Authored by Tom Mitchelhill via CoinTelegraph.com,

Roger Ver — also known as Bitcoin Jesus — urged a United States judge to dismiss a case alleging he committed tax evasion when selling millions of dollars in Bitcoin, claiming the case is unconstitutional.

In a Dec. 3 filing to a California federal court, Ver argued that the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) exit tax for those who renounce their US citizenship with more than $2 million in assets is unconstitutional and “inscrutably vague.”

“The ‘exit tax’ at issue violates both the Apportionment Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution […] the charges also rely on provisions of the U.S. tax laws that were, at all relevant times, inscrutably vague as to their application to digital assets of the kind that underlie the charges,” Ver’s lawyers argued. 

The IRS’ exit tax aims to ensure that US citizens pay all required taxes before renouncing their citizenship and withdrawing from the country’s tax system.

Lawyers for Ver claim that the case against him is unconstitutional. Source: CourtListener

Ver also claimed prosecutors had “unlawfully” interrogated one of his lawyers and ignored crucial documents, which he said showed he had no intent to file a fraudulent tax return. 

On April 30, the US Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles arrested Ver in Spain and charged him with tax evasion and fraud, alleging he dodged more than $48 million in taxes by failing to report capital gains on the sale of “tens of thousands” of Bitcoin for $240 million in cash.

Ver claimed there were several impediments to submitting an appropriate exit tax request, including a lack of liquid markets for Bitcoin at the time. Still, the US government remained adamant that Ver filed a fraudulent and false exit tax after renouncing his US citizenship for a Japanese one in 2014.

Ver has been charged with mail fraud, tax evasion and filing false tax returns. He faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in federal prison if found guilty on all counts. 

Ver was one of the earliest advocates of Bitcoin, buying it in droves in 2011 when it was under $1 and acting as an evangelist for digital assets. In 2017, he emerged as a major Bitcoin Cash (BCH) proponent after the Bitcoin network underwent a hard fork. 

Ver was later embroiled in a 2022 scandal with CoinFlex, which claimed that he owed the platform $47 million in USD Coin.

In 2002 and 2003, he spent 10 months in federal prison in the US for selling explosives on eBay.

The US Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a pivotal case challenging Tennessee’s 2023 law banning gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors. The case, brought by the Biden administration on behalf of families of trans youth, has brought the question of transgender youth and the role of state regulation of medical procedures into sharp focus.

At the heart of the case is Tennessee’s 2023 prohibition on prescribing hormone therapies – such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy – to transgender individuals under 18. While the law does not extend to surgical interventions, which are rarely performed on minors, it represents a significant restriction on gender-affirming care. While the Biden administration is leading the charge, the law is being challenged by three transgender teenagers, their families, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who argue that the legislation violates constitutional rights.

Listen:

Who could have seen this coming?

Ketanji Brown Jackson just compared bans on sex changes for kids to bans on interracial marriage. pic.twitter.com/XOOZRLOI2N

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 4, 2024

Oh…

Huge moment at SCOTUS. Alito pulled up Page 195 of the Cass report, showing that child sex-changes don’t actually prevent suicide. ACLU attorney Chase Strangio admits in response that there’s “no evidence” that these procedures actually reduce suicides.

pic.twitter.com/shl1PyGpS8

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) December 4, 2024

As Truth in Media notes further; Chase Strangio, a notable figure as the first openly transgender lawyer to argue before the Supreme Court, articulated the case’s essence. “The government of Tennessee is displacing the decision-making of loving parents,” Strangio argued, emphasizing that such care is supported by numerous medical associations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, for its benefits in alleviating gender dysphoria.

NEW: ACLU transgender lawyer says children should be allowed to be castr*ted, stating that even two-year-olds know when it’s time to transition.

Nothing could prepare me for this voice.

Transgender Chase Strangio will be arguing before the Supreme Court in favor of trans… pic.twitter.com/F0AswDi6M4

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) December 3, 2024

The state, however, defends its position, with Sen. Jack Johnson, who sponsored the bill, asserting that the legislation is akin to other age-based restrictions like tattoos or alcohol consumption, aimed at protecting minors from irreversible decisions. Tennessee’s argument hinges on the notion that the law regulates medical practices rather than discriminates based on sex or gender identity.

This case arrives at the Supreme Court amid a broader wave of legislation across the U.S., where more than two dozen states have similar restrictions. The outcome could set a precedent not only for transgender youth but potentially for all minors seeking medical care that involves hormone treatments or puberty blockers for any condition.

The courtroom was packed on Wednesday, with observers from various advocacy groups and parents of transgender children present, highlighting the personal stakes involved. For families like that of LW, a transgender teen from Tennessee, the law has forced them to undertake long journeys out of state to continue her medical treatment, illustrating the practical implications of such bans.

The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by summer, could either affirm the rights of transgender youth to access gender-affirming care or uphold state authority to regulate medical treatments for minors. This ruling might also influence future cases regarding transgender rights, especially in states with pending or active litigation against similar bans.

In a rare dangerous incident and close-call, European media reports have described that the crew of a Russian ship ‘fired’ upon a Germany army helicopter which was monitoring the vessel’s movements in the Baltic Sea.

“German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock announced increased surveillance in the Baltic Sea after a Russian ship fired at a Bundeswehr helicopter during a mission,” EuroNews writes.

The Bundeswehr helicopter was confirmed to have been on a reconnaissance mission at an unclear date and time, but the Russian ship – described in The Daily Mail as a warship – fired signaling ammunition in an apparent effort to warn the aircraft off.

Baerbock disclosed the incident for the first time on the sidelines of a NATO foreign minister’s meeting in Brussels, but gave few other details.

“Signal ammunition is used for warning shots rather than attack, but this sort of incident is a sign of how close NATO and Russia are getting to facing each other directly,” Daily Mail concludes.

Currently there’s a lot of Western monitoring of the Baltic Sea after several communications cables which link Finland, Sweden, Germany, and Lithuania were severed in a suspected sabotage incident.

Allegations and focus have remained on the Chinese vessel Yi Peng 3 which was observed in the area at the time of the suspected sabotage. It’s believed to have intentionally dragged its anchor to damage the underwater cables. The Swedish government has demanded answers of Beijing. 

Tensions have been soaring of late between Berlin and Moscow, given Baerbock on Tuesday also told NATO allies that all options are on the table regarding the Ukraine war, presumably even the potential for deploying Western troops there.

Russian state media has picked up on her hinting at this scenario:

She suggested that a potential peace deal could include security guarantees for Kiev, such as the prospect of NATO membership and continued military support from the West, as well as an international peacekeeping mission.

Asked about what military role Germany could play in such a deal, Baerbock was quoted by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) as saying that “only we as Europeans can protect peace together,” suggesting that EU countries, including Germany, could send their soldiers to Ukraine.

The Kremlin is unlikely to ever accept a deal which puts NATO ‘peacekeeping’ forces even closer on its doorstep. Thus Russian officials are deeply suspicious of any talk of peacekeeping troops.

With the Russian army on the offensive, making continual and steady gains in the Donbas, Putin is not going to be in the mood to concede much if and when direct negotiations finally happen.

By Benjamin Picton, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank

Just when you thought that politics in 2024 couldn’t get any crazier, the President of South Korea declares martial law. President Yoon Suk Yeol made the declaration yesterday, justifying it as necessary to “eliminate anti-state forces” who he accused of sympathizing with North Korea. The declaration was opposed unanimously by the South Korean National Assembly in a bipartisan 190-0 vote (the balance of the 300 members were not present) as videos circulated on social media of the military surrounding the Assembly building. The Wall Street Journal reports that members had to resort to scaling fences to evade armed guards and attend the vote.

Martial law was in effect for approximately six hours before President Yoon lifted it around 4am Wednesday following the vote. The Associated Press reports that an opposition party lawmaker claimed CCTV footage showed troops moving in a way that suggested they intended to arrest the leader of the main opposition party, the Speaker of the National Assembly and even the parliamentary leader of Yoon’s own party before martial law was lifted. It now appears likely that President Yoon will be impeached and fail to see out the remainder of his 5-year term due to expire in 2027.

https://t.co/PO46lo60pi pic.twitter.com/UTBBhXjYeS

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 3, 2024

The USD rallied almost 3% against the Korean Won before retracing substantially as the political crisis subsided. Ultimately USDKRW closed 1.6% higher on the day. Spot gold was up smalls while the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index lost 0.08% and US 10-year Treasury yields lifted 3.5bps to 4.225%, thereby prompting a slight bear-steepening of the Treasury curve as 2-year yields remained unchanged at 4.18%.

Long-end yields may have been encouraged higher by a much stronger than expected JOLTS report yesterday. That report showed 7,744,000 job openings in October compared to a (downwardly-revised) figure of 7,372,000 in September and a consensus estimate on the Bloomberg survey of 7,519,000. Meanwhile, the San Francisco Fed’s Mary Daly said that a rate cut this month “isn’t certain” but that “in order to keep the economy in a good place we have to continue to recalibrate policy”. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee was a little more explicit, saying that he expected interest rates to “come down a fair amount from where they are now” in the months ahead. All-in-all, the signal from Fed speakers this week seems to be that the December FOMC decision will hinge on the results of the payrolls report due out on Friday.

The active Brent crude future rose 2.53% to $73.65/bbl yesterday as news circulated that OPEC+ is close to an agreement to delay production cuts due to expire in January by another three months. The alliance of oil producing nations is due to finalize plans for extensions to the 180,000 bbl/day cuts at an online meeting on Thursday. If passed, this would mark the third extension to agreed production cuts as producers seek to support global prices in the face of slowing demand from China (the world’s top energy importer) and burgeoning supplies out of the United States. Compliance with agreed cuts has also been a major problem for the alliance, with a number of members thought to have been “cheating” by producing more than their agreed numbers.

Breaking international solidarity to pursue economic self-interest is certainly the current Zeitgeist. President Trump posted on Truth Social yesterday that he is “totally against” the acquisition of US Steel by Japan’s Nippon Steel. Trump said that a series of tax incentives and tariffs would instead make US steel “Strong and Great Again, and it will happen FAST!” Japan is, of course, an important defence partner of the United States.

Meanwhile, China has just announced that it is imposing export bans on Gallium, Germanium and Antimony to the United States. All three minerals are used in the production of semiconductors and have other applications in technology, metallurgy, photovoltaic cells and fibreoptics. Reuters reports that China accounts for more than 98% of the world’s supply of Gallium and almost 60% of refined Germanium. A White House spokesperson said that the new restrictions highlight the importance of de-risking supply chains and finding alternative suppliers to China, but that would presumably require diplomacy and cooperation between the United States and her allies. What will be the carrots and sticks offered to encourage new production and supply of critical minerals?

Finally, Bloomberg is this morning reporting that German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has floated the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine as part of a peace deal that could also include ceding some occupied Ukrainian territory to Russia. Ukrainian membership of NATO is likely to remain a red line for Russia considering that NATO encirclement is one of Russia’s major grievances that Vladimir Putin has used to justify his war, but it is interesting that the once unthinkable ceding of land is now being discussed openly by senior European leaders.

This is starting to sound reminiscent of the Concert of Europe realpolitik that prevailed during the 19th century. With Donald Trump set to regain the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next month, the ability to strike a deal that safeguards vital national interests while maintaining a balance of power on the continent will be all the more important

Downtown San Francisco – already ground zero of the commercial real estate implosion – is about to get one more empty skyscraper.

According to Bloomberg, San Fran-based Wells Fargo is looking to sell its headquarters building in San Francisco as it shifts to other (smaller and cheaper) offices less than a half-mile away.

The fourth-largest US lender, best known for its horse and pony logo and its countless financial scandals, which will remain based in the city, has enlisted Eastdil Secured, its former real estate investment bank to advise on a transaction. The building at 420 Montgomery St. could be put on the market as soon as this month, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier Tuesday. It’s likely that a buyer won’t emerge and the building could remain empty.

“Bringing more San Francisco employees together at our 333 Market St. location will create a more collaborative work environment through access to more modern workspaces, enhanced technology and amenities,” a Wells Fargo spokesperson said in an emailed statement. “Wells Fargo’s corporate headquarters remains in San Francisco, and we have no plans to move it out of the city.”

The move may open up yet more space in San Francisco’s troubled downtown commercial real estate market where similar office buildings have been selling for as much as 80% off. For the bank, founded in 1852 to serve gold rush pioneers, the formal move adds to years of adjusting its presence in the city. Chief Executive Officer Charlie Scharf, who took over in late 2019, lives in New York and mainly works from the company’s offices in Manhattan.

The San Francisco office market has slumped as people continue to work remotely after the pandemic, dragging on the value of office properties. The local vacancy rate was 37% in the third quarter, one of the highest among US cities, with asking rents down 4.9% over the past year, CBRE Group Inc. reported. Hardly surprising for a city best known for its shit-covered sidewalks, endemic crime and generally “socialist paradise” vibe.

The good news is that when a buyer does not emerge, then San Francisco will finally have a place to house at least a small portion of its tens of thousands of homeless crackheads roaming the streets like some undead, zombie army.

Authored by Frank Shostak via The Mises Institute,

For most commentators, a “stable price level” is the key for economic stability. For instance, let us say that there is a relative increase in consumer demand for potatoes versus tomatoes. This relative increase is depicted, all things being equal, by the relative increase in the price of potatoes. To be successful, businesses must pay attention to consumer demand. Failing to do so is likely to lead to losses. Hence, by paying attention to relative changes in prices, producers are likely to increase the production of potatoes versus tomatoes.

According to many economists, if the “price level” is not “stable,” then the visibility of the relative price changes becomes blurred and, consequently, businesses cannot ascertain the relative changes in the demand for goods and services and make correct production decisions.

This leads to a misallocation of resources and to the weakening of economic fundamentals. Thinking this way, unstable changes in the price level obscure a business person’s ability to ascertain changes in the relative prices of goods and services. Thus, businesses find it difficult to recognize a change in relative prices when the price level is unstable.

Given such presuppositions, it is not surprising that the mandate of the central bank is to pursue policies that will allegedly bring “price stability” (i.e., a stable price level). By means of various quantitative methods, the Fed’s economists have established that policymakers should aim at keeping the yearly growth rate of prices of goods and services at two percent. Any significant deviation from this figure supposedly constitutes deviation from stable growth.

The Assumption of Money Neutrality & “Price Stability”

At the root of price stabilization policies is a view that money is neutral, that is, changes in the money supply only have an effect on the price level while having no effect on the relative prices. For instance, if one apple exchanges for two potatoes then the price of an apple is two potatoes or the price of one potato is half an apple. Now, if one apple exchanges for one dollar, then the price of a potato is $0.50. Note that the introduction of money does not alter the fact that the relative price of potatoes versus apples is 2:1 (two-to-one). Thus, a seller of an apple will get one dollar for it, which, in turn, will enable him to purchase two potatoes.

Let us assume that the stock of money has doubled and, as a result, the purchasing power of money has halved, or the price level has doubled. This means that now one apple can be exchanged for two dollars while one potato for one dollar. Despite the doubling in prices, a seller of an apple with the obtained two dollars can still purchase two potatoes. Assuming money neutrality, an increase in the quantity of money leads to a proportionate increase in prices. Conversely, a fall in the quantity of money results in a proportionate decline in the prices. Why is this way of thinking problematic?

Money is Not Neutral

When new money is injected, there are always first recipients of the newly-injected money who benefit from this injection. The first recipients, with more money at their disposal, can now acquire a greater amount of goods while the prices of these goods are still unchanged. As money starts to move through the economy, the prices of goods begin to rise, unevenly and disproportionately. Consequently, late receivers of the inflated money realize costs from the monetary injections and may even find that most prices have risen so much that they can now afford fewer goods.

Artificial increases in money supply generate a redistribution of wealth from later recipients, or non-recipients of money, to the earlier recipients. Obviously, this shift in wealth alters individuals’ demands for goods and services and, in turn, further alters the relative prices of goods and services. Inflationary increases in money supply set in motion new dynamics that give rise to changes in demands for goods and services and to changes in their relative prices. Hence, increases in money supply cannot be neutral.

Again, a change in relative demands here is on account of wealth diversion from the latest recipients of money to the earlier recipients. This change in relative demands cannot be sustained without ongoing increases in the money supply. Once the growth rate of the money supply slows down or ceases altogether, various activities that emerged on the back of this inflationary increase in the money supply come under pressure. It follows, then, that an artificial increase in the money supply gives rise to changes in relative prices, which sets in motion an unsustainable structure of production.

Hence, the Fed’s monetary policy—which aims at stabilizing the price level—necessarily involves growth in the money supply. Since inflationary changes in the money supply are not neutral, this means that the central bank policy amounts to tampering with relative prices, which leads to the disruption of the efficient allocation of resources.

While increases in money supply are likely to be revealed in general price increases, this is not always the case. Prices are determined by real and monetary factors. Consequently, it can occur if the real factors are pulling things in an opposite direction to monetary factors. In such a case, a visible change in prices may not take place. While money growth is buoyant, prices might display moderate increases. If we were to pay attention to changes in the price level and disregard increases in the money supply, we would reach misleading conclusions regarding the state of the economy. On this, Rothbard wrote,

The fact that general prices were more or less stable during the 1920s told most economists that there was no inflationary threat, and therefore the events of the great depression caught them completely unaware.

There is No “Price Level”

The whole idea of the general purchasing power of money and, therefore, the “price level” cannot even be established conceptually. When one dollar is exchanged for the one loaf of bread, we can say that the purchasing power of the one dollar is the one loaf of bread. If one dollar is exchanged for two tomatoes, then this also means that the purchasing power of the one dollar is two tomatoes. Such information regarding the specific purchasing power of money at that moment in time does not, however, allow the establishment of the general, total purchasing power of money. It is not possible to ascertain the total purchasing power of money because we cannot meaningfully add up two tomatoes to the one loaf of bread. We can only establish the purchasing power of money with respect to a particular good in a transaction at a given point in time and at a given place. According to Rothbard,

Since the general exchange-value, or PPM (purchasing power of money), of money cannot be quantitatively defined and isolated in any historical situation, and its changes cannot be defined or measured, it is obvious that it cannot be kept stable. If we do not know what something is, we cannot very well act to keep it constant.

Conclusion

For most commentators, the key to healthy economic fundamentals is “price stability.” A “stable price level,” it is held, leads to the efficient use of the economy’s scarce resources and hence results in better economic fundamentals. It is not surprising that the mandate of the Federal Reserve is to pursue policies that will supposedly generate price stability. Through monetary policies (inflation) that aim at stabilizing the price level, the Fed actually undermines economic fundamentals. An ever-growing interference of the central bank with the working of markets moves the US economy towards the growth path of persistent economic impoverishment and drastically lower living standards.

On the contrary, what is required is not a policy of dubious “price stability,” but rather allowing free price fluctuations and maintaining sound money. Only in an environment free of central bank tampering can free and voluntary fluctuations in relative prices can take place. This, in turn, permits businesses to abide by consumer instructions.

Research from Doxo has revealed the most expensive – and most affordable U.S. cities to live in – for 2024.

The 60-page report analyzes average household spending across 10 key bill categories, including rent, mortgage, utilities, and insurance, revealing an average annual cost of $25,513 per U.S. household.

It ranks the 50 largest U.S. cities by expense, detailing monthly bill totals, the Cost of Bills Index (COBI), income percentages, and comparisons to the national average, with highlights on the 10 most and least expensive cities.

The 10 most expensive cities for household bills are dominated by hubs like San Jose, New York, and Boston, where monthly expenses exceed $3,400 and the Cost of Bills Index (COBI) rises well above the national average, according to Doxo and DoxoInsights. 

For instance, San Jose households face an average monthly bill of $3,695, 74% higher than the national average. These cities also require substantial portions of household income, with New York bills consuming 38% and Boston reaching 41%, indicating financial strain on residents.

In contrast, the least expensive cities, such as Indianapolis, Louisville, and Memphis, see average monthly household bill expenses well below $2,000, with COBI values significantly under 100. Detroit, the most affordable among them, has an average bill expense of $1,640—23% below the national average—despite its bills taking up 53% of household income, reflecting lower income levels.

Other cities like Cleveland and El Paso similarly exhibit lower costs but still demand a notable share of household income.

Interestingly, income levels and regional economic factors play a pivotal role in these rankings. Expensive cities, often located in tech and business hubs like California and the Northeast, pair high costs with higher average incomes.

The Doxo report shows that more affordable cities, primarily in the Midwest and South, may have lower living costs but also lower median wages, complicating their affordability.

This comparison underscores the varying economic landscapes of urban centers across the U.S. While residents in more expensive cities face larger bills, their higher incomes may offset the impact, whereas in less expensive cities, lower incomes mean even reduced bills can constitute a significant financial burden.

It’ll be interesting to see how this data shifts with the new incoming administration…

You can read the full 60 page spend report PDF here. 

Authored by Frank Miele via RealClearPolitics,

If for no other reason than that it will elicit fear in the hearts of autocracy-phobics, I propose that Donald Trump’s second-term Cabinet be known as “The Wild Bunch.”

The name is best known as the title of Sam Peckinpah’s classic 1969 western featuring a colorful cast of aging outlaws – William Holden, Ernest Borgnine, Edmond O’Brien, Warren Oates, and Ben Johnson – who give it their all as they battle bounty hunters, the Mexican Federal Army, and the passage of time in order to make their mark while they still have a chance.

Substitute the legacy media and special interests for the bounty hunters and Mexican army, and that about sums up the desperate last-chance mission of the ragtag band Trump has put together to carry out his mandate of meaningful change in a government grown fat and corrupt for the past half-century.

We don’t need to belabor the point. Trump’s appointees aren’t outlaws, but they certainly have the federales worried – the so-called administrative state, the people who have been wearing badges and making the rules. Because this Wild Bunch looks like they mean business. If they get approved, they will be kicking ass and taking names.

It’s a far cry from Trump’s first Cabinet, which he appointed with the permission of the administrative state. The outsider president didn’t know enough yet – or have enough power – to buck the system. He went with consensus choices who, at best, might talk about change but would be hesitant to effect it. Half of them shot Trump in the back; most of the rest were disloyal to his face, along with the congressional power brokers who put up roadblocks to every meaningful reform.

It’s not hard to think of Trump as Pike Bishop, the William Holden character in “The Wild Bunch” who leads what’s left of his gang out of a disastrous gunfight at the beginning of the movie and then plans his next move. At one point, Pike tells his trusted lieutenant, “This is our last go-around, Dutch. This time, we do it right.”

That’s where Trump is now, at age 78, sensing the insufficiency of his first term and wanting to make a real difference the second time around. This time, we do it right.

The  president-elect has wasted no time in assembling his team of rabble-rousers. You can break the mayhem down into four discrete buckets – justice, health, national security, and economic overhaul – and it looks like, if he gets his way, Trump’s second term could be historic. Throw in the government reinvention project spearheaded by rogue entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy and you are well on your way to the second American revolution. No wonder the political establishment will stop at nothing to crush Trump and his appointees before they can begin the reforms they promised.

The old guard may have celebrated when they took down the proposed appointment of Rep. Matt Gaetz as attorney general, but they won nothing. Trump’s replacement nominee, former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, will work just as hard as Gaetz to shake up the Department of Justice. As one of Trump’s attorneys in his first impeachment trial, she has intimate knowledge of how the Deep State can aim the full force of the federal bureaucracy on an individual to destroy him or her.

It’s no accident that the Trump transition team has declined FBI background checks on his nominees and appointees. Remember, this is the same FBI that entrapped Trump’s national security adviser Michael Flynn in the early days of his first administration. Not to mention the FBI that let President Trump be impeached for questioning Joe Biden’s role in Ukrainian corruption, even though the agency was in possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop that would have vindicated Trump if it had been released.

You can bet that Bondi, assisted by Trump’s criminal lawyer Todd Blanche in the role of deputy attorney general, will remove any Justice Department employees who pursue charges against anyone for political purposes. Those days are over.

But that’s just the beginning, and although the Justice Department overhaul may bring the most significant changes immediately, the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of Health and Human Services could result in long-term changes of even greater impact.

Anyone who has noticed the prevalence of advertising for wonder drugs on cable news probably can understand the concern that Big Pharma has an outsized impact on the health narrative being told in mainstream media. Multiply that concern by a dozen when you measure the influence that drug companies have not just on Congress and health regulatory agencies but on the medical industry itself. 

Bobby Kennedy has no fear of Big Pharma or the scientific establishment and he is willing to demand accountability for the kinds of policy decisions that led to our disastrous COVID policies four years ago. Is he right about everything? No, but he asks the right questions – questions that until now no one in power has dared to raise.

What about national security? There are problems everywhere, none bigger than China, which has been the missing link in U.S. foreign policy for the past four years. Does President Biden even have a China policy? You would be hard-pressed to find it, unless it is appeasement. No response to the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. No response to the cold war with the Philippines or the creation of Chinese naval bases in the South China Sea. No response to the increasing pressure tactics employed against our crucial trading partner, Taiwan. No response to China cracking down on human rights and free speech in Hong Kong. No response to China’s creation of a spy base in Cuba in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. No response to China’s predatory trade practices using slave labor.

You can expect the silence from the State Department to end when Sen. Marco Rubio is approved by the Senate as the new secretary of state. China is on notice, but other hot spots around the globe will also be addressed by Trump’s national security team, which includes former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence and Rep. Michael Waltz as national security adviser. Trump promised to negotiate a settlement to the frightful war in Ukraine, and by appointing Gen. Keith Kellogg as special envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Trump is signaling that the killing has to end.

National security and the economy overlap in at least two crucial areas – illegal immigration and Trump’s plan to use tariffs as a tool to tame our allies and confound our adversaries. Treasury Secretary-designate Scott Bessent has made it clear that he will work with Trump to use tariffs to reshape the global economy and lessen the national debt.

That will be a key ingredient as Trump’s national security team works to deport the millions of illegals who have developed a dangerous symbiosis with the labor economy. Trump knows we can’t merely overlook the lawbreakers without surrendering our moral superiority, but the trick will be to find economic resources to make whole the industries like agriculture that will need to reinvent themselves with a legal work force.

In the first Trump administration, the response to Trump’s plans for massive change was “Why?” But now the response is “Why not?” As Trump asked black voters in 2016, “What do you have to lose?” Now that question is being posed to the entire nation, which has been sleepwalking toward the abyss for too long. If we don’t solve illegal immigration, the national debt, and the corporate stranglehold on our regulatory agencies and Defense Department, then there won’t be anything left to lose. That’s why nearly 60% of Americans support Trump’s transition, despite the fear-mongering of Rachel Maddow, the New York Times, and Biden’s White House.

In one last parallel between the cinematic “Wild Bunch” and Trump’s political variation, it is worth noting that Trump and his team know exactly what they are getting into. The Deep State isn’t going to take kindly to the president turning off the spigot of easy money for lobbyists, Big Pharma, and the military-industrial complex. But don’t expect Trump to back down.

In a crucial scene in the film, as the outlaws plot their revenge, Ernest Borgnine warns William Holden that “They’ll be waitin’ for us.”

Holden responds: “I wouldn’t have it any other way.” Neither would Trump or any of the 77 million deplorables who joined his gang on Nov. 5.

American businessman and venture capitalist Stephen Jurvetson laid out over a century of Moore’s Law on computational power advancements in a post on X. 

Jurvetson, the founder of Future Ventures who funded Skype, SpaceX, Tesla, Zoox, Boring Company, and other startups, color-coded the transition from mechanical to relay to vacuum tube to transistor and finally to integrated circuits.

He pointed out that “Moore’s Law has transitioned most recently from the GPU (green dots) to the ASIC (yellow and orange dots), and the NVIDIA Hopper architecture itself is a transitionary species—from GPU to ASIC, with 8-bit performance optimized for AI models, the majority of new compute cycles.”

He made forecasts about chip advancements:

• Custom ASIC chips and future analog in-memory compute technologies offer even closer biomimicry of the human brain, further advancing AI capabilities.

• Moore’s Law is expected to persist for at least another 20 years, enabling continued cost reductions in computational power and storage.

Jurvetson emphasized, “I would go further and assert that this is the most important graph ever conceived.”

He added: “Every industry on our planet is going to become an information business.” 

.   .   . 

The Moore’s Law Update

NOTE: this is a semi-log graph, so a straight line is an exponential; each y-axis tick is 100x. This graph covers a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x improvement in computation/$.  Pause to let that sink in.

Humanity’s capacity to compute has compounded for as long as we can measure it, exogenous to the economy, and starting long before Intel co-founder Gordon Moore noticed a refraction of the longer-term trend in the belly of the fledgling semiconductor industry in 1965.

I have color coded it to show the transition among the integrated circuit architectures. You can see how the mantle of Moore’s Law has transitioned most recently from the GPU (green dots) to the ASIC (yellow and orange dots), and the NVIDIA Hopper architecture itself is a transitionary species — from GPU to ASIC, with 8-bit performance optimized for AI models, the majority of new compute cycles.

There are thousands of invisible dots below the line, the frontier of humanity’s capacity to compute (e.g., everything from Intel in the past 15 years).  The computational frontier has shifted across many technology substrates over the past 128 years. Intel ceded leadership to NVIDIA 15 years ago, and further handoffs are inevitable.

Why the transition within the integrated circuit era?   Intel lost to NVIDIA for neural networks because the fine-grained parallel compute architecture of a GPU maps better to the needs of deep learning. There is a poetic beauty to the computational similarity of a processor optimized for graphics processing and the computational needs of a sensory cortex, as commonly seen in the neural networks of 2014.  A custom ASIC chip optimized for neural networks extends that trend to its inevitable future in the digital domain. Further advances are possible with analog in-memory compute, an even closer biomimicry of the human cortex. The best business planning assumption is that Moore’s Law, as depicted here, will continue for the next 20 years as it has for the past 128.  (Note: the top right dot for Mythic is a prediction for 2026 showing the effect of a simple process shrink from an ancient 40nm process node)

—-

For those unfamiliar with this chart, here is a more detailed description: 

Moore’s Law is both a prediction and an abstraction. It is commonly reported as a doubling of transistor density every 18 months. But this is not something the co-founder of Intel, Gordon Moore, has ever said. It is a nice blending of his two predictions; in 1965, he predicted an annual doubling of transistor counts in the most cost effective chip and revised it in 1975 to every 24 months. With a little hand waving, most reports attribute 18 months to Moore’s Law, but there is quite a bit of variability. The popular perception of Moore’s Law is that computer chips are compounding in their complexity at near constant per unit cost. This is one of the many abstractions of Moore’s Law, and it relates to the compounding of transistor density in two dimensions. Others relate to speed (the signals have less distance to travel) and computational power (speed x density).

Unless you work for a chip company and focus on fab-yield optimization, you do not care about transistor counts. Integrated circuit customers do not buy transistors. Consumers of technology purchase computational speed and data storage density. When recast in these terms, Moore’s Law is no longer a transistor-centric metric, and this abstraction allows for longer-term analysis.

What Moore observed in the belly of the early IC industry was a derivative metric, a refracted signal, from a longer-term trend, a trend that begs various philosophical questions and predicts mind-bending AI futures.

In the modern era of accelerating change in the tech industry, it is hard to find even five-year trends with any predictive value, let alone trends that span the centuries.

I would go further and assert that this is the most important graph ever conceived.  A large and growing set of industries depends on continued exponential cost declines in computational power and storage density. Moore’s Law drives electronics, communications and computers and has become a primary driver in drug discovery, biotech and bioinformatics, medical imaging and diagnostics. As Moore’s Law crosses critical thresholds, a formerly lab science of trial and error experimentation becomes a simulation science, and the pace of progress accelerates dramatically, creating opportunities for new entrants in new industries.  Consider the autonomous  software stack for Tesla and SpaceX and the impact that is having on the automotive and aerospace sectors.

Every industry on our planet is going to become an information business. Consider agriculture. If you ask a farmer in 20 years’ time about how they compete, it will depend on how they use information — from satellite imagery driving robotic field optimization to the code in their seeds.  It will have nothing to do with workmanship or labor. That will eventually percolate through every industry as IT innervates the economy.

Non-linear shifts in the marketplace are also essential for entrepreneurship and meaningful change. Technology’s exponential pace of progress has been the primary juggernaut of perpetual market disruption, spawning wave after wave of opportunities for new companies.  Without disruption, entrepreneurs would not exist. 

Moore’s Law is not just exogenous to the economy; it is why we have economic growth and an accelerating pace of progress. At Future Ventures, we see that in the growing diversity and global impact of the entrepreneurial ideas that we see each year — from automobiles and aerospace to energy and chemicals.

We live in interesting times, at the cusp of the frontiers of the unknown and breathtaking advances.  But, it should always feel that way, engendering a perpetual sense of future shock.

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The clean Green energy fiasco has reached a new level of incompetence and waste…

Totally Wasted Wind Power

Bloomberg reports UK Is Paying £1 Billion to Waste a Record Amount of Wind Power

Burgeoning capacity and blustery weather should have driven huge growth in output in 2024. But the grid can’t cope, forcing the operator to pay wind farms to turn off, a cost ultimately borne by consumers. It’s a situation that puts at risk plans to decarbonize the network by 2030 and makes it harder to cut bills.

Crucial to the net zero grid target is a massive build-out of renewable power, particularly from wind. Britain has boosted its offshore fleet by 50% in the past five years and is set to double it in the next five, Bloomberg data show.

But the grid hasn’t expanded at the same pace. As a result, the operator is increasingly paying wind farms, particularly those in Scotland, not to run. So far this year, the UK has spent more than £1 billion ($1.3 billion) in “congestion costs” to turn off plants that can’t deliver electricity because of grid constraints, and switch on others.

Last month for example, when Storm Bert swept across the UK, some of its newest and biggest wind parks were still. Scotland’s £3 billion Seagreen project, owned by SSE Plc and TotalEnergies SE, was shut off. SSE’s Viking development on the Shetland Islands was also closed.

Wind vs Gas

UK generators usually sell output in advance on the wholesale market. But those transactions don’t take into account the physical limitations of balancing supply and demand in real time. To keep the lights on, the operator steps in, paying some plants to turn off and others that are closer to demand centers to fire up.

Often, this means shutting off a far-flung wind farm and starting up a gas-fed plant that’s closer to a city.

Absurd Setup

“It’s absurd that Britain pays Scottish wind farms to turn off when it’s windy, while simultaneously paying gas-power stations in the south to turn on,” said Clem Cowton, director of external affairs at supplier Octopus Energy Group.

I don’t believe we need an energy director to diagnose the complete absurdity of this arrangement.

Which of These Headlines Are Real?

1. Southern Wife Arrested for Failing to Serve Drinks in Mason Jars

2. UK Pays Wind Farms $1.3 Billion to Shut Down When It’s Windy

3. FBI Warns Kash Appointment Could Jeopardize Efforts to Not Release Epstein List

4. Trump Renews Relations with Castro Regime

It is sometimes very difficult to distinguish between real and fake headlines.

In the above list, only number 2 is real. The others are from the Babylon Bee.

Wind Losses Are Huge

• General Electric (GE): GE’s offshore wind business expects to lose about $1 billion in 2023 and 2024. This is due to a number of challenges, including:

  • Inflation 

  • High interest rates 

  • Supply chain bottlenecks 

  • Rising costs for components 

• Siemens: Lost nearly $1 billion on wind last year 

• Vestas: Saw an operating profit decline of 369% 

• Increased costs: Commodity prices, including for steel and copper, have increased, as well as construction and operating costs 

• Regulatory process: The regulatory process takes about six years, while other countries are building projects at a faster pace 

• Lawsuits and disinformation: Lawsuits from advocacy groups and disinformation campaigns from astroturfing groups have slowed development 

The above was AI generated.

Offshore Wind Projects

Image is from the US Energy Information Agency, EIA article Cancellations Reduce Expected U.S. Capacity of Offshore Wind Facilities.

The amount of offshore wind generating capacity that is under construction or planned in the United States is in flux after two projects in New Jersey were canceled last year. Of the 7,200 megawatts (MW) of capacity reported in May in EIA’s latest Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory, projects totaling about 2,400 MW have been canceled since last December while others totaling 4,800 MW remain active in various stages of development.

Cancelled Projects

• In late 2023, developer Orsted canceled the 2,400-MW Ocean Wind 1 and 2 projects in New Jersey, citing rising interest rates, high inflation, and supply chain delays.

• In January, Orsted withdrew from commitments to the Maryland Public Service Commission to build the Skipjack 1 and 2 projects, totaling 966 MW, but is still continuing with advanced development and permitting.

• Late last year, the developer of the 20-MW Icebreaker Wind project on the Ohio coast of Lake Erie halted the project amid rising costs and loss of funding.

Jones Act Impact on Offshore Turbines

Trump should Kill the Jones Act but will he?

Another significant hurdle for offshore wind development in the U.S. involves a century-old law known as the Jones Act.

The Jones Act requires vessels carrying cargo between U.S. points to be U.S.-built, U.S.-operated and U.S.-owned. It was written to boost the shipping industry after World War I. However, there are only three offshore wind turbine installation vessels in the world that are large enough for the turbines proposed for U.S. projects, and none are compliant with the Jones Act.

That means wind turbine components must be transported by smaller barges from U.S. ports and then installed by a foreign installation vessel waiting offshore, which raises the cost and likelihood of delays.

Trump failed to kill the Jones Act in his first term. Will he do so now?

Because of the Jones Act, the US has the highest shipping costs in the world.

Dear DOGE, please look into this. It’s a high-priority item for reasons other than turbines.

Wind Turbine Average Price of Key Critical Materials

The Biden administration set a goal to install 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. Bloomberg reports the actual number will be closer to half that.

Bloomberg: “As the price of construction climbs, developers are rapidly revising their plans — at great cost.“

Material costs have risen, labor costs have risen, the cost of money has shot up, and opposition to projects has risen.

Cancellations show these projects, at least the offshore ones, are hugely unprofitable even with big subsidies.

Has anyone truly factored in the mineral costs, concrete needed, and environmental impacts on birds and marine life, especially whales?

Mish Economic Rule

Except in cases of genuine national security interest, if a project cannot post a profit without subsidies, then it is not economical and should not be undertaken.

Wind turbines are not a national security item. Thus, developers should proceed at their own risk, not US taxpayer risk.

Dear DOGE request #2. Please cancel all subsidies.

Addendum

Speaking of fiascos with much more economic and global trade implications, pleased see my post: China Halts Rare Exports Used by US Technology Companies and the Military

Thus, Trump’s 50 percent tariff threats on China will do one of two things, perhaps both: Block all rare earth exports from China or start WWIII.

Good luck with that.

Oh, I forgot to add: Trade wars are good and easy to win.