70.5 F
Chicago
Monday, September 28, 2026
Home Blog Page 2416

The Great Unwinding: Is There Any Way To Come Out Ahead?

The Great Unwinding: Is There Any Way To Come Out Ahead?

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

History suggests being wary of the “strong buys” at $45 when the eventual bottom is $4.

In response to my chart-fest post The Rollercoaster Ride Ahead: 15 Years of Extreme Distortions Will Be Unwound, readers asked: OK, so what can I do in response? That’s the right question, for passively awaiting the wave to wash over us and then scrambling for higher ground is a high-risk strategy.

Let’s start with three stipulations: 1) this is not investment advice; everything here is an observation based on history or my personal experiences after previous bubbles have popped; 2) there are no easy answers–none, and 3) my last three books can be viewed as a trilogy describing macro and individual responses to the Great Unwinding. I’ll post links to the free chapters at the end of this post. The point being that I’ve pondered this question for many years.

Do I have all the answers? No. Nobody does. All we can assemble is a coherent response based on the lessons of history and system dynamics: what’s fragile, risky and undependable and what’s lower risk and more resilient.

Since no response is easy, we’re talking about degrees of difficulty and what’s within reach for each of us. We all have limits of experience, location, skills, capital, networks and so on. Therefore there is no “one size fits all” template that’s going to work for everyone. The whole point of my book on Self-Reliance is that we each have to plan our own responses; we can’t just follow somebody else’s plan.

There’s a great divide between what Americans want / expect and what’s realistic. The average American feels they need to earn over $180,000 to live comfortably, survey shows The survey also found that only 6% of US adults make $186,000 or more, while the median family income is between $51,500 and $86,000. In other words, everyone feels they’d be OK if they joined the top 6%, meanwhile those households earning $180,000 are feeling that they need to earn $300,000 to be comfortable.

If you and your spouse / partner can skim off $300,000 or more annually, go for it. In terms of risk management, it might be prudent to assume one of you loses your job at some point, so figuring out how to live on $100,000 now rather than later makes sense.

Many readers report that they’ve already fashioned a low-cost, resilient lifestyle, generally by living in a lower cost rural locale with cheaper housing, paying off debt, doing their own repairs and maintenance on homes and vehicles, growing some of their own food and finding like-minded people in the community to share/work with.

Living Well on Less Than $30,000 a Year–One American Family’s Story.

Establishing a low-cost lifestyle demands sacrifices, many of which are “impossible” or out of reach in the current zeitgeist: the jobs and excitement are in cities and suburbs that are unaffordable: Starter Homes Cost At Least $1 Million In 117 California Cities.

Learning how to repair, maintain, grow, cook, bake and build also takes time, effort and sacrifice. The transition from consumer to producer is not easy.

It’s been a long time since Americans experienced a “real recession”: the last “real recession” was in 1981-82, over 40 years ago. Since then, recessions have been brief due to unprecedented bailouts and stimulus. The returns on bailouts and stimulus have diminished, and expecting the same tricks to work like magic again is, well, magical thinking. Things have changed, and as I’ve outlined, it may be less like 2000 or 2009 and more like 1973: nine years of turmoil and inflation that refuses to return to zero.

The biblical seven abundant years, seven lean years comes to mind. Humans predictably respond to abundance by gleefully squandering what’s plentiful in the good times, and then frugally hoarding whatever is left when the lean times kick in. Frugality is common-sense: waste nothing, need less, get serious about your Plan B and Plan C.

Readers ask: are there safe havens for my capital? There are certainly many claims made about safe havens, and I can only speak from my experience of bubbles popping over the past 50 years. The current bubble is unique in being an Everything Bubble, in which traditional safe-haven asset classes have already been front-run by the smart money.

In my experience, every asset goes down when massive credit-asset bubbles pop as the “good” assets get sold to cover margin calls as “bad” assets plummet and debts have to be serviced / paid down. That’s the downside of a financial system that is completely dependent on debt and leverage for its survival: the asset valuations can collapse but the debts remain and can only be cleared by bankruptcy / liquidation / insolvency.

Assets drop to levels that are considered “impossible” at the top of the bubble. This is the mindset of bubbles: the current valuations are entirely rational, and history says they’ll only move higher over time. This is how stocks that fell from $60 to $45 got recommended as a “strong buy” and then eventually bottomed at $4. Skyscrapers were sold for the value of their elevators in the Great Depression.

Earning 4% on cash looks pretty good when others playing “catch the falling knife” have lost 40% of their capital. Patience tends to pay off as bubbles pop and furious counter-rallies tempt bottom-fishers and buy-the-dippers. If history is any guide, bubbles take a few years to completely deflate, as the speculative frenzy takes a long time to dissipate as gamblers’ capital and desire to bet are whittled away.

The cliche is cash is king in asset-bubble deflations, and there’s a reason for this. Cash may lose some purchasing power due to inflation, but it’s earning some income to offset inflation. Every other asset that soared in the bubble is exposed to the selling that comes from having to pay down debt, unwind leverage and get out now before I lose even more money.

The risks of patiently waiting for the bubble to completely deflate are low compared to the risks of trying to rotate in and out of deflating assets ahead of the bots and smart money, who are masters of juicing manic counter-rallies to suck in the impatient and speculators who are overly anxious to “buy the dip.”

Note that Wall Street never recommends frugally piling up cash for a few years, as that generates no income for Wall Street, which thrives off the herd busily churning away capital chasing the latest hot rotation into bat guano futures, cobalt mines in Lower Slobovia, the Hydrogen economy, AI-powered robot pets, and so on. Maybe fortunes will be minted, maybe not, but staying out of the casino and waiting for the bottom, when everyone has given up, is never going to be touted by anyone in the casino.

Recall that it doesn’t matter what the “market” deems as the “fair price” for productive real-world assets. If my house is “worth” $1,000 or $1 million, it still provides shelter. If a homestead produces 1,000 pounds of nutritious food a year, it doesn’t matter whether the “market value” of the land is $1,000 or $1 million. That only matters if we’re speculating or leveraging debt. If we’re only interested in the use value, then the “market” gyrations are of zero interest.

What’s the “real value” of anything? That depends. My wife just bought a pair of almost-new Merrell brand shoes that retail for $100 for $2 at a thrift store. For somebody, the shoes were worth $100. Now they’re worth a few dollars.

Keep in mind health is the only real wealth. Once health is lost, even $100 million can’t restore it.

Everyone’s a genius in a bubble, but over time, few survive even five years of volatility. It may look easy to have caught the highs and lows of the 1970s, but few managed to do so.

History suggests being wary of the “strong buys” at $45 when the eventual bottom is $4. This is of course “impossible.” Everyone thought that in 2000 and 2008, too, and it’s the dominant mindset once again.

The opportunities lie ahead–far ahead. There is much to be said for this simple strategy: get lean, get frugal, pay off debt, save cash, get your Plans B and C in order, learn as much as you can to increase what you can do in the real world for yourself and your household, lower your exposure to non-linear disruptions and systemic risks beyond your control, turn a deaf ear to the touts and stay out of the casino.

*  *  *

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

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/01/2024 – 09:07

“This Is Unjust!” Female Boxer Quits Olympic Match, Melts Down In Tears After ‘Biological Male’ Brutalizes Her In 46 Seconds

“This Is Unjust!” Female Boxer Quits Olympic Match, Melts Down In Tears After ‘Biological Male’ Brutalizes Her In 46 Seconds

Feminists are once again silent after a female boxer was destroyed in 46 seconds by a ‘biological male’ in an Olympic matchup.

After just 46 seconds and two massive shots to the head, Italy’s Angela Carini threw her helmet onto the mat and abandoned the bout against Algerian boxer Imane Khelif, shouting “This is unjust!”

The 25-year-old Carini, and Italian police officer, refused to shake hands with Khelif – who was previously banned from competition by the International Boxing Association after failing tests to establish gender qualification.

After the Olympic match was stopped, the referee raised Khelif’s hand in the air, while a visibly furious Carini yanked her hand away from the official and stormed off, the Daily Mail reports. She then dropped to her knees and burst into tears, saying she had never felt such strong blows in a match.

“I’m used to suffering. I’ve never taken a punch like that, it’s impossible to continue. I’m nobody to say it’s illegal,” she said after the match.

“I got into the ring to fight. But I didn’t feel like it anymore after the first minute. I started to feel a strong pain in my nose. I didn’t give up, but a punch hurt too much and so I said enough. I’m leaving with my head held high.”

Following the match, Carini spoke with the press where she was clearly distraught.

She said she did not walk away from the fight as a protest against her opponent’s inclusion, but that was a decision for the Olympics to consider.

She was taken away for medical assessment to examine the seriousness of her facial injuries which included a bruised nose.

Carini’s coach in the mix zone after the fight said: ‘I don’t know if her nose is broken. I have to speak with the girl. But many people in Italy tried to call and tell her: ‘Don’t go please: it’s a man, it’s dangerous for you.’  -Daily Mail

On Wednesday evening, the IBA – which banned Khelif – said that the transgender boxer had initially appealed their decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, but “but withdrew the appeal during the process, making the IBA decision legally binding.”

The IBA also directly criticized the IOC, saying “The IOC’s differing regulations on these matters, in which IBA is not involved, raise serious questions about both competitive fairness and athletes’ safety,” however the IOC position is that Khelif, and Chinese transgender athlete Lin Tu-ting of Taipei, “are women according to their passports,” who had qualified under the rules of elligibility.

XY Chromosomes?

There has been some controversy over whether Khelif was actually born a male or a female – with some claiming ‘she’ has hyperandrogenism, a condition which features higher-than-usual levels of androgens (male hormones), however earlier this year IBA president Umar Kremlev told Russian news agency TASS that the boxer had “XY [male] chromosomes.“

“I repeat that all the competitors comply with the eligibility rules,” said IOC spox Mark Adams. “But what I would say is that this involves real people. And, by the way, this is not a transgender issue. I should make this absolutely clear.”

Now, the IOC faces a harsh backlash – including UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who wrote on X: ” When will this madness stop? Men cannot become women. Why is the British Government not objecting to this?”

JK Rowling also chimed in, writing on X: “What will it take to end this insanity? A female boxer left with life-altering injuries? A female boxer killed?“

And remember…

 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/01/2024 – 08:45

Initial Jobless Claims Surge To 12-Month Highs

Initial Jobless Claims Surge To 12-Month Highs

The number of Americans filing for jobless benefits for the first time rose to 249k last week – the highest since last August…

Source: Bloomberg

Texas claims continue to fall as the storm-related surge normalizes…

Source: Bloomberg

Additionally, the number of Americans continuing to claim unemployment benefits rose to 1.877 million last week – the highest since Nov 2021…

Source: Bloomberg

Is this ‘bad’ enough news to lock in September rate cuts?

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/01/2024 – 08:35

Bank of England Cuts Rate to 5.0% In “Finely Balanced” 5-4 Vote, Offers No Signals On Next Moves

Bank of England Cuts Rate to 5.0% In “Finely Balanced” 5-4 Vote, Offers No Signals On Next Moves

The global easing train is now well and truly on its way. While the Fed got close to cutting rates yesterday, but instead punted to September, moments ago it was the Bank of England that joined the SNB and ECB and became the latest western central bank to begin an easing cycle when it cut interest rates by 0.25%, taking them down to 5.00%, its first rate cut since the global covid crash (the market was pricing 60% odd of a rate cut ahead of the decision so not exactly a big surprise).

The cut – which was an extremely close decision, with the Monetary Policy Committee voting 5-4 to cut rates (vs 2-7 in the last meeting) with Bailey, Breeden, Lombardelli, Ramsden and Dhingra voting to cut and Pill, Greene, Mann, and Haskel voting for unchanged – brings to an end the joint-longest peak in rates since BoE was granted independence.

The minutes of the meeting noted that for some of the MPC members voting for a cut the decision was finely balanced with risks to the inflation outlook remaining skewed to the upside. Importantly, the minutes did not provide any indications about the future rate cuts stating that “[t]he Committee continues to monitor closely the risks of inflation persistence and will decide the appropriate degree of monetary policy restrictiveness at each meeting”.

Governor Andrew Bailey, who cast the tie-breaking vote for a quarter-point cut – said that the decision was “finely balanced” for some of those supporting the move, and warned that the MPC must be careful not to cut rates too quickly, or by too much.

Furthermore, the MPC said that “monetary policy will need to continue to remain restrictive for sufficiently long until the risks to inflation returning sustainably to the 2% target in the medium term have dissipated further” (in June, it said “restrictive for sufficiently long to return inflation to the 2% target sustainably”.)

From those who voted to cut, the decision was finely balanced: inflationary persistence had not yet conclusively dissipated, and there remained some upside risks to the outlook. Additionally, “there had been some progress in moderating risks of persistence in inflation,” the minutes said. Business surveys pointed to “waning wage and price pressures.” For some of those officials, the decision was “finely balanced” as inflationary persistence “had not yet conclusively dissipated.”

For those who voted to hold rates, members thought that there was a greater risk of more enduring structural shifts, such as a rise in the medium- term equilibrium rate of employment, a fall in potential growth and a rise in the long-run neutral interest rate, contributing to domestic inflationary persistence. They preferred to maintain the current level of Bank Rate until there was stronger evidence that these upside pressures would not materialize.

Alongside Bailey, Clare Lombardelli, the new deputy governor for monetary policy, backed the reduction in what was her first meeting. They were joined by deputy governors Sarah Breeden and Dave Ramsden as well as external member Swati Dhingra.

Chief Economist Huw Pill and external policymakers Jonathan Haskel, Megan Greene and Catherine Mann preferred to hold. It was Haskel’s last vote. In June, only two members supported a cut.

On Inflation, the BoE said risks that inflation pressures from second round effects endure into the medium-term

Economic projections:

  • Inflation:
    • 2024 forecast at 2.75% (prev. 2.5%),
    • 2025 at 2.25% (prev. 2.25%),
    • 2026 at 1.5% (prev. 1.5%)
  • Growth:
    • 2024 forecast at 1 25% (prev. 0.5%),
    • 2025 at 1.0% (prev. 1.0%),
    • 2026 at 1.25% (prev. 1.25%)

Separately, as the Bank of England prepares for its annual adjustment in September of the QT program to reduce its holdings of bonds, UBS notes that Thursday’s MPC report includes the latest analysis of the impact of QT. The BoE said that QT has had a small impact on gilt yields and the QT operations have had little impact on market functioning, which suggests they could increase active sales in the next 120-month period. It says that between February 2022 and June 2024, UK 10y bond yields rose 275bp while UK term premia rose 75bp; but QT is likely to account for just 10bp (though perhaps as much as 20bp) of the total rise in the term premium. It added that measures of gilt market liquidity have, if anything, improved since the start of QT, with some signs that sales may in fact have had a positive effect by alleviating collateral scarcity at shorter maturities.

As Bloomberg notes, the reduction will come as welcome relief for mortgage borrowers and business after 12 months with rates stuck at a 16-year high, and offers the new government an initial boon. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, have been in office less than a month and have promised to boost growth to fix the UK’s ailing public services. Lower rates will help growth and bring down debt-servicing costs, giving the government more money for its spending priorities.

The BOE was briefed on the chancellor’s policy changes on Monday, when public-sector workers were awarded a £10 billion pay rise, but officials did not include them in the August projections. The effects on the fiscal stance will be in the November forecast following the full budget on Oct. 30.

Looking ahead, there was no specific guidance on where interest rates may settle, nor of the speed of cuts needed to get there. The minutes indicated that the BOE may lower borrowing costs only slowly, and financial market bets before the announcement pointed to only one further reduction this year.

“Inflationary pressures have eased enough that we’ve been able to cut interest rates today,” Bailey said in a statement. “But we need to make sure inflation stays low, and be careful not to cut interest rates too quickly or too much.”

The decision, according to Bloomberg, is an early gift to the new Labour government and aligns the BOE with a slow-to-start bandwagon of easing across advanced economies. That shift will possibly soon be joined by the US Federal Reserve after Chair Jerome Powell signaled on Wednesday that officials are on course to cut rates in September unless inflation progress stalls.

Similar to its peers, the UK central bank displayed a cautious approach toward future changes in borrowing costs, with the minutes adding that officials will “decide the appropriate degree of monetary policy restrictiveness at each meeting.”

Even so, the bank’s forecasts point to a steeper path of rate cuts over the next three years than markets currently expect.

On market assumptions that rates fall to 4.1% in 2025 and 3.5% in three years’ time, inflation is at 1.7% after two years and 1.5% after three – well below the 2% target.

UK consumer-price growth is back at that level, but underlying pressures remain uncomfortably high. The BOE said headline inflation will bounce back to 2.7% by the end of the year, and that what happens after that depends on how wages and services prices evolve. Inflation risks will remain “skewed to the upside throughout the forecast period,” the BOE said in its documents. “Monetary policy would need to continue to remain restrictive for sufficiently long until the risks to inflation returning to the 2% target in the medium term had dissipated further.”

The committee decided to cut despite stickier underlying inflation than hoped and stronger growth than anticipated – both elements cited by the minority that opposed the move in a vote that was the MPC’s tightest since September 2023.

Services inflation was 5.7% in June, well above the BOE’s forecast for 5.1%, and wage growth has dropped only slowly.
The economy is also rebounding from recession more strongly than expected. The BOE upgraded growth for this year to 1.25% from 0.5%, but left projections for 2025 and 2026 unchanged at 1% and 1.25%.

With the market generally expecting a rate cut, there was little reaction to the news, with both cable (which had fallen sharply ahead of the announcement) and rates barely reacting to the news, dropping from 1.2780 to 1.2754 before the BOE only to pick up slightly after to 1.2770, while Gilts lifted from 99.73 to 99.99 before paring to 99.59 15 minutes after.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/01/2024 – 07:24

Executives And HR Admit RTO Is Meant To Make People Quit

Executives And HR Admit RTO Is Meant To Make People Quit

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Return to Office (RTO) orders are one ploy companies use to get employees to quit.

BambooHR discusses what’s frequently behind Return-to-Office Mandates.

The connection between RTO mandates and workforce downsizing is not lost on workers, many of whom consider an RTO mandate to be a layoff precursor. Vague reasoning and missing productivity metrics leave employees to assume the worst, which is only fueled by already-low employee happiness and trending anti-work content on social media. One in four (28%) remote workers fear they’ll be laid off before their in-office coworkers.

Nearly two in five (37%) managers, directors, and executives believe their organization enacted layoffs in the last year because fewer employees than they expected quit during their RTO.

And their beliefs are well-founded: One in four (25%) VP and C-suite executives and one in five (18%) HR pros admit they hoped for some voluntary turnover during an RTO, proving, in some cases, why RTO mandates are layoffs in disguise.

By using RTO mandates as a workforce reduction tactic, companies are losing talent and morale among their employees. Nearly half (45%) of the employees who have experienced RTO report significant talent loss within their organizations—talent that was highly valued and wished to be retained.

Moreover, the discontent with return to office policies is strong among employees, with more than one in four (28%) stating they would consider leaving their positions if subjected to such mandates. This level of dissatisfaction could lead to a further drain of talent, affecting not just morale but also the stability and innovation potential of the workforce.

If you do lose your job it’s increasingly harder to find a new one.

Note that Continued Unemployment Claims Jump to the Highest Level Since Nov 2021

After stabilizing for about a year, continued unemployment claims have surged in the last two months.

Continued Claims Key Points

  • The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending July 6 was 1,867,000, an increase of 20,000 from the previous week’s revised level.

  • This is the highest level for insured unemployment since November 27, 2021 when it was 1,878,000. The previous week’s level was revised down by 5,000 from 1,852,000 to 1,847,000.

  • The 4-week moving average was 1,850,500, an increase of 11,500 from the previous week’s revised average.

  • This is the highest level for this average since December 4, 2021 when it was 1,859,750. The previous week’s average was revised down by 1,250 from 1,840,250 to 1,839,000.

I am closely watching claims now. There will be a new report this morning.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/01/2024 – 07:20

Riots Erupt In England After Teenage Child Of Migrants Goes On Stabbing Spree

Riots Erupt In England After Teenage Child Of Migrants Goes On Stabbing Spree

Twenty years ago such an incident would be widely regarded in the UK and Europe as a terrorist attack.  In the woke haze of 2024, though, the 17-year-old child of Rwandan migrants who went on a stabbing spree at a kids dance recital in the town of Southport, England is treated as a run-of-the-mill criminal.  The response from the British public is one of rage as riots erupt across the country.

Following a long running pattern of information suppression when it comes to migrant crimes, very little data has been released by authorities concerning the attacker’s background or possible motives.  What is known is that despite leaving three dead children and ten others injured in the streets of Southport, journalists have sought to humanize the attacker, likely because of his Rwandan migrant family.

UK officials have adopted a blackout policy on migrant violence (including the children of migrants who tend to be more easily radicalized) and have even launched programs to gaslight the public into accepting these tragedies as the new normal; a matter that needs to be embraced with quiet compassion. 

After the stabbing, apparent false reports of the perpetrator being a Muslim migrant named Ali Al-Shakati appeared to originate from a July 29 article on the website “Channel 3 Now” that was later updated to remove in-text references to “Ali Al-Shakati.”  The media has “fact checked” this report dishonestly – They state that the real attacker was born in the UK, but they initially refrained from mentioning his family’s migrant background or his ideological influences.  The chances are high that this information will never be willingly released to the public should it put the UK government’s open border agenda at risk. 

Political leaders and various news platforms are already painting the alleged perpetrator and his family in the best possible light; describing them as “quiet and pleasant” and the attacker as a “loner from a nice family.”  This kind of velvet glove approach is never afforded to white, male and British people accused of criminal acts.  In fact, activist Tommy Robinson was recently arrested and charged under UK terror provisions for nothing more than showing a movie at a patriot rally, but the guy who masked up to plan and execute a mass stabbing of British children will not be treated as a terrorist. 

The narrative is being established that the murders have nothing to do with his migrant or ideological background and are a product of “mental instability.”  If ideological leanings are admitted then the citizenry may demand that migrants be removed, and thus the Cloward-Piven strategy in play in the UK would be undermined. 

The core problem with the mass importation of aliens from third-world societies is that they often regard extreme violence as the first solution to any given problem.  Brutality in these cultures is normal and accepted.  Personal disputes are handled with machetes and the spilling of blood, not debates or even a fair fight.  There is no expectation of honor when it comes to the targeting of innocents; this is not a root principle of third-world zealots.  

The more western nations are saturated with the global dregs, the more often these kinds of devastating attacks will occur.  Until, eventually, the indigenous public becomes fed up and takes to the streets to rid their communities of the threat.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/01/2024 – 06:55

EU AI Act Comes Into Effect – Here’s What To Expect

EU AI Act Comes Into Effect – Here’s What To Expect

Authored by Savannah Fortis via CoinTelegraph.com,

The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act officially takes effect on Aug. 1, following its publication in the Official Journal of the EU on July 12.

The landmark legislation marks a significant step toward regulating the rapidly evolving landscape of AI within the EU. As stakeholders across various industries prepare for the new rules, understanding the phased implementation and key aspects of the AI Act is crucial.

AI Act implemented

Under the AI Act’s implementation scheme, the legislation will be introduced gradually, similar to the EU’s approach to the introduction of its Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, which allows organizations time to adjust and comply. 

The EU is well-known for its complex bureaucracy. As a result, on Aug. 1, the official countdown will commence on the practical implementations of the AI Act, with key stages set to come into effect throughout 2025 and 2026.

The first will be the “Prohibitions of Certain AI Systems,” which will take effect in February 2025. This set of rules will prohibit AI applications that exploit individual vulnerabilities, engage in non-targeted scraping of facial images from the internet or CCTV footage, and create facial recognition databases without consent.

Following this, general-purpose AI models will have a new set of requirements implemented in August 2025. These AI systems are made to handle various tasks rather than being used for unique and specific purposes, such as image identification.

Rules for certain high-risk AI (HRAI) systems with specific transparency risks will come into effect by August 2026. 

For example, if the HRAI system is part of a product subject to EU health and safety laws, such as toys, the rules will apply by August 2027. For HRAI systems used by public authorities, compliance is mandatory by August 2030, irrespective of any design changes.

Companies and compliance

The enforcement of the AI Act will be robust and multifaceted. The EU intends to establish and designate national regulatory authorities in each of the 27 member states to oversee compliance. 

These authorities will have the power to conduct audits, demand documentation and enforce corrective actions. The European Artificial Intelligence Board will coordinate and ensure consistent application across the EU.

Companies dealing with AI will have to meet compliance obligations in risk management, data governance, information transparency, human oversight and post-market monitoring.

Industry insiders have recommended that for companies to comply with these obligations, they should begin to conduct thorough audits of their AI systems, establish comprehensive documentation practices, and invest in robust data governance frameworks.

Noncompliance with the AI Act can result in severe penalties, such as fines of up to 35 million euros or 7% of the company’s total worldwide annual turnover, depending on which figure is bigger.

The AI Act complements the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enacted in May 2018 by addressing AI-specific risks and ensuring that AI systems respect fundamental rights.

While GDPR focuses on data protection and privacy, the AI Act emphasizes safe and ethical AI deployment. Already, major tech companies such as Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, have delayed AI-integrated products in the EU due to “regulatory uncertainty” around GDPR and the AI Act.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/01/2024 – 06:30

Kamala’s “Indian-Caucasian-Jamaican” Birth Certificate Resurfaces As Trump Triggers Race Debate

Kamala’s “Indian-Caucasian-Jamaican” Birth Certificate Resurfaces As Trump Triggers Race Debate

Update (1745ET): As expected, the left is now in histrionics after Donald Trump suggested that Kamala Devi Harris might not be black, after he was asked a loaded question by an ABC News journalist Rachel Scott in front of the National Association of Black Journalists.

To recap, Scott asked Trump if he thinks Harris is ‘only on the ticket because she is a black woman?’ to which Trump replied, accurately, that Harris has identified as an indian-American – which she openly campaigned on.

Not only did people start posting receipts…

…her birth certificate showing her parents being “Indian-Caucasian” and “Jamaican” has begun to circulate.

We assume the next chapter will be a vigorous debate over the blackness of Jamaicans, when the entire point is that Harris chose to campaign on being an Indian.

And of course…

Meanwhile:

*  *  *

Clips are going viral after Donald Trump sat down for an appearance before the National Association of Black Journalists – where he fielded extremely hostile questions from ABC News’ Rachel Scott, and got a rise out of the audience with several answers.

“I want to start by addressing the elephant in the room, sir. A lot of people did not think it was appropriate for you to be here today,” said Scott, who then launched into an attack:

“You attack Black journalists calling them ‘a loser,’ saying the questions that they asked our quote, ‘stupid and racist.’ You’ve had dinner with a white supremacist at Mar a Lago resort. So my question, sir, now that you were asking black supporters to vote for you, why should black voters trust you, after you have used language like that?” Scott continued.

To which Trump replied: “Well, first of all, I don’t think I’ve ever been asked the question, in such a horrible manner, first question. You don’t even say hello, how are you?”

“And I think it’s disgraceful that I came here in good spirit. I love the Black population of this country. I’ve done so much for the black population of this country, including employment including opportunity zones with Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, which is one of the greatest programs ever for black workers and black entrepreneurs,” Trump continued, calling ABC News “a fake news network” – to which the audience could be heard cheering.

“I have been the best president for the Black population since Abraham Lincoln,” Trump continued to applause.

Trump then slammed Kamala Harris for allowing illegal immigrants to flood the country with illegal immigrants.

When asked “Do you believe Vice President Kamala Harris is only on the ticket because she is a black woman,” Trump replied that Harris identified as an indian American until several years ago, adding “I’m not sure if she’s indian or black.”

Oh.

Trump then discussed political lawfare against him – once again slamming ABC for a lack of coverage. When Scott then said she wanted to move on because she had ‘limited time,’ Trump said “you’re the one who held me up for 35 minutes.”

When asked about running mate JD Vance’s comments about ‘childless cat ladies,’ Trump suggested that Vance is a big fan of families. 

Trump also addressed pardoning the January 6th defendants.

We can’t help but wonder how Kamala Harris would do in a similarly contentious interview.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/01/2024 – 06:11

Visualizing The Global Demand For Oil (2022-2045F)

Visualizing The Global Demand For Oil (2022-2045F)

Economists have been attempting to forecast the point of peak oil—the year when oil demand reaches its maximum level—since the 1970s. Despite increasing warnings regarding climate change, global demand has continued to rise over the last few years and could continue.

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist partnered with Range ETFs to explore the global oil demand and determine which region will demand the most in 2045.   

Projecting Global Oil Demand

As per OPEC, Oil demand could be as much as 17% higher by 2045 than it was in 2022. These projections are in millions of oil barrels per day and broken down by oil product.

Oil’s importance in the global economy and its role as a fuel in many nations and industries worldwide contribute to the strength in demand. Additionally, the demand for jet fuel could grow by as much as 60% between 2022 and 2045, as currently, there is no carbon-neutral alternative to kerosene.  

Who Will Be Using This Oil?

The forecasts also describe how much of this demand could flow to each region by 2045. Here is how it breaks down: 

Despite significant investments in clean energy, large economies like those in North America, China, and India are forecast to have the most demand in 2045. This would be driven by each region’s need to use oil in transportation, industrial processes, and energy generation.

The Future of Oil

Oil’s continued importance as a fuel will likely keep demand growing over the next two decades.

Investors can take advantage of the growing potential oil demand by gaining exposure to various companies at the forefront of the offshore oil industry through the Range Global Offshore Oil Services Index ETF (OFOS). 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/01/2024 – 02:45

The Polish-Hungarian Dispute Is Getting Nastier After Sikorski Lied About Szijjarto

The Polish-Hungarian Dispute Is Getting Nastier After Sikorski Lied About Szijjarto

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Polish-Hungarian relations are in crisis over their polar opposite approaches towards Ukraine, which already just ruined their 700-year-old brotherhood at the state-to-state level and continues getting worse. Tensions had been building since the start of Russia’s special operation, but they finally exploded after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban criticized Poland on Saturday for hypocritically attacking his country over its Russian oil imports and radically reshaping the European balance of power.

This was followed by Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Teofil Bartoszewski suggesting on Sunday that Hungary should withdraw from the EU and NATO in order to form “a union with Putin”. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto responded to that by doubling down on Orban’s claims that Poland is hypocritical and provocative while also conveying to Warsaw that Budapest’s patience is wearing thin. Readers can learn more about their dispute from this analysis here that was published on Monday.

It turns out that the Warsaw-based Visegrad Insight published an interview with Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski later that same day in which this top diplomat continued his deputy’s attacks against Hungary. He practically mocked Orban for not having any support for his peace mission and then scandalously claimed that Szijjarto initially supported his proposal to hold the next EU Foreign Affairs Council in Ukraine as a compromise between Budapest and Brussels before eventually vetoing it.

Sikorski’s other attacks against Hungary inclined throwing shade on its East-West balancing act and implying that newfound cooperation with the Chinese police imperils national sovereignty. Szijjarto was once again pressed to respond to these Polish provocations, which he did in two Facebook posts here and here. He accused Sikorski of lying, clarified that Orban’s peace mission was a national initiative unrepresentative of the EU, and expressed hope that Poland will one day return to Central Europe.

The last part showed that he’s nobly taking the high road by refusing to stoop to Sikorski’s level with lies and smears, which would have amounted to dirtying himself by wrestling with a pig while his Polish counterpart squeals with delight. Poland wants to provoke Hungary into behaving undiplomatically since that could then be spun to discredit the conservative-nationalist opposition that looks to it for guidance on non-Ukrainian-related issues like illegal immigration and still treasures their brotherhood.

Apart from not wanting to deal a deathblow to this relationship at the people-to-people level among those in Poland who still appreciate it, Hungary also doesn’t want to discredit itself in the eyes of its non-Western partners like Russia and China by acting like a typical European country does nowadays. Those two and others respect that Hungary conducts itself differently than its peers, which is why they’d be hugely disappointed if it was successfully provoked by Poland into behaving just like the rest of them.

Hungarian diplomacy is sophisticated enough to never sully the state like that, which is why it’s expected that its representatives will continue taking the high road no matter what Poland says or does, even if Sikorski and others get a lot nastier. This’ll likely take the form of them continuing to explain how far astray Poland has gotten from its post-Old Cold War mission of turning their Visegrad Group with Czechia and Slovakia into a third center of influence in Europe alongside the Franco-German axis and Russia.

Hungary wants to remind Poland that the greater geopolitical good is served by returning to this mission instead of continuing to contribute to continental instability by serving as the Anglo-American Axis’ wedge between the aforementioned traditional power centers. Polish policy won’t change as a result, but Polish patriots will know that Hungary has Poland’s best interests in mind no matter what the ruling liberal-globalist coalition claims, thus keeping their brotherhood alive at the people-to-people level.  

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/01/2024 – 02:00