Month: September 2024

Harvard University is feeling the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision to ban the use of race in college admissions – as the woke Ivy League institution has reported a noticeable decline in the number of back students in its incoming class, marking a significant shift in the demographics of one of America’s most elite institutions.

According to a statement released by Harvard on Wednesday, black students make up just 14% of the new class of first-year undergraduates, down sharply from 18% last year. Meanwhile, latino students saw a bump, now accounting for 16% of the class—up 2 percentage points. Asian American students, who were at the center of the affirmative action debate, held steady at 37%, Bloomberg reports.

The ruling has sent shockwaves through the world of higher education, forcing colleges and universities to scramble for new ways to promote diversity. For decades, affirmative action policies aimed to boost enrollment of underrepresented groups, particularly black and hispanic students, while asian applicants were often perceived to be disadvantaged by these same policies. Now, it appears the tables are turning.

Columbia University also reported a significant drop in black freshman enrollment, with the percentage plummeting from 20% to 12% in just a year. Conversely, Asian American or Pacific Islander students at Columbia surged, jumping 9 points to 39%. Similar trends were observed at other prestigious schools, including MIT, Brown, and Tufts.

That said, Yale and Princeton, two of Harvard’s fiercest rivals in the Ivy League, reported a steady percentage of black freshmen, but both schools saw a slight dip in Asian American enrollment.

Harvard, known not only for being the oldest but also the richest college in the U.S., insists it remains dedicated to fostering a diverse student body. “Our community is strongest when we bring together students from different backgrounds, experiences, and beliefs,” said William Fitzsimmons, Harvard’s dean of admissions and financial aid. Still, the university revealed that 8% of its incoming class chose not to disclose their race or ethnicity, double the 4% from last year – a possible indication of the uncertainty surrounding the new admissions landscape.

Harvard was a named defendant in the Supreme Court case along with the University of North Carolina. In UNC’s freshman class, the share of Black freshmen declined to about 8% from almost 11% a year earlier. Asian American students edged up by a percentage point to nearly 26%. -Bloomberg

The Supreme Court ruling was a major victory for Students for Fair Admissions, the group that argued Harvard unfairly penalized Asian Americans during the admissions process by giving them lower ratings on subjective measures like leadership and likability, while favoring black and hispanic applicants. Chief Justice John Roberts noted in the ruling that universities can still consider how race has affected an applicant’s life, “be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise.”

In response, Harvard has tweaked its application process, now asking students to reflect on how their life experiences, achievements, and extracurricular activities have shaped them. However, this year, admissions officers were not privy to applicants’ self-reported answers regarding race and ethnicity, nor could they see aggregated data.

Looking ahead, Harvard and several other top-tier universities are bringing back standardized testing requirements for applicants in 2025—a move that could further influence diversity numbers in the future.

To counter the decline in diversity, Harvard is stepping up its recruitment efforts, including a new rural recruitment initiative and continuing programs targeting minority students and first-generation college hopefuls. As for financial accessibility, about 21% of this year’s 1,647 first-year students qualified for Pell Grants, a federal aid program for low-income students.

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Substack,

“The world is a dangerous place to live – not because of the people who are evil but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

– Albert Einstein

When The New York Times tells you that the United States Constitution is a threat to democracy – As it did on the front page of its August 31 edition – you know that you are in thrall to exceedingly subtle minds. The Times only employs persons, both birthing and other, of the subtlest minds. You can tell because they are credentialed by our country’s finest institutions of educational credentialing.

They come to The Times fully equipped with the armamentarium of advanced, progressive, innovative, nuanced, cutting-edge modes of understanding our world — which, you’ll agree, is a pretty goshdurned complex place, and rather niggardly in yielding its secret workings. Hence, The Times has concluded that the Constitution is flawed, perhaps fatally, because it allowed for the election of Donald Trump once, and now, possibly, a second time:

“It’s no surprise, then, that liberals charge Trump with being a menace to the Constitution. But his presidency and the prospect of his re-election have also generated another, very different, argument: that Trump owes his political ascent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially antidemocratic and, in this day and age, increasingly dysfunctional.”

The Constitution does not stipulate a particular election day, but subsequent US law established the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the day for federal elections (the states can establish their own election dates for state and local offices). This changed beginning in the year 2000, when Oregon legislated to conduct all elections by mail-in ballot and other states followed with alterations to voting methods beyond a single election day. The Covid-19 pandemic prompted states to permanently relax rules on absentee ballots and expand mail-in voting, under guidance from the federal agencies such as the CDC, while the CARES Act of 2020 provided emergency funding to implement procedures for mail-in voting in order to reduce in-person voting that might enable the spread of Covid-19.

All of that followed orderly legislative procedure. The result was widespread ballot fraud, especially in crucial swing voting districts, much of it arrant. Contrary to official narratives out of the “Joe Biden” administration and the salient organs of corporate news, the allegations of widespread fraud were not “baseless” nor were they “conspiracy theories.” Subtle minds schooled in nuanced, cutting-age modes of analysis agreed to ignore documentary evidence of ballot fraud because it disfavored their preferred candidate, “Joe Biden.” Subtler judicial minds subsequently dismissed challenges to official tallies.

Other shenanigans such as the $400-million that Mark Zuckerberg  (Meta and Facebook) injected into swing districts for “election administration and voter turn-out,” via his Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), was not adjudicated in any court. The upshot of the “Zuckerbucks” prank was that polling offiicials in many precincts were replaced by Democratic Party activists who ended up counting the votes. The Federal Election Commission (after “Joe Biden” became president) decided that under federal campaign finance law, the contributions were not seen as illegal — though the “Zuckerbucks” scandal did lead to legislative reform in several states.

You might suppose in the years since the 2020 election that opportunity would be seized to materially correct the weaknesses of mail-in ballots, early voting, ballot “harvesting” practices, giant “balloting centers,” and the use of vote-tallying machines (Dominion, etc.) with modems allowing for Internet hackery. The best and simplest reform would be a return to paper ballots cast only on one election day, with voter ID and proof of citizenship (accomplished prior in voter registration), conducted in smaller, distributed precinct polling places that make hand-counting of ballots practical. Alas, this was too difficult for Congress, while the subtle, nuanced, cutting-edge minds working in news media were not interested in such straightforward reform and did not advocate for it.

Rather, the news media advocated for further laxity in voting rules. And so, now they are actually arguing about whether it is desirable for non-citizens to vote.  The “Joe Biden” administration allowed at least 10-million people to enter the country illegally since 2021 and have gotten a million or more of them registered to vote via motor-voter laws — automatic registration when an illegal alien gets a driver’s license, and ditto when they apply for various social services. Alejandro Mayorkas’s Department of Homeland Security has shrewdly distributed large numbers of these illegal aliens into swing districts of states crucial to the Democratic Party’s election chances.

The inquiring mind is prompted to wonder whether it is the US Constitution that is a “menace to democracy” or the Democratic Party. Mr. Trump is issuing communiqués on “X” (Twitter) that his party is paying special attention to voting fraud in the current election, with imputations of very severe punishment to cheaters and fraudsters. You might think that the Kamala Harris campaign would declare likewise.

ECB cut rates by 25bps as expected (along with a stagflationary cut to growth and hike to inflation forecasts) but all eyes were on US data. A hotter than expected PPI followed the hotter than expected core CPI pushed rate-cut expectations lower (although jobless claims fell). Interestingly, rate cut expectations for 2024 jumped after the ugly 30Y auction and WSJ Fed-whisperer Nick Timiraos comments (which were entirely useless, merely stating that policymakers were considering whether to cut by 25bp or 50bp)…

Source: Bloomberg

As the chart above shows, the shift in rate cut expectations was away from 2024 and into 2025 today… even though Sept rate-cut odds shifted dovishly after Timiraos (erasing all of yesterday’s CPI-driven hawkish shoft)…

Source: Bloomberg

…and despite the hawkish shift in US STIRs, the dollar dumped as EURUSD rallied after The ECB statement had a smidge of hawkishness (about domestic inflation fears) and then the WSJ comments accelerated the decline…

Source: Bloomberg

…the dollar weakness drove gold to a new record high above $2550…

Source: Bloomberg

Small Caps (big short squeeze) and Mega-Cap tech (safe haven flows and NVDA) dominated the equity indices today with the Dow lagging (but still higher)…

‘Most Shorted’ stocks dipped and ripped…

Source: Bloomberg

…and Mag7 stocks extended their rebound…

Source: Bloomberg

Goldman’s trading desk noted that they were seeing the market “quiet flow wise with volumes muted and S&P top of book tracking lower.”

Our floor is -3% better for sale with HF’s $120mm net for sale (Short sales are outpacing long sales) and LO’s $250mm net to buy. LOs buying Hcare and Tech vs HFs selling Discretionary + macro Products.

Back to bond land, yields were higher across the curve (with the long-end marginally underperforming – 30Y +3bps, 2Y +1bp) leaving rates back to unchanged on the week…

Source: Bloomberg

…with the 30Y yield breaking back above 4.00% (after the ugly auction)…

Source: Bloomberg

…and 2s10s briefly inverted again today, before reverting back to bear steepening and dis-inversion…

Source: Bloomberg

Oil prices extended their rebound with WTI testing up towards $70 handle again…

Source: Bloomberg

Bitcoin also extended its rebound, back above $58,000…

Source: Bloomberg

Ethereum continues to underperform, dropping to a new post-DeFi-boom low relative to bitcoin…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, with gold at record highs, real yields have started to shift back lower…

Source: Bloomberg

What’s more likely a return to negative real yields or gold back at $500?

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Every event organizer with experience knows that venue size really matters. If you have 30 people meeting in a room with no extra chairs, it feels like a crowd. If you have 5,000 people meet in a venue designed for 50,000, it is a failure and flop. That latter scenario I actually witnessed, at an event at which I was tagged to speak, and it was depressing and sad, really a disaster.

It could have been otherwise if the organizers had correctly estimated the demand. Instead I rolled up to a huge but largely empty parking lot, and rattled around an exhibitor space with plenty to exhibit but hardly anyone seemed to be there. There were in fact thousands in attendance but once the feeling of event failure seized the place, people could not wait for it to end.

From that experience, I learned: always underestimate the number of people you expect. It’s not easy because every event organizer is excited for what he is doing. There is a tendency to believe that everyone else shares your enthusiasm. It’s the same with homeowners who put their houses on the market at far too high a price, or authors who imagine that their book will become a bestseller.

The subtle psychology of full and empty, high and low, profoundly affects economics too.

The size of the Whole Food bag within the last several weeks has shrunk by a third or so, and gone up in quality.

The reason will be clear to anyone with experience in marketing. If you have spent $150 and walk out with a bag only halfway full, you feel ripped off, and sense that you have not received your money’s worth. But if you shrink the bag and the customer walks out with a full sack of stuff for the same amount of money, some of the edge seems to disappear.

It’s a different form of shrinkflation, to be sure, but it makes sense from the point of view of the seller. Let’s please be clear: these end-point grocery sellers have costs too. They have gone up just as much as the final retail price. They still have to maintain their slim margins, and simply cannot sell at a loss for everything.

Yes, you can draw people in with some products that sell below cost. I suspect that Whole Foods does this with flowers, for example. Again, it makes sense. Offer the best and lowest-priced flowers in town and people will rock up just to buy them but remember that there are other goods they need. The store hopes to make up the difference in unplanned purchases. If it doesn’t work, it stops.

Pricing is hard and requires a complex mix of accounting and soothsaying concerning customer psychology. The store of course wants to extract a higher price, a drive that is matched on the other side by the customer’s desire to buy everything for free. The key to the price is finding the negotiated compromise.

When I was out buying my first car, and having already read a bit on economics, the salesman asked me “What do you want to spend on a car?” My answer came easily: “I want to spend exactly zero. In fact, I want you to pay me.” He was truly startled but it set the negotiating terms on a good and honest starting point. I did end up buying.

This is the market at work and it is meaningful and often magical the way it works without a central plan. This becomes a serious challenge in inflationary times when the quantity of money is rising and reducing the value of each unit. Inflationary forces flow unpredictably from sector to sector, good to good, service to service. It produces grave difficulties for both buyers and sellers. Everyone wants to leave a transaction with the perception that he is better off. A changing value of money adds another layer of challenge.

And yet, these days, we are hearing all about how corporate greed is responsible for inflation. Terrible people at the sales’ end points are somehow “gouging” the customer. To be sure, every grocery store would love to do this, but they simply cannot. This is because of the wonderful reality of competition. The customer can always go somewhere else or decline to buy altogether.

The Harris/Walz campaign promises to implement national rules against gouging customers. What are the standards they will use to judge? We do not know but the only safe way to avoid being charged would be never to raise the price, regardless of input costs. It would only take a matter of days before such a rule would turn to losses and then shortages and then bankruptcies and closings. Next will come mandates to sell, and then government takeovers of groceries, which would inevitably be followed with rationing.

Rationing groceries is not an unheard of practice in U.S. history. Nearly all grocery staples were rationed during the Second World War. Every household was issued tickets for sugar, meat, butter, cheese, milk, eggs, coffee, all animal fats (thus the invention of vegetable fat), canned goods, chocolates, aluminum foil, and clothing and footwear. People were annoyed but it was explained that this was necessary for the war effort.

How much easier would rationing be in our time? The tickets could be dropped into our bank accounts and deployed using smartphones with identification and QR codes. The federal government could easily build out an application for download, and even issue cards. It could be built off the existing SNAP program and the EBT card that replaced food stamps. This would not be a technical challenge.

Five years ago, this might have sounded like a far-flung prospect. These days, it is a highly realistic probability with national anti-gouging laws. It could easily be promoted as a scheme to end corporate greed. Tragically, the stores themselves would not be as against this as one might suppose. It would put an end to the investigations and paperwork associated with anti-gouging compliance, and the program could be sweetened with trillions in subsidies for the stores themselves.

Such dystopian scenarios are no longer crazy. Remember that only four years ago, we were all locked out of churches and other houses of worship on major religious holidays, and the schools for which people pay in taxes were shut sometimes for a year or even two. This was a test run of compliance and central planning. As terrible as it is to say, some of our leaders believe that this system is better than a market-based economy.

Plus, this time they have a great excuse: save the environment. Every school kid for decades has been taught about reducing resource use and told to valorize all recycling. It seems perhaps like nothing is wrong with that but consider the lesson here: our use of resources is paristical on nature and a clean environment. If that is always true, where is the end point? Perhaps austerity through bread lines is the way to go.

It does not inspire confidence in our leaders that they cannot give an accurate account of what causes grocery prices to go up, and think nothing of blaming the retailers who are themselves victims of declining purchasing power. Is it because they know no economics? Or is it because they aspire to bring about a central plan gradually through the imposition of ever more rules and systems, with the belief that with digital tools, they can finally make socialism work?

I’ll take Whole Foods smaller bags, as regrettable as they are, over a central plan. At least we still have some choice. At least we still have flowers, food, and household items, and it is up to us whether and to what extent we consume them. Under a government plan, you will have no choice and no voice.

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

Oracle chairman Larry Ellison announced this week that AI’s growing electricity demand is pushing Oracle to consider next-gen nuclear power.

During an earnings call, Ellison said the company is designing a data center that will need over a gigawatt of electricity, which would be supplied by three small nuclear reactors, according to CNBC. 

Ellison revealed that Oracle’s planned data center would be powered by small modular nuclear reactors, which already have building permits. He didn’t disclose the location but highlighted the growing energy demand that data centers would need on the earnings call.

The reactors in question, under 300 megawatts, promise faster deployment of carbon-free energy. Though promising, small modular reactors are not expected to be commercialized in the U.S. until the 2030s.

As we noted this summer, Sam Altman-backed nuclear startup Oklo is a Zero Hedge favorite and remains on pace to launch its first reactor by 2027. 

The company – which we have highlighted as the potential solution to the extreme forthcoming demands in energy as a result of artificial intelligence – makes nuclear power plants, ranging from 15 MWe to 50 MWe, utilizing liquid metal reactor technology.

And while licensing and fuel supply are still bottlenecks, according to the report, the company has “been selected by the Department of Energy for four cost-share awards to potentially commercialize advanced recycling technologies” and has “secured a site use permit from the DOE and a fuel award from INL,” Reuters reports.

Oklo co-founder and CEO Jacob DeWitte commented: “We’ve tried to design and approach this whole thing in a way that we can get it built as soon as reasonably possible.”

DeWitte added: “We’re excited about the diversity of customers, because it shows that our size and business model clearly match with what customers are interested in.”

“They’re not starting overnight with a facility that’s using that much power, but they typically build into that, and they want to have that n+1 or n+2 dynamic build up with them,” he added.

“You can’t really do that if you’re building a 300 MW reactor, but you can do that with what we’re doing and that adds a lot of value.”

Oklo’s ‘Aurora powerhouse’ reactor will cost around $70 million for the 15 MW version, with an LCOE of $80-$130/MWh, similar to peaking gas-fired plants and offshore wind, per Lazard analysis.

Ellison is already a well known supporter of new energy in Tesla…could an Oklo and Oracle partnership be in the cards down the road?

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

During Tuesday night’s presidential debate, Vice President Kamala Harris falsely claimed that no US troops are currently deployed in combat zones as she traded barbs with former President Donald Trump about foreign policy issues. “As of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century,” Harris said.

US troops are deployed in Iraq and Syria under the anti-ISIS coalition and actively participate in combat operations. Less than two weeks ago, seven US troops were wounded in a raid against a suspected ISIS hideout in Iraq.

US troops have also been injured in recent weeks by drone and rocket attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria, which significantly ramped up last year in response to US support for Israel’s onslaught in Gaza. Back in January, three US Army Reserve soldiers from Georgia were killed by a drone attack on Tower 22, a secretive US base in Jordan on the Syrian border.

Harris made the false claim while discussing the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. She said that she agreed with President Biden’s decision to pull out but also criticized Trump for negotiating the deal that led to the withdrawal. “He bypassed the Afghan government. He negotiated directly with a terrorist organization called the Taliban,” she said.

Trump defended the deal, calling it a “very good agreement” and criticized the way the Biden administration carried out the withdrawal. “These people did the worst withdrawal and in my opinion the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country,” he said.

When the genocidal war in Gaza was brought up, Trump claimed Harris “hates” Israel and that the country wouldn’t exist if she were elected. “She hates Israel. If she’s president, I believe that Israel will not exist within two years from now. And I’ve been pretty good at predictions. And I hope I’m wrong about that one. She hates Israel. At the same time in her own way she hates the Arab population because the whole place is going to get blown up, Arabs, Jewish people, Israel. Israel will be gone,” Trump said.

Harris responded by declaring her strong support for Israel. “That’s absolutely not true. I have my entire career and life supported Israel and the Israeli people. He knows that. He’s trying to again divide and distract from the reality, which is it is very well known that Donald Trump is weak and wrong on national security and foreign policy,” Harris said.

Harris also said in the debate that she would always “give Israel the ability to defend itself,” meaning US weapons shipments will continue to flow if she becomes president.

Discussing the war in Ukraine, Trump said that he would try to end it before he is sworn in. “I want the war to stop. I want to save lives that are being uselessly — people being killed by the millions. It’s the millions. It’s so much worse than the numbers that you’re getting, which are fake numbers,” he said.

Trump repeatedly blamed the invasion of Ukraine on Biden being “weak” on Russia and said both the invasion and the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel wouldn’t have happened if he were still president. Harris accused Trump of being fond of “dictators” and took a very pro-NATO line.

It will NOT be Donald Trump or Kamala Harris that will ultimately decide Ukraine’s fate
Professor John J. Mearsheimer explains#Ukraine #Russia #Trump #kamala #Biden #Putin #Israel #Netanyahu
see full vid: https://t.co/PDZcf9X6ff pic.twitter.com/p7NSNpniDf

— Daniel Davis Deep Dive (@DanielLDavis1) July 25, 2024

“Understand why the European allies and our NATO allies are so thankful that you are no longer president and that we understand the importance of the greatest military alliance the world has ever known, which is NATO. And what we have done to preserve the ability of Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians to fight for their Independence,” Harris said.

Harris claimed that if Trump were still president, Russian President Vladimir Putin would be “sitting in Kyiv right now.”

Thanks to tax incentive loopholes, the price of EV leases have plunged to as low as just $20 per month in some areas of the county. 

Leases have become the customer’s method of choice for taking home EVs since sale prices have become too expensive, according to a new report from Bloomberg.

Average monthly payments for new vehicles in the U.S. rose to $735 in the first quarter of 2024, while lease payments dropped to $595, according to Experian.

This has driven more EV buyers to opt for leases, which made up 32% of EV transactions in Q1, up from 11% a year ago, per Cox Automotive. EV leases are $88 cheaper per month on average compared to new electric vehicle loans.

Bloomberg writes that lease payments for electric vehicles have become more affordable due to cooling demand, automaker incentives, and changes in the $7,500 federal tax credit, which now often favors leasing over buying.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 limited tax breaks for EV purchases, so many models don’t qualify, but a loophole allows leased EVs to qualify as commercial vehicles.

This lets automakers apply the tax credit to lease deals, reducing monthly payments.

Manufacturers receive the tax credit on leased EVs but often pass it to consumers as a rebate or discount, the report says.

In some areas, it has led to stunning offers. In Colorado, some 2025 Nissan Leaf leases were offered for as low as $20 a month in July, thanks to EV tax credits and state incentives, the article notes.

At Koons Kia in Virginia, Finance Director Ramon Nawabi says few customers inquire about EVs, with high prices deterring them.

Some EV6 SUVs have been on the lot for over six months, leading Kia to offer discounted leases on top of the $7,500 tax credit. “In a sense, we’re just giving them away,” he told Bloomberg.

In the first quarter of 2024, BMW led EV leases with 89%, followed by Audi at 87%, according to Cox.

Tesla, the largest U.S. EV maker, leased only 24% of its cars. Tesla’s leases are less appealing due to no lease-to-purchase options and because many models qualify for the $7,500 tax credit when bought.

Via Middle East Eye

Faced with furious US accusations that Iran has supplied Russia with ballistic missiles, Iranian officials in public and private are strenuously denying the claims. A senior Iranian diplomat, speaking to Middle East Eye on condition of anonymity, said Russia has indeed requested military assistance from Iran since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022.

“On multiple occasions, Russia has requested military assistance, including ballistic missiles, from Iran. Yet, at the highest levels, Iranian officials have categorically rejected these requests and firmly declined Moscow’s appeals,” the diplomat said.

On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said short-range ballistic missiles capable of making a serious impact on the momentum of the Ukraine war had been sent by Iran to Russia. According to Blinken, Russian military personnel were recently in Iran for training on how to operate the weapons, said to be Fath-360 missiles that have a range of 30km to 120km. He did not provide evidence of the alleged transfer.

Blinken also implied that Washington was reconsidering its ban on long-range weapons, like the UK-supplied Storm Shadow missile, being used on attacks deep into Russian territory.

Iranian weapons have already been seen on the Ukrainian battlefield. Since mid-2022, Russia has appeared to use Iranian-made Shahed 136 “kamikaze” attack drones, which the United States and European Union say have been supplied to Moscow regularly over the conflict.

However, the senior Iranian diplomat said these drones were all supplied before the war broke out. “The drones were sold prior to the conflict,” he said.

A former senior diplomat who served during the 2013-2021 Hassan Rouhani presidency also said the drones were supplied before the conflict. He said there were suspicions that news of the drone sale was actually deliberately leaked to the western media by Moscow. “The aim was to portray Iran as an accomplice in the Ukraine conflict and to burn bridges behind Tehran,” he suggested. “Regrettably, Europe has fallen for this trap and continues to push Tehran closer to Moscow.”

On Tuesday, the UK, France and Germany announced sanctions on Iran in response to the alleged transfer of ballistic missiles. “We have been clear that any transfer of ballistic missiles by Iran would face a significant response. Today, alongside our international partners, we are calling out this behavior and its attempts to undermine global security,” UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said.

The senior Iranian diplomat described the accusations and retaliation as “misunderstandings”, saying Iran wanted to engage in dialogue with European countries – including Ukraine – to resolve the issues. “Tehran remains open to talks, as it has before, to review the documents and evidence pertaining to the alleged missile transfers in order to clarify the situation,” he said.

Officially denying Blinken’s allegations, Iran’s foreign ministry said it had a neutral stance on the Ukraine war. “The Islamic Republic’s position on the Ukraine conflict has been consistent and principled. The recurring claims of missile transfers to Russia are driven by certain western countries with specific political motivations and objectives,” foreign ministry spokesperson Hossein Kanaani said.

Pushing Tehran and Moscow together

This fresh downturn in Iranian relations with the West comes soon after the election of Masoud Pezeshkian, a member of Iran’s reformist political camp who campaigned promising to pursue better ties with western countries. A prominent Iranian foreign policy analyst, who frequently writes for reformist media, believes the West’s approach to Iran has inadvertently strengthened the ties between Tehran and Moscow.

“Initially, I questioned why western countries were pushing Tehran into Russia’s arms, especially when there was a real opportunity to improve relations with Iran under the new administration of President Pezeshkian,” the analyst told MEE. “It now seems clear that the allegations about Iran sending ballistic missiles to Russia are part of a larger narrative designed to create a pretext for arming Ukraine with long-range missiles.”

Western media, including CNN and Sky News have featured the following claims on Thursday:

Satellite image of Russian cargo ship PORT OLYA 3 in the port of Olya in Astrakhan region on the Caspian Sea, September 4, 2024.

The ship brought about 220 Iranian Fath-360 ballistic missiles with a range of over 70 miles from the Iranian port of Amirabad.

Source: Sky News pic.twitter.com/F2soCbywIW

— Clash Report (@clashreport) September 11, 2024

In his view, this strategy could backfire in the long term. “Ultimately, this approach will serve Russia’s interests by preventing any potential rapprochement between Iran and the West, particularly with the US and Europe. “The ongoing sanctions and accusations only push Tehran closer to Russia, cutting off any chance of meaningful dialogue on regional and nuclear issues,” he said.

The western approach to Iran has been nothing short of counterproductive in recent years, he added. “If you look at the last five years, it’s clear how misguided the West’s policies toward Iran have been. By continually blocking all diplomatic avenues, they have left Tehran with no choice but to deepen its ties with Russia,” he said.

Democratic vice presidential nominee, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, has come under fire for appointing a Chinese lawyer with longstanding ties to a CCP-friendly political faction to a key state advisory board.

The lawyer, Chang Wang, was first appointed by Walz in May 2020 to the Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans, which advises the governor, legislature, and other state agencies on promoting “economic, social, legal and political equality” for Asian Pacific Minnesotans. As of now, Wang is the interim chair of the council, with his term set to expire in January 2025. According to the council’s annual report, it spent over half a million dollars of taxpayer money in 2023 according to the Daily Caller.

According to the report, Wang has ties to the China Association for Promoting Democracy (CAPD), a political party in China that operates under the strict supervision of the CCP – which the Caller uncovered through “a review of Chinese government announcements, archived University of Minnesota records and Chinese-language publications written by Wang himself.”

CAPD is one of the handful of alternative Chinese political parties allowed to operate in the communist nation. Like China’s other minor parties, CAPD is “loyal” to the CCP and continues “to function within the structure of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC),” which is the country’s top political advisory body, according to the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress.

CAPD is allowed to operate in China based upon their organization’s stated promise to “rally closely around” the CCP’s Central Committee and play a role as advisors and assistants to the CCP, according to Xinhua, China’s official news agency. -Daily Caller

According to the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, CAPD’s operational status is based on its “stated promise to ‘rally closely around’ the CCP’s Central Committee and play a role as advisors and assistants to the CCP,” as reported by Xinhua, China’s official news agency.

Records show that Wang, since joining the Minnesota state council, has been recognized by the Chinese government multiple times. For example, the Chinese government granted him a title and even accepted a policy research proposal he submitted. When asked about his relationship with CAPD, Wang replied in an email to the DCNF – saying: “My elderly parents are my only ties to China.” Meanwhile, Wang’s profile on the University of Minnesota’s website appears to have scrubbed his CAPD affiliation, though an archived version contains it.

Wang has also disclosed in the past that his parents were “senior scientists” at “Academia Sinica,” the former name of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). CAS reports directly to China’s State Council, and “much of its work contributes to products for military use,” according to the U.S. Department of Defense. Steve Yates, China Policy Initiative chair at the America First Policy Institute and a former Chinese language analyst for the National Security Agency, pointed out the significance of this connection: “For someone to have two parents in that entity, it basically is the equivalent of being not just a made man, but a made family.”

Further complicating the matter, Wang has stated that he works as a senior associate professor of law at the Beijing-based China University of Political Science and Law, and the university’s website still lists him as faculty.

Walz’s connections with China and its political structures have been a focus of Republican lawmakers. Kentucky Rep. James Comer, for example, sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray requesting information about “any Chinese entity or individual with whom Mr. Walz may have engaged or partnered.”

Walz’s history with China is extensive. He has traveled to the country approximately 30 times and even worked for Macau Polytechnic University while serving in Congress, as noted in Comer’s letter. Previous media reports have also unearthed past comments from Walz that appear to praise Chinese communism. For instance, Walz reportedly told high school students in 1991 that communism “means that everyone is the same and everyone shares.”

More recently, the DCNF reported that Walz has attended several events organized by members of a Minnesota nonprofit affiliated with a CCP influence and intelligence agency. Members of the nonprofit and related organizations even held a fundraiser for Walz’s gubernatorial reelection in 2022. Yates, commenting on the appointment of Wang, questioned, “You would think that there would be some screening. Of what possible value-add is someone with ties to that entity in China to the citizens of the United States or to Minnesota, and why would a governor with a generation of experience coming and going to the People’s Republic of China want someone from that world having privileged access to advise leaders in Minnesota on any issue?”

“@GovTimWalz could explain away 1 or 2 facts, but he can’t explain away the pattern & the @DailyCaller just dropped an investigation a day or so ago, which showed Walz maintaining regular contact w/ Communist Party front organizations in MN.

So, we go back to the 1990s we have… pic.twitter.com/SSeuTVA9in

— Philip Lenczycki 蔡岳 (@LenczyckiPhilip) August 29, 2024

Despite the word “democracy” in its name, CAPD is described as “a political party that accepts the leadership of the CCP and cooperates with the CCP as a participant in socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Its members are mainly intellectuals working in academia, science, media, and related fields. As Yates points out, “When you are engaging entities from communist countries that have the word ‘democracy’ in them, you have a near 100% chance that they’re not really about democracy. You’re talking about organizations that are meant to interact with people and groups in the Free World on behalf of the ultimate authority in the PRC: the CCP.”

John Dotson, deputy director of the Global Taiwan Institute, echoed similar concerns: “CAPD is one of what the CCP calls the ‘eight democratic parties’ that operate alongside the ruling CCP, in the effort to provide a veneer of pluralism to the [Chinese] system.” Dotson further emphasized, “Anyone who is a member of one of the ‘eight democratic parties’ should be understood as a CCP member, subject to Party directives, etcetera.”

The DCNF uncovered Wang’s CAPD membership through a review of multiple archived profiles in both English and Chinese. One archived version of Wang’s 2022 bio on the University of Minnesota’s China Center website identified him as “one of the twenty-five members serving on the Central Civil and Judiciary Committee of China Association For Promoting Democracy, the third largest political party in mainland China.” However, between January and July 2023, references to Wang’s membership in CAPD were removed from his China Center bio. The China Center did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment. Meanwhile, CAPD’s Chinese-language website still lists Wang as a member of its Central Civil and Judiciary Committee and identifies him as a professor at the Institute of Comparative Law at China University of Political Science and Law.

Read the rest here…

After two stellar auctions, where both Tuesday’s 3Y and yesterday’s 10Y sale may have been two of the best auctions in history for the respective tenors, moments ago the Treasury concluded the week’s coupon issuance when it sold $22BN in 30Y paper in a decidedly uglier sale.

The auction stopped with a high yield of 4.015%, 30bps below last month’s stop and the lowest since July 2023, but the auction also tailed the When Issued 4.001 by 1.4bps, the 3rd consecutive tail in a row.

The bid to cover was 2.376, a modest rebound from last month’s 2.31 but below the six-auction average of 2.39.

The internals were ever so slightly better, with Indirects awarded 68.7%, above last month’s 65.3%, and above the recent average of 65.5%. And with Directs taking 15.7%, roughly unchanged from last month and one of the lowest prints of 2024, Dealers were left with 15.7%, just below the recent average of 15.9%.

The market reaction was curious: while yields promptly rose near session highs, as one would expect after a tailing auction…

… it was the jump in rate cut odds after the auction that was the most notable market reaction, even if it is unlikely to be realized , unless somehow next week’s retail sales print comes 6-sigma below the estimate and indicates the recession has already begun. .