Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

A shock new poll saw Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV) enjoy a dramatic rise in support to put it on equal footing with the governing VVD…

Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV) has experienced a dramatic rise in popularity among Dutch voters in a matter of days, rising from fourth place to now polling joint top with the governing VVD after an impressive performance in the latest television debate.

In the most recent survey conducted by pollster MDH, the right-wing populist party strengthened its electoral position by five percentage points to reach 26 percent, on par with the party of outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte, now led by Turkish-born Justice Minister Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius.

The increase in support appears to be at the expense of Pieter Omtzigt’s New Social Contract, the centrist party fighting its first national election, whose party’s popularity dropped by the same margin.

“The past week has seen the biggest changes in polling of this campaign. This directly relates to the fact that Geert Wilders was only involved in a debate on television for the first time on Nov. 12,” pollster Maurice de Hond explained.

The Dutch mainstream media has been accused of bias concerning the exposure it gives the more establishment parties in the country in comparison to those advocating a conservative, nationalist approach, particularly regarding immigration.

SBS debat werd de gamechanger. PVV+5 en NSC -5. VVD en PVV nu samen aan kop.
Toch nog veel kiezers die kunnen verschuiven. Lees de analyse.https://t.co/TLfma5K7P5 pic.twitter.com/SQVo1ptW9K

— Maurice de Hond (@mauricedehond) November 18, 2023

Earlier this week, data published by a diversity watchdog revealed that no politician from Wilders’ PVV or Thierry Baudet’s Forum for Democracy (FvD) has featured on the leading late-night talk show, Op1, since the fall of the Dutch government back in July, while mainstream parties seemingly deemed to be more palatable by producers, have been invited on dozens of times during the election period.

The SBS debate this week, of which de Hond says “Wilders clearly appeared to be the winner,” seems to have drastically shifted the odds in favor of Wilders’ party being a part of the next Dutch government, or at the very least having a considerable influence on the composition of any coalition government.

“In the penultimate poll, conducted five days before the elections among almost 7,000 respondents, we see this drastic shift: PVV increases by five seats and NSC decreases by five seats. That is a reinforcement of last week’s trend,” the pollster added.

In the last two weeks, the PVV has increased its estimated vote share by seven percentage points, while NSC has seen its support plummet by the same figure to its lowest recorded level since its recent formation. Support for the governing VVD has remained broadly consistent.

Dutch voters head to the polls on Nov. 22 to elect a new government after Mark Rutte’s coalition government collapsed primarily over disagreements relating to asylum and immigration policy.

The election falls under a backdrop of an asylum crisis that is rapidly getting out of control, evidenced by new figures from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) this week which revealed that over 42,000 asylum seekers resident in the Netherlands are awaiting a decision on their asylum application, and the average waiting time for applications to be processed has exceeded a year.

…

Read more here…

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is generally regarded as a collection of highly developed, high income countries. However with 38 member states from across the globe, economic prosperity can still vary widely between these nations.

To illustrate this, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao and Truman Du from Genuine Impact charts the average weekly work hours and salaries across the OECD in 2022.

For wages, the OECD divided a country’s total wage bill by the average number of employees, accounting for inflation by using USD constant prices with a 2016 base year. Importantly, they also adjust using purchasing power parity (PPP) for private consumption of the same year.

Ranked: OECD Countries By Working Hours & Average Pay

Here’s a list of 35 OECD countries ranked by their weekly wage in 2022.

Iceland has the highest weekly wage at $1,528 in the OECD block much higher than all four of its Nordic neighbors. This results in Icelandic workers, on average, earning nearly $55/hour.

Note: 2022 data for OECD members Colombia, Costa Rica, and Türkiye is missing from the source and has not been included.

Luxembourg, ranked second place, is the only other country with an average weekly wage that comes in above $1,500.

The U.S. ($1,490), Switzerland ($1,404), and Belgium ($1,247) round out the top five countries with the highest weekly pay in the OECD.

On the other hand, Mexican workers make around $321 a week, the lowest in this dataset.

Hourly Wages & Cost of Living

Despite the wage data using PPP-adjusted metrics, it still doesn’t fully account for discrepancies in local prices, which are influenced by complex factors like tariffs and fuel costs for imported goods, the impact of monopolies and cartels, the price of non-traded goods (energy, housing costs) and government taxes.

And while the difference in salaries seem massive, paying workers enough to meet their costs of living also plays a factor. Countries with higher weekly wages also correlate with a much higher cost of living and vice versa.

Switzerland, Denmark, and Iceland for example are in the top 10 countries with the highest cost of living compared to Mexico, which is far more affordable.

So, while it seems that an average Icelandic worker makes almost 7x what an average Mexican worker makes, the reality of how much of that wage is spent in supporting an average lifestyle in both countries is less direct.

The price of yellowcake – uranium concentrate used in nuclear generation – has hit the highest level in more than 15 years, driven by soaring demand as a crucial energy source for a “green future.” Additionally, global supply disruptions are further pressuring prices higher.

Nymex futures tracking physical-market contracts of uranium ore topped $80.25 per pound on Monday, the highest level since February 2008. Since we first recommended uranium stocks in December 2020, in a note titled “Buy Uranium: Is This The Beginning Of The Next ESG Craze,” uranium ore prices have soared 173%.

Prices have also exceeded the level last seen since the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima reactor put nuclear energy on worldwide probation — and in Germany, delivered it a death sentence — various factors, including decarbonization of power grids, have revived the nuclear industry. 

While the International Energy Agency says to fulfill “net zero” goals – global nuclear generation capacity must double from 2020 levels by 2050 – demand for yellowcake is skyrocketing at a time when Western governments are sanctioning Russia, which currently accounts for about 8% of the world’s uranium supplies. This means the West must develop new supply sources. 

According to Colin Hamilton, managing director for commodities research at BMO Capital Markets, “Utility contracting continues to pick up,” and “there is very little uncommitted production available to meet uncovered utility requirements.” 

Bloomberg pointed out top miner Cameco Corp. has revised production targets lower due to various supply chain challenges in Canada, while a coup in Niger has disrupted shipments to Europe. 

As for uranium stocks, Terra Capital’s Matthew Langsford told Bloomberg, “[Uranium] equities could see dramatic upside — 50%, 100%, possibly more.” 

Uranium is back. 

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko said on Monday that his country will respond in accordance with its national interests if Finland closes the entirety of their joint border like the Finnish Interior Minister threatened to do last week. In the intervening days, the EU said that it’s ready to send forces to that frontier, Finland gassed a group of border crossers, and it also deployed soldiers there too. Taken together, Finland is clearly hellbent on positioning itself as a frontline NATO state against Russia.

It was assessed in summer 2022 that “NATO’s Northern Expansion Isn’t A Major Defeat For Russia” like the Mainstream Media misportrayed it as being and then earlier this spring that “Finland’s Membership In NATO Is More Symbolically Important Than Militarily”. Those conclusions reflected the state of military-strategic affairs at the time, but seeing as how the latter are changing as a result of Finland hyping up an alleged migrant crisis with Russia, so too should those assessments change accordingly.

The latest dynamics suggest that NATO is conspiring to place more pressure on Russia along the bloc’s new Finnish member’s frontier, which is intended to provoke reciprocal military moves that can then be decontextualized as so-called “unprovoked aggression” for justifying a self-sustaining cycle of escalation. It’s unclear how far and fast everything can move, but this seems to be the intent, which importantly comes amidst the bloc rethinking its proxy war on Russia through Ukraine.

This summer’s counteroffensive failed, Russia won the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with NATO, and that bloc’s former Supreme Commander recently argued for a Korean-like armistice, all of which is happening against the backdrop of the West reportedly pressuring Kiev to recommence peace talks. In the event that this proxy war freezes, then there’s a certain logic inherent in replacing some of this lost pressure upon Russia via the opening of other fronts like the Finnish one.

Granted, the “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) between NATO and Russia places very real limits on how much pressure can be exerted along this newfound front, but still opening it might be deemed by the bloc’s decisionmakers to be better than keeping it closed in that scenario. In other words, “where one door closes, another opens”, or to be more direct, the end of NATO’s proxy war on Russia via Ukraine could lead to the opening of a less high-stakes but still destabilizing front in Finland.

This outcome would also serve the supplementary purpose of being exploited by the Mainstream Media as the “publicly plausible” pretext for accelerating the Arctic’s militarization. This “final frontier” of the New Cold War is poised to soon be a theater of competition between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the Sino-Russo Entente due to the Northern Sea Route’s growing role in facilitating East-West trade. Considering this, hyping up the Finnish front like NATO is already doing “kills two birds with one stone”.

The case can thus be made that NATO has concluded that its hegemonic zero-sum interests are best advanced by opening up a “controlled” Finnish front against Russia, which could compensate for the partial closing of the Ukrainian one and push the bloc’s Arctic interests at the same time. For these reasons, Russian-Finnish tensions are expected to further worsen, and all moves that Russia makes in defense of its legitimate interests will be spun as “unprovoked aggression” to speed up these processes.

By Teeuwe Mevissen, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank (pdf version available for pro subs in the usual place)

Summary

• US president Biden and president of China Xi Jinping met each other this week, for the first time since November 2022

• The US-Sino relationship has deteriorated since the Trump administration

• Areas of tensions between both nations include security, trade investments and territorial issues amongst others

• While the meeting did deliver some concrete results it is unlikely that we will see a significant improvement of US-Sino relations for the foreseeable future.

Introduction

To underscore its uniqueness, we have to go back to November 2022 for the last personal meeting between the leaders of the two most powerful countries at the moment, the US and China. Back then, Biden and Xi met each other on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Bali, Indonesia. This meeting in Bali was preceded by a significant period of increased tensions between the US and China following Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan. Pelosi’s trip was regarded by China as a provocation and a departure from the one China policy. As such, Pelosi’s visit resulted in the end of direct communication between the military of both countries. A potentially dangerous situation since it could lead to incidents developing into something much worse. This and other challenges that currently define US-Sino relations clearly illustrate a need to create a floor under US-Sino relations. But, before we look at this week’s meeting achievements, let’s first briefly go back to the last official meeting between Xi Jinping and Joe Biden in Bali and the topics that were discussed back then.

Bali 2022

First, it will not come to anyone’s surprise that Taiwan was one of the more thorny issues that was discussed between both countries during the G20 top in Bali. Xi Jinping called Taiwan the “first red line” that must not be crossed in U.S.-China relations. Biden on his turn, seemingly tried to calm things down, stating that the one China policy – which supports both Beijing’s one China stance as well as Taiwan’s military – was unchanged. This is a policy that has often been described as strategic ambiguity, which emphasizes the mixed signal that this policy sends out. But there was definitely a lot more to discuss. North-Korea, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, investment and trade policies and artificial intelligence (AI) were also discussed amongst many other topics. Since many (if not all) of these issues remain unsolved, they were high on the list of topics that both countries needed to discuss.

San Francisco 2023

So, fast forward to 15 November, a scheduled meeting between Biden and Xi took place in San Francisco. Below we provide an overview of the most important topics that were discussed and those that are key in defining the US-Sino relationship. We make a distinction between US’s interests, China’s interests and mutual interests. However it must be said that some interests also overlap. The distinction therefore is not always clear. Security, for instance, is of mutual interest, but within the realm of security both China and the US also have their own specific interests. We will conclude this report with our take on the results of the bilateral meeting between both world leaders and see to what extent progress has been made on these issues and more generally the bilateral relationship between the US and China.

US’s main interests

Trade and investments

Starting with the Trump era, the US has sought to establish a more equitable trading and investment relationship with China. For long the US has been having a huge trade deficit with both China as well as the rest of the world. In 2022 the total US trade deficit reached a record high with a reported trade deficit of almost $950 billion. According to the US department of Commerce the trade deficit with China reached a level of $382.9 billion in 2022.

Moreover, trade in 2022 between the US and China grew for a third year in a row. It is therefore hard to claim that the trade relationship between the US and China has become more balanced, despite tariffs and other measures that have been implemented since 2018 to achieve such. However, just ahead of the meeting between Biden and Xi this week, China did buy an amount worth more than $3 billion of soybeans, which should be regarded as a sign of good will and a desire by China to move to a more equitable trade relationship. However, in the past China has already made promises regarding trade and opening up its economy that still need to be fulfilled. For instance by continuing to subsidize certain strategic sectors in order to undercut Western competitors as seems to be the case in the sector for electric vehicles.

Furthermore, the US federal government pension fund now excludes investments in Hong Kong in addition to investments in mainland China. Additionally, the US has curbed investments flows to China in some sectors that it identifies as strategic and other sectors deemed critical to US national security. This is yet another sign that the US will continue to ‘de-risk’ its relationship with China and to contain China’s economic and technological rise.

Fentanyl

Another important issue concerns fentanyl. The synthetic opioid has caused havoc in many US cities and fentanyl addiction is an important death cause for US citizens between the age of 35-45. However, it is expected that China will be moving on this issue to accommodate the US in tackling the current fentanyl crisis. As such and already before the meeting took place, Biden and Xi were expected to announce an agreement which would see a crackdown form Beijing on this specific sector. Needless to say that it is in the interest of the US to reverse the current rise in fentanyl addicts. Aside from a public health perspective this topic also touches social, legal, and labour force related issues.

Human rights

The US has often decried China’s stance on human rights, most notably with regard to its practices in the Xinjiang province. The US has sanctioned companies that produce goods with the help of Uyghurs. Moreover, the US will also discuss so-called exit bans. These measures ban non Chinese citizens from leaving the country in case of suspicion of criminal offenses. Moreover the US will seek to solve cases of imprisoned US citizens of which the US claims are wrongfully detained. Finally it is in the interest of the US to project its soft power to the rest of the world in order to become a more appealing strategic partner compared to its rivals.

China’s interests

Trade and investments

China continues to seek to turn the current tide of declining exports and reduced flows of foreign direct investments (FDI). Indeed as recently as November 2023, China reported the first contraction in (net) FDI since data has been published in 1998 with a deficit of 11.8 bn during the third quarter of this year. While the current levels of trade between the US and China are still sizable, the process of de-risking (which includes reindustrialisation) will most likely sooner rather than later result in reduced US imports from China.

Territorial issues

China has continued to press the US on maintaining its one-China policy and insists that the US does not interfere with its internal affairs. Furthermore, China criticizes the US for its freedom of navigation patrols in the South China sea. Additionally, China decries the US for trying to contain China within the region by setting up alliances with regional players like the Philippines and Australia.

Technology

China’s “Made in 2025” state-led industrial policy aims for technological independence and the ability to compete with high tech products on global markets. More specifically they aim for an increase in domestically added content of materials from 40% to 70%. The US has restricted access to certain advanced technologies to China. This also includes US allies that have been pressured by the US to restrict Chinese access to certain technologies. So as long as China is not able to produce its own cutting edge technology, it will remain dependent on what the US is willing to export. As such it is clearly in China’s interest to regain access to some of the most advanced technologies.

Mutual interests

Security

As mentioned above, Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan back in August 2022 led China to cutting direct communication lines between both armies. Moreover, the previous minister of defence of China, general Li Shangfu, was put on the US sanction list for being involved in the purchase of SU-35 combat aircraft and Russian S-400 air defence systems. US secretary of defence Loyd Austin tried to re-establish communication lines with the now missing Li Shangfu but was unsuccessful. While Li Shangfu has been expelled from the state council, his name still can be found on the website of China’s ministry of defence and until now, no new minister of defence has been appointed yet.

Re-establishing direct communication lines between both militaries remains a goal for the Biden administration and with General Li Shangfu being dismissed, new possibilities arise to re-establish these lines of communication with the clear aim to nip any chance of escalation in the bud. These (almost) incidents have increased since China has become more assertive in the region while the US continues its freedom of navigation patrols in the South China sea.

But there is much more. The US seeks to convince Beijing once and for all that it should not deliver military equipment to Russia. Also the EU has sent this message to China signalling that it would have a strong negative effect on relations between the West and China. Needless to say that both trade and investments would be affected when China would actively support Russia’s military.

Finally, the US will seek to pressure China to play a more important role in dealing with the nuclear threat arising from North-Korea. It is however questionable to what extent China has real leverage over North Korea in order to persuade it to change its posture in the region. Moreover it is also questionable whether this would be in the interest of China itself.

But Xi has also expressed himself clearly when he said that China is not seeking to fight a cold or a hot war with anyone. While it is important to realize that this statement is at odds with China’s territorial claims (even when China’s claim on Taiwan is excluded) it should still be clear that China – like the US – realizes that a hot war between both superpowers would have devastating consequences and would go against the interest of both. Xi Jinping has eluded to this by repeatedly saying that nuclear wars can never be won and therefore should never be fought. But also here we see a contradiction, since China has embarked on a path to expand and modernize its nuclear weapon capabilities.

China also addressed the ongoing tensions in the South China Sea and claims that the freedom of navigation patrols that the US and allies are performing are a violation of Chinese sovereignty. It will also address US weapon deliveries towards Taiwan and will seek for a US statement which would clearly denounce any attempts from Taiwan to separate itself from mainland China.

Climate

The most obvious mutual interest both countries share is climate change. Both countries increasingly deal with extreme weather circumstances, climate warming and pollution. Before the meeting there were already positive signs regarding this topic. This also offers hope for the next UN climate talks which will be held in Dubai this month. The US State Department and China’s Ministry of Ecology even made identical statements regarding mutual cooperation in limiting emissions of nitrous oxide and methane. Both nations will also support global initiatives to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030.

AI

Recent warnings from scientists and companies that are involved in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) have put the issue high on the list of security issues. Moreover, there seems to be common ground to exclude AI command and control (NC2) systems for nuclear weapons. Furthermore China has also signalled that it is interested in joining talks about norms and rules for AI. Finally, the South China morning post reported that Biden and Xi were expected to pledge for a ban on AI in autonomous weapon systems like drones. This amongst others with the aim to prevent the risk of weapon systems ‘going their own way’ and all the potential consequences that could arise from this. Unfortunately, in the case of AI there will always remain an incentive to create a weapon that could tip the balance in a direct conflict with an adversary.

What to expect after the Biden Xi meeting?

While expectations before the meeting where modest at best, the meeting still has delivered some results. First, a floor seems to have been established regarding the US-Sino relationship. Both leaders expressed clearly that a conflict between both superpowers should be avoided. However, developments within international relations are not static or linear. As such it is likely that tensions between both powers will continue to be an important feature describing US-Sino relations. Second, both superpowers have committed to step up efforts to reduce global warming and fight climate change. Third, China has pledged to curb exports of precursors for fentanyl. Furthermore Biden announced that experts from both China and the US will meet to discuss and determine: “what’s useful and what’s not useful, but dangerous and what’s acceptable” regarding AI. Xi and Biden also agreed to reopen direct communication between both militaries in order to prevent incidents that could lead to an escalation between both countries. While it is absolutely positive that both the US and China are engaging with each other via the highest diplomatic levels, it is important to realize that the current situation of strategic competition/systemic rivalry that has characterized US-Sino relations since Trump became president in 2016, won’t change. As such the relationship has not materially improved. This might be illustrated best by Bidens remark at the end of the press conference where he mentioned that he still sees Xi Jinping as a dictator. Therefore we can only conclude that there is still a long way to go before we can talk about normalizing relations between China and the US.

On Monday, Elon Musk’s X sued Media Matters, claiming that the David Brock-founded leftist ‘watchdog’ group manipulated the platform to show major ads next to Nazi imagery, causing a flood of advertisers to leave the platform.

“The end result was a feed precision-designed by Media Matters for a single purpose: to produce side-by-side ad/content placements that it could screenshot in an effort to alienate advertisers,” causing “all but one of the companies featured in the Media Matters piece withdrawing all ads from X, including Apple, Comcast, NBCUniversal, and IBM—some of X’s largest advertisers.”

The move by Media Matters was a successful attempt to brand Elon Musk and his platform as antisemitic, after Musk took fire for agreeing with a post suggesting that liberal Jews – who “have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them,” are now on the receiving end of things.

Japs, Jewry And Trannies

What happened next couldn’t have been better scripted in pre-woke Hollywood. It turns out that Media Matters President Angelo Carusone wrote super antisemitic blog posts in the early 2000s, which were uncovered by the Daily Caller‘s Peter Hasson in 2019, and have been making the rounds of late given the Musk controversy.

In one blog post titled “Tranny Paradise,” the future Media Matters president went on a lengthy diatribe against a ‘tranny-loving author.’

In another post that same month, Carusone suggested in response to a male basketball coach’s alleged sexual and physical abuse of female players; “lighten up Japs.”

In an October 2005 post, Carusone said of his boyfriend, “despite his jewry, you KNOW he’s adorable.”

In another post, he suggested that his Jewish boyfriend only leaned conservative “as a result of his possession of several bags of Jewish gold.”

We know, we know – who cares, right?

The point is that Carusone is a massive, virtue-signaling hypocrite for suggesting that Musk was antisemitic for agreeing with a defensible observation, while he himself broke several ‘cardinal rules’ of being a liberal wokescold.

As even the Washington Post noted at the time of the Caller article, “Carusone’s postings are indeed offensive, and if he’s going to serve as president of an organization renowned for unearthing overlooked and objectionable comments from people’s past, he deserves to be called out on his own transgressions.”

Carusone said in reply, “It’s true: I wrote some gross things on my blog while I was in college. A few posts parodying living my life as if I were a self-loathing, bigoted Limbaugh right-winger.”

Ah yes, just parody.

But wait, there’s more!

Apparently a bunch of Media Matters employees hate Israel. The thing Media Matters is accusing Musk of. And hey, it’s a free country – but the hypocrisy is just too thick to ignore.

They are pure evil.

How utterly absurd that this organization got major advertisers to boycott our platform for bogus allegations of antisemitism!

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 22, 2023

While Media Matters was busy accusing anyone right of Che Guevara of antisemitism, they conveniently overlooked the questionable words of their own employees.

Eagerly anticipating Media Matters’ report on this glaring issue of racism and bigotry…

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) November 22, 2023

Amazing!

LMAOOOO

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) November 18, 2023

https://t.co/nOL8ZHBbpC pic.twitter.com/6fpEYNQO5e

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 21, 2023

Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Given the choice between a sporty new Chevy Corvette and his 1963 Dodge 330, Bob Hughes will take the 60-year-old classic any day.

The simplicity of automotive design from yesteryear has its virtues, Mr. Hughes said, relaxing in a lawn chair next to his former “daily driver” at the Thunderfest Car and Bike Show in Casa Grande, Arizona, on Nov. 4.

“You can change the plugs—you can see the plugs—which is something you can’t do on most new cars,” he said.

“I built this thing from nothing. It was a $75 body when I bought it.” That was in 1970.

All around the big parking lot were classic hot rods and muscle cars—tricked-out mechanical masterpieces from when vehicles were easy to work on if you had the tools and the skill.

It isn’t the same with newer automated vehicles, vintage and classic car enthusiasts say.

“For one thing, the electronics can screw you up,” Mr. Hughes, 76, told The Epoch Times.

“You mess up the electronics by arcing the battery. I’ll walk before I buy an electric vehicle. And I can’t hardly walk at all.“

Mr. Hughes of Casa Grande isn’t alone in criticizing the new car technology.

Mary Jo McDonald, a senior from Glendale, California, held similar views as she sat under an umbrella watching over her husband’s 1959 Pontiac Bonneville convertible with the hood open.

She said comparing vintage cars and newer models is like comparing cats and dogs.

“My husband is an electrical engineer. But the new stuff? It’s like Star Wars,” Ms. McDonald said.

Though her husband, Donald, has tried working on the newer cars, he’s been having trouble “getting all the bells and whistles to work,” she said.

“It’s complicated. You can figure out how the older vehicles come together and come apart. This car, he completely tore down and redid the whole thing.”

“There’s no comparison,” Ms. McDonald told The Epoch Times. “There are definite advantages to the new technology. But being in my 80s, I would rather have it the old way.”

According to national insurance company Progressive, the main differences between old and new vehicles are in their design, components, handling, and safety.

“Modern engines are much smarter, smaller, more powerful, and more efficient than older ones,” Progressive’s website states.

“Since they lack automated features, classic cars have a more hands-on driving experience, and they can be easier to work on yourself. And while newer cars will depreciate with age, classic car values tend to appreciate due to supply and demand, especially for well-maintained cars.”

The merger of automation and vehicle technology has taken decades since German carmaker Volkswagen introduced the first vehicle using a transistorized, electronically controlled fuel injection system in 1968, according to Chipsets.com.

The following year, Ford introduced the company’s first computer-controlled anti-skid braking system. Chrysler vehicles now feature Electronic Engine Control (EEC) technology introduced in 1973.

“Have you noticed a change in the picture you see under the hood of your car?” the Drivin’ & Vibin’ Team wrote in a May 27, 2022, online article.

“Vehicle repairs are certainly a lot more complicated than they used to be a couple of decades ago, and for a good reason.“

Compared with vehicles manufactured before 1990, newer cars and trucks have fewer moving parts, and they have onboard computers that control most engine functions, making things more complicated.

“It takes a lot more schooling to educate a professional mechanic properly,” the Drivin’ & Vibin’ Team wrote. “When designers came up with new car concepts back in the day, they focused more on making the vehicles easy for the typical owner to repair.

“Engineers designed vehicles to have more open space under the hood, and they had fewer electrical components to manage.”

Travis Rees-Fleming, 38, of Snowflake, Arizona, said he prefers simpler auto technology to the newer vehicles.

His 1962 Ford Ranchero was his favorite car.

“I’ve owned more cars than I have fingers,” Mr. Rees-Fleming said. “Other than oil changes, I don’t do any maintenance on the newer cars due to the increased amount of electronics they put into them.”

He said having in-laws who own an automotive repair shop makes repairs more convenient. But even they’re finding it more challenging to hire technicians with the skill set to fix newer vehicles.

“On top of that, you have the updated computer programming. You have to lease from the companies to be able to service their vehicles,” Mr. Rees-Fleming told The Epoch Times.

“It makes them harder to keep on the road if they have electronic issues. It can leave people stranded—dead in the water.“

“Up here, with the rats, if they chew through even one wire, your vehicle is down. You’ve got to get a tow to a dealership. The local service shops need technicians to work on those cars.”

Supply chain issues mean repairs take longer to complete. The average turnaround for body shops is 30 days, Mr. Rees-Fleming said.

He said it can take even longer with electric vehicles using complex lithium-ion batteries because of a lack of infrastructure to support them.

“We also run into battery shortages, mineral shortages, and charging stations,” he said. “Even with self-driving technology, there will be issues with vehicles not sensing certain roads,” he said.

Read the rest here…

Authored by Artis Shepherd via The Mises Institute,

It has become popular, especially in certain fields and among certain crowds, to glorify failure. So-called entrepreneurs and social influencers often brag about their failures. Multinational corporations publish poems encouraging failure. Vapid mottos rejecting the fear of failure are ubiquitous on motivational posters and T-shirts.

These efforts are apparently meant to convey an enterprising spirit and a fearlessness about trying new things in an effort to push the boundaries of a particular field.

While there’s tremendous value in attempting to achieve something worthwhile despite the risk of failure, failure itself is never the goal. And “learning from our failures” is part of the process of success, not an end in itself. Rejecting the fear of failure is not only impossible but harmful to human achievement.

They’re from the Government, and They’re Here to Help

What lies behind the attempt to bypass fear of failure is the perceived lack of any substantial cost to failure. And this lack is precisely why those who spout these trite mottos continue to fail. Rationalizing backward, it’s only natural for them to glorify the result they achieved.

The reason for this perception of the low cost of failure is that government involvement in every aspect of life has underscored the idea that someone will always be there to provide a safety net.

Can’t hold a job? Apply for welfare.

Gained three hundred pounds or twisted your ankle? Get on disability.

Your industry is falling behind cheaper and more efficient foreign suppliers? No worries, there are tariffs for that.

Can’t run a profitable company? Lobby the government for subsidies. Still not profitable? Encourage your colleagues in government to print money and create a financial bubble that allows you to use your inflated stock price to pay expenses. Still not profitable? Sell some of that inflated stock and cash in.

Picked a worthless field of study in school and nobody wants to hire you? Your student loan debt is cancelled.

And so on.

Lest the investment community get left out, this concept has carried over into capital markets as well, beginning with the Greenspan put of (mostly) the 1990s—an easing of monetary conditions anytime the stock market declined more than a trivial amount, most notably after the 1987 crash and the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000. Incidentally, this behavior was mimicked by all of Alan Greenspan’s successors and has had implications for asset prices across the board.

Burn Your Boats

Hundreds of years BC, the Macedonian army arrived in Persia to conquer their enemies. Questioning the feasibility of conquering the mighty Persians, the less weighty Macedonian army began to doubt their mission. Under the leadership of Alexander the Great, the decision was made to burn their own boats after landing on the Persian shore, leaving no possible escape. Hernan Cortez reportedly made the same maneuver when conquering the Aztecs nearly two thousand years later.

What these men knew is that a backup option would only diminish their sense of urgency. Cutting all cords and facing the decision to succeed or die instilled that sense of urgency, and glory followed.

With time, reliance on government, as opposed to a desire for freedom, has become more commonplace in America. If the trend continues, that reliance will be the source of severe disappointment.

It’s already the source of a gelded populace that no longer values self-reliance and productive ability.

The state is incapable of helping anyone or anything but itself, and as Canadian American psychotherapist and writer Nathaniel Branden often has said, “No one is coming to save you.”

Update(2100ET): In a rare moment of positive news, Netanyahu’s cabinet has approved the hostage release and ceasefire deal which has been long in development in the early hours of Wednesday morning (local). Below are the developing details of the deal (in an official govt. statement), which will see a multi-day ceasefire take effect – the first of the more than one-month long war which has claimed over 13,000 Palestinian lives and over 1,200 Israeli lives:

“The Israeli government is committed to bringing all the abductees home. Tonight, the government approved the outline for the first stage of achieving this goal, under which at least 50 abductees – women and children – will be released over a span of four days, during which there will be a lull in the fighting,” the statement said.

“The release of every ten additional abductees will result in an additional day of respite,” it added.

“The Israeli government, the IDF and the security forces will continue the war to return all the abductees, complete the elimination of Hamas and ensure that Gaza does not renew any threat to the State of Israel.”

A prisoner swap is a key feature of the deal. According to Israeli media, “Israel also agreed to release Palestinian women and minors from prison and let them return to their homes, mostly in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.”

“Israel has avoided offering a specific number, but Hebrew media has placed the figure at 150,” writes Times of Israel. “A Palestinian Authority minister told Al Arabiya on Tuesday that 350 jailed Palestinian minors and 82 jailed Palestinian women would be freed in the swap.”

So clearly the deal has been structured (with Qatari mediation) to be extended based on how the initial phase of the captive/prisoner releases goes.

* * *

Update(1417ET): Further details as reported in Israeli media, and as Netanyahu cabinet votes on approving the Qatar-mediated deal:

• Government meets on proposed deal to release some 50 Israeli hostages over 4 days of ceasefire
• Deal provides for more releases later
• Palestinian prisoners to be freed, but not murderers

However, even if the deal does get approved, and it is expected to, Israel’s military is vowing this won’t hinder its goal of eradicating Hamas.

IDF Spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said Tuesday, “The goal of returning the hostages is significant. Even if it results in the reduction of some of the other things, we will know how to restore our operational achievements.” He said this means the IDF will still focus on eliminating Hamas.

The White House this week issued rare, albeit somewhat tame, criticism of Israel’s bombing campaign…

This may be one of the first US criticisms of a mass-casualty strike in Gaza, but it’s still insufficient.

If a pause in fighting and release of (hopefully many) hostages is coming, @POTUS must use it to insist that Israel not resume bombing that even he called “indiscriminate.” https://t.co/51lCRmiqId

— Dylan Williams (@dylanotes) November 21, 2023

* * *

For the first time of the Gaza conflict, both Israeli and Hamas sources agree that a major deal for the mass release of hostages is “closer than it has ever been” and is in the “final stages” – according to a US official cited in Reuters Tuesday.

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh has agreed that they are “close to reaching a truce agreement” with Israel, and an official with PM Netanyahu’s office said “An announcement of a deal may be imminent.” CNBC is citing the Israeli prime minister’s office as saying a deal has been reached.

Sources in Reuters indicated the pending deal is to include a multi-day pause in fighting, with a prisoner exchange potentially seeing Hamas release some 50 Israeli civilian hostages. The Israelis, for their part, are expected to free female and minor-ages Palestinians in its custody.

Since Oct.7, Hamas has demanded the release of several thousand Palestinians who have long been in Israeli custody, some of them without having ever been charged.

Netanyahu on Tuesday issued his most optimistic statements yet regarding a deal: “We are making progress on the release of the hostages. I hope we will have good news soon,” he told a group of military reservists.

He’s reportedly holding a series of urgent Cabinet meetings to mull the details of the pending deal…

Israeli PM Netanyahu’s office has announced they will be holding a series of special Cabinet meetings today following reports that a deal with Hamas was close.

“An announcement of a deal may be imminent,” a diplomat with knowledge of the talks tells @keirsimmons. pic.twitter.com/VwH8m09aXv

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) November 21, 2023

Details reported by Axios based on diplomatic sources privy to the Qatar-mediated talks have been revealed:

• In the first phase of the two-phase deal, Hamas is expected to release 50 Israeli women and children held in Gaza, while Israel is expected to release around 150 Palestinian prisoners, mostly women and minors. Some of the Israeli hostages are dual citizens.
• The release of hostages and prisoners in the first phase of the deal would take place over four days of ceasefire in Gaza, one of the sources told Axios.
• As part of the deal, Israel would allow around 300 aid trucks per day to enter Gaza from Egypt.

A potential second phase of the deal could see 50 more released, and the ceasefire would be extended for multiple more days, per Axios:

• Israel would also release Palestinian prisoners at the same 3:1 ratio to the number of hostages freed.

While Tuesday has witnessed very optimistic international headlines and reporting, there have been several false starts concerning prior deals that proved premature, as the instance of a Washington Post story correction highlighted Monday.

Washington Post issues correction after wrongly reporting a U.S.-brokered deal to pause Israel-Hamas conflict https://t.co/Yvuoh3X8vL

— Fox News (@FoxNews) November 20, 2023

developing…