Watch: Kirby Throws Own US Military Under The Bus While Trying To Defend Israel
An interesting and somewhat disturbing scene played out in the White House press briefing room last week when national security spokesman John Kirby was asked about alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza. Criticisms of US policy from the press pool have grown more intense as Israel’s Rafah operation presses forward.
Kirby essentially threw the US military under the bus by suggesting American troops have done worse things than what Israel’s military is doing in Gaza. Kirby was initially asked by a reporter what the consequences would be “if there were an American strike on a legitimate terrorist target that ended resulting with 45 civilian deaths and some 200 others injured.” Watch the exchange play out:
Kirby then replied, “I can’t answer a hypothetical like that.”
“But we have conducted airstrikes in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, where tragically we caused civilian casualties,” he continued.
“We did the same thing. We owned up to it. We investigated it. And we tried to make changes… We tried to learn from it to make changes so that those set of mistakes wouldn’t happen again,” Kirby continued, in what was at best a deeply awkward defense of Israel.
A lot of online observers highlighted that in trying to defend a foreign country and make it look good amid mounting international criticism, he took a swipe at his own American armed forces.
Kirby may have been referring to an August 2021 drone strike in Kabul that killed an aid worker along with nine members of his family. The Pentagon said it was targeting ISIS-K amid the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan, but among the dead were seven children.
Throughout the prior more than two decade-long US occupation of Afghanistan, there also had been several instances where entire wedding parties were obliterated by American airstrikes, leaving scores of civilians dead.
Reporter: How does this not violate the red line the president laid out
Kirby: We don’t want to see a major operation we haven’t seen one
Reporter: How many more charred corpses does he have to see before he considers a change in policy
“We atoned for it, we learned from it, and we put in place procedures to try and prevent that from happening again,” Kirby said in last week’s press briefing. “And that’s what our expectations would be in this case.”
Is The Economy Starting To Look More Recessionary?
Authored by Simon White, Bloomberg macro strategist,
The manufacturing ISM slipped lower again in May, and came in below expectations. Yields have decided to ignore the more upbeat message from the earlier PMI reading – which beat the consensus and remains above 50 – and are lower across the curve.
The ISM has only once been above 50 since November 2022 (in March this year).
The PMI has been more upbeat of late, spending all of this year at 50 or above.
But that may be quite short-lived. The new orders-to-inventory ratio for the PMI, which leads the headline index by about three months, has been weakening (although it steadied in May).
The same ratio is also weakening for the ISM, and for that survey this has so far proven correct. The ratio is also under one for both surveys.
This may be a blip, and indeed global liquidity conditions suggest the ISM should start turning up again later in the year. But as both surveys show surface and underlying weakness, it makes sense to ready for an economy that could start to look more recessionary in the coming months, even if an actual downturn (assuming there is one) is avoided until late in the year.
Trump Joins TikTok, Sprints To 3.1 Million Followers In 24 Hours
Belatedly tapping into a social media platform favored by younger voters, Donald Trump joined TikTok on Saturday — and amassed more than 3.1 million followers in his 24 hours — on a platform he tried to ban when president.
Trump’s inaugural post chronicled the hero’s welcome he received when he entered a packed Newark arena for Saturday night’s UFC fights, two days after being convicted of falsifying business records, in a blatant case of the judicial system being weaponized for political purposes. By Sunday evening, his first post had racked up 3.2 million likes and more than 125,000 replies.
The video starts with UFC chief executive Dana White announcing, “The president is now on TikTok.” Trump replies, “It’s my honor.” After showing him receiving huge cheers, Trump asks, “That was a good walk-on, right?”
Despite having spotted the Biden campaign a big head start on the platform, Trump is already out to an enormous lead. “Donald Trump has amassed nearly 10 times the amount of followers in a 24-hour period than the Biden campaign has in 4 months,” noted Collin Rugg on Twitter. With every passing minute, the lead is only getting larger:
Donald Trump vs Biden campaign live TikTok follower count 🤣
The TikTok play is an obvious effort to reach younger voters who dominate TikTok’s 170-million-American user base. In a statement, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said :
“We will leave no front undefended and this represents the continued outreach to a younger audience consuming pro-Trump and anti-Biden content. There’s no place better than a UFC event to launch President Trump’s TikTok, where he received a hero’s welcome and thousands of fans cheered him on.”
Biden’s reelection bid is being severely undermined by a loss of ground with what have previously been cornerstone Democratic Party constituencies. In addition to seeing his support sag among Hispanics and blacks, Biden now trails Trump by 6 points among Gen Z and Millennial Americans, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll. The two groups comprise everyone born after 1981 — currently encompassing voters age 18 to 43.
As president, Trump attempted to ban TikTok via executive order. He lost a legal challenge, with Judge Carl Nichols saying the Commerce Department “likely overstepped” its authority under presidential emergency powers.
🚨NEW- Trump Labels Facebook “Enemy of the People” Amid TikTok Ban Debate |
Former President Donald Trump reignited his criticism of social media giant Facebook on Monday, labeling it “an enemy of the people” during an appearance on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” Trump’s remarks came as… pic.twitter.com/dU8pfR4LiC
In a break with most GOP legislators, Trump backed off the TikTok warpath ahead of the April vote. While still clinging to the deep state’s claims of national security peril, Trump said he opposed a ban because it would benefit Facebook, which he called “an enemy of the people.”
He was also clearly sensing a ban’s deep unpopularity among young voters. “Frankly, there are a lot of people on TikTok that love it. There are a lot of young kids on TikTok who will go crazy without it,” Trump said in March during call-in segment on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
🚨Fauci is doing what he does best: LYING and DECEIVING.
Remember when @K_G_Andersen changed his stance on COVID’s origins in just four days, subsequently receiving additional funding from Fauci, and then labeled everyone questioning his ‘scientific integrity’ as ‘anti-science’? pic.twitter.com/EH9VDXSyMP
This exchange alone proves what a pathological liar Fauci is.
One week after receiving emails from top epidemiologists arguing the virus was likely a lab leak, Fauci caused a virtual ban on questioning COVID’s origin.
A million Americans died from COVID-19, marking one of the darkest chapters in our nation’s history. Four years later, more than 10 million Americans are still suffering from long COVID. We continue to fight for accountability.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, in his role as chief medical adviser to the president, insisted upon mask and vaccine mandates, lockdowns, and overstated vaccine efficacy, often disregarding the public’s and private medical professional’s ability to assess the facts.
Many lessons must be learned from Dr. Fauci’s tenure, highlighting the need for supervision and ethical leadership. As a physician, I believe in informing patients of the truth and collaborating on plans.
This week, he will testify before the House of Representatives. We must demand answers for the numerous unresolved issues related to his potential role in the origins of COVID-19, and the subsequent alleged cover-up. Here are several questions I hope are asked:
Dr. Fauci has advocated for and funded risky gain of function (GOF) research for more than 30 years. He was undoubtedly aware of the history of the engineering and structural problems, along with sloppy procedural issues, at the labs in Wuhan, China.
Risky GOF Research: After learning of the possibility of a lab leak from respected scientists, did Dr. Fauci consult the appropriate government agencies at the National Biosurveillance Integration Center, National Center for Medical Intelligence, and Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, all stacked with experts about the risky research at the unsafe Wuhan Institute of Virology? Evidence indicates he consulted private sector scientists with significant conflicts of interest, as they depended on his research funds. Dr. Fauci has never conceded to seeking advice from the correct government channels, why?
He knew the Chinese military was involved in all research at Wuhan laboratories, including that China’s military ran a bioweapons program at the Wuhan Institute of Virology labs. Yet, Dr. Fauci continued to use taxpayer money to fund the research projects in Wuhan, China.
We very much hope Anthony Fauci will discuss this email referencing covid as a bioweapon pic.twitter.com/4JIPK4JcCi
Caught in a Lie: Dr. Fauci previously testified before Congress that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) wasn’t funding GOF research. Based on current information, Dr. Fauci has been caught in a lie and should answer for it. Not only has the NIH admitted to funding GOF research, they then changed the definition of GOF research to allow continued foreign research funding. What was Dr. Fauci’s role in changing this definition to secure additional funding?
Continuing Deadly Research at U.S. Taxpayers Expense: China locked us out of Wuhan after the novel coronavirus emerged and refused to share the DNA sequence of SARS-CoV-2 and other valuable information. Dr. Fauci must explain how America benefited from these grants to EcoHealth Alliance and other U.S.-funded GOF research conducted in foreign nations.
Oversight Within NIH Grant Process: Dr. Fauci must also be held accountable for overseeing the NIH grant process. We uncovered and sounded the alarm back in October of 2021 that EcoHealth Alliance was out of compliance with NIH grant policies and had not submitted its year-five report. Why did it continue to receive funding?
When confronted about this, Dr. Fauci claimed ignorance, although it was his responsibility to ensure compliance with these grants. This lack of oversight highlights the immediate need for increased accountability at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the necessity for its own inspector general.
When following the evidence, Dr. Fauci often sought counsel from questionable advisers and scientists with clear conflicts of interest.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act mandates that advice given to the federal government by advisory committees be objective, transparent, and publicly accessible. However, email records show that Dr. Fauci consulted his close network of private scientists, some of whom financially benefited from the NIH grants that Dr. Fauci oversees, and some in that group were waiting on a grant approval worth up to $9 million.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act: Why in February 2020 did Dr. Fauci hold closed advisory committee meetings with scientists who are dependent on his NIH funding, violating the Federal Advisers Committee Act’s requirements for transparency and balanced viewpoints?
Importantly, after that meeting, the Fauci-led group published the “Proximal Origins” theory, concluding that SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a ”natural virus.” Once published, Dr. Fauci seemingly embarked on a mass media cover-up and touted that opinion piece that he orchestrated as scientific fact, even referencing it from the White House podium.
Proximal Origins Theory: Dr. Fauci should be asked why he presumably used his power to manipulate science and publish factually incorrect articles to downplay the lab leak theory. Why was Dr. Fauci directing articles in science journals and pushing his debunked proximal origins theory narrative? Was his involvement so deep that he was manufacturing and rewriting history to evade the responsibility and the role he had in this virus outbreak?
Blocking FOIA Requests: It’s also curious that after Dr. Fauci was questioned by our Senate HELP committee in May 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services shut down all Freedom of Information Act requests. Was Dr. Fauci involved in any discussions for this decision? Why was that decision made?
Many people also don’t know that Dr. Fauci received two government salaries simultaneously, making him the highest-paid federal employee ever. He was both the director of the NIAID and the director of civilian biodefense, which was operating with a $6 billion budget.
Highest-Paid Federal Employee in History: Dr. Fauci should be asked to explain how the attribution of potential intentional pathogen deployment (which he was tasked to oversee and manage) is assessed and how the action plan is developed and implemented. If he can’t adequately answer these questions when asked, he should return the salary and related pension immediately.
* * *
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Young girls are starting their first periods earlier than they have in previous decades—a shift associated with adverse health outcomes later in life.
A new study published on May 29 in JAMA Network Open revealed that the median age at menarche has remained relatively stable at around 12 years, and the proportion of girls starting menstruation before age 11 has significantly increased over time.
Menarche, or the first menstrual period, marks the beginning of the monthly hormonal cycle and reproductive lifespan. Additionally, it signifies the end of female puberty.
Researchers with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Apple Women’s Health Study examined data from more than 71,000 U.S. women born between 1950 and 2005, encompassing various ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds. They aimed to determine the age at which these women experienced their first menstrual cycle and how long it took for their cycle to become regular.
The study found that nearly 16 percent of women born between 2000 and 2005 started their menstrual cycles between ages 9 and 11, compared to almost 9 percent of those born between 1950 and 1969. Additionally, researchers observed an increase in the number of women experiencing irregular menstrual cycles for three years or more after menarche.
When stratifying trends by race and ethnicity, participants who were Asian, Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, or of other or multiple races or ethnicities were consistently more likely to experience early menarche than non-Hispanic white participants.
An exploratory analysis of a subset of 9,865 participants estimated that 46 percent of the trend could be attributed to body mass index—a measure of a person’s body fat based on height and weight. The authors noted that obesity is a risk factor for early-onset puberty and that childhood obesity is on the rise in the United States, which could explain the trend toward earlier menarche. However, it’s unknown to what extent changes in early BMI affect the trend. The underlying cause of the remaining 54 percent experiencing early menarche remains unclear.
Menstrual Cycle Considered Vital Sign of Health
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) considers the menstrual cycle to be a vital sign of overall health, and irregularities can indicate underlying health issues, such as hormonal imbalances, thyroid disorders, or other medical conditions. The menstrual cycle also involves the immune system as uterine immune cells undergo substantial changes and facilitate the thickening and thinning of the uterine lining.
According to ACOG, girls typically have their first period between 12 and 13 years of age, but it takes a few years for menstrual cycles to become regular. Until then, adolescents may experience irregular periods as their bodies adjust to new hormonal patterns.
Early Periods May Cause Health Problems
A growing body of evidence, including the current study, links early menarche and a longer time to regularity with an increased risk of health conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases, cancers, diabetes, asthma, multiple sclerosis, metabolic conditions, and all-cause mortality.
A 2021 study published in the Annals of Epidemiology found that earlier menarche in girls and a longer time to reach menstrual regularity were associated with an increased risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Girls who started their first period at age 11 or younger were at an increased risk of death from diabetes, breast cancer, and other cancers compared to those who had their first period at 13 years.
A 2021 study in Cancer Research found that early exposure to sex hormones associated with early-onset menstruation is associated with an increased risk of seven cancers in middle-aged women.
A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of 28 studies in PLOS Medicine found that girls who experience earlier menarche have an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance in adulthood.
In a meta-analysis of eight prospective studies involving 4,553 subjects with endometrial cancer, researchers found that an earlier age of menarche is associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer. Likewise, a previous study by the same authors found a “statistically significant inverse association” between ovarian cancer and later menarcheal age.
Evidence also suggests early menarche may enhance multiple sclerosis disease activity in children. In a Canadian prospective study, researchers found a 36 percent decrease in the probability of having a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis for each year menarche was delayed, although a delayed-onset menstrual cycle accompanies its adverse health problems.
US Secret Service Reacts To Trump’s Criminal Conviction
The US Secret Service on Friday said that Donald Trump’s conviction in his ‘hush money’ trial will have “no bearing” on whether the agency will protect him.
According to the agency, “today’s outcome has no bearing on the manner in which the United States Secret Service carries out its protective mission,” adding that “our security measures will proceed unchanged,” the Epoch Times‘ Jack Phillips reports.
Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records in connection with a 2016 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels. He will face sentencing on July 11, during which Judge Juan Merchan could toss the former president in jail. Prosecutors have not indicated whether they will push for this, while Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg (who downgraded 60% of felonies in his district to misdemeanors, while elevating a an obscure, rarely prosecuted crime to a felony in Trump’s case).
As the Epoch Times notes, several weeks ago, the Secret Service issued a similar statement to The Epoch Times regarding how it would handle the former president’s security if he were jailed, coming after Judge Merchan warned him that he would be prepared to send him to jail over comments that he said violated his earlier gag order.
On May 8, the agency responded to questions about how the Secret Service would respond if President Trump were jailed, saying that “under federal law, the United States Secret Service must provide protection for current government leaders, former Presidents and First Ladies, visiting heads of state and other individuals designated by the President of the United States.”
That comment also didn’t go into specifics about how it would handle security. At the time, the spokesperson did not respond to a question about whether a Secret Service agent could be stationed in a cell with the former president.
“For all settings around the world, we study locations and develop comprehensive and layered protective models that incorporate state-of-the-art technology, protective intelligence, and advanced security tactics to safeguard our protectees,” the spokesperson said. “Beyond that, we do not comment on specific protective operations.”
The lead attorney for President Trump, Todd Blanche, told CNN that he thinks the former president should not face prison time, in part due to his age. President Trump, 77, also has no prior convictions, he noted.
“There’s a system in place where you rely on precedent, and somebody like President Trump should never, never face a jail sentence based on this conduct,” Mr. Blanche said.
“And it would just kind of confirm what we’ve been saying all along,” he continued. “And a lot of people say that we’re wrong and that we’re missing key pieces. But if other 77-year-old, first-time offenders would never be sent to prison for this conduct.”
The charge he was convicted of, falsifying business records, carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison. Others convicted of that crime often receive shorter sentences, fines, or probation, but the judge in the case said during jury selection that President Trump faces a potential jail sentence.
After the conviction was handed down on Thursday evening, Judge Merchan set the sentencing date for July 11, or four days before the start of the Republican National Convention. President Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee for president.
Incarceration would not prevent President Trump from campaigning or taking office if he were to win during the November election. He also will not be jailed ahead of his sentencing.
After two days of deliberation, a jury of New Yorkers found President Trump guilty of all 34 criminal counts he faced for falsifying documents to cover up payments to Stormy Daniels in the final days of his successful 2016 campaign. The former president pleaded not guilty, denied allegations from Ms. Daniels about an affair, and said the payments were standard legal expenses.
Falsifying business documents is normally a misdemeanor in New York, but prosecutors in District Attorney Bragg’s office elevated the case to a felony on the grounds that President Trump was concealing an illegal campaign contribution.
He still faces three other criminal prosecutions, but the New York verdict could be the only one handed down before Americans vote, as the other cases have been tied up in legal wrangling. President Trump has pleaded not guilty in all four cases, which he says are politically motivated.
“If this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone,” he posted on social media, describing the New York trial as “rigged.”
National opinion polls show President Trump locked in a tight race with President Joe Biden, and one in four Republican respondents in an April Reuters-Ipsos poll said they would not vote for him if he were convicted of a felony by a jury.
Allen Zhong and Reuters contributed to this report.
China Ramps Up Warning On Bond-Buying Frenzy With PBOC Selling in Focus
By John Liu and Zheng Wu, Bloomberg Markets Live reporters and strategists
Three things we learned last week:
1. China’s central bank gave its strongest warning yet against overheating in the government bond market. A paper backed by the People’s Bank of China said the monetary authority is ready to sell bonds if needed and suggested a reasonable range for the 10-year yield should be 2.5% to 3%.
PBOC’s repeated warnings against what it deems as excessively low yields have largely been shrugged off by investors. Unconvinced by China’s economic recovery and housing rescue plans, bond bulls have been betting the central bank will have to do more, such as lowering interest rates and even turning to the controversial step of quantitative easing.
Investors may have to take it more seriously this time. The PBOC has every reason to be concerned over falling interest rates. While cheaper borrowing costs have benefits, a yawning yield gap with the US is adding pressure on the yuan and fueling bearish sentiment toward Chinese assets — raising the risk of capital outflows.
The central bank may want to root out expectations of aggressive monetary easing. Such speculations have led to an influx of money into the bond market, draining bank deposits and funds available for the real economy. It may perhaps be sending a subtle message to the Ministry of Finance that the the heavy-lifting of growth should come from the fiscal side.
2. China’s factory activity unexpectedly contracted with the official manufacturing purchasing manager index falling to 49.5. While more focus was given to the sudden weakness, the non-manufacturing gauge also flashed a warning with a slower-than-expected expansion. Together, they put in doubt the ability of China to reach the growth target of around 5% this year.
China’s recovery this year has largely been driven by export-oriented firms as domestic consumption is weighed down by the real estate slump. That pillar of strength is at risk of losing its mojo as trade tensions rise along with more protectionist measures against Chinese products. Persistent demand weakness may also be starting to erode production strength, according to Citi analysts.
While stock market reaction was muted right after the PMI data release, key equity gauges ended Friday in the red while the yuan also slipped against the dollar. The weakness in eco data tends to draw mixed reaction among investors, with some seeing it as a positive signal for more policy support while others regard it as just another reason to sell Chinese assets.
3. Last week started with renewed excitement over property support as top-tier cities joined the easing bandwagon, but the upbeat mood didn’t last long. A Bloomberg Intelligence index tracking China’s developer stocks slid around 6% in the five days through Friday, taking its loss since a May 17 high to roughly 19%.
Shanghai, Shenzhen and Guangzhou lowered requirements for home downpayments and cut the minimum rates charged for mortgages, following through on the central government’s aid for the embattled property sector. The fact that property shares fell despite the easing measures from China’s biggest cities shows the bar to satisfy frustrated investors is getting higher and higher.
The mood is more cautious among fixed-income managers, who pay closer attention to the developers’ credit risks. They say the sector is not out of the woods yet, with their refinancing options limited ahead of near-term maturity walls. As the chorus grows for even more policy support, it’s unclear how and when the property crisis can be solved. The country has the equivalent of 60 million unsold apartments, which will take more than four years to sell without government aid, according to Bloomberg Economics.
Central bank monetary tactics have proven to be a toxic remedy, amplifying rather than curing economic ailments. Like a surgeon whose operation only worsens the patient’s condition, central banks administer policies that do more harm than good. Here are five ways central banks leave a legacy of financial turmoil.
The following article was originally published by the Mises Institute. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Peter Schiff or SchiffGold.
Central banks’ monetary policies are the most perverse government intervention. Their consequences are dire, last for a very long time, and people don’t perceive them as problems or don’t comprehend the damage they are doing. Monetary policy (monetary expansion and artificially low interest rates) has five main consequences that harm overall living standards.
1. Price Inflation
This is the most obvious consequence, and yet, it is very misunderstood by voters. If the money that is effectively circulating in the economy (i.e., M1 and M2, or for a better perspective, the true money supply) increases, price inflation tends to increase. The expansion of the money supply destroys consumer purchasing power and makes people poorer over time.
2. Bigger Government
Government spending and indebtedness are intensified due to expansionary monetary policies (since central banks buy government bonds). More resources are allocated to pay for politicians’ and bureaucrats’ luxurious lives and for government programs that, at their best, are more expensive compared to a free market solution. Governments don’t have an incentive to allocate the resources efficiently (since they can just raise taxes, go deeper into debt, or print money), so anything that it does ends up being more expensive than it would have been without monetary intervention.
3. Financial Assets Become Overpriced
Monetary policy is behind the major financial crisis and its precedent asset bubbles.
The stock market is overpriced because artificially low interest rates raise the present value of corporations’ future earnings, making their stocks go higher without having sound fundamental indicators. Artificially low rates also incentivize people to go into debt to buy stocks, which raises their prices. Plus, some central banks (like the Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank) have stocks on their balance sheets, which also appreciates their prices due to the artificial demand.
Real estate prices are inflated as well. Houses and buildings are what Rothbard would call “higher order” goods due to their very long capital structure. He notes,
The supply of funds for investment apparently increases, and the interest rate is lowered. Businessmen, in short, are misled by the bank inflation into believing that the supply of saved funds is greater than it really is. Now, when saved funds increase, businessmen invest in “longer processes of production,” i.e., the capital structure is lengthened, especially in the “higher orders” most remote from the consumer.
Overpriced real estate assets also turn houses, apartments, and commercial properties into an asset class (something to invest in and, in theory, protect oneself from the very inflation that caused the real estate prices to go up in the first place) rather than what they would be if it wasn’t for the government’s meddling: houses and apartments for living, and commercial properties for economic activities, either by renting or buying.
4. Economic Inequality
This one is linked to our previous argument. Thanks to loose monetary policy, financial assets appreciate without being backed by proper fundamentals. Richer people (the ones who have the most financial assets) get even richer not because their investments are improving companies’ productivity (providing more or better goods and services), but because their assets are being inflated by monetary policy.
The financial market turns out to be less accessible for the average Jane and Joe due to the following:
Stocks are more expensive and risky and therefore less attractive for one who can’t afford to lose a lot of money.
The bond market is also less attractive since their prices go higher due to the artificial demand from the new money supply; hence, its rates go lower. This makes the bonds attractive for people who want to buy them as a speculation on their price (if rates go even lower, their prices go up and the investor makes a profit). Alas, since bonds are expensive, average people can’t afford the risk.
Financial markets become more complex since there are a lot more tricky instruments (like derivatives) to deal with market volatility (which would be lower if not for government poking) or to increase returns (not without higher risks). And the use of such instruments by asset managers makes their expenses and fees go higher, which also increases their required minimal investments (excluding the less-fortunate people from the game). Side note: government regulations for financial markets, like the ones of agencies like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (yes, this is a private corporation, but it is a monopoly imposed by the government) and the Securities and Exchange Commission, also increase required minimal investments.
So, the average Jane and Joe have fewer tools to get richer. And this keeps getting worse as long as central banks keep up with their dovish monetary policy.
Housing also becomes less affordable, and average people must sacrifice a lot more (and for a much longer time) to save for buying a home. What would be a simple task turns into a long and tiresome effort. This diminished the number of first-time homebuyers, and young people had to delay it. But now, even people in their thirties are living with their parents or other relatives. And homelessness is increasing in major cities like Los Angeles and Lisbon (both foreigners and Portuguese people).
5. Higher Time Preference Equals Less Economic Growth and More Indebtedness
Artificially low interest rates destroy the incentive for savings. In many cases, even if price inflation is low, the return on savings does not compensate for the time that people didn’t use the money. The overall time preference gets higher. People are not willing to wait to spend their money. If there is no return, they might as well party right away.
Indebtedness also increases for consumption instead of being used for investments that would increase productivity and economic growth. This also makes prices go higher than they would be because higher productivity tends to lower prices, and this process is, best-case scenario, delayed by lower savings. In other words, governments don’t let deflation (which would make prices go lower over time) happen.
Price inflation itself also creates an incentive to spend right away (since the purchasing power gets lower every year), and artificially low interest rates make the money market (which would be an easy tool people could resort to for parking their savings) not attractive. And, since overall time preference is higher, most people don’t settle for just preserving their purchasing power (which sometimes can be achieved with gold). They want a fast and high return, a dangerous combination. So, they go to the stock market, which is overpriced thanks to a loose monetary policy, which was covered earlier.
Conclusion
Government interventions through central banks are the most destructive and yet the least understood by most people. It is a bad enough problem to deal with on its own, and even harder to do so when people fail to perceive its damage. Central banks are the source of most evils in the economy.
Nvidia CEO Nvidia’s Jensen Huang Reveals New AI Chip Slated For 2026
At the 2024 Taipei International Information Technology Show, better known as Computex, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang highlighted the endless possibilities surrounding artificial intelligence. He unveiled plans for new AI accelerator chips, signaling the company’s shift from graphics cards to AI chips.
In March, Nvidia unveiled the $70,000 Blackwell B200 GPU chip, the “world’s most powerful AI chip.” On Sunday, Huang told the audience about the Rubin AI chip slated for 2026. He said the new chip would use HBM4, the next iteration of the essential high-bandwidth memory.
Wall Street DOES NOT understand what’s coming.$NVDA just changed everything we know about AI at COMPUTEX 2024.
Huang stressed that companies that fail to embrace AI will be left behind. He said companies can only manage the “computation inflation” of ever-expanding data needs through AI chips.
Combining two processors on a personal computer is already standard practice for increasing computational power, but try this at a data center…
“We add a GPU, a $500 GPU, to a $1,000 PC, and the performance increases tremendously,” he said, adding, “We do this in a data center. A billion-dollar data center, we add $500 million worth of GPUs, and all of a sudden, it becomes an AI factory.”
“The more you buy, the more you save. This is the CEO’s math. It is not accurate, but it is correct!” the executive told the audience.
Huang’s new chip unveiling comes ahead of Monday’s cash session in New York. The company’s shares are inching closer to the $3 trillion valuation mark.
TechRadar’s John Loeffler had a running blog during Computex, commenting on Huang’s speech. One big takeaway from Loeffler is Nvidia’s transformation from a graphics card company to an AI chip company.
They [Nvidia] are no longer a graphics company, as Jensen reportedly told employees several months back, and every Nvidia keynote and live stream I’ve watched in the last year and a half really just reinforces that fact.
Nvidia is absolutely, 100% going to become an AI chip company, and whatever gaming appendage sticks around for a few years will become less and less of a focus for the company.
There’s nothing particularly wrong with that, to be honest. Nvidia is printing money hand over fist selling AI hardware to OpenAI, Google, and all the rest, so from a business perspective, it makes perfect sense. It’d be the height of madness not to position yourself at the center of an industry that’s giving you 10x better returns than what you were doing before.
Its AI revenue, even if AMD and Intel eventually produce AI data center hardware that offers genuine competition to whatever Nvidia is producing down the road, is still going to dwarf whatever money its GeForce products bring in. GeForce might continue for some time, especially on mobile devices where RTX chips can be a way to interface with Nvidia’s broader AI ecosystem, but I think in the end, the consumer graphics market is going to come down the AMD and Intel. I just don’t see Nvidia’s heart being in the consumer graphics game any longer.
Loeffler continued:
If it helps Nvidia sleep better at night to call what its making now GPUs, they’re the ones with the $2 trillion valuation, they can do as they like. But there’s a part of me, the life-long PC gamer part of me, that feels like Nvidia has decided that the PC gamers that initially propelled the company to success two decades ago don’t really matter anymore.
Huang didn’t offer many specifics on the new chip that will begin shipping in 2026. However, during an earnings call earlier this year, the exec said the chip giant will design new platforms annually, down from every two years.
Hedge Fund CIO On The Next Leg: “It’ll Be Parabolic. The Talking Heads Will Go Nuts. VIX Will Hit 10”
By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management
“Still nosebleed long,” grunted Bulldog, selling a few S&P puts for sport. “Bought more stocks, and now I’m buying bonds. Not as a hedge, they’re both going up,” growled Dawg.
“The Baby Boomers are still too nervous about this market, Gaza, Russia, China, Iran. They got trillions sitting in money market funds. But at some point, as stocks rally, these Boomers are going to get FOMO.” That’s when the last leg higher takes off. “It’ll be parabolic. The talking heads will go nuts. VIX will hit 10.”
And Dawg dropped to the ground with a thud, as if all four legs lost power simultaneously, due to some malfunction.
“But after the blow off top, this market will crash, bigger than anything we’ve seen. Gold is telling you what’s coming.”
* * *
“Over the past few weeks, Ukraine came to us and asked for the authorization to use weapons that were provided to defend against the aggression near Kharkiv,” said Anthony Blinken, “including against Russian forces that are massing on the Russian side of the border.”
Rumors circulated that Biden had approved the use of US weapons for strikes inside Russia’s border. The Secretary of State felt it time to confirm that fact.
When asked if the door was open for the US to allow Ukraine to strike further into Russia, Blinken said the US would continue to “adapt and adjust” moving forward.
Markets were profoundly quiet. The Memorial Day holiday seemed to mark the start of summer trading.
For a couple years our central bankers, economists, strategists, and forward markets have gotten just about everything wildly wrong. Inflation, interest rates, real rates, housing, employment, regional banking, GDP, budget deficits, you name it. But lately, surprises seem to have returned to the pedestrian variety of ten basis points here or there.
And with trillions sitting in money market funds, and equity market sentiment neither overwhelmingly bullish nor bearish, the swings in price are kind of boring.
“What we are in now is a production war,” said a senior NATO official. “The outcome in Ukraine depends on how each side is equipped to conduct this war.”
Russia is producing 3x the number of artillery shells as Nato allies and at just 25% of the cost. And Nato has just 5% of the air defenses it needs on its eastern flank. That is sure to soon change.
It’s all heating up in the Pacific too. Lieutenant General Jing Jianfeng denounced the US as the “source of chaos and tension” in the Indo-Pacific and said its regional strategy aimed to “create division, provoke confrontation and undermine stability”. He accused the US of seeking an Asia-Pacific NATO.
Probably true. But markets don’t care until they care, because of course, traders have no real idea how to trade geopolitical risk.
