AG Merrick Garland Says No Double Standard Of Justice In Biden Classified Docs Case

AG Merrick Garland Says No Double Standard Of Justice In Biden Classified Docs Case

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Monday that his agency hasn’t used a double standard when investigating President Joe Biden’s classified case.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks in Washington on Sept. 20, 2022. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Former President Donald Trump and some Republicans have said the Department of Justice has treated Biden more leniently than the former commander-in-chief, whose house was raided by FBI agents in August. Those agents found materials with classified markings, the Justice Department has said.

We do not have different rules for Democrats or Republicans, different rules for the powerful or the powerless, different rules for the rich and for the poor, we apply the facts, and the law in each case in a neutral, non-partisan manner,” Garland told reporters during a roundtable on Monday. “That is what we always do.”

When asked if he has any regrets regarding how the agency handled the two cases, Garland said that the DOJ should make decisions “in a nonpartisan and neutral way without regard to who the subjects are.” He added, “That is what we’ve done in each of these cases. And that is what we’ll continue to do.”

Late last week, FBI agents discovered more classified documents at Biden’s home in Wilmington, Delaware, according to a DOJ prosecutor and the president’s personal lawyer. That discovery was the fourth time since November that classified documents were found in Biden’s possession, although his lawyers did not reveal their existence until earlier this month.

Joseph D. Fitzpatrick, assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, told news outlets over the weekend: “I can confirm that the FBI on Friday executed a planned, consensual search of the President’s residence in Wilmington, Delaware.”

Some of the documents and other materials were dated from Biden’s time when he was a senator representing Delaware from 1973 until 2009, said his lawyer, Bob Bauer, in a statement to news outlets. Other materials were from when he was vice president between 2009 and 2017, he said.

President Joe Biden speaks at Seacliff State Park in Aptos, Calif., on Jan 19, 2023, after seeing storm damage caused by the recent storms. (Susan Walsh/AP Photo)

Bauer stated that he allowed FBI agents to search his “the entire premises for potential vice-presidential records and potential classified material.” Biden and his wife, Jill, weren’t there, he added.

DOJ took possession of materials it deemed within the scope of its inquiry, including six items consisting of documents with classification markings and surrounding materials, some of which were from the President’s service in the Senate and some of which were from his tenure as Vice President,” Bauer said, adding federal agents “also took for further review personally handwritten notes from the vice-presidential years.”

With the latest finding, an increasing number of congressional Democrats have expressed reservations about how the White House is handling the case and want a full investigation. And Republicans in the House have, on a daily basis, sent letters to various federal agencies and officials demanding information and records about the documents.

Leading the way, new House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) sent (pdf) a letter on Monday asking Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle for all internal documents, communications, and other materials relating to Biden’s Delaware home.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/26/2023 – 14:00

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

TikTok Is Not a National Security Threat


Government attempts to ban TikTok in America would be great blow to our economy and our liberty.

For nearly three years, TikTok, the popular short-video social media app, has been under attack from the federal government. The United States, with the world’s strongest constitutional protections for free speech and longtime advocacy of a globally open and free internet, is seriously considering banning a service that 94 million Americans use.

An August 2020 move by the Trump administration to ban TikTok by executive order was shut down by the federal courts, and the Biden administration has set in motion a governmental evaluation of the risk of apps connected to foreign adversaries. By now, seeing TikTok as a national security risk has spread on all levels of government and across both parties. Brandan Carr, a Republican member of the Federal Communications Commission, has made banning TikTok his personal crusade. Ten GOP-led state legislatures have passed laws dictating which applications their employees can access in response to the alleged threat. In the final days of the 117th Congress, a bill banning TikTok on government devices passed the Senate unanimously. A bill to ban TikTok completely was introduced by two Senate Republicans—Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Mike Gallagher (Wisc.) and one Democrat—Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.)—on December 13. Just this week, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) added another “ban TikTok” bill to the pile.

While its enemies paint it as nothing but a tool of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), TikTok is a private, commercial business with multinational ownership. The app has attracted an enormous community outside of China who enjoy using it to watch and exchange videos, comments, and live sessions. That community exceeds 90 million in the United States alone. In 2022, TikTok became the third most popular internet service worldwide, generating healthy competition against the dominant platforms of Meta (Facebook, Instagram) and Alphabet (Google, YouTube).

The content on TikTok is produced by its users, American and worldwide, not by an enemy foreign government. Anti-communists and communists, woke progressives and religious conservatives are all present on TikTok. Shutting it down would silence the speech of 94 million U.S. users, none of whom are in China or Chinese citizens. What government agrees with this nation’s wannabe TikTok banners? China’s, where TikTok is banned precisely because it does not follow Chinese censorship restrictions.

The controversy over TikTok in the U.S. is part of a larger debate over strategic competition between the U.S. and China and has profound implications for freedom of expression and regulatory policy. This debate affects international trade in the digital economy and internet freedom. “National security” cannot be a trump card that can be invoked to do just anything—especially for a so-called threat to security as tenuous as TikTok’s functions and connection with the Chinese government.

 

What Is TikTok?

The facts about TikTok’s history and corporate organization do not support the theory that the app is a Trojan horse for hostile Chinese government schemes. TikTok is a product of ByteDance, a multinational firm incorporated in the Cayman Islands. ByteDance is a joint product of Chinese computer entrepreneurs, western capital, and a globalized internet. This fusion started in 2012, when the parent company ByteDance was founded in a Beijing apartment.

ByteDance was incorporated in the Cayman Islands because this was how Chinese tech entrepreneurs gained access to western capital while remaining nominally compliant with government restrictions on foreign investment. Today, ByteDance investors are global institutional funds and venture capital firms including its first big U.S investor Susquehanna International Group Ltd. (which bought a 15 percent stake for $5 million in 2012 that is now worth an estimated $15 billion), KKR, Sequoia Capital, Softbank, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group, Weibo, and others.

ByteDance’s original apps for the Chinese market included Douyin, a short-form video-sharing platform in China. The key to its success was its A.I. application which feeds user behavior back into its recommendation engine. It generated a growth cycle attracting users’ time and attention and pulling in additional users. Usually this was monetized by means of advertising. If this sounds familiar, it is because that is exactly how big American social media platforms work.

TikTok launched in the U.S. in May 2017 although the A.I. engine and its engineers were based in China. The U.S. company TikTok Inc. is held by TikTok Ltd., a holding company in the Cayman Islands, itself a subsidiary of ByteDance Ltd., also legally based in the Caymans. TikTok Inc. is incorporated in California and Delaware and employs thousands of Americans.

 

The Chinese Government’s Role in TikTok

None of ByteDance’s services received early investment funds or subsidies from Beijing. On the contrary, China’s manufacturing-focused industrial policy starved digital platforms of capital, which is why so many of them engaged in “creative” organizational forms to raise capital from the West. In its early years, Chinese censors repeatedly disciplined Douyin because its algorithms recommended content that was popular with users but deemed “immoral” or not in support of “socialist values.”

Eventually, Douyin reached the size and profitability for the CCP to move in. On April 30, 2021, ByteDance’s Chinese subsidiary Douyin sold a 1 percent stake to Wang Tou Zhong Wen Technology, which is owned by three state entities. One of them is linked to the China Internet Investment Fund (CIIF), which is backed by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), the nation’s central internet regulator.

In a letter to lawmakers in June 2022, the CEO of the U.S.-based TikTok Inc. confirmed that the transaction with the CAC-linked state-owned enterprise was necessary to obtain licenses for several China-based content applications. This bargain has been misrepresented as a “golden share” that gives Chinese censors control over TikTok. In fact, the stake gave CIIF a board seat on Douyin, the subsidiary that operates mainland China services. It did not give the CIIF a board seat on ByteDance Ltd. or TikTok Ltd., the global entities.

TikTok is a market-driven organization, not a political or military one. ByteDance wants to export A.I. to international markets. It can’t succeed in doing that if it is seen as an agent of a foreign power. The Chinese government also has every reason to favor continued segregation of the information services market in the way ByteDance/TikTok has structured it. China’s one-party state would have a difficult time handling exposure to unfiltered external media sources. China’s incentives are to stay in control of what it already controls—a huge domestic market with a restricted and subordinated digital economy.

Nonetheless, many in the U.S. government insist TikTok somehow exports Chinese censorship, or that its recommendation algorithm is manipulated by the CCP, or that it is or could become a powerful propaganda outlet for the Chinese state.

All three assertions can be empirically tested. All are false.

TikTok is not censored by the Chinese government. A 2021 technical examination of its software and control processes by the University of Toronto’s CitizenLab proved that the keyword blocks and censorship mechanisms included in ByteDance’s Douyin app, which is used in China, have been eliminated from the two versions of the software released outside of China.

Proof that censorship is not happening can be had by simply finding content on TikTok that would be banned by the CCP. The following topics would be tightly controlled if the app were subject to Chinese government control:

  •     Falun Gong, an anti-communist religious movement that is persecuted in China;
  •     Advocacy of the independence of Taiwan;
  •     Claims that the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province are being exploited or oppressed;
  •     Ridicule of Chinese leader Xi Jinping;
  •     Demonstrations calling for the ouster of Xi or the CCP;
  •     Support for Hong Kong independence and positive portrayals of pro-democracy protesters.

Videos in all of these categories can easily be found on TikTok. Many are popular and widely shared. The mix of views is not unlike what might be found on Twitter, Google, or Facebook.

A search for “Xinjiang” reveals a list of related search terms that by themselves are likely illegal on Chinese social media, including “xinjiang fire,” “xinjiang concentration camps,” and “xinjiang internment camps.” The top result was a video showing how a locked door enforcing the COVID lockdown led to deaths. Next in the list were videos of crackdowns on civilian protests against COVID lockdowns in Xinjiang in November; a video showing the faces of Muslims in China’s detention camps; a video exposing several hundred quickly-constructed square cabins to house Xinjiang detainees. Whoever or whatever controls these search results, it is not the CCP.

 

Is China Manipulating TikTok’s Algorithm?

The For You feed is widely seen as TikTok’s secret sauce. Its design and engineering come from ByteDance in Beijing, although TikTok and Douyin are separate, non-interoperable apps. When exported to the U.S., its short-video format and recommendation algorithm successfully predicts users’ interests, encouraging continued engagement and growth. This accounts for TikTok’s rapid commercial success against powerful entrenched competitors.

FBI Director Chris Wray purports to see in this successful algorithm a national security threat, not good old-fashioned free enterprise. China’s government, he asserts, could “control the recommendation algorithm, which could be used for influence operations.” Note that Wray does not assert that China’s government currently controls the recommendation algorithm—it doesn’t. No TikTok critics have provided any examples of this happening, and no TikTok users complain about it. Wray has no scientific basis for believing that a recommendation algorithm on one app can alter the political environment of an entire country.

Wray’s scenario is self-defeating. Retooling the algorithm to recommend the messages of the CCP in defiance of user preferences would undermine the very thing that makes TikTok popular. CCP propaganda is not what the vast majority of TikTok’s user base wants to see. Not many Americans get their endorphins from videos of Xi or militant images of Chinese nationalism.

Like all other platforms, TikTok does engage in content moderation, or restricting content considered harmful or unwanted by its users. Its recommendation algorithm can be tuned to limit the reach of certain kinds of content. In its early years (2017–2019), TikTok was not as transparent as other U.S. platforms about its moderation standards. Its policies reflected standards more appropriate to the suppressed Chinese environment. Submissions of any sort of political protest were often throttled in the name of a “happier,” less divisive atmosphere on the platform, something hostile media blamed on Chinese government control.

But TikTok abandoned that policy because the restrictions were unpopular with users. Now its categories of restricted posts are very similar to the standards enforced by Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter. This learning process occurred in response to commercial and normative pressures from outside China. There is no evidence that the Chinese government interfered with it.

 

Is TikTok a Chinese Propaganda Organ?

If TikTok is not subject to Chinese censorship and its recommendation algorithm is not controlled by the Chinese state, then is TikTok a vehicle for the distribution of Chinese propaganda? A Forbes article in August 2022 tried to make this case, arguing that some ByteDance employees had a background in state media and that “China could use TikTok’s broad cultural influence in the US for its own ends.”

This argument also fails to establish a serious national security threat. News and opinion distributed by Chinese propaganda organs are already available in the U.S. Google happily points anyone to the English language website of the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, which also has Twitter and Facebook accounts. Global Times, which is even more propagandistic than People’s Daily, is available on the web and has 1.8 million followers on Twitter. If this material is a threat on TikTok, why is it not also a threat on Twitter, Google, YouTube, and the open web?

Ironically, calls to ban TikTok as a form of propaganda lead inexorably to an American version of China’s Great Firewall: an internet in which the government censors foreign information sources. If nationalistic fears about Chinese influence operations cause a departure from American constitutional principles supporting free and open political discourse, we will have undermined our system of government more effectively than any Chinese propaganda could do.

 

Is TikTok a Cybersecurity Threat?

The strongest concerns about TikTok have been based on the claim that it can provide the Chinese government with data that poses a cybersecurity threat. The threat scenario rests on two key assumptions: 1) The data generated by TikTok provides China’s state with unique and valuable insights into systemic U.S. vulnerabilities; 2) China’s government can only get access to that data because TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, is Chinese.

Like all social media, TikTok collects a lot of data about its users. Security researchers have criticized some of TikTok’s data collection practices, but these critiques pertain to individual privacy of users, not to national security threats, and most other social media platforms and mobile apps do the same things. Baptiste Robert, a French security researcher who studied the app, concluded that “TikTok’s behavior is not suspicious and it is not exfiltrating unusual data. Getting data about the user device is quite common in the mobile world and we would obtain similar results with Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and others.”

We are not aware of any plausible scenario in which aggregate data from TikTok provides special insight into the control of critical infrastructure, military secrets, opportunities for corporate espionage, or knowledge of weapons systems—unless one thinks CIA agents are posting videos of their offices and colleagues on TikTok, or defense contractors are posting videos of employees dancing around prototypes of the latest weapons system.

If a U.S. military or intelligence official posts videos of a confidential military installation, or views or posts videos that would facilitate blackmailing that individual—that would be a national security issue. Those conditions do not apply to the overwhelming majority of TikTok users nor do they apply to most of the data.

Given the small number of individuals subject to this risk, it can be mitigated well short of a ban. Individuals in sensitive positions should be careful about what they upload or should not use TikTok at all. Importantly, the same risks apply to all social media, not just TikTok. TikTok, and the fact that its parent company is based in China, poses no unique threat.

TikTok’s critics allege that its status as a Chinese-owned subsidiary means China’s government can simply demand the app’s data and get all of it. TikTok has segregated its U.S. operations from the Chinese-based app and claims it would not turn over the data. TikTok’s incentives as a commercial enterprise are fully in line with this claim, as turning over this data would threaten its profitable business. 

Relying on TikTok’s private incentives would not be advisable, however, if the aggregate data it gathers is truly unique, sensitive, and valuable. But there is no evidence that it is.

To put it bluntly, if China wants to spy on a social media user, it doesn’t need to be a part owner of TikTok to do so. If a user’s behavior and posts on TikTok expose confidential, valuable information related to national security, Chinese state intelligence could obtain that data simply by monitoring what is posted on TikTok (and LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, etc.). It could supplement this monitoring with an increasingly powerful array of open-source intelligence tools to correlate user activities and identities across multiple social media. Tools such as these can be used to monitor any social media application: LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit. Insofar as there is a threat of foreign intel agencies gaining access to social media data, it is not unique to TikTok and banning the app would not solve it.

 

The Dangers of a TikTok Ban

Banning TikTok would impose unfair harms on millions of innocent American users of the app, who have established equity in their creations and followers. It would expropriate investors and eliminate hundreds of U.S. jobs. Competition in the industry would be weakened.

Advertisers and event promoters would also suffer direct economic harm, as their plans or contracts to promote events or products using the app would be disrupted. A ban on an established app is both an interference with users’ free expression rights and a costly economic intervention that would affect nearly 100 million Americans.

It would also risk retaliation against American businesses by China, and provide fuel for hitting U.S. firms with techno-nationalist and data protectionist policies in other countries. The U.S. economy would be the main loser if that happens. If foreign apps are considered inherently threatening, this is bad news for Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and virtually all American software companies, which do substantial business in foreign countries. It is unrealistic for Americans to think that they can act unilaterally against a Chinese company without China’s government returning the favor in some way—Apple, which actually does control devices and not just app data, might especially be in the crosshairs if an international tech-banning war begins.

Foreign companies entering U.S. markets have been an important source of new competition since the 1970s and ’80s. Foreign capital has funded startup competitors and new technologies. In some cases, foreign firms entered concentrated or oligopolistic U.S. markets, like the automobile industry, to enliven competition and innovation. The competition from TikTok was so strong that Facebook hired a lobbying firm to orchestrate a nationwide campaign against it. One can only speculate about how much of the so-called national security case against TikTok is really motivated by companies seeking protection from competition.

The unstated policy question behind the TikTok controversy is whether global markets can be integrated and function cooperatively even if their political systems are adversarial. Our answer is yes, they can and should be. Coexistence and trade is the only way forward. TikTok in its current form is an example of beneficial economic coexistence between the U.S. and China. It shows Chinese talent and capital escaping China’s CCP by expanding to foreign markets and playing by international rules. It is a case of Americans profiting from investments in the Chinese market, and of Chinese companies offering innovative products and creating thousands of U.S. jobs.

The post TikTok Is Not a National Security Threat appeared first on Reason.com.

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

Black And White Gold + BRICS And Mortars = Inflation

Black And White Gold + BRICS And Mortars = Inflation

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Black gold, white gold = inflation

Trigger warning: today’s Daily again references big picture issues and literal triggers, rather than the up-and-down xbp or y% of assets a, b, or c.

Except in one regard: markets were juiced yesterday by a major US energy firm announcing it would start share buy-backs on a huge scale. That is despite the backdrop of rising refinery crack spreads and worries about the future upwards trajectory of energy prices. Regardless, financialisation again takes priority over productive investment and production – although the US firm involved points to the regulatory backdrop steering towards a green transition as part of reason for its choice.

On which, the Guardian(!) yesterday “Revealed:” –though it’s no revelation to some– “How US transition to electric cars threatens environmental havoc.” In short, the required lithium is three times current global production, with appalling environmental side-effects and destruction of water tables; and that’s just for the US, not the growing global market.

The Guardian argues the only sustainable solution is to build more walkable US cities with public transport and bicycle options. Which rules out the American Way; and that of Canada and Mexico; Latin America; obviously the Middle East; most of Asia; Australia; even fluffy New Zealand; and Africa too, as it develops. Indeed, we would need an unfeasibly expensive economic geography-economic model redesign to make everywhere work like Amsterdam, nice as that would be. Logically, therefore production of either black gold, oil, and/or white gold, lithium, is going to be needed on a vast, and environmentally damaging scale ahead.

Yet the market is celebrating a return to financialization and share buybacks that produces nothing but inequality and, for the real economy, volatility.

BRICS and mortars = inflation

That backdrop also has enormous geopolitical and geoeconomic implications. Given where many key commodities reside, we recently saw the proposed launch of a pan-LatAm currency, the ‘Sur’, to be used for international trade settlement to replace the US dollar. Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov is suggesting 2023 might also see the launch of a new BRICS currency tied to gold at the summit to be held in South Africa at a later date.

Some think that if new bricks in an anti-US wall mean the US dollar is doomed; and gold is picking up of late, with China stepping up its purchases (even if total holdings are still miniscule compared to dollars), which some think makes that case.

However, this new paradigm doesn’t recall how gold worked when it was around – and I mean the true gold standard prevailing before WW1, not the ‘let’s pretend we are on  gold’ that was evident after WW1 and after WW2, both of which broke down.

In the ‘gold old days’, it was used for international trade settlement, and local paper money could be redeemed for it. Banks still made fiat loans. Governments often still spent far more than they taxed.

If the economy overheated, imports flooded in, and gold flooded out. Devaluation of the paper currency vs. gold followed, so imports got more expensive and exports cheaper. The same thing happened if other countries raised the deposit rates they paid on gold above those elsewhere. To prevent painful devaluations, gold deposit rates needed to rise to entice foreign gold back into the country, and/or public spending had to be slashed, or taxes raised, to cool things down.

Overlooking the fact that inflation therefore swung wildly from high rates to deep deflation, because gold was the target, not stable prices, this arrangement was no different from the neoliberalism of the IMF and Wall Street. Brave, anti-imperialist, anti-Western BRICS governments thinking a new, more humanistic path can be paved with gold –with public transport, bicycle lanes, and walkable cities– are deluding themselves. It’s a policy straitjacket.

Globally, it is also a black or white zero-sum game that will see the US weaponize itself, and the dollar, further.

The concept is the BRICS keep their local currencies but switch to a gold-backed currency for trade settlements: freedom! Except you can’t run trade deficits on gold without having an ‘IMF’ policy response forced on you. So, logically:

  • The BRICS would have to force the West they export to move onto gold too, and watch them suffer devaluation, deprivation, and desperation for once – how bullish for markets!; or

  • The BRICS would accept dollars as settlement, then sell them in the market for the new gold-backed currency – to whom? No BRICS would want dollars, and the West would not use gold; or

  • The BRICS would have to decouple from trading with the West and sell all their output to each other… while balancing intra-bloc trade to avoid anyone becoming a Germany to anyone else’s Greece. That’s despite them being commodity exporters, with the exception of China.

Furthermore, this is all going to happen while the West watches impotently on, not seeing an existential threat emerging, even to the wolves of Wall Street. The bloodthirsty world-dominating US imperialists some intellectual BRICS fans decry are also structurally incapable of doing anything at all to snuff out evident threats to their franchise from the disenfranchised. True, the latest heralding of energy-sector share buybacks and the usual inanities at Davos suggest that could be the case. Yet, as always, I urge you to look elsewhere, and at the military.

Western Leopard 2 tanks will now trundle towards Ukraine, although in uncertain, but certainly low numbers. More importantly, the New York Times tweets: “To keep Ukraine’s howitzers firing, the Pentagon will increase its production of 155-mm shells six-fold, to 90,000 rounds per month – raising ammunition production in the US to the highest levels since the Korean War.” Moreover, the Washington Post has an editorial about the $858bn Pentagon budget, and how it adopts wartime purchasing practices. In particular, a provision allows the US military to sign “emergency” multiyear, non-competitive agreements to produce munitions, missiles, rockets, and mortars, aimed at cost-saving via bulk buying, two things the Pentagon has failed badly at for years.

The Post also notes the budget proposal does far more than that: “It lays the foundation for a vastly revitalised defence industrial base – and does so with one eye on the People’s Republic of China.” 25 new mass-assembly lines will soon roll out weapons quantities “far in excess of what is required to replenish Ukraine.” 700 HIMARS systems are ordered vs. the 20 sent to aid Kyiv, and 3,600 of two kinds of anti-ship missile, more appropriate for the South China than the Black Sea.

Concurrently, there is also a lobbying effort underway for the US to start to rebuild its merchant marine, as well as reversing planned cuts to the US Navy.     

Strategically, Vegetius would argue this is the right thing for the US to do, and the Pentagon specifically echoes him in stating, “Production is deterrence.”

More US production of mortars is also a response to the BRICS, and sits alongside the CHIPS Act and Inflation Reduction Act that together bring tech production back home.

However, this boost in production is also inflationary before it eventually moderates via a domestic supply-side response.

I repeat that until now the Ukraine war, and the wider new Cold War, have been fought with INVENTORY run-downs; now they will have to shift to PRODUCTION, reordering economies in the process.

This surge in Pentagon demand against supply constraints in the US defence-industrial sector is going to have a similar effect to that of Covid stimulus (which a recent Fed paper suggests added 2.6 percentage points to headline CPI).

That suggests a risk that the Fed might have to do more on rates than some think it will after its upcoming pause (which the market just got excited about hearing the BOC use too). Indeed, as just shown, an interest rate response was a past method of draining gold from rival countries, and it’s true for the Fed today too; and if means less financialisation and more production, all the better. (Which may be why Wall Street really won’t talk about this.) Plus, the Fed has swap lines it can use, or not, within the hegemonic Eurodollar system.

Also, even if the Fed ignores the Pentagon —highly unlikely– and opts for more financialization, the drop in production –and geopolitical drop in the dollar– would also prove inflationary. Again, that would shock some in markets.

Okay, that’s enough references to big picture issues and literal triggers: please go focus on the up-and-down xbp or y% of assets a, b, or c.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/26/2023 – 13:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/JfX7B8r Tyler Durden

Staggering Demand For 7Y Paper Delivers Third Monster Treasury Auction In A Row

Staggering Demand For 7Y Paper Delivers Third Monster Treasury Auction In A Row

A stellar 3Y auction on Tuesday, a record-breaking 5Y auction yesterday and moments ago: a blowout 7Y auction completes a sequence of three monster auctions which have seen an absolute flood of demand mostly by foreign buyers.

The high yield in today’s 7Y auction stopped at a high yield of 3.517%, which was 40bps below last month’s 3.921% and the lowest since August. It also stopped through the When Issued 3.538% by 2.1bps, the highest bid-to-cover also since August.

The Bid to Cover surged from 2.454 to 2.691, much higher than the six-auction average and the highest since the TSY market panic bid during the March 2020 covid crisis.

The internals were even more notable, with Indirects confirming the pattern observed in the past two auctions, seemingly unable to get enough, and getting awarded a whopping 77.1% of the auction, sharply higher than the 68.1% last month and the 4th highest on record.

And with Directs awarded 16.8%, or just below recent averages, Dealers were left holding just 6.1%, a record low.

Overall, this was another spectacular auction and a far, far cry from that catastrophic 7Y “belly buster” auction two years ago. It also suggests that buyers are afraid that the coming debt ceiling crisis could mean no new supply for months to come, or that the bond market simply is convinced that the Fed will be slashing rates in the very near future.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/26/2023 – 13:17

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/5Q9hD3O Tyler Durden

New Missile Barrage Pummels Ukraine As Russia Vows US-Made Tanks “Will Burn”

New Missile Barrage Pummels Ukraine As Russia Vows US-Made Tanks “Will Burn”

Another large wave of Russian airstrikes pummeled Ukrainian energy infrastructure on Thursday, in what’s widely being seen as the most immediate response to the day prior announcement from the US and Germany that Abrams and Leopard main battle tanks will be supplied to Ukrainian forces. Ukraine’s emergency services have said at least 11 people were killed, and 11 more wounded.

Thursday’s fresh areal assault included at least two dozen drones, allegedly Iranian-made, launched on southern Ukraine. Ukraine’s military said its anti-air defenses intercepted the drones. In the wake of the attack, Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko charged that Russia is seeking to “create a systemic failure in Ukraine’s energy system.”

Central Odesa, via AP

“Emergency shutdowns have been introduced. The most difficult situation is currently in the regions of Kyiv, Odesa and Vinnytsia,” Galushchenko added. The energy ministry indicated that in the south, in the area of Odesa, “such a situation may last for several days until the damaged power facilities are restored.”

Moscow said that it will consider the Western tank deliveries as confirming the Western allies’ “direct involvement in the conflict.”

Additionally, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Wednesday in response to President Biden’s pledge to send 31 M1 Abrams to Ukraine that the US-made tanks will “burn”.

Putin weighed in on Germany taking a lead role in convincing Washington to provide tanks…

“I am certain that many experts understand the absurdity of this idea. The plan is disastrous in terms of technology,” Peskov said.

“But above all, it overestimates the potential it will add to the Ukrainian army. These tanks burn just like all the others.”

All of this comes as the fighting in Donetsk and the south has intensified, with Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Ganna Malyar acknowledging the ratcheting pressure on Ukrainian front line positions. This week Kiev belatedly acknowledged a complete withdrawal of forces from Soledar.

Now the focus is on the fight for nearby Bakhmut. “The enemy is throwing a significant number of personnel, weapons and military equipment into the battle, trying to break through our defenses,” Malyar said.

The Institute for the Study of War has explained that Russia is currently implementing “spoiling attacks across most of the frontline in Ukraine in order to disperse and distract Ukrainian forces.”

Source: Institute for the Study of War (ISW)

* * *

Alongside the impending tank deliveries, the other big Ukraine development this week concerns dwindling artillery ammo supplies, which interestingly enough directly impacts ‘Pentagon readiness’ in the South China Sea region, according to US defense planners. Rabobank writes the following…

The New York Times tweets: “To keep Ukraine’s howitzers firing, the Pentagon will increase its production of 155-mm shells six-fold, to 90,000 rounds per month – raising ammunition production in the US to the highest levels since the Korean War.” Moreover, the Washington Post has an editorial about the $858bn Pentagon budget, and how it adopts wartime purchasing practices. In particular, a provision allows the US military to sign “emergency” multiyear, non-competitive agreements to produce munitions, missiles, rockets, and mortars, aimed at cost-saving via bulk buying, two things the Pentagon has failed badly at for years.

The Post also notes the budget proposal does far more than that: “It lays the foundation for a vastly revitalised defence industrial base – and does so with one eye on the People’s Republic of China.” 25 new mass-assembly lines will soon roll out weapons quantities “far in excess of what is required to replenish Ukraine.” 700 HIMARS systems are ordered vs. the 20 sent to aid Kyiv, and 3,600 of two kinds of anti-ship missile, more appropriate for the South China than the Black Sea.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/26/2023 – 13:15

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

You Will Never Guess How Many Buzzfeed Employees Are About To Be Fired

You Will Never Guess How Many Buzzfeed Employees Are About To Be Fired

Shares of BuzzFeed jumped over 50% this morning after WSJ revealed that Meta Platforms is paying the struggling digital media outlet millions of dollars to help create content for Facebook and Instagram. Those gains were extended in early afternoon trading when WSJ cited an internal company memo that it would begin to use ChatGPT creator OpenAI for content creation. 

By 1230 ET, shares of Buzzfeed were up 100%. Gains quickly extended when WSJ posted details about an internal memo sent to staff by CEO Jonah Peretti about a plan to increasingly use artificial intelligence in day-to-day operations this year. 

WSJ provided some insight into what Buzzfeed will do with AI on the content creation side:

In one instance, the company said new AI-powered quizzes would produce individual results.

For example, a quiz to create a personal romantic comedy movie pitch might ask questions like, “Pick a trope for your rom-com,” and “Tell us an endearing flaw you have.” The quiz would produce a unique, shareable write-up based on the individual’s responses, BuzzFeed said.

Mr. Peretti expects AI to assist the creative process and enhance the company’s content, while humans play the role of providing ideas, “cultural currency,” and “inspired prompts,” he wrote in his memo. In 15 years, he wrote, he expects AI and data to help “create, personalize, and animate the content itself,” rather than just curate existing content.

AI-powered content creation comes as the struggling media outlet fired 12% of its workers last month to rein in costs. Its third-quarter net loss widened to $27 million from $3.6 million a year ago. 

Buzzfeed went public through a SPAC in late 2021 for around $10. Shares of the company plunged to as low as 64 cents in December. 

It seems like a pump… 

… and this via ChatGPT. 

Meanwhile, Axios noted some AI publishing experiments had hit issues:

CNET last week said it will pause an AI publishing experiment after being called out for inaccuracies in articles it has posted that were written by AI tools.

CNET and its sister company Bankrate, a personal finance website, both stopped publishing AI-generated stories last week, Futurism reported, after quietly publishing dozens of explainers and list articles.

Newsrooms have been laying off thousands of journalists as the industry is in a down cycle. The rise of automation should scare everyone in the media industry, as no one’s job is safe. This leaves us with Buzzfeed. How many more jobs will be slashed as AI might write a better story than some of their journalists… 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/26/2023 – 12:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/O2ZDVm3 Tyler Durden

Justin Trudeau Called A Tyrant As He Is Swarmed By Angry Mandate Protesters

Justin Trudeau Called A Tyrant As He Is Swarmed By Angry Mandate Protesters

The anger is starting to spill over.  After years of what many in the Canadian public now regard as useless covid mandates and draconian vaccine requirements, the tiny median Infection Fatality Rate of the virus has left people wondering what the point of it all was? 

Numerous western governments have been exposed for hiding contrary scientific indicators and exaggerating the pandemic threat, and the underlying suspicion is that covid was exploited as a tool for a global power grab by political elitists.  Not only that, but concerns are also growing over the rising number of excess deaths in North America, Europe, Australia, etc. which started not long after the widespread introduction of the experimental mRNA covid vaccines.

Canada under PM Justin Trudeau faced an aggressive campaign against basic liberties. 

And, as facts and evidence about covid continue to bleed into the mainstream, events like this swarm of protesters following Trudeau to a restaurant in Ontario are liable to become commonplace. 

Trudeau later dismissed the encounter as a “handful of angry people.” 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/26/2023 – 12:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/gJ3sSAb Tyler Durden

Ticketmaster’s Taylor Swift Glitch Doesn’t Require a Congressional Hearing


Taylor Swift

Back in mid-November, presale opened for mega pop star Taylor Swift’s “Eras” tour. With 2 million tickets sold in one day, and pent-up demand due to her lack of tour dates since 2018, fans hustled to snap up tickets, crashing the Ticketmaster website.

Ticketmaster alleges it wasn’t just fans trying to nab tickets, but also an unprecedented number of bots—most likely working on behalf of scalpers. Despite website glitches, 2 million fans got tickets for Swift concerts—”the most tickets ever sold for an artist in a single day,” according to the company—and the general sale was subsequently canceled, as there weren’t enough tickets left. Based on site traffic, Ticketmaster (which merged with Live Nation back in 2010 to create Live Nation Entertainment) calculated that Swift would have needed to play more than 900 stadium shows, or 20 times the number she is actually doing, in order to meet the extraordinarily high demand.

Enter Amy Klobuchar.

On Tuesday, Joe Berchtold, Live Nation’s president, was trotted before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer for Ticketmaster’s purported misdeeds, which mostly involved its sheer bigness more than anything.

“This is all the definition of monopoly,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.).

Klobuchar was referring to the company controlling roughly 70 percent of the market, and owning both a ticketing platform and many venues; competitors like Jerry Mickelson, an independent promoter, attested to the fact that “Live Nation can profit from concerts put on by rival promoters because it still makes money through its control of Ticketmaster,” according to The New York Times. “‘Pepsi doesn’t earn money from Coke,’ he said. ‘But our competitor, Live Nation, makes money from selling tickets to our concerts.'”

This is how mergers work: Companies that formerly did one thing, or controlled a smaller share of the market, join forces with others to scale. To act like Live Nation/Ticketmaster is immune from competitive pressures ignores how new entrants like SeatGeek have threatened its dominance, as well as how government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic forced an almost two-year pause in hosting large events in many localities, which cut into its bottom line. Artists are free to abstain from using the company if they want to go through the additional work of securing venues, promoting a show, and selling tickets themselves.

Competitors “argued that Live Nation has locked out rivals by securing long-term ticketing contracts with major venues,” per The Washington Post. “If arenas and other performance venues choose another ticketing company, Live Nation will not bring them popular acts, competitors alleged.”

This would be a violation of the merger terms, but it is not clear that the threat is explicit enough to bring forth legal action. (The Justice Department and the company have been involved in a battle over this since 2019.) And of course competitors want to bring down the largest company in the space; SeatGeek’s CEO, Jack Groetzinger, argued for the breakup of Ticketmaster and Live Nation as “the only way to restore competition in this industry.” Everyone’s acting in their self-interest.

Berchtold did acknowledge that there were some legitimate problems with the presale. “Technical problems also caused tickets to disappear from the online baskets of customers—whom Ticketmaster had approved through its Verified Fan system—as they were trying to buy them,” noted The New York Times. But companies sometimes have websites that glitch, and senators made it clear that the whole event was not really about solving I.T. problems, but rather about breaking up what they see as a monopoly. Others called in to testify also attacked the company’s size and power, arguing that the fees charged by the company are too high, with artists getting too little profit.

Like so many congressional hearings of large, successful companies, senators don’t seem to have a commonly agreed-upon understanding of what Ticketmaster did wrong. Instead, they hectored Ticketmaster for glitching (a common problem that is not illegal and may in fact be punished by market forces if it persists); for taking too much profit (another thing that’s not illegal); for being too large and successful (also not illegal, yet, though senators did threaten to attempt to unwind the 2010 merger). And they did so in the most performative, farcical way possible, by awkwardly reciting Swift lyrics clearly fed to them by their tween daughters (“She’s cheer captain and I’m on the bleachers,” said Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee during one portion).

Artists and their management are free to do more of the legwork to organize tours themselves if they want to rake in more profits. But Ticketmaster/Live Nation provides a valuable service to artists, management, and fans, even if website glitches sometimes result in a horrific miscarriage of justice where some Swifties get denied tickets they would have liked to purchase. The Senate Judiciary Committee would be wise to remember that companies currently at the top don’t stay there forever and that we live in a time of extraordinary, unprecedented abundance when this is the issue being investigated by sitting senators.

The post Ticketmaster's Taylor Swift Glitch Doesn't Require a Congressional Hearing appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/wyav0WO
via IFTTT

Sen. Josh Hawley To Introduce Bill Banning TikTok From US

Sen. Josh Hawley To Introduce Bill Banning TikTok From US

Authored by Andrew Thornebrooke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is introducing legislation to ban social media app TikTok from distribution in the United States.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) speaks during a Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Spending Oversight on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on Aug. 3, 2022. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Hawley announced the bill on Twitter early Jan. 24, saying that the app gives China’s communist regime a means of violating the privacy of Americans, including children.

“TikTok is China’s backdoor into Americans’ lives,” Hawley said. “It threatens our children’s privacy as well as their mental health.”

Last month Congress banned it on all government devices. Now I will introduce legislation to ban it nationwide.”

TikTok decried the move, saying that a ban on the app would not solve Hawley’s national security concerns.

“Sen. Hawley’s call for a total ban of TikTok takes a piecemeal approach to national security and a piecemeal approach to broad industry issues like data security, privacy, and online harms,” said a TikTok spokesperson in an email to The Epoch Times.

“We hope that he will focus his energies on efforts to address those issues holistically, rather than pretending that banning a single service would solve any of the problems he’s concerned about or make Americans any safer.”

TikTok Used by China to Violate Americans’ Rights

Hawley’s announcement is just the latest in a long series of blows to the embattled social media company, which has been dogged by reports of its connections to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which rules China as a single-party state.

Hawley originally introduced the “No TikTok on Government Devices Act” in 2020, which sought to ban the use of the app on all government-owned devices due to such national security concerns. Another version of that bill was signed into law in late December 2022.

In light of all we know, it is unthinkable to me that we should continue to permit federal employees, those workers entrusted with sensitive government data, to access this app on their work phones and computers,” Hawley said at the time.

“I’m encouraged by the bipartisan support we have seen in this body to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable and that includes, by the way, holding accountable those corporations who would just do China’s bidding.”

Similarly, national security and intelligence leaders have warned that TikTok poses a national security threat due to its connections to its parent company, Beijing-based ByteDance, which itself has numerous ties to the CCP.

“Because the parent company of TikTok is a Chinese company, the Chinese government is able to insist upon extracting the private data of a lot of TikTok users in this country, and also to shape the content of what goes on to TikTok as well to suit the interests of the Chinese leadership,” said CIA Director William Burns during a December interview with PBS.

Likewise, FBI Director Christopher Wray said the app could be used to collect data on Americans for the CCP and to conduct untold numbers of influence operations.

“The Chinese government could use it to control data collection on millions of users or control the recommendation algorithm, which could be used for influence operations if they so chose, or to control software on millions of devices which gives it opportunity to potentially technically compromise personal devices,” Wray said during a House Homeland Security Committee hearing in November.

Moreover, a class-action lawsuit filed in December claims that TikTok violates state laws against wiretapping, because the app records every keystroke, click, swipe, and text communication, including information written but not sent by the user, when users enter other websites through the app.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/26/2023 – 12:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/XKrcfu6 Tyler Durden

Boeing’s Truss-Braced-Wing Jet Concept Could Replace 737 Max By 2030

Boeing’s Truss-Braced-Wing Jet Concept Could Replace 737 Max By 2030

NASA and Boeing are working on the Sustainable Flight Demonstrator (SFD) project, which aims to produce a full-scale Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW) demonstrator airplane that consumes less fuel and lowers emissions by 30% versus today’s most efficient single-aisle commercial aircraft.

NASA will commit $425 million of funding, while Boeing will invest $725 million in SFD and, by the end of the decade, have a full-scale demonstrator aircraft ready to test. 

By 2030, the next generation of single-aisle aircraft could enter service and be the successor to the 737 Max. 

“It’s our goal that NASA’s partnership with Boeing to produce and test a full-scale demonstrator will help lead to future commercial airliners that are more fuel efficient, with benefits to the environment, the commercial aviation industry, and to passengers worldwide. If we are successful, we may see these technologies in planes that the public takes to the skies in the 2030s,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson wrote in a statement. 

According to Boeing, the single-aisle airplane with a TTBW configuration will be part of the aviation industry’s commitment to reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050. 

NASA explained the TTBW concept plane has extra-long, thin wings stabilized by diagonal struts. This design allows for less aerodynamic drag than a traditional airliner — resulting in less fuel consumption. 

Separately, GE Aerospace is working with NASA on hybrid-electric propulsion systems for commercial jets. Both will introduce electrified aircraft propulsion technologies for commercial jets during the next decade.

 

 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/26/2023 – 11:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/JE61ZK0 Tyler Durden