notable cases include Agim De Bruycker – the long-standing Antwerp Federal Police Commissioner and Head of the Diamond Squad, who was arrested twice and served a custodial sentence for similar charges.

  If one were to choose some paradigm of efficiency, Antwerp is hardly a strong candidate, leading to the conclusion that the choice was made at a geopolitical level for the benefit of the few. This isn’t to say that any location is perfect. Any single location is, by its nature the wrong choice. The argument for a decentralized system based on transparency, versus blindly trusting the EU for certification, is just common sense. Even when taking a step back from the diamond industry specifically, the current global political climate, with its shift towards nationalism and self-determination, further underscores the need for a decentralized approach. As former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi aptly stated, the future of competitiveness lies in embracing decentralization and empowering individual nations.

  Throughout its twenty-four-year history, the KP has proven its effectiveness in curbing conflict diamonds and promoting ethical sourcing, while its tried and tested processes have the capacity to adapt and improve, ensuring that all nations have the right to self-regulate their natural resources. Additionally, the UAE’s proof-of-concept KP certification platform, which was showcased at the KP Plenary in Dubai, is a testament to the potential for innovation within the existing framework. It demonstrates that technology can be leveraged to enhance transparency and traceability without compromising sovereignty or imposing undue financial and logistical burdens. In this, I look forward to working with the KP family to build a future where all stakeholders, particularly Africa’s producing nations, continue to have a voice and benefit equitably from their natural resources.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 22:30

• Thanksgiving Dinner Will Be 19% More Expensive This Year Than Before Biden Was Elected
  Thanksgiving Dinner Will Be 19% More Expensive This Year Than Before Biden Was Elected

  Each year the American Farm Bureau Federation releases a price survey of classic items found on the Thanksgiving dinner table. This year, the average cost of feasting stands at $54.33, which is less than last year but still constitutes a $8.64 increase from before the pandemic.

  The most expensive item by far is the turkey, which this year costs an average of $25.67 and is an increase of $4.87 from pre-pandemic levels. While most ingredients have increased somewhat, sweet potatoes, fresh cranberries and whipping cream have dropped in value.

  2024 marks the second consecutive year that the average price of a Thanksgiving dinner in the United States has decreased.

  However, as Statista’s Anna Feck reports, this does not erase the increases seen between 2020 and 2022, when the meal rose from an average of $46.90 to $64.05 thanks to the impacts of inflation on food prices and farmers’ costs.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  The AFBF discovered regional differences in the average cost of a Thanksgiving meal, with the most affordable prices found in the South at $56.81 and the most expensive in the West at $67.05.

  The shopping list of the survey includes all ingredients and foods in quantities sufficient to serve a family of 10 (though quite frankly we question the serving sizes that implies). Volunteers checked prices in grocery stores in all 50 states and Puerto Rico for the Farm Bureau.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 22:00

• Financialization & Missed Boats: When Mythology Papers Over Reality
  Financialization & Missed Boats: When Mythology Papers Over Reality

  Authored by David Bahnsen via The American Institute for Economic Research,

  Executive Summary

  Despite its ubiquitous use in modern America, the term ‘financialization’ is deeply misunderstood. Evidence shows the concept’s meaning often changes in different contexts. In some instances it serves as a relatively benign catch-all term for anything construed as a “greater role for the financial sector in the economy.” Others have described financialization as a “mismatch between the public interest and Wall Street interest.” In some instances, it is misunderstood as the simple pursuit of profit. 

  As the term ‘financialization’ has gotten more mileage in recent years, critics have seized on the ambiguity of the word to wage class warfare and attack capital markets, which are little understood. Among the most heavily criticized institutions and actions in the financial sector are the following: hedge funds, private equity, high-frequency trading, stock buybacks, dividends, and banks.

  Key Points

  This paper explores how the term ‘financialization’ has been employed – and explains why it should not be confused with mere financial sector activity—and demonstrates how its critics have done the following:

  • Inadequately defined the term
  • Used a critique of the financial sector to disguise rank-class envy
  • Failed to understand the nature of markets and the primacy of resource allocation
  • Demonized instruments of financial markets that have been overwhelming positives for economic growth
  • Proposed policy initiatives that would unilaterally do more harm than good
  • Failed to see the most egregious actors in that which distresses them: excessive government debt and excessive monetary policy

  Introduction

  The term ‘financialization’ has received significant attention in recent years and is seeing far greater use in the vernacular of policymakers and thought leaders. The term is used in different ways by different parties, and a plethora of agendas exist behind these discussions. What’s clear is that there is growing interest in the role of financial markets in the broader economy.

  While a treatment of financialization that embraces nuance is difficult in our time, no treatment will be coherent without nuance. The different uses, agendas, and contexts matter, and using vocabulary to poison a well is easy to do in this discussion, and also counterproductive. This essay explores the underlying concerns behind financialization, and seeks to more accurately describe what market forces do while addressing misconceptions about ‘financialization’ and free markets.

  Conscious effort is required to avoid the laziness embedded in the label to paper over a class warfare argument. At the same time, advocates of robust capital markets concede that financial activities exist that offer limited productive value. In other words, it is entirely possible (and, indeed, will be the position of this paper) that what is often referred to as ‘financialization’ is no such thing at all, and is rather a misguided attack on all capital markets. And yet, it is also entirely possible (and the thesis of this essay) that a consortium of policies has facilitated what can be called financialization, and these policies should be rebuffed as contrary to the aim of a productive economy which facilitates maximum opportunity for flourishing.

  In this nuance, we find the tragic irony of this contemporary debate. A growing movement, increasingly bipartisan, hostile to various activities in financial markets, has identified the wrong targets for critique. In so doing they not only have demonized healthy and vital components of an innovative economy but have missed the culprits who do warrant our attention. The reasons for this misidentification of cause and effect vary from a weak understanding of financial market reality to more severe ideologically driven errors. When the critics of financialization show a weak understanding of the problems they seek to solve, their proposed solution can only be flawed, incomplete, and misguided. Activities pejoratively referred to as financialization that are healthy and useful need to be defended. Likewise, activities, policies, and incentives that pollute the engines of a healthy economy need to be criticized. In short, a lot is on the line in this contemporary discussion.

  The first section of this paper seeks to define what financialization is and what it is not. Upon establishment of a clear definition, analysis is needed to determine what is negative and what is positive. Once defined, an objective assessment of the causation of this phenomenon is in order.

  After clarifying what financialization is, it will be useful to note the dangers of class warfare in the debate. This essay strives for an intellectually honest critique of any economic development or policy disposition that is weighing on the cultivation of prosperity. It does not seek to exploit or incite class envy. Nor does it seek to utilize demonization as a substitute for argument.

  Critics of financialization, or at least those prone to using the term, have concerns about economic productivity and how resources are currently allocated. A basic refresher in how markets work and how resources are most efficiently allocated will be a useful foundation for this study.

  In a similar vein to how class warfare underlies many misguided attacks on financial markets, a vigorous defense of profits is paramount to this discussion. Financial activity that hurts the common good is fair game for our scrutiny; an activity that is criticized merely because of its profitability is not. This essay will explore why corporate profits are vital in a prosperous society.

  There exists a lengthy list of expected targets of criticism, even beyond the abstract and poorly defined “Wall Street.” Specific vehicles, institutions, and activities such as private equity, hedge funds, high-frequency trading, both commercial and investment banking, the payment of dividends, the buyback of corporate stock, and passive ownership of public equity all receive the ire of today’s market critics. In each case, their concerns ring hollow, incomplete, or woefully inaccurate.

  An abundance of policy solutions now circulate seeking to remedy various conditions described herein. Eliminating bad solutions and embracing good solutions, all the while considering expected trade-offs, must be our aim. Unfortunately, many proposed remedies must be considered worse than the disease, and for this reason, also deserve our attention.

  Likewise, it behooves us to consider the positive innovations in financial markets, fruits of a market economy and society ordered in liberty, that have demonstrably improved conditions for prosperity and flourishing. It does critics of finance no good to analyze that which is prima facie problematic without also looking at the clear positive results that robust financial markets have made possible.

  And finally, we must look at that which is truly responsible for downward pressure on economic growth and productivity. Critics of financial markets so often reach over dollar bills to pick up pennies, concerning themselves with benign activities that present nothing more than a cosmetic concern, while ignoring the substantial and measurable negative impact of excessive government indebtedness, an obese regulatory state, an inefficient tax system, and most ignored of all, monetary policy that substantially misallocates resources.

  Re-orienting our understanding of this subject will promote a cogent direction in economic policy and better move us towards the proper aim of financial markets—human flourishing.

  What ‘financialization’ is, and isn’t

  ‘Financialization’ can mean different things in different contexts, but it generally carries negative overtones. The definition matters because, for some (including the author), there is a ‘financialization’ phenomenon that warrants significant criticism. But upon closer scrutiny, the actions most often described as ‘financialization’ warrant no such criticism. A coherent definition also allows for precision in what is being scrutinized and criticized, while failure to define the term properly risks generating an inadequate critique of what should be criticized, and a wrongheaded critique of that which should not.

  There is an abstract but fair context in which financialization is a catch-all term for a “greater role for the financial sector in the economy.” At that level, it is a reasonably benign description and does not necessarily indicate any malignant effects on the economy as a whole or specific economic sectors. Here ‘financialization’ simply describes a scenario whereby capital markets activity becomes more prominent.

  Other conceptions of financializations, however, are explicit in their condemnation of the manner in which financial markets re-allocate capital in ways that increase profits to owners of capital but without paying heed to what such critics’ conceptions of social justice or equality. An example of this is an American Affairs article that views financial actors as tools of “market worship” which, its author claims, undermines a just and responsible society.

  A more particular definition of financialization might incorporate the influence or power of financial markets in overall economic administration. If we referred to the ‘technologization’ of society we would more likely be referring to a greater use of technology than increased power for technology elites, but it seems fair to allow for the inclusion of both—some increase of use and some increase of power.

  Regardless, however, of what sector of the economy is having a new noun made out of its description, greater use of that sector is not self-evidently problematic. It may even be an obvious improvement (“medical sophistication”). Indeed, one could argue that influence or power is expected when greater utility is found in a particular segment of the economy. Whether it be consumer appetites or just general product novelty, the influence of various segments of the economy ebb and flow quite organically around their use, relevance, and capability. A generic increase in the use of financial services and accompanying influence lacks the specificity necessary to identify it as problematic.

  As the term ‘financialization’ has gotten more mileage in recent years, those concerned with its allegedly malignant impact have taken advantage of the ambiguity, complexity, and mystery of capital markets (real or perceived) and present them as a malignant force. In this sense, class envy is a more likely description for much of what is described as financialization. It is therefore incumbent upon us to break down the ambiguity of where financial sector activity might be putting downward pressure on productivity, and where the term is being used only for its well-poisoning virtues.

  Because financialization involves some basis for warranted criticism, mere financial sector activity is not the same as financialization. Likewise, increasing financial sector profits should not be considered the same as financialization. Critics are fair (prima facie) to suggest that if such profits come at the expense of other sectors, and at the price of total economic growth, then there may be a problem. However, the mere accumulation of financial sector profits is not financialization unless, in a zero-sum sense, such profits result from a decline in total profits and productivity. This will be a tough burden to overcome.

  Is financialization the same thing as securitization, i.e., manufacturing financial products (securities) around other aspects of economic activity and streams of cash flow? Does the economy suffer when more components of economic life are securitized, meaning, capitalized, traded, valued, priced, and institutionally owned and monitored? Does securitization distract from organic economic activity, product innovation, and customer service? Or does it facilitate more of the above, mitigate risk, and enhance price discovery? Does securitization invite profits into the financial sector, while benefiting the public good by opening new markets for healthy activities (i.e. auto loans, inventory receivables, debtor financing, and more)? Is a critic of financialization willing to say that securitization enhances economic opportunity and activity, but still must be viewed skeptically because of the enhanced profits it produces for the financial sector?

  Some have said that financialization produces a “mismatch between the public interest and Wall Street interest.” This may be getting closer, if we believe that scenarios exist where the production of goods and services that make people’s lives better are contrary to the wishes of Wall Street (i.e. our nation’s financial markets). Do those who invest, steward, trade, and custody capital do better when that capital is put to work for the public or against the public? It would be a high burden of proof to suggest that the financial sector at large (distinct from an individual actor) has interests disconnected from the broad economy.

  The above listed distinctions and clarifications should make critics of Wall Street be more careful in framing their critiques of the financial sector. Confusing the financial services sector by giving the public exactly what it wants for working against public interest is a profound mistake. Close analysis of this dynamic reveals that what Wall Street is often being criticized for is not working against the public interest, but rather giving the public exactly what it wants too liberally. From subprime mortgages to exotic investments, many products and services may prove to be bad ideas, but they can hardly be called things that “Wall Street” distributed to “Main Street” against the latter’s will.

  Nor should financialization’s problems be confused with the mere pursuit of profit. To the extent that critics of the profit motive exist, their philosophical objections are hardly limited to the financial sector. The productive pursuit of profits in a market economy is a good thing, and this judgment does not exclude the financial sector. The profit motive is not a problem in ‘financialized’ or in ‘non-financialized’ enterprises. Economic activity intermediated by financial instruments does not suddenly take on a different character. Rather, the problem is where more productive activities are substituted for less productive activities. If the production of goods and services towards the meeting of human needs is replaced by non-productive ‘financializing’, a problem exists that requires attention.

  As we shall see, such ‘financialization’ does, indeed, exist. However, the culprits behind such are never the ones targeted by financialization’s loudest critics[1].

  Class warfare by any other name

  Associating Wall Street with greed and callous disregard for the public is not new. While Hollywood portrayals of Wall Street in the 1980s and 1990s focused more on hedonism and a general profligate culture, there has been a multi-decade distrust of “money changers” and various representatives of the financial markets of America. “Wall Street” has the disadvantage of being nebulous. It has not been known in a geographical context for a century, and its linguistic shorthand for capital markets is ill-defined and understood. What it is, though, is an easy target of the envious. It suffers from the lethal combination of being affiliated with riches and success, while at the same time lacking a clear definition. This tandem allows for an all-out class warfare on the very concept of Wall Street without any need for nuance or specificity.

  Greed, arrogance, corruption, and disregard for the common good ought to be repudiated regardless of the industry in which they occur. These character components are common traits in fallen mankind, not unique to the financial sector. The particular disdain felt for Wall Street is really class envy that receives intellectual and moral cover from the widespread impoverished understanding of what our financial markets and the actors within them do.

  We thus need a sober separation of the envy of wealth and success from a granular understanding of the work being done in any sector of the economy. A middle-class worker may believe a Hollywood A-list actor is grotesquely overpaid, or they may be jealous of the generous compensation that such an elite group of professionals enjoys, but demonizingall “acting” or “entertaining” makes no sense. Reasonable people can hold different subjective opinions about the talent of a given celebrity, but analyzing their theatrical or cinematic skills is hardly enhanced when buried underneath an intense jealousy of their compensation.

  The same dynamics unleashed by envy and lack of knowledge applies to Wall Street and particularly the scrutiny of financialization’s role in driving or hindering economic productivity. That such a dynamic is common should not allow it to stand. Our economy either has a problem with financial sector activity in itself hindering productivity, or it doesn’t. We either need policy reforms to limit the use, power, and influence of financial markets, or we do not. The reality of this discussion is that those components of the modern economy that have most distorted and hindered economic growth are not as easily demonized as Wall Street, because bad policy, bad ideas, and the folly of central planning do not fall into a class envy narrative. A vital ingredient in our task is correctly identifying that class warfare is part of the ‘financialization’ critique.

  Resource allocation and productivity

  Getting to the core of this issue becomes possible once we accept that financialization, properly understood, is the substitution of productive activity with non-productive activity.. Financial markets involve the intermediation of capital in facilitating transactions, but they do much more. When one speaks of financial markets taking from another part of the market, what does that mean? How can we identify when this is occurring? What should we do about it?

  Much of the problem comes down to not knowing what a market is.  If markets were created by the state, or imposed by a third party, one could argue that the financial sector is negatively impacting markets.  But a market is not imposed or created by the state or any other disinterested third party. A market is two people transacting. Embedded in market transactions are all sorts of realities about the human person.  Humans make choice and act individually.  They have subjective tastes and preferences, have reason, are fallible, have a high regard for self-preservation, and tend to pursue what they regard as their self-interest.

  Given that humans are also social beings, most market activities also involve some degree of social cooperation.  Our transactions with one another often take place in the context of a community.  Our transactions often involve access to goods and services for entire communities. Steve Jobs did not make the iPhone for his childhood friend; he made it to scale distribution globally. Some products are purposely more limited in scope and appeal. The complexity and inter-connectedness of markets cause us to forget that markets are actions of mutual self-interest between free people.

  When we hold to the fundamental basics of the market we are in a better place to consider where a financial sector may enhance the facilitation of our market objectives. Likewise, when we forget what a market is, we are more likely to be tempted by the allure of third-party actors to intervene, oversee, regulate, plan, and control the economic affairs of mankind. We forget that a market is grounded fundamentally on human actions at our peril.

  In the context of free men and free women making a market together, negotiating the terms of trade, commerce, use of labor, and other conditions of economic activity, we can see both individually and cooperatively where financial markets can be a powerful tool of facilitation. Currency facilitates divisibility in exchange at the simplest and historically earliest of levels. Trading a herd of cattle for water presented challenges; trading with a currency to allow for settling accounts without impossible barter exchange values changed the world. Currency rationalizes exchange and facilitates more of it.

  But it still must be said: the currency is not the end, but the means to the end. The financial instrument that facilitates the accumulation of water or cattle of whatever the goods or services may be is a mere tool. The resources being allocated, traded, pursued, exchanged, and acquired—enhances productivity and quality of life—are separate from the financial instrumentation. This intermediary functionality of money is a feature, not a bug. At the most basic of levels, it was the initial function of financial markets to drive resource allocation and free exchange.

  It would be disingenuous to assert that all we mean, today, by financial markets is its intermediary function in exchange. Currency remains a vital part of economic activity and for much of the same reasons it was thousands of years ago. While the discussion of the financial sector facilitation of resource allocation begins with currency and it evolves, the fundamental function does not. When capital is made available for projects, the goods and services underlying the capital are still paramount. The use of debt or equity to entice support of a project invites a risk-reward trade-off, and creates a new “market,” but it does so towards the aim of an underlying market. Will customers like this product, or not? Will this entrepreneur execute? Is this cost of capital appropriate for this endeavor? Financial markets represent the pursuit of a return on capital, and yet, the return that capital rationally pursues comes from an underlying good or service.

  Forgetting these points leads to economically ignorant conversations where you hear critics of financial markets suggest that we must stop talking about “cash flows” and “financial engineering,” and start focusing more on productive activity, customer satisfaction, and innovation. Where are “cash flows” from, if not the sales of goods and services? When financial activity is considered in the prospects of a business, or even for macroeconomic impact, it is all in the context of a “means to an end” – the instrumentation of finance to generate wealth-building activities. Financial resources (debt capital, equity capital, deposit funds, working capital, etc.) are evolved tools for driving resource allocation.

  Our capital markets have matured and fostered innovation because, like our culture, they embrace and help us calibrate risk-taking. Devoting a significant amount of financial resources to a risk-taking enterprise is inappropriate for a person of limited means with certain obligations and monthly cash flow needs, lacking the capital to absorb losses. But the great projects that enhance our quality of life represent the risk of failure. Bank depositor money has only a limited capacity for loss absorption; a widow’s retirement savings might have no capacity for loss absorption; but money pooled and targeted for equity investment contains the risk-reward character suitable for investment. That our financial markets have developed, further, into more complex structures for both debt and equity, as well as various securitized options, does not alter this basic fact: Money is a mere instrument in allocating resources.

  Have financial markets in the economy over the last five decades put downward pressure on capital expenditures, as we are often told? Quite the contrary, the empirical support is overwhelming that the evolution of capital markets enhanced capital expenditures over the last fifty years. The trendline was broken after the global financial crisis, but the upward trajectory of capital expenditures is indisputable.

  Likewise with “non-residential fixed investment,” the so-called business investment component of how Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is measured, we see a steady increase in tandem with financial markets evolution. A post-crisis interruption of trendline growth will be better explained shortly, but fundamentally business investment has stayed robust as financial markets have innovated, grown, and evolved.

  Perhaps an increased role of financial markets in the economy has not hurt capital expenditures or investment into new goods and services (i.e. R&D, factories, inventories, machinery, etc.), but has siphoned off profits from other sectors. Those making that specious claim carry the burden of proving it, but the empirical evidence is not up for debate. As the financial sector has become a modestly higher percentage of GDP, total national income has risen, making obsolete the fact that the financial sector’s portion of that income has risen, too.

  The claim that profits from trade and production have been replaced with profits from financial activity is incoherent at best and patently false at worst. Profits inside the financial sector are tangential to the underlying activity of resource allocation. The financial sector is certainly capable of incorrectly allocating resources. Inherent to risk capital is the possibility of loss. Do financial markets allocate capital, subject to the trade-offs of risk and reward, more resourcefully and efficiently thanthe alternatives?.

  What are those alternatives? One option is significantly limited access to capital markets, thereby limiting the instruments available for economic output. Another option is to meet capital needs with an expanded role for the state instead of using private capital. Again, the contest is between robust financial markets, declining financial markets, and greater governmental allocation of resources. These are the options on the table, and this is so because of what a market is. Markets allocate resources based on the decisions of people operating in their self-interest. Condemning financial markets for easing the operation of natural processes hampers economic growth and invites crony corruption.

  In defense of profits

  The topic of corporate profits is integral to discussions of financialization. Financial markets critics worry that profits have become problematic, and that ‘financialization’ is to blame. For our purposes, it is reasonable to ask if we are concerned with how profits are generated, or if we are concerned with what is being done with profits. 

  Many critics of financial markets claim that its profits are not connected to social productivity. This implies the existence of “socially unproductive” profits. Support for this view seems reasonable if we are talking about the profitability of certain unwholesome activities—strip clubs, online pornography, so much of the mindlessness of a gaming technology culture, etc.

  But is the sentiment of “socially unproductive profits” putting a burden on profit makers and profit-seekers that is unfair?  The general objective of meeting the needs of humanity through a profitable delivery of goods and services is unobjectionable. Profits become problematic when they are ill-gotten (fraud, theft, corruption), and yes, many would concede that profits from legal but also immoral activities warrant discussion.  Yet the burden of creating fruitful and uplifting profit-creating activities belongs to the people in the market place and the associations and communities that constitute civil society – not the state. When undesirable activities occur, it is not the profit pursuit behind the activity that is the problem, but rather the problem itself. The last concern we should have with hired hitmen is their financial aspiration!

  Concerns about “socially unproductive profits” is a category error that lacks a limiting principle. The creation of “socially productive” profits by disinterested third parties via intervention, cronyism, or some other form of central planning has to be read in the context of its trade-offs. The unintended consequences unleashed in this vision for society are catastrophic. It is not the burden of financial markets to resolve the tension that can exist between worthy social aims and profit-seeking activities. It is also untrue that financial markets exacerbate this tension. Because markets reflect the values, aims, interests, and intentions of free human beings, the financial resources behind these market-making endeavors will reflect the values of the people engaged in them. Demonizing the profit motive per se misidentifies the appropriate solution of moral formation and strong mediating institutions.

  The financialization critique of profits is built on class envy and economic ignorance (not how profits are created, but what is being done with them). Robust financial markets allow for optionality that supports flexibility, choice, and future decision-making (for example, dividends, stock buybacks, and investing in corporate growth). Risk-taking owners receiving profits incentivizes future investment, promotes facilitates cash flow needs for investors, and enables consumption that satisfies other producers, and makes possible charitable bequests and other activities. Nothing in the prior sentence is possible without presupposing the existence of a profit. Optionality in what to do with profits is vital. The assumption that only the reinvestment of profits into more hiring, wage growth, further inventories, or other forms of business investment are appropriate is short-sighted, arrogant, and lacks factual evidence. Yes, some reinvestment of profits is generally warranted for the sustainability of a business. Many more mature companies reach a free cash flow generation that does not require additional capital reinvestment, but many do. Decisions around profit allocation are impacted by competitive pressures, company culture, investor desires, and other complexities.

  What is not complex is that profits are the sine qua non of the entire discussion. Financial markets are a tool in generating profits whose very distribution is the subject of this discussion, and financial markets provide greater possibilities for how those profits are distributed. Profits themselves are not problematic, and in no way do financial markets “financialize” what is done with those profits. Optionality should be heralded, not condemned.

  The usual bogeymen

  At the heart of the modern crusade against financial markets are objects of ire: the institutions, innovations, and categories that become convenient targets for those who lament the role of the financial sector in the economy. As previously noted, these complaints are often reducible to rank class warfare. However, accepting the concerns at face value allows us to analyze many financial market innovations. This assessment should result in gratitude for capital markets, not condemnation. The following list is just an overview.

  Private Equity

  Perhaps no component of financial markets has become more caricatured and demonized than what is known as “private equity.” The words carry more connotation than just “equity ownership of companies that are not publicly traded.” The private equity industry is large, powerful, and dynamic, and has become a vital part of the American economy. To critics, this is something to bemoan. An objective analysis comes to a very different conclusion.

  At its core, private equity represents professional asset managers serving as general partners, putting up some equity capital themselves (in amounts that can be majority ownership or often very limited), raising further equity capital from professional investors as limited partners, and taking ownership positions in companies. While the ownership is usually a majority position, it is almost always intended to be temporary (assume 5-7 years as a median hold period), and is very often financed with debt capital on top of the equity the general and limited partners put in.

  The targets being acquired may be distressed companies whereby some enterprises have suffered deterioration and distress, and the hope is that new capital, management, and strategy may right the ship. But often the targets are highly successful companies that have achieved a certain growth rate and strong brand, but require additional growth capital to scale, more professional or seasoned management, or some synergistic advantage that a strategic partner can bring. And beyond the objective of “repaired distress,” and “growth and scale,” there is often an exit strategy for founders and early investors who can monetize what they have built by selling to new investors who could have any number of strategic or financial considerations in the acquisition (roll-ups, ability to introduce greater operational efficiency, etc.). Motives and objectives of buyers and sellers vary across private equity, and the industry’s growth and success have facilitated a highly specialized, niched, and diversified menu of private equity players.

  There are various arguments made against the industry that are sometimes at odds with one another (they return too much capital to the owners compared to workers; but also, the returns are terrible and the industry is a sham). Opponents see private equity as either too risky, too opaque, too illiquid, too conflicted, or too unsuitable for the common good of society. Each concern deserves analysis.

  First, the notion that private equity returns are terrible ought to be the greatest encouragement to the cottage industry of those concerned about private equity. If the returns on invested capital coming back to private equity investors were terrible, or even subpar, in any market known to mankind this industry would self-destruct over time. Sponsors would not be able to raise money. Limited partners would find other alternatives for the investment of their capital. Even acquisition targets (who generally carry some skin in the game) would seek better buyers out of their self-interest. Could some constituency of “sucker” leave some lights on longer than one might expect? Sure. But as a growing, thriving, popular institution in capital markets, private equity would evaporate if it were not generating returns that satisfied its investors. This strikes rational market students as obvious. Now, the range of return outcomes has historically been much wider for private equity managers than public equity managers, and the delta between top-performing managers and bottom-performing managers is much wider in private markets than in public markets. This is an advantage to the space, as skill is more predominantly highlighted, and noteworthy advantages are more statistically compelling, purging the space of poor performers and attracting more capital to diligent asset allocators. But no rational argument exists for why the largest, most sophisticated investors on the planet (institutional investors, pension funds, sovereign wealth, endowments, and foundations) would maintain exposure to private equity strategies with either inappropriate fees or inadequate results. If one believed that private equity was damaging to economic growth or the public good, poor investment results would be the ally of their cause.

  Second, opacity and illiquidity are features, not bugs. Entrepreneurial endeavors are not straight lines. Businesses routinely face headwinds, cyclical challenges, unforeseen circumstances, and interruptions to strategy. Likewise, investors routinely face emotional ups and downs, sentiment shifts, and volatility of temperament. That a reliable capital base exists in private equity which prevents the latter (investor sentiment) from damaging the former (the realistic time frame needed for a business to succeed) is a huge advantage to the structure of private equity. Of course, some investors’ circumstances render illiquidity unsuitable for them. The solution is not to strip the illiquidity advantage and patient capital that it presents from private equity, but rather for free and responsible investors to exercise agency, and not invest where not suitable. Private equity provides a highly optimal match between the duration of capital and the underlying assets being invested.

  Opacity is similarly beneficial. The better way to say this is that public markets suffer from the curse of transparency, meaning that competitors, the media, and all sorts of interested parties with any kind of agenda, are made privy to the deepest of details of the company’s financials, disclosures, and circumstances. For clarity, this is a trade-off that publicly traded companies accepted for other advantages to being public, but it is just that—a trade-off. All things being equal, there is no reason that a business would want the world to know its trade secrets, and financial dynamics in near real-time, let alone challenges and obstacles, especially not its competitors. The opacity of being private is not a negative; it is a tautology (when a company is private, it is private).

  Finally, there is the concern that private equity is a negative force for workers. Specifically, the argument goes that private equity’s pursuit of operational efficiencies, the use of debt to fund the acquisition itself and subsequent growth, and the period promised to investors for an exit, all pit the interests of capital against the workers. There is, however, a fatal flaw in this argument, and that concerns the empirical data. Private equity-owned businesses employ 12 million people in the United States, a 34 percent increase from just five years ago. Eighty-six percent of private equity-owned businesses employ less than 500 people, and half of all companies with private equity sponsorship employ less than 50 people[2].

  Interestingly, the National Bureau of Economic Research[3] found that where net job losses did occur (three percent after two years of a buyout and 6 percent after five years), it was predominantly in public-to-private buyouts and transactions involving the retail sector. Put differently, 20 percent or more job losses were highly likely had a public retail company failed, but a “take private” transaction minimized those losses. The same study found that private equity buyouts lead to the rapid creation of new job positions and “catalyze the creative destruction process as measured by both gross job flows and the purchase-and-sale of business establishments.” In other words, those who claim private equity leads to worse circumstances for laborers must establish that the jobs lost would not have been lost anyway.

  That investors are not driven by the employee headcount is a given, similar to workers who are not driven by the ROI for investors. The argument for free enterprise is that there is a reasonable correlation of interest between all these parties and that the natural and organic tension between labor and capital is healthy and best managed by market forces. Demonizing this specific facet of financial markets (private equity) for possessing the same embedded tension as all market structures are selective, dishonest, and unintelligible.

  Private equity defenders need not avoid the facts of failure. Private equity-backed businesses do sometimes (albeit rarely) fail. The reason is that businesses often do fail. The dynamic nature of market forces, changes, trends, consumer preferences, macroeconomic conditions, cost of capital, competitive forces, manager skill, and company strategy all lead to the very real possibility of failure, or what we learn as children to call “risk.” That private equity is not immune to risk is not a criticism. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 20 percent of small businesses fail in the first year, 30 percent fail by the second year, and 50 percent by the fifth year[4].  Small business suffers a high rate of failure (and attendant job losses) because small business is hard. A more stringent regulation of small business or vilifying small business, though, would seem absurd to most reasonable people.

  What about the argument that private equity uniquely increases risk by its use of debt?  As we will see, there is a large actor in the American economy whose use of debt is threatening workers and the general welfare, but that actor is not the private equity industry. The capital structure of a business ought to be optimized to drive a healthy and efficient operation. Sub-optimal use of debt creates credit risk for lenders, and because debt is senior to equity in the capital structure, it threatens the entire solvency of the equity investors. In other words, ample incentives exist to prevent reckless debt use from doing damage. What is paramount, though, is that risk-takers suffer when there is a failure. Private equity works against the socialization of risk, but it doesn’t eliminate the existence of risk.

  The private equity industry has added trillions of dollars to America’s GDP over the last four decades, employed tens of millions of people, added monetization and liquidity to founders and entrepreneurs, and created access to capital for talented operators who make the goods and services that enhance our quality of life. No part of this warrants skepticism or ire.

  Hedge Funds

  Similar criticisms exist for the hedge fund industry as private equity, in that many without skin in the game feel the fee structures and performance results are underwhelming. Again, it bears repeating that for the anti-hedge fund crowd, this outcome would be ideal. Indeed, over-priced and under-performing strategies have no chance of surviving over time. Some return-driven, self-interested investors must find something compelling within the hedge fund industry that keeps them returning for more.

  That objective is a risk and reward exposure not correlated to the beta of traditional stock and bond markets. Idiosyncratic strategies may involve various arbitrage opportunities and the pursuit of mispriced securities and relationships, but the fee level and performance reflect an entirely different characteristic than that offered by broad stock and bond markets. This is not unknown to the investors of hedge funds but it is the entire point. Correlation is cheap (i.e. index funds), and non-correlation comes at a cost. Top-performing managers and strategies command a fee premium, and sub-par managers lose the Darwinian battle for assets. Market forces have a funny way of sorting this out, without the commentary of disinterested third-party critics.

  Sebastian Mallaby’s masterful More Money than God: Hedge Funds and the Making of a New Elite[5] pointed out that hedge funds privatized gains and losses in the events of the 2008 global financial crisis, whereas the banking system allowed the socialization of losses even as gains had been privatized. Put differently, the banking system inherently poses systemic risks, risks that can be (and should be) mitigated and monitored. The hedge fund industry, though, represents an ecosystem of capital allocation, price discovery, information sharing, and profit-seeking, all with highly privatized risk and reward (as it should be).

  Hedge fund criticism is always reducible to concerns the critics have with individual hedge fund operators (political, persona, etc.), or rank class warfare. That an alternative investment world exists where idiosyncratic trades can be executed, contrarian themes pursued, and various knobs of risk turned up and down (often with leverage and hedging) is an overwhelming positive to American enterprise.

  High-Frequency Trading

  High-frequency trading (so-called) has become a popular scapegoat for the anti-financial markets crowd. Advancements in digital technology have enabled complex algorithms to trade large blocks of shares of stock in nanoseconds. Those who have invested in this technology and infrastructure have bet on the ability of technology to identify opportunities and deliver value through speed and execution. Banks, insurance companies, and institutional investors can buy large blocks of stock quickly. Human decisions are disintermediated in favor of computers, and those utilizing high-frequency trading are accepting the trade-off that algorithms, speed, and execution will offer advantages over the cost of losing human interaction.

  A trade-off is just that: a trade-off. The benefit of technological advancements in the trading of our capital markets has been unprecedented levels of speed and liquidity, which has meant dramatically lower costs of execution. Across our public stock and bond markets, trading costs are virtually zero, and bid-ask spreads are nil.

  The advantages of high-frequency trading are obvious. But what about the disadvantages, and not merely the loss of human interaction the principal is now exposed to? Does this innovation pose the possibility of systemic risk, enhanced volatility, and system errors in our financial markets? Again, a better question would be: does high-frequency trading represent an exacerbation of those risks relative to what existed before it? Volatility, a mismatch of buyers and sellers, trading errors, and any number of market realities existed before high-frequency trading, and exist today (albeit with a bare minimum of instances of actual damage done). Market-making is a complicated business, and there is no question that high-frequency trading facilitates the making of a market (matching buyers and sellers, in this case at light speed). Opportunities for manipulation are highly regulated, and the net benefits from this innovation have spread to all market participants in greater liquidity, improved price discovery, and diminished trading costs.

  Banks

  From the days of the 1946 film It’s a Wonderful Life, the notion of a bank failure has been the subject of public fear and trepidation—and for good reason. Banks exist to hold customer deposits, facilitate customer payments from those deposits, and generate a profit by lending out those deposits at a positive net interest margin (i.e. the spread between interest paid to depositors and the interest collected on money lent out). Banks have largely been in the business of residential mortgage lending, but also handle 40 percent of commercial real estate lending in America[6]. Hundreds of billions of dollars of small business loans are also processed by commercial banks, funded by the capital base of the banks, which is largely depositor-driven.

  That the banking business model effectively amounts to short-duration funding (i.e. bank deposits) being matched to long-duration loans (i.e. mortgages and business loans) is a theoretical flaw that is intended to be remedied by (a) Capital reserves, (b) Diversification, and (c) Quality underwriting. Liquidity issues can still surface when banking assets (the money they have lent out) prove to be longer duration than its liabilities (the money it owes its depositors back). Capital requirements mitigate if not fully eliminate, this risk, yet admittedly favor large banks to regional banks due to the disproportionate impact these requirements have.

  Nevertheless, our financial markets, largely through trial and error and the lessons of experience, have increasingly presented the banking system as a store of value and a medium for payment processing, with engines of risk and opportunity increasingly coming from other aspects of financial markets. Banks still have a vital role to play in lending needs. Bank failures are increasingly rare, and competition has created ample optionality for the products and services banks offer (i.e. mortgages, credit cards, business loans, etc.).

  Mergers & Acquisitions

  Straight out of the class warfare playbook is the belief that investment bankers are money changers with no productive economic aim who are looking to squeeze money out of good and productive companies. Concerns about excess corporate deal activity are not limited to those who bemoan investment banking. Consider the words of one of the most highly regarded investment bankers of the last 75 years, Felix Rohatyn, atop his perch at Lazard in 1986:

  In the field of takeovers and mergers, the sky is the limit. Not only in size, but in the types of large corporate transactions, we have often gone beyond the norms of rational economic behavior. The tactics used in corporate takeovers, both on offense and on defense, create massive transactions that greatly benefit lawyers, investment bankers, and arbitrageurs but often result in weaker companies and do not treat all shareholders equally and fairly … In the long run, we in the investment banking business cannot benefit from something that is harmful to our economic system.[7]

  Like under-performing hedge funds or poor execution from high-frequency trading, the cure for bad Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) is M&A. Markets will not support premiums irrationally paid for acquisitions (over time), and boards will not tolerate management eroding value through bad mergers (over time). Bad deals will happen, and good deals will happen, and short-sighted investment bankers will be incentivized to promote deals that do not represent good financial, strategic, or social sense. And yet, to not have access to robust merger and acquisition opportunities is to take away optionality in capital markets that are desperately needed. Competitive forces evolve over time in ways that can combine the embedded strengths of one company with the embedded strengths of another, creating value. The diversification of talent and subject matter expertise, properly channeled, is a huge benefit to our complex enterprise system and has allowed for the pairing of tremendous talent and corporate ecosystems that have created trillions of dollars of wealth. The simplicity of casting aspersions on all mergers and acquisitions because of the cases where some transactions proved ill-conceived is dangerous and harms economic opportunity. While it is incumbent on corporate management, company boards, and especially shareholders to resist unattractive M&A (that is, those with skin in the game), access to such innovation of capital markets is a vital part of our free enterprise system.

  Dividends

  Though not yet as demonized as stock buybacks, the return of corporate profits to minority owners via dividends is viewed as an example of ‘financialization’—as the favoring of owners of capital over the workers who help create corporate profits. Of course, these two things are not mutually exclusive. Owners are only paid dividends with after-tax profits, and profits are only realized after workers are paid. Dividends represent a substantial incentive to feed equity capital into businesses and therefore facilitate capital formation. The dividends then cycle through the hands of the risk-takers into their consumption desires or reinvestment aspirations. Any argument against dividends is an argument against profits, and an argument against profits is an argument against a market economy.

  When we look at companies that failed after paying out dividends and buying back stock, the conclusion that it was a net loss to society requires an assumption of facts not supported by the evidence.  That company not returning cash or buying back shares but continuing to invest in a failed business is what would have eradicated value.  Cash to shareholders via share purchases or dividends allowed those owners to re-deploy capital in better businesses. And since dividends and share buybacks can only take place with after-tax profits, we are not talking about companies eroding the capital base of the company to pay them, but rather the allocation of profits after the fact.

  Stock buybacks

  Like dividends, share buybacks with after-tax corporate profits is a form of capital return to shareholders. As a professional dividend growth investor, I have ample reasons for believing dividend payments are a superior mechanism for the interests of shareholders. But the idea that share buybacks are inherently dangerous, short-sighted, or anti-worker, is demonstrably false. Once again, we are not talking about eroding the capital base of a company, but rather how to return capital to the owners of a business when that capital is enhanced by profit creation. Because many employees in public companies are paid via stock issuance (restricted shares, stock options, etc.), stock buybacks offset the theoretical expense that this form of executive compensation represents.

  Examples exist of companies buying back stock at what is later revealed to be a high stock price, later running into cyclical challenges with the company operations, and having less cash to work through those times than they otherwise would have. All cases of a business challenge not perfectly predicted ahead of time are exposed to this risk. It does not address the underlying issue of share buybacks. If a company knew that it would later face an existential crisis and suffer a cash crunch, using the after-tax profits to pay down debt, pay bonuses to workers, or do anything other than increase reserves, would be unwise. This is not a unique burden for share buybacks, but rather a general challenge for businesses that are not guaranteed a perpetual path of easy profits.

  Markets often provide incentives for corporate managers to use share buybacks more favorable to their compensation metrics than other forms of capital return. This is problematic. But it is a problem that must be addressed by those who bear risk, among managers, boards, and shareholders. The state has not proven itself a model capital allocator. For government to put its thumb on the scale of how companies allocate their capital is to invite distortion, corruption, and flawed information into economic calculation.

  Passive ownership/indexing

  Finally, there is the so-called passive ownership dilemma.  An enormous increase in the popularity of low-cost index funds has led to a wide disintermediation of ownership across public equity markets.  Passive stakes are voted on by non-beneficial owners like Blackrock and Vanguard. As the intermediaries who are legal owners, their agendas may conflict with the agendas of their customers. This issue can be solved in one of two ways: (1) Investors themselves will determine that their chosen intermediary is voting or operating in a way that does not serve their interests, and either choose a different intermediary or investment option; (2) Passive equity facilitators and managers will present innovations and options to solve for this tension.

  The growth of passive/index strategy and the perceived power it gives these asset managers is a worthy conversation. It does not negate the substantial advantage of low-cost ownership and easy liquidity and access to public markets for investors, but it warrants attention and alteration to ensure that investors are receiving the best representation that achieves the highest returns on investment. Nevertheless, that attention and innovation are sure to be found in a combination of both #1 and #2 in the previous paragraph, and not by limiting the advent of passive equity ownership vehicles.

  Cures that are worse than the disease

  Opponents of financial sector growth have argued that the public interest calls for a variety of draconian measures to curtail freedom in capital markets. Introducing friction in financial sector activity by limiting its growth, protecting other economic actors, or generally reallocating capital in a way that central planners find more advantageous for the public good would accomplish this objective. All of these ideas carry unintended (or sometimes intended) consequences that would be counter-productive to the aim of economic growth.

  A policy proposal to both suggest and critique is a special transaction tax on various stock and bond transactions in American public markets. Progressive politicians have taken advantage of the public popularity of this rhetoric (a “Wall Street tax”) to suggest that “free money” can be found by removing it from ‘financialization’ and into the coffers of the federal government for some spending initiative (Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, etc.). What is never understood, or otherwise is completely ignored, is that this money is not free. It comes out of financial transactions. This means that it becomes an additional cost to be borne by the private economy. The price may be paid by smaller investors who would incur greater trading costs, or it may be paid with less net money received in a particular transaction, leading to a less productive outcome over time for market actors rationally allocating resources. Regardless, it is not “free.”

  Nor should we forget, it is not likely to work. Large institutions have resources outside of the United States for trading capital. Such a money grab would leave higher costs for smaller investors and sophisticated investors would pursue global options that avoid such a burden. Incentives matter, and the unintended consequences here would not curtail excesses in financial markets while raising money for other social aims. Rather, it would move money offshore, empower global competitors, and damage those who are not the target of the policy.

  Some have suggested that making debt interest cost non-deductible would remove incentives to take on debt, thereby protecting workers in the case of companies exposed to excessive leverage. Of course, lowering the business income tax rates also better protects workers, and so removing a tool used to reduce that tax burden is simply the inverse when it comes to workers. Driving tax obligations higher does not protect workers. To the extent the policy succeeded in limiting debt, astute commentators might wonder what those costs would be. What is the debt being used for and what uses of capital would now be sacrificed if this policy suggestion prevailed? Will companies have less working capital, less liquidity, and be more susceptible to an equity sale (where job losses would be more likely, not less)? These expensive policy proposals have failed to count the costs, and in this case, the cost would be monumental. More than likely, the loss of deductibility of the debt would just be priced into the market rate of the loans, leaving less interest income for the lenders and banks, not a higher after-tax interest expense for the borrowers. In other words, it would be ineffective at best, and distortive at worst.

  Various other proponents of de-financializing the economy suggest that increased tax rates would do this, including matching the tax rate on capital to the tax rate on income. The present tax policy is inefficient, but not for the reasons suggested by critics. Presently, a long-term capital gain of $100,000 creates a tax burden on the entire $100,000 in the tax year it was realized. However, a loss of $100,000 only allows for a $3,000 deduction in the year it was realized. This law was passed in 1977 but has not been updated for inflation. Furthermore, when a gain of $100,000 on capital is realized (real estate, stock, etc.), if their holding period was 10, 20, or 30 years, a significant part of the nominal gain was eroded by inflation, leaving the real gain to be a fraction of the total nominal gain. However, the capital gain tax is paid on the entire nominal gain.

  Fundamentally, taxes on investment income are “double taxes”—as the money was already taxed when it was first earned (i.e. income), and now is facing additional tax when it is being invested (capital gains or dividends). But if that basic fact does not trouble the anti-finance constituency, the notion of matching income rates to investment tax rates can surely be done by lowering earned income tax rates. An increase in investment tax rates stifles capital formation, disincentivizes risk-taking, freezes capital in static projects, and impairs economic growth. If one wants to make a “fairness” argument for equal rates between tax on capital and labor, that fairness is already stretched in that the tax on capital represents a second tax on the same dollar. But if they persist in the fairness argument, lower ordinary income rates will likely be an agreeable solution for those wanting to protect capital formation.

  From transaction taxes, to greater scrutiny of private equity, to changing the tax rules on debt or investment income, to various regulatory burdens on financial actors—no proposed solution from the anti-financial crowd serves workers or the cause of public interest. Rather, these and other proposed policy solutions invite hidden costs (and some that truly are not hidden), build state power, and damage broad prosperity.

  Monetary and fiscal policy getting a pass

  This concluding section can reasonably be called a tragedy. As was established in our early pursuit of a definition of ‘financialization,’ there is, indeed, an unattractive phenomenon that sub-optimally allocates resources. This ‘financialization,’ however, is not a by-product of more profitable investment banks, larger private equity managers, or increased technological capacity in capital trading. This ‘financialization’ where less productive activities take precedence over more productive ones is not created by Wall Street. Rather, the culprits are the very forces that the anti-finance critics are so often looking to play savior: the governmental tools of fiscal and monetary policy. In other words, the regulatory state, Congress, and the Federal Reserve are actors involved in this discussion, but not as fixers. The modern critics of finance have failed to identify the root causes of ‘financialization’ and in so doing have not only enabled the damage to continue but have invited them to do far greater damage, still.

  No single factor has put greater downward pressure on economic growth than the explosion of government indebtedness, particularly, the ratio of that debt to the overall economy.

  Common ground exists with those worried about diminished economic productivity and what that means to workers, and indeed, all economic actors. That common ground has not parlayed into shared despair over the growth of government spending, the growth of government debt, and the crowding out of the private sector both represent.

  Furthermore, post-financial crisis monetary policy has been a series of gigantic monetary experiments that have served to do the very thing that critics of financial sector activity profess opposition to. Defenders of interventionist monetary policy may claim that it served to stimulate the economy post-crisis and to reflate the corporate economy as the household sector de-leveraged in the aftermath of the housing bubble. Yet even the most zealous defenders of that trade-off could not argue that such a monetary framework came at no cost. That cost was a substantial increase in real financialization.

  The fiscal components are easy to identify. Government debt represents dollars extracted from the private sector either in the present or future tenses. A Keynesian would argue that such debt when used for productive projects like the Hoover Dam adds to GDP (a positive multiplier). However, present debt explosions have not been to build a Hoover Dam. Post-crisis spending exploded above the trendline, well before the 2020 COVID pandemic. The spending response to COVID created a huge outlay of expense, unfortunately as the pandemic subsided and all pandemic-related expenditures were completed, expenditures resumed far above the trendline, and far above the level of economic growth.

  The federal government is doing what Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, and JP Morgan have never done—removing resources from the productive portion of the economy to the non-productive. It is outside the scope of this paper to evaluate what government spending projects ought to be. One can believe that current spending priorities are legitimate without believing they are productive. Some cost of government is necessary, and that funding will come from the private sector. However, when the cost of funding the government grows exponentially quicker than its revenue sources, and when the level of debt accumulates to the absolute levels it has, and with the annual debt funding costs it has, then declining productivity is the ultimate result.

  Economic growth pulled into the present means less economic growth in the future. In the current debt predicament, this is not even economic growth pulled forward, but rather the accumulation of seemingly endless transfer payments. This extraction of wealth from the private sector to fund income replacement does not produce anything nor build anything. A real GDP growth rate that has declined from over +3% to below +2% measures the impact on economic output.

  The monetary component of this strikes at the heart of resource allocation. If the Federal Reserve was tasked with holding interest rates at a natural rate, it would be at that level where economic activity would be most “natural”—where the interest rate was neither incentivizing nor disincentivizing economic activity. For 14 of the last 16 years, the Fed held the interest rate at or near zero percent, well below the natural rate in all but the most extreme crisis years out of 2008. That artificially low cost of capital extended the lifeline of many over-levered economic actors, and in the early years of post-crisis economic life likely facilitated some productive reflation. Yet over time, the perpetual zero-bound rate target encouraged economic actors to bypass the production of new goods and services for financial engineering. Incumbent assets in the economy—real estate or equity stock already in existence—could be bought and levered with little financial risk, with the low cost of leverage intensifying returns for these economic actors. Such activity was far more attractive than the creating new projects, sinking capital into new ideas, and innovating with one’s capital at the risk of loss. The zero-bound was a substitute for new goods and services, and it has taken a toll on productive economic investment.

  Likewise, a prolonged unnaturally low rate facilitated ongoing resources into sub-optimal assets, keeping “zombie” companies alive where a natural cost of capital would have expedited their demise. While seemingly generous in its impact, the real cost of this process is in the resources that do not work their way to innovation, new growth, and new opportunities. Overly accommodative monetary policy extends the lifeline of those whose time has come and gone preventing fresh ideas from receiving the capital and human resources they need to breathe life into the economy. It fosters malinvestment, distorts economic calculation, and wreaks havoc on economic growth.

  The twin towers of fiscal and monetary policy are powerful economic levers. On one hand, the fiscal tool crowds out the private sector and inhibits innovation by taking from the growth of the future to fund excessive spending today. On the other hand, the monetary tool uses the cost of capital to manipulate economic activity, ignoring the diminishing return and obvious distortions created by their efforts.

  If one is looking for a malignant financialization, they have found it, and Wall Street is nowhere near the scene of the crime.

  Conclusion

  Critics of financialization have:

  • Ambiguously or inadequately defined the term,
  • Used a critique of the financial sector to disguise class envy,
  • Failed to understand the nature of markets and the primacy of resource allocation,
  • Demonized instruments of financial markets that have been overwhelming positives for economic growth,
  • Proposed policy initiatives that would unilaterally do more harm than good, and
  • Worst of all, failed to see the most egregious actors in that which distresses them: Excessive government debt and excessive monetary policy

  An optimal vision for the economy does not favor the financial sector over the “real economy,” nor does it pit the financial sector against the real economy. Rather, an optimal vision sees financial markets as capable instruments in advancing the economic good and public interest. A large public bureaucracy cannot improve the economic lot of workers, and diminished financial markets cannot optimally allocate resources to the real economy.

  The need of the hour is better price discovery, starting with the price of money. The cost of capital as a tool of manipulation in the hands of our central bank has facilitated ‘financialization’ and hampered productive economic activity. The tools of modern finance can advance the cause of prosperity when we limit distortions in economic decision-making, maximize the availability of resources in the sector of the economy most equipped to utilize those resources productively, and remove impediments to growth.

  Human beings are capable of great things. Advanced financial markets enhance those capabilities and build opportunities for the future.

  Download the Paper here

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 21:30

• Arabica Futures Surge Into Blue-Sky Breakout As Traders Panic: "We Might Not Have Enough Coffee"
  Arabica Futures Surge Into Blue-Sky Breakout As Traders Panic: “We Might Not Have Enough Coffee”

  Arabica coffee futures blasted through March 1977 highs into blue sky breakout territory as traders panicked about global supply fears originating in Brazil, the world’s top producer. 

  Arabica beans trading in New York hit $3.26 per pound on Wednesday, exceeding the $3.08 high last reached in March 1977. Bean prices have jumped 123% since September 2023. 

  

  On Monday, we outlined that adverse weather conditions in Brazil spooked agricultural traders as bean stockpiles are being quickly drained ahead of next season. 

  Carlos Santana Jr., a Brazil-based commercial director at trader Ecom Group, told Bloomberg, “There are about eight months before the start of the next season, and the percentage of coffee sold by Brazilian growers is very high.”

  “We might not have enough coffee to get to the next season,” Santana warned. 

  Rabobank analyst Carlos Mera pointed out, “The rally is due to a number of complex circumstances,” including concerns about Brazil’s output next year, plus shipping and logistical challenges. 

  Mera added that the European Union’s deforestation rules and bean front-loading ahead of a potential trade tariff war are other factors pressuring bean prices higher. 

  Citi commodity strategist Arkady Gevorkyan told clients, “Coffee’s bull run [is] likely to continue near term,” adding, “We revise up our three-month target for Arabica coffee to $US3.10 a pound, and note a significant upside risk skew to this forecast as supply from Brazil and Vietnam could still underperform.”

  Here is Gevorkyan’s full comment to clients about the bull run in coffee prices:

  We revise up our 3M target for Arabica coffee to $3.10/lb, and note a significant upside risk skew to this forecast as supply from Brazil and Vietnam could still underperform. Coffee is up 57% YTD, making it one of the best performing commodities. Such a bull run has been fueled by unfavorable weather in key producing regions in Brazil damaging crops as well as support from the roasting switching demand driving Robusta demand from Vietnam. We project a consecutive three-year deficit in balances will switch to a surplus in 2025 and expect ICE coffee to trade rangebound. We also upgrade our base case 2025 forecast to $2.80/lb, while prices should normalize at $2.65/lb in 2026 (see Figure 1). Nevertheless, we note the large uncertainty on the health of Brazilian crops after the adverse weather and general production issues poses the possibility of falling into a structural deficit.

  

  Vietnam, a major producer of the cheaper Robusta bean, has also faced adverse weather conditions, impacting harvest outputs. In London, Robusta bean prices are currently around $5,200 per metric ton, down from a record high of $5,829 observed in mid-September.

  “The increased costs of hedging — due to higher margin calls — and the possibility of producer defaults have contributed to panic buying recently,” analysts at coffee trader Sucafina SA wrote earlier this week. 

  Price action here reminds us of the cocoa squeeze earlier this year… 

  Anyone know if oil trader Pierre Andurand is buying Arabica coffee futs? He dabbled with cocoa.  

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 21:00

• In The Beginning, There Was Pax Americana
  In The Beginning, There Was Pax Americana

  Authored by Lorenzo Maria Pacini,

  We often speak of the collective West, Hegemon, Seapower and Civilization of the Sea in relation to the United States of America. It is necessary to understand well what is the origin of this geopolitically determinant power for the world order.

  

  He who wins the war, dictates the rules

  Let us make clear at once an empirically incontrovertible factual truth: He who wins the war, dictates the rules of the post-war order. Whoever wins, writes history. Whether we like it or not, the defeated never had much decision-making power (which is not to say that they could not organize well to retaliate and return to power – but that is another matter).

  World War II ended with the victory of the United States of America as the first, undefeated and predominant power. From there followed an expansion of U.S. influence toto orbe terrarum in all respects (cultural, economic, military, political).

  The twentieth century was the “American century.” Almost the whole world took the shape the U.S. wanted to give it. The second half of the century was marked by the low-tension conflict of the Cold War, which ended-if it really did-with the collapse of the Soviet political system in the USSR and the beginning of the unipolar phase of American global domination. That period aroused much optimism in the West for a new world order, marking the end of the military and ideological rivalry of the 20th century. Two possibilities were on the horizon: a system based on balance of power and egalitarian sovereignty, or a U.S.-led liberal hegemony based on the values of democracy. The first approach evoked perpetual conflict, while the second promised lasting peace and global stability.

  U.S. hegemony, already dominant in the transatlantic region after World War II, was seen as a model of peace and prosperity. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union removed the justification for a world order built on the balance of power, pushing the United States toward a mission of recognized hegemony to prevent the rise of new rivals. American supremacy, as declared by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, was deemed “indispensable to ensure global stability.”

  This was the Pax Americana: the U.S. would ensure a period of prosperity and global peace – as early as the end of WWII – by extending control over the entire world. A peace for America was equivalent to a peace for the globe; a war for America would mean war for the entire globe. The stated goal of building a peaceful world often justified imperialistic approaches, revealing the contradictions of the hegemonic project.

  Set this paradigm as an axiom of reasoning in international relations and geopolitical programming, lo and behold, everything acquired new meaning. The world had been formatted and the “control room” was now in Washington.

  The time of ideologies

  It was the time of ideologies. In the “short century” everything had changed rapidly. The great world chessboard was constantly being shaken and reshuffled. The clash between the Western bloc and the Eastern – or Soviet – bloc characterized all concepts of each country’s politics in an extremely powerful way.

  In the 1990s, two visions dominated the debate on world order: that of Francis Fukuyama and that of Samuel Huntington. Fukuyama in his famous book The End of History, envisioned a future in which liberal democracy and capitalism would triumph universally, leading to perpetual peace under the leadership of the United States: he argued that economic interdependence, democratic reforms, and shared institutions would unite the world around common values, which were, of course, American values. Any other model of civilization would have been beside the point, because History was finished, there would be nothing left to write about. In contrast, Huntington, wrote The Clash of Civilizations, in which he predicted that the world would be fragmented into distinct cultural blocs based on civil, religious and economic identities. Individualism and human rights, according to him, were peculiar to the West and not universal. His theorizing assumed a future marked by conflicts between civilizations, fueled by the decline of Western hegemony and the emergence of alternative powers, particularly in Confucian and Islamic societies.

  The influence of Fukuyama’s ideas shaped post-Cold War Western politics, justifying the expansion and exceptionalism of Pax Americana. Exceptionalism that has been one of the U.S.’s most pragmatic “values”: there are rules and only we can break them, when we want, how we want and without having to account to anyone.

  History, however, does not have only one actor: other countries, such as Russia, have chosen to be fascinated by Huntington’s proposal – confrontational, certainly, but not already “final.” In Russia, this debate has deep roots, linked to the historical rivalry between Westernists and Slavophiles. In the 1990s, Russia initially tried to move closer to the West, but the West’s failure to include it reinforced the idea of a distinct Russian civilization, culminating in Vladimir Putin’s view that no civilization can claim to be superior.

  A matter of ideologies, indeed, a low-profile but very high-value battle in which the steps of the new century that was beginning would be defined. These divergences highlighted the tension between universalist aspirations and distinctive cultural identities, defining the geopolitical conflicts of the 21st century.

  Building Pax Americana at any cost

  Washington promoted a world order based on the Pax Americana, a liberal hegemony that reflected the success of the peaceful and prosperous transatlantic system created by the United States during the conflict with the Soviet Union. It proposed to extend this model globally, citing as examples Germany and Japan, transformed from militaristic and imperialist nations into “peaceful”-or, rather, defeated-democracies under U.S. influence. But the success of these transformations had been made possible by the presence of a common adversary, Russia, and the history of Latin America suggested that U.S. hegemony was not always synonymous with progress and peace.

  Charles Krauthammer described the post-Cold War period as a “unipolar moment,” characterized by American dominance, where the new Hegemon dictated the rules and the others had little choice. Although he recognized that a multi-participant set-up (today we can say “multipolarism”) would inevitably return, he believed it was necessary to exploit unipolarity to ensure temporary peace, avoiding a return to turbulent periods. There was a weakness, however: the United States was unlikely to voluntarily relinquish its dominant role, preferring instead to counter any threat by force, fueled by an obsession with its own historical greatness. It is a missile issue: whoever has it bigger, wins. Let us not forget that the U.S. invented the strategic concept of deterrence precisely by virtue of the atomic weapon it held, throwing the world into a climate of constant fear and risk in which we still live today.

  It is equally true that many Americans wished for a dismantling of the U.S. empire, proposing a less interventionist foreign policy focused on domestic challenges: abandoning the role of superpower would allow the United States to strengthen its society by addressing economic, industrial and social issues. Walter Lippmann argued that a mature great power should avoid global crusades, limiting the use of power to preserve internal stability and coherence. Sort of like a “good hegemon.” But this has not been the case.

  The notion of “good hegemon” has been criticized for the risk of corruption inherent in power itself. John Quincy Adams warned that the search for enemies to fight could turn the United States from a champion of freedom into a global dictator. Similarly, President Kennedy, in his 1963 speech at American University, opposed a Pax Americana imposed by arms, calling instead for a genuine and inclusive peace that would promote global human progress, which he called “The Peace of All Time.” An ideal that has faded into the oblivion of collective memory.

  American hegemony is the sine qua non for having a Pax Americana. The universalism that characterizes this hegemony admits of no discounts. Inequality among global powers has been exploited as a pivot to increase U.S. profits and administrative expansion at the expense of weaker countries. Neoliberally speaking, there is no error in this. Everything is very consistent. The struggle of the strongest to destroy all the smallest. Not only the one who produces and earns the most wins, but the one who can maintain the power to produce and earn the most wins.

  A hegemonic system needs internal stability without which it cannot subsist. A kingdom divided in itself cannot function. This applies to economics as well as politics. It is essential that the ideological paradigm does not change, that power can always be understood and transmitted, from leader to leader, as it has been successfully established. Because the “peace” of the ancient Romans was a peace given by the maintenance of political control to the very ends of the empire, which only came about through a solid military administration.

  The Americans did not invent anything. To really control (realpolitik) one must have military control. In front of an atomic bomb, reasoning about political philosophies is worth little. The U.S. knows this very well and its concept of Pax has always been unequivocally based on military supremacy and the maintenance of it.

  Something changed when with the first decade of the 2000s new poles, new civilization-states, began to appear that promoted alternative models of global life. The U.S. began to see its power wane, day by day, until today, where the West is worth less than the “rest of the world,” the U.S. no longer has its “exclusive” status, and we are not even so sure that it is then so strong that it can control the globe. The geometries change again. What Pax for what borders of what empire?

  Is Trump ready to give up his Pax?

  The crux of the question is, if imperialistic military supremacy is what has allowed the U.S. to maintain its dominance and this dominance is precipitating today, will the newly elected U.S. President Donald Trump really be ready to compromise the Pax Americana?

  We are talking about a polymorphous compromise:

  • Economically, he would have to accept the end of the dollar era and downsize the U.S. market on comparison with sovereign global currencies. Practically throw a century of global financial architecture in the trash.

  • Politically, accept that it is possible to think otherwise and do otherwise. Politics is not just American “democracy.” There are so many possibilities, so many different models, so many futures to be written according to other scripts.

  • Militarily, it means stopping with the diplomacy of arrogance and threats, accepting that we cannot arbitrarily decide how to deal with anyone and stop aiming missiles at the flags of other states.

  • Most complicated and risky of all, all this means giving up peace within the United States. If the balances of power implemented externally are broken, those internally begin to falter and the organism undergoes remodeling.

  Giving up the Pax Americana as it has been known does not mean that alternatives do not exist. The concept of “pax” is broad and can be interpreted differently by the American school. Taking this step, however, involves giving up a “tradition” of global power, having to go through the collapse of the entire U.S. domestic system and then rebuilding an alternative.

  Make America Great Again will mean what? Restoring American hegemony in the world, or rebuilding America?

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 20:30

• Electric Revenge: Texas Sues BlackRock And Others For 'Conspiring' To Quash Coal, Sending Energy Prices Soaring
  Electric Revenge: Texas Sues BlackRock And Others For ‘Conspiring’ To Quash Coal, Sending Energy Prices Soaring

  Texas is leading a new lawsuit with 10 other red states against BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street for allegedly breaking antitrust law by colluding to suppress coal – causing electricity prices to spike.

  

  “Competitive markets — not the dictates of far-flung asset managers — should determine the price Americans pay for electricity,” wrote Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the complaint.

  The Republican-led states, including West Virginia and Montana, are asking the court to bar the three largest US investment firms from using their stock in coal companies to vote on shareholder resolutions and take other steps in a way that restrains output and limits market competition. -Bloomberg

  The complaint, filed in Tyler, Texas, is one of the highest profile lawsuits targeting companies that promote environmental, social and governance goals, or ESH.

  “Over several years, the three asset managers acquired substantial stockholdings in every significant publicly held coal producer in the United States, thereby gaining the power to control the policies of the coal companies. Using their combined influence over the coal market, the investment cartel collectively announced in 2021 their commitment to weaponize their shares to pressure the coal companies to accommodate “green energy” goals,” the complaint continues.

  “Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street utilized the Climate Action 100 and the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative to signal their mutual intent to reduce the output of thermal coal, which predictably increased the cost of electricity for Americans across the United States.”

  The ‘cartel’ is accused of “deliberately and artificially constricting supply,” which “increased prices and enabled investment companies to produce extraordinary revenue gains.”

  The other states involved in the lawsuit are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, West Virginia and Wyoming.

  🚨BREAKING: Texas Sues BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard for Illegally Conspiring to Manipulate Energy Markets, Driving Up Costs For Consumers

  Texas will not tolerate the illegal weaponization of the financial industry in service of a destructive, politicized… pic.twitter.com/WrpftEr0cJ

  — Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) November 27, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js“Texas will not tolerate the illegal weaponization of the financial industry in service of a destructive, politicized ‘environmental’ agenda. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street formed a cartel to rig the coal market, artificially reduce the energy supply, and raise prices,” said Paxton in a statement. “Their conspiracy has harmed American energy production and hurt consumers. This is a stunning violation of State and federal law.”

  The lawsuit follows years of investigation by GOP officials, who have taken aim at Wall Street’s efforts to force a green agenda.

  Specifically, the lawsuit accuses BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street of using their shareholdings in Peabody Energy Corp, Arch Resources, Inc. and others to press management to cut their carbon emissions starting in 2021 – at the height of the ESG boom, Bloomberg reports.

  The firms also joined activist groups such as Climate Action 100+ and the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative in which they formed “a syndicate and agreed to use their collective holdings of publicly traded coal companies to induce industry-wide output reductions.”

  The suit repeatedly refers to allegations that BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have the power through their large shareholdings to constrain the supply of coal, which significantly diminishes competition in the market and produces “cartel-level profits” for the firms.

  Climate-finance coalitions are “voluntary associations and therefore don’t include any form of collusion and coercion, so it’s hard to see a legal basis for this claim,” said Lisa Sachs, director of sustainable investment at Columbia University Law School. But “coal-financed politicians are now using the bully pulpit to scare financial institutions, which won’t in any way benefit the coal sector and will harm the constituents these AGs purport to represent.” -Bloomberg

  That said, the firms have since reversed course – with State Street announcing in February that it quit Climate Action 100+ because its requirements were inconsistent with the firm’s “independent approach” to shareholder voting. Vanguard left the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative in 2022, however BlackRock and State Street remain members of the group.

  Plaintiffs in the Texas lawsuit acknowledge the departures, but say that they don’t “change the reality that defendants’ holdings threaten to substantially reduce competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.”

  The case is Texas v. BlackRock, 24-cv-00437, US District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Tyler).

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 20:00

• Historians Debate Ukraine War As WWIII Risk Mounts: Niall Ferguson Vs Scott Horton
  Historians Debate Ukraine War As WWIII Risk Mounts: Niall Ferguson Vs Scott Horton

  Watch the debate replay below (or on YouTube)

  https://t.co/Rq7jRVhabg

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 27, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  * * *

  Despite Trump’s promises to bring a swift end to the war in Ukraine by negotiating with Russia, the war has escalated to a dangerous inflection point with long-range U.S., British, and French missiles being deployed deep in Russian territory and talks of deploying NATO troops in Ukraine. That… and anonymous officials in the New York Times saying what is impossible to believe:

  “Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications,” the newspaper wrote.

  Amid the chaos, ZeroHedge will be hosting preeminent historians Sir Niall Ferguson and Scott Horton to debate the history of the conflict and U.S. policy in the region. They will be joined by the Hoover Institute’s Peter Robinson (if you’ve seen a Thomas Sowell interview, it was probably his).

  Join us at 7pm ET right here on the ZeroHedge homepage (as well as Twitter/X and YouTube channels) for an epic matchup that you won’t find anywhere else.

  Ferguson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. He’s written over a dozen books on geopolitical and monetary history.

  Horton is the founder of the Libertarian Institute and recently published his book, Provoked, on the history of the war in Ukraine and decades of rising tensions between the U.S. and Russia.

  We hope you’ll join us on the eve of Thanksgiving. Recent war context included below:

  ***

  Nukes for Ukraine?!

  Days ago, The NY Times revealed that US and European officials have discussed a range of options they believe will deter Russia from taking more Ukrainian territory, including the possibility of providing Kiev with nuclear weapons. “US and European officials are discussing deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine, such as stockpiling a conventional arsenal sufficient to strike a punishing blow if Russia violates a cease-fire,” the report said.

  The article then stated, “Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union.”

  Former Russian president and current deputy chairman of the Security Counsel Dmitry Medvedev has responded by pointing out that if the West actually went forward with transferring nukes to Ukraine, this would be seen as tantamount to an attack on Russia. He explained that this is a key aspect of Russia’s newly expanded nuclear doctrine.

  

  In a Telegram post on Tuesday, Medvedev specifically referenced the recent NY Times report, and said: “Looks like my sad joke about crazy senile Biden, who’s eager to go out with a bang and take a substantial part of humanity with him, is becoming dangerously real.”

  Medvedev then stressed that “giving nukes to a country that’s at war with the greatest nuclear power” is so absurd that Biden and any of his officials considering it must have “massive paranoid psychosis.”

  His biggest and most specific threat came as follows: 

  “The fact of transferring such weapons may be considered as the launch of an attack against our country in accordance with Paragraph 19 of the ‘Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence’,” Medvedev wrote.

  Talk of NATO Troops

  Prominent French publication Le Monde on Monday followed by saying serious discussions over injecting Western troops into the war have intensified in the last days: 

  As the conflict in Ukraine enters a new phase of escalation, discussions over sending Western troops and private defense companies to Ukraine have been revived, Le Monde has learned from corroborating sources. These are sensitive discussions, most of which are classified – relaunched in light of a potential American withdrawal of support for Kyiv once Donald Trump takes office on January 20, 2025.

  Britain is once again at the forefront of urging NATO’s deeper involvement in the war, which threatens at any moment to explode into WW3 among nuclear-armed powers. Enter Keir Starmer… in the hawkish footsteps of Boris Johnson:

  However, it was relaunched in recent weeks thanks to the visit to France of the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, for the November 11th commemorations. “Discussions are underway between the UK and France on defense cooperation, particularly with a view to creating a hard core of allies in Europe, focused on Ukraine and wider European security,” confided a British military source to Le Monde.

  Jean-Noël Barro’s aforementioned words about ‘no options’ ruled out appears to have been a reflection on these continued ‘sensitive’ conversations.

  There have been more reports of US-supplied ATACMS launches on Russian territory since their initial use last week:

  Looks like Khalino airbase in Kursk, where Russia launches drones to attack Ukraine, just got a taste of ATACMS. The guy in the video seems pretty impressed! pic.twitter.com/ui8r0je74p

  — Maria Avdeeva (@maria_avdv) November 25, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 19:44

• Biden Asks Congress To Authorize $24BN More To Spend On Ukraine
  Biden Asks Congress To Authorize $24BN More To Spend On Ukraine

  Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

  The Biden administration has asked Congress to approve $24 billion in additional spending on Ukraine as it’s working to ramp up the proxy war as much as possible during President Biden’s final weeks in office.

  POLITICO Pro obtained a request from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget that asked Congress to include additional Ukraine spending in a continuing resolution that’s expected to be voted on next month. Two congressional aides said Congress received the proposal on Monday.

  

  The request asks for $8 billion for the Ukraine Security Assistance initiative, a form of military aid that allows the US to purchase weapons for Ukraine, and $16 billion to replace US military equipment that’s been sent to Ukraine.

  The money to replenish US weapons would allow the Biden administration to use the remaining Presidential Drawdown Authority for Ukraine, which allows the US to ship weapons directly from US military stockpiles. The administration is looking to rush arms shipments to Ukraine throughout the rest of the transition period.

  If Congress agrees to the request, it would bring total US spending on the proxy war, according to publicly available data, to about $210 billion.

  Earlier this year, President Biden signed a foreign military aid bill into law that included $61 billion for Ukraine. Before that, the US spent at least $125 billion on the conflict.

  US officials have told The Washington Post that the Biden administration is trying to put Ukraine in the best position possible before President-elect Donald Trump might push for an end to the war.

  US officials acknowledged that within a few months, Ukraine could be pushed into negotiations and could end up ceding territory. “Biden’s reversal of his previous policies on mines and missiles was intended in part to give Ukraine the strongest possible hand as it enters those potential talks,” The Washington Post wrote.

  🚨#BREAKING: Joe Biden has asked congress for another $24 billion for Ukraine…

  …while #WNC looks like this TODAY. pic.twitter.com/8TLS7yspKe

  — Matt Van Swol (@matt_vanswol) November 26, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “The change of direction also caps a long-standing pattern, as Biden has often resisted upgrading Kyiv’s weaponry for fear of escalation with Russia, only to relent a few months later,” the report added.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 19:25

• Why Trump's Election Case Was Dismissed 'Without Prejudice'
  Why Trump’s Election Case Was Dismissed ‘Without Prejudice’

  Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  District of Columbia Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed the election interference case against President-elect Donald Trump on Nov. 25, bringing an end to a highly contentious prosecution and raising questions about whether the charges could once again surface.

  

  Chutkan’s dismissal was entered “without prejudice,” which means the charges can hypothetically be brought against Trump at a later date.

  Special Counsel Jack Smith based his request for a dismissal on longstanding Department of Justice (DOJ) policy that says prosecution of a sitting president would violate the constitution. Smith’s motion added that “although the Constitution requires dismissal in this context, consistent with the temporary nature of the immunity afforded a sitting President, it does not require dismissal with prejudice.”

  Analysts say it’s unlikely, however, that Smith’s indictment would be filed again given that the statute of limitations will run out before the expected end of Trump’s second term in 2029.

  “The fact is that asking the judge to dismiss the case without prejudice is common practice,” John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, told The Epoch Times. “The government wants to keep all of its options open, even if those options are remote or if it’s likely that the options will expire because of the statute of limitations.”

  Smith’s reference to temporary immunity was about a type of immunity that was separate from what the special counsel’s office and Trump’s attorneys were debating in recent months. That litigation focused on immunity that stemmed from the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States.

  That decision held that presidents enjoy varied levels of immunity from criminal prosecution for actions they engage in during their tenure, including for former officeholders like Trump.

  Smith’s argument about the DOJ’s longstanding policy, by contrast, focused on the prosecution of a sitting president. Smith added that his request for dismissal was “not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.”

  Shu told The Epoch Times that Smith’s motion pointed to an attempt by him to preserve other future prosecutions.

  “Smith and the DOJ are not just thinking about the current case, they’re thinking about future cases,” he said. “They still want to keep the option open of prosecuting in the future—not Trump but, in the future, some former president, even though the Supreme Court made that significantly harder with its presidential immunity opinion.”

  In her opinion explaining the dismissal, Chutkan said her decision was consistent with Smith’s interpretation of Trump’s immunity while in office. She also said that dismissing without prejudice was appropriate in this case because “there is no indication of prosecutorial harassment or other impropriety underlying the [motion to dismiss].”

  Even if Trump left office early and the prosecution resumed, it’s unclear how successful it would be.

  The Supreme Court’s decision on Trump v. United States arose from an appeal of Smith’s prosecution, which has been mired in a delayed pre-trial process since he brought the initial indictment last year. Chutkan’s court was headed towards deliberations over how that decision applied more specifically to Trump’s actions.

  Besides the immunity issue, Trump also sought to challenge the case on statutory grounds and the legitimacy of Smith’s appointment as special counsel.

  The latter issue is the subject of an appeal by Smith in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which is reviewing Florida Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision that constitutional issues surrounding Smith’s appointment meant his classified documents case against Trump should be dismissed.

  Smith filed a motion on Nov. 25 to dismiss his appeal as it related to Trump but sought to leave it in place for two other defendants involved. The 11th circuit granted Smith’s motion on Nov. 26. Also on Nov. 26, Smith’s team filed a brief defending Smith’s appointment as legal.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 18:30

• "Significant Uptick" In M&A Rumors Observed In News Cycle Ahead Of 2025 
  “Significant Uptick” In M&A Rumors Observed In News Cycle Ahead Of 2025 

  Goldman Sachs analysts have noted a “significant uptick” in merger and acquisition rumors in the press over the past six weeks. The investment bank forecasts positive M&A growth trends over the next 12 months, signaling a potential rebound in dealmaking activity. 

  Analysts Matt Michon and Hannah Taylor penned a note Wednesday to clients about the surge in M&A headlines.

  “In the last six weeks, there has been a significant uptick in M&A “rumours” relative to the prior three-quarters so hopefully an encouraging sign that corporate activity is picking-up…!” they said. 

  The list of companies below is part of the desk’s M&A monitor, which shows “potential M&A situations reported through the press” and also “highlighted in blue are those with news updates since our last note.” A list of failed M&A approaches was also recorded. 

  Most recent M&A headlines… 

  

  

  

  

  

  Failed M&A approaches. 

  

  In a separate but recent note, Goldman analysts James Yaro and Richard Ramsden told clients that internal leading indicators “forecast 20% M&A growth over the next twelve months.”   

  

  The latest remarks from the FOMC Minutes suggest that Fed officials are leaning toward a more gradual interest rate-cutting cycle. One that could certainly provide relief to corporates… 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 18:00

• US To Deepen Footprint In Lebanon As Part Of Ceasefire Deal
  US To Deepen Footprint In Lebanon As Part Of Ceasefire Deal

  Via Middle East Eye

  The US is set to deepen its footprint in Lebanon as part of a ceasefire deal aimed at ending more than a year of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. According to details of the agreement shared with Middle East Eye by current and former US and Arab officials, the 60-day ceasefire will see all Israeli forces withdraw from Lebanon in phases, with Hezbollah moving north of the Litani River.

  The deal which was announced late Tuesday is broadly based on UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah and was supposed to see the Lebanese army and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) deployed to southern Lebanon.

  As per the deal, the Lebanese army, with assistance from Unifil, will be deployed to the south to ensure that Hezbollah does not re-enter the area between the Israeli border and the Litani.

  

  “By day 60 there will be no Israeli or Hezbollah troops in southern Lebanon,” a senior Arab official told Middle East Eye. 

  The agreement, which seeks to end more than a year of fighting that has claimed more than 3,700 lives in Lebanon, will also see the US deploy technical military advisers to Lebanon and see Washington provide additional funds to the Lebanese army.

  The US will also provide oversight on Hezbollah’s withdrawal and a military official – likely from Central Command (Centcom) – will head an international committee that will coordinate with hundreds of soon-to-be-deployed French soldiers as part of a beefed-up UN peacekeeping mission.

  A senior US official told MEE that Israel will not be granted the right to attack Lebanon based on any suspicious movements. Israel will have to report any movement it deems suspicious to the international committee, which in turn will inform the Lebanese army to take the necessary action.

  If the Lebanese army fails to act after receiving a complaint regarding suspicious activities south of the Litani or in any Lebanese area, Israel will consider the agreement void and resume its attacks on Lebanon.

  The US is not expected to deploy additional troops on the ground. Instead, the pending ceasefire is set to expand the 10,000-strong Unifil peacekeeping mission. Hundreds of French soldiers are expected to deploy to Lebanon as part of Unifil, according to the former US and Arab official. 

  The agreement will also deepen the US’s ongoing efforts to support the Lebanese military. The US started funding the Lebanese army in 2005 after a protest movement prompted the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the country.

  In the last 20 years, Washington has been the army’s largest donor, giving more than $2.5bn in support to the military, which is seen as a national institution that crosses sectarian and political divides.

  The sources told MEE that the army has already recruited 1,500 troops and seeks to bring on board roughly 3,500 more in the next four months. 

  

  The US will also beef up training, equipment and reimbursement funds to the army. Washington is also speaking with Saudi Arabia and Qatar about providing funds to the Lebanese forces to pay additional salaries. Qatar already provides funds to the cash-strapped Lebanese army, pledging $60m in 2022 to support soldiers’ salaries.

  Lebanon was in the midst of a disastrous financial crisis before Hezbollah began launching missiles and drones at Israel on 8 October 2023 in solidarity with Palestinians under attack in Gaza.

  The ceasefire will also include a renewed commitment to several other UN Security Council resolutions, including 1559 and 1680, which call for the disarmament of Hezbollah. 

  Unlike other Lebanese armed groups, Hezbollah kept its weapons after the 1975-90 civil war so it could continue to fight against Israel’s occupation of south Lebanon. Though Israel mostly withdrew in 2000, it continues to occupy the Shebaa Farms, which Hezbollah says are Lebanese.

  Hezbollah’s year-long attacks have displaced around 60,000 Israelis from their homes in northern Israel. Meanwhile, Israeli bombardment and the ground invasion launched in October have forced more than a million people in Lebanon to flee.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 17:40

• Chinese Automakers Are Dethroning Their Once-Dominant Japanese Competitors
  Chinese Automakers Are Dethroning Their Once-Dominant Japanese Competitors

  China is doing the unthinkable and dethroning once dominant Japanese automakers, who are struggling to compete in China.

  China is the world’s largest car market and domestic brands are dominating with a surge of electric vehicles. Chinese companies are also expanding into Southeast Asia, challenging the long-standing dominance of brands like Toyota, Honda, and Mitsubishi, according to w new report by Bloomberg.

  Between 2019 and 2024, Japanese automakers experienced the steepest market share declines in China, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, according to Bloomberg’s analysis of sales and registration data.

  

  Japanese automakers are losing ground across Asia, with all six tracked by Bloomberg experiencing declines in China. Even Toyota, the global leader in car volume, has seen its sales stagnate. In Southeast Asia, a traditional stronghold for Japanese brands, market share has dropped sharply.

  In Thailand and Singapore, Japanese carmakers now control just 35% of the market, down from over 50% in 2019, while streets once dominated by Nissan and Mazda are increasingly filled with Chinese brands.

  

  The Bloomberg profile notes that Toyota remains competitive in some segments, like pickups, but the broader outlook is troubling for automakers once renowned for efficiency and reliability. Their slow pivot to fully electric vehicles puts them at risk of falling behind in a market driven by advanced battery technology and smart software.

  Although Chinese automakers face high tariffs in Europe and the U.S., the erosion of Japanese dominance in Asia could signal wider challenges ahead.

  Toyota’s stronghold in Southeast Asia is supported by regional production of gasoline cars with larger engines, appealing to local preferences. In 2023, Thailand and Indonesia accounted for nearly 10% of Toyota’s 11 million global vehicle output. However, other Japanese brands, like Nissan, are struggling.

  

  Nissan’s outdated lineup and lack of hybrids contributed to profit losses and production cuts, with its presence in Jakarta now fading.

  Meanwhile, Chinese automaker BYD has rapidly gained traction in Indonesia, ranking as the sixth top-selling brand just months after delivering its first vehicles. Its $40,000 Seal EV is proving especially popular.

  Japan’s global auto production share has dropped from over 20% two decades ago to 11%, while China has surged to dominate, now accounting for nearly 40% of worldwide car manufacturing. Chinese automakers are leveraging their expertise in low-cost batteries and flexible supply chains to expand into Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, further challenging Japan’s dominance in these markets.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 17:20

• How Trump Voters Learned To Love, And Turn Out, The Mail-In Ballot
  How Trump Voters Learned To Love, And Turn Out, The Mail-In Ballot

  Authored by Philip Wegmann via RealClearPolitics,

  In the spring, James Blair, political director for the Trump campaign, called a meeting in West Palm Beach. The occasion: Marc Elias had changed the world.

  

  It was Elias who had petitioned the Federal Election Commission at the beginning of the year to allow a George Soros-funded political action committee to coordinate with campaigns. And the Democratic super lawyer had won. A nine-page advisory opinion followed in March. For the first time, the FEC ruled that federal candidates could coordinate with outside organizations. And now politics would change forever.

  Blair sensed opportunity. All he had to do, the reason he gathered the most loyal MAGA captains of the biggest grassroots armies around a conference table inside Trump campaign headquarters last April, was convince them to accept a little heresy. The political director had to teach them to love the mail-in ballot.

  Trump had taught his base to hate mail balloting, a practice he blamed for his loss in 2020. Now Blair was urging the former president’s most faithful followers to embrace what was previously verboten. According to sources inside the room that day, the conversion did not go smoothly.

  Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, balked. A confidant of the Trump family, Kirk and his lieutenant Tyler Bowyer were allegedly “horrified” by the idea of pushing absentee ballots for fear of alienating MAGA diehards. Ned Ryun, CEO of American Majority Action, insisted absentee ballots were half the battle, arguing that Republican hopes would languish in long lines on Election Day without them. One source described the mood that day as “snippy.”

  Turning Point spokesman Andrew Kolvet dismissed that characterization and told RealClearPolitics the organization was making plans as early as 2022 to “hammer home” the early vote.

  “There were skeptics,” Blair said in retrospect. Without singling anyone out, he told RCP that “less sophisticated” operatives on the right still subscribed to “this theory that ‘well, if the votes come in early, then [Democrats] know how many they need to cheat.’” His counter-argument as he showed the grassroots the math: “No, once a vote is banked, that’s good.”

  This was easier said than done, as Trump had hardwired a deep distrust into the minds of millions of Republicans by arguing that anything other than same-day voting was synonymous with fraud. “We have to get rid of mail-in ballots,” Trump said during his January victory speech after winning the Iowa caucuses. As he began his easy march through the GOP primary field, Trump added, “Once you have mail-in ballots, you have crooked elections.”

  Data alone would not be enough to convince the base to abandon that belief. Only Trump could change their minds. “He had to create the permission structure for his voters,” Blair explained, “which is that voting early, whether by mail or in person, can be a pathway to victory, not to defeat.”

  Clearing a primary field of Republican challengers too afraid to attack him was one thing. Unseating an incumbent president would be another. Enter Susie Wiles.

  She came from Florida, just like Blair, where Republicans had built majorities for decades despite being outnumbered by Democrats on registered voter rolls. As campaign co-chair, she had just helped Trump brush aside the primary challenge of Florida’s own governor. Then Wiles looked to the general election, directing Blair to draft a memo outlining a new Trump way to win. In short, they planned to export the Florida model.

  They laid out the data, pointed to successful case studies, and ran sophisticated election simulations. But the final argument that changed Trump’s mind? “Look, sir,” the former president was told, according to sources familiar with the discussions, “people are really excited to vote for you, and they want to vote for you as soon as they have the chance to vote.” On the evening of April 19, in characteristic all caps, Trump did something very uncharacteristic: He reversed himself and blessed the mail ballot. Wrote the former president on his social media website Truth Social:

  ABSENTEE VOTING, EARLY VOTING, AND ELECTION DAY VOTING ARE ALL GOOD OPTIONS. REPUBLICANS MUST MAKE A PLAN, REGISTER, AND VOTE!

  Once the green light was given, the Trump machine kicked into another gear. They would still drive turnout on Election Day, but they would work just as hard to bank votes in advance. This has an obvious tactical advantage. Every supporter who cast their ballot early represented one less voter the campaign had to spend time and resources on getting to the polls on November 5. All campaigns do this. But the FEC decision that allowed federal candidates to coordinate with outside groups, the one ushered in by liberal lawyer Marc Elias, turbocharged everything. Tim Saler, chief data consultant for the Trump campaign, took full advantage.

  Saler was the analytical brain behind the GOP’s ground game juggernaut. Despite all the massive reporting from the Associated Press to the New York Times suggesting the opposite, he insisted in an interview with RCP that Trump actually had one. “It was not outsourced at all,” Saler said of the get-out-the-vote apparatus. “It was coordinated.”

  Flashback to Florida. Many of the groups inside Trump headquarters, almost a dozen in total, were already planning their own canvassing programs. Some had more experience than others.

  Turn Out for America, a political action committee bankrolled by conservative billionaire Dick Uihlein, was on board from the beginning and widely considered among Trump operatives as “the gold standard.”

  American Majority Action, Ryun’s group, had just run two pilot programs the year before, one in Louisiana and another in Virginia. Ryun was convinced Republicans could win by banking votes. “We had faith in what they did,” said a source with direct knowledge of the Trump operation. The newest addition: Turning Point Action.

  Kirk and Bowers leveraged their influence with millions of conservative students to create a turnout machine. “Turning Point will just need to keep evolving,” a Trump operative said of the newest edition while stressing that their efforts were welcome and helpful.

  America PAC, the Elon Musk upstart that would eclipse all the rest in spending, would come later.

  Saler loves them all and says each did good work. Ahead of Election Day, the first order of business was making sure the assorted groups “did no harm.” Under the new FEC paradigm, and for the first time, the campaign could communicate priorities, coordinate strategy, and share best tactics. Hence the second priority discussed at the West Palm Beach meeting: A data-sharing agreement.

  “There was a real misnomer, or just a false attack, that we didn’t have a field program,” Saler said of the idea “that our field program had been farmed out.” The campaign already had in-house volunteers, a program called Trump Force 47, that fanned out to all 50 states and knocked on millions of doors on its own. What the new coordination rules provided for was the creation of the outside armies fanning out to each of the seven battleground states in search of the all-important low-propensity voter.

  “The president’s coalition is more rural, lower propensity, and more down scale,” Saler explained. “Think a 35-year-old man who turns a wrench in small-town, central Wisconsin, who never engages face-to-face with anybody in politics.”

  To turn out a coalition like no other, Saler had to assemble an apparatus like no other. The campaign would be at the center. They shared targeting priorities with the outside groups, who then sent their people into the field to find and identify Trump voters, building a real-time data loop. They didn’t just go where other GOP presidential campaigns had been in years past. Because of the new canvassing rules, Trump HQ could send outside groups, not just to big population centers, but door to door even in the most rural areas. On front porches, outside grocery stores, and everywhere in between, canvassers sought out the MAGA faithful, registered them to vote, and pushed them to do it early.

  “The president is a unique character in American history; He is the champion of the forgotten man and woman,” Saler said before adding that the campaign was just as unique. “We also didn’t forget them.” In the moment, though, skepticism abounded. Some Republicans, many of them on the outside looking in, questioned the wisdom of relying so heavily on mercenary doorknockers ahead of what was sure to be a make-or-break election. Even Ben Shapiro was worried. In an October interview, Shapiro warned the former president that he was hearing mixed reviews about the ground game. Was his campaign up to the job? Trump avoided the question. In the final stretch, no one had a definitive answer.

  A team of rivals, meanwhile, was working on his behalf in pursuit of low-propensity voters.

  A staple on the college circuit, Kirk focused on the youth vote while directing his organization’s political arm, Turning Point Action, to decamp from campus and field an army of more than a thousand paid doorknockers across each of the swing states in pursuit of low-propensity voters overall. A spokesman denied that there was any hesitation about registering voters for absentee ballots. Instead, the organization modeled its early-vote strategy off of the Democratic playbook while making accommodations for lingering concerns over mail-in ballots.

  The emphasis was on early voting, but if a voter preferred to cast their ballot in person on Election Day, the organization was ready to drive them to the polls. Explained Turning Point spokesman Andrew Kolvet, “We only care about getting ballots in the box.”

  At times, the organization took “low propensity” to the extreme. Scott Presler, a conservative activist who partnered with Turning Point in Pennsylvania, courted a normally apolitical and untapped constituency: the Amish. 

  That community’s aversion to politics wasn’t the chief obstacle. It was the calendar. “Get this,” he told RCP, “Amish get married on Tuesdays in November.” Otherwise, they generally match the voter profile of a normal social conservative, he reported. Armed with that information, Presler parachuted into rural farming communities west of Philadelphia and north of Pittsburgh with absentee and mail-in ballot applications.  

  While Turning Point and their partners earned praise for that kind of innovation, elsewhere, some questioned the efficiency of their organization. One Turning Point intern attracted online criticism when he bragged in a social media post that he knocked on just 500 doors over the course of nine weeks, a seemingly low number. Another paid Turning Point Action employee, currently under contract in Wisconsin through November, told RCP that management had set a daily goal of just 10 voter contacts.

  “We set out on a mission to chase low-prop and first-time voters across the country,” Kirk wrote in a social media post the week after the election. Across four states (Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin), according to their internal numbers, Turning Point Action had helped no less than 300,000 low-propensity voters cast their votes. “Mission accomplished,” he wrote.

  American Majority Action took a more traditional approach with Ryun at the helm. The hard-nosed operative, who helped former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker become just the second state executive to survive a recall 13 years prior, had raised and deployed as many grassroots armies in the time since. The difference this time? Ever since the “Red Wave” fizzled in the 2022 midterms, Ryun had been on a one-man crusade to force Republicans to embrace absentee and early voting in earnest.

  After running two successful pilot programs in state races, he was convinced the GOP could take the approach national. Trump supporters would learn to love the mail-in ballot, he was convinced, once they won with it. Toward that end, American Majority picked four targets: Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. They hired 1,600 staff, drilling into each canvasser two numbers: Seven and nine. Between seven and nine is how many times a single low-propensity voter, on average, must be contacted before they will return a mail-in ballot. A blunt Ryun calls it “targeted harassment.”

  According to an after-action report, the group made more than 11 million phone calls in support of Trump and sent just shy of four million texts to voters in each of their four target states. They knocked on nearly 2 million doors.

  On the eve of the election, Ryun wrote in an op-ed for “American Greatness” that Republicans had experienced their fair share of growing pains. It would take time for the GOP to catch up to Democrats on the early voting front, but overall, the conservative movement earned a passing grade: “A solid B to B+ level with lots of room for growth.”

  America PAC was the last big group to arrive. Elon Musk endorsed Trump after the first assassination attempt, and while Republicans welcomed the many millions of dollars from the world’s richest man, the political novice attracted his fair share of scrutiny. His group planned to compete in all seven battleground states. They initially hired just a handful of vendors to execute a one-size-fits-all, top-down strategy.

  By the end of the summer, though, Musk fired his initial team and hired Genera Peck and Phil Cox, veterans of the defunct DeSantis campaign, to put together a national plan with individual directors in each of the battleground states. They took a tailored approach, and by the end, Musk lent his celebrity to the Pennsylvania campaign, a state he often told voters was the key to the whole election. His group spent north of $200 million, a deep war chest that lent itself to sending canvassers nearly everywhere.

  The scope of all of this was relatively new territory. Few national, grassroots organizations previously had the resources and expertise to chase votes across multiple states concurrently. Each additional battleground added another level of complexity and difficulty. But it wasn’t all top-down. A patchwork of groups supplemented the work in the individual swing states.

  Motivated by the frustration that the right had “yielded voter registration to the left,” former Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler launched “Greater Georgia” in the Peach State. The group identified tens of thousands of conservative Georgians and helped get them registered to vote. Another state-specific get-out-the-vote engine to the north: PA Chase. Founded by Cliff Maloney, that organization canvassed throughout Pennsylvania in search of low-propensity voters in need of a mail-in ballot. “We’re finally catching up to the Democrats,” Maloney said of his efforts before Election Day. “This is straight out of their playbook, right?

  In this way, the Trump campaign and its allies chased the low-propensity voter. And it worked. He not only swept each swing state on his way to becoming just the second president in history to win non-consecutive terms, but Trump also won the popular vote, something Republicans haven’t achieved since 2004. Said Saler of the electorate that returned the former and future president to the Oval Office, “He created them.” Many were first-time voters. Some voted only for him. Now every Republican operative involved in planning for the midterms and the next general election is focused on one question: How to keep these voters in the GOP fold? It will likely include a heavy emphasis on the early vote.

  Trump World, even in victory, sees the mail-in ballot as a pragmatic necessity, not an ideal way to vote. “Look, they’re not perfect, and if we could just do away with them, we probably would, but that’s not the world we live in,” Blair said. “They exist. So, it is what it is.”

  For his part, Ryun has become their biggest apostle of early voting and the mail-in ballot. After Republicans won big, he isn’t in a hurry to see the GOP set them aside. “I’m telling you, this works, and this should be our game planning forward,” he said, before adding that a more pressing question for the right was discerning which groups did real work and which did little more than gobble up donor dollars.

  “There are some vaporware organizations, like Turning Point, that I’m afraid were not as effective as they could have been because they were on a journey of self-discovery in politics,” Ryun said. “My concern for the future is, how do we make sure that some of these voters who turned out for Trump-only become consistent Republican voters.”

  A Turning Point spokesman dismissed that criticism. Said Kolvet, “We’re not in the business of getting down in the mud.” The results, he said, speak for themselves. “The campaign, which knows the data and accomplishments well, knows how successful our program was,” the spokesman concluded.

  Republicans will have their work cut out for them in the midterms. They have historically underperformed whenever Trump is not on the ballot. The coordination between federal candidates and outside groups – that the FEC allowed at the insistence of Democrats like Elias – will not change. It was central to a Trump victory.

  “Thank you, Marc,” quipped Saler, the Trump data consultant who helped engineer the former, and future, president’s comeback. “We appreciate you.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 17:00

• Exxon Pours Cold Water On Trump's "Drill, Baby, Drill" Plans
  Exxon Pours Cold Water On Trump’s “Drill, Baby, Drill” Plans

  Contrary to expectations for a self-defeating flood of new energy production under the second Trump admin, Exxon’s Upstream President Liam Mallon said that oil and gas producers in the US will not raise output significantly in the coming years despite calls from President-Elect Donald Trump to “drill, baby, drill.”

  “I think a radical change is unlikely because the vast majority, if not everybody, is primarily focused on the economics of what they’re doing,” Mallon said on Tuesday at a conference in London, according to Bloomberg.

  Trump is expected to open up federal lands for more oil and gas drilling, in part to execute on Scott Bessent’s “3-3-3 plan” which envisions boosting US oil production by an addition 3 million barrels per day (from the current record 13.3 million), but much of the land in the country’s largest oil and gas producing state, Texas, is private. Still, there’s plentiful federal land in neighboring New Mexico which includes the oil- and gas-rich Permian Basin.

  “If those rules were substantially changed, you would be able to drill more, assuming you have the quality and met your economic threshold,” Mallon said. “But I don’t think we’re going to see anybody in the drill, baby, drill mode. I really don’t.”

  Exxon’s European rival TotalEnergies is also skeptical of Trump’s vow to open US taps.

  “Maybe he has a magic recipe to push them to drill like mad,” TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanne said at the conference. He cited US producers’ commitment to return cash to shareholders and said “it’s not only decisions by politicians” that drive American output.

  The US is pumping more than 13 million barrels of crude a day, exceeding every other nation and up almost 45% in the past decade. With a surplus looming next year, the global oil market is watching to see at what rate American explorers drill new wells. Many of the biggest US operators are taking a long-term approach to production, weighing when to bring certain wells online against their overall inventory. Many have throttled their output to maximize shareholders returns (i.e. higher prices) over total production (higher volumes).

  Mallon’s comments mark the second time since the election that the largest US oil company has diverged from Trump’s policies. CEO Darren Woods discouraged the president-elect from withdrawing the US from the Paris climate pact, arguing that it’s better to participate and push for “common sense” carbon-cutting policy.

  Mallon reinforced Woods’s recent remarks supporting the US Inflation Reduction Act, which Trump has characterized as Washington’s “green new scam.” Some IRA incentives — including tax credits for capturing carbon, producing hydrogen and making sustainable aviation fuel — are particularly popular with oil companies.

  “Our position on the IRA is very good,” Mallon said. “We strongly believe in what it is, what it stands for and the incentives it’s providing.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 16:40

• What Ails America… And How To Fix It
  What Ails America… And How To Fix It

  Authored by Jeffrey Sachs via CommonDreams.org,

  When a nation is very sick, we need multiple and overlapping remedies…

  

  America is a country of undoubted vast strengths—technological, economic, and cultural—yet its government is profoundly failing its own citizens and the world. Trump’s victory is very easy to understand. It was a vote against the status quo. Whether Trump will fix—or even attempt to fix—what really ails America remains to be seen.

  The rejection of the status quo by the American electorate is overwhelming. According to Gallup in October 2024, 52% of Americans said they and their families were worse off than four years ago, while only 39% said they were better off and 9% said they were about the same. An NBC national news poll in September 2024 found that 65% of Americans said the country is on the wrong track, while only 25% said that it is on the right track. In March 2024, according to Gallup, only 33% of Americans approved of Joe Biden’s handling of foreign affairs.

  At the core of the American crisis is a political system that fails to represent the true interests of the average American voter. The political system was hacked by big money decades ago, especially when the U.S. Supreme Court opened the floodgates to unlimited campaign contributions. Since then, American politics has become a plaything of super-rich donors and narrow-interest lobbies, who fund election campaigns in return for policies that favor vested interests rather than the common good.

  Two groups own the Congress and White House: super-rich individuals and single-issue lobbies.

  The world watched agape as Elon Musk, the world’s richest person (and yes, a brilliant entrepreneur and inventor), played a unique role in backing Trump’s election victory, both through his vast media influence and funding. Countless other billionaires chipped into Trump’s victory.

  Many (though not all) of the super-rich donors seeks special favors from the political system for their companies or investments, and most of those desired favors will be duly delivered by the Congress, the White House, and the regulatory agencies staffed by the new administration. Many of these donors also push one overall deliverable: further tax cuts on corporate income and capital gains.

  Many business donors, I would quickly add, are forthrightly on the side of peace and cooperation with China, as very sensible for business as well as for humanity. Business leaders generally want peace and incomes, while crazed ideologues want hegemony through war.

  There would have been precious little difference in all of this with a Harris victory. The Democrats have their own long list of the super-rich who financed the party’s presidential and Congressional campaigns. Many of those donors too would have demanded and received special favors.

  Tax breaks on capital income have been duly delivered by Congress for decades no matter their impact on the ballooning federal deficit, which now stands at nearly 7 percent of GDP, and no matter that the U.S. pre-tax national income in recent decades has shifted powerfully towards capital income and away from labor income. As measured by one basic indicator, the share of labor income in GDP has declined by around 7 percentage points since the end of World War II. As income has shifted from labor to capital, the stock market (and super-wealth) has soared, with the overall stock market valuation rising from 55% of GDP in 1985 to 200% of GDP today!

  The second group with its hold on Washingtons is single-issue lobbies.

  These powerful lobbies include the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, Big Oil, the gun industry, big pharma, big Ag, and the Israel Lobby. American politics is well organized to cater to these special interests. Each lobby buys the support of specific committees in Congress and selected national leaders to win control over public policy.

  The economic returns to special-interest lobbying are often huge: a hundred million dollars of campaign funding by a lobby group can win a hundred billion of federal outlays and/or tax breaks. This is the lesson, for example, of the Israel lobby, which spends a few hundred million dollars on campaign contributions, and harvests tens of billions of dollars in military and economic support for Israel.

  These special-interest lobbies do not depend on, nor care much about, public opinion. Opinion surveys show regularly that the public wants gun control, lower drug prices, an end of Wall Street bailouts, renewable energy, and peace in Ukraine and the Middle East. Instead, the lobbyists ensure that Congress and the White House deliver continued easy access to handguns and assault weapons, sky-high drug prices, coddling of Wall Street, more oil and gas drilling, weapons for Ukraine, and wars on behalf of Israel.

  These powerful lobbies are money-fueled conspiracies against the common good. Remember Adam Smith’s famous dictum in the Wealth of Nations (1776): “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

  The two most dangerous lobbies are the military-industrial complex (as Eisenhower famously warned us in 1961) and the Israel lobby (as detailed in a scintillating new book by historian Ilan Pappé).

  Their special danger is that they continue to lead us to war and closer to nuclear Armageddon. Biden’s reckless recent decision to allow U.S. missile strikes deep inside Russia, long advocated by the military-industrial complex, is case in point.

  The military-industrial complex aims for U.S. “full-spectrum dominance.” It’s purported solutions to world problems are wars and more wars, together with covert regime-change operations, U.S. economic sanctions, U.S. info-wars, color revolutions (led by the National Endowment for Democracy), and foreign policy bullying. These of course have been no solutions at all. These actions, in flagrant violation of international law, have dramatically increased U.S. insecurity.

  The military-industrial complex (MIC) dragged Ukraine into a hopeless war with Russia by promising Ukraine membership in NATO in the face of Russia’s fervent opposition, and by conspiring to overthrow Ukraine’s government in February 2014 because it sought neutrality rather than NATO membership.

  The military-industrial complex is currently—unbelievably—promoting a coming war with China. This will of course involve a huge and lucrative arms buildup, the aim of the MIC. Yet it will also threaten World War III or a cataclysmic U.S. defeat in another Asian war.

  While the Military-Industrial Complex has stoked NATO enlargement and conflicts with Russia and China, the Israel Lobby has stoked America’s serial wars in the Middle East. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, more than any U.S. president, has been the lead promoter of America’s backing of disastrous wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria.

  Netanyahu’s aim is to keep the land that Israel conquered in the 1967 war, creating what is called Greater Israel, and to prevent a Palestinian State. This expansionist policy, in contravention of international law, has given rise to militant pro-Palestinian groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Netanyahu’s long-standing policy is for the U.S. to topple or help to topple the governments that support these resistance groups.

  Incredibly, the Washington neocons and the Israel Lobby actually joined forces to carry out Netanyahu’s disastrous plan for wars across the Middle East. Netanyahu was a lead backer of the War in Iraq. Former Marine Commander Dennis Fritz has recently described in detail the Israel Lobby’s large role in that war. Ilan Pappé has done the same. In fact, the Israel Lobby has supported U.S.-led or U.S.-backed wars across the Middle East, leaving the targeted countries in ruins and the U.S. budget deep in debt.

  In the meantime, the wars and tax cuts for the rich, have offered no solutions for the hardships working-class Americans. As in other high-income countries, employment in U.S. manufacturing fell sharply from the 1980s onward as assembly-line workers were increasingly replaced by robots and “smart systems.” The decline in the labor share of value in the U.S. has been significant, and once again has been a phenomenon shared with other high-countries.

  Yet American workers have been hit especially hard. In addition to the underlying global technological trends hitting jobs and wages, American workers have been battered by decades of anti-union policies, soaring tuition and healthcare costs, and other anti-worker measures. In high-income countries of northern Europe, “social consumption” (publicly funded healthcare, tuition, housing, and other publicly provided services) and high levels of unionization have sustained decent living standards for workers. Not so in the United States.

  Yet this was not the end of it.

  Soaring costs of health care, driven by the private health insurers, and the absence of sufficient public financing for higher education and low-cost online options, created a pincer movement, squeezing the working class between falling or stagnant wages on the one side and rising education and healthcare costs on the other side.

  Neither the Democrats nor Republicans did much of anything to help the workers.

  Trump’s voter base is the working class, but his donor base is the super-rich and the lobbies. So, what will happen next? More of the same—wars and tax cuts—or something new and real for the voters?

  Trump’s purported answer is a trade war with China and the deportation of illegal foreign workers, combined with more tax cuts for the rich. In other words, rather than face the structural challenges of ensuring decent living standards for all, and face forthrightly the staggering budget deficit, Trump’s answers on the campaign trail and in his first term were to blame China and migrants for low working-class wages and wasteful spending for the deficits.

  This has played well electorally in 2016 and 2024, but will not deliver the promised results for workers in the long run. Manufacturing jobs will not return in large numbers from China since they never went in large numbers to China. Nor will deportations do much to raise living standards of average Americans.

  This is not to say that real solutions are lacking. They are hiding in plain view—if Trump chooses to take them, over the special interest groups and class interests of Trump’s backers.

  If Trump chooses real solutions, he would achieve a strikingly positive political legacy for decades to come.

  • The first is to face down the military-industrial complex. Trump can end the war in Ukraine by telling President Putin and the world that NATO will never expand to Ukraine. He can end the risk of war with China by making crystal clear that the U.S. abides by the One China Policy, and as such, will not interfere in China’s internal affairs by sending armaments to Taiwan over Beijing’s objections, and would not support any attempt by Taiwan to secede.

  • The second is to face down the Israel lobby by telling Netanyahu that the U.S. will no longer fight Israel’s wars and that Israel must accept a State of Palestine living in peace next to Israel, as called for by the entire world community. This indeed is the only possible path to peace for Israel and Palestine, and indeed for the Middle East.

  • The third is to close the budget deficit, partly by cutting wasteful spending—notably on wars, hundreds of useless overseas military bases, and sky-high prices the government pays for drugs and healthcare—and partly by raising government revenues. Simply enforcing taxes on the books by cracking down on illegal tax evasion would have raised $625 billion in 2021, around 2.6% of GDP. More should be raised by taxation of soaring capital incomes.

  • The fourth is an innovation policy (aka industrial policy) that serves the common good. Elon Musk and his Silicon Valley friends have succeeded in innovation beyond the wildest expectations. All kudos to Silicon Valley for bringing us the digital age. America’s innovation capacity is vast and robust and an envy of the world.

  The challenge now is innovation for what? Musk has his eye on Mars and beyond. Captivating, yet there are billions of people on Earth that can and should be helped by the digital revolution in the here and now. A core goal of Trump’s industrial policy should be to ensure that innovation serves the common good, including the poor, the working class, and the natural environment. Our nation’s goals need to go beyond wealth and weapons systems.

  As Musk and his colleagues know better than anybody, the new AI and digital technologies can usher in an era of low-cost, zero-carbon energy; low-cost healthcare; low-cost higher education; low-cost electricity-powered mobility; and other AI-enabled efficiencies that can raise real living standards of all workers. In the process, innovation should foster high-quality, unionized jobs—not the gig employment that has sent living standards plummeting and worker insecurity soaring.

  Trump and the Republicans have resisted these technologies in the past. In his first term, Trump let China take the lead in these technologies pretty much across the board. Our goal is not to stop China’s innovations, but to spur our own. Indeed, as Silicon Valley understands while Washington does not, China has long been and should remain America’s partner in the innovation ecosystem. China’s highly efficient and low-cost manufacturing facilities, such as Tesla’s Gigafactory in Shanghai, put Silicon Valley’s innovations into worldwide use … when America tries.

  All four of these steps are within Trump’s reach, and would justify his electoral triumph and secure his legacy for decades to come. I’m not holding my breath for Washington to adopt these straightforward steps. American politics has been rotten for too long for real optimism in that regard, yet these four steps are all achievable, and would greatly benefit not only the tech and finance leaders who backed Trump’s campaign but the generation of disaffected workers and households whose votes put Trump back into the White House.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 16:20

• Biden Ramps Up Pressure On Ukraine To Lower Conscription Age From 25 To 18
  Biden Ramps Up Pressure On Ukraine To Lower Conscription Age From 25 To 18

  The Ukrainian military accepts voluntary enlistments from those 18 and older. However, in stark contrast to Americans’ experience with military drafts, Ukraine had long exempted men under 27 from being conscripted. The country’s legislature last April finally moved to lower the minimum draft age to 25.

  Last spring on one of his many visits to Ukraine, hawkish Senator Lindsey Graham expressed shock upon learning that men in their early 20s in Ukraine cannot be drafted. “I would hope that those eligible to serve in the Ukrainian military would join. I can’t believe [conscription age starts] at 27,” he said at the time. “You’re in a fight for your life, so you should be serving — not at 25 or 27.” 

  When President Volodymyr Zelenskiy soon after this statement signed a bill into effect to lower the mobilization age for combat duty from 27 to 25, this took some of the pressure off for the time being.

  

  This debate has now been renewed as President Biden, on his way out of office, is ramping up the pressure on Kiev to drastically change things.

  The Associated Press reports Wednesday:

  President Joe Biden’s administration is urging Ukraine to quickly increase the size of its military by drafting more troops and revamping its mobilization laws to allow for the conscription of troops as young as 18.

  A senior Biden administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private consultations, said Wednesday that the outgoing Democratic administration wants Ukraine to lower the mobilization age to 18 from the current age of 25 to help expand the pool of fighting-age men available to help a badly outnumbered Ukraine in its nearly three-year-old war with Russia.

  The official said “the pure math” of Ukraine’s situation now is that it needs more troops in the fight.

  As the outgoing Biden administration is asking Congress to soon approve billions more for Ukraine, this conscription age change policy could serve as the quid pro quo being requested of Kiev from Washington, in order to keep the billions in arms and aid flowing.

  The AP further cites an official who says the Ukrainians “believe they need about 160,000 additional troops, but the U.S. administration believes they probably will need more than that.”

  To the last Ukrainian: “White House presses Ukraine to lower draft age to meet manpower needs against Russia. President Joe Biden’s administration is urging Ukraine to quickly increase the size of its military by drafting more troops and revamping its mobilization laws to allow… pic.twitter.com/N4m052LV8d

  — Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) November 27, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  In the early days of the war, some US hawks admitted their view is that Ukraine would be willing to “fight to the last person” as long as the US continued to provide the weapons. These politicians don’t seem to actually care about Ukrainians and their future in making remarks like this.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 15:45

• 'Conservative' Outfits Are 'Scouring' Because Journalists Won't
  ‘Conservative’ Outfits Are ‘Scouring’ Because Journalists Won’t

  Authored by Michael Chamberlain via RealClearPolicy,

  The other day I acquired a new title: “Scourer.” My organization, Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT), was among the groups mentioned in a Politico article the outlet’s X account promoted as “Conservative outfits are scouring feds’ emails.”

  

  I know “scouring” isn’t meant as a compliment, but I’m happy to take it that way. As stated in the article, PPT has made more than 1,600 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests of the Biden-Harris administration. We’ve done so because the journalists and watchdog groups so enthusiastic about policing the Trump administration seem to have decided sometime around January 20, 2021, that their vigilance was no longer needed.

  I have no issue with how I and PPT were portrayed in Robin Bravender’s report, but the piece’s framing and marketing were a bald attempt to whip up fear inside the Beltway of a Trump II purge of the bureaucracy. Bravender quoted the overwrought words of the Environmental Protection Network’s Jeremy Symons: “This abuse of the FOIA system is to intimidate civil servants and pave the way for hit lists in the event that Trump takes office.” 

  I can only speak for PPT, but that’s certainly not something we’ve focused on. We’ve found that there are more than enough conflicts and ethics problems with Biden-Harris political appointees to keep us busy. Our work mentions career civil servants when necessary, but PPT doesn’t target them and we keep no lists.

  Career bureaucrats should not be above scrutiny, however. Transparency is not for certain classes of government employees. Civil servants must be accountable to the people who pay their salaries … and who elect their boss.

  Symons told Bravender that the Trump administration would seek “excuses to get rid of anybody of significance and importance, so that the only people left in the agency are political hacks that are loyal to the president.”

  No doubt, that would be bad. But, as long as we’re being reductive, wouldn’t it be just as bad to countenance “political hacks” who actively oppose the president? Those hacks would be flouting the will of the majority that elected the president and thus subverting “our democracy.”

  The article states that the FOIAs “are causing concern among government employees and their allies.” That government employees have or need allies means they have adversaries, which, whatever their personal politics, civil servants shouldn’t have. Presidents serve at the pleasure of the electorate. Political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. Career bureaucrats serve at the pleasure of … whom?

  It recently surfaced, thanks to a whistleblower, that in the aftermath of Hurricane Milton, a career FEMA supervisor in Florida directed workers to avoid houses with Trump signs. That certainly sounds like a situation in need of scouring.

  All federal employees, appointed or career, work for the taxpayers. They use taxpayer-provided resources to spend taxpayer-provided money. There is nothing sinister about insisting that the taxpayers have the right to know what they are getting for the salaries they pay and the resources they provide.

  There was a time when scouring legally obtained public documents was also known as journalism – a noble and necessary role in a functioning republic. Journalists could and sometimes did shine light into the career bureaucracy. Few seem interested in doing that anymore, so it falls to others – some of whom journalists ascribe politics they dislike. That’s the price of abandoning the field.

  But since there will be a second Trump administration, we can expect journalists and erstwhile “watchdogs” to rediscover their curiosity. Maybe “scouring” will no longer be a term of derision.

  For our government to function for the maximum benefit of the American people, transparency is paramount. And nobody in government should be immune to scrutiny.

  Michael Chamberlain is the Director of Protect the Public’s Trust, a watchdog organization focused on ethics and transparency.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/27/2024 – 15:25

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• The Triggers For & Consequences Of Russia's Possible Missile Deployment To The Asia-Pacific
  The Triggers For & Consequences Of Russia’s Possible Missile Deployment To The Asia-Pacific

  Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

  Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in response to a question about his country’s possible missile deployment to the Asia-Pacific that this “will depend on the deployment of corresponding US systems in any region of the world.” This came less than a week after Putin authorized the use of Russia’s previously secret hypersonic medium-range Oreshnik missile in Ukraine, the strategic significance of which was analyzed here, and parallels newly deteriorating Russian-South Korean ties.

  

  Seoul is considering arming Ukraine in response to unsubstantiated reports about Russia’s use of North Korean troops against that former Soviet Republic, which prompted Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko to warn that “we will respond in every way that we find necessary. It is unlikely that this will strengthen the security of the Republic of Korea itself.”

  The two triggers for Russia’s possible missile deployment to the Asia-Pacific are therefore the US doing so first or Seoul arming Kiev.

  It’s important to point out that while China is Russia’s close military partner and Moscow believes that Washington is engaged in what Russian officials describe as a “dual containment” strategy against both, Beijing isn’t its military ally, unlike Pyongyang with which Moscow just recently signed a military pact. That document was analyzed here and amounts to updating a Soviet-era one. Its strategic significance is that each pledged to help the other if they come under aggression and such assistance is requested.

  Accordingly, Russia’s possible missile deployment to the Asia-Pacific would be in defense of its own and North Korea’s security, with the first immediate consequence being that it could inadvertently worsen China’s by serving to justify and accelerate the US’ regional containment plans against it. To explain, Trump plans to “Pivot (back) to Asia” upon the end of the Ukrainian Conflict, whenever that might be and regardless of the terms agreed to, which is already troubling enough from China’s perspective.

  To make it even worse, Trump is inheriting the Biden Administration’s achievement of having brokered the improvement of South Korean-Japanese ties to such an extent that the US’ long-hoped-for regional trilateral is finally on the brink of becoming a strategic reality. The deployment of short- and intermediate-range Russian missiles to the Asia-Pacific, especially the state-of-the-art Oreshnik, would naturally justify the aforesaid and accelerate all three’s convergence into a tighter triangle.

  On the diplomatic front, these missiles could always be withdrawn pending a grand deal between Russia, the US, North Korea, and possibly also China, though the latter’s involvement shouldn’t be taken for granted. After all, an agreement could be reached between the first three in exchange for de-escalating tensions in Northeast Asia, which could then free up the US and Japan to concentrate on more muscularly containing China in Southeast Asia via Taiwan and the Philippines, which both are close with.

  It’s premature to predict that this is exactly what will unfold, but the point is that Russia’s role in the emerging Asian front of the New Cold War could be leveraged for de-escalation purposes if its and North Korea’s security interests are met, which only requires negotiating with the US and not with China. Given these military-strategic dynamics, it’s possible that Trump might try to fulfill his campaign pledge to “un-unite” Russia and China by playing them off against each other, though that’s very unlikely to succeed.

  All told, Russia’s possible missile deployment to the Asia-Pacific would be triggered by the US or South Korea, with the consequences being that it’ll solidify Russia’s role in that emerging front of the New Cold War while inadvertently worsening China’s security by justifying and accelerating the US’ “Pivot (back) to Asia”. The Kremlin wants to fulfill its allied commitments to North Korea and highlight its relevance in that part of Eurasia, both goals of which are driven by security, diplomatic, and soft power motives.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 23:25

• "Business As Usual": NYT, Reuters, Vox Media Reportedly Have Zero Plans To Leave 𝕏
  “Business As Usual”: NYT, Reuters, Vox Media Reportedly Have Zero Plans To Leave 𝕏

  The New York Times, Reuters, Vox Media, and more than a dozen other media organizations have confirmed to Digiday their intention to remain on Elon Musk’s 𝕏. This follows the decision by some far-left folks, frustrated with the ‘free speech’ platform in the wake of Trump’s historic presidential victory, to migrate to Bluesky—a social media platform tailored for those infected by the woke mind virus. 

  

  Digiday reported:

  Over a dozen major publishers — including The New York Times, Reuters and Vox Media — told Digiday that they didn’t have plans to leave 𝕏 anytime soon. About half declined to comment on the record. The other half confirmed that it was business as usual.

  However, the media outlet focused on the future of media and marketing noted some corporate media outlets were planning to give Bluesky a try:

  Last week, The Guardian joined NPR in vowing not to post on the platform anymore, citing the toxicity on Twitter 2.0 and 𝕏 owner Elon Musk’s political involvement. Meanwhile, 𝕏 alternative Bluesky received an influx of new users after the U.S. presidential election, with publishers like The Economist, The Week, Politico and Semafor following them there.

  What’s certain is that 𝕏 was the number one app in the App Store as of Sunday. This comes as legacy media continues to implode, with how people receive their news shifting dramatically—from corporate media outlets to 𝕏, alternative news websites, and podcasters.

  BREAKING: 𝕏 remains the #1 News App in the US in both Free and Grossing categories on the AppStore.

  Rankings | November 24th 2024 🥇 pic.twitter.com/KYTF9uxrBu

  — DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) November 24, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The Axios CEO recently had a meltdown over Musk’s comment, telling 𝕏 users, “You are the media now.” 

  NEW Axios CEO melts down over @elonmusk telling 𝕏 users “You are the media now” — mounts passionate defense of dying legacy media:

  “My message to Elon Musk is b*llshit. You’re not the media!”

  The MSNBC panel applauds:

  “Social media people lying every day, every hour, every… pic.twitter.com/SBwgI9hFfC

  — Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 25, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Meanwhile, major brands, including Comcast, IBM, Disney, Warner Brothers, Discovery, and Lionsgate Entertainment, have all resumed ad spending on 𝕏, an indication that the social media platform remains the top spot for news and current affairs.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 23:00

• Trump Transition Team Signs Modified White House Agreement, Without Govt Technology To Conduct Surveillance
  Trump Transition Team Signs Modified White House Agreement, Without Govt Technology To Conduct Surveillance

  Authored by ‘sundance’ via The Last Refuge,

  The President Trump transition team has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to start the process of transferring control of the federal government.  The landing teams from each of the cabinets will now begin to engage with their exiting counterparts.

  There were many articles written about the delays in signing the agreements.  However, President Trump waited until he has his cabinet fully assembled before signing the first part that permits the landing teams to engage.  The second part with government provided offices and technology is NOT being accepted.

  President Trump’s Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, announced the Trump transition team has refused to sign an MOU with the Government Services Administration (GSA), and will not be using cell phones, computers, offices or “any technology” provided by the GSA.  This is a smart move to avoid the Deep State surveillance situation that was faced in the first term.

  

  In the first Trump administration, the GSA had wiretaps, office bugs, and gave all the electronic communication information from the Trump transition to the FBI, IC and later Robert Mueller. In essence, the GSA spied on the Trump team, then gave all the data to the operatives who were in place to target them.  The Trump team is not making this mistake again.

  The Trump transition team is also not going to use the office space provided by the GSA and will instead have their own offices and security systems in place to coordinate the transition to power.

  WASHINGTON DC – […] The Trump team’s unprecedented delay in signing these agreements, weeks after being declared the winner of the election, had alarmed former officials and ethics experts who warned it could lead to conflicts of interest and leave the new government unprepared to govern on Day One.

  In the Tuesday announcement, Wiles suggested the Trump transition will not sign a separate agreement with the General Services Administration, which would have allowed them to receive federal funding, cybersecurity support and government office space, pledging instead to fund the transition with private dollars, run it out of private facilities, and deploy their own “existing security and information protections” for sensitive data.

  The transition, Wiles said, “will operate as a self-sufficient organization, adding that declining government funding will “save taxpayers’ hard-earned money.”

  And while Wiles also pledged in the Tuesday statement to publicly disclose the private donors to the transition and “not accept foreign donations,” there will be no legal mechanism to enforce those promises of transparency.

  The lack of federal cybersecurity support could also make the Trump transition a softer target for foreign hackers — who already successfully penetrated the campaign earlier this year.

  “That’s something that in 2020 was maybe the single most important worry of the [Biden] transition team — that they would be hacked, and all of this information, including intelligence information, personal information about job applicants, would be threatened,” said Heath Brown, an associate professor of public policy at CUNY’s John Jay College who wrote a book about Biden’s transition. “It’s imperative that the Trump Transition Team has installed the proper procedures to protect itself.”

  White House spokesperson Saloni Sharma said the Biden administration is concerned about the ramifications of their successors forgoing GSA support, but remains “committed to an orderly transition.”

  “While we do not agree with the Trump transition team’s decision to forgo signing the GSA MOU, we will follow the purpose of the Presidential Transition Act which clearly states that ‘any disruption occasioned by the transfer of the executive power could produce results detrimental to the safety and wellbeing of the United States and its people,’” she said.

  In the White House memo, Sharma added, the Trump transition “agreed to important safeguards to protect non-public information and prevent conflicts of interest, including who has access to the information and how the information is shared,” and also agreed to publicly share the ethics agreements it is imposing on its own employees.

  (read more)

  

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 22:35

• "This Looks So M16-Ish To Me": Russian Special Forces Receive New Main Battle Rifle
  “This Looks So M16-Ish To Me”: Russian Special Forces Receive New Main Battle Rifle

  Russian special forces, commonly known as “Spetsnaz,” are set to receive a newly designed main battle rifle that closely resembles the German Heckler & Koch 417 automatic assault rifle.

  The Russian media outlet TASS News Agency reports that the new semi-automatic rifle is chambered in .308 caliber, described as “lighter than analogs” and offering “high precision.”

  Named Titan, the rifle is reportedly “already engaged in the zone of the Ukrainian operation,” according to a media outlet citing the Russian arms company SWC.

  “Semiautomatic Titan rifle of .308 caliber has been designed for Russian special task units. It can be used as a sniper or assault rifle. Experts say the new universal rifle has good characteristics and is in demand among scouts and commandos,” SWC stated.

  SWC added, “The .308 caliber cartridge is powerful and reliable. Russia produces it in various options, including armor-piercing. Therefore, the rifle is popular among the Russian military.”

  In October, the Russian media outlet Sputnik reported that the Russian Army received a new sniper rifle, the STM-308, to replace the Dragunov platform.

  Earlier this year, the US Army began fielding its brand-new Next Generation Squad Weapon rifles: the Sig Sauer XM7, intended to replace the M4 carbine in close combat formations, and the XM250, which will replace the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.

  The X account Defense Politics Asia commented on the Titan, stating that it “looks so M16-ish to me.“

  This looks so M16-ish to me…. https://t.co/pgAYVSN9OQ

  — Defense Politics Asia (@DefensePolitics) November 26, 2024

  . . .  

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 22:10

• US Marshals And FBI Warn Public Of Nationwide Phone Scams
  US Marshals And FBI Warn Public Of Nationwide Phone Scams

  Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The U.S. Marshals Service and the FBI are alerting the public about widespread phone scams involving individuals impersonating law enforcement officials. Scammers are posing as U.S. Marshals, court officers, or other government agents in attempts to defraud victims by demanding payments to avoid arrest.

  

  These fraudulent callers claim the victim has committed an offense such as identity theft or failing to report for jury duty. The scammers instruct victims to withdraw cash and transfer it to the government, purchase prepaid debit or gift cards, or deposit money into Bitcoin ATMs to “satisfy” alleged fines.

  Scammers often sound convincing by providing badge numbers, names of real law enforcement officials and federal judges, and even spoofing caller IDs to appear as if they’re calling from a government agency or courthouse, the agencies said in a statement.

  In Colorado, multiple incidents have been reported in which scammers use the names of actual U.S. Marshals, including U.S. Marshal Kirk Taylor, claiming there’s a warrant for the victim’s arrest unless a payment is made.

  Victims across the state have suffered losses totaling tens of thousands of dollars, the agencies said. The U.S. Marshals Service receives daily inquiries from individuals targeted by these scams.

  Authorities recommend scam victims file a report with local police and a complaint with the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center at ic3.gov. Callers can remain anonymous.

  The law enforcement agencies said Americans should never divulge personal or financial information to unknown callers. The U.S. Marshals Service said it will never ask for credit or debit card numbers, wire transfers, bank routing numbers, or Bitcoin deposits for any purpose.

  Authorities suggest hanging up and calling a local court clerk to verify any supposed court orders.

  According to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), more than $37 billion has been reported lost due to cyber-enabled crimes from 2019 to 2023. While not every report can receive a direct response, each submission helps law enforcement understand the broader threat landscape and can lead to actionable investigations.

  The IC3 notes that tips are extremely valuable.

  “Combined with other data, [tips] allow the FBI to investigate reported crimes, track trends and threats, and, in some cases, even freeze stolen funds,” the agency said. “Just as importantly, IC3 shares reports of crime throughout its vast network of FBI field offices and law enforcement partners, strengthening our nation’s collective response both locally and nationally.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 21:45

• Trump Said To Be Weighing Direct Talks With North Korea's Kim
  Trump Said To Be Weighing Direct Talks With North Korea’s Kim

  During his first term in the White House, President-elect Donald Trump held three meetings with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. The First was in Hanoi, followed by a highly ‘controversial’ meeting at the Korean border, which was the first time in history that a sitting American president had stepped foot into the North Korean side of the border.

  There was talk at the time of the two leaders falling “in love”—however, the past couple years of Biden’s Pentagon parking a nuclear submarine at a South Korean port has done much to undo these good will displays. Washington has requested that Pyongyang abandon its nuclear weapons development, while Kim has demanded nothing less than full sanctions relief.

  What will the policy be under the second Trump White House?

  “US president-elect Donald Trump’s team is discussing pursuing direct talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, hoping a fresh diplomatic push can lower the risks of armed conflict, according to two people familiar with the matter,” South China Morning Post and Reuters report Tuesday.

  

  While Trump’s transition team has said nothing official on the issue as yet, insider sources say a return to direct diplomacy is hopeful: 

  Several in Trump’s team now see a direct approach from Trump, to build on a relationship that already exists, as most likely to break the ice with Kim, years after the two traded insults and what Trump called “beautiful” letters in an unprecedented diplomatic effort during his first term in office, the people said.

  As for the North Korean side, it doesn’t seem in any hurry, or at least is building leverage in anticipation of potential near-future Trump overtures. 

  The Wall Street Journal summarized Kim’s reaction as of last week as follows: 

  North Korean leader Kim Jong Un appeared to rebuff the prospect of reviving his nuclear diplomacy with President-elect Donald Trump, according to his first public remarks about disarmament talks since the election.

  North Korea’s state media reported Friday that the 40-year-old dictator called the U.S. a superpower that operated by force rather than a will to coexist and belittled the value that previous talks had for his cash-strapped regime.   

  Kim was quoted in a speech days ago as saying, “We have already explored every possible avenue in negotiating with the US.”

  He cited Washington’s “unchanging aggressive and hostile policy” toward North Korea, which has included stepped-up joint US-South Korean military exercises on the peninsula. 

  Earlier on the Trump campaign trail…

  🤣🤣🤣 Trump says Kim Jong-un probably misses him pic.twitter.com/iGJ10hlbAK

  — Kolja Barghoorn (@MitAktien) July 21, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  It’s possible that if Trump is able to oversee peace in Ukraine, which he is pledging to begin in earnest from day one of entering the Oval Office, things could stabilize with US-North Korea relations as well.

  But looming large as a complicating factor is North Korea’s sending some 10,000 of its troops to Russia, where they are reportedly assisting Moscow forces in pushing back Ukraine’s occupation of the southern Kursk region. Kiev has used this to decry the ‘internationalization’ of the war, despite NATO having injected billions of dollars and heavy weaponry on Ukraine’s side.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 21:20

• Winds Of Change Might Blow Through Crypto Sector During Trump's 2nd Term
  Winds Of Change Might Blow Through Crypto Sector During Trump’s 2nd Term

  Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler’s departure in January could transform the U.S. cryptocurrency regulatory landscape.

  

  Gensler, a staunch critic of the digital assets industry, confirmed on social media platform X last week that he will resign from his role the day of President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.

  Trump and Gensler possess contrasting views of crypto.

  Gensler has cracked down on the crypto industry since he was appointed head of the SEC in 2021.

  Speaking at the Piper Sandler Global Exchange and FinTech Conference in New York City last year, the outgoing SEC chief said the crypto frenzy has been rife with “Hucksters. Fraudsters. Scam artists. Ponzi schemes.”

  “The crypto securities markets should not be allowed to undermine the well-earned trust the public has in the capital markets,” Gensler said. “The crypto markets should not be allowed to harm investors.”

  President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to herald a change in federal crypto policy.

  While he promised to fire Gensler on his first day in the White House, Trump has also proposed a plethora of pro-Bitcoin measures.

  He wants to establish a national Bitcoin reserve, create a presidential crypto advisory council, and ensure all remaining Bitcoin is mined domestically.

  “For too long, our government has violated the cardinal rule that every Bitcoiner knows by heart: Never sell your Bitcoin,” Trump said during a keynote address at the largest industry conference this past summer.

  This is a reversal from Trump, who has called it a scam and a threat to the U.S. dollar.

  “I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies, which are not money, and whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air,” Trump said in social media posts in 2019.

  “Unregulated Crypto Assets can facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity.”

  Now that the new administration features pro-crypto officials, will the SEC’s regulatory pursuits change?

  Winds of Regulatory Change

  The agency’s fiscal year 2024 enforcement in the crypto industry resulted in fines and investor relief totaling $8.2 billion.

  With the record-high penalties, the number of cases tumbled 26 percent compared to the previous year.

  “The Division of Enforcement is a steadfast cop on the beat, following the facts and the law wherever they lead to hold wrongdoers accountable,” Gensler said in a statement attached to the announcement.

  This comes as the SEC outlined its aims for the new year.

  In October, the SEC’s Division of Examinations published its Fiscal Year 2025 Examination Priorities.

  The report reiterated the SEC’s position to continue monitoring the crypto sector, including investment advisers, broker-dealers, and other financial intermediaries that sell digital assets or facilitate transactions.

  

  “Examinations of registrants will focus on the offer, sale, recommendation, advice, trading, and other activities involving crypto assets that are offered and sold as securities or related products, such as spot bitcoin or ether exchange-traded products,” the report stated.

  With a new regime set to take the reins, market watchers are bracing for change, especially with prominent crypto advocates leading various departments, including Scott Bessent as treasury secretary and Howard Lutnick as commerce secretary.

  For now, industry experts are submitting recommendations in the suggestions box.

  Stuart Alderoty, the chief legal officer of blockchain-based digital payment company Ripple, outlined several priorities the Trump transition team should consider when choosing the next SEC head.

  On the new administration’s first day, Alderoty thinks the federal government should end non-fraud crypto litigation and ensure commissioners Mark Uyeda and Hester Peirce remain at the regulatory body, he said on X.

  Uyeda and Peirce have been crypto’s allies at the SEC.

  Uyeda, in an interview with FOX Business’s “Varney & Co.,” agreed with the president-elect that the “war on crypto needs to stop.”

  “There are a number of things that we can do with respect to crypto to help make America one of the global leaders in crypto,” he said.

  The SEC needs to provide clarity, produce safe harbors and regulatory sandboxes for investors, and advocate for a whole-of-government “cohesive and comprehensive approach to crypto,” Uyeda said.

  “President Trump and the American electorate have sent a clear message. Starting in 2025, the SEC’s role is to carry out that mandate,” he said.

  Peirce, speaking on the “CryptoCounsel” podcast this month, has touted more open dialogue between the crypto industry and SEC regulators.

  The Ripple CLO has echoed this sentiment, supporting improved relations between lawmakers, regulators, and market participants.

  “Collaborate with all financial regulators and Congress on clear and simple rules for crypto, but without presuming that those rules give the SEC primary jurisdiction over anything,” Alderoty wrote.

  “Guarantee accountability and restore public trust by addressing past issues within the SEC by emboldening the Office of Inspector General.”

  Alderoty also proposed rescinding the SEC’s 2019 Framework for Investment Contract Analysis of Digital Assets, which was published after the industry called for better regulatory clarity between securities laws and blockchain-based tokens.

  This guidance, which is neither a rule nor a regulation, offers a blueprint for determining whether a digital asset possesses the characteristics of an investment contract (security).

  With Republican control of Congress, lawmakers are likely to adopt a “principles and disclosure-based” approach to policymaking, says Dorothy DeWitt, a former director of market oversight at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

  Enforcement will also likely target high-risk areas of the crypto market, such as national security, fraud, and misconduct, she said.

  “Finally, a path to regulatory clarity will almost certainly involve registration of exchanges, intermediaries and digital assets securities, and implementation of more extensive disclosure standards as well as formal compliance with agency-prescribed principles,” DeWitt said in a Nov. 18 post for the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum.

  Despite the winds of change expected to blow through the crypto sector, industry parties should not anticipate significant policy and regulatory changes immediately.

  Instead, DeWitt notes, these adjustments could “take place over a year or more, not months.”

  Since Trump’s electoral victory, Bitcoin prices have rocketed to all-time highs and were a few hundred dollars short of reaching $100,000.

  The growth in the chief cryptocurrency, which controls 58 percent of the market, has lifted other digital tokens, from stablecoins to altcoins.

  A spokesperson for Securities and Exchange Commission declined a request for comment.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 20:55

• Niall Ferguson, Scott Horton To Debate Ukraine War Tomorrow Evening In ZeroHedge Exclusive
  Niall Ferguson, Scott Horton To Debate Ukraine War Tomorrow Evening In ZeroHedge Exclusive

  Despite Trump’s promises to bring a swift end to the war in Ukraine by negotiating with Russia, the war has escalated to a dangerous inflection point with long-range U.S., British, and French missiles being deployed deep in Russian territory and talks of deploying NATO troops in Ukraine. That… and anonymous officials in the New York Times saying what is impossible to believe:

  “Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications,” the newspaper wrote.

  

  Amid the chaos, ZeroHedge will be hosting preeminent historians Sir Niall Ferguson and Scott Horton to debate the history of the conflict and U.S. policy in the region. They will be joined by the Hoover Institute’s Peter Robinson (if you’ve seen a Thomas Sowell interview, it was probably his).

  Join us at 7pm ET right here on the ZeroHedge homepage (as well as Twitter/X and YouTube channels) for an epic matchup that you won’t find anywhere else.

  Ferguson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. He’s written over a dozen books on geopolitical and monetary history.

  Horton is the founder of the Libertarian Institute and recently published his book, Provoked, on the history of the war in Ukraine and decades of rising tensions between the U.S. and Russia.

  We hope you’ll join us on the eve of Thanksgiving. Recent war context included below:

  ***

  Nukes for Ukraine?!

  Days ago, The NY Times revealed that US and European officials have discussed a range of options they believe will deter Russia from taking more Ukrainian territory, including the possibility of providing Kiev with nuclear weapons. “US and European officials are discussing deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine, such as stockpiling a conventional arsenal sufficient to strike a punishing blow if Russia violates a cease-fire,” the report said.

  The article then stated, “Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union.”

  Former Russian president and current deputy chairman of the Security Counsel Dmitry Medvedev has responded by pointing out that if the West actually went forward with transferring nukes to Ukraine, this would be seen as tantamount to an attack on Russia. He explained that this is a key aspect of Russia’s newly expanded nuclear doctrine.

  

  In a Telegram post on Tuesday, Medvedev specifically referenced the recent NY Times report, and said: “Looks like my sad joke about crazy senile Biden, who’s eager to go out with a bang and take a substantial part of humanity with him, is becoming dangerously real.”

  Medvedev then stressed that “giving nukes to a country that’s at war with the greatest nuclear power” is so absurd that Biden and any of his officials considering it must have “massive paranoid psychosis.”

  His biggest and most specific threat came as follows: 

  “The fact of transferring such weapons may be considered as the launch of an attack against our country in accordance with Paragraph 19 of the ‘Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence’,” Medvedev wrote.

  Talk of NATO Troops

  Prominent French publication Le Monde on Monday followed by saying serious discussions over injecting Western troops into the war have intensified in the last days: 

  As the conflict in Ukraine enters a new phase of escalation, discussions over sending Western troops and private defense companies to Ukraine have been revived, Le Monde has learned from corroborating sources. These are sensitive discussions, most of which are classified – relaunched in light of a potential American withdrawal of support for Kyiv once Donald Trump takes office on January 20, 2025.

  Britain is once again at the forefront of urging NATO’s deeper involvement in the war, which threatens at any moment to explode into WW3 among nuclear-armed powers. Enter Keir Starmer… in the hawkish footsteps of Boris Johnson:

  However, it was relaunched in recent weeks thanks to the visit to France of the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, for the November 11th commemorations. “Discussions are underway between the UK and France on defense cooperation, particularly with a view to creating a hard core of allies in Europe, focused on Ukraine and wider European security,” confided a British military source to Le Monde.

  Jean-Noël Barro’s aforementioned words about ‘no options’ ruled out appears to have been a reflection on these continued ‘sensitive’ conversations.

  There have been more reports of US-supplied ATACMS launches on Russian territory since their initial use last week:

  Looks like Khalino airbase in Kursk, where Russia launches drones to attack Ukraine, just got a taste of ATACMS. The guy in the video seems pretty impressed! pic.twitter.com/ui8r0je74p

  — Maria Avdeeva (@maria_avdv) November 25, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 20:30

• "Superheroes" Reflect Our Powerlessness
  “Superheroes” Reflect Our Powerlessness

  Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

  And so we end up back in MovieLand, where we vicariously experience having powers we do not possess in real life.

  Films reflect the collective unconscious in ironic ways. During the Great Depression, films didn’t dwell on the miseries of real life; they were carefree concoctions making light of the idle rich (The Thin Man, 1934, My Man Godfrey, 1936), with the realistic (but still ending on a positive note) The Grapes of Wrath arriving a decade into the Depression in 1940.

  In contrast, the boom years of the 1950s were the heyday of dark-themed Noir films that explored (and exploited) the underbelly of human nature and American life.

  Cast in this light, what do we make of our multi-decade cultural embrace of Superhero films? We can try to write it all off as Hollywood’s happy discovery of an entire realm of “tentpole” franchises that can be milked for billions of dollars in reliable revenues, but this misses the undertow of cultural significances.

  Is it coincidence that the decades of Superhero worship track the rise of our collective powerlessness over the shape of our future? I sense the outrage and indignation this ignites–how dare you say we’re powerless, we have more power over our lives than ever before.

  For a contrarian view, let’s tap the 1964 classic by Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society (this link is to a free PDF of the book, with gratitude to correspondent Bruce M. for bringing this book to my attention). It is impossible to summarize a 500-page book dense with important ideas, but let’s start with Ellul’s insight into our collective powerlessness over the future course of the economy and our own daily lives.

  In essence, Ellul explains how technology and the ever-expanding need for profitable investments control our collective future. Once the basic human needs have been met–shelter, food, water, education, medical care, etc.–then investment opportunities aren’t driven by human need, but by technology’s continuous advance.

  Did humanity really “need” every appliance to have WiFi? No. Technology generated WiFi and the need for investment opportunities then generated The Internet of Things (IOT) which spawned vast new product lines–appliances with WiFi. Coupled with the the collapse of quality and durability, this technology led to water heaters having WiFi, just in case your phone doesn’t have enough apps, alarms, chirps and notifications.

  That water heaters once cost $160 and now cost $500 is the financial payoff of advancing technology creating new opportunities to invest capital. For if capital can’t find new opportunities to invest and grow profits, the economy slides into Depression, and that ghastly prospect looms in the collective unconscious as the nightmare to be avoided at all costs.

  And so microwave ovens now have a second “child safety button” that must be pushed first to open the door. Safety is a ready-made excuse for adding whatever technology has come up with, and as we scan the horizon, it’s already abundantly clear that the tens of billions of dollars gushing into AI will be followed by trillions of dollars seeking higher profits from putting some simulacrum of AI into every device, every appliance, every app and indeed every technology, not because it improves our well-being but because it’s the investment opportunity that we desperately need to avoid the cataclysm of Depression.

  We are powerless to question this process, much less resist it, and so we revel in fantasies of super-powers that enable the defeat of powerful forces that threaten us. That AI will automate away entire sectors of human livelihoods–we’re powerless to resist that, just as we’re powerless to stop the collapse of durability and the Anti-Progress of useless complexity and the ever-greater demands on us to perform unpaid shadow work to keep all the complexity duct-taped together so we can maintain all the technologies that we are now dependent on, not by choice but because there is no choice.

  The cavalcade of superheroes reflect our powerlessness and our yearning for actual control of our lives rather then the simulacrum of consumer choice of products and services that don’t serve our well-being, they serve the one true need, to expand opportunities to invest.

  

  Ellul’s insights from 60 years ago also illuminate our desire for real-world political-financial Superheroes who will set the world right again. But political solutions are another form of fantasy, as I explained in Why Political “Solutions” Don’t Fix Crises, They Make Them Worse (10/2/24). Hoping that giving other mortals power will restore our own power over our own lives is akin to hoping that technology will magically transform itself from humanity’s Monster Id into a machine that oversees us with loving kindness, or as poet Richard Brautigan put it, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace.

  Sci-Fi movie fans know that the Monster Id is from the classic film Forbidden Planet: the limitless power of the planet’s immense technological machinery is guided by thoughts, and since there are no filters on what thoughts guide the technology, all the dark drives of the Id are amplified by technological powers, such that the Monster Id melts solid steel doors like butter in its quest to destroy the mind that created it.

  And so we end up back in MovieLand, where we vicariously experience having powers we do not possess in real life. The power we still have is not a superpower; it is a merely human power to opt out, to choose not to participate, to limit our exposure to a world guided by investment opportunities and the moral vacuum of technology that is blind to all but its own advancement.

  That all technological advancement is good is, well, a lie. Much of what’s presented as Progress is actually Anti-Progress, a theme of my new book The Mythology of Progress, Anti-Progress and a Mythology for the 21st Century.

  If all we believe boils down to “technology good, investment opportunities good,” then we’ve relinquished the ability to distinguish between truth and lies, and as Hannah Arendt observed, the difference between right and wrong.

  

  This too is powerlessness, a black hole from which there is no technological escape.

  *  *  *

  Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

  Subscribe to my Substack for free

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 20:05

• Russian State Media: 'How Fast Can Oreshnik Missile Hit US Bases Across The World?'
  Russian State Media: ‘How Fast Can Oreshnik Missile Hit US Bases Across The World?’

  Russia continues to warn the West over its newly unveiled Oreshnik medium-range hypersonic ballistic missile. The Kremlin days ago touted that Washington has now understood and better been able to grasp Putin’s warnings and red lines more clearly after last Thursday’s missile strike on a Ukrainian defense industry facility in Dnepropetrovsk. Importantly, the Oreshnik is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.

  State media has produced yet another ominous segment showcasing the purported reach of the new hypersonic weapon. The Sputnik segment emphasized that Europe has no protection against such a missile which can reach Mach 11, and it even warned it can reach many US missile bases.

  The publication wrote, “Check out Sputnik’s video to learn how quickly the Oreshnik missiles can reach US bases in the Middle East, in the Pacific and Alaska, as well as the missile silos in the United States.” Watch below:

  🚨HOW FAST CAN THE ORESHNIK MISSILE HIT US BASES ACROSS THE WORLD?

  1. Middle East

  Distance and flight time from southern Russia:

  ✈️ US airbase in Kuwait: 2,100 km, 11 minutes;
  ✈️ 🚢 US 5th Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain: 2,500 km, 12 minutes;
  ✈️ US Air Base in Qatar: 2,650… pic.twitter.com/HNlLEe21Ms

  — Sputnik (@SputnikInt) November 26, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Below is some of the information claimed of the Oreshnik missile, featured in the Russian publication.

  * * *

  How fast can the Oreshnik missile hit US bases across the world?

  1. Middle East Distance and flight time from southern Russia:  

  US airbase in Kuwait: 2,100 km, 11 minutes;   

  US 5th Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain: 2,500 km, 12 minutes;  

  US Air Base in Qatar: 2,650 km, 13 minutes;  

  US Air Base in Djibouti: 4,100 km, 20 minutes.

  2. Pacific and Alaska Distance and flight time from Kamchatka:  

  Air Base in Alaska: 2,400 km, 12 minutes;  

  US Air Force and Navy Base in Guam: 4,500 km, 22 minutes;   

  US Air Force and Navy Bases in Pearl Harbor: 5,100 km, 25 minutes.

  3. Minuteman III missile silos Distance and flight time from Chukotka:  

  Minuteman III missile silos in Montana: 4,700 km, 23 minutes;  

  Minuteman III missile silos in Minot,

  North Dakota: 4,900 km, 24 minutes.

  * * * 

  

  Last Friday, Russian state media sources have begun publishing specs for the Oreshnik missile, claiming it flies at Mach 10+, and can reach 5,500km in distance, or 3,400+ miles (as a medium-range weapon).

  A retired Russian Army colonel and military analyst, identified as Viktor Litovkin, has described, “The West does not have missiles that fly at such a speed or hypersonic missiles at all.” He claimed further, “Although the US has repeatedly boasted that it has such missiles, it has never demonstrated a missile flight. They appeared to show missiles that flew at a supersonic speed of 5.5 times the speed of sound or Mach 5.5. However, hypersonic speed begins at Mach 6-7.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 19:40

• The Libs Are Not Alright
  The Libs Are Not Alright

  Authored by Dante Moretti via American Mind.org,

  Political fearmongering has real psychological consequences…

  

  In the wake of Donald Trump’s crushing victory over Vice President Kamala Harris, social media has been flooded with videos of apartment- or vehicle-bound neurotics screaming, banging pots and pans in sheer disbelief, packing their belongings, or generally convulsing as if Kristallnacht were upon us. The American public has been introduced to the 4B movement, in which liberal women appropriate a South Korean sex strike because justice.

  To be sure, social media is at best a caricature of real life. Only the most dramatic individuals will shave their heads for “reproductive rights” (read: for likes), but most people do not express themselves in quite such a hyperbolic register. That said, in this case the memes are imitating real life. Not every ex-Kamala voter is experiencing a full-scale breakdown. But judging based on my own clinical observations as a practicing therapist, I think it may well be true that a significant number of young American leftists are going through a collective mental health crisis.

  I speak from some experience, having spent multiple hours per day over the past few weeks hearing from clients about the damage inflicted upon their psyches “by the Trump win.” This is their account of things. My own opinion, however, is that someone has subjected these kids to psychic trauma. But it wasn’t Donald Trump.

  First Things

  I usually begin each appointment by reminding clients of our previous appointment, whereupon the client usually picks up where he or she left off, telling me about personal struggles, generational dynamics, or relationship problems. But since Trump’s victory, a startling number of clients have simply pivoted to another subject entirely. Usually I hear some variation of “I just can’t. I just can’t,” before I am told, with some incredulity that it needs saying, that it is impossible to focus on anything other than THE ELECTION.

  When, after listening to a client’s political fears, I gently suggest that we should now get back to discussing his husband’s death, cocaine use, crushing panic while driving, infidelity, or what have you, I am waved off as if we needed a full clinical hour to talk about Trump, WW3, reproductive rights, or a future daughter’s reproductive rights. Maybe the most jarring comment I heard was from a client who expressed relief that a close relative had already died and thus escaped “this sh*t that’s about to go down.” 

  One truism I’ve observed in my practice is: “you love what you pay attention to.” I am not saying that my clients spend $180 to talk about the election because they don’t care about their addiction, spouses, etc. But I am saying that they are choosing to prioritize, and therefore nourish, their hatred for Trump. This of course increases their distress, which increases their hatred. This is not a vicious cycle they all just stumbled into by unfortunate happenstance. They were taught incessantly—by friends, by online forums, by figures they trust in the media—that Trump trumps all.

  Spiraling Out

  Practitioners of what’s called positive psychology will often talk in terms of clients’ tendency to fixate on either an external or an internal locus of control. Different individuals will either instinctually take responsibility for problems that arise, or defer responsibility to another person, system, or institution. A teenage boy who gets caught with weed, if his natural locus of control is internal, will admit fault and responsibility even if everyone else on the soccer team tried it at the party. A boy whose natural inclination is external will cite peer pressure, or insist that his friends’ parents said it was fine. Although one type of locus isn’t necessarily better than the other, the external locus of control does tend to foster victimhood. Often it needs to be counterbalanced by inward focus in order to facilitate agency and improvement. Taking radical responsibility for one’s issues is a key engine of change.

  I have been working with some of my clients for quite some time now, and many have gradually learned to shift their locus of control inward. This has aided them in their mental health pursuits. But one common trait I have noticed amongst my Trump-focused clients is that, when the Orange Man comes up, they dart instantly back to an external locus of control. After the election, many of them have taken notable steps backward in our work together. One client even reverted to a cocaine habit after three months of sobriety because “What’s the point now?”

  Another client who struggles with depression reported just sitting in bed to “rot” for two days straight. Others have threatened to cut off their parents because they don’t know how they can possibly have another conversation with family members who voted for Trump. These clients are spiraling back out to an external locus of control.

  The tragic element in all these cases is that these fragile individuals have been violently interrupted in their healing progress by a completely imaginary evil, projected in Hitler-moustachioed IMAX across the pages of The New Republic, blared from the anchor’s desk on CNN, and generally beaten into the heads of everyone in their immediate circle of trust. And though I personally make a principle of never sharing my political beliefs, some therapists actually encourage their clients’ persecution complexes by adopting an overtly ideological approach, attributing trauma to “systems” of racism, sexism, or homophobia. The effects of this are as you would expect. It is the opposite of helpful.

  The Stanford- and Harvard-trained psychiatrist Dr. Paul Conti has qualified what exactly, good mental health means. According to Dr. Conti, someone who exemplifies good mental health, and therefore someone who can be considered “well-adjusted,” cultivates an attitude of gratitude and a feeling of personal autonomy. Keeping this definition in mind, one does not need to be a trained psychotherapist to understand how mental health has deteriorated so grievously in the past 20 or so years, especially among those who lean Left.

  When parents, teachers, university professors, and statesmen espouse a rhetoric of ingratitude and dependence, it is no wonder why much of the public suffer from anxiety, depression, and compulsion. Of course, we will laugh at the libs of TikTok shaving their heads and screaming in their cars. But we have to realize this is not the worst of it. If anything, those who engage in such spectacles may have more promise, given that they are more than likely to be opportunistic actors who abandon their political ideas as lightly as they take them up. But we should not laugh at those who break their sobriety, or plunge into isolation because of the Trump victory. They are truly sick, and ideological bad actors have preyed off their desperation for personal clout, terrorizing them with confected fears and then discarding them to suffer the psychological consequences.

  There’s a mental health crisis in this country—on this we can all agree. But the peddlers of Trump Derangement Syndrome don’t seem to care that their cynical, apocalyptic politics bear no small part of the blame.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 19:15

• Why Trump's Tariffs Underwhelmed The Market, And Why Was Vietnam Excluded
  Why Trump’s Tariffs Underwhelmed The Market, And Why Was Vietnam Excluded

  As we reported last night, president-elect Trump announced he intends to levy a 25% tariff on all imports from Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on imports from China. Tariffs on Mexico and Canada would remain in place until the flow of “drugs, in particular fentanyl, and all illegal aliens stop,” while tariffs on China would remain in place “until such time as [the drugs that are pouring into our country] stop”.  He also stated that on January 20th he would “sign all necessary documents” to implement the tariffs on Mexico and Canada as one of his “many first Executive Orders”.

  To be sure, Trump has proposed most of this before, in different forms:

  • in May 2019, he announced a tariff that would rise to 25% on imports from Mexico, effective 10 days later, if Mexico did not address immigration, but the tariff was never imposed.
  • On Nov. 4, 2024, he also pledged to impose a 25% tariff on all imports from Mexico, again related to immigration.
  • On Canada, he has announced the intent to renegotiate USMCA but has not formally threatened tariffs, so the announcement is somewhat more surprising.
  • On China, the tariffs are notably lower than the 60% he proposed during the campaign but, if imposed, might not be the only tariff on imports from China.

  Overall, the announcement is more reminiscent of the first Trump administration, when such tariffs were announced as a negotiating tactic, rather than the more systematic tariff policies (e.g., the 10-20% “universal baseline tariff”) Trump frequently discussed during the campaign.

  Some more details: 43% of US goods imports come from Mexico (15.4%), Canada (13.6%), and China (13.9%).

  

  At the proposed tariff rates, this would generate slightly less than $300bn (or 1.0% of GDP) in tariff revenue annually, without accounting for dynamic effects, such as changes to import volumes and prices or taxable incomes, and boost the US effective tariff rate by 8.6% (Goldman’s rule of thumb is that every 1% increase in the effective tariff rate would raise core PCE prices by 0.1%), while the proposed tariff increases would also boost core PCE prices by 0.9% if implemented.

  In its commentary on the tariff announcement, Goldman political analyst Alex Phillips writes that while he had assumed tariffs on imports from China will rise early next year, it is more likely Mexico and Canada will avoid across-the-board tariffs. Phillips also notes that if implemented, these are about three times as large as the China and auto tariffs the bank assumes in its baseline economic forecasts but slightly smaller than a 10% universal tariff.

  

  In a separate note from Goldman Delta One trader Rich Privorotsky (available here for pro subs), he writes that the bigger surprise in the Trump proposal is Canada. To this point, Goldman tried to calibrate the FX impact of tariffs by assessing the importance of US trade for different economies and the complexity of the products they produce: here the Loonie stands out too.

  

  Privo also found it curious that China’s HSI was actually up for most the session having now eventually back some its gains (now unch) and believes that “if tariffs on China went up only another 10% I think relative to expectations that have been built up this might be taken as a modest positive.”

  Privorotsky also suggests that Trump’s announcement is another part of the wall of worry for Europe. Tariffs are known risk  (unknown in magnitude) and “it’s the waiting that is really the problem.” So while it make sense for European stocks to be down in sympathy on the news (especially after some hopefulness that recent cabinet picks might mean a less hawkish approach), he would argue that a 25% tariff on Canada (biggest source of trade is the import of energy) is likely more of a negotiating tactic rather than a likely outcome.

  

  Bottom line: while the CAD will lurch lower on this, it will likely find support.

  Turning to China, Goldman’s EM strategist Sun Lu focuses on the silver lining, i.e., “it’s priced in”, and lays out the following analysis (excerpted from her full note available to pro subs). 

  Dovish views:

  • if Trump starts with China on 10% tariff in order to push China stop fentanyl into US, this is one of the easy areas to agree with China during previous trade talks and bilateral meetings. In August, China already agreed with Biden administration to impose controls on production of critical chemicals for the manufacturing of fentanyl.
  • Trump clearly wants to use these tariffs as leverage, to push Canada, Mexico and China to impose tougher restrictions on the above matters, thus there is a clear path of tariff suspension if such conditions are met.  

  FX response:

  • CNY fixing still sticky, onshore spot above 7.25. MXN and CAD response more. Post headline, USDCNY midpoint fixing came in 7.1910, 8pips below last reflecting weaker DXY yesterday. Fixing bias is 484pips on the stronger side, similar magnitude compared to recent week. This fixing follows similar sticky pattern as seen in recent weeks, with clear bias to defend 7.2 in fixing this year.
  • Goldman continues to expect PBOC may defend 7.2 fixing and limit CNH selloff to 7.30 area this year, before actual tariff announcement and prepare for negotiations. USDCNH TN may go higher again after the recent dip. CNH pressure trades including points higher and long USDCNH-USDCNY basis may benefit again.
  • Meanwhile, onshore USDCNY spot went above 7.25 for the first time in recent month. With today’s fixing, onshore spot can theoretically go up to 7.3348 still, per 2% daily trading band.
  • In comparison, MXN and CAD has reacted more, selling off ~1% vs 20bp for CNH. In Asia, the other currencies with strong intervention willingness at current level (KRW, IDR) are likely to continue outperform.

  What trades does Lu like? Continue to like owning 1y USDCNH, USDTWD and USDSGD topside, funded by selling short-dated downside. The Goldman strategist prefers to be long USD ahead of actual tariff announcements rather than just headlines.

  Finally, we go to Goldman EM vol trader trader Sanjiv Nanwani who writes that “the market remains in a holding pattern despite early AM tariff headlines – but as far as China is concerned, the tariffs seem to underwhelm what is already expected, and in any case, the authorities are clearly unwilling to let FX move as evidenced by the ~unchanged USDCNY fix today.”

  The vol market seems to suggest the same – don’t expect spot to do a whole lot before the inauguration. Nanwani found  that a little surprising, “as we now have confirmation that Trump is already contemplating tariff policy and is prepared to announce them ahead of his formal inauguration, which the market will surely have to re-price in response to.”

  Nanwani likes owning some cheap 1mth USD calls here, notwithstanding the poor realized performance (suppressed by the fix) over the past 1-2 weeks. Further out, the market remains very keen on holding onto term premium, keeping calendars uber steep but creating a very high bar for the delivery of realized performance – there is a real risk that the premium decay on some option structures will more than offset expected gains from delta. He therefore likes vol-selling strategies in 3mth+ expiries, particularly via USD bull seagulls, to benefit from both the inverted forward curve and steep vol curve. ATM run: 1m 4.6 3m 6.1 6m 6.6 1y 6.9.

  It’s not just Goldman however: in a note to clients (available to pro subs), SouthBay Research this morning reminds us that while attention is focused on China, it really should be on Vietnam; here’s why:

  • In 2012, Vietnam exported $19B in goods to the United States.  A lot of raw materials and foodstuffs, and a lot of assembled electronic parts. By 2017, 5 years later, the value was $49B. This year, it is likely to reach $133B.
  • Not coincidentally, Chinese exports to the US have dwindled over the same period.  And by almost the same amount.
  • Vietnam isn’t the only way Chinese production enters the US and bypasses trade and tariffs on Chinese goods.  Mexico has become a major off ramp as well.

  

  Here is the timeline to consider:

  • 2017 – Trump initiates a trade war
  • 2018/2019 – China leverages Vietnam to begin bypassing restrictions.  Chinese direct exports fall, Vietnam’s exports surge
  • 2020-22 – Trend reverses as China exports recover (Trump exit, COVID drives consumer demand).  Port congestion elevates Mexico as an alternative route into the US
  • 2023-24 – China direct exports continue to fall and indirect exports continue to rise

  Next, and especially for all the inflation alarmists, it is worth noting that there was minimal inflationary impact in the last trade war:

  • Trump initiated tariffs on China in 2018 and the downstream impact on consumer prices was minimal at best.  A key reason is that China is so dependent on US market access that they absorbed the higher costs and kept prices relatively flat.
  • Fast forward to today and China is even more economically weak today and even more dependent on keeping factories running, which is why they may absorb another round of tariff-induced hits.  It is likely that Chinese government support will increase in order to prioritize capacity utilization & employment over profits.

  In this context, the real question – according to Southbay – is why doesn’t Trump also Tariff Vietnam?

  Consider this: in 2023, registered Chinese investment in Vietnam was $8.3B. Thanks to offshoring production by Chinese manufacturers, Vietnam has become a player in the global supply chain.  

  This is a response to Trump initiated tariffs whereby OEMs like Apple want to de-risk their exposure to China. Despite proclamations of de-risking and ‘internationalizing the supply chain’, these moves don’t really change the reality that products and components are still sourced from Chinese producers.

  Given that it’s obviously a shell-game, why isn’t Trump lumping Vietnam into the anti-China trade tariffs?  Here, geopolitics is the most likely reason.

  

  There is a containment policy in place.  While it’s nice to talk about democracy, the major reason for US support of Taiwan is power projection: Taiwan sits at the underbelly of China. With South Korea and Japan to the East, and Taiwan and the Philippines to the South, the US and allies have China surrounded. In case war breaks out with China, a naval blockade would be very effective and complete.

  Or almost complete, as Vietnam would seal the deal. Turning Vietnam into a friendly ally would plug a big hole in the shipping routes out of Hong Kong. Ships would have to thread a path between Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan.

  In other words, it’s not just negotiation, but more like foreplay… and at the moment there is a courtship underway.  China is throwing billions of dollars at Vietnam. The US not so much.  But Vietnam is wary of China and might want an American military presence.

  Trump belligerence towards Vietnam would not create necessary goodwill. Which also means that as long as Trump plays softball with Vietnam, China will continue to bypass most if not all of the tariff threat.

  More in the full note from Southbay available to pro subs.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 18:50

• A Whimper, Not A Bang: Where Was Antifa After Trump's Victory?
  A Whimper, Not A Bang: Where Was Antifa After Trump’s Victory?

  Authored by David Reaboi via Late Republic Nonsense,

  Perhaps the only disappointment for those of us elated with the outcome of this month’s presidential election was the muted, downcast response from the Left at Donald Trump’s massive victory.

  We’d expected angry riots from purple-haired Antifa goons; emotive demonstrations of impotent and self-righteous defiance by Handmaid’s Tale cosplayers; and, maybe best of all, delicious cable news highlight reels reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s surprise defeat in 2016. The quiet sobbing we got instead came as somewhat of a surprise. 

  

  For the Left, it all seemed to end, as it did at Kamala Harris’s victory party at Howard University, with a whimper. There was no defiant or fiery speech that night; in fact, the candidate wasn’t seen at all, unwilling to face even the dedicated supporters who had worked hardest for her candidacy. Over the next few days, while there was some hissing and a few entertaining misfiring synapses at MSNBC and CNN — including some angry denunciations of elements of the Democrat coalition — the emotion seemed forced and perfunctory. 

  For many, though, the downbeat response to Trump’s victory seemed out of place, given the feverish severity of how Democrats had articulated the stakes of this election. In her final month, Harris’s campaign dispensed with messaging on any issues, leaning hard into explicit comparisons of Trump with Adolf Hitler, and of MAGA politics with fascism and Nazism, evoking the specter of American death camps in the event of the ex-president’s victory.

  Using a strategically-timed news-hook from former Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly, Harris stared gravely into the camera outside her residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory, warning that her opponent was no longer simply a “threat to democracy” but, as a Hitlerian-Nazi-Fascist, was openly dedicated to its destruction. The setting, too, was significant: rather than simply reaching down into the rhetorical gutter at a campaign stop, she was using the trappings of her role as vice president to make an official pronouncement on a rival domestic political leader, using language usually reserved for foreign enemies with whom we are at war. The bloody result of a Trump victory, Harris and her media surrogates assured us, was certain.

  While some in the press had never been shy of slandering Donald Trump as a “fascist,” the message coming from the candidate herself marked a serious escalation.

  After all, when faced with an enemy that would extinguish all freedom in America and usher in a holocaust, procedural resistance in courtrooms or acts of civil disobedience are plainly inadequate. With the evil of a Hitler, there is no negotiation, comity, civility, or ordinary politics; only violent resistance is commensurate with the threat.

  Some on the Left received the message clearly, as intended. Even before Harris herself began referring to him as a “fascist,” Trump had already been the attempted victim of two failed assassinations. Immediately following the first shooter’s very near miss, the New Republic all but endorsed this violent, final solution to the Trumpian problem, revealing a menacing, monochrome drawing of the former president on its cover complete with Hitler mustache. And below the image — subtle, in the color of dried blood — was the headline, “American Fascism: What It Would Look Like” in faux-Germanic typeface. Scandalously, law enforcement disappeared any information about the would-be assassins’ motives, saving the Democrats having to address the fact that their manifestos dovetailed too closely with the party’s messaging.

  All this gathered momentum and intensity in the press until, on the evening of November 5, “our sacred democracy” simply ended. Donald Trump won the electoral college and the popular vote by wide margins, and his party was in control of every branch of the Federal government. The people had spoken with a clear and resounding voice. If you’d been following the speeches of Vice President Harris, you’d assume that what they wanted was Nazi Germany.

  When the defeated Democrat finally emerged in public early the next evening, however, her tone had shifted. “Earlier today,” she told the crowd, “I spoke with President-elect Trump and congratulated him on his victory. I also told him that we will help him and his team with their transition…” Would she congratulate Hitler for his victory? Would she help Hitler’s team during their transition? 

  The Democrats had gone to the very edge of American discourse — beyond which is the disintegration of normal political life — and then, when they’d been repudiated by the voters, meekly pulled back. By stubbornly denying us our riots and hoped-for schadenfreude, the Left had us confused. We on the Right weren’t the only ones expecting immediate rage from Antifa and aligned groups in the event of a Republican victory; after all, half of downtown Washington, D.C., was boarded up in anticipation of election night. Why did nothing happen?

  The surface explanation, of course, is that the Democrats didn’t really believe any of it; all that rhetorical venom was merely cynical election year politics at the final crunch of a close election. That theory certainly has some merit, based on the warm, smiling welcome with which Joe Biden received the victorious former president at the White House. And, while corrosive to social cohesion, the gambit made strategic sense: as Trump was gaining momentum in the final weeks, Democrats began to grow despondent. Harris’s campaign needed to raise the temperature to make sure her most committed voters got to the polls. 

  Even if the leadership of the Democratic Party and its surrogates in the media were simply generating outrage, millions of Americans in their audiences now believe, with conviction, that the long night of fascism has finally descended on America. The rhetoric naturally calls to mind Antifa, the bands of militant “Antifascists” who inflicted so much disorder on the country during the first Trump administration. For many on the Right, the trauma of the Black Lives Matter riots on the heels of Covid in 2020 — followed by Trump being turned out of the White House the next January — has made us understandably jumpy about black-blocs and cities ablaze in destructive, ideological rage.

  Harris’s scurrilous rhetoric about Trump’s alleged fondness for Hitler, however, wasn’t aimed at bringing Antifa’s violent shock troops into the streets, but at radicalizing the far larger cohort of mainstream Democrats. (After all, Antifa believes both Biden and Harris qualify as “fascists” and, for good measure, “war criminals.”) But Antifa has always been more strategic than it is reactive, and it’s far more concerned with revolutionary politics than with the electoral variety.

  For many of the senior Antifa thinkers and organizers, the model of 1968 continues to resonate: even as the protests against the Vietnam War had been gaining strength for a half-decade, it wasn’t until the election of Richard Nixon that the Left’s mass-movement exploded. Presented with the foil of a “law-and-order” Republican hate-object, the intensity of the anti-war protest movement ballooned, leading to the radicalization of militant groups like the Weather Underground into outright terrorism.

  This was only achievable with the assistance of the media; unencumbered by the balancing act of having to defend a Democrat president, print and television journalists created a roar of grassroots anger that provided far-Left radicals with new recruits, funding, and energy. The parallels to Trump’s return to the White House are significant, and the opportunity for a replay of this dynamic has certainly not escaped Antifa’s strategic thinkers.

  It’s a common misconception that Left-wing violent protest is a spasm of powerlessness. While a David and Goliath narrative is useful in many overseas conflicts, in the United States, violent protest is most useful when it can be used as an expression of majority frustration against an easily identifiable (and beatable) tyrannical minority. Regardless of income bracket, Americans like to think of themselves as middle-class, have a bourgeois investment in the continuance of society, and resent violent revolutionaries and anarchists. 

  Unlike in Europe, significant Left-wing violent riots in America don’t appear spontaneously in response to lost elections; they exist in the context of more sweeping political mobilizations that can plausibly be described by allied media as “largely peaceful.” As with Nixon and the anti-war movement, the media is the essential element in creating conditions for justifying the cause of unrest and ignoring or contextualizing violent excesses.

  In this way, Antifa is useful as a fearsome tip of the spear, then melting away into a grander social justice narrative that is, on its surface, familiar and sympathetic rather than threatening. As such, all successful modern Left-wing movements in this country are framed in the language of civil rights. The successes of the Left’s modern race-oriented protest movements — Trayvon Martin (2012), Michael Brown (2014), and George Floyd (2020) — illustrate that the Left learned valuable lessons about the kind of topical triggers that work, and those that fail. The coming mass mobilization in response to Trump’s promises on immigration and deportation will be an obvious inciting event, and law enforcement needs to be prepared, especially in blue states.

  In short, we didn’t see post-election violence or mass protests because the scale of Trump’s victory meant that such rioting would appear — at least temporarily — as the angry self-indulgence of a minority that had been legitimately beaten at the ballot box. But the riots will come soon enough, and Antifa will menace the streets once again. While it wouldn’t have served to activate them during or after the 2024 campaign, the Democrats’ rhetoric about fascism and Nazism is a boon to Antifa, which looks forward to being presented again (as it was memorably in 2020, storming the beach at Normandy) as “freedom fighters” in the media’s next just cause.

  Subscribe to Late Republic Nonsense here

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 18:25

• Transfer Of Nukes To Ukraine Would Be Tantamount To Attack On Russia: Medvedev
  Transfer Of Nukes To Ukraine Would Be Tantamount To Attack On Russia: Medvedev

  Days ago, The NY Times revealed that US and European officials have discussed a range of options they believe will deter Russia from taking more Ukrainian territory, including the possibility of providing Kiev with nuclear weapons. “US and European officials are discussing deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine, such as stockpiling a conventional arsenal sufficient to strike a punishing blow if Russia violates a cease-fire,” the report said.

  The article then stated, “Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union.”

  Former Russian president and current deputy chairman of the Security Counsel Dmitry Medvedev has responded by pointing out that if the West actually went forward with transferring nukes to Ukraine, this would be seen as tantamount to an attack on Russia. He explained that this is a key aspect of Russia’s newly expanded nuclear doctrine.

  

  In a Telegram post on Tuesday, Medvedev specifically referenced the recent NY Times report, and said: “Looks like my sad joke about crazy senile Biden, who’s eager to go out with a bang and take a substantial part of humanity with him, is becoming dangerously real.”

  Medvedev then stressed that “giving nukes to a country that’s at war with the greatest nuclear power” is so absurd that Biden and any of his officials considering it must have “massive paranoid psychosis.”

  His biggest and most specific threat came as follows: 

  “The fact of transferring such weapons may be considered as the launch of an attack against our country in accordance with Paragraph 19 of the ‘Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence’,” Medvedev wrote.

  President Putin had formally approved a lowering of the threshold for nuclear weapons use on November 19. The change has been widely seen as in response to Ukraine being authorized by the Western allies to use US-made ATACMS and HIMARS systems, and British-made Storm Shadow and French Scalp missiles on Russian territory.

  The aforementioned NY Times report did note that President Putin doesn’t appear ready to actually significantly escalate the war, giving a chance for the Trump administration to take office.

  According to a recent New York Times Report, the Biden Administration has discussed the idea of handing nuclear weapons over to Ukraine as it prepares to leave office.

  And France and the UK are discussing sending TROOPS into Ukraine! Do they really want WWIII?

  Also… pic.twitter.com/qIoxFoGOKc

  — Ron Paul (@RonPaul) November 25, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “But the escalation risk of allowing Ukraine to strike Russia with US-supplied weaponry has diminished with the election of Mr. Trump,” the report said, and added: “Biden administration officials believe, calculating that Putin of Russia knows he has to wait only two months for the new administration.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 18:00

• If Politics Were Business, Regulators Would Bust It
  If Politics Were Business, Regulators Would Bust It

  Authored by Lura Forcum via RealClearPolitics,

  In the marketplace, competition empowers consumers. The more options you have for a particular product, the lower prices become. Moreover, having more options means you are more likely to find exactly what you want instead of just settling for something good enough.  

  

  In politics, competition empowers voters. However, unlike the marketplace, where consumers are accustomed to a variety of options, politics offers only two. Worse still, the two options available are so feckless that a plurality of voters choose neither. 

  When there’s little competition, power ends up in the hands of companies, not consumers. And that’s what we see with the Republican and Democratic parties. The lack of competition allows both parties to continue to be unresponsive to voters’ concerns. 

  According to recurring surveys by Gallup, beginning around 2010, independents have been the electorate’s plurality, with few exceptions. And since Obama’s reelection in 2012, independents have been the plurality without exception.  

  Put differently, voters have reported feeling disempowered for more than a decade. 

  It’s no wonder why. The parties set it up so they don’t have outside competition. A number of rules make it difficult – or impossible – for non-party voices to be heard. For instance, in 10 states, you can’t vote in a party’s primary unless you’re a registered party member. Another nine states allow unaffiliated voters but not opposing party members to vote in party primaries. Only 15 states allow for open party primaries where any voter can participate.  

  If you’re running for office as an independent, you don’t have access to the resources that a major party offers its candidates for statewide or national office. It’s hard enough to win political office even with the support of the duopoly; independents are forced to do the impossible.  

  While the election results suggest that voters found the Trump campaign more responsive to their concerns this time, that doesn’t mean Republicans will become better listeners going forward. And why should they? Without competition, there is no incentive for either party to take voters’ concerns seriously for longer than an election cycle. 

  With the Republican party the party of Trump now, attention has focused on his public and private lives, his various legal cases, and his influence over the Republican Party writ large. These distractions have taken attention away from good policy and effective governance. And while you might expect when one party takes its eye off the ball, it would allow the other party to flourish, but that hasn’t been the case.  

  Democrats are flailing because the shift in the Republican party led them to believe that it was enough to just not be Republicans. Since the rise of Donald Trump, their offering to voters has increasingly been, “At least we’re not those guys.” On a variety of issues, from the environment to health care to national defense, one party’s position is, “We should do this,” and the other’s is, “No, we shouldn’t,” and the result is a gridlocked Congress. 

  The Independent Center does the exact opposite. We are bringing competition back to politics by identifying, activating, and empowering independent voters. 

  These voters insist on effective government. They are the swing voters who went for Trump in 2016, Biden in 2020, and Trump again in 2024 because they value results over political allegiances. They expect the government to be fiscally responsible, but they don’t like the more extreme positions on social policies favored by Republicans. In short, they want government to live within its means, as they do, and respect the decisions of consenting adults.  

  The Independent Center believes that the best way to make government more responsive to voters is to bring more people into the political process, especially the people who don’t identify as Republicans or Democrats. By creating a movement of independent voters, we will have more voices about what people want and need, more ideas about effective policy responses, and more feedback about what the best policy solutions are.  

  By competing with Democrats and Republicans for voters, independents will push those parties to understand voters’ values and preferences better, develop better policy proposals, and actually pass legislation instead of devoting their energies to name-calling and obstructing the other side. 

  Lura Forcum is the incoming president of the Independent Center. A former professor and researcher, she conveys complex ideas and policy insights to engage independent voters who now comprise the plurality of the electorate.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 17:40

• The COVID Cover-Up: 19 Questions We Must Answer
  The COVID Cover-Up: 19 Questions We Must Answer

  Authored by Justin Hart via ‘Rational ground’ substack,

  So here’s the deal – remember when “experts” kept telling us what to do during COVID?

  Turns out they got pretty much everything wrong. Like, spectacularly wrong.

  We’re talking 19 major things they completely screwed up, from how the virus spreads to whether masks actually work (spoiler alert: those cloth masks were basically fashion accessories).

  

  Dr. Fauci is the patron saint of TERRIBLE COVID policies.

  He was wrong on SO MANY POINTS. It’s time to set the record straight…

  Did he get anything right?

  1. Origin of the disease—wrong

  2. Transmission—wrong

  3. Asymptomatic spread—wrong

  4. PCR testing—wrong

  5. Fatality rate—wrong

  6. Lockdowns—wrong

  7. Community triggers—wrong

  8. Business closures—wrong

  9. School closures—wrong

  10. Quarantining the healthy—wrong

  11. Impact on youth—wrong

  12. Hospital overload—wrong

  13. Plexiglass barriers—wrong

  14. Social distancing—wrong

  15. Outdoor spread—wrong

  16. Masks—wrong

  17. Variant impact—wrong

  18. Natural immunity—wrong

  19. Vaccine efficacy—wrong

  20. Vaccine injury—wrong

  Last year the Norfolk Group just dropped a bomb of a document laying out all these failures. And it’s not just Monday morning quarterbacking – they’ve got the receipts. Real studies showing how natural immunity was actually legit (while Fauci pretended it didn’t exist), data proving schools could’ve stayed open (looking at you, Sweden), and evidence that maybe, just maybe, locking healthy people in their homes wasn’t the brilliant strategy they claimed.

  Listen, I’m not here to say “I told you so” (okay, maybe a little), but we need to talk about this. Because if we don’t learn from how badly our “experts” messed up, we’re just asking for a repeat performance next time around. And honestly? I don’t think any of us can handle another round of plexiglass theater and double masking.

  Let’s break down exactly how they got it wrong, and more importantly, why they kept doubling down even when the evidence said otherwise. Buckle up – this is gonna be a wild ride through the greatest public health face-plant in modern history.

  These are the questions WE want answered!

  TRANSMISSION

  1. Why did officials insist on surface transmission protocols when evidence showed primarily respiratory spread?

  2. Why weren’t hospitals evaluating transmission patterns early to inform policy?

  3. Why did the CDC not conduct studies on actual transmission patterns in schools and workplaces?

  4. Why was outdoor transmission overemphasized despite minimal evidence?

  5. Why weren’t transmission studies prioritized to guide evidence-based policies?

  ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD

  1. What evidence supported the claim that asymptomatic spread was a major driver?

  2. Why did health officials emphasize asymptomatic spread without solid data?

  3. Why were resources wasted testing asymptomatic people when they could have focused on symptomatic cases?

  4. How did the emphasis on asymptomatic spread affect public trust when evidence didn’t support it?

  5. What data actually existed on true asymptomatic (vs presymptomatic) transmission rates?

  PCR TESTING

  1. Why did the CDC insist on developing its own test rather than using WHO’s?

  2. Why weren’t cycle threshold values standardized or reported?

  3. Why did labs use cycle thresholds up to 40 when this led to false positives?

  4. Why wasn’t PCR testing prioritized for high-risk populations early on?

  5. How did high cycle thresholds affect case counts and policy decisions?

  FATALITY RATE

  1. Why were infection fatality rates not properly stratified by age from the beginning?

  2. Why were deaths “with COVID” vs “from COVID” not distinguished?

  3. How did inflated fatality rates affect public perception and policy?

  4. Why weren’t accurate age-stratified fatality rates clearly communicated?

  5. How did misrepresenting fatality rates affect public trust?

  LOCKDOWNS

  1. Why were lockdowns implemented without cost-benefit analysis?

  2. Why were lockdown harms (mental health, delayed medical care, etc.) ignored?

  3. What evidence supported the effectiveness of lockdowns?

  4. Why weren’t less restrictive focused protection measures tried first?

  5. How many excess deaths were caused by lockdown policies?

  6. Why weren’t regional/seasonal factors considered in lockdown decisions?

  COMMUNITY TRIGGERS

  1. Why were arbitrary case numbers used to trigger restrictions?

  2. Why weren’t hospital capacity metrics prioritized over case counts?

  3. How were community trigger thresholds determined?

  4. Why weren’t triggers adjusted based on actual risk levels?

  5. Why weren’t clear exit criteria established for restrictions?

  BUSINESS CLOSURES

  1. What evidence supported closing small businesses while keeping large retailers open?

  2. Why weren’t occupancy limits tried before full closures?

  3. How many businesses were unnecessarily destroyed?

  4. Why weren’t economic impacts weighed against minimal health benefits?

  5. What data supported effectiveness of business closures?

  SCHOOL CLOSURES

  1. Why were schools closed despite early evidence of low risk to children?

  2. Why did the US ignore data from European schools that stayed open?

  3. Why weren’t the developmental/educational harms to children considered?

  4. How did school closures affect mental health and suicide rates in youth?

  5. Why weren’t teachers unions’ influence on closure decisions examined?

  6. What evidence supported claims that schools were major transmission vectors?

  QUARANTINING THE HEALTHY

  1. Why was mass quarantine implemented without precedent or evidence?

  2. Why weren’t focused protection measures tried instead?

  3. What was the cost-benefit analysis of quarantining low-risk groups?

  4. How did mass quarantine affect mental health?

  5. Why weren’t vulnerable populations prioritized instead?

  IMPACT ON YOUTH

  1. Why weren’t developmental impacts on children considered?

  2. How did isolation affect mental health and suicide rates?

  3. What were the educational losses from remote learning?

  4. Why weren’t sports/activities preserved for youth wellbeing?

  5. How did masks/distancing affect social development?

  6. What were the impacts on college students’ mental health and development?

  HOSPITAL OVERLOAD

  1. Why weren’t early treatment protocols developed to prevent hospitalizations?

  2. Why were field hospitals built but never used?

  3. How did “flattening the curve” messaging affect hospital preparations?

  4. Why weren’t at-risk populations protected to prevent hospitalizations?

  5. What was the actual vs projected hospital capacity usage?

  PLEXIGLASS BARRIERS

  1. What evidence supported effectiveness of barriers?

  2. Why weren’t airflow patterns considered?

  3. How did barriers affect ventilation?

  4. What was the cost-benefit of barrier installation?

  5. Why weren’t barrier recommendations updated when shown ineffective?

  SOCIAL DISTANCING

  1. What evidence supported 6-foot distancing?

  2. Why wasn’t distancing adjusted based on ventilation/masks/context?

  3. How did arbitrary distance rules affect businesses/schools?

  4. Why wasn’t 3-foot distancing considered adequate earlier?

  5. What research supported outdoor distancing requirements?

  OUTDOOR SPREAD

  1. Why were outdoor gatherings restricted despite minimal transmission risk?

  2. Why were beaches/parks closed?

  3. Why weren’t outdoor activities encouraged as safer alternatives?

  4. How did outdoor restrictions affect mental/physical health?

  5. What evidence supported masks outdoors?

  MASKS

  1. Why were mask mandates implemented without RCT evidence?

  2. Why weren’t potential harms of masking children considered?

  3. Why were cloth masks promoted despite ineffectiveness?

  4. How did masks affect learning/development in children?

  5. Why weren’t mask policies updated when studies showed limited benefit?

  6. Why was natural immunity discounted in mask policies?

  VARIANT IMPACT

  1. Why were variants used to justify continued restrictions?

  2. How did variant fears affect vaccine confidence?

  3. Why weren’t policies adjusted for milder variants?

  4. How did variant messaging affect public trust?

  5. Why weren’t seasonal patterns considered in variant projections?

  NATURAL IMMUNITY

  1. Why was natural immunity ignored in policy decisions?

  2. Why were recovered people required to vaccinate?

  3. Why wasn’t natural immunity studied more thoroughly?

  4. How did dismissing natural immunity affect public trust?

  5. Why were natural immunity studies from other countries ignored?

  VACCINE EFFICACY

  1. Why were initial efficacy claims not properly qualified?

  2. Why wasn’t waning efficacy communicated earlier?

  3. How did overselling efficacy affect public trust?

  4. Why weren’t breakthrough cases tracked properly?

  5. Why were boosters promoted without clear evidence of benefit?

  VACCINE INJURY

  1. Why weren’t adverse events properly tracked/investigated?

  2. Why were vaccine injuries downplayed or dismissed?

  3. How did VAERS data interpretation affect public trust?

  4. Why weren’t age-stratified risk-benefit analyses conducted?

  5. Why weren’t early warning signals investigated more thoroughly?

  6. How did dismissing injuries affect vaccine confidence?

  We have a LOT of work to do and THANKFULLY we may have people in charge who are willing to ask these questions!

  *  *  *

  Rational Ground by Justin Hart is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 17:00

• NYT & Bloomberg Bury Rutgers Study Showing DEI Makes People Hostile
  NYT & Bloomberg Bury Rutgers Study Showing DEI Makes People Hostile

  Corporate media outlets have buried, downplayed, or otherwise shelved a new study which reveals that “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) policies cause people to become ‘hostile’ – essentially seeing racism where none exists.

  

  The new study from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University found that people exposed to DEI talking points about race, religion and gender form integroup hostility and authoritarian attitudes towards others.

  “What we did was we took a lot of these ideas that were found to still be very prominent in a lot of these DEI lectures and interventions and training,” said NCRI Chief Science Officer Joel Finkelstein, a co-author of the study. “And we said, ‘Well, how is this going to affect people?’ What we found is that when people are exposed to this ideology, what happens is they become hostile without any indication that anything racist has happened.“

  Researchers exposed 324 participants to two sets of reading material; a racially-neutral text about corn, or the writings of race-baiters Ibram X. Kendi or Robin DiAngelo. The participants were then exposed to a racially neutral scenario in which a student was rejected from college.

  

  Those who were exposed to the writings of Kendi and DiAngelo injected racism into the scenario.

  

  It gets worse… as X user Crémieux (@cremieuxrecueil) notes, those exposed to DEI wanged to punish the “offenders.”

  These findings were so shocking and forceful that the authors immediately sought to replicate them.

  They gathered a nearly three-times larger sample and found… the same results! pic.twitter.com/owOjCszEeQ

  — Crémieux (@cremieuxrecueil) November 25, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  SHUT IT DOWN!

  As Colin Wright of Reality’s Last Stand notes (h/t Mike Shedlock), the New York Times and Bloomberg “abruptly shelved coverage” of the study.

  The implications of these findings cannot be downplayed. DEI programs have become a fixture in workplaces, schools, and universities across the United States, with a 2023 Pew Research Center report indicating that more than half of U.S. workers have attended some form of DEI training. Institutions collectively spend approximately $8 billion annually on these initiatives, yet the NCRI study underscores how little scrutiny they receive. While proponents of DEI argue that these programs are essential to achieving equity and dismantling systemic oppression, the NCRI’s data suggests that such efforts may actually be deepening divisions and cultivating hostility.

  This context makes the suppression of the study even more alarming. The New York Times, which has cited NCRI’s work in nearly 20 previous articles, suddenly demanded that this particular research undergo peer review—a requirement that had never been imposed on the institute’s earlier findings, even on similarly sensitive topics like extremism or online hate. At Bloomberg, the story was quashed outright by an editor known for public support of DEI initiatives. The editorial decisions were ostensibly justified as routine discretion, yet they align conspicuously with the ideological leanings of those involved. Are these major outlets succumbing to pressures to protect certain narratives at the expense of truth?

  Research cited in the report highlights how many DEI programs rely on untested theories or unverified self-reports, with little oversight or accountability. A 2021 meta-analysis found that some initiatives not only fail to reduce prejudice but actually exacerbate it, fueling resentment and perceptions of unfairness. The NCRI study’s findings echo these conclusions, suggesting that far from fostering inclusion, DEI programs may perpetuate a cycle of suspicion and punitive retribution.

  Yet, as troubling as the study’s findings are, its suppression may be even more consequential. The decision to withhold this research from public discourse speaks to a larger issue: the growing entanglement of ideology and information. In a moment when public trust in institutions is already fragile, the media’s role as a gatekeeper of information becomes all the more worrying. When powerful outlets like The New York Times and Bloomberg withhold stories of such significance, they fracture trust with the American people.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 16:40

• Globalists Go For Broke: Plan To Trigger World War III Moves Forward
  Globalists Go For Broke: Plan To Trigger World War III Moves Forward

  Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

  There are considerable and insidious forces at play when it comes to the development of the war in Ukraine; a swirling mass of think tanks, globalists and bureaucrats are doing everything in their power to instigate an international conflict between the US, the EU and Russia. They’ve specifically been looking for a way to leverage the western populace into supporting direct and open warfare.

  

  At the beginning of the event the propaganda was very effective in herding the political left into cheering for NATO involvement, with leftists calling for the “cancellation” of Russia and demanding boots on the ground to “wipe them off the face of the Earth.” One of those rabid activists (Ryan Routh) even tried to assassinate Donald Trump, ostensibly because Trump promised immediate peace negotiations with Russia should he become president again.

  The Democratic Party, once considered the “anti-war party”, is now the warhawk party. Add to that a gaggle of frothing Neo-Cons (leftists and globalists posing as conservatives) like Lindsay Graham and Mitt Romney, and it’s difficult to see how we will be able to avoid an escalation. There are people on both sides trying to trigger greater bloodshed and anyone who calls for peace comes under threat of assassination.

  Russia and Vladimir Putin have culpability of their own and one could argue that the east vs west paradigm is itself a brand of theater. However, the evidence for now leans heavily towards globalist think-tank instigation, leading to the Maidan coup in Ukraine in 2014, the flood of NATO weapons and “advisers” into the country under the Obama Administration and the deep involvement of Lindsay Graham, John McCain and The Atlantic Council in attempts to secure EU and NATO membership for the country; a red line which Russia consistently warned would lead to confrontation.

  Keep in mind, the promise made by NATO to Russia in the 1990s was that they would not attempt to move east once Russia tore down the Berlin Wall and unified Germany. NATO activities in Ukraine violate that promise in numerous ways.

  In January of 2022 I predicted that open war in the region was highly likely given the ultimate failure of the covid lockdowns and mandates (The Great Reset plan). The establishment needed a new global crisis to instill public fear, and they also needed a scapegoat for the ongoing stagflationary decline in the west. It’s only natural that they would turn to the classic fallback of world war after their previous agenda failed to get the results they wanted.

  In September of 2022 after NATO flooded Ukraine with weapons and foreign “mercenaries” I predicted that Russia would adopt an attrition warfare strategy with increased attacks on Ukraine’s power infrastructure. This has been their strategy ever since and now Ukraine faces a winter with an 85% loss in their power grid as Russian forces roll forward mile by mile on the Eastern and southern fronts.

  Russian forces are taking long standing Ukrainian strongholds with complex defensive works and Ukrainian troop strength is dwindling. Ukraine is losing the war by every metric and I now predict they have a year or less before complete defensive collapse.

  The corporate media will not talk about these developments. They will diminish them until Russia is on the verge of gaining a vast amount of ground and then they will act indignant, saying “How could this have happened?” Then they will call for western troops to enter the fray (it’s already starting).

  The only thing that might stop this outcome is Donald Trump’s promise to force negotiations between the Kremlin and Kyiv on day one of his administration. The problem is, that’s another two months away and the globalists are using that window of time to sabotage any future peace efforts. Their goal is to turn the proxy war into an open international conflagration.

  In August in my article ‘Globalists Are Trying To Escalate The Ukraine War Into WWIII Before The US Election’ I outlined a theory on what was likely to happen if the establishment saw a possible shift in US and EU sentiment towards continuing support for Ukraine:

  “But how do they turn the proxy war into a world war without looking like the bad guys? That’s the trick, isn’t it?

  The proxy (in this case, Ukraine) would have to take actions that provoke Russia into an explosive outburst. Russia would have to utilize tactics or weaponry that puts a vast number of civilians at risk, requiring greater NATO involvement and perhaps even UN intervention…”

  I noted that the greenlight for use of long range missile systems provided by the US and Europe could be the trigger the globalists were looking for:

  “Long range strikes into Russia, I believe, will set in motion more Russian strikes on major cities in the west of Ukraine where the majority of the population lives. These areas have gone largely untouched during the duration of the war. Putin, despite what the media claims, has been careful to limit the targeting of larger civilian centers. That will end if NATO missiles hit Russian cities…”

  “The idea that ballistic volleys into Russia using NATO supplied missiles won’t result in Putin using MOABs or nukes is truly insane. Keep in mind, long range strikes into Russia will do nothing to change the conditions on the ground in the Donbas…”

  I outlined why this strategy was beneficial for globalist think tanks in light of an impending Trump presidency.

  “Donald Trump is looking increasingly likely to be the winner of the presidential race. I have long held that the globalists will wrap up an economic collapse or a world war and throw it in Trump’s lap. They already tried to do the same thing with the covid pandemic and the inflationary crisis.

  “The timing of the Kursk offensive and the call for missile strikes on Russia is not a coincidence. Trump claims that his intention is to end the Ukraine war as quickly as possible once he enters office.”

  “They need to escalate the war into something bigger, something that can’t be undone. Right now, the war can be ended – All it takes is some diplomacy and forcing Ukraine to understand that they’re not going to get the Donbas or Crimea back no matter how many lives they sacrifice. But if there are massive civilian casualties on either side, the situation becomes irreversible.”

  I want to point out that you don’t need a crystal ball to predict the path of this conflict; the stages and outcomes are relatively clear if you understand the hidden motivations behind the war. Most of the events I outlined in August have now happened, but only because these are the events that MUST happen in order to get to the end game of WWIII.

  After Trump’s landslide election win this month the Biden Administration responded by giving the greenlight for Ukraine to use long range ATACMS deeper inside Russian territory. The decision was reportedly made to “Trump-proof” the Ukraine war and prevent a quick resolution before he entered office.

  The ATACMS would do nothing to change the immediate conditions on the battlefield. ATACMS are precision guided munitions designed for surgical strikes on high value targets, they are not very useful in winning a war of attrition. The reason these weapons are so controversial is because they CANNOT be fired without help from NATO technicians and satellites. Meaning, Biden’s decision represents an open declaration of war on Russia.

  In response, the Kremlin reportedly fired a nuclear capable IRBM (an RS-26 Rubezh missile) on the city of Dniprio. The weapon had multiple warheads and video evidence shows all of them apparently striking the target. Luckily, none of those warheads were carrying a nuclear payload.

  The strike occurred right after Putin changed Russia’s nuclear defense policy and this appears to be a final warning. Globalist think tanks like The Atlantic Council continue to claim that Putin’s red lines are a “farce” and that he will never use nukes. I think that they know Putin is not bluffing and that they intend to poke the bear until they get a limited nuclear attack. I believe the chances are very high for at least one nuke strike within Ukraine if conditions continue to deteriorate with NATO.

  Some will argue that there’s no way this will happen because Russia would be obliterated by nuclear retaliation. I suspect that in the face of a nuke strike in Ukraine, NATO will do nothing. They certainly won’t escalate to a global exchange of ICBMs.

  The globalists have little to gain by incinerating decades of work building the mass surveillance systems and digital economic infrastructure they need for their “New World Order.” Ukraine just isn’t worth it. What such an incident would do, though, is open the door to wider war on multiple fronts between the east and the west.

  If the war is escalated beyond the zero point before Trump gets into office, then Trump may have no other choice than to commit the US to the conflict despite vast public disapproval. It would be disastrous for his administration, disastrous for conservatives and disastrous for the western world at large. The majority of the public will NOT volunteer to fight for Ukraine and conscription would be an invitation to civil unrest.

  Leftists hate Russia because the media tells them to, but they aren’t going to risk their lives for Ukraine. Conservatives definitely aren’t going to submit to a draft and most of us would rather go to war against the globalists instead.

  Putin is savvy enough to wait for Trump to enter office and start negotiations, but my greatest concern is that something is about to happen which will sabotage any eventual peace plan. A long range attack by Ukraine on a major civilian center, a nuclear power plant, or the assassination of a political figure using NATO weaponry would be the only spark needed to light the powder keg. Putin will be required to show Russia is not weak and follow through on his red line threats.

  There’s a good chance that we will see a mushroom cloud over Ukraine (or adjacent region) in the near future unless there is serious intervention to defuse the conflict. The next two months will be key.

  *  *  *

  If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 16:20

• The Case For Gold Is Incontrovertible
  The Case For Gold Is Incontrovertible

  Authored by Egon von Gryerz via VonGreyerz.gold,

  Gold Will Rise By Multiples

  As Eastern and Southern Central Banks substantially increase their gold holdings, Western Central Banks will most probably have little physical gold in their coffers. 

  Total global gold reserves allegedly held by central banks (37,000 tonnes) are valued at $3.1 trillion at the current market price of $2,700. 

  That value is absurd when one US company – Microsoft – has the same valuation. Just think about it: Microsoft is as big as the gold backing of the global financial system.

  Furthermore, Western central banks have most probably hypothecated and re-hypothecated (lent, leased) their gold several times via bullion banks. That gold will never come back.

  Consequently, CBs is heavily short on gold and will be badly squeezed as the gold market becomes disorderly.

  The combination of Eastern/Southern Central Bank gold buying and all CBs replacing their dollar reserves with gold will lead to unprecedented demand for gold for many years. More gold cannot satisfy this demand since the current gold mine production of around 3,000 tonnes cannot be increased.

  Thus, the substantial increase in physical gold demand can only be satisfied by much, much higher prices. 

  This is why gold will rise by multiples.

  This article could stop here.

  You must know the above to understand why gold will be significantly revalued. Still, the article contains a lot of interesting material explaining THE INCONTROVERTIBLE CASE FOR GOLD, so I recommend you read on.

  

  Just look at the chart above, which shows the relentless bull market in gold since 1971, going up 78X since Nixon closed the gold window. 

  As I have stated in many articles, gold is now in its exponential phase. 

  I have shown my illustration of what exponential means with this picture. 

  

  They make it clear –  gold is now in a phase when the price will go up by MULTIPLES.

  Since the mid-1990s, I have been convinced of the importance of gold for wealth preservation and investment. 

  I started my first job in Swiss banking in 1969 and experienced Nixon’s 1971 closing of the gold window. The consequences of Nixon’s “temporary” action were spectacular, as gold went up 24X between 1971 and 1980.

  MAJOR GOLD SELLING BY WESTERN CENTRAL BANKS 

  A long correction followed after 1980, and gold finally bottomed out at $250 in 1999. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Many Western central banks liquidated part or all of their gold holdings. Countries like the UK, Switzerland, and Canada halved their holdings in that period, and Norway sold all its gold. 

  One of the best signals of a gold bottom was the Bank of England and Swiss National Bank selling over half of their gold near the lows. 

  This central bank selling almost 10,000 tonnes was another sign of their total incompetence. As I have often argued, financial markets would function much better without these politicised bureaucrats. Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth. 

  

  History tells us that gold should never be sold. 

  If politicians and central bankers ever studied history, they would know that no paper money has ever survived, ever, ever. 

  All papers of fiat money have always been destroyed by governments, without exception. Today, this is achieved by credit expansion or “money printing”. 

  When gold or silver was money, the precious metal would be diluted by other metals like copper or zinc. 

  Physical gold is for wealth preservation and the protection of purchasing power. 

  As Ralph Waldo Emerson said:

  GOLD IS FOR FREEDOM AND BENEFIT 

  FORT KNOX HOLDS “NOTHING BUT MOTHS AND HALF-EATEN IOUs”

  Vincent Lanci of GoldFix recently wrote the above article:

  

  Vince published the article here. He starts by quoting my Tweet: 

  

  He goes on to say:

  “Bold claim, right? He’s not wrong.

  Bottom line with regard to Ms. Shelton’s call to monetize our Gold by throwing it out on the yield curve (with which we agree) there is no way you can do it honestly if you wanted to.

  We’d wager no Gold is there at all. Anyway, there is much less Gold in Fort Knox than people think, which brings us to Pozsar’s predictive analysis.“

  He goes on to quote the revered Zoltan Pozsar’s article:

  Banks have been managing their paper gold books with one assumption, which is that [Nation] states would ensure gold wouldn’t come back as a settlement medium.”

  The above article is really worth reading, and it confirms my initial statement in this article that Central Banks have hypothecated gold to the extent that, if attacked by Russia and China, would collapse the Western Central Bank and LBMA (London Bullion Market Association) cabal.

  GOLD UP 11X IN THE 2000s

  So here we are 24 years into the 21st century, and gold is up 11X in US dollars and more in many other currencies.

  

  Between 2001 and 2011, gold rose 8X with no single down year.

  Then, there was a 3-year proper correction from $1,920 in 2011 down to $1,046 in 2016. 

  Since 2016, gold has gone up for 9 years, including three sideways years. 

  The chart speaks for itself. 

  In the last 24 years, we have seen an incredibly strong bull market in gold, with virtually no one participating. Still, only 0.5% of global financial assets are invested in gold, so virtually nobody understands or invests in it.

  As the graph below shows, gold has gone from 0.2% of global assets in 2001 to 0.5% today. During that time, I have been standing on a soapbox explaining the importance and virtues of gold, even in my father-of-the-bride speech in 2002. Still, very few own it. 

  GOLD IS ONLY 0.5% OF GLOBAL FINANCIAL ASSETS

  

  GOLD HAS VASTLY OUTPERFORMED STOCKS IN THE 2000s

  With a similar bull market in stocks, which has been the case in most of the 2000s, no investor would have been out of the stock market.

  Still, gold has vastly outperformed stocks in this century. 

  For the last 24 years, the S&P 500, with dividends reinvested, has risen by 572%.

  Gold is up 990% for the same period with much less volatility.

  Gold ownership is like a hidden, well-guarded secret. Very few, not even professional investors, know that gold has gone up 1,000% or 11X in this century. 

  Still, very few own gold, and even fewer are aware that gold fulfils the dual function of being both the ultimate protector and ultimate enhancer of your wealth.

  If you own gold, you never have to worry about the price. Because on your side stand governments and central banks who will always support gold by creating an endless amount of new money, thus expanding debt and the money supply. This guarantees the continuous debasement of paper money, directly reflected in the gold price. 

  Only since 2000 has the US dollar lost 92% of its value in real terms – GOLD.

  History proves that gold over the medium to long term always reflects the government’s irresponsible and opportunistic management of the country. 

  Governments always spend money that doesn’t exist in a futile attempt to placate the people and buy votes.

  GOLD SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERVALUED 

  Let’s look at a breakdown of all the gold that has ever been produced in history. 

  The cube below gives a good picture. 

  

  Only 201,000 tonnes of gold have been produced in history. All this gold is assumed to be still around, although some might be at the bottom of the sea and some hidden forever.

  Just under half, or 93K tonnes, have been used for jewellery.

  But now come the very important figures.

  Only 43T tonnes or $3.6 trillion in private investment gold.

  If we compare that to the biggest US companies, only NVIDIA has a market cap of $3.5 trillion, and so does Apple.  

  

  Even more astounding is that all the gold held by central banks globally is just $3.1 trillion, which is Microsoft’s market cap.

  So, the shareholders of Microsoft could swap their shareholdings against all the Central Bank Gold in the world. 

  I doubt the central bankers would sell their countries’ gold at the current price, but we shouldn’t put it past them. As mentioned above, they have often sold gold at the bottom and against fiat money. 

  As all paper money has gone to ZERO throughout history, it clearly can’t be real money. 

  It is only a claim or an IOU issued by your government. Remember what the banker JP Morgan said: 

  

  THE DOLLAR ON ITS WAY TO ZERO

  As all government debt always increases over time, we know that this debt will never be repaid. Instead, it is inflated away by the constant printing of new worthless paper money and debt until it becomes worthless, which is a de facto sovereign default. 

  Remember that this has happened to every currency in history without exception. 

  Since Nixon closed the gold window in 1971, the dollar and most currencies have lost 99% of their value. 

  

  The total market capitalisation of the top 10 US companies is $19.2 trillion.

  Let’s look at the cube above again. At today’s price, ​​all the gold ever produced in history is at today’s price worth $17 trillion,  $2 T less than the top 10 US stocks.  

  GOLD UNDERVALUED BY MULTIPLES

  When all the central bank gold in the world is valued at the same price as one major US corporation, we know that this is an absurdity. 

  The stock market is currently overvalued. 

  As our friend, Bill Bonner recently wrote in his wonderful style:

  “Sooner or later, the lava flows of red-hot credit are going to meet up with the cold reality of rising interest rates. When this happens, most likely, stocks, bonds, and real estate will all be buried, like Pompeii.  

  Some investors will take a Big Loss. Big deal. Markets are correct all the time. But we’re not making predictions. We’re just looking for the worst-case scenario. And it could be far worse than just a market sell-off.”

  What Bill states above is inevitable. 

  And gold’s coming rise by multiples is a “Sine Qua Non” (absolute prerequisite).

  In numerous articles, I have stated the reasons for gold’s acceleration in price.

  In my article WE HAVE LIFT-OFF in March this year (when gold was $2,000), I said:

  “YES, GOLD IS ON THE CUSP OF A MAJOR MOVE AS:

  • Wars continue to ravage the world.

  • Inflation rises strongly due to ever-increasing debts and deficits.

  • Currencies continue their journey to ZERO.

  • The world flees from stocks, bonds, and the US dollar. 

  • The BRICS countries continue to buy ever bigger amounts of gold.

  • Central Banks buy major amounts of gold as currency reserves instead of US dollars.

  • Investors rush into gold at any price to preserve their wealth”. 

  And back in August, I said: $1 MILLION GOLD PRICE AND EXCHANGE CONTROLS:

  “DOLLAR, GOLD AND EXCHANGE CONTROLS 

  As I have outlined in this article, a continued and steep dollar decline in the coming years is a virtual certainty. 

  As there has been no gold window to close since 1971, the US government is almost certain to implement foreign exchange controls as the dollar falls. I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes relatively soon, but the timing is irrelevant. The risk is here today, and now is the time to prepare for it. Thus, for Americans, it would be an advantage to have funds or assets outside of the US as soon as possible. Physical gold and silver are clearly the best assets to hold as they also protect against the dollar debasement. Switzerland and Singapore are obvious places to hold gold. Switzerland has a strong currency and a very sound economy. Exchange controls would be unlikely here. What is extremely important is not to hold your precious metals through a US company or other entity, which the US government can order to return the gold or silver from a foreign vault to the US.” 

  However, as has been pointed out relentlessly, gold is undervalued by multiples.

  I have also warned that we will not have a 2008-type correction in the gold price for quite some time. But some so-called experts have, for most of this year, warned gold investors that this would happen. Thus, virtually no private investor has bought gold this year in the West. But non-Western Central banks, the astute Chinese, and the BRICS countries have. This strong buying will continue to drive the gold price up by multiples in the next few years. 

  MOST PRECARIOUS GEOPOLITICAL SITUATION IN HISTORY

  Finally, the geopolitical situation is more precarious than ever in world history due to both the Middle East and Ukraine crises.

  The deep state or neocons who steer Biden are doing everything they can to start WWIII by provoking Russia with US and UK missiles sent from the UK in the remaining 8 weeks before Trump takes over. This is totally ludicrous and irresponsible by an unaccountable and anonymous group of people who cannot stand that the US is losing its hegemony. 

  Let’s hope that the superiority of the Russian Oreshnik missiles just fired has made the US military and the world realise that this is a conflict that the US, NATO and the world can only lose. 

  Let’s also hope that the world gets to January 20, 2025, without any serious escalation.

  Trump clearly is determined to solve the US problems, as he declared in this video.

  Zelensky and Putin must meet with me immediately at get this war solved! Ukraine has just launched 5 ballistic US ATACMS missiles at Kursk, Russia. This must stop! Joe Biden and NATO are pushing the United Stated into WWIII! pic.twitter.com/YI9CCyNXzZ

  — Donald J. Trump – Parody (@realDonParody) November 23, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/26/2024 – 15:50

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• To Cut, Or Not To Cut?
  To Cut, Or Not To Cut?

  Health organizations are currently divided on whether male circumcision is beneficial or not.

  Some research suggests it can lower the rates of urinary tract infections and improve overall penile health, but the procedure can also lead to infection and can be seen as unnecessary.

  And as Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao details below, culturally as well, regions of the world are starkly divided on the practice and we visualize this by mapping out the rates by country.

  

  Data for this map is sourced from the “Estimation of Country-Specific and Global Prevalence of Male Circumcision”, a paper published on BioMedCentral in 2016. It is the latest complete data available on this topic.

  A Regional Breakdown of Circumcision Rates

  Male circumcision is more common in countries where Islam and Judaism emphasize it as a religious practice.

  Consequently, in North Africa and the Middle East, 99% of men aged 15 and older are circumcised.

  Country	ISO Code	Male Circumcision Rate (Men Aged 15+)
  🇦🇫 Afghanistan	AFG	99.8%
  🇦🇱 Albania	ALB	47.7%
  🇩🇿 Algeria	DZA	97.9%
  🇦🇴 Angola	AGO	57.5%
  🇦🇷 Argentina	ARG	2.9%
  🇦🇲 Armenia	ARM	0.1%
  🇦🇺 Australia	AUS	58.0%
  🇦🇹 Austria	AUT	5.8%
  🇦🇿 Azerbaijan	AZE	98.5%
  🇧🇭 Bahrain	BHR	81.2%
  🇧🇩 Bangladesh	BGD	93.2%
  🇧🇾 Belarus	BLR	0.3%
  🇧🇪 Belgium	BEL	22.6%
  🇧🇿 Belize	BLZ	0.1%
  🇧🇯 Benin	BEN	92.9%
  🇧🇹 Bhutan	BTN	1.0%
  🇧🇴 Bolivia	BOL	0.1%
  🇧🇦 Bosnia & Herzegovina	BIH	41.6%
  🇧🇼 Botswana	BWA	15.1%
  🇧🇷 Brazil	BRA	1.3%
  🇧🇳 Brunei	BRN	51.9%
  🇧🇬 Bulgaria	BGR	13.4%
  🇧🇫 Burkina Faso	BFA	88.3%
  🇧🇮 Burundi	BDI	61.7%
  🇰🇭 Cambodia	KHM	3.5%
  🇨🇲 Cameroon	CMR	94.0%
  🇨🇦 Canada	CAN	31.9%
  🇨🇫 Central African Republic	CAF	63.0%
  🇹🇩 Chad	TCD	73.5%
  🇨🇱 Chile	CHL	0.2%
  🇨🇳 China	CHN	14.0%
  🇨🇴 Colombia	COL	4.2%
  🇨🇷 Costa Rica	CRI	0.1%
  🇭🇷 Croatia	HRV	1.3%
  🇨🇺 Cuba	CUB	0.1%
  🇨🇾 Cyprus	CYP	22.7%
  🇨🇿 Czechia	CZE	0.1%
  🇨🇩 DRC	COD	97.2%
  🇩🇰 Denmark	DNK	5.3%
  🇩🇯 Djibouti	DJI	96.5%
  🇩🇴 Dominican Republic	DOM	13.7%
  🇹🇱 East Timor	TLS	6.4%
  🇪🇨 Ecuador	ECU	0.1%
  🇪🇬 Egypt	EGY	94.7%
  🇸🇻 El Salvador	SLV	0.1%
  🇬🇶 Equatorial Guinea	GNQ	87.0%
  🇪🇷 Eritrea	ERI	97.2%
  🇪🇪 Estonia	EST	0.3%
  🇸🇿 eSwatini	SWZ	8.2%
  🇪🇹 Ethiopia	ETH	92.2%
  🇫🇰 Falkland Islands	FLK	0.1%
  🇫🇯 Fiji	FJI	55.0%
  🇫🇮 Finland	FIN	0.8%
  🇫🇷 France	FRA	14.0%
  🇬🇦 Gabon	GAB	99.2%
  🇬🇲 Gambia	GMB	94.5%
  🇬🇪 Georgia	GEO	10.6%
  🇩🇪 Germany	DEU	6.7%
  🇬🇭 Ghana	GHA	91.6%
  🇬🇷 Greece	GRC	4.7%
  🇬🇱 Greenland	GRL	0.1%
  🇬🇹 Guatemala	GTM	0.1%
  🇬🇳 Guinea	GIN	84.2%
  🇬🇼 Guinea-Bissau	GNB	93.3%
  🇬🇾 Guyana	GUY	12.0%
  🇭🇹 Haiti	HTI	6.2%
  🇭🇳 Honduras	HND	0.1%
  🇭🇰 Hong Kong	HKG	28.0%
  🇭🇺 Hungary	HUN	0.8%
  🇮🇸 Iceland	ISL	0.1%
  🇮🇳 India	IND	13.5%
  🇮🇩 Indonesia	IDN	92.5%
  🇮🇷 Iran	IRN	99.7%
  🇮🇶 Iraq	IRQ	98.9%
  🇮🇪 Ireland	IRL	0.9%
  🇮🇱 Israel	ISR	91.7%
  🇮🇹 Italy	ITA	2.6%
  🇨🇮 Ivory Coast	CIV	96.7%
  🇯🇲 Jamaica	JAM	14.0%
  🇯🇵 Japan	JPN	9.0%
  🇯🇴 Jordan	JOR	98.8%
  🇰🇿 Kazakhstan	KAZ	56.4%
  🇰🇪 Kenya	KEN	91.2%
  🇽🇰 Kosovo	KOS	91.7%
  🇰🇼 Kuwait	KWT	86.4%
  🇰🇬 Kyrgyzstan	KGZ	91.9%
  🇱🇦 Laos	LAO	0.1%
  🇱🇻 Latvia	LVA	0.4%
  🇱🇧 Lebanon	LBN	59.7%
  🇱🇸 Lesotho	LSO	52.0%
  🇱🇷 Liberia	LBR	97.7%
  🇱🇾 Libya	LBY	96.6%
  🇱🇹 Lithuania	LTU	0.2%
  🇱🇺 Luxembourg	LUX	2.4%
  🇲🇬 Madagascar	MDG	94.7%
  🇲🇼 Malawi	MWI	21.6%
  🇲🇾 Malaysia	MYS	61.4%
  🇲🇻 Maldives	MDV	98.4%
  🇲🇱 Mali	MLI	86.0%
  🇲🇹 Malta	MLT	0.3%
  🇲🇷 Mauritania	MRT	99.2%
  🇲🇺 Mauritius	MUS	16.6%
  🇲🇽 Mexico	MEX	15.4%
  🇲🇩 Moldova	MDA	0.5%
  🇲🇳 Mongolia	MNG	4.4%
  🇲🇪 Montenegro	MNE	18.5%
  🇲🇦 Morocco	MAR	99.9%
  🇲🇿 Mozambique	MOZ	47.4%
  🇲🇲 Myanmar	MMR	3.5%
  🇳🇦 Namibia	NAM	25.5%
  🇳🇵 Nepal	NPL	4.2%
  🇳🇱 Netherlands	NLD	5.7%
  🇳🇨 New Caledonia	NCL	50.0%
  🇳🇿 New Zealand	NZL	33.0%
  🇳🇮 Nicaragua	NIC	0.1%
  🇳🇪 Niger	NER	95.5%
  🇳🇬 Nigeria	NGA	98.9%
  🇰🇵 North Korea	PRK	0.1%
  🇲🇰 North Macedonia	MKD	33.9%
  🇳🇴 Norway	NOR	3.0%
  🇴🇲 Oman	OMN	87.7%
  🇵🇰 Pakistan	PAK	96.4%
  🇵🇸 Palestine	PSX	99.9%
  🇵🇦 Panama	PAN	0.9%
  🇵🇬 Papua New Guinea	PNG	10.1%
  🇵🇾 Paraguay	PRY	0.1%
  🇵🇪 Peru	PER	3.7%
  🇵🇭 Philippines	PHL	91.7%
  🇵🇱 Poland	POL	0.1%
  🇵🇹 Portugal	PRT	0.6%
  🇵🇷 Puerto Rico	PRI	0.1%
  🇶🇦 Qatar	QAT	77.5%
  🇷🇸 Serbia	SRB	3.7%
  🇨🇬 Congo	COG	70.0%
  🇷🇴 Romania	ROU	0.3%
  🇷🇺 Russia	RUS	11.8%
  🇷🇼 Rwanda	RWA	13.3%
  🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia	SAU	97.1%
  🇸🇳 Senegal	SEN	93.5%
  🇸🇱 Sierra Leone	SLE	96.1%
  🇸🇬 Singapore	SGP	14.9%
  🇸🇰 Slovakia	SVK	0.1%
  🇸🇮 Slovenia	SVN	8.5%
  🇸🇧 Solomon Islands	SLB	95.0%
  🇸🇴 Somalia	SOM	93.5%
  🇿🇦 South Africa	ZAF	44.7%
  🇰🇷 South Korea	KOR	77.0%
  🇸🇸 South Sudan	SDS	23.6%
  🇪🇸 Spain	ESP	6.6%
  🇱🇰 Sri Lanka	LKA	8.5%
  🇸🇩 Sudan	SDN	39.4%
  🇸🇷 Suriname	SUR	15.9%
  🇸🇪 Sweden	SWE	5.1%
  🇨🇭 Switzerland	CHE	5.9%
  🇸🇾 Syria	SYR	92.8%
  🇹🇼 Taiwan	TWN	8.3%
  🇹🇯 Tajikistan	TJK	99.0%
  🇹🇭 Thailand	THA	11.9%
  🇧🇸 The Bahamas	BHS	0.2%
  🇹🇬 Togo	TGO	95.2%
  🇹🇹 Trinidad & Tobago	TTO	5.8%
  🇹🇳 Tunisia	TUN	99.8%
  🇹🇷 Turkey	TUR	98.6%
  🇹🇲 Turkmenistan	TKM	93.4%
  🇺🇬 Uganda	UGA	26.7%
  🇺🇦 Ukraine	UKR	2.3%
  🇦🇪 UAE	ARE	76.0%
  🇬🇧 UK	GBR	20.7%
  🇹🇿 Tanzania	TZA	72.0%
  🇺🇸 U.S.	USA	80.5%
  🇺🇾 Uruguay	URY	0.6%
  🇺🇿 Uzbekistan	UZB	96.5%
  🇻🇺 Vanuatu	VUT	95.0%
  🇻🇪 Venezuela	VEN	0.3%
  🇻🇳 Vietnam	VNM	0.2%
  🇪🇭 Western Sahara	SAH	99.6%
  🇾🇪 Yemen	YEM	99.0%
  🇿🇲 Zambia	ZMB	12.8%
  🇿🇼 Zimbabwe	ZWE	9.2%
  🌎 World Average	N/A	38.7%

  Meanwhile, South America and Europe have low rates, as do parts of Asia where Islam is not a majority religion.

  However, there are some interesting standouts in this map. For example, South Korea, the U.S., and Australia have male circumcision rates above 50%, but all have combined Muslim and Jewish populations under 5% of the overall total.

  Finally, it’s worth noting that the WHO recommends voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) to reduce HIV risk for heterosexual men in high-incidence areas like Eastern Africa. However, it also states it is one of many prevention methods, alongside condom use and post-exposure treatment.

  Islam is the second-largest religion in the world with nearly 1.8 billion followers. Check out Charted: The World’s Largest Religions to see where Judaism ranks.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 23:00

• Utah Culls More Than 100,000 Turkeys After Detecting Bird Flu
  Utah Culls More Than 100,000 Turkeys After Detecting Bird Flu

  Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

  Utah culled a large number of turkeys recently after confirming the presence of the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and is taking action to prevent the infection from spreading, according to the state’s Department of Agriculture and Food.

  “Between November 10 to 19, 2024, three turkey farms in Piute County totaling 107,800 turkeys and one backyard flock of 253 birds in Salt Lake County were confirmed positive for HPAI,” a Nov. 22 update from the agency stated.

  Officials are currently conducting genetic sequencing of the strains involved in these outbreaks, it said.

  “Though the overall risk to public health remains low, HPAI is a serious disease, requiring rapid response, including depopulation of affected flocks as it is highly contagious and fatal to poultry,” the agency said.

  “Affected birds were depopulated within 24 hours of diagnosis at each site to limit further disease spread. Overall impacts to the food supply are anticipated to be limited at this time.”

  Authorities have decided on an on-site burial for disposing of the culled poultry at Piute County.

  

  All personnel attending the site are required to wear personal protective equipment and all equipment is disinfected to contain the virus within the site.

  “Poultry owners should practice strong biosecurity and monitor flocks for signs of illness and report any sick birds immediately to the State Veterinarian’s Office,” the agency said.

  “Individuals who work in close contact with infected animals may be at higher risk for contracting HPAI/H5N1 and should take precautions including using recommended personal protective equipment.”

  The state saw another outbreak last month in which more than 1.85 million birds in Cache County were affected. At present, five poultry farms operating in Utah are in quarantine, the department said.

  The current HPAI outbreak in the United States began in February 2022. Over the past 30 days, infections have been confirmed in 47 flocks nationwide that together account for 6.05 million birds, according to data from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

  Many of the cases are in California, which alone accounted for 25 flocks totaling more than 5.21 million birds. Infections among flocks have been reported in other states including Arizona, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, South Dakota, and Illinois.

  Avian Flu in Humans

  There have been 55 confirmed avian flu cases among U.S. citizens, according to the latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  Again, California accounted for most of the infections, with 29 cases, followed by Washington with 11 and 10 in Colorado. Michigan reported two incidents, while Missouri, Oregon, and Texas registered one case each.

  The largest source of exposure of these infections was cattle, accounting for 32 cases. Poultry was responsible for 21 incidents.

  The agency said in a Nov. 18 update that the immediate risk posed by avian flu to the general public is low. However, “people with exposure to infected animals are at higher risk of infection,” it said.

  “All recent cases have occurred in workers on affected farms. All available data so far suggest sporadic instances of animal-to-human spread. These farm workers all described mild symptoms, many with eye redness or discharge (conjunctivitis),” it said.

  The CDC also recently confirmed a case of bird flu infection in a child, the first incident in a minor. The child, from California, exhibited mild symptoms and was in recovery, according to a Nov. 22 update from the agency. None of the family members tested positive for the virus.

  “To date, there has been no person-to-person spread identified associated with any of the H5N1 bird flu cases reported in the United States,” the CDC noted.

  Meanwhile, the first case of avian flu in a pig was confirmed recently by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The pig, from Oregon, had previously shared space with infected poultry. Officials euthanized five pigs on the property and put the place under quarantine.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 22:35

• Trump Announces 25% Tariff For Canada, Mexico; Ramps Up Promised Tariffs On "Drug-Pushing" China
  Trump Announces 25% Tariff For Canada, Mexico; Ramps Up Promised Tariffs On “Drug-Pushing” China

  Just when you thought his choice of Scott Bessent as Treasury Secretary had tamped down the market’s “tariff tensions”, President-Elect Trump reminded everyone who is in charge tonight with drugs and open borders as his main focus.

  In a statement on his Truth Social account, Trump swung the hammer against Mexico, Canada…

  “As everyone is aware, thousands of people are pouring through Mexico and Canada, bringing Crime and Drugs at levels never seen before.

  Right now a Caravan coming from Mexico, composed of thousands of people, seems to be unstoppable in its quest to come through our currently Open Border.

  On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders.

  This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country! Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem.

  We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price!”

  …and of course China…

  “I have had many talks with China about the massive amounts of drugs, in particular Fentanyl, being sent into the United States – But to no avail.

  Representatives of China told me that they would institute their maximum penalty, that of death, for any drug dealers caught doing this but, unfortunately, they never followed through, and drugs are pouring into our Country, mostly through Mexico, at levels never seen before.

  Until such time as they stop, we will be charging China an additional 10% Tariff, above any additional Tariffs, on all of their many products coming into the United States of America.

  Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

  

  As a reminder, Fentanyl, the powerful synthetic opioid, has been linked to around 100,000 deaths annually in the United States, with much of the flow of the deadly drug coming from south of the border.

  A damning report released earlier this year by the U.S. House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party found that the Chinese regime was facilitating the proliferation of fentanyl in the United States.

  Additionally, Trump has previously vowed to end China’s most-favored-nation trading status and impose tariffs in excess of 60 percent on China-made goods.

  The initial reaction to Trump’s threatening posts was a surge higher in the dollar, erasing the weekend’s losses (following Bessent’s appointment) with the peso and loonie both tumbling along with the offshore yuan…

  

  Stocks also dropped in Japan, Australia and SouthKorea, with US futures modestly higher. Goldman’s research team suggests this FX reaction is perhaps a little overdone:

  This seems to be more eased vs. what market has generally expected… and the less hawkish pick of Treasury head also said to roll out the tariffs in layers (which means the 10% mentioned by Trump just now is indeed a beginning but still more gentle than market expectation).

  Their baseline expectation remains (via Goldman’s Hui/Lisheng/Xinquan):

  1. Assume that 20% additional US tariffs on Chinese goods in 2025, expect USDCNY to rise to 7.4/7.5 in 3/6 months, continued RRR/policy rate cuts and augmented fiscal deficit to widen by 1.8pp of GDP in 2025 vs. 2024;
  2. While our 2025 growth forecast (4.5%) is in line with the consensus, our inflation projections are notably below (CPI 0.8%; PPI 0.0%);
  3. Expect exports to be relatively stable, declines in property investment to continue, and consumption (especially goods consumption) to outperform. Growth of government consumption and investment is likely to accelerate.

  

  The Goldman analysts estimate that the impact on MSCI China earnings would be as follows:

  

  However while they state that this seems softer than expected the lack of details means the actual impact remains uncertain.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 22:33

• Where Child Marriage Is Still Common
  Where Child Marriage Is Still Common

  An often overlooked form of violence against women is child marriage, which is considered a fundamental violation of human rights.

  As Statista’ Felx Richter reports, the right to ‘free and full’ consent to marriage is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whereby it is widely agreed that consent cannot be ‘free and full’ when one of the parties involved is not sufficiently mature to make an informed decision about a life partner. According to UNICEF, child marriage often has long-lasting, mostly adverse effects on a girl’s development, including teen pregnancy, early exit from education and social isolation.

  Globally, roughly one in five women aged 20 to 24 was married by the time she turned 18 and 4 percent were married before the age of 15.

  That’s according to the latest estimates from UNICEF, which found stark regional differences in the prevalence of child marriage.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  In Sub-Saharan Africa, almost one in three girls gets married or enters a cohabiting relationship before the age of 18. 9 percent of Sub-Saharan women who are now 20 to 24 years old even entered such a union before the age of 15.

  In South Asia, one in four young women were married by the age of 15, while it was one in five in Latin America and the Caribbean.

  

  According to UNICEF, the term “child marriage” is used to refer to both formal marriages and informal unions in which a person lives with a partner for some time before 18 years old.

  Child marriage often takes place through an informal union, in which girls live with a partner rather than marry, oftentimes because laws prohibit an official union. Child marriage is tied to poverty, school dropouts, teenage pregnancy and violence.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 22:10

• "We Can Forget Business As Usual": One Bank's Forecast For The US Economy Under Trump 2.025
  “We Can Forget Business As Usual”: One Bank’s Forecast For The US Economy Under Trump 2.025

  This morning, Deutsche Bank published its World Outlook for next year entitled “Navigating Trump 2.025” (available to pro subscribers in the usual place). It includes all of the German bank’s global economic and asset price forecasts for 2025.

  

  As summarized by Jim Reid, the bank’s head of thematic research, the election result means we can forget “business as usual” and a wider range of outcomes has opened up for the global economy and financial markets. These span from a potentially much more positive US outlook on the one hand, to a much more negative European outlook on the other. President-elect Trump has several potentially conflicting economic policy goals, and how he weights them in office will influence global growth and asset prices in 2025 and beyond.

  If the primary focus of the new administration is boosting growth, there’s every chance that this can be very positive for the US, with spillovers elsewhere across the globe. But that would likely require less of a focus on campaign promises like the deportation of undocumented immigrants and on tariffs.

  The main downside risks are more likely to emerge if greater weight is put on aggressive trade and immigration policies. This could be more negative for growth and push up inflation. That would lead the Fed to cease the cutting cycle and possibly even contemplate restarting rate increases which would likely put upward pressure on bond yields. This would have implications for the US and even more so to the rest of the world. A maximalist Trump trade agenda and a Europe constrained to act because of fragmentation is a huge but realistic risk for the continent. Looking ahead, the German election in February will be a pivotal event.

  DB’s base case for 2025 is stronger US growth and inflation and a higher Fed terminal rate than previously expected with the opposite conditions for Europe. This is driven by the assumption of modest US tax cuts, a strong deregulation push, and more supportive financial conditions. On trade the German bank assumes a 10% increase in the tariff rate on imports from China in the first half of the year (ratcheting up a further 10% in H2) and an equalization of tariff rates on motor vehicles with Europe. The forecast also assumes a 5% universal baseline tariff, though that is more likely to be implemented late 2025/early 2026.

  More in the full DB note “Navigating Trump 2.025”, available to pro subscribers in the usual place

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 21:20

• Trump Could Prompt Supreme Court Ruling On Birthright Citizenship
  Trump Could Prompt Supreme Court Ruling On Birthright Citizenship

  Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Among President-elect Donald Trump’s plans for immigration is a move to end a longstanding practice of granting something known as “birthright citizenship” to children whose parents are illegally present in the United States.

  

  Last year, he vowed to sign an executive order directing agencies to abandon that practice, if reelected.

  How exactly Trump will change policies within agencies is unclear, but experts indicate he has options.

  Regardless, revoking birthright citizenship could impact waves of new illegal immigrants and change the incentives for so-called birth tourism, wherein an expectant mother arrives in the United States just before giving birth.

  During his first term, Trump attempted to combat the phenomenon through a policy targeting the country’s temporary visa program.

  However Trump chooses to end birthright citizenship will likely provoke a legal battle of constitutional proportions and with a case that could reach the Supreme Court, as Trump predicted during his first term.

  The concept of birthright citizenship stems from the 14th Amendment, which states in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

  Lora Ries, who serves as director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at the Heritage Foundation, told The Epoch Times that Trump could start by directing the State Department and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to interpret the 14th Amendment in a particular way.

  “I don’t believe that a statute is necessary” or that a “constitutional amendment is necessary,” said Ries, who also served as the deputy chief of staff for DHS during Trump’s first administration.

  

  Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has introduced legislation that would end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.

  Immigration Reform Law Institute director of litigation Chris Hajec indicated, however, that a Supreme Court decision will be necessary to effect long-term change.

  “A law from Congress wouldn’t be enough,” he told The Epoch Times, noting that Trump’s executive policies and any act of Congress would likely end in the courts.

  It’s unclear how many individuals will seek validation of birthright citizenship in the future but the Pew Research Center estimated in 2016 that around 4 million children in the United States had illegal immigrant parents.

  The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks to “reduce the negative impact of uncontrolled immigration,” said last year that taxpayers annually spend “approximately $182 billion to cover the costs incurred from the presence of more than 15.5 million illegal aliens and about 5.4 million citizen children of illegal aliens.”

  While Hajec expects a Supreme Court decision on the issue, he doubts the court would somehow retroactively revoke birthright citizenship for individuals who already have it.

  “I think the court would just say whether this prospective, forward-looking regulation of the Trump administration was lawful,” he said.

  The court could allow Trump’s birthright citizenship policy by dismissing a challenge that arises from a lower court’s approval of it.

  It could also agree to take up the lower court’s decision, likely prompting a re-examination of a longstanding precedent from the 19th century.

  Supreme Court Precedent

  In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a majority of the court held that the 14th Amendment granted birthright citizenship to a Chinese man whose parents were legally present in the United States.

  Some have questioned whether the reasoning in that decision applies to children of the illegal immigrants who have crossed the southern border.

  “The court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen,” former Federal Election Commission member Hans von Spakovsky said in 2018.

  

  “That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.”

  Many other groups disagreed, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has vowed to combat Trump’s agenda.

  The organization said earlier this year: “Theories that attempt to carve children out of this guarantee [of citizenship] based on the immigration status of their parents are legally wrong, morally repugnant, and dangerous attacks on a core civil right.”

  The finer points of interpreting that decision could be determined by whoever sits on the Supreme Court when Trump’s policy lands there.

  Read the rest here…

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 20:55

• Russia May Deploy New Missile Units In Asia If US Missiles Appear There
  Russia May Deploy New Missile Units In Asia If US Missiles Appear There

  The Pentagon has been engaged in recent discussions involving the potential for deploying missile units to southeast Asia, and specifically Japan, as a contingency in the scenario that China moves militarily against Taiwan. Japan’s Kyodo News reported Sunday that this would involve the US Marine Corps’ multiple-launch High Mobility Artillery Rocket System.

  Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has responded to these reports, outlining Monday that Moscow has not ruled out sending medium- and shorter-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region in order to mirror the United States. 

  

  It’s also the case that earlier this year Washington deployed a new intermediate-range land-based missile system to the Philippines. The system, called Typhon, is able to fire nuclear-capable Tomahawk missiles – and has gotten both Russia’s and China’s attention.

  Such a Russian deployment would be in retaliation, and would likely have the blessing of Beijing in such an escalation scenario. “Of course, this is one of the options that has also been repeatedly mentioned,” Ryabkov explained. 

  “The appearance of such US systems in any region of the world will determine our next steps, including in the field of organizing a military and military-technical response.”

  Ryabkov then stressed in the remarks to reporters that all of this depends entirely on the US policy. He urged against the expansion of missile systems to the Pacific region.

  “[Russian] President [Vladimir Putin] said what he said. The issue of placement is exhaustively reflected in his statement,” he said.

  “As before, what is happening depends entirely on the choice that our opponents will make at this extremely alarming, very dangerous moment, and on the line that they will pursue,” the deputy foreign minister added.

  Ryabkov further noted that at the moment there are no restrictions on the deployment of Russia’s new Oreshnik medium-range ballistic missile, which have been touted as hypersonic and capable of reaching over Mach 10, under existing international obligations.

  

  Moscow has also long warned that the US pullout of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) was a major mistake, and will lead to bigger proliferation of dangerous and provocative missile systems globally among nuclear-armed powers.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 20:30

• Lott: Illegal Migrants Less Likely To Commit Crime? Guess Again…
  Lott: Illegal Migrants Less Likely To Commit Crime? Guess Again…

  Authored by John R. Lott Jr. via RealClearInvestigations,

  In June, Victor Martinez-Hernandez was charged with the murder of Rachel Morin, a mother of five in Maryland. Police in Oklahoma tracked the accused repeat offender down with a sample of his DNA recovered from a Los Angeles home invasion in which a nine-year-old girl and her mother were assaulted. Police say he came to the U.S. illegally to escape prosecution for at least one other murder in his native El Salvador in December 2022. 

  

  “That should never have been allowed to happen,” said Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler, referring to the numerous missed red flags the case presented. His office apprehended Hernandez in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

  Like the member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua sentenced to life in prison last week for the murder of Laken Riley in Georgia, Hernandez’s case is shining a light on the federal government’s failure to properly vet and keep track of lawless migrants.

  These gaps have led to broad claims that illegal immigrants have less involvement with the criminal justice system than native-born Americans. A review of the available data, however, shows that the criminal records of millions of migrants – the ones President-elect Trump vows to prioritize for deportation – remain unknown due to illegal crossings, lax enforcement, and lax data collection by federal and “sanctuary” jurisdictions. 

  In addition, an analysis of the available statistics by RealClearInvestigations suggests that the crime rate of noncitizens is vastly understated. A separate RCI analysis based on estimates developed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) suggests that crime by illegal aliens who entered the U.S. by July 21, 2024 cost the country some $166.5 billion. These criminals disproportionately entered the U.S. during the Biden administration.

  The problem begins with incomplete initial vetting by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The criminal histories of migrants from far-flung countries with often shoddy record-keeping are somewhat hard to determine. It is also impractical to hold each person until they have passed a rigorous background check. As a result, ICE routinely releases many illegals into the country on their own recognizance and then discovers afterward that many had criminal records in their home countries. 

  In response to a request from Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas, ICE reported this summer that it has released  7.4 million such “non-detained” noncitizens into the U.S. during the last four decades or so. ICE reports that these include 662,566 noncitizens with criminal histories –  435,719 individuals with criminal convictions in their home countries and another 226,847 with pending criminal charges. These precise figures, however, do not say whether the crimes of the latter group were committed in the accused’s home country or the U.S. 

  In the July 21 letter to Rep. Gonzales, ICE reported that 13,099 of these non-detained individuals have convictions for homicide, with 1,845 facing criminal homicide charges. Another 9,461 have convictions for sex offenses (not including assault or commercialized sex), and 2,659 face pending charges. The convictions include other crimes such as assault (62,231), robbery (10,031), sexual assault (15,811), weapons offenses (13,423), and dangerous drugs (56,533). 

  These figures are only suggestive of the extent of crime because they only list the most serious crime committed by each individual. A murderer, for example, who also committed a sex offense, is only counted as a murderer. It does not include the fact that millions of migrants are violating the law because of their presence in the U.S. It also does not account for the lawbreaking involved in working without proper authorization or the widespread use of stolen Social Security numbers to secure employment. 

  The 662,566 convicted and likely criminals make up 9% of the 7.4 million released noncitizens. 

  The statistics miss much of the relationship between crime and illegal aliens. Noncitizens in the “national docket data” either surrendered to border agents or were apprehended at the border. Those who avoid surrender likely have reasons to evade authorities, such as a criminal background. But there are others who avoided being caught and won’t be in these numbers. That group includes “gotaways” – individuals observed crossing the U.S. border illegally but not apprehended or turned back. With up to 38% of border agents shifted from monitoring to processing duties and 30% of surveillance cameras not functioning, millions more likely entered the U.S. undetected, potentially including the most dangerous individuals.

  The Customs and Border Protection Agency estimates that some two million such “gotaways” have entered the country since 2021.

  The data on migrants who have been processed also understates the problem. Criminals rarely commit just one crime. For example, from 1990 to 2002, in the 75 most populous U.S. counties, 70% of those convicted of a violent felony had a prior arrest, and 56% had a prior criminal conviction. In 2023 in Washington, D.C., the average homicide suspect had been arrested 11 times before committing a homicide. Data for 30 states shows that 60.1% of criminals released from prison in 2005 had been arrested again within two years, and 73.5% had been arrested within four years. The ICE data set provides a single entry for each individual.

  Most violent crimes don’t result in an arrest, so looking at arrests or convictions in these other countries will underestimate whether illegal aliens are criminals. Across all U.S. cities in 2022, only 35.2% of violent crimes resulted in an arrest. While 50.6% of murders resulted in an arrest, just 24.1% of rapes produced an arrest, 22.7% of robberies, and 39.9% of aggravated assaults. 

  As the Laken Riley and Rachel Morin murder cases make clear, it is difficult to calculate all the victimization costs of crime to families and society.

  Using tools developed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), RCI did estimate what is likely the bare minimum economic costs of illegal alien crime. It arrived at its estimated cost to victims in dollar terms by assuming that each of the 662,566 “non-detained” noncitizen offenders on ICE’s list committed just once in the U.S. the crime for which they have been previously accused.

  ICE presented Rep. Gonzales with numbers on 42 different types of crime, but the NIJ only calculated the cost to victims for eight types of crime. Professor Mark Cohen at Vanderbilt University, who co-authored the original NIJ report, updated the list with 15 of the crime categories reported by ICE: murder, sexual assault, sexual offenses, robbery, assault, arson, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, weapon offenses, drugs, fraud, liquor offenses, gambling, and stolen property. Cohen’s updated numbers provide estimates for the damage from child abuse, drunk driving, and vandalism, but ICE did not collect numbers on those crimes.

  NIJ’s estimated losses from crime victimization include: medical care/ambulances, mental health care, police/fire service costs, social/victim services, property loss/damage, reduced productivity (at work, home, and school), and nonmonetary losses (fear, pain, suffering, and lost quality of life). 

  Murders account for almost $153.8 billion of the $166.5 billion in estimated criminal victimization costs (a breakdown of the costs of crime for each type of crime is available here). Another $6 billion involves sexual assaults/offenses, and an additional $5.2 billion comes from sexual assaults and sexual offenses.

  Half of the crimes these non-detained individuals commit don’t have cost estimates. These crimes include kidnapping, embezzlement, extortion, smuggling, traffic offenses, and weapon offenses.

  These criminal illegal aliens entered the U.S. under multiple administrations, but the size of the problem was likely larger under the Biden administration. That isn’t just because so many more illegal aliens were entering the country. Under the Trump administration’s remain-in-Mexico policy, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) performed background checks on immigrants. That included contacting immigrants’ countries of origin. 

  ICE agents cannot access the same databases to check on the immigrants, and they don’t contact the immigrant’s home country. Plus, the massive inflow of immigrants has overwhelmed the system. The Deputy Director for ICE blames the “enormous workload”  agents face, so they haven’t been able to do even the limited background checks they are doing. There are so many coming in that the government can’t house these immigrants until their backgrounds are properly checked.

  ICE has been processing criminals as they enter the country, but without identifying them as criminals. So, under the Biden administration, they have simply been released into the country. Now, they are walking freely in the United States, and no one knows where they are.

  As bad as these numbers are, the reality may be even worse. The Biden-Harris administration is accused of presenting the border crisis so that it does not look as bad as it is. In mid-September, retired San Diego Border Patrol Chief Aaron Heitk testified how the Biden administration ordered him not to publicize the arrests of illegal border crossers who they identified as having terrorist ties.

  The American Immigration Council, which strongly opposes President-elect Donald Trump’s deportation policies, estimates that it could cost $88 billion to deport one million illegal immigrants. But if we accept its estimate and ignore the various government benefits that these individuals might be receiving, ICE’s number of 662,556 illegal criminal immigrants implies a cost of $58.3 billion to remove them – just over one-third of the conservative estimate given here of the cost of the crimes by these criminals.

  The estimate of over $160 billion in costs from criminal illegal aliens is very likely an underestimate of the true costs. It assumes the average criminal coming into the country commits only one offense similar to what he committed in his home country. We are also not counting the costs of half of criminal illegal aliens.

  John R. Lott Jr. is a contributor to RealClearInvestigations, focusing on voting and gun rights. His articles have appeared in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune. Lott is an economist who has held research and/or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 20:05

• These Are The Countries That Triggered Democrats Are Moving To After Trump's Resounding Victory
  These Are The Countries That Triggered Democrats Are Moving To After Trump’s Resounding Victory

  As triggered Democrats sought to deal with the PTSD of a Trump election victory, Visa website La Vida reported a dramatic 2,300 percent increase in U.S. site traffic on election day, according to Newsweek.

  This figure was more than five times the increase observed after the 2020 election, which itself saw a 4.5-fold rise in visitor numbers.

  And we know where residents from Democratic-leaning states are most likely to consider moving. A study using Google analyzed search trends over the past 12 months to examine how political inclinations influence relocation interests.

  Google Trends data revealed a 400 percent increase in searches for “how to move to Canada” by 8 p.m. ET on election night, with a 200 percent rise in searches for legal migration methods to Canada.

  The Newsweek report said that Canada ranks as the top relocation destination for residents in blue-majority states, with 89.47% of the 19 states studied favoring it in searches.

  

  It said that in Colorado, searches for “move to Canada” and similar terms average 693.33 per month, while Connecticut logs 327.50 searches, far outpacing second-place Brazil at 205.83. Even smaller states like Maine show strong interest, with 230.83 searches monthly for Canada.

  Japan is the second most-searched destination, appealing with its modern cities and rich cultural heritage. It ranks first in Hawaii and California, where it averages 378.33 and 4,821.67 searches per month, respectively.

  Regional preferences also emerge in the data. Vermont favors Ireland as a second choice after Canada, with 89.17 and 131.67 monthly searches, respectively.

  In Washington state, New Zealand takes third place with 483.33 searches. Illinois also prioritizes Canada, leading with 1,086.67 searches, followed by Japan and Brazil with 676.67 and 556.67 searches. Unique trends appear in Minnesota, where Kenya ranks second, highlighting distinct preferences among state

  Marc Porcar, CEO of QR Code Generator PRO S.L. commented: “With its proximity and cultural similarities, Canada has emerged as the clear favorite for Americans considering a move abroad.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 19:40

• Walmart Nukes DEI As Anti-Woke Crusader Robby Starbuck Sends "Shockwaves Across Corporate America"
  Walmart Nukes DEI As Anti-Woke Crusader Robby Starbuck Sends “Shockwaves Across Corporate America”

  Anti-woke crusader Robby Starbuck has been on a mission to shift the corporate landscape in America from insanity and rainbows to what he considers “sanity and neutrality.” He has successfully pressured companies such as Tractor Supply, John Deere, Harley-Davidson, Polaris, Indian Motorcycle, Lowe’s, Ford, Coors, Stanley Black & Decker, Jack Daniel’s, DeWalt Tools, Craftsman, Caterpillar, Boeing, and Toyota to move away from toxic Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices.

  Now, Starbuck is at it again. He wrote on X that America’s largest employer, Walmart, has decided to end its woke policies after he “had productive conversations to find solutions” with management.

  

  He stated that the changes Walmart committed to “will send shockwaves throughout corporate America,” adding that their executives deserve “major credit” for wanting to end corporate wokeness.

  “This is the biggest win yet for our movement to end wokeness in corporate America,” Starbuck said. 

  Here are the changes Walmart committed to:

  • Surveys: Walmart will no longer participate in the HRC’s woke Corporate Equality Index.

  • Products: Monitor the Walmart marketplace to identify and remove inappropriate sexual and / or transgender products marketed to children.

  • Funding of Grants: Review all funding of Pride, and other events, to avoid funding inappropriate sexualized content targeting kids.

  • Equity: We will not extend the Racial Equity Center which was established in 2020 as a special five-year initiative.

  • Supplier Diversity: We will evaluate supplier diversity programs and ensure they do not provide preferential treatment and benefits to suppliers based on diversity.  We don’t have quotas and won’t going forward.  Financing eligibility will no longer be predicated on providing certain demographic data.

  • LatinX: Walmart will no longer use the term in official communications.

  • Trainings: Walmart will discontinue racial equity training through the Racial Equity Institute.

  • DEI: Walmart will discontinue the use of DEI as a term while ensuring a respectful and supportive environment. Our focus is on Belonging for ALL associates and customers.

  Starbuck continued:

  Remember, Walmart is the #1 employer in America with over 1.6 Million Employees and they have a market cap of nearly $800B. This won’t just have a massive effect for their employees who will have a neutral workplace without feeling that divisive issues are being injected but it will also extend to their many suppliers.

  We’ve now changed policy at companies worth over $2 Trillion dollars, with many millions of employees who have better workplace environments as a result. I’m happy to have secured these changes before Christmas when shoppers have very few large retail brands they can spend money with who aren’t pushing woke policies. Companies like Amazon and Target should be very nervous that their top competitor dropped woke policies first. I think Target specifically will suffer serious sales problems as a result and Walmart will benefit.

  Our campaigns are now so effective that we’re getting the biggest companies on earth to change their policies without me even posting a story outlining their woke policies. Companies can clearly see that America wants normalcy back. The era of wokeness is dying right in front of our eyes. The landscape of corporate America is quickly shifting to sanity and neutrality. We are now the trend, not the anomaly.

  We are winning and one by one we WILL bring sanity back to corporate America.

  MASSIVE news: Walmart is ending their woke policies. I can now exclusively tell you what’s changing and how it happened.

  Last week I told execs at @Walmart that I was doing a story on wokeness there. Instead we had productive conversations to find solutions.

  Below are the… pic.twitter.com/BD02xJQ0X2

  — Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) November 25, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  As DEI initiatives are being eliminated across corporate America, just wait until Trump steps into the White House in mid-January. A massive overhaul is expected to strip toxic woke policies from all facets of government — including the military.

  Swapping out DEI for “MEI”: Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence … will move America forward. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 19:17

• Contentious And 'Bitter' COP29 Summit Ends With Nearly 200 Countries Agreeing To Climate Finance Deal
  Contentious And ‘Bitter’ COP29 Summit Ends With Nearly 200 Countries Agreeing To Climate Finance Deal

  Striking a ‘climate finance’ deal at this year’s COP29 summit wasn’t easy, capping off a summit in Azerbaijan that was fraught with unenthusiastic participants and reports of counterintuitive dealmaking. 

  When all was said and done nearly 200 countries agreed to triple funding to help developing nations address climate change, with wealthy nations pledging at least $300 billion annually by 2035 through various sources, according to Bloomberg.

  The deal aims to mobilize $1.3 trillion annually, primarily from private funding. In a compromise, rich nations committed an additional $50 billion beyond a previous draft and tied the agreement to reaffirming last year’s COP28 pledge to transition away from fossil fuels.

  Bloomberg wrote that the $300 billion annual pledge by 2035 falls short of the trillions developing nations need to combat climate change, with many calling for more grants and affordable financial support rather than loans that increase debt.

  While some criticized the outcome as inadequate, others viewed it as a vital step in sustaining multilateral efforts. The agreement will guide future emissions-cutting pledges for 2035 and set the stage for the next UN climate summit in Brazil.

  Opposition led by Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations resulted in the final agreement avoiding direct mention of fossil fuels, merely reiterating the previous commitment. Despite protests from countries like India, which called the funding “too little, too distant,” the deal was adopted.

  

  Recall we wrote days ago that Saudi Arabia was reportedly “leading a push back” on restating climate commitments to transition away from fossil fuels put into place last year.

  Saudi Arabia was reportedly using “a mix of delaying tactics and outright blocking maneuvers” to resist these efforts.

  Last year, COP28 marked the first inclusion of a fossil fuel phase-out in its final agreement, with the UAE securing support from Saudi Arabia and other oil producers. Developed and climate-vulnerable nations see any weakening of that language as a significant setback.

  This year’s COP29 negotiations are focused on scaling up climate finance to over $1 trillion annually, pressuring nations like Saudi Arabia to contribute more, while also solidifying commitments made last year to phase down fossil fuels and accelerate renewable energy.

  We also wrote earlier this month that a senior COP29 official in Azerbaijan reportedly used his role as heading up the fight on climate change…to secure meetings with potential investors in the country’s oil and gas sectors.

  SOCAR, Azerbaijan’s state oil company, reportedly responded to a fake investment group, indicating interest in meeting, according to Global Witness. In the meeting, COP29 head and Azerbaijan’s Deputy Energy Minister Elnur Soltanov discussed the event’s goals, stating that COP aims to “solve the climate crisis” by “transitioning away from hydrocarbons.”

  Still, he expressed openness to oil and gas investments, pointing to Azerbaijan’s gas expansion plans and new pipeline infrastructure. This marked the second year a petro-state has used its COP presidency to promote fossil fuel interests, raising questions for the UN on oversight.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 18:50

• Disrupt, Defund, Deport, Deny, Destroy…
  Disrupt, Defund, Deport, Deny, Destroy…

  Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

  “At home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done well or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses enabled us to discontinue our internal taxes. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from reaching successively every article of produce and property.”

  – Thomas Jefferson – 2nd Inaugural Address – 1805

  

  “There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, or vile men. The worst evils which mankind ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments. The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster.” 

  – Ludwig von Mises – 1944

  In 1805, only a few short years after the creation of our nation, Thomas Jefferson boasted that he had reduced the size and cost of government by eliminating useless offices, allowing him to discontinue unnecessary taxes and halt the government bureaucracy in its tracks. Jefferson hated big government, but most of his successors loved growing the government bureaucracy and taxing us directly through the hundreds of income, property, sales, and myriad of other taxes and fees, while taxing us indirectly through Federal Reserve purposely created inflation.

  In addition, the government lies to us every time they issue their monthly reports about inflation, employment, economic growth and government spending. Anyone living in the real world knows everything the government proclaims is a bold-faced lie.

  

  We know for a fact the average price of a new vehicle is up 130% ($48k vs. $21k) since 2000, while the government reported increase reflected in the CPI is 25% – because you can now push a button and heat your ass. You know the mega-food corps have reduced the amount of chips in the bag they are selling you by 20%, while charging more, but the government does not calculate this shrinkflation into their manipulated excel spreadsheet models. It is crucial for them to hide the truth, so they can underpay your granny in her monthly SS pittance. Whenever I see a government report I’m reminded of the scene from Clint Eastwood’s Outlaw Josey Wales.

  “Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.” 

  – Fletcher to U.S. Senator

  

  There have been very few presidents in our 235 years of existence who made any attempt to restrain, let alone reduce, the size of government, with only Andrew Jackson and the Gingrich/Clinton years coming to mind. The weeks since the election of Trump have been a whirlwind of cabinet announcements, regime media hysterics, and Deep State traitors (Brennan, Schiff, Cheney, Bolton, et al) vehemently attacking Trump’s selections in order to deflect focus away from their treasonous coup against Trump. It has been fascinating to observe the wide range of reactions to Trump’s election and his subsequent appointments to his cabinet.

  As Mises pointed out 80 years ago, there is nothing more dangerous than a menacing government of incompetent, corrupt, vile men (now includes women). It’s as if he was describing Biden, Harris, and their entire degenerate administration. Now we get to find out if the 2nd Trump administration is different than the 1st. We know it can’t be as horrific as the last four years of criminality, degeneracy, debt creation, societal chaos, DEI and trannie absurdity, warmongering and denial of reality.

  There are those who will claim Trump is controlled opposition playing his part in this theater of the absurd. They allege he is just the pendulum swing of the uni-party to keep the masses entertained, hopeful, and distracted, while the real controllers continue to pillage the wealth of the masses, and increase their control over our lives through threats, intimidation, and fear. Has he been purposely installed to enable the next phase of their malevolent plan? Maybe.

  On the other hand, there are a large percentage of Trump voters who are on Cloud 9 regarding his victory, believing he will transform the country, putting us back on the path to prosperity. He will deport the illegal invaders, build the wall, end the wars, cut the budget, end inflation, bring back good paying jobs, and make America great again – Again. They heartily applaud every cabinet selection, believe Elon and Vivek will cut $2 trillion of government waste, Putin and Xi will acquiesce to his demands, the lunatic Democrat party will be vanquished for a generation, and the Deep State will be defeated by RFK Jr., Tulsi, Pam and the rest of the MAGA army.

  The celebratory spirit and tremendous enthusiasm for his agenda among his ardent supporters is at a crescendo level. They really believe this time will be different. When Trump won the 1st time I was reminded of the final scene in the 1972 movie – The Candidate. Redford’s character shockingly won a Senate race and was totally unprepared for the prospect of being a Senator. He asks the question, but no one answers him.

  

  Trump admitted he was completely unprepared when he won the first time. He was asking the same question as Redford. And he got rolled. He listened to the advice of Washington insiders, neocons, and traitorous RINOs. Surrounding himself with the likes of Sessions, Barr, Pence, Wray, Haley, Pompeo, Bolton, Kelly, Mattis, Esper, Milley, Fauci, Birx and thousands more deceitful Deep State snakes, guaranteed his administration would accomplish little of the agenda he ran on.

  With RINO establishment whores, McConnell and Ryan, controlling Congress, his border wall and ending Obamacare were DOA. At the outset of the Covid scamdemic his initial instincts told him the fear mongering was overdone, but again, he naively believed the “experts” and Big Pharma captured “scientists” and “doctors” regarding a flu that ended up having a lower mortality rate for those under 40 years old than the annual flu. Hospitals, reaping millions by playing along with the scam killed more people by putting them on vents and giving them Fauci’s Remdesivir, than the actual virus. The average age of death was 85.

  

  In my opinion, Trump’s worst sin during his first term, and one which he has failed to repent for, was his warpspeed support for an untested Big Pharma gene altering concoction, marketed as a vaccine, which failed to keep anyone from contracting or spreading the virus, and has killed and continues to kill and disable millions across the globe, while reaping obscene profits for Big Pharma, Big Media, and the entire Sickcare complex.

  Natural immunity, along with existing safe, cheap and effective treatments ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine would have sufficed, with no masks, no social distancing, and no lockdowns. This was a test by our overlords to see how far they could push us and treat us like cattle before we would resist and push back. The test was a resounding success, as over 80% of Americans took the knee, taking the jab, masking, imprisoning themselves in their homes, and never questioning why it was safe to go to Wal-Mart but not Joe’s Steak shop. And Trump still openly boasts about his warpspeed jab, saving the lives of hundreds of millions. He hasn’t learned anything from the disastrous debacle he allowed to happen on his watch. This fact alone should make you question his judgement and motives.

  

  We are less than two months from Trump’s inauguration and the raging battle between diehard Trumpers and the “Trump is a Nazi” loonies never subside on regime media outlets and the Twittersphere. I’m already tired of the shtick before his administration even launches. Trump’s cabinet level picks may not meet the requirements of those looking for perfection in an imperfect world, but compared to the woke diverse nutjobs who would have inhabited a Harris administration, this bunch has the potential to be the disruptors this country needs. I’m sure many are disappointed about the number of neo-cons, vaccine supporters, Soros acolytes and Israel advocates inhabiting his cabinet. I’m also disappointed in several picks, worried the Swamp has rolled him again.

  The real question is whether his key picks will do what Trump wants them to do. Gabbard, Hegseth, Bondi, and RFK Jr. need to ruthlessly purge the top ranks of their departments and install competent, loyal, courageous patriots into key positions. The middle level bureaucrats are the lifers who throw sand in the gears of change whenever those above them attempt to reform or cut anything in their bloated departments. They need to go. The Deep State will use every Machiavellian method at their disposal to derail the nominations of Trump’s key disruptors and/or infiltrate their organizations with moles to undermine everything they try to accomplish.

  The Deep State blob is profoundly entrenched and will not be extinguished without an epic battle. My fear is that Gabbard, Hegseth, Bondi, and RFK Jr., even if they can get confirmed by a RINO dominated Senate, will not be ruthless enough in purging the traitors within their departments. I do think Elon and Vivek are ruthless enough and rich enough to not care about what the Swamp thinks about their recommendations. We’ll see how much authority and backing Trump gives them when the rubber meets the road. I consider it a long shot that there will be substantive cuts in this $7 trillion bloated rancid pig of a deeply rooted bureaucratic state. Defeating the Deep State will require cold blooded, brutal disregard for the malevolent parasites governing the Swamp.

  

  The chart below is a visualization of the government since 1950. It never shrinks. It grows ever larger like a blood sucking organism, adding more regulations, laws, rules, codes, and taxes to pay for their freedom destroying, soul crushing demands upon its citizenry. Those who oppose chopping away at these rules and regulations, while drastically reducing the cost of government, hysterically rant about the tragedies which await if government control over our lives is reduced. This is a laughable argument as the weight of these regulations crushes small businesses, while benefiting the mega-corps who help write the regulations and can afford to comply with them.

  

  As I mentioned previously, our beloved bought off politicians are spending approximately $7 trillion per year, while only bringing in approximately $5 trillion, for a deficit of about $2 trillion, funded by Federal Reserve created debt and heaped upon the backs of future generations. The regime media, mouthing the Deep State narrative they have been paid to spew, predict a nation destroying disaster if Musk’s DOGE cuts of $2 trillion are enacted. The horror!!! And a huge percentage of the NPC ignorant masses believe the drivel they are fed without the slightest hint of skepticism. Critical thinking skills, concern for the truth, and appreciation of mathematical facts are non-existent among these clueless drones.

  

  I wonder how many far-left Trump haters and their dying regime media talking head nitwit propaganda chiefs know Federal spending in 2017 during Trump’s 1st year in office was under $4 trillion. It surged to almost $8 trillion during the covid plandemic and still hovers in the $7 trillion range. Has the $3 trillion increase in Federal spending since 2017 benefited average Americans in any way?

  Is your life better than it was in 2017 when the Feds “only” spent $4 trillion? This is how it works every time. They create a crisis (2008 Financial crisis, 2020 Covid crisis), create trillions of new spending and debt to “solve” the emergency, and then purposely keep the spending at “emergency” levels permanently – until the next manufactured crisis. Cutting $2 trillion of government spending will not gut the Federal government. It would just be eliminating the bullshit Covid spending, which was supposed to be temporary.

  

  Cutting $4 trillion of unnecessary military, social welfare, and foreign aid would be a good start. The Department of Education and Department of Energy were both created in 1979 under the previous worst president in history. National education scores have plummeted, and the cost of energy has soared since 1979. The 20,000 government drones in these two agencies should be fired ASAP. The reality is there are more than 12 million Federal government employees/contract workers and over 20 million state and local government workers, representing 24% of all employed Americans.

  There are millions more, mostly working for the monstrous arms dealers, who are totally dependent upon the Federal government teat. This is why lispy Lindsey Graham thinks the Ukraine and Middle East wars are good for business, and WW3 would really create a BOOM!! The only way to confront our crushing debt problem is to stop digging, defund agencies, defund wars, defund illegal immigrants, defund diversity bullshit, defund climate nonsense, and defund worthless government drones in mass quantities by firing them. If you don’t fund something, it withers and dies.

  

  One of the main reasons Trump was elected was border security and the invasion of illegal dregs who are raping, killing and sucking our social welfare systems dry. The dying legacy media decry the cost of deporting millions of illegal vermin and the poor families who would be broken up. The sob stories will be never-ending, while they ignore the rapes and murders of American citizens at the hand of these animals. They ignore the never-ending cost of allowing them to stay, the drug and child trafficking piggybacking on the invasion, and the fact it has been mostly young military age men from around the world invading our country for the last four years.

  The key to stopping this invasion and deporting the invaders is actually funding a real border wall, funding border patrol and letting them do their jobs, and most importantly, defunding every benefit being handed out to these leeches. And if the Democrat governors and mayors refuse to cooperate with the defunding and extraction of these scum from their urban shithole cities, their federal funding needs to be cut off. Money talks. When the spigot of welfare goodies gets turned off, self-deportation will commence. Tom Homan will take care of the rest at the point of a gun. Illegal means illegal.

  

  What I truly don’t understand are the Trump acolytes, right wing Twitter influencers, and right leaning websites, caring so much about the reaction of MSNBC, CNN, The View, and Hollywood elite to Trump’s victory. Who cares what they think? They need to be shunned and turned off. Their ratings have plummeted, their credibility is shot, and mass layoffs are in the works. The only visibility these left-wing lunatics get is when popular right wingers post their unhinged rants on Twitter.

  We need to deny they even exist and let them bloviate in obscurity. Their networks and shows will wither and die, as advertisers flee. Harris and her shadowy handlers spent $1.2 billion trying to convince Americans she wasn’t a dim witted, vacuous, diversity trollop, and she lost in a landslide, despite their best vote rigging efforts. Let them labor in the land of oblivion, wailing and gnashing their teeth, as normal Americans support Trump’s efforts to reverse the degeneracy and deviancy, they glorified during the Biden reign of terror and error.

  

  I’m a highly skeptical individual who isn’t prone to over-optimism when it comes to government reform and promises of politicians. Despite a number of questionable cabinet picks, I do believe Trump does want to accomplish much of what he ran on. It is just unlikely he will succeed, given Thune and McConnell despise him and will install roadblocks every step of the way, and Johnson is a weak-kneed RINO with a minuscule majority in the House. Of course, there are likely to be far bigger events which will propel the next four years than the slow walking machinations of Congress critters.

  We have entered the most dangerous, and potentially bloody, time frame of this Fourth Turning. Violent upheaval and the destruction of the existing social order is in the cards. The Deep State, after spending $1.2 trillion and two assassination attempts to stop Trump, are capable of anything when it comes to retaining control over the levers of government power and the obscene wealth generated by such control. Would they even be willing to start World War 3 in order to derail Trump’s agenda before he even takes office? It certainly appears they are doing their utmost to goad Putin into retaliating in a manner which would ensure a global conflagration.

  

  Since Putin is the only adult in a room filled with low IQ lunatic woke western politicians, he will likely disappoint their ambitions to draw him into WW3. He knows Trump will work towards peace if given the chance. But will they give him the chance? His cabinet choices have insured the military industrial complex, surveillance state, and sickcare complex consider him the enemy. And they consider Vance an even more dangerous enemy.

  Having Trump and Vance at the same venue would be a high-risk proposition with this many enemies aligned against them. The Deep State is controlled by actual psychopaths in suits who will stop at nothing to win this battle. We know Fourth Turnings never de-intensify and peter out. They build towards a climactic violent resolution, with much bloodshed. I would be entirely satisfied if Trump could just end the wars, close our southern border, eliminate the DEI gibberish, and make some cuts in the size of government. But a vaster societal altering fate is in our foreboding future.

  The self-destruction of the American Empire has been underway since the start of this century and is poised to accelerate during Trump’s last term. I would love it if he actually made America great again, but it is too late to accomplish that arduous task. With $36 trillion of debt, $2 trillion annual deficits, $200 trillion of unfunded liabilities, global conflict imminent, and the social cohesion of the country destroyed, Trump may end up being the patsy for when it all goes to hell.

  The Civil War Fourth Turning ended in 1865, amidst mass carnage. Exactly 80 years later, the Great Depression/WW2 Fourth Turning ended in 1945, with 65 million deaths. If this Fourth Turning were to follow suit and end 80 years later in 2025, I fear the outcome, which would bring about such an abrupt ending – nuclear war – would result in billions of deaths.  I am a realist who believes there are too many roadblocks and entrenched enemies, on both sides of the aisle, for Trump to achieve his stated agenda, but I hope for the best, while preparing for the worst.

  

  “Humans are wired to advance. Humans do whatever it takes. And yet, nuclear war zeros it all out. Nuclear weapons reduce human brilliance and ingenuity, love and desire, empathy and intellect, to ash.”

  -― Annie Jacobsen, Nuclear War: A Scenario

  Storm clouds are building, and the next four years will be fraught with danger. Batten down the hatches and choose your friends and allies carefully. May God be with the good guys.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 18:25

• New York To Close 12 Migrant Shelters Ahead Of Trump Deportation Agenda
  New York To Close 12 Migrant Shelters Ahead Of Trump Deportation Agenda

  New York is set to shutter 12 migrant shelters before the end of the year, marking a significant shift in its response to the city’s ongoing migrant crisis. The closures, announced just weeks before President-elect Donald Trump takes office for a second term, highlight the strain on resources and the political tensions surrounding immigration policies.

  

  As Mike Shedlock of MishTalk.com noted in June, 20% of NYC hotels have become migrant shelters, driving up the cost of hotel rooms elsewhere for paying customers.

  

  Two hotel-based shelters, the Hotel Merit in Manhattan and the Quality Inn JFK in Queens, have already been closed. An additional 10 facilities across the state – including in Albany, Dutchess, Erie, Orange, and Westchester counties – will cease operations by December 31, according to New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ office. The sprawling Randall’s Island shelter, which was designed to accommodate up to 3,000 migrants, is slated to close by February 2025, shortly after Trump’s inauguration.

  A Crisis of Scale and Cost

  Since the spring of 2022, more than 223,000 migrants and asylum seekers have arrived in New York City – roughly half the population of Albany. The city has struggled to house and support this influx, operating 210 city-run shelter sites across the five boroughs. Currently, 58,000 migrants remain in taxpayer-funded shelters, costing the city an estimated $352 per migrant per night. Only $130 of that amount goes directly to housing costs, with the rest allocated to social services, food, and cleaning.

  

  The NYPD has spent $21 million on public safety and security related to the migrants.

  The eye-popping figures, listed on the city’s online asylum-seeker funding tracker, shows the city overall spent $4.88 billion combined through fiscal years 2023 and ‘24. Based on the rate of spending, the city likely exceeded more than $112 million since the start of the new fiscal year beginning July 1, or will soon, cracking $5 billion.

  Mayor Eric Adams’ administration has even projected the cost could double, hitting $10 billion over the three year period ending June 30, 2025. -NY Post

  Without policy changes, the crisis is projected to cost New York taxpayers $12 billion over the next three fiscal years, according to city estimates. Mayor Adams praised efforts to consolidate shelter operations and reduce costs, noting a 19-week decline in the migrant census.

  “Over the past two years, our teams have accomplished the Herculean task of providing compassionate care for a population twice the size of Albany and saving taxpayers billions of dollars,” Adams said. “The new policies we’re implementing today will build on our successes, save taxpayers millions, and help even more migrants take their next steps towards fulfilling their American Dream.”

  Meanwhile, an audit released in August found that NYC overpaid upstate hotels by millions of dollars for sheltering illegal immigrants.

  Of the questionable payments, $2.5 million were for unauthorized security, medical, and social services, $1.7 million for vacant rooms, and $230,000 for inflated food bills, according to the audit.

  In another example, a Newburgh hotel billed a total of $57,000 for hundreds of unoccupied rooms in early May, for which DocGo got an additional $40,000 in commissions.

  Tensions Over Shelter Evictions

  Despite efforts to ease the burden on the system, the city’s shelter eviction policies have sparked controversy. Families issued a second 60-day eviction notice are now allowed to stay in their assigned shelters if they need more time, a move Adams touted as cost-saving and beneficial for children’s schooling continuity.

  

  However, adult migrants face stricter rules, with a policy permanently evicting them from city shelters after 30 days. The policy has drawn criticism from activist groups, including Jews For Racial & Economic Justice, which staged a protest at City Hall during a hearing on the issue.

  “Immigrants are welcome here – Trumpian policy is not!” protesters chanted, accusing the city of violating its decades-old right-to-shelter rule, originally established to address homelessness. Activists called the eviction policy “cruel and destabilizing” before being removed from the chamber.

  A Changing National Landscape

  While the flow of migrants into New York has slowed, with fewer arrivals and a reported 101,790 encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border in September—the lowest since February 2021—concerns persist about potential surges before Trump’s border policies take effect. A caravan of 1,500 migrants in southern Mexico, near the Guatemala border, is reportedly attempting to cross before Trump’s inauguration.

  Trump has pledged to implement strict immigration measures, including sealing the southern border, carrying out a large-scale deportation operation, and ending Biden administration parole programs and the CBP One app. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem has been appointed as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, with former ICE Director Tom Homan named “border czar.”

  As New York City consolidates its migrant operations, Adams has a tough road ahead. The closures signal a pivot in the city’s approach but also underscore the broader national debate on immigration policy.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 18:00

• New FOIA Emails: NIH Silenced Own Expert On COVID Origins
  New FOIA Emails: NIH Silenced Own Expert On COVID Origins

  Authored by Jeff Carlson & Hans Mahncke via Truth Over News,

  The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is hiring a new chief for their virology section. That the federal government should not be hiring anyone, especially not senior staff, during the lame-duck period is self-evident. But what is in many ways even more notable about this appointment is that it reveals that the NIH has a virology section. One certainly could not have guessed this based on the people trotted out by Anthony Fauci during the pandemic, all of whom were from outside the NIH. Curiously, there has been no interest whatsoever from the media as to why that might be, especially since, as we can now all see, the NIH has its own virology branch.

  

  This latest revelation aligns perfectly with newly released emails from January 2021, which gives us an insight into how NIH leadership was not only censoring critical voices in academia, such as that of Jay Bhattacharya, President-elect Trump’s likely pick as new NIH head, but also actively censoring its own experts. In one email, obtained last week by Jimmy Tobias after a years-long Freedom of Information Act battle, Carrie Wolinetz, the senior advisor to the director of the NIH, demanded outright censorship of an in-house NIH expert.

  The expert, David Resnick, who works in the NIH’s bioethics section, co-authored a paper discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of gain-of-function experiments. This worried Wolinetz because it might have prompted questions about the origin of Covid and the potential role the NIH may have played in the virus’s creation:

  “I have some global concerns with the notion that an NIH employee would be providing what amount to critiques of HHS policy that is implemented by NIH, or suggestions that contradict messaging by NIH leadership.”

  The “HHS policy” which Wolinetz felt compelled to protect from any criticism, according to her own email, was based on a blog post by her superior, the then head of the NIH, Francis Collins. In his blog post, dated March 26, 2020, Collins expressed his strong opposition to the lab leak theory, which he called “outrageous.” The sole basis for Collins’ post was the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper, published just a few days earlier. Collins failed to acknowledge that he, along with Fauci, played a significant role in orchestrating the publication of this fraudulent paper, which explicitly aimed to promote the natural origin theory while discrediting the lab leak theory. Wolinetz’s justification for silencing a prominent colleague was so flimsy that the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from her actions is that she was helping Collins and Fauci to cover up their involvement in seeding the pandemic, which included outsourcing gain-of-function experiments on coronaviruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

  Notably, Wolinetz’s email had only one recipient: Lawrence Tabak, the then principal deputy director of the NIH, who would soon become the acting director, a position he held until 2023. In his reply, Tabak agreed to meet Wolinetz to talk about silencing Resnik.

  Even more notably, it took another three and a half years years for Resnik to finally publish his article in July 2024, by which time the NIH’s deceitful natural origin narrative had largely collapsed. In the published article Resnik stated:

  “the idea that a biosafety lapse at the WIV—or some other laboratory for that matter—could have caused the COVID-19 pandemic is a very real possibility that has significant bioethical and public policy implications.”

  It is no wonder that NIH leadership was so eager to silence him.

  The implications of Wolinetz’s actions are significant. She pervasively infringed upon academic freedom, as well as on Resnik’s First Amendment rights. Typically, the media experiences a total meltdown when there is even just a suggestion that a government scientist has been silenced; in this instance, we have airtight evidence that this actually occurred. However, since the scientist in question may have made remarks that could be interpreted as mildly critical of Collins and Fauci, the media has completely overlooked the story.

  There are additional implications to consider, and this brings us back to the NIH’s recruitment of a new chief virologist. The broader issue, which goes directly to the heart of the Covid origin cover-up, is that despite receiving in excess $60 billion annually from taxpayers and employing over 20,000 staff—many of whom are highly compensated scientists—Collins and Fauci completely disregarded their in-house experts regarding the origins of Covid. Instead, they brought in several conflicted scientists whose careers were entirely dependent on funding from Fauci.

  The scientists were subsequently tasked with writing the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper, along with other actions to further the cover-up, such as promoting the false natural origin narrative in the media. Not coincidentally, two of the scientists brought in by Fauci and Collins, Kristian Andersen and Robert Garry, had previously worked in a lab in Kenema, Sierra Leone, which is suspected to be the origin of the Ebola outbreak in 2014. Their expertise in covering up suspected lab leaks may explain why they were chosen. Notably, Andersen had no prior experience with coronaviruses.

  These external scientists, employed by Fauci to obscure the true origin of Covid, later collectively received over $50 million in grant allocations from Fauci. Andersen, the lead author of the fraudulent Proximal Origin paper, had an $8.9 million grant awaiting approval on Fauci’s desk as he was tasked with leading the cover-up.

  As a general proposition, we were already aware that NIH’s own scientists had been excluded from the Covid origin issue. This was evident because the only names that consistently appeared in connection with Fauci and Covid’s origin were those of his hand-picked group of conflicted scientists, who relied on his financial support. However, the full extent of this exclusion was not revealed until the latest batch of emails was obtained. As is often the case in matters of government corruption, particularly regarding the cover-up of Covid’s origins, the truth is even worse than we initially believed. Rather than merely ignoring or neglecting internal scientists, they were actively silenced by the director’s office.

  It cannot be overstated that, although the silencing of Resnik is a serious issue, it is likely just one of many such cases—for which we happen to have obtained incriminating emails. Who else has been silenced? How toxic must the work culture at the NIH be if no one, including Resnik himself, has spoken up?

  This entire episode further underscores the urgent need for a total overhaul of the NIH, or perhaps even its complete dissolution. Instead of being dedicated to scientific advancement, the $60 billion organization has become a hub of politics, cover-ups, and corruption. The new Trump administration cannot arrive soon enough.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 17:40

• William Blair Survey Finds One-Third Of Shoppers Plan Gift Shopping At Walmart
  William Blair Survey Finds One-Third Of Shoppers Plan Gift Shopping At Walmart

  The trade-down phenomenon has transformed Americans into Walmart shoppers. Goldman confirmed this last week, noting that Walmart’s competitors, such as Target and Dollar stores, suffered market share losses. The reality is that Walmart offers the best deals at a time when consumers are buckling under the weight of record credit card debt, and personal savings have plunged to all-time lows as inflation remains elevated and interest rates sky high. 

  “For yet another year, we would call out the strong competitive positioning of the off-price channel, the membership club model, and Amazon, which are all still likely in the middle innings of a decadeslong runway for expansion,” wrote Sharon Zackfia, an analyst at William Blair, in a note quoted by Barron’s. 

  The team of analysts led by Zackfia polled 585 consumers about their spending trends this holiday shopping season. They found a third-ranked Walmart as the top destination for gift buying, followed by Amazon.com at 25% and Costco Wholesale at 21%, adding that TJX, Ross Stores, and Burlington Stores were also popular choices. 

  Zackfia’s findings come days after Goldman’s consumer specialist Scott Feiler declared Walmart the “winner” in this challenging consumer environment. Feiler’s note was published shortly after Target reported dismal earnings last week.

  The takeaway here is that whether they’re grocery shopping or gift buying, consumers think Walmart is the best retailer to find deals. We first revealed this in mid-July. 

  In markets, owning these retailers, such as Walmart… Well, Goldman’s Eric Mihelc told clients Monday that shares “aren’t cheap.” 

  Here’s more from Mihelc:

  The problem for investors is that the shares of these companies aren’t cheap. All trade for more than 20 times next year’s earnings, well above the average of about 14 times for the SPDR S&P Retail exchange-traded fund. Bulls say the premium is worth it because all of these companies have been doing well. Investors looking for a better deal may want to scout the small- and mid-cap aisles, where valuations tend to be lower. DKS, RL, TPR, JWN, ANF are among the stocks favored by Dana Telsey, CEO of Telsey Advisory Group. All five companies have delivered steady revenue and earnings growth in recent quarters, and could continue to do so in 2025. And, all five trade for under 20 times earnings.

  In markets, Walmart is the big winner… 

  

  A nation of Walmart shoppers also signifies the implosion of the standard of living through reckless gov’t money printing, which ignited the inflation timebomb. Great job, DC elites!

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 17:20

• VDH: The Immorality Of Illegal Immigration
  VDH: The Immorality Of Illegal Immigration

  Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

  Donald Trump will not be president for almost another two months… Yet Democrat politicians, both federal and local, vie to be the most strident in denouncing his plans to begin deporting millions of foreign nationals who, over the last four years, have entered the U.S. illegally. Trump pledges to focus initially only on the 400,000 to 500,000 current felons and some 1.4 million additional aliens who have ignored legal summons for their deportation.

  

  Weekly we read of thousands of illegal immigrants arriving from areas controlled by violent Mexican cartel gangs or failed, strife-torn South American countries that have emptied their jails to send their felons northwards. Hundreds of thousands of them have been committing violent crimes while demanding still more free housing and support from strapped American taxpayers.

  Big-city left-wing mayors and city councils boast that they will do all their best to nullify federal immigration laws, even as their cities face near insolvency housing, feeding, and monitoring the influx. More specifically, they brag they will continue to order local and state authorities to resist all efforts of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. They scream about possible “massive deportations” to come under Trump, callously ignoring that their own advocacy has fueled rising crime waves of unaudited illegal aliens. And they appear absolutely indifferent to the social costs imposed by illegal immigration upon their own poor and middle-class constituents.

  Virtue-signaling Democratic governors and mayors have so far not dared to utter a word of criticism about what has been the Biden administration’s truly historic “massive importation” of illegal aliens into the U.S. over the last four years.

  Why?

  Largely because these political grandees and media demagogues have the money, connections, zip codes, and influence to be immune from the fallout of their own performance-art advocacy of illegal immigration.

  They take for granted that the baleful consequences of open borders always falls upon the distant and vulnerable Other.

  Again, consider the left-wing logic:

  it is deemed moral to dismantle the border, disrupt the social fabric of the country, and destroy federal immigration laws.

  But:

  it is immoral to restore U.S. sovereignty, secure the border, stop the flux of lethal cartel-supplied fentanyl and child sex trafficking, and follow the law?

  In this regard, the party that prides itself as progressive is regressively adopting the states’ rights arguments of 19th-century southern states that boasted they would resist all federal enforcement of tariffs. By the late 1850s, these future Confederates were asserting that the national government had no jurisdiction in their state domains. Such brazen nullification would lead to the Civil War.

  Note the left assumes that conservatives will not emulate their tactics and thus declare swaths of federal firearms or environmental laws null and void within their red state and county jurisdictions. They know that doing so would start a cycle of lawlessness that would eventually result in either civil war, total anarchy, or both.

  The open-borders-left’s more immediate spiritual predecessors are states’-rights-resisters like former segregationist Governor George Wallace. He boasted that federal civil rights legislation had no sway over his own state’s laws. Wallace, remember, in a historic moment, was removed from blocking the entry of black students to the University of Alabama by federal troops.

  Given that nullification now has been turned upside down, will California Governor Gavin Newsom or New York Governor Kathy Hochul block the entrance to their state jails to prevent federal agents from sending home murderers and rapists who arrived in the U.S. illegally?

  The left has learned nothing and forgotten nothing from the recent election and decisive Trump victory. The defeat of left-wing candidates was a result most prominently of the Biden administration’s deliberate destruction of the southern border and the illegal welcoming of some 12 million foreigners without legal sanction or health and criminal background audits.

  This lawlessness ensured that Kamala Harris, who had sanctioned it, was going to lose the election. The daily sight of thousands swarming the border with impunity, coupled with Orwellian assertions of President Biden, “Border Czar” Vice President Harris, and Homeland Security Director Alejandro Mayorkas that the border was absolutely “secure,” doomed the Biden and then Harris campaigns.

  Violating U.S. sovereignty and laws while sending millions into already frayed health, food, housing, medical, legal, and education social services designed to help American citizens was never a winning campaign strategy.

  Yet almost nothing could deter the Biden-Harris administration from their fixation with undermining the border and federal immigration law while seeking to change the very demography of the American southwest. The resulting influx of illegal aliens within just three years proved comparable in size to the creation of some 12 American cities, all the size of San Francisco.

  The mass crossings resulted from an effort by Joe Biden to utterly disregard his oath to faithfully execute the laws of his country. He was also helped in his lawlessness by some 600 state and local “sanctuary city” jurisdictions that subverted federal law by using their own offices to thwart immigration enforcement. Indeed, left-wing state and local officials pledged their own greater fealty to the welfare of the illegal millions who ignored the law and swamped the border than to their own overtaxed and underserved American citizen constituents.

  Finally, on November 5, the people said no more. In historic fashion, traditional Democratic constituencies of the working class and minorities turned on their own left-wing politicians who had first turned on them.

  Yet the cynicism of the left had known no bounds. As the presidential campaign had heated up, and the polls, first for Biden and then for his surrogate Harris, began to erode, both began to lie that their vanished border was in fact “secure.”

  In other words, they knew they had permanently alienated the American public, knew that it would cost them the election, and so then frantically first tried to deny the truth they had welcomed in millions of illegal aliens. Then they pivoted and sought belatedly to stop the public relations disaster at the border for a few weeks before the election, vainly hiding the sheer cynicism of such an insincere effort.

  Earlier, they had tried blaming border hawk Republicans for not signing onto a false border “bipartisan,” red-herring bill. The left introduced it in Congress solely to allow blanket amnesties for millions of illegal aliens while still allowing 4,000 illegal aliens daily to enter the U.S.

  The great majority of sane senators who did not sign the Trojan Horse bill were then immediately demonized for the mess by Biden and Harris themselves, who deliberately created the catastrophe.

  Now that the election is over, an enfeebled Joe Biden has two months left on his presidency and no longer worries about reelection. So, in its final gasp, the left is again trying to invite in more illegal aliens. Apparently one final huge caravan is forming south of the border and plans to make its way northward just days before Trump takes office and begins to fulfill his promises to the majority of voters to close the border.

  Finally, why did illegal immigration explode to levels never seen before?

  One, the left saw millions of desperately poor foreign nationals as a natural long-term constituency for their big-government, anti-poverty programs. They felt that some 20-30 million illegal aliens over the last 50 years, along with their children, had flipped California, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado—and soon Arizona—from blue to red as planned. Of course, should the sudden Hispanic backlash against the immigration insanity of bicoastal elites persist, then the left might turn on their Hispanic voters as illiberal or brainwashed by the right—and ironically move to close the border to preclude more MAGA boosters.

  Two, Mexico and Latin America received some 120 billion dollars per year in remittances, mostly sent by their own citizens residing illegally in the U.S. and reliant on American government services that free them up to send billions into the coffers of our own increasingly hostile neighbors. Mexico further sees its 20 million expatriate illegal aliens as a strong lobby group to promote Mexico City’s agendas. The more Mexico exports its impoverished citizens, the more it saves on social services for them, while cynically noting that the more distant and longer their citizens reside away from Mexico, the more they romanticize it, safely from afar.

  Three, corporate employers like cheap labor from Latin America, especially when the U.S. government subsidizes such workers with massive housing, food, transportation, and health social services.

  On the other side of the ledger, the left cares little that an open border is destroying support for legal immigration and de facto punishes immigrants who wish to follow our laws. A cynic might argue that the left also may fear legal immigrants applying under meritocratic standards, as too independent, self-supporting, educated, skilled, and law-abiding to become its predictably loyal constituents at the polls.

  So, what might change to close the border and stop the massive influx?

  Donald Trump won the electoral college and the popular vote with a mandate to restore border security and immigration sanity. He received a near-record number of minority voters for a Republican candidate, given they believed that most often must deal with the realities of what elites have unleashed.

  In other words, the proverbial people are on to the no-borders elites. They suffer firsthand from their utopian bromides and are tired of being smeared as racists and xenophobes for simply wishing the United States to follow the law, restore secure borders, and end illegal immigration.

  And now they have the power and mandate to do all of that.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 17:00

• Blinken Comes Under Fire Over State Department 'Therapy Sessions' After Trump Win
  Blinken Comes Under Fire Over State Department ‘Therapy Sessions’ After Trump Win

  Secretary of State Antony Blinken has come under fire after the Washington Free Beacon reported earlier this month that the State Department held therapy sessions for employees who couldn’t handle President-elect Trump’s election win.

  

  “I am concerned that the Department is catering to federal employees who are personally devastated by the normal functioning of American democracy through the provision of government-funded mental health counseling because Kamala Harris was not elected President of the United States,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) in a letter to Blinken last week.

  According to the Free Beacon, two alleged therapy sessions were held after Trump’s victory, with sources telling the outlet that one session amounted to an information “cry session,” Fox News reports.

  Meanwhile, a State Department email sent to agency employees touted an “insightful webinar where we delve into effective stress management techniques to help you navigate these challenging times.”

  

  “Change is a constant in our lives, but it can often bring about stress and uncertainty,” reads the email. “Join us for an insightful webinar where we delve into effective stress management techniques to help you navigate these challenging times. This session will provide tips and practical strategies for managing stress and maintaining your well being.”

  Issa slammed the reported sessions as “disturbing,” adding that “nonpartisan government officials” should not be having a “personal meltdown over the result of a free and fair election.”

  While the Republican lawmaker acknowledged that the mental health of the agency’s employees was important, he questioned the use of taxpayer dollars to counsel those upset about the election, demanding answers on how many sessions have been conducted, how many more are planned, and how much the sessions are costing the department.

  Issa also raised fears that the sessions could also call into question the willingness of some of the State Department’s employees to carry out Trump’s new vision for the agency. -Fox News

  “The mere fact that the Department is hosting these sessions raises significant questions about the willingness of its personnel to implement the lawful policy priorities that the American people elected President Trump to pursue and implement,” Issa said. “The Trump Administration has a mandate for wholesale change in the foreign policy arena, and if foreign service officers cannot follow through on the American people’s preferences, they should resign and seek a political appointment in the next Democrat administration.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 16:40

• "If These People Had To Be Honest, It Would Be All Over…"
  “If These People Had To Be Honest, It Would Be All Over…”

  Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Substack,

  The End of The World Frolics

  “If these people had to be honest, it would all be over.” 

  – Mike Benz

  “Now that our cheques are bouncing and we are starting to default on our debts, our entire civilization appears to be manifesting suicidal behavior in an effort to control the firing squad.”

  – Luke Dodson

  “Joe Biden” is feeling blue. Not a joke. In the lurid sunset of his dwindling term-in-office, the long shadow of his legacy points toward a gigantic glowing cinder where North America used to be.

  Such are the grievances of the outgoing president. 

  I pass unto you and your legions of white supremacist slobs the ashtray that was once our mighty nation. Fix that!

  But, as Sir Mick Jagger observed some time ago: you can’t always get what you want. “Joe Biden,” in despair, sinks deeper into his McTeer power recliner and slips back into the bitter dream of his nemesis, a beast named Chrump…

  It’s such a chewy name: Chrump, a fricative fiesta! The tongue briefly presses against the alveolar ridge before releasing, then curls back, and the jaw opens slightly to form this vowel sound, the lips close to let the sound resonate nasally before releasing air. Chrump Chrump Chrump. Like, what your mouth would feel like working through a bowl of Froot Loops. So satisfying! The outgoing Party of Chaos can’t stop chanting it on the cable news networks, as if trying to invoke the ancient furies, ghastly, terrifying figures with snakes for hair, dogs’ heads, blood-red eyes, and bat-wings, brandishing torches and scourges to mortify their enemy.

  

  Otherwise, fantasy aside, they are in paralysis as this enemy, Mr. Trump, marshals his pieces on the gameboard:

  Musk, Vivek, Bobby Jr, Tulsi, Bondi, Hegseth . . . .  Ay-yeeeeee!

  They are coming to get us. . . . Somebody. . . do something. . . !

  Okay, then, who, exactly, in the shadows behind the half-conscious ghoul in the White House, thinks that now is a great time to commence an ATACMS (Attack’ems) missile barrage on Russia as the very thing to salvage our Ukraine project? You’d naturally turn first to Blinken and Jake Sullivan, those gold-dust twins of overseas jiggery-pokery. Or, is it the geniuses at Spook Central, worried about the fumigating operation incoming with Mr. Ratcliffe? Or perhaps it’s the men-in-skirts over in the Pentagon, seeking to punish humanity because of the clerical error inflicted on them by the desk up-yonder that handles sexual assignments at birth. Blow it all up!

  The psychopathic wrath of this gang is really getting out-of-hand. Can Mr. Putin make it any clearer? FA and FO. Hence, many of us are a little concerned that the Thanksgiving birds might not make it to table this year, or ever again, if “Joe Biden” and company keep it up. One more sortie of ATACMS or British Storm Shadows and the satellite targeting and navigation installations for these missiles will get vaporized, along with the NATO member technicians on duty there. What’s your next move, “Joe”? ICBMs? I think we all know what that means.

  Let me tell you a few things about this Russia Russia Russia business.

  It’s been thirty years since the fall of the Soviet Union. It was a bold political experiment running a society by means contrary to human nature, and after an impressively long run, seven decades, if finally flopped, bankrupt in every sense of the word. It took a while for the dazed Russians to get their minds right after that long misadventure, but they have come around to embrace the idea of being a normal European nation. That is, a country whose citizens are at liberty to do business, travel freely, enjoy a rule-of-law (rather than a rule of despotic personalities). That is, much like we are supposed to be.

  Surely, Russia under Mr. Putin has its imperfections, at least as viewed through the lens of America’s Woke-crypto-Marxist-Neocon/psychopath lens. Mainly, it won’t do what we tell it to do: roll over and die! But as often is the case with illnesses of the mind, the American cabal projects its own perverse thoughts on its adversary. Russia, we keep insisting, wants to take over the world! Is it news to you that this does not comport with reality? (By now you know that news in the USA does not comport with reality.) Rather, America acts like we want to take over the world. Hegemony: power over everyone and everything, an increasingly sick notion, given how things are going in this world. Sorry to tell you: that dream is over.

  Since 1990, Russia has tried like hell to establish normal relations with western Europe and the USA. Our blob wouldn’t allow that. Russia even asked to join NATO some years ago. Russia wanted to trade with Germany, France, Italy, and the rest. Our blob had to stop that. Finally, the blob geniuses decided that they could put Russia out of business altogether, bust it up to make it helpless, and then own all its mineral and energy resources.

  Ukraine would be the means to accomplish that — plus we’d end up with all the goodies in Ukraine, too: the breadbasket lands, the ores. BlackRock, Halliburton, and many other companies lined up to benefit from this scheme, which is now a smoldering wreck. Mr. Trump, wants to terminate that stupid, wicked project. Going back even further, to 2016, he proposed to try making friends with Russia. The benefits were obvious, principally, keeping them on our side against the rising power of the CCP. Russia, no longer under communism, had interests in common with Western Civ — hell, it was part of Western Civ, really, its literature, music, science, manners.

  The blob couldn’t abide what Mr. Trump was proposing, so they turned around and burnt his ass with the Russia Russia Russia flamethrower. . . and after that there could be no more talk of friendship between the USA and Putin Putin Putin. Mr. Putin must marvel at how much America under “Joe Biden” is loving the old Soviet Union — since we’re doing everything possible to emulate its workings. We’ve got censorship. We’ve got an FBI-turned-KGB swatting citizens guilty of nothing and a DOJ stuffing them in our gulag. We’ve got a senile president every bit as non compos mentis as Konstantin Chernenko was. We’ve neatly managed to bankrupt ourselves.

  Do you see yet what has been going on in our country?

  In about fifty-odd days we are going to start correcting all that – if “Joe Biden” doesn’t conjure up nuclear Armageddon.

  This Thanksgiving, direct your prayers to averting that outcome, and give thanks for better days to come.

  *  *  *

  It’s that time of year! In this novella, a boy runs away from home in Manhattan all the way to Vermont the night before Christmas. Tribulations ensue. “A masterpiece of comedy and pathos.”

   

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 16:20

• Warren Buffett To Make $1.14 Billion Donation Of Berkshire Shares To Four Family Foundations
  Warren Buffett To Make $1.14 Billion Donation Of Berkshire Shares To Four Family Foundations

  As is usually the case, Warren Buffett is making a shrewd financial move and getting praised as a philanthropist for it.

  This time he’s not lending a vote of confidence to a struggling U.S. bank by dealing himself preferred stock, he’s making a $1.14 billion donation of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. shares to four family foundations, according to Bloomberg.

  The investing legend plans to convert 1,600 Berkshire Class A shares into 2.4 million Class B shares, gifting 1.5 million to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and 300,000 each to his children’s foundations: Sherwood, Howard G. Buffett, and NoVo.

  Buffett’s Berkshire Class A shares have dropped to 206,363, a nearly 57% decline since his 2006 pledge. In 2010, Buffett, along with Bill and Melinda Gates, launched the Giving Pledge, committing to donate his fortune during his lifetime or after.

  

  Since 2006, he has made significant donations to the Gates Foundation and his children’s foundations.

  In June, Buffett stated the Gates Foundation would no longer receive funds after his death, with his children managing a new charitable trust. He also pledged 13 million Berkshire Class B shares to family foundations and the Gates Foundation.

  Buffett said in a letter to shareholders: “Susie and I had long encouraged our children in small philanthropic activities and had been pleased with their enthusiasm, diligence and results.”

  “At her death, however, they were not ready to handle the staggering wealth that Berkshire shares had generated. Nevertheless, their philanthropic activities were dramatically increased by the 2006 lifetime pledge that I subsequently made and later expanded,” he continued. 

  Bloomberg writes that with a net worth of $150.2 billion, Buffett ranks as the world’s seventh-richest person.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/25/2024 – 15:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• US Officials Discussed Giving Nuclear Weapons To Ukraine
  US Officials Discussed Giving Nuclear Weapons To Ukraine

  Authored by Kyle Anzalone via AntiWar.com,

  According to the New York Times, US and European officials have discussed a range of options they believe will deter Russia from taking more Ukrainian territory, including providing Kiev with nuclear weapons. The outlet reports that Western officials believe the Kremlin will not significantly escalate the war before Donald Trump is sworn in as President in January.

  Following the election of Trump earlier this month, the US and its NATO allies began taking steps to rush weapons to Ukraine and give Kiev the ability to strike targets inside Russian territory with long-range weapons.

  American officials who were briefed on the intelligence community’s assessments told the Times that weapons will not alter the challenging situation that Kiev is currently facing. “US spy agencies have assessed that speeding up the provisions of weapons, ammunition and matériel for Ukraine will do little to change the course of the war in the short term,” the Times reports.

  

  Desperate to bolster Ukraine’s standing in the war before the transition of power on January 20, the Biden administration is looking at a range of serious escalations. “US and European officials are discussing deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine, such as stockpiling a conventional arsenal sufficient to strike a punishing blow if Russia violates a cease-fire.”

  The article continues, “Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union.”

  According to some officials who spoke with the Times, the administration believes that Russian President Vladimir Putin won’t significantly escalate the war until Trump returns to the Oval Office.

  “But the escalation risk of allowing Ukraine to strike Russia with US-supplied weaponry has diminished with the election of Mr. Trump,” the report says, adding, “Biden administration officials believe, calculating that Putin of Russia knows he has to wait only two months for the new administration.”

  That assessment is based on the belief that Trump and his incoming Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, will take a more favorable stance on Russia. However, Trump proved to be a Russia-hawk during his first administration by ramping up sanctions on Moscow, providing lethal arms to Ukraine, and expelling a large number of Russian diplomats from the US.

  In September, Putin said he preferred Vice President Kamala Harris to win the White House. “Trump has imposed as many sanctions on Russia as any president has ever imposed before, and if Harris is doing well, perhaps she will refrain from such actions,” he explained.

  US officials actually discussed a nuclear option, via the NY Times report:

  

  Much of the American political class has cast Trump and Gabbard as agents of Russia. However, extensive investigations into Trump’s ties to the Kremlin have come up empty. Additionally, the Times reported last week that there was no evidence Gabbard was in any way an asset of Putin.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 23:20

• The Choice
  The Choice

  Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

  “And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 

  – Matthew 25:30

  Daycare for Adults

  Sometimes things must get worse before they get better. Reducing deficit spending and eliminating government waste, for example, will initially have a negative impact on GDP and employment. Though, this is exactly what is needed to restore America’s economic health.

  U.S. government spending has run riot for over 50 years. Over the last two decades, it has gone completely berserk. In fact, since 2004, the national debt has jumped from $8 trillion to $36 trillion.

  All this debt-based government spending has created massive distortions in the economy. The price of consumer goods, a glut of unproductive government jobs, the appearance of economic growth, and more. The effects of government spending range far and wide.

  Without question, government spending is responsible for the inflation of consumer prices. However, it is also responsible for the inflation of key government statistics. Specifically, GDP and employment.

  In 2023, nearly 25 percent of all job additions were government jobs. And over the last 12 months, government jobs increased by an average of 43,000 per month. In addition, according to the latest GDP figure, government spending accounted for 30 percent of the annualized growth.

  Should Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy make good on their intentions to hit the delete button on numerous federal agencies and eliminate $2 trillion in government spending, two notable things will happen. GDP will topple over and the unemployment rate will skyrocket.

  Nonetheless, if you care about America’s long term financial and economic health, this is the best thing that can happen. Jobs that are nothing more than daycare for adults shouldn’t exist.

  

  Egg Hunts

  Statistics like GDP and employment can be misleading if you don’t consider what goes into them. Are they the aggregate of real economic activity or are they composed of something phony?

  In short, when GDP and employment statistics are inflated by reckless fiscal policies, they stop being measurements of economic health and become barometers of self-destruction.

  How did we get here?

  The fall from grace can be traced to several sources. The passage of the federal income tax and the creation of the Federal reserve, both in 1913, are certainly part of the genesis.

  However, the rationale for using deficit spending to boost GDP and employment was triggered by the 1936 publication of John Maynard Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.

  Not only is the book rigorously indecipherable. It also has the ill-effect of making those who read it dumber. Unfortunately, Keynes’ drivel became the standard for reckless economic thinking, which still drives economic policy to this day.

  Many politicians and establishment economists remain enamored with Keynes’ gibberish. They love that it provides an academic rationale for governments to do what they love to do most – borrow money and spend it on ridiculous programs. Central planners also love that it gives them an economic basis for carrying out their absurd designs.

  For example, Keynes advocated filling bottles with money and burying them in coal mines for people to dig up as a way to end unemployment. According to Keynes, this would provide jobs and money for the unemployed. Somehow, these public works egg hunts would create an economic boom and make everyone rich.

  Alien Invasions

  Over the years this reasoning has inspired countless government stunts to save the economy from itself. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the American Rescue Plan of 2021 are two mega Keynesian inspired spending bills passed this century. The U.S. will never be able to overcome the consequences of these asinine programs.

  In practice, the execution of Keynesian inspired spending programs never live up to their promises of economic vitality. Debt ends up outpacing GDP growth by leaps and bounds.

  In 1980, federal debt was about $1 trillion while GDP was $2.8 trillion. Today, federal debt is over $36 trillion while GDP is around $29 trillion. Thus, over the last 44 years GDP has increased by a factor of 10 while federal debt has increased by a factor of 36.

  With this track record of economic growth significantly lagging the growth of government debt, any justification for using deficit spending as a means to grow the economy out of debt is absolute nonsense. Still, Nobel Prize winning economists are fully committed to chasing Keynesian economics to insanity.

  Just over a decade ago, Keynes devotee, Paul Krugman, took the logic of Keynesian economics and ran with it to the outer limits of deep space. In the process, he lost his mind.

  Following his righteous departure from planet earth, Krugman went on cable television and explained that the proper way to propel an economic growth chart up and to the right is to borrow massive amounts of money and spend it preparing for an alien invasion.

  The Choice

  Absurd fiscal policies over many decades have created an economy, and hundreds of thousands of employees, that are largely dependent on government spending. This is the economy that President-elect Trump is inheriting when he comes into office.

  He is up against an unworkable task. He must address a mega debt crisis that’s partly of his own making. The last time Trump was President the national debt increased by $8 trillion.

  At this point, the only way to fix the economy and America’s finances is to first burn them to the ground. The distortions accumulated over many decades are too great. They cannot be undone without first making things worse.

  Many years ago, Ludwig von Mises, in Human Action, presented the unpleasant choice team Trump must make.

  “There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”

  What Musk and Ramaswamy are advocating as part of their Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is the alternative of the crisis coming “sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion.” The crisis, to be clear, is a deep recession or depression.

  It is the right choice, given the poor state of Washington’s finances. But is it already too late to avoid a total catastrophe of the dollar?

  There is no way to know for sure. What is known is this:

  The mass culling of federal workers. The abrupt eradication of deficit spending. The collapse of GDP and the rise in unemployment. These things are needed to return the USA to a place of good health.

  Yet the interim period, which may last for a generation or two, will be of much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 22:10

• Western Officials Claim North Korean General Wounded In Recent Ukrainian Strike
  Western Officials Claim North Korean General Wounded In Recent Ukrainian Strike

  Western officials have claimed that a senior North Korean general was recently wounded in a Ukrainian strike on Russia’s Kursk region. 

  Details are scant, but the incident was vaguely described to The Wall Street Journal, which wrote, “It is the first time Western officials have said that a high-ranking North Korean military officer has become a casualty in the escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict.”

  “Western officials didn’t disclose how the senior North Korean officer was wounded or his identity,” WSJ continued. “North Korea’s mission to the United Nations didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the strike, which has been described in Western intelligence reports.”

  

  Recent international reports have separately alleged that thousands of North Korean troops are in Kursk region assisting Russian efforts to repel occupying Ukrainian troops, which have held hundreds of square kilometers of territory since the August cross-border incursion.

  Last month, spokesman for the US National Security Council John Kirby warned that any North Korean troops fighting in Ukraine are “fair game and fair targets.”

  The US and UK (and more recently France) have authorized Ukraine to strike Russian territory using long-range weapons, citing as a rationale for the escalation the infusion of North Korean troops and foreign fighters into the Russian side.

  If it is accurate that a high-ranking North Korean officer was hurt in recent attacks on Russia, could it have been the result of sophisticated long-range Western missiles?

  The WSJ report cites a Russian blogger who says North Koreans were present at a location which was struck by Storm Shadows days ago:

  The Storm Shadows launched Wednesday struck an estate in Marino, a town in the Russian-controlled part of the Kursk region, according to videos geolocated by the Center for Information Resilience, an online investigation organization, that were verified by The Wall Street Journal. Marino is about 20 miles from the front lines in the province.

  The estate contains vast gardens and an underground area with domed ceilings lined with bricks and is run by the Russian government, according to its official website. Loud whooshes followed by thunderous explosions that set off car alarms could be heard on video taken by bystanders and shared on social media.

  Recent reports have also alleged that in return for sending troops, Russia has rewarded Pyongyang with new anti-air defense missile systems, along with other weaponry.

  Some hawkish officials in Europe are using the reports of N.Korea-Russia cooperation to urge limitless support for Kiev:

  “If you clapped for Orbán two weeks ago, you are now on North Korea’s side.”

  My speech on frozen Russian assets.

  Ukraine must win. Russia must pay. Orbán must go. pic.twitter.com/BUsDxCt2jc

  — Damian Boeselager (@d_boeselager) October 22, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Presidents Putin and Kim Jong-Un signed a joint defense pact this summer. The Kremlin has thus sought to present the transfer of North Korean troops into Russia (and possibly into Ukraine) as consistent with this legal agreement.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 21:35

• Florida's Surgeon General Comes Out Against Fluoride In Water Supply
  Florida’s Surgeon General Comes Out Against Fluoride In Water Supply

  Authored by T.J. Muscaro via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Florida’s Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo issued a new guidance on Nov. 22, advising against the long-standing practice of adding fluoride to the public drinking water supply.

  

  “Adding fluoride to water increases the risk of neuropsychiatric disease in children and reduces their IQ,” Ladapo said in a post on X. “We can strengthen teeth without consuming this neurotoxin.”

  In his guidance, Ladapo states that fluoride, which is known to strengthen teeth and make them more resistant to decay, is “widely available from multiple sources,” such as toothpaste and mouthwashes, and cites several studies that found a connection between negative mental side effects and fluoride exposure during childhood and pregnancy.

  Those side effects include an association with lowered IQ, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as decreased child inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility.

  His guidance also cited a report published in August 2024 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program, which also suggested a connection between fluoridated water and lower IQ in children, and U.S. District Court ruling that found “community water fluoridation at 0.7 milligrams per liter presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act” and called upon the Environmental Protection Agency to take action.

  The surgeon general announced his position in Winter Haven, Florida, which recently announced its own decision to remove fluoride from its public water supply.

  Winter Haven Commissioner Brad Dantzler said that the district judge’s ruling in September and Rober F. Kennedy Jr.’s potential nomination to lead the Department of Health and Human Services are reasons that fluoride should likely be removed from the city’s drinking water. Kennedy has previously argued for removing fluoride from the entire nation’s water supply.

  Ladapo admitted during his press conference to previously being in favor of fluoridation, which was seen as a public health measure. But, the toxicology report and the district court ruling made him take another look at the issue, and he said that he was appalled by the findings.

  “Due to the neuropsychiatric risk associated with fluoride exposure, particularly in pregnant women and children, and the wide availability of alternative sources of fluoride for dental health, the State Surgeon General recommends against community water fluoridation,” the guidance stated.

  Ladapo’s guidance also said that the Department of Health recognized the benefits of fluoride and advocated for “oral and overall health” through other means, such as expanding education, screening and operation of dental services in schools, and promotion of healthier habits in communities across the state.

  Water systems of more than 70 percent of Florida communities currently receive fluoridated water.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 21:00

• France Backs Ukraine Firing Its Long-Range Missiles At Russia
  France Backs Ukraine Firing Its Long-Range Missiles At Russia

  This weekend France has belatedly made clear that it has joined allies Britain and US in authorizing Ukraine to use long-range missile for strikes on targets in Russian territory.

  The past week has witnessed significant escalation after Ukraine used both UK-made Storm Shadow missiles and US-supplied ATACMS in at least two separate cross-border assaults. And now:

  French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot told the BBC that Ukraine can shoot French longer-range missiles into Russia in the “logics of self-defense.” The French Scalp missiles are the same as the UK’s Storm Shadow missiles, which Ukraine had already used in attacks on Russia.

  

  “The principle has been set… our messages to President Zelensky have been well received,” he said in the Saturday interview, however without disclosing whether French Scalp missiles have already been used in such a way.

  He argued that the Western allies should not put any limits on supporting Ukraine’s effort fighting back Russia. He called for the West to “not set and express red lines.“

  After saying this, he was then pressed by interviewer Laura Kuenssberg over if that could even mean sending French troops into the war. “We do not discard any option,” he responded.

  The top French diplomat continued, “We will support Ukraine as intensely and as long as necessary. Why? Because it is our security that is at stake. Each time the Russian army progresses by one square kilometer, the threat gets one square kilometer closer to Europe.”

  On the question of Zelensky’s push to join NATO, Barrot strongly hinted that Paris considers it as a possibility: “We are open to extending an invitation, and so in our discussions with friends and allies, and friends and allies of Ukraine, we are working to get them to closer to our positions,” he said.

  “Of course we will have to spend more if we want to do more, and I think that we have to face these new challenges,” he said of broader French and European defense spending.

  The Kremlin’s response to all of this was swift, with Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova declaring that FM Barrot’s comments are “not support for Ukraine, but rather a death knell for Ukraine.” 

  🚨🇫🇷FRANCE AUTHORIZES UKRAINE TO STRIKE RUSSIA WITH FRENCH MISSILES

  France declared Ukraine has the right to defend itself, including using French SCALP missiles, against Russia.

  “There’s no red line,” said a French spokesperson, reinforcing support for Ukraine’s strikes on… pic.twitter.com/c1ktZv339i

  — Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) November 23, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine have continued exchanging drones over each other’s territory at an intense pace. “Ukraine’s air force said that at least 73 Russian attack drones entered the country’s airspace on Saturday into Sunday morning, after a week in which both sides made battlefield history with new advanced weapons systems,” ABC reports.

  And Russia’s defense ministry said during the same period its military downed a reported 36 Ukrainian drones. Russia further described that in Ukraine it targeted “military airfields, production facilities and storage sites for drones, as well as concentrations of enemy manpower and military equipment.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 20:25

• Trump Has Vowed To Close The Department Of Education – How Would That Work?
  Trump Has Vowed To Close The Department Of Education – How Would That Work?

  Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  In September 2023, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign announced 10 principles for reforming education. Chief among them was closing the Department of Education in Washington, and sending “all education work and needs back to the states.”

  

  The president-elect has maintained that pledge, even though he appointed a secretary of education (Linda McMahon) to lead a federal agency he vowed to eliminate.

  He also promised to support universal school choice, reverse “gender-affirming” care practices in schools, and leverage the department’s funding mechanisms to end Critical Race Theory and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs in K–12 and higher education.

  But how exactly would Trump go about making these changes, and close the $80 billion department?

  Neal McCluskey, director of the Cato Institute Center for Education Freedom in Washington, said Congress created the Department of Education and is, therefore, the only agency that can eliminate it.

  Under Senate filibuster rules, support is required from 60 of the 100 members, but McCluskey doesn’t think there are enough votes to make that happen.

  “He can’t just snap his fingers and make it [Department of Education] go away,” McCluskey told The Epoch Times. “It seems unlikely if no Democrats get on board.”

  The department, established in 1979, is also the smallest federal cabinet with about 4,100 employees, McCluskey said.

  As something not considered a sacred pillar of the U.S. government, there may be enough bipartisan support to shrink the agency by moving some functions to other federal agencies.

  McCluskey said the Constitution does not guarantee the right to education.

  Public schools and higher education institutions are mainly funded at the state and municipal levels, while state and local boards of education mandate curriculum, graduation requirements, employee credentials, and annual operating budgets.

  Private colleges, though mainly funded by tuition and donations, still get federal financial aid for students.

  Higher education financial aid programs, for example, could be moved to the Treasury.

  Civil Rights functions for investigating discrimination and harassment complaints at schools and college campuses could easily be handled by the Department of Justice.

  The funding programs for low-income school districts and special needs programs would have a place with Health and Human Services.

  And The Census Bureau within the U.S. Department of Commerce is well-equipped to take on the data and services that have been provided by the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics and Institute of Education Sciences, McCluskey said.

  Through block grants, state education departments could easily handle the smaller federally funded programs for accelerated learning loss recovery in core subjects, nutrition, career and technical education, and various other areas related to academics or student wellness, McCluskey said.

  “It’s just a matter of how much control the federal government wants over these programs,” he said, adding that hundreds of millions of dollars could be saved if state employees administered a program instead of both state and federal employees.

  In awarding block grants, McCluskey added, Trump could withhold funding from state education agencies that continue DEI and CRT policies if the president deems, they “discriminate based on race.”

  Will Congress Support Downsizing?

  Changes to the Department of Education will be a high priority in the next legislative session.

  On Nov. 21, Sen Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) introduced the “Returning Education to Our States Act,” which would eliminate the Department of Education and move its critical programs to other federal agencies.

  In a news release, Rounds said the department’s budget increased by 449 percent in its 45-year history, while student test scores have dropped in the past decade.

  “The federal Department of Education has never educated a single student, and it’s long past time to end this bureaucratic department that causes more harm than good,” Rounds said in the release.

  “We all know local control is best when it comes to education.”

  Similar legislation from Rep. Barry Moore, a Republican from Alabama, also called for abolishing the department and moving its funding to states.

  It was introduced in February 2023 but never passed the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

  The chair of that committee, Rep. Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina, states on her website that she supports returning “decision-making power and resource flexibility to the local level while keeping schools accountable for results to taxpayers, parents, and students.”

  Sen Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, is expected to take over as chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

  He has criticized the Department of Education in recent years but stopped short of calling for its elimination.

  In June, Cassidy, Ohio Senator and now Vice President-elect JD Vance, and 20 other republican legislators introduced the Dismantle DEI Act that would cut federal funding for any federal department, contractors, or programs that institutionalize discrimination in hiring and employee training.

  The list of contractors and programs includes educational accreditation agencies.

  “Taxpayers expect the most qualified candidates to be hired, not the most favored,” Cassidy said in a June 13 news release.

  Will Policies Be Reversed?

  An Epoch Times review of announcements, news releases, and speeches on the Department of Education website under the Biden administration found that initiatives related to DEI and student loan forgiveness have been the department’s most publicized activities.

  Sarah Spreitzer, American Council on Education (ACE) chief of staff of government relations, said during a Nov. 7 ACE panel discussion that voters care about education reform and are pressuring the next administration to downsize the department “and give it a smaller role.”

  “When they think about their complaints about education, you know, blame the Department of Education,” she said.

  “I can see them moving some of the big pieces from the Department of Education, and you’re kind of left with a much smaller footprint of the department.”

  ACE leaders echo the Cato Institute’s sentiments that Trump is poised to use his executive authority to remove DEI and CRT from federally funded programs.

  Spreitzer said the president-elect did so on a limited basis with federal contractors during his previous term—without any court challenges she’s aware of—so he could easily dust that policy off and expand it after he’s sworn in.

  “The hook they’ll always have is that federal funding,” she said. “Whether it’s through your grant agreement, or whether it’s through your program participation agreement, you know putting new requirements in there is the hook they will use.”

  Will Teachers Accept Changes?

  American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten expressed mixed reactions to Trump’s election and his recent appointment of McMahon at a time when the U.S. Department of Education could face major change.

  “We look forward to learning more about Linda McMahon, and if she is confirmed, we will reach out to her as we did with Betsy DeVos at the beginning of her tenure.

  “We hope Donald Trump means it when he says he wants a focus on project-based instruction, career and technical education, and apprenticeships.

  “This will improve education and job options, making schools more relevant and engaging for young people,” Weingarten said in a Nov. 19 news release.

  “But we question the future of these popular ideas and more if the Trump administration follows through with plans to close the Department of Education, leaving in doubt a federal funding lifeline that disproportionately goes to children in need, children with disabilities, and young adults who are the first in their families to go to college.”

  The Epoch Times reached out to the Department of Education, but a response was not provided.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 19:50

• North Carolina's Hurricane Rebuilding Director Is "No Longer Employed" With The State
  North Carolina’s Hurricane Rebuilding Director Is “No Longer Employed” With The State

  Laura Hogshead, who led North Carolina’s rebuilding efforts after hurricanes Matthew and Florence, is “no longer employed” with the North Carolina Department of Public Safety as director of recovery and resiliency for ReBuild NC, according to WRAL. 

  Chief communications officer Jody Donaldson announced Wednesday that Pryor Gibson, a lobbyist for Gov. Roy Cooper and former state representative, is now interim director of the North Carolina Office of Recovery and Resiliency.

  WRAL reported that Hogshead is no longer listed on the state’s website.

  Previously, her position was characterized on ReBuild NC’s website saying: “Hogshead oversees the expenditure of hurricane recovery funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for areas hit by hurricanes Matthew and Florence.”

  “Hogshead also oversees the expenditure of U.S. Department of Treasury Coronavirus Relief Fund and Emergency Rental Assistance allocations through the state’s pandemic-related emergency rental assistance program,” it continued. 

  

  Hogshead, long criticized for her leadership and the slow progress of ReBuild NC, faced tough questioning Monday from lawmakers during an Oversight Committee hearing. Gibson was also grilled over the office’s budgetary issues.

  ReBuild NC, established by Gov. Roy Cooper to aid low-income hurricane victims, managed nearly $800 million to rebuild homes after Hurricanes Matthew (2016) and Florence (2018) devastated the state.

  Despite years of criticism, Hogshead resisted calls to resign, asserting she was the best person for the role, even as Cooper acknowledged the program’s slow pace and called for improvement. Republican lawmakers criticized Cooper for not removing her.

  The program’s financial challenges have grown, with a reported $175 million shortfall for housing projects increasing to over $220 million. These funds are allocated to the Homeowner Recovery Program, which assists residents in repairing or rebuilding homes.

  State Sen. Danny Britt, R-Hoke, Robeson and Scotland counties commented: “Together in the House and Senate we have tried to hold [ReBuild NC’s] feet to the fire for their failures.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 19:15

• 30 Detroit Police Officers Pulled Off Street Due To Inactive Law Enforcement Licenses
  30 Detroit Police Officers Pulled Off Street Due To Inactive Law Enforcement Licenses

  This is what ‘defunding the police’ does…

  The Detroit Police Department has removed at least 30 officers from active duty after discovering they were operating without valid law enforcement licenses.

  The officers come from various divisions, including homicide, road patrol, and the special victims unit, which handles cases of child abuse, domestic violence, and sex crimes, according to WXYZ.

  Assistant Chief Charles Fitzgerald commented: “As of this morning, their guns and badges were taken from them. They’ll be on administrative duty until we get this cleared up, hopefully as soon as possible.”

  The Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards said there were 32 officers without a license. 

  

  The ABC 7 WXYZ report said that the issue came to light two months ago when DPD found an officer without an active license, prompting an audit that initially uncovered three more cases and has since grown to 30.

  Fitzgerald added: “That is a big problem. We’re working through the list, we’re trying to figure out what’s needed, where we need to get the documentation necessary.”

  MCOLES said the officers “were hired between November 2019 and August of 2024. Initial indications suggest DPD did not request reactivation of these officer’s law enforcement licenses when they were hired or rehired. The investigation is ongoing and at this point involves at least 32 officers.”

  MCOLES Executive Director Tim Bourgeois added: “On a case-by-case basis the Commission will review the status of affected officer to determine if they are eligible for reactivation of their law enforcement licenses. The Commission collaborating with DPD to audit its entire roster and ensure all officers are actively licensed.”

  Commissioner Ricardo Moore commented: “It’s very shocking. I think that our personnel director needs to answer a couple questions to the board.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 18:05

• An Amazing Country (With Some Questions)
  An Amazing Country (With Some Questions)

  By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

  An Amazing Country (With Some Questions)

  A 10-day road trip visiting clients in San Diego, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Baltimore, (and of course New York and Connecticut), as well as numerous Zoom calls, was a great reminder that there are more similarities than differences across this amazing country! There was some palpable concern amongst some, and something resembling giddiness amongst others. There were some deviations depending on the location and the industry – but as a whole, what stood out, was that people were trying to figure out what is next and what to do about it. Those whose party or candidate didn’t win even expressed some optimism about how things could go. Those who did win also questioned some of the early moves. Very healthy dialogues and introspection. Maybe, just maybe, this is driven by the fact that media rhetoric has toned down significantly since the election? It is almost amazing how quickly things have ratcheted down since the election across much of mainstream media. I do think, and I’m biased, that financial media generally does a better job at this because their main goal is to help managers and investors understand the broader landscape.

  Admittedly, many of our conversations were focused on Geopolitical Risk (with members of Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group), but even on that front there is reason for some optimism.

  If you missed our recent Podcast, this is a good time to listen, as we tackle a lot of issues in the Middle East and how we see a potential end to the conflict in Ukraine evolving.

  This report should, hopefully, act as a bookend to recent reports on Learning to Speak Trump and 3D Chess or 52-Card Pickup?

  The only issue is that since I spent so much time away from my data and charts (I do miss them), this report will be high-level and more of a guide for Thanksgiving conversations than markets. We will follow up early this week on that front, once I’ve managed to get fully caught up on these choppy markets.

  So today, we will quickly address some of the questions that came up regularly.

  Hitting the Ground Running

  While we discussed appointments in some detail last week, there is one clear theme so far:

  • In 2016 the President-Elect was slow to pick his posts and left many jobs vacant – which slowed things down. He is obviously trying to change that this time.
  • Many people who were left in place during Trump’s first term did not fully support his agenda and it is believed (probably accurately) that they slow-played things and tried to subvert his agenda from the inside – something that he is trying to change this time.

  Whether you agree with some, all, or very few of his picks, this is clearly what is motivating him.

  Tariffs

  Tariffs were a big part of any discussion. This could play out in many ways, but our base case remains the same:

  • A negotiating ploy to bring countries (namely China) to the table. Many seem very concerned by his statements (which, if taken on face value, are concerning), but if Trump states that this is merely to get China to the table, they lose their power.
    • He did put tariffs in place, so his threat carries weight.
    • The last time he imposed tariffs, there were weeks, if not months, of trade negotiations, so fully I expect that to occur again.
  • China is weak right now economically, and will likely have to bear some of the cost through reduced profits (or more subsidies) and a weaker currency. I expect a stronger dollar to offset much of any impact from tariffs that do get implemented.

  I’m not overly worried about tariffs. My hope is that well-targeted tariffs, along with well-targeted subsidies for U.S. corporations, could really jump start “reshoring.”

  The Chips Act, and how many strings were attached to it, and why so little money had actually been sent to corporations ahead of the election, came up repeatedly in meetings. Primarily, sadly, this is an example of good/important policy (building foundries) being diminished by adding too many bells and whistles, thereby diluting the initiative. It does seem like there is an increased effort to get the money out the door as this administration winds down.

  Why Not a Better Discussion on Mexico?

  Right now, Mexico seems likely to be hit with tariffs and immigration related issues. Most, including me, seem to be trying to figure out why we are not having more holistic conversations with Mexico.

  If we can get things “right” with Mexico – it could be a boon for both countries.

  • We need to stop the flow of fentanyl (and other drugs) and the potential risk of terrorists coming through. Much of which is being aided (if not directed) by the cartels.
  • Many Mexicans need better jobs and a way to thrive in Mexico outside of the cartels.
  • U.S. companies need to be able to set up businesses in Mexico, but are finding many constraints – including, though not limited to, the reach of the cartels.

  I think many would like to see a much bigger dialogue about how the U.S. and Mexico could tackle problems together – many of which stem from the influence of the cartels. So far that doesn’t seem to be on the agenda, which is frustrating to many, as it seems like an obvious avenue to help both countries with their current (and future) concerns.

  Immigration

  This might be the “trickiest” Trump topic right now.

  My view, which is simplistic, and with less basis than my view on tariffs (where we have a lot of color from several of our GIG members), is still my best estimate at the moment.

  • Expect “high profile wins” that have largely universal support. In this category I would highlight criminals, especially where criminal activity has allegedly taken over small areas. I do think that places like the Roosevelt Hotel in New York, meant to be temporary relocation centers, have morphed into something, that while well-intentioned, isn’t working. That could be another “win” (and it seems like Mayor Adams is moving in that direction as well).
  • Don’t expect a full-blown effort to remove every undocumented (often illegal) worker. As you move to a “local” level, many companies depend on these people and are likely to use their influence to limit what happens to these workers, who as a group, have been here long before the term “border crisis” was a regular talking point. While there are various humanitarian and even broader economic reasons not to do this, it might just come down to being too expensive.
  • While there are a variety of opinions on the subject, many of our GIG members think there is a high likelihood that Trump will mobilize the national guard on the border. It does fit with the theme of “easy” wins. It will not be a particularly dangerous assignment (there should be no U.S. reserve casualties) and it shows that “he is doing something” and it will create some powerful photo ops. Basically, it just enforces the rules on the books.

  If there is one area where I’m really concerned that I’m downplaying how aggressive the administration will be (which would impact our nation in many ways), this is it.

  Wars

  A push to end the war in Ukraine.

  • Trump will come up with a deal that he thinks makes sense. Then with a combination of carrots and sticks, for both sides, with Russia’s frozen dollar reserves as a big bargaining tool, he will make something happen.
  • • We don’t talk much about this in the U.S., but there is increasing concern that Ukrainians who have left almost 3 years ago are already questioning the idea of returning as they have made new lives for themselves. That risk only increases the longer the war goes on.
    • Georgia – no response. Crimea – blink, but just barely blinked. Donbas – minor pushback. Yes, it would be awful to give Putin his “win”, but effectively we have been doing that with far less pushback for over a decade now.

  Permission to destabilize Iran.

  • Israel has been making progress in its efforts to reduce the fighting ability of Iran’s proxies. It has demonstrated that Iran itself is vulnerable to attack and possibility limited in its ability to respond.
  • Much of the Middle East views Iran as the problem, which may also encourage efforts to continue to push back militarily on Iran.
  • It is probably too much to wish for regime change in Iran, but maybe this is the opportunity to press and try?

  Africa

  Our stance on Africa is unclear. Actually, that is too generous. Russia and China are gaining influence in the region. We paid little attention to it (we didn’t even have ambassadors in some prominent nations). We are paying the price. Deaths are occurring in the region in numbers that dwarf anything going on anywhere else in the world, but this isn’t making it to our headlines.

  Not sure what to do here, but it is time that we all pay more attention.

  NIMBY and D.O.G.E.

  As a whole I think people are curious to see how “Not In My Backyard” plays out. We have a lot of rules and regulations that might get re-evaluated.

  • Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have had the luxury of being the sole superpower. We implemented a lot of rules and regulations that made sense in that context.
  • As China’s rise, both militarily and especially economically, alters the global landscape, it may be time to revisit some of those issues.
  • Chips and processed materials (rare earths and critical minerals) all need to be part of what we re-evaluate to make sure we are not fighting with one arm tied behind our backs.

  Everyone is curious to see how this Department of Government Efficiency plays out! One thing being floated is offering large severances, which I think (and this ties back to my use of the QUIT rate last week) leads to a very negative self-selection process, and isn’t particularly efficient.

  Crypto

  Everyone who loved crypto and helped pump it higher continues to love it and pump it higher.

  No one who didn’t love crypto has changed their view and they think that it is something the U.S. government shouldn’t be buying (it doesn’t mean they haven’t bought crypto to ride this move, but their view on the use of crypto hasn’t changed).

  Bottom Line

  No shortage of things to talk about as you prepare for Thanksgiving, but I have the overwhelming sense that this is being done in a constructive way.

  And, so we can end on the lightest note possible (I think it is a light note), you can always bet the over/under on how long Trump and Musk can remain besties!

  Have a great holiday week and nothing on my market view has really changed (be underweight risk, overweight duration, but only modestly) and try to trade positions around until a real clear trend emerges.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 17:30

• Major Cold Blast To Hit Helene-Ravaged NC With Families Living In Tents & Cars Amid FEMA Blunder
  Major Cold Blast To Hit Helene-Ravaged NC With Families Living In Tents & Cars Amid FEMA Blunder

  Nearly two months after Hurricane Helene devastated Western North Carolina, the controversies surrounding FEMA’s botched response could have been avoided if the federal agency had apolitical managers overseeing operations and had not diverted funds for illegal aliens. With winter looming over the Appalachian region, at least a thousand people—some of them children—are still living in temporary housing, such as tents.

  American victims of hurricane Helene are now being forced to live in donated tents during freezing temperatures in Western North Carolina while the federal government pays for illegal immigrants to live in hotels. Infuriating. pic.twitter.com/ij1kbdrlji

  — Planet Of Memes (@PlanetOfMemes) November 23, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “Attention Joe Biden or whoever is running this country  its 24/7 all hands on deck this week for  Helene ravaged areas to make sure people are sheltered properly for the coming cold.  The blundering so far has been inexcusable, You have a chance to finish strong here,” Meteorologist Joe Bastardi wrote on X. 

  

  Bastardi’s weather models forecast that a cold blast will descend into the region next week. 

  

  The incoming cold weather coincides with a report from local media outlet WLOS stating that “hundreds of local families are left with nowhere to go” in Western North Carolina, adding, “Now some of these children are living in tents and cars…”

  

  Bloomberg data shows temps across Asheville are expected to crash to sub-freezing levels through the end of the month into early December. 

  

  This is shocking, as WLOS provides new figures: 

  The Buncombe County Family Resource Center tells News 13 that they’ve identified 878 new homeless students since the storm. That is in addition to the 274 students identified in Buncombe County as homeless before Helene. It totals 1,152 kids without permanent homes, some living in tents, cars and campers.

  Scenes on the ground show “tent cities” in Swannanoa, North Carolina…

  ‼️TODAY IN TENT CITY
  Swannanoa, North Carolina

  Do you see FEMA?

  Countless families in North Carolina have been left without safe shelter. Shawn Hendrix, a survival expert, first responder and community advocate, is leading on the ground action for Operation Shelter, a… pic.twitter.com/DheZljRPrv

  — Erin Derham (@HistoryBoutique) November 19, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Whole families live in tents with children. These people need help. 

  I hate that I even have to post this.

  Here is aerial footage I shot this morning of one of the many “tent cities” in #WNC due to Helene.

  FEMA says these don’t exist. Yet, here it is.

  So, where are you FEMA? Why have you abandoned us?

  I don’t understand. pic.twitter.com/afH5mLobpp

  — Matt Van Swol (@matt_vanswol) November 18, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “Do you realize that it’s gonna be below freezing in Asheville, North Carolina tonight? And in some parts of North Carolina it’s already below freezing. Do you realize how many people are living in tents? . @fema workers (who aren’t doing anything) are hanging out in heated trailers. While at the same time, we’re housing illegal immigrants in luxury hotels,” one X user said. 

  Do you realize that it’s gonna be below freezing in Asheville, North Carolina tonight? And in some parts of North Carolina it’s already below freezing. Do you realize how many people are living in tents?
  .@fema workers (who aren’t doing anything) are hanging out in heated… pic.twitter.com/iWWBXfxSN9

  — Jason. (@3INSTE3IN) November 22, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Meanwhile, the controversies at FEMA are piling up for the American people to see:

  • FEMA Official Removed After ‘Avoid Trump Houses’ Message Leaks, DeSantis Orders Investigation

  • Fired FEMA Supervisor Claims Avoiding Trump Homes Was A Widespread Practice Due To ‘Political Hostility’

  • Taxpayer Funded Censorship: How Government Is Using Your Tax Dollars To Silence Your Voice

  • America Last: After Spending $640 Million On Migrants And Billions Abroad, FEMA Suddenly ‘Broke’

  FEMA ran out of money promoting “equity.” 

  FEMA ran out of money promoting “equity”. pic.twitter.com/1q81BIHGGr

  — Robert Sepehr (@robertsepehr) November 18, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Pushing free money to illegal aliens for luxury hotels and food.

  

  Yet residents of storm-ravaged North Carolina received?? 

  More proof that people are currently living in tents after losing their homes in North Carolina from Helene.

  Ground Force Humanitarian Aid: pic.twitter.com/dUZAlCdwK8

  — Frank Fighting For Freedom 🇺🇸 (@thinktankfranks) November 18, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  What a shitshow. And now a humanitarian crisis as winter approaches.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 16:55

• Loony Joy Reid Urges Viewers To Avoid Trump-Voting-Relatives Who Might "Turn You In"
  Loony Joy Reid Urges Viewers To Avoid Trump-Voting-Relatives Who Might “Turn You In”

  Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

  Crazed MSNBC hack Joy Reid has again suggested that her viewers should avoid their own family members if they voted for president Trump.

  

  In a demented rant, Reid suggested that leftists shun their relatives at Thanksgiving, and that they be afraid because they might get “turned in” to the MAGA authorities… or something.

  “People are rightfully alarmed. They have a reason to be alarmed,” Reid rambled in the video posted to social media. 

  She continued, “And if you would vote for that, people may not feel so confident that they’re safe with you.”

  “This is not crazy,” she said, sounding crazy.

  “This is legitimate feelings of fear of you and a feeling that you might not be someone they could trust,” Reid added.

  “If this thing goes way south, autocracies go south real fast, and things get ugly, and people get asked to do things, and turn people in, and point people out, and turn on them,” she further garbled.

  “Autocracy and fascism are things that are legitimate to be afraid of. So you may want to step back,” Reid proclaimed.

  MSNBC host Joy Reid: Stay away from pro Trump family members since they ENDED democracy, may turn you in pic.twitter.com/3v1UGKeSdT

  — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 22, 2024

  Imagine being this paranoid, thinking that everything you don’t agree with is fascism.

  Imagine permanently believing you’re going to be rounded up and thrown into a camp by imaginary MAGA jackboots.

  It’s completely mental.

  Reid also made similar remarks on her show last week while interviewing Dr. Amanda Calhoun, a third-year Psychiatry Resident at Yale School of Medicine who suggested that people avoid their own family members following Trump’s victory.

  When Reid is inevitably fired, whether Elon Musk decides to become her boss or not, this is all you’ll see of her. Deranged selfie rant videos filmed on her iPhone from her living room.

  Something to look forward to.

  * * *

  Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 16:20

• Matt Taibbi: America's Loss Of Trust In Media Can't Be Fixed
  Matt Taibbi: America’s Loss Of Trust In Media Can’t Be Fixed

  Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

  This weekend I had the great pleasure of interviewing my friend Matt Taibbi.

  Taibbi is the head of Racket News and his reputation as a fearless investigative journalist precedes him. From his groundbreaking coverage of the 2008 financial crisis to his more recent explorations of censorship with the Twitter Files, politics, systemic inequality and the inner workings of Congress, Taibbi’s body of work reflects a deep commitment to uncovering truths and challenging conventional narratives.

  In our interview this weekend, we discussed:

  • The shift in media landscape toward independent journalism.

  • The results of the 2024 Presidential Election

  • The evolving and extreme rhetoric in political media coverage.

  • Legal and ethical challenges mainstream media faces with libel and reporting accuracy.

  • Trust erosion in mainstream media and its implications.

  • Misrepresentation and consequences of media bias in election reporting.

  • The impact of identity politics on voter demographics and electoral outcomes.

  • Concerns over institutional accountability in censorship and government actions.

  • The missing $1 trillion at the Pentagon every year

  • Escalation in the Russia/Ukraine war before President Biden leaves office

  The Rise of Independent Media

  Taibbi began by reflecting on his fondness for platforms like Substack, which have provided a haven for writers marginalized by corporate media. “We need a space for independent writers,” he said. “This company has been good about protecting free speech, and it’s shown that it can work financially for certain kinds of figures.”

  As the conversation delved deeper, Taibbi underscored the urgency of creating viable alternatives to legacy media. “The media landscape has shifted dramatically,” he observed, pointing to Hugh Hewitt’s recent move to Substack as part of a larger trend. “It’s an accelerating shift towards independent and alternative media,” he noted, emphasizing how disillusionment with mainstream outlets has driven audiences elsewhere.

  Mainstream Media’s Trust Deficit

  A recurring theme was the erosion of trust in mainstream outlets. Taibbi lambasted their sensationalism, particularly during the Trump and Russiagate years. “They got out of the habit of careful reporting,” he remarked. “For years, they were saying things without fear of blowback. But now, it’s coming home to roost.”

  He cited the infamous case of The View issuing a legal disclaimer mid-broadcast as an example of recklessness creeping into established media. “For the first time in years, they realized they actually have to follow libel law on television.”

  Asked about media’s relentless hyperbole, Taibbi quipped, “We went from ‘his policies are bad’ to ‘he’s literally Hitler’ in about 18 months. And they’re still doing it.” He described this phenomenon as part of a broader “moral panic,” comparing it to the media frenzy around COVID-19.

  Censorship and the Battle for Free Speech

  The conversation shifted to censorship, a topic Taibbi has explored extensively through his reporting on the Twitter Files and government overreach. He described witnessing a chilling lack of accountability in bureaucratic institutions. “When Tulsi Gabbard’s story broke about her being on a surveillance list, it gave people a sense of hopelessness,” he said. “That she remained on the list even after the story broke shows there’s no institutional fear of blowback.”

  Taibbi expressed cautious optimism about the recent political shift. “With the FCC chair tweeting about addressing censorship, it feels like we’re getting back to the basics—like the First Amendment,” he noted. However, he also warned, “Time will tell if this is an illusory perception.”

  

  The New Media Ecosystem

  The rise of independent voices like Joe Rogan, who commands an audience exponentially larger than traditional news outlets, exemplifies the power of intellectual honesty, according to Taibbi. “It’s not about getting everything right,” he said. “It’s about admitting when you’re wrong and being willing to hear all sides of a story.”

  He critiqued the selective coverage of mainstream outlets. “Traditional media only talks to people who fit their standards of suitability,” he said. “Rogan will talk to anyone—from the far left to the far right—and audiences respect that humility.”

  The Future of Journalism

  As the interview concluded, Taibbi pondered whether mainstream media could regain public trust. “Trust is a human thing. It’s not something you can fix with money or algorithms,” he said. “People forgive mistakes, but only if you own them. When you don’t, you lose double.”

  Reflecting on the state of American democracy, he added, “This election was a massive repudiation of the media. The public rejected their narrative—and that’s not something they can ignore forever.”

  In an era defined by skepticism and fragmentation, Taibbi’s insights served as both a critique and a roadmap for the future of journalism. His call to action was clear: a return to integrity, accountability, and, above all, trust.

  Russia Ukraine Escalation

  Taibbi offered sharp observations on the escalating tensions between Russia and Ukraine, emphasizing the media’s role and the complexities of international relations. One notable quote captures his critique of U.S. media: “We’ve seen a constant escalation in the rhetoric, where every misstep or diplomatic hiccup gets amplified into a catastrophic headline.” He suggests that the media environment exacerbates global tensions by prioritizing sensationalism over nuanced understanding.

  Taibbi also underscores the importance of considering historical and cultural contexts when discussing Russia’s actions, stating, “You can’t look at Putin’s moves in isolation; they’re part of a broader strategy tied to historic grievances and a long-standing opposition to NATO expansion.” This reflects his broader critique of Western policies, where he sees a failure to account for the geopolitical ramifications of military alliances and interventions.

  Finally, he criticizes the lack of open dialogue in global politics, stating, “The refusal to engage in direct talks or acknowledge valid security concerns only fuels the fire.” For Taibbi, this highlights a critical gap in how conflicts like this are approached, with too much focus on confrontation and too little on diplomacy.

  Watch The Interview

  The full 1hr 30 min video interview with Matt can be found here. 

  

  QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

  This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 15:10

• Locations Of US & Russian Warships As World War III Threats Soar
  Locations Of US & Russian Warships As World War III Threats Soar

  Last week’s “major shift” in policy, which allowed the Biden-Harris team to green-light Ukraine’s attacks deep within Russian territory using US-made ATACMS and British-made Storm Shadow missiles, has forced Russia to lower its threshold for using nuclear weapons against Ukraine while also launching new hypersonic weapons.

  On Thursday, President Vladimir Putin issued a stern warning that Ukraine launching long-range missile strikes on Russia’s territory utilizing newly approved US and UK long-range missiles risks transforming the modern battlefield in Ukraine into a global war. 

  “A regional Ukraine conflict instigated by the West has acquired elements of a global one,” Putin spelled out and noted that these missiles cannot be used without the direct operational involvement of Western military specialists.

  No one genuinely anticipated that the outgoing Biden-Harris regime would escalate the war in Ukraine with Putin to the brink of a major broadening conflict. This suggests that the Biden-Harris team and the Military-Industrial Complex seek to broaden conflict before Trump takes office in late January.

  Days ago, Ukraine’s former military Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhny was quoted by Politico as saying: “I believe that in 2024 we can absolutely believe that the Third World War has begun.”

  “Because in 2024, Ukraine is no longer facing Russia. Soldiers from North Korea are standing in front of Ukraine. Let’s be honest. Already in Ukraine, the Iranian ‘Shahedis’ are killing civilians absolutely openly, without any shame,” Zaluzhny continued, adding that North Korean and Chinese weapons are flying on the modern battlefield in Ukraine. 

  With the elevated risk of the war broadening, this new round of tension in Eastern Europe draws attention to the approximate positions of US Navy and Russian Navy assets worldwide.

  As of November 18, the US Naval Institute showed the approximate positions of the US Navy’s deployed carrier strike groups and amphibious ready groups throughout the world…

  

  Here’s more color on US naval asset positions worldwide:

  Ships Underway

  

  In Japan

  Amphibious warship USS America (LHA-6) is in port in Sasebo, Japan.

  In the Pacific

  Amphibious warship USS Boxer (LHD-4) departed Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on Friday, according to ship spotters.

  Boxer has elements of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit embarked.

  Aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN-73) continues on its way to its new homeport of Yokosuka, Japan, as the Navy’s forward-deployed carrier assigned to US 7th Fleet.

  In Eastern Atlantic

  Aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) is transiting en route to the Mediterranean after completing operations with allies and partners in the Norwegian Sea.

  Carrier Strike Group 8

  USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75), homeported at Naval Station Norfolk, Va.

  Carrier Air Wing 1

  • The “Red Rippers” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 11 – F/A-18F – from Naval Air Station Oceana, Va.

  • The “Pukin’ Dogs” of VFA 143 – F/A-18E – from Naval Air Station Oceana.

  • The “Sunliners” of VFA 81 – F/A-18E – from Naval Air Station Oceana.

  • The “Knighthawks” of VFA 136 – F/A-18E – from Naval Air Station Oceana.

  • The “Main Battery” of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 144 – EA-18G – from Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Wash.

  • The “Seahawks” of Airborne Command and Control Squadron (VAW) 126 – E-2D – from Naval Station Norfolk, Va.

  • The “Rawhides” of Fleet Logistics Squadron (VRC) 40 Det. – C-2A – from Naval Station Norfolk.

  • The “Proud Warriors” of Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 72 – MH-60R – from Naval Station Norfolk.

  • The “Dragonslayers” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 11 – MH-60S – from Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Fla.

  Cruiser

  USS Gettysburg (CG-64), homeported at Naval Station Norfolk, Va.

  Destroyer Squadron 28

  Destroyer Squadron 28 is based in Naval Station Norfolk, Va., and is embarked on Harry S. Truman.

  • USS Stout (DDG-55), homeported at Naval Station Norfolk.

  The Wasp Amphibious Ready Group with the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit embarked deployed from the East Coast on June 1. The ARG consists of Wasp, USS New York (LPD-21) and USS Oak Hill (LSD-51).

  The 24th MEU is composed of a command element, Battalion Landing Team 1/8, Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 365 (Reinforced) and Combat Logistics Battalion 24 as the Logistics Combat Element.

  In the Eastern Mediterranean

  The Navy has two independently deployed guided-missile destroyers to the Eastern Mediterranean.

  • USS Bulkeley (DDG-84), homeported at Naval Station Rota, Spain. The destroyer is in port in Souda Bay, Greece

  • USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51), homeported at Naval Station Rota.

  In the Red Sea

  Navy Quartermaster folds the national ensign aboard the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG-67) in the Central Command area of responsibility on November 13, 2024. US Navy Photo

  US ships continue to patrol the Red Sea as part of Operation Prosperity Guardian, the U.S.-led multinational effort to protect merchant vessels moving through the region. Houthi forces in Yemen continue to attack merchant shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, while US naval forces in the region have continued strikes against Houthi weapons that US Central Command says are a threat to naval and merchant ships. Houthi forces say they are targeting ships with connections to the United Kingdom, the US and Israel or visit Israeli ports.

  Guided-missile submarine USS Georgia (SSGN-729) is operating in the Middle East. The Ohio-class submarine carries 154 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles as well as special operations forces.

  As of Monday, the Navy has two independently deployed guided-missile destroyers in the Red Sea.

  • USS Cole (DDG-67), homeported at Naval Station Norfolk, Va.
  • USS Jason Dunham (DDG-109), homeported at Naval Station Mayport, Fla.

  In the Persian Gulf

  US Coast Guard Sentinel-class Fast Response Cutters are forward-deployed to the region under Patrol Forces Southwest Asia (PATFORSWA). PATFORSWA deploys Coast Guard personnel and ships with US and regional naval forces throughout the Middle East. Initially deployed in 2003 to support Operation Iraqi Freedom, PATFORSWA is now a permanent presence based out of the Kingdom of Bahrain.

  In the Indian Ocean

  The Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group is operating in the Indian Ocean. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered Abraham Lincoln and its attached destroyers to remain in the region as regional conflict intensified, according to a Pentagon statement.

  Carrier Strike Group 3

  Carrier

  USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), homeported at San Diego, Calif.

  Carrier Air Wing 9

  • The “Tophatters” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 14 – F/A-18E – from Naval Air Station Lemoore, Calif.

  • The “Black Aces” of VFA 41 – F/A-18F – from Naval Air Station Lemoore.

  • The “Black Knights” of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 314 – F-35C – from Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Calif.

  • The “Vigilantes” of VFA 151 – F/A-18E – from Naval Air Station Lemoore.

  • The “Wizards” of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 133 – EA-18G – from Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Wash.

  • The “Wallbangers” of Airborne Command and Control Squadron (VAW) 117 – E-2D – from Naval Air Station Point Mugu, Calif.

  • The “Rawhides” of Fleet Logistics Squadron (VRC) 40 Det. – C-2A – from Naval Station Norfolk.

  • The “Raptors” of Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 71 – MH-60R – from Naval Air Station North Island, Calif.

  • The “Chargers” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 14 – MH-60S – from Naval Air Station North Island.

  Cruiser

  The carrier strike group did not deploy with a Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser. Instead, USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr. (DDG-121) assumed the cruiser role in the strike group, USNI News learned. USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112) is currently operating with the strike group but is an independent deployer.

  Destroyer Squadron 21

  Destroyer Squadron 21 is based in San Diego and is embarked on Abraham Lincoln.

  • USS O’Kane (DDG-77), homeported at Naval Station San Diego, Calif.

  • USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112), homeported at Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

  • USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr. (DDG-121), homeported at Naval Station Pearl Harbor.

  • USS Spruance (DDG-111), homeported at Naval Station San Diego.

  • USS Stockdale (DDG-106), homeported at Naval Station San Diego.

  In Eastern Pacific

  On Monday afternoon, USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), with the Carrier Air Wing 2 embarked, departed for a deployment from California.

  Aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-68) departed to San Diego, Calif., on Monday, according to ship spotters.

  Amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli (LHA-7) departed San Diego, Calif., on Tuesday, according to ship spot

  Aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) arrived in Bremerton, Wash., on Tuesday, according to ship spotters.

  In the Western Atlantic

  Aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is underway conducting routine operations in the Western Atlantic.

  Amphibious warship USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) returned to Norfolk, Va., on Friday, according to ship spotters.

  Aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) returned to Norfolk, Va., on Saturday, according to ship spotters.

  As for Russian naval assets, OSINT researcher Frederik Van Lokeren shared a map on X on Saturday. It highlights the locations of Russian warships across the Mediterranean (as of November 23). 

  “A period of heightened activity has ended with the vessels all present in the port of Tartus. The exception being Stereguschy class corvette Merkury which was reported in the Skagerrak between Denmark an Norway. The vessel most likely departed the Mediterranean directly following her port visit at Algiers, Algeria, during the previous week. Her passage at the Strait of Gibraltar went unnoticed by OSINT sources,” he wrote on his website “Russian Navy – News and Analysis.”

  

  President-elect Trump’s victory signals one critical mandate the American people have with Washington elites is no more wars. Yet, the outgoing administration is doing everything possible to derail Trump’s move once in the White House to end the war.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 14:35

• Gov. Abbott Targets CCP Infiltration In Texas
  Gov. Abbott Targets CCP Infiltration In Texas

  Authored by Frank Fang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has issued two more executive orders targeting Chinese Communist Party (CCP) influence in his state, after announcing an initial order on Nov. 18 aimed at protecting local dissidents from the Chinese regime’s harassment.

  

  Abbott signed Executive Order No. GA-49 on Nov. 20 to safeguard critical infrastructure from cyberattacks and issued Executive Order No. GA-48 on Nov. 19 to protect Texans from the CCP’s espionage operations.

  Executive Order No. GA-49 directs the Texas Division of Emergency Management and the Public Utility Commission of Texas to prepare for any potential cyberattacks aimed at the state’s critical infrastructure.

  Under Abbott’s order, the two agencies will create a task force to study potential vulnerabilities within government systems and critical infrastructure, run response simulations to cyberattacks, and put together a committee of state agencies to “simulate a restart of Texas’ electric grid in the event of a foreign attack,” according to a Wednesday statement.

  “China has made it clear that they can—and will—target and attack America’s critical infrastructure,” Abbott said in the statement. “Texas will continue to protect our critical infrastructure to ensure the safety of Texans from potential threats by the Chinese Communist Party or any hostile foreign government.”

  The order highlighted Volt Typhoon, one of China’s state-sponsored threat groups, and how it had targeted communications, energy, transportation, water, and wastewater systems in the United States and its territories.

  Volt Typhoon, which was dismantled by a multi-agency operation in January, had maintained “access and footholds within some victim IT environments for at least five years,” the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said in February.

  The order also cited FBI Director Christopher Wray’s warnings at the Vanderbilt Summit in Nashville in April, when he said that China “has made it clear that it considers every sector that makes our society run as fair game in its bid to dominate on the world stage.”

  ‘Hostile Foreign Actors’

  Executive Order No. GA-48 directs all state agencies and public institutions of higher education to “harden” their systems from potential infiltration by hostile nations, including more thorough background checks on state employees and contractors who can access critical infrastructure.

  Additionally, state agencies will be banned from contracting “companies owned or controlled by a foreign adversary government, and bidding companies must prove that “none of its holding companies or subsidiaries is owned by a foreign adversary government,” according to a Tuesday statement.

  Faculty members of higher education institutions are banned from taking part in “any foreign recruitment program by a foreign adversary nation,” such as China’s Thousand Talents Program, according to the statement.

  The Thousand Talents Program is one of many talent recruitment initiatives the Chinese regime has maintained for decades to attract overseas Chinese and foreign experts to work in China’s science and tech sectors. Through these programs, the CCP hopes to quickly turn China into an industrial and innovation powerhouse and ultimately outperform Western countries.

  The FBI warns on its website that Chinese talent programs pose threats to U.S. national security and usually involve “undisclosed and illegal transfers” of U.S. intellectual property to the Chinese side.

  “The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that the Chinese government has actively targeted local and state officials as part of their strategy to undermine the national security of the United States,” Abbott said in a statement.

  “Hardening our state government is critical to protect Texans from hostile foreign actors who may attempt to undermine the safety and security of Texas and the nation.”

  As an example of the CCP’s infiltration, Abbott’s order pointed to the recent indictment against Linda Sun, former deputy chief of staff to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul. Sun was charged with spying for Beijing.

  Another name mentioned in the order is Christine Fang, a suspected Chinese intelligence agent who Abbott’s office said “developed deep connections” with California’s political figures and national politicians.

  ‘Texas Is Leading the Charge’

  On Monday, when Abbott announced Executive Order No. GA-47, the FBI’s field office in Houston took to the social media platform X to urge victims to come forward.

  “The government of the [People’s] Republic of China (PRC) may be cyberstalking, physically intimidating, and harassing Chinese citizens, naturalized U.S. citizens, and families of dissidents who speak [out] against the Chinese Communist Party in Texas,” the office wrote.

  Under Abbott’s order, the Texas Department of Public Safety will target and arrest any individual found to be engaging in CCP influence operations within the state.

  Washington-based advocacy group Campaign for Uyghurs took to X on Monday to applaud the governor’s decision, saying that CCP continues to carry out its “nefarious practice” of transnational repression in Texas.

  An example of Beijing’s transnational repression came to light in April last year, when two Chinese nationals were charged with allegedly establishing a secret police station in Manhattan in coordination with China’s Ministry of Public Security.

  Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued a statement on Wednesday applauding Abbott’s leadership.

  “Texas is leading the charge in combating the CCP with the help of Governor Abbott’s leadership,” McCaul stated. “We cannot sit idly by while China attempts to infiltrate our country and harm U.S. national security.

  “These executive orders send a strong message of deterrence to the CCP: Don’t mess with Texas.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 14:00

• Bombshell Fauci Documentary Nails The Whole COVID Charade
  Bombshell Fauci Documentary Nails The Whole COVID Charade

  With the changing of the guard, it’s time for long-promised accountability over the unprecedented COVID scam. Not only has Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) promised to hold feet to the fire as the head of the Senate’s government oversight panel, we may actually have a shot at a special counsel investigation and more with Trump’s incoming Attorney General pick, Pam Bondi – a loyalist who’s on record supporting the lab-leak hypothesis.

  

  As regular readers vividly recall, ZeroHedge paid a hefty price for our early reporting on the pandemic, after we suggested that a Chinese lab playing weaponized God with bat COVID might have “something to do” with the COVID outbreak across town.

  Millions in ad revenue evaporated. Corporate media (brought to you by Pfizer!) penned numerous hit-pieces, and various companies such as PayPal, Amazon and Mailchimp dropped us like a hot rock; other outlets suffered similarly. However brave reporting from journalists like Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, Paul Thacker and Lee Fang – armed with factual evidence from Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter (now X) and various FOIA lawsuits, has provided more than just breadcrumbs.

  Now, four years later, the entire charade has been exposed piece by piece.

  A new must-watch documentary by two-time Peabody Award-winning and four-time Emmy nominated director Jenner Furst, a self-described progressive who has broken with the Democratic party, ties it all together.

  Thank You, Dr. Fauci

  

  In early 2020, Furst was contacted to direct a puff piece on former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci. The project was scrapped, however three years later, Furst began investigating what actually happened and created “Thank You, Dr. Fauci” – a project which has received virtually no press coverage, and even Rotten Tomatoes critics won’t touch.

  Next week, a documentary called “Thank You, Dr. Fauci is releasing and will expose everything you have ever wanted to know about the worst doctor this country has ever known.

  Meta has already blocked the trailer from airing.

  Make sure you share this clip and get ready for what… pic.twitter.com/OrR2IXta1i

  — Joey Mannarino (@JoeyMannarinoUS) October 26, 2024

  If you’re thinking ‘you had me at Fauci’ and just want to watch it, a free preview of “Thank You, Dr. Fauci”  is available, and the film can be rented directly on the film’s website, or by using Vimeo On-Demand or Gathr. People can also use Gathr to Book Private Screenings and Partner on TVOD Sales.

  If you’re like Elon Musk and you believe that  ‘Prosecute / Fauci’ should be your pronouns, this is what you need to watch to understand why we should prosecute Fauci.

  Heavily Censored

  While it’s difficult enough to find “Thank You, Dr. Fauci” thanks to search engine shadowbans and downrankings, perhaps the most notable form of censorship is the ongoing media blackout of the film according to Furst – whose previous work has been heavily reviewed, critically acclaimed, and streamed across Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and Paramount.

  But not this one.

  “The media blackout of the film just proves that the real Covid story is still highly censored,” Furst told ZeroHedge, adding “Journalists still can’t cover Covid truthfully at major outlets, and the problem is way bigger than them or their editors. The most powerful lobbies on the planet, and the weight of the US government is still sitting on the free press like an 800 pound gorilla.”

  Elon to the rescue?

  Given the level of censorship the film has been subject to, Furst firmly believes that a massive free speech platform such X would be ideal to get the word out – if even for a couple of days.

  

  “I feel like Elon could change this conversation overnight, the country is divided only due to the success of propaganda on the left. No democrat can sit thru this movie and see Fauci or the pandemic the same way again. That’s why MSM doesn’t want to acknowledge this,” Furst told ZeroHedge.

  The documentary features notable figures at the heart of the pandemic response, including Dr. Robert Redfield – the former director of the CDC during the outbreak – who was completely shut out of Anthony Fauci’s inner circle while the NIAID boss and top virologists conspired via secret back channels to shape the narrative around COVID origins. Also featured are former State Department COVID investigator David Asher, and Richard Ebright – a Rutgers molecular biologist who’s spent years pushing back against the Fauci wagon-circling by the scientific community.

  “Tony believed that the best way to prepare for the next pandemic, was to create it.” – Dr. Robert Redfield, Virologist and Former Head of the CDC.#ThankYouDrFauci is now streaming at https://t.co/WOIVYpts5Q.#FauciKnew #FauciLiedMillionsDied #WatchNow #Covid19 #documentary pic.twitter.com/ZwCWdhZir9

  — Thank You Dr Fauci (@ThankYouDrFauci) November 3, 2024

  COVID Origins

  As the pandemic gripped headlines around the world, the scientific community positioned Fauci – and eventually the Covid vaccines themselves – against Donald Trump, who was open to both the lab-leak theory and alternative treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

  ‘Thank You, Dr. Fauci’ details the scramble at the highest levels to come up with a narrative that wouldn’t implicate Fauci – or the US Government, for funding decades of research dedicated to enhancing deadly viruses.

  Fauci’s top advisors – who initially believed the virus looked manmade, crafted and promoted the narrative that COVID-19 most likely jumped from bats to humans through an intermediary species, “probably at a wet market,” Fauci repeatedly insisted.

  Ex-CDC Director Throws Fauci Under the Bus

  “This [COVID] virus was not of natural origin. It was an act of scientific ARROGANCE.”

  The “wet market theory” that Fauci pushed hard in 2020 was, according to Dr. Redfield, a HOAX.

  Redfield knows this because, in early 2020, the… pic.twitter.com/yH05CmwqsU

  — Vigilant News (@VigilantNews) November 4, 2024

  The lab-leak theory was condemned as a conspiracy theory by the very scientists conducting gain-of-function research, completely ignoring the fact that the virus emerged across town from an NIH-funded facility in Wuhan, China that was creating chimeric bat COVID, where several workers fell ill with a mysterious respiratory virus weeks before the disease spread like wildfire.

  HIV Insertions and DEFUSE

  ‘Thank You Dr. Fauci’ highlights a preprint study from India which found HIV-like insertions in COVID-19 which appeared manmade (and which got ZeroHedge kicked off of Twitter after Fauci’s damage control ‘conclave’ freaked out).

  While the Indian preprint was retracted amid immense political pressure to push the ‘natural origin’ hypothesis and ‘conspiricize’ the lab-leak theory, a leaked proposal known as “DEFUSE” – to create an aerosolized chimeric bat COVID that could infect humans, could potentially explain what the Indian researchers observed.

  While DEFUSE was ultimately rejected by DARPA, it’s entirely possible that Ecohealth Alliance – the nonprofit which received NIH contracts to conduct GoF research after the Obama admin banned it in 2014 – simply went ahead with it anyway.

  Critical Questions

  ‘Thank You, Dr. Fauci’ raises many critical questions that will come into focus next year under the gavel of Rand Paul:

  • Was the pandemic that killed millions and cost trillions of dollars the consequence of scientific arrogance and spy games?
  • How did the Anthrax hoax of 2001 create unchecked power for Anthony Fauci?
  • Why hasn’t Fauci ever acknowledged that hoax, which resulted in then-Vice President  Dick Cheney giving him billions to fund perhaps the most dangerous research on the planet?
  • What is the real purpose of Gain-of-Function research?
  • Are past outbreaks potentially scientific accidents which were covered up?
  • What is Long Covid, and why are people suffering vaccine injuries with similar symptoms?
  • Will a lab-generated Bird Flu be the next chapter?
  • Are nameless scientists – in the US, China or elsewhere – quietly working on a new global pandemic?

  Meanwhile, the intelligence community continues to cover up the origins of the pandemic, which is why widespread distribution of this work is that much more important.

  SENATE LETTER TO CIA IG: We have whistleblowers and IC is covering up how the pandemic began. Investigate and report back.

  CIA IG: I’m out of here. Save me, @POGOwatchdog! https://t.co/K7EbNV76Q7 https://t.co/w19TAduFXH pic.twitter.com/GzHhzkmTPH

  — Paul D. Thacker (@thackerpd) November 19, 2024

  Putting it all together, ​once the general public comes to understan that Covid was likely the product of US research offshored to a French-built lab in Wuhan, China, which resulted in millions of deaths and trillions in debt, not to mention runaway inflation which has crushed incumbent political powers around the globe, the charade will finally be over and the era of accountability must begin.

  Again, watch ‘Thank You Dr. Fauci’ here…

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 13:25

• How Crypto Won The 2024 Election
  How Crypto Won The 2024 Election

  Authored by Austin Alonzo via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Although President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican Party swept the 2024 general election, the cryptocurrency industry feels it is the real winner.

  

  Powered by donations from some of the biggest figures in cryptocurrency and venture capital, three political action committees poured more than $100 million into efforts to influence the 2024 election.

  “This election was a huge win for crypto,” co-founder and CEO of Coinbase Global Inc. Brian Armstrong wrote on Nov. 7 in an article on X.

  Coinbase, a cryptocurrency exchange founded in 2012, donated about $55 million to the super PAC Fairshake, according to Federal Election Commission records. Armstrong personally donated $1 million.

  As Armstrong wrote, the industry had much to celebrate in early November. It saw its preferred candidates take the White House and win key seats in both houses of Congress. He declared that the 119th Congress will be the “most pro-crypto Congress ever.”

  In his message, Coinbase’s leader wrote something that is usually implied but rarely said in the world of political spending, too.

  “[Washington] received a clear message that being anti-crypto is a good way to end your career,” Armstrong said.

  10 Cents to $89,000

  Twenty years ago, few people had heard of cryptocurrency—a term used to refer to decentralized digital currencies as opposed to central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) that are controlled and backed by a government or central bank. One week after the Nov. 5 election, a Bitcoin was trading for more than $89,000. Gold, by comparison, traded for about $2,600 an ounce on the same day.

  Between 2007 and 2009, a person or group known as Satoshi Nakamoto conceived of and launched Bitcoin. It was a new type of digital money secured via encryption technology. Unlike traditional currency, Bitcoin can transfer value online without a bank or a payment processor. It is not backed by any government, central bank fiat currency, or physical asset.

  Bitcoin began as an obscure novelty worth less than 10 cents per token. However, its price has exploded in the last decade, creating significant public interest in the digital asset. According to the crypto website Coinranking, as of Nov. 13, Bitcoin’s market capitalization was about $1.83 trillion.

  Nevertheless, public opinion polling shows that a majority of Americans are not confident in cryptocurrency as an investment. A Pew Research Center study published in October found that just 5 percent of the people it surveyed in February said they were “very” or “extremely” confident in the reliability and safety of cryptocurrency.

  

  The same report found that 17 percent of Americans have ever invested in, traded, or used a cryptocurrency. As an investment, about 38 percent of respondents said cryptocurrency has done “worse than expected.”

  Rick Claypool, the research director in the president’s office of Public Citizen, told The Epoch Times that cryptocurrency, generally, is an extremely volatile investment vehicle without any intrinsic value—one that is now very risky for the average investor.

  Public Citizen, founded in 1971, is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization. In May, it published a report describing the cryptocurrency industry’s investment in politics as part of a “strategy of combating enforcement crackdowns and designing a regulatory system that meets the industry’s specifications.”

  Regulators Take Aim

  The growing use of cryptocurrency over the last decade, and concern about the consumer risks, has led to a rush to begin regulating the fast-growing industry.

  The swift rise and fall of Sam Bankman-Fried and his cryptocurrency exchange FTX highlighted the potential for fraud in a lightly regulated sector of the economy.

  In March, Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison and ordered to pay $11 billion in forfeiture for what the U.S. Department of Justice called his “orchestration of multiple fraudulent schemes.” Bankman-Fried was accused of stealing more than $8 billion of his customer’s money through FTX and Alameda Research, a cryptocurrency trading firm he founded.

  Bankman-Fried was initially arrested in the Bahamas and extradited to the United States, where he was charged with multiple fraud offenses, in December 2022. FTX collapsed in November 2022.

  A year earlier, Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Gary Gensler asked the Senate’s Banking Housing and Urban Affairs Committee for additional resources to begin addressing regulatory concerns surrounding the cryptocurrency industry. In that testimony, he said the entire crypto asset class was “rife with fraud, scams, and abuse.”

  Under Gensler, who was appointed commissioner by President Joe Biden in April 2021, the SEC views most crypto assets as securities. Since 2022, the SEC has charged multiple firms with violating federal securities law by offering and selling unregistered securities.

  

  As recently as Oct. 9, when he appeared at a conference at the New York University School of Law, Gensler said he continues to view the crypto industry as a hotbed of “fraudsters,” “grifters,” and “scams.”

  Gensler’s actions made him the crypto industry’s top political enemy, Claypool said.

  Election Targets

  In 2024, the industry began spending on political causes through three linked committees: Fairshake, Defend American Jobs, and Protect Progress. Claypool said while these PACs were founded and funded by crypto, none of the advertisements and political messaging they paid for said anything about cryptocurrency or a candidate’s positions on financial regulations.

  Fairshake was launched in May 2023. According to federal records, within its first six months, it received donations of $1 million or more from Armstrong, Coinbase, and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz’s co-founders Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz. By the end of 2023, it had raised about $85.7 million.

  Representatives of Coinbase, Andreessen, and Horowitz did not respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

  According to its latest FEC disclosure, covering its activities through Oct. 16, the PAC raised about $118.4 million and spent about $153.3 million in 2024. Its top donors were Coinbase, executives at Andreessen Horowitz, and Ripple Labs Inc.

  Representatives of Ripple did not respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

  Fairshake’s most significant independent expenditures against a single candidate, totaling more than $10 million, went toward opposing Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) in her bid to replace outgoing Sen. Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.). Porter lost in the state’s Democratic Party primary to Senator-elect Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in March.

  Ahead of Porter’s primary, a new political group called the Stand With Crypto Alliance emerged. In its inaugural release, dated Feb. 7, Stand With Crypto said it planned to launch a “candidate questionnaire and voter education program” in California.

  Read the rest here…

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 12:50

• Mysterious Drone Swarms Detected Over UK Airbases Hosting US Stealth Jets
  Mysterious Drone Swarms Detected Over UK Airbases Hosting US Stealth Jets

  The growing presence of mysterious drone swarms at or near US military bases has become a significant cause for concern. Reports suggest these unmanned aerial systems have now been spotted over British military installations.

  The Guardian reports that drone swarms have been spotted over three UK airbases: RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk, and RAF Feltwell in Norfolk between last Wednseday and Friday.  

  The US 48th Fighter Wing is stationed at RAF Lakenheath. This base is home to the only F-15 wing in Europe, which includes two F-15E Strike Eagle squadrons and two F-35A Lightning II squadrons.

  

  A spokesperson for USAF in Europe said it is unclear if the drones were “considered hostile.” The spokesperson did not say if any counter-drone technologies were used during the incident but said the USAF retains “the right to protect” installations. 

  “We can confirm that small unmanned aerial systems [UASs] were spotted in the vicinity of and over RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall and RAF Feltwell between 20 and 22 November. The number of UASs fluctuated and they ranged in size [and] configuration.

  “The UASs were actively monitored and installation leaders determined that none of the incursions impacted base residents or critical infrastructure.

  “To protect operational security, we do not discuss our specific force protection measures but retain the right to protect the installation. We continue to monitor our airspace and are working with host-nation authorities and mission partners to ensure the safety of base personnel, facilities and assets,” the spokesperson said.

  The UK incident came just days after a drone swarm on Tuesday in Morris County, New Jersey, caused alarm because it was down the street from the military research and manufacturing facility Picatinny Arsenal.

  There have been other reports of drone swarms across some of America’s most sensitive national security sites, including Langley Air Force Base on Virginia’s shoreline late last year. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 12:15

• Waste Of The Day: Federal Dept. HHS Goes All-In On DEI
  Waste Of The Day: Federal Dept. HHS Goes All-In On DEI

  Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

  Topline: Under President Joe Biden, the Department of Health and Human Services has created a “diversity, equity and inclusion” infrastructure of dizzying complexity. 

  

  The agency’s 2025 budget request contains the word “equity” 829 times, adding onto a dollar total that is already impossible to fully tabulate.

  Key facts: HHS employed at least 294 DEI staffers at a cost of $38.7 million last year, according to a new report from OpenTheBooks.com. There were 247 with salaries above $100,000.

  It can be difficult to grasp just how bureaucratic HHS’ DEI system truly is. The agency-wide “Office of EEO, Diversity & Inclusion” has 92 employees. Within that are seven more DEI offices for specific health agencies like the Food and Drug Administration.

  

  Some of the smaller offices have several more divisions. The National Institutes of Health’s “Office of Equity, Diversity & Inclusion” has yet another “Diversity & Inclusion Division,” a marketing team, a customer outreach team and more.

  The DEI expenses do not stop there. 

  The agency has $5 million budgeted for its “Office of Climate Change and Health Equity” and the “Office of Environmental Justice.” Another $5 million will go toward “diversifying the doula workforce.”

  The Health Resources and Services Administration received $102 million this year for “training for diversity.” A third of it is to help universities “enhance the academic performance of minorities.”

  The NIH plans to spend $241 million over nine years on its FIRST program, which pays universities to weigh a candidate’s “commitment to diversity” as equal to their academic ability when hiring scientists. 

  Even the NIH’s $1.2 billion “Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies” program now has an “emphasis on diversity and inclusion in the research community,” according to its budget request.

  Search all federal, state and local government salaries and vendor spending with the AI search bot, Benjamin, at OpenTheBooks.com. 

  Background: DEI has also transformed HHS’ seven Offices of Minority Health, which have 207 employees earning $29.4 million in total. Add that to the $38.7 million from the general DEI staff at HHS, and pay is $68 million.

  The Offices of Minority Health have existed since 1985, but once Biden took office, he directed them to focus on “addressing historical and contemporary injustices.”

  Quickly, the Center for Disease Control’s Office of Minority Health renamed itself to the Office of Health Equity and “declared racism a serious public health threat.”

  Critical quote: “In medical research, lives depend on putting excellence first. The NIH distorts that value, subordinating it to political ideology and endangering those it’s supposed to serve,” National Association of Scholars fellow John Sailer wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

  Summary: Political agendas from the left or the right have no place in science and medicine. 

  The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 11:40

• Iran Announces Expanded Nuclear Enrichment After IAEA Rebuke
  Iran Announces Expanded Nuclear Enrichment After IAEA Rebuke

  Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

  In a 19-3 vote with 12 abstentions, the IAEA agreed to rebuke Iran for a “lack of cooperation.” The vote was driven by the US, UK, and their allies. Russia and China both voted against the resolution, along with Burkina Faso.

  The timing of the decision was particularly unfortunately, coming just days after IAEA chief Rafael Grossi’s visit to Iran, during which Iran agreed to measures designed to keep their stockpile of high-enriched uranium from growing. Iran also promised to ensure that it’s highest enrichment levels remain 60% or below, which is below the 90% level needed to make weapons.

  All that raised hope among officials actually invested in the safeguard efforts. The US-led effort for censure seems, as always, to underscore that Iran cannot take any steps that would satisfy them. Angered by the IAEA rebuke, Iran is promising a response.

  

  A joint statement by Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization and Foreign Ministry announced they will take new measures, including bringing newer, more advanced centrifuges online. Such moves would of course be reversible, if the international community became more willing to negotiate and comply with the existing P5+1 nuclear deal.

  That seems unlikely in the near term. Though the P5+1 deal is nominally still in effect, the US withdrew from it in 2018, after repeated condemnations by President Trump. Since

  Trump’s return to office in imminent, it seems unlikely that the administration will be any more willing to make a deal than they were the last time.

  Iran is trying to assure that the new measures are only related to enrichment, which again remains well below the level of weapons-grade uranium. The statement issued also assured that Iran will continue with safeguard and technical cooperation with the IAEA, as it had previously agreed.

  In the end, the IAEA censure is less about anything Iran is doing than about continuing the narrative of the “Iranian nuclear threat.”

  That this is the second time this year that the IAEA has voted on such a measure despite there being no real change in Iran’s policy or action.

  The deputy of the Iran’s AEO provided more details about Iran’s response to the resolution of the Board of Governors of the IAEA.

  ♨️ According to this report, Iran has launched a series of new and advanced centrifuges, increasing the capacity, level, and speed of enrichment. pic.twitter.com/YQCjzjEeim

  — IranView 24 (@IranView24) November 22, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The US intelligence community has repeatedly confirmed that Iran has not decided to make a nuclear weapon. Seemingly every Iranian earthquake leads hawks to speculate a secret detonation has taken place, however, and the fear-mongering continues.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/24/2024 – 10:30

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Taxpayer Funded Censorship: How Government Is Using Your Tax Dollars To Silence Your Voice
  Taxpayer Funded Censorship: How Government Is Using Your Tax Dollars To Silence Your Voice

  Submitted by Open the Books

  

  Campaign season brought with it a steady stream of accusations that various parties and platforms were spreading misinformation and disinformation.

  Most recently, the scandals at FEMA over avoiding homes with Trump signs was quickly slapped with a “misinformation” label…until FEMA itself admitted it had happened. MSNBC anchor Jen Psaki suggested “laws have to change” to combat the scourge.

  With the misinformation category being weaponized across the political spectrum, we took a look at how invested government has become in studying and “combatting” it using your tax dollars. That research can provide the intellectual ammunition to censor people online.

  Since 2021, the Biden-Harris administration has spent $267 million on research grants with the term “misinformation” in the proposal.

  Of course, the Covid pandemic was the driving force behind so much of the misinformation debate. Sure enough, the feds have spent at least $127 million in grants specifically targeted to study the spread of “misinformation” — or to help people “overcome” it, so to speak — by persuading them to go along with Covid-related public health recommendations and mandates.

  In one particularly brazen instance, $200,000 was spent slandering President-elect Trump himself. The grant resulted in a paper suggesting populist leaders and movements in various countries kept people from coming together in “solidarity” and public officials need to have the “main say” on health guidance next time.

  In other words, it would be better if your voice were silenced in favor of the “expert” class.

  BACKGROUND

  The COVID-19 pandemic instigated a rush of funding for research and projects addressing misinformation. At the time bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci contended that false information spread online undermined scientific recommendations coming from the government. Many of those government recommendations—vaccines for children, masking and double masking, and six feet for social distancing—have since been found to have dubious scientific basis.

  The federal government used both carrots and sticks, in the form of grants and censorious pressure campaigns, in the name of combating COVID misinformation. At the same time, it was working hand in glove with social media companies to silence critics of repressive COVID-19 policies.

  There is robust documentation by now proving that the Biden-Harris administration worked closely with social media companies to censor content deemed “misinformation,” which often included cases where people simply questioned or disagreed with the Administration’s COVID policies.

  Earlier this year the Supreme Court ruled that such activities did not violate the First Amendment, but Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted such pressure was “wrong;” Tesla CEO Elon Musk purchased Twitter (now X) in part because of the company’s extreme restrictions on speech during COVID.

  In February the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government issued a scathing report against the National Science Foundation (NSF) for funding grants supporting tools and processes that censor online speech.

  The report said, “the purpose of these taxpayer-funded projects is to develop artificial intelligence (AI)-powered censorship and propaganda tools that can be used by governments and Big Tech to shape public opinion by restricting certain viewpoints or promoting others.” $13 million was spent on the censorious technologies profiled in the report.

  While the NSF was singled out for particularly egregious ideology-driven behavior, the full universe of misinformation-related spending in the federal government is much larger and goes far beyond colluding with the tech sector to restrict opinions online.

  Federal spending records show at least $127 million tax dollars funding anti-misinformation efforts directly related to COVID-19 for a variety of activities, from on-the-ground advocacy working to dispel vaccine misinformation, to scientific studies on how supposed misinformation is spread online.

  The result of all this was a record loss of trust in science and government and compounding economic and social disasters that may never be able to be fully quantified.

  Learning to think critically and discern truth from lies is an important life skill, but the federal government has proven it is not capable of addressing that need responsibly. It’s the worst possible arbiter of truth, as it were, because it makes the state a gatekeeper of speech.

  BY THE NUMBERS

  Misinformation-related grants actually stretch back to FY2017 during the first Trump presidency. $273 million has been awarded for grant proposals containing the term since then—but there was an explosion of cash during the years-long Covid malaise. The vast majority of that figure ($267 million) was for grants that began in 2021 or later.

  METHODOLOGY NOTE: This likely does not cover all grants given to combat misinformation, because transaction descriptions may not include this keyword, but the trend in spending illustrates a sudden explosion of interest in misinformation starting in 2021.

  An enormous year-over-year jump in new grants occurred between 2020 and 2021—from $2.2 million to $126 million as the federal government poured money out to address COVID-related “misinformation,” among other projects.

  While spending has since slowed down, it is still far higher than it was pre-pandemic in 2020: $18.3 million in new grants began in FY 2024.

  

  Grants mostly came from the Department of Health and Human Services ($185 million), followed by the National Science Foundation ($65 million), with the Department of State ($12 million) in a distant third. CHART: Click here for a breakdown of misinformation spending by agency.

  An additional $17 million has awarded to misinformation-related contracts since 2020, and again, most of it ($12.5 million) was in FY 2021.

  WHAT IS MISINFORMATION, ANYWAY?

  According to the Department of Health and Human Services website:

  “Misinformation is information that is false, inaccurate, or misleading according to the best available evidence at the time.”

  The website goes on to detail supposed issues with COVID-19 related misinformation:

  “During the pandemic, health misinformation has led people to decline vaccines, reject public health measures, and use unproven treatments. Health misinformation has also led to harassment and violence against health workers, airline staff, and other frontline workers tasked with communicating evolving public health measures.”

  These definitions leave a lot of room for interpretation and abuse—who decides what the “best available evidence” is at any given time? And who decides which experts should be considered authoritative or not?

  Famously, then-National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease director Anthony Fauci promoted the notion that people should stand six feet apart from each other to achieve “social distancing” to reduce COVID transmission.

  In January of 2024 Fauci would admit to Congress that this recommendation had no scientific basis and “sort of just appeared.”

  The six feet social distancing rule was used to justify extended school and business closures, wreaking economic havoc and leading to tremendous learning losses for children.

  BACK TO THE START: MISINFO SPENDING UNDER TRUMP

  

  Before most of the furor, the Trump administration granted about $6.7 million in funding related to misinformation, the bulk of which were awarded in FY 2019 and 2020. Most of these grants—12 of the 16 total—funded technological developments to monitor social media and flag misinformation.

  The earliest one of these was awarded in 2017: $316,000 from National Science Foundation for “training computers and humans to detect misinformation by combining computational and theoretical analysis.”

  No such grants were given out domestically in 2018, but in 2019 over $2 million were awarded for projects with titles like “Online Dynamics of Misinformation” and “Social Media and Mass Communication: Curriculum Development to Combat Misinformation.”

  Spending stayed about the same at $1.7 million in FY 2020 for six projects, including two that directly address COVID:

  • $149,858 from National Science Foundation for “tracking and network analysis of the spread of misinformation regarding COVID-19.”

  • $104,491 from National Science Foundation for “countering COVID-19 misinformation via situation-aware visually informed treatment.”

  While this spending is a drop in the bucket for what was to come, the censorious ideology behind “misinformation” grants which were abused during the Biden-Harris administration first got traction under Trump.

  NEXT STEPS: CASH TO FIGHT COVID MISINFO

  When examining the number of projects on misinformation, most did not specifically relate to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many involved misinformation concerning HIV, the HPV vaccine, or the opioid epidemic, for instance. Multiple projects also addressed more obscure topics, like this $234,401 grant to “combat misinformation that negatively impacts public perception of crabbing and the commercial fishing industry.”

  But dollar for dollar, $127 million was directly related to COVID.

  Projects receiving funding generally comprised two categories:

  • Public-interfacing programs meant to mitigate the supposed impact of misinformation through on-the-ground advocacy

  • Scientific studies or conferences on how misinformation is spread

  ON-THE-GROUND ADVOCACY

  The federal government pumped millions of dollars into on-the-ground campaigns to “dispel” misinformation and convince people to take COVID-19 vaccines or otherwise comply with COVID policies. Some examples include:

  • $80,092,486, Department of Health and Human Services, National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, to build a network of nonprofits through which to disperse materials about COVID and flu vaccines. Project goals include “the design, development, and management of a searchable repository platform to house a multi-lingual inventory of communication materials and tools to support collaborative efforts to increase adult immunization.”

  • $2,000,000, Department of Health and Human Services, Durham County, NC. Proposed activities include “a mass media campaign, SMS distribution of health messaging, out-of-home advertising within targeted geofencing, coordinating existing networks of community health workers, expanding peer advocacy programs to address vaccine hesitancy, outreach to address health-related misinformation, mini-grants for native content development with accurate health messages, and a digital learning community to advance organizational health literacy.”

  • $1,293,614, Department of Health and Human Services, University of Iowa. To leverage trusted community members to address “disparities in COVID testing and vaccine uptake.”

  Other grants were revised to add an anti-misinformation component. For example, $150,000 was added to a $1.2 million grant from the Corporation for National and Community Service (also known as AmeriCorps) to nonprofit Seeds 4 Success.

  The original grant was to connect “foster grandparents” to children to serve as tutors and mentors. The revision stated the foster grandparent program will instead “dispel misinformation about COVID vaccination and help [the target community] see the benefits, especially vaccinating children when eligible, and help maximize contract tracing resources to ensure safety of the families we serve.”

  MISINFORMATION STUDIES

  Other funding went to researchers seeking to understand how supposed misinformation is shared online and how it can be combatted or mitigated using social or technological tools. Universities were often the recipient of such research spending.

  

  Although much of this research is academic, it is often intended to lay the groundwork for public interventions.

  Examples include:

  • $2,356,413, Department of Health and Human Services, University of Pennsylvania, for “investigating and identifying the heterogeneity in COVID-19 misinformation exposure on social media among black and rural communities to inform precision public health messaging” because “misinformation contributes to confusion, distrust, and distress around health behaviors such as vaccination, mask wearing, and social distancing.” In other words, they wanted to find the different messages and media various communities were receiving in order to tailor the government’s rebuttal.

  • $2,175,835, Department of Health and Human Services, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, for research on the “social processes and cognitive factors underlying misinformation comprehension” in social media. By developing an algorithm to automatically detect “intent and belief attributes underlying COVID-19 misinformation” researchers can develop computational infrastructure to mitigate the spread of that misinformation “easing public health burden and informing policy regulations as needed.”

  • $348,310, Department of Health and Human Services, Michigan State University, “to counteract the negative impact of misinformation on digital platforms that threatens public health.” The overall goal of the project is “to develop a publicly accessible vaccine informatics system to track vaccine debate, and to test the impact of vaccine debate… during the onset of a global pandemic.”

  OTHER GRANT EXAMPLES

  $200,000 to Slander a Political Opponent

  One notable research grant awarded to George Washington University in FY 2022 targeted former president Donald Trump. The study, called “Pandemic Communication in Time of Populism: Building Resilient Media and Ensuring Effective Pandemic Communication in Divided Societies” received a $199,516 grant from the National Science Foundation.

  Researchers on this Biden-era grant examined how so-called “populist” leaders supposedly prevented society from coming together in “solidarity” during the COVID pandemic. Trump’s presidency was a focus of the research, along with the leaders of three other countries.

  One researcher said in a video interview:

  “What went wrong in different ways in all these countries and in a lot of countries around the world that had populist governments…there was just this very high level of polarization and politicization of the pandemic response…and it really interfered with the ability of society to pull together in a consistent way and to get through the pandemic.”

  The research also concluded that “experts” should have the “main say” during the next public health crisis, with another investigator saying:

  “One of the recommendations stemming from our strand is related to who is in charge of disseminating information related to the public health crisis, in our view based on the data that we have, it’s obvious that governments should allow the experts to have the main say in how society should respond to public health crisis.”

  At the end of the video “climate change” is the next crisis these experts suggest requires strong public solidarity that populist leaders are incapable of creating.

  

  WILL THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THEMSELVES SPREAD MISINFORMATION?

  In a similar vein, $994,950 was awarded from the National Science Foundation to the National Academies of Science on “Understanding and Addressing Misinformation about Science.” This report was needed because, according to the grant description, “concern about the spread of misinformation and its role in undermining scientific expertise and facts in civic dialogue has grown significantly, especially over the last 5-10 years.”

  The report has yet to be published, but there is reason to suspect it will also lack introspection from its supposed expert panel of researchers.

  The chair of the research committee, Kasisomayajula Viswanath also worked on the report “Communication Strategies for Building October Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines: Addressing 2021 Variants and Childhood Vaccinations.”

  Viswanath said at the time to “continue to emphasize [to parents] how safe the vaccines are and how they are effective in preventing serious disease. More than 6 billion doses of vaccines have been given globally so far with very few serious adverse effects.”

  But as the New York Times reported in February 2024, many other countries no longer recommend or even offer COVID-19 vaccinations or boosters for children.

  The New York Times article suggested that U.S. Center for Disease Control’s recommendation for childhood vaccination diminishes the agency’s credibility, because, as other countries have concluded, the benefits of childhood COVID vaccines do not outweigh the costs.

  It remains to be seen if this misstep in COVID policy will be a part of the new $1 million report on how misinformation erodes public faith in “scientific expertise.”

  MISINFORMATION CONTRACT SPENDING

  As we’ve illustrated, public grants focused on “dispelling” misinformation with supposedly accurate information in order to coerce people into compliance with health policy directives.

  But beginning in 2020, contracts were often concerned with monitoring or eliminating supposed misinformation at its source.

  Because contract descriptions are frequently vague, it is unclear how many are directly related to COVID-19. Only one explicitly mentioned the pandemic in its contract transaction description.

  Examples of these misinformation contracts include:

  • $300,000, Department of Health and Human Services, Innov8AI, “capturing medical misinformation in social media for targeted interdiction using an advanced AI solution set.” [Interdiction means “to forbid in a usually formal or authoritative manner,” according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary.]
  • $300,000, Department of Health and Human Services, Melax Technologies, “real-time surveillance of vaccine misinformation from social media platforms using ontology and natural language processing technologies.” In other words, Melax would sort posts it deemed “misinformation” into categories to analyze.
  • $299,964, Department of Health and Human Services, Gryphon Scientific, “systematic understanding and elimination of misinformation online.”

  Other contracts raised eyebrows for different reasons:

  • $1,205,826 from Department of Homeland Security went to defense contractor  Guidehouse for “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation analysis.”

  NOTE: Malinformation is a controversial term for information that is true, but presented without sufficient context in a way that could mislead or harm. The opportunity to use this word to censor political or ideological opponents should be obvious.

  • As first reported in the Daily Caller, Meedan Inc received $749,974 from the National Science Foundation’s Convergence Accelerator in 2022 for “FACT CHAMP: fact-checker, academic, and community collaboration tools combating hate, abuse, and misinformation with minority led partnerships,” later re-branded as Co-Insights.

  The non-profit went on to receive $5 million more from NSF for the same project a year later.

  A press release states the project will “narrow the gap between research into misinformation and responses designed to curb it.”

  CONCLUSION

  In October the House Committee on Energy & Commerce’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations published a report outlining nearly $1 billion in spending on a vaccine promotional campaign. Despite this huge expenditure, the report notes that “the Campaign and the Biden Harris administration’s response to the pandemic resulted in a collapse of the public’s trust in public health messaging.” Report authors blamed flawed messaging about the effectiveness of masks, overstating the risk of COVID to children, and recommending vaccinations for all Americans over the age of 6 months.

  It appears the administration most concerned with “misinformation” itself trafficked in misinformation: on masks, on risks to children, on social distancing, and on the need to vaccinate even infants. At least one grant specifically targeted the sitting president’s main political rival.

  Americans simply cannot trust that continued grant and contract spending and various bureaucratic programmatic activities involved in “misinformation” will not be ideologically motivated to silence critics.

  Case in point: a $249,691 grant from the federal Institute of Museum and Library Services to the University of Washington to build and deploy an “online escape room hosted by librarians” to address misinformation. The grant also included a co-design camp around the far-left Black Lives Matter movement to “demonstrate use of the design kit for creating interest-driven escape rooms.” (Play the escape room here.)

  How much more misinformation spending is purely ideological or promoting contested or even false information?

  No doubt the internet is awash with patently false information that can confuse and needlessly alarm readers. So far it has been proven, however, that the federal government is not capable of addressing this issue objectively. It would be better to stop entirely than further undermine federal credibility with accusations of partisanship and First Amendment rights violations.

  The incoming Trump administration must end the government’s involvement in managing so-called misinformation, and Congress must keep the purse strings closed on this spending.

  Otherwise, taxpayers remain at risk of underwriting their own censorship.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 23:20

• Young Americans Are Turning Off The TV
  Young Americans Are Turning Off The TV

  As streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+ have taken over a huge chunk of TV consumption in the United States, traditional TV is finding itself under increased pressure to defend its place as the go-to medium for entertainment, distraction and information.

  And while people still spend a lot of time watching live and timeshifted TV on average, Statista’s Felix Richter notes that’s largely due to heavy TV usage by Americans aged 65 and above, who watch roughly 10 times as much traditional TV as young adults do.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  According to Nielsen, Americans aged 18 to 34 watch less than five hours of live and timeshifted TV per week.

  At the other end of the scale, those aged 65 and older watch more than 40 hours on average.

  Making this worse for the TV industry, there’s a growing share of young adults who don’t watch TV at all, as they get all they need from digital sources.

  According to Statista Consumer Insights, 50 percent of 18 to 24-year-olds in the U.S. say that they don’t watch any traditional TV, compared to just 29 percent of 55 to 64-year-olds.

  That share would likely be even lower for those aged 65 and older, but they have not been surveyed in this case.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 22:45

• China's New Port In Peru: A Strategic Threat To US Security
  China’s New Port In Peru: A Strategic Threat To US Security

  Authored by Antonio Graceffo via The Epoch Times,

  The new Chinese-controlled port in Peru is part of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s strategy to outflank the United States by establishing a maritime and land corridor linking China to Latin America.

  

  As the Biden administration winds to a close, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is aggressively expanding its influence in South America. On Nov. 14, Xi Jinping and Peruvian President Dina Boluarte inaugurated a $3.6 billion port in Chancay, Peru, marking another major step in China’s economic foothold in the region.

  Earlier this year, Boluarte traveled to Beijing to strengthen Sino–Peruvian ties, cementing Peru’s position as the second-largest recipient of Chinese foreign direct investment in Latin America. Notably, this includes China Southern Power Grid’s acquisition of Peru’s electricity distribution, placing 100 percent of this critical infrastructure under CCP control.

  In stark contrast, the White House failed to engage Boluarte during her 2023 visit to Washington, missing a key opportunity to counter Beijing’s growing influence. The port inauguration coincided with the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Lima, where U.S. President Joe Biden and leaders from 21 member economies convened. The timing underscores a stark reality: while the United States watched from the sidelines, the CCP was actively drawing Latin America deeper into its orbit, delivering a clear and humiliating message to the United States about its waning influence in the region.

  The Chinese shipping giant COSCO owns a 60 percent stake in Peru’s Chancay port, which will serve as a critical node in China’s Belt and Road Initiative and its first logistics hub in the Americas. Strategically positioned, the port grants China access to Peru’s abundant copper reserves—essential for dominating global markets in electric vehicles and data centers. Equipped with cutting-edge technology, including automated cranes and driverless electric trucks, the port’s scale and proximity to the United States have raised serious concerns about potential military use by the Chinese People’s Liberation Navy.

  Gen. Laura J. Richardson, then-commander of U.S. Southern Command, warned Congress that while the port is officially designated for commercial purposes, its size and capabilities could accommodate military assets, including combat vessels. She emphasized that China, as a strategic competitor, undermines international norms and democratic values in Latin America and the Caribbean. Through corruption, disinformation, cybercrime, and human rights abuses, the CCP bolsters authoritarian regimes in countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to further its geopolitical agenda.

  While China deepens its regional foothold, the United States has pressured Boluarte on human rights abuses and democratic violations, contrasting with Beijing’s hands-off approach. Beijing openly supported Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro after his contested election victory in July, despite widespread allegations of fraud by international observers. The fraudulent election sparked massive protests across Venezuela, met with a violent crackdown by Maduro’s regime. Security forces used tear gas, rubber bullets, and live ammunition to suppress dissent, resulting in at least 23 deaths and more than 2,200 arrests. The brutal suppression drew international condemnation, further isolating Maduro’s regime, yet China’s backing reinforced its alignment with authoritarian leaders in the region.

  China’s investments in dual-use infrastructure, such as ports, telecommunications, and space facilities, extend well beyond commercial purposes. Deep-water ports like the proposed maritime facilities in Argentina could serve as future naval access points for the People’s Liberation Army. These strategic installations, including projects near the Panama Canal and Antarctica, create chokepoints that enhance Beijing’s global power projection capabilities.

  These ports also enable the CCP to monitor U.S. naval and commercial ships, with the potential to restrict their access to vital waterways. Additionally, Chinese state-owned enterprises like Nuctech and ZPMC, which operate in Chancay and other Latin American and Caribbean ports, could leverage port scanning equipment and cargo cranes to gather sensitive commercial data from allies and adversaries alike. Similar concerns have been raised regarding Chinese-built ports in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, underscoring the broader risks of China’s expanding infrastructure network.

  In the Western Hemisphere, Chinese state-owned companies have financed, built, or now operate several key ports along strategic waterways, including the Panama Canal and the Caribbean Sea. In Argentina, China recently attempted to develop a naval base near the Strait of Magellan and Antarctica, but President Javier Milei opted in April to partner with the United States for the project instead.

  These Chinese-controlled ports pose significant challenges for U.S. military operations. In a potential conflict, such as one in the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea, the U.S. Navy may need to quickly move ships between the Atlantic and Pacific through critical chokepoints like the Panama Canal or the Strait of Magellan. Chinese companies managing these infrastructures could delay or obstruct U.S. movements.

  Major Chinese shipping and port management companies, including COSCO, operate under heavy influence from the CCP. With many top executives holding CCP membership and China’s 2017 National Security Law requiring companies to prioritize national security interests, the CCP wields significant control over these operations. This allows Beijing to strategically leverage these assets to support its geopolitical objectives.

  Telecommunications is another key area in which China has established a stronghold in Latin America. Companies like Huawei and ZTE have implemented network infrastructure across nearly every country in the region, raising serious cybersecurity concerns. Meanwhile, China has also expanded its presence in space, building at least 10 facilities in Latin America—the largest concentration outside its mainland. These installations bolster the People’s Liberation Army’s global surveillance and military capabilities, presenting a direct threat to U.S. security.

  Numerous Republicans, including former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), highlighted the urgent need to revive the Monroe Doctrine—a U.S. policy established in 1823 to oppose foreign interference in the Western Hemisphere—in response to mounting threats from the CCP. They warn that the Chinese regime is aggressively expanding its influence in Latin America, backing authoritarian regimes, infiltrating markets, and undermining regional sovereignty, posing a direct challenge to U.S. security.

  Risch called on the White House to recognize the stakes, as failure to act will leave the United States increasingly vulnerable. In his view, reviving the Monroe Doctrine isn’t just historical—it’s essential for modern security.

  Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 22:10

• Making America Great Again Means Fixing Its Dystopian Cities
  Making America Great Again Means Fixing Its Dystopian Cities

  Authored by Stephen Soukup via American Greatness,

  Of all the celebrities promising to leave the country if Donald Trump won this month’s election, at least one has already kept that promise and decamped to supposedly greener pastures. The actress and filmmaker Eva Longoria recently told Marie Claire that she, her husband, and her son now split their time between Spain and Mexico.

  “It just feels like this chapter in my life” – the chapter in which she is an American, apparently – “is done now.”

  

  On the one hand, it’s a bit surprising that one of the big-talking Hollywood leftists actually kept her promise and allowed politics to rule her life. On the other hand, if any of the Glitteratti were going to run from Donald Trump’s America, Longoria would be the one. She doesn’t just support Democratic politicians, after all. She has dedicated much of her adult life to their cause:

  In 2016, Longoria took to her bed after Trump prevailed. “I’ve never been depressed in my life,” she recalls…. Longoria spent the better part of this past summer campaigning for Kamala Harris. She rallied volunteers with Tim Walz. Countless celebrities endorsed the Democratic ticket, but Longoria is more than a famous surrogate. The Washington Post has called her a genuine “political power broker” for the “fierce and productive” work she has done to organize women and Latinos. The Texas Tribune profiled her efforts to recruit and support Hispanic Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.

  Needless to say, Longoria is all in on Democratic politics—which makes her reasons for leaving the United States all the more interesting. Although she tells Marie Claire that Trump was an issue for her, he wasn’t the only issue. Indeed, she and her family had moved out of the country before Trump even won the election on November 4. She gave up on this country for far different reasons. It’s “dystopian,” she says, and it’s been getting worse for some time: “I had my whole adult life here…But even before [the pandemic], it was changing. The vibe was different. And then COVID happened, and it pushed it over the edge. Whether it’s the homelessness or the taxes, not that I want to sh*t on California….”

  I’m not one to kick a gal when she’s down, but Longoria’s complaints about the United States—dystopian, homelessness, excessive taxes, etc.—have a familiar ring to them. Indeed, they sound a lot like the complaints registered by that other leftist icon…<>…Tucker Carlson?

  As you may recall, not quite nine months ago, Carlson won the enmity of both liberals and conservatives for saying that Moscow is “so much nicer than any city in my country.” Like Longoria, Carlson lamented the dystopian nature of much American life, complaining that “If you can’t use your subway, for example, as many people are afraid to in New York City because it’s too dangerous, you have to sort of wonder like, isn’t that the ultimate measure of leadership?” Unlike Longoria, however, Carlson didn’t give up on his country and exercised his “privilege” (her word, not mine) to abandon it. What he did was say that visiting other large cities in the world was “radicalizing” for an American because those cities, “no matter how we’re told they’re run and on what principles they’re run, are wonderful places to live….”

  As I say, Carlson was roundly criticized for his comments. Some of that criticism was entirely justified, although much of it was not. And in any case, Longoria will not be criticized at all for her statements, in part because she’s a leftist and, thus, above criticism, and in part because she, like Carlson, has a point. Public spaces in American cities are, in most cases, grotesque. That’s almost inarguable. Among other things, Tucker was bashed because he made what seemed to be a partisan argument. He was clearly and undeniably criticizing urban Democratic politics and policies. The irony here is that Longoria was too, although neither she nor any of her supporters and fans understand that.

  As Democrats continue their soul-searching, and as media and other analysts try to dissect the causes of the enormous Republican victory not quite two weeks ago, one lesson will likely go unlearned. The American people really do want their country to be great again. To them, that doesn’t mean that the United States should be an omnipotent global colossus, striding the globe, enforcing its will on everyone and everything. And it doesn’t mean that Americans should win every gold medal at every Olympics or every Nobel Prize or anything like that. Americans just want their country to work again. They just want their cities to function. They want to be able to build homes or power plants or new factories without having to spend countless months and endless resources complying with arcane and ridiculous regulations. They want their country to look and feel and operate like a normal place again.

  For at least the last 60 years, American cities have been governed not for the benefit of their residents but for the benefit of political power consolidation. Cities are managed specifically to ensure the application of ideological principles and the maintenance of the partisan status quo. In other words, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco (and practically every city in between) are experiments in liberal-left policies and Democratic machine politics. They are run of, by, and for the machines and their ideological solons, not for the people who live there.

  Sometimes, on very rare occasions, cities can break out of this politicized rut, electing new leaders with new ideas—Rudy Giuliani, for example—who change the entire spirit of the metropolis. In time, however, even these breakout efforts fall victim to ideological sniping and partisan grift, leaving the city polarized, politicized, and further degraded.

  Eva Longoria doesn’t know this, but she’s not leaving the United States because of Donald Trump. She’s leaving because of Gavin Newsom, Karen Bass, London Breed, and all the rest of the party-machine politicians, who see this nation’s cities and states not as places where people live and desire to live well but as opportunities to ply their ideological biases and fulfill their personal ambitions.

  Donald Trump is not the dictator his detractors want us all to believe he is. But even if he were, there is nothing he could do to the people of San Francisco that is worse than what London Breed, Edwin Lee, and Gavin Newsom have done to them. There is nothing he could do to the people of Chicago that is worse than what Brandon Johnson and Lori Lightfoot have done to them. There is nothing he could do to the people of New York that is worse than what Eric Adams and Bill DeBlasio have done to them.

  So go, Ms. Longoria. Go use your privilege to start the next “chapter” in your life. Go use your privilege to escape the dystopian nightmare of American cities. But as you go, understand that the problems with America and its cities are less about Donald Trump and his indiscretions than about people, like you, who abhor the outcomes of certain ideologies and policies and yet vote for them—and even campaign aggressively for them—time and time again.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 21:35

• Terror To The South: Hezbollah In Latin America
  Terror To The South: Hezbollah In Latin America

  Authored by Matias Ahrensdorf & Santiago Vidal Calvo via RealClearDefense,

  The reelection of Donald Trump has sent ripples across terror-supporting and anti-Israel regimes. In the Middle East, Qatar claimed it would rescind its longtime asylum for Hamas leadership, and Iran is reportedly recalibrating its retaliation for Israel’s recent airstrikes. But the new Trump Administration should also be focusing on Latin America, where complicit nations have enabled Hezbollah to thrive. The U.S. must curtail Hezbollah’s active regional fundraising which not only supports attacks against Israel but transnational criminal activity, including bringing drugs and potential terrorists across America’s southern border. 

  

  Both Luis Arce, socialist president of Bolivia, and Nicolas Maduro, the authoritarian president of Venezuela, have not only made horrifically antisemitic comments, but completely severed diplomatic ties with Israel. Maduro mourned the death of terrorist and Hezbollah founding member, Hassan Nasrallah, expressing support for the terror group while condemning Israel.    

  In the early 90’s, Hezbollah bombed the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and two years later the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) Jewish cultural center. In November of 2023, police in Brazil foiled plans for a major terrorist attack on multiple Jewish targets in the country—home of Latin America’s second largest Jewish population second only to Argentina.     

  Hezbollah’s patron, the Islamic Republic of Iran, facilitates Hezbollah’s presence in Latin America by building advantageous relationships with authoritarian-leaning countries in the region.    

  In July of 2023, the BBC reported that Iran and Bolivia signed a bilateral agreement to expand “cooperation in the fields of security and defense.” The Iranian defense minister, Mohamed Reza Ashtiani, acknowledged that the deal involved “the sale of equipment and the training of personnel,” including the purchase of Iranian drones by Bolivia. Iran and Venezuela signed a 20-year cooperation agreement in 2022 to increase ties in the oil, petrochemical, economic, and military sectors.     

  Bolivia and Venezuela are rich in uranium and other resources. In 2009, Iran helped Venezuelan engineers with “geophysical aerial probes and geochemical analyses (to find) uranium deposits” as reported by EcoAmericas. By contrast, while the presence of uranium deposits is known in Bolivia, the government has labeled information on the topic as ”reserved”, meaning the location, size, and potential for mining are not publicly disclosed. Around the same time Venezuela and Bolivia had discovered uranium deposits in their regions, a secret Israeli government report obtained by AP news found that: “Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying Iran with uranium for its nuclear program.” In fact, in late October 2024, Bolivia produced its first nuclear fuel for a research reactor.

  Furthermore, both countries are linked with narcotrafficking markets, in which Hezbollah and other terrorist groups are involved. Historically, Bolivia is one of the largest producers of the coca leaf. Due to its abundance, Bolivia naturally played a large role in the Latin America drug trade and supplied an estimated 15% of the cocaine market in the United States during the 1980’s. According to a 2022 White House press release, Bolivia’s steadily growing cocaine production poses a public health threat to the U.S. due to increasing cocaine related overdoses. As of 2009, Bolivia’s president at the time Evo Morales, expelled the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) from the country after nearly three decades of maintaining a presence.

  Venezuela is also involved in the cocaine market. Through collaboration with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a known Hezbollah ally, Venezuela serves as a main export hub for cocaine into the United States and Europe. Early in the Biden Administration, the U.S. Department of Justice announced several narcoterrorism indictments against the Maduro regime, including Nicolás Maduro himself, for conspiring with FARC to facilitate and profit from the cocaine trade.     

  In March of 2020, former Venezuelan-Syrian politician, Adel El Zabayar, was indicted by the Justice Department for conspiring with Nicolas Maduro and other regime leaders in a narcoterrorism plot involving Colombian FARC dissidents, Mexican drug cartels, and operatives from Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah to carry out planned attacks on the United States. Last month, Mijal Gur Aryeh, Israel’s Ambassador to Costa Rica, condemned Venezuela and Bolivia for hosting Hezbollah and Iranian terrorists. Earlier this year, Patricia Bullrich, the Security Minister of Argentina, also made the claim that “Bolivia hosts hundreds of members of the Quds Force,” a branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

  People on terrorist watchlists have been apprehended at the southern border of the United States, and at least one Hezbollah operative attempting to enter the country illegally. Since the October 7th attack on Israel, Hezbollah has launched over 8,000 rockets at the Jewish state, causing “over 70,000” Israeli’s to evacuate their homes.    

  Hezbollah’s presence in Latin America should alarm Western defense officials. While the terrorist organization continues to volley missiles at Israel daily, it is also increasing its involvement in transnational criminal activity, as its financiers the Islamic Republic of Iran increases its influence in the region. The incoming Trump Administration, with newly appointed Secretary of State Marco Rubio—an unyielding opponent of repressive regimes—should work closely with its Latin American allies and Israel to destroy Hezbollah’s fundraising in the region  which not only enables terrorist activity in the Middle East, but also threatens the southern border with illicit drugs and potential terrorism.  

  Matias Ahrensdorf – Data Analyst for Policy and Research in New York City.

  Santiago Vidal Calvo– Tech and Public Policy Scholar and master’s student at Georgetown University.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 21:00

• 'Terminator' Robot Dog Now Equipped With Amphibious Capabilities 
  ‘Terminator’ Robot Dog Now Equipped With Amphibious Capabilities 

  The use of robotic dogs on modern battlefields in Eastern Europe and the Middle East has expanded rapidly. Over the past decade, we have thoroughly documented their growing presence and proliferation.

  The latest quadruped robot designed for modern warfare is the Ghost Robotics V60. However, this is far from a typical robotic dog. A separate defense firm, Onyx Industries, has equipped the V60 with an autonomous maritime mobility system, enabling it to navigate rough terrain and traverse bodies of water—all while carrying a machine gun.

  

  Last month, Onyx shared a short video on YouTube showcasing the V60’s maritime mobility system in action.

  “We’re incredibly excited to share the next evolution of our systems—NAUT amphibious capabilities with SENTRY kinetic and ISR payloads. This integration on the Ghost Robotics V60 is just one example of the many options available,” Onyx stated in the video’s description.

  On a separate note, we recently highlighted the terrifying capabilities of Deep Robotics’ quadruped robot, which is equipped with wheels. Its mobility is nothing short of alarming.

  The ever-increasing capabilities of these robotic dogs are becoming deeply concerning.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 20:25

• Maddow Hit With $5 Million Pay-Cut As Musk, Trump Jr Joke About Buying MSNBC
  Maddow Hit With $5 Million Pay-Cut As Musk, Trump Jr Joke About Buying MSNBC

  The left-wing cable news channel MSNBC has reportedly cut the salary of one of its top hosts, Rachel Maddow, by a staggering $5 million as the network suffers from ongoing financial problems and a steep decline in ratings.

  As reported by the New York Post, Maddow saw her salary fall from $30 million to $25 million during her contract renegotiations this month. Her show, “The Rachel Maddow Show,” airs weekly on Mondays. Her show has been highlighted as one of the few on the network that is still doing well with viewership in the weeks since the 2024 election.

  “This is a difficult time and they needed to keep her,” said one anonymous executive. “No one else can do what she does. You can’t build a brand like it overnight.”

  As Eric Lendrum writes at American Greatness, the report comes after the news that MSNBC’s parent company Comcast has decided to spin off all of its cable news channels by the end of 2025, as the cable news sector struggles to earn money in comparison to Comcast’s other properties. As such, MSNBC will be split off from NBC News, a move that could force MSNBC to change its name, logo, and headquarters, as well as lay off many employees.

  As part of Maddow’s new deal, she will be allowed to continue producing podcasts and documentaries in addition to her weekly show every Monday. She will also be utilized for breaking news segments during other shows, due to her popularity with MSNBC’s shrinking audience.

  In the period of just over two weeks since the 2024 election on November 5th, MSNBC’s ratings have plunged by 54%. Their Nielsen ratings are down 40% year-over-year.

  “We were so Harris propaganda that when she lost, viewers were shocked,” said one anonymous MSNBC commentator.

  “It turned into one giant echo chamber. If MSNBC wants to be of service to its viewers, they can’t keep them in fantasy land.”

  But the story has a risible ending, as Donald Trump Jr. and Tesla owner Elon Musk joked around on social media about potentially purchasing MSNBC.

  “Hey @elonmusk I have the funniest idea ever!!!” Trump Jr. tweeted in response to the news of Comcast spinning off its news units (including MSNBC). 

  “How much does it cost?” Musk said in response.

  

  Later Musk said that the outcome would be very “entertaining” if he actually purchased the outlet. 

  Popular podcaster Joe Rogan later chimed into the banter, saying he would like to replace news host Rachel Maddow. 

  “If you buy MSNBC I would like Rachael [sic] Maddow’s job. I will wear the same outfit and glasses, and I will tell the same lies,” Rogan said.

  “Deal,” Musk responded.

  Elsewhere on MSNBC, “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski have faced backlash from the far-left for their recent decision to meet with President-elect Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

  They expressed an interest in restoring communications with the 45th and soon-to-be 47th President, even despite their ideological disagreements.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 19:15

• What Lessons Will Shapiro Take From The 2024 Election?
  What Lessons Will Shapiro Take From The 2024 Election?

  Authored by Guy Ciarrocchi via RealClearPennsylvania,

  Gov. Josh Shapiro was almost selected as Kamala Harris’s running mate, and he wants to be president more than Phillies fans want to win the World Series. As he reflects on the 2024 election, what does he see? How will the lessons he draws affect his governorship, his budget, and how he leads the state?

  

  Donald Trump carried Pennsylvania, all of the “blue wall” states, and a majority of the popular vote. Incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris – with over $1 billion in campaign cash and the open support of most of legacy media and Hollywood – got less votes than her boss did in 2020.

  Pennsylvania Republican Dave McCormick defeated 18-year incumbent U.S. Sen. Bob Casey. Every other statewide Republican won election, too. The GOP now holds more statewide offices than the Democrats for the first time in a generation.

  Two Pennsylvania Republican challengers defeated Democratic incumbent members of Congress, while the top Republican incumbent targeted by Democrats – Scott Perry – survived.

  The 50-seat Pennsylvania State Senate remains in the GOP’s possession at 28-22, with a new, 29-year-old member from Philadelphia, of all places. The Pennsylvania House stands at 102-101, Democrats. They owe this narrow advantage to spending nearly $5 million to hold on to a statehouse seat in rural Cambria County, a campaign in which they alleged that the 16-year incumbent Democratic member loved Donald Trump more than the Republican challenger.

  We’re getting a sense of what Shapiro thinks he needs to do to become president. The normally gregarious, loquacious governor has lately been quieter than Calvin Coolidge. Thirteen days after the election, after the Democrat-controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Casey’s legal arguments – and the actions of Democratic county commissioners – were in violation of state law, Shapiro issued a written statement. He advised county officials to follow the law but did not ask Casey to concede.

  Most national Democrat leaders and elected officials – and the ladies on The View – argue that Harris lost because most Americans are misinformed or are bigots or misogynists. (That would be news to the millions of blacks, Hispanics and Jewish voters who voted Republican, and the white voters who don’t see themselves as morally bankrupt, either.) Governor, is it the voters’ fault that Harris lost?

  Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have suggested that national Democrats forgot working-class people. Any thoughts, governor?

  National activists and television commentators have suggested that the Democrats need to recommit to progressive policy positions. Maybe Democrats did a poor job of explaining why these polices are desirable. What do you think, governor?

  Most Pennsylvanians don’t care much about post-election analysis at this point. We’re more interested in what Shapiro will do next as governor. Several upcoming decisions will show where he stands. Will he appease the far-left activists in his party, or build bridges to the GOP? Will he refocus on working-class families?

  His 2024 budget grew faster than inflation. Will he try to spend his way to reelection – and perhaps to the White House – or will he be more fiscally conservative in 2025?

  Will 2025 be the year that Shapiro includes scholarships/family-tax-credits in his budget, or will he leave them out – again? In 2024, he cut cyber charter school funding. In the battle of students versus the teachers’ union, who will he support?

  Pennsylvania’s business taxes are among the nation’s highest. Shapiro has pledged to cut them. Will he follow through?

  Small businesses need regulatory reform and tax relief. Will Shapiro move beyond press conferences and embrace true regulatory relief – like “deemed approved” swift green-lighting of applications for licenses and permits? Will he go further to help start new businesses by eliminating licensing for entrepreneurs? Or will he try to buy off would-be entrepreneurs as Harris did, by offering “free” taxpayer money?

  Pennsylvania is home to more natural gas reserves than Saudi Arabia has in oil. Harris talked about banning fracking, then retracted that pledge, then seemed to backtrack again. What does Shapiro think? Will he enforce policies to get our low-cost, clean-burning natural gas out of the ground and into Pennsylvania homes and businesses? Will he support President-elect Trump’s plan to let Pennsylvanians sell liquified natural gas to our European allies, creating jobs and generating tax revenue, while keeping Russian gas out of Poland, Germany, and France?

  Will he give up on his unnecessary, wasteful “green energy” dreams (“PRESS” and “PACER”) – using taxpayer money to subsidize unreliable energy sources, forcing Pennsylvanians to import Chinese materials and green energy products, and thus increasing the cost to heat our homes and operate our factories? Or will he choose common sense, realizing that his green initiative is too costly and creates a disincentive to use the almost-limitless supply of natural gas that lies beneath our feet?

  Will he govern and run for reelection – and eventually for president – as the governor who rescued children from failing schools, helped small businesses grow, and unleashed Pennsylvania’s energy assets? Or, does he see himself as the savior – the superior messenger – of the same left-wing policies that led his party to defeat?

  What message did Shapiro hear from the 2024 election results? Pennsylvanians want to know.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 18:40

• US Adoptions From Abroad Are Declining
  US Adoptions From Abroad Are Declining

  The number of children adopted from abroad is declining in the United States, according to data from the U.S. Department of State. As Statista’s Anna Fleck details below, where more than 12,700 children were adopted internationally in 2009, that figure has dropped to under 1,300 in 2023.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  This is due to several reasons.

  For example, although the U.S. signed the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption in 1994, it wasn’t until 2008 that it came fully into effect there. Designed to ensure more ethical intercountry adoptions and to prevent the abduction, sale of, or trafficking in children, the Convention requires proof that each given child has been deemed eligible for adoption by the child’s country of origin and that due consideration has been given to finding an adoption placement for the child in its country of origin. Each adoption agency must also be accredited or approved on a Federal level. According to Adoption.com, while the Hague Convention is beneficial it has also led to increased waiting times and fees, with many poorer countries unable to meet standards.

  Looking more closely at country specific examples, Guatemala is frequently held up as an example of what can go wrong when adoptions are commercialized and ethics disregarded, with stories of corruption and of children being kidnapped to then be adopted. These findings led Guatemala to placing a moratorium on new intercountry adoptions in 2008 until a Hague-compliant adoption process could be created and implemented. Until that point, Guatemala had been the only country worldwide to allow fully privatized adoptions, and in 2008 accounted for the second largest group of international adoptees after China.

  In the last two and a half decades, more children from China have been coming to the U.S. as adoptees. Between 1999 and 2023, they numbered almost 83,000 compared with 46,000 from Russia, 30,000 from Guatemala, 21,500 adoptees from South Korea, 16,000 from Ethiopia and 12,000 from Ukraine. China stopped international adoptions during the pandemic, resuming the practice again in 2023, when 16 children were adopted in the U.S. However, this figure is set to fall to zero once more, following an announcement from Beijing that the country will no longer be facilitating intercountry adoptions unless to blood relatives. The move takes place in a country experiencing a shrinking and aging population with a falling birth rate.

  International politics also play a role in the global flows of adoption. This is the case with Russia, which banned adoptions by U.S. parents in 2012 in retaliation to the U.S.’ Magnitsky Act, which had sanctioned Russian officials and nationals for human rights abuses.

  As the chart above shows, where 1,588 Russian children were adopted in 2009, this fell to 0 in 2015, with no children having been adopted from the country since.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 18:05

• Trump Names Billionaire Scott Bessent As Treasury Secretary
  Trump Names Billionaire Scott Bessent As Treasury Secretary

  After Trump appointed Howard Lutnick as Commerce Secretary and Kevin Warsh was clearly being groomed as Powell’s replacement at the Fed, it was just a matter of time before the most important appointment in the Trump admin was made. That happened late on Friday when president-elect Donald Trump nominated Scott Bessent to lead the Department of the Treasury, ending days of speculation after other names emerged as competitors to the reported favorite.

  

  “Scott is widely respected as one of the world’s foremost international investors and geopolitical and economic strategists. Scott’s story is that of the American Dream,” Trump said in a statement on the nomination.

  

  Bessent, 62, is a Wall Street veteran who once worked for George Soros, and founder of international macro investment company Key Square Group. He served as a key economic adviser to Trump’s 2024 campaign.

  Others contenders for the role included Howard Lutnick, the chairman and CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald and BGC Partners. He co-chairs the Trump–Vance transition team, which is in charge of selecting administration candidates, vetting personnel, and crafting policy. Lutnick was ultimately chosen on Nov. 19 to lead the Department of Commerce.

  Kevin Warsh, 54, a former Morgan Stanley banker and former Federal Reserve Board governor, likewise entered the conversation. He became the leading candidate for treasury secretary on the betting website Polymarket after reports emerged that the president-elect was expanding his search to fill the position.

  In his statement on Bessent’s nomination, Trump said that economic policy under his administration would maintain the U.S. dollar’s reserve currency status, fortify the United States’s position as the world’s strongest economy, and invigorate the private sector.

  “As a lifelong champion of Main Street America and American industry, Scott will support my policies that will drive U.S. competitiveness, and stop unfair trade imbalances, work to create an economy that places growth at the forefront, especially through our coming world energy dominance,” Trump said.

  The president-elect also noted Bessent’s deep family roots in South Carolina, saying that he belongs to a historic French Huguenot Church, which members of his family founded in the 1680s, in the port city of Charleston.

  Like his predecessors, Bessent will now oversee a vast portfolio to employ the president’s economic agenda.

  As the Epoch Times notes, the two immediate issues Bessent will grapple with will be averting a default as the national debt ceiling limit will expire on Jan. 1, 2025, and extending the Trump-era Tax Cuts and Jobs Act due to expire at the end of next year.

  More importantly, Bessent will also be tasked with the delicate, if not conflicting, job of championing Trump’s trade proposals, including across-the-board tariffs, on one hand, while keeping the debt and deficit in check and preventing bond yields and the dollar from rising too high, too fast, as an even more rapid tightening in financial conditions will surely tip the US economy into recession.

  Bessent previously told CNBC he preferred trade levies to be imposed gradually to ensure higher prices appear over time and allow disinflationary policies to offset tariffs. Additionally, the hedge fund manager has professed support for broad-based tariffs that he believes are “more effective than microeconomic interventions like industrial policy that generally rely on the government to pick winners and losers,” as he wrote in an opinion published by The Economist in October.

  Cryptocurrency could be another area that Bessent – and Trump who has transformed from a rabid crypto skeptic into one of the most ardent fans of bitcoin – will home in on.

  “I have been excited about the president’s embrace of crypto and I think it fits very well with the Republican Party, crypto is about freedom and the crypto economy is here to stay,” he stated in an interview with Fox News earlier this year.

  Here are the full comments on #crypto and #bitcoin Bessent made on @FoxBusiness in July. https://t.co/3O09jKZLJD pic.twitter.com/ggeLHs5JVc

  — Eleanor Terrett (@EleanorTerrett) November 12, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  If confirmed by the Senate in January, Bessent will succeed Janet Yellen. Steven Mnuchin served as Trump’s Treasury secretary during his first term.

  Following Trump’s victory earlier this month, Bessent wrote in The Wall Street Journal that the financial markets were celebrating “the Trump 2.0 economic vision.”

  “Markets are signaling expectations of higher growth, lower volatility and inflation, and a revitalized economy for all Americans,” Bessent wrote.

  Bessent has received support from several prominent Wall Street individuals, including Kyle Bass, the founder of the Dallas-based Hayman Capital Management. “He has a masterful knowledge of the architecture of the global financial system and its players,” Bass told The Epoch Times.

  The hedge fund investor, Bass said, has invested across the globe, formed relationships with global finance ministers and central bankers, and understands financial markets. “Scott is by far the best candidate for the job as Secretary,” Bass said.

  Billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller recently told Axios that Bessent is “not only a market participant but very fluent and comfortable in academic circles.”

  The announcement of the Treasury secretary role was one of the most eagerly awaited decisions among Trump’s cabinet picks, sparking a wide range of reactions on social media platform X.

  Eric Wallerstein, chief markets strategist at Yardeni, praised Scott Bessent, stating, “Bessent is the only candidate who specifically addresses Treasury’s faulty debt management strategy. the best candidate for the job.”

  Even warhawk neocon Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) expressed support on X, saying, Trump’s economic agenda is “in good hands with Scott Bessent.”

  “He is a great combination of being academically gifted and real world tested,” Graham wrote.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 17:30

• With Or Without Tariffs, The US Dollar Is A Ponzi
  With Or Without Tariffs, The US Dollar Is A Ponzi

  Via SchiffGold.com,

  With soaring deficits, soaring debt, and interest payments that can only be made by issuing a debt-based currency on which even more interest will be due, the USD can only possibly be described as an elaborate nation-state level bankster Ponzi scheme. 

  

  Dollars are backed by debt, which requires infinite economic growth to service. 

  Without constant inflation to erode the debt’s value, transferring wealth from savers to the government and bankers, it all falls apart. 

  Without new borrowers to sustain current spending, it all falls apart.

  Without a petrodollar system where the USD is no longer the world reserve currency, and other countries no longer are forced at gunpoint to use dollars, it all falls apart.

  Just as a Ponzi scheme collapses when enough investors lose confidence in it, because there’s no underlying value and not enough new suckers to pay back previous waves of investors, the USD collapses under the same scenario.

  And while I see the surface-level, superficial appeal of president-elect Donald Trump’s plan to replace the income tax with tariffs, there’s (at least) one very big problem. We’re in a country that, for decades, hasn’t had a manufacturing base, making the economic viability of the plan incredibly questionable. Even if it somehow worked, it wouldn’t solve the problem of the world’s largest economies being based on glorified, state-sanctioned Ponzi schemes.

  Until we revert back to dollars that are pegged to something of real value, like gold, the scam will continue. And it’s gone on for so long that tremendous economic pain is now a prerequisite for weaning ourselves off of it. Just as a Ponzi scheme collapsing harms everyone unlucky enough to be involved, the unwinding of the petrodollar USD Ponzi will hurt every American and, indeed, people all around the world as it reels under the chaos of the realization that the dollar was hollow all along, and the line of new suckers to buy US debt has officially dried up.

  

  Total Public Debt, U.S.

  With 10-year Treasury yields rising and major pressure on interest rates to go higher, the Fed and Trump are desperate to keep them low. But at $35 trillion, our debt bomb isn’t going away, and the deficit isn’t going anywhere. A heavier interest payment burden and QE are going to blow the USD Ponzi balloon bigger and bigger, so the only question will be when it pops.

  Painful as the explosion will be, it’s unavoidable and necessary, and will only be more severe the longer the Ponzi goes on. Just as more investors get hurt, and more spectacularly so, when a Ponzi is able to grow larger, the US dollar collapse will be more painful the longer the can is kicked down the road. This reset will be an opportunity to go back to sound money, but as in the 2008 crisis, the same elites that caused it will try to exploit it as an opportunity to implement an increasingly centralized system that gives them even more control.

  Unfortunately, we’re past the event horizon for the Ponzi. Past the point of no return. No amount of economic tinkering, even of the right sort and on a big-enough scale, from Trump or anyone else, can reverse or solve the problem without a major implosion causing terrible pain across the economy. Gold is one way to protect yourself from the fallout, but when it comes crashing down, no one will be immune to the effects of such a spectacular burst.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 17:30

• Winter Storm Threat Looms Over Thanksgiving Travel Week In Mid-Atlantic & Northeast
  Winter Storm Threat Looms Over Thanksgiving Travel Week In Mid-Atlantic & Northeast

  While folks across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast are still recovering from the snow and rain storm that swept through the region late last week, another storm might impact the Interstate 95 highway network between Washington, DC, and New York City just ahead of the Thanksgiving travel holiday. 

  Private weather forecaster BAMWX wrote on X that over 100 blended weather model ensembles show a potential winter storm traversing the Mid-Alantic area into parts of the Northeast around Thanksgiving.

  “Right now a multi model probability % forecast for #thanksgiving is starting to indicate a risk for 4″ + snow Wednesday into Thursday,” BAMWX said. 

  Here at BAM our data in Clarity takes a blend of well over 100 different weather model ensembles.

  We then create probability maps to look at possible threats and the odds of them.

  Right now a multi model probability % forecast for #thanksgiving is starting to indicate a risk… pic.twitter.com/hdueFUdPuv

  — BAM Weather (BAMWX) (@bamwxcom) November 23, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  In a separate note, FOX Weather meteorologist Cody Braud told NYPost, “There is 100% going to be a system knocking on our door, we just don’t quite know the timing yet.” 

  “I would plan for a really bad travel day Friday, because that low is likely going to be just offshore, bringing strong winds, rain, probably snow,” Braud noted.

  Trans-Siberian Express?? 

  00z EPS is “orchestrating” a Trans-Siberian Express as we head into the post Thanksgiving Day timeframe and into the 1st week of December. Early #winter weather for the East?? Haven’t seen that in awhile!! @weatherchannel @spann @JimCantore pic.twitter.com/1ML9f4zOo4

  — Tom Niziol (@TomNiziol) November 23, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Great news for NatGas prices.

  NatGas Hits Highest Price In Year On “Very Cold Pattern Developing” Across Lower 48 https://t.co/zxmJIbJVac

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 21, 2024

  The threat of winter weather across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast coincides with AAA’s forecast that 79.9 million people will travel at least 50 miles from their homes during the Thanksgiving holiday travel period.

  “Thanksgiving is the busiest holiday for travel, and this year we’re expecting to set new records across the board, from driving to flying and cruising,” Stacey Barber, Vice President of AAA Travel, wrote in a note last week.

  

  Keep an eye on the weather models as we approach the travel holiday week.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 16:55

• Trump Plans To Use Impoundment To Cut Spending – What Is It?
  Trump Plans To Use Impoundment To Cut Spending – What Is It?

  Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  President-elect Donald Trump has said he intends to cut government spending by reasserting the presidential power of impoundment, a move certain to spark a court battle and one that could redefine presidential power for decades to come.

  

  Impoundment occurs when the president chooses not to disburse funds authorized by Congress; instead leaving them unspent in the U.S. Treasury.

  This power is not mentioned in the Constitution but has been employed by presidents since Thomas Jefferson. Congress enacted limits on the practice 50 years ago.

  Now, Trump intends to challenge the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA), which he believes is unconstitutional.

  “I will use the president’s long-recognized Impoundment Power to squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings,” Trump said when announcing his plan in June 2023.

  Others say the ICA was needed to prevent the misuse of impoundment to alter congressional spending priorities, not merely eliminate waste.

  Expanded use of impoundment power seems certain to be challenged in court.

  Resolution is likely to hinge on two constitutional questions that define the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.

  Jefferson appears to have been the first to use impoundment.

  In 1803 he delayed purchasing gunboats to patrol the Mississippi River because they were no longer needed after the United States acquired the Louisiana Territory from France.

  Since then, most presidents appear to have used the practice from time to time, and usually because the spending was no longer in the public interest.

  President Ulysses S. Grant used impoundment to prevent federal funds from being used on river or harbor projects that would benefit private parties rather than the public.

  President Franklin Roosevelt used it to limit spending on civilian construction projects to concentrate on wartime spending.

  President Lyndon Johnson impounded some money to reduce inflation.

  President Richard Nixon used the practice more frequently than previous executives, and his use of impoundment represented “a difference in kind, not simply in degree” from his predecessors, according to Joshua Chafetz a professor of law and politics at Georgetown University.

  Nixon’s opponents argued that he was assuming the power to do away with certain government programs by simply starving them of funds, which violated the will of Congress.

  

  His team argued that presidents have a duty to consider other factors, including inflation, when deciding if or when to release government funds.

  Congress then passed the ICA, which, in addition to reforming the congressional budgeting process, strictly limited the executive’s ability to cut or delay spending the money appropriated by Congress.

  Nixon signed the bill into law.

  The ICA stipulates that presidents must ask congressional permission to impound funds. The president can ask Congress to permit either a recision or a deferral of spending.

  A recision is a spending cut.

  When the president asks Congress to cut certain spending, he may defer that spending for up to 45 days while Congress considers the matter.

  If Congress does not grant the request, the president must release the funds.

  A deferral is a delay in spending certain funds to a later point within the current fiscal year.

  If Congress doesn’t respond to the deferral request, the president may defer the spending.

  Robert Kravchuk, professor emeritus of public policy at Indiana University told The Epoch Times: “In one case, he’d have to hear positively from Congress not to spend money, and that’s the recision.

  “In the second case, he hears nothing, then he could go through with his deferral, but he can’t defer it to the next year or the year after that.”

  

  Trump’s Challenge

  Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that the president must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

  Trump has said the ICA violates that clause because it strips the president of discretion in how best to achieve the government’s purposes.

  “The [ICA] dramatically limited impoundment, the power of the president to choose not to unnecessarily spend taxpayer dollars, forcing the executive branch to spend every penny of congressionally appropriated funds,” Trump wrote in his statement.

  A second argument in favor of impoundment is that congressional appropriations specify a maximum amount that may be spent, not a minimum.

  “Congress has the ‘power of the purse,’ so its appropriations necessarily set a ceiling on federal spending for a particular purpose, but it should not set the floor,” Trump said.

  That argument was made as early as 1876 when Secretary of War James Cameron wrote that “spending the full amount” of an appropriation “was in no way mandatory.”

  Read the rest here…

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 16:20

• Viktor Orban Invites Netanyahu To Visit Hungary, Flouting ICC Arrest Warrant
  Viktor Orban Invites Netanyahu To Visit Hungary, Flouting ICC Arrest Warrant

  Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has issued formal invitation for his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu to visit his country, Orban’s office has confirmed. This follows immediately on the heels of The Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) issuing final arrest warrants for Netanyahu and ex-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for overseeing alleged war crimes in Gaza.

  “Today I will invite Israel’s prime minister, Mr. Netanyahu, for a visit to Hungary and in that invite I will guarantee him that if he comes, the ICC ruling will have no effect in Hungary, and we will not follow its contents,” Orban said Friday.

  

  Hungary currently holds the European Union’s rotating six-month presidency, and this sets Orban up once again to clash with EU consensus, given EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has demanded that all member states execute the arrest warrant if Netanyahu or Gallant travel to their territories.

  Orban on Friday told state radio that the ICC move is “wrong” and asserted that the Israeli prime minister would be able to engage in talks in Hungary “in adequate safety”.

  The NY Times further cited Orban as saying the following:

  Inviting Mr. Netanyahu to visit, he said that Hungary “will ensure your safety and freedom.”

  Mr. Orban’s vow to protect Mr. Netanyahu from arrest made Hungary the first European Union country to openly flout the I.C.C. ruling.

  Thursday’s ICC warrant issuance also got a swift response from the White House, which said it “fundamentally rejects” the move and won’t recognize it (though the US has never been a member state of the ICC).

  “Let me be clear once again: whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security” President Joe Biden said in reaction, agreeing with Israel that it is “outrageous.”

  The reaction in Europe has been mixed. While all 27 member states of the EU are part of the ICC, and the majority have said they plan to enforce the ruling. However, Germany has said it is “examining” how to respond while signaling it’s unlikely to enforce it if PM Netanyahu visits the country.

  But none have been so bold as Orban in quickly issuing an open invitation for Netanyahu to visit, in direct defiance of the ICC, despite Hungary being a signatory to the Rome Statutes.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 15:45

• F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon
  F-35’s Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon

  Authored by Mike Fredenburg via The Epoch Times,

  The Pentagon is facing a difficult decision regarding the F-35’s chronic, crippling problems with overheating brought on by its insufficient cooling capacity.

  

  Should the U.S. taxpayers pay for a costly upgrade to the stealth fighter’s cooling that will handle its immediate needs, or should U.S. taxpayers pay for a far more expensive upgrade that theoretically could handle increased future cooling needs?

  Before we briefly address the two options facing the Pentagon, let’s look at why cooling capacity is so important for the F-35 and why the most expensive weapons system program in world history produced a plane that was destined to have inadequate cooling from the very beginning.

  Having adequate cooling is vital because a fighter’s avionics, radar, and other electronics-based systems generate heat. While air cooling is always part of the cooling solution, modern fighters cram so much heat-producing electronics into a relatively small space that air cooling alone is insufficient.

  Various types of liquid cooling are necessary, especially for power-hungry radars. This is particularly true of the F-35, which is advertised as a flying supercomputer crammed full of heat-producing computers, communications, and avionics equipment. When it comes to heat production, its powerful AN/APG-81 AESA radar leads the way.

  The bottom line is that it takes a whole bunch of electronics to produce a whole bunch of heat to give the F-35 its much-touted capabilities and make it the world’s preeminent fighter.

  Regardless of the validity of the claims to preeminence, there is zero doubt that the F-35’s designers designed a fighter that, from the outset, had insufficient cooling. This nearly intractable problem has been exacerbated as new capabilities are added, requiring more computing power and generating more heat. In particular, the group of new Block IV capabilities that we are told are necessary for the F-35 to fulfill its long overdue promise of being a dominant fifth-generation fighter will require a whole bunch more cooling.

  The underlying issue powering the cooling crisis is that the F-35 design team only designed the F-35 with 14 kilowatts (kW) of cooling power. Yet the F-35 was not declared fully operational until Block 3F capabilities were incorporated—capabilities that required roughly 32 kW of cooling and have only recently been rolled out, some 30 years after development began on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Block 3F upgrade necessitated modifying the F-35’s cooling system. It negatively impacted the longevity and reliability of the F-35’s F135 engine, which was already struggling with reliability issues.

  So why was the F-35’s cooling capacity initially so under-specced?

  The answer to this question is also the answer to most of the problems that have plagued a plane that came out of a design-by-committee process—a process that took what was supposed to be a low-cost, relatively lightweight replacement for the F-16 and the F/A-18 A and C Hornet that would complement bigger, more expensive fighters like the F-22 and the Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

  Ultimately, what was supposed to be a relatively low-cost, lighter complement to large twin-engined fighters like the F-22 and F/A-18E/F became a single-engine fighter heavier than many twin-engined fighters.

  The massive weight of the F-35 meant that Pratt & Whitney had to design an engine with a far higher power-to-weight ratio than the F-22’s still cutting-edge F119 engine. It also meant that the F-35 had to undergo a draconic weight reduction program where every ounce mattered. Pratt & Whitney succeeded in getting the power by ramping up the operating temperature far beyond what had ever been done for a production fighter engine.

  Still, as time has proven, the massive increase in turbine inlet temperature to an insane 3,600 degrees Fahrenheit—900 to 1,100 degrees more than most other jet fighter engines—ensured that the engine would suffer from reliability and longevity issues. The fact that engine power is required for cooling only exacerbated the problem as power requirements for each F-35 capability upgrade added the need for more cooling, which meant the F-35 engine was subjected to more stress.

  That this would be the case had to be understood by the F-35 design team, but they also understood that without the massive increase in engine power only possible by pushing the F-35 engine operating temperature far into bleeding edge territory, the F-35 program was dead in the water and that adding any weight for anything would also seriously jeopardize the program.

  Consequently, the decision to under-spec the F-35 cooling capacity happened because incorporating enough cooling capacity into the F-35’s design to allow for reasonable growth would have added weight that would have reduced the range and payload of all the F-35 variants, but in particular, the Marine’s VTOL capable F-35 where any additional weight threatened to lower its range and payload combination below minimum acceptable performance parameters.

  If truth be told, the capabilities crammed into the F-35 would have made sense for a two-engine design. However, changing the F-35 to a twin-engine design was a no-go because it would have immediately dispelled the illusion that the F-35 was going to be a low-cost replacement for the F-16. Just as importantly, there was no twin-engine vertical and take-off landing (VTOL) F-35 design for the Marine Corps.

  So, in the end, the F-35 was released with an engine destined to be unreliable with a cooling capacity that no experienced aerospace engineer could have credibly claimed would meet future cooling needs.

  This brings us back to the question of whether it makes sense to go with an expensive short-term solution or a costly longer-term cooling solution. From a sales perspective, this is a choice of two positives that the Pentagon would like us to focus on. But before committing to the options being presented, let’s consider that the current F-35 engines are wearing out faster than promised. The engine control units that will supposedly make them reliable are not due to have their design completed until 2029.

  Also, consider that the program cost, including sustainment, is now projected to be over $2 trillion, 400 percent more in inflation-adjusted dollars than its 2007 GAO estimate. Further, as has happened so many times before, the cost estimate could grow once again.

  Finally, there is no guarantee that the desperately needed engine core upgrade from Pratt & Whitney, which is supposed to be delivered in 2029, will be delivered on time or that it will actually make the F-35 engine reliable.

  Consequently, given that the level of risk and costs for the F-35 program only seems to be growing, maybe we should think of a creative way to get our existing  F-35s flying with some reasonable level of reliability. Before building new F-35s, a carefully chosen set of hardware and software capabilities that do not require increases in power and cooling should be considered.

  Doing this would be a significant achievement!

  Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 15:10

• IMF Calls For Economy-Crushing Carbon Restrictions That Dwarf COVID Lockdowns
  IMF Calls For Economy-Crushing Carbon Restrictions That Dwarf COVID Lockdowns

  At the height of the covid lockdowns and mandates a massive portion of the global economy was shut down, leading to supply chain instability, huge job losses and a stagflationary crisis.  However, climate change propagandists argued that the event was actually a positive for the planet when it was revealed that emissions fell by 5.4%.  They asserted that the covid lockdowns were a practice run for what they called “climate lockdowns” – Presenting a plan for scheduled disruptions to global economic activity as a means to slow the effects of climate change.  

  Globalists also presented climate lockdowns as a kind of collective social punishment in the event that populations refused to cut carbon output on their own.  As World Economic Forum “Agenda Contributor” Mariana Mazzucato argued in 2020:

  “Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling. To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.

  Many think of the climate crisis as distinct from the health and economic crises caused by the pandemic. But the three crises – and their solutions – are interconnected…”

  After a public uproar over the notion of extending pandemic lockdowns into climate lockdowns, the establishment media would go on to “Fact Check” the issue and assert that it was a “conspiracy theory.”  They lied.

  

  The pandemic lockdowns would eventually be exposed as pointless; a disastrous drain on the global economy that did nothing to prevent the spread of the covid virus.  But as we witnessed with most of the restrictions instituted during covid, the goal was never to protect the health of the populace.  Rather, the goal was to acclimate the populace to an exponentially increasing list of violations of their basic freedoms.

  One organization that has a distinct interest in diminishing economic activity for the sake of preventing global warming is the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  In a recent ‘call for global climate action’ the IMF states that restrictions on economic activity and general emissions activity would have to far surpass those enforced during the pandemic in order to get to their stated temperature target of less than 1.5°C. 

  Open lockdowns of developed nations might not ultimately be the tool that globalists use to reach net zero, but carbon taxation on an oppressive scale could end up having the same effect.  Carbon taxes could act like steep interest rate increases commonly used by central banks to slow economic activity during inflation.  An indirect economic shut down of this magnitude would be absolutely devastating for western nations in particular, resulting in crippling energy shortages, food shortages, job losses, and eventually total collapse and a population plunge. 

  Net zero is not possible otherwise.

  The IMF and other globalist organizations suggest that all nations must achieve a net zero carbon goal by 2030 in order to avoid the “climate cliff” – The theory that once the Earth hits warming of more than 1.5°C, there will be a domino effect which will lead to environmental catastrophe and even more carbon emissions and warming.

  To be clear, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea of the climate cliff, primarily because there is no evidence of a causation relationship between carbon emissions and global warming.  In fact, there is no evidence that that human industry has a warming effect on the climate whatsoever.

  Temperature records for hundreds of millions of years prove that warming periods are a mainstay of the Earth’s climate history.  In comparison, our current era is one of the coldest, not the warmest.  Climate scientists ignore this data and use temperature records going back to the 1880s.  Meaning, their data is based on a mere 140 years of the Earth’s history.

  

  The current warming rate is not significant to other periods, nor is there any evidence that human activity is causing it.  Data on carbon levels of the past show that temperatures do not necessarily rise in tandem with carbon activity.  Carbon emissions are also far lower today than they have been in the past. The claim that carbon concentration due to human activity has a drastic influence on global temperatures (or weather) is absolutely unfounded.

  

  The real reason for climate controls and carbon taxes seems to have far more to do with wealth redistribution from developed nations over to developing nations.  The agenda is about centralizing the control of national wealth as well as individual liberties and private property.  And the IMF, of course, would like to be one of the institutions at the helm of that wealth management empire.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 14:35

• Market Forecasts Are Very Bullish
  Market Forecasts Are Very Bullish

  Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

  A Holiday Rally Is Likely

  Last week, we discussed the impact of the Trump Presidency on the financial markets based on expectations of tax cuts, tariffs, and deregulation. Since then, the “Trump Trade” went into full swing, pushing the markets higher; however, as we noted, that the trading had gotten a bit ahead of itself, and we saw some consolidation and profit-taking that reverted the market to the 20-DMA. Such is unsurprising given the overbought conditions with a more extreme deviation from the 50-DMA. However, the market recovered somewhat this past week, with buyers entering and reversing early morning market declines.

  Notably, after holding support at the 20-DMA for several days, the market gained some traction late in the week. That buying pressure will likely reverse the short-term MACD sell signal, allowing the market to rally further next week.

  

  That action aligns with Friday’s Daily Market Commentary, wherein we noted the market seemed to be setting itself up for a pre and post-holiday trading bump into the end of the month. To wit:

  “The good news is that we just past the normal “weak” period for the market in November. While not always the case, on average, the market trends to trade better the week before and after the Thanksgiving holiday. If that turns out to be the case again this year, a retest of recent highs at 6000 seems likely.”

  

  While the trade into month-end tends to be positive, we expect to see another patch of weakness in early December as mutual funds complete their annual distributions. However, post that weakness, the bullish bias remains into year-end as professionals window dress their portfolios for year-end reporting.

  If you are underweight equities, consider minor pullbacks and consolidations to add exposure as needed to bring portfolios to target weights. Pullbacks will likely be shallow, but being ready to deploy capital will be beneficial. Once we pass the inauguration, we can assess what policies will likely be enacted and adjust portfolios accordingly.

  While there is no reason to be bearish, this does not mean you should abandon risk management. As we will discuss this week, the market forecasts for 2025 are exceedingly optimistic.

  Market Forecasts Are Very Bullish

  It’s that time of year when Wall Street analysts begin trotting out their predictions for where the S&P 500 index will be by the end of the coming year. As is always the case, these market forecasts are ALWAYS higher, and this year is no expectation.

  Goldman Sachs and BMO have already forecasted that the market will rise to 6500 and 6700, respectively, by the end of 2025. However, one of the more interesting market forecasts came from long-time bear Michael Wilson of Morgan Stanley. This past week, he matched Goldman’s forecast of 6500 as a base case with a bullish case of 7400. That is interesting because Michael Wilson has been a long-time market bear.

  

  His basis for that call was quite interesting:

  “A potential rise in corporate animal spirits post the election (as we saw following the 2016 election) could catalyze a more balanced earnings profile across the market in 2025.” 

  If you don’t understand the importance of “animal spirits,” we discussed this in detail concerning Yardeni’s recent prediction of S&P 10000 by the end of the decade:

  “The term Animal Spirits” comes from the Latin term “spiritus animals,” meaning “the breath that awakens the human mind. Its modern usage came about in John Maynard Keynes’ 1936 publication, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.” He used the term to describe the human emotions driving consumer confidence. Ultimately, the financial markets adopted the “animal spirits” to describe the psychological factors that drive investors to take action. This is why human psychology is essential in understanding the close linkage to short-term valuation measures.

  Note that this has nothing to do with underlying fundamentals; it is purely “sentiment” or “hope” that things will improve. However, as investors, we must focus on the ultimate driver of market prices over time: earnings. Three very obvious facts about earning growth currently should concern investors heading into next year.

  First, as noted in last week’s Bull Bear Report, valuations on both a forward and trailing basis are significantly elevated. While this does NOT mean the market is about to crash, it does suggest that earnings have not kept up with investor’s expectations. The problem with elevated valuations is the risk an event occurs that causes investors to realign expectations with actual reality.

  

  Secondly, earnings expectations, which support Wall Street’s market forecasts, are very optimistic.

  

  Lastly, the equity risk premium currently suggests that investors are not getting “paid” for the risk they are taking. We last saw equity risk premiums at these levels heading into the “Dot.com” bubble.

  

  Let me reiterate that none of this data suggests a market crash is imminent. However, investors should be aware that given the current market conditions, the risk of disappointment in the future is much greater today than it was just two years ago.

  The Historical Problem Of Analyst Market Forecasts

  Here is the critical question for investors: “If the market is priced based on future earnings expectations, then how reliable are those estimates?” The chart below is from Yardeni Research and shows the evolution of earnings forecasts over time. You will notice that analysts’ initial forecasts were wrong in almost every case.

  

  In other words, if you bought stocks at the beginning of virtually every analyst’s annual forecast, based on the assumption that earnings would grow, you overpaid for investments virtually every given year. However, in most cases, you make money anyway, so why worry about it?

  The reason to worry is that over-estimation eventually leads to reverting events.

  The biggest single problem with Wall Street today and in the past is the consistent disregard for the possibilities of unexpected, random events. In a 2010 study by the McKinsey Group, they found that analysts have been persistently overly optimistic for 25 years. During the 25-year time frame, Wall Street analysts pegged earnings growth at 10-12% a year when, in reality, earnings grew at 6%, which, as we have discussed in the past, is the economy’s growth rate.

  This is why using forward earnings estimates as a valuation metric is so incredibly flawed—the estimates are always overly optimistic.

  As the McKenzie study noted, on average, “analysts’ forecasts have been almost 100% too high,” which leads investors to make much more aggressive bets in the financial markets. 

  With valuations elevated, why are analysts once again pushing more optimistic forecasts?

  Why Are Analysts Always So Optimistic?

  It’s a great question.

  Wall Street is a group of highly conflicted marketing and PR firms. Companies hire Wall Street to “market” for them so that their stock prices will rise, and with executive pay tied to stock-based compensation, you can understand their desire. The chart below is from the survey conducted by WSJ researchers, showing the main factors that play into analysts’ compensation. What analysts are “paid” to do is quite different from what retail investors “think” they do.

  

  If analysts are bearish on the companies they cover, their access to information about them is cut off. This reduces fees from the company to the Wall Street firm, hurting their revenue. Furthermore, Wall Street has to have a customer to sell their products to—you.

  Talk about conflicted. Just ask yourself why Wall Street spends billions of dollars each year in marketing and advertising just to keep you invested at all times.

  Since optimism is what sells products, it is not surprising, as we head into 2025, to see Wall Street’s average expectation ratcheted up another 7.5% this year. Of course, comparing your portfolio to the market is often a mistake anyway. Unsurprisingly, earnings have grown at 7.5% over the last 70 years because the companies that make up the stock market reflect real economic growth. Stocks cannot outgrow the economy in the long term. 

  “Since 1947, earnings per share have grown at 7.7% annually, while the economy expanded by 6.40% annually. That close relationship in growth rates should be logical, particularly given the significant role that consumer spending has in the GDP equation.”

  

  This correlation is more apparent when looking at corporate profits as a percentage of GDP versus stock prices.

  

  With future earnings already being revised lower for 2025, as seen below, and corporate profitability at risk due to less government stimulus and fiscal support, the risk of current market forecasts being overly optimistic is likely elevated.

  

  The Headwinds In 2025

  The problem with current forward estimates is that several factors must exist to sustain historically high earnings growth and record corporate profitability.

  1. Economic growth must remain more robust than the average 20-year growth rate.

  2. Wage and labor growth must reverse (weaken) to sustain historically elevated profit margins.

  3. Both interest rates and inflation need to decline to support consumer spending.

  4. Trump’s planned tariffs will increase costs on some products and may not be fully offset by replacement and substitution.

  5. Reductions in Government spending, debt issuance, and the deficit subtract from corporate profitability (Kalecki Profit Equation).

  6. Slower economic growth in China, Europe, and Japan reduces demand for U.S. exports, slowing economic growth.

  7. The Federal Reserve maintaining higher interest rates and continuing to reduce its balance sheet will reduce market liquidity.

  You get the idea. While analysts are currently very optimistic about economic and earnings growth going into 2025, there are risks to those forecasts. For example, on December 7th, 2021, we wrote an article about the predictions for 2022.

  “There is one thing about Goldman Sachs that is always consistent; they are ‘bullish.’ Of course, given that the market is positive more often than negative, it ‘pays’ to be bullish when your company sells products to hungry investors. It is important to remember that Goldman Sachs was wrong when it was most important, particularly in 2000 and 2008.

  However, in keeping with its traditional bullishness, Goldman’s chief equity strategist David Kostin forecasted the S&P 500 will climb by 9% to 5100 at year-end 2022. As he notes, such will “reflect a prospective total return of 10% including dividends.”

  The problem, of course, is that the S&P 500 did NOT end the year at 5100.

  

  While analysts are currently rushing to “out-predict” the other guys, it is worth noting:

  • Markets are pushing historic levels of extreme overbought conditions,
  • 2nd highest level of valuation on record,
  • Extreme deviations from long-term growth trend lines,
  • Investor sentiment and confidence pushing extreme bullishness, and
  • Investors fully committed to the market with low levels of cash.

  In other words, after 15 straight years of a bull market advance, The “risk” of something derailing continued optimistic expectations has risen significantly.

  

  While the odds of a positive year in 2025 are more or less balanced, one should not dismiss the potential for a decline. With the current market already well advanced, pushing more extreme overvaluations, and significant deviations from long-term means, the risk of a decline is not minuscule.

  How We Are Trading It

  With this in mind, we suggest focusing on what is important to you: your specific goals, risk tolerance, and time frames, and conservatively growing your savings to outpace inflation.

  This is why we always focus on risk management. Greater returns are generated from managing “risks” rather than attempting to create returns. Although it may seem contradictory, embracing uncertainty reduces risk while denial increases it.

  Another benefit of acknowledging uncertainty is it keeps you honest.

  “A healthy respect for uncertainty and focus on probability drives you never to be satisfied with your conclusions.  It keeps you moving forward to seek out more information, to question conventional thinking and to continually refine your judgments and understanding that difference between certainty and likelihood can make all the difference.”  – Robert Rubin

  We can’t control outcomes; the most we can do is influence the probability of specific outcomes. Thus, managing risks daily and investing based on probabilities rather than possibilities is vital to capital preservation and investment success over time.

  I read most mainstream analysts’ predictions to gauge the “consensus.” This year, more so than most, the outlook for 2025 is universally, and to some degree exuberantly, bullish.

  What comes to mind is Bob Farrell’s Rule #9, which states:

  “When everyone agrees…something else is bound to happen.”

  The real economy is not supportive of asset prices at current levels. The more extended prices become the greater the potential for a future market dislocation. For investors close to or in retirement, some consideration should be given to capital preservation over chasing potential market returns.

  Will 2025 turn in another positive performance? Maybe. But, honestly, I don’t know.

  As noted last week, the stock market reflects both challenges and opportunities. Therefore, we can take action to participate if the market continues its bullish trend but hedge against the risk of something going wrong.

  1. Build a diversified portfolio and adjust based on evidence, not fear.
  2. Keep perspective,
  3. Focus on your financial goals and;
  4. Communicate with your financial advisor to remain steady amid uncertainty.

  While there is no reason to be bearish, this does not mean you should abandon risk management.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 14:00

• Chinese Defense Minister Rebuffs Austin's Request For Military Talks Over Taiwan Support
  Chinese Defense Minister Rebuffs Austin’s Request For Military Talks Over Taiwan Support

  China’s military has once again blamed Washington for the breakdown of talks, with the Chinese Defense Ministry blasting US support to Taiwan as the reason for Chinese defense chief Dong Jun rebuffing a direct request for dialogue from US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin this week.

  Both leaders were in Laos for meetings with Southeast Asian officials on Thursday. “The responsibility lies fully with the American side,” said Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Wu Qian.

  

  “The US side cannot undermine China’s core interests on the Taiwan issue, yet at the same time try to conduct exchanges with the [mainland] Chinese military as if nothing had happened,” the statement said.

  Wu explained that the US must “immediately correct its mistake, earnestly respect China’s core interests, and strive to create favorable conditions for high-level exchanges between the two militaries.”

  Austin’s reaction was as follows: “It’s unfortunate. It affects the region because the region really wants to see us, you know, two significant players in the region, two significant powers, talk to each other,” he told reporters.

  Just weeks ago, late last month, the Biden administration unveiled $2 billion more in approved arms sales to Taiwan, including an advanced surface-to-air missile defense system, which drew Beijing’s swift rebuke and anger.

  CNN reported earlier that the package “includes three National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) and related equipment valued at up to $1.16 billion, according to the US State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.” Radar systems were also listed, at over $800 million.

  While high level military-to-military contacts between the US and China resumed earlier this year, having been off since then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s ultra provocative visit to Taiwan, the official dialogue appears on ice again.

  Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te is meanwhile planning to visit the self-governing island’s allies in the South Pacific in the opening week of December, including the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Palau.

  He might pause in the US while on the tour, which China will watch closely. “Taiwan’s government has yet to confirm whether Lai will make a stop in Hawaii, although such visits are routine and unconfirmed Taiwanese media reports say he will stay for more than one day,” The Associated Press writes.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 13:25

• The Home-Based Battery Storage Fantasy
  The Home-Based Battery Storage Fantasy

  Authored by Jonathan Lesser via RealClearEnergy,

  According to a recent article published in The Conversation, installing millions of storage batteries distributed through the grid — in homes, businesses, and local communities – coupled with wind and solar generation, can avoid investments in new transmission infrastructure. But unless installing those batteries is accompanied by physically disconnecting from the grid, or consumers are willing to forgo reliable electricity, this claim is yet another example of electricity “magical thinking.”

  

  Electricity customers, both residential and industrial, need to be aware of this home-based battery storage fantasy.

  First, batteries store electricity; they don’t generate it. But the move towards electrifying the U.S. motor vehicle fleet, along with electrifying space and water heating, will double electricity consumption. Although some of the additional electricity needed may come from distributed sources such as rooftop solar, green energy advocates claim that most of the needed electricity will be generated at large-scale wind and solar facilities located far from cities and towns.

  The article also claims, “[w]e could get by with fewer transmission lines if we store more solar and wind power for later.” But delivering the additional electricity needed will require building new transmission lines, regardless of how much battery storage is installed in homes and in local communities. Moreover, local distribution systems—the poles and wires running down streets—will also have to be upgraded to handle the additional loads.

  Second, the costs of building sufficient battery capacity (to say nothing of the costs of additional wind and solar generation) to ensure homes and local communities do not suffer from extended blackouts will be prohibitive.

  The numbers tell the story.

  In the U.S., a typical residential household consumes around 10,800 kWh annually, or about 30 kWh per day. Of course, the amount varies depending on the size of home, the region of the country, and the season of the year. With electrified space and water heat, some regions of the country where electricity demand now peaks in summer will see demand peak in winter, while existing winter-peaking regions will see winter demand spike even further.

  According to a U.S. Department of Energy model, a heat pump in a typical home will consume about 5,500 kWh annually. That alone represents a 50% increase in electricity use. Charging a typical EV adds another 4,300 kWh annually. In total, those will add almost 10,000 kWh of consumption annually, roughly doubling current consumption to about 60 kWh per day, although the increase will be greatest in winter when heating loads peak.

  Supplying the additional electricity while ensuring the same level of service reliability (i.e., no extended outages or limiting consumers’ access to electricity because of insufficient supplies) will require enough battery storage to provide electricity at night and over multi-day periods when there is little wind and sun available to recharge those batteries. Although the article recommends using consumers’ EVs to supply electricity, few consumers will likely wish to wake up to an uncharged EV and an inability to travel, especially if there is no stored electricity available to recharge their EVs.

  Using the U.S. consumption averages, if existing local distribution systems can serve today’s average load of 30 kWh/day, then enough battery storage must be built to supply the remaining 30 kWh. and, more importantly, the peak power demand of electric heat pumps and EV chargers. A typical Level 2 home EV charger, for example, can draw 20 kilowatts (kW). A heat pump can draw 7 kW.

  The largest Tesla Powerwall, which is designed for home use, provides a maximum of 11.5 kW of power and 13.5 kWh of storage under ideal conditions. (When temperatures fall, so does battery capacity and efficiency.) Hence, at least three Powerwall units would be required to provide a typical home with sufficient electricity to supplement existing grid capacity. For one million homes, that means three million Powerwall units providing a maximum of 40.5 million kWh (40,500 megawatt-hours) of battery storage.

  At a cost of around $12,000 installed, that translates into a cost of $36,000 per home. The U.S. has over 80 million single-family homes and over 130 million dwelling units. Hence, 240 million Powerwall units would be required just for single-family homes, costing almost $3 trillion. By comparison, Tesla’s current manufacturing capacity is 700,000 units per year. Thus, outfitting all single-family homes with them would require almost 350 years of Powerwall production. The minerals requirements would also be staggering and would require mining billions of tons of ore for the necessary lithium, copper, cobalt, and other metals.

  In theory, an electric system could be designed to provide reliable service using wind, solar, and battery storage. However, in reality, huge investments would still be required in new transmission and distribution lines, regardless of how many storage batteries are installed. It would also be ruinously expensive.

  Ignoring physical and economic realities may be fashionable, but reality always wins in the long run. The electric grid and its components form a complex system which most of us take for granted, which enable misleading claims regarding the simplicity of electrifying everything and powering it all almost exclusively with wind, solar, and batteries. Electric utilities and planners can provide a public service by explaining why this scenario, given today’s technology, isn’t possible.

  Jonathan Lesser is a senior fellow with the National Center for Energy Analytics, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, and the president of Continental Economics.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/23/2024 – 12:50