Today’s News 22nd January 2024

• The House Panel Giving Washington A Reality-Check On China
  The House Panel Giving Washington A Reality-Check On China

  Authored by Terri Wu and Eva Fu via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Through the back door of a New York City building, some of the most potent American business leaders were smuggled in for a tabletop exercise simulating a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

  

  The secrecy made it look like they were “in a witness protection program because they were so concerned about retaliation from the CCP [Chinese Communist Party],” said Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), who hosted the exercise in September 2023.

  “If this retaliation is how the CCP will treat business partners in peacetime, think about how it would act in war—and the ramifications to our economy, especially our critical supply chains, including pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, in a Taiwan invasion scenario,” Mr. Gallagher told The Epoch Times.

  The idea of the tabletop simulation stemmed from his exchanges with financial executives.

  One told him there is “zero” chance that the CCP will invade Taiwan. Another said the United States will never sanction China, even if it invaded the self-governed island.

  “It’s clear that, in many cases, Washington and Wall Street are living in two different worlds. One is the real world, the other a fantasy land,” said Mr. Gallagher.

  The New York City simulation didn’t focus on military conflicts but on areas of economic warfare such as shipping routes, supply chains, and money transfers.

  “We saw that if China were to invade Taiwan, the losses across our financial system would dwarf the write-downs taken at the outset of the Russia–Ukraine war. The entire U.S. economy and banking system would be imperiled,” Mr. Gallagher said.

  “Equity markets would drop precipitously as global shipping lanes closed, shipping insurance premiums skyrocketed, supply chains broke down, and the specter of global conflict grew. Americans would see their pensions shrink and their bank accounts hemorrhage cash.”

  

  The wargame participants—financial, pharmaceutical, and mining executives—walked away from the simulation with a different understanding: The United States must immediately prepare an economic contingency plan to reduce critical supply chain dependence on China and curb Beijing’s access to U.S. funds to support its aggressions.

  In addition, the United States can’t afford to rely on economic means alone to deter China from taking Taiwan by force; credible military deterrence is a must-have.

  “I think the executives who took part left aware of the danger, but many remain afraid to speak out,” Mr. Gallagher said.

  Restricting U.S. outbound investment to China is a top priority of the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, also known as the Select Committee on the CCP.

  When such investments help Chinese companies develop technology that the regime then uses to advance its military capabilities, the panel views it as the United States funding its own destruction.

  With bipartisan support, the Senate has passed language addressing this issue, initially as an amendment to the 2024 annual defense act. A similar bill passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

  House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) left the language out of the yearly defense act that was passed in December 2023; an updated version for a House floor vote is expected this year.

  In addition to addressing China-related economic security issues, several of the select committee’s Taiwan policy recommendations were included in the 2024 annual defense act, including a new program of military cybersecurity cooperation with Taiwan and increased congressional oversight of weapons sales to the island to reduce backlog.

  

  Bipartisan Product

  Since its launch last January, the Select Committee on the CCP has demonstrated a rare bipartisan culture on the Hill.

  Chairman Gallagher and the committee’s ranking member, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), have spoken in lockstep during hearings and often held press conferences together.

  Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), a committee member, said the two leaders have been accommodating to different views.

  The group’s economic policy recommendations released in December had the endorsement of all but one member.

  “Our product is a consensus work product,” Mr. Johnson told The Epoch Times.

  Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa), another select committee member, also credits Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Krishnamoorthi for leading “the most substantive, bipartisan work in Congress.”

  In an email to The Epoch Times, she highlighted a roundtable event the panel held in her home state of Iowa regarding the CCP’s agricultural theft as an example of how the panel used “firsthand knowledge” and “real experiences” to “craft the policy blueprint to ensure the U.S. is competing with China rather than enabling their malign and destructive behavior.”

  The committee’s work hasn’t gone unnoticed by its subject of focus: the CCP.

  Chinese propaganda articles label the committee an “anti-China pioneer” and often report its action as another “restless move.”

  

  A September 2023 paper published by China’s Tsinghua University’s Center for International Security and Strategy warned that the committee might transform into a “center coordinating China policies for all parts of the U.S. Congress.”

  The article warned that the panel could raise the American public’s awareness of the China threat, which it labeled “misinformation.”

  To some committee staff members, criticism from the CCP is an endorsement of their work. A sign in their office says: “Have we worked harder than our CCP counterparts today?”

  A Deal Contingent on Taiwan

  Since the inception of the Select Committee on the CCP, Mr. Gallagher has repeatedly warned that the current timeframe is the “window of maximum danger” related to Taiwan.

  However, some analysts don’t view military conflict over Taiwan as inevitable.

  If regime leader Xi Jinping sees hope in a “peaceful unification” of Taiwan, he may be incentivized to hold off an invasion, said Bonnie Glaser, a managing director for the German Marshall Fund think tank.

  Shi Shan, a China expert with decades of journalist experience both in the mainland and in Hong Kong, said that view was “correct in theory.” He uses an alias to avoid reprisals from the CCP.

  Mr. Shi has learned from CCP insiders that Xi has to deliver Taiwan to his Party within a certain timeframe in exchange for his lifetime CCP leadership—a prize, that if achieved, would elevate him to the level of Mao Zedong, who established communist China in 1949 and drove his political enemies to Taiwan.

  Xi began his third term last year after removing the two-term or 10-year limit in China’s Constitution. The constitutional amendment was passed in March 2018. At the 19th Party Congress a year ago, Xi persuaded CCP senior leaders to extend his reign by promising them Taiwan, Mr. Shi said.

  

  In his 2024 New Year address, the 70-year-old communist leader reiterated that the unification of China is a “historical inevitability.”

  Mr. Gallagher and Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, said that when authoritarian dictators warn the world about their plans, we should heed them.

  Mr. Shi told The Epoch Times more about Xi’s inflexible internal situation.

  “Xi is preparing China for a war with Taiwan. Because of that, the Party needed a leader beyond the previous term limit. If he gives up on the goal, the disagreeing forces within the Party will hold him accountable because he has made himself an exception and made the economy suffer. He has so much on the line that he cannot change his course.”

  Xi has been working toward the goal for a while.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 23:55

• Deflation is Making China's Growth Look Much Better Than It Really Is
  Deflation is Making China’s Growth Look Much Better Than It Really Is

  By John Liu and Zheng Wu, Bloomberg markets live reporters and strategists

  Three things we learned last week:

  1. China met its 2023 growth target but the data understated challenges. Data released Wednesday showed the world’s second-largest economy grew 5.2% last year, above Beijing’s official target of around 5%. Besides a low base in 2022, when stringent Covid curbs severely disrupted economic activities, the nation’s longest deflation streak since 1999 also boosted the headline growth number.

  China’s gross domestic product was reported in real terms, after discounting the price factor in nominal growth. As consumer and factory-gate prices fell last year, the price adjustment effectively inflated the growth rate.

  The difference, known as the GDP deflator, is now the biggest “inflator” in GDP calculation in 14 years. Some private-sector economists say last year’s actual growth was much lower.

  

  2. Investor anxiety is growing over Beijing’s plan to fix the economy this year. News that China is considering 1 trillion yuan ($139 billion) of new special sovereign debt, only the fourth such sale in the past 26 years, did little to help market sentiment. The MSCI China index has dropped nearly 10% so far this year, down 60% from its peak in 2021. Disappointed local investors paid a premium of more than 10% for exchange-traded funds to chase Japanese stocks instead.

  Investors had hoped for stronger public spending to offset weak consumption but were disappointed after Premier Li Qiang downplayed the idea of big stimulus again at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The People’s Bank of China’s surprise move to hold its key policy rate unchanged Monday also curbed their enthusiasm. Officials even avoided acknowledging that the economy is in deflation.

  3. Youth unemployment data returned after a six-month halt. The 14.9% jobless rate for December still looks concerning, although it was down from a record 21.3% in June, after which authorities suspended releasing such data.

  

  While the government said its new methodology, which excludes students, reflected a more accurate picture of unemployment, some economists cautioned the fresh criteria made it hard to assess the December number. Still, more transparency is better.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 23:20

• Wearing A Continuous Glucose Monitor: Troubling Trend Or Health Hack?
  Wearing A Continuous Glucose Monitor: Troubling Trend Or Health Hack?

  Authored by Sheramy Tsai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  

  In January 2023, 42-year-old Jenni Southerington reached a pivotal moment in her health. Skeptical about her prediabetes diagnosis, she started using a continuous glucose monitor. The device’s two-week data revealed unexpected morning glucose spikes despite strict fasting. Ms. Southerington found that certain foods would worsen her condition. “Eating a spoonful of rice had the same effect as half a cup,” she said.

  Her experience underscores a growing trend of people without diabetes monitoring their blood sugar, either out of concern over disease or to optimize their health. But while these devices can offer valuable insight, many people may not need them and could suffer unneeded expense and stress from using them, experts warn.

  CGMs Demystified

  Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are small, wearable devices that provide real-time data on blood sugar with a sensor typically placed on the arm or abdomen.

  Unlike traditional fingerstick tests, CGMs don’t require repeated skin punctures. CGMs gauge glucose in the interstitial fluid—the fluid between body tissues. The collected data is wirelessly relayed to a user’s choice of device, be it to a smartphone app, a watch, or directly to an insulin pump, typically every five minutes or about 288 times a day.

  

  “At their core, CGMs provide knowledge, and knowledge is power. Any person wearing a CGM can better understand how different foods and activities affect their glucose levels,” Dr. Andrew Demidowich, assistant professor in the Division of Endocrinology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, told The Epoch Times.

  Not everyone shares Dr. Demidowich’s enthusiasm.

  The Central Role of Glucose in Metabolic Health

  Glucose, a simple sugar, is a key fuel source for the body, but it creates problems if it builds up in the blood. High blood glucose is more than just a marker for diabetes—it’s a central player in poor metabolic health. Metabolic diseases, which include diabetes, obesity, and heart disease, are increasing globally. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlights that more than one-third of U.S. adults suffer from a cluster of conditions known as metabolic syndrome, which includes high blood pressure, high blood sugar, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol levels.

  Processed foods, including refined grains and sugars, as well as an increasingly sedentary lifestyle are wreaking havoc on people’s metabolic health. The rise of diabetes and obesity have been linked to processed foods that cause significant spikes in blood sugar. And while exercise can help manage these effects, especially after eating, many people prefer more passive forms of entertainment.

  

  Rapid fluctuations in glucose can stress the body and trigger inflammation, which can lead to chronic diseases such as heart disease, arthritis, and certain cancers. Watching glucose levels can help people understand what improves their blood sugar level—and what makes it worse.

  “I often tell my patients that we are all unique, and how one person’s sugar levels react to a certain food, like a banana or orange, may be completely different in how it may affect another person,” Dr. Demidowich said.

  CGMs for All

  CGMs were once limited to diabetes care. Initially vital for the 1.9 million Americans with Type 1 diabetes requiring daily monitoring, CGMs are now being used by a much broader demographic. This shift is significant in a nation in which an estimated 38 million people live with diabetes.

  

  CGMs can provide real-time insights into the effects of lifestyle choices on glucose levels. Diet is just one of the many factors affecting glucose levels—exercise, stress, sleep, illness, dehydration, and pain also play significant roles.

  More people are using CGMs as a way to self-optimize their health and make better decisions about food, physical activity, and more. The growing use of CGMs signifies a shift toward personalized, data-driven health and wellness strategies.

  A 2018 Stanford University study, led by professor Michael Snyder, uncovered frequent and previously undetected blood sugar spikes in healthy individuals.

  “There are lots of folks running around with their glucose levels spiking, and they don’t even know it,” Mr. Snyder said in a statement, underscoring the risk these spikes pose for cardiovascular disease and insulin resistance, a diabetes precursor.

  The study, using CGMs on participants, suggests that even those without diabetes can experience significant glucose fluctuations.

  “We think that these continuous glucose monitors will be important in providing the right information earlier on so that people can make changes to their diet should they need to,” Mr. Snyder said.

  Echoing these potential benefits, a related study by George Washington University researchers found that 90 percent of CGM users reported shifts toward healthier living, with nearly 50 percent of them more inclined to exercise after noticing blood glucose spikes and 87 percent modifying their diets based on the feedback from their devices.

  Dr. Demidowich has seen these effects himself, which is why he encourages patients with prediabetes to use the devices.

  “I’m a big proponent of people with prediabetes wearing a CGM, even if just for a short time like 2 to 4 weeks, to better understand how to optimize their lifestyle and diet to avoid progression to diabetes,” he told The Epoch Times.

  Real-time data can change patient behavior, he said.

  “As providers, we can recommend cutting out sugary beverages or processed foods, but when patients see their sugar levels spiking in real-time, that becomes a powerful impetus for change.”

  Too Much Information?

  However, not everyone shares this enthusiasm for widespread CGM use. Dr. Robert H. Shmerling, senior faculty editor at Harvard Health Publishing, raises an issue with the devices’ utility for non-diabetics. He says there isn’t conclusive research demonstrating benefits for this group, pointing out that most people without diabetes naturally maintain normal blood sugar levels.

  “Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean you should,” Dr. Shmerling wrote in an article. CGM use in the nondiabetic population may be premature and driven more by marketing than medical necessity, he cautioned. He noted that unnecessary monitoring could lead to false alarms, increased anxiety, and possibly harmful interventions.

  Some people simply don’t know what healthy blood sugar looks like, and that can lead to confusion and fear, which can undermine, rather than improve, health.

  Dr. Shmerling’s skepticism is echoed by 70-year-old Bob Volat, a Type 1 diabetes patient since age 59 who praises CGMs as a transformative tool in his health journey, calling them “an absolute gift.”

  However, in a conversation with The Epoch Times, Mr. Volat questioned the utility of such advanced technology for nondiabetics, viewing it as overly complex and potentially motivated by profit. The devices aren’t cheap and he believes people may be swayed by aggressive marketing.

  Rather than purchasing devices, he advises that people take a more holistic approach to health that goes beyond a singular focus on glucose levels.

  Decoding Blood Sugar: Understanding Spikes and Glucose Tolerance

  Prediabetes and diabetes are diagnosed based on specific blood glucose levels and A1C test results. The A1C test, measuring average blood sugar over two to three months, offers a comprehensive view of long-term glucose control.

  Beyond these diagnostic benchmarks, there’s an increasing focus on the intricacies of blood sugar regulation, especially the health impacts of frequent sugar spikes, which CGM devices can adeptly identify.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 22:10

• As Chinese Purchases Of US Farmland Soar, It's Becoming Impossible To Track How Much It Owns
  As Chinese Purchases Of US Farmland Soar, It’s Becoming Impossible To Track How Much It Owns

  The topic of China’s ownership of US farmlands is starting to boil over.

  Six months after we reported that a “Bipartisan Bill Aims To Block Chinese Purchase Of US Farmland”, more are starting to pay attention yet as even Bloomberg notes that America “is seeing more and more of its most fertile land snapped up by China and other foreign buyers” the big problem remains: it’s difficult to know just how much farmland China has bought due to problem with how the US tracks such data.

  Here’s what we do know: according to Department of Agriculture data foreign ownership and investment in US farmland, pastures and forests jumped to about 40 million acres in 2021, up 40% from 2016; but an analysis conducted by the US Government Accountability Office — a non-partisan watchdog that reports to Congress — found mistakes in the data, including the largest land holding linked with China being counted twice. Other challenges include the USDA’s reliance on foreigners self-reporting their activity.

  As a result, foreign ownership of US cropland is drawing attention from Washington as concern rises about possible threats to food supply chains and other national security risks. And, as we reported last summer, lawmakers have called for a crackdown on sales of farmland to China and other nations.

  

  “Without improving its internal processes, USDA cannot report reliable information to Congress or the public about where and how much US agricultural land is held by foreign persons,” the report said.

  The GAO made six recommendations, including that the USDA share more timely and complete data with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, an interagency panel led by the Treasury Department that reviews foreign business deals. And yet, with typical bureaucratic “speed”, it is certain that none of these will be implemented for years, in the meantime allowing Chinese state and private oligarchs to keep snapping up fertile US farmland.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 21:35

• US Supreme Court Action Alters Course Of Jan. 6 Defendant Sentencings
  US Supreme Court Action Alters Course Of Jan. 6 Defendant Sentencings

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to review a case called Fischer v. United States, which experts say could weaken prosecutors’ hand in hundreds of Jan. 6 cases, including former President Donald Trump’s, is already upending some defendant cases and sentencing proceedings.

  

  In December, the Supreme Court decided it would take up the appeal by Jan. 6 defendant Joseph W. Fisher of the Biden administration’s novel use of an Enron-era evidence-tampering law to prosecute hundreds of defendants for obstruction of Congress during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol incident.

  The obstruction of Congress charge—which carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison—is the most widely charged felony in Jan. 6 cases, including against President Trump.

  Mr. Fischer was indicted for various alleged offences for his role in the Jan. 6 incident, including obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder, violent entry, and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds—and obstruction of Congress based on 18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c)(2), or “Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.”

  This is an evidence-tampering provision that’s part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which experts say was conceived largely to curb wrongdoing on Wall Street—but is now used by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Jan. 6 cases.

  Mr. Fischer challenged the obstruction charge, claiming that 1512(c)(2) does not prohibit his alleged conduct on Jan. 6. A district court agreed but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit reversed that decision, siding with a broader reading of the provision, namely that it applies other forms of obstructive conduct, not just ones related to investigations and evidence.

  While it’s unclear when the Supreme Court will hold the first hearings in Mr. Fischer’s appeal, several legal experts told The Epoch Times in earlier interviews that the high court is likely to find that 1512(c)(2) is being improperly used against Jan. 6 defendants.

  If the challenge proves successful, the Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences, potentially erasing some charges against President Trump and overturning felony convictions for numerous Jan. 6 defendants.

  The implications extend beyond individual cases to the core strategy employed by the Justice Department (DOJ) in securing convictions.

  Meanwhile, the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Mr. Fischer’s challenge to the provision is already having an impact on some Jan. 6 cases.

  Challenges Based on Supreme Court Review

  Since the Supreme Court agreed in mid-December to take up the Fischer appeal, a number of Jan. 6 defendants have asked judges to pause their trials and sentencing proceedings pending the outcome of the case.

  One of these is John Strand, a former underwear model convicted of obstructing Congress on the basis of 1512(c)(2), who describes himself as a “political prisoner.” He was sentenced to 32 months in prison.

  On Jan. 19, Mr. Strand’s attorneys filed a motion for release pending the Fischer appeal and a motion for reduction of sentence based on the zero-point offender guideline, which gives defendants with no criminal history an extra two points off their sentencing calculations, court filings show.

  The DOJ has taken the position that Jan. 6 defendants are ineligible for sentence reduction on the basis of the zero-point offender guideline, which has some exceptions, including for violent crimes.

  Noteworthy in Mr. Strand’s filing is the singling out of the obstruction charge, which in his case is the only felony he’s been found guilty of.

  “In particular, a substantial question exists as to whether the statute underlying Strand’s sole felony conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), applies to his conduct on January 6, 2021, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to grant certiorari in United States v. Fischer.”

  While it’s too early to know whether the judge in Mr. Strand’s case will side with his request to reduce his sentence, several other Jan. 6 defendants have won early release based on the Supreme Court’s decision to review the Fischer case.

  Early Release and Postponement

  Last week, a federal judge ordered the early release of Thomas Adams, who was found guilty of two counts for his role on Jan. 6, including the obstruction charge, his sole felony.

  U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta noted in his Jan. 10 order that Mr. Adams would probably have received a lighter sentence than the 14 months he was given (in addition to 36 months of supervised release) absent the obstruction charge.

  While prosecutors argued Mr. Adams should be kept in jail, the judge disagreed, saying that the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case suggests the outcome is a “close question” at a minimum.

  One day after Judge Mehta ordered Mr. Adams to go free, U.S. District Judge John Bates ordered the release of Alexander Sheppard, who was previously sentenced to 19 months in prison for several misdemeanors and one felony (the obstruction charge).

  Mr. Adams’s attorneys asked that he be released from prison at the end of his misdemeanor convictions, citing the pending Fischer appeal. The judge agreed, with the caveat that if the Supreme Court rules against Mr. Fischer and upholds his sentencing based on the obstruction charge, Mr. Sheppard may be required to serve out his full sentence.

  “The Court will order Sheppard released after he has served six months in prison—on May 2, 2024. The parties shall contact the Court within three days of the Supreme Court issuing its decision in Fischer with their positions as to what if any further proceedings are necessary,” Judge Bates wrote in his order.

  “The Court may ultimately conclude that a further period of incarceration is warranted upon a potential remand after a decision in Fischer,” the judge added.

  Three other federal judges have postponed pending Jan. 6 cases in which obstruction is the only felony charge, according to Politic, which cited a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington as saying that around 100 Jan. 6 defendants face charges in which 1512(c)(2) is the only felony charge.

  The same law challenged by Mr. Fischer is instrumental in charges against President Trump. Should the Supreme Court limit or disagree with the Justice Department, it could have a significant impact on the former president’s trial, currently set for March, potentially leading to a retrial.

  Concerns of Overreach

  Defense lawyer Kira Anne West, who has been involved in more than 50 Jan. 6 cases, has accused the Justice Department of overreach in prosecuting some of the approximately 1,300 Jan. 6 cases.

  Ms. West, who volunteered to defend dozens of Jan. 6 defendants, said during a recent C-SPAN “Booknotes” podcast that most of her Jan. 6 clients had neither a criminal history nor did they engage in any violence that day.

  “Some simply went into the building, turned around, and went out,” she said. “Many were in for a very short period of time, less than 20 minutes. Yet the government is charging them with felony charges that you can get up to 20 years in prison for. That makes absolutely no sense to me.”

  She said it’s unusual for so many minor cases to go to federal trial, calling it a waste of money.

  “I think in my whole career, I’ve had one misdemeanor case in federal court before Jan. 6. Now, I have tons of them,” Ms. West said.

  While she did not downplay whatever violence took place that day, saying it was a “serious crime” for people to attack police officers, she did say she saw the Biden administration’s approach to Jan. 6 cases part of a longstanding pattern of federal “overreach.”

  “What I’ve experienced as a defense lawyer, which I’ve experienced for years, is that there is quite a bit of government overreach as far as who they’re prosecuting and what they’re charging them with,” she said.

  Jim Burling, vice president of legal affairs for the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit public interest law firm that challenges government abuses, told The Epoch Times in a recent interview that it is “utterly absurd” for the Biden administration to charge Jan. 6 protesters with the felony obstruction charge that carries a 20 year sentence.

  “I think both the liberals and the conservatives on the Supreme Court are going to be very wary of this overcharging,” he said of the Fischer case that the high court will weigh.

  Matthew Vadum contributed to this report.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 21:00

• These Are The 25 Best Countries For Retirement
  These Are The 25 Best Countries For Retirement

  In 1881, Otto von Bismarck proposed a radical idea for retirement: people above the age of 70 would be given a state pension, encouraging them to stop working.

  This model has since been adopted en masse and most countries now have a retirement age, after which workers can claim benefits paid through years of their work.

  However, modern-day retirement is much more than just finances. Wealth management company Natixis analyzed 44 nations on four main categories affecting the ability for their residents to retire well in the 2023 Global Retirement Index. Each category has subindices, from which they averaged scores out of 100 to create this ranking.

  The categories are:

  • Health: Per capita spend on healthcare, life expectancy, and non-insured health spend.

  • Quality of Life: Happiness levels, water and sanitation, air quality, environment, and biodiversity.

  • Material Well-being: Per capita income, income equality, and employment levels.

  • Retirement Finances: Government debt, old-age dependency, interest rates, inflation, governance, taxes, and bank non-performing loans.

  ℹ️ This index quantifies general retirement welfare in a country and does not account for countries which are retirement destinations—usually because of lower costs of living or better weather.

  So, with one-third of the world expected to be 65 and older by 2050, how are countries stacking up against each other when it comes to creating supportive environments for retirement?

  Of the countries analyzed for the best retirement conditions, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao and Niccolo Conte created the graphic below to highlight the top 25.

  

  What Are the Best Countries for Retirement?

  Norway ranks first as the best country for retirement in this study, helped by top scores in health and material well-being.

  For health metrics, Norway was one of the few countries to see life expectancy improve over the pandemic. It now sits at 83.3 years at birth, and is one of the highest rates in the world. This is in contrast to many other countries in the index (Canada, Austria, the U.S.) that saw life expectancies drop recently due to the higher mortality rate during the pandemic.

  For well-being, Norway’s current low unemployment rate (3.8%) reduces undue pressure on their social security net.

  In fact, Norway along with the next top three countries (Switzerland, Iceland, and Ireland) all retain their rankings from last year, along with Estonia, which is ranked 25th. Every other country gained or lost a spot as seen below.

  Rank	Country	Score	Rank Change (from 2022)
  1	🇳🇴 Norway	83%	0
  2	🇨🇭 Switzerland	82%	0
  3	🇮🇸 Iceland	81%	0
  4	🇮🇪 Ireland	80%	0
  5	🇱🇺 Luxembourg	79%	+2
  6	🇳🇱 Netherlands	79%	+2
  7	🇦🇺 Australia	78%	-2
  8	🇳🇿 New Zealand	77%	-2
  9	🇩🇪 Germany	76%	+2
  10	🇩🇰 Denmark	76%	-1
  11	🇦🇹 Austria	75%	+3
  12	🇨🇦 Canada	74%	+3
  13	🇫🇮 Finland	74%	-1
  14	🇸🇪 Sweden	74%	-1
  15	🇸🇮 Slovenia	73%	+6
  16	🇬🇧 UK	73%	+3
  19	🇧🇪 Belgium	72%	+1
  17	🇮🇱 Israel	72%	-1
  18	🇨🇿 Czech Republic	72%	-8
  20	🇺🇸 U.S.	71%	-2
  21	🇰🇷 South Korea	70%	-4
  22	🇲🇹 Malta	69%	+1
  23	🇫🇷 France	69%	+1
  24	🇯🇵 Japan	68%	-2
  25	🇪🇪 Estonia	67%	0

  Other highlights in the top 25 include: Australia, at 7th, which is the highest-ranked non-European country in the index. The country scores well in retirement finances due to its superannuation pension fund system, currently worth $3.5 trillion, fifth-largest in the world.

  Meanwhile, France, just outside the top 20, saw widespread protests in early 2023 when a law to raise the retirement age to 64 was passed through special constitutional powers. Raising the retirement age will presumably keep people working longer, paying mandatory payroll tax to fund retirement benefits, and will improve their steadily worsening old-age dependency ratio.

  A worsening old-age dependency ratio is where the share of older, dependent people to younger, employed people keeps increasing, reducing the sustainability of retirement benefits.

  How Countries are Preparing for the “Silver Tsunami”

  France is not the only country trying to keep its population working longer. The Chinese government is also looking to raise its retirement age in gradual shifts, as it grapples not only with an aging population but also a declining one.

  Immigration has also been frequently cited as a near-term measure to boost the working-age population and increase the benefits pool. Canada, for example, had 6 workers for every retiree in 1980. In 2015 that had dropped to 4. By 2030, it will drop further to 3. As a result the country has pursued aggressive immigration for more than a decade now and has grown its population by 10 million since 2010.

  Finally, there has been a push towards increasing overall productivity by targeting technological advancements and automation. However both need to occur in tandem with re-skilling so that they don’t result in net job losses, which will only further burden social security systems.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 20:25

• RFK Seeks Path To Victory By Forcing House To Elect President
  RFK Seeks Path To Victory By Forcing House To Elect President

  Authored by Jeff Louderback via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  To win the 2024 election as an independent, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is firstly hoping for an outright win, but the second path to victory is to make sure no other candidate wins 270 electoral votes.

  

  If no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes in a presidential election, the winner is decided in a contingent election by the House of Representatives, where each state votes as a bloc.

  The House has picked the president twice in American history.

  In 1800, Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson were deadlocked after the electoral votes were counted. The House cast their ballots to elect President Jefferson, who received 61 percent of the popular vote.

  When none of the four presidential candidates received an electoral vote majority in 1824, the House elected John Quincy Adams on Feb. 9 the following year.

  “People are starting to realize that Bobby can win, with where he is in the polls,” Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, the campaign manager of Mr. Kennedy, told The Epoch Times.
  “They are starting to see that, for the first time in their lifetime, the two-party system can be broken and they can vote for somebody who excites them rather than having to vote for the lesser of two evils,” she said. Ms. Kennedy is also the candidate’s daughter-in-law.

  

  Ms. Kennedy said Mr. Kennedy could be considered a preferred candidate over former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, the likely Republican and Democrat nominees.

  The prospect of Mr. Kennedy winning as a compromise candidate is relatively slim because a contingent United States election is decided by state delegations. Republicans currently hold a four-vote delegation lead, according to a tally maintained by ProPublica.

  The next House of Representatives, composed of lawmakers elected in 2024, would vote in a contingent election. A consensus forecast by 270toWin based on an aggregate of forecasts by five major analytics firms sees Republicans keeping their delegation majority in the House in 2024.

  Few independent and third-party candidates have won electoral votes. In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt ran as an independent against his former protégé, President William Howard Taft, after failing to win the Republican nomination.

  President Roosevelt carried eight states and gained 27 percent of the popular vote but won just 88 electoral votes compared to Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s 435.

  Independent candidate and former Alabama Gov. George Wallace won five states in 1968. He needed to prevail in only one more state with 10 or more electors to prevent Richard Nixon from an Electoral College majority.

  In 1992, Ross Perot captured around 19 percent of the popular vote, won several counties, and placed second in two states, but he did not secure electoral votes in a race won by Bill Clinton over President George H.W. Bush.

  Brian Seitchik, a Republican strategist and former Trump campaign staff member, told The Epoch Times that the strategy to capture enough electoral votes to send the presidential election to the House is “absurd.”

  “It was talked about in 1992 when Ross Perot was running. It was talked about when George Wallace was on the ballot many years ago,” Mr. Sietchik said.

  “It’s a fantasy that Republican nerds like to talk about—just like they like to talk about a brokered convention. We haven’t had a brokered convention since the 1960s, so these are just sort of political fantasies.”

  David Carlucci, a former New York state senator and a Democrat strategist, told The Epoch Times that Mr. Kennedy faces a “daunting challenge” to get electoral votes.

  “Regardless of your political affiliation—Democrat, Republican, or Independent—it’s undeniable that the Electoral College poses challenges to an independent candidate. The strategy of winning states necessitates a precise campaign focused on specific demographics, leaving little room for candidates like RFK Jr. to impact safe red and blue states, which constitute the majority,” Mr. Carlucci said

  “With fewer than 10 swing states, an independent candidate faces an uphill battle against the targeted efforts of Democrats and Republicans in these crucial areas,” he said.

  Mr. Kennedy is traveling the country to private fundraising events and rallies designed to collect signatures to get him on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 19:50

• "You Need An F-16, Not An AR-15" – Biden Once Again Suggests US Govt Could Murder Gun-Owners
  “You Need An F-16, Not An AR-15” – Biden Once Again Suggests US Govt Could Murder Gun-Owners

  Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  President Joe Biden told a group of mayors that they would be instrumental in implementing his Second Amendment policies, including a ban on some types of semiautomatic rifles, so-called “assault weapons.”

  

  President Biden welcomed a bipartisan group of mayors attending the U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting at the White House on Friday.

  He told the mayors that the American Rescue Plan has spent $15 billion on infrastructure and public safety.

  The president said much of that money went directly to cities to hire and equip police officers, institute violence intervention programs, and fund other crime prevention programs.

  “You’ve done a tremendous job putting those resources to work. You know how to do it,” President Biden said. “Mayors are the people who get things done.”

  He said that, at the urging of his staff, he is continuing his push for a revival of the 1990s-era “Assault Weapons Ban.”

  The ban, which he said he helped the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) write, was in place from September 1994 to September 2004.

  President Biden claimed the ban reduced violent crime, including mass shootings. That claim has motivated his administration to push for a renewal of the policy.

  “My staff came to me and said, ‘We need a White House office dedicated to getting guns off the streets and treating the trauma from violence,” he said.

  “I’m still committed to banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

  “When we passed the Second Amendment, guess what? You weren’t allowed to have a cannon.”

  During his speech Friday, President Biden drew chuckles from the mayors as he derided an argument sometimes made by Second Amendment advocates against “assault weapons” bans.

  “You’ve heard, ‘the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots?’ Guess what, man? I didn’t see a whole lot of patriots out there walking around making sure that we have these weapons. If you really want to worry about the government, you need an F-16. You don’t need an AR-15,” President Biden said.

  The president’s remarks drew laughter from the mayors.

  A Rand Corporation study completed in 2020 and updated in 2023 found limited evidence that “high capacity magazine” bans reduced mass shootings and inconclusive evidence on the effect of banning “assault weapons” on the incidents of mass shootings.

  President Biden also touted the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act,” (BSCA) passed in June of 2022 as “the first gun safety law in 30 years.”

  Under the BSCA, President Biden has issued numerous executive orders, directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to change or write many sometimes controversial rules, and established a “White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention” last September.

  

  The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is led by Vice President Kamala Harris and staffed by veterans of the gun control movement. Stefanie Feldman, President Biden’s staff secretary, runs the office with Greg Jackson and Rob Wilcox.

  Previously, Mr. Jackson led the Community Justice Action Fund, which focused on the impact of violent crime involving guns on minority communities.

  Mr. Wilcox worked at Brady, served on the Board of Directors of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, and practiced law in New York City.

  Recently, Ms. Harris announced the office’s “Safer States Agenda” to push similar programs at the state level.

  “We’re deploying teams to meet with communities that have been victimized, to make sure they get the help they need,” President Biden told the mayors.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 18:40

• Russia Suspends LNG Exports At Huge Baltic Sea Terminal After Ukraine Drone Attack
  Russia Suspends LNG Exports At Huge Baltic Sea Terminal After Ukraine Drone Attack

  Russian gas giant Novatek said it had been forced to suspend some operations at its huge Baltic Sea fuel export terminal on Sunday due to a fire started by what Ukrainian media said was a drone attack, Reuters reported.

  The giant Ust-Luga complex, located on the Gulf of Finland about 170 km (110 miles) west of St. Petersburg, is used to ship oil and gas products to international markets. It processes stable gas condensate – a type of light oil – into light and heavy naphtha, kerosene and diesel to be shipped by sea.

  

  According to Reuters, it was not clear how long the disruption would last, how many tankers would have to idle outside the port, and what the knock-on effect would be on international energy markets.

  The Interfax-Ukraine news agency said the fire was the result of a special operation carried out by Ukraine’s security services.

  Major Russian gas terminal in Ust-Luga is non-operational following a drone attack. One of the two primary Baltic Sea energy-export outlets, it includes Rosneft oil terminal, gas, sulfur, and coal terminals. These attacks significantly challenge Russian logistics pic.twitter.com/S9NZNeGeit

  — Maria Avdeeva (@maria_avdv) January 21, 2024

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

  “The Ust-Luga Oil terminal in the Leningrad region is an important facility for the enemy. Fuel is refined there, which, among other things, is also supplied to Russian troops,” it cited one source as saying. Of course, the fuel is also used to supply Europe where energy prices are now expected to spike as a result of this latest supply disruption.

  “A successful attack on such a terminal not only causes economic damage to the enemy, depriving the occupiers of the opportunity to earn money to wage war in Ukraine, but also significantly complicates the logistics of fuel for the Russian military.”

  While Reuters was not able to confirm that the fire resulted from a Ukrainian drone attack, it writes that if it did “such an attack would demonstrate Kyiv’s ability to conduct strikes deeper into Russia than usual using what are believed to be domestically produced drones at a time when it is on the defensive on the battlefield and struggling to secure as much Western financing as it wants.”

  Such an attack, the latest in a spate of apparent strikes in recent days targeting Russian energy facilities, would also raise questions about the quality of Russian air defense systems around key infrastructure facilities.

  The incident, along with what Russia says was a Ukrainian artillery strike on civilians in a Russian-held city in eastern Ukraine that left at least 25 dead, is sure to prompt broader Russian retaliation in a war which shows no sign of ending.

  Alexander Drozdenko, the Leningrad region’s governor, said on the Telegram messaging app, that there had been no casualties at the Ust-Luga terminal and all workers had been safely evacuated. Russian news agencies reported that two storage tanks and a pumping station had been damaged, but that the fire had been brought under control.

  Novatek, which is Russia’s largest liquefied natural gas producer, said in a statement it had suspended some operations after the fire which it said was the result of “external influence.”

  “The technological process at Novatek-Ust-Luga has been stopped, and an operational headquarters has been established to eliminate the consequences. Damage assessment will be carried out later,” the company said.

  Russian news outlet Shot reported that local residents had heard a drone operating nearby followed by several explosions.

  Russia and Ukraine have targeted each other’s energy infrastructure in strikes designed to disrupt supply lines and logistics.  On Friday, a drone attack hit an oil depot in Russia’s western region of Bryansk, bordering Ukraine, for which Moscow blamed Kyiv. That came a day after an attack on a Russian Baltic Sea oil terminal that Russian officials said was unsuccessful.

  Baza, a Russian news outlet known for its security services contacts, posted footage on Telegram on Sunday of large flames shooting into the sky over what appeared to be an industrial complex.

  Incident at the “Novatek – Ust’-Luga” gas-condensate plant near St. Petersburg as it happened.

  The plant now “temporarily” stopped operations after last night’s attack by unidentified flying objects. pic.twitter.com/zHsSCCUbEt

  — WarTranslated (Dmitri) (@wartranslated) January 21, 2024

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

  Three international tanker ships were anchored near the Ust-Luga terminal, though there were no reports of damage to them from the fire, the St Petersburg-based Fontanka outlet said.

  A night of presumed Ukrainian drone strikes across Russia. Russian media report that the Ust Luga oil and gas port near St Petersburg is on fire, and a hit on a plant making air-defense systems in Tula. Footage from Russian Telegram channels. pic.twitter.com/NLvWhehrd8

  — Yaroslav Trofimov (@yarotrof) January 21, 2024

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

  Drozdenko said a “high alert regime” had been introduced and that officials had gathered for an emergency meeting.
  Novatek processed 3.4 million tons of stable gas condensate at the complex in the first half of 2023, according to the most recent data available, up 0.6% from the same period a year earlier.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 18:05

• Pennsylvania Gun Restrictions For Adults Under 21 Struck Down By Federal Court
  Pennsylvania Gun Restrictions For Adults Under 21 Struck Down By Federal Court

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

  Pennsylvania’s ban on adults under 21 carrying guns in public violates the U.S. Constitution, a federal court ruled on Jan. 18.

  

  The Constitution’s Second Amendment, which says that “the people” have the right to “keep and bear arms,” applies to all adults, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit panel said in a split decision.

  “The words ’the people’ in the Second Amendment presumptively encompass all adult Americans, including 18- to-20-year-olds, and we are aware of no founding-era law that supports disarming people in that age group,” U.S. Circuit Judge Kent Jordan wrote for the majority.

  In a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the nation’s top court found that gun restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

  Pennsylvania law bars carrying guns in a concealed manner in public without a license. People under 21 cannot apply for a permit.

  While most Pennsylvania adults are typically allowed to carry guns openly in public, only those who met certain criteria, such as having a license, were able to do so legally once a state of emergency was declared for the COVID-19 pandemic.

  Those restrictions violated the constitutional rights of adults under 21, plaintiffs argued in a lawsuit filed in 2020.

  U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV ruled against them in 2021. He said that per guidelines outlined in a 2008 Supreme Court decision, the restrictions were “longstanding” and “presumptively lawful” and thus fell “outside the scope of the Second Amendment.”

  The Firearms Policy Coalition and the other plaintiffs appealed, arguing the ruling was wrong. When the Supreme Court issued its 2022 ruling, the plaintiffs notified the appeals court. The 2022 ruling established that the right of adults to carry guns in public “is squarely protected by the Second Amendment” and Pennsylvania “has not carried its burden in proving that the State’s restrictions as to 18-to-20-year-olds are analogous to any historical restrictions,” the plaintiffs said.

  Pennsylvania officials argued that the regulations still fell outside the scope of the Constitution, in part because adults aged 18 to 20 are not part of “the people” and should not be struck down.

  Judge Jordan, in the new ruling, said that’s not true.

  “18-to-20-year-olds are, like other subsets of the American public, presumptively among ’the people’ to whom Second Amendment rights extend,” he wrote.

  That means Pennsylvania officials would have to identify historical laws that limited the population’s gun rights, and they did not do so, the judge added. In fact, an act passed by Congress shortly after the Second Amendment was ratified required all men to enroll in a militia when they turned 18. They were then armed.

  “We understand that a reasonable debate can be had over allowing young adults to be armed, but the issue before us is a narrow one. Our question is whether the Commissioner has borne his burden of proving that evidence of founding-era regulations supports Pennsylvania’s restriction on 18-to-20-year-olds’ Second Amendment rights, and the answer to that is no,” Judge Jordan said.

  U.S. Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith joined with Judge Jordan. Both were appointed by former President George W. Bush, while Judge Stickman was appointed by former President Donald Trump.

  U.S. Circuit Judge L. Felipe Restrepo, appointed under former President Barack Obama, offered a dissent.

  “There is no dispute that there is some age threshold before which the protection of the Second Amendment does not apply,” Judge Restrepo wrote, adding later that consultation with various sources led him to believe that “the scope of the right, as understood during the Founding-era, excludes those under the age of 21.”

  The decision reversed the earlier ruling against the plaintiffs.

  Reactions

  The Firearms Policy Coalition cheered the new ruling.

  “We applaud the Third Circuit’s decision in this case confirming that 18-to-20-year-old adults have the same right to armed self-defense as any other adult,” Cody J. Wisniewski, counsel for the coalition, said in a statement. “If it wasn’t for 18-to-20-year-old adults being empowered to exercise their right to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their communities, our nation wouldn’t exist–it would be a deep perversion of the Constitution to prevent them the same right today.”

  “Today’s ruling ensures that these individuals have the ability to defend themselves during a state of emergency,” Adam Kraut, the Second Amendment Foundation’s executive director, added. The foundation was also part of the suit.

  Other plaintiffs included Madison Lara, an adult under 21 who owns a rifle and handgun and said she wants to be able to carry them around for self-defense, and Logan Miller, another affected Pennsylvania resident who lawyers said has abstained from carrying guns to avoid being charged with a felony.

  The Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) was the named defendant in the case.

  “PSP has no comment, as our attorneys are still reviewing the ruling,” a spokesman told The Epoch Times in an email.

  The office of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, did not respond to a request for comment.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 17:30

• Wobble… Then Soar?
  Wobble… Then Soar?

  By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

  Wobble, Then Soar?

  Last weekend we went with “Weebles Wobble” and the week started with more “wobbling” for stocks.

  Stocks seemed poised to break much lower on Wednesday but managed to claw back much of the early losses, and then took off on Thursday and Friday (the Nasdaq 100 gained 3.5% in those two days).

  There was much to like about how stocks performed this week.

  • This rally occurred even as markets priced in fewer rate cuts and moved rates higher across the curve.

    • According to Bloomberg’s WIRP function (World Interest Rate Probability), the chance of a March cut dropped to 47% from 79% last Friday.

    • Total cuts for 2024 went from 6.7 cuts (of 25 bps each) to “only” 5.4 cuts.

    • The 10-year yield went from 3.94% to 4.12%.

    • Stocks rallying as they downplayed the “Fed Pivot” is impressive.

    • My call remains 3 cuts (of 25 bps, 50 bps, and 25 bps), most likely starting at the April/May meeting and ending in July, though starting in March is far more likely than starting in June. I continue to believe that the Fed will want to be quiet on monetary policy at the September and November meetings as monetary policy is likely to become a campaign issue probably long before then. I still have a 4.3% target on 10s and 0 on 2s vs 10s but think I may be low on both.

  • Earnings and the outlook for semiconductors seemed to be the biggest single spark. It wasn’t just AI (like many of the bumps have seemed to be driven by in the last year), but it was also more demand, and the outlook for more “mundane” chips bodes well for cell phones and other consumer goods! There has been a lot of worry about a slowdown in consumer spending, especially in some tech areas (I’m in that camp), but if that narrative is not true (and this week’s data point suggested that it is not), then that is a legit reason to be bullish.

  • The consumer keeps spending and inflation is contained. I’m less convinced on the consumer, but have been a big believer that much of what drove inflation has changed direction – rather dramatically for goods, and just starting for services (see COVID Inflation Bumps).

    • Geopolitical, supply chain, reshoring, and even ESG are all putting upward pressure on inflation, so now is not the time to be complacent.

    • Having said that, the housing calculations in CPI are all but guaranteed to keep inflation lower. The lags missed it on the way up (IOER, the main measure of housing inflation, was the highest when all signs pointed to rents dropping in the real world), so we are seeing the impact of rent declines that occurred months ago showing up in the data today and somehow treating it as relevant.

    • University of Michigan’s CONsumer CONfidence had inflation expectation dropping. I know the Fed looks at that, so it is important, but I struggle to figure out the value of the data as a reliable predictor of anything.

  I really liked that stocks could rally on good news, even as yields went higher, and some of the data makes me question my outlook on the economy over the coming months.

  There are some things to pick on.

  • Even after the bounce on Thursday and Friday, the Russell 2000 finished lower on the week. I haven’t been pounding the table for the so-called “laggards” since late December, but that inability to rally is striking. What I find very “odd” is that ARKK was down on the week. You can look at the major holdings and understand why (probably a peek at Bitcoin helps explain it too). But, for me, ARKK is one thing that I look to for signs of “aggressive” risk taking. I feel it should trade at a higher beta than the Nasdaq 100. Bitcoin was also weak, but I think that had more to do with far too many people running it up and positioning ahead of the launch of the ETFs.

    • On the bright side, there was differentiation indicating “thought” in the rally, though the negative, for me, is that we’ve reverted back, at least to some extent, to the trade that worked for much of last year. That seems too simple.

  • Pricing out a recession. Interest rates are always tricky, but my view is that much of what occurred at the front end of the yield curve (the part driven by the Fed) resulted from far less concern of a recession. While I admit the data tilted in that direction, as a contrarian, I think the risk of something other than a “soft” or “no” landing is realistic. Stocks rose, even as rate cuts were priced out, because the market is back to “no” or “soft” landing as highly likely.

  • I remain convinced that none of the issues that made markets wonder “Who Will Buy Treasuries Ever Again?” have been resolved and are likely to push longer yields higher, as those issues get more attention again. That is why I’m thinking that 4.3%, which seemed “bold” at 3.8%, seems insufficient here. Heck, 15 bps is like a day of trading.

  • We seem back to a world where being right or wrong on a given day can be incredibly meaningful. Having to be “right” every day is difficult (impossible, or there would be more day-trading billionaires). It weighs on individuals (less so on algos). It does tend, over time, to cause risk management to reduce risk (though many will have done so of their own volition, to manage the topsy-turvy markets). So, one thing I don’t like about the price action (neither on up days, nor down days) is that it feels day-trader, or momentum, or simply “pile-on” driven, so the noise may be far greater than the signal.

  Bottom Line

  Still stuck on higher yields and less inversion. Really want to move to a 4.5% target on 10s.

  Still believe that credit will do well, and that we will be talking about “new” ranges for credit soon.

  On equities, the performance was almost enough to make me change my mind. The drivers of the strength were more impressive than the issues I point out. I am not there yet, but positioning has to be small to medium here, more use of options, and some nimble trading is required. Commodities, commodity stocks, and now Chinese stocks (for a trade) top the list of what I like, and I’m increasingly bullish the former and starting to pound the table on the latter. One call, that I don’t think you can disagree with, is that I’ve managed to work out of the Carolinas for the next 3 to 4 weeks, which seems like a good macro strategy, from my perspective!

  The Fed meeting on January 31st could be interesting, since no one is really listening to what the Fed says until then. Powell effectively contradicted himself at the last meeting, so why listen to anything from the Fed until he speaks after their decision? Expect more “excessive” volatility in the meantime as the trading year and positioning get ramped up.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 16:20

• Zelensky Lashes Out At Trump Over 'Very Dangerous' Plan To End War
  Zelensky Lashes Out At Trump Over ‘Very Dangerous’ Plan To End War

  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has lashed out at former President Trump over his Ukraine stance and recent rhetoric, particularly the GOP presidential front-runner’s claim that he can negotiate peace between Kiev and Moscow within 24 hours.

  Trump’s persistent statements saying he would intercede diplomatically and end the war has been met with mockery among top Ukrainian officials. Zelensky in a fresh interview with UK’s Channel 4 News has called Trump’s rhetoric “very dangerous”. 

  

  “Donald Trump, I invite you to Ukraine, to Kyiv. If you can stop the war during 24 hours, I think it will be enough to come,” he said in the interview published Friday.

  “(Trump) is going to make decisions on his own, without … I’m not even talking about Russia, but without both sides, without us,” Zelensky continued. “If he says this publicly, that’s a little scary. I’ve seen a lot, a lot of victims, but that’s really making me a bit stressed.”

  The Ukrainian leader added: “Because even if his idea (for ending the war) – that no one has heard yet – doesn’t work for us, for our people, he will do anything to implement his idea anyway. And this worries me a little.” It was within this context Zelensky followed by saying this is “very dangerous.”

  Trump has repeatedly pledged while doing campaign rallies, “I will have it solved within one day, a peace between them.”

  The Biden White House has so far resisted any serious efforts to get Moscow at the same table talking to the Ukrainian side, given that realistically it would involve having to make territorial concessions.

  The US has only supported Zelensky’s plan, which demands that Russian troops immediately given up all seized territory in eastern Ukraine, relinquish Crimea, and pay war reparations to the Kiev government.

  Zelensky and his top officials were at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos this past week pushing for more countries, and especially representatives of the Global South, to get behind the plan.

  Donald Trump – after his victory in Iowa:

  ▪️We want peace through strength. Russia would never have attacked Ukraine, would never have done that. Putin and I get along great.
  ▪️The situation with Ukraine is so terrible. And we’re going to solve it, we’re going to solve it very… pic.twitter.com/TvmSKKScsI

  — EHA News (@eha_news) January 16, 2024

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

  Last week, Ukraine’s presidential chief of staff Andriy Yermak said that Kiev now believes it is crucial for China to be at the table for future talks on its peace formula. “China needs to be involved in talks to end the war with Russia,” the Ukrainian top representative said following diplomatic meetings related to the WEF. China remains the most influential Global South country widely viewed as squarely in Russia’s corner, having refused to rebuke Moscow or join Western-led sanctions after two years of the conflict.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 15:45

• DeSantis Drops Out Of 2024 Race, Backs Trump
  DeSantis Drops Out Of 2024 Race, Backs Trump

  Update (1520ET): Shortly after Bloomberg broke the news, DeSantis dropped out of the Republican presidential primary Sunday.

  In a video message, he endorsed Trump.

  “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”

  – Winston Churchill pic.twitter.com/ECoR8YeiMm

  — Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) January 21, 2024

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

  *  *  *

  After coming up short, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his top aides are reportedly having internal discussions over when and how he should drop out of the 2024 presidential race, according to Bloomberg, citing people briefed on the campaign’s conversations.

  

  The discussions are fluid, with the governor and his wife, Casey, as the final decision-makers, but one possibility is to leave the race before voting starts in New Hampshire on Tuesday, January 23 to avoid an embarrassing third-place finish. -Bloomberg

  According to a new poll by CNN and the University of New Hampshire, DeSantis has just 6% of the state’s Republican vote, vs. Trump at 50% and Haley at 39%.

  Speaking of CNN, Jake Tapper is hearing the same thing as Bloomberg…

  Sources tell me Gov Ron DeSantis is about to suspend his presidential campaign — imminently.

  — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 21, 2024

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

  That said, ABC News is reporting that DeSantis’ team is ‘pushing back’ on speculation that he may soon suspend his White House bid, after the Florida governor canceled high-profile scheduled appearances on NBC, CNN and WMUR, a New Hampshire TV station. He was also slated to spend most of the weekend campaigning with his allied super PAC, Never Back Down, but is instead returning to New Hampshire on Sunday for an event in Manchester.

  “The media hits were canceled due to a scheduling issue and will be rescheduled. The governor will be traveling Sunday morning with the campaign and has public events scheduled Sunday evening through Tuesday in NH,” campaign spokesperson Bryan Griffin posted Saturday on X.

  The media hits were canceled due to a scheduling issue and will be rescheduled.

  The governor will be traveling Sunday morning with the campaign and has public events scheduled Sunday evening through Tuesday in NH.

  — Bryan Griffin (@BryanDGriffin) January 20, 2024

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

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 15:20

• The Many Faces Of Kevin Morris – Hunter Biden's Financial Patron
  The Many Faces Of Kevin Morris – Hunter Biden’s Financial Patron

  Authored by Jonathan Turley, op-ed via The Hill,

  “Who was the real me? I can only repeat: I was a man of many faces.”

  Those words by author Milan Kundera could well have been written for Kevin Morris, a critical figure in the unfolding Hunter Biden scandal.

  Morris (picture left below) was largely unknown to most people until he emerged as the Democratic donor who reportedly paid Hunter Biden millions to handle his unpaid taxes and maintain his lavish lifestyle.

  

  The Hollywood lawyer and producer portrayed himself as a good Samaritan on a biblical scale — a good man who simply found a desperate stranger on the road and gave him more than $5 million.

  His counsel, Bryan M. Sullivan stated that “Hunter is not only a client of Kevin’s, he is his friend and there is no prohibition against helping a friend in need, despite the inability of these Republican chairmen and their allies to imagine such a thing.” 

  The statement captures the problem for Morris. It is increasingly hard to determine what Morris was at any given moment: Democratic donor, lawyer, friend. Indeed, that problem that some of us have raised for months.

  Lawyers are not supposed to pay the bills of their clients.

  Specifically, California Bar Rule 1.8.5(a) states that “[a] lawyer shall not directly or indirectly pay or agree to pay, guarantee, or represent that the lawyer or lawyer’s law firm will pay the personal or business expenses of a prospective or existing client.” They are required to maintain clear representational boundaries. This is also now the subject of a new bar complaint filed by a conservative legal group this week.

  Friends have described Morris as a “rule-breaker” and admit that his relationship with Hunter raises eyebrows. “Certainly it’s not careful, but he’s a gunslinger,” one told the Los Angeles Times. “This is how he rolls.”

  But the legal ethics rules are designed to avoid gunslinging generally and ambiguity specifically.

  Hunter calls him both his lawyer and his “brother.” Lead counsel Abbe Lowell observed, “I have never in any of my representations of any other client — other than someone who is an immediate family member of one of my clients — known anyone who is like Kevin.”

  When the relationship began, Morris was playing the role of loyal Democratic donor.

  He was introduced to Hunter at a 2019 political fundraiser by another producer and Democratic deep pocket, Lanette Phillips. Soon thereafter, Morris was giving Hunter copious amounts of money and legal advice. That would include reportedly paying off Hunter’s long-delinquent taxes before criminal charges were filed. It also included paying for Hunter’s lavish lifestyle.

  Morris may be most eager to avoid the label “democratic donor” because these payments could be viewed as an unreported campaign donation. Morris was brought in during Joe Biden’s campaign for president. Then, on February 7, 2020, Morris flagged how the taxes represented a “considerable risk personally and politically.” He seems to have sought to resolve that political liability by paying off the taxes and calling it a “loan.”

  Those “loans” would continue, and Morris insists that it was all standard “loan” stuff. Except he is not a bank. He was repeatedly referring to Hunter as his “client.” 

  It is also important that these millions are treated as loans because, if they are actually gifts, they could create a new tax problem. Hunter has to declare such “gifts.” 

  Few would view Hunter as a good risk for a loan, given his history of stiffing a wide array of businesses and associates. Indeed, he reportedly even faced a complaint over failure to pay for alleged high-end prostitutes. He was even accused of using a credit card connected to his father to pay off an alleged Russian call-girl. Even the art dealer who recently sold Hunter’s art reportedly testified that Hunter never reimbursed him for the costs of the shows.

  That art adds an interesting twist to the mysterious role of Morris. Recently, art dealer Georges Bergès blew away White House claims that Hunter had been barred from knowing the names of purchasers under a comprehensive ethics system. He admitted that Hunter knew the identity of 70 percent of the purchasers. 

  It was not hard. Despite news reports of buyers flocking to buy the art, it turns out it was largely Morris who bought the art.   Notably, however, Morris only reportedly paid Bergès’ 40 percent commission on the $875,000 purchases. It is not clear whether Morris used the sales to wipe out part of the loan debt.

  That would be a clever way to treat the money as a loan, if it were used for that purpose.

  • You simply have Hunter crank out dubious pieces of art and arrange for an ally to throw art shows in New York.

  • You then have media allies write how buyers were “floored” by Hunter’s talent.

  • Finally, you pay the commission on the excessive prices for the art while writing off the value of the art as a type of in-kind payment of the loan.

  While many mocked at the Pablo Picasso-level pricing of Hunter’s art pieces (some works approached half a million dollars), those inflated prices would be useful to count as direct or indirect payments for the loans.

  We still do not know how these purchases or the loans were treated, and whether Morris was acting as a donor, friend, or lawyer. Now, Morris is adding a new role to this pile of identities, reportedly supporting a new movie on Hunter Biden. 

  Call it “Mr. Biden Goes to Washington,” an effective rewrite of Frank Capra’s classic, only the corrupt establishment apparently wins.

  In the movie, a young novice appointed to the U.S. Senate fights the corruption of Washington, where his senior senator has sold access and influence to James Taylor, a wealthy businessman. Taylor scoffs at the notion that the establishment can be challenged. After all, they control the media, and what the public will read and hear. As Taylor assured the senior senator, “I’ll make public opinion out there within five hours! I’ve done it all my life…You leave public opinion to me.”

  Morris is still fighting to shape public opinion, and, in Hollywood, movies make reality.

  Morris “makes public opinion,” and the media can be expected, again, to assist in those efforts.

  Many in Washington believe that Hunter’s stunts in holding a press conference defying his subpoena, and later crashing his own contempt hearing, were literally made-for-television moments. These scenes were captured on film and will no doubt be featured in the new film on his heroic struggle.

  The question is the audience for the film. Clearly, in the Beltway, audiences are likely to be sobbing with emotion as Hunter fights against inquiries into influence peddling. They will cheer at Joe Biden’s moment channeling John Wayne, when he declared, “No one f**ks with a Biden.”

  However, most audience members would not have felt the same thrill if, at the end of the original movie, the corrupt Sen. Joseph Paine and the wealthy Taylor had emerged as the victors, fighting off the do-gooders and “boy rangers” supporting Jimmy Stewart’s main character.

  The question is also who would play Morris — or more accurately, how many would have to play this “man with many faces.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 15:10

• Where WEF 'Experts' See False Information Posing The Biggest Threat
  Where WEF ‘Experts’ See False Information Posing The Biggest Threat

  In an unprecedented year for elections, false information is one of the major threats that people around the world will face according to experts surveyed for the World Economic Forum’s 2024 Global Risk Report.

  In the chart below, Statista’s Anna Fleck shows the varying degrees to which misinformation and disinformation are rated to be problems for a selection of analyzed countries in the next two years, based on a ranking of 34 economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological risks.

  Disinformation is defined as situations where the author has purposefully sought to mislead their audience.

  Misinformation describes information which is spread out of genuine belief, but can be just as harmful – like is sometimes the case with conspiracy theories.

  

  This data is based on 1,490 expert opinions across academia, business, government, the international community and civil society, with a survey collected Sep. 4 – Oct. 9, 2023.

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  India is the country where the risk of disinformation and misinformation was ranked highest. Out of all risks, misinformation and disinformation was most frequently selected as the number one risk for the country by the experts, coming before infectious diseases, illicit economic activity, inequality (wealth, income) and labor shortages. The South Asian nation’s next general election is expected to be held between April and May 2024 in a country of some 1.4 billion people.

  Fake news had allegedly been rife in India’s 2019 election, with Vice reporting how parties had “weaponized the platforms [of Whatsapp and Facebook] to spread incendiary messages to supporters, heightening fears that online anger could spill over into real-world violence.” More recently, misinformation also became an issue during the Covid-19 pandemic in India, again via WhatsApp.

  Other countries facing a high risk of the impacts of misinformation and disinformation are El Salvador, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Romania, Ireland, Czechia, the United States, Sierra Leone, France and Finland, all with the threat considered to be one of the 4th-6th most dangerous risks facing the country out of 34 in the coming two years.

  In the United Kingdom, misinformation/disinformation is in rank 11 of the perceived threats.

  WEF analysts conclude:

  “The presence of misinformation and disinformation in these electoral processes could seriously destabilize the real and perceived legitimacy of newly elected governments, risking political unrest, violence and terrorism, and a longer-term erosion of democratic processes.”

  Be afraid America, very afraid… and tune in to your friendly local government propaganda provider to know how (and what) to feel about it

   

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 14:35

• Get Woke, Go Broke: Mass Layoffs At Sports Illustrated After Publisher Loses License
  Get Woke, Go Broke: Mass Layoffs At Sports Illustrated After Publisher Loses License

  Sports Illustrated rights holder Arena Group has had its license to publish the magazine revoked by Authentic Brands Group after inability to make $3.75 million quarterly payment at the end of 2023.  In other words, the publisher likely isn’t bringing in enough profit to maintain the brand.  Under contract, Arena Group is required to pay another $45 million to ABG because of the loss of the license.  As a result, Sports Illustrated has been forced to layoff their entire staff while discussions are underway to salvage the arrangement. 

  In a statement, Sports Illustrated Union and The NewsGuild of New York vowed to “fight for every one of our colleagues.”   But how could this have happened?  One of the oldest and best known names in sports commentary is now essentially defunct.

  The signs were all there.

  The shutdown takes place only thee years after the company committed to major layoffs in 2020 back when they were run by Maven, shaving $27 million from their costs compared to 2018.  Apparently, this wasn’t enough and ownership was acquired by Arena Group.  In November of 2023, SI was caught using fake journalists and AI generated content, further indicating that they were on the verge of going broke. 

  The true cause will be conveniently ignored by the corporate media, but the woes of Sports Illustrated began directly after they tied the publication to woke messaging.  For example, the magazine began parading plus-sized (fat positivity) models in their sponsored runway shows and swimsuit additions in 2017.  For a publication that is supposed to be focused on athletic excellence, the idea of fat positivity is an obvious anathema for their core readership.  People who are incapable of athleticism in most arenas should not be used as representatives of the sporting world (or the pinnacle of beauty, for that matter).  

  

  The company then latched onto the feminist “equal pay” movement for women’s sports, arguing that female athletes and clubs should be offered pay equal to male sports.  The movement completely ignored the key factors of audience interest; male athletes tend to make more money because far more people are interested in watching men’s sports. 

  Sports Illustrated also began featuring transgender women (men dressed as women) in their women’s swimsuit editions, perpetuating the gender fluid ideology.  This led to a conservative boycott of the magazine in 2023, and now, here they are, out of business.

  

  The carnage falling upon woke companies in the past couple years has been relentless.  Numerous Big Tech and entertainment platforms are suffering a string of layoffs and budget cuts and no one in the mainstream wants to acknowledge that the wokification of the corporate world is a primary contributor to their downfall. 

  The bottom line? The vast majority of American consumers do not want woke content and will not pay for it.  Furthermore, the people that do want this kind of content are usually activists with no money to spend. 

  Despite this reality, companies continue to embrace far-left ideology and promote it through their products and marketing to their own detriment.  This explains why the political left has been so hostile to free markets and the notion of catering to consumers – In a free market people can always walk away from woke businesses.  It doesn’t matter how much they saturate media with propaganda, all people have to do is not open their wallets.    

  In a socialist or ESG-based world, such companies would be fully supported by governments and tax dollars.  In other words, you would be forced to pay for the transgender swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated, whether you want to or not.  For now, thankfully, “Get Woke, Go Broke” is still a rule that widely applies.  

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 13:25

• "F**k These Cops, It's A Lesson To Him": NYC Woman Makes Self-Incriminating Statements After Car-Ramming Attack Caught On Video
  “F**k These Cops, It’s A Lesson To Him”: NYC Woman Makes Self-Incriminating Statements After Car-Ramming Attack Caught On Video

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  Sahara Dula, 24, is a New England College criminal justice graduate who wants to specialize in “crisis communication.”

  If so, she has a bit to learn after intentionally hitting a police officer with her Lexus and then declaring “F— these cops, it’s a lesson to him.”

  

  A video captures Dula driving the wrong way on Park Avenue near East 71st Street around 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday when an officer approaches the vehicle to turn it around.

  She then floored the black Lexus and hit the officer.

  A BLM activist involved in NYC pro-Palestine protests has been arrested for ramming a car into an NYPD officer on Jan. 17. Sahara Dula was arrested on suspicion of assault with serious physical injury, vehicular assault, reckless endangerment and more. pic.twitter.com/PT3fKXuERd

  — Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) January 19, 2024

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

  She was later found to be high on marijuana.

  She told investigators:

  “I told the cop I wanted to go straight, and he wouldn’t move, so I hit him. I did it on purpose. F— these cops! He wouldn’t move!”

  The wounded officer suffered a broken leg and extensive bruising. However, Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Lucy Shephard did not charge Dula with attempted murder. Instead, she will face an array of charges for first-degree attempted assault, attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer, second-degree assault, second-degree reckless endangerment and operating a vehicle while ability impaired by drugs and reckless driving.

  Dula has a record of past arrests including a criminal mischief arrest in March 2022 after destroying property.

  The charges were dropped. 

  She was also arrested at least twice in New Hampshire, including an arrest in 2020 for failing to stop at an intersection in the town of Henniker and striking another vehicle.

  She then fled the scene. She was also arrested for simple assault after an incident at Concord Hospital.

  There are reports that Dula has been under treatment for mental illness, including possible bipolar illness.

  It is difficult for courts to balance such elements.

  This is a person who has gone to school and reportedly supports her mother and family while struggling with mental illness.

  On the other hand, she just admitted to intentionally striking down an officer.

  It is not clear if the defense will argue the mental illness as a defense and argue that she was experiencing an uncontrolled episode due to medication problems. Yet, how is a judge to handle such a claim? Dula is not institutionalized due to a view that she is able to function in society. The defense could argue that the episode showed that she requires institutionalization and treatment, but that she was not in control of her actions.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 13:00

• Davos, Trust, & The End Of "Comfortable Wolves"
  Davos, Trust, & The End Of “Comfortable Wolves”

  Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

  Last fall I poked the slumbering bear of the #ungovernble set by taking extreme umbrage with calling people “Sheeple.” For the record I absolutely detest that word.

  Instead I shot back with a very reflexive, “Bullshit!” There are very few things that trigger me more than consigning 90% of humanity to that of herbivores orders of magnitude more stupid than my goats.

  In that frustration I coined the phrase, “comfortable wolves.” Sometimes you just have what alcoholics call “a moment of clarity.”

  Bullshit. Most people are not sheep, they are just comfortable wolves. Take enough comfort away and you’ll see the wolf come out fast.

  — Tom Luongo (Head Sneetch) (@TFL1728) September 8, 2023

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

  In most situations, public conversations reveal the truth of who we are. Twitter is a one of the best mirrors of our true personality and state of mind than anything else devised yet, in my opinion. There is such a low barrier to contracting ‘foot-in-mouth disease’ that we all pass it around like 1st graders while generally acting like them in public.

  This exchange revealed one person’s nihilism and condescension as defense mechanism while it revealed my stubbornness in believing we’re not all just quadriplegics in canoes headed for Niagara Falls.

  This was an idea that quickly set my little corner of Twitter on fire, with two camps emerging quickly. You never know what is going to capture people’s imagination when you do this stuff for a living. But it seemed at the time that people were waiting for someone to stand up to the bullies doomporning it up all over social media and give them a little credit.

  I still don’t think this idea is that far out there. Honestly, the more I think about it the more it should inspire people to action. You’re not a bad person, stupid or apathetic, you’re comfortable. You know it. I know it. I know what I am.

  I’ve never agreed with Janis Joplin that “freedom is just another word for ‘nothing left to lose,’” but I empathize with the sentiment.

  But at the heart of my observation is; who will you really become when you have nothing left to lose. Or better yet, where’s your loss threshold before the real you bares your canines?

  

  Because that’s literally all I was saying. We all have a limit. And the idea that because your limit isn’t as low as mine or some rando on the intarwebz makes you a sheeple is exactly the type of condescending and unearned sense of entitlement that drives the very ghouls that are convening at Davos this week to force us to rebuild our trust in them.

  We’re now into 2024. 

  Davos is admitting that they finally have a real threat to their Great Reset agenda. They admitted it. And most people haven’t even begun to reach their limit yet. The ‘comfortable wolves’ metaphor is even more relevant today than ever before.

  This is part of the reason why I think we’re now feeling the Great Acceleration. The operational tempo has risen sharply because time is running out on Davos before more wolves get the idea that these psychopathic Alpha wannabes aren’t all that powerful.

  We only think they are.

  Klaus Schwab and his pack believe themselves to be the Alpha wolves of the planet. They have zero restraints on their behavior and Schwab himself has no one to tell him, “No, this is a bad idea.”

  Adam Savage gets it. This short bit of self-reflection is the key to understanding the insanity of Davos:

  Schwab’s just the figurehead, the face of evil, not the evil itself. The people behind Schwab have curated at least two generations (likely a lot more) of psychopaths to run their “system” that they are trying to save this week.

  It doesn’t matter if it’s newly resurrected David Cameron telling the delegation at the breakfast for Ukraine, “I have already told my American colleagues: you spent 10% of the defense budget, which made it possible to destroy 50% of Russian weapons without a single American life lost. This is simply an excellent result,” or Ursula Von der Leyen saying that the way to rebuild trust is to simply ban ideas that disagree with theirs.

  Their responses always reveal equal parts bloodthirst and disdain. They forget the basic lessons of wolf culture, of course. When the Alpha is too abusive to the pack, the Omega is driven out to find a new pack to found.

  Davos‘ desire for global control at its core, like those who believe 90% of humans are sheep, rejects the idea we are anything like wolves. There is no new pack to form. So, just stand in the bread lines, get your citizenship jabs, keep your head down.

  That is the greatest of their psy-ops, convincing us we are something we aren’t.

  And yet, who is man’s best friend? Who did we bond more strongly with than any other species on the planet? The one that shares our social structure. Dogs aren’t our slaves, they are our partners.

  Without dogs there is no Klaus Schwab. There is no Germany or Great Migration into North America.

  This article from Zerohedge about modern cities in the US becoming “Food Deserts” resurrected this idea because no one is willing to keep a business open in a place where looting is encouraged.

  Is this why there was a rise in Dollar General stores through out US.

  — FrankieJ🎸musician/guitarist/song creator~ (@FHenicke) January 19, 2024

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

  The world Davos made reversed the impetus for cities. Now people living in cities have to travel to the ‘burbs among the urban sprawl to forage for food that used to be delivered to them. Now the cost of the last mile of food delivery is higher than traveling to the food.

  It reminded me of conversations I had with a friend over Christmas, one who disagreed with my wolf metaphor. He and his family were here on vacation from California. And he kept repeating the line, “I live in a place where there are tons of people and no food,” and his goal was to get to a place were there was more food than people.

  But he hasn’t made the switch because he is, for the first time in a long time, comfortable. Who am I to begrudge him that? Who am I to quietly judge him a sheep?

  He and his family are doing the cost/benefit analysis of uprooting his life for what still feels like, to him, a low probability event and making the rational choice. It’s completely fair.

  Last year’s Davos saw brief moments of opposition to Schwab’s lunacy and nihilism. This year multiple people are walking into the hallow halls of globalism and letting them have it with both barrels. In the past it used to just be Putin. Now it’s a think tank from K Street in DC and the leader of Argentina.

  Texas is now arresting illegals coming across the border, defying Joah Bii-Den! and forcing a confrontation over the definition of sovereignty.

  From the beginning of this Great Reset agenda, when they started rolling out the slogans and the advertising for it, I said they were courting chaos to create fear. They used the fear over COVID-19 to cow the beta wolves for another few years.

  But chaos, by its very nature, isn’t controllable. And Schwab’s “system” is control personified.

  So, now, after continually amping up the chaos, they are getting what you would expect from wolves, not sheep… a search for the exit by some to start new packs, open challenges to the pack order by some of the lieutenants, like Viktor Orban in Hungary, and intractability from those whose fear centers are on overload.

  This is why “sheeple” pisses me off more than the WEF does. Because it betrays the snake in our emotional garden. It is born from the same impulse that rules Schwab, entitlement. And it creates the same dynamic that leads to the same conclusion.

  In response to those triggered by me having the temerity to have a little faith in people by calling them “Comfortable Wolves” here’s my sermon from my Digital Mount for today:

  The whole “People are sheep” idea is itself a psy-op to keep leaders from emerging from the dissident class (both left and right).

  If you believe the task is too big, will you do it? Will you do the cost/benefit analysis and say, “Fuck it, who wants pie?”

  Divide and conquer takes many forms. This idea is one of them.

  Bleeding off the energy of those who see the corruption earliest extends the lifespan of the tyrannical system. The very personality types who should emerge as leaders against the psychotic Alphas are the ones handed a platform like Twitter to vent their nihilism and hatred of humanity.

  It’s not just the shitlibs who are gaslit NPCs folks.

  So, stop being gaslit by morons, stop tuning out, chuckling in ‘collapsitarian,’ and work a little harder. There are people out there who aren’t leaders, but also aren’t doormats either. They are, like you, without hope.

  They are looking for someone to provide the direction, the activation energy, to see some hope. Calling them sheep is to say they are irredeemable.

  We’ve all been abused by these psychotic Alphas. Having empathy, not derision, for that abuse is the first step towards making things better. But, if this makes me naive or a hopeless romantic in your eyes, I would tell you maybe that mirror you’re holding up to me should be turned around.

  Ask yourself where this impulse to degrade potential allies really comes from. Because that whole idea of people loving their misery because it’s comfortable takes many, many forms.

  All of them are toxic. All of them.

  So, yes, I’m not just standing up for my idea of people being ‘Comfortable wolves,” I’m doubling down. This is your call to action. Embrace it or remain in the service of those you profess to hate.

  HTTPS://TWITTER.COM/TFL1728/STATUS/1701566783344304280

  *  *  *

  Join my Patreon if you want a pack that doesn’t hate you

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 12:50

• Will Trump-Ramaswamy Alliance Have An Impact In New Hampshire?
  Will Trump-Ramaswamy Alliance Have An Impact In New Hampshire?

  After it became clear that Donald Trump was going to win the Iowa caucuses, Vivek Ramaswamy – who marked a distant fourth-place finish in the Hawkeye state, announced that he was dropping out and endorsing the former president.

  

  The next day, Jan. 16, Ramaswamy joined Trump at a rally in New Hampshire, where he sang Trump’s praises, while Trump returned the compliments.

  “He has a big, beautiful, bright future ahead,” Trump said of the 38-year-old “anti-woke” investor.

  Now, with New Hampshire’s Jan. 23 primary fast approaching, people are wondering whether Ramaswamy’s support will make a dent in a state which is relatively friendly to Trump’s most serious threat (for various values of ‘threat’), former UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, the Epoch Times reports.

  Republican political consultant James Hartman, who supports Haley but isn’t working on her campaign, told the Epoch Times that Ramaswamy’s backing could help Trump, but added: “The thing with endorsements, however, is they don’t usually translate in a one-to-one ratio when you’re changing venues because there are so many other variables.”

  “Mr. Ramaswamy has positioned himself as Trump 2.0 from the get-go. So, certainly, we would expect his folks to move in that direction. Nonetheless, don’t underestimate the ability of voters to think for themselves,” Hartman continued.

  Mr. Hartman pointed out that Iowa hasn’t predicted non-incumbent nominees very often. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) won it in 2016. It went to then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) in 2012. In 2008, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee beat former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), and other contenders in the Hawkeye State. The last non-incumbent to take Iowa was George W. Bush, whose name is emblematic of the older Republican leadership from which many younger GOPers are seeking to separate themselves.

  But President Trump is no ordinary non-incumbent—and few liken his populist message to that of the younger Bush. -The Epoch Times

  Vanderbilt University economics professor Mathias Polborn, who studied the New Hampshire primary, agrees – but went further.

  “It’s highly likely that, for many of Mr. Ramaswamy’s supporters, Mr. Trump is the second choice, so he is the most likely to benefit,” he told the Times. “The same is true for Mr. DeSantis if he were to drop out. Those media outlets that are talking about the ‘non-Trump vote’ and add the vote shares for all the other candidates are living in a fantasy world.”

  Maybe not?

  Wayne Steger, a DePaul University professor, has been a vocal skeptic of Ramaswamy’s candidacy – predicting in June of last year that there will be a “near-zero chance that Vivek Ramaswamy gets traction.”

  “His departure from the race won’t make much of a difference.” He elaborated, suggesting that most of Ramaswamy’s support would naturally align with Trump. “Most of these votes are going to Trump, which they would anyway, even if he remained in the race. He might have done okay in New Hampshire, but I doubt it.”

  “I would anticipate Haley doing better in New Hampshire, [Florida Gov. Ron] DeSantis worse, and Trump about the same,” Steger predicted – roughly in line with the latest polling reported by RealClearPolitics – which showed that from Jan. 4 through Jan. 17, Trump, with 46.3% of the vote, was towering over Haley at 33.5%, and DeSantis at 6% in New Hampshire.

  Trump Troubles

  

  While it looks more and more likely that Trump will secure the GOP nomination, Polborn laid out an improbable, but not impossible, scenario which could lead other candidates to matter more in the end.

  “If Trump eventually has to drop out; say, he is offered a deal by the DOJ [Department of Justice] that gets him out of all legal troubles, in exchange for dropping out of the race—not that likely, but not an impossible scenario either—then it conceivably matters who was the ‘last non-Trump candidate standing’ in order to make a claim on the nomination,” he said, adding “The Republican primaries are simply not a good institution to deal with this scenario.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 01/21/2024 – 12:15

Digest powered by RSS Digest