Hedge Fund CIO: “After The Last Disillusioned Gold Bulls Sold Their Final Ounce, Gold Started Rallying… And Has Not Looked Back”

Hedge Fund CIO: “After The Last Disillusioned Gold Bulls Sold Their Final Ounce, Gold Started Rallying… And Has Not Looked Back”

By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

“Let me start with the psychology that governed the gold market for years,” I said. It was our IC meeting and the topic of gold’s recent outperformance versus bitcoin came up. “When Bernanke unleashed QE during the GFC, a lot of very smart people rushed to hedge themselves against a massive monetary inflation. Gold was an obvious hedge, and the Baby Boomers were in their investing prime back then. They felt highly exposed to an inflating-away of their life savings. They already owned homes. Many bought gold. Some bought far too much.”

“Republicans prevented Obama from the wild stimulus spending he sought. And China’s deflation-exporting economy was still being brought online in the aftermath of its WTO ascendance. Plus, Beijing pumped it up through massive subsidies/stimulus. There were surely other reasons why inflation didn’t take off back then. Expectations remained generally stable. And despite Europe’s response to an existential sovereign debt crisis, and Draghi’s 2012 commitment to do “whatever it takes”, the Germans never let spending get out of control.

“Gold peaked in the summer of 2011 at over $2500/oz and turned lower. By 2015, it had fallen roughly 40%, back to the $1400 level it hit in March 2008. All these Baby Boomers with gold buried in their backyards were gutted. They prayed that if they ever got back to the highs, they’d sell. We’ve all prayed like that. Every one of us. Those who held until July 2020 got the chance to sell again near the 2011 highs at $2400. Covid stimulus sparked that rally. Some sold. Gold fell. The holders begged forgiveness. Then sold. Gold fell 30% over 2yrs.

“Baby Boomer bulls eventually lost faith. Many needed cash, they were retiring. Some got bearish gold and pointed to the EU’s confiscation of Russia’s foreign reserves following the Ukraine invasion. “If gold couldn’t rally on that, then would it ever,” they asked. The last disillusioned bulls sold their final ounce. Then gold started rallying. It has not looked back. That’s what can happen to a market once you clean out the remaining stale positions. A clean market can really move, given a clear fundamental catalyst; gold has at least two.

“The confiscation of Russian assets means governments will increasingly diversify their foreign reserves into non-sovereign assets. Gold is one. And now that China is committing to stimulus, every major economic zone appears to be doing the opposite of austerity. So, in a world of potentially infinite fiat, scarce assets should appreciate. Gold has. It’s +40% over the past 12mths. Bitcoin is +134% over that period. But for the past 7mths, Bitcoin has chopped around in a 30% range (13% below all-time highs), while gold continued upward. Why?

When Bitcoin hit $59k in Apr 2021, the bullishness was insane. It fell nearly 50% through that summer and made new highs around $65k in Nov 2021. Then it collapsed to the $15k area on the FTX failure. A material portion of bulls who endured that net worth crash prayed to God that they’d sell some, most, maybe even all (probably not all, this is crypto) if they ever got back to the highs. Bitcoin hit $72.75k this Mar. There’s been selling into every market rally since, even as clear fundamental catalysts appear (the same ones as for gold). And as this happens, market positioning gets cleaner. 

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/13/2024 – 21:00

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

Number Of Apple Vision Pro Apps Hit By “Significant Slowdown” As Demand Plunges

Number Of Apple Vision Pro Apps Hit By “Significant Slowdown” As Demand Plunges

The number of new apps released for Apple Vision Pro has slid since the mixed-reality headset became available for purchase on February 2. Without killer apps, the success of the over-priced goggles will flounder.

Wall Street Journal reports that the Vision Pro app ecosystem has experienced a significant slowdown in growth since the launch. Demand for the base $3,499 Vision Pro has been out of reach for many consumers struggling to survive in an era of elevated inflation and high interest rates. The glasses were likely mispriced, hence sluggish demand. 

More from WSJ: 

There has been a significant slowdown in new apps coming to the Vision Pro every month. Only 10 apps were introduced to the Vision App Store in September, down from the hundreds released in the first two months of the device’s launch, according to analytics firm Appfigures.

It has counted around 1,770 apps available for the Vision Pro in the App Store as of September. Only 34% of those apps are built specifically for the Vision Pro, while the rest are versions of existing Apple apps that have additional Vision Pro functionality, Appfigures said.

Apple said in August that there are more than 2,500 apps built for the Vision Pro. Appfigures said the discrepancy between these two figures could be, in part, because some apps aren’t used enough to register on usage charts, making them difficult for the analytics firm to detect.

A visualization from the Journal shows a large decline in the number of new apps released for Vision Pro every month since its launch.

Source: WSJ

App growth for Vision Pro has fallen off a cliff, and that’s mostly because demand for the futuristic ski goggles costs too damn much for the consumer. It’s literally worth a couple of months of rent or three months of car payments for many average consumers. 

Even though Apple hasn’t officially released Vision Pro sales figures, TF International Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo (best known for gathering intelligence from his contacts in Apple’s Asian supply chain) wrote in a note in late April that shipments for the goggles will be around 400k and 450k units for the year, down from earlier estimates of 700k and 800k.

Separately, Counterpoint Research wrote in a report that Vision Pro’s second-quarter sales figures imploded 80% from the first quarter.

“To catch on, the Vision Pro would need killer apps, which helped turn the iPhone into one of the most popular consumer products in history,” WSJ noted. 

However, as we previously noted… 

Just like the AI-enabled iPhone 16, another bust for Apple. 

Yet, Apple’s market capitalization is somehow at $3.5 trillion.

Moar buybacks, Tim Cook. 

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/13/2024 – 20:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/rmBg1OL Tyler Durden

Private Equity Firms Are Now Acquiring Skilled Trade Small Businesses

Private Equity Firms Are Now Acquiring Skilled Trade Small Businesses

Turns out those years at vocational school and going into business instead of going to college are starting to pay off. 

Other than having the benefit of learning a trade, private equity has now taken a keen interest in buying skilled trade small businesses, according to a new report from the Wall Street Journal

Private equity firms nationwide are acquiring home services companies, such as HVAC, plumbing, and electrical businesses, aiming to create larger, more profitable operations.

This trend moves these companies away from family ownership, offering mom-and-pop businesses significant payouts, unlike previous generations where firms were typically passed down to children or employees.

Brian Rassel, a partner at the Detroit-based Huron Capital told WSJ: “You don’t need to go to Silicon Valley to have a successful career and entrepreneurial opportunities.”

Rite Way owner Aaron Rice / Photo: WSJ

 Adam Hanover, chairman of Redwood Services, added: “Everybody and their uncle owns an HVAC business in the private-equity space today.”

The Journal report says that Redwood has acquired 35 companies in the past four years, from smaller businesses, typically bought for around $1 million, to larger firms like Rite Way, valued at about $20 million, where it takes majority stakes.

Rite Way, has thrived under Redwood, growing annual revenue from $30 million to $70 million. The company expanded beyond HVAC into plumbing and electrical services, benefiting from increased capital, more service trucks, higher staffing, and new apprenticeship and sales training programs.

Redwood also brought in accountants to focus on profitability. According to Redwood CEO Richard Lewis, small business owners often struggle to manage these tasks or fail to update pricing. Redwood reviews pricing quarterly to stay competitive.

The trades offer good wages for workers without college degrees and can serve as stepping stones for aspiring entrepreneurs. HVAC worker Aaron Rice, who co-founded his plumbing business in 2012 after overcoming addiction and prison time, sold the company when it had 18 employees and $3 million in annual revenue.

He said the sale has given him peace of mind, telling WSJ: “I want to hunt, fish, drink beer and cook meat.” 

You can read the Journal’s full report here

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/13/2024 – 19:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/FyeW2Zq Tyler Durden

Voters See A Choice Between “Leadership” And “Likability”: Gallup

Voters See A Choice Between “Leadership” And “Likability”: Gallup

By Lidia Saad of Gallup.

Recent ratings of the 2024 presidential candidates’ personal qualities show Vice President Kamala Harris with a strong advantage over former President Donald Trump in U.S. voter perceptions of being likable, while holding smaller leads for having strong moral character and being honest and trustworthy. Trump outpaces Harris in perceptions of being a strong and decisive leader and being able to get things done.

Despite this clear image distinction — Harris credited with character, Trump with leadership — neither candidate has a perceptual edge in voters’ beliefs that each possesses five other presidential competencies: managing the government effectively, displaying good judgment in a crisis, having a vision for the country’s future, caring about the needs of people, and being someone people would be proud to have as president.

These findings are from a Sept. 16-28 Gallup survey, conducted after the Sept. 10 presidential debate that gave Americans their one opportunity of the campaign to see the candidates interact.

Perceptions of Trump are similar to what Gallup found at the same time in 2020, except voters are now slightly more likely to believe he would display good judgment in a crisis, up six percentage points to 52%.

Trump’s rating for being honest and trustworthy is higher now than his 38% rating in 2016 when he won the election. However, even at that lower level, Trump’s honesty rating exceeded Hillary Clinton’s, at 31%. This changed in 2020 when, despite seeing his “honest” score improve to 41%, Trump trailed Joe Biden by 11 points on this character dimension.

In fact, in the three presidential election cycles since 2012, when Gallup first measured presidential qualities this way, the candidate with the higher honest/trustworthy score has won. Other characteristics have not been asked frequently enough to observe their track record.

Summary Assessments Show Mixed Results

Harris leads Trump by 51% to 45% on a different question that asks, more broadly, whether each candidate has “the personality and leadership qualities a president should have.” Thus, although Trump separately does better on the “strong and decisive leader” item, Harris’ higher ratings for being likable and of strong moral character may count more in voters’ answers to this question.

At the same time, the two are tied in Americans’ views of each on the issues. About half (49%) say they agree with Trump “on the issues that matter most to you,” and 47% agree with Harris.

Democrats See Harris in Better Terms Than Republicans See Trump

Most partisans believe their own candidate possesses the positive characteristics tested in the poll, but Democrats are more convinced than Republicans about certain ones.

Between 89% and 95% of Democrats say each characteristic applies to Harris. And while Republicans show similarly high regard for Trump on most of the traits, fewer than nine in 10 agree he is honest and trustworthy (84%), has strong moral character (82%) or is likable (74%).

Independents’ views are similar to those of all voters nationally on most of the qualities. Still, they are slightly less positive than Americans as a whole about Harris being caring, honest and trustworthy, or a strong and decisive leader. Independents are also less likely than the national average to say Trump has strong moral character, but they show slightly above-average belief that he is a strong leader.

More Voters Credit Harris Than Trump With Running an Effective Campaign

While Trump is tied with Harris in perceptions of being able to manage the federal government, he trails his Democratic opponent by 10 points in ratings of how they are running their campaigns. Whereas 56% of registered voters say Harris is doing an excellent or good job at this, 46% rate Trump as highly. The timing of the poll, coming soon after the presidential debate, could have influenced this result.

Trump’s deficit on this measure is due mainly to political independents, whose 41% excellent/good rating of his campaign is much closer to the 15% he receives from Democrats than to his 86% from Republicans. At the same time, independents’ 53% rating of Harris’ campaign falls squarely between the two partisan groups (90% from Democrats and 21% from Republicans).

Neither Candidate Viewed as More Politically Extreme

Even as Trump attempts to define Harris by some of the more liberal aspects of her record while Harris links Trump to the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the candidates appear to be at a draw in terms of painting each other as extremist. Close to half of voters, 48%, say Trump’s political views are “too conservative,” while a statistically equivalent 51% call Harris “too liberal.” Most others see each as about right.

Notably, Harris is less likely to be branded “too liberal” than Biden was before he exited the race in June, when 58% said this of him. However, slightly more voters view Harris as too liberal than recent Democratic nominees Barack Obama in both 2008 (45%) and 2012 (47%) and John Kerry in 2004 (47%). She is also more likely to be called too liberal than Al Gore was in 2000 (35%), as well as Bill Clinton in 1992 (33%) and 1996 (36%). The question wasn’t asked about Hillary Clinton in 2016.

At 48%, Trump is more likely to be rated “too conservative” than were the Republicans who ran for president before him, including Mitt Romney (43% in 2012), John McCain (35% in 2008) and George W. Bush (40% in 2004).

Democrats More Satisfied With Harris Than Republicans Are With Trump

More Democrats, including independents who lean Democratic, say they are generally pleased with Harris as their party’s presidential nominee than Republicans and Republican leaners say they are pleased with Trump as theirs, 85% vs. 73%.

Democrats’ enthusiasm for Harris is in stark contrast to how they felt about Biden when he was still their party’s presumptive nominee in June. At that point, barely a third of Democrats (34%) were pleased with Biden, while 65% wished someone else were the nominee.

Today’s broad Democratic support for Harris being the nominee also contrasts with how Democrats felt in September 2016 after Hillary Clinton was nominated. Then, just over half (55%) said they were pleased, while 43% would rather have had someone else.

Republicans are about as pleased today to have Trump as their presidential nominee as they were in 2020 (74%), but they are happier now than when he first ran in 2016. In September of that year, barely half of Republicans (52%) were pleased with having Trump lead the GOP ticket.

Trump Hasn’t Inherited Biden’s Age Problem

The age of the candidates was a potential campaign liability for the Democrats earlier this year, when two-thirds of Americans in June thought the 81-year-old Biden was too old to be president. Far fewer, 37%, said the same about 78-year-old Trump.

Yet, despite Trump now being the older candidate by nearly 20 years, the percentage saying he’s too old hasn’t changed much since facing Harris, with 41% expressing that view today.

As the oldest Republican nominee, Trump is still more likely to be viewed as too old than John McCain was at age 72 in 2008 (20%) and Bob Dole was at age 73 in 1996 (32%).

Harris Compares Favorably With Biden

In addition to Democrats viewing her far more favorably as a candidate and ideologically than they did Biden, Harris is performing significantly better nationally on two other metrics than Biden was before he withdrew from the race.

  • Voters are more likely to say they agree with her on the issues than did so for Biden in June (47% vs. 37%, respectively).
  • Voters are more likely to say Harris has the leadership qualities needed in a president than thought Biden did (51% vs. 38%).

Biden’s readings are from a June 3-23 poll when his presidential approval rating was 38%. Following his withdrawal on July 21, the president’s job approval rating rose to 43% in an August Gallup poll. It dipped back to 39% in early September but is 45% in the latest poll. That’s his highest approval rating since August 2021, just before the United States’ troubled pullout of military forces from Afghanistan.

Bottom Line

Trump and Harris look evenly matched overall, with neither possessing knockout advantages in voters’ ratings of their images, perceptions of their ideology, agreement on issues, ratings for how they are conducting their campaigns, or perceptions that one or the other is too old. If the race comes down to which candidate can get better results in the Oval Office, Trump may have the upper hand. But if voters perceive leadership more holistically, factoring in their perceptions of each candidate’s personality and character, Harris may have the edge.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/13/2024 – 18:40

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

Top Cushman & Wakefield Real Estate Broker Has Phone Seized By NY Prosecutors In Adams Probe

Top Cushman & Wakefield Real Estate Broker Has Phone Seized By NY Prosecutors In Adams Probe

As if commercial real estate in New York didn’t have enough problems…

It was reported at the end of last week that the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has seized the phone of a broker working for Cushman & Wakefield, one of the world’s largest commercial real estate services firms, according to Bisnow.

Investigators from Bragg’s office have seized electronic devices from a Cushman & Wakefield broker linked to the city’s office leases and a close friend of Mayor Adams’ top adviser, according to The New York Times.

On September 27, investigators confiscated the phones of Cushman & Wakefield Vice Chair Diana Boutross, Mayor’s Chief Advisor Ingrid Lewis-Martin, and Jesse Hamilton, head of the city’s real estate department, at JFK Airport after their trip to Japan. Lewis-Martin and Boutross have been longtime friends, her attorney, Arthur Aidala, told Bisnow.

Aidala commented: “There were eight friends who decided to go to one of the biggest tourist countries in the world to just explore on a long-planned friendship trip.” 

A spokesperson for Cushman & Wakefield said: “We have a longstanding, 15-year relationship with the city that spans across multiple mayoral administrations and we are proud of the important work we’ve done for DCAS.”

The Bisnow report says that Boutross oversees Cushman & Wakefield’s account with the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, the agency responsible for leasing government office space.

Her resume includes work with The Durst Organization and The Trump Organization. Cushman & Wakefield has held a $40M contract with the city since 2014, linked to a Bronx 911 facility, Crain’s reported.

The firm also handled major city office leases, including a 640K SF deal at 110 William St. last year. Investigators seized devices from Lewis-Martin and Hamilton and searched Lewis-Martin’s home, issuing her a subpoena related to Adams’ recent indictment.

“These searches and any negative connotations associated with them or this preplanned vacation are baseless. In due time, all the facts will come out and will be supported by evidence and demonstrate everything was done properly,” Aidala concluded. 

 

 

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/13/2024 – 18:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3IWiZFo Tyler Durden

Why Silver Investors Should Pay Close Attention To Copper

Why Silver Investors Should Pay Close Attention To Copper

Authored by Jesse Colombo via Substack

For most investors, gold and silver are inseparable, like peanut butter and jelly or two peas in a pod. This mindset leads them to look at gold for signals on silver’s future price movements, and vice versa. Although silver’s price is indeed strongly influenced by gold, few realize the significant role that copper also plays in shaping silver’s price movements. In this article, I’ll examine how copper prices impact silver and show how bullish trends in copper should help drive silver prices higher in the coming years.

To understand the price relationship between two assets, examining their correlations can be highly insightful. Not surprisingly, gold and silver exhibit a strong correlation—.771 over the past five years and an even higher .917 over the past year. What’s particularly striking, however, is the strong correlation between copper and silver—.725 over the past five years and an impressive .878 over the past year. This strong correlation is a compelling reason for silver investors to monitor copper as closely as they do gold.

The strong price relationship between silver and copper is clearly reflected in long-term charts of the silver-to-copper ratio, which has remained remarkably consistent over time, despite periodic fluctuations around the average of 6:

The close relationship between silver and copper can be attributed to factors influencing both supply and demand. From a supply standpoint, silver is seldom mined on its own. Instead, it is typically a byproduct of copper and other metal mining, such as lead, zinc, and gold. On the demand side, both silver and copper have substantial industrial applications, driving significant industrial demand for both metals.

While silver is often grouped with gold, it differs significantly in its demand profile. The majority of silver demand (51%) comes from industrial use, compared to just 18% from investment. Furthermore, the rapid growth in industrial demand for silver likely explains the rising correlation between silver and copper in recent years. In contrast, gold demand is largely fueled by investment (44.57%) and jewelry (48.74%)—with much of that jewelry also serving as a form of investment, especially in developing countries like India and China.

Both copper and silver are far more sensitive to the economic cycle compared to gold. For instance, when a recession looms, both copper and silver prices tend to decline in anticipation of reduced industrial demand. Conversely, when the economic cycle is on an upswing, both copper and silver prices typically rise in anticipation of increased industrial demand. Gold, by contrast, is traditionally viewed as a safe-haven asset that investors turn to during times of crisis.

The strong price relationship between silver and copper is likely amplified by trading algorithms that predict movements in one metal based on the price of the other, often creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. For instance, when copper begins to rally, certain algorithms will buy silver, causing both metals to rise in tandem. Although anecdotal, I’ve often observed silver track copper even more closely than gold, both on intraday movements and over longer timeframes. For instance, I’ve often seen silver rise with copper while gold stayed flat or declined, and at other times, I’ve observed silver dropping along with copper even as gold rallied. I’ll highlight a recent noteworthy example of this phenomenon using the charts below.

As you are probably aware, gold has experienced a remarkable surge over the past year, climbing by $860 per ounce—a nearly 50% increase:

Like gold, copper experienced a strong rally in the spring, but it peaked on May 20th and quickly reversed, wiping out most of its gains—unlike gold, which continued to rise. Copper bottomed on August 8th and has rebounded quite a bit since then and is now in a confirmed uptrend once again:

Finally, we come to silver, which, like gold and copper, saw a sharp rally in the spring. Like copper, silver peaked on May 20th and experienced a sharp decline, though not as severe as copper’s drop. While silver and copper suffered throughout the summer, gold steadily continued its ascent. Silver, like copper, bottomed on August 8th and has been staging an impressive recovery ever since.

Silver’s price movements are essentially a hybrid of both gold and copper’s market trends. To test this theory, I averaged the prices of gold and copper, adjusting copper’s price (by multiplying by 540) to prevent gold’s higher price from exerting undue influence. Then, I created a chart based on that adjusted average. Sure enough, the resulting chart bears a striking resemblance to silver’s price chart:

Moreover, the five-year correlation with silver stands at a solid 0.842, while the one-year correlation is an even more impressive 0.956. This is higher than the correlation between gold and silver (0.771 over five years and 0.917 over the past year) and even stronger than the correlation between copper and silver (0.725 over five years and 0.878 over the past year). This analysis highlights the importance of monitoring both gold and copper to gain a clearer understanding of silver’s price movements. In addition, performing technical analysis on the chart of the copper-gold average seems to be a useful tool for confirming and anticipating silver’s price movements

Along with bullish technicals, copper’s fundamentals also point to a positive outlook. As the world increasingly embraces AI and “green” technologies such as electric vehicles, solar energy, and wind farms, demand for copper is expected to surge due to its essential role in wiring and other electrical applications.

For example, copper demand in the transport sector is expected to rise 11.1 times by 2050 compared to 2022, thanks to electric vehicles that contain over a mile of copper wiring. Additionally, demand for copper to expand the global electricity grid is projected to increase 4.8 times by 2050. By 2030, a copper supply gap nearing 10 million tonnes is forecasted. French billionaire and commodities trader Pierre Andurand recently predicted that copper prices could soar to $40,000 per tonne in the coming years—a more than fourfold increase from the current price of $9,308 per tonne. All of these factors should be bullish for both silver and copper.

In conclusion, the overlooked relationship between copper and silver plays a critical role in understanding silver’s price movements, alongside the more commonly recognized influence of gold. As copper continues to rebound, both technical and fundamental factors suggest that silver is poised to benefit as well. With increasing industrial demand, especially in sectors like electric vehicles and renewable energy, copper’s expected boom is likely to drive silver prices higher as well. Investors would do well to monitor copper closely, as its future movements may signal the next major leg up in silver’s bull market.

Also watch the video presentation about this concept:

If you enjoyed this article, please visit Jesse’s Substack for more content like this

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/13/2024 – 17:30

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

Donald Trump Says He’s Doing The Joe Rogan Podcast

Donald Trump Says He’s Doing The Joe Rogan Podcast

During an interview on the Nelk Boys’ Full Send Podcast, Donald Trump said he plans to appear on the Joe Rogan Experience, according to the Washington Examiner

When asked by host Kyle Forgeard if he would consider going on Rogan’s podcast, Trump responded last week: “Oh sure, I think I’m doing it actually.” He later confirmed, “Yeah, I am.”

Rogan has yet to confirm the booking, the Examiner noted. The discussion seemed to start last week after this article noting Rogan was running out of time to interview Trump. Elon Musk sent the discussion to the stratosphere when he said last week: “It will happen”. 

Musk made the post responding to our article, “Joe Rogan Has 25 Days To Interview Donald Trump“, submitted by Zero Hedge contributor Quoth the Raven, who wrote on Tuesday: “I can’t listen to another 4 years of Rogan bitch about how bad things have gotten if he won’t talk to Trump.”

Rogan has been notoriously uninterested in the interview, which he has been asked about multiple times over the last half decade. Back in June 2023, when asked about the idea, Rogan said to Lex Fridman:

“I have had the opportunity to have him on my show, more than once, and I have said no every time. I don’t want to help him, I’m not interested in helping him.”

By August 2023, it looked like Rogan might be changing his tune, as he told Valuetainment’s Patrick Bet-David:

“I don’t know. Maybe. At a certain point in time. Just like, it would be interesting to hear his perspective on a lot of things.”

Since then, Rogan has stated his admiration for RFK, Jr., who is now supporting Trump. He has also given a platform to Tulsi Gabbard, who is campaigning with, and for, Trump. The idea that Rogan wouldn’t interview Trump, who has recently done podcasts with Theo Von and Andrew Schultz, to name a few, seems bizarre. 

QTR wrote on his blog last Tuesday night that “If anything, an interview would give Rogan an opportunity to push Trump on the things that he disagrees with him on. Bring him on and give him hell if you want, Joe. Rogan could even extend an invitation to the Harris campaign and invite her on for a separate appearance if she wants.”

“I don’t want to pretend to understand what the problem is that Rogan has with Trump, but all I know is that it’s not bigger than the potential consequences of this election,” he wrote.

“After listening to Rogan’s podcast for nearly 2,000 episodes, I’m confident in my assessment that he’s a person of integrity and a man of character. The truth is, whether he likes it or not, putting his personal animus aside and getting Trump on the largest media platform in the world can only make an impact for the next month or so.”

He concluded: “After the November election, especially if Trump loses, there will be no point — and it’ll be impossible to listen to Rogan crow about the lunatics on the left any further, knowing he didn’t talk to Trump when he had the chance. So let’s get real, Joewhat the hell are you waiting for?”

We may have our answer soon…

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/13/2024 – 16:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/j3ocgWX Tyler Durden

Beware Of Kamala Harris Neo-Marxist Idea

Beware Of Kamala Harris Neo-Marxist Idea

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

On numerous occasions, Kamala Harris has spoken in public about the difference between equality and equity. Equality of opportunity is not enough. Even socialist equality, where everyone begins at the same level, falls short. She has repeatedly defined equity as her policy of redistribution, which allows everyone to end up at the same place. When criticizing the often-debated idea of equality, she stated that “the problem with that is that not everybody’s starting in the same place.” Equity, for her, is the solution. She said, “Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.”

Anyone who understands the complexity of the economy knows that this is a ludicrous concept. However, it may sound appealing to the uninformed. Those that feel they suffer a disadvantage due to their humble origins may find that equality of opportunity is not enough, considering the social and economic hardships they have endured. Nevertheless, those who find this message appealing should think twice, because those policies hurt them the most.

Starting and ending in the same place makes everyone poorer, except for those in government who decide how everyone should start and end. Those politicians become obscenely rich.

Starting out from the same place is unfair. Ending in the same place is catastrophic. Political imposition causes parents and families who have saved for their children to lose all their hard-earned savings when they start over. You may think that the government will give each child what they need. However, when you grant a government sufficient power to provide for your needs, it also determines what your actual needs are. By destroying the incentives to save and prosper, you also destroy the wealth created to conduct social policies. However, when the government can impose equal starting points and outcome measures, it has all the incentives to keep as much wealth as possible among the political elite. As wealth and prosperity decline, all the government will redistribute is misery.

When Kamala Harris utters these words, she demonstrates her endorsement of the neo-Marxist ideology and disavows her status as a “capitalist,” a stance she has declared in recent weeks to counteract criticism of her socialist messages.

Capitalism and free markets cannot exist when the government decides the start and end points.

Through a classic oversimplification, Neo-Marxism promotes the concept of equity, which entails equal start and end points. If both start from the same point, both will be incentivised to arrive at the same place, which is more prosperous for both and therefore fair. If both people start at the same level and realize their actions will equalize them, how will they react? Give up. No athlete would ever attempt to win if they knew they would all end up in the same position. Eliminating the possibility of losing also destroys the chance of winning and cancels progress in the meantime. The neo-Marxist theory uses this example to argue that, at the very least, they begin at the same time and place. However, that is also a fallacy. The athletes who started the race arrived there through a process of elimination, which required enormous talent and effort and certainly no equality from the start.

The poor and the middle class get poorer. The government officials become rich. Kamala Harris’ dream of equity embodies exactly what has always happened in every socialist economy. A tyrannical government imposes its policies through repression, causing misery and impoverishment.

Equality is unfair. Equity is impossible. When you demand either, the outcome is always worse for you.

Imposing equity destroys all motivation to improve and progress, eliminates meritocracy, and imposes the worst inequality, which is the result of political privilege.

Allowing governments to decide the start and ending points for all citizens is tyranny. It is simply suicidal to think that politicians know exactly what you need, when you need to start, and where to finish. Politicians do not have more or better information about the needs of the entire economy and even less about everyone’s requirements. Therefore, when faced with the inevitable discontent, the government will always resort to violence and oppression… for your own good.

This social engineering fable of complete equality of outcome is, of course, impossible in a free society and therefore requires a tyrannical and repressive state that controls every aspect of citizens’ lives. Harris has often repeated in public these neo-Marxist ideas of social engineering, which invariably result in poverty for all. Even if she says she is a capitalist, the truth is that her entire economic program is based on price controls, government intervention, and imposition. In a recent interview at CNBC, she declined to elaborate if she would implement price controls, which have destroyed economies all over the world, only to resort to the fallacy of “a few companies profiting from the desperation of the American people.” More free markets, increased competition, and increased merit and reward for success are what America needs to foster prosperity. The American people’s true desperation will surface when they decide to experiment with neo-Marxist social engineering and socialism to see how it works. This foolish thought can only come from privilege, thinking that the wealth and opportunities that have been created in America will remain the same, eliminating all incentives to thrive.

Kamala Harris maintains her message of equality of outcome. Tim Waltz, Kamala Harris’ vice-presidential candidate, has also reiterated these principles in public. It would be erroneous to assume that she won’t implement these policies, given her recent ambiguous moderation of her remarks.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/13/2024 – 16:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/cBn5poi Tyler Durden

Some 100 US Troops Will Deploy In Israel To Man Anti-Air Batteries

Some 100 US Troops Will Deploy In Israel To Man Anti-Air Batteries

On Saturday we were among the first outlets to report that the United States is preparing to deploy THAAD anti-ballistic missile systems in Israel, a major development which will put American troops directly in harm’s way (or… boots on the ground) amid the tense showdown with Iran. 

The Pentagon in follow-up statements to the NY Times has confirmed the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) systems will be sent to Israel, and that about 100 American troops will operate them.

US Army Europe

This means that at least 100 American soldiers will be placed in positions likely to be targeted by another potential barrage of ballistic missiles from Iran, at a moment Israel is preparing its own counterattack in the wake of the the Oct.1st strikes (which witnessed about 200 missiles sent) on Israeli territory from the Islamic Republic. Each full missile battery and associated systems cost American taxpayers some $800 million to $1 billion.

All of this follows the Pentagon having weeks ago deployed thousands more US troops to the broader region amid escalation in Lebanon. Some of those forces were sent to Cyprus, and others likely to Gulf countries or possibly Jordan.

The Pentagon has tried to deflect from language which portrays the obvious: that without Congressional authorization American troops are entering an escalating overseas war zone to defend a foreign country.

The NY Times acknowledged the following exchange:

When asked on Sunday, Mr. Biden said only that he had ordered the Pentagon to deploy the system “to defend Israel. General Ryder said in his statement that the battery would “augment Israel’s integrated air defense system.” It was not immediately clear how quickly the missile defense system and troops announced on Sunday would arrive in Israel.

“This action underscores the United States’ ironclad commitment to the defense of Israel, and to defend Americans in Israel, from any further ballistic missile attacks by Iran,” the statement said. “It is part of the broader adjustments the U.S. military has made in recent months to support the defense of Israel and protect Americans from attacks by Iran and Iranian-aligned militias.”

So interestingly this is the new talking point from the national security state: Americans are being deployed to defend Americans who happen to still be in Israel. This certainly marks a new and interesting rationale.

This big “gift” is being sent to Israel even after rising tensions between Netanyahu and Biden…

One regional observers has observed that this is Netanyahu’s longtime dream come true:

Journalist Séamus Malekafzali argued the U.S. deployment of troops and the THAAD system shows that “the Israelis are clearly planning something for Iran that is going to cause a retaliation they know their own systems are unable to take.”

“U.S. troops being deployed to Israel in this matter is seismic,” Malekafzali added. “The U.S. military is now inextricably involved in this war, directly, without any illusions of barriers. Netanyahu is as close as he has ever been to his ultimate wish: making the U.S. fight Iran on Israel’s behalf.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Saturday had actually issued some soft criticism of Israel after two UN peacekeeping troops in south Lebanon were wounded by Israeli fire an a UNIFIL command post.

Austin “expressed his deep concern about reports that Israeli forces fired on U.N. peacekeeping positions in Lebanon as well as by the reported death of two Lebanese soldiers” in a phone call with his Israeli counterpart.

As for the missile battery contingent of 100 US troops being sent to Israel, likely there were already US special forces and commanders who have been in Tel Aviv and near Gaza in an “advisory” role. But this clearly marks a new much more direct role of US forces in the conflict, especially given the Iranians have already threatened that if hostilities escalate, anti-air batteries in Israel will come under attack.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/13/2024 – 15:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/pF3YaLq Tyler Durden

A Hard Rain Is Going To Fall

A Hard Rain Is Going To Fall

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The core skill going forward – frugality – is largely a forgotten skillset. Time to get busy while we still have time.

There are core systemic dynamics that are impervious to technological or financial gimmicks, and as they play out, a hard rain is going to fall:

1) The credit-business cycle. The credit-business cycle has been pushed forward for the past 15 years, and arguably for the past 24 years. The last “real recession”–the organic contraction of credit and risk-taking that drains the excesses from the economy and financial system over the course of several years–occurred 43 years ago in 1981-82.

The mechanism for pushing this essential cleansing is moral hazard, the disconnection of risk from consequence by unprecedented central bank monetary stimulus and central state fiscal stimulus. The net result of moral hazard is the excesses of risk and debt are rewarded and expand to even more precarious heights, ensuring the eventual downturn will be far more destructive than had the system been allowed to fully re-set in 2000-02 and again in 2008-09.

2) The reversal of financialization and the collapse of the Everything Bubble and the wealth effect. The commoditization of credit, leverage and speculation is a boon when first introduced to a credit-starved economy, but once the productive investments have been made, financialization continues expanding into extremes of debt, leverage and speculation.

Central banks have used one trick to keep the expansion going: they dropped interest rates to zero, enabling borrowers and speculators to borrow / leverage more with the same income. This expansion of credit boosted assets to extreme valuations as all this new “money” chased a limited quantity of assets. The credit-asset bubble increases the value of the collateral–the house, the stock portfolio, etc.–which then supports additional borrowing / leverage.

The payoff was not just putting off the credit cycle–the credit-asset bubble generated a massive wealth effect for those who owned the assets before the bubble multiplied their value. The top 10% who own 93% of all stocks have seen their net worth expand by tens of trillions of dollars, enabling their spending to account for roughly half of all consumption.

The resulting extreme of wealth-income inequality has social repercussions that are not yet fully realized, but the pressure on those left behind is mounting.

Interest rate cycles are multi-year affairs, generally running between 15 and 40 years. The current cycle–from 1981 to the present–is extremely long in tooth, reflecting the financial repression of interest rates over the past 15 years.

Nothing lasts forever, regardless of what policy is applied. Interest rates are rising and will continue to rise.

This means that central banks’ favorite trick to put off the credit cycle–lowering interest rates to zero–is slipping out of reach. This means that central banks will no longer be able to keep the credit-asset bubble inflated. It will deflate as interest rates rise, unpayable debt is defaulted and risk emerges in force.

Once the credit-asset bubble deflates, the wealth effect reverses, and consumption plummets as all those who rode the bubble higher are now poorer. The net result is the economy slides into recession.

Central states have piled up such a mountain of obligations and debt that their ability to stimulate the economy out of a much-needed cleansing of bad debt and speculative excess is limited.

So neither central banks and central states have the capacity to push the credit cycle forward any longer. The games have all been played and now the bill is due and payable.

3) The reversal of globalization. central banks were given the one-time luxury of lowering interest rates to zero by one dynamic: the emergence of China as the global exporter of deflation and a new “credit impulse.” As the developed economies shifted production to China, costs declined and profits soared, fueling the stock market bubble and offsetting the inflationary pressures generated by expanding credit and fiscal stimulus.

China has now matured to the point that it no longer exports either deflation or the credit impulse. Now the inflationary pressures of expanding credit and fiscal stimulus are not being offset, so they’re finally manifesting globally. There is no replacement of China’s one-time gift of deflation and credit expansion, and so inflation and interest rates will rise.

Throwing more money into the system will only accelerate inflation and interest rates. That game is over: checkmate.

4) The limits of scale. The latest technological advance on the lab bench rarely scales up: vaporizing plastic waste is nice, but the cost and inherent limitations of this “advance” mean it will remain a curiosity, not a global solution that magically eliminates the 400+ million tons of plastic waste that isn’t recycled, out of the 450 million tons of plastic produced annually.

Even when a new technology may make financial and practical sense, the time and money required to scale it up t useful levels are significant. Consider the “next big thing” in nuclear power, Small Modular Reactors. The first one is slated to come online in 2030, but such projects are typically plagued by cost and time over-runs in the early stages of development.

If the goal is to build 100 such reactors, how log will that take, and how much capital will it consume?

Will it take a decade? or two decades?

The point here is we’re entering a credit cycle recession with the infrastructure we have, and improvements will be incremental, time-consuming and expensive, draining capital from consumption, in effect deepening the recession. This is the dynamic I endeavor to illuminate in the 1970s, when vast sums of capital were invested in pollution mitigation and the upgrading of the nation’s industrial base, with only modest payback in the near-term. The real benefits only accrued decades later.

A similar upgrading of the nation’s industrial base is starting, but it will be a drain on consumption for decades to come.

5) The downsides of centralization. Optimizing profits has relentlessly driven centralization on every scale: a handful of corporations dominate every sector, and facilities–from slaughterhouses to chemical storage–are geographically centralized, inherently increasing the risk of “normal accidents” triggering catastrophic losses. This reality was explained by Charles Perrow in his book The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial, and Terrorist Disasters.

Decentralizing the economy increases costs, reducing profitability and pushing prices higher. This is the cost of resilience and redundancy. The cost of centralization is invisible until it’s too late.

6) Climate extremes. Setting aside the debate about causal factors, that extremes of weather are increasing in number and intensity globally is placing agriculture and infrastructure at greater risk of cascading, non-linear avalanches of consequences. Centralization adds to these risks.

Add all this up and we have a recipe for global recession in which inflation and interest rates rise, The Everything Bubble pops, possibly violently, the wealth effect vanishes into thin air, consumption plummets and job losses soar. Central banks and central states will not be able to push the credit cycle (i.e. recession) forward any longer, and if they try to do so, they will only make the decline more severe and painful.

I often post this chart of the S-Curve to emphasize that cycles are organic and cannot be reversed or pushed forward forever. Pushing them forward has only increased the bill that must now be paid.

Our hubristic faith in the god-like powers of technology and central banks / states creates an illusion that the credit cycle turning is the result of a “policy error,” when in fact it’s just the way systems function. We’ve created extremely fragile, centralized systems optimized for profit, and operated on the false premise that all systems are infinitely controllable given the right technology or policy.

The result of our hubris is that the turning of systemic cycles will be more disruptive and painful than was necessary, as a direct result of our attempt to manipulate / rig the system to suit our expedient, short-term desires.

A hard rain is going to fall, and we serve our best interests by preparing for the coming storm.

The core skill going forward–frugality–is largely a forgotten skillset. Time to get busy while we still have time.

*  *  *

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/13/2024 – 15:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/qi1jZPW Tyler Durden