Month: October 2024

Earlier this week journalist Chris Rufo revealed that Kamala Harris plagiarized giant sections of her book on crime, after famed Austrian “plagiarism hunter” Dr. Stefan Weber found that “Kamala Harris plagiarized at least a dozen sections of her criminal-justice book.”

In response, the New York Times bent over backwards (and forwards) to downplay their preferred candidate’s cut-n-pastery – first casting it as ‘conservative activist seizes on passages‘ from Harris’ book, then totally lying about Rufo’s reporting – which Rufo quickly debunked.

As part of their propaganda, the Times wheeled out plagiarism expert Jonathan Bailey, who said “his initial reaction to Mr. Rufo’s claims was that the errors were not serious, given the size of the document.“

Except, the Times concealed the extent of the claims from Bailey – who writes in his Plagiarism Today blog: “At the time, I was unaware of a full dossier with additional allegations, which led some to accuse the New York Times of withholding that information from me. However, the article clearly stated that it was my “initial reaction” to those allegations, not a complete analysis.

ABC does fake fact-checks to help Kamala. CBS stealth-edits an interview to help Kamala. New York Times withholds evidence to help Kamala. This is endemic—and only visible now because we have X.

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) October 17, 2024

From Bailey’s blog:

Today, I reviewed the complete dossier prepared by Dr. Stefan Weber, whom I have covered before. I also performed a peer review of one of his papers in 2018.

With this new information, while I believe the case is more serious than I commented to the New York Times, the overarching points remain. While there are problems with this work, the pattern points to sloppy writing habits, not a malicious intent to defraud.

Bailey still refers to the plagiarism as nothing more than “sloppy writing habits, not a malicious intent to defraud.”

Much like it’s not “malicious intent to defraud” when a college student copies Wikipedia word-for-word, then gets expelled?

What’s more, Rufo implored the Times to look at the entire claim – which they refused to do.

When the Times published its piece, I called the reporter and the editor to protest that they withheld evidence from their supposed “expert.” The editor, Mary Suh, gave me the excuse that it wasn’t their job to review the whole report. I hung up on her. pic.twitter.com/D7sQDpJS6P

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) October 17, 2024

Here is the full 47-page dossier, prepared by famed Austrian “plagiarism hunter” Stefan Weber. Anyone can read it and come to the conclusion that Kamala Harris plagiarized her book, Smart on Crime. https://t.co/7KvwbzqTOS

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) October 15, 2024

Meanwhile, the plagiarism is even worse than reported!

SHE KEEPS GOING: This is a ninth instance of significant plagiarism by Kamala Harris. Although she cited the source, she copied long passages of language verbatim, without paraphrasing or putting it in quotations. It’s textbook “verbatim plagiarism”—and not an isolated incident. pic.twitter.com/5uwWwRDxkt

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) October 15, 2024

Lots of eyes into NFLX earnings tonight, not only because it is the first “tech” company reporting, but because its stock has underperformed as of late post a big run YTD.

According to Goldman, investors are looking for ~6mn subs in quarter, upside to FY FCF guide of ~6bn and then a revenue guide for 4Q that is inline-ish with the street (as a reminder, they don’t guide subs anymore). Goldman has NFLX at 8.5 on 1-10 positioning scale, which needless to say is quite long and the risk of disappointment is substantial. Overall, expectations are for a solid beat in quarter…

… And that’s precisely what Netflix delivered: here is what the company reported moments ago.

• Revenue $9.82 billion, up 15% y/y, and beating estimates of $9.78 billion
• EPS $5.40 vs. $3.73 y/y, beating estimates of $5.12, and included a $91M loss from F/X , related to the company’s Euro denominated debt remeasurement.
• Operating margin 29.6% vs. 22.4% y/y, beating estimates of 27.8%; the operating margin of 30% improved seven percentage points vs. the year ago quarter. This was above the previous guidance forecast “due to slightly higher revenue and the timing of spending.”
• Operating income $2.91 billion, +52% y/y, beating estimates $2.72 billion
• Free cash flow $2.19 billion, +16% y/y, beating estimates $1.73 billion

In short, Netflix eclipsed Wall Street’s expectations on every major financial metric despite a new programming slate constrained by last year’s strikes in Hollywood.

While the company clearly outperformed at the top and bottom line, there were some glitches at the subscriber level. Yes, NFLX added a greater than expected 5.07 million subs, and above the 4.5 million estimate, but this was thanks to EMEA and Asia-Pac; subs in US/Canada missed modestly while Latam subs actually declined, against expectations of a nearly 1 million increase.

• Streaming paid net change +5.07 million, down 42% y/y, but beating estimates of +4.52 million
  • UCAN streaming paid net change +690,000, -61% y/y, missing estimates +696,658
  • EMEA streaming paid net change +2.17 million, -45% y/y, beating estimates +1.44 million
  • LATAM streaming paid net change -70,000 vs. +1.18 million y/y, missing estimate +975,270
  • APAC streaming paid net change +2.28 million, +21% y/y, beating estimate +1.56 million
  • Streaming paid memberships 282.72 million, +14% y/y, beating estimate 281.92 million

Here are some more details:

• UCAN, where subscriber growth missed, saw a 16% year over year increase in revenue, driven by 10% and 5% growth in average paid memberships and ARM, respectively.
• Revenue in EMEA grew 16% year over year, consistent with the increase in average paid memberships.
• Looking at APAX, Netflix said that it had a strong local content slate in Japan, Korea, Thailand and India in Q3. As a result, revenue growth rate in APAC (+19% year over year) led all regions.
• LATAM revenue rose 9% year over year, with a surprise decline of 0.1M in net subscribers which was due to recent price changes and a softer content slate. However, the company noted that “membership growth has rebounded nicely early in Q4’24.”

Q3’24 operating income increased 52% year over year to $2.9B, while operating margin of 30% improved seven percentage points vs. the year ago quarter. This was above our guidance forecast due to slightly higher revenue and the timing of spending.

Looking ahead to Q4, the company expects to generate $10.13 billion in revenue (above the median consensus of $10.05 billion), which would translate into $2.190 billion operating income, or a 21.6% profit margin, vs the 21.2% expected, and expects $4.23 in EPS, which is also above the 3.90 exp. While NFLX no longer provides subscriber guidance, it sees 4Q paid net additions higher than 3Q due to normal seasonality and a strong content slate. It notes that 2024 programming has been “patchier than normal due to last year’s strikes.”

The Company’s Q4 guidance implies that revenue will grow 15% year over year for the full year 2024, at the high end of the prior 14%-15% revenue growth expectation. Given the slightly higher revenue forecast, NFLX is now forecasting 2024 operating margin of 27% based on F/X rates as of 1/1/24 and on a reported basis, up from 26% previously. This would represent a six percentage point increase compared with the full year 2023.

Looking even further out, for 2025, NFLX forecasts revenue of $43B-$44B, which would represent growth of 11%-13% off of the company’s 2024 revenue guidance of $38.9B, and is in line with consensus estimates of $43.4 billion: NFLX expects “revenue growth to be driven by a healthy increase in paid memberships and ARM. We’re targeting a 2025 operating margin of 28% (also based on F/X rates as of 9/30) vs. our forecast for 27% in 2024; after delivering outsized margin improvement in 2024, we want to balance near term margin growth with investing appropriately in our business. We still see plenty of room to increase our margins over the long term.” Consensus saw a 27.9% operating margin.

While it is no longer a closely watched metric, NFLX net cash generated by operating activities in Q3 was $2.3B vs. $2.0B in the prior year period. Free cash flow (FCF) totaled $2.2B compared with $1.9B in last year’s Q3. For the full year, NFLX expects FCF of $6.0B-$6.5B, up from approximately $6B due to the higher operating income forecast.

Finally, during Q3, NFLX repurchased 2.6M shares for $1.7B, and has $3.1B remaining under its existing authorization. The company also raised $1.8B in its first investment grade bond deal during Q3. As a result, total debt increased to $16B from $14B in Q2, but net debt decreased from $7.4B in Q2 to $6.8B at the end of Q3. Proceeds from the bond offering will be used to pay down $1.8B in bonds that mature over the next 12 months.

While Netflix acknowledges its recently launched advertising business is progressing slowly, management said in the letter to shareholders that it has grand ambitions for the next couple of years. The company is building its own advertising technology and has struck several deals to sell its advertising-supported service alongside other streaming services.

“We have much more work to do improving our offering for advertisers, which will be a priority over the next few years,” the company wrote.

Netflix has also started to invested in live programming as one way to increase the amount of inventory it has to sell advertisers. As Bloomberg notes, it will offer a live boxing match next month, followed by two National Football League games on Christmas Day. Starting next year, Netflix will offer customers three hours of live wrestling every week.

Though two Hollywood labor stoppages last year delayed Netflix’s slate of programming for much of this year, the company still scored big hits with The Perfect Couple, a new season of Emily in Paris and a series on the infamous murderers, the Menendez brothers, from producer Ryan Murphy, as well as the movies Rebel Ridge and The Union. The company said it has a particularly strong slate in the fourth quarter, including the return of Squid Game, its most-watched series ever.

Shares of Netflix have more than quadrupled since May 2022, when a slowdown in the company’s growth led to a major sell-off and spooked investors about the entertainment business. Since then, the company has added more than 60 million customers thanks to a crackdown on password sharing and the introduction of a lower-priced subscription with advertising.

That said, most analysts believe the boost from the password crackdown is temporary, and that Netflix will soon need to find another way to grow. The company has yet to see material financial returns from its investment in advertising or video games, and some on Wall Street now worry the stock is overvalued.

The market reaction was initially disappointed pushing the stock briefly lower, before eventually rebounding strongly and rising as much as 4% after hours, not too far from its all time high hit one week ago at $736.

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

Speaking with a friend about the migrant crisis in the United States, she made an interesting observation. Many of the most prosperous Western nations in the world today are facing the same problem. They are flooded with migrants who are overwhelming the system, infuriating the citizenry, adding fiscal burdens, disrupting public order, and leading to possible political instability.

Interesting question: Why after many multiple decades of only localized migrant issues, most having to do with border wars or other disruptions, have so many nations at once dealt with floods of people exploiting broken migration systems? In other words, how did a local problem become a global problem so quickly? How did all border systems break at once?

And consider the problem before this one. We had a globalized response to the COVID crisis. In most nations of the world, the policy response was eerily similar. There was masking, distancing, closures, travel restrictions, and capacity limits, while big business was allowed to stay open. The same methods, which have no modern precedent, were attempted in all countries in the world except a few.

The states that did not go along—Sweden, Tanzania, Nicaragua among others—face unrelenting attacks from world media.

The problem of migration plus pandemic planning are only two data points but they both suggest an ominous reality. The nation states that have dominated the political landscape since the Renaissance, and even back in some cases to the ancient world, are giving way to a new form of government, which we can call globalism. It doesn’t refer to trade across borders, which has been the norm for all human history. It is about political control, away from citizens in countries toward something else that citizens cannot control or influence.

From the time of the Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, the idea of state sovereignty prevailed in politics. Not every nation needed the same policies. They would respect differences toward the goal of peace. This involved permitting religious diversity among nation states, a concession that led to an unfolding of freedom in other ways. The system worked but not everyone has been happy with it.

Some of the most brilliant intellectuals for centuries have dreamed of global government as a solution to the diversity of policies of nation states. It’s the go-to idea for scientists and ethicists who are so convinced of the correctness of their ideas that they dream up some worldwide imposition of their favored solution. Humanity has by-and-large been wise enough not to attempt such a thing beyond military alliances and mechanisms to improve trade flows.

But in the 21st century, we’ve seen the intensification of the power of globalist institutions. The World Health Organization (WHO) effectively scripted the pandemic response for the world. Globalist foundations and NGOs seem to be heavily involved in the migrant crisis. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, created as nascent institutions for a global system of money and finance, are exercising outsized influence on monetary and financial policy. The World Trade Organization is working to diminish the power of the nation state over trade policies.

I happened to be in New York City a few weeks ago when the United Nations met. No question that it was the biggest show on planet Earth. Vast swaths of the city were shut down to cars and buses, with diplomats and heavy-hitting financiers arriving via helicopter on the roofs of luxury hotels, all of which were full for the week of meetings. The prices of everything were jacked up in response since no one was spending his own money in any case.

The attendees were not only statesmen from all over the world but also the biggest financial firms and media outfits, along with representatives of the largest universities and nonprofits. All of these forces seem to be coalescing at once, as if they all want to be part of the future. And that future is one of global governance wherein the nation state is eventually reduced to pure cosmetics with no operational power.

The impression I had while there was that the experience of everyone in town that day, all swarming around the big United Nations meeting, was one of deep separation of their world from the world of the rest of us. They are “bubble people.” Their friends, source of financing, social groupings, career aspirations, and major influence are detached not only from normal people but from the nation state itself. The fashionable attitude among them all is to regard the nation state and its history of meaning as passe, fictional, and rather embarrassing.

Entrenched globalism of the sort that operates in the 21st century represents a shift against and repudiation of half a millennium of the way governance has worked in practice. All governance came to be organized around geographically restricted zones of control. The juridical boundaries restrained power. The king of France could govern France but required a war to influence England, and so too for Russia, Spain, Sweden, and so on.

The expansion of the juridical boundaries required conquering or some form of colonialism but such arrangements are temporary because they are ultimately subject to the consent of the governed. The idea of consent gradually came to dominate political affairs from the 18th through the 19th century until after the Great War which dismantled the last of the multinational empires. That left us with one model: the nation state in which citizens exercised ultimate sovereignty over the regimes under which they live.

The United States was initially established as a country of localized democracies that only came together under a loose confederation. The Articles of Confederation created no central government but rather deferred to the former colonies to set up (or continue) their own structures of governance. When the Constitution came along, it created a careful equilibrium of checks and balances to restrain the national state while preserving the rights of the states.

The idea here was not to overthrow citizen control over the nation state but institutionalize it.

All these years later, most people in most nations, the United States especially, believe that they should have final say over the structure of the regime. This is the essence of the democratic ideal, and not as an end in itself but as a guarantor of freedom, which is the principle that drives the rest. Freedom is inseparable from citizen control of government. When that link and that relationship are shattered, freedom itself is gravely damaged.

The world today is packed with wealthy institutions and individuals that stand in revolt against the ideas of freedom and democracy. They do not like the idea of geographically constrained states with zones of juridical power. They believe they have a global mission and want to empower global institutions against the sovereignty of people living in nation states.

They say that there are existential problems that require the overthrow of the nation-state model of governance. They have a list: infectious disease, pandemic threats, climate change, peacekeeping, cybercrime, and I’m sure there are others on the list that we’ve yet to see. The idea is that these are necessarily worldwide and evade the capacity of the nation state to deal with them.

We are all being acculturated to believe that the nation state is nothing but an anachronism that needs to be supplanted. Keep in mind, this necessarily means treating democracy and freedom as anachronisms too. In practice, the only means by which average people can restrain tyranny and despotism is through voting at the national level. None of us have any influence over the policies of the WHO, World Bank, IMF, much less over the Gates or Soros Foundations. The way politics is structured in the world today, we are all necessarily disenfranchised in a world governed by global institutions.

And that is precisely the point: to achieve universal disenfranchisement of average people so that the elites can have a free hand in regulating the planet as they see fit. This is why it becomes supremely urgent for every person who aspires to live in peace and freedom to regain national sovereignty and say no to the transfer of authority to institutions over which citizens have no control.

Let me conclude with this: I had not always understood this. When the United States pulled out of the WHO in 2020, I was genuinely puzzled. It seemed rather unsporting. These days, I get it.

Devolving power from the center is the only path by which we can restore the ideals of the great visionaries of the past like Thomas Jefferson.

In the end, governing institutions must be in citizen control, and pertain to the borders of particular states, or it necessarily becomes tyrannical over time.

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

‘Soft’ (Philly Fed & NAHB) and ‘Hard’ data (Retail Sales, Initial Claims) improved today but manufacturing production shit the bed…

Source: Bloomberg

Ignoring the manufacturing slump, this data reinforced the ‘no landing’ narrative and pushed rate-cut expectations notably (hawkishly) lower…

Source: Bloomberg

Additionally, The Trump Trade has taken hold of the narrative for now…

Source: Bloomberg

Goldman’s Chloe Garber told clients today that Polymarket is priced at 60/40, there is ~1.5% upside to 65/35 odds, and 4% downside to 50/50 odds.

“I think there is a possibility this pair could go to the July highs before the election, but it would require some terrible polls for Kamala Harris, whereas a lot of work has been done.

Clients are betting this direction because a 60/40 market going to 100 delta is still an enticing proposition whereas a coin flip is just hard.”

Importantly, she added that this local Trump trend hasn’t been driven by earnings revisions…revisions have been slightly negative since the end of July, so if 3Q earning season matters, these stocks could get affected. 

Small Caps underperformed today (for a change), but all the majors ended well off their highs of the day. The S&P ended unchanged and Nasdaq marginally higher as The Dow hit another record closing high….

…notably, the Nasdaq outperformance today comes at a key support level relative to Russell 2000…

Source: Bloomberg

…and at the same time, Polymarket sees the odds of a ‘Red Sweep” also soaring…

…which helped send yields soaring on the day, led by the long-end (30Y +10bps). On the week, the short-end remains the laggard…

Source: Bloomberg

…the dollar index continued to charge higher (up 12 of the last 14 days)…

Source: Bloomberg

…and, rather oddly given the dollar’s move, gold surged to yet another new record high. just shy of $2700…

Source: Bloomberg

The last few weeks have been very unusual with the correlation between the dollar and gold spiking dramatically…

Source: Bloomberg

Bitcoin limped slightly lower on the day after topping $68,000…

Source: Bloomberg

Oil prices went nowhere for the second day in a row with WTI trading in a very narrow $70-71 range…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, stocks are aggressively pricing in a ‘Trump victory’ versus a ‘Harris victory’…

Source: Bloomberg

While it is ‘easy’ to manipulate the noisy and game-able prediction markets (given their low liquidity), it is arguable that the various stocks in these baskets from Goldman Sachs are ‘game-able’, suggesting there is more than just a whale or two driving this sentiment narrative.

McKinsey is going to be paying “at least $500 million” to settle probes into the company about its role in helping opioid makers boost their sales. 

The settlement would add to penalties McKinsey has already paid to U.S. states for its work with opioid manufacturers, according to Bloomberg. 

In 2021, the firm agreed to pay hundreds of millions to settle claims it contributed to the opioid crisis through sales analysis and marketing advice. McKinsey, which reported $16 billion in revenue last year, denied wrongdoing, stating its work was legal and that it stopped consulting for opioid makers in 2019.

Last May, McKinsey said in a statement: “Our past work for opioid manufacturers, while lawful, fell short of the high standards we set for ourselves. We have implemented a rigorous client selection policy and spent approximately $1 billion building, enhancing, and operating our risk, legal, and compliance functions since 2018.”

The Bloomberg report says that Federal prosecutors in Boston, Roanoke, and Washington are leading the Justice Department’s investigation.

McKinsey recently proposed a $230 million settlement with cities and states, approved by a U.S. judge, though the firm still faces legal risks over its opioid-related work, Bloomberg Law reported. 

Since 1999, nearly 645,000 people have died from opioid overdoses, with deaths surging in the 2010s and accelerating further during the Covid-19 pandemic due to synthetic opioids.

Thousands of state and local governments are pursuing claims against opioid makers and distributors to recover billions in public funds spent addressing the crisis.

A settlement expected in the coming weeks would resolve the Justice Department’s criminal and civil investigations, though the terms remain confidential and subject to change.

Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

Do you know who will be in charge of certifying this election?  In January 2021, it was Vice-President Mike Pence, and we all remember how that turned out.  Well, an even more interesting scenario is shaping up this time around.  In January 2025, Vice-President Kamala Harris will be in charge of certifying the election.  In other words, if Donald Trump wins the person that he was running against will be in charge of certifying his victory.  This is a major defect in our system, and it could potentially set the stage for widespread chaos if things do not go smoothly.

With each passing day, a Trump victory is looking even more likely.

For example, a brand new Gallup survey has found that the percentage of Americans that identify as Republicans has jumped by four points since late September…

With just 20 days left until Election Day, a new Gallup poll has revealed a concerning trend for Democrats.

According to the poll, more Americans are identifying as Republicans or independents, with fewer calling themselves Democrats. Conducted from October 1-12, the poll shows a significant shift in political affiliations since mid-September, causing potential challenges for Democrats ahead of the crucial vote.

The data shows that 31% of respondents now identify as Republicans, marking a 4-point increase from the previous poll conducted in late September. Meanwhile, only 28% of Americans consider themselves Democrats, a 3-point drop over the same period. The number of independents, while still holding a significant share at 41%, dropped by 1%.

Another new survey shows that national support for Trump has risen dramatically since early August…

The presidential race is swinging in former President Donald Trump’s direction, according to a national poll released by Marquette.

The latest survey shows both Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris tied with 50 percent support each in a two-way race with leaners included. This reflects a four-point swing in Trump’s direction, as the last poll — released August 1 — showed Harris up by four points, garnering 52 percent support to Trump’s 48 percent support.

The survey also took a look at the results with a “full field” and found Harris up by a single percentage point — 48 percent to Trump’s 47 percent support. Another four percent said “other.” For greater perspective, the last survey showed Harris up by eight points in the full field, with 50 percent to Trump’s 42 percent.

Right now we are seeing so much enthusiasm for Trump, and the same cannot be said for Harris.

When MSNBC visited one early voting location in Arizona, they could not find a single person that voted for Harris…

MSNBC visits an early voting location in Arizona.

Trump voters are everywhere — ‘We did not find a single person who would tell us they voted for Kamala Harris.’

Things are not looking very good for the Harris campaign at this stage.

If she loses, she will literally be tasked with certifying the election that she has just lost…

The vice president oversees the counting of Electoral College votes and announces the results. They can still do this if they are a presidential candidate and it’s happened multiple times throughout history.

Both the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and federal law say the president of the Senate, which is a role that’s filled by the vice president, oversees the count of electoral votes.

According to Politico, Harris has promised that “she won’t interfere” with a peaceful transition of power…

On Jan. 6, 2025, Vice President Kamala Harris is set to preside over Congress and count the electoral votes that will make either her — or Donald Trump — the 47th president of the United States.

And like her predecessor Mike Pence, who resisted enormous pressure from Trump to upend the 2020 election results, Harris says she won’t interfere.

Hopefully that is true.

But would she really just stand aside and hand the presidency to a man that she has described as a “threat to democracy”?

Just consider what Harris said about Trump earlier this week…

“A second Trump term is a huge risk for America. He is increasingly unstable and unhinged. And he is out for unchecked power and control over your lives”

If she truly believes that Trump is going to end democracy in the United States, wouldn’t she feel compelled to take action?

That is a question that a lot of people will be asking.

Already, many on the left are suggesting that the 14th Amendment could be used to block Trump from taking office.

The following is what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says…

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I really hope that Democrats do not consider such a course of action if Trump wins the election.

And I really hope that we see a very peaceful transfer of power no matter who wins.

Unfortunately, many of our leaders continue to make statements that are not helpful at all.

For example, Joe Biden just said that he is very much looking forward to seeing Donald Trump get sentenced and put away…

Joe Biden said the quiet part out loud and admitted that his DOJ is working to jail Trump after the election.

“The same guy who has three other major cases waiting for him when he loses,” Biden said referring to Jack Smith’s federal cases against Trump.

“And by the way, 34 felonies,” Biden said after he sent his DOJ hatchetman Matthew Colangelo to New York to get Trump.

“He got the sentence kicked back, but I want to watch that sentence,” Biden gleefully said hoping Trump is jailed.

If Donald Trump loses this election, he is going to go to prison for the rest of his life.

So the truth is that this election means everything to Trump.

Of course this election also means everything to tens of millions of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum.

No matter what the outcome is, I fear that there will be unprecedented chaos in our streets.

Hopefully I am wrong about that.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

But in our current political environment, I am certainly not optimistic about what is ahead.

*  *  *

Michael’s new book entitled “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Authored by Tristan Greene via CoinTelegraph.com,

Nvidia unceremoniously launched a new artificial intelligence model on Oct 15 that’s purported to outperform state-of-the-art AI systems including GPT-4o and Claude-3. 

According to a post on the X.com social media platform from the Nvidia AI Developer account, the new model, dubbed Llama-3.1-Nemotron-70B-Instruct, “is a leading model” on lmarena.AI’s Chatbot Arena. 

Nvidia AI announces the benchmarks score for Nemotron. Source: Nvidia AI

Nemotron

Llama-3.1-Nemotron-70B-Instruct is, essentially, a modified version of Meta’s open-source Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct.

The “Nemotron” portion of the model’s name encapsulates Nvidia’s contribution to the end result. 

The Llama “herd” of AI models, as Meta refers to them, are meant to be used as open-source foundations for developers to build on.

In the case of Nemotron, Nvidia took up the challenge and developed a system designed to be more “helpful” than popular models such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude-3. 

Nvidia used specially curated datasets, advanced fine-tuning methods, and its own state-of-the-art AI hardware to turn Meta’s vanilla model into what might be the most “helpful” AI model on the planet. 

An engineer’s post on X.com expressing excitement for Nemotron’s capabilities. Source: Shayan Taslim

“I asked it a few coding questions I usually ask to compare LLMs and got some of the best answers from this one. lol, holy shit.”

Benchmarking

When it comes to determining which AI model is “the best,” there’s no clear-cut methodology. Unlike, for example, measuring the ambient temperature with a mercury thermometer, there isn’t a single “truth” that exists when it comes to AI model performance. 

Developers and researchers have to determine how well an AI model performs the same as humans are evaluated: through comparative testing. 

AI benchmarking involves giving different AI models the same queries, tasks, questions, or problems and then comparing the usefulness of the results. Often, due to the subjectivity of what is and isn’t considered useful, human proctors are used to determine a machine’s performance through blind evaluations. 

In Nemotron’s case, it appears that Nvidia is claiming the new model outperforms existing state-of-the-art models such as GPT-4o and Claude-3 by a fairly wide margin.

The top of the Chatbot Arena leaderboards. Source: LMArenea.AI

The image above depicts the ratings on the automated “Hard” test on the Chatbot Arena Leaderboards. While Nvidia’s Llama-3.1-Nemotron-70B-Instruct doesn’t appear to be listed anywhere on the boards, if the developer’s claim that it scored an 85 on this test is valid, it would be the de facto top model in this particular section. 

What makes the achievement perhaps even more interesting is that Llama-3.1-70B is Meta’s middle-tier open-source AI model.

There’s a much larger version of Llama-3.1, the 405B version (where the number refers to how many billion parameters the model was tuned with).

By comparison, GPT-4o is estimated to have been developed with over one trillion parameters.

After a brief burst of hope that Beijing had finally learned its lesson to not parade with fake “big bazookas” meant to simply boost its stock market for a few days (allowing members of the nomenklatura to sell their holdings into the spike) but to follow through forcefully and with resolve, we regret to inform readers that nothing at all has changed, and China has fallen into the old pattern of pretending it is stimulating the economy, and traders pretending they are willing to invest in its stock market.

The latest example of this toxic loop was on exhibit earlier today when China’s policymakers rolled out the latest stimulus aimed at boosting the country’s sluggish property sector, and yet just like all recent previous ones, the measures fell far short of hopes for more specific liquidity support.

In today’s highly-anticipated press conference from MOHURD, jointly with MOF, MNR, PBOC and NFRA, authorities unveiled plans to fast-track credit for struggling property developers, and aim to renovate 1 million apartments in so-called urban shantytowns, a strategy used during the prior real-estate slump.

Additionally, China will deploy more funds for housing projects on the government’s “white list,” with 4 trillion yuan ($550 billion) in loans to be available by the end of this year, Minister of Housing and Urban-Rural Development Ni Hong said, urging banks to lend to as many projects as possible. Projects on Beijing’s “white list” are eligible for government-backed financing to complete unfinished apartments and ensure delivery of homes.

Alas, analysts weren’t enthused by the latest moves, which echoed previous efforts by policymakers to aid the property sector. And unfortunately for Xi, who is desperate to launch a market meltup-driven  “wealth effect” only without spending much money to get it, just as with all recent stimulus announcements, this one too was a dud and markets shrugged off the news, which was milder than what many expected after an aggressive round of economic stimulus last month. In fact, the market top was proclaimed by none other than Jim Cramer, who pronouncement we correctly identified as the market top.

It was the top: Chinese stocks tumble into correction, down 15% since Cramer said “you have to come in China stocks right now” https://t.co/Gfk0e9BBeK pic.twitter.com/3D1QSu2CQB

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 17, 2024

Chinese property stocks led losses in Shanghai and Shenzhen. China Vanke closed 7.9% lower in Shenzhen, while sector losses dragged the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index down 1.05% to close below the key 3200 level, finishing the day at 3169.38.

In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng Mainland Properties Index, which tracks the performance of Chinese property companies, gave up gains made earlier during the day, and closed 6.7% lower Thursday. Shares of developers Sunac China and China Vanke crashed 27% and 17%, respectively.

As the WSJ reminds us, China launched a similar state-financed slum redevelopment program in 2015. Back then, local governments compensated the residents of demolished homes with cash or new housing, and state policy banks provided loans to local governments to finance the program. Eventually, it worked because China’s overall credit impulse was in far better shape compared to the record plunge in the M1 currently.

Zerlina Zeng, senior director at CreditSights, said the expanded “white list” and the loan-disbursement target sound encouraging, but as with other recently announced “stimulus programs”, will provide little additional funding to the sector or boost home-buying sentiment.

“This is because the proceeds of the loans will be parked at the escrow accounts and cannot be used to service debt or fund new projects,” she said. “The aim of the white list is to accelerate the construction of pre-sold but incomplete homes,” so its expansion won’t help reduce China’s excess property inventory or lift expectations about home prices, she added.

On Thursday, Ni said state banks will offer the same sort of financing support as before, and that local governments can issue special-purpose bonds to fund redevelopment. Commercial banks can extend loans to these projects too, the minister added. But banks might be reluctant to extend new loans to developers due to the credit risk entailed, Zeng said.

The urban-renewal project is also smaller than the previous reconstruction program in 2015-2018, and may take much longer to implement due to developers’ strained liquidity and local governments’ squeezed wallets, she added.

If the latest measures are implemented swiftly, there’s a reasonable chance of success in managing supply and shoring up developers’ finances, said Erica Tay, an economist at Maybank Investment Banking Group.

“Homebuyers’ demand is tougher to control,” she said. “The government can roll out favorable policies, but whether households bite depends on a lot of factors.”

Given the many structural challenges facing the sector and limited policy details, Goldman Sachs maintains its view that there will be no quick fix for the property downturn.

Commenting on the presser, Goldman’s Saira Ansari said that it was generally neutral vs market expectations:

• Upside stems from the likely multi-year plan of cash-backed settlement for urban village renovation and dilapidated/aging housing renovation, though there is still a lack of detail on the size of funding support and time horizon for implementation.
• Downside is related to little mention on incremental policy support to facilitate housing destocking (especially on the funding and implementation strategy), which is crucial for rebalancing the property sector.
• Releveraging As Real Estate Downturn Bites : Goldman estimates China’s non-financial debt to GDP ratio will reach 307% at the end of this year, up from 297% last year, and heightened uncertainites for 2025.

To be sure, policymakers are taking steps in the right direction, analysts say, including the finance ministry’s announcement last Saturday that local government can use proceeds from special government bonds to buy up housing inventory. They just aren’t doing it as rapidly, or as forcefully as the market wants: there have been scant details on further support to facilitate destocking of excess housing inventory in terms of funding and implementation, Goldman Sachs economist Lisheng Wang wrote in a note (available to professional subs in the usual place).

China’s central bank on Thursday said it is also mulling property-sector measures. It’s considering allowing policy banks and commercial lenders to provide loans to property developers to buy land, and could tap relending facilities to offer banks these loans, said Tao Ling, a vice governor at the People’s Bank of China.

Analysts are watching to see what supplementary lending quota the central bank will set for 2025. It earmarked 500 billion yuan in lending for 2024.

Ni said at Thursday’s briefing that property data in October is expected to show “positive and optimistic results.”

After the unprecedented stimulus package in September, sales of new homes in China rose 3% from a year earlier during Oct. 8 to Oct. 16—the first increase since late June, Macquarie economists Larry Hu and Yuxiao Zhang wrote in a note. That momentum may persist near term, but there are question marks over its sustainability, they said.

“Each round of policy easing can stabilize the housing market for a while, but the effect can fade away later,” the Macquarie economists said.

Bottom line, according to Goldman, is that the announced measures could improve to some degree the supply-demand dynamic of the property market in the near term, yet they haven’t fully addressed how the lumpy backlog of construction in progress (not-yet-saleable) and its associated liabilities (est. Rmb16tn out of total Rmb57tn by end-23E) will be resolved, beyond the government’s land buyback initiatives. In our view, this will also be critical for a more sustainable macro and property market recovery.

And in keeping with the recent pattern of disappointing pressers coupled with expectations for bigger and better stimulus to be unveiled at some future occasion, investor focus now shifts towards the next National People’s Congress of China session, which is emerging as the last chance Hail Mary for Beijing to unveil something truly market moving (as the alternative is an economic debacle and much more stimulus including QE eventually). Goldman remains hopeful predicting that “further policy initiatives are likely in order, as regulators seem keen to find the right balance and support the market”; the market however is once again selling first and asking questions later.

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the Ukrainian parliament on Wednesday and unveiled his so-called “victory plan,” but there’s no sign any of Ukraine’s Western backers will support his proposals.

Zelensky’s plan includes five points and three classified sections that he did not make public. The plan is essentially a list of demands that Zelensky has been making of the US and NATO for months. He claimed that if the plan was implemented, Ukraine “may be able to end the war no later than next year.”

One point is for Ukraine to receive a formal invitation to join NATO, but there’s no sign the alliance will be willing to do that anytime in the near future, and Ukrainian neutrality will be a key Russian demand for any peace deal.

The plan calls for more air defenses and for NATO countries to help shoot down Russian missiles over Ukraine, which would mean direct NATO involvement in the war. NATO countries have previously rejected Ukrainian requests to intercept Russian missiles and drones.

Another point in the plan calls for support for Ukraine to use NATO-provided missiles to launch long-range strikes inside Russia, an escalation that would risk nuclear war. So far, the US and the UK have rejected Zelensky’s repeated request for help with long-range strikes.

Ukrainian MP Oleksii Honcharenko, a member of the European Solidarity party, criticized Zelensky’s plan. “First of all, it’s not a plan. Plan means something with concrete steps,” he said, according to The Associated Press. “It’s kind of a wish list from Ukraine for our partners, how they can and should support us. And it doesn’t look realistic. We were waiting for some real serious conversation about the situation and the strategy, and this is not that.”

Zelensky unveiled the plan as Russia continues to make advances in eastern Ukraine, a reality Honcharenko called “contradictory.”

Later on Wednesday, Zelensky spoke by phone with President Biden, but the White House showed no sign that it supported the “victory plan.” When asked about it, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said, “That’s their plan, and let them speak to it.”

Despite no clear path to Ukrainian victory, the US still continues to fuel the war, and a Zelenskey aide said Tuesday that American politicians are pressuring the Ukrainian government to lower the conscription age to 18.

NATO Chief Rutte: “In the future NATO will have as a 33rd or 34th we will have Ukraine (…) Ukraine will be a member of NATO in the future, that’s what we decided in Washington.”

– who we in Washington? Kamala? pic.twitter.com/JnbCBgtuk1

— Russian Market (@runews) October 17, 2024

During the call with Zelensky, Biden announced a new $425 million weapons package for Ukraine. According to the Pentagon, it includes the following:

• Additional munitions for National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS)
• RIM-7 missiles and support for air defense
• Stinger anti-aircraft missiles
• Ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS)
• Air-to-ground munitions
• 155mm and 105mm artillery ammunition
• Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided (TOW) missiles
• Javelin and AT-4 anti-armor systems
• High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs)
• Small arms and ammunition
• Grenades, thermals, and training equipment
• Demolitions equipment and munitions
• Spare parts, ancillary equipment, services, training, and transportation 

Authored by Eric Lendrum via American Greatness,

On Tuesday, Elon Musk’s company SpaceX has filed a lawsuit against a California state agency over alleged political discrimination against the company.

As reported by Politico, the lawsuit stems from the California Coastal Commission’s (CCC) decision to reject SpaceX’s plans to increase the number of experimental rocket launches from the Space Force base in Santa Barbara County. Lawyers from the Los Angeles-based firm Venable LLP, which represents SpaceX, claimed that the CCC made its decision purely due to political differences with Musk, an outspoken supporter of former President Donald Trump and a vocal critic of Governor Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.).

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Los Angeles, asserts that the CCC and its 12 members “engaged in naked political discrimination” in last week’s debate over a proposal by the Department of Defense (DOD) to expand the number of SpaceX launches at Vandenberg Space Force Base. The proposal would have seen the number of launches increase from 36 to 50.

“Rarely has a government agency made so clear that it was exceeding its authorized mandate to punish a company for the political views and statements of its largest shareholder and CEO,” the lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit named all 12 members of the commission, as well as executive director Kate Huckelbridge and alternate commissioner Gretchen Newsom, as defendants.

The commissioners are appointed by the governor and the legislature. On Thursday, they voted 6-4 in favor of rejecting the DOD plan.

However, the debate over the motion prior to the vote quickly veered away from the specifics of the plan itself, and instead focused on Musk’s support for Trump.

“Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” said Commissioner Newsom, who bears no relation to Governor Newsom.

Newsom and Chairwoman Caryl Hart both criticized Musk’s political stances before voting against the deal.

“Many things are said in the course of meetings, whether it’s a Coastal Commission meeting, whether it’s a legislative meeting, whether it’s a planning department,” said Chairwoman Hart on Tuesday, in an attempt to justify her vote.

“The basis for this decision is the commission’s conclusion that SpaceX, as a private company engaged in private activities, needs to apply for a coastal development permit.”

Although Musk has generally remained a political moderate, he began expressing support for President Trump following the first assassination attempt against him on July 13th in Butler, Pennsylvania. Since then, Musk has launched the pro-Trump America Pac, which has donated $45 million to supporting Trump’s campaign every month since July.

Musk himself appeared onstage with President Trump at his return rally in Butler, just over two months after the assassination attempt; during his speech, he reaffirmed his support for freedom of speech, and urged the audience to get as many people as possible out to vote in the coming election.