Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge permanently blocked an Illinois law on Dec. 14 that he previously called “stupid” that targets maternal health care centers and sidewalk counselors for expressing their pro-life message.

The state of Illinois consented to the injunction and the dismissal of the underlying lawsuit filed against it.

Plaintiffs who sued to stop the law objected to it because it declared that the pro-life speech engaged in by pregnancy help ministries was a “deceptive business practice.”

They litigated to protect the right of pro-life pregnancy help centers and sidewalk counselors across the state to continue their work reaching out to women across the Land of Lincoln facing unplanned pregnancies.

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, appeared on CNN on Aug. 4 to defend the law.

The statute is constitutional, the governor argued at the time.

“Well, it’s just like the case against President [Donald] Trump,” he said.

“You have a right to free speech, but you don’t have a right to lie. You don’t have a right to use those lies to push people into situations in which they, frankly, are breaking the law, or where they are unaware of what their full rights are. So, you know, we need to make sure that people know [what] their rights are.”

The law barred “so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ from using misinformation, deceptive practices, or misrepresentation in order to interfere with access to abortion services or emergency contraception,” according to the governor’s office.

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, a Democrat, previously said the now-enjoined law was needed because he had “witnessed deceptive crisis pregnancy center tactics firsthand on a visit to tour a Planned Parenthood health center in Illinois.”

There were “people who appeared as though they might work there … outside attempting to divert patients away from the health center,” he said.

Judge Iain D. Johnston of the Western Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued the document titled “agreed permanent injunction order” (pdf) in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NILFA) v. Raoul. Judge Johnston was appointed in 2020 by President Trump.

The defendant, Mr. Raoul, was sued in his official capacity.

Founded in 1993, NILFA “provides pro-life pregnancy centers and medical clinics with legal counsel, education, and training,” according to the group’s website.

The judge dismissed the lawsuit “with prejudice,” meaning the case cannot be litigated again. The court “shall retain jurisdiction over this action to enforce the final judgment,” the order states. The order also states that NILFA “may file a motion seeking the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses[.]”

On Aug. 4, Judge Johnston called SB1909, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act, “both stupid and very likely unconstitutional,” when he signed a preliminary injunction halting its enforcement.

In that August order, Judge Johnston ridiculed the state law.

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia “once said that he wished all federal judges were given a stamp that read ‘stupid but constitutional,’” the judge wrote.

SB 1909 “is stupid because its own supporter admitted it was unneeded and was unsupported by evidence when challenged.”

“It is likely unconstitutional because it is a blatant example of government taking the side of whose speech is sanctionable and whose speech is immunized … SB 1909 is likely classic content and viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment.”

The kind of speech regulated by the law “is extremely controversial,” and the law itself  “is not a constitutional regulation of professional speech.”

“Plaintiffs have established by undisputed evidence that they will be irreparably harmed absent a preliminary injunction. Their First Amendment rights will more than likely be violated, which is an irreparable harm,” the judge wrote at the time.

Peter Breen, executive vice president of the Thomas More Society, which represented NILFA in the lawsuit, weighed in on the permanent injunction in a statement on Dec. 14.

Mr. Breen hailed the victory as a big win for pro-life ministries and free speech in Illinois that would send a message to those who would enact laws that discriminate against pro-life ministries.

“The federal court was spot on in holding that SB 1909 is ‘both stupid and very likely unconstitutional,’” he said.

“SB 1909 exempts abortion facilities and their speech, while exclusively regulating pro-life organizations and their speech, in flagrant violation of the First Amendment.

“This law is just one of a number of illegal new laws enacted across the country that restrict pro-life speech. We hope this permanent injunction, with full attorney’s fees, serves as a warning to other states that would seek to follow Illinois and try to silence pro-life viewpoints.

“We are honored to represent NIFLA and other life-affirming organizations to protect them from unjust laws like SB 1909 that seek to put a halt to their good work.”

The Epoch Times reached out to Mr. Raoul’s office for comment but had not received a reply as of press time.

Amid ongoing pro-Palestine protests (on and off campuses), antagonistic back-and-forth exchanges on display in Washington press-briefing rooms, and reports of scathing ‘dissent memos’ criticizing White House Israel policy being circulated within the State Department, the Biden White House continues to publicly support Israel (albeit with some placating language on the optics of their actions in Gaza).

However, despite the MSM adopting decidedly anti-Israel headlines – due to incidents such as the IDF’s most recent example of aggression against what appear to be more civilians (as detailed below) – a new Harvard/Harris poll (of all places) shows the majority of all Americans believe that Hamas wants the genocide of Israelis…

…and believe Israel’s ultimate goal is to defend itself – and should continue doing so until Hamas is defeated…

…and see the ‘jews as oppressors’ narrative as a ‘false ideology’…

…and believe that Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties – which, ironically, is diametrically opposed to what Harvard students are chanting on campus…

The poll comes as yet another video has surfaced exposing IDF soldiers’ actions, this time shooting two men to death – one incapacitated and the other seemingly unarmed – in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Security camera video shows soldiers in vehicles chasing Palestinians in the Faraa refugee camp in the northeastern sector of the West Bank. A group of young men flee as the vehicles close in on them. Soldiers open fire, hitting 25-year-old Rami Jundob, who was holding some kind of red canister – possibly an incendiary device.

After the wounded Jundob collapses to the ground, the lead IDF vehicle stops about 25 to 35 feet from him. Eleven seconds after he’d fallen to the ground and began slowly writhing in pain, soldiers unleash another volley of rifle rounds at him.

Jundob holds his left hand in the air, and the IDF vehicle pulls forward so the driver door is facing him. The door opens and – another 18 seconds after the previous volley – a soldier fires a high volume of rounds at Jundob, ensuring his death.

The double-execution comes on the heels of other recent instances appearing to show a reckless disregard for life on the part of Israeli military and police forces, including three escaped or abandoned Israeli hostages who were holding a white flag were shot to death in Gaza, as the IDF apparently mistook them for Hamas militants.

Original security camera footage obtained by B’Tselem captures two short-range executions of Palestinians in al-Far’ah R.C. on 8 December 2023. pic.twitter.com/gyDztMXIww

— B’Tselem בצלם بتسيلم (@btselem) December 15, 2023

Which, it would appear is weighing far more heavily on America’s youth that any other generation as the hidden secret beneath the poll is there is a growing chasm between young and old when it comes to Hamas/Palestine/Israel/Jews/Whites/Oppressors…

67% of 18-24-year-olds believe Jews as a class are oppressors:

A strong majority of 18-34-year-olds believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza:

76% of 18-24-year-olds believe that Hamas can be negotiated with to create peace:

More young Americans believe Israel is primarily responsible for triggering the humanitarian crisis than Hamas:

And over two-thirds of 18-24-year-olds favor an unconditional ceasefire:

So, to summarize, despite recent headlines of heavy civilian casualties – and a growing call from the Biden admin for Israel to ‘calm down’ – the majority of Americans still believe that Israel is not intentionally trying to kill Palestinian civilians.

But, and its a big Marxist but, the vast majority of young American adults believe Jews are oppressors, that the 10/7 attack is justified by Jews’ prior actions, and even more broadly speaking ‘white people are oppressors‘.

Does make one wonder…

Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

“I go with the word ‘serious.’  A serious budget problem.  I would stop short of calling it a crisis.”

– Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek, on California’s $68 billion deficit

What Was It Like?

California, without question, is a great state to be from. 

We lived there for nearly 45 years.  We made our California exodus in July 2022.  No regrets.

In fact, not living in California becomes a greater blessing with each passing day.  Moreover, depending on the time lived there, and the decades encompassed, plenty of insight can be found in the answers to three simple questions.

What was it like?  What happened?  What is it like now?

The answer to the first question comes with warm reminiscence.  A fond nostalgia for a California that long ago faded from existence.

In the early 20th century, before the mania to splatter every square foot of the LA Basin’s surface with concrete took hold of the local spirits, the place was a magnet for eccentrics and madmen.  On any average day, Howard Hughes, a total lunatic, would crash test his latest flying machine into Beverly Hills.

Italian immigrant Simon Rodia, however, was the real archetypical California oddball.  For reasons unknown, and between swigs of malt liquor, he worked nearly every day from 1921 to 1955 chicken wiring steel pipes and rods together, erecting numerous towering eyesores in his backyard in the Watts district of Los Angeles.

Then, after 34 years of this madness, Rodia, on a whim, deeded the property to his neighbor and hopped a bus to the East Bay.  No one in Watts ever heard from him again.  But his monstrosities, known as the Watts Towers, are now a National Historic Landmark.  Go figure?

There was also Griffith J. Griffith, who amassed a fortune in the mining industry.  That was before he shot his wife in the eye while staying in the presidential suite of Santa Monica’s Arcadia Hotel.

To make good for his transgressions – and to commute his time in San Quentin to just two years – Griffith donated the land for Griffith Park to Los Angeles and funded the City’s observatory.  Without Griffith’s private act of preservation, the city wouldn’t have any remaining land that’s not covered with concrete.

What Happened?

These were the sorts of wacky and wild characters that roamed about when state and local governments were small and feeble.  When crime was low, and optimism was high.  And the only direction the economy could go was up.

This was back when the infrastructure shined.  And Hollywood made descent movies.  It was also the beginning of a long property boom…where, for the next 50-years, property values went up without interruption.

Even the most harebrained business ventures were almost guaranteed to succeed.  For example, you could buy an old mail service boat – like John Clearman did – tow it from the Long Beach Harbor up to a wide open corner lot on Huntington Drive in the San Gabriel Valley, plop it down, and get rich selling cheese toast and red cabbage salad out of it.

This was before zoning codes, land use master plans, and city permits spoiled all the fun.  Was the world a better place?  It was certainly freer.

Private eccentricity in California these days has been regulated away like the free-flowing carburetor.  In its place, there’s now state-sponsored Transgender History Month – the nation’s first of its kind – and countless other acts of public madness.  The cutting edge of public policy, guided by academic retards, slices through the land.

Over several decades, state and local governments were taken over by control freak sociopaths. 

Moreover, their socialist policies transformed many of the urban areas into unlivable hellholes.

Shelling out for all the waste championed in Sacramento and various City Halls made it impossible for the average guy, who just wanted to work hard and pay his way, to get ahead.

What Is It Like Now?

Today, California persists as a place of sky-high taxes, crumbling infrastructure, woke idiocy, and mass homeless encampments.  Where grifters and freeloaders hold hands in symbiotic disharmony.  Together, they exercise the malady of a mega homeless industrial complex in return for government lard.

In the City of Los Angeles, over 46,000 homeless people thrash about on the concrete each night, setting fires and burning down bridges.  If you broaden the envelope to include Los Angeles County, that number jumps to over 75,000.

Despite hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to fight homelessness these numbers keep going up.  This doesn’t make sense until you understand how it all works.

The primary objective of the homeless industrial complex has nothing to do with getting people off the streets.  Rather, dollars alone equal victory.  And more money is the ultimate aim.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, more money isn’t limited to securing private funds.  It involves appropriating public funds and directing them towards the technocratic vision of forced philanthropy.

According to a 2022 city audit, in the City of Los Angeles it costs $837,000 to build a single housing unit for one homeless person.  In another instance, because of self-imposed regulatory knots, it took 17 years to build 49 affordable housing units in Boyle Heights.

Yet, this madness extends statewide.  In San Jose, for example, it costs $938,700 to build a single unit of affordable housing.  Certainly, there’s plenty of grift built into California’s homeless industrial complex.  Did you get your cut?

California Circles the Toilet Bowl

Alas, countless other examples of government insanity extend up and down the entire state.  Take the California Teachers Association.  Rather than teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, the massive state teachers union hides student gender identities from parents as a matter of legal policy.

There’s also Ebony Alert – a faux-liberal twist on Amber Alert.  And for reasons unclear, there are state-mandated gender-neutral toy aisles, which include escalating fines for noncompliance.

So, now, with all these displays of public madness, California is circling the toilet bowl.

Quite frankly, the golden state has run out of money to finance all the bloat, grift, incompetence, and stoopid diktats. 

This was the conclusion that was recently provided by the Legislative Analyst’s Office.  From the Executive Summary of California’s 2024-25 Fiscal Outlook:

“California Faces a $68 Billion Deficit.  Largely as a result of a severe revenue decline in 2022?23, the state faces a serious budget deficit.  Specifically, under the state’s current law and policy, we estimate the Legislature will need to solve a budget problem of $68 billion in the upcoming budget process.”

If you didn’t know, in California the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay 50 percent of state income tax.  The top 0.1 percent pays a third.  Politicians exploit this progressive tax system by making outrageous promises to the non-taxpaying masses.

As CalMatters notes, Governor Newsom will likely close the record deficit by dipping into $24 billion of emergency funds and by commandeering $10 billion previously allocated for transportation, environmental and education programs.

By our rough calculation that cuts the $68 billion deficit in half.  Where will the other $34 billion come from?  Will the top 1 percent pay it?

Come January 1, the top income tax rate spikes to 14.4 percent, up from 13.3 percent.  Moreover, workers making over $61,214 will pay 10.4 percent of their income to the state, which is up from the current 9.3 percent.

This is in addition to federal income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, sales tax, property tax, and numerous other licensing fees and exactions.

There’s also the inflation tax.

This is why in many parts of California a pre-tax income of $61,214 won’t get you very far.

Indeed, California’s a great state to be from.  Thus as California circles the toilet bowl the state exodus goes on.

*  *  *

Today, more than ever, unconventional investing ideas are needed.  Discover how to protect your wealth and financial privacy, using the Financial First Aid Kit.

The world’s largest alternative asset manager has released what some X users say is a ‘beyond cringe’ holiday video, while others said, ‘After seeing this video, I want a very hard landing.’

Blackstone published its annual holiday video on YouTube and X titled “Blackstone’s 2023 Holiday Video: The Alternatives Era,” which features executives singing and dancing as they promote their brand. 

“We’re using ChatGPT to figure out what rhymes with EBITDA,” one staffer said in the video before the music started. 

The video starts with CEO Stephen A. Schwarzman stepping out of a VW bus. 

Followed by executives singing in chorus: “It’s the alternatives era. We buy assets, then we make ’em better.” 

Several X users couldn’t believe the video was real. But it has been an annual tradition at the firm since 2018. 

Here’s the full video: 

X users, in general, thought the video was super ‘cringe’: 

This is beyond cringe, weird no one was like ‘hey we can’t put this out’

— Eric Balchunas (@EricBalchunas) December 15, 2023

this may be the worst thing i have ever seen

the production value only amplifies the cringe

— Lucas (@SansGravitas) December 14, 2023

pic.twitter.com/InbCJDmecC

— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) December 14, 2023

After seeing this Blackstone video, I want a very hard landing. pic.twitter.com/DfOethzhwR

— BowTiedMara (@BowTiedMara) December 15, 2023

How many hours did the executives put into making this video? 

Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

I have five forecasts for 2024 to help keep you ahead of the curve in positioning your investment portfolio.

My overall forecast is that 2024 will be more tumultuous and shocking than 2023. That may seem hard to credit.

With two major wars going on, an indicted former president and a demented current president, how can 2024 be more challenging than 2023?

Rest assured; it will be. I explain why below.

An Election of Dire Consequences

It’s a cliche to write that the next presidential election will be the “most important in our lifetimes.” Yet in 2024 that cliche will actually be true.

The divide between the two parties is probably greater than at any time in U.S. political history since the Civil War. The choice could not be more stark and the stakes could not be higher.

That’s why this election is so important.

First off, I don’t think that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee for president.

Biden’s problem is not just his age, but the fact that he actually is mentally and physically impaired. He’s simply not fit to be president, and everyone knows it even if Democratic operatives and media sycophants don’t want to mention it. But who will replace Biden?

The most likely replacements are Gavin Newsom, J.B. Pritzker, Gretchen Whitmer and Jennifer Granholm. All four were or are state governors. They’re all about the same ideologically; take your pick. Forget Kamala Harris; she’s simply too much of a liability.

The Republican Side

On the Republican side, there’s not a lot to say. Trump will be the nominee; no one can recall a non-incumbent with such a large lead in the polls.

He’s leading the pack by 55 points or more and is now even running ahead of Joe Biden in recent polls.

Meanwhile, Trump’s facing over 90 felony charges in four separate indictments in two state courts and two federal courts. Criminal indictments only increase Trump’s popularity because they are clearly motivated by politics.

A criminal conviction (likely in my view) will further solidify Trump’s base because of the blatant jury shopping, targeted prosecutions and absence of due process that Trump has had to endure.

The biggest curveball is that Trump may actually be behind bars on Election Day. That’s OK, there is no legal or other prohibition on electing an incarcerated convicted felon as president. Third-world, yes. Illegal, no.

This brings us to the third-party situation. There are many third-party candidates who will likely divide the Democrats. These include RFK Jr., Cornel West and Jill Stein. I wouldn’t rule out Sen. Joe Manchin from West Virginia, who’s announced he won’t seek reelection. If he runs for president, he’s likely to go on the No Labels party line.

I believe these third-party candidates will divide the Democratic vote, which I also believe will favor Trump. So that’s my first forecast — Trump will win back the presidency in 2024.

U.S., China and a Global Recession

Chinese economic growth is now in the low single digits (about 4% per year). That’s down from the double-digit growth of the 1994–2008 period.

China has had two failed “reopenings” (one after COVID in 2022, and one as the result of “stimulus” in 2023) and seems headed for a third. China gets a small boost from loose fiscal and monetary policy that rapidly fades because there is no real stimulus possible when a country is as heavily indebted as China.

The U.S. faces its own economic headwinds. The Federal Reserve has raised interest rates to 5.50% from zero in 20 months and reduced its balance sheet by over $1 trillion in the same period, an even tighter monetary policy than the one engineered by Paul Volcker from 1979–1981.

Fiscal policy is also tightening since the COVID handouts and student loan grace periods are over. Fiscal policy will get even tighter now that Republican deficit hawks have the upper hand in the House of Representatives.

The data showing the U.S. is heading to a recession is abundant. In fact, the U.S. may already be in recession. The indicators include inverted yield curves, rising commercial real estate defaults, declining industrial production, declining job creation and falling bank loans.

That leads me to my next forecast: China, the U.S. and Japan will all fall into recession in the coming months. The EU is already in recession. A rare global recession will be the result in 2024.

Ukraine

Russia is winning the war decisively. The West and Ukraine have shown no willingness to negotiate and there’s no reason for the Russians to negotiate because they’re winning.

With that in mind, it seems likely that Joe Biden will double-down on his losing bet.

The Russians don’t expect the war to be over until 2025. That gives Biden time to deliver F-16 fighter jets and more money and to help Ukraine with its flying drones and sea-drones that can attack Russian vessels and the Kerch Bridge.

Russia will certainly match that kind of escalation by shooting down the F-16s, increasing its cruise missile attacks on Ukrainian cities and destroying Ukraine’s energy infrastructure so that the country will lack electricity and heat this winter.

My forecast is that Russia will not de-escalate because they’re winning. Biden will not de-escalate because he’s senile, is surrounded by warmongers and has no reverse gear.

I do not expect escalation to the point of nuclear weapons, but the probability of that outcome is uncomfortably high and should not be dismissed.

Next is part two of this forecast…

Israel and Gaza

The Israeli-Hamas War has its own risks of escalation. As of now, fighting is mostly limited to northern Gaza adjacent to the Israeli border. Yet Israel faces an enemy 10 times more powerful than Hamas in the form of Hezbollah, which is located in Lebanon on Israel’s northern border, and which is heavily subsidized by Iran in terms of money, weapons and intelligence.

Hezbollah has launched some missile attacks from Lebanon on Israel’s northern border, but those have not been extensive. In addition to Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels in Yemen are firing missiles into Israel.

The Houthis are a direct Iranian proxy intended to threaten Saudi Arabia, but are equally capable of threatening Israel. If Hezbollah and Houthi attacks on Israel escalate, Israel will not limit their response to those two groups. They are likely to launch attacks on Iran itself, going to the root of the problem. At that point, Iran may fire missiles at Israel and close the Straits of Hormuz.

For now, the tensions have been reduced slightly. But if the escalation scenarios play out even in part, expect oil prices to go to $150 per barrel or higher. That will put the U.S. and Western Europe in a recession worse than 2008 and the earlier oil shock of 1974.

Don’t rule it out.

Banking Crisis Stage 2

In less than two months from early March to early May 2023, we saw the failures of Silvergate Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, Credit Suisse and First Republic.

In response, the FDIC stepped in with the mother of all bailouts. Going forward, the issue is: Once you’ve guaranteed every deposit and agreed to finance every bond at par value, what’s left in your bag of tricks? What can you do in the next crisis that you haven’t already done — except nationalize the banks?

Investors are relaxed because they believe the banking crisis is over. That’s a huge mistake. History shows that major financial crises unfold in stages and have a quiet period between the initial stage and the critical stage.

My next forecast is that a bigger and more acute Stage 2 of the banking crisis is coming after the quiet period that has prevailed since June. This new crisis will be focused on about 20 banks with $200–900 billion in assets — the so-called midsized regional banks that are not too big to fail.

Crises of this sort can feed on themselves and cause losses that go far beyond the particular banks that may be most vulnerable. A new global financial crisis could be the result.

Markets

All of the above predictions involve turmoil either in domestic U.S. politics, international macroeconomics, ongoing wars or a potential financial meltdown starting in the banking system. With that as background, my market predictions are fairly straightforward:

• 2024 will be a difficult year for stocks. The market could decline at least 30% on a recession alone, and as much as 50% if either the Ukraine or Israeli war escalates, or a global financial crisis emerges.

• The major sectors that will outperform even in a falling market are energy, defense, agriculture and mining.

• 2024 should be an excellent year for U.S. government securities. All maturities will produce decent yields and capital gains as interest rates decline going into a recession.

• Basic commodities such as copper, iron ore, coal, non-precious metals and agricultural produce will generally decline as the recession unfolds. Gold and silver should perform well based on declining interest rates and a flight to quality.

• Energy will be volatile. It will tend to go down based on economic weakness, but occasionally rally on geopolitical fears.

• The investment choices are clear. It will be a bad year for stocks, a good year for Treasury securities and a down year for commodities, except for energy and gold. The winners will be Treasuries, gold, oil and King Dollar.

Put on your crash helmets for a wild ride in the coming year.

Authored by Jack Spencer via RealClear Politics,

The silver lining of this month’s United Nations COP28 global warming conference is the growing consensus that nuclear energy is critical to meeting national carbon dioxide reduction goals.

Denying the world access to clean, affordable fuels like gas, oil, and coal is a real problem. But recognizing that nuclear energy must play a pivotal role in our energy future is a major step forward—one that should enjoy widespread support, regardless of one’s views on CO2 reductions.

But to go big on nuclear requires thinking big on nuclear energy policy, and that means questioning the subsidize-first mentality that has defined U.S. energy policy for decades.

The goal should not be to build a few nuclear power plants. Rather, we should strive to create an economically sustainable, competitive, innovative and uniquely American nuclear industry.

This will require a realignment of responsibility. The government’s role should be to protect public health and safety. The private sector’s role should be to operate a competitive commercial nuclear sector.

That means getting rid of the subsidies, rethinking regulation and getting Washington out of nuclear waste management. Washington should have a regulatory role, but not its current role as Nuclear CEO.

The reason is simple: Governments are not good at business, because they make decisions based on politics rather than on good economic sense. This never yields a successful industry.

Some argue that nuclear energy requires more governmental control, suggesting that nuclear presents more financial, technical, and political risks than other industries.

But all big projects have financial risk. Private oil refineries can cost billions of dollars, and projects like skyscrapers, liquid natural gas export terminals and other large industrial projects all require massive capital outlays. Companies and individuals regularly take big financial risks.

Then there is technological risk. But nuclear is not really that different from other industries. With 440 nuclear reactors operating globally, technical risk for existing technology is relatively low. Industry knows how to build and operate nuclear plants.

Possible technological risks with new designs are not beyond the realm of those posed by innovation in other cutting-edge businesses, such as fracking or offshore energy exploration. e. Beyond that, as it pertains to nuclear energy, there is a vast federal research infrastructure in place that the private sector can access to help mitigate that risk.

Political risk, however, is real and uniquely high when it comes to nuclear energy, and it exacerbates financial and technical risk calculations. Any justification for government intervention is based on mitigating government-imposed risk.

But here is the problem.

When government intervenes to mitigate a risk that it has created, it adds another layer of political risk. Worse, it creates dependence, distorts capital flows, incentivizes rent-seeking and lobbying, and forces firms to allocate resources to satisfy politicians and bureaucrats rather than improve its business.

This creates misalignments between responsibility and authorities and undermines economic efficiency.

Even worse, politics often changes, making it difficult to build a sustainable business model around political preferences. At best, this approach could yield a couple of reactors or keep some firms above water, but it won’t produce a robust, competitive, innovative nuclear industry. Failure is likely.

The major question is: How does America minimize political risk and allow the private sector to manage other risks, so that a robust industry can emerge?

It will require changing the Department of Energy’s role, bold regulatory reforms, and solving the problem of nuclear waste management.

We need to get the Energy Department totally out of the nuclear commercialization business. The problem is not that people are not doing their jobs, the problem is the nature of government.

The Department should not be funding grants, loans, or demonstration projects. Nor should it be attempting to improve operations or economics of existing plants or new technologies. The private sector can do these better than government.

The Energy Department has an important role to play in nuclear research and scientific discovery, but it needs to get as far from any commercialization or commercial operations as possible.

What about regulation?

Worthwhile attempts are being made to improve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. An efficient, predictable, and affordable regulatory process for new reactor technologies is essential.

But America needs to think bigger.

For example, states could be authorized to take a larger role in nuclear power plant regulation. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 already allows states to regulate some nuclear materials. That should be expanded. States could regulate existing reactor technology, and the NRC could focus on new technologies. Not all states will use this opportunity, but some will.

This is a reasonable proposition because U.S. utilities have been safely operating large light water reactors for over 50 years. America should not be regulating large light water reactors as new, scary technology, because it is neither new nor scary. The regulatory burden should be significantly lifted on those reactors.

NRC personnel should not be the only ones who can review permit applications and other regulatory review work. Private firms should be able to compete for this business. They would lighten the NRC’s load and likely do a quicker job at lower cost.

Lastly, companies should be allowed to build reactors outside the existing NRC regulatory regime if they obtain their own liability insurance against accidents. In exchange they would forgo participation in the federal Price-Anderson program that currently provides liability coverage.

Some might question whether private insurers would cover a nuclear reactor absent a government backstop. But given outstanding safety records of existing reactors and promises that new technologies are safer, this should be an option. Insurance comes in many forms, and no one can predict what could ultimately emerge.

Either way, the insurance industry is extraordinarily sophisticated and does a tremendous job at pricing risk. It will be effective at ensuring that only the safest nuclear plants are built.

Finally, there is the question of what to do with nuclear waste—or, more accurately, spent nuclear fuel.

The federal government took responsibility for managing the nation’s spent nuclear fuel in 1982. By removing responsibility from the spent fuel producers, the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act removed any incentive for the nuclear industry to integrate spent fuel management into its long-term business planning and left it instead to Washington bureaucrats. It should surprise no one that the plan has failed.

Reforms are needed to reconnect the nuclear industry to waste management. Reforms would allow for a private spent fuel industry to emerge that would drive innovation in reactor technologies and spent fuel processing. They would allow the nuclear industry and communities to engage in real negotiations, bound by legal contracts, to build and operate spent fuel management facilities.

There is no question that these proposed reforms are a major departure from the status quo, but they are reasonable, not radical. They would foster good governance and economic progress in the industry. As COP28 representatives discuss how to reduce carbon while raising global living standards, nuclear energy should be on the front burner.

Jack Spencer is a Senior Research Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy at The Heritage Foundation.

The secondary market for pre-owned Rolex and Patek Philippe watches has been spiraling down since peaking in early 2022, mainly because the Federal Reserve ended helicopter-dropping trillions of dollars in stimulus checks and was forced to begin the most aggressive interest rate hiking cycle in a generation to curb inflation. Now, the Fed’s bizarre, unexpected pivot this week has spurred hope that a bottom nears for the luxury watch market. 

Bloomberg spoke with Christy Davis, a co-founder of Subdial, a UK-based secondary watch market dealer and trading platform, who believes the turmoil in the secondary luxury watch market is ending. 

“As we look toward 2024, the potential for a soft landing of stable and eventually declining rates is reason for optimism in the watch market,” Davis said.

The Bloomberg Subdial Watch Index, which tracks prices for the 50 most-traded watches by value on the secondary market, has plunged 39% since peaking in March 2022 at around 44,500 pounds. 

Demand for luxury used watches has cooled over the last 20 months. As a whole, luxury has plunged into turmoil because of soaring borrowing rates hammering demand for watches, purses, and jewelry. 

Perhaps Davis is correct. Thanks to the Fed, Rolex Daytona, Patek Philippe Nautilus, and Audemars Piguet Royal Oak watches could soon find a bottom under looser financial conditions. 

Rolex Daytona

Patek Philippe Nautilus

Like anything else, there are risks to bottom fishing. 

Authored by Darren Taylor via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Elon Musk’s revolutionary satellite internet service, Starlink, is spreading across Africa, flying in the face of repressive and corrupt regimes that are trying to block it.

In some cases, African companies are “illegally” importing and selling the equipment to allow users to bypass expensive and often state-controlled internet service providers (ISPs), and to use the cheaper and faster connectivity provided by the world’s richest man.

Many Africans living in countries where authorities haven’t yet granted regulatory licenses to Starlink, which is a division of SpaceX, are also accessing its services using signal-boosting equipment.

The signal boosters enable users to link to a SpaceX “ground station” in Nigeria, which in January became the first African country to grant regulatory approval to Starlink services.

“The tech revolution is happening at a pace that most African governments just cannot keep up with,” said Arthur Goldstuck, founder and CEO of World Wide Worx, one of Africa’s leading tech firms.

“The genie is out the bottle. The sooner they realize that they can’t control the uncontrollable, the better for them and the better for their people,” he said.

Mr. Goldstuck said Africa is the world’s fastest-growing, but most “technologically-starved,” continent.

“Data is expensive in Africa, and you can’t progress in the modern world when data is expensive. So demand for well-priced and speedy connectivity has exploded. Musk is feeding this demand,” he told The Epoch Times.

“Some governments don’t like this, because they want to control everything, and mostly they want to control money and information flows.”

Starlink, operated by Mr. Musk’s SpaceX spacecraft manufacturer and satellite operator, has a constellation of thousands of satellites in low orbit, delivering the world’s “most advanced broadband internet system” to 60 countries, according to its website.

Mr. Goldstuck said “progressive” African governments that encourage private enterprise and respect its ability to help develop their countries have “no problem” with Starlink and recognize its value.

“It offers high-speed streaming, video calls, and remote working, all of which contribute a lot to economic efficiency,” he said.

Officially, Starlink is available in only seven of Africa’s 54 countries: Benin, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Zambia. Another 25 are scheduled to go online in 2024.

“Look at where [the] powers-that-be are trying to prevent the entrance of Starlink: It’s war-torn countries like Sudan, Libya, and Somalia. It’s repressive regimes like Congo and Equatorial Guinea, that restrict access to information,” Mr. Goldstuck said.

“And it’s governments that have vested interests in keeping data expensive, and that have unreasonable rules designed to benefit political elites, like South Africa.”

Some African governments slap heavy taxes on private telecom services and infrastructure.

For decades, the data needed to access the internet in Africa has been controlled by just a few multinational mobile telecommunications corporations, including South Africa’s MTN Group and Vodacom, and Kenya’s Safaricom.

Their data packages are prohibitively expensive.

In July 2022, research by British technology company Cable, published in Mobile Magazine, showed that six of the 10 countries with the most expensive data are in sub-Saharan Africa.

In the tiny, mineral-rich kleptocracy of Equatorial Guinea in Central Africa, one gigabyte (GB) costs almost $50, the highest price for data in the world. In Chad, 1 GB costs $24.

Until Starlink’s recent arrival, 1 GB was priced at $26 in Malawi.

An August 2022 report by global statistics service Statista calculated the average cost of 1 GB of mobile data in sub-Saharan Africa at $4.47.

A one-time hardware and installation cost of Starlink kits, which contain a motorized satellite dish, assorted cables, a metal tripod stand, a power adapter, and a Wi-Fi router, is about the same everywhere: $550.

But basic monthly subscription prices in the developed world, compared with those in Africa, are very different.

In the United States, for example, Starlink’s monthly service fee is $110. In the African countries that officially have Starlink, the average price is about $45.

This $45 package allows users to download 1,000 GB of data, meaning 1GB costs Africans less than $0.50—nine times cheaper than the average in sub-Saharan Africa.

“This is a no-brainer,” said Nigeria-born Makinde Adeagbo, a freelance software engineer who has worked at Facebook, Microsoft, and Pinterest, and is currently based in Silicon Valley.

“It’s no wonder African companies are coming up with all kinds of schemes to get access to Starlink,” Mr. Adeagbo said.

“Because of the equipment cost, it’s too expensive at the moment for the vast majority of Africans to afford. But businesses, government departments, schools, shopping centers … They sure can afford it.”

Breaking Through in South Africa

South Africa, the nation in which Mr. Musk was born, is potentially the continent’s most lucrative telecom market. It’s also one of those trying to obstruct Starlink.

South Africa’s ruling African National Congress has enacted the Electronic Communications Act, which requires all telecom firms operating in South Africa to be 30 percent owned by “groups and/or individuals historically disadvantaged” by apartheid.

In May, at a tech carnival in Johannesburg, Starlink Director of Sales Phillip van Essen was diplomatic when he addressed the question of why Starlink isn’t officially present in Africa’s most technologically advanced economy.

“We prioritize the countries that make it easy for us to do business there, open entities, and get regulatory approvals,” he told reporters.

“We respect that every country has their own process. … and we have a dedicated team that is focused on regulatory efforts globally, including South Africa. We’re hopeful that we can resolve the issues and start service here soon.”

Since then, however, the government—via its Independent Communications Authority of South Africa— (ICASA), has clamped down on companies offering Starlink packages in the country.

In June, IT-Lec, a firm selling internet access in South Africa’s remote Northern Cape province, imported more than 4,000 Starlink start-up kits.

“Because of its portability and ease-of-use—not to mention low cost and high speed—we saw the Starlink kit as ideal for our customers,” Mauritz Coetzee, IT-Lec’s managing director, told The Epoch Times.

“They stay in the most isolated, rural areas of South Africa, where they’re not able to get broadband connectivity because the established ISPs don’t operate where they live.”

Mr. Coetzee said he didn’t “just blindly buy” thousands of Starlink kits.

“My legal advice was that I was completely within my rights to use Starlink’s international roaming service,” he said.

IT-Lec was able to provide Starlink services for South Africans by purchasing a Starlink International roaming subscription in neighboring Mozambique, where Starlink is authorized to operate, and then selling the required equipment to clients.

Read more here…