Bollywood Reigns Supreme On YouTube

Bollywood Reigns Supreme On YouTube

Indian Bollywood music channel T-Series is currently the channel with the most followers on YouTube (234 million), ahead of kids content channel Cocomelon (152 million).

As Statista’s Kathraina Buchholz notes, in 2018, T-Series was involved in a fierce battle over YouTube’s top 1 position with the entertainment channel PewDiePie (111 million followers), catapulting the Bollywood channel to new heights.

Infographic: The YouTube Channels with the Most Subscribers | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

PewDiePie, Swede Felix Kjellberg in real life, has since given in to the mass appeal of Indian cinematic soundtracks, falling to rank five behind fellow YouTuber MrBeast and yet another Indian channel, SET India by Sony Entertainment.

Previous to 2018, PewDiePie had been the account with the most subscribers on YouTube (save YouTube’s own channels) for five years. When the Indian channel was inching up to steal the number one spot, Kjellberg and fellow YouTuber friends rallied to keep it by publishing novelty diss track Bitch Lasagna about T-Series and buying expensive seats at the 2019 Super Bowl to hold up messages urging people to subscribe. Indian YouTubers jumped the bandwagon and answered with their own tracks asking people to follow the T-Series account instead, a tactic which ultimately suceeded.

The ranking of the most-followed Youtube channels was still dominated by music and entertainment offerings until early 2020. Since then, more kids content channels have appeared on the scene – potentially testament to coronavirus-induced demand by parents caring for their children at home during school and daycare closures.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/30/2023 – 02:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/8imFON7 Tyler Durden

‘I Am Not Certain Whether Germans Want Ukraine To Win This War’, Says Polish Defense Minister

‘I Am Not Certain Whether Germans Want Ukraine To Win This War’, Says Polish Defense Minister

Authored by Grzegorz Adamczyk via Remix News,

Polish Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak said that he was not certain if Germany wants Ukraine to win the conflict.

He is of the opinion that Berlin should donate more tanks from its stockpiles to Ukraine, which is why Polish pressure on Germany remains as strong as it was before.

“There is a reason for this pressure,” said Błaszczak.

He noted that when the Polish government sought support for Ukraine, it was widely criticized by the opposition.

“The opposition blindly parrots Germany, so much so, that if they ruled in Poland, they would say that Ukraine does not need any Leopards or Patriots. They would repeat everything Berlin is saying,” he stated.

The Polish defense minister said in an interview for Polish Radio 1 that President Andrzej Duda announced plans for a coalition to donate modern tanks to Ukraine during his visit to Lviv two weeks ago.

“It can be said plainly, if not for Polish pressure exerted on Germans, the decision to donate Leopard tanks to Ukraine would not have been made,” said Błaszczak.

Berlin just approved donating Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine on Wednesday. In the first phase, 14 Leopard 2A6 tanks will be delivered to Kyiv from the Bundeswehr’s stockpiles. Germany also gave permission to partner countries to deliver similar German-made tanks to Ukraine.

At the same time, Błaszczak stressed, Germany’s decision does not mean a drastic change in the country’s attitude toward the Ukraine war. He referred to the words of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who said in the Bundestag that “Leopard tanks are a red line” and Germany will not send fighter jets and land forces to Kyiv.

When asked if Germans really want Ukraine to win the war, Błaszczak admitted that “it is a question he always asks when talking to German officials.”

Błaszczak explained that Polish government remembers “what was going on between Berlin and Moscow and the Nord Stream pipeline,” which allowed Putin to build up his strength.

Błaszczak also mentioned the topic of strengthening Polish military capabilities, stating that this year, 58 Abrams will arrive in Poland, with the first units arriving in spring. Soldiers from the 1st Warsaw Armored Brigade are already trained to use the Abrams tanks, added Błaszczak.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/30/2023 – 02:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/i1OHktZ Tyler Durden

Brickbat: Reckless Driving


Police car and yellow "do not cross" police tape

Addis, Louisiana, police officer David Cauthron has been charged with two counts of negligent homicide and one count of negligent injuring for his role in a high-speed chase on New Year’s Eve that left two teens dead. The chase started after a man stole a family member’s car. Cauthron reportedly ran a red light and slammed into an unrelated vehicle in which the teens were riding.

The post Brickbat: Reckless Driving appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/wpMo7tQ
via IFTTT

New Draft Article: “Terms of Service and Fourth Amendment Rights”

I have just posted to SSRN a new draft article, Terms of Service and Fourth Amendment Rights.  Here’s the abstract:

Almost everything you do on the Internet is governed by Terms of Service. The language in Terms of Service typically gives Internet providers broad rights to address potential account misuse. But do these terms alter Fourth Amendment rights, either diminishing or even eliminating constitutional rights in Internet accounts?  In the last five years, many courts have ruled that they do. These courts treat Terms of Service like a rights contract: By agreeing to use an Internet account subject to broad Terms of Service, you give up your Fourth Amendment rights.

This Article argues that the courts are wrong. Terms of Service have little or no effect on Fourth Amendment rights. Fourth Amendment rights are rights against the government, not private parties. Terms of Service can define relationships between private parties, but private contracts cannot define Fourth Amendment rights. This is true across the range of Fourth Amendment doctrines, including the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test, consent, abandonment, third-party consent, and the private search doctrine.  Courts that have linked Terms of Service and Fourth Amendment rights are mistaken, and their reasoning should be rejected.

And here’s the first two pages of the Introduction:

When you use the Internet, you are using computer networks that belong to others. You are visiting computers around the country, and sometimes around the world, that are typically owned by large companies. Those companies have lawyers. And those lawyers want to make sure you can’t sue them for how you use their services. So they do what lawyers do best: They put it in writing. As a condition of use, the services require users to agree to contractual language giving the company broad rights over your use of their machines. Those contractual terms, usually called Terms of Service, appear to users like an endless CVS-receipt of legalese that they click through on the way to setting up an account.

This essay considers the effect of Terms of Service on Fourth Amendment rights. In particular, it asks whether language in Terms of Service can limit or even eliminate user Fourth Amendment rights. If Terms of Service say you have no rights, or only limited or conditional rights, do those terms control? In Carpenter v. United States and Riley v. California, the Supreme Court has suggested that the Fourth Amendment applies broadly to computers and the Internet. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant if the government wants to obtain the contents of your messages, or even certain non-content records. But Terms of Service threaten that conclusion. If such Terms can narrow or eliminate Fourth Amendment rights online, then those rights may be an illusion. What the Supreme Court has given, Terms of Service might take away.

This is a genuine and pressing problem. In the last five years, the effect of Terms of Service on Fourth Amendment rights has been frequently litigated in lower courts. Judges have divided sharply. A few opinions say the Terms make little difference. But a majority of courts have treated Terms of Service like a rights contract: By agreeing to use the service, they reason, you agree to whatever narrowing or elimination of rights that the contract implies. Using the service becomes a waiver of Fourth Amendment rights that gives up a reasonable expectation of privacy or consents to any future search. The caselaw is recent, and existing legal scholarship has not yet addressed, or even recognized, the problem. But the decisions suggest a troubling reality: Our Fourth Amendment rights online hinge on the effect of Terms of Service.

This Article argues that Terms of Service have little or no impact on Fourth Amendment rights. With limited exceptions, Terms of Service cannot reduce or eliminate Fourth Amendment protections. The courts that have held to the contrary are wrong, and their reasoning should be rejected. The explanation rests on the under-appreciated role of private contracts in Fourth Amendment law. The Fourth Amendment provides rights against the government, and agreements between private parties and the government can relinquish Fourth Amendment rights. But Terms of Service play a different role. They define legal relationships between private parties, between private network provider and private network user. Agreements among private parties do not relinquish rights. As private agreements, Terms of Service might help clarify relationships relevant to some Fourth Amendment doctrines. But it is the relationships, not the language found in Terms of Service, that matter.

This wasn’t an Article that I was planning to write, but it seemed important to take on this topic as more and more cases have adopted the view that Terms of Service control Fourth Amendment rights.  Anyway, it’s new draft, and comments are very welcome at orin [at] berkeley.edu.  No need to send on corrections to typos or stuff like that, but any reactions to the substance would be appreciated.

The post New Draft Article: "Terms of Service and Fourth Amendment Rights" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/Vumir7c
via IFTTT

Escobar: The ‘Doomsday Clock’ Is Speeding Up

Escobar: The ‘Doomsday Clock’ Is Speeding Up

Authored by Pepe Escobar via PressTV,

The Doomsday Clock, set by the US-based magazine Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, has been moved to 90 seconds to midnight…

That’s the closest ever to total nuclear doom, the global catastrophe.

The Clock had been set at 100 seconds since 2020. The Bulletin’s Science and Security Board and a group of sponsors – which includes 10 Nobel laureates – have focused on “Russia’s war on Ukraine” (their terminology) as the main reason.

Yet they did not bother to explain non-stop American rhetoric (the US is the only nation that adopts “first strike” in a nuclear confrontation) and the fact that this is a US proxy war against Russia with Ukraine used as cannon fodder.

The Bulletin also attributes malignant designs to China, Iran and North Korea, while mentioning, only in passing, that “the last remaining nuclear weapons treaty between Russia and the United States, New START, stands in jeopardy”.

“Unless the two parties resume negotiations and find a basis for further reductions, the treaty will expire in February 2026.”

As it stands, the prospects of a US-Russia negotiation on New START are less than zero.

Now cue to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov making it very clear that war against Russia is not hybrid anymore, it’s “almost” real.

“Almost” in fact means “90 seconds.”

So why is this all happening?

The Mother of All Intel Failures

Former British diplomat Alastair Crooke has concisely explained how Russian resilience – much in the spirit of Iranian resilience past four decades – completely smashed the assumptions of Anglo-American intelligence.

Talk about the Mother of All Intel Failures – in fact even more astonishing than the non-existent Iraqi WMDs (in the run-up to Shock and Awe in 2003, anyone with a brain knew Baghdad had discontinued its weapons program already in the 1990s.)

Now the collective West “committed the entire weight of its financial resources to crushing Russia (…) in every conceivable way – via financial, cultural and psychological war, and with real military war as the follow-through.”

And yet Russia held its ground. And now reality-based developments prevail over fiction. The Global South “is peeling away into a separate economic model, no longer dependent on the dollar for its trading needs.”

And the accelerated collapse of the US dollar increasingly plunges the Empire into a real existential crisis.

All that hangs over a South Vietnam scenario evolving in Ukraine after a rash government-led political and military purge. The coke comedian – whose only role is to beg non-stop for bags of cash and loads of weapons – is being progressively sidelined by the Americans (beware of traveling CIA directors).

The game in Kiev, according to Russian sources, seems to be that the Americans are taking over the Brits as handlers of the whole operation.

The coke comedian remains – for now – as a sock puppet while military control over what is left of Ukraine is entirely NATO’s.

Well, it already was – but now, formally, Ukraine is the world’s first de facto NATO member without being an actual member, enjoying less than zero national sovereignty, and complete with NATO-Nazi Storm troopers weaponized with American and German tanks in the name of “democracy”.

The meeting last week of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group – totally controlled by the US – at the US Air Force base in Ramstein solidified a sort of tawdry remix of Operation Barbarossa.

Here we go again, with German Panzers sent to Ukraine to fight Russia.

Yet the tank coalition seems to have tanked even before it starts.  Germany will send 14, Portugal 2, Belgium 0 (sorry, don’t have them). Then there’s Lithuania, whose Defense Minister observed, “Yes, we don’t have tanks, but we have an opinion about tanks.”

No one ever accused German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock of being brighter than a light bulb. She finally gave the game away,  at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg:

“The crucial part is that we do it together and that we do not do the blame game in Europe because we are fighting a war against Russia.”

So Baerbock agrees with Lavrov. Just don’t ask her what Doomsday Clock means. Or what happened after Operation Barbarossa failed.

The NATO-EU “garden”

The EU-NATO combo takes matters to a whole new level. The EU essentially has been reduced to the status of P.R. arm of NATO.

It’s all spelled out in their January 10 joint declaration.

The NATO-EU joint mission consists in using all economic, political and military means to make sure the “jungle” always behaves according to the “rules-based international order” and accepts to be plundered ad infinitum by the “blooming garden”.

Looking at The Big Picture, absolutely nothing changed in the US military/intel apparatus since 9/11: it’s a bipartisan thing, and it means Full Spectrum Dominance of both the US and NATO. No dissent whatsoever is allowed. And no thinking outside the box.

Plan A is subdivided into two sections.

1. Military intervention in a hollowed-out proxy state shell (see Afghanistan and Ukraine).

2. Inevitable, humiliating military defeat (see Afghanistan and soon Ukraine). Variations include building a wasteland and calling it “peace” (Libya) and extended proxy war leading to future humiliating expulsion (Syria).

There’s no Plan B.

Or is there? 90 seconds to midnight?

Obsessed by Mackinder, the Empire fought for control of the Eurasian landmass in World War I and World War II because that represented control of the world.

Later, Zbigniew “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski had warned: “Potentially the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition between Russia, China and Iran.”

Jump cut to the Raging Twenties when the US forced the end of Russian natural gas exports to Germany (and the EU) via Nord Stream 1 and 2.

Once again, Mackinderian opposition to a grand alliance on the Eurasian landmass consisting of Germany, Russia and China.

The Straussian neo-con and neoliberal-con psychos in charge of US foreign policy could even absorb a strategic alliance between Russia and China – as painful as it may be. But never Russia, China and Germany.

With the collapse of the JCPOA, Iran is now being re-targeted with maximum hostility. Yet were Tehran to play hardball, the US Navy or military could never keep the Strait of Hormuz open – by the admission of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Oil price in this case would rise to possibly thousands of dollars a barrel according to Goldman Sachs oil derivative experts – and that would crash the entire world economy.

This is arguably the foremost NATO Achilles Heel. Almost without firing a shot a Russia-Iran alliance could smash NATO to bits and bring down assorted EU governments as socio-economic chaos runs rampant across the collective West.

Meanwhile, to quote Dylan, darkness keeps dawning at the break of noon. Straussian neo-con and neoliberal-con psychos will keep pushing the Doomsday Clock closer and closer to midnight.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 01/29/2023 – 23:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/clOCsZz Tyler Durden

Mixed Oil Momentum Signals To Persist Until Impact Of War Fades

Mixed Oil Momentum Signals To Persist Until Impact Of War Fades

By Ryan Fitzmaurice of Marex

As many traders would agree, sometimes it’s not the data that is important but rather the price reaction to the data. We believe this is the case with oil prices recently. Looking at US inventory statistics, crude oil stocks have built by an incredible +27mb over the past two reports, yet oil prices have rallied more than 10% over the same timeframe in a classic case of sell the rumor, buy the fact. As for the sharp rise in US crude inventories, it’s not as if oil fundamentals have shifted on a dime, but rather it’s the result of the extreme cold weather that ravaged the US energy corridor in late December. The cold forced several major US refineries to shut down due to operational issues related to the freezing temperatures. Additionally, end of year tax on inventory in Texas and Louisiana caused oil imports to come onshore in early January.

So, despite what seems to be very bearish data points, the oil market appears focused on China’s abrupt reopening plans and the improving macro backdrop as opposed to backward looking inventory that was impacted by weather. In fact, the spot Brent contract is now trading in the mid to high $80s and above many moving averages. The oil rally has also coincided with a notable increase in futures open interest and managed money buying. The combined aggregate futures open interest for ICE Brent and Nymex WTI has climbed by +440mb since the start of the year while the net managed money position has increased by +68mb since last Tuesday, the latest reporting period for the CFTC positioning data. Also, about half of the net buying has come from “short”covering due to the big shift in momentum the past two weeks.

Oil prices have now turned higher on the year despite oil stocks climbing by +27mb for the first two reports of January, as the focus shifts to China’s reopening…

Mixed Signals

Last week we discussed momentum traders, and how their herd-like behavior can impact oil prices at times. Today we want to expand on that topic while discussing the impact the war in Ukraine has had on the momentum factor. To reiterate our point from last week, momentum is a very simple and straight forward trading strategy, buying commodities or assets with positive returns and selling those with negative returns over a pre-defined timeframe. For example, the one-year momentum signal tends to be a popular long-term indicator that measures the roll-adjusted return of the past year. Given we are dealing with historical prices, it is possible to look at the price development of the prior year to formulate a roadmap of how this key hurdle will change with time. It is worth noting that roll-adjustments will alter the momentum indicator somewhat, with contango increasing the signal threshold over time while backwardation decreases it.

With that in mind, we are all aware of how erratic oil prices were last year, and particularly in the early stages of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February. In fact, spot Brent prices spiked from below $80 at the start of 2022 to more than $135 by early March. This is important to remember because the huge spike in oil prices is going to make for an increasingly higher bar with respect to the one-year momentum signal as we approach the anniversary of the start of the war. Importantly, the forward curves shifted into a strong state of backwardation for several months after the price spike, which has worked to lower this key hurdle, but the current contango could work to offset that in the coming months should it hold. On the flip side, the weak price action more recently could make for a low bar with respect to shorter-term signals. As a result, mixed oil momentum signals are likely to persist until the impact from the war fades.

The threshold for the 1-year momentum signal will become increasingly higher over the first half of the 2023, before declining in the second half of the year…

Thinking Ahead

Oil prices are now higher on the year after a very sharp decline the first week of January and despite some sizable US inventory builds. Notably, open interest has also increased alongside prices as new money enters the fray. So far, there has been little in the way of commodity index inflows this year, however, one would assume “long-only” investor dollars are likely to be chasing oil prices given the past two years of stellar returns. This group of institutional investors should gain more influence as the war-inspired volatility begins to filter out of risk models, allowing for increased position sizes. This dynamic should become more apparent in 2H23 though.

Fundamentally, all eyes remain on the Chinese reopening and its potential demand implications for this year. As we have been highlighting recently, Chinese crude imports already climbed to more than 11mb/d in November and December, even before the abrupt pandemic policy reversal took place. This supports the notion that China will likely need record oil imports this year to meet its refining demand. In addition, we believe the US will also need to increase crude imports this year to fill the void left by the cessation of SPR releases and as the US refining system bounces back from the cold related outages.

Aggregate futures open interest for the two benchmark crude oil contracts has increased sharply to start the new year, albeit from a low base…

Tyler Durden
Sun, 01/29/2023 – 23:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/E70xaqI Tyler Durden

A Tale Of Two Presidents: Biden Vs Trump

A Tale Of Two Presidents: Biden Vs Trump

Via The Automatic Earth blog,

Highly appreciated Automatic Earth commenter TAE Summary presents another one of his series “A Tale of Two..”, and if only just for the obvious effort he put into it, let’s dig in.

How do you feel about what each president has achieved? No wrong answers.

TAE Summary:

Biden is a Great President and Trump was an Awful President

Biden

  • Appointed a diverse cabinet

  • Signed executive orders addressing systemic racism and discrimination

  • Passed the infrastructure bill to repair roads and bridges and improve internet access

  • Reduced the deficit

  • Led NATO in its support of Ukraine and opposition to Vladimir Putin

  • Lowered the child poverty rate by increasing the tax credit for children

  • Launched a program to protect earth from killer asteroids

  • Officially recognized Turkish genocide of Armenians in 1915

  • Sidelined the court-packing movement of the left

  • Stepped up US support for Taiwan

  • Announced a historic trilateral security agreement with Australia and Britain to counter Chinese hegemony

  • Accelerate Covid vaccine delivery at home an abroad

  • Improved the American economy by championing competition and reining in the power of big business which helped create millions of jobs

  • Gave Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices and made the price of things like insulin and hearing aids cheaper

  • Attacked hunger and fostered better nutrition in the US

  • Funded opioid recovery programs

  • Eliminated the statute of limitations for child sex abuse

  • Tried to reform student loans

  • Issued important cybersecurity regulations

  • Chose humanity over politics when getting Brittney Griner released

Trump

  • Colluded with the Russians to get elected in 2016

  • Appointed unqualified family members to important positions in his administration

  • Tried to ban TikTok

  • Withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Accords

  • Increased the deficit every year of his presidency

  • Approved the Keystone Pipeline through native lands

  • Disallowed transgender students from using the bathroom of their choice

  • Attacked John McCain as a loser

  • Ended curbs on auto emissions

  • Cracked down on legal immigrants

  • Impeded regulation against toxic chemicals

  • Shrank the food safety net so that over 700K Americans lost their access to food stamps

  • Suggested vaccines cause autism

  • Accused Barack Obama of spying on his campaign

  • Cut corporate taxes to the lowest level since 1939

  • Oversaw the longest government shutdown in US history

  • Acted as a racist and xenophobe when he implemented a travel ban from Muslim countries, blamed the Chinese for Covid, separated families at the US border, tried to build a wall between the US and Mexico and gave racist speeches

  • Tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would have left millions without healthcare

  • Inadequately responded to Covid, downplaying the dangers

  • Use his influence as president to try to get Ukraine to provide damaging narratives about his political opponent

  • Challenged the outcome of the 2020 election undermining democratic institutions and the public’s trust in elections which led to the events of January 6th and the deaths of 5 people

Trump was a Great President and Biden is an Awful President

Trump

  • Negotiated three Arab-Israeli peace accords

  • Fostered a strong economy and stock market by signing into to law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and other policies

  • Started the Space Force

  • Attempted the first Defense Department wide audit

  • Cracked down on unwanted robo-calls

  • Attempted to build a wall on the border with Mexico to stop illegal immigration

  • Helped American farmers with billions of dollars in aid

  • Tried to fix health technology by removing rules blocking the sharing of medical information

  • Rescinded rules for federal contractors that protected them from sexual harassment claims

  • Made it easier to prosecute financial crimes like money laundering

  • Renegotiated trade deals with Mexico, Canada and China which benefitted American workers and businesses

  • Appointed three Supreme Court justices and many other conservative judges to federal courts leading to pro-Constitutional decisions like the overturning of Roe

  • Passed the VA MISSION Act which improved healthcare access and services for veterans

  • Oversaw the defeat of the Islamic State’s territorial caliphate in Syria and Iraq

  • Kept us out of war

  • Signed executive orders and laws combating human trafficking

Biden

  • Opened the borders to illegal immigrants

  • Discharged thousands of troops for refusing the Covid vaccine

  • Opposed efforts to stop biological males from competing in women’s sports

  • Lied about border patrol agents whipping migrants

  • Claimed that January 6th rioters were a bigger threat to democracy than Confederates in the Civil War

  • Described terrorism from white supremacy as the most lethal threat to the US

  • Oversaw the disastrous withdrawal of American troops for Afghanistan

  • Mis-handled the response to Covid mandating vaccines and dividing the nation on the basis of vaccination status

  • Supported lockdowns and other pandemic polices which damaged the supply chain and the world economy

  • Supported violent protesters instead of the police during the BLM riots

  • Lied about Hunter’s laptop saying it was Russain disinformation

  • Stated that election reform is the new Jim Crow

  • Suppressed first amendment rights by influencing policies of social media outlets

  • Supported the war in Ukraine and vilified Russia as our enemy

  • Blocked American energy production

  • Illegally attempted to forgive student loans

  • Printed massive amounts of money causing massive inflation

I have one comment: I don’t think that “Joe Biden” (in Jim Kunstler language) only “supported the war in Ukraine and vilified Russia as our enemy”, “Joe Biden” did a lot more to poke the bear and instigate and fire up the war. But that’s just me. You can be the judge of that too.

Also just me: when Trump left and Biden came, we were at peace. Look at us now.

*  *  *

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, you are now not just a reader, but an integral part of the process that builds this site. Thank you for your support.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 01/29/2023 – 22:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/SBlNcwO Tyler Durden

Air Force General Tells His Officers ‘War With China’ Only 2 Years Away

Air Force General Tells His Officers ‘War With China’ Only 2 Years Away

In recent years there have been at least a handful of high-ranking US military commanders which in some form or fashion have sounded the alarm over a “coming war with China”… with the latest warning being the most unusual, issued in the form of a memo by an active four-star general and circulated with an official order.

This case is particularly significant given he took the rare step of passing it down through military command and to the chief officers he oversees, giving a greater urgency to the warning

A four-star Air Force general sent a memo on Friday to the officers he commands that predicts the U.S. will be at war with China in two years and tells them to get ready to prep by firing “a clip” at a target, and “aim for the head.”

In the memo sent Friday and obtained by NBC News, Gen. Mike Minihan, head of Air Mobility Command, said, “I hope I am wrong. My gut tells me will fight in 2025.”

General Mike Minihan, a four-star officer, sent the memo Friday. Getty Images

Various reports have counted some 50,000 service members and nearly 500 planes total under Gen. Minihan’s command.

The message is particularly alarming given it instructed commanders under him to “consider their personal affairs and whether a visit should be scheduled with their servicing base legal office to ensure they are legally ready and prepared.”

He explained that he sees Beijing as desirous of moving against the self-ruled island of Taiwan within that time period, and that it would trigger a large US military response. 

The Air Force general further urged “a fortified, ready, integrated, and agile Joint Force Maneuver Team ready to fight and win inside the first island chain.” And in the memo Gen. Minihan issued an order, requiring that all major efforts in preparation for a coming China fight to be reported to him directly by Feb. 28.

As for why he thinks China will invade Taiwan within the next two years, NBC described the following:

Minihan said in the memo that because both Taiwan and the U.S. will have presidential elections in 2024, the U.S. will be “distracted,” and Chinese President Xi Jinping will have an opportunity to move on Taiwan

As for Beijing, it has long claimed it is only interested in pursuing peaceful reunification with Taiwan based on political means. China has further laid blame on Washington for militarizing the island and thus creating current tensions, and by stoking independence forces through high-level visits, such as Nancy Pelosi’s ultra-provocative August trip to Taipei.

It should be noted that Gen. Minihan has a reputation for being among the Pentagon’s most outspoken and hawkish top generals. In this latest memo, he directed all Air Mobility Command personnel to “fire a clip into a 7-meter target with the full understanding that unrepentant lethality matters most. Aim for the head.”

Tyler Durden
Sun, 01/29/2023 – 22:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/1NnByQP Tyler Durden

The New York Times Is Orwell’s Ministry Of Truth

The New York Times Is Orwell’s Ministry Of Truth

Authored by Edward Curtin via Off-Guardian.org,

“Ingsoc. The sacred principles of ingsoc. Newspeak, double-speak, the mutability of the past.”

– George Orwell, 1984

As today dawned, I was looking out the window into the cold grayness with small patches of snow littering the frozen ground.  As light snow began to fall, I felt a deep mourning in my soul as a memory came to me of another snowy day in 1972 when I awoke to news of Richard Nixon’s savage Christmas bombing of North Vietnam with more than a hundred B-52 bombers, in wave after wave, dropping death and destruction on Hanoi and other parts of North Vietnam.

I thought of the war the United States is now waging against Russia via Ukraine and how, as during the U.S. war against Vietnam, few Americans seem to care until it becomes too late.  It depressed me.

Soon after I was greeted by an editorial from The New York Times’ Editorial Board, “A Brutal New Phase of the War in Ukraine.”  It is a piece of propaganda so obvious that only those desperate to believe blatant lies would not fall down laughing.  Yet it is no laughing matter, for The N.Y. Times is advocating for a wider war, more lethal weapons for Ukraine, and escalation of the fighting that risks nuclear war.  So their title is apt because they are promoting the brutality.  This angered me.

The Times’ Editorial Board tells us that President Putin, like Hitler, is mad.  “Like the last European war, this one is mostly one man’s madness.”  Russia and Putin are “cruel”; are conducting a “regular horror” with missile strikes against civilian targets; are “desperate”; are pursuing Putin’s “delusions”; are waging a “terrible and useless war”; are “committing atrocities”; are responsible for “murder, rape and pillaging,” etc.

On the other hand, “a heroic Ukraine” “has won repeated and decisive victories against Russian forces” who have lost “well over 100,000 Russian soldiers killed and wounded,” according to the “reliable” source, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley.  To add to this rosy report, the Ukrainians seem to have suffered no causalities since none are mentioned by the cozy Times’ Editorial Board members from their keyboards on Eighth Avenue. 

When you support a U.S. war, as has always been The Times’ modus operandi as a stenographer for the government, mentioning the dead pawns used to accomplish the imperialists’ dreams is bad manners.  So are the atrocities committed by those forces, so they too have been omitted.  Neo-Nazis, the Azov Battalion?  They too must never have  existed since they are not mentioned.

But then, according to the esteemed editorial writers, this is not a U.S. proxy war waged via Ukraine by U.S./NATO “to strip Russia of its destiny and greatness.”  No, it is simply Russian aggression, supported by “the Kremlin’s propaganda machinery” that has churned “out false narratives about a heroic Russian struggle against forces of fascism and debauchery.”  U.S./NATO were “horrified by the crude violation of the postwar order,” so we are laughingly told, and so came to Ukraine’s defense as “Mr. Putin’s response has been to throw ever more lives, resources and cruelty at Ukraine.”

Nowhere in this diatribe by the Times’ Board of propagandists – and here the whole game is given away for anyone with a bit of an historical sense – is there any mention of the U.S. engineered coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014.  It just didn’t happen.  Never happened.  Magic by omission.

The U.S., together with the Ukrainian government “led” by the puppet-actor “President Volodymyr Zelensky,” are completely innocence parties, according to the Times.  (Note also, that nowhere in this four page diatribe is President Putin addressed by his title, as if to say that “Mr. Putin” is illegitimate and Zelensky is the real thing.)

All the problems stem from when “Mr. Putin seized Crimea and stirred up a secessionist conflict in eastern Ukraine n 2014.”

Nowhere is it mentioned that for years on end U.S./NATO has been moving troops and weapons right up to Russia’s borders, that George W. Bush pulled the U.S. out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and that Trump did the same with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, that the U.S. has set up so-called anti-ballistic missile sites in Poland and Rumania and asserted its right to a nuclear first-strike, that more and more countries have been added to NATO’s eastern expansion despite promises to Russia to the contrary, that 15,000 plus mostly Russian-speaking people in eastern Ukraine have been killed by Ukrainian forces for years before February 2022, that the Minsk agreements were part of a scheme to give time for the arming of Ukraine, that the U.S. has rejected all calls from Russia to respect its borders and its integrity, that the U.S./NATO has surrounded Russia with military bases, that there was a vote in Crimea after the coup, that the U.S. has been for years waging economic war on Russia via sanctions, etc.

In short, all of the reasons that Russia felt that it was under attack for decades and that the U.S. was stone deaf to its appeals to negotiate these threats to its existence.  It doesn’t take a genius to realize that if all were reversed and Russia had put troops and weapons in Mexico and Canada that the United States would respond forcefully.

This editorial is propaganda by omission and strident stupidity by commission.

The editorial has all its facts “wrong,” and not by accident.  The paper may say that its opinion journalists’ claims are separate from those of its newsroom, yet their claims echo the daily barrage of falsehoods from its front pages, such as:

  • Ukraine is winning on the battlefield.

  • “Russia faces decades of economic stagnation and regression even if the war ends soon.”

  • That on Jan.14, as part of its cruel attacks on civilian targets, a Russian missile struck an apartment building in Dnipro, killing many.

  • Only one man can stop this war – Vladimir Putin – because he started it.

  • Until now, the U.S. and its allies were reluctant to deploy heavy weapons to Ukraine “for fear of escalating this conflict into an all-in East-West war.”

  • Russia is desperate as Putin pursues “his delusions.”

  • Putin is “isolated from anyone who would dare to speak truth to his power.”

  • Putin began trying to change Ukraine’s borders by force in 2014.

  • During the last 11 months Ukraine has won repeated and decisive victories against Russian forces …. The war is at a stalemate.”

  • The Russian people are being subjected to the Kremlin’s propaganda machinery “churning out false narratives.”

This is expert opinion for dummies.  A vast tapestry of lies, as Harold Pinter said in his Nobel Prize address.  The war escalation the editorial writers are promoting is in their words, “this time pitting Western arms against a desperate Russia,” as if the U.S./NATO does not have CIA and special forces in Ukraine, just weapons, and as if “this time” means it wasn’t so for the past nine years at least as the U.S. was building Ukraine’s military and arms for this very fight.

It is a fight they will lose in the days to come.  Russia was, is, and will triumph.

Everything in the editorial is disingenuous.  Simple propaganda: the good guys against the bad guys.  Putin another Hitler.  The good guys are winning, just as they did in Vietnam, until reality dawned and it had to be admitted they weren’t (and didn’t).  History is repeating itself.

Little has changed and so my morning sense of mourning when I remembered Nixon and Kissinger’s savagery at Christmas 1972 was appropriate.  As then, so today, we are being subjected to a vast tapestry of lies told by the corporate media for their bosses, as the U.S. continues its doomed efforts to control the world.  It is not Russia that is desperate now, but propagandists such as the writers of this strident and stupid editorial.  It is not the Russian people who need to wake up, as they claim, but the American people and those who still cling to the myth that The New York Times Corporation is an organ of truth.  It is the Ministry of Truth with its newspeak, double-speak, and its efforts to change the past.

Let Harold Pinter have the last words:

The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 01/29/2023 – 21:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/jA76ry4 Tyler Durden

Ahead Of The Fed – Ugh!

Ahead Of The Fed – Ugh!

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

I really didn’t want to write about the Fed this weekend and have the 10,000th report that barely gets glanced at. I would much rather have followed up on Academy’s latest Around the World report from Thursday (which addresses Russia/Ukraine, Japan’s Military, Iran/Russia, Turkey/Greece, and Brazil & Peru) with World War v3.1. World War v3.1 will explore the shift from a “Commodity War” (which is being fought) to the potential for a “Semiconductor War”. Fortunately, that report can wait a couple of days and I cannot hide from how powerful the equity rally was last week. The S&P 500 was up 2.5% and the Nasdaq was up 4.3%. ARKK was up 10%, though that segment had been washed out, so outperformance there was more in line with views. I did say that “if there was a gun to my head” the move could be higher for stocks, but no one put the gun to my head. Ugh!

The stock market returns were accompanied by Treasuries doing very little (2s through 30s moved less than 3 bps in most cases on the week). That was interesting.

Energy futures were down 1% to 4% across the board last week (heating oil was down 6%, but I can guarantee that this won’t get passed on to me by my provider). Even copper was down on the week despite the near frantic hype about China’s re-opening (it is up 11% on the month though, giving some credence to the importance of the China re-opening).

We also have a market where literally everyone (yes, even my mom) is talking about the 200-day moving average! It is one of those rare occasions when even “fundamentalists” (those who look down on “mere technicians”) are spouting technical levels especially if they are bullish, which is the direction fundamentalists seem to be leaning the vast majority of the time.

When we broke below the 200 DMA the morning after MSFT’s earnings call (triggered by the warning of future cloud earnings, which fits my 5 steps forward, 2 steps back theme), I thought that we would catch a lot of weak longs and the breakdown would continue. I was wrong and Tesla (among others) propelled us right back above the 200 DMA and set a true “feeding frenzy” into motion.

The “Weirdest” Venn Diagram Ever

Technically, I don’t think that it is a Venn diagram, and I eventually gave up trying to make the chart, but there is an interesting subset of people out there.

  • Initially, they were in the “inflation is transitory” camp.

  • Then, they morphed into the “inflation is here for a long time” camp because wages will drive it and it will be incredibly difficult to contain.

  • Now, they’ve joined the “soft-landing” camp. However, if you once thought that inflation was going to be difficult to tame, then this might be the next logical step now that inflation has been reduced, but it still feels like an awkward shift to me.

  • What makes this subset interesting is the credibility it maintains. I’m not sure how this subset got it wrong twice, so how can they be so certain that they are correct this time around? Anyways, just me moaning out loud, but it really does strike me as interesting that this subset exists (and how large it is).

At least Larry Summers, who was panicking about inflation, seems to have jumped all the way into “the Fed needs to slow” camp.

Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda

At this point, the Fed’s options boil down to a couple simple scenarios. It has a “woulda, coulda, shoulda” feel to it.

  • What the Fed “should” do (which they should have done two or three meetings ago) is hike 25 bps and focus on data dependence for future hikes. The market will use that as code for no more hikes given the direction that most of the data is moving.

    • The Fed funds terminal rate is at 4.91%. That doesn’t get hit until June now! At the start of this year, it was expected to be 4.97% in May. So, despite the Fed promising/threatening to hike to 5.25% or more, the markets haven’t believed them and believe them less so now compared to a mere month ago (amazing what data will do). I completely agree that the terminal rate will not get above 5%, though I think that the rate is already too high.

    • The market is now pricing in 4.4% by January 2024, which means that the market is pricing in rate cuts later this year. In fact, there was supposedly a very large SOFR options trade that went through this week betting on the policy rate being as low as 2.5% by the December meeting. As much as I believe that rates are already too high, I’m not sure how willing the Fed will be to reverse course after so much “higher for longer” rhetoric.

  • What the Fed “will” do. At this point, it seems like most people have fallen into the same camp about what the Fed “should” do. But, as I’ve learned the hard way, figuring out what the Fed “should” do doesn’t pay the bills. To generate alpha and good returns, we must divine what the Fed “will” do.

    • I revert back to last weekend’s The Fed’s Demons report. While it is one thing for pundits and the mainstream media to shift camps almost willy-nilly, it is far more difficult for the Fed to do that. This group is dealing with mistakes made by the Fed a long time ago and even their own mistakes during the “transitory” phase. For a little change of pace, we discussed this and some other subjects on Fox Business.

    • There was just enough inflation in Friday’s PCE data (4.4% YOY for Core) that the Fed could be tempted to remain more hawkish than they should. However, they really should be looking at the direction of change as opposed to the annual rate.

    • Financial conditions are not the Fed’s friend. The Fed has consistently referenced financial conditions. However, I’m not sure why they let the stock market (which is a large component of financial conditions) influence them so much.

    • According to the Bloomberg Financial Conditions index, we are “looser” now vs. when we did the first hike, or even when Powell slammed everyone at Jackson Hole. That is consistent with other measures of financial conditions. In the Bloomberg index, we are in outright “easy” territory. Not just relatively easy, but actually easy! This, to me, would be the most compelling reason why the Fed would have to be more hawkish. The Fed also focused our attention on the dot plots (rather than downplaying them) and it would seem weird to shift the dot plots too dramatically right after the Fed made them the star of the show. If the demons are getting to the Fed, the financial conditions give them a real world metric to support them being more hawkish than markets have priced in.

At this point I believe that markets have priced in what the Fed “should” do and not what the Fed “will” do.

All-In Corporate Bond Yields and New Issue

Let’s start with the new issue calendar. We are almost 1 month into the year and we are at $138 billion, which is down 8% from last year. That is an especially slow start when you consider Q4 finished with an anemic $205 billion.

Many investors were expecting a much higher new issue volume to start the year (and they presumably set aside dry powder for those expected new issues).

The entire Treasury curve is around levels last seen in September.

The Bloomberg Corporate OAS, at 119, is lower than at any time since April.

I’m looking at all-in corporate yields and telling investors to be very cautious here. Issuers should be taking advantage of not only reasonable all-in yields, but the dry powder that asset managers were hoping to put to work and presumably need to (or want to) put to work now!

For all-in yields to do better, we need lower Treasury yields with spreads close to today’s levels. That could happen with a small move in rates, but I suspect that for 10s to get back to sub-3% it will take serious recession fears and that will not be good for corporate credit.

As Treasury yields move lower, spreads will widen at something close to a ½ bp for every bp. However, spreads could easily blow out faster on any real concerns. One nice thing is that some of the companies experiencing the biggest re-valuations in their equity prices are incredibly stable from the credit side.

If Treasury yields go higher (for any number of reasons) it is extremely difficult for spreads to compress. This would be under a “normal” scenario of yields rising because the economy and growth both look good. Spreads can tighten, but there isn’t a ton of room. If Treasury yields were to go higher on some dearth of dollar denominated debt buying, then spreads could widen while Treasury yields go higher. Not my base case, but it is possible. I am hearing that the strong auctions this week were not only due to the Fed’s potentially less hawkish message, but also because people want to buy debt before the debt ceiling debate potentially affects issuance.

I just don’t find all-in corporate bond yields compelling here, and I’d be taking advantage of the dry powder out there if I was an issuer.

Inventories and the Consumer

Retail sales have been weak (even adjusted for inflation). Credit card usage has been increasing. These are all signs of a consumption spree that is very long in the tooth. This spending would have already died without strong discounting from retailers during the holiday season.

We can quibble about sales and the strength of the consumer, but I don’t see the strength and I’ve discounted the “bank deposit” argument because it hasn’t captured the concept of “deferred payments” that I think affects many individuals.

There is no debating inventories.

Business inventories are far larger than any “Covid catchup” would warrant. This is occurring as the cost of financing those inventories increases. China’s “re-opening” and shipping more “cheap” goods here is a “good” thing? Hmmmmm.

According to NAPM, inventories are increasing every month. Greater than 50 means increased inventories. There have been some big increases and while they have slowed a bit, that is from high overall inventory levels (see previous chart).

What has never fully made sense to me is why inventories are considered a “good” thing in data. NAPM and ISM treat inventory builds as positive. GDP treats inventories the same way. I can see it from this perspective, but at a time when we have big existing stockpiles and evidence that consumption is slowing (especially ex-inflation), then we are setting ourselves up for a bigger fall!

My single biggest concern is “inventory build versus consumption” and I think that this (in hindsight) will be what turns the “soft landing” chatter into real recession fears!

Bottom Line

I am far from convinced that the Fed “will” do what the markets think it “should” do.

Good luck with the FOMC on Wednesday and I hope that you find World War v3.1 interesting when it comes out later this week.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 01/29/2023 – 20:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/qY7d5Kj Tyler Durden