Top Wall Street bosses warned lawmakers that new financial rules that US regulators are considering could hurt lending and potentially damage the US economy.
Bank CEOs including JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon and Goldman Sachs’ David Solomon argued at a congressional hearing on Wednesday that stricter legislation being floated — like increasing the amount of capital banks are required to hold — could create risk and hurt markets.
“Ironically, a proposal to mitigate risk will create even more risk in the financial system,” Dimon said in an opening testimony. It “will fundamentally alter the US economy in ways that the Federal Reserve has not studied or contemplated.”
Solomon added that new global policies — known as Basel III Endgame — “has a particularly negative impact to capital markets functioning.”
While the annual oversight of Wall Street firms happens every year, this year’s meeting comes following a string of regional bank failures earlier this year that resulted in well known institutions including Silicon Valley Bank and Signature bank going belly up.
Jamie Dimon snaps a photo before he begins a Congressional testimony.AP
JPMorgan stepped in to buy First Republic Bank after the smaller bank collapsed.
In response, new global banking standards known as the Basel III Endgame have been proposed in the hopes of providing more stability to the sector.
But the CEOs stressed the potential adverse impact on a range of products and services, from green lending, commodities hedging, and pension plan profits, to US Treasury market liquidity.
Other bank CEOs testifying at the hearing include Morgan Stanley’s James Gorman, Citi’s Jane Fraser, State Street’s Ronald O’Hanley, Bank of America’s Brian Moynihan and Wells Fargo’s Charles Scharf.
Brian Moynihan, Chairman and CEO of Bank of America; Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase; and Jane Fraser, CEO of Citigroup.Getty Images
Gorman emphatically criticized Basel as “wholly unnecessary” and later making “no sense” for an industry already awash in cash and subject to a slew of strict regulations.
The CEOs are being grilled by lawmakers including progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
Democrats like Sherrod Brown, who chairs the committee, voiced skepticism that banks are motivated by more than profits.
“Absolutely nothing in these rules would stop your banks from making loans to working families,” Committee Chair Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said. “What your banks want is to maximize quarterly profits, the cost of everything and everyone else be damned.”
CEOs stressed the potential adverse impact on a range of products and services, from green lending, commodities hedging, and pension plan profits, to US Treasury market liquidity.AP
The Republican Senator from South Carolina, Tim Scott, was more sympathetic and said the new policy framework would have a “devastating impact” on small business owners.
Senator Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, asked the CEOs if the regulations could hurt homebuyers, farmers, small business owners, prompting all eight to raise their hands.
On Wednesday President Joe Biden suggested that if Congress doesn't send Ukraine more money, now, it may 'embolden' Russian President Vladimir Putin to invade a NATO ally, which would precipitate "American troops fighting Russian troops."
The threat was not persuasive.
In response, Senate Republicans channeled Elon Musk (G...F...Y...), blocking Biden's $111 emergency supplemental package that would also include aid for Israel, humanitarian aid for Gaza, and a smattering of border funding.
The Senate voted 49-51, failing to reach the 60-vote threshold required to allow the proposal to come up for consideration. Notably, Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voted against the measure, while Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) flipped his vote to 'no' to preserve the option of revisiting the bill at a later date.
* * *
President Joe Biden has raised the possibility of "American troops fighting Russian troops" in a speech urging Congress to put aside "petty, partisan, angry politics" which is holding up his multibillion-dollar aid package for Ukraine. He said that he's willing to make "significant compromises" with Republicans but that it's they who've been unwilling to back down from their "extreme" demands.
"This cannot wait," Biden stressed in the televised remarks from the White House. “Congress needs to pass supplemental funding for Ukraine before they break for the holiday recess. Simple as that. Frankly, I think it’s stunning that we’ve gotten to this point in the first place. Republicans in Congress are willing to give Putin the greatest gift he can hope for and abandon our global leadership."
"I’m willing to make significant compromises on the border. We need to fix the broken border system. It is broken. And thus far I’ve gotten no response," Biden pleaded. He made the speech after speaking with G7 leaders, who are reportedly alarmed that US funding to Ukraine is set to run dry in a mere three weeks.
"If we walk away, how many of our European friends are going to continue to fund and at what rates are they going to continue to fund?" he posed.
And that's when the fear-mongering really kicked into overdrive. He went so far as to say that if Ukraine's defense isn't funded, this will lead to the country being steamrolled by the Russian military machine, and an emboldened Putin will then seek to gobble up more territory. Here's what the US president said, as reported in The New York Times:
The president even raised the prospect that an emboldened Mr. Putin would pose a threat to NATO allies, requiring the United States to come to their assistance with troops on the group. “If Putin takes Ukraine, he won’t stop there,” Mr. Biden said. “It’s important to see the long run here. He’s going to keep going. He’s made their pretty clear.”
“If he keeps going and then he attacks a NATO ally” to which the United States is bound by treaty to help, “then we’ll have something that we don’t seek and that we don’t have today — American troops fighting Russian troops,” Mr. Biden said.
“Make no mistake,” he added. “Today’s vote is going to be long remembered and history’s going to judge harshly those who turn their back on freedom’s cause. We can’t let Putin win. I’ll say it again, we can’t let Putin win.”
Of course, this shaky "logic" is the opposite of reality. It is the nearly two years of 'blank check' spending which has only served to ever-deepen American military involvement in the war, and this is what has gotten Washington into yet another foreign quagmire.
The soon to emerge narrative will also inevitably be that these hold-out Republicans "lost" the Ukraine war, as Biden's Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen hasalready been saying. The MSM will also help the administration float this as a key 2024 election talking point... wait for it to be on an endless CNN/NPR loop headed into next November.
AbbVie Inc is nearing an approximately $8 billion deal to acquire Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings Inc, a developer of drugs for neurological conditions such as Parkinson's, people familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
The acquisition would come just days after AbbVie agreed to buy cancer drug developer ImmunoGen Inc for $10.1 billion in cash, highlighting its appetite to place big bets on promising new medicines.
AbbVie is in talks to pay around $45 per share for Cerevel, which is backed by private equity firm Bain Capital, the sources said.
If the negotiations conclude successfully, a deal could be announced as early as this week, the sources added, requesting anonymity because the matter is confidential.
AbbVie and Cerevel did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Cerevel shares jumped 14% to $42.20 in afterhours trading in New York on Wednesday.
An MIT scientist has said that although the global temperature rise owing to a greenhouse effect is real, the increase is small and does not pose any existential threat.
The greenhouse effect is primarily caused by water vapor and clouds, said Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide are minor constituents of the greenhouse effect, Mr. Lindzen told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” in an interview.
“If all other things are kept constant, and you double CO2, you would get a little under one degree of warming,” Mr. Lindzen said. Some climate models estimate the highest warming at three degrees, but “even three degrees isn't that much,” he added.
“We're dealing with changes for a doubling of CO2 on the order of between breakfast and lunch,” he said.
According to NASA, the greenhouse effect is "the process through which heat is trapped near Earth's surface by substances known as 'greenhouse gases.' Greenhouse gases consist of carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and water vapor.”
Politicians, universities, international organizations, and media have called climate warming an existential threat to humanity.
President Joe Biden said at a press conference in Vietnam in September that, “The only existential threat humanity faces even more frightening than a nuclear war is global warming going above 1.5 degrees in the next ... 10 years.”
The Climate Change Working Group at Western Michigan University has warned that the “global temperature has risen at least 1°C since mid-20th century” and said that “climate change is an existential threat to the quality of life on this planet.”
Bruce Aylward, assistant director General at the World Health Organization (WHO), said in November that climate change poses an existential threat to all people, in particular pregnant women and children.
Mr. Lindzen asserted that calling climate change an existential threat comes from propaganda.
Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the United Nations body for assessing the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts, and options to mitigate—does not call it an existential threat, Mr. Lindzen said.
In its report, the IPCC talks about a reduction in GDP by 3 percent by 2100 owing to climate change, Mr. Lindzen added. “Assuming the GDP has increased several times by then, that doesn't sound existential to most people.”
Extreme Climate Change of the Past
There is also an argument that during major climate changes in Earth’s history, the global mean temperature change was only five degrees, implying that warming by “three degrees could be something serious,” Mr. Lindzen said.
He referred to two climate change events when the mean temperature difference between these two periods and today was only about five degrees.
One of the events was the Last Glacial Maximum, also known as the last ice age, when Illinois was covered with an ice sheet about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) thick.
“The latest ice age peaked about 20,000 years ago, when global temperatures were likely about 10°F (5°C) colder than today,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says.
The second event was the warm period about 50 million years ago when alligator-like creatures were living on Svalbard, a Norwegian archipelago located north of the Arctic Circle.
During this hot period about 55–56 million years ago, the global mean temperature “appears to be” higher than today’s temperature by about seven degrees Celsius (13 degrees Fahrenheit), reaching 73 degrees Fahrenheit, NOAA said.
U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry arrives to appear on the BBC's "Sunday Morning" political television show on July 9, 2023. (Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images)
However, the warming of the last 150 years, since the pre-industrial era (1850–1900), has “no resemblance” to these two major climate changes, Mr. Lindzen said.
During these periods, the temperature in the tropics remained almost constant while the temperature difference between the tropics and the pole increased by 20 degrees Celsius during the Last Glacial Maximum and decreased by 20 degrees Celsius during the warm period, the scientist pointed out.
On the other hand, the temperature increase since the pre-industrial age owing to the greenhouse effect observed today remains the same in every place from tropics to pole, Mr. Lindzen explained.
“The tropics-to-pole temperature difference depends on the dynamics of the heat transport by motion. To some extent, the equator depends on the greenhouse effect," he said.
The increase we are seeing could be attributed to CO2—about a degree—but it is not changing from tropics to pole, Mr. Lindzen asserted, calling the idea that this temperature shift is “existential” and requires massive mitigation “unreasonable.”
Is CO2 Dangerous?
CO2 reduction is “the dream of a regulator,” Mr. Lindzen said. “If you control CO2, you control breathing; if you control breathing, you control everything. So this always is one temptation.”
“The other temptation is the energy sector. No matter how much you clean fossil fuels, they will always produce water vapor and CO2,” Mr. Lindzen explained.
CO2 is being treated as a poison and most people believe that CO2 is dangerous, the scientist continued, but they forget that CO2 is essential.
“The concentration of CO2 in your mouth is about 40,000 parts per million as opposed to 400 outside,” Mr. Lindzen said. A concentration of “5,000 is permitted on a space station.”
“It's partly poisoned—but worse than that—it's essential. If you could get rid of 60 percent of the CO2, we'd all be dead.”
“This is a very strange pollutant; it's essential for plant life," Mr. Lindzen said. “Yet, because it is the inevitable product of fossil fuel burning in the energy sector, it's being attacked.”
Delegates and experts attend the opening ceremony of the 48th session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Incheon, South Korea, on Oct. 1, 2018. (Jung Yeon-Je/AFP via Getty Images)
Science Is Used to Advance Climate Change Policies
The IPCC produces reports on climate change that are often thousands of pages long. The institution also releases general summaries for policymakers and “iconic statements” that summarize thousands of pages in one sentence, Mr. Lindzen said.
Only the reports produced by the IPCC’s Working Group I are science, Mr. Lindzen asserted. “Everything else is written by government officials and so on, so it's dicey.”
Working Group I is tasked with assessing the physical science of climate change, according to its website.
One of the iconic statements by IPCC asserted that it was “almost certain that most of the climate change—the warming—since 1960 was due to man,” Mr. Lindzen said, explaining that “if it were even all of it, you're talking about a fraction of a degree.”
Yet Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) considered this conclusion “the smoking gun” and wanted to do something in response, Mr. Lindzen said.
In 2001, Working Group I published a report explaining the scientific basis of the IPCC’s third assessment of past, present, and future climate change. The report stated that the global average earth surface temperature—a combination of near-surface air temperature over land and sea surface temperature—has increased over the 20th century by 0.4 to 0.8 degrees Celsius (0.72 to 1.44 degrees Fahrenheit).
Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely attributable to human activities, in particular “to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations,” the report said.
The report also provides a projection on the global temperature increase through the end of the 21st century, relative to 1990, based on the simulation of various emissions scenarios developed by the IPCC. Across all simulated scenarios, the lowest estimated temperature increase was 1.4 degrees Celsius (2.52 degrees Fahrenheit), and the highest was 5.8 degrees Celsius (10.44 degrees Fahrenheit).
In response to the report, Mr. Lieberman and the late Mr. McCain proposed “an economy-wide cap-and-trade system” to control emissions of greenhouse gases in the country, according to a 2001 congressional record.
“Given the fact that the United States produces approximately 25 percent of the total greenhouse gases emissions, the United States has a responsibility to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases,” Mr. McCain said in the record. “American companies now face the risk of being left out of the global marketplace to buy and sell emission reductions.”
“The Earth's average temperature can be expected to rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit during the next century,” Mr. Lieberman said in the record, citing the third assessment report. “Such a large, rapid rise in temperature will profoundly alter the Earth's landscape in very practical terms.”
In 2003, both senators introduced the Climate Stewardship Act that would require the reduction of the emissions of six greenhouse gases and create an international system to trade emissions. The legislation did not pass through the Senate despite being reintroduced in 2005 and 2007.
An innocent statement made by scientists can be misrepresented as "catastrophic” by politicians who then provide more funding for the scientific research in that field, which neither the science community nor the U.N. would object to, Mr. Lindzen said.
Police officers carry Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg away together with other climate activists from the organization Ta Tillbaka Framtiden (Reclaiming the Future), who block the entrance to Oljehamnen neighbourhood in Malmo, Sweden, on June 19, 2023. (Johan Nilsson/TT News Agency/AFP via Getty Images)
The IPCC releases scientific assessment reports of climate change every six to seven years.
In 2021, Working Group I released a report presenting the scientific basis of the IPCC’s sixth assessment of climate change.
The likely range of human-induced increase in global surface temperature in 2010–2019 relative to the pre-industrial era was estimated at 0.8 to 1.3 degrees Celsius (1.44 to 2.34 degrees Fahrenheit), the report said.
‘Science Is Never Settled’
"Those who claim that science is settled want to shut off all disagreement because they do not have much to present,” Mr. Lindzen said. “Science is never settled.”
Politicians and non-scientists have often noticed that science has a certain authority with the public, and they want to co-opt it, so they bring in the term "the science,” Mr. Lindzen said. “But that isn't what science is. ... Science is a mode of inquiry," he said.
It is always open to question; it depends on questions and on being wrong, the scientist pointed out. “When you say science cannot be wrong, you've choked off science.”
“Science isn’t a belief structure, it isn't a cult, isn't a religion.”
Today, it is almost impossible to publish a scientific paper that questions global warming, Mr. Lindzen said.
Scientific journals use referees as gatekeepers who can recommend major revisions to a paper questioning the climate narrative, the scientist explained. The revisions keep the author busy for a year, and then the paper gets rejected, he said. “Climate is one of the earliest examples of cancel culture.”
Mr. Lindzen said that he has a list of prominent scientists, such as nature lab directors, heads of weather bureaus or international organizations, who were suppressed starting from the early 1990s.
On the other hand, “the funding for climate in total went up by about a factor of 15,” creating a new community that exists only because of the climate narrative, Mr.Lindzen said. As a result, no one in the mainstream media questions it.
Conservative family advocacy Moms for America announced support for former President Donald Trump in the upcoming 2024 presidential election, citing the need for “leaders who are not afraid to fight for what's right.”
“We are in the midst of a cultural crisis, and the American family has never been at greater risk. Our God-given rights are under attack, and our children are being taught to disdain the very values that have always made America the freest, most prosperous nation on Earth,” Kimberly Fletcher, the president of Moms for America, said in a Nov. 28 announcement.
“What we need most right now are leaders who will protect our nation and the United States Constitution, defend the family, and stand for truth and common sense, even when it isn't popular to do so. We need leaders who are not afraid to fight for what's right and who will put America first.”
“That is why Moms for America Action is endorsing Donald Trump for President.”
Moms for America listed the following steps President Trump had taken during his presidency for the betterment of the country:
In his first week, President Trump took action to protect American children in schools “by rescinding Barack Obama's dangerous bathroom policy that allowed boys to use girls' bathrooms.”
He kept his 2016 “campaign promise” to stop Common Core academic standards and blocked efforts to nationalize the K-12 curriculum.
“President Trump also took executive action to keep critical race theory out of the federal government, and he opposed left-wing efforts to radicalize civics education.”
He established the 1776 Commission, which published a report calling for a “renewed commitment to our country's founding principles of liberty and equality and genuine appreciation for our country's heroes as the only true path for us as a people to unify.”
In his first year, President Trump cut taxes and regulations to ease the burden on hard-working Americans.
Under his presidency, mothers “were not forced to choose between a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas because his policies made both affordable.” He instituted policies that enabled the United States to achieve “true energy independence” for the first time in half a century.
“President Trump has also been a dependable ally of the courageous men and women in law enforcement and worked tirelessly to keep crime off our streets and our families out of harm's way.”
The Trump administration took a “bold stand” on the border crisis, taking “decisive action” to secure the southern border while refusing to ignore threats posed by sex trafficking and the fentanyl crisis. “That is the kind of committed leadership we need now more than ever.”
He was the first sitting president ever to attend the March for Life, an annual pro-life rally against abortion.
“In all these ways, President Trump is a warrior, both for American Moms and for the American Dream, and he will continue to be as the 47th President of the United States,” Ms. Fletcher said.
“He is a proven leader who has already demonstrated that he will stand up for freedom and fight for American values, even as he is viciously attacked for doing so.”
Leader of Polls
Moms for America’s endorsement of President Trump comes as he also received endorsement from the Ohio Republican Party for the upcoming 2024 election.
Alex Triantafilou, chairman of the Ohio GOP, praised President Trump’s accomplishments, citing his efforts to make America energy independent, renegotiate trade policies, and broker peace deals. The former president’s track record demonstrated his ability to “get things done,” he said while encouraging Republicans to unite behind the presidential candidate.
“President Trump has proven time and again that despite the unhinged and relentless attacks from the radical left, he will never give up on fighting for Ohio’s workers, businesses, and families,” Mr. Triantafilou stated.
“His unapologetic leadership and commitment to putting America First is exactly what we need to reverse course from the failed policies of Joe Biden and Sherrod Brown.”
President Trump currently has a significant lead in the GOP primary polls. According to Morning Consult, the former president has the support of 64 percent of potential Republican primary voters, which is far higher than the second-place candidate, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has only 14 percent support.
The former president also has a lead over President Biden, based on a recent Emerson College Polling. While President Trump received the support of 47 percent of voters, President Biden was only supported by 43 percent of voters.
“Last November, Biden led Trump by four points, whereas this November, he trails Trump by four. Several key groups have shifted in the past year: Biden led at this time last year among women by seven points, which has reduced to a point this year,” said Spencer Kimball, Executive Director of Emerson College Polling.
A Nov. 28 update from Morning Consult shows President Trump trailing President Biden by one percentage point overall. However, the former president had a four percentage point lead among Independent voters.
“For much of the past year, Biden has maintained a consistent edge in popularity over Trump, but that’s changed recently,” Morning Consult said.
“Over the past four surveys, Trump’s net favorability rating—the share of voters with a favorable view minus the share with an unfavorable view—has been higher than Biden’s.”
The CEO of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is slamming the presidents of three elite U.S. universities over their failure to condemn the rise inantisemitic rhetoricon their campuses in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attack on Israel and the ensuing conflict in Gaza.
Albert Bourla, chairman and CEO of Pfizer, took to X, formerly Twitter, to say that he was "ashamed to hear the recent testimony of 3 top university presidents" after Harvard University President Claudine Gay, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) President Sally Kornbluth and University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) President Liz Magill testified before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on Tuesday.
"In my personal opinion, it was one of the most despicable moments in the history of U.S. academia. The 3 Presidents were offered numerous opportunities to condemn racist, antisemitic, hate rhetoric and refused doing so hiding behind calls for ‘context,’" Bourla wrote.
"The memories of my father’s parents, Abraham and Rachel Bourla, his brother David and his little sister Graciela, who all died in Auschwitz, came to mind," he explained. "I was wondering if their deaths would have provided enough ‘context’ to these presidents to condemn the Nazis’ antisemitic propaganda."
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said the three university presidents' failure to condemn antisemitic rhetoric during the hearing was "one of the most despicable moments in the history of U.S. academia." (Ryan Muir / New York Times / Getty Images)
"And because dehumanization of the victims makes it easier to ‘set your own context’ and justify anything, here is a picture of Graciela Bourla, who was exterminated in the concentration camp at the age of 17. Unfortunately, no pictures of my grandparents and uncle survived. I still wonder what they looked like," Bourla added in his post.
The trio of elite university presidents faced a grilling before the House panel on Tuesday. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., who chairs the House Republican Conference, pressed the presidents on whether calls for a "global intifada" is a call for violent armed resistance against the state of Israel and the genocide of Jews, as well as whether the rhetoric violates campus codes of conduct.
Dr. Claudine Gay of Harvard, left, Liz Magill of UPenn, center, and Dr. Sally Kornbluth of MIT are shown during testimony Tuesday. The trio of presidents said that whether calls for genocide against Jews violate university policies would depend on th (Haiyun Jiang / Bloomberg / Getty Images)
Each president said that such rhetoric would only violate campus rules if the words become conduct, which is a position they reiterated multiple times throughout the hearing in response to questions posed by lawmakers on the congressional panel.
Kornbluth said that such rhetoric would violate MIT’s policies, "If targeting individuals, not making public statements." She added that such chants "can be antisemitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people," and that the campus could investigate such incidents as harassment if found to be "pervasive and severe."
Claudine Gay, president of Harvard University, issued a statement Wednesday attempting to clarify her testimony in Tuesday's hearing. (Haiyun Jiang / Bloomberg / Getty Images)
Magill said antisemitic chants create a "context-dependent" situation that would constitute bullying and harassment under UPenn’s rules if it was "directed," "pervasive" and "severe."
Gay said that whether calls for a "global intifada" constitute harassment at Harvard would depend on the "context" and if it targets specific individuals.
As the controversy over the university presidents’ responses continued into Wednesday, Gay attempted to clarify her comments in a post on X.
"There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students. Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account," Gay said in her post on Harvard’s X account.
