저자: Kevin · 외국인
요약 보기
일론 머스크가 텍사스 상원 선거에서 켄 팩스턴에게 약 1억 5,800만 달러를 지원한 것을 중심으로, 공화당의 상원 확보 필요성과 AI·데이터센터 규제 논쟁을 다룬다. 발언자는 공화당 승리 확률이 낮고 교착(split) 가능성이 높다고 보며, 이란 협상 타결 여부를 금리·선거 변수로 본다. 10년물 금리는 약 5.08%로 언급되고, 이란 딜이 없으면 민주당 승리 가능성이 크다는 주장도 편다. 투자 직접 추천은 제한적이며 태양광 관련 발언이 일부 있다.
다듬은 글
Elon Musk is throwing $158 million at the man he's suing in Texas. But this is more than just what's happening in Texas. Elon Musk is fighting for his vision of control over the entire United States. Let's break down what's going on here and try to figure out all the pieces of the puzzle. So, first of all , a story just came out that most of the money Ken Paxton raised in his bid for a Texas Senate seat came from Elon Musk.
$158 million went from Elon Musk to Ken Paxton in just 14 days. $75 million on September 9th. Then another $83 million on September 23. Now, they were routed through the Senate Political Action Committee and then sent directly to Paxton , so one could argue that it was n't Elon's money directly to Paxton, but the numbers just matched up perfectly.
And so many people wonder, what's the point? Why only a seat in the Senate? What gives Elon a Senate seat in Texas? Especially considering that it looks like Greg Abbott is going to criticize the Democratic governor in Texas. So why push for it at all? Why does Elon claim this? In my opinion, Elon is pushing for Ken Paxton to win the Republican seat because, in my opinion, he sees this one seat as potentially critical to avoiding and preventing a Democratic victory in the Senate, and therefore the House of Representatives, across the country.
This one Senate seat, uh, in the Texas Senate race could potentially stop full Democratic control. Because the gubernatorial race isn't what matters right now , given that Greg Abbott has a 75- to-25 lead, the trading volume is two and a half million dollars here on Cal-Shi. Much more importantly, Abbott is trailing Talarico, uh, in the Senate race from Texas.
Look at this. Around September 10-11, we began to be very afraid of artificial intelligence. Insiders from major AI companies have stopped saying that AI will take over, that it will destroy us all. People started to panic about agents becoming scammers. All of this happened in late August and spilled over into politics in mid- September.
And it was at this point that the mood shifted agains calls it a technological attack against, frankly, the buildup of artificial intelligence. And now even Republicans are trying to say, "Oh, you know, we're also against data centers increasing your electricity costs and, you know, your water usage costs or something." Of course, these are arguments.
Both sides claim different...How should I put it? Influence on the same topic. Republicans argue, "Oh, you know, energy costs actually go down because if we generate our own electricity in these data centers, we can export the extra electricity, and that will lower energy costs, and the water will be recycled in the factories." But then, of course, the other side argues, " Yeah, but what about all the water that needs to be spent on building the facilities, on building the concrete?" And so there are concerns from all sides, and then some people start talking about shrimp.
The situation is getting a little complicated. But let's consider this. This is n't just about Texas. I'm even looking at Ohio, which is another important location for data centers. Ramaswamy, who is running shoulder to shoulder with Amy Acton in the governor's race, is currently losing, and his condition is getting worse by the day.
And the volume of these races is 2.7 million dollars. The reason I mention volume is because if you have a small race with $100,000 or something like that, usually one small bet can change the odds very quickly. For example, will Democrats win an overwhelming majority of votes in the midterm elections?
This is a volume of $17,000. If I bet $500 on "yes" right now, it will probably skyrocket to 15%. I mean, I'm not going to do that. I'm just saying. When you have these larger volume figures, the projected numbers are a little more reliable. And so, you know, I think it seems fair to say that right now Abbott seems to have a pretty solid lead .
And even Abbott took this approach: “ Hey, we need to make sure you all follow the rules. We need more reporting on how these data centers will impact water. How will these data centers affect the quality of the air we breathe? Right? So, Republicans understand that this is an important issue for voters.
But their approach is expected to be much less intense than the Democrats' approach. Look at this. Potential political scenarios and market implications prepared by BNY. We are going to reveal their point of view on this matter. I want to quickly mention, since I was talking about Kalshi, I want to clarify.
Kalshi is a sponsor of the channel. Uh , you can get a free $25 by signing up with Kalshi and making your first trade. kalshi.com/r/mevin, scan the QR code or simply use the code mekevin when registering. They are a paid sponsor of my startup Reinvest. So I just want to clarify this. But think about this for a minute.
The idea is, would you rather have some regulation of AI from the Republicans, or would you rather have a lot of regulation against AI from the Democrats? So , I think Elon sees, given that, you know, Texas is Elon Musk's corporate home, right ? Tesla's headquarters are located in Austin, Texas. SpaceX Starbase is located near Brownsville, Texas.
Elon just completed the Louisiana Purchase in Louisiana. Uh, and what, you know, we're going to have five different launch pads for rocket ships. So, you will have two starting pads each. So, it's actually 10 five-starting sites, 10 sites. So you're potentially launching 10 missiles at the same time.
This will be an incredibly cool video when it happens in the future. But Louisiana has a fairly stable Republican gubernatorial campaign underway . The question here is not even in one place in the Senate , because what will Ken Paxton, a candidate for Senate, do for Elon in Texas? This is not the case in the Senate in Texas.
The point is how this one seat in Texas could affect the United States' ability to prevent Democrats from gaining overwhelming weight and control. And that's why, in my opinion, Elon Musk invested $158 in what was essentially a one-man race. This is Elon quietly telling you that this race is important for the entire United States and for Donald Trump's policies, as well as for what affects Elon Musk.
Elon is quite silent about politics. I think after Dodge he's a little shy about shooting. And obviously, let's look at the market implications table to see what the expectations are here. But keep in mind that you have, well, you know, other, well, other politicians who, according to Donald Trump, seem to be distracting Paxton.
And so the Republican Party estimates that they will need between $150 million and $ 200 million for Paxton to be able to keep his seat. And so Elon essentially comes along and says, " Okay, this is the check you need." "I'll finance everything." So without Elon Musk, Paxton is expected to have virtually no ability to run ads.
Whereas now we expect over $500 million to be spent in total on advertising in the Texas Senate election alone. That's half a billion dollars in television advertising for just one damn race. And based on the Republican Party's estimates, for Paxton alone, Elon is effectively paying all the bills for Paxton.
Because in the third quarter, Paxton only raised $18 million. This is not good. O'Rourke has $64 million as of the third quarter. So O'Rourke, a Democrat, had three and a half times as much money as Paxton. And suddenly, you know, 6 weeks before the election, Elon says, " Hey, buddy, how about we raise almost 9 times the money you raised?" Which of course then a lot of people say, "Okay, O'Rourke gets...AND...AND...AND these numbers, you always have to be careful how they do it." And then let's talk about the market implications.
But they do it all the time from a branding perspective. They say something like, "Oh, well, you know, 97% of donations are small checks." Okay, that's fine. This is what O'Rourke is proposing. And...And that's normal. This is probably true. But that might hide the fact that you could be getting a big check for $25 million .
And then, you know, that's 0.01% of donations. Right ? Because they don't actually talk about the money donated. They usually say it's from donations. Well, yes, but one big check is a tiny percentage of the checks actually donated. So you have to be careful with the wording. So when you hear this kind of branding from Democrats or Republicans, "Oh, 97% of our donations are under $25," like Bernie Sanders does.
It's like: yeah, okay, but what percentage of your total collection came from small checks? And you will usually find that they do not answer that question. But, let's be clear, Elon is buying Republicans. So yes . This is clearly happening on the Republican side. But in any case, what you have here are potential political scenarios.
So, assuming a Democratic victory, and that's what I think Elon is trying to avoid . Uh, a Democratic victory, they're not expected to necessarily implement any policies because, you know, Donald Trump won't essentially sign anything. So, if the Democrats win , they will be able to pass any bills they want.
Uh, they'll still have to deal with obstruction. I mean, the chances of getting an overwhelming majority are almost zero. Uh, the chances of getting even more than 60 seats to overcome the obstruction are also almost zero. So, in reality, you'll see the House pass the bill and the Senate eventually pass it, but it'll be {quote}{end quote}, as B&Y says, symbolic, because it's really, hey, like Trump's not going to sign any of your nonsense, and you don't have the votes to make Trump sign anything.
So it just won't get you anywhere . So, more likely, you will get investigations that will simply slow down the process. And that's the problem, you can get a lot of congressional committees forcing companies, CEOs, and executives to investigate or report, which ultimately becomes burdensome for companies, and it slows down the process.
And that's the whole point— to slow down data center expansion plans . Here is a quote from Tala Reko. Um Tal Reko says Ken Paxton is selling off Texas, our land, our water, our communities, everything to make money. He granted them special tax breaks. So, special tax breaks exempt data centers from paying sales taxes.
Since then, as Tal Reko criticized Paxton for this, Paxton has effectively come back and said, "Yeah, we should get rid of this, and we should tax data centers with sales tax." So, they both want to implement a sales tax on data centers, but Democrats have led the charge to some extent. And you know, Paxton says, "Okay, yeah, I guess we'll have to agree to that too." I think about it like, “Oh, what was that?
Well, you know, Donald Trump said, "No tip tax." And then Kamala Harris, about 3 weeks later, said, "Yes, we're not going to tax tips." And it's something like, "Okay, okay. "Well, another person came up with it first." Uh, but, um...But anyway, you know, that's when you realize that something is really popular on a certain issue among voters.
Paxton has also recently used, quote, “ tough rhetoric” against data centers. This is the Republican that Elon is funding, promising to crack down on these facilities. But the problem is the letters he sends: "Oh, you need to follow our water rules." If they don't, companies face a maximum fine of just $500.
So, like, Republicans are wielding a sword against data centers, but it's like a very blunt blade. And the Democrats have a sword against data centers, and it's a very sharp blade. And so they both brandish swords. "Oh, we're going to limit data centers." But the Democrats have a much sharper sword here.
What about that lawsuit I mentioned earlier ? And let's continue to consider the scenarios. Well, SpaceX sued Paxton, but it's really a lawsuit against the county. This is not a lawsuit against a person because she is the Attorney General. So when he leaves office and, say, gets a seat in the Senate, or just leaves office altogether, the lawsuit remains in the district.
It doesn't apply to Ken Paxton. So the idea is that, you know, Elon, even though it seems like he's appointing Attorney General Ken Paxton and this is a lawsuit against him, he's actually suing the office. And SpaceX doesn't want these new disclosure requirements about where they're potentially buying land or who their supply chain suppliers are.
This way , they can maintain their competitive advantage in building their terrafab buildings in Texas or Louisiana. Other people obviously respond and say, “Brother, you have enough of a competitive advantage. You don't need it. "You have to be transparent about where you build and what you do, and, you know, what impact it has on the environment." And that's the whole point.
This turns into a choice about how much insight and transparency do we want about data centers? I believe that if we don't make a deal with Iran between the 20th and the 27th, then of course Donald Trump is ready to sign a deal. He's just trying to hold on a little longer. But I'm willing to be wrong, and that suits me.
When I called the maximum for the 10- year Treasury bond at about 5.27, I said, "Look, plus or minus five basis points, I think that's the maximum." I also said, "I'm willing to be wrong." But I'm sure that's the maximum for 10-year bonds. And so it was. Which is great, and I hope it stays that way.
Even after the sharp rise in the CPI and the sharp rise in the PPI, we are now at around 5.08, which is great. I hope I have the same confidence as I did in the 10-year-old vote at the highest level, as I did in the Iran deal that was supposed to happen between the 20th and the 27th. And again, I'm willing to be wrong.
I just want you to know that this is my opinion , so that you understand my opinion on this matter . If I'm wrong and this doesn't happen, then the Democrats will almost certainly win. Then you have to deal with more pressure on investigations into Trump, his allies, data centers, Elon Musk. It will end like this : "Hey, we'll stop these investigations if you compromise with us and give us what we want." Which potentially, you know, Democrats, could be good for renewable energy and health care .
So if we don't get a deal on Iran, it's starting to sound like it's time to buy solar strategies again. I actually call solar energy my socialist strategy. Who was it? I was just reading about it on the topic of solar energy. I think it was, uh, it was Lebanon...it was Lebanon. Yes, that's what it was.
Solar energy in Lebanon. It was on Al Jazeera. Yes, look at this. Qatar has announced a major deal with French company TotalEnergies to jointly develop a solar power plant in Lebanon. Good. Uh, like, I think we're going to move in that direction, especially with building AI-based data centers . I really expect that we will get data centers.
They'll just be delayed, right? And usually when people like, uh, Talarico come to you, they say something like, "Oh, we want to make sure that the community has the right to participate in building these data centers." This essentially means that it's a lot like California, where they're just opening the door to lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits.
And any jerk who files a lawsuit against a data center is essentially just delaying its construction by 2 years. And the whole point of the game is not to win, but to win if the data center doesn't get built in the end. The whole point of the game is delay. And then try to get these companies to say, “To hell with this.
We'll just build somewhere else." That's the idea. Abbott, remember, he's trying to imply that he does this too, and he's a Republican, right? So, you know, we're going to do a clean air review and we're not going to issue any new permits. We even talked about this on September 29th in a video. That's perfectly normal, and you know, their goal is to try to create the impression, "Oh, we're going to contain them." But voters will come out and say, "Yeah, but do we believe that Republicans are really going to rein in data centers?" And I would argue that Republicans are probably going to, you know, move forward, data centers, do what's necessary.
And I think we can all reasonably argue that it is likely. Now David Sachs then takes this alternative weird approach, saying, "Oh yeah, the Democrats delaying data center construction is actually a good thing because it keeps the bubble in check." I don't know about that. I think overall delays simply lead to increased costs.
I'm a big fan of the free market, but to be fair , I also don't want a data center next to my house or, you know, where the real estate we had is. But there's a hell of a lot of land that can be built on in areas where people don't live. I mean, there's a lot of land out there, and we need to speed up the permitting process and let the free market do its thing away from where people live.
Uh, I don't know. This is my point of view. Maybe that's a bad point of view. I don't know. Uh, you know, this whole argument about , oh, data centers being able to export extra electricity...I don't know about that. It seems to me that a lot of data centers will use all the energy that they can generate, and right now there's this delay even in installing gas turbines, whether it's, you know, Bloom Energy fuel cells that use natural gas, but not through a combustion process but instead through some other chemical reaction, or turbines like the GE Vernova, or something else.
Many of them are booked for two or three years just to set up their power plant. So, I know that there is a great desire to burn more natural gas in the near future. I just don't think there are any possibilities to implement it right now. So, in any case, I don't think you'll be exporting energy to the grid anytime soon.
I think it's a cute argument from people like Sachs. Well, yes, it will reduce your electricity costs. Not anytime soon . Not given these levels of inflation. So the other issue is that as interest rates on the yield curve go up, for example, on the 10-year bond, utilities have to pay more to raise funds, and because they are regulated monopolies, there is a limit to how much they can actually raise utility rates, which, you know, is a good limit to some extent for consumers, but it's bad for utilities , because they can't actually raise the financing they need because they can't afford it, and then they can't build enough capacity, and if they can't build enough capacity, they can't keep rates low long-term.
There is also the problem of shadow data centers or shadow data center applications, where people try to double or triple permissions everywhere. So the utility companies say, "Okay, you have to prove that you're actually legitimate ." There's a whole giant mess going on with data centers right now .
This is a really serious issue, which is why I argue that there is no deal on Iran, the Democrats will almost certainly win, and I argue that it will be good for blue renewable energy. I don't think people want to depend on natural gas in the long term. Will we be using natural gas for the next 50 years?
Damn it, yes. We will burn, burn, burn for the next 50 years. But, you know, at some point we're all going to switch to nuclear power? God, I hope so. In any case, dividing Congress is what I think Elon really wants. I don't think he has any illusions that the Republicans will win. I think the chances of that are very, very low.
Um, we should honestly look at Caltech to see if there's a Republican winner category here , but I think that's a bit delusional, that's the impression. So, the California Institute of Technology defeated the Republicans. Uh, I think a stalemate is more likely, but a higher probability of a stalemate is actually beneficial for a lot of, uh, Republican initiatives because you eliminate, or maybe I shouldn't say eliminate, you reduce the likelihood that you'll get bogged down in all these investigations.
So, if I move on to the balance of power in the midterm elections, yeah, okay, the Republicans' chance of winning right now is 10%. So, if you want to bet or predict that, uh, the Republicans will win, you have an option. There is now only a 10% chance of a Republican victory. I think it's probably closer to 1%.
However, here's how you can play it out. If you think we're going to make a deal with Iran, the chances of a Republican victory probably triple. This could be an interesting proposition for trade. You don't even have to hold it, but it could be an interesting trade proposition, uh, if you think we're going to make a deal with Iran.
Okay, so we have another, uh, Republican victory, I think that's extremely unlikely right now , uh, and even with the Iran deal, I still think it's less than 30%. I am going to make the following predictions. So, no deal, 1% chance of Republican victory, uh, deal, 30% chance, I think, right? This is my opinion.
A split in Congress, I think that's, you know, with the deal, uh , almost a certain split, and that would actually give us the risk of a shutdown, uh, and not be much of a benefit for renewable energy. Uh, but a smaller, or should I say, smaller potential investigative unit . So that's probably where we'll eventually get a deal with Iran.
And this is where, if Donald Trump wants to limit the investigation, he'll sign this document on his desk, uh, this proposal on his desk. Uh, here are the key states we should be watching in the election. This will be Texas for key states in terms of data center construction. This is related to the planned or proposed, uh, it's actually running plus the planned capacity of the data centers.
So, it works plus it's planned. It is planned, as you could see, most of these are here. So, Texas, Virginia, but the competitive races are Texas, Ohio, Georgia, uh, New Mexico, and Nevada. This is where it starts to become uncompetitive , because the Democrat is now well ahead of Vivek. Vivek just isn't doing very well.
And then here we see, you know, we're probably going to be back to these standoffs again, government shutdowns and all this nonsense if we end up either having a split or a complete Democratic victory. Although, to be honest, it's less likely that a shutdown would be a complete victory because they would be able to pass funding without Republicans.
So I would argue that, uh, terminations are less likely during a complete victory. And then that's probably the worst case scenario for termination. Worst case scenario for hell with termination here. Because, you know, it would just be a mess. So, that gives us a little insight into some of the drama here.
Let's see if there's, I think, another note here about data centers. Times... We looked at the New York Times. We reviewed Teleco. See if we have any other notes here. Paxton needs to be saved. Cornyn, you're in trouble, we have this leaked audio recording of Paxton blaming Trump for the war with Iran and gas prices.
Obviously, this doesn't help, because it creates some division for Republicans in Texas. Yesterday, Trump blamed Cornyn and Karl Rove if Paxton loses. He's already starting to point his finger. We just received documents from Elon Musk. By the way, polls are a little different from betting markets. So, up to age 30, I think the distribution is interesting.
Under 30, 69% of voters vote for Talarico. Over 65 , Paxton, that's 55%. So, there is a clear age gap here, where younger people, perhaps because of the labor market, which is not the best, feel pressure and see this, as new players, as a problem. Uh, if you look at the Fox poll, your split on Talarico Paxton.
If you look at the YouGov poll, Talarico is leading by six points. If you look at TPOR, TPOR, Talarico wins by a five- point margin. So, and obviously in the betting markets in Calcia, Talarico also wins by a small margin. Early voting in Texas begins on October 19. And therefore, early voting will indeed take place.
It will start happening, but usually those who vote early are Democrats. So I think that from the 20th to the 27th is a key period for what ultimately happens with the Iran deal, and it will significantly change the medium-term chances. And with that, .
Comments 0