Nov 02

Today’s News 2nd November 2022

  • Lockdowns: The Great Gaslighting
    Lockdowns: The Great Gaslighting

    Authored by Michael Senger via ‘The New Normal’ substack,

    More than two years since the lockdowns of 2020, the political mainstream, particularly on the left, is just beginning to realize that the response to Covid was an unprecedented catastrophe.

    But that realization hasn’t taken the form of a mea culpa. Far from it. On the contrary, in order to see that reality is starting to dawn on the mainstream left, one must read between the lines of how their narrative on the response to Covid has evolved over the past two years.

    The narrative now goes something like this: Lockdowns never really happened, because governments never actually locked people in their homes; but if there were lockdowns, then they saved millions of lives and would have saved even more if only they’d been stricter; but if there were any collateral damage, then that damage was an inevitable consequence of the fear from the virus independent of the lockdowns; and even when things were shut down, the rules weren’t very strict; but even when the rules were strict, we didn’t really support them.

    Put simply, the prevailing narrative of the mainstream left is that any upside from the response to Covid is attributable to the state-ordered closures and mandates that they supported, while any downside was an inevitable consequence of the virus independent of any state-ordered closures and mandates which never happened and which anyway they never supported. Got it? Good.

    This perplexing narrative was perfectly encapsulated in a recent viral tweet by a history professor who griped about the difficulty of convincing his students that government mandates had nothing to do with the fact that they couldn’t leave their homes in 2020.

    Similarly, in an interview with Bill Maher, celebrity scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson argued that we can’t assess the effects of lockdowns and mandates because the counterexamples, like Sweden, are too different to be applicable. (Starting at 2:15).

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

    Likewise, astonishingly, in a debate on Monday, Charlie Crist, Democratic candidate for governor of Florida, accused Ron DeSantis of being “the only governor in the history of Florida that’s ever shut down our schools.” “You’re the only governor in the history of Florida that shut down our businesses,” Crist went on, “I never did that as governor. You’re the one who’s the shutdown guy.”

    In fact, as DeSantis pointed out, Crist had publicly sued DeSantis to keep kids out of school in 2020, and he wrote DeSantis a letter in July 2020 saying the entire state should still be in lockdown.

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

    Arguments like these are as facile as they are transparent. Does anyone honestly think these people would be arguing that lockdowns didn’t happen, or that it’s impossible to measure their effects, if the policy had been a success?

    As is extraordinarily well-documented by data, video evidence, news reports, government orders, testimonial evidence, and living memory, the strict lockdowns of spring 2020 were all too real. And few people publicly opposed them.

    As former UN Assistant Secretary-General Ramesh Thakur has documented in meticulous detail, the harms that lockdowns would cause were all well-known and reported when they were first adopted as policy in early 2020. These included accurate estimates of deaths due to delayed medical operations, a mental health crisis, drug overdoses, an economic recession, global poverty and hunger. In March 2020, the Dutch government commissioned a cost-benefit analysis concluding that the health damage from lockdowns—let alone the economic damage—would be six times greater than the benefit.

    Yet regardless, for reasons we’re still only beginning to understand, key officials, media entities, billionaires and international organizations advocated the broad imposition of these unprecedented, devastating policies from the earliest possible date. The resulting scenes were horrific and dystopian.

    People lined up outdoors in freezing temperatures to get food.

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

    In many cities, still-sick patients were tossed out of hospital beds and sent back to nursing homes.

    Playgrounds were taped up.

    Parks and beaches were closed, and some mainstream commentators argued that those closures should be even stricter.

    Many who flouted these closures were charged or arrested.

    Stores, and sometimes sections of stores, that were deemed “non-essential” were cordoned off.

    School closures caused an unprecedented learning setback, especially for the poorest students. But even when schools were open, kids had to sit for hours in masks, separated by plexiglass barriers.

    Many kids were forced to eat lunch outside in silence.

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

    Countless small businesses were forced to close, and more than half of those closures became permanent.

    Cars lined up for miles at food banks.

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

    The Financial Times reported that three million in the United Kingdom went hungry due to lockdown.

    The situation was far worse in the developing world.

    If these horror stories aren’t enough, the raw data speaks for itself.

    The mainstream left’s newfound reluctance to refer to these policies as “lockdown” is especially curious, because they showed no such reluctance at the time they were actually implementing lockdowns in 2020.

    By pretending that all of these horrors were attributable to public panic, apologists for the response to Covid are attempting to shift blame away from the political machines that imposed lockdowns and mandates onto individuals and their families. This is, of course, despicable and bunk. People did not voluntarily go hungry, or stand in the freezing cold to get food, or remove themselves from hospitals while they were still sick, or bankrupt their own businesses, or force their own kids to sit outside in the cold, or march hundreds of miles in exodus after losing their jobs in factories.

    The collective denial of these horrors, and the refusal of media, financial, and political elites to report on them, amounts to nothing less than the greatest act of gaslighting that we’ve seen in modern times.

    Further, the argument that all of these terrible outcomes could be attributed to public panic rather than state-imposed mandates would be far more convincing if governments hadn’t taken unprecedented actions to deliberately panic the public.

    A report later revealed that military leaders had seen Covid as a unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on the public, “shaping” and “exploiting” information to bolster support for government mandates. Dissenting scientists were silenced. Government psyops teams deployed fear campaigns on their own people in a scorched-earth campaign to drive consent for lockdowns.

    Moreover, as a study by Cardiff University demonstrated, the primary factor by which citizens judged the threat of COVID-19 was their own government’s decision to employ lockdown measures. “We found that people judge the severity of the COVID-19 threat based on the fact the government imposed a lockdown—in other words, they thought, ‘it must be bad if government’s taking such drastic measures.’ We also found that the more they judged the risk in this way, the more they supported lockdown.” The policies thus created a feedback loop in which the lockdowns and mandates themselves sowed the fear that made citizens believe their risk of dying from COVID-19 was hundreds of times greater than it really was, in turn causing them to support more lockdowns and mandates.

    Those who publicly spoke against lockdowns and mandates were ostracized and vilified—denounced by mainstream outlets like the New York Times, CNN, and health officials as “neo-Nazis” and “white nationalists.” Further, among those who really believed the mainstream Covid narrative—or merely pretended to—all the authoritarian methods that had supposedly contributed to China’s “success” against Covid, including censoring, canceling, and firing those who disagreed, were on the table.

    Though many now claim to have opposed these measures, the truth is that publicly opposing lockdowns when they were at their apex in spring 2020 was lonely, frightening, thankless, and hard. Few did.

    The gaslighting is by no means limited to the political left. On the political right, which now generally acknowledges that Covid mandates were a mistake, the revisionism is subtler, and tends to take the form of elites casting themselves—falsely—as having been anti-lockdown voices in early 2020, when the record is quite clear that they were vocal advocates of lockdowns and mandates.

    Fox News host Tucker Carlson now rightly acts as a champion of the anti-mandate cause, but in fact Carlson was one of the most influential individuals who talked Donald Trump into signing onto lockdowns in early 2020. The UK’s short-lived Prime Minister Liz Truss stated that she’d “always” been against lockdowns, but she publicly supported both lockdowns and vaccine passes. Likewise, Canada’s conservative leader Pierre Poilievre now casts himself as an anti-mandate leader, but he supported both lockdowns and vaccine mandates as they were happening.

    As Ben Irvine, author of The Truth About the Wuhan Lockdown, has tirelessly documented, right-wing publications including the UK’s Daily Telegraph now routinely act as opponents of lockdowns and mandates, while staying silent as to their own vocal support for strict lockdowns in spring 2020. And the same goes for countless other commentators and influencers on the political right as well.

    To those who know their history, this wholesale gaslighting by elites on both the left and the right, while galling, isn’t terribly surprising. Most elites obtain power by doing whatever is in their own perceived best interest at any given time. They didn’t support lockdowns for any moral or even utilitarian reason. Rather, in spring 2020, elites calculated supporting lockdowns to be in their own best interest. Two years later, many now calculate it to be in their best interest to pretend they were the ones who always opposed lockdowns—while sidelining those who actually did.

    This revisionism is all the more disappointing because a small handful of politicians including Ron DeSantis, Imran Khan, and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith have proven that admitting error in implementing lockdowns and mandates isn’t that hard, and can even be politically profitable.

    The same should go for the political left. Thus far, we have yet to see anything remotely resembling regret from any leader on the left, but this is what a decent, Truman-era Democrat might say in these circumstances:

    “The lockdowns of 2020 were a terrible mistake. While they were outside my field, it was my duty to properly vet the credibility of the advice that was coming from health officials and to end the mandates as soon as it was clear they weren’t working. In that role, I failed, and you all have my humblest apologies. Given the unprecedented harm that’s been done by these mandates, I support a full investigation into how this advice came about, in part to ensure there hasn’t been any untoward communist influence on these policies.”

    Those who spoke against lockdowns and mandates in early 2020 showed that they were willing to stand up for the freedoms and Enlightenment principles for which our forebears fought so tirelessly, even when doing so was lonely, thankless, and hard. For that reason, anyone who did so has reason to feel extremely proud, and the future would be brighter if they were in positions of leadership. That fact is now becoming increasingly clear—unfortunately, even to those who did the opposite. One more reason to keep all the receipts.

    *  *  *

    Michael P Senger is an attorney and author of Snake Oil: How Xi Jinping Shut Down the World. Want to support my work? Get the book. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/02/2022 – 00:05

  • General Dynamics Reveals Next-Generation Army Tank, Could Replace M1 Abrams
    General Dynamics Reveals Next-Generation Army Tank, Could Replace M1 Abrams

    America’s main battle tank, designed by Chrysler Defense (now General Dynamics Land Systems), has been in service for over forty years. The M1 Abrams is one of the world’s most fearsome tanks, though it’s becoming outdated and vulnerable on the modern battlefield. 

    Earlier this month, General Dynamics’ unveiled “AbramsX,” the next generation of main battle tanks that could one day replace the M1 Abrams, at the United States Army annual conference in Washington, D.C.

    A demonstrator version of the AbramsX was on the show floor. The most notable upgrades for the new tank are weight reduction, fuel efficiency, artificial intelligence systems, and reduced crew size. 

    At 73.6 tons today, the M1 Abrams is a behemoth. Meanwhile, General Dynamics was able to shave off more than ten tons — with the new tank coming in around 60 tons, Timothy Reese, director of Business Development for General Dynamics Land Systems, told Sandboxx. 

    AbramsX features an auto-loader for the main gun, eliminating the need for a human tank loader, thus reducing crew size from four to three. Reese said the new tank’s land speed would stay the same, but lighter displacement would make it more maneuverable. 

    Another radical new design is the AbramsX’s power plant. It’s a diesel hybrid-electric system, compared with the M1 Abrams’ gas-guzzling turbine engine dating from the 1970s. The new power plant offers a 50% fuel savings, which increases mission time. 

    It’s too early to say what the future of the Army’s battle tank will be, considering new versions of the M1 Abrams are slated for the battlefield in the next several years. 

    General Dynamics also released a video of the AbramsX driving around a parking lot. 

    If the Army wants to achieve a 50% reduction in greenhouse pollution by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, then AbramsX could be America’s next main battle tank. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 23:45

  • Supreme Court Asked To Restore Felon Voting Rights In Mississippi
    Supreme Court Asked To Restore Felon Voting Rights In Mississippi

    Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    A left-wing civil rights group is asking the Supreme Court to review the felon disfranchisement provision of the Mississippi Constitution that permanently prevents certain felons from voting, claiming the law is rooted in racial animus.

    The U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington on Oct. 3, 2022. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    The appeal is not expected to affect the approaching Nov. 8 elections.

    The petition (pdf) in the case, Harness v. Watson, is expected to be docketed by the Supreme Court in the coming days. The respondent, Michael Watson, is Mississippi’s Republican secretary of state.

    The petitioners, Roy Harness and Kamal Karriem, are black Mississippi residents. Harness was convicted of forgery in 1986. Karriem, a former Columbus city council member, was convicted of embezzlement in 2005. Both have completed their sentences.

    According to a summary provided by the Mississippi Center for Justice, which is representing the men, Section 241 of the Constitution permanently blocks anyone from voting who was convicted of certain crimes that the original framers of the document believed were committed mostly by black people.

    The state constitution bars those convicted of murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretenses, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, or bigamy, from voting.

    “It was one of several voting provisions in the 1890 Constitution designed to take the vote away from Black citizens who had obtained it during the Reconstruction period after the abolition of slavery and the end of the Civil War,” the summary states. “The other discriminatory provisions, including the poll tax and the so-called understanding clause, were eliminated in the 1960s in response to federal court orders and the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.”

    Rob McDuff is the attorney for the plaintiffs and the director of the Impact Litigation Project at the Mississippi Center for Justice.

    “At a time when our state and nation are struggling with the vestiges of a history of racism, it is important that the United States Supreme Court step in to address this remaining vestige of the malicious 1890 plan to prevent an entire race of people from voting in Mississippi,” McDuff said.

    “Although the Supreme Court has become more conservative in recent years, we hope it will see that the continued implementation of this racist provision is an affront to the promise of the Equal Protection of the Law contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

    A federal district court upheld the ban, concluding it was bound by the 1998 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in Cotton v. Fordice, which held that the “discriminatory taint associated with the original version” had been erased when burglary was removed from Section 241 in 1950 and rape and murder were added as disenfranchising crimes in 1968.

    Because a majority of voters approved these racially neutral amendments to the provision in 1950 and 1968 and discriminatory animus was not a factor at those times, Section 241 was “redeem[ed] … from its unconstitutional provenance.”

    The district court ruling was affirmed by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. In August all 17 judges on the 5th Circuit reviewed the ruling and voted 10–7 to uphold the ban.

    The 10-member majority acknowledged (pdf) the state’s 1890 constitutional convention was “steeped in racism,” that the “state was motivated by a desire to discriminate against blacks,” and that Section 241 was a “device that the convention exploited to deny the franchise to blacks.”

    But any discriminatory intent was “cured” by the later constitutional amendments, the majority stated.

    The Epoch Times reached out to Watson for comment but his office did not immediately respond.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 23:25

  • Who Americans Spend Their Time With…
    Who Americans Spend Their Time With…

    Throughout history, humans have relied on cooperation and social relationships to thrive. Of course, who we spend time with evolves throughout our lifetime.

    Using insights from the American Time Use Survey and Our World in Data, Visual Capitalist’s Avery Koop and Nick Routley look at who Americans spend the most time with at various ages of their life.

    Adolescence to Adulthood

    In the average American’s teenage years, they spend most of their time alone and with their family. This makes sense, as the majority of people under 18 still live in a home with their nuclear family unit, meaning parents and siblings. Not surprisingly, adolescence is also when time spent with friends reaches its peak.

    Jumping forward to a person’s early adulthood, 25-year-olds spend an average of 275 minutes per day alone, and 199 minutes with coworkers. This aligns with people in their twenties beginning to enter the workforce.

    By age 35, people are still spending the most time with themselves, at 263 minutes per day. However, time spent combined with children and partners, the runner-ups, adds up to 450 minutes or around 7.5 hours a day.

     

    Although people are spending more time with kids and partners as they grow older, this trend may shift, as women are having fewer children. More women today are obtaining an education and are entering the workforce, causing them to delay or entirely put off having children.

     

    Middle to Old Age

    Upon turning 45, the average person spends 309 minutes a day alone, and in second place, 199 minutes with children. Time with coworkers remains relatively steady throughout someone’s forties, which coincides with the middle of career for most people in the workforce.

    By age 55, time spent alone still takes top spot, but time spent with a partner goes up to 184 minutes, and time with coworkers also moves up, pushing out time spent with children.

     

    Typically, time spent with children during the mid-fifties tends to see a sharp decline as children enter adulthood and begin to move out or spend more time out of the house.

     

    Today, more children are staying at home longer or even moving back home. 52% of adult children in the U.S. today are living with their parents.

    As people get closer to old age, around 65-years-old, they spend increasingly less time with coworkers as they begin to retire, and much more time alone or with a spouse. Then, from age 65-75, people consistently spend the most time alone, then with a partner and family.

    Alone and Lonely?

    One of the most significant trends on the chart is increased time spent alone.

    By the time someone reaches 80, their daily minutes alone goes up to 477. This can be a problematic reality. As the population continues to age in many countries around the world, more elderly people are left without resources or social connection.

    Additionally, while one quarter of elderly Americans live alone, the trend of solo living is going up across nearly every age group, and this trend applies to a number of mature economies around the world.

    A natural conclusion would be that increasing alone time has negative impacts on people, however, being alone does not necessarily equate to loneliness. Our World in Data found that there was no direct correlation between living alone and reported feelings of loneliness.

    One final consideration is the role technology plays in our social interactions. Thanks to smartphones and social platforms, time alone doesn’t necessarily equal isolation.

    It is not just the amount of time spent with others, but the quality and expectations, that reduce loneliness.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 23:05

  • A Surprising Threat To The US Power Grid Could Plunge The Country Into Darkness
    A Surprising Threat To The US Power Grid Could Plunge The Country Into Darkness

    Authored by John Mac Ghlionn via The Epoch Times,

    The importance of a strong power grid cannot be emphasized enough. Often, when a grid fails, the results are terrifying. Of all the major power grids in the world, the United States’ is one of the more vulnerable to attack.

    State-sponsored hackers from the likes of Iran, Russia, and, unsurprisingly, China pose a real threat to the United States’ electrical transmission lines. However, there’s another (far less obvious) threat to the grid: electric vehicles (EVs).

    Yes, you read that right.

    The Biden administration is desperate to consign the internal combustion engine to the dustbin of history. In this radical shift to embrace a new, zero-emission world, Americans are being told to embrace EVs. Such an embrace, however, requires a stellar power grid, the very thing the United States lacks.

    Just to be clear, the U.S. power grid (or electric grid) involves a huge network of transmission lines, power plants, and distribution centers. The United States has three major grids: the Eastern Grid, the Western Grid, and the ERCOT Grid, otherwise known as the Texas Grid. Of the three, the Eastern Grid is the largest.

    Although the three grids can operate independently, they’re also connected. A failed grid means no power for tens of millions of citizens and prolonged periods of darkness. Imagine a power grid failure in the likes of Los Angeles or New York. The two cities are already riddled with crime; grid failures would make things many times worse.

    Attacks Since 2016

    In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security announced that Russian hackers had hijacked the control rooms of various electric utilities. This allowed the hackers to disrupt power flows and cause blackouts.

    Rather alarmingly, the DHS conceded that the attacks had been occurring since 2016, the same year the Russians started attacking Ukraine’s grid. Although the Russians have strenuously denied the attack, such denials appear to conflict with reality.

    As tensions between Russia and the United States escalate, and tensions between China, another hacker-friendly country, intensify, expect more disruptions to the grid.

    A photo illustration shows a background of electric power infrastructure with an Apple iPhone showing an Emergency Alert notification from CalOES urging the public to conserve energy to protect health and safety as the electricity grid is strained during a heat wave in Los Angeles, Calif., on Sept. 6, 2022. (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)

    However, as mentioned, Americans must concern themselves with more “benign” threats. A recent paper, published in Applied Energy, discussed the threat of electric cars to the grid. Currently, there are 2.5 million electric vehicles in the United States; four in five owners opt to charge their cars overnight. This decision, according to the researchers, is putting a considerable strain on power grids.

    By 2025, the United States will have more than 20 million EVs on its roads. By 2030, according to Bloomberg, more than half of car sales will be electric. The strain is increasing, and power grids are ill-equipped to shoulder the load.

    If Bloomberg’s projection proves to be correct, then, as the researchers note, it will take 5.4 gigawatts of energy storage to charge EVs. To put 5.4 gigawatts into perspective, one nuclear power plant produces 1 gigawatt of energy. The United States currently has 55 power plants. To facilitate the new EV revolution, the United States requires many more. Considering California, the largest state in the country, has moved to ban the sale of gas-powered cars, and other states are considering introducing similar measures, the United States needs to get a move on. Time is very much of the essence.

    What would happen if, say, the power grid was to fail in EV-crazed California? To answer that question, we need only rewind a few months. This past summer, plagued by scorching hot temperatures, the Golden State’s power grid came incredibly close to collapsing.

    It survived, but only just.

    The grid will be tested again. With California’s desire to push the sales of EVs, the next test could prove to be an unmitigated disaster. Energy is a finite resource, a fact that seems to be lost on so many EV enthusiasts.

    A charging port is seen on a Mercedes Benz EQC 400 4Matic electric vehicle at the Canadian International AutoShow in Toronto on Feb. 13, 2019. (Mark Blinch/Reuters)

    In truth, the nation’s power grid is already on its last legs. It has been for years. In a sobering piece for Smithsonian Magazine, Dr. Massoud Amin, a professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) at the University of Minnesota, explained the many ways in which the country’s power grid, “the most complex” one ever assembled, could fail. The grid, he wrote, “underpins our economy, our quality of life, our society.” Without it, society will be brought to a screeching halt. Crime will rise. Lives will be lost. Chaos will reign supreme.

    By 2025, according to the American Society for Civil Engineers, the inability of the United States to maintain its many power lines will cost the country dearly—$130 billion, to be exact. EVs, so often hailed as the best thing since sliced bread, come with a whole host of sizable problems.

    Across the United States, as the author Ben Guess recently noted, there are currently 21 EVs per public charging port. By 2030, to keep up with EV purchasing trends, the United States must install almost 500 charging ports every day for the next 8 years.

    Does this sound realistic to you?

    Even if the United States does somehow manage to install enough ports, the grid simply isn’t strong enough to support the battery-related demands. This is a point that needs to be emphasized, repeatedly and unapologetically. Yes, state-sponsored hackers are a threat, but state-sponsored EV initiatives aren’t exactly harmless. In the blind embrace of all things green, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture, the objective realities that stare us straight in the face

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 22:45

  • Miami's First Supertall Tower Begins Construction As Financial Winds Shift South
    Miami’s First Supertall Tower Begins Construction As Financial Winds Shift South

    By the end of this decade, if everything goes to plan, Miami will have a new supertall tower, measuring more than 1,000 feet tall, able to withstand hurricane-force winds. 

    WSJ said developers broke ground on the new 100-story Waldorf Astoria residential tower in October. It will feature 360 luxury condo residences and 205 hotel guest rooms in the tallest residential building south of Manhattan. 

    PMG, which is developing the Waldorf tower, said the structure had overcome many designing and planning challenges, such as how to engineer a foundation in porous limestone, survive hurricane-force winds, and obtain permission from Miami International Airport to build a supertall building in the middle of a highly traveled flight path. 

    One of the engineering marvels PMG worked into the tower’s design is a pendulum at the top that counteracts swaying in high winds. There are also plans to use specialized technology called deep soil mixing to create a sturdy foundation. 

    “Where other buildings might have taken four months of foundation, it’s going to take us a year to get all that structure underground just to support this building,” PMG chief executive Kevin Maloney said. 

    Maloney said the building is so massive that 150-200 knot hurricane-strength winds wouldn’t compromise the building structure – mainly because each floor is a massive 20,000 square feet, compared with PMG’s Manhattan’s West 57th street’s 5,000 square feet. 

    “The building code in Miami is the strictest in the country, and that’s true about 1,000-foot towers or eight-story towers.

    “There’s not a city I feel safer in than Miami in terms of hurricane code,” Ryan Shear, Managing Partner of PMG, said. 

    Maloney said 87% of the condo space in the supertall tower has already been sold, with units starting at $2 million.

    High demand for the future tower could be due to the massive influx of people and new money flooding into Miami. There are financial moguls, such as billionaire Ken Griffin moving the global headquarters of his Citadel and Citadel Securities to the city from Chicago. 

    The financial winds are shifting, and in no time, the streets of Brickell will be filled with portfolio managers and programmers. 

    Miami is the next Wall Street. We doubt Waldorf tower will be the only one by the decade’s end. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 22:25

  • 'True The Vote' Founders Jailed For Contempt Of Court
    ‘True The Vote’ Founders Jailed For Contempt Of Court

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

    The founders of the election integrity group True the Vote were jailed on Oct. 31 by a federal judge for contempt of court.

    True the Vote founder and President Catherine Engelbrecht makes a point during a presentation on ballot trafficking at the Arizona statehouse on May 31, 2022. Seated next to her is True the Vote data investigator Gregg Phillips. (Allan Stein/The Epoch Times)

    U.S. marshals detained Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips after a hearing in federal court in Dallas, according to a court docket entry.

    Court filings show U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt, the Reagan appointee overseeing a lawsuit against True the Vote, Engelbrecht, and Phillips, ordered the defendants jailed after they refused to share information, including all people who have had or still have possession of any information from Konnech computers.

    Konnech is an election management software firm whose CEO was arrested in October for allegedly stealing poll worker data and hosting it on servers in China.

    Konnech sued True the Vote prior to the arrest, alleging that the election integrity group and its founders gained unauthorized access to its computers and gained information from them.

    In the lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), Konnech said that the defendants made “completely baseless claims” that Konnech’s CEO and employees were Chinese operatives and that the FBI was investigating Konnech.

    “The truth is that Konnech is a U.S. company founded and operated by a U.S. citizen who has no affiliation with the Chinese Communist Party whatsoever,” Konnech said, adding that all of its U.S. customer data “is secured and stored exclusively on protected computers located within the United States.”

    That was part of the $2.9 million contract Konnech reached with Los Angeles County, but Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón, a Democrat who charged Konnech CEO Eugene Yu, said investigators found that information “was stored on servers in the People’s Republic of China.”

    True the Vote said Konnech’s claims that they hacked into Konnech servers were false and that they accessed a server in China using a “pre-loaded password that did not even require typing in a password to enter the server.”

    Hoyt in September ordered the defendants to stop accessing the computers and to return all property and data obtained from the computers. He also ordered them to identify each person and group involved in accessing the computers and to disclose to Konnech how the computers were accessed.

    Defendants told the court in a sealed letter that they wouldn’t identify the source of the data, “arguing that to do so would hinder an FBI investigation concerning the matter, or jeopardizing ‘national security,’” Hoyt said in a recent order.

    Defendants said they turned over the person’s identity to the FBI and that they shouldn’t have to make that name available to Konnech. Text messages submitted to the court were sent between Engelbrecht and FBI agents, according to an affidavit from the former.

    Phillips said in an affidavit that defendants would “comply fully” with Hoyt’s order and that the name of the person who accessed information from a computer was revealed in court during a recent hearing. According to Votebeat, that person is Mike Hasson. A summons was issued to Hasson on Oct. 31.

    Phillips also said that Hasson and FBI agents were the only people who had access to the information.

    The defendants will be detained “until they fully comply” with Hoyt’s order to disclose information, according to a summary of the hearing.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 22:05

  • FOMC Preview: Time To Step Off The Brake
    FOMC Preview: Time To Step Off The Brake

    As Goldman trader John Flood describes in his end-of-day market recap note (available to pro subs) the day on Goldman’s trading desk, “it was a 4 on 1 – 10 scale in terms of overall activity levels w/ most investors relatively frozen in terms of playing offense ahead of FOMC tomorrow.”

    So with everyone frozen until 2pm tomorrow – and many could be very surprised if the Treasury announces some actionable news on Treasury buybacks during tomorrow’s 8:30am Refunding announcement which could spark a far bigger risk rally than Powell sounding modestly on the dovish side – here is a preview of what to expect: as we noted yesterday, a fourth successive 75bps rate hike has long been pretty much nailed down but the subsequent path of hikes is now up for grabs and will be the focus from this week’s meeting.

    As DB’s Jim Reid wrote on Monday , “it feels inconceivable to us, given how spectacularly forward guidance has broken down across the global markets over the last 12 months, that Powell will try to guide too aggressively for December, especially with two payrolls (one this week) and two CPIs to come before they meet again.” In light of this, DB’s economists currently believe that 75bps is still likely in December, but that January could mark a downshift whilst still seeing upside risks to their terminal rate expectation of 5% given the recent inflation data and evidence that r-star has risen. Even WSJ Fed mouthpiece, Nick Timiraos, tweeted at the weekend “Consumers have a big cushion of savings. Corporations have lowered their debt-service costs. For the Fed, a more resilient private sector means that when it comes to rate rises, the peak or “terminal” policy rate may be higher than expected.”

    To be fair in his WSJ article that went viral 10 days ago he did mention that 2023 Fed forecasts could be upgraded. However the market mostly focused on the near-term downshift possibilities (that changed today because while tomorrow’s 75bps hike is a lock, the odds of a 75bps hike in Dec jumped today and the odds of a 50bps hike in Feb also jumped notably).

    Over the weekend, Goldman came out with a slightly different scenario then DB: the bank’s economics team – which also expects a 75bps hike this week – had updated its terminal rate estimate to 4.75-5% in March, and sees hikes set for: 75bps in Nov, 50bps in Dec, 25bps in Feb, 25bps in March (with March here being the new add).

    As Goldman’s Jan Hatzius wrote, there are three possible reasons why the FOMC could end up hiking past the February meeting, as the bank now expects:

    1. First, inflation is likely to remain uncomfortably high for a while, which could make continuing to hike in small increments the path of least resistance.
    2. Second, more rate hikes might be needed to keep the economy on a below-potential growth path now that the fiscal tightening has mostly run its course and real income is growing again.
    3. Third, the FOMC might need to do more if a future pivot causes a premature easing of financial conditions.

          (More details in the full note available to pro subscribers).

    It is unclear which of these three possible routes might eventually lead the FOMC to tighten by more than it currently plans, but Goldman thinks “it is more likely than not that one of them will.” Goldman also updated its scenario analysis of possible Fed paths to reflect the bank’s revised baseline forecast: the average view (the green line on the right side of Exhibit 3) is now slightly higher than before and is roughly in line with market pricing for 2023 (the orange line on the right side of Exhibit 3), which has moved up more meaningfully since our last update a month ago.

    What is notable in the Goldman forecast is the bank’s recent insistence that inflation will remain “uncomfortably high for a while” which could make hiking for longer than currently planned the path of least resistance.

    We would discount this, for two reasons: i) it comes from the same bank which one year ago we mocked for “convincing” its clients every week that inflation would be transitory and ii) the coming recession will spark massive job losses which will far outweigh the adverse impact of higher inflation, as the growing complaints from the Bernies, Warrens and other democrats make clear.

    Shifting away from Goldman, Morgan Stanley is more dovish, writing in its FOMC preview that it expects the Fed to increase the policy rate by an additional 50bp in December and 25bp in January, for a peak rate of 4.625%: “The Fed then holds rates there for an extended period until beginning to normalize policy with a 25bp decrease December 2023.” Some more from the MS preview:

    With little doubt around the policy decision at hand, the focus of this meeting will be squarely on the signals the FOMC is sending around a possible step-down in the pace of rate hikes in December. Currently, the market is placing a 50% probably of a 75bp hike in December – giving the Fed full optionality to make a game time decision. There are multiple ways of signaling the possibility of a step down, largely related to acknowledging concerns around the extent of tightening already implemented. Most immediately, the paragraph on current conditions could include an observation that financial conditions have tightened, and the discussion of future policy moves could be softened from referencing “ongoing increases” in the future.

    The FOMC statement may also add a reference to global financial conditions, reflecting concerns about the effects that interest rate hikes have had on the global financial system. “Watching closely” in this regard, similar to language used by Vice Chair Brainard in her speech on October 10, would send a very strong message that the committee will look to step down – should the data allow.

    Decreasing the pace of tightening could appeal to both hawks and doves – slower rate hikes would better enable reaching a higher peak rate (hawks), and would also allow more time to respond to the incoming data (doves). Nevertheless, the Committee will not want to signal that a step down in the pace of rate hikes signals an earlier end to tightening or a lower peak rate, limiting the dovishness that markets may try to associate with the preference for a step down to a 50bp hike.

    (More in the full note available to pro subscribers).

    Next, Newsquawk summarizes the consensus view, noting that the Fed is expected to hike its target Fed Funds range by another 75bps to 3.75-4% (money markets have 75bps priced at a 98% probability) with a firm focus on the guidance and Powell’s presser as the FOMC looks to step down its pace of tightening approaching its expected terminal rate, roughly in the 4.5-5% area some time in May/June.

    Ahead of the blackout, Fed insider Timiraos at the WSJ noted the FOMC is barreling towards a fourth straight 75bps hike in November, adding that the meeting could serve as a critical staging ground for future plans, including whether and how to step down to 50bps in December; Fed’s Daly also gave remarks calling on the need to step down the pace of tightening. Timiraos wrote, “Some officials are more eager to calibrate their rate setting to reduce the risk of overtightening. But they won’t want to dramatically loosen financial conditions if and when they hike by 50bps (instead of 75).

    One possible solution would be for Fed officials to approve a half-point increase in December, while using their new economic projections [in Dec.] to show they might lift rates somewhat higher in 2023 than they projected last month.” Those concerns around loosening financial conditions will already be top of mind for the Fed given the spike higher in long-end inflation breakevens that have been accompanied by a pick-up in stock appetite, fall in Treasury yields, and a weakening Dollar seen in wake of the WSJ article, not to mention the dovish developments at the ECB and BoC which have only added to central bank ‘pivot’ pricing. As such, Powell will likely push back on the ‘pivot’ narrative at the November FOMC, and perhaps front-run the December SEPs in hinting towards a higher terminal rate than the 4.6% median dot in the September SEPs and stressing a “higher for longer” stance as a means to counter the dovish signalling of a reduction in the pace of hiking in the backdrop of little progress made on the inflation front.

    Shifting away from these qualitative forecasts we next look at what JPM had to say, which is again on the quantitative side, and in keeping with previous scenario analyses (see “JPM’s Fed Day Scenario Analysis“, “JPMorgan’s Payrolls Scenario Analysis“, and “How To Trade The CPI: Scenario Analysis From JPMorgan“), JPMorgan trader Andrew Tyler writes that as he thinks about Fed scenarios, “consider that of the prior 6 meetings this year, markets have rallied into Fed Day on 3 occasions and sold off into the day on 3 occasions. Post-Fed Day, there is a similar hit rate with markets closing higher as of that Friday three times; and, by the next Wednesday markets have been up 3x and lower 3x. 2 weeks after the Fed, markets have been up 4 of 6 times; when they are up, the SPX is up and average of +4.1% vs. +1.3% across all 6 observations.” And since the hike for this meeting is known (75bps), and all that matters what hints Powell shares on the rate hike path, Tyler’s recommendation is to “keep an eye on terminal rate expectations; Friday we closed with terminal rate expectations of 4.90%” This number has since spiked back over 5% following today’s much hotter than expected JOLTS print.

    Which is not to say that Powell can’t surprise: he can, and as the last two FOMCs showed, he certainly will if he wants to (that said, the question whether the Fed chief wants to crash markets one week before the midterms is also rather pertinent). Below are Tyler’s six scenarios for Wednesday’s FOMC:

    • 50BPS HIKE; DOVISH PRESS CONFERENCE – of the scenarios, this is the least likely and the most bullish. It is difficult to conceive of a scenario where this outcome occurs given inflation levels and a tight labor market. Should this outcome occur, the immediate reaction could produce a double-digit 1-day return for Equities. The last time the SPX had such a strong 1-day return was in Oct 2008 when the SPX was +10.8% on Oct 28 and +11.6% on Oct 13. Given the low liquidity environment, this time the SPX is looking at +10% to +12%. Once again, this scenario would lead to the biggest stock market gain in 14 years.
    • 50BPS HIKE; HAWKISH PRESS CONFERENCE – a slightly more likely scenario; this outcome could stem from a Fed that is increasingly concerns about financial stability as it balances growth and inflation. However, it seems far more likely that the Fed gets Fed Funds to 4% before they begin to balance their considerations. This outcome is still very bullish and the SPX would rally +4% to- +5%.
    • 75BP HIKE; DOVISH PRESS CONFERENCE – this is second most probabilistic outcome in JPM’s view. While a stepdown from 75bps to 50bps is reflected in the DOTS, this is still a Fed that appears nervous about loosening financial conditions, of which Equity levels are an input, so a dovish press conference seems less likely than a hawkish one. If you saw the Fed give explicit guidance for the December meeting, then that is likely viewed as a dovish outcome. SPX jumps +2.5% to +3%.
    • 75BP HIKE; HAWKISH PRESS CONFERENCE – this is the most likely outcome with Powell retaining optionality for December and 2023 meetings while emphasizing the current risks to inflation moving higher. Even with a hawkish press conference, we may see language suggesting that a stepdown from 75bps is coming, which softens the blow. This outcome feels like the one that is most expected by bond markets, so we may not see a significant move in yields which keeps Equities from melting down. SPX down 1% to up 0.5%.
    • 100BPS HIKE; DOVISH PRESS CONFERENCE – given recent publications from WSJ, this outcome feels as unlikely as seeing a 50bps hike. Should this outcome occur, it may mean that the Fed both wants a higher terminal rate and that it wants to complete the tightening cycle this year. The Fed could do 100bps here and December, taking Fed Funds to the 5.00% – 5.25% level. Speaking with clients who invest in EM, this is lower range of where they think the Fed should take rates. Separately, the market may digest this move as the Fed having prior knowledge of where next week’s CPI prints; the previous CPI prints triggered a -4.3% day. In this scenario, the SPX falls 4% – 5%.
    • 100BPS HIKE; HAWKISH PRESS CONFERENCE – this is the best outcome for bears or for Equity investors waiting for this latest rally to dissipate. This outcome likely ends this latest rally irrespective of what CPI does next week. Here this would seem to be a Fed reassessing its own inflation forecasts, which some investors feel is too optimistic. Here you likely see a significant selloff across all risk assets as bonds reset higher. This type of shock, especially when considering the WSJ articles, could see Equities retest YTD lows. SPX falls 6% to 8%.

    To summarize visually, stocks could move… a lot.

    While the above forecast may be just a tad ridiculous and extreme, another market-linked observation comes from Bespoke which notes that the ”S&P 500 once again finds itself lower between FOMC meetings, for 8th time in past 10 periods; current decline has been more modest than some historic drops (like 13% decline prior to June meeting).”

    Since tomorrow’s statement will not contain any surprises – as noted above 75bps is a lock –  we will skip a projected redline as most attention will be on Powell’s press conference comments, and instead remind readers of why the market has turned much more dovish in recent weeks: as Morgan Stanley economists note, they expect the Fed to prep for a step down in the pace of hikes at the upcoming FOMC meeting as hinted by recent Fedspeak quotes below which show that the Fed appears ready to ratchet down the hawkishness, especially as the Fed continues to believe in the idea that monetary policy works with “long and variable lags” (see quotes below).

    • Daly, October 21: A benchmark rate in range of 4.5%-5.0% is a ‘very reasonable estimate’ of how high rate needs to go…the time is now to start talking about stepping down, from the 75bp pace of hikes.
    • Harker, October 19: I expect we will be well above 4 percent by the end of the year. Sometime next year, we are going to stop hiking rates. At that point, I think we should hold at a restrictive rate for a while to let monetary policy do its work…If we have to, we can tighten further, based on the data.
    • Kashkari, October 19: My best guess right now is yes, do I think inflation is going to level out over the next few months, the services, the core inflation, and then that would position us some time next year to potentially pause.
    • Bullard, October 20: The goal is to move to some meaningfully restrictive level that will push inflation down. But it doesn’t mean that you go up forever

    One final reason why it’s time for the Fed to turn dovish is growing liquidity concerns: as we have discussed extensively over the past few weeks, Treasury market liquidity has been challenged in recent months, there could be a question linked to the Fed’s role in supporting Treasury liquidity, especially with the backdrop of recent BoE intervention in Gilts. While changing QT or balance sheet policy in general has a very high bar, the Fed could be asked about regulations like the SLR, and the possibility of exempting Treasuries from SLR calculations. While few expect any announcements or new headlines from Chair Powell, it will be important to see what kind of guardrails, if any, the Fed wants to put around Treasury liquidity issues. An unexpectedly large hawkish surprise would lead to further fractures in Treasury market liquidity.

    Much more details in the full FOMC previews available to pro subscribers, from DB (link), JPM (link), Goldman (link) and MS (link) and Newsquawk (link)

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 21:45

  • 14 Years After The Bitcoin White Paper; Reflecting On Satoshi Nakamoto's Manifesto
    14 Years After The Bitcoin White Paper; Reflecting On Satoshi Nakamoto’s Manifesto

    Authored by Archie Chaudhury via BictoinMagazine.com,

    14 years later, Bitcoin has shown its strengths… and that it still has a long way to go to achieve its original goals…

    When Satoshi Nakamoto first published the Bitcoin white paper in October of 2008, the world was reeling from a financial crisis caused by the irresponsibility and negligence of the institutions that controlled our financial system. Hedge funds, central banks and other powerful agents had been all too happy to place over-leveraged bets on the economy, and to profit from the economic losses incurred by the working class when these bets collapsed.

    Governments, in a desperate attempt to keep these institutions alive, spent hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts and other monetary injections instead of ensuring the well-being of the average citizen. Bitcoin was Satoshi Nakamoto’s answer to state-backed money; it was a vision for a decentralized digital currency that could provide the efficiency of online banking, the relative pseudonymity of physical cash, and the scarcity of gold.

    Unlike previous attempts at creating digital cash, Bitcoin was not backed by or controlled by a singular entity or party, but rather by an anonymous developer (developers?), a set of faceless forum visitors and a small online community that believed in using cryptographic software for privacy and independence from authoritarian powers. Nakamoto’s ultimate goal was to create an asset that was autonomous, decentralized and was not susceptible to the greed or will of any one individual. October 31, the day Satoshi Nakamoto formally announced their white paper to the Cypherpunks Mailing List, has come to be known as “Bitcoin White Paper Day” and is celebrated as an informal declaration of independence from corrupt state-backed money, heard across the world. The purpose of this article is to reflect on how far we have come since then, and how much work remains to be done in order to accomplish Nakamoto’s goals.

    The Bitcoin that we use today is vastly different from the Bitcoin that Satoshi Nakamoto and his fellow contributors created in the late 2000s and early 2010s. Beyond the numerous technical upgrades and hard forks, the network itself has grown significantly, with more and more people taking the proverbial “orange pill” and deciding to use bitcoin in some capacity.

    There is another way in which Bitcoin has changed: the core network, and asset (BTC), is thought of more as a store of value rather than a platform for micropayments. Indeed, there was a significant cultural schism within the Bitcoin community that led to this change: the famous, and aptly titled, “Blocksize Wars” approximately five years ago led to this change, with forks such as Bitcoin Cash and later Bitcoin SV being created by community members who believed in scalability over all else, and the core Bitcoin chain being upheld by members who sought to preserve decentralization and to look at alternative methods such as Layer 2 payment channels to support scalability. The Lightning Network, which is the most popular payment channel, has slowly gained popularity, recently reaching a capacity of 5000 bitcoin.

    Despite these changes, the core technological tenets espoused by Nakamoto in 2008 (Nakamoto Consensus with proof-of-work mining and a static maximum supply of 21 million) remain constant. This is not solely because of a technological or economic reason; in fact, it has been argued that changing Bitcoin’s underlying consensus mechanism or supply cap could lead to increased performance and adoption respectively. Rather, Bitcoin’s consistency in these areas can be attributed to the philosophy of its underlying community, who believe strongly in scarcity, security and decentralization over all else.

    Meanwhile, bitcoin is being used by people around the world to stave off unruly economic conditions. Bitcoin’s natural scarcity makes it attractive for citizens where corruption has led to unrestricted inflation. This adoption has even led some governments, such as El Salvador, to declare bitcoin a national currency, a move that would have been unfathomable to Nakamoto and Bitcoin’s original contributors.

    Perhaps the most interesting thing to take from Bitcoin’s progress over the past couple of years is that it has happened without a central leader: unlike alternative assets that are more akin to decentralized software platforms, bitcoin functions purely as money, with key “policy” decisions being made by a community. There is no Bitcoin organization or representative solely responsible for promoting adoption, nor is there a central “chief scientist” that has a significant impact on key protocol-level decisions. While there are certainly major influences within the community, the protocol as a whole does not have an organizational structure to lead either adoption or development. In fact, Bitcoin’s lack of hierarchy should be a goal for other distributed ledger projects who, while perhaps decentralized to a certain degree, are still largely influenced by a singular entity or individual.

    While Bitcoin has certainly grown from its humble beginnings as a white paper and a couple hundred lines of scrappy code, it still has a long way to go if it is to achieve the ambitious goals discussed by Nakamoto and other early adopters in their email chains and forum posts. From a technical standpoint, the Bitcoin community needs to continue building technology that not only enables further scalability and security, but perhaps more importantly, also helps make the network more decentralized. One of the most staunch mottos that Bitcoin community members have adopted is the term “Don’t trust, verify.” This is, of course, in reference to running a full Bitcoin node and not relying on data from external third parties, such as node providers. Network optimization, rollups, and other scalability research has been proposed by various individuals in the Bitcoin community as a way for the network to simultaneously scale while decreasing the cost it takes to run a full node. A recent report, published by John Light through research funded by the Human Rights Foundation, Starkware and CMS Holdings, provides more detail about rollups-related scalability research.

    Despite its roots in technology, Bitcoin has evolved over the years to become something more: it is now a community, a network, if you will, of like minded-individuals who all have some varying degrees of belief in a singular idea. Bitcoin is no longer a software, privy to only developers, coders or those with a highly technical background, and this marked shift should also signal additional non-technical priorities for the Bitcoin community to address over the next decade.

    More effort needs to be spent on educating the general public and making them aware of not only Bitcoin’s technology, but also the failures of the legacy financial systems that they use today. More effort needs to be spent not only on touting bitcoin’s economics and technology, but also drawing on distinctions between bitcoin and other cryptocurrency platforms. Finally, more effort needs to be made among the cryptocurrency community as a whole to come together when the fundamental principles that Satoshi Nakamoto and his fellow cypherpunks believed in are threatened by authoritarian governments, regardless of the platform that is being attacked.

    While discussions around varying blockchain networks have always been tribalistic to a degree, the recent trend has been to promote the success of your platform over all else, and even chide or insult platforms who face potential regulatory scrutiny. While believing that bitcoin is the most sound digital asset in terms of economics/construction, and getting into arguments about said belief is okay, and should even be encouraged, celebrating when an alternative platform is threatened with regulatory action or censorship goes against what Bitcoin is fundamentally all about.

    The cypherpunks, Satoshi Nakamoto and a majority of Bitcoin’s community all believe in the idea that one day, there can be a digital peer-to-peer currency completely independent of any government, intermediary or biased party. While we certainly have various disagreements about the pros and cons of our respective technology, belong to different “maximalist” groups, and in general have varying beliefs, we all ultimately belong to a space that was motivated by the idea of a censorship-resistant and non-partisan digital asset/network. We would do well to remember that fundamental principle as we continue to work on Bitcoin over the next 14 years.

    Tweet from Erik Vorhees on the sanctioning of Tornado Cash and potential BTC regulation by ESG proponents.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 21:25

  • Comparing Lightning-Caused & Human-Caused US Wildfires
    Comparing Lightning-Caused & Human-Caused US Wildfires

    Each year, thousands of acres of land are scorched by wildfires across the United States. But, as Visual Capitalist’s Carmen Ang details below, while most of these fires are triggered by natural causes such as lightning, some are unfortunately caused by human activity.

    This graphic by Gilbert Fontana uses data from the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) to show the number of acres burned across the U.S. between 2001 and 2021.

    Historically, we can see that lightning-caused fires have led to more damage in the U.S., and this is especially true in the West region which includes states like California, Oregon, and Washington.

    That said, it’s worth noting that in three out of the six years from 2016–2021, human-caused wildfires led to more damage.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 21:05

  • Ron Paul: Will The Midterms Change Anything?
    Ron Paul: Will The Midterms Change Anything?

    Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

    Many experts expect public anger over inflation to enable Republicans to regain a majority in the US House of Representatives and maybe the Senate in next week’s midterm elections.

    However, even if every close Senate race broke in Republicans’ favor, and the new Republican majority was determined to pass a pro-liberty agenda, there still would not be the votes to override President Biden’s vetoes, or Chuck Schumer’s filibusters.

    Pro-liberty legislation cutting spending, or protecting our First, Second, and Fifth Amendment rights, or shutting down the Department of Education, or auditing the Federal Reserve, would not become law.

    The fact that such pro-liberty legislation would not become law is a reason many Republican Congress members feel comfortable cosponsoring and voting for such bills. One of the dirty secrets of American politics is that the establishment of both parties supports the corporatist welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system that makes it all possible.

    While they quibble over the details, the only real disagreement between the two parties is over which one is better able to run the economy, run the world, and run our personal lives.

    One hoped-for benefit of having Congress in Republican hands is that the Republican desire to deny President Biden any major legislative victories going into the 2024 election means the American people will be safe from more big spending legislation like the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act that will lead to more inflation. It is also hoped that our liberty and prosperity will be safe from attempts to expand government’s role in healthcare and implement the Green New Deal.

    Should Republicans take the Senate, my son Kentucky Senator Rand Paul could assume the chairmanship of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Rand has already stated he wants there to be a full investigation into Dr. Anthony Fauci’s actions leading up to and during the covid scare. Rand’s chairmanship would also allow him to examine ways in which the Department of Education has undermined parental authority and weakened academics while promoting the use of critical race theory in government schools. He could also look at how the Education Department is abusing its authority to force schools to allow boys to play on girls’ sports teams and even to use girls’ bathrooms.

    Arizona could send pro-liberty members of Congress a new ally: Blake Masters. Masters is an advocate of limited constitutional government who understands the importance of challenging the Federal Reserve’s unchecked power and protecting liberty and prosperity. He is currently in a very close race with incumbent Senator Mark Kelly, who is a leading advocate for gun control in the Senate.

    While we should support those few politicians who stand up for liberty, we should remember that we cannot rely on politicians alone to restore liberty. Instead, the only way to win back our liberty is to change the political and cultural environment politicians operate in. That is why converting a critical mass of people to libertarianism is crucial. Our victory will come not by electing a libertarian majority to Congress but by controlling the political and intellectual environment so even the authoritarians feel compelled to vote for liberty.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 20:45

  • "It's Already Happening" – Roubini Warns "World War III Has Effectively Begun"
    “It’s Already Happening” – Roubini Warns “World War III Has Effectively Begun”

    Economist Nouriel Roubini, who’s been dubbed ‘Dr. Doom’ for his gloomy-yet-correct prediction of the 2008 market meltdown, is making headlines again during a series of interviews promoting his new book “Megathreats”.

    “We have to worry about everything at the same time, as all these megathreats are interconnected…”

    When asked if we’re “there again” in reference to the 2008 great financial crisis, Roubini replied: “Yes, we’re here again.”

    “But in addition to the economic, monetary, and financial risks – and there are new ones – now we’re going towards stagflation like we’ve never seen since the 1970s.”

    Private and public debt levels globally have exploded from 200 percent of GDP in 2000 to around 350 percent of GDP today, he said, blaming ultra-loose central bank policies that made borrowing cheap and encouraged households, businesses, and countries to take on ever greater debt loads even though many were barely solvent.

    But now, facing persistently high inflation, central banks led by the Fed have embarked on aggressive rate hiking cycles, with Roubini predicting that highly indebted and operationally fragile “zombie” institutions are going to go bankrupt.

    “That’s why we’re not only going to have inflation and stagflation but we’ll have a stagflationary debt crisis,” Roubini predicted.

    In the 1970s, debt levels were far lower than today and so advanced economies didn’t suffer debt crises when the Fed jacked up rates to around 20 percent.

    “Today we have the worst of the 70s with a massive amount of stagflationary negative supply shock,” he added.

    Roubini has called predictions for a brief and mild U.S. recession “delusional.”

    He told Bloomberg in an interview at the end of July that he expects the United States to be hit by a “severe recession and a severe debt and financial crisis.”

    Roubini said that, in addition to economic, monetary, and financial risks currently in play, the world faces higher geopolitical risks.

    During an extensive interview with Der Spiegel, the economist said he preferred “Dr. Realist” as he detailed some of the world’s most acute problems.

    When speaking about major global threats, Roubini mentioned the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, adding that Iran and Israel are “on a collision course” as well.

    “It is already happening. The U.S. has just passed new regulations banning the export of semiconductors to Chinese companies for AI or quantum computing or military use. Europeans would like to continue doing business with the U.S. and China, but it won’t be possible because of national security issues.”

    “…just this morning, I read that the Biden administration expects China to attack Taiwan sooner rather than later. Honestly, World War III has already effectively begun, certainly in Ukraine and cyberspace.“

    He believes that a breakup of the globalized world is looming.

    “Trade, finance, technology, internet: Everything will split in two,” he predicted.

    Finally, Roubini said debt levels are higher than they’ve ever been, adding that all this represents a confluence of “mega trends” that he predicts will combine into a stagflationary storm that will engulf many of the world’s economies.

    The economist said that the worst possible outcome would be if all eleven “mega trends” materialize and feed on each other, leading to a “dystopian future.”

    “It’s not just the end of the world economy… it could be even global war.”

    Recalling a recent event hosted by the IMF, Roubini referred to historian Niall Ferguson who “said in a speech there that we would be lucky if we got an economic crisis like in the 1970s — and not a war like in the 1940s.”

    After all that, we think ‘Dr. Doom’ remains a more appropriate nickname.

    *  *  *

    Read the full Der Spiegel interview below:

    DER SPIEGEL: Professor Roubini, you don’t like your nickname “Dr. Doom.” Instead you would like to be called “Dr. Realist.” But in your new book, you describe “ten megathreats” that endanger our future. It doesn’t get much gloomier than that.

    Roubini: The threats I write about are real – no one would deny that. I grew up in Italy in the 1960s and 1970s. Back then, I never worried about a war between great powers or a nuclear winter, as we had détente between the Soviet Union and the West. I never heard the words climate change or global pandemic. And no one worried about robots taking over most jobs. We had freer trade and globalization, we lived in stable democracies, even if they were not perfect. Debt was very low, the population wasn’t over-aged, there were no unfunded liabilities from the pension and health care systems. That’s the world I grew up in. And now I have to worry about all these things – and so does everyone else.

    DER SPIEGEL: But do they? Or do you feel like a voice crying in the wilderness?

    Roubini: I was in Washington at the IMF meeting. The economic historian Niall Ferguson said in a speech there that we would be lucky if we got an economic crisis like in the 1970s – and not a war like in the 1940s. National security advisers were worried about NATO getting involved in the war between Russia and Ukraine and Iran and Israel being on a collision course. And just this morning, I read that the Biden administration expects China to attack Taiwan sooner rather than later. Honestly, World War III has already effectively begun, certainly in Ukraine and cyberspace.

    DER SPIEGEL: Politicians seem overwhelmed by the simultaneity of many major crises. What priorities should they set?

    Roubini: Of course, they must take care of Russia and Ukraine before they take care of Iran and Israel or China. But policymakers should also think about inflation and recessions, i.e. stagflation. The eurozone is already in a recession, and I think it will be long and ugly. The United Kingdom is even worse. The pandemic seems contained, but new COVID variants could emerge soon. And climate change is a slow-motion disaster that is accelerating. For each of the 10 threats I describe in my book, I can give you 10 examples that are happening as we speak today, not in the distant future. Do you want one on climate change?

    DER SPIEGEL: If you must.

    Roubini: This summer, there have been droughts all over the world, including in the United States. Near Las Vegas, the drought is so bad that bodies of mobsters from the 1950s have surfaced in the dried-up lakes. In California, farmers are now selling their water rights because it’s more profitable than growing anything. And in Florida, you can’t get insurance for houses on the coast anymore. Half of Americans will have to eventually move to the Midwest or Canada. That’s science, not speculation.

    DER SPIEGEL: Another threat you describe is that the U.S. could pressure Europe to limit its business relations with China in order to not endanger the U.S. military presence on the continent. How far are we from that scenario?

    Roubini: It is already happening. The U.S. has just passed new regulations banning the export of semiconductors to Chinese companies for AI or quantum computing or military use. Europeans would like to continue doing business with the U.S. and China, but it won’t be possible because of national security issues. Trade, finance, technology, internet: Everything will split in two.

    DER SPIEGEL: In Germany, there is a dispute right now about whether parts of the Port of Hamburg should be sold to the Chinese state-owned company Cosco. What would your advice be?

    Roubini: You have to think about what the purpose of such a deal is. Germany has already made a big mistake by relying on energy from Russia. China, of course, is not going to take over German ports militarily, as it could in Asia and Africa. But the only economic argument for this kind of agreement would be that we could strike back once European factories are seized in China. Otherwise, it’s not a very smart idea.

    DER SPIEGEL: You warn that Russia and China are trying to build an alternative to the dollar and the SWIFT system. But the two countries have failed so far.

    Roubini: It’s not just about payment systems. China is going around the world selling subsidized 5G technologies that can be used for spying. I asked the president of an African country why he gets 5G technology from China and not from the West. He told me, we are a small country, so someone will spy on us anyway. Then, I might as well take the Chinese technology, it’s cheaper. China is growing its economic, financial and trading power in many parts of the world.

    DER SPIEGEL: But will the Chinese renminbi really replace the dollar in the long run?

    Roubini: It will take time, but the Chinese are good at thinking long term. They have suggested to the Saudis that they price and charge for the oil they sell them in renminbi. And they have more sophisticated payment systems than anyone else in the world. Alipay and WeChat pay are used by a billion Chinese every day for billions of transactions. In Paris, you can already shop at Louis Vuitton with WeChat pay.

    DER SPIEGEL: In the 1970s, we also had an energy crisis, high inflation and stagnant growth, so-called stagflation. Are we experiencing something similar now?

    Roubini: It is worse today. Back then, we didn’t have as much public and private debt as we do today. If central banks raise interest rates now to fight inflation, it will lead to the bankruptcy of many »zombie« companies, shadow banks and government institutions. Besides, the oil crisis was caused by a few geopolitical shocks then, there are more today. And just imagine the impact of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, which produces 50 percent of all semiconductors in the world, and 80 percent of the high-end ones. That would be a global shock. We depend more on semiconductors today than on oil.

    DER SPIEGEL: You are very critical of central bankers and their lax monetary policy. Is there any central bank that gets it right these days?

    Roubini: They are damned either way. Either they fight inflation with high policy rates and cause a hard landing for the real economy and the financial markets. Or they wimp out and blink, don’t raise rates and inflation keeps rising. I think the Fed and the ECB will blink – as the Bank of England has already done.

    DER SPIEGEL: On the other hand, high inflation rates can also be helpful because they simply inflate the debt away.

    Roubini: Yes, but they also make new debt more expensive. Because when inflation rises, lenders charge higher interest rates. One example: If inflation goes from 2 to 6 percent, then U.S. government bond rates will have to go from 4 to 8 percent to keep bringing the same yield; and private borrowing costs for mortgages and business loans will be even higher. This makes it much more expensive for many companies, because they have to offer much higher interest rates than government bonds, which are considered safe. We have so much debt right now that something like this could lead to a total economic, financial and monetary collapse. And we’re not even talking about hyperinflation like in the Weimar Republic, just single digit inflation.

    DER SPIEGEL: The overriding risk you describe in your book is climate change. Isn’t rising debt secondary in light of the possible consequences of a climate catastrophe?

    Roubini: We have to worry about everything at the same time, as all these megathreats are interconnected. One example: Right now, there is no way to significantly reduce CO2 emissions without shrinking the economy. And even though 2020 was the worst recession in 60 years, green house gas emissions only fell by 9 percent. But without strong economic growth, we will not be able to solve the debt problem. So, we have to find ways to grow without emissions.

    DER SPIEGEL: Given all these parallel crises: How do you assess the chances of democracy surviving against authoritarian systems like in China or Russia?

    Roubini: I am worried. Democracies are fragile when there are big shocks. There is always some macho man then who says »I will save the country« and who blames everything on the foreigners. That’s exactly what Putin did with Ukraine. Erdogan could do the same thing with Greece next year and try to create a crisis because otherwise he might lose the election. If Donald Trump runs again and loses the election, he could openly call on white supremacists to storm the Capitol this time. We could see violence and a real civil war in the U.S. In Germany, things look comparatively good for now. But what happens if things go wrong economically and people vote more for the right-wing opposition?

    DER SPIEGEL. You have become known not only as the crash prophet, but also as a party animal. Do you still feel like partying these days?

    Roubini: I always hosted art, culture, and book salons, not just social events. And during the pandemic I rediscovered my Jewish roots. Today, I prefer to invite 20 people to a Shabbat dinner with a nice ceremony and live music. Or we do an evening event where I ask a serious question and everyone has to answer. Deep conversations about life and the world at large, not chitchat. We should enjoy life, but also do our bit to save the world.

    DER SPIEGEL: What do you mean?

    Roubini: All of our carbon footprints are much too big. A significant part of all greenhouse gas emissions alone come from livestock farming. That’s why I became a pescatarian and gave up on meat, including chicken.

    DER SPIEGEL: You used to be famous for being on the road for three-quarters of the year.

    Roubini: I still do travel nonstop. But I will tell you one thing: I love New York. During the pandemic, I didn’t flee to the Hamptons or Miami like many others. I stayed here, I saw the Black Lives Matter demonstrations, I volunteered to help the homeless. I saw daily the desperation of many artist friends who lost jobs and incomes and couldn’t afford their rent. And even if there is another hurricane like Sandy in New York that could lead to violence and chaos, I will stay. We have to face the world as it is. Even if there is a nuclear confrontation. Because then the first bomb would fall on New York and the next one on Moscow.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 20:25

  • Jack Dorsey Retains Stake In Twitter, Saving Elon Musk $1 Billion
    Jack Dorsey Retains Stake In Twitter, Saving Elon Musk $1 Billion

    Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey has retained his 2.4 percent stake in the social media platform after it was acquired by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, according to a new filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter and Square, speaks on stage at the Bitcoin 2021 Convention, a crypto-currency conference held at the Mana Convention Center in Wynwood, in Miami, Fla., on June 4, 2021. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

    According to the filing, Dorsey retained more than 18 million shares in Twitter, valued at about $1 billion when the company became private.

    The decision by Dorsey, which was initially agreed upon back in April according to the filing, means that Musk has saved himself a substantial payout to the former Twitter CEO.

    It also means that Dorsey will remain one of Twitter’s largest shareholders, second only to Musk himself and Saudi Arabia’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Al Saud, who rolled over his 34.948 million shares of Twitter, valued at roughly $1.9 billion, in October.

    Dorsey, who stepped down from Twitter’s Board of Directors in May this year, has been outspoken in his support for Musk taking over Twitter, writing in April that Musk was the “singular solution” he trusts.

    ‘Common Digital Town Square’

    “Elon’s goal of creating a platform that is ‘maximally trusted and broadly inclusive’ is the right one,” Dorsey said at the time. “This is also @paraga’s [former Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal’s] goal, and why I chose him. Thank you both for getting the company out of an impossible situation. This is the right path. … I believe it with all my heart.”

    “I’m so happy Twitter will continue to serve the public conversation. Around the world, and into the stars!” Dorsey added.

    Musk, who officially acquired Twitter on Oct. 27, has repeatedly stated that the platform must be a place where individuals can debate a wide range of topics without fearing censorship of minority and politically conservative viewpoints; something that Twitter has been accused of repeatedly in the past.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 20:05

  • The Rise (Or Fall?) Of Vegetarianism
    The Rise (Or Fall?) Of Vegetarianism

    Whether vegetarianism is pursued with the aim of protecting animals, preserving environmental resources, leading a healthier life or because of cultural traditions, the practice can have a profound influence on health and carbon footprints.

    As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, while vegetarianism is expanding slowly in several countries around the world, for example in Europe or the United States, large emerging economies are doing it the other way around. Here, vegetarianism is in decline – for example in India, where traditional vegetarian diets are increasingly swapped for an omnivore approach to eating.

    While in 208/19 around a third of urban Indians said they were vegetarians, this decreased to approximately one quarter by 2021/22. This is according to the Statista Global Consumer Survey...

    Infographic: The Rise (or Fall?) of Vegetarianism | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Vegetarian diets have become more popular in the last three years overall, but some countries are more steadfast than others in their love for meat.

    In Mexico and Spain, the rate of vegetarians hovered below 3 percent most recently. The same is true for South Korea, even though here, the rate vegetarians rose from an extremely low 0.9 percent in 2018/19.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 19:45

  • US Will No Longer "Waste Its Time" On Iran Nuclear Deal Talks
    US Will No Longer “Waste Its Time” On Iran Nuclear Deal Talks

    Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

    On Monday, President Biden’s special envoy for Iran, Robert Malley, said the US isn’t going to “waste its time” on talks with Tehran to revive the nuclear deal and would use a military option as a “last resort” against Iran.

    Negotiations between the US and Iran on the nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, have been stalled since early September. The Biden administration hasn’t officially said it’s done with the talks, but Malley’s comments are the surest sign that diplomacy between Washington and Tehran is dead.

    Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley

    Malley echoed other administration officials and said that the JCPOA is “not our focus right now” and that the US is going to focus on other issues, including supporting protesters inside Iran.

    “It is not on our agenda. We are not going to focus on something which is inert when other things are happening… and we are not going to waste our time on it… if Iran has taken the position it has taken,” Malley said at a Carnegie Endowment event, according to Axios.

    There’s no sign that Iran is working to develop a nuclear weapon, but Malley still threatened the US would use military action as a “last resort” to prevent Tehran from doing so.

    “We will use other tools, and in last resort, a military option if necessary, to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” he said.

    The US has accused Iran of making “extraneous demands” during the JCPOA negotiations. But the Biden administration had taken a hardline approach in the talks by refusing to lift all Trump-era sanctions.

    The stance forced Iran to negotiate what sanctions would be lifted in exchange for it bringing its nuclear program back into the strict limits set by the JCPOA.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 19:25

  • "Possibility Of Additional Outbreaks:" Bird Flu Strikes Iowa Egg Farm With Million Hens
    “Possibility Of Additional Outbreaks:” Bird Flu Strikes Iowa Egg Farm With Million Hens

    The unseasonable return of avian influenza or bird flu continues to wreak havoc on the US poultry industry. Iowa agriculture officials announced Monday that the first infection since April was detected at a large commercial egg-laying farm, AP News reported.

    Iowa Department of Agriculture officials said the commercial farm with 1.1 million chickens in Wright County (central Iowa) just detected the highly contagious and deadly virus.

    All chickens at the facility were culled and disposed of to avoid spreading the disease. Iowa has been hit hard by bird losses this year, with more than 13 million killed. On a national level, 47.7 million birds have been affected in 43 states. 

    Bird flu continues “to be a significant threat across the country,” Iowa Agriculture Secretary Mike Naig told The Des Moines Register. He added:

    “We have been preparing for the possibility of additional outbreaks,” working closely with producers and the US Department of Agriculture.

    “With migration ongoing, we continue to emphasize the need for strict biosecurity on poultry farms and around backyard flocks to help prevent and limit the spread of this destructive virus.” 

    In late September, we noted there was concern that the fall migration of wild birds could spread the virus. That appears to be correct. 

    The culling of tens of millions of birds has dented national egg supplies, sending prices sky-high and above 2015 outbreak levels (last major bird flu) to about $3 per dozen at the supermarket. 

    Retail egg prices have doubled since August 2020, straining consumers’ wallets as breakfast inflation soars. What used to be a cheap source of protein in the morning has become expensive. 

    Besides eggs, turkeys have also been impacted by bird flu, sending prices to record highs ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 19:05

  • Supreme Court Leaves TSA Mask Mandate Ruling In Place
    Supreme Court Leaves TSA Mask Mandate Ruling In Place

    Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

    The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal on Oct. 31, leaving in place a federal appeals court ruling that allowed the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to require the wearing of masks on airplanes, trains, and buses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Although the TSA abandoned its mask mandate in April, the decision allows a Dec. 10, 2021, ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to remain on the books as a legal precedent that the government may rely upon in the future.

    In a brief filed with the high court on Sept. 27, the Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the case.

    U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted in the document that the TSA had announced on April 13 that it would extend the mask directives through May 3, 2022.

    But days after the announcement, when a federal district judge in Florida vacated the Centers for Disease Control’s order requiring masking at transportation hubs and in airplanes, the TSA backed out of its mask mandate extension.

    The TSA mandate was allowed to expire on April 18.

    The D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling was correct because it recognized TSA was acting within its statutory authority and its actions were aimed at addressing the threats to transportation posed by COVID-19, the brief stated.

    The high court refused to take up the petition filed in Corbett v. TSA (court file 22-33), without explaining why.

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did not participate in the consideration of the petition, but the court did not explain why she refrained from doing so.

    Frequent flyer Jonathan Corbett challenged the TSA’s January 2021 directives requiring that passengers wear masks.

    Corbett argued that the agency’s authority under the federal Aviation and Transportation Security Act was limited to developing policies and directives aimed at guarding against violent attacks on transportation infrastructure.

    The statute did not empower TSA to do things like require mask-wearing to protect public health, he argued.

    But the appeals court disagreed.

    “The COVID-19 global pandemic poses one of the greatest threats to the operational viability of the transportation system and the lives of those on it seen in decades,” the circuit court ruled in an opinion written by Judge Harry T. Edwards, who was appointed by then-President Jimmy Carter in 1980. One judge on the three-judge panel dissented from the ruling.

    “TSA, which is tasked with maintaining transportation safety and security, plainly has the authority to address such threats under” the Aviation and Transportation Security Act.

    Congress granted the TSA “broad authority” to analyze potential risks to aviation and national security and respond to those risks and conferred upon the agency “an expansive power to act in relation to the transportation system during a national emergency.”

    Given the language in the statute, “it cannot seriously be doubted that Congress’ delegations of authority to TSA authorize the Mask Directives issued to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus.”

    If Congress wanted to limit the reach of the TSA it could have done so, but instead it “selected broad language in its mandate to the agency.”

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 18:45

  • Israel Election: Exit Polls Show Netanyahu On Brink Of Returning To Power
    Israel Election: Exit Polls Show Netanyahu On Brink Of Returning To Power

    Early exit polls show former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is poised to return to power in a Tuesday vote that reportedly had huge turnout – the largest the country has seen in over two decades. 

    Israel is on edge waiting for the results after five rounds of voting in three-and-a-half years, which still has yet to produce a clear winner and new government; instead there’s been nothing but gridlock and power-sharing arrangements so far. 

    Source: Haaretz

    Fox News reports as Israel approaches midnight local time, based on national media, “Early exit polls predicted that former prime minister and current opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu might very well be that winner this time around.”

    And further: “His bloc of right-wing, religious parties was slated to draw up to 62 seats, the number of mandates needed to form a majority in the 120-seat Knesset, Israel’s parliament.”

    And Haaretz is reporting: 

    Two of the three exit polls give the pro-Netanyahu bloc 62 of the Knesset’s 120 seats, with the other putting the party at 61. The anti-Netanyahu bloc won 54 seats, according to two exit polls, and 55 according to the third.

    Fox cites Assaf Shapira, Director of the Political Reform Program at the Israel Democracy Institute, who points to all major exit polling pointing to the opposition “Bibi bloc” – a controversial alliance of far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties – holding a lead…

    “All of the exit polls predict between 61-62 seats for the pro-Netanyahu political bloc, which was quite expected,” he said, adding however that previous exit polls in 2021 also gave Netanyahu between 61-62 seats, but they missed one small Arab party that ended up becoming a decisive factor that allowed the other factions to unite and oust Netanyahu from power. 

    Via NBC

    Results might not be known for a number of hours, or possibly days.

    But then there’s still the potential scenario of gridlocked results stretching into more weeks or even months, possibly resulting in the current “transitional prime minister” period being extended.

    Middle East Eye notes that “Months ago, Israelis started repeating a bitter joke that a sixth round of elections would follow these. Now that may soon become a nightmarish reality.”

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

    “This is, in fact, not bad news for Yair Lapid. In case of 60-60 deadlock, no new government can be formed and Lapid gets to keep the title of ‘transitional prime minister’ for another six months,” MEE adds.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 18:25

  • Wall Street Gives Up On Corporate Profit Outlooks
    Wall Street Gives Up On Corporate Profit Outlooks

    By Jessica Menton, Bloomberg Earnings Watch reporter

    Wall Street is finally caving on its forecasts for corporate earnings for the next couple of years.

    For some investors, it’s still short of a capitulation in sentiment that would signal battered equities are getting close to a bottom.

    Projections for 2023 earnings have fallen six straight weeks, by 3% to $233 a share for the S&P 500 Index, according to Bloomberg Intelligence data.

    For 2024, the consensus has tumbled even more steeply: It’s dropped 19 consecutive weeks, by about 6% since mid-June to $253 a share.

    Investors say it’s constructive that many analysts are steadily revising their view lower, after sticking to a rosy outlook while stocks sank into a bear market in the first half of the year. However, money managers like Dan Eye at Fort Pitt Capital Group say the gloom needs to deepen further before the market fully prices in the risk that Federal Reserve policy tightening will weaken the economy. 

    S&P 500 earnings forecasts for 2023 should be closer to $220 a share, almost 6% lower than the current consensus, he says.

    “Earnings estimates getting slashed for 2023 is part of the bottoming process for the equity market,” said Eye, the firm’s chief investment officer.

    “Progress has been made, but there’s still more work to do before stocks can bottom. It’s too optimistic to see earnings projections that high next year.”

    The strong dollar, which erodes the value of overseas revenue, and slowing economic growth have been the key drivers for the  decline in earnings forecasts, said Wendy Soong, a senior associate analyst at BI. That backdrop adds to the strain on multinational companies that are already grappling with higher inflation costs, she said.

    Tuesday brought signs of surprising strength in the US labor market that will likely keep pressure on the Fed to prolong its campaign to tame inflation. The central bank is widely expected to lift its benchmark overnight rate by 75 basis points for a fourth straight meeting on Wednesday, and tighten further in December.

    To JPMorgan Chase strategist Marko Kolanovic, the reset in earnings expectations may lead investors to seek an inflection point in the market, should they conclude that the Fed’s policy is working as planned.

    That’s the debate that will grip the market in the coming months as investors sift through Fed officials’ comments and the latest inflation readings, while assessing the overarching risk: whether rate hikes push the US economy into a recession.

    “Analysts earnings forecasts are starting to capitulate,” said Soong.

    “From a valuation perspective, it’s better for stocks for sure, but there are still geopolitical and interest-rate risks for equities. Lower earnings projections won’t predict the stock market’s direction from here.”

    Elsewhere in corporate earnings:

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/01/2022 – 18:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest