Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Supreme Court Rules 200 Patent Judges' Appointment Unconstitutional

 

at 1/12/25 7:35pm

Supreme Court Rules 200 Patent Judges' Appointment Unconstitutional The Supreme Court has ruled that over 200 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judges were unconstitutionally appointed, however the problem may be 'cured' if the board's director exercises greater supervision over them. A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on June 1, 2021. Drew Angerer/Getty Images Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion in the split decision in the case of U.S. v. Arthrex Inc, a consolidation of three cases. The patent adjudication system is administered by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), which sits within the Department of Commerce. The PTO has a single director who is subject to Senate confirmation. The PTAB was established by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011, and sits in panels of at least three members who are drawn from the Director, the Deputy Director, the Commissioners for Patents and Trademarks, and over 200 Administrative Patent Judges (APJs). Members of the PTAB and APJs are selected by the Secretary of Commerce. As the Epoch Times notes further, Roberts explained that Arthrex Inc. develops medical devices and procedures for orthopedic surgery. In 2015, it received a patent on a surgical device it invented that reattaches soft tissue to bone without tying a knot. Arthrex soon claimed that two rival companies had infringed the patent. Three APJs on the PTAB panel concluded that a prior patent application “anticipated” the invention claimed by the patent, making Arthrex’s patent invalid. On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Arthrex raised for the first time an argument based on the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, which provides that the president may appoint officers to assist him in carrying out his responsibilities. Principal officers must be appointed by the president and be confirmed by the Senate, while inferior officers may be appointed by the president alone, the head of an executive department, or a court. Roberts noted that Arthrex argued that the APJs were principal officers and that meant their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce was unconstitutional. The Federal Circuit sided with Arthrex and invalidated the tenure protections for APJs. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the authority the APJs possess runs afoul of the Appointments Clause because they are not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The APJs’ “unreviewable authority” in patent proceedings is not consistent with their appointment by the secretary. Only principal officers who are constitutionally appointed may wield that level of authority, Roberts wrote. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett concurred. But the court also ruled 7-2 on what should be done, finding that the constitutional infirmity could be cured by letting the director of the PTO have the ability to review and modify decisions made by the APJs. Four justices partially concurred and partially dissented in various parts of the court’s opinion. Roberts quoted Alexander Hamilton who wrote in Federalist 77 that assigning the nomination power to the president guarantees accountability for the appointees’ actions because the “blame of a bad nomination would fall upon the president singly and absolutely.” The “sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation,” the founding father wrote. Roberts cited a 1997 precedent, writing that the Appointments Clause “adds a degree of accountability in the Senate, which shares in the public blame ‘for both the making of a bad appointment and the rejection of a good one.’” Justice Clarence Thomas penned a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. “For the very first time, this Court holds that Congress violated the Constitution by vesting the appointment of a federal officer in the head of a department,” Thomas wrote. “Just who are these ‘principal’ officers that Congress unsuccessfully sought to smuggle into the Executive Branch without Senate confirmation? About 250 administrative patent judges who sit at the bottom of an organizational chart, nestled under at least two levels of authority. Neither our precedent nor the original understanding of the Appointments Clause requires Senate confirmation of officers inferior to not one, but two officers below the President.” (Italics in original.) Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 21:35

— Vance Says Trump Won't Issue Pardons For Violent Jan. 6 Defendants

 

at 1/12/25 7:00pm

Vance Says Trump Won't Issue Pardons For Violent Jan. 6 Defendants Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times, Vice President-elect JD Vance said on Jan. 12 that individuals who were violent during the U.S. Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021, “obviously” should not be pardoned. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to use his clemency power for people who have been charged in connection to the incident over the past four years. Those who “protested peacefully” on Jan. 6 should receive a pardon, Vance told Fox News. He added that there is also a “little bit of a gray area” in some of those cases. “I think it’s very simple,” Vance elaborated. “If you protested peacefully on Jan. 6 and you’ve had [Attorney General] Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice treat you like a gang member, you should be pardoned. If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.” More than 1,500 people have been charged with federal crimes in connection to the Capitol breach, according to records from the Department of Justice. A number of people were charged with misdemeanor offenses for entering the Capitol in an unauthorized manner, while some were charged with felonies. Leaders of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys groups were convicted of seditious conspiracy for what prosecutors described as plots to use violence to stop the peaceful transfer of power from Trump to then-President-elect Joe Biden. Vance said on Jan. 12 that he believes that “a lot of people” have been “prosecuted unfairly” over the past several years. “We need to rectify that,” Vance said. “We’re very much committed to seeing the equal administration of law.” Also on the morning of Jan. 12, Vance responded to critics on social media who said that his comments to Fox News didn’t go far enough, with some saying that all Jan. 6 defendants should be pardoned. “I’ve been defending these guys for years,” Vance wrote on social media platform X. “The president saying he’ll look at each case (and me saying the same) is not some walkback ... I assure you, we care about people unjustly locked up. Yes, that includes people provoked and it includes people who got a garbage trial.” That comment came in response to a prominent conservative social media account’s statement on Jan. 12 that new footage has shown “cops shooting innocent J6 protesters and [Vance] goes on Fox News and tells the world that only non violent protesters should get pardoned ... better rethink what you just said JD.” Vance noted that he donated to a Jan. 6 “political prisoner fund” and was criticized over it during his run for Ohio’s Senate seat. In a wide-ranging news conference last week at his Florida Mar-a-Lago residence, Trump suggested he would initiate “major pardons” for individuals arrested in the aftermath of Jan. 6. A reporter asked him, “You said on your first day of office you were going to pardon Jan. 6 defendants. Are you planning to pardon those who were charged with violent offenses?” “Well, we’re looking at it, and we have other people in there,” Trump said, adding that “people that didn’t even walk into the building are in jail right now.” “We’ll be looking at the whole thing. But I’ll be making major pardons, yes,” he added. The president-elect has said on multiple occasions that he would carry out the pardons quickly after he is sworn into office on Jan. 20. Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 21:00

— US Lawmakers Call For Curbs On Clinical Trial Collaborations Linked To Chinese Military

 

at 1/12/25 5:50pm

US Lawmakers Call For Curbs On Clinical Trial Collaborations Linked To Chinese Military Authored by Lily Zhou via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), A bipartisan group of lawmakers has asked the U.S. government to consider new rules restricting U.S. biotech companies from conducting clinical trials with entities linked to the Chinese military. Ranking member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) (L), and Chairman Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) speak at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington on Sept. 25, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times In a Jan. 9 letter to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party said the proposed restrictions will “help ensure U.S. biotechnology does not fall into the hands of the PRC,” referring to the acronym of communist China’s official name, the People’s Republic of China. The letter, signed by Reps. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), chair and ranking member of the committee, respectively, along with Rep. Neal Dunn (R-Fla.), said biotech competition between the United States and the PRC “will not only have implications for our national and economic security, but also for the future of healthcare and the security of American medical data.” The letter cites Beijing’s 14th Five-Year Plan—which “identifies dominance in biotechnology as critical to ’strengthen the PRC’s science and technological power' and calls to deepen military-civil science and technology collaboration in the sector”—and a publication by a former president of the Chinese military’s National Defense University, which discussed the potential to create new synthetic pathogens that are “more toxic, more contagious, and more resistant.” The lawmakers praised the proposals issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security in July 2024 to expand export controls to military and intelligence end users as “a welcome update.” They suggested the measures could be further strengthened by requiring a license to conduct clinical trials with medical institutions linked to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). “Specifically, we recommend updating the definition of ‘Military End User’ to state medical infrastructure owned or operated by the national armed services of the PRC and other countries as appropriate constitutes a military end-use if a U.S. person is seeking to engage with the institution to conduct a clinical trial,” they added. The Epoch Times reached out to the Commerce Department for comment and did not receive a response by publication time. The letter is a sign of growing concern over China’s role in the biotechnology industry. In August 2024, the same committee wrote to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), asking the agency to ensure that U.S. clinical trials are not contributing to human rights abuses in China’s Xinjiang region or aiding the transfer of U.S. critical intellectual property to the PLA. Citing official data, the letter said U.S. biopharmaceutical companies over the past decade had run hundreds of clinical trials that had at least one Chinese military entity among the research partners and conducted trials in hospitals in Xinjiang, “where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is engaged in genocide of the Uyghur population.” In a response letter to the lawmakers dated Jan. 2, the FDA Acting Associate Commissioner for Legislative Affairs Laura Paulos said protections are in place for trial participants.  “Given concerns regarding the human rights abuses occurring in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, FDA has publicly reiterated that (legislation) requires clinical trials to obtain the legally effective, informed consent of human subjects,” she wrote. In response to concerns about intellectual property theft and technology transfer, Paulos referred the lawmakers to “appropriate U.S. federal agency partners.” In addition to clinical trials, the committee has asked the Department of Defense (DOD) to add several Chinese biotech companies to its list of companies allegedly linked to the Chinese military. Two of these companies, Origincell and MGI Group, were added to the updated list on Jan. 7, along with dozens of others in sectors such as artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, drones, and shipping. The DOD also included BGI Group, the parent company of MGI and BGI Genomics, which was previously designated as a Chinese military company, and another BGI subsidiary, Forensic Genomics International. Reuters contributed to this report. Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 19:50

— Biden Calls Meta's Decision To End Fact-Checking Program "Really Shameful"

 

at 1/12/25 5:15pm

Biden Calls Meta's Decision To End Fact-Checking Program "Really Shameful" Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times, President Joe Biden has shared his disapproval at Meta’s decision to do away with its current social media fact-checking program. This week Meta, which owns the Facebook and Instagram social media platforms, announced it would stop using its third-party fact-checking program for U.S.-based content review purposes. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he made the decision because the existing fact-checking program has become “too politically biased,” resulting in censorship and a loss of trust. “It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” he said in a Jan. 7 video statement. Asked for his opinion on the move at a Jan. 10 press conference, Biden said, “It’s just completely contrary to everything America is about.” Up until this week, Meta had partnered with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) to run its third-party fact-checking service. The IFCN is administered by the Poynter Institute, which also operates the PolitiFact fact-checking publication. “The idea that, you know, a billionaire can buy something and say ‘by the way from this point on, we’re not going to fact-check anything’ and you know when you have millions of people reading, going online reading this stuff it’s—anyway, I think it’s really shameful,” Biden said. Meta is not doing away with fact-checking outright. Rather, Zuckerberg said Meta’s platforms will move toward a “more comprehensive community notes” style system, similar to the one employed by social media platform X. He will start the new model in the United States. Rather than relying on a fact-checking organization such as the IFCN to review content, X’s community notes feature allows users to weigh in directly. X users may suggest a fact-checking note on controversial posts on the platform, and then provide feedback on whether a suggested fact-checking note is itself accurate, and necessary for the particular post. Posts that have been flagged with sufficient community input display an attached fact-checking note explaining why the particular post is inaccurate or may be missing important context. Zuckerberg also announced that Meta’s content moderation team will be moved out of California to Texas “where there is less concern about the bias of our teams.” Zuckerberg and other Meta officers have defended the move as needed to restore free speech and expression to their platforms. In a Jan. 7 blog post, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, said as well-intentioned as their prior fact-checking efforts had been, “they have expanded over time to the point where we are making too many mistakes, frustrating our users, and too often getting in the way of the free expression we set out to enable.” “Too much harmless content gets censored, too many people find themselves wrongly locked up in ‘Facebook jail,’ and we are often too slow to respond when they do,” Kaplan said. Meta’s fact-checking and content moderation decisions had been a point of contention during the 2020 presidential election cycle. In October 2020, the Meta platforms reduced the reach of posts linking to articles by The New York Post concerning a laptop that then-candidate Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, had reportedly abandoned at a Delaware computer repair shop. The New York Post’s articles detailed the contents of the laptop, including documents indicating the elder Biden had some level of interaction with his son’s foreign business partners. In a Jan. 10 interview with podcast host Joe Rogan, Zuckerberg alleged that officials in the Biden administration routinely contacted Meta, with demands that they remove or suppress certain content, including memes and satirical posts. “Basically these people from the Biden administration would call up our team and like scream at them and curse,” Zuckerberg said. The Epoch Times reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive a response by press time. Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 19:15

— Inflation Expectations Will Keep Rising In 2025, And It Matters Most In Japan

 

at 1/12/25 4:40pm

Inflation Expectations Will Keep Rising In 2025, And It Matters Most In Japan By Dhaval Joshi, chief strategist at BCA Research Executive Summary In the developed economies excluding Japan, rising inflation expectations will lift them further above the 2 percent target. This will limit the scope for further interest rate cuts. But in Japan, rising inflation expectations will lift them up to the BoJ’s 2 percent target. This will remove the BoJ’s justification for its decades-long zero interest rate policy (ZIRP). The normalisation of Japan’s monetary policy poses a big risk to stocks because Japan has been the main source of financial market liquidity, and thereby, of rising stock market valuations. Hence, the biggest risk to US tech valuations comes from a rise in the Japanese real bond yield. On a structural (1-2 year) time horizon though, it is highly likely that Japanese real yields will rise, causing a meaningful setback in stocks versus bonds, and especially the US superstar stocks. But from a timing perspective, wait until the complexities of the price trends in USD/JPY and/or Nasdaq versus 30-year T-bond have reached the point of collapse that signalled previous reversals at the end of 2023 and the summer of 2024. You can monitor these indicators on our website. Go tactically long copper. 2024’s political Zeitgeist was encapsulated in what I have called the ‘3 I’s’: Incumbents punished for Inflation and Immigration. Incumbent governments were given a kicking by furious electorates who had suffered a huge drop in their standard of living. And it made not the slightest difference whether the incumbents were left-of-centre Democrats in the US, centrist Macronists in France, or right-of-centre Conservatives in the UK. In the case of excess immigration, the loss of well-being was feared. In the case of excess inflation, the loss of well-being was genuine. Yet since peaking in 2022 at close to 10 percent, inflation has plunged to the low-single digits. So, why is everybody still so angry? It’s Cumulative Inflation That Matters One of the main reasons that central banks target 2 percent inflation is that 2 percent is the highest rate of inflation that goes largely unnoticed. Going largely unnoticed, households and firms do not consciously factor sub-2 percent inflation into their price and wage setting processes. This prevents an ‘inflation spiral’ taking hold. The reason that sub-2 percent inflation goes largely unnoticed is that economic productivity also tends to rise at 1-2 percent. And to the extent that wages rise in line with productivity, people will not suffer a loss of purchasing power when prices rise at 2 percent or below. So, the inflation goes unnoticed. The thing that people notice and hate, is the cumulative loss of purchasing power when prices keep rising at above 2 percent. Telling people that inflation is back down in the low-single digits will not make them feel any better when they have just suffered a cumulative loss of purchasing power of 25 percent! It is this cumulative effect of past inflation that sets inflation expectations. As the charts in this report show, market expected 10-year inflation is nothing more than historic 10-year inflation (with a small tweak for the very recent inflation experience) But what about survey-based inflation expectations? The answer is that survey-based inflation expectations like the University of Michigan consumer survey of 5–10-year US inflation expectations also track delivered long-run inflation (albeit, plus a constant). Hence, to get cumulative inflation back to the 2 percent rate that is unnoticeable, inflation must fall below 2 percent to offset the post-pandemic period when inflation was running well above 2 percent. But as central banks are unlikely to take inflation much below 2 percent, inflation expectations – as a mathematical identity – will trend higher Put more simply, inflation expectations will trend higher because the post-pandemic noticeable inflation era will become a greater part of our collective experience compared with the pre-pandemic unnoticeable inflation era. Or, more precisely, inflation expectations will trend higher unless they cause a deflationary shock (or an exogenous deflationary shock arrives) that wrench them lower again. Such a shock might come from Japan. Japanese Inflation Expectations Are Approaching Mission Accomplished In the developed economies excluding Japan, rising inflation expectations will lift them further above the 2 percent target. This will limit the scope for further interest rate cuts, for two reasons. First, because it risks further un-anchoring those inflation expectations. Second, because it is the real bond yield that matters for the economy. If inflation expectations rise, then nominal bond yields must also rise to achieve a given real stance of monetary policy. This means that bond yields will trend higher until the shock arrives that wrenches them lower. In Japan though, rising inflation expectations will lift them up to the BoJ’s 2 percent target. Mission accomplished, it will remove the BoJ’s justification for its decades-long zero interest rate policy (ZIRP), especially with the real bond yield now deeply negative. It may sound perverse after decades of too low inflation, but once inflation is close to target, a deeply negative real bond yield risks taking Japanese inflation too high. The Normalisation Of Japan’s Monetary Policy Poses A Big Risk To Stocks The normalisation of Japan’s monetary policy poses a big risk to stocks because Japan has been the main source of financial market liquidity, and thereby, of rising stock market valuations. Through 2019-2022, the Nasdaq’s valuation (earnings yield) moved in perfect lockstep with the US real bond yield, as might be expected. But in late-2022, the Nasdaq’s valuation detached from the US real yield and attached to the world’s last remaining negative real bond yield – in Japan. Hence, through 2023-2024, the Nasdaq’s earnings yield has moved in near-perfect lockstep with the Japanese real bond yield. This means that the biggest risk to US tech valuations does not come from a rise in the US real bond yield. The biggest risk comes from a rise in the Japanese real bond yield. This also solves the seeming mystery as to why the US tech valuations have been largely unscathed by the recent surge in the US real bond yield. To reiterate, US tech valuations are not tracking the US real yield, they are tracking the Japanese real yield. US tech valuations have been largely unscathed because the Japanese real yield has not surged… yet. On a structural (1-2 year) time horizon though, it is highly likely that Japanese real yields will rise. This will end the major source of financial market liquidity that is behind the powerful yet narrow 2023-24 surge in stock market valuations. On this structural (1-2 year) time horizon therefore, I expect a meaningful setback in stocks versus bonds, and especially the US superstar stocks. But from a timing perspective, wait until the market has become too dovish on the BoJ and/or too bullish on the US superstar stocks. In other words, when the complexities of the price trends in USD/JPY and/or Nasdaq versus 30-year T-bond have reached the point of collapse that signalled previous reversals at the end of 2023 and the summer of 2024. These excellent timing indicators are not yet flashing red. The good news is that you can monitor them updated daily on our website. Go Tactically Long Copper Finally, relating to trend changes among the major investments and sectors we monitor, there is a tactical buying opportunity for copper. The recent sell-off in copper has reached the collapsed short-term complexity that has signaled stabilisations and rebounds through 2023-24. Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 18:40

— Megyn Kelly Mocks Dems: "Hitler's Quite Charming When You Spend Time With Him

 

at 1/12/25 4:05pm

Megyn Kelly Mocks Dems: "Hitler's Quite Charming When You Spend Time With Him Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news, Conservative commentator Megyn Kelly noted how once again the Democrat narrative that President Trump is a dangerous threat to Democracy doesn’t jive with the way they act around him, after Obama was seen chatting and laughing with Trump at Jimmy Carter’s funeral. As we highlighted, the pair were seen sharing a cordial exchange after being seated together, with lip readers claiming that Trump asked Obama to meet somewhere quiet after the ceremony to discuss something important. “I want people to remember what former President Obama was saying about Trump, literally, in October, okay, three months ago,” Kelly noted adding that Obama claimed Trump “wants Hitler’s generals to take over, and he’s genuinely dangerous.” “Barack’s laughing, genuinely laughing, to where, like his body is shaking,” Kelly continued, commenting on the exchange between Obama and Trump. “Hitler’s so funny. Hitler’s quite charming when you spend time with him, one on one,” Kelly further quipped. Her guest Jesse Kelly commented, “Obama was the one who engineered the coup. He was the one who engineered the coup to get Joe Biden out of the White House. And not only did he engineer the coup to get Joe Biden out of the White House, he’s the one who vouched for Kamala Harris with his vast Donor Network, billionaire after billionaire after billionaire.” “He knifed Joe Biden in the ribs, shoved him out the back of the White House and then picked up the phone and organised $1.5 billion to be given to Kamala Harris for her campaign, where she proceeded to not only embarrass herself the entire time, she embarrassed him.” Kelly further urged. He further explained, “When you vouch for somebody with a bunch of billionaires and they flame out as badly as she flames out, well, he is not going to do that again. And without Barack Obama, without daddy Barack harrying her, Kamala Harris is never, ever, ever, ever, ever going to be able to launch a significant presidential run again in her life.” Watch: *  *  * 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 Sun, 01/12/2025 - 18:05

— Coffee Timing Linked To Health Outcomes

 

at 1/12/25 3:30pm

Coffee Timing Linked To Health Outcomes Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), What time you drink your coffee may be just as important as how much you drink. jkcDesign/Shutterstock According to new research, morning coffee drinkers had a significantly lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer compared to those who consumed coffee throughout the day. Impact on Mortality Risk The large-scale study, published in the European Heart Journal on Wednesday, tracked more than 40,000 adults for nearly a decade. Researchers found that there were two types of coffee drinkers: those who drank coffee only in the morning (36 percent of participants) and those who drank coffee throughout the day (about 15 percent). Premium coffee - full refund if not satisfied! Compared to people who did not drink coffee, morning coffee drinkers showed a 16 percent lower risk of death from all causes. The reduction in cardiovascular death risk was even more pronounced, with morning drinkers showing a 31 percent lower risk. In contrast, people who drank coffee all day had no significant reduction in death risk. Amount of Coffee We Drink Also Matters Researchers also discovered that the timing of coffee consumption affected the relationship between the amount of coffee people drank and their mortality risk. Among morning-type drinkers, both moderate (1 to 3 cups) and heavy (more than 3 cups) coffee drinkers had the highest reduction in mortality risk, with moderate drinkers benefitting slightly more. However, this benefit was not seen in coffee drinkers who drank coffee throughout the day. This suggests drinking your coffee in the morning is more beneficial for cardiovascular health and overall longevity than having it later in the day. Possible Mechanisms While the exact mechanism of how drinking coffee in the morning reduces the risk of death from cardiovascular disease remains unclear, afternoon or evening coffee consumption might disrupt circadian rhythms and melatonin levels, Dr. Lu Qi, lead researcher and professor at Tulane’s Celia Scott Weatherhead School of Public Health & Tropical Medicine, told The Epoch Times. These disruptions could affect cardiovascular risk factors like inflammation and blood pressure. “Previous studies have shown drinking coffee is related to lower risk of mortality and risk of chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes and certain cancers,” Qi said. “Our study for the first time indicates that the time of coffee drinking matters regarding its beneficial effects, and drinking coffee in the morning only may strengthen the benefits.” Qi emphasized the importance of considering both the timing and amount of coffee intake when considering its effects on health outcomes. He added that further studies are needed to validate these findings in other populations and test the impact of changing coffee consumption timing. Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 17:30

— Residents Of Argentina's Crime-Ridden Cities Welcome Milei's Gun Reform

 

at 1/12/25 2:20pm

Residents Of Argentina's Crime-Ridden Cities Welcome Milei's Gun Reform Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), Argentine President Javier Milei’s decision to reduce the age of legal gun ownership from 21 to 18 has garnered support from the public. Many city residents say greater civilian access to firearms comes at a the right time for those living in crime-stricken streets and may signal a shift in the country’s attitude toward gun ownership. Argentine President Javier Milei attends a ceremony celebrating the 214th anniversary of the May Revolution, which marked the beginning of the country's independence from Spain, in Cordoba, Argentina, May 25, 2024. Nicolas Aguilera, File/AP Photo Since 2007, Argentina has focused on voluntary civilian disarmament—which many Argentinians say this has helped criminals more than anyone else. Fabian Calle, a member of former President Mauricio Macri’s administration, told The Epoch Times Argentinians weren’t shocked when Milei lowered the age for legal firearms ownership. He said many people in Buenos Aires already carry guns due to high rates of violent crime. “The people in Buenos Aires abide by the law of the strongest in the streets,” Calle said. Local media reports in 2024 noted spikes in homicide, robbery, and petty theft in Buenos Aires. This stands in contradiction to official figures released in August, which reported a 4.4 percent drop in the national homicide rates in the first half of 2024. Soft on Crime Some Argentinians don’t feel safe walking around Buenos Aires, a city that has witnessed a surge in poverty and homeless camps in recent years. The link between poverty and crime has been studied at length, with recent evidence suggesting fewer economic resources may influence or trigger criminal behavior. High unemployment, soaring inflation, and poverty were prevalent under the last administration of President Alberto Fernández, during which poverty levels surpassed 40 percent in some parts of the country. It’s a situation that Milei’s administration is still working to address amid sweeping economic reforms that has already cut thousands of government jobs and state spending by 30 percent. In December, Argentina’s Ministry of Human Capital stated that national poverty levels had been brought down to 49.9 percent from 54.9 percent in the first quarter of 2024. The agency attributed the high poverty rate to “the crisis left by the inflationary economic model of the previous administration.” Poverty in Argentina has reached 40 percent and homeless camps are a common sight in Buenos Aires on Aug. 5, 2022. Autumn Spredemann/The Epoch Times “You need to look over your shoulder more often now, there are so many people camping in the streets,” Buenos Aires resident Lucilla Martinez told The Epoch Times. “Even in tourist areas, they [homeless people] can be aggressive or start yelling if you don’t give them money.” Martinez believes public’s attitude toward firearms ownership is shifting away from the notion of less guns equals less gun crime, an ideology that was promoted by the previous administration. Much of this shift has to do with residents feeling less safe outside their homes, according to Martinez. She said she used to walk the last few blocks from the metro stop to her job in Palermo, but now takes a taxi the rest of the way. “It just doesn’t feel safe, even in some nicer places. I have a friend who was robbed outside a restaurant and it wasn’t even late [at night],” Martinez said. She thinks more people will want to carry registered firearms now that there’s less of a stigma around the issue under Milei’s leadership. “So many regular people already own guns. They don’t say anything or others are afraid to get one because for years, we were told by politicians that more guns will mean more crime,” she said. Organized crime is another problem that’s on the rise in Argentina. This is exemplified in the city of Rosario in Santa Fe province, which has been a breeding ground for violent crime for years due to its position on the international narcotics smuggling route. At the same time, Calle said a lot of judges in Argentina are “soft on criminals,” who don’t end up spending much time in jail due to loopholes in the legal system. “We have a society that is unarmed and protected with nothing,” Calle said, “But we have criminals that are protected by judges.” Part of this is due to the influence of organized crime on Argentina’s judicial system. The Global Organized Crime Index states that cartels hire professional killers to assassinate judges and some “operate from prisons and enjoy protection from politicians, judges, and deputies.” Consequently, Calle said Argentina has a growing number of criminals who are protected by judges who find ways for them to spend little to no time in jail. Another reason Argentinians support Milei’s move on lowering the age of gun ownership is the convoluted nature of the existing law, according to Calle. He pointed out that previously, you could go to war at age 18, but couldn’t purchase a legal firearm. “In Argentina there are a lot the of laws about age that are confusing,“ he said. ”Argentinians can vote since they are 16 and they can go to war when they are 18. So you can vote, but can’t go to war. You can go to war, but you can’t own a gun.” Gun reform is something Milei was passionate about during his election campaign, earning him much criticism among his opposition. In a 2022 interview, Milei said, “I am in favor of the free carrying of weapons, definitely.” He added the prohibition of arms doesn’t stop criminals from using them and that the “expected profits” for criminals will only increase and result in more crime. Mateo Gonzalez, a Cordoba native and university student in Argentina’s second largest city, agrees with this assessment. He told The Epoch Times that violent crime in his hometown has gotten worse since 2019. “There are a lot of robberies here of businesses and homes. It got worse when inflation was over 100 percent,” Gonzalez said. When asked how he feels about being able to purchase a legal firearm now at age 20, Gonzalez said he and his family are a lot more open to the idea of gun ownership these days. “Criminals aren’t shy about using weapons against unarmed people. Having a gun may persuade bad people to go somewhere else,” he said. Though he’s open to the idea of having a firearm, Gonzalez said he'll likely keep it at home to protect his family, and only if they agree. “That was a promise Milei made during his campaign. If criminals can get a gun very fast, then good people should also be able to get guns,” Calle said. Voluntary Disarmament Milei’s liberal approach to civilian gun ownership in Argentina stands in sharp contrast to previous initiatives established under former president and vice president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Kirchner was elected as Argentina’s first female president in 2007 after her husband, Nestor Kirchner, held the office since 2003. Former Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner waves from the balcony of her political party's office also known as Instituto Patria in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on Nov. 13, 2024. Fernandez de Kirchner has been convicted for corruption charges, the appeals court sentenced her to six years in prison while the former president of Argentina will not be elegible to hold public office. Tomas Cuesta/Getty Images The same year she was elected is when Congress passed law 26216, where legislators described the possession, purchase, and sale of firearms as a “national emergency.” Law 26216 also approved a voluntary civilian gun buyback program that earned high praise from the United Nations. Between 2007 and 2012, the state purchased an estimated 160,531 firearms from residents who willingly surrendered their guns for cash, according to a United Nations report. The going rate for a gun was between $45 and $140, depending on the type of weapon. Some researchers have pointed out that the timing of the celebrated gun buyback program came at a very convenient time for the Peronist party, which managed to concentrate power by 2007. In a 2008 article published in the Journal of Democracy, the authors noted that while both Kirchners’ administrations remained “fully democratic,” two key problems plagued Argentina at the time: weak political opposition to the renewed strength of Peronism and equally shaky federal institutions. Calle said ever since Milei began talking about the “free carrying” of weapons, left wing politicians and their supporters have painted an outcome of chaos and violence in the streets. He clarified that only authorized arms dealers or “armarias” will be allowed to sell legal firearms and there are also background checks, personal information requirements, and other steps needed to purchase a legal gun in Argentina. “Leftists are trying to sell that it’s going to be bad or evil, disorder and people running around with guns in the streets,” Calle said. The last time the Peronist party modified Argentina’s gun laws to include more oversight and restrictions was in 1975. A military junta ousted the elected government and seized power the following year, enacting further controls on civilian firearms. Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 16:20

— AP News Heavily Ratioed For Blaming Palisades Fire On Climate Change

 

at 1/12/25 1:45pm

AP News Heavily Ratioed For Blaming Palisades Fire On Climate Change The Associated Press published an article titled "Climate Change Contributed to a Week of Wild Weather That Upended Life in the US," which was heavily ratioed on X for blaming the Palisades Fire solely on "climate change."  The journalist behind the article, Melina Walling, who uses the pronouns "she/her," failed to mention arson reports and the alarming mismanagement of city fire resources by radical far-left Democrats in power, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom. "Climate change laid the groundwork for California's megafires," Walling wrote.  Walling's selective reporting, aimed at drumming up climate anxieties among the public to further the left's climate change agenda, is extraordinarily misleading.  She failed to mention in her coverage that the Palisades Fire spread so quickly because the Pacific Palisades reservoir, which was supposed to provide water to extinguish the fire, was completely empty.  “This was supposed to be the water to put out the Palisades fire.” The FP’s Austyn Jeffs visits the Santa Ynez Reservoir that has reportedly been empty since February 2024. pic.twitter.com/DwO5OrYhWk — The Free Press (@TheFP) January 11, 2025 ? JUST IN: The Pacific Palisades reservoir was EMPTY AND OFFLINE when the firestorm exploded, per LA Times This is CRIMINAL. The reservoir holds 117 million gallons of water, and would’ve given firefighters ample pressure to effectively fight the blaze. Overpaid Dept. of… pic.twitter.com/afvRlbLJ73 — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) January 10, 2025 On top of this, she failed to mention the very existence of the countless arson reports.  On X, Walling's article was pushed out by AP News' account, where it was heavily ratioed on Saturday evening.  X users responded: Arson and terrorism is NOT climate change. — Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) January 12, 2025 "Climate change?" ? Is that why they're catching people setting fires all over the place on purpose, you disingenuous hacks? — Mindy MF Robinson ?? (@iheartmindy) January 12, 2025 The face of climate change pic.twitter.com/rXKa7wU1rO — PNW_Recondo (@PNW_Recondo) January 12, 2025 Actually Issues with the Santa Inez reservoir, which was supposed to provide water for fighting the Palisades fire, include: - The reservoir ran out of water very quickly, just 3 hours into firefighting efforts. - The reservoir normally holds 117 million gallons of water, but… pic.twitter.com/3c26LJXcnc — Crystal M Stanley (@4freedom1USA) January 12, 2025 Why did you lie again? https://t.co/HpllOrfINx — Courage Is A Habit (@CourageHabit) January 12, 2025 Trust me bro climate change is real pic.twitter.com/KRTIfHUtM0 — World Hall Of Fun (@WorldHallOfFun) January 12, 2025 Here's some FACTS to think about (via Alex Epstein from his post 'Bad Forest Management, and Not Climate Change, is the Root Cause of California Fires'): "The solution to dangerous, out-of-control wildfires in California is addressing the root cause: 'excess fuel load' from bad forest management. Focusing on climate change, a minor variable that we 'have no near-term control over, is a craven political ploy... [T]emperatures have risen 1 degree C in the last 150 years. Is it really possible that that amount of warming makes dangerous wildfires inevitable? No. ... The negative effect of rising global temperatures on California wildfire susceptibility in particular is dubious because past centuries had far more fire-prone climates. The Palmer Drought Index shows only a slight increase in California drought since 1900. "Historical evidence shows us that prior to man-made CO2 emissions CA experienced regular 'megadroughts' that could last over a century. The modern era has been very lush by comparison. Even if CA could lower global CO2 levels we could easily suffer a regional drought... "The root cause of today’s wildfires is terrible forest management. Policymakers have prevented controlled burns, debris clearing, and logging — jacking up the 'fuel load' to incredibly dangerous levels. ... The path forward is simple: focus on the main cause, forest management, which is totally within our control. Stop pretending that lowering CO2 levels would bring about some fire-free paradise–and that it is possible near-term. Stop mandating 'unreliables.' Decriminalise nuclear." As Tom McClintock comments via The Wall Street Journal, bad forest and water management, misplaced priorities and price controls all played a role. The left blames a changing climate. But that doesn’t explain California’s long history with massive wildfires, or why fires became less threatening throughout most of the 20th century. We can find a more likely culprit in the states’ recent extreme environmental and social policies. ... Environmental leftists promised that laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Wilderness Act and the Endangered Species Act would protect and improve the environment. Fifty years later we’re entitled to ask: How’s it going? Between 2012 and 2021, we lost a quarter of California’s forestland to wildfires. A UCLA study estimated that California’s 2020 fires released twice as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as had been prevented by the previous 18 years of primarily government-enforced restrictions. ... Fire is a condition of nature, but how we deal with it is a choice. The tragedy in Southern California is the result of decades of self-destructive policies made by foolish politicians. We can change the policies that got us into this mess by throwing out the politicians who made them. Let’s hope we do so before the next big fire. Selective reporting by Walling to further a far-left climate agenda (and providing cover for Democrats in the state) is why trust in media has crashed to record lows. Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 15:45

— How The 'Bridge That Couldn't Be Built' Was Built

 

at 1/12/25 1:10pm

How The 'Bridge That Couldn't Be Built' Was Built Authored by Dustin Bass via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), When John A. Roebling completed the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge in 1866, it was the longest suspension bridge in the world. Shortly after completing the bridge, which crossed the Ohio River, he was hired to design the Brooklyn Bridge. This bridge would surpass the length of the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge by a third. Roebling, unfortunately, would die before he could witness the construction of the New York City-based structure; but his son Washington and daughter-in-law Emily would complete the project in his stead. An October 1935 photo of the Golden Gate bridge, in the San Francisco Bay, during its construction. Construction began on Jan. 5, 1933 AFP/Getty Images Roebling’s influence was arguably most strongly felt by his immediate family and his legacy most attached to the Brooklyn Bridge. But approximately 25 years after his death, a young engineer would incidentally be influenced by Roebling and would directly extend the suspension bridge builder’s legacy to the other side of the country in San Francisco. Before Joseph Strauss graduated from the University of Cincinnati in 1892, he found himself in the hospital recovering from an illness. The 5-foot-3-inch class president and class poet had been placed in a hospital room with a view that would change the course of his life. Through the window, he could see the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge. The structure inspired him to pursue a career in bridge design. The Roebling Suspension Bridge in 1907. Public Domain During his graduation ceremony at the university, he professed his goal to build a railroad that would stretch across the Bering Strait. His goals were lofty, if not impossible, but it was this drive that would place him in the position to create “the bridge that couldn’t be built.” A Bridge Across the Strait The idea of a bridge that stretched across the Golden Gate Strait had been discussed for decades. It was first broached in 1872 by Charles Crocker, the railroad magnate who had been part of the “Big Four” to found Central Pacific Railroad. (Joshua Norton, the Gold Rush speculator who went bankrupt and then insane, is also credited with making the first calls for the bridge in 1869, though he was hardly taken seriously.) As the Bay Area population continued to grow exponentially over the final decades of the 19th century, a bridge across the strait seemed imperative. But the problems that faced engineers were many. The Pacific Ocean with its strong tides fed right into the strait, not to mention the consistent wind gusts that swept along the coast, and the city’s famous fog. Additionally, the San Andreas Fault lay seven miles off the city’s coastline, which could initiate devastating earthquakes, as citizens discovered in 1906. Ten years after the earthquake, the topic of the bridge was again broached in earnest. James H. Wilkins, an editor and publisher of a local newspaper, as well as a former structural engineer, began a campaign to promote the necessity of building the bridge. “In 1872,” he recalled, “I was present at a session of the Marin supervisors when Charles Crocker explained his plans, among which was a suspension bridge across the Golden Gate. Detailed plans and estimates for such a bridge were actually made by the Central Pacific engineers.” But that was nearly 50 years prior, so new estimates were needed. Wilkins’s campaign caught the attention of Michael M. O‘Shaughnessy, the San Francisco city engineer. O’Shaughnessy began seeking the opinions of engineers. Their opinions were not positive. The price tag at $100 million was cost-prohibitive. Sounding the Strait Interest in the bridge remained, although it waned during World War I, as the country became involved shortly after Wilkins began his campaign. Toward the end of 1918, interest resumed. Richard Welch, a member of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, issued a request that Congress authorize a federal survey of the strait: specifically between the Presidio, located on the northern tip of the San Francisco peninsula, and the Marin Peninsula, on the northern side of the strait. Congress acquiesced to the request, and the USS Natoma, of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, conducted soundings of the area by the end of May 1920 and submitted its report. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey ship Natoma. Public Domain The report was submitted to O'Shaughnessy, who then reached out to three prominent bridge builders: Francis McMath, Gustav Lindenthal, and Strauss. In his letter to them, he wrote, “Everybody says it cannot be done and that it would cost over $100,000,000 if it could be done.” Lindenthal responded with a quote of $50 million to $60 million. McGrath did not respond. Strauss, after conversing with O'Shaughnessy, suggested it could be done for approximately $25 million. Strauss, Counties, and the War Dept. A statue of engineer Joseph B. Strauss, in front of the Golden Gate Bridge. Blanscape/Shutterstock By this time, Strauss had already become one of the country’s prominent bridge builders. He had begun his career as a draftsman for New Jersey Steel and Iron Company, then for Chicago’s Lassig Bridge and Iron Works Company. He worked with then arguably America’s greatest bridge builder, Ralph Modjeski. Strauss, however, wished to pursue the bascule bridge, which are drawbridges. In 1904, he founded Strauss Bascule Bridge Company and would go on to construct approximately 400 bridges. Considering his reputation, it was apparent Strauss knew something the others didn’t. Strauss was hired, but the process had only just begun, and construction was still more than a decade away. Entities were created, such as the Association of Bridging the Gate, which encompassed representatives from the surrounding counties. Their objective was to ensure that all counties were in favor of building the bridge and to gain permission from the state legislature to create a legal district, which would manage the entire process of building and maintaining the bridge and roadway. In May of 1923, the state congress passed the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District Act of California, permitting the Association to create the aforementioned district, which was created in December 1928. The District was to have control over the project, but the Presidio was a U.S. Army outpost and was therefore under the jurisdiction of the U.S. War Department. In fact, both sides of the proposed locations for the bridge were under the Department’s jurisdiction, and for construction to be conducted, the District would need a federally issued permit. The concerns for the War Department was whether the bridge would hinder navigation and logistics, as well as whether the bridge could possibly become a blockade if it were ever destroyed. On Christmas Eve 1924, Secretary of War John Weeks issued a temporary permit. The representatives from Del Norte, Marin, San Francisco, Sonoma, and parts of Mendocino and Napa Counties made up the new Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District with Strauss as chief engineer. Strauss was bent on building “the biggest thing of its kind that a man could build,” and, as the preliminary issues fell into place, he would soon get that chance. Change of Plans Strauss added Charles Ellis, professor of structural and bridge engineering at the University of Illinois, to his team to update design plans and ensure structural integrity. Eventually, that relationship would sour to the point that Strauss relieved Ellis of his position. Ellis also received no credit from Strauss for his contributions. Before that relational fallout, however, Ellis played a pivotal role in developing the bridge and was relied upon heavily by Strauss. He, along with Leon Moisseiff, who had designed the Manhattan Bridge, provided reports on their concerns about Strauss’s proposed cantilever-suspension bridge. It seems it may have been as late as the summer of 1929 that Strauss decided to dispense with his cantilever-suspension bridge in favor of a suspension bridge. It appeared as though the Golden Gate project would soon be underway, but another catastrophe looked to sideline the project. Reminiscent of past decades, like the 1906 Earthquake and World War I, the Stock Market crashed on Oct. 29, 1929, eventually plunging the country into the Great Depression. Permits and plans were one thing, but having the people’s support for such an expensive project was another. The District decided to have the people vote on it. There had been opposition to the construction of the bridge for varying reasons from the likes of environmentalists and ferry operators, as well as engineers who believed the project unfeasible. The District put the $35 million bond issue before the voters. This bond required locals to use their business properties, farms, and homes as collateral. Despite the great personal risk required, on Nov. 4, 1930, the bond passed overwhelmingly: 145,057 to 46,954. Mitigating Risks During this period in major structure building history, there was the assumed risk of one fatality per $1 million. At $35 million, the District could expect approximately 35 job-related deaths. Strauss, however, desired to reverse this trend. Before construction began, he instituted new safety measures and gear, including glare-free goggles and mandatory hard hats, which were made similar to those worn by miners. Additionally, during the later stages of the bridge’s construction, he spent $130,000 to place a large net under the bridge to catch falling workers. In all, this net saved the lives of 19 men, who hailed themselves members of the “Halfway-to-Hell Club.” Eleven men died during the four-year project, 10 of whom died during a single accident when a 5-ton piece of scaffold fell through the net into the water. With the Great Depression in full swing by the time construction got underway, there was no shortage of men looking to join the major project, especially with its union pay far exceeding what could be found elsewhere. On Dec. 22, 1932, workers began constructing a 1,700-foot access road toward the Marin anchorage of the bridge. Photograph of the Golden Gate Bridge under construction, circa 1934, by Chas. M. Hiller. Library of Congress. Public Domain It was during this week in history, on Jan. 5, 1933, that construction began on the suspension bridge, which would famously become known as the Golden Gate Bridge. The first portion of the project was to remove 3.25 million cubic feet of dirt for the bridge’s two anchorages. Not including those anchorages, the bridge would weigh approximately 840 million pounds. Its highest peak above the water would reach 746 feet, and with its famous “International Orange” color, it proved visible even during foggy days. The bridge was suspended by 27,572 wires, altogether long enough to wrap around the globe more than three times. And, reminiscent of his initial Roebling inspiration and his personal determination, Strauss’s bridge held the title of the longest suspension bridge in the world for 27 years after its completion on May 27, 1937. The Golden Gate Bridge. Trevor Piper/Epoch Times Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 15:10

— A Message To All Americans From Storm-Ravaged Western North Carolina

 

at 1/12/25 12:35pm

A Message To All Americans From Storm-Ravaged Western North Carolina Jason Ward, with Valley Strong Relief—a non-profit organization focused on providing aid to thousands of residents displaced in Western North Carolina by Hurricane Helene—released a TikTok video discussing the horrors of the Palisades Fire raging in Los Angeles County. However, he asked one crucial question: "What about Appalachia?" Ward cited President Joe Biden's recent X post: "The federal government will cover 100% of the cost of measures to protect lives and property in Southern California for six months." Referring to the X post, Ward said, "I hope that happens."  Ward then segues to the topic of forgotten and devastated Western North Carolina, asking, "What about Appalachia?" Snow covers areas of western North Carolina ravaged by Hurricane Helene. Some people there are still living in tents, and piles of debris remain. ?: @AaronRigsbyOSC pic.twitter.com/ZCAq6zVkfm — AccuWeather (@accuweather) January 11, 2025 "We are 105 days in since one of the most devastating storms known to mankind. We are still supplying our own campers, shelters, while paying mortgages on piles of rubble. We are still running our own supply hubs for many people that lost everything, including homes and jobs. We still have bridges out - only four percent of the debris has been picked up. Many businesses are bankrupt, with insurance denying their claim," he explained.  Ward continued, "We have a polar vortex slamming Western North Carolina, while people going through ten gallons of propane a night - wonder when they will be getting their next tank."  A message from Appalachia to California …#DontForgetAppalachia pic.twitter.com/JWsjyWpR0B — Boone Cutler ? ?? ? (@boonecutler) January 11, 2025 While the nation's eyes are on the Palisades Fire, thousands of families are homeless, either spending cold nights in makeshift shelters, campers, tents, or, if they're lucky, hotels and motels paid for by FEMA.  However, Fox News reported, "FEMA began notifying some families checked into hotel or motel rooms that they are no longer eligible for the program due to one of the following reasons: an inspection indicated their home is now habitable, they declined an inspection or FEMA has been unable to contact them to update their housing needs."  While the countries eyes are on CA, the situation in WNC deteriorates. Where is @FEMA!? We need to get some eyes on this! These are fellow Americans! https://t.co/WIGGIV1KUL — Julie McBane (@julie_mcbane) January 11, 2025 Local media outlet WLOS reported that more than 5,600 households were staying in hotel or motel rooms paid by FEMA (as of one week ago).  Appalachia deserves better than this. Please don’t forget WNC. We aren’t rich and most of us aren’t movie stars- but our people deserve better than this. pic.twitter.com/0gZYdKDlcr — RP (@RPinthehousenow) January 11, 2025 "California is getting all the federal assistance it needs but meanwhile the people of North Carolina are waiting in long lines for propane just so they can have some warmth in the donated RV's they're currently living in . This isn't right!" one X user said.  California is getting all the federal assistance it needs but meanwhile the people of North Carolina are waiting in long lines for propane just so they can have some warmth in the donated RV’s they’re currently living in . This isn’t right! pic.twitter.com/tVf4kDbyrI — Washingtons ghost (@hartgoat) January 11, 2025 Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (Ret.) provided more color on the private supply hubs, helping thousands of families across the storm-devastated region.  PLEASE REPOST AND TAG @realDonaldTrump and @JDVance COME HELL OR HIGH WATER…NEVER FORGET THE PEOPLE OF APPALACHIA NORTH CAROLINA!!! Pray and support them ???? This video was back well over a month ago. See my pinned tweet above for even more current weather conditions.… pic.twitter.com/PmtvMSUhTm — General Mike Flynn (@GenFlynn) January 11, 2025 "Biden and Mayorkas bankrupted FEMA to pay for illegal immigrant housing, and now American citizens who lost their homes in Hurricane Helene are essentially being told to screw," Trump spokeswoman and incoming White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News. Leavitt added: "This is unfair and arguably criminal. The good news is: President Trump will be back very soon to put Americans first again." Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 14:35

— Why Was Pacific Palisades Reservoir Empty? It Gets Worse...

 

at 1/12/25 12:00pm

Why Was Pacific Palisades Reservoir Empty? It Gets Worse... Authored by Victoria Taft via PJMedia.com, An empty reservoir and dry fire hydrants are now the symbols of California and local officials' response to the horrific Pacific Palisades wildfire—one of six Santa Ana windblown firestorms still burning in Los Angeles. Gov. Gavin Newsom has ordered an investigation to demonstrate that he's doing something, but the damage is being done right now.  The 117 million-gallon Santa Ynez Reservoir was empty and down for maintenance when the devastating fire was sparked, perhaps in the brush, between the homes and the Pacific Coast Highway. You can see a map of the area in my story Good Intentions Might Be the Cause of Devastating Palisades Fire.  Friday, officials confirmed that the reservoir had been down for nearly a year —closing in February 2024—for maintenance to the cover of the reservoir.  The New York Times reports that a contractor was hired in November to fix a crack in the cover. It is unclear why the reservoir had to be shut down for that extended period of time.  The ripple effect was beyond devastating.  This empty reservoir wasn't caused by Climate Change. It was caused by Democrats. pic.twitter.com/WrLFHYOsBh — A Man Of Memes (@RickyDoggin) January 10, 2025 The fires broke out Tuesday, Jan. 7. By the next day, Janisse Quiñones, the head of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, said their system tanks went dry three times. You'll want to remember that because the story is about to get worse.  We have three large water tanks, about a million gallons each. We ran out of water in the first tank at about 4:45 p.m. yesterday. We ran out of water in the second tank about 8:30 p.m. and the third tank about 3 a.m. this morning. She never mentioned the empty reservoir, though former DWP Commissioner and mayoral candidate Rick Caruso did say that "the reservoir" hadn't been filled. He was right and righteously angry.   Firefighters complained that there was no water coming out of the hydrants. The fires burned uncontrollably.  In addition to the "investigation" by Newsom, the New York Times reported that the Department of Water and Power, whose job it is to fill the reservoirs, is looking into whether the empty Santa Ynez reservoir in Pacific Palisades made a difference in their fire response. We are not kidding.   See if you can spot a problem for the DWP in the Times' piece. Water for the Pacific Palisades is fed by a 36-inch line that flows by gravity from the larger Stone Canyon Reservoir, said Marty Adams, a former general manager and chief engineer at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. That water line also fills the Santa Ynez Reservoir.  Water from the two reservoirs then sustain the water system for the Pacific Palisades, and also pump systems that fill storage tanks that feed higher-elevation homes in the neighborhood. It was unclear whether officials could have brought the reservoir back online before the fire, after forecasters began warning of dangerous wildfire conditions. Now, I'm no hydrologist or physicist, but wouldn't water pressure be helped by having water in all the tanks and reservoirs? Am I missing something here?  But, what ho! We get an answer. Mr. Adams said an operational reservoir would have been helpful initially to more fully feed the water system in the area. But he also said it appeared that that reservoir and the tanks would have eventually been drained in a fire that was consuming so many homes at once. Municipal water systems are generally designed to sustain water loads for much smaller fires than what consumed Pacific Palisades. [emphasis added] Those are a lot of words to say that more water would have been helpful.  Speaking of not being a hydrologist, I looked up the latest state hydrology report because the global warming crowd desperately hopes to blame "climate change/catastrophe" for the fires. Yeah, well, that dog won't hunt.  If you're new here, from east to west Southern California, there's desert, then mountains, then semi-arid land all the way to the ocean. While the media will tell you this is climate change, this is no change at all. This is the state of play in California all the time. However, California has received a surge in water in the last few years following a drought, but there have been no new reservoirs built to store water since the last one opened in 1979. According the latest hydrologist report, "Major flood control reservoirs are either near their respective top of conservation levels or below." Precipitation has been slow in the first couple of weeks of the year, but the "The statewide accumulated precipitation to end of November 2024 was 5.22 inches, which is 132% of average." The snowpack, which is also where water is stored, and Gavin Newsom lets flow out to the Pacific Ocean to "save" a bait fish, is growing. "The statewide average snow water equivalent (SWE) was 5.1 inches for December 1, which is 168% percent of normal and 19% of April 1 average." In other words, there's been precipitation — remember all those atmospheric rivers? — and if there were more storage there would be more water available for drinking and fighting fires.  I could go into the environmental rules that don't allow much, if any, thinning in forests, road building, otherwise known as fire breaks, reservoir building, and preventative burning, which used to happen all the time to stop these conflagrations that the enviros like to blame on climate, but I do in my other stories.  Here's Newsom touting full reservoirs in Southern California — though the one that counted was empty. Southern California's water supplies are well-equipped to support local communities fighting the wildfires. Many of the state’s largest reservoirs are currently at or above their historic average storage levels for this time of year. pic.twitter.com/A7KZRJKBNA — Governor Newsom (@CAgovernor) January 9, 2025 And here's Newsom excitedly patting himself on the back because he removed dams (and reservoirs) to help tribal fish flows, but what about having enough water to drink and put out fires?  ????? CA Governor Gavin Newsom brags about "the largest dam removal in U.S. history" because you gotta save the fish. Meanwhile, there’s not water to fight fires.pic.twitter.com/CT5bcTYUOH — PNW Conservative (@UnderWashington) January 9, 2025 In addition, California's self-inflicted wounds continue as the state spends less money on necessities and more on the left's luxury beliefs. If you're paying some of your firefighters upwards of $700,000 then you can't afford a lot of them, OK, L.A.? You'll find the highest-paid public servants in L.A. here.  California's profligacy has also caused homeless people to flock to the state. More than 50% of the fire responses are to homeless camps as I point out in my story What Started L.A.'s Firestorm? Hint: It's Not 'Climate Change.' Instead of kicking people out of their encampments so they don't start fires, the response has been to look the other way and/or find someone shelter where druggies don't want to go.  Homeless campers setting a fire destroyed part of an I-10 Freeway overpass in 2023. A mile-long stretch of freeway was closed and Newsom declared a state of emergency for L.A. County.  Voters have taxed themselves billions to "solve the homelessness problem." But there's virtually no accountability, as I wrote in this story headlined: No Wonder Gavin Newsom Didn't Want an Audit to Track $24 Billion in Homeless Spending. In 2014, voters also taxed themselves billions to build more reservoirs. Environmentalists don't want those either.  And the reservoir that counted this week was dry.  Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 14:00

— Jobs Report And AI: "Basically, It's Garbage In, Garbage Out"

 

at 1/12/25 10:50am

Jobs Report And AI: "Basically, It's Garbage In, Garbage Out" By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities Jobs and AI This isn’t about jobs that will be displaced by AI, or jobs that will be created by AI. It is a look at the job market today, the data, and some questions regarding AI on that subject. On Friday, we did a quick post-NFP Report – Look Out Above on Yields. It focused on how the strong data (and the NFP report was quite strong), coupled with growing concerns about the inability to force inflation lower, will keep the Fed on hold. But, as the day went on, after multiple conversations on the market reaction, and while preparing for some presentations next week, I couldn’t get one thought out of my mind: What if markets reacted so poorly because no one believes the data, but everyone believes that the Fed will need to react to the data? It is a simplification. It likely overstates that sentiment, but I think that there is something to it, so we will explore. This will lead us to some questions, and maybe some answers, but definitely some questions about AI. Geopolitical Outlook 2025 If you missed Geopolitical Risks & Opportunities from Tuesday, I highly recommend giving it a quick read. We focus as much on the opportunities as the risks. With geopolitical risk at or near the top of everyone’s list of concerns for 2025, it seemed appropriate to highlight the opportunities. Being too pessimistic about risks might cause you to miss them. Yes, there is an irony about the T-Report warning you about being too pessimistic, but there you have it. We cover a range of topics beyond the usual suspects. Space and Cyber get some treatment through a national security lens. Shipping is an area where we were possibly at risk of being labeled “the boy who cried wolf,” but it is garnering longer conversations. “BRICS and Barter” is highly relevant as we expect to see some tariff and trade activity via executive order in the early days of Trump 2.0. Peace through Strength is an overriding theme, though not sure how Canada, Panama, Mexico, and Greenland feel about that. Back to Jobs After that brief geopolitical detour, let’s get back to the task at hand: understanding the jobs data. Bloomberg had estimates from 75 economists. This is not just a “handful” of estimates. It is a pretty robust sample size. All the big-name firms were in with their estimates. Some of the best independent firms were included in the survey. Bloomberg even takes the time to tabulate who the top 10 are at estimating the number (presumably using track records from prior estimates). This group of highly intelligent, motivated, and typically well-resourced survey respondents had an estimate of 165k for jobs. The top 10 did better (if better means getting closer to the published number) with an average of 186k. I often like to examine the most recent submissions (under the premise that they incorporate the latest data and therefore might be making more of an effort). 16 estimates were provided in the 2 days before the release and they averaged 174k, so a bit better (again, assuming coming closer to the published number is better), but still off. There was exactly 1 estimate higher than the published number. The Bloomberg Economics estimate is ranked 6th and was submitted 2 days before the release. There is some method to the madness of trying to qualitatively analyze the estimates. A whopping 98.7% of analysts had estimates below the official number. Not only were 74 out of 75 below the official data, but also only 5% of the estimates were above 200k. Think what you will about the dismal science, but I find it incredibly difficult to believe that so many really smart, organized, well-resourced, and well-intentioned estimates were all so wrong. It almost defies explanation that this many people could be so wrong – which gives rise, at least to me, that potentially the published number itself is inaccurate. ADP, which presumably has some good, real-time, real-world data, had a miss with only 126k jobs. Far fewer economists bother to estimate ADP, but the distribution looks far more normal with some a little high, some a little low, and a couple of outliers. This is a distribution of estimates that does not indicate gross incompetence. This is one takeaway (a cruel takeaway, and clearly not one that I believe in) from the NFP estimates. Some “Silly” T-Report Items In Messy, But Manageable, we highlighted two recurring thoughts on jobs data: 1. Expect a strong Household Report because it was so bad recently relative to the Establishment Report (check the box on that one). 2. The seasonal adjustments are off and add too many jobs every winter (including data during COVID and due to missing the shift in where construction occurs). We don’t know if we were correct on this assumption, but if we get downward revisions later in the year, we might try taking a small victory lap. These were two basic reasons why we thought we could see better than expected data. In that report, we highlighted that the “whisper” number was even lower than the official estimates (which might also explain the market reaction). We have written a lot about problems with the jobs reports over the years that go far beyond these simple issues. We’ve covered what we believe are flaws in how the Birth/Death model works in a “gig” economy, the low initial survey response rates, etc. Others are harping on these issues more and more. Which brings us back to where we started today’s piece. What if markets reacted so poorly because no one believes the data, but everyone believes that the Fed will need to react to the data? While not today’s topic, we’ve had similar discussions about inflation. It was so clear (to anyone who actually had to buy anything) that the official inflation data wasn’t capturing the extent of inflation in the real world. The “owners’ equivalent rent” was so far behind anything remotely representing timely transactions in the rent market, that it would have been laughable if it didn’t seem to shape Fed policy. The Fed is forced to rely on official data (hard not to given that it is an honest effort, and all that the mainstream media focuses on), but the data isn’t reflective of reality. Does that lead to policy mistakes? I’m not saying that is occurring, but I am saying that when 99% of people get something “wrong” maybe we should rethink the number itself and not their estimates. Instead of trying to evaluate if they did “better” in terms of guessing the actual number, we should be wondering if the number itself should be questioned. Ahhhh…now we can see where AI might come in handy. One Jobs Chart It would seem cruel to rant and rave about the “official” data possibly being wrong without providing at least one chart. I’ve been arguing (I think rationally, some might say hysterically) that the JOLTS Job Openings report is another one where the official data hasn’t caught up to how jobs are really advertised. The number of jobs available “coincidentally” seems much higher since on-line sites are now the primary tool for job searches. I am confident that it is not a coincidence, and that we aren’t accounting for how those platforms are used, hence the overstatement of jobs. But enough on that, I do think that the Hire and Quit rates are at least somewhat useful, particularly the Quit rate. We have argued that the QUIT rate is the closest thing that we have to “crowd sourced” data. People who decide to quit (or not quit) have a lot of information about their job prospects. They know themselves, their fields, and the current state of hiring in their fields. Presumably, they have a sense of geographic hot spots and their willingness to move there if necessary. A QUIT rate below 2% is something that we really only saw as we entered and slowly recovered from the GFC! I’m aware of the issues with identifying a couple of pieces of data (in a slew of data that I generally think is off), but I’m willing to live with that paradox. Also, in a similar vein, it is impossible not to point out that the HIRE rate is pretty abysmal too. AI and Jobs Could AI help get better jobs data? Presumably having good information (accurate and timely) on the labor market would be good for policy makers and decision makers at every level. As we ask that question, we probably need to assume that even if the BLS doesn’t use AI (and they might well use it), at least some of the survey respondents incorporate some amount of AI into their analysis. Let’s just for a moment assume that someone develops an AI-based tool that accurately analyzes the job market. Whatever this AI-based model spits out is the reality of the job market. Would it help or hurt you if it didn’t match the official data? From a trading perspective, over the short-term, I’m not sure how much help it would be to “know” the reality if everyone is going to trade off of the other number. Presumably over time, investors and corporations would benefit from having the actual data, even if policy is based on the potentially erroneous official data. Or would you just make “different” mistakes because policy doesn’t match what you prepared for? You would like to think that it has to help, but when we see downward revisions of a million jobs from the previous year, the market tends to shrug its proverbial shoulders. Is the dirty little secret that no one wants to go back and admit that decision after decision was made on bad data? Basically, admitting to garbage in, garbage out. I have no idea what the answer really is, but now I feel justified in not trying to build an AI system to calculate the real state of the job market since it wouldn’t help me anyways. Clearly, somewhat tongue in cheek, but makes you think, I hope. The corollary of this is if this jobs data is incorrect and will later be revised, but it is an input into your AI, are you getting useful answers? Applying more AI to the BLS process might be good. But it doesn’t fix things like the survey response rate. It just would attempt to potentially use it differently. Presumably “better” but how would we really know? If you thought this section on applying AI to jobs would be easy, you probably know more than I do about AI, but I cannot help but think it highlights two issues: If you get an “answer” that people in charge don’t agree with, what did you accomplish (this seems like a second order effect, that some, but not all, can overcome). If the “answer” is based on bad data, what good is it? I’m nervous that all I’m doing is exposing my still very limited understanding of AI, especially since it doesn’t correlate well with the massive rush we’ve seen to apply it to more and more questions using more and more data. Maybe the data and questions are valid, but I cannot help but wonder. Bottom Line Messy remains a theme. On rates, the 10-year at 4.76% seems like a screaming buy in my head and in my gut, but I cannot get there. I remain nervous for now and think that we proceed towards 5%. Equities will be choppy and will be negatively affected by higher yields, but the driving force will ultimately be understanding what policies Trump 2.0 prioritizes and how likely those policies are to get implemented. Credit supply will remain heavy, but spreads will remain well behaved. I started the report thinking that AI and Jobs were a perfect match, but now I’m less sure. Alternatively, I didn’t think that I’d agree as strongly with the view that the risk of making policy decisions on bad data is not only real, but it is also possibly starting to get priced into the market! Per the Philadelphia Fed, average monthly jobs growth was 130K in 2023. Biden's Dept of Labor reported that this number is 230K. That's a 100K difference that led the Fed on to believe the economy is far stronger than it was. Tomorrow the BLS will reveal its own revised data. pic.twitter.com/S9MkEH8oMI — zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 20, 2024 Alternatively, the official data might be accurate, and we might all be really bad at predicting it, and I’ve wasted your time with this report (though I highly suspect that is not the case). With wildfires and devastation raging in California it is extremely difficult to find a positive way to sign off today’s missive. Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 12:50

— JPMorgan Chase Freezes Employee Comments Amid Return-To-Office Backlash

 

at 1/12/25 10:15am

JPMorgan Chase Freezes Employee Comments Amid Return-To-Office Backlash On Friday, JPMorgan Chase informed its 300,000 employees that the firm is poised to eradicate almost all work-from-home arrangements. The employee response was apparently so voluminous and negative that JPMorgan quickly blocked the comment feature on an in-house article explaining the policy change, the Wall Street Journal reports.  According to Friday's memo from JPMorgan's operating committee -- Chairman/CEO Jamie Dimon and 14 other officers -- hybrid schedules comprising a mix of days at home and days in the office will vanish in a matter of weeks: "Developing effective teams and maintaining a vibrant, healthy culture are clearly key for our success — and we believe best achieved through working together in person. This is why starting in March, we'll be asking most employees currently on a hybrid schedule to return to the office five days a week...We know that some of you prefer a hybrid schedule and respectfully understand that not everyone will agree with this decision. We think it is the best way to run the company." The executives said affected employees would be given 30 days notice before they're expected to retire their workday pajamas and join their colleagues in JPMorgan offices. That wasn't sufficient to head off a backlash, with employees venting via the article-comment feature on an in-house news site. In comments tied to their names, employees bemoaned the looming impact on their child-care and commuting expenses, or their work-life balance, according to the Wall Street Journal. At least one employee of the country's largest lender brainstormed that the solution was to form a union to resist returning to the office. JPMorgan quickly turned off the comment feature, but left many of the already-posted comments intact.  JPMorgan's Friday announcement is the latest step in the firm's gradual extrication from Covid-era work-from-home arrangements. JPMorgan started bringing employees back to offices -- at least on a partial basis -- in June 2021. “[Work-from-home] doesn’t work for people who want to hustle, doesn’t work for culture, doesn’t work for idea generation,” Dimon told a conference in May of that year, throwing out a timeline that would prove inaccurate by more than three years: “By September it’ll look like just it did before. We are getting blowback about coming back internally, but that’s life.” Jamie Dimon and his wife Judith Kent at a White House state dinner for then-Chinese President Hu Jintao (Bloomberg via Getty Images) It wasn't until 2023 that JPMorgan compelled all managing directors to come in five days a week, but it sounds like close to half of all employees are still spending some working hours at home. "As it stands, more than half of our workforce already comes into the office full-time," JPMorgan leaders wrote in Friday's internal announcement, which extolled the advantages of office working environments:   As we've discussed before, the benefits of working together in person are substantial and irreplaceable, and as we spend more time together, the more advantages we gain. Being together greatly enhances mentoring, learning, brainstorming and getting things done. It accelerates decision-making and offers valuable opportunities for spontaneous learning and creativity. It also allows our early career professionals to learn through our apprenticeship model and expand their networks by building connections with peers across the firm. Other major US corporations have preceded JPMorgan in ordering employees back to offices. In September, for example, Amazon said it would require all of its 350,000 employees to return to the office five days a week starting this month. AT&T followed suit with the same timing of the new policy. According to Business Insider, AT&T's implementation is off to a messy start, as employees found there weren't enough open desks, computers, parking spots and even elevator capacity to go around.  Last month, President-elect Donald Trump warned federal employees that they must return to the office or "they're going to be dismissed."  With Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) circling above the legions of overcompensated, underworked federal employees living off the labor of society's producers, perhaps many of them will return to the office only to be dismissed anyway. Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 12:15

— Hedge Fund CIO: Trump Has Blown The Overton Window So Wide Open, Anything Seems Possible

 

at 1/12/25 9:40am

Hedge Fund CIO: Trump Has Blown The Overton Window So Wide Open, Anything Seems Possible By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management “Wayne, would you like to be governor of Canada?” asked Trump, speaking with his buddy Gretsky, tugging at the Overton Window with all his might. “MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN,” the President-Elect tweeted on Truth Social, sending his oldest son north with a box of red hats. He wouldn’t rule out taking the Panama Canal by force. And with each such suggestion, the window widened further. The Overton Window is a concept in political science and sociology that refers to the range of policies or ideas considered acceptable in public discourse at a given time. Like most things in life, I learned about it rather late. “We’re going to be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, which has a beautiful ring that covers a lot of territory, the Gulf of America. What a beautiful name,” Trump said at Mar-a-Lago, prying the window open so wide that nearly anything seems possible, plausible, probable. Say such things enough times, amplify the words using our AI-enabled social media machines, and presto, nothing’s shocking. But not only that, AI will soon converge with quantum computing. “The Willow processor performed a computation in under five minutes that would take one of today’s fastest supercomputers 10 septillion years. It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse,” wrote Google, presenting its latest breakthrough, cracking our perception of reality. As the window widens fully, not only is nothing impossible, but almost anything can seem reasonable. The right and left tails of every distribution lengthen and fatten. And we are left unanchored, adrift, in an endless sea of wild possibility, volatility. “I’m going to give you a report on drones about one day into the administration, because I think it’s ridiculous that they’re not telling you about what’s going on with the drones,” pledged the President-Elect.  Windows John Overton posited that ideas travel through stages, moving from being seen as extreme or unthinkable to becoming widely accepted and adopted as policy. Democracy was once considered unthinkable. Universal suffrage too. Emancipation. Most things that matter have traveled this path. Here are Overton’s six stages: Unthinkable - outside of acceptable thought. Radical - at the edge of discussion. Acceptable - starting to gain traction. Sensible - reasonable and widely discussed. Popular - widely supported. Policy - acted upon and implemented. Overton introduced this framework to describe how the feasibility of a policy idea depends not on its inherent merits but on whether it falls within the range of public acceptance. He argued that public policy is constrained by this “window” of acceptable ideas and politicians tend to stay within the window to maintain public support. But what was yesterday’s unthinkable can become tomorrow’s policy as the window widens, shifts left, or right. And what moves the window is naturally tied into one of life’s great mysteries, the superorganism we call humanity. Overton’s framework helps us make sense of society, markets too, risks, opportunities. I try to look at emerging investment themes through this lens. With each move of the window, power structures shift, capital flows adjust, new winners emerge, incumbents struggle or fail. The nimble survive, thrive. With such stakes, those with influence are desperate to guide the process. Politicians, propagandists, business leaders, religious leaders, union bosses, authors, artists, athletes, advocacy groups, lobbyists, social media influencers, and now AI. There was a time, not so long ago when it was radical or even unthinkable to call network news fake. No longer. And now we openly joke about Canada becoming our 51st state. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, but the window has widened. Greenland’s Prime Minister announced today that he’s ready to speak with Trump. I started trading in 1989 and never in that time has the Overton Window shifted this rapidly across so many dimensions. There’s no precedent for it in modern history. And this dynamic is becoming a new market fundamental. But it’s not just Trump. Javier Millei has thrown open an anti-statist libertarian window that had been nailed shut for as long as I’ve been alive. Argentina had the best performing stock market in the world last year. This is breathtaking change. And in roughly two short years, we went from the FTX apocalypse to serious talk of strategic sovereign Bitcoin reserves. That window is wide open. Intertwined with both Millei and Bitcoin is radical talk of sovereign insolvency throughout the western world. Before it’s over, make no mistake, we’ll be talking about massive entitlement cuts. But for today, that idea is stuck in the unthinkable stage. Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 11:40

— Europe Dominates Global Nuclear Energy Investment

 

at 1/12/25 9:05am

Europe Dominates Global Nuclear Energy Investment The vast energy potential and clean nature of generating power through nuclear reactions have caused a surge in global demand, with nearly every region increasing nuclear energy investment by at least 50% over the last five years. For this graphic, Visual Capitalist has partnered with Global X ETFs to analyze the increasing investments in nuclear energy and identify the regions with the highest levels of investment. Which Region Invested the Most? Over the last five years, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has estimated that over $300 billion has been invested in nuclear energy globally. Here’s how this breaks down by region: Trends in Energy Investment While all regions have invested significantly in nuclear energy, investment is growing further in advanced economies like the U.S., which has pledged an additional $2.7 billion to the nuclear fuel supply chain on top of the $7.5 billion it already invests in nuclear power yearly. Growing global investment in nuclear energy emphasizes its essential role in the shift towards clean energy. South America and Eurasia, in particular, have seen the potential in nuclear power and have chosen to invest heavily, more than doubling their annual investment rates. A Key Role in the Global Energy Transition Nuclear energy’s high energy potential and near emission-less nature make it a key player in the transition toward clean energy. Consequently, many nations are investing heavily in energy sources, and forecasts show that the demand for nuclear-generated electricity will only grow. Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 11:05

— Consolidation Continues: Technical Breakdown Levels To Watch

 

at 1/12/25 8:30am

Consolidation Continues: Technical Breakdown Levels To Watch Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com, So Goes The First Five Days Last week, we addressed the inability to sugarcoat the market’s poor performance heading into year-end. Furthermore, we discussed the “January Barometer,” which sets the year’s tone. To wit: “However, even with a failed Santa rally, the January barometer holds the key for the year. Historically, a positive January has been a bullish sign for stocks. The chart below highlights that the popular Wall Street maxim has stood the test of time. Since 1950, the S&P 500 has posted an average annual return of 16.8% during years that included a positive January. Furthermore, the index generated positive returns in 89% of these years. In contrast, when the index traded lower in January, annual returns dropped to -1.7%, with only 50% of occurrences yielding positive results.” However, before we reach the full month of January, the market must pass the first five days. As of Wednesday, which concluded the first five trading days of January, that market did generate a positive return, rising about 0.62%. As we noted last week, this is the first of two “January Indicators” that have historically, on average, set the tone for the year. Since 1950, the S&P 500 has logged net gains during the first five days of the year 47 times. Of those 47 instances, the index ended the year up in 39 of them. That’s an 83% success rate for the first five-day theory. However, don’t get too excited. Of the 74 completed years since 1950, the S&P 500 has logged a full-year gain 73% of the time. That is likely because stocks are rising as the growth of the global economy continues despite the occasional stumble. The last point is most notable, and most investors often ignore it. The first five days of January and the “January Barometer” are certainly statistically notable, but its failure rate as an indicator for bearish outcomes is also noteworthy. In the 27 years where stocks lost ground during the first five days of the new calendar year, the S&P 500 logged full-year gains in 15 of them anyway. In other words, the indicator only boasts a 45% success rate when predicting full-year losses. It’s also worth noting that some of the market’s very best years since 1950 got started on a bearish foot. For example, the S&P 500 rallied 21% in 1991 despite losing 4.6% of its value during the first five days of that year. Conversely, despite rising 1.1% over the first five days of 2002, the S&P 500 lost more than 22% that year. When the theory is wrong, it can be very wrong. As investors, these calendar-based time frames can give us some psychological comfort. However, the outcomes are likely not as closely tethered to reality as investors want to believe. As we discussed recently, the success rate as a bullish indicator is mainly rooted in that stocks rise more often than they fall. Since 1900, the stock market has “averaged” an 8% annualized rate of return. However, this does NOT mean the market returns 8% every year. As we discussed recently, several key facts about markets should be understood. Stocks rise more often than they fall: Historically, the stock market increases about 73% of the time. The other 27% of the time, market corrections reverse the excesses of previous advances. The table below shows the dispersion of returns over time.” In other words, while the first five trading days have been fruitful, investors should remain focused on the risks that could derail the markets further into the year. This week, we will address the recent increase in volatility that has marked the beginning of the year. Consolidation Continues While Wall Street analysts continue to expect another bullish return year for stocks, December and January have been rather weak as markets consolidate the gains following the election. There are a few reasons for the recent bout of weakness. The first is that the markets were technically overbought heading into December and deviated above current moving averages. Such provides the conditions for a correction or consolidation, but a catalyst was needed. That catalyst needed to be some event that changes the market’s perception about current valuations, expectations, or earnings. In this case, that catalyst occurred on December 18th when the Federal Reserve delivered a more “hawkish” FOMC meeting message that reduced the number of expected rate cuts in 2025. The perceived change in the Fed’s policy led to a jump in bond yields on the long end of the yield curve. Compounding that change in sentiment was stronger-than-expected economic data, which further supported concerns of inflationary pressures and reduced Fed policy changes. The Federal Reserve’s modest shift in tone, when combined with an exuberant and overbought market, the ensuing consolidation should not have been unexpected. However, more bearish headlines have populated the media coverage recently, which happens whenever markets cease to rise. As of late, this has been the case, further increasing selling pressure in the markets. However, despite the rise in negativity, the market remains range-bound and holds above the 100-DMA moving average support. Furthermore, this consolidation over the last few weeks has fully reversed the overbought and deviated conditions. That said, there are certainly reasons why this consolidation process could last longer. However, we are at levels more consistent with at least a short-term reflexive recovery. A good example is indicators like the percentage of stocks with bullish buy signals, which is at levels where stocks usually find some buying support. Secondly, our technical gauge, comprising multiple weekly technical indicators from relative strength to momentum, has fallen to levels more consistent with short-term tradeable rallies. In the near term, this weakness tends to beget more weakness. However, the “good news” is that such low readings have often marked the bottom of market corrections and consolidations. Technically, nothing is “wrong” with the markets, and the overall bullish trend remains. The consolidation process will likely pass, and more constructive price action will take hold. However, investors should always “err to the side of caution” and understand that there are times when a consolidation process can turn into a more significant correction. How will we know the difference? Technical Breakdown Levels To Watch As we will discuss next, some issues could derail the more bullish expectations for 2025. However, one of the investors’ most significant mistakes is tied to the psychological bias of “loss aversion.” What is loss aversion? “Loss aversion is a tendency in behavioral finance where investors are so fearful of losses that they focus on trying to avoid a loss more so than on making gains. The more one experiences losses, the more likely they are to become prone to loss aversion. Research on loss aversion shows that investors feel the pain of a loss more than twice as strongly as they feel the enjoyment of making a profit.” – Corporate Finance Institute According to CFI, examples of “loss aversion” include: Investing in low-return, guaranteed investments over more promising investments. Not selling a stock when your current rational analysis of the stock indicates that it should be. Selling a stock that has gone up in price to realize a gain of any amount, even though analysis indicates investors should hold the stock. Telling oneself that an investment is not a loss because the sell transaction has not occurred. Even more notable is that many investors avoid bull markets, expecting the eventual bear market decline to wipe them out. These are all emotional decisions driven by either actual or expected price declines. However, bear markets rarely happen all at once. In most bear markets, the market showed plenty of warning signs well before the “bear” came out of hibernation. Such gave investors ample time to exit the market, reduce risks, and raise cash to minimize the eventual reversion to capital. Currently, there are warning signs we should be paying close attention to. For example, the number of stocks in long-term uptrends continues to dwindle, as noted by Sentimentrader.com this week: “The latest indicator highlighting the dwindling participation comes from the percentage of stocks in the S&P 500 trading above their 200-day average. For only the 8th time since 1928, fewer than 52% of the members held above their long-term averages as the S&P 500 resided within 3% of a high. As shown in the chart below, when fewer than 52% of stocks are above their 200-day average or fewer than 57% exhibit a rising 200-day average, annualized S&P 500 returns decline to 4.2% and 5.2%, respectively, well below the returns seen above these levels.“ Secondly, credit spreads suggest that market risk is well elevated. Credit spreads have NOT yet signaled market stress; however, they tend to be a strong leading indicator of bearish market downturns. The investment-grade bond to AAA spread is near its lowest level. The vertical bars denote when that spread increased, and markets generally suffered downturns either coincidentally or lagged by some period. Furthermore, we can look at the spread between the 10-year US Treasury and “junk bonds.” As the chart shows, when this spread is at very low levels, as it is currently, and rises, the market eventually undergoes a corrective process. While watching participation and credit spreads certainly warns investors to reduce portfolio risk, the market will also provide clues. There are several important support levels that, if broken, will bring increasing selling pressure into the market. The first level sits at 5870. If that level fails, prices will search for support near 5619, coinciding with the July 2024 peak just before the “Yen Carry Trade” event. If the market reaches that level, it will likely be oversold enough to provide investors with a counter rally to reduce risk further. However, if the market rallies and fails, the next support levels become more critical. 5400 and 4971 are going to start breaching levels that will trigger further algorithmic selling and could lead to a more aggressive selloff. Investors should be fully risk-reduced if the market starts breaching these levels. A corrective move would likely encompass a 25% decline from peak to trough. While such a decline should be expected at some point, there is no guarantee that a significant correction will happen this year or even next. An event or catalyst is needed to reverse the market’s earnings expectations to cause a reversal in market valuations. Given currently elevated valuations, such an event could lead to a significant price realignment. Therefore, watching breadth and credit spreads will indicate whether a current consolidation is just a consolidation or the beginning of a larger corrective process. Speaking of risks to the markets and valuations. Another issue on our radar is worth discussing. Yields And Equity Risk Premiums Over the past few weeks, two entirely “sentiment-driven“ things have plagued the markets: concerns that “tariffs” could lead to inflationary pressures and valuations. The concern over tariffs has created a feedback loop in the economy. Since the election, producers have been buying products to get ahead of tariffs, which increased demand for those products, pushing prices higher, as seen in recent ISM reports. In other words, the fear of tariffs creating inflation caused inflation by their actions. However, as discussed in this article, tariffs haven’t caused inflation historically. That “sentiment shift” on inflationary pressures has caused bond yields to rise as hedge funds and portfolio managers shift positioning rather than reflecting underlying fundamentals. As Michael Lebowitz noted this week: We created a relatively simple but highly effective proprietary fundamental yield model based on inflation and economic growth. Our bond yield model only uses two inputs. Inflation—The Cleveland Fed Inflation Expectations Model. This model is unique as it uses actual inflation data and market—and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. The combination of actual and expected price changes provides a complete inflation picture. Economic activity– Real GDP. Real GDP strips out inflation to estimate economic activity without the impact of price changes. We then ran a multiple regression analysis of the two inputs with yields. Doing so created a significant correlation with an r-squared of .9702.The line graph comparing the expected model yield to actual yields shows that the model yield is 3.78% versus the actual yield of 4.57%. The difference of .79% is the term premium.  In other words, the recent yield run has little to do with the economic fundamentals and more with sentiment. Therefore, as the economic fundamentals take hold and inflation continues to decline towards the Fed’s target of 2%, the excess premium will eventually be reversed from the market. As Michael concludes: “So why are bond yields rising? During the fourth quarter, the ten-year UST yield rose by 62 basis points. 52 basis points were due to the rising term premium, leaving only 10 basis points as the result of economic activity and inflation. The two culprits behind the jump in the term premium were the fear of deficits and inflation. Even with no change to the fundamental factors, a sizeable return can be had in longer-term bonds if the premium diminishes. Furthermore, those returns could be supercharged if a recession, economic weakness, and/or a return to 2% or less inflation occurs. Bond investors will most likely be rewarded handsomely when economic fundamentals normalize and the term premium fades. Until then, sentiment, not economic data, is the key factor impacting rates.” Secondly, valuations are becoming more of a concern for markets, particularly as the equity risk premium declines. Equity risk premiums (ERP) are also driven by sentiment. As investors expect increased asset prices, they are willing to be “paid less” for the “risk” they are taking to own equities. However, with bond yields now significantly above the ERP, there is an increasing probability that investors, at some point, may opt for being “paid” by owning bonds. The stock and bond markets are currently detached from the underlying fundamentals. If, or rather when, a reversion takes hold, the decline in equity risk will be offset by the rise in bond prices as yields realign with economic fundamentals. This has been the case, particularly when rates rise significantly into an overvalued market. There is little reason to expect this time to be any different. Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 10:30

— Palisades Fire Threatens New Upscale Communities As Santa Ana Winds Return

 

at 1/12/25 7:55am

Palisades Fire Threatens New Upscale Communities As Santa Ana Winds Return The Los Angeles Fire Department continued battling four major blazes that have burned over 38,000 acres and destroyed over 10,000 structures. Another round of Santa Ana winds is expected from Monday through Wednesday, elevating fears that the fires will continue to spread. The Palisades Fire has placed Brentwood, Encino, Bel Air, Sherman Oaks, and West Los Angeles at severe risk. Additionally, Malibu has lost a third of its eastern edge to the Palisades Fire. Here's the latest size and containment of the four major fires: Palisades Fire: 23,654 acres burned, 11% contained Eaton Fire: 14,117 acres burned, 15% contained Kenneth Fire: 1,052 acres burned, 90% contained Hurst Fire: 799 acres burned, 76% contained Fire Map (courtesy of LA Times):   On Saturday, the Palisades Fire threatened the communities of Brentwood, Encino, Bel Air, Sherman Oaks, and West Los Angeles as the inferno continued to spread. Very tense moments unfolded as the LAFD battled out-of-control flames that almost crossed the 405 freeway into parts of Bel Air. ?? “Large-scale fires in Los Angeles may have been caused by a broken wire of one of the power lines” - Bloomberg pic.twitter.com/k3ElpVWIHY — Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) January 12, 2025 Los Angeles looks like an apocalypse pic.twitter.com/Xod6Dzw4kU — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 12, 2025 Today will be another challenging day for LAFD personnel. Strong Santa Ana winds are expected to return to Los Angeles and Ventura counties later this evening through the first half of the new week.  The National Weather Service issued a red flag warning for the area, with wind gusts expected between 50 and 75 mph. "The very dry vegetation combined with the prolonged extreme fire weather conditions will support rapid spread and erratic behavior of any new or existing fires," NWS wrote in the warning. The latest headlines from NBC Los Angeles: Almost 35,000 still without power in LA County Firefighters fend off Palisades Fire's threat to Mandeville Canyon, Encino Malibu has lost about 1/3 of its eastern edge, mayor says 2 arrested for curfew violations near Brentwood home of Vice President Harris Death toll in Southern California wildfires climbs to 16 Latest Zero Hedge headlines: 10 Dead, 10,000 Structures Burned In Los Angeles Area Inferno As Fire Damage Could Exceed $150 Billion "Do Not Panic Buy": Officials Urge Calm As LA Fire Crisis Disrupts Main Fuel Pipeline To Las Vegas "We're Not Screwing Around": LA Sheriff Declares Curfew Amid Arson & Looting Chaos California-Based Insurer Crashes Amid Billions In LA Area Fire-Damage Losses Arson Threats A "Major Issue" In Wildfire-Ravaged Los Angeles County California Imposes 1-Year Insurance Cancellation Freeze In Areas Ravaged By Wildfires Palisades Fire Crisis Intensifies Ahead Of Windstorm Event Early Next Week Three Military Humvees, Machine Gun Mounts, Stolen Outside Of Los Angeles Early Sunday morning, on Truth Social, President-elect Trump criticized woke Californian politicians, calling them "incompetent" and claiming they "have no idea how to put" the fires out.  "Thousands of magnificent houses are gone, and many more will soon be lost. There is death all over the place. This is one of the worst catastrophes in the history of our Country. They just can't put out the fires. What's wrong with them?" Trump said.  The fires are still raging in L.A. The incompetent pols have no idea how to put them out. Thousands of magnificent houses are gone, and many more will soon be lost. There is death all over the place. This is one of the worst catastrophes in the history of our Country. They just… — Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) January 12, 2025 Days ago, Elon Musk wrote on X the massive loss of mansions across LA has primarily been a failure of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass... Exactly. Climate change risk is real, just much slower than alarmists claim. The immense loss of homes in LA is primarily due to: 1. Nonsensical overregulation that prevented creating fire breaks and doing brush clearing. 2. Bad governance at the state and local level that… https://t.co/KByGVCjQ8N — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 9, 2025 Newsom, a far-left radical, was Community Noted on X.  A ridiculous lie. We have doubled the size of our firefighting army, built the world’s largest aerial firefighting fleet, and increased the forest management ten-fold since taking office. Time to serve these folks the facts. https://t.co/qITPcQDTKk — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) January 11, 2025 Meanwhile, Mayor Bass is a Marxist.  Karen Bass is a Marxist who praised Fidel Castro and Communist Party USA leaders. Now her fire response makes sense. pic.twitter.com/JGyD7KK3xO — Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) January 10, 2025 And the people in power in LA are far-left social justice warriors who made important decisions about governing through an "equity lens."  "What attracted me most to the role was social equity. It's important for me that everything we do is with an equity lens and social justice and writing the wrongs that we've done in the past," Janisse Quiñones, the head of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, recently stated on a local radio station.  ? The LA Water Chief who is paid $750,000 a year: “What attracted me most to the role was social equity. It’s important for me that everything we do is with an equity lens and social justice and writing the wrongs that we’ve done in the past.” pic.twitter.com/FmlLFsHuba — Autism Capital ? (@AutismCapital) January 11, 2025 There will be a major investigation into why the massive reservoir in Pacific Palisades was not filled, knowing about dry conditions, high winds, and elevated fire risk. Plus, Mayor Bass slashed the budget for the LAFD.  ? JUST IN: The Pacific Palisades reservoir was EMPTY AND OFFLINE when the firestorm exploded, per LA Times This is CRIMINAL. The reservoir holds 117 million gallons of water, and would’ve given firefighters ample pressure to effectively fight the blaze. Overpaid Dept. of… pic.twitter.com/afvRlbLJ73 — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) January 10, 2025 “This was supposed to be the water to put out the Palisades fire.” The FP’s Austyn Jeffs visits the Santa Ynez Reservoir that has reportedly been empty since February 2024. pic.twitter.com/DwO5OrYhWk — The Free Press (@TheFP) January 11, 2025 Meanwhile, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, used the typical Democratic Party playbook to deflect from the incompetence (DEI = DIE) of California politicians, using talking points that described California wildfires as "what a climate emergency looks like." Markey should be called "Malarkey Markey"...  Cry more Edward. Climate scam is for money. It’s always about money. Drill baby drill! Make the USA energy independent. pic.twitter.com/nIzDNPVhoA — Molly Pitcher (@AmericanMama86) January 11, 2025 About man-made climate change. Homeless man arrested for arson after setting fire in Pioneer Park in Los Angeles County. The fire last night was quickly extinguished. Jose Carranza-Escobar admitted to setting the fire. pic.twitter.com/2f9ncl6Lt5 — BNO News Live (@BNODesk) January 11, 2025 "Incompetence in the limit is indistinguishable from sabotage," Musk wrote on X on Saturday.  Incompetence in the limit is indistinguishable from sabotage — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 11, 2025 This time, Democrats won't be able to hide behind climate change farce. Real accountability is coming. People died, thousands lost everything, and even liberals in LA are turning on their far-left politicians who were never actual real competent managers, to begin with, just social justice warriors with 'equity' Marxism pom-poms. Remember, Marxists hate capitalism.  Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 09:55

— Trump Energizes Greenland Independence Movement, Divorce Agreement Coming Up

 

at 1/12/25 7:20am

Trump Energizes Greenland Independence Movement, Divorce Agreement Coming Up Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com, Greenland is making moves towards independence. A two-year commission underway. Independence Movement Picks Up Steam The Wall Street Journal reports Trump’s Talk of Buying Greenland Energizes Island’s Independence Movement Greenland is a self-ruling part of the Kingdom of Denmark. The Danish government says it is willing to grant Greenland full independence if there is local support, and recent Greenlandic elections and polls indicate there is. Trump’s recent threat of a trade war with Denmark is changing the negotiating dynamic, says Ulrik Pram Gad, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies. The Danish government now might be more open to agreeing a divorce deal that includes some continued payments to ease Greenland’s path to independence, he says. “My prognosis is that the Danish government will accept it in the next few years,” he says. An independent Greenland would then be free to forge its own security or economic ties with the U.S., Denmark or anyone else. In April, Greenland goes to the polls in a vote that could fire the starter gun on independence for the territory of 57,000 people. The last time elections were held, pro-independence parties got 80% of the vote. The prime minister of Greenland made a New Year’s address to the nation saying that a draft constitution for the country has been prepared and that the independence process should be triggered. “It is now time to take the next step for our country,” Múte Egede said. “Like other countries in the world, we must work to remove the obstacles to cooperation—which we can describe as the shackles of the colonial era—and move on.”  A 2009 Danish law lays out how Greenland can take the first step in the process: It must notify the Danish government, the two must negotiate a divorce agreement and the deal must then be ratified by a referendum in Greenland. The Greenlandic government has commissioned legal experts to work out the details of how step one would work with a two- year deadline. Pro-independence campaigners in Greenland would like to adopt a “free association” model, similar to the relationship between the Marshall Islands and the U.S. or the Cook Islands and New Zealand.  Some of Trump’s advisers have privately acknowledged a sale of Greenland is unlikely, but an expansion of U.S. military and financial presence on the island is a possibility. A poll in 2021 showed that 69% of Greenlanders favored more cooperation with the U.S., compared with 39% who favored tighter cooperation with China. Trump’s Offer to Buy Greenland Some people thought I was crazy when I posted Trump’s Offer to Buy Greenland Is Not as Preposterous as it Sounds A free association model may be more likely, but don’t rule out an outright purchase. There are only about 59,000 Greenland citizens. I proposed an offer of $2 million each. That would only be $118 billion. Greenland would be cheap at double the price if I am correct about the mineral deposits. Critical Materials Risk Assessment Our Department of Energy has placed some of the rare earth minerals we need for weapons systems, wind turbines, batteries, semiconductors, cell phones, and aircraft on a critical materials list. Nearly all of them are mined or refined in China. Please consider a Critical Materials Risk Assessment by the US Department of Energy If Trump increases tariffs on China by 60 percent, China could easily shut down rare earth exports. I have been warning about this for years China controls more than 80% of the world’s supply of tungsten and about 90% of global magnesium production China has an effective monopoly over processing major heavy rare earths – Dysprosium (Dy) and Terbium (Tb), and Light Rare Earths – Neodymium (Nd) and Praseodymium (Pr).   China Halts Rare Earth Exports On December 3, I commented China Halts Rare Exports Used by US Technology Companies and the Military This is China’s advance salvo at Trump tariffs. It comes one day after the Biden administration expanded curbs on the sale of advanced American technology to China. The US gets rare earths from allies who get them from China. But don’t rule out the possibility that China shuts off all access. Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 09:20

— Bulgaria And Romania Join The Schengen Area

 

at 1/12/25 6:45am

Bulgaria And Romania Join The Schengen Area On January 1, 2025, Bulgaria and Romania became full members of the Schengen area of free movement, after a thirteen-year-long wait. While controls have been lifted at airports and seaports since March 2024, these have now been removed at land borders too. The accession was finally made after Austria dropped its veto last December, which until then had opposed the entry of the two countries to the passport free area. Temporary controls will continue to operate at their land borders for the next six months, while the border between Bulgaria and Turkey is set to be reinforced. Even as the Schengen Area has expanded, temporary controls have been reintroduced along several internal borders. For example, Germany currently has such controls along the border with each of its nine neighboring countries. As Statista's Anna Fleck reports, according to the European Commission, members of the Schengen agreement are allowed to temporarily introduce border controls at internal borders in the event of a serious threat to public policy or internal security and must be applied as a last resort measure or in exceptional situations, for a limited time period only. There are a number of issues cited for the need for the temporary border crossings currently in place, including security, migration control, public safety and, in the case of Denmark, Russian attempts of espionage. The introduction of border checks has sparked backlash from groups such as the student organization AEGEE, which says that reintroducing controls could foster suspicion between states and lead to discrimination, as certain groups could face heightened scrutiny based on nationality or ethnicity. You will find more infographics at Statista The Schengen area was created in 1995, after five states (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg) signed the Schengen Agreement in 1985, followed by the Schengen Convention in 1990. The Schengen area is an area of free movement of people, which also guarantees its member states enhanced protection at external borders. The majority of EU Member States have gradually joined the Schengen area, which now includes 25 of the 27 EU Member States (Ireland and Cyprus are not currently members), as well as four non-EU Member States: Iceland (joined in 1999), Norway (1999), Switzerland (2008) and Liechtenstein (2011). Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 08:45

— The Walls Close In On Zelensky

 

at 1/12/25 6:10am

The Walls Close In On Zelensky Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com, The walls are closing in on Ukraine’s President Zelensky. In a meeting with allies in Germany this week, the embattled leader requested NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine. “Our goal is to find as many instruments as possible to force Russia into peace. I believe that such deployment of partners’ contingents is one of the best instruments. Let’s be more practical in making it possible.” Nothing about this proposal is “practical”. Even if Zelensky is speaking about peacekeeping troops as part of a settlement, which isn’t clear, it’s still a fundamentally crazy idea. Simply put, it would bring us to the brink of nuclear war. Of course, this isn’t the first time Zelensky has suggested that NATO should send troops to fight and die in this war. But this latest instance is noteworthy because it comes just ahead of President Trump’s inauguration. Given the circumstances, the move signals desperation. Trump Stands Firm President Trump has stood his ground on this issue thus far. Just this week he acknowledged that NATO’s courtship of Ukraine was a major cause of the war, noting that if Ukraine were to join the Western military alliance, “then Russia has somebody right on their doorstep, and I could understand their feelings about that.” Trump correctly blames Biden for promising Ukraine NATO membership and escalating the war. In early December, Trump’s team conveyed the message that Ukraine would need to make major concessions to end the war. Those concessions will probably involve giving up land already captured by Russia, agreeing to a form of disarmament, and pledging to never join NATO. This was an important shift, as it became clear even to the biggest hawks that Ukraine wasn’t going to recapture much, if any lost territory. And forget about Crimea. Trump’s views on Ukraine are certainly unique in Washington D.C., But his base is ready for the war to end, and this issue was one of the keys to his landslide victory. Meanwhile, it’s unclear whether Zelensky and the Ukrainian deep state would agree to such concessions. It’s also unclear whether they truly have a say in the matter, unless they’re prepared to go it alone against Russia. But it’s also not clear if Russia would agree to such a deal. Putin could insist upon an end to sanctions on Russia, and a return of their frozen assets. There’s also a chance that Russia won’t want to give Ukraine a break to re-arm itself. NATO has already pulled a fast one on Russia once, during the Minsk accords from 2014-2021. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has admitted this peace deal was in actuality a stall tactic to give Ukraine more time to build its military capabilities. So President Putin may want to press the attack, eliminate Ukraine’s military capabilities, and gain more territory. Russia is advancing along almost the entire frontline. Its use of hypersonic missiles, artillery, drones, and guided glide bombs has devastated Ukrainian strongholds. Ukrainian forces have been forced to fall back into far less favorable defensive positions, and this does not bode well for their outlook. True Costs The waste of life in this conflict is exponentially larger than the public has been told. In December of 2024, President Zelensky claimed that only 43,000 of his nation’s troops had been killed in the war so far. In truth, upwards of 600,000 Ukrainian soldiers have likely died. On paper, the Ukrainian army is over one million strong. But across the line, foxholes are empty. Where are all the soldiers? Russia has likely lost at least 100,000 soldiers KIA as well, though they haven’t released any specific numbers. When the truth about this war comes out, it will shock anyone who is still paying attention at that point. Make no mistake. Trump has his work cut out for him. But he is the only person in the world today who stands a chance at ending this war. I believe he’ll get it done. But the cost in terms of geopolitical capital may be high. Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 08:10

— Palisades Fire Crisis Intensifies Ahead Of Windstorm Event Early Next Week

 

at 1/12/25 3:00am

Palisades Fire Crisis Intensifies Ahead Of Windstorm Event Early Next Week Update (2005ET):  LA Times provided the latest on all four fires raging across the LA County area: Palisades Fire: Burned 22,660 acres and numerous homes, businesses and landmarks in Pacific Palisades and westward along Pacific Coast Highway, toward Malibu. As of 10:30 a.m. Saturday morning, the fire was 11% contained. Many parts of Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Santa Monica, Calabasas, Brentwood and Encino are under evacuation orders or warnings. More than 12,000 structures remain threatened. Officials estimate that more than 5,300 structures, including many homes, have been damaged or destroyed. Eaton Fire: Burned 13,956 acres and many structures in Altadena and Pasadena. Additional evacuation orders were mandated Thursday afternoon when fire climbed toward Mt. Wilson. Other mandatory evacuations were lifted as city officials notified residents in Glenoaks Canyon and Chevy Chase Canyon that it was safe to return to their homes. As of 8 a.m. Saturday morning, the fire was 15 % contained, on Friday, it was only at 3%. Officials say 7,000 structures have been damaged in the fire. Kenneth Fire: Burned 1,052 acres near the border of Los Angeles and Ventura counties. As of 8 a.m. Saturday morning, the fire was 80% contained, according to Cal Fire. All evacuation warnings have been lifted for the fire. Hurst Fire: Burned 779 acres in the area around Sylmar. Evacuation orders have been lifted. As of 8 a.m. Saturday, the fire was 76% contained, according to Cal Fire. Here are the latest LA Times headlines regarding the inferno:  All-out aerial assault works to save homes in Brentwood, Encino as Palisades fire approaches LA County Supervisor invites Trump to see fire damage UCLA students on high alert, but not under evacuation orders 1,680 National Guard troops now helping in fire zone LADWP said 20% of fire hydrants sustained a loss of pressure After faulty cell alerts during fire emergency, LA County overhauls its system High winds, low humidity expected to fuel fires through Wednesday: 'Not looking good' Death toll from LA firestorms rises to 13 Accuweather reported, "Santa Ana winds will pick up Saturday night into Sunday morning in Southern California, but a possibly strong wind event is coming early next week as wildfires continue."  He's not wrong. That's why local elections matter. We suspect a political shift is on the horizon. If you live in Pacific Palisades, you paid your dues... Doctors, lawyers, agents, entrepreneurs, etc. You believed in the American Dream. You paid your taxes. You trusted the system. Then you adopted luxury beliefs like Affirmative Action and DEI and Climate Change™ and… pic.twitter.com/nYf30k1jEI — John LeFevre (@JohnLeFevre) January 11, 2025 Good point.  But have you LOOKED at the prices of homes in Palisades? 5-50 MILLION DOLLARS… if insurance is forced to insure these homes the rest of us pay the price. Build multimillion dollar homes in fire prone hills at your own risk, not mine. https://t.co/6iGQaXEwZh pic.twitter.com/jHIU6z0vsR — Kim Iversen ?? (@KimIversenShow) January 11, 2025 Apocalypse. The Los Angeles Pacific Palisades fires have turned one of the most expensive, beautiful and iconic cities in the world into an apocalypse zone Somehow, Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass still have jobs Someone make it make sense pic.twitter.com/g6roQJ5X6R — Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) January 11, 2025 Via Daily Mail: Two men are said to have been caught on camera dumping gasoline and setting it alight immediately before the devastating Palisades fire broke out, DailyMail.com has learned exclusively. A resident of the ritzy celeb-packed area reported the video to a senior firefighter once the flames had started consuming the area. About that 'climate change' narrative pushed by far-left corporate media.  AI... My heart will go on ?? pic.twitter.com/Qu8GwS7la8 — JonC Memes (@JonCovering) January 11, 2025 *   *   *  The Palisades Fire, Eaton Fire, Kenneth Fire, Hurst Fire, and Lidia Fire have scorched over 27,000 acres, destroyed 12,000 structures, claimed at least 11 lives, and evacuated more than 150,000 people. Containment for the two largest fires, the Palisades Fire and Eaton Fire, remains in the mid-to-high single digits. Evacuation orders were issued overnight for Mandeville Canyon as the Palisades Fire advanced toward the Interstate 405 freeway.  California Governor Gavin Newsom is calling for censorship of “misinformation” on the Los Angeles Fires He wants censorship because he is directly responsible. Here’s drone footage of the Pacific Palisades fire destruction. This is a result of Gavin Newsom. He should resign. pic.twitter.com/SrPtIfRyc0 — Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) January 10, 2025 Firefighters continued battling the Palisades, Eaton, and other fires. A red flag warning via the National Weather Service was still in effect in the early morning hours.  LA Times provides the latest on all five fires raging across the LA County area: Palisades Fire: Burned 21,317 acres and numerous homes, businesses and landmarks in Pacific Palisades and westward along Pacific Coast Highway, toward Malibu. As of 5 a.m. Friday morning, the fire was 8% contained, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. On Friday night, officials upgraded an evacuation warning to a mandatory order from Sunset Boulevard north to Encino Reservoir, from the 405 Freeway west to Mandeville Canyon. New evacuation warnings were issued for areas to the east of the 405 Freeway, north of West Sunset Boulevard and south of Mulholland Drive, along with areas south of Ventura Boulevard and east of Louise Avenue in Encino. Eaton Fire: Burned 14,117 acres and many structures in Altadena and Pasadena. Additional evacuation orders were mandated Thursday afternoon when fire climbed toward Mt. Wilson. Other mandatory evacuations were lifted as city officials notified residents in Glenoaks Canyon and Chevy Chase Canyon that it was safe to return to their homes. Gov. Gavin Newsom posted on X on Friday morning that the fire was 3% contained as of 7:30 a.m. Kenneth fire: Burned 1,052 acres near the border of Los Angeles and Ventura counties. As of 6 a.m. Friday morning, the fire was 50% contained, according to Cal Fire. All evacuation warnings have been lifted for the fire. Hurst Fire: Burned 771 acres in the area around Sylmar. Evacuation orders have been lifted. As of 8 p.m. Thursday night, the fire was 70% contained, according to Cal Fire. Lidia Fire: Burned 394 acres in Acton and is 98% contained, according to Cal Fire. Fire Map (LA Times) The latest concern has been a large flare-up in the Palisades area that prompted new evacuation orders from Sunset Boulevard north to Encino Reservoir, and from the 405 Freeway west to Mandeville Canyon. This area includes Brentwood and the foothills of the San Fernando Valley.  LA Times warned: "The Palisades fire can now be seen across Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley, an unsettling development as officials worried about the fire expanding into neighborhoods in Encino and Brentwood and possibly jumping the 405 freeway into Bel Air."  Josh Sautter, president of the Encino Neighborhood Council, told the media outlet that the latest round of evacuation orders sent panic through the community.  "I don't think that people here really saw that it was coming," Sautter said, adding, "We didn't think that it was something that would really affect us — until it did." Here are the latest LA Times headlines regarding the inferno:  Glow of Palisades fire seen across LA's San Fernando Valley; swaths of Encino, Brentwood told to evacuate Latest Palisades fire evacuation order sends shock wave through Encino LA County declares health emergency due to smoke and ash State to probe why Pacific Palisades reservoir was offline, empty when firestorm exploded Newsom orders investigation into dry fire hydrants that hampered firefighting in LA. Insurance commissioner issues moratorium on home policy cancellations in fire zones 'We don't know half of it.' LA firestorm death toll expected to rise as searchers go door to door Latest Zero Hedge headlines: 10 Dead, 10,000 Structures Burned In Los Angeles Area Inferno As Fire Damage Could Exceed $150 Billion "Do Not Panic Buy": Officials Urge Calm As LA Fire Crisis Disrupts Main Fuel Pipeline To Las Vegas "We're Not Screwing Around": LA Sheriff Declares Curfew Amid Arson & Looting Chaos California-Based Insurer Crashes Amid Billions In LA Area Fire-Damage Losses Arson Threats A "Major Issue" In Wildfire-Ravaged Los Angeles County California Imposes 1-Year Insurance Cancellation Freeze In Areas Ravaged By Wildfires Meanwhile, Gov. Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass find themselves in the hot seat as their own liberal voter base turns against them, blaming the radical politicians for the spread of fire due to their massive mismanagement of budgets.  A Fox News report found that Newsom slashed funding for wildfire and forest resilience by more than $100 million last year. He signed the budget covering the 2024-25 fiscal year in June.  Even the left-leaning USA Today reported that new budget documents showed the mayor reduced the Los Angeles Fire Department's budget from $837 million in fiscal year 2024 to $819 million in fiscal year 2025.  In December, LAFD sent a report to the mayor and city council warning that " these budgetary reductions have adversely affected the Department's ability to maintain core operations."  The destruction caused by the wildfires is about twice the size of Manhattan, and growing, and in our view, will be a political disaster for both Newsom and Bass.  Elon Musk wrote on X the huge loss of mansions across LA has primarily been a failure of Newsom and Bass... Exactly. Climate change risk is real, just much slower than alarmists claim. The immense loss of homes in LA is primarily due to: 1. Nonsensical overregulation that prevented creating fire breaks and doing brush clearing. 2. Bad governance at the state and local level that… https://t.co/KByGVCjQ8N — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 9, 2025 On Friday evening, Newsom was trying to salvage his dumpster fire political career by inviting President-elect Donald Trump to California.  .@realDonaldTrump, as you prepare to assume the presidency once more, I invite you to come to California. The hundreds of thousands of Americans – displaced from their homes and fearful for the future – deserve to see us all working together in their best interests, not… pic.twitter.com/R3C7cGqdBh — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) January 10, 2025 Newsom also noted on X, "I am calling for an independent investigation into the loss of water pressure to local fire hydrants and the reported unavailability of water supplies from the Santa Ynez Reservoir."  NEW: I am calling for an independent investigation into the loss of water pressure to local fire hydrants and the reported unavailability of water supplies from the Santa Ynez Reservoir. We need answers to ensure this does not happen again and we have every resource available to… pic.twitter.com/R0vq0wwZph — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) January 10, 2025 Newsom is getting angry.  This is not true. https://t.co/70J4YCF4Nw — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) January 11, 2025 Community Noted. A ridiculous lie. We have doubled the size of our firefighting army, built the world’s largest aerial firefighting fleet, and increased the forest management ten-fold since taking office. Time to serve these folks the facts. https://t.co/qITPcQDTKk — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) January 11, 2025 It's not surprising at all that liberal Californians, including Hollywood elites, voted in Mayor Bass, a Marxist! Karen Bass is a Marxist who praised Fidel Castro and Communist Party USA leaders. Now her fire response makes sense. pic.twitter.com/JGyD7KK3xO — Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) January 10, 2025 LA Mayor Karen Bass is a trained Marxist terrorist who traveled to Cuba dozens of times, praised communist dictators and allied with the literal terror group that bombed the US Capital. One has to assume she’s burning LA on purpose. Bass should be in jailpic.twitter.com/4UmSK4Z47p — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) January 9, 2025 Local elections matter—what were you all thinking? Also, all of this proves that you can not rely on gov't....  Tyler Durden Sun, 01/12/2025 - 05:00

— The Rise Of News 'Influencers' And Where They Can Be Found

 

at 1/11/25 5:15pm

The Rise Of News 'Influencers' And Where They Can Be Found The 2024 presidential campaign that resulted in the re-election of Donald Trump was unique in many ways. One thing it demonstrated is the increased power that individual voices, first and foremost on social media, have in comparison to the actual “fourth power”, the news media. And it’s not just mega influencers like Elon Musk or Joe Rogan, people with tens of millions of followers on social media, who shape the political views of many, especially young people these days, but also thousands of smaller-scale news influencers. These are people with large social media followings, who regularly post about politics and current events but are, more often than not, unaffiliated with an actual news organization. As trust in news organization has eroded in recent years, news influencers have become more popular for those seeking independent voices outside the often-maligned “mainstream media”. As Statista's Felix Richter shows in the chart below, according to a Pew Research Center report commissioned by the Pew-Knight Initiative, 21 percent of U.S. adults regularly get news from news influencers, with young adults significantly more likely to do so than older ones. You will find more infographics at Statista 37 percent of 18 to 29- year-olds regularly get news from influencers versus just 15 percent of 50 to 64-year-olds and 7 percent of those aged 65 and above. While it would be easy to assume that people mostly seek out news influencers who’s views closely align with their own, that doesn’t necessarily appear to be the case. According to Pew’s findings, 61 percent of those wo regularly get opinions from news influencers say that they see opinions they agree and disagree with about equally. 30 percent see mostly opinions they agree with, while very few (2 percent) mostly see opinions from influencers they disagree with. So why do people lean on news influencers to get informed? According to Pew, 65 percent of news influencer followers said that they helped them better understand current events and civic issues. More than 70 percent said that news influencers offered news that are extremely/very different (23 percent) or somewhat different (48 percent) from the news they get elsewhere. And one final aspect is likely trust: while the news media has lost trust in recent years, influencers have it in abundance, often built through years of social media “relationships” with their followers. What they often lack compared to traditional news outlets is an actual journalistic background, meaning that the trust they enjoy from their followers may not always be backed up by their actual understanding of often complex matters. As Statista's chart shows, X (formerly Twitter) is the most popular platform among news influencers, with 85 percent of the 500 sampled influencers active on the platform acquired by Elon Musk in 2022. Instagram, YouTube and Facebook are also very commonly used, while TikTok is surprisingly far down the list with only 27 percent of the sampled influencers active on the platform. Tyler Durden Sat, 01/11/2025 - 19:15

— Thacker Crushes Krugman, Trounces Tufecki As NYT Keeps Peddling Lies

 

at 1/11/25 4:40pm

Thacker Crushes Krugman, Trounces Tufecki As NYT Keeps Peddling Lies Authored by former Congressional investigator Paul Thacker, I walked you through a couple examples of fact-challenged essays in the New York Times opinion page last month, but Wow! Two more incidents jumped to my attention soon after. I’m gonna march through these as well, to further impress upon readers of the need to be skeptical about what you read, especially if it’s in the New York Times. The first example is columnist Paul Krugman, the Princeton professor of economics who spent an entire year dismissing inflation, even though inflation was so terrible it likely explains why Trump won the presidential election. The second exemplar of Times silliness is columnist Zeynep Tufekci who fabricated science to support “masks work” dogma throughout the pandemic, and is now spitting out alternative facts about Trump’s pick to run the National Institutes of Health. Krugman won a Nobel Prize in 2008, but his fame rests on his decades-long tenure as celebrated truth teller columnist for the Times. However, truths told by Krugman are not always true. For the past year, running up into the election, Krugman has spun a fairy tale about the U.S. economy, professing in column after column that inflation is low. Krugman told these lies likely because these fibs bolstered the Democratic Party while they were locked in a tight race with Trump. Krugman has long shown a partisan streak, once making the delusional claim that Trump was under the control of Putin. But it seems politics has so deranged Krugman’s thinking that this Nobel Prize winner in economics will even write stupid things about economics. Before diving into Krugman’s economic nonsense, take a look this chart from the Congressional Budget Office which notes that inflation reached incredibly high levels during the Biden administration. Then ask yourself, “How could Krugman ignore these numbers?” Well, he did. Krugman started off 2024 proclaiming that “inflation isn’t nearly as bad as it feels” and continued to dismiss economic numbers right up through the election. Nonetheless, when media reported the actual inflation numbers, Krugman dismissed them as “partisan media” on May 3rd. He deployed the “partisan” claim again, four days later on May 7 because why not? Whenever the fact don’t fit, just mumble “partisan.” By June Krugman had become so delusional about inflation that he floated the silly argument that high inflation was a “false alarm” and the real concern was recession. “So it’s time to stop obsessing about inflation, which increasingly looks like yesterday’s problem,” Krugman wrote, “and start worrying about the possibility of a recession as the economy’s strength finally begins to erode under the strain of high interest rates.” When Trump pledged to “end inflation” last July, Krugman then spun up a fantasy tale in one of his columns: So Americans do know that inflation — the rate at which prices are rising — is way down. What is true is that we had a burst of inflation in 2021-22, which has left the level of prices considerably higher than it was a few years ago. A dollar doesn’t buy as much as it used to. On the other hand, American workers are taking home more dollars: Recent years have seen a surge in wages as well as in prices. Krugman followed up this baloney by cherry picking federal numbers to find one inflation report that fit his politics which he lauded as beautiful. "We've beaten inflation,” Krugman told Yahoo Finance in early August. “I mean when you take out sort of lagged effects of housing, most measures are pretty much at the Fed's 2% target or at most a fraction of a percentage point above it." Krugman’s crusade to dismiss inflation and high prices harming average Americans continued a few days later in this column praising Biden and alleging Kamala Harris was more trusted than Trump on the economy. But days before the election Krugman pivoted to warn that victory over inflation could be “squandered” if Donald Trump wins the presidency. This sudden twist, from downplaying inflation numbers during the Biden administration to projecting alarm over imaginary Trump inflation, pretty much reveals that campaign politics were driving Krugman’s columns. And then came the election, and guess what? The New York Times admitted that voters chose Trump because of inflation and high prices under Biden. But after confessing this, the Times ignored over a year of bullshit columns by Krugman denying that very inflation, and then allowed Krugman to double down on complaints about Trump. I’m serious, this is exactly what the New York Times did. Read it for yourself. In fact, Biden inflation was so bad, explained Johns Hopkins political economist David A. Steinberg, that high costs killed Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign and helped propel Trump into the White House. As is clear to anyone not blinded by political zealotry, inflation was really bad during the Biden administration. So bad that people voted for a Republican, despite a year-long campaign by Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman to deny economic reality in the pages of America’s most powerful newspaper. Why the editors at the Times let Krugman get away with publishing this nonsense, I have no clue, but it’s rather obvious that accuracy is not important at the Times. Let’s take a look at the second example of lies splattered across the pages of the Times: columnist Zeynep Tufekci. Readers might remember Tufekci from her defamatory attack on the Cochrane mask review and lead author Tom Jefferson. After Cochrane published their latest mask review that found little evidence mask work to stop viruses in 2023, Tufekci went on the attack, alleging the evidence falls in the opposite direction: masks work. Granted, Tufekci’s advanced degrees are in film studies, not public health or medicine. But hey, New York Times. Who needs actual science when you can dash out an essay? Tufekci’s “masks work” column was not only rife with false scientific conclusions, she even lied about what people she interviewed told her. In one example, Tufekci claimed Michael Brown, one of Cochrane’s editors, did not support the Cochrane mask review when he had told her the complete opposite. “I didn’t agree with her,” Michael Brown told me of his interactions with Tufekci, “the way she then spun it: masks work.” It’s not that Tufekci doesn’t understand science; she doesn’t understand journalism ethics nor how to read and write accurately. And Tufekci pulled the same gambit in a November essay defaming Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s nominee to run the NIH. In her column disparaging Bhattacharya, Tufekci made several false assertions, alleging for example that Bhattacharya had estimated COVID would only kill 20,000 to 40,000 Americans (he had actually written that up to 2 million might die). Tufekci also falsely asserted that a study by Bhattacharya grossly overestimated the number of Americans who had been sickened by the virus and recovered. (In fact, this study was published in a top journal and was replicated by other studies). Tufekci’s article was so riddled with mistakes that several scientists with real degrees in science sent a letter to the New York Times pointing out the errors and demanding that the Times abide by basic rules of journalism and issue a correction. But instead of correcting the errors the New York Times doubled down on their false assertions, making clear to readers that they have a political agenda to attack science and researchers they don’t like. But wait. It gets worse. After scientists sent the Times the letter noting Tufekci’s numerous errors, Tufekci hopped on X to attack Bhattacharya once again. In several posts, Tufekci argued that the real problem was not her blatant scientific mistakes, nor her defamatory attack on Bhattacharya. The real problem is that Bhattacharya is not “humble” and is part of a “personality cult.” This is what passes for journalism at the New York Times. I ask myself every day why I continue paying for a subscription to this mess of a paper. What do you think? Subscribe to The Disinformation Chronicle here... Tyler Durden Sat, 01/11/2025 - 18:40

As of 1/12/25 9:09pm. Last new 1/12/25 8:30pm.