Trump Can And Should Fire Fed Boss Over Economy

Authored by Christian Whiton via RealClearPolitics,

Federal Reserve kingpin Jerome Powell is busy doing what he does best: sabotaging a prosperous economy so that President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans lose popularity. He’s also ignoring Trump, whom voters will judge for the economy’s performance and whom the Constitution says runs the executive branch of which the Fed is a part.

This is old hat for Powell, who, after being installed by Trump in 2018, got straight to work undermining his boss’s economic recovery.

You may recall that one of the circumstances that brought an unusual candidate like Trump to power in 2016 was the preceding decade of economic malaise. The Obama years averaged just 2.1% annual growth – the most lethargic economic recovery since World War II. It was fashionable among establishment economists to say that growth above this level, especially the 4.3% average annual growth of the Reagan boom, was simply unobtainable. Big-government economists – practically a redundant phrase today – called it “secular stagnation.” 

Enter Trump. Upon taking office, he immediately began deregulating the U.S. economy, particularly in the energy sector. He worked with Congress to lower the corporate tax rate from 35%, which was nearly the highest among advanced economies, to a more competitive 21%. He also cut personal income taxes for every income bracket, which meant lower taxes for the majority of small business owners who pull company income and taxes onto their personal tax returns.

Trump also incentivized corporations to bring home capital they held overseas. Apple alone said it would bring home a majority of its roughly $252 billion in offshore reserves, paying a one-time tax of $38 billion.

The results for the broader economy were impressive. Annualized GDP growth in the quarter Trump took office was 2.0%. By the end of the year, it had jumped to 4.6%. Unemployment dropped from 4.7% to 4.0%. Manufacturing jobs, which totaled nearly 17 million when NAFTA was enacted in 1994 and globalization ensued, had fallen to 12.3 million when Trump took office. Within a year, the sector saw modest improvement to 12.5 million jobs. Oil production increased from 8.9 million to 10 million barrels per day during that year. (It would reach 13 million later in Trump’s first term.)

But Powell was having none of it. Like most of his predecessors and colleagues at the Federal Reserve, Powell adheres to the discredited Keynesian school of economics, which holds that the government should play a preponderant role in the economy, managing demand through government spending. Keynesians distrust free markets, free people, and the supply side of the economy that produces tangible goods. They believe economic growth leads inevitably to inflation, despite repeated economic expansions, including most notably Reagan’s, in which the expansion of the private-sector economy leads to more goods and services produced and stable prices.

In 2018, Powell saw looming inflation where there was none and tightened monetary policy for the first time since 2008. When Trump was elected in 2016, the federal funds effective rate stood at 0.41%. Despite no inflation, the Fed began a relentless cycle of rate increases that reached 2.2% in time for the 2018 midterm elections, when Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives to Democrats, leading eventually to Trump’s impeachment.

Beyond being a Keynesian, Powell is also a fool. Trump’s first term isn’t the only time he saw inflation where there was none, or failed to see inflation when it was obvious. During the Biden administration, long after the pandemic had peaked, Powell enabled continued federal spending at crisis levels despite the lack of a crisis. Biden’s Treasury Department issued bonds to pay for unprecedented deficits in excess of $1.5 trillion. This only worked because Powell had the Fed buy the bonds with dollars created out of thin air. He also tried to goose the Biden economy by buying mortgages from banks immediately after they were issued. The Fed’s balance sheet of debt it owned grew from $7.4 trillion when Biden took office to a peak of $10 trillion just over a year later. Powell also kept interest rates near zero even as inflation caused by his dilution of the dollar skyrocketed.

Inflation peaked at over 9% in 2022, and the cumulative inflation of the Biden years and Powell’s debasement of the currency eliminated more than 20% of Americans’ purchasing power. Powell and his establishment friends had assured Americans that inflation was “transient” when it wasn’t.

Powell was eventually forced to acknowledge inflation and reluctantly began hiking interest rates to above 5%. He then started lowering them just before the 2024 election in an effort to help Democrats keep the White House. But the easing stopped when Trump took office. Even as central banks in Europe have cut rates due to the lack of inflation, Powell and his clique at the Fed have refused to do so, keeping them at sustained heights not seen in 20 years.

Trump has repeatedly pressured Powell to lower rates. He did so again on June 6 when the government reported that job growth had moderated and revised downward the job growth reported in previous months.

If a Republican president pressuring Powell could work, it would have worked by now. Instead, Trump will have to fire Powell and replace him with a pro-private-sector-growth banker who takes guidance from the president.

Powell and many establishment pooh-bahs think such a move would be illegal. After Trump’s reelection, Powell vowed not to resign and said his termination is “not permitted under the law.” In fact, the Federal Reserve Act does allow Powell’s removal “for cause,” and grotesque incompetence and political conniving ought both to qualify.

But in fact, the whole idea of an “independent” Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, and Trump should fire Powell not only to save the economic recovery but to restore the power of the presidency and recognize the reality that the American people hold the president responsible for economic performance. If he is on the hook to perform, he must control the tools to do so.

Article II of the Constitution states plainly, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” In the Federalist Papers #70, Alexander Hamilton explained the necessity of the strong executive created by the then-draft Constitution to skeptics: “A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.” It’s as though Hamilton could foresee Powell and the Fed of 2025.

There should be no doubt that the Framers of the Constitution intended the president to have the power to fire anyone as part of his responsibility to supervise the unitary executive branch. What was true in 1789 is still true today: any schmuck in Washington knows no bureaucrat will pay you much attention unless you might plausibly take away his job or budget.

Creating a person beyond the reach of the president in the executive branch would be like creating an unelected politburo in Congress to handle certain issues, or a special court completely independent from the Supreme Court to handle certain legal cases. Voters would see such actions as obviously unconstitutional attempts to weaken those pillars of democracy. So too is a theoretically independent Fed – an essentially fascist construct that purports to put monetary policy beyond the reach of the president, weakening the office held by the only man who represents all of the American people. 

In recent years, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the president has the right to fire executive branch officials. It did so again last month in allowing Trump to dismiss members of supposedly independent federal agencies.

There was, however, a glitch. The unsigned order stated that: “The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.” This red herring in the court’s order implied its recognition of the president’s power to fire might not extend to the Fed.

In reality, there is nothing “quasi-private” about an organization that sets interest rates and decides how many dollars to print. Furthermore, the court should take note of another “distinct historical tradition” that began in Franklin Roosevelt’s administration of pondering packing the court with new justices when its rulings are at odds with the wishes of administrations and Congresses. It’s better to stick with what the Constitution means and says lest a flexible view of the Framers’ intent turn around and bite the court or Congress in their asses.

Furthermore, make-believe about an independent Federal Reserve was more believable when Fed chairmen took cues from presidents regardless of their political party. More recently, Fed bosses have joined the rest of the Deep State in seeking to help Democrats and harm Republicans. Firing Powell and dispensing with the fiction of his unfireability will be good for the economy, good for the presidency, and good for democracy.

Christian Whiton was a senior advisor at the State Department in the second Bush and first Trump administrations and served as an adviser to the secretary of state and other senior officials about public affairs and East Asia matters. He is a senior fellow at the Center for the National Interest and a principal at Rockies Aria LLC, a public affairs and government relations firm. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 22:50

GOP Lawmakers Reiterate Asks For Clean Energy Credit Tweaks In Reconciliation Bill

By Lamar Johnson of Utility Dive

Kiggans and a nearly identical group of House Republicans wrote to their House colleagues last month seeking positive changes to the clean energy tax credit phaseout plan that came out of committee work on the reconciliation bill. Instead, the House-passed version of the bill imposes a faster phaseout timeline, including a repeal of tax credits for projects that don’t begin construction within 60 days of the bill’s enactment.

The Republican lawmakers in support of IRA’s clean energy credits asked that the Senate alter that provision — along with a foreign entity of concern provision that was again called “overly prescriptive” — and maintain tax credit transferability throughout the credits’ lifetime. The group said that though they were “proud to have worked to ensure that the bill did not include a full repeal of the clean energy tax credits,” they remain “deeply concerned about those provisions.”

The tax credit phaseout schedule included in the House-passed bill, “would cause significant disruption to projects under development and stop investments needed to win the global energy race,” the letter said. The lawmakers said the overall approach to the tax credit changes “jeopardizes ongoing development, discourages long-term investment, and could significantly delay or cancel energy infrastructure projects across the country.”

The group recommended the 60-day timeline and the bill’s “placed in service” standard should be replaced with a “commence construction” requirement. The group said that due to permitting delays and other issues outside of project developers’ control, it is hard for the businesses to be sure when their projects will be “placed in service.” Swapping that language with a “commence construction” provision would give companies more flexibility to understand if they are eligible for certain credits and give “the investment clarity and lead time required for energy projects to succeed,” according to the Republican lawmakers.

“Our position has always been that the energy tax code should be modernized in a way that promotes fiscal responsibility and business certainty,” the letter said. “Fully realizing that balance requires improvements to the House-passed version of … the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

Kiggins was joined on the letter by Reps. Andrew Garbarino, Mike Lawler and Nick LaLota of New York; Mark Amodei of Nevada; Don Bacon of Nebraska; Brian Fitzpatrick and Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania; Juan Ciscomani of Arizona; Gabe Evans of Colorado; Young Kim and David Valadao of California; and Thomas Kean Jr. of New Jersey. Garbarino reportedly slept through the full House vote on the bill — which passed by a single vote — but later said he looks forward to supporting the bill’s passage when it comes back from the Senate.

Utilities and renewable energy experts have said the current 60-day timeline would “trigger a scramble” to do as much as possible within that window, while other clean energy experts called the House-passed bill “unworkable” in its current form.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 22:00

Senators To Propose Ban On Big Pharma Ads As TV Networks Stand To Get Wrecked

Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine, both independents, on Thursday will introduce legislation that would ban pharmaceutical companies from promoting prescription drugs directly to consumers - including through television, radio, print, digital platforms, and social media, the WSJ reports.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said when running for president he planned to ban pharmaceutical ads from TV. Photo: Lev Radin/Zuma Press

The proposal would mark a sweeping shift in the U.S. advertising landscape, where pharmaceutical companies are among the largest spenders. Prescription drug brands accounted for roughly 13 percent of all ad spending on linear television in 2025, totaling approximately $2.18 billion so far this year, according to iSpot data. In 2024, the industry spent $3.4 billion on traditional TV ads between January and August alone, according to ad-tracking data.

“The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television,” Sanders said in a statement. “They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads.”

The legislation follows longstanding criticism from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has repeatedly called for a ban on prescription drug advertising. While running for president, Mr. Kennedy said he would issue an executive order removing pharmaceutical ads from television, citing overmedication and industry influence on news coverage.

‘The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television,’ Sen. Bernie Sanders said in a statement. Photo: piroschka van de wouw/Reuters

“We’re one of only two countries in the world that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers,” Mr. Kennedy said in a video posted to X. “Everybody agrees it’s a bad idea.”

The United States and New Zealand are currently the only countries that permit direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug ads.

Mr. Sanders and Mr. King, who each voted against Mr. Kennedy’s confirmation, have long expressed skepticism of consumer drug marketing. In February, Mr. King introduced a bill that would prohibit pharmaceutical advertising in the first three years following a drug’s approval.

Other lawmakers from both parties have taken similar steps. In May, Senators Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, and Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, introduced legislation to eliminate tax deductions for pharmaceutical consumer advertising.

Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration relaxed disclosure requirements for DTC ads, pharmaceutical companies have increasingly leaned on consumer advertising to drive demand. Under current rules, companies need only disclose a drug’s “most important” risks during commercials.

The result has been a media environment saturated with pharmaceutical messaging. Drug ads made up 24.4 percent of all advertising minutes on evening news broadcasts across major networks — including ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and NBC — through May of this year, according iSpot. On CBS Evening News, pharmaceutical companies appeared in more than 70 percent of commercial breaks, per Kantar Media.

Huge

*SENATORS TO PROPOSE BAN ON DRUG ADVERTISING TO CONSUMERS: WSJ

This would destroy most of legacy media overnight https://t.co/FydjBGzNlx

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 12, 2025

The industry has defended the practice. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a leading trade group, points to its “guiding principles,” arguing that direct‑to‑consumer ads increase disease awareness, encourage patients to seek treatment, and prompt conversations with doctors.

Any move to ban pharmaceutical advertising could face legal challenges under the First Amendment’s protections for commercial speech.

Still, Mr. Sanders and Mr. King maintain their efforts are necessary to push back against what they describe as an overcommercialized influence on public health messaging.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 20:45

Note: Mortgage rates are from MortgageNewsDaily.com and are for top tier scenarios.

Friday:
• At 10:00 AM: University of Michigan's Consumer sentiment index (Preliminary for June).

Russia Relocates Strategic Bombers To Protect From Ukraine Drone Swarms

Following Ukraine's long-range drone assault on June 1st which was dubbed 'Operation Spider's Web' - and which resulted in the destruction of at least several aircraft, including strategic bombers - Russia has relocated dozens of strategic bombers to remote airbases, new satellite imagery shows.

Ukraine had claimed that during the daring operation airbases Murmansk, Irkutsk, Ryazan, and Ivanovo, were hit, damaging or else completely destroying up to 41 aircraft, including Tu-95s, Tu-22M3s, and A-50s. However, Russian media sources have repeatedly said these numbers are exaggerated, and in some instances have claimed decommissioned and inactive planes were hit.

Wiki Commons

The Russian military is scrambling to reduce the vulnerability and exposure of the country's most advanced and expensive aircraft, as Ukrainian drones have continued to come over the border on a nightly basis, sometimes in waves of hundreds.

The air force's bomber fleet is also likely to be rotated more often, including to remote or even previously inactive airfields.

According to analysis of the new satellite imagery in the Amsterdam-based Moscow Times:

Satellite imagery analyzed by the OSINT research group AviVector shows that all Tu-160 bombers previously stationed at the Belaya airbase in Irkutsk and the Olenya airbase in Murmansk had vacated their positions by early June.

Two of those bombers were redeployed to Anadyr in the Chukotka region, three to Yelizovo in the Kamchatka region and another three to the Borisoglebskoye airbase in the republic of Tatarstan.

Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS aircraft were also relocated from Murmansk to bases in Tatarstan and the Amur and Saratov regions, as well as to Mozdok in the republic of North Ossetia — a facility that had not been actively used by the Russian military in recent years.

Example of the new satellite imagery evaluated by AviVector...

For another example of what looks like a Moscow decision to move these valuable military assets as far away from Ukraine as possible is as follows:

Located on the desolate Chukotka Peninsula, the airfield is around 410 miles from Alaska and was set up during the Cold War.

The supersonic Tu-160 bombers can carry nuclear weapons and are by far the most expensive in Russia’s inventory, with a price tag of around $500 million per unit. By comparison, the B-52 Stratofortress, the mainstay of the US’s bomber fleet, has an estimated value of roughly $94 million.

The Telegraph: Two Russian Tu-160 bombers at the Anadyr airbase

'Spider's Web' added some insult to injury given that in some cases some of Russia's most high-dollar aircraft were hit by "cheap drones" which had first been shipped into Russia "right under the nose" of Russian security forces.

The drones had been activated once near the airbase targets while on modified wooden cabins mounted on the back of lorries. It seems that in many cases the very truck drivers were seemingly unaware of their role in the elaborate covert operation.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 20:10

House Approves Bill To Codify $9.4 Billion In DOGE Cuts To Foreign Aid, Public Media

Authored by Jackson Richman & Nathan Worcester via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The House of Representatives passed a bill on June 12 to rescind $9.4 billion in federal spending.

Introduced by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), it passed 214–212.

The U.S. Capitol on June 3, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

It now goes to the Senate, where it will likely pass along party lines. As in the House, only a majority will be needed to pass it because it is not subject to the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

The seven-page bill eliminates funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. It also rescinds $15 million from the Institute of Peace and $22 million from the African Development Foundation.

Additionally, it scales back billions of dollars in economic assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The bill also codifies some of the cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which was led by Elon Musk. DOGE has saved taxpayers $180 billion, or more than $1,118 per taxpayer, according to its website.

The legislation was sent last week to Congress by the White House in accordance with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Congress has 45 days to approve such requests.

The House Rules Committee advanced the bill to the floor on June 10, 8–4.

“President [Donald] Trump and congressional Republicans campaigned on attacking wasteful spending,” the committee’s chairwoman, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), said. “So the new administration ... then found wasteful spending. President Trump then acted and recommended that these funds be permanently canceled. I cannot think of a more textbook scenario of the proper utilization of this process.”

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the committee’s ranking member, disagreed.

He said the bill does not eliminate “waste or fraud or abuse.”

“It’s gutting essential services that people rely on, gutting programs that save lives,” he said.

He cited the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which seeks to eliminate HIV and AIDS worldwide, as an example.

“This program alone has saved 26 million people from dying of HIV, and enabled more than 8 million babies to be born HIV-free,” McGovern said. “There are now tens of millions of people on lifesaving treatment with PEPFAR accounting for over 90 percent of preventative treatments around the world. Your bill pulls the rug from under this program and caps 20 years of virus progress.”

Ahead of the vote, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) criticized the package as “reckless” and predicted that every Republican would vote for it.

“It’s going to undermine America’s national security, hurt our ability to protect the American people in terms of their health, their safety and their well-being, including by going after a George W. Bush bipartisan initiative that has saved thousands, actually hundreds of thousands, actually millions of lives across the world by combating the HIV and AIDS crisis,” he said, referring to PEPFAR.

Rep. Carlos Giménez (R-Fla.) told The Epoch Times that the PEPFAR matter is “not an issue.”

“Reports of it affecting that are not true,” he said.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) told The Epoch Times that the criticism over it possibly affecting PEPFAR is “saber-rattling.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 18:05

Putin Reminds West That Russia Has World's Most Advanced Nuclear Weapons

Russian President Vladimir Putin during a Wednesday meeting of government ministers and military leaders took the opportunity to remind all other nations, especially the West, that Russia possesses the world's most advanced nuclear weapons.

He introduced in the public statements that "special attention" must be paid to the continued development of the country's nuclear triad, in reference to the combination of land-based delivery methods, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and strategic bombers.

"Now, the share of the state-of-the-art weapon systems and equipment in our strategic nuclear forces comes to 95%," Putin said, according to state media translation. He added Russia is making "good progress" on the nuclear readiness front.

Source: Sputnik/Reuters

"That is the highest level among all of the world’s nuclear powers," Putin then emphasized. He said:

Today, our task is to form a new long-term program for the entire complex of systems and weapons models, including, first of all, of course, promising ones, to make maximum use of the experience of the special military operation (the war against Ukraine - ed.), various regional conflicts, and, of course, it is important to take into account global trends in the development of military technologies.

He also assessed general military readiness, saying further: "The dominant force in conducting modern military operations of any scale and intensity remains the ground forces. And it is important to increase their combat capabilities in the shortest possible time."

Currently, full nuclear triad capabilities are possessed only by three countries in the world — the USA, China and Russia.

American military leaders have tended to acknowledge the diversity and advancement of Russia's nuclear-delivery systems. One of the latest new systems, the Sarmat ICBM, is boasted by Kremlin sources as being able to travel 11,000 miles (about 18,000km) with a payload of around ten tons.

A month ago, Putin made an unprecedented allegation. He asserted that Ukraine's Western supporters in NATO were essentially trying to bait Moscow into deploying nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Putin emphasized that Russia exercised restraint in this matter.

During the ceremony of awarding the Hero of Labor medal, Deputy Scientific Director of the Snezhinsk Nuclear Center Yuri Dikov promised Putin:

“The entire NATO pack will break their teeth on our nuclear shield.”
- SK pic.twitter.com/e5N5epVuZZ

— Zlatti71 (@Zlatti_71) June 12, 2025

"They wanted to provoke us, wanted us to make mistakes," the Russian leader had asserted in the early May Rossiya-1 interview. "And there was no need to use the weapons that you mentioned. I hope that it won’t be necessary," he added.

"We have enough capabilities and means to finish what we started in 2022 with the result that Russia needs," Putin concluded. He emphasized that Russia is able to carry through with its military goals without resorting to nuclear arms.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 17:40

The Case For Saying I'm Sorry

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Commentary

Elon Musk and Donald Trump had a blowup last week that grew unusually sharp, thus hitting headlines the world over.

President Donald Trump and White House Senior Advisor, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk shake hands while attending the NCAA Division I Wrestling Championship in Philadelphia, Pa., on March 22, 2025. Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

After some days of thought and consideration, Elon apologized: “I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far.”

The message is short and to the point, with no fluff. He apologized, no excuses, no sarcasm, no elaboration. No, he did not take back his views that Trump should do more to back DOGE cuts.

He has doubts about the tariff agenda. He thinks the government needs to be cut to the bone and that is not happening. He has doubts about other cabinet officials.

He let his frustrations get out of control and posted about it. He has apologized, not for his views but for the way he got carried away. Mostly he rejects the personal attacks on Trump and the other matters that he said “went too far.”

And that was enough.

You could feel all the tension in the room fall to normal almost immediately. Even though Trump has said nothing back, it was enough for one man to simply say: I’m sorry.

It made international news, every venue going on about it. It’s not only because there are some political implications that come from reconciliation. It’s because it is astonishing to see someone actually apologize!

Isn’t it amazing? Just a few words that cost absolutely nothing. Still, they are rarely said. People cling to those words like personal treasure, as if saying them is surrendering an important part of self. In a sense, that is true. Which is precisely why we should hear them more.

“I’m sorry” should be added to “please” and “thank you” as magic words. Kids should be taught this, and not just by instruction but by example too. They need to see their parents say a genuine “I’m sorry” to each other. They need to observe adults simply owning their mistakes without excuses.

For some reason, the practice of genuine apology seems to have vanished from the culture.

Maybe it is due to that pop slogan from a 1970 movie: “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” My mother despised that line, which she said was completely wrong. She says love means being always ready to say you’re sorry.

Still, it stuck, as if never say sorry is an act of love. There are exceptions when under legal duress and only as PR theatrics. We often hear “CNN would like to offer an apology about x, y, and z” but we know for sure that this announcement is part of a legal settlement and therefore not sincere.

In one tactic I’ve heard recently: “I owe you an apology.” That’s admitting a debt, not actually apologizing. Just say: I’m so sorry.

Nor is an apology that is immediately followed by a long string of circumstantial excuses and subtle blaming of everyone else a legitimate apology.

Nor is saying “I’m sorry you are upset” or “You don’t like this and I’m sorry about that.”

Those are all just lame ways to use the word without the meaning.

See how many clever ways we invent to keep from saying that thing? Why? It has something to do with the strange pain that comes with the surrender of ego.

Verbalizing contrition without excuse is extremely difficult. You have to do it often to develop the habit. Hardly anyone has it anymore.

The costs are extremely high as a result. Resentment persists and festers, growing worse over time. It’s true in politics and in interpersonal relationships too.

Saying sorry requires humility. Here again, we live in times when that is nearly absent. Today’s influencers believe they thrive on always being right, never wrong. People gain dopamine hits from fighting rather than getting along. It’s a dog-eat-dog world and everyone seems to be trying to either eat or avoid being eaten.

Humility, contrition, and forgiveness as cultural institutions seem nearly extinct. As a result, lost trust is never regained and results in permanent fissures and lifetime wars among people.

Life is too short for all of us for this kind of nonsense, each tick of the clock getting us all closer to our expiration date, at which point none of it matters anyway.

How many times have you heard someone say a version of the following: “I would be glad to make up and go on like nothing happened but not until I get an apology.”

I figured out years ago what this means. It means nothing will ever be fixed. Waiting for someone else to apologize to you means you will be waiting until death. Essentially, there is no experiential basis for waiting for anyone else ever to apologize to you.

There is only one answer: make the first move. “If I did anything wrong, and I’m certain you believe I did, and no question I could have handled the conflict better, I want to sincerely apologize to you and ask for your forgiveness.”

Say that or some version of that—even if you are barely wrong and the other person is hugely wrong—and nothing more. Watch what happens. There is a good chance that in a few days, the same will come back at you. Then you can talk and find some middle ground to go on.

Otherwise, these resentments, conflicts, loathings, and internal hates pile up in our lives like bags of stones in burlap sacks we drag around with us everywhere. They slow us down and dull the human spirit.

The next part of contrition is forgiveness. Hannah Arendt wrote a famous essay about it. She says that “the Discoverer of the role of forgiveness in the realm of human affairs was Jesus of Nazareth. The fact that he made this discovery in a religious context and articulated it in religious language is no reason to take it any less seriously in a strictly secular sense.”

Forgiveness, unlike vengeance, “is the only reaction which does not merely re-act but acts anew and unexpectedly, unconditioned by the act which provoked it and therefore freeing from its consequences both the one who forgives and the one who is forgiven. The freedom contained in Jesus’ teachings of forgiveness is the freedom from vengeance, which encloses both doer and sufferer who in the relentless automatism of the action process, which by itself need never come to an end.”

That’s beautiful but is there any reason to speak of forgiveness without apology? Probably not. This is why the Christian tradition long emphasized confession, whether in a formal sacrament or just personal honesty with one’s maker. Admit it all. Feel contrite. Pledge to do better. That makes all things right.

At that point, we let it go. We move on. As Arendt says, the field of the future is open, refreshed, a blank canvas on which to paint a new image. So long as we hold on to dreams of revenge and the anger of resentment, the canvas cannot accept a new image at all.

Let’s do what we can to bring back the apology, the genuine expression of regret, the Mea Maxima Culpa with the strike of the breast thrice, without excuse, without footnotes, without mitigating words of subtly blaming others. We are all flawed. We all do wrong. A culture in which we are honest about that with each other is one that can build a brighter future.

Elon has shown the way and deserves nothing but praise. Twitter cost him $44 billion but the apology cost him nothing. The latter could ultimately prove more valuable.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 17:15

White House Fears Iranian Response To An Attack Could Overwhelm Israel's Air Defenses

Iran's military says it's ready for anything at a moment President Trump has reiterated that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites could be imminent. Such a strike "could very well happen," the president said Thursday.

But..."We are ready for any scenario and have a military strategy," commander-in-chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Hossein Salami responded in speech on state TV.

Also, White House envoy Steve Witkoff has privately warned top Senate Republicans that Iran's retaliation to an Israeli strike on its nuclear program "could overwhelm Israel's defenses and cause mass damage and casualties," Axios reports.

Trump has said that while something 'dangerous' could happen 'soon' in the Middle East, the US remains "fairly close to an agreement with Iran" - thus this latest messaging is somewhat contradictory. 

Is all of the embassy drawdown reporting merely a ploy? CNN and others have been emphasizing all day that staff draw downs from American embassies in Iraq, Kuwait, and Bahrain are in preparation for something serious.

But it remains that this US State Dept 'order' could just be an extreme tactic to make Iran feel the pressure. According to more of the latest from Axios:

• Witkoff told the Senators that military strikes by Israel are on the table if no agreement is reached.
• He then brought up Iran's ballistic missile capabilities. The U.S. is concerned Israel's air defenses would not be able to handle an Iranian response involving hundreds of missiles, the sources said.
• Such an attack, Witkoff told the group, could cause massive casualties and damage.
• Witkoff also raised concerns about Iran's ballistic missile arsenal during a speech in New York on Wednesday, calling it "as big of an existential threat" for Israel as Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Among the worries is that Iran's defense ministry is currently touting the rollout of a new ballistic missile with a 4,000-lb. warhead.

Aside from the damage this could do to Israel, there's also the question of US military personnel stationed in the region. Has the Pentagon taken steps to protect these locations?

Meanwhile, below is Netanyahu's Iran nuclear bomb claim timeline: 1992-present, @IsraeliLobby/X:

If the US truly believes an Israeli attack on Iran is imminent, we would probably see more urgent repositioning of US troops in the region - but so far there have been scant indicators of this. Prominent Pentagon correspondents have not obtained any statements or issued evidence of force protection or relocation measures. However, military dependents in some regions are being evacuated. 

Potentially in harm's way if a broader Iran-Israel war breaks out...

According to NBC News late in the day Thursday, "If Israel carries out any operation against Iran, it will be carried out without any US military assistance."

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 16:50

Locked Out Of The Dream: Regulation Making Homes Unaffordable Around The World

Authored by Joel Kotkin & Wendell Cox via RealClearInvestigations,

The first in a two-part series on the global housing crisis.

Next to inflation, Americans ranked housing as their top financial worry in a Gallup survey last May. It’s only gotten worse. January home sales were down 5% from last year’s dismal numbers. Record numbers of first-time buyers are stuck on the sidelines as housing affordability stands at the lowest level ever recorded, while one in three Americans now spend over 30% of their income on mortgage or rent. 

The housing crisis is not just an American problem, but a global phenomenon that hits the middle and working classes the hardest. Studies of the Canadian, British, European, and East Asian markets have also found that housing prices have risen far faster than household incomes and inflation. A report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development concluded that “housing has been the main driver of rising middle-class expenditure.” In prosperous and communitarian Switzerland, Zurich studios sell for well over $1 million, and small houses even more, making downpayments unaffordable to affluent people despite the overwhelming financial advantages to homeowners. 

Underlying the plight of home buyers worldwide is a sometimes overlooked but profound influence – the spread of restrictive land-use regulations. It’s reshaping political and economic alignments in ways that may further destabilize the social order. Home ownership is strongly correlated with positive social indicators, and as renting grows twice as quickly as buying, this trend poses a threat to Western democracy by deepening economic inequality, depressing demographic vitality, and undermining the upward mobility that has driven Western progress for the past century.

Cost of Over-Regulation

The price increase may seem surprising because there has not been a huge spike in fundamental demand. In California, and most of the United States, as well as Europe and East Asia, population growth is tepid, if not declining. Today’s higher interest rates are below those that prevailed from 1970 to 1995, when housing costs were considerably lower relative to incomes. Nor is this predominantly a technical problem; the rise of remote work, which is connected to migration to smaller metros, as well as new technologies for building, including using 3D printers, actually offers the chance to build more cheaply.

And yet, the principal cause for housing shortages and rising prices stems from the failure to build enough new housing units, particularly the single-family homes consumers most desire. Homebuilders built 1 million fewer homes (including rental units) in 2024 than in 1972, when there were 130 million fewer Americans. One estimate puts the U.S. housing market shortage at an estimated 4.5 million homes, according to Commerce Department data. 

The rapid inflation of housing costs stems primarily from ever more constricting land-use regulations. Inflated prices are particularly rife in countries and states with strict regulations like California, where high-income households now utterly dominate the housing market, and more than a third of all real estate transactions in recent years topped $1 million.

At the crux of the problem is a series of housing policies referred to as “urban containment.” First implemented in Britain at the end of the Second World War, urban containment policies typically seek to manage growth by imposing boundaries or greenbelts around urban areas, outside of which new development is either prohibited or severely limited. 

Decades ago, there was ample land within these boundaries, but this has changed as population growth has stimulated more demand. The simple fact is that once the urban limits are reached, land prices along the boundaries – the suburbs and exurbs – and in the areas still open to development inevitably rise. This mimics the effects of the 1970s gasoline embargoes that drove prices through the roof – and is nothing more than basic economics. Rationing tends to increase prices.

To this flawed approach, many jurisdictions have imposed other costs such as high-impact fees, lengthy environmental reviews, minimum parking mandates, and historical preservation designations. But generally, nothing quite compares with urban containment, as it drives up land costs by restricting development on the periphery, where land prices are the lowest. 

In almost all cases, the highest housing prices occur in markets that are characterized by this planning strategy. This includes all markets in Australia and New Zealand and many in Canada, the United Kingdom, the U.S., Western Europe, and China. In the U.S., the worst housing inflation has been in California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and Colorado, all states that apply the tightest large regulatory noose around new developments, particularly on and beyond the urban fringe.

The connection between policy and prices is clearly evident. As late as 1970, only a few markets were shaped by urban containment. As its influence grew, so did prices. As late as about 1990, national price-to-income ratios were “affordable,” at three or less in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the U.K., and the U.S. Today, the median multiple in these countries tends to be over five. But the worst results, as seen in most recent Demographia International Housing Affordability Study – Hong Kong, Sydney, San Jose, Vancouver, Los Angeles, Adelaide, Honolulu, San Francisco, Melbourne, Brisbane, as well as Greater London, are at a remarkable nine or above. 

Perhaps counterintuitively, higher density development – often seen as the alternative to “sprawl” – does not lower prices, as is sometimes suggested. In fact, U.S. data suggests a positive correlation between greater density and housing costs. Among 53 major metros, those with more single-family housing and larger lot sizes (key indicators of lower density) have substantially better housing affordability. The effects of density-focused policies on people and regions are profound. One study found the median family in San Jose or San Francisco would need 125 years (150 in Los Angeles) to save enough money to afford a down payment on a median-priced home; in Atlanta or Houston, the figure is 12 years. 

Highly restrictive planning policies also impact renters. A recent RAND study of California found that policy-driven delays, strict architectural standards, green mandates, and the requirement to pay union-level wages have increased the cost of construction of subsidized apartments twice as much as in Texas, while taking almost two years longer to get approved. Portland, Ore., a pioneer in urban containment, embraces high-density housing, but high prices have driven multifamily construction to the lowest level in a decade.

Collapse of the Dream 

Urban containment and other planning policies have devastated middle-class aspirations in every country or region that adopts them, even in countries like Australia, which enjoy a vast land mass and a smallish population. Australian cities once characterized by family-friendly neighborhoods are now dominated by dense apartments and condominiums. 

Planning regulations now add 55% to the price of a home in Sydney, according to a recent Reserve Bank of Australia study. In greater Sydney, the median home price recently passed A$2 million (approximately US$1.3 million). This is higher relative to incomes than in Los Angeles, London, New York, Singapore, and Washington. Even Adelaide, geographically isolated and far from a dynamic global business locale, has higher prices, based on income, than Seattle, one of the world’s most dynamic tech hubs. According to projections from the Urban Taskforce, apartments will make up half of Sydney’s dwellings mid-century, whereas only one quarter of Sydney dwellings will be family-friendly detached homes. 

Young people are most impacted by this policy regime. In the U.S., homeownership for people under 35 has fallen fairly steadily since the Great Recession of 2008 and is now half that of people over 45. Similarly, in Australia, the percentage of households aged 25 to 34 owning homes has dropped from more than 60% in 1981 to only 45% in 2016. 

Similar trends are seen in other high-income countries, including Ireland, where only a third of millennials own a home, compared with almost two-thirds of baby boomers when they were the same age. At least one-third of British millennials are likely to remain renters permanently.

Much of the same is occurring in the U.S. Whereas in 1969, the median price of a home cost about five years of a young adult’s income, today it costs nearly nine years. A new Institute for Family Studies report, “Homes For Young Families: A Pro-Family Housing Agenda,” says that since 1970, the share of young adults who own the home they live in has declined from 50% to around 25-30%. 

Ignoring Preferences 

In advocating such urban containment and other high-density housing policies, planners, backed by academia and most big media, set themselves against the overwhelming preferences of the public for less density and more spacious housing. Judge Glock, who is now affiliated with the Manhattan Institute, has noted that in Census Bureau data since 1950, the average density of the major continuously built-up urban areas has dropped from 6,000 people per square mile to 3,000. In recent years, smaller metropolitan areas have been growing the fastest, while net domestic migration is away from areas of higher density to areas of lower density.  

Since 1950, the share of U.S. population in core cities has fallen from 24% to under 15%. Even in California, despite government resistance, virtually all the growth over the last decade has been in farther-flung suburbs. As elsewhere, the preference for single-family homes is “ubiquitous,” according to recent research by Jessica Trounstine at the University of California, Merced. “Across every demographic subgroup analyzed,” she observes, respondents preferred single-family home developments by a wide margin. Relative to single-family homes, apartments are viewed as “decreasing property values, increasing crime rates, lowering school quality, increasing traffic, and decreasing desirability.” 

Once, it was widely suspected that young people would head to big core cities like New York, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. But surveys reveal that nearly three in five younger people see homeownership as an essential part of the American dream, while two-thirds favor suburbs as their preferred residence. Three out of four Californians, according to a poll by former Obama campaign pollster David Binder, opposed legislation that banned single-family zoning.

A big driver of suburban growth is minorities and immigrants. In the 1950s and 1960s, mass suburbanization was widely associated with “white flight” and discrimination against minorities. But in the past decade, over 90% of all suburban growth in the U.S. came from minorities; currently, more than three-quarters of all African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians in major metropolitan areas in the U.S. live in the suburbs. Similar patterns are also evident in Canada, Australia, and the U.K. 

Today, most high-income countries are primarily suburban. A Statistics Canada analysis of 2021 census results indicates that more than 75% of the population lives in the suburbs, which absorbed more than 80% of the growth between 2016 and 2021. Even in transit-rich and land-short Japan, residents of Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya are dispersing away from the urban core to suburban and exurban areas after these cities nearly monopolized national population growth over the previous decade. Much the same can be said of Seoul, South Korea, which is even denser than the Japanese megacities. An analysis of the 53 U.S. major metropolitan areas finds that more than 85% of residents live in suburban or exurban neighborhoods and that more than 90% of the population growth since 2010 has been in the suburbs and exurbs. 

These choices underscore an analysis of Canadian poll results by Sotheby’s, which suggests a “disconnect” between urban planning and consumer preferences: The “picture is of young urban families overwhelmingly preferring detached houses, and decidedly not the condominiums into which planners are driving them.” As Sotheby’s puts it, “The report dispels myths about young, urban families’ housing preferences.”

Among Americans under 35 who do buy homes, four-fifths choose single-family detached houses. According to a recent National Homebuilders Association report, over 66%, including those living in cities, prefer a house in the suburbs. Almost two-thirds of U.S. millennials (25 to 44) favor being owners, which is also the case in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The future vision of the planners has little attraction among the public. 

Upward Mobility or Neo-Feudalism?

Whatever their desires, without an affordable home, millennials and Gen Z will face a formidable challenge in boosting their net worth. Homes today account for roughly two-thirds of the wealth of middle-income Americans; homeowners have a median net worth more than 40 times that of renters. Not surprisingly, most young people still believe in creating wealth through ownership. 

Yet rather than allowing for greater dispersal of wealth, as was the case in previous decades, the decline of housing affordability is a critical factor driving inequality, notes a recent study by Bank for International Settlements (Berne) economist Gianni La Cava. In more historically feudal Great Britain, land prices have risen dramatically over the past decade, and less than 1% of the population owns half of all the land. On the continent, farmland is increasingly concentrated while urban real estate has fallen into the hands of a small cadre of corporate owners and the mega-wealthy. The left-wing economist Thomas Piketty has identified high housing costs as a driver of increasing inequality even in purported social democracies like Germany and France.

This is also the case in the U.S., where about 71% of the increase in housing wealth between 2010 and 2020 was gained by high-income households, according to the National Association of Realtors.

Increasingly, home ownership relies on the classic feudal formula – being born into “the funnel of privilege.” In the U.S., millennials are three times as likely as boomers to count on inheritance for their retirement. Among the youngest cohort, those ages 18–22, over 60% see inheritance as their primary source of support as they age. In high-price markets like Los Angeles and Orange County, California, close to 40% of loans rely on family money for qualification, up from 25% in 2011. 

Threat to Democracy 

Most democratic or republican societies in history – in Athens, Rome, the Netherlands, Britain, France, North America, Oceania – were created and sustained by a broad property-owning middle class.

In the twentieth century, middle-class asset growth was accomplished in large part by the expansion of an urban footprint beyond the city core, allowing many more citizens to buy property in spacious, safe environments offering a measure of privacy. The ideal of broadly dispersed property ownership has long been promoted by politicians, both right and left, in most high-income countries. “A nation of homeowners, of people who own a real share in their land, is unconquerable,” said President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He saw homeownership as critical not only to the economy but to democracy and the very idea of self-government. 

Today, the trend towards democratization of landownership is being reversed, with more and more people being pushed into living in rented apartments or houses, with little chance of gaining financial independence. An economy where most people rely upon wealth transfers from the more fortunate cannot easily coexist with a tradition of individual initiative and self-governance. 

At the very least, the drive to create lifetime renters and forced densification sets a stage for a future political conflict and social disruption, particularly for the younger generation. In a Harvard poll of 18- to 29-year-olds this year, housing ranked as the third-most important issue overall, after inflation and health care. In California, almost 70% of residents consider housing costs a major concern, while in Britain, housing rose to be one of the top five issues for voters, well ahead of defense, security, poverty, and crime.

The housing affordability crisis impacts a host of life decisions. Studies of the U.S. have found that higher house prices had a direct impact on the decision of couples to have children. Research in Germany and across 18 European and North American nations also found that high housing prices defer family formation, leading to lower fertility as well as marriage rates, particularly among the working class. On the flip side, a new study by the Federal Reserve Board reports that homeowners are not only more affluent than renters, they are also physically and mentally healthier, vote more often, and their children achieve higher levels of education.

Many advocates of forced densification and renting justify their views around “green” and “sustainability” concerns. The environmental magazine Grist has envisioned “a hero generation” that will escape the material trap of suburban living and work that engulfed their parents. One magazine editor proudly declared herself a part of the GINK generation (as in “green inclinations, no kids”) that she said meant not only a relatively care-free and low-cost adult life, but also “a lot of green good that comes from bringing fewer beings onto a polluted and crowded planet.” 

Less motivated by planetary concern, major Wall Street investors are also focusing on crowding people into small spaces and a life of permanent rentership. Britain’s Lloyds Bank and BlackRock have placed multi-billion-dollar bets on buying homes for the rental market. In the first quarter of 2021, investors accounted for roughly one out of every seven homes bought, a marked increase from previous years. 

A notion embraced by some financial groups as well as greens is one of a rentership society where people remain renters for life, enjoying their video games or attending to their houseplants, never knowing the pleasure of having a real garden or backyard of their own. It might assure a steady profit for the landlord class, but it would destroy the dream of ownership for the average person. The broader effect may resemble a modern form of feudalism, where both inherited wealth and institutional ownership, often the Church, concentrate control over housing. 

Need for Reform

If unchecked, the pattern of declining ownership and rising prices for housing could shape the politics of the future, particularly among young people. Not surprisingly, many renters tend to favor leftist policies such as rent control and housing subsidies. The development of a class of permanent renters seems ideal for fomenting class warfare directed at an ever-shrinking number of owners, by a vast majority with no real assets, and little chance of getting any.

Ultimately, the battle over land and property will define our future. We either accommodate hope among those in the next generation or force them to accept a lifetime of rental serfdom and permanent subservience to the state, or big capital, or both. 

As Conor Dougherty of The New York Times put it, “For all the focus on billionaires and stock prices, it’s home values that are a primary source of wealth inequality and the root of a generational schism between the housing-rich baby boomers and young adults today.” He quotes Edward Glaeser, a premier housing economist at Harvard, who said that the housing crisis has become “a huge hindrance on the quest for well-being and the pursuit of happiness.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 16:25

From STR: U.S. hotel results for week ending 7 June

The U.S. hotel industry reported mostly negative year-over-year comparisons, according to CoStar’s latest data through 7 June. ...

1-7 June 2025 (percentage change from comparable week in 2024):

• Occupancy: 67.0% (-3.2%)
• Average daily rate (ADR): US$161.57 (0.0%)
• Revenue per available room (RevPAR): US$108.23 (-3.2%)
emphasis added

The following graph shows the seasonal pattern for the hotel occupancy rate using the four-week average.
Click on graph for larger image.

The red line is for 2025, blue is the median, and dashed light blue is for 2024.  Dashed purple is for 2018, the record year for hotel occupancy. 
The 4-week average of the occupancy rate is tracking behind both last year and the median rate for the period 2000 through 2024 (Blue).
Note: Y-axis doesn't start at zero to better show the seasonal change.
The 4-week average will increase with the summer travel season.  We will likely see a hit to occupancy during the summer months due to less international tourism.

The Great Climate Science Swindle Goes On

Authored by Chris Morrison via The Daily Sceptic,

It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison. -Harvard Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen

When the story of the great turn-of-the-millennium climate science fraud comes to be written by future historians, the central role of the RCP8.5 ‘business as usual’ model scenario as adopted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be obvious to all. This ‘pathway’ has polluted climate model predictions for years with its wild and improbable claims of carbon dioxide emissions and soaring temperatures. A huge number of science papers incorporating the pathway are published by obvious Net Zero activists, and their ‘scientists say’ climate psychosis-inducing fairy tales are sped on their way by blinkered journalists in the mainstream press. The science writer Roger Pielke Jr. notes that RCP8.5 has been “falsified” – most knew it was fake, historians are likely to conclude, but the Net Zero addiction was too strong for it to be given up.

By “falsified”, Dr Pielke explains in a recent Substack article, he means that the pathway’s emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. To prove his point he offers up the 2021 evidence contained in Burgess et al. highlighted in the graph below.

According to Pielke, the gap between the black arrow (RCP8.5) and the blue arrow (reality) indicates that RCP8.5 is not just unlikely but impossible. Since the paper was published, Pielke notes that the gap between RCP8.5 and reality has only grown larger. RCP8.5 also assumes that global temperatures will rise by a possible 4°C in less than 80 years, a heck of an ask given temperatures have risen by barely 0.25°C over at least the last 25 years. Recently President Trump’s executive order titled ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science’ effectively outlawed the use of RCP8.5 for scientists on the US federal payroll, noting that it uses highly unlikely assumptions such as end-of-century coal use exceeding estimates of recoverable reserves.

The climate researcher Zeke Hausfather dismissed the Trump Administration’s claims about RCP8.5 by stating that the research community had moved on, noted Pielke. But Hausfather’s ‘nothing to see here’ is wrong, says Pielke. From 2018 to 2021, Google Scholar reported 17,000 articles published using RCP8.5, he reports. From 2022 to 2025, the same source reported 16,900 offending articles. “Some shift,” he observes.

Of course, as Pielke shows, the use of RCP8.5 and its later similar counterpart SSP5-8.5  is far from over, and in fact it appears to be increasingly vital in whipping up support for the fading Net Zero fantasy. Nowhere more so than in mainstream media where a truly awful example of its use was to be found in a recent story written by Mark Poynting at the BBC. This rising doomster star recently sent the children to bed crying by effectively claiming that ‘scientists say’ coastal land and beyond could be overwhelmed with several metres of sea level rise if the global temperature moves by three-tenths of a degree centigrade. This magnificent effort from yet another climate activist on the BBC payroll was arrived at by pushing the boundaries well beyond what even SSP5-8.5 predicted. Based on a paper looking at polar ice melt, which gave a high-emissions projected rise by 2100 of between 12 and 52 centimetres, Poynting chanced on a suggestion in the paper that the IPCC said it could not rule out (admittedly with “low confidence”) that the pathway could point to a sea level rise of over 15 metres by 2300. That’s the way you do it, job done with the first paragraph going strong on the several metres claim “even if the ambitious targets of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is met”.

In 2021 Roger Pielke teamed up with Justin Ritchie and argued that the use of RCP8.5 was driven by the requirements that computer climate models had a high signal-to-noise ratio. In other words, although the pair do not put it in precisely these terms, rigged models driving political propaganda needed to over-emphasise any greenhouse gas warming from burning hydrocarbons compared with natural climate variation. The lack of real world plausibility is said to have led to misleading policy implications.

And some! The history of the great climate science scam and the role it played in the collectivists trying to foist Net Zero on a global population will give RCP8.5 a starring role. But it will also accuse those who trashed the scientific process, invented the idea of ‘settled’ science and attempted to demonise any findings that didn’t blame humans for the weather – looking at you BBC, but you were little worse than most mainstream media (it’s just that we had to pay for all your twaddle). Blame can also be attached to state-funded meteorological operations around the world using unnaturally heat-ravaged stations to produce rising temperature readings and countless new ‘records’. Nobody in the polite mainstream brought up all the dud data since to do so would have opened a Pandora’s box that was in nobody’s political interest. It will not, of course, be possible to forget all those university employees adding ‘science’ to describe their unscientific work and greatly helping their employment prospects, not to mention their grant-raising abilities. And there will be a big shout out for all those billionaires that poured billions into curating a narrative aimed at everyone from tame journalists to defenceless school children.

But if your correspondent is still around to write the book, I shall reserve a special place in hell for a group of Lib Dem, Labour and Conservative legislators. These 200 dangerous Lefty MPs supported a private member’s bill in the British House of Commons earlier this year that, if it had passed, would have cut the use of all domestic and imported hydrocarbons to barely 10% within a decade. Not enough to even run emergency services, let alone provide warmth and food for a population of nearly 70 million. This is an extreme case, although many politicians seem to wish for measures that will likely lead to economic and societal collapse. Nevertheless, it is a shining example of how far the madness actually went in the first quarter of the 21st century.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 15:40

LA Riots Hand Republicans Script For Midterms

Authored by Philip Wegmann & Susan Crabtree via RealClearPolitics,

The masked man on the motorcycle, the one who waved a Mexican flag in front of a torched car as Los Angeles police stood by, will soon be famous. His identity remains unknown, his image iconic – but for all the wrong reasons. 

Republicans will replay the clip again and again in campaign ads ahead of the midterms. 

“This lawlessness is exactly what Americans rejected in 2024,” said Michael Whatley, chairman of the Republican National Committee. “While Democrats sow chaos, Republicans stand as the party of law and order.” President Trump is delivering on his campaign promise to crack down on illegal immigration, Whatley told RealClearPolitics, and ahead of the midterms, his party “will continue to run on this winning message and finish the job for the American people.”

As National Guard were being deployed to quell violence in California, Republicans were mobilizing to capture and catalog video of looting, rioting, and violence. One RNC official told RCP they were struggling to capture the flood of content coming across cable news.

“It was just non-stop,” they said. “There was so much.” 

That content from the LA riots will soon provide fodder for the contrast Republicans hope to paint in November of next year, illustrating the failed immigration policies they allege California Gov. Gavin Newsom now embodies. For his part, Newsom blames Trump for inflaming an already “combustible situation.”

Los Angeles became ground zero for the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown Saturday when ICE agents launched a series of raids across the city. Protests followed. Some of the demonstrations have been peaceful. The ones getting wall-to-wall news coverage, however, were not. Demonstrators hurled rocks, firework shells, and Molotov cocktails at police. Vandalism and looting ensued, prompting Trump to order 2,000 National Guardsmen to the city without the approval of the California governor.

Newsom quickly condemned the move as a “blatant abuse of power” that puts the nation on a path to authoritarianism. “Trump is pulling a military dragnet all across Los Angeles,” Newsom said in a speech delivered from an LA studio Tuesday, as the city remains under a curfew ordered by Mayor Karen Bass. “Well beyond his stated intent to just go after violent and serious criminals, his agents are arresting dishwashers, gardeners, day laborers and seamstresses.”

“California may be first, but it clearly won’t end here,” the governor said. “Other states are next. Democracy is next.”

The White House already saw the riots as an opportunity to paint Democrats as hapless in the face of lawlessness. After the governor’s speech, they were overjoyed to have that fight with Newsom. “Democrats are not even choosing the 20 on 80-20 issues,” a White House official told RCP. “They’re choosing the 10 on 90-10 issues.”

The situation in Los Angeles could be perilous for Democrats. Newsom has tried to differentiate a violent mob from lawful demonstrators, warning on social media that those “who take advantage of Trump’s chaos” will be held accountable, while encouraging those who are “protesting peacefully.”

The White House, meanwhile, sees nothing but anarchy and is considering invoking the Insurrection Act, a law that grants the president authority to deploy the military on U.S. soil. Asked if he was considering it, Trump told RCP Tuesday in the Oval Office, “We will see.” 

Republicans are betting that voters have already made up their minds. “AI couldn’t generate better imagery,” said Jesse Hunt, a GOP strategist and former communications director at the National Republican Senatorial Campaign. Trump won the general election, in large part, in reaction to the lax immigration policies of the Biden administration, Hunt told RCP, and the mob violence in LA will capture voter attention ahead of the midterms. 

“It paints a real picture of which side voters can choose to be on,” he said, “public servants enforcing U.S. law in an American city or a violent mob waving another country’s flag.”

The National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee has already cut a digital spot that will serve as a template for the midterms. Posted on social media Tuesday, the video splices together clips of rock-hurling rioters in the smoke-filled streets of LA with soundbites from Democrats defending the demonstrations as “mostly peaceful protests.”

The Congressional Leadership Fund, the super PAC aligned with Speaker Mike Johnson and the largest spender in House campaigns, has already argued this week that the riots roiling Los Angeles will continue to spread to other cities. When confronted with that chaos, the group predicted, “Americans will vote accordingly.”

A new survey commissioned by CLF, obtained by RCP, and conducted by Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio, provides the reasoning for their confidence. The polling of key congressional districts found that on illegal immigration and deportations, 57% favor “hiring nearly 40,000 additional ICE and border patrol agents to address illegal immigration as well as drug and human trafficking.” The Republican survey also showed 68% of voters favor funding for the military to support law enforcement “in their fight against drug cartels.”

The Trump administration remains convinced that the public is on their side. “They are incredibly out of touch with what the vast majority of Americans support,” a White House official said of Democrats, telling RCP, “We are going on offense and backing them into the corner of supporting dangerous criminal illegal aliens, violent rioters, and lawless chaos.”

Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics' national political correspondent.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 14:55

Trump Administration Launches Website For 'Gold Card' Visas

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Trump administration has launched a new website for people interested in so-called gold card visas, which the president has said would grant citizenship in exchange for millions of dollars.

President Donald Trump arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 20, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The website, trumpcard.gov, says that “the Trump card is coming” and encourages people to enter their information to be notified when applications open.

A picture of the card shows the president’s face and a figure of $5 million.

People can enter their name, area of residence, and email.

“Thousands have been calling and asking how they can sign up to ride a beautiful road in gaining access to the Greatest Country and Market anywhere in the World,” President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social, his social media network, on June 11.

Trump said in February that his administration was going to start selling the “gold card” visas so that wealthy people could legally enter the United States.

“They’ll be wealthy, and they’ll be successful, and they’ll be spending a lot of money and paying a lot of taxes and employing a lot of people, and we think it’s going to be extremely successful, and never been done before anything like this,” he said at the time.

The visas are an updated version of the EB-5 investor visas, according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

Under the EB-5 program, investors can apply for a green card if they invest in a commercial enterprise in the United States.

Investors must invest an amount that creates at least 10 full-time positions and invest at least $1 million, or at least $800,000 in targeted employment areas. The minimum required investment amount depends on the type of project.

The annual limit of EB-5 visas is 7.1 percent of the worldwide employment limit.

The gold card program does not fit within the Immigration and Nationality Act, the primary U.S. immigration law, the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonprofit that studies immigration laws, said earlier this year.

“The EB-5 program is one of the specified immigrant [visa] categories – the gold card program is not. An alien could not lawfully be admitted as an immigrant on the basis of having received a gold card,” George Fishman, a senior legal fellow with the center, wrote in a blog post. “Further, an alien could not become a naturalized citizen on the basis of having received a gold card, as a gold card would not provide lawful permanent residence.”

He said it is unlikely the program would survive scrutiny by the Supreme Court if it were challenged with a lawsuit, although justices could ultimately rule in favor of the president.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 14:05

Stellar 30Y Auction Stops Through Amid Jump In Foreign Demand

After a medicore 3Y auction to start the week, a solid 10Y auction yesterday, jittery traders were left with just one Treasury sale this week, arguably the most challenging one: today's $25BN 30Y auction. In retrospect, there was no reason to worry because demand for today's paper - especially among foreign buyers - was stellar any way you look at it. 

Let's take a look: starting at the top, the auction priced at a high yield of 4.844%, up from 4.819% last month and the highest since January; more importantly the auction stopped through the When Issued 4.859% by a solid 1.5bps, a reversal to last month's 2.6 bps, and the second biggest through since November.

The bid to cover rose to 2.430 from last month's 2.314, was the second highest since January which also put it above the six-auction average of 2.392.

The internals were even more impressive: foreign demand was solid with Indirects awarded 65.2%, up from 58.9% and the highest since January. And with Directs taking down 23.4%, down from 27.2% if above the recent average of 22.3%, Dealers were left with just 11.4$, the lowest since November as there was little need for them to step in considering solid demand.

The market response was favorable, with 10Y yields dropping near session lows of 4.34% - below where the 10Y traded ahead of last week's solid NFP report - before retracing some of the move, because today's auction notwithstanding, the US is still facing an avalanche of long duration to find Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 13:29

Man Who Flew 120 Times For Free By Posing As Flight Attendant Convicted Of Fraud

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A man was convicted by a federal jury of wire fraud and entering a secure area of an airport under false pretenses after posing as a flight attendant to obtain dozens of free flights over six years, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida said in a June 10 statement.

Planes taxi on the runway at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Florida, on July 7, 2022. Wilfredo Lee/AP Photo

Tiron Alexander, 35, was convicted on June 5 and faces up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for wire fraud and up to 10 years and a fine of up to $250,000 for entering the airport’s secure area.

He is scheduled to be sentenced on Aug. 25.

According to an October 2024 indictment, Alexander worked for an unnamed airline from Nov. 30, 2015 onwards, though his role was not disclosed.

The indictment states that he was never a flight attendant or pilot.

At the time of his employment at the airline, airline pilots and flight attendants were entitled to certain travel privileges based on their position, seniority, and tenure, the indictment states.

“These privileges included the ability to obtain no-cost flight reservations on their employer airline and other airlines with which their employer airline maintained reciprocal interline travel agreements,” the indictment states.

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, between 2018 and 2024, Alexander posed as a flight attendant for airlines and booked free flights on an airline carrier’s website that were reserved solely for pilots and flight attendants.

Alexander booked and flew on 34 flights with one airline without paying for them, the U.S. attorney’s office said in a statement.

“Over the 34 flights, Alexander claimed through the airline carrier’s website application process—a process that required an applicant to select whether they were a pilot or flight attendant and provide their employer, date of hire, and badge number information—that he worked for seven different airlines and had approximately 30 different badge numbers and dates of hire,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office said.

Evidence presented at trial showed Alexander also posed as a flight attendant on three other airline carriers.

In total, Alexander booked more than 120 free flights by falsely claiming to be a flight attendant, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said.

According to the indictment, Alexander entered a secure area of Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Broward County on or about July 22, 2020.

The Transportation Security Administration investigated Alexander’s case. It is unclear when Alexander was arrested or if he has legal representation.

The Epoch Times contacted the Department of Justice for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 13:20

AUKUS-ward If You "Don't Do Geopolitics"

By Michael Every of Rabobank

US CPI, even weaker-than-expected 0.1% m-o-m headline and core and 2.4% and 2.8% y-o-y, wasn’t the main event. Neither was President Trump again calling for the Fed to cut 100bps at its next meeting to lower US debt-servicing costs (when our Fed-watcher Philip says it will cut 25bps in September, then stop.) Instead - again - it was geoeconomics and geopolitics.

The ECB’s Lagarde used a platform at the PBOC to state that “coercive trade policies are not a sustainable solution to today’s trade tensions” -- in the same way violence is never a solution to violence?-- and are “far more likely to provoke retaliation and lead to outcomes that are mutually damaging” – which is exactly where the threat of violence can come in. Was that aimed at the US or China though? She also added, “That means both surplus and deficit countries must take responsibility and play their part.” Was that aimed at China and Germany as well as the US?

Trump tweeted an unwritten “framework” based on the unwritten Geneva “consensus” would see Chinese students back at US universities and rare earths provided to US firms “up front”, with China facing a 55% US tariff and the US a 10% China tariff. However, the Wall Street Journal says the rare earths are only for six months. It seems this on-off process will continue until one side builds a Harvard or the other gets now-weaponised rare earth processing in place (as Bloomberg puts it: ‘China Hit World’s Pain Point on Trade – and Will Do So Again’). Guess which is easier?

Trump also said he’ll set unilateral tariff rates within two weeks for countries not negotiating in good faith, while Treasury Secretary Bessent added the 90-day tariff pause could be extended for those who are - and that China can’t export its way to prosperity and must prove it’s a reliable trade partner.

Russia offered to help Iran remove the weaponized parts of its nuclear programme and build its civilian reactors. That looks a quid pro quo for the US stepping back on support for Ukraine, toppling other dominoes in the Great Game at the expensive of Kyiv and Brussels.

However, that was eclipsed by the US announcing the removal of non-essential staff from its Iraqi and regional embassies and military bases, the former having been placed on high alert with emergency action committees activated after Iran’s defence minister said they would strike those targets if attacked. Moreover, US Senator Cotton stated: “Today @SecDef confirmed that Iran’s terrorist regime is actively working towards a nuclear weapon. For the sake of our national security, the security of our allies, and millions of civilians in the region this cannot be allowed to happen.” Western intel sources also reportedly state Iran has exploited negotiations to actively diminish the potential impact of military strikes on its nuclear sites.

As such, there are press reports the US will announce the end of Iran nuclear talks within hours. That only appears to leave one option – albeit with the Russian offer in the background, perhaps. None of this is a cheap bluff, if that’s what it is; it’s a card you play knowing it’s costly and only works once… unless it’s an essential move because of expected developments.

To say oil, up around 4% at the time of writing, is not where it would be if an attack on Iran were to transpire is an understatement – if it’s not just US military bases and embassies that Iran hits in response. Welcome to one of the key, stacked, geopolitical, binary scenarios I’d flagged for 2025 as The Year of Living Dangerously.

As if that were not enough, the Pentagon also announced it’s reviewing the AUKUS defence treaty as it can’t build enough nuclear subs (or ships) to provide Australia with them ahead. That’s awkward for those who think stuff just appears and don’t get that, as with rare earths, it doesn’t – with disastrous supply-chain consequences. We now see the same dynamic in the world’s military hegemon - it can’t make enough of what it needs. That’s why --alongside structural reforms-- it needs to bring back industrial production. Yet the same people who lambaste the US for doing that, “because markets”, also lambaste it for not protecting them everywhere for free. Just as awkwardly, this US move comes just after Australia’s PM Albanese said he wouldn’t be bossed around on defence spending by the US and, alongside the UK and New Zealand, sanctioned two Israeli ministers in a way the US didn’t like. 

The message is clear: the US can step back from defending Australia (and New Zealand) just as it has from Europe if the latter won’t step up at a far higher cost than Australia or New Zealand are currently budgeting for.

At the very least, the US seems to be insisting that Canberra pledges to use any US subs vs China in a potential war over Taiwan. Do that and maybe Australia can keep AUKUS - yet they will likely pay a high price elsewhere, including on trade; and if they don’t, they will have to pay an even higher price for defence, at the very least – the US could squeeze Australia (and New Zealand) in many ways, just as it can Europe. In short, it looks like the D for Decision Day I have long warned of may finally loom Down Under after years of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-ism.

Yet showing somebody is still on a sugar high, Australia reportedly thinks a new security pact with Europe, ahead of a possible FTA, is an answer. Sleep well, Aussies (and Kiwis): Spain and Germany are ready to protect you at the drop of a hat, just as you are ready to fight Russia. Even France, which had wanted to play that role, is going to be overstretched with a huge budget deficit and a lot of Europe to patrol now the Baltic states are being mentioned by Russia.

Similarly, geopolitical events have again eclipsed a careful UK government spending review assuming they wouldn’t even when everyone could see they could. In particular, yesterday’s 4-year plan only sees defence meeting at a 2.6% of GDP level from 2027 onwards, then stopping, even as NATO will require 3.5% to 5%, and a failure of AUKUS would send a further shock through Whitehall. That’s not just ‘what is GDP for?’ but ‘who is paying for that GDP?’

Indeed, Bloomberg notes ‘Britain Counts the Mounting Cost of Taxing Wealthy 'Non-Doms’’, where “Over 4,400 business leaders have disclosed an overseas move in the last year”; and as the Telegraph bewails ‘Britain ‘surrendering Gibraltar’ after agreeing to EU passport controls’ where Brits “will have to deal with Spanish guards when they land on the Rock after deal agreed.” Yes, The Rock which once underlined British global naval dominance is now to be in the Schengen zone.

You might want to think none of this really matters compared to a 0.1%. In which case, I would suggest that is about as much of the big picture impacting on inflation that you see.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 13:00

Today, in the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter: The "Home ATM" Mostly Closed in Q1

A brief excerpt:

During the housing bubble, many homeowners borrowed heavily against their perceived home equity - jokingly calling it the “Home ATM” - and this contributed to the subsequent housing bust, since so many homeowners had negative equity in their homes when house prices declined.
...
Here is the quarterly increase in mortgage debt from the Federal Reserve’s Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 (sometimes called the Flow of Funds report) released today. In the mid ‘00s, there was a large increase in mortgage debt associated with the housing bubble.

In Q1 2025, mortgage debt increased $45 billion, down from $112 billion in Q4. Note the almost 7 years of declining mortgage debt as distressed sales (foreclosures and short sales) wiped out a significant amount of debt.

However, some of this debt is being used to increase the housing stock (purchase new homes), so this isn’t all Mortgage Equity Withdrawal (MEW).

Tennessee Sues US Department Of Education Over Hispanic Student Funding

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A civil rights lawsuit filed on June 11 in federal court for the Eastern District of Tennessee claims that a program providing federal money to colleges and universities if Hispanic students make up at least 25 percent of the student body is unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on June 3, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The lawsuit was brought by the state of Tennessee and Students for Fair Admissions, a group whose lawsuit led the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 to strike down the use of racial criteria in student admissions at institutions of higher learning in a case called Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College.

Wednesday’s complaint names the U.S. Department of Education and Education Secretary Linda McMahon as defendants.

The plaintiffs argue that the federal government’s Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) grant program unconstitutionally discriminates based on race and ethnicity, according to the complaint.

The Education Department’s Hispanic-Serving Institutions Division provides “grant funding to institutions of higher education to assist with strengthening institutional programs, facilities, and services to expand the educational opportunities for Hispanic Americans and other underrepresented populations,” the Department of Education’s website states.

Congress appropriated $350.6 million for the program in fiscal 2024, education think tank New America reports.

The department may not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity, “even when Congress orders it to,” the complaint states.

Despite this, under the federal Higher Education Act the department allocates HSI program funding to colleges and universities only if they meet the “arbitrary ethnic threshold of 25 percent Hispanic” student enrollment, according to the complaint.

Tennessee operates a variety of colleges and universities, all of which serve Hispanic students and low-income students. “But not one of them qualifies to receive grants under the HSI program” because they don’t possess “the right mix of ethnicities on campus,” the complaint states.

“Funds should help needy students regardless of their immutable traits, and the denial of those funds harms students of all races,” according to the complaint.

In its current form, the program engages in “unconstitutional racial balancing” and operates outside the constitutional authority of Congress. The 25 percent minimum Hispanic enrollment provision functions as “a strict racial gatekeeper,” determining which schools may receive millions of dollars under the program, Students for Fair Admissions said in a statement.

Racial balancing is the practice of using race as a factor to seek proportional representation of racial groups in institutions such as schools. Even before its ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, the Supreme Court held that racial balancing policies must be weighed under the strict scrutiny standard, which means they must advance a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored.

Tennessee argues the HSI program presents its schools with an impossible choice: they must either forgo millions of dollars in federal grants or participate in illegal racial balancing in admissions so they can boost Hispanic enrollment. A new state law specifically forbids race-based preferences in education, so now state schools are “at risk of violating either state or federal law no matter which direction they turn,” the statement said.

Students for Fair Admissions president Edward Blum said the HSI program is unconstitutional because it conditions receipt of government money on a student body’s racial composition.

The Supreme Court determined in the 2023 ruling that such practices are “patently unconstitutional.”

“Discriminating against colleges, universities, faculty, and students based on race violates the fundamental principle of equal protection under the law,” Blum said in a statement.

The Epoch Times reached out to the Department of Education for comment. No reply was received by publication time.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 12:40

PPI Shows Companies Eating Tariff Costs, Bloomberg Finds

Earlier today, when analyzing the latest PPI data, we concluded that - at least so far - it is companies that are eating tariffs costs, not passing them on to consumers. In a subsequent report, Bloomberg agrees. 

Echoing what we said, Bloomberg writes that the details from the PPI report were less benign than the headline number suggests, as "core goods were the main source of price pressures in May, suggesting that companies may be eating some of the added costs from tariffs."

The increase is particularly visible in finished goods, and specifically durable consumer goods. This category just posted its largest increase since 2023.

But while that is bad news for companies, it is good news for consumers. As Bloomberg further explains, the fact that core goods continue to be a source of disinflation in consumer prices but a source of persistent inflation in producer prices hints at pressure on corporate margins. That can also be gleaned simply from the fact that PPI is running higher than CPI, just as we highlighted earlier.

It certainly should explain "why stocks aren’t over the moon with this report", even if it is good news for consumers as it means that, so far, it is corporations (with the benefits of Chinese suppliers) who are footing the cost of Trump's trade war. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/12/2025 - 12:20