These Are The US Cities With The Most And Least Health Insurance

In 2023, 92% or 305 million Americans had health insurance, either for some or all of the year.

Health insurance coverage varies widely across the country, shaped by differences in state policies, economic conditions, and local job markets.

This map, via Visual Capitalist's Kayla Zhu, shows the top and bottom U.S. metropolitan areas by share of residents with health insurance, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Data is for 2023 and shows the share of civilian noninstitutionalized population with health coverage, public or private.

Cities With the Highest Rates of Health Insurance Coverage

In this table, we show the top U.S. metro areas by share of residents with health insurance.

Amherst, Massachusetts was the most insured metro area in the U.S. in 2023, with 98.4% of its residents covered under some sort of health insurance.

The cities with the highest rates of health insurance coverage are mostly concentrated in Massachusetts—one of the top states by median income and average hourly wage—and the Midwest.

Massachusetts is also one of the most highly educated states, which has shown to have a correlation with health insurance coverage.

Cities With the Lowest Rates of Health Insurance Coverage

Below we show the bottom U.S. metro areas by share of residents with health insurance.

Laredo, a border city in Southern Texas was the metro area with the lowest share of residents with health insurance at 70.7%.

Texas dominates the bottom of the ranking, with 7 of the 10 lowest-coverage metro areas. Many border cities including Laredo, McAllen (74.7%), and Brownsville (76.5%) have some of the lowest rates of insured populations.

Texas is one of 10 states that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

It also has some of the highest health care insurance costs in the country, which contributes to its relatively lower share of insured residents.

To learn health care insurance in the U.S., check out this graphic that visualizes life expectancy and health spending per capita across developed nations.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/03/2025 - 05:45

This Is Where Millionaire Populations Are Growing

The number of millionaires rose fastest over the past 10 years in Montenegro, the United Arab Emirates and Malta, according to a new report by Henley & Partners. 

As Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports, the growth by up to 124 percent was largely driven by millionaires immigrating to the locations, the researchers concluded.

Malta's and Montenegro's investment for citizenship schemes are playing a role here as well as the two countries' mild climate and natural beauty which is attracting the super-rich and has led to a boom in luxury real estate and other lux offerings.

The United Arab Emirates has long been known as a luxury destination for expats and holiday-makers and like the two former countries also features a tax regime favorable to millionaires.

Poland, China and India meanwhile feature among the top 8 of the countries with the fastest-growing millionaire population in relative terms mostly independent of immigration.

You will find more infographics at Statista

All countries have experienced strong economic growth and modernization over the course of the past decades.

Their large workforces have attracted foreign and domestic investments as the nations are moving toward middle and high income status. China and India, however, also feature among the countries with the largest net emigration of millionaires, surpassed in 2024 only by the United Kingdom.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/03/2025 - 04:15

This Is Where Millionaire Populations Are Growing

The number of millionaires rose fastest over the past 10 years in Montenegro, the United Arab Emirates and Malta, according to a new report by Henley & Partners. 

As Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports, the growth by up to 124 percent was largely driven by millionaires immigrating to the locations, the researchers concluded.

Malta's and Montenegro's investment for citizenship schemes are playing a role here as well as the two countries' mild climate and natural beauty which is attracting the super-rich and has led to a boom in luxury real estate and other lux offerings.

The United Arab Emirates has long been known as a luxury destination for expats and holiday-makers and like the two former countries also features a tax regime favorable to millionaires.

Poland, China and India meanwhile feature among the top 8 of the countries with the fastest-growing millionaire population in relative terms mostly independent of immigration.

You will find more infographics at Statista

All countries have experienced strong economic growth and modernization over the course of the past decades.

Their large workforces have attracted foreign and domestic investments as the nations are moving toward middle and high income status. China and India, however, also feature among the countries with the largest net emigration of millionaires, surpassed in 2024 only by the United Kingdom.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/03/2025 - 04:15

The Latest Trouble In Russian-Azerbaijani Relations Might Be Part Of A Turkish-US Powerplay

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Turkiye sees an opportunity to turbocharge its rise as a Eurasian Great Power along Russia’s entire southern periphery in ways that autonomously align with American grand strategic interests...

Russian-Azerbaijani relations are in trouble as a result of two scandals. The first concerns the recent police raid against suspected ethnic Azeri criminals in Yekaterinburg, during which time two of them died in circumstances that are now being investigated. That prompted Baku to officially complain to Moscow, after which a vicious infowar campaign was launched on social media and even among some publicly financed outlets as well alleging that Russia is “Islamophobic”, “imperialist”, and “persecuting Azeris”.

This was shortly thereafter followed by a police raid on Sputnik’s office in Baku, which had been operating in a legal gray zone after the authorities moved to effectively shut it down in February, thus resulting in the detainment of several Russians. That earlier decision was suspected to be connected to Azerbaijan’s displeasure with Russia’s response to late December’s airline tragedy in the North Caucasus that was caused by a Ukrainian drone attack at the time. Readers can learn more about it here and here.

Before determining who’s responsible for the latest trouble in bilateral ties, it’s important to recall the larger context within which all of this is unfolding. Prior to late December’s incident, Russian-Azerbaijani relations were proceeding along a very positive trajectory in accordance with the strategic partnership pact that President Ilham Aliyev agreed to with Putin on the eve of the special operation in late February 2022. That built upon Russia’s role in mediating an end to the Second Karabakh War in November 2020.

More recently, Putin visited Baku last August, the significance of which was analyzed here and here. This was followed by Aliyev visiting Moscow in October in connection with the CIS Heads of State Summit. Shortly before late December’s airline tragedy, Aliyev then gave an extended interview to Rossiya Segodnya head Dmitry Kiselyov in Baku, where he elaborated on Azerbaijan’s multi-aligned foreign policy and newfound suspicions of the West’s regional intentions towards the South Caucasus.

On that topic, the Biden Administration sought to exploit Armenia’s loss in the Second Karabakh War to more radically turn it against Russia and thus transform the country into a joint French-US protectorate for dividing-and-ruling the region, which worsened relations with Azerbaijan. The Trump Administration appears to be reconsidering that, however, and might have even agreed to let Armenia become a joint Azeri-Turkish protectorate instead. It’s this perception that’s driving the latest unrest in Armenia.

From Russia’s perspective, the French-US protectorate scenario could spark another regional war that might spiral out of control with unpredictable consequences for Moscow if they weaponize the revival of Armenian revanchism. Similarly, the Azeri-Turkish protectorate scenario could turbocharge Turkiye’s rise as a Eurasian Great Power if it leads to an expansion of its influence (especially military) in Central Asia. The ideal scenario is therefore for Armenia to return to its traditional status as a Russian ally.

Having explained the context within which the latest trouble is unfolding, it’s now time to determine who’s responsible. Objectively speaking, the Azerbaijani authorities overreacted to the recent police raid in Yekaterinburg, which signaled to civil society that it’s acceptable (at least for now) to wage a vicious infowar campaign against Russia. Some officials with an unclear connection to Aliyev then authorized the raid on Sputnik’s office as an escalation under the implied pretext of an asymmetrical response.

Given the ambiguity about Aliyev’s role in Azerbaijan’s overreactions, it’s premature to conclude that he decided to jeopardize the strategic ties with Russia that he himself cultivated, though he must still take responsibility even if mid-level officials did this on their own. That’s because Baku’s official complaint to Moscow and its raid on Sputnik’s office are state actions, unlike the recent police raid in Yekaterinburg, which is a local action. He’ll thus likely have to talk to Putin sometime soon to resolve everything.

The abovementioned observation doesn’t explain why mid-level officials might have overreacted to the Yekaterinburg police raid, which can be attributed to the deep-seated resentment that some have against Russia and speculative foreign influence. Regarding the first, some Azerbaijanis (but importantly not all and seemingly not the majority) harbor such sentiments, while the second might be linked to the scenario of the US letting Armenia becoming a joint Azeri-Turkish protectorate.

To elaborate, the US and France would struggle to turn Armenia into their own joint protectorate due to Georgia successfully repelling several rounds of Biden-era Color Revolution unrest, which aimed to pressure the government into opening up a “second front” against Russia and toppling it if it refused.

The military logistics required for turning Armenia into a bastion from which they could then divide-and-rule the region therefore are no longer reliable since they could only realistically run through Georgia.

Accordingly, the Trump Administration might have decided to cut their predecessor’s strategic losses by “giving” Armenia to Turkiye and Azerbaijan, which would repair the troubled ties that he inherited with both. In exchange, the US might have requested that they take a harder line towards Russia if the opportunity emerges, knowing that neither will sanction it since that would harm their own economies but hoping that a future situation would develop to serve as the pretext for escalating political tensions.

Mid-level officials wouldn’t be privy to such talks, but the aforesaid speculative request could have trickled down to them from their superiors, some of whom might have implied state approval for overreacting to any forthcoming “opportunity”. This sequence of events could bestow Aliyev with the ability to “plausibly deny” his role in events as part of a de-escalation deal with Putin. The whole purpose of this charade might be to signal to Russia that a new order is forming in the broader region.

As was earlier explained, that order could be a Turkish-led one upon Ankara and Baku subordinating Armenia as their joint protectorate, after which they’d streamline military logistics across its territory to turn the “Organization of Turkic States” (OTS) into a major force along Russia’s entire southern periphery. To be clear, the OTS isn’t controlled by the West, but its Turkish leader and increasingly equal Azerbaijani partner could still autonomously advance the West’s strategic agenda vis-à-vis Russia in that scenario.

Just like the US and France have unreliable military logistics to Armenia, so too does Russia, so it could struggle to deter an Azerbaijani(-Turkish?) invasion of its nominal but wayward CSTO ally if Baku (and Ankara?) exploits its latest unrest (such as if Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan falls). Moreover, the most optimal branch of the North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) runs through Azerbaijan, which could block it if Russia takes decisive action in defense of Armenia (however limited due to the special operation).

To be clear, Russia has no intention to fight Azerbaijan, but Azerbaijan’s overreaction to the recent police raid in Yekaterinburg might be a ploy to preemptively craft the perception that Russia “backed down” as a result if Moscow doesn’t take decisive action to deter Baku if regional tensions over Armenia worsen. Had it not been for that raid, then perhaps some other pretext would have been exploited or concocted, but the point is that Russia and Azerbaijan have polar opposite visions of Armenia’s geopolitical future.

That same future is pivotal for the future of the broader region as was written, but Russia has limited means for shaping the course of events due to its complex strategic interdependence with Azerbaijan vis-à-vis the NSTC and its understandable military prioritization of the special operation. The preceding constraints are self-evident, and Aliyev (and Erdogan?) might be preparing to take advantage of them, emboldened as he(/they?) might be by Russia’s perceived setback in Syria after Assad’s downfall.

Azerbaijan is aware of its irreplaceable role in turbocharging allied Turkiye’s rise as Eurasian Great Power, which is dependent on subordinating Armenia in order to then streamline the OTS’ military logistics between Asia Minor and Central Asia via the South Caucasus. If Aliyev came to believe that his country has a brighter future as part of a Turkish-led regional order instead of a Russian-led one, especially if the US signaled approval of this as speculated, then Baku’s overreaction to recent events makes more sense.

The Moscow-mediated Armenian-Azerbaijani ceasefire of November 2020 calls for the creation of a Russian-controlled corridor across Armenia’s southern Syunik Province, which Baku calls the “Zangezur Corridor”, for connecting both parts of Azerbaijan. Pashinyan hitherto refused to implement this due to pressure from the West and the Armenian diaspora therein, but if Trump decided to “give” Armenia to Azerbaijan and Turkiye instead, then he might do it but only after squeezing Russia out of this route.

Russian control would prevent Turkiye from streamlining its military logistics to Central Asia through this corridor for the purpose of replacing Russia’s influence there with its own as part of a grand strategic powerplay that autonomously aligns with the Western agenda in the pivotal Eurasian Heartland. Azerbaijan (and Turkiye?) might therefore invade Syunik if their envisaged client Pashinyan either flip-flops on squeezing Russia out or before Russia is invited into there by a new government if he falls.

The consequences of Turkiye obtaining unhindered military access to Central Asia through either sequence of events could be disastrous for Russia since its influence there is already being challenged by Turkiye, the EU, and even the UK, which just signed a two-year military agreement with Kazakhstan. That country, with whom Russia shares the longest land border in the world, has been pivoting towards the West as was assessed here in summer 2023 and this troubling trend could easily accelerate in that event.

Reflecting on all this insight, the latest trouble in Russian-Azerbaijani relations might therefore be part of a Turkish-US powerplay, one which Trump could have agreed to with Erdogan and Aliyev later jumped on board but might still have his doubts. That would account for his “plausibly deniable” role in Azerbaijan’s overreaction to recent events. If taken to its conclusion, this powerplay could risk Azerbaijan becoming Turkiye’s junior partner with time, which he’s thus far sought to avoid through his multi-alignment policy.

If that’s the case, then it might not be too late for Putin to avert this scenario so long as he can convince Aliyev that Azerbaijan has a brighter future as part of a different regional order, one that would center on Azerbaijan continuing its Russo-Turkish balancing act instead of turbocharging Turkiye’s rise. The NSTC could figure prominently in this paradigm, but the problem is that Azerbaijan’s ties with Iran and India are very strained right now, so he’d have to prospectively mediate a rapprochement for this to happen.

Anyhow, the point is that it’s premature to assume that the latest trouble in Russian-Azerbaijani relations is the new normal or that it might even precede a seemingly inevitable crisis, though both possibilities are nonetheless credible and should be taken seriously by the Kremlin just in case. The best-case scenario is that Aliyev and Putin soon hold a call to amicably resolve the issues that have abruptly toxified their ties otherwise the worst might be yet to come and it could be disadvantageous for both.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/03/2025 - 03:30

The Latest Trouble In Russian-Azerbaijani Relations Might Be Part Of A Turkish-US Powerplay

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Turkiye sees an opportunity to turbocharge its rise as a Eurasian Great Power along Russia’s entire southern periphery in ways that autonomously align with American grand strategic interests...

Russian-Azerbaijani relations are in trouble as a result of two scandals. The first concerns the recent police raid against suspected ethnic Azeri criminals in Yekaterinburg, during which time two of them died in circumstances that are now being investigated. That prompted Baku to officially complain to Moscow, after which a vicious infowar campaign was launched on social media and even among some publicly financed outlets as well alleging that Russia is “Islamophobic”, “imperialist”, and “persecuting Azeris”.

This was shortly thereafter followed by a police raid on Sputnik’s office in Baku, which had been operating in a legal gray zone after the authorities moved to effectively shut it down in February, thus resulting in the detainment of several Russians. That earlier decision was suspected to be connected to Azerbaijan’s displeasure with Russia’s response to late December’s airline tragedy in the North Caucasus that was caused by a Ukrainian drone attack at the time. Readers can learn more about it here and here.

Before determining who’s responsible for the latest trouble in bilateral ties, it’s important to recall the larger context within which all of this is unfolding. Prior to late December’s incident, Russian-Azerbaijani relations were proceeding along a very positive trajectory in accordance with the strategic partnership pact that President Ilham Aliyev agreed to with Putin on the eve of the special operation in late February 2022. That built upon Russia’s role in mediating an end to the Second Karabakh War in November 2020.

More recently, Putin visited Baku last August, the significance of which was analyzed here and here. This was followed by Aliyev visiting Moscow in October in connection with the CIS Heads of State Summit. Shortly before late December’s airline tragedy, Aliyev then gave an extended interview to Rossiya Segodnya head Dmitry Kiselyov in Baku, where he elaborated on Azerbaijan’s multi-aligned foreign policy and newfound suspicions of the West’s regional intentions towards the South Caucasus.

On that topic, the Biden Administration sought to exploit Armenia’s loss in the Second Karabakh War to more radically turn it against Russia and thus transform the country into a joint French-US protectorate for dividing-and-ruling the region, which worsened relations with Azerbaijan. The Trump Administration appears to be reconsidering that, however, and might have even agreed to let Armenia become a joint Azeri-Turkish protectorate instead. It’s this perception that’s driving the latest unrest in Armenia.

From Russia’s perspective, the French-US protectorate scenario could spark another regional war that might spiral out of control with unpredictable consequences for Moscow if they weaponize the revival of Armenian revanchism. Similarly, the Azeri-Turkish protectorate scenario could turbocharge Turkiye’s rise as a Eurasian Great Power if it leads to an expansion of its influence (especially military) in Central Asia. The ideal scenario is therefore for Armenia to return to its traditional status as a Russian ally.

Having explained the context within which the latest trouble is unfolding, it’s now time to determine who’s responsible. Objectively speaking, the Azerbaijani authorities overreacted to the recent police raid in Yekaterinburg, which signaled to civil society that it’s acceptable (at least for now) to wage a vicious infowar campaign against Russia. Some officials with an unclear connection to Aliyev then authorized the raid on Sputnik’s office as an escalation under the implied pretext of an asymmetrical response.

Given the ambiguity about Aliyev’s role in Azerbaijan’s overreactions, it’s premature to conclude that he decided to jeopardize the strategic ties with Russia that he himself cultivated, though he must still take responsibility even if mid-level officials did this on their own. That’s because Baku’s official complaint to Moscow and its raid on Sputnik’s office are state actions, unlike the recent police raid in Yekaterinburg, which is a local action. He’ll thus likely have to talk to Putin sometime soon to resolve everything.

The abovementioned observation doesn’t explain why mid-level officials might have overreacted to the Yekaterinburg police raid, which can be attributed to the deep-seated resentment that some have against Russia and speculative foreign influence. Regarding the first, some Azerbaijanis (but importantly not all and seemingly not the majority) harbor such sentiments, while the second might be linked to the scenario of the US letting Armenia becoming a joint Azeri-Turkish protectorate.

To elaborate, the US and France would struggle to turn Armenia into their own joint protectorate due to Georgia successfully repelling several rounds of Biden-era Color Revolution unrest, which aimed to pressure the government into opening up a “second front” against Russia and toppling it if it refused.

The military logistics required for turning Armenia into a bastion from which they could then divide-and-rule the region therefore are no longer reliable since they could only realistically run through Georgia.

Accordingly, the Trump Administration might have decided to cut their predecessor’s strategic losses by “giving” Armenia to Turkiye and Azerbaijan, which would repair the troubled ties that he inherited with both. In exchange, the US might have requested that they take a harder line towards Russia if the opportunity emerges, knowing that neither will sanction it since that would harm their own economies but hoping that a future situation would develop to serve as the pretext for escalating political tensions.

Mid-level officials wouldn’t be privy to such talks, but the aforesaid speculative request could have trickled down to them from their superiors, some of whom might have implied state approval for overreacting to any forthcoming “opportunity”. This sequence of events could bestow Aliyev with the ability to “plausibly deny” his role in events as part of a de-escalation deal with Putin. The whole purpose of this charade might be to signal to Russia that a new order is forming in the broader region.

As was earlier explained, that order could be a Turkish-led one upon Ankara and Baku subordinating Armenia as their joint protectorate, after which they’d streamline military logistics across its territory to turn the “Organization of Turkic States” (OTS) into a major force along Russia’s entire southern periphery. To be clear, the OTS isn’t controlled by the West, but its Turkish leader and increasingly equal Azerbaijani partner could still autonomously advance the West’s strategic agenda vis-à-vis Russia in that scenario.

Just like the US and France have unreliable military logistics to Armenia, so too does Russia, so it could struggle to deter an Azerbaijani(-Turkish?) invasion of its nominal but wayward CSTO ally if Baku (and Ankara?) exploits its latest unrest (such as if Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan falls). Moreover, the most optimal branch of the North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) runs through Azerbaijan, which could block it if Russia takes decisive action in defense of Armenia (however limited due to the special operation).

To be clear, Russia has no intention to fight Azerbaijan, but Azerbaijan’s overreaction to the recent police raid in Yekaterinburg might be a ploy to preemptively craft the perception that Russia “backed down” as a result if Moscow doesn’t take decisive action to deter Baku if regional tensions over Armenia worsen. Had it not been for that raid, then perhaps some other pretext would have been exploited or concocted, but the point is that Russia and Azerbaijan have polar opposite visions of Armenia’s geopolitical future.

That same future is pivotal for the future of the broader region as was written, but Russia has limited means for shaping the course of events due to its complex strategic interdependence with Azerbaijan vis-à-vis the NSTC and its understandable military prioritization of the special operation. The preceding constraints are self-evident, and Aliyev (and Erdogan?) might be preparing to take advantage of them, emboldened as he(/they?) might be by Russia’s perceived setback in Syria after Assad’s downfall.

Azerbaijan is aware of its irreplaceable role in turbocharging allied Turkiye’s rise as Eurasian Great Power, which is dependent on subordinating Armenia in order to then streamline the OTS’ military logistics between Asia Minor and Central Asia via the South Caucasus. If Aliyev came to believe that his country has a brighter future as part of a Turkish-led regional order instead of a Russian-led one, especially if the US signaled approval of this as speculated, then Baku’s overreaction to recent events makes more sense.

The Moscow-mediated Armenian-Azerbaijani ceasefire of November 2020 calls for the creation of a Russian-controlled corridor across Armenia’s southern Syunik Province, which Baku calls the “Zangezur Corridor”, for connecting both parts of Azerbaijan. Pashinyan hitherto refused to implement this due to pressure from the West and the Armenian diaspora therein, but if Trump decided to “give” Armenia to Azerbaijan and Turkiye instead, then he might do it but only after squeezing Russia out of this route.

Russian control would prevent Turkiye from streamlining its military logistics to Central Asia through this corridor for the purpose of replacing Russia’s influence there with its own as part of a grand strategic powerplay that autonomously aligns with the Western agenda in the pivotal Eurasian Heartland. Azerbaijan (and Turkiye?) might therefore invade Syunik if their envisaged client Pashinyan either flip-flops on squeezing Russia out or before Russia is invited into there by a new government if he falls.

The consequences of Turkiye obtaining unhindered military access to Central Asia through either sequence of events could be disastrous for Russia since its influence there is already being challenged by Turkiye, the EU, and even the UK, which just signed a two-year military agreement with Kazakhstan. That country, with whom Russia shares the longest land border in the world, has been pivoting towards the West as was assessed here in summer 2023 and this troubling trend could easily accelerate in that event.

Reflecting on all this insight, the latest trouble in Russian-Azerbaijani relations might therefore be part of a Turkish-US powerplay, one which Trump could have agreed to with Erdogan and Aliyev later jumped on board but might still have his doubts. That would account for his “plausibly deniable” role in Azerbaijan’s overreaction to recent events. If taken to its conclusion, this powerplay could risk Azerbaijan becoming Turkiye’s junior partner with time, which he’s thus far sought to avoid through his multi-alignment policy.

If that’s the case, then it might not be too late for Putin to avert this scenario so long as he can convince Aliyev that Azerbaijan has a brighter future as part of a different regional order, one that would center on Azerbaijan continuing its Russo-Turkish balancing act instead of turbocharging Turkiye’s rise. The NSTC could figure prominently in this paradigm, but the problem is that Azerbaijan’s ties with Iran and India are very strained right now, so he’d have to prospectively mediate a rapprochement for this to happen.

Anyhow, the point is that it’s premature to assume that the latest trouble in Russian-Azerbaijani relations is the new normal or that it might even precede a seemingly inevitable crisis, though both possibilities are nonetheless credible and should be taken seriously by the Kremlin just in case. The best-case scenario is that Aliyev and Putin soon hold a call to amicably resolve the issues that have abruptly toxified their ties otherwise the worst might be yet to come and it could be disadvantageous for both.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/03/2025 - 03:30

Tobacco-Free Future - Moving Forward Or Backwards?

In France, a new ban limiting smoking in several public outdoor places went into effect on July 1, marking a major step for the country once known as a nation of smokers.

As Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports, tobacco use is falling around the world and control measures have reached a critical mass of people, expanding public smoking bans and even a total phase-out of commercial tobacco use has been on the table in some countries. However, some of the most high-profile measures of this kind have already failed, raising the question whether a tobacco-free future is in the making, further away that it seems or even wholly unattainable.

Bhutan, the Himalayan nation, was the world’s first officially smoke-free country when it outlawed the import and sale of tobacco in 2004. Bhutan has become famous for its different approach to governance, which has been admired in the West, for example calculating gross national happiness or mandating that 60% of the country remain forested. But even the remote nation that cited Buddhist teachings as a reason for its tobacco ban has not been immune to outside influence and axed the majority of its ban in 2020 amid the coronavirus pandemic to stop smugglers which were spreading the disease. Since then, the country’s government has decided not to reinstate and instead focus on education and cessasion programs, as the ban did not actually lower smoking rates and instead created an environment free of warnings around the tobacco which was still available illegally.

More recently, New Zealand attempted to raise a smoke-free generation from 2027 onwards by not allowing anyone born in 2009 or later to legally purchase cigarettes once they turned 18, alongside many other anti-tobacco measures. The country’s approach was that of a more gradual phase-out rather than a sudden ban but its merits won’t be tested as a change in government prompted the law enacted in 2022 to be scrapped despite reportedly having widespread public support. A new conservative coalition government decided to change course after coming to power in 2023, reportedly at the request of the populist New Zealand First party. Tobacco revenue was consecutively tied to new tax cuts. This highlights another area of concern with tobacco bans and phase-outs: the cost of prevention and tax revenue losses in the short term, even though these are expected to be offset by lower public healthcare costs. However, the United Kingdom is currently mulling a similar ban that is yet to be enacted but enjoys government and public support as of now.

The New Zealand government meanwhile said that it remained committed to creating a smoke-free nation nevertheless. Several countries, including Portugal, Canada and Australia, have set similar goals, typically aiming to reduce the number of smokers to 5 percent or less in the next five to 15 years. The EU, for example, has set this date to 2040. One popular rule to inch closer to this goal has been to further limit smoking in public outdoor areas like restaurant and bar patios, beaches, parks, natural areas or even inner city streets. The aforementioned countries, sometimes on a state level, have introduced bans like these, as have several other nations around the world. Cities have also followed suit and a well-reported ban went into effect in Milan at the beginning of the year, outlawing smoking anywhere near other people, similar to the law in place in Costa Rica.

The World Health Organization last week released its tenth report on the global tobacco epidemic, a status update on its anti-smoking campaigns.

You will find more infographics at Statista

The WHO concludes that more than 6 billion people, or around 75 percent of the world population, are now covered by some kind of tobacco control measure, including graphic warnings on cigarette packages, increases in taxation, advertising bans and programs that help people quit smoking. According to the organization, less than 20 percent of the world population currently smokes, down from more than 32 percent in the year 2000. 80 percent of these people are located in middle or low income countries and are more likely males as smoking continues to be the biggest cause of preventable death globally.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/03/2025 - 02:45

Tobacco-Free Future - Moving Forward Or Backwards?

In France, a new ban limiting smoking in several public outdoor places went into effect on July 1, marking a major step for the country once known as a nation of smokers.

As Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports, tobacco use is falling around the world and control measures have reached a critical mass of people, expanding public smoking bans and even a total phase-out of commercial tobacco use has been on the table in some countries. However, some of the most high-profile measures of this kind have already failed, raising the question whether a tobacco-free future is in the making, further away that it seems or even wholly unattainable.

Bhutan, the Himalayan nation, was the world’s first officially smoke-free country when it outlawed the import and sale of tobacco in 2004. Bhutan has become famous for its different approach to governance, which has been admired in the West, for example calculating gross national happiness or mandating that 60% of the country remain forested. But even the remote nation that cited Buddhist teachings as a reason for its tobacco ban has not been immune to outside influence and axed the majority of its ban in 2020 amid the coronavirus pandemic to stop smugglers which were spreading the disease. Since then, the country’s government has decided not to reinstate and instead focus on education and cessasion programs, as the ban did not actually lower smoking rates and instead created an environment free of warnings around the tobacco which was still available illegally.

More recently, New Zealand attempted to raise a smoke-free generation from 2027 onwards by not allowing anyone born in 2009 or later to legally purchase cigarettes once they turned 18, alongside many other anti-tobacco measures. The country’s approach was that of a more gradual phase-out rather than a sudden ban but its merits won’t be tested as a change in government prompted the law enacted in 2022 to be scrapped despite reportedly having widespread public support. A new conservative coalition government decided to change course after coming to power in 2023, reportedly at the request of the populist New Zealand First party. Tobacco revenue was consecutively tied to new tax cuts. This highlights another area of concern with tobacco bans and phase-outs: the cost of prevention and tax revenue losses in the short term, even though these are expected to be offset by lower public healthcare costs. However, the United Kingdom is currently mulling a similar ban that is yet to be enacted but enjoys government and public support as of now.

The New Zealand government meanwhile said that it remained committed to creating a smoke-free nation nevertheless. Several countries, including Portugal, Canada and Australia, have set similar goals, typically aiming to reduce the number of smokers to 5 percent or less in the next five to 15 years. The EU, for example, has set this date to 2040. One popular rule to inch closer to this goal has been to further limit smoking in public outdoor areas like restaurant and bar patios, beaches, parks, natural areas or even inner city streets. The aforementioned countries, sometimes on a state level, have introduced bans like these, as have several other nations around the world. Cities have also followed suit and a well-reported ban went into effect in Milan at the beginning of the year, outlawing smoking anywhere near other people, similar to the law in place in Costa Rica.

The World Health Organization last week released its tenth report on the global tobacco epidemic, a status update on its anti-smoking campaigns.

You will find more infographics at Statista

The WHO concludes that more than 6 billion people, or around 75 percent of the world population, are now covered by some kind of tobacco control measure, including graphic warnings on cigarette packages, increases in taxation, advertising bans and programs that help people quit smoking. According to the organization, less than 20 percent of the world population currently smokes, down from more than 32 percent in the year 2000. 80 percent of these people are located in middle or low income countries and are more likely males as smoking continues to be the biggest cause of preventable death globally.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/03/2025 - 02:45

China Erodes US AI Supremacy As Chatbot Race Defines Path To 2030 Dominance

Former PBOC Deputy Governor Zhu Min recently warned of a coming tsunami of domestic AI innovation, predicting that China could see 100 breakthroughs of the same magnitude as DeepSeek over the next 18 months. The rise of DeepSeek—a powerful, low-cost alternative to OpenAI's ChatGPT—has ignited a bull market in Chinese tech stocks and positioned itself as a serious contender in the deepening AI arms race between Washington and Beijing. As the world slides into an increasingly fractured and dangerous bipolar order, the battle for AI supremacy is shaping up to define who controls the 2030s.

A Wall Street Journal report adds new details to China's rapid rise as a serious challenger to the U.S. in the deepening technological Cold War—one that is expected to intensify significantly by the end of the decade. The report highlights how DeepSeek and e-commerce giant Alibaba are steadily gaining market share across Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, with chatbot adoption spreading from banks and research desks to commercial enterprises and academia.

OpenAI's Sam Altman should be concerned about intensifying competition...

HSBC and Standard Chartered have begun testing DeepSeek's models internally, according to people familiar with the matter. Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil company, recently installed DeepSeek in its main data center.

Even major American cloud service providers such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft and Google offer DeepSeek to customers, despite the White House banning use of the company's app on some government devices over data-security concerns.-WSJ

Still, ChatGPT remains the global gold standard, thanks to advanced computing semiconductors, cutting-edge research, and strong access to financial capital. According to data from Sensor Tower, ChatGPT is the world's premier chatbot, with 910 million global downloads—far surpassing DeepSeek's 125 million.

ChatGPT leads... 

Source: Wall Street Journal 

This intensifying competition is forcing countries to choose between U.S. and Chinese chatbots. Microsoft President Brad Smith recently warned, "The No. 1 factor that will define whether the U.S. or China wins this race is whose technology is most broadly adopted in the rest of the world," adding, "Whoever gets there first will be difficult to supplant." 

US investors have pulled back on funding China's AI complex... 

Source: Wall Street Journal 

Washington's chip restrictions have cost American companies billions (e.g., Nvidia's blocked chip sales), while Beijing invests in domestic chip production. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently thanked President Trump for rolling back chip restrictions, ensuring the chipmaker remains a dominant player. 

Besides AI, Morgan Stanley analysts laid out the emerging Quantum computing race between the West and the East. 

All in all, the global adoption of Chinese AI could reduce U.S. influence worldwide and increase the risks of Chinese Communist Party propaganda operations on consumer-facing apps.

Related:

• "Bomb Data Center": Eric Schmidt Warns AI Arms Race Could Spark Global Conflict

A headline like the one above is no longer a question of if, but when...

Also:

• China Reportedly On Verge Of 100 DeepSeek-Like Breakthroughs Amid Aspirations For World Domination

The battle for digital AI supremacy is well underway, and the next dominant chatbot may not be Western-made. Those who lead in AI and the production of low-cost, advanced weapons—such as drones and hypersonic missiles—will shape the global balance of power in the 2030s and beyond. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/02/2025 - 21:20

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

Thursday:
• At 8:30 AM ET, Employment Report for June.   The consensus is for 129,000 jobs added, and for the unemployment rate to be unchanged at 4.2%.

• Also at 8:30 AM, The initial weekly unemployment claims report will be released. The consensus is for initial claims to increase to 239 thousand from 236 thousand last week.

• Also at 8:30 AM, Trade Balance report for May from the Census Bureau. The consensus is the trade deficit to be $69.8 billion.  The U.S. trade deficit was at $61.6 billion the previous month.

• At 10:00 AM, the ISM Services Index for June.   The consensus is for a reading of 50.8, up from 49.9.

• All US markets will close early at 1:00 PM ET in observance of Independence Day

Thiel Joins Luckey & Lonsdale To Launch New Bank Aimed At Filling SVB Void For Stablecoins, AI, Defense & Advanced Manufacturing

A group of high-profile tech investors, including military tech entrepreneur Palmer Luckey and venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, is preparing to launch a new bank designed to serve the niche left behind by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank — and to do so with ambitions that extend deep into cryptocurrency, defense tech, and artificial intelligence.

The bank, to be called Erebor, has formally applied for a national banking charter in the United States, according to documents made public this week. Named after the “Lonely Mountain” in The Lord of the Rings, Erebor would aim to serve the "innovation economy" - start-ups and individuals in sectors often viewed as too risky for traditional lenders, including blockchain, AI, defense, and advanced manufacturing.

Erebor’s founders, who include backers of Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential bid, say their institution will fill a gap left by SVB’s 2023 collapse, which shook the tech sector’s financial infrastructure. That failure triggered panic among start-ups, many of which relied heavily on SVB’s tailored credit offerings. Though SVB’s remnants were absorbed by First Citizens and some staff migrated to HSBC, entrepreneurs and investors continue to complain of tightened credit access and fewer bank partners willing to underwrite emerging technologies, FT reports.

Erebor’s co-founders first discussed launching a bank after the collapse of SVB in 2023, according to a person close to the matter. SVB had been the main bank for US start-ups and their venture capital backers.

Its assets were sold to First Citizens, which has since relaunched SVB, and a number of its bankers moved to HSBC in the US. But investors and executives complain about a gap in banking services for fledgling tech companies since SVB’s demise — with some start-ups struggling to get the same access to capital. -FT

The application describes Erebor as “a national bank… providing traditional banking products, as well as virtual currency-related products and services, for businesses and individuals,” with a focus on customers underserved by both traditional and fintech institutions. It will also offer services to non-U.S. companies seeking access to the American banking system.

One of the bank’s major innovations, and potential regulatory flashpoints, is its plan to become a dominant player in stablecoin transactions, a controversial corner of the cryptocurrency world where digital tokens are pegged to traditional currencies like the U.S. dollar. Erebor’s filing describes its goal as becoming “the most regulated entity conducting and facilitating stablecoin transactions.”

Founders Luckey, best known for founding Anduril Industries, and Lonsdale, a co-founder of Palantir and managing partner of 8VC, are not expected to be involved in Erebor’s day-to-day operations. Instead, the bank will be led by co-CEOs Jacob Hirshman, a former adviser to crypto firm Circle, and Owen Rapaport, CEO of digital assets compliance company Aer. Mike Hagedorn, a longtime banking executive and former EVP at Valley National Bank, will serve as president.

Despite its tech-forward posture, Erebor will be headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, with a secondary office in New York City. In keeping with the start-up culture it hopes to serve, Erebor will be a digital-only bank, offering customer support and financial products exclusively through a smartphone app and website.

Much about Erebor remains under wraps. Portions of the application, including its equity structure, business plan, and shareholder identities, were submitted confidentially.

The Erebor venture underscores the ongoing realignment of financial services in the tech sector, as traditional banks grow more cautious and venture-backed firms look to build their own institutions. Whether Erebor succeeds where SVB fell — and whether its fusion of crypto, defense, and Silicon Valley politics finds regulatory favor — remains to be seen. For now, its founders are betting there’s a mountain of opportunity left to reclaim.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/02/2025 - 19:40

What's Next For CDC's Remade Vaccine Advisory Committee?

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

The vaccine advisory committee remade by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to look at multiple other vaccines, after it voted to advise officials to stop recommending influenza shots that contain mercury.

Dr. Robert Malone (C) speaks during the first meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta on June 25, 2025. Recently remade by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the committee plans to review recommendations for multiple vaccines. Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

Martin Kulldorff, the new chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), said on June 26 that one proposal is to tell the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to make clear that young children should not receive the measles, mumps, rubella, varicella (MMRV) combination immunization.

Instead, the CDC would recommend that children under the age of 47 months receive two separate vaccines: the measles, mumps, rubella shot, and the varicella, or chickenpox, vaccine.

The change would reflect data that indicate the MMRV combination vaccine causes more febrile seizures, he said. The CDC said the same thing in a background paper on the subject dated June 25.

A vote on the matter could occur as early as the next meeting, which is expected to take place in August or September.

2 New Subcommittees

Kulldorff, an epidemiologist who was fired by Harvard Medical School for declining a COVID-19 vaccine, also announced two new work groups, or subcommittees.

One will examine the impact of vaccines on the childhood immunization schedules.

“It is important to evaluate the cumulative effect of the recommended vaccine schedule,” Kulldorff said. “This includes interaction effects between different vaccines, the total number of vaccines, cumulative amounts of vaccine ingredients, and the relative timing of different vaccines.”

Researchers with the CDC and other institutions said in a 2022 paper that exposure to aluminum in vaccines was associated with asthma, although they said that additional investigation was required to confirm a link.

The second subcommittee will examine vaccines that have not been reviewed in more than seven years, including the hepatitis B vaccine, the first dose of which the CDC recommends at birth for infants.

“Unless the mother is hepatitis B positive, an argument could be made to delay the vaccine for this infection, which is primarily spread by sexual activity and intravenous drug use,” Kulldorff said.

Kulldorff declined in an email to The Epoch Times to say whether he'd been directed by Kennedy to look at the measles vaccines, or to reveal any other proposals the committee plans to take up at its next meeting.

Martin Kulldorf, chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, speaks during a committee meeting at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta on June 25, 2025. Kulldorf announced the launch of two new subcommittees to examine the impact of vaccines on the childhood immunization schedules and vaccines that have not been reviewed for more than seven years. Mike Stewart/AP Photo

The Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC’s parent agency, did not respond to a request for comment, including on whether Kennedy directed the committee to vote on vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative thimerosal.

Kennedy, earlier in June, removed all 17 members of the ACIP and replaced them with Kulldorff and others.

Votes on RSV Antibody, Influenza Vaccines

During the committee’s first meeting since the replacements, it advised the CDC to add a second monoclonal antibody treatment against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for infants.

Dr. Robert Malone, a new ACIP member, told The Epoch Times that there was extensive discussion on the antibody at the subcommittee level and that one of the reasons he voted in favor was to provide another option against the virus, given how stock of the existing antibody ran low in the past.

Retsef Levi, another ACIP member, told The Epoch Times he voted against making the second antibody available to all infants because of concerns over a lack of granular data from clinical trials for both products. He would have supported letting high-risk infants receive the new antibody.

Kulldorff also voted in favor of the antibody. He participated despite being a paid witness in a legal case against Merck, which manufactures the new antibody, in January.

Dr. Joel Lexchin, a professor at the University of Toronto who has studied conflicts of interest, told The Epoch Times via email that Kulldorff “had a clear conflict and should not have voted.”

Kulldorff has not responded to requests for comment about potential conflicts of interest. He said during the meeting he did not have any conflicts related to the issues at hand.

Lexchin previously told The Epoch Times that some of the members ousted by Kennedy should have abstained from certain votes after they received money from pharmaceutical companies that stood to be affected.

The new advisers also voted to keep in place the CDC’s recommendation that virtually all individuals aged at least 6 months receive an influenza vaccine on an annual basis, before they advised the CDC to stop recommending thimerosal-containing flu shots.

About 5 percent of the flu shots administered in recent months contained thimerosal, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

Members who voted in favor of removing thimerosal said they wanted to cut down on controllable sources of mercury exposure. Dr. Cody Meissner, the only no vote, said he didn’t see a safety issue with the amount of mercury in influenza vaccines and that he was concerned the vote would imperil influenza vaccine access for some.

The FDA and Sanofi, an influenza vaccine manufacturer, said that the supply would be sufficient without the thimerosal-containing vaccines.

The meeting did not involve much debate or discussion on general influenza vaccination, according to Malone.

“We were presented with essentially language that was already approved and and had to make a decision about whether or not to endorse ... a universal influenza vaccine recommendation, as has been the case for decades. The decision was that this was not the time to fight on that hill about the universal influenza vaccine recommendation,” Malone told The Epoch Times.

Panel member Vicky Pebsworth abstained from the vote, citing a lack of discussion.

Immune Imprinting

Malone said at the close of the meeting that he would be part of a subcommittee focused on influenza and that he anticipated considering “the long-standing issue of immune imprinting and original antigenic sin, which may or may not be a concern in the case of routine annual influenza vaccination.”

Immune imprinting refers to when previous vaccinations or infections leave behind an immune memory, causing the body to produce antibodies targeting that memory, even if a new variant or vaccine is introduced.

Vaccinating people annually against influenza may be counterproductive due to imprinting, Malone told The Epoch Times.

Read the rest here...

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/02/2025 - 19:15

India's Hindustan Zinc Eyes Five Year Timeline To Move Into Rare Earth Metals

India’s Hindustan Zinc is moving into rare earths, but commercial production could take up to five years, underscoring the hurdles of building a domestic supply chain to challenge China's grip on the sector. "This (rare earth) is of strategic interest (to India)," said CEO Arun Misra in an interview, according to Nikkei Asia.

The company was the only private bidder to win a monazite mining block in Uttar Pradesh in a government auction in May. However, exploration and reserve analysis will take three to four years. "The first part is exploration and mining, and that itself could take about three or four years, because we have to evaluate (the quantity and quality) of the reserves," said CEO Arun Misra.

Global supply of permanent magnets is tight after China restricted exports of rare earths like terbium and dysprosium, both used to boost neodymium magnets’ heat resistance. Auto manufacturers have been hit hard, though China claims it is still processing export applications.

India holds 6% of global rare earth reserves but accounts for only 1% of production, compared to China’s 69%. China benefits from large bastnaesite reserves with low thorium content, reducing processing costs—a "huge difference" in operating expenses, Misra noted.

India has 12.73 million metric tons of monazite reserves, mainly in southern beach sands. However, private firms are barred from mining these due to their thorium content, which is reserved for nuclear energy under the Atomic Energy Act. Only state-run Indian Rare Earth Ltd. can mine these areas. “If monazite is decontrolled and allowed to be mined with private participation, and companies like ours participate, it will help India make magnets,” Misra said. “What is known is the (monazite content) in sea beaches, because rare earth mining has happened there for the last so many years.”

EY estimates China holds 44 million tons of rare earth reserves—40% of the global total. In a recent report, EY India's chief policy adviser D.K. Srivastava stressed the need for more R&D and global partnerships. “Any shortage will serve as a substantiative bottleneck in growth and employment,” he warned.

Nikkei Asia writes that India’s rare earth oxide imports dropped 22% year-on-year in FY 2022-23, but China’s share of those imports rose from 17.5% to 25%. The supply crunch has highlighted India’s broader reliance on imports of key minerals like cobalt, graphite, lithium, and copper—vital for EVs and energy storage. Despite large domestic reserves, India imports 60% of its graphite and does not refine cobalt locally.

According to IEEFA, this reliance will likely persist as demand for critical minerals could more than double by 2030, while domestic production will lag. “This situation (dependence on imports) is likely to continue,” it noted in a 2024 report.

In response, India launched the ₹163 billion ($1.9 billion) National Critical Mineral Mission and tasked the Geological Survey of India with 1,200 exploration projects by 2030-31. The country also aims to secure lithium and cobalt reserves abroad.

Hindustan Zinc is expanding accordingly, having acquired potash and tungsten blocks. It targets 30% of its revenue from critical minerals in five years. While Misra didn’t disclose funding details, he stated, “money was not an issue,” citing a 33% jump in profits to ₹103.5 billion in FY 2024-25. “We would like to work in sectors which are apparently difficult to operate and hence not attractive enough for other big players,” he added.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/02/2025 - 18:50

Democrats, Animated By Loathing Of Trump, Are Driving Their Party To Self-Destruction

Authored by Conrad Black via RealClearPolitics.com,

The Democrats are now implacably self-destructive. They resemble nothing so much as a slowly capsizing ship, but show by their frenzied skullduggery that America is not in decline — the opposition is rotten and hopeless but it still fights savagely. I hope readers will pardon a recitation of the party’s gradual foundering. They pushed the nation into Vietnam, mismanaged the war, and deserted their own president (Lyndon Johnson), and when President Nixon saved their war, they crucified him on what can now be seen as the utterly absurd Watergate nonsense.

President Carter was earnest and altruistic, but he helped push out the Shah of Iran to bring on the ayatollahs, a horrifying strategic blunder, and his weakness induced the USSR into Afghanistan. President Reagan uplifted the country and let America be America, and the Soviet Union and international communism collapsed. The Bushes and Clintons coasted on Reagan’s coat-tails for as long as they could.

In 2016 as it became clear that Secretary Clinton’s campaign was running into difficulties against President Trump, then a candidate, at whose nomination the Democrats had rejoiced, they tested the guardrails of American constitutional democracy by notoriously politicizing the intelligence agencies and the FBI. The National Intelligence Director, James Clapper, declared that Mr. Trump was being handled by President Putin as if the American were an intelligence “asset” of Russia.

The FBI director, James Comey, facilitated the transmission of a pastiche of lies and defamations assembled by a former intelligence agent on behalf of the Clinton campaign, as legitimate intelligence which because of its provenance did not require substantiation by the press to be published. Mr. Comey answered an inquiry, under oath, 245 times that he did not remember events he had participated in two years before.

Mrs. Clinton’s 33,000 destroyed emails on an improperly used server were naturally found by Mr. Comey not to be an obstruction of justice, but there was immediately launched the unmitigated fraud about Russian collusion in Mr. Trump’s election, to the full knowledge of then President Obama and then Vice President Biden. When this immense smear job finally collapsed, it was followed by a spurious impeachment of Mr. Trump on the grounds that he asked President Zelensky of Ukraine for the truth about the Biden family’s financial activities in Ukraine. He did not attempt to direct the answer. We now know that it was a legitimate question. 

The ludicrous impeachment proceedings had just failed as the early indications of the Covid pandemic became known and the Democrats demanded the total shutdown of the country with the evident purpose of promoting an economic depression they could then blame on the president. He was denounced as a racist for shutting off direct flights from Communist China and was denounced as being an “anti-science” Neanderthal deliberately risking the lives of the entire population, to the extent that he did not stop everything and isolate everyone.

As the election year 2020 unfolded, the death of George Floyd at Minneapolis, apparently mainly from drug-related causes but following his apprehension by a policeman who put his knee on Floyd’s neck, was seized upon by radical anarchists and anti-white organizations for so-called “peaceful protests” around the country and throughout the summer of 2020 killing dozens of people and causing billions of dollars of damage. The Democrats informally merged with the radical left that was inciting the riots and successfully demanding defunding of police in many cities. The national political press was thoroughly complicit in blaming all of the violence on “Trump chaos.” 

The Democrats recognized that Sen. Sanders could not win because of his extreme leftist views, so the party elders promised Mr. Sanders his left-wing program and substituted the innocuous old wheelhorse, Mr. Biden.  Even after all of this, it was necessary for the Democrats to distribute tens of millions of unsolicited ballots according to inevitably partially obsolete voters lists, raising concerns about the collection and casting of some millions of unverifiable and harvested ballots.

There were window-rattling ululations of joy at the invasion of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. We now know that the mayor of Washington, Muriel Bowser, declined Trump’s offer of national guardsmen to bolster security, and Mr. Trump contends that Speaker Pelosi turned down a similar offer of national guard reinforcements for the Capitol. Years of effort to wring evidence of Mr. Trump’s involvement have failed. 

As Mr. Trump refused to vanish like a dreadful meteor as had been predicted, and retained the support of scores of millions of Americans, the Democrats resorted to the final assault on the integrity of the system and deluged him with four ludicrous political criminal indictments. The perfidy of the prosecutors combined with the skepticism of the public; Mr. Trump was effectively acquitted by 78 million of his fellow citizens in a close but decisive election, despite a partisan stonewall in the national political media and a large Democratic advantage in fundraising.

Mr. Trump returned to office much more knowledgeable about Washington and how to adopt his comprehensive program to end the massive illegal invasion by mainly destitute and frequently criminal migrants, to strengthen the market economy, roll back the green terror, and define America’s national interests in the world and credibly provide for the defense of them.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s acceptance of sharp increases in defense spending and the American and Israeli destruction of the military and terrorism-supporting potential of Iran and moves to eliminate America’s trade deficit of over $1 trillion are important accomplishments. Last week’s rejection by the Supreme Court of the Democrats’ latest obstructionist wheeze of judge-shopping to notoriously liberal federal district judges and inducing them to purport to injunct federal policies, is another Trump victory.

The great Democratic party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and even up to a point Clinton, has given way to an unfeasible ragtag of superannuated tyros, influence peddlers, decayed servitors, and now completely unacceptable extremists personified by the likely nominee to be mayor of New York City, Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, an economic Marxist who does not accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state and expresses sympathy for calls to globalize the intifada.

The Democrats have no plausible opponents to Mr. Trump, no policy except Trump-hate, and have carried to its logical extreme the great liberal death wish. Having failed by an unprecedented series of illegalities to defeat Mr. Trump, they have practically destroyed themselves.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/02/2025 - 18:25

Fiji Says Chinese Military Base, Missiles Not Welcome In Pacific

The tiny South Pacific archipelago country of Fiji has come out firmly against China establishing a military base in the Pacific Islands, according to a statement of Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka issued Wednesday.

He emphasized that China has no need for such a provocatively located base to demonstrate its military strength, citing its recent intercontinental ballistic missile test as evidence.

Via cntraveller 

Rabuka provided clear acknowledgement that Pacific nations are grappling with how to respond to China’s growing efforts to expand its influence, in remarks given to the National Press Club in Canberra.

"Pacific leaders have consistently aimed for a diplomatic stance of being friendly with all and enemies to none — a challenging path, but one we believe is achievable," Rabuka said.

The problem is that Pacific Islands have become a key area of geopolitical competition between US and Chinese naval power for regional security influence, especially over the last decade, and as tensions over Taiwan independence continue to boil.

Reuters reported the comments as follows:

Fiji opposes establishment of a military base by China, he said, in response to queries on Beijing’s security ambitions in a region where it already has a security pact with the Solomon Islands and a police presence in several nations.

“If they want to come, who would welcome them?” he said. “Not Fiji.”

Rabuka is proposing an "Ocean of Peace" treaty that would bind the region to unity, allow for common solutions to regional issues that arise, and which would reject coercion as a tool for for political dominance. But as Germany's DW reviews:

Beijing has spent hundreds of millions of dollars constructing sports stadiums, government offices, hospitals and roads in Pacific countries such as Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

The charm offensive has already borne fruit with Kiribati, Solomon Islands and Nauru severing longstanding diplomatic links with Taiwan in favor of China.

"We do not want superpower rivalries or big power rivalries to be played out in the Pacific," Rabuka explained in his comments. He added, "China's participation in our development should not affect how we interact with Australia, New Zealand and America."

But these referenced countries have no only long been part of the 'Five Eyes' - English speaking nations which cooperate at the highest levels on intelligence - but there's also the 'AUKUS' defense pact involving the US, Australia, and the UK. Beijing views that it is only legitimately reacting to this rising 'Western threat' in regional waters. China sees that Pacific as its own backyard.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/02/2025 - 18:00

 

 

At The Money: At The Money: Planning Your Retirement? (July 2, 2025)

Is it better to blurb or not to blurb? That is the question? In this episode of At the Money, I speak with Guest.

Full transcript coming soon.

~~~

About this week’s guest:

Christine Benz is Director of Personal Finance & Retirement Planning at Morningstar; her new book is “How to Retire: 20 Lessons for a Happy, Successful, and Wealthy Retirement.” She joins Barry Ritholtz to discuss what you need to know about planning for retirement.

For more info, see:

Professional/Personal website

LinkedIn

Twitter

~~~

 

Find all of the previous At the Money episodes here, and in the MiB feed on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, and Bloomberg. And find the entire musical playlist of all the songs I have used on At the Money on Spotify

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT:

 

~~~

Find our entire music playlist for At the Money on Spotify.

 

The post At the Money: Christine Benz on Retirement appeared first on The Big Picture.

Putin Defends Iran's Right To Nuclear Enrichment In First Macron Phone Call In 3 Years

On Tuesday Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Emmanuel Macron spoke by phone for the first time in almost three years, at a moment of various global hotspots of interest to both countries.

A nearly two week war between Iran and Israel just ensued last month, at the end of which the US launched a major bombing campaign on three Iranian nuclear facilities. And the Ukraine war shows no ending in sight, with both sides refusing to make concessions. However, just this week the Trump administration confirmed that some weapons shipments to Kiev have been halted

A big question which lingers over Mideast tensions is the future of Iran's nuclear program. The White House's claim that the Islamic Republic's nuclear capability has been destroyed remains anything but certain or settled. Notably, Putin in the call defended Iran's ability and sovereign right to purse a peaceful nuclear energy program.

In the meantime, Tehran has halted cooperation with the UN's nuclear watchdog IAEA, with the Iranian president having signed this move into law on Wednesday, also amid outrage that its chief Raphael Grossi refused to condemn Israel and US aggression against Iran.

Following the call, the Kremlin issued an official statement summarizing the conversation between Presidents Macron and Putin. 

Below is the translated call readout issue by the Kremlin in full [emphasis ZH]...

* * *

Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron emphasized that Russia and France, as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, bore particular responsibility for upholding peace and security, in the Middle East and elsewhere, as well as for preserving the global non-proliferation regime.

In this regard, it was noted that respecting Tehran’s legitimate right to develop peaceful nuclear technology and continue to fulfill its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which includes cooperating with the IAEA, was crucial.

The two leaders spoke in favor of settling the crisis around Iran’s nuclear program and any other differences arising in the Middle East exclusively via political and diplomatic means. They agreed to maintain contact in order to coordinate their stances if necessary.

When discussing the situation surrounding Ukraine, Vladimir Putin reiterated that the conflict was a direct consequence of the policies pursued by the Western countries, which had for years been ignoring Russia’s security interests, creating an anti-Russia staging ground in the country, and condoning violations of rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking citizens, and at present were pursuing a policy of prolonging hostilities by supplying the Kiev regime with a variety of modern weaponry.

Any negotiated settlement must bring peace for the long term, Putin reminds Macron...

First Putin-Macron phone since 2022 as NATO's boycott of diplomacy comes to an end
- The Kremlin noted that Putin reminded Macron that the war in Ukraine “is a direct consequence of the policies of Western states,” and warned that any peace agreement in Ukraine must be… pic.twitter.com/VUmS4kNq15

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) July 2, 2025

Speaking about the prospects of a peaceful settlement, the President of Russia has confirmed Moscow’s stance on possible agreements: they are to be comprehensive and long-term, provide for the elimination of the root causes of the Ukraine crisis, and be based on the new territorial realities. 

* * *

Below are more geopolitical headlines on Wednesday, via Newsquawk:

• US President posted that his representatives had a long and productive meeting with the Israelis on Gaza and Israel agreed to the necessary conditions to finalise a 60-day ceasefire during which they will work with all parties to end the war. Furthermore, the Qataris and Egyptians will deliver this final proposal and he hopes, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this deal, because it will not get better and will only get worse.
• US officials said Iran made preparations to mine the Strait of Hormuz last month although mines were not deployed in the strait, according to Reuters.
• "Iranian Minister of Communications: Internet outages in the country caused by external attacks", according to Al Jazeera.
• "Advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of the IRGC: The war has stopped, but the United States and Israel have not achieved their goals", according to Iran International.
• US Pentagon has halted shipments of some air defence missiles and other precision munitions to Ukraine due to worries that US weapons stockpiles have fallen too low, according to Politico.
• Quad joint statement expresses serious concern over the situation in the East China Sea and South China Sea, while they called for the perpetrators, organisers and financiers of the April 22nd attack in Indian Kashmir to be brought to justice.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/02/2025 - 17:20

Moderna To Ask For Clearance For Combination COVID-Influenza Vaccine

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

Moderna is going to ask regulators to approve its combination vaccine against COVID-19 and influenza, the company said on June 30.

The company said a phase 3 study evaluating its influenza vaccine candidate, mRNA-1010—which utilizes the same messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) platform as its COVID-19 vaccine—showed positive effectiveness.

A health care worker prepares a vaccine in New York City in a file photograph. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

In the trial, which featured 40,805 participants and compared mRNA-1010 to an existing seasonal flu vaccine in adults aged 50 and up, the relative protection from the candidate was 26.6 percent better. In a subgroup analysis among participants aged at least 65, the relative efficacy was 27.4 percent.

“Today’s strong Phase 3 efficacy results are a significant milestone in our effort to reduce the burden of influenza in older adults,” Stéphane Bancel, Moderna’s CEO, said in a statement.

Several companies, including Moderna, have been planning to introduce combination shots against COVID-19 and influenza.

Moderna, however, in May withdrew its application for approval for its combination vaccine, a move the company said came after consulting with the Food and Drug Administration.

Moderna at the time said it planned to resubmit the application before the end of 2025 after it received efficacy data from the phase 3 trial for mRNA 1010.

“An mRNA-based flu vaccine has the potential advantage to more precisely match circulating strains, support rapid response in a future influenza pandemic, and pave the way for COVID-19 combination vaccines,” Bancel said on Monday.

The trial results have been fully published or peer reviewed. Moderna said it plans to submit the results to a peer-reviewed journal.

Moderna said that the phase 3, randomized trial results showed safety results similar to those reported from a different phase 3 trial in March in the journal Vaccine. In that paper, researchers reported similar numbers of adverse events between Moderna vaccine recipients and volunteers who received existing flu vaccines. There were also fewer severe, serious, and medically attended adverse events among the Moderna recipients, with no deaths reported in that group.

“The majority of solicited adverse reactions (SARs) were mild,” Moderna said in a statement about the new study. “Injection site pain was the most common local SAR, and fatigue, headache and myalgia were the most common systemic SARs reported.

“There were no significant differences between the groups in the rates of unsolicited adverse events, serious adverse events, or adverse events of special interest.”

There are currently no mRNA flu vaccines in the United States.

The FDA did not return a request for comment by publication time.

Regulators in May approved a new COVID-19 vaccine from Moderna for adults aged 65 and older, as well as other individuals aged at least 12 who have one or more conditions that officials say put them at higher risk for severe COVID-19.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/02/2025 - 17:00

Del Monte Bankruptcy Won't Spark Canned Food Shortages  

Del Monte Foods, a major player in America's canned food supply chain, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in New Jersey as part of a broader strategic restructuring effort. The company does not anticipate that the bankruptcy process will cause any disruptions to the canned food market. 

The 138-year-old food company, a U.S. unit of Singapore-based Del Monte Pacific, best known for its canned fruits and vegetables, entered into a restructuring support agreement with a group holding some of its term loan debt. The company stated it's "pursuing a value-maximizing sale process as part of an overall strategic balance-sheet restructuring." 

A filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey states the company, whose brands include Del Monte, Contadina, College Inn, Kitchen Basics, JOYBA, Take Root Organics, and S&W, said it has both liabilities and assets estimated between $1 billion and $10 billion and secured $912.5 million in debtor-in-possession financing, including $165 million in new funding, from some of its current lenders. 

"This is a strategic step forward for Del Monte Foods. After a thorough evaluation of all available options, we determined a court-supervised sale process is the most effective way to accelerate our turnaround and create a stronger and enduring Del Monte Foods. With an improved capital structure, enhanced financial position and new ownership, we will be better positioned for long-term success," said Greg Longstreet, President and CEO of Del Monte Foods.

Longstreet continued, "While we have faced challenges intensified by a dynamic macroeconomic environment, Del Monte Foods has nourished families for nearly 140 years, and we remain committed to our mission of expanding access to nutritious, great-tasting food for all. I am deeply grateful to our employees, growers, customers and vendors, as well as our lenders for their support in helping us achieve our long-term goals."

Bloomberg noted, "The development ends a challenging year for the borrower that saw its parent company Del Monte Pacific Ltd. in June elect to skip a payment to the unit's lenders as part of a lawsuit settlement tied to a controversial debt restructuring."

Del Monte's operations date back to the mid-1880s, when California-based merchants began using the name "Del Monte" to market high-quality coffee for the Hotel Del Monte in Monterey. By 1892, it expanded to canned fruit and has since grown to control a sizeable portion of the U.S. canned food market. 

The good news is that Del Monte does not expect any supply shortages in the canned food market as a result of its bankruptcy proceedings.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/02/2025 - 16:40

Ron Paul: A Big Beautiful Bill For The Military-Industrial Complex

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute,

The US Senate worked through the weekend on the “Big Beautiful Bill.” The goal was to pass it quickly to ensure the House will then pass it and send it to President Trump’s desk before the July 4th holiday.

However, disagreements among Republican Senators over reductions in spending on programs including Medicaid and food stamps as well as language in the bill eliminating “clean energy” tax credits were preventing Senate Republican leadership from getting enough votes to pass the bill.

Also, some Republicans disagree with other Republicans in both the House and Senate on increasing the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. Many conservatives see this income tax deduction as encouraging states to maintain high taxes to fund big governments.

One item in the BBB that few Republicans are objecting to is the bill’s increase in military spending. The House version of the BBB added 150 billion dollars to the Pentagon’s already bloated budget. The Senate bill gave the military-industrial complex 156 billion dollars.

Increasing military spending contradicts President Trump’s promise to stop wasting money on endless wars that have nothing to do with ensuring the security of the American people.

Some of the BBB’s military spending will be used to put troops on the border. I support strengthening border security. However, I do not support using the military for domestic law enforcement, which includes enforcing immigration laws. Soldiers are trained to view people as potential enemies, not as innocent civilians to be protected. Introducing this mindset into domestic law enforcement will lead to abuses of liberty.

Increasing spending on militarism while cutting spending on programs that help low-income Americans is bad politics and bad policy. Polls show that the majority of Americans, including many Republicans, do not support overseas intervention.

The growing opposition to our hyper-interventionist foreign policy is easy to understand. The US has engaged in numerous military actions in many countries including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria since the beginning of the 21st century. The American people pay for this militarism in several ways. One is the “inflation tax” imposed by the Federal Reserve in order to monetize the debt incurred by the US government for endless wars. President Trump has turned his back on his antiwar supporters by bombing Iran and by increasing military spending to over a trillion dollars.

The Republican insistence on increasing military spending is the main reason Congress cannot cut taxes without increasing the debt, making cuts in domestic welfare programs, or both. If the Republicans want to be the Make America Great Again party, they need to embrace a true America First foreign policy. This means no more regime change wars or US taxpayer supported “color revolutions.” Instead, America should return to the Founders’ vision of a country that, in the words of John Quincy Adams, does not go “abroad in search of monsters to destroy” and instead is “the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all” while “the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

A return to a noninterventionist foreign policy is the only way we will be able to begin to pay down the national debt and restore a government that adheres to the constitutional limits on its powers and respects all the people’s rights all the time.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/02/2025 - 16:20

On Thursday at 8:30 AM ET, the BLS will release the employment report for June. The consensus is for 129,000 jobs added, and for the unemployment rate to be unchanged at 4.2%. There were 139,000 jobs added in May, and the unemployment rate was at 4.2%.

From Goldman Sachs:

We do not place much weight on the ADP miss because of ADP’s limited correlation with BLS private payrolls over the last few years. We left our forecast for June nonfarm payroll growth unchanged at +85k ahead of tomorrow’s release. ... We expect payroll growth to slow from its 135k 3-month average because big data indicators were soft ... We forecast that the unemployment rate edged up to 4.3%—a low bar from an unrounded 4.24%—reflecting sequential increases in other measures of labor market slack.
emphasis added

From BofA:

June NFP are likely to rise by 95k. Although the initial claims increase in recent weeks can be attributed to seasonal volatility, continuing claims were also high during the survey week. We also see headwinds from weak college graduates hiring and summer job cuts for education & health workers. Additionally, leisure & hospitality job growth tends to slow in June when Memorial Day falls relatively earlier in the month in May (like this year). We expect the u-rate to rise a tenth to 4.3%.

• ADP Report: The ADP employment report showed 33,000 private sector jobs were lost in June.  This was well below consensus forecasts and suggests job gains below consensus expectations, however, in general, ADP hasn't been very useful in forecasting the BLS report.

• ISM Surveys: Note that the ISM indexes are diffusion indexes based on the number of firms hiring (not the number of hires).  The ISM® manufacturing employment index was at 45.0%, down from 46.8% the previous month.   This would suggest jobs lost in manufacturing. The ADP report indicated 15,000 manufacturing jobs added in June.

The ISM® services employment index for June will be released tomorrow.

• Unemployment Claims: The weekly claims report showed more initial unemployment claims during the reference week at 246,000 in June compared to 226,000 in May.  This suggests layoffs in June were higher than in May.

• Strikes: The CES strike report shows 5,600 employees returned from strikes during the reference period in June. This will boost the headline jobs number a little.

• Conclusion: Over the last year, employment gains averaged 144 thousand per month - and that was probably the trend prior to policy changes.  However, my guess is we will start to see the impact of policy uncertainty - a little more hiring hesitancy - and I'll take the under for June.