Who could have seen this coming?

The Washington Post reports that the Biden Justice Department does not plan to pursue criminal charges against President Biden for his mishandling of classified documents.

The DoJ is reportedly preparing to release a special counsel report in coming days that will be critical of President Biden and his aides for mishandling classified documents in Biden’s private home and former office and this WaPo report appears to be the mainstream media foaming the runway as this report crash-lands at the feet of a Republican Congress. WaPo writes:

“While the facts of the Biden case appear to have major differences from the Trump case, Hur’s conclusions are likely to face intense scrutiny from Republicans in Congress.”

The lack of charges was initially leaked in November, and prompted outrage:

They’re trying to throw Trump in prison over classified documents that he DID have the authority to declassify but Biden won’t even get a slap on wrist for mishandling + keeping classified docs he kept as a VP/Senator when he wasn’t able to declassify them. Political prosecution! https://t.co/8UElp4aGx0

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) November 16, 2023

Joe Biden’s DOJ investigated Joe Biden and found that Joe Biden had done nothing wrong by taking classified material and storing it in his office and garage floor. https://t.co/6VsDxDw3gO

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) November 16, 2023

And so, with the actual report’s imminent release, WaPo felt the need to spend a few thousand more words to provide talking points to the base on why it’s different for Biden… except they really didn’t – aside from to claim that Trump ‘intentionally misled or delayed’ his response on the classified docs (that as president he was allowed to declassify), while they appear to claim – by explaining each of the various locations where Biden’s classified documents were discovered, that is was merely a mistake by a bumbling old fart and his aides

About 10 documents from Biden’s time as vice president were found Nov. 2, 2022, when lawyers for Biden were cleaning out his private office at the Washington-based Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, a think tank Biden started with the University of Pennsylvania after his tenure as vice president.

The attorney, Pat Moore, found the documents in a small closet and called White House lawyers, who contacted the National Archives and Records Administration, the federal agency responsible for storing and preserving presidential records.

…

In December 2022, legal representatives for Biden searched his home in Wilmington, Del., and found a “small number” of records with classified markings in the garage, the White House has said.

Biden’s vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Del., also was searched, but no classified material was found there, the White House has said.

In January, lawyers found another potential record with classified markings at the Wilmington residence, in a room adjacent to the garage.

Biden’s personal attorneys arranged for the Justice Department to take possession of the material.

Biden aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation, have said they believe the documents unintentionally ended up at Biden’s home and office because of sloppy staff work.

Later in the WaPo report, the cover is provided very transparently: “the Trump investigation seems significantly different from the Biden investigation.

“…more importantly, federal prosecutors came to suspect Trump was deliberately misleading them and hiding some highly sensitive papers even after he received a grand jury subpoena demanding their return.

Showing willful intent to mishandle national security secrets is often a key factor in charging decisions involving classified papers…

Trump is accused of deliberately trying to mislead investigators as they demanded the government documents back.

He is scheduled to stand trial on those charges in Fort Pierce, Fla., in May,…”

Finally, we are reminded of Trump Special Counsel Jack Smith’s comments in his press conference announcing the criminal charges against Trump last year:

“We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone….Nothing more, nothing less.”

Indeed.

Authored by John J. Waters via RealClear Wire,

In most places around the country, the point of acquiring power is to do something with it.

Your state’s legislators pass a corporate tax cut to attract new business. Or, your mayor deploys city funds to repair streets damaged by winter’s snow and ice, paving the way for a smooth commute.

But D.C. is different.

More than other places, in D.C., the best use of power is not to discharge it toward solving some real or concrete problem that exists in the world, but to use power to create even more power. Whether that’s a better committee assignment, a bigger office, deeper donor pool, or a bigger professional network, there’s an urgency to spend what you have in furtherance of your ambition for more, to apply all of one’s tools in a strategy that (swiftly) generates more and greater power.

It’s a unique environment, and one in which military historian Eliot Cohen has thrived for more than 30 years. He’s advised presidents, cabinet secretaries, generals and diplomats. “In government and out,” writes David Petraeus, “Eliot Cohen has consistently been one of the shrewdest observers of the exercise of power.” In his new book The Hollow Crown, Cohen finds in Shakespeare the characters and stories that illustrate what he has learned about the ebb and flow of power in the real world, and it’s on this theme that we pick up our conversation. I talked with the author about military leadership, Coriolanus, and the Henry plays in part one of our conversation, which you can find here. Now, on to part two …

What is the state of “power” in 2024?

Power is more diffuse today than in previous periods of history.

As a group, elites don’t have the same voice as they once did because the number of elites has expanded, so you don’t have groups that have a high level of authority. For example, you once had senior clerics in this country who had a profound moral voice. I grew up in Boston and I’m Jewish but if Cardinal Richard Cushing said something, then people would really pay attention. Presidents of the great university played a role in our national debate that they do not play right now. Because power has gotten very diffuse, it’s sometimes in the hands of people who are irresponsible. Look at Congress. Our committee chairs are not powerful anymore. The Speaker of the House once was powerful. We’ve watched several of them get defenestrated. The elites lost their moral authority and there is no coherent leadership group rising in its place.

What concerns you about the state of politics in our country?

I am concerned that power is being separated from character. What one hears in Washington, DC is that someone is “smart.” That’s the least important thing to have in a leader. It’s very easy to rent smart or hire smart people—it’s much harder to find people with good judgment and good character. I don’t think we’re living in a world that cares about honesty, loyalty, consistency, willingness to sacrifice or give of themselves. And, on the judgment side, do our leaders have an ability to understand enough what is happening to decide what ought to be done? The absence of that quality is how you get into trouble. I make reference in the book to George Washington, who was far from being the smartest but had the strongest character and best judgment. As a counter-example, Richard II was a brilliant talker … and he’s the last guy on earth you want running something.

But Machiavelli separated politics from ethics some 500 years ago, and so I wonder if this phenomenon you observe of an absence of character in politics is really that new at all …

Yes, but first, we don’t have to accept that Machiavelli was necessarily right! Also, Machiavelli had his own conception of virtue, or virtú, that is very different from ours, but still involved some qualities of character that we don’t have much of.

What is Shakespeare’s first lesson on power?

I take away from Shakespeare that all power is dangerous. It’s dangerous when you inherit it because you may not be suited to its exercise. I mention Jack Welch and Jeffrey Immelt, how that plan for succession at General Electric didn’t work out despite all of Welch’s great processes for identifying high performing executives, something he devoted himself to for some 20 years. Acquiring power by manipulation means you’re dealing people at the top who are very slippery. Go to the Federalist Papers. The genius of the American Constitution is that ambition will counter ambition—it’s not set up for a constant flow of brilliant statesmen. I was just in Israel with a delegation of national security people and was in a discussion with an old friend, and this person was saying all we need are honest judges and good people in charge. I disagree. You simply cannot count on those people always being there …

Michael Ledeen said the best government is a good czar. The worst government is a bad czar. There are more bad czars than good czars, so democracy becomes a very good alternative.

Yes, sooner or later, you’re going to end up with bad people in those positions and the system must carry on anyway. I had a professor who was a refugee from Europe during World War II. She said there are two reasons to study political science: either you’re fascinated by power or you’re afraid of power. “You Americans, you’re fascinated by it. I’m afraid of it.”

Shakespeare filled his plays with Machiavellian archetypes, people like Lady Macbeth and Iago who ultimately fail to control the outcomes of their schemes for power. What did Shakespeare think of Machiavelli?

He certainly knew about him, because Richard III, before he becomes king, makes reference to him. But his picture of human beings is far more subtle and nuanced than Machiavelli’s. Lady Macbeth, for example, is consumed with guilt and eventually goes mad; Iago arranges the ruin of Othello for no particular purpose, because he can never replace him. These are not Machiavellian characters like, for example, Cesare Borgia.

You note that Machiavelli believed there’s more “virtú” in a Republic because you have so many people striving. We’re in an election year. Politicians across the country will scheme, deceive and strive in hopes of acquiring power. We should see this “virtú” in abundance. What do you suppose Machiavelli would think about our politics in 2024?

I suspect that he would think that we are a pretty pathetic lot. A lot of politicians whine, a lot of them are cowardly, a lot fear their own followers. Whatever that is, it’s not virtú.

Let’s end with a few brief questions.

Okay.

Which Shakespeare play has become too popular?

Macbeth. Macbeth and Richard III are my favorites but, if there’s someone you don’t like, then you say they’re like Macbeth or Richard. Both are wonderful plays but they are overdone.

Which Shakespeare play should be more popular?

The Henry VI plays should be read much more widely, all three of the Henry VI plays. There is no strong king or strong leadership. There’s a bunch of squabbling courtiers and politicians. Some people are villainous, others are naïve and both come to bad ends. You have demagogues interested in turning things upside down but don’t have an idea of what they want to accomplish. It’s something worth thinking about.

Finally, who is your favorite character from Shakespeare?

Prospero. He’s a flawed human being. He was oblivious as to how he was overthrown. In the first parts of The Tempest, he could be cruel. He has a short fuse and could be arbitrary and is tempted to be vengeful, but at the end he makes a decision to renounce his power. He becomes human because he can walk away from power without illusions. He knows he’s coming to the end but he can relinquish it. He uses power well but also knows he’s got to give it up if he wants to be a normal human being, and that’s a very rare thing.

John J. Waters is the author of the postwar novel River City One (Simon and Schuster), and a former deputy assistant secretary of homeland security.

Israel’s military has issued a new assessment which estimates it has launched attacks on some 3,000 Hezbollah sites in Lebanon in Syria since war started after Oct.7. Military spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari says that while Israel is nothing seeking a bigger war in Lebanon, it is “certainly ready” and that the defense forces (IDF) are ready to “attack immediately if provoked.”

Hezbollah has been hitting back on a daily basis too, with villages and communities on both sides of the border being impacted, and in some cases resulting in civilian casualties. When Israel hits targets in Syria, it tends to describe these as “Iran-linked”, which often means Hezbollah.

Israel now says that time is running out for diplomacy as the two sides spiral toward bigger war. “Israel has said, though, that it’s prepared to open another front with a military attack on southern Lebanon if Hezbollah doesn’t move back to about 20 miles (32 kilometers) from the border, as per the terms of a long-standing United Nations resolution,” according to Bloomberg.

We reported in December that Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has estimated that over 80,000 Israeli citizens are still displaced from their homes, after border regions had to be evacuated en masse as a result of Hezbollah attacks since Oct.7.

At the time it was reported that “The Israelis are anticipating within the next six weeks to two months that if the diplomatic track isn’t working, they’re going to have to opt for some kind of military solution.” Israeli leaders have been reiterating this message this week.

“Israel will act militarily to return the evacuated citizens to their homes” if Hezbollah doesn’t comply with the demand for a buffer zone, according to Monday statements of Foreign Minister Israel Katz. 

Israel is further demanding that the Lebanese government take action, but this has already been rejected in a fresh Tuesday statement: 

Lebanese caretaker Foreign Minister, Abdallah Bou Habib, voiced on February 6 the nation’s rejection of recent Israeli and international demands seeking to push Lebanese resistance group, Hezbollah, north of the Litani River, saying Beirut will not accept ‘partial solutions’ to resolving the cross-border conflict.  

“Western countries demand the retreat of Hezbollah for about eight to ten kilometers north of Litani,” Bou Habib said in an interview with Nida al-Watan. “This is a formula that Lebanon rejects. [Beirut] will not accept ‘partial solutions’ that do not bring the desired peace and do not secure stability but will lead to the renewal of the war again and again.” 

But in reality even if the Lebanese government wanted to try and force Hezbollah away from the southern border it would not be able to do so. The Lebanese Army has long had a very limited arsenal, and really no air force to speak of, due to sanctions and limitations imposed by Washington. 

Hezbollah is widely considered to be stronger than even the Lebanese state’s army, and a weak army is largely the legacy of the prior two-decade long Lebanese civil war. But if Israel and Hezbollah enter a full, uncontrollable war, the entirety of Lebanon is likely to be impacted and bombed by Israeli warplanes, as happened to some degree in the 2006 war.

Meanwhile, there appears to be a rare positive development on Tuesday, per Newsquawk: “US and four European allies hope to announce in the next few weeks a series of commitments made by Israel and Hezbollah to diffuse tensions and restore calm to the Israel-Lebanon border, according to two Israeli officials and a source cited by Axios.”

Apparently unaware that the $118 Senate ‘security’ package has been exposed as an anti-American slush fund for Ukraine, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has blamed former President Donald Trump for killing it.

“Too many Republicans, including Speaker Johnson, are scared of Donald Trump,” said Schumer – who appeared on MSNBC to suggest that America will regret not helping Ukraine and Israel right now.

BREAKING: Dems Senate Leader Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) EXPLODES, says if the bill is killed, America will regret it, Ukraine will lose the war, Israel will not defeat Hamas, Palestinians will starve to death and Americans might fight in Europe. WATCHpic.twitter.com/Qk0gLIKxpq

— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) February 5, 2024

Trump, meanwhile, told Newsmax that the bill “is a Democrat trap,” adding “It’s a trap for Republicans, it’s one of the dumbest bills I’ve ever seen.”

Watch:

🚨 Donald Trump on the border bill: “This is a Democrat trap. It’s a trap for Republicans, it’s one of the dumbest bills I’ve ever seen.”

pic.twitter.com/cOz1xa3aiA

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 6, 2024

*  *  *

The Senate’s $118 billion ‘border security’ deal – of which more than 2/3 sends money to Ukraine ($60B+) and Israel ($14.1B) – appears to be dead, after Senate Republicans have vowed to block a procedural motion.

The move means that there’s zero chance that the legislation will pass the Senate without major changes – while any revisions to the absurd asylum and border security reforms (which still allow 1.5 million illegals into the country per year,  hobbles states like Texas by requiring legal challenges be arbitrated in DC courts, and funds NGOs who facilitate human trafficking to the tune of billions), could further cast the deal into disarray.

Daily reminder that Biden could close the border with the stroke of a pen, but is holding that hostage until Ukraine gets its money…

Senate GOP will block border deal, leaving Ukraine in limbo: Hill

Amazing: this is the first time a crowdsourced effort on X to read and “find out what’s in the bill before it’s passed” crippled an attempt by the uniparty to shove more BS down America’s throat

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 6, 2024

On Tuesday, Senate GOP Whip John Thune (SD) said that the motion to move forward with the bill won’t receive much, if any, Republican support.

“I think it’s unlikely because I just think our members are still — they want more time to evaluate it,” calling its near-term passage “unlikely,” and that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) decision to schedule a Wednesday vote was “rushing it.”

Lankford stands down

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), the lead Republican negotiator on the deal, said on Monday evening that he has no idea whether a vote will proceed Wednesday (it won’t).

Lankford: Senate Border-Ukraine Procedural Vote Likely to Fail

Why Senator? Did you finally read the bill the lobbyists drafted for you?

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 6, 2024

Schumer throws a fit

Speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday, the Democratic Senator said that “After months of good faith negotiations, after months of giving Republicans many of the things they asked for, Leader McConnell and the Republican conference are ready to kill the national security supplemental package, even with the border provisions they so fervently demanded.”

Schumer said he would be willing to delay the procedural vote until Thursday, but expressed doubts that it would make a difference (it won’t).

“We’ll even offer to delay that vote until some time Thursday to give even more time for senators to make up their minds. But I suspect they won’t accept even that offer because they really don’t want more time. They’re just using it as an excuse.”

On Monday, former President Donald Trump slammed the border bill and called for a ‘separate’ package that’s not tied to foreign aid.

“Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill, which only gives Shutdown Authority after 5000 Encounters a day, when we already have the right to CLOSE THE BORDER NOW, which must be done,” he said on Truth Social.

“This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party. It takes the HORRIBLE JOB the Democrats have done on Immigration and the Border, absolves them, and puts it all squarely on the shoulders of Republicans,” the former president continued. “Don’t be STUPID!!! We need a separate Border and Immigration bill. It should not be tied to foreign aid in any way, shape or form!“

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on Monday revealed yet another facet of the Biden Administration’s sprawling censorship system that targeted dissenting books.

It appears that, as with social media companies, it succeeded in getting the company not to promote disfavored books.

Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan revealed on X that the White House was directly involved in the censorship campaign.

That includes a 2021 email from one Biden official asking to discuss “the high levels of propaganda and misinformation and disinformation of [sic] Amazon?”

Amazon in turn appears to ask only how high the Biden White House wants it to jump on censorship: “[i]s the [Biden] Admin asking us to remove books, or are they more concerned about search results/order (or both)?”

After the meeting, Amazon confirmed in an email that it was actively doing what the government demanded in suppressing sales by not promoting disfavored books:

“As a reminder, we did enable Do Not Promote for anti-vax books whose primary purpose is to persuade readers vaccines are unsafe or ineffective on 3/9, and will review additional handling options for these books with you.”

This effort notably parallels demands from Democratic leaders who have called for enlightened algorithms to frame what citizens access on the internet. In 2021, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) objected that people were not listening to the informed views of herself and leading experts. Instead, they were reading views of skeptics by searching Amazon and finding books by “prominent spreaders of misinformation.”

Warren blamed Amazon for failing to limit searches or choices:

“This pattern and practice of misbehavior suggests that Amazon is either unwilling or unable to modify its business practices to prevent the spread of falsehoods or the sale of inappropriate products.”

In her letter, Warren gave the company 14 days to change its algorithms to throttle and obstruct efforts to read opposing views.

It is important to keep in mind that these efforts at censorship targeted scientists who have been vindicated in many of their objections to policies and claims of the government. For example, a new scientific review by  12 researchers from leading universities found little support for the claims that masks reduced Covid exposures.

The Centers for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) initially rejected the use of a mask mandate. However, the issue became a political weapon as politicians and the press claimed that questioning masks was anti-science and even unhinged. In April 2020, the CDC reversed its position and called for the masking of the entire population, including children as young as 2 years old.  The mask mandate and other pandemic measures like the closing of schools are now cited as fueling emotional and developmental problems in children.

The closing of schools and businesses was also challenged by some critics as unnecessary.

Many of those critics were also censored. It now appears that they may have been right.

Many countries did not close schools and did not experience increases in Covid.

However, we are now facing alarming drops in testing scores and alarming rises in medical illness among the young.

Masks became a major social and political dividing line in politics and the media. Maskless people were chased from stores and denounced in Congress.

Then-CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said during a Senate hearing that “face masks are the most important powerful health tool we have.”

The head of the World Health Organization even supported censorship to combat what he called an “infodemic.”

A lawsuit opposing these efforts was filed by Missouri and Louisiana and joined by leading experts, including Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya (Stanford University) and Martin Kulldorff (Harvard University). Yet, universities joined social media companies and politicians in targeting dissenters and silencing opposing voices.

Bhattacharya previously objected to the suspension of Dr. Clare Craig after she raised concerns about Pfizer trial documents. Those doctors were the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination.  Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.

The media has quietly acknowledged the science questioning mask efficacy and school closures without addressing its own role in attacking those who raised these objections. Even raising the lab theory on the origin of Covid 19 (a theory now treated as plausible) was denounced as a conspiracy theory. The science and health reporter for the New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli,  even denounced the theory as “racist.”

Again, the objection to the censorship system is not that all of these views are correct, but that the public was being actively hampered in reading or hearing opposing views.

The new emails also show direct federal efforts supporting censorship. I testified at the first hearing by the special committee investigating the censorship system. I warned that there was ample evidence of a system based on “censorship by surrogate” where government agencies used academic and media allies to silence those with opposing views.

Despite the determined opposition by Democratic members and the Biden Administration, the investigation has revealed a wide array of grants to academic and third party organizations to create blacklists or to pressure advertisers to withdraw support for conservative sites. The subjects for censorship ranged from election fraud to social justice to climate change.

Now we can add private demands to target dissenting books to suppress sales. It is far more appealing to certain sensibilities than banning publications or removing copies.  After all, why burn books if you can bury them?

A preliminary report released by the National Transportation Safety Board finds the mid-air incident with an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 jet last month was caused by a door plug that had not been properly attached before Boeing Co. delivered the plane. 

NTSB issues the preliminary report for its ongoing investigation of the Jan. 5 Alaska Airlines flight 1282 door plug accident. The report is on the NTSB investigation web page: https://t.co/nK5xY7ly9D pic.twitter.com/DiBlVlHV43

— NTSB Newsroom (@NTSB_Newsroom) February 6, 2024

NTSB said the Max 9 jet was missing four bolts, which were supposed to serve as a fail-safe mechanism for securing the panel to the fuselage. 

X user Jason Rabinowitz, who reviewed the report, cited a line from NTSB’s report: “Four bolts that prevent upward movement of the MED plug were missing before the MED plug moved upward off the stop pads.” 

The @NTSB has released its preliminary report on the #AS1282 #737MAX-9 door plug accident. Highlights:

• Indications that…”four bolts that prevent upward movement of the MED plug were missing before the MED plug moved upward off the stop pads.” pic.twitter.com/4G90dN8Eg0

— Jason Rabinowitz (@AirlineFlyer) February 6, 2024

Rabinowitz said the report confirms that Boeing’s fuselage-maker Spirit AeroSystems delivered the fuselages to the planemaker with defects around the door plug that required its opening. 

“Photos from Boeing actually show the door plug opened for work, then closed again ***without the bolts to hold it in place***,” he said. 

• NTSB confirms that @SpiritAero delivered the fuselage to @BoeingAirplanes with defects around the door plug that required its opening.

Photos from Boeing actually show the door plug opened for work, then closed again ***without the bolts to hold it in place*** pic.twitter.com/aawyWcTJ3h

— Jason Rabinowitz (@AirlineFlyer) February 6, 2024

And this. 

The NTSB’s report only includes facts and comes to no conclusions. But it sure does confirm reports from @theaircurrent and elsewhere that a massive process and documentation problem exists between Boeing and Spirit. https://t.co/lyh3cO40uV pic.twitter.com/I1bGIQJyV0

— Jason Rabinowitz (@AirlineFlyer) February 6, 2024

“We caused the problem,” Boeing’s CEO Dave Calhoun said on a Jan. 31 earnings call.

Calhoun continued: “Over these last few weeks, I’ve had tough conversations with our customers, with our regulators, congressional leaders and more. We understand why they are angry, and we will work to earn their confidence.”

pic.twitter.com/jCK3h4sMux

— Frank (@Alien_Frank1) February 6, 2024

Meanwhile, the NTSB’s website that has the report crashed… 

the NTSB website has…. crashed

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 6, 2024

Are the same folks who made Boeing Max jets now making websites? 

Authored by Dan Runkevicius via CreditNews.com,

The dream of homeownership is slipping away for younger generations—thanks to a vicious cycle of high mortgage rates and a chronically low supply of houses.

According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), millennials were the most active homebuyers from 2014 through 2021. Not anymore.

Since early 2023, boomers have overtaken millennials, making up 39% of homebuyers—the most of any generation. That’s a whopping 29% jump from a year before. Meanwhile, Gen Zers are trailing woefully behind, accounting for just 4% of home transactions, according to the latest NAR data.

The way the housing market is, the trend isn’t likely to reverse anytime soon.

The worst housing market for first-time buyers?

The impact of mortgage rates on the generational home divide can’t be overstated.

According to a recent report from Creditnews, more than 40% of all U.S. mortgages were obtained in 2020-2021 when interest rates were at rock bottom.

And nearly two-thirds of current mortgage holders locked in rates below 4%—almost 3 percentage points lower than the current 30-year mortgage rate.

The result is new homeowners must take out mortgages at much higher rates than the average rate of current mortgage holders—also known as the effective mortgage rate.

In fact, this gap is the widest since the 1970s:

Higher mortgage rates don’t just make houses less affordable for new buyers, they also disrupt supply.

That’s because existing homeowners don’t want to sell only to give up their cheap mortgages. Consequently, whatever housing supply makes it to market comes at disproportionally higher prices.

This “sit and wait” philosophy is fueling one of the largest housing shortages in America’s history.

Industry experts say a housing market is healthy when there is between five and six months of supply. At the current sales pace, existing home supply is roughly half that level.

And there are few signs that supply will pick up soon. According to the latest Redfin data, home inventory has been in decline since last October.

In these market conditions, younger first-time buyers are out of luck. Not only do they need more income, they have to outbid older buyers flush with home equity and cash.

Millennials making headway but still falling behind

Despite being the largest generation entering their prime homebuying age, millennials still own a mere 18.2% of real estate wealth—a far cry from boomers’ 41.6% share, according to Fed data.

And while millennials made significant headway during and after Covid, their accumulation of real estate wealth still fell behind boomers:

Experts think millennials will have a hard time catching up.

“Baby boomers have the upper hand in the homebuying market,” said Dr. Jessica Lautz, NAR deputy chief economist, adding: “The majority of [boomers] are repeat buyers who have housing equity to propel them into their dream home—be it a place to enjoy retirement or a home near friends and family. They are living healthier and longer and making housing trades later in life.”

As the left freaks out about Tucker Carlson’s upcoming interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin, the former Fox News host (who can now be found at tuckercarlson.com) has published a pre-interview explainer over why he’s interviewing Putin – which boils down to an uncurious Western media, which has resulted in a grossly uninformed public.

“Here’s why we’re doing it. First, because it’s our job. We’re in journalism. Our duty is to inform people. Two years into a war that’s reshaping the entire world, most Americans are not informed. They have no real idea what’s happening in this region, here in Russia or 600 miles away in Ukraine. But they should know, they’re paying for much of it in ways they might not fully yet perceive. The war in Ukraine is a human disaster. It’s left hundreds of thousands of people dead. An entire generation of young Ukrainians. And has depopulated the largest country in Europe. But the long-term effects are even more profound.“

Carlson notes that the Ukraine was has “utterly reshaped the global military and trade alliances” and “upended the world economy.”

He also hits on the dire state of the Post-WWII (Bretton Woods) economic order, noting that it’s “coming apart very fast,” along with “the dominance of the US dollar.”

The failures of corporate media

Carlson notes that Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky has been the beneficiary of softball, curated, Western interviews which he calls “prep sessions.”

“That is not journalism. It is government propaganda,” said Carlson.

“At the same time, our politicians and media outlets have been doing this, promoting a foreign leader like he’s a new consumer brand, not a single Western journalist has bothered to interview the president of the other country involved in this conflict, Vladimir Putin. Most Americans have no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine, or what his goals are now. They’ve never heard his voice. That’s wrong. Americans have a right to know all they can about a war they’re implicated in, and we have the right to tell them about it because we are Americans, too.”

Tucker previously relayed a story about trying to set up a Putin interview, until a Washington, DC source briefed him about how the NSA spied on him: 

“The NSA broke into my signal account, which I didn’t know they could do,” he previously said.

‘”I got a call from somebody in Washington. This person said: ‘Are you gonna come to Washington anytime soon?’ Yeah. Actually, I’m gonna be up in a week, meet me Sunday morning.” 

“So I go, and this person’s like: ‘Are you planning a trip to go see Putin?’ And I was like, ‘how would you know that?’ I haven’t told anybody. I mean anybody. Not my brother. Not my wife, nobody.”

 “How would you know that? ‘Because NSA pulled your text with this other person you were texting.'”

Carlson says he’s doing the interview “Because we love the United States. And we want it to remain prosperous and free.”

Watch:

Why I’m interviewing Vladimir Putin. pic.twitter.com/hqvXUZqvHX

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 6, 2024

Israeli officials have revealed that more than a fifth of the remaining hostages held by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) have died in captivity. 

A confidential assessment reported on by The New York Times says that at least 32 of the 136 hostages believed still in Gaza have died at some point during the over 120 days of conflict.

Anonymous Israeli officials has said that families of the 32 confirmed deceased hostages have been notified of their respective family member’s death.

“The figure of 32 is higher than any previous number the Israeli authorities have publicly disclosed of hostages who are dead,” the report says. “In an answer to a request for comment, the Israeli military said that most of the dead were killed on Oct. 7.”

The Oct.7 terror raid into southern Israel resulted in over 240 hostages taken, but the successful week-long truce and hostage/prisoner exchange in November resulted in about half of that number freed. 

Since then, families of the hostages still in captivity have led large protests demanding that the Netanyahu government implement another ceasefire in order to get the remaining home. In January, some family members even stormed parliament, demanding definitive action from lawmakers.

This new revelation of 32 additional hostages dead is likely to spark more anger aimed at Israeli decision-makers. Netanyahu has even been accused of being driven more out of concern for his personal political survival. 

Some of the families are becoming so active, and have received so much support nation-wide, they are mulling formally entering politics in order to help shape the course of Israeli policy in Gaza: 

One of the names mentioned by respondents was Gil Dickmann, a cousin of hostage Carmel Gat and an active figure in the Hostages Families Forum campaign group.

Another was Jonathan Shamriz, whose brother Alon was one of three hostages mistakenly shot dead by Israeli forces in Gaza on Dec. 15, and who has become an outspoken government critic. “I will do what I need to in order to fix this country. If that means going into politics, then I’ll have to see,” he told Reuters.

Currently, serious ceasefire negotiations involving the mediation of Qatar, Egypt, and also CIA Director William Burns have been happening in various capitals – but there’s yet to be any major breakthroughs.

Hamas’ leadership is not backing down from its demand for a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Netanyahu’s hardline comments indicate that he has no intention of agreeing / Amos Harelhttps://t.co/J0EFSzmU3H

— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) February 6, 2024

Israel’s military is now in the beginning phase of a ground assault on the far southern Gaza city of Rafah, where hundreds of thousands of internally displaced Palestinians are crammed into camps. 

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Do historical economic analysis or be history(?)

Fed Chair Powell’s Sunday TV slot said a March rate cut was “Gone in Sixty Minutes”, hitting Treasuries on Monday, along with a hot ISM services PMI – but that wasn’t what grabbed my eye most. Rather, it was him stressing US global engagement as “supporter, leader, and defender of democracies,” and a “critical voice in security and economic arrangements,” has been “enormously beneficial” to it, and hoping “that would continue for the benefit of the people that we serve.” Was this an anti-isolationist statement in an election year? Is there Fed research showing NATO and the WTO, etc., are “enormously beneficial” to the American people? Or does being World Police require Fed help to serve the people – and if so, how? (On the fiscal front? Or via a strong dollar via high rates?) Recall the ECB’s Lagarde has already got openly geopolitical.

That’s as the Houthis say they will escalate attacks on ships to respond to US/UK airstrikes; the diversion of global shipping around Africa continues; France’s CMA CGM just stopped going through Suez too, leaving on two big Chinese firms, a Taiwanese, and an Israeli. Central banks talk down the impact of the Red Sea crisis, but the economy will likely feel it soon. Indeed, even US ports are now warning of increased congestion ahead. note that the ISM survey prices paid leaped to 64, the highest since early 2023, with one respondent noting, “transportation impacts of the Suez Canal… and the issues at the Panama Canal are impacting both costs and schedules for the transport of goods.”

And on (supply) shock-and-awe, Trump just proposed a tariff on China of over 60%, as well as removing its permanent most-favored nation trade status. I had recently flagged Wall Street was wrong in thinking it was ‘reading Trump right this time’ when it –inaccurately– modelled a 10% tariff ahead: I had warned 10% was likely to rise because the aim is to shake the global box, not do something markets can live with. Yet Western markets shrugged this all off anyway.

It’s easy to see why The Street doesn’t want to grapple with a 60%+ tariff. You don’t need to be an economist to understand just how much the global box would be shaken by them, even if they would likely be threatened at some point in the future to give firms a chance to adapt before the drawbridge was raised on Castle Trumpula. Yes, markets survived the first China tariffs, and Biden not removing them, but: 1) they prompted a real shift in supply chains; 2) 60%+ is a game-changer; and 3) this looks like neo-Hamiltonian mercantilism, not headline-grabbing.

Logically, a 60%+ tariff on China can mean inflationary boom or inflationary gloom in the US, and inflationary boom in some others (like Mexico?) –though Trump is talking a 10% tariff on everyone else– plus deflationary gloom in China. It would force a shift in savings and investment balances globally, which must net to zero. Markets would swing wildly as this happened. Indeed, Chinese this was one reason why Chinese stocks collapsed yesterday despite a floated market bailout rising from $278bn to $1.4trn. Only another $5.6trn to add and everyone gets their money back in stocks; but doing the same for property would take double or triple that, which is why stocks still flounder.

Markets don’t grasp that you can’t have the central importing economy in a global system shift to balanced trade, or net exports, and expect the system to remain intact. Trade, capital, and commodity flows would crumble, stumble, or rumble, while the US dollar would suddenly be hard to earn, yet needed even more to repay Eurodollar debts. And that’s before we get to the obvious geopolitical and military angles.

So, yes, one can see why markets don’t want to think about a 60%+ tariff! But that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. (Though that also doesn’t mean it will either: there is the Republican nomination, the court processes, then the 2024 election… and this is Trump after all.)

Regardless, the warning is that markets need to do more studying if they want to ‘understand Trump’. They need to do some serious reading of economic history instead. There, one can’t go wrong with Schumpeter’s 1,187-page epic, ‘History of Economic Analysis’ (HEA) from the ancient Greeks through the Middle Ages to the mercantilists, the Classical Economists, and Keynes.

One snippet is of particular relevance today:

“Free-trade policy means much more than a particular way of dealing with questions of foreign trade. In fact, it could be argued that this is the least important aspect of it… free-trade policy is related to other economic policies in such a manner that, for political as well as economic reasons, these other policies are difficult to pursue without free-trade policy, and vice versa. In other words, free trade is but an element of a comprehensive system of economic policy and should never be discussed in isolation.” (p. 376)

I made this point in 2016: dump free trade, and all legs of the neoliberal table fall off: what monetary policy keeps out imports? What about capital controls? What should fiscal policy be? And industrial? Energy? Science? Labour? Immigration? Education? Transport? Infrastructure? Defence? Foreign? You need a new ideological guide, or what the HEA calls, “a general political and moral attitude or vision that asserts itself in all departments of national and international life.” And this is happening. Nobody is calling for higher tariffs and ‘everything else the same’ on other policies. Instead, we see shifts on all these other policies in tandem with rising protectionism. Trump’s latest addition is to propose a radical pro-business, low-tax and regulation environment behind a far higher tariff wall – which is part of the US history of mercantilism.

But is this just a passing phase en route to ‘normal’ or ‘new normal’? One point the HEA argues at length and in depth is that we need to look to our social context for what policy emerges next: ideology stems from the world around us, not a vacuum. On which note, are these descriptions familiar at all?

• “None of them had all it wanted; each of them had what others wanted. And they were soon surrounded by new worlds inviting competitive conquest. Because both of this situation and the social structure of the epoch, aggression –or, what is the same thing, ‘defence’– became the pivot of policy.” (p. 172)
• “Taking account of the circumstances and opportunities of the times, [the infant industry argument] constituted adequate means for securing what with the same proviso were rationally defensible ends.” (p. 320)
• ”This fermenting world… made for strong governments; and strong governments, chronically suffering from political ambitions that went beyond their economic means, were driven to increasingly successful attempts to make themselves still stronger by developing the resources of their territories and harnessing them into their service.” (p. 172)

All describe the birth of historical mercantilism: and to some eyes, there are enough present parallels to the past to suggest some form of it is going to keep coming back, even if 60%+ tariffs don’t arrive via Trump.

This shouldn’t really be a surprise after trade wars, onshoring / nearshoring / friendshoring, “strategic autonomy”, massive state subsidies, capital controls, technology controls, decoupling / derisking, weaponization of commodities, weaponization of the dollar, dedollarisation, Cold War, two hot wars, and constant calls for rearmament – but to many it evidently still is.

Clearly, markets need to look back in order to look forward better, because doing so gives us a broader dataset to forecast from than the very short run of post-Cold War global neoliberalism. Indeed, it’s time to do some historical economic analysis – or to be history(?)