Mar 04

Today’s News 4th March 2024

  • For Socialists, It Doesn't Matter if Socialism "Works" – What Matters Is Power
    For Socialists, It Doesn’t Matter if Socialism “Works” – What Matters Is Power

    Authored by Jason Montgomery via The Mises Institute,

    A recent rash of libertarian-leaning right-wing podcasters’ rehashing of a shopworn takedown of socialism has bothered me to the point of launching into this essay. It goes something like “Why is this still a thing? When are they going to realize that IT DOESN’T WORK, and drop it?”

    This criticism deserves a closer look. Maybe socialism does too. By the way, I define the term as any economic paradigm that turns over the means of production to “society,” “the workers,” or some other fictitious entity that effectively means the state; and limits or prohibits private property.

    Here’s my best stab at fleshing this out.

    Socialism is defective, because everywhere it’s instituted (which is nowhere near Scandinavia, but that’s a different topic), the assured universal plenty fails to materialize.

    Instead they get extreme poverty, hunger, and deficits of every variety.

    The evidence is littered throughout history, all over the world.

    So, any idiot still promoting this mess is ignorant to the facts of reality.

    Quite a counterargument; factually correct, hard-hitting, down-to-earth, and practical. No abstract political theory here, just the bottom-line question: does it work? Period. Look to the historical statistics. Any other consideration doesn’t correspond to the real world, so it’s useless. Thus, we’ve effectively relegated socialism to the historical scrap heap, right?

    Not in the least.

    I’m not calling this refutation ineffective. It’s much worse than that.

    First there’s the obvious question; what does it mean for an economic system to “work”? That nobody’s poor? What’s the standard of “poor”? A certain universal margin of disposable income? A level of GDP? Maybe in a survey of 1,000 random people, 672 of them rated their economic status at least “satisfactory”? What are the criteria? What’s the barometer? How can we know if it “works”?

    Couldn’t someone just cherry-pick an arbitrary standard of “working” in hindsight and proudly tout socialism’s great success? It’s happened before! And here’s the real question: Who could this someone be? By what right could he decide this measure on behalf of an entire population?

    Well, those might be tough questions to answer, but surely we can know what it means to not work. Socialism has repeatedly yielded famine, rationing, production shortages, and the seeming disappearance of natural resources. An economic record like this has to be sufficient to dismiss it.

    Think so? Let me ask you…

    • Are you against slavery because it doesn’t engender a thriving agrarian industry?

    • Are you against restricting speech because it does a bad job protecting people’s feelings?

    • Are you against random home searches because they don’t uncover enough contraband to bolster public safety?

    If not, why not? These are exactly the grounds on which you’re rejecting socialism; because it appears not to satisfy its stated societal goals. Therefore…

    What if it did, indeed, work? If it produced a society of loyal proletarians, happily subsisting on their allotted resources, working limited hours at their communal farms and factories, with plenty of days off, and enjoying their state-approved hobbies with all that spare time? Then I guess you’d be all for it?

    Is this really your angle of opposition, or is there something else at work here?

    “Of course, there’s more to it!” you say.

    “Beyond economics, socialism has repeatedly led to mass surveillance, arbitrary incarceration, torture, death camps, and the greatest human atrocities every known! That’s the real counterargument!”

    You’re just digging yourself deeper into the rhetorical pit.

    You know the responses to this. Say them with me.

    “That wasn’t real communism.”

    “That was all just one bad guy in charge, not an indictment on the system itself.”

    “It was the leftover greed and sadism from the market economy.”

    “Marxism is scientifically sound. It just requires a maturation period for people to learn the right values, then it all turns to paradise.”

    Are these platitudes frustrating? Well, anyone arguing that “it doesn’t work” has tacitly agreed to the exact same underlying premises.

    This argument appeals to pragmatism, utilitarianism, empiricism, and consequentialism; the Four Horsemen of Sophistry.

    It says don’t knock socialism till you try it. Gauge its practical impacts (pragmatism), based solely on experience (empiricism), to see if it confers the greatest good on the greatest number (utilitarianism) by delivering its promised economic equality and prosperity (consequentialism).

    This is part of the desperate longstanding campaign to render economics a hard science, with a definitive answer, discoverable through rigorous testing of hypotheses. If you accept these terms, then “it doesn’t work” is no counterargument at all. The possibility of a blown experiment is built right into this scheme. It just hasn’t worked yet, so we tweak the theory and try again.

    Did we get… riches and happiness for all? Great! It worked! Or… an extermination campaign of biblical proportions? Ooops, back to the drawing board. There was no way to see that coming.

    Here is where “it doesn’t work” surpasses fruitlessness and becomes self-defeating. If you posit one unfavorable result (or a few) as grounds to reject the theory wholesale, the other side can call you inconsistent and unscientific, and they’re right! See how their fraudulent reasoning can make a correct conclusion seem wrong?

    Therefore, socialism continues to be apologized for, rationalized, promoted, and consequently implemented around the globe; with more comebacks than Aerosmith (apologies to Aerosmith).

    (This is covered brilliantly in Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism.)

    This plays to two of Marx’s great historical swindles.

    • First, commerce and all human action can be scientifically engineered by a central authority to produce desired ends.

    • Second, that the nobility of those ends in the indeterminate future justifies any and all means, potentially limitless suffering, in the present.

    Other than stripping the ethics, morality, and all humanity from human action; whether it “works” can never be resolved, just deliberated ad infinitum, making it ideal mainstream media fodder. Under any legitimate scrutiny, it collapses under its own haughty intellectual weight because there’s something missing at its foundation; fundamental principles that can be ascertained as self-evidently true or not.

    To go after socialism, you must aim for its fundamental principles. And what are some of those?

    • Rooted in collectivism – no individual is of material importance, only society as a whole. Any number of individual needs, preferences, and lives can and should be sacrificed for the good of the collective.

    • Absence of a market – production and trade operate by the will of central planners, not economic actors. What gets made, in what quantity, and for what use is not determined by consumer demand or the profit motive, but by top-down calculations. Based on what? Such questions will not be tolerated. Now, get in the bread line! Which brings us to…

    • Necessitates a totalitarian state – This centralization of economy requires such thorough micromanagement of human action that monitoring, espionage, harassment, and stiff penalties for violators (for starters) must become features of the landscape. Some adherents claim that state control, and the state itself, will one day become unnecessary under socialism, once the people fall in line (read are beaten into submission). But, like the arrival of universal abundance, that day never seems to come. More on this momentarily…

    This argument may not be perfect, but notice the differences between this and where we started. These premises are axiomatically integral to socialism. No experience, experimentation, or research is required to bear them out. No statistical data is going to come along and change them. These aren’t ends, which cannot be conclusively known at the outset of any initiative (if they ever can at all). These are means, which are known, instantly and to a certainty, as they effectively become the material conditions of life in the given society. Economics is a journey, not a destination, so those someday promises of wealth and statelessness in exchange for your present suffering mean nothing from the man prodding you with the rifle.

    Now a REAL debate begins.

    The socialist must be prepared to defend all of the items above, at least. Any claim against the necessity of these factors can be gleefully met with, “then that’s not real socialism!” If they prefer their ideologies a la carte, by plucking the “good bits” of socialism and discarding the gulags and mass graves; then they’re arguing for something else entirely, a mixed economy, the polluting of the market with some degree of the above tenets.

    Do the Horsemen’s graphs and data have any validity? Sure, as persuasive support. But they cannot BE your argument.

    That must come from First Principles, e.g. freedom, property, and individual sovereignty. These are all that matter. To subordinate them to numbers and stats is to discount them entirely.

    So, when it comes to socialism; stop saying it doesn’t work, stop calling it a perfect idea on paper that falters in implementation, and stop dignifying its adherents with “noble intentions.”

    Give it its intellectual due, then you can call it what it is; an evil concept on its face that has no place among the human species.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 03/04/2024 – 00:00

  • Russian Strike Rocks Ukraine's Odesa After Rare Drone Attack On St. Petersburg 
    Russian Strike Rocks Ukraine’s Odesa After Rare Drone Attack On St. Petersburg 

    Russia’s military may have its sights set on Ukraine’s key southern port city of Odesa next. On Saturday a wave of drone and artillery strikes reportedly killed at least 11 people.

    According to Ukraine government officials, “Eight were confirmed dead, including a child and a baby, after an overnight drone strike on the southern port city of Odesa.” Two more bodies were said to have been found on Sunday. A direct drone strike appears to have destroyed a residential apartment block.

    Port city of Odesa, via UNESCO

    Zelensky in the attack aftermath said that ongoing aerial strikes like these are why Kiev urgently needs additional batteries of advanced anti-air defense systems.

    “Russia continues to hit civilians,” Zelensky said in a statement on social media. “We need more air defenses from our partners. We need to strengthen the Ukrainian air shield to add more protection for our people from Russian terror. More air-defense systems and more missiles for air-defense systems save lives,” he said.

    The country’s Interior Minister Igor Klymenko described that in Odesa, “a nine-story building was destroyed as a result of an attack by Russian terrorists” – as stated on Telegram. There have been local reports that debris from an Iranian-made drone was recovered.

    At the same time, Ukraine’s cross-border attacks on Russian territory have continued to intensify. On Saturday there was a rare Ukrainian drone attack that reached all the way to St. Petersburg, reportedly striking a residential building in the Krasnogvardeisky district.

    Further, Russia’s defense ministry said that overnight a large wave of 38 drones were intercepted over the Crimean peninsula. According to fresh reporting Sunday, some of the drones may have gotten through:

    In Russian-occupied Crimea, loud explosions were heard near an oil depot in the early hours of Sunday, according to a local pro-Kyiv Telegram news channel, while Kremlin-installed officials in the territory said that a nearby stretch of highway was closed to traffic for about eight hours.

    Videos shared with pro-Ukrainian channel Crimean Wind showed explosions lighting up the night sky, followed by loud booms. The channel said they were taken by local residents near Feodosia — a coastal town in northeastern Crimea. It was not immediately possible to verify the circumstances in which the videos were shot.

    Below: severely damaged apartment block in Odesa struck by suicide drone…

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

    The last several months have witnessed repeat cross-border attacks on Russian oil and energy infrastructure especially. But Russian civilians have also been killed and injured as a result of drone and missile attacks on the center of Belgorod city. 

    Moscow has meanwhile condemned Western powers in addition to Kiev, given Kremlin officials have charged that Western-supplied weapons have been used in these cross-border attacks.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 23:35

  • US Supreme Court Ruling On Trump Ballot-Ban Case Could Come On March 4
    US Supreme Court Ruling On Trump Ballot-Ban Case Could Come On March 4

    Author\ed by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

    The U.S. Supreme Court could issue a ruling as early as March 4 regarding a case that seeks to bar former President Donald Trump from appearing on primary and general election ballots for the 2024 presidential election.

    The Supreme Court, in an unusual Sunday update to its schedule, didn’t specify what ruling it would issue. However, the justices on Feb. 8 heard arguments in the former president’s appeal of a ruling in Colorado and are due to issue their own decision.

    The March 3 announcement said the opinion would be posted online at 10 a.m. Washington time. “The court will not take the bench,” it only said on its website.

    Late last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that President Trump is disqualified from appearing on ballots in Colorado, citing an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment provision that stipulates that candidates who engaged in an “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States should be prevented from holding office. Maine’s Democratic secretary of state made a similar decision days later, and a judge in Illinois recently issued a similar ruling to prevent his appearance on ballots.

    The amendment was drafted more than 150 years ago, after the Civil War, and the court was the first to invoke it. However, that ruling and the two others are on hold pending the Supreme Court decision.

    The former president appealed the Colorado court ruling to the Supreme Court, which took up the matter quickly. Oral arguments in the case were heard last month.

    Notably, the Supreme Court has until now never ruled on the provision, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The court indicated this weekend that at least one case would be decided on March 4, although it didn’t indicate which one.

    Except for when the end of the term nears in late June, the court almost always issues decisions on days when the justices are scheduled to take the bench. But the next scheduled court day is March 15. And apart from during the coronavirus pandemic, when the court was closed, the justices almost always read summaries of their opinions in the courtroom.

    If the resolution of the case comes on March 4, a day before Super Tuesday primary contests in 16 states, it would remove uncertainty about whether votes for President Trump, the leading Republican candidate for president, will ultimately count.

    Colorado and Maine are two of the states that will hold its GOP primary during the March 5 Super Tuesday contest.

    Lawyers for the former president asked the nine justices to reverse the Colorado court decision because only Congress can make a determination as who can become president.

    The court’s decision is also “the first time in the history of the United States that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major-party presidential candidate,” his lawyers said, concluding that it “is not and cannot be correct.”

    After the ruling, President Trump wrote on social media that he is “not an insurrectionist,” adding that President Joe Biden is one. He also noted that he told supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically” during a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, before protesters and rioters entered the U.S. Capitol during the certification of electoral votes for the 2020 election, which forms the basis of the “insurrection” accusations against him.

    Justices for the Colorado Supreme Court had argued that they believed President Trump engaged in an insurrection because of his activity before and on Jan. 6, 2021, during the breach of the U.S. Capitol building. The former president, however, was never charged or convicted of insurrection. He was charged by a federal special counsel in connection with the 2020 election, but not for insurrection, rebellion, or related charges.

    “President Trump asks us to hold that Section Three disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” the majority for the Colorado Supreme Court wrote in its 4–3 ruling.

    “Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three.”

    Oral Arguments

    During oral arguments in front of the justices in early February, at least six of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, appeared to be at least skeptical of some of the claims made by the lawyer representing several Colorado voters who brought the lawsuit against the Republican front-runner.

    “It’ll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election,” Chief Justice Roberts said, referring to the potential effect of the Colorado court’s ruling.

    “That’s a pretty daunting consequence.”

    Justice Clarence Thomas asked the lawyer, Jason Murray, why there weren’t many examples of individual states’ disqualifying candidates under the 14th Amendment after the Civil War.

    “There were a plethora of confederates still around, there were any number of people who would continue to either run for state offices or national offices, so it would seem—that would suggest there would at least be a few examples of national candidates being disqualified,” Justice Thomas, a Bush appointee, said.

    Justice Elena Kagan, considered a member of the court’s liberal wing, asked the attorney why one state would have power to determine which candidates should be on the ballot for a nationwide election.

    “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation?” she asked the attorney, adding the move would be “quite extraordinary.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 23:10

  • Russian Oil No Longer Sells At A Discount As Nobody Complies With Western Sanctions
    Russian Oil No Longer Sells At A Discount As Nobody Complies With Western Sanctions

    Remember when, in the immediate aftermath of the Ukraine war, Russian oil immediately traded down to a discount of as much as 30% below spot Brent as the entire western world suddenly found itself locked out of access to the most valuable Russian export (which also meant that China and India were the only natural buyers left) and the price of Russian oil had to reflect the explicit plunge in demand?

    Well, that’s no longer the case because in the two years since the start of the Ukraine conflict, it became apparent that Western sanctions were merely a theatrical publicity stunt as the alternative – strict enforcement – would have sent oil prices soaring and that would be unacceptable to a Biden administration terrified of losing the November elections if and when oil and gasoline prices surges.

    And as fear of enforcement became a non-issue over time, so did the discount of Russian oil to Brent, which brings us to today, and Goldman’s “chart of the week” which illustrates the collapse in the discount on Russian crude oil close to zero relative to Brent, according to the bank’s estimates using the most recent customs data for December.

    According to Goldman, which estimates the effective price of Russian crude paid by its trade partners using detailed customs data on import volumes and import payments for Russia crude, this drop in the price discount was primarily driven by the countries outside of the G7 coalition.

    However, the discount has also narrowed for most of the buyers as Russian fleets were becoming more capable of operating under the G7 price cap.

    The US Treasury’s recent decision to target Sovcomflot, Russia’s state-owned shipping company and fleet operator, comes against the backdrop of the drop in the effective discount late last year and the twin goals of US policymakers to “limiting Kremlin profits while promoting stable energy markets.”

    It is also an admission that western attempts to prevent Putin from generating oil export revenues – critical in keeping the Russian war machine going – were either a failure, or merely a theatrical, virtue signaling sleight-of-hand from the beginning. And while the former is bad, the latter is far more disturbing as it suggests that the west has been willingly enabling Putin to sell oil and fund the war in Ukraine, the same war with Western nations are so vocally against.

    Almost as if both Russia and the West are aligned in their (shared) goal of keeping the war in Ukraine going to its inevitable and dire, for Zelenskyy, conclusion; it also almost makes one wonder if the destruction of Ukraine – at the hands of Russia with the implicit enabling by the West – was a pre-planned exercise all along.

    Full Goldman note available to pro subscribers in the usual place.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 22:45

  • Appeals Court Overturns Jan. 6 Defendant’s Sentence, Potentially Impacting Dozens Of Cases
    Appeals Court Overturns Jan. 6 Defendant’s Sentence, Potentially Impacting Dozens Of Cases

    Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    An appeals court in Washington unanimously ruled that a Jan. 6 defendant’s sentence was improperly enhanced, a move that could impact numerous other Jan. 6 cases.

    Supporters of President Trump protest at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

    On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Larry Brock, who was convicted for a range of crimes related to Jan. 6, improperly had additional charges of “interference with the administration of justice.” The judge who wrote the court’s opinion wrote that the charge doesn’t apply to a sentencing enhancement, however, and struck it down.

    “Brock challenges both the district court’s interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2)’s elements and the sufficiency of the evidence to support that conviction,” wrote the judge, Patricia Millett.

    The judge, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, concluded that any interference with Congress’ certification of the 2020 electoral votes isn’t tantamount to a sentencing enhancement.

    “Because Section 2J1.2’s text, commentary, and context establish that the ‘administration of justice’ does not extend to Congress’s counting and certification of electoral college votes, the district court erred in applying Section 2J1.2(b)(2)’s three-level sentencing enhancement to Brock’s Section 1512(c)(2) conviction,” the judge wrote.

    The judges, in siding with Mr. Brock, wrote that Congress’ function on Jan. 6 was not judicial but was only a part of the 2020 presidential election process.

    “Taken as a whole, the multi-step process of certifying electoral college votes—as important to our democratic system of government as it is—bears little resemblance to the traditional understanding of the administration of justice as the judicial or quasi-judicial investigation or determination of individual rights,” the panel concluded.

    Law enforcement officials who were there at the Capitol on that day, they added, were “to protect the lawmakers and their process, not to investigate individuals’ rights or to enforce Congress’s certification decision.”

    “After all,” the judges wrote, “law enforcement is present for security purposes for a broad variety of governmental proceedings that do not involve the ‘administration of justice’—presidential inaugurations, for example, and the pardoning of the Thanksgiving Turkey.”

    Now, Mr. Brock’s sentence under the statute will be vacated and will be remanded to the district court for resentencing, according to Friday’s order.

    But it’s not clear whether Mr. Brock’s sentence will be reduced or whether it will apply to a number of other people who were charged with interference in the administration of justice related to the Capitol breach. However, the ruling could impact plea negotiations for future Jan. 6 defendants who are charged with the felony.

    Dozens of Jan. 6 defendants have been convicted and sentenced for interference in the administration of justice, according to data provided by the Department of Justice. It may mean that their time in prison and other penalties need to be reduced.

    The Justice Department, meanwhile, has often asked judges to apply the enhancement charges to the defendants, saying that the Congressional session on Jan. 6, 2021, to count electoral votes and certify the election was the same as a judicial proceeding.

    But Mr. Brock’s lawyers successfully argued in an appeal that the charges shouldn’t impact his sentence after he was given a two-year prison term in 2023. At the time, the lower court judge who convicted and sentenced Mr. Brock calculated that the obstruction charge meant he should spend more time in jail.

    The court made the sentencing decision as it simultaneously upheld Mr. Brock’s felony conviction regarding his activity on Jan. 6, 2021, when thousands breached the U.S. Capitol during the certification of the election.

    During court arguments in September, Mr. Brock’s lawyer noted that he committed no violence on Jan. 6 and said the man believed the 2020 election was stolen. “Mr. Brock thought he was acting righteously, patriotically and with a eminently proper purpose,” attorney Charles Burnham said at the time, according to reports.

    That argument was rejected by the panel of judges on Friday. “Brock participated in a riot that sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election by force, and that he was himself prepared to take violent action to achieve that goal,” the judges wrote.

    Because of his social media posts about the election, the court added, “Where a defendant announces his intent to use violence to obstruct a congressional proceeding, comes equipped for violence, and then actually obstructs that proceeding, the evidence supports a finding that he acted with an impermissible purpose or knowledge of the wrongfulness of his actions.”

    Some Jan. 6 defendants have argued in court motions that the law have been improperly applied to charge them with felonies. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in a Jan. 6 defendants’ appeal in April on the application of the law, which could also impact special counsel Jack Smith’s case against former President Donald Trump as he faces two obstruction charges in Washington.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 22:20

  • Trudeau Scraps Event With Italy's Meloni After Pro-Palestinian Protesters Block Venue Entrance
    Trudeau Scraps Event With Italy’s Meloni After Pro-Palestinian Protesters Block Venue Entrance

    The Canadian government and the Trudeau administration apparently cowered in the face of a sizable group of protesters angry at the soaring death toll in Gaza and Canada’s pro-Israel policies on Saturday. Typically heads of state, top government officials, and their schedules and access to high-secure venues take precedence, but apparently in this situation the pro-Palestinian protesters were allowed to ‘win’.

    “A reception meant to cap off a day of meetings between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Italian counterpart was abruptly cancelled on Saturday after protesters blocked entrances to the venue and kept key figures, including the guests of honor, from getting in,” a Canadian national broadcaster reported.

    Via Anadolu Agency

    The protesters charged that Trudeau is funding genocide in Gaza, given the supply of Canadian defense items to Israel. Despite the government’s attempts to downplay, there’s been growing controversy over Canadian arms supplied to Israel of late. 

    But when it comes to rection to major world events and foreign conflicts, Canada typically plays junior partner to Washington policy, regardless of whichever administration is in the White House.

    “Due to security concerns, the event was cancelled,” a statement by the prime minister’s office to CBC News indicated.

    It happened at the Art Gallery of Ontario, where crowds completely took over steps and a large entrance area. Police apparently stood by while it unfolded…

    Image source: CBC

    The demonstrators were shouting pro-Palestine slogans and waving large flags and banners, while huddling close together at the building entrances.

    Reports described that some 200-300 protesters were present, and it’s unclear if any arrests were made. But apparently they were there in big enough numbers to block all key entrances.

    One report described that “The disruption marked a tumultuous ending to an otherwise cordial day of meetings in Toronto, during which Trudeau and Meloni said they agreed to establish the Canada-Italy Roadmap for Enhanced Cooperation.”

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

    The Toronto Police Service is said to be reviewing its response (or lack of) and the series of events that led Trudeau’s team to scrap the event.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 21:30

  • 'Atlas Shrugged' Comes To Life In California
    ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Comes To Life In California

    Authored by Daniel Kowalski via FEE.org,

    The plot of Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged can be briefly summed up as follows: the productive leaders and innovators of the country go on strike by disappearing from society to protest the cronyism, corruption, and oppressive taxes that have made living a virtuous life unbearable.

    The nation is then on the brink of an economic collapse as the remaining politicians, intellectuals, and mediocre businessmen are only able to take from others and have no capability to create or add value. Atlas Shrugged is very popular with those whose views lean toward libertarianism, while those who lean to the left react to it like a vampire does to a crucifix, despite never even reading a page.

    Concerningly, the state of California seems determined to bring Rand’s novel to life.

    During the 20th century, California was the jewel of America. Beautiful weather, diverse landscapes, access to the Pacific Ocean, and other features made it the leading state of the nation. There is a saying that says “As California goes, so goes the nation” because to many Americans this seemed like the best place in the entire country to live and raise a family.

    Things seem to have changed in the 21st century though. When times were good, the government of California grew and spent more money than it had. In the short term, most people ignored this problem, but as time went on the deficits grew and grew. By the year 2000, the government had run up a debt of $57 billion. Twenty-two years later that number had almost tripled to $145 billion dollars. Since California is a state and not a nation they couldn’t print money to make up for the downfall, so their only options were to either cut spending or raise taxes. They chose the latter.

    For state income taxes, California has the highest rates in the entire nation. They also have a declining population, with a loss of more than half a million people since a peak population of 39.5 million in 2019—and they did not all die of Covid. The majority are people who left to live in other states that did not have oppressive taxes and draconian Covid restrictions.

    While wise leaders might look at this indicator and see it as a sign that they should change course, wisdom seems to be in short supply for the political elite in this state. Rather than move towards freedom, they are instead moving to erode and attack property rights even more through the form of a wealth tax. Of course, the people proposing this are trying to sell the idea to the public by saying only the super wealthy will be on the hook for this. The rest of us in the ninety-percent will benefit thanks to the rich paying their “fair share”.

    The 16th amendment was sold to the American people under this promise too, and had people back then known that income taxes would lead to the system we have today, where the majority of the people use the majority of their income to pay taxes (federal, state, local, property, sales, etc), then this proposal would have been dead on arrival. Today’s politicians are trying to use the same tricks to pass a wealth tax, but the difference between now and then is that now we should know better.

    What makes California’s proposed wealth tax even more disturbing is that they wish to still collect the tax for years after a person moves out of the state, like a feudal lord persecuting a serf for moving off his land.

    They also wish to impose the wealth tax on “part time residents” for the portion of the year that they “reside” in the state. In other words, a family vacation to Disney Land might come with a tax bill from the State of California. And when tourism declines, I wonder who the politicians will blame?

    While the wealth tax has not become law yet, it is already prompting some of the mega-rich to move away, depriving California of their portion of the income tax and increasing the deficit. And it’s not just individuals who are leaving the state. National corporations are also deciding not to do business there as well.

    As inflation rages across the nation, the costs of everything have gone up, and building materials are no exception. It costs more to replace a house now than it did five years ago. To meet this new reality, home insurance premiums everywhere have increased. California’s Department of Insurance has responded to the new reality by placing new regulations on the insurers to prevent them from raising rates on their customers. The logic here is that the state has the largest population so if insurers wish to do business in the largest market in the United States, then they must abide by our rules.

    The reaction has essentially been a boycott of the state by the companies. In addition to normal risks, California is also prone to natural disasters like wildfires, earthquakes, and even mud slides from heavy rains. With these new regulations limiting what prices could be charged, the cost of doing business in the state increasingly outweighs any potential profits. As a result, many of the largest insurance companies in the nation like Allstate and Hartford are no longer issuing new policies in the state.

    California government policy has created an insurance desert in the state and with private business unwilling to respond because the once free market is no longer free, the politicians have solved the problem with a government insurance system called FAIR so that homeowners can comply with the insurance requirements for their mortgage. Under this state-owned enterprise, California residents get to enjoy reduced coverage at a higher premium than they would have been able to get before the politicians stepped in to help. This is a clear cut, black and white example of the standard of living decreasing.

    The theme of Atlas Shrugged is that the freedom of American society is responsible for its greatest achievements. The book warned that as freedom declined, so too would the standard of living. California’s politicians seem determined to recreate the dystopian world of the book with oppressive taxes, attacks on personal property, and regulations that drive away private businesses.

    Someone really ought to tell them that the world of Ayn Rand’s novel was not meant to be aspirational.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 21:00

  • Pakistan's New Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, Installed As Pro-Khan Protests Hit Parliament
    Pakistan’s New Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, Installed As Pro-Khan Protests Hit Parliament

    Shehbaz Sharif, the chairman of the PML-N party (Pakistan Muslim League-N), has been elected as the new prime minister of Pakistan by lawmakers in Pakistan’s National Assembly on Sunday, according to national broadcasters.

    This will be the 72 year-old Sharif’s (who is brother of Nawaz Sharif) second time to lead the country as prime minister, having previously been in office between April 2022 and August 2023. He’s entering office for a five year term.

    New Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, via PTI

    Sharif said in his acceptance speech after a tumultuous and at times violent election season, “We were subjected to political victimization in the past but never took any revenge.” This appeared to be a shot at former PM Imran Khan, but without naming him directly.

    Sharif had secured 201 parliamentary votes to become the clear victor over rival Omar Ayub (at 92 votes), who significantly had the backing of Imran Khan’s Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. Khan has been urging on his political movement and allies, candidates which were forced to run on independent platforms, from jail.

    Khan’s party has repeatedly claimed that the election “was stolen during the vote count” but the Election Commission vehemently denies this charge.

    The Associated Press writes of the past weeks since the early February election, “Following days of negotiations, Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League party and his supporters formed an alliance after the Feb. 8 election, which was overshadowed by militant violence, a nationwide mobile phone shutdown, Khan’s exclusion from the vote, and an unusual delay in announcing the result.” This delay was used of Khan’s party to issue charges of vote rigging and corruption.

    Opponents made their anger known during new PM Sharif’s acceptance speech before parliament, per the AP:

    Holding portraits of Khan, some lawmakers stood in front of Sharif when he began his speech, shouting “vote thief” and “shame.” Sharif denounced their actions, saying they were causing chaos in parliament. He also said they should present their evidence of vote rigging to the relevant authorities.

    Sharif then addressed the opposition saying, “I am offering you reconciliation. Let us sit together to work for the betterment of Pakistan.” But he was greeted with more protests and shouts.

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

    Khan and his supporters have long described the more than one hundred corruption cases brought against him as ultimately the military’s attempt to control the country and permanently ‘disappear’ Khan from politics.

    As for Sharif, he vowed in the Sunday speech to repair ties with the United States, and blamed the Khan era for creating tensions with Washington.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 19:30

  • Mystery Whale Has Quietly Accumulated Over $3 Billion In Bitcoin In 15 Months
    Mystery Whale Has Quietly Accumulated Over $3 Billion In Bitcoin In 15 Months

    A mysterious Bitcoin buyer has quietly amassed billions worth of bitcoin over the past two years making the unknown address one of the largest single holders of the cryptocurrency as the race to a new all-time high continues. According to data from Bitinfocharts, after patiently buying bitcoin almost daily since November 2022, the whale’s wallet now holds over 54,164 BTC, worth around $3.2 billion, according to Decrypt.

    This whale, dubbed “Mr. 100” due to his purchases of an average of 100 bitcoin per day since November 2022, may not be a single investor, and could belong to an investment fund or one of the big banks behind one of the several spot Bitcoin ETFs now available, although some are skeptical.

    “It’s definitely possible, but I would say unlikely,” Amberdata Director of Research Chris Martin told Decrypt. “All of the ETFs have publically shared their addresses, so it would be strange to me if they didn’t share this one.”

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

    According to Amberdata, the wallet has been accumulating Bitcoin since November 2022, using Binance and KuCoin.

    While the US Government has also accumulated an huge amount of Bitcoin – estimated to now be worth over $12 billion -Martin doesn’t see the Biden Administration being behind the address. One tell: the digital assets are coming from Binance and KuCoin,

    “It might be safe to rule out a U.S. entity or bank,” Martin said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a fund of some kind.”

    Hong Kong is said to be mulling 31 applications for crypto custodians, he noted. A recent expose from Reuters echoed what we first said back in September 2015 (when we recommended buying bitcoin at a price of $230), namely that a silent flood of Chinese buying may be one of the core drivers behind the recent meltup. “Mr. 100″ may just be one of them. 

    Martin also said he does not believe the wallet is someone loading up in preparation for the upcoming Bitcoin halving in April.

    “I would say not—they could just be supporting the price run-up rather than accumulating tokens for a specific event,” he said.

    “I think it’s interesting that they’ve generally received the same amount on every transaction—about 100 BTC—throughout their existence,” Martin added. “Why they chose 100 BTC is beyond me… possibly a limitation of their funding source.”

    While speculation around the identity of “Mr. 100” whale remains, sentiment in the cryptocurrency market is riding high, and the countless entities loading up on Bitcoin – especially in the recently launched ETFs – point to signs that the bull market is indeed back and running.

    The mystery whale isn’t the only that has been making waves in recent days: in April, a wallet from the early days of Bitcoin moved over $11 million in BTC after being dormant for 12 years. That same week, another Bitcoin wallet moved $8 million in BTC after ten years of inactivity. In November, another Bitcoin whale made waves after analysts discovered wallet holding $450 million in Bitccoin.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 19:05

  • Why Is Congress Nuking Northeast Gasoline Reserve As Part Of Bill To Avert Shutdown?
    Why Is Congress Nuking Northeast Gasoline Reserve As Part Of Bill To Avert Shutdown?

    On Sunday night, Congressional negotiators revealed a bill which will fund key parts of the government through the rest of the fiscal year which began in October.

    The 1,050-page legislation sets a discretionary spending level of $1.66 trillion for FY24, which comes just days after lawmakers passed the fourth stopgap measure since Oct. 1 to keep the government funded a bit longer.

    According to Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer’s office, the bill “maintains the aggressive investments Democrats secured for American families, American workers, and America’s national defense.”

    House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement that “House Republicans secured key conservative policy victories, rejected left-wing proposals, and imposed sharp cuts to agencies and programs critical to the President Biden’s agenda.”

    But what neither of them mention is that the bill also nukes the entire Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve – which, at roughly 1 million barrels, is too small to matter on a national scale – but which could serve as a critical cache of energy in the event of another major disaster.

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

    The Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve was established in 2014 following Hurricane Sandy, which cut through refineries and fuel terminals resulting in fuel shortages in some parts of the northeast. The rationale for draining it is that it “does not have the operational functionality that was envisioned post-Sandy,” former President Trump said of the supply in 2017.

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

    What’s more, once the reserve is drained, the bill mandates that the entire thing will be shut down.

    Then, the bill makes it even harder to establish regional reserves in the future – requiring several new layers of red tape. 

    Is the government trying to cause another disaster? This supply is so small but crucial for its intended purpose that we’re in ‘just why?’ territory.

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

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

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

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 19:00

  • Israel Opts Out Of Gaza Talks In Cairo, Contradicting Prior White House Optimism
    Israel Opts Out Of Gaza Talks In Cairo, Contradicting Prior White House Optimism

    It was only on Saturday that the White House issued optimistic statements saying Israel has already “basically accepted” a six week ceasefire proposal in Gaza. But the Biden administration’s rosy assessment that a truce is ‘near’ has once again been utterly contradicted by Israeli actions.

    CNN now writes, “On Sunday, Israel decided not to send a delegation to Egypt for talks on a deal for a ceasefire and release of hostages from Gaza, an Israeli official told CNN.” It was only days ago that Biden issued his remarks saying a ceasefire is likely “by Monday” – but now as of the weekend Israel isn’t so much as even participating in the Cairo talks.

    Families of the hostages have been outraged that a new hostage/prisoner exchange deal has not been reached. Image via AP.

    CNN’s source says the Israeli delegation has stayed home because time had run out for Hamas to respond to the following two Israeli demands:

    • a list of hostages, specifying which are alive and which are dead
    • confirmation of the ratio of Palestinian prisoners to be released from Israeli prisons in exchange for hostages

    The Netanyahu government said days ago said that this next round of talks would be conditioned on Hamas verifying ahead of time the names and current condition of all hostages.

    Israel has said it believes 130 hostages abducted on Oct.7 remain in captivity, but the tragic reality is that some or many may have already been killed.

    While Israel has not sent its negotiators, Hamas has arrived in Cairo Sunday, a senior Hamas official told CNN. Per the same report, Hamas wants the following:

    • A permanent ceasefire
    • The withdrawal of what the source called “occupation forces” — that is, Israeli troops — from the Gaza Strip
    • The return of displaced people from the south to the north of the strip

    But Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly called the demand for a complete military withdrawal “delusional”.

    The Times of Israel and other local sources have also confirmed that Israel is not sending negotiators:

    According to Channel 12, the war cabinet and the professional echelon all agreed that there was no point in sending a delegation to Egypt for ongoing talks given Hamas’s response.

    Israel has said that 31 of the 130 hostages held since October 7 are dead. The first phase of the mooted deal is reported to provide for the release of 40 of the living hostages, including women, children, the elderly and the sick, in the course of a six-week truce, and in exchange for some 400 Palestinian security prisoners. The outline reportedly provides for negotiations on the further phased release of the remaining hostages, living and dead, in return for longer pauses in the fighting and many more Palestinian prisoner releases.

    Meanwhile, just last Tuesday…

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

    All of this means there is a greater likelihood the Israel assault on Rafah will proceed, which many international officials have warned against, given the southern city is packed with well over one million refugees, many of which are living in tents and makeshift structures.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 18:30

  • No, The Court Is Not "Slow Walking" The Trump Immunity Case
    No, The Court Is Not “Slow Walking” The Trump Immunity Case

    Authored by Jonathan Turley,

    The decision of the Supreme Court to review the immunity question in the Trump prosecution has brought forth the usual (and a couple not so usual) attacks on the integrity of the Court.  While some are calling the justices now part of the “insurrection,” others are accusing them of “slow-walking” the appeal to push any trial past the election. MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin added that, due to the delay for a review of the matter, she was “beyond terrified for our country”

    In reality, the claim that the Court is moving slowly is factually and historically untrue. Indeed, in comparison to most cases, this is a NASCAR pace for an institution that is more focused on issuing right rather than rapid decisions.

    While the Court has had shorter schedules on emergency matters, this case will be heard in a fraction of the usual period for appeals and the calendar is consistent with past expedited cases. Moreover, the conditions that led to the shorter expedited calendars in a few past cases are not present in this case.

    Craven Insurrectionists

    Some of the usual voices immediately came forward to declare that, once again, the justices are exposing themselves as raw partisans. MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow declared the review of the matter as “BS” and exposed “the cravenness of the court.” She further declared, again, that the action undermined “legitimacy of the court.”

    MSNBC host Chris Hayes alleged declared “Today, the Supreme Court signaled that it is in cahoots. The plot is on. It is a go.”

    Mary Trump, the niece of the former president, went further and declared that “the Supreme Court of the United States just reminded us with this corrupt decision that the insurrection did not fail–it never ended.”

    Former Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney (R., Wy) said that the review effectively “suppresses critical evidence that Americans deserve to hear.”

    Regular MSNBC guest Elie Mystal (who previously called the Constitution “trash“) had a more novel take.  With MSNBC host Alex Wagner nodding in apparent agreement, Mystal explained to viewers that this was just an effort of Justice Clarence Thomas (and possibly Samuel Alito) to retire. The theory goes something like this: Thomas does not want to have a Democrat fill his seat, so he is going to postpone the appeal, which will delay a trial for Trump, which will allow Trump to be elected, which will permit Trump to appoint his successor, which will allow Thomas to drive off in his RV for an unending retiree roadtrip. See, it’s that simple.

    There is, of course, another possible explanation.

    Some justices have serious concerns about the lower court decision.

    The Historical Comparisons

    At the outset, there are a couple of glaring problems with the claim of “slow-walking” to push the trial past the election.

    First, the Court did not create this collision with the election. Both state and federal prosecutors have waited until shortly before the election to bring charges for actions taken almost four years ago. They are now demanding expedited and in some cases abridged reviews due to an urgency that they created.

    Second, this matter has already been curtailed and expedited. Special Counsel Jack Smith has repeatedly pushed to deny Trump standard appellate options and time to present his case. After the Supreme Court refused to effectively cut off his right to an appellate review, the D.C. Circuit did so by pressuring Trump to file directly with the Supreme Court rather than seeking the review of the entire court in an en banc appeal. That standard en banc option was all but eliminated by an order that would have returned the mandate to the district court within days — forcing Trump to argue an appeal while being forced into the resumption of pre-trial proceedings.

    Third, the Court has expedited the matter. The fact is that this is a much shorter schedule and the Court is fitting the case in the middle of a long scheduled and crowded calendar. It allowed the parties a few weeks to fully brief a question with major implications for our constitutional system.

    It ordinarily takes months for the Court to even accept a case. The Court has set this matter for argument in April to allow the parties to fully brief the issue and will likely rule by June.

    Some have pointed out that there are cases where the Court moved more swiftly. However, those cases have important distinctions.

    For example, Michael Waldman, president of New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, noted that in 1974 the Court considered United States v. Nixon “in a matter of weeks.” That is a valid point, but there are a couple of missing relevant facts.

    The district court issued the subpoena to Nixon to turn over the famous White House tapes in April 1974. It then ordered compliance in May 1974 when Nixon refused. In allowing a direct appeal, the Court then held oral argument on July 8, 1975. It issued its unanimous decision on July 24, 2975. That was roughly two months after the initial appeal.

    That is certainly a faster track by a few weeks. However, the Court was unanimous and this was not an appeal by a criminal defendant. While there was always the chance of an indictment of Nixon (until his pardon by Gerald Ford after he left office), the case concerned the access to evidence in the Watergate investigation. Criminal defendants are afforded the highest level of protection and review in cases.

    Critics also cite the Bush v. Gore decision where the Supreme Court decided the matter in days.  Once again, that is true. I covered that decision for CBS as a legal analyst and it was a rocket pace. However, the Court was not looking at an approaching election but an approaching inauguration of the next president. The case was decided on December 12, 2000 — roughly three weeks away from the certification of the election by Congress.

    The Issue Presented

    This case is not going to decide whether an election can be held or whether a candidate can be certified. The original March trial date has already been discarded. It is not clear if a trial will occur before the election. It could still theoretically occur even with a June decision of the Court, though it is admittedly less likely with every delay.

    That trial could cut both ways. Trump could be acquitted or convicted or it could result in a hung jury. The Court, however, rarely engages in such political calculations. Indeed, some justices may not agree with the exceptional treatment given this case by the appellate panel, including effectively cutting off the option of an en banc review.

    For some, this case has been marked by fast walking, not slow walking, by courts. The Supreme Court previously rejected Smith’s arguments that the urgency of trying Trump should override the ordinary appellate process or schedule.  Some justices may resent the pressure to dispatch these claims to allow for a trial that may influence an election.

    Notably, the Court has previously rejected expedited appeal requests from Trump, including some issues related to the last presidential election. This appeal is not dependent on the election or tied to its certification.

    The Court has laid out a difficult question for review:

    “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

    It is clear that, unlike the Nixon case, the court is not likely to be unanimous on this question. I have previously expressed doubt over the sweeping claim of immunity presented by the Trump team. However, justices may have good-faith concerns over the implications of the lower court decision as well.

    The Court has had a long, collegial tradition in allowing justices to resolve such questions even when they may be in the minority.

    Some justices have long supported a robust view of executive privilege and power.  They may want to delineate the scope of this privilege with greater precision. In that sense, the Court could uphold the result of the D.C. Circuit while offering a different or more nuanced view of the immunity.

    Of course, none of that is nearly as captivating as calling the justices “insurrectionists” or spinning tales of some retirement conspiracy with the RNC and the AARP.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 18:00

  • Team Biden Braces For More 'Uncommitted' Protest Votes On Super Tuesday
    Team Biden Braces For More ‘Uncommitted’ Protest Votes On Super Tuesday

    President Biden’s path to the Democratic nomination could become one of serial humiliation. As Super Tuesday looms, Team Biden is hoping the embarrassment they endured in Michigan — where more than 100,000 Democrats voted “uncommitted” as a form of protest — isn’t repeated in contests across the country. 

    Motivated largely by anger over Biden’s handling of the Israel-Gaza war, Michigan’s uncommitted drive exceeded organizers’ expectations, with a hefty 13.3% of Democratic voters opting to repudiate the incumbent. The tally was large enough that two of the state’s 117 delegates at the Democratic national convention will be free to vote as they please, though it seems likely that state party officials will pick Biden loyalists for the slots anyway. 

    Michigan’s significant Muslim population led the effort, but disenchanted progressives and college students also played a key role — and could do so again in upcoming primaries. “They’re absolutely not some voting bloc to take for granted,” leftist political consultant and former AOC confidante Corbin Trent tells the New York Post. “Biden is a general election threat to Democrats.”

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

    Eight of the 16 Super Tuesday states have either an “uncommitted” or write-in option on the ballot: Alabama, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee and Vermont, according to the Post. Given it’s the home of the country’s largest Somali population, Minnesota is a state where uncommitted votes are more likely make waves for the Biden-Harris campaign.   

    “A majority of us have voted for Biden before, but this time I don’t think we should vote for him,” 26-year-old Minnesotan Abdifatah Abdi told Associated Press. Abdi says he’s thinking of voting for Trump, shrugging off the former president’s Muslim immigration ban in pursuit of the better of two evils. “Trump may be for a ban. But what is worse, a ban or the killing?”

    More than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed and more than a million forced from their homes amid Israel’s massive retaliation for the Oct. 7 Hamas invasion of southern Israel. Defying global condemnation, the Biden administration has steadfastly stood by the Israeli government, to include not only arming and funding it, but vetoing United Nations resolutions calling for a ceasefire. 

    Colorado is another state to keep an eye on. Inspired by Tuesday’s result in Michigan, the Colorado Palestine Coalition and Democratic Socialists of America launched a “Vote Noncommitted Colorado” drive on Wednesday. That’s a very late start compared to Michigan’s effort that spanned weeks. “We figured if there’s a way to make some waves and let our discontent be known, we might as well,” Grace Thorvilson tells Axios Denver. 

    A New York Times/Siena poll released over the weekend found that only 23% of Democratic voters are enthused about Biden, with 32% either dissatisfied or angry about having him atop the ticket. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 17:30

  • The Ministry Of AI Truth
    The Ministry Of AI Truth

    Authored by CJ Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

    Remember HAL, the homicidal Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic Computer from Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey? Well, if you haven’t had the pleasure yet, let me introduce you to Gemini, Google’s “multimodal large language model.” Gemini hasn’t killed anyone yet — as far as I know, the liquidation of Gaza is being assisted by an Israeli AI called “the Gospel” — but it is certainly doing a bang-up job of assassinating people’s characters.

    I was prompted to play around with Gemini by Matt Taibbi’s recent piece reporting on how Gemini invented entire “Matt Taibbi articles” that Matt never wrote. Given the fact that I’ve been relentlessly censored and “visibility-filtered” for years by Google, Twitter, X, Facebook, Amazon, and Wikipedia, I figured I should probably give Gemini a go and see how I am being portrayed to potential readers who may have never heard of me.

    Here are screenshots of my chat with Gemini. I hope you’ll take the time to read them, and reflect on how our official “reality” is being manufactured by global corporations and their increasingly creepy algorithmic machines. I used myself as an example in this chat, but the subject could have been anyone, any writer, artist, or any other public figure.

    I omitted some of the repetitive boilerplate platitudes about Gemini’s noble intentions, but otherwise … well, here’s what happened.

    That answer seemed slightly imbalanced. So I probed …

    Gemini clearly wanted to focus on how “controversial” I am, so I went with that …

    OK, that was somewhat alarming, especially the part about how I’m “promoting conspiracy theories” and “contributing to societal division and undermining trust in credible sources.”

    This session was not going well for me at all.

    According to Gemini, in addition to “attacking the credibility of scientists, journalists, and public health officials,” I’ve been “eroding the public’s ability to discern fact from fiction” and “undermining trust” by “spreading misinformation.” I wasn’t aware I was doing that, so …

    Right. So, I tried it another way …

    And here comes my favorite part of the chat. I did not write any of the following “excerpts.”

    None of the above are actual quotes, neither the “excerpts,” nor the “quotes” in Gemini’s analysis. Gemini just made it all up.

    Right. I took a different tack …

    Yes, it appears, once again, that “mistakes were made” … but that’s OK, because Gemini is still “under development and learning.” And, after all, fabricating quotes (or, in Matt Taibbi’s case, entire articles) is an innocent “mistake” that anyone could make!

    I decided to get down to the nitty-gritty …

    And …

    Imagine my horror at being accused of “amplifying Russian perspectives.” Once again, I asked Gemini for specific examples.

    OK, how about examples of my “conspiracy theories” …

    Or any actual examples of any of the claims about me that Gemini is making …

    Wait … what? Widely contested?

    That wasn’t an answer, so I pressed on …

    And on …

    And on …

    And there you have it. If you’re into this stuff, try it out yourself with another controversial public figure. Just for fun. I mean, there’s no need to worry. Gemini is “still in development,” and it means well. I’m sure it will fix its “mistakes.”

    After all, it apologized, just like HAL did near the end of the movie …

    “I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I’ve still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 17:00

  • Lawyers Who Voided Musk's "Excessive" $56 Billion Pay-Plan Seek $6 Billion Worth Of Legal Fees
    Lawyers Who Voided Musk’s “Excessive” $56 Billion Pay-Plan Seek $6 Billion Worth Of Legal Fees

    In case you were wondering whether or not the lawyers challenging Elon Musk’s pay plan were doing pro bono work on behalf of Tesla shareholders, that answer is starting to look like a resounding “no”.

    That’s because it was reported on Friday that the lawyers who voided the “excessive” $56 billion pay plan are seeking $6 billion in Tesla stock as compensation. After all, who would know better about excessive compensation?

    The fee works out to $288,888 per hour, a report from Reuters said. “We recognize that the requested fee is unprecedented in terms of absolute size,” the three firms said in a filing at the Court of Chancery in Delaware.

    “This structure has the benefit of linking the award directly to the benefit created and avoids taking even one cent from the Tesla balance sheet to pay fees,” they continued, saying the fee would be tax deductible for Tesla. 

    The reasoning for the excessive fee rests on the fact that the victory to void Musk’s pay plan results in 266 million shares being returned to the company. 

    Needless to say, Elon Musk didn’t stop to find the irony in the situation. “The lawyers who did nothing but damage Tesla want $6 billion. Criminal,” Elon Musk fired back on X on Friday. 

    For comparison, Reuters noted that in a securities fraud case concerning Enron Corp.’s collapse, a legal team secured a $7.2 billion settlement in federal court, receiving a record fee of $688 million in 2008.

    Delaware courts have noted that legal battles that progress towards trial, involving extensive litigation efforts like depositions, warrant a higher recovery percentage due to the associated risks and efforts. This principle was applied in the trial over Elon Musk’s compensation package, which spanned a week. Critics, however, argue for reducing attorneys’ percentage fees as settlements and awards increase, to prevent excessive compensation.

    The legal team in Musk’s case sought about 11% of the judgment, advocating for stock compensation free of selling restrictions.

    Recall on January 31, we wrote that the compensation case, which was launched by shareholder Richard Tornetta, argued that Tesla’s board lacked independence in crafting Musk’s pay, a view the judge supported.

    Delaware Chancery Court Chief Judge Kathaleen St. J. McCormick cited inadequate disclosures and board conflicts of interest in her ruling. Musk, whose wealth largely comes from Tesla, the top auto company globally, has seen stock options from this plan vest as performance goals were met, though he hasn’t exercised them yet.

    The judge wrote: “In the final analysis, Musk launched a self-driving process, recalibrating the speed and direction along the way as he saw fit. The process arrived at an unfair price. And through this litigation, the plaintiff requests a recall.”

    “The most striking omission from the process is the absence of any evidence of adversarial negotiations between the Board and Musk concerning the size of the grant,” she said in her ruling.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 16:30

  • Letters Warn "You Cannot Keep Your Doctor" – Thousands Freaking Out
    Letters Warn “You Cannot Keep Your Doctor” – Thousands Freaking Out

    By Mish Shedlock of MishTalk

    Does anyone recall the Obamacare promise “you can keep your doctor”. Up to 100,000 people might find out otherwise in one big bang. More are likely on deck.

    Freaking Out

    Patients are caught in the middle of contract disputes between hospitals and health insurers. As a result, people are Freaking Out. Letters Warn Patients They Risk Losing Their Doctor

    Patients are getting ominous warnings in their mail and inboxes: They are about to lose insurance coverage of their doctors.

    The threatening letters and emails have sent patients reeling. Unsure what to make of it all, they are flooding doctors with calls asking questions, snapping up appointments with the physicians and taking to social media to complain.

    Sparring in New York City are health insurers such as giants UnitedHealthcare and Aetna, which pay for medical care, and big-name hospital systems like NewYork-Presbyterian and Mount Sinai Health System seeking more money for the treatment provided by their doctors.

    NewYork-Presbyterian said the insurer has failed to offer enough. Aetna said the hospital system’s demands are unsupportable. Both declined to say what rate increases they are seeking.

    If hospitals and insurance companies fail to agree on a contract, patients can lose not only some or even all of their health plan’s coverage, but they may also pay a doctor’s higher, non-negotiated rates.

    The hospital system sought new terms because of rising labor costs and its analysis of newly public hospital pricing data indicated Mount Sinai wasn’t paid as well as its competitors, said Brent Estes, Mount Sinai’s chief managed-care officer. 

    UnitedHealthcare said Mount Sinai’s proposals would increase its rates by 43% to 58% over three to four years. “We continue to await a realistic proposal from Mount Sinai that’s affordable and sustainable for New Yorkers and employers,” the company said.

    As boomers get older demands for medical care services will explode.

    Percentage Change in Debt and Population

    In the last four years, the percentage increase in population was 3.0 percent. The percentage in crease in debt was 45.3 percent.

    Federal Debt vs Population 1992 vs Now

    • In 1992, the federal debt was $4.027 trillion. The population was 192.805 million.
    • At the end of 2023, federal debt was $32.690 trillion and the population was 266.942 million.
    • Between 2019 and 2023, the federal debt rose by 45.3 percent. The population rose by 3.0 percent.
    • Between 2007 and 2019, the federal debt rose by 105.3 0ercent. The population rose by 11.8 percent.

    The cost of healthcare is about to soar.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 16:00

  • These Are The Best And Worst Performing Assets Of February And YTD 2024
    These Are The Best And Worst Performing Assets Of February And YTD 2024

    As DB’s Henry Allen writes, February was another very strong month for risk assets, with many major world equity indices hitting fresh record highs. That included the S&P 500, which surpassed the 5,000 mark for the first time, as well as the Nikkei, which surpassed its previous record from 1989. In part, that was because of continued excitement around AI, and the Magnificent 7 posted their best performance in 9 months. However, with inflation still above target and surprising on the upside in the US, investors pushed out the timing of future rate cuts, and sovereign bonds lost further ground. In addition, US regional banks continued to struggle, as investor concerns persisted about commercial real estate. As for cryptocurrencies and bitcoin which soared almost 50% in February after the launch of bitcoin ETFs, well, don’t get Elizabeth Warren started.

    Month in Review – The high-level macro overview

    February had several ongoing stories that were relevant for markets.

    1. The first was that global data was still robust for the most part, and hopes for a soft landing continued. For instance, the US jobs report for January showed nonfarm payrolls up by +353k, along with positive revisions to the previous two months. Moreover, the ISM manufacturing print hit a 15-month high. But even as growth remained strong, there were further upside surprises on inflation, which raised fears that the path back to target was unlikely to be a smooth one, and raised questions as to whether the economy would face a “no landing”. In particular, the US core CPI print for January came in at a monthly +0.4%, which pushed the 3-month annualised rate for core CPI up to +4.0%.

    With inflation above target and growth remaining strong, that led investors to push out the timing of future rate cuts once again. At the Fed, futures moved from pricing 146bps of cuts by the December meeting, to 85bps, a reduction of 61bps over February. In addition, they pushed out the likely timing of the first rate cut to the June meeting. As a result, sovereign bond yields rose further, and US Treasuries (-1.4%) posted their worst monthly performance since September. Similarly in the Euro Area, investors reduced the expected cuts by December from 160bps to 91bps, and Euro sovereign bonds fell -1.2%. Lastly in Japan, expectations grew that the BoJ might end the negative interest rate policy as early as April, and yields on 2yr JGBs were up +9.7bps to 0.17%, marking their highest level since 2011.

    2. The second important story was the ongoing excitement around AI, which led to a fresh outperformance from the Magnificent 7. They were up +12.1% in total return terms, which was their best monthly performance since May 2023, and Nvidia surged by a further +28.6%, which followed their strong earnings release towards the end of the month. That helped to power the overall S&P 500 (+5.3%) to a 4th consecutive monthly advance, although the rally continued to be a narrow one, with the equal-weighted S&P 500 up by a smaller +4.2% in February.

    3. Third, the concerns about commercial real estate continued, particularly at the start of February. That came after New York Community Bancorp reported a loss on January 31 as they raised their expected loan losses on commercial real estate. This raised fears that the full consequences from higher interest rates are still yet to materialise, particularly give the amount of debt that needs refinancing over 2024 and 2025. For markets, it meant that US regional banks lost further ground, with the KBW Regional Banking Index down another -2.8%, bringing its YTD decline to -9.5%. New York Community Bancorp led those declines, with a -25.2% return in February, taking its YTD decline to -52.7%.

    Which assets saw the biggest gains in February?

    • Equities: Excitement about AI and strong growth data helped global equities advance for a 4th consecutive month, with the S&P 500 (+5.3%) and the STOXX 600 (+2.0%) both rising. Asian indices saw the largest gains, with the Nikkei up +8.0%, and the Shanghai Comp (+8.1%) had its best monthly performance since November 2022.
    • US Dollar : As investors pushed out the timing of future rate cuts, the dollar index rose for a second consecutive month, rising +0.9%. Moreover, the dollar strengthened against every G10 currency apart from the Swedish Krona.
    • Oil : Despite the losses for other commodities, oil prices rose for a second consecutive month, with Brent crude up +2.3%, and WTI up +3.2%.
    • Cryptocurrencies : It was a very strong month for cryptocurrencies, with Bitcoin (+44.7%) seeing its best monthly performance since December 2020, ending the month at $61,431.

    Which assets saw the biggest losses in February?

    • Sovereign Bonds : As investors pushed out the timing of rate cuts, sovereign bonds saw further losses. That included US Treasuries (-1.4%), Euro sovereigns (-1.2%) and gilts (-1.3%)
    • Japanese Yen : The Japanese Yen weakened a further -2.0% against the US Dollar in February, leaving it as the worst-performing G10 currency on a YTD basis, having now weakened -6.0% since the start of the year.
    • Commodities (except oil) : Several commodities saw significant declines in February. European natural gas was down -17.8%, marking a fourth consecutive monthly decline. Copper (-1.8%) also lost ground after three monthly gains, whilst agricultural goods including wheat (-3.0%), corn (-7.3%) and soybeans (-7.7%) fell back as well.

    Finally, here are the charts summarizing major asset performance in February in local currency and USD…

    … and YTD.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 15:30

  • Another One? Trump-Hunter Letitia James Spent Thousands On Luxury Travel And All Sorts Of Other Malarkey
    Another One? Trump-Hunter Letitia James Spent Thousands On Luxury Travel And All Sorts Of Other Malarkey

    While Georgia Trump prosecutor Fani Willis is embroiled in Fanigate – paying her boyfriend nearly $1 million to help her ‘get Trump’ while he flew the two of them on (allegedly ‘cash’ reimbursed) lavish vacations, New York AG Letitia James has been spending tens of thousands of dollars on all sorts of personal benefits, according to a recent analysis of a recent financial disclosure by X user “Mel” (@Villagecrazylady).

    The findings are damning. James spent more than $15,000 on luxury hotels in Puerto Rico, $20,000 per yea rin meals, $7,000 dropped at a NYC nightclub that was billed as an “office,” and $84,000 in airfare to fly all over the country.

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

    She also stayed at the Beverly Hills Wilshire, and claimed $65,000 in “reimbursements” to “campaign consultants,” which as X user Jim Weed notes, “could literally be anything.”

    Speaking of campaign consultants, can anyone tell me why a state Attorney General would need to spend over $300,000 in a single year (2023) on campaign consultants when she *just* won re-election the previous November? What could she possibly be consulting on? Furthermore, why do these million-dollar “campaign consultancy firms” always seem to be run out of random 2-bedroom apartments?

    To be clear, Ms. James isn’t breaking the law with her expenditures. But considering the high bar she set for Trump in his civil fraud case, it’s more than a little galling that she plays so fast and loose with what she deems to be “legitimate campaign expenses.” -@JimBobW49

    James also spent thousands at the ’48 Lounge’ in NYC as a ‘fundraising’ expense, a venue which claims to provide a “luxurious and intimate atmosphere.”

    Continues:

    Ghost Donors?

    It appears Attorney General Ms. James is wrapped up in the ghost donor scam.

    You may think that ghost donor bots were just operating at the federal level, but this investigation revealed how big it is at the state level.

    Here’s a list of  Ms. James’ total donations and their corresponding receipts by year. Does anything jump out at you?

    Obviously, 2022 is off the charts. Over 32,500 receipts, and over 62% are from out of state. Who the heck donates to an Attorney General, running in a totally safe seat in a whole other state?!

    Answer: Ghost donors. What are ghost donors? Ghost donors (sometimes called “smurfs”) are sophisticated bot programs that use the names and addresses of real Americans to make donations to political campaigns. This allows the people running the programs to circumvent campaign finance laws. The donations are made in thousands of small-dollar increments that are easily looked over on cursory review. –America Out Loud

    As Mel concludes: “So to recap: we’ve got unknown entities funding our state and federal elections and everywhere you turn there’s a sleazy politician using this tainted campaign money to fund their extravagant lifestyles.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 15:00

  • "We Definitely Messed Up": Google Co-Founder Addresses Woke Gemini Fiasco
    “We Definitely Messed Up”: Google Co-Founder Addresses Woke Gemini Fiasco

    “We definitely messed up on the image generation, and it was mostly due to not thorough testing,” Google co-founder Sergey Brin said at the Gemini Hackathon regarding the controversy surrounding Gemini, a woke artificial intelligence bot, which has been criticized for misinformation and disinformation. 

    A video featuring, Brin, currently a major shareholder at Alphabet, the parent company of Google, shows him making no apologies for the historical inaccuracies and woke biases in Gemini. 

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

    X users immediately noticed a man at the event, sitting at a table in front of Brin, wearing what appears to be a body print of a woman’s naked torso, including breasts. Weird, right? 

    Gemini’s inaccuracies were so egregious that they appeared not to be mistakes but instead a possible deliberate effort by its woke creators to rewrite history. The image function on the bot has been paused for over a week. 

    Google scrambled last week as it entered damage control mode. 

    Alphabet’s Sundar Pichai described the Gemini issue as “completely unacceptable” in a statement. 

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

    Meanwhile, there are mounting boycott calls for all Google products:

    “I’ve been reading Google’s Gemini damage control posts. I think they’re simply not telling the truth. For one, their text-only product has the same (if not worse) issues. And second, if you know a bit about how these models are built, you know you don’t get these “incorrect” answers through one-off innocent mistakes,” one X user stated in a post that has more than 5 million views. He further mentioned that he’s “done with Google.” 

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

    Gemini is the tip of the woke iceberg, and executives at the giant tech company are entirely out of touch with reality. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 03/03/2024 – 14:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest