Expectations are for the ECB to keep rates unchanged for a second consecutive meeting after halting its hiking campaign in October.

As Newsquawk notes, In terms of recent economic developments, November’s flash CPI fell to 2.4% Y/Y from 2.9%, whilst the super-core metric declined to 3.6% Y/Y from 4.2%. Survey data saw a pick-up in the Eurozone composite PMI for November from 46.5 to 47.6, but ultimately is still suggestive of negative growth in Q4.

In terms of communications from ECB officials, great attention has been placed on remarks from Germany’s Schnabel, who noted that further hikes were “rather unlikely” after November inflation data cooled, and declined to endorse guidance for steady rates for several quarters. These remarks have subsequently accelerated pricing for 2024 rate cuts with a March reduction priced with around 60% probability.

Signalling for 2024 action may come via the accompanying macro projections, which ING suggests should see downward revisions for growth and inflation in 2024 and 2025. Finally, speculation continues to mount over the Bank’s balance sheet and a potential early conclusion to PEPP reinvestments after Lagarde stated on November 27th that PEPP will be discussed in the “not-so-distant future”. However, many desks are of the view that the December meeting would be too soon for such an adjustment.

* * *

According to Rabobank, ECB sources suggested ahead of the meeting that core inflation being structurally below 3% would be a “necessary, but not sufficient condition” for discussing rate cuts. Recent inflation data were much softer than expected, and this had already spurred a rally in the money markets and fixed income space. Lack of pushback from the FOMC has only added to speculation that a rapid cutting cycle will commence in March. Will the ECB, like the Fed, accept this? Can they accept this?

Surely, the ECB cannot be blind to inflation risks even if the recent trend has surprised positively. Our own forecasts only see core inflation dip below 3% in June. Wage data have yet to confirm that the uptrend has been broken. And the Eurozone labor market remains historically tight with vacancy rates so high that any rise in unemployment could be quickly absorbed by demand for workers in other sectors. Real wages have started to recover, also supported by EU policies that have led to an increase in minimum wages in recognition that the lowest income brackets were hit disproportionally by the Covid-19 and the more recent energy shock.

This shift in policy shift has just gotten a fresh leg with yesterday’s announcement that the European Council and Parliament have reached a provisional deal to improve the working conditions for platform workers, aka the gig economy. The resulting directive aims to achieve two key improvements: i) it helps to determine the correct employment status of workers and ii) it establishes rules on the use of algorithm systems in the workplace. It is expected that stricter rules will lead to many workers previously assumed to be self-employed to be re-classified as employees of the digital platform. The European Commission estimates this number could be as high as around 5.5 million workers, or more than 2.5% of total employment in the EU. To this we can add several other factors that will keep future costs on an upward trend, such as another provisional deal between the council and the European Parliament, namely to enhance the protection of the environment and human rights in the EU and globally; this due diligence directive is aimed specifically at large companies.

Returning to the ECB decision. Some gradual easing of the effective policy stance isn’t detrimental to the ECB’s cause, considering that inflation is easing as well. However, repricing in money markets has outpaced the disinflationary process. As a result, the effective policy stance is substantially less restrictive. But now we may be in a situation where financial conditions have eased in such a rapid and signicant way that this could materially affect future growth and inflation. For illustration, high-yield spreads – supposed to be reflections of recession risk – have fallen to their lowest levels since Q1 2022 in both the US and Europe, equity markets are back to record-highs and European real forward rates, both at the short and longer end of the curve, have now fallen decisively below the zero threshold, the easiest stance of market rates since end-2021!

Recall that the ECB took into account the spillover of higher US rates into European markets when it concluded that further rate hikes were not necessary. If the ECB were fully time consistent, they surely have to hike now? Yet, a rate hike would probably backfire: in an environment of weakening growth this could fuel concerns that policymakers are overtightening. 

The European Union is moving toward imposing sanctions against “extremist” Israeli settlers who are caught waging attacks on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

“I am in favor of sanctioning those involved in the attacks in the West Bank. They must be held accountable. This violence has nothing to do with the fight against Hamas and must stop,” European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen told EU lawmakers, backing a resolution.

The affirmation follows EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell’s earlier Monday statement which said the bloc was “alarmed by the violence in the West Bank by extremist settlers” and condemned the Netanyahu government’s rubberstamping of 1,700 more housing units in Jerusalem, likely to greatly expand Israeli presence in East Jerusalem.

Borrell said he was readying a sanctions proposal in the EU to trying and stem settler violence. Since Oct.7, there have been a wave of settler ‘retaliation’ attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank.

The EU move follows on the heels of the Biden administration last week announcing rare sanctions on Israeli settlers involved in attacks on Palestinians, which bans them from traveling to the United States.

The US government has not sanctioned Israeli settlers going all the way back to the Clinton administration, but Washington has consistently condemned settler expansion in the West Bank, at least as far as public policy and rhetoric goes.

The conflict centered on Gaza has received by far most international media attention, but there’s been a parallel war raging in the West Bank. Nablus, for example, has been declared a closed military zone and is under blockade by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) for at least 55 days.

Regional sources say that since Oct.7, at least 250 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank – mostly in army raids and clashes with Israeli security forces, but also as a result of settler violence. 

Weeks ago the Biden administration circulated a memo to top State Department and other officials asking them to prepare action “against individuals or entities who directly or indirectly engaged in actions that threaten security or stability in the West Bank or take actions that intimidate civilians in the West Bank or actions that significantly obstruct, disrupt or prevent efforts to achieve a two-state solution.”

ABC on Tuesday night aired a prime time segment from the West Bank showing rising violence between settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank…

Meanwhile, more European countries are eyeing a ban on Hamas or political activity seen as supporting the violent jihadist Palestinian group, with Switzerland’s senate being the latest to prepare a law outlawing it.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via ReMix News,

An overwhelming majority of French citizens do not think their government should welcome any more migrants to France and two-thirds of the country backs a referendum on immigration, recent polling has shown.

According to the survey conducted by the CSA Institute for CNEWS published on Tuesday, 80 percent of people in France want a ban on immigration, compared with just 19 percent in favor of further new arrivals.

Opposition to more mass immigration is the majority view among all age groups. The most welcoming demographic is younger people; however, 68 percent remain against more immigration compared to 31 percent in favor.

The age bracket most opposed to open borders is 50-64, where 88 percent are against, five percentage points more than those aged 65+.

While opposition to mass immigration is almost unanimous among right-leaning voters — 100 percent of Éric Zemmour’s Reconquête and 98 percent of National Rally voters are against it — an increasing number of left-wing sympathizers are also questioning the number of new arrivals into France.

A total of 56 percent of left-wing voters oppose more immigration, with the only slim majorities in favor found among supporters of the Radical Party of the Left (55 percent), LFI (55 percent), and the Greens (52 percent).

The survey was conducted on Dec. 11-12 as the French government’s immigration bill was being rejected by the French parliament. Left-wing parliamentary factions believed the bill infringed on human rights, while right-wing politicians including Marine Le Pen said the bill was “pro-immigration.”

The same poll revealed that two-thirds of French citizens also support a referendum on immigration, a move proposed for some time by right-wing parties, who believe an influx of new arrivals has threatened social cohesion in the country and led to an increase in crime.

France’s reality, as revealed by Interior Minister @GDarmanin. pic.twitter.com/hKdQqsfGKK

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) December 8, 2023

An increase in crime due to immigration was evidenced last week by Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin who revealed that 60 percent of people arrested in France are foreign nationals.

…

Read more here…

Sales of EVs and plug in hybrids were up 20% globally in November, according to market research firm Rho Motion.

The boost in sales was mainly attributed to strong growth both in North America and China, which offset poor sales in Europe, according to Reuters. 

Total sales hit a new monthly record of 1.4 million units, the report says. This figure is up from 1.1 million EVs sold in November 2022. 

Data manager Charles Lester commented to Reuters: “Sales have continued to rise despite a lot of negative sentiment in the market, and we’re expecting sales to remain strong in December.”

According to Rho Motion, in the global market during November, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) constituted 70% of total sales, with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) making up the remaining 30%.

China’s numbers were up 25% and sales in the United States and Canada also saw a significant boost, rising by 43%. Europe reported a 3% decline in sales compared to the same month in the previous year.

Rho Motion attributes the recent decline in European electric car sales to a surge in purchases at the end of 2022, particularly in Germany. This increase was driven by consumers pulling demand forward and buying electric vehicles ahead government subsidies ending. 

Lester explained that despite Germany scaling back its subsidies for battery electric vehicles and France refining its incentives to favor European-made electric cars over Chinese models, sales in Europe are expected to remain robust, Reuters wrote.

This is mainly because car manufacturers are under pressure to meet stringent emissions goals as 2025 approaches.

Recall, we wrote recently that major U.S. manufacturers like Ford were slashing billions of dollars of investment in electric vehicles – namely as a way to save cash after being bled dry by labor unions.

But perhaps they’ll re-think this strategy if sales in the U.S. continue to remain robust…

Nigel Farage’s decision to take part in reality TV show I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here has proven to be a massive success, with a new poll showing he’s more popular amongst Conservative voters than the Prime Minister.

Farage entered the show knowing it was a re-branding opportunity for the British public to see the real him away from media spin and vilification.

Despite early attempts by ITV bosses to edit him out of the show, he eventually made it to the final, finishing in 3rd place.

As Thomas Brooke reports at ReMix News, the ex-UKIP and Brexit Party leader has seen his popularity among the conservative grassroots surge after a three-week stint in the Australian jungle on the hit U.K. reality TV show, storming ahead of the current Conservative leader who now has a net negative rating among voters for his own party.

The survey, conducted by the JL Partners polling agency, showed Farage’s popularity score had risen to +18 among voters who backed the Conservative Party in the last general election in 2019. A total of 46 percent viewed him positively, compared to 28 percent who held a negative view of the GB News presenter.

Farage’s score has soared from a net positive rating of +1 before the show, vindicating his decision to take part in the show which he believed was an opportunity to appeal to a wider audience ahead of a much-rumored return to frontline politics.

By comparison, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s popularity has plummeted to a net negative score of -3 among his own party’s voters and the U.K. leader has a score of -41 among the wider electorate compared to Farage’s -29.

Since leaving the Australian jungle, during which he was prohibited from communicating with the outside world and keeping up with current affairs, Farage has launched a full-scale attack on the governing Conservatives’ Rwanda asylum deal — the flagship policy of Rishi Sunak’s leadership.

Fresh from his adventure in the Australian jungle, conservative broadcaster @Nigel_Farage slammed the U.K. government’s botched asylum deal with Rwanda and claimed the disconnect between Westminster and the public on immigration is bigger than ever before. pic.twitter.com/jJFclNsRVE

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) December 11, 2023

“This government is in desperate trouble and headed for catastrophic defeat,” he said after touching down at London Heathrow airport.

“They’ve no idea what’s coming down the track towards them. And I think the last thing I heard before I went into the jungle was that Cameron was back… if it’s got that bad, they must be in real trouble.

“And I see that he’s just about managed to squeak through a vote on Rwanda. But I mean, it’s going to make no difference at all. No, they’re in dire, dire trouble. And all Labour have to do is, frankly, not tear each other apart, and play safe and the election is theirs I think,” he added.

Commenting on the polling, Farage said he was “absolutely astonished by it”.

“Amongst 2019 Conservative voters, my approval rating has risen 20 percent in my time in the jungle, putting me 21 percent ahead of Rishi.

“It’s all very flattering, a little bit bewildering. It’s going to take some time for me to really take it on board. But fascinating, right?” he said.

When asked about his prospects of becoming a future Tory MP, Farage said, “Never say never.”

…

Read more here…

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

With the release of Ridley Scott’s new film Napoleon, viewers encounter a cinematic version of Napoleon caught up in a tumultuous romance against the backdrop of the upheavals of the Napoleonic wars. 

This has revived interest in the French military commander and left many wondering what they are to make of the real, historical Napoleon. For many Americans in the audience—who, unlike Europeans, devote virtually no time to Napoleon in school—this may be the first time they’ve thought much about Napoleon at all. 

Overall, this question certainly isn’t new.

Napoleon does not have a reputation like Hitler, for example. Even people who have never read a history book in their lives know they’re not supposed to like that guy. Nor are we routinely told that Napoleon is benign like, say, George Washington. Rather, Napoleon’s legacy remains very much unsettled.

Even in France, there is apparently no consensus, as noted in a relatively recent France24 article titeld “Napoléon: Tyrant or genius – or both?” His legacy is “complicated” the Washington Post tells us, and it’s unclear in general if we are to regard Napoleon as a hero or a dictator or an agent of “enlightenment.” 

The question is an important one, of course, because one’s views of major historical figures is often an important part of how one views historical questions overall. In America, for instance, someone who views Franklin Roosevelt with great admiration is likely to subscribe to different ideological views than someone who admires Richard Nixon. Similarly, one’s ideological views are likely to color—or be colored by—one’s views of figures like Lenin, Churchill, Cromwell, Louis XIV, or Bismarck.

Today, pundits and reviewers on both Left and Right still have many kind words to say in favor of Napoleon whenever his legacy is a topic of conversation in the media. Many tout his allegedly enlightened policies as a “modernizer.” Conservatives, who are easily impressed by military pomp, often insist Napoleon provides us with a model of impressive masculinity as a general. 

From the perspective of the ideology known as classical liberalism (i.e., libertarianism), however, Napoleon’s legacy is less ambiguous. Napoleon was a military dictator who implemented a police state in France, and was a proponent of greater state power. War was his chief instrument, conscripting hundreds of thousands of men to carry out his conquests. If viewed from the perspective of freedom, peace, and opposition to state power, it is easy to conclude that Europe would have been better off without Napoleon. 

Why They Still Defend Napoleon 

Part of the reason that Napoleon’s legacy remains ambiguous to so many is that, in spite of his warmongering and status as a dictator, Napoleon also appears to many as someone who “modernized” Europe by carrying on the “good parts” of the French Revolution. In politics, he centralized state power, opposed the papacy, and crushed many of the old medieval polities of Europe. For modern scholars who still cling to the idea that all things modern are better than all things “medieval,” Napoleon’s legacy contains much to praise. 

For example, we can find a succinct summary of the center-right view in the words of historian Andrew Roberts. Roberts, a Thatcherite neo-conservative, writes that Napoleon should not be remembered for his wars, but for “the Code Napoleon, that brilliant distillation of 42 competing and often contradictory legal codes into a single, easily comprehensible body of French law.” Roberts also tells us Napoleon was great because “He consolidated the administrative system based on departments and prefects. He initiated the Council of State, which still vets the laws of France, and the Court of Audit, which oversees its public accounts. He organized the Banque de France…” In other words, Napoleon was great because he expanded the role and power of the central state. The Napoleonic Code, for example, was key in a process that abolished local legal independence and customs in favor of a single centrally-controlled legal apparatus. 

In his spree of conquest across Europe, Napoleon helped to centralize power both in France and in foreign polities. Napoleon’s conquests in Germany and Italy helped to abolish or weaken decentralized resistance to national unity, paving the way for the German and Italian national states in later decades.

Roberts also tells us Napoleon was great because he was a patron of fine architecture. So, don’t bother remembering those countless young men drafted by Napoleon and sent into the meat grinder. Remember, rather, than Napoleon heroically spent tax dollars on some pretty buildings. 

A similar assessment comes from lifestyle-magazine magnate Bryan Goldberg who gives us a typical center-left view. For Goldberg, Napoleon ought to be remembered as someone who spent his time “advancing science, sponsoring artists, writing egalitarian codes of laws, and integrating marginalized people into a more enlightened society. “

If so, then Napoleon can perhaps be credited as an early pioneer in the idea of the egalitarian, enlightened police state. Historian Jacques Godechot, for example, labeled Napoleon’s regime “perhaps the precursor of the modern police states” and historian Eugen Weber labels the regime a police state without qualification. Napoleon’s regime was kind and gentle compared to twentieth-century police states, of course, but there is little reason to praise the regime, either. Michael Sibalis concludes “Napoleon’s police nevertheless did exercise tight control over all public expressions of opinion, did pay a network of secret agents to keep the nation under surveillance, and did detain the regime’s enemies in special state prisons without charge or trial. In short, they regularly ignored proper judicial procedures and systematically violated the civil rights that the French Revolution had proclaimed…”

Napoleon, Enemy of Liberalism

Napoleon was an enemy of classical liberalism in other important aspects as well.  Napoleon had little respect for free commerce and bourgeois values. Unsurprisingly, Napoleon squandered much of France’s wealth on war and government property. As Steven Pinker has put it: “Napoleon, that exponent of martial glory, sniffed at England as ‘a nation of shopkeepers.’ But at the time Britons earned 83 percent more than Frenchmen and enjoyed a third more calories, and we all know what happened at Waterloo.” (Napoleon’s authorship of the quote may be apocryphal, but it is nonetheless in character.)

Napoleon had a devastating indirect effect on European liberalism. Since Napoleon marched under the banner of enlightened, egalitarian, “liberal” France, his conquering armies came to be associated with liberalism itself. The long term effect was to turn many against the ideology overall. Historian Ralph Raico notes that classical liberalism had been on the rise in German states during the eighteenth century. But this went into reverse in the nineteenth. Why? Raico contends that  “There is no doubt that a major — perhaps the major — reason for the change lies in the political and military history of the period: basically, the attempt of revolutionary France to conquer and rule all of Europe.”

By the mid 1790s, Raico writes, “The rights of man, popular sovereignty, the French Enlightenment with its hatred of the age-old traditions and religious beliefs of the European peoples would be imposed by military might. To this end, the victorious, irresistible French armies invaded, conquered, and occupied much of Europe.” The end result was resistance to anything associated with the official ideology of the French regime—which, of course, wasn’t actually liberal at all. As a result, 

In the nature of things, these invading armies, bringing with them an alien ideology, produced hostility and resistance against that ideology, a militant nationalist reaction. That is what happened in Russia and in Spain. Most of all, that is what happened in Germany. Individualism, natural rights, the universalist ideals of the Enlightenment — these became identified with the hated invaders, who subjugated and humiliated the German people. This identification was a burden that liberalism in Germany had to carry from that time on.

As the Americans would repeatedly claim after 1945, Napoleon claimed foreign countries either welcomed invasion—or at least required invasion—in order to embrace enlightenment and equality.  Napoleon insisted “the peoples of Germany, as of France, Italy and Spain, want equality and liberal ideas” thus justifying Napoleon’s abolition (by conquest) of the old regimes. Not surprisingly, many foreigners didn’t appreciate Napoleon’s generosity.

Those who buy into the ideas behind America’s modern wars for global democracy today might therefore find Napoleon’s rationale convincing.  For those of us, on the other hand, who actually value self-determination, free markets, peace, and freedom, Napoleon provides little to be admired. He was a despot, a warmonger, a centralist, and a hypocrite who claimed to spread freedom to justify his own lust for conquest and power. 

Authored by Eric Lundrum via American Greatness,

A handful of the 51 signatories of the debunked letter which falsely called Hunter Biden’s laptop “Russian disinformation” are now calling on Congress to expand the scope of domestic surveillance in the United States…

As reported by the Daily Caller, the letter to House lawmakers on Tuesday was signed by former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Deputy Director for the National Security Agency (NSA) Richard Ledgett, former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell, former CIA Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash, and former NSA General Counsel Glenn Gerstell. All five men had previously signed the controversial letter in 2020 claiming, without evidence, that information found on the recently-unearthed laptop of Hunter Biden was all “Russian propaganda” meant to influence the 2020 election.

In their new letter, the former intelligence community officials voiced their opposition to a bill that would reduce the ability of intelligence agencies to spy on Americans without a warrant. At the same time, they offered up praise for a bill that would allow surveillance of any location where internet access is provided.

“We cannot hamstring the U.S. Intelligence Community either by failing to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or by limiting it in ways that would make it difficult for the government to protect Americans,” the letter reads in part.

“To be clear, Section 702 saves American lives and helps keep Americans safe from international terrorist attacks, foreign cyberattacks, overseas fentanyl suppliers, and other threats to our national security. There’s no substitute for it.”

In recent weeks, the House Judiciary Committee has been working on possible reforms to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the controversial provision which ultimately allowed the intelligence agencies to spy on then-candidate Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016, under the false pretenses that he was “colluding” with Russia.

“Reasonable minds might disagree on the details of the various reforms that might be needed, even as included in the [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] bill,” they add.

“But it presents a rigorous approach to the challenges and attempts in a responsible way to balance privacy protections and our nation’s safety.”

Despite the claims in their 2020 letter, numerous mainstream media outlets eventually verified the authenticity of Hunter’s laptop and all of the information contained on it, which included details about Hunter’s numerous foreign business deals, his efforts to sell access to his father while he was Vice President, as well as his frequent drug use and solicitation of prostitutes, among other scandalous revelations.

It has since been revealed that the letter was orchestrated by the Biden campaign, under the direction of then-campaign advisor Antony Blinken, who now serves as Biden’s Secretary of State.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Former President Donald Trump issued an urgent call for action to his fellow Republicans over what he called “the biggest story of the year,” namely a survey showing that 20 percent of mail-in voters admitted to committing at least one kind of voter fraud in the 2020 election.

The Heartland/Rasmussen poll, released on Dec. 12, suggests concerning levels of voter fraud in the 2020 election, bolstering President Trump’s longstanding claim that he was cheated out of a victory amid an explosion in mail-in ballots combined with state-level moves by the courts that made it easier to cheat.

The new survey shows 17 percent of mail-in voters admitting to voting in a state where they are no longer permanent residents; 21 percent filling out ballots for others; 17 percent signing ballots for family members without consent, and 8 percent reporting offers of “pay” or “reward” for their vote.

What’s more, 10 percent of all respondents to the survey (carried on a representative sample of 1,085 likely voters) said they know a friend, family member, co-worker, or other acquaintance who admitted to casting a mail-in ballot fraudulently.

Over 43 percent of 2020 votes were cast by mail, which is the highest percentage in U.S. history.

“Taken together, the results of these survey questions appear to show that voter fraud was widespread in the 2020 election, especially among those who cast mail-in ballots,” the Heartland Institute, a conservative and libertarian public policy think tank, said in a statement.

‘Biggest Story of The Year’

President Trump, who is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in the 2024 race for the White House, took to social media to call on Republicans to take action in response to the survey’s shocking results.

“This is the biggest story of the year, and Republicans must do something about it,” the former president wrote. Further, he suggested that unless something is done quickly to address the problem of voter fraud, the issue will cast a pall over the 2024 election.

“Have to make a move now,” President Trump continued. “Get tough, get smart. Our country is being stolen!“

While Democrats and their allies claim that election fraud is little more than a myth, President Trump has said for years that voter fraud is a pervasive problem in U.S. politics —and insists he was robbed of a win in the 2020 election.

In a recent interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the former president spoke about what went into his decision to challenge the results.

“I was listening to different people. And when I added it all up, the election was rigged,” he said, adding that it was his choice to contest the results because “I won the election.”

‘Nothing Short of Stunning’

While Democrats and their allies, along with some in the scientific community, argue that voter fraud was so small in the 2020 elections as to be negligible, the findings of the Heartland/Rasmussen survey bolster President Trump’s claims that he was robbed of victory.

Justin Haskins, the director of Heartland’s Socialism Research Center and primary author of the Heartland/Rasmussen survey, said in a statement that the results of the poll are “nothing short of stunning.”

“For the past three years, Americans have repeatedly been told that the 2020 election was the most secure in history. But if this poll’s findings are reflective of reality, the exact opposite is true,” Mr. Haskins said. “This conclusion isn’t based on conspiracy theories or suspect evidence, but rather from the responses made directly by the voters themselves.”

Some progress has been made on election integrity measures in over a dozen states in the aftermath of the 2020 election, Mr. Haskins acknowledged. He insisted, however, that “much more” work is needed in most parts of the country to bolster the integrity of elections—and voter confidence that the results reflect the actual will of the people.

“If America’s election laws do not improve soon, voters and politicians will continue to question the truthfulness and fairness of all future elections,” Mr. Haskins said.

Some states have reformed their laws and procedures amid widespread vote integrity worries prompted by the 2020 presidential election controversy. However, according to conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, more needs to be done.

The group’s Election Integrity Scorecard shows that not a single state in the country has a perfect score in a checklist of 12 possible problem spots, including voter ID, accuracy of voter registration lists, and absentee ballot management.

Tennessee has the best election integrity procedures in the country, with a score of 88 (out of a possible 100), followed by Georgia at 84, Alabama at 82, and Missouri at 83.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, recently wrote that “no state in the country has a perfect score of 100, which means everyone has some work to do.”

In order to make elections more secure and build shore-up public confidence that the declared results are legitimate, states should ensure that election officials maintain current, accurate voter rolls, he argues.

Further, they should require photo identification to cast a vote, both in person and absentee, according to Mr. Von Spakovsky, who also argues for a ban on partisan funding  of state and local election offices.

He pointed to the Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database as a constantly updated record of various cases of voter fraud from across the country.

“In an era of razor-thin elections, guarding against this type of illegal behavior, as well as errors made by election officials, is especially important,” he wrote.

“In 2024, it could prove critical.“

A new report from the New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reveals that the number of securities-industry workers in New York City has hit a twenty-year high – even as layoffs in the banking industry rise and deal activity continues to slide. 

DiNapoli said the total headcount at securities firms in NYC increased to 195,100 (based on year-to-date data), the highest level in over 20 years. 

He added, “Whether firms will retain these additional positions as profits return to normal remains to be seen. Lower profits have also resulted in smaller bonuses, with the bonus pool estimated to be down 21% yearly, meaning a decline in related income tax revenue for the City and State.” 

Revenues from commissions and underwriting activities plunged by 46.8% over the last two years, as the high cost of credit triggered a massive slowdown in equity issuances, debt issuances, and mergers and acquisitions. 

Global debt offerings fell from $10.3 trillion in 2021 to $8.3 trillion in 2022 to $4.7 trillion in the first half of 2023. 

Equity insurances have also tumbled. 

Global M&A activity has crashed. 

“These are volatile times in America and globally, and Wall Street’s relatively stable profits and employment levels could change quickly,” DiNapoli said in a statement to Bloomberg. 

A slide in deal flow has softened earnings and revenues for major banks, including Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs, who have all trimmed their respective headcount. 

He continued, “Further declines could weaken New York’s tax revenue from the securities industry and have repercussions for our state and city budgets.”

While markets have expected the Federal Reserve to hold interest rates at elevated levels for an extended period, it appears the Fed has signaled a major dovish shift on Wednesday, with rates markets pricing in more than five cuts next year. 

The current freeze in M&A activity could thaw in 2024. 

Fed is frontloading rate cuts into the 2024 election year, at the expense of post-election 2025. https://t.co/NUY2GAjWyE

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 13, 2023

Will 2025 be another bust year for Wall Street?