Nov 04

Today’s News 4th November 2024

  • "An Existential Race Amongst The Great Powers Accelerates, At The Dawn Of The AI Age"
    “An Existential Race Amongst The Great Powers Accelerates, At The Dawn Of The AI Age”

    By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

    “In the global competition on AI, the alleged role of a single, and outdated, version of an American open-source model is irrelevant when we know China is already investing more than one-trillion dollars to surpass the US on AI,” said a Meta spokesperson, defending itself against an allegation.

    The Jamestown Foundation had released an academic paper [here] with the following claim: “The military and security sectors within the People’s Republic of China are increasingly focused on integrating advanced AI technologies into operational capabilities. Meta’s open-source model Llama (Large Language Model Meta AI) has emerged as a preferred model on which to build out features tailored for military and security applications. In this way, US and US-derived technology is being deployed as a tool to enhance the PRC’s military modernization and domestic innovation efforts, with direct consequences for the United States and its allies and partners.”

    The report also stated: “In September, the former deputy director of the Academy of Military Sciences (AMS), Lieutenant General He Lei, called for the United Nations to establish restrictions on the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in warfare. This would suggest that Beijing has an interest in mitigating the risks associated with military AI. Instead, the opposite is true. The People’s Republic of China is currently leveraging AI to enhance its own military capabilities and strategic advantages and is using Western technology to do so.”

    As the world waited for America to choose its next commander-in-chief, I spent the week thinking about security matters.

    “The number of different categories of space weapons that China has created and the speed with which they’re doing it is very threatening,” warned General Chance Saltzman, head of space operations for the US Space Force, as an existential race amongst the great powers accelerates, at the dawn of the AI Age. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 23:20

  • The Future Of Debanking
    The Future Of Debanking

    Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

    Among many worrying trends is the problem of debanking. It is underreported. The victims do not like to talk about it, even among family and friends.

    It is rarely discussed at all in public forums. Only specialists write about it. But it is a threat to everyone in the most intensely effective way. The practice denies people access to the basics of life and yet there is no appeal, no process, no methods of challenge, and no remediation.

    We did not know until Melania Trump’s latest biography that she and her son Barron were victims of debanking, the practice of shutting down a person’s bank account based on an unsigned and unexplained decision in which the account holder is merely notified that all services are hereby denied.

    Good on her for admitting this. People rarely do.

    This apparently happened in 2021, after her husband had left the office of the presidency. There were concerted efforts at the time to wipe out the memory of his time in office.

    Back in those days, I used the home assistant app called Google Home. I asked who the 45th president was and the product responded that it had no information on that. Indeed, it was like a scene from Orwell.

    Apparently Melania and Barron were also being deleted by their own bank.

    “I was shocked and dismayed to learn that my long-time bank decided to terminate my account and deny my son the opportunity to open a new one,” she wrote.

    She did not say the name of the bank. Nor do most victims of this practice. The bank simply sends a letter and encloses the balance. The victim then has to hunt around for an alternative, now with the black mark of having been canceled by another bank, which raises real questions. The problem is compounded by the absence of any real reason for the actions.

    We do not know how widespread this practice is but, anecdotally, it has clearly escalated in recent years. The same has happened to the former president, and many of his supporters.

    The Free Press comments: “Also debanked have been a number of Christian charities, including Indigenous Advance Ministries, a Memphis-based charity that does philanthropic work for orphans in Uganda, and Family Council, a pro-life charity based in Arkansas. According to Democratic lawmakers, many Arab and South-Asian Americans—who are considered ‘high risk’ because of being Muslim—have been debanked, too.”

    There is no human right to have a bank account, and banks have every legal right to decide with whom they would like to do business. They can end client services for anyone at any time and have no legal obligation to explain or allow appeal.

    Confusing matters is that banks may not necessarily want to kick out account holders but are pressured to do so by their own compliance standards. If they see a business account engaged in activity that seems even slightly sketchy—dealing with crypto or moving cash around in strange ways or taking too many deposits from a strange source—the system itself could flag the account and the process is then set in motion with no human decision-maker.

    Indeed, the letter could be sent and the account removed without any knowledge of someone at the bank. The algorithms are ruling the people in this case, a problem that has become extremely serious in a range of areas.

    At the same time, there is real danger presented when the practice is deployed for purely political reasons. It is a digital application of the principle of Sun Tzu: “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” Debanking allows exactly this.

    Banking services exert an incredible power over our lives. Our automatic payments keep the lights on, the mortgage paid up, and the cellphone going. The debit cards and credit cards hooked into them are the lifeblood of our living standards. Try to function even a day or two without them and you’d see what I mean.

    Having them suddenly cut off is like falling into the abyss. You can march down to bank headquarters and demand answers, but this much I promise you: You will get none. Probably no one there, not even the branch manager, has any answer. For whatever reason, the powers that be have decided that your account is not one they want and that is the end of it. There is no one to sue because no one did anything wrong. Granting banking services is at the discretion of the bank, period.

    The problem is that the banking system is integral to power itself, regulated by agencies and holding vast amounts of government debt in a system that is ultimately overseen by the legislative and executive branches. That makes banking political, not just in the United States but all over the world. The discovery by political elites that they can weaponize the banking system should alarm anyone and everyone simply because it allows the punishment of political enemies through surreptitious means.

    The Free Press points to “an emerging, bipartisan, anti-debanking bloc on Capitol Hill.” They quote Ro Khanna, a Democratic representative from California. “Every American should have the ability to take out a loan or save for their future without fear of discrimination or having their accounts closed without explanation,” Khanna said, according to the publication.

    Indeed, that seems entirely reasonable. There needs to be some action taken before this gets out of hand, which it will very quickly in today’s contentious political environment.

    Experts on this topic all agree: The debanked need to speak out about this now, posting letters and recording communications. It’s the only way we draw public attention to this.

    There is a broader problem relating to the creation of social-credit systems around the world, most especially in China. Political compliance becomes a standard of inclusion in financial and social life generally. It’s a highly effective way that regimes can carefully and quietly control their citizens. It has no place in a free society, and it seems like our laws ought to be clear about that.

    Even if the technology allows it, even if the algorithms dictate it, we need systems in which banks and other financial institutions cannot end services for people without some explicitly cited reason and an opportunity for appeal, in addition to some legal recourse in the case of arbitrary action. Taking those steps would help underscore the point that this society aspires to be free and grants its citizens dignity and rights.

    Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 22:10

  • Medvedev: US Election Doesn't Matter, Ukraine War Won't Stop, And Trump May Get JFK'd If He Intervenes
    Medvedev: US Election Doesn’t Matter, Ukraine War Won’t Stop, And Trump May Get JFK’d If He Intervenes

    Days after Russia launched a massive readyness drill of their nuclear forces, former Russian President and current deputy chairman of the country’s Security Counsel Dmitry Medvedev says that the outcome of the US election doesn’t matter, as both candidates believe “Russia must be defeated,” and that if Donald Trump is elected and tries to intervene, he may be assassinated.

    Dmitry Medvedev, 2016.

    Medvedev made the comments to his nearly 1.4 million followers on Telegram.

    The entire post, translated (emphasis ours);

    The whole world stands frozen in uneasy anticipation, waiting for the results of the presidential election in the distant land of ‘Us.

    There is no reason why we should have high expectations about it.

    1. The outcome of the election will not change anything for Russia, as both candidates share the same bipartisan consensus that ‘Russia must be defeated’.

    2. Kamala is dumb, inexperienced, and easy to control, as she will be terrified of everyone around her. All the real decision-making will be done by a coterie of top ministers and advisors plus (indirectly) the Obamas.

    3. A low-energy Trump, spewing clichés like “I’ll offer them a deal” and “I have a very good relationship with…”, will be forced to comply with the system and its rules. He won’t stop the war. Not in one day, not in three days, not in three months. And if he actually attempts to do it, he could end up becoming the new JFK.

    4. The only thing that matters is how much cash the new POTUS can squeeze out of Congress to finance someone else’s war, fought in a far-off land. Cash to feed the American military-industrial complex and to line the pockets of the Banderite scum in Ukraine.

    5. That is why, if we want to please both candidates for the highest American office, the best thing to do on November 5 is keep pummeling the Nazi regime in Kiev!

    Meanwhile, Medvedev reiterated to Russian state-controlled news agency RT that adding Ukraine to NATO could lead to World War III.

    “Shortly before his death, already at a very mature age, he (Kissinger) as if with some regret suggested that now we have no choice but to accept Ukraine into NATO,” he told the outlet. “I think that he was still mistaken in this. There is no such predetermination. Because, choosing between some promises and the possibility of starting a third world war—the choice is still quite obvious.”

    Ukraine’s long-held goal of NATO membership was among the objectives in the Victory Plan that Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky unveiled during a visit to the U.S. in September.

    Kyiv’s ambassador to the alliance Nataliia Galibarenko said in October that the Ukrainian government would like a formal invitation to join the alliance before President Joe Biden leaves office in January.

    Along with claims of alliance encroachment on Russia, Moscow often refers to the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO to justify its actions. Kyiv says it needs to join NATO to resist any future Russian aggression. -Newsweek

    He also told RT that Moscow believes the current US and European political establishments lack the “foresight and subtlety of mind” of Kissinger, and should take the Kremlin’s nuclear warnings seriously.

    “If we are talking about the existence of our state, as the president of our country has repeatedly said, your humble servant has said, others have said, of course, we simply will not have any choice,” he said, per Sky News and The Sun, adding that the US and the West are “wrong” if they think Putin won’t turn to nuclear weapons if NATO sought to inflict a defeat on Russia in the Ukraine war.

    “If the new [US] leader is going to be fiercely dedicated to adding fuel to the fire of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it will be a very bad choice,” adding “Because this is the road to hell.”

    “It’s really a road to World War Three,” he continued. “Whoever decides to continue the war will be making a very dangerous mistake.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 21:35

  • What's Wrong In Our Nation?
    What’s Wrong In Our Nation?

    Authored by Star Parker via The Epoch Times,

    As we move to the conclusion of this election cycle, there seems to be only one thing about which all Americans agree.

    That is, that something is very wrong in our nation.

    In the latest Gallup polling, only 22 percent say they are satisfied with the direction of the country. The highest this has been over the last 16 years was 45 percent back in February of 2020.

    So, despite change in party control over these years, the sense that something is wrong in the country has persisted.

    More in the framework of this election, only 39 percent say they are better off than they were four years ago, and 52 percent say they are not better off.

    Most Americans do not even have confidence in the sources where they get their news. Only 31 percent say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in mass media. The first time Gallup asked this question, back in 1972, 68 percent expressed confidence in mass media.

    A record high percent of Americans, 80 percent, say the country is “greatly divided” on the most important values.

    In a New York Times/Siena College poll, only 49 percent say “American democracy does a good job representing the people.” And 76 percent say “American democracy is currently under threat.”

    All agree that something is wrong, but no consensus emerges about what exactly is the problem.

    Is it possible to put a finger on what is causing the cynicism and disillusionment that grips the psyche of our nation?

    My view is the problem is the drift of the nation from its founding principles.

    To put it another way, we have no choice about whether we have faith or belief. But we do have choice about what it is we believe.

    The dramatic change that has taken place in America is the uprooting of the Bible as our starting point for right and wrong.

    We have exchanged our faith in God for a faith in government.

    In 1950, Gallup reports 0 percent of Americans said they have no religion. By 1970, this was up to 3 percent. And by 2023, this was up to 22 percent.

    Over this same time, in 1950, the federal government consumed 14.2 percent of our GDP. The estimate from the Congressional Budget Office is that in 2024, that percent will be 23.9 percent.

    The preamble to our Constitution explains its purpose is “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity.”

    Our Constitution was not presumed to be the source of our freedom. We are already free by virtue, as noted in the Declaration of Independence, of being created thus by our God.

    Our Constitution was designed to limit interference by government in the ability of free, God-fearing men and women to live their lives as they see fit.

    The guideline for behavior, for right and wrong, is that which is transmitted to us from our Creator through the Bible.

    Under this reality, America grew and became great.

    However, success brings the sin of pride, and we begin to attribute our success to our cleverness rather than our faith and personal responsibility. As increasing numbers of Americans have turned away from God, they have turned more to government.

    The sad paradox is that as Americans turn to government, they abrogate the very freedom that the founders envisioned government’s role to secure.

    The result is less economic growth, breakdown of the American family and disappearance of children.

    Growth of government, growth of federal debt, and no children is no formula for a country with a future.

    I believe this is what Americans are sensing and what is producing all the negative feelings and pessimism.

    We must return to the vision of our founders.

    A free nation, under God. And a Constitution that secures “the blessings of liberty.”

    Short of this, although we may experience ups and downs, the nation will not realize its great potential.

    *  *  *

    Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 21:00

  • America's Out Of Control Debt "Is A National Security Threat" – Judy Shelton On Gold & Global Peace
    America’s Out Of Control Debt “Is A National Security Threat” – Judy Shelton On Gold & Global Peace

    “I want the United States to be the leader if there’s any kind of gold backing to a currency.”

    – Judy Shelton

    Economic advisor to former President Donald Trump, Judy Shelton, joins GoldTelegraph’s Alex Deluce for a captivating conversation spanning a wide range of subjects.

    Judy Shelton is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and author of the book Good as Gold: How to Unleash the Power of Sound Money.

    She is the former Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy and former U.S. Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. She has testified before the U.S. Senate Banking, Senate Foreign Relations, House Banking, House Foreign Affairs, and Joint Economic Committee.

    In their conversation, Deluce and Shelton explore a series of compelling topics, highlighted by Judy’s riveting career stories, including her interactions with figures like Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and other influential central bankers.

    One of the most powerful revelations she shared was Paul Volcker’s frank admission: he had always believed the United States would eventually return to the Bretton Woods system.

    For those unfamiliar, Volcker was referencing the pivotal moment known as the Nixon Shock in 1971, when President Nixon abruptly suspended the U.S. dollar’s convertibility into gold, shattering the foundation of the Bretton Woods system.

    At that historic moment in history, Volcker served as the Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Monetary Affairs.

    This marked the transition to a pure fiat monetary system.

    Deluce and Shelton get into a wide-ranging conversation that covers many topics, which include:

    • The US Dollar

    • The U.S. National Debt as a Security Threat

    • Federal Reserve’s Role in America’s debt and Financial Instability

    • Historical Perspectives on Monetary Policy

    • Potential Return to a Gold-Backed System

    • Comparisons Between Soviet Central Planning and Current Economic Policies

    • BRICS Countries and Global Financial Shifts

    • Treasury Bond Backed by Gold and the Potential for Gold Backed Stablecoins

    TIMESTAMPS:

    0:49 – How much does the US dollar’s global dominance depend on the upcoming election?

    2:08 – Is debt a threat to U.S. national security?

    3:20 – How responsible is the Federal Reserve for America’s current debt level?

    7:54 – How has the Federal Reserve contributed to the financial instability we face today?

    13:22 – How do you see today’s shifting global landscape, given your deep background in historical analysis?

    19:46 – Are we on the verge of another major global monetary shift, and what might it look like?

    29:13 – Was there a specific moment or event early in your career that sparked your interest in the study of gold?

    34:09 – Memorable stories from your conversations with Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker and Robert Mandel

    39:22 – How do you define sound money?

    46: 14 – How interconnected are sound money, economic opportunity, stability, and global peace, especially in today’s polarized world?

    49:51 – Why do you think so many policymakers dismiss and mock gold, even as global demand is at records and central banks are stockpiling?

    54:13 – How does the Fed’s dual mandate open it to political vulnerabilities, and could a rules-based system address these issues?

    59:37 – How does the Fed’s centralized control over interest rates affect what is supposed to be a market-based economy?

    1:02:48 – Are central banks aggressive policies eroding or undermining capitalism and the concept of free markets?

    1:06:23 – Are BRICS nations positioning gold to become a unit of account and medium of exchange, potentially bypassing the traditional financial system?

    1:09:38 – Could imposing tariffs on countries that move away from the dollar actually help America maintain its financial muscle?

    1:14:47 – What gives you hope for potential reforms that could create a monetary system supporting economic freedom and stability for everyone?

    1:16:58 – Could we potentially see you in the next administration advocating for these policies?

    Watch the full interview below:

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

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 20:25

  • What Drives US Voters
    What Drives US Voters

    By Philip Marey, Senior US Strategist at Rabobank (also available in pdf format)

    Summary

    • We analyze a 2022 survey from AP VoteCast to understand what drives US voters. We find that voters who judged economic conditions as “poor”, were more likely to vote for a Republican candidate in the Senate or the House of Representatives, punishing the Biden-Harris administration. In contrast, those who considered economic conditions to be “good” were more likely to vote Democrat. However, voters who judged economic conditions as “not so good” were also more likely to favor a Democrat, suggesting that Biden did not get all of the blame for the disappointing economy or that voters made a trade-off between the economy and other issues.

    • On social policy issues, voters are more likely to vote for a Republican if they think that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, if they think that the racism issue is not too or not at all serious, if they were not too or not at all concerned about COVID and if they strongly favor increased border security.

    • We also found that demographic characteristics determined US voter behavior. Men are more likely to vote Republican. In contrast, women and non-binary people are more likely to vote Democrat. The same is true for Black, Latino and Asian people. White people are more likely to vote Republican. People with a higher income are more likely to vote Republican, but – at a given income level – college graduates and people with a postgraduate degree are more likely to vote Democrat.

    • While this confirms several stereotypes, we also find some more nuanced results. For example, the probability of voting Republican increases with age until it peaks at the 50-64 segment, then it falls back a little. Moreover, if we take a closer look at the Hispanic vote, we find that Cuban Americans are more likely to vote Republican. Finally, it should be noted that the regression results imply that Black men are less likely to vote Democrat than Black women.

    • We also find that pop culture affects voter behavior, with people having a favorable view of Taylor Swift more likely to vote Democrat – even within their age cohort– and those with an unfavorable view of her more likely to vote Republican.

    • For the 2024 elections, our results suggest that the economy is a drag on the Harris campaign, but there are opportunities to offset this through social policy issues such as abortion. What’s more, our results show that in demographic terms Kamala Harris more closely resembles the typical Democratic voter than Joe Biden, which could help explain the increase in enthusiasm among Democratic voters after she replaced him at the top of the ticket. However, our results also explain why Harris has difficulty convincing Black men to vote for her: they are less likely to vote Democrat than Black women more generally, even if she is not on the ticket.

    Introduction

    The 2022 US midterm elections presented a complex political landscape. This report uses data from the AP VoteCast survey to delve into the various factors that shaped voter behavior and electoral outcomes, focusing on three key areas: the impact of economic anxieties on voting behavior, the changes in policies on abortion and immigration, and the demographics of American voters. The 2022 midterms occurred against a backdrop of significant economic uncertainty, with inflation emerging as a dominant concern among voters. As inflation hit a 40-year high of 9.1% in June 2022, Americans expressed growing anxiety about their financial wellbeing, despite a low unemployment rate of 3.6%. By November 2022, inflation had started to fall, but was still very high at 7.1%.

    The 2022 midterms also demonstrated the rapid evolution of voter priorities. Just two years earlier, during the height of the pandemic, healthcare and public health concerns dominated the political discourse. By 2022, these issues had taken a backseat to inflation. However, despite the changes in priorities compared to the 2020 elections, voters were still concerned with  non-economic issues. Figure 2 and 3 show the responses of voters to “Which one of the following would you say is the single most important issue for you?”

    The economy was the main concern among both Democrats and Republicans, with 33.2% and 63.2% of respondents choosing it respectively. However, for Democrats climate change, abortion and healthcare followed closely. For Republicans, at some distance, immigration and crime were mentioned most often.

    Regarding abortion, The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization had a significant impact on the 2022 midterm elections. For about a quarter of voters, the Court’s decision was the single most important factor in their midterm vote. This figure increased to more than 3 in 10 among groups traditionally aligned with prochoice positions: Democratic voters, younger women, and first-time voters. These voters predominantly supported Democratic candidates. The impact was particularly pronounced among women of color. Majorities of Black and Hispanic women reported that the Supreme Court decision influenced their voting behavior. Finally, a key issue for Republican voters in 2022 was immigration, because of a surge in the number of migrant apprehensions at the southern border. Democrats, however, ranked immigration as their last concern.

    The data set from the 2022 midterms offers valuable insights into US voter behavior. It reveals that while economic concerns were at the forefront of voter priorities, these were not the only factors driving electoral decisions. The economic anxieties that dominated the political discourse led to a Republican majority in the House. However, the data also underscores the continued significance of non-economic issues, such as abortion and immigration, in shaping voter behavior. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade emerged as a pivotal factor, underscoring the powerful role of social issues in mobilizing the electorate.

    Data and model

    Our analysis is grounded in a comprehensive dataset primarily sourced from AP VoteCast, a nationwide survey conducted after midterm and general elections in the US comprising more than 100 thousand respondents. This data provides direct insights into the demographics, sentiments, and perceptions on various economic and non-economic topics of individual voters. AP VoteCast, initiated in 2018, combines interviews with randomly sampled registered voters from state voter files and self-identified registered voters from NORC’s AmeriSpeak® panel and nonprobability online panels.

    To examine the relationships between voters’ attitudes and their candidate preferences, we employ a logistic regression model. The regression analysis of the data at the individual level helps us understand how these various factors interact and influence voting behavior. We can analyze the impact of economic factors and social policy issues, given the demographic characteristics and vice versa. This means that we can isolate the pure effects of economic factors, social policy issues and demographic characteristics on voter behavior at the micro level, rather than effects at the macro level that are distorted by the composition of the sample.

    Empirical results

    Our regression results can be described as follows. In 2022, voters who judged economic conditions as “poor”, were more likely to vote for a Republican candidate in the Senate or the House of Representatives. This is a plausible result since the Democrats (the Biden-Harris administration) were in charge of economic policy. In contrast, those who considered economic conditions to be “good” were more likely to vote Democrat. Interestingly, also voters who judged economic conditions as “not so good” favored a Democrat. So some voters were willing to forgive Biden or thought that he was not (fully) to blame for the economic conditions. We should not forget that high inflation in 2021 and 2022 was not restricted to the US, although the empirical evidence suggests that excessive fiscal policy has made it worse. Also, some voters could be making a trade-off between the economy and other issues. For example, if you oppose making abortion illegal, you may be willing to tolerate some economic adversity from the party that is pro-choice.

    Now let’s turn to these social policy issues. Voters who thought that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases were more likely to vote Republican. In contrast, voters who though that abortion should be legal in most cases were more likely to support a Democratic candidate. Voters who were not too or not at all concerned about COVID were more likely to vote Republican, while voters who were somewhat or very concerned favored the Democrats. Compared to voters who strongly favored increased border security, those who only somewhat favored this or opposed this were more likely to vote Democrat. Those who thought the racism issue was not too or not at all serious were more likely to vote Republican compared to those who thought it was somewhat or very serious.

    These questions were all about political issues, but we also found that demographic characteristics – even after correcting for economic and social policy issues – determined voter behavior. In particular, women and non-binary people were more likely to vote Democrat. The same is true of Black, Latino and Asian people. Age also matters, as people above 30 are more likely to vote Republican. This probability increases with age until it peaks at the 50-64 segment. People of 65 and older are also more likely to vote Republican, but not as much as the cohort below. If we look at education, we find that college graduates and people with a postgraduate degree are more likely to vote Democrat. In contrast, people with a higher income are more likely to vote Republican. This may seem contradictory because people with a higher education tend to have a higher income. However, our regression allows us to identify the effects of education given a certain level of income and vice versa. So if two persons with the same education differ only in their income level, then the one with the higher income is more likely to vote Republican. And if two people with the same income level differ only in their level of education, then the higher educated person is more likely to vote Democrat.

    To summarize, the Republican voter in 2022 could be characterized as an older white male with a higher income but no college degree who judged economic conditions as poor, who thought that abortion should be illegal, strongly favored increased border security, was not too or not at all concerned by COVID and thought that the racism issue was not too or not at all serious. In contrast, a Democratic voter was typically a younger college-educated woman of color with a lower income who judged economic conditions as good or not so good, who thought that abortion should be legal, did not strongly favor increased border security and was concerned about COVID and racism.

    While table 1 may confirm several stereotypes, the regression results show some nuances. Take age for example: the tendency to vote Republican rises with age, but falls back a little for people of 65 and older. We have also taken a closer look at ethnicity and found that not all Hispanic groups exhibit the same voting behavior. In particular, Cuban Americans are more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. This can likely be attributed to the tougher foreign policy stance of the GOP regarding Cuba. Hispanics from all other countries of origin are more likely to vote Democrat. Finally, since the regression isolates the effect of being Black from being a man, the results explain why Kamala Harris is currently having trouble getting support from Black men. Note that these regression results are based on the 2022 midterms, so well before Kamala Harris rose to the top of the Democratic ticket. It shows that Black men being less likely to vote Democrat than Black women is not specific to presidential elections. While former president Obama recently suggested that Black men “just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president”, Democrats should probably better ask themselves why one of their key demographics has been drifting toward the GOP for some time now. The Democrats’ “Opportunity agenda for Black men” that they are now suddenly rolling out may be too little too late for this year’s election.

    The Taylor Swift effect

    The 2022 midterms also highlight an intriguing connection between pop culture and political preferences. In 2020 Taylor Swift released the song “Only the young” – a political anthem aimed to encourage young adults to “speak up and stand for what is right.” It made references to the surprise victory of Donald Trump in 2016 and how the young voters were outnumbered. Swift’s influence reflects broader trends in youth political engagement. Her public support for Democratic candidates, particularly her advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality, and opposition to systemic racism, aligns with issues that resonate strongly with younger voters. This alignment is significant given that Swift’s fan base largely consists of Millennials and Gen Z, demographics that statistically lean more liberal and are generally more receptive to social justice movements. The “Taylor Swift effect” thus serves as a microcosm of larger cultural shifts influencing political engagement among younger voters.

    This raises two interesting questions: are Taylor Swift fans more likely to vote Democrat, and if so, is this simply a reflection of their age cohort being more liberal, or are “Swifties” (Taylor Swift fans) actually more likely to vote Democrat than other people with the same demographic characteristics? We find that people with a “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” view of Taylor Swift are more likely to vote Democrat. In contrast, those with a “somewhat unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” view of her are more likely to vote Republican. Note that the regression takes into account age, so even within the subset of Millennials and Gen Z those with a favorable view of Taylor Swift are more likely to vote Democrat. In this sense, the “Taylor Swift effect” is real. After the debate between Trump and Harris on September 10, Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris “because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them.” Swift’s endorsement could help raise the voter turnout among a demographic that is culturally close to the values of the Democrats.

    Conclusion

    Our findings reveal that while economic anxieties drove many voters towards Republican candidates in 2022, social issues and demographics provided countervailing forces, contributing to the Democrats’ stronger-than-expected performance. In our midterm preview in 2022, we explained that based on economic performance, Biden’s approval rating and the usual midterm loss for the party occupying the White House, the Republicans should be heading for a landslide victory in the midterms, but that the more modest polling results suggested that other factors, such as abortion, could be leading to Republican underperformance, as it did on Election Day.

    For the 2024 elections, our results suggest that the economy is likely a drag on the Harris campaign, but there are opportunities to offset this through social policy issues such as abortion. What’s more, while Kamala Harris may have been picked as Vice-President to balance the 2020 Democratic ticket, our regression results show that she is not just another demographic of the Democratic Party, but she actually gets close to representing the typical Democratic voter. This could help explain the recent enthusiasm among Democratic voters that was absent when Biden was on top of the presidential ticket. This also meant that picking Tim Walz as VP candidate was necessary to balance the ticket and attract swing voters. However, our results also show that Black men have been less likely to vote Democrat than Black women well before Kamala Harris rose to the top of the Democratic ticket. Taking a key demographic for granted could hurt the Democratic Party well beyond the 2024 presidential election.

    Also available in pdf format.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 19:50

  • How Chinese Traders Will Help Drive Gold to $3,000+
    How Chinese Traders Will Help Drive Gold to $3,000+

    By Jesse Colombo of the Bubble Bubble Substack

    In my debut Substack article on September 6th, I theorized that Chinese futures traders would return from their summer hiatus with renewed vigor, to drive gold prices sharply higher once again in an encore of their spring performance, when they pushed prices up by $400, or 23%, in just six weeks. When I wrote that article, gold was trading at $2,497 an ounce; today, it stands at $2,738 an ounce. I’m now providing an update because the trend I anticipated is unfolding as expected, and I believe the most thrilling, explosive phase is still to come.

    The Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE) gold futures were the primary vehicle behind the gold frenzy in March and April, a surge that subsequently spilled over into international gold prices:

    A fascinating Financial Times article from that time titled “Chinese Speculators Super-Charge Gold Rally” highlighted how trading volume in SHFE gold futures had surged by 400%, propelling gold prices to record highs:

    The spring Chinese gold trading frenzy can also be seen in the chart of long open interest in SHFE gold futures:

    Following the Chinese-driven gold frenzy in the spring, it was as if a switch flipped off on April 15th, leading SHFE gold futures to trade sideways for five months. In my original September 6th article, I explained that SHFE gold futures were merely taking a pause, likely setting the stage for another surge similar to the one seen in the spring. I also noted that a decisive close above the 585 resistance level would trigger a new rally in gold prices—not only in China but globally. As the chart below shows, that’s precisely what’s happening:

    As shown in the chart below, the international spot price of gold in U.S. dollars traded in a choppy manner from April until mid-September, when it hit an inflection point and began climbing vigorously once again. This timing is no coincidence; it aligns with SHFE gold futures breaking out of their trading range, drawing Chinese traders—known for their strong affinity for gold—back into the market.

    Technical analysis of SHFE gold futures implies that the international gold price in U.S. dollars should reach approximately $3,000 per ounce during the current rally. This projection relies on the concept of a “measured move,” where the price following a consolidation pattern or trading range is expected to rise by the same number of points as the rally preceding the consolidation. The diagram below illustrates how measured moves work:

    The chart of SHFE gold futures below shows a 105 yuan/gram rally in the spring, followed by a five-month trading range. This suggests that the current rally should also reach 105 yuan/gram, projecting a target of 690 yuan/gram, or roughly $3,000 per ounce. This target is also logical because $3,000 is a significant psychological level, and major levels like that typically act like a magnet for prices. And, in case $3,000 seems ambitious, it’s only a 9.3% increase from current levels. I’m confident that gold will climb even higher in the course of this bull market, though it may pause or consolidate around the $3,000 level for a time to catch its breath.

    Gold analysts and investors who closely follow developments in China often monitor whether the domestic Chinese gold price trades at a premium or discount compared to the international price. In recent months, China’s domestic gold price experienced an unusual discount of up to $40.60 per ounce against the international price. However, this discount has quickly reversed following the breakout in SHFE gold futures, with Chinese gold now trading at a $1.10 per ounce premium over the international price. This transition from a discount to a premium is an indication that gold trading activity in China is starting to heat up once again.

    Another sign that gold trading activity in China is heating up is the recent increase in SHFE gold futures trading volume over the past two months. As seen in the chart, volume surged dramatically during the spring rally. While trading activity is currently rising in a measured and orderly way, I expect it to ramp up significantly as the rally progresses toward $3,000. That’s when the real frenzy in Chinese gold trading will likely begin in earnest.

    Despite rising gold prices and increased trading activity, the high cost of gold has actually dampened physical consumer demand in China. According to Bloomberg, overall demand fell by 22% to 218 tons in the three months leading to September, with jewelry consumption dropping 29% to 130 tons and bar and coin purchases declining 9% to 69 tons. This suggests that the rapid price surge has created sticker shock for many Chinese consumers, who are likely waiting for a price dip to buy at more favorable levels.

    The reality is that high gold prices are here to stay, however, with even further increases ahead as global debt, money supply, and inflation continue to rise. Soon—possibly during the intense “frenzy phase” I mentioned—physical gold buyers may recognize that prices aren’t dropping and, driven by the fear of missing out (FOMO), start buying aggressively before prices climb even higher. This shift in behavior will only add further fuel to the fire.

    Another factor supporting the bullish outlook for gold in China is the country’s struggling economy, weighed down by the collapse of massive bubbles in real estate and the stock market. In response, the Chinese government recently announced a plan to issue special sovereign bonds totaling approximately 2 trillion yuan ($284.43 billion) this year as part of a new fiscal stimulus. Fiscal and monetary stimulus programs are typically bullish for gold because they add to national debt, debase the currency, and drive inflation higher. Burdened by a substantial overhang of bad debt, inflated asset prices, “zombie” companies, and a rapidly aging population, China is now on a path toward an addiction to stimulus to keep its economy afloat—much like the United States, Europe, and Japan.

    Source: Financial Times

    In conclusion, the stage is set for Chinese traders and investors to continue fueling a powerful rally in gold prices, pushing it to $3,000 and then beyond. Now that SHFE gold futures have broken out of their consolidation and trading activity is heating up once again, all indicators point toward a renewed surge that could mirror or even surpass the intensity of the spring rally. Meanwhile, China’s economic struggles and increasing reliance on stimulus add further support to the bullish outlook for gold. As global debt and inflationary pressures rise, and with Chinese physical gold investors and consumers likely to return in droves once they recognize that high gold prices are here to stay, the conditions are primed for an explosive phase in the gold market. This momentum, driven by both domestic factors in China and international dynamics, is likely just the beginning of an even greater upward trend.

    Also watch the video presentation of this report:

    The Bubble Bubble Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support Jesse’s work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 18:40

  • 'A Coordinated Effort' To Rig States – Rogan Exposes Democrats' Plan To Destroy American Democracy…
    ‘A Coordinated Effort’ To Rig States – Rogan Exposes Democrats’ Plan To Destroy American Democracy…

    “Undeniably,” admits Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman to podcaster Joe Rogan, “immigration is changing our nation.”

     The two men spoke about a wide variety of political topics ranging from how Donald Trump won in 2016 to how immigration stands as a key issue in the election today.

    Specifically, Fetterman played the Democratic Party card, claiming that Republicans in 2024 “had an opportunity to do a comprehensive border-bipartisan-and that went down because Trump, he declared that that’s a bad deal after it was negotiated with the other side.”

    Rogan then brutally ‘fact-checked’ the stammering senator, pointing out the reality that that the deal made many concessions that Republicans concerned about the border found to be unacceptable.

    “But, didn’t that deal also involved amnesty,” responded Rogan,“and didn’t that deal also involve a significant number of illegal aliens being allowed into the country every year?” 

    Silence from Fetterman.

    Rogan continued:

    “I think it was 2 million people. So still the same sort of situation. And their fear is exactly what I talked about, that these people will be moved to swing states and that that will be used to essentially rig those states and turn them blue forever.“

    Finally, the PA Senator responded

    “I’ve never witnessed those kinds [illegals voting] of a thing… I don’t think there’s that level kinds of organization.“

    But Rogan once again would not allow the politician to ‘lie’ pointing out that “there is an organization that’s moving these people [illegals] to swing states.”

    “There’s a significant number of these people that are illegal immigrants that have made their way to swing states.

    And then there’s been calls for amnesty. There’s been calls for allowing these people to have a pathway to citizenship and allow them to vote.

    The fear that a lot of people have is that this is a coordinated effort to take these people that you’re allowing to come into the country, then you’re providing them with all sorts of services like food stamps and housing and setting them up and then providing a pathway to amnesty.

    And then you would have voters that would be significantly voting towards the Democrats because they’re the people that enabled them to come into the country in the first place, first place and provided them with those services.

    This is a big fear that people have and that you’re rigging this system and that this will turn all these states into essentially locked blue like California is.”

    Fetterman’s responds:

    “undeniably,” adding that “immigration is changing our nation.”

    “I haven’t spent a lot of time in Texas but it’s very clear that immigration has remade Texas and I think it’s generally, it’s a good thing.”

    Watch the discussion on immigration below:

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

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 18:05

  • In Addition To Not Being Funny, SNL May Have Violated Election Law With Kamala Cameo
    In Addition To Not Being Funny, SNL May Have Violated Election Law With Kamala Cameo

    Vice President Kamala Harris made a surprise appearance on “Saturday Night Live” last night – playing herself across from Maya Rudolph’s version of her in the show’s cold open.

    It was essentially an exact copy of Trump’s appearance in 2015, except not funny.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsWhat’s more, it may have violated election laws.

    As Michael Shellenberger points out, “The producer of Saturday Night Live said neither Harris nor Trump would appear on the show “because of election laws.” Last night, about 60 hours before polls open, he put Harris on the show in a warm & humanizing sketch. He and NBC violated the equal time provision of the law.”

    Continued:

    That article linked to a September 19 interview between Michaels and SNL cast members, Colin Jost and Michael Che. Weirdly, however, the September 19 does not contain the Lorne Michaels quote referred to in the October 1 Hollywood Reporter article. Even more weirdly, neither does the WayBack Machine’s first capture of the article on September 19.

    The reason that’s weird is that many media outlets reported on Michaels’ statement in early October.

    NBC clearly violated the law. In a 2022 fact sheet, FCC writes, “FCC rules seek to ensure that no legally qualified candidate for office is unfairly given less access to the airwaves – outside of bona fide news exemptions – than their opponent.”

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

     

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 17:45

  • 'Fourth Turning' Election Igniting A Firestorm
    ‘Fourth Turning’ Election Igniting A Firestorm

    Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    “Imagine some national (and probably global) volcanic eruption, initially flowing along channels of distress that were created during the Unraveling era and further widened by the catalyst. Trying to foresee where the eruption will go once it bursts free of the channels is like trying to predict the exact fault line of an earthquake. All you know in advance is something about the molten ingredients of the climax, which could include the following:

    Economic distress, with public debt in default, entitlement trust funds in bankruptcy, mounting poverty and unemployment, trade wars, collapsing financial markets, and hyperinflation (or deflation)

    Social distress, with violence fueled by class, race, nativism, or religion and abetted by armed gangs, underground militias, and mercenaries hired by walled communities

    Political distress, with institutional collapse, open tax revolts, one-party hegemony, major constitutional change, secessionism, authoritarianism, and altered national borders

    Military distress, with war against terrorists or foreign regimes equipped with weapons of mass destruction”

    The Fourth Turning – Strauss & Howe

    How many times have you heard this is the most important election of our lifetimes in the last few weeks? When Strauss & Howe published The Fourth Turning in 1997, the national debt was $5.4 trillion, and the country was running an annual deficit of $22 billion. We now add $22 billion of debt every 4 days, amounting to $2 trillion per year. They postulated the major catalysts for the next Fourth Turning would be debt, civic decay, and global disorder.

    As we enter the 17th year of this Crisis, no one can question their prescience in predicting the facilitators which have propelled this ongoing Crisis thus far. The volcanic debt eruption created by the Federal Reserve and their Wall Street cabal owners in 2008 initiated all the chaos, debt creation, crushing inflation, authoritarian measures, social decay, celebration of delusion, delegitimization of the regime media and their corrupt government co-conspirators, and the rise of Trump. This country, and most of the western world, is experiencing extreme economic, social, political and military distress, as this upcoming election is guaranteed to ignite a civil and global conflagration.

    No matter the result of this election, the losing side will not accept the outcome. It has been unequivocally evident for several weeks Trump would win this election in a landslide, on par with Reagan’s destruction of Mondale in 1984, if the Democrat cheat machine of fraudulent mail-in ballots, illegal hordes voting, and ever trusty Dominion vote switching algorithms cannot overcome his overwhelming margin.

    Those pulling the levers are willing to do anything to retain power, not excluding assassination of Trump, initiating WW3 or some other manufactured crisis to cancel the election, illegal lawfare schemes to convict Trump of fake crimes or prevent his inauguration in January, or releasing their BLM, Antifa, and Illegal terrorist hordes into the streets to wreak havoc and initiate civil war. The treasonous bastards who stole the 2020 election and have committed crimes against the American people fear the retribution and prison sentences which could be inflicted upon them if Trump wins. They will not go silently into the night.

    The Deep State skullduggery implemented through election fraud shenanigans, using their captured Soros judges and district attorneys to commit illegal lawfare, will rile the normies (aka deplorables, aka garbage) if they feel another election has been stolen by these treasonous totalitarians. Normal Americans have reached their breaking point. They have seen their bank accounts defunded by the Biden/Harris inflationary tsunami, unleashed by their covid debacle and ironically named Inflation Reduction Act, and their enablers at the Federal Reserve who printed trillions of new fiat, while keeping interest rates at 0% for years.

    Anyone living in the real world knows inflation is at least twice as high as the reported government manipulated figures. They gaslight us about GDP growth, number of jobs added (850,000 overestimation last year), unemployment rate (% in labor market hugely underestimated), and every government statistic, in order to portray a false narrative of an economy doing well and raising all boats. The only boats being raised are the yachts of the .1%.

    In reality, economic distress is creating psychological trauma on young and old alike. Seniors on fixed incomes and the poor dependent upon welfare, sink further into poverty, as the cost of food, energy, rent, medicine, and most necessities reach all-time highs. No one earning the average income in this country can afford a home. Credit card debt and auto loan debt have reached unpayable levels, and an avalanche of defaults and re-possessions has commenced. Meanwhile, with stock markets and housing markets at all-time highs, the wealthy have gotten wealthier, so the plight of the bottom 90% is of no concern to their day-to-day luxurious existence.

    This bifurcation of economic circumstances is evidenced by the populist rage propelling Trump’s campaign. Normal Americans are tired of being screwed over by the system and fed up with politicians, left wing billionaires (Soros, Gates, Bezos, et al), and regime media talking heads demanding they acquiesce to their totalitarian mandates, while being propagandized to believe their provably false narratives about the “great” economy. Biden is president in name only, as proved by his dementia ridden rants and those pulling the strings casting him aside like a piece of trash when he no longer met their needs.

    I don’t think Strauss & Howe envisioned the types of social distress which would be ushered in by the ruling oligarchy in a desperate attempt to divide, destroy, and degrade the social fabric of our society, obliterating the common values which helped build this nation. The organized, funded, and promoted invasion of our country by third world bottom feeders with the intent to take the lower paying jobs of native Americans, overwhelm the country’s social welfare system, funnel illegal voters into swing states, and create civil chaos in formerly homogeneous communities, is designed to contribute to the economic collapse of the country, allowing the Great Reseters to implement their new world order machinations.

    The race riots, funded by Soros and encouraged by his bought off district attorneys in every shithole Democrat run sanctuary city in America, conducted by his BLM and ANTIFA hired terrorists, were designed to bring down Trump and demoralize the white middle class families who are the backbone of the country. We were supposed to bow down to these race baiters and pretend a drug addict black criminal thug was a saint, while honoring fictitious made-up ridiculous black holidays like Juneteenth and Kwanzaa. The entire narrative has been to make white people take the knee and accept this woke drivel. The goal has been to destroy the community standards we grew up with and replace them with an anything goes mentality of degeneracy and delusion.

    The other socially explosive issues designed to divide and conquer have involved pretending mentally ill men are women and vice versa, while mentally ill women encourage the mutilation of their children as a sacrifice to the woke gods. Allowing mentally ill perverted men into women’s restrooms is pure insanity, but corrupt politicians, bought-off government bureaucrats, and woke judges have mandated this dangerously absurd behavior.

    Men dominating women’s sports is perfectly fine to these seekers of societal implosion. Allowing and encouraging young girls to cut off their breasts because their batshit crazy mothers suffer from a woke form of Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a despicable surrender to degeneracy. We are failing our children, resulting in massive levels of depression, drug use, self-mutilation, and suicide among the young.

    The most socially distressful act in the history of mankind was our authoritarian government politicians and bureaucrats forcing over 270 million guinea pigs (over 5 billion worldwide), under threat of losing their livelihood and being ostracized from society, to be injected by an experimental gene therapy marketed as a vaccine, that did not prevent people from catching, spreading or dying from the most overhyped flu in history.

    The ruling overlords, who planned this fake pandemic (Event 201), successfully created the largest mass formation psychosis among the fearful masses than has ever been achieved through a propaganda of fear campaign. They proved they could force the sheep to willingly lock themselves down and beg to be injected with a toxic concoction designed to kill them suddenly or over time, while reducing fertility and disabling millions, accomplishing a major goal of the Gates depopulation agenda. The pure bloods will never forget or ever forgive those who treated them like trash. The coming civil war will see the dividing lines very much aligned between the jabbed versus the unjabbed.

    Political distress has been building in this country since the day Trump descended that Trump Tower escalator in June of 2015, announcing he was running for president. He was able to corral the populist rage of the economically and socially distressed deplorables and achieve the upset of the century against the Deep State chosen one, initiating the Deep State coup against him, which continues to this day. The political system is wrought with fraud, corruption, malfeasance, and a disregard for the proper legal functioning of elections.

    The 2020 election was stolen, mainly through fake mail-in ballots supposedly instituted as a one-time covid measure. Now it is a permanent fixture, and systematic fraud is purposely built into the system, as no ID or proof of citizenship is required to vote, illegals are being enabled to vote illegally by the Democrat party, and the judicial system is filled with left-wing activist judges whose sole purpose is to promote criminality and deviancy.

    The desperation of the Deep State oligarchs and their hired henchmen within the CIA, FBI, DOJ, and State Department is palpable and exceedingly dangerous, as they are willing to burn down the system to prevent their criminal conspiracy from being revealed. They have tried to imprison and kill Trump already and will continue to do so before his January inauguration. It is probably too late to stop the election from taking place, but nothing they do is too diabolical to exclude at this point. When Trump’s margin of victory exceeds their ability to cheat, they will proceed with plan B and unleash their paid hordes of violent felons in every major city in America, to try and stop Trump from assuming power.

    Biden and Harris’ handlers will use every lawfare means at their disposal to prevent the smooth transition of power. The fake January 6 insurrection will seem quaint compared to what these traitors will attempt to pull off. We know they consider us deplorable, garbage, racist Nazis, so that belief allows them to consider us as non-humans and use lethal means to suppress our voices. The Biden-Harris administration updated DOD Directive 5240.01 on Sept. 27 to include provisions authorizing lethal force in certain circumstances when assisting civilian law enforcement. The timing of this change sure seems suspicious, as this volatile election enters the home stretch.

    This is where military distress will rear its ugly head. We know the woke military cooperated and conspired with the other Deep State bad actors in the coup against Trump. Milley acted in a treasonous manner behind Trump’s back by communicating with adversaries and planning to override any direct order from the Commander–in-Chief. The military leadership under Biden has proven to be incompetent, committed to diversity & equity, and willing to do the bidding of the forces aligned against Trump.

    The possibility of the military participating in violent coup against Trump before he takes office, or shortly thereafter, is not out of the question. When men who know they have committed illegal, treasonous acts feel threatened with exposure and prosecution, they are capable of anything to avoid their fate. Militarily, this is an extremely dangerous period for our nation.

    With neocons dominating in Congress, and their regime media partners regurgitating their propaganda talking points about Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, these psychopaths are pushing as hard as possible for WW3. Whether it launches in the Ukraine, Gaza, the Taiwan Straits, or on the border of the two Koreas, their goal is global conflict and obscene profits for the military industrial complex who dole out the bribes. They know Trump is not a war monger and will attempt to broker peace deals in the Ukraine and in the Middle East. Therefore, they are recklessly flailing about trying to initiate a global firestorm before Trump assumes the presidency.

    Beware of our “Gulf of Tonkin” false flag incident, which will be used as the basis to go to war with whichever “evil dictator” suits our purposes at that moment. No matter the outcome of this election, there will be blood – whether it be American blood on American soil or American blood on foreign soil, or both simultaneously. Fourth Turnings always accelerate towards a violent denouement, with an unanticipated number of deaths. Over 5% of the male population was killed in the American Civil War Fourth Turning, while 65 million people were killed during the WWII Fourth Turning. With the current level of killing technology, the potential number of casualties in a global conflict would be astronomical and inconceivable to average Americans.

    I do not have any misconceptions that the election of Trump can undo the fiscal disaster heading our way. At best, he could delay the timeline for financial catastrophe and possibly keep WW3 from launching during his term.  I even wonder whether the selection of Kackling Kamala and Tampon Tim, the single worst presidential ticket in American history, has been purposely engineered by the Deep State in order to insure the economic and financial implosion happen during Trump’s reign.

    Discrediting Trump, as they did by blaming Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression, when it was FDR’s policies that exacerbated the problem, might provide the Democrat Deep State Party with the narrative that Trump’s policies caused the collapse. There is absolute certainty the losers in this election will declare it stolen and refuse to acknowledge the winner. With over 75% of the population expecting post-election violence, there will be violence. Where it leads and what unintended consequences befall the nation are unknown but guaranteed to further split a divided nation.

    The core elements of this Fourth Turning Crisis (debt, civic decay, global disorder) were the driving factors at the outset and continue to be the driving factors as we approach the climax of this winter of our discontent in the early 2030s. Between now and then will be the most perilous years of our lifetimes. Panic, chaos, financial disaster, authoritarian measures, civil war, global war, and a myriad of other epic challenges await. They will attempt to abscond with your wealth through their Great Taking plans.

    They will attempt to implement their Great Reset though CBDCs, mass surveillance, and totalitarian enforcement of their new world order mandates. They will continue their depopulation efforts through war, vaccines, and starvation of the poor. They will attempt to put a final nail in the coffin of the U.S. Constitution, ushering in their one world government, controlled by billionaire oligarchs, and enforced by their military/police thugs. They are attempting to demoralize the masses, propagandizing them into believing only the government can save them, and forcing them to march into an electronic gulag with no escape routes.

    All my ruminations about this Fourth Turning always come down to the potential outcomes laid out by Strauss and Howe twenty-seven years ago, before the turn of the century, and eleven years before the triggering of this Crisis. No matter which channels of distress the volcanic molten lava breaks free from, the next several years will be disconcerting, difficult, destructive, and deathly. There is no escape from the grim reality of what is coming. You cannot be prepped enough to withstand the bitter winter winds which will begin to blow with the outcome of this election.

    Nothing will be the same after November 5. Will there ever be another election? Will our country still exist in its current form ten years from now? Strauss and Howe did not predict a specific outcome but provided four realistic possible outcomes. Three out of four are dire, including the end of humanity as a distinct possibility. After reading the recent best-selling book Nuclear War – A Scenario, you realize the world could end in a matter of hours if the weak-minded psychopaths leaders initiate an unstoppable progression of responses.

    I know the linear thinking noobs who believe the world always progresses in a straight line will dismiss these warnings as just conspiracy theory doom porn. They have no interest in the cyclical nature of history and will continue to trust the government narrative, enforced by the regime media propaganda mouthpieces, and repeated by the NPCs who make up a major percentage of the population. That’s fine. They can keep their heads in the sand and believe the delusional drivel doled out by those in power, but Fourth Turnings are going to deluge them under a tsunami of reality, pain, death and destruction. That’s just the way it is.

    People need to get their heads straight and understand the challenges that lie ahead. I don’t see any easy solutions, and I’m not selling a newsletter with the secret to surviving this Fourth Turning. I’ve been issuing warnings for over a decade, and I’ve seen nothing that has happened or is happening, to make me change my mind.

    1. This Fourth Turning could mark the end of man. It could be an omnicidal Armageddon, destroying everything, leaving nothing. If mankind ever extinguishes itself, this will probably happen when its dominant civilization triggers a Fourth Turning that ends horribly. For this Fourth Turning to put an end to all this would require an extremely unlikely blend of social disaster, human malevolence, technological perfection and bad luck.

    2. The Fourth Turning could mark the end of modernity. The Western saecular rhythm – which began in the mid-fifteenth century with the Renaissance – could come to an abrupt terminus. The seventh modern saeculum would be the last. This too could come from total war, terrible but not final. There could be a complete collapse of science, culture, politics, and society. Such a dire result would probably happen only when a dominant nation (like today’s America) lets a Fourth Turning ekpyrosis engulf the planet. But this outcome is well within the reach of foreseeable technology and malevolence.

    3. The Fourth Turning could spare modernity but mark the end of our nation. It could close the book on the political constitution, popular culture, and moral standing that the word America has come to signify. The nation has endured for three saecula; Rome lasted twelve, the Soviet Union only one. Fourth Turnings are critical thresholds for national survival. Each of the last three American Crises produced moments of extreme danger: In the Revolution, the very birth of the republic hung by a thread in more than one battle. In the Civil War, the union barely survived a four-year slaughter that in its own time was regarded as the most lethal war in history. In World War II, the nation destroyed an enemy of democracy that for a time was winning; had the enemy won, America might have itself been destroyed. In all likelihood, the next Crisis will present the nation with a threat and a consequence on a similar scale.

    4. Or the Fourth Turning could simply mark the end of the Millennial Saeculum. Mankind, modernity, and America would all persevere. Afterward, there would be a new mood, a new High, and a new saeculum. America would be reborn. But, reborn, it would not be the same.

    I’ve been issuing warnings for over a decade, and I’ve seen nothing that has happened or is happening, to make me change my mind. Befriending like-minded people and summoning all the courage and fortitude you can muster is the best advice I can give.

    The best analogy for the next several years is: get prepared to slog many miles through a raging blizzard in sub-zero temperatures with less than 50% chance of survival.

    Good luck and Godspeed.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 17:30

  • US Warns Tehran It Will Not Restrain Israel If Iran Retaliates
    US Warns Tehran It Will Not Restrain Israel If Iran Retaliates

    Iran has kept up its saber-rattling in the wake of last week’s Israeli aerial attack, which itself was the much anticipated response to the Iranian ballistic missile attack of October 1st. Washington is now warning Tehran that it “won’t be able to hold Israel back” if the Islamic Republic retaliates, US and Israeli officials told Axios Saturday.

    “We told the Iranians: We won’t be able to hold Israel back, and we won’t be able to make sure that the next attack will be calibrated and targeted as the previous one,” the US official said.

    Via Reuters

    The message was reportedly passed to Iranian officials via Swiss intermediaries, the Axios report details, which is a rare public disclosure.

    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the same day warned of “tooth-breaking” response for Israel’s actions. Recent international reports have also suggested Iran-linked paramilitaries in Iraq could be preparing a new attack on Israel.

    The Iranian Supreme Leader has also said, “We will do whatever is necessary in confronting arrogance, whether in terms of military and armament or politically. The Iranian people and officials will never hesitate in facing global arrogance and the criminal apparatus ruling the world order.”

    “The issue is not just about revenge, but rather acting with logic and confrontation consistent with religion, ethics, Sharia, and international laws. The issue is confronting international injustice, and for the Iranian people, confronting oppression and arrogance is a mandatory duty,” he added. 

    The Iranians are signaling that an attack is “definitely” coming, per Axios:

    • Esmail Kowsari, a member of the national security committee in Iran’s parliament, said Saturday that Iran’s security council had agreed on a response but not yet on the exact date and scope.
    • Kowsari said the attack will be executed in coordination with other “resistance” groups in the region and will be stronger than Iran’s Oct. 1 attack, which involved 180 ballistic missiles.

    But the reality is that Iran also is signaling its own domestic population with all this tough talk, as well as enemies across the region, even if it doesn’t actually intend to hit back against Israel.

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

    With the Oct.1st attack, and Israel’s retaliation, Tehran is still able to claim ‘victory’ of sorts for its strikes involving over 180 ballistic missiles. It sent a strong message, and now that status quo has been restored to some extent.

    The US days ago began moving extra B-2 bombers and other major military assets in the region, as a precaution in the scenario of another Iranian strike on Israel.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 16:55

  • "We're Not Going To Allow Them To Steal It": Raskin Repeats Trump-Like Reservation On Accepting Election Results
    “We’re Not Going To Allow Them To Steal It”: Raskin Repeats Trump-Like Reservation On Accepting Election Results

    Authored by Jonathan Turley,

    On Bill Maher’s HBO Show on Friday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) appeared to repeat his reservation about accepting a Trump win in the presidential election. Raskin said that Democrats will only support a “free and fair election.” Trump was widely criticized for the same position when he said “If everything’s honest, I’ll gladly accept the results.”

    Raskin previously said that he would not guarantee certifying Trump and that, if he wins, he may be declared as disqualified by Congress:

    “It’s going to be up to us on January 6th, 2025 to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he’s disqualified. And then we need bodyguards for everybody and civil war conditions.”

    Raskin went on HBO to repeat his reservation on accepting the results of any Trump victory:

    “When I say we will support a free and fair election, no, we we’re not going to allow them to steal it in the states, or steal it in the Department of Justice or steal it with any other election official in the country.

    If it’s a free and fair election, we will do what we’ve always done. We will honor it.”

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

    Remarkably, as the audience applauded Raskin, Maher added “That is the Democrats’ history: They honor it. That’s the big difference between the parties.”

    However, that is not the history and Raskin knows it.

    The certification of President George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election was opposed by Democrats and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the effort of then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) who organized the challenge.

    Jan. 6 committee head Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) voted to challenge it in the House.

    Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to block certification of the 2016 election result.

    Raskin also insisted on CNN that the effort to prevent citizens from voting for Trump is the very embodiment of democracy:

    “If you think about it, of all of the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it’s the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified.”

    Democrats not only sought to strip Trump from the ballot this election, but sought to cleanse ballots of 126 House members.

    We are already seeing an ominous uptick of challenges, which I discuss in my column this weekend. There are also new allegations of systemic fraudulent registrations in multiple districts.

    Raskin presumably expects any voters to protest “peacefully” if they are declared the losers.

    I am leaving for New York today to join in the coverage. This could prove a long night, if not a long week.

    *  *  *

    Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 15:45

  • Some Clarity This Week
    Some Clarity This Week

    By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

    Some Clarity This Week?

    We get the election and the Fed this week, both of which should provide us with some clarity.

    The Fed

    Let’s start with the Fed because I think the Fed is easy:

    • Cut 25 bps. That’s what they were planning to do, and Friday’s jobs report gives them the ammunition to do so.
    • Push back on the pace of rate cuts going forward. This will be relative to the last meeting since the market has already dialed back significantly on rate cuts in 2025. They will mention a more balanced concern between a potentially better job market (see NFP – An Ugly Report) and signs that inflation may be stabilizing above their target level. The jobs data was definitively impacted by hurricanes and strikes, but the JOLTS Quit Rate really caught my eye, as it dipped to levels that we haven’t seen since mid-2008.
    • Higher neutral/terminal rate. We discussed this in a Much Higher Neutral Rate at the beginning of October. Markets have moved to the lower end of our band (3.5% to 4%), but there is room for that to edge higher (though we might be getting greedy). We had a lot of reasons for expressing this view, but one that stands out is this simple chart. Look at where rates have been and what the economy has done, and it is difficult to argue that 5% and higher was very restrictive.

    The market has moved closer to our views, and we expect that it will continue to do so. Actually, the 10-year yield up at 4.38% is above the top end of our range, but we remain reluctant to fight it (at least not yet) as market positioning (amongst other things) makes us nervous – see Bond Vigilantes in last weekend’s report.

    Expectations

    This might be a good way to segue from bond markets and the Fed to election prognostications.

    • Who had a weak jobs report = 10 bps higher on the 10-year yield?

    We did think that the rally in bonds after the report would fade. But going from 4.22% all the way to 4.38% was a much bigger fade than I would have expected. I did think that stocks would fade, and they did close well off their highs, but they were above their opening levels, so I got this wrong. What is surprising is how resilient stocks were in the face of bond yields rising for the wrong reason (not due to economic strength), but it was the first day of the month and the first big “buy the dip” opportunity in the past month as well.

    But I digress. The main point of this section, ahead of the election section, is to point out that sometimes, even if you knew the data in advance, it would have been difficult to make money. A weak jobs report sending Treasury yields to a fairly large one-day loss doesn’t seem obvious – even in hindsight.

    We discussed some of our scenarios and views on the election in last weekend’s report (Who Wins and What Does it Mean?). Since then, the betting markets have reversed course to some degree, making even those markets closer than they were last weekend.

    I’m also hearing more people question whether the “Trump Bump” is real. This is the view that he tends to get more votes than the polls indicate. With a sample size of 2, where the 2nd time certainly wasn’t as strong as the first time, I’m pretty dubious about this view heading into Tuesday.

    I do remain convinced, despite being told I’m dead wrong, that a lot of “undecided people” will be flip- flopping their thoughts right until the moment they vote (kind of like how many market participants will second guess their well-thought-out Fed strategies between noon and 2pm ET on November 7th).

    The Election

    Frankly, I think that there are too many permutations to properly analyze this. There is virtually no scenario that would “surprise” me. I don’t think all scenarios are equally likely, but I could be convinced that a lot of them are possible.

    Also, with the cop-out in the previous section, I’m not sure it is easy to interpret how markets will react to what could be quite complex outcomes.

    Having said that, it would be irresponsible not to have some sort of a playbook coming into this week. That is particularly true as I will be on Bloomberg TV at 9pm ET on election night trying to digest the information real-time.

    Best Case for Markets:

    • A clear winner on the presidential side with gridlock established. If we can wake up Wednesday morning (better yet, go to bed on Tuesday night) knowing that there is a clear and obvious winner for president and that there will be gridlock, we can buy stocks and bonds. I don’t think there is a better case for the market than this, and we should get some indications if this is happening quite early in the evening.

    Worst Case(s) for Markets:

    • I think that there are two bad cases for markets, both of which are very different.
    • A clear sweep. Anything where it is clear that the presidential election has been decided and that the winning party will have both the House and the Senate firmly in control would likely be bad for markets. The “mandate” would (rightfully so) convince that party that they can implement even some of their more extreme policies. I don’t see that being good for the deficit. For stocks it might turn out to be good, but I think, at least initially, the response to this would be negative. It is ironic that we could get a situation where the country really supports one ideology and Wall Street doesn’t like it, but that’s my sense of how this would play out.
    • A prolonged and hotly contested election result. I’m thinking more at the presidential level. Even there, I think if the House and the Senate are split, even a hotly contested presidential result might not hurt markets, at least not for a few days. While the Geopolitical Intelligence Group staunchly believes that we will have a legal and normal transfer of power and that all the systems (and the checks and balances) will work, the longer any dispute lingers, the more likely it is to affect domestic behavior.
      • There is a risk that if this goes on for an extended period, our enemies (or competitors) will take advantage of what they might view as an opportunity. The media (and nation) will be fixated on internal issues and there may be a perceived power vacuum if the contested election reaches vitriolic levels (which cannot be discounted with the power of social media). If you missed Academy’s latest Around the World, this might be a good time to catch up on the issues we focused on this month.

    Beyond that, I just think there are too many possibilities. We might not know who will control the House or the Senate right away. Again, I think that any uncertainty will be digested by the market if gridlock looks likely.

    I think that a few days of contested results and recounts is pretty much built into markets. However, I’m not sure if contested results extending well into the following week, with rhetoric getting increasingly nasty, is priced in (I’d like to say that this possibility is extremely low, but I’m not sure that it’s that low).

    It would be great if election night gives us clarity, even if that clarity is bad for markets, but that is not a certain outcome. I do think that many people are being a bit cavalier about how easily we will absorb a “contested” election – since I think it very much depends on how hotly that election is contested (if we get to that point at all).

    Not sure this is much of a game plan for the election, but it is the best that I can come up with at the moment.

    Bottom Line

    We will get through this election. The system will work as intended and we will adjust and adapt our strategies appropriately.

    Yes, there is a lot of heated “debate” occurring in social media and it is easy to get disheartened. But I think that is really just at the extreme and gets far too much attention relative to the people working together to get the country, the economy, and even the globe on a good path forward!

    Due to some misspent youth, I am well aware of the Sex Pistols. They had songs like “Anarchy in the U.K.” (what would have been my walk up song if they had those when I played sports) and “God Save the Queen.” So, a lot of what we are hearing and seeing (as many of our Geopolitical Intelligence Group members remind our clients) is not new. It just receives a lot more attention than it should. And now, I cannot resist one message about “unintended consequences” because that is a favorite subject of mine. The Queen’s Jubilee had the Queen floating down the river Thames. Word leaked that the Pistols were going to perform “God Save the Queen” somewhere along the route and annoy the entourage and many of the spectators. So, as I recall, they implemented some rule about no performances within a certain distance from the Queen. Problem solved? No, the band, or their organizers, put them on a barge and they followed the Queen to play the song – making the entire experience for the Queen likely much worse. Unintended consequences are always worth thinking about!

    But in any case, decades later, England is still functioning and the “dire” warnings never materialized, so I think much of the concern is misplaced and will be largely forgotten (or at least tuned out) as we move forward!

    Good luck with this week and I cannot believe that we still make it dark extra early on purpose!

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 15:10

  • OPEC+ Delays Production Hike (Again)
    OPEC+ Delays Production Hike (Again)

    OPEC+ agreed to push back its December production increase by one month, the second delay to its plans to revive supply as faltering demand in China and swelling supplies from the Americas pressure prices.

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

    No reason was given for the delay.

    “Market conditions won out,” said Harry Tchilinguirian, head of oil research at Onyx Commodities Ltd.

    “OPEC+ showed it couldn’t ignore the current macroeconomic economic realities centered on China and Europe, which point to weaker oil demand growth.”

    OPEC Plus had first announced in June that it would gradually increase production by an estimated 2.2 million barrels a day, or around 2 percent of global supplies, in October.

    That had been a major source of concern for the markets.

    Then, in September, the group announced a delay until at least December.

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

    The OPEC+ move is “modestly positive,” said Giovanni Staunovo, an analyst at UBS Group AG in Zurich. The market will focus instead on Iran’s response to Israel’s attacks and the outcome of US elections, he said. However, JP Morgan analysts wrote that “with geopolitical concerns temporarily set aside, attention is once again shifting back to market fundamentals.”

    We suspect the election will matter… a lot.

    “Given all the geopolitical tension in the Middle East and, perhaps more importantly, the upcoming US presidential elections, it makes perfect sense for OPEC+ to postpone the unwinding of the voluntary cuts for an extra month,” said Jorge Leon, senior vice president at consultant Rystad Energy AS.

    These eight OPEC+ countries reiterated their collective commitment to achieve full conformity with the Declaration of Cooperation, including the additional voluntary production adjustments.

    “For me, the impact is more important on sentiment than the numbers,” said Amrita Sen, director of research at consultant Energy Aspects Ltd.

    “The market has been incorrectly viewing OPEC+ as wanting to flood the market to regain market share,” but instead, their “primary focus remains keeping oil inventories under control.”

    Prices are headed into the $60s next year, and potentially lower if OPEC+ opens the taps, according to Citigroup and JPMorgan analysts.

    That poses a financial threat for Riyadh, which needs levels closer to $100 a barrel to cover the ambitious economic plans of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, according to the IMF.

    The market outlook the group faces ultimately hinges on the outcome of US presidential elections on Nov. 5, Currie added.  “The real geopolitical risk has yet to come, which is the shockwave from the US election,” he said. “Not only will it jar fragile flash points around the world, but it will also reveal the all-important path that Chinese stimulus takes in response.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 14:35

  • Iranians Frustrated By China, Russia For Meager Response To Israeli Strikes
    Iranians Frustrated By China, Russia For Meager Response To Israeli Strikes

    Via Middle East Eye

    China and Russia’s response to Israel’s attacks on Iran has drawn widespread criticism, with many deeming the reactions insufficient and delayed.

    The Tehran-based Ham-Mihan daily newspaper emphasized that given the extensive promotion of strategic relations between Tehran, Moscow and Beijing in recent years, there was an expectation that Russia and China would officially condemn the attacks on Iran.

    The newspaper wrote: “Three days passed after the Israeli military attack on sites in three Iranian provinces before China’s foreign ministry responded. The Russian foreign ministry spokesperson also commented on the attack only hours afterwards. In the end, neither Beijing nor Moscow condemned Israel’s actions.”

    Via Reuters

    The daily continued to criticize the stances of these two countries, comparing them to some European nations that have tense relations with Iran.

    As western sanctions against Iran have increased in recent years, Tehran has strengthened economic ties with Moscow and Beijing, with one key outcome being the sale of cheap oil to China.

    However, the expansion of these political ties has consistently faced criticism within Iran and discontent has intensified following recent direct conflicts between Iran and Israel.

    Calls for direct military action against Israel

    A newspaper affiliated with Iran’s so-called “hardliners” has called for direct military action against Israel, arguing such attacks are essential for ensuring regional stability.

    In an article titled “Killing the Dog”, the Agaah daily emphasized the need to intensify military confrontations with Israel, saying: “Attacks on the interests of the Zionist regime worldwide guarantee the security of the region.” The report featured images of Israel’s political and military leaders alongside suggested targets, including military and economic centers.

    This is not the first instance Agaah has advocated direct action against Israel. Last month, the daily released a list of sites that could potentially be targeted by Hezbollah’s missiles and drones. The list included food factories, power facilities, technology plants and chemical production sites. 

    Moreover, the Dimona nuclear plant was identified as a target for Hezbollah, reportedly within range of Iran’s Fateh-110 missiles.

    Ex-legislator: Iran’s diplomacy hampered by internal conflicts

    The former head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission has criticized the government’s handling of “extremist” groups within the country, saying they are undermining diplomatic efforts.  

    In an op-ed, Hashmatullah Falahat Pishe argued that the failure to unify domestic political forces has led to setbacks in the nation’s foreign policy. “Diplomacy is accepted and trusted globally when it reflects a unified and strong voice within a country. Therefore, the key obstacles to diplomacy here are internal,” he wrote, adding: “Mr Pezeshkian’s government must address these issues first.”

    Falahat Pishe also mentioned Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s recent visits to nine Middle Eastern countries, stressing that the activities of extremist groups in Iran have undermined these diplomatic efforts.

    “This shows the government has not yet resolved its internal challenges with extremist factions. The government must first prove its ability to address foreign policy issues internally. Only then can diplomacy succeed,” he concluded.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 14:00

  • Growing Risk In Private Credit And Shadow Banks
    Growing Risk In Private Credit And Shadow Banks

    Submitted by Brent Johnson of Macro Alchemist (read it here in pdf format)

    The transformation of banking and financial services away from traditional public markets and the banking system itself has been dramatic since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008.

    This shift has reshaped the financial landscape, as more activities that were once dominated by banks and public markets have moved into private and non-bank financial sectors.

    In 2008, when the GFC struck, the financial world experienced a severe breakdown. Banks, which had been the backbone of lending and liquidity, stopped trusting one another, ceasing to lend in overnight markets, which are crucial for short-term liquidity. Simultaneously, public markets suffered immense losses, with the S&P 500 plunging by roughly 50%.

    As a result, both the banking system and public markets effectively froze, becoming illiquid and dysfunctional almost overnight. What had once been highly liquid, smoothly functioning financial ecosystems ground to a halt.

    Fast forward to today, and we are witnessing a striking evolution: the non-bank financial sector, which includes institutions like hedge funds, private equity firms, and shadow banks, has grown larger than the traditional banking sector. Similarly, private markets, such as those for private equity, private debt, and direct lending, are expanding at a much faster rate than public markets.

    This rapid growth is fundamentally altering the structure of global finance.

    Such a shift of this magnitude raises critical questions about the potential impact on future financial crises. One key issue is that risk-taking is now concentrated in markets that are inherently less liquid. Even before a liquidity crisis occurs, the financial system is building up risk in markets that, by their nature, are harder to exit quickly. So, what happens when these already illiquid markets face a shock and become even less liquid, potentially triggering a crisis?

    Consider direct lending, private credit, and private equity investments, all of which are largely concentrated in the non-bank financial sector. If the global financial system could experience a crisis of the scale seen in 2008—when liquidity dried up in highly liquid public markets—what might happen when the starting point for risk-taking is in far less liquid, private markets?

    The consequences could be even more severe and far-reaching.

    This paper explores the rapid expansion of the non-bank financial sector and the liquidity constraints that characterize private markets.

    One of the key concerns with liquidity crises is the cascading, second- and third-order effects they can generate. These effects occur when markets that are perceived to be liquid—markets where investors believe they can easily buy and sell assets—suddenly become illiquid, trapping participants and causing widespread disruptions.

    Such second and third order effects often impact investors, institutions, and sectors that would ordinarily consider themselves insulated from high-risk financial activities.

    However, the interconnectedness of the global financial ecosystem means that shocks in one part of the system can quickly reverberate through others, catching seemingly unrelated players in the fallout. This is why understanding shadow banking, private markets, and the broader non-bank financial system is critical for assessing the risks posed to the overall financial system.

    The increasing prominence of non-bank and private financial markets presents new challenges for managing liquidity and systemic risk. As the financial system becomes more dependent on these less liquid sectors, the potential for liquidity crises and their ripple effects across the global economy grows, highlighting the importance of monitoring and addressing risks in the shadow banking and private market ecosystems.

    Backdrop – The Global Financial Crisis

    No two financial crises are exactly the same, though human behavior and emotions are always central to them. Each crisis has its own unique characteristics, and as long as human nature remains constant, cycles of boom and bust are inevitable.

    Given today’s historically high equity valuations, comparisons to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008 and the Dot-Com bubble of the late 1990s are natural, and the current enthusiasm for Artificial Intelligence is reminiscent of past periods of euphoria. However, it’s important to remember that valuations are symptoms of broader market conditions, not the underlying causes. For example, during the Dutch Tulip Mania in 1636, a single black tulip was valued at several years’ salary—an indicator that something was amiss, but not the root of the issue.

    Pinpointing the exact moment when a financial crisis begins is often only possible in hindsight. Did the GFC start with the collapse of two Bear Stearns hedge funds in 2007? Was it the fall of Bear Stearns itself? Or perhaps Lehman Brothers’ collapse? Some might even argue it began with Meredith Whitney’s 2008 analysis, revealing that Citigroup couldn’t maintain its dividend. The answer depends on perspective—those directly impacted by these events would likely give different timelines.

    What’s crucial today is understanding that comparing current credit conditions to 2008 is misleading.

    All credit crises share a common feature: relaxed lending standards. Before the GFC, subprime lending accounted for around 3% of mortgage lending; by 2007, it had surged to nearly 25%. Loan standards deteriorated so badly that defaults on the first mortgage payment were rising, yet this was just one part of the problem.

    Other key players in the crisis were institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the mortgage insurer MBIA. As long as these entities retained their high credit ratings, they were able to keep issuing loans to borrowers who couldn’t repay. MBIA, for example, wrote billions in liabilities while holding only $30 million in shareholder funds.

    But the real breaking point came when large banks stopped lending to each other overnight, driven by concerns about both their counterparts’ liquidity and their own over-leveraged balance sheets. Bear Stearns, for instance, had $3 of equity for every $100 in assets, a precarious 33:1 leverage ratio.

    Once regulators stepped in after the crisis, they sought to prevent a repeat by imposing stricter rules on large banks through the Dodd-Frank Act. This curtailed trading and market-making activities, bringing these financial giants into line. But as with any financial system, where there is demand, supply will find a way. This time, the non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs) stepped in. In just over a decade, these NBFIs grew to become the largest lenders, overtaking traditional banks.

    The lesson here is simple: credit demand doesn’t disappear—it shifts. Understanding where that demand goes is crucial in predicting how future financial risks may unfold.

    The Rapid Growth of Non-Bank Financial Institutions (NBFI)

    In addition to the increased regulatory pressure on banks after the 2008 crisis, the prolonged low-interest-rate environment has been a major catalyst for the rapid growth of non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs).

    With traditional savings accounts and government bonds offering historically low yields, investors began seeking higher returns through alternative avenues. NBFIs responded by offering a range of financial products that provided more attractive returns, such as collateralized loan obligations (CLOs), private debt, real estate investment trusts (REITs), and other investment opportunities that banks, due to regulatory constraints, did not provide.

    This shift allowed NBFIs to fill a crucial gap in the market by catering to the increasing demand for yield-driven investment products.

    As banks became more restricted in their ability to engage in riskier, high-yield activities due to post-crisis regulations like the Dodd-Frank Act, NBFIs stepped in with offerings that were not only higher-yielding but also often more complex and less transparent. The flexibility of NBFIs to operate with fewer regulatory barriers became an attractive alternative for both institutional and retail investors hungry for returns in a low-rate world.

    At the same time, technological innovation has accelerated the growth of NBFIs, especially through the rise of fintech companies. These firms have revolutionized the financial services sector by utilizing data analytics, artificial intelligence, blockchain, and digital platforms to deliver more efficient and accessible financial solutions.

    Fintech innovations such as peer-to-peer lending platforms, robo-advisors, online wealth management services, and digital payment systems have disrupted the traditional banking model. These technologies offer faster, more cost-effective services tailored to the modern consumer, enabling individuals and businesses to access credit, make investments, and manage their finances without relying on traditional banks. Fintech’s rise has made NBFIs even more prominent by providing an infrastructure that is more agile and responsive to market demands.

    However, with this agility comes a trade-off in oversight.

    Because NBFIs are subject to fewer regulatory constraints than traditional banks, they can accumulate risks that may not be visible to regulators or market participants until it’s too late. Hedge funds, for example, often engage in highly leveraged strategies, which can magnify losses during periods of market volatility. The collapse of such funds can quickly spiral into broader financial instability, as these firms are tightly interconnected with traditional banks and financial institutions through various channels of lending, derivatives, and investment portfolios.

    An example of this occurred in 2020, during the market turbulence triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Money market funds, once considered stable and low-risk investments, experienced rapid outflows as investors fled to safety, highlighting the unpredictable fragility within certain corners of the NBFI sector.

    The spillover effects of these outflows flowed throughout the broader financial system, underscoring the interconnected nature of banks and NBFIs.

    Given the systemic importance of NBFIs, policymakers and regulatory bodies, including the Federal Reserve and the Financial Stability Board (FSB), have become increasingly concerned about the potential risks posed by the growing influence of these institutions. There is ongoing debate about whether NBFIs should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and oversight as traditional banks, particularly those that have grown large enough to pose a significant threat to financial stability.

    The challenge for regulators is to strike a balance between encouraging the innovation and growth that NBFIs bring to the financial system, while ensuring that these institutions do not become the next source of systemic risk.

    However, history suggests that regulators are often reactive rather than proactive when it comes to addressing potential crises. Despite growing awareness of the risks associated with NBFIs, regulatory intervention may lag until after significant financial disruptions have already occurred.

    The rise of NBFIs represents a profound shift in the U.S. financial system. Their ability to innovate rapidly, operate with less regulatory oversight, and meet investor demand for higher-yielding products has allowed them to outpace the traditional banking sector in many respects. Yet, their growth also requires a closer examination of their role in maintaining financial stability.

    The lack of visibility into NBFIs’ balance sheets and activities poses a risk, as it makes it harder to assess their vulnerabilities and potential for triggering broader financial distress. As NBFIs continue to expand, understanding their impact on the overall financial ecosystem will be crucial in preparing for and mitigating the risks of future financial crises.

    Private Equity and Credit Markets

    Private equity and private lending have not only expanded in size but also grown in complexity, becoming critical pillars of global finance.

    These sectors have evolved in response to regulatory changes, technological advancements, and shifting investor demand, reflecting broader trends across the financial landscape.

    Initially, private equity was a niche field focused on venture capital for early-stage companies and distressed assets. It played a limited role in mainstream corporate finance. Over time, however, private equity has matured into a sophisticated industry that now employs a wide range of investment strategies, including leveraged buyouts (LBOs), growth equity, special situations, distressed investing, and infrastructure investments.

    Leveraged buyouts (LBOs), in particular, have become a defining feature of private equity. These transactions allow firms to acquire companies using a mix of equity and significant amounts of borrowed capital, with the expectation that the target company’s cash flow will be used to pay off the debt.

    The rise of LBOs has transformed how private equity firms approach value creation, using financial leverage to amplify returns while taking control of large, established companies. This strategy has proven immensely profitable, but it also introduces higher levels of risk, particularly in uncertain economic environments.

    In recent years, private equity firms have shifted from purely financial strategies, like cost-cutting and restructuring, to a more hands-on operational approach. Known as the “operational value-add” strategy, private equity firms now leverage their industry expertise and resources to drive operational improvements, digital transformation, and leadership development within their portfolio companies.

    By engaging more actively in business operations, private equity firms are unlocking new growth opportunities and generating more sustainable returns, setting themselves apart from traditional investors.

    Furthermore, private equity firms are increasingly investing in technology-driven sectors, such as software, fintech, healthcare technology, and digital infrastructure.

    The rise of tech-focused private equity funds reflects the industry’s growing recognition that innovation and data analytics are key to staying competitive in the modern economy.

    By adopting data-driven decision-making and enhancing due diligence processes, private equity firms are now better positioned to identify high-potential investments and maximize long-term growth.

    At the same time, private lending has grown into a critical component of alternative finance, providing capital to companies that may not qualify for traditional bank loans. The sector’s rapid expansion is a direct response to the regulatory tightening following the 2008 financial crisis, which limited banks’ ability to engage in riskier lending activities.

    Direct lenders—including private credit funds, hedge funds, business development companies (BDCs), and institutional investors—offer a diverse array of debt instruments, such as senior secured loans, uni-tranche loans, mezzanine financing, bridge loans, and subordinated debt. Private lenders’ flexibility and speed in underwriting and approving loans have made them an appealing option for companies looking to finance leveraged buyouts, acquisitions, expansions, or debt refinancing. Their ability to offer more customized terms than traditional banks has enabled private lending to become a significant source of financing, particularly for middle-market companies.

    The rise of private lending has also been fueled by the global search for yield in a low-interest-rate environment.

    Institutional investors, including pension funds, insurance companies, and endowments, have increasingly allocated capital to private debt as it offers attractive risk-adjusted returns with low correlation to traditional equity and fixed-income markets.

    This influx of capital has allowed private lending firms to scale their operations, even competing with traditional banks on larger, more complex transactions.

    Technological innovation has also played a transformative role in both private equity and private lending.

    In private equity, advancements in data analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning have revolutionized deal sourcing, due diligence, and portfolio management. Firms now use sophisticated tools to assess market trends, predict business performance, and identify high-potential investment opportunities.

    Similarly, in private lending, the rise of digital platforms and marketplace lending has democratized access to credit, allowing businesses to secure loans through online platforms that connect borrowers directly with investors.

    This innovation has streamlined the lending process, reduced costs, and increased transparency.

    Due to their significant growth, private equity and private lending are facing increased scrutiny from regulators due to concerns over high levels of leverage, lack of transparency, and the potential buildup of systemic risks.

    In private equity, the use of leveraged buyouts has raised questions about the impact of high debt levels on the financial stability of acquired companies, especially during economic downturns. Additionally, private equity’s impact on employment and wages has drawn criticism, with some arguing that short-term profit motives can undermine long-term business sustainability.

    In private lending, the rapid expansion of direct lending and private credit funds has triggered concerns about the buildup of credit risks outside the traditional banking system. Since private lenders operate with far fewer regulatory constraints, there is less visibility into their risk exposures.

    As these institutions continue to grow and become more interconnected with traditional banks and other financial institutions, distress in the private lending market could have far-reaching implications for the broader financial system.

    The broader Non-Bank Financial Intermediaries sector, of which private equity and private lending are key components, has seen explosive growth since the 2008 financial crisis.

    With the NBFI sector now being larger than the traditional banking system in the U.S., its growth trajectory still shows no signs of slowing down.

    This rapid expansion has caught the attention of regulators such as the Financial Stability Board, who are increasingly concerned about the systemic risks posed by the shadow banking sector. Historically, tighter regulatory frameworks—like the Dodd-Frank Act—have only been enacted in response to crises, such as the 2008 meltdown, when it became clear that greater oversight was needed.

    Their rapid growth and evolving complexity present both opportunities and challenges.

    While these sectors have provided new avenues for investment and credit, their lack of transparency and regulatory oversight makes them vulnerable to systemic risks.

    The FSB acknowledges the need for tighter regulatory frameworks to mitigate these risks, but historically, such regulations tend to be reactive, implemented only after a crisis occurs.

    Legislation such as Dodd-Frank would not have been necessary had the Clinton Administration not repealed the Glass-Steagall Act in the 1990s—a law originally enacted in the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash to regulate the banking industry. The repeal removed the separation between commercial and investment banking, a move that many argue contributed to the excesses leading up to the GFC.

    Today, the NBFI sector has become an increasingly important borrower, which carries two significant implications.

    First, the line between traditional banks and non-bank financial institutions has become increasingly blurred, even though they operate under different regulatory regimes. This blurring creates ambiguity around risk oversight.

    Second, NBFIs are borrowing at a much faster rate than the overall market, raising concerns that the sector could be headed for a crisis of its own.

    The question remains: will regulators act in time, or will they once again be left playing catch-up when growth rates like these become unsustainable?

    Moreover, private equity firms and direct lenders have become vital sources of credit for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and leveraged buyouts. These areas are often considered too risky or capital-intensive for traditional banks, further underscoring the growing role that NBFIs play in providing essential credit where banks have become more risk-averse.

    As NBFIs continue to expand in influence and borrowing magnitude, the urgency for regulatory bodies to address their systemic risks grows—before another financial crisis emerges from the shadows.

    Shadow Banks and Private Markets – Illiquidity

    Liquidity risk is one of the most significant challenges faced by private equity and private lending firms, largely shaped by the illiquid nature of their investments, market dynamics, and their funding structures.

    These firms invest primarily in assets without active secondary markets, making it difficult to quickly convert investments into cash. While taking on illiquidity risk allows them to pursue higher returns, it also exposes them to considerable vulnerabilities, especially during times of financial stress or economic downturns.

    In private equity, firms acquire stakes in privately held companies or engage in leveraged buyouts (LBOs) of public companies. These investments typically involve multi-year commitments, with the goal of enhancing operations, growing value, and eventually exiting via a sale or initial public offering (IPO).

    However, when markets enter downturns, the exit strategies of private equity firms often face severe constraints.

    In such situations, potential buyers may vanish, and IPO markets may close, leaving firms unable to sell their holdings at favorable prices—or in some cases, unable to sell at all. This lack of liquidity creates significant challenges, tying up capital much longer than expected and potentially derailing planned investment cycles. Without the ability to exit their investments, private equity firms can experience a liquidity crunch, where the inability to generate cash flow limits their ability to return capital to investors, pursue new investments, or meet other financial obligations.

    Similarly, private lending firms face their own liquidity risks.

    These firms provide loans to businesses that often fall outside traditional banking channels, including middle-market companies and those with lower credit ratings. While these loans typically offer higher yields to compensate for the greater risk, they come with a major trade-off: illiquidity. Unlike publicly traded bonds, which can be quickly bought and sold on secondary markets, private loans lack a ready market, making it difficult for lenders to raise cash in times of need.

    During periods of financial distress, these risks become even more pronounced. Companies facing economic challenges may struggle to meet their repayment schedules or refinance their debt, leading to a higher rate of defaults. As defaults rise, the value of these private loans can plummet, leaving lenders exposed to significant losses. The inability to sell or restructure these illiquid loans in a timely manner compounds the liquidity risk, as lenders face mounting pressure to meet their own financial commitments.

    Moreover, the increasing use of payment-in-kind (PIK) structures, where interest payments are capitalized rather than paid in cash, adds another layer of complexity.

    While PIK arrangements provide temporary relief to borrowers by postponing cash payments, they heighten liquidity risks for lenders. Capitalizing interest rather than receiving cash inflows delays revenue and pushes the lenders deeper into illiquid positions, further limiting their ability to generate liquidity when needed. In times of economic stress, this can leave lenders with growing obligations but limited options for raising cash, intensifying financial vulnerabilities across the system.

    Of course, a key factor that exacerbates liquidity risk in both private equity and private lending is the use of leverage.

    Private equity firms often rely heavily on debt to finance acquisitions, using the acquired company’s cash flow to service that debt. When cash flows falter or interest rates rise, debt servicing becomes more difficult, potentially forcing firms to inject more capital into struggling companies or sell assets at a steep discount.

    In private lending, leverage is present both in the loan structure and in borrowing companies. If economic conditions worsen, highly leveraged borrowers may struggle to repay their loans, leading to defaults and creating further liquidity pressure for lenders who depend on regular repayments to maintain their own financial commitments.

    Another dimension of liquidity risk comes from the fund structure itself.

    Private equity and credit funds are typically closed-end, meaning investors cannot access daily liquidity like in mutual funds or ETFs. Investors commit capital for a set period, usually 5 to 10 years, expecting distributions from asset sales over time.

    However, if too many investors demand early liquidity, these funds may be forced to liquidate assets under unfavorable conditions, creating what is known as a liquidity mismatch. This problem is often magnified during economic crises, when many investors seek to withdraw funds simultaneously, putting additional pressure on these funds to generate liquidity when they are least able to.

    The COVID-19 pandemic provided a recent example of this liquidity mismatch. During the market turmoil, many investors sought to reduce their exposure to riskier assets, prompting significant pressure on private equity and credit funds to meet these demands in a difficult market. If forced into fire sales, these funds can push asset prices lower, sparking a downward spiral that further erodes investor confidence and increases redemption requests.

    Private equity and lending firms also rely on external financing from banks or other financial institutions to manage liquidity needs and execute deals. This reliance further entangles these firms with traditional banks and non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs), despite operating under different regulatory frameworks. In times of economic stress, banks may tighten lending conditions or withdraw credit, adding more complexity to liquidity management for these firms.

    The interconnectedness of the financial markets means that liquidity issues within private equity and lending firms can have broader implications for the entire financial system. As these sectors have grown, they have become deeply intertwined with banks, institutional investors, and other market participants. A liquidity crisis in one area can trigger wider disruptions, affecting asset prices, credit availability, and investor sentiment across the financial ecosystem.

    For the broader NBFI sector, managing liquidity risk is critical, as it directly impacts their operational stability and ability to navigate financial stress. NBFIs, which include entities such as asset managers, hedge funds, insurance companies, private equity firms, and private credit funds, provide crucial financial services without the same access to central bank liquidity or deposit bases that traditional banks rely on.

    This lack of access makes liquidity management more challenging for NBFIs, particularly because they often hold or finance illiquid assets such as private debt, real estate, or equity stakes in private companies. During periods of volatility, these assets become even more difficult to liquidate, exposing NBFIs to significant liquidity risk if they need to meet sudden cash demands.

    Many NBFIs face an additional challenge from their reliance on short-term funding to finance longer-term investments. This funding mismatch, where liabilities are short-term and assets are long-term, leaves NBFIs vulnerable when short-term funding markets tighten or become more expensive.

    For instance, hedge funds and private credit funds often depend on short-term repurchase agreements (repos) or commercial paper to finance their positions. If these markets dry up during periods of stress, NBFIs can face severe liquidity pressures that threaten their solvency.

    Investor runs or mass redemption requests are another prominent liquidity risk for NBFIs. Investment funds, such as mutual funds, ETFs, and hedge funds, allow investors to redeem their investments on short notice. In times of uncertainty, a rush of investors trying to withdraw their money can force NBFIs to sell assets quickly at depressed prices, further exacerbating market stress and undermining investor confidence.

    Given the interconnectedness of NBFIs with the broader financial system, liquidity challenges can have far-reaching effects. Many NBFIs maintain relationships with banks and other institutions through credit lines, derivatives, and other financial instruments.

    If an NBFI experiences a liquidity crisis, the impact can quickly spread to other market participants, affecting asset prices and destabilizing the broader financial system.

    The growing systemic importance of NBFIs highlights the need to carefully manage liquidity risk within this sector. As these institutions continue to take on roles traditionally filled by banks, the potential for liquidity pressures to create broader market disruptions has increased.

    While NBFIs provide essential credit and financial services, their reliance on illiquid assets and short-term funding leaves them particularly vulnerable to market shocks, making liquidity risk a central concern for the stability of the financial system.

    Conclusion

    The transformation of the global financial landscape since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has been monumental.

    The shift from traditional banking systems and public markets toward non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs) and private markets has significantly altered the structure and functioning of finance. As a result, NBFIs—including hedge funds, private equity firms, private credit funds, and fintech companies—have grown to occupy a larger portion of the financial ecosystem, becoming major players in corporate lending, investment management, and liquidity provision.

    One of the most profound developments has been the rapid expansion of private equity and private lending markets. These sectors have evolved to meet investor demand for higher-yielding opportunities, offering a wide range of innovative financial products such as leveraged buyouts (LBOs), private credit, and alternative debt structures. The rise of these markets is a testament to the adaptability of finance and the relentless pursuit of returns. However, it is not without significant risk—particularly in the realm of liquidity.

    Liquidity risk remains a critical challenge for private equity and private lending firms. Both industries rely on illiquid assets, such as private debt and equity stakes, which are difficult to convert into cash when needed.

    This inherent illiquidity can become a major vulnerability during periods of financial stress, when market conditions deteriorate, exit strategies are delayed, and asset sales become constrained. The complex and often opaque nature of these investments further compounds the risk, making it difficult for market participants and regulators to accurately assess the extent of exposure.

    The use of leverage amplifies these risks.

    Private equity firms, in particular, utilize significant amounts of debt to finance acquisitions, while private lenders provide loans to highly leveraged borrowers. When economic conditions worsen, the strain on both the firms and their borrowers becomes acute, leading to increased defaults, liquidity shortages, and the potential for forced asset sales. This situation is exacerbated by the “payment-in-kind” (PIK) structures that delay cash flow, creating additional stress on firms’ liquidity positions.

    Another crucial aspect of liquidity risk lies in the fund structures used by private equity and private credit firms. Closed-end funds with limited liquidity options can face a liquidity mismatch during economic downturns, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Investors, seeking to withdraw capital, may force these funds to sell assets at unfavorable prices, sparking further market disruption. Moreover, the reliance of private equity and lending firms on external financing from traditional banks ties them closely to the regulated financial system, despite operating under different regulatory frameworks.

    As private equity, private lending, and NBFIs continue to grow in influence, so too does their interconnectedness with the broader financial system.

    This interconnectedness poses systemic risks.

    A liquidity crisis within one sector could quickly cascade across the financial landscape, leading to broader disruptions in asset prices, credit availability, and investor sentiment. The ripple effects of a crisis in private markets or shadow banking could undermine the stability of the global economy, just as the collapse of major financial institutions did during the 2008 GFC  – but with less warning due to less visibility.

    The starting point for private markets is illiquidity, unlike public markets whose starting point is liquidity. When things get illiquid, and they always do, this will pose a much bigger problem for private markets.

    Despite the significant role NBFIs play in modern finance, the regulatory framework governing these institutions lags behind their growing importance. NBFIs operate with far less oversight than traditional banks, which heightens the risks associated with leverage and illiquidity.

    While the lessons from past crises, such as the GFC, have led to some regulatory improvements, history shows that regulations often follow crises rather than prevent them.

    The question remains whether policymakers can enact tighter oversight of the NBFI sector before a liquidity-driven crisis emerges.

    In conclusion, the rise of NBFIs and private markets presents both opportunities and challenges.

    While these sectors have provided new avenues for investment and credit, their inherent illiquidity and use of leverage make them vulnerable to market shocks. The growing systemic importance of NBFIs highlights the need for a proactive regulatory approach to managing liquidity risks.

    Only by addressing these vulnerabilities can the financial system hope to mitigate the impact of future crises, ensuring that the benefits of financial innovation do not come at the cost of systemic stability.

    About

    The Macro Alchemist is an amalgamation of ideas, experiences, and investing disciplines sourced over decades from the minds of Brent Johnson and Michael Peregrine.

    Explore this latest topic further, and additional market insights from the creators, at MacroAlchemist.com

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 12:50

  • Visualizing 'Law and (Dis)Order' Around The World In 2024
    Visualizing ‘Law and (Dis)Order’ Around The World In 2024

    Many prosperous countries are among the safest globally, highlighting the link between economic stability and physical security.

    Despite global conflicts reaching their highest levels since World War II—currently at 56—the public’s sense of safety has improved over the past decade. This rise in perceived safety is largely attributed to greater trust in law enforcement, which remains a key factor in how secure people feel, regardless of a country’s economic standing.

    This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows Law and Order Index scores by country, based on data from Gallup’s Global Safety Report 2024.

    Methodology

    The Law and Order Index reflects public perceptions of safety, based on a survey of 146,000 people from 140 countries. Respondents were asked about their perceptions on three key areas:

    • Feelings of personal safety

    • Confidence in police

    • Experience of assault and theft

    Where Are the Safest Countries in the World?

    Below, we show how each country ranks according to their Law and Order Index scores in 2024:

    Country Law and Order Index Score 2024
    🇰🇼 Kuwait 98
    🇸🇬 Singapore 95
    🇹🇯 Tajikistan 95
    🇳🇴 Norway 93
    🇪🇪 Estonia 91
    🇫🇮 Finland 91
    🇮🇸 Iceland 91
    🇽🇰 Kosovo 91
    🇱🇺 Luxembourg 91
    🇨🇭 Switzerland 91
    🇩🇰 Denmark 90
    🇦🇪 UAE 90
    🇻🇳 Vietnam 90
    🇧🇭 Bahrain 89
    🇸🇻 El Salvador 89
    🇮🇩 Indonesia 89
    🇵🇹 Portugal 89
    🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia 89
    🇸🇮 Slovenia 89
    🇺🇿 Uzbekistan 89
    🇨🇳 China 88
    🇪🇬 Egypt 88
    🇲🇪 Montenegro 88
    🇳🇱 Netherlands 88
    🇸🇪 Sweden 88
    🇹🇼 Taiwan 88
    🇦🇹 Austria 87
    🇦🇿 Azerbaijan 87
    🇯🇴 Jordan 87
    🇲🇾 Malaysia 87
    🇪🇸 Spain 87
    🇬🇪 Georgia 86
    🇩🇪 Germany 86
    🇭🇰 Hong Kong, S.A.R. 86
    🇮🇪 Ireland 86
    🇯🇵 Japan 86
    🇱🇹 Lithuania 86
    🇦🇲 Armenia 85
    🇨🇿 Czech Republic 85
    🇰🇷 South Korea 85
    🇦🇱 Albania 84
    🇫🇷 France 84
    🇮🇶 Iraq 84
    🇮🇱 Israel 84
    🇲🇹 Malta 84
    🇵🇭 Philippines 84
    🇧🇪 Belgium 83
    🇨🇦 Canada 83
    🇭🇺 Hungary 83
    🇮🇳 India 83
    🇷🇸 Serbia 83
    🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina 82
    🇰🇬 Kyrgyzstan 82
    🇱🇻 Latvia 82
    🇹🇷 Northern Cyprus 82
    🇸🇰 Slovakia 82
    🇸🇴 Somalia 82
    🇹🇷 Türkiye 82
    🇬🇧 United Kingdom 82
    🇦🇺 Australia 81
    🇧🇩 Bangladesh 81
    🇭🇷 Croatia 81
    🇮🇷 Iran 81
    🇮🇹 Italy 81
    🇵🇱 Poland 81
    🇷🇺 Russian Federation 81
    🇺🇸 United States 81
    🇰🇭 Cambodia 80
    🇰🇿 Kazakhstan 80
    🇲🇺 Mauritius 80
    🇲🇩 Moldova 80
    🇲🇰 North Macedonia 79
    🇹🇿 Tanzania 79
    🇹🇭 Thailand 79
    🇧🇬 Bulgaria 78
    🇧🇫 Burkina Faso 78
    🇲🇦 Morocco 78
    🇵🇰 Pakistan 78
    🇷🇴 Romania 78
    🇨🇾 Cyprus 77
    🇬🇷 Greece 77
    🇱🇦 Lao 77
    🇲🇱 Mali 77
    🇳🇵 Nepal 77
    🇵🇦 Panama 77
    🇱🇰 Sri Lanka 77
    🇱🇾 Libya 76
    🇳🇿 New Zealand 76
    🇹🇳 Tunisia 76
    🇵🇸 State of Palestine 75
    🇺🇾 Uruguay 75
    🇧🇷 Brazil 74
    🇨🇮 Côte d’Ivoire 74
    🇬🇹 Guatemala 74
    🇨🇷 Costa Rica 73
    🇭🇳 Honduras 73
    🇱🇧 Lebanon 73
    🇺🇦 Ukraine 73
    🇧🇯 Benin 72
    🇵🇾 Paraguay 72
    🇸🇳 Senegal 72
    🇬🇭 Ghana 71
    🇲🇳 Mongolia 71
    🇲🇿 Mozambique 71
    🇹🇬 Togo 71
    🇾🇪 Yemen 71
    🇪🇹 Ethiopia 70
    🇰🇲 Comoros 69
    🇩🇴 Dominican Republic 69
    🇿🇼 Zimbabwe 69
    🇨🇱 Chile 68
    🇲🇬 Madagascar 68
    🇳🇪 Niger 68
    🇲🇽 Mexico 66
    🇻🇪 Venezuela 66
    🇦🇷 Argentina 65
    🇨🇴 Colombia 65
    🇲🇷 Mauritania 65
    🇳🇬 Nigeria 65
    🇿🇲 Zambia 65
    🇨🇲 Cameroon 64
    🇲🇲 Myanmar 64
    🇳🇦 Namibia 64
    🇬🇳 Guinea 63
    🇰🇪 Kenya 63
    🇲🇼 Malawi 63
    🇵🇪 Peru 63
    🇨🇬 Republic of the Congo 63
    🇧🇴 Bolivia 62
    🇸🇿 Eswatini 62
    🇬🇦 Gabon 62
    🇺🇬 Uganda 62
    🇧🇼 Botswana 60
    🇹🇩 Chad 60
    🇬🇲 The Gambia 59
    🇨🇩 DRC 58
    🇿🇦 South Africa 58
    🇸🇱 Sierra Leone 57
    🇪🇨 Ecuador 55
    🇱🇷 Liberia 50

    Countries with high state control had the strongest public perceptions of safety, led by Kuwait, Singapore, and Tajikistan.

    Globally, Singapore ranks as one of the safest countries in the world. This is aided by low violent crime rates, at 9 per 100,000 people as of 2021. Strict law enforcement and banning the possession of weapons likely increase feelings of safety among the public. Additionally, the government enforces capital punishment for murder and illegally possessing firearms.

    Moreover, seven of the top 10 countries were in Europe, likely due to low crime rates and high trust in government institutions. In particular, Finland has one of the highest public trust in police systems, at 87% of the population, while 74% trust the judicial system.

    By contrast, Liberia fell at the bottom of the list for the second year in a row, driven by personal experience of crime, low trust in law enforcement, and economic hardship. Concerningly, 28% of respondents were the victim of assault in the last year, while 45% had experienced theft. As one of the poorest countries worldwide, Liberia has faced years of political corruption and low access to public services, exacerbating public perceptions of safety.

    To learn more about this topic from a homicide rate perspective, check out this graphic on the world’s most dangerous countries.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 12:15

  • How The 7 Swing States Will Count Votes And Post Election Results
    How The 7 Swing States Will Count Votes And Post Election Results

    Authored by Lawrence Wilson, Allan Stein, John Haughey, Nathan Worcester, Jackson Richman, Arjun Singh, Jeff Louderback, Joseph Lord, Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times,

    The 2024 presidential election on Nov. 5 likely hinges on the outcome in seven battleground states.

    Battlegrounds—also called swing or purple states—are where support for Democratic and Republican candidates has been split in recent presidential elections. Current swing states are Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.

    Most other states consistently break for the same political party and aren’t considered competitive.

    The battleground states account for 93 of the nation’s 538 electoral votes. The winner needs at least 270 electoral votes—more than half—to win.

    Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris appear nearly tied in those seven states, according to current polling averages. And all of those states currently are considered tossups that could go either way, according to Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan elections rating group.

    How long it will take for Americans to know the results in the seven swing states depends on the individual states’ laws.

    State Election Laws Differ

    Under the U.S. Constitution, elections are conducted by each state.

    Unofficial results often are reported soon after polls close, sometimes within hours. News organizations often announce presumed winners of national races within hours or by the early morning of the next day.

    But the official result takes longer for several reasons.

    State laws vary regarding when to count ballots that are mailed in, dropped off, or cast during in-person early voting.

    Though they go by different names, all seven battleground states allow some kind of absentee or mail-in voting. And all offer early in-person voting, which is now underway throughout most states.

    Some state laws allow for early ballots to be tallied before Election Day. Others prohibit counting before polls close.

    Mailed ballots received after Election Day still will be counted in some states, as long as they were postmarked by Nov. 5. The deadline for receiving them varies by state.

    Poll workers demonstrate how ballots are are received, processed, scanned, and securely stored on Election Day during a press tour by the Philadelphia City Commissioners, at the Philadelphia Election Warehouse in Philadelphia on Oct. 25, 2024. Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images

    Verifying Voters

    Counting ballots not cast in person can take more time.

    Some states—Arizona, Nevada, and Michigan—require a voter’s signature on a mail-in ballot to be verified.

    In Georgia, officials must verify that the driver’s license number or state-issued identification number included on the returned ballot matches what’s on file for the voter.

    In Wisconsin, an adult witness must sign the ballot being returned, verifying the voter filled out his or her own ballot.

    In North Carolina, a voter using an absentee ballot must sign a certificate witnessed by a notary or two adults who also provide their addresses.

    Pennsylvania requires proof of identification to be submitted when requesting an absentee or mail-in ballot. But no challenges may be made to mail-in or absentee ballots at any time based on signature analysis, the commonwealth’s rules stipulate.

    Provisional ballots can complicate the process further.

    A provisional ballot usually is used when a voter shows up at a precinct to vote and his or her name doesn’t appear on the list of registered voters.

    After being marked, a provisional ballot is slipped into a secrecy envelope and kept separate from the regular ballot box. After the polls close, that ballot will be counted only if the voter is confirmed as eligible to vote.

    But even after all ballots have been tallied, the results still aren’t official.

    Each state has a canvass period and certification process in which officials formally certify their state’s results, which usually takes place around three weeks after Election Day.

    The U.S. Election Assistance Commission lists each state’s certification deadline online.

    Voters cast their ballots during Michigan’s early voting period in Dearborn, Mich., on Oct. 29, 2024. Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

    Arizona

    Arizona has 11 electoral votes and about 4.4 million registered voters.

    Candidate Joe Biden flipped Arizona in his favor in 2020, besting incumbent Trump by fewer than 10,500 votes or 0.3 percent.

    The deadline in Arizona to register to vote in this election cycle was Oct. 7. In-person early voting began two days later and continued through 7 p.m. on Nov. 1.

    Voters on the state’s Active Early Voting List automatically receive a ballot by mail. Those can be returned by mail or at drop boxes at the state’s polling places.

    Counties can begin tabulating those ballots after early voting begins. Early ballots that come in on Election Day will be tabulated in the days immediately following the election.

    But before any are counted, election officials must compare the signature on the ballot envelope to the voter’s signature on file.

    If the signatures match, the ballot is counted immediately. If the signature is in question, election officials are to try to contact the voter to confirm the ballot’s validity. 

    Military members and other overseas citizens can cast their ballots by fax or by uploading to a secure system maintained by the secretary of state. Ballots must be received by 7 p.m. on Election Day.

    Voting in person in Arizona requires valid identification.

    Anyone who attempts to vote on Election Day has “the right to cast a ballot,” according to the Arizona secretary of state. But provisional ballots only will be counted if the county recorder can verify the voter’s eligibility.

    On Election Day, polling locations in the 15 Arizona counties close at 7 p.m. Anyone in line at that time is allowed to vote.

    After polls close, ballots are either tabulated at the polls or at a county’s central counting location.

    Arizona provides livestream viewing of county vote-tabulation rooms and publishes details online about measures used to keep electronic voting equipment secure.

    Maricopa County is home to about 2.4 million registered voters—more than 60 percent of the state’s electorate.

    A glass-enclosed room, which is open to the public for observing the verification process, is located at the electoral center in Pinal County, Ariz., on Oct. 18, 2024. Olivier Touron/AFP via Getty Images

    Maricopa counts votes at its own centralized location, the Maricopa County Tabulation and Elections Center (MCTEC) in Phoenix. The facility provides livestream viewing of signature verification, early-ballot processing, and ballot tabulation.

    Officials there warned on Oct. 22 that it may take between 10 and 13 days to tabulate the results of the Nov. 5 election.

    In the aftermath of the 2020 contest, Trump and other Republicans alleged that Arizona’s election was rife with voter fraud. Ultimately, lawsuits against Arizona and Maricopa County officials were dismissed. In 2020, county officials certified the results 17 days after Election Day.

    Election Day voters in Maricopa County usually make up 10 to 15 percent of the vote in the county. To vote in person, Arizonans must present identification, get a new ballot printed, fill it out at the voting location, and feed it into a tabulator.

    After polls close, rules direct bipartisan employees of Maricopa County to put memory drives from tabulators into tamper-proof packages and take them to MCTEC. There, workers verify they’ve been kept secure and load election results into the election server, periodically releasing updated race results.

    On Election Night, Arizona’s election results will be available online after 8 p.m. and will be updated sporadically.

    State statute requires that bipartisan appointees validate the accuracy of the vote-tabulation system through a random hand-count audit of 1 percent of early ballots and 2 percent of votes cast at a voting center.

    Canvassing begins on Nov. 11. Canvassing is the process of accounting for every ballot cast. It ensures each valid vote is included in the official results.

    During the canvass, election officials resolve discrepancies and check for accuracy before certifying the results as final.

    If a county hand-count audit is held, each recognized party on the ballot appoints representatives to participate. County officials have until Nov. 21 to certify their results.

    A statewide canvass will be conducted on Nov. 25. The deadline for Arizona to certify election results is Dec. 2.

    Election workers open envelopes and sort ballots at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center in Phoenix on Oct. 23, 2024. Olivier Touron/AFP via Getty Images

    Nevada

    Nevada has six electoral votes and nearly 2.4 million registered voters.

    All active registered voters were sent ballots by mail, unless they opted out. And most Nevadans traditionally vote early or by absentee ballot.

    In 2020, a little more than 77 percent of the state’s voters cast ballots. Only about 11 percent voted on Election Day. The rest voted early in person or returned absentee ballots.

    To be counted in Nevada, mailed ballots must be postmarked by Election Day and received by the county no later than four days later, on Nov. 9.

    Early in-person voting in Nevada began on Oct. 19 and runs through Nov. 1. On Day 1 of early voting, 42,237 Nevadans cast ballots.

    Tallies of those early ballots can’t be released before polls close at 7 p.m. on Election Day.

    Under Nevada law, “compromising the secrecy of the ballot by releasing results early is a crime,” according to Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar.

    Even on Election Day, eligible citizens can register to vote and cast a ballot in the state.

    In the hopes of speeding up results, new guidance from Aguilar instructs election officials to start tabulating early voting returns and mail ballots at 8 a.m. on Election Day.

    By 6 p.m., county clerks and registrars are to provide their first election results to the secretary of state’s office for verification.

    “This year, the country will be looking to Nevada to determine the winner of the presidential election,” Aguilar stated in a news release.

    A banner marks a voting site on the first day of in-person early voting at the Thunderbird Family Sports Complex in Las Vegas on Oct. 19, 2024. Ethan Miller/Getty Images

    “Voters deserve available results on Election Night; releasing results sooner will increase transparency, help us combat misinformation, and alleviate pressure on election officials … [and] this change is a win for our entire state.”

    Clark County—home to Las Vegas and 71 percent of Nevada voters—has 132 polling and drop box locations.

    Once county clerks and registrars confirm all polls are closed and the last voter has voted, the secretary of state’s office plans to release unofficial results online. Results are expected to be updated routinely until the final update after the canvass of the vote by the counties.

    Ballots are tabulated on voting devices and saved on removable media that are taken by two election board members to a receiving center or counting place, according to Nevada law.

    “If practical,” the law stipulates, those election board “members must be of different political parties.”

    Members of the general public are allowed to observe the delivery of those voting components in sealed containers and watch vote-counting.

    Nevada’s electronic voting system isn’t connected to a network or the Internet, and it can’t connect wirelessly. All components go through a series of tests and audits before they can be used.

    And components have a chain of custody, with “tamper evident” security seals. Access to them is limited to authorized personnel.

    City or county clerks supervise the operation of the central counting places.

    As soon as the returns from all the precincts and districts have been received by the board of county commissioners, the board shall meet and canvass the returns.

    Counties have up to 10 days to certify elections.

    In 2020, the Nevada GOP sued, citing claims of fraud. So the election was not officially finalized until the state’s Supreme Court certified the results on Nov. 24.

    This year, Nevada’s deadline to certify its election results is Nov. 26, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

    Clark County Election Department poll workers check in voters at a table as people vote at the Meadows Mall in Las Vegas on Oct. 21, 2024. Ethan Miller/Getty Images

    Wisconsin

    Wisconsin has 10 electoral votes and more than 3.5 million active registered voters.

    As of Oct. 29, more than 1.1 million absentee ballots had been sent out, and a little more than 511,000 had been returned.

    The ballots must be returned by mail or in person at a ballot drop-off location by 8 p.m. on Nov. 5, when polls close.

    Absentee ballots are counted by being put through a tabulator at polling places on Election Day. To be counted, the envelope must include a signature from the voter along with one from a witness and the witness’s address.

    They also can be processed at what’s known as a “central count” location, common in larger municipalities, such as Milwaukee.

    To vote on Election Day, Wisconsin residents must show a photo ID that meets state standards when checking in at a polling place. State law does not authorize or require a voter’s signature to be verified.

    At each polling place, there normally are seven election inspectors led by a chief inspector who is coordinated by the municipal clerk. Municipal clerks also can appoint tabulators to help count votes.

    The group of inspectors normally includes Democrats and Republicans. Under state law, the party that garnered the most votes in the territory covered by the polling place during non-presidential election years “is entitled to one more inspector than the party receiving the next largest number of votes at each polling place.”

    Wisconsin has a three-step process for certifying elections.

    After polls close and ballots have been entered into the machines for voting, poll workers convene their “board of local canvassers.” Anyone, including the media, may observe and record the proceedings from a designated area.

    Municipal clerks transmit results to Wisconsin’s 72 county clerks, who are required to post unofficial results on their websites. Wisconsin doesn’t have a statewide system for reporting unofficial results on Election Night, and there isn’t a central official website where results will be reported.

    People vote early at a polling site at the Warner Park recreation center in Madison, Wis., on Oct. 30, 2024. Scott Olson/Getty Images

    “The municipality, or the county, on behalf of the municipality, is responsible for ballot retention post-Election Day,” a spokesperson for the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission told The Epoch Times. “The two entities would need to work together to determine which option is best.”

    Counties have 14 days to transmit their certified results to the state.

    This year, that’s Nov. 19.

    The state elections commission will canvass the election and report the state’s official results by Dec. 1.

    Michigan

    Michigan has 15 electoral votes and more than 8.4 million registered voters.

    The state uses all paper ballots, which are fed into a tabulator in each precinct to calculate the results, Macomb County Clerk Anthony Forlini told The Epoch Times.

    Michigan law allows so-called “poll watchers” to be present in a designated public viewing area where they can observe the process at a polling place, early voting site, or place where absentee voter ballots are being processed. 

    Early in-person voting is open at regional sites within each county for a minimum of nine days and for up to 28 days ending on Nov. 3.

    Counties were allowed to start the early-voting period as late as Oct. 26.

    Early votes are tabulated when cast, Forlini said.

    Absentee ballots are received and stored securely by township clerks, he said.

    Workers process absentee ballots for the 2024 general election at Huntington Place in Detroit on Oct. 29, 2024. Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images

    To be counted, mailed absentee ballots must be received by the voter’s local clerk by 8 p.m. on Election Day.

    Ballots returned by military and overseas voters must be postmarked by Nov. 5 and received within six days after Election Day.

    As of Nov. 2 at 7 a.m., nearly 2.8 million voters—about 38 percent of the electorate—had voted early or returned an absentee ballot. The numbers are updated online daily by the state.

    Cities and townships can provide written notice to the secretary of state and begin processing and tabulating absentee ballots early. But totaling the vote count and generating, printing or reporting election results isn’t allowed before 8 p.m. on Election Day.

    Some counties have a centralized absentee-vote-counting center, according to Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown. 

    Polls close at 8 p.m. on Election Day.

    At that time, precinct officials—including at least two Republicans and two Democrats—will canvass the election to ensure that the number of ballots cast matches the number of voters who received a ballot, Forlini said.

    Precinct officials then print results from the tabulator, remove the computer memory stick that was locked into the tabulator, and seal both, along with their paperwork, in three tamper-proof envelopes. 

    One is directed to the county clerk. One goes to a probate judge. And one remains with the local clerk, according to Forlini.

    Ballots are placed in sealed containers, and the serial number of the seal is recorded in the ballot book. Ballots remain with the local clerk, Forlini said.

    Precinct results are then delivered to the county clerk.

    Some counties, such as Macomb, deliver them in person. Others, including Oakland, do so by modem, using an air-gap computer that has not been connected to the internet.

    In an October interview on CBS, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson estimated that unofficial election results for her state will be available by the end of the day on Nov. 6.

    Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson speaks during a House Administration Committee hearing at the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 11, 2024. Bonnie Cash/Getty Images

    But Michigan’s results remain unofficial until the Board of State Canvassers audits them and certifies the election.

    That county-level canvass process begins the day after Election Day and must be completed within two weeks. This year, the deadline is Nov. 19.

    The Board of State Canvassers meeting is scheduled for 10 a.m. on Nov. 22. The meeting will be livestreamed.

    Under Michigan law, the state must canvass and certify the election results no later than the 20th day after the election, which falls on Nov. 25 this year.

    Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania has 19 electoral votes and a little more than 9 million registered voters.

    Oct. 21 was the last day to register to vote in Pennsylvania. In 2020, slightly more than 76 percent of registered voters cast a ballot in the presidential election.

    The period for “early on-demand voting” differs by county. The deadline to apply for a “no-excuse mail-in” or absentee ballot was Oct. 29 at 5 p.m. Some locations accepting those ballots in person had already closed before Oct. 29.

    The deadline to return a mail-in or absentee ballot is 8 p.m. on Nov. 5. Pennsylvania law requires voters to return their own ballots. A voter with a disability may use a form to designate someone else to deliver his or her ballot.

    Unlike many other states, Pennsylvania law prevents counties from opening any ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day, when voting starts at more than 9,100 polling places.

    On the morning of Election Day, Pennsylvania poll workers can begin counting mail-in ballots.

    They’ll begin counting in-person ballots when polls close at 8 p.m. Poll workers will continue counting into the next day, according to the Pennsylvania Department of State.

    Poll watchers from political parties with candidates on the ballot can observe the counting. The locations for vote tabulation vary by county.

    In Philadelphia County, home to more than 1.1 million voters, ballot tabulation will take place at the Philadelphia City Commissioners Office & Election Warehouse, a spokesman for the Philadelphia City Commission told The Epoch Times in an email. The Philadelphia County Board of Elections, led by three city commissioners, will count the ballots, he said.

    A person drops off a mail-in ballot in Doylestown, Pa., on Oct. 15, 2024. Registered voters in Pennsylvania can vote “on demand” by requesting a mail-in or absentee ballot, filling it out, and dropping it off all in one visit to their county election office or other designated location. Hannah Beier/Getty Images

    Each county must submit the initial results to Pennsylvania’s Department of State by 3 a.m. on Nov. 6.

    Unofficial results will be published online starting after 8 p.m. on Election Night and will be updated periodically.

    The county boards will meet to canvass the election results by 9 a.m. on Nov. 8. During that process, they’ll reconcile results to ensure the number of people who voted in each precinct matches the number of ballots.

    Election officials also will check provisional ballots and process those that are eligible to be counted. By 5 p.m. on Nov. 12, counties must submit their results to the Department of State. Military-overseas ballots must be delivered by that time.

    By Nov. 25, counties must certify their election results. After reviewing them, Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt will certify election results statewide.

    By Dec. 11, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro must sign a certificate of ascertainment, appointing electors. At noon on Dec. 17, those electors meet at the Pennsylvania State Capitol in Harrisburg to vote for the new president and vice president.

    North Carolina

    North Carolina has 16 electoral votes and almost 7.8 million registered voters.

    As of Nov. 1, more than 4.1 million ballots had been cast. That’s about 53 percent.

    In-person early voting started in all 100 counties on Oct. 17 and ended on Nov. 2 at 3 p.m.

    On the first day, a record 353,166 ballots were accepted at polling sites statewide, according to preliminary North Carolina State Board of Elections data.

    That surpassed the previous first-day record set in 2020 by 1.3 percent.

    A long line of potential voters wait outside an early voting site in Asheville, N.C., on Oct. 17, 2024. Several counties affected by Hurricane Helene had a large voter turnout on the first day of early voting. Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images

    By Election Day in 2020, when the state went for Trump, about 65 percent of North Carolinians had cast their ballots.

    That was up from 62 percent of voters casting early ballots in 2016. Trump won the state’s electoral college votes that year, too.

    This year, the state’s official voter registration deadline was Oct. 11. But any voters providing acceptable photo identification will be allowed to register and vote during early voting.

    North Carolinians were able to request absentee ballots online or in person through Oct. 29. The deadline was extended until 5 p.m. on the day before Election Day for active military families or U.S. citizens outside the United States.

    North Carolina absentee voting has been adjusted since Hurricane Helene ravaged the western part of the state on Sept. 28. Now, voters from the 25 counties hit hardest by Helene’s flooding and mudslides can return absentee ballots to any early voting site during early voting.

    Those counties are Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba, Clay, Cleveland, Gaston, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Lincoln, Macon, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Transylvania, Watauga, Wilkes, and Yancey.

    The State Board of Elections website offers detailed information for voters affected by the disaster.

    North Carolina also provides detailed information online about the state’s voting procedures designed to protect election integrity, including the staffing of two “judges” from at least two different political parties at each site. Additionally, the chair of each political party in a county can appoint observers to monitor early voting and Election Day voting.

    On Election Day, voters without the required photo ID still can vote by filling out a form explaining why they don’t have identification, or by casting a provisional ballot and showing valid identification at their county board of elections office by 5 p.m. on Nov. 14.

    After the polls close in North Carolina on Election Night at 7:30 p.m., the counting of all received ballots begins. Results are updated every 5 to 10 minutes online as they are approved by county boards of elections.

    But results still will be unofficial.

    A voter checks her information while checking in for early voting in Hendersonville, N.C., on Oct. 17, 2024. Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images

    The day after the election, bipartisan teams at every county board of elections will conduct an open-to-the-public hand-count audit to ensure voting equipment recorded voters’ choices accurately, according to the state board of elections.

    The state board of elections chooses two groups of ballots to count from each county, either from individual precincts or early voting sites, or all the absentee ballots cast in a county. The state tells each county which groups to count. Examined in the audit is always the top contest on the ballot—this year, the presidential race.

    Also counted are absentee by-mail ballots postmarked on or before Nov. 5 and those received from military members serving overseas. They can arrive as late as 5 p.m. on Nov. 14.

    Each county board is scheduled to certify results in open-to-the-public meetings 10 days after the election on Nov. 15. The State Board of Elections is scheduled to meet on Nov. 26 at 11 a.m. to certify the election results.

    Georgia

    Georgia has 16 electoral votes and more than 8.2 million registered voters.

    The deadline to register to vote was Oct. 7.

    Early voting began on Oct. 15 and ended on Nov. 1. And Day 1 smashed records, according to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

    More than 310,000 cast ballots, he said, up from 136,739 on the first day of voting in the 2020 presidential election and up from 134,962 on Day 1 of voting in the 2022 midterms.

    As of Nov. 2, more than 4 million ballots had been cast either in person or by mail and numbers were being updated periodically online. That’s 55.3 percent turnout.

    On Election Day, polls will be open in the state from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m.

    Voters not able to show valid identification to poll workers can vote by provisional ballot and will have three days to resolve questions of eligibility. Any voters in line by 7 p.m. still will be allowed to vote.

    Georgia’s State Election Board voted 3–2 on Sept. 20 to establish a rule requiring ballots to be hand-counted on the evening of the election after the polls close. But Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney blocked that rule on Oct. 15, saying the change was “too much, too late.”

    Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger holds up a mobile device during a news conference at the State Capitol in Atlanta on Oct. 23, 2024. Alex Wong/Getty Images

    McBurney also repeated criticisms that others, including Raffensperger, had leveled at the change—that there were no procedures in place under the new hand-count rule, and that the counting process would result in delays that would undermine voter confidence in the results.

    Absentee ballots are verified in Georgia by elections workers as they are received. Information on each ballot is cross-checked with an official photo ID on file with the state, according to a spokesman for the Georgia Secretary of State’s office.

    On Election Day, elections workers will begin tabulating early and absentee ballots at 7 a.m., the spokesman said. Absentee ballots must be received by 7 p.m. on Nov. 5 to be counted, he said.

    When the polls close, each poll station manager, accompanied by two poll officers serving as witnesses, will record the number of ballots scanned and generate three paper “tapes,” receipts with election results from each scanner. 

    One tape is affixed to the polling station’s door for public view. Another is stored in an envelope, along with the memory card with scanning machine data to be sent to the county election superintendent. The third tape is stored in an envelope along with a polling recap form. 

    All the voting data—the scanner memory card, the paper ballots, the voting machine access cards voters use to operate voting machines, and electronic poll books with voter information—are placed in sealed containers.

    These are delivered to the county election superintendent by the poll manager and at least one other poll worker or law enforcement officer.

    Georgia state law requires that results from precincts are consolidated by the county election superintendent and counted in public view.

    The rules say that the counting “shall not cease” until the results are all tabulated, barring an emergency. The results are then reported to the secretary of state.

    Lee County poll workers look for watermarks on voting paper during poll worker training in Leesburg, Ga., on Oct. 2, 2024. Becca Milfeld/AFP via Getty Images

    In 2020 a water leak, originally reported as a burst pipe, led to a counting delay of several hours at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena polling station in Fulton County.

    After the election, paper ballots are stored by the clerk of the county superior court with other county records. If there is no contest to the election they may be destroyed after two years.

    State rules require each county election board to meet by 3 p.m. the Friday after the election, this year on Nov. 8, to conduct a review of precinct returns.

    The election must be certified by 5 p.m. on the Monday after Election Day. This year, that Monday is Veterans Day. So the deadline will be extended to the next day, Nov. 12.

    But even the certification deadline is the subject of a legal battle in Georgia.

    McBurney ruled on Oct. 15 that election officials cannot refuse to certify results by the required deadline, even if they suspect fraud.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 11:40

  • Kamala Harris Bans Virtual Guns In Her Own "Freedom Town" Fortnite Game
    Kamala Harris Bans Virtual Guns In Her Own “Freedom Town” Fortnite Game

    In the digital era video games are the most consumed form of entertainment by far, and gamers who spent their formative years playing the first generation Nintendo, Sega and Playstation are all now adults with careers, businesses, families and voting status.  A lot of them still play. 

    While surveys suggest that this demographic is made up almost evenly of men and women, the reality is that most women who do play games do so casually, focusing predominantly on less intensive and non-competitive media.  Meanwhile, the vast majority of competitive gamers are men.  “Competitive” generally means combat games featuring combat mechanics and weapons.  In other words, they are the same demographic that Democrats have been demonizing as “toxic incels” for the past ten years.   

    The 2024 election is perhaps the first election in which both major political parties are vying for the attention of gamers for votes.  Trump has done live events with popular video game streamers and the group is increasingly leaning conservative.  Let’s not forget the “Gamer Gate” controversy in which gamers were attacked relentlessly by the mainstream media for pointing out that the gaming industry had been invaded by woke activists.  In 2024 this agenda is thoroughly exposed but in those days the culture war was just a tiny spark.

    At the time the political left denied that they were infiltrating and controlling pop media.  Gamers were one of the first groups outside of the alternative media to openly challenge the political left’s subversive dominance in the entertainment space.

    True to form, even when Democrats court gamers for their affections the party does so with nefarious intentions.  Kamala Harris in an odd campaign stunt has partnered with the company behind the popular Fortnite franchise; an online third person shooter which requires players to eliminate all their competition on a map and be the last person standing.

    Harris’ map, ironically labeled “Freedom Town”, set the players on a mission to “squad up, go vote and fight for freedom.”  However, the combat game lacks one important item in Freedom Town: Guns.

    That’s right, Harris banned guns in her own virtual video game world.  Players no longer fight competitively; rather, they scour a city covered in Kamala propaganda while they collect items like lost Harris campaign posters “scattered by the wind.”  Hopefully the game is a portent of the Harris campaign being scattered to the winds instead of a representation of the world to come.

    If Harris is banning virtual guns in her video game, what would she do with real guns in the real world as President…?

    Not surprisingly, the gaming gimmick was a complete failure.  The number of players participating?  A maximum of 383.  To put this embarrassment in perspective, Fortnite has over 400 million registered players worldwide and the average established map has over 300,000 participants in a 24 hour period.  Harris couldn’t even break 400 players in 24 hours.

    The amount of money put into the stunt must have been sizeable.  Securing a partnership with Fortnite, paying for the programmers that created the special map, renting the server space, and the background music is a track from Megan Thee Stallion.  All for nothing.  

    The woke movement’s relentless mission to inject progressive ideology and LGBT messaging into video games has not helped to endear gamers to Democrats – It’s done the opposite.  A majority of these video games are now imploding, with development studios shutting down after  losing hundreds of millions of dollars on AAA titles.  Get woke, go broke.

    Kamala Harris may end up being the ultimate get woke go broke allegory if she loses the election on November 5th.  It’s difficult to find a demographic (beyond childless cat ladies and Hollywood celebrities) that actually respects the candidate.  Gamers have shown she’s certainly not popular with them.            

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 11/03/2024 – 11:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest