- Enhancing Post-9/11 Safety: Armed Pilots
Enhancing Post-9/11 Safety: Armed Pilots
Submitted by Gun Owners of America,
September 11th, 2001, was a turning point in American history, and for many people across the country, a day that forever changed their lives. Americans lost loved ones in the initial attacks, and many brave first responders gave their lives, saving those from the rubble during the aftermath.
But 9/11 served as a wake-up call as well. In the wake of the attacks, the Transportation Security Administration was created, and steps were taken to harden security at airports and inside commercial aircraft.
But 22 years later, the TSA is little more than “security theatre.” The agency has come under frequent criticism from journalists, politicians, and even previous heads of the agency itself.
The criticism didn’t appear out of thin air either, as undercover probes of TSA by the Department of Homeland Security revealed that in 2015, screeners did not find 95% of weapons, drugs, and explosives being smuggled through airport security. In 2017, it was again reported that TSA continues to fail above 80% of its tests.
While we certainly hope that this number continues to improve, TSA only provides its numbers of firearms found at checkpoints. These “catches” usually happen when gun owners forget their firearms in their carry-on bags.
Additionally, a House Oversight Committee report found that TSA wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on equipment that spends most of its “useful life” in storage. During the investigation for the report, TSA tried to hide its misuse of taxpayer funds by providing “inaccurate, incomplete, and potentially misleading information to Congress in order to conceal the agency’s continued mismanagement of warehouse operations.”
While the TSA continues to provide “security theatre,” Gun Owners of America has ensured that real security measures can be taken by pilots.
In 2002, Gun Owners of America worked closely with US Senators and Representatives to pass into law the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act.
The law’s passage was an uphill battle that took over a year. From the very beginning, getting guns into airline cockpits was a struggle. The President at the time, George Bush, was only lukewarm to the idea, and the Federal Aviation Administration was flat out opposed to it. Plus ALPA, the largest airline pilots association, was initially against the idea as well.
But thanks to the grassroots support of Gun Owners of America members and pilots nationwide, the bill gained momentum and made its way to the resolute desk.
After the law was passed, initial estimates said that upwards of 30,000 pilots were expected to apply to carry their firearms in the air. In 2008, it was reported that one in 10 pilots carry a firearm in the cockpit. We can only imagine that the number has continued to increase over time.
To this day, pilot carry remains an instrumental part of airline security. It provides pilots with a means of stopping terrorism and defending their aircraft should it come under attack.
So, this year, as we remember 9/11 and those we lost—GOA will continue to fight for the right to keep and bear arms and do whatever part we can to ensure tragedies like 9/11 never happen again.
* * *
We’ll hold the line for you in Washington. We are No Compromise. Join the Fight Now.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 23:30 - Childcare Now Costs $1,031 More Than Public College Tuition, On Average, In The United States
Childcare Now Costs $1,031 More Than Public College Tuition, On Average, In The United States
The next time someone asks whether or not you think Joe Biden’s “Inflation Reduction Act” is working, you can share with them a new research report showing that childcare is becoming more expensive than in-state college tuition in 28 out of 50 states.
In fact, on average in the United States, childcare now costs $1,031 more than public college tuition, according to a new report from NetCredit.
The report “researched the average annual fees paid for public and private college tuition and the average cost of childcare in each U.S. state” and then “calculated the difference in yearly fees paid for childcare and in-state college tuition”.
As part of their methodology, NetCredit then “compared these costs to local average salaries to find the affordability of childcare and in-state college tuition in every state.”
Among other findings in their research was that in Hawaii, annual childcare costs $15,995 more than a year of in-state public college tuition and that childcare is most affordable in Utah, where annual costs are equal to 7.87% of the average annual salary.
The report found that coastal states were the ones where childcare was most expensive and “much of the Midwest and eastern U.S. is priced in favor of childcare”.
“Vermont and Pennsylvania are more affordable for childcare since they have the most expensive public college fees in our study,” the report noted.
Those receiving in-state tuition in Vermont spend 24.22% of their annual wage paying for it, the study found:
The average salary in both Vermont and Pennsylvania is around $55,450, putting these states among the top 20 for average wages in the U.S. But public college costs are so high in these states as to make investing in a college education significantly less affordable than elsewhere. “About 6% of UVM’s budget is from the state, but in many states it’s 25-40%,” explains Richard Cate, vice president of finance at the University of Vermont. “Being a small rural state, we don’t have big business to help fuel tax revenue,” says Marie Johnson, director of student financial services.
Here is a glance at the highest annual childcare costs in the U.S., and their difference between in-state college tuition:
The study’s full results can be found in the above table, which you can toggle at this link.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 23:00 - Violent Criminals Continue To Pose as Migrant Children To Enter US; Congress Must Act Now
Violent Criminals Continue To Pose as Migrant Children To Enter US; Congress Must Act Now
Authored by R.J. Hauman and Lora Ries via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Despite all the “victory laps” Biden administration officials have taken as they brag that their unlawful policies and processing programs have reduced illegal immigration, recent border data shows the opposite.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents apprehend an illegal alien with a criminal record in an early morning raid at home, in Los Angeles, Calif., on Sept. 8, 2022. (Irfan Khan, Los Angeles Times/Getty Images) On top of that, there is an undeniable link between the increase in illegal entrants being welcomed into the country and an increase in violent crime, which is posing a significant threat to public safety.
This is a matter that must be addressed when Congress returns in September, and its resolution is so critical that Congress must tie it to the negotiations for funding the federal government for the new fiscal year that starts Oct. 1.
In July, as temperatures soared into the triple digits, Border Patrol agents apprehended more than 132,652 illegal aliens between the ports at the southwest border—a 33 percent increase over June, when 99,539 illegal aliens were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico line.
The lower total in June was clearly an artificial reduction due to the abuse of the parole system, a tool this administration uses to quickly bring in as many inadmissible aliens without visas through the actual ports of entry (not around them) as possible.
Not all of these illegal aliens are the same, but certain groups present more challenges to an overwhelmed Border Patrol and are able to easily enter the United States—notably adults entering illegally with children as a “family unit” and minors who enter without a parent or guardian, also known as unaccompanied alien children.
On top of increases in both single adult and family unit apprehensions, unaccompanied children at the southwest border increased by nearly 50 percent in July compared to June.
The same Biden administration officials who have repeatedly begged Central Americans not to send their children on the treacherous journey to the United States at the hands of smugglers and traffickers have done absolutely nothing to slow their entries. Instead, their policies and methods of resettlement are encouraging more.
The fact that unaccompanied children are regularly raped and exploited on their journey to the United States is a heartbreaking reality. And sadly, their lives do not improve once they enter the country, where they are then turned over to questionable, if not dangerous, “sponsors.” Many are also forced to work in unsafe conditions that violate child labor laws, go missing, or are sex trafficked.
Furthermore, teenage members of MS-13 and other violent Central American gangs continue to take advantage of current U.S. policy and the easiest, most vulnerable migrant flow and enter the United States as unaccompanied children.
More than 70 percent of unaccompanied children are teens, aged 15 to 17, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, with some adults even posing as minors.
Too many Americans and migrants themselves have needlessly died at the hands of vicious gang members who were welcomed into the country and then released into our communities. Yet another tragic instance of this took place mere weeks ago, with the media refusing to explore the reality of the situation.
Juan Carlos Garcia-Rodriguez, a 17-year-old native of Guatemala, illegally crossed into the United States and self-surrendered in El Paso, Texas, in January. He was quickly turned over to HHS custody as an unaccompanied child and released to a sponsor in Louisiana. On Aug. 19, he was arrested as a suspect in a brutal murder of an 11-year-old migrant girl in Pasadena, Texas.
At the time of his arrest, his address was not in Louisiana with the sponsor but an apartment complex in Texas where the little girl was found after having been sexually assaulted, strangled, put into a trash bag, and hidden under her bed while her father was at work.
The media continue to leave out the immigration details in their coverage of this brutal crime that should have been prevented in a concerted effort to cover for the Biden administration and keep the historic flow of unaccompanied alien children going and viewed in a positive light.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics show a consistent and alarming increase of convicted criminal aliens that it encounters. As such, this horrific crime by Garcia-Rodriguez is just one of the thousands of murders, rapes, and other violent crimes that occur each year at the hands of illegal aliens in the U.S.
What is even more outrageous is the fact that Democrat politicians in the region and here in Washington continue to ignore such crimes.
The same folks who claim that everything they do related to border security is humanitarian in nature have shown more outrage over inflatable water barriers that Texas erected than the murder of an 11-year-old girl by a now-18-year-old man allowed into the country by their policies.
Enough is enough.
Republicans on Capitol Hill will soon be at a crossroads when it comes to addressing the Biden Border Crisis and funding the federal government.
It is essential that House Republicans unite behind a reasonable demand to include their already passed border security measure as part of any spending agreement that is passed to avert a government shutdown in late September.
The bill, the Secure the Border Act (HR 2), fulfilled promises made to the American people on delivering solutions to a self-inflicted crisis that harms not just cities and states along the border but every city and state around the country.
The bill’s intentions and contents are clear: It would end the crisis and restore sanity, safety, and security at our borders. A key component that helps do that is closing longstanding loopholes in the processing of unaccompanied alien children.
It is vital that this bill is a part of any agreement for the continuation of funding for the federal government.
If the federal government cannot perform the basic task of keeping our border secure and preventing instances like the murder of an innocent 11-year-old girl from happening, it should not be funded.
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
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 22:30 - Reparations Backlash: California Voters Oppose "Unfair" Cash Payments For Slavery According To Berkeley Poll
Reparations Backlash: California Voters Oppose “Unfair” Cash Payments For Slavery According To Berkeley Poll
The sprawling social experiment known as California faces an uphill battle on reparations, after a new poll from UC Berkeley and the LA Times reveals that voters overwhelmingly oppose the idea of cash payments for black descendants of slaves by a 2-to-1 margin.
The poll found that 59% of voters oppose cash payments vs. 28% who support the idea. Four out of 10 voters “strongly” opposed the idea.
Interestingly, just 19% of those opposed cited cost as an issue. The majority simply says it’s unfair to today’s taxpayers and wrong to single out one group for reparations.
In the Berkeley poll, when voters who oppose reparations were asked why, the two main reasons cited most often were that “it’s unfair to ask today’s taxpayers to pay for wrongs committed in the past,” picked by 60% of voters, and “it’s not fair to single out one group for reparations when other racial and religious groups have been wronged in the past,” chosen by 53%.
Only 19% said their reason was that the proposal would cost the state too much, suggesting that money alone is not the main objection.
Among Democrats, 43% favored and 41% opposed cash reparations. Republicans were strongly against the proposal at 90% with only 5% in favor. Independents were 65% opposed and 22% in favor.
Black California voters were more likely to support cash payments than any other demographic, with 76% in favor and 16% opposed, the survey found. Almost two-thirds of white voters were opposed as were 6 in 10 Latino and Asian voters. -LA Times
“It has a steep uphill climb, at least from the public’s point of view,” said poll director Mark DiCamillo, who was obviously disappointed at the results. “The idea of cash reparations is really what’s being strongly opposed,” he continued, adding “There could be other solutions that could be much more warmly received.”
The sobering reality could put Gov. Gavin Newsom and his fellow Democrats in a tight spot, after state leaders have vocally endorsed the idea of reparations – going so far as to create California’s Reparations Task Force in 2020. The objective was to create a model for national reparations. But as the poll reveals, they are sailing against strong winds.
The task force has indeed been hard at work. They propose payments to all descendants based on a plethora of criteria, ranging from health disparities to housing discrimination. But there’s more: The group also suggests ending the death penalty, restoring voting rights to all incarcerated individuals, and implementing rent caps in historically redlined areas.
Members of the reparations task force previously said convincing non-Black Californians that the harms from slavery are still persisting today could be one of the biggest challenges for proponents.
Much of the task force’s work centered on hearing testimony from academics, economists and other experts to gather evidence of the effects of slavery and to prove the ways in which government-sanctioned policies discriminated against Black people long after slavery was abolished. -LA Times
When asked about his stance on reparations in the spring, Newsom said reparations are more than just cash payments.
“It doesn’t have to be in the frame of writing a check; reparations comes in many different forms. But one cannot deny these historical facts, and I really believe very strongly we have to come to grips with what’s happened,” Newsom told Fox News host Sean Hannity.
When asked whether the state is ‘doing enough’ to ensure that black residents have a fair chance to succeed, 29% said the California is doing too little, 22% said the state is doing too much, and 26% said it’s just enough. Nearly 1/4, or 23%, had no opinion.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 22:00 - Estimates Of China's Youth Unemployment Hit 50%
Estimates Of China’s Youth Unemployment Hit 50%
By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management
“The younger generation must inherit and carry forward the spirit of self-reliance, and hard work, abandon arrogance, and engrave the passion of youth in the water just like our parents did, on the monument of history,” declared Xi, some time ago.
Youth unemployment across China continued its rise this summer. The official number approached 21% before Beijing halted its publication.
Unofficial estimates stretched to nearly 50% when one counts the “lying flat”, a term adopted by youth who are choosing to quit the rat race altogether. In previous decades, agitated youth took to the streets. New forms of hyper-surveillance make such rebellion far harder. Instead, the young simply opt out.
“The facts of countless successful lives show that in youth, if you choose to endure hardship, you will also choose to gain, and if you choose to contribute, you will also choose to be noble,” said Xi.
Parents across the world nodded in violent agreement, because of course, nothing could be truer.
“In youth, experiencing more beatings, setbacks, and tests, will help you walk a successful life,” said Xi, a cold terror slowly rising in the leader for life. The national savings rate rose further still, his subjects preparing for harder times.
China’s fertility rate collapsed to a stunning new low of 1.09 per woman (from 1.30 in 2020). This symptom of profound pessimism, if not reversed dramatically, will lead to economic and then civilizational collapse.
“In the later years of my life, I always reminded myself that hardship is an opportunity. I must persist in learning more and working more and go to difficult places to train myself,” said Xi, searching for a solution to a problem far more challenging than trade wars, chip dependencies, ghost cities, insolvent banks, stranded infrastructure built for a globalized world that is fading, not to mention his nation’s food, energy and water insecurity.
All such problems are solvable provided a nation has a growing population of ambitious, optimistic, hardworking youth. But how to lift a nation whose young consider their current circumstances, assess their future, and quietly lie flat?
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 21:30 - Southwest Airlines Finds Bogus Parts On 737 Jet
Southwest Airlines Finds Bogus Parts On 737 Jet
Weeks after European aviation authorities flagged a London-based firm for supplying “unapproved parts” for jet engines on older Airbus SE A320s and Boeing Co. 737s, Southwest Airlines has confirmed to Bloomberg that one of these parts ended up on a 737.
Southwest told Bloomberg in an emailed statement that bogus low-pressure turbine blades from AOG Technics were found on one of its Boeing 737 NG. The part was immediately replaced, the airline said.
The part scandal spread across the Atlantic after the European Union Aviation Safety Agency said earlier this month, “Numerous Authorised Release Certificates for parts supplied via AOG Technics have been forged.”
AOG sold bogus parts for CFM56 engines, the world’s best-selling turbine, to repair shops servicing Airbus SE A320s and Boeing Co. 737s. Some of these older jets are used by budget airlines.
According to Bloomberg, CFM International, the GE-Safran manufacturing venture of the engine, “found 78 documents they say are falsified and which cover 52 CFM56 engine part numbers, along with two faked records for CF6 components.”
AOG began operations in 2015 in the UK and has supplied an unknown amount of CFM56 parts with fake certification to the global parts market. CFM and GE noted that no engine issue incidents have been traced back to AOG’s parts.
It may be time to ask other US airline carriers if they also used bogus AOG parts in their engines…
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 21:00 - Who's Better At Generating Innovative Ideas, ChatGPT Or MBA Students?
Who’s Better At Generating Innovative Ideas, ChatGPT Or MBA Students?
By Mish Shedlock of MishTalk
Wharton professors say Ideas Are Dimes a Dozen and they put that theory to a test. But how does one determine a good idea? And what does better mean?
Wharton notes the difference between consistency and better. For example, an airplane pilot who lands aircraft with average smoothness 10 times out of 10 is better than one who is brilliant 9 times out of 10 and crashes once.
With ideas, one fantastic idea and 10 poor ones is better than 10 average ones. With that backdrop let’s dive into the article.
Abstract: ChatGPT-4 can generate ideas much faster and cheaper than students, and the ideas are on average of higher quality (as measured by purchase-intent surveys) and exhibit higher variance in quality. More important, the vast majority of the best ideas in the pooled sample are generated by ChatGPT and not by the students. Providing ChatGPT with a few examples of highly rated ideas further increases its performance. We discuss the implications of these findings for the management of innovation.
Introduction: Generative artificial intelligence has made remarkable advances in creating life-like images and coherent, fluent text. OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot, based on the GPT series of large language models (LLM) can equal or surpass human performance in academic examinations and tests for professional certifications (OpenAI, 2023).
Despite their remarkable performance, LLMs sometimes produce text that is semantically or syntactically plausible but is, in fact, factually incorrect or nonsensical (i.e., hallucinations). The models are optimized to generate the most statistically likely sequences of words with an injection of randomness. They are not designed to exercise any judgment on the veracity or feasibility of the output.
In what applications can we leverage artificial intelligence that is brilliant in many ways yet cannot be trusted to produce reliably accurate results? One possibility is to turn their weaknesses – hallucinations and inconsistent quality – into a strength (Terwiesch, 2023).
ChatGPT can generate ides far faster than humans. This gives them a huge edge in coming up with a few great ideas. For this study the professors gave ChatGPT and the students the same prompt.
I believe I would get a big zero in coming up with a truly innovative product idea.
Could you do this? How fast?
System Prompt “You are a creative entrepreneur looking to generate new product ideas. The product will target college students in the United States. It should be a physical good, not a service or software. I’d like a product that could be sold at a retail price of less than about USD 50. The ideas are just ideas. The product need not yet exist, nor may it necessarily be clearly feasible. Number all ideas and give them a name. The name and idea are separated by a colon.”
User Prompt “Please generate ten ideas as ten separate paragraphs. The idea should be expressed as a paragraph of 40-80 words.”
Do LLMs Enhance Productivity in Generating Ideas?
The answer to this question is straightforward. ChatGPT-4 is very efficient at generating ideas. This question does not require much precision to answer. Two hundred ideas can be generated by one human interacting with ChatGPT-4 in about 15 minutes. A human working alone can generate about five ideas in 15 minutes (Girotra et al., 2010). Humans working in groups do even worse. In short, the productivity race between humans and ChatGPT is not even close.
Still, the old saying that ideas are a dime a dozen is perhaps a tad optimistic. A professional working with ChatGPT-4 can generate ideas at a rate of about 800 ideas per hour. At a cost of USD 500 per hour of human effort, a figure representing an estimate of the fully loaded cost of a skilled professional, ideas are generated at a cost of about USD 0.63 each, or USD 7.50 (75 dimes) per dozen. At the time we used ChatGPT-4, the API fee for 800 ideas was about USD 20. For that same USD 500 per hour, a human working alone, without assistance from an LLM, only generates 20 ideas at a cost of roughly USD 25 each, hardly a dime a dozen. For the focused idea generation task itself, a human using ChatGPT-4 is thus about 40 times more productive than a human working alone.
What Is The Quality Distribution of the Ideas Generated Using LLMs?
A “stochastic parrot” can generate ideas, and LLMs do so shockingly productively. But we don’t care about quantity alone. More typically, the objective of idea generation is to generate at least a few truly exceptionally good ideas. In most innovation settings, we’d rather have 10 great ideas and 90 terrible ideas than 100 ideas of average quality.
We, therefore, care about the quality distribution of the ideas, and in particular, the quality of the best few ideas in a sample. Of course, we might as well also measure the mean and standard deviation of the three sets of ideas, and we do so. Two useful measures of the extreme values are: What is the average quality of the ideas in the top decile of each of the three samples? Which sources provided the ideas comprising the top 10 percent of the ideas in the pooled sample?
Chat-GPT generated the best-rated idea in our sample, with an 11% higher purchase probability than the best human idea. The average quality of the top decile in each of the three pools also follows the same pattern as average quality— seeded Chat-GPT ≻ ChatGPT ≻ Humans. Overall, we have 400 ideas, with an equal number generated by ChatGPT and humans. In the top 40 ideas (top decile) a full 35 (87.5%) are those generated by ChatGPT.
ChatGPT vs the Screen Actors Guild
The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) joined the Writers Guild (WGA) in coordinated strikes. The writers demand protection from Artificial Intelligence. Articles abound.
- Deadline: September 6: WGA & SAG-AFTRA To Rally For California Bill That Would Grant Unemployment Insurance To Strikers
- Deadline: September 6: SAG-AFTRA Says Dual Strikes Against Video Games & Film/TV Industry “Makes Sense” As Key Issues Of Wages & AI “Mirror” Each Other
- MovieWeb: September 7: Bill Maher Says Writers Are Not ‘Owed a Living’ as the WGA & SAG-AFTRA Strikes Continue
Hoot of the Day from the World Socialist Organization
The World Socialist Website reports US film and television writers’ and actors’ anger reaching the boiling point
The struggle by 11,000 film and television writers, members of the Writers Guild of America (WGA), is now in its fifth month, while 65,000 actors in the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) are nearing the end of their second month on the picket lines.
The militant determination of the writers and actors to fight for decent living standards and a more meaningful future for art and culture have been met with intransigence and outright cruelty by the entertainment mega-corporations united in the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). The companies have made clear their willingness to drive thousands of artists into misery and out of the arts and entertainment industry.
Similarly, with all its phony rhetoric about “solidarity,” SAG-AFTRA has prevented video game workers from joining the strike of their fellow union members and only this week began a strike authorization vote. Moreover, the use of “interim agreements,” allowing hundreds of productions to go ahead, has created a surreal situation of internal scabbing that weakens or negates the purpose of strike action.
Outright cruelty!?
I discussed this on July 24, asking If the Screen Actors and Writers Strikes Went on Forever, Who Would Care?
The strike started on July 14. Did you notice? Care? I don’t watch TV so I am not a good judge.
In a podcast, Maher expressed some sympathy for the writers.
“I feel for my writers. I love my writers. I’m one of my writers. But there’s a big other side to it. And a lot of people are being hurt besides them — a lot of people who don’t make as much money as them in this bipartisan world we have where you’re just in one camp or the other, there’s no in between.
You’re either for the strike like they’re f—ing Che Guevara out there, you know, like, this is Cesar Chavez’s lettuce picking strike — or you’re with Trump. There’s no difference — there’s only two camps. And it’s much more complicated than that.”
But I side with Bill Maher who says writers are not “owed” a living and that the strike demands can be excessive and unrealistic.
The strike demands of the United Auto Workers are also excessive and unrealistic.
United Auto Workers (UAW) Demands
- 32-hour workweek
- 46 percent pay raise over 4 years
- Right to strike over plant closures
- Increased retiree benefits
- Defined pension plan for all workers
- Cost of living adjustments
Bernie Sanders Comments and an Accurate Rebuttal
The irony in the UAW case is Biden is recklessly pursuing an avenue faster than infrastructure allows and that will cost UAW jobs, but increase them elsewhere, in a highly inflationary manner. Note that Biden’s Green Energy Inflation Reduction Act Needs a Big Bailout Already “What, me worry?” Some on Twitter predict, even cheer for my demise to AI writers for my stance against the UAW. Like Bill Maher. I’m not worried. Unlike Bill Maher, I am so small no one would even want to bother to try to replace me. When I started this article, I had no idea it would morph into the Screen Actors Guild or the UAW. On a day to day basis, I have no idea what I am going to write about. Could AI have produced this article better? Even if so, would it bother? In retrospect, I am terrible at producing ideas for products, but pretty good at commenting on the global economic news. If I am replaced by AI, so be it. No one is owed a living. Not the Screen Actors Guild, not the UAW, and not me.
UAW Gearing Up for a Strike, It Could be Long and Nasty
On August 29, I commented UAW Gearing Up for a Strike, It Could be Long and Nasty
Bloomberg estimates the UAW demands would add $80 billion to costs.
If the Big Three automakers gave into UAW demand, they would all go bankrupt in short order.
The fact is, EVs are easier to produce. That means fewer workers. But the workers want protection from losing their jobs. The SAG wants protection from ChatGPT.
It’s really the same story. Change happens. It’s disruptive.
Biden’s Green Energy Inflation Reduction Act Needs a Big Bailout Already
The irony in the UAW case is Biden is recklessly pursuing an avenue faster than infrastructure allows and that will cost UAW jobs, but increase them elsewhere, in a highly inflationary manner.
Note that Biden’s Green Energy Inflation Reduction Act Needs a Big Bailout Already
“What, me worry?”
Some on Twitter predict, even cheer for my demise to AI writers for my stance against the UAW.
Like Bill Maher. I’m not worried. Unlike Bill Maher, I am so small no one would even want to bother to try to replace me.
When I started this article, I had no idea it would morph into the Screen Actors Guild or the UAW. On a day to day basis, I have no idea what I am going to write about. Could AI have produced this article better? Even if so, would it bother?
In retrospect, I am terrible at producing ideas for products, but pretty good at commenting on the global economic news.
If I am replaced by AI, so be it. No one is owed a living. Not the Screen Actors Guild, not the UAW, and not me.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 20:30 - 'Derailing Goldilocks' – Goldman Questions The 'Soft Landing' Narrative
‘Derailing Goldilocks’ – Goldman Questions The ‘Soft Landing’ Narrative
Equities sold off last week and rotated out of cyclicals and low quality assets as an uncomfortable combination of rallying rates & commodities prices derails the goldilocks soft landing scenario, triggering a readjustment of the market optimism.
The smell of stagflation – not goldilocks – was everywhere with ‘inflation expectations’ too hot…
Source: Bloomberg
…and growth expectations (‘hard’ data) too cold…
Source: Bloomberg
As Goldman notes, rallying rates and commodities are derailing the goldilocks soft landing scenario.
Cyclicals and long duration assets have been rallying jointly over the summer on the narrative of strong growth but limited headwinds from rising rates.
This is no longer the case and cracks are appearing, sending rate-change expectations hawkishly higher…
Source: Bloomberg
The uncomfortable combination of rallying oil and US long end breaking up is disrupting this equilibrium and triggering a rotation into the “persisting inflation & sticky rates” narrative, adding pressure on equities and valuations.
Cyclicals continue to trade rich relative to PMIs & fading China momentum across regions, but are beginning to close this dislocation as highlighted mid-August.
Additionally, growth seems less durable in Europe, with underwhelming manufacturing production, making it all the most remarkable to see EU Cyclicals holding up as banks got unwound.
And finally, the credit risk component is seeing limited focus, although as highlighted by Rich Privorotsky in his daily note: according to the Fed, 37% of non-financial corporates are in distress in what should be a positive growth backdrop.
Given the dramatic tightening in lending standards, one has to wonder at credit spreads optimism…
Goldman warns, there’s room for disappointment as goldilocks hope fades:
Sentiment has cooled down a bit from July extreme greed but still remains optimistic on overall, leaving room for disappointment.
The VIX fell below 14, IG credit spreads are at the tightest of the year, the AAII bull bear index has bounced back to greed territory, the GS risk appetite index remains range bound c. 0.6 Z-Score – all consistent with investors just back to school and yet to adjust to the evolving macro backdrop.
Notably, our cross asset team noted that market correlation to macro growth surprise turned negative, suggesting rates are now high enough and that additional increases are seen as punitive from here .
US non-profitable tech underperformance is consistent with this dynamic…
The problem for Goldilocks believers is Energy.
Oil and Gas supply restrictions triggered sharp moves in the commodity space.
Oil is on the move and too hot to handle, breaking key resistances and now at the highest levels since Nov 22. This seems incompatible with 5y5y breakeven down…
…and suggesting room for upside inflation surprise, and therefore higher rates and PE compression.
Supply/demand dynamics catalyzed this move, with SPR starting to re-build, Saudi cutting production, and Australia strike pushing gas prices higher.
Besides, it is interesting to note growing concerns on the implications of rising energy prices ahead of the winter season among investors.
On the technical side, systematic flow is turning positive on the short term – however, CTA positioning in US equities remains very long c. 82nd 12m%ile, pointing at limited room for incremental demand from this investor base.
September seasonality dynamics tend to benefit consensual longs & Momentum…
…while Most Shorteds tend to underperform looking at data back since 2008.
China uncertainty remains a key factor for investors and Pro Subs can read the full note here…
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 20:00 - Influencing Innovation: The Most Talked About Jackson Hole Paper
Influencing Innovation: The Most Talked About Jackson Hole Paper
By Jean-Laurent Cadorel of Exante Data
-
Monetary policy matters in the short-run through its impact on asset prices, demand, and activity;
-
Yet in the long run the economy is assumed to gravitate towards some “natural” rate of activity independent of such monetary actions;
-
A growing number of researchers are asking, however, whether monetary policy can have hysteresis effects and impact the natural rate through innovation activity.
THIS YEAR’S Jackson Hole gathering was themed “structural shifts in the global economy.” Policymaker speeches garnered the most attention, of course. But there were also the usual academic contributions. And of these perhaps the most talked about was Monetary Policy and Innovation by Yueran Ma of the University of Chicago and Kaspar Zimmermann of the Leibniz Institute for Financial Research.
Ma and Zimmerman argue monetary policy can have hysteresis effects on the economy through the financing of innovation; lower innovation can lead to lower growth and less desirable macroeconomic outcomes. The authors show this empirically using monetary shocks constructed à la Christina Romer and David Romer and a variety of measures of innovation in the United States. They find statistically significant and economically large effects using local projections.
This result matters because it changes central bank calculus. For example, Taylor Rules implicitly assume the natural rate of interest is independent of the rate of interest set by the central bank—the natural rate being that “ground out” by frictionless markets, per Milton Friedman’s analogue in unemployment. And it is assumed the central bank anchors the money rate of interest to the natural rate of interest (per Woodford). So if economists now show monetary policy impacts the natural rate, Taylor Rules may need some rethinking: how can we target a natural rate of interest using a money rate if the latter impacts the former?
Motivation
Over the second half of the last century, macroeconomics has come to a compromise between the extreme (Keynesian) view than monetary policy is ineffective (in a liquidity trap) and monetary policy is all that matters (the extreme monetarist view). Today, it is generally understood that monetary policy has short-run effects but is neutral in the long run—Patinkin’s classical dichotomy prevails.
Discussions about monetary policy have therefore focused on its short-run impact while natural forces are expected to do their work on the supply side of the economy.
The paper by Ma and Zimmerman is part of a small but growing body of work interested in possible longer-term consequences of monetary policy which may operate through innovation and technological progress. They adopt a New Keynesian perspective with endogenous total factor productivity (TFP). Monetary policy influences firms’ incentives to develop and implement innovations.
For example, following monetary policy contractions, reductions in aggregate demand can decrease profitability and incentives for innovation. Tighter financial conditions and lower risk appetite can decrease funding for innovation. A slower pace of innovation may then have lasting effects.
This paper tests the effects of monetary policy on innovation activities, using a variety of metrics of innovation: aggregate investment in intellectual property (including R&D) from national accounts, the R&D spending of public companies, and measures based on VC investment and patent filing.
Results
The authors observe meaningful changes in innovation activity in the years following monetary policy shocks. First, investment in intellectual property products (IPP) in the national accounts (NIPA) declines by about 1 percent. The magnitude is comparable to the decline in traditional investment in physical assets. R&D spending in Compustat data for public firms declines by about 3 percent.
Second, VC investment is more volatile, and declines by as much as 25 percent at a horizon of 1 to 3 years after the monetary policy shock. Third, patenting in important technologies measured by Bloom et al. (2023) declines by up to 9 percent 2 to 4 years after the shock. Patenting in other technologies declines by less than patenting in important technologies according to the importance classification in Bloom et al. (2023).
An aggregate innovation index constructed by Kogan et al. (2017) using estimates of the economic value of patents also declines by up to 9 percent. Based on this paper’s output and total factor productivity (TFP) sensitivity to the aggregate innovation index, a 9 percent decline in the index can contribute to 1 percent lower real output and 0.5 percent lower TFP 5 years later.
Mechanism
For the transmission mechanism from monetary policy to innovation activities, Ma and Zimmerman find indications that both demand and financial conditions are relevant.
First, by decreasing demand, monetary policy tightening can reduce the profitability of developing new products and the incentives to innovate (Shleifer, 1986; Fatas, 2000; Comin and Gertler, 2006; Benigno and Fornaro, 2018). In the data, they observe a stronger decline in both R&D and patenting in more cyclical industries. They also observe that patenting declines after monetary policy tightening among both public and private companies, and among both large and small public companies. To the extent that large public firms have abundant financial resources, the slowdown of innovation activities among these firms is likely driven by reduced demand.
Second, monetary policy tightening can affect financial conditions and reduce the appetite for risk-taking (Bauer, Bernanke, and Milstein, 2023; Kashyap and Stein, 2023). In the data, they observe that VC investment for both early-stage and late-stage startups declines after monetary policy tightening. To the extent that early-stage startups are still in the product development phase and may not have products coming to the market immediately, reduced funding could reflect less appetite for investing in risky endeavors.
Conclusion
The Ma and Zimmerman contribution is an important empirical counterpart to recent papers exploring the possible longer-term consequences of monetary policy, which may operate through the influence of monetary policy on innovation and technological progress (Stadler, 1990; Moran and Queralto, 2018; Modery et al., 2021; Grimm, Laeven, and Popov, 2022; Amador, 2022; Fornaro and Wolf, 2023; Jordà, Singh, and Taylor, 2023).
The authors document the response of innovation to monetary policy using a collection of measures.
The results suggest that monetary policy could have a persistent influence on the productive capacity of the economy, in addition to the well-recognized near-term effects on economic outcomes. Rising interest rates since 2022 and a substantial decline in venture capital investment highlight how relevant these issues are. Recent breakthroughs in AI raise the hope that another technological revolution could be on the horizon.
What does this mean for policy? The authors argue their contribution does not imply monetary policy should be more dovish. A number of economic observers have highlighted the misallocation of capital (excessive housing construction) or the emergence of asset bubbles (in debt markets, housing, and cryptocurrencies) due to the low level of interest rates.
Striking the right balance between these two sides requires evidence and the authors contribute a persuasive set of results to the debate. But as they also point out. it is possible that the effects of monetary policy on innovation cancel out over the complete cycle. So, for now, the policy conclusions are not clear.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 19:30 -
- Senators Unveil Bipartisan Blueprint For Comprehensive AI Regulation
Senators Unveil Bipartisan Blueprint For Comprehensive AI Regulation
Authored by Amaka Nwaokocha via Cointelegraph.com,
Two United States senators unveiled a bipartisan blueprint for artificial intelligence (AI) legislation on Friday, Sept. 8, as Congress intensifies its endeavors to regulate the emerging technology.
The framework put forward by Senators Richard Blumenthal and Josh Hawley advocates for mandatory licensing for AI firms and makes it clear that technology liability protections will not shield these companies from legal actions.
In a statement on X (formerly Twitter), Blumenthal expressed that this bipartisan framework represents a significant step forward — a robust and comprehensive legislative plan for concrete and enforceable AI safeguards. It is expected to be a guide in managing the potential benefits and risks of AI technology.
Hawley emphasized that the principles outlined in this framework should serve as the foundational basis for Congress to take action regarding AI regulation.
“We’ll continue hearings with industry leaders and experts, as well as other conversations and fact-finding to build a coalition of support for legislation.”
The framework proposes creating a licensing system overseen by an independent regulatory body. It mandates that AI model developers register with this oversight entity, which would possess the authority to conduct audits of these licensing applicants.
Image of the AI framework. Source: X Additionally, the framework suggests that Congress should make it explicit that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides legal protections to tech firms for third-party content, does not extend to AI applications. Other sections of the framework advocate for corporate transparency, consumer and child protection, as well as national security safeguards.
Blumenthal and Hawley, who lead the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and Law, have also revealed plans for a hearing. This hearing will include testimony from prominent figures such as Brad Smith, the vice chairman and president of Microsoft; William Dally, the chief scientist and senior vice president of research at NVIDIA; and Woodrow Hartzog, professor at Boston University School of Law.
The unveiling of this framework and the accompanying hearing announcement precedes Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s AI forum. The forum is set to feature leaders from major AI firms who will provide lawmakers with insights into the potential advantages and risks associated with AI.
Schumer also introduced an AI framework in June. His framework outlined an extensive range of fundamental principles, as opposed to the more detailed measures proposed by Hawley and Blumenthal.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 18:30 - Are Emergency Powers A Test To See What Americans Will Put Up With?
Are Emergency Powers A Test To See What Americans Will Put Up With?
During the hysteria of the covid pandemic questions swirled around how the federal government would respond to the events under the declaration of a national health emergency. What kind of powers would they claim to have and which constitutional rights would they try to suppress? What many Americans did not consider, however, was the implementation of emergency powers under state governments rather than the White House.
Most of the covid mandates crushing the US economy during that period were not federal mandates, but state mandates, and there’s a good reason why covid tyrants chose to focus on state level restrcitions.
There are a number of requirements and obstacles for any president seeking to enforce mandates at the federal level, along with more scrutiny and oversight than is commonly understood. Though a president can declare emergencies unilaterally, there are still some legal checks and balances (to be sure, these are quietly being eroded with each passing year).
On the other hand, state governors in 44 states have sweeping authorities under emergency conditions, with very little immediate legal recourse. As we have seen recently in places like Hawaii and now New Mexico, Democrat governors have been playing with fire (no pun intended) as they seek to push the envelope of emergency controls at the state level.
In Hawaii, the exploitation of state emergency provisions under Governor Josh Green led to possibly thousands of deaths as they refused to release water supplies for fire fighting and even blockaded Maui residents, forcing them back into the blaze. They have even put an information blackout in place and denied news organizations access to the scene of the disaster. One has to ask – Was this done out of stupidity? Or was this a test to see what kinds of trespasses and controls citizens would accept?
In New Mexico we see a similar extreme overstep by Governor Michelle Grisham, who believes she has the authority to dictate the 2nd Amendment rights of Albuquerque residents due to rising crime. The level of mental gymnastics on display in her arguments to justify the banning of lawful open carry and conceal carry protections make it clear that this is not about protecting the public. The lack of logic and reason indicates that this is an ideological decision based in zealotry. Watch as she struggles to present any reasonable position – turning instead to deflection.
After suspending the right to carry firearms, New Mexico’s Governor just said her duty to uphold her oath to the constitution is “not absolute” pic.twitter.com/wY3xSwIUIs
— John Hasson (@SonofHas) September 9, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The root of her argument is this: “I am banning legal firearms carry in Albuquerque because under emergency powers I can.”
That’s it. That’s all she’s got.
But this is not a valid argument and there are a number of reasons why.
First, crime is rising across the nation, predominantly in Democrat controlled cities.
Albuquerque has a Democrat mayor and New Mexico is a Democrat run state. If crime is rising, it is the fault of Democrats. But instead of taking responsibility for their terrible planning and policies, Democrat leaders are once again blaming inanimate objects (guns) and using mass punishment of people who lawfully carry (primarily conservatives). In other words, Dems are ruining the country and creating a national crime wave, and then making conservatives pay for it with their rights.
Second, restrictions on open carry and conceal carry are not going to reduce the crime rate because criminals don’t care about laws or emergency powers.
If anything, the violent crime rate will rise as criminals feel emboldened knowing that most citizens are now disarmed.
Third, Grisham has presented no evidence of a legitimate emergency other than “crime is bad right now.”
The emergency is ambiguous rather than defined. Meaning, emergency restrictions could be renewed over and over again, unless citizens step up and do something about them.
Fourth, the focus on open carry and conceal carry seems to be an attempt at a totalitarian tip-toe.
A large number of gun owners do not carry regularly so they may not feel personally affected by the rules. Meaning, the governor has reduced the level of opposition by attacking just one aspect of gun rights. This is usually how authoritarians institute control – They don’t remove your rights all at once, they do it a piece at a time.
Fifth, gun carry laws are generally a legislative decision that usually requires a public vote.
Grisham is attempting to bypass all checks and balances as if the legislative process does not matter.
Sixth, emergency powers are often declared unconstitutional by courts after the fact.
For example, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act (EPGA), which Governor Whitmer used to justify her draconian COVID-19 executive orders, was unconstitutional because it delegated legislative power to the executive branch in violation of the Michigan Constitution. But these court decisions often come well after the damage has already been done. It is up to the citizenry to defy such orders when necessary and let the courts sort out the aftermath later.
Seventh, Grisham argues that rising crime is a “public health emergency,” using the same language relegated to the covid response.
Crime has nothing to do with public health and is a legal concern handled through either social programs or increased police presence. Disarming the public is not within the purview of a health emergency – Grisham has greatly overstepped her bounds.
The timing and tone of the state government decision on gun carry in Albuquerque reads like a political maneuver, a test to see what the public will submit to. Grisham admits that she expects numerous legal challenges to her decision, but she does not seem too concerned with the public reaction. Maybe she should be? Or, is she so certain that the New Mexico 2nd Amendment community will sit on their hands that she feels comfortable there will be no protests, no open carry marches and no public defiance to be worried about?
One thing is inevitable, if Grisham is unopposed in New Mexico, numerous Democrat governors and mayors across the country will try to enforce the exact same emergency powers.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 18:00 - RFK Jr. Wants His Party Back: The American People "Are Tired Of Being Lied To By The Government & The Media"
RFK Jr. Wants His Party Back: The American People “Are Tired Of Being Lied To By The Government & The Media”
Authored by Jeff Louderbeck via The Epoch Times,
On a steamy summer morning, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. strode into a hotel conference room in Columbia, South Carolina, amid a barnstorming town hall tour of a state where Joe Biden won close to 49 percent of the vote in the 2020 Democratic primary.
Mr. Kennedy spoke about his 2024 presidential campaign. Democrat pundits say he is a fringe candidate who spreads conspiracy theories. Polls show him with the highest favorability rating of any presidential candidate.
There is no path for Mr. Kennedy to defeat President Biden, critics claim, despite questions about President Joe Biden’s age and mental fitness, low approval ratings, and surveys showing that Americans are concerned about the economy.
Earlier this year, the Democratic National Committee voted to give its full support to the president.
Mr. Kennedy agrees that unseating an incumbent president in the same party is a daunting challenge but disagrees with doubters who say he has no chance of securing the nomination.
The 2024 presidential nominee will be announced during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago next summer. Until then, Mr. Kennedy intends to continue to press his case.
“The DNC has around $2 billion, and they’re spending that money generously to try to marginalize me in many ways, but I think most Democrats care about one thing more than anything else, which is to beat Donald Trump,” Mr. Kennedy told The Epoch Times.
“I think President Biden cannot do that. I can.”
President John F. Kennedy saw his nephew, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at the Oval Office on March 11, 1961. (Abbie Rowe. White House Photographs. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston)
Mr. Kennedy is the nephew of President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1963; and the son of Robert F. Kennedy, who was shot and killed after a campaign speech while running for president in 1968.
During his town halls and meet-and-greets, Mr. Kennedy tells stories from time spent with his uncle and father and connects them to his presidential campaign.
He wants to continue his father’s legacy of uniting Americans from all economic classes and ethnic backgrounds.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (L) wants to continue his father’s (R) legacy of uniting Americans from all economic classes and ethnic backgrounds.
“I think we do that by telling the truth to people. My dad did it that way. He talked about uncomfortable issues but talked about the truth. I think people are tired of being lied to by the government, by the media,” Mr. Kennedy said.
“My dad ran against an incumbent president in his own party (Lyndon B. Johnson) during a divisive time. I’m running against a larger challenge because I am facing an entire infrastructure that is against me, from my own party and Big Tech and the pharmaceutical industry.”
An environmental attorney and the founder of Children’s Health Defense, Mr. Kennedy is widely known for being outspoken about the health risks of vaccines. His stand on these and other issues has drawn support from voters who are not left-leaning.
(Left) Then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy speaks to a crowd on racial equality outside the Justice Department on June 14, 1963. (Middle) Then-President John F. Kennedy speaks with his brother Robert F. Kennedy in 1963. (Right) (L–R) Brothers John, Robert, Ted Kennedy. (Public Domain)
The candidate, however, has said that he won’t do that, reiterating that stance over the last month in town halls and meet-and-greets in South Carolina, Virginia, and New York City.
“I’m a Democrat. This is my identity, but I want my party back,” Mr. Kennedy said.
“I’m running for president because the Democratic Party has lost its way. I want to remind the Democratic Party of what we are supposed to represent.”
“A focus on the middle class and labor, the well-being of minorities, a focus on the environment, civil liberties, and freedom of speech.”
He frequently talks about “unity” and “healing the divide.”
“I intend to bridge this toxic polarization that is really destroying our country and tearing us apart,” Mr. Kennedy said.
He called his campaign a “peaceful insurgency” that he hopes will appeal to conservative Republicans, independents, moderates, and liberal Democrats.
“During the 35 years I spent as one of the leaders of the environmental movement in our country, I was the only environmentalist who was regularly going on Fox News. I went on Sean Hannity repeatedly—Bill O’Reilly, too,” Mr. Kennedy said.
“I want to talk to media members and voters who share differing opinions than mine, because how else are you going to persuade?
A supporter of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., awaits his 2024 presidential bid announcement in Boston on April 19, 2023. (Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images)
“I think we have a lot more in common than what the media portrays. What keeps us apart are things that are rather trivial. We let them feed this toxic polarization. We need to talk. We need to have conversations with people from a wide range of views.”
Days after a House hearing on censorship in July that saw Democrats attempt to block Mr. Kennedy from testifying, a Harvard-Harris poll showed that he has a higher favorability rating than any other 2024 presidential candidate.
Mr. Kennedy saw a favorable rating of 47 percent and an unfavorable mark of 26 percent, according to a survey of 2,068 registered voters, conducted July 19–20 and released on July 23. Former President Trump carried a favorability rating of 45 percent compared with an unfavorability number of 49 percent. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis had a 40 percent favorable rating and 37 percent unfavorable, and President Biden’s rating was 39 percent favorable and 53 percent unfavorable.
Mr. Kennedy also had the highest net favorability of all 2024 presidential candidates in a June poll from The Economist/YouGov.
Kennedy campaign manager Dennis Kucinich is a former Democratic congressman from Ohio who ran for president in 2004 and 2008. He believes Mr. Kennedy can “rebuild and save” the country and that there is a path to victory over Biden.
“He is the only Democrat who can reach across the political spectrum, which means he can win in 2024,” Mr. Kucinich told The Epoch Times.
“Conservatives, liberals, independents, and libertarians are responding to this campaign because of the unique qualities of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and because there is an understanding he stands for unity, freedom, truth, and authenticity. That is what’s resonating with people.”
When asked about President Biden and former President Trump, Mr. Kennedy is measured in his responses.
“I’m not going to attack other people personally,” Mr. Kennedy said.
“I don’t think it’s good for our country. And what I’m trying to do in this race is bring people together, is try to bridge the divide between Americans.”
‘Poison, Hatred, and Vitriol’
Mr. Kennedy stands for “de-escalating” what he called “poison, hatred, and vitriol.”
Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly expressed his disapproval of President Biden’s job performance, but he has refrained from personal attacks about the 80-year-old’s mental fitness.
“If there’s a policy I disagree with—like the war, like censorship, the lockdowns—I’m going to criticize those, but I’m not going to attack him as a man,” Mr. Kennedy said.
“I will say, whether he’s up to it or not, whether he’s making his own decisions—the decisions that are coming out of the White House are bad decisions.”
President Biden is not scheduled to appear in Democrat primary debates, a decision Mr. Kennedy believes the president should reconsider.
“I think it would be better if we have a democracy where every candidate debates,” Mr. Kennedy said.
“I suppose he is making a strategic decision that’s based upon his own interest, but I think we’re living in a period when people have lost faith in the democratic process, and they think the system is rigged.”
President Joe Biden and President Trump should take the debate stage as a sign of respect for American voters, Mr. Kennedy said.
Then-President Donald Trump and then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden participate in the final presidential debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., on Oct. 22, 2020. (Jim Bourg/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
“Americans shouldn’t feel like we live in the Soviet Union, where the party picks the candidates. I think it would be much better for our democracy, and we’d be a better example for the world and improve our credibility with the American people if we actually allowed democracy to function and all the candidates participated in debates, and town halls, and retail politics.
“It is important for the Democratic Party that there is a primary debate. Ultimately, a Democrat will debate a Republican, and the Republican will likely be Trump. He is probably the most successful debater in this country since Lincoln Douglas,” said Mr. Kennedy, noting how President Trump defeated a crowded pool of Republican primary candidates in 2016.
“He has his own technique that people like. It’s like going into a prize fight. You need practice, and that usually happens in the primary,” Mr. Kennedy said.
“Asking the president to not debate in the primary is like asking a prizefighter to practice by sitting on the couch.”
In South Carolina, Virginia, and New York City, Mr. Kennedy talked to voters about the economy and issues on which he disagrees with President Biden.
In Charleston, he criticized the president for continued financial support to Ukraine.
“One of the big problems we have in our federal government is the addiction to war,” Mr. Kennedy said. “President Biden went to Congress and asked for another $24 billion for the Ukraine War.
“We’ve spent $8 trillion dollars on wars since 9/11. If we kept that money home, we would’ve had child care for every American. We would have free college education for every American. We’d be able to pay for our Social Security system.”
He believes that he, and not President Biden, is the candidate who will best represent Democrats in 2024 and beyond.
“I am the only choice that is going to end the war machine, that is going to really focus on rebuilding the American middle class, taming inflation,” Mr. Kennedy said.
(Left) A man shows a Remington 700 hunting rifle and a Remington 1100 shotgun available for sale at Atlantic Outdoors gun shop in Stokesdale, N.C., on March 26, 2018. (Right) Syringes of Moderna COVID-19 vaccines at a vaccination site in Los Angeles on Feb. 16, 2021. (Brian Blanco/Getty Images, Apu Gomes/AFP via Getty Images)
About gun control, Mr. Kennedy said, “I do not believe that, within that Second Amendment, there is anything we can meaningfully do to reduce the trade and the ownership of guns.”
“Anybody who tells you that they’re going to reduce gun violence through gun control at this point, I don’t think is being realistic,” he said.
“I think we have to think about other ways to reduce that violence.”
Mr. Kennedy did note that he would sign an assault weapons ban if he were president and the legislation was placed on his desk.
A vocal opponent of the pharmaceutical industry, Mr. Kennedy vowed at a town hall in Brooklyn on Sept. 1 that he would ban pharmaceutical advertising.
He is outspoken about the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccine for some in the population who were coerced to take them, but he told the Epoch Times that he is not “anti-vaccine.”
“I’ve never been anti-vaccine,” he said.
“I’ve said that hundreds and hundreds of times, but it doesn’t matter because that is a way of silencing me. Using that pejorative to describe me is a way of silencing or marginalizing me.”
Mr. Kennedy has said that, initially, he was not in favor of former President Trump’s border wall. But after seeing the border firsthand in Arizona in July, he changed his mind. He said there is a need for increased infrastructure and technology at the border, including more segments of a physical wall, and sensors in areas where a wall isn’t feasible.
Until the United States can seal the border, he said he doesn’t think it is possible to get an immigration reform package through Congress.
Illegal immigrants wait in line to be processed by the U.S. Border Patrol after crossing through a gap in the U.S.–Mexico border barrier in Yuma, Ariz., on May 21, 2022. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Mr. Kennedy visited the Arizona–California border with Mexico in early June and met with illegal immigrants, Border Patrol agents, and other stakeholders.
“The Democratic Party thinks our function should be welcoming all immigrants into the country no matter what, and to basically open the borders. And the experiment has been a disaster, a humanitarian catastrophe,” Mr. Kennedy said.
“I watched it firsthand. I watched 300 people come across the border and then be processed and sent to locations all over the country with court dates seven years down the road.”
“There’s now seven million people who have come across illegally and have no legal status in this country. Those people are very vulnerable now to unscrupulous employers who are paying them $5 and $6 an hour,” he said.
Mr. Kennedy called the Biden administration’s open border policy “a way of funding a multibillion-dollar drug and human trafficking operation for the Mexican drug cartels.”
“As president, I will secure the border, which will end the cartel’s drug trafficking economy. I will build wide doors for those who wish to enter legally so that the U.S. can continue to be a beacon to the world where diversity and culture make us great,” he said.
“Immigration is good for our country, but this kind of immigration is unfair to everybody,” he said.
Ending the Ukraine War
Mr. Kennedy has called for de-escalating the war in Ukraine. He explained that he is sympathetic to the Ukrainian cause and added that Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded the country illegally, but he chastised the United States for its role in the conflict.
“We have neglected many, many opportunities to settle this war peacefully,” he said. “We have turned that nation into a proxy war between Russia and the United States.”
Ukrainian soldiers preparing U.S.-made MK-19 automatic grenade launcher towards at a front line near Toretsk, Ukraine, on Oct. 12, 2022. (Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP via Getty Images)
Mr. Kennedy has urged President Biden to negotiate a peaceful end to the Russia-Ukraine war, which started when Russia invaded the neighboring nation in February 2022.
“Russia is not going to lose this war. Russia can’t afford it,” Mr. Kennedy said. “It would be like us losing a war to Mexico.”
As part of his reasoning for ending the Ukraine war, Mr. Kennedy referenced his uncle, President John F. Kennedy.
“My uncle Jack said that the primary job of an American President of the United States is to keep the country out of war. He kept out of Vietnam. He sent only 16,000 military advisers there—mainly Green Berets,” Mr. Kennedy said.
“In October 1963, he learned that one of his Green Berets had died, and he asked his aide to give him a combat casualty list, and the aide came back and said 75 had died so far. He said: ‘That’s too many.’”
The American Dream
When it comes to supporting labor unions, Mr. Kennedy’s ideas are similar to President Biden’s.
“In my administration, you can expect vigorous action by the Justice Department and the Department of Labor to enforce laws against union-busting and unfair labor practices,” Mr. Kennedy said.
“We will also raise the minimum wage so that unions have a higher floor from which to bargain. We will negotiate trade treaties that don’t pit American workers against low-wage foreign workers in a race to the bottom.”
At his campaign stops. Mr. Kennedy likes to talk about the flourishing economic period the nation experienced after World War II.
“I grew up during the heyday of American economic prosperity. It was in the 1950s and 1960s that the archetype of the American Dream was born. It was not something available only to a lucky few; it was within the reach of most Americans,” he said.
“A single wage-earner with a high school education at that time could own a home, raise a family, have vacations, and save for retirement. That is how it should be. If you work hard, you should have a decent life.”
Mr. Kennedy said that, if elected president, he would create a 3 percent mortgage for Americans guaranteed by the government and funded by the sale of tax-free bonds. He would also work to make it less profitable for large corporations to own single-family homes in the United States.
“If you have a rich uncle who co-signs your mortgage, you will get a lower interest rate because the bank looks at his credit rating. I’m going to give everyone a rich uncle, and his name is Uncle Sam,” Mr. Kennedy said at a recent town hall in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
The first 500,000 of those 3 percent mortgages would be reserved for teachers, he said.
“Both President Trump and President Biden are running on platforms that they’ve brought prosperity to this country. But when I travel around South Carolina and other states, I’m not seeing that,” Mr. Kennedy told an audience in Charleston.
“I’m seeing people who are living at a level of desperation that I have not seen in this country—ever.”
Corporations Killing the Dream
Making it easier for Americans to buy single-family homes without competing against institutional investors is a priority, Mr. Kennedy said.
A Wall Street Journal report in 2021 showed that 200 corporations were aggressively buying tens of thousands of single-family houses, including entire neighborhoods, and significantly increasing rental prices.
According to data reviewed by Stateline, investors purchased 24 percent of the single-family homes bought in 2021. In 2022, the number climbed to 28 percent of single-family home purchases, according to the organization.
A MetLife Financial Management study contends that institutional investors could own up to 40 percent of single-family homes by 2030
Calling the issue a “crisis,” Mr. Kennedy put the blame on asset management behemoths like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard.
A 2017 paper published by Cambridge University Press reported that the three firms constitute the largest shareholder in 88 percent of S&P 500 firms.
“And now they have a new target, which is to gain ownership of all the single-family residences in this country. And they are on a trajectory to do that,” Mr. Kennedy told an audience in Greenville, South Carolina.
“Usually, when a company buys a home with a cash offer, there is an LLC with an ambiguous name. It often can be traced back to one of those big companies,” he said.
Mr. Kennedy noted that Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, is a World Economic Forum (WEF) board member.
“The WEF is a billionaire boys club that meets in Davos every year and has a plan, which is New World Order and what they have called the Great Reset,” Mr. Kennedy said.
“Klaus Schwab, who wrote the book on that agenda, says that you will own nothing and you will be happy. They are well on their way to accomplishing that first part.”
At every stop in South Carolina, Mr. Kennedy said that one of his first priorities as president would be to change the tax code so that “it will be less profitable for large corporations to own single-family homes.”
Curbing credit card debt is another way to help more Americans achieve home ownership and become more financially comfortable.
“Many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. The average income in this country is $5,000 less than the average cost of living. What that means is people have to make up the difference by putting those expenses on credit cards,” Mr. Kennedy told a crowd in Richmond, Virginia.
“We recently reached a milestone in this country with more than $1 trillion in personal credit card debt,” Mr. Kennedy said, adding that many creditors are charging interest rates of 22 percent and higher.
“If it was the mafia, it would be loan sharking, and they would go to jail, but for banks and credit card companies, it is considered the cost of doing business.”
Before concluding his remarks about credit card debt, Mr. Kennedy posed a question to the audience.
“Who do you think owns many of those companies?” he asked.
“BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard. They are strip mining the wealth of the American public, and their political clout allows them to do that.”
Primary Season
Under a new format, South Carolina will hold the first Democratic presidential primary on Feb. 3. Earlier this year, encouraged by President Biden, the DNC voted to strip the Iowa caucus of its traditional lead-off spot in the party’s presidential nominating process and replace it with South Carolina.
In late August, as Mr. Kennedy traveled around South Carolina, he stopped in Orangeburg to officially open a statewide campaign office.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks at a town hall at a home in Spartanburg, S.C. on Aug. 22, 2023. (Jeff Louderback/The Epoch Times)
New Hampshire has long been the country’s—and the GOP’s—first primary after the Iowa caucuses. Under the Democrats’ new calendar, which differs from the Republicans’ primary calendar, it would vote with Nevada on Feb. 6.
Because of the move, President Biden’s name might not appear on New Hampshire’s Democrat primary ballot.
The DNC rules panel gave New Hampshire and Iowa until Sept. 1 to comply with new rules or face possible sanctions. Republican and Democrat legislators in New Hampshire have said that they won’t adhere to the schedule change, saying state law prohibits the move.
If President Biden’s name doesn’t appear on the ballot, that would leave Mr. Kennedy to compete with author Marianne Williamson in the New Hampshire primary.
New Hampshire’s Democratic party leaders have said that a longtime state law requires that their primary be scheduled ahead of any other primary.
In 2020, candidate Joe Biden lost the Democratic caucus in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire before winning decisively in South Carolina. He has said that South Carolina more accurately represents the party’s diverse voting base.
“Everyone knows the real reason the DNC made the change. The people of South Carolina didn’t ask for it. No, it is simply another undemocratic attempt to rig the primary process in favor of their anointed candidate, Joe Biden,” he added.
“The DNC seems to have forgotten the purpose of the modern primary system to begin with, which was to replace backroom crony politics with a transparent democratic process,” Mr. Kennedy added.
“If the Biden campaign thinks they can win with administrative tricks and evasions, they will be in for a rude surprise in both New Hampshire and South Carolina.
First Office in New Hampshire
Mr. Kennedy opened his first office in New Hampshire in August.
“New Hampshire plays an important role in American democracy because they have this history, and they have a cultural affinity for vetting candidates early on in the process, and they do a very good job of it,” Mr. Kennedy told The Epoch Times.
“In many other states, politicians can fly over at 30,000 feet and carpet bomb the state with billions of dollars in advertising. It’s kind of a kabuki theater of democracy rather than real democracy,” he said.
“In Iowa, you go to the farms and stock sales. In New Hampshire, you have to go to the barber shops and the nail salons and the diners, and you have to shake hands with people, and you have to answer difficult questions and then follow-up questions. You get to know people, and that is important.”
Mr. Kennedy recalls campaign trips with his uncle and father in the 1960s.
Supporters gather around then-presidential candidate John F. Kennedy during one of his campaigns at a shopping center in Maryland on May 12, 1960. (Library of Congress)
“I remember the crowds and the enthusiasm. That is what we are seeing at our events. Enthusiasm. Intensity,” he said.
“There’s nothing like meeting people face to face and hearing their concerns. When we were in New Hampshire, we had one event in a sparsely populated area in one of the most northern counties, and we drove down a long dirt road. I thought, ‘How is anyone going to show up at this event?’ and we had 500 people there. That is inspiring.”
Mr. Kennedy supports abortion in the first three months of pregnancy.
“I can argue there’s nobody in this country that has worked harder for the rights of medical freedom and personal bodily autonomy than me,” Mr. Kennedy said.
“That applies to the vaccines and abortion.
“I don’t think the government should be telling us what to do with our bodies and dictating for Americans what we can and cannot do in the first three months of pregnancy. It’s a woman’s choice.”
That stance could cost him potential support from conservatives, he conceded.
“I’ve seen photos of late-term abortions, and they’re horrifyingly troubling,” Mr. Kennedy said. “I respect people who have different points of view, and for people who say that ‘it’s the only issue that I care about,’ they will likely vote for someone else because of my beliefs.
“If you’re a one-issue voter, and that’s something that you deeply care about, I might not be the right candidate for you,” he added. “But I feel like there’s a lot of people now who want authenticity in their political leadership, and they want somebody who’s going to tell them the truth.”
Censorship
Also ranking high among issues Mr. Kennedy feels strongly about is censorship—from the government as well as Big Tech.
He has filed legal action against the Biden administration and Google, among other entities, for alleged censorship. He has appeared before Congress to testify about the issue.
“I was censored not just by a Democratic administration, I was censored by the Trump administration. I was the first person censored by the Biden administration, two days after he came into office,” Mr. Kennedy told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government in July.
Robert Kennedy Jr. (R), 2024 Presidential hopeful, is sworn in before testifying at the “Weaponization of the Federal Government” hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on July 20, 2023. (Jim WATSON / AFP)
In February 2021, he was barred from Instagram, for what owner Meta described as breaking its rules regarding COVID-19.
At the time, a company spokesperson said Instagram removed Mr. Kennedy’s account for “repeatedly sharing debunked claims about the coronavirus or vaccines.”
In June, Instagram restored the account.
“As he is now an active candidate for president of the United States, we have restored access to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s, Instagram account,” Andy Stone, a spokesperson for Meta, said in a June 4 statement.
Mr. Kennedy’s Facebook account has remained active.
Meta removed Instagram and Facebook accounts belonging to Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Mr. Kennedy’s non-profit. CHD, according to its website, advocates to “end childhood health epidemics by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible accountable, and establish safeguards to prevent future harm.”
Meta said that the CHD accounts were banned because they repeatedly violated the company’s COVID-19 policies. Mr. Kennedy still bristles at the move.
“Silencing a major political candidate is profoundly undemocratic,” he said.
“Social media is the modern equivalent of the town square. How can democracy function if only some candidates have access to it?”
Allegations of Anti-Semitism
What bothers Mr. Kennedy even more are accusations earlier this year that he is “anti-Semitic.”
At a gathering in July, a secretly recorded video was leaked to the media where Mr. Kennedy can be heard describing research that reported that the COVID-19 virus disproportionately affected Caucasian and black people while being comparably mild for Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people, whom Mr. Kennedy suggested had a stronger immune response to the virus.
Democrats and other critics of Mr. Kennedy condemned the comments as “racist” and “anti-Semitic.”
Mr. Kennedy has vehemently denied the allegations.
At the July 20 House hearing on censorship, Democrats attempted to prevent him from testifying. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) introduced a motion to move the hearing into executive session, which would have closed the hearing from public view.
“Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly made despicable anti-Semitic and anti-Asian remarks as recently as last week,” Ms. Wasserman Schultz said, citing a section of House rules that she said Mr. Kennedy’s comments violated.
In a recorded vote, all 10 Republicans present at the hearing voted to shelve Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s motion. All eight Democrats present voted in favor of the motion.
Mr. Kennedy testified that he has “never uttered a phrase that was racist or anti-Semitic,” and he continued to defend himself on July 25 in New York at a World Values Network presidential candidate series event.
Just as he said in July, Mr. Kennedy pointedly refuted the claims that he is anti-Semitic.
“I’ve been involved in controversial issues for most of my career. Usually, it doesn’t affect me,” he said.
“The accusation of anti-Semitism cuts me and hurts me. It hurts Cheryl [Hines, Kennedy’s wife]. It hurts our family, and so that was painful.
“I’ve literally never said an anti-Semitic word in my life, but I believe they [Democrats on the House committee] probably thought whatever they were doing was right in one way or another,” he said.
“There’s a way to censor people through targeted character assassination. You use vile accusations to marginalize them, and that is the kind of censorship I’m now dealing with,” Mr. Kennedy said.
The Democratic contender concluded his comments about censorship with a message that reflects a key component of his campaign platform
“If we’re going to really heal the divide between Americans—which is one of the things that I’m trying to do with this campaign—we can’t react even to hatred with hatred. We have to react with forgiveness. React with kindness and react with generosity,” Mr. Kennedy stated.
“Harboring resentment is like swallowing poison and hoping someone else dies. It corrodes our souls.”
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 17:30 - CNN's Van Jones Sounds Alarm Over 'Grandpa' Joe Biden Running In 2024
CNN’s Van Jones Sounds Alarm Over ‘Grandpa’ Joe Biden Running In 2024
After seeing this shitshow of a performance by President Biden at the pos-G20-Summit press conference, how can anyone be surprised that even the most vehement ‘believer in ‘Bidenomics’ has had enough…
I can’t believe @DNC is going to run him in 2024 pic.twitter.com/kSg89RpUMW
— Quoth the Raven (@QTRResearch) September 10, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Reality appears to be setting in for Democrats after a recent poll revealed that two-thirds of Democrat-leaning voters don’t want President Biden to run in 2024, 82% of whom said they want “just someone besides Joe Biden.”
Jones, a former Obama adviser, was asked by co-host Poppy Harlow on “CNN This Morning” about recent comments from former Obama aide Jim Messina, who told Politico Playbook that Democrats worried about recent polls are “fucking bedwetters.”
“If Jim Messina says that we’re bedwetters, invest in Pampers and Depends because a lot of people are terrified that Joe Biden is in real trouble and that you can’t talk about it,” Jones said, adding “So that’s what’s going on.“
That said, Jones did admit that Messina “is right” in that “is right” since “it may, in fact, be true that a year from now things look very different because there’s been a year of a real campaign, and all this kind of stuff.”
“But right now, today, I think a lot of Democrats look at these numbers and say the whispers are finally showing up in this data,” Jones said of a recent CNN poll in which Biden’s approval rating has dropped to just 39% – with voters concerned about his advanced age and declining mental faculties.
Watch:
The Left is turning on Biden. Newsom Time?
New CNN Poll: Two-thirds of Dem voters said they would prefer someone other than Biden
CNN’s Van Jones on Dem worries about Biden: ‘Would you give this Grandpa a high-stress job for six more years?’ pic.twitter.com/jtFWNLzHEd
— RPK Report (@RPKReport) September 7, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js“They worry about Joe Biden,” Jones continued, adding “Joe Biden’s like that grandpa that you love, that you believe in.”
(That takes ‘probably inappropriate‘ showers with his daughter?)
“But you start to wonder, you know, would you give this grandpa a high-stress job for six more years or would you want something else for him?”
Frankly, the fact that the president’s aides had to play him out tells you all you need to know about the struggles The White House is having to hide Biden’s degradation…
WATCH: Joe Biden’s staff cuts off a rambling Joe Biden mid-sentence and abruptly ends his news conference.
I have never seen this occur with any other president. pic.twitter.com/LqvW2VsESH
— Andrew @ Don’t Walk, RUN! (@DontWalkRUN) September 10, 2023
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 17:00 - The G18: When Neither China Nor Russia Show Up
The G18: When Neither China Nor Russia Show Up
By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities
Maybe it is the new math, but is it really the G20 when neither China nor Russia show up?
I’m not sure anyone really expected Russia to show up. Leaving the borders of Russia is not the best thing that Putin could do for his own safety or security. The fact that China (Xi) did not attend is more interesting. I haven’t seen an official statement as to why he did not attend, but I have read that the reasons could include anything from “solidarity with Putin” (which seems unlikely) to “escalating tensions along the Himalayan border between China and India” (was not on my radar screen) to “a fractious tone at the recent Beidaihe meeting” (which has come up in some of our recent geopolitical discussions). There is a Nikkei article alleging that Xi was reprimanded by party elders at this year’s Beidaihe meeting. Is it possible that questions about the domestic economy kept him from the G20? I don’t know, but earlier this year China abruptly changed their zero-Covid strategy after a series of protests were reported.
I don’t know why Xi did not attend the G20, but it doesn’t strike me as a good sign for global relations.
The G18 (or G20) issued a statement about the war in Ukraine (which was apparently not critical enough of Russia) citing risks to the global economy (see The Economist Who Cried Recession) and included some climate initiatives (which I am not overly optimistic about given the fact that China didn’t attend).
Made By China
I continue to argue that one way for China to extricate itself from its current economic weakness is to sell more of their own brands (see China’s Next Move).
The following helps support that view:
- The yuan is on the cusp of record weakness.
This weakness should provide a competitive advantage for Chinese exports.
- There have been reports that certain phones and products will be banned for employees of certain Chinese government entities. That would presumably create an opportunity for Chinese brands. I have not seen a confirmation of this ban, but the market certainly responded to headlines about this on Thursday.
- Huawei’s latest phone incorporates 7 nanometer chips made by SMIC. This is impressive technology and has reportedly caught the attention of the U.S. Commerce Department.
I continue to believe that one of the most underpriced risks (in the market and in corporate boardrooms) is the potential for rapid growth in the sale of Chinese brands. The events of the past week have only reinforced that view.
In the meantime, I’m looking for China to ramp up support for their economy in the coming days and weeks. So far, they have only done some things at the margin and markets have not been impressed.
Inflation versus a Slowdown
This week the “inflation” camp won. Yields increased across the curve and there was a small uptick in the probability of another rate hike this year (still less than 50% though). That seemed to weigh on the stock market as we are in a “good news is bad” mode.
think that the move in rates is overdone, and they should drift lower (I’m looking for 4% on 10s) which would be good for risk assets (especially if accompanied by some new and larger stimulus measures in China).
I am leaning more towards the belief that the “soft landing” view will be challenged in the coming weeks as we get new data. The anecdotal evidence seems to be pointing towards slowing spending/growth in many areas. This should show up in the data if the anecdotes are broadly representative of the state of the economy (and I believe that they are).
I’m getting nervous about the current state of the economy (there are some potentially large headwinds if I’m correct on China’s strategy), but I am still bullish risk for a trade (betting on “bad news is good news” at least until we get sub 4% on 10s).
I would have liked to see a G19 and am curious why Xi did not attend. It could be a “nothing burger” but it is curious to say the least.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 16:30 - Alpha
Alpha
By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management
Alpha
“It requires that you think holistically about your portfolio,” said the CIO of a sovereign wealth fund, somewhere in Asia Pacific. “It’s the way you’d think in my seat. You’d look at the overall risk, netted off across all the portfolio positions,” he said. “It’s similar to running a multi-strat fund with a comprehensive risk management structure and a center book, the difference being that we are by design long the market rather than market neutral.” We were talking about a Total Portfolio approach to investment management. Of the largest pools of investment capital in the world, several of the leading performers are run in such a way.
“Typical large investment funds have asset class teams, and each will try to optimize its own portfolio, its own allocation,” continued the same CIO. “Whereas we try to optimize across the whole portfolio, every asset class, all opportunities, at least conceptually,” he said. “If you go down the route of having asset class teams, you somehow need to find how to compare the returns of capital across asset classes and manage a competition for capital so that you allocate to the best investment. There’s always a conflict between bottom up and top down.”
“We organized ourselves in a different way,” he said. “We have a whole team of generalists and hopefully they can do anything,” he said. “But the reality is that you naturally get market segmentation. And expertise on certain asset classes and sectors is very important.” So, he’s been trying to increase the degree of specialization across the investment team without losing the whole of portfolio approach. “And it gets harder at the size we’re running at,” he admitted.
“One of our key advantages is that we have a very long-term horizon,” he explained. “It allows us to have quite a high risk appetite.” They take substantial active risk around their reference portfolio, accepting the volatility required to generate alpha. “We think about where we have structural advantages, where and why we may have a better chance of making money than others in such a competitive marketplace.” They don’t require short term cash flows. “We can really look through situations, events, dislocations, see across the chasms.”
“Perhaps our biggest advantage is governance,” he explained. “You can only really think long-term if you have real buy in from your investors,” he said. “We have only one investor, a clear mission, and strong buy in.” As a sovereign wealth fund, they have access to unique investment opportunities, managers, and certain reputational advantages too. “We’ve been able to stick with our strategy because people have bought into it. And of course, if there were ever a few years of negative returns, that could be tested. But the philosophy has worked well.”
Anecdote:
“Conceptually it’s very easy,” said the CIO. “Practically it’s very hard,” he continued. A lovely winter day in August, the world upside down. We were discussing dynamic asset allocation, which for them consists of adjusting one’s portfolio to lean against powerful market trends. “It is the part of our investment program that our peers are most interested in discussing.” He leads a sovereign wealth fund with the world’s top performance for the past decade. To outperform requires investors do those things others generally do not. Defying the crowd at such scale is high art.
“We base our dynamic asset allocation decisions mostly on relative valuations. It is a mean reversion process that capitalizes on volatility harvesting. And at times we will underperform, even have substantial drawdowns, but in the long run it has produced tremendous alpha.” In 2021-22 the approach helped contribute to the portfolio outperforming its 80/20 equity/bond benchmark by 700bps.
“If you’re entering a high-volatility trending environment, the strategy is not very good. But if you’re entering a high-volatility non-trending environment, it is quite a good approach,” he said. “The periods that are both most challenging and ultimately rewarding are when you’ve had markets selling off a lot and your long position gets bigger and bigger, your liquidity is drawing down. You need to have the right limits at those times, and our limits are bigger than others because of our long horizon,” he said.
“When that happens, like it did during Covid, when the collapse was faster and deeper than we thought it should be, it made us wonder, do we understand the underlying distribution?” Such periods torture those who risk defying the crowd, because of course, no one can outperform without paying a steep price, emotionally, mentally, physically. “It made us consider, if something is at an extreme, do we feel more confident that it will revert? Or less confident, because perhaps we don’t understand the underlying system?”
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 15:30 - "Who Is Biden Working For?" Admin Under Fire For 'Illegal, Reckless' Cancellation Of Alaska Oil Leases
“Who Is Biden Working For?” Admin Under Fire For ‘Illegal, Reckless’ Cancellation Of Alaska Oil Leases
Did someone pay Bidens to weaken the United States?
After canceling the Keystone XL pipeline project, draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to dangerously low levels (some of which was sold to a Hunter Biden-linked Chinese energy giant), and vowing “no more oil drilling” on US soil while America’s geopolitical adversaries – two of whom paid his family handsomely – beef up their own energy independence, the Biden administration has done it again.
Last week the regime confirmed that it will cancel seven controversial oil and gas leases in an area of Alaska known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which were legally awarded from a 2021 sale.
“On day one of this administration, President Biden directed us to look at the oil and gas leases sold in the refuge by the previous administration,” said Interior Secretary Deb Haaland in a Wednesday call with reporters. “What we have found in our analysis is that the lease sale itself was seriously flawed and based on a number of fundamental legal deficiencies.”
Biden, in a written statement, said that the move will “help preserve our Arctic lands and wildlife, while honoring the culture, history, and enduring wisdom of Alaska Natives who have lived on these lands since time immemorial.”
“As the climate crisis warms the Arctic more than twice as fast as the rest of the world, we have a responsibility to protect this treasured region for all ages,” the statement continues, adding “My administration will continue to take bold action to meet the urgency of the climate crisis and to protect our lands and waters for generations to come.”
The administration also proposed a rule on Wednesday that would protect 13 million acres in a different part of Alaska.
In short, NIMBYism (or something more nefarious) meets National Security…
China currently holds 96% of global copper inventories, 75% of global aluminum, 70% of corn, 54% of wheat, 30% of soybeans and 22% of crude oil: JPM
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 24, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
In response, Fox Business host and former Trump administration official Larry Kudlow blasted Biden, saying that this latest energy policy aides Russia, Iran and Venezuela, and is “sheer insanity.”
“Biden is … playing into the hands of some of the worst actors in the world. I’ve never seen anything… and damaging, obviously, consumers and businesses here at home,” said Kudlow, adding “This is insanity. Sheer insanity.”
“Who is Biden working for?” asked one X user in response to Kudlow’s segment.
Watch:
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin also slammed the Biden administration over the move, calling the decisions an attempt to weaken American energy security.
“This is yet another example of this administration caving to the radical left with no regard for clear direction from Congress or American energy security,” said Manchin. “Let’s be clear — this is another attempt to use executive action to circumvent a law to accomplish what this administration does not have the votes to achieve in Congress.”
“Canceling valid leases, removing acreage from future sales, and attempting to reduce production in Alaska while taking steps to allow Iran and Venezuela to produce more oil — with fewer environmental regulations — makes no sense and is frankly embarrassing,” Manchin concluded.
As Jack Gist opines in The Western Journal,
Why would the Biden administration make such a move? I’m not the only one who thinks it’s crazy.
“These decisions are illegal, reckless, defy all common sense, and are the latest signs of an incoherent energy policy from President Biden,” Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski declared in a news release.
Murkowski is an on-again-off-again Republican who is often courted by Democrats for her vote. For her to sound off against the Biden administration is telling.
In the same news release, Dan Sullivan, Alaska’s other Republican senator, said, “Not only is this an affront to the rule of law, it’s also a grave injustice to the Inupiat people of the North Slope, especially the people of Kaktovik — the only village in ANWR.”
According to Politico, Sullivan told reporters on Capitol Hill that Biden officials “love to talk about racial equity, racial justice, environmental justice, taking care of people of color, but one big exception — the Indigenous people of Alaska. They screw ’em every time.”
Sullivan is spot-on except for one point. The Indigenous people of Alaska are not the only ones getting the shaft.
Progressives have made a concerted effort to appropriate the word “justice” in an effort to subvert its meaning. They claim the moral high ground while at the same time disdaining morality. For progressives, there is no justice and therefore no morality. There is only power.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 15:00 - "See You In Court": Gun Owners of America Sues Tyrannical New Mexico Governor
“See You In Court”: Gun Owners of America Sues Tyrannical New Mexico Governor
Submitted by Gun Owners of America,
New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham declared gun violence a “public health emergency” in response to recent deadly shootings in Albuquerque.
While the anti-gun lobby and their allies in the corporate media have long championed the idea that gun violence constitutes a public health emergency, this is the first time after the COVID-19 pandemic that public health has been used as a guise to limit law-abiding citizens Second Amendment rights unconstitutionally.
We staunchly oppose the tyrannical decision of @govMLG to suspend the constitutional rights of law-abiding New Mexico citizens.
The right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed and her actions constitute a significant infringement on your Second Amendment rights.
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 9, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
While the public health order may stop law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms to defend themselves in Albuquerque, it certainly will not deter criminals, who often do not have permits to carry firearms, whether open or concealed in the first place.
In fact, concealed carry permit holders are some of the country’s most “law-abiding” citizens. For example, those who hold concealed carry permits in Texas are 14 times less likely to commit a crime than an average person.
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
At risk of stating what should be obvious, deliberately violating the Constitution is next-level illegal.
How soon can this person be removed from office?
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 9, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
So why would Gov. Grisham issue a tyrannical order like this? Well, it’s simple. Because this is a trial run for something much larger.
Since the landmark decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which affirmed that the Second Amendment extends outside the home, anti-gun politicians nationwide have had to resort to drastic measures to Americans’ right to a firearm.
Using emergency orders to suspend constitutional rights in response to a tragedy is backward thinking at its finest. It leaves law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to the criminals who committed those violent acts in the first place.
The Governor of New Mexico has just declared the 1st & 2nd Amendment “does not exist” due to an “emergency.”
Under this legal theory *all* of our “rights” are essentially eliminated.
Watch the most evil & tyrannical 60 seconds you’ve ever heard from a politician: pic.twitter.com/xLpMSTbyi2
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 9, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
These unconstitutional actions taken by Governor Grisham are unacceptable and will undoubtedly cause more violence and harm to the public.
We urge Gov. Grisham to reverse course immediately and if she doesn’t then we will be seeing her in court. 👏
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 9, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Gun Owners of America has officially filed a lawsuit against the tyrannical governor.
🚨BREAKING🚨⁰⁰GOA and @GunFoundation have officially filed our lawsuit against NM Governor Grisham and her tyrannical executive order banning firearm carry.
See you in court! 🔥
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 10, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
See you in court, Governor Grisham.
* * *
We’ll hold the line for you in Washington. We are No Compromise. Join the Fight Now.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 14:30 - Austrian Economics Vs. CBDC, ESG, UBI, And Other Newfangled Socioeconomic Gimmicks
Austrian Economics Vs. CBDC, ESG, UBI, And Other Newfangled Socioeconomic Gimmicks
Authored by Jakub Bożydar Wiśniewski via the Mises Institute,
The Austrian school – on account of the logical, deductive character of its theories and their realistic applicability to the actual economy – is the only economic tradition that consciously aspires to the discovery of timeless, universally relevant truths that govern the realm of human action. Thus, it should come as no surprise that its analytical apparatus is naturally suitable for the evaluation of all the recent newfangled socioeconomic phenomena.
For example, in view of its reflection about the logical essence of the sound means of exchange, the Austrian school sends serious warning signals regarding the notorious concept of CBDCs (central bank digital currencies). More specifically, it points out that CBDC is nothing else but fiat money on steroids, which allows for an unprecedented redistribution of monetary purchasing power in the direction of special interest groups, as well as for immediate monetization of public debt. Worse still, the establishment of a global CBDC platform would be a major step in the direction of eliminating currency competition, which, as the Austrians suggest, is the best among imperfect anti-inflationary buffers in a world deprived of market-chosen money.
Successful implementation of CBCDs would lethally infect the lifeblood of the global economy, causing unprecedentedly ruinous business cycles, endlessly distorted monetary calculation, and eventually a worldwide disintegration of indirect exchange. Nothing should be less surprising, especially to the Austrians, since the abovementioned situation would be the exact opposite of the monetary stability and predictability afforded by the classical gold standard.
Similarly, in light of its considerations on the crucial role of economic calculation in the process of rational allocation of resources, the Austrians are naturally wary of the aggressively pushed “ESG standards”. This is because these standards, while parading around in the costume of “good business practices” are a major factor that disrupts business calculation with arbitrary, ideologically charged obstructions manufactured by the global bureaucratic-corporate oligarchy. As such, far from being a form of genuine social capital that builds trust on the part of customers, they are a potent source of ideological confusion and bureaucratic uniformization that hamper the process of generating authentic goodwill by socially proactive companies.
Nevertheless, the ubiquity of such arbitrary pseudo-market standards can plunge the economy into an abyss of legal uncertainty, especially if some political regimes decide to enforce them as part of their “sustainable development” agenda. And it is precisely in such scenarios, as the Austrian school stresses repeatedly, that the entrepreneurial capacity for long-term planning becomes particularly hobbled.
Finally, so-called UBI (“universal basic income”) is easily identified by the Austrians as the most comprehensive and audacious form of Frederic Bastiat’s “great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody” – i.e., the ultimate incarnation of universal parasitism. More specifically, given their sound reflection on the logic of human action and the resulting incentive structure, the Austrians realize full well that large-scale introduction of UBI would result in immediate capital consumption and catapult the global economy back to at least the preindustrial stage.
In other words, the Austrian school is uniquely positioned to point out that UBI-ism would be a singularly destructive form of communism, since classical Soviet-style communism, even though supremely wasteful, was at least committed to diligence rather than idleness. Thus, it unwittingly nourished the spirit of dedication which, when combined with the spirit of defiance, brought about its eventual collapse. However, nothing similar can be said about UBI-ism, which eliminates the spirit of defiance by promoting universal shiftlessness and indolence.
In view of all the preceding remarks, it becomes obvious that the convergence of all the abovementioned phenomena would be particularly capable of sealing the fate of the world economy. More specifically, what I mean here is a situation in which UBI would be paid out in CBDC to those who qualify in virtue of their total acceptance of the ESG agenda. Or, to put matters somewhat differently, a situation in which universal parasitism converges with completely cashless monetary totalitarianism and complete submission to contrived ideological whims.
It goes without saying that such a scenario would be utterly dysfunctional on so many levels and in so many aspects that it would descend into total economic and social chaos in a very short time. However, even if we can rightly regard it as a highly unrealistic or indeed outright absurd contingency, we might at the same time treat it as a hypothetical anti-ideal against which all conceivable forces of resistance – conceptual and practical, academic, and entrepreneurial, and individual and collective – should be proactively rallied. And when it comes to coordinating such forces of resistance and serving as their fail-safe intellectual guide, there is no better candidate than the scholarly edifice of the Austrian school.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 13:30 - Lavrov Gloats: West Failed To "Ukrainize" G20 As Global South Triumphed
Lavrov Gloats: West Failed To “Ukrainize” G20 As Global South Triumphed
Previously we noted how despite the best efforts of Washington and its Western partners, the G20 summit was unable to produce a statement condemning Russia and its invasion of Ukraine. Biden clearly failed to rally allies especially among BRICS and global south countries.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who is at the G20 in New Delhi representing the absent President Vladimir Putin, is gloating over the Western allies’ failure at “Ukrainizing” the summit’s agenda, according to his remarks published in Russian media and Reuters.
He told a Sunday press briefing that the Russian delegation had stood firm “to protect their legitimate interests,” and were thus able “to prevent the West from once again Ukrainizing the entire agenda”. He hailed the summit as a “success”.
AFP/Getty Images Lavrov then pointed to the G20 agreed upon declaration which merely “mentions the Ukraine crisis, but only in the context of the need to resolve all conflicts” – which he said is language in line with the principles of the UN Charter.
He further suggested that the US didn’t get its way of turning the Group of 20 into a “politicized club” – but instead the final declaration that was adopted “highlighted the human suffering and negative added impacts of the war in Ukraine with regard to global food and energy security, supply chains, macro-financial stability, inflation and growth.”
The top Russian diplomat explained that this agenda was thwarted largely through the collective efforts of developing nations and the interests of the global south, led especially by India, the host country. Per Reuters:
The Global South’s position in the talks helped prevent the G20 agenda from being overshadowed by Ukraine, he told a press conference. “India has truly consolidated G20 members from the Global South.”
And more via The Moscow Times:
“The text doesn’t mention Russia at all,” Russia’s veteran diplomat said.
“The Indian presidency has really managed to coalesce G20 members from the global south,” he added, suggesting that Russian allies like Brazil, South Africa, India and China had made their voices heard.
CNN had also observed Saturday, “Diplomats had been working furiously to draft a final joint statement in the lead-up to the summit but hit snags on language to describe the Ukraine war.” The mainstream publication then presented it as a defeat for the White House’s hopes: “The eventual compromise statement amounted to a coup for the summit’s host, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, but still reflected a position far softer those the United States and its Western allies have adopted individually.”
The section of the G20 declaration where the US, UK and Europe hoped to include more teeth indeed failed to so much as mention Russia at all. “All states must refrain from the threat or use of force to seek territorial acquisition,” it reads. And the declaration added more mutedly: “there were different views and assessments of the situation.”
Some pundits noted that the final declaration’s language was very favorable to Moscow’s view of the conflict…
🔹And then we removed all wordings such as ‘Russian aggression’ & ‘condemn’ from the G20 resolution! 😂
🔹Wait, it’s even better. It’s now called “war IN Ukraine” and not “war AGAINST Ukraine.”😂😂
Modi and Lavrov at #G20Summit2023
Big win for Putin. Big L for Sleepy Biden. pic.twitter.com/odh4BTnCJy
— S.L. Kanthan (@Kanthan2030) September 10, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
French President Emmanuel Macron tried to salvage it as in no way a diplomatic victory for Russia, telling a press conference, “This G20 confirms once again the isolation of Russia. Today, an overwhelming majority of G20 members condemn the war in Ukraine and its impact.”
But at the same time, Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida underscored the fractured perspective and disunity on sensitive issue. “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is something that could shake the foundation of cooperation at G20,” he admitted.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/10/2023 – 13:00
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
