Authored by Nathan Worcester via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

You might call it the “battle of BlackRock.”

The conflict, which pits Republican officials in states across the country against the world’s largest asset manager, has only intensified in recent months.

Just days ago, Florida became the latest state to pull money from BlackRock—in its case, $2 billion in state-controlled assets.

The state’s chief financial officer, Jimmy Patronis, explained that “using Florida’s cash to fund BlackRock’s social-engineering project isn’t something we signed up for.”

Now, North Carolina Treasurer Dale Folwell has taken the rhetoric up another notch.

In a Dec. 9 letter to BlackRock’s board of directors, he called for the firm’s CEO, Larry Fink, to “resign or be removed” from his position.

Folwell argued that BlackRock’s focus on “environmental, social and corporate governance” (ESG) under Fink’s leadership runs contrary to its fiduciary duty—in other words, its legal obligation to serve its clients’ best interests.

Those many clients include the North Carolina Retirement System, for which Folwell serves as sole fiduciary. Of the $111.4 billion fund, $14 billion is presently managed by BlackRock, according to the letter.

ESG is an investment philosophy that aims to embed particular values—for example, concern about climate change—into the financial system. Its conservative critics argue that it distorts the economy by privileging politically correct sentiment over the hard realities of the market.

Folwell warned that Fink’s “pursuit of a political agenda has gotten in the way of BlackRock’s same fiduciary duty.”

“A focus on ESG is not a focus on returns and potentially could force us to violate our own fiduciary duty,” he added—a broad hint, perhaps, at a potential future willingness to divest from the asset manager.

Florida’s divestment from BlackRock isn’t the only such move in the last several months.

Under Missouri’s Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt, now the Show Me State’s senator-elect, millions in Missourians’ retirement dollars were taken out of BlackRock’s hands.

Louisiana, Utah, and Arkansas have followed similar courses of action.

The biggest concern from many of those states has been BlackRock’s efforts to steer investors away from fossil fuels, out of a stated concern with climate change driven by human activity.

In his 2020 Letter to Shareholders, Fink wrote that “in the near future—and sooner than most anticipate—there will be a significant reallocation of capital.

Fink went on to tout BlackRock’s “initiatives to place sustainability at the center of our investment approach.”

A subsequent list of those initiatives included “exiting investments that present a high sustainability-related risk, such as thermal coal producers” and “launching new investment products that screen fossil fuels.”

Treasurers, attorneys general, and other officials from fossil fuel-producing states have argued that BlackRock’s ESG-related commitments undermine the prosperity and stability of their own communities.

BlackRock, for its part, has responded to the ongoing pressure campaign from state-level officials with a website, “Energy investing: Setting the record straight.”

There it argues that it identifies climate change as a long-term risk it needs to protect its clients’ interests from.

“Our consideration of the risks and opportunities of a transition to a low-carbon economy is in the interest of realizing the best long-term financial results for our clients and entirely consistent with our fiduciary duty,” that website states.

Many environmental groups argue that the big banks and asset managers targeted by Republican officials are not doing enough to promote fossil fuel divestment. They’re among the biggest supporters of ESG-like policies to transform the private sector under President Joe Biden, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) proposal to mandate climate-related disclosures from publicly traded companies.

A Dec. 8 article from the Sierra Club, for example, praised BlackRock for “starting to push back” against Republican officials’ campaign against ESG.

Yet they noted that BlackRock continues to manage fossil fuel investments on behalf of its clients.

The Epoch Times has reached out to BlackRock for further comment.

Identical twin sisters who were accused of cheating on their year-end medical school exams have been awarded $1.5 million in a defamation case against the Medical University of South Carolina.

Kayla and Kellie Bingham were accused of “academic dishonesty” in May 2016 after test proctors deemed their exam performance to be too close to be a coincidence – with identical answers to 296 out of 307 questions, including 54 wrong answers. University officials launched an investigation, and a school “honor council” alleged the sisters were “signaling one another and passing notes,” according to court documents. The school ultimately ruled they had cheated on the exam.

“It was an eight-hour exam during which we exhibited normal test-taking behavior,” Kayla Bingham told CBS MoneyWatch.

The Binghams successfully appealed the decision and filed a lawsuit against the university, arguing that for years they had behaved and performed similarly academically and in athletics. After a four-day trial in November, a South Carolina jury decided the school had defamed the sisters and awarded them a total of $1.5 million in damages. 

The Binghams’ legal case hinged on the theory that it is common for identical twins to perform similarly on tests given their genetic profiles. Nancy Segal, who runs California State University, Fullerton’s Twin Studies Center and who testified in the case, said numerous studies show that identical twins often perform similarly on a range of cognitive tests. -CBS News

“There is a wealth of psychological research that shows that identical twins do perform very similarly on tests of intelligence, information processing and speed of response, and I was not at all surprised they turned in very similar exams,” said Segal. “When identical twins perform very differently it catches our attention.”

“When they perform alike, it’s very consistent with the literature. I would have been surprised if they hadn’t scored alike.”

The Binghams claimed that the allegations of cheating caused them psychological distress, which included panic attacks and post-traumatic stress disorder.

“It was a very hostile environment. People we had known, sat next to and studied with for two years would not speak to us,” Kellie Bingham told CBS. “They knew our work ethic and study habits but refused to hear our side of the story. People we trusted completely turned their backs on us.”

The university’s accusation and the events that ensued also interfered with the Binghams’ plans to become doctors. The two now work as government affairs advisers at the same South Carolina law firm.

And according to Kayla, “We came to understand that once word gets out, even if it’s not accurate, it damages your reputation as a person. So we completely switched tracks,” adding that she “wanted to fight back because I had been wronged.”

The Biden administration says it is still engaging with Moscow in an ongoing attempt to secure detained Marine veteran Paul Whelan’s release from the Russian prison where he’s serving a 16-year sentence, which reportedly involves hard labor.

On Sunday, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told ABC’s “This Week” the US is still “negotiating” for his release – confirming that recently a “very serious, specific proposal” was made to the Russians.

He further gave some background on the Brittney Griner release while seeking to deflect widespread criticisms that Whelan was left behind for the less serious case of WNBA star Griner. Biden has been accused of simply choosing her for her fame and the bigger PR campaign rallying behind her.

Kirby described that for months the White House pushed hard to gain Whelan and Griner’s release together, but “it just didn’t land anywhere… with the Russians,” he explained in the Sunday comments.

“As we progressed through this summer and into the fall… it was clear that they were treating Paul very separately, very distinctly because of these sham espionage charges they levied against him.” Kirby said that just before Griner’s release it became clear that Whelan’s release would remain unlikely. 

“It really occurred to us that there was just no chance of doing it last week… we had been trying all the way up until the moment we actually secured the deal that got Brittney home, we were still trying to get Paul out,” he said.

Days ago CNN cited US officials who listed some of the Russian names that could potentially be included in a future Whelan swap: 

US officials made quiet inquiries to the Germans about whether they might be willing to include [Vadim] Krasikov in the trade, a senior German government source told CNN earlier this year. But ultimately, the US was not able to secure Krasikov’s release. The German government was not willing to seriously consider including Krasikov –who assassinated a Georgian citizen in broad daylight in Berlin in 2019 – in a potential trade, the German source said.

The US made several other offers to the Russians, sources said, to try to get them to agree to include Whelan in the swap. Among the names floated by the US was Alexander Vinnik, a Russian national extradited to the US in August on allegations of money laundering, hacking and extortion. The US also offered to trade Roman Seleznev, a convicted Russian cyber-criminal currently serving a 14-year sentence in the US, sources said.

“We’re going to keep trying as hard as we can,” White House’s John Kirby tells @MarthaRaddatz after U.S. was unable to negotiate release of Paul Whelan.

“This business of getting wrongfully detained Americans home, there’s nothing easy about it.” https://t.co/xc7EPeqf8J pic.twitter.com/eZX9CARGwQ

— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) December 11, 2022

The biggest name on that list is Vadim Krasikov, a former colonel from Russia’s domestic spy organization. He’s serving out a life sentence in Germany for murder after being convicted in the assassination of a former Chechen fighter, Zelimkhan “Tornike” Khangoshvili, which was carried out in a Berlin park.

Kirby used the Sunday morning media interviews to lash out at the White House’s critics who point to the Russians getting the deal of the century in Viktor Bout’s release.

“They weren’t on the phone. They weren’t watching the incredible effort and determination by [Roger Carstens] and his team to try to get both Paul and Brittney out together,” Kirby said. “In a negotiation, you do what you can. You do as much as you can. You push and you push and you push. And we did. And this deal we got last week, that was the deal that was possible. It was the deal we could get now. Now was the moment we could get it, and we executed it.”

Authored by Madalina Vasiliu via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Fourteen Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents who worked at the southern border committed suicide this year, according to members of Congress.

The Republican and Democrat lawmakers released the grim, and growing, tally during a press conference on Dec. 7 at the House Triangle.

Between 2007 and Nov. 2022, a total of 149 CBP agents located at the U.S. southern border took their lives.

CBP agents are exposed to traumatic experiences that affect their lives, said the lawmakers, noting that it’s common for law enforcement officers to keep their mental health needs to themselves.

CBP agents feel abandoned by the current administration, Rep. Mayra Flores (R-Texas) said, referring to President Joe Biden’s recent remarks.

When asked on Dec. 6 why he wasn’t going to the border while visiting a border state, Biden told reporters at the White House it was “because there are more important things going on.”

Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) said, “While in Washington, there’s a lot that divides us in policy and often drives us in a lot of different directions, but there are a lot of things that should unite us.”

During the 2022 fiscal year, $23 million has been allocated to the mental health of CBP agents, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said, adding that the same budget for the 2023 fiscal year will be the same.

The Taking Action to Prevent Suicide (TAPS) Act would allow CBP agents to freely speak with health care professionals without fear of losing their jobs as well as increase the number of local behavioral health specialists with the expertise to provide psychological assistance to CBP officers.

If there are no health care experts in the agency, Cuellar said, the government should work with local organizations to provide what the CBP agents need for their mental health.

“Until we take out the fear of law enforcement coming forward and talking about their mental health issues, they’re never going to do it,” said Brandon Judd, president of the Border Patrol Union.

There needs to be more than a friendly social worker, said Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.). CBP agents should have health care personnel trained to guide them through traumatic experiences when necessary, she added.

“We all know that our immigration system is fully broken. It is working for no one. Therefore, the folks who are manning the southern border are bearing the brunt of our failed policies,” Slotkin said.

The Epoch Times previously obtained data indicating that CBP captured 209,664 illegal aliens along the southern border in October.

Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.), said that CBP’s southern agents need more advanced technology, such as sensor towers and refugee processing facilities. Soto supports Biden’s proposed homeland security budget “to keep our homeland safe and respect international refugee laws.”

“While many of us may have disagreements on border solutions, both here and across Congress, we still have to come together, find common ground, find solutions like the TAPS Act because our Border Protection officers deserve nothing less for protecting our homeland,” Soto told the press.

Amid calls that he sucks and should be replaced, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) says he’ll subpoena the 51 former intelligence officials who said the New York Post‘s bombshell report on the Hunter Biden laptop had ‘all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

The California Republican — who is expected to become speaker when the GOP takes control of the House of Representatives in January — said what Twitter did with The Post’s bombshell October 2020 report was “egregious.”  -NY Post

“Those 51 intel agents that signed a letter that said the Hunter Biden information was all wrong, was Russia collusion, many of them have a security clearance,” McCarthy told Fox News on Saturday. “We’re going to bring them before a committee. I’m going to have them have a hearing​,​ bring them and subpoena them before a committee. Why did they sign it? Why did they lie to the American public?”

McCarthy – former roommate of liberal pollster (and Hunter Biden pal) Frank Luntz – has faced strong opposition to his bid to become the next Speaker of the House, particularly from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), so you’ll understand our skepticism over his ‘vow’ to get to the bottom of the 51 former senior intelligence officials.

Former CIA Director John Brennan and ex-National Security Council Director James Clapper were among a group of former intelligence officials who signed a statement days after the expose, claiming it “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”  

​McCarthy questioned the move. “Why did you use the reputation that America was able to give to you … but use it for a political purpose and lie to the American public?” he said on Fox. 

Republicans are preparing to launch a number of investigations into the Biden family as a result of The Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden’s overseas business relationships while his father was vice president in the Obama administration. -NY Post

Journalist Glenn Greenwald puts the whole thing in perspective in a great Twitter thread:

Once these CIA, NSA and DHS operatives — among them the most unscrupulous career liars and war criminals: John Brennan, James Clapper, Michael Hayden and Leon Panetta — signed onto this lie, they handed it to POLITICO’s @NatashaBertrand, now of CNN, who uncritically spread it: pic.twitter.com/59QNRRuZsk

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 11, 2022

The 2 worst media offenders in spreading this lie were NBC and CNN. They put one liar after the next on to say this laptop was forged and came from Russia. @RepAdamSchiff as usual, took the lead in lying. He should be removed from the Intel Comm for this:https://t.co/o6CCIhcSTm

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 11, 2022

So *of course* House GOP should investigate how 51 CIA/NSA/Homeland Security leaders spread this lie to media to manipulate the 2020 election. House Dems should, too!

But, instead, Dems and their liberal followers will object, because the US Security State is their key ally.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 11, 2022

One last point about @GOPLeader McCarthy. He’s vowed to remove @IlhanMN from committees. That’s cheap and easy to do for so many reasons.

Omar is 1,000 times better than Schiff (see below). Schiff is the most destructive liar in Congress. The media reveres him. Remove *him*. pic.twitter.com/EQPNDtK3eH

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 11, 2022

By Stephen Byrd, Head of North American Equity Research, Power/Utilities and Clean Tech at Morgan Stanley

Debate among investors is growing about whether to focus on stocks which are ESG ‘enablers’ with best-in-class ESG metrics, or on ‘ESG improvers’. We see merit in both approaches but believe the benefits of owning ‘ESG rate of change’ stocks and engaging with companies in transition are underappreciated. In a recent report, Morgan Stanley’s Sustainability Research team, in collaboration with industry analysts, our Quantitative Investment Strategies (QIS) team, and AlphaWise, show that focusing on names with improving ESG metrics can deliver both alpha and positive ESG impacts.

Our work is distinctive on multiple fronts. First, in collaboration with our analysts, we developed a forward-looking framework to analyze ESG rate of change at the stock level. We think it provides a better gauge of the likely future rate of change than typical data services, which are often backward looking and/or not informed by in-depth, sector-specific analyses. In addition, our analysts focused on companies with an opportunity to improve their financial performance thanks to ESG rate of change, a key difference from typical ESG analyses.

From a quant perspective, our QIS team assessed the impact on stock returns of ESG criteria such as carbon efficiency, exclusions driven by environmental harm, percentages of revenues linked to fossil fuels, and non-climate ESG concerns. The team found little evidence of a significant positive or negative effect on performance from screening on such broad ESG criteria. This underscores the need to marry ESG capabilities with strong sector expertise in order to generate alpha, tailoring ESG criteria and strategies to industry dynamics. We developed a robust set of sector-specific ESG rate of change criteria.

We were surprised how often deflationary technologies are driving simultaneous improvement in both ESG and financial metrics. An usually broad range of innovations are dropping in cost so much that they offer significant net benefits on both fronts. These include solar/wind/clean hydrogen, green ammonia, precision agriculture, improved molecular plastics recycling technology, more efficient electric motors, energy storage cost reductions, ‘green steel’, more durable vehicle tires, recycling technologies, electrification of many products/industrial processes, carbon capture tech, and waste-to-energy/waste-to-plastics technologies.

We reject a dichotomy between investing in ESG ‘enablers’ versus ‘improvers’. We would highlight a recent Morgan Stanley report on Earthshots led by Ed Stanley that identified a number of important emerging ‘enabling’ technologies – radical decarbonization accelerants or global warming mitigants. With the help of our global analysts, the team reviewed 40 promising technologies but zeroed in on six of the most game-changing. Given a growing mismatch between the pace of climate technology adoption and the planet’s need for these solutions, we believe these Earthshots are likely to be a key secular trade of the 2020s.

In evaluating ‘improvers’, we reiterate the need to marry ESG investing principles and deep sector expertise. Applying ESG metrics without such knowledge can lead to suboptimal results. For example, in the US utilities sector, management teams are shutting down expensive coal-fired power plants and building renewables, energy storage, and transmission, which drives superior EPS growth. Our quantitative research team showed the superior stock returns for companies leading the way on this ‘carbon rate of change’ strategy, but many of these stocks would screen negatively on classic ESG metrics such as carbon intensity.

Lithium, a mineral used in batteries to power electric vehicles, smartphones, laptops, and all sorts of gadgets, has surged to a record high this year as the world pushes forward with a ‘green’ future. But in the process of decarbonizing the global economy, battery prices, for the first time since BloombergNEF began tracking the market in 2010, have risen on an annual basis. 

After a decade of deflation, the volume-weighted average price of lithium-ion battery packs across all industries increased to $151 per kilowatt-hour in 2022, a 7% increase from last year. BloombergNEF forecasts prices could continue rising next year. 

“Never before in the 12 years BNEF has surveyed battery prices have they recorded an annual increase, instead dropping sharply as production grew,” Bloomberg said. 

The rising costs of lithium, nickel, cobalt, aluminum, and manganese — crucial metals used in battery making have increased lithium-ion battery pack prices. 

Just look at the Lithium Price Index — prices are out of control … 

“Not until 2024, when more lithium production is expected to come online, are prices forecast to drop again,” Bloomberg explained. 

The rise in lithium-ion battery packs could be the first red flags in the energy transition that prices to decarbonize economies will be costly. 

“With the advent of electromobility and all this excitement about lithium, the world needs new sources,” Daniel Jimenez from consultancy iLiMarkets recently told the FT. “Whoever is producing lithium in the coming three years is going to make abnormally high margins.”

Yet until new supply comes online, lithium-ion battery packs will rise, which has already caused EV affordability concerns. 

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

This week we will all focus on CPI on Tuesday and the Fed on Wednesday. What Chair Powell says and does on Wednesday will reverberate through the markets. For the record, I expect 50 bps and he will keep a rate hike on the table for the February 1 st announcement.

Rather than attempting to estimate this week’s CPI data (which will be important), today’s report will focus on what will drive inflation (and the economy/markets) after the Fed decision.

We have seven weeks between this FOMC decision and the next one. Seven weeks feels like  a lifetime in a market that is prone to large daily and weekly swings. Even the views on the economy are shifting rapidly as more economists seem to be heading in our direction, which is that the recession will start sooner (Q1) and be deeper than most people previously thought.

If anything, the market is pricing in a Squishy Landing. That report tried to define a “squishy” landing and also tried to figure out why markets may misinterpret data as indicating a “soft” landing when the worst is yet to come. Finally, we re-iterated our more pessimistic outlook in that report.

Inflation Factors versus Inflation

Rather than just trying to “estimate” inflation, we examine the factors that “drive” inflation. While we could just estimate various inflation components such as rent, in this report, we will try something different. We will lay out the factors that drive inflation. We believe that these factors do a good job of predicting where inflation and the economy are headed

In theory this is what many do, but we hope that today’s analysis makes it clear how these factors have been behaving (and how they will behave). That will go a long way in explaining why our current outlook is more pessimistic and is strongly in the camp that “the Fed has gone too far already.”

We will address the individual components that go into this model. This model shows the highest inflationary pressures were from Q2 2021 to Q4 2021. It remained elevated for that extended period of time due to a variety of factors (the importance of which changed within that period). The factors have been pointing to steadily declining inflation and growth pressures ever since.

If anything, the factors point to deflationary pressures in Q1 and Q2 next year – which is another way of reaching our conclusion that the economy and markets are in jeopardy of a large “risk-off” trade that will break 2022’s lows on stocks (while yields plummet).

The Inflation Factors

We will use 5 factors. The factors are somewhat broad and the influence that they have on inflation is just an estimate. Yes, inflation and the economy are closely linked. No, our model is not tested and is both arbitrary and subjective. Nonetheless, it seems logical and almost elegant. The explanation fits the narrative of what has been going on, and some version of this “model” has been influencing my thoughts on inflation, the economy, and markets. It is a good starting point for this overall discussion and what to expect in terms of economic data and corporate reporting over the next seven weeks.

The factors that we use are:

• The Fed. This is primarily focused on rates and the balance sheet. Lower rates are stimulative and higher rates act as a headwind. Balance sheet expansion (QE) is stimulative while balance sheet reduction (QT) is contractionary. Other “extraordinary” measures are included as well.
• Stimulus. This includes a range of items such as checks sent to individuals, moratoriums on rent/student loans, PPP, and government spending programs like the “Inflation Reduction” Act.
• Supply Chains. This attempts to broadly incorporate supply chain issues from the actual inability to produce goods to the costs of shipping and transporting. It is difficult to get an exact definition, but we all know it when we see it.
• War. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the sanctions are also factors.
• Disruptive. Another broad topic and not only is it extremely important, but it has been overlooked by many. It does not just include the wealth gained and lost by investors or the impact on the economy. The spending generated by “disruptive” companies (and even units of larger/more “traditional” organizations) was quite simply massive. This segment can easily include crypto as well as disruptive companies (some of which were already public or recently went public, and others largely benefitted from PE/VC investments). This may be the most contentious factor, which likely makes it the most important in terms of explaining why our outlook remains so pessimistic.

We did not treat wage inflation as an inflation factor. This is a tricky and almost circular issue. Is wage inflation a factor? Certainly, the Fed focuses on wage inflation because it could potentially create “sticky” (or rather “non-transitory”) inflation. From that perspective, it is a factor rather than an output. However, we will treat wage inflation as another output (wage inflation will respond to the other factors, making it okay to ignore in the factor model). It is somewhat circular, which is why we highlight it.

The Fed

The Fed did everything it could in the immediate aftermath of COVID and the COVID lockdowns. They bought corporate bonds/ETFs, backstopped money markets and corporate new issuance, expanded their balance sheet, and cut rates to zero.

Over time they pulled back on that support. By Q3 of 2022 we saw them acting as a moderate headwind. We should not just expect higher rates for now because the Fed is telegraphing higher rates into the future (while ramping up QT) as well.

By early 2023 the Fed will be a deflationary pressure.

That will start to reverse course as the Fed backpedals (likely smaller QT before rate cuts). In any case, on a standalone basis this might be the right policy, but given how the other factors are behaving, it may be a mistake.

Stimulus

Stimulus started slowly, ramped up, tailed off, ramped back up again, and is now in the process of declining. We’ve left it as a small positive factor for much of this year and next year.

The bump in Q2 2021 may have been the most awkward of the inflation drivers as yet another stimulus package was passed long after there was an obvious need for it (the very nature of inflationary).

We didn’t get a “bounce” in the factor when the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” was passed, because it wasn’t heavily front loaded, but it is why we leave stimulus as a positive factor going forward.

Supply Chain

The supply chain issues didn’t manifest themselves right away. In Q2 2020 oil (WTI) futures briefly traded negative. Yes, there were all sorts of weird shortages and mismatches during that time. You could get rolls and rolls of industrial grade toilet paper if you could figure out where to go, but it was virtually impossible to get high quality toilet paper (I’m sure there were other initial issues, but that one sticks out).

It was only over time as we re-opened and inventories got whittled down that supply chain issues started to mount. Add to that the fact that there weren’t enough workers at the docks to unload (let alone ship) things. Supply chain constraints were off the charts (as was the cost of shipping). However, those costs have since come down.

There are still some supply chain issues. Shipping isn’t great, but other issues are much smaller now. Offsetting that pressure further are the inventory builds that we’ve seen across so many industries. It is still a moderately inflationary factor, but should go away by Q2

War

Russia invaded Ukraine in Q1 2022, but as troops were building up before that, we started to see some pressure on commodity prices that could be attributed to the war risk. That escalated post invasion as sanctions took hold. It abated a little in the summer on the energy front (seasonal) and as some deals were attempted on the commodity front. It has ramped back up and that will continue into Q1 of next year and then it should subside into the summer again.

Disruptive

This doesn’t exactly follow the chart of bitcoin, ARKK, or SPAC issuance, but it is probably somewhat linked. Were those just a factor of the other factors, or a factor in their own right?

The wealth created and spent in this subset of the universe (which was unique to this period) is its own driver. It ties into my argument that jobs lost will NOT be the metric of this recession, rather it will be jobs lost multiplied by average pay that will define this recession.

I’m hearing this from programmers, software and hardware sellers, and event planners. The wealth created and spent was enormous, concentrated, and inflationary.

The Whole Picture

This chart might be a little bit messy, but it is a useful illustration of how these various factors have worked to drive inflation.

Thinking about these factors and when they started to turn down (and how inflation/the economy have followed) sends a somewhat chilling message if they are correct.

We are seeing little to no inflationary (growth) pressures in the economy in Q1, yet we are behaving as though fighting inflation is still job number 1.

Bottom Line

Look for growth and inflation to slow, regardless of what the Fed does going forward. Inflation was driven by many factors, most of which are receding on their own.

We have seven weeks of data after this Fed meeting and will be entering into Q4 earnings. I have little reason to be optimistic unless something about these risk factors change. It would be great to have discussions on the appropriateness of these factors and their relative importance.

This model may have many errors, but I welcome the opportunity to discuss/refine it and hopefully it gives you some food for thought on why our inflation and growth projections are on the pessimistic side of consensus.

Good luck on Wednesday and get ready for the next 7 weeks!

The biggest story of the past decade is not the covid pandemic, the January 6th protests, the war in Ukraine, the BLM riots, or even the stagflationary crisis in the US.  Behind these major events is another story, one that connects them all together in a disturbing way.  Even more important than the effects of geopolitical and economic chaos is the effect of mass censorship; without the free exchange of information and debate the public remains ignorant.  And if the public remains ignorant, crisis events have an increasing potential to explode.

Public perception of national and international affairs is a key determinant of the outcome of disasters and conflicts.  This is why governments and elitists from around the world often seek to manipulate the ways in which people digest information.  The idea is rather simple – They believe that ‘we the people’ cannot be allowed to come to our own conclusions.  They think we cannot be trusted to develop the “proper” viewpoints and we are not smart enough to understand the implications of governmental decisions.  

In other words, they believe the exact opposite of what is outlined in the US Constitution.  The establishment will give numerous reasons why they need to censor, suppress, spin and misrepresent the facts of any given situation, but in the end the real rationale is that they have a vision for society that is contrary to our foundations.  They have appointed themselves the arbiters of reality to see that vision done.  As Edward Bernays, the “father of pubic relations” once stated in his book ‘Propaganda’:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

This is pure authoritarianism.  It’s the stuff of nightmares and revolutions.  But for many years now a large subsection of the world has denied such a dynamic exists.  It’s “conspiracy theory” and “tinfoil hattery” to claim that a small number of elites work together in secret to control public perception and govern our society from the shadows.  After all, where is the proof?

Of course, this kind of argument is a coping mechanism for the mentally deficient.  Proof of such secretive governance and control is everywhere these days, but some people prefer willful denial.  Take for example the ongoing data drops for what is now being called “The Twitter Files.”

The mainstream media is barely responding to the information dump initiated by Elon Musk.  They seem to be far more interested in Donald Trump’s tax records.  When they are forced to acknowledge the story, they are hostile, calling the information “boring” or unimpressive.  It’s a classic psychological  tactic of typical narcissists and criminals – When they get caught, they act indifferent, as if neither the evidence nor their crimes really matter.  If getting caught doesn’t matter to them, then their crimes must not be all that bad, right?

The content of these files is astonishing, but at the same time it is true that the conclusions are not surprising.    

The files simply confirm almost everything conservative and libertarian commentators have been saying for years; all those “conspiracy theories” about Big Tech censorship of conservatives turned out to be true.  Not only that, but the theory that government agencies and officials from the DNC worked with Big Tech to silence and undermine their political opponents was also true.  

Twitter has long denied that they “shadow ban” users, but this was a lie.  The data shows that small groups within Twitter called “strategic response teams” suppressed up to 200 accounts per day.  Usually these were accounts of larger and more influential conservative politicians and celebrities.  And, these teams operated in coordination with Democrat officials and agencies like the FBI.  In some cases the goal was to mute a particular individual. In other cases the goal was to steer national elections.   

Internal Twitter communications show that SRT groups spent most of their time fabricating reasons why certain information was subject to TOS.  In other words, if Twitter’s rules were not being violated, they made up new rules.  

The exposure of Twitter is the biggest story of the decade because it provides proof of a hidden cabal.  It shows the ugly mechanics behind the scenes and exposes a network of elites and their errand boys who were involved in direct operations to destroy the 1st Amendment for the sake of ideological supremacy.  

It’s the classic definition of fascism, a definition that Benito Mussolini reiterated when he argued:  “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

And, if this brand of Fascism was happening within the halls of Twitter, then there is little doubt it is also happening at companies like Google/YouTube, Apple, Facebook, etc.  Before we had evidence, now we have confirmation.  

The corporate media argues over relevance instead of morality because they benefited from the censorship.  It’s important to remember that one of the first measures Big Tech companies applied after suppressing the alternative media during the pandemic was to then amplify the corporate media.  These companies are floundering with dismal audience numbers and dwindling profits.  No one listens to them anymore.  Yet, as long as they promote the establishment narrative their opinions and disinformation are given priority on nearly every search engine and social media platform.  

Of course they aren’t interested in the Twitter Files, liars are often “bored” by honest commentary and factual information.  Also, their continued existence relies on the censorship of their competition in the alternative media.

The bottom line is this:  According to the Bill of Rights, it is illegal for agents of the US government to obstruct the free speech of law abiding American citizens.  It does not matter if the action is done by using “private businesses” as a middlemen.  And, if a private business is colluding with government to implement political policy then it is no longer a private business.  Twitter was participating in a form of treason, along with the agencies that they cooperated with.  It’s a huge story, and one that should lead to punishment for those involved.      

Authored by J.M. Phelps via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

An Army captain was separated from the service for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine as the GOP attempts to roll back Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s military vaccine mandate.

Capt. Stephen Rogerson (a pseudonym) has served in the Army for 17 years, and on Dec. 6, a three-person administrative board voted to separate him from service. On the same day, the House passed an $858 billion defense funding bill, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year 2023, that included a provision to rescind the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

But soldiers like Rogerson are “falling through the cracks of a failed policy at precisely the wrong time,” according to R. Davis Younts, an Air Force Reserve Judge Advocate General (JAG) and civilian attorney.

In October 2021, Rogerson received a temporary medical exemption through his primary care manager. Within two hours of submitting his request for exemption to the vaccine to his command, it was denied.

“Rather than accepting my exemption, they gave it to the command surgeon who overturned it and took measures to deny it—without the authority or policy in place to do so,” he told The Epoch Times, using a pseudonym for fear of reprisals.

“In addition to opposing the vaccine for medical concerns, I was opposed to it because it came out so quickly and there was no way possible to know its long-term side effects.” Thus, he took all necessary steps to oppose the vaccine.

For this, Rogerson received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand in February, which was permanently filed into his record.

“Those things are going to be in my record, unless there’s some sort of language requiring the military to take out the adverse actions given to soldiers who refused to take the experimental vaccine,” he said.

“While Congress taking action is a great thing, the language isn’t clear,” Rogerson said.

According to Younts, “The latest language in the NDAA is compromised language,” explaining that the agreement will only end the Department of Defense’s (DoD) vaccine mandate, and does not address the issue of the thousands of service members who have already been separated or who have had adverse action taken against them due to their refusal to take the vaccine.

If the NDAA is approved by the Senate and signed into law by President Joe Biden, Austin would have 30 days to rescind the mandate.

“I know, firsthand, the military is continuing to push the vaccine and boosters,” he said. “The Navy and Coast Guard, in particular, are putting tremendous pressure on its members.”

Younts believes the “coercion” to get the vaccine will continue, even if the mandate is rescinded.

He questioned whether “the DOD’s intent will be to continue to punish and kick out those individuals who violated the supposed ‘lawful order’ to get the vaccine while it was a mandate.”

The White House said including the provision in NDAA was “a mistake.”

“Making sure our troops are ready to defend this country and prepared to do so, that remains the President’s priority, and the vaccine requirement for COVID does just that,” John Kirby, National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications, said during a press briefing on Dec. 7.

A Whole New Fight

Service members in the Air Force, Marines, and Navy are currently protected by a preliminary injunction that prohibits the respective services from taking adverse actions against the unvaccinated. Meanwhile, the Army and Coast Guard are subject to such restrictions.

“Without a change in the policy, soldiers could still be punished with travel restrictions, other measures to prevent training and education, and more,” Rogerson said. He expects “restrictive measures to remain in place, depending on how the DoD treats the guidance that comes down from Congress.”

To that end, Younts said, “There are still a lot of people in the Army and Coast Guard that have a letter of reprimand in their file for refusing the vaccine.” Many have not been promoted, have been restricted from travel, and have had other actions taken against them, he said.

“Because of this, the military’s position could be that [service members] violated the initial order when it was a mandate, and they’re still going to move to kick them out.”

Rescinding the vaccine mandate via the NDAA is “a small step,” Younts said. “What’s going to force the DoD and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to change their policy and not punish or retaliate against those who are in a refuser status, but their cases still haven’t been processed to completion yet?”

Furthermore, the language of the NDAA does not reinstate thousands of military members who have already been separated from the service. “Congress has not required the DoD to address any of these issues,” Younts pointed out.

“All it says is that as the NDAA goes into effect, the mandate doesn’t exist anymore,” Younts explained. “Unless there’s more court action or another intervention,” he said, “the DoD is still going to consider the previous vaccine mandate a valid order, and those who refused that order, they’re going to continue to be punished.”

Younts is also concerned about the current injunctions in place for the Air Force, Marines, and Navy.

“For example, if the Air Force case goes to trial next year and we lose, a whole bunch of these people already have a letter of reprimand in their record or have had other adverse action taken against them,” he said. And because of this, “The Air Force could still punch them and kick them out for disobeying a so-called lawful order,” the attorney added.

Read more here…