Month: September 2024

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

A modified McKelvey recession indicator with no false positives or false negatives since 1953 suggests we are in recession now.

100 percent of the time, with no false positives or negatives, under current conditions, the economy has been in recession.

What is the McKelvey Recession Indicator?

Take the current value of the 3-month unemployment rate average, subtract the 12-month low, and if the difference is 0.30 percentage point or more, then a recession has started.

Edward McKelvey, a senior economist at Goldman Sachs, created the indicator.

The problem with the indicator is that it has many false positives.

Claudi Sahm Revision

Claudi Samn, a former Fed economist, revised the rule, claiming it as her own, without credit to McKelvey, then set the indicator to 0.50.

Because that still had false positives, she started her series in 1960.

PMES Acronym

PMES is my acronym for Pascal Michaillat and Emmanuel Saez, economists at the University of California in Santa Cruz.

PMES is their initials. I am not sure that PMES is right but somehow I don’t think the name McKelvey-Michaillat-Saez will catch on.

It is brilliant work to add a second indicator that eliminates the false negatives and false positives.

I struggled with the idea of adding a second indicator for a long time before stumbling on their work.

Also, and I cannot emphasize this enough, credit goes to Regis Barnichon for the data and idea used by PMES and me in the charts in this post.

What Is the PMES Second Indicator?

The PMES recession indicator combines job vacancy rates with unemployment data. The indicator is the minimum of the McKelvey indicator—the difference between the 3-month trailing average of the unemployment rate and its minimum over the past 12 months—and a similar indicator constructed with the vacancy rate—the difference between the 3-month trailing average of the vacancy rate and its maximum over the past 12 months.

Vacancy Rate

The vacancy rate is defined as the ratio of job openings to the labor force. The BLS Job Openings and Labor Turnover (JOLTS) report only dates to December of 2000.

Regis Barnichon, in 2010 described Building a composite Help-Wanted Index

This paper builds a measure of vacancy posting over 1951–2009 that captures the behavior of total—print and online— help-wanted advertising, and can be used for time series analysis of the US labor market.

Barnichon says HWI and JOLTS “closely track each other. In particular, the composite HWI does a good job of matching the level of JOLTS job openings over 2000–2009, indicating that the MISM can successfully model the share of online advertising.“

It is that overlap period that validates the second indicator.

Minimum Indicator

To decide whether or not there is a recession, PMES takes the minimum of either McKelvey or Job Openings.

If either one is below 0.3 percent, there is no recession.

Pascal Michaillat notes “For some reason, the Sahm indicator provided by the St. Louis Fed is sometimes negative. This is strange given that—by definition—a variable cannot be lower than its minimum over the past 12 months. Our indicators are never negative.”

I explained that in my prior post on this subject.

The reason for the Sahm negative discrepancy is Sahm does not include the current month in the 12-month lookback period.

A Sahm chart is rife with negative numbers. This never made any sense to me either, but that is why.

My charts, as do those of PMES, set the lookback period properly to eliminate negative numbers.

That touches all the background bases. Now let’s look at the two charts individually that comprise the lead chart.

Unemployment Rate vs Job Opening Rate

McKelvey Recession Indicator

The problem with McKelvey is five false positives, the last one being October 2023.

Claudia Sahm started her series in 1960 to avoid a huge false positive in 1959.

Job Openings PMES Recession Indicator

The PMES indicator, in isolation, also yields false positives. However, the false positives do not overlap with the false positives by PMES alone.

Here is the lead chart again for convenience (The minimum of McKelvey and PMES).

McKelvey-PMES Recession Signal

I propose a trigger of 0.40 or a write-off of the October 2023 value that barely touched 0.30 then did not exceed 0.30 for another six months.

McKelvey hit 0.34 in April, 0.35 in May, 0.40 in June (my preferred trigger), 0.49 in July, and 0.54 in August.

The rising consistency strengthens the signal.

Recession Lead Time In Months Combined McKelvey-PMES

These are very impressive numbers vs Sahm at 0.50 which has at least one false positive and lag times as great at 7 months.

Combining the triggers eliminates the false positives and negatives and allows the use of a lower trigger (0.30 or 0.40 instead of 0.50 or 0.60) straight up.

Michaillat and Saez note “The minimum [combined] indicator is always faster than the unemployment indicator, except in 2008 when it called the Great Recession 3 months later than the unemployment indicator. The slight delay is because job vacancies took some time to drop at the onset of the Great Recession.”

I note that since 1953, every time the economy was in the current state, the economy was in recession.

That does not make the odds 100 percent because everything is up to the NBER, the official arbiter of recessions.

Pascal Michaillat Update

Pascal provides his update today: Has the Recession Started?

He says “With August 2024 data, our indicator is at 0.54 percentage points, so the probability that the US economy is now in recession is 48 percent. In fact, the recession may have started as early as April 2024.”

I calculate 0.54 independently, but will take the over line on 48 percent odds.

The signal is relatively high and rising consistently. Job revisions are hugely negative, and the Fed Beige Book shows flat to declining economic activity in 9 of 12 Fed districts.

Recent Economic Data

September 3: Construction Spending Growth Slows in May, Stops in June, Negative in July

September 5: Small Businesses Reducing Workers for the Last Four Months

September 5: Fed Beige Book Shows Flat or Declining Economy in 9 of 12 Fed Districts

Payroll Report: Manufacturing Sheds 24,000 Jobs, Government Adds 24,000, Big Negative Revisions

Earlier today I reported Payroll Report: Manufacturing Sheds 24,000 Jobs, Government Adds 24,000, Big Negative Revisions

Other than a small 0.1 percent improvement in the unemployment rate, this was a very poor jobs report with private payrolls only +74,000.

Following my jobs post, Lacy Hunt pinged me with this comment that he said I could share:

“Spot on! Also, I think that it is fair to exclude the birth/death adjustments which was a big number by my seasonal adjustment. Excellent report.”

Thanks Pascal and Lacy!

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

I was incredibly honored to welcome my good friend Andy Schectman of Miles Franklin Precious Metals back onto my podcast this week. I haven’t talked to Andy since May and wanted to get his take on the upcoming election and the state of gold and silver markets for my readers.

In our discussion this week, we talked about:

• the potential impact of recent left-wing policy proposals, including price controls and taxing unrealized gains, on the economy and markets.

• concerns raised about the negative effects of taxing unrealized gains, such as market destabilization and capital flight, which could harm economic growth

• criticism of policies like increased capital gains taxes, down payment assistance, and tax credits, arguing they could accelerate inflation and economic instability

• discussion on how immigration policies are perceived to be overwhelming the U.S. system, raising costs, and impacting the economic balance

• claims that mainstream media is gaslighting the public into believing misleading narratives, affecting public opinion and policy support

• analysis of current geopolitical issues, including U.S. relations with Russia, Ukraine, China, and the Middle East, and how these might be impacted by the election outcome

• insights into gold and silver markets, including central bank purchases, delivery dynamics on exchanges, and the potential impact of Federal Reserve policies on precious metals

• descriptions of the perceived decline in the quality of life and infrastructure in U.S. cities compared to Europe, citing issues like crime, homelessness, and deteriorating public services

• predictions about possible future economic scenarios, including the decline of the U.S. dollar’s reserve currency status and the rise of a new global economic order centered around commodity-backed currencies

 

Andy expresses strong opposition to several economic policies proposed by the Harris administration. He argues that these policies are “anti-American” and could have disastrous effects on the economy.

Schectman criticizes taxing unrealized gains as one of the most “ridiculous anti-American things” he has ever heard. He explains that taxing unrealized gains would force those with significant investments to liquidate their holdings, potentially causing market crashes. “You crater the market, whatever market that is,” Schectman warns, emphasizing the destabilizing effects such a policy could have on job creators and investors.

Another policy under scrutiny is the proposal to increase capital gains tax for those earning over a million dollars. Schectman argues this would lead to further market collapses as investors are compelled to sell assets to cover tax liabilities. He describes this approach as “stepping on the inflation accelerator” due to the government’s simultaneous attempts to provide various tax credits and incentives, which could exacerbate fiscal irresponsibility.

Schectman also criticizes the use of tax dollars for reparations and first-time homebuyer tax credits, which he sees as fiscal irresponsibility at a time when the country is facing severe economic challenges. He also points out the contradictory nature of increasing taxes while simultaneously providing substantial fiscal incentives, describing the overall approach as a recipe for economic disaster.

We also highlighted the overwhelming costs associated with unchecked immigration, which Andy claims is putting immense pressure on the country’s social systems. He criticizes the approach of raising taxes rather than trimming government spending, stating, “It’s a pretty sad state of affairs.”

Schectman touches on the influence of media in shaping public opinion and perception, particularly among those he sees as being misled by controlled narratives. He claims that much of the public is “gaslit” into believing narratives that support these policies, contributing to a divided and misinformed electorate.

He then discusses his concerns about market stability, particularly in relation to the Federal Reserve’s actions and broader economic indicators:

Andy speculates about the Federal Reserve’s potential actions, suggesting that the market is expecting a more aggressive rate cut than the anticipated 25 basis points. He argues that with debt levels soaring and inflation much higher than reported, lowering rates could spur temporary gains in the stock market but would ultimately devalue the dollar in terms of real purchasing power.

From there, we talk about precious metals. Obviously, Andy is bullish on gold, citing its performance relative to other assets over the past 25 years. He notes that significant amounts of gold and silver are being drained from Western exchanges like COMEX and LBMA, indicating a strong demand driven by concerns over economic stability. “The biggest money in the world understands this,” he states, pointing to central banks’ large-scale gold acquisitions as evidence of a shift in economic strategy towards hard assets.

The discussion also delved into geopolitical issues, particularly how international relations and conflicts could affect economic stability.

We highlighted multiple geopolitical conflicts, including tensions between the U.S. and Russia, China-Taiwan relations, and Middle Eastern conflicts. Andy argues that these conflicts, combined with the current U.S. administration’s policies, have damaged the United States’ international standing. “This current administration has done more to destroy our image internationally than any external foe could have ever done,” he claims.

Andy then discusses the potential consequences of the U.S. losing its status as the world’s reserve currency. He suggests that countries are increasingly moving away from the dollar due to its perceived instability and the U.S. government’s policy decisions, such as weaponizing economic sanctions. He warns that this could lead to a severe decline in the U.S. standard of living and economic power.

And he’s pessimistic about the future unless there is a significant change in policy direction. Andy outlines the severe consequences of the U.S. potentially losing its status as the world’s reserve currency. He argues that such a loss would devastate the U.S. economy, leading to hyperinflation, a collapse in the value of the dollar, and a significant reduction in the standard of living.

Get this podcast sent directly to your inbox when it drops this weekend by clicking here and leaving your email address. 

Where to retire is one of the most significant decisions one can make – and requires one to consider numerous factors such as cost of living, healthcare, and overall well-being. A recent analysis by Bankrate.com sheds light on the states that rank the worst for retirees in 2024, and some of the results might surprise you.

How the Rankings Were Determined

Bankrate’s comprehensive study analyzed all 50 states based on five key categories, each weighted to reflect its importance in the retirement decision-making process:

1. Affordability (40%): This category examines the cost of living and taxes, which are crucial for retirees living on a fixed income.

2. Well-being (25%): This metric looks at factors such as a sense of community and entertainment options, which are important for maintaining a fulfilling retired life.

3. Healthcare (20%): Quality, cost, and access to health services are essential for older adults who often require more medical care.

4. Weather (10%): Average annual temperatures and natural disaster risks can greatly affect comfort and safety in retirement.

5. Crime (5%): Property and violent crime rates are also considered, as safety is a priority for most retirees.

Each state received an overall rank based on these categories, with a higher number indicating a worse ranking.

The 10 Worst States for Retirement

The analysis reveals a clear trend: the worst states to retire in are generally those that are both expensive and cold. Below are the top 10 states deemed least favorable for retirees:

Alaska: The Worst State to Retire In

Ranked as the worst state for retirement, Alaska fares poorly in nearly every category except for well-being. It is the coldest state in the country, which poses a significant challenge for older adults. Additionally, while Alaska benefits from no state income tax, the cost of housing, utilities, and healthcare is much higher than the national average.

As Visual Capitalist notes further, New York is the second-worst state for affordability and ranks below-average for weather and healthcare.

The affordability metric also drags down Washington and California, despite them scoring well on all other metrics except crime.

Perhaps most surprising however is Texas, the only southern state in the bottom 10. With no income tax, and warmer weather it should be retirement central. However, Bankrate ranks Texas third-last on “well-being,” affecting its overall score.

Authored by Joe Sullivan-Bennett via BondVigilantes.com,

News on Tuesday 27th August took the music industry by storm: Oasis are doing a reunion tour. I’m happy (if not a little bit nervous in social circles) to admit, I am not the most avid of Oasis fans. Sure, everybody loves “Wonderwall”, and “Don’t Look Back in Anger”, and “Champagne Supernova”, and… you see, that’s all I can come up with. But, despite my love for this genre being committed to a different band from the UK – clue in the ‘heroes’ section of my blogger profile page – I still found myself completely caught up in the excitement with the rest of the Oasis fan base. This includes checking when tickets were put on sale, entering pre-ticket ballots by Googling the name of the original Oasis drummer (come on, who didn’t?), trying and, for the record, failing to get tickets, and finally, reading up on the band’s journey to the success they command today.

Whilst flitting through various online biographies, it occurred to me that the band have an uncanny ability to time their most notable chapters with periods of extreme volatility in financial markets. Whether it was: forming in 1990/91, during the early 1990s recession; releasing the infamous Definitely Maybe album in 1994, the year of the Great Bond Massacre; or breaking up in August 2009, just after the Global Financial Crisis. It makes you ponder, is the Oasis reunion a warning sign of what’s to come?

The forming of the Rock ‘N’ Roll Star(s)

When Liam Gallagher, Paul Arthurs, Paul McGuigan, and of course, Tony McCarroll, formed a band and invited Noel Gallagher to join as its lead guitarist, Oasis was formed. It’s difficult to know whether their focus at the time was on producing future world-changing music, or whether an overspill of inflation and monetary policy effects from the ‘80s, combined with an oil price shock caused by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and growing consumer pessimism, would tip the economy into a recession. Perhaps it was both but, Whatever the case, the one thing we can say for sure is… both happened.

Source: Bloomberg, August 2024

The release of Definitely Maybe and the Great Bond Massacre

Definitely Maybe, released on 29th August 1994 (a time of the year I’ll be referring back to later), was the fastest selling debut album of all time in the UK when released. Whilst the first two singles, “Supersonic” and “Shakermaker”, missed the Top 10, a stint of 22 consecutive Top 10 singles commenced with the release of the iconic, “Live Forever”. I’ll be honest, I’m not sure on the exact timing of the recording of this song, but with lyrics including ‘did you ever feel the pain’, I can’t help but wonderwall if Oasis were loosely alluding to the brutal sell-off in bond markets which would latterly be coined the ‘Great Bond Massacre’.

Indeed, fixed income investors had enjoyed a period of gradually declining interest rates from the heights of early-1988 (albeit with a few healthy doses of volatility). Through 1994, a rise in interest rates and the spread of volatility across international markets half the world away resulted in a very challenging period for market participants, who perhaps should have known that yields can’t just continuously move lower little by little without some inflationary backlash.

Source: Bloomberg, August 2024

The band’s breakup in 2009, a year after the Global Financial Crisis

With Arthurs and McGuigan leaving the band in 1999, some might say that the timing of important band events coinciding with volatility in financial markets could be attributed to them, especially given the band was relatively quiet around the tech bubble in the early 2000s. But putting a stop to that theory, the Gallaghers patiently waited for the next globally significant market event – the Global Financial Crisis – before calling an end to Oasis. It was rumoured that the brothers’ relationship involved some difficulties, with the odd jibe in interviews, and the travelling separately to gigs, but the breaking point came the night the band was due to perform at the Rock en Seine festival in Paris, on 28th August 2009 (that time of year again). Fans had no choice but to roll with it and accept the changed musical landscape with acquiescence.

By the time the band broke up, the economy had started to recover. If the breakup happened around a year earlier, I really would be considering an Oasis Recessionary Indicator. Much has been written about the Global Financial Crisis over the years, so I don’t wish to rehash that here – this section serves only to highlight that once again, a pertinent point in the Oasis story has again coincided with a period of extreme volatility in financial markets.

Source: Bloomberg, August 2024

The reunion is here: are Oasis trying to warn us?

Hopefully the band’s ‘do as I say and not as I do’ attitude hasn’t escaped many. Since February 1996 the world has been told over a billion times: “Don’t Look Back in Anger” – it took you 15 long years, fellas. But now, the wait is over. On 27th August, almost exactly 30 years after Definitely Maybe was released, and almost exactly 15 years after the band decided not to talk tonight in the break-up concert in Paris, Oasis announced its reunion tour. I offer my congratulations to those who were lucky enough to get tickets over the weekend, my partner tried desperately hard for around 8 hours before being removed from the website on accusations of being non-human.

To close, I don’t wish to jump to conclusions as to why Oasis decided to reunite, but I can’t help myself believing that it can only be as a warning of imminent volatility in financial markets. I recently wrote how the economic cycle is at an interesting inflection point, and considered whether interest rates have been too high for too long, causing irreparable damage to the economy in its current cycle, especially in light of a breaching of the Sahm rule (read more here). Perhaps Noel and Liam share similar concerns about the Federal Reserve achieving a soft landing? Or, perhaps, the timing around the band forming, the release of the Definitely Maybe album, and the band’s breakup, all coinciding with periods of volatility in financial markets, has just been completely and utterly coincidental. I’ll leave that with you to decide.  

On Saturday Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan issued a blistering speech at an Islamic schools’ association event near Istanbul once again condemning Israel. But this time he ratcheted the rhetoric as the remarks came a day after a Turkish-American woman was shot during a protest by Israeli troops in the West Bank.

Erdogan essentially called for an Islamic uprising against the Jewish state, saying that a Muslim alliance of countries and populations is needed against what he called “the growing threat of expansionism” from Israel.

“The only step that will stop Israeli arrogance, Israeli banditry, and Israeli state terrorism is the alliance of Islamic countries,” Erdogan said.

And in a very rare positive reference to Assad of Syria, he described that recent steps by Turkey to advance ties with Egypt and Syria are aimed fundamentally at “forming a line of solidarity against the growing threat of expansionism.”

Interestingly, this would bring NATO’s number two largest miliary into an indirect alliance with Iran. But improvement of Turkish ties with the Syrian state also has a lot to do with squeezing out the Kurds in northern Syria. Both Ankara and Damascus have long wanted to see US troops, who are supporting local Kurdish militias, kicked out of the region.

This week Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi met with Erdogan in Turkey, and heavily focused their discussions on the Gaza crisis. Egypt-Israel tensions have been evident over accusations from Tel Aviv that Egyptian border troops have turned a blind eye to smuggling and underground tunnels.

Erdogan’s threats against Israel have grown of late, sending Turkey’s relations with Israel spiraling, and with trade embargos on a list of export items to boot.

In late July Erdogan had threatened that his country could intervene militarily in Gaza to defend Palestinians against the Israelis.

“We need to be very strong so that Israel cannot do these ridiculous things to Palestine. Just as we entered Karabakh, just as we entered Libya, we can do something similar to them,” Erdogan had said in a speech to his ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party.

But now given Turkish citizen (and American dual national) Aysenur Ezgi Eygi was killed Friday in the West Bank, such rhetoric from Turkish leaders is set to ratchet further.

Authored by Savannah Fortis via CoinTelegraph.com,

The European Union’s investigation into social media platform X has officially concluded after the platform agreed to meet the compliance requirements set by the European Data Protection Commission (DPC).

On Sept. 4, X agreed to cease using personal data from users located in the EU and European Economic Area (EEA). Previously, X used this data to train its artificial intelligence chatbot Grok. 

EU data erasure

The court required that Twitter International, the company behind X’s operations, permanently comply with the data collection requests. 

X said it would erase previous data from May 7 to Aug. 1 and agreed not to collect any further data for the sake of developing, enhancing or training Grok. 

The DPC filed the initial complaint, citing a risk to the “fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals.” According to the EU data watchdog, this was the first time it had had to take such action and invoke its powers under Section 134 of the 2018 Data Protection Act.

DPC Commissioner Des Hogan said he “welcomed” the outcome and that it protects the rights of EU and EEA citizens. When the complaint was initially filed, Hogan further commented on the DPC’s role in citizen data protection: 

“One of our main roles as an independent regulator and rights-based organization is to ensure the best outcome for data subjects and today’s developments will help us to continue protecting the rights and freedoms of X users across the EU and EEA.”

“This action further demonstrates the DPC’s commitment to taking appropriate action where necessary,” he said. 

Prior to accepting the conditions, Twitter International rejected the DPC’s allegations and claimed that it met all of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation requirements. The company even referred to the orders as “draconian” and said they hinder crucial functions of the platform in the region. 

However, since X agreed to the measures, the case has been dismissed. 

X’s global battles

The case against the DPC is not the only battle X is currently engaged in. On Aug. 30, regulators in Brazil suspended X in the country after Elon Musk, the platform’s owner, refused to name a legal representative for the firm in Brazil. 

The Brazilian Supreme Court upheld the order on Sept. 2 in a unanimous decision by five justices. 

Musk has hinted to X users in Brazil that they should defy the judge’s ruling against using VPNs to access the platform despite the fines that they could incur. 

He has also previously spoken out against Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes, accusing him of being “evil” and a “dictator” for allegedly engaging in “illegal political censorship” on X.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

RT published a feature analysis on Friday asking, “Has the US finally succeeded in choking off Russia’s biggest trade lifeline?”, which readers are encouraged to read in full to learn more Russia and China’s US-provoked payment problems. In a nutshell, Chinese banks of all sizes have suddenly started complying with the US’ sanctions out of fear of secondary sanctions, which RT’s financial expert Henry Johnston reminded everyone has also been reported by the domestic Russian media whose articles he cites.

 

All of this is shocking for the average BRICS enthusiast who’s been influenced by wishful thinking articles since the start of the special operation into imagining that this group is an anti-Western bloc. They’ve also heard countless times that “the dollar is dead” or is “about to die any day now,” that Russia and China are “allies” who are jointly resisting the West in all respects, and that a new world order has already emerged to replace the previously American-led unipolar one. None of that is true though.

The dollar remains the world’s reserve currency despite the reputational damage caused by the US’ anti-Russian sanctions, Russia and China are mired in US-provoked payment problems, and multipolarity has yet to fully emerge since the legacy of America’s unipolar system is responsible for the aforesaid.

China’s complex economic-financial interdependence with the West places certain restraints on its sovereignty in this respect and was even addressed by Lavrov in an interview with RBC last week:

“Of course, everyone is now looking for those new opportunities. But the People’s Republic of China, with the size of its economy, with the volume of its trade relations with the United States and the West as a whole, is, of course, much more dependent on the West than the Russian economy was.

And I have no doubt that China will reduce this dependence and will gradually move toward those forms of communication with its partners that will not be associated with such a dictate.

But, given the Chinese mentality, the Chinese style, they do this slowly. They do not want any sudden movements. This topic is being discussed with our Chinese colleagues. They have a fairly well-developed banking system, and it is very deeply tied to global financial markets.”

To Lavrov’s credit, he addressed the elephant in the room instead of delusionally denying the problem like top Alt-Media influencers tend to do for ideological reasons, which shows BRICS enthusiasts that there’s no need to try to cover up “politically inconvenient” facts like some gatekeepers aggressively do.

The second lesson that they can learn is to emulate Johnston’s calm way of discussing sensitive disputes among strategic partners instead of exaggerating them like so-called “doomers” are infamous for doing. 

Third, the reality of BRICS is finally more apparent in light of these problems: it’s a network of countries that voluntarily coordinate their policies to accelerate financial multipolarity, but whose members are limited by structural constraints and their ties with the West in terms of how far and fast they go. If it was a bloc like the average enthusiast imagines, especially an anti-Western one, then there’s no way that Chinese banks of all sizes would ever comply with the US’ anti-Russian sanctions.

The fourth lesson is that India proved more resilient to Western pressure than China. Many BRICS enthusiasts are suspicious of India’s close (but newly troubled) ties with the US, and a top Alt-Media influencer even described it as the West’s “Trojan Horse”. Sberbank’s Deputy CEO confirmed earlier this week though that “There are no restrictions on its operations” in India after it handled 70% of Russia’s $65 billion trade with that country last year, which was analyzed here. Folks should reflect on this point.  

And finally, BRICS enthusiasts should incorporate what they learned from the enumerated four lessons to recalibrate their worldview so that it more accurately reflects reality. There’s no shame in being wrong about anything and it’s understandable why so many people have such high hopes about BRICS, but it’s better to be aware of the facts and temper expectations than to be unaware of them and inevitably become deeply disappointed once reality hits. Here are 12 supplementary pieces clarifying BRICS:

* 1 April 2023: “Popular Expectations About BRICS’ New Currency Project Should Be Tempered”

* 27 July 2023: “Alt-Media Is In Shock After The BRICS Bank Confirmed That It Complies With Western Sanctions”

* 3 August 2023: “Russia Is Finally Correcting False Perceptions Of BRICS”

* 17 August 2023: “BRICS Officially Confirmed That It Doesn’t Want To De-Dollarize & Isn’t Anti-Western”

* 21 August 2023: “Lavrov Explained How Russia Envisages BRICS’ Global Role”

* 24 August 2023: “BRICS’ Expansion Is Beneficial But It Also Isn’t Without Strategic Challenges”

* 28 August 2023: “RT Took Care To Clarify India’s Approach Towards BRICS In Order To Avoid Misunderstandings”

* 6 January 2024: “Bridging The Gap Between Russia & Iran’s Differing Views On Whether BRICS Requires A Secretariat”

* 9 March 2024: “BRICS Is Transforming Into A Multipolar Discussion Club & Economic Integration Platform”

* 27 August 2024: “An Indian Source Shed Light On BRICS’ Financial Multipolarity Plans”

* 2 September 2024: “Korybko To SCF’s Hugo Dionisio: You’re Right About Lula, But Wrong About BRICS & India”

* 6 September 2024: “BRICS Membership Or Lack Thereof Isn’t Actually That Big Of A Deal”

Despite the group’s challenges as proven by Russia and China’s US-provoked payment problems and no matter the limitations inherent in its activity, BRICS is still gradually reforming the financial world order in a fairer direction for the Global Majority. As Johnston concluded in his feature article, “The fading hegemon still has a few trump cards it can play with some effect – and it is playing them now. But every time it does, it brings closer the day in which those cards will be rendered obsolete.”

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Treasury are preparing to launch a new program aimed at boosting the retirement savings of low and moderate-income Americans by offering taxpayer-funded matching contributions of up to $1,000 annually, deposited directly into their retirement accounts.

The Saver’s Match, introduced as part of the SECURE 2.0 Act, will replace the current Saver’s Credit. Unlike the nonrefundable Saver’s Credit, which only reduces taxes owed, the Saver’s Match offers up to $1,000 in direct contributions to a taxpayer’s retirement account.

The IRS expects this shift to provide greater benefits, particularly for those with little to no tax liability, by enhancing their retirement savings rather than just lowering their taxes.

The agencies are seeking public input on how best to implement the Saver’s Match program, set to launch in 2027. They are particularly focused on simplifying the process for claiming the matching contribution and ensuring that retirement plans and individual retirement accounts (IRAs) can easily accept the contributions, according to a Sept. 5 IRS press release.

“Saver’s Match contributions represent a new approach to promoting retirement savings and an important opportunity to improve the long-term financial security for millions of low- to moderate-income Americans,” the IRS said in a statement, emphasizing the need for public input to ensure that the program meets its full potential.

Key priorities for the IRS and Treasury include determining the most effective way to establish eligibility and distribute contributions. They are also working to streamline the process for taxpayers to claim the matching contribution, particularly those who may not typically file federal tax returns due to low income.

The IRS is also evaluating how to ensure that retirement plans, including IRAs and employer-sponsored 401(k)s, can easily accept these taxpayer-funded contributions. Currently, participation by retirement plans is voluntary, which could limit the program’s reach. To address this, the agencies are considering options for incentivizing more plans to participate.

Eligibility for the Saver’s Match will closely mirror the existing Saver’s Credit, with income-based phase-outs. For single filers, the match will begin to phase out at $20,500 and will no longer be available for individuals earning more than $35,500. For married couples filing jointly, the phase-out begins at $41,000, with a maximum income limit of $71,000. These income thresholds will be adjusted annually for inflation.

One significant difference from the current Saver’s Credit is the exclusion of certain “nonresident aliens” from the Saver’s Match. While the Saver’s Credit does not impose this exclusion, the Saver’s Match will, and the IRS is seeking public input on how to best implement and clarify this restriction.

Another potential issue is how taxpayers who contribute to Roth retirement accounts will navigate the Saver’s Match. While contributions to Roth IRAs qualify for the match, the actual Saver’s Match funds must be deposited into a traditional, pre-tax account, potentially complicating retirement planning for those who favor Roth accounts for their tax-free withdrawals in retirement.

The IRS is also looking into how to address the question of early withdrawal penalties for participants who may need to access their retirement savings for emergencies.

The agencies are seeking input from a broad range of stakeholders, including low to moderate-income taxpayers and IRA custodians, trustees, and retirement plan administrators, with the comment period ending on Nov. 4.

The IRS said that stakeholders are encouraged to share their perspectives on key areas such as eligibility criteria, the process for claiming the matching contribution, and how retirement plans can be encouraged to accept these contributions.

The detailed questions the agencies are asking include what steps could be taken to prevent the Saver’s Match payout to ineligible accounts and how to streamline the process for eligible individuals to claim the matching contribution.

Authored by Jeff Louderbeck via The Epoch Times,

For months, Democratic National Committee-backed lawsuits were focused on preventing independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from appearing on ballots in multiple states.

The party’s strategy abruptly shifted on Aug. 23 when Kennedy announced he would suspend his campaign in battleground states and urge his supporters to vote for former President Donald Trump in those states.

“If you live in a blue state, you can vote for me without harming or helping President Trump or Vice President Harris. In red states, the same will apply,” he said.

Kennedy said that if he remained on the ballot in swing states, he “would likely hand the election over to the Democrats, with whom I disagree on the most existential issues.”

Since then, Democrat-supported legal action has been filed in swing states where Kennedy has moved to have his name withdrawn from the ballot. The objective is to keep him on the ballot because reports have shown Kennedy will take more votes away from Trump than Vice President Kamala Harris.

Kennedy has sought to have his name taken off the ballot in 10 states.

On Sept. 6, a Michigan appeals court ruled that Kennedy’s name be removed from the general election ballot, overturning a lower court ruling that kept him on the ballot after he withdrew from the race.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said last month that Kennedy’s name would remain on the ballot because state law does not permit minor party candidates who are nominated at a state convention to withdraw.

Kennedy gained ballot access in some states by accepting a nomination from third parties. He qualified for Michigan’s general election ballot as a candidate of the Natural Law Party.

In 2020, President Joe Biden defeated Trump by around 154,000 votes in Michigan.

Also, on Sept. 6, a North Carolina Court of Appeals panel unanimously approved Kennedy’s request to stop the mailing of absentee ballots and reprint them without his name.

In North Carolina, Harris is trying to become the first Democrat presidential candidate to win since 2008. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by 3.5 percent in 2016 and edged Biden by 1.3 percent in 2020.

Earlier this year, when Kennedy was mounting an effort to get on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia as an independent, the state’s board of elections twice delayed authorizing ballot access to the We The People political party, which Kennedy’s campaign established in January in select states.

Absentee ballots were scheduled to be mailed on Sept. 6 before the appeals court approved Kennedy’s request to mandate that election officials remove his name.

People watch on a monitor as Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announces he is suspending his presidential campaign at a news conference on Aug 23, 2024, in Phoenix. AP Photo/Darryl Webb

North Carolina was initially set to be the first state to kick off early voting for the Nov. 5 election. It is now unclear when those voters will receive their ballots.

State officials have not decided if they will appeal the decision to a higher state court.

Wisconsin is currently the only state rejecting Kennedy’s withdrawal effort.

On Aug. 27, the Wisconsin Elections Commission voted 5-1 to keep Kennedy’s name on the state’s ballot. Kennedy filed a lawsuit challenging the ruling on Sept. 3.

Biden defeated Trump by around 21,000 votes in Wisconsin in 2020.

Speculation is mounting about the impact of Kennedy’s presence on the ballot in battleground states.

As of Sept. 6, Harris leads Trump, 47.3 percent to 44.2 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight’s average of polls.

Conducted in early July and early August, a Pew Research study indicated that Kennedy supporters were “far less likely to say they were highly motivated to vote in the presidential election.”

In August, 72 percent of Trump supporters and 70 percent of Harris supporters said they were “extremely motivated” to vote, while only 23 percent of RFK Jr.’s backers felt the same, the research pointed out.

Pew Research’s nationwide surveys indicate that following Biden’s decision to leave the presidential race and endorse Harris, 39 percent of Kennedy’s supporters continued to support Kennedy. Of those who changed their preference, 39 percent shifted to Harris and 20 percent to Trump.

Kennedy told The Epoch Times that internal polling showed, if he left the race in the swing states, 57 percent of his backers would shift their support to Trump, which played a role in his decision to leave the race and endorse Trump because he saw no path to victory.

Wes Farno, a Republican strategist in Ohio, told The Epoch Times that he believes Kennedy’s decision to suspend his campaign in battleground states and encourage his supporters to vote for Trump could swing the election “3 percent to 4 percent” in the former president’s favor.

“Even if a small number of Kennedy supporters vote for Trump, that could have a significant impact in states that are tightly contested,” Farno said. “Those are people who would have otherwise voted for Kennedy, and based on what he said his internal polling showed, many of those voters will support Trump and not Harris. That shift could make a difference in swing states.”

David Carlucci, a former New York state senator who is now a Democratic strategist, told The Epoch Times that Trump “gave in to RFK Jr.” by accepting his endorsement and discussing a potential role in his administration.

Carlucci added that he agrees with analysts who believe that Kennedy’s exit from the race and backing of Trump “will have minimal impact by Election Day.”

Kennedy announced his candidacy to challenge Biden for the 2024 Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in April 2023.

He said he faced multiple roadblocks from the DNC and eventually chose to run as an independent in October 2023.

After Kennedy announced he would run as an independent, DNC officials said that he was a “stalking horse” to “prop up” Trump.

Earlier this year, the DNC announced the creation of a team to combat third-party and independent presidential candidates.

Veteran Democrat strategist Lis Smith was hired to spearhead an aggressive communication plan to combat Kennedy, independent Cornel West, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

In the weeks preceding Kennedy’s decision to suspend his campaign in battleground states and endorse Trump, he found himself in courtrooms across the country testifying in DNC-backed lawsuits that were filed to keep him off the ballot.

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appears to testify at a ballot access hearing in Mineola, N.Y. Jeff Louderback/Epoch Times

The Aug. 23 press conference, in which he announced he would back Trump, was held on a Friday. Earlier that week, he appeared in Pennsylvania and New York regarding ballot access hearings.

Kennedy criticized the Democrats for aligning with Biden and then nominating Harris without a primary during his Aug. 23 address.

He also chastised the DNC for backing lawsuits in multiple states aimed at blocking him from the ballot.

On Aug. 26, Kennedy told The Epoch Times that Trump would make a series of announcements that other Democrats are joining his campaign.

The next day, Trump’s campaign confirmed that Kennedy and former Democratic Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard accepted the former president’s offer to join his transition team if he wins in November.

Kennedy told The Epoch Times on Aug. 26 that he would actively campaign for Trump and that there is no defined role he would have in a Trump administration.

He says fighting chronic disease, improving children’s health, and addressing corporate capture of government agencies are his top priorities.

Kennedy joined Trump on stage at a rally in Glendale, Arizona, on Aug. 23 when the former president announced he would appoint Kennedy to a panel investigating the rise in chronic disease in children if he won his White House bid.

While Kennedy said on Aug. 23 that he still encouraged supporters to vote for him in non-battleground states, he said in an email on Sept. 6, “No matter what state you live in, I urge you to vote for Donald Trump. The reason is that is the only way we can get me and everything I stand for into Washington DC and fulfill the mission that motivated my campaign.”

Kennedy added that it will be a “close election” and “a disputed election result would be a disaster for our divided nation.”

Kennedy’s online messaging has shifted messaging away from “Declare Your Independence,” even though he will appear on the ballot in many states.

His website now centers around the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign and reiterates his belief on how to accomplish that objective.

“A Vote For Trump is a Vote For Kennedy,” a banner atop the home page reads.

A new study from GoBankingRates.com has revealed the most popular vehicles among the baby boomer generation in each U.S. state.

The study shows that baby boomer car buyers tend to know what they want, are more likely to have over 25% of the cost saved, and prefer American cars compared to other generations.

The data, sourced by company Insurify, shows American brands are the top choice for baby boomers in 38 states, with Ford leading in 20 states, Chevrolet in 18, and Toyota in 10. Ford is the most popular brand overall, with 13% of boomers owning one.

Jenni Newman, editor-in-chief of Cars.com said: “In terms of saving for a purchase, boomers are more likely than other generations to save money for more than 25% of their vehicle’s final price.”

She added: “Gen X is more likely than other generations to save for less than 10% of their vehicle’s final price.”

According to Cox Automotive, 38% of baby boomers knew their preferred vehicle from the start, compared to 28% of Gen X, 26% of millennials, and 24% of Gen Z. Additionally, only 54% of boomers considered both new and used cars, compared to 79% of Gen Z, 76% of millennials, and 72% of Gen X.

The GoBankingRates study showed that across the United States, baby boomers show distinct preferences for brands depending on state.

Chevrolet stands out as a top choice in many areas, particularly in the Midwest and South, with boomers in states like Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin favoring the brand.

Ford, another popular choice, dominates in states like Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Toyota also holds a strong position, particularly on the coasts. Baby boomers in California, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont favor the brand.

Nissan enjoys popularity in Connecticut and New Hampshire, rounding out the list.

You can read the full list here.