Search This Blog

Friday, August 8, 2025

Going, Going, Gone...

 by James Howard Kunstler,

“Because they can no longer distinguish between fantasy and reality, they are too crazy to lead this country, and Americans know it.”

- Sasha Stone on the Democratic Party

In case you’re wondering why the Democratic Party is in a death spiral, it is the proportionate response to the damage they have done to American culture and politics. You might think that they fell haplessly into error, but their turn to Marxian idealism was a cover for a matrix of hustles and rackets to make up for a void of any sane political program.

Coming into the 21st century, our country was beset by looming decline. Our industrial base was going, going, gone, and with it millions of well-paying blue-collar jobs, the Democratic Party base. It was replaced by a so-called “financialized economy,” which was sanitized language for sets of swindles and frauds allowed to operate in the de-regulated banking system, in concert with the politicized Federal Reserve and crooked Congressional interests — you notice how many politicians paid $175-K a year somehow acquired multi-million-dollar fortunes?

What mainly grew in this period was government and things that fed off of it, such as the war industries, computer tech allied with the Intel gang, and especially the burgeoning universe of government-sponsored non-profit advocacy orgs, which became the jobs program for otherwise unemployables churned out of higher education, a racket that fed on federal loan guarantees. It was in the racketeering ecosystem that billionaires such as George Soros and Bill Gates could use their fortunes to advance their own personal obsessions through webs of non-governmental orgs (NGOs) to influence public affairs.

By 2016, that was really all that the Democratic Party had left. It was the source of their money and their power. They also had the accumulated political capital of race advocacy, starting with the civil rights crusades of the 1960s. After our victory over manifest evil in World War Two, the Jim Crow system had to go, or else America could not pretend to lead the so-called “free world.”

By some paradoxical alchemy of government policy and human nature, the civil rights campaign eventually produced a larger and more intractable “underclass” than existed before. This baffled liberal idealists who had expected a new era of brotherhood and equality. They could only account for it by “structural racism,” and the Marxian trope of “oppressors-and-victims” fit into that scaffold perfectly. It lured them into Marxian “praxis” generally, which by then was already failing everywhere else in the world it had been tried as “communism.”

One way to counter “structural racism” was to declare a new ethos of “multiculturalism,” meaning each ethnic or racial group could behave according to its own particular standards and values. It was like waving a magic wand to make failure disappear and it worked through the 1990s, (which happened to be the fattest years of cheap oil production in America). The trouble with multiculturalism was that it negated the thing that had held America together through vicissitudes such as the Great Depression and World War Two: The American common culture, the thing that belonged to everyone.

The MAGA movement has largely been an effort to reconstruct an American common culture, a consensus of values and behaviors we can all agree on. The Democratic Party opted to oppose that — a poor choice. In fact, they apparently viewed that effort as an existential threat to the hustles and rackets that were sustaining the party. For instance, the jobs program for otherwise unemployable college grads who styled themselves as “activists” working for NGOs under the umbrella of USAID.

This was the party’s army of influencers, organizers, ward-heelers, and ballot-harvesters, laboring on behalf of the “victims of oppression.” Quite a few of them resided in Academia, where they cultivated a whole lexicon of arcane, gnostic, crypto-Marxian ideology aimed not just at opposing the recovery of a common culture, but destroying whatever remnants of it remained.

The catch was: they didn’t believe in “social justice” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” That was just a smokescreen of verbiage over their race hustle, which means extorting money, unearned advantages, and status dishonestly. Thus was DEI birthed. And, with it, colossal frauds of “victimhood” such as the beatification of George Floyd and a long line of similar “justice-involved” cases that generated an impressive revenue flow for the Democrats.

That revenue flow and its utility for holding power was all they had left in 2024. It explains the empty symbolism of running Kamala Harris for president. Now, the money flow is gone and so is the party’s power and perhaps its last remaining reason for existence: the maintenance of its own power. Notice that the Democrats can’t even advocate for the return of USAID, now that it has been unmasked as rife with financial fraud and crime.

There is surely a need for an opposition party to any in-party, which happens to be Mr. Trump’s Republicans at the moment, if only because power corrupts. You can see the outline of what that new opposition party might be: a party of re-localization, of small business and small farmers, of traditional towns as opposed to still-rampant and malignant suburban sprawl.

Some related issues already belong to MAGA, such as smaller government, the protection of privacy, respect for the Bill of Rights — but these would be implicit in the restoration of an American common culture, a set of values and standards of behavior that both parties in a two-party system can subscribe to.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/going-going-gone

Putin Tells Trump He'll Halt War In Exchange For Eastern Ukraine

 Update (1630ET): Russian President Putin has detailed his demands for a cease-fire in Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal reports that the sweeping proposal demands major territorial concessions by Kiev and a push for global recognition of its claims in exchange for a halt to the fighting.

Putin told Witkoff he would agree to a complete cease-fire if Ukraine agreed to withdraw forces from all of Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region, according to officials briefed on the call.

Russia would then control Donetsk, Luhansk, as well as the Crimea peninsula, which it seized in 2014 and wants recognized as sovereign Russian territory. 

Russia now occupies most of Donetsk and Luhansk, but Ukrainian forces still control sizable chunks of territory, including key cities that are now strongholds of its defense.

European officials expressed serious reservations about the proposal

*  *  *

As we detailed earlier, Bloomberg is reporting, according to people familiar with the matter, that Washington and Moscow are aiming to reach a deal to halt the war in Ukraine that would lock in Russia’s occupation of territory seized during its military invasion.

US and Russian officials are working toward an agreement on territories for a planned summit meeting between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin as early as next week, the people said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The US is working to get buy-in from Ukraine and its European allies on the deal, which is far from certain, the people said.

Putin is demanding that Ukraine cede its entire eastern Donbas area to Russia as well as Crimea, which his forces illegally annexed in 2014.

That would require Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to order a withdrawal of troops from parts of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions still held by Kyiv, handing Russia a victory that its army couldn’t achieve militarily since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Such an outcome would represent a major win for Putin, who has long sought direct negotiations with the US on terms for ending the war that he started, sidelining Ukraine and its European allies.

What are the odds Zelensky goes for this deal... and will Europe back it?

Zelenskiy risks being presented with a take-it-or-leave-it deal to accept the loss of Ukrainian territory, while Europe fears it would be left to monitor a ceasefire as Putin rebuilds his forces.

Russia would halt its offensive in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine along the current battlelines as part of the deal, the people said. They cautioned that the terms and plans of the accord were still in flux and could still change.

Oil prices immediately tumbled on the report...

The White House didn’t reply to a request to comment.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov didn’t immediately respond to a request to comment.

Ukraine declined to comment on the proposals.

It’s still unclear if Putin would agree to take part in a trilateral meeting with Trump and Zelenskiy next week, even if he had already struck an agreement with the US president, the people added.

The Russian leader told reporters on Thursday that he didn’t object to meeting Zelenskiy under the right conditions, though he said they don’t exist now.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/oil-tumbles-report-us-backed-russia-ukraine-truce-deal

Globus reaffirms $2.8B–$2.9B 2025 sales outlook as integration, U.S. Spine momentum builds

Earnings Call Insights: Globus Medical (GMED) Q2 2025

Management View

  • Keith W. Pfeil, CEO, opened his first earnings call by emphasizing continuity in Globus Medical’s strategy and mission, stating the company remains focused on innovation, patient outcomes, and financial discipline. Pfeil highlighted, “Our strategy remains grounded in the same principles that have driven our success for many years. Our mission remains unchanged. Globus Medical is a global musculoskeletal technology company dedicated to improving clinical outcomes and solving unmet clinical needs to improve the lives of our patients.”
  • Pfeil noted that the company is finalizing integration of recent acquisitions, including Nevro, and is accelerating product development, particularly with the DuraPro drill system, which has seen “accelerated levels of growth in this product since launch, fueled by surgeon-to-surgeon testimonials.”
  • He cited strong commercial performance in the U.S. Spine business, with 19 consecutive weeks of implant growth, and announced the launch of the ONVOY Acetabular Shell and FDA clearance for Excelsius XR, “our head-maned augmented reality navigation headset.” Pfeil stated, “We look forward to bringing this exciting innovative technology to surgeons in the coming months.”
  • Pfeil also introduced Kyle Kline as the new CFO, recognizing his “trusted confidence” and experience within the organization.
  • CFO Kyle Kline highlighted, “We are extremely pleased with our second quarter results, both with and without the impact of Nevro. The headlines for the quarter include: one, above-market sales growth in our U.S. Spine business; two, record non-GAAP earnings per share of $0.86; and three, a bounce back in enabling technologies sales.”

Outlook

  • The company reaffirmed its 2025 net sales guidance of $2.8 billion to $2.9 billion and fully diluted non-GAAP earnings per share between $3 and $3.30. Pfeil confirmed, “We are reaffirming our guide of 2025 net sales to be in the range of $2.8 billion to $2.9 billion and fully diluted non-GAAP earnings per share between $3 and $3.30.”
  • Kline reiterated confidence in the guidance, indicating no current plans to adjust it up or down after a strong Q2, stating, “We feel comfortable in the range of our guidance and where we sit today.”
  • Management noted that ongoing manufacturing initiatives are expected to drive a return to mid-70s adjusted gross profit profile over time.

Financial Results

  • Second quarter revenue was $745.3 million, up 18.4% year over year, with non-GAAP EPS of $0.86, up 14.1%. Free cash flow reached $31.3 million.
  • GAAP net income was $202.8 million, or $1.49 per share, reflecting a bargain purchase gain from the Nevro acquisition and offset by merger-related costs.
  • Legacy Globus sales totaled $650.8 million, up 3.3%, while Nevro contributed $94.6 million in revenue.
  • U.S. revenue grew to $600.8 million, up 20.3%, led by the U.S. Spine business, which achieved its highest growth rate since the NuVasive merger.
  • Enabling Technologies revenue was $35.2 million, showing a 58% sequential increase but a 4% year-over-year decline.
  • Adjusted gross profit was 67.4%. The base Globus business delivered adjusted EBITDA margins of 32.3%.
  • Cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities stood at $229.4 million at quarter-end, with a recently expanded $500 million share repurchase program.

Q&A

  • Matthew Stephan Miksic, Barclays: Asked about Nevro integration and cost actions. Pfeil responded, “Leadership has really surrounded the sales force, number one. They're really energized to be part of the Globus family now...we really overlaid the Globus approach to controlling third-party spending.”
  • Miksic also inquired about enabling technology sales and pipeline. Pfeil explained, “I still see that elongation pipeline. As I think about how robots are sold, we're still selling outright the majority of our robots...I don't see us losing deals to competition.”
  • Vik Chopra, Wells Fargo: Asked about evolving investor communication and augmented reality headset launch. Pfeil stated, “We're in the process of beginning quoting XR. Finished goods supply is ready. And really now it's about rolling out the launch plan.”
  • Shagun Singh Chadha, RBC: Sought details on leadership transitions and Nevro growth strategy. David C. Paul replied, “Our leadership bench has always been broad and deep, and we're always developing leaders...our continuity in leadership is second to none in our industry.” Pfeil added, “We want to bring to Nevro is stability and approach. I commented on really taking and recasting our product development approach.”
  • Matthew Charles Taylor, Jefferies: Asked about Nevro EBITDA and accretion timeline. Kline answered, “Profitability, we do feel good about, but there's a lot we don't know about the business. 3 months in, we've been able to...come out with some synergy actions.”
  • Caitlin Cronin, Canaccord: Sought updates on NuVasive in-sourcing and integration. Pfeil responded, “The manufacturing initiatives are really multifaceted...the cadence of output from our manufacturing facilities will continue to increase as time passes.”

Sentiment Analysis

  • Analysts expressed a slightly positive tone, congratulating new leadership and focusing on integration execution, future growth from Nevro, and enabling technology momentum. There were probing questions about guidance components, Nevro accretion, and integration timelines, but no overt skepticism or negative sentiment.
  • Management remained confident and forward-looking throughout, frequently using phrases such as “we remain confident,” “we feel comfortable,” and “we are well positioned.” In Q&A, management adopted a measured, optimistic stance, reiterating confidence in ongoing strategies and integration.
  • Compared to the previous quarter, both analysts and management showed increased confidence, with less focus on supply chain concerns and more emphasis on growth and integration.

Quarter-over-Quarter Comparison

  • The current quarter saw a transition in executive leadership, with Pfeil moving from CFO to CEO and Kline appointed CFO, both receiving strong endorsements from management.
  • Guidance for 2025 net sales and EPS was reaffirmed, unchanged from Q1. In Q1, the company had lowered EPS guidance slightly to account for Nevro acquisition costs, but no further guidance changes were made in Q2.
  • Operational challenges and supply chain issues flagged in Q1 were reported as largely resolved in Q2, contributing to improved financial performance and sentiment.
  • Analysts’ questions shifted from concerns about supply chain and Nevro acquisition risk in Q1 to integration progress, growth initiatives, and upcoming product launches in Q2.
  • Management’s tone evolved from defensive and explanatory in Q1 to more assertive and optimistic in Q2, reflecting operational improvements and a strong sales quarter.

Risks and Concerns

  • Management pointed to elongated sales cycles in enabling technologies but emphasized a robust pipeline and strong product feedback.
  • International revenue growth was described as mixed, with some regions impacted by lingering supply challenges and distributor transitions, particularly in the LatAm region.
  • Integration of acquired businesses remains a key focus, with cost actions underway for Nevro and continued work on combining international operations from NuVasive.
  • Tariff impacts were described as not material, but management continues to monitor and implement cost offsets as needed.

Final Takeaway

Globus Medical’s Q2 2025 call highlighted sustained momentum in U.S. Spine and trauma, successful integration of Nevro, and the launch of innovative products such as the DuraPro drill and Excelsius XR. The company reaffirmed its full-year sales and EPS guidance, citing operational improvements and a robust product pipeline. Management emphasized ongoing integration efforts and cost discipline as key to driving future growth and profitability, while signaling confidence in the company’s strategic direction and market position.

Read the full Earnings Call Transcript

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/globus-medical-reaffirms-2-8b-2-9b-2025-sales-outlook-as-integration-advances-and-u-s-spine-momentum-builds/ar-AA1KaSjJ

Iovance cuts staff amid slow sales start for ‘TIL’ cell therapy

 Iovance Biotherapeutics will lay off staff in a restructuring that follows a significant cut to its revenue forecasts earlier this year.

A spokesperson on Thursday confirmed Iovance’s plans to reduce its workforce by “less than 20%.” A regulatory filing showed Iovance employed 838 people at the end of last year, though a company presentation last month indicated that number had grown to more than 1,000. Iovance’s workforce will still have more than 1,000 people following the job cuts, which will affect full-time employees as well as contractors, according to the spokesperson.

“After careful evaluation of our long-term goals, operational needs, and resources, we have implemented a strategic restructuring that includes a selective reduction in force to support our mission to innovate, develop and deliver TIL cell therapy to patients in need,” the spokesperson wrote in an email, referring to the type of cellular medicine Iovance specializes in. “This restructuring will extend our cash runway, and we remain on track to deliver on our financial goals.”

In a second quarter earnings report Thursday afternoon, the company said that 19% of its workforce would be impacted by the cuts. The restructuring will save Iovance more than $100 million annually and enable it to operate through the fourth quarter of 2026. Iovance will also “continue to optimize and refine its cost structure” through what it described as “operational excellence initiatives” over the next few quarters, it said in a statement.

Iovance had about $307 million in cash on hand at the end of June. 

The layoffs come after a slow commercial start for Amtagvi, a cell therapy Iovance developed for an advanced form of skin cancer. Amtagvi is the first marketed cellular medicine made by engineering human cells known as tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, or “TILs.” The therapy originated from research at the National Institutes of Health in the 1980s and got to market only after decades of fine-tuning, as well as multiple regulatory delays.

Amtagvi was cleared in February 2024 for people whose melanoma progressed after a commonly used immunotherapy or targeted cancer medication. It’s derived from a patient’s tumor tissue in a complex, weekslong manufacturing process. Upon approval, analysts and investors were skeptical of its sales potential, given questions about demand and the complex logistics involved. At about $515,000, the drug’s list price was also at the time the highest of any cell-based medicine for cancer in the U.S.

Iovance initially projected product revenue — which includes contributions from a different immunotherapy called Proleukin — would reach $450 million to $475 million this year. But in May, it cut that forecast by 40%, to between $250 million to $300 million, citing “recent launch dynamics” that had changed its view. In a research note last month, Mizuho Securities analyst Salim Syed noted how prior guidance was modeled on launches from other marketed cancer cell therapies known as CAR-T treatments, whereas the updated projections rely on “real data” from centers actively administering Amtagvi.

Iovance said in its latest earnings report that 102 patients were treated with Amtagvi in the second quarter, equating to about $54 million in sales. Shares fell about 30% as the numbers “were on the lighter side” of the 100 to 110 patients Iovance had anticipated treating, and total product revenue of $60 million missed consensus estimates, wrote Syed in a note to clients Thursday.

Amtagvi could be approved in Europe, the U.K. and Canada this year. It’s also in late-stage testing for non-small cell lung cancer.

Iovance shares have lost most of their value over the last 12 months.

https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/iovance-layoffs-restructuring-amtagvi-sales-guidance/757041/

Pfizer and Arvinas' breast cancer therapy to be reviewed by FDA

 Arvinas and Pfizer's breast cancer treatment, vepdegestrant, is advancing with FDA review.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4482865-pfizer-and-arvinas-breast-cancer-therapy-to-be-reviewed-by-fda

Top US colleges sued in class action over 'early decision' admissions

Columbia University, Duke University, the University of Pennsylvania and 29 other elite U.S. colleges and universities were accused on Friday in a proposed class action of conspiring to inflate tuition costs for tens of thousands of students through the popular "early decision" admissions process.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston by former students at Wesleyan University and two other schools, said colleges are using early-decision commitments to charge more for both early and regular-admission students.

Early decision students face earlier deadlines to apply to college but a greater chance of acceptance. They agree to attend if admitted, forfeiting future offers or aid packages from other schools.

The 32 defendants are violating antitrust law by agreeing not to compete with each other for early-decision students, the lawsuit said. The universities also mislead applicants by presenting early decision offers as legally binding, it said.

“Early decision applicants lose choice and negotiation leverage, while regular decision applicants are left to scramble for an artificially diminished number of admission slots doled out at lower acceptance rates,” said Benjamin Brown, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

The University of Pennsylvania and Columbia declined to comment. Duke, Vassar, Wesleyan and other defendants including Amherst, Northwestern, University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins University did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The defendants also include the Consortium on Financing Higher Education, an organization of private liberal arts schools that helps facilitate information-sharing among them.

The consortium did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The plaintiffs asked the court to grant class action status for early decision applicants since 2021 and some students who enrolled through the regular decision process. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages for tuition overcharges and to bar the use of binding early decision programs.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/top-us-colleges-sued-class-202612679.html

The One Big Beautiful Bill Includes Conservative Welfare Reforms Worth Expanding

 Republicans have plenty to tout in their One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), including its extension of the 2017 Trump tax cutsimproved border security, and  strengthened national defense. . .But the new law also is noteworthy for leaning on key welfare reforms with a proven track record of success.

Those policies—namely, applying work requirements and creating a financial interest for states to limit benefit rolls—achieve significant benefit savings now and should be expanded in the future to further boost work and keep federal deficits in check.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the law will yield almost $1.1 trillion in savings through significant reforms of Medicaid and food stamps, two of the fast-growing benefit programs in recent decades. That naturally drew the ire of liberals like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who argued the legislation “guts Medicaid” and “rips food from the mouths of children, seniors, and veterans.” Despite accusations of “massive cuts,” under the new law federal spending will grow from $7 trillion now to over $10 trillion in 2034.

Several of the biggest savers reprise past policies designed to tame welfare benefits. First, the OBBB expands work requirements for able-bodied adults receiving Medicaid and food stamps. As Trump administration officials noted in a New York Times opinion, work requirements are widely supported and were a signature feature of the bipartisan welfare reforms Bill Clinton signed in 1996. That historic law ended a New Deal-era program that entitled nonworking parents to limitless welfare checks and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which expects adults to work or train as a condition of eligibility. The results were remarkable, with more parents going to workpoverty falling, and caseloads ultimately plummeting 85 percent.

The OBBB revives those lessons by creating a “community engagement requirement” that expects able-bodied adults on Medicaid to engage in part-time work, education, or community service. While a notable change, states could require such engagement in as few as two months per year. That belies opponents’ superheated rhetoric and suggests the policy can be strengthened.

It’s a testament to Medicaid’s enormous size that even this part-time, part-year requirement on some adults is projected to save $325 billion over 10 years. That’s roughly twice the inflation-adjusted savings forecast for the entire 1996 welfare reform law over a similar period.

The OBBB also strengthens the work requirement for able-bodied food stamp recipients, adding another $70 billion in savings. These reforms can and should be expanded to expect recipients of public housing and other benefits to similarly prepare for work instead of perpetually depending on taxpayer aid.

Driving these large savings is a simple fact: for able-bodied adults, federal taxpayers today support all food stamp and most Medicaid costs. Those federal commitments are open-ended, so states often welcome bigger caseloads that confer more federal funds.

That dependency-inducing dynamic has contributed to soaring food stamp and Medicaid caseloads, especially in blue states. It also contrasts sharply with the TANF program, whose fixed federal block grant (which hasn’t been adjusted even for inflation since 1996) and required state match promote smaller caseloads and less spending. Since the mid-1990s, the number of households on food stamps has grown from twice to now over 20 times the number on TANF.

That’s the backdrop for a second major conservative change in the OBBB. For the first time, the new law expects states to contribute to food stamp benefit costs, which were previously fully federally funded.

The initial state share is small—between five and 15 percent, keyed to state improper payment rates. But even this modest change will save federal taxpayers $40 billion over a decade while focusing states on reducing food stamp caseloads, which at over 42 million recipients today include a staggering one in eight US residents. The small state share can and should grow in the future, and similar cost-sharing efforts should apply to other federally-funded programs. Uncle Sam has proven he can’t afford his benefit promises, and states can and should assist with programs benefiting their residents.

A generation ago, applying work requirements and giving states a financial incentive to control benefit claims proved a powerful combination for reducing welfare caseloads and costs. More importantly, those changes helped parents go to work and escape poverty.

The OBBB smartly dusts off that playbook, achieving important savings while pointing to further changes that will promote more work over welfare and help keep federal deficits in check.

Matt Weidinger is Senior Fellow and Rowe Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.