The post Quick Note on The November CPI Report appeared first on CEPR.

Source: Visual Capitalist

The post The Largest S&P 500 Companies Over Time (1985-2024) appeared first on The Big Picture.

Goldman Turns "Incrementally Cautious" On Nike As China Sales Plunge

Nike shares tumbled the most in eight months in premarket trading in New York after a mixed third quarter, reigniting concerns that turnaround efforts are being slowed by soft demand trends in China and ongoing problems at Converse.

North America was a bright spot in second-quarter earnings. Citi analyst Paul Lejuez noted that product liquidations contributed to the growth. As those actions expired, underlying sell-through trends softened.

China remained the most challenging sales market for the world's largest sportswear company in the quarter. This prompted Piper Sandler analysts to cut their price target on the stock due to a lackluster recovery in the world’s second-largest economy.

Sales in China last quarter plunged 17%, while Converse sales imploded by 30%.

Key earnings in the quarter:

• Top line: Revenue of $12.43 billion rose .6% year over year, beating consensus. Nike brand revenue increased 1.5%, also ahead of expectations.

• Channel mix: Direct revenue declined 8%, missing estimates, while wholesale revenue rose 8.7% and exceeded consensus, underscoring the ongoing shift toward wholesale.

Here's a snapshot of regional performance in the second quarter:

• North America was the standout, with revenue up 8.8% and EBIT slightly ahead of estimates.

• EMEA delivered modest growth but was roughly in line with expectations, with margins under pressure.

• China remained the largest drag, with revenue down 17% and EBIT nearly halved versus last year.

• Asia Pacific and Latin America also declined modestly and missed estimates.

Overall results in the second quarter at the headline level were driven by North America, wholesale, and apparel strength, but the weakness in China, direct-to-consumer, and Converse weighed heavily on the turnaround narrative.  

Nike has yet to issue longer-term guidance, which merely reflects its attempts to regain control of its turnaround plan and rebuild ties with retailers and sports teams.

Further Wall Street commentary on the earnings came from Goldman analysts led by Brooke Roach. She penned a note to clients outlining the good, the bad, her initial take on the results, and the key takeaways.

A mixed quarter amidst low expectations: NKE shares underperformed in the after-market session on Thursday, where a 2Q beat was offset by a weaker 3Q guide, softer China commentary, mixed channel trends in North America, and promotions in EMEA.

The good: NKE remained upbeat regarding progress made against its Win Now Strategy and its Sport Offense repositioning, highlighting strong results in Performance product. Running grew >20% for the second consecutive quarter (strength across wholesale, NIKE Direct, and owned stores). Training, Basketball, and Kids also contributed to growth. Order books into spring and summer are improving. Importantly, as the company looks to extend success in Running to other sports, we were encouraged to hear that NKE is seeing stronger growth in Global Football preorders ahead of the World Cup (+40% higher units vs. WC 2022). Franchise management actions are still set to moderate into F2H. On margins, gross margins came in at the high end of the company's prior guidance range despite incremental obsolescence charges on Nike China inventory, meaning that underlying results were stronger, and SG&A was well-controlled as a result of operational efficiencies.

The bad: We believe this quarter's results will fuel several key long-term bear concerns regarding the business. The most notable incremental is the significant outperformance in North America wholesale, with the gap vs. DTC widening meaningfully this quarter. While this is technically driven by NKE's core strategy of putting product in front of the consumer, the magnitude of this outperformance will likely drive investor concerns that NKE could be oversupplying the channel ahead of brand momentum inflection and/or that NKE's growth next year will need to step back as the company digests this year's outperformance. In a backdrop where many turnarounds seek to limit distribution to build brand heat, NKE's strategy is notably different for the total brand. Looking further across the world, Greater China remains the most challenged geography (-16% ex-FX), and management's commentary here suggests that significant actions will be needed to improve long-term brand health in the region. Timing here is uncertain, though the company did guide F3Q similar to F2Q, and highlighted that they have cut both sell-in for spring and summer orders as a result, with further shifts ahead. EMEA and APAC were also mixed, with EMEA missing Factset consensus and management highlighting elevated promotional activity in Western Europe, while APLA is still undergoing pockets of inventory cleanup. Near-term, we highlight that F3Q was guided below consensus.

Our take: We step away from the quarter incrementally cautious on the timeline and cadence of recovery at NKE. We remain optimistic on the company's Win Now actions and Sport Offense strategy, and continue to be upbeat on the strength emerging in NKE's product assortment where actions have had more time to cure (particularly running, but also emerging signs of greenshoots in Global Football). That said, we acknowledge the updates today regarding Greater China are disappointing, and limited disclosure regarding the core drivers of North America wholesale outperformance provides fodder for debate. We believe that trends will remain choppy as the company executes its strategic plan, and thus patience will be needed, but that improvement is ahead. Additionally, we believe the underlying message of an uneven path to revenue and margin improvement is well-appreciated by investors.

The rest of the note is available in full in the usual place.

In markets, Nike shares fell sharply, down about 11% in premarket trading in New York. If those losses carry into the cash session and the stock closes near the lows, it would mark the worst decline since early April. Year to date, shares are down 13.3% as of Thursday's close. The last time the stock traded in the low $60s was during the Covid crash.

How long until an activist investor leaks a headline to a major financial outlet? A headline yesterday in the WSJ said Elliott Investment Management had built a $1 billion position in another struggling clothing brand, Lululemon.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/19/2025 - 08:00

Hotel occupancy was weak over the summer months, due to less international tourism.  The fall months are mostly domestic travel and occupancy is still under pressure! 

From STR: U.S. hotel results for week ending 13 December

The U.S. hotel industry reported mixed year-over-year comparisons, according to CoStar’s latest data through 13 December. ...

7-13 December 2025 (percentage change from comparable week in 2024):

• Occupancy: 58.6% (-1.6%)
• Average daily rate (ADR): US$156.46 (+0.4%)
• Revenue per available room (RevPAR): US$91.76 (-1.1%)
emphasis added

The following graph shows the seasonal pattern for the hotel occupancy rate using the four-week average.
Click on graph for larger image.

The red line is for 2025, blue is the median, and dashed light blue is for 2024.  Dashed black is for 2018, the record year for hotel occupancy. 
The 4-week average of the occupancy rate is tracking well behind last year but is close to the median rate for the period 2000 through 2024 (Blue).
Note: Y-axis doesn't start at zero to better show the seasonal change.
The 4-week average will decrease seasonally until early next year.
On a year-to-date basis, the only worse years for occupancy over the last 25 years were pandemic or recession years.

All The Dominant Models Are Collapsing

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Every nation is operating on models that are collapsing without those at the controls being aware that the implicit assumptions of their models no longer map reality.

A recent article lays out the collapse of the dominant geopolitical model of "rising powers generate conflict": The Stagnant Order And the End of Rising Powers (Foreign Affairs, paywalled). The basic idea is that the foundations of "rising powers"--demographics and productivity gains--no longer support grandiose planetary dominance.

Rather, demographics is already baked in as a crushing liability to all existing powers, and despite endless claims that technology will jumpstart productivity, the reality is productivity gains have flatlined for decades. "Growth" is a function of expanding debt, not productivity gains.

This dynamic extends beyond geopolitical models: all the models being used to explain and control the world are all collapsing: economic, social, political, they're all collapsing because they are all constructs assembled in eras that no longer map the present.

As I explained in The Entire Bubble Economy Is a Hallucination, models collapse because of two limitations that define all models:

1. All models are self-referential, as they "train" (i.e. generate current analysis) on a limited spectrum of metrics that are presumed to summarize the immensely complex "real world." The model is blind to its own self-referential feedback loop and the limits of the metrics it bases its output on.

Over time, this self-referential "training" degrades the output--the analysis and the decisions based on that analysis--to the point of hallucination: the model is generating output of how the world works that has drifted to far from authentic understanding that it is a hallucination, one that is taken to be "real" by those controlling the model.

2. The metrics being measured leave out enormous fields of the real world, but what's been left out isn't explicit, as it's all based on what is considered "knowable" and "known," as I explained in What We "Know" Is More Dangerous Than the Unknown: these assumptions are hidden limitations of the model, as we only manage what we measure.

I break this down in my book Investing In Revolution.

The collapse of the dominant models is visible everywhere, but perhaps most painfully in economics, which has become the dominant model of how the world works due to the dominance of statistical models of finance and the policies those models generate.

I addressed this failure of economics to accurately predict outcomes back in 2013: Why Isn't There a Demonstrably Correct Economic Theory? (August 16, 2013)

"This system is intrinsically unstable, as the financial claims of credit and fiat money on limited real-world resources and wealth eventually far exceed real-world resources, and the system of claims collapses in a heap.

Although economics doesn't recognize it, the operative phrase here is systemic injustice."

Why Economics Will Never Be a Legitimate Science (December 24, 2013)

All the extant economic models are artifacts of bygone eras. The economic models of the 19th century--all based on the implicit assumption that resources were endless--were modified in the 1930s into Keynesian hallucinations still based on endless resources: let's just pay people with freshly printed "money" to dig holes and fill them. This presumes endless resources to squander on digging holes and filling them, as if that is a productive use of labor and resources.

This hallucination continues to be the dominant paradigm: resources are endless because we're clever and there will always be a substitute for whatever is depleted, so the "solution" is just print "money" to pay people to dig holes and fill them.

The "problem" is "growth" of consumption, and so if we "solve" that problem by goosing consumption by any means available, we enter "Mouse Utopia," an artificial world of never-ending abundance.

The book Money, Blood and Revolution: How Darwin and the Doctor of King Charles I Could Turn Economics into a Science takes a stab at turning economics into "science," but that's not actually "the problem." The real problem is all models have intrinsic limits and end up hallucinating, but those controlling the gearing of the model depend on it to maintain their own power, so they are blind to the failure of their precious model to track the real world and generate authentic understanding.

So we're told that all is well because GDP and the stock market are rising, and since we have lots of natural gas to power AI data centers, we're entering a "Mouse Utopia" of endless abundance. That these are all hallucinations is lost on those clinging to collapsing models as the means of maintaining their power.

That the hallucinations are sustainable is itself a hallucination:

That the inhabitants of "Mouse Utopia" are not focused on how natty gas and AI are going to make Utopia even more utopian is lost in the current model collapse: antisocial behaviors are accelerating due to the the artificial nature and exploitive structure of our "Mouse Utopia," but these realities aren't measured and so they don't exist in the current model's self-referential hallucinations:

All the dominant models are collapsing at once, and no nation is immune to the consequences, as every nation is operating on models that are collapsing without those at the controls being aware that the implicit assumptions of their models no longer map reality.

*  *  *

My new book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free). Check out my updated Books and Films. Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/19/2025 - 07:45

Did Abu Dhabi Just Deliver A Santa Rally: OpenAI To Raise $100BN From Sovereign Wealth Funds

While the broader stock market has meandered both higher and lower in the subsequent two months, the Mag 7 trade peaked on Oct 31 and has been drifting sideways - and lower - ever since.

What happened on that date? That was the day of the infamous All Things podcast, in which Brad Gerstner (an OpenAi investor) pointed out that the emperor is, indeed, naked and asked Sam Altman how a company with $13BN in revenue can afford $1.4 Trillion in commitments. Altman's non-reply? “Happy to find a buyer for your shares.” Translation: No answer... and how could Sam possibly answer: after all there is no way on earth that OpenAI could ever grow into its future obligations absent a miracle, an act of God... or uncle Sam.

A few days later, Altman delivered a far more troubling answer, and one which connected the mathematical dots for everyone, when it was reported that OpenAI was seeking a government guarantee, which would help "attract the enormous investment needed for AI computing and infrastructure." But far more concerning was the other implication of the report: without a government guarantee, there was no way that OpenAI could satisfy the $1.4 trillion in commitments, which also meant that the entire AI bubble, which was built on circular deals where rehypothecated promises for capex investments among the hyperscalers were contingent on some nebulous future revenue stream, was about to burst.

Also, with OpenAI tacitly conceding the need for a government guarantee, the entire AI sector came under immediate and immense scrutiny, and as a result of analysts finally doing elementary math (which we had done months earlier) and realizing that the AI cycle would need trillions in debt, suddenly the weakest credits in the space like CoreWeave and Oracle (see "Oracle Is First AI Domino To Fall After Barclays Downgrades Its Debt To Sell") saw not only their bond (and stock) prices tumble, but their odds of bankruptcy in just 5 years soar, pushing their CDS to record wides.

AI CDS refresh pic.twitter.com/bmQCFga7G7

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 17, 2025

And yet maybe the market, in its passion to punish the weakest AI links, had gone too far: we suggested as much last night when we showed just how much ORCL CDS has underperformed the company's stock. After all, was it truly realistic that Oracle, one of the biggest tech giants in the world, would go bankrupt in the next 5 years?

ORCL CDS may have gone a bit too far pic.twitter.com/Pt7I7XVMRI

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 17, 2025

Well, if the company continued to lever up massively and invest its cash into dead end capex projects, while OpenAi and its peers failed to provide Oracle with the much needed cash the company needed to keep growing its market share and fund its growth (via capex), the answer apparently was a resounding yes. 

Unless... there was a miracle.

Well, late on Thursday a miracle may have finally arrived. Because in a time when it was increasingly unclear how OpenAI et al, would generate the required revenue to pay their hyperscaler partners for the data centers they needed to impress the world with their chatbot wares, while stable sources of private credit such as Blue Owl had suddenly closed shop when it comes to Oracle, a government guarantee appears to have finally emerged.

Only it wasn't the US (at least not yet), but rather the emirate of Abu Dhabi that may have not only averted the bursting of the AI bubble, but also delivered the 2025 Christmas Rally in the last possible moment.

According to the WSJ, OpenAI - desperate to secure funding for its cash incinerating years which are expected to conclude around 2030 during which time more than $200 billion will be spent - is aiming to raise as much as $100 billion as it seeks to pay for ambitious growth plans in a market that has cooled recently on the artificial-intelligence boom.

The fundraising round could value the company at as much as $830 billion, if it raises the full amount it is targeting. Of course, the implied enterprise value is meaningless: it's just a number; what is all too real, however, is the actual amount of cash Sam Altman would get (in exchange for a sizable chunk of equity, confirming just how problematic using far cheaper debt capital raising has become for OpenAI). And that's a doozy: $100 billion should be more than enough to provide OpenAI with the cash it needs to bridge the period until it is profitable all the while rolling out increasingly more lifelike AI models (especially now that Google's Gemini 3 has taken the lead from OpenAI). More importantly, the cash invested into OpenAI, and promptly spent on compute, will fund such clients as Oracle, Core Weave and others as it percolates across the entire budding AI industry.

Here, the WSJ adds the usual disclaimer, that the startup aims to complete the round by the end of the first quarter at the earliest, and that terms of the deal could still change; it is also unclear whether there will be sufficient investor demand to reach the goal.

The round will present one of the biggest tests the company has faced since the public market’s exuberance for AI spending waned. Chief Executive Sam Altman has already scoured the world to build the pool of OpenAI’s investors and the company is now weighing a potential initial public offering, The Wall Street Journal previously reported.

Of course, Sam Altman had already found some gullible investors to throw good money after bad, most notably Masa Son's SoftBank, which agreed to invest $30 billion in OpenAI earlier this year and last month sold its Nvidia stake for $5.8 billion to fund the OpenAI bet. OpenAI is expected to secure the remaining $22.5 billion in planned financing from SoftBank by the end of the year. 

But that's not nearly enough: after all, recall that we are talking a whopping $1.4 trillion in commitments in the next five years. 

So who is the next most gullible source of capital after SoftBank these days? Why Gulf cash of course. 

Which brings us to the source of the government guarantee: as we said, it's not the US (just yet); instead it is the United Arab Emirates. 

As the WSJ reports, OpenAI is expected to recruit sovereign-wealth funds to invest in the financing, given the scale. The company has previously secured funding from United Arab Emirates-based MGX; it will likely get even more funding from the UAE because considering how much money has already been sunk into OpenAI, UAE companies don't really have a choice to not keep investing - and risk the collapse of Altman's venture. They have to keep throwing good money after bad; such is the curse of the Too Big To Fail, which was banks in 2008... and now it's AI firms. 

The company has faced skepticism over computing deals it has forged that are worth hundreds of billions of dollars and issued a “code red” to beat back a growing threat from Google. While OpenAI is set to burn more than $200 billion in cash through 2030, Google has low levels of debt and robust profits, which could make it easier to invest further in AI. 

And since OpenAI is private, the market has instead turned its attention to such OpenAI partners as Oracle and CoreWeave, who have seen their market values plunge in recent months as shareholders soured on the possibility of capital shortfalls and bold plans for data-center build-outs that appear to face financing headwinds.

But now, the looming $100 billion equity investment from the likes of UAE sovereign wealth funds has changed all that, and with OpenAI set to prefund 2 years (or more) of growth (while materially diluting existing investors) not only are OpenAI's chances to emerge as the ultimate AI victory suddenly much higher, but so are the odds of Oracle and CoreWeave to survive the next few years without filing for bankruptcy. 

Which is why not only has ORCL stock soared after hours...

... but why we expect that tomorrow ORCL CDS will plunge from its 16 year high of ~156bps, since not only will OpenAI have billions in cash to spend around on the likes of Oracle, but the cost of holding on to the negative carrying ORCL CDS will suddenly seem excessive, and we expect a short covering frenzy across all AI-linked credit default swaps.

Over/Under on ORCL CDS tomorrow at -20 https://t.co/erupObw6Zz

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 18, 2025

And now that the biggest risk factor for AI is suddenly no longer a near-term concern - courtesy of all that Abu Dhabi housing bubble cash which just has to be reinvested somewhere - it is possible that the UAE may have just delivered a broad market rally just in time for Santa. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/19/2025 - 07:35

Why Should Americans Die For European Tyranny?

Authored by J/B/Shurk via American Thinker,

After the European Commission levied a several-hundred-million-dollar fine on Elon Musk and his social media platform X earlier this month, journalist Michael Shellenberger wrote a damning post in which he excoriated Europe’s rank censorship and state-sponsored propaganda.  He accused the commission of engaging “in a deception campaign aimed at confusing” Europeans and Americans into thinking that European elites’ “goal” is anything other than “to censor the American people.”

Shellenberger pointed out that Musk’s fine came while European governments are demanding backdoor access to all private text messages (under the pretense of combatting the transmission of child pornography) and creating a so-called “Democracy Shield” of government-funded “fact-checkers” that enables “censorship by proxy.”  He also noted that the European Commission announced the fine to coincide with the rollout of the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy, in which President Trump makes this promise: “We will oppose elite-driven, anti-democratic restrictions on core liberties in Europe, the Anglosphere, and the rest of the democratic world, especially among our allies.”

Shellenberger put two and two together to make a provocative observation:

“The EU is now in direct violation of the NATO Treaty,” which “requires member states to have free speech and free and fair elections.  France and Germany are actively and illegally preventing political candidates from running for office for ideological reasons, namely their opposition to mass migration.  And the Romanian high court, with the support of the European Commission, nullified election results under the thin and unproven pretext of Russian interference, after a nationalist and populist presidential candidate won.”

As a parting shot, Shellenberger accused the European political class of betraying its own constitution, a document that purports to protect free speech:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.  This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.”  

How can the European Commission pretend to defend its own charter when it seeks to eradicate the free exchange of ideas on X, censor Americans’ speech, spy on citizens’ private text messages, and create an army of government-funded NGOs to justify censorship and push the commission’s propaganda?

Shellenberger’s pointed observations reinforce Vice President Vance’s recent criticisms of European censorship:

“Germany’s entire defense is subsidized by the American taxpayer.  There are thousands upon thousands of American troops in Germany today.  Do you think that the American taxpayer is going to stand for that if you get thrown in jail in Germany for posting a mean tweet?”  Vance has explicitly warned European elites that America and Europe “do not have shared values if you’re jailing people for saying we should close down our border” or canceling “elections because you don’t like the result — and that happened in Romania.  You do not have shared values if you’re so afraid of your own people that you silence them and shut them up.”

When the leading candidate for the American presidency in 2028 and one of America’s pre-eminent journalists are both warning the European political class that its ongoing censorship activities are threatening the foundations of the Western alliance, the capitals of Europe should pay attention.

Unfortunately, it appears the paper tigers of Europe believe that their gentle purrs sound like ferocious roars and that their distorted shadows still convey strength.  As President Trump’s emissaries work to deliver peace between Russia and Ukraine, there are rumors on the continent that the European Commission is threatening behind somewhat closed doors to sell $2.34 trillion in U.S. Treasury holdings should the American government impose an “unsatisfactory” peace settlement or outright withdraw military and financial support from Ukraine.  Such economic warfare against the United States could trigger a financial crash more severe than what occurred in 2008.

The fact that European powers would consider destabilizing the global economy in order to prolong war on the European continent says a great deal about the Old World’s twisted priorities.  While tens of millions of illegal immigrants erase Western civilization and insane “green energy” policies doom the economies of Europe, the aristocratic elites insist on censorship, government-approved propaganda, and perpetual war.  Brussels, London, Paris, and Berlin are so committed to total war with Russia that they will sacrifice every last Ukrainian and outlaw peace.  Better to remain master over a dominion of poverty, division, and bloodshed than to permit non-globalist political parties to win elections and defend their respective nations’ sovereignties.

Given how ill prepared Europe is to fight its own battles without the assistance of America’s military machine, it is maddening to watch the deranged posturing of Europe’s bellicose ruling class as it salivates for more war.  While mourning the recent death of a British soldier in Ukraine, U.K. prime minister Keir Starmer tacitly admitted that a military contingent of unknown size is already operating in the country.  This led one of Russia’s most prominent political commentators to conclude that “a nuclear strike on Britain is inevitable.”  Should the British people perhaps have a say in whether their political leadership will risk nuclear war over Russian-speaking territories in eastern Ukraine?

Meanwhile, the French government is not so quietly preparing hospitals for the arrival of tens of thousands of wounded soldiers in the next few months.  Given that French president Emmanuel Macron is reportedly planning to announce a rapid expansion of the country’s military service, a significant military engagement on the continent appears increasingly likely.  Similarly, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Poland, and Germany are all working to increase the sizes of their military forces.  Military spending in Germany is set to “mark the largest single-year investment in defense equipment in the country’s history.”  And NATO chief Mark Rutte recently told foreign policy pooh-bahs in Berlin that Europeans “must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents and great-grandparents endured.”  As far as Europe’s political elites are concerned, all signs point to World War III!

Is this really what Americans want?  Must we really permit Europe’s totalitarian political elites to recklessly provoke a U.S.-NATO-Russia War?  It is revealing that Europe’s speech police work so assiduously to censor social media posts that dare to question the ruling class’s apparent desire to transform a regional conflict between Russia and Ukraine into a battle royale involving the whole of the continent.  How duplicitous with regard to their motivations and desperate in their political calculations could Starmer, Macron, Merz, and Queen Ursula von der Leyen be if they feel compelled to silence every European commoner who prefers to keep his children safely away from exploding drones on the battlefield?

I go back to the questions that Michael Shellenberger and Vice President Vance have asked concerning Europe’s diminishing commitment to Western values.  What is the point of defending a royal court of unelected European aristocrats who cynically prattle on about the need to “defend democracy” while spying on fellow citizens’ private communications and silencing their online debates?  Why should Americans fight and die for European elites who conspire to prevent non-globalist politicians from holding office and summarily cancel elections whenever preferred globalists flat-out lose?  Why should America’s military defend a European ruling class that regularly censors American citizens?

If Brussels, London, Paris, and Berlin want war, let those socialists pick up a rifle and fight.  As for Americans, our cause should be to defend liberty.  And right now, unfortunately, liberty is of little concern to Europe’s political elites.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/19/2025 - 06:30

British Teachers To "Spot Misogyny" In Boys And Target Them For Reeducation

For years UK officials turned a blind eye to rape gangs because it might look racist to crack down on foreigners. Now, suddenly, the real problem is young boys who are 'radicalized' into becoming misogynists. The only solution is of course Orwellian; and includes an agenda to reeducate British boys showing "signs of misogyny" (anti-wokeness).

According to the BBC, teachers will be given training to spot and "tackle" misogyny in the classroom, while high-risk pupils could be sent on behavior courses as part of the government's strategy to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG).

The goal is to  'prevent the radicalization of young men' by addressing misogyny early in order to prevent escalation into violence. Safeguarding minister Jess Phillips called violence against women and girls a "national emergency," adding that the government's goal is to be "so ambitious that we change culture."

"What definitely does not exist yet, [is] if teachers are seeing signs of sexually harmful behaviour or are worried about the attitude of pupils with regard to misogyny… teachers currently don't have anywhere specialist or targeted to send those pupils," Phillips told BBC Radio 4. 

Under a new £20 million program over three years;

• Teachers will receive special training to 'spot and challenge misogyny,' teach consent, address the dangers of sharing nude pics, identify positive role models, and challenge 'harmful myths' about women and relationships. 

• Schools will refer high-risk students to 'behavioral courses' to address prejudice against women and girls. 

The new measures will be incorporated into the Department for Education's statutory guidance on relationships, sex and health education, and specifies that pupils "should be equipped to recognise misogyny" along with its links to violence against women and girls. 

The program arrives at the height of left-wing hysteria in the UK over popular opposition to mass third-world immigration and online censorship. The focus is largely on white native born British men, who have apparently been designated public enemy number one despite numerous mass murder events and sexual assaults perpetrated across Europe by third-world migrants, or the children of third world migrants.

Though there are already general classes in schools which include all students, the new program is designed to train teachers to single out "problem boys" for special attention.  It is highly unlikely that progressive teachers will single out minority students (Keep an eye out for the interesting placement of George Orwell's 1984 in the news segment below).

The BBC cites data from a charity called "Reducing the Risk", claiming that nearly 40% of teenagers in relationships are victims of abuse. The charity's website does not give direct sources for this number, but it is likely taken from the December 2025 Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) report.  

The report's conclusions are misleading, however, as the 40% stat is largely tied to perceived psychological abuse, including such terrible crimes as "looking at a partner's phone without their permission" and "saying something critical about their appearance."  Upon deeper investigation, the report notes that only 4% of teens in Britain suffer from actual physical or sexual abuse in relationships, and the criteria for this is also broad.

Reeducation projects launched along with the release of a Netflix series called "Adolescence" about a young white British boy who murders a female classmate. The crime is largely blamed on the rise of online misogyny and "manosphere" influencers like Andrew Tate.  Keep in mind, only one murder suspect in the UK has ever been identified as consuming masculinity content before a murder occurred, and it did not inspire the actual crime.

The majority of government  and NGO funded public information ads depicting mistreatment of women feature white men, not minorities.  

Please make it stop!!!

Seems the problem with sexual harassment is a white male problem in the UK...

White men/teens are portrayed as the predators, as there will be no backlash...

Fewer and fewer white people in TV adverts, but more and more white people portrayed as sexual… pic.twitter.com/kvMbrNggsx

— 'Seeing is believing' (@dave24144975) October 27, 2025

"Every parent should be able to trust that their daughter is safe at school, online and in her relationships, but too often, toxic ideas are taking hold early and going unchallenged," Prime Minister Keir Starmer said of the new measures, adding "This government is stepping in sooner - backing teachers, calling out misogyny, and intervening when warning signs appear to stop harm before it starts."

Furthermore, the media and the government present these stats as if they are limited to men.  But the surveys include male and female respondents. There is no announced plan to educate women on how to treat men.  

It is clear that the British government intends to ignore third world ideologies such as Islam which are openly hostile to women  Instead, they hope to place the blame of misogyny on masculinity in general as a means to purge boys of any conservative ideals and thus, keep them under control. 

So now, like racism, children in the UK will be programmed to believe they're guilty of another 'original sin,' while rape gangs from foreign lands continue to abuse young British girls - something the government conspired to cover up. On the bright side, Piers Morgan enjoys their cuisine.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/19/2025 - 05:45

Harmless Christmas Card Pulled From Shelves And "Destroyed" After One Trans-Activist Offended

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

In a stunning display of overreach, British supermarket Sainsbury’s is frantically pulling a humorous Christmas card from its shelves after a single woke campaigner branded it “transphobic”.

The Dr. Seuss-themed card ironically features the Grinch character with the caption: “This Christmas, I’m identifying as a Grinch.” 

This tame play on words exposes the brittle intolerance of gender ideology activists who demand everyone else bend to their language rules while simultaneously silencing any dissent.

A supermarket in Britain has pulled this Christmas card from shelves after someone complained it was “transphobic”. https://t.co/QnwTi8TdC9 pic.twitter.com/3os36FfuR9

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) December 17, 2025

Sophie Molly, a transgender ‘journalist,’ whinged on BlueCry after spotting the card at a branch of the supermarket in Aberdeen. Sharing a photo of the horrendously offensive item, she wrote: “Transphobic Christmas card in my local Sainsbury’s (Berryden). Please do better Sainsbury’s.” 

Transphobic Christmas card in my local Sainsbury's (Berryden). Please do better Sainsbury's.

[image or embed]

— Sophie Molly (@sophiemolly.co.uk) December 15, 2025 at 1:38 PM

Molly later said in remarks to Pink News, that the card “belittles the identity of trans and non-binary people,” insisting “Trans people don’t choose to identify as their gender – it’s part of who they are. Being trans is not a choice.”

Whining some more, Molly added: “Cis people saying they identify as something like a tomato, attack helicopter or a Grinch invalidates the lived experience of trans people. It tells the world that they think it’s a choice to be trans, something you can switch in and out of, like playing dress up. This is not true.”

No, that’s genderfluid, right? You tell us Sophie. After all, you make the rules. Literally make them up as you go along.

She wasn’t done there, adding “Being trans or non-binary is not something you can switch off, in the same way a cis person can’t switch off being cis,” and moaning that  “When you consider the current UK climate of trans hostility, I feel that it’s a worrying sight.”

Get real. It’s a fucking Christmas card.

The backlash then snowballed, leading Emotional Rescue, the card’s publisher, to pathetically issue an grovelling apology and yank the design. 

Jennie Rutter, the creative director, told Pink News: “It was in no way our intention to cause anyone in the trans community offence. We will remove this design from our range immediately.”

Jack Wilson, operations director at Paper Salad, which created the illustration, went even further, confirming: “Due to our contribution to the card, I’d like to apologise on behalf of Paper Salad for any offence caused. This was not our intention. We have removed the design from sale and destroyed all stock with immediate effect.”

Destroyed all stock? Talk about overkill.

This is utterly pathetic, & displays craven obedience to their trans overlords. Not altogether surprised by 'Emotional Rescue' given the she/her and 'Folx'. Someone buy the Creative Director an emotional support dog for Xmas to help her recover from all that grovelling.
1/2 pic.twitter.com/pdN7iki9hG

— Gill R (@thespiralquirk) December 17, 2025

A Sainsbury’s spokesman then responded: “At Sainsbury’s, we’re committed to being an inclusive retailer where people love to work and shop. We offer a wide selection of Christmas cards and our ranges vary each year, so there’s something for everyone.”

Yeah, Ok. Except if one Grinch is offended by some words, then it’s suddenly available for no one.

Sainsbury’s caving to this pressure sets a disturbing precedent, allowing a vocal minority to dictate what the rest of us can laugh at or buy.

Not everyone is buying into this absurdity, however. Venice Allan, a gender-critical campaigner, slammed the decision as “surreal” and “extreme” in comments to The Telegraph. 

She argued: “I think a lot of people would have liked that Christmas card. It shows you how people are laughing at this idea of identifying as transgender and social justice discourse in general.”

Allan pointed out the hypocrisy: “It also shows you how actually, no, we’re not allowed to laugh at this thing that everybody’s laughing at. They’re so offended by a Christmas card just slightly poking fun at the idea that you can identify as something.”

This incident highlights the ridiculous clown world we now inhabit—a simple, lighthearted card poking fun at a cultural trope is deemed offensive enough to be instantly purged nationwide and pulped out of existence. 

#WordPorridge pic.twitter.com/dWsMYtlJQ2

— Steve Perks (@PerksyS) September 26, 2020

The card is clearly a harmless jest, yet it’s being treated as a grave threat. Meanwhile Trans ideology, in addition to being utterly devoid of humor and intent on policing every corner of thought and language, is also riddled with mentally unstable individuals, as well as extremists intent on violence.

These activists tyrannically force everyone else to adopt their invented pronouns and terminology, and aggressively push to silence and punish anyone who dares to not comply.

Look no further than the case of Irish teacher Enoch Burke, who was jailed for contempt after refusing to use preferred pronouns and defying a court order to stay away from his school. It’s a chilling example of how dissent is criminalised under the guise of “inclusivity.”

Grown adults can’t buy the Christmas card because it’s deemed “offensive,” however your kids are subjected to television and online programming completely saturated with pro-transgender ideology whether you like it or not.

In this festive fiasco, the real Grinches are the ones stealing joy from Christmas, demanding conformity while crushing free expression. The card’s removal isn’t about protecting anyone—it’s about enforcing ideological obedience, where even a cartoon character can’t escape the wrath of the trans mob.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/19/2025 - 03:30

Russian Border Guards Breach Estonian Territory, Ambassador Summoned

Estonia's foreign ministry said Thursday that it would summon Russia's ambassador to "demand an explanation" after Russian border guards allegedly breached the sovereign territory of Estonia.

Government officials described that three Russian border guards briefly crossed into Estonian territory the previous day, with CCTV footage having captured the incursion along the Narva River, which forms part of the border between Estonia and Russia.

via Associated Press

The crossing reportedly took place around 10am near the village of Vasknarva, after the guards disembarked from a  hovercraft and advance on foot.

Estonia’s Interior Minister Igor Taro noted the incident posed no immediate security risk, but described that police and border guard patrols had since been significantly reinforced and remain on high alert.

Following the border breach incident, which is said to have taken place for some twenty minutes on Wednesday, the Russian guards returned to their hovercraft and headed back toward the Russian side of the river.

It happened quickly enough for alerted Estonian guards to be unable to apprehend the three Russians.

An Estonian official subsequently said, "The incident has been recorded by surveillance equipment, and an initial inspection was also carried out on the breakwater. An official contact has been established with the border representative of the Russian Federation to obtain explanations."

The motives for the Russian side remain unclear, and whether or not the incident was unintentional:

In recent years, Estonia has raised questions about the personnel employed by the Russian authorities.

"One concern we have with the Russian border guard is that the quality of their personnel has become extremely inconsistent in recent years – for understandable reasons – they no longer have regular staff. People are being brought in from other regions. This has been a recurring problem," Taro said.

When asked why the border guards were not detained, Taro said they had already returned to Russian territory before that could happen. "We are not in a position to go into the depths of Russia to apprehend them," he said.

This isn't the first border incident which alarmed Estonia and NATO allies. Back in October, the Estonian government and media loudly complained about mysterious armed men which showed up on the Baltic country's border on the Russian side.

BREAKING: Three Russian border guards crossed into Estonian territory for around 20 minutes on Wednesday, Estonia said. pic.twitter.com/mc0nGAqZra

— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) December 18, 2025

Some Western observers have claimed this is all part of a series of intentional provocations and 'distractions' to keep European allies from focusing on arming and aiding Ukraine. There's also been speculation these could have been troops from PMC Wagner or another mercenary outfit. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/19/2025 - 02:45

Broken Britain

Authored by Andrew Ash via The Gatestone Institute,

There is a curious sense of minority entitlement which seems to have grown exponentially in recent years. It was absent when my father migrated from Egypt to England in the last century and met my mother. Although he considered himself a Muslim, he had a somewhat lackadaisical approach to his inherited faith – as did many Westernised Muslims of the time. He was proud of his faith, but he did not place being a Muslim at the forefront of his identity. Like many of his fellow émigrés, he wanted to escape the more oppressive religious aspects of his home country.

Occasionally he would visit one of England's seven mosques, which adequately serviced the needs of the fifty thousand Muslims at the time. The West was still largely ignorant of Islam. Britain's grasp of what it represented was minimal, to say the least, but my father did not move to England in the expectation that its denizens were fluent in Muslim culture or that there would be a mosque on every street. He did not feel that his human rights, by not being specifically catered to, were being violated. It was quite enough to find accommodation and work, rather than inventing grievances.

The thought of complaining, or being a victim, would have seemed incongruous to him -- presuming there had been anyone to complain to -- because, he said, at last he felt free.

He was not alone in thinking this way. As my family grew, my father made friends with other Muslim migrants and their families, who felt the same as he did.

Playing a "victim card" would have been deemed not only impolite and unappreciative, but woefully narcissistic. If any Muslim pressure groups or support networks had existed, he would most certainly have shunned them. Like many of his generation, he was far too proud to wish to appear needy. He even refused anything the fledgling benefits system had to offer, despite -- as our family grew -- being eligible for help. It would have been an affront to him to ask for assistance or even to have someone speak up on his behalf. He certainly did not want my (English) mother to wear a burka or a hijab.

Even their Muslim "nikah" marriage was for the sake of convenience. Like everyone else who takes up residence in a foreign country, he wanted, more than anything, simply to fit in and improve his lot in his new, adopted home.

In many of the Arab countries from which the friends of our family had migrated -- from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Tunisia -- being deeply religious was a job. It was for scholars. He was not in the slightest bit offended by the predominantly Christian culture around him. There were no special interest advocates to stir the sediment and cause resentment -- from either England or the Middle East. Muslim immigrants of the time, like my father, just wanted to get along with as little disruption as possible.

Since then, a multiculturalism experiment has grown. Thanks largely to the introduction of separating people by identity politics, ethnic communities -- groups rather than individuals -- now find themselves encouraged to compete for recognition and reward. Not just amongst themselves; they have, perhaps unwittingly, found themselves pitted not only against one another, but also against the indigenous working-class families at the lower end of Britain's socio-economic scale. It is these dispossessed communities for whom I feel the most. It is they who bear the brunt of what they see as the unfair, discriminatory practices stacked up against them.

How could seeing Muslim immigrants receiving preferential treatment from the government that allows them to exploit the welfare system not act as a catalyst for division and anger? For example, polygamy might be legal in their home country, but this is most certainly not the custom in Britain. However, polygamous marriages are not only overlooked, they are rewarded by way of benefit payments to "wives" who may not even reside in the UK.

My father would have thought it was a bad joke if someone had suggested to him that 'halal' meat should be used in fast food outlets just to appease a Muslim minority. Yet this is exactly what has happened.

There are numerous examples of "controversial" planning decisions that regularly go the way of the Muslim applicant, such as providing "retrospective permission" for a "Muslim" cemetery.

For a local council to allow retrospective planning permission, as most householders in the UK will attest to, is no easy task. When it appears to have been sanctioned, and backdated by more than fifteen years -- as in Worcester Muslim cemetery -- head-scratching ensues. To then discover the permission was granted by a Muslim councillor whose first name is "Allah" -- the optics are, understandably, rather questionable.

There are so many other examples of "bad optics" -- the state's seemingly biased decision-making when British Muslims' interests are at stake. By reacting to them, one is quickly labelled "racist" or "xenophobic" -- exacerbating the problem. It is clear why my father was careful to avoid such conflicts. It does not make for a happy society when one exasperates one's neighbours in such a cavalier fashion. Neither should it take a genius to understand that apparent favouritism, be it in a family, the school playground, or in society as a whole, creates a breeding ground of resentment and discontent.

Either our successive governments have been bereft of geniuses, or there is something else at play. Certainly, if people wish to discuss the impact of the out-of-control immigration system that has led us to this point, the authorities do not seem to be even slightly interested. Instead, they are told that they are not entitled to play the victim card, so freely utilised by the minority groups. Their "white privilege" supposedly precludes them from sympathy.

Strange, then, that this huge swathe of allegedly "privileged" people continues to become increasingly disadvantaged -- deprivileged -- as the ever-expanding Muslim communities of Britain prosper. Not only do they have their religious needs catered to -- as in the above examples -- but also by seeming to receive special treatment regarding the welfare system, as well as special protection by the expansion of hate crime laws.

British Muslims, along with a variety of other minorities, have come to realise that there is currency in claiming victimhood. There are rewards to be found in appearing helpless, a label which my father -- and his generation of proud Muslim migrants -- would have found demeaning and insulting, at best.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/19/2025 - 02:00

Ghislaine Maxwell Asks Court To Overturn Convictions, Citing 'Newly Discovered Evidence'

Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell on Wednesday asked a federal court to toss out her sex trafficking convictions and resulting 20-year prison sentence, citing "newly discovered evidence." 

Ghislaine Maxwell, longtime associate of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, speaks at a news conference at the United Nations in New York on June 25, 2013. UNTV via Reuters

Maxwell convicted in December 20211 in New York state on five counts of sex trafficking, including conspiracy to traffic minors. She is now roughly 3.5 years into her 20-year sentence, and will be 75-years-old when released assuming she serves her full term with no reduction for parole or other legal changes. 

Maxwell, who is representing herself, filed a habeas corpus petition with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York - which allows a prisoner to challenge their detention. Such petitions, which means "you have the body" in Latin, are common from inmates who claim their federally protected rights were violated. 

As Epoch Times notes further, many of the issues raised in the new petition were dealt with at her original trial or in subsequent appeals.

“Since the conclusion of her trial, substantial new evidence has emerged from related civil actions, Government disclosures, investigative reports, and documents demonstrating constitutional violations that undermined the fairness of her proceedings,” the petition says.

“This newly available evidence—derived from litigation against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, various financial institutions, and the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as from sworn depositions, released records, and other verified sources—shows that exculpatory information was withheld, false testimony presented, and material facts misrepresented to the jury and the Court,” the petition says.

Evidence that was previously unavailable to Maxwell has since surfaced that should render her conviction “invalid, unsafe and infirm,” the petition says.

Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Audrey Strauss announces charges against Ghislaine Maxwell in New York on July 2, 2020. Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images

The petition states that Maxwell is raising “nine principal grounds for relief,” and that each ground is backed by newly discovered or previously suppressed evidence.

On Oct. 6, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to take up Maxwell’s appeal. In her petition to that court, she argued that the federal government violated an immunity deal when it prosecuted her.

Maxwell’s filing comes as the Dec. 19 deadline established under the recently enacted Epstein Files Transparency Act approaches.

The federal statute requires the U.S. Department of Justice to release all unclassified records and investigative materials related to Epstein and his sex trafficking network by the deadline.

The department is allowed to make redactions to safeguard the privacy of victims or to shield ongoing investigations.

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/18/2025 - 23:50

The C5 Would Be A Pragmatic Format For Managing The Global Systemic Transition

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Regular consultations between the US, China, Russia, India, and Japan on the emerging world order would help jointly manage issues as they arise and therefore reduce the chances of uncontrollable systemic instability during this sensitive moment when one wrong move could unleash global chaos.

Defense One was the first to report on the supposed existence of a “Core 5” (C5) proposal in the allegedly classified version of the US’ new National Security Strategy.

It would comprise the US, China, Russia, India, and Japan, who’d regularly meet to discuss issues of global significance.

The EU would conspicuously be excluded, presumably because the US finally realized that it’s now an ideologically driven organization that revels in grandstanding and rarely gets anything of importance done nowadays.

Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin assessed that India would balance between the C5’s de facto Sino-Russo and US-Japanese factions for facilitating tangible progress on the issues that they’d address.

About them, Defense One reported that the first point on their agenda would be “Middle East security—specifically, normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.”

Economic, financial, and other geopolitical issues would likely end up on the table of this Asian-centric unofficial UNSC too with time.

This segues into the purpose of the C5 proposal, namely to reform Global Governance in a practical way keeping in mind Asia’s rising role therein and the UNSC’s limitations brought about by its permanent members’ veto power. Expanding the number of permanent members would simply extend the UNSC’s working sessions to give everyone the chance to speak while exacerbating the group’s dysfunction if new permanent members also receive veto power (whether right away or after some time).

Moreover, Russia won’t agree to World War II’s German and Japanese losers joining as permanent members while China won’t agree to its historical Japanese enemy nor long-time Indian rival joining either, so the C5’s inclusion of Japan and India is a way to informally involve them in Global Governance. Excluding Germany and the rest of Europe is meant to signal that the US is serious about getting things done as well as massage the Asian members’ egos by reinforcing the notion of an Asian Century.

Given the C5’s intended function as an Asian-centric unofficial UNSC, its responsibilities wouldn’t conflict with BRICS’, the G7’s, or the G20’s but complement them by setting their respective agendas.

To get to the point where this reported proposal becomes politically viable, however, the US must first and foremost enter into a “New Détente” with Russia upon the end of the Ukrainian Conflict, the path to which readers can learn more about from this six-part series here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Other obstacles include US and Japanese sanctions on Russia, the lack of a peace treaty between Russia and Japan for ending their dimension of World War II, new Sino-Japanese tensions over Taiwan, and difficult ties between China, India, and the US.

The C5 could only take shape if these are resolved or set aside in the interests of the greater good and only in the event of a Russian-US “New Détente”.

If all that happens, which is far from guaranteed and would take time in any case, then Russia stands to benefit.

Politically, Russia would be part of an exclusive club for setting all other international groups’ agendas; economically, it could more easily leverage its resource wealth to receive high technology from the other members, including AI in exchange for letting them set up data centers that would be powered and cooled by its nearly limitless hydroelectric potential; and strategically, Russia would jointly shape the emerging world order. The Alt-Media Community therefore shouldn’t rule out Russia’s participation.

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/18/2025 - 23:25

China Begins Granting General Licenses For Rare Earths As Trade Tensions Cool

The tit-for-tat trade war between the US and China earlier this year cooled by late October after President Trump and President Xi agreed to a trade truce that, so far, appears to be holding.

There are early signs that the truce is beginning to restore rare earth trade between China and the West, as Beijing has started approving some rare earth export license applications this week.

Bloomberg reported that the Ministry of Commerce has approved some rare earth export applications, signaling an easing of supply constraints for overseas buyers, including those in the European Union.

EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic told Bloomberg TV earlier this week that industry chatter suggests China is granting so-called general licenses, a shift from a highly bureaucratic process introduced in April that threatened to disrupt major German automakers and other key industries. Licenses valid for up to a year are being granted and seen as a way to reduce delays and administrative burdens.

"We are getting initial reports from our industry that they are getting these general licenses, but we need to have a little bit more granular information to evaluate the whole process," Sefcovic said.

He said the EU has increased efforts to secure general licenses from China that would allow pre-approved buyers to make repeated shipments of rare earths over time.

The general license involves less paperwork than the previous licenses, which required companies to submit excessive paperwork and even photos of their detailed supply chain data.

"The fact that this idea was favorably received, that it seems we are getting the first general licenses, and also that the Chinese side was receptive to our arguments" that the process originally set up in April was too bureaucratic, Sefcovic noted.

Since April, China has approved about 70% of license requests, up from roughly 50% earlier. While the Trump-Xi trade truce eased some pressure on global supplies, China's licensing process underscores just how strong Beijing's chokehold is on these critical minerals essential to robots, military hardware, electric vehicles, aircraft, and other technologies.

It's clear that China has used its mineral dominance as a key bargaining chip in trade talks with Washington and the West. And that's why the Trump administration is moving full steam ahead with rebuilding America's rare-earth supply chain.

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/18/2025 - 23:00

Amid Retirement Challenges, Younger Generations Show Hope

Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times,

Americans of all ages increasingly view a comfortable retirement as a challenge, according to recent studies.

From baby boomers nearing their final paycheck, Gen X being late to the savings game, and millennials with employment-sponsored plans to Gen Z grappling with artificial intelligence (AI) on the first rungs of the career ladder, the challenges and outlook for each generation are very different.

Wealth management experts told The Epoch Times that the reality will likely mean lifestyle changes for many before and during their golden years. Laying out the pitfalls and opportunities for each, they also warn that some of the current expectations about certain generations might not hold true.

With more than 30 million Americans estimated to reach the age of 65 by 2030, according to Nasdaq, the road after retirement will be rocky for those who aren’t financially prepared.

In December, investment company Vanguard released a report that found that 58 percent of Americans will be unable to maintain their current lifestyles in retirement.

“The study primarily focused on an important metric: maintenance of their lifestyle in retirement. As a fiduciary retirement planner, I believe this is the most important metric to consider,” said Paul Murray, president of PTM Wealth Management.

“No one really wants to live on a tight budget after a lifetime of work.”

The Vanguard report also suggests that younger age groups and millennials may be better prepared for retirement than baby boomers because of wider access to defined contribution plans and better employer-sponsored options.

Murray disagrees, saying that the report is an “optimistic snapshot in time that is bound to be revised downward into the future.”

He said he believes that younger generations, including Gen Z and millennials, are more likely to struggle to define an acceptable living standard as the employment landscape changes, especially because of advances in technology.

He said most of the baby boomers he has worked with have maintained a “strong commitment” to saving in employer-sponsored plans.

“I consider baby boomers to have been fortunate to have accumulated wealth in a comparatively less complicated world, benefiting from the conservative values their parents passed on to them,” Murray told The Epoch Times.

“Vicinte,” who had been waiting in line overnight, prepares to enter Fresno Mission for food in Fresno, Calif., on Oct. 1, 2025. A December Vanguard report found 58 percent of Americans will not be able to maintain their current lifestyle in retirement. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

The ‘Steady Savers’

Esmeralda Quintero, wealth management adviser at Iarann Wealth, said that younger generations tend to “look more prepared on paper.”

“Many of them started saving earlier through auto-enrollment and easy access to Roth accounts,” she told The Epoch Times.

“They grew up hearing about market crashes and shaky pensions, so they’re more aware than older generations were at the same age.”

However, awareness isn’t the same as action, according to Quintero.

“Gen Z spends a lot on lifestyle, travel, and convenience. If they don’t start building habits in their 20s—into 401k, Roth IRA, regular investing—they could fall behind quickly,” she said.

“From what I see with clients, millennials are the most steady savers. They’ve built discipline because they’ve lived through multiple economic shocks. Gen X is trying the hardest to catch up because retirement is getting close. The least prepared tend to be late boomers who didn’t have strong retirement plans early in their careers,” Quintero said.

Chris Heerlein, CEO of retirement planning firm REAP Financial, had a similar take, noting that millennials and Gen Z are better savers than some would expect.

Students walk on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill campus in Chapel Hill, N.C., on Sept. 20, 2024. Paul Murray, who leads a wealth management firm, says younger generations may struggle to define an acceptable living standard as the employment landscape changes, especially because of advances in technology. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

“Young generations are more financially prepared because they separate their identities from their incomes,” Heerlein told The Epoch Times.

He said he believes that the large debt held by older generations stemmed from associating self-worth with earnings, climbing a ladder, and upgrading their lifestyles at each stage of the journey.

“Younger workers these days, for all the criticism they get, tend to cap their lifestyles at an earlier stage and begin redirecting income into long-term savings earlier,” Heerlein said.

Manulife John Hancock Retirement’s financial resilience and longevity survey found that 56 percent of Gen X feel as if they’re behind in their retirement savings, while 70 percent of Gen Z said they’re focused on day-to-day expenses.

While financial planners may be bullish about younger workers saving money, these age groups don’t appear to harbor the same level of confidence.

The Manulife analysis noted that 52 percent of Gen Z and 53 percent of millennials rate their finances as either fair or poor. By contrast, 49 percent of Gen X and 34 percent of baby boomers felt the same.

Longer Life, Bigger Nest Egg?

Part of this gloomy outlook comes from how many years people expect to spend outside the workforce. Last year, a Corebridge Financial survey highlighted that many Americans expect to live longer, shifting the perspective on how much is needed to survive their golden years.

Half of U.S. residents think it’s possible to live for 100 years. However, Corebridge Financial stated that there’s a “clear disconnect” between longevity optimism and retirement planning. Half of the non-retired respondents are only planning for 20 years or less of retirement, but most don’t intend to work beyond their early 60s.

The reality of retirement savings takes on a different focus for Gen X and baby boomers. According to a 2024 AARP survey, one in every five Americans older than 50 years of age has nothing saved for retirement, while 61 percent are worried that they won’t have enough money to support themselves outside their working years.

Customers use ATMs at a Bank of America office in Daly City, Calif., on July 18, 2023. According to a 2024 AARP survey, one in every five Americans over 50 years had nothing saved for retirement. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

“Every adult in America deserves to retire with dignity and financial security. Yet far too many people lack access to retirement savings options and this, coupled with higher prices, is making it increasingly hard for people to choose when to retire,” Indira Venkateswaran, AARP senior vice president of research, stated on the organization’s website.

“Everyday expenses continue to be the top barrier to saving more for retirement, and some older Americans say that they never expect to retire,” she said.

Optimism improved this year for younger generations, according to AARP’s Financial Security Trends Survey.

Among adults older than the age of 30, 26 percent reported their financial situation in January was better than 12 months earlier—the largest segment that expressed this since the survey began in 2022.

That said, one in four U.S. residents in the same age group said their financial situation got worse during the same period.

Different Generations, Different Pressures

Vanguard’s own researchers called their analysis “pessimistic” in comparison to other recent retirement reports because of growing levels of personal debt across the age spectrum.

Vanguard predicted the median-income individual will suffer an annual spending shortfall of $5,000 after retirement. If this is true, then many will be forced to fall back on other assets, Social Security, or even return to the workforce to maintain the same lifestyle.

Murray, Quintero, and Heerlein all said a $5,000 spending shortfall is realistic based on the savings trends they’ve seen and inflated living costs.

“For some households, it may be more, especially with health care and rising living costs. Many people will need to work longer, spend differently, or use home equity. The biggest barriers to retirement are housing costs, debt, inconsistent access to employer plans, and rising medical expenses,” Quintero said.

Students arrive at Nora Sterry Elementary School with a parent in Los Angeles on Jan. 15, 2025. The biggest barriers to retirement are housing costs, debt, inconsistent access to employer plans, and rising medical expenses, one expert said. Chris Delmas/AFP via Getty Images

“Each generation deals with a different version of that. Gen Z faces expensive housing and a shaky job market. Millennials are juggling debt and delayed homeownership. Gen X is squeezed between raising kids and supporting aging parents. Boomers are dealing with longevity and health care shocks.”

Heerlein said lifestyle adjustments on paper are more than just numbers.

“I think what people underestimate is the emotional stress that it causes. I’ve seen retired people avoid seeing their grandkids or skip little trips because they don’t know if their budget allows it,” he said.

Some of this shortfall stems from what Heerlein called “decision overload.”

“The typical family has a bunch of different accounts thrown here and there. More often than not, people are embarrassed to admit they don’t know what’s going on with all of them,” he said.

In his work, Heerlein said baby boomers often look at all these separate parts and feel overwhelmed trying to figure out how to turn them into a paycheck-like income.

U.S. dollar bills in Washington on Nov. 13, 2025. With record demand on Social Security and Medicare and record national debt, Paul Murray expects taxes to rise across the board. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

His Gen X clients say they feel like they’re being crushed from all sides because many are taking care of their own finances along with that of their parents.

Are Taxes the Biggest Threat?

Murray said he believes that the most impactful lifestyle adjustment for Americans won’t come from a lack of fiscal belt-tightening before retirement but higher taxes.

“The biggest and most profound reason why future generations are threatened is taxes,” he said.

With the national debt surpassing a record $38 trillion in 2025, alongside record-high demands on Social Security and Medicare, Murray said he expects taxes will likely increase across the board.

“The reason why this is so critical ... is because Gen Z and millennials are still largely saving in tax-deferred accounts, and every dollar they remove in retirement to maintain their standard of living will be subject to income tax. As taxes increase to mitigate our country’s fiscal decline, there will be less after-tax spending power,” he said.

Ultimately, Quintero said addressing retirement plans on the front end is the best strategy.

“Every group has a hurdle, but the earlier someone starts addressing theirs, the better their retirement looks,” she said.

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/18/2025 - 22:35

"Largest Ever Retail Theft Ring" In Queens Busted After Stealing $2.2 Million From Home Depot

Prosecutors in Queens say they have dismantled what they describe as the largest organized retail theft ring ever prosecuted in the borough, after a crew allegedly stole more than $2.2 million worth of merchandise from Home Depot stores across nine states, according to ABC. 

Thirteen people were charged in a sweeping 780-count indictment that accuses the group of carrying out 319 thefts at 128 Home Depot locations in New York and eight other states. On some days, prosecutors say, the crew stole as little as $1,800 in goods and as much as nearly $35,000. Authorities said the volume of stolen tools and construction equipment was enough to “build an unknown number of houses.”

Investigators allege the defendants met in Queens to plan their thefts, then split into teams that scouted store inventories online the night before targeting specific locations. The stolen merchandise was transported back to Queens and resold, either through a Brooklyn storefront or on Facebook Marketplace. According to prosecutors, the group sometimes hit the same Home Depot up to four times in a single day, taking breaks for meals in between.

Governor Kathy Hochul and Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz announced the takedown Thursday. “Since taking office, my highest priority has been driving down crime and keeping New Yorkers safe,” Hochul said, crediting new funding for an organized retail theft task force and tougher laws for helping bring the case together. She said the effort has made New York safer for businesses, workers and shoppers.

Katz outlined the scope of the case, saying, “Thirteen defendants, over $2.2 million in merchandise, 319 incidents of theft, nine states and 128 separate Home Depot stores are the facts alleged, resulting in a 780-count indictment.” She added that her office worked closely with state police to stop the operation.

Hochul said changes to larceny laws allowed investigators to combine multiple thefts, elevating cases from misdemeanors to felonies. “Since we changed the laws and put money behind this effort, retail theft crimes are down 14% in the city and across the state of New York,” she said.

Eleven of the suspects appeared before a judge Wednesday. One defendant remains at large, and the others face up to 25 years in prison if convicted. Katz said the arrests send a clear warning: “The message today is organized retail crime will not go unanswered in this borough.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/18/2025 - 22:10

Why Governments Prefer Cigarette Revenue Over Safer Alternatives

Authored by Roger Bate via The Brownstone Institute,

In December 2024, Congress did something unusual: it introduced a bill that openly acknowledges tobacco harm reduction. The POUCH Act of 2024, sponsored by Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI) and co-sponsored by Rep. Don Davis (D-NC), aims to prevent states and cities from banning or restricting FDA–authorized lower-risk products, including modern nicotine pouches and vaping products.

It is a modest bill, but one that finally moves federal policy in a sensible direction. The basic premise is straightforward: if the FDA has determined that a product is appropriate for the protection of public health, states should not be allowed to ban it for political, fiscal, or ideological reasons. This should not be a radical idea, but within the chaos of American nicotine regulation, it almost counts as revolutionary.

However, the bill also reveals a deeper truth about why the United States struggles so badly with harm reduction. It exposes the forces that keep smokers tied to cigarettes, protect government revenue streams, and effectively eliminate smaller innovators who cannot survive the regulatory gauntlet.

To understand why harm reduction keeps stalling, one must start with a simple reality: state governments make more money from cigarettes than anyone else.

The Real Beneficiary of Smoking: State Treasuries

Public-health activists often blame “Big Tobacco,” but the largest financial beneficiary of smoking in the US is the state itself. For every $100 spent on cigarettes, state coffers typically collect between $60 and $90 through excise taxes, sales taxes, and payments from the Master Settlement Agreement. States have built enormous, stable revenue streams on the backs of smokers.

When a smoker switches to nicotine pouches, the state does not merely lose some revenue—it loses most of it immediately. A switch from combustibles to pouches can cut state revenue from around $60–$90 per $100 spent to as little as five or ten dollars. No wonder state governments resist harm reduction. Pouches are good for public health but bad for the budget.

This is where Upton Sinclair’s observation becomes newly relevant: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” State treasuries do not want to internalize the logic of harm reduction because doing so would mean confronting the fiscal consequences of their dependence on cigarette revenue.

Why the POUCH Act Matters—And Why It Falls Short

The POUCH Act curbs state-level obstruction by instructing governments to respect the FDA’s scientific determinations. If the FDA authorizes a nicotine pouch or vape as appropriate for the protection of public health, it should not be banned by states that prefer the revenue from cigarettes. This restores a basic principle of regulatory coherence.

Yet the bill does not address the more fundamental failure at the federal level: the misclassification of nicotine pouches under the Center for Tobacco Products. Nicotine pouches contain no tobacco leaf, produce no smoke, involve no combustion, and have a toxicological profile closer to nicotine replacement therapies. Treating them like cigarettes is scientifically wrong and administratively harmful.

The FDA’s Pre-Market Tobacco Application process, designed for a different era, demands millions of dollars in data, toxicology, modeling, and population-level analysis. Large cigarette companies can afford these submissions. Smaller and mid-sized innovators cannot. Many have spent years in regulatory limbo, not because their products are unsafe, but because the agency reviewing them is structurally incapable of seeing the bigger picture. Regulators delay, request more studies, and fail to differentiate between high-risk and low-risk products.

In this environment, only the largest incumbents can survive long enough to receive FDA authorizations. Small companies fold. Their products vanish not due to safety failures but because the regulatory system is built in a way that privileges the deep-pocketed.

The irony is obvious: the more the FDA insists on treating safer products like cigarettes, the more it guarantees that cigarette companies will remain the dominant players in the nicotine market.

A Needed Next Step: Remove Nicotine Pouches from FDA-CTP Completely

If Congress wants to support adult switching, it must eventually reform the regulatory structure itself. Nicotine pouches should not be overseen by the Center for Tobacco Products. They should be subject to a proportionate regulatory framework—age restrictions, manufacturing standards, disclosures, contaminant testing—but not a system designed for combustibles.

Treating pouches like cigarettes guarantees two outcomes: slower harm-reduction adoption and consolidation of the market into a few multinational tobacco firms.

Treating pouches like modern consumer products supports innovation, competition, and switching.

The Bigger Picture: The POUCH Act Opens a Door Congress Must Walk Through

The POUCH Act is a step in the right direction. It attempts to return a measure of coherence to nicotine regulation by ensuring that states cannot override the FDA’s public-health judgments. It forces transparency around the FDA’s enormous backlog of applications. And it signals a small but important bipartisan recognition that harm reduction matters.

But if Congress wants to truly reduce smoking, it must address the system as a whole: the fiscal incentives that encourage states to keep smokers smoking, the misclassification that traps low-risk products in an inappropriate regulatory category, and the procedural delays that quietly eliminate small innovators while protecting only those companies wealthy enough to outlast the bureaucracy.

The POUCH Act is a beginning, not an endpoint. If lawmakers are serious about improving public health, they must resist the gravitational pull of the Sinclair Trap and design a nicotine policy that rewards switching rather than punishing it.

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/18/2025 - 21:45

Tennessee Christmas Parade Blocks Participation Of Gay Pride Group

The culture war in the US is far from over, but it's probably safe to say that most Americans are fed up with gay pride.  Without the flood of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to leftist NGOs from institutions like USAID, the prevalence of LGBT propaganda has gone into decline compared to the past five years. 

In 2025 "Pride Month" was barely a blip on the gaydar and most corporations desperate to bring back consumers have abandoned their overt woke marketing.  However, one odd tactic that leftist activists have been clinging to is the injection of pride ideology into Christian tradition.  Many critics argue that it is a blatant attempt to co-opt western religion and destroy it from within.

Enfield United Church of Christ pastor Greg Gray says Jesus Christ was “pretty queer” because he hung out with 12 guys pic.twitter.com/4oRXScbAvw

— Daily Loud (@DailyLoud) August 15, 2025

The movement has not limited itself to fake churches with "gay pastors", they have also been targeting Christmas events and symbolism.  By saturating every aspect of American life LGBT groups hope to normalize their ideology, but they are really just pissing people off.  The public, no longer fearing reprisals from the cancel culture mob, are finally saying no.  

A Tennessee Christmas parade organization has recently denied the application of a group called "Upper Cumberland Pride" who planned on entering a gay-themed float.  Pride groups were allowed to participate in the parade in 2024.  

The Cookeville Christmas Parade organization said in a statement that it rejected the application to avoid political distractions. 

“Our goal from the beginning has been to point others to the reason for the holiday that we are celebrating. We wanted to make much of the person of Jesus born in Bethlehem. To do so and in efforts to minimize distraction from Him, we planned this event with stated prohibitions of special interest groups. Although we agree there is a time and an important role played by special interest groups such as Upper Cumberland Pride, we didn’t think this was it."

The parade also rejected an application from a Young Republicans group, keeping politics out of the event on both sides of the aisle.  The Cookeville Christmas Parade is scheduled for Friday and this year’s theme is “Remember the Reason.”

LGBT activists argue that the rejection of their float is contrary to the Christian doctrine of "love thy neighbor."  Others called for a more inclusive "holiday" parade next year that would "represent all faiths."   Imagine what would happen if activists living in an Islamic country demanded that Muslims be more accommodating to other religions and gay pride for Ramadan?  

It should be noted that public sympathy for LGBT causes is plunging due to the extreme nature of trans ideology, including the targeting of children for indoctrination.  According to the latest YouGov poll, support for gay marriage has dropped dramatically; over 70% of Americans supported legal gay marriage in 2021, but in 2025 that number has dropped to 54%.   

Woke adherents use the claim that Christianity is required to be accepting as a means of manipulation, but the reality is that the Bible is rather specific on the exclusion of homosexuality.  Furthermore, Christians believe in "loving the sinner, but rejecting the sin."  That is to say, they believe in repentance and redemption, not enabling behaviors they view as degenerate.

This concept is completely alien to progressives, who believe that all behaviors and morals are relative and that the only true sin is to disagree with them.

For most leftists the forced injection of gay pride in Christian spaces is about conquest, not inclusion.  Like dogs marking their territory, they are letting conservatives know that no place is safe from their movement.  There's no other reason for them to attempt to participate in traditions they so vocally despise.  

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/18/2025 - 21:20

US & China Are Headed For An AI Collision

Authored by Oren Etzioni via American Greatness,

President Trump spoke by phone to his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, on Monday, November 24, and later posted on Truth Social, “Our relationship with China is extremely strong!”

The warm feelings from Washington came on the heels of the two leaders holding a productive meeting in Korea recently and scheduling several more get-confabs for the year ahead.

But bubbling beneath the surface is a rivalry between the two countries over the most vital technology of the 21st century: artificial intelligence.

To understand the rivalry, consider a recent announcement by the U.S. Justice Department: on November 20, it charged two Americans and two Chinese nationals with a conspiracy to illegally export about 400 high-performance graphics processing units (GPUs) to China.

Federal law requires that a license be secured for the export of these technologies, which can be used to develop and strengthen AI.

The co-conspirators didn’t have a license – and never even applied for one. In fact, they lied about the destination of the GPUs when shipping them. And for their services, they received a cool $3.89 million in wire transfers from China.

The backdrop to this smuggling scheme is Beijing having set a goal for China to be the world’s leader in AI by 2030. And it’s made considerable headway.

“China is the global leader in AI research publications and is neck and neck with the United States on generative AI,” points out the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

It adds that China is “advancing rapidly in AI research and application, challenging the United States’ dominance in this critical field.”

This progress stems from massive investments by the Chinese government in the 21st century. From 2000 to 2023, venture capital funds connected to the Chinese government made $184 billion in investments in China-based companies in the AI sector, according to a study published last year and conducted by professors at Harvard, MIT, and Oxford.

In an amusing coincidence of timing, one day after the smuggling indictment, Huawei – a leading Chinese technology company – announced a tool called Flex:ai that it said, “improves the utilization of artificial intelligence-based chipsets.”

The announcement also made the obligatory nod to corporate citizenship, saying that the technology will “speed up the democratization of AI.” But the company buried the lede, as they say in journalism, saving the most important detail – which is curiously attributed to “sources” – for the final sentence: “the new software tool will help China create an analogue AI chip 1000 times faster than Nvidia’s chips.”

Huawei is not just any company. It is the world’s largest manufacturer of telecommunications equipment. And it’s also been engaged in the kind of skullduggery that resulted in the recent indictment. In 2020, the U.S. Justice Department indicted the company and four of its subsidiaries. The charges mostly revolved around attempts to steal trade secrets from U.S. companies.

The company used an array of tactics, but perhaps most brazen of all, it paid its employees bonuses if they procured confidential information from rival companies.

And when U.S. law enforcement was investigating Huawei, the company told its employees not to comply.

Suffice to say, there’s good reason not to trust the Chinese government and its proxy companies like Huawei.

The Trump administration recognizes the threat.

In late June, it wisely approved a merger between two American companies that compete with Huawei: Hewlett-Packard Enterprises and Juniper Networks. A senior U.S. national security official told Axios:

 “In light of significant national security concerns, a settlement . . . serves the interests of the United States by strengthening domestic capabilities and is critical to countering Huawei and China.”

The official said blocking the deal would have “hindered American companies and empowered” Chinese competitors.

Given the economic importance of AI to countries throughout the world, the competition between the United States and China is regrettable. But it’s probably also inevitable.

China is not abiding by the rules that are supposed to govern the global economy. And it’s using AI, says the Justice Department, to bolster its military, to test weapons of mass destruction, and to heighten surveillance.

Sometime next year, President Trump is scheduled to make a state visit to Beijing, and Xi is scheduled to come to Washington. They’re destined to focus on the cooperative parts of the relationship, but you don’t need to ask ChatGPT to see that the two countries are on a collision course over AI. Buckle up.

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/18/2025 - 20:55

Hysterical Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Declares Trump Larger Threat Than Islamic Terrorism

The Democrat Party has taken a break from comparing President Donald Trump to Adof Hitler to warn that the president is a larger threat to the United States than Islamic jihad.

The hysterical remarks came during a Tuesday appearance on NewsNation's "On Balance," where host Leland Vittert asked Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) whether Islamophobia or jihad posed the larger threat to American life and values, following the recent terror attack targeting Jews at Bondi Beach that killed 15 people and wounded dozens more.

“I think we have to focus, quite frankly, on, if we’re worried about the threat to American values, on the person who’s in the White House. I mean, we have a president,” Schultz, who is Jewish, said. “Yeah, I’m going there because we have a president who has completely undermined our democracy.”

“So you don’t see jihad, you don’t see this as a problem?” a stunned Vittert asked.

Democrat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz says Trump is a bigger threat to America than radical islamic jihadist t*rrorists
pic.twitter.com/R8cIjgVSbj

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 17, 2025

“What I don’t see is it as a single lens problem. We have a president who has been determined to undermine our constitutional principles, to degrade our democracy, to divide instead of unite us,” the Florida Democrat replied.

Wasserman Schultz went on to accuse Trump - often described as one of the most pro-Israel U.S. presidents in recent decades - of permitting antisemitism to grow, citing his 2022 dinner with rapper Kanye West, where anti-MAGA podcaster Nick Fuentes tagged along.

“I want a president who actually walks the walk as much as he talks the talk,” Schultz said. “I want a president that makes sure that we restore the nonprofit security grant funding that protects Jewish institutions and other religious institutions from attacks like we’re talking about here. I want a president who isn’t closing down divisions that investigate discriminatory conduct and antisemitic attacks.”

A White House spokesperson pushed back strongly in a statement to Fox News, saying, “Only someone suffering from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome would make such an outlandish comment.

“Following several recent high-profile cases of Jihadist attacks, no sane person should hesitate to condemn radical Islamic terrorism. Debbie Wasserman Schultz obviously does not fit in that category.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/18/2025 - 20:30