iftttwall

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

California Supreme Court ruled on Nov. 15 to toss out the state’s lawsuit against Huntington Beach’s voter ID law, but they expect the state attorney general to continue fighting it.

“Honestly, it’s a great victory for Huntington Beach, and as I’ve said, I think it’s a black eye to the state,” City Attorney Michael Gates told The Epoch Times on Nov. 18.

The state could refile the lawsuit within 20 days, but Gates confirmed on Monday that the city is “moving forward with the voter ID program.”

The state’s Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit brought in April by Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber. The lawsuit alleged that the Huntington Beach law passed by voters in March requiring voter ID starting in 2026 violated state election law.

Bonta and Weber also said it conflicted with a state law introduced by former state Sen. Dave Min of Irvine that banned local governments from requiring voter identification in elections.

Min, who is expected to win a seat in the U.S. House to replace former Rep. Katie Porter, introduced the law in February after the state threatened legal action against the city. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it into law Sept. 29.

Huntington Beach’s request for the court’s dismissal was granted after justices considered the case on Thursday.

“The Court finds that this matter is not ripe for adjudication, as … the City’s Charter is permissive and discretionary in character, and thus currently presents no conflict with state elections law,” the state Supreme Court justices wrote in the order.

The Orange County city, located on the coast about 40 miles south of Los Angeles, is home to about 192,000 residents.

Huntington Beach’s voter ID requirement was an amendment to the city’s charter that voters approved on March 5. The amendment defines voters as citizens of the United States, residents of Huntington Beach, and at least 18 years old.

It also states that if a conflict between the city’s charter and California’s election code arises, the city’s charter “shall prevail.”

The city’s charter serves as a city’s constitution, outlining the local government’s powers and responsibilities.

Bonta and Weber issued a joint letter to the Huntington Beach City Council in September 2023, urging it to reconsider the voter ID amendment and threatened to fight it before the measure was placed on the ballot.

“If the City moves forward and places it on the ballot, we stand ready to take appropriate action to ensure that voters’ rights are protected and state laws are enforced,” they wrote in the letter.

Although Bonta included the new state law in its arguments to the Supreme Court, the court didn’t see a conflict, according to the city attorney.

The California Constitution states charter cities have local jurisdiction over local elections, Gates said.

“We’re invoking our constitutional right.”

Huntington Beach became a charter city in 1937, according to the city. It decided to adopt a charter to ensure the state did not interfere with the city’s affairs or intrude on its oil revenue.

Bonta claimed in a statement issued Sunday about the decision that existing law prohibited cities from implementing voter ID. He claimed the court would eventually side with the state.

Bonta asserts in the state lawsuit that under existing state law and Min’s Senate Bill 1174, all local governments—including charter cities like Huntington Beach—are prohibited from implementing voter ID requirements and local laws that conflict with state laws governing a “statewide concern,” he said in the statement.

“Let me be clear: that has not changed. We disagree with the court’s decision that it is too early to bring our lawsuit and remain confident in the strength of our case.”

The decision allows the state to file an amended lawsuit within 20 days. Bonta’s office did not return a request for comment on Monday about whether he planned to refile it.

The city doesn’t plan to back down, according to a statement by Huntington Beach Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark posted on Facebook Friday.

“This is a great day for our City—we have not only successfully defended our City’s Voter ID law but also the rights of our residents from attacks by Governor Newsom and the State. We will not back down and will continue to fight for the City,” Van Der Mark stated.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg pushed Tuesday to create a new constitutional creature: the layaway president.

It was once common for stores to hold expensive items that you really wanted but could not make the payment.

So they were tagged and kept on the shelf until you were ready to redeem your item.

For Bragg, that leaves Donald Trump tagged until 2029.

In a filing before Manhattan Justice Juan Merchan, Bragg suggested that the court should stay the pending criminal case and defer any sentencing “until after the end of defendant’s upcoming presidential term.”

That would allow a city prosecutor to put a leash on a sitting president for four years.

Trump would govern by the grace of this local judge and district attorney.

In the meantime, pundits and politicians could portray the president as free on a type of work release program.

The suggestion is appalling to most of the people in the country, including the majority of voters who voted for Trump.

Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats ran on this and other cases in the election.

The result was arguably the largest jury decision in history.

That being said, I do not believe that the mere election of a president negates jury verdicts on 34 criminal counts.

But ample reasons exist to overturn those verdicts or to dismiss this case.

For example, after the verdict, the Supreme Court rendered its immunity decision barring the use of certain evidence against a president.

Some of the evidence used in the Manhattan case likely fell within one of the protected categories.

The prosecutors not only elicited testimony from Trump aides in the White House but then doubled down on the significance of that evidence in their closing arguments.

Merchan could declare that the court cannot rule out the impact of such testimony on the final verdict.

Even if Merchan, as expected, does not dismiss the case on the basis for the immunity decision, the trial was rife with reversible error.

This was a raw exercise of lawfare and Merchan did little to ensure fairness toward the defendant.

Yet none of those errors can be likely addressed until Merchan reaches final decisions on the motion to dismiss as well as the sentencing question.

While that will mean that Trump could, upon possible sentencing, formally become a convicted felon, the matter can then be finally pried out of the hands of Merchan and taken to higher courts for review.

The worst possible option is the one suggested by Bragg, who would adopt the popular persona of Trump’s turnkey.

The President would be seen by many as governing on a type of conditional status from one of the most politically compromised prosecutors in the country.

For Bragg and other Trump opponents, that may be far more satisfying than a sentencing now given the unlikelihood of any jail component.

After the years and millions spent on the case, it would be the ultimate buzz kill to have Trump sentenced to some fine or other non-carceral penalty.

Many Democrats want to have Trump govern with an asterisk of a “President pending sentencing.”

Instead, Trump would govern with the clock ticking toward a sentencing date.

It is a dangerous precedent. Such pending sentences can have a coercive impact on a president in dealing with given officials, including a state governor who might be willing to pardon a president.

Consider the effort of the governor of New York in restoring the lucrative state and local tax, or SALT, deductions.

There is no reason to believe that Trump would succumb to such leverage (and he has already indicated that he would consider the change).

However, any decision on policies like SALT would be the subject of speculation of whether a reduction in taxation was made in the hope of a reduction in incarceration.

Critics would suggest that New York is yanking on the leash to achieve policy advantages.

This is the same judge and prosecutor who gagged the leading candidate for the presidency in discussing aspects of the case in the months leading up to the election.

Now, they would allow him to govern pending their own suspended decisions on his future.

The Trump case was always a thrill kill for Bragg.

Under Bragg’s proposal, his supporters would prolong that thrill for four more years.

The cost, however, would be devastating for the country.

This country needs a president, not a president on layaway from the Manhattan District Attorney.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Authored by Emel Akan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

WASHINGTON—The Biden administration is urging Congress to allocate $100 billion in disaster relief to assist communities across the Southeast affected by the recent hurricanes Helene and Milton.

“With the Congress now back in session, I write to request urgently needed emergency funding to provide for an expeditious and meaningful Federal response to Hurricanes Helene and Milton and other natural disasters,” President Joe Biden said in a letter to Congress addressed to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Nov. 18.

The administration on Nov. 18 submitted a funding request that included $40 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), $24 billion for the Department of Agriculture, and $12 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“The last time Congress passed a comprehensive disaster package was in December of 2022 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023,” Shalanda Young, director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters during a call.

“Since then, numerous deadly storms and disasters have struck communities across the country. Those, of course, include hurricanes Milton and Helene.”

Biden is seeking funding for a total of 16 agencies, with additional allocations such as $8 billion for the Department of Transportation, $4 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency, $3 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services, and $2 billion for the Small Business Administration (SBA).

The request came after Johnson signaled that the House might delay appropriations bills until early 2025, when Republicans are set to control both Congress and the White House.

“We’re running out of clock; December 20 is the deadline,” Johnson told Shannon Bream on “Fox News Sunday” on Nov. 17. “We’re still hopeful we might be able to get that done, but if not, we will have a temporary measure. I think it would go into the first part of next year and allow us the necessary time to get this done.”

Young said the administration has already allocated funds for a range of other disasters, including the fires in Maui, tornadoes across the Midwest, the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, and severe storms in Alaska, Connecticut, Louisiana, New Mexico, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other states.

“That is why we need comprehensive disaster relief in order to ensure that our communities can fully recover and rebuild,” she said.

The funding request also includes critical support for the SBA’s disaster loan program for small businesses, which has completely exhausted its funding, according to Young.

“Homeowners also use this funding as a critical source of rebuilding,” she said.

During the call, FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell also emphasized the importance of the urgent funding, noting that “2024 has been a year of records.”

“For example, in 2023, we had 114 disaster declarations, and as of today, in 2024, we’ve had 172,” she said.

During a visit to Western North Carolina last month, Johnson pledged that Congress would take bipartisan action to support recovery efforts once cost assessments are completed.

When asked about a lawsuit against FEMA in Florida brought because emergency workers allegedly skipped houses with Trump signs in front, a senior administration official stated during a call on Nov. 18: “We’re not able at this time to comment on an open and active investigation. I can tell you that FEMA’s mission is to help people before, during, and after disasters.

“And our core values are fairness, respect, integrity, and compassion. And that is the ethos of the organization.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is banning transgender individuals from bathrooms on the House side of the Capitol Complex regardless of their gender identity.

The move comes after the election of Rep-elect Sarah McBride (D-DE), who will become the first transgender member of Congress.

“All single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House Office Buildings (like restrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms) are reserved only for individuals of that biological sex,” Johnson said of women with johnsons, adding “Like all policies, it’s enforceable. We have single-sex facilities for a reason. Women deserve women’s only spaces.”

“We’re not anti-anyone. We’re pro-woman. I think it’s an important policy for us to continue. It’s always been, I guess, an unwritten policy, but now it’s in writing,” Johnson continued.

The move comes after Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) introduced a resolution to ban transgender women from women’s bathrooms in the House.

As Axios notes, Mace pushed Johnson to include her measure, which charges the House sergeant-at-arms with enforcing the ban.

Biological men do not belong in private women’s spaces. Period. Full stop. End of story. pic.twitter.com/IhR7kExkBU

— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) November 18, 2024

Meanwhile, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) told colleagues at a Tuesday closed-door GOP conference meeting that she might get into a “physical altercation” if she’s forced to share the bathroom with a trans woman.

In a Monday statement, McBride, a woman with a penis, said “This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing.”

lol what?

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Following President Trump’s re-election, the S&P 500 has seen an impressive surge, climbing past 6,000 and sparking significant optimism in the financial markets. Unsurprisingly, the rush by perma-bulls to make long-term predictions is remarkable. For example, Economist Ed Yardeni believes this upward momentum will continue and has revised his long-term forecast, projecting that the S&P 500 will reach 10,000 by 2029. 

His forecast reflects a mix of factors that he believes are reigniting investor confidence, including tax cuts, deregulation, and advancements in technology that could drive productivity growth.

The chart shows the current bull market from the 2009 lows to the present, with a 12-month moving average and a trend channel extension into 2030. While Yardeni’s forecast seems astonishing, it represents a bit more than a 7% annualized rate of return through the end of the decade.

Specifically, Yardeni highlights the potential for substantial corporate tax cuts. He suggests that Trump could reduce the corporate tax rate from 21% to as low as 15%, which would significantly boost corporate profitability. Tax cuts and deregulation would help companies expand their margins and grow earnings. As a result, Yardeni predicts a continuation of record-high profit margins for S&P 500 companies, further supporting his bullish outlook on the stock market.

Yardeni’s analysis is equally striking, even in the shorter term. He anticipates the S&P 500 will reach 6,100 by the end of 2024, with additional gains to 7,000 by 2025 and 8,000 by 2026. He believes these targets are achievable in the current environment, bolstered by solid performances from tech giants and the reinvigoration of investor “animal spirits.”

As investors, is such optimism warranted? Are there essential risks to consider with his forecast? That answer would be “yes,” as Yardeni has previously made bullish forecasts that failed to mature. In the late 1990s, he predicted that the S&P 500 could reach 5,000 by 2000, reflecting his optimism during the dot-com boom. However, the market downturn in 2000 prevented the achievement of that target. Then, during the market run-up into 2008, he maintained his bullish outlook, forecasting significant gains derailed by the “Financial Crisis.” As discussed in this past weekend’s Bull Bear Report:

Concerning long-term market outlooks, it is helpful to remember that Wall Street analysts predicted the same in 1999 and 2007. At the time, valuations were elevated, but analysts and economists believed that economic growth would remain strong and support earnings growth well into the future. Unfortunately, despite the rather rosy outlook, economic realities overtook the exuberance, leading to significant market declines. The same assumptions existed in 1972 about the “Nifty Fifty,” Also, let’s not forget 1929 when Irving Fisher proclaimed the market had achieved a “permanently high plateau.”

However, the rise in “animal spirits” continues to support more bullish outlooks. But what exactly does that mean?

The Problem With Animal Spirits

The term Animal Spirits” comes from the Latin term “spiritus animals,” meaning “the breath that awakens the human mind.” 

The term can be traced back to 300 BC in human anatomy and physiology. It refers to the fluid, or spirit, responsible for sensory activities and nerves in the brain. Besides the technical meaning in medicine, animal spirits were also used in literary culture. In that form, they referred to states of physical courage, delight, and exuberance.

Its modern usage came about in John Maynard Keynes’ 1936 publication, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.” He used the term to describe the human emotions driving consumer confidence. Ultimately, the financial markets adopted the “animal spirits” to describe the psychological factors that drive investors to take action. This is why human psychology is essential in understanding the close linkage to short-term valuation measures.

The 2008 financial crisis revived interest in the role that “animal spirits” could play in the economy and financial markets. The Federal Reserve, under the direction of Ben Bernanke, believed it necessary to inject liquidity into the financial system to lift asset prices to “support” consumer confidence. The result would be a self-sustaining environment of economic growth. In 2010, Bernanke made his famous statement as the economy was on the brink of slipping back into a recession. The Fed’s goal was simple: ignite investors “animal spirits.”

“This approach eased financial conditions in the past and, so far, looks to be effective again. Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action. Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance. Lower corporate bond rates will encourage investment. And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending.” – Ben Bernanke

“Bernanke & Co.” successfully fostered a massive lift in equity prices, boosting consumers’ confidence. (The chart below shows the composite index of the University of Michigan and Conference Board surveys. Shaded areas are when the index is above 100)

Unfortunately, since 2009, despite the massive expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet and the surge in asset prices, there has been relatively little translation into wages, full-time employment, or corporate profits after tax, which ultimately triggered very little economic growth.

The problem with reviving the “animal spirits” is the monetary policy “transmission system” collapsed following the financial crisis.

The Instability Of Borrowing From The Future

Instead of flowing through the system, liquidity remained bottled up within institutions and the ultra-wealthy, who had “investible wealth.” However, the bottom 90% of Americans continued to live paycheck-to-paycheck. The chart below shows the failure of the flush of liquidity to translate into economic growth. While the stock market returned over 300% since the 2007 peak, that increase in asset prices was more than 7x the growth in real GDP and roughly 3x the growth in corporate revenue. (I have used SALES growth, which is not subject to accounting manipulation.) 

Asset prices should reflect economic and revenue growth. Therefore, the deviation is evidence of a more systemic problem. The market has acted as a “wealth transfer” system from the middle class to the rich. Such has not gone unnoticed by the masses as the complaint that “capitalism is broken” continues to rise. However, while capitalism is not broken, there has been a clear shift in the underlying economic dynamics. One of the critical issues is corporate profitability, which we addressed last week:

“Companies have been able to push through profit‑margin‑expanding price increases under the cover of two key events, namely 1) supply constraints in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic and 2) commodity cost-push pressures after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But we still emphasise that one of the main sources of the recent surge in profit margins is massive fiscal expansion. In short, the government has been spending more to the benefit of corporates.” – Albert Edwards, Societe Generale

As he notes, U.S. corporate profits are incredibly elevated as a percentage of GDP, well outside historical norms.

However, that surge in profitability has come at the expense of the employee. We discussed this point in “Does Technology Make Things Better?”

“Monopolistic behavior stifles competition, reduces innovation, and limits consumer choice. Furthermore, corporate profitability soared by reducing labor, which is the most costly expense for any business.”

While the rise in “animal spirits” may foster an appearance of economic growth, especially when combined with monetary and fiscal policy support, the sustainability of that growth is questionable. Pulling forward growth does work in the short term; however, the void it leaves in future consumption continues to grow. As such, without continued, outsized fiscal deficit increases, the reversion risk to corporate profitability seems quite significant.

Which brings us to the risks in Yardeni’s bullish long-term forecast.

Risks To Forecasts

In conclusion, while Yardeni’s optimistic forecast is enticing, several risks could derail this bullish outlook. First, historical precedents remind us that unforeseen economic downturns can reverse market momentum even during seemingly unstoppable growth. As noted, Yardeni made bullish forecasts previously, only for economic realities to undermine those projections. The risk of repeating history remains, especially if overconfidence blinds investors to underlying vulnerabilities.

A significant threat lies in the sustainability of the so-called “animal spirits,” the psychological factors that drive market exuberance. While heightened investor confidence can fuel short-term market gains, it often relies on continuous support from monetary and fiscal policies. The long-term effectiveness of those policies is debatable. If economic growth fails to match rising market valuations, the illusion of stability could shatter, leading to sharp corrections.

Yardeni’s bullish case also hinges on expectations of substantial tax cuts and deregulation. However, such fiscal policies have trade-offs, including potential federal debt and deficit increases. Over time, these imbalances could strain economic growth. Such is especially the case if rising deficits erode economic growth or investor confidence in the government’s fiscal health.

Lastly, corporate profitability also poses a challenge. The elevated profit margins, primarily boosted by fiscal spending and price increases, may be unsustainable. As supply chain constraints ease and cost pressures subside, companies could struggle to maintain margins, particularly if labor costs rise or consumer spending weakens. While the outlook remains positive, investors should remain vigilant. Acknowledging that optimism can quickly give way to economic headwinds and market instability is crucial.

Here are five steps investors can take to position portfolios for potential market gains if Ed Yardeni’s bullish forecast is correct. However, these steps can also hedge against unexpected economic downturns or market volatility:

1. Diversify Across Asset Classes

• Strategy: Spread investments across various asset classes, including equities, bonds, real estate, and alternative assets. Diversification reduces the risk of being overly exposed to a single market downturn.
• Implementation: Consider maintaining a core allocation to broad-market index funds or ETFs that can capture market upside while diversifying into sectors like fixed income and real assets, which tend to perform well in risk-off environments.

2. Maintain a Balanced Equity Portfolio

• Strategy: Balance growth-oriented stocks, which could benefit from continued market gains, with defensive and dividend-paying stocks that provide stability.
• Implementation: Allocate a portion of your portfolio to high-quality, large-cap tech and growth stocks to capture Yardeni’s expected upside. Simultaneously, invest in defensive sectors like utilities, healthcare, and consumer staples to cushion against market corrections.

3. Use Bond Investments as a Hedge

• Strategy: Invest in a mix of short- and long-term bonds to benefit from potential interest rate cuts while providing stability if equities falter.
• Implementation: With the expectation of falling inflation and interest rates, long-term Treasuries could increase in value, serving as a hedge. Short-term bonds and cash equivalents provide liquidity and reduce volatility.

4. Add Exposure to Alternative Investments

• Strategy: Incorporate alternatives such as gold, commodities, or real estate investment trusts (REITs) to diversify risk and hedge against inflation or market disruptions.
• Implementation: Gold and commodities can act as a hedge if inflation unexpectedly rises, while REITs may offer income and stability, benefiting from lower interest rates.

5. Keep Cash Reserves and Stay Flexible

• Strategy: Hold a portion of your portfolio in cash or cash equivalents to capitalize on future market opportunities and mitigate downside risk.
• Implementation: Cash reserves allow you to quickly take advantage of market dips or reallocate to higher-yielding investments if conditions change. Staying flexible ensures you can adapt to evolving economic landscapes without being forced into reactive decisions.

We, nor anyone else, know what the market will do in 5 months, much less 5 years from now. History clearly shows that the most optimistic forecasts are often disappointed by economic realities; however, by taking some action within portfolios, investors can remain well-positioned to benefit from potential market gains while being prepared for unforeseen economic shocks.

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

CA-45 will come down to the wire, perhaps decided by 10 votes or less…

California House District 45 Image courtesy of the Washington Post, annotations and insets by Mish.

If these percentages hold, and anything remotely close to what’s happening in Pennsylvania happens in California, guess what.

Admittedly, the setups are different so that comparison is gone. But there are other issues such as illegal immigrants voting.

I doubt illegal immigrant voting widespread.

But it doesn’t have to be to steal the election.

If the winning margin is 6 or even 600, this question is going to come up.

Election Fraud by Democrats Must Stop

In Pennsylvania, there is admitted election fraud underway.

The state supreme court had to step in, and did with feeble actions.

In Bucks County one of those counting votes openly stated “I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country and people violate laws anytime they want. So for me, if I violate this law, it’s because I want the court to pay attention to it.”

For discussion, please see Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Election Fraud by Democrats Must Stop

Time to Prosecute

Regardless of how one feels about the 2020 election (and this one), the one and only way to stop this kind of purposeful fraud is to prosecute these cases to the fullest extent of the law.

The governor is missing in action.

And where the heck is the outrage from Democrats?

“No one is above the law”. Yes, hypocrites, tell me about it.

Determined to leave an even bloodier legacy, President Biden has violated his own policy and approved the shipment of antipersonnel mines to Ukraine, two US officials have told the Washington Post. The move — which threatens to cause civilian injuries and deaths even after the war ends — comes in the face of months of Russian battlefield success in which its army has posted the fastest pace of territorial gains since 2022. 

The land-mine approval is Biden’s second intensification of US military support in just the last few days: Acting very much like a man whose life in politics and life on Earth are both rapidly nearing their ends, Biden over the weekend approved Ukraine’s use of long-range, US-supplied, ATACMS missiles against targets deep inside Russia. Brushing aside concerns that such an escalation would nudge the world’s foremost nuclear powers closer to World War III, Ukraine wasted no time flexing its new freedom, striking a Russian military facility near the city of Karachev in the Bryansk region — about 71 miles from the Ukraine border. 

In 2022, Biden restored an Obama-era policy that bars America’s provision of antipersonnel mines anywhere other than the Korean Peninsula. Biden had condemned then-President Trump as being “reckless” in nixing Obama’s policy, saying “It will put more civilians at risk of being injured by unexploded mines, and is unnecessary from a military perspective.”  

Now, however, Biden has thrown that sentiment out the window. While the 164-nation Ottawa Convention bans both the use and transfer of anti-personnel mines, neither the United States nor Russia is a signatory. However, Ukraine is. 

As has been the case with various other types of weapons systems, the Biden-Harris administration had for years refused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s pleas for anti-personnel mines — only for Biden to now cave just two months before he turns the Oval Office over to Trump, who’s promised a swift, negotiated end to the war that has raged since Russia’s February 2022 invasion in support of separatists in Ukraine’s eastern regions.   

One of the officials who spoke to the Post acknowledged that Biden’s policy change reflected the Ukrainian army’s relentless loss of territory:  

“Russia is attacking Ukrainian lines in the east with waves of troops, regardless of the casualties that they’re suffering. So the Ukrainians are obviously taking losses, and more towns and cities are at risk of falling. These mines were made specifically to combat exactly this.”

Ukraine is already among the world’s most-mined countries: According to Human Rights Watch, mines cover about 30% of its territory, an expanse about as large as Florida. As of last February, 1,000 civilian deaths were attributed to land mines — however, most of these deadly incidents involved anti-vehicle mines. Both Russia and Ukraine have liberally deployed anti-personnel mines, and Human Rights Watch had condemned Ukraine for using rocket-deployed anti-personnel mines, which litter a territory with small explosive devices which often come in colors that could invite the curiosity of children.  

Anti-personnel mines are reviled because of their inability to distinguish between combatants and innocents. Organizations that oppose their use were quick to condemn Biden’s decision. “It’s a shocking and devastating development,” Mary Wareham, deputy director of the crisis, conflict and arms division at Human Rights Watch, told the Post. 

Seeking to allay concerns about anti-personnel mines’ notorious record for causing civilian casualties, one of the US officials described the mines in question as being “non-persistent” — that is, they self-destruct or run out of battery power in a way that supposedly renders them harmless. Civilians better cross their fingers and hope they’re not around when these mines randomly blow up or are made to explode in some other unintended fashion — perhaps as an ex-president Biden is simultaneously sunning on a Delaware beach. 

Crude prices are extending recent gains this morning – albeit modestly – as geopolitical risk premia are rebuilding amid missiles flying in Russia, MidEast tensions continuing, and Biden seems set on WW3 as his legacy.

Last night’s API report showed a larger than expected crude inventory build and traders are on the lookout for whether a contango market structure is here to stay after the WTI prompt spread dipped into negative territory this week for the first time since February, signaling near-term oversupply.

API

• Crude +4.75mm

• Cushing -288k

• Gasoline -2.48mm

• Distillates -688k

DOE

• Crude +545k (-620k exp)

• Cushing -140k

• Gasoline +2.05mm

• Distillates -114k

The official DOE data was very different from the API reported data with a small crude build and large gasoline build. This is the third straight weekly crude build and the biggest gasoline build since early September…

Source: Bloomberg

The Biden admin added 1.4mm barrels to the SPR last week – the biggest addition since August – making its the fifth straight week of total crude stocks rising…

Source: Bloomberg

US Crude production plunged by 200k b/d and does not look hurricane-related…

Source: Bloomberg

WTI dipped after the data…

Source: Bloomberg

Oil investors are pricing in Trump’s foreign policy approach as bearish. Of 10 traders surveyed by Bloomberg, eight said that Trump’s proposals will limit price increases, with some suggesting a trade war with China will erode demand and potentially offset any new sanctions on Iran.

By Michael Every of Rabobank

What, me worry?

Bloomberg went with a one-word headline in Asia this morning: “Escalation”, which was what I said on Monday while proposing it might be to de-escalate in places. Bloomberg then shifted to “Shambles” to complain ‘Chaos in Rio Shows a World Untethered Even Before Trump Returns’, referring to a G20 meeting with a backdrop of North Koreans fighting in Europe, Israel resisting Middle East US ceasefire attempts, China practicing blockading Taiwan, and nuclear threats now commonplace. Yet going from “All is well (except Trump)” to “PANIC!” lacks nuance. Indeed, while I recently told clients attending our financial market outlook presentations that 2025 was ‘The Year of Living Dangerously’, not everything is worth worrying about equally. Allow a professional worrier to show you how to do it properly!

First, once you see “World War 3!” headlines you might as well go risk on because why not? Ahead of the first Ukrainian ATACMS strike in Russia proper yesterday President Putin had changed his nuclear doctrine so it can use nukes if an attack on its territory is supported by a nuclear power, which it elsewhere stated includes US ATACMS. That saw bond yields fall before reversing. So far, this Russian red line appears to have been crossed without any nuclear fallout. If that all changes, I won’t be writing this Daily, and you won’t be reading it.

Good luck collecting “YES” pic.twitter.com/7pwt34PuOv

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 19, 2024

‘Keep Calm and Carry On’ doesn’t apply to lower-level wars, but there’s room for optimism. In the Middle East, Hezbollah is reportedly not yet willing to sign a ceasefire allowing Israel to still defend itself, without which a pause in fighting will be used to rearm – but a deal might yet be struck. There has been a dialling down of rising tensions in the Horn of Africa. Even in Ukraine, everything is about escalating to be in the best position to de-escalate ahead.  

So, if you want to worry, look at less glamorous but arguably more significant headlines that don’t point to world war, per se, but to world disruption, and major world market volatility.

Official allegations of sabotage were made in the EU as: two of Finland’s five nuclear plants had to be shut down; a key Norwegian oilfield was shut by a power outage; the support cable on a Finnish suspension bridge broke; and two key Baltic EU data cables were severed. The Chinese vessel Yi Peng has been flagged as a possible cable culprit and at time of writing was forcibly moored in Denmark. This is likely to prompt a strong Chinese diplomatic response; and perhaps an EU one if it proves a Chinese ship damaged key seafloor infrastructure (again: this also happened to a gas pipeline between Finland and Estonia in October 2023).

Europe is already confronting China in saying its battery producers – and all green tech – can only avoid EU tariffs and set up factories benefiting from subsidies if there is tech transfer. This mirrors Chinese policy back at it, long warned as the only way to avoid deindustrialisation. China might say no, which means one set of problems. Yet even if it says yes, Europe needs huge scale, so huge subsidies, so huge changes to its fiscal rules or banking sector; and huge supplies of inputs like lithium, which “are uneconomic” to develop domestically, and tied up by China internationally. The geopolitical bifurcation of supply chains is still just beginning.  

On bifurcation, Howard Lutnick is going to be US Commerce Secretary. Although this isn’t the Treasury Secretary he’d wanted, Lutnick – as representative of US businesses – has flagged tariffs and ‘Made in the USA’ tax breaks in tandem as a policy he wants to see put in place. Again, we see a mirror of China’s strategy back at it and rapid bifurcation of global supply chains.

On The Search for Spock the US Treasury Secretary, Trump is today speaking to ex-Fed member Warsh and hedge fund manager Rowan, while Senator Haggerty and Trump economic advisor Bessent are still in the mix. For markets thinking there is a chance someone who doesn’t like tariffs might get the top role, think again: why would Trump appoint a pro-tariff Commerce Secretary, who usually opposes such measures by default, only to then select a Treasury head who would not support his trade agenda?  

Moreover, with a Trump ally urging 60% duties on Chinese goods shipped via its new port in Peru, or any port in Latin America, the US is perhaps dipping into its Monroe Doctrine economic statecraft playbook to show what it wants the new world economic geography to look like: it won’t stand for trans-shipment of Chinese goods, so people are going to have to take sides. Relatedly, if China builds a railway across the Andes from Brazil to Peru to allow iron ore and soy access to the Pacific it may trigger the US to build a larger navy to rule the waves. Given China builds far faster than the US, that requires structural changes in its economy and tying ship-building allies like South Korea and Japan into a US bloc; and for national security reasons, Japan will require the US to show a firm hand vis-à-vis Taiwan – a red line for China.

In short, try not to worry about the obvious stuff like “World War 3!” Do worry about whether we are drifting towards a world split in three, geopolitically and economically: the US and allies, China and allies, and would-be ‘neutrals’. Markets might have priced in the leading edge of the Trump Trade, but they haven’t begun to grasp what the above scenario truly looks like.

The Financial Times understands the gravity with its op-ed today explaining ‘Why Trump’s trade war will cause chaos’, and that “tariffs, especially on one country, will lead to an unholy economic and political mess.” It’s right that every Trump cabinet nomination so far shows a determined approach to up-end old ways of doing things, including trade.

That said, the hoary old textbook arguments the FT uses to make its chaos case show it still doesn’t understand international trade. It’s wrong on how comparative advantage works, which Ricardo said assumes no mobile international capital, not free-flowing, free-wheeling capital; on savings vs. investment as the driver of trade when talking about forced-savings mercantilists vs. free traders, not free traders vs. free traders; on assuming the US shifting trade from China to others is a nasty side-effect of a trade war rather than a deliberate aim of one; and on not being able to join the dots from a US no longer able to sustain its global military primacy -on which the plump, pink free-market Financial Times ultimately rests- and the US being forced to run persistent trade deficits by mercantilists which deindustrialise it.

Really: worry that some high-level people still can’t grasp key fundamentals even when they are right in front of them alongside the socio-economic and geopolitical failure of the policies they keep advocating for instead. Worse, this is the same op-ed writer, Martin Wolf, who recently claimed that ‘Market forces are not enough to halt climate change’ and ‘Investor returns imply that the welfare of future human beings is close to irrelevant’; but free trade is obviously sacrosanct. Because reasons.

You can certainly worry that these kinds of prognostications are rapidly going to look like those of holier-than-thou Professor Lichtman of the magical ’13 keys’ that didn’t unlock a Harris victory two weeks ago as expected. As another commentator put it more civilly, “The failure of Allan Lichtman’s keys is not merely a personal failure; rather, it reflects the decline of the political expert class in America” as the epistemological foundations upon which these “experts” have sat crumbles away.

At the very least, you can worry that nobody in D.C. is listening to what Wolf is saying.  

Comcast on Wednesday announced that it will move forward with plans to spin off its NBCUniversal cable TV networks – including MSNBC, CNBC, USA, Oxygen, E!, Syfy and the Golf Channel. (of course a season 2 Firefly reboot might have saved the whole thing… hint to the new buyer).

All together, the assets generated around $7 billion in revenue in the 12 months ended Sept. 30, the WSJ reports.

The company will keep Bravo – known for the “Real Housewives,” as well as the Peacock streaming service and NBC broadcast network. Executives are betting that their remaining assets – including in broadcast TV, sports, movies and theme parks, will be better positioned for growth.

Comcast will announce Wednesday that it is moving forward with a plan to spin off its NBCUniversal cable TV networks, including MSNBC, CNBC, USA, Oxygen, E!, Syfy and Golf Channel. Bravo will stay in the mother ship

Real Housewives > Cramer + Maddow

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 19, 2024

Of course, the decision also comes as a major source of ad revenue – pharmaceutical companies, are about to get the monkey hammer of justice from RFK Jr.

And guess who’s most exposed?

Meanwhile, years of cord-cutting have taken a big toll on both subscribers and viewership – with every major media company pulling back on spending. Comcast, however, is the first to carve out nearly the entire business into a separate firm.

The transaction, structured as a tax-free spinoff to Comcast shareholders, is expected to take around a year to complete. The new cable venture will have an ownership structure that mirrors Comcast’s, with Comcast Chairman and CEO Brian Roberts holding a one-third voting stake. Roberts won’t be on the board of the new venture.

Mark Lazarus, who is currently the chairman of NBCUniversal’s media group, with oversight of TV and streaming platforms, will be named chief executive of the new venture. Anand Kini, who has served as chief financial officer of NBCUniversal, will be the CFO and operating chief of the new company. -WSJ

Other leadership changes related to the spinoff include Chief Content Officer Donna Langley transitioning to the chairman of NBCUniversal Entertainment and Studios – which will allow her greater authority to greenlight productions and more control over content spending. She will also oversee the entire entertainment portfolio’s marketing efforts.

Comcast veteran Matt Strauss – who heads the direct-to-consumer business, will beecome the chairman of NBCUniversal Media Group, while Cesar Conde will remain chairman of NBCUniversal News Group, which oversees NBC News, Telemundo and local TV stations.

You’re doing great guys…