Today’s News 11th June 2023

• ESG Dystopia: Why Corporations Are Doubling Down On Woke Even As They Lose Billions
  ESG Dystopia: Why Corporations Are Doubling Down On Woke Even As They Lose Billions

  Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-market.us,

  It’s been a bloodbath for the majority of companies that go overtly woke in the new era of American consumer rebellion, and the establishment is not happy. Corporations like Disney, Anheuser-Busch and Target are plunging in profits and losing billions in market cap after pledging fealty to the trans agenda. In particular, the public is setting out to make examples of institutions that support trans indoctrination of children. Simply put, a line in the sand has been crossed.

  

  With conservative boycotts far more effective than leftist boycotts ever were, the movement makes evident that the political left is a paper tiger and that conservatives and independents have the real majority power in the US.  In response, the media is claiming that this movement is a form of “economic terrorism.” That is to say, if you refuse to support the woke hive mind with your wallet, you should be considered domestic enemy. 

  It took long enough, but average Americans are finally engaging in a culture war which was started years ago, not so much by the political left, but by globalist institutions using leftist activists as enforcers and saboteurs. The key issue that very few people talk about is that activist groups would have NO POWER whatsoever if it weren’t for the unprecedented backing they receive from governments, non-profits, think-tanks and the corporate world. And, a lot of this support has been injected through ESG-style financing as well as DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) programs.

  ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) is becoming a well known term and is, at bottom, a form of “impact investing” – Meaning, major lenders such as Blackrock or Carlyle Group, or think-tanks like the Ford Foundation, seek to control societal outcomes using lending as leverage. Watch the video HERE featuring the Ford Foundation’s head of “mission investments” to get a basic understanding of what ESG really is:  Social engineering.

  In the past, lenders would base their financing standards on good credit scores and the likelihood of return on investment. If you had a business with a history of solid returns and worthy collateral then you would probably get whatever loans you needed. Today, however, lenders are trying to set political and ideological terms for companies seeking to obtain financing. You must signal your virtue to get access to money, and this includes supporting climate and carbon initiatives, reorganizing your labor based on diversity and inclusion rules, even promoting LGBT activism might be a big factor in your next infusion of cash.

  The higher your ESG score, the more likely it is that you will qualify for access to debt. This is part of the reason why a large array of corporations are increasingly jumping on the “pride month” bandwagon. All they have to do is slap some rainbows on some products or commercials or publicly defend the trans grooming of children and suddenly they are golden for another year of subsidized funds.

  But what happens in a world where consumer loyalty is no longer a guarantee and the public stops buying from chains that promote woke concepts? What happens when going woke also means going broke? Is ESG cash really worth losing half your customers or more?

  Well, not right now it isn’t. As central banks raise interest rates and cut their balance sheets the easy money party that started back in 2008 is ending. After a decade of exponential growth ESG is now in steep decline, and this is directly tied to the policies of central banks like the Federal Reserve. In the past year it is no longer viable to dump money into mostly useless woke projects. Yet, the woke trend continues. Why?

  Twenty years ago, the name of the game in the business world was “brand building.” If you could build your brand and gain market loyalty you could sustain your profit model for decades to come. Now, corporations are actually willing to destroy the very brands they spent so much time and money developing all in the name of political idolatry.

  It seems like pure madness, but what if they know something we don’t? What if they are riding out an engineered economic crisis so that they can be rewarded later with “too woke to fail” riches? My theory is that while ESG lending appears to be dying today, tomorrow ESG lending will be the only way any company will be able to survive.

  We need to start considering the future possibility of globally institutionalized ESG.  The frightening notion of central bank ESG financing has been circulating ever since the early days of the covid pandemic. From the BIS to the Fed to the ECB, numerous programs began to surface with woke connotations. Most of them initially focused on climate change, with central banks suddenly taking an interest in “saving the planet” from a carbon threat that doesn’t exist. Now, there’s a rising chorus of DEI and social equity babble coming from central banks as well.

  Maybe international banks are limited in how they engage in ESG lending, but what about central banks? What if they drop their facade of being “politically neutral” and come out full force in support of the woke mind virus? What if central banks become the foundation of ESG?  Wouldn’t woke lending then become perpetual?

  I believe that this is exactly what is intended to happen, but it would have to be tied directly to an economic crisis as well as the introduction of digital currencies (CBDCs).  A debt crisis (along with stagflation) could force a majority of companies into a corner. With lack of funds, falling consumer spending and a tightening loan market, central banks and stimulus measures would once again become the only official mechanism for rebuilding the economy.

  Governments would also be beholden to central banks as a means to stay afloat, and this means the bankers will have immense influence over how money is distributed (and how wealth is reallocated).

  Unlike the crash of 2008, though, the next stimulus event will not be a fiat free-for-all. Instead, it will be RESET; a highly limited rescue plan with digital money being infused into select institutions. In other words, only a portion of the existing economy will be given a life boat, and guess who will qualify for a spot on the raft? That’s right, companies showing the most devotion to ESG.

  This would explain why so many corporations are refusing to back away from woke marketing even though they’re losing millions of customers; they know what’s about to happen and they’re preparing in advance for the fallout as well as the inevitable digital bailouts.

  Of course, some people will argue that this would require a level of organization and “conspiracy” that doesn’t exist. It would be “silly” to suggest that corporations are colluding to enact a plan to fundamentally upend the current economic paradigm, right? Wrong. At least in terms of coordination, the cabal has already openly announced its presence.

  The collusion of corporations, think-tanks and governments to create an international woke monopoly is not theory, it’s reality. The only question left is when will central banks fully admit they’re a part of the scheme? I would suggest that the signs of banking crisis we witnessed at the beginning of this year are the tip of the iceberg.

  As the Fed and others continue to raise interest rates into economic weakness stress on the system will expand, and eventually something integral will snap. Maybe it will be another Lehman moment, maybe it will be the US dollar losing reserve status or some other disaster. But it’s no coincidence that this invasion of far-left cultism in the business world is escalating at the same time that our economic foundations are struggling. One is related to the other, and it’s my view that the decay of the current system is meant to facilitate the creation of a new and perpetually woke economy.

  The public would thus be trapped into participating in the cult by sheer necessity, unless, the population decentralizes using localized production and localized trade. Our entire way of life would have to change dramatically, drawing from self sufficient ideals that used to be a staple a hundred years ago.

  ESG is not going away on its own. Woke ideology is not going away on its own. These structures will have to be destroyed, but you can’t rebel against a structure you rely on for your daily survival. You would first have to completely separate from it.

  *  *  *

  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
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 23:30

• Visualizing The State Of Economic Freedom Around The World In 2023
  Visualizing The State Of Economic Freedom Around The World In 2023

  The concept of economic freedom serves as a vital framework for evaluating the extent to which individuals and businesses have the freedom to make economic decisions. In countries with low economic freedom, governments exert coercion and constraints on liberties, restricting choice for individuals and businesses, which can ultimately hinder prosperity.

  As Visual Capitalist’s Avery Koop and Joyce Ma show in the map below, using the annual Index of Economic Freedom from the Heritage Foundation, showcases the level of economic freedom in every country worldwide on a scale of 0-100, looking at factors like property rights, tax burdens, labor freedom, and so on.

  The ranking categorizing scores of 80+ as free economies, 70-79.9 as mostly free, 60-69.9 as moderately free, 50-59.9 as mostly unfree, and 0-49.9 as repressed.

  

  Measuring Economic Freedom

  This ranking uses four broad categories with three key indicators each, both qualitative and quantitative, to measure economic freedom.

  1. Rule of law: property rights, judicial effectiveness, government integrity

  2. Size of government: tax burdens, fiscal health, government spending

  3. Regulatory efficiency: labor freedom, monetary freedom, business freedom

  4. Open markets: financial freedom, trade freedom, investment freedom

  The 12 indicators are weighted equally and scored from 0-100. The overall score is then determined from the average of the 12 indicators.

  Here’s a closer look at every country’s score:

  Rank	Country	2023 Score
  #1	🇸🇬 Singapore	83.9
  #2	🇨🇭 Switzerland	83.8
  #3	🇮🇪 Ireland	82.0
  #4	🇹🇼 Taiwan	80.7
  #5	🇳🇿 New Zealand	78.9
  #6	🇪🇪 Estonia	78.6
  #7	🇱🇺 Luxembourg	78.4
  #8	🇳🇱 Netherlands	78.0
  #9	🇩🇰 Denmark	77.6
  #10	🇸🇪 Sweden	77.5
  #11	🇫🇮 Finland	77.1
  #12	🇳🇴 Norway	76.9
  #13	🇦🇺 Australia	74.8
  #14	🇩🇪 Germany	73.7
  #15	🇰🇷 South Korea	73.7
  #16	🇨🇦 Canada	73.7
  #17	🇱🇻 Latvia	72.8
  #18	🇨🇾 Cyprus	72.3
  #19	🇮🇸 Iceland	72.2
  #20	🇱🇹 Lithuania	72.2
  #21	🇨🇿 Czechia	71.9
  #22	🇨🇱 Chile	71.1
  #23	🇦🇹 Austria	71.1
  #24	🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates	70.9
  #25	🇺🇸 United States	70.6
  #26	🇲🇺 Mauritius	70.6
  #27	🇺🇾 Uruguay	70.2
  #28	🇬🇧 United Kingdom	69.9
  #29	🇧🇧 Barbados	69.8
  #30	🇵🇹 Portugal	69.5
  #31	🇯🇵 Japan	69.3
  #32	🇧🇬 Bulgaria	69.3
  #33	🇸🇰 Slovakia	69.0
  #34	🇮🇱 Israel	68.9
  #35	🇬🇪 Georgia	68.7
  #36	🇶🇦 Qatar	68.6
  #37	🇸🇮 Slovenia	68.5
  #38	🇼🇸 Samoa	68.3
  #39	🇯🇲 Jamaica	68.1
  #40	🇵🇱 Poland	67.7
  #41	🇲🇹 Malta	67.5
  #42	🇲🇾 Malaysia	67.3
  #43	🇧🇪 Belgium	67.1
  #44	🇵🇪 Peru	66.5
  #45	🇨🇷 Costa Rica	66.5
  #46	🇭🇷 Croatia	66.4
  #47	🇨🇻 Cabo Verde	65.8
  #48	🇧🇳 Brunei Darussalam	65.7
  #49	🇦🇱 Albania	65.3
  #50	🇦🇲 Armenia	65.1
  #51	🇪🇸 Spain	65.0
  #52	🇧🇼 Botswana	64.9
  #53	🇷🇴 Romania	64.5
  #54	🇭🇺 Hungary	64.1
  #55	🇵🇦 Panama	63.8
  #56	🇲🇰 North Macedonia	63.7
  #57	🇫🇷 France	63.6
  #58	🇷🇸 Serbia	63.5
  #59	🇻🇨 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	63.5
  #60	🇮🇩 Indonesia	63.5
  #61	🇲🇽 Mexico	63.2
  #62	🇨🇴 Colombia	63.1
  #63	🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina	62.9
  #64	🇬🇹 Guatemala	62.7
  #65	🇩🇴 Dominican Republic	62.6
  #66	🇧🇸 The Bahamas	62.6
  #67	🇫🇲 Micronesia	62.6
  #68	🇧🇭 Bahrain	62.5
  #69	🇮🇹 Italy	62.3
  #70	🇻🇺 Vanuatu	62.1
  #71	🇰🇿 Kazakhstan	62.1
  #72	🇻🇳 Vietnam	61.8
  #73	🇲🇳 Mongolia	61.7
  #74	🇸🇹 São Tomé and Príncipe	61.5
  #75	🇦🇿 Azerbaijan	61.4
  #76	🇵🇾 Paraguay	61.0
  #77	🇲🇪 Montenegro	60.9
  #78	🇽🇰 Kosovo	60.7
  #79	🇱🇨 Saint Lucia	60.7
  #80	🇹🇭 Thailand	60.6
  #81	🇨🇮 Côte d’Ivoire	60.4
  #82	🇹🇴 Tonga	60.0
  #83	🇹🇿 Tanzania	60.0
  #84	🇧🇯 Benin	59.8
  #85	🇧🇿 Belize	59.8
  #86	🇩🇲 Dominica	59.7
  #87	🇸🇨 Seychelles	59.5
  #88	🇹🇹 Trinidad and Tobago	59.5
  #89	🇵🇭 Philippines	59.3
  #90	🇧🇹 Bhutan	59.0
  #91	🇲🇬 Madagascar	58.9
  #92	🇰🇮 Kiribati	58.8
  #93	🇯🇴 Jordan	58.8
  #94	🇭🇳 Honduras	58.7
  #95	🇴🇲 Oman	58.5
  #96	🇲🇩 Moldova	58.5
  #97	🇲🇦 Morocco	58.4
  #98	🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia	58.3
  #99	🇬🇭 Ghana	58.0
  #100	🇫🇯 Fiji	58.0
  #101	🇬🇲 The Gambia	57.9
  #102	🇳🇦 Namibia	57.7
  #103	🇸🇳 Senegal	57.7
  #104	🇹🇷 Türkiye	56.9
  #105	🇬🇾 Guyana	56.9
  #106	🇬🇷 Greece	56.9
  #107	🇸🇧 Solomon Islands	56.9
  #108	🇰🇼 Kuwait	56.7
  #109	🇺🇿 Uzbekistan	56.5
  #110	🇰🇭 Cambodia	56.5
  #111	🇧🇫 Burkina Faso	56.2
  #112	🇬🇦 Gabon	56.1
  #113	🇩🇯 Djibouti	56.1
  #114	🇸🇻 El Salvador	56.0
  #115	🇰🇬 Kyrgyzstan	55.8
  #116	🇿🇦 South Africa	55.7
  #117	🇲🇷 Mauritania	55.3
  #118	🇹🇬 Togo	55.3
  #119	🇪🇨 Ecuador	55.0
  #120	🇸🇿 Eswatini	54.9
  #121	🇳🇮 Nicaragua	54.9
  #122	🇲🇱 Mali	54.5
  #123	🇧🇩 Bangladesh	54.4
  #124	🇳🇬 Nigeria	53.9
  #125	🇷🇺 Russia	53.8
  #126	🇳🇪 Niger	53.7
  #127	🇧🇷 Brazil	53.5
  #128	🇰🇲 Comoros	53.5
  #129	🇬🇳 Guinea	53.2
  #130	🇦🇴 Angola	53.0
  #131	🇮🇳 India	52.9
  #132	🇹🇳 Tunisia	52.9
  #133	🇲🇼 Malawi	52.8
  #134	🇲🇿 Mozambique	52.5
  #135	🇰🇪 Kenya	52.5
  #136	🇱🇰 Sri Lanka	52.2
  #137	🇷🇼 Rwanda	52.2
  #138	🇹🇩 Chad	52.0
  #139	🇨🇲 Cameroon	51.9
  #140	🇵🇬 Papua New Guinea	51.7
  #141	🇱🇸 Lesotho	51.6
  #142	🇳🇵 Nepal	51.4
  #143	🇺🇬 Uganda	51.4
  #144	🇦🇷 Argentina	51.0
  #145	🇧🇾 Belarus	51.0
  #146	🇹🇯 Tajikistan	50.6
  #147	🇱🇦 Laos	50.3
  #148	🇸🇱 Sierra Leone	50.2
  #149	🇭🇹 Haiti	49.9
  #150	🇱🇷 Liberia	49.6
  #151	🇪🇬 Egypt	49.6
  #152	🇵🇰 Pakistan	49.4
  #153	🇬🇶 Equatorial Guinea	48.3
  #154	🇨🇳 China	48.3
  #155	🇪🇹 Ethiopia	48.3
  #156	🇨🇬 Congo	48.1
  #157	🇨🇩 Democratic Republic of the Congo	47.9
  #158	🇿🇲 Zambia	47.8
  #159	🇹🇱 Timor-Leste	47.2
  #160	🇲🇻 Maldives	46.6
  #161	🇹🇲 Turkmenistan	46.5
  #162	🇲🇲 Myanmar	46.5
  #163	🇸🇷 Suriname	46.1
  #164	🇱🇧 Lebanon	45.6
  #165	🇬🇼 Guinea-Bissau	44.6
  #166	🇨🇫 Central African Republic	43.8
  #167	🇧🇴 Bolivia	43.4
  #168	🇩🇿 Algeria	43.2
  #169	🇮🇷 Iran	42.2
  #170	🇧🇮 Burundi	41.9
  #171	🇪🇷 Eritrea	39.5
  #172	🇿🇼 Zimbabwe	39.0
  #173	🇸🇩 Sudan	32.8
  #174	🇻🇪 Venezuela	25.8
  #175	🇨🇺 Cuba	24.3
  #176	🇰🇵 North Korea	2.9
  –	🇮🇶 Iraq	N/A
  –	🇱🇾 Libya	N/A
  –	🇱🇮 Liechtenstein	N/A
  –	Afghanistan	N/A

  Only four countries in the world have a score of 80 or above, Ireland, Singapore, Switzerland, and Taiwan, categorizing them as completely free economically.

  Let’s now look at things from a more regional perspective.

  Europe

  

  From a regional perspective, Europe ranks the strongest in economic freedom.

  Despite being a powerhouse within Europe, Germany ranks 10th in the continent, with a score of 73.7. One of the categories Germany scored the weakest in was government spending (28.3/100). Over the last three years, government spending has averaged 49% of GDP.

  Ireland ranks third globally, scoring particularly high in categories like property rights and judicial effectiveness. The country also has no minimum capital requirement—which is typically a banking regulation and corporate law issue determining how many assets an organization must hold—making it attractive for businesses to set up shop on the Emerald Isle.

  Africa

  

  Currently, Africa is the continent with the least economic freedom in the world, however, it is also the region with the highest potential for economic growth. A booming population, and thus, labor force, are promising for future innovation. In fact, it’s anticipated that Africa will see an increase of 2.5 billion people by the end of the century.

  The lowest scoring country in Africa is Sudan, a country under further strain thanks to rife civil conflict. Historically, economic development has been constrained by rampant corruption and a lack of institutional capacity.

  Conversely, Botswana registered the highest score on continental Africa (64.9), ranking higher than countries like France and Italy.

  The Americas

  

  In the Americas, the United States ranks 3rd regionally—25th overall—with a score of 70.6. The report attributes the categorization of U.S. as only “mostly free” to issues like inflation, increasing government debt, and unchecked deficit spending. Public debt currently sits at a figure equivalent to more than 128% of GDP.

  In South America, Chile comes out on top, ranking above many other economic powerhouses like the U.S., the UK, and Japan. However, the 2021 election of a new Constitutional Assembly could risk the current economic state, as it favors a much more socialist approach to the economy.

  East Asia and Oceania

  

  China’s score is among the lowest in East Asia & Oceania, ranking 154th in the world categorizing it as a repressed economy. The ruling Chinese Communist Party routinely exercises direct control over economic activity. China’s protectionist stance towards foreign investment and a plethora of trade tariffs imposed by other nations also factor in here.

  In India, where public debt is equivalent to about 84% of GDP, fiscal health is the worst-scoring category. Additionally, much of the economy remains quite informal; a large share of people work in jobs without tax slips, recorded income, or formal contracts protecting them, which challenges labor freedoms.

  The Middle East and Central Asia

  

  It may come as no surprise that the United Arab Emirates has the highest score in the Middle East. The UAE has implemented various measures and initiatives, such as tax exemptions, duty-free zones, streamlined business registration processes, and flexible regulatory frameworks to encourage entrepreneurship and foreign direct investment. As well, the top individual and corporate tax rates in the country are 0%.

  Türkiye’s lowest scoring category relates to judiciary effectiveness and the rule of law. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has already been in power for two decades, recently won the country’s election, again cementing his authority over Turkish politics. This makes it unlikely that Türkiye’s economic freedom score will recover in the short to medium term.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 23:00

• Why Patriots Shouldn't Pledge Allegiance
  Why Patriots Shouldn’t Pledge Allegiance

  Authored by Brian McGlinchey via starkrealities.substack.com 

  Flag Day is approaching, with the Fourth of July not far behind. No better time for a frontal assault on a cherished American ritual: the Pledge of Allegiance.

  Though conservatives will be most aghast at this undertaking, the open-minded ones will soon discover they should be among the pledge’s greatest critics.

  Before I open fire, a brief explanation for international readers: The Pledge of Allegiance is recited by children across America at the start of start of each school day. It’s also incorporated into many meetings held by federal, state and local governments and private groups as well.

  Standing and facing the flag with hand over heart, one recites: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

  A Government Loyalty Oath Written by a Socialist

  Many who consider the pledge a cornerstone of conservative values will be surprised to learn it was written by a Christian Socialist named Francis Bellamy, who was run out of his pulpit at a Boston church for preaching against capitalism, and who called Jesus Christ a socialist.

  His radical cousin, Edward Bellamy, wrote a popular novel, Looking Backward, which glowingly describes a future in which government controls the means of production and where men are conscripted into the country’s “industrial army” and compelled to work in roles assigned to them by central planners.

  While working for The Youth’s Companion, a children’s magazine, Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892, timed to be introduced in patriotic celebrations accompanying the 400th anniversary of Columbus’s arrival.

  

  According to a summary of Bellamy’s account of his writing of the pledge, he aimed for brevity, as well as “a rhythmic roll of sound so they would impress the children and have a lasting meaning when they became grown-up citizens.”

  Given his beliefs, Bellamy was well-suited for creating a loyalty oath that conditions Americans to subordinate themselves to a powerful central government. Make no mistake — in pledging allegiance “to the republic,” Americans are doing precisely that.

  That’s consistent with Bellamy’s wish for state sovereignty and individual liberties to yield to a centralized national government, but it’s starkly at odds with the founding spirit of the country.

  Central to that spirit are the notions that government should be a servant and not a master, and that all government should be viewed with deep, ongoing wariness — certainly not the reverence demanded by the Pledge of Allegiance.

  Free people have no business pledging loyalty to any government. It is government that has a duty of loyalty to the people, with no more essential demonstration of that loyalty than the protection of the rights of individuals.

  Conditioning America’s Youth for Subservience

  Bellamy didn’t just write the pledge, but also instructions for an accompanying ritual that feels simultaneously religious and militaristic:

  “At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the Flag the military salute — right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it… At the words, ‘to my Flag,’ the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, towards the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side.”

  Yes, Bellamy directed civilian children and adults to render a military salute to the flag, perhaps laying the philosophical groundwork for the eventual creation of the socialist “industrial army” his cousin envisioned in his novel.

  

  The arm outstretched toward the flag came to be called the “Bellamy salute,” and it endured for several decades before its striking similarity to the Nazi salute prompted its replacement in 1942 by the familiar hand-over-heart gesture.

  I haven’t always felt this way. Conditioned by 13 years of public school, I continued sincerely reciting the pledge at various functions far into my adult life. Following my U.S. Army service, I’d even stand at attention with heels locked — Bellamy would’ve been proud.

  It was only after learning the true meaning of liberty and the animating spirit of our system of government that my mind was changed. If your experience is like mine, once you begin recognizing the pledge as the authoritarian loyalty oath that it is, you’ll soon develop disdain for its nearly every phrase.

  50 States, Infinitely Divisible

  Two elements of the pledge are especially destructive of a healthy mindset regarding the relationship between the American people and government: “One nation” and “indivisible.”

  First, in creating the United States of America, the founders were not forming a single nation. The U.S. Constitution is a compact of independent states, with the word “states” taking its highest political meaning that puts Virginia, for example, on par with France.

  That compact delegated certain, limited powers to a federal government so it could perform stated functions in service to the separate states. As James Madison wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.”

  Fifty different sovereign societies exercising numerous and indefinite powers, without regard to the federal government and, whenever necessary, in outright defiance of it. That’s the United States of America.

  With each “one nation” incantation, however, American children and adults are conditioned to view their states as insignificant political subdivisions, while embracing the primacy of the federal government and the centralization of power in Washington, DC.

  However, of the pledge’s 31 words, “indivisible” should give greatest offense to American patriots. The very existence of the United States — created by secession from the British empire — is a testament to political divisibility as a foundational human right.

  The Declaration of Independence explicitly expresses that sentiment:

  “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed—that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

  By reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and proclaiming the United States of America “indivisible,” Americans disclaim their human right of self-determination. They also surrender their ultimate means of holding government accountable: Every government should exist under perpetual threat of disintegration.

  Scouring the pledge for positives, one can appreciate that Bellamy rightly referred to the government as a republic and not a democracy—an important yet underappreciated distinction. Likewise, we can all embrace the idea of “liberty and justice for all.” However, the pledge implies that’s the current state of affairs, rather than a far-off ambition.

  That ambition is undermined by the powerful central government advanced by Bellamy’s pledge. Today, it faces a potent new threat from those who, pursuing “equity,” seek to undermine the rights of individuals by imposing new forms of government-sanctioned discrimination.

  Making an Idol Out of Cloth and a False God Out of Government

  Civics aside, it’s worth noting that, since its introduction, the pledge has also sparked objections on religious grounds — and I’m not referring to the 1954 addition of the words “under God,” and its attendant controversy about the separation of church and state.

  Rather, many religious people reasonably view pledging allegiance to a flag as a form of idolatry, or something uncomfortably close to it. Before you scoff at the idea that the U.S. flag has evolved into a “graven image” in the Second Commandment sense, consider that citizens are encouraged to dispose of worn-out flags by burning them and, after a period of silent reflection, burying the ashes.

  

  Other religious individuals are put off by the idea of swearing faith to a government. One such critic quotes the Christian bible’s Matthew 6:24: “No one can serve two masters.” You don’t have to ponder that long to see many profound conflicts between the bible’s values (e.g., “blessed are the peacemakers,” “thou shalt not steal”) and the U.S. government’s.

  An Authoritarian Spectacle That’s Not Going Anywhere

  No matter where the hand is placed in what Gene Healy rightly calls a “slavish ritual of devotion to the state,” it’s safe to say if the Pledge of Allegiance had never existed, and Americans were to observe a similar rite in another country, most would surely recoil at the authoritarian spectacle.

  Alas, there could be no such opportunity: Richard Ellis, author of To the Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance, looked but couldn’t find another country that has anything like it.

  Created by a socialist and now fiercely championed by those who think they’re conservatives, the Pledge of Allegiance will likely continue warping Americans’ thoughts about the relationship between citizens and government for many more years to come.

  Stark Realities undermines official narratives, demolishes conventional wisdom and exposes fundamental myths across the political spectrum. Read more and subscribe at starkrealities.substack.com 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 22:30

• In Which Industries Could AI Do Most Of The Heavy Lifting?
  In Which Industries Could AI Do Most Of The Heavy Lifting?

  Ever since the meteoric rise of ChatGPT and other large language models, one of the most pressing questions on many people’s minds – well aside from whether AI will end humanity – has been: “Will AI eventually take my job?”

  And while there is no clear answer to this question – after all, it’s hard to foresee how quickly AI will improve from here – it looks like large language models will at least have a major impact on HOW many people work.

  As Statista’s Felix Richter details below, according to Accenture research based on data from the Occupational Information Network, the U.S. Department of Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 40 percent of all hours worked in the United States in 2021 can be impacted by large language models such as ChatGPT, whether through automation (little human involvement required) or augmentation (more human involvement required). Why is that? Accenture found that tasks related to language account for 62 percent of total worked time in the U.S. and that 65 percent of those tasks have a high potential to be automated or augmented by AI, or more specifically by large language models.

  Thankfully, that doesn’t mean that machines will simply replace humans, as many tasks will still require human involvement and new tasks will emerge. “Success with generative AI requires an equal attention on people and training as it does on technology,” Accenture says, adding that it will be essential to teach people how to work effectively with AI-infused processes. Moreover, new roles will emerge, with prompt engineers, AI editors and AI quality controllers just some of the examples for new career opportunities.

  The following chart shows which industries involve the most tasks that can be automated or augmented by AI, with banking and insurance on top of the ranking.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Accenture found that 66 percent of hours worked in the banking sector have high potential to be transformed by AI, versus an industry average of 40 percent.

  At the other end of the scale, the chemical and natural resources sectors are tipped to be least impacted by AI, with the majority of working time in these industries dedicated to non-language-related tasks.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 22:00

• The Boys Of America Are Suffering – How Can We Help Them?
  The Boys Of America Are Suffering – How Can We Help Them?

  Authored by John Mac Ghlionn via The Epoch Times,

  Contrary to popular belief, the patriarchy doesn’t rule with an iron fist. Nevertheless, for some perverse reason, the myth of male privilege still persists. Today, only a fool could look around and honestly say that we live in a man’s world. Every 13.7 minutes, somewhere in the United States, a man takes his own life. For every female that commits suicide, there are four men ending their own lives.

  Millions of boys and men lead lives of quiet desperation, rotting away inside self-imposed prison cells.

  

  What should these men do? See a medical doctor, perhaps? Maybe visit a psychologist?

  As I’ve noted before, the fields of medicine and psychology are, like the men of America, also in crisis. This isn’t to say that all doctors and all psychologists offer nothing of value, of course. This is to say that the institutions creating the doctors and psychologists of tomorrow are, for lack of a better word, damaged.

  In the field of psychology, as the science writer Rolf Degen recently noted, approximately 1 in every 10 citations “across leading psychology journals is completely inaccurate, misrepresenting or even contradicting the cited findings.” Still reeling from the effects of the much-discussed replication crisis, psychology now has a crisis of reputation to wrestle with. To compound matters, the American Psychological Association (APA), the main accreditor for professional education and training in psychology, has, for years, demonized masculinity, labeling admirable qualities such as stoicism and competitiveness “psychologically harmful.”

  As the psychologist Christopher J. Ferguson, a man who has been very critical of the APA in the past, told me, the APA’s “controversial position on men and masculinity is part of a larger problem of ideological capture for the APA, as it increasingly parrots far-left talking points, rather than educating people on the often messy and nuanced science.”

  Sadly, he added, the APA “really stopped functioning as a science organization a long time ago, and its current disparagement of traditional men, in the absence of good data, should properly be viewed as prejudicial and unethical.”

  Strong words. Ferguson, one of the few psychologists brave enough to stand up and speak out against the psychological establishment, knows that psychology, in its current form, isn’t fit for purpose.

  If the men and boys of America can’t rely on doctors and psychologists for support, what should they do?

  As Jordan Peterson’s success has shown us, many men, particularly young men, are looking to individuals rather than institutions for answers. However, as Peterson goes from being a public intellectual to a modern-day superhero intent on defeating the bad guys in Davos, young men are looking for new role models.

  Enter Richard Reeves, an academic whose research focuses on issues pertaining to inequality and social mobility. For years, Reeves has been held up as a “rational” voice, a strong representative for the boys and men of America. However, Reeves, who seems like a very decent man, is affiliated with the Brookings Institution, a research group that The New York Times glowingly refers to as “a pillar of Washington’s liberal establishment” and a “prestigious, left-leaning institution.” In other words, Reeves, like so many other researchers and commentators, is a slave to the liberal machine, the very same machine that has steamrolled over men for years.

  In his latest book, “Of Boys and Men,” Reeves goes to great lengths to praise feminism and the feminist framework of intersectionality. More concerningly, Reeves appears to be rather fond of using the term “cis heterosexual,” instead of using a normal term like “straight.” Is a man who uses such terminology really capable of helping normal, everyday boys who are struggling to find meaning in their lives?

  There’s also Matt Pinkett, the author of the brand new book, provocatively titled “Boys Do Cry.” According to the British teacher and author, schools should provide “lessons in bromance” to address the mental health crisis among boys. However, like Reeves, Pinkett goes to great lengths to smuggle in trans-friendly jargon, even dedicating an entire chapter to the many ways in which masculinity overlaps with LGBTQ+ issues. Also, like Reeves, Pinkett places great emphasis on encouraging boys to be more vulnerable, to embrace the tears, and to cry with pride.

  Although the two authors correctly identify the problems facing boys, their prescriptions leave a lot to be desired. Adam Lane Smith, a psychotherapist who has been commenting on the masculinity crisis for years, told me that “the current education system is built to operate in a way counter to how most boys learn and thrive.”

  “The research is clear,” he said, with “an increasing number of boys being diagnosed by teachers and school staff with attention issues.”

  These teachers and staff, added Smith, “then pressure parents to find a doctor to corroborate that diagnosis and immediately medicate the boy, or else he will be expelled.”

  Even boys without violent tendencies are being pressured into medication or else they face expulsion, Smith told me. Part of this is due to the feminization of schools. In the United States, roughly 75 percent of teachers are female. Many of these teachers, noted Smith, are overworked and lack “the mental energy required to deal with 30+ children for so many hours in a day; the boys will often stick out due to their higher testosterone behaviors.”

  “Many of these female teachers also appear to struggle to engage with male students and consistently grade female students higher to encourage them,” said the specialist.

  Smith appears to be right. Girls perform better when they’re taught by a female teacher; the same, however, isn’t true for boys.

  As studies show, single-sex schooling and especially more hands-on school approaches prove that supposedly “problematic” boys can thrive in environments suitable to their mental functioning. Most teachers learn how to “deal” with boys through various training sessions and workshops. As Smith noted, many of these sessions and workshops have, in recent times, “shifted to encourage teachers to view natural boy behaviors and energy levels as problematic to the profession.”

  “Boys,” he contends, “are now a liability to be managed and pushed through the system as the teachers focus their energies on uplifting and empowering the girls.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 21:30

• New '0% Handgun' Shows Biden's ATF Losing Control Over Regulating 2nd Amendment
  New ‘0% Handgun’ Shows Biden’s ATF Losing Control Over Regulating 2nd Amendment

  In March, Defense Distributed’s Case in US District Court, VanDerStok v Garland — struck down Biden’s ghost gun rule via a preliminary injunction. 

  According to court documents, ATF did not analyze their “Frame or Receiver Rule,” also known as Biden’s Ghost Gun Rule, under the Supreme Court’s NYSRPA v. Bruen decision.

  The case is being litigated in the 5th Circuit, and the injunction allows Defense Distributed to sell ghost gun kits legally.

  While there is evidence to support a likely pro-gun ruling in the 5th Circuit, it’s not a guarantee. Defense Distributed seems aware of this fact and designed a new product to continue the proliferation of privately made firearms regardless of the outcome of VanDerStok. 

  In April 2022, Defense Distributed revealed their 0% Receiver, which using the “Ghost Gunner” CNC machine, mills an AR-15 lower receiver out of a solid block of aluminum. This process saves owners of these items from the “readily converted” language that ATF is currently using in its Frame or Receiver rule to classify 80% frames as regulated items subject to a background check. 

  Building off this format, the newest firearm to receive the 0% treatment from Defense Distributed is the handgun. This new 0% handgun utilizes the Sig Sauer P320 family of handguns originally designed for the US military.

  The SIG P320 series of handguns makes use of a drop-in “Fire Control Unit” or FCU. This allows the user to swap between slides and frames quickly. This FCU is the only component of the firearm that requires a background check to possess. This means that owners of the 0% FCU will find themselves within an already established ecosystem of parts and accessories.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 21:00

• Half Of Americans Disapprove Of Affirmative Action In College Admissions; New Survey Finds
  Half Of Americans Disapprove Of Affirmative Action In College Admissions; New Survey Finds

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  We are awaiting the potential blockbuster ruling of the Supreme Court in the Harvard and North Carolina college admissions cases. 

  

  After decades of conflicting and confusing rulings on the use of race as a factor for admissions, the Court could be close to rejecting the practice. That is why the recent Pew survey is interesting. It shows that half of Americans disapprove of the use of affirmative action in admissions and only 33% approve of the practice. The Pew results are consistent with earlier polls. Indeed, even in the most liberal states like California, voters have repeatedly rejected affirmative action in admissions.

  There is the expected difference between Democrats and Republicans. Some 54% of Democrats favor affirmative action while roughly 75% of Republicans oppose it. What is interesting is that a sizable number of African Americans disapprove of the practice. Less than half of African Americans support the practice. Pew reports:

  Nearly half of Black Americans (47%) say they approve of colleges and universities considering prospective students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds when making admissions decisions, compared with 29% who disapprove (24% are not sure).

  Among Hispanic Americans, identical shares approve and disapprove of these practices (39% each). Both White and Asian Americans are more likely to disapprove of colleges doing this (57% of White adults and 52% of Asian adults) than to approve (29% and 37%, respectively).

  That means that more white Democrats (59%) than African Americans (47%) support affirmative action in college and university admissions.

  There remains a sharp divide between voters and both political and educational leaders on this practice.

  Technically, affirmative action was barred decades ago by the Supreme Court. For decades, universities have avoided the type of outright quota the court held unconstitutional in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). Justice Lewis Powell wrote. “Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. This the Constitution forbids.”

  However, colleges and universities have continued to use race as a factor and many insist that schools have merely become more sophisticated in hiding the weight given to race in admissions.

  The last time the court dealt with the issue of race in admissions was 2016 in Fisher v. University of Texas. The court upheld the use of race in the admissions process of the University of Texas at Austin by a vote of 4-3. After the decision, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that, if Justice Elena Kagan had not recused herself, it would have been 5-3 and “that’s about as solid as you can get.” At the time, she said that she doubted “that we’re going to see another affirmative action case … at least in education.”

  Ginsburg’s comment notably omitted two additional facts. First, if Justice Antonin Scalia had not died shortly before the release of the opinion, the vote would have been 4-4 (and 5-4 with Kagan). Second, courts change. While she was right about not seeing another such case during her time on the court, this is now a very different court with two of the Fisher majority no longer among its members.

  There is now a 6-3 conservative majority on the court, and Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito previously voted against the University of Texas. To quote Ginsburg, with three justices previously voting against such race-based criteria and the three Trump appointees, “that’s about as solid as you can get” for a major reframing of the controlling case law.

  The court has spent decades issuing often conflicting and vague 5-4 rulings on the use of race in admissions. In 2003 in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court divided 5-4 on upholding admissions criteria used to achieve “diversity” in a class at Michigan Law School. However, in her opinion with the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated that she “expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That was 20 years ago.

  In their Fisher dissent, the conservative justices noted that the university was being “less than candid” in addressing its use of race in admissions. They objected to the mantra of achieving a “critical mass” in a class without a clear definition or standards. For critics, that is an understatement. For decades, universities have evaded the impact of court decisions limiting the use of race by avoiding mathematical or threshold criteria that could be challenged. Grutter’s “diversity” rationale used race as one of a number of factors.

  It appears that the majority of voters are more in agreement with Chief Justice Roberts, who has been widely attacked in the media and academia for his stance against affirmative action in admissions. In 2017, he declared: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”  In 2006, Roberts also wrote: “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”

  The rulings in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina are expected soon from the Court.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 20:30

• CEO Talk Of "Shrink" Hits Record On Earnings Calls Amid Nationwide Shoplifting Crisis
  CEO Talk Of “Shrink” Hits Record On Earnings Calls Amid Nationwide Shoplifting Crisis

  Some of the nation’s largest retailers, like Walmart, Target, Kohl’s, and Foot Locker, are being battered by a shoplifting tsunami across major metro areas. The worst theft occurs at stores in crime-ridden Democrat cities as progressive leaders fail to enforce law and order. This has led to the most massive surge ever in the number of times company executives mentioned “shrink” on earnings calls. 

  According to transcript data compiled by Bloomberg, retailer execs mentioned “shrink” – the loss of inventory due to circumstances such as retail theft – about 200 times in the second quarter, making a quarter-on-quarter doubling and the highest ever in the data spanning more than a decade. 

  

  Weeks ago, David Johnston, vice president of asset protection and retail operations for the National Retail Federation (NRF), told FOX Business that retailers are expected to lose a whopping $100 billion this year due to surging theft. 

  “Based on what we’re hearing already from many of these CEOs and based on what we’re experiencing daily in retailers across the nation… I do foresee us to have a much higher loss in 2023,” Johnston said. 

  The extent of the losses is starting to become alarmingly high. Last month, Kohl’s CFO Jill Timm told analysts that theft is surging across many of its stores, projected to produce headwinds. Target recently warned that lost or stolen inventory will hurt profitability by $500 million this year, while Ulta Beauty slashed its full-year margin outlook blamed entirely on theft. 

  

  Walmart US President and CEO John Furner said the theft crisis “has been really challenging” for the entire industry. Even Dollar Tree warned about increasing theft at its stores. 

  The result of out-of-control theft burning holes in retailers’ balance sheets has forced company execs to shutter stores in mainly progressive cities, such as San Francisco, Portland, Chicago, and others. 

  • All Portland Walmart Stores To “Permanently Close” Amid Theft Wave
  • Walmart Abandons Unprofitable Chicago Stores After Investing “Hundreds Of Millions” In City
  • Whole Foods Closes Its “Flagship” San Fran Store After Just A Year Due To Crime
  • Nordstrom Closing San Francisco Stores, Citing “Deteriorating Situation” Amid Crime Crisis

  Why these cities? Progressives who have pushed social justice reform have limited respect for law and order, presenting retailers with no choice but to close their doors. 

  Some retail shops that stay open in these crime-ridden metro areas have utilized security glass that lines aisles to prevent five-finger discounts.

  

  Democrats, particularly those in California, don’t know when enough is enough and have advanced a bill that makes it illegal for store employees to confront thieves. And this will go over poorly with retailers. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 20:00

• Academic Journal Editor Faces Cancel Attempt For Allowing Debate On Transgenderism
  Academic Journal Editor Faces Cancel Attempt For Allowing Debate On Transgenderism

  By William Hurley of The College Fix

  Transgender activists come for journal editor because he published research that undermines their arguments

  The editor of a journal on sex and gender is facing calls for his removal because he published an article that undermined claims of the transgender movement.

  An open letter called on the Archives of Sexual Behavior to remove Dr. Kenneth Zucker from his position and retract an article titled “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” by Suzanna Diaz & Michael Bailey. Bailey is on the board of the journal. ROGD is the hypothesis that identification as transgender could be driven by social pressure.

  The article remains live as of June 7 and Zucker remains in his position, however some notes have been added to the paper.

  Zucker (pictured) has previously faced criticism because his clinic encouraged individuals confused about their gender to learn to be comfortable with their biological sex, instead of pushing drugs and surgeries on them.

  

  On May 10, a publisher’s note was added to the article which stated that “readers are alerted that concerns have been raised regarding methodology as described in this article. The publisher is currently investigating this matter and a further response will follow the conclusion of this investigation.”

  A “supplementary information” section was also removed on May 16 “due to a lack of documented consent by study participants.”

  “In recent years, Archives of Sexual Behavior has routinely published articles on LGBTQ+ topics that in our view did not adhere to the highest standards of intellectual integrity and publication ethics, raising concerns over editorial bias. As a result, we have lost confidence in the journal’s editor, Dr[.] Kenneth Zucker,” the open letter stated.

  The open letter was signed by 100 people with various credentials who write or review articles for publication on sexual topics. Five of the organizations that signed are LGBT advocacy groups.

  The signers’ main criticism of the article was that it did not go through an Institutional Review Board process to certify that the study was conducted ethically. Instead, the article’s data was collected beforehand by an “unaffiliated layperson,” referring to Diaz.

  The letter then stated that Zucker should be removed for allowing this and other articles “on LGBTQ+ topics that in [the signatories] view did not adhere to the highest standards of intellectual integrity and publication ethics.”

  The open letter concluded that “[u]ntil an editor who has a demonstrated record of integrity on LGBTQ+ matters and especially trans issues replaces Dr. Zucker as editor, we will no longer submit to the journal, act as peer reviewers, or serve in an editorial capacity.”

  The College Fix reached out to Bailey for comment about his response to accusations about his decision not to obtain IRB approval for his paper and his response to calls for Zucker to be removed from his position.

  Bailey declined to comment on the situation.

  The Fix also reached out over email to Zucker for comments about the situation and if the letter against him indicated any broader problems in the world of academia and publishing. He has not responded to multiple requests for comment in the past several weeks.

  The Fix also asked Suzanne Trimel at PEN America about how academics should react to views they might disagree with, if trying to get an editor removed for publishing research that contradicts their own views is a good path for scholars to take and how else might academics engage with views they have disagreements with, but she has not responded to two inquiries sent in the past two weeks.

  Springer Nature did not respond to multiple requests for comment in the past several weeks on the cancellation campaign and what its criteria is for removing editors.

  Another open letter organized by the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism in support of Dr. Zucker and the article has been signed by over 1,937 people. It stated that Springer’s policies “explicitly allow” for publication of papers without IRB approval. One signer includes Dr. Lisa Littman, who also faced cancellation for popularizing Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.

  “Springer’s policies explicitly allow the Editor-in-Chief the discretion to accept a publication that has not sought IRB approval,” the signers wrote. “The first author of this study was not affiliated with a university and did not need to seek IRB approval.”

  The letter also addressed allegations from those seeking the article’s retraction, who they call activists. The letter noted that studies “commonly” use parental reports and that this is an important topic which needs to be addressed.

  The letter draws a comparison between another study which was put under undue scrutiny, saying “this is not the first time journals and researchers who dare explore the subject of ROGD [Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria] have been targeted for cancellation.”

  Addressing the allegations against the journal editor, the letter responded that “Dr. Zucker has demonstrated neutrality by routinely publishing articles on both sides of this contentious issue.”

  Finally the letter stated that those who are calling for Dr. Zucker to be removed and for the paper to be retracted are not motivated by good science.

  “We fear that just like in the case of the original ROGD paper, the demands for retraction and sanctioning of Dr. Zucker, the Editor-in-Chief are principally motivated by the ideological opposition to Diaz and Bailey’s conclusion,” they wrote.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 19:30

• Visualizing The 'Greatest Wealth Transfer In History' As Boomers Shed Their Mortal Coils
  Visualizing The ‘Greatest Wealth Transfer In History’ As Boomers Shed Their Mortal Coils

  The largest intergenerational wealth transfer in American history has begun, as tens of millions of baby boomers are now beginning to die in larger numbers – the youngest of whom are just turning 60, and the oldest nearing 80-years-old.

  

  Some of course will leave their heirs little to no inheritance, while others will leave hundreds of thousands, or millions (or billions) of dollars to their inheritors, along with houses and other assets.

  As the NY Times notes, in 1989, total family wealth in the US was around $38 trillion. That number has exploded to $140 trillion in 2022. Of that, $84 trillion is projected to be passed down from older Americans to their millennial and Gen X heirs through 2045. Some $16 trillion of that will be transferred within the next decade.

  Visualizing the current state of assets among the citizenry;

  

  What’s more, the transfer has already begun – as older Americans have started transferring money to their children and grandchildren in what’s known as “giving while living,” which includes property purchases, repeated tax-free cash transfers of estate funds, and providing other resources to give their heirs a head start.

  In other cases, older Americans are lending their heirs their own inheritance ahead of schedule through companies such as National Family Mortgage, which facilitates arrangements between family members. In many cases, the parent, or lender, charges an IRS-compliant interest rate to their heirs so that large sums of money changing hands aren’t treated as taxable income.

  Millennial-focused New York financial advisor Douglas Boneparth, 38, told the Times that this is no longer an “oncoming phenomenon.” Instead, the transfer of wealth is “present-day.”

  According to the NY Times (which of course pivots to a focus on inequality), the wealthiest 10% of households will be giving and receiving the majority of the wealth transfer. Of that, the top 1% – which holds as much wealth as the bottom 90% – will dictate how the lion’s share of the funds are used and invested. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of households will only account for 8% of the wealth transfer.

  

  The explanation for the wealth? Boomers were able to take advantage of explosive growth in both the financial and the housing markets – as the average price for a house in the United States has jumped around 500% since 1983, when most boomers were in their 20s and 30s. The S&P 500, meanwhile, is up by more than 2,800% (not including dividends) since the beginning of 1983, right around the time index funds became popular as a mainstream investment vehicle for corporate employees and other middle-class professionals. Then of course there’s corporate stock plans and 401(k)s which boomers have benefited from handsomely.

  

  That said, the Times notes that there are ‘many nuances,’ such as ‘A patchwork of lower-wage earners may be able to move into a parent’s paid-off home in a hot housing market — or may receive a small windfall still meaningful enough to pay off debts.’

  And there will be millennials, Gen X-ers and young boomers in the upper middle class set to inherit lump sums — seemingly winners — who will wrestle with the substantial headaches of a “sandwich generation,” dealing with the expense of caring for aging parents and children at once.

  There are few aspects of economic life that will go untouched by the knock-on effects of the handover: Housing, education, health care, financial markets, labor markets and politics will all inevitably be affected. -NY Times

  Then there’s taxes…

  Another major factor in wealth transfers for high-net-worth and ultrahigh-net-worth individuals (those with at least $5 million and $20 million in cash or easily liquidated assets respectively), who constitute 42% of the anticipated volume of wealth transfer through 2045, according to research firm Cerulli Associates. That amounts to roughly $36 trillion as of 2020.

  Per US tax code, individuals can transfer up to $12.9 million to heirs, during life or death, without federal estate tax ($26 million for married couples). Because of this, HNW and UHNW individuals could end up paying taxes of up to $4.2 trillion by 2045.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 19:00

• Trump Indictment Fails Crucial Test: Dershowitz
  Trump Indictment Fails Crucial Test: Dershowitz

  Authored by Zachary Steiber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The federal indictment against former President Donald Trump fails a crucial test, law professor Alan Dershowitz says.

  “It doesn’t meet what I call the Richard Nixon standard, which was very clear obstruction of justice, destroying evidence, paying bribes,” Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, said on Newsmax on June 9 after the indictment was unsealed.

  “This is too close a case to bring against the man running for president, against the incumbent president,” Dershowitz added.

  Two paragraphs in the indictment do appear to meet the standard of the planned prosecution of former President Nixon, according to the law professor.

  

  ‘Highly Confidential’ Plan

  Those paragraphs refer to Trump allegedly showing an unidentified writer, publisher, and staff members a “highly confidential” plan to attack a country.

  U.S. General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was quoted in a news story on July 15, 2021, as fighting to stop Trump from ordering an attack on Iran.

  Six days later, Trump showed the writer and publisher what he described as a “plan of attack” from the same general.

  “Isn’t this amazing? This totally wins my case, except it is like, highly confidential,” Trump is quoted as saying in the indictment.

  “As president, I could have declassified it. Now I can’t but this is still a secret,” he was also quoted as saying.

  The indictment charges Trump with various crimes, including illegally disclosing national defense information.

  ‘Will Have to Be Explained’

  “We’re going to have to hear an exception from Trump’s lawyers or from Trump as to how we can justify having shown to somebody who doesn’t have security clearance allegedly some information about a plan to attack Iran,” Dershowitz said on Newsmax.

  None of the people shown the document held a security clearance, U.S. authorities say.

  Trump “may claim he didn’t show it to them, just kind of waved it in front of them as part of bragging but that’s something that will have to be explained,” Dershowitz said. “When you have a tape in the voice of the defendant himself it’s hard to dispute, so I think this is a serious indictment on these two charges. Everything else I think was exactly what we expected,” he also said.

  Trump said after the indictment was released that he is innocent and accused the government of corruption. He shared posts on social media noting that a number of top officials possessed classified information, such as former President Bill Clinton, but were not charged.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 18:30

• Newsom Launches Drive For 28th Amendment Focused On Gun Control
  Newsom Launches Drive For 28th Amendment Focused On Gun Control

  Governor Gavin Newsom on Thursday announced a California-led drive to amend the US Constitution to impose new, nationwide restrictions on gun ownership. 

  “The 28th Amendment will enshrine in the Constitution common sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – while leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition,” said Newsom in a statement.

  His claim that such a move would “leave the 2nd Amendment intact” is quite an eye-roller: While the 2nd Amendment’s language may not change, Newsom’s 28th Amendment would clearly represent a frontal assault on the scope of the 2nd Amendment‘s protection of the right of armed self-defense. 

  Newsom didn’t propose specific language, but he did outline five goals:

  • Setting 21 as a national minimum age for buying a firearm
  • Imposing a universal background check regime 
  • Barring sales of “assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time”
  • Imposing a “reasonable” waiting period for every firearm purchase
  • “Affirm[ing that] Congress, states, and local governments can enact additional common-sense gun safety regulations that save lives” 

  It’s worth noting that his “assault weapon” ban would only apply to “civilians.” It seems he’s content for police to have weapons “that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time.” 

  Regarding his proposed minimum purchase age, Newsom said, “if you can’t buy a beer, you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun.” Of course, the requirement to be 21 years old to buy alcohol is itself a form of tyranny. 

  Gavin and his ilk see mass shootings as opportunities to be exploited.

  California has had multiple mass shootings this year, and already has all the gun laws Newsom would nationalize under the “28th Amendment”, and more. pic.twitter.com/mdGZSFF7pf

  — Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) June 8, 2023

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

  Gun control advocates have been reeling since last summer’s momentous Supreme Court decision that created a new test for determining the constitutionality of gun control measures. Unless a given measure is found to be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” — and specifically, tradition dating to the founding era — that measure is invalid. Courts have been shooting down gun laws left and right. 

  “We’re sick of being on the defense and throwing up our hands,” Newsom told Politico. “We want to go on the offense and be for something and build a movement that’s bottom up, not top down.”

  In collaboration with California state legislators, Newsom is championing a national amendment convention focused on gun control. Under Article V of the Constitution, amendments can be proposed by Congress, or they can be drafted by states in “a convention for proposing amendments.”

  For such a convention to happen, Newsom and other gun control advocates will need two-thirds of the state legislatures to call for a convention. (Governors have no role in the process.) That translates to 34 states, a daunting threshold considering Democrats only control 20 state legislatures.

  Newsom’s announcement looks more like a publicity stunt than a sincere effort to mold the Constitution. He’s funding the push with leftover money from his 2022 reelection campaign. 

  NEW: I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to help end our nation’s gun violence crisis.

  The American people are sick of Congress’ inaction.

  The 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms — while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact:

  1)… pic.twitter.com/ZJ7fyfH0Cf

  — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 8, 2023

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

  “Assuming Newsom is serious (which seems highly doubtful), he wants to treat the U.S. Constitution as a vehicle for detailed public policies rather than a framework that constrains those policies,” writes Jacob Sullum at Reason. 

  In branding his proposal as the “28th Amendment,” Newsom assumes no other new amendments will precede it. While the convention-of-states avenue has never produced an amendment, an ongoing, conservative-led drive for a convention crossed the halfway-point to 34 states last summer. Goals for that convention push include congressional term limits, repeal of the income tax, and giving states the power to negate any federal law or regulation with an official rejection by three-fifths of the legislatures.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 18:00

• Top Biden Administration Official Admits To Lying To Congress
  Top Biden Administration Official Admits To Lying To Congress

  Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A top official in President Joe Biden’s administration has admitted to lying to Congress when she claimed not to own individual stocks.

  

  Energy Secretary Jennifer Graholm, a Biden appointee, told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on April 20 that she did not own individual stocks, instead owning mutual funds.

  Granholm said in a letter on June 9 to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) that she was not truthful during the Capitol Hill appearance.

  “I mistakenly told the Committee that I did not own any individual stocks, whereas I should have said that I did not own any conflicting stocks,” Granholm wrote in the missive, which was obtained and reviewed by The Epoch Times.

  Granholm said she divested from assets that could be in conflict with her duties as part of being confirmed as energy secretary but that she retained stocks that government ethics officials determined would not conflict with those duties.

  She has since sold those stocks.

  “In order to make my financial holdings consistent with my testimony, on May 18, 2023, I divested my remaining stock holdings which consisted of stock in six companies, even though these assets were deemed non-conflicting,” Granholm said.

  Granholm did not identify the companies. She said they would be identified on her annual disclosure report, which is expected to be available in mid-June.

  The Department of Energy and Manchin, the chair of the energy panel, did not respond to requests for comment.

  “Secretary Granholm lied to the committee about her family’s stock holdings,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the top Republican on the committee, told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.

  “This comes after her failure to follow basic ethics and disclosure rules. This is a troubling pattern. It is unacceptable,” he added.

  Granholm violated stock disclosure rules by listing stock sales in 2022 months later than required, she acknowledged to the Senate previously. She also violated the Hatch Act when she endorsed Democrats while making an official appearance.

  Granholm did not appear to be under oath when she made the false statement to the panel in April, according to video footage of the hearing. Most witnesses testifying before the Senate are not sworn in.

  One federal law prohibits making false statements under oath that they do not believe to be true. Another law bars “knowingly and willfully” making false statements “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States.” Violations of either can land a person up to five years in prison.

  The U.S. Department of Justice rarely brings cases against officials who lie, regardless of whether they’re under oath.

  Former President Donald Trump became one of the rare exceptions this week when he was charged with making false statements and other crimes.

  The department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 17:30

• US Homeowner Equity Drops For First Time Since 2012
  US Homeowner Equity Drops For First Time Since 2012

  The housing bull market has peaked for now. Recent home price declines are leading to decreased tappable equity for homeowners.

  A new CoreLogic Homeowner Equity Insights report shows homeowners with mortgages (roughly 63% of all properties) saw their equity decrease by a total of $108.4 billion in the first quarter of 2023 versus the same period last year, a loss of 0.7% year-over-year (or about $5,400 per borrower). Even though it was a small loss of equity, it was the first loss since 2012. 

  

  Home equity trends for the quarter show Hawaii, Florida, and Rhode Island had the most significant gains of $24,900, $24,500, and $23,700, respectively. Meanwhile, thirteen states and one district recorded annual equity losses: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Washington, DC.

  

  Despite the declines, the average US homeowner now has more than $274,000 in equity — up significantly from $182,000 before the pandemic. However, the trend is reversing. 

  In recent months, we’ve noted “US Home Price Growth Slowest In A Decade, San Francisco Crashes” and “US Home Prices Show Annual Decline For First Time Since 2012.” The Federal Reserve has put a chill in the housing market with the most aggressive rate hikes in a generation to combat decades-high inflation. 

  Still, home prices have yet to crash, and that’s a function of tight supply. Those chasing the real estate market during the Covid boom in the western half of the US are experiencing the worst declines in equity and home prices. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 17:00

• Mr. Bean Actor Says The Electric Car 'Honeymoon' Is Over
  Mr. Bean Actor Says The Electric Car ‘Honeymoon’ Is Over

  Authored by Daniel Y. Teng via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The actor and comedian behind the popular Mr. Bean character has called on drivers to hold off buying an electric vehicle (EV), saying the environmental benefits do not stack up.

  

  Rowan Atkinson, a long-time motor enthusiast with a degree and master’s in electrical engineering, said current EV technology was more harmful to the environment than it was worth.

  “Increasingly, I’m feeling that our honeymoon with electric cars is coming to an end, and that’s no bad thing: we’re realising that a wider range of options need to be explored if we’re going to properly address the very serious environmental problems that our use of the motor car has created,” Atkinson wrote in The Guardian newspaper.

  He pointed to figures released by automotive giant Volvo revealing that greenhouse gas emissions during the EV production process were 70 percent higher than building a petrol car.

  “How so?” Atkinson said.

  “The problem lies with the lithium-ion batteries fitted currently to nearly all-electric vehicles: they’re absurdly heavy, huge amounts of energy are required to make them, and they are estimated to last only upwards of 10 years.

  

  “It seems a perverse choice of hardware with which to lead the automobile’s fight against the climate crisis,” he said.

  He also pointed to current efforts to develop newer technologies, like solid-state batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, and synthetic fuels, but noted more time was needed before they became mainstream.

  Atkinson said a bigger problem beyond technology was the current three-year leasing model for car ownership, where owners move onto a new car at the end of the timeframe.

  “This seems an outrageously profligate use of the world’s natural resources when you consider what great condition a three-year-old car is in,” Atkinson said, saying owners could just learn to use their cars for longer instead, effectively lowering demand for new vehicles.

  Another solution, he said, was for those concerned about the environment to simply drive less.

  “As an environmentalist once said to me, ‘If you really need a car, buy an old one and use it as little as possible,’” he wrote.

  

  Comments Spark Fiery Response

  Atkinson’s comments have sparked criticism from media outlets (via “fact-checking”), including the Washington Post.

  Some experts derided the comedian for his apparent lack of recent energy expertise.

  “Love it when a weird, British 90s celebrity who is notably not an energy expert spreads misinformation about EVs on @guardian. Just the best!” Leah Stokes, professor of climate and energy policy at the University of California, Santa Barbara, wrote on Twitter.

  Auke Hoekstra, a Dutch EV researcher, claimed Atkinson had “cherry-picked” key facts.

  “He’s complaining about current batteries and implying we have to wait for better ones. But the current ones will already last the lifetime of the car, and the car will emit 3x less CO2 over its lifetime. (Yes, I’m sure about this, because that is my actual field of study.),” he wrote on Twitter.

  Worldwide Push to Ban Petrol, Diesel Cars

  Atkinson’s comments come as governments of developed countries implement bans on the sale of petrol vehicles amid the global push for net zero.

  The United Kingdom is considering a ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030 and hybrids from 2035. The capital London also has an Ultra Low Emissions Zone that forces drivers of cars that are not powered by either hydrogen or batteries to pay a 12.50-pound daily charge.

  Meanwhile, in the United States, the California Air Resources Board is pressuring the federal government to approve a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035.

  While authorities in the Australian Capital Territory—home to the nation’s capital Canberra—are also moving to establish a similar “zero-emissions” zone like London.

  In fact, the ACT’s pledge follows a global agreement by the C40—a grouping of the world’s biggest cities—to only operate zero-emission buses from 2025 and to establish a “zero-emission” zone within their cities by 2030. The pledge was signed by cities like Auckland, Austin, Berlin, London, Los Angeles, Paris, Seattle, and Vancouver.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 16:30

• Majority Of US Cities With Most Murders Are Governed By Democrats
  Majority Of US Cities With Most Murders Are Governed By Democrats

  The Finance website Insider Monkey used the latest homicide data to find which US cities have the highest number of murders so far this year. It is no surprise that many of the most dangerous metros are run by Democrats. 

  Insider Monkey compiled a list of 30 US cities using the FBI’s Quarterly Uniform Crime Report and police department data. For simplicity reasons, we’re only concentrating on half of the list — so 1-15. 

  And what we discovered is that metros between 1-15 were all controlled by Democrats. Not shocking whatsoever, considering their social justice reform policies are backfiring and turning many metro areas into crime-ridden hellholes. 

  

  Here are the top five most murderous cities so far this year: 

  1. Chicago, Illinois: Murders in 2023: 166

  2. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Murders in 2023: 165

  3. Phoenix, Arizona: Murders in 2023: 137

  4. Dallas, Texas: Murders in 2023: 126

  5. Baltimore, Maryland: Murders in 2023: 112

  And the rest… 

  6. Houston, Texas: Murders in 2023: 109

  7. Los Angeles, California: Murders in 2023: 102

  8. New York City, New York: Murders in 2023: 100

  9. Indianapolis, Indiana: Murders in 2023: 96

  10. Kansas City, Missouri: Murders in 2023: 96

  11. Detroit, Michigan: Murders in 2023: 89

  12. Washington, DC: Murders in 2023: 89

  13. Louisville, Kentucky: Murders in 2023: 89

  14. Memphis, Tennessee: Murders in 2023: 81

  15. St. Louis, Missouri: Murders in 2023: 65

  The best thing law-abiding Americans can do if they’re fed up with out-of-control crime spurred by Democrats’ failed social justice reforms is to issue recall votes. That’s exactly what San Francisco residents did with Soros-backed District Attorney Chesa Boudin last year. People can take it one step further and boycott these cities. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 16:00

• More Than 100 Young Children Suffered Seizures After COVID Vaccination: Study
  More Than 100 Young Children Suffered Seizures After COVID Vaccination: Study

  Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  More than 100 young children suffered seizures after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, according to a new study.

  

  One hundred and four children under 6 years old suffered a seizure within 42 days of a COVID-19 shot, researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other institutions found.

  Others suffered strokes, blood clotting disorders, and appendicitis, the researchers said.

  They analyzed health records from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a CDC-funded network that features sites operated by Kaiser Permanente, Marshfield Clinic, Health Partners, and Denver Health.

  The researchers examined events that fit one or more of 23 prespecified outcomes, including seizures and myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, following messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccination.

  The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines both utilize messenger RNA technology.

  Children were studied if they received a vaccine dose from June 18, 2022, to March 18, 2023; 247,011 doses were administered to children under 6 during that time. Researchers examined the events that occurred within 42 days of vaccination.

  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first authorized Pfizer’s vaccine for children younger than five and Moderna’s vaccine for children younger than six on June 17, 2022, despite efficacy estimates against infection being substandard or unreliable and there being no or negative evidence of protection against severe disease.

  The study was published by Pediatrics, the American Academy of Pediatrics journal, on June 6.

  Type of Analysis

  Eric Weintraub of the CDC and the other researchers for the new study conducted a type of examination called rapid cycle analysis. It involves comparing outcomes among the vaccinated within 21 days of a shot with outcomes among the vaccinated between 22 and 42 days of a shot. Events on the same day as vaccination were excluded.

  The first window of time—1 to 21 days—is described as the “primary risk interval,” or the most likely period of time for the vaccinated to suffer adverse events. The latter time period was deemed a comparison interval.

  The idea for the events that occur in the latter period is that “it’s too late for them to be associated with a vaccine,” Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventative medicine at Vanderbilt University who was not involved in the study but who has worked closely with the CDC, told The Epoch Times.

  The researchers did not compare the vaccinated with the unvaccinated, despite indicating they would do so in the protocol (pdf) for Vaccine Safety Datalink monitoring. They have in some other studies. A request for comment to the corresponding author returned with an away message, and another author did not respond to an inquiry.

  The researchers reviewed medical records for each case identified in either of the intervals, and also calculated rates to see whether any were more common in the earlier window.

  What They Found

  In absolute terms, researchers found a number of serious problems after vaccination, including the seizures.

  The following events were detected in at least one young child one to 42 days following vaccination:

  • Appendicitis
  • Bell’s Palsy
  • Encephalitis, myelitis, or encephalomyelitis
  • Guillain-Barre syndrome
  • Immune thrombocytopenia
  • Kawasaki disease
  • Pulmonary embolism
  • Stroke, hemorrhagic
  • Transverse myelitis
  • Venous thromboembolism

  The numbers were also higher in the initial window of time for some outcomes.

  In the first 21 days, for instance, 38 Pfizer recipients experienced seizures and 23 Moderna recipients experienced seizures. In the second window, 24 Pfizer recipients experienced seizures and 19 Moderna recipients experienced seizures.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 15:30

• Software VP Fired For Using 'Assigned By God' As Preferred Pronoun Sues Employer
  Software VP Fired For Using ‘Assigned By God’ As Preferred Pronoun Sues Employer

  Authored by Alice Giordano via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A software engineer fired for putting “Assigned By God” as the preferred pronoun on his employee profile has filed a civil rights lawsuit against his company.

  

  Chard Scharf was fired by the software company Bitwarden, an online storage service for sensitive information. Scharf served as Vice President of Software Engineering at the Jacksonville, Florida, location.

  The lawsuit alleges that Bitwarden violated Scharf’s Title VII rights against religious discrimination by allowing other employees to post preferred pronouns on their employee profiles, but prohibiting Scharf from using his preferred pronoun based on his religious beliefs.

  “Had Chad set aside his religious beliefs and acquiesced to Bitwarden’s promotion of gender ideology, he would not have been fired,” Scharf’s attorney Jennifer Vasquez told The Epoch Times, “which means his religious beliefs were the cause of his termination.” Vasquez is with the Florida law firm Campbell, Trohn, Tamayo & Aranda.

  Neither Bitwarden nor its attorney B. Tyler White of Jackson & Lewis, responded to multiple inquiries from The Epoch Times about Scharf’s lawsuit. The company has not yet filed a response to the federal complaint.

  “Bitwarden violated Title VII when it placed Mr. Scharf into a disfavored class by promoting its gender ideology, when it failed to approve his reasonable request for accommodation, and when it terminated his employment,” the lawsuit states.

  According to the lawsuit, Scharf was repeatedly pressured to add his preferred pronouns to his Slack employee profile under his company’s “inclusivity initiative.” Slack is a platform utilized for intra company communication.

  When Scharf added “Assigned By God” to his employee profile page, he was told to remove it, his complaint alleges.

  Scharf, a Catholic, told his company he would not participate in its request to choose preferred pronouns because it was part of a gender ideology that went against his religious beliefs.

  He told Bitwarden executives that it was his belief that there are only two sexes and “that gender cannot be changed, chosen, or manipulated,” and that it was the company discriminating against him for failing to  accommodate his beliefs.

  Vasquez said correspondence shows that the company pushed the completion of the gender field on his employee profile and not Scharf.

  According to the lawsuit, two employees in the company’s human resources department complained that they felt harassed by Scharf’s religious statements.

  Scharf was also reprimanded for not using the preferred pronouns in notes based on an interview he conducted of a job application whose preferred pronouns were different from their biological gender. In the lawsuit, Scharf claims he avoided using any pronouns during the interview and that he only used the applicant’s biological pronouns in internal notes.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 14:30

• ChatGPT: Students And The Wealthy Lead The Way
  ChatGPT: Students And The Wealthy Lead The Way

  Yesterday, the S&P 500 moved into bull market territory (+20.04%) from its lows in October, with (or rather because) most big banks – Goldman, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley – still extremely bearish (because their flow desks are accumulating everything their institutional clients have to sell).

  But one thing is certain: as DB’s Jim Reid notes, It couldn’t have done it without the AI hype as over this period the NYFANG+ index is up +65.6% and up +79.7% from its November lows seen close to the launch of ChatGPT at the end of that month.

  Six months after its viral launch, ChatGPT has now reached a fresh milestone: according to Reid, a staggering half of people in the US and the major European markets now saying they’ve heard of OpenAI’s chatbot, indicating that the future of generative alternative intelligence may be as much in the hands of consumers as in companies.

  The DB strategists notes that 52% of the respondents in the bank’s exclusive Digital Infrastructure Group (dbDIG) survey of 10,000 global households said they were aware of ChatGPT in May, up from 38% just two months earlier.

  

  Interestingly, at the moment students…

  

  … and higher income groups seem to have some of the highest usage.

  

  There is also some evidence from the survey that lower income groups have used it more than those of middle income.

  Clearly it’s too early to make sweeping conclusions but there is some evidence that the former group could be a big beneficiary relative to those in the middle.

  You can find out more on the survey from Adrian Cox’s report “End of the essay crisis as students embrace ChatGPT: dbDIG survey” (available to pro subscribers here).

  Red concludes with a rhetorical question: “if 50% of global  if 50% of global households have now heard of it, where will AI-related stock prices be when 100% have?”

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/10/2023 – 14:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest