Authored by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

Time and time again, financial approaches have worked to fix economic problems. Raising interest rates has acted to slow the economy and lowering them has acted to speed up the economy. Governments overspending their incomes also acts to push the economy ahead; doing the reverse seems to slow economies down.

What could possibly go wrong? The issue is a physics problem. The economy doesn’t run simply on money and debt. It operates on resources of many kinds, including energy-related resources. As the population grows, the need for energy-related resources grows. The bottleneck that occurs is something that is hard to see in advance; it is an affordability bottleneck.

For a very long time, financial manipulations have been able to adjust affordability in a way that is optimal for most players. At some point, resources, especially energy resources, get stretched too thin, relative to the rising population and all the commitments that have been made, such as pension commitments. As a result, there is no way for the quantity of goods and services produced to grow sufficiently to match the promises that the financial system has made. This is the real bottleneck that the world economy reaches.

I believe that we are closely approaching this bottleneck today. I recently gave a talk to a group of European officials at the 2nd Luxembourg Strategy Conference, discussing the issue from the European point of view. Europeans seem to be especially vulnerable because Europe, with its early entry into the Industrial Revolution, substantially depleted its fossil fuel resources many years ago. The topic I was asked to discuss was, “Energy: The interconnection of energy limits and the economy and what this means for the future.”

In this post, I write about this presentation.

The major issue is that money, by itself, cannot operate the economy, because we cannot eat money. Any model of the economy must include energy and other resources. In a finite world, these resources tend to deplete. Also, human population tends to grow. At some point, not enough goods and services are produced for the growing population.

I believe that the major reason we have not been told about how the economy really works is because it would simply be too disturbing to understand the real situation. If today’s economy is dependent on finite fossil fuel supplies, it becomes clear that, at some point, these will run short. Then the world economy is likely to face a very difficult time.

A secondary reason for the confusion about how the economy operates is too much specialization by researchers studying the issue. Physicists (who are concerned about energy) don’t study economics; politicians and economists don’t study physics. As a result, neither group has a very broad understanding of the situation.

I am an actuary. I come from a different perspective: Will physical resources be adequate to meet financial promises being made? I have had the privilege of learning a little from both economic and physics sides of the discussion. I have also learned about the issue from a historical perspective.

World energy consumption has been growing very rapidly at the same time that the world economy has been growing. This makes it hard to tell whether the growing energy supply enabled the economic growth, or whether the higher demand created by the growing economy encouraged the world economy to use more resources, including energy resources.

Physics says that it is energy resources that enable economic growth.

The R-squared of GDP as a function of energy is .98, relative to the equation shown.

Physicists talk about the “dissipation” of energy. In this process, the ability of an energy product to do “useful work” is depleted. For example, food is an energy product. When food is digested, its ability to do useful work (provide energy for our body) is used up. Cooking food, whether using a campfire or electricity or by burning natural gas, is another way of dissipating energy.

Humans are clearly part of the economy. Every type of work that is done depends upon energy dissipation. If energy supplies deplete, the form of the economy must change to match.

There are a huge number of systems that seem to grow by themselves using a process called self-organization. I have listed a few of these on Slide 8. Some of these things are alive; most are not. They are all called “dissipative structures.”

The key input that allows these systems to stay in a “non-dead” state is dissipation of energy of the appropriate type. For example, we know that humans need about 2,000 calories a day to continue to function properly. The mix of food must be approximately correct, too. Humans probably could not live on a diet of lettuce alone, for example.

Economies have their own need for energy supplies of the proper kind, or they don’t function properly. For example, today’s agricultural equipment, as well as today’s long-distance trucks, operate on diesel fuel. Without enough diesel fuel, it becomes impossible to plant and harvest crops and bring them to market. A transition to an all-electric system would take many, many years, if it could be done at all.

I think of an economy as being like a child’s building toy. Gradually, new participants are added, both in the form of new citizens and new businesses. Businesses are formed in response to expected changes in the markets. Governments gradually add new laws and new taxes. Supply and demand seem to set market prices. When the system seems to be operating poorly, regulators step in, typically adjusting interest rates and the availability of debt.

One key to keeping the economy working well is the fact that those who are “consumers” closely overlap those who are “employees.” The consumers (= employees) need to be paid well enough, or they cannot purchase the goods and services made by the economy.

A less obvious key to keeping the economy working well is that the whole system needs to be growing. This is necessary so that there are enough goods and services available for the growing population. A growing economy is also needed so that debt can be repaid with interest, and so that pension obligations can be paid as promised.

World population has been growing year after year, but arable land stays close to constant. To provide enough food for this rising population, more intensive agriculture is required, often including irrigation, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.

Furthermore, an increasing amount of fresh water is needed, leading to a need for deeper wells and, in some places, desalination to supplement other water sources. All these additional efforts add energy usage, as well as costs.

In addition, mineral ores and energy supplies of all kinds tend to become depleted because the best resources are accessed first. This leaves the more expensive-to-extract resources for later.

The issues in Slide 11 are a continuation of the issues described on Slide 10. The result is that the cost of energy production eventually rises so much that its higher costs spill over into the cost of all other goods and services. Workers find that their paychecks are not high enough to cover the items they usually purchased in the past. Some poor people cannot even afford food and fresh water.

Increasing debt is helpful as an economy grows. A farmer can borrow money for seed to grow a crop, and he can repay the debt, once the crop has grown. Or an entrepreneur can finance a factory using debt.

On the consumer side, debt at a sufficiently low interest rate can be used to make the purchase of a home or vehicle affordable.

Central banks and others involved in the financial world figured out many years ago that if they manipulate interest rates and the availability of credit, they are generally able to get the economy to grow as fast as they would like.

It is hard for most people to imagine how much interest rates have varied over the last century. Back during the Great Depression of the 1930s and the early 1940s, interest rates were very close to zero. As large amounts of inexpensive energy were added to the economy in the post-World War II period, the world economy raced ahead. It was possible to hold back growth by raising interest rates.

Oil supply was constrained in the 1970s, but demand and prices kept rising. US Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker is known for raising interest rates to unheard of heights (over 15%) with a peak in 1981 to end inflation brought on by high oil prices. This high inflation rate brought on a huge recession from which the economy eventually recovered, as the higher prices brought more oil supply online (Alaska, North Sea, and Mexico), and as substitution was made for some oil use. For example, home heating was moved away from burning oil; electricity-production was mostly moved from oil to nuclear, coal and natural gas.

Another thing that has helped the economy since 1981 has been the ability to stimulate demand by lowering interest rates, making monthly payments more affordable. In 2008, the US added Quantitative Easing as a way of further holding interest rates down. A huge debt bubble has thus been built up since 1981, as the world economy has increasingly been operated with an increasing amount of debt at ever-lower interest rates. (See 3-month and 10 year interest rates shown on Slide 14.) This cheap debt has allowed rapidly rising asset prices.

The world economy starts hitting major obstacles when energy supply stops growing faster than population because the supply of finished goods and services (such as new automobile, new homes, paved roads, and airplane trips for passengers) produced stops growing as rapidly as population. These obstacles take the form of affordability obstacles. The physics of the situation somehow causes the wages and wealth to be increasingly be concentrated among the top 10% or 1%. Lower-paid individuals are increasingly left out. While goods are still produced, ever-fewer workers can afford more than basic necessities. Such a situation makes for unhappy workers.

World energy consumption per capita hit a peak in 2018 and began to slide in 2019, with an even bigger drop in 2020. With less energy consumption, world automobile sales began to slide in 2019 and fell even lower in 2020. Protests, often indirectly related to inadequate wages or benefits, became an increasing problem in 2019. The year 2020 is known for Covid-19 related shutdowns and flight cancellations, but the indirect effect was to reduce energy consumption by less travel and by broken supply lines leading to unavailable goods. Prices of fossil fuels dropped far too low for producers.

Governments tried to get their own economies growing by various techniques, including spending more than the tax revenue they took in, leading to a need for more government debt, and by Quantitative Easing, acting to hold down interest rates. The result was a big increase in the money supply in many countries. This increased money supply was often distributed to individual citizens as subsidies of various kinds.

The higher demand caused by this additional money tended to cause inflation. It tended to raise fossil fuel prices because the inexpensive-to-extract fuels have mostly been extracted. In the days of Paul Volker, more energy supply at a little higher price was available within a few years. This seems extremely unlikely today because of diminishing returns. The problem is that there is little new oil supply available unless prices can stay above at least $120 per barrel on a consistent basis, and prices this high, or higher, do not seem to be available.

Oil prices are not rising this high, even with all of the stimulus funds because of the physics-based wage disparity problem mentioned previously. Also, those with political power try to keep fuel prices down so that the standards of living of citizens will not fall. Because of these low oil prices, OPEC+ continues to make cuts in production. The existence of chronically low prices for fossil fuels is likely the reason why Russia behaves in as belligerent a manner as it does today.

Today, with rising interest rates and Quantitative Tightening instead of Quantitative Easing, a major concern is that the debt bubble that has grown since in 1981 will start to collapse. With falling debt levels, prices of assets, such as homes, farms, and shares of stock, can be expected to fall. Many borrowers will be unable to repay their loans.

If this combination of events occurs, deflation is a likely outcome because banks and pension funds are likely to fail. If, somehow, local governments are able to bail out banks and pension funds, then there is a substantial likelihood of local hyperinflation. In such a case, people will have huge quantities of money, but practically nothing available to buy. In either case, the world economy will shrink because of inadequate energy supply.

Most people have a “normalcy bias.” They assume that if economic growth has continued for a long time in the past, it necessarily will occur in the future. Yet, we all know that all dissipative structures somehow come to an end. Humans can come to an end in many ways: They can get hit by a car; they can catch an illness and succumb to it; they can die of old age; they can starve to death.

History tells us that economies nearly always collapse, usually over a period of years. Sometimes, population rises so high that the food production margin becomes tight; it becomes difficult to set aside enough food if the cycle of weather should turn for the worse. Thus, population drops when crops fail.

In the years leading up to collapse, it is common that the wages of ordinary citizens fall too low for them to be able to afford an adequate diet. In such a situation, epidemics can spread easily and kill many citizens. With so much poverty, it becomes impossible for governments to collect enough taxes to maintain services they have promised. Sometimes, nations lose at war because they cannot afford a suitable army. Very often, governmental debt becomes non-repayable.

The world economy today seems to be approaching some of the same bottlenecks that more local economies hit in the past.

The basic problem is that with inadequate energy supplies, the total quantity of goods and services provided by the economy must shrink. Thus, on average, people must become poorer. Most individual citizens, as well as most governments, will not be happy about this situation.

The situation becomes very much like the game of musical chairs. In this game, one chair at a time is removed. The players walk around the chairs while music plays. When the music stops, all participants grab for a chair. Someone gets left out. In the case of energy supplies, the stronger countries will try to push aside the weaker competitors.

Countries that understand the importance of adequate energy supplies recognize that Europe is relatively weak because of its dependence on imported fuel. However, Europe seems to be oblivious to its poor position, attempting to dictate to others how important it is to prevent climate change by eliminating fossil fuels. With this view, it can easily keep its high opinion of itself.

If we think about the musical chairs’ situation and not enough energy supplies to go around, everyone in the world (except Europe) would be better off if Europe were to be forced out of its high imports of fossil fuels. Russia could perhaps obtain higher energy export prices in Asia and the Far East. The whole situation becomes very strange. Europe tells itself it is cutting off imports to punish Russia. But, if Europe’s imports can remain very low, everyone else, from the US, to Russia, to China, to Japan would benefit.

The benefits of wind and solar energy are glorified in Europe, with people being led to believe that it would be easy to transition from fossil fuels, and perhaps leave nuclear, as well. The problem is that wind, solar, and even hydroelectric energy supply are very undependable. They cannot ever be ramped up to provide year-round heat. They are poorly adapted for agricultural use (except for sunshine helping crops grow).

Few people realize that the benefits that wind and solar provide are tiny. They cannot be depended on, so companies providing electricity need to maintain duplicate generating capacity. Wind and solar require far more transmission than fossil-fuel-generated electricity because the best sources are often far from population centers. When all costs are included (without subsidy), wind and solar electricity tend to be more expensive than fossil-fuel generated electricity. They are especially difficult to rely on in winter. Therefore, many people in Europe are concerned about possibly “freezing in the dark,” as soon as this winter.

There is no possibility of ever transitioning to a system that operates only on intermittent electricity with the population that Europe has today, or that the world has today. Wind turbines and solar panels are built and maintained using fossil fuel energy. Transmission lines cannot be maintained using intermittent electricity alone.

Basically, Europe must use very much less fossil fuel energy, for the long term. Citizens cannot assume that the war with Ukraine will soon be over, and everything will be back to the way it was several years ago. It is much more likely that the freeze-in-the-dark problem will be present every winter, from now on. In fact, European citizens might actually be happier if the climate would warm up a bit.

With this as background, there is a need to figure out how to use less energy without hurting lifestyles too badly. To some extent, changes from the Covid-19 shutdowns can be used, since these indirectly were ways of saving energy. Furthermore, if families can move in together, fewer buildings in total will need to be heated. Cooking can perhaps be done for larger groups at a time, saving on fuel.

If families can home-school their children, this saves both the energy for transportation to school and the energy for heating the school. If families can keep younger children at home, instead of sending them to daycare, this saves energy, as well.

A major issue that I do not point out directly in this presentation is the high energy cost of supporting the elderly in the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed. One issue is the huge amount and cost of healthcare. Another is the cost of separate residences. These costs can be reduced if the elderly can be persuaded to move in with family members, as was done in the past. Pension programs worldwide are running into financial difficulty now, with interest rates rising. Countries with large elderly populations are likely to be especially affected.

Besides conserving energy, the other thing people in Europe can do is attempt to understand the dynamics of our current situation. We are in a different world now, with not enough energy of the right kinds to go around.

The dynamics in a world of energy shortages are like those of the musical chairs’ game. We can expect more fighting. We cannot expect that countries that have been on our side in the past will necessarily be on our side in the future. It is more like being in an undeclared war with many participants.

Under ideal circumstances, Europe would be on good terms with energy exporters, even Russia. I suppose at this late date, nothing can be done.

A major issue is that if Europe attempts to hold down fossil fuel prices, the indirect result will be to reduce supply. Oil, natural gas and coal producers will all reduce supply before they will accept a price that they consider too low. Given the dependence of the world economy on energy supplies, especially fossil fuel energy supplies, this will make the situation worse, rather than better.

Wind and solar are not replacements for fossil fuels. They are made with fossil fuels. We don’t have the ability to store up solar energy from summer to winter. Wind is also too undependable, and battery capacity too low, to compensate for need for storage from season to season. Thus, without a growing supply of fossil fuels, it is impossible for today’s economy to continue in its current form.

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

We start our podcast today more than 2,500 years ago at a time when the dominant superpower in the western world was the Achaemenid Empire of Persia.

Their civilization had reached an unfathomable level of wealth and sophistication; historical records show that, at peak, the Persian treasury had more than $300 BILLION in savings (in today’s money).

They had an intricate road network, a highly-functioning postal system, impressive engineering works, and had even invented a crude form of refrigeration and air conditioning.

Most of all they had a fearsome military. It was huge. And it was terrifying. Simply put, an invading Persian Army had never been defeated.

And yet, early in the 5th century BC, when they went to war against a rapidly rising power in Greece, the Persians suffered a humiliating defeat. Then again. And again. And again.

The losses changed the perception of their Empire forever.

Practically overnight their reputation sank, and they were no longer viewed as a terrifying superpower able to dominate the world.

We’ve seen this story over and over again throughout history, from Ancient Rome to the Mongols to Imperial Portugal in the early 1800s.

Simply put, dominant superpowers almost invariably have an equally dominant, fearsome military that inspires awe and intimidation in the rest of the world… and especially in the superpower’s adversaries.

But superpowers have a life cycle. They rise, peak, and decline. And at some point during the decline, the military begins to show signs of weakness.

Often times there’s some specific event– something happens that’s so humiliating to the superpower that it shocks the world.

This is what happened to the Persians in 490 BC. And it’s what happened to the United States in 2021.

As a West Point graduate and US Army veteran, I still hold in my heart that the US military is the finest fighting force on the planet.

But facts are facts, and the US military is showing clear signs of decline. Most of it is due to incomprehensible failures of leadership.

Today we discuss that decline; I reference a brand new report by the Heritage Foundation, its 2023 Index of US Military Strength, which provides an extremely honest (and distressing) analysis of the US military’s capabilities, capacity, and readiness.

The report spells out in nearly 600 pages of painstaking detail how the US military is rapidly losing (or has already lost) its technological advantages. It shows how there are not enough forces to defend American interests against a major adversary like China. And most importantly, the report concludes that the military is simply not ready.

These conclusions have far-reaching implications.

History has shown over and over again that once a superpower’s veneer of invincibility is pierced, it rapidly loses its status. And that’s even more true when another competing power is on the rise.

Loss of status as the world’s sole superpower goes far beyond reputation and military conflict.

The economic consequences are devastating.

That’s because dominant superpowers also tend to own the world’s primary reserve currency– in this case, the US dollar.

Being the world’s reserve currency means that commercial and financial transactions around the world are conducted primarily in US dollars.

So for example, a Brazilian merchant and its supplier in India do business with each other in US dollars. Futures contracts for gold, copper, crude oil, etc. that are traded in foreign commodities exchanges (like the Dubai Gold & Commodities Exchange) are denominated in US dollars.

The dollar is so dominant that when Airbus (a European aircraft manufacturer) sells its jets to European airlines, they typically close those deals using US dollars instead of euros. And giant European companies (like Nestle, BP, and Volkswagen Group) issue corporate bonds in US dollars.

You get the idea.

All of these USD financial and business transactions around the world mean that foreign investors, corporations, governments, and banks HAVE to stockpile US dollars, simply because the dollar is the global reserve currency.

And foreign institutions tend to hold the majority of their dollar assets in US government bonds (which is the largest and most liquid USD asset class in the world).

In total, foreigners collectively own $7.5 trillion worth of US government bonds, equivalent to 25% of the national debt… because they HAVE to own the world’s reserve currency.

This allows the US government to get away with the financial equivalent of murder.

The US government can run outrageous budget deficits, fund endless wars, and pay people to NOT work… and foreigners will still hold US dollars and buy US government bonds.

But this unparalleled privilege would dry up very quickly if the US dollar loses its status as the world’s dominant reserve currency.

I wrote about this briefly earlier in the week. But in today’s podcast, we put all the pieces together.

Specifically, I show you how US military dominance is linked to US superpower status… and the US dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency.

We look at the lessons from history to examine the trajectory of a superpower in decline. And we try to connect the dots to see where our currency trajectory will lead us.

This fate is not necessarily imminent; strong leadership and better performance from government could arrest the decline.

Unfortunately, the US government seems completely incapable of solving problems.

Their entire approach to problems, in fact, is very cyclical. It goes something like this:

1) The government does something stupid that creates a problem.

2) They ignore the problem they just created and let it fester.

3) When the problem becomes obvious, they offer a symbolic gesture– ‘thoughts and prayers’

4) When the problem becomes so extreme, they panic and do “whatever it takes”

5) “Whatever it takes” is reckless, expensive, and usually destructive, causing the cycle to start over again.

We cover all of this, and more, in today’s episode, which you can download here, or access in iTunes and Spotify…

The former leader of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was ushered from his seat beside General Secretary Xi Jinping during the final session of the 20th National Congress Saturday.

As WSJ reports, midway through the otherwise carefully-choreographed closing session, Hu Jintao, 79, Xi Jinping’s immediate predecessor, was helped out of his chair next to Mr. Xi and inexplicably led out of the hall.

Footage shot by foreign media in the hall, which wasn’t included in the official China Central Television broadcast, showed Mr. Hu seemingly reluctant or unable to stand up when an aide tried to lift him off his chair.

In the commotion, Mr. Xi leaned toward Mr. Hu and appeared to speak with him.

Mr. Hu was ushered off the center dais, briefly looking back at Mr. Xi and patting outgoing Premier Li Keqiang on the shoulder as he departed.

It wasn’t clear why Mr. Hu left or where he went. The incident has gone unmentioned in Chinese state media coverage of the event.

By Saturday evening, however, the comments section of almost all Weibo posts containing Hu’s name were no longer visible, according to a Reuters review.

On Twitter, Xinhua news agency suggested Mr. Hu’s issue was health related.

In English, indicating the report was aimed at an international audience, the government-run agency said Mr. Hu “was not feeling well during the session” and left to rest in a room next to the meeting venue. “Now, he is much better,” the account said.

When he was not feeling well during the session, his staff, for his health, accompanied him to a room next to the meeting venue for a rest. Now, he is much better.

— China Xinhua News (@XHNews) October 22, 2022

Reuters also adds that Hu had appeared slightly unsteady last Sunday when he was assisted onto the same stage for the opening ceremony of the congress.

As some China-watchers have noted, if Hu were really “purged” as some are speculating “i highly doubt that CCTV would show him like this in the report.”

further on this, the sequence of leadership appearance matters greatly. in this cctv report, which they had plenty of time to arrange after the ceremony, the shots of leaders starts with xi, then hu, then the rest of current and retired standing committee members. https://t.co/X17npjTQgx

— Bill Bishop (@niubi) October 22, 2022

Still… does this look like the face of a man who ‘wants’ to leave for health reasons?

Meanwhile, Xi has set the stage to extend his rule into a second decade, and on Saturday the Communist Party announced new names for some top spots as some of his rivals head toward retirement.

Michael J. Abramowitz, president of Freedom House, warned China’s human rights situation would deteriorate in a statement issued on Oct. 12.

“Another five years of Xi’s leadership is bad news for the cause of democracy and freedom, and worse news for the Chinese people,” Abramowitz said.

“If past is prologue, a third term for Xi will result in more human rights abuses within China and more aggressive suppression of free speech globally, even as his domestic and foreign policies backfire and public outrage intensifies.” 

As a reminder, Hu advocated maintaining good relations with the U.S., and was also an opponent of a military solution to the Taiwan issue. As SouthFront suggests, the former CPC Chairman’s escorting out of the hall is a clear demonstration of the renewed anti-Western foreign policy of Beijing, which, apparently, is ready for all measures, defending its sovereignty and the role of a superpower in the modern world.

Of course, the question remains, is it now in the Deep State’s favor to make it seem like there is political discord at the top in China – remember, an unstable China is a ‘dangerous’ China, that will require much bigger State and Defense Department budgets to battle not to mention serve as a generous source of revenue for the Lockheeds and Raytheons of the world for years to come.

On Tuesday we noted that the most recent NYT/Siena poll was a disaster for Democrats – putting Trump ahead of Biden in a hypothetical 2024 match up, and a massive swing to the right from independent women. The poll found that the most important issues are to Americans aren’t climate, January 6 or Covid (<.5>The economy and inflation (44% combined vs. 36% in July).

The poll also found that 64% of Republicans, 26% of Independents and 1% of Democrats believe Donald Trump won the 2020 election, while 97% of Democrats, 29% of Republicans and 64% of Independents believe President Biden won.

Going even deeper, the poll asked whether American democracy is ‘currently under threat,’ to which 74% of likely voters polled said ‘yes.’

Of those, respondents were asked to rank various people and institutions. The top threat? The mainstream media, with 59% saying it poses a “major threat to democracy,” 24% saying the MSM poses a ‘minor’ threat to democracy, and just 16% who think there’s no threat at all.

Got a few minutes?

As Just the News notes;

This attitude toward the media was strikingly bipartisan, with 95% of Republicans, 83% of independents, and 70% of Democrats calling the press a threat. However, only 38% of Democrats deem the media a “major” threat, compared to 80% of Republicans and 53% of independents.

Prominent, mainstream press outlets have come under fire in recent months for portraying Trump and those criticizing the FBI’s August raid on his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida as threats to democracy and national security, in some cases hastily reporting false or misleading information.

In key ways, the news media’s coverage of the raid resembled how the press previously covered now-debunked allegations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to sway the 2016 presidential election, with journalists prematurely weaving a narrative of Trump’s guilt resting on flimsy underpinnings of anonymous government leaks and innuendo.

Meanwhile, back in government, Biden and his political allies, including Democrats in Congress, have repeatedly described Trump and his allies as dangers to the foundations of America, warning democracy itself is at stake and positioning themselves as its savior. -JTN

The “Major threat” runner-ups were;

Donald Trump (47%)

Joe Biden (39%)

Democrats (35%)

Voting by mail (32%)

The federal government (32%)

Republicans (30%)

The Supreme Court (27%)

The Electoral College (25%)

Electronic voting machines (22%)

Authored by Julianne Geiger via OilPrice.com,

U.S. trade and energy policies have created a “double standard”, with Europe left paying higher prices for its natural gas, French President Emmanuel Macron said on Friday.

France, the latest—and largest–country to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty, has switched from being a net exporter of energy last year, to being a net importer of energy this year, after problems with its nuclear fleet surfaced.

To compensate for its declining nuclear fleet and Russia’s complete halt of natural gas shipments into the country, France has turned to the United States for LNG—only Macron is unhappy with the price it’s paying. 

U.S. natural gas exports to France increased 421% during the first eight months of 2022—but the value of that LNG increased by 1094% in August alone due to the higher prices of LNG.

“The North American economy is making choices for the sake of attractiveness, which I respect, but they create a double standard,” Macron explained at a Brussels news conference on Friday, with the United States enjoying low energy prices at home, while exporting at record prices.

“In addition, they allow state aid going to up to 80% on some sectors while it’s banned here — you get a double standard. It comes down to the sincerity of transatlantic trade,” Macron added, after earlier in the week referring to both the United States and Norway as those who are reaping “the real superprofits,” in what Macron calls benefiting from “geopolitcal war unearned income.”

With ties already strained over the previously botched nuclear deal between France and the United States, Macron is scheduled to visit the United States in early December, and the subject of energy is likely to be a prime focus.

Submitted by ‘BlueApples’,

Perhaps out of sheer necessity for his mental well-being, Alex Jones was defiant as ever following the verdict against him in his latest defamation case. A jury recently ordered Jones to pay the families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and an FBI agent included in their suit an unfathomable $965 million. In the wake of that verdict, Jones took to the air on InfoWars to not only denounce the judgment but to ensure viewers that its absurdity only aided his case on appeal.

While portraying the ruling as absurd will only ruffle the feathers of opponents of Jones amidst their latest victory lap on their crusade to push cancel culture, the families of victims who sued the maligned political commentator made that assertion hard to disagree with. Claiming that “the highest possible punitive damages,” are the only thing that can keep Jones from continuing to harm them, the families who sued the InfoWars founder asked the Connecticut judge presiding over the defamation suit to award them $2.75 trillion in damages. To contextualize how obscene their request is, only 7 countries in the whole world exceeded a GDP of $2.75 trillion in 2020.

The basis of the families claim relies upon the judicial interpretation of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. That law bars the sale of products using false statements. The family’s invoked that law by asserting that Jones’ claims about Sandy Hook aided the sale of supplements and other merchandise he sells and regularly advertises on InfoWars. Predicating their claim on that legal argument, the families reached the $2.75 trillion by imploring the judge to multiply the $5,000 fine set worth by the law to the 550 million exposures that Jones’ commentary on Sandy Hook had across Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter in the wake of the shooting before the deplatforming campaign which saw him removed from each website. The previous $965 million ruling against Jones was entirely based on a jury’s decision on restitution for the emotional pain and suffering the InfoWars host inflicted upon them.

In support of the monetary claim, attorneys of the families continued their assault on Jones by continuing to portray his mere existence as a continued threat to the well-being of their clients.

“Alex Jones perpetrates this attack for one reason: greed,” the families’ lawyers said in the filing Friday.

“Alex Jones will never treat them like real people, because they are too valuable to him as targets.”

Although the CUTPA was originally passed in order to compensate those directly harmed by deceptive practices in the marketing and sale of products, the application of the law has since been expanded to directly aid the legal cases pursued by the families of victims of Sandy Hook. In 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court over-ruled a state appeals court by deciding that the CUTPA could be cited in a case those families fledged against Remingtom, the firearms manufacturers who they sought to hold liable for the school shooting. In their decision the court ruled:

The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ complaint was that the defendants negligently entrusted to civilian consumers an assault rifle that is suitable for use only by military and law enforcement personnel and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) through the sale or wrongful marketing of the rifle.

The Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling that the CUTPA could be applied to the families’ suit remanded the case to be adjudicated on appeal. However, no judgment was rendered as Remington reached a settlement paying the families a total of $73 million. That sum was agreed to after Remington originally offered $33 million as a settlement, which the families deemed was too little. The $73 million award far exceeded the $2.5 million settlement reached between Bushmaster Firearms and the gun dealer who sold the rifle used by the DC serial snipers that ravaged the nation’s capital with their indiscriminate shootings over the course of 2004.

The monetary claim is another chapter in a tome of tales chronicling attempts to plunge InfoWars into financial ruin. Jones’ attorney Norm Pattis argued that the provisions of the CUTPA don’t fit his clients defamation case and went on to detail how his oppositions arguments weren’t rooted in facts but instead on a pathological approach to effectively nullify the jury by vilifying Jones. Pattis stated the focus of the plaintiffs was aimed at “arousing sympathy, directing anger, and anchoring a large number before the jury with the hope that jurors would do what they did in this case — award a fortune,”

In spite of his auspicious outlook of his case on appeal, the defamation case against Jones has already taken its toll. The InfoWars founder placed the news outlet’s parent company Free Speech Systems into creditor protection in Federal Bankruptcy Court following another ruling in a defamation case fledged by the families in Texas earlier this year. In that case, a jury awarded one of the families suing Jones $50 million in damages. That judgment is 0.0018% of the latest monetary awarded at issue. As optimistic as Jones and his legal counsel can be and have been, the barrage of defamation cases against him continues on as the host is slated to stand trial in a third lawsuit later this year in his native Texas. Despite the outcome of his appeals, it appears that it’s only a matter of time before one of these lawsuits proves to be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.

In a sane world, the voice of reason would be looked down upon as a madman. While Jones’ claims have a clear track record of being proven as legitimate time and time again, instances like his commentary on Sandy Hook have been weaponized in the court of public opinion against him, ultimately obfuscating the other truths InfoWars has brought to light over the decades it’s been airing. Independent of the validity of his claims about Sandy Hook, the hysteria advancing the defamation cases against him may very well be the end to InfoWars and Free Speech Systems.

What remains to be seen is the dangerous bearing that the precedent the ruling sets would have on enabling civil lawsuits to be weaponized against political dissidents and those who question accepted narratives and whether or not that will ultimately mean the end of free speech as we know it.

Germany’s national weather service, the Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), released a new report Friday showing temperatures across the country will be well above average through mid-November. This promising forecast could stave off a worsening energy crisis (for now). 

DWD’s month-ahead forecast expects warmer-than-normal temperatures in Germany through at least mid-November. A weather model via Bloomberg shows above-average weather. 

A two-week forecast shows heating demand across the EU’s largest economy will be below a 30-year trend line. This means less natural gas will be drawn out of storage. 

Regarding NatGas storage, the EU is about 91% full despite reduced NatGas shipments from Russia. Shipments via Ukraine are one of the last remaining Russian supply lines to western Europe after the bombing of Nord Stream pipelines.

Warmer weather plus EU storage is above a 10-year average for this time of year is good news (for now). 

Dutch front-month gas futures, a European benchmark, has been halved and hit lows not seen since June of around 113 euros per megawatt-hour. 

As for now, a worsening energy crisis has been delayed. But as explained recently by Russian energy giant Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller, all of that can change in the event of a cold snap and send “entire towns freezing” this winter. 

Authored by Chris Martenson via PeakProsperity.com,

(Complexity – Energy) x (Arrogance + Ignorance) = A Great Disaster

This is a critical episode that explores a concept that can change how you see the whole world.  It did for me when I first learned it, and now I am passing that on.

Today we explore what complex systems are and how they have features that we simply have to appreciate and respect. However, unfortunately, none of the World Economic Forum or western leaders seem to have any awareness of the fact that they live in a world composed of complex systems and governed by this pesky thing we call ‘reality.’

One reason we suspect this is their insistence on the idea that we can readily transition to ‘clean energy.’  However, even the most basic of straightforward (linear) arithmetic reveals it cannot be done.  All that’s required to come to this conclusion is to simply divide current rates of mineral and metal production into the minimum requirements for a first-generation clean energy build-out.

When we do, we discover that it would take anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years to mine the resources needed to build the desired renewable energy world.  At best we’ve got a decade or two left before a permanent energy decline bites and renders all such dreams to the dustbin of what could have been.  If only…

If we can’t even properly manage simple math (add, subtract, multiply and divide) for our most dominant narratives, what hope is there that the subtleties of complex systems command a proper seat at the table?

Complex systems are what govern our world and define our reality. They share a couple of important features. (1) They are inherently unpredictable. (2) They owe their order and complexity to energy flows.

Our economy is a complex system. Take its energy away, and it will extremely rapidly “simplify” and become a lot less dynamic, complex, and interesting.

Your body is a complex system. Starve it for food, and you too will quite rapidly become a lot less interesting and dynamic, and eventually dead.

What the WEF is trying to do, along with a host of colluding world leaders and other true believers sprinkled throughout the elite centers of power and intellectual exploration, is to force a Reset so they can Build Back Better.

Their words and their deeds align and reinforce that this is exactly what they are doing. But without any apparent appreciation for the fact that they are attempting to control the uncontrollable and to pull off the impossible. They want to force multiple, nested, and feedback-looped complex systems to do their bidding.

The chance of them pulling this off, without accidentally breaking the whole system, is about as close to zero as you can get without actually being zero. Never say never, but to succeed, they’d have to somehow rewrite the laws of nature that govern complex systems and the laws of physics to defeat thermodynamics. Ain’t going to happen. Not on purpose; maybe accidentally, but you might as well hope to hit the Powerball lottery after buying a single ticket because those are better odds.

Watch the Video

This is the BIGGEST Reason the WEF Will Fail – powered by sovren.media

*  *  *

If you enjoy deep investigations that are clearly presented, and we know you do, then you’ll find that being a paying member of Peak Prosperity is the best investment you could ever make.

At 0.1% of the cost of a Harvard tuition, you’ll gather more useful information from your personal scout that will literally change your life for the better than you would anywhere else for the price. As an Insider (our most popular offering) you’ll have full access to Chris’s content and receive a minimum of 3 additional weekly “Inside Take” videos. Consider joining today for yourself, for your tribe, and to support Chris and his team. Click here to join!

Peak Prosperity proudly supports Sovren, a blockchain-secured, censor-proof video and social media platform. Click here to visit Sovren!