Oct 14

Today’s News 14th October 2022

  • Escobar: The Thin Red Line – NATO Can't Afford To Lose Kabul & Kiev
    Escobar: The Thin Red Line – NATO Can’t Afford To Lose Kabul & Kiev

    Authored by Pepe Escobar,

    Let’s start with Pipelineistan. Nearly seven years ago, I showed how Syria was the ultimate Pipelineistan war.

    Damascus had rejected the – American – plan for a Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline, to the benefit of Iran-Iraq-Syria (for which a memorandum of understanding was signed).

    What followed was a vicious, concerted “Assad must go” campaign: proxy war as the road to regime change. The toxic dial went exponentially up with the instrumentalization of ISIS – yet another chapter of the war of terror (italics mine). Russia blocked ISIS, thus preventing regime change in Damascus. The Empire of Chaos-favored pipeline bit the dust.

    Now the Empire finally exacted payback, blowing up existing pipelines – Nord Stream (NS) and Nord Steam 2 (NS2) – carrying or about to carry Russian gas to a key imperial economic competitor: the EU.

    We all know by now that Line B of NS2 has not been bombed, or even punctured, and it’s ready to go. Repairing the other three – punctured – lines would not be a problem: a matter of two months, according to naval engineers. Steel on the Nord Streams is thicker than on modern ships. Gazprom has offered to repair them – as long as Europeans behave like grown-ups and accept strict security conditions.

    We all know that’s not going to happen. None of the above is discussed across NATOstan media. That means that Plan A by the usual suspects remains in place: creating a contrived natural gas shortage, leading to the de-industrialization of Europe, all part of the Great Reset, rebranded “The Great Narrative”.

    Meanwhile, the EU Muppet Show is discussing the ninth sanction package against Russia. Sweden refuses to share with Russia the results of the dodgy intra-NATO “investigation” of itself on who blew up the Nord Streams.

    At Russian Energy Week, President Putin summarized the stark facts.

    • Europe blames Russia for the reliability of its energy supplies even though it was receiving the entire volume it bought under fixed contracts.

    • The “orchestrators of the Nord Stream terrorist attacks are those who profit from them”.

    • Repairing Nord Stream strings “would only make sense in the event of continued operation and security”.

    • Buying gas on the spot market will cause a €300 billion loss for Europe.

    • The rise in energy prices is not due to the Special Military Operation (SMO), but to the West’s own policies.

    Yet the Dead Can Dance show must go on. As the EU forbids itself to buy Russian energy, the Brussels Eurocracy skyrockets their debt to the financial casino. The imperial masters laugh all the way to the bank with this form of collectivism – as they continue to profit from using financial markets to pillage and plunder whole nations.

    Which bring us to the clincher: the Straussian/neo-con psychos controlling Washington’s foreign policy eventually might – and the operative word is “might” – stop weaponizing Kiev and start negotiations with Moscow only after their main industrial competitors in Europe go bankrupt.

    But even that would not be enough – because one of NATO’s key “invisible” mandates is to capitalize, whatever means necessary, on food resources across the Pontic-Caspian steppe: we’re talking about 1 million km2 of food production from Bulgaria all the way to Russia.

    Judo in Kharkov

    The SMO has swiftly transitioned into a “soft” CTO (Counter-Terrorist Operation) even without an official announcement. The no-nonsense approach of the new overall commander with full carte blanche from the Kremlin, General Surovikin, a.k.a. “Armageddon”, speaks for itself.

    There are absolutely no indicators whatsoever pointing to a Russian defeat anywhere along the over 1,000 km-long frontline. The spun-to-death withdrawal from Kharkov may have been a masterstroke: the first stage of a judo move that, cloaked in legality, fully developed after the terrorist bombing of Krymskiy Most – the Crimea Bridge.

    Let’s look at the retreat from Kharkov as a trap – as in Moscow graphically demonstrating “weakness”. That led the Kiev forces – actually their NATO handlers – to gloat about Russia “fleeing”, abandon all caution, and go for broke, even embarking on a terror spiral, from the assassination of Darya Dugina to the attempted destruction of Krymskiy Most.

    In terms of Global South public opinion, it’s already established that General Armageddon’s Daily Morning Missile Show is a legal (italics mine) response to a terrorist state. Putin may have sacrificed, for a while, a piece on the chessboard – Kharkov: after all, the SMO mandate is not to hold terrain, but to demilitarize Ukraine.

    Moscow even won post-Kharkov: all the Ukrainian military equipment accumulated in the area was thrown into offensives, just for the Russian Army to merrily engage in non-stop target practice.

    And then there’s the real clincher: Kharkov set in motion a series of moves that allowed Putin to eventually go for checkmate, via the missile-heavy “soft” CTO, reducing the collective West to a bunch of headless chickens.

    In parallel, the usual suspects continue to relentlessly spin their new nuclear “narrative”. Foreign Minister Lavrov has been forced to repeat ad nauseam that according to Russian nuclear doctrine, a strike may only happen in response to an attack “which endangers the entire existence of the Russian Federation.”

    The aim of the D.C. psycho killers – in their wild wet dreams – is to provoke Moscow into using tactical nuclear weapons in the battlefield. That was another vector in rushing the timing of the Crimea Bridge terror attack: after all British intel plans had been swirling for months. That all came to nought.

    The hysterical Straussian/neocon propaganda machine is frantically, pre-emptively, blaming Putin: he’s “cornered”, he’s “losing”, he’s “getting desperate” so he’ll launch a nuclear strike.

    It’s no wonder the Doomsday Clock set up by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1947 is now placed at only 100 seconds from midnight. Right on “Doom’s doorstep”.

    This is where a bunch of American psychos is leading us.

    Life at Doom’s doorstep

    As the Empire of Chaos, Lies and Plunder is petrified by the startling Double Fail of a massive economic/military attack, Moscow is systematically preparing for the next military offensive. As it stands, it’s clear that the Anglo-American axis will not negotiate. It has not even tried for the past 8 years, and it’s not about to change course, even incited by an angelic chorus ranging from Elon Musk to Pope Francis.

    Instead of going Full Timur, accumulating a pyramid of Ukrainian skulls, Putin has summoned eons of Taoist patience to avoid military solutions. Terror on the Crimea Bridge may have been a game-changer. But the velvet gloves are not totally off: General Armageddon’s daily aerial routine may still be seen as a – relatively polite – warning. Even in his latest landmark speech, which contained a savage indictment of the West, Putin made clear he’s always open for negotiations.

    Yet by now, Putin and the Security Council know why the Americans simply can’t negotiate. Ukraine may be just a pawn in their game, but it’s still one of Eurasia’s key geopolitical nodes: whoever controls it, enjoys extra strategic depth.

    The Russians are very much aware that the usual suspects are obsessed with blowing up the complex process of Eurasia integration – starting with China’s BRI. No wonder important instances of power in Beijing are “uneasy” with the war. Because that’s very bad for business between China and Europe via several trans-Eurasian corridors.

    Putin and the Russian Security Council also know that NATO abandoned Afghanistan – an absolutely miserable failure – to place all their chips on Ukraine. So losing both Kabul and Kiev will be the ultimate mortal blow: that means abandoning the 21st Eurasian Century to the Russia-China-Iran strategic partnership.

    Sabotage – from the Nord Streams to Krymskiy Most – gives away the desperation game. NATO’s arsenals are virtually empty. What’s left is a war of terror: the Syrianization, actually ISIS-zation of the battlefield. Managed by braindead NATO, acted on the terrain by a cannon fodder horde sprinkled with mercenaries from at least 34 nations.

    So Moscow may be forced to go all the way – as the Totally Unplugged Dmitry Medvedev revealed: now this is about eliminating a terrorist regime, totally dismantle its politico-security apparatus and then facilitate the emergence of a different entity. And if NATO still blocks it, direct clash will be inevitable.

    NATO’s thin red line is they can’t afford to lose both Kabul and Kiev.

    Yet it took two acts of terror – on Pipelineistan and on Crimea – to imprint a much starker, burning red line: Russia will not allow the Empire to control Ukraine, whatever it takes.

    That’s intrinsically linked to the future of the Greater Eurasia Partnership.

    Welcome to life at Doom’s doorstep.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/14/2022 – 02:00

  • Why Is Leftist Entertainment So Divisive And Devoid Of Imagination?
    Why Is Leftist Entertainment So Divisive And Devoid Of Imagination?

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

    When was the last time you saw an original story out of Hollywood that was worth watching (not counting Top Gun: Maverick)? When was the last time you experienced creative storytelling that did not involve the co-option and retelling of a previous work? When was the last time you saw a protagonist that was relatable, interesting and endearing? Hell, when was the last time you were actually excited to go to the movies or relax in front of the television to watch something new?

    Reboots, soft reboots, remakes, live action remakes, re-imagining, gender swapping, race swapping, “rainbow washing” (making classic straight characters gay for virtue signal points): This is a list of new media tropes that have invaded entertainment in the past six years and all of them have been used so frequently that productions can now be quickly identified as woke propaganda by a mere two minute trailer.

    The fascinating thing is, almost all of these productions fail miserably. In recent weeks alone we have seen the attempted woke re-writing of history with The Woman King, which fell flat at the box office after opening week, not even making enough money to cover production and advertising costs.

    Then there was the gay romantic comedy “Bros” which imploded, causing the lead actor, Billy Eichner, to flip out on social media and blame “homophobia” (somehow he actually believed a movie filled with gay orgies was going to appeal to mainstream audiences). Eichner went on to argue that people MUST go see his movie in order to make a “political statement.” This was the same argument made by Woman King actress Viola Davis – Don’t see the movie because it’s well made, see the movie so you can stick it to conservatives.

    Why not just tell a good story instead?

    We have seen the biggest budget TV series in history, Amazon’s The Rings Of Power, crumble in the ratings with its intersectional messaging. We have seen the cancellation of the gay Superman comic book title Son of Kal-El, likely due to low sales. Marvel shows and films are consistently bringing in weak audience numbers and the SJW disaster that is Disney Star Wars can’t write a hit production to save their lives.

    The bottom line? Consumers have near-zero interest in leftist media. As I have said in the past, “Get Woke, Go Broke” is not just a mantra, it’s a rule these days. But why are leftists in entertainment so incapable of producing anything resembling exciting content? Why do they suck so bad?

    Well, they follow a losing formula, and that formula works something like this:

    1) Co-opt a classic franchise or character that has preexisting audience appeal. Never try to create anything original if you can help it.

    2) Market the new film, TV series, comic, etc. as a return to nostalgia to get audiences excited.

    3) Get rid of as many straight, white, or male characters as possible and replace them with token diversity. (Also for some reason they like to get rid of all the redheads).

    4) Portray men as weak and incompetent. Portray white people as stupid or racist. Portray black people as constant victims. Portray women with overtly masculine character traits, but also as victims at the same time. Make everyone in charge a woman, or gay, or both. If a man is in charge, make sure he is being controlled by a woman. Make sure your main character is constantly lecturing everyone else and the audience about leftist virtues.

    5) Make sure there is a perfect pie chart of ethnicity in every single scene despite the statistics and demographics of a place or time. It doesn’t matter if a story is set in an ancient viking village in the north of Europe or in the elitist estates of Victorian England, minorities must be represented as main characters despite all historical fact.

    6) If a classic male character cannot be changed without alienating potential customers away from spending their money, pretend he is a major part of the story to trick people into theaters, then make him weak and pathetic, the opposite of a hero. Or, just kill him.

    7) Steal plot points, story beats and even dialogue directly from other more creative films and productions. Pretend you came up with all that stuff on your own. Or, do a reboot, and copy an older production directly while adding your own woke changes wherever possible.

    8) Now, market the product as a “re-imagined version” updated for “modern audiences” as a justification for abandoning all canon.

    9) Immediately start attacking anyone who MIGHT criticize the product before they ever do so. Make the customers and the fans into villains if they refuse to give you their money. Accuse them of bigotry and blame your inevitable failure on racism, sexism, misogyny, etc. It wasn’t your fault that your story bombed, it is the fault of “incels” and “boomers” and all the uncultured swine out there filled with hate. They sabotaged you. They are the problem.

    10) Rinse. Repeat.

    Yes, it sounds pathetic but this is the state of entertainment today and it has been a pervasive problem for several years now. The industry has always had a bit of a progressive problem, but in the past this was balanced out by more conservative business interests. Today, the business interests are the same zealots as the production interests. But beyond that, liberals used to be more creative in general, now they are devoid of all imagination. Why?

    My theory is that as progressives turned increasingly to the social justice cult, a wave of narcissism has suffocated any and all potential for creative freedom. Even if they had it once, it’s all gone now. Narcissists tend to have no imagination, and the woke ideology is essentially a religion for narcissists.

    Social Justice is a system of belief that uses victim status as a currency. It tells its adherents that each one of them is so special and unique that the world revolves around them and their identity, that their “personal truth” is more important than objective truth. It tells them that they are entitled to respect and admiration from everyone regardless of their lack of accomplishment, lack of knowledge, lack of talent, lack of beauty, lack of intelligence, lack of experience, lack of propriety, lack of restraint, lack of kindness, etc.

    These people have no class and no shame and they think this is a virtue, a strength. You are supposed to idolize them for it and if you don’t then you must be a fascist. How are leftists supposed to compose stories that hold our attention and touch our souls when they are so self absorbed?

    Storytelling requires several things in order to be successful, and they are all things that leftists have no concept of. They include:

    1) The ability to self reflect, but also the ability to write characters outside of yourself. If you have to see yourself in every single character in a story and if every story has to amplify your personal ideology, then you are a narcissist and you should abandon your dreams of writing NOW.

    2) You need an inherent sense of story flow. Some people are naturally good at playing music. Good storytelling is a lot like music in the way plot points and emotions ebb and flow. Either you have the knack, or you don’t. It’s not something that can be learned.

    3) You cannot tell a story with the intent to lie and propagandize. It is selfish and disrupts narrative flow. Even if the basic premise is good, the content will feel false and sometimes dated to audiences. People can sense when they are being lied to, or preached at. They might not know it at the time, but they will not return to your stories in the future. Their intuition will tell them not to.

    4) Stories are usually built on basic archetypes – Archetypes are inherent psychological constructs that help human beings relate to each other and also help us relate to foundational morals and principles. Archetypes exist across cultures and across geopolitical boundaries. If we didn’t have these constructs in our heads from birth, we would have destroyed ourselves thousands of years ago. You cannot change archetypes. They are eternal. Try to change them or deconstruct them and you will fail.

    5) Subverting expectations is lazy and cowardly. Truly talented storytellers can meet audience expectations while still surprising them along the way.

    6) You are not entitled to an audience. The audience owes you nothing. Either your story is good and they relate to it on an emotional level, or your story is garbage and they don’t relate to it. It’s as simple as that. People are not required to consume your product to make a “political statement.” And they are not evil for refusing to spend their money on propaganda. If you enter into storytelling with the intent to create conflict with your audience, then you are probably a bad storyteller.

    Media and entertainment are the modern method of passing on ideas and exploring debates within our culture, and when only one extreme viewpoint is represented within our story lexicon this creates chaos and imbalance in society. The woke movement has utterly poisoned our cultural well and it is incapable of addressing the basic functions of reflection. We cannot look at ourselves honestly through stories when liars and narcissists are in change of the storytelling apparatus.

    I am working in my own small way to bring back the tradition of popular American storytelling with my graphic novel campaign ‘Mountain Hollow.’ I don’t have a multi-billion dollar company behind me, but I guarantee I can write circles around any leftist in entertainment today. And this is what we need more of right now – Clearly, woke media does not sell and does not represent the vast majority of the public, so, we must make media that DOES. It’s not enough to complain about the problem, we have to actually do something about it in order for things to change.

    Nothing pisses off leftists more than when you offer the public an alternative to their narrative.

    *  *  *

    If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 23:40

  • Best Places To Survive A Nuclear Apocalypse In The US
    Best Places To Survive A Nuclear Apocalypse In The US

    After President Biden’s nuclear “Armageddon” statements and reports, the federal government is purchasing $290 million in anti-radiation drugs for use in “nuclear emergencies,” the first question that comes to mind is where to shelter in the event of nuclear war. 

    To answer that question, the survivalist website Survivalfreedom.com outlines that some of the safest regions in a nuclear war “include the upper Midwest, Maine, West Texas, and multiple small pockets, usually in areas that don’t have large populations.” The most dangerous region is the East Coast because of the significant presence of military installations, defense companies, critical infrastructure, and major cities. 

    The survivalist website pointed to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map that outlines the most likely targets of Russian Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). 

    Here’s a more refined map of US nuclear targets. 

    They said, “based on research of numerous sources, this is the consensus on the least safe and most safe areas in the United States in the event of a nuclear attack.” The map below shows red zones are “least safe” while blue zones are “most safe.” 

    Regarding what major metro areas are the most susceptible to nuclear attack, Survivalfreedom said, “New York, NY; Washington D.C.; Dallas-Fort Worth; and Jacksonville, FL. These cities could be potential targets due to their large populations and strategic value.” Adding these cities could also be targets for a nuclear attack:

    • Miami, FL
    • Los Angeles, CA
    • San Francisco, CA
    • Philadelphia, PA
    • Pittsburgh, PA
    • Chicago, IL
    • Houston, TX
    • Phoenix, AZ
    • Honolulu, HI

    As for the areas with the lowest priority targets, the survivalist website said, “Maine, Central Idaho, Oregon, and Northern California — adding these areas are likely to be largely untouched in a nuclear exchange due to their sparse populations and lack of strategic targets.” 

    Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald pointed out the other day on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight that there are minimal talks to de-escalate or end the conflict in Ukraine. 

    And the world’s richest person recently warned the probability of nuclear war “is rising rapidly.” 

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

    The good news is millions of Americans left progressive cities for rural areas during the pandemic. For those people, perhaps it’s time to take your understanding of being self-sufficient up one more notch and learn to live off the grid as the future remains very uncertain as the next global conflict could erupt at any moment. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 23:20

  • Why Have A Constitution If You Just Ignore It?
    Why Have A Constitution If You Just Ignore It?

    Authored by Frank Miele via RealClear Wire (emphasis ours),

    In two recent columns, I wrote about the danger of public officials who are either unaware of the restrictions placed upon them by the Constitution they have sworn to uphold or, worse, just don’t give a damn.

    In the first, I chided President Biden for his sworn intent to pass a law that would “codify Roe v. Wade into law,” namely to pass a federal law that offers protection for abortion nationwide.

    In the second, I lambasted Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina for proposing a bill that would ban abortion after 15 weeks gestation, the point when unborn children are believed to be able to feel pain. So that raises the obvious question: Why have a Constitution if you are just going to ignore it?

    https://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse/posts/124511602951025 Adam Schultz

    Democrat Biden and Republican Graham together offer a bipartisan illustration of why our country is dangerously off track. With the implicit permission of the Supreme Court, our elected officials have not just bounced up against the guardrails enshrined in the Constitution, they have flattened them and are driving the republic off a cliff.

    It doesn’t matter which side of the abortion issue you are on; we should all be able to agree that in a constitutional republic, lawmakers and presidents cannot just do whatever they want. And there is absolutely no doubt that the U.S. Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate medical procedures, whether it be an abortion or an appendectomy.

    That’s just the starting point. Anyone who bothers to read the Constitution knows that Congress was designed to exert limited authority over Americans’ everyday lives. Read Article I, Section 8 if you don’t believe me. You won’t find anything about vaccines or masks, and the whole idea of presidents ordering citizens to do anything is laughable. Article II, Section 2, which spells out most of the powers of the president, is remarkably brief, and the powers are few. Commander in chief? Check. Negotiator of treaties? Check. Nominator of ambassadors and judges? Check. But from where exactly does the president derive the power to forgive student loans? Or order landlords to stop collecting rent?

    Maybe this runaway tyrannical democracy could have been avoided if we still taught civics in our elementary and secondary schools. But at this point there is little to be done. We can’t force members of Congress to read the Constitution, let alone understand it. We can’t stop presidents from legislating with their phone and their pen, as President Obama famously called his ability to unilaterally shape America to his wishes through executive order. And we are decades past the point where we could expect courts to rein in the excesses of the other two branches.

    That leaves only one solution, the same one that gave us a republic in the first place – “We the People.” It is time for the true sovereigns to take back their power and put the guardrails back in place. The Constitution needs to be restored to its original purpose as a mechanism to limit government power, and there is only one practical way to accomplish that. It’s called an Article V convention of states.

    Article V of the Constitution provides that “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States…” [Emphasis added.]

    Critics like to point out that there has never been a convention of states, as if that is justification for never having one. But we should ask ourselves why, if it is not a vital part of the engine of self-government, the provision was included by the Founders at all. The answer is found in the records of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, which for a while intended only to give Congress the ability to propose amendments. It was thanks to the persistence of Virginia delegate George Mason that the Constitution ultimately also gave the states a path to proposing amendments.

    As described in a 2007 article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, “On September 15 [1787], as the Convention was reviewing the revisions made by the Committee of Style, George Mason expressed opposition to the provisions limiting the power to propose amendments to Congress. According to the Convention records, Mason thought that ‘no Amendment of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.’”

    The revision passed unanimously.

    Mason has been proven prophetic in his expectation that the government would inevitably become oppressive, and so now we live in a time when it is inconceivable that any branch of the federal government would willingly surrender any of its own power for the good of “we the people.” Instead, it is time for the people to rise up and use the tool George Mason entrusted to them, not to overthrow the Constitution but to restore it.

    This is not a pipe dream. According to the Convention of States organization, 19 state legislatures have already applied to Congress for a convention to be held. That’s well on the way to the 34 needed. More than a dozen other states are actively considering such legislation.

    Fears of a runaway convention are comical at best and hysterical at worst. It doesn’t matter how many amendments such a convention proposed. They would each have to be ratified by three fourths of the 50 states, which means 38 states would have to agree to the new rules. That is a safeguard that would not allow any merely partisan proposal to succeed, and if 38 states did agree on anything, then in the spirit of self-government that proposal should be welcomed as an expression of the will of the people.

    In any case, most supporters of a convention see its purpose as reining in the runaway federal government, not imposing new restrictions on citizens. We already have Congress to do that.

    The Convention of States organization proposes a convention “restricted to proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress.” Most Americans would be solidly behind such a move.

    How much the convention would accomplish is of course uncertain, but it is well past time for “we the people” to provide the corrective action that the framers envisioned.

    Nearly 10 years ago, I proposed a Restoration Amendment that would lay out the legal framework for putting power back in the hands of the states and the people. Article 1 of that amendment stated, “If a power is not expressly granted to the combined federal government of these United States by this Constitution, then that power cannot be exercised, acquired, or enumerated without specific amendment to this document.”

    That would even force constitutional scofflaws like Lindsey Graham and Joe Biden to sit up and take notice.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 23:00

  • Visualizing The Global Population Over 300 Years By Country
    Visualizing The Global Population Over 300 Years By Country

    Since the 1800s, our global population has grown from 984 million people to almost 8 billion – an increase of more than 700%.

    Which regions around the world have led this growth, and what’s expected for the rest of the century? As Visual Capitalist’s Carmen Ang details below, this animated visualization by James Eagle shows 300 years of population growth, including historical figures as well as projections up to the year 2100.

    Asia’s Current Dominance

    For centuries, more than half of the world’s population has been concentrated in Asia. At certain points throughout history, the region has made up nearly 70% of the world’s population.

    Here’s a look at 2021 figures, and how large each region’s population is relative to each other:

     

    China and India have been Asia’s largest population hubs, with China historically leading the front. In the 1950s China’s population was nearly double the size of India’s, but the gap has fluctuated over the years.

     

    As China’s population growth continued, it was causing problems for the country as it struggled to scale up food production and infrastructure. By 1979, the Chinese government rolled out a one-child policy in an attempt to control the situation.

    The program, which ended in 2016, had a number of unintended ramifications, but ultimately, it did succeed in slowing down the country’s population growth. And now, India is projected to overtake China as the world’s most populous country as early as 2023.

    Africa’s Growing Piece of the Pie

    Although Asia dominates the charts when it comes to overall population numbers currently, Africa’s growing population numbers are often overlooked.

    While the continent’s total population is smaller than Asia’s, it will soon be home to the world’s largest working-age population, which could have a significant impact on the global economy in the years ahead.

    This growth is being led by Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country. With megacities like Lagos (metro population: 21 million) and over 217 million inhabitants in total, Nigeria is projected to be the world’s third most populous country by the year 2050. Nigeria’s rapid growth is largely thanks to its high birth rate, which is nearly double the global average.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 22:40

  • JP Morgan Cuts Ties With Kanye West's Business After Controversial Tweets: Report
    JP Morgan Cuts Ties With Kanye West’s Business After Controversial Tweets: Report

    Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

    JPMorgan Chase has decided to end its business relationship with rapper Kanye West’s company Yeezy, according to conservative commentator Candace Owens, which comes after West was suspended from social media after posting content accused of being antisemitic.

    Owens shared a letter reportedly from JPMorgan Chase indicating that the bank will terminate its business relationship with Yeezy and its affiliated entities by Nov. 21.

    “We ask that you act promptly and transfer your business to another financial institution,” the letter reads, with no explanation for the decision except reference to a prior discussion with an unidentified, presumed, Yeezy representative about the termination.

    The Epoch Times reached out to JPMorgan Chase with a request for confirmation and explanation for the reported severance of business ties with Yeezy, but the institution declined comment.

    Owens did not say explicitly why she thinks JPMorgan Chase may have taken the decision, but suggested in a follow-up message on Twitter that the move may be related to the broader trend of de-platforming individuals who express controversial views.

    “I want to say that I do not care what you think about Ye West—but I very much care what you think about this,” Owens wrote. “We have reached extremely frightening times in this country,” she added.

    Candace Owens, American conservative commentator and political activist, in Washington, on June 25, 2019. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)

    West, who attended an Oct. 12 screening of Owens’s new documentary, told the New York Post’s Page Six that he had been dropped by a number of brands after his recent social media posts.

    “Hey, if you call somebody out for bad business, that means you’re being antisemitic,” West said, according to the report.

    “I feel happy to have crossed the line of that idea so we can speak openly about things like getting canceled by a bank,” he added, presumably referring to JPMorgan Chase.

    Owens wrote in a separate post on Twitter that she was told “no official reason” had been given by JPMorgan Chase.

    After West wore a “White Lives Matter” T-shirt at a fashion event in Paris on Oct. 3, Adidas decided to place its partnership with West “under review,” according to CNBC.

    Locked Out

    West, who is legally known as Ye, was recently locked out of his Twitter and Instagram accounts over posts alleged to be antisemitic, which the social media companies said violated their policies.

    On Instagram, West shared a screenshot of a text exchange with fellow musician Sean “Diddy” Combs, in which he told him, “This ain’t a game. Ima use you as an example to show the Jewish people that told you to call me that no one can threaten or influence me.”

    Shortly afterward, West was locked out of his Instagram account. He then took to Twitter, where he posted a controversial message that also got him suspended.

    “I’m a bit sleepy tonight, but when I wake up I’m going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE, ” West wrote.

    ‘The funny thing is I actually can’t be Anti Semitic because black people are actually Jews also. You guys have toyed with me and tried to blackball anyone whoever opposes your agenda.”

    West appeared to be referring to the U.S. Armed Forces’ heightened readiness status DEFCON 3.

    The post was later removed by Twitter for violating its rules, a spokesperson confirmed to multiple outlets, and West is currently unable to access his account.

    West’s exchange with Diddy was heavily criticized by the American Jewish Committee, which said in a statement that West should “figure out how to make a point without using antisemitism.”

    “Over the last week, the musician has fomented hatred of Jews. The greed theme has led to a long list of Jewish stereotypes, such as being money-oriented or controlling the world’s finances.”

    “The control theme seeks to falsely portray Jews as secret puppet masters ruling over others. Ye needs to learn that words matter,” the statement read.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 22:20

  • "I Lied": Clinton Associate Testifies He Fabricated Claim That Made Its Way Into Dossier
    “I Lied”: Clinton Associate Testifies He Fabricated Claim That Made Its Way Into Dossier

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

    A longtime associate of the Clinton family admitted under oath on Oct. 13 that he lied when he said he spoke to a Republican friend about GOP drama.

    “I lied. I got it off cable news,” Charles Dolan, the associate, testified during Igor Danchenko’s criminal trial in U.S. court in Virginia.

    Dolan provided information to Danchenko, a key source for the anti-Donald Trump dossier that Hillary Clinton helped fund.

    Danchenko is on trial for allegedly lying to FBI agents when he said he had not communicated with Dolan about any of the allegations in the dossier, according to charging documents. Danchenko actually sourced from Dolan at least one of the allegations he provided to dossier author Christopher Steele, a Clinton supporter who harbored animus against Trump.

    On Aug. 20, 2016, Dolan messaged Danchenko, relaying what he portrayed as inside information about Trump campaign officials Corey Lewandowski and Paul Manafort.

    “I had a drink with a GOP friend of mine who knows some of the players and got some of what is in this article, which provides even more detail. She also told me that Corey Lewandowski, who hates Manafort and still speaks to Trump, regularly played a role. He is said to be doing a happy dance over it,” Dolan said, including a link to a news article. “I think the bottom line is that in addition to the Ukraine revelations, a number of people wanted Manafort gone. It is a very sharp elbows crowd.”

    Dolan admitted on Thursday he fabricated the “GOP friend.”

    “Mr. Danchenko had brought me some business. I wanted to tell him that his sources were good. The woman was on cable news,” Dolan said on the stand. “Lewandowski hating Manafort, it was pretty common knowledge and all over the news at the time.”

    Dolan’s information eventually made its way into the dossier, which included numerous allegations that have since been discredited.

    “An American political figure associated with Donald Trump and his campaign outlined the reasons behind Manafort’s recent demise. S/he said it was true that the Ukraine corruption revelations had played a part in this but also, several senior players close to Trump had wanted Manafort out, primarily to loosen his control on strategy and policy formulation,” a report dated two days after Dolan’s email stated.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 21:40

  • Bank of America Has Bad News For Its Clients: We Are A Long Way From The Market Bottom
    Bank of America Has Bad News For Its Clients: We Are A Long Way From The Market Bottom

    Two days ago, before today’s monster market reversal, Bank of America’s quant team published an interesting note in which the BofA strategist Jill Carey Hall wrote recent client flows “suggest investors believe market may have bottomed.”

    Why did she make this observation? As she explains, “last week, during which the S&P 500 rallied 1.5% off recent lows, clients were big net buyers of US equities ($6.1B; third largest inflow in our data history since ’08 and the fifth consecutive week of inflows).” Digging into the details, BofA’s clients bought both single stocks and ETFs (biggest single stock inflows since April), and bought both large and mid caps while selling small caps for a second week.

    • Clients bought ETFs across styles/sizes, led by large cap and Value ETFs. Value ETF flows were the fourth largest in our data since 2017 and the ninth week of inflows.
    • Clients bought ETFs in six of the 11 sectors, led by Energy (biggest inflows since late July). Materials and Financials ETFs saw the largest outflows

    Unlike previous weeks when client group flows mutually offset each other, this time all client groups (hedge funds, institutional, private clients) were net buyers, led by Institutional clients (first inflow in a month and biggest inflow since Dec. 2020).

    Meanwhile, as we have been warning for weeks, stock buybacks have slowed to a trickle (max blackout window was last Friday), and begin to pick up over the next four weeks of earnings, with Halloween expected to be the day most buybacks are again in the market.

    And with stocks today staging a powerful reversal off of 2022 lows and exploding higher in a powerful thrust, which many say is a telltale sign of market bottoms, many are wondering – are Bank of America’s clients right in believing that we have finally bottomed?

    The answer, according to the bank itself, is that we have a long way to go still before the market bottoms.

    As BofA head quant Savita Subramanian writes, there are two reasons why it is far too early to declare a bottom. The first one comes from the bank’s Regime Indicator, to wit:

    Our US Regime Indicator declined for the 14th consecutive month in September, still in Late Cycle but inching closer to Downturn (from 0.5 in August to 0.4). Historically, the Late-Late cycle phase (i.e., moving from the +0.5 level to negative territory) has lasted ~4 months, which means the current Late Cycle might persist through year-end, favoring Value, Risk, Low Quality and Small Caps for 4Q22. In our history since 1990, once the Regime Indicator declined below the 0.5 level in Late Cycle, it inevitably proceeded to decline into the next phase, Downturn.

    It’s not just the macro regime indicator, however, as BofA’s bull market signposts – a composite of 10 indicators that have historically signaled market bottoms – continue to suggest risk that the market hasn’t yet bottomed. In fact, of the 10 indicators, only 20% were triggered in September, down from 40% a month ago, when the unemployment rate and the ISM both declined (no longer triggered). As BofA notes, “prior market bottoms coincided with over 80% being triggered” so we have a long way to go.

    Bottom line: today’s rally was just the latest spectacular bear-market rally, a combination of a short squeeze, technicals, positioning and a little chart voodoo. But for the true bottom, what the market needs more than anything is a capitulation by the Fed: that won’t happen until inflation moderates, which won’t happen for a long time, if ever, since most of the remaining inflation is supply-driven and the Fed has no control over that, or when something really big finally breaks. Our money is on the latter.

    More in the full note available to pro subs.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 21:20

  • Nothing But Welfare Queens? Endless American Aid Flowing To Zelensky & Tsai Ing-wen
    Nothing But Welfare Queens? Endless American Aid Flowing To Zelensky & Tsai Ing-wen

    Authored by Patrick Macfarlane via The Libertarian Institute,

    As it pertains to the American public, Ukraine’s response to the Russian invasion can be summed up with two words: “Zelensky demands.” To date, Washington elites and their politicians have been happy to provide—at public expense—lining their own pockets in the process.

    As of this writing, U.S. aid for Ukraine has reached approximately $67.5 billion, a figure greater than Russia’s entire 2021 military budget. According to the State Department, this support includes $15.2 billion in direct military assistance. The support comes although 60-70% of lethal aid never reaches the front lines, according to a now-redacted CBS interview with on-the-ground activists.

    Not only is the American taxpayer supporting much of the Ukrainian military, it is also supporting the Ukrainian government. The same working class Americans who were deemed “nonessential” in 2020—who saw their businesses shuttered and burned down—now have to pay entitlement programs both at home and in Ukraine. As of September 30, 2022, the U.S. has provided $13 billion in “direct budget support,” which is ostensibly used;

    …to pay government salaries, meet pension obligations, maintain hospitals and schools, and protect critical infrastructure[,] support continuity operations at the national, regional, and local levels, support for [sic] the health sector, agricultural production, civil society, [and enable] programs to hold Russia and its forces accountable for their actions in Ukraine.

    Although American taxpayers have already matched Russia’s 2021 military budget, Ukrainian president Vlodomyr Zelensky only demands more. During a Tuesday phone call, President Biden reviewed Washington’s latest $625 million dole to Zelensky. It includes, inter alia, four additional High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), 16 155mm Howitzers, 75,000 155 mm artillery rounds, 500 precision-guided 155mm artillery rounds, 16 105mm Howitzers, 30,000 120 mm mortar rounds, and 200 MaxxPro Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles.

    This latest boon notwithstanding, in the same phone call, Zelensky urged Biden to provide Ukraine with air defense systems that would be used to shoot down Russian planes.

    Much like Washington’s response to COVID-19, a no-holds-barred approach to Ukraine is so widely supported, it is a foregone conclusion. Despite this, some Republicans have valiantly opposed this rampant and provocative spending. Noteable dissenters are: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MS), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-GA), and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL).

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

    Republicans like Taylor-Greene, Gaetz, and Hawley understand the cost of empire: endless warfare, a decaying homefront, and a beclowned international reputation. They understand that a war between the U.S. and Russia will be unlike anything Americans have ever experienced. Although they cloak their condemnation of war with Russia in criticism of “weak Joe Biden,” they understand it is the West that provoked this conflict and seeks to prolong it “to the last Ukrainian.” They know that the conflict—even if it remains by-proxy—is a cost war-weary working class Americans do not want and cannot afford.

    They must, then, realize that the same Washington elites waxing American fat off the Ukraine conflict are cultivating Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen as a Zelensky in-waiting.

    Although U.S. military aid to Taiwan traditionally comes by way of arms sales, that may soon change. Senators Bob Menendez and Lindsey Graham have introduced the Taiwan Policy Act—a piece of legislation that would radically overhaul Sino-American relations. In short, “the Taiwan Policy Act would give Taiwan $6.5 billion in military aid, give the island the benefits of being a ‘major non-NATO ally,’ expedite arms sales to Taipei, and require sanction in the event of Chinese aggression.” The bill would also authorize up to $2 billion in loans to Taiwan.

    On September 14, the bill passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rather than passing it as a standalone piece of legislation, the bill’s supporters currently seek to incorporate “much” of the bill into the $817 billion 2023 National Defense Authorization Act. As of Wednesday, it is not clear exactly which provisions would be incorporated.

    As above noted, the Taiwan Policy Act was introduced in the Senate on June 16, 2022 by Senators Bob Menendez and Lindsey Graham. Both Menendez and Graham are ardent supporters of Ukraine and Zelensky.

    Graham met with Zelensky in July to hand deliver a plaque of his proposed Senate resolution to designate Russia as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. Since the Russian invasion, Graham has made regular appearances on Fox News whipping up lethal aid for Ukraine while calling for regime change in Moscow.

    Menendez, as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has spearheaded Washington’s Ukraine support. In January, he began and continues to lead the comprehensive U.S. sanctions campaign against Russia. In March, Menendez lambasted Congressional Republicans, mainly Senator Rick Scott (R-FL), for undermining Ukraine aid. In May, Menendez, among others, introduced a Senate resolution approving the bids of Finland and Sweden to join NATO (something Josh Hawley correctly opposed).

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

    On June 23 Menendez specifically invoked the 75th anniversary of the Marshall Plan to stoke support for Ukraine. Needless to say, the Marshall Plan preceded American entry into WWII. Republicans opposing U.S. support for Ukraine should take note that both Menendez and Graham have repeatedly met with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen to pledge American support for Taiwan. In their latest visit on April 15, 2022, president Ing-wen called Lindsey Graham a “pillar of strength for Taiwan in the U.S. Congress” and dubbed Menendez one of Taiwan’s “staunchest friends.”

    In his meeting remarks, Graham likened U.S. support for Ukraine to its support for Taiwan, saying:

    [a]s we’re here today to show our support for Taiwan, all of us have our hearts broken regarding the people of Ukraine…I just want to let you know that, while we’ve been watching the Ukraine on television, while it has broken our hearts, the American people understand how important you are to us…So here’s my promise to the Taiwanese people: We’re going to start making China pay a greater price for what they’re doing all over the world. The support for Putin must come with a price. The never-ending cyberattacks on your economy and your people by the Communist Chinese need to come with a price.

    Menendez echoed Graham’s sentiment in his own remarks, shedding light on Washington’s Ukrainian plans for Taiwan:

    …I am proud to be back to reaffirm our rock-solid relationship with Taiwan…So you have a high-level delegation whose attention could be brought any place in the world—and for which many of our colleagues are right now in Europe, dealing with the challenges of Ukraine—but we understand that here in Taiwan, here in this region—this is where the future is. [Emphasis added].

    Menendez followed up these remarks with an op-ed in The New York Times, stating:

    Vladimir Putin’s brutal attack on his Ukrainian neighbors has sparked global outrage — and forged unprecedented unity—among the democratic nations of the world. Not so with Xi Jinping, the hypernationalist president of the People’s Republic of China. Rather, he is no doubt taking notes and learning lessons from Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine to apply to his plans for Taiwan. The United States and our partners in the international community need to do the same to develop and put in place a new and more resilient strategy for Taiwan while there is still time.

    These remarks should terrify working class Americans. Essentially, Menendez is proposing a redoubling of military support for Taiwan—the same “preventive policy” which played a large role in provoking Putin to invade Ukraine. We simply cannot afford it.

    The above-named Congressional Republicans were right to oppose aid to Ukraine. For those same reasons, they should oppose adding Tsai Ing-wen to the same dole as the entitled and ungrateful Zelensky. Like Rand Paul, they should oppose the Taiwan Policy Act in all its forms.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 21:00

  • Video Shows Tesla Semi Truck Broken Down On Highway Just Six Weeks Before Deliveries
    Video Shows Tesla Semi Truck Broken Down On Highway Just Six Weeks Before Deliveries

    Elon Musk has just six weeks before beverage giant PepsiCo takes delivery of the first Tesla Semi, an all-electric class 8 truck — and a new video posted online of a seemingly broken down prototype truck on a highway in Northern California may suggest some kinks need to be worked out before production is ramped up. 

    Footage posted on YouTube shows a Semi on the side of an on-ramp in Fremont, California – near Tesla’s factory. It’s unclear if the Semi ran out of electricity or experienced a mechanical problem, but one thing is sure: a Tesla service vehicle is parked behind the truck, which indicates something went wrong. 

    Last week, Musk tweeted PepsiCo would begin receiving the Semi on Dec. 1. 

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

    “500-mile range and super fun to drive,” Musk tweeted.

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

    The Semi was revealed to the public five years ago and experienced delay after delay. The latest footage of a brokedown prototype truck doesn’t exactly instill confidence in the degree of reliability of the first generation of this truck. 

    Good luck, PepsiCo. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 20:40

  • Victor Davis Hanson: Biden Plays The Old Ugly American
    Victor Davis Hanson: Biden Plays The Old Ugly American

    Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

    The Left used to accuse imperialist, resource-hungry Yanquis in Washington of cutting selfish deals with illiberal dictatorships in Latin America to grab their natural resources.

    How odd then that President Joe Biden is now begging the despicable Maduro regime in Venezuela – corrupt, murderous, and anti-American – to produce more of its oil solely to send northward to America.

    Biden is quite willing to ease sanctions and condone the human rights abuses of Maduro – if his dictatorship will just open its oil spigots before the November midterm elections.

    Biden in 2020 campaigned on the supposed evil nature of the Saudi Arabian monarchy. Yet after vainly entreating Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, it was inevitable that Biden would once again supplicate the Saudis to pump more oil.

    Biden even pleaded with OPEC to increase its output and thus lower the world price of energy, again before the midterm elections.

    Biden, remember, has a bad habit of bragging that he lowered gas prices at the pump when the natural volatility of the petroleum markets leads to a fractional decrease. But once prices spike, he is utterly silent about his own role in limiting U.S. oil and gas output.

    So, was it any surprise that the Saudis became the fourth non-democratic regime to refuse Biden’s entreaties? During the 2020 campaign, when gas prices were dirt cheap, and when then-candidate Biden was demagoguing about ending fossil fuel, he opportunistically libeled the Saudis a “pariah” state.

    Biden also claimed that his opponent, former President Donald Trump, had cozied up to these supposedly awful Saudi royals. That accusation was especially ironic given that Trump was the first American president who had no need for Saudi oil.

    His administration had managed to make the United States the largest producer of gas and oil in history — precluding any energy dependence on illiberal regimes abroad.

    Trump was the first U.S. president whose interest in Gulf State monarchies was not energy-driven.

    Instead, he partnered with the Arab nations to end their hostilities with Israel. The ensuing Abraham Accords saw a historic thaw between the Jewish state and moderate Arab nations — given their shared worries about the unhinged Iranian theocracy.

    The Saudis are enjoying the schadenfreude of seeing their former American critic now on his knees, demanding the purportedly dirty, polluting oil produced by a supposed “pariah” state.

    In response to their “no,” a desperate Team Biden is getting nasty. Almost immediately the administration raised the idea of a pre-midterm retribution of suing the OPEC cartel as a price-rigging monopoly. It even maneuvered allies in Congress to take action to punish Riyadh for not playing the American pawn.

    The American public is repelled as they watch Biden’s pathetic theatrics of global oil begging to help himself in the midterms. They are ashamed that their recently energy autonomous country is now imploring non-democratic regimes for every drop of their oil, to the extent of threatening former allies and coaxing current enemies.

    More bizarre still, the public was once told that Biden and the Left wanted high energy prices.

    Why else did Biden upon entering office cancel the Keystone Pipeline?

    Did he not fulfill his green promises to the radical environmentalist Left by shutting down oil fields in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

    Did Biden not dutifully hector lending agencies, pensions funds, and money managers not to loan to, or invest in, oil and gas companies?

    Did Biden not issue fewer new energy leases on federal lands than any prior president?

    Was it not Biden on the eve of the Ukrainian war who jawboned the Europeans to reject the EastMed pipeline? That project was a much-needed joint effort by three of our closest allies — Greece, Israel, and Cyprus — to bring clean-burning natural gas to an energy-starved Europe.

    In sum, did not Biden brag to the Left that he kept his campaign promises to strangle fossil fuels — both curbing supply and spiking prices — to hasten the “transition” to wind, solar, and batteries?

    Why then is Biden humiliating Americans by playing the hard-nosed ugly American? Why is he demanding foreigners pump what we ourselves have in plentitude but will not fully produce?

    The answer, of course, is raw politics.

    Biden knows he wrecked the economy by deliberately surging oil prices in pursuit of the Left’s utopian green nightmare.

    Or put another way, if it is a question of avoiding a historic midterm wipeout, Biden will now do anything.

    And that anything means all the human rights sermons about ostracizing “pariah” states like oil-rich Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela go out the window.

    In winter 2021 Biden lectured us that fossil fuels were dirty obstacles to our green future.

    In winter 2022 Biden believes that he can strong-arm his enemies to send us more of such taboo energy that we won’t produce ourselves.

    Good luck with all these utter absurdities.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 20:20

  • Massive Bean Piles Spotted Up And Down Mississippi River As Barges Can't Meet Harvest Demand
    Massive Bean Piles Spotted Up And Down Mississippi River As Barges Can’t Meet Harvest Demand

    Bean and other farm goods are piling up at farms up and down the Mississippi River as barges can’t be fully loaded due to dangerously low water levels. Barges have reduced weight to improve the draft, which means less availability and unable to meet harvest demand. 

    Due to a barge shortage, some farmers have no choice but to store beans and other farm goods outside in massive piles. Twitter user “Will Nicholson” captured footage of an enormous bean pile west of Memphis, Tennessee. 

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

    Another person took a picture of a bean pile in Tunica, Mississippi. 

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

    One person said: 

    “I’m hearing of lots of beans being piled on the ground along the lower Mississippi due to no barge traffic. It’s a regular occurrence here in SESD… but we are prepared with pads/bunks/air/tarps. Some warm and wet weather down south and I see very bad things happening.” 

    Someone tweeted an image that some farmers were resorting to trucks rather than barges as traffic on the Mississippi ground to a halt last week. 

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

    Here’s a shocking image of the dried-up Mississippi River. 

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

    … and here’s another one. 

    Did we mention barge prices on the Mississippi have hyperinflated due to vessel scarcity? 

    Most of these beans and other farm goods were slated for major export terminals in the Gulf of Mexico. How long can these freshly harvested crops be piled up outside until they go bad? 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 20:00

  • Sorry Nobel Committee, Ben Bernanke's Interventions Were The Crisis
    Sorry Nobel Committee, Ben Bernanke’s Interventions Were The Crisis

    Authored by John Tamny via RealClearMarkets.com,

    In the early 1920s radios were the pricey, must-have gadgets of the day. And as all transformative market goods are, they started out expensive only for RCA (the Apple of its time) to render common what was once a luxury. One hundred years later, those with internet access can listen to radio stations around the world for free. How things change.  

    Capitalistic advances like the radio came to mind while thinking about Ben Bernanke being awarded a portion of the Nobel Prize. Bernanke believes economic growth causes prices to rise. As he told Cato Institute co-founder Ed Crane in 2005 during a one-on-one lunch, growth is “inherently inflationary.” Actually, it’s the opposite. Economic growth is a consequence of investment, and investment is all about producing exponentially more at prices that continue to fall. All goods that we covet, from cars, to computers, to radios, start out nosebleed expensive only to decline in price as investment in production efficiencies pushes their prices down. Rest assured that in Bernanke’s lifetime, private flight will become common.  

    That’s the way of things in a real world that Bernanke is only vaguely in touch with. Imagine one of the modern faces of economics believing growth causes inflation. Worse, consider the bigger meaning of all this. Bernanke is wedded to the false notion that country economies are limited by the supply of labor and production capacity within their borders, and as a result, Bernanke believes it’s the job of central bankers to centrally plan job loss and economic sluggishness so that economies don’t “overheat.” Look it up. Yes, he believes this stuff. In reality, every market good and service is the consequence of global labor and capacity inputs, such that there’s never a scenario of the “gap” in “output” being filled.  

    If we ignore that the Fed’s power to manage the economy toward growth or decline is vastly overstated, we can’t ignore that economists like Bernanke believe that central banks can and should put people out of work to keep inflation in check. Yet Bernanke is now a Nobel Prize winner. How embarrassing for economists, and how embarrassing for the Prize.  

    To which some will say that it wasn’t his belief in the discredited Phillips Curve that won him the Prize, rather it was his “Insights That Helped in Financial Crisis” (part of a Wall Street Journal headline about his award) that resulted in his latest honor. Fair enough, in a sense. Bernanke won the prize based on “a 1983 publication establishing bank failures as key to the transformation of an economic recession into the most severe depression of the 20th century.” The problem here is that Bernanke’s publication is as easy to dismiss as his deep belief that growth has an inflationary downside.  

    Indeed, as is well known, capital is borderless. It always has been. We borrow money for what it can be exchanged for, which is a reminder that the only limit to credit is production. Please think about this with Bernanke’s belief that struggling banks brought on the 1930s. Such a view doesn’t stand up to the most basic of scrutiny.  

    Three Reasons to Consider Mid- and Small-Cap Dividend Growth Stocks Right Now

    Large-cap stocks may have dominated over the past several years, but small- and mid-caps might be due for a rebound. Consider a small- and mid-cap dividend growth strategy. Read more.

    That’s the case because finance has never been limited to banks, and certainly wasn’t limited to U.S. banks in the 1930s. Better yet, precisely because U.S. innovation has always been so impressive, the U.S. has long been a magnet for the world’s savings. Applied to the 1930s, even if it had been true that a “tight” Fed hadn’t liquefied banks enough, the reality is that global capital inflows and domestic non-bank sources of capital would have made up for the Fed’s alleged stinginess between breakfast and lunch.  

    Bernanke has long championed himself as a “Great Depression” expert, but his analysis reminds the mildly sapient that he learned all the wrong lessons from a decade of relatively slow growth. Missed by Bernanke is that “depression” in the 1930s was the government intervention. As the U.S. economy fell into a mild, would-be-economic-revival born of the slump (it’s during downturns that the individuals who comprise an economy fix what they’re doing wrong), the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations responded with record tariffs on 20,000 foreign goods, massive increases in the tax that is government spending, an increase in the top individual tax rate from 25 to 83 percent, levies on retained corporate earnings of up to 70 percent, major new regulation, and a 59% devaluation of the dollar. Left alone, recessions are the cure. The problem was that the political class tried to medicate what was healthy.  

    Bernanke fell hard for the medication part. Fast forward to 2008, a falling dollar under the impressively inept President George W. Bush had instigated what Ludwig von Mises referred to in Human Action as a “flight to the real.” Yes, presidents get the dollar they want, Bush wanted a weak one, and a falling dollar drove massive consumption of housing over investment in new ideas.  

    That the U.S. economy slowed as a result of the above was no surprise. Furthermore, the markets weren’t surprised. Figure that they relentlessly process all known information and were doing just that. Repeat it over and over again that errors are the norm in any economy, and they could never cause a “crisis.” Enter Bernanke. With a “whatever it takes” (Bernanke’s words) mantra, the Fed Chairman was “determined to do everything I could, along with my colleagues, to try to prevent the financial system from melting down.” Yet people – including deep-thinking economists – to this day scratch their chins while discussing the “causes” of the 2008 crisis! You can’t make this up.  

    The reality is that market actors were minute by minute pricing the errors that are part and parcel of any mixed, or market economy, only for experts like Bernanke, Bush, and Henry Paulson to substitute their highly limited knowledge for that of the marketplace. That “crisis” followed intervention was a statement of the obvious. In other words, Bernanke was the crisis. Nice job, Nobel Committee.  

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 19:40

  • Musk Launches "Burnt Hair" Perfume, Quickly Sells 20k Bottles At $100
    Musk Launches “Burnt Hair” Perfume, Quickly Sells 20k Bottles At $100

    Elon Musk has a new title: “perfume salesman.”  

    On Tuesday, Musk’s Boring Company introduced a scent called “Burnt Hair,” describing it as “The Essence of Repugnant Desire.” It can be yours for $100 — which includes domestic shipping and taxes. 

    A product page promotes the fragrance as “just like leaning over a candle at the dinner table, but without all the hard work.” 

    Naturally, Musk announced the gimmicky product launch on Twitter, the platform he’s set to purchase for $44 billion after a months-long, litigious, see-saw saga.

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

    His closing of the Twitter transaction still isn’t guaranteed — it depends on his ability to finance it. Like a high school sports team raising money via cookie sales, Musk is presenting Burnt Hair as a way for supporters to help bankroll his Twitter buyout. “Please buy my perfume, so I can buy Twitter,” he tweeted on Wednesday. 

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

    As Bloomberg explains, this isn’t Musk’s first oddball product launch: 

    The Tesla Inc. chief executive officer has a history of launching products based on jokes that his massive fanbase has sought after as collectibles. A limited line of 20,000 flamethrowers sold by Boring Co. in 2018 to raise $10 million for its tunnel-building tests attracted huge interest.

    In 2020, Tesla sold limited-edition, satin “short shorts” — for $69.420 each — as a means of taunting those who unsuccessfully shorted Tesla stock. 

    Going all-in on his new promotion, Musk changed his Twitter profile to “perfume salesman,” and noted that his diversification into the fragrance sector was predestined by his surname: 

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

    After enthusing that 10,000 bottles had been sold on the first day, Musk was back on Wednesday evening to announce that sales crossed the 20,000-bottle mark — thus raking in $2 million in a little over 24 hours.

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

    Musk cheerfully noted that shoppers can buy the product with Doge coin and, in step with the times, he indicated Burnt Hair isn’t just for men or for women.  

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

    Musk isn’t the only one having some laughs over the product launch:  

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

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

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

     

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 19:20

  • No Data To Recommend 'Preferential' Omicron Booster Jabs: WHO Panel
    No Data To Recommend ‘Preferential’ Omicron Booster Jabs: WHO Panel

    Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    There isn’t enough data to recommend COVID-19 booster jabs for Omicron subvariants over the original virus, the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) panel of vaccine experts said on Tuesday.

    A sign of the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, on April 24, 2020. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)

    Four variant-containing mRNA vaccines that either include bivalent Omicron subvariants BA.1 or BA.4–5 in combination with the “ancestral virus” have been authorized for use as booster doses.

    The Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) said in a statement that it reviewed the “safety and immunogenicity” of bivalent vaccines when given as a booster in adults compared to the results of a clinical trial from another kind of vaccine.

    Bivalent vaccines are designed to target two different strains of the virus. They contain both the mRNA of the original virus strain and that of the Omicron variant, which accounts for almost all virus samples collected in the last 30 days.

    The bivalent jabs targeting the dominant subvariant might only offer a “minute incremental benefit,” according to SAGE, which determined that the highest public health priority is to achieve high rates of a primary dose of vaccine containing the “ancestral strain” of the virus.

    “[C]urrently available data are not sufficient to support the issuance of any preferential recommendation for bivalent variant-containing vaccine boosters over ancestral-virus-only boosters,” SAGE added.

    Either a monovalent jab designed for the original strain or a bivalent variant-containing shot can be used as boosters, according to the WHO panel.

    The WHO panel said these shots given as boosters four to six months after the last dose provide “improved protection against currently circulating SARS-CoV-2.”

    “The bulk of the benefit is from the provision of in particular the first booster dose, irrespective of whether it is a monovalent or bivalent vaccine,” SAGE said.

    ‘Modest Effect’ Only Seen in Labs, Not Clinical Settings

    The variant-containing vaccines neutralize the virus to the same extent as ancestral shots but have a “slightly superior neutralization of the Omicron variant, according to SAGE Executive Secretary Joachim Hombach.

    “It’s a relatively modest effect which we can see in the laboratory,” he said, adding that they cannot “relate these laboratory measures with an increase in clinical protection” because there’s no data on effectiveness.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 19:00

  • Twitter Lawyers Say Musk Under Federal Investigation Over Deal
    Twitter Lawyers Say Musk Under Federal Investigation Over Deal

    In yet another unexpected twist in the saga of Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, Bloomberg reports that, according to the latest court filing, the billionaire is facing a federal probe over the deal:

    “Elon Musk is presently under investigation by federal authorities for his conduct in connection with the acquisition of Twitter,” attorneys for Potter Anderson Corroon LLP wrote in a filing dated Oct. 6 and unsealed Thursday.

    While the deal inches closer to consummation (with a month-end deadline from the judge), it appears Twitter is looking for some kind of leverage as their lawyers are asking the court for access to documents that Musk has given to authorities.

    “Through counsel, he has exchanged substantive correspondence with those authorities concerning their investigations,” the said.

    “Twitter wants those documents, because they bear upon key issues in this litigation.”

    While no details at all are given for the probe, we do note that the SEC sent a query earlier this year to Musk over how he initially disclosed his major stake in Twitter, according a letter dated April 4 that was released in May.

    Who could have seen this coming?

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

    They really don’t want to lose control of the digital town square (translation: the acceptable narrative).

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 18:43

  • Chevron CEO Blames Western Governments "Doubling-Down" On 'Climate' Policies For Global Energy Crisis
    Chevron CEO Blames Western Governments “Doubling-Down” On ‘Climate’ Policies For Global Energy Crisis

    The chairman and CEO of energy company Chevron warned the global energy crisis had been exacerbated by Western governments “doubling down” on green energy policies that will only cause “more volatility, more unpredictability, and more chaos.” 

    “If people want to stop driving, stop flying… that’s a choice for society,” he said.

    “I don’t think most people want to move backwards in terms of their quality of their life… our products enable that.”

    CEO Mike Wirth told Financial Times in an interview this week that the premature transition from fossil fuels to green energy, a move to decarbonize the economy, has sparked “unintended consequences,” such as energy supply issues that are already widespread in Europe and emerging in California. 

    Wirth continued that even though renewables, such as wind and solar, have been invested heavily by Western governments over the last two decades to decarbonize grids, fossil fuels still are a large percentage of power generation, adding politicians really need to hold an “honest conversation” about the energy crunch before things worsen.

    “The conversation [about energy] in the developed world for sure has skewed towards climate, taking affordability and security for granted. 

    “The reality is, [fossil fuel] is what runs the world today. It’s going to run the world tomorrow and five years from now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now.”

    Wirth outlined years of underinvestment caused the global energy crunch and predated Russia’s invasion. This has given way to limited spare capacity by oil-producing countries.

    He said the investments in alternatives versus fossil fuel were “woefully short, trillions of dollars short,” and has caused the mismatch “illustrates the risk in moving from a system that keeps the world functioning today aggressively to another system, and shutting down nuclear, shutting down coal, discouraging oil and gas.”

    Wirth’s comments squarely blamed Western governments for the energy crunch and should also include Wall Street banks (cough cough BlackRock’s Fink), big tech companies, corporate elites, and other progressive organizations, such as The World Economic Forum, that have worked together to push a green energy agenda. 

    This was a dilemma for an administration that had entered office with a “very clear agenda . . . to make it more difficult for our industry to deliver energy to our customers”.

    What’s become evident following the war in Ukraine and disruptions to global energy markets — is that countries that quickly increased investments in green energy and decommissioned fossil fuel power plants suffer the most (Germany is a prime example). The people who pushed green energy now say the world needs more and take no responsibility for the decarbonization movement backfiring (which has led to energy hyperinflation). 

    Wirth’s latest comments come as he warned US households to brace for soaring natural gas prices this winter. He has combated (read: here & here) the mindless folks at the White House who have blamed the oil and gas industry for the energy crunch. 

    The unintended consequence of decarbonizing economies too fast is energy hyperinflation. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 18:40

  • Bitcoin Miners Are The Dung Beetles Of The Energy Sector
    Bitcoin Miners Are The Dung Beetles Of The Energy Sector

    Authored by Robert Warren via BitcoinMagazine.com,

    Miners will consume every last drop of wasted energy available, because they’re incentivized to do so.

    The layperson knows only one thing about Bitcoin mining – it uses a lot of energy, and that is bad.

    This mind-virus, successfully spread by the climate extremists and anti-Bitcoin street corner preachers (typically carrying a proof-of-stake torch) is intended to be the death knell of our burgeoning industry. We use a lot of energy, and using energy is obviously a terrible thing. It follows that we should be scorned, pursued and regulated out of existence.

    We are in a climate crisis, so as we all know, the best course of action is to install solar on your roof, buy a Tesla, shut down the coal and gas plants in your region, and argue anything short of that is systematically racist. Proof-of-work is the enemy.

    This argument is, to most reasonable people who enjoy running their dishwasher and having the lights on at night, patently ridiculous.

    But there is still that one big issue: “Doesn’t Bitcoin mining still use a lot of energy? And don’t those computers clog our landfills the second they become unprofitable?”

    If you find yourself under the interrogation of the Bitcoin curious, having to answer for all of those megawatts we’re consuming, there is one question you must ask in response to, “Doesn’t Bitcoin use a lot of energy?”

    Yes, but which energy?

    Source: Author

    NOTE: Before we go any further, let’s draw a clear distinction between energy and electricity. Energy comes from primary sources like a natural gas well, or hydroelectric dam. These primary sources are used to generate electricity, the secondary energy we make all over the world, sent through high voltage wires and used to power our dishwashers. If you want a resource to explore further, look HERE.

    NOTE TO THE NOTE: Today not all bitcoin miners are using waste or excess energy. My assertion is that this is the direction our industry trends over the long run, regardless of generation type, because simple supply and demand drives miners to the lowest priced energy.

    WHICH ENERGY DO BITCOIN MINERS USE?

    As long as waste energy exists, Bitcoin mining exists and is profitable.

    Let me say again that for those of you in the back rows. As long as there is waste in energy production and supply chains, it will always be profitable to mine bitcoin, regardless of hardware type, manufacturer, age, location, anything.

    Even esteemed Bitcoin Mining FUD masters like Alex de Vries of Digiconomist fail the simplest of economic analyses in the bitcoin mining space. That is, not understanding supply and demand. Which is why they publish findings like, “A similar dynamic ultimately determines the fate of ASIC-based mining devices as advances in ASIC chip efficiency result in more powerful devices that eventually crowd out older, less efficient technology … Because the technical lifetime of ASIC mining devices typically exceeds the period of time during which the device can perform its task profitably (McCook, 2018), the moment they become unprofitable determines their lifespan and the point at which they become electronic waste … We show in this study that the lifespan of Bitcoin mining devices remains limited to just 1.29 years.”

    So, we are to understand, that efficiency in the ASIC market is the single driver of energy consumption and e-waste produced?

    I’ll invoke Brandolini’s Law (“The amount of energy needed to refute bullsh*t is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”) as my rationale for not addressing the above directly, and will instead discuss energy waste.

    By waste energy I mean the various points across energy supply chains where energy is available to perform work, but for one reason or another does not. This takes various forms across the market, whether it’s methane venting and flaring on oil and gas sites, wind farms, hydroelectric plants, nuclear reactors, and solar farms powering down due to low demand.

    Bitcoin mining is the ultimate waste reduction tool, because as long as waste exists in the energy sector, and it always will, there will always be an incentive to mine Bitcoin with that energy, regardless of ASIC type. (NOTE: If you are Alex de Vries, I need you to re-read that last sentence and reconsider your 1.29 year estimate for ASIC lifespan.)

    Source: Author

    Source: Author

    The energy that is worth the least, is the energy that never makes it to market. The methane vented or flared on an oil well, the wind turbine that sits idle in a megafarm, the hydroelectric turbine that doesn’t spin. In the case of solar, you have production times that mismatch demand times, so excess capacity goes unused midday. I.e., People turn lights on more when the sun goes down.

    Bitcoin miners have no interest in your Science-Backed Turbo Grid™, your political idealizations, or which dream team you assembled to form a research council. Whether you want 89% nuclear, 71% solar with Tesla Powerwalls, elimination of fossil fuels completely or 93.7% hydro-power, is irrelevant, we don’t care.

    We are the eternal free market free agents.

    We want your waste and excess.

    We are the dung beetles of the energy sector.

    And already the framework of this robust industry is developing.

    Rack, power distribution unit and transformer expertise for indoor operations, a variety of containerized solutions designed to protect miners in rugged Texas Summers and frigid Alberta Winters, half engine half datacenter chimeras birthed for the sole purpose of consuming natural gas, home mining black boxes that dump excess heat into your house during the cold season all exist. A secondary market in software and hardware emerges in firmware, machine management, maintenance and lifetime extension.

    Everything is designed around a single goal, the identification and utilization of the lowest priced energy in the most efficient way possible. That lowest priced energy is not the electricity you’re using to charge your iPhone, or watch Netflix — it lives far off and away in a substation with excess capacity, or a natural gas plant with underutilized turbines. In this way Bitcoin mining brings a market to everywhere there isn’t one in the energy supply chain.

    At nearly every point in the energy supply chain there is some waste or excess that is better priced and consumed than left idle.

    So when your Bitcoin curious friends next corner you to ask about those terrible megawatts that the bitcoin miners are using, your first reply might most productively be:

    Which energy do those Bitcoin miners use?

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 18:20

  • "Severe Adverse Effects": Doctors Warn Pfizer's Paxlovid Can Interact With Common Medications
    “Severe Adverse Effects”: Doctors Warn Pfizer’s Paxlovid Can Interact With Common Medications

    Pfizer’s Covid-19 treatment that’s definitely not a profitable Ivermectin knockoff (despite both functioning as protease inhibitors) turns out to pose an increased risk of severe illness in Covid-19 patients who have a history of cardiovascular disease.

    Paxlovid – Pfizer’s Covid medication notably taken by Joe Biden, Jill Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci – before all three had “rare” (and then not-so rare) cases of “rebound Covid” – can have dangerous interactions with some of the most common medications for cardiovascular disease, including various statins and heart failure therapies, according to a Wednesday paper published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

    In it, researchers found that the combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, two antivirals which comprise Pfizer’s Paxlovid, can interact with a number of commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications. According to the paper, Ritonavir, which was approved to treat HIV in 1996, impacts the CYP450 pathway that’s involved in metabolizing a number of medications—as well as the P-glycoprotein drug efflux pump, the Epoch Times reports.

    “Co-administration of [Paxlovid] with medications commonly used to manage cardiovascular conditions can potentially cause significant drug-drug interactions and may lead to severe adverse effects,” reads an abstract. “It is crucial to be aware of such interactions and take appropriate measures to avoid them.”

    The paper also notes that interactions between Paxlovid and some blood thinners can cause a higher risk of bleeding, while interactions between Paxlovid and cholesterol medications such as Statins can be toxic, CNN reports, citing the paper.

    “Awareness of the presence of drug-drug interactions of Paxlovid with common cardiovascular drugs is key. System-level interventions by integrating drug-drug interactions into electronic medical records could help avoid related adverse events,” said lead author Saru Ganatra, MD, who works at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, Massachusetts.

    “Paxlovid could be incorporated into an order set, which allows physicians, whether it be primary care physicians or cardiology providers, to consciously rule out any contraindications to the co-administration of Paxlovid,” Ganatra continued, adding that there needs to be “consultation” with healthcare providers and pharmacists to avoid interactions.

    As the Epoch Times notes, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fact sheet (pdf) of Paxlovid for health care providers goes into detail about possible drug interactions that can prompt life-threatening reactions.

    The medications include but aren’t limited to anti-seizure medications, drugs for irregular heart rhythms, drugs for high blood pressure and high cholesterol, antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications, antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications, steroids, HIV treatments, blood thinners, and erectile dysfunction medications.

    “The importance of medication reconciliation before initiation of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir cannot be overemphasized to avoid serious drug-drug interactions,” the authors of the paper wrote Wednesday, referring to Paxlovid.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/13/2022 – 18:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest