Individual Economists

DHS Locates Nearly 130,000 Unaccompanied Missing Children, Says Noem

Zero Hedge -

DHS Locates Nearly 130,000 Unaccompanied Missing Children, Says Noem

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services have located over 129,143 unaccompanied illegal immigrant children whom the prior administration had lost track of, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a Dec. 19 post on X.

“Too many of these children were exploited, trafficked, and abused,” Noem wrote. “We will continue to ramp up efforts and will not stop until every last child is found.”

In August 2024, the DHS Office of Inspector General published a report revealing that 323,000 illegal immigrant children were unaccounted for in the United States.

As of May 2024, over 32,000 of these children had been served notices to appear in court but failed to do so. In addition, the safety of 291,000 children could not be verified.

In a Nov. 14 statement, DHS announced that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement had launched an initiative with local and state law enforcement partners to conduct welfare checks on the hundreds of thousands of illegal, unaccompanied children smuggled across the border and placed with unvetted sponsors under the Biden administration.

The main aim of the initiative is to ensure they are not being exploited, DHS said.

“Many of the children who came across the border unaccompanied were allowed to be placed with sponsors who were smugglers and sex traffickers,” DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said.

“We’ve jump-started our efforts to rescue children who were victims of sex and labor trafficking,” she said.

“President [Donald] Trump and Secretary Noem are laser-focused on protecting children and will continue to work with federal, state, and local law enforcement to reunite children with their families.”

Crackdown on Child Predators

The Trump administration recently launched Operation Relentless Justice to identify, track, and arrest child sex predators, according to a Dec. 19 statement from the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The two-week enforcement operation led to a nationwide crackdown that resulted in the arrest of more than 293 child sexual abuse offenders, with over 205 child victims located.

“Operation Relentless Justice shows no child will be forgotten and that all predators targeting the most vulnerable amongst us will be held accountable,” FBI Director Kash Patel said.

“This year, the FBI has led multiple nationwide surges across the U.S. to find and arrest hundreds of child predators. We will not stop until every child can live a life free of exploitation. We will utilize the strength of all our field offices and our federal, state, and local partners to protect communities across the nation from such horrific crimes.”

Prior to Operation Relentless Justice, the Trump administration had implemented Operation Restore Justice in May, which led to 205 child sex abuse offenders being arrested and 115 children being rescued.

Later in August, Operation Enduring Justice resulted in the arrests of 234 offenders and the rescue of 133 children.

Commenting on Operation Relentless Justice, FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said in a Dec. 19 post on X that this was “one of many successful” operations conducted to crack down on violent crimes against children this year.

“The Director and I have prioritized their life-saving work from the moment we swore in. And we assured them an agency-wide effort to punish the demons who violate the sacred trust of children,” Bongino wrote.

On Dec. 19, the DOJ announced that a member of the Nihilistic Violent Extremist group “764” pleaded guilty to multiple acts involving the sexual exploitation of children.

The group is an online criminal network that methodically targets and exploits minors. The perpetrator, who pleaded guilty, is alleged to have coerced minors into engaging in sexual acts and committing self-harm.

The perpetrator “led a group of online predators whose ultimate purpose is to destroy our society,” said Sue J. Bai, principal deputy assistant attorney general for National Security.

“They tried to achieve that heinous goal by desensitizing innocent children to violence—coercing them to perform gruesome and harmful acts against themselves and animals—with the hope of encouraging further violence and spreading chaos.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 12:50

Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates Musk’s Record-Setting 2018 Tesla Compensation Plan

Zero Hedge -

Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates Musk’s Record-Setting 2018 Tesla Compensation Plan

The Delaware Supreme Court has reinstated Elon Musk’s 2018 CEO compensation package from Tesla, reversing lower-court rulings that had twice voided the award and bringing an end to a yearslong legal fight over one of the largest pay packages in corporate history, according to CNBC.

In a per curiam decision issued Friday, the court ruled that the Delaware Court of Chancery erred in canceling the pay plan outright. The justices said rescinding the award was “inequitable” because it “leaves Musk uncompensated for his time and efforts over a period of six years.” The Supreme Court reversed the rescission remedy and awarded $1 in nominal damages.

The compensation plan, approved by Tesla shareholders in 2018, granted Musk the option to purchase about 303 million split-adjusted shares through 12 milestone-based tranches tied to market capitalization and operational goals. When the award vested, it was valued at roughly $56 billion. At Friday’s closing share price, the package would be worth about $139 billion.

The case arose from a derivative lawsuit filed in 2018 by Tesla shareholder Richard J. Tornetta, who accused Musk and the Tesla board of breaching their fiduciary duties. In January 2024, Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick ruled that the pay plan had been improperly granted. She found that Musk “controlled Tesla” and that the process leading to board approval was “deeply flawed,” including failures to disclose all material information to shareholders before seeking their vote. Although shareholders approved the package twice, McCormick rejected it both times, writing that the Tesla board “bore the burden of proving that the compensation plan was fair, and they failed to meet their burden.”

The Supreme Court disagreed with the remedy imposed. In its opinion, the justices said the lower court’s decision to cancel the plan entirely was too extreme and noted that Tesla had not been given the opportunity to determine what a fair compensation award might look like. The ruling restores the 2018 pay package but leaves other aspects of the Chancery Court’s decision untouched.

Legal scholars emphasized that distinction. Dorothy Lund, a professor at Columbia Law School, told CNBC that while the decision revives the pay plan, it does not undo earlier findings about governance failures. “The court had previously decided that Musk was a controlling shareholder of Tesla and that the Tesla board and he arranged an unfair pay plan for him,” she said. “None of that was reversed in this decision.”

CNBC wrote that lawyers for Tornetta echoed that view in an emailed statement, saying, “We are proud to have participated in the historic verdict below, calling to account the Tesla board and its largest stockholder for their breaches of fiduciary duty.”

Musk responded to news of the ruling on X, writing, “Thank you for your unwavering support.”

Musk is already the world’s richest person, with an estimated net worth in excess of $600 billion, largely due to his Tesla holdings and his stake in SpaceX, which he plans to take public as early as next year. Tesla shares are trading near record highs.

The ruling also nullifies a shareholder-approved contingency plan that would have replaced Musk’s 2018 compensation if the appeal had failed. Separately, Tesla shareholders approved a new, much larger CEO pay package for Musk in 2025, consisting of 12 tranches tied to future milestones and potentially worth up to $1 trillion over the next decade.

The Supreme Court’s decision likely closes the final chapter of the Tornetta litigation and restores the compensation plan that helped cement Musk’s status as the wealthiest individual in the world, even as broader questions about Tesla’s corporate governance remain unresolved.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 12:15

Bitcoin's Quantum Debate Is Resurfacing & Markets Are Starting To Notice

Zero Hedge -

Bitcoin's Quantum Debate Is Resurfacing & Markets Are Starting To Notice

Authored by Shaurya Malwa via CoinDesk.com,

What to know:
  • The majority of Bitcoin developers argue that quantum computing does not pose an immediate threat to the network, with machines capable of breaking its cryptography unlikely to exist for decades.

  • Critics express concern over the lack of preparation for quantum threats, as governments and companies begin adopting quantum-resistant systems.

  • The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-360 aims to introduce quantum-resistant address formats, allowing users to gradually transition to more secure cryptographic standards.

Quantum computing and the threat it poses to encrypted blockchains has once again crept into online bitcoin conversations, raising concerns that it poses a long-term risk that investors and developers are still struggling to talk about in the same language.

The latest flare-up in the debate followed comments from prominent Bitcoin developers pushing back against claims that quantum computers pose any real risk to the network in the foreseeable future. Their view is straightforward: that machines capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography do not exist today and are unlikely to for decades.

Adam Back, co-founder of Bitcoin infrastructure firm Blockstream, described the risk as effectively nonexistent in the near term, calling quantum computing “ridiculously early” and riddled with unresolved research problems. Even in a worst-case scenario, Back argued, Bitcoin’s design would not allow coins to be instantly stolen across the network.

Back’s assessment is broadly shared among protocol developers. Critics, however, say the problem isn’t the timeline, but it’s the lack of visible preparation.

Bitcoin relies on elliptic curve cryptography to secure wallets and authorize transactions. As CoinDesk previously explained, sufficiently advanced quantum computers running Shor’s algorithm — a quantum algorithm used to find the prime factors of big numbers — could derive private keys from exposed public keys, putting a portion of existing coins at risk.

The network wouldn’t collapse overnight, but funds sitting in older address formats — including Satoshi Nakamoto’s 1.1 million bitcoins, which have been untouched since 2010 — could become vulnerable to threat actors

For now, that threat remains theoretical. Yet governments and large enterprises are already acting as if quantum disruption is inevitable. The U.S. has outlined plans to phase out classical cryptography by the mid-2030s, while companies such as Cloudflare and Apple have begun rolling out quantum-resistant systems.

Bitcoin, by contrast, has not yet agreed on a concrete transition plan. And that gap is where market unease is creeping in.

Nic Carter, a partner at Castle Island Ventures, said on X that the disconnect between developers and investors is becoming hard to ignore. Capital, he argues, is less concerned with whether quantum attacks arrive in five years or 15, and more focused on whether Bitcoin has a credible path forward if cryptography standards change.

Plans to fight back

Developers counter that Bitcoin can adapt well before any real danger appears. Proposals exist to migrate users toward quantum-resistant address formats and, in extreme cases, restrict spending from legacy wallets. All of this would be preventive rather than reactive.

One such plan is the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-360, which introduces a new type of Bitcoin address designed to use quantum-resistant cryptography.

It provides users with a means to transfer their coins into wallets that rely on different mathematical algorithms, which are believed to be far more resistant to cracking by quantum computers.

BIP360 outlines three new signature methods, each offering varying levels of protection, so the network can gradually shift rather than force a sudden upgrade. Nothing would change automatically. Users would opt in over time by moving funds to the new address format.

Supporters of BIP360 argue the proposal is less about predicting when quantum computers arrive and more about preparation. Moving Bitcoin to a new cryptographic standard could take years, involving software updates, infrastructure changes, and user coordination.

Starting early, they say, reduces the risk of being forced into rushed decisions later.

However, Bitcoin’s conservative governance becomes a challenge when addressing long-horizon threats that require early consensus.

Quantum computing is not currently an existential threat to Bitcoin, and no credible timeline suggests otherwise.

However, as capital becomes more institutional and long-term, even distant risks require clearer answers.

Until developers and investors converge on a shared framework, the quantum question will continue to linger — not as a panic, but as a quiet friction weighing on sentiment.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 11:40

It’s A Google Problem

The Big Picture -

 

 

So let’s say you want to buy a concert ticket. You search in Google and you see a multitude of offers. All from the secondary market, i.e. scalpers, i.e. brokers. And if it’s a superstar, you may have the ability to purchase a ticket to what is supposedly a sold out show. However, many times the secondary market is offering tickets when primary tickets are still available on Ticketmaster, AXS, whatever ticketing company the promoter is using.

Watch this video:

@thefinanceinfo Rory Sutherland on the We Have a Meeting podcast explains why Google search is getting worse — and why being “#1” on Google isn’t even a win anymore. Search results are now stuffed with ads, so the first thing you click is rarely the best… just the highest bidder. He even paid more for a CTA because it appeared higher on the list, while the Canadian government offered the same thing for far cheaper. And if you search for a hotel? Google shows you five competing hotels before the one you actually wanted. The platform that once simplified the internet is now overwhelming it with options and charging businesses for the privilege. #business #google #marketing ♬ original sound – The Finance Info

1. This is Rory Sutherland, an English advertising executive who proffers wisdom on TikTok. He didn’t sit down and try to become a famous influencer, it all happened by accident. During Covid one video of him was posted and the public was hungry for his insights and his following burgeoned. This is what we call “pull” instead of “push.” Pre-internet marketing was all about pushing things on people, making them aware of them and getting the public to buy/partake. However, to succeed in the internet world, people must desire you. Push doesn’t work. There are too many marketing messages which are transparent hucksterism and people are turned off. But when they find something they like, they want more and tell everybody about it. This is the essence of success. Something that has been lost in the music business. We’ve got all these acts complaining they’re not getting paid, but if they were great, the public would desire them, they would pull their songs and more, make them a success. But nobody wants to own the truth.

2. Earlier this week I sent a TikTok video of Big Jim’s review of Yang Chow, a restaurant in Chinatown that a group of us go to on a regular basis. One of the recipients said she was not on TikTok. To quote:

“I’m barely engaged in social media. I don’t want to spend more time watching people I don’t know and will never meet. I can barely keep up with my friends and family!”

This is an old school, Facebook/Instagram view of social media. That it’s all about connecting with old friends, people bragging, trying to create FOMO. But no, on TikTok, a lot of the videos are informational. You learn. The algorithm divines what you are interested in and serves it up. You know I’ve got a bug up my ass about this, but I will say it once again, to counter the tide of oldsters…I’ve never heard a youngster complain about TikTok. It’s the oldsters who think it’s the devil. Social media is like AI, it’s here to stay. Furthermore, it has distinct advantages. Why are all the Boomers and Gen-X’ers so self-satisfied? They were addicted to television, but when there’s a new platform they pooh-pooh it. It would be laughable if traditional news and the so-called elite didn’t rail against technology constantly. The internet is the best thing that ever happened to me, I’m connecting with you right now! I can find information in niches that was previously unavailable to me, I can connect with people all over the world. Please change your perspective and get a TikTok account, to watch the videos in this piece, if nothing else.

2.a. Big Jim is a restaurant reviewer who popped up in my feed. He tends to review holes in the wall, unknown places in the San Fernando Valley, the ones no one talks about. I haven’t heard of most of the locations, but he’s piqued my interest. However, he gives a positive review to everything. This is the video on Yang Chow:

@bigjimsbabybites Yang Chow Chinese Restaurant in Los Angeles, CA. Since 1977 Food Review Yang Chow 819 N Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90012 #Yangchow #chinesefood #losangeles #foodreview #fyp @Jisela Ordaz ♬ original sound – Big Jim

So Google is a B2B enterprise where the consumer gets screwed. Here’s another Rory Sutherland clip that talks about this:

@wehaveameetingpod Google is scamming you – Rory Sutherland I searched for a hotel. I wanted that hotel, not six others. There’s a fine line between being helpful and being annoying, okay Google? Full Podcast out soon. Don’t miss it. #RorySutherland #MarketingInsights #EthicalMarketing #AttentionEconomy #SmartAdvertising #HumanMarketing #Google ♬ original sound – We Have A Meeting Podcast

 

Bottom line… Google is in cahoots with advertisers who are oftentimes using subterfuge to make their money. Google doesn’t police this whatsoever. As a matter of fact, Google is proud of the fact that it’s all done automatically, online. But, the truth is Google has a responsibility to the consumer to deliver accurate information. However, the secondary market spends a fortune on ads with Google and the tech company looks the other way. The primary market is buried and can’t compete.

All this talk about the secondary market vs. the primary market… How can the primary market succeed if Google is helping the secondary, looking the other way?

The music industry must change its focus. It’s myopic, i.e. the secondary market is bad. It is, but it’s being enabled by Google, which should be shamed into changing its policy.

It’s not only concert tickets. Advertisers purvey all kinds of things for sale at exorbitant rates, far beyond the price the original seller is offering them at. But the original seller can’t compete, because these secondary market enterprises without the underlying costs of the original sellers spend a fortune on Google ads and dominate mindshare.

This can be changed.

Google said “Don’t be evil.”? It’s actively harming the concert industry, and many more verticals to boot!

~~~

Visit the archive:   http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/

@Lefsetz  http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz

If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter

~~~

Originally published by Bob Lefsetz at the Leftsetz Letter

The post It’s A Google Problem appeared first on The Big Picture.

The Christmas Gift That Climate Grinches Can't Abide

Zero Hedge -

The Christmas Gift That Climate Grinches Can't Abide

Authored by Vijay Jayaraj via American Greatness,

The quietude of looking out the kitchen window on a December morning at a meadow dusted in snow is magical. A deer pauses at the edge of the wood, breath steaming in the cold air, grazing on whatever bits of green poke through the snow. It is a scene replicated on greeting cards and stamped on cookie tins.

Part of the magic behind that tableau—from the roast in the oven to the cranberries on a plate, from the pine and hardwoods standing tall outside to the browsing fauna—is a phenomenon the establishment media ignore: CO₂-driven, NASA-acknowledged greening of Earth.

Satellite data from the last four decades confirm a significant increase in vegetation over as much as half the globe. During this period, atmospheric CO₂ increased from about 350 parts per million (ppm) to more than 400 ppm, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels.

It is a gift arriving right on cue to meet a continuous increase in population and demand for food. This basic sustenance allows for all other human endeavors—developments in artificial intelligence, medicine, and more. It is difficult to write computer code on an empty stomach.

Behind this gift of plenty is a process fundamental to all life, starting with plants: Photosynthesis is a mechanism by which plants use CO₂, water, and sunlight to make sugars for food. When atmospheric CO₂ rises—whether from the emissions of human activity or any other source—plants grow faster. A side benefit is that they use water more efficiently, making them more resilient to arid conditions and extending their geographic range.

The degree to which plants respond to more CO₂ varies, but it is always positive. An increase in CO₂ to 800 parts per million (ppm) or so—more than double the current atmospheric concentration—increases yields by 10% to 100%.

In greenhouse farming, carbon dioxide levels are elevated to 1,000 ppm or so to increase the yields of tomatoes and cucumbers by 20% to 40%. Plants, such as corn, sugarcane, and millets, also benefit from higher atmospheric CO₂, whose positive effect on them is even more evident in the presence of drought.

For many, a cold Christmas morning is warmed by coffee, especially festive offerings like peppermint mocha and gingerbread latte. Well, the good news is that even coffee plants are boosted by the rise of CO₂. Studies in Latin America found that elevated carbon dioxide boosted coffee plant photosynthesis and increased yields by 12% to 14%.

People forget that the Little Ice Age—lasting from about 1300 to 1850—brought crop failures and famine to large sections of Europe and Asia. Rivers froze, and growing seasons shrank. Many communities struggled during periods of cold-induced scarcity.

The 20th century delivered the opposite: the longer growing seasons of a modestly warmer climate paired with higher levels of CO₂. This is hardly the making of a catastrophe that some would have us believe. In fact, a 2025 analysis projected changes in global average yields across all crops to be neutral or positive up to 5 degrees Celsius of warming into the future.

Only the Climate Grinches would oppose such a bounty of greening from modern warmth and CO₂ concentrations. These are the characters who have dominated headlines in popular media and policy roundtables in Brussels and Washington. They steal not only the joy of experiencing this natural abundance by spreading false fears but also the prosperity and sovereignty of nations.

Climate Grinches look at a greening planet and see disaster. When NASA announces that Earth has added vegetation equivalent to two American continents, they warn that this cannot last, that benefits are temporary, and that doom still awaits. When farmers report bumper harvests enabled by longer growing seasons and CO₂ fertilization, the Climate Grinches insist that gains are outweighed by unspecified future horrors.

So, this Christmas season, when you gather with your family, look at the spread before you with new eyes. Reject the guilt that climate orthodoxy seeks to place on our shoulders.

Modern lifestyles are not destroying the planet. We are basking in a vibrant ecosystem that supports more greenery, more people, and more human potential than at any other time in history.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 10:30

Fed's Soft Landing Talk Meets Hard Data

Zero Hedge -

Fed's Soft Landing Talk Meets Hard Data

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The Fed’s soft landing narrative is a key theme in financial media, particularly on Wall Street, which expects a resurgence in economic activity in 2026 to justify increasing forward earnings expectations.

As shown, Wall Street currently expects the bottom 493 stocks to contribute more to earnings in 2026 than they have in the past 3 years. This is notable in that, over the past three years, the average growth rate for the bottom 493 stocks was less than 3%. Yet over the next 2 years, that earnings growth is expected to average above 11%.

Furthermore, the outlook is even more exuberant for the most economically sensitive stocks. Small and mid-cap companies struggled to produce earnings growth during the previous three years of robust economic growth, driven by monetary and fiscal stimulus. However, next year, even if the Fed’s soft landing narrative is valid, they are expected to see a surge in earnings growth rates of nearly 60%.

Notably, all this is occurring at a time when the entire economy’s profit margins have peaked and may potentially be turning lower.

It should come as no surprise that there is a high correlation between economic growth and earnings, given that in a demand-driven economy, consumption is what generates revenues, and revenues ultimately develop earnings.

“A better way to visualize this data is to look at the correlation between the annual change in earnings growth and inflation-adjusted GDP. There are periods when earnings deviate from underlying economic activity. However, those periods are due to pre- or post-recession earnings fluctuations. Currently, economic and earnings growth are very close to the long-term correlation.”

The problem currently facing the Fed’s soft landing narrative is that it hopes the economy can slow without a recession, allowing inflation to return to its target. For now, investors have held the markets higher, hoping the Fed’s soft landing narrative comes to fruition, which would lead to a surge in economic activity. However, the latest employment, retail sales, and inflation trends suggest a potentially worse outcome, characterized by weakening demand and shaky consumer strength.

Those factors weaken the case for the Fed’s hopes of a soft landing and suggest an increase in market fragility.

Falling Inflation Tells a Demand Story

Let’s start with inflation. If economic growth were on the cusp of resurgence, expectations for inflation would be rising. However, as shown, those expectations never rose with “printed inflation,” because it was the “transitory effect” of massive monetary stimulus. The bond market’s view was that inflation would revert to its normalized levels as that monetary excess left the system, which has been the case. This is particularly notable, as inflation expectations have always been more accurate than the “inflation” bears we discussed yesterday.

In the Fed’s narrative of a soft landing, the trend in inflation expectations is crucial. Here is an essential point:

“The Federal Reserve WANTS inflation.”

Here is another critical point: So do you.

Without inflation, there can not be economic growth, increasing wages, and an improving standard of living. In other words, prices must always rise over time, which is why the Fed targets a 2% inflation rate, thereby supporting 2% economic growth. What we don’t want is “disinflation” or “deflation,” which would occur in conjunction with a recession, leading to job losses, falling wages, and reduced prosperity overall. As shown in the chart below, there is a high correlation between inflation, economic growth, and interest rates over time.

When inflation eases because demand weakens, the economy slows, producers lower prices to clear unsold goods, and employers become more restrictive in hiring and wage increases. Services that rely on discretionary spending lose pricing power, and banks become more stringent in their lending practices. These are not signs of a healthy expansion, but rather reflect a decline in spending power among households.

The Fed’s soft landing narrative is predicated on the hope that it can achieve its 2% inflation target without causing a more widespread slowdown. Historically, the Fed has failed in such attempts, as shown by the relationship between Fed rate-cutting cycles and economic and financial consequences.

As an investor, you need to distinguish between inflation caused by temporary supply/demand shocks, as we saw following the Pandemic, and inflation caused by organic economic activity. Supply/demand imbalances, such as higher input costs or a lack of supply caused by a geopolitical shock, can create a spike in inflation, which resolves itself when the shock is over. However, inflation caused by organic demand provides insight into the strength or weakness of the economy. Currently, we are focused on potential demand erosion as consumers cut back, employment weakens, and wages decline.

The retail sector provides early signals of demand weakness. Housing-related spending, auto sales, and discretionary purchases show stress, and many consumers face higher borrowing costs and lower savings. As shown, PCE, which accounts for nearly 70% of the GDP calculation, slowing inflation rates, and weak retail sales growth, all suggest that demand destruction is present in the economy. Such a development may further weigh on the Fed’s narrative of a soft landing.

As noted, the Fed’s soft landing narrative requires demand to slow moderately while avoiding recession. However, falling inflation driven by weakening demand and sluggish employment growth suggests a more profound weakness.

Retail Sales Growth Is Not What It Appears

Headline retail sales reports often show month-over-month increases, which reporters interpret as evidence of resilient consumer strength. However, a look at the data tells a different story. For example, since 2022, real retail sales growth has effectively not grown. In fact, previous periods of flat retail sales growth were pre-recessionary warnings.

Secondly, the annual rate of change in real retail sales is at levels that have typically preceded weaker economic environments and recessions.

Notably, retail sales figures are subject to seasonal adjustments, which correct for typical spending patterns. During the holiday and back-to-school seasons, spending increases and the “adjustments” attempt to remove these effects. However, if the adjustment process overestimates normal seasonal strength, the adjusted result will appear firmer than it actually is. Secondly, another distortion comes from changes in price levels. If prices fall because demand weakens, nominal sales may rise while real volumes fall. Consumers buy less but pay lower prices. Nominal retail sales can mislead when viewed without context.

This is what we are currently seeing in the economy. As consumers pull back, businesses face the prospect of weaker revenue. That leads to slower hiring, lower investment, and falling confidence.

This matters for the Fed’s view of a soft landing. If consumer demand remains weak, the economy may slow more than expected, which increases the risk of recession. A “soft landing” requires growth to slow without tipping over, but current economic data points suggest a risk to that growth story.

The Market Risk If The Fed Is Wrong

If the Fed’s soft landing narrative proves incorrect, the downside risk to investors increases significantly. The soft landing narrative has been factored into market prices, earnings expectations, and economic projections. Any deviation exposes valuations and portfolios to sharp repricing. With valuations already very elevated, the risk of a repricing event is not insignificant.

Wall Street’s forward expectations hinge on a growth rebound in 2026. Those projections assume that demand will return and margins will remain stable. However, there is no guarantee that either of those assumptions are accurate. If margins have already peaked, inflation declines as demand erodes, and employment falls, negative earnings revisions could be substantial. The year-over-year change in real retail sales, as shown in the chart, has hovered near recessionary warning levels. With consumers already strained by high debt service costs, weak wage growth, and declining savings, discretionary spending is under pressure, which directly affects earnings across cyclical sectors.

If demand weakens further, companies will face lower revenue and tighter margins. The margin compression will initially impact earnings, particularly for smaller firms with limited pricing power. A repricing of earnings expectations will follow, dragging valuations with it.

The Fed’s historical track record of avoiding recession during tightening and easing cycles is poor. Most rate-cutting cycles have been in response to financial or economic stress, not smooth slowdowns. If the Fed cuts rates next year, it likely won’t be in response to a soft landing. That shift in narrative would catch most investors leaning the wrong way.

Positioning for a soft landing assumes the Fed can control inflation without breaking demand. The data say otherwise. The risk, as always, is that the market wakes up to this reality too late. Therefore, investors should consider preparing for such a possibility in advance.

If the Fed’s soft landing narrative fails, investors will face a different environment than the one markets currently price. The assumptions behind strong equity valuations, tight credit spreads, and risk-on positioning will crack. If it does, that means you will need to act based on risk, not rhetoric. Here are some actions to consider.

1. Reduce Exposure to Overvalued Growth Assets: Tech and growth stocks led the rally on rate cut hopes and soft landing optimism. If earnings disappoint and rates stay higher, these valuations come under pressure.

  • Trim overweight positions in mega-cap tech.
  • Avoid speculative names with no earnings.
  • Focus on companies with strong cash flow and pricing power.

2. Increase Cash and Short-Term Treasuries: If growth slows and volatility returns, capital preservation matters. Cash gives you optionality. Short-term Treasuries offer yield without duration risk.

  • Rebalance toward 3-month to 1-year Treasury bills.
  • Hold cash equivalents yielding over 4.5 percent.
  • Avoid reaching for yield in low-quality credit.

3. Tilt Toward Defensive Sectors: Slower growth hits cyclicals and high beta sectors first. Defensive sectors hold up better in downturns.

  • Favor healthcare, consumer staples, and utilities.
  • Limit exposure to discretionary, financial, and industrial sectors.
  • Screen for dividend sustainability and balance sheet strength.

4. Prepare for Credit Stress: If recession risk rises, corporate credit spreads will widen. Junk bonds will suffer. Bank lending tightens further.

  • Exit high-yield bonds and floating-rate loans.
  • Review credit exposure in bond funds.
  • Consider higher-quality fixed income with lower default risk.

5. Be Patient and Opportunistic: If markets break, forced selling creates dislocations. You want dry powder ready.

  • Hold 10–20 percent in cash or equivalents.
  • Build watchlists of high-quality names at lower valuations.
  • Add in stages as prices adjust, not all at once.

You don’t need to predict a recession. Instead, prepare for the potential risk if the Fed’s hopes for a soft landing fade. You can always increase risk more easily than recovering from losses. Remaining disciplined, protecting capital, and looking for opportunities is always the best course of action.

Trade accordingly.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 09:20

Britain's Ruling Class Loves To Cosplay As A Titan

Zero Hedge -

Britain's Ruling Class Loves To Cosplay As A Titan

Authored by Gerry Nolan via The Ron Paul Institute

From the podium, it’s Churchillian thunder: prepare for war, deter Russia, stand tall, lead the free world. Back in the engine room, it’s Whitehall with a calculator, sweating through its suit because the numbers simply don’t work. The Financial Times reports Starmer has delayed the Defence Investment Plan over "affordability," kicking it into 2026, because the military’s wish list collided with the Treasury’s reality. Translation: the rhetoric is premium, the balance sheet is bargain-bin.

And then, because the universe has a sense of irony sharp enough to cut steel, enter Ajax; the £6-plus billion armored vehicle program that has become the British state’s spirit animal. Trials paused again. Fresh safety concerns. Soldiers injured. Crews sickened by vibration and noise. Endless reviews. Endless "lessons learned." Endless press lines insisting this is all somehow progress.

If you want to understand modern Britain, don’t read strategy documents. Watch a procurement program that cannot stop hurting the people it is meant to protect.

Ajax was meant to be the backbone of Britain’s future armored forces, a next-generation reconnaissance and strike platform designed to replace ageing vehicles and restore credibility to the British Army’s maneuver capability. Instead, it has become a case study in institutional failure: spiraling costs, years of delay, fundamental design flaws, and a safety record so poor it forced repeated trial suspensions. Soldiers were not merely inconvenienced; they were physically harmed in testing, suffering hearing damage, sickness, and long-term health concerns.

This is not a marginal technical glitch. It is the predictable outcome of a system where industrial capacity has been hollowed out, accountability diffused, and procurement reduced to a paper exercise optimized for contracts, not combat. Ajax does not fail because Britain lacks engineers or soldiers. It fails because Britain no longer possesses a state machinery capable of translating ambition into functioning hardware at scale.

This is the farce at the heart of the Atlantic security sermon.

Britain speaks about Russia the way a fading aristocrat sneers at a rising industrial superpower… condescending, dismissive, utterly uncurious. For years we’ve heard the same insult recycled like a nervous tic: Russia is a "gas station," a crude petro-state propped up by fumes and nostalgia. Yet here we are.

Russia the “gas station,” under the most comprehensive sanctions regime in modern history, has been forced—by Western institutions themselves—into an inconvenient admission: Russia now ranks as the fourth-largest economy in the world by purchasing-power parity.

So let’s pause and ask the question Britain’s elites refuse to face. If Russia is a glorified gas station, what exactly does that make Britain? A country that cannot publish a defence investment plan on time. A state that cannot field a functioning armoured vehicle without injuring its own troops. An economy that cannot sustain rearmament in spite of private finance gimmicks and accounting contortions. A political class that cannot reconcile its war talk with its industrial capacity.

If Russia is a gas station, Britain increasingly resembles a heritage museum complete with a gift shop, living off past glories while subcontracting its future.

Now let’s move to where the illusion truly collapses, production.

Wars are not won by hysterical speeches, theatrical bravado, summits, or moral pronouncements. They are won by output — steel, shells, access to critical minerals, drones, logistics, and the brutal arithmetic of throughput. On this front, the West has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into recognition of a reality it tried to meme out of existence.

Russia's military-industrial base bureaucratically compressed, hardened, and scaled under pressure —now outpaces NATO’s collective ammunition production by a multiple. Western officials themselves have been forced to admit the gap, even as they scramble to promise future catch-up schedules that read more like aspiration than viable plan.

In sum, while Russia produces, Britain reviews glorified mission statements. And while Russia iterates, Britain delays indefinitely out of impotence. Russia fields game changing adaptations learned from battlefield within months. While Britain commissions another inquiry.

And this is where the mockery turns into indictment.

Because Britain is not merely weak. It is performatively Russophobic, a leading amplifier of a psychological contagion that has swept Western Europe. A political culture that replaced diplomacy with insult, respect with caricature, and strategic realism with adolescent moral posturing.

For decades, Russians asked for nothing exotic. Security guarantees. Recognition of reasonable red lines. A place in a shared European security architecture. Basic respect and dignity after the Cold War. They were met instead with NATO expansion, broken promises, regime-change evangelism, and the casual humiliation of a great civilization reduced to punchlines for Western domestic politics.

And now, after years of stoking this hysteria, inflaming this anger, and dismissing Russian concerns as paranoia, Britain offers the world a confession written in delays, budget shortfalls, and broken machinery.

For all the talk of deterrence, what they’re left with is cold reality, exposure. A state that talks war while failing at procurement is not projecting strength. It is advertising vulnerability at scale. A leadership class that cannot fund its own defence while demanding continental confrontation is not leading, but gambling with other people’s lives.

For a country in this position to posture as a peer adversary to Russia is not serious strategy. It is suicide pact dressed up as virtue. At this point, honesty would demand something radical in London: humility and sober realism.

A state in Britain’s position should not be lecturing the world, moralizing from the sidelines, or inflating its own strategic importance. It should be urgently repairing what it helped to destroy, namely trust, diplomacy, and the basic architecture of European security. It should be suing for peace, not performing toughness it cannot afford.

Because history is unforgiving to former empires that mistake memory for power.

Russia did not arrive at this moment through fantasy. It arrived through necessity, through sanctions, pressure, exclusion, and the steady realisation that the West no longer spoke the language of compromise, only command. Britain, by contrast, arrived here through illusion: convinced it was still a titan while outsourcing its industry, hollowing out its capacity, and replacing strategy with theatre.

This is the real danger now, not Russian strength, but Western self-deception.

A political class that cannot build, cannot fund, and cannot field its own defence has no business escalating confrontation with a civilization that can. When rhetoric races far ahead of reality, history does not intervene gently. It intervenes brutally. Britain is not preparing for a conflict with Russia. It is preparing for a reckoning with the reality of its own weakness.

And reality, unlike Whitehall briefings, legacy slogans, or moral posturing, does not negotiate.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 08:10

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus

Financial Armageddon -


Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus



In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets. Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helped the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system. All this means more liquidity — central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.” Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up — and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs. In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.” In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question. The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down. Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks at central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.” Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy. In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.” Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up. The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.” Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies. Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.” Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy – which of course, is not booming.






Dump the Dollar before Bank Runs start in America -- Economic Collapse 2020

Financial Armageddon -












We are living in crazy times. I have a hard time believing that most of the general public is not awake, but in reality, they are. We've never seen anything like this; I mean not even under Obama during the worst part of the Great Recession." Now the Fed is desperately trying to keep interest rates from rising. The problem is that it's a much bigger debt bubble this time around , and the Fed is going to have to blow a lot more air into it to keep it inflated. The difference is this time it's not going to work." It looks like the Fed did another $104.15 billion of Not Q.E. in a single day. The Fed claims it's only temporary. But that is precisely what Bernanke claimed when the Fed started QE1. Milton Freedman once said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." The same applies to Q.E., or whatever the Fed wants to pretend it's doing. Except this is not QE4, according to Powell. Right. Pumping so much money out, and they are accusing China of currency manipulation ? Wow! Seriously! Amazing! Dump the U.S. dollar while you still have a chance. Welcome to The Atlantis Report. And it is even worse than that, In addition to the $104.15 billion of "Not Q.E." this past Thursday; the FED added another $56.65 billion in liquidity to financial markets the next day on Friday. That's $160.8 billion in two days!!!! in just 48 hours. That is more than 2 TIMES the highest amount the FED has ever injected on a monthly basis under a Q.E. program (which was $80 billion per month) Since this isn't QE....it will be really scary on what they are going to call Q.E. Will it twice, three times, four times, five times what this injection per month ! It is going to be explosive since it takes about 60 to 90 days for prices to react to this, January should see significant inflation as prices soak up the excess liquidity. The question is, where will the inflation occur first . The spike in the repo rate might have a technical explanation: a misjudgment was made in the Fed's money market operations. Even so, two conclusions can be drawn: managing the money markets is becoming harder, and from now on, banks will be studying each other's creditworthiness to a greater degree than before. Those people, who struggle with the minutiae of money markets, and that includes most professionals, should focus on the causes and not the symptoms. Financial markets have recovered from each downturn since 1980 because interest rates have been cut to new lows. Post-2008, they were cut to near zero or below zero in all major economies. In response to a new financial crisis, they cannot go any lower. Central banks will look for new ways to replicate or broaden Q.E. (At some point, governments will simply see repression as an easier option). Then there is the problem of 'risk-free' assets becoming risky assets. Financial markets assume that the probability of major governments such as the U.S. or U.K. defaulting is zero. These governments are entering the next downturn with debt roughly twice the levels proportionate to GDP that was seen in 2008. The belief that the policy worked was completely predicated on the fact that it was temporary and that it was reversible, that the Fed was going to be able to normalize interest rates and shrink its balance sheet back down to pre-crisis levels. Well, when the balance sheet is five-trillion, six-trillion, seven-trillion when we're back at zero, when we're back in a recession, nobody is going to believe it is temporary. Nobody is going to believe that the Fed has this under control, that they can reverse this policy. And the dollar is going to crash. And when the dollar crashes, it's going to take the bond market with it, and we're going to have stagflation. We're going to have a deep recession with rising interest rates, and this whole thing is going to come imploding down. everything is temporary with the fed including remaining off the gold standard temporary in the Fed's eyes could mean at least 50 years This liquidity problem is a signal that trading desks are loaded up on inventory and can't get rid of it. Repo is done out of a need for cash. If you own all of your securities (i.e., a long-only, no leverage mutual fund) you have no need to "repo" your securities - you're earning interest every night so why would you want to 'repo' your securities where you are paying interest for that overnight loan (securities lending is another animal). So, it is those that 'lever-up' and need the cash for settlement purposes on securities they've bought with borrowed money that needs to utilize the repo desk. With this in mind, as we continue to see this need to obtain cash (again, needed to settle other securities purchases), it shows these firms don't have the capital to add more inventory to, what appears to be, a bloated inventory. Now comes the fun part: the Treasury is about to auction 3's, 10's, and 30-year bonds. If I am correct (again, I could be wrong), the Fed realizes securities firms don't have the shelf space to take down a good portion of these auctions. If there isn't enough retail/institutional demand, it will lead to not only a crappy sale but major concerns to the street that there is now no backstop, at all, to any sell-off. At which point, everyone will want to be the first one through the door and sell immediately, but to whom? If there isn't enough liquidity in the repo market to finance their positions, the firms would be unable to increase their inventory. We all saw repo shut down on the 2008 crisis. Wall St runs on money. . OVERNIGHT money. They lever up to inventory securities for trading. If they can't get overnight money, they can't purchase securities. And if they can't unload what they have, it means the buy-side isn't taking on more either. Accounts settle overnight. This includes things like payrolls and bill pay settlements. If a bank doesn't have enough cash to payout what its customers need to pay out, it borrows. At least one and probably more than one banks are insolvent. That's what's going on. First, it can't be one or two banks that are short. They'd simply call around until they found someone to lend. But they did that, and even at markedly elevated rates, still, NO ONE would lend them the money. That tells me that it's not a problem of a couple of borrowers, it's a problem of no lenders. And that means that there's no bank in the world left with any real liquidity. They are ALL maxed out. But as bad as that is, and that alone could be catastrophic, what it really signals is even worse. The lending rates are just the flip side of the coin of the value of the assets lent against. If the rates go up, the value goes down. And with rates spiking to 10%, how far does the value fall? Enormously! And if banks had to actually mark down the value of the assets to reflect 10% interest rates, then my god, every bank in the world is insolvent overnight. Everyone's capital ratios are in the toilet, and they'd have to liquidate. We're talking about the simultaneous insolvency of every bank on the planet. Bank runs. No money in ATMs, Branches closed. Safe deposit boxes confiscated. The whole nine yards, It's actually here. The scenario has tended to guide toward for years and years is actually happening RIGHT NOW! And people are still trying to say it's under control. Every bank in the world is currently insolvent. The only thing keeping it going is printing billions of dollars every day. Financial Armageddon isn't some far off future risk. It's here. Prepare accordingly. This fiat system has reached the end of the line, and it's not correct that fiat currencies fail by design. The problem is corruption and manipulation. It is corruption and cheating that erodes trust and faith until the entire system becomes a gigantic fraud. Banks and governments everywhere ARE the problem and simply have to be removed. They have lost all trust and respect, and all they have left is war and mayhem. As long as we continue to have a majority of braindead asleep imbeciles following orders from these psychopaths, nothing will change. Fiat currency is not just thievery. Fiat currency is SLAVERY. Ultimately the most harmful effect of using debt of undefined value as money (i.e., fiat currencies) is the de facto legalization of a caste system based on voluntary slavery. The bankers have a charter, or the legal *right*, to create money out of nothing. You, you don't. Therefore you and the bankers do not have the same standing before the law. The law of the land says that you will go to jail if you do the same thing (creating money out of thin air) that the banker does in full legality. You and the banker are not equal before the law. ALL the countries of the world; Islamic or secular, Jewish or Arab, democracy or dictatorship; all of them place the bankers ABOVE you. And all of you accept that only whining about fiat money going down in exchange value over time (price inflation which is not the same as monetary inflation). Actually, price inflation itself is mainly due to the greed and stupidity of the bankers who could keep fiat money's exchange value reasonably stable, only if they wanted to. Witness the crash of silver and gold prices which the bankers of the world; Russian, American, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Arab, all of them collaborated to engineer through the suppression and stagnation of precious metals' prices to levels around the metals' production costs, or what it costs to dig gold and silver out of the ground. The bankers of the world could also collaborate to keep nominal prices steady (as they do in the case of the suppression of precious metals prices). After all, the ability to create fiat money and force its usage is a far more excellent source of power and wealth than that which is afforded simply by stealing it through inflation. The bankers' greed and stupidity blind them to this fact. They want it all, and they want it now. In conclusion, The bankers can create money out of nothing and buy your goods and services with this worthless fiat money, effectively for free. You, you can't. You, you have to lead miserable existences for the most of you and WORK in order to obtain that effectively nonexistent, worthless credit money (whose purchasing/exchange value is not even DEFINED thus rendering all contracts based on the null and void!) that the banker effortlessly creates out of thin air with a few strokes of the computer keyboard, and which he doesn't even bother to print on paper anymore, electing to keep it in its pure quantum uncertain form instead, as electrons whizzing about inside computer chips which will become mute and turn silent refusing to tell you how many fiat dollars or euros there are in which account, in the absence of electricity. No electricity, no fiat, nor crypto money. It would appear that trust is deteriorating as it did when Lehman blew up . Something really big happened that set off this chain reaction in the repo markets. Whatever that something is, we aren't be informed. They're trying to cover it up, paper it over with conjured cash injections, play it cool in front of the cameras while sweating profusely under the 5 thousands dollar suits. I'm guessing that the final high-speed plunge into global economic collapse has begun. All we see here is the ripples and whitewater churning the surface, but beneath the surface, there is an enormous beast thrashing desperately in its death throws. Now is probably the time to start tying up loose ends with the long-running prep projects, just saying. In other words, prepare accordingly, and Get your money out of the banks. I don't care if you don't believe me about Bitcoin. Get your money out of the banks. Don't keep any more money in a bank than you need to pay your bills and can afford to lose.











The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more













The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

Hillary Clinton's Top Secret Files Revealed Here

Financial Armageddon -

The FBI released a summary of its file from the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Friday, showing details of Clinton's explanation of her use of a private email server to handle classified communications. The release comes nearly two months after FBI Director James Comey announced that although Clinton's handling of classified information was "extremely careless," it did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the next day that she would not pursue charges in the matter. "We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests," the FBI noted in a statement sent to reporters with links to the documents. The documents include notes from Clinton's July 2 interview with agents, as well as a "factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter," according to the FBI release. Throughout her interview with agents, Clinton repeatedly said she relied on the career professionals she worked with to handle classified information correctly. The agents asked about a series of specific emails, and in each case Clinton said she wasn't worried about the particular material being discussed on a nonclassified channel.





Pages