No longer just a by-product of the pandemic, remote work has become a prevalent option for most workforces, with the expectation that nearly a quarter of all workers will be fully remote by 2025, according to a Forbes Advisor report.
However, remote workers are also being laid off at a higher rate than in-house workers, according to data firm Live Data Technologies.
In response, many workers have changed their work habits in an effort to stay relevant.
Leslie Dunbar, a project manager for a national accounting practice based on the West Coast, told The Epoch Times that she has a specific daily ritual to ensure she’s viewed as a vital part of the team, though she’s based in the East Coast.
“I work Pacific time hours by my own choice because that is when my boss and the rest of the team work,” she said.
“No one asked me to do this. I was proactive in thinking through the adjustments I could make for myself that would help my success and the team’s success.”
Terri Kurtzberg, professor of management and global business at Rutgers Business School, said that Ms. Dunbar’s strategy is “spot on,” but also says some burden for effective employee communication needs to be placed on the employer.
“The out-of-sight, out-of-mind problem is very real. But it’s not realistic to say it didn’t work and just come back to the office,” Kurtzberg told The Epoch Times.
“The billion-dollar question is, how do employers manage work without the intangibles that make employees comfortable and how do you know that the work is being done at the levels you expect?”
Another area of concern for remote employees, according to analysis from Live Data Technologies, is that remote workers were promoted 31 percent less often than employees working an in-office or hybrid schedule in 2023.
Live Data Technologies said it looked at a sample size of 2 million white-collar workers split evenly between remote workers and in-office workers.
In 2023, 599,000 people changed jobs within the sample size. Of those, 168,000 individuals left a company and didn’t start a new job within 60 days, which Live Data Technologies classified as involuntary or a “layoff.”
Dell CEO Michael Dell made that clear in an employee memo released earlier this year that “for remote team members, it is important to understand the trade-offs: Career advancement, including applying to new roles in the company, will require a team member to reclassify as hybrid onsite.”
Rachelle Klozik holds two remote hats as a team supervisor and employee at a Michigan IT company while living in Florida.
She told The Epoch Times that remote employees and supervisors need to engage with co-workers about more than work to remain consistently visible.
“I meet with my team online frequently, and we talk about what’s going on in their lives and how I can work with them better,” she said.
“We have things … like after-hours Zoom calls and parties and you have to show your face and be involved, showing the company you’re engaged. But there’s more than work to discuss.”
Klozik said the onus to show a human side to remote employee interactions is her responsibility as a supervisor. “I manage people, and if I don’t give them something relatable, people won’t like working for me.”
Not everyone is enamored with remote employees.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey in a recent speech trying to share why working downtown in Minneapolis was beneficial to companies, called those who choose to work remotely “losers,” according to a video released by Fox 9.
“I don’t know if you saw this study the other day, but what this study clearly showed is that when people who have the ability to come downtown but don’t. When they stay home, sitting on their couch with their nasty cat blanket, fiddling on their laptop. If they do that for a few months, you become a loser. It’s a study. We’re not losers, are we?” he said.
The percentage of uninsured Americans rose to 8.2 percent in the first quarter of this year, according to survey findings published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Aug. 6.
The report estimated that 27.1 million Americans of all ages were without health insurance as of March this year, up from 25.5 million or 7.7 percent at the end of the previous year.
The percentage of uninsured people earning below the federal poverty level increased from 13.9 percent last year to 15.7 percent in the first quarter of 2024, the highest percentage among income levels.
Almost two-thirds (64.9 percent) of people under age 65 were covered by private health insurance and more than a quarter (27.7 percent) were covered by public health insurance in the first three months of 2023.
The number of people of all ages who enrolled in public health insurance plans decreased from 39.9 percent in the fourth quarter of 2023 to 39.2 percent this year, according to the CDC.
A report released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in June projected that the rate of uninsured Americans will increase to 8.9 percent over the next 10 years due to immigration, among other factors.
“The surge in immigration that began in 2021 (and that CBO projects will continue through 2026) will contribute to the increase as well, as those newly arrived immigrants will, the agency expects, be substantially less likely to have health insurance coverage than the overall population,” the report stated.
The CBO also attributed the rise in the uninsured rate to the end of a COVID-19 pandemic-era policy extending Medicaid eligibility and the expiration of enhanced marketplace subsidies.
The number of uninsured Americans aged between 18 and 44 is projected to see the largest increase over the next decade, according to the CBO report.
In March, President Joe Biden rolled back a Trump-era policy that expanded the availability of limited health insurance policies that are exempt from coverage requirements under the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as “Obamacare.”
These limited health insurance policies, commonly described as “short-term” policies and referred to by Biden as “junk health insurance,” provide a limited range of coverage for lower premiums.
Under President Barack Obama, individuals could be covered through these limited insurance plans for only three months.
In 2018, however, the Trump administration approved a new rule allowing people to obtain coverage under these limited policies for an initial period of 12 months, with the ability to extend the coverage for up to 36 months.
The Biden administration announced a rule that largely reverts to the Obama-era constraints, capping the duration of these limited insurance policies to three months with the ability to extend the policies for one additional month.
Homeowners Increasingly Tap Home Equity Lines As Savings Rate Plummets
With home values at or near record highs nationwide, and savings rates plunging, Americans are increasingly tapping into home equity.
While some are using it for home renovations, others likely need extra cash amid the Bidenomics blowback, which has created an environment of elevated inflation and high interest rates.
A new report released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit on Tuesday shows originations of both home equity loans and home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) balances increased by $4 billion, representing the ninth consecutive quarterly increase since the first quarter in 2022. The total stood at $380 billion, a $63 billion increase from the low of $317 billion reached in the third quarter of 2021.
“Homeowners continued to increase HELOC balances as an alternative way to extract home equity,” Andrew Haughwout, Director of Household and Public Policy Research at the New York Fed, wrote in the report.
Besides home renovations, other considerations that drive homeowners into taking out a HELOC include debt consolidation and emergency cash management as credit card debt hits record highs and the cost of living increasingly becomes unaffordable for the working poor and middle class under Biden’s first term.
Home equity products are the most viable option for homeowners in these challenging economic times.
While tapping home equity has many benefits, it also has many risks, including putting the property at risk by accruing significant debt and diluting the valuable asset when home prices reverse.
Cutting-edge weapons powered by artificial intelligence are emerging as a global security hazard, especially in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), according to several experts.
Eager to militarily surpass the United States, the CCP is unlikely to heed safeguards around lethal AI technologies, which are increasingly dangerous in their own right, the experts have argued. The nature of the technology is prone to feeding some of the worst tendencies of the regime and the human psyche in general, they warned.
“The implications are quite dramatic. And they may be the equal of the nuclear revolution,” said Bradley Thayer, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, an expert on a strategic assessment of China, and a contributor to The Epoch Times.
Killer Robots
The development of AI-powered autonomous weapons unfortunately is rapidly progressing, according to Alexander De Ridder, an AI developer and co-founder of Ink, an AI marketing firm.
“They’re becoming quickly more efficient and quickly more effective,” he told The Epoch Times, adding that “they’re not at the point where they can replace humans.”
Autonomous drones, tanks, ships, and submarines have become a reality along with more exotic modalities, such as the quadruped robot dogs, already armed with machine guns in China.
Even AI-powered humanoid robots, the stuff of sci-fi horrors, are in production. Granted, they’re still rather clumsy in the real world, but they won’t be for long, De Ridder suggested.
“The capabilities for such robots are quickly advancing,” he said.
Once they reach marketable usefulness and reliability, China is likely to turn its manufacturing might to their mass production, according to De Ridder.
“The market will be flooded with humanoid robots, and then it’s up to the programming how they’re used.”
That would mean military use, too.
“It’s kind of inevitable,” he said.
Such AI-powered machines are very effective at processing images to discern objects—to detect a human with their optical sensors, for example, explained James Qiu, an AI expert, founder of GIT Research Institute, and former CTO at FileMaker.
That makes AI robots very good at targeting.
“It’s a very effective killing machine,” he said.
AI Generals
On a broader level, multiple nations are working on an AI capable of informing and coordinating battlefield decisions—an electronic general, according to Jason Ma, an AI expert and data research lead at a multinational Fortune 500 company. He didn’t want the company’s name mentioned to prevent any impression he was speaking on its behalf.
The People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the CCP military, recently conducted battle exercises in which an AI was directly put in command.
The U.S. military also has projects in this area, Ma noted.
“It’s a very active research and development topic.”
The need is obvious, he explained. Battlefield decisions are informed by a staggering amount of data from historical context and past intelligence to near-real time satellite data, all the way to millisecond-by-millisecond input from every camera, microphone, and whatever sensor on the battlefield.
It’s “very hard” for humans to process such disparate and voluminous data streams, he said.
“The more complex the warfare, the more important part it becomes how can you quickly integrate, summarize all this information to make the right decision, within seconds, or within even sub-second,” he said.
AI weapons are already redefining warfare, the experts agreed. But the consequences are much broader. The technology is making the world increasingly volatile, Thayer said.
On the most rudimentary level, AI-powered weapon targeting will likely make it much easier to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles, detect and destroy submarines, and shoot down long-range bombers. That could neutralize the U.S. nuclear triad capabilities, allowing adversaries to “escalate beyond the nuclear level” with impunity, he suggested.
“AI would affect each of those components, which we developed and understood during the Cold War as being absolutely essential for a stable nuclear deterrent relationship,” he said.
“During the Cold War, there was a broad understanding that conventional war between nuclear powers wasn’t feasible. … AI is undermining that, because it introduces the possibility of conventional conflict between two nuclear states.”
If people continue developing AI-powered weapon systems without restrictions, the volatility will only worsen, he predicted.
“AI is greatly affecting the battlefield, but it’s not yet determinative,” he said.
If AI capabilities reach “the effect of nuclear war without using nuclear weapons,” that would sit the world on a powder keg, he said.
“If that’s possible, and it’s quite likely that it is possible, then that’s an extremely dangerous situation and incredibly destabilizing situation because it compels somebody who’s on the receiving end of an attack to go first, not to endure the attack, but to aggress.”
In warfare lexicon, the concept is called “damage limitation,” he said.
“You don’t want the guy to go first, because you’re going to get badly hurt. So you go first. And that’s going to be enormously destabilizing in international politics.”
The concern is not just about killer robots or drones but also various unconventional AI weapons. An AI, for example, could be developed to find vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure such as the electric grid or water supply systems.
Controlling the proliferation of such technologies appears particularly daunting. AI is just a piece of software. Even the largest models fit on a regular hard drive and can run on a small server farm. Simple but increasingly lethal AI weapons, such as killer drones, can be shipped in parts without raising alarm.
“Both vertical and horizontal proliferation incentives are enormous, and it’s easily done,” Thayer said.
De Ridder pointed out that the Chinese state wants to be seen as responsible on the world stage.
But that hasn’t stopped the CCP from supplying weapons or aiding weapon programs of other regimes and groups that aren’t so reputationally constrained, other experts have noted.
It wouldn’t be a surprise if the CCP were to supply autonomous weapons to terrorist groups that would then tie up the U.S. military in endless asymmetrical conflicts. The CCP could even keep its distance and merely supply the parts, letting proxies assemble the drones, much like Chinese suppliers provide fentanyl precursors to Mexican cartels and let them manufacture, ship, and sell the drugs.
The CCP, for example, has a long history of aiding Iranian weapon programs. Iran, in turn, supplies weapons to a panopticon of terrorist groups in the region.
“There would be little disincentive for Iran to do this,” Mr. Thayer said.
It’s generally accepted, at least in the United States and among its allies, that the most crucial safeguard against AI weapons wreaking unforeseen havoc is keeping a human in control of important decisions, particularly the use of deadly force.
“Under no circumstances should any machines autonomously independently be allowed to take a human life ever,” De Ridder said.
The principle is commonly summarized in the phrase “human in the loop.”
“A human has a conscience and needs to wake up in the morning with remorse and the consequences of what they’ve done, so that they can learn from it and not repeat atrocities,” said De Ridder.
Some of the experts pointed out, however, that the principle is already being eroded by the nature of combat transformed by AI capabilities.
In the Ukraine war, for example, the Ukrainian military had to equip its drones with some measure of autonomy to guide themselves to their targets because their communication with human operators was being jammed by the Russian military.
Such drones only run simpler AI, Ma said, given the limited power of the drone’s onboard computer. But that may soon change as both AI models and computers are getting faster and more efficient.
Apple is already working on an AI that could run on a phone, says Ma.
“It’s highly likely it will be in the future put into a small chip.”
Moreover, in a major conflict where hundreds or perhaps thousands of drones are deployed at once, they can share computational power to perform much more complex autonomous tasks.
“It’s all possible,” he said. “It’s gotten to the point where it’s not science fiction; it’s just [a matter of] if there is a group of people who want to devote the time to work on that. It’s tangible technology.”
Removing human control out of necessity isn’t a new concept, according to James Fanell, former naval intelligence officer and an expert on China.
He gave the example of the Aegis Combat System deployed on U.S.-guided missile cruisers and destroyers. It automatically detects and tracks aerial targets and launches missiles to shoot them down. Normally, a human operator controls the missile launches, but there’s also a way to switch it to automatic mode, such as when there’s too many targets for the human operator to track. The system then identifies and destroys targets on its own, Fanell said.
In mass drone warfare, where an AI coordinates thousands of drones in a systematic attack, the side that gives its AI autonomy to shoot will gain a major speed advantage over the side where humans must approve each shot.
“On the individual shooting level, people have to give up control because they can’t really make all the decisions so quickly,” Ma said.
De Ridder pointed out that a drone shooting another drone on its own would be morally acceptable. But that could unleash a lot of autonomous shooting on a battlefield where there may be humans too, opening the door to untold collateral casualties.
No Rules
Whatever AI safeguards may be practicable, the CCP is unlikely to abide by them anyway, most of the experts agreed.
“I don’t really see there will be any boundaries for China to be cautious about,” Ma said. “Whatever is possible, they will do it.”
“The idea that China would constrain themselves in the use of it, I don’t see that,” Fanell said.
“They’re going to try to take advantage of it and be able to exploit it faster than we can.”
The human-in-the-loop principle could simply be reinterpreted to apply to “a bigger, whole battle level” rather than “the individual shooting level,” Ma said.
But once one accepts that AI can start shooting on its own in some circumstances, the principle of human control becomes malleable, Fanell said.
“If you’re willing to accept that in a tactical sense, who’s to say you won’t take it all the way up to the highest level of warfare?” he said.
“It’s the natural evolution of a technology like this, and I’m not sure what we can do to stop it. It’s not like you’re going to have a code of ethics that says in warfare [let’s abide by] the Marquess of Queensberry Rules of boxing. It’s not going to happen.”
Even if humans are kept in control of macro decisions, such as whether to launch a particular mission, AI can easily dominate the decision-making process, multiple experts agreed.
The danger wouldn’t be a poorly performing AI but rather one that works so well that it instills trust in the human operators.
De Ridder was skeptical of prognostications about superintelligent AI that vastly exceeds humans. He acknowledged, though, that AI obviously exceeds humans in some regards, particularly speed. It can crunch mountains of data and spit out a conclusion almost immediately.
It’s virtually impossible to figure out how exactly an AI comes to its conclusions, according to Ma and Qiu.
De Ridder said that he and others are working on ways to restrict AI to a human-like workflow, so the individual steps of its reasoning are more transparent.
But given the incredible amount of data involved, it would be impossible for the AI to explain how each piece of information factored into its reasoning without overwhelming the operator, Ma acknowledged.
“If the human operator clearly knows this is a decision [produced] after the AI processed terabytes of data, he won’t really have the courage to overrule that in most cases. So I guess yes, it will be formality,” he said.
“Human in the loop is a comfortable kind of phrase, but in reality, humans will give up control quickly.”
Public Pressure
Even if humans are kept in the loop only nominally, it’s still important, De Ridder said.
“As long as we keep humans in the loop, we can keep humans accountable,” he said.
Indeed, all the experts agreed that public pressure is likely to constrain AI weapon development and use, at least in the United States.
Ma gave the example of Google terminating a defense contract over the objections of its staff.
He couldn’t envision an analogous situation in China, though.
Qiu agrees.
“Anything inside China is a resource the CCP can leverage,” he said. “You cannot say, ‘Oh, this is a private company.’ There is no private company per se [in China].”
Even the CCP cannot dispose of public sentiment altogether, De Ridder said.
“The government can only survive if the population wants to collaborate.”
But there’s no indication that the Chinese populace sees AI military use as an urgent concern.
On the contrary, companies and universities in China appear to be eager to pick up military contracts, Ma said.
De Ridder called for “an international regulatory framework that can be enforced.”
It’s not clear how such regulations could be enforced against China, which has a long history of refusing any limits on its military development. The United States has long vainly attempted to bring China to the table on nuclear disarmament. Recently, China refused a U.S. request to guarantee that it wouldn’t use AI for nuclear strike decisions.
If the United States regulates its own AI development, it could create a strategic vulnerability, multiple experts suggested.
“Those regulations will be very well studied by the CCP and used as an attack tool,” Qiu said.
Even if some kind of agreement is reached, the CCP has a poor track record of keeping promises, according to Thayer.
“Any agreement is a pie crust made to be broken.”
Solutions
De Ridder says he hopes that perhaps nations would settle for using AI in less destructive ways.
“There’s a lot of ways that you can use AI to achieve your objectives that does not involve sending a swarm of killer drones to each other,” he said.
“When push comes to shove, nobody wants these conflicts to happen.”
The other experts believed, however, that the CCP wouldn’t mind starting such a conflict—as long as it would see a clear path to victory.
“The Chinese are not going to be constrained by our ruleset,” Fanell said. “They’re going to do whatever it takes to win.”
Reliance on the whispers of an AI military advisor, one that instills confidence by processing mountains of data and producing convincing battle plans, could be particularly dangerous as it may create a vision of victory where there previously wasn’t one, according to Thayer.
“You can see how that might be very attractive to a decision maker, especially one that is hyper aggressive, as is the CCP,” Thayer said. “It may make aggression more likely.”
“There’s only one way to stop it, which is to be able to defeat it,” Fanell said.
Chuck de Caro, former consultant for the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, recently called for the United States to develop electromagnetic weapons that could disable computer chips. It may even be possible to develop energy weapons that could disable a particular kind of chips, he wrote in a Blaze op-ed.
“Obviously, without functioning chips, AI doesn’t work.”
Another option might be to develop an AI superweapon that could serve as a deterrent.
“Is there an AI Manhattan Project that the U.S. is doing that can create the effect that Nagasaki and Hiroshima would have on the PRC and the Chinese Communist Party, which is to bring them to the realization that, ‘Okay, maybe we don’t want to go there. This is mutually assured destruction?’ I don’t know. But that’s what I would be [doing],” Fanell said.
That could leave the world in a Cold War-like stand-off—hardly an ideal state, but one likely seen as preferable to abnegating military advantage to the CCP.
“Every country knows it’s dangerous, but nobody can stop because they are afraid they will be left behind,” Ma said.
De Ridder’s says it might take a profound shock to halt the AI arms race.
“We might need like a world war, with immense human tragedy, to ban the use of autonomous AI killing machines,” he said.
Middle East On The Brink: Goldman Heads Discuss ‘Interconnected Realities’ Of Markets & Geopolitics Amid Looming Iran Strike
The war drums in the Middle East are getting louder by the hour as the world braces for an imminent Iranian (or Iranian proxy forces) strike on Israel. The US faces the daunting task of defending Israel from Iranian strikes if deterrence missile defense shields fail, which could potentially ignite a regional conflict.
Jared Cohen, President of Global Affairs and Co-Head of the Goldman Sachs Global Institute, and Sam Morgan, Global Head of FICC Sales and Co-Head of One Goldman Sachs, discussed Tuesday the latest developments in the Middle East, structural changes across the region, and how markets are responding to the overseas crisis as war risks soar.
Here’s the complete transcript of the conversation between Cohen and Morgan released for clients on Tuesday:
MORGAN:
Last month we witnessed a series of shocks and escalations in the Middle East, and tensions are only increasing. How have these developments changed the post-October 7 conflict in the Middle East?
COHEN:
A wider war has been possible since the beginning. In particular, a war between Israel and Hezbollah has been possible since October 8, when Hezbollah fired its first rockets after Hamas’s attack. More than 80,000 Israelis have evacuated their homes in northern Israel since, and most remain displaced. The killing of 12 Druze children playing on a soccer field on July 27 made a larger war between the two sides much more likely.
An all-out war with Hezbollah could be more violent, for both Lebanon and Israel, than the conflict with Hamas has been to date. Hezbollah has an arsenal of 120,000 to 200,000 rockets and missiles, including hundreds of precision guided missiles and 65,000 short-range rockets. These munitions could strike cities throughout Israel, as well critical infrastructure, such as electricity grids.
Israel has also reshaped the war in the last few weeks. Despite ten months of conflict, Israel’s longest since its War of Independence from 1948 – 1949, the Israel Defense Forces and intelligence services have shown themselves to still be tremendously capable. In retaliation for the Houthi drone attack on Tel Aviv, Israel’s air force struck the Houthi-controlled Hudaydah port in faraway Yemen, refueling mid-air during the long-distance mission. The bomb that killed Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was reportedly planted in an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) guesthouse months ago. This was a shock for the Supreme Leader, who is aging and now never leaves the country. Combined with the elimination of Hamas leader Mohammed Deif and Hezbollah military commander Fuad Shukr, who played a role in the 1983 Marine Corps Barracks bombing in Beirut, and other targeted assassinations, Israel may be trying to retake the initiative and show Iran the unexpected and high costs of escalation.
MORGAN:
Many observers are expecting retaliation by Iran, possibly including a direct assault against Israel. Is such an attack likely, and are Israel, the US and their partners prepared for such an escalation?
COHEN:
We don’t know the timing of a potential Iranian retaliation, and it’s impossible to predict the scale with certainty. But a direct Iranian-led assault against Israel looks increasingly likely, and Israelis and their partners are preparing.
This is a very precarious moment for the region, and the risks are high. In April, Iran broke the geopolitical seal on direct confrontation, when it fired 170 drones, more than 30 cruise missiles, and more than 120 ballistic missiles against Israel. Israel reportedly struck back. After the killing of Haniyeh, on August 1 in Tehran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei met in Tehran with proxy groups from Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to discuss retaliation against Israel.
What could make this potential attack different from April’s? There is an increased level of coordination among Iran and its proxies across seven fronts. In addition, it’s possible that Iran could use more munitions, attack different targets, and engage in prolonged assaults that could overwhelm Israel’s defense systems, or even use its proxies to simultaneously attack US forces in Syria or Iraq, where several servicemembers were injured earlier this week. Iran or its proxies could also attack Israel or Jewish targets abroad, such when Hezbollah attacked a Jewish community center in Argentina in 1994 or attempted to execute a plot in Brazil at the beginning of the current war. And the closer we get to the US election, the more uncertainty there will likely be about US politics and engagement in the region.
The preparations to defend against Iranian attacks are extensive. Israel and its partners intercepted almost all Iran’s missiles and drones four months ago, and Jerusalem and its allies and partners are working together again. Countries are urging their citizens to leave Lebanon. The US and Arab countries have in recent days sent envoys and messages to Tehran to work to deescalate the situation, so far without success. The commander of US Central Command arrived in Israel earlier this week. The US is moving more defensive assets to the region, including the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group, which will replace the USS Theodore Roosevelt. Israel is likely closely coordinating with its Sunni Arab neighbors – what Prime Minister Netanyahu now refers to as the “Abraham Alliance” – to defend against their shared rival in Iran. And, depending on the scale of the attack, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has said the military is ready for a “swift transition to offense.”
MORGAN:
How do the events of the last month fit into Iran’s broader regional strategy, and do you expect any change in Iran’s calculus?
COHEN:
In my view, Iran relies on proxies to achieve its objectives to attack Israel, push the US out of Iraq and Syria, and become the dominant power in the Middle East. Those objectives likely have not changed. But, as April’s Iranian attack against Israel showed, Tehran is now more prepared than it was before to engage in direct confrontation, rather than relying exclusively on proxies and covert action. If Iran directly attacks Israel, the US, or their allies and partners in the next few days or weeks, we will be able to better calculate if Tehran is seeking a wider, all-out regional war, with all the costs that would bring, or if its strategy is to save face and continue the conflict at its current levels. An attack is increasingly likely, but as Israel’s actions over the last few weeks have shown, escalation presents enormous risks to the regime in Iran as well.
MORGAN:
How do you think about the broader geopolitical setup in the Middle East and the incentives and positioning of each of the key regional actors?
COHEN:
There have been two key strategic questions since October 7. First, can Iran and its proxies create a new normal in the Middle East, with constant conflict and attrition that wears down Israel, the US and their allies and partners, without imposing unacceptable direct costs on Tehran? And second, can they break apart an emerging Israel-Sunni Arab bloc and become the dominant power in the region?
On the former, Iran has so far succeeded. The damage that Iran and its proxies have done to Israel, Palestinians, and populations throughout the region is enormous. The costs to Iran – including attacks on Iranian soil and the targeting of IRGC commanders – have so far not been high enough to change Tehran’s overall strategy.
But Iran has not yet succeeded in breaking apart the Israel-Sunni bloc. We saw that in April, when Israel coordinated its defense with countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The Abraham Accords between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and even Sudan continue to hold. The incentives for this bloc – as diverse as the actors are – to not let Iran dominate the Middle East are clear. And if anything, this geopolitical test has reinforced the direction of travel for wealthy Gulf countries, who have been pushing for economic integration and diversification and for greater influence on the global stage. To succeed, however, Israel and Washington’s partners in the Gulf will likely need US support.
COHEN:
How have markets reacted to the rise in geopolitical tensions?
MORGAN:
There has been a significant re-pricing of regional assets (e.g. Israel CDS, USDILS FX, ILS interest rate swaps) since mid-July, but the impact on commodities has been limited (and the oil price is down on the month). Equity markets (SPX in particular, but notably Nasdaq and Topix as well) and bond markets (such as short dated UST) have re-priced meaningfully in recent weeks, and Middle Eastern escalations have contributed to a sense of market nervousness, but the primary drivers of market moves have been a changing market perception around US recession risk, US tech earnings reports, questions about the timing and magnitude of the impact of developments in Gen(AI), and de-risking of crowded trades.
COHEN:
If the market reactions to the events in the Middle East have (so far) been limited, what escalations in the region could shift how the markets view the current crisis and its effects on global growth? What lessons have we learned that could be useful for future geopolitical shocks?
MORGAN:
The primary market nexus through which Middle Eastern tensions could have global growth impact would be via the oil market (as was the case in the 1970s). To date, the oil market has largely shrugged off geopolitical concerns and focused on the impact on demand of US and China slowdowns (and the potential impact of the US election on supply). A further escalation could impact oil markets to the upside if critical oil infrastructure were endangered. The broader lesson remains that the markets focus first and foremost on the economy and policy. Geopolitical tensions have major impacts on specific companies, sectors (e.g. defense), and countries, but for global impacts there needs to be a direct knock-on to growth, inflation (e.g. via oil prices), or monetary and fiscal policy. The focus for now will remain on the US economy and areas of potential concern (such as low-end consumers, and housing), the extent of the Fed’ put’ and their willingness to ease rates fast (e.g. the possibility of 50bp increment cuts), and big tech AI expenditure and earnings.
Harvard University will be offering a course examining medieval texts by using “queer theory.”
Harvard’s English department will be featuring a “Queer/Medieval” class in the upcoming spring 2025 semester. The course will be an “introduction to queer theory as an intellectual tool with which to read texts far removed from the political, cultural, and social discourses from which queer theory emerged,” specifically, in this case, medieval texts.
“We will ask: what can queer theory offer readers of medieval literature in its explorations of gender, sexuality, race, power, narrative, trauma, and time?” the course description states.
The course will use the lens of “queer theory” to examine classic medieval texts such as Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
Though the course is listed on Harvard’s website as taking place in the spring 2025 semester, a Harvard official told Campus Reform that it will actually take place in the fall of 2024.
The course will be taught by Assistant Professor of English Anna Wilson, Harvard’s “Medieval Studies Faculty Liaison for Equity and Diversity,” whose faculty profile lists “BGLTQ Studies” as one of her academic specialties. Her research interests include “medieval Christian visionary writing,” “women’s writing,” “fanfiction and fan communities,” “queer theory,” “gender and sexuality studies,” and “race in medieval literature,” among others.
“I am delighted to mentor all Harvard students,” her page reads.
“As a queer woman, I am particularly happy to support students who identify as LGBTQAII+.”
Harvard offers a wide array of services catered to LGBTQ-identifying students, including its “Office of BGLTQ Student Life” which hosts a number of events each year, including “a National Coming Out Day open mic, a vigil for Trans Day of Remembrance, and Lavender Graduation in honor of graduating members of the BGLTQ community.”
“The Office of BGLTQ Student Life serves as a central resource for bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, queer, and questioning (BGLTQ) students at Harvard College,” the office’s website reads.
“Through our work, we foster the inclusion, affirmation, and celebration of all BGLTQ identities and expressions. We strive to create a community where BGLTQ students can thrive and where all students are well-equipped to engage knowledgeably and compassionately with regard to gender and sexuality.”
Campus Reform has reached out to Anna Wilson for comment. This story will be updated accordingly.
Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, X, and SpaceX, has reignited a legal battle against OpenAI and its co-founders, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, months after initially dropping his lawsuit.
The revived complaint, filed Aug. 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses the defendants of multiple counts, including fraud, breach of contract, and violations of federal civil racketeering laws.
Musk had originally sued in February before dropping the suit in June with no explanation given at the time.
Musk’s revived lawsuit includes several allegations against OpenAI, Altman, and Brockman—at the heart of which is a claim that Altman and Brockman “intentionally courted and deceived” Musk into co-founding OpenAI under false pretenses.
Musk asserted in the 81-page suit that he was misled into believing that OpenAI would be a nonprofit organization focused on developing artificial intelligence (AI) technologies “for the benefit of humanity,” operating as a counterbalance to for-profit tech giants.
According to the lawsuit, OpenAI’s co-founders allegedly manipulated Musk by making repeated promises and assurances that the organization would remain open-source and not driven by profit.
The suit defines “open source” as the practice of making AI technology and research freely accessible to the public, allowing for transparency and collaboration.
“Altman assured Musk that the non-profit structure guaranteed neutrality and a focus on safety and openness for the benefit of humanity, not shareholder value,” the suit claimed. “But as it turns out, this was all hot-air philanthropy—the hook for Altman’s long con.”
Musk claims that these representations were part of a scheme to attract significant funding and expertise, which he provided, including “tens of millions of dollars” and the recruitment of top AI scientists.
The complaint further accuses Altman and Brockman of engaging in “rampant self-dealing” and transforming OpenAI into a for-profit entity in partnership with Microsoft, thereby abandoning its original mission.
Musk argued that OpenAI’s pivot to a for-profit model has resulted in substantial unjust enrichment for the defendants, which he contends was at the expense of the nonprofit’s mission.
Company Responds to Lawsuit
OpenAI responded to the latest legal filing in a statement.
“As we said about Elon’s initial legal filing, which was subsequently withdrawn, Elon’s prior emails continue to speak for themselves,” a spokesperson for the company told The Associated Press in an emailed statement.
In March, OpenAI released emails purportedly written by Musk showing initial support for making the company for-profit to secure the necessary funding to compete with Google DeepMind. Musk also supported the idea of merging OpenAI with Tesla.
“We may wish it otherwise, but, in my and [redacted]’s opinion, Tesla is the only path that could even hope to hold a candle to Google. Even then, the probability of being a counterweight to Google is small. It just isn’t zero,” Musk wrote in an email dated Feb. 1, 2018.
Musk’s legal team has outlined several demands for relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, and surrendering ill-gained profits.
The lawsuit seeks to impose a “constructive trust” on the alleged ill-gotten gains of the defendants, demands an accounting of all profits derived from the purported misconduct, and requests a judicial declaration that the licensing agreement between OpenAI and Microsoft is “null and void” or that certain OpenAI technologies fall outside the scope of this license.
Additionally, the complaint seeks an injunction to prevent further harm, alleging that the defendants’ actions have caused substantial injury to Musk’s reputation and commercial interests, impacting his ability to recruit leading scientists.
As I’ve discussed recently, I believe proxy wars will determine who wins WW3 and gets to shape the new world order.
There are numerous ongoing proxy wars in World War 3.
However, the ones I believe will prove decisive will be in Taiwan, Ukraine, and the Middle East. The others are peripheral in comparison.
I think it’s clear the proxy wars in Ukraine and Taiwan are likely to end in favor of BRICS+.
That’s why I expect NATO & Friends will make their last stand to scuttle the emergence of a multipolar world order and preserve the US-led world order in the Middle East.
The Middle East is on the precipice of its largest war in generations.
The region is roughly divided into two different geopolitical groups.
The first is the US and its allies—Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and others.
(Though Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are members of BRICS+, their true allegiance is with the agenda of NATO & Friends).
The second group describes itself as the Axis of Resistance. It consists of Iran, Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, several Palestinian groups (including Hamas), and an assortment of militias in Iraq. Russia and China are standing behind the Axis of Resistance.
If there is a regional war in the Middle East, it will undoubtedly be between these two groups.
In the context of World War 3, the US and its allies represent NATO & Friends, and the Axis of Resistance represents BRICS+.
Here is a geopolitical map of the Middle East as I see it (click to enlarge).
Iran is the main sponsor of the Axis of Resistance, and it does not have nuclear weapons.
Unlike in Europe (Russia) or East Asia (China), there is no sophisticated nuclear power to deter NATO & Friends from more aggressive military action in the Middle East. Iran is, therefore, the weak link in the BRICS+ alliance to push for a multipolar world order.
That’s why I expect NATO & Friends will make their last stand to scuttle the emergence of a multipolar world order in the Middle East by trying to neutralize the Axis of Resistance.
Here is a brief overview of where things stand now in various areas of the Middle East. It will help us zoom out and put together the pieces to see the big picture.
Gaza
While Israel has caused widespread destruction in Gaza, they are nowhere close to their goal of totally destroying Hamas.
Even the US government acknowledges that Israeli military action will be unable to totally destroy Hamas. The Israeli military has also come to reluctantly admit that Hamas cannot be defeated by military force alone.
That’s because Hamas is waging a classic guerrilla warfare campaign against the far superior Israeli military on the ground in Gaza.
Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare that relies on unconventional tactics such as hit-and-run attacks, sabotage, and ambushes to harass and exhaust a much stronger, better-equipped enemy force.
The main objective is not to achieve a decisive victory through conventional means but rather to undermine the enemy’s morale and force them to expend resources in a war of attrition.
The emphasis on survival and persistence allows guerrilla fighters to maintain their presence in the conflict, inspire more people to join their cause, and create a sense of frustration and demoralization among the enemy troops.
This strategy has been employed successfully by various groups throughout history—the Taliban, the Viet Cong, etc.—demonstrating the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare to challenge much more powerful adversaries.
Simply put, in a guerrilla war, to survive is to win.
That’s because merely surviving allows guerrillas to continue exhausting their enemies. By surviving, they undermine attempts to destroy their movement and demonstrate their resilience and determination to continue fighting.
Moreover, their enemy’s inability to completely eliminate the guerrilla fighters can lead to the perception that they are losing the war, as they cannot achieve a decisive victory despite their superior resources and technology.
Here’s the bottom line.
Israel has been trapped in a no-win situation with two unappealing choices:
Negotiate a ceasefire and an exchange of prisoners on unfavorable terms. The region will likely view it as a victory for the Axis of Resistance because Hamas will have forced the much stronger Israel to accept some of its terms.
Engage in a fruitless protracted guerrilla war that drains its military, economy, and diplomatic capital. Such a scenario will also risk sparking a much larger full-scale regional war against the Axis of Resistance—with Russia and China standing behind them—that Israel, the US, and its allies aren’t guaranteed to win.
No matter how the Gaza war ultimately ends, the events of October 7 and afterward have likely shattered the aura of invincibility of the Israeli military. In other words, Israel has lost its deterrence, and it will not easily or quickly regain it.
In short, Israel’s regional position is deteriorating. That weakens the geopolitical position of NATO & Friends in the Middle East.
Syria
Since 2011, NATO & Friends have tried to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Al Assad and replace him with someone more pliable. However, that effort failed thanks to the intervention of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.
Syria will remain a crucial member of the Axis of Resistance and sympathetic to BRICS+.
Iraq
After the US overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003, they hoped to mold Iraq in the shape of Jordan, one of its most reliable allies in the Middle East.
Though, it didn’t work out the way they had hoped.
Instead, the removal of Sunni Saddam empowered Iraq’s Shia majority, which is much more sympathetic to Iran than the US agenda for the region.
Numerous powerful Iraqi militia groups are members of the Axis of Resistance. The Iraqi central government cannot challenge them and is more or less on the same geopolitical page anyway.
However, there are still a couple of thousand US soldiers in Iraq, which the Iraqi central government recently asked Washington to withdraw. Negotiations are ongoing.
Regardless of whether the relatively small number of US troops stays or leaves, Iraq’s geopolitical orientation has tilted towards the Axis of Resistance and BRICS+.
Yemen
Yemen has sometimes been called “the Afghanistan of the Middle East” because it is an impoverished tribal society that is well-armed, situated on mountainous terrain, and generally inhospitable to foreign invaders.
The Houthis, an Iran-backed group that controls most of Yemen, frustrated a military coalition of Saudi Arabia and its allies. Despite waging war since 2015, the Saudis have not been able to defeat the Houthis.
However, most people are unaware of this war or its details. It’s remarkable that the Saudis, who are among the wealthiest in the Middle East and backed by the military and political support of the US, could not defeat the Middle East’s most impoverished people in Yemen.
The Houthis—and thus the Axis of Resistance—remain firmly in control of most of Yemen.
Amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza, the Houthis have demonstrated an ability to disrupt global shipping in the Red Sea—some of the most important sea lanes in the world. They have targeted ships associated with the US and Israel with missiles and drones and have also hit Israeli cities.
However, there is little appetite for anyone to take on the Houthis. The Saudis’ poor performance against them is still fresh in everyone’s minds.
Here’s the bottom line with Yemen.
The Houthis will likely remain in power and sympathetic to the BRICS+ agenda for a multipolar world order.
Iran
Unlike most other nation states in the Middle East, Iran (known as Persia before 1935) is not an artificial construct. By race, religion, and social history, it is a nation. European bureaucrats didn’t dream up Iran by drawing zigzags on a map. The map reflects the geographic reality of a country with natural, fortress-like mountain borders. In the east, the Roman Empire generally ended where the Persian Empire began.
Iran leads the Axis of Resistance in the Middle East and is the main power pushing for the BRICS+ goal of a multipolar order in the region.
The US and its allies have not been successful in limiting Iran’s power. They’ve tried pretty much everything short of a full-scale invasion.
Instead, the opposite happened: Iran’s influence grew.
Iran’s economy has strengthened thanks to expanding relations with China, and its military has strengthened thanks to expanding ties with Russia and a well-developed domestic military-industrial complex.
In short, NATO & Friends have few cards to play against Iran.
If the US really wants to decapitate the BRICS+ agenda in the Middle East, it would need to overthrow the Iranian government. That would require waging a full-scale regional war against all members of the Axis of Resistance and launching a ground invasion of Iran.
Remember, during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)—back when Saddam was a “good guy”—he threw over 500,000 Iraqi soldiers at the Iranian meat grinder, had the backing of the US AND the Soviet Union, and used chemical weapons on a scale not seen since WW1… and he barely made a dent in Iran.
The reality is that if the US is serious about invading Iran, it would likely require total mobilization and bringing back the draft. That is not likely to happen, but even if it did, it would not guarantee US victory.
If Iran thought the US was going to invade, it could also develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent within a matter of weeks or less. It might also already have a couple of secretly obtained nukes.
Given those unfavorable prospects, NATO & Friends could decide to use nuclear weapons on Iran preemptively.
Iran is well aware that the US or Israel could use nuclear weapons against it. It has contingency plans for that outcome to ensure the survival of its government. Iran’s plans also likely include making a dash for developing its own nuclear arsenal to be able to respond in kind.
Further, it’s doubtful that Russia and China would just sit back and do nothing if NATO & Friends looked like they might nuke Iran. For example, Russia could decide to station nuclear weapons and Russian soldiers on Iranian soil as a deterrent.
In short, NATO & Friends using nukes on Iran could lead to an unpredictable series of events that could quickly spiral out of control, so I don’t view it as a likely outcome.
Here’s the bottom line.
NATO & Friends don’t have any attractive options when it comes to dealing with Iran.
Conclusion
NATO & Friends are not in a weak position in the Middle East. They have nuclear weapons, advanced militaries, and some of the largest regional armies—notably Egypt, Israel, and Turkey—at their disposal.
That being said, when you take a step back and put it all together, it is clear that the geopolitical momentum is with the Axis of Resistance, which is eroding the power and influence of NATO & Friends in the Middle East.
The situation is trending in favor of the Axis of Resistance and BRICS+. If those trends continue—and I think they will—sooner or later, NATO & Friends must make a fateful decision.
They can either cede the region to BRICS+, which would seal the creation of a multipolar world order, or launch a full-scale war with the Axis of Resistance as a last-ditch Hail Mary attempt to scuttle the emergence of a multipolar world order.
There is no guarantee that NATO & Friends would win such a war. I think it’s likely it would end in disaster for them. That’s probably a big reason it hasn’t happened yet, despite no shortage of hostile intentions.
However, if NATO & Friends feel the sun is about to set on the US-led unipolar world order, they may go for it anyway. That would require them to take a bad hand and double down in a desperate attempt to get even. They may do so if they have nothing to lose, but I doubt it will change the ultimate outcome.
The situation is fluid and volatile. It’s impossible to quantify the conflict precisely.
That being said, when you put everything together, I think there is a good chance that BRICS+ will prevail in the three key proxy wars of WW3—Ukraine, Taiwan, and the Middle East.
The main implication is that we’re likely to see the end of the unipolar world order and the emergence of a multipolar world order.
Many people will be unprepared for that change of historical significance. However, when you look at the Big Picture, that is where I think we’re headed.
Unfortunately, most people have no idea what really happens when the world order changes, let alone how to prepare…
The coming crisis will likely be much worse, much longer, and very different than what we’ve seen since World War 2.
We’ll likely see entirely new political, social, and economic structures established to replace the crumbling ones from the post-WW2 era.
Countless millions throughout history were wiped out financially—or worse—during the previous world wars because they failed to see the correct Big Picture and take appropriate action.
Don’t be one of them.
But what if you get the Big Picture right?
The wealth-creating opportunities for those who correctly see what is happening and act upon it could be enormous.
That’s the difference between being on the right and wrong side of these changes of historical proportion.
It’s a rare fortune-building opportunity for those who see the investment implications of WW3 before others figure out what is really happening and how it’s likely to end.
That’s why I just released an urgent new report with all the details, including what you must do to prepare. It’s called The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years… the Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now. Click here to download the PDF now.
Harvard University on Aug. 6 lost its bid to throw out a lawsuit that accuses university officials of ignoring discrimination against Jewish students and breaching university policies with their handling of pro-Palestinian protests.
Facts outlined in the suit, brought by a Jewish student and a nonprofit with students who stand against anti-Semitism, “show that Harvard failed its Jewish students,” U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns said in a 25-page decision.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars universities that receive federal funds, including Harvard, from intentionally discriminating against students on the ground of national origin. Violations of the law occur when a university exhibits deliberate indifference, or “affirmatively choosing to do the wrong thing, or doing nothing, despite knowing what the law requires,” according to court precedent.
Harvard argued that it did respond to the campus protests and acts of anti-Semitism. Even if the response was less than ideal, it was not clearly unreasonable, lawyers for the university told the court.
Stearns disagreed, calling Harvard’s response “at best, indecisive, vacillating, and at times internally contradictory.”
As an example, he pointed to how Harvard Dean of Students Stephen Ball informed all students that a lounge on campus was only for “personal or small group study and conversation.” After Ball’s email, though, demonstrators hosted a pro-Palestinian vigil in the lounge. Administrators not only did not seek to respond, but the dean himself attended the vigil.
“To conclude that the [complaint] has not plausibly alleged deliberate indifference would reward Harvard for virtuous public declarations that for the most part, according to the allegations of the [lawsuit], proved hollow when it came to taking disciplinary measures against offending students and faculty,” Stearns wrote.
The lawsuit was originally filed by Alexander Kestenbaum, a Jewish student, and Students Against Antisemitism Inc. in January, shortly after Harvard President Claudine Gay stepped down over criticism of her handling of the pro-Palestinian protests and unearthed plagiarism in her scholarly work.
Brown University and New York University faced similar lawsuits but settled them in July. Brown University agreed to conduct annual nondiscrimination training for employees and students while New York University said it would create a new position of Title VI coordinator.
Columbia University in June said in its settlement announcement that officials would start providing security escorts upon request.
Harvard could choose to settle its case since its motion to dismiss was largely rejected. Stearns said plaintiffs’ claims of contract breach could also move forward, while the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to advance a claim that Harvard enforced its policies inconsistently.
He directed Harvard to file a response to the lawsuit by Aug. 27 and set other deadlines as the case heads toward trial absent a settlement.
Shares of server-maker Super Micro Computer, which have been among the biggest beneficiaries of the AI euphoria over the past two years as it emerged as a proxy for AI demand (and server installs), soared as much as 16% before crashing more than 10%, after the company reported Q2 revenue and profit that missed estimates, but it was the company’s plunging profit margins that which outweighed the company’s ecstatic sales outlook that was billions above Wall Street projections as well as the 10-1 reverse stock split announcement.
For Q2, SMCI reported revenues of $5.31 billion, which missed the average estimate of $5.32 billion; while Adjusted EPS dropped to $6.25, well short of Super Micro’s own previous forecast and the $8.25 average analyst estimate.
But what truly spooked Wall Street was the incineration in margin which collapsed 580bps YoY (and 430bps QoQ) to just 11.3%, amid a fierce price cutting war with competitors such as Dell and Hewlett Packard.
Also, the $635 million in cash burn – the 3rd straight quarter of negative cash from operations – did not help.
While the company tried to blame the collapse in margins on “customer and product mix and investments in Talent and Research & Development, Wall Street did not buy it, and in fact it sold it aggressively, sending the stock collapsing to the lowest level of the year.
Not even the company’s blowout outlook, which has 2025 full-year revenue between $26 and $30BN on Wall Street estimates of $23.6BN, nor the company’s announcement of a 10-for-1 stock split after Oct 1, did anything to inspire buying, but judging by the afterhours action, certainly inspired selling as investors are suddenly worried about the longer-term profitability of AI-optimized servers sold by companies like Super Micro, Dell Technologies, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise if the company’s margins are already cratering this fast.
A jump in demand for the equipment that powers artificial intelligence training and applications has helped drive sales at San Jose, California-based Super Micro, which makes data center servers. “We are well-positioned to become the largest IT infrastructure company,” CEO Charles Liang said in the statement. Alas, judging by the epic plunge in SMCI stock after hours, nobody believed him.
While the shares had more than doubled in value this year and been added to the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 indexes following increased demand for servers. Still, the stock has declined about 48% from a peak in March.
