Update (1830ET): The House Financial Services Committee confirmed that former FTX Chief Executive Officer Sam Bankman-Fried will testify at a hearing next week on the disintegration of his crypto exchange and hedge fund.

Bloomberg reports that Bankman-Fried will testify virtually.

He is now listed as a witness alongside current FTX CEO John J. Ray III, according to a media advisory the committee sent out late Friday. This should be fun since Ray described FTX’s collapse in recent court filings as an “unprecedented debacle” brought on by a culture of lax corporate governance.

“Never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information as occurred here,” Mr. Ray said in the filing.

The hearing will be split into two parts, each one featuring one of the men.

*  *  *

Update (0720ET): Having missed yesterday’s deadline to respond to a request to testify at an upcoming Senate Committee hearing, Sam Bankman-Fried

1) I still do not have access to much of my data — professional or personal. So there is a limit to what I will be able to say, and I won’t be as helpful as I’d like.

But as the committee still thinks it would be useful, I am willing to testify on the 13th. https://t.co/KR34BsNaG1

— SBF (@SBF_FTX) December 9, 2022

He continued…

2) I will try to be helpful during the hearing, and to shed what light I can on:

• FTX US’s solvency and American customers

• Pathways that could return value to users internationally

• What I think led to the crash

• My own failings

3) I had thought of myself as a model CEO, who wouldn’t become lazy or disconnected.

Which made it that much more destructive when I did.

I’m sorry.  Hopefully people can learn from the difference between who I was and who I could have been.

Presumably there is zero chance he will testify in person.

Does anyone believe this is anything but stalling for time?

Meanwhile, Binance founder ‘CZ’ went off on Twitter overnight, lambasting Kevin O’Leary’s ‘woe is me’ tale of wrongdoing by SBF, and detailing the attacks he himself suffered at the hands of the inclusive left’s (second) favorite donor:

As an early investor in FTX, we became increasingly uncomfortable with Alameda/SBF and initiated the exit process more than 1.5 years ago.

Sam was so unhinged when we decided to pull out as an investor that he launched a series of offensive tirades at multiple Binance team members, including threatening to go to “extraordinary lengths to make us pay” – we still have those text messages.

Shortly after that Sam began “investing” in friends in high places – from media, to policymakers, to celebrities (like Kevin). And he used that network to manipulate public opinion, including attacking me and others in the industry.

My ethnicity was a focus of those attacks and @kevinolearytv signaled his intention to continue those attacks in the media and will likely repeat them at next week’s Senate hearing. I’m Canadian and Binance is not a Chinese company.

You don’t have to be a genius to know something don’t smell right at FTX. They were 1/10th our size, yet outspent us 100/1 on marketing & “partnerships”, fancy parties in the Bahamas, trips across the globe, and mansions for all of their senior staff (and his parents).

Which appears to have pissed SBF off…

You won, @cz_binance.

There’s no need to lie, now, about the buyout.

We initiated conversations around buying you out, and we decided to do it because it was important for our business.

And while I was frustrated with your ‘negotiation’ tactics, I chose to still do it.

— SBF (@SBF_FTX) December 9, 2022

But hey, he did say he was sorry, right?

As CoinTelegraph’s Martin Young detailed earlier, Crypto’s public enemy number one, Sam Bankman-Fried has missed a crucial deadline to confirm his appearance at an upcoming Senate Committee hearing.

The former FTX CEO missed a Thursday 5:00 pm ET on Dec. 8 deadline for responding to a Senate Banking Committee request that he testify at the Committee meeting on Dec. 14. This has set up the possibility of a congressional subpoena.

On Dec. 8, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Sherrod Brown, and ranking member of the Committee, Senator Pat Toomey, released a statement on the request.

“FTX’s collapse has caused real financial harm to consumers, and effects have spilled over into other parts of the crypto industry. The American people need answers about Sam Bankman-Fried’s misconduct at FTX,” they stated before adding:

“The Committee has requested that he testify at our upcoming hearing on FTX’s collapse, and will consider further action if he does not comply.”

According to the official Committee website, the hearing titled “Crypto Crash: Why the FTX Bubble Burst and the Harm to Consumers” will be webcast on Dec. 14.

So far, two witnesses have been confirmed to attend the hearing — including American University Washington College of Law professor Hilary J. Allen and actor and author Ben McKenzie Schenkkan.

Allen is an academic whose research focuses on the impact of new financial technologies on the stability of the financial system.

Schenkkan is an anti-crypto actor-turned-commentator who played a troubled teenager on a U.S. television series called “The O.C.”

Messari founder Ryan Selkis commented on the futility of the witness selection:

The Senate Banking FTX hearing is a complete goat rodeo and mockery of the system.

I offered to go even though it would have been a distraction, but instead the Senate opted for the former child star of the OC and a “never crypto” academic.

Another waste of taxpayer $$$.

— Ryan Selkis 🥷 (@twobitidiot) December 9, 2022

Meanwhile, Cointelegraph has reached out to Schenkkan for comment but did not receive a response at the time of publication.

Other than the Dec. 14 Senate Banking Committee hearing, Bankman-Fried has also been requested to attend a separate hearing called “Investigating the Collapse of FTX” on Dec. 13 with the U.S. House Financial Services Committee.

Bankman-Fried was first requested to attend the hearing via a tweet from Congresswoman Maxine Waters but seemingly declined the invitation on Dec. 5, stating that he wasn’t sure what would happen by the hearing date, “but when it does, I will testify.”

Waters responded on Dec. 8 stating “a subpoena is definitely on the table” should Bankman-Fried fail to voluntarily testify at the hearing.

The collapse of SBF’s FTX empire has initiated a tsunami of backlash from U.S. lawmakers and regulators threatening to drown the fledgling crypto asset industry.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

Team Trump has sometimes compared former President Donald Trump’s current quest for a non-sequential second term to two-term President Grover Cleveland’s similar three election bids.

Cleveland remains our only elected president (1884) to have lost a reelection bid (1888) — in a disputed vote — only to be reelected four years later in 1892.

Yet Trump seems determined instead to follow a different, and bullheaded, Teddy Roosevelt model.

Roosevelt left the presidency in 1908, sat out four years, and then lost a reelection bid in 1912, split and alienated the Republican Party, and ensured the election of the progressive Woodrow Wilson.

President Joe Biden’s first “corrective” two years have been an utter disaster.

Biden birthed hyperinflation. He destroyed a secure border and Trump’s energy self-sufficiency. Crime is now out of control. The United States was humiliated abroad in Afghanistan. Rising interest rates will soon spark a recession.

After promising to unite the country, Biden smeared half the voting population as “un-American” and “semi-fascist.”

In addition, almost all of Trump’s prior complaints, predictions, and assertions that the media dismissed as conspiratorial, or crackpot have proven eerily prescient.

Hunter Biden’s laptop was all too authentic.

The FBI was compromised and acted as an agent of the Democratic Party. Anthony Fauci proved a partisan.

Russian collusion was an utter hoax. It was engineered by Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and the FBI.

The Wuhan lab did likely birth the engineered COVID virus. That possibility was covered up by the media and public health establishments.

Trump did not take “nuclear codes” to Mar-a-Lago. He did not plan on hawking his presidential papers for profit.

Germany did weaken NATO. Berlin was foolish to mortgage its future with energy dependency on a hostile Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Biden family was utterly corrupt. It was deeply involved in lucrative quid pro quo machinations abroad with China and a crooked Ukrainian government-related company.

John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Anthony Fauci, and Robert Mueller all either did mislead, feign amnesia, or lie either to Congress or while under oath.

Twitter was corrupt in asymmetrically banning the free expression of conservatives. Silicon Valley elites did conspire to sandbag Trump.

The media was a fake news corrupt enterprise, as we see from the new Twitter trove, and the mass firings at CNN.

So given events since Trump’s departure, he should be in the driver’s seat. But he is not.

Why?

Rather than offering detailed correctives for Biden’s disastrous record, Trump is again dabbling in social media madness. He needlessly floated the absurd idea that constitutional norms might need to be changed to allow the disputed 2020 election result to be overturned.

He seems oblivious that the Left, not conservatives, talk of altering the Constitution. They call for the destruction of the Electoral College, and wish to dilute the Second Amendment and redefine the First.

Why did Trump need to descend into personal invective when prior to the midterms, many primary polls were confirming his front-runner status?

Why did he not remain magnanimous, unite the party, and focus on giving millions to his endorsed but endangered candidates like Dr. Mehmet Oz, Blake Masters, and Herschel Walker?

Why did Trump bizarrely claim that possible presidential rival candidate Glenn Youngkin’s name sounded “Chinese”? What was the logic of attacking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s, R-Ky., wife in racialist terms?

Every elected public official or candidate — with the exception of former President Barack Obama who once was photographed smiling with a grinning, Jewish-hating Louis Farrakhan — knows there is only one rule concerning antisemites: Go nowhere near them.

Yet Trump dined with two, the now unhinged Kanye West (“Ye”) and the 20-something crackpot Nick Fuentes.

Why would Trump all but announce before the midterms that after the election he would be a candidate?

Or why right before November 8, did Trump attack Ron DeSantis (whom he calls “DeSanctimonious”), the miracle-worker Republican governor of Trump’s own Florida?

Did Trump wish to rile up left-wing Trump-haters to rush to the midterm polls, or to persuade miffed conservative DeSantis voters to stay home?

In the impending Trump-DeSantis collision, voters will be looking for resolution of two respective unknowns.

One, will Trump run on his stellar record, avoid controversy, and stick to the issues? And will he thereby win back independent, swing voters on assurances that they could get more MAGA successes, but this time around without the insults and spats?

And two, could DeSantis assure Republicans of a fire-in-the belly, Trumpian zeal to take on the Left, while soberly promoting a MAGA agenda — and thus win over the hard-core Trump base?

So far, De Santis is reassuring donors and primary voters he can be as tough as his record is impressive.

But Trump is not encouraging the donor class and independent voters that he has learned that melodramas and social media riffs are not his friends.

The party is over, and the buzz is wearing off. Mature legal cannabis markets are experiencing a slowdown in sales since the pandemic boom. 

A new report from cannabis data firm Headset said the industry in established marijuana markets, such as Oregon and Washington, has slowed down from a year ago. For example, Colorado’s market recorded sales that dropped 11.4% in June from a year ago. 

“What we saw in 2020 was a massive spike in sales tied to the pandemic as people stayed home, had government stimulus money, and not a lot to do,” Chris Wash, CEO of Marijuana Business Daily, told CNBC. 

Headset noted marijuana sales spiked between March 2020-21, with monthly average year-over-year sales of around 25.8% in Colorado. But sales began sliding last year as people returned to work and stimulus checks ran out. The report found the number of purchases and amount of money people spent declined. 

In July, customers spent an average of $55.21 per visit at Colorado stores — four dollars less than the average of $59.73 in July 2021, according to the data. 

“Right now, the Colorado marijuana industry is going through the largest downturn that we’ve ever seen,” Truman Bradley, executive director of the Wheat Ridge-based Marijuana Industry Group, told the local media outlet 9News Denver. 

Even though marijuana sales are normalizing in mature markets after a pandemic-fueled party, the industry nationwide is expected to grow as new markets come online. Marijuana Business Daily expects US medical and recreational cannabis sales could exceed $33 billion this year, up from $27 billion last year. Forecasts for 2026 are around $52.6 billion. 

So why are sales slowing in mature markets? Well, these states were the only ones open for business during the pandemic, and when tens of millions of Americans were out of work or forced to stay home because of the government shutdown, there was nothing better to do than sit on the couch, consume marijuana, and watch Netflix. Now that people aren’t stuck at home, they aren’t purchasing as much cannabis, and producers have to readjust production levels lower due to declining demand. 

One exchange-traded fund tied to the cannabis sector, called ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF (MJ), has plunged more than 84% since the February 2021 peak of $33. 

The buzz is over. 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

There is a new poll out and it is strikingly similar to the polls previously featured on this blog on free speech and intellectual diversity in higher education.  The Buckley annual survey found that almost 60 percent of college students fear sharing an opinion in classrooms or on campuses. That tracks other polls by different groups.  Yet, colleges and universities continue to exclude Republican and conservative faculty members and maintain environments of speech intolerance.The poll shows a sharp increase from just last year with 63% reporting feeling intimidated in sharing opinions different than their peers. That is almost identical to the 65 percent found in other polls.

The poll of over 800 students included many liberal students, as reflected in the 67 percent who would require all professors and administrators to make statements in favor of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Half of students believe “America is inextricably linked to white supremacy” and another 33 percent would prefer to live in a socialist system.

The poll tracks earlier polls showing a rising view of viewpoint intolerance that now characterizes higher education in America. That intolerance is reflected in the overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal makeup of faculties.

A new survey of 65 departments in various states found that 33 do not have a single registered Republican. For these departments, the systemic elimination of Republican faculty has finally reached zero, but there is still little recognition of the crushing bias reflected in these numbers. Others, as discussed below, have defended the elimination of conservative or Republican faculty as entirely justified and commendable. Overall, registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by a margin of over 10-1.

The survey found 61 Republican professors across 65 departments at seven universities while it also found 667 professors identified as Democrats based on their political party registration or voting history.

While there may be a couple professors missed on either side of this ideological divide, most faculty will privately admit that it is rare to find self-identified Republicans or conservatives on many faculties. Most faculties are overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal. Diversity generally runs from the left to the far left.

Another survey found that only nine percent of law professors identified as conservative. The virtual absence of Republican or conservative members on many faculties are just shrugged off by many academics.   It is the subject of my recent publication in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The article entitled “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States.”

Notably, a 2017 study found 15 percent of faculties were conservative. This is the result of years of faculty replicating their own ideological preferences and eradicating the diversity that once existed on faculties. When I began teaching in the 1980s, faculties were undeniably liberal but contained a significant number of conservative and libertarian professors. It made for a healthy and balanced intellectual environment. Today such voices are relatively rare and faculties have become political echo chambers, leaving conservatives and Republican students increasingly afraid to speak openly in class.

The trend is the result of hiring systems where conservative or libertarian scholars are often rejected as simply “insufficiently intellectually rigorous” or “not interesting” in their scholarship. This can clearly be true with individual candidates but the wholesale reduction of such scholars shows a more systemic problem. Faculty insist that there is no bias against conservatives, but the obviously falling number of conservative faculty speaks for itself.

As discussed earlier, the editors of the legal site Above the Law have repeatedly swatted down objections to the loss of free speech and viewpoint diversity in the media and academia. In a recent column, they mocked those of us who objected to the virtual absence of conservative or libertarian faculty members at law schools.

Senior editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” based on the fact that liberal views reflect real law as opposed to junk law.  (Patrice regularly calls those with opposing views “racists,” including Chief Justice John Roberts because of his objection to race-based criteria in admissions as racial discrimination). He explained that hiring a conservative academic was akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism (or that the sun orbits the earth) to teach at a university.

It is that easy. You simply declare that conservative views shared by a majority of the Supreme Court and roughly half of the population are not acceptable to be taught.

We have previously discussed the worrisome signs of a rising generation of censors in the country as leaders and writers embrace censorship and blacklisting. The latest chilling poll was released by 2021 College Free Speech Rankings after questioning a huge body of 37,000 students at 159 top-ranked U.S. colleges and universities. It found that sixty-six percent of college students think shouting down a speaker to stop them from speaking is a legitimate form of free speech.  Another 23 percent believe violence can be used to cancel a speech. That is roughly one out of four supporting violence.

This has been an issue of contention with some academics who believe that free speech includes the right to silence others.  Berkeley has been the focus of much concern over the use of a heckler’s veto on our campuses as violent protesters have succeeded in silencing speakers, including a speaker from the ACLU discussing free speech.  Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech.  At another University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.

In the meantime, academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech.  CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,”  Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself and resigned after she made a single analogy to acting like a “slaveholder” as a self-criticism for failing to achieve equity and reparations for black faculty and students).

There are now a wide array of polls and surveys showing a rising sense of viewpoint intolerance and a lack of ideological diversity on faculties. When confronted, faculty often shrug and say that the students are simply wrong about speech intolerance. They also dismiss the importance of labels (even self-reported party affiliations). Few, however, seriously deny that faculties are now overwhelmingly, if not exclusive, Democratic or liberal. Intellectual diversity today on faculties often runs from the left to the far left.

I frankly do not understand why professors want to maintain this one-sided environment in hiring. I was drawn to academia by the diversity of viewpoints and intellectual challenges on campuses.  However, the lack of diversity works to the advantage of those on the “correct” side of this new orthodoxy. Conversely, those with dissenting views are often targeted or isolated on faculties. They risk the loss of everything that gives an intellectual life meaning from publishing to speaking opportunities. For faculty, the viewpoint intolerance seen by students is magnified a hundred times over for those seeking to enter or to advance in teaching.

In April, RH (the stock-buyback/short-squeeze mogul formerly known as Restoration Hardware) reported dismal earnings which sent its stock plunging and prompted CEO Gary Friedman to give an ominous assessment of the overall macro situation.

While first quarter sales and margin strand to remain healthy due to the ongoing relief of our backlog, we have experienced softening demand in the first quarter that coincided with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in late February and the market volatility that followed. We believe it is prudent to remain conservative until demand trends return to normal and — we are providing the following outlook for the first quarter of 2022.”

This was shocking at the time as it was the first direct admission of tangible weakness in consumer end-demand, and was soundly mocked by all the ‘consumer is strong’ narrative-pushers as idiosyncratically focused on RH and not systemically-based.

Then five months later in September, Friedman dropped some more truth bombs slamming Yellen and Powell for being “like massively blind and wrong” on inflation

“…the interest rate is going to go higher. It’s going to hit the housing market first. And the housing market is the biggest part of the U.S. economy. And it’s going to drag down everything.

And if I’m wrong, that’s OK. But the data is there. Now like nobody should be surprised about what’s going to happen here…

…anybody who doesn’t think we’re in a recession is ‘crazy.'”

With credit card debt at record highs and the savings rate near record lows, it appears Friedman’s views on the consumer have been proved right…

…and during his latest earnings call today, the RH CEO let analysts know what he sees coming down the road… and it’s not good as he sees “a complete collapse of the luxury housing market.”

“For the housing point of view, there is no soft landing,” the luxury home furnishings CEO said on a conference call with analysts.

“It’s looking more like a crash landing in the housing market. It’s looking like 2008, 2009.”

Friedman warned that “we expect our business trends will continue to deteriorate as a result of accelerating weakness in the housing market over the next several quarters and possibly longer due to the Federal Reserve’s anticipated monetary policy and the cycling of record Covid-driven sales and backlog reductions.”

“Housing prices went up from 2020 to 2022 by 45%, that’s never happened, except in the 70s. The two year period housing going up 45%. And so…

I don’t want to sit here and have all kinds of debt and not have any clarity of, what it looks like out there…“

He says the luxury furnishings retailer is taking a cautious approach to share buybacks (unlike Bed, Bath, & Beyond which he calls out by name) even though they think the stock is undervalued because they don’t know how much further the housing market will fall.

“The housing industry is in a free fall,” he said, adding that “I don’t know how it comes all apart. Did anyone see in 2008? I mean, because the way the market reacted, it didn’t seem like it, right. And nobody sees the big implosions and we’re not greedy. Again, we’re not accomplish our goal here based on a buyback…“

Not exactly what the market is pricing in and Friedman’s words show the C-Suite (unlike stock investors) is not anticipating a Fed pivot/pause anytime soon.

By Stefan Koopman, Senior Macro Strategist of Rabobank

In stark contrast to last year, China is now having a positive impact on global inflation dynamics. Weak domestic demand, price declines in raw materials and the return to more normal supply- and logistics conditions, have resulted in China exporting deflation once again. This was evident in the country’s large trade surpluses, which were updated on Wednesday, and in this morning’s producer and consumer price inflation data.

Factory-gate prices fell 1.3% year-over-year in November, while consumer inflation eased to 1.6%. Core inflation remained unchanged at 0.6% year-over-year. Deflation, rather than inflation, is currently the main risk faced by China. The relaxation of the most stringent Covid-19 measures should support consumer demand, but it’s unlikely we will see latent demand being unleashed in the same way as we saw in cash-rich Europe and the United States. Moreover, the road to full reopening may still be difficult and bumpy when infections start surging.

China Premier Li Keqiang Says Key Problem Is Insufficient Demand

Stimmies on deck

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 9, 2022

More fundamentally, however, the conditions that have contributed to China’s rapid growth in exports relative to imports also explain its stagnant domestic consumption: both are a result of the great difficulty China has in rebalancing its economy from (non-productive) investment towards consumption and in addressing its significant legacy debt issues.

The main release of yesterday were US jobless claims, as there wasn’t much other data to go on. The figure of 230k indicates that new claims are moving sideways, suggesting that firing remains limited amid labor shortages and recruitment difficulties. However, continuing claims are now crawling upwards to 1,671k, a level almost in line with the 2019 average. This means that it is becoming harder and taking longer for unemployed individuals to find new jobs, something that has also been reflected in the JOLTS survey’s lower hiring rates. Overall, these numbers are more consistent with the gloomier household survey than the still upbeat establishment survey and indicative of a cooling labor market. Note also the 417% y/y increase in job cut announcements from the Challenger survey – up from 48% y/y in October!

It’s worth mentioning too that researchers from Indeed have updated the November data from the Indeed Wage Tracker. The figures are based on new job advertisements on their own platform and give an idea of the underlying wage dynamics. These show up with a lag in the official average wage data (e.g., as an analogy, think of these as a bath tub full of current wage contracts, with new contracts of hires coming out of the faucet and old contracts of fired/resigned workers leaving through the drain). The figures point at a rapid deceleration of advertised wage growth in the United States (6.5% y/y, from a peak of 9% in March 2022), and more muted deceleration in the United Kingdom (6.1% y/y, from 6.4% in June) and six Eurozone countries (5.1% y/y, from 5.2% in October). Slower posted wage growth suggests the risk of wage-price spiral remains limited.  

Please note that Bas van Geffen and Elwin de Groot have published their preview for next week’s ECB meeting. The Global Daily is already highlighting this now, as they have downgraded their call from a 75 to a 50 basis point hike. The momentum for bigger steps seem to be fading after some softer inflation prints and after the Fed signalled it is going after a smaller hike. However, the size of next week’s rate hike is not yet a foregone conclusion. The timing of this potential downshift could give the impression that the ECB is not taking inflation seriously enough, and the exact balance of votes on the Governing Council remains unknown. As such, it is still possible that the ECB could surprise markets with a 75 basis point hike.

If the ECB does go for 50, Bas and Elwin would expect President Lagarde to stress that a smaller hike now does not affect the potential terminal rate. As a result, they have extended their policy expectations to include a final 25 basis point hike in April in order to maintain the forecast of a 3% terminal rate. Additionally, looming decisions on quantitative tightening may be cited as a factor offsetting the smaller increase in policy rates. This may start in early 2023, most likely in April. It is unlikely that the ECB will sell any assets, especially not in the early stages. A pace of €25-30 billion per month seems reasonable and achievable under these restrictions.

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

Last week, the employment news was all about how payrolls increased by 269,000 jobs and blew past expectations. Yet, when we looked at the actual number of employed persons, it turned out that the number of employed people has gone down in recent months. At 158.4 million, total employment is still nearly 400,000 workers below where it was before the Covid Panic of 2020.

Those who support the everything-is-great narrative have responded to the unimpressive employed-workers numbers by dismissing them as a result of workers retiring and other demographic changes.  These explanations, however, require that we ignore the fact that millions of men age 25-54—that is, men of working age—have removed themselves from the workforce. When so many men—men who would have been in the workforce 20 or 30  years ago—aren’t even trying to get a job, this lowers the unemployment rate and makes total jobs numbers look more impressive. 

In fact, as of September of this year, there appears to be nearly a six-million-man gap between the number of men in the prime-age group—age 25-54—and the number of prime-age men actually in the workforce. Depending on why they’re out of the workforce, that is potentially some very bad news for both the economy and for society overall. 

How Many Men Are Out of the Work Force?

Prime-age male workforce participation rose year-over-year in November, rising to 88.4 percent above last November’s estimate of 88.2 percent. Workforce participation has been climbing out of a hole since the rate hit an all-time low of 86.4 percent during April 2020. 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Current Population Survey).

The larger trend in workforce participation for prime-age men, however, has been one of decline for decades. During the 1950s and into the early 60s, prime-age workforce participation for men was nearly 98 percent. That began to fall throughout the 60s, and by 1980, it was around 94 percent. The trend didn’t end there, however, and even during the construction boom of the housing-bubble years, participation never rose above 91.4 percent. The participation rate has never risen above 90 percent since 2009.

What does this mean in total numbers of prime-age males? If we look at the difference between total prime-age men, and the total number of them in the work force, we find that the gap as of November was about 7,040,000 men.

Source: OECD: “Working Age Population, Age 25-54”;   Bureau of Labor Statistics (Current Population Survey).

The workforce measure is of civilian workers, however, so if we account for approximately one million active-duty males, that leaves us with about 6 million men out of the work force. But what about stay-at-home dads? Many of these dads have at least part-time jobs, and are thus still in the work force. According to Census data, however, the number of stay-at-home dads who are also “out of the workforce” numbers approximately 200,000. 

So, if we shrink that gap by the men in the military and by the stay-at-home dads who don’t earn wages, we are left with about 5.8 million men who are spending their days doing something other than working for (legal) wages or parenting children.

So, how are these men surviving without income? According to research by Ariel Binder and John Bound, most of these men are low-income, but receive income from parents, spouses, and girlfriends. Among men not in the work force, this cohabitants’ income “accounts for the largest share of income” in the households where these men reside. Many of these men elect not to work because the opportunity cost of not working is relatively low. As Alan Kreuger has noted, the decline in workforce participation has been especially steep among those with lower earning potential such as those with a high school degree or less.  Many men in this category also report poor health and that they take pain medication daily. This also suggests high incidence of opioid addiction among men not in the work force. Few younger men who have left the workforce are eligible for government disability benefits. Among older men, however, disability benefits supplement income from other household members. 

What If These Men Rejoined the Work Force? 

Having a few million men leave the workforce drives down the unemployment rate. What would the employment picture look like if all these men were to suddenly join the workforce by looking for work?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there is a gap of four million between job openings—10 million—and total unemployed workers—6 million. If all the current job openings were magically filled by current unemployed workers, that would still leave 2 million unemployed workers. Now, let’s add back into the work force those 5.8 million males who are aren’t in the work force at all. We’d then have a situation in which all job openings were filled and we still would have 7.8 million unemployed workers. The unemployment rate would increase to 4.7 percent, or the highest rate since September 2021. 

But that’s not a very probable scenario. While many of the six million unemployed workers are only in transition, many others are unemployed because their industries are cutting jobs, or because the workers generally lack the proper skills or education. When it comes to the men who have left the work force entirely, the picture is more bleak. As we’ve seen, a sizable portion of men who have left the work force have likely done so for reasons that make them something other than ideal job candidates. If they were to begin looking for work, the more likely scenario is one in which the currently unemployed 6 million workers would balloon up to over 10 million. This would drive the unemployment rate up over 6 percent while also softening upward pressure on wages. 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Household Employment Survey;  JOLTS Survey; US Census; Bureau of Labor Statistics (Current Population Survey).

Once layoffs start to accelerate—as many indicators suggest will happen in 2023—the situation will only become worse with the unemployment rate heading up even higher. 

If one were to go only on the headlines we get from the mainstream business press, though, it does seem like there’s nary a potential worker to be found out there anywhere. The truth is less pleasant as millions of prime-age men aren’t working, looking for work, or caring for children. That phenomenon is very good for making the official unemployment rate seem low, but it also lowers the economy’s overall productivity while reducing savings. Even worse are the sociological effects of millions of men sitting at home living off of government disability checks or the toil of relatives, girlfriends and spouses.

There has been a massive surge in credit card usage by US households, a troubling sign that could suggest that in lieu of disposable income, many consumers are forced to max out credit cards to survive the inflation storm. 

A major problem with inflation is that monthly balances keep rising as the cost of goods becomes more expensive, but the interest rates consumers pay on the debt are also rising because of the Federal Reserve’s most aggressive tightening spree in a generation to quell inflation. 

As consumer balance sheets become more saturated with credit card debt, it will become harder to pay off as rates rise. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the total US household debt swelled by $351 billion in the third quarter to $16.5 trillion. Credit card balances jumped 15%, the fastest annual rate in two decades. 

Households are taking on insurmountable credit card debts while rates are climbing — as well as personal savings is collapsing. 

This couldn’t come at the worst time for consumers who have endured 19 months of consecutive negative real wage growth.

Bloomberg cited a new CreditCards.com report Thursday that outlined the average annual percentage rate for retailer-brand credit cards is now at a mindboggling record high of 26.72%, up from 24.35% in 2021. Meanwhile, the average APR for general-purpose cards is 22.66%. 

In another report, store cards, including ones from Wayfair, Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, Shell, Exxon Mobil, QVC, and the Home Shopping Network, with variable APRs, were reported to breach above 30% in some cases. 

BankRate.com reports that the APR on the average US credit card just hot 19.40% – a new record high…

Matt Schulz, the chief credit analyst for LendingTree, was quoted by Bloomberg as saying some store cards that hit 30% were lowered soon after. 

Consumers carrying hefty balances could see APRs rise through early next year but may top out around these levels as the Fed’s hiking spree could hit a terminal rate of 5% before the summer of next year. 

Depletion of savings by consumers and shifting to credit cards shows how many are quickly running out of lifelines. 

Despite all of these pressures, delinquency rates remain low by historical standards but are rising, signaling if current conditions persist, then consumers could exhaust cash piles by mid-23, as per a warning via JPMorgan to clients. 

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

Biden administration climate ‘czar’ John Kerry declared Thursday that he would like to see American taxpayers fronting reparations for past pollution.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Kerry said “it would be great,” if American taxpayers could step up to their reputation as being “the largest humanitarian donor in the world.”

While Kerry can no longer avoid agreeing that China is the world’s biggest polluter, he avoided further questions on pressing the Communist state on its emissions by saying he had COVID and “couldn’t quite finish those conversations.”

Biden climate czar @JohnKerry calls for U.S. taxpayers to fund climate reparations for 3rd world countries: “We’re the largest economy in the world … We have to step up to lead.” pic.twitter.com/eOYofD3T8x

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) December 8, 2022

Kerry further stated that the green agenda must “accelerate”:

Biden Climate Envoy John Kerry says “green” energy must “accelerate.”

“We have to be deploying renewables six times faster than we are today. We have to be deploying electric vehicles about 20 times faster than we are today.” pic.twitter.com/e96NE6KwYX

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 8, 2022

He also expressed disappointment that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has “altered the dynamics of the transition we were really ramping up to,” and given ammunition to detractors who can now argue that the green agenda is being implemented “too fast.”

Biden Climate Envoy John Kerry laments Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because it “has altered the dynamics of the [energy] transition that we were really ramping up.” pic.twitter.com/l8soSKoASn

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 8, 2022

Kerry also openly bragged about doing the bidding of globalists at the COP27 summit:

Less than one month ago: pic.twitter.com/QR4KZ9vAsv

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 8, 2022

Will Kerry stop flying around on his private jet though?

Obama B-Day Party: “Former senator & U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry was spotted along with TV presenter & comedian Stephen Colbert. Both men have homes on the island… Kerry took a private jet to the island of Martha’s Vineyard.”https://t.co/9d6aURbdbq pic.twitter.com/njzSz3eWKI

— Jerry Christmas 🎅🏼🎄 (@JerryDunleavy) August 7, 2021

Kerry’s family private jet has emitted over 300 metric tons of carbon since Biden took office, federal data shows:

John Kerry’s family private jet emitted over 300 metric tons of carbon since Biden took office – John Kerry’s family private jet emitted over 300 metric tons of carbon since Biden took officehttps://t.co/vKB0yyJ49v

— Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) July 19, 2022

Plebs need to fund the poor countries while John flies on his private jet

— Tim Hicks (@UnchartedFather) December 8, 2022

Ok, give up your private jet, cars, beach house, etc and donate the proceeds. Better yet the rest of the elite that want to be climate warriors do the same. 👍

— Kat (@kat1012_) December 8, 2022

We can start with John Kerry’s fortune. Oh wait this doesn’t apply to HIM.

— Dr. Doctor (@ZymurJosh) December 8, 2022

Kerry is willing to donate 40% of your earnings.

— Visceral Literalist (@MartinRedmonddd) December 8, 2022

I hate globalist scum who think working class people in America should pay for their bs schemes.

— Logan2274 (@Logan2274_1) December 8, 2022

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

After a hotter than expected PPI print, all eyes are on Fed Chair Powell’s favorite inflation sentiment gauge – the short-term inflation expectations (12-month) fell to 4.6%, the lowest since Sept 2021. The medium-term inflation expectation was flat at 3.0%…

Source: Bloomberg

Declines in short-run inflation expectations were visible across the distribution of age, income, education, as well as political party identification.

The headline UMich Sentiment index was expected to rise very modestly in preliminary December data after tumbling in November and it did, bouncing from 56.8 to 59.1 (better than the 57.0 expected) with both current conditions (60.2 vs 58.8 exp) and future expectations (58.4 vs 54.5 exp) improving sequentially…

Source: Bloomberg

All components of the index lifted, with one-year business conditions surging 14% and long-term business conditions increasing a more modest 6%.

Gains in the sentiment index were seen across multiple demographic groups, with particularly large increases for higher-income families and those with larger stock holdings, supported by recent rises in financial markets.

Sentiment for Democrats and Independents rose 12% and 7%, respectively, while for Republicans it fell 6%.

Source: Bloomberg

Throughout the survey, concerns over high prices – which remain high relative to just prior to this current inflationary episode – have eased modestly.