Metals

Metals

Metals

Explore advancements in metal extraction, refining, recycling, and market trends shaping the global metals industry.

Explore advancements in metal extraction, refining, recycling, and market trends shaping the global metals industry.

SCROLL

SCROLL

Previous report

Previous report

Weekly Report
2024-11-22

Next report

Next report

Overall

Matthew Pines


Content

2024-11-22

Bitcoin and Deterrence, some thoughts: A key contributor of U.S. strategic deterrence (say vis-a-vis China) is our fiscal and monetary capacity to finance a conflict. Leaving aside the atrophy of our defense industrial base, the growing strain on our national balance sheet and lurking fragility in our debt market is a source of strategic vulnerability. You cant deter a war that you cant credibly finance. A geopolitical crisis heading towards war would likely see a buyers strike for USTs (and massive issues w/ dealer intermediation capacity and PTFs fleeing the market), forcing the Fed to cap yields with unlimited QE and related emergency 13(3) liquidity/repo facilitiesBitcoin (and gold) would rapidly respond. While it may be unorthodox, putting Bitcoin on the national balance sheet may reinforce strategic deterrence, given that Bitcoin typically responds positively to geopolitical shockscreating a positive, not negative, reflexivity that bolsters national resilience. We have evidence for this from both the regional bank failures and Russia sanctions events. Officials are presently attempting to shore up the Treasury market with moves to regulate PTFs as dealers and push towards Central Clearing (while also quietly preparing to end QT)but these will not be sufficient to contain contagion if war (or even the threat of war) breaks out. Further, China has demonstrated a clear intent and capability to degrade or destroy U.S. critical infrastructure via cyber attacks in a crisis or conflict (see the PLAs Volt Typhoon)our financial infrastructure would be a prime target in such a crisis, further amplifying the strategic effect on our national capacity and political will to engage or escalate in a conflict. Our cyber and fiscal fragilities are thus a source of strategic vulnerability. Strategic vulnerability makes the decision calculus by a challenger more favorableand thus makes a conflict more likely. To the extent that a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve might mitigate such strategic vulnerabilities, it would increase our resilience and thus the credibility of deterrence. Peace through strength. https://t.co/Z73K9VcLGp https://t.co/DLc2MWiLUj https://t.co/oDnUJYnnLa.

Matthew Pines


Content

2024-11-22

Bitcoin and Deterrence, some thoughts: A key contributor of U.S. strategic deterrence (say vis-a-vis China) is our fiscal and monetary capacity to finance a conflict. Leaving aside the atrophy of our defense industrial base, the growing strain on our national balance sheet and lurking fragility in our debt market is a source of strategic vulnerability. You cant deter a war that you cant credibly finance. A geopolitical crisis heading towards war would likely see a buyers strike for USTs (and massive issues w/ dealer intermediation capacity and PTFs fleeing the market), forcing the Fed to cap yields with unlimited QE and related emergency 13(3) liquidity/repo facilitiesBitcoin (and gold) would rapidly respond. While it may be unorthodox, putting Bitcoin on the national balance sheet may reinforce strategic deterrence, given that Bitcoin typically responds positively to geopolitical shockscreating a positive, not negative, reflexivity that bolsters national resilience. We have evidence for this from both the regional bank failures and Russia sanctions events. Officials are presently attempting to shore up the Treasury market with moves to regulate PTFs as dealers and push towards Central Clearing (while also quietly preparing to end QT)but these will not be sufficient to contain contagion if war (or even the threat of war) breaks out. Further, China has demonstrated a clear intent and capability to degrade or destroy U.S. critical infrastructure via cyber attacks in a crisis or conflict (see the PLAs Volt Typhoon)our financial infrastructure would be a prime target in such a crisis, further amplifying the strategic effect on our national capacity and political will to engage or escalate in a conflict. Our cyber and fiscal fragilities are thus a source of strategic vulnerability. Strategic vulnerability makes the decision calculus by a challenger more favorableand thus makes a conflict more likely. To the extent that a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve might mitigate such strategic vulnerabilities, it would increase our resilience and thus the credibility of deterrence. Peace through strength. https://t.co/Z73K9VcLGp https://t.co/DLc2MWiLUj https://t.co/oDnUJYnnLa.

Matthew Pines


Content

2024-11-22

Bitcoin and Deterrence, some thoughts: A key contributor of U.S. strategic deterrence (say vis-a-vis China) is our fiscal and monetary capacity to finance a conflict. Leaving aside the atrophy of our defense industrial base, the growing strain on our national balance sheet and lurking fragility in our debt market is a source of strategic vulnerability. You cant deter a war that you cant credibly finance. A geopolitical crisis heading towards war would likely see a buyers strike for USTs (and massive issues w/ dealer intermediation capacity and PTFs fleeing the market), forcing the Fed to cap yields with unlimited QE and related emergency 13(3) liquidity/repo facilitiesBitcoin (and gold) would rapidly respond. While it may be unorthodox, putting Bitcoin on the national balance sheet may reinforce strategic deterrence, given that Bitcoin typically responds positively to geopolitical shockscreating a positive, not negative, reflexivity that bolsters national resilience. We have evidence for this from both the regional bank failures and Russia sanctions events. Officials are presently attempting to shore up the Treasury market with moves to regulate PTFs as dealers and push towards Central Clearing (while also quietly preparing to end QT)but these will not be sufficient to contain contagion if war (or even the threat of war) breaks out. Further, China has demonstrated a clear intent and capability to degrade or destroy U.S. critical infrastructure via cyber attacks in a crisis or conflict (see the PLAs Volt Typhoon)our financial infrastructure would be a prime target in such a crisis, further amplifying the strategic effect on our national capacity and political will to engage or escalate in a conflict. Our cyber and fiscal fragilities are thus a source of strategic vulnerability. Strategic vulnerability makes the decision calculus by a challenger more favorableand thus makes a conflict more likely. To the extent that a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve might mitigate such strategic vulnerabilities, it would increase our resilience and thus the credibility of deterrence. Peace through strength. https://t.co/Z73K9VcLGp https://t.co/DLc2MWiLUj https://t.co/oDnUJYnnLa.

Matthew Pines


Content

2024-11-22

Bitcoin and Deterrence, some thoughts: A key contributor of U.S. strategic deterrence (say vis-a-vis China) is our fiscal and monetary capacity to finance a conflict. Leaving aside the atrophy of our defense industrial base, the growing strain on our national balance sheet and lurking fragility in our debt market is a source of strategic vulnerability. You cant deter a war that you cant credibly finance. A geopolitical crisis heading towards war would likely see a buyers strike for USTs (and massive issues w/ dealer intermediation capacity and PTFs fleeing the market), forcing the Fed to cap yields with unlimited QE and related emergency 13(3) liquidity/repo facilitiesBitcoin (and gold) would rapidly respond. While it may be unorthodox, putting Bitcoin on the national balance sheet may reinforce strategic deterrence, given that Bitcoin typically responds positively to geopolitical shockscreating a positive, not negative, reflexivity that bolsters national resilience. We have evidence for this from both the regional bank failures and Russia sanctions events. Officials are presently attempting to shore up the Treasury market with moves to regulate PTFs as dealers and push towards Central Clearing (while also quietly preparing to end QT)but these will not be sufficient to contain contagion if war (or even the threat of war) breaks out. Further, China has demonstrated a clear intent and capability to degrade or destroy U.S. critical infrastructure via cyber attacks in a crisis or conflict (see the PLAs Volt Typhoon)our financial infrastructure would be a prime target in such a crisis, further amplifying the strategic effect on our national capacity and political will to engage or escalate in a conflict. Our cyber and fiscal fragilities are thus a source of strategic vulnerability. Strategic vulnerability makes the decision calculus by a challenger more favorableand thus makes a conflict more likely. To the extent that a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve might mitigate such strategic vulnerabilities, it would increase our resilience and thus the credibility of deterrence. Peace through strength. https://t.co/Z73K9VcLGp https://t.co/DLc2MWiLUj https://t.co/oDnUJYnnLa.

Victor Davis Hanson


Content

2024-11-22

Trump, His Disrupters, and a Chance to Return to Normalcy?

Many of Trump first-round picks share some common themes.

One, many, who were in the past victimized by government bullies and cowardly bureaucratic grandees, or proved sharp critics of the administrative state, are now, in karma-style, in charge of the very agencies that hounded him.

So, Elon Musk, perennial target of government regulatory functionaries, was once policed, but now he polices the bureaucratic police.

Robert Kennedy, Jr., proposed overseer of government health programs, was often blasted as a crank by the subsidized scientists and the administrators within HHS whom he will now direct.

Pete Hegseth fought the military DEI machinery while a solider in the ranks and wrote a book about the corruption of the Pentagon. He will now, if confirmed, run the Pentagon.

Tulsi Gabbard was improperly put on a national security travel watch list as a supposed security threat—and now will be a guardian of our security as Director of National Intelligence.

Tom Homan was derided by the Biden administration and its Homeland Security minions as a fanatic border hawk; now he will run ICE and deal with the detritus of Biden fanaticism on the border.

Two, none of these appointments are traditional swamp creatures. Few rotate from the think tanks. This time around there are no retired “Wise Men” or retired four-stars. Few are Uniparty magnificoes revolving back into high government from their DC university or New York corporate and investment waystations. None are DEI, cover-our-identity-politics-base candidates.

By design, their past government service resumes are thin—few past undersecretaries of these or special assistant to those. And there are not a lot of suffixed alphabetic letters or prefixed long-winded titles that adorn their names.

In other words, they are vaxed from the sort of acculturated administrative state mindset that has alienated and terrified the citizenry.

Three, they all share a reputation from the mainstream media, bicoastal elite, or administrative state guardians as a little “out there” or even “crazy” and “nuts”, whether RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, or Pete Hegseth. So, their opponents rightly fear they are immune from mainstream media disparagements, the usually leftwing generated hoaxes, and beltway tsk-tsk scorn.

Fourth and finally, they are not radicals or nihilists. Rather, they are reformers who are trying to trim or eliminate bloated government machinery, or return institutions and agencies to their normal functions and original missions. In contrast, the last few years of Biden governance chaos and near insurrection were abnormal—and dangerous.

Destroying the border and breaking the law to allow 12 million to enter illegally were nihilist.

Stealthily routing government cash, to circumvent the law, to a communist Chinese-run viral gain-of-function engineering lab is beyond the belief.

Creating a commissar system in the military that demanded ideological orthodoxy over meritocracy, or the Chairman of the JCS secretly communicating with his People’s Liberation Army counterpart to warn about his own commander-in-chief’s stability was insurrectionist.

Weaponizing the DOJ by performance-art swat home raids on opponents, and collusion lawfare waged by local, state, and federal indictments against a former president and presidential candidate were un-American.

Asymmetrical prosecutions and FBI fusion with social media to censor the news were sheer government anarchy.

There are legitimate questions about the confirmability of Matt Gaetz, or his prosecutorial experience, or some of his alleged past excesses, but his very accusers were mostly quiet about the weirdos, creeps, and revolutionaries in the Biden administration—accused of stealing women’s luggage at airports, or lying that a subordinate “racist” border patrol whipped in slave-master fashion innocent would-be immigrants, or trying to fix a felonious presidential son’s sentencing to avoid the accustomed legal consequences of his criminal behavior.

In sum, the currently loud censors have zero credibility given the unprofessional, weaponized, and nihilist  examples they have bequeathed.

Victor Davis Hanson


Content

2024-11-22

Trump, His Disrupters, and a Chance to Return to Normalcy?

Many of Trump first-round picks share some common themes.

One, many, who were in the past victimized by government bullies and cowardly bureaucratic grandees, or proved sharp critics of the administrative state, are now, in karma-style, in charge of the very agencies that hounded him.

So, Elon Musk, perennial target of government regulatory functionaries, was once policed, but now he polices the bureaucratic police.

Robert Kennedy, Jr., proposed overseer of government health programs, was often blasted as a crank by the subsidized scientists and the administrators within HHS whom he will now direct.

Pete Hegseth fought the military DEI machinery while a solider in the ranks and wrote a book about the corruption of the Pentagon. He will now, if confirmed, run the Pentagon.

Tulsi Gabbard was improperly put on a national security travel watch list as a supposed security threat—and now will be a guardian of our security as Director of National Intelligence.

Tom Homan was derided by the Biden administration and its Homeland Security minions as a fanatic border hawk; now he will run ICE and deal with the detritus of Biden fanaticism on the border.

Two, none of these appointments are traditional swamp creatures. Few rotate from the think tanks. This time around there are no retired “Wise Men” or retired four-stars. Few are Uniparty magnificoes revolving back into high government from their DC university or New York corporate and investment waystations. None are DEI, cover-our-identity-politics-base candidates.

By design, their past government service resumes are thin—few past undersecretaries of these or special assistant to those. And there are not a lot of suffixed alphabetic letters or prefixed long-winded titles that adorn their names.

In other words, they are vaxed from the sort of acculturated administrative state mindset that has alienated and terrified the citizenry.

Three, they all share a reputation from the mainstream media, bicoastal elite, or administrative state guardians as a little “out there” or even “crazy” and “nuts”, whether RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, or Pete Hegseth. So, their opponents rightly fear they are immune from mainstream media disparagements, the usually leftwing generated hoaxes, and beltway tsk-tsk scorn.

Fourth and finally, they are not radicals or nihilists. Rather, they are reformers who are trying to trim or eliminate bloated government machinery, or return institutions and agencies to their normal functions and original missions. In contrast, the last few years of Biden governance chaos and near insurrection were abnormal—and dangerous.

Destroying the border and breaking the law to allow 12 million to enter illegally were nihilist.

Stealthily routing government cash, to circumvent the law, to a communist Chinese-run viral gain-of-function engineering lab is beyond the belief.

Creating a commissar system in the military that demanded ideological orthodoxy over meritocracy, or the Chairman of the JCS secretly communicating with his People’s Liberation Army counterpart to warn about his own commander-in-chief’s stability was insurrectionist.

Weaponizing the DOJ by performance-art swat home raids on opponents, and collusion lawfare waged by local, state, and federal indictments against a former president and presidential candidate were un-American.

Asymmetrical prosecutions and FBI fusion with social media to censor the news were sheer government anarchy.

There are legitimate questions about the confirmability of Matt Gaetz, or his prosecutorial experience, or some of his alleged past excesses, but his very accusers were mostly quiet about the weirdos, creeps, and revolutionaries in the Biden administration—accused of stealing women’s luggage at airports, or lying that a subordinate “racist” border patrol whipped in slave-master fashion innocent would-be immigrants, or trying to fix a felonious presidential son’s sentencing to avoid the accustomed legal consequences of his criminal behavior.

In sum, the currently loud censors have zero credibility given the unprofessional, weaponized, and nihilist  examples they have bequeathed.

Victor Davis Hanson


Content

2024-11-22

Trump, His Disrupters, and a Chance to Return to Normalcy?

Many of Trump first-round picks share some common themes.

One, many, who were in the past victimized by government bullies and cowardly bureaucratic grandees, or proved sharp critics of the administrative state, are now, in karma-style, in charge of the very agencies that hounded him.

So, Elon Musk, perennial target of government regulatory functionaries, was once policed, but now he polices the bureaucratic police.

Robert Kennedy, Jr., proposed overseer of government health programs, was often blasted as a crank by the subsidized scientists and the administrators within HHS whom he will now direct.

Pete Hegseth fought the military DEI machinery while a solider in the ranks and wrote a book about the corruption of the Pentagon. He will now, if confirmed, run the Pentagon.

Tulsi Gabbard was improperly put on a national security travel watch list as a supposed security threat—and now will be a guardian of our security as Director of National Intelligence.

Tom Homan was derided by the Biden administration and its Homeland Security minions as a fanatic border hawk; now he will run ICE and deal with the detritus of Biden fanaticism on the border.

Two, none of these appointments are traditional swamp creatures. Few rotate from the think tanks. This time around there are no retired “Wise Men” or retired four-stars. Few are Uniparty magnificoes revolving back into high government from their DC university or New York corporate and investment waystations. None are DEI, cover-our-identity-politics-base candidates.

By design, their past government service resumes are thin—few past undersecretaries of these or special assistant to those. And there are not a lot of suffixed alphabetic letters or prefixed long-winded titles that adorn their names.

In other words, they are vaxed from the sort of acculturated administrative state mindset that has alienated and terrified the citizenry.

Three, they all share a reputation from the mainstream media, bicoastal elite, or administrative state guardians as a little “out there” or even “crazy” and “nuts”, whether RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, or Pete Hegseth. So, their opponents rightly fear they are immune from mainstream media disparagements, the usually leftwing generated hoaxes, and beltway tsk-tsk scorn.

Fourth and finally, they are not radicals or nihilists. Rather, they are reformers who are trying to trim or eliminate bloated government machinery, or return institutions and agencies to their normal functions and original missions. In contrast, the last few years of Biden governance chaos and near insurrection were abnormal—and dangerous.

Destroying the border and breaking the law to allow 12 million to enter illegally were nihilist.

Stealthily routing government cash, to circumvent the law, to a communist Chinese-run viral gain-of-function engineering lab is beyond the belief.

Creating a commissar system in the military that demanded ideological orthodoxy over meritocracy, or the Chairman of the JCS secretly communicating with his People’s Liberation Army counterpart to warn about his own commander-in-chief’s stability was insurrectionist.

Weaponizing the DOJ by performance-art swat home raids on opponents, and collusion lawfare waged by local, state, and federal indictments against a former president and presidential candidate were un-American.

Asymmetrical prosecutions and FBI fusion with social media to censor the news were sheer government anarchy.

There are legitimate questions about the confirmability of Matt Gaetz, or his prosecutorial experience, or some of his alleged past excesses, but his very accusers were mostly quiet about the weirdos, creeps, and revolutionaries in the Biden administration—accused of stealing women’s luggage at airports, or lying that a subordinate “racist” border patrol whipped in slave-master fashion innocent would-be immigrants, or trying to fix a felonious presidential son’s sentencing to avoid the accustomed legal consequences of his criminal behavior.

In sum, the currently loud censors have zero credibility given the unprofessional, weaponized, and nihilist  examples they have bequeathed.

Victor Davis Hanson


Content

2024-11-22

Trump, His Disrupters, and a Chance to Return to Normalcy?

Many of Trump first-round picks share some common themes.

One, many, who were in the past victimized by government bullies and cowardly bureaucratic grandees, or proved sharp critics of the administrative state, are now, in karma-style, in charge of the very agencies that hounded him.

So, Elon Musk, perennial target of government regulatory functionaries, was once policed, but now he polices the bureaucratic police.

Robert Kennedy, Jr., proposed overseer of government health programs, was often blasted as a crank by the subsidized scientists and the administrators within HHS whom he will now direct.

Pete Hegseth fought the military DEI machinery while a solider in the ranks and wrote a book about the corruption of the Pentagon. He will now, if confirmed, run the Pentagon.

Tulsi Gabbard was improperly put on a national security travel watch list as a supposed security threat—and now will be a guardian of our security as Director of National Intelligence.

Tom Homan was derided by the Biden administration and its Homeland Security minions as a fanatic border hawk; now he will run ICE and deal with the detritus of Biden fanaticism on the border.

Two, none of these appointments are traditional swamp creatures. Few rotate from the think tanks. This time around there are no retired “Wise Men” or retired four-stars. Few are Uniparty magnificoes revolving back into high government from their DC university or New York corporate and investment waystations. None are DEI, cover-our-identity-politics-base candidates.

By design, their past government service resumes are thin—few past undersecretaries of these or special assistant to those. And there are not a lot of suffixed alphabetic letters or prefixed long-winded titles that adorn their names.

In other words, they are vaxed from the sort of acculturated administrative state mindset that has alienated and terrified the citizenry.

Three, they all share a reputation from the mainstream media, bicoastal elite, or administrative state guardians as a little “out there” or even “crazy” and “nuts”, whether RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, or Pete Hegseth. So, their opponents rightly fear they are immune from mainstream media disparagements, the usually leftwing generated hoaxes, and beltway tsk-tsk scorn.

Fourth and finally, they are not radicals or nihilists. Rather, they are reformers who are trying to trim or eliminate bloated government machinery, or return institutions and agencies to their normal functions and original missions. In contrast, the last few years of Biden governance chaos and near insurrection were abnormal—and dangerous.

Destroying the border and breaking the law to allow 12 million to enter illegally were nihilist.

Stealthily routing government cash, to circumvent the law, to a communist Chinese-run viral gain-of-function engineering lab is beyond the belief.

Creating a commissar system in the military that demanded ideological orthodoxy over meritocracy, or the Chairman of the JCS secretly communicating with his People’s Liberation Army counterpart to warn about his own commander-in-chief’s stability was insurrectionist.

Weaponizing the DOJ by performance-art swat home raids on opponents, and collusion lawfare waged by local, state, and federal indictments against a former president and presidential candidate were un-American.

Asymmetrical prosecutions and FBI fusion with social media to censor the news were sheer government anarchy.

There are legitimate questions about the confirmability of Matt Gaetz, or his prosecutorial experience, or some of his alleged past excesses, but his very accusers were mostly quiet about the weirdos, creeps, and revolutionaries in the Biden administration—accused of stealing women’s luggage at airports, or lying that a subordinate “racist” border patrol whipped in slave-master fashion innocent would-be immigrants, or trying to fix a felonious presidential son’s sentencing to avoid the accustomed legal consequences of his criminal behavior.

In sum, the currently loud censors have zero credibility given the unprofessional, weaponized, and nihilist  examples they have bequeathed.

Countries
Narratives
Risk Factors
Thought Leadership

© 2024 — Powered by Sift

  • Velocity

© 2024 — Powered by Sift

  • Velocity

© 2024 — Powered by Sift

  • Velocity

© 2024 — Powered by Sift

  • Velocity