Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

While the 25 Stocks I’m Watching for 2025 list (part 1 here and part 2 here) continue to perform well relative to the S&P, I can’t say the same about the overall market.

The looming question yesterday was whether the market snapback early in the week was a path to the S&P taking back its trend and continuing to move higher, or just a “bear market rally”. It shouldn’t be a surprise that I believe it was the latter.

There’s an old expression that “nothing good ever happens below the 200-day moving average.” As you can see, that’s where the S&P 500 continues to be (under the red line).

Then there was the question of auto tariffs yesterday, and whether or not Trump was going to immediately flip-flop on them—or whether he was even serious about them to begin with. While he does have a history of changing his mind quickly with regard to tariffs, it appears that, at least for the time being, these auto tariffs are here to stay.

The tariffs are sizable enough, and in a consequential enough industry, that they will create significant trade uncertainty between the U.S. and many of its major trading partners—introducing the stock market to more of the one thing it doesn’t like: uncertainty.

Finally, the big headline this morning is the news that CoreWeave, a purported player in the same atmosphere as Nvidia, was being forced to downsize its plans for an initial public offering.

Semafor reported that CoreWeave is set to scale back its IPO, cutting both the share price and fundraising target. The cloud firm is now aiming for a valuation closer to its $23 billion private-market figure from last year, down from the $30 billion it originally sought. It may also raise less than the $3 billion it had planned.

Shares are expected to price Thursday night and begin trading Friday, though shifting sentiment during today’s session could influence final decisions.

My longer-term readers know that about a year and a half ago, I started asking questions about where the black swans in the market could be. Where are the bodies buried that the rest of the market doesn’t necessarily know about yet? One of the places I ventured a guess was potentially between Nvidia and CoreWeave.

I wrote about the two following critical analysis that began circulating in lesser-trafficked analyst circles about the circuitous relationship between Nvidia and CoreWeave. As a reminder, here’s one video discussing the relationship I linked to with another writeup by The Mad King (paywalled now) — both of which made their rounds in mid-2023.

That circuitous relationship seems to, again, be what’s holding up CoreWeave:

“CoreWeave has been compared to WeWork because its tremendous revenue growth has come at the expense of unsustainable capex and cash burn, which in turn require tremendous constant outside investment (or debt): CoreWeave burned nearly $6 billion of cash in 2024 and $1.1 billion the previous year, because of the massive capex to build out its AI infrastructure,” Zero Hedge wrote Thursday morning, in their must-read analysis of the situation.

“Not surprisingly, CoreWeave – which also counts Microsoft as its largest customer – has been frequently rumored to be a core spoke in revenue roundtripping schemes involving Microsoft, Nvidia and OpenAI,” they continued.

And over the course of time since my 2023 article, other players in the same industry—namely Super Micro—have also had skeptical eyes cast upon them.

And just yesterday, legendary short-seller Jim Chanos raised critical questions about one of Nvidia’s acquisition of Lepton AI.

“Don’t know if this deal happens, and it’s not particularly big, but trying to buyout your resellers is usually a huge red flag. It’s often a way to bury inventory costs and/or avoid receivables provisioning,” Chanos wrote on X.

He continued: “Just to be clear, these kinds of deals w/customers and distributors do not necessarily have to be material in size to be material in impact, since near the end-of-cycles managements know that missing guidance by even a few pennies can be disastrous…”

For those unfamiliar with Jim Chanos’s pedigree, not only was he first to blow the whistle on Enron, he teaches a course called “A History of Financial Market Fraud: A Forensic Approach” at Yale. His short-sale of Enron shares was dubbed by Barron’s as “the market call of the decade, if not the past fifty years.”

Does the CoreWeave IPO necessarily denote that there’s fraud or wrongdoing under the surface? No. But at the very least, what it does show is that the market’s appetite for the AI story—and perhaps for risk-on type investments in general—isn’t what it was a year ago. When companies start pricing IPOs under expectations, it is an indicator that the bid many thought to exist in the market—whether it’s for a specific industry, specific style of stock, or specific name in general—isn’t there.

🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

To me, this CoreWeave news this morning, combined with concerns that Mr. Chanos raised yesterday—on top of what we already knew—sure seems to suggest to me that the AI story may at least be temporarily losing steam. Lest we also forget just yesterday it was announced that Microsoft was pulling back from more data center leases “due to an oversupply relative to its current demand forecast”.

Even David Faber on CNBC did a good job yesterday pushing back on CoreWeave’s IPO. I know I give CNBC a lot of shit—and much of it well-deserved for things like perpetually inviting on the largest value destroyer over the last 10 years for her opinion on things—but Faber has done great lately.

Not only did he raise critical questions about customer concentration and debt load just hours before the IPO was significantly downsized, I also watched him a couple of weeks ago argue the bear case against multiple analysts who pushed the same AI narrative we’ve heard for the last year, and made bombastic claims like stocks that are trading at 40x earnings are “cheap” because they’re down a couple percent off their highs.

I’ve often said that crypto is the tip of the risk-taking spear, and to watch that asset class as the canary in the coal mine for the rest of the market. As it relates to equities, however, AI is the tip of the narrative spear that still lures people into buying technology equities. If that narrative starts to crumble, I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to suggest there could be a domino effect in the rest of the equity market.

I don’t want anything to do with these AI names until I get significantly more clarity on the space and the overall market is far less volatile.

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. Assume any and all numbers in this piece are wrong and make sure you check them yourself. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

President Trump signed an executive order Thursday aimed at overhauling the Smithsonian to combat what he calls “divisive, race-centered” narratives pushed under the Biden administration, according to RedState.com.

Titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” the order criticizes the museum system’s recent direction: “Once widely respected… the Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology,” it states, arguing such views frame American and Western values as “inherently harmful and oppressive.”

The order tasks Vice President JD Vance, a member of the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents, with leading efforts to “remove improper ideology” across the institution.

President Trump’s latest executive order targets the Smithsonian, aiming to restore what he calls a truthful, uplifting view of American history and culture. The directive criticizes recent shifts toward “divisive, race-centered ideology” and tasks Vice President JD Vance with rooting out “improper ideology” across its museums and research centers.

https://t.co/BQy31t6E8Z
President Trump has signed an executive order aimed at restoring accurate representations of American history in educational institutions. https://t.co/BQy31t6E8Z

— Executive Order & Presidential Action News (@47_Tracker) March 27, 2025

The RedState.com report quotes the order: “It is the policy of my Administration to restore Federal sites… to solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage,” the order states, insisting museums should educate, not “indoctrinate.” 

The order also instructs Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to review and “restore” public monuments removed over the past five years. A White House fact sheet says many were taken down to “perpetuate a false revision of history” or unfairly disparage historical figures.

Critics quickly lashed out. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) wrote on X: “You cannot erase our past.” But as Trump allies note, this comes from a party that demanded the removal of statues of figures like George Washington and Jefferson.

Trump’s move follows earlier efforts to reclaim institutions from what he calls far-left ideologues—turning places like the Smithsonian and the Kennedy Center into cultural battlegrounds.

Past controversies at the Smithsonian include omitting Justice Clarence Thomas from its African American history museum in 2016—later correcting it only under pressure—and celebrating transgender activists like Sylvia Rivera in its American Women’s History Museum. It even preserved a suit worn by Rep. Andy Kim (D-NJ) during Capitol cleanup after January 6, a move critics call symbolic pandering.

The order sets a deadline of July 4, 2026—America’s 250th birthday—for completing all reforms. “President Trump aims to ensure that the Smithsonian… sparks children’s imagination, celebrates American history and ingenuity… and makes America proud,” the White House said.

Elon Musk secured a multibillion-dollar margin loan using Tesla stock as collateral to finance his acquisition of Twitter (now rebranded as X). In recent months, Tesla’s share price has been cut in half due to a confluence of factors—slowing EV demand amid high interest rates, shifting electric vehicle policies under the Trump administration, market volatility driven by trade tensions, and pressure from a coordinated NGO-driven color revolution known as “Tesla Takedown,” aimed at crashing the stock to trigger loan repayment obligations tied to Musk’s pledged equity.

In short, volatility in Tesla shares left Musk heavily exposed to potential loan repayment thresholds being triggered – which was set to occur at or below $114 according to reports – until now.

On Friday evening, Musk announced the merger of X with his AI startup, xAI, in an all-stock transaction that strengthens his financial position, protects Tesla shareholders, and renders the Tesla Takedown color revolution largely ineffective in achieving its intended goal. 

Musk outlined xAI’s acquisition of X:

• xAI has acquired X in an all-stock transaction. The combination values xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion ($45B less $12B debt).

• Since its founding two years ago, xAI has rapidly become one of the leading AI labs in the world, building models and data centers at unprecedented speed and scale.

• X is the digital town square where more than 600M active users go to find the real-time source of ground truth and, in the last two years, has been transformed into one of the most efficient companies in the world, positioning it to deliver scalable future growth.

• xAI and X’s futures are intertwined. Today, we officially take the step to combine the data, models, compute, distribution and talent. This combination will unlock immense potential by blending xAI’s advanced AI capability and expertise with X’s massive reach. The combined company will deliver smarter, more meaningful experiences to billions of people while staying true to our core mission of seeking truth and advancing knowledge. This will allow us to build a platform that doesn’t just reflect the world but actively accelerates human progress.

• I would like to recognize the hardcore dedication of everyone at xAI and X that has brought us to this point. This is just the beginning.

@xAI has acquired @X in an all-stock transaction. The combination values xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion ($45B less $12B debt).

Since its founding two years ago, xAI has rapidly become one of the leading AI labs in the world, building models and data centers at…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 28, 2025

Musk privately owns and controls both xAI and X.

The transaction is structured as a stock swap, with X investors receiving xAI shares in return. Both companies share overlapping investors, including Fidelity Management, Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom Holding Co, Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, and Vy Capital. 

Musk, also the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, purchased Twitter in a $44 billion deal in 2022. X CEO Linda Yaccarino wrote on X last night: “The future could not be brighter.” 

.@X + @xAI
The future could not be brighter ✨ https://t.co/GoJE99KxxI

— Linda Yaccarino (@lindayaX) March 28, 2025

Musk’s X post announcing the acquisition stated that the deal was about “blending” the AI startup and social media platform to create “a platform that doesn’t just reflect the world but actively accelerates human progress.” However, the move also eliminates the risk of Musk undergoing a forced liquidation of the $12.5 billion margin loan backed by his Tesla shares.

As we previously described at the beginning of the note, Tesla shares were halved for a number of reasons:

• Goldman Trading Desk Views “Trump As Bearish For US EV Market”

• “Weak Demand”: Goldman Lowers Tesla Vehicle Delivery Estimate For Quarter

And this…

• Tesla Takedown Revolutionaries Prepare Mobilization Nationwide

• Tesla Takedown Organizers Plan Color Revolution To “Kill” Brand & “Death Spiral” For Investors

Last week, the Democratic Party and their Communist revolutionaries spelled out their sinister plans…  

“If we kill the Tesla brand” and “drive down the stock price low enough. We can force him to sell his stock to pay back the billions of dollars of debt he took on to buy Twitter. 

“This will drive Tesla into a death spiral,” Micah Lee, The Intercept’s former Director of Information Security, explained on a recent Tesla Takedown teleconference with other far-left revolutionaries. 

🚨EXCLUSIVE🚨

Micah Lee, @theintercept’s former Director of Information Security, participated in the Tesla Takedown call to action tonight.

Interesting. Check this out! @ggreenwald

The former Director of Information Security for the Intercept was on the call to action for… pic.twitter.com/rQKz658JeZ

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) March 20, 2025

Musk’s indebtedness from leveraging Tesla shares to fund the X deal is no longer a concern for Tesla shareholders. This strategic move also renders the Tesla Takedown color revolution funded by rogue Democrats less likely to force a liquidation. 

*  *  *

A new study ranks the best states for house flipping, using data on sale prices, remodeling costs, sales volume, and time on market. By standardizing these metrics into a single House Flipping Score, the study identifies where flipping is most profitable—higher scores mean better conditions for flippers.

Vermont tops the list of best states for house flipping with a score of 99, thanks to fast sales (32 days on market) and high transaction volume. Maine follows with a score of 95, offering the lowest remodeling costs ($27,486) among top states and similarly quick sales, the study from Badeloft shows.

New Hampshire ranks third (score: 93), combining low renovation costs with high average sale prices ($462,492). Delaware takes fourth (score: 86) with moderate remodeling expenses and solid sales volume.

Rhode Island (score: 85) has the second-fastest market (under 28 days) and low renovation expenses. Hawaii places sixth (score: 83), driven by the highest sale prices nationwide ($829,941).

Connecticut (score: 79) has the shortest time on market—just 27 days—and solid resale value. Virginia (score: 76) offers decent profits with moderate remodeling costs. North Carolina (score: 74) boasts the most active housing market among top states.

Massachusetts rounds out the top ten (score: 71) with high property values ($605,614) and a market time of 36 days.

Virginia is ranked eighth for house flipping potential, achieving a score of 76. Home improvement projects here generally require an investment of $39,215, with investors able to sell properties for an average of $382,930.

Finally, North Carolina is positioned ninth on the list of best states for house flipping, achieving a score of 74. The state features the most active housing market among the top-ranking states, with 6,649 houses sold per 100,000 residents.

A Badeloft study spokesperson said: “House flipping proves to be a profitable endeavor in many states, particularly those where the cost of remodeling is relatively low, and the potential for high sale prices is strong. It’s important to consider that prioritizing premium quality renovations is essential to maximizing the property’s value and securing a profitable return.”

“Carefully selected and stylish furnishings that complement these renovations can further enhance the home’s appeal, making it even more marketable and increasing its overall value”.

The full study data can be found here. 

Authored by Waters and Ellwanger via RealClearWorld,

President Trump’s supporters have denounced the federal judges seeking to stall or stop this administration’s government overhaul. But there is at least one person who, despite a show of outrage and condemnation, is neither surprised nor intimidated: Trump himself.

The politically appointed judges have ordered, among other actions, that federal agencies reinstate thousands of fired probationary employees; that billions of taxpayer dollars be paid to questionable USAID projects and contractors; and that foreign-born criminals deported to their native countries be returned and granted due process. Regardless of the legal merits, the American people recognize these orders as obstructions to what Trump said he would do if elected, and what voters elected him to do. Yet the judges’ resistance is expected—they’re bound up in and rewarded by the system Trump seeks to reform.

Two-thirds of Americans believe the “system” is broken, but for years progressive politicians and their mouthpieces posited that the system couldn’t be fixed. Intellectuals on the Left, including New York Times columnist David Brooks, said America’s flaws were “systemic” in nature: systemic racism, systemic sexism, and systemic injustice. They whined and preached but offered no solutions for the millions of Americans of all races and both genders struggling and failing to unlock their potential to succeed.

When Trump announced his candidacy for president in 2015, he too claimed the system was broken, but not because we are racist or sexist by nature, but because the system itself is old, soft, and corrupt, with leaders grown unresponsive to the people they are supposed to serve. That core belief guided his first term and remains unchanged at the start of his second.    

For decades, politicians failed to respond to real problems because their agendas, even their identities, were phony, crafted by consultants and pollsters who aimed not for the truth, but for whichever lies or provocations were most efficacious in winning the next election. But one need not resort to craven and conspiratorial explanations of this sort, which hint that elected officials deliberately ignore the public will. The truth is simpler. They have to ignore voters, if only because they have no idea how to fix the problems we face.

In one sense, the elites’ ineptitude is understandable: we have a highly complex society that has undergone a recent, rapid, destabilization brought on by technological advance. But to admit that they simply don’t know how to address any contemporary issue would be to concede that it is only their mere status as “elites” that qualifies them to rule. Thus, to conceal their befuddlement, they explain their inaction by a vague demand that we address the “root causes” of every issue – which further justifies them in doing nothing.

The bad faith inherent to the “root causes” strategy was nowhere more obvious than at the border. For years, establishment voices told us that border security measures would fail without addressing the “root causes” of the problem: central American poverty and climate change. These appeals allowed the political class to avoid doing what they didn’t want to do (securing the border) and to manufacture a duty to do the things they did want to do (diverting American revenue to foreign aid “relief programs” and enacting more restrictive environmental policies). Aside from those interventions, they assured us, there was nothing we could do about the illegal immigration crisis.

But as it often happens, Trump called their bluff. Somehow, he managed to end the flood of illegal crossings within weeks of taking office. And contrary to the best wisdom of the “experts,” it didn’t require a grand congressional bargain like the betrayal that Sen. Lankford (R-OK) offered as a solution. Nor did it require a new climate deal. We didn’t have to make Honduras great again to stop the caravans. No – as it turned out, the answer was staring us in the face. The solution was one that could be intuited by any American voter: just secure the border. Only a class as feckless and clueless as our politicians couldn’t grasp this. But Trump understood it. And Americans see that.

Barring any real action to improve the lot of regular Americans, the lost and divided Democrats cast about for a “message” and a “messenger” to improve their chances in the next election. They believe a magic word or slogan (“nazis,” “oligarchs,” “authoritarians,” and “autocrats” all have been tried and failed), rather than concrete beliefs and plans, will “meet this moment” and win over American voters. But voters know the Democratic Party lacks anything affirmative or real.

Politicians will never make America great again, Trump said at his campaign kick-off in 2015. “They’re controlled fully by the lobbyists, by the donors, and by the special interests. “[And] it’s destroying our country.” Unlike Bush, Obama, and Biden, Trump spoke to what people felt in the Rust Belt and the Bible Belt and the Farm Belt. He looked into the vast interior of the country and understood what many Americans knew all too well: that working hard and playing by the rules no longer guaranteed their children would be better off than they had been. 

Speaking about politicians in 2015, Trump said: “I hear their speeches. They don’t talk jobs. [They] have no competence. [They] don’t know what’s happening.” His message of “America First” was clear and authentic, and it implied real action and solid outcomes: protect jobs, livelihoods, and futures of Americans. The hapless politicians had nothing to counter.

“The Resistance” to the first Trump administration was advanced by the machinations of bureaucrats in the vast regulatory state. But with the president rapidly dismantling that apparatus, a new strategy was needed. For the Resistance 2.0, it seems the establishment will depend on the courts to thwart the democratically-expressed will of the people. But there is a higher court in this land, where American voters serve as judge, jury, and executor.

Earlier this month at the Department of Justice, Trump warned of the “violent, vicious lawyers” who persecute the president and bully the American public to get their way. Expect these lawyers to “play the ref,” Trump said, weaving in a story about former Indiana University basketball coach Bobby Knight, who once threw a chair across the court and screamed like a madman at the referees for a call to be overturned. The referee wasn’t going to change the first call, Trump said of Knight’s rationale for throwing the tantrum. “But he’s going to change for the next play. And sure as hell, he did.” Trump understands that activist lawyers and progressive pundits will put heat on the judiciary, and that, on occasion, they’ll get their way.

For 10 years, Trump has confronted the political class, calling out their incompetence and dishonesty, and the voters continue to reward him. Federal judges, egged on by the politically-motivated legal establishment, may try to frustrate the president in his pursuit of long-held promises to build a better country. But Trump is building his case outside the courts – and he’s betting on a sympathetic hearing with the American people, who will note the overt evidence of bias, corruption, and incompetence, whether it occurs in the media, executive branch, or the judiciary. Judges will rule on procedure and technicalities, but the people will evaluate the legitimacy of our institutions and credibility of our leaders.

In 2028, the jury will render its verdict.

John J. Waters is a lawyer. He served as a deputy assistant secretary of Homeland Security from 2020-21. Follow him at @JohnJWaters1 on X. 

Adam Ellwanger is a professor at University of Houston – Downtown, where he teaches rhetoric and writing. Follow him at @1HereticalTruth on X.

Following sleazy Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett’s disheartening remarks about the Texas Governor’s wheelchair-bound condition, GOP analyst Scott Jennings offered some words of advice to the far-left-leaning panel during Tuesday’s edition of CNN NewsNight: 

I don’t know how Democrats appointed Jasmine Crockett as the unquestioned leader of your party, but thank God.

And I think what she should do is go on TV twice as much – maybe three times as much – because everytime she appears – makes these mistakes – says something radical – it only further divides her party from the other 80% of America who can’t stand this – but the problem is – there’s an audience for this.

I heard Jimmy Kimmel’s audience cheering on Tesla vandalism; I hear that The Daily Show’s audience on a tax on Elon Musk; I hear the Human Right’s audience cheering on an attack on a man in a wheelchair.

And I realize this is what the left has become: an angry mob of people who are cheering on attacks on a guy in a wheelchair and vandalism against people who bought people … it’s pathetic.

On X, Jennings wrote that Crockett “will learn no lessons from the “Hot Wheels” episode because the Left’s angry mobs eat this stuff up,” adding, “Trust me: the unquestioned head of the Democratic Party thinks is a winning vector.” 

Jasmine Crockett will learn no lessons from the “Hot Wheels” episode because the Left’s angry mobs eat this stuff up. Trust me: the unquestioned head of the Democratic Party thinks is a winning vector. pic.twitter.com/egtZIbPyDV

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) March 26, 2025

Jennings is entirely correct: The far-left has chosen the path of hate and violence, while the latest polling data from NBC News and CNN shows the party has hit its lowest approval ratings on record: 27% and 29%, respectively.

Has there ever been such a level of coordinated violence against a peaceful company?

I understand not wanting to buy a product, but this is extreme arson and destruction! https://t.co/AIL8WPt0uv

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 20, 2025

Democrats believe communist revolutionary tactics of firebombing Tesla showrooms and cars are socially acceptable in the era of Trump’s law and order to win back votes – yet the imploding party is oblivious and tone deaf that the Overton Window shifted last year – and BLM-style color revolutions are no longer socially acceptable.

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Consuming more of this Ultra-Processed World is not a path to “the good life,” it’s a path to the destruction and derangement of an Ultra-Processed Life.

The digital realm, finance, and junk food have something in common: they’re all ultra-processed, synthetic versions of Nature that have been designed to be compellingly addictive, to the detriment of our health and quality of life.

In focusing on the digital realm, money (i.e. finance, “growth,” consuming more as the measure of all that is good) and eating more of what tastes good, we now have an Ultra-Processed Life. All three– the digital realm, money in all its manifestations and junk food–are all consumed: they all taste good, i.e. generate endorphin hits, and so they draw us into their synthetic Ultra-Processed World.

We’re so busy consuming that we don’t realize they’re consuming us: in focusing on producing and consuming more goods and services as the sole measure of “the good life,” it’s never enough: if we pile up $1 million, we focus on piling up $2 million. If we pile up $2 million, we focus on accumulating $3 million. And so on, in every manifestation of money and consumption.

The digital realm consumes our lives one minute and one hour at a time, for every minute spent focusing on a screen is a minute taken from the real world, which is the only true measure of the quality of our life.

Ultra-processed food is edible, but it isn’t nutritious. It tastes good, but it harms us in complex ways we don’t fully understand.

This is the core dynamic of the synthetic “products and services” that dominate modern life: the harm they unleash is hidden beneath a constant flow of endorphin hits, distractions, addictive media and unfilled hunger for all that is lacking in our synthetic Ultra-Processed World: a sense of security, a sense of control, a sense of being grounded, and the absence of a hunger to find synthetic comforts in a world stripped of natural comforts.

In effect, we’re hungry ghosts in this Ultra-Processed World, unable to satisfy our authentic needs in a synthetic world of artifice and inauthenticity. The more we consume, the hungrier we become for what is unavailable in an Ultra-Processed Life.

We’re told there’s no upper limit on “growth” of GDP, wealth, abundance, finance or consumption, but this is a form of insanity, for none of this “growth” addresses what’s lacking and what’s broken in our lives, the derangements generated by consuming (and being consumed by) highly profitable synthetic versions of the real world.

Insanity is often described as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. So our financial system inflates yet another credit-asset bubble and we expect that this bubble won’t pop, laying waste to everyone who believed that doing the same thing would magically generate a different result.

But there is another form of insanity that’s easily confused with denial: we are blind to the artificial nature of this Ultra-Processed World and blind to its causal mechanisms: there is only one possible output of this synthetic version of Nature, and that output is a complex tangle of derangements that we seek to resolve by dulling the pain of living a deranged life.

We’re not in denial; we literally don’t see our Ultra-Processed World for what it is: a manufactured mirror world of commoditized derangements and distortions that have consumed us so completely that we’ve lost the ability to see what’s been lost.

Ultra-processed snacks offer the perfect metaphor. We can’t stop consuming more, yet the more we consume the greater the damage to our health. The worse we feel, the more we eat to distract ourselves, to get that comforting endorphin hit. It’s a feedback loop that ends in the destruction of our health and life.

Once we’ve been consumed by money, the digital realm and ultra-processed foods, we’ve lost the taste for the real world. A fresh raw carrot is sweet, but once we’re consuming a diet of sugary cold cereals and other equivalents of candy, we no longer taste the natural sweetness of a carrot; it’s been lost in the rush of synthetic extremes of salt, sugar and fat that make ultra-processed foods so addictive. To recover the taste of real food, we first have to completely abandon ultra-processed foods– Go Cold Turkey.

The idea that we can consume junk food and maintain the taste for real food in some sort of balance is delusional, for the reasons stated above: junk food destroys our taste for real food and its artificially generated addictive qualities will overwhelm our plan to “eat healthy” half the time.

Just as there is no “balance” between ultra-processed food and real food, there is no balance between the synthetic Ultra-Processed World and the real world. We choose one or the other, either by default or by design.

Credit–borrowing money created out of thin air–is the financial equivalent of ultra-processed food. The machinery that spews out the addictive glop is complicated: in the “food” factory, real ingredients are processed into addictive snacks. In finance, reverse repos, swaps, derivatives, mortgages, etc. generate a highly addictive financial product: credit.

Just as with ultra-processed food, the more credit we consume, the more it consumes us. I owe, I owe, so off to work I go.

The derangements of synthetic food, digital realms and finance have yet to fully play out. Consuming more of this Ultra-Processed World is not a path to “the good life,” it’s a path to the destruction and derangement of an Ultra-Processed Life.

*  *  *

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.  Subscribe to my Substack for free

Shares of the Las Vegas Sphere (officially the MSG Sphere), owned by Sphere Entertainment Co (SPHR), have plunged into a vicious bear market this year amid fears that its subsidiary, MSG Networks—a regional sports network—faces potential bankruptcy. Nevertheless, Goldman Sachs analysts Stephen Laszczyk and Antares Tobelem have initiated coverage with a “Buy” rating, arguing that the upside potential for the Las Vegas Sphere is solid and that the market has overstated the risks tied to MSG Networks. 

MSG bankruptcy fears have sent SPHR shares tumbling 36% since peaking at around $48 in mid-February. Short interest has surged to 7.7 million shares—approximately 29.5% of the total float.

On Thursday, Laszczyk and Tobelem provided clients with a detailed note about their decision to initiate a “Buy” rating on SPHR: 

1. We initiate on Sphere Entertainment (SPHR) with a Buy rating and a $42 price target (12-month), representing 24% potential return. At $33.80 a share (off ~20% YTD through 3/26), we believe that the market is currently under-appreciating two key aspects of the company’s growth story and over-estimating a potential risk.

The analysts explained more about their bullish call, outlining three bullish reasons: 

1. Specifically, we believe that the market is under-appreciating the opportunity for the Las Vegas Sphere to continue to reinvent itself with new content and improve execution to grow Revenue and AOI (GSe is ~5% above consensus for Sphere segment AOI),

2. under-appreciating the opportunity to add additional Sphere franchises around the globe (see addressable market analysis inside), and

3. over-estimating the likelihood that a workout of the MSG Networks debt will be value destructive.

The value in SPHR is based on the Las Vegas Sphere, the world’s largest spherical structure—equipped with a 16K resolution LED screen that wraps around the audience for a fully immersive visual experience, which surpasses even legacy venues like Madison Square Garden. 

Org Chart Overview across the MSG Complex

The analysts expect increased operational improvement through increased utilization of show days, better programming cadence, and higher ticket and hospitality pricing. Their model forecasts the Sphere segment AOI to increase significantly, from -$20M in 2024 to $158M in 2027E, outpacing the average analyst estimates on Wall Street. With premium experiences, flexible scheduling, and continued demand for immersive content, the analysts believe the Sphere is positioned for multiple years of continued growth despite “newness” fading fears. 

“While we appreciate the argument that The Sphere has benefited from its “newness” in its first year of operation, we believe concerns that the venue is a fad and will have difficulty reinventing itself to drive continued interest are exaggerated. We see opportunity for The Sphere to add content, optimize show count and timing, and improve operations in a way that translates into continued growth,” the analysts said. 

We believe SPHR is currently trading at a value that only captures the visible revenue streams from the LV and AD Spheres

Las Vegas Sphere Lifetime Foot Traffic

Each additional Sphere build in a new city could generate low tens of millions in AOI for SPHR through royalty fees alone

The Las Vegas Sphere show count should be near that of the entire 5-venue MSGE footprint by ~2027 due to improved utilization

The event count for Sphere Experience has stabilized at ~60-70 shows per month…

Capacity of the 10 Most Comparable Las Vegas Venues to the MSG Sphere

Meanwhile, the MSG Networks segment faces secular headwinds from cord-cutting and unfavorable carriage renegotiations. The analysts expect that “successful renegotiation of MSG Networks’ debt terms, without the need from Sphere Entertainment to inject significant capital, would be a net positive for Sphere’s stock, which we believe appears to be pricing in some risk that Sphere Entertainment uses its own capital to bail creditors out.”

All in all, the analysts have a $42 price target, which reflects a blend of current positive Sphere performance, potential franchise expansion, and a low probability of value destruction from MSG Networks’ debt issues. 

. . . 

lol 

Grateful Dead played the Las Vegas sphere—imagine tripping balls and looking up and seeing this. There’s no way I’m coming back from that pic.twitter.com/o1D9dWXYeW

— ØSØ (@OsoBlanc0) May 30, 2024

Don’t do drugs and then go to the Sphere in Vegas. You will have a bad time. pic.twitter.com/tjm9Q9bbFr

— Alpha Liger (@AlphaLiger) January 16, 2025

Jerry Garcia would’ve liked the Sphere pic.twitter.com/IFPKbzD4eM

— Las Vegas Locally 🌴 (@LasVegasLocally) March 22, 2025

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

After returning recently from speaking at the World Forum in Berlin, I testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned about the building threat to free speech from the use of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan has taken up the issue and received a letter from the EU’s Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Henna Virkkunen. The letter is both evasive and deceptive.

In my book, The Indispensable Right, I detail how the DSA has been used to allow for sweeping speech investigations and prosecutions. In direct contradiction to past statements by the EU, Virkkunen denied any effort to regulate speech or enforce the DSA outside of Europe.

What is particularly maddening is the false claim that the EU remains “deeply committed to protecting and promoting free speech.” Many in the free speech community view the EU and the DSA as the greatest threats to free speech in the West.

In his letter, Jordan correctly raised the concern that the DSA could “limit or restrict Americans” constitutionally protected speech in the United States by compelling platforms to crack down on what the EU considers “misleading or deceptive” speech.

In her response, Virkkunen bizarrely describes the DSA as “content-agnostic” while insisting that the DSA “applies exclusively within the European Union.”

That is not what EU officials previously said or what the law itself allows. Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA require all sites to identify, assess, and mitigate “systemic risks” posed by content, including any threats to “civic discourse”, “electoral processes,” and “public health.” It is up to the EU to define and judge such categories in terms of compliance.

The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

Some in this country have turned to the EU to force the censorship of their fellow citizens. After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech.

In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans. (Clinton spoke at the World Forum and lashed out at the failure to control disinformation).

The EU immediately responded by threatening Musk with confiscatory penalties against not just his company but himself. He would have to resume massive censorship or else face ruin.

This campaign recently came to a head when Musk had the audacity to interview former president Donald Trump. In anticipation of the interview, one of the world’s most notorious anti-free speech figures went ballistic.

Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton issued a threatening message to Musk, “We are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political — or societal — events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.”

The EU has long been one of the most aggressively anti-free speech bodies in the world. It has actively supported the evisceration of free speech among its 27 member states. The EU is not “agnostic” when it comes to free speech; it has long championed a type of free-speech atheism.

We have faced EU officials engaging in Orwellian doublespeak for years. Nevertheless, Virkkunen’s letter to Jordan stands out for its sheer mendacity.

*  *  *

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.”

There’s been another reported attack on the Sudzha pipeline infrastructure in Russia’s Kursk Region on Friday. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova conveyed to journalists a Russian military assessment saying a metering facility was “de facto destroyed” in a Ukrainian HIMARS attack. 

But unlike some of the prior Ukrainian attacks on the area, the Kremlin is directly blaming the West, going to far as to say that orders for the new strike came directly from European capitals.

We “have reasons to believe that targeting and navigation were facilitated through French satellites and British specialists input [target] coordinates and launched [the missiles],” Zakharova said, as cited in national media.

“The command came from London,” she emphasized, describing it as part of a West-backed “terror” campaign meant to degrade and destroy Russia’s energy infrastructure. 

The Kremlin has concluded this demonstrates that Kiev is “impossible to negotiate with,” she explained. The Ukrainians have done nothing to actually uphold the energy ceasefire put forward by Trump, despite that Zelensky “publicly supported” it, she said, suggesting it was all an empty game.

“Over the past 24 hours, the Kyiv regime continued its attacks on Russian energy infrastructure using various types of drones and HIMARS multiple rocket launchers,” the Russian military had also described.

Russia has alleged Ukraine launched rockets on the Sudzha facility, which had already been damaged in an earlier attack this week, along with nearly 20 drones launched at an oil refinery in the southern Saratov region.

Ukraine is meanwhile denying the Russian allegations, instead suggesting it’s a false flag orchestrated by Moscow:

On Friday, Ukraine denied claims that its forces fired on the gas metering station Sudzha and accused Russia’s military of striking the facility.

“Russia has again attacked the Sudzha gas transmission system in the Kursk region, which they do not control,” Andriy Kovalenko, an official who is responsible for countering disinformation, said on social media.

The two sides have traded blame for violating the energy ceasefire on basically a daily basis since it was proclaimed. It seems to have barely held, if at all, despite ongoing pledges from both sides to uphold it.

Large fire at the scene of the metering station attack…

Kiev has launched another assault on the Sudzha gas metering station, signaling that Zelensky has no desire at all to reduce tensions with Russia or pursue Trump’s peace plan. pic.twitter.com/H4fe75lU5u

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) March 28, 2025

The US has claimed that it is not providing intelligence for long-range attacks inside Russia by Ukraine, but only intelligence which is defensive in nature. However, Europe is still in maximum support mode, as President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer put together a ‘coalition of the willing’ to defend Ukraine.