In the last few years, there has been a surge in the popularity of energy drinks among Gen Z consumers. Among these brands, one stands out particularly – PRIME. This energy drink is backed by two well-known YouTubers, Logan Paul and KSI, who have leveraged their online presence to market PRIME globally. According to reports, PRIME is projected to generate over $1.2 billion in revenue this year alone. 

Paul and KSI (aka Olajide Olatunji) have leveraged their millions of followers on various social media channels to push PRIME to Gen Zers. They’ve signed top sponsorship deals in the sports industry, like English Premier League football club Arsenal, Major League Baseball’s Los Angeles Dodgers, and Ultimate Fighting Championship. 

In an interview with Bloomberg, Paul said social media and sports sponsorships allow for brand exposure across many young audiences worldwide. 

“We have this thing called the cell phone that lets us reach every corner of the globe,” he said, adding, “We’d love to have our footprint in every country.”

Prime debuted in 2022 and, in its first year, recorded $250 million in sales. The billion-dollar brand is now challenging PepsiCo and Coca-Cola products on beverage aisle shelves in gas stations and supermarkets.  

Paul said PRIME is profitable and is not currently searching for new funding rounds but continues to search for marketing deals. The brand is operated by Louisville-based Congo Brands, which works with other social media influencers to push private-label drinks and supplements. 

“We never expected to be as big as it has become,” KSI said. He continued, “I know people who don’t know me or Logan. They just know Prime.”

However, PRIME has drawn scrutiny from regulators who warn the energy drink has dangerous levels of caffeine. 

Besides Paul and KSI, YouTuber “MrBeast” is another social media influencer who launched his own food brand, Feastables, in early 2022 and has chocolate bars called “MrBeast Bars” at major retail shops. 

Major food companies now must contend with social media users selling private-label food and wellness products to their audiences. 

Authored by Thorstein Polleit via The Mises Institute,

In the international fixed-income markets, interest rates are rising, and the decades-long trend of declining bond yields has undoubtedly been broken.

On August 2, 2022, the ten-year United States Treasury yield was 0.5 percent; on October 9, 2023, it had risen to 4.8 percent. Long-term interest rates in Europe, Asia, and Latin America have also risen sharply. The key reason for the rise in capital market interest rates is the central banks’ interest rate hikes—a direct response to sky-high inflation (caused by the central banks themselves, following a huge increase in the quantity of money).

Figure 1: Ten-year US Treasury bond yield with constant maturity from January 1981 to October 11, 2023 (percent)

Initially, financial markets expected only a relatively short phase of increased interest rates. At the beginning of March 2022, the US long-term interest rate fell below the short-term yield—so the yield curve became “inverted,” a clear indication that investors expected short-term interest rates to be cut sooner rather than later.

However, since July 2023 at the latest, long-term interest rates have been rising strongly and unabatedly. Something very fundamental has presumably happened—investors are no longer willing to hold US government debt at ultra-low yields as before. Where did the change of heart come from?

Investors may have become increasingly aware of the enormous debt problem in the US, which investors had taken lightly for so long: Uncle Sam is sitting on a mountain of debt worth more than thirty-three trillion US dollars, which is equivalent to around 123 percent of US gross domestic product (GDP). Plus, the debt dynamic is relentless: by the end of the decade, the debt could reach fifty trillion US dollars. Previous large buyers of US debt—such as Japan, China, Brazil, Russia, and Saudi Arabia—are no longer interested. Who will buy the huge flood of new US government bonds intended to finance deficits of around 6 percent of GDP in the coming years?

It appears that the US administration has squandered a lot of investor confidence, not least by freezing Russia’s foreign reserves at the beginning of 2020. It has since become abundantly clear to many investors from non-Western countries that US investments carry a political risk for them. Therefore, anyone who holds US dollars or invests in US debt securities demands a higher interest rate. It’s not just the US feeling the effects of this interest rate shock; the rest of the world isn’t spared either. The increased credit costs will make life difficult or even unaffordable for many debtors—consumers and producers.

The result will be an economic slowdown, more likely even a recession because loan defaults are already increasing again and will likely dry up the credit market.

The flow of new credit and money into the system will dwindle, and the demand for goods will decline. This will be particularly problematic for many highly indebted countries.

The mountains of debt they have accumulated and continue to increase are the result of a so-called Ponzi scheme—named after its “inventor” Charles Ponzi, probably the greatest fraudster of his time.

The state Ponzi scheme goes like this: States go into debt, and when the debt comes due years later, the states pay it off by taking on new debt—increasing the existing debt load. Investors buy the government bonds because they assume that there will be investors in the future who will buy the newly issued government bonds. In turn, these future investors assume that, in the even more remote future, there will also be investors who will buy the new debt that will be issued then. So on and so forth. Of course, no one here expects actual repayment, and to be true, repayment of the debt is impossible.

Now, interest rates have fallen over the last four decades, and the fraudulent game has worked quite well—for the states and the special interest groups that seek to harness this game for their own purposes. States could easily accumulate more and more debt, and the debt that became due could be refinanced with loans at ever-lower interest rates. Now, however, the situation has changed dramatically.

As I said, interest rates are rising while debt is already very high, and there will probably be a rude awakening soon. Investors have to fear a deterioration in the debt sustainability of many countries—especially since the probability that any country will abandon their debt-accumulating spending is fairly low. So, the expectation that there will be investors willing to subscribe to newly issued bonds at relatively low interest rates will be disappointed in the future.

Then, it won’t be long before investors start to worry and panic—because they understand that the foreseeable increase in debt-related interest payments will crush many states’ finances. The painful truth is that there is no easy way out of a Ponzi scheme—at least none that would not demystify the national debt and all the lies and deception that go with it.

Maybe the bond markets will calm down again before things get explosive? Will US long-term interest rates find a new footing at, say, 5.5 to 6.0 percent? Will interest rates like in the 1980s—bond yields of more than 10 percent—return? The correct answer to these questions is of utmost importance for investment success.

In my opinion, an imminent end to the rise in interest rates on both sides of the Atlantic is rather likely. After all, officially measured inflation is already falling noticeably, and banks are putting the brakes on lending. The money supply in the major economies is already shrinking as a result of central bank interest rate increases, and the consequences of this shrinking will force economic activity to its knees. Then, once the economy contracts and mass unemployment hits like a tidal wave, it is very likely that interest rate increases will be reversed soon.

Moreover, it should also be borne in mind that the powerful “fiat money system”—the collusion of states, banks, major institutional investors, and large companies—will not be so easy to upset. Should the rise in interest rates become too strong from a political point of view, yet another deep dive into the bag of tricks can be expected. Central banks, for example, will start buying government bonds again, thereby fixing long-term and short-term interest rates at “reasonable” levels. Of course, all of these monetary policy tricks basically amount to one thing: paying off the outstanding bills with newly created money—or in other words, inflation policy.

That is the big lesson that can be drawn from the interest rate shock resulting from the Ponzi scheme in the debt markets: the systematic decline in the purchasing power of money, even if short-term relief is granted, is almost certain.

Last night the GOP lost several races that should have been layups – from Glenn Youngkin’s failed bid to capture control of the Virginia legislature, to Daniel Cameron’s Gubernatorial loss in deep-red Kentucky.

The demoralizing loss left many on social media and elsewhere calling for the ouster of GOP Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, who oversaw a losing streak stretching back to the 2018 midterms.

“What, exactly, does Ronna McDaniel do, besides lose?” asked former Trump administration official Monica Crowley on X. “The only thing she SHOULD do is RESIGN. Effective immediately.”

What, exactly, does Ronna McDaniel do, besides lose?

The only thing she SHOULD do is RESIGN.

Effective immediately.

— Monica Crowley (@MonicaCrowley) November 8, 2023

“FIRE RINO RONNA MCDANIEL NOW!” tweeted Florida congressional candidate Anthony Sabatini, an Army veteran, adding “Ronna McDaniel will go down as the worst RNC Chair in history.”

FIRE RINO RONNA MCDANIEL NOW!

— Anthony Sabatini (@AnthonySabatini) November 8, 2023

McDaniel has also come under fire for picking NBC to host Wednesday night’s GOP debate.

Journalist John Solomon called for McDaniel to resign following the GOP’s dismal performance, telling former Trump strategist Steve Bannon:

“Republicans keep giving Ronna McDaniel a promotion. They keep moving her on. They keep hiring her for another season.”

Donald Trump has to make — I think, if he wants to win — all the people I’ve talked to in the last 12 hours — by the way, a lot of people saw this train wreck coming two days ago. They saw the early voting totals weren’t really where they needed to be. They were worried about get out the vote. They were getting killed in the messaging. But, if your manager keeps losing World Series, usually, at least George Steinbrenner, in this Donald Trump-era of New York, he’d fire the manager. They keep keeping Ronna McDaniel despite all of the problems that are there.”

🚨 Steve Bannon and John Solomon are calling for Ronna Romney McDaniel to resign after the GOP’s performance in elections last night

pic.twitter.com/yAHjk2Kv3c

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) November 8, 2023

As Solomon’s Just the News notes, it doesn’t stop there:

Whether McDaniel survives her full term will depend in large part on whether Donald Trump, leading the 2024 GOP presidential race handily in the polls, turns on her.

Trump in January supported McDaniel over conservative lawyer Harmeet Dhillon for a third term as RNC chair even after a disappointing 2022 election in which the GOP underperformed and failed to capture the U.S. Senate and barely won the U.S. House despite polls showing Republicans with a huge before-election advantage.

Since taking charge in 2017, McDaniel has been a master fundraiser, but her team lost control of the U.S. House in 2018, the White House and Senate in 2020 and underperformed in the 2022 and 2023 races, with a few exceptions.

Last month, Republican Jeff Landry won the Louisiana governorship by winning a majority in the open primary to reclaim the state mansion after eight years of Democrat rule. A Republican won a key race Tuesday in Long Island for the first time in two decades while Gov. Tate Reeves in Mississippi survived a tougher than expected challenge from a distant cousin of Elvis Presley.

The common denominator in Tuesday’s losses – abortion, which you may recall Trump mentioned as a key sticking point that Republicans were going to need to compromise over. 

Even deep-red Ohio supports abortion rights by a margin of 55%, according to the report. Abortion also factored in for Pennsylvania’s election, where a Democrat judge landed a seat on the state’s Supreme Court ahead of the 2024 election.

“We can’t win until we solve the political problem of abortion,” wrote conservative activist Terry Schilling. “That means 15 week limits, with exceptions. And candidates have to run ads to counter Dem attacks. There’s no other way.”

“We can’t save lives, if we can’t win elections,” said Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who added “If pro-life Republicans want to actually save lives, they have to learn to LISTEN TO WOMEN and talk about abortion AND contraception. Roe repeal changed the playing field and the conversation, and too many are stuck in the policies and arguments of the past.”

“We need to talk about common sense abortion restrictions, while also promoting expanded access to contraception including over the counter. We need to make sure exceptions for rape and incest are included in EVERY law we pass. And we need to constantly remind voters they don’t agree with the Left’s actual position of abortion until birth,” Mace added.

Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

The dollar has been extremely strong over the past two years. This persistent dollar strength has been a mystery to many. After all, the dollar’s problems are well known.

The ratio of government debt to GDP for the United States is at a record high approaching 130% (a prudent level is considered 30%, and anything over 90% is a headwind to any economic growth at all).

The U.S. is running multitrillion-dollar deficits year after year. The Congress and White House seem in the grip of Modern Monetary Theory, which claims that the U.S. can run unlimited deficits and accumulate unlimited debt without economic harm because it can print money in unlimited quantities to finance the debt and spending.

Meanwhile, projected annualized interest payments on the U.S. national debt exceeded $1 trillion at the end of October, according to Bloomberg. The cost of debt service has doubled in the past 19 months as interest rates have risen.

This fiscal profligacy comes against a backdrop of social unrest and political dysfunction. We’re facing a presidential election next year in which one candidate, Biden, is senile and the other candidate, Trump, may be behind bars on Election Day.

Take your pick. But the dollar keeps on chugging along. How can the dollar be so strong against such a dismal landscape?

There are two answers to this question.

Answer No. 1

The first is that the dollar has its problems, but other currencies are in even worse shape. For example, the Chinese yuan is on the brink of collapse being held aloft by non-sustainable intervention by Chinese banks.

The Japanese yen is joined at the hip with the yuan because of the extent of Japanese investment in China financed by Japanese banks. With the yuan going down, the yen will go down in sync.

So that’s two major currencies with problems.

Meanwhile, Europe and the U.K. have deindustrialized under the sway of the greeniacs pushing the Green New Scam policies. Now Europe faces a winter of freezing in the dark if cold weather is extreme and Russia decides to turn off the energy taps.

Germany, the largest economy in the eurozone, is heading for recession if it isn’t already in one, and the same is true for the U.K. That’s two more major currencies facing troubles.

So yes, the dollar has its problems, but as an investor do you really prefer sterling, euros, yen or yuan?

Answer No. 2

The second reason for the dollar’s strength is much more technical and not well understood, but it’s critical to grasp. You don’t need to nail down the technical details; it’s enough that you understand the bigger picture.

It involves the so-called Eurodollar.

Eurodollars are dollar-denominated deposits held at foreign offices of major banks, and therefore fall outside the jurisdiction of the Fed and U.S. banking regulations.

The Fed actually has very little influence over the global dollar market and the exchange value of the dollar. The old currency metrics of balance of trade and moves in capital accounts are leftovers from the world of fixed exchange rates, which have been gone for decades.

What drives the dollar is the Eurodollar market, as conducted by the world’s largest banks in London, New York and Tokyo. It’s here where global liquidity and interest rates are actually determined.

The Eurodollar market needs a constant supply of depositors parking their money in offshore offices of major banks.

Right now, this market is in contraction.

Derivatives are being unwound, balance sheets are being trimmed and interbank overnight lending is being financed with collateral.

And these banks are demanding the best collateral. They won’t accept corporate debt, mortgages or even intermediate-term U.S. Treasuries. The only acceptable collateral consists of short-term U.S. Treasury bills, the shorter the better. This means 1-month, 3-month and 6-month bills.

Those are denominated in dollars, of course. In order to get the bills to post as collateral, banks have to buy dollars to buy the bills. This has created enormous demand for dollars. And that partly accounts for the strength of the dollar.

Again, it’s not important that you understand the intricacies of the eurodollar system, just that high dollar demand in the Eurodollar market is contributing to dollar strength.

The fundamental dollar shortage problem is not going away soon, and will continue to support the dollar.

What About a New BRICS Currency?

What about the prospect of a BRICS currency union and the move toward a new currency? I wrote a lot about that ahead of the BRICS Leadership Summit that took place back in August.

This new currency would be gold-linked and would displace the dollar in time as a major player in world trade.

Shouldn’t that be weakening the dollar?

After all, the prospect of a BRICS currency should pose a severe threat to the petrodollar, which is a pillar of dollar strength.

But this movement is still in its infancy and, unsurprisingly, is experiencing growing pains.

It’s not yet as unified as it needs to be if it’s going to seriously threaten the dollar. And one of those BRICS nations — India — seems to be playing both sides.

It was recently reported that India’s government is expected to reject demands from Russian oil companies to pay for Russia’s crude oil imports in Chinese yuan.

Russia currently has a surplus of rupees and is having trouble spending them. At the same time, demand for yuan has grown as Russia trades more with China.

Meanwhile, India mostly uses the dirham and U.S. dollar to pay for Russian oil imports. Basically, India is currently in a balancing act. They consider Russia an important economic ally while they consider China a geopolitical rival.

India fears popularizing the yuan will hurt its own efforts to internationalize the rupee. In fact, India was the only BRICS nation to oppose the introduction of a common currency, fearing it would benefit the yuan.

India’s refusal to give in to Russia’s demands leaves a significant role for the dollar, which is another reason to believe the dollar will retain its strength for the foreseeable future.

The Golden Ruler

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the dollar is strong. It isn’t, for all the reasons I listed above. It’s just stronger than its competitors, and that’s why it appears strong.

Is there some way to tell if the dollar is actually getting stronger or weaker without making reference to other currencies?

Yes. The answer is gold. Think of gold as a ruler that measures dollar strength or weakness.

Gold has gained close to 10% over the past month or so. I expect gold to become much stronger, despite some temporary setbacks along the way.

Investors should consider today’s prices a gift and perhaps a last chance to acquire gold at these prices before the real safe haven race begins.

Below $2,000, gold is so cheap right now, it’s practically a steal. I strongly urge you to take advantage.

Moments ago the week’s second, and most important, coupon auction priced when the Treasury sold $40BN in 10 year paper, in a sale that was mediocre and tailing, yet had enough foreign demand to be strong enough not to disrupt the sharp rally that has taken yields to session lows.

With on concession to speak of thanks to the sharp intraday rally which pulled yields lower by 7bps, the 10Y auction priced at a high yield of 4.519%, down notably from the 4.610% last month, if still the second highest going back all the way to 2007. Perhaps more notably, the auction tailed the When Issued 4.511% by 0.8bps. This was the 9th consecutive auction where we have not seen a stop through (i.e., either tailed, or was “on the screws”); as shown below, the last time a 10Y auction stopped through was February 2023.

Going down the list, the bid to cover was also subpar, dropping to 2.45 from 2.50, the lowest since June and below the six-auction average of 2.49.

The internals were the only bright light, with Indirects rising sharply from 60.3 to 69.7%, the highest since August, and above the recent average of 66.1%. And with Directs awarded just 15.2, the lowest since February 2022, Dealers also saw a drop in their award, which at 15.1 was the lwoest in two months, if fractionally above the 14.2 recent average.

Overall, this was a mediocre tailing auction (due to lack of concessions) yet one which failed to have an adverse impact on the market due to the jump in Indirects.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is currently at a Group of Seven summit in Tokyo, where he told a press briefing on the sidelines that “it is clear that Israel cannot occupy Gaza” on a permanent basis.

The comments affirm that Washington has been intensely involved in talks concerning what happens after the war. “Gaza cannot be continued to be run by Hamas. That simply invites repetition of Oct. 7… It’s also clear that Israel cannot occupy Gaza,” Blinken said after meeting with G7 foreign ministers.

“Now, the reality is that there may be a need for some transition period at the end of the conflict … We don’t see a reoccupation and what I’ve heard from Israeli leaders, is that they have no intent to reoccupy Gaza.”

Earlier this week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he foresees Israeli troops overseeing the security of Gaza “for an indefinite period” after Hamas is defeated. He appeared to reject headlines suggesting a multinational peacekeeping force would fill the role. 

“I think Israel will for an indefinite period have security responsibility,” Netanyahu told ABC News. “We’ve seen what happens when we don’t have that… security responsibility, what we have is the eruption of Hamas terror on a scale that we couldn’t imagine.”

The words are being widely interpreted as a sign of growing disagreement between the US and Israel over the crisis. The divide is sharpening and becoming more and more public, also after on Monday Netanyahu rejected Biden’s request for a three-day humanitarian ‘pause’ in a phone call. On top of this remains the growing international pressure over the immense civilian death toll in Gaza, having surpassed 10,000 people by the start of the week:

And the mounting death toll and humanitarian crisis have fueled growing outrage. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s suggestion that Israel would maintain “overall security responsibility” for Gaza when the conflict ends raised new questions over what his country plans, and drew a new warning from the White House.

There was also growing evidence of fallout in the United States, where tensions have been high on city streets and college campuses. House lawmakers censured Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the sole Palestinian American in Congress, over her remarks and actions in response to the Israel-Hamas war.

Meanwhile, IDF troops have been circulating photos like the following from Gaza:

PHOTO: Israel is back in #Gaza – and we ARE HERE TO STAY in our ancestral land and our ancient beaches!!! pic.twitter.com/8vvWnWjp9m

— Yishai Fleisher يشاي ישי פליישר 🕎 (@YishaiFleisher) November 8, 2023

The Biden White House has lately been mulling a plan behind the scenes that would see international peacekeeping forces control the security situation in the Gaza Strip once the war is over, which is premised on the total demise of Hamas, proving no small task especially given the immense network of miles of tunnels the group can utilize.

The post-Hamas “day after” has also been subject of proposals out of some leading Congressmen. There was speculation at first that Israeli leadership might welcome this, but the Netanyahu remarks in the ABC interview reveal different thinking in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

This week civilians in Gaza have been seen fleeing from the northern half of the Strip to the south while holding large white flags, after in some prior instances civilians were killed by Israeli airstrikes while traversing north-south roadways.

As for the G7 meeting, a statement produced from Tokyo said it also supports Ukraine’s defense against Russia “for as long as it takes.” The G7 statement also took aim at alleged Russian-North Korean weapons transfers, and also heavily criticized China on a range of issues.

Via SchiffGold.com,

The Federal Reserve operates under a dual mandate from Congress – to achieve maximum employment and stable prices. In a recent podcast, Peter Schiff explained why the Fed won’t achieve either.

The FOMC held its November meeting last week. As expected, the Fed left interest rates unchanged. Peter said you can almost always count on the central bank to do what is expected.

The Fed never wants to confound expectations. They never want to surprise the markets. So, if the markets expect no rate hike, well, they deliver no rate hike, and that’s what happened.”

During his prepared remarks, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell acknowledged the “economic hardship” caused by price inflation. But Peter said he doesn’t seem to grasp the full picture.

Since inflation is caused by the government, and caused by the Federal Reserve, it’s the government and the Fed that are creating that hardship. It’s not like it’s just happening out of left field.”

It’s an intentional policy. The government has decided that it will pay for its borrowing and spending through an inflation tax.

Now, had they used another form of taxation, had the Biden administration, and the Trump administration for that matter, had they raised taxes enough to pay for all of these government programs, that would have created hardship too. Families would be struggling under the burden of crushing taxation. So because the government decided to tax them through inflation as opposed to through the income tax or the payroll tax, the hardship that is being created is because of government. It’s not just something that’s happening by happenstance.”

Powell also reiterated that the goal is “price stability.” Nobody ever bothers to ask, “Why?” What’s so good about price stability?

What about lower prices? Because price stability, the way a normal person would define it, is prices stay the same. Well, I’m a consumer. I’d rather have prices go down than prices remain the same. So, what if prices went down 1% a year, or 2% a year? Why is that so bad? Why does the Fed have to replace that with stability?”

Peter said we don’t really need “price stability.”

It’s really a BS goal.”

And we don’t even actually have a goal of price stability. The goal is for prices to go up 2%.

There’s nothing stable about that other than the rate of increase.”

After the Fed meeting, Powell admitted the central bank isn’t anywhere near that goal and that this is a long process.

He’s underestimating. Waiting for inflation to go to 2% is going to be like waiting for Godot. It’s never going to happen.”

During the Q&A, Powell emphasized that we have a “very strong” economy. Just two days later, we got a very weak jobs report. (Peter talked about this earlier in the podcast.)

How is the economy so strong if the labor market is that weak? … I don’t know what Powell is looking at. I think he’s just reading a script that the Biden administration handed him because he’s just reiterating their talking points to talk up the economy so Biden can get credit for it.”

The question is how will Powell respond when the labor market continues to deteriorate? That would imply the Fed should stop hiking. But as Peter pointed out, one of the reasons the labor market is weakening is because price inflation is strengthening. How can he focus on a weakening labor market and ignore strengthening inflation?

Meanwhile, Powell continued to insist that we need to see a slowdown in economic growth and some “dampening” in the labor market in order to “fully restore price stability.” In other words, he wants to see more people lose their jobs. That’s because he thinks people are spending because they are doing well, that spending is creating more jobs, and also pushing wages higher. Peter said people are spending more because prices are going up.

They’re spending because the money supply has gone up. They’ve got more money to spend, and they’re spending because they’re still able to access credit. They’re taking that borrowed money and spending it. This is not how you grow an economy. This is how you destroy an economy. This is not a virtuous dynamic that he is describing. It is a vicious one that is going to end in ruin. Because you don’t grow an economy by people spending money.”

You grow an economy by not spending money and saving. That provides seed corn for capital investment. That increases productivity creating more output.

You produce your way to prosperity. You save your way, and then invest and produce your way into prosperity. We’re not doing that. We’re trying to put the cart before the horse.”

Peter reiterated that we don’t have a strong economy. We have an inflationary economy.

It’s inflation that is driving everything. Powell just doesn’t realize that. He’s looking at the ‘strong’ economy, and he’s thinking everything is good. He’s looking at inflation. He just doesn’t understand that.”

Peter said he doesn’t think there are any more rabbits the central bankers can pull out of their hats or any road left where they can kick the can. The economy is about to implode and inflation is alive and well. That means the Fed can chuck both its mandates right out the window.

Five candidates have met the criteria needed to appear on stage for the third Republican 2024 presidential debate in Miami on Nov. 8, according to the Republican National Committee (RNC).

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, businessman and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) have all qualified for the latest debate and will take to the stage at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts of Miami-Dade County.

All five of the GOP 2024 presidential candidates made the cut after polling at least 4 percent in two national polls or 4 percent in a national poll as well as two polls from four of the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

The Republican White House hopefuls also needed to receive a minimum of 70,000 unique donors, with at least 200 of those coming from 20 states or territories.

Additionally, the candidates had to sign a number of RNC pledges, including promising to support the party’s eventual nominee.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum failed to qualify for Wednesday’s GOP presidential debate and won’t appear on stage, according to the RNC, nor will former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who qualified for and participated in the first debate but did not make the stage for the second one in Southern California.

Former Vice President Mike Pence dropped out of the race in October.

Elsewhere, former President Donald Trump, who did not appear at the first two debates (and is scheduled to skip this one), surpassed the donor and polling requirements with ease, according to an analysis by NBC News, and will instead hold a rally at Ted Hendricks Stadium in nearby Hialeah, Florida.

But, as Jackson Richman writes at The Epoch Times, while this will be an opportunity for the GOP candidates to appeal to those beyond the conservative echo chamber, it isn’t without facing NBC’s left-wing bias.

Following conservative Fox News and Fox Business hosting the first two Republican presidential primary debates, a liberal media outlet is set to put on the third one to the displeasure of conservative media critics.

NBC News will broadcast the Nov. 8 debate from the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts of Miami-Dade County in Florida.

This debate is an opportunity to appeal to voters outside the right-wing echo chamber.

Rick Edmonds, media business analyst at the centrist Poynter Institute for Media Studies, told The Epoch Times that NBC “makes sense,” given that “the Republican candidates need now to be thinking about how they can appeal to a broader swath of voters should they win the primary.”

John Ziegler, a right-wing media critic, told The Epoch Times that the debate will be an opportunity for the candidates to appeal to independents—although President Trump holds a commanding lead in the primary.

Mr. Edmonds noted that in 2012, Brian Williams, then-anchor for the NBC Nightly News, hosted one of the Republican primary debates and asked about the issues, not parroting Democrat sentiments.

However, don’t expect that attitude to be echoed during this debate, according to Mr. Edmonds.

Pushback

NBC has come under fire from conservatives for the network’s left-wing media bias.

While the Republican candidates should face tough questions, there’s a difference between playing hardball and being a propagandist, according to Emily Jashinsky, director of the conservative National Journalism Center and the culture editor of the right-wing outlet The Federalist.

Ms. Jashinsky remarked that left-wing outlets such as NBC News can’t be moved to be objective toward Republicans.

“Repeatedly giving those outlets access rewards bad behavior and does voters a disservice,” she told The Epoch Times.

Ms. Jashinsky said the RNC’s decision to pick NBC News as the broadcaster for the debate is “a totally unforced error,” as it would enable the outlet to unfairly cover Republican voters.

“Republicans should face tough questions from the left, but they shouldn’t help leftists pretending to be neutral journalists keep lying to the public about their biases,” she said.

Nicholas Fondacaro, an analyst at the right-wing Media Research Center, told The Epoch Times: “It’s disappointing to see the RNC award a debate to a network that has no interest in giving Republicans a fair shake on the stage or at the ballot box. After previous debates this cycle, NBC was one of the networks that voiced exacerbation that the primary process was still playing out despite Trump being the front-runner and not attending.”

After all, Mr. Fondacaro said, there are outlets other than Fox News, Fox Business, and NBC News that could have hosted the third debate, including The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, NewsNation, and Newsmax.

Will the Debate Be Fair?

But the Republican National Committee doesn’t seem to be worried about the possibility of left-wing bias from moderators Kristen Welker, anchor of Meet the Press, and Lester Holt, anchor of NBC Nightly News.

“I am eager to announce that the RNC has selected NBC News, Salem Radio Network, the Republican Jewish Coalition, and Rumble as our partners for the third Republican primary debate in Miami,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement.

The third moderator, Hugh Hewitt, is a conservative radio host, but “even he will be ineffective in whatever questions he asks,” according to Mr. Ziegler.

“But he’s there as a token so that conservatives feel like it’s not a complete left-wing crap show,” he said.

Nonetheless, the RNC stated, “The partners for our third debate will offer our candidates an excellent opportunity to meet the moment and contrast their plans and vision with the failures of the Biden White House.”

But according to critics, that’s wishful thinking.

Former Fox News producer Eduardo Neret, who lives in Miami, told The Epoch Times that left-wing outlets such as NBC News shouldn’t broadcast GOP primary debates.

“Mainstream and left-wing media outlets don’t care about conservatives,” he said.

“They oppose conservatives on every issue and work to suppress and smear conservative voices and beliefs. That’s apparently not obvious to the RNC.”

Ms. Jashinsky said: “Like most political institutions, the RNC faces enormous pressures from legacy media. They’re convinced they can negotiate with companies like NBC News when, in reality, they’re just getting rolled and are trying to make themselves feel better about it.”

Mr. Fondacaro predicted that the moderators will ask the candidates questions about issues such as climate change that are usually not of interest to Republican voters. Mr. Neret said to “expect Lester Holt and Kristen Welker to run interference for the Democratic Party on a host of other issues.”

“And unlike the Fox News debates, they’re sure to make it largely about the guy who’s not there,” Mr. Fondacaro said, referring to President Trump.

“Expect loads of questions about January 6, Trump’s legal woes, and maybe even some loyalty questions.”

Mr. Ziegler concurred with Mr. Fondacaro but went as far as to call the debate farcical and cynical given President Trump’s domination in the primary polls.

“They don’t care that these candidates are being fed to the wolves because they’re perfectly fine and maybe even in favor of Donald Trump being the nominee,” Mr. Ziegler said.

“So this is all going to favor Donald Trump just like the first debate did, just like the second debate did, and the third debate will. It’s Groundhog Day.”

Mr. Fondacaro suggested NBC News wants a Trump–Biden rematch because the incumbent could win a second term if he faces his predecessor.

Mr. Neret called for Mr. Holt and Ms. Welker to ask “questions on issues that primary voters care about, like immigration, crime, and the economy.”

Neither the RNC nor NBC responded to a request for comment on possible bias from Ms. Welker and Mr. Holt.

NBC Universal’s Recent History of Moderating Debates

This won’t be the first time NBC Universal will have a GOP presidential primary debate on any of its platforms.

In 2015, CNBC hosted such a debate—moderated by John Harwood, Becky Quick, and Carl Quintanilla—that was denounced for being biased against the 2016 GOP presidential primary field.

Mr. Harwood asked, in a snarky tone, then-candidate Trump if he was running “a comic book version of a presidential campaign” by calling for a wall on the southern border, the deportation of 11 million illegal aliens and, in Mr. Harwood’s words, “[making] Americans better off because your greatness would replace the stupidity and incompetence of others.”

Mr. Quintanilla asked Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) about missing Senate votes in order to be on the campaign trail with, “Do you hate your job?” He asked this question repeatedly.

He asked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), regarding a debt ceiling agreement, “Does your opposition to it show that you’re not the kind of problem-solver American voters want?”

Mr. Cruz fired back with a summary of the bias during the debate.

“You know, let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,” he said.

“This is not a cage match. And if you look at the questions: Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?

“How about talking about the substantive issues.”

Mr. Cruz went as far as to tell the moderators that they have no “intention of voting in a Republican primary.”

Then-RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said the moderators did “a disservice to their network, our candidates and voters.”

Mr. Holt moderated the first debate of the 2016 general election cycle, where he baselessly accused President Trump of “calling for tax cuts for the wealthy.”

Ms. Welker, who moderated the second debate of the 2020 general election cycle, seemed to ignore the science that the risk of children suffering from or dying of COVID-19 is low. She asked President Trump what is his “message to parents who worry that sending their children to school will endanger not only their kids, but also their teachers and families.”

At the end of the day, Ms. Jashinsky said, “NBC News likely won’t do a good job covering issues Republican voters care about, but even if they touched on the right topics, it would still be presented with dishonest and counterproductive framing, which is why the debate is a giant missed opportunity to push legacy media to do better with a stick, not a carrot, and a giant missed opportunity to work with a new media outlet that treats Republicans fairly.”

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The US has already given Ukraine $75 billion. Biden wants another $100 billion for Ukraine and Israel. What exactly is the mission?

It seems to me that if we are going to give foreign nations hundreds of billions of dollars, we ought to have defined goals and a method of achieving them.

White House Announcement

In a White House Announcement on October 20, here are Remarks by President Biden on the United States’ Response to Hamas’s Terrorist Attacks Against Israel and Russia’s Ongoing Brutal War Against Ukraine

“You know, history has taught us that when terrorists don’t pay a price for their terror, when dictators don’t pay a price for their aggression, they cause more chaos and death and more destruction. They keep going, and the cost and the threats to America and to the world keep rising. ”

Lovely, But What’s the Goal?

Dear Mr. President, your statement sounds lovely. But what is the mission? What is the goal? How long are we willing to keep funding Ukraine and Israel to get it?

Biden says he supports a two-state solution. O.K.If that’s the idea, then why are we handing out hundreds of billions of dollars with no strings attached?

Over the years, the US has given Israel about $130 billion. What, if anything, do we have to show for it?

On NATO

“For 75 years, NATO has kept peace in Europe and has been the cornerstone of American security.  And if Putin attacks a NATO Ally, we will defend every inch of NATO which the treaty requires and calls for.”

That sounds lovely too, except to thinking individuals. By the way, how much is Germany contributing to NATO?

Germany is about 960 miles from Ukraine, by road. The US is 5,600 miles away by plane.

Why is it that the US is providing nearly all the aid to Ukraine and Israel?

What Price Do We Pay?

The US has no readily discernable mission statement other than Biden’s comments to make terrorists and Putin pay a price.

What price are we willing to pay to make Putin pay a price? $200 billion? $500 billion? A trillion? Unlimited? For what precise goals? When?

Biden’s statements may sound pretty unless you really ponder the implications: We are handing out hundreds of billions of dollars for wars that are essentially none of our business, with no strings attached.

We deserve answers. But don’t expect any.

The US spent trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan without ever having a stated mission, goals, or an end game. Afghanistan lasted 20 years. US military is still in Iraq.

And here we go again.

Meanwhile, Biden’s Democratic Coalition is Splintering Over Israel and the Economy

Also, please see Five Alarm Bell – Biden Trails Trump in Five of Six Battleground States

If Biden goes down in flames over this, at least will have gotten something for our money.

One Question Answered

Meanwhile, please note we do have an answer to a question I asked previously.

Q: How long are we willing to keep funding Israel with no strings attached?

A: Indefinitely, of course.

The US industrial military complex will settle for nothing less. And the best way to ensure “indefinitely” lasts for 20 years or longer is to not have a clear mission or clear goals.

Shares of Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. jumped more than 10% in premarket trading in New York following reports from Bloomberg sources that Grand Theft Auto VI will be released in December.

Rockstar Games, a subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., announced in Feb. 2022 that development was underway for the next Grand Theft Auto game. The upcoming release next month will mark the 25th anniversary of the action-adventure series that first debuted in 1997. 

Last September, hackers published hours of footage from unfinished versions of the video game online. One of the most significant differences in the new version of the game is a playable female protagonist named “Lucia.”

GTA 6 will be the first release since GTA 5 debuted in 2013 and has sold more than 185 million copies, making it the second-best-selling video game ever, behind Minecraft. The game features gang violence, nudity, extremely coarse language, and drug and alcohol abuse – not suitable for children – but over the years, that has not stopped youth from playing the game. 

“GTA 6 RELEASE DATE + TRAILER DROPPING NEXT WEEK,” one user on X said. 

Folks have been waiting ten years for GTA VI. 

We’ve been waiting 10 years for GTA 6!! pic.twitter.com/Z8g6rISYXj

— Joe | GTA 6 Info (@GTASixInfo) November 8, 2023

Shares of Take-Two Interactive jumped 10%. 

The planned release of the violent video game comes as America’s youth has been desensitized to violence – just take a look at the lawlessness in metro areas (read: here & here) – thank Hollywood. Meanwhile, progressive lawmakers ignore media companies pushing violent video games and movies and instead focus on disarming law-abiding Americans.