Oct 20

Today’s News 20th October 2023

  • Doug Casey On Governments Scapegoating Businesses For Inflation
    Doug Casey On Governments Scapegoating Businesses For Inflation

    Via the International Man,

    International Man: Thanks to rampant currency debasement, the price of everything has gone up recently.

    As the pain from inflation becomes a normal part of life in places like the US and Canada, there are growing calls for politicians to “do something.”

    Recently, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau threatened to tax grocery stores if they don’t lower their prices, accusing them of causing inflation and profiting from higher prices.

    What’s your take on this?

    Doug Casey: Trudeau epitomizes, in many ways, all that’s wrong with the kind of people who go into politics. Things are as expensive as they are partly because taxes take 20% or 30% of everybody’s income when they earn it. Then, when they spend it, they pay another 10%, 20%, or even 30% in sales taxes and VATs. Add on the burden of regulations, which add to costs while decreasing the amount of production.

    Taxes and regulations are disastrous. But the big thing is currency debasement. Governments are printing up money by the bushel because they believe in Modern Monetary Theory—paying for what they want by simply printing money.

    People like Trudeau are the reason why food prices, and all kinds of prices, are as high as they are.

    Having caused a problem, they present themselves as a solution to the problem. Their solutions are typically counterproductive—stupid, actually. Taxing grocery stores adds to their costs. If they’re to stay in business, those taxes must be passed on to the consumer.

    Trudeau is a criminal personality who should be punished for the evil he’s doing. On the other hand, he was popularly elected, largely because he has name recognition from his nominal father and good looks from Fidel Castro, who’s probably his actual sire. In any event, he’s apparently what the majority of Canadians must prefer…

    International Man: Many Third World countries have scapegoated business owners for rising prices.

    The next step is for them to pass laws regulating how businesses can price their products and services.

    Where does this all lead?

    Doug Casey: As we’ve just discussed regarding Trudeau, government sticks its nose absolutely everywhere. That’s because the type of people who go into government love power, as well as making themselves famous and wealthy.

    Almost all economic problems originate with government intervention. The solution isn’t more laws regulating how businesses can act and price their products but less laws. And by less, I mean none at all.

    Government might subsidize milk, perhaps so it’s an “affordable” dollar a gallon. That’s a great idea. You can have all you want for a dollar—but there won’t be any. It’s an insoluble problem until people realize that the cause of the problem is the State itself—fat chance. I’m not optimistic.

    International Man: We’ve recently seen prominent politicians and the media in the US blame rising prices on businesses.

    They also blame supply chain problems, Vladimir Putin, and so-called climate change… anything but the Federal Reserve and its currency debasement as the source of inflation.

    Why do the media and government mislead and gaslight people about inflation?

    Doug Casey: You and I realize that the only reason that we’re not all naked, grubbing for roots and berries, is because business creates wealth. Businessmen are directly responsible for our high standard of living. Business is humanity’s friend, not the enemy that government makes it out to be.

    But then again, business is now so hooked up and intertwined with government that you can no longer tell the two of them apart. This is the problem with Ayn Rand’s writings. She saw businessmen as heroes for creating wealth. But in the real world, businessmen don’t know anything about either economics or philosophy. Sad to say, they’re not heroes. Few care about anything but becoming personally wealthy.

    It’s easier for them to become wealthy by getting in bed with the State and having it pass laws to make their lives easier at the expense of the public. Unlike Rand’s ideal heroes, business never defends itself on a moral basis. In sordid reality, they’re archetypal whipped dogs who comply with everything the government dictates as long as they’re tossed fat bones.

    The government is able to mislead and gaslight the public because people naturally believe authority, whether it’s their parents, their teachers, their preachers, or whoever. And the government, through the media, is the ultimate authority. When the government alleges things, people who don’t think or who aren’t independent thinkers believe them. When the bad guys have authority, they naturally make themselves out as being good guys.

    The problem is that people who want to govern are almost always bad guys.

    International Man: In a separate but related development, US cities are descending into crime-ridden hellholes. Businesses, including grocery stores, are fleeing in droves.

    In Chicago, the mayor has said the city will experiment with creating centrally-controlled, state-run grocery stores to service areas where private grocers have left.

    The mayor has said:

    “All Chicagoans deserve to live near convenient, affordable, healthy grocery options. We know access to grocery stores is already a challenge for many residents, especially on the South and West sides.”

    His team calls it “re-imagining the role government can play in our lives by exploring a public option for grocery stores.”

    What do you make of this?

    Doug Casey: It’s possible, although it’s a highly competitive space, that the mayor of Chicago is the worst mayor in the country. Even worse than his predecessor, the degraded Laurie Lightfoot. Incidentally, Chicagoans don’t preternaturally deserve those things he mentions. The fact the idiots elected this fool, this criminal, means they’re just getting what they deserve.

    The government of Chicago has provided nothing but new highs in murders, robberies, taxation, and regulation. They’ve put hundreds of thousands of citizens in vertical ghettos that they’ll almost certainly never be able to get out of.

    If they take it to the next level, by having government grocery stores, they’ll have to be renamed “food dispensaries,” where the food will either be stolen, or it’ll be locked up behind plexiglass with armed guards.

    The way central cities are devolving, there will be no business anywhere. With government employees dispensing food, going shopping will be like visiting a DMV.

    International Man: Where do you think this is all headed if current trends continue? What advice do you have for people on preparing for what is coming?

    Doug Casey: Trends in motion tend to stay in motion until they reach a crisis. At which point, things either get much worse or turn around and get better, simply because they’re unsustainable. The country is now like a poker player “on tilt”—nothing changes until he goes bust. And that’s always ugly.

    There’s not much any of us can do to change the trend in motion, which has been heading down for many years and is now accelerating downward.

    All you can do—and what you should do—is take care of yourself, your family, and your friends. As far as the food situation is concerned, you should take a note from the Mormons, which is to say, set aside six months’ worth of food.

    If you live where it’s possible, learn to grow a garden or perhaps raise a few chickens. Be as self-sufficient as possible so that you don’t have to rely on your local government food dispensary when things get really bad.

    *  *  *

    Editor’s Note: It’s clear the Fed’s money printing is about to go into overdrive. The next round of money printing is likely to bring the situation to a breaking point.

    That means we’re on the cusp of a global economic crisis that could eclipse anything we’ve seen before. Most people won’t be prepared for what’s coming…

    That’s precisely why bestselling author and legendary speculator Doug Casey and his team just released this urgent PDF report on how to survive and thrive in this chaotic environment. Click here to download it now.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 19:15

  • Albert Edwards Explains Why China's "Strong" GDP Data Was A Bald-Faced Lie
    Albert Edwards Explains Why China’s “Strong” GDP Data Was A Bald-Faced Lie

    Two days ago, markets exhaled a collective breath of relief when China published its monthly data dump which disclosed that in addition to beating (almost) across the board for retail sales, industrial output, and fixed investment, the country’s GDP came well above expectations of 4.50%, printing at a 4.90% increase YoY.

    This was good news for a world starved for any positive developments out of China, and Chinese assets promptly bounced (if only to sink shortly after as attention return to China’s rapidly disintegrating property sector). There is just one problem: as with every economic data coming out of China (and lately the US, as well), this was a lie.

    While it is true that reported real GDP was 4.9%, what SocGen’s Albert Edwards points out in his latest Global Strategy Weekly note is that this was only possible because the Chinese economy remained in deflation in Q3, hardly an indication of economic prosperity.

    As Edwards explains, the 4.9% upside surprise on real GDP was “only achieved because of the surprisingly sharp 1.4% fall in the GDP deflator – that was then added to weak 3.5% nominal GDP growth.”

    This is a problem because as the SocGen strategist observes next, “nominal GDP growth in China at 3.5% (red line in chart below) is far lower than the pre-Covid run rate compared to real GDP.” And since “it is the nominal pulse that is accurately measured” what matters is the nominal print. Then after statisticians make some informed guesses as to what prices are doing, ‘real’ constant price GDP pops up in the spreadsheet.

    Hence for China to meet its 5% ‘real’ GDP target, Edwards sarcastically explains, “merely requires the statisticians to ‘assume’ prices are falling sharply. Hey, maybe there isn’t a Chinese deflation problem after all? But if so, that means real GDP growth is much weaker than is being officially reported.“

    Edwards skepticism is corroborated by the far more accurate, PMI data, which signals “worryingly low employment in the non-manufacturing sector with no lockdowns to blame.”

    No wonder then that China 10y bond yields remain near an all time low level of 2.7%, in stark contrast to the US’s 4.99%.

    But if the Chniese data is again much weaker than indicated, what does that mean about Beijing’s attempts to kickstart the economy and stimulate it out of its Japanification phase? Well, as Edwards explains, “the Chinese authorities have been in easing mode recently, but the degree of easing can be described as support for the economy rather than stimulus” which is what one would expect from a country that has a record 300%+ debt/GDP: this is where the tire meets the road for all those idiot MMT fans whose entire monetary religion goes up in a small puff of smoke once debt becomes the gating factor as it has in China.

    That is why, according to Albert, you see industrial metals limping along (more zombie analogies?) rather than sprinting ahead.

    Looking ahead, fake data aside, SocGen’s China economists expect one more cut in rates this year, but another problem emerges: China’s recent rate cuts – in stark contrast to the US – are putting the renminbi under heavy downward pressure (left chart below). Nevertheless, the renminbi basket has been rebounding recently and stands close to a Rmb6.4/$ equivalent (see right hand chart).

    Which brings us to Edwards’ conclusion which touches on a topic we recently mentioned on twitter, namely that the most important currency pair does not even have the dollar in it, but rather is the interplay between two export powerhouses: China and Japan…

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

    … or as Edwards puts it, “the gap between China’s exchange rate and the yen has become a chasm in recent years, despite Japan also pursuing easy money. China’s tight exchange rate policy is relatively deflationary. Maybe the falling deflator is right after all?”

    The SocGen bear’s parting words are spot on: this is a “situation that needs very close watching.”

    More in the full note available to pro subs in the usual place.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 18:50

  • The Problem Boils Down To This
    The Problem Boils Down To This

    Authored by Eric Peters,

    Everyone has their take as regards the problems besetting us. Few seem to grasp there is fundamentally just one problem. It is the problem that animates the others, giving them the power to be problems.

    What is this one problem that leads to all the others?

    It is force – especially when its use (and threatened use, which has the same effect) is legalized.

    If force institutionalized were taken away, there would of course still be disagreements – as well as annoyances. But that is all there would be. Or at least, mostly. Violence – its use and its threatened use – will of course always be with us as there will always be people willing to resort to the use of force to get what they want. But they would be outliers – and occasional rather than ubiquitous threats.

    How often have you been mugged?

    Have you been able to go even one day without being forced to pay what are styled “taxes” – i.e., legalized mugging? You are forced to pay the “mugger” every single time you pay for anything. And when you get paid for the work you do, too.

    Because such mugging it is legal – and so ubiquitous. The mugger in the alley is a kind of freelancer; he enjoys no such advantage and suffers the disadvantage of it being legal to attempt to avoid his depredations and to defend oneself against them.

    If you don’t like someone, but he is legally powerless to force you to interact with him, then you are free to avoid him. And because you are able to avoid him, conflict is avoided.

    How do you feel about people you’re forced to deal with – because they have the power to force you to deal with them? For example, the proliferation of government employees whose employment centers on your having to not only deal with them politely but also pay for the privilege?

    Think of the government employee who comes onto your property uninvited to assess the value of your home – so that the government can force you to hand over money to pay for government “services” you don’t want or use, such as government schools. How do you feel about him? How about the government worker who puts his hands on your wife, your child – or your elderly parent – at the airport?

    The cop who simply takes – legally! – the envelope full of cash you were going to use to pay for the used car you were on your way to buy when you got “pulled over” for not wearing a seatbelt. He says it’s “suspicious” – and it’s up to you to prove (at your expense) that the money is “legitimate.”

    The mask-faced bureaucrat who forced you to close the doors to your business that no one was forced to walk through – leading to the bankrupting of your business?

    Do you not feel hatred for them?

    And how do these people feel about you? How does a person who has power over someone else, who can be made to obey, feel about having such power? What sort of person is attracted to that kind of power? How does a schoolyard bully feel about being able to make a smaller kid hand over his lunch money?

    Force empowers the sadist – who becomes an official when force is legalized.

    Take legalized force out of the equation and the sadist has no official power to torment anyone. He may succeed in finding some victims. But everyone is not his victim. And those who fall victim to him have the consolation of knowing they might be able to loosen their bonds when the sadist isn’t paying attention and lay hands on the bastard – which is considered a “crime” when done to an official sadist, such as the government worker with a uniform, a badge and a gun who orders you to get on the ground now! because you defied his order to “buckle up.”

    Most people are not violent and seek therefore to avoid violence. Down that road lies peaceful resolution and co-existence. Your neighbor does not like the color you decided to paint your house. He can ask you to paint it a different color. He can plant tree along his property line, so that he no longer sees what displeases him. And he is free to move. You may not like this neighbor but you are not likely to hate him because all he can do is ask you to paint your house another color, plant some trees along his side of the property line – or move. And because he has no power to force you to do anything, you are probably more likely to give some weight to his preferences and maybe come to an agreeable compromise.

    The absence of force encourages this just as charity is encouraged when people are not forced to “help.” They feel compassion for the truly needy. They do not resent them, at any rate – because why would they? They are objects of pity – as opposed to loci of legalized predation.

    Libertarians and anarchists are regularly derided for advocating that institutionalized force – which is a tautology for government – be removed from human interaction. The accusations leveled include that the result would be mayhem. It is a hyperbolic and absurd accusation and easily demonstrated by noting the fact that friends and families base their interactions on libertarian-anarchic concepts; no one is forced to be friends with anyone and our families are bound by affection (with the occasional sad exception) and in any case no one is forced to remain part of any family.

    Mayhem?

    How about the institutionalized mayhem of legalized violence as the basis for human interaction? Which engenders the greater fear in most people – the burglar who might break into their house one night? Or the IRS agent who might seize their house in broad daylight?

    Would you rather live with certain risks – as that you might one day fall victim to someone who acts to harm you? Or the certainty that you will be harmed, not just once but over and over again – and every day of your life, to very end of your life? And be legally powerless to raise a hand in you own defense?

    To ask these questions is to answer them.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 18:25

  • "No Material Impact": Musk Slams Man's Prison Sentence Over 2016 Meme Vs. Hunter Laptop Propagandists
    “No Material Impact”: Musk Slams Man’s Prison Sentence Over 2016 Meme Vs. Hunter Laptop Propagandists

    On Wednesday, an Obama-appointed federal judge sentenced a man named Douglass Mackey to seven months in jail for posting a meme in 2016 that directed people to vote for then-candidate Hillary Clinton via text message.

    A picture of Douglass Mackey, also known online as influencer “Ricky Vaughn,” dated February 2023. (Courtesy of Douglass Mackey)

    In March, a Brooklyn jury found Mackey guilty on charges alleging that he conspired to deprive individuals of their right to vote when he posted this meme under the alias “@TheRickyVaughn,” which had more than 58,000 followers at the time.

    Mackey will miss the birth of his first child for the same exact thing this woman did…

    Mackey’s legal defense pleaded for the judge in the case not to send him to jail, claiming in a sentencing memorandum that he’s a new man, and that his days as an internet troll are over.

    “Three years before the government arrested Douglass Mackey for the charge in this case, he moved to Florida to check himself into an intensive inpatient course of psychotherapy followed by outpatient psychotherapy,” Mackey said last month, according to Headline USA. “The Douglass Mackey who stands before the Court for sentencing is not Ricky Vaughn of seven years ago, but a role model to friends he met in therapy, a brother in faith in his Church, and a devoted husband to his wife, who is expected to give birth to the couple’s first child in November.“

    While Mackey has appealed his conviction, his lawyer, Andrew Frisch, says that the case “presents an unusual array of compelling appellate issues. I am optimistic that the conviction will be vacated.”

    Reactions on the right to Mackey’s conviction were mostly outrage over Biden’s ‘weaponized’ DOJ going after another conservative. “X” owner Elon Musk said that what he did “had no material impact on the election,” in comparison to those behind the suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop, which “*did* have a material impact on the election.”

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

    Speaking of material impacts…

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

     

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 18:00

  • What Some Call "Anti-Science" Is Just Anti-Authoritarianism
    What Some Call “Anti-Science” Is Just Anti-Authoritarianism

    Authored by Alex Washburne via The Brownstone Institute,

    Sometimes it feels as if we’re living in a dizzying house of narrative mirrors and anyone sincerely interested in walking the true path through the world risks being unable to see the true path as they get trapped in our horrific hall of insincere reflections.

    The truth of any given matter, the objective facts and consilient theories, seems to matter less than the ability of an idea or narrative to reflect back to people what they wish to see. Our marketplace of ideas incentivizes manufacturing narrative mirrors that provide epistemological narcissists an opportunity to view themselves in a favorable light and secure a foothold in media outlets that have devolved from curators of our frontal lobe to antagonists of our amygdala.

    Speaking of epistemological narcissists and narrative mirrors, let’s talk about Peter Hotez and his narrative of a growing “Anti-Science” movement.

    Peter Hotez self-identifies as a scientist and appears to spend most of his time running around predominately liberal media outlets, using his stature as “The Scientist” to misrepresent, demean, and cry “disinformation” on information, worldviews, and even scientific theories that differ from his own. Any scientist who disagrees with Dr. Hotez and his outrageous, inhuman, insensitive, and irrational proclamations is blocked and ridiculed. While truth may bounce off Hotez like bullets off of Thanos, it appears our disagreements have successfully penetrated the armor of Dr. Hotez’s ego and a new ego-defense is materializing. 

    Now, Dr. Hotez claims that there is “an Anti-Science movement,” a cultural and political boogeyman that is out to undermine science and target scientists. I have little doubt he would love to snap his fingers and make what he views as “Anti-Science” people, beliefs, and institutions disappear in an act of anti-heroic benevolence for the world.

    The whole notion of “Anti-Science,” however, is a narrative. It is not a physical object like “anti-matter” or “antigen” nor is it a process like “antibody maturation” nor an objective and diagnosable clinical condition like “antisocial personality disorder.” “Anti-Science” is nothing but an attempt to name a thing that Hotez sees, but he views our political world from a far-off silo and lives in a hall of mirrors of his own design. As a consequence of Hotez’ distance from the people and patterns he’s labeling “Anti-Science,” the thing he sees is not a thing that exists in our shared, objective universe.

    To understand what Hotez sees, why he sees it, and why it’s not a thing in our universe, we have to provide, to the best of our ability, a minimal and objective set of historical facts that can reproduce what he sees. I hypothesize one can synthesize Hotez’ toxic worldview by following the 7-step recipe below:

    1. History of Scientists-Being-Right: Have serious scientific issues over which there is a legitimate consensus, like climate change or evolution, become politically divisive flashpoints.
    2. Socially and Politically Siloed Scientists: Slowly, imperceptibly, increase the political biases of the composition of scientists while having scientists spend more and more time in their social circle.
    3. A Scientific Emergency: Introduce an emergency that requires scientific interpretations to decide effective public policy (COVID-19 pandemic), resulting in an unprecedented surge in the political power and influence of scientists.
    4. Scientists with State Power: Have some scientists in unelected positions of power (e.g. Fauci and Collins) use the power of the State to silence critics and preferentially amplify the theories, papers, and implied policies they prefer.
    5. Uncritical Media: Have media with a long mutualistic history of using scientists to certify narratives and manufacture consent in exchange for providing scientists expanded narrative reach, and, through a mix of market forces and established social norms, have these media “trust the experts” and give them relatively uncritical coverage. 
    6. History of Disinformation: Record a true history of disinformation, especially concerning scientific issues like oil and gas companies sowing doubt about climate change (while privately acknowledging it’s true).
    7. Diversity of Belief and Freedom of Speech: Have all of the above occur in a society that safeguards civil liberties, allowing people to speak up, criticize those in power, and advocate for their own position in public fora.

    If these seven criteria are met, I believe someone like Peter Hotez will be a nearly inevitable social consequence. The simple explanation is that the criteria above polarized scientists (1) without them knowing they are polarized (2), gave them an opportunity (3) to exercise somewhat unchecked State power (4), and gave them media power (5) to suppress dissent by calling it “disinformation” (6).

    The first six steps of this recipe create an authoritarian ethos in scientists – Trust the Science, Follow the Science – and compel them to act on these politically ethnocentric and authoritarian impulses with few checks and balances except for popular discontent. Inevitably, the siloed and politically biased composition of scientists will result in policies that sow massive discontent (lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates). When we add the 7th ingredient of the recipe, people exposed to an authoritarian bunch of scientists brushing aside their humanity, their political rights, and their distinct value systems will express their discontent. The people expressing discontent will correctly identify the scientists as the people and groups of scientists as the syndicate that corrupted the public policy process through unfair, undemocratic, and intolerant tactics, and the people will speak their minds at these scientists – like Hotez – in public fora.

    Scientific authoritarianism is not many Americans’ cup of tea.

    The Hotez’s will need to be fermented in this social and media concoction of authoritarianism within grasp hindered by legitimate public criticism for some time. Eventually, they will need a narrative to brush away that public resistance so they will create an ego-defensive narrative that positions them as heroes, Scientists as Saviors (scientific saviorism). Hotez and others have somewhat of a manic pixie dream scientist view of themselves – the scientists who are apolitical heroes of infinite cultural latitude exist only in their imaginations to serve their fantasies of grandiosity and benevolence. They sincerely believe that if science says X is effective at reducing one disease then all of society ought to Follow the Science to adopt X, mandate X, do whatever it takes to make X ubiquitous and thank scientists for X. Of course, the tricky thing about society is that it is comprised of humans, a vast anthropological mosaic of beliefs and value systems, and there are other beliefs and value systems that believe we ought to do Y.

    Science has become a central pillar of the Saviors’ self-identity and so they don’t distinguish between science (the objective and often messy process of fairly evaluating many competing ideas) and the authoritarian actions of scientists. As the Toxic Hotez nears completion from cooking in a vat of legitimate public criticism for their scientific ethnocentrism, they will conceive a global conspiracy targeting science and scientists, a monstrous “Anti-Science” that demands even more power and legal protection of scientists, even stronger measures to police disinformation. As they look at the restored image of Scientists as Saviors in this narrative mirror, they will descend even further into madness.

    Indeed, it is madness because what Hotez views as “Anti-Science” does not exist, it is not a good reflection of reality but rather a story told from pride and ego-defense. Hotez, a set of scientists closely connected with the heads of the NIH, NIAID, and other global health science funders (none of them democratically elected), and even the funders themselves ate the forbidden fruit of authoritarianism. Many before Hotez have tasted authoritarianism, and the results are predictable. The Scientists who grabbed the reigns of society during the pandemic and steered it with insensitive ambition are experiencing not a novel monstrosity but an age-old and dignified human response called “Anti-Authoritarianism.”

    Some – not all – scientists acted like authoritarians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Some – not all – scientists rallied around models from the most powerful and well-funded scientific groups at the start of the pandemic, even if their models were clearly wrong. When some scientists like John Ioannidis spoke up about the shortcomings of models that were guiding policy, the politically siloed scientists reacted with vitriol and social power that could crush careers in scientific institutions. The informal social control of scientists suppressed diverse views and resulted in science not shared.

    So some – not all – scientists became very vocal in advocating for lockdowns despite the policy being inhumane and a clear violation of civil liberties, such as when fellow scientists Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Sunetra Gupta wrote the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) arguing that lockdowns were likely to cause harm and that all-cause mortality and morbidity could be reduced by focusing our protection and helping those with high risk of severe outcomes receive the best preventative support and treatment we could muster. The GBD was an alternative policy proposal that was also grounded in science and it differed in its moral calculus and focus on all-cause mortality. The GBD was assisted by a group whose beliefs aligned with the policies and ideas therein – the American Institute for Economic Research. That group was said to be a libertarian think tank.

    There was just two problems with the Great Barrington Declaration: it was supposedly aligned with a group whose political preferences are anathema to many liberal scientists and it conflicted with the policies preferred by major science funders. A difference of political opinion also grounded in science and reason shouldn’t be that big of a deal, but for some reason it was. Major science funders, most of all the head of NIAID Dr. Anthony Fauci and the head of NIH Francis Collins, strongly believed that a better policy was to contain the virus – not mitigate its impacts – and hold off infections until vaccines arrived. The cost-benefit analysis of Fauci et al. differed from the GBD in that it prioritized only COVID mortality; costs were ignored and benefits assumed. Science, however, can’t decide which policy is better. The choice of what we ought to do is a problem as old as humanity, it is ethics and politics, religion, and morality. Thankfully, that’s why our system of government has a constitution and system of laws that provide us procedures for choosing policies even when equally good people disagree.

    Constitutions and procedures be damned.

    Drs. Fauci and Collins, both unelected and consequently not able to be unseated in an election, demanded a “devastating take-down” of the Great Barrington Declaration. They used their positions of immense scientific power to prod and poke and goad scientists who depend on Fauci and Collins for funding into action, generating a flurry of articles and media appearances calling the Great Barrington Declaration “fringe” and thereby imposing even stronger informal social control on scientists than that displayed during Ioannidis’ chapter of this saga. If you agreed with the GBD, you too were considered “fringe,” you were considered a “far-right Trump-supporting Libertarian.” That shouldn’t be a dis-qualifier in a sane scientific society, but such an accusation carries significant career costs in our politically siloed body of scientists.

    The anti-GBD rhetoric among some scientists with close ties to Fauci and Collins has continued to this day.

    After lockdowns, there were mask mandates and vaccine mandates. If you spoke up against vaccine mandates, whether your reasoning was scientific, religious, or political-philosophical, many scientists believed your speech should be labelled “disinformation.” Scientists, with the immense narrative power granted to them during this emergency, succeeded in labelling a great deal of information as “disinformation,” including scientific information such as early findings that immunity to COVID – including vaccine-induced immunity – may wane.

    So some – not all – scientists did indeed fight too hard in our democratic society and their insensitive need to have everything their way risked tearing the delicate fabric of our society. They tried to force policies on people that conflicted with people’s beliefs, values, or even constitutional rights. Many people are predictably not happy about that. People spoke up and advocated for their beliefs as they are free to do in our society.

    Some scientists tried to push back harder by saying that masks, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and school closures were what The Science demanded. People, including many scientists like myself, then focused their criticism at this small band of authoritarians calling themselves The Science and interfering with our country’s representative and more inclusive policy process.

    As people revolted to these Scientists’ undemocratic policies, our elected officials took note. Our democratic republic of states was a checkerboard of policies where not everyone Followed the Science, exactly as our laboratory of democracy was intended to be, but many scientists share the political belief that states’ departures from One Policy was immoral and unscientific (one and the same, in the ethical doctrine of The Science) and that the federal government should decide most things. Incidentally, the federal government is also a hub of scientific power with science-led agencies like the CDC, NIH/NIAID, and so concentrating power in the federal government would benefit scientists whereas letting states chose policies would put the decisions about public health closer to the people and their local elected representatives..

    There was tension between the people, our local representatives, our federal representatives, and the Scientists. There was litigation challenging scientists’ suppression of speech, including Missouri v. Biden where plaintiffs include GBD authors were claiming Drs. Fauci and Collins infringed upon their freedom of speech by censoring these scientists and their sincerely held scientific and science-policy beliefs. There were court cases about masks on a plane that challenged the federal government’s deference of public health policy authority to unelected scientists. There were arguments aplenty, and scientists like Drs. Fauci or Hotez who felt they were lionized during the pandemic, who underwent an apotheosis to scientific authoritarianism in their pursuit of scientific saviorism, are now being bombarded by criticism from people, counties, states, elected representatives, and even scientists.

    To make matters worse, one of the most consequential conflicts of interest in human history lurked beneath the surface. The virus that triggered the emergency was most likely a laboratory accident from a laboratory that received funding from these same heads of health science funding, Drs. Fauci and Collins. In fact, Peter Hotez himself subcontracted work to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It’s within the realm of possibility the NIAID money Hotez sent to Wuhan could’ve bought the exact pipette or restriction enzymes that caused the pandemic. That’s a conflict of interest when it comes to deciding policies to mitigate the harms of this likely research-related accident.

    Even without knowing the virus emerged from a lab, the mere fear they could be responsible for a global pandemic causing millions of deaths could reasonably be sufficient to cause scientists like Fauci and Hotez to exert undue influence on science and public health policy. Fears of a lab origin could explain why lab origin theories were branded as “conspiracy theories” with support from Drs. Hotez, Fauci and other health-science funders and the scientists close to them (Andersen, Holmes, Garry, etc).

    Fears of a lab origin could explain why this syndicate of scientists prioritized reducing COVID mortality through extreme measures like lockdowns instead of drawing on decades of public health science by acknowledging competing risks, encouraging participation from anthropologically diverse people whose policies are being decided, and managing the more conventional all-cause mortality and morbidity instead of implementing a myopic focus on COVID. 

    The latter policy, incidentally, was that proposed by the GBD, none of whose authors were engaged in risky virological work in Wuhan and all of which had clear heads and sound arguments. Fears of a lab origin could plausibly lead scientists, concerned of their moral failings in possibly causing a pandemic, to desperately need a scientific saviorism success story like vaccines to balance the scales saving as many millions of lives as the millions of deaths they may have caused, leading them to label scientists’ divergent views on costs and benefits of vaccines as “disinformation.” The Wuhan COI could easily affect the observed irrational need to censor opposing views.

    When we look at the pandemic history and our post-pandemic society from a more objective, less conflicted lens closer to the bodies of us innocent and diverse people Hotez labels “Anti-Science” from his siloed distance, we don’t see anything like “Anti-Science.” Instead, we see scientific authoritarianism and a predictable bipartisan anti-authoritarian response that even many scientists (including liberals like myself) support. Drs. Hotez and Fauci were authoritarians and now they are being challenged by the indomitable public that is reminding everyone who is in charge. As these authoritarians amongst us are being unseated from power, they create all manners of conspiracy theories and alternative narratives in a desperate effort to find purchase. If they can’t secure their newfound power, at least they may protect their reputations by casting their opponents as evil.

    “Anti-Science” is thus not a real thing, nor is it sufficiently widely observed to warrant the dignity of being called a social construct. Anti-Science is an ego-defensive figment of Dr. Hotez’s authoritarian imagination, it is an effort to recenter The Science – the syndicate of scientists who attempted to center their own scientific paradigms and their own policy perspectives as if they were universally true and not merely political beliefs or value statements, possibly heavily conflicted ones – as deserving of power, sympathy, defense, and trust. Dr. Hotez is staring at the narrative mirrors the public uses to show him the monster he’s become, he is seeing a horrific – and true – reflection of scientists like him during the pandemic, and he is desperately trying to restore the image of himself from the current fallen general of an epistemological banana republic, back to the lionized Science and the Scientific Saviors we Followed. Hotez uses Anti-Science as an armor and an excuse to bypass a critical self-examination of the possible insensitivity and undemocratic behavior of he and his scientific savior colleagues during the pandemic.

    The best way to assess whether a thing is objective or subjective is to ask different people if they see the same thing. That’s science. Of course, for things that hurt people like micro aggressions and the likes, it may help to ask the victims if it exists as they should experience the concentrated effects of the thing. I am a scientist, I was involved in both science and public policy during COVID, and yet I don’t see any horror of “Anti-Science” along my path in this narrative house of horrors.

    Sure, I’ve seen disagreements in the public melee. I remember the history of disinformation on climate science, tobacco, and even Russian disinformation on all things, but that is not the thing Hotez describes and there isn’t generality other than institutions protecting their self-interests not because they are “Anti” anything but because they are “Pro” self and sometimes science reveals information that hurts a business’s bottom line. I’ve also seen companies act the same way when competitors enter the market, so past conflicts have nothing to do with science specifically. I’ve even been attacked, and even attacked for my science, but mostly I’ve been attacked by other scientists (including Hotez) who disliked the political implications of my findings. The Scientists who attacked me all form a relatively small, insular network of people closely connected with NIAID, NIH, or EcoHealth Alliance. While I was a researcher in the same wildlife virology community as EcoHealth Alliance, I didn’t conduct gain-of-function research, I didn’t subcontract work to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and I have maintained objectivity by critically evaluating the facts of the matter even where they inconveniently point to scientists’ mismanagement of risks. I’ve found flaws in Science papers and used my expertise to uncover evidence consistent with SARS-CoV-2 being a research product of EcoHealth Alliance’s pre-COVID research proposals.

    I critically examined early case data, found evidence of large pools of unascertained cases consistent with a lower-severity pandemic and was told that my science risked “upsetting public health policy.” I argued otherwise, helped in part by my brilliant wife who has a PhD in public health policy. I argued that the only way sincere science and rigorous analyses could “upset public health policy” would be if public health policy were unscientific, if scientists were usurping the public’s seats in the policy process, centering Scientists, their belief systems, their value systems, and their institutions at the expense of decentering a larger, more diverse public. I found evidence that corroborated the Great Barrington Declaration’s cost-benefit analysis, and I shared that evidence privately with policymakers without grabbing the reigns and forcing them to choose any one policy.

    As a scientist who maintained independence, who presented evidence without invading the deliberative jury or the policy process, I see scientists who became intolerant, petulant authoritarians; I don’t see “Anti-Science” as anything other than a reflection of Hotez grappling with the legitimate criticisms of his and his colleagues’ improper authoritarian scientific conduct before, during, and after the pandemic.

    Far from being “anti-scientific,” the anti-authoritarianism unseating Hotez as one of the hallmarks of a true scientist and it is a hallmark of the people our republic. You don’t have to be an expert historian or anthropologist to recall that Americans went to war with the British because my ancestors despised authoritarians ruling without representation.

    Throughout the pandemic, many members of the public have been better scientists than many prominent scientists. Members of the public and independent scientists have resisted convenient explanations when the data did not support them, such as the claim that lockdowns are indisputably wise policies when the public knew that lockdowns carried costs that were not being considered by scientists like Hotez on MSNBC.

    Members of the public and independent scientists have rightfully questioned the efficacy of masks, and only years later are their hunches about the low efficacy or possible inefficacy of masks as a public health policy becoming known by scientists.

    Members of the public and independent scientists questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccines, especially at reducing the risk of infection in the long term, and slowly, only after being labelled as “disinformation,” we are obtaining evidence of myocarditis, vaccine evasion in Provincetown, and more. Our citizenry has proven brilliant and remarkably agile, and predictably anti-authoritarian.

    Hotez calls anyone – even scientists – assessing possible costs and estimating the true benefits of vaccines as “anti-vax.” It’s not “anti-vaccine” to err on the side of caution, to help doctors maintain their Hippocratic oath by ensuring benefits of a treatment or vaccine exceed the risks on a case-by-case basis (in science, we call this “individualized medicine”).

    On the contrary, supporting systems that shake down and test hypotheses of vaccine safety and efficacy is one of the most pro-vaccine things we can do as it will inspire trust in vaccines that survive the gauntlet of scientific cross-examination. It is both pro-vax and pro-science to question the safety and efficacy of treatments, even those that have passed clinical trials, because that process of shaking down the answers gives us more confidence in the treatments we use and the science we’ve settled on. How many treatments have passed clinical trials only to be later discovered to have intolerable side effects? Would Hotez prefer “science” not uncover such later-discoverable complications?

    Similarly, it is not “Anti-Science” to question the policies recommended by scientists or to investigate the possibility that scientists caused a pandemic. What Hotez calls “Anti-Science” is the core of science itself: an independence of mind, a diversity of perspectives, and an anti-authoritarian proclivity that conflicts with the interests of authoritarians masquerading as scientists. It is this independence and anti-authoritarianism that inspires confidence in science as well as democratic society, not the toxic ramblings of a scientific authoritarian as he’s unseated from power.

    Republished from the author’s Substack

    Alex Washburne is a mathematical biologist and the founder and chief scientist at Selva Analytics. He studies competition in ecological, epidemiological, and economic systems research, with research on covid epidemiology, the economic impacts of pandemic policy, and stock market response to epidemiological news.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 17:40

  • New Rocket Attacks In Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen Suggest Prospect For Regional Conflagration Growing
    New Rocket Attacks In Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen Suggest Prospect For Regional Conflagration Growing

    Update(1735ET): Israeli media is reporting that the United States is currently in talks to establish ‘safe zones’ in Gaza after it was widely reported that the IDF has been given the green light by the Netanyahu government to go into the Gaza Strip. There are also emerging reports that an Orthodox Church in Gaza has suffered attack by an Israeli strike, via Times of Israel: 

    The Hamas-controlled interior ministry says several displaced people who had taken shelter at a church compound in the Gaza Strip have been killed and injured in an Israeli strike.

    There was no immediate comment from the IDF, which tells AFP it is looking into the potential strike.

    The strike left a “large number of martyrs and injured” at the compound of a Greek Orthodox church, the ministry says.

    Witnesses tell AFP the strike appears to have been aimed at a target close to the place of worship where many Gaza residents have taken refuge.

    Additionally, Russia has said it is moving more military assets to its bases in Syria:

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

    Moody’s has meanwhile said Israel is under review and could soon be downgraded:

    The Moody’s international credit rating agency announces that it is reviewing Israel for a possible downgrade of its A1 credit rating.

    Moody’s says the review has been “triggered by the unexpected and violent conflict between Israel and Hamas.”

    It notes that while Israel has “proven resilient” in past conflicts, the current level of violence “raises the possibility of longer lasting and material credit impact.”

    The Pentagon has confirmed that American troops suffered injuries during the last 24 hours of drone and rocket attacks against bases in Iraq and Syria:

    Two drones targeted a base in western Iraq used by U.S. forces, and one drone targeted a base in northern Iraq. U.S. forces intercepted all three, destroying two but only damaging the third, which led to minor injuries among coalition forces at the western base, according to a statement Wednesday by U.S. Central Command.

    “In this moment of heightened alert, we are vigilantly monitoring the situation in Iraq and the region. U.S. forces will defend U.S. and coalition forces against any threat,” Central Command said in the release.

    On Thursday, several drones and rockets also targeted US troops locations in Deir Ezzor Syria and Al-Tanf.

    * * *

    Update(1458ET): A huge escalation from Iran-linked militants, just after international headlines reported Israel’s military has been given the “green light” to enter Gaza:

    According to CNN, a U.S. Navy vessel operating in the Middle East region intercepted multiple missiles launched from Yemen. A U.S. official says the missiles were launched from the Iran-backed Houthi militant group.

    According to more from ABC’s senior Pentagon correspondent, US officials confirm to ABC “the destroyer USS Carney shot down multiple Houthi missiles last night. They were NOT aimed at the ship, but headed in a northerly direction.” There’s speculation that they may have been fired toward Israel in solidarity with Gaza. Israel media is reporting:

    Israel believes that the missiles launched from Yemen and intercepted by a US warship today were aimed at Israel – Channel 13

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

    Oil surged as the report hit headlines…

    According to geopolitical analyst Jason Brodsky, this means Iranian-backed ‘resistance’ movements are achieving “unification of the fronts: first Gaza, then skirmishes from Hezbollah, Iraq, Syria, now Yemen.”

    * * *

    With the whole region still on edge due to fast moving events in Gaza and on the Lebanese border, US troops in Syria have again come under attack, this time by drones which may have caused injuries.

    Drones were sent, allegedly by “Iran-linked” paramilitary groups, against an oil facility in eastern Syria housing American troops, as well as against a US military outpost in the southern desert near Iraq.

    US Army file image

    Al-Tanf base, which is the Pentagon’s lone outpost in the south along the Iraq border, was the separate base that came under attack, per a Beirut-based news source:

    According to informed sources who spoke with Al-Mayadeen, three drones were able to fly above the Al-Tanf base at the Syrian-Iraqi-Jordanian border and launch several successful airstrikes.

    “The attack led to a major alert within [Al-Tanf], with continuous flights of military aircraft and helicopters in the area,” Al-Mayadeen reported.

    Sources within the US-led coalition that spoke with Iraq’s Shafaq News on Wednesday claimed that the occupation forces “successfully intercepted and downed two of the drones, but the third managed to target the base.”

    The US occupation base at Conoco oil field in Deir Ezzor governorate was also hit by multiple rockets.

    As of Thursday Israel’s military has reportedly been given the “green light” to enter Gaza…

    The Israeli military has a “green light” to move into Gaza whenever it’s ready, a member of the country’s security cabinet told ABC News.

    Hostages and civilian casualties will be secondary to destroying Hamas, Economy Minister Nir Barakat told ABC News, “even if it takes a year.”

    And more dire threats from Israeli officials:

    Asked about the miles of tunnels Hamas has built under Gaza, he said they’d become the “world’s biggest cemetery.” Hamas has claimed to be holding some or all of the 203 Israeli hostages it’s taken within that vast network.

    “We shall do all efforts to bring our hostages, to bring our hostages [back] alive…” he said, but the “first and last priority” is destroying Hamas.

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

    In the overnight hours, exchanges of fire between the Syrian Army or paramilitaries and Israel were observed in the south. “Sounds of explosions rang out in the province of Quneitra after an Israeli strike against a Syrian army position,” said a regional monitor.

    The IDF has also in the last several hours affirmed it is striking against “terrorist positions” of Hezbollah in the region.

    Some regional correspondents have said missiles were launched against US bases in Syria as well…

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

    The US military has confirmed its bases in Syria have come under attack, after the day prior US positions in Iraq were attacked as well. Casualties or officials details have remained unclear.

    Targeting American troops in Syria and Iraq shows just how dangerous things could rapidly get for Pentagon forces in the region. If Hezbollah and Israel enter full war along the border, these American bases would likely suffer much bigger attacks.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 17:35

  • Average American Only Needs $658k To Retire, One Study Shows
    Average American Only Needs $658k To Retire, One Study Shows

    Well, if one new personal finance study is accurate, at least we might be seeing deflation somewhere…

    When it comes to retirement, the figure $3 million is often thrown around. For example, this article from Bloomberg states that the answer to the question “how much is enough to retire comfortably?” is “somewhere between $3 million and $5 million”. 

    But online personal finance guide Moneyzine has crunched the numbers on this (on a State-by-State basis) and has figured out that this figure is far, far lower. In a new study, Moneyzine has said that “the average American should be saving $10,178 a year from their earnings to be put into a retirement plan” and will have need to have saved $658,883 to be able to retire with the same standard of living as they’re accustomed to. 

    This should only take the average American 22 years to save with compound interest, the zine says. In extreme circumstances, for those who want to live to the oldest recorded age of 122, one would need $2,963,879 saved the study says. 

    “Often, the figures thrown around about retirement savings can seem overwhelming. While it’s true that the cost of living and future uncertainties require a substantial nest egg, presenting multi-million dollar figures to the average individual is intimidating,” Jonathan Merry, personal finance expert and CEO at Moneyzine stated. “It can also be counterproductive as these massive numbers tend to create a mental block for many. Instead of motivating them, it pushes them further away from the idea of financial planning altogether.”

    The study outlined a full list of what each state should be saving based on average income after tax.

    Merry added: “It’s crucial that we frame these discussions in a more approachable and realistic way. To that end, we’ve looked at the average wage in the USA to see what people need to start putting away for a more realistic look at a comfortable retirement.”

    The study analyzed average yearly salaries state by state, accounting for taxes to arrive at a potential monthly take-home pay. Following a widely accepted financial guideline, the study suggests allocating your post-tax income in the following way: 50% for necessities, 30% for discretionary expenses, and 20% for savings.

    It also looked at money needed for retirement, per state.

    Full charts and the full study can be found at Moneyzine.com. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 17:20

  • Quinn: Is It Worth Fighting For?
    Quinn: Is It Worth Fighting For?

    Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform,

    “I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo.
    “So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

    J.R.R. Tolkien wrote his epic Lord of the Rings trilogy during the darkest days of World War II and in the midst of our last Fourth Turning Crisis. As a young man he had experienced the horror of war on the Western Front during World War I, where all but one of his best friends were killed. Tolkien’s novel documents the never ending battle between good and evil.

    There are many moments of peril, where the future of Middle Earth depended upon the bravery, courage and tenacity of a few seemingly average hobbits. This was also true of various episodes during the Second World War where the fortitude and courage of the average man turned the tide at Midway, Stalingrad, Normandy, Guadalcanal, and many other battles.

    It is becoming clear to me, we are on the verge of both a global war and likely civil war within a relatively short time frame. This is consistent with the expected timing based on previous Fourth Turning Crisis periods in history. Neil Howe, in his new book – The Fourth Turning is Here – also projects violence to increase over the next few years, with a a likely climax in the 2030 to 2033 time frame. The climax will reveal the clear winners and losers from the coming conflicts. Of course, the entire world could lose if the psychopaths calling the shots are insane enough to initiate Armageddon.

    I wish this Fourth Turning hadn’t happened in my time, but we don’t get to choose the times we inhabit. We are all unwilling participants in a historical crisis which will determine the fates of future generations and falling empires, creating heroes and villains who will occupy passages in history tomes, read by school children a century from now during the next Fourth Turning. We can’t avoid this Fourth Turning and turn time back to seasons gone by, just as once you enter the harsh stormy dark days of winter, you can’t turn time back to the peaceful warm idyllic days of Fall.

    We have to navigate the stormy days ahead and all we can do is try to make the time we have left on this earth be worthwhile and make a difference. We are truly in an epic battle between good and evil. The Eye of Sauron (aka the Deep State Surveillance Consortium) and the morally bankrupt minions doing the bidding of the globalist Great Reset cabal, are the enemy of humanity and must be fought to the death.

    There still is some good in this world, and it is worth fighting for. Whether it be passive Irish Democracy resistance, ridiculing and embarrassing the enemy, bartering to deny the government their taxes, growing your own food, raising your own livestock, or ultimately taking up arms when this crisis goes hot, we have to fight for what is good and decent in this world. Why else are we on this earth than to do whatever it takes to insure our children and their children inhabit a planet where humanity, family, humility, and community are valued, while greed, depravity, selfishness and glorifying the individual are scorned and discarded?

    We are clearly headed toward global and domestic armed conflict. You just need to look around to see what’s going down. Fear and denial are your internal enemy, which must be overcome to face the real enemy. You should be paranoid, because your own government is your enemy. The destroyers have seized control of our country and will not relinquish their wealth, power and control, unless we defeat them on the battlefield. War must be. Is our love for that what we cherish worth fighting for? We’ll see shortly.

    “War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 17:00

  • Elon Musk Calls Remote Workers "Detached From Reality"
    Elon Musk Calls Remote Workers “Detached From Reality”

    Tesla CEO Elon Musk went on a crusade against the remote work crowd during the company’s earnings call with investors on Wednesday evening. This is not the first time Musk has blasted remote work, calling it “morally wrong” and “bullshit” earlier this year.

    Here’s where Musk begins to rant about remote work during Tesla’s Q3 earnings call (transcript via Bloomberg): 

    It’s not a — sometimes you get these, like — no, honestly, I would say it’s like, somewhat correlates with the why doesn’t everyone work from home crowd? I’m like, I mean, this is like some real Marie Antoinette vibes from people that say, why doesn’t everyone work from home? Like, what about all the people that have to come to the factory and fill the cars? What about all the people that have to go to the restaurant and make your food and deliver your food. It’s like, what are you talking about? You — I mean, how detached from reality is the work-from-home crowd have to be? While they take advantage of all those who do, you cannot work-from-home. So I mean, you have to say, like, why did I sleep in the factory so many times? Because it mattered. So I just can’t emphasize how important cost is. It’s not an optional thing for most people. It is a necessary thing.

    Musk made similar comments in May. He called remote work “morally wrong” and “bullshit,” arguing it was unfair to those who can’t work at home. 

    “I’m a big believer that people need to be more productive when they’re in person,” Musk told CNBC’s David Faber at the time. 

    In June 2022, Musk implemented a strict return-to-the-office policy for Tesla workers. He has since forced Twitter staff to return to the office for at least 40 hours a week. 

    “Get off the goddamn moral high horse with the work-from-home bullshit,” Musk previously said, adding, “If you want to work at Tesla, you want to work at SpaceX, you want to work at Twitter — you got to come into the office every day.” 

    Here’s the transcript of Tesla’s Q3 earnings call:

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 16:40

  • Why Bankman-Fried’s FTX Fraud Trial Isn’t Going His Way
    Why Bankman-Fried’s FTX Fraud Trial Isn’t Going His Way

    Authored by Kevin Stocklin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    (Illustration by The Epoch Times, Getty Images)

    The trial of Sam Bankman-Fried has thus far strongly supported the prosecution’s charges of securities fraud, analysts say; meanwhile, any questions regarding his massive political donations have been put off for another day.

    Since its start on Oct. 3, the trial has featured compelling testimony from former colleagues FTX co-founder Gary Wang and Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison, both of whom pointed the finger at Mr. Bankman-Fried—also known by his initials, SBF—as the ringmaster of one of the largest financial frauds in U.S. history. The defense has struggled to make its case, although Mr. Bankman-Fried’s attorneys may still have cards to play.

    “As of now, it’s not going well for the defense,” Braden Perry, a former federal enforcement attorney who’s currently a partner at Kennyhertz Perry, told The Epoch Times. “Both Ellison and Wang have testified that SBF directed them to commit the crimes.”

    The prosecution has been methodically building its case, Mr. Perry said. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nicolas Roos and Danielle Sassoon presented consistent testimony that Mr. Bankman-Fried knowingly and intentionally defrauded investors, and they also made efforts to humanize the losses suffered by FTX customers.

    “The evidence that has come out over the first two weeks of trial is all to the point that SBF was involved, either directly or indirectly, in a conspiracy with people who themselves have pled guilty to committing fraud,” Daniel Silva, a former federal prosecutor who’s currently a shareholder at business law firm Buchalter, told The Epoch Times.

    The prosecution’s case thus far “is very strong,” he said.

    And while cryptocurrencies are arcane financial instruments, the case itself is straightforward.

    FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (C) leaves the U.S. federal courthouse in New York on March 30, 2023. (Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images)

    A Simple Tale of Theft and Deceit

    “It’s a typical corporate fraud case,” Mr. Silva said. “The product may have been complex, but the fraud itself is not unique. Basically, the allegations are that [the defendants] improperly and deceptively took money from customers and investors for FTX owners’ personal use.”

    The prosecution has largely avoided delving into the intricacies of cryptocurrencies, focusing instead on the simpler narrative of theft and deceit.

    “What this trial boils down to is FTX’s use and Alameda’s use of customer funds,” Mr. Perry said. “The prosecution will need to prove SBF used those funds knowingly and fraudulently.”

    According to the allegations, “SBF was the front of the entire enterprise, including Alameda,” he said. “Further, SBF used a massive [line of credit,] which was not disclosed to Alameda customers or investors.”

    While approximately $9 billion of customers’ and investors’ money has gone missing in the 2022 collapse of crypto exchange FTX and its affiliated hedge fund Alameda Research, the trial on Oct. 4 featured testimony from an individual investor who had lost $100,000 on the FTX crypto exchange to show jurors how retail investors were personally harmed.

    This was an “interesting start.” according to Mr. Perry.

    “It shows how a typical investor was duped by the ‘safeness’ of FTX,” he said.

    The prosecution then laid the foundation of its case with testimony from Mr. Wang, FTX’s former chief technology officer, who said he coded the accounts of Alameda Research to allow it to run negative balances on the FTX exchange. This gave Alameda the ability to borrow money from the exchange and ultimately to take clients’ funds—without their knowledge or consent—to pay off billions of dollars in loans and trading losses and to lend money to FTX executives for their personal use.

    Mr. Wang said Alameda accounts were set up this way at the direction of Mr. Bankman-Fried but that this special arrangement between the two companies was kept secret from FTX customers. Mr. Wang pled guilty to charges of securities fraud and accepted a plea deal with prosecutors to testify against Mr. Bankman-Fried.

    The prosecution’s case then shifted to how customers’ money was taken by Alameda Research.

    Ms. Ellison took the stand next and accused Mr. Bankman-Fried of directing her to use Alameda’s credit line with FTX to repay approximately $10 billion in loans, which she could only do by taking money from FTX customers. She said he also instructed her to deceive Alameda creditors regarding the extent of its indebtedness.

    Her testimony became emotional when during cross-examination, she broke down in tears and said she lived in “dread” that her actions to deceive investors would come to light and that when Alameda and FTX finally collapsed, it brought her an “overwhelming feeling of relief.”

    Defense Fights Uphill Battle

    In sum, this evidence has put the defense in a particularly challenging position, analysts say.

    You can attack testimony and witnesses and their credibility and recollection, which it sounds like they’re trying to do,” Mr. Silva said. “But at the end of the day, when you have multiple people saying the same thing—basically that SBF committed fraud and directed us to commit fraud—it’s really tough to undermine those witnesses or the impact of that.

    “Strategically, there’s only so much you can do.

    “Even if you’re the greatest [attorney] in the world, you can’t make evidence disappear.”

    The defense, indeed, appears to be floundering.

    Lead defense attorney Mark Cohen had argued in his opening statement that Mr. Bankman-Fried’s associates were the actual perpetrators and that his client was either unaware of or not directly involved in their crimes. Mr. Bankman-Fried stepped down as CEO of Alameda Research in October 2021, handing the reins to Ms. Ellison.

    Mr. Cohen succeeded in getting Ms. Ellison to admit to instances in which Mr. Bankman-Fried wasn’t directly involved in the workings of Alameda, but he largely failed to discredit her overall testimony that Mr. Bankman-Fried was the ultimate decision-maker, legal analysts say.

    Mr. Cohen’s line of questioning appeared to ramble at times, repeatedly changing topics and dates and, at one point, referencing a wrong document. Another time, he paused to say he’d lost his place.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 16:20

  • Yields Soar, Oil Roars As Stocks Plunge In Rollercoaster Session
    Yields Soar, Oil Roars As Stocks Plunge In Rollercoaster Session

    With traders already exhausted by relentless, brutal daily whipsaws, today was not the day anyone expected the rollercoaster would end, and a good thing too because it was another brutal day for those tracking every twist and turn in the S&P, which in turn was pingponged about by headlines from both the New York Economic Club where Powell was speaking and also from the middle east, where the war between Israel and Hamas threatens to erupt into a much bigger regional conflict with every passing day.

    With too much going on for a blow by blow, here is a chart summary of some of the key market reversals today, starting with the Powell rollercoaster and then progressing to the latest (adverse) developments out of the Middle East.

    While stocks had a bad day, 0DTE traders were even more bearish, with the Delta flow outpacing the decline in equities by a sizable margin.

    Source: Spotgamma

    Virtually every sector was red…

    … with the only outlier being communication services which was green thanks to just one company: Netflix, which soared as much as 17%, its biggest one-day surge since Jan 2021…

    … but while NFLX longs rejoiced, the same could not be said for TSLA shareholders: Elon Musk’s EV company tumbled more than 10%, its worst drop since Jan 2023.

    As stocks tumbled, the VIX soared, and after 105 consecutive days of closing below 20, the longest streak since 2019…

    … the VIX index finally closed above 20 – in fact above 21 – breaking the streak on day 106.

    But believe it or not, the swings in the S&P, which weren’t even that wild with the S&P barely dipping more than 1%, were not the day’s main event: that would be the combination of soaring yields, which saw the 10Y rise as high as 4.992% and the 30Y touch 5.10%, levels which Morgan Stanley and Goldman both said earlier were buy triggers…

    … as well as the surge in oil, which exploded $4 from session lows, and sent WTI above $89 and Brent above $93.

    That said, oil wasn’t the only flight to safety. Capital flows into gold also extended, sending the precious metal to $1974, the highest price since July, and up $150 in just two weeks…

    … while digital gold also saw continued buying which sent bitcoin to $28,775 the highest since August, and on pace to rise back above $30K in days if not hours.

    Finally, while investor focus has been targeting the middle east as the new geopolitical hot spot, keep an eye on the US, where 5Yr CDS just hit the highest level since May when the US financial system was again on the edge of collapse and had to be bailed out with the Fed’s BTFP facility.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 16:08

  • "I Resigned": Senior State Dept. Official Quits Over "Unjust" Military Aid To Israel
    “I Resigned”: Senior State Dept. Official Quits Over “Unjust” Military Aid To Israel

    A longtime State Department official in the bureau that oversees arms transfers resigned this week in protest of the Biden administration’s decision to continue sending weapons and ammunition to Israel in support of its war with Hamas.

    “This administration, I think, knows better and understands some of the complexity, but brought very little of that nuance to the policy decisions that are being made,” said Josh Paul, who resigned from the State Department.Credit…Courtesy of Josh Paul via NY Times

    Josh Paul, who served as the director of congressional and public affairs for the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs for 11 years, said the Biden administration’s “blind support for one side” had led to policy decisions that were “shortsighted, destructive, unjust and contradictory to the very values we publicly espouse.”

    “Let me be clear: Hamas’ attack on Israel was not just a monstrosity; it was a monstrosity of monstrosities,” the letter reads. “But I believe to the core of my soul that the response Israel is taking, and with it the American support both for that response… will only lead to more and deeper suffering for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people – and is not in the long term American interest.”

    “I fear we are repeating the same mistakes we have made these past decades, and I decline to be a part of it for longer,” the letter continues.

    Paul told the NY Times that Israel cutting off water, food, medical care and electricity to the two million or so residents of Gaza should trigger a slew of federal laws that should normally prevent US weapons ending up in the hands of human rights violators.

    “The problem with all of those provisions is that it rests on the executive branch making a determination that human rights violations have occurred,” Paul said. “The decision to make a determination doesn’t rest with some nonpartisan academic entity, and there’s no incentive for the president to actually determine anything.”

    In a Wednesday visit to Tel Aviv while his administration prepares a $10 billion military aid package, Biden warned Israelis not to give in to an “all-consuming rage” that would be looked upon as an overreaction to the attack by Hamas earlier this month in which over 1,400 Israelis were killed and nearly 200 hostages were taken.

    Paul, whose resignation was first reported by the Huffington Post, said he’s seen the US Government approve several sales or shipments of matériel to other Middle Eastern countries seemingly in violation of federal law.

    “On all of them there’s a moment where you can say, OK, well, you know, it’s out of my hands, but I know Congress is going to push back,” he said, adding “But in this instance, there isn’t any significant pushback likely from Congress, there isn’t any other oversight mechanism, there isn’t any other forum for debate, and that’s part of what got into my decision making.”

    By continuing to give Israel what Paul described as carte blanche to kill a generation of enemies, which will only create a new one, US interests are not served.

    “What it leads to is this desire to sort of impose security at any cost, including in cost to the Palestinian civilian population,” he said. “And that doesn’t ultimately lead to security.”

    “This administration, I think, knows better and understands some of the complexity but brought very little of that nuance to the policy decisions that are being made.”

    Paul says he’s received an outpouring of support from State Department colleagues and congressional staff members.

    “A lot of people are wrestling with this being the current policy and are finding it to be deeply problematic,” he said, adding “I’ve really been quite moved by some of the folks who have reached out to say that they understand where I’m coming from. They respect my decision. It’s been very supportive.”

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 15:45

  • Conservative White Professor Falsely Accused Of Harassing Black Student In Viral Video
    Conservative White Professor Falsely Accused Of Harassing Black Student In Viral Video

    By Micaiah Bilger, Assistant Editor of The College Fix

    A black University of Dallas student’s viral video claiming a white professor “harassed” her for listening to a recorded lecture too loudly outside her office is unfounded, a campus spokeswoman said Tuesday.

    Clare Venegas, vice president of marketing and communications, told The College Fix officials investigated the student’s claims against history Professor Susan Hanssen in the video, which has amassed more than 7 million views on TikTok in the past week.

    @coritoocutee

    why did this lady call campus security before this video and had a tantrum bc they couldnt escort me out 🥴???? chilee and the sound was only on 25 until she got crazy so it went to a 100 idc!

    ♬ original sound – it’s cori

    https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js

    Administrators at the private Catholic university found no cause for disciplinary measures against the professor, who is well-known on campus as a conservative scholar.

    “The University of Dallas takes all allegations of harassment and discrimination seriously,” Venegas said. “As has been publicly disclosed, university officials undertook measures to investigate the student’s allegations, and the matter was resolved with a finding of no policy violation and no recommendation for disciplinary action.”

    The student and professor both said they were satisfied with the university’s decision, Venegas told The Fix.

    The video of the interaction, which the student posted last week but actually took place six months ago, shows the student, identified only as Cori, and Hanssen filming each other in the hallway of a university building near the professor’s office, according to the student’s TikTok page, @coritoocutee.

    In the Oct. 11 post, Cori said the professor “harassed” her for “listening to a lecture” on her laptop without headphones because she did not want to close her office door.

    The College Fix contacted Cori this week through her TikTok and Instagram accounts to ask why she posted the video six months after the interaction, if she was aware of the university’s investigation outcome, and if she thinks race was a factor in the incident, as some have implied. She did not respond.

    Venegas said Hanssen has become the target of “defamatory” attacks since the video went viral last week.

    “The recent posting of the video has resulted in an onslaught of unjustified and defamatory attacks on Dr. Hanssen’s personal character, which we strongly condemn,” she told The Fix. “The University of Dallas prides itself in forming our students to think well, to reason well, and to dialogue civilly, virtues and behaviors that social media platforms are not conducive for cultivating.”

    Hanssen also confirmed to The College Fix the university found no cause for disciplinary action against her.

    “The university investigated the incident and concluded that there were no grounds for opening a Title IX case nor any unprofessional behavior requiring disciplinary action,” Hanssen told The Fix in an email Monday.

    Within the past week, the student posted two videos on TikTok about Hanssen. The first video shows Hanssen walking around the hallway, filming the student.

    In a second video, published over the weekend, which has more than 400,000 views, Cori told her side of the story. She said she was sitting at a table near the professor’s office listening to a lecture on her laptop when Hanssen approached her to complain about the noise.

    Cori said she turned down the volume on her computer, but Hanssen approached her again a short time later asking “if she had headphones or if she could leave.” Hanssen told the student her office hours were starting soon, Cori said.

    “I was like, ‘No, I don’t have headphones, and I’m not gonna leave.’ And after that, it took a whole turn,” the student alleges in the video. “She was like putting her fingers in my face. She was like, ‘I despise students like you.’ And I was like, ‘What? Baby girl? Students like who? Students like who?’”

    Eventually, Cori said the professor called campus security, and when the officer arrived, he “sympathized” with her, not Hanssen.

    “So, when he leaves and he doesn’t do anything about it, she’s still p—ed off,” Cori said in the video.

    At one point, Cori said she did turn up the volume again just to be “petty” because she was upset Hanssen was recording her.

    “I do admit I was probably petty, oh like I’m going to turn it up,” she said.

    None of this interaction is shown in the first video, and the second video does not include any additional footage of their interaction.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 15:30

  • Just Kidding! Jim Jordan To Seek Third Speaker Vote After Chaos Ensues
    Just Kidding! Jim Jordan To Seek Third Speaker Vote After Chaos Ensues

    Update (1515ET): Earlier Thursday, Jim Jordan said he wouldn’t hold a third ballot for speaker, and would instead let interim speaker Patrick McHenry (R-NC) hold the gavel until January – with Rep. David Joyce (R-OH) drafting legislation to give McHenry the full powers that come with the job.

    This rubbed many Republicans the wrong way, as McHenry is backed by Democrats.

    “As I have made very clear over the last few days, we should never allow a Democrat-backed coalition government. Ever. The only coalition we should be looking to build is a Republican coalition uniting all of our conference,” said Rep. Tom Emmer.

    Steve Scalise, Jordan’s previous opponent for speaker who pulled out, as well as Elise Stefanik (R-NY) arealso opposed to a Dem-friendly speakership going into January.

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

    And now, Jordan appears to be open to a 3rd vote, and says he wants to talk to the 20 holdouts who blocked his first two attempts.

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

    To be continued…

    *  *  *

    After suffering defeat twice, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) will not hold a third vote for speaker, and will instead back Patrick McHenry (R-NC) as interim speaker until January.

    This, after Jordan met with former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), McHenry, Cole (R-OK), and Emmer (R-MN) to discuss options, Punchbowl News reports.

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

    After the first two rounds, a group of Republicans made it clear that Jordan wouldn’t enjoy enough support to win the speaker’s gavel. With House functions at a standstill – including dealing with a looming shutdown after the 6-week band-aid expires mid-November, lawmakers can now move forward with a proposal to expand McHenry’s powers. Punchbowl also notes that there’s “essentially no difference between a speaker and a speaker pro tem.”

    “There is a question whether a speaker pro tem would be in the presidential line of succession. There are also questions about whether he could take part in other speaker functions that have evolved over the years — Gang of Eight intelligence briefings, for instance.”

    Jordan will remain the speaker designee, and will maintain the option to hold a speaker vote at any time.

    According to Bloomberg, senior Democrats are supportive of the plan.

    As Axios notes, McHenry, 47, will essentially have the same power as an elected speaker. More:

    • McHenry got two ironic endorsements late yesterday: former GOP speakers Newt Gingrich and John Boehner. Both were run out of office — just like Rep. Kevin McCarthy was a few weeks ago.

    Driving the news: Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) plans to introduce a measure on Wednesday that would temporarily empower McHenry to oversee the passage of legislation, Axios’ Andrew Solender reports.

    • The plan would be to introduce it if Jordan fails another House floor vote — and it would require McHenry to cooperate by recognizing Joyce on the House floor.

    And so, Jordan is off the hook – for now.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 15:14

  • Biden To Deliver Prime-Time Oval Office Address On Israel, Ukraine
    Biden To Deliver Prime-Time Oval Office Address On Israel, Ukraine

    Following a trip to Israel that did little to soothe worries of broadening conflict in the region, President Biden will address the American people from the Oval Office at 8 pm ET Thursday night, delivering a speech intended to foster Congressional support for throwing more money at not only Israel but also Ukraine. 

    “Tomorrow, President Biden will address the nation to discuss our response to Hamas’ terrorist attacks against Israel and Russia’s ongoing brutal war against Ukraine,” said White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in a statement. 

    Support for funding the West’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine has been sagging, particularly in the wake of a vaunted Ukraine counteroffensive that has resulted in a net loss of territory. Last month, an amendment that would prohibit any more military aid to Ukraine won the support of 93 Republicans…and zero Democrats. That was a gain of 23 votes from a similar resolution offered in July. 

    Destroyed Ukrainian armored vehicles in Donetsk (Russian Defense Ministry)

    As the 2007-08 financial crisis erupted, then-White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel famously said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

    That spirit will be evident in Biden’s prime time address: The Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel gives the White House and the war state an opportunity to tie Ukraine aid to security assistance for Israel — something few members of Congress will dare oppose, and especially Republicans.  

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

    Further sweetening the deal for Ukraine-weary Republicans, Biden will also ask for money for Taiwan and the US-Mexico border, the New York Times reports. He’s expected to ask for a total of $100 billion, about $60 billion of which would go to Ukraine, compared to $10 billion for Israel. The package will be positioned as an allocation meant to last a year, deferring the need for additional requests from Congress.  

    The US government has poured more than $75 billion into Ukraine since Russia invaded Ukraine in January 2021. As the outlays have mounted, so too has the technological complexity of the weapons. Just last weekend, Ukraine fired ATACMS missiles at Russian forces for the first time. 

    In Tel Aviv, Biden said he would request an “unprecedented support package for Israel’s defense.” Though Israel is among the world’s richest countries, it already receives about $3.3 billion in annual assistance from the US government — even as America’s total public debt has surged past $33 trillion, to say nothing of unfunded liabilities related to entitlement programs.  

    A rocket is fired from an Israeli “Iron Dome” missile defense platform; the US government gives Israel billions of dollars to maintain the system (IDF)

    Oval Office addresses are relatively rare. In March 2020, Donald Trump detailed his administration’s plans to counter the Covid-19 pandemic. Obama spoke in 2015 following the Islamic extremist mass shooting in San Bernardino, and in 2010 after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. George W. Bush memorably used the Oval Office to address the country on 9/11.

    Much as Bush lied to Americans by telling them al Qaeda attacked them because of their “freedom,” expect Biden to tell his audience that military and financial aid to Israel keeps Americans safe — when in fact that support is one of the principal motivators of terrorism against US civilians. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 15:10

  • Peter Schiff: The "Unsinkable" American Consumer Is Drowning In Debt
    Peter Schiff: The “Unsinkable” American Consumer Is Drowning In Debt

    Via SchiffGold.com,

    Every time retail sales come in higher than expected, the mainstream media breathlessly reports this as proof that the American consumer is strong and resilient. In his podcast, Peter Schiff explained that these retail sales numbers aren’t a sign of a strong economy. They just reflect Americans paying more for less. And what’s worse, they’re burying themselves in debt to do it.

    Retail sales were indeed stronger than expected in September, increasing by 0.7%. The expectation was for a 0.3% gain. Year-over-year, retail sales are up 3.8%.

    The media hyped the report. CNN said it was a sign that consumers “aren’t tapping out just yet.” But Peter said the report was not actually good news.

    First, it’s important to remember that retail sales data is not inflation-adjusted.

    Everything costs more. Everything you buy is a lot more expensive. So, assuming that you don’t buy less, and of course, some people are buying less, but if you just buy the same stuff and everything costs a lot more, well of course, retail sales are going to go up.”

    But this doesn’t indicate that the economy is thriving, and it doesn’t mean Americans are on a spending spree buying more stuff.

    In many cases, they’re buying a lot less. They’re just paying more. And they’re buying fewer of the things that they want because they’re paying more to buy the things that they need.”

    If you adjust the annual retail sales increase of 3.8% by the CPI, it drops to 0.1%. In other words, almost the entirety of the retail sales increase was due to rising prices. Nevertheless, the raw retail sales data creates the impression that Americans are happily spending money. Peter said you can’t necessarily draw that conclusion.

    Americans aren’t happy that their grocery bill went up, and they’re probably not eating more or eating better. In fact, they’re probably trading down into lower-quality stuff. They’re just paying more.”

    For instance, restaurant sales were up big. But if you’ve eaten out recently, you know the cost of everything on the menu has gone up dramatically. Even if you eat out less, you’re still spending more. Peter emphasized that none of this is a sign of a strong economy.

    It is a sign of inflation. And that’s all this retail sales number is reflecting — inflation. It’s not about a strong economy, but about rising inflation.”

    And we all know that actual prices are rising even faster than the CPI numbers indicate because the formula intentionally understates price inflation.

    Obviously, if the government is underreporting how much prices are going up, then the retail sales are actually capturing the real increase in prices because it’s what the consumers are actually paying. It’s not what the government is pretending they’re actually paying, but what they are, in fact, paying. So, these retail sales numbers are probably a better reflection of inflation than the CPI.”

    We shouldn’t celebrate this. It’s bad news. But the media keeps talking about the “unsinkable American consumer.”

    He’s not unsinkable. He’s downing in debt! And the only reason he’s still floating is because he’s got two or three jobs. … This is not a report card on the success of the American economy, but on the failure. Because what it’s really measuring is the cost of living. People have to spend a lot more money to buy the same amount of stuff that they bought in the past.”

    And as Peter noted, they’re buying a lot of this stuff on credit. Revolving credit – primarily credit card debt – surged by 13.9% in August. Americans now owe $1.28 trillion in revolving credit.

    According to MarketWatch, “Americans appear to be relying more on debt to pay for their purchases. They are also using more ‘buy now and pay later’ plans.”

    Peter pointed out that breaking down retail sales reveals the strain felt by consumers. Categories like food are up. But electronics sales are down.

    [Americans] are spending more on shelter. They’re spending more on energy. They’re spending more on food. They’re spending more on insurance. They’re spending more on healthcare. They’ve got to make these expenditures. They have no choice. And the problem is when they finish buying all the things they need, they don’t have much left over for the things that they want.”

    The consumer credit data reveals the same thing. While credit card spending surged in August, non-revolving credit tanked. That represents borrowing for big-ticket items. So, Americans are using credit cards to pay for the basics like food and gas, and they’re not making bigger purchases at all.

    Peter goes on to explain why an economy built on consumer spending isn’t something to brag about.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 14:50

  • Threads Ban On Search Terms Related To COVID-19 Is 'Temporary': Instagram Chief
    Threads Ban On Search Terms Related To COVID-19 Is ‘Temporary’: Instagram Chief

    Authored by Stephen Katte via The Epoch Times,

    Social media platform Threads’s ban on search terms related to COVID-19 is only temporary, Instagram chief Adam Mosseri has revealed.

    In an Oct. 17 post on Threads, Mr. Mosseri said he didn’t have a firm date on when the ban would be lifted, but he didn’t think it would be a permanent situation.

    “I don’t have an ETA to give you, unfortunately, but it is temporary, and we are working on it. We’re just getting pulled in a lot of directions at once right now,” Mr. Mosseri said.

    “The broader team is working on deeper integrations into Instagram and Facebook, graph building, EU compliance, Fediverse support, trending, and generally making sure Threads continues to grow,” he added.

    Following Threads’s July release, parent company Meta rolled out several updates, including a new search function similar to that on X, formerly known as Twitter.

    However, users soon discovered the new search function blocked access to certain posts related to COVID-19, such as those concerning vaccines and long COVID.

    Users searching for some COVID-related terms were reportedly met with a blank screen and redirected to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    The Threads logo is displayed on a cell phone in San Anselmo, Calif., on July 5, 2023. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

    “Censorship doesn’t work. Misinfo still gets circulated by code names & other platforms, tech companies should invest in real solutions like moderation/education,” Lucky Tran, director of science communication at Columbia University, said at the time in an X post.

    Another Tech CEO, Michael Robertson, was far more scathing, saying in an X post that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg “treats users like children.” He called for a boycott of Threads and for people to “embrace” rival platform X.

    According to a later post by Ms. Tran, words such as sex, nude, gore, porn, coronavirus, vaccines, and vaccination are among other blocked words.

    Meta confirmed in a previous statement to The Epoch Times that Threads is blocking users from searching for words that could bring up “sensitive” posts for now, but people would be able to search for keywords such as “COVID” in the future once the company is “confident in the quality of the results.”

    In a follow-up post, Mr. Mosseri promised to look into the timeline for unblocking the banned COVID-19 terms on Threads.

    “Weeks or months, let me look into it and circle back. The reality is that we have lots of important work to do,” he said.

    “The team is moving fast, but we’re not yet where we want to be,” Mr. Mosseri added.

    Meta owns and operates several social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, Threads, and WhatsApp.

    Focus on Israel–Hamas War Misinformation

    According to Mr. Mosseri, the primary concern for his team is managing content centered around the Israel–Hamas War.

    “The biggest safety focus right now is managing content responsibly given the war in Israel in Gaza,” he said.

    Terrorist organization Hamas launched an Oct. 7 surprise attack on Israel, killing over 1,400 Israelis, wounding around 3,000, and kidnapping at least 130 others.

    People inspect the remains of a destroyed building in Gaza on Oct. 18, 2023. (Mahmud Hams/AFP via Getty Images)

    The retaliation air strikes on the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip by Israel have killed at least 2,200, and wounded another 8,714.

    Misinformation has been rife as both sides in the conflict, and their supporters, attempt to gain the upper hand in the ongoing propaganda war.

    The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry claimed recently that at least 500 people were killed in an Oct. 17 blast at a hospital, blaming the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

    The IDF denied it was responsible, and on Oct. 18, President Joe Biden revealed data collected by the United States Defense Department supports Israel’s claim that it wasn’t responsible.

    Hamas also released a video recently showing a female hostage receiving medical treatment, but a White House spokesperson has since questioned its authenticity.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 14:10

  • Oil Markets Underestimating The Risk Of A Middle East Blowout
    Oil Markets Underestimating The Risk Of A Middle East Blowout

    Authored by Alex Kimani via OilPrice.com,

    • Commodity experts are now saying the oil markets have underpriced the risk of further escalation of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

    • The price response to the escalation in the Middle East tensions has so far been modest.

    • StanChart: Middle East geopolitical risk is currently being significantly under-priced and the current fundamentals alone are enough to justify a complete reversal of this month’s price undershooting.

    Last week, the Israeli government ordered its state-run electricity company to halt power supply to the Gaza Strip days after Palestinian militant group Hamas launched a surprise attack on the country. The Israeli prime minister’s office revealed that the security cabinet has approved several steps to destroy the military and governmental capabilities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad “for many years”, in a war that has seen more than 3,000 Palestinians and about half as many Israelis killed.

    But now there’s a growing risk this could escalate into a regional conflict after Lebanon-based Hezbollah warned that it’s ready to fully enter the war in support of Hamas. Indeed, there are growing fears that Hezbollah may open a new front against Israel at the behest of its leaders and their Iranian backers while Iran has warned of preemptive action against Israel if it goes ahead with a ground offensive.

    And some commodity experts are now saying the oil markets have underpriced this risk, and oil prices could skyrocket if the situation above unfolds. Commodity analysts at Standard Chartered have pointed to a medium-term reduction in Iranian oil exports as being the most likely consequence of shifts in the geopolitical landscape. Back in August, we reported that Iran oil exports had hit record highs thanks in large part to the Biden administration opting to look the other way as Tehran boosts production ostensibly in a bid to keep markets well supplied and oil prices low. Related: Can Guyana Avoid The Resource Curse?

    The price response to the escalation in the Middle East tensions has so far been modest; however, the Israel-Gaza war is likely to cause a significant shift in U.S. policy on Iran due to its open support and backing for Hamas. 

    Constraints on Iranian oil exports were eased after the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 but  tightened again after the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA during the Trump administration, with output falling below 2 mb/d in 2020 when waivers given to consuming countries were withdrawn. Iran’s oil output and exports have increased sharply under the Biden administration, with production hitting  3 mb/d, including 500,000 b/d in the current year, while exports sit just under 2 mb/d.

    StanChart says that changes in positioning in the oil futures markets have been modest despite a significant increase in volatility. The analysts note that it is not an extreme tail of the distribution as might be expected in a full-blown Middle East crisis, adding that speculative positioning is also not extreme, particularly in Brent. The latest fund manager data shows that prices are about USD 6 per barrel (bbl) lower than in late September, despite no significant loosening in fundamentals. StanChart says that the Middle East geopolitical risk is currently being significantly under-priced and that current fundamentals alone are enough to justify a complete reversal of this month’s price undershooting.

    Oil Demand Exceeds Pre-COVID Peak

    If anything, oil fundamentals have strengthened considerably. According to StanChart, global oil demand has already exceeded the pre-Covid oil demand set in August 2019, averaging 102.33 million barrels per day (mb/d), good for a m/m increase of 1.2 mb/d and a y/y increase of 2.3 mb/d. The analysts have refuted arguments by some Wall Street analysts that high oil prices have already triggered demand destruction.

    A couple of weeks ago, JPMorgan analysts warned that oil demand will decline in the current quarter due to the previous nearly 30% rally in oil prices in the previous quarter.

    ‘‘After reaching our target of $90 in September, our end-year target remains $86 [per barrel]. Moreover, demand restraint from rising oil prices is once again becoming visible in the US, Europe, and some EM countries,” reads the note titled “Demand destruction has begun (again). 

    China and India drove global oil demand growth this year, but China opted to draw on domestic crude inventories in August and September after oil prices surged. There are already signs that consumers have responded by cutting back on fuel consumption,” wrote Natasha Kaneva, head of the global commodities strategy team at JPMorgan.

    That bearish thesis could have some validity considering the mixed crude and distillate trends coming from the U.S.  Last week, U.S. crude oil inventories rose 10.18 mb w/w to 424.24 mb, reducing the deficit below the five-year average by 5.96 mb to 13.90 mb. However, crude oil inventories at WTI’s pricing hub in Cushing, Oklahoma, remained close to the operational minimum, falling 0.32 mb to a 15-month low of 21.77mb. 

    Thankfully, fuel prices have continued falling despite the latest uptick in crude prices. A gallon of gasoline is currently retailing at a national average of $3.575, lower than $3.881 a month ago and $3.870 a year ago while diesel is selling at $4.464 a gallon from $4.575 a month ago and $5.304 a year ago.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 13:35

  • Digital Dollar Poses "Significant Risks" To Consumer Privacy, Financial System: Fed Governor Admits
    Digital Dollar Poses “Significant Risks” To Consumer Privacy, Financial System: Fed Governor Admits

    Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times,

    The creation of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) presents “significant risks” for the financial system and consumer privacy, says Federal Reserve Governor Michelle Bowman.

    Appearing at a Harvard Law School Program on International Financial Systems roundtable on Oct. 17, Ms. Bowman conceded that the benefits of a digital dollar are uncertain and that there could be “unintended consequences” for the banking sector.

    “The potential benefits of a U.S. CBDC remain unclear, and the introduction of a U.S. CBDC could pose significant risks and tradeoffs for the financial system,” she said in prepared remarks.

    “These risks and tradeoffs include potential unintended consequences for the U.S. banking system and considerable consumer privacy concerns.”

    Ms. Bowman, who is one of seven Federal Reserve Board members overseeing domestic payments systems and banking, averred that she has not come across a “compelling argument” that a CBDC could solve issues surrounding frictions within payment systems, advance financial inclusion, or offer the public access to safe central bank money.

    She did agree that the Fed needs to continue researching the subject and obtain greater insights into a digital dollar’s technical capabilities and risks associated with CBDCs.

    “As the money and payments landscape evolves, I continue to stress the importance of looking ahead and analyzing potential changes that may emerge well into the future,” the Fed official noted. “Given the breadth of activity in this space, I believe that policymakers must specify the problems they are trying to solve, understand the range of alternatives that could address any problems, including policy and technology options, and thoroughly analyze the associated risks and tradeoffs.”

    In July, the central bank launched the FedNow Service, an interbank system for instant payments. Ms. Bowman asserts that this real-time payment service, which allows banks and credit unions to transfer funds instantly for customers, addresses many of the same issues that CBDCs ostensibly need to resolve.

    “It is quite possible that other proposed solutions may address many or all of the problems that a CBDC would address, but in a more effective and efficient way,” she said.

    This is not the first time Ms. Bowman has highlighted various risks by establishing a CBDC.

    In April, she told a Georgetown University event that a digital dollar could pose “significant risks, challenges, and tradeoffs” and potentially be an “impediment” to the public’s “freedom.” Moreover, Fed independence could be undermined if a CBDC results in the “politicization of the payments system and, at its heart, how money is used.”

    “In thinking about the implications of CBDC and privacy, we must also consider the central role that money plays in our daily lives, and the risk that a CBDC would provide not only a window into, but potentially an impediment to, the freedom Americans enjoy in choosing how money and resources are used and invested,” she stated.

    Central Banks and Digital Money

    The Federal Reserve has yet to decide whether to explore further or install a CBDC. Officials are still in the research and experimentation phases of potentially digitizing the greenback, and Chair Jerome Powell has informed lawmakers that the entity is still a long way from submitting a final decision.

    Last year, the New York Fed started a 12-week experiment with several major banks to develop a wholesale CBDC prototype—a digital currency crafted specifically for large-value transactions between financial institutions—and reported that the results “revealed promising applications of blockchain technology” when updating critical payments infrastructure. The regional central bank intended to continually research and develop strategies pertaining to the “future of money and payments from the U.S. perspective.”

    But while the Fed is still slow to exit the starting gate, the European Central Bank (ECB) appears to be accelerating its CBDC efforts.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/19/2023 – 12:55

Digest powered by RSS Digest