'Snow White' Actress Goes Wicked Witch: Wishes Harm On Trump & All His Supporters

Authored by Eric Lendrum via American Greatness,

Rachel Zegler, the scandal-plagued star of Disney’s upcoming live-action “Snow White” remake, has once again found herself embroiled in controversy, this time for her numerous attacks against supporters of President-elect Donald Trump.

As reported by Breitbart, the 23-year-old actress posted a series of raving rants on her Instagram stories attacking the 45th and 47th President, as well as all of his supporters.

“I find myself speechless in the midst of this,” said Zegler.

“Another four years of hatred, leaning us towards a world I do not want to live in. May Trump supporters and Trump voters and Trump himself never know peace.”

She went on to say that she considers Trump supporters to be a “deep, deep sickness in this country,” and that she believes “there is no help, no counsel, in any of them.”

After a plea with her followers to delete their X accounts out of protest of Elon Musk, who supported President Trump’s campaign, she concluded by simply saying “F**k Donald Trump.”

Zegler has earned a reputation as a gaffe-prone and volatile actress. In 2023, she went viral for unhinged remarks she made during a red carpet appearance in which she repeatedly criticized the original “Snow White and the Seven Dwarves,” accusing the 1937 classic of being out-of-date, sexist, and “weird.”

She also openly suggested that her co-star Andrew Burnap, who plays the Prince Charming character, could be “cut from the film” entirely, smugly remarking “it’s Hollywood, baby.”

Her comments ignited widespread backlash on social media, with Disney scrambling to retrain the actress on what to say and not to say in public appearances regarding the film. Zegler subsequently began taking a much more deferential tone towards the original film in later interviews, but the damage had been done. The film, originally scheduled to be released in 2024, was delayed back to 2025. With a production budget of over $200 million, the film may have to earn as much as $600 million just to break even, which may be impossible due to the growing online campaign to boycott the film due to Zegler’s remarks.

The film also faced controversy for its decision to completely remove the Seven Dwarves themselves. After actor Peter Dinklage, himself a midget, claimed that the dwarf characters were examples of bigotry, Disney decided to initially replace the dwarves with seven generic characters of various races and genders. When a leaked photo of the seven non-dwarf characters went viral, mockery and criticism on social media led to Disney again revamping the film and moving forward with seven computer-generated dwarves. Both the film and Dinklage have since come under fire from fans and numerous other dwarf actors, who feel that the film would have provided an opportunity for multiple dwarf actors to star as the iconic characters.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 20:30

In Most U.S. Cities, Social Security Payments Last Married Couples Just 19 Days Or Less

Relying solely on Social Security for retirement, especially as a married couple, may need a serious second look. New findings from GOBankingRates reveal that in 50 major U.S. cities, Social Security income won't even cover a full month’s expenses. At best, these benefits might last up to 19 days, but in six of these cities, they fall short in under 10 days.

GOBankingRates conducted an analysis of the 100 largest U.S. cities by population, using the average Social Security benefits for married couples to assess how far this income stretches when set against living costs.

The recent study reveals that in many U.S. cities, Social Security benefits fall far short of covering even half a month’s living expenses for married retirees. In particular, six major cities—including Irvine, Fremont, San Jose, San Francisco, Honolulu, and San Diego—offer the briefest financial coverage from Social Security, with benefits lasting between just 6.73 and 9.59 days, according to GoBankingRates.com.

Irvine, California, stands out as the city where benefits stretch the least, covering under a week’s worth of expenses, with a monthly cost of living that exceeds $9,700 for a couple.

The findings show that California is a challenging state for retirees relying on Social Security alone, with 15 of its cities appearing in the top 50 cities where benefits last the shortest.

Within the top 10 cities with the shortest Social Security coverage, California holds seven spots, underscoring the high cost of living in the state. While Irvine ranks as the most expensive, Stockton, California, provides the most days of coverage in the state at nearly 18 days—though even this is well below a full month.

At the other end of the spectrum, Saint Petersburg, Florida, ranks as the city where Social Security lasts the longest among the 50 cities analyzed, stretching to 19.38 days for married couples. This reflects the lower cost of living in Saint Petersburg, where expenses amount to $1,584 monthly.

Florida's comparatively affordable living costs mean that, while Social Security coverage still falls short of a full month, retirees may face less financial strain.

The GoBankingRates.com study showed that beyond California and Florida, cities like Arlington, Virginia, and Seattle also show limited Social Security coverage, lasting only around 10 to 11 days. Arlington, with a monthly cost of $5,307, and Seattle, at $4,733, both represent high-cost areas where retirees might struggle to maintain financial stability on Social Security alone.

Honolulu is the sole representative from Hawaii in the top six, where the high cost of living cuts Social Security coverage to just over 8 days.

The study’s detailed breakdown shows a significant disparity between cities, where monthly costs range from $9,794 in Irvine to $1,584 in Saint Petersburg. Even cities with more affordable housing and expenses, such as Gilbert, Arizona, and Austin, Texas, provide just around 16 days of coverage, demonstrating that even in lower-cost cities, retirees would need supplementary income to cover basic living expenses each month.

Ultimately, the findings illustrate the pressing financial challenge facing retirees in urban areas across the United States. With the cost of living continually rising, retirees must consider alternative income sources or substantial savings to bridge the gap left by Social Security benefits, especially in cities where expenses drastically outpace what Social Security provides.

You can view the study's methodology and full results here. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 20:05

Note: Mortgage rates are from MortgageNewsDaily.com and are for top tier scenarios.

Friday:
• At 8:30 AM ET, Retail sales for October will be released. The consensus is for a 0.3% increase in retail sales.

• Also at 8:30 AM, The New York Fed Empire State manufacturing survey for November. The consensus is for a reading of 3.5, up from -11.9.

• At 9:15 AM, The Fed will release Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization for October. The consensus is for a 0.2% decrease in Industrial Production, and for Capacity Utilization to decrease to 77.3%.

The Retreat Of DEI In Corporate America

Authored by Paul Miller via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

This summer we saw the wheels come off the “Social” bus. Nearly a dozen large public companies pulled the plug on their DEI initiatives. This is good news for consumers and for the million workers who had to navigate an increasingly politicized workplace. Many corporate executives began remembering that their job is to create value for shareholders by focusing on their customers and delivering goods and services with excellence, not promoting divisive social ideology.

Fawn McClintock/Shutterstock

These large public companies have been facing pressure from activist investors like Robby Starbuck, customers, and elected officials. And they’ve determined what critics have known all along: DEI and other Social initiatives are expendable programs. They don’t add to a company’s bottom line nor improve its efficiency. In fact, these DEI initiatives drain time, money, and other resources. Companies don’t need chief diversity officers, sensitivity training, or quotas to recruit and retain good talent or to treat employees fairly.

In June, Tractor Supply canceled ”an array of corporate diversity and climate efforts,” citing the negative reactions they had been getting from a huge number of their customers. In July, John Deere announced that it would end its DEI initiatives—emphasizing their commitment to customers and to quality recruitment and operations. In August, Ford announced that it would no longer participate in the Human Rights Campaign’s annual workplace survey. Lowes also announced in August that it would no longer participate in the HRC’s diversity surveys or in LGBTQ+ and other social issue events. In October, Toyota said it will no longer sponsor LGBTQ+ events, instead focusing its philanthropy on “STEM education and workforce readiness.”

Here is a list of large public corporations that dropped their commitments to DEI this summer:

• Tractor Supply (~50,000 employees; market cap: ~$32 billion)
• John Deere (~80,000 employees; market cap: ~$111 billion)
• Ford Motors (~177,000 employees; market cap: ~$44 billion)
• Lowes (~300,000 employees; market cap: ~$160 billion)
• Harley-Davidson (~11,000 employees; market cap: ~$5 billion)
• Brown-Forman Corp. (~ 6000 employees; market cap: ~$23 billion)
• Molson Coors (~16,000 employees; market cap: ~$11 billion)
• Stanley Black & Decker (~50,000 employees; market cap: ~$16 billion)
• Toyota (~380,000 employees; market cap: ~$270 billion)
• Boeing (~170,000 employees; ~$95 billion)

Taken together, these public companies represent over a million workers and nearly a trillion dollars of market value. Although there is some variation in exactly how much these companies have rolled back their DEI policies, they all share one or more of the following characteristics.

1. No longer funding or participating in social or cultural “awareness” events
2. No longer participating in the HRC’s diversity surveys
3. Removing DEI language and priorities in their hiring and recruiting

Public companies have long engaged in activities to improve their brand image and to develop positive reputations in the communities where they operate. They try to build goodwill through corporate philanthropy—giving money for parks, museums, schools, and other cultural amenities. They also try to improve their reputation by joining various causes and partnerships—such as working on public health, public literacy, and job training initiatives.

But in recent years, especially starting in 2020, many public companies directed resources to controversial and ideological causes in the name of improving their brand and reputation—such as participating in cultural or social “awareness” events like an LGBTQ+ parade or a BLM gathering. Public companies’ retreat from DEI usually includes statements that they will stick to traditional forms of corporate philanthropy and no longer participate in these controversial social and political activism events.

One of the most important proponents of DEI has been the Human Rights Campaign. They have actively worked to change business recruitment and hiring practices to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion (especially on the LGBTQ+ front). Their method involved sending questionnaires to public companies and scoring them along their “human rights” index. Most of the companies who backtracked from DEI have explicitly stated that they will no longer participate in HRC’s questionnaire.

These companies have also removed DEI language, goals, positions, and training from their operations. For some, they have eliminated “sustainability” and “diversity” positions. Others have removed DEI targets from bonus evaluations for their executives. They have also walked back DEI-based recruitment targets in favor of competence and excellence. Company performance for shareholders, operational excellence, and delivering value to customers have been re-centered in these companies’ policies and strategies.

Organizations sympathetic to DEI like Microsoft, Google, and other large tech companies, have scaled back how much they talk about the issue and how many resources they devote to it. Even Larry Fink, CEO of Blackrock and a proponent of ESG, has abandoned the term because it became too “political.” Other large companies have been downplaying their DEI commitments even if they haven’t fully reversed them. One of the only places DEI continues to make headway is government bureaucracies like public schools and universities, libraries, and regulatory agencies.

DEI programs are a part of the broader Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) movement. But the ESG moniker never had logical coherence. Pursuing environmental goals often undermines Social goals and vice versa. Pursuing Social goals often undermines good Governance. ESG gained traction because it was a vacuous umbrella term that could be used to advance many different, and at times contradictory, ideological values.

Even ESG advocates who want to preserve environmental and governance goals should abandon the DEI movement to its fate in history’s dustbin of bad ideas. The summer of 2024 will be noted for the retreat of DEI programs in corporate America. Let’s hope that 2025 will be remembered for the retreat of DEI and other woke ideology across the federal and state governments.

From the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)

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

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 19:40

Barack Obama: The Political Genius That Wasn't

Authored by Richard Truesdell and Keith Lehmann via American Greatness,

Every few months, a sanitized report appears on the post-presidency activities of Barack Obama’s public advocacy.

It’s a narrative that conveniently ignores the inherent problems in having a person with no constitutional role or congressional oversight take an active role in executive decision-making.

Over the summer of 2024, Obama emerged as a central figure in government censorship of the internet while launching a new campaign against gun ownership. In earlier times, the spectacle of an ex-president leading simultaneous campaigns against the First and Second Amendments might have generated some interest in the legacy media. But as last week’s election coverage proved, the press is no longer interested in reporting hard facts or maintaining transparency. The mockingbird media are now servants of those holding power and will do anything to advance their interests.

Yet there is another interpretation of Obama’s peculiar involvement with Democrat operatives during the Trump and Biden administrations. It is that Obama was never the leader of anything, neither then nor now.

Post-presidency, Obama was fixated on collecting laundered wealth from intermediaries such as Spotify and Netflix, buying luxury properties, and hanging out on private yachts with celebrities. His stratospheric levels of egotism and absence of self-awareness motivated him to occasionally appear in public next to Biden as a larger, more popular figure, signaling that he was “The One” who was calling the shots. We know this to be completely false.

Obama has proven to be a celebrity-obsessed, pretend billionaire with the lazy pretense of having any positive influence whatsoever on the inner workings of the American government. He has presented himself as a self-consumed lightweight who was breathtakingly narcissistic even by Washington, D.C., standards.

Floating to the Top on a Cloud of Projection

Obama’s lack of managerial experience and his thin understanding of important issues did not matter—Democrats wanted a malleable figure as the leader of the Free World who could speak decisively, travel the world repeating leftist platitudes convincingly off a teleprompter, and sign anything put in front of him.

What Democrats failed to comprehend was that the projection of their beliefs onto a relatively unknown, singular person was to create a figure that would ultimately destroy their party in ways they did not anticipate. Obama’s far-left beliefs, his antipathy toward America, and his racial divisiveness were somewhat hidden at first, yet became quite obvious as he was put on a pedestal by Democrats who were blinded by his charm.

Nowhere was this more evident than after Kamala Harris was installed as the candidate. The failure of his vice presidential understudy, Joe Biden, was pushed aside after the disastrous first presidential debate where he seemed dazed and confused. Democrat power brokers, specifically Obama along with Nancy Pelosi, knew there was no way that Biden could defeat Donald Trump in November.

What they didn’t count on was Biden immediately endorsing his vice president. Obama and Pelosi didn’t see that move coming. As a result, politically, they got caught completely flat-footed. It was wonderful for all of us on the right to watch and as much as any political move in 2024, it ensured Harris’s and the Democrats’ stunning defeat.

This should come as no surprise to anyone who has observed presidential politics from the moment Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009, to last week’s election. The cult of personality surrounding Obama prevented the damage from being seen in its entirety until well after Obama’s second term. His radicalism, hatred of America and Israel, and his tendency to be attracted to wealth and fame compromised his presidency and explained how the Democrat Party lurched so far to the left and alienated a large portion of its moderate base.

Obama’s fascination with billionaires led to an emerging oligarchy, especially in the tech sector, tightening its grip on the government at large. His penchant for “settling scores” resulted in the weaponization of nearly every government agency against American citizens. Race relations were set back to the 1950s. Inequality skyrocketed. The Tea Party emerged. Donald Trump was elected. “Russiagate” was born. The Democrat-supporting legacy media began its sudden decline in viewership and readership. It all started with Obama in the White House, continued through Trump’s first presidency, and the sham of what was the Biden-Harris administration. Biden’s cognitive decline was hidden from America until it was too late.

Looking back through the prism of history, the Obama years didn’t end well for Democrats. When Obama took office in 2008, Democrats held 55 Senate seats and 256 seats in the House. After Obama’s second term ended in 2016, Democrats had lost nine seats in the Senate and 62 seats in the House. There were twelve fewer Democrat governors, with Democrats overall holding fewer elected offices nationwide at any time since the 1920s.

For all the platitudes of his political intellect and savvy manner of operation, Obama has been a down-ballot disaster for Democrats. But it has been a goldmine for Obama, who is now in his fourth mansion. We have to wonder how anyone in the Democrat Party thinks they got their money’s worth with Obama.

It’s not hard to see how rewarding this was for Obama. He knew that division and racial strife were the path to electoral victory for the left. By reigniting animosities and weaponizing the federal government against his political opponents, a process that intensified during the Biden administration, Obama took extreme, unprecedented measures to achieve short-term gains and position himself as the central figure in Democrat political circles.

He wanted fame, fortune, adulation, worship, and no accountability. He achieved all of that and more, becoming the de facto “kingmaker” of the Democrat Party.

What exactly were the motives of Democrats when they elevated a junior senator from Illinois to be the central figure of their party? To answer that question, one must understand the criminal enterprise that Washington, D.C., has become over six decades and the need for an effective frontman to charm the population. Bill Clinton served that purpose quite well for two terms after being elevated similarly.

But Obama was an unknown entity with far fewer accomplishments than Clinton. Obama was the DEI-approved face of the Democrat machine that could operate with near impunity, reflexively branding any attempt to resist or criticize him as racist. A political and racial arsonist to his core, Obama scorched the earth at every opportunity and dared anyone to challenge him. It was the most destructive and divisive presidential period in modern history.

Obama utilized the radicalism that was honed during his time as a “community organizer” in Chicago and applied it to the nation. He engineered conflict, caused chaos, and pitted people against each other. It was the classic Marxist notion of “oppressor versus oppressed,” where winners and losers, villains and heroes, innocence and guilt, are unilaterally determined. People were labeled, vilified, categorized, and ostracized from society simply by their beliefs. Violence against them was justified and even celebrated.

Democrats were genuinely “riding the tiger” with Obama and were unsure exactly where he would lead them. Well, here we are—a nation completely divided, at each other’s throats, leveling hyperbolic charges against strangers, all because we had to have the equivalent of a DEI hire in the White House to assuage our “racial strife.” And how is that “racial strife” going today?

More to the point, “How are the Democrats doing today with Obama as their de facto leader?” Horribly, as the 2024 election has proven.

The ironic aspect of this will be missed by many. Obama rose to power in 2008 because the 18- to 25-year-old Millennials believed in his stature as the Black Jesus. In 2024, the 18- to 25-year-old Gen-Zs abandoned him because they don’t.

With the electoral drubbing Democrats took last week, with recriminations on who to blame being spread across Democrat circles, Obama’s political “brilliance” has been revealed as pure fiction. You can say that the mask has been ripped off with the presidency and both Houses of Congress now in Republican hands.

Trump is moving at lightning speed to fill his cabinet with people who hold dear his populist message. Trump went through this game eight years ago and has a clearer picture of how the sausage is made in the D.C. swamp. And with a clear mandate from voters, he knows he has at least two years to fix the mess with the economy and at the border that he’s inherited from Biden (with plenty of help from the puppet master pulling his strings from the shadows in what has turned out to be the third term of Obama’s presidency).

Key to Trump’s success - and if he can retain control of the House and Senate in the 2026 midterms - will be to bring the warring parties in Ukraine and Russia as well as the Middle East to the negotiating tables, and at the same time fix the damage to the economy wrought by Biden, Harris, and Democrats in Congress. If he does, it will cement his legacy while at the same time, likely ending Obama’s influence and interference in American politics once and for all.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 18:50

Russia Has Surged 50,000 Troops Into Kursk Region To Boot Ukrainian Army

This week the Ukrainian government has warned its allies that the army faces nearly 50,000 Russian troops now deployed to Kursk province.

Ukrainian forces have held hundreds of square kilometers of territory inside Russia since a surprise blitz move across the border in early August. Rather than Moscow choosing to relocate sizeable forces from Donbass to defend Kursk, which Kiev was hoping for as a strategic way to weaken Russian front lines in the east, the Kremlin has been patient.

It appears a final big push to force out the Ukrainians is underway. President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed this in Monday statements. He said that Ukrainian troops "continue to hold back" the "nearly 50,000-strong enemy group" in Kursk.

Russian MoD/Sky News stillframe

But with those numbers on the Russian side, and given the battle space is inside Russian territory, it is only a matter of time before Kiev's Kursk adventure comes to a halt.

"They stormed with a battalion-sized force," an officer of a Ukrainian mechanized unit told CNN, adding that "the Russian invaders were eliminated."

There also remains deep concern that Russia is sending North Korean troops to help gain back control of occupied Kursk. CNN writes of some of the latest:

And while Russia has reclaimed some settlements, the line of control has barely changed over the past months.

A US official told CNN on Sunday that Russia has amassed a large force of tens of thousands — including recently arrived North Korean troops — to carry out an assault on the Ukrainian positions in Kursk. The official said the offensive was expected in the coming days.

Zelensky has claimed that some 11,000 North Korean troops are in the region. They are said to be in Belgorod as well, which has also been subject of frequent Ukrainian cross-border attacks.

The CNN report continues, "Separately, a Ukrainian commander told CNN Sunday that North Korean troops were taking part in direct combat operations in Kursk, as well as defensive operations in the neighboring Belgorod region of Russia and in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories."

Starting last week, Zelensky said there have been direct and deadly clashes between Ukrainian and North Korean forces. Russia has not completely denied it, saying that a defense treaty inked between Moscow and Pyongyang allows for allied forces to help defend Russian territory.

Better photo of North Korean M-1978/1989 Koksan 170mm self-propelled howitzers being transported by rail, presumably somewhere on the territory of Russia. pic.twitter.com/ngn1ezuMQO

— Status-6 (Military & Conflict News) (BlueSky too) (@Archer83Able) November 14, 2024

Given the incoming Trump administration and its vow to immediately achieve ceasefire, pressure will grow on Kiev to quickly enter negotiations with Russia. Any future deal would have to involve Ukrainian forces exiting Kursk, assuming they are not defeated there first, or else the Kremlin will not sign off on it.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 18:25

VDH: The Fault, Dear Democrats, Is In Yourselves

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

“Men at some time are masters of their fates: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves.”

– William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

“They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”

– Often attributed to Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand

The Democratic election postmortem immediately descended into public blame-gaming - as expected. When Joe Biden was forced off the ticket in late July, the conspirators issued a party line that he was to be praised as a veritable George Washington — in the spirit of Washington’s farewell address of 1796 about why it was a good thing for the first president not to run for a third term.

So, we were lied to that Joe, the sitting President of the United States, was not forced out by Nancy Pelosi, the Obamas, George Clooney and the celebs, and the billionaire class. We instead were lectured that Biden, magnanimously as the neo-father of our country, selflessly bowed out to ensure Kamala Harris’s elevation as the nominee and, with it, a sure Democratic victory.

But now?

After the Democratic train wreck, half the party is suddenly damning George Washington Joe for sticking around too long, even though party grandees cooked up the scheme in the first place of nominating the cognitively challenged Biden in 2020 to shut out his radical (and supposedly unelectable) primary rivals.

Now that his successor Harris has bombed, in the leftist mind, Joe has gone from a Washingtonian Olympian to a veritable selfish Richard Nixon who clung to office far too long and supposedly ensured his party’s defeat.

Yet still, others now blame incumbent Vice President Kamala herself. The once “joyful” candidate, after the coup to remove Biden, was once praised to the skies as a “turn the page”/”move forward”/“change” candidate — only then to be damned as an insipid loser.

So, one postelection narrative was that Harris — we were told to recall — was always known as inept and thus originally picked as Joe Biden’s Spiro Agnew insurance policy, who would prevent his indictment, impeachment, or medical removal.

But never mind blaming either Biden or Harris or both.

The left cannot fault either a lack of funds; they raised a billion dollars more than Trump. Leftists also cannot complain about 95 percent favorable media coverage, supposedly worth billions of dollars in free advertising.

They cannot regret that they did not do everything imaginable to destroy the Trump monster — given they had impeached him twice and tried him as a private citizen. They cooked up the Russian collusion and laptop disinformation hoaxes, raided his home with a SWAT team, and unleashed five criminal and civil suits designed to bankrupt, demonize, and jail him. They tried to remove him from at least 16 state ballots and daily smeared him as a fascist, dictator, and Hitler — even as two would-be assassins tried to shoot him.

So, we are witnessing the rich Democrat-media fusion blame and fault everything but themselves. In truth, whether Biden or Harris ran — it never really mattered.

Even an open convention with a “moderate” veneer nominee like a Josh Shapiro would not have saved them. The fault was in themselves: a radical Democratic agenda actualized by Joe Biden, who will leave office with an approval rate under 40 percent, and two-thirds of the country believing the country was headed in the wrong direction under his tenure.

So, what lost the election for the Democrats? Both substance and style.

The proverbial people may have agreed that Trump was sometimes crude, but they knew in his prior four-year tenure that food, gas, rent, power, and insurance were affordable.

The border was finally secured. Trump did not welcome in 12 million unaudited illegal aliens.

Nor did he oversee a disastrous flight from Afghanistan or watch two theater-wide wars blow up Ukraine and the Middle East as a derelict America became irrelevant.

Boys did not spike volleyballs down upon the heads of girls nor did male boxers pound the brains of women.

Nor did teenage biological males shower with young girls.

Nor did the Trump tenure witness institutionalized anti-Semitism spreading throughout the nation’s elite campuses and onto the streets.

Nor did Republican party grandees obsess on race, promote reparations, demand unlimited abortions until the moment of birth, or trash fracking.

So, the message — not just the messengers — was toxic. But that said, the message was also delivered by a bicoastal elite, exuding hubris and superciliousness. This election, the left committed the two cardinal sins of American politics: one, never talk down to the American people as too stupid to appreciate the wisdom of their supposed elite betters; and two, never abandon the upwardly mobile aspirations and real struggles of the middle class.

Instead, during the campaign and after the election slaughter, Democratic grandees screamed against a supposedly racist, sexist, homophobic, nativist electorate — as if these critics were a mummified Hillary Clinton circa 2016 still pontificating about the deplorables and irredeemables or a calcified Obama lecturing on the pathologies of the clingers.

Indeed, the epitome of such hypocrisy was the late entrance of the now-plutocratic Obamas. The pair variously private jetted in from one of their four mansions to “save” Harris from her incompetent self by diagnosing the skeptics of her hard-left message as ignorant, illiberal, and suffering from Marxist false consciousness.

Thus, a week after the election, Democrats are still trapped in La La Land.

Blue-state governors now posture and brag that they will stop the newly elected Trump — but from what exactly? Will they refuse his tainted federal funds? Spit at him when they ask for disaster relief help? Declare blue America “sanctuary states” that will nullify federal law and not pay federal taxes?

What does California governor Gavin Newsom mean by calling to session the California legislature to “resist” Trump? Will he order another Steele dossier pee-pee tape? Another Hillary Clinton 2016 call to join La Résistance?

What does Illinois Governor Pritzker mean by warning Trump he will have to go through the ample governor to get to “his people?”

Coordinate more local and state prosecutors to resume where Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg, and Letitia James left off?

Mimic Madonna and threaten to blow up the White House?

Emulate Kamala Harris and warn weeks of violent protests that won’t and should not stop?

So how exactly is the elected president actually stripping away the rights of their liberal residents — three months before he even sets foot in office? And what might such illiberal or extralegal Trump efforts entail?

Find another Andrew McCabe to weaponize the FBI to go after his enemies?

Discover another Anthony Fauci to stealthily send American cash to a leaky Chinese virology lab run by the People’s Liberation Army?

Draft another Lois Lerner to politicize the IRS to deny left-wing groups nonprofit status?

Rehire James Comey to get the FBI and social media together to censor the news?

Maybe rehire Loretta Lynch or Merrick Garland to sic the Department of Justice on political enemies at school board meetings?

Bring back Confederate-style nullification of federal law and open the border?

Or are Trump’s threats likely to be more existential and cosmic — like packing the court to ensure another six conservative justices?

Or, as the right takes control of the Senate, will the damnable new conservative majority abolish the ancient filibuster?

Perhaps the left is worried that now that a vengeful Trump has handily won the popular vote, he will most likely remove the 237-year-old Electoral College by sidestepping the constitutional amendment process?

Or will a dastardly Trump bifurcate some blue states to ensure their red halves become two new states and with them four conservative senators?

In sum, the left will not recover by blaming the American people and the voters for their loss. Nor will they regain power by caricaturing the supposedly illiberal and unappreciative middle class.

Nor will they reboot by blustering that they are at war with a president before he takes office as if he was not just elected by a clear majority and an overwhelming electoral college vote.

Nor will they find salvation today by blaming the “messaging,” or tomorrow Kamala Harris, or next week Joe Biden — rather than looking in the mirror and acknowledging the fault, Dear Democrats, is “in ourselves.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 17:20

What this means: On a weekly basis, Realtor.com reports the year-over-year change in active inventory and new listings. On a monthly basis, they report total inventory. For September, Realtor.com reported inventory was up 29.2% YoY, but still down 21.1% compared to the 2017 to 2019 same month levels. 
 Now - on a weekly basis - inventory is up 26.1% YoY.

Realtor.com has monthly and weekly data on the existing home market. Here is their weekly report: Weekly Housing Trends View—Data for Week Ending Nov. 9, 2024

• Active inventory increased, with for-sale homes 26.1% above year-ago levels

For the 53rd consecutive week, the number of listings for sale has grown year over year. This week’s growth was lower than last week’s, the seventh week of slowing growth, and the lowest annual change since late March. Slowing listing activity and stifled buyer demand have resulted in slowing inventory growth.

• New listings—a measure of sellers putting homes up for sale—climbed 1.7% this week compared with one year ago

The number of new listings on the market picked up compared with the same week last year. The recent upward trajectory of mortgage rates could largely discourage sellers from listing their homes as roughly 84% of outstanding mortgages have a rate of 6% or lower.

Here is a graph of the year-over-year change in inventory according to realtor.com. 

Inventory was up year-over-year for the 53rd consecutive week.  
However, inventory is still historically low.
New listings remain below typical pre-pandemic levels.

Fed Accompli Fail: Powell Pontification Prompts Puke In Stocks & Bonds

Inflation is not 'going gently into that good night'.

Instead, as PPI confirmed today after CPI yesterday, it is 'burning and raging at the dying of the light' of the Biden/Harris days...

Source: Bloomberg

In fact - while he was more ambiguous at The Fed presser, Fed Chair Powell admitted in his remarks today that all is not completely awesome, as he warned The Fed is in "no hurry" to cut rates... and inflation's on a "bumpy path".

"If the data let's us go slower, it seems like the right thing to do..."

Powell's remarks sent rate-cut expectations notably lower - December less than 50-50 now...

Source: Bloomberg

Interestingly, minutes before Powell spoke, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon dropped some tape-bombs of reality:

• *DIMON: THINK THE CHANCE OF SOFT LANDING LESS THAN OTHERS THINK

• *DIMON: "NOT SO OPTIMISTIC" THAT INFLATION WILL GO AWAY QUICKLY

• *DIMON: GROWTH IS BEST POLICY TO FIX DEFICIT PROBLEM

• *DIMON: TRUMP INHERITING INFLATION THAT MAY NOT GO AWAY QUICKLY

Goldman notes that the background remains bullish for stocks from CTAs / Buybacks / Seasonals:

• CTA: Update for Equities - buyers of S&P in all short-term scenarios as momentum remains firmly positive and realized vol has reset: flat tape: +$4.8mm to BUY (+$7.5bn SPX to BUY).

• Buybacks: We are reaching full open window. Back of envelope we estimate ~$6B/day in demand.

• Seasonality: The typical pattern is to rally into the Inauguration (1/20/2025) before topping out in February.

Source: Goldman Sachs

But, Goldman's trading desk notes that there is a lot of selling still:

• Overall activity levels are down -15% vs. the trailing 2 weeks with market volumes up +8% vs the 10dma

• Our floor tilts -3% better for sale with both HFs and LOs leaning that way

• HFs are -7% better for sale, moderating after an earlier sell skew closer to 10% (which ranked in the 95th %-ile).  They are heavily for sale in HCare & Industrials with very modest demand for Macro Products, REITs and Energy.

• LOs are -5% better for sale.  Tech supply stands out, on a net basis larger than Comm Svcs & Industrials supply combined.  LOs are better to buy across Cons Disc, REITs & HCare

Stocks were already sinking before Powell spoke, but his reality check punched them to the lows with Small Caps clubbed like a baby seal...

The 'Trump Trade' saw some profit-taking today...

Source: Bloomberg

'Most Shorted' stocks fell once again - erasing the entire post-election squeeze higher...

Source: Bloomberg

RIVN was monkeyhammered lower after headlines that the Trump team would remove the EV tax credit

Vaxx makers were all slammed as Trump RFK Jr headlines hit...

Treasury yields exploded higher on Powell's comments, led by the short-end...

Source: Bloomberg

That prompted a major flattening in the yield curve...

Source: Bloomberg

The dollar knee-jerked higher on Powell's comments

Source: Bloomberg

Gold ended the day unchanged, bouncing back back from continued overnight selling in Asia...

Source: Bloomberg

This pattern is similar to that seen in 2016's sweep...

Bitcoin ended the day marginally lower after Powell's comments (pushed down first by PPI), but found support around $88,000...

Source: Bloomberg

Crude prices also ended unchanged - seemingly running out of fuel for any breakout trades... for now...

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, does this chart - showing initial jobless claims (inverted) tumbling to six-month lows and inflation surprise data soaring - support any kind of rate-cutting cycle?

Source: Bloomberg

How pissed will Trump be if Powell's first action is actually to hike rates?

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 16:00

A Plan To Tame Inflation

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

There is finally some chance for honesty now, after four years of gaslighting, especially when it comes to economic conditions. For all this time, we’ve heard nothing from official spokespeople, agencies, and the national media that inflation is cooling, calming, disappearing, improving, and you name the verb. It’s been anything but worsening, at least that’s what we’ve been told. 

We emerge from the miasma of these terrible years and what happens? The newest inflation data appears and it is still awful, even worse than before. All told, the U.S. dollar’s purchasing power is down in official data by 22 cents over four years. 

That’s what we are being told, and that’s terrible enough. The reality is likely worse once you add in interest rates, shrinkflation, new fees, and housing insurance. That gets us closer to 40 cents and more. 

Let us please let go of any doubts about the cause.

Elon Musk summarizes:

“The excess government spending is what causes inflation! ALL government spending is taxation. This is a very important concept to appreciate. It is either direct taxation, like income tax, or indirect via inflation due to increasing the money supply.”

It comes down to the machinery that prints money. Congress authorizes spending, the government mints the debt, and the Fed buys it with money that it creates out of thin air. The result is that all existing monetary units are reduced in value, same as when you mix juice with water. 

It’s not that complicated actually, especially when the new money is distributed in the form of direct stimulus payments to individuals and businesses. That’s exactly what happened. 

Where do we stand right now? There is some heavy risk of a second wave coming next year. On the current trajectory, that is where we are headed. The Fed has fed another $1.1 trillion in fake money into the system in the last 12 months. The Treasury has created new debt as never before, probably in hopes of ginning up the GDP prior to the election. The trick did not work but now the public is stuck with the bill of $35 trillion. 

Inflation is a wicked beast that cannot be controlled directly. On the campaign trail, Trump spoke often about how it was the throttling of the energy sector that kicked off inflation. That is only partially true in the sense that the soaring price of oil and gas grew the costs of transportation. It was also a symptom rather than a cause. Plus, the price of oil and gas is actually not high right now in real terms. 

Yes, the plan of “drill baby drill” is necessary and should happen but it cannot fix the existing problem of inflation much less do much to forestall a second wave. Nor is there a viable fix in the idea of price control, even when it is masked as “anti-gouging” legislation. 

There is nothing government can do to directly control prices, much less force them from going up given the deep structural problems. 

There are ways to mitigate against the problem, or at least minimizing them. You can have a look at how Javier Milei did it in Argentina. He took the problem of massive hyperinflation and converted it to low inflation in a year. His is a case study.

The answer is:

1. end debt creation by dramatic spending cuts,

2. curb the actions of the central bank,

3. and inspire economic growth through deregulation and agency elimination. 

That’s three steps.

Let’s consider each. 

First, the end of debt creation is essential.

Every time Congress authorizes more spending than is in the bank, the Treasury has to float debt to make it happen. That is the statutory obligation. What that means is that Congress needs to pass a balanced budget, ideally right away. 

That comes down to the commission created by Elon Musk: the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. It is not an official department. It works as an outside advisory team. That’s excellent. They will likely push for a “Twitter-style” solution of firing 4 in 5 government workers to reduce costs directly. 

That’s a start but it is not enough. There also must be sweeping elimination of agencies, each of which can save tens of billions and possibly a trillion or more in total. That needs to happen immediately. It can happen through executive order or through legislation. One way or another, the spending in excess of revenue has to stop. 

Trump is not famous for being a budget cutter. He cared nothing for the topic in his first term. He was vulnerable after March 2020 to believing that multiple trillions could be spent without consequence to keep the economy floating during lockdowns. That was an error. He will never admit to it. 

This time, however, he has a strong reason to dramatically cut the federal budget. This much he can know for sure: every dime cut from the federal budget is likely to end the flow of money to people who are working to undermine his administration. In saying that, I’m in no way promoting the politics of revenge but rather drawing attention to political realities. Balancing the budget has the side benefit of defunding the opposition. 

Second, if the Treasury stops the T-bill tsunami, the Fed will not be called upon to sponge up the excess with money creation.

You can look at the charts over the last year and see how the Biden/Harris administration was spending and working with the Fed to promote more economic illusion going into the election. That was the whole point of the rate cuts. That really must come to an end. 

There is a danger that comes with taking away the punch bowl. It could mean a panic by the bond market and a push by the media to announce the Trump Recession. 

This is why it is imperative that the Trump team move quickly to explain that right now, the economy is in much worse shape than has been advertised. The pit is very deep and it would be good to dial back expectations of a quick recovery. 

We don’t need a falling rate of money growth. We just need stability now. That’s not going to stop the wave of price increases for the next year but it can stop it from getting worse and end it completely by 2026. There is at this point zero need to worry about “deflation,” despite what the financial press will be screaming. Quite frankly, deflation at this point would be a gift to American consumers in any case.

Third, Trump needs to fire up the wealth-creation engine of the American economy through dramatic, sweeping, historic levels of regulation torching plus the shock and awe of full agency elimination, same as in Argentina.

The Trump team needs a list of 100 agencies to eliminate immediately but that should just be a start. Another 100 should be on the chopping block. Without all the regulatory clogging that they cause, investment will soar. 

Tax cuts–income and capital–will assist here too. The crucial point is the focus on boosting supply and jobs as a way of outrunning inflationary forces. Here again, the financial press will scream about the economy “overheating” but that metaphor is worn out. The effect of economic growth on inflation is exactly the opposite. Economic growth can bury the effects of price increases. 

There is not a lot of time, and it is a bargain that the Trump administration will surely lose if it does not act decisively and quickly. The debt creation and money creation must end and the economic growth through agency elimination and deregulation must become the top priority. All of this has the added advantage of making Trump more popular with the people who elected him. 

There is no incompatibility between political success and economic rationality. In this case, the incoming Trump administration is very fortunate: they go together. 

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

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 15:45

Israel & US Ramp Up Airstrikes On Syria As 'Counter Iran' War Expands

Israeli attacks on Syria have become daily, and now the United States is ramping up its own attacks in the northeast of the country as well.

On Thursday Israeli warplanes launched attacks on two residential buildings in the Damascus suburbs - one in Mazzeh and the other in Qudsaya, which lies west of the capital. Regional reports said that many people were killed, and Syrian state SANA posted photos of bombed-out apartments.

Israeli Army Radio in a rare acknowledgement appeared to confirm the Israeli attack while claiming the fresh attacks targeted the Syrian headquarters the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) group, which is fighting alongside Hamas in Gaza, and has held Israeli citizens captive since Oct.7, 2023.

Getty Images

Al Jazeera reports on the rising death toll as emergency crews comb through the rubble: 

At least 15 people have been killed and 16 injured in Israeli attacks on suburbs of the Syrian capital, according to a Syrian military source cited by the SANA news agency.

We have reported earlier that one building was hit in the suburb of Mazzeh and the other in Qudssaya, west of Damascus.

Israel had launched multiple airstrikes on Syria last week as well, and in the past weeks has even struck coastal targets near Tartus and Latakia - an area where Russian military forces are present.

Israel's air war against Syria is nothing new, but more rare these days are US air raids on Syria. This week has already seen at least two separate actions by CENTCOM forces which are supporting Kurds in the Deir Ezzor region:

US Central Command announced that its forces launched strikes in Syria for a second day on Tuesday against “Iranian-aligned” targets, referring to Shia militias that operate in the country.

CENTCOM said in a press release that its forces “conducted strikes against an Iranian-backed militia group’s weapons storage and logistics headquarters facility.” It said the strikes came after a “rocket attack on US personnel at Patrol Base Shaddadi,” referring to a US occupation base in eastern Syria.

One war monitor said that at least five members of the Iran-aligned militia were killed in the US airstrikes. These locations which come under US attack often include Syrian national militias, or even Syrian Army personnel.

Four other militants were killed the day prior, Monday, when CENTCOM said it hit "nine targets in two locations associated with Iranian groups in Syria."

The week kicked off with regional reports of explosions at US bases, likely the result of missiles or mortars being used to attack US troops. Such attacks by militias in the area have been somewhat a regular occurrence, but these instances don't always make headlines in the West.

⚡️Scenes from Damascus now pic.twitter.com/GhQOsaz4SB

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) November 14, 2024

All of this is part of the broader proxy war between the pro-Iran 'resistance axis' and the US-Israel-Gulf powers. Currently there are still some 1,000 or more US troops occupying eastern Syria. Trump during his first term said he wanted to bring the troops home, and it's unclear if this will remain a priority during his second administration.

The longer the Pentagon stays, that more that US troops are put in harm's way - for little strategic purpose other than 'securing the oil' - as Trump has said before. But the Syrian Kurds could soon make their own peace deal with Damascus, making it easier to force out the American presence. Turkey has also long wanted to see the US go.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 15:25

FEC Chairman: Biden DOJ Broke Federal Policies With Letter Targeting Musk

Authored by Eric Lendrum via American Greatness,

On Wednesday, the chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) admitted that the outgoing Biden-Harris Department of Justice (DOJ) violated federal policies and illegally targeted “perceived political opponents” by sending a threatening letter to Elon Musk.

According to the Washington Examiner, FEC Chairman Sean Cooksey sent a letter to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, saying that the letter to Musk concerning his efforts to encourage people to support freedom of speech constituted an attempt “to intimidate and chill private citizens and organizations from campaigning on behalf of President Trump.”

Cooksey also recommended that Horowitz, along with the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), open investigations into the incident and “hold accountable any individuals responsible for any violations of federal law or department policies.”

The letter in question was sent to Musk by the DOJ just weeks before the election on November 5th.

In it, DOJ officials warned Musk’s America PAC that the pledge to give away $1 million every day to a randomly-selected voter who signed the PAC’s petition in support of freedom of speech was allegedly a violation of federal law.

The letter also accused Musk of making “a mockery of democracy.”

Musk defended his PAC’s actions, pointing out that participants at the time did “not need to register as Republicans or vote in the Nov. 5 elections.”

“The underlying motivation behind this stunt is obvious,” said Cooksey in his scathing letter to the DOJ.

“Employees of President Biden’s Department of Justice wanted to stop an independent political committee from campaigning for President Trump in crucial swing states just prior to election day.”

Cooksey further accused the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section of deliberately leaking the Musk letter to the New York Times, which was a violation of the department’s media policies.

“Writing such a letter and then leaking it also violates the department’s long-standing policy against the identification of uncharged parties and the disclosure of prejudicial information,” Cooksey continued.

Elon Musk, the founder and owner of Tesla and SpaceX, as well as the owner of the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter), is the wealthiest man in the world. He was previously a Democrat who supported politicians such as Barack Obama, but has shifted further to the right in recent years, due primarily to the Democrats’ increasingly radical stances, including support for censorship and transgenderism. Musk gave his official endorsement of President-elect Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign following the assassination attempt against him on July 13th.

President-elect Trump has since announced that Musk, alongside businessman and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, will lead an entirely new federal agency called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with the purpose of significantly reducing the size of the federal government over the course of the next two years. The agency plans to complete its work by July 4th, 2026, which will be the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 15:05

Watch: Fed Chair Powell Warns "Bumpy Path" Ahead For Inflation, 'No Hurry' To Lower Rates

On a day when producer prices confirmed what consumer prices warned yesterday - that the inflation genie is not back in the bottle - Fed Chair Jay Powell will be interviewed by WaPo reporter Catherine Powell at the Dallas Fed, presumably to reassure the world that he is 'independent', is not about to be fired by Trump, and that everything is awesome on the rate-cutting path.

Traders should expect Powell to reiterate the points he made at the FOMC press conference last week when he refused to provide specific guidance regarding the December meeting, stressed data-dependency and noted the Fed does not want to see further cooling in the labor market.

While hope remains high for the 'soft landing' narrative, today we see inflation resurgent at the same as jobless claims hit six-month lows...

Does that look like 'data' that would prompt The Fed to cut again in December?

Or will Powell be Burns 2.0?

Interestingly, minutes before Powell is set to speak, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon dropped some tape-bombs of reality:

• *DIMON: THINK THE CHANCE OF SOFT LANDING LESS THAN OTHERS THINK

• *DIMON: "NOT SO OPTIMISTIC" THAT INFLATION WILL GO AWAY QUICKLY

• *DIMON: GROWTH IS BEST POLICY TO FIX DEFICIT PROBLEM

• *DIMON: TRUMP INHERITING INFLATION THAT MAY NOT GO AWAY QUICKLY

Watch live (due to start at 1500ET)

Full prepared remarks below:

Good afternoon. Thank you to the World Affairs Council, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and the Dallas Regional Chamber for the kind invitation to be with you today. I will start with some brief comments on the economy and monetary policy.

Looking back, the U.S. economy has weathered a global pandemic and its aftermath and is now back to a good place. The economy has made significant progress toward our dual-mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices. The labor market remains in solid condition. Inflation has eased substantially from its peak, and we believe it is on a sustainable path to our 2 percent goal. We are committed to maintaining our economy's strength by returning inflation to our goal while supporting maximum employment.

Recent Economic Data

Economic growth

The recent performance of our economy has been remarkably good, by far the best of any major economy in the world. Economic output grew by more than 3 percent last year and is expanding at a stout 2.5 percent rate so far this year. Growth in consumer spending has remained strong, supported by increases in disposable income and solid household balance sheets. Business investment in equipment and intangibles has accelerated over the past year. In contrast, activity in the housing sector has been weak.

Improving supply conditions have supported this strong performance of the economy. The labor force has expanded rapidly, and productivity has grown faster over the past five years than its pace in the two decades before the pandemic, increasing the productive capacity of the economy and allowing rapid economic growth without overheating.

The labor market

The labor market remains in solid condition, having cooled off from the significantly overheated conditions of a couple of years ago, and is now by many metrics back to more normal levels that are consistent with our employment mandate. The number of job openings is now just slightly above the number of unemployed Americans seeking work. The rate at which workers quit their jobs is below the pre-pandemic pace, after touching historic highs two years ago. Wages are still increasing, but at a more sustainable pace. Hiring has slowed from earlier in the year. The most recent jobs report for October reflected significant effects from hurricanes and labor strikes, making it difficult to get a clear signal. Finally, at 4.1 percent, the unemployment rate is notably higher than a year ago but has flattened out in recent months and remains historically low.

Inflation

The labor market has cooled to the point where it is no longer a source of significant inflationary pressures. This cooling and the substantial improvement in broader supply conditions have brought inflation down significantly over the past two years from its mid-2022 peak above 7 percent. Progress on inflation has been broad based. Estimates based on the consumer price index and other data released this week indicate that total PCE prices rose 2.3 percent over the 12 months ending in October and that, excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core PCE prices rose 2.8 percent. Core measures of goods and services inflation, excluding housing, fell rapidly over the past two years and have returned to rates closer to those consistent with our goals. We expect that these rates will continue to fluctuate in their recent ranges. We are watching carefully to be sure that they do, however, just as we are closely tracking the gradual decline in housing services inflation, which has yet to fully normalize. Inflation is running much closer to our 2 percent longer-run goal, but it is not there yet. We are committed to finishing the job. With labor market conditions in rough balance and inflation expectations well anchored, I expect inflation to continue to come down toward our 2 percent objective, albeit on a sometimes-bumpy path.

Monetary Policy

Given progress toward our inflation goal and the cooling of labor market conditions, last week my Federal Open Market Committee colleagues and I took another step in reducing the degree of policy restraint by lowering our policy interest rate 1/4 percentage point.

We are confident that with an appropriate recalibration of our policy stance, strength in the economy and the labor market can be maintained, with inflation moving sustainably down to 2 percent. We see the risks to achieving our employment and inflation goals as being roughly in balance, and we are attentive to the risks to both sides. We know that reducing policy restraint too quickly could hinder progress on inflation. At the same time, reducing policy restraint too slowly could unduly weaken economic activity and employment.

We are moving policy over time to a more neutral setting. But the path for getting there is not preset. In considering additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, we will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. The economy is not sending any signals that we need to be in a hurry to lower rates. The strength we are currently seeing in the economy gives us the ability to approach our decisions carefully. Ultimately, the path of the policy rate will depend on how the incoming data and the economic outlook evolve.

We remain resolute in our commitment to the dual mandate given to us by Congress: maximum employment and price stability. Our aim has been to return inflation to our objective without the kind of painful rise in unemployment that has often accompanied past efforts to bring down high inflation. That would be a highly desirable result for the communities, families, and businesses we serve. While the task is not complete, we have made a good deal of progress toward that outcome.

Thank you, and I look forward to our discussion.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 14:45

Insurance Mogul Greg Lindberg Pleads Guilty To $2 Billion Fraud, Money Laundering Scheme

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Insurance mogul Greg Lindberg has pleaded guilty to conspiracy in a $2 billion fraud and money laundering scheme that defrauded thousands of insurance policyholders, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The Department of Justice building in Washington on March 28, 2023. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Lindberg pleaded guilty on Nov. 12 to one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States and one count of money laundering in a scheme to defraud insurance regulators and policyholders.

The 54-year-old Tampa resident faces a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison for the two counts, the DOJ said in a Nov. 12 statement. Lindberg is the founder of Eli Global LLC and owner of Global Bankers Insurance Group.

Prosecutors said that Lindberg conspired to defraud various insurance companies and policyholders through a web of companies based in North Carolina, Bermuda, Malta, and elsewhere between 2016 and 2019.

According to his indictment, Lindberg allegedly deceived the North Carolina Department of Insurance and other regulators and evaded regulatory requirements designed to protect insurance policyholders.

The insurance magnate was accused of using insurance company funds for his personal benefit by purchasing real estate and “forgiving” more than $125 million in loans from his affiliated companies to himself.

It stated that Lindberg and his co-conspirators engaged in “circular transactions” among his affiliated companies to invest more than $2 billion in loans and other securities and then laundered the scheme’s proceeds.

Prosecutors alleged that Lindberg provided false statements about his insurance business to regulators and obscured the real financial health of his companies. The scheme has led to some of his insurance companies being put into rehabilitation and liquidation, it stated.

“Thousands of policyholders suffered substantial financial hardship as a result of Lindberg’s fraud scheme, which left multiple companies in or on the brink of liquidation,” DOJ Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole Argentieri said in a statement.

“The Justice Department will not hesitate to hold corporate executives accountable when they threaten critical sectors of the economy, like the insurance industry, to enrich themselves.”

The Epoch Times reached out to Lindberg’s attorney but did not hear back by publication time.

In May, a federal judge convicted Lindberg and his consultant, John Gray, of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud and bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds. They face a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison for the charges. A sentencing date has not been set.

Lindberg and Gray were accused of trying to offer $1.5 million to North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey in campaign contributions in exchange for the removal of the North Carolina Department of Insurance’s senior deputy commissioner, who was responsible for overseeing the regulation of Lindberg’s company.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 14:25

Trump Team To Nuke EV Tax Credit As Musk's Price-War Endgame Looms

The final chapter of the electric vehicle price war, sparked by Tesla's Elon Musk, hinges on President-elect Donald Trump's plan to eliminate the $7,500 consumer tax credit. Sources with direct knowledge told Reuters that the Trump team has discussed ending the EV tax credit as part of broader tax reform legislation.

Sources indicated that Tesla - the largest EV automaker in the US and the only one not reliant on EV credits for survival - told the Trump transition committee that it fully supports the federal government ending the subsidy.

Here's more from Reuters:

Repealing the subsidy, which has been a signature measure of President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), is being discussed in meetings by an energy-policy transition team led by billionaire oilman Harold Hamm, founder of Continental Resources, and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, the two sources said.

The group has had several meetings since Trump's Nov. 5 election victory, including some at his Florida Mar-a-Lago club, where Tesla chief executive Elon Musk has also spent considerable time since the election.

In mid-July, Trump stated at a campaign rally that he would "end the Electric Vehicle Mandate on Day One — thereby saving the US auto industry from complete obliteration, and saving US customers thousands of dollars per car." 

On X, around that time, Musk explained to the Whole Mars Catalog why repealing the tax credit would only benefit Tesla: 

Take away the subsidies. It will only help Tesla.

Also, remove subsidies from all industries!

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 16, 2024

In October, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group representing all automotive brands besides Tesla, penned a letter expressing to lawmakers in Congress how crucial the EV tax credit is in "cementing the US as a global leader in the future of automotive technology and manufacturing." 

In the markets, Rivian shares tumbled by 10% in the early afternoon, while Tesla shares fell by 3.5%.

We knew the playbook in July. Here it is again: "Musk's strategy to win the EV price war: Build the largest EV business with taxpayer dollars, popularize EVs, allow other startups and OEMs to enter the market, and then support politicians who want to end EV subsidies, crushing the competition and leaving Tesla reigning supreme." 

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 13:20

Israel Said Seeking Lebanon Ceasefire By January As 'Gift' To Trump

It is no secret that Israeli leaders are overjoyed both at Donald Trump winning the US Presidency, and especially many of his very pro-Israel picks for foreign policy related positions in his administration. On Wednesday night The Washington Post issued an usual headline which says Israel is seeking to forge a Lebanon ceasefire plan as a "gift" the Trump.

"There is an understanding that Israel would gift something to Trump… that in January there will be an understanding about Lebanon," an unnamed Israeli official told the Post.

"A close aide to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Donald Trump and Jared Kushner this week that Israel is rushing to advance a cease-fire deal in Lebanon, according to three current and former Israeli officials briefed on the meeting, with the aim of delivering an early foreign policy win to the president-elect," the report details.

Via Reuters

US special envoy for Lebanon Amos Hochstein has this week said "there is a shot" of securing a ceasefire deal in Lebanon soon. Axios wrote that "It would be a major achievement for Biden in his final months in office."

But clearly the Israelis are making it be known that they would rather deal with Trump in matters of war and peace in the region. Thus it's expected that the war raging in south Lebanon will at least go on into January.

Like with Ukraine, Trump is pledging to quickly bring to an end wars which have Washington involvement; however, in a phone call last month he told PM Netanyahu to “do what you have to do” against Hezbollah and Hamas.

One career US diplomat in the Middle East region was cited in WaPo as saying "Netanyahu has no loyalty to Biden and will be focused entirely on currying favor with Trump."

Starting days ago Israel began making contacts with the Trump transition team. On Sunday Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago resort. Dermer and Trump reportedly discussed Israel's plans for Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran over the course of the coming months. The Israelis notified the White House about the meeting in Florida.

A US-backed ceasefire plan currently being discussed would heavily rely on UN peacekeeping forces and Lebanese army soldiers deploying near the Israeli border to ensure Hezbollah doesn't move back in once the Israeli army departs.

"The ceasefire proposal begins with a 60-day implementation period, during which time the Lebanese army will deploy along the border and confiscate Hezbollah arms in southern Lebanon," Times of Israel described in late October.

Imagine if this had happened in a residential area of any major capital; the media would be in an uproar. Yet, when it occurs in Lebanon, we are met with silence.

Israeli Airstrikes an hour ago on Chiyah area, Beirut Suburbs. pic.twitter.com/HN3PtsQJpI

— Marwa Osman || مروة عثمان (@Marwa__Osman) November 13, 2024

"The IDF will be required to pull all troops from Lebanon within seven days of the end of hostilities, and will be replaced by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF)," the report added. UN peacekeeping troops will reportedly facilitate the transition, and some 10,000 Lebanese national army troops. This plan is being negotiated by Biden administration officials, but time is running out.

In the meantime Israel's airstrikes on positions in the south, Beirut, and even in the northeast have continued. They've even expanded, with the Bekaa Valley getting pounded and other parts of easter Lebanon getting hit. Israel has also kept up its ground offensive, and both sides have sustained losses.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 13:00

Europe Will Draw The Short Straw In The Next Trade War

By Elwin de Groot, head of macro strategy

The Short Straw?

That Europe will probably draw the short straw in a scenario of rising protectionism and potential trade tensions with the US has been a key theme in markets since Trump’s smashing victory. Overnight, the Associated Press has called a House majority for the Republicans, which only further supports the view that this will give the incoming Trump team the confidence to make swift and broad-ranging policy changes from day one. So swift that it could overwhelm its European partners, especially since they are distracted at home.

Since mid-September, when Trump’s star started to climb in earnest, the interest rate differential between the US and Europe has widened considerably and the euro-dollar has lost some 6% of its value (offsetting the impact of a 6% US import tariff on European goods, by the way).

What seems fairly obvious is that the US will use tariffs (and maybe other policies) to attract more business to the US and will pressure allies to redirect supply chains from China. Although many businesses, sectors or states may wish not to take sides, the US’s ability to apply statecraft pressure makes this unrealistic. Compared to Europe, China is more likely to retaliate in a tit-for-that fashion (as it has already reduced its price-sensitive imports from the US, replacing them with imports from, for example, Brazil).

China could –if really pressed– also unleash domestic demand stimulus, as it is not bound by a “Growth and Stability Pact” straightjacket.

Europe’s position, on the other hand, is much more fragile.

If the US opts to raise significant additional tariffs on Chinese goods, European exporters may partly benefit from substitution (assuming that US producers cannot make up for the entire gap between demand and imports from China that arises). But a universal tariff could be a serious headache for Europe as tit-for-tat is much more complicated. First and foremost because Europe would shoot itself in the foot (think of LNG imports from the US). At best Europe will be able retaliate partially, selectively and with some delay. It may also hope to enter negotiations that will lead to reduced tariffs or avoiding them altogether (think of large purchases of LNG, defence goods, etc.). Given that Trump has a knack for making deals this is not a completely unrealistic scenario either.

But is Europe truly in a position to negotiate? French president Macron is a lame duck with a coalition that depends on support from the extreme right, and Germany is facing elections in February. This could be fertile soil for a negative feedback loop. It could accelerate decisions in board rooms to either cut back on staff (following large-scale labor hoarding) or accelerate plans to move (uncompetitive) production out of the Eurozone. Bundesbank President Nagel yesterday warned that the implementation of Trump’s tariff plans could cost Germany 1% of economic output, suggesting that German growth could even slip into negative territory next year.

Germany’s export-driven model is ill-equipped to deal with rising protectionism. This week, the German IG Metall union reached a 25-month deal with employers in the electrotechnical sector. A one-time €600 payment, a 2% pay rise from April 2025 onwards, and another 3.1% from April 2026 plus increases in sector performance surcharges are – according to our estimates – worth some 5.5 to 6%. This is a smaller increase than in the previous 2-year wage deal, but it is still more consistent with a gradual slowdown in wage growth rather than a fast one. And whilst it provides clarity and stability and may support a consumer recovery (since it is above the projected inflation rate) it will not take away any concerns about competitiveness.

The pessimism isn’t hard to grasp, but it is perhaps also the kind of sentiment that is necessary to get things moving. For one, the German elections open up the possibility for a renewed freeze or reform of the constitutional debt brake. Yesterday, Chancellor Scholz pleaded for additional measures to boost the economy. The government’s advisors, who slashed their growth forecast for 2025 to 0.4% from 1.1% previously, are also urging the government to durably increase public spending in infrastructure, defense and education. But even the CDU’s Merz, who may well be the future Chancellor, told Süddeutsche Zeitung that he is open to a reform of the strict borrowing rules, as long as additional debt is used to finance investment and not consumption or social spending. It’s just an opening shot, but it does suggest there is some sense of urgency even among some of the staunchest budget hawks.

Ultimately, European joint debt issuance and/or a freezing of the freshly-revamped EU budget rules may be required to unlock the required funds to finance Europe’s ambition to regain strategic autonomy. However, this looks politically unfeasible in the near term. Therefore, the EU has already started to look at other resources. The FT reported Tuesday that cohesion funds may be used to fund investments in military infrastructure and defence industries under certain conditions. These cohesion funds amount to 30% of the EU budget, or €392 billion. However, so far, only some 5% of the budget for the period 2021-2027 has been spent, suggesting that Member States have struggled to find good purposes for these funds. So, this is potentially a significant funding source for one of the key pillars of the strategic agenda.

It’s easy to succumb to pessimism over Europe, and we certainly agree that some very challenging years lie ahead. But this time, Europe is not completely unprepared. The Commission has a host of tools that allows them to respond to trade tensions relatively quickly. And the Draghi and Letta reports offer a host of concrete ideas to act purposefully. In the past few days we have perhaps seen a first glimpse of the age-old adage that Europe needs a crisis to grow stronger.

Briefly returning to the US, inflation for October was fully in line with expectations. The headline inflation rate rebounded to 2.6% y/y from 2.4% in September, albeit largely due to base effects. Core inflation remains sticky at 3.3% with a slightly elevated month-on-month rate of 0.3% for several months. Services less rent of shelter rebounded to 4.5% from 4.4%; it slowed down a little in month-on-month terms but remains elevated at 0.4%. This mixed picture served both hawks and doves. Minneapolis Fed’s Kashkari took the data as “headed in the right direction” and consistent with the “easing path” that the Fed is on, whilst Dallas Fed’s Logan called for caution in the cutting pace. The market took the CPI report as a sign that a December cut is very much in play, with the likelihood rising to 68% from less than 50% the other day. The relatively strong market reaction to the “in-line” figures indicates that markets have been dominated by Trump news flow: a figure just north of consensus would have forced the Fed to weigh future risks to inflation – stemming from tariffs and tax cuts – in its near-term deliberations).

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/14/2024 - 12:40

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus



In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets. Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helped the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system. All this means more liquidity — central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.” Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up — and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs. In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.” In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question. The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down. Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks at central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.” Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy. In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.” Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up. The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.” Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies. Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.” Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy – which of course, is not booming.

We are living in crazy times. I have a hard time believing that most of the general public is not awake, but in reality, they are. We've never seen anything like this; I mean not even under Obama during the worst part of the Great Recession." Now the Fed is desperately trying to keep interest rates from rising. The problem is that it's a much bigger debt bubble this time around , and the Fed is going to have to blow a lot more air into it to keep it inflated. The difference is this time it's not going to work." It looks like the Fed did another $104.15 billion of Not Q.E. in a single day. The Fed claims it's only temporary. But that is precisely what Bernanke claimed when the Fed started QE1. Milton Freedman once said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." The same applies to Q.E., or whatever the Fed wants to pretend it's doing. Except this is not QE4, according to Powell. Right. Pumping so much money out, and they are accusing China of currency manipulation ? Wow! Seriously! Amazing! Dump the U.S. dollar while you still have a chance. Welcome to The Atlantis Report. And it is even worse than that, In addition to the $104.15 billion of "Not Q.E." this past Thursday; the FED added another $56.65 billion in liquidity to financial markets the next day on Friday. That's $160.8 billion in two days!!!! in just 48 hours. That is more than 2 TIMES the highest amount the FED has ever injected on a monthly basis under a Q.E. program (which was $80 billion per month) Since this isn't QE....it will be really scary on what they are going to call Q.E. Will it twice, three times, four times, five times what this injection per month ! It is going to be explosive since it takes about 60 to 90 days for prices to react to this, January should see significant inflation as prices soak up the excess liquidity. The question is, where will the inflation occur first . The spike in the repo rate might have a technical explanation: a misjudgment was made in the Fed's money market operations. Even so, two conclusions can be drawn: managing the money markets is becoming harder, and from now on, banks will be studying each other's creditworthiness to a greater degree than before. Those people, who struggle with the minutiae of money markets, and that includes most professionals, should focus on the causes and not the symptoms. Financial markets have recovered from each downturn since 1980 because interest rates have been cut to new lows. Post-2008, they were cut to near zero or below zero in all major economies. In response to a new financial crisis, they cannot go any lower. Central banks will look for new ways to replicate or broaden Q.E. (At some point, governments will simply see repression as an easier option). Then there is the problem of 'risk-free' assets becoming risky assets. Financial markets assume that the probability of major governments such as the U.S. or U.K. defaulting is zero. These governments are entering the next downturn with debt roughly twice the levels proportionate to GDP that was seen in 2008. The belief that the policy worked was completely predicated on the fact that it was temporary and that it was reversible, that the Fed was going to be able to normalize interest rates and shrink its balance sheet back down to pre-crisis levels. Well, when the balance sheet is five-trillion, six-trillion, seven-trillion when we're back at zero, when we're back in a recession, nobody is going to believe it is temporary. Nobody is going to believe that the Fed has this under control, that they can reverse this policy. And the dollar is going to crash. And when the dollar crashes, it's going to take the bond market with it, and we're going to have stagflation. We're going to have a deep recession with rising interest rates, and this whole thing is going to come imploding down. everything is temporary with the fed including remaining off the gold standard temporary in the Fed's eyes could mean at least 50 years This liquidity problem is a signal that trading desks are loaded up on inventory and can't get rid of it. Repo is done out of a need for cash. If you own all of your securities (i.e., a long-only, no leverage mutual fund) you have no need to "repo" your securities - you're earning interest every night so why would you want to 'repo' your securities where you are paying interest for that overnight loan (securities lending is another animal). So, it is those that 'lever-up' and need the cash for settlement purposes on securities they've bought with borrowed money that needs to utilize the repo desk. With this in mind, as we continue to see this need to obtain cash (again, needed to settle other securities purchases), it shows these firms don't have the capital to add more inventory to, what appears to be, a bloated inventory. Now comes the fun part: the Treasury is about to auction 3's, 10's, and 30-year bonds. If I am correct (again, I could be wrong), the Fed realizes securities firms don't have the shelf space to take down a good portion of these auctions. If there isn't enough retail/institutional demand, it will lead to not only a crappy sale but major concerns to the street that there is now no backstop, at all, to any sell-off. At which point, everyone will want to be the first one through the door and sell immediately, but to whom? If there isn't enough liquidity in the repo market to finance their positions, the firms would be unable to increase their inventory. We all saw repo shut down on the 2008 crisis. Wall St runs on money. . OVERNIGHT money. They lever up to inventory securities for trading. If they can't get overnight money, they can't purchase securities. And if they can't unload what they have, it means the buy-side isn't taking on more either. Accounts settle overnight. This includes things like payrolls and bill pay settlements. If a bank doesn't have enough cash to payout what its customers need to pay out, it borrows. At least one and probably more than one banks are insolvent. That's what's going on. First, it can't be one or two banks that are short. They'd simply call around until they found someone to lend. But they did that, and even at markedly elevated rates, still, NO ONE would lend them the money. That tells me that it's not a problem of a couple of borrowers, it's a problem of no lenders. And that means that there's no bank in the world left with any real liquidity. They are ALL maxed out. But as bad as that is, and that alone could be catastrophic, what it really signals is even worse. The lending rates are just the flip side of the coin of the value of the assets lent against. If the rates go up, the value goes down. And with rates spiking to 10%, how far does the value fall? Enormously! And if banks had to actually mark down the value of the assets to reflect 10% interest rates, then my god, every bank in the world is insolvent overnight. Everyone's capital ratios are in the toilet, and they'd have to liquidate. We're talking about the simultaneous insolvency of every bank on the planet. Bank runs. No money in ATMs, Branches closed. Safe deposit boxes confiscated. The whole nine yards, It's actually here. The scenario has tended to guide toward for years and years is actually happening RIGHT NOW! And people are still trying to say it's under control. Every bank in the world is currently insolvent. The only thing keeping it going is printing billions of dollars every day. Financial Armageddon isn't some far off future risk. It's here. Prepare accordingly. This fiat system has reached the end of the line, and it's not correct that fiat currencies fail by design. The problem is corruption and manipulation. It is corruption and cheating that erodes trust and faith until the entire system becomes a gigantic fraud. Banks and governments everywhere ARE the problem and simply have to be removed. They have lost all trust and respect, and all they have left is war and mayhem. As long as we continue to have a majority of braindead asleep imbeciles following orders from these psychopaths, nothing will change. Fiat currency is not just thievery. Fiat currency is SLAVERY. Ultimately the most harmful effect of using debt of undefined value as money (i.e., fiat currencies) is the de facto legalization of a caste system based on voluntary slavery. The bankers have a charter, or the legal *right*, to create money out of nothing. You, you don't. Therefore you and the bankers do not have the same standing before the law. The law of the land says that you will go to jail if you do the same thing (creating money out of thin air) that the banker does in full legality. You and the banker are not equal before the law. ALL the countries of the world; Islamic or secular, Jewish or Arab, democracy or dictatorship; all of them place the bankers ABOVE you. And all of you accept that only whining about fiat money going down in exchange value over time (price inflation which is not the same as monetary inflation). Actually, price inflation itself is mainly due to the greed and stupidity of the bankers who could keep fiat money's exchange value reasonably stable, only if they wanted to. Witness the crash of silver and gold prices which the bankers of the world; Russian, American, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Arab, all of them collaborated to engineer through the suppression and stagnation of precious metals' prices to levels around the metals' production costs, or what it costs to dig gold and silver out of the ground. The bankers of the world could also collaborate to keep nominal prices steady (as they do in the case of the suppression of precious metals prices). After all, the ability to create fiat money and force its usage is a far more excellent source of power and wealth than that which is afforded simply by stealing it through inflation. The bankers' greed and stupidity blind them to this fact. They want it all, and they want it now. In conclusion, The bankers can create money out of nothing and buy your goods and services with this worthless fiat money, effectively for free. You, you can't. You, you have to lead miserable existences for the most of you and WORK in order to obtain that effectively nonexistent, worthless credit money (whose purchasing/exchange value is not even DEFINED thus rendering all contracts based on the null and void!) that the banker effortlessly creates out of thin air with a few strokes of the computer keyboard, and which he doesn't even bother to print on paper anymore, electing to keep it in its pure quantum uncertain form instead, as electrons whizzing about inside computer chips which will become mute and turn silent refusing to tell you how many fiat dollars or euros there are in which account, in the absence of electricity. No electricity, no fiat, nor crypto money. It would appear that trust is deteriorating as it did when Lehman blew up . Something really big happened that set off this chain reaction in the repo markets. Whatever that something is, we aren't be informed. They're trying to cover it up, paper it over with conjured cash injections, play it cool in front of the cameras while sweating profusely under the 5 thousands dollar suits. I'm guessing that the final high-speed plunge into global economic collapse has begun. All we see here is the ripples and whitewater churning the surface, but beneath the surface, there is an enormous beast thrashing desperately in its death throws. Now is probably the time to start tying up loose ends with the long-running prep projects, just saying. In other words, prepare accordingly, and Get your money out of the banks. I don't care if you don't believe me about Bitcoin. Get your money out of the banks. Don't keep any more money in a bank than you need to pay your bills and can afford to lose.











The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more













The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

The FBI released a summary of its file from the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Friday, showing details of Clinton's explanation of her use of a private email server to handle classified communications. The release comes nearly two months after FBI Director James Comey announced that although Clinton's handling of classified information was "extremely careless," it did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the next day that she would not pursue charges in the matter. "We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests," the FBI noted in a statement sent to reporters with links to the documents. The documents include notes from Clinton's July 2 interview with agents, as well as a "factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter," according to the FBI release. Throughout her interview with agents, Clinton repeatedly said she relied on the career professionals she worked with to handle classified information correctly. The agents asked about a series of specific emails, and in each case Clinton said she wasn't worried about the particular material being discussed on a nonclassified channel.