Zero Hedge

Stormy Daniels Lawyer Says Payment Wasn't 'Hush Money' - Avenatti Calls "A Shakedown"

Stormy Daniels Lawyer Says Payment Wasn't 'Hush Money' - Avenatti Calls "A Shakedown"

A lawyer who was involved in negotiations between former President Donald Trump and two women denied that payments made to them constituted "hush-money," and instead used the word "consideration."

Keith Davidson, who negotiated deals with both Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) and model Karen McDougal, disputed Manhattan prosecutor Joshua Steinglass's language during a May 2 court appearance.

"It wasn’t a ‘payout’ and it wasn’t ‘hush money.’ It was consideration in a civil settlement," said Davidson.

"Would you use the phrase hush money to describe the money that was paid to your client by Donald Trump?" Steinglass shot back.

"I would never use that word," Davidson replied.

When asked what he would call it, he said it was a "Consideration," comparing it to a contract in which one pays to have one's lawn mowed.

Trump attorney Emil Bove pressed Mr. Davidson on his understanding of extortion law, grilling him about previous instances in which he solicited money to suppress embarrassing stories, including one involving wrestler Hulk Hogan.

Mr. Bove suggested to the witness that by the time he negotiated the payments for Ms. McDougal and Ms. Clifford, he would have been “pretty well versed in coming right up to the line without committing extortion.”

I had familiarized myself with the law,” Mr. Davison replied. -Epoch Times

Davidson also told Steinglass that he worked out the "consideration" deal with former Trump attorney Michael Cohen just days before the 2016 election, but that Trump never signed it.

Avenatti pipes up from prison

Trying to reclaim his 15 minutes of fame from prison, former Trump foe and Stormy Daniels' ex-attorney Michael Avenatti posted on X that Davidson is a liar - and had in fact tried to extort Trump.

"Keith Davidson is lying," claimed Avenatti. "After I confronted her w/ her own text msgs, Daniels admitted to me in early 2019 that she & Davidson had extorted Trump in Oct. 2016 – it was a shakedown."

Last month, Trump publicly thanked Avenatti "for revealing the truth about two sleaze bags who have, with their lies and misrepresentations, cost our Country dearly!," referring to the gag orders placed on Trump in his Manhattan trial.
 

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 20:40

Money Is A Monopoly Government Will Never Surrender

Money Is A Monopoly Government Will Never Surrender

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

A major intellectual revelation from my youth came from reading Murray Rothbard’s “What Has Government Done to Our Money?” (1963). He includes a passing opinion that private markets are perfectly capable of producing money with no help from government. Under a sweeping monetary reform, private mints could compete in offering this good with full associated services. There is no need for any government intervention here.

It was the kind of claim that, at some point in one’s life, causes the jaw to hit the floor. Investigating this assertion more, I came to see that there was a large literature on the topic. Historically, money originated in the market economy itself, a naturally evolving institution that met the needs of trade. Whatever good was generally valued by everyone, and was as capable of being divided into consistent units with a stable value, could be deployed as money, with no need for government to do anything but watch.

But of course history has not panned out that way. Every government has a strong incentive to monopolize the good called money because this is how they can tax their citizens, reward the most compliant industries, cultivate close relationships with bankers, and inflate the currency at will through a variety of methods depending on the technology of the time.

We can of course imagine primitive tribes or pre-colonial native populations using rocks and shells, but is there a modern case where private coinage became normalized? In a major but often overlooked work of historical scholarship, economist George Selgin has written the most extensive treatment of the private coinage industry in the UK at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

His book “Good Money” is beautifully produced with color photographs of some of the most alluring coins you will ever see. The historical narrative is endlessly fascinating. At the dawn of the factory system, the Royal Mint didn’t care in the slightest bit about small denomination coins of silver and copper to enable small businessmen to pay their workers. The Royal Mint only produced large denominations in gold for big business doing big trade deals.

Frustrated with the inability to pay workers, the entire period from 1700 through 1813 saw the evolution of a sophisticated industry focused on coinage. Old button factories were converted to producing coins of various weights and sizes based on copper and silver. They were used to pay workers and accepted widely by merchants.

The system worked just fine and it could have continued forever. The new industry alleviated the coin shortage and yielded healthy competition among many producers of new money. It was all made to be inflation resistant and verifiable according to standard weights and measures. This was a full industry of private coinage, in operation in one of the most advanced and industrious societies in the world at the time.

Sadly, the Royal Mint eventually became upset about this. Driven by the eternal need of government to control the money in its realm, Parliament passed a series of acts in 1812–1813 to cartelize the function of the mint and make the Royal Mint the only legal producer. The entire industry was destroyed very quickly. So from this one case, we can see that the monopolization of money is not an outgrowth of market forces but imposed by government. It has always been this way.

The digital age birthed new attempts to privatize money, stemming from a very real problem of financial verification (revealed in the 2008 financial crisis) and using money without the need for intermediaries. The result was Bitcoin, which was born in January 2010. It grew in sophistication and value over the course of the year. In the following seven years, adoption exploded and incentivized the creation of new private methods of settling transactions and accepting credit cards. It was a solid competitor to nationalized money.

As in 1813, governments did not much like it. The code of Bitcoin itself was deliberately throttled to prevent the new private money from scaling, prompting a fork in the transaction chain and the birth of general chaos in the industry, even as Bitcoin itself kept growing in value. Government responded by taking control of the on-ramps, the off-ramps, all exchanges, and then put heavy taxation and reporting requirements on all dealings. Right now, the crackdown is full-on, with websites and wallets being shut down and top investors investigated and even subject to criminal trials.

As in 19th century Britain, we see here another tragic case of government intervention strangling a wonderful new industry in the interest of maintaining a monopoly on power, the first condition of which is always to control the money of the realm.

I think back to my own shock at the discovery that free enterprise was fully capable of managing money as a good. It had never occurred to me because it had always been otherwise. And yet, if you think about it, there are all sorts of conditions in which market forces invent money as a method of moving beyond primitive barter arrangements.

Every prison has its own form of money. It used to be cigarettes but now is more commonly canned fish or some other valued good. The only reason this is not common in society at large is that governments do not want it this way.

A feature of government management in modern times has been periodic reforms that always end in making the system worse. We had a government-backed gold standard in the late 19th century that was compromised by a fixed price relationship between gold and silver that was unsustainable. Then we got the Federal Reserve in 1913, with the promise that it would control inflation even as it took off soon after the Fed accommodated the need for war funding.

In 1933, we got another reform that devalued the currency from the center, changing the definition of a dollar from 1/20 an ounce of gold to 1/35 an ounce. That massive devaluation was accompanied by a nationwide gold confiscation that included criminal penalties and jail time for noncompliance. At the close of World War II, a new system called Bretton Woods forbid domestic conversion and only allowed gold for international exchange. This was completely unsustainable because every nation has different fiscal and monetary policies so of course the value of money could not be frozen in place. This led to the end of the gold standard completely in 1971–73, resulting in a disastrous inflation bout.

No question that the next great monetary reform will be to globalize a central bank digital currency with track-and-trace capability and the power to turn money on and off on political whim. In order to make this possible, government now needs to eliminate all the competition, just as they did in 1813.

None of this mucking around with the money is in the public interest. It is in the government’s interest and also its industrial partners in banking and finance. A full denationalization of money is the fix for the whole problem but getting there from here will require dislodging the government of its penchant for controlling the economic forces of the whole realm. It’s an age-old problem and perhaps the greatest challenge of all ages.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 20:20

California's Single-Family Zoning Exemplifies The Market-Intervention Problem

California's Single-Family Zoning Exemplifies The Market-Intervention Problem

Via SchiffGold.com,

California’s government bet that they knew better than the free market. And now millions are paying the price...

The story begins in 1919, when the city of Berkley, California instituted legislation setting aside districts that would only allow the construction of single-family housing. The idea spread, and soon much of California’s urban areas had adopted the zoning policy. Today, approximately 40% of the total land in Los Angeles is set aside for single-family homes, while only 11% is reserved for multi-family residences. 

In 2021, a bill was signed which was intended to end single-family zoning in California. But politics is rarely that simple. The decision was met with widespread protests and an LA County Court recently declared the law unconstitutional, preventing its passing in 5 Southern California cities. While many celebrated the ruling, the decision has perpetuated California’s housing crisis.

The logic behind the original legislation was to preserve the “charm” of California’s neighborhoods. In the eyes of policymakers, multi-family residences such as apartment complexes or duplexes would sully the white-picket fence aesthetic which they saw as a staple of Californian life. While this may appear like a harmless notion, this idealism came with devastating consequences.

The problem with this policy is apparent to those with an understanding of supply and demand. By preventing high-capacity residences from being built, the supply of housing has been artificially constrained by the legislation. Even as demand rises for increased housing, companies cannot produce the necessary residences to meet the desire. When demand rises while supply remains fixed, prices will surge. And that’s exactly what happened.

California has the second highest home prices of any state, behind only Hawaii. Housing costs have increased by 10.1% in the past year, while the number of homes sold has decreased by 6.9%. As of March 2024, the average price of a house in LA is a staggering $974,000. In San Francisco, that figure is 1.29 million.

These soaring rates have heavily affected the citizenry. California has the 4th highest homelessness per capita rate among U.S. states. Over 180,000 Californians are homeless, which is almost a third of the nation’s entire homeless population.

While the cause of some homelessness is self-inflicted, studies have found a direct correlation between the cost of housing and rates of homelessness. With the second-highest housing costs of any state, it’s safe to say daunting housing prices are at least partially to blame for a vast number of California’s displaced citizens.

Another consequence of the legislation is an increase in class inequality. California has the fourth-most unequal income distribution of any state. The zoning law contributes to this problem by acting as a gatekeeper that excludes low-income families from better neighborhoods, sacrificing equality for community “quality.” Accompanied by the state’s stringent school choice laws, many citizens are left attending lower-caliber schools in worse neighborhoods. This harms future career opportunities and feeds the vicious generational cycle of poverty.

These issues are all either caused or exacerbated by the single-family zoning legislation which has constrained the state’s housing market for decades. The directive prevents the construction of apartment complexes, or other housing structures which would cater to a larger constituency, keeping prices too high for many to afford. From 1919 to the present, politicians have continued to turn a blind eye to single-family zoning’s detrimental effects in the pursuit of the perceived good of protecting neighborhoods.

The Fundamental Problem with Government Intervention

Government intervention always leads to unintended consequences. It’s a tale as old as government. But why does it so often result in disaster?

There’s a fatal flaw at the root of all bureaucratic intervention: a lack of information. In any centralized decision, there is an incalculable amount of pertinent decentralized information that is not available to governmental bodies.

In the absence of intervention, this information is communicated through prices. Even though all of the information will never be understood by the same person at once, we’re still able to coordinate our plans to reach a productive end. That’s the beauty of the price system. You may have no idea that a cocoa farm in Ghana had a poor yield, but you will buy less cocoa when it costs more than usual. A series of complex events can all be boiled down to a simple price hike.

Government intervention is the wrench in the works. No centralized body can know all of the variables in a given situation. While protecting Californian neighborhoods sounds good, it is a gross simplification of the actual issues at play. Restricting the supply of housing leads to a bevy of consequences, including skyrocketing prices, rampant homelessness, and pervasive inequality. The pursuit of a solution in the absence of information usually ends up hurting more people than it helps.

Economics is often regarded as a dismal science reserved for bookworms and professors. But for the homeless who are struggling to survive because of market-hampering governmental policies, economics is about life and death. When the government intervenes in the market system because it “knows best,” it far too often doesn’t, and innocent people pay the price. It’s up to us to hold our leaders accountable for the consequences of their actions and to help those harmed by their political arrogance.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 20:00

Major Australian Pension Fund To Restrict Coal Investments

Major Australian Pension Fund To Restrict Coal Investments

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Australian Retirement Trust, which manages $183 billion (AUS$280 billion) of retirement savings, is placing thermal coal on its exclusion list as of July 1, as it looks to have a net-zero emissions portfolio by 2050.

Thermal coal includes the mining of lignite, bituminous, anthracite, and steam coal and its sale to external parties, the second-largest Australian pension fund said in updates to its product offering.

The fund will be screening its investments and exclude direct investments in coal companies that have 10% of revenue from coal (estimated or reported) in the most recent year of financial reporting.

“As a global investor, Australian Retirement Trust is committed to achieving a net zero greenhouse gas emissions investment portfolio by 2050,” the fund said in a statement carried by Reuters.

However, it applies exclusions in limited circumstances “in accordance with members’ best financial interest.”

For coal investments, exclusions will apply for pooled derivative products, which may have indirect exposure to companies involved in the mining of thermal coal. Exclusions will also be made for companies deriving revenue from metallurgical coal used in the production of steel, coal mined for internal power generation, intra-company sales of mined thermal coal, revenue from coal trading, and royalty income for companies not involved in thermal coal extraction operations.

Climate change is the single largest motivation of investment institutions to decide to exclude companies from their portfolios, a so-called ‘exclusion tracker’ showed last year.

Investors have become increasingly wary of investing in ‘sin industries’, which for many now include fossil fuel companies alongside the weapons and tobacco sectors.

Pension funds and other institutional investors in Europe have already excluded some major oil and gas companies from their portfolios, while some European banks have scaled back financing for fossil fuel projects.

Not all investors are dumping fossil fuels—some believe that owning stocks could help them influence decisions at oil and gas firms regarding emissions reductions.   

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 19:40

Biden Admin Covertly Pursued Gender Affirming Care For Kids In States Where The Practice Is Banned

Biden Admin Covertly Pursued Gender Affirming Care For Kids In States Where The Practice Is Banned

America First Legal revealed documents on Thursday from its lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), showcasing emails from Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine and indicating that the Biden Administration has engaged privately with "gender affirming care providers" from states that have outlawed these practices, pledging federal support to counteract such state laws.

In particular, Levine expressed significant concern for the LGBTI+ community in Idaho, emphasizing ongoing efforts to challenge these state measures nationally, the site pointed out. The documents were acquired through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request concerning Levine’s correspondence about pediatric transgender clinics.

Previously, in March 2023, Levine stated that the federal backing for transitioning children was comprehensive, even at presidential levels, and framed any opposition as politically motivated. The newly revealed records elaborate on the administration's covert operations with advocates to push this agenda.

One notable communication from June 2022 involves HHS Regional Director Ingrid Ulrey discussing an Idaho meeting about impending legislation aimed at prohibiting certain medical treatments for minors. Ulrey's message to Levine highlighted her empathy for Idaho's LGBTQ community, particularly in light of legislative efforts she described as harmful.

Among other things, the report noted that in her memo, Ulrey highlighted concerns about the impact of Idaho's proposed law on "Gender Affirming Care" (GAC), including a doctor shortage and the high costs of such treatments without insurance subsidies.

She noted that only one provider was offering GAC to a significant state prison population, with a few others too intimidated to attend a meeting or preferring to stay under the radar. Ulrey also relayed that the care providers had specific definitions of GAC, controversially suggesting the removal of parental consent requirements, which could include requiring consent from just one parent or both if divorced. This approach appears to be advocated by a high-ranking HHS official following discussions with these providers.

Ulrey's discussions with "gender-affirming care providers" led to a disturbing proposal to simplify legal barriers, including reducing parental consent requirements for such treatments, according to America First Legal

Following these meetings, a high-ranking HHS official advocated for the removal of parental consent as part of the definition of "gender-affirming care."

The meeting's summary called for federal intervention to override state laws restricting such care, with suggestions for using Medicaid to mandate coverage across all states and queries about providing such care in prisons, indicating a push to extend "gender-affirming care" despite local restrictions.

The summary also reflected provider concerns about parental rights obstructing children's access to these treatments. On June 5, 2022, Assistant Secretary Levine expressed ongoing support for the LGBTI+ community in Idaho, promising to continue advocacy efforts nationally.

Further details emerged from a June 2022 roundtable in Anchorage, Alaska, where discussions focused on integrating mental health counselors in schools amidst concerns about parental opposition. A local clinic, Identity, Inc., was noted for providing non-surgical gender-affirming care, with surgical treatments sought outside Alaska. The report also mentioned potential local legislation in Anchorage impacting transgender individuals' participation in school sports, signaling continued legislative challenges for the transgender community.

America First Legal Senior Advisor Ian Prior commented: “The Biden Administration is leveraging the full power of the federal government to engage in an anti-science war on reality, with America’s children as the collateral damage. While European nations are drastically pulling back on these dangerous experiments and a number of states are legislating against them, the Biden Administration is plowing full steam ahead in its goal of redefining the foundations of biology, from the doctors’ offices to the athletic fields. This comes even as the United States Supreme Court has held that states have a right to enact such legislation. The Biden Administration is supporting crimes against humanity, and America First Legal will continue to fight back until these dangerous practices end.”

You can read the full trove of emails here.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 19:20

Ford's $120,000 Loss Per Vehicle Shows California EV Goals Are Impossible

Ford's $120,000 Loss Per Vehicle Shows California EV Goals Are Impossible

Authored by John Seiler via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

So much for California’s mandate that “all new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles by 2035,” according to the California Air Resources Board. It imposed the mandate at the request of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The all-electric F-150 Lightning from Ford is displayed at the Los Angeles Auto Show in Los Angeles on Nov. 18, 2021. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)

On April 24, Ford reported it lost $132,000 for each of its 10,000 electric vehicles sold in the first quarter of 2024, according to CNN. The sales were down 20 percent from the first quarter of 2023 and would “drag down earnings for the company overall.”

The losses include “hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford. Those investments are years away from paying off.” Ford is the only major carmaker breaking out EV numbers by themselves. But other marques likely suffer similar losses.

Californians bought 1.78 million new vehicles in 2023, reported the California New Car Dealers Association. Multiply that number by $132,000 and you get $235 billion. That would bankrupt every car manufacturer, meaning they just would pull out of selling anything in the state.

The California government would have to set up socialist, government-owned companies to make the cars, like the infamous Yugo. Dubbed “the worst car in history,” it was sold in America in the 1980s and was made by the communist Yugoslav government just before the country itself broke up in 1991.

A man works on one of the last Yugos at Serbia's Zastava car plant on the production line in Kragujevac on Nov. 9, 2008. The car became popular in the local market due to its low price and fuel consumption. (Aleksandar Stankovic/AFP via Getty Images) Battery Problems

The Epoch Times also reported that same day, April 24, “Ford Recalling More Than 55,000 SUVs and Trucks in Canada Over Battery Issues.” The Transport Canada notice read, “A sudden loss of power to the wheels or a vehicle that doesn’t restart after a start-stop event could increase the risk of a crash. Additionally, hazard lamps that don’t work could make the vehicle less visible and increase the risk of a crash.”

Also, most of Canada gets really cold in the winter. “The effects of cold weather on car batteries start to become pronounced when the temperature drops below freezing for an extended period,” explained United Tire & Service. “At a temperature of 32 degrees Fahrenheit, your battery will lose about 30 percent of its power. Your battery will continue to get weaker as the temperatures get colder. In fact, your battery will lose about 60 percent of its power at 0 degrees Fahrenheit.”

In Montreal, the average low temperature in January is 10 degrees Fahrenheit. In Edmonton it’s 8 degrees.

Most of California enjoys the balmiest weather on earth. But in January 2023, the temperature around Bridgeport, near Yosemite National Park, dropped to minus 27 degrees. In such areas, EVs are almost completely useless except for rich people in the summer.

Cheap Electric Cars?

But isn’t Tesla working on cheaper models, not just the expensive ones? Aren’t they figuring out what Ford couldn’t? “Exclusive: Tesla scraps low-cost car plans amid fierce Chinese EV competition,” headlined Reuters on April 5.

However, on April 24 Yahoo Finance headlined, “Tesla stock surges as EV maker will ‘accelerate’ the launch of cheaper cars. Tesla had previously said it would focus on its robotaxi product after paring back plans for a lower-cost car.”

Who knows what’s going on with mercurial Tesla CEO Elon Musk? But I would never count him out.

So what about those cheap cars financed by communist China? In February, the Biden administration announced it would investigate Chinese “smart” cars, which like your cell phone—probably also made in China—scoop up increasing amounts of data about your life.

China is determined to dominate the future of the auto market, including by using unfair practices,’' President Joe Biden said. “China’s policies could flood our market with its vehicles, posing risks to our national security. I’m not going to let that happen on my watch.’’

On April 11, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) called for banning Chinese EVs as “an existential threat to the American auto industry. Ohio knows all too well how China illegally subsidizes its companies, putting our workers out of jobs and undermining entire industries, from steel to solar manufacturing. We cannot allow China to bring its government-backed cheating to the American auto industry.”

So far no action has been taken. But presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump in March promised he would impose a 100 percent tariff on Chinese cars, EV or otherwise, built in Mexico.

No CO2 Threat

Meanwhile, the carbon monoxide emitted by gas and diesel engines is being shown not to cause global warming. Reported No Tricks Zone, “Three Polish physicists have focused their attention on this saturation principle as it applies to CO2 in three recently published papers (Kubicki et al., 2024, 2022, and 2020). Their latest (Kubicki et al., 2024), published in Applications in Engineering Science, summarizes the experimental evidence from their 2020 and 2022 publications substantiating the conclusion that ‘as a result of saturation processes, emitted CO2 does not directly cause an increase in global temperature.’

The authors are concerned about the recent push to rely on modeling and assumptions about CO2’s capacity to drive changes in global temperature rather than observational evidence. They point out the current CO2-is-the-climate-control-knob zeitgeist is no more than a hypothesis.”

The scientists themselves wrote: “This unequivocally suggests that the officially presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact.”

As I have written several times in The Epoch Times, the CO2 from California vehicles is minuscule compared to the massive spewing from coal plants still being built in massive numbers in communist China. See from March 25, “‘Green Innovation’ Study Shows California CO2 Policies Mainly Help China.”

Conclusion: EV Mandates Are a Delusion

California’s 100 percent zero-emission vehicle mandate by 2035 is a tailpipe dream. It’s pushed by ambitious politicians like Mr. Newsom and financed by billionaire environmentalists like Bill Gates. It has no basis in reality.

At some point in a couple of years, a coalition will form to get rid of these mandates, as well as President Biden’s national goal of more than half of all vehicles sold being EVs by 2030. Auto dealers, especially in California, will work with automakers and the Democratic-aligned United Auto Workers union to push the mandates further into the future, say 2045. Later, the date will be pushed to 2055, and so on.

Mr. Newsom’s term as governor ends in January 2027. President Biden, if reelected, must leave in January 2029. California’s term limits also mandate a maximum of 12 years in the Legislature.

Today’s politicians will be gone soon enough, their green battery dreams wafted away like the thick exhaust from a classic 1957 Chevy.

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 Fri, 05/03/2024 - 18:20

The Golden Age Of Disinformation Has Only Just Begun

The Golden Age Of Disinformation Has Only Just Begun

Authored by Boyan Radoykov via The Epoch Times,

Disinformation is all about power, and because of the harmful and far-reaching influence that disinformation exerts, it cannot achieve much without power.

As a tool for shaping public perceptions, disinformation can be used by authoritarian regimes and democracies alike. The dissemination of false information is not a new practice in human history. However, over the last few decades, it has become professionalized and has taken on exorbitant proportions at both national and international levels.

The Origins of Disinformation

Disinformation can be understood as misleading information, intentionally produced and deliberately disseminated, to mislead public opinion, harm a target group, or advance political or ideological objectives.

The term disinformation is a translation of the Russian дезинформация (dezinformatsiya). On Jan. 11, 1923, the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union decided to create a Department of Disinformation. Its mission was “to mislead real or potential adversaries about the true intentions” of the USSR. From then on, disinformation became a tactic of Soviet political warfare known as “active measures,” a crucial element of Soviet intelligence strategy involving falsification, subversion, and media manipulation.

During the Cold War, from 1945 to 1989, this tactic was used by numerous intelligence agencies. The expression “disinformation of the masses” came into increasing use in the 1960s and became widespread in the 1980s. Former Soviet bloc intelligence officer Ladislav Bittman, the first disinformation professional to defect to the West, observed in this regard that ”The interpretation [of the term] is slightly distorted because public opinion is only one of the potential targets. Many disinformation games are designed only to manipulate the decision-making elite, and receive no publicity.”

With its creation in July 1947, the CIA was given two main missions: to prevent surprise foreign attacks against the United States and to hinder the advance of Soviet communism in Europe and Third World countries. During the four decades of the Cold War, the CIA was also at the forefront of U.S. counter-propaganda and disinformation.

The Soviet Union’s successful test of a nuclear weapon in 1949 caught the United States off guard and led to the advent of the two nuclear powers clashing on the world stage in an international atmosphere of extreme tension, fear, and uncertainty. In 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower received a top-secret report from a commission chaired by retired Gen. James H. Doolittle, which concluded: “If the United States is to survive, long-standing American concepts of ‘fair play’ must be reconsidered. We must develop effective espionage and counterespionage services and must learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated and more effective methods than those used against us. It may become necessary that the American people be acquainted with, understand and support this fundamentally repugnant philosophy.” Of course, “repugnant” philosophy includes subversion through disinformation.

Although the United States had high expertise in this field, it did not react much to the disinformation that was sent its way until 1980, when a false document claimed that Washington supported apartheid in South Africa. Later on, they also took offense at Operation Denver, a Soviet disinformation campaign aimed at having the world believe that the United States had intentionally created HIV/AIDS.

In the United States, the intellectual influence of Edward Bernays is at the root of institutional political propaganda and opinion manipulation. A double nephew of Sigmund Freud, he worked as a press agent for Italian tenor Enrico Caruso and for the Ballets Russes. He took part, alongside President Woodrow Wilson, in the Creel Commission (1917), which helped turn American public opinion in favor of going to war. His wife and business partner, Doris Fleischman, advised him to avoid using the overused term “propaganda.” Instead, she coined the term “public relations” to replace it, a term still in use today.

China and Its Digital Authoritarianism

In China, deception, lies, and the rewriting of history are disinformation techniques used by the Chinese Communist Party, according to tactics learned in the Soviet Union in the 1950s. Today, the CCP has a sophisticated arsenal of disinformation on all fronts. Its main objectives are to turn public opinion upside down, interfere in foreign political circles, influence elections, discredit its opponents, and hide its own intentions and priorities.

In September 2021, the French Institute for Strategic Research at the École Militaire published a report on China’s influence operations, which warned: “For a long time, it could be said that China, unlike Russia, sought to be loved rather than feared; that it wanted to seduce, to project a positive image of itself in the world, to arouse admiration. Beijing has not given up on seduction ... but, at the same time, Beijing is increasingly taking on the role of infiltrator and coercer: its influence operations have become considerably tougher in recent years, and its methods increasingly resemble those employed by Moscow.”

On Sept. 28, 2023, the U.S. government published a report in which it accused China of seeking to “reshape the global information landscape” through a vast network specialized in disinformation. “[China’s] global information manipulation is not simply a matter of public diplomacy—but a challenge to the integrity of the global information space.” This “manipulation” encompasses “propaganda, disinformation, and censorship.”

“Unchecked, [China’s] efforts will reshape the global information landscape, creating biases and gaps that could even lead nations to make decisions that subordinate their economic and security interests to Beijing’s,” according to the report.

According to the U.S. State Department, China spends billions of dollars every year on these “foreign information manipulation” operations. At the same time, Beijing suppresses critical information that runs counter to its rhetoric on politically sensitive subjects. The report goes on to state that China manipulates information by resorting to “digital authoritarianism,” exploiting international and UN organizations and controlling Chinese-language media abroad.

When Disinformation Becomes Military Doctrine

In some countries, policymakers may turn to their national history to justify the implementation of certain regulations on information. German politicians, for example, frequently refer to the Nazi past or that of the communist Stasi to justify the regulations they want to put in place. Yet these historical comparisons don’t always hold water. The Nazis, for example, did not come to power because they controlled the then-new technology of radio. Rather, once in power, they used the state control on radio stations that the previous Weimar governments had put in place—in the hope of saving democracy—to their own benefit. This decision by the Weimar governments had the perverse effect of enabling the Nazis to control radio much more quickly than with newspapers.

Disinformation is mainly orchestrated by government agencies. In the post-Soviet era, and with the advent of the information society, when the media and social networks became a central relay for the dissemination of fake news, disinformation evolved to become a fundamental tactic in the military doctrine of powerful countries. In the early 2000s, the European Union and NATO realized that the problem of Russian disinformation was such that they had to set up special units to process and debunk mass-produced false information.

The Methods and Processes of Disinformation

There are four main methods of spreading disinformation: selective censorship, manipulation of search indexes, hacking and dissemination of fraudulently obtained data, and amplification of disinformation through excessive sharing.

By way of example, disinformation activities involve the following processes:

  • The creation of fabricated characters or websites with networks of fake experts who disseminate supposedly reliable references.

  • The creation of “deep-fakes” and synthetic media through photos, videos, and audio clips that have been digitally manipulated or entirely fabricated to deceive the public. Today’s artificial intelligence (AI) tools can make synthetic content almost impossible to detect or distinguish from reality.

  • The development or amplification of conspiracy theories, which attempt to explain important events through the secret actions of powerful actors acting in the shadows. Conspiracy theories aim not only to influence people’s understanding of events, but also their behavior and worldview.

  • Astroturfing and inundation of information environments. At the root of disinformation campaigns are huge quantities of similar content, published from fabricated sources or accounts. This practice, called astroturfing, creates the impression of widespread support or opposition to a message while concealing its true origin. A similar tactic, inundation, involves spamming social media posts and comment sections with the aim of shaping a narrative or stifling opposing viewpoints. In recent years, the use of troll factories to spread misleading information on social networks has gained momentum.

  • Exploiting alternative social media platforms to reinforce beliefs in a disinformation narrative. Disinformation actors take advantage of platforms offering fewer protections for users and fewer options for detecting and removing inauthentic content and accounts.

  • Amplification of information gaps, when there isn’t enough credible information to answer a specific search. Misinformation leaders can exploit these gaps by generating their own content and feeding the search.

  • Manipulating unsuspecting protagonists. Disinformation facilitators target high-profile individuals and organizations to corroborate their stories. Targets are often not even aware that they are repeating a disinformation actor’s narrative, or that this narrative is intended to influence or manipulate public opinion.

  • Dissemination of targeted content: The instigators of disinformation produce customized influential content likely to resonate with a specific audience, based on its worldview, beliefs, and interests. It’s a long-term tactic that involves disseminating targeted content over time to build trust and credibility with the target audience, making it easier to manipulate them.

A Race Against Time to Protect the Younger Generation

In the early 2000s, most publications about the internet hailed its unprecedented potential for development. Only a few years later, commentators, analysts, and policymakers began to worry that the internet, and social media platforms in particular, posed new threats to democracy, global governance, and the integrity of information.

Since then, the world has become increasingly interconnected and interdependent, and the opportunities for misinformation have become almost limitless. With more than 5.5 billion internet users and more than 8.58 billion mobile subscriptions worldwide by 2022, compared to a global population of 7.95 billion at mid-year, the great paradox is that the rise of information technology has created a much more conducive, even thriving, environment for misinformation, and that the development of AI is leading to even worse and more rampant misinformation.

Some experts agree that while online misinformation and propaganda are widespread, it is difficult to determine the extent to which this misinformation has an impact on the public’s political attitudes and, consequently, on political outcomes. Other data have shown that disinformation campaigns rarely succeed in changing the policies of targeted states, but it would be irresponsible to believe that misinformation has little impact. If that were the case, major countries would have abandoned the practice long ago. The opposite is true. With the gradual increase in the foolishness of ruling elites and the rise of new technologies, the policy of destabilization through disinformation has a bright future ahead of it. The risks and stakes remain enormous, and the erosion of public trust in institutions and the media is deeply significant in this regard.

The fight against disinformation must go beyond simplistic solutions such as shutting down Facebook or X (formerly Twitter) accounts, publicly denouncing the actions of one’s adversary, or containing false information through technical means. And it is certainly not enough to focus on measures such as fact-checking or media education to help individuals master and consume information; the average person carries little weight in the face of government disinformation machines.

It would therefore be preferable to address the political and economic operating conditions of the structures that facilitate the spread of disinformation, such as large technology companies, the state actors involved, the media, and other information systems.

Of course, the human factor must remain at the center of leaders’ concerns in the face of growing state and media disinformation. The price of educating young people will always be less than the price of their ignorance.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 17:40

Houthis Warn Drone & Missile Attack Coverage Expanding To Mediterranean Sea

Houthis Warn Drone & Missile Attack Coverage Expanding To Mediterranean Sea

Yahya Saree, spokesperson for the Iranian-backed Houthi terror group, declared in a televised speech to supporters at a Friday rally in Al-Sabeen Square, Sana, that they intend to target Israel-linked ships in the eastern Mediterranean. The risk of conflict spilling over from the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden remains high. 

"We will target any ship heading to Israeli ports in the Mediterranean, in any area we are able to reach," Saree said. 

Given that the eastern Mediterranean is 1,900 kilometers (1,180 miles) from Yemen, this may indicate that the conflict area is broadening, triggering a new escalation of the multi-month war. 

Fernando Ferreira, energy analyst at Rapidan Energy Group, noted:

"The Houthi nuisance continues, but they are at the limit of their ability to cause disruptions. The real risk of escalation comes from Israeli retaliation on IRGC officers/assets helping the Houthis."

This comes as Houthis have attacked dozens of Western and Israel-linked commercial vessels and military ships across the southern Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab Strait, Gulf of Aden, and even the Strait of Hormuz since last November. The group claims these maritime attacks are in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza. 

Saree warned if the Israel Defense Forces launched an attack on the southern Gaza city of Rafah, where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are sheltering from the seven-month-long war. They would've no other choice but to impose sanctions on all ships of the companies that are supplying Israel and entering Israeli ports. 

What's clear—and the West won't like it—is that the Houthis appear to be expanding their attack coverage as numerous maritime chokepoints in the region are under constant threat. 

We pointed out Thursday that Operation Prosperity Guardian, the US-led maritime coalition launched by the Biden administration earlier this year, has been largely a failure

Maritime traffic data from Bloomberg shows not one single LNG vessel with destinations to Europe and the US was transiting the Red Sea for fear of being attacked by Houthi drones and missiles. 

Conflict spillover risks are mounting in the Middle East. Yet the war risk premium in Brent crude has been subsiding in recent weeks. 

 

 

 

 

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 17:20

Americans Continue To Name Inflation As Top Financial Problem: Gallup

Americans Continue To Name Inflation As Top Financial Problem: Gallup

By Jeffrey Jones at Gallup

For the third year in a row, the percentage of Americans naming inflation or the high cost of living as the most important financial problem facing their family has reached a new high.

The 41% naming the issue this year is up slightly from 35% a year ago and 32% in 2022. Before 2022, the highest percentage mentioning inflation was 18% in 2008. Inflation has been named by less than 10% in most other readings since the question was first asked in 2005.

The latest results are from Gallup’s annual Economy and Personal Finance poll, conducted April 1-22.

Gallup has asked Americans at least annually since 2005 to name, without prompting, the top financial problem facing their family. Inflation has topped the list for the past three years. The cost of owning or renting a home ranks second this year at 14%, a new high for that issue.

Other significant problems Americans identify include having too much debt (8%), healthcare costs (7%), lack of money or low wages (7%), and energy costs or gas prices (6%).

Over the past 19 years, healthcare costs and lack of money or low wages have frequently ranked near the top of the list, while the cost of energy or gas has done so at times of elevated gas prices, as in 2005, 2006 and 2008.

Inflation Named Most Often by All Subgroups

Inflation is named the most important financial problem by all key societal subgroups but garners higher mentions from certain age, income and political groups.

  • 46% of older Americans (those aged 50 and older) mention inflation, in contrast with 36% of younger Americans (those under 50).
  • Inflation is a more top-of-mind concern for middle-income (46%) and upper-income Americans (41% of those with an annual household income of $100,000 or more) than for lower-income Americans (31% of those with a household income of less than $40,000).
  • 56% of Republicans, compared with 39% of independents and 26% of Democrats, name the issue as the most important financial problem facing their family.

Younger and lower-income Americans may be less likely to name inflation than their counterparts because other immediate financial concerns are more pressing for them. For example, 21% of adults under age 50 say housing or rental costs are their top concern, compared with 8% of those aged 50 and older.

Lower-income Americans are more inclined than upper-income and middle-income Americans to say personal debt, healthcare costs, lack of money and job loss are the top concerns facing their family.

Retirement, Medical Emergencies Also Worrisome

A separate question in the survey asks Americans to say how much they worry about each of eight specific personal financial matters. Inflation is not one of those issues, but its influence is apparent in the heightened percentage who worry about not being able to maintain their standard of living. Fifty-five percent are very or moderately worried about maintaining their living standards, the third straight year a majority has done so after being below that level from 2017 through 2021.

Since the question was first asked in 2001, an average of 47% of U.S. adults, including a high of 58% in 2011, have worried about being able to maintain their standard of living.

Maintaining one’s standard of living ranks as one of the three economic matters Americans worry most about, along with not having enough for retirement and being unable to pay medical bills in the event of a serious illness or accident. The latter two issues have consistently ranked first or second each year in Gallup polling dating back to 2001.

Less than half of U.S. adults worry about the five other financial matters, including normal medical costs, normal monthly bills, housing costs, paying for their children’s college and making minimum payments on credit cards.

Compared with last year, there have been slight declines in the percentages worried about medical costs for a serious illness or accident (from 60% to 56%) and not having enough money for retirement (from 66% to 59%). Both issues are now closer to their historical averages after being slightly above them last year. For the other six financial matters, the percentages worried about them are essentially unchanged from a year ago.

As would be expected, those with a lower household income worry more than those with greater resources about nearly all of these financial matters. The one exception is affording college for a child, which shows no meaningful differences by income. Across the eight financial matters, an average of 60% of lower-income Americans express worry, compared with 47% of middle-income and 31% of upper-income Americans.

Majorities of lower-income adults worry about six of the eight financial matters, compared with three issues for middle-income adults and only one for those in upper-income households.

The greatest disparity in worry on any single issue between income groups is being able to pay one’s normal monthly bills, which concerns 67% of lower-income adults but only 21% of upper-income adults.

Ratings of Personal Finances Remain Subdued

Forty-six percent of Americans rate their personal finances as excellent or good, similar to what Gallup has measured the past two years but a worse evaluation than in 2017 through 2021. Meanwhile, 36% describe their finances as “only fair,” while 17% rate them as “poor.”

Americans’ ratings of their personal financial situation were worse than now between 2009 and 2012, as the U.S. was coming out of the Great Recession and unemployment was high. During those years, an average of 42% of Americans rated their personal finances positively.

All income groups remain less positive about their financial situation now compared with 2021. Currently, 72% of upper-income, 42% of middle-income and 25% of lower-income Americans rate their situation as excellent or good.

Another question in the survey finds 62% of Americans saying they have enough money to live comfortably, similar to the 64% recorded last year but down from 2022 (67%) and 2021 (72%). Gallup has only had one lower reading on this question since 2002 -- 60% in 2012. The high point was 75% in 2002, the first year the question was asked.

Eighty-three percent of upper-income, 62% of middle-income and 37% of lower-income adults say they have enough to live comfortably, with similar declines in each group since 2021.

Americans Slightly More Optimistic Their Financial Situation Is Improving

There has been a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who say their financial situation is getting better -- 43% say this, up from 37% in both 2022 and 2023. The current figure is still significantly below the 52% measured in 2021.

At the same time, 47% say their financial situation is getting worse, up by 17 percentage points since 2021.

A slim majority of upper-income Americans, 52%, believe their financial situation is improving, as do 43% of middle-income and 34% of lower-income Americans.

Bottom Line

Inflation continues to be an issue for Americans and is likely why less than half are positive about their financial situation. In addition to being named the most important financial problem facing their family, inflation also ranks as one of the domestic problems Americans worry most about. The issue trails only immigration, the government and the economy in general when Americans are asked to name the most important problem facing the country.

The U.S. inflation rate has declined significantly since its peak in 2022, but that has done little to alter Americans’ perceptions of their finances. This could reflect the cumulative effect of higher prices for the past few years and the fact that inflation has remained above the lower rates in the U.S. between 2012 and 2020. The latest government reports suggest inflation may be increasing again. That news persuaded the Federal Reserve to delay interest rate cuts it was expected to make this year.

The issue also stands to be a key election issue, and renewed inflation would hamper President Joe Biden’s chances of reelection.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 17:00

Fed F**kery Turns $37BN 'Unadjusted' Bank Deposit OUTFLOW Into $126BN INFLOW

Fed F**kery Turns $37BN 'Unadjusted' Bank Deposit OUTFLOW Into $126BN INFLOW

Money market funds added $23.6BN in assets last week, pushing the total funds under management back above $6 Trillion - still well off the highs (as some tax-related withdrawals remain lost)...

Source: Bloomberg

Both retail and institutional funds saw inflows last week...

Source: Bloomberg

Amid all the talk of tapering, The Fed's balance sheet plunged $40BN last week to its lowest since Jan 2021 (with QT continuing at around $35BN)...

Source: Bloomberg

The Fed's now-expired Bank Bailout fund (BTFP) saw a small decrease of just $1.375BN - inching closer to erasing all the arb-driven surge in demand for the facility, but leaving a whopping $12BN left out there filling holes in bank balance sheets...

Source: Bloomberg

And after last week's almost unprecedented outflows, total bank deposits (seasonally-adjusted) rose by a huge $129BN to $17.58TN - that was the biggest rise in deposits since March 2021...

Source: Bloomberg

But, by the magical power of Federal Reserve 'science', on a non-seasonally-adjusted basis, total bank deposits dropped $24BN...

Source: Bloomberg

Excluding foreign deposits, the picture was just as farcical with seasonally-adjusted domestic deposits rising $126BN (Large banks +$111BN - biggest since April 2020, Small banks +$15BN), while non-seasonally-adjusted domestic deposits tumbled $36.7BN (Large banks -$7.2BN, Small banks -$29.5BN)...

Source: Bloomberg

Don't try to make sense of the fact that the so-called seasonally-adjusted levels are more noisy than the unadjusted... ... it's PhD-based 'science' stuff, you'd never understand!

For the third week in a row, total loan volumes rose (by $5.8BN) with large bank volumes rising $4.2BN and small bank volumes rising $1.6BN

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, bank reserves at The Fed continues to contract, while US equity market cap remains dramatically decoupled...

Source: Bloomberg

Is Powell's acquiescence to a bigger, sooner 'QT taper' (in the face of not-under-control inflation) to soften the blow when this crocodile mouth snaps shut.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 16:40

"The Whole Rotten Train Is Going Off The Rails"

"The Whole Rotten Train Is Going Off The Rails"

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

Nostalgia For The Mind

“Resentful childless harpies unconsciously longing for domination. Why else worship at the altar of Hamas? Why else would it be so overwhelmingly female?”

- Dr. Jordan Peterson

Wasn’t it cute how the youngsters who “occupied” Columbia U’s Hamilton Hall - and were busy smashing things up inside - demanded restaurant-grade meals sent in to avert “starvation and dehydration” amongst their dauntless ranks? You could imagine a colossal mommy breast with three hundred nipples descending from the sky over upper Manhattan to nourish them back to action. “Feed me. . . !”

It turns out, actually, that at least half the troops inside were not students at all, but rather semi-pro activists paid up to $7,000 each by George Soros’s Open Society Institute and other overtly insurrection-themed orgs, so you’d think that the troops could afford to load-up their ever-ready backpacks with Cliff bars and bottles of Smart Water. The order-in food and beverage gambit suggests we should understand that this is not so much politics as the acting out of a game — which is exactly what you might expect of people who spend more time on video screens than in the real world — in which something like a half-time intermission for refreshments is de rigueur.

Alas, they were not obliged with Doordash servings of Alitcha (“Ensemble of potatoes, carrots, collard greens, and cabbage baked in turmeric,” $22.30) from the nearby Massawa Ethiopian bistro, or Firecracker Chicken from Junzi Kitchen over on Broadway and 113th Street. And then, when the cops came to roust them out into the big buses now used as paddy-wagons for such events, the occupiers were heard to whine, “I have finals and I need to go home!” You’ve got to wonder how they’ll make out when “Joe Biden” drafts their ass to go fight the Russians out on the Ukrainian buzzard flats, about which the White House is just now sending out early signals.

It has been observed that a clear majority of the pro-Hamas activists are young women — which makes sense considering that they are the largest demographic evincing mental illness on America’s social landscape these days. Thus, they are marching in support of a sect that specializes in the rape, mutilation, and murder of young women like themselves, or at least treats them as chattels, hidden under black bag-like garments. The group psychology on display has more occult angles than any movie by the Wachowski sisters.

Among the marching Columbia students who are not paid outside activists, a few are apparently Jewish, such as spokesperson Johanna King-Slutzky (actual name, hat-tip Alex Berenson, who ID’d her), the winsome creature who complained about the lack of order-in meals at Hamilton Hall. Another observer on “X” who styles himself @J9_ATX identified the syndrome in play as “oppression envy,” among women seeking compensatory validation for occupying such a privileged niche on Planet Earth as a cushy Ivy League college — featuring international cuisine stations in the dining halls — while their third world sisters trudge through the burning sands of Al-Kufra carrying water-jugs on their heads as they dodge the odious “wind scorpions” of the region.

Higher Ed in the USA was already chugging down the suicide track before this spring’s eruption of pro-Hamas fury. The college loan racket (government-backed) had the perverse effect of pumping up tuition costs beyond what even many pretty well-off families could afford, while loading up young people with life-wrecking obligations (debt which “Joe Biden is now shifting onto the creditors, US tax-payers). Decades of DEI have filled the faculties with incompetents and assorted malcontents teaching fantasy curricula with no real-life value, and burdened the schools with cadres of overpaid diversity busybodies and thought-police. Diversity college presidents are very publicly failing to cope. The whole rotten train is going off the rails.

I’m not at all sanguine that the society we are becoming will need this vast infrastructure for babysitting young adults who could otherwise make themselves useful and productive on-the-ground in lines of work that actually keep civilized life going. This is too self-evident now to belabor, though there is an awful lot of confusion about what kind of society we might become.

I doubt that it is to be the utopia of robots, A-I, and non-stop sexual titillation that the techno-narcissists dream of. Rather, it will be a society struggling to keep too much complex stuff running with insufficient energy resources and capital — that is, a society falling apart, losing knowledge, technical know-how, comfort, and convenience while having a hard time feeding itself.

The campus Hamas zealots ironically (and tragically) represent exactly the sort of rough medievalism that the citizens of Western Civ countries would be chary of sliding into. You’d have to sadly conclude that many young people really can’t take much more Modernity, and are now pretty avid to opt out of it, even as they gaze into the magic, glowing pixels of their iPhone screens.

*  *  *

Support his blog by visiting Jim’s Patreon Page or Substack

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 16:20

Big Taper, Bad Data, & Buyback Bonanza Sparks Buying Frenzy In Bonds & Stocks

Big Taper, Bad Data, & Buyback Bonanza Sparks Buying Frenzy In Bonds & Stocks

The markets took on a Dickensian dimension this week as while "it was the worst of times (for economic data), it was the best of times (for stocks)"...

The US Macro Surprise Index continued its serial disappointment plunge into the red - the weakest since Feb 2023 (not helped at all by today's payrolls miss)...

Source: Bloomberg

With growth data plunging while inflation data soared...

Source: Bloomberg

Bad news was good news though as the market only had eyes for Powell's big taper and the buyback bonanza (from AAPL and the rest), and today's NFP Goldilocks results (175k vs. 240k expected) as wage softness helps to ease inflation fears.

Small Caps leading the bunch amid a big short-squeeze and S&P lagging (but all green on the week)...

All the majors rallied up to their 50DMAs but were unable to breakout...

Nasdaq performed well with MAG7 stocks wildly choppy, but overall pushing back up towards record highs...

Source: Bloomberg

'Most Shorted' stocks suffered the biggest squeeze in two months (and biggest two-week squeeze since Jan 2023)...

Source: Bloomberg

Of particular note was Utes outperforming (while energy lagged) as the 'Next AI Trade' goes mainstream. Financials were also red on the week...

Source: Bloomberg

Bonds were also bid all week with yields down 12-20bps as the short-end outperformed...

Source: Bloomberg

And 2Y yields at 5.00% were thoroughly rejected as yields plunged today back below pre-CPI spike levels..

Source: Bloomberg

The dollar dropped this week, erasing almost all of the post-CPI gains...

Source: Bloomberg

Gold prices were lower on the week (second week in a row), despite the weak dollar and 'easing' by The Fed...

Source: Bloomberg

Despite a decent bounce back today, bitcoin was down on the week, testing back up to $62,000...

Source: Bloomberg

...after an ugly week of aggregate net outflows from BTC ETFs...

Source: Bloomberg

Oil prices plunged this week - down all five days for the worst in three months - back to near two-month lows...

Source: Bloomberg

And finally, rate-cut expectations have surged this week with 2024 now pricing in two full cuts and 2025 three more cuts...

Source: Bloomberg

Is this what Powell wanted? To ease financial conditions again!?

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 16:00

"World Cup Of Shed Hunting" Underway In Jackson Hole

"World Cup Of Shed Hunting" Underway In Jackson Hole

Shed hunting season has opened up for Wyoming residents this week, as well as non-residents who must purchase a conservation stamp before collecting shed antlers on designated lands. 

The Wall Street Journal describes the mania in the hills around the Bridger-Teton National Forest, near Jackson, Wyoming, as the "World Cup of shed hunting."

People across the state and from across the country are scouring the hills for freshly dropped antlers that haven't yet been sun-bleached and are called "brown" or "brown gold" by some antler hunters. 

"It's the adrenaline rush that you get, plus you're outside, you're away from people," said antler hunter John Bishop, adding, "There's really no worldly obligations anymore at that point. It's just you and whatever else is out there."

Earlier this week, Bishop and his group of friends, along with hundreds of other hunters, eagerly awaited the lifting of restrictions on antler hunting in the National Forest.

Scott Turner, another antler hunter, described the opening season in J-Hole as "the Super Bowl" or " the World Cup of shed hunting."

"It's like the ultimate Easter egg hunt meets Spartan race," Turner said, who has been collecting antlers for nearly three decades. 

WSJ pointed out that the popularity of shed hunting has surged in recent years. And perhaps the reason is simple:

"Right now, most people are paying between $15 and $16 a pound for brown elk," antler buyer Jeremy Barry said. He called freshly dropped antlers that haven't yet been sun-bleached are called "brown" or "brown gold."

In addition to fancy antler chandeliers in mountain or lake homes, demand for antlers also comes from those who practice traditional Chinese medicine to treat a variety of diseases, including mammary hyperplasia, mastitis, uterine fibroids, malignant sores, and children's mumps. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 15:05

"Irrevocably Shaken": Columbia Law Review Editors Ask For Cancellation Of Exams Due To Protests

"Irrevocably Shaken": Columbia Law Review Editors Ask For Cancellation Of Exams Due To Protests

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In recent years, there has been much discussion of the claims of “trauma” by students caused by court rulings and other events. These developments are often cited as a basis for the cancellation of exam or classes. Conservative speakers, case decisions, and protests have all been cited in the past for such demands as well as the creation of therapy tents and trauma counseling. Now, editors of the Columbia Law Review (and editors of other journals) have called for the outright cancellation of exams due to the trauma of watching recent protests on campus.  This is indeed a learning moment. Law students need to be able to face such moments without shutting down due to the stress. Our profession is filled with stress and trauma. It is the environment in which we operate. In those moments, we do not have the option of being a no-show. We make our appearance and speak for others.

Such claims have been commonplace. Black Harvard and Georgetown law students demanded exam cancellation after the death of Michael Brown in 2014. Administrators and faculty foster these claims by calling free speech “harmful” and “triggering” for students.

Students have also complained of the trauma of taking classes by faculty who do not recognize “white privilege” or classes that touch on certain crimes. After Trump was elected in 2016, universities set up “safe areas” and trauma tents for students.

The editors of the Columbia Law Review are virtually guaranteed their picks of top jobs after graduation. Yet, they told the law school that the clearing of the unauthorized encampment constituted traumatic “violence” that left them “irrevocably shaken” and “unable to focus.” They were joined by editors of five other law journals, including the Columbia Human Rights Law Review & A Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual.

They portrayed the trauma as the appearance of counter protesters and police on campus, accusing a  “white supremacist, neo-fascist hate group” of “storming” campus.

The Columbia students told the university that “many are unwell at this time and cannot study or concentrate while their peers are being hauled to jail.”

The law school has postponed exams due to the protests but has not cancelled the exams.

The students offered an alternative but not preferred option of allowing them to take exams pass/fail. However, they emphasized that “instituting an optional Pass/Fail policy is not really optional when employers will see that some students have grades and others do not… [T]his leaves room for the introduction of extreme bias into the hiring process.”

It is true that law firms are likely to look for students who can handle high-stress situations. This letter suggests the opposite of students at the very top of the Columbia law class.

More importantly, the question is how such law students are emotionally prepared for the pressures of practice when such protests shut them down and leave them “unable to focus.” However, they have been educated in systems that have fostered the sense of victimization or trauma from opposing views.

While often called the “trophy generation,” it sometimes seems like this is becoming the trauma generation. I do not blame these students. Teachers and administrators have reinforced this view. That was evident in the controversial cancelling of a federal judge at Stanford Law School last year.

The Stanford Federalist Society invited Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to speak on campus. It is a great opportunity to hear the views of one of the highest ranked judicial officers in the country.  However, liberal students decided that allowing a conservative judge to speak on campus is intolerable and set about to “deplatform” him by shouting him down. It was reminiscent of an equally disgraceful event at Yale Law School when another conservative speaker was similarly canceled — the law students then objected to the fact that campus police were present.

In this event, Duncan was planning to speak on the topic:  “The Fifth Circuit in Conversation with the Supreme Court: Covid, Guns, and Twitter.” A video shows that the students prevented Duncan from speaking and the judge asked for an administrator to be called in to allow the event to proceed.

Dean Tirien Steinback then took the stage and, instead of simply demanding that the students allow for the event to proceed, Steinback launched into a babbling attack on the judge for seeking to be heard despite such objections.

Steinbach explained “I had to write something down because I am so uncomfortable up here. And I don’t say that for sympathy, I just say that I am deeply, deeply uncomfortable.”

Steinbach declared “It’s uncomfortable to say that for many people here, you’re work has caused harm.” After a perfunctory nod to free speech, Steinbach proceeded to eviscerate it to the delight of the law students. She continued “again I still ask, is the juice worth the squeeze?” “Is it worth the pain that this causes, the division that this causes? Do you have something so incredibly important to say about Twitter and guns and Covid that that is worth this impact on the division of these people.”

These students have spent years with such faculty telling them that they are fragile, vulnerable victims. However, our clients are often victims with traumatic injuries that must be addressed. Securing an equally vulnerable and triggered lawyer is not going to help them much.

Outside of the Columbia Law Review offices is a thing called life. It is neither predictable nor comfortable. We enter the lives of our clients when they are often failing apart. We have to bring our skills and support at those moments without the assistance of a trauma tent or emotional coach.  We also cannot ask judges for postponements to allow us to process the stress of the moment.

This is not meant to be another “buck up buttercup” dismissal. I understand that the campus faced disruption and that many feel deeply about the underlying issues. That passion is needed. Young lawyers should be motivated to right wrongs in this world. I also understand that many of these law students likely had friends who were arrested or involved in the protests. However, our clients look to us for strength not fragility in such moments.

The response from Columbia Law School should be simple: see you at the exams.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 14:45

"Is This China Rally For Real?" - Goldman's Flows Guru Says 'Yes'

"Is This China Rally For Real?" - Goldman's Flows Guru Says 'Yes'

On Jan 24th, we posted a recommendation on our Premium-Subscriber twitter feed, suggesting subscribers: "Get Long FXI here..."

Like many of the reccs on this exclusive feed, it has done rather well...

(Subscribe to Premium ZeroHedge here)

The question is, after gaining 30%, do we stay with the trade - or as Goldman Sachs flow of funds guru asks (and answers) today: "Is This China Rally for Real?"

His answer is simple:

"Yes. TCT (The China Trade) is back."

We have seen our most China activity on the desk this week in 2024 via a mix of investor types. We think is more than just short covering as there are green shoots developing. We have had notable Long Only demand, this is new. I will be spending time on this over the weekend, so sharing the trade thesis more broadly.

The Chinese equity market is breaking out on high volume, including when southbound connect is on holiday. Why? Catalysts in the coming weeks/months include the long-delayed Third Plenum and more specific policies related to the overall guidance of the Nine measures.

Full Checklist of catalysts, flows, and macro ideas below for TCT: 

I. GS Research presents several possible catalysts that could potentially turn the entrenched negative expectation and sentiment around. 

1.  a comprehensive and forceful easing package

2. demand-side-focused stimulus

3. confidence boosting policy targeting the private economy

4. government backstop in the housing and stock markets 

5. improvements and predictability in US-China relations

II. The new “Nine Measures” 

a. GS Research triangulates the potential policy-driven upside through the lens of shareholder returns, corporate governance standards, and institutional investor ownership. 

b. GS Research analysis suggests that A-shares could rise ~20% if they could narrow the gaps with international averages along these dimensions, and could re-rate as much as 40% if they catch up with global leaders in our blue-sky scenario.

III. Positioning is currently short and underweight and FOMO is on the rise. 

1. Hedge Fund Positioning:

a. Both Gross and Net allocations to China increased in April, but continue to stay close to 5-year lows. Gross allocation to China increased to 5.1% (7th percentile five-year), while Net allocation increased to 7.5% (10th percentile five-year).

b. The 5 year low of gross exposure was 4.7% on March 27th and low net exposure in January of 6.2%. (for context the 5 year high gross was 9.1% in Jan 2021 and net of 15.3% in July 2020).

c. Chinese equities were moderately net bought (+0.5 SD) in April and are now net bought in four of the past five months.

d. Chinese domiciled equities (onshore and offshore combined) were net bought with long buys exceeding short covers in a ratio of 5 to 1. Flows were risk

Trading Flows: China (Onshore + Offshore)

Source: Goldman Sachs

Positioning: China (Onshore + Offshore):

Source: Goldman Sachs

Source: Goldman Sachs

Source: Goldman Sachs

2. Global Mutual Funds (as of Mar-end):

Based on EPFR data, mutual funds globally in aggregate have 5.2% allocation in Chinese equities as of end-March, which represents 1st percentile over the past decade .

Source: Goldman Sachs

On asset-weighted basis, active mutual fund mandates remain underweight Chinese equities by 320bps vs. benchmark.

Source: Goldman Sachs

Global, EM, and AEJ long-only mandates modestly increased their allocations in Chinese equities in March. 

Source: Goldman Sachs

3. Southbound/Northbound Trading Flows:

A-shares have seen US$10.3bn Northbound inflows ytd, surpassing the US$8.1bn for full-year 2023.

Southbound saw strong buying of US$27bn ytd.

 

Source: Goldman Sachs

4. Options - During NYC Macro trading, we are seeing hedge fund buyers of call options and ETF’s. 

We’re now witnessing a strong chase for HK/China upside (outsized call option volumes yesterday in both FXI and KWEB).

Source: Lee Coppersmith, Goldman Sachs

FXI 1month put-call skew is now back near all-time lows following this week’s rally, signaling increased demand for upside exposure.

(Subscribe to Premium ZeroHedge here)

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 13:45

Behavioral Traits That Are Killing Your Portfolio Returns

Behavioral Traits That Are Killing Your Portfolio Returns

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmetntAdvice.com,

Investor psychology is one of the most significant reasons individuals consistently fall short of their investment goals. While one of the most common truisms is that “investors buy high and sell low,” the underlying reason is the behavioral traits that plague our investment decision-making.

George Dvorsky once wrote that:

“The human brain is capable of 1016 processes per second, which makes it far more powerful than any computer currently in existence. But that doesn’t mean our brains don’t have major limitations. The lowly calculator can do math thousands of times better than we can, and our memories are often less than useless — plus, we’re subject to cognitive biases, those annoying glitches in our thinking that cause us to make questionable decisions and reach erroneous conclusions.

Behavioral traits and cognitive biases are anathemas to portfolio management as they impair our ability to remain emotionally disconnected from our money. As history all too clearly shows, investors always do the “opposite” of what they should when it comes to investing their own money. They “buy high” as the emotion of “greed” overtakes logic and “sell low” as “fear” impairs the decision-making process.

In other words:

“The most dangerous element to our success as investors…is ourselves.”

Here are the top five most insidious behavioral traits keeping us from achieving our long-term investment goals.

Confirmation Bias

Probably one of the most insidious behavioral traits is “confirmation bias.” Confirmation bias is a term from cognitive psychology that describes how people naturally favor information that confirms their previously existing beliefs.

“Experts in behavioral finance find that this fundamental principle applies to investors in notable ways. Because investors seek out information that confirms their opinions and ignore facts or data that refutes them, they may skew the value of their decisions based on their cognitive biases. This psychological phenomenon occurs when investors filter out potentially useful facts and opinions contradicting their preconceived notions.” – Investopedia

In other words, investors tend to seek information that confirms their beliefs. If they believe the stock market will rise, they tend only to read news and information that supports that view. This confirmation bias is a primary driver of individuals’ psychological investing cycles. As shown below, there are always “headlines” from the media to “confirm” an investor’s opinion, whether it’s bullish or bearish.

As investors, we want “affirmation” that our current thought process is correct. That is why we tend to join groups on social media that confirm our thoughts and ideals. Therefore, since we hate being wrong, we subconsciously avoid contradicting sources of information.

For investors, it is crucial to weigh both sides of each debate equally and analyze the data accordingly.

Being right and making money are not mutually exclusive.

Gambler’s Fallacy

The “Gambler’s Fallacy” is another of the more common behavioral traits. As emotionally driven human beings, we tend to put tremendous weight on previous events, believing that future outcomes will be the same.

At the bottom of every piece of financial literature, Wall Street addresses that behavioral trait.

“Past performance is no guarantee of future results.”

However, despite that statement being plastered everywhere in the financial universe, individuals consistently dismiss the warning and focus on past returns, expecting similar results in the future.

This particular behavioral trait is a critical issue affecting investors’ long-term returns. Performance chasing has a high propensity to fail, pushing individuals to jump from one late-cycle strategy to the next. The periodic table of returns below shows this. Historically, “hot hands” last 2-3 years before going “cold.”

I highlighted the annual returns of both Emerging and Large-Cap markets for illustrative purposes. Importantly, you should notice that whatever is at the top of the list in some years tends to fall to the bottom in subsequent years. 

“Performance chasing” is a significant detraction from investors’ long-term investment returns.

Probability Neglect

Third, when it comes to “risk-taking,” there are two ways to assess the potential outcome.

There are “possibilities” and “probabilities.” 

When it comes to humans, we tend to lean toward what is possible, such as playing the “lottery.” The statistical probabilities of winning the lottery are astronomical. You are more likely to die on the way to purchasing the ticket than winning it. However, it is the “possibility” of being fabulously wealthy that makes the lottery so successful as a “tax on poor people.”

As investors, we neglect the “probabilities” of any given action. Such is specifically the statistical measure of “risk” undertaken with any given investment. As individuals, our behavioral trait is to “chase” stocks that have already shown the largest increase in price as it is “possible” they could move even higher. However, the “probability” is that the price reflects investor exuberance, and most gains have already occurred.

Probability neglect is another contributory factor as to why investors consistently “buy high and sell low.”

Herd Bias

Though we are often unconscious of this particular behavioral trait, humans tend to “go with the crowd.” Much of this behavior relates to “confirmation” of our decisions and the need for acceptance. The thought process is rooted in the belief that if “everyone else” is doing something, I must do it also if I want to be accepted.

In life, “conforming” to the norm is socially accepted and, in many ways, expected. However, the “herding” behavior drives market excesses during advances and declines in the financial markets.

As Howard Marks once stated:

“Resisting – and thereby achieving success as a contrarian – isn’t easy. Things combine to make it difficult; including natural herd tendencies and the pain imposed by being out of step, since momentum invariably makes pro-cyclical actions look correct for a while. (That’s why it’s essential to remember that ‘being too far ahead of your time is indistinguishable from being wrong.’

Given the uncertain nature of the future, and thus the difficulty of being confident your position is the right one – especially as price moves against you – it’s challenging to be a lonely contrarian.

Investors generate the most profits in the long term by moving against the “herd.” Unfortunately, most individuals have difficulty knowing when to “bet” against the stampede.

Anchoring Effect

Lastly, “Anchoring,” also known as the “relativity trap,” is the tendency to compare our current situation within the scope of our limited experiences. For example, I would be willing to bet that you could tell me exactly what you paid for your first home and what you eventually sold it for. However, can you tell me exactly what you paid for your first soap bar, hamburger, or pair of shoes? Probably not.

The reason is that the home purchase was a major “life” event. Therefore, we attach particular significance to that event and remember it vividly. If there was a gain between the purchase and sale price of the home, it was a positive event, and therefore, we assume that the next home purchase will have a similar result. We are mentally “anchored” to that event and base our future decisions around very limited data.

When it comes to investing, we do very much the same thing. If we buy a stock that goes up, we remember that event. Therefore, we become anchored to that stock instead of one that lost value. Individuals tend to “shun” stocks that lost value even if they were bought and sold at the wrong times due to investor error. 

After all, it is not “our” fault that the investment lost money; it was just a bad stock. Right?

Make Better Bad Choices

My nutrition coach had a great saying about dieting; “make better bad choices.”

We are all going to make bad choices from time to time. The goal is to try and make bad choices that don’t have an outsized effect on our plan. When it comes to dieting, if you eat a burger, order it without cheese and mayonnaise.

If you make speculative bets in your portfolio, do it in smaller amounts. Or, if you are leaning towards “panic selling” everything, start by selling some but not all of your holdings.

Importantly, focus on the rules and your investment discipline.

  • Do more of what is working and less of what isn’t. 

  • Remember that the “Trend Is My Friend.”

  • Be either bullish or bearish, but not “hoggish.” (Hogs get slaughtered)

  • Remember, it is “Okay” to pay taxes.

  • Maximize profits by staging buys, working orders, and getting the best price.

  • Look to buy damaged opportunities, not damaged investments.

  • Diversify to control risk.

  • Control risk by always having pre-determined sell levels and stop-losses.

  • Do your homework.

  • Not allow panic to influence buy/sell decisions.

  • Remember that “cash” is for winners.

  • Expect, but do not fear, corrections.

  • Expect to be wrong, and will correct errors quickly. 

  • Check “hope” at the door.

  • Be flexible.

  • Have the patience to allow your discipline and strategy to work.

  • Turn off the television, put down the newspaper, and focus on your analysis.

Importantly, keep your market perspectives and behavioral traits in check. Our goal is to ensure that our decisions are influenced by reliable data and psychological emotions.

Most importantly, if you don’t have an investment strategy and discipline you are stringently following, that is an ideal place to begin.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 13:25

Watch Live Tonight: The Great Gold Vs Crypto Debate

Watch Live Tonight: The Great Gold Vs Crypto Debate

Proponents of gold and bitcoin often hail from the same ideological background: Austrian economists, dollar bears, Libertarians tired of State manipulation of fiat currencies and, generally, the anti-Fed crowd. Yet shared principles have not eased the age-old rivalry between the two assets.

Relative to Bitcoin, gold lost considerable value last year, only to rebound somewhat in the last month amid a flood of Chinese institutional and retail buying. However, as Benjamin Graham said: “In the short run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.” So we are more interested in the fundamentals:

  • Does Bitcoin’s instant transferability and infinite portability make it the superior asset/security? Or is it a worthless string of numbers with infinite substitutes?

  • Will gold’s thousand-year history as the preferred monetary commodity continue in the digital age? Or does its reliance on third-party custodians (at least at scale), and significant bulk, make it inferior to BTC?

We’ll answer these questions, and more, tonight, at 7pm ET, when ZeroHedge is partnering with Crypto Banter to bring together top macroeconomic minds to debate.

In the anti-crypto corner is the man whose name is synonymous with “gold”, infamous crypto bear Peter Schiff. Alongside Schiff will be “Dr. Doom”, renowned economist Nouriel Roubini.

Arguing in favor of crypto will be Anthony Scaramucci - wealth manager with over $10 billion in AUM - as well as day-one crypto veteran Erik Voorhees, founder of ShapeShift and torch-bearer for the asset class’s libertarian roots.

The debate will be moderated by Ran Neuner, founder and host of Crypto Banter, one of the largest digital asset news channels on YouTube.

ZeroHedge would also like to thank our sponsors for this debate: Preserve Gold and BITLAYER — “Layer 2. The future of Bitcoin.” Whether you’re a fan of gold or Bitcoin, you probably see the wisdom in diversifying away from U.S. dollars. Do so by visiting their websites and checking out their products.

ZeroHedge Goldbugs can access a special offer from Preserve Gold by texting “ZERO” to 50505.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 13:05

The Cold Hard Truth About Renewable Energy Adoption

The Cold Hard Truth About Renewable Energy Adoption

Authored by Haley Zaremba via oilprice.com,

The future of the global energy sector is caught up in a messy and misleading ideological debate. Depending on which politically informed echo chamber one inevitably finds themself confined to on social media, they are either told that the energy transition is a dangerous myth that will end in economic disaster and permanent rolling blackouts, or that clean energy is going to save the world overnight – as soon as conservatives get out of the way. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. 

The energy transition is strictly necessary. But it’s going to be very, very hard. It’s damaging to deny that there will almost certainly be shocks, missteps, and setbacks as we undergo one of the most disruptive chapters in industrial history. In large part we’re relying on untested and in many cases as-yet unproven technologies to emerge in the nick of time. 

There’s a temptation to sugar-coat the scale of the imperative to make the energy transition more palatable and less daunting. But there’s no denying it – it’s a very uncomfortable, and even frightening, petition to be in. And there will be winners and losers as economic priorities shift – the energy transition is good for humanity as a whole, but it certainly isn’t good for everyone. Acknowledging these difficult truths is essential to properly planning for and managing humanity’s greatest cooperative project. 

“There’s a lot of lying to ourselves,” Jason Grumet, the head of the American Clean Power Association (ACP), was quoted by Harvard’s Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability. “We don’t want to grapple with a very, very tough issue: How do we think about the extent to which some communities have been fundamentally antagonized and disadvantaged, which is absolutely true, and the fact that the world is going to boil if we don’t speed things up?”

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) highlights five major challenges standing between humanity and its ideal clean energy future: the uncertain pace of technological advancement and deployment, disagreement over how fast we can transition without creating major disruption, the balance of future and current energy security, the widening clean energy gap between rich and poor countries, supply chain obstacles for clean energy components.

The pace of transition is a major sticking point. Move too slow and we risk climate catastrophe. Move too fast and risk major systemic log jams, economic hardship, and energy shocks. By transitioning away from coal alone, as the G7 just agreed to do by 2035one million workers around the world will lose their jobs. The United States alone is home to 1.7 million fossil fuel workers. Without adequate security nets from the government, as well as sufficient time to properly deploy them, the loss of such industries is a looming tragedy for entire communities. The same goes for entire nations who will need to find alternative economic sectors to support their GDP. 

In addition to these economic costs, there are considerable logistical barriers to pushing the energy transition through too quickly. Already, the clean energy sector is struggling with huge delays in permitting, major issues securing land rights, and woefully unprepared and aging power grids that have no hope of supporting total electrification in their current state. While clean energy projects charge ahead with funding from initiatives such as the Inflation Reduction Act, major bottlenecks face those projects just down the road. This supports the notion that doing things well takes time. Ironing out those kinks should not be an afterthought. 

The same goes for balancing current energy security with future climate security. The global energy crisis that emerged after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine revealed that the world preemptively underinvested in oil and gas, leading to critical energy shortages which plunged communities and countries around the world into energy poverty and even caused food insecurity due to fertilizer shortages among other interrelated shocks.

These vulnerabilities are far more pronounced in developing countries, which are falling far behind in the clean energy transition despite having contributed the least to climate change and standing to lose the most from it. One of the biggest challenges for global decarbonization is the financial support of such nations–but so far wealthy countries have broken their promises to finance the global south’s energy transition.

Finally, as to the last point of the IMF’s five key challenges, there are also major snags in terms of sourcing all the raw materials needed to make the huge amount of clean energy technology components – wind turbines, solar panels, electrical wiring, batteries, and so on – that the energy transition depends on. Already, the sector is marred by geopolitically volatile monopolies and environmentally destructive mining and extraction practices.  

Plus, just when we think we’ve got a plan in place for the transition, supply and demand shifts in unpredictable and unprecedented ways. The rapid growth of Artificial Intelligence and data centers, as well as the ever-expanding energy footprint of Bitcoin, have majorly increased global demand for energy. And that demand will continue to grow at a much more rapid pace than clean energy deployment could ever hope to. Making AI a friend of the energy transition instead of a foe will be absolutely essential to the energy transition going forward. 

We’re talking about an unprecedented upending of the global industry at a speed that the world has never seen. There’s just no way that every step will be smooth. “Every sector of the economy will have to switch to new technologies, consumers will have to change behaviors, new supply chains will have to be built, and all this has to happen in every major economy, in just a few decades, and at the cost of a whole generation’s savings,” BloombergNEF’s Michael Liebreich wrote in 2023. “What could be harder?”

Well, a business-as-usual scenario would be harder. In a trajectory where the world does not curb its greenhouse gas emissions, climatic conditions would soon become untenable for much of the world, leading to major food shortages and dangerous levels of political unrest, among other crises. Decarbonization is going to be brutal, but a failure to act has resulted in a ‘code red for humanity.’ Ultimately, we can make it easier for ourselves. We should start by being realistic about the challenges we face so we can plan together how to overcome them. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 12:55

Republicans Move To Prevent Biden Resettling Palestinian Refugees In The US

Republicans Move To Prevent Biden Resettling Palestinian Refugees In The US

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Modernity.news

Republican lawmakers are moving to prevent the Biden administration resettling Palestinian refugees in the United States, asserting that it represents a “national security threat” since large numbers of them support Hamas.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that the White House is considering using the United States Refugee Admissions Program to hand Palestinians permanent residency and “resettlement benefits like housing assistance and a path to American citizenship.”

Although CBS News reported that the “eligible population is expected to be relatively small,” European natives were given similar assurances before the 2015 refugee crisis that ended up with millions of migrants flooding the continent.

In a letter to House Appropriators, Reps. Andy Ogles (R-TN), Tom Tiffany (R-WI), and Scott Perry (R-PA) have asked that a provision be included in the Fiscal Year 2025 spending bill that prevents expenditures “of any funds to issue a visa or grant parole to any alien holding a passport issued by the Palestinian Authority.”

“Whatever fanciful leftist notion to the contrary, the United States of America cannot be expected to absorb the rest of the world’s problems. It would make much more sense for states in the region to take in those in need. If the administration is indeed working in concert with our allies in the region to pave the way for peace, that should come with the expectation that those allies are working in good faith to “do their part,” states the letter.

35 Senate Republicans are also demanding more specifics on the resettlement program, asserting that it represents “a national security risk to the United States.”

“With more than a third of Gazans supporting the Hamas militants, we are not confident that your administration can adequately vet this high-risk population for terrorist ties and sympathies before admitting them into the United States,” said the Senators.

A leaked Israeli intelligence document revealed in late October last year revealed a plan to ‘expel’ 2.2 million Palestinian refugees and send them to Europe, Canada and the United States.

The document, produced by Israel’s Intelligence Ministry, stated that one of the goals of the war with Gaza was to encourage western countries to facilitate the “absorption and settlement” of Gazan refugees.

Back in March, Jared Kushner said it was “unfortunate” that Europe isn’t taking in more Palestinian refugees, suggesting that the “cleaning up” of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip should be accelerated.

Meanwhile, as we highlight in the video below, while Americans could be set to see yet another influx of migrants thanks to Israel’s destruction of Gaza, criticizing the Middle Eastern country could technically become illegal under the draconian Antisemitism Awareness Act.

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 12:15

Here Comes Obesity Drug Competition: Amgen Shares Soar On "Very Encouraging" Clinical Trial Update

Here Comes Obesity Drug Competition: Amgen Shares Soar On "Very Encouraging" Clinical Trial Update

Amgen's shares soared in premarket trading in New York following the drug maker's announcement of "very encouraging" clinical trial results for its new injectable weight-loss drug, "MariTide."

Amgen's MariTide is poised to compete with Eli Lilly & Co's Zepbound and Novo Nordisk A/S' Wegovy, both blockbuster drugs in the weight-loss market.

Bloomberg Intelligence published a recent note that estimated the weight-loss drug market will exceed $80 billion in annual sales by 2030. 

On Thursday evening, Amgen CEO Robert Bradway told investors during an earning call, "We recognize the significant interest in obesity." 

"We are confident in MariTide's differentiated profile and believe it will address important unmet medical needs," Bradway said. 

Amgen expects data from the ongoing Phase 2 study to be released later this year and plans a "comprehensive" Phase 3 trial next. 

If MariTide is approved, the pharmaceutical company expects patients to inject themselves with the medication once a month, or possibly even less frequently than current weight-loss drugs on the market. It discarded plans to develop an oral form of the weight-loss drug. 

Shares of Amgen jumped nearly 15% to $319 - near a record high - in premarket trading. 

If the premarket gains hold during the cash session, a 15% increase would mark the largest intra-day move since the 15.10% rise on July 20, 2005. If the gains exceed this level, it would become the largest single-day gain since October 30, 1987.

Meanwhile, Barclays Plc analyst Emily Field said it's too early to judge the competitive threat between Eli Lilly and Novo. 

However, traders dumped Novo shares in Copenhagen, down 4% on Friday. 

"As of today, we see no cause for concern regarding the competitive dynamics versus the market leaders," Field wrote in a note. "We really will need to see the data," Field wrote in a note. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/03/2024 - 11:55

Pages