The news surrounding Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and the political firestorm it has caused probably hasn’t escaped most people.  The platform which once represented the very root of leftist cancel culture and activist organization for attack mobs has suddenly been turned upside down.  Musk’s position appears to be a simple one:  Free speech within the bounds of the law.  He has so far made good on that promise, and the leftists are losing their collective hive mind because of it.

In the process of coping with the loss of their prize, leftist activists and establishment elitists in Big Tech and government have been searching for a way to undermine or sabotage Twitter.  The bottom line?  If they can’t have it, they will try to burn it all down so that no one can have it.

This mentality has led to a rather predictable outcome, which is for corporations and Big Tech companies to exert economic leverage against Musk.  Why?  On the face of it the explanation is simple:  They hate free speech.  Specifically, though, they hate conservative and liberty minded speech.  

The average leftist on Twitter will never challenge the establishment narrative.  They are absolutely controlled and commonly regurgitate whatever claims the mainstream media makes on a daily basis without researching validity.  Some conservatives do this as well, but then there is the rogue element, the large percentage of conservatives/libertarians that question the narrative and are willing to make a stand based on principles rather than pure emotions and fear.  The idea that such people might have access to an open forum as vast as Twitter terrifies the powers that be.     

The fascinating thing about the Twitter situation is that it reveals a much bigger underlying danger beyond the zealotry of the political left; massive collusion has been revealed between elements of government, corporations and the ideological mob.  

It is hard to say how organized this collusion really is.  The average woke activist is a useful idiot more so than a competent agent of destruction.  But the system is clearly acting to protect itself from the thing it fears most – Fair debate and a level playing field.  In response, they are willing to expose their existing monopoly to stop the shift.

This monopoly is partially economic, with only a small handful of companies in control of a large portion of the overall tech pie, but it is important to understand that it is more dangerous than other historic examples because this monopoly is an ideological monopoly.

In the past companies were primarily motivated by profit and would not sacrifice profit by alienating consumers and users with political zealotry.  These day, however, all that has changed.  Now companies fully discriminate according to political beliefs and are willing to lose untold billions in profits if it means doing damage to people they disagree with.

Leftists argue that this is an example of the “free market” at work, but that is a lie.  It is in fact the the basis of control used within Marxist inspired societies – Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao all advocated for the use of denial of access to the economy and to society as a first line measure to control dissent.  Their reasoning?  If a person is in opposition to the foundations of the collective, then he is dangerous to the collective and therefore the collective must shun him to prevent him from causing harm.  And of course, the elites get to decide what is in the best interests of the collective.  

In fact, Marxists/socialists tend to treat ideological dissent as far worse that any typical crime such as theft or murder, because political dissent “hurts all of society” rather than one person or a handful of people.   

This is the core rationale for the reactions on display against conservatives in our era, and denial of access is a weapon they have now deemed acceptable.  They pretend as if it is nothing more than private businesses making independent decisions to not associate with certain types of people, but in truth it is a coordinated effort between ideological partners  and often governments.

We saw this with the organized attack on the Parler social media platform and the use of Big Tech collusion as a means to remove them from app stores and from their own server.  Now, leftists are demanding that the tactics used against Parler also be used against Twitter, with companies like Apple threatening Twitter’s availability (according to Elon Musk) for download at their App Store.

Apple and Google control almost all major internet access for online companies via their app stores.  Without download availability, social media companies stand to lose significant traffic and may even be put out of business over time.    

In a move that was once unthinkable only a few years ago, Big Tech corporations are acting on partisan motives to subdue and destroy any social media outlet that presents a legitimate threat to the ideological monopoly.  And it won’t stop there – It is likely we will see the targeting of other websites and individuals in due course.  

Internet server providers, search engines and even banks may act to completely cut off businesses run by conservatives.  We have seen some examples of this (gun manufacturers come to mind), but as the establishment becomes threatened by a balancing of political engagement we are liable to see far more discrimination.     

Monopolies are illegal and they are anti-free market, but the definition of monopoly is too limited.  Economic monopolies are not the only threat to our freedom, now we must also worry about ideological monopolies within the corporate world and their power to limit free speech by extorting media sites and businesses into self censorship. 

During an interview on the far-left Stephen Colbert show, CNN’s Don Lemon claimed that he doesn’t think the network which has viciously attacked conservatives for the past several years “ever was liberal.”  Colbert reacts with understandable surprise and a hint of disbelief at the notion. 

While it’s true that the term “liberal” in the traditional sense has barely applied to the political left in the US for decades, it’s doubtful that Don Lemon is playing word games or semantics.  When he uses the descriptive he is referring to progressive ideology, and to claim CNN was never a progressive echo chamber and propaganda machine is truly jumping the shark. 

This is the same network that consistently pushed the debunked Russiagate narrative, claimed that the Barack Obama wire tapping scandal at Trump Tower was a “flat out lie” (it was absolutely true), asserted that the BLM protests were “fiery but mostly peaceful”, spent a considerable amount of energy attempting to demonize Kyle Rittenhouse’s act of self defense for political reasons and was a primary attack dog against American citizens that stood against the covid lockdown and mandates.  There is nothing centrist about CNN.     

Lemon’s attempt to shift the narrative, though absurd and a form of gaslighting, is more confirmation that the new CNN leadership and new ownership is indeed seeking to clean up the failing news outlet’s image as a partisan spin machine and at least give the appearance of objectivity. Lemon is merely trying to keep his job.

CNN has recently suffered one of the worst declines in viewership numbers and profits in the company’s history, along with the cancellation of it’s CNN+ streaming service after only a few weeks due to lack of public interest.  Lemon was recently booted from his prime time show ‘Don Lemon Tonight’ and was moved to the ‘New Day’ morning show with two other co-anchors; a change which he called “a promotion.” 

Authored by Randolph May via RealClearMarfkets.com,

The Babylon Bee, the satirical website that takes aim – all too effectively in the minds of some – at over-the-top wokeness, has been reinstated on Twitter. A blaring headline from a recent Bee story: “‘Twitter Is Dead,’ 300 Million People Post on Twitter.” A satirical zinger, indeed!

And Donald Trump’s Twitter account has been reinstated too – supposedly based on the results of a poll on . . . you guessed it, Twitter.

Amidst the turmoil and tumult of Elon Musk’s Twitter take-over, predicting what Twitter will be next week, much less next year, is a fool’s game. Count me out. After all, Mr. Musk reportedly has warned the staff: “Bankruptcy isn’t out of the question.”

Assuming for present purposes that Twitter can ensure the security and stability of the platform going forward, I know what I want the platform to be. Throughout this now fifteen part “Thinking Clearly About Speaking Freely” series, I’ve argued that Twitter, along with other major social media platforms, have been far too censorious in restricting content that should remain subject to public debate. And throughout, I’ve cited examples of overly censorious actions, such as restricting posts relating to the origin of COVID-19, the effectiveness of various treatment options, and the educational and economic costs of school and business lockdowns.

I’ve never contended there shouldn’t be any content moderation at all, but rather that Twitter should operate much more like the digital town square that Elon Musk, as a self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist,” long has said he wanted.

In other words, censorship should be considerably more limited, say, to posts demonstrably facilitating terrorism or sex trafficking, or inciting violence.

Perhaps it should not be surprising that amidst all the present chaos, including the substantial downsizing of staff, including those on the “Trust and Safety Team,” that there are more strident calls for the government to exert greater control over Twitter. By way of example, I want to focus on a November 16 letter from the left-leaning Open Markets Institute (“OMI”) to the heads of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. Along with asking these government officials to investigate Mr. Musk’s take-over, OMI proposes to subject Twitter to stringent government control.

Claiming that Twitter is an “essential communications platform,” OMI says that “Twitter long ago proved it serves a unique and irreplaceable role in enabling citizens to communicate and debate key issues of the day.” It contends Twitter’s status as a “utility” is clear.

With Twitter denominated a public utility, it’s not a far leap for OMI to beseech government officials to protect “all communications and political debates” on Twitter from interference by Twitter’s executives, Board members, or employees. And according to OMI, Twitter should be required to enforce its terms of service “without prejudice or discrimination, in a completely transparent manner.” 

If taken literally, OMI is asking that Twitter be regulated in the same “common carrier-like” way that the conservative Texas legislature required when it enacted a law mandating that Twitter and other social media platforms not discriminate in their content moderation practices on the basis of “viewpoint.” And that Justice Clarence Thomas suggested might be appropriate two years ago in his concurring opinion in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute of Columbia University. There, Justice Thomas took note of what he characterized as the dominant market positions of Twitter, Facebook, and Google, along with the fact that the latter two essentially are controlled by one or two persons. Of course, that’s now true of Twitter too, and it is this concentration of control in one person upon which OMI primarily bases its case for government regulation.

As I pointed out in Part 2 of this series, in his Knight First Amendment Institute opinion, Justice Thomas declared there is a “fair argument” that Twitter, Google, and Facebook could be deemed common carriers, including by laws enacted in the states, so that they would be prohibited from excluding lawful speech from their platforms. And he speculated that the Supreme Court soon would have “no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”

If enough of his fellow justices agree, as widely suspected, to review the Fifth Circuit’s NetChoice, L.L.C. v. Paxton decision upholding the Texas law mandating that Twitter and other major social media platforms operate like common carriers, then Justice Thomas’s predilection for imposing common carriage obligations on the major platforms might prevail.

Given the excessive censorship in which Twitter and the other dominant social media platforms have engaged, I have considerable sympathy for the impulse motivating calls for common carrier-like regulation of the platforms. But as I said in Part 2, and elsewhere in this series, I have serious concerns about this supposed remedy.

Here’s the nub of the matter as I explained in Part 3:

“As traditionally applied, the core elements of common carriage – rate regulation and nondiscrimination mandates – stifle investment and innovation. And, in any event, the traditional criteria used to assess whether an entity is a common carrier don’t neatly fit the web platforms, or at least not all of them.”

So, rather than embracing the call by the Open Markets Institute, and presumably Justice Thomas too, for imposing common carrier-like control over the platforms’ censorship practices, I continue to prefer offering free market solutions to address my concerns. Previously, I’ve advocated that Twitter and other platforms incorporate explicit presumptions favoring free speech in their terms of service. This presumptive “free speech default” would provide that content will not be removed absent clear and convincing evidence that the speech violates some specific, clearly delineated content prohibition. Such a presumption may be embedded in Mr. Musk’s mind, but it also should be embedded in the terms of service so that it more readily becomes part of the corporate culture.

I’ve also urged Twitter and other sites to adopt additional consumer empowerment approaches that put tools in the hands of platform users to determine the parameters of the content they wish to access. If consumers are allowed to avail themselves of such “personalization” tools, they would be able to assume, to a much greater extent than at present, the content moderation function now performed by the platforms.

Rather than looking first to imposing common carrier-like or other government controls, it is preferable to look to free market approaches to address the problem of excessive censorship.

I wouldn’t necessarily bet my house on it, but Elon Musk, with his entrepreneurial bent, may just be able to succeed at making Twitter much more free speech-friendly, while at the same time avoiding what he has described as the “hellscape.”

Following a steady stream of vicious attacks perpetrated by New York City’s homeless, Mayor Eric Adams on Tuesday announced a new program that will involuntarily hospitalize people deemed a danger to themselves — regardless of whether they’ve demonstrated a risk to others.  

A statement from the mayor’s office said the policy targets an “ongoing crisis of individuals experiencing severe mental illnesses left untreated and unsheltered in New York City’s streets and subways.” At least 26 people have been shoved from NYC subway platforms this year alone — though not all the attacks were perpetrated by homeless people. 

“The very nature of their illnesses keeps them from realizing they need intervention and support,” said Adams at a City Hall press conference. “Without that intervention, they remain lost and isolated from society, tormented by delusions and disordered thinking. They cycle in and out of hospitals and jails.”

Of course, there’s more to New York’s crime crisis than “mental health” issues. An overly-forgiving judicial system that returns violent criminals to the streets after a scolding is also to blame — but rounding up some of the bona fide lunatics for treatment could be a good thing for all concerned.  

According to the mayor’s office statement, Adams’ directive “seeks to dispel a persistent myth that the legal standard for involuntary intervention requires an ‘overt act’ demonstrating that the person is violent, suicidal, or engaging in outrageously dangerous behavior likely to result in imminent harm.”

Omg. Watch as the woman’s hair he is pulling mouths the words, “please help me..”
I can’t imagine the terror she was feeling as that maniac grabbed her hair. #subway #NYC
Please @NYCMayor build more mental hospitals and get these people off our streets! @77WABCradio pic.twitter.com/ZEbBRODKgB

— Lidia Curanaj (@LidiaNews) May 26, 2022

“The common misunderstanding persists that we cannot provide involuntary assistance unless the person is violent,” said Adams. The new program empowers both cops and medical workers to assess people in public spaces and authorize involuntary hospitalizations.

Hospital capacities have been cited as a limiting factor, but, pointing to a commitment by Governor Kathy Hochul to add 50 new psychiatric beds, Adams said, “We are going to find a bed for everyone.” Maybe, but, in a city of 8.5 million people, 50 beds doesn’t exactly sound like a game-changer.  

The new program is certain to invite legal challenges. Indeed, even the mayor’s policy directive to city agencies acknowledges that “case law does not provide extensive guidance regarding removals for mental health evaluations based on short interactions in the field.” 

It points, however, to a few key indicators that police and other first responders might use to involuntarily take homeless people into custody and into care: “serious untreated physical injury, unawareness or delusional misapprehension of surroundings, or unawareness or delusional misapprehension of physical condition or health.” 

The New York Civil Liberties Union’s Donna Lieberman was among the first to criticize the plan: “The Mayor is playing fast and loose with the legal rights of New Yorkers…The federal and state constitutions impose strict limits on the government’s ability to detain people experiencing mental illness — limits that the Mayor’s proposed expansion is likely to violate.” 

In his Tuesday remarks, Adams assured reporters that people wouldn’t be committed merely “because someone’s sitting on the train talking to themselves.” Rather, an “accumulation of factors” would be used by a “trained professional determine that this person is a danger to themselves because they can’t take care of their basic needs.”  

Next, Mayor Adams needs a plan to address scenarios where serial killers transfer their souls into dolls so they can attack unsuspecting people on the subway:  

NYC Subway – Chucky Attack pic.twitter.com/2iA0Z8sfC0

— Michael Von Irvin MBA BSN RN (@MichaelVonIrvin) July 1, 2022

asdf

By Alex Kimani of OilPrice.com

The European Union on Friday once again failed to reach an agreement on a price cap for Russian oil, with the bloc’s eastern-most members including Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania objecting that the proposed $60-$70 per barrel for Russian crude is too generous and well above the rates Russia currently sells crude.  

European Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis has acknowledged as much, saying, “If you put the price cap too high, it doesn’t really bite. Oil is the biggest source of revenue for the Russian budget, so it’s very important to get this right so it really has an impact on Russia’s ability to finance this war,” he told Bloomberg TV.

Well, they are right: offering $70 per barrel for Russian Urals is incredibly generous, considering that Bloomberg has just reported that China and India are currently getting them for half that price. 

According to Bloomberg’s oil strategist Julian Lee, Russia’s flagship Urals crude oil traded at a massive discount of $33.28, or about 40% to the international Brent crude oil, at the end of last week. In contrast, a year ago, Urals traded at a much smaller discount of $2.85 to Brent. Urals is the main blend exported by Russia. The result: Moscow is beginning to feel the heat of its war in Ukraine, and could be losing ~$4 billion a month in energy revenues as per Bloomberg’s calculations.

Washington is not losing sleep over it. “If Russian oil is going to be selling at bargain prices and we’re happy to have India get that bargain or Africa or China. It’s fine,” US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen previously told Reuters.

Shipping nations like Greece are in favor of a higher price cap that will help keep trade flowing. However, the situation could get even murkier for Russia with EU sanctions on Russian oil set to kick in on December 5, with disruptions to the market expected if a price cap is not in place. Meanwhile, Russia is reportedly drafting a presidential decree that would ban its companies and any traders from selling it to anyone that participates in a price cap.

Surging Imports From Russia

Previously, India was never a big buyer of Russian crude despite having to import 80% of its needs. In a typical year, India imports just 2-5% of its crude from Russia, roughly the same proportion as the United States did before it announced a 100% ban on Russian energy commodities. Indeed, India imported only 12 million barrels of Russian crude in 2021, with the majority of its oil sourced from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Nigeria.

But back in May, reports emerged of a “significant uptick” in Russian oil deliveries bound for India.

According to a Bloomberg report, India spent a good $5.1 billion on Russian oil, gas, and coal in the first three months after the invasion, more than five times the value of a year ago. However, China remains the biggest buyer of Russian energy commodities, spending $18.9 billion in the three months to the end of May, almost double the amount a year earlier.

And, it’s all about the money.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Urals crude has been offered at record discounts since the war began. In the early months after the war began, Ellen Wald, president of Transversal Consulting, told CNBC that a couple of commodity trading firms – such as Glencore and Vitol – were offering discounts of $30 and $25 per barrel, respectively, for the Urals blend. 

The experts say simple economics is the biggest reason why White House pressure to curb purchases of crude oil from Russia have fallen on deaf ears in Delhi.

“Today, the Government of India’s motivations are economic, not political. India will always look for a deal in their oil import strategy. It’s hard not to take a 20% discount on crude when you import 80-85% of your oil, particularly on the heels of the pandemic and global growth slowdown,” Samir N. Kapadia, head of trade at government relations consulting firm Vogel Group, told CNBC via email.

Still, it will not be lost on many readers that India has maintained a cozy relationship with Russia over the years, with Russia supplying the Asian nation with as much as 60% of its military and defense-related equipment. Russia has also been a key ally on crucial issues such as India’s dispute with China and Pakistan surrounding the territory of Kashmir.

But hey, India and China are not the only ones to blame here. Reports have emerged that whereas supplies of Russian pipeline gas – the bulk of Europe’s gas imports before the Ukraine war – are currently down to a trickle, Europe has been hungrily scooping up Russian LNG.

Europe has been working hard to wean itself off Russian energy commodities ever since the latter invaded Ukraine. The European Union has banned Russian coal and plans to block most Russian oil imports by the end of 2022 in a bid to deprive Moscow of an important source of revenue to wage its war in Ukraine.

But ditching Russian gas is proving to be more onerous than Europe would have hoped for. Whereas supplies of Russian pipeline gas – the bulk of Europe’s gas imports before the Ukraine war – are down to a trickle, Europe has been hungrily scooping up Russian LNG. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the bloc’s imports of Russian liquefied natural gas jumped by 41% Y/Y in the year through August.

“Russian LNG has been the dark horse of the sanctions regime,” Maria Shagina, a research fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, has told WSJ. Importers of Russian LNG to Europe have argued that the shipments are not covered by current EU sanctions and that buying LNG from Russia and other suppliers has helped keep European energy prices in check.

Only very recently Ukrainian government officials were blasting and taking jabs at Elon Musk, but now Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has “invited” the billionaire SpaceX (and more recently) Twitter CEO to Ukraine. 

Or rather, it’s looking like this “invitation” is itself another sarcastic jab in response to Musk’s unwavering position that compromise or negotiated settlement must be reached with Russia, in order to avoid unpredictable escalation which could spiral into WWIII. Any talk of battlefield or territorial compromise has ‘outraged’ Kiev.

Zelensky in a Wednesday appearance at The New York Time’s DealBook Summit – an event which funny enough (or sadly) also included a live interview with disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, urged Musk to come and see Ukraine “with your own eyes” in order to understand Russia’s actions there.

“If you want to understand what Russia has done here, come to Ukraine and you will see this with your own eyes without any extra words,” Zelensky said during the discussion. “And after that, you will tell us how to end this war, who started it and when we can end it.”

Zelensky also joined other Ukrainian officials in suggesting that Musk has been “influence” by the Kremlin, a baseless charge that was floated by some Western pundits after Musk in early October held a “Russia-Ukraine Peace” Twitter poll. 

According to more from The New York Times: 

During the interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin of The Times, the video link cut out, and when it resumed, Mr. Sorkin joked that Mr. Musk might have somehow cut the connection.

“I hear you,” Mr. Zelensky said. “Most important is that Mr. Musk will hear us.”

Mr. Zelensky said the risk that Mr. Putin would use nuclear weapons was not his biggest fear, and that it shouldn’t be the biggest fear of the West.

“I don’t think he will use nuclear weapons,” Mr. Zelensky said. “This is my opinion.”

As for Musk’s offending original sin, he had encouraged his over 100 million Twitter followers to vote on whether they think negotiated settlement to the war is a good idea or not, proposing a “redo” of referendums for the four annexed regions of eastern Ukraine which Vladimir Putin declared part of the Russian Federation last week. It would also be conditioned on Ukraine remaining neutral vis-a-vis future NATO membership. 

This is highly likely to be the outcome in the end – just a question of how many die before then

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2022

Of course, talk of territorial concessions outraged Ukraine officials and their supporters in the West, with an avalanche of blue check mainstream media pundits pouncing amid cries of Musk supposedly being ‘pro-Kremlin’. Soon after, Musk questioned whether SpaceX will continue providing Starlink for free to Ukrainian forces, unleashing more controversy. 

Stocks are soaring because once again CNBC’s in-house clown Jim Cramer was dead wrong when he predicted that Powell has “every reason to be hawkish” after today’s stronger than expected Q3 GDP – because apparently the Fed looks at 6 month old lagging indicators when making policy…

… and instead the opposite happened – as usual – with Powell signaling that the Fed would slow the pace of interest-rate increases, starting as soon as at its Dec. 13-14 meeting (read: 75bps hike are dead). While Powell did have his hawkish moments, like when he repeated that it’s likely that interest rates will need to go “somewhat higher” than what policymakers had forecast in September, he was more dovish than hawkish and omitted language from Nov 2 when he said that “we have a ways to go with interest rates before we get to the level that is sufficiently restrictive.”

And while we’ll get an update to those forecasts at the December meeting, which will likely show an uptick in that terminal rate projection, it will be below 5%, as Powell’s comments clearly hammered the terminal rate back under 5%.

Powell also said Fed officials will be looking for “significant positive” real rates across the yield curve, among other asset classes, to assess how restrictive monetary policy is.

While the Fed chair discussed monetary policy, he talked extensively about the labor market, saying there are some early signs of a slowdown and that a “softish” landing is still possible. He said officials are concerned that workers may soon start demanding higher wages, which could have a more troubling impact on inflation.

And despite Powell’s saying that history has taught him “loosening policy prematurely would be a mistake” and that the Fed is going to stay the course until its job is done, stocks exploded when he echoed Brainard saying that “If you are waiting for inflation to go down, it’s very difficult not to overtighten.”

In response to Powell’s dovishness, the S&P 500 soared more than 2.1% as of 3:00 p.m. in New York, while the Dow Industrial Average added 1.3%; Tech stocks were the standout, with the Nasdaq 100 surging more than 3%. The VIX index of volatility was set to drop below 20.

Below is a snapshot of several Wall Street reactions to Powell’s comments.

Neil Dutta of Renaissance Macro Research:

“Powell is giving the Fed an off-ramp to 75 basis point moves, but I don’t think you can rule out anything else. There is a reasonably strong chance the Fed extends 50 basis point hikes or 25 basis point hikes.”

Bloomberg Chief US Economist Anna Wong:

“Powell said the labor shortfall — which he estimates at 3.5 million — mostly reflects early retirement, and there’s few signs these workers will return. He’s implying the unemployment rate will likely have to rise to cool wage growth, since an increase in labor supply is not forthcoming.”

“Powell has sounded more hawkish than the typical FOMC participant. Notably, he appears less confident than some in the November FOMC minutes that wage growth has cooled. He hinted labor supply is unlikely grow anytime soon, and the Fed will have to bring down demand or raise the unemployment rate to slow wage growth. This speech confirms our view that Powell is on the hawkish end of the FOMC spectrum — possibly more hawkish than the median participant.”

Bloomberg rates strategist Ira Jersey

Jersey notes that Powell discussed when to stop the balance sheet runoff, and mentioned that at some point they will stop shrinking the balance sheet while allowing reserves to fall as other liabilities naturally climb adding:“The thing that eventually will need to happen is organic balance sheet growth. Everyone has seemed to forget the Fed used to purchase modest amounts of Treasuries every month — but these weren’t ‘large security asset purchases,’ they were just normal. Communicating this shift may be confusing to some market participants when the time comes. The Fed may need to consider starting to communicate this once they’re done hiking.”

Developing

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Renowned geopolitical and financial cycle expert Charles Nenner said, back in September, the markets would sink and then go back up.  Both calls happened right on time.  What does Nenner see now? 

Nenner says, “Two days ago, we started to take profits again.  So, we are not that bullish…”

“The public we have now do not understand bear markets… They don’t understand that we can have rallies of 15% to 20%, and then it can go down again…

So, we took profit and we are mostly in cash again.  We are long in the bond market for a change because it looks like inflation is going to moderate for a little bit. 

We are waiting for the gold cycles to bottom, and we are getting very close, but the bull market in gold will come, but it’s still going to take a few more weeks.”

So, are interest rates on the way down?  Nenner says, “Yes, but for very short term…”

”  You might remember our interest rate cycles bottomed, and the cycle is up for the next 30 years.  I expect interest rates to go back to where they were in the early 1980’s…

Longer term interest rates are going much higher.  Right now, we have a bounce because commodities are weaker, and I think they will be weak until around February.  This is probably why the Fed is not going to talk as aggressive as they were talking.  This is still temporary and interest rates are still going to go much higher in the future.”

Nenner also says, “Mortgage interest rates will go to the 8% to 9% range in 2023. . . .and the stock market will go down by about 50%.”

Nenner says look for inflation to moderate for the next few months but look out in 2023.  Nenner predicts,

“Beware because once inflation raises its head, it is very difficult to get it back into the box.  We could go down to 6% or 6.5% inflation, but also the inflation cycle just started, and we are going to see much higher inflation.”

On the war cycle, Nenner has been predicting this “war cycle will really heat up in 2023.”  He’s convinced all the signs say he’s going to be right.  Nenner says,

“I don’t think the inflation has anything to do with the war in Ukraine, but I think in the middle of next year, we have war cycles bottoming.  I think we are in for a really big mess because it doesn’t seem like anybody is ruling any country anymore, even China.  This may be the reason why gold and silver are going to take off.  If there are shortages, then the inflation will go through the roof.”

There is much more in the 36 min. interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with renowned cycle analyst and financial expert Charles Nenner. (11.29.22)

*  *  *

To Donate to USAWatchdog.com Click Here

There is free information and analysis on CharlesNenner.com. You can also sign up to be a subscriber for Nenner’s cutting edge cycle work with a free trial period by clicking here.    Please mention you heard about this on USAWatchdog.com if asked.

An unusual incident occurred Wednesday over regional waters at a moment tensions across the Korean peninsula remain high. A group of Chinese and Russian fighter jets abruptly breached South Korea’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), causing the South Korean military to scramble jets to warn the foreign fighters off. 

Seoul described that six Russian and two Chinese warplanes had approached without notice, with the south’s Joint Chiefs of Staff describing “the Chinese H-6 bombers repeatedly entered and exited the Korea Air Defense Identification Zone (KADIZ) near South Korea’s southern and northeastern coasts early Wednesday.”

Additionally, Russian and Chinese bombers were monitored flying over regional waters nearby, but not in breach of the South Korean air defense zone. 

The South Korean military statement of the events, which spanned hours, was published in AFP as follows:

“Our military deployed air force fighter jets even before Chinese and Russian aircraft entered the KADIZ to take tactical measures in case of contingency,” the JCS said in a statement.

Beijing and Moscow appeared to have “engaged in a combined air exercise”, Seoul’s Yonhap news agency reported, citing unnamed “observers”.

Japan’s Joint Staff said two Chinese H-6 bombers “entered the Sea of Japan and then flew north” on Wednesday morning.

“Around the same time, what appears to be two Russian aircraft flew south over the Sea of Japan and then turned around,” it said, adding that it had scrambled jets in response.

At one point the group included four Russian TU-95 bombers, which indeed suggests that this was a planned significant joint aerial exercise. 

The flights triggered at alert among Japan’s defense force as well, with Japanese fighter jets also having been dispatched over the Sea of Japan.

While such Chinese-Russian cooperation in bomber patrol flights is less common, the past year has seen stepped up naval patrols among the two countries, coming at a time Washington has put pressure on both related to the war in Ukraine.

Authored by ‘NAMCIOS’ via BitcoinMagazine.com,

Brazilian lawmakers have approved a complete regulatory framework for the trading and use of cryptocurrencies in the country…

Voted on Tuesday evening in Brasilia, the country’s capital, the new rules recognize bitcoin as a digital representation of value that can be used as a means of payment and as an investment asset in the South American nation.

The bill applies broadly to a sector which it calls “virtual assets,” and now only needs the President’s signature before it becomes law. It does not make bitcoin or any cryptocurrency a legal tender in the country.

The bill tasks the executive branch with selecting government bodies to oversee the market. The expectation is that the Central Bank of Brazil (BCB) will be in charge when bitcoin is used as payment, while the country’s securities and exchange commission (CVM) will be the watchdog when it is used as an investment asset. Both the BCB and the CVM, along with the federal tax authority (RFB), helped lawmakers craft the overhaul legislation.

Home to a vibrant cryptocurrency economy, Brazil has at times seen more citizens trade coins such as bitcoin than invest in the stock market. Now, the country seeks to set the stage for that to translate into more day-to-day usage in financial transactions.

But not all in the text is positive for the development of the market in the country. A big miss from Tuesday’s vote was the rejection of a clause that sought to cut some state and federal taxes on purchases of bitcoin mining machines. While the text was quite restrictive –– the benefit would only apply to operations using renewable energy sources –– it was apparently not enough to be approved.

Other provisions include the regulation of service providers such as exchanges, who will need to abide by specific rules to operate in Brazil. The bill seeks to regulate the establishment and operation of Bitcoin service providers in Brazil, defining such entities as those who provide cryptocurrency trading, transfer, custody, administration, or sale on behalf of a third party. Cryptocurrency service providers will only be able to operate in the country after explicit authorization by the federal government.

One rule sought to demand that such companies explicitly separate their patrimony from capital owned by customers –– for example, bitcoin the firm custodies for users. The clause sought to prevent events such as the recently seen with FTX, where user funds were commingled with the company’s funds, and help the recovery of user assets in the event of bankruptcy. It was rejected on Tuesday’s vote.