The Slowly Mounting Mineral Shock

Authored by Portia Roberts & Peter Bryant via RealClearEnergy,

China’s latest squeeze on mineral exports - and Washington’s threat of retaliation - ends any illusion that critical minerals are a niche matter. They are the scaffolding of modern society. A nearly bewildering array of minerals are essential for everything from defense technologies to EV dreams to the great race for “dominance” in artificial intelligence. Neither America, nor our allies, extract and refine enough key minerals.

The United States depends on imports for most (in some cases all) key minerals including copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and especially the 17 vital rare earth elements. Without foreign suppliers, we face a shock of varying degrees, from serious to catastrophic, across all industries and services. COVID-driven supply chain disruptions provided a glimpse of what could come. 

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is one of a handful of non-aligned entities that looks at and advises about global critical minerals. Unfortunately, it appears that the IEA either ignores or is naïve about market-shaping realities, including those put in play last week by China. This matters because IEA’s genesis was the 1970s oil shock, tasked with brokering facts to anticipate, if not prevent another such catastrophic event in the future. Instead, IEA’s Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025 should earn a Pollyanna award; it assumes the kinds of needed cooperation, innovation, and capital flows are happening or will. If policymakers mistake that analysis as a blueprint, or as a rationale for inaction or action––as was done by the Biden Administration to justify the LNG-export pause—we could well learn what mineral scarcity looks like. 

China is, as is now well-known, the dominant energy minerals market-shaper. It doesn’t merely mine and refine; it finances, secures offtakes, standardizes chemistries, and wields export controls. It commands a variety of chokepoints that differ for each mineral. In other words, it wields a monopolistic-like ability to manipulate markets. Dominance in the activities that make minerals useful neutralizes efforts to diversify the sources of various minerals. It doesn’t matter if a new mine opens in the US, or a different hemisphere or continent if one country’s investment can control a significant proportion of supply. And as a result China can “dump” so much supply, long enough, into the market to collapse prices that bankrupt competition, cause unprofitable mines to be mothballed, or make planned projects infeasible. 

Nonetheless, new mines, smelters, and refineries are needed. But all face a steep uphill battle for multiple reasons, including what the IEA correctly calls "above-ground risks"—what the mining industry terms "the social license to operate" (SLO). These issues are really opportunities rather than risks, and their importance cannot be overstated. (Although the IEA Outlook understates them). If not properly engaged, dealings with local communities can stall or prevent permitting, or even slow or stop development. This ultimately adds costs, further advantaging China's producers. 

Another overlooked aspect is that it often takes decades for new sites to begin operations. Refining is an inherently energy-intensive and chemical-centric industry, a frankly dirty business. Western firms, and regulations, have long exercised due caution. But it will likely take a great deal of innovation and intense investment for new facilities to meet ever-more stringent environmental standards and costs that don’t again advantage China.

On top of that, an in-the-weeds nuance that is utterly critical: the IEA underplays the long-run decline in ore grades, i.e., the share of the rock that contains the mineral. Existing mines, particularly copper, will require ever more energy and water per ton of metal, creating more tailings waste to manage, more capital expenditure, and thus more delays. Efficiency and recycling can’t come close to doing enough to bridge the looming gap between supply and demand. 

Oil shocks cause price leaps, lines at gas stations, political fallout. Mineral shocks are slow burns, until they’re not. They might initially surface as longer delivery times, stalled grid projects, costlier products––or some with missing features. But if mineral shortages continue, if (limited) stockpiles are exhausted, markets unavoidably face price shocks.

For the United States, the solution has long been known and remains urgent: rebuild end-to-end capability at home and simultaneously, vital for velocity, work with allies (and other friendly resource-endowed countries) on such key areas as geology, mining, refining, and component manufacturing. Streamline permitting without diluting environmental standards. Use different tools such as targeted offtakes, public-private finance and defense authorities to anchor new refineries and processing hubs. And level with voters: everything starts with mining (or farming). If we won’t mine at home or overseas with trusted partners, we will continue to face economic and security fragility—on terms set elsewhere.

The IEA was founded to help prevent energy shocks, not promote policies that make them more likely. In minerals, models that minimize or ignore chokepoints and social license realities will steer the world into the very emergencies we want to avoid. We don’t need aspirational scenarios. We need mineral realism.

Portia Roberts is Policy Director for the National Center for Energy Analytics. 

Peter Bryant is Chairman of Clareo and Key Minerals Forum. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 03:30

E-Waste Is A Literal Gold Mine

This year’s International E-Waste Day, celebrated annually on October 14 to raise awareness about the growing problem of electronic waste and promote responsible e-waste management, focuses on the critical resources contained in e-waste. These days, as some of those materials have become a bargaining chip in geopolitics, it’s more important than ever to recover the valuable resources contained in unused or broken electronic products.

According to the latest edition of the Global E-Waste Monitor – a flagship publication on the topic funded and prepared by the UNITAR SCYCLE Programme, ITU and Fondation Carmignac – global e-waste contained 31 billion kilograms of metals in 2022, including approximately 4 billion kg of metals classified as critical raw materials. And it’s not just from an environmental or political perspective that it makes sense to recover the metals, but also from a financial point of view.

As Statista's Felix Richter sums up in the following chart, the estimated value of metals contained in e-waste in 2022 was $91 billion, with copper, iron, gold and nickel the most valuable components.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Only a fraction, $28 billion, of this value was recovered in 2022, however, with $9 billion worth of metals recovered in documented formal collection and recycling schemes and $12 billion (mostly iron, copper and platinum-group metals) recycled through informal routes in low- and middle-income countries.

According to the report, this is not nearly enough to balance out the negative effects of our current treatment of e-waste, with externalized costs to human health and the environment estimated at $78 billion per year.

All things considered, the authors estimate the overall impact of e-waste management to have been a net cost of approximately $37 billion in 2022 – a cost that could rise to $40 billion annually by 2030 in the business-as-usual scenario.

International E-Waste Day was established in 2018 by the WEEE Forum, an international association of organizations involved in the collection and recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment (or ‘WEEE).

Its aim is to encourage consumers, companies and policymakers to take action in reducing e-waste, improving recycling rates and promoting a more circular economy. Each year, the initiative highlights a specific theme to inspire more sustainable habits worldwide.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 02:45

Only 3% Of Ukrainian Refugees Likely To Return In Worst-Case Scenario, Ifo Study Warns

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

A new study warns that the vast majority of Ukrainian refugees living in Europe may never return home unless Ukraine regains its territory and secures Western security guarantees.

Just 3 percent of Ukrainian refugees in Europe would return to their home country in the most pessimistic post-war scenario, according to a major new working paper by Germany’s Ifo Institute.

The study, based on surveys of 2,543 refugees across 30 European countries, found that territorial integrity and security guarantees are the most decisive factors in shaping return decisions — outweighing economic opportunities and even peace agreements.

The researchers presented refugees with a range of hypothetical post-war conditions, varying factors such as Ukraine’s territorial control, NATO membership, corruption levels, and economic recovery.

They found that the difference between best- and worst-case outcomes is vast: Nearly half of refugees (46.5 percent) would return if Ukraine fully restored its 1991 borders, joined NATO, cut corruption and boosted incomes.

On the other hand, just 2.7 percent would do so if Russia retained most occupied territories, no peace deal was signed, security guarantees were absent, and the economy worsened.

“Territorial integrity is the strongest driver of return intentions,” the authors write, noting that restoring Ukraine’s 1991 borders raises the average probability of return by 10.8 percentage points compared to scenarios where Russia retains control. NATO membership increases return probability by a further 7.1 points, while cutting corruption boosts it by 3.2 points — roughly the same effect as a 20 percent rise in income or the prospect of EU accession.

The study also found significant demographic differences.

Women showed higher overall return intentions than men and were more sensitive to economic and institutional improvements.

Younger refugees, aged 18 to 34, placed more weight on job opportunities, income prospects, and potential EU membership, but their average return probability was just 26.3 percent — a worrying sign for Ukraine’s long-term reconstruction given its low birth rate.

“Credible security arrangements and the restoration of territorial integrity are prerequisites for large-scale voluntary return,” the authors note.

Given that NATO membership and EU membership are currently off the table without unanimity among members — Hungary, for example, proving to be a stumbling block in both instances — the percentage of returnees in reality would likely be at the lower end of the scale, with Ukraine unlikely to achieve the conditions the Ifo Institute identifies as prerequisites for large-scale return.

The realistic return rate is far lower than previous surveys, such as one conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) last year, which revealed that 64 percent of Ukrainian refugees living in Poland, Germany, and Czechia, were satisfied with their new lives and intended to pursue citizenship in their respective host countries.

The longer the conflict drags on, the less likely Ukrainian refugees are to return home, as seen by a February 2023 survey from Germany’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), which revealed 34 percent of respondents would return immediately after the war without qualification.

According to Eurostat data, as of the end of August 2025, 4.37 million Ukrainian refugees were living in the European Union under the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive — equivalent to 9.7 refugees per 1,000 people across the bloc.

Poland and Germany host by far the largest numbers, with 1.21 million and 995,925 respectively, followed by the Czech Republic (385,855) and Italy (171,200).

Substantial Ukrainian populations are also present in Spain (244,165), France (129,350), and Romania (192,835).

At 34.4 per 1,000 persons, Czechia has taken in the most refugees per capita, followed by Poland (27.3) and Estonia (25.4).

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 02:00

In A World Filled With Chaos, There Is Power Within Our Reach To Make A Difference

Authored by Dale Sutherland via The Epoch Times,

Turn on the news, scroll through social media, or glance at the headlines, and the picture can feel overwhelming: wars abroad, political fights at home, and tragedies that seem to strike daily. We’re bombarded with stories of anger, loss, and uncertainty. It’s no wonder many people feel powerless, as though these problems are too big and too far gone for ordinary citizens to make any difference.

Yet history, and everyday life, tell us something different. The truth is, meaningful change rarely begins at a global scale or within the halls of power. More often, it begins quietly, at a household level, when ordinary people decide to act.

A phone call, a meal delivered, or a timely conversation may never make national news, but these moments can ripple outward in ways that change lives for good.

I learned this the hard way during my decades as an undercover narcotics officer in Washington, D.C. My job was to investigate drug operations and bring criminals to justice. On paper, every arrest looked like a success. But after years on the job, I began to realize that arrests alone weren’t changing the deeper problems. Broken families, poverty, and addiction didn’t vanish when one person went to jail. Whole communities still lived with fear and instability.

As a police officer, I knew arrests were necessary. The streets were dangerous, and if we hadn’t done our jobs, the level of violence and homicide would have been far worse. Arrests protected the community, but I also knew that while arresting people could remove them from the streets, it couldn’t change their hearts. 

Those individuals who were arrested still needed a deeper transformation. As a pastor, I’ve seen firsthand that lasting change only comes through faith. As an officer, I could put someone in handcuffs, but as a pastor, I see people truly set free, body, mind, and spirit. 

I’ve learned that this transformation often begins not with punishment but with the presence of people who choose to show up when others are in crisis.

But presence only makes an impact if it’s met with urgency. When someone is brave enough to reach out for help, time matters. If they are met with silence or endless delays, trust evaporates. But if the response is immediate, it sends a message: “You matter, and we will not let you carry this alone.”

Help doesn’t have to be dramatic or expensive to be transformative. I’ve seen families kept afloat with what amounts to a couple hundred dollars, enough to cover groceries, transportation, or a utility bill. To some, that may not seem like much. But to the parent who doesn’t have to choose between food and rent, or to the child who makes it to a doctor’s appointment on time, it means stability, hope, and dignity. 

Our communities are more diverse than ever, which only broadens the opportunities to serve. In Washington, D.C., I’ve witnessed this first-hand through my organization Boost Others, a nonprofit that helps fill the gaps in communities.

We recently met a family from Egypt who had moved to the United States with their four kids, including a 13-year-old daughter with cancer. Transportation to hospital appointments quickly became a crushing burden to this family, that’s where Boost Others stepped in and worked with local partners to provide the family with a car so they could drive their daughter to her treatments.  

Families like this each carry unique burdens, but beneath the surface, their needs are remarkably similar: someone who will hear them, respond with urgency, and someone willing to stand in the gap.

This is where opportunities lie for all of us. You don’t need to run a nonprofit or work in law enforcement to make a difference. You don’t even need to solve every problem. What you can do is take notice. Check in on a neighbor. Offer to give a ride to a medical appointment. Step in when a coworker quietly mentions a financial struggle. Often, the best solutions are simple, and the most powerful impact comes from consistency.

It’s tempting to think that only sweeping policy changes or massive charitable donations will fix what’s broken in our world. But that thinking can paralyze us into doing nothing. The reality is that communities thrive when ordinary people take small steps, again and again. One person can’t solve global chaos, but one person can prevent a family from falling through the cracks. And when enough people adopt that mindset, the collective effect is greater than anything we imagine.

We may not be able to control the headlines, but we can control our response to them.

We can choose compassion over cynicism, presence over passivity, and urgency over delay. In a world that often feels out of control, that is the power within our reach. 

Chaos is global, but change is local. If each of us embraced responsibility in our own neighborhoods, we’d discover that while we can’t stop all the storms, we can make our corner of the world a place of refuge and hope. 

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

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 23:25

Hollywood Panics As Celebrities Face Replacement By AI Generated Actors

The growing opposition in Hollywood to AI generated "actors" is in many ways similar to the growing feminist fury over AI girlfriends:  If you're a good actor (or a good woman), then you should have no fear of being replaced.  If you can't compete with a robot or software for the affections of the masses, then perhaps you deserve to lose your exalted position in society.

AI design is not particularly impressive (at least not yet).  Characters are graphically realistic but the Uncanny Valley effect is ever present; the human mind processes them as off-putting in most cases and making an entire film using them would require extensive input from human CG artists.  Still images and short clips are effective enough, but this is not film making.  

By extension, AI fiction writing is not improving and is truly terrible.  Storytelling requires an intuitive grasp of plot beats, a deep understanding of the nuances of human psychology and interactions, as well as a creative ability to surprise the audience with something unexpected while still (in most cases) wrapping up the plot in a way that is satisfying.

Anything more than a basic synopsis and AI scripts turn into a rambling, confusing mish-mash of ideas copied from more intelligent creators and slopped onto the page.  In other words, AI writes scripts much like the typical woke leftist screenwriters now infesting the film industry. 

And this is why Hollywood is scared - They have been getting away with mediocrity for so long they have forgotten how to make a good movie.  They are so bad at their job that they could actually be swapped for software.

In terms of acting, it's unlikely that solid performers will ever be retired to the dustbin or unable to get work because of AI.  Movie goers will always know in the back of their minds that they are watching CG people with no capacity for real emotion.  However, if film companies continue to fill their actor stables with soulless, robotic or narcissistic egomaniacs, then the public may welcome the robot overlords as the new standard for cinematic entertainment.

The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) is very unhappy with the recent release of an AI acting model called "Tilly Norwood".  The union condemned reports that talent agents are looking to sign the artificial intelligence "actor" for representation. They argued in a statement that Tilly Norwood "is not an actor, it’s a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers." 

SAG is highly aggressive in its tactics, including intimidation tactics against actors that don't support their strikes, which helps to explain why they are up in arms about AI generated characters.  A computer created actor can't be controlled by a union.  It can't be censured or blacklisted or threatened.  Film studios facing a long term SAG strike could simply replace the actors with AI models for a time, forcing the unions to settle negotiations. 

"It has no life experience to draw from, no emotion and, from what we’ve seen, audiences aren’t interested in watching computer-generated content untethered from the human experience," the union said.

To be frank, this is what most of the movie watching populace has been saying about Hollywood for the past several years.  They really have no room to criticize. 

Maybe more concerning is OpenAI's new Sora 2 tool which allows users to put real people and characters into AI-generated videos, sparking immediate backlash from Hollywood studios and talent agencies.  The dispute centers on who controls copyrighted images and likenesses, with the actors asserting that OpenAI cannot use content without explicit permission or compensation.

There is a legitimate danger of AI products being used to exploit a person's likeness for nefarious purposes.  A face and voice can be stolen and repurposed to draw undeserved revenues, or it can be used in an attempt to fake an event, destroy a person's reputation, turn the person's "essence" into a marketing mascot, etc. 

For now, the only thing AI seems to be good for is making memes which almost no one mistakes as real. 

“We’re engaging directly with studios and rightsholders, listening to feedback, and learning from how people are using Sora 2,” Varun Shetty, OpenAI’s vice president of media partnerships, said in a statement. “Many are creating original videos and excited about interacting with their favorite characters, which we see as an opportunity for rightsholders to connect with fans and share in that creativity.” 

AI in entertainment is an inevitability.  The most at-risk sectors are, of course, animation, effects and CG programming.  If the average person with minimal software or animation experience can use AI to formulate Pixar-like characters and place them in scripted scenarios, then that person will only be limited by their imagination and ability to write great stories.  At the very least, CG animators will face considerable competition and will be forced to up their game as job opportunities decline. 

Movies studios, by extension, will no longer have a monopoly on film production and distribution.  They won't disappear, but the tools for regular people making movies and shows at home will cut into Hollywood's already diminishing profits.  Just as online content on platforms like YouTube is crushing legacy media, online independent entertainment content is going to punish Hollywood for its lack of talent. 

Ultimately, the ideologically progressive industry brought this doom on itself.  The public is longing for meaningful and creative escape, and Hollywood refuses to give it to them.  Instead, Tinseltown has become the bullhorn for the woke agenda, forever browbeating the population with insipid propaganda no one wants.  Eventually, the free market is going to replace these ideologues, and if AI helps, then people will welcome it.    

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 23:00

When Do We Truly Own Anything? The Property Tax Scheme That Keeps Us Paying Forever

Authored by Mollie Engelhart via The Epoch Times,

Texas is famous for its wide-open land, its independence, and its promise of freedom. Yet the truth is that Texans pay some of the highest property tax rates in the country. The state itself doesn’t collect property tax, but local governments make up for it many times over. Even with agricultural and wildlife exemptions, the real burden still falls on commercial buildings, apartment complexes, and single-family homes—the very places where most people live and work.

Every year, I write a check for twenty-four thousand dollars in property taxes. In Texas, over half of that typically goes toward public education—sometimes up to 70 percent in certain counties. The irony is that none of it goes toward educating my own children.

I homeschool my kids. On our farm, we built a small barn with electricity, air conditioning, and a nearby restroom.

My husband and I teach our children farming, entrepreneurship, and money management. We hire a teacher three days a week for reading, writing, and math, and a tutor for additional help with reading.

We pay entirely out of pocket for all of it. Yet each year, I’m still forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars to fund a system I fundamentally disagree with.

I don’t believe the public school system nurtures creativity, curiosity, or courage. It creates workers, not thinkers. It rewards compliance, not conviction.

I often joke that I don’t co-parent with the government, but in truth, the property tax system makes me do exactly that. It forces me to contribute to a system that, in my view, often indoctrinates children rather than inspiring them. It feeds them food I consider unhealthy and trains them to fit in rather than think for themselves.

Last year alone, my property tax bill increased by eleven thousand dollars. I paid extra to bring electricity and internet to our rural property. I maintain the land, the buildings, and the utilities myself.

Yet every year, I have to pay again just for the right to keep what I already own. Even if I pay off my mortgage, I will still have to pay property taxes.

That means I never truly own my home. The government can raise taxes whenever it wants, and if I can’t pay, it can take the property away.

How is that ownership? How is that freedom?

Some states, like Florida, are exploring ways to phase out property taxes altogether. If that ever happens, people will move there in droves. Because this isn’t just about money. It’s about ownership, autonomy, and legacy. How can we build generational wealth or pass down land to our children if the government can simply tax us out of it?

And it doesn’t stop with homes. Texas, like California, taxes what’s called “business personal property.” That includes machinery, equipment, furniture, fixtures, and even inventory—all the physical items a business uses to operate. Each year, business owners are required to list and report these assets to the county so they can be taxed. It is essentially a yearly penalty for owning tools of your trade.

When I owned a restaurant in California for ten years, assessors would come in every year to evaluate my kitchen equipment. They decided my stoves, ovens, refrigerators, and furniture were worth seventy thousand dollars year after year, even though they were old, worn out, and often in need of replacement. Their justification was “replacement rate,” meaning they taxed me based on what it would cost to replace the equipment, not on what it was actually worth. So I paid taxes on the theoretical cost of replacing items I already owned. What service exactly is the government providing for my stoves, fryers, and refrigerators that justifies an annual payment? None. Yet they collect anyway.

And even when you sell a property, they still find a way to come after you. When I sold my house in Ventura County, California, all the taxes were paid through escrow at closing. I thought I was done. But months later, the county sent me a new bill for five thousand dollars based on “updated assessments” they claimed to have made from looking at the interior photos from my real estate listing. They called it a supplemental tax. I call it an exit tax. They are still trying to collect on a property I no longer own.

Property tax is marketed as a way to fund communities, but in reality, it is a perpetual lease from the state.

You never stop paying for something you thought you owned. That is not ownership. That is modern feudalism, dressed up as civic duty.

What if we did things differently? What if every family took responsibility for educating their own children, or chose who they wanted to pay to do it? What if communities were funded transparently and voluntarily, instead of through coercion? Perhaps then, we could finally reclaim what is ours—our homes, our businesses, our freedom.

Until that day, we are all tenants on the land we supposedly own.

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

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 22:35

"Distinguished" US Government Employee With Access To Nuclear Secrets Busted In 'Robot Porn' Scheme

In what can only be described as a spectacularly ill-advised IT decision, a Department of Energy (DOE) employee with access to nuclear secrets has lost his security clearance after uploading a staggering 187,000 pornographic images to the agency's network, according to 404 Media.

Yes, you read that correctly - 187,000. And before you go straight to 'planted porn' (we did too) - the porn aficionado admitted to it. 

This "distinguished professional" (this is how the DOE described him) with decades of experience apparently decided that March 23, 2023 was the perfect day to back up his 30-year personal collection of explicit content onto a DOE computer. One can only imagine the IT department's reaction upon discovery. The employee remained blissfully unaware of his colossal mistake for six months until officials showed up for what must have been an extraordinarily awkward conversation.

PC Gamer has more details:

The man admitted breaching DOE rules but simply "did not think it was 'very wrong' to have adult images on an unclassified computer" and the DOE "was spying on him 'a little too much' given that the systems were unclassified." He also described the DOE software used to investigate the upload as "spyware" before going on to the Spanish Inquisition line.

In mitigation, the man outlined a history of depression, alongside both medical and psychiatric treatment. In 2017 he was diagnosed with "major depressive disorder, moderate, recurrent, in full remission for approximately one year" and "ADHD with problems in focus, attention, follow-through, procrastination, distractibility, and impulsivity.”

According to his appeal, which was helpfully made public thanks to DOE guidelines, the employee insisted he thought his personal drives were "partitioned" from the DOE network, keeping his extensive collection private. Spoiler alert: they weren't. He attributed the upload to experiments with AI-generated "robot pornography,” clarifying these were images of humans for AI training, not mechanical fantasies, while coping with depression.

Source: DOE

According to a filing, "The Individual was using his personal cellphone to view the generative images, but he wanted to view larger images, so he viewed the images using his government-issued computer," adding "He also reported that, since the 1990s, he had maintained a “giant compressed file with several directories of pornographic images,” which he moved to his personal cloud storage drive so he could use them to make generative images."

So this guy not only had a massive porn collection he'd been accumulating since the 1990s, he wanted to feed them into an AI to make more.

The judge in the appeal wasn't buying it, dryly noting: "The Individual's attempt to link his generative pornography to mental health is too attenuated." The ruling concluded the upload resulted from "a lack of knowledge" rather than malicious intent, which is probably the kindest possible interpretation.

Read the full report on the appeal here.

*  *  * Be sure to check out

Countertop RO filter - last day at this price (Save $60.00)

Ultimate BBQ Bundle - there's a LOT of meat in here

Complete 2-day survival backpack (with water bottle filter, 4-in-1 flashlight, radio, alarm, phone charger, and more)

Anza Red-Black Infinity Handle (best selling knife)

IQ Peak Focus - 'limitless pill' for laser-focus and memory recall without stimulants (do not take at night)

*  *  * Free shipping above $500

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 22:10

Has Trump 2.0's Eurasian Balancing Act Failed?

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

The global systemic transition to multipolarity is nowadays proceeding along a different trajectory than before due to recent shifts in the international system.

Up until this point, Trump 2.0 sought resource and military partnerships with Russia and India respectively that could decelerate China’s superpower rise, which would then make it the junior partner in any “G2”/“Chimerica” deal.

His Eurasian balancing act has failed, however, due to his arrogant and aggressive approach towards all three countries.

Ties with Russia took a hit after the Anchorage Summit following increasingly concerning reports about US plans to support NATO troops in Ukraine, thus spooking Putin into abandoning his country’s own Eurasian balancing act by pivoting to China.

This took the form of the legally binding deal that was just clinched for constructing the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline.

The US’ envisaged resource-centric partnership with Russia, which aimed to entice concessions on Ukraine, is now much less likely.

As for India, ties worsened during its springtime clashes with Pakistan, which saw Trump favor Pakistan and even lie about India agreeing to an alleged US-mediated ceasefire. The US then hypocritically imposed punitive tariffs on India over its continued trade with Russia despite eschewing such for China and others.

All the while, Trump viciously insulted India too. Concluding that he’s hellbent on derailing its rise as a Great Power, India swiftly patched up its problems with China and distanced itself from the US.

With Russia pivoting to China via Power of Siberia 2 amidst the Sino-Indo rapprochement, the resource and military means for decelerating China’s superpower rise through partnerships with them were neutralized, thus leading to any “G2”/“Chimerica” deal now being in China’s favor instead.

President Xi Jinping accordingly espoused stronger rhetoric about reshaping the world order during his speeches at the SCO Summit and V-J Day, which prompted Trump to accuse him of “conspiring” against the US.

The interim Sino-US trade deal is now in jeopardy after he just threatened the imposition of 100% tariffs on China by 1 November or earlier depending on when China imposes its export controls on rare earth minerals.

Coupled with his dramatic accusation that Xi is “conspiring” against the US in collusion with Putin and Kim Jong Un, this could presage future military-strategic tensions, even if only indirectly via proxy. That would further destabilize Eurasia per the US’ traditional divide-and-rule stratagem.

In clockwise order, these could take the form of:

• fomenting Color Revolution unrest in Mongolia in order to undermine Power of Siberia 2;

• Japan, Taiwan, and/or the Philippines provoking an incident with China at sea in contested waters;

• obstructing China’s access to rare earth minerals in Myanmar’s Kachin State;

• and/or sowing instability in Central Asia via NATO member Turkiye through the new TRIPP Corridor.

China’s response to these scenarios could be to arm Russia and even send troops to help it in Ukraine.

Xi saw how Trump mistreated his friend Modi despite him leading a state that could have joined the US’ anti-Chinese axis, while also watching how he’s betraying Putin in Ukraine after Anchorage, so he expects similar treatment if he agrees to a “G2”/ “Chimerica” deal.

He also knows that China now has a target on its back after the latest tariffs and Trump accusing him of a “conspiracy”. It’s therefore little wonder that Trump 2.0’s Eurasian balancing act, which was characterized by arrogance and aggression, has failed.

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

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 21:45

Defending Against Strained Grids, Army To Power US Bases With Micro-Nuke Reactors

As soaring demand for electric power threatens to rapidly overtake America's supply, the US Army on Tuesday announced a plan to install nuclear microreactors at bases across the country. “What resilience means to us is that we have power, no matter what, 24-7,” said principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army Jeff Waksman after the program was unveiled at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) Annual Meeting Warriors Corner panel. 

Pursuant to what has been christened the "Janus Program," the Pentagon is charged with bringing the first reactor online no later than September 30, 2028, and is currently identifying the first nine posts that will receive two reactors each. Those reactors will generate less than 20 megawatts of power, according to the Wall Street Journal. That's comparable to the demands of a single, small town. In addition to preserving the installations ability to function in the face of overwhelmed grids, the reactors will also serve as a safeguard against cyberattacks and weather catastrophes. The program is empowered by Executive Order 14299, “Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security,” which was signed by President Trump in May. 

A rendering of a Valar Atomics microreactor deployed to an oil field 

The microreactors will be owned and operated by private companies that will be selected in 2026; the budget has yet to be disclosed. “The race today is to actually develop the capability. We are all trying to figure out who can turn these things on,” Isaiah Taylor, chief executive and founder of microreactor startup Valar Atomics, told the Journal. The Janus Program comes after six years of Army work with startup companies to develop microreactors for service around the globe. The Air Force has its own parallel program, with eight companies pursuing contracts to power USAF installations. Microreactors are roughly the same size as a shipping container, and are meant to be easily transportable and rapidly brought online upon arrival. 

“Since the Manhattan Project, the Department of Energy and the Department of War have forged one of the defining partnerships in American history—advancing the science, engineering, and industrial capability that power our national security,” said Energy Secretary Chris Wright. “Under President Trump’s leadership, we’re extending that legacy through initiatives like the Janus Program, accelerating next-generation reactor deployment and strengthening the nuclear foundations of American energy and defense.”

A rendering of a portable, 1MW microreactor being developed by Radiant Nuclear

The microreactor programs are all well and good for the armed forces, but what about the rest of us whose futures are jeopardized by soaring demand for AI data centers paired with glacial-paced plans for new nuclear capacity? As we wrote on Friday: 

With nuclear power still years away, and with Goldman already warning of "price spikes and power blackouts", the federal government or power grid operators must figure out a cost-effective, scalable energy solution to ensure power prices don't continue spiraling out of control and proper grid stabilization occurs to ensure grid stability amid the AI arms race with China. 

On Tuesday, the Defense Production Act Consortium held its first meeting, as that organization seeks agreements with U.S. nuclear companies as part of an effort to rebuild the nation’s nuclear fuel supply chain. The DPA Consortium was created in accordance with President Trump’s Executive Order 14302, Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base, and will use the authorities of the Defense Production Act to coordinate industry efforts across the nuclear fuel cycle.

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 21:20

States Go It Alone On 'Forever Chemicals' As EPA Delays Federal Action

Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

States are taking action to protect agriculture and waterways from harmful “forever chemicals” as they await federal regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times, Justin Sullivan/Getty Images, Matthieu Delaty/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images, The Canadian Press/AP-Joshua A. Bickel

Critics say this has resulted in inconsistent and inadequate regulations exposing much of the country’s soil, air, and water to contamination by the chemicals.

According to the EPA, it is working through a very complex problem concerning a huge category of chemicals.

“The agency is committed to working closely with our partners to take a fresh look at the risks and the tools available to support our rural and agricultural communities on this issue,” the EPA told The Epoch Times in a statement.

At issue are perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS are a group of more than 14,000 chemicals that have been used in stain- and water-repellent fabrics, nonstick cookware, food packaging, and firefighting foams since the 1940s because of their resistance to heat, oils, stains, grease, and water.

However, they do not degrade naturally and are almost impossible to destroy, earning them the “forever chemicals” appellation. According to the EPA, PFAS have been linked to cancer, reproductive issues, immune disorders, reduced vaccine response, hormonal issues, and weight gain.

In the early part of the 1970s, PFAS chemicals began to show up in soil to which biosolids had been applied.

Dredged as sludge from the bottom of wastewater treatment tanks and treated to reduce or eliminate harmful substances, biosolids have been sold or given to farmers as a low-cost fertilizer for more than 50 years.

A person fills up a glass of water water from a tap in San Anselmo, Calif., on July 6, 2023. The Environmental Council of States reports that 11 states—Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin—have established drinking water standards.Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

An EPA draft assessment of two PFAS chemicals states that treated sewage sludge containing 1 part per billion of PFAS could pose a serious health risk.

An EPA statement reads, “The findings of the draft risk assessment underscore the importance of proactive federal and state policies to control and remove PFAS at their source.”

States face numerous challenges in dealing with PFAS, according to The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), a national nonprofit association of state and territorial environmental agency leaders.

These challenges include inadequate funding, a lack of technical expertise, and dependence on EPA commitments that appear to have been put on hold.

ECOS’s mission is to help state agencies protect health and the environment, according to its website.

State biosolids regulations vary. In Maine and Connecticut they are banned, while Alabama allows almost unfettered use.

Maine has taken one of the most aggressive postures toward PFAS chemicals in biosolids. A spokesman for the Maine Department of Environmental Protection declined to comment and directed The Epoch Times to the department website.

Maine’s biosolids battle began in 2016 when PFAS were found at a dairy in Arundel, about 81 miles south of the state capital, Augusta. State investigators determined that cattle grazing on land treated with biosolids consumed grass that had absorbed the chemicals from the treated soil. This resulted in the cattle producing contaminated milk.

They also determined that the chemicals had spread far beyond the dairy.

In 2022, Maine implemented Public Law 2021, banning the land application of biosolids. The law also mandates testing of all wastewater treatment plant effluent, farmland, drinking water, and any products or environmental matter that could be contaminated.

The law provides state assistance with cleanup and remediation to owners of contaminated land. It provides bottled water or filtration systems for those whose water is contaminated.

A tractor spreads fertilizer on a field at a farm in Church Hill, Md., on March 20, 2025. Biosolids, or treated sewage sludge, are widely used in the United States as a soil amendment and fertilizer. But rural landowners and farmers are increasingly concerned about foul odors, soil contamination, health risks, and stormwater runoff carrying potentially dangerous chemicals into waterways. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

Maine’s response to PFAS contamination in biosolids could be a model for other states, according to Mya Heard, a researcher in Northeastern University’s PFAS Project Lab.

Maine took a three-pronged approach of legislative, scientific, and public policy angles, Heard wrote in a Maine Policy Review article.

“Future case studies on state PFAS governance will offer comparative analyses and can strengthen the case for an interdisciplinary approach that leverages multiple scales of governance,” she wrote.

Although Maine and Connecticut ban biosolids, the treated sewage sludge is still commonly used on farm fields around the country.

The EPA reports that wastewater treatment plants produce an average of 3.76 million dry metric tons of biosolids each year. Approximately 56 percent of this is disposed of by land application.

According to a report from the National Biosolids Data Project, 53 percent of the biosolids produced in the United States are applied to almost 18 percent of all farmland. The bulk of that is used to grow livestock feed.

Similar numbers are reflected in Alabama. In response to health concerns, nuisance odor complaints, and complaints about biosolids imported from other states, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management set new biosolids regulations in 2020.

The new rules established nutrient management planning and property line setback requirements for land application of biosolids. The rules are meant to reduce odors, protect the environment, and address complaints from neighbors.

Regina Allcorn lives on a 68-acre property in Etowah County, Alabama. The centerpiece of her family’s land is a lake.

Allcorn said her family cannot eat fish from the lake because they are contaminated with PFAS from neighboring land treated with biosolids.

She said she believes that biosolids distributors force landowners who do not use the sludge to live with contaminated water, foul odors, health problems, and an uncertain future.

Regina Allcorn, whose family owns farm land with a 68-acre lake, in Etowah County, Ala., on May 14, 2025. Alcorn and others are concerned that fish in the lake may be contaminated by chemicals found in treated sewage sludge used as fertilizer on neighboring land. Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times

“It’s your home and you shouldn’t feel that way,” she told The Epoch Times.

Alabama Department of Environmental Management spokesperson Lynn Battle declined an interview request but stated in an email to The Epoch Times that Alabama regulations are based on the most current science.

“As appropriate and based on new or revised EPA regulations and requirements regarding activities that impact our air, water, or land resources, [Alabama Department of Environmental Management] has and will continue to implement measures to ensure its programs address the issues as noted in any Federal regulation,” Battle wrote.

In a white paper titled “Processes & Considerations for Setting State PFAS Standards,” ECOS presented information from survey responses it had received from 43 states.

According to the ECOS, Alabama is one of 14 states that has no enforceable guidelines, although the state tests for PFAS and publishes its data. The other states are Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

ECOS stated that in April 2024, the EPA set enforceable drinking water standards for only five of the more than 14,000 known PFAS chemicals.

“At this time, the U.S. has no federally enforceable PFAS standards for other PFAS or for these PFAS in other environmental media, leaving individual states to navigate various avenues for addressing contamination,” the paper states.

“Some states have established legally enforceable values for certain PFAS in drinking water, groundwater, surface water, soil, or air. Other states and regulatory agencies have opted for non-enforceable values.”

According to ECOS, most state activity focuses on drinking water. Some states also test wastewater treatment plant influent and effluent and compare those data sets with EPA guidelines.

Some states have laws prohibiting them from setting regulations more stringent than those set by the EPA. These states, including Alabama, are waiting to use the expected EPA standard as a guide.

Read the rest here...

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 20:55

Raising Potassium Levels Protects Heart Patients

Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A simple dietary adjustment could be a game-changer for heart patients. Increasing potassium levels cuts the risk of dangerous heart rhythms by nearly a quarter, according to new research.

Illustration by The Epoch Times, Shutterstock

Participants in the treatment group had their potassium levels raised to 4.5 to 5.0  millimoles per liter (mmol/L) through diet, supplements, and/or medication.

The treatment was conducted in patients who had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), which is a surgically implanted device larger than a pacemaker, a more common implantable device.

A pacemaker is a small, surgically implanted device that helps regulate a slow or irregular heartbeat by sending electrical impulses to maintain a steady rhythm. An ICD, on the other hand, monitors the heart and delivers an electrical shock to correct dangerously fast heart rhythms, which can prevent sudden cardiac arrest.

Over an average follow-up of 3.3 years, patients who maintained higher potassium levels experienced significantly better outcomes, according to the results recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The main goal was to see if the approach could reduce episodes of dangerous heart rhythms, hospitalizations, or death.

Key Study Findings

The study focused on patients with implanted ICDs. Patients started the trial with normal and low baseline levels of potassium at 4.3 mmol/L or lower.

The patients then raised their potassium levels either through diet, supplementation, or medication. Raising and maintaining a high-normal potassium level of 4 to 5 mmol/L had a 24 percent reduction in risk of serious heart rhythm problems.Potassium is needed to create heartbeats, therefore low potassium levels can lead to irregular heartbeats.

A major outcome was that there were fewer emergency interventions from implanted defibrillators—15.3 percent in the higher-than-normal potassium group versus 20.3 percent in the control group.

Hospitalizations for arrhythmias and heart failure were also less common among those with higher potassium levels.

Regarding safety, hospitalizations due to very high or very low potassium levels occurred in 1 percent of both groups, and deaths were reported in 5.7 percent of the high-normal group compared to 6.8 percent in the controls, a difference that the researchers didn’t consider statistically significant.

Dr. Carolyn Lam, a cardiologist and senior consultant at the National Heart Centre Singapore, who pioneered the first Women’s Heart Clinic in Singapore, and was not involved in the trial, told The Epoch Times that the findings apply specifically to patients who have implanted defibrillators, are at high risk of ventricular arrhythmias, and have a starting potassium that is not higher than 4.3 mmol/L.

Lam said that potassium levels have a “U-shape relationship” with health outcomes, meaning that both high and low levels can lead to adverse events.

“Thus, it is important that patients know their potassium levels before simply applying these results to themselves,” she said.

What The Findings Mean for Patients

Although the study was conducted only in patients who already had an ICD, Professor Henning Bundgaard, senior author of the study, said in a statement that the findings may be applicable to many patients, especially those who have cardiovascular disease associated with a high risk of ventricular arrhythmia.

Dr. Ian J. Neeland, an associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University and director of University Hospitals Center for Cardiovascular Prevention, who was not involved in the trial, said that patients should discuss strategies with their doctor to keep potassium levels in the high-normal range. Patients should be sure to take drugs that help the body hold onto potassium, he said, which includes Spironolactone and eplerenone, according to current guidelines for patients with implanted cardiac devices.

Some foods that increase potassium include bananas, raisins, prunes, broccoli, potatoes, and tuna.

Neeland added that patients should also alert their doctor if they develop any conditions that could acutely lower their potassium levels, such as diarrhea or vomiting.

“They should work with their doctor to find the best strategies to keep potassium in the high-normal range,” he said.

*  *  *

Nope, we don't sell potassium (yet). We do have D2/K3 which some of you mentioned in the comments.  

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 20:05

A $300 Trillion Dollar Fat Finger?

Blockchain data showed stablecoin issuer Paxos both minted and burned 300 trillion tokens of the PayPal USD stablecoin within 30 minutes, leaving many crypto users scratching their heads.

This prompted much amusement and confusion across social media...

cc: @federalreserve

That should fix the funding shortage https://t.co/sKhLJj8NfF

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 15, 2025

But, as CoinTelegraph's Turner Wright explains, it appears to have been a big fat finger... 

In a Wednesday X post following the mint and burn, Chaos Labs founder Omer Goldberg said Aave would be temporarily freezing trades for PayPal USD  after an “unexpected high-magnitude transaction” of minting and burning the stablecoin.

Ethereum blockchain data showed Paxos minting 300 trillion of the US dollar-pegged stablecoin at 7:12 pm UTC and then burning the entire amount 22 minutes later by sending it to an inaccessible wallet.

PYUSD, pegged 1:1 to the US dollar, makes the supply of the burned coins worth about $300 trillion.

The stablecoin has a market capitalization of more than $2.3 billion at this writing, making it the sixth-largest coin behind Tether’s USDt, USDC, Ethena USDe, Dai and World Liberty Financial USD (USD1).

a test for the real thing when the time comes https://t.co/bnGazjdwpc

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 15, 2025

In a Wednesday X follow-up post, Paxos said it had “mistakenly minted excess PYUSD as part of an internal transfer.”

“This was an internal technical error,” said Paxos.

“There is no security breach. Customer funds are safe. We have addressed the root cause.”

PYUSD maintained its dollar peg following the news, but its price briefly dropped by about 0.5%, according to data from Nansen.

PYUSD price immediately after the mint and burn. Source: Nansen

$300 trillion is more than twice the Gross Domestic Product for every country on earth, according to data from the International Monetary Fund.

Biggest burns in crypto history

Some of the most significant token burns include cryptocurrency exchange OKX sending more than 65 million OKB to an inaccessible address in August in an effort to keep the supply at 21 million.

The project behind the Bonk memecoin burned about 1.7 trillion BONK in December 2024, but the coins were only worth about $50 million at the time.

*  *  *

Finally, we had one quick question...

Hey guys, so - uh - what exactly was this $300 trillion in "stablecoin" colaterlized by when it was minted, mistakenly or otherwise https://t.co/p0Q2iC83Vz

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 15, 2025

...asking for a friend.

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 18:25

Tesla Reportedly Places Large Humanoid Parts Order As Goldman Outlines Profit Implications

There's no exact release date for Tesla's Optimus robot, but mass production could begin as early as 2026, according to a new report from Sina News. Media outlets in China reported that Tesla has placed a $685 million order for linear actuators from Sanhua Intelligent Controls, with deliveries expected to start early next year. Elon Musk has said he plans to have millions of these robots operating in Tesla factories by the end of the decade. 

The report reinforces what we've known all along: Musk's Tesla remains years ahead of both EV rivals, legacy automakers, and robotics firms. As Goldman analysts highlight in a note on Tuesday, the next profit frontier for the auto industry lies in humanoid robotics - and Tesla is already leading that race. 

Tried to start a fight at the Tron: Ares premiere pic.twitter.com/TvWCOaXIlN

— Tesla Optimus (@Tesla_Optimus) October 7, 2025

Analysts led by Mark Delaney predicted that humanoid robot production will be a powerful new profit growth engine for autos, both as a product line and as a means to reduce labor costs. This is especially relevant for Tesla, whose Optimus robot is being developed for factory floors and the consumer market. 

Last month, Elon Musk suggested that humanoids could represent up to 80% of Tesla's future value.

Poptimus pic.twitter.com/pu8MxEoDJz

— Tesla Optimus (@Tesla_Optimus) September 6, 2025

"There is the potential over time for humanoid robots to drive incremental profitability for autos and industrial tech companies, both as a new product to sell and as a contributor of lower costs," Delaney wrote in a note. "This is particularly relevant for Tesla, which is developing the Optimus robot for both internal use and to sell to external customers."

The analysts noted that Tesla will benefit on two fronts: deploying Optimus internally for labor savings and selling externally with a cost edge from its EV-derived expertise in power electronics, AI navigation, and manufacturing scale:

• 2030E EPS impact: +$0.10 – $3.00 (50 K–1.5 M units, $40–60 K ASP, 10–15% EBIT margin + subscription income).

• 2035E EPS impact: +$0.20 – $13.00 (100 K–5 M units, 10–20% EBIT margin + services).

Production ecosystems are mostly the same. 

The delivery of actuators for Tesla's humanoid robots early next year suggests not only that production will ramp up in 2026 but also that America's love affair with automation is accelerating. The downside, of course, is mass job displacement. With AI accelerating across industries, one has to question what "labor shortage" the Biden-Harris regime was addressing when it facilitated an illegal alien invasion of 10-15 million third-worlders, many untrained for the digital economy. These are precisely the jobs that AI/robots are poised to eliminate. So was mass immigration really about filling jobs, or about political control in future elections? Short answer: Political control. 

Related:

• Goldman Finds "Inflection Point" With Humanoid Robots; We Tested Unitree's Robodog

• Goldman's Chat With Top Robotics Firm Reveals Skynet Humanoid Timeline

• Goldman's Investing Guide To Skynet

• "Here Come Humanoids": Morgan Stanley Braces For The Looming Phase Shift in AI

• There's An iPhone Moment Happening With Humanoids

ZeroHedge Pro Subs can read the full report in the usual place; it includes plenty of charts and in-depth analysis on other robotics companies.

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 18:00

NRA, Gun Owners of America Vow To Sue California For Passing Glock Gun Ban

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The National Rifle Association (NRA) vowed to sue California after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law on Oct. 10 a ban on the sale of one of the most popular gun brands in the state.

Luke Saiz of Albuquerque, N.M., holsters a Glock 9mm handgun at a local gun shop on Sept. 12, 2023. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

California’s Assembly Bill 1127 doesn’t name Glock Inc. in the legislation but directly applies to the company’s firearms by prohibiting the sale of semi-automatic handguns that can be easily converted to fully automatic. That ban covers models, such as Glocks, that use a cruciform trigger bar.

The ban, which will go into effect on July 1, 2026, applies to several pistols but will have an outsized effect on Glocks.

John Commerford, NRA-Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) executive director, stated the gun-rights group would file litigation against Newsom’s decision, calling it a violation of civil rights.

“Our message to Governor Newsom is simple: we will see you in court,“ Commerford said in a statement, ”Gavin Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights. Once again, they are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America. This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked.”

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, a California resident and former attorney general of the state, was the most recent high-profile person to admit to owning a Glock when she revealed the information in October 2024 while running for president.

“I have a Glock and I’ve had it for quite some time. My background is in law enforcement, so there you go,” Harris said during an interview, adding she had fired it at a shooting range.

The Gun Owners of California organization, a statewide Second Amendment-rights group, also promised litigation over the law.

“Gavin Newsom just signed AB 1127, banning the most popular handgun in America, and the same one Kamala Harris bragged about carrying. You couldn’t make this hypocrisy up if you tried. Lawsuit time, again,” the group wrote on Facebook hours after Newsom signed the measure.

The law, authored by Assemblymembers Jesse Gabriel and Catherine Stefani, both Democrats, allows the state to fine anyone selling, transferring, delivering, or offering the firearms up to $1,000 for a first offense and up to $5,000 and suspension or revocation of a dealer’s license for a second offense. It also allows for a dealer to be cited with a misdemeanor and mandatory revocation for a third offense.

The bill does not apply to police, sheriffs’ departments, marshals’ offices, district attorneys, highway patrol, justice or corrections departments, or military or naval forces in the state.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks in Los Angeles on Sep. 25, 2024. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

“The increased prevalence of automatic weapons across the nation is deeply concerning,” the bill’s authors stated in a legislative analysis.

The new law will seek to protect communities from mass shootings and gun violence by preventing the easy conversions, they stated.

Vet Voice Foundation, which supported the bill, said that what it regards as do-it-yourself machine guns are a growing threat to public safety.

“Fully automatic machine guns have been illegal under federal and state law for decades, but they can be made at home by attaching a tiny piece of plastic commonly known as a ‘Glock switch’ to a convertible pistol,” the group stated in the legislative analysis. “Glock has known about this problem for years, but has not taken responsibility for its easily convertible products and instead has refused to take serious action to fix its design.”

The California chapters of Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, both members of Everytown for Gun Safety, applauded Newsom’s decision to sign the bill, saying he and lawmakers are putting the safety of California communities above gun industry profits.

“For decades, reckless gun makers have profited off our tragedies. Today, California forces these gun makers to decide: fix your pistols or don’t sell in this state,” the group stated in a social media post.

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 17:40

I just learned that “How Not to Invst” was named one of the best investment books of 2025 by Stock Traders Almanac.

Here is an excerpt (full list below)

 

BEST INVESTMENT BOOKS OF THE YEAR

Stock Trader’s Almanac 2026

Back by popular demand. After a five-year hiatus and countless requests from readers we present our picks for the Best Investment Books of the Year. This collection represents a broad range of approaches and asset classes. It also runs the gamut from sophisticated institutional level works and technical analysis trading manuals to books geared toward the retail investor. We hope you find these entertaining and beneficial.

#1: “How Not to Invest: The ideas, numbers, and behaviors that destroy wealth – and how to avoid them,” Barry Ritholtz, Harriman House, $32.99.

Ritholtz has done it again. Over the past decade, Barry has built one of the fastest-growing RIAs in America. The OG financial blogger and self-proclaimed Director of Cognitive Dissonance shares the master plan he used to grow and manage his firm and his clients’ assets. Irreverent, counterintuitive, insightful, engaging. Ritholtz illustrates how to avoid unforced errors, recognize fallacious data, and break bad habits that undermine investment success. The book lays out how to get rich in the markets through a simple, disciplined plan by focusing on what you can control that matters and how stick to it.

 

How delightful! I couldn’t be more pleased by this lovely recognition. I have been a fan of STA and its creator, Yale Hirsch, for a long time. I know Jeff Hirsch just as long, who took over the Almanac when his dad turned 90, and has taken it to even better places. (But at this moment, I lack any and all objectivity…)

Full disclosure: My first book, “Bailout Nation” was published by Wiley; they are also the publisher of Stock Trader’s Almanac.

The latest Stock Traders Almanac 2026 is now available at your favorite bookseller, or directly with a STA subscription.

Full list of books after the jump…

~~~

 

 

 

 

 

The post 2025 Best Investment Books of the Year: Stock Traders Almanac appeared first on The Big Picture.

Trump Warns If Hamas Doesn't Disarm, 'We Will Disarm Them, Maybe Violently'

With the Israeli hostages now released and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners being returned from Israeli prisons, officials look to the next phases of the Trump-brokered peace deal, which the consensus is will be the hardest. It involves the disarming of Hamas and establishing future governance of the Gaza Strip.

On Tuesday, President Trump made clear that Hamas would be required to disarm under the deal, warning that if the group refused to do so voluntarily, the US would intervene, possibly through force - though in characteristic fashion his comments were left ambiguous, and reporters were left wanting to know more.

"If they don’t disarm, we will disarm them, and it will happen quickly and maybe violently," he told reporters, emphasizing that Hamas would have no choice. When pressed on how he intended to carry out such action, Trump declined to provide details, saying, "I don’t have to explain that to you… They know I’m not playing games."

AFP/Getty Images

The Pentagon has already deployed up to 200 troops to Israel where they are assisting in terms of operational oversight of the ceasefire. Trump's words hint that it could be a short step to take some of these troops are embed them in Gaza, to assist the IDF in finally disarming Hamas.

Hamas has already reasserted control over areas previously vacated by Israeli forces and has gone on an execution campaign against alleged collaborators and criminals. Dozens have been reported killed in the last couple days.

President Trump noted that Israel had armed certain gangs and militias as part of its anti-Hamas strategy. "They took out some very bad gangs - really bad people - and that doesn’t bother me," Trump said, appearing to offer some rare positive commentary on Hamas. "That’s fine. Those were very bad gangs."

A day earlier, he said Hamas had received "approval" for such operations, adding that with nearly two million people returning to devastated neighborhoods, instability was a major concern. "We want it to be safe. I think it’s going to be fine. Who knows for sure," said Trump.

Hamas has been rounding up rival armed groups which sought to undermine the group's power...

Hamas carries out public executions just hours after signing peace treaty with Israel https://t.co/wxZSLgmm97 pic.twitter.com/XFM6LvSfsN

— New York Post (@nypost) October 14, 2025

Meanwhile, the future of the deal still has a high degree of uncertainty, given Hamas leaders have reiterated that their armed wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, will not surrender its weapons until an independent Palestinian state is established. However, this is a goal which the Netanyahu government has clearly rejected.

Hamas and Israel could yet further clash given the IDF has been ordered to destroy the miles and miles of tunnels which exist under Gaza, and which have formed key infrastructure for Hamas command bunkers and their foot soldiers' movements.

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 17:20

La Niña Is Here - Here's What It Could Mean For Winter In US

Authored by T.J.Muscaro via The Epoch Times,

A La Niña advisory has officially been issued by the Climate Prediction Center, signaling a possible precedent for winter across the United States.

Conditions emerged at the end of September and were favored to persist through December 2025 into February 2026.

The opposite of the weather phenomenon called El Niño, La Niña refers to when the water temperatures of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean around the equator are cooler than average. That cooling can impact global weather patterns thousands of miles away.

While it is expected to remain relatively weak, this year it is expected to have an effect on winters in the United States, especially regarding this year’s snowfall.

Here’s what La Niña conditions could look like for the United States this year.

North-South Divide

One of the most noticeable effects that La Niña could have on the United States is a moisture divide between the northern and southern states of the Lower 48.

To the north, colder and wetter conditions are generally expected, while the southern states are expected to experience a warmer and drier winter.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) seasonal outlook showed most of the United States was predicted to face above-average or near-above-average temperatures through October, November, and December. An area of the southern Rocky Mountains, particularly New Mexico, and most of New England are expected to experience relatively warmer temperatures.

The northwest, meanwhile, was predicted to have near-average temperatures.

NOAA noted that those temperature changes have already begun to show up.

“From mid-August to mid-September, below-average heights and temperatures were evident over the eastern U.S. Starting in mid-September, above-average heights and temperatures dominated the eastern U.S.,” NOAA reported on Oct. 14. ”From early September to mid-October, below-average heights and temperatures prevailed over the eastern North Pacific Ocean and parts of the western U.S.”

Rain and Snowfall

La Niña is also expected to bring changes to precipitation across the country, particularly snowfall. Much of the northwest from the Cascades in Washington State across the upper Midwest through New England will tend to see an increase in snowfall.

NOAA’s seasonal outlook indicated that much of Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho are expected to see above-average levels of precipitation, while states in the southern Rockies, like New Mexico and Colorado, are expected to see below-average precipitation.

Several areas of the Rocky Mountains, including the Salt Lake City Area, have already reported significant amounts of early snowfall, and more is reported to be on the way.

The Weather Prediction Center reported heavy snow was to develop over the Sierra Nevada Mountains on Oct. 14 and Oct. 15.

However, that snow is coming in as part of a low-pressure system coming off the ocean and into California. The Weather Prediction Center issued a slight risk of excessive rainfall over parts of Southern California, noting that urban areas, roads, small streams, and low-lying areas could be vulnerable to flash flooding. Additional showers and thunderstorms were also expected to hit parts of the Southern Rockies also bringing heavy rain and risks of flash flooding.

During La Niña, the Southern Rockies historically tend to get below-average amounts of snowfall, as well as parts of the Ohio Valley.

That being said, Michelle L’Hereux, lead scientist of NOAA’s team responsible for studying La Niña and El Niño, said that, based on multi-factor computer models from NOAA and Columbia University, this La Niña impact is not likely to be very strong at all, suggesting temperatures and precipitation levels should remain closer to average.

“There is a three-out-of-four chance it will remain a weak event,” L'Heureux said in an email. “A weaker event tends to exert less of an influence on the global circulation, so it’s possible there will be surprises ahead.”

The Climate Prediction Center publishes monthly statements on the status of La Niña. The next one will be posted around Nov. 13.

*  *  * Be sure to check out

Countertop RO filter - last day at this price (Save $60.00)

Ultimate BBQ Bundle - there's a LOT of meat in here

Complete 2-day survival backpack (with water bottle filter, 4-in-1 flashlight, radio, alarm, phone charger, and more)

Anza Red-Black Infinity Handle (best selling knife)

IQ Peak Focus - 'limitless pill' for laser-focus and memory recall without stimulants (do not take at night)

*  *  * Free shipping above $500

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 17:00

Overthrow: Trump Authorizes CIA Covert Ops Targeting Venezuela's Maduro

It is easy to imagine that there's been CIA infiltration into Maduro's Venezuela for a long time, but covert operations there are now becoming an "open secret" - as fresh Wednesday reporting in the New York Times indicates. "The Trump administration has secretly authorized the C.I.A. to conduct covert action in Venezuela, according to U.S. officials, stepping up a campaign against Nicolás Maduro, the country's authoritarian leader," the Times writes.

Already the Pentagon has been engaged in what could be interpreted as more overt acts of war in regional waters - the targeting of boats off Venezuela accused of being engaged in narco-smuggling operations. Clearly anti-Maduro operations are picking tempo, and ratcheting the temperature.

Trump's CIA Director John Ratcliffe, via LA Times/AP

At this point after five instances of drone attacks on these boats, at least 27 people have died. The Trump administration has alleged the drug traffickers are operating with the blessing and oversight of socialist strongman Nicolas Maduro, which Caracas vehemently rejects.

The US military has further maintained a significant military build-up in the Caribbean, including some 10,000 troops, over several weeks. According to more details from the new NY Times report:

The authorization is the latest step in the Trump administration’s intensifying pressure campaign against Venezuela. For weeks, the U.S. military has been targeting boats off the Venezuelan coast it says are transporting drugs, killing 27 people. American officials have been clear, privately, that the end goal is to drive Mr. Maduro from power.

The new authority would allow the C.I.A. to carry out lethal operations in Venezuela and conduct a range of operations in the Caribbean.

But the below part is somewhat surprising and alarming, given the unpredictable and dangerous implications of the CIA acting "unilaterally":

The agency would be able to take covert action against Mr. Maduro or his government either unilaterally or in conjunction with a larger military operation. It is not known whether the C.I.A. is planning any operations in Venezuela or if the authorities are meant as a contingency.

But the development comes as the U.S. military is planning its own possible escalation, drawing up options for President Trump to consider, including strikes inside Venezuela.

What is the end-goal here? 

Many observers have speculated that it is nothing short of regime change in the Latin American nation known for having the world's largest proven oil reserves, estimated at over 300 billion barrels. 

The NYT actually provides a blunt answer in agreement with the regime change assessment:

The Trump administration’s strategy on Venezuela, developed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with help from John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, aims to oust Mr. Maduro from power.

Mr. Ratcliffe has said little about what his agency is doing in Venezuela. But he has promised that the C.I.A. under his leadership would become more aggressive. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Ratcliffe said he would make the C.I.A. less averse to risk and more willing to conduct covert action when ordered by the president, “going places no one else can go and doing things no one else can do.”

Below: F-16s reportedly scramble from Venezuela's El Libertador Air Base in response to US B-52 bombers nearby...

VENEZUELA scrambles F-16s

Responds to US B-52 bombers nearby

F-16s reportedly scramble from El Libertador Air Base in Arabia

Footage: @RapidReport2025 https://t.co/qFpIshiBLg pic.twitter.com/dJcjPViTMT

— RT (@RT_com) October 15, 2025

And yet it must be remembered that Trump has constantly touted himself as the "peace" president who solves wars and doesn't start them.

But now, as the NY Times says, there is a highly classified presidential finding which seems to authorize government overthrow in Caracas.

President Trump at the start of this month formally notified Congress this week that the US was entering a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels. Trump's rationale for the attacks on drug boats in his memo to Congress stated that the cartels are "non-state armed groups" whose actions smuggling drugs "constitute an armed attack against the United States".

The sight of U.S. B-52 bombers in Venezuelan airspace is a major escalation. Trump's warmongering has nothing to do with the “war on drugs” & all to do with regime change to plunder Venezuela's oil. This reckless push for war is a criminal act of international aggression. pic.twitter.com/tHxB6HjpwT

— Manolo De Los Santos (@manolo_realengo) October 15, 2025

In particular the administration has essentially declared war on the Tren de Aragua cartel, and says it is cooperating with the Maduro government, which Caracas has rejected, and so the presence of the cartel's members in the US is a "predatory incursion" by a foreign nation. In this way he's trying to cast this as an 'America First' policy, and yet if bombs start falling on yet another foreign country which has not militarily attacked the United States, few Americans are likely going to buy it.

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 16:40

Elizabeth Warren: Leftism For Thee But Not Me

Authored by Paul Sperry via RealClearInvestigations,

When Sen. Elizabeth A. Warren recently traveled to the Big Apple to endorse New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, she was asked if overt socialism is really the best model for Democrats to adopt. “You bet,” she replied in her signature folksy style.

The Boston lawmaker wasn’t just jumping on the sudden trendiness of socialism three-and-a-half decades after its near-extinction. With fellow Senate traveler Bernie Sanders, Warren has been a catalyst for moving her party to the left since her first campaign in 2012. 

She and Sanders are, in many ways, the godparents of the self-avowed Democratic Socialists such as Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are providing the youthful energy for the Democrats in the Trump era.

As Warren’s attacks on Wall Street and the wealthy are gaining even wider traction among liberals – a recent Gallup poll found 66% of Democrats have a positive view of socialism – the apparent contradictions between her public economic positions and private financial decisions are receiving new scrutiny, particularly as the one-time presidential candidate appears to be testing those waters again. 

Charity Doesn’t Begin at Home

Financial records examined by RealClearInvestigations show that Warren has hardly followed the path of socialism in her personal finances. Start with the redistribution of wealth. Warren tirelessly bashes the “selfish” and “greedy” rich for not paying their “fair share,” and demands the government step in and redistribute their income to the poor. But charity does not always begin in the Warren home.

While Warren hauls in nearly $1 million a year, she donated less than 3% of her household income to charity in 2024, according to her tax returns. This is much less than the charity of the Obamas, for instance, who typically donate more than 20% of their earnings to the needy and philanthropic causes, and low for the average American in her income bracket, studies show. The average millionaire donates more than twice her share.

It also appears that Warren opens her pocketbook wider when she’s running for national office and under a bigger media microscope. 

The $26,669 in charitable deductions Warren reported on her tax returns last year pales in comparison to the $81,858, or 9% of income, she reported as she launched her campaign for the White House in 2020.

And the outspoken Democratic leader keeps her own tax burden down while calling for higher taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.”

Records show Warren is not averse to taking maximum advantage of provisions in a tax code she denounces as unfair. She has, for example, written off used articles of clothing on her taxes and has had to correct past returns for inflating the value of those items. She’s also written off thousands of dollars in used books – and even in-flight WiFi to expense down business income. And she would exempt herself from her proposed “Ultra-Millionaire Tax,” which levies a surtax on those with a net worth above $50 million.

With a net worth of at least $8 million (with estimates as high as $12 million), Warren has benefited handsomely from free market capitalism – even as she has spent most of her career in the public and educational sectors.

Fat Cat Investments

Despite her frequent complaints that “the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households own 84% of American-held shares” of stock, she has invested the bulk of her money in stocks and bonds managed by Wall Street investment funds. These accounts are valued at between $1.9 million and $6.8 million, according to her most recent Senate financial disclosures, filed in April. (Values are given as ranges in the disclosure reports that members of Congress are required to file each year.) 

Although Warren has rarely traded individual stocks, records show the mutual funds where she has parked her millions – Vanguard and TIAA-CREF – hold a number of companies in industries that Warren has demonized, including Big Oil, Big Tech, and Big Pharma. Through these funds, for example, Warren has invested in Apple, Amazon, and NVIDIA; Exxon and Shell; Wells Fargo; Goldman Sachs; Monsanto; Johnson & Johnson; and even NewsCorp – the owner of conservative Fox News and the New York Post.

Nevertheless, Warren has ripped “fat cat bankers” at Wells Fargo for preying on minority homebuyers and customers with “predatory” rates and “junk” fees, and also for “screwing” their own employees. She even demanded the Federal Reserve revoke Wells Fargo’s status as a financial holding company over “abusive and unlawful” practices. 

Warren has called for regulators to break up tech giants Amazon and Apple, which she claims are running monopolies. “I’m sick of freeloading [tech] billionaires” who “roll over everyone,” she recently said. 

Warren has described Exxon as a “bad actor” that contributes to global warming. She’s even accused the energy giant of “corporate perjury” by publicly denying its alleged role in warming and producing “fake research” to “mislead the American people about climate change.”

The senator has also slammed Exxon for “imposing massive price increases on Americans [sic] families,” arguing “this corporate greed is inexcusable.”

Environmental activist groups have called on her chosen retirement fund, TIAA, to divest from Exxon, along with the rest of its more than $78 billion in oil, gas, and coal assets, according to a recent estimate by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. They argue the fund is using contributions from investors like Warren to “destroy communities and the environment.”

Last year, Warren bashed Donald Trump for capitulating to the oil industry. “Donald Trump has a deal for Big Oil: if they raise $1 billion and send him back to the White House, he’ll gut environmental protections and roll back Joe Biden’s progress in fighting climate change,” she asserted on X. “It’s corruption, pure and simple. And it would be a disaster for our planet.”

Exempting Some Millionaires

Slamming the president’s “Big Beautiful Bill” earlier this year, Warren complained, “Trump’s tax cuts stand to benefit (the) highest income earners.”

She would know – she’s one of them. The $919,583 in household income Warren reported on her 2024 tax return she filed jointly with her husband puts her in the top 1% of highest-earning Americans. The year before she entered the Senate, Warren reported earning $616,181.

The lawmaker’s base Senate salary of $174,000 accounts for just one-fifth of the total income she reported to the IRS. The rest comes from book royalties, dividends, capital gains, earned interest, retirement income, and her husband Bruce Mann’s salary as a tenured Harvard professor.

The Senate is often described as a Millionaire’s Club, and she fits right in: Her $8 million net worth would rank her as the 18th wealthiest member of the Senate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Warren’s net worth has risen each year since she was first elected to the Senate in 2012, while the median wealth of senators overall has declined, according to the think tank.

Although Warren is just one of many millionaires in Congress, government watchdogs note her wealth is at odds with the stridency of her class-warfare rhetoric.

“Elizabeth Warren poses as the champion of the underdog, but her policies strip middle- and lower-income Americans of opportunities to advance their lot and build wealth,” said John Berlau, director of finance policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, referring to her calls for more taxes and financial red tape. “By pursuing policies that keep others from moving up, Sen. Warren has emerged as an unlikely champion of the existing 1%.”

Warren did not reply to requests for comment.

Critics note that several of Warren’s former staff members have moved on to positions in the sectors she decries. In 2023, she declared, “The abuse of the revolving door is appalling,” particularly in the financial sector, which she claims is “rigged to help the wealthy and well-connected.”

But records show her own office has served as a revolving door for the banks. For example, Wally Adeyemo, who served as her chief of staff when she was standing up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, went on to work as a senior adviser at investment giant BlackRock. At least six other Warren staffers who worked in her Senate office have worked as lobbyists, records show. In addition, several of her senior campaign aides have worked on K Street.

“There is a history of a revolving door of Warren staffers and protégés at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau taking jobs at big Wall Street firms, such as BlackRock,” Berlau said.

Restrictive Neighborhoods

Home ownership is also key to wealth-building, but zoning restrictions often price the working class out of homes. Warren has fought against so-called NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) rules and has fiercely advocated for building more affordable housing in cities.

She even backs Mamdani’s “social housing” proposal to let the New York state government seize private properties and convert them into public housing.

However, Warren has chosen to live in affluent neighborhoods in Boston and D.C. that are heavily zoned to exclude the construction of new housing units and price out the average homebuyer.

Public financial statements do not disclose the 76-year-old legislator’s real estate holdings, but other records show she owns at least two homes valued at more than $5 million. Her primary residence is located in the leafy Avon Hill section of Cambridge, Mass., which has enforced a century-old zoning system of minimum lot sizes, minimum parking requirements, floor area ratios, limits on units per building, and height restrictions.

The restrictions have yielded a housing shortage in the city that has driven up the value of existing homes – including Warren’s 1876 Victorian mansion, which has risen eightfold to an estimated $4 million since she bought it in 1995. Records show she and her husband owe no mortgage on their nearly 4,000-square-foot home, which features three stories, high ceilings, marble mantels, hardwood floors, and a four-car garage. 

The median price for a home in Cambridge now tops $2.2 million.

“The astronomical increase in the value of Warren’s home, and home prices in Cambridge more generally, has not happened in a vacuum,” said Scott Van Voorhis, a Boston real estate analyst. “The city’s special blend of upscale NIMBYism and restrictive zoning laws and regulations kept new house, condo and apartment construction to a trickle at best, even as demand for living in the city increased leaps and bounds.”

Though the Cambridge city council earlier this year loosened its zoning ordinances to permit more housing across the city, Warren’s neighborhood remains largely exempt from reforms.

That’s because Avon Hill is a conservation district further regulated by the Cambridge Historical Commission. Records show Warren’s street and home are located within the historic district, which protects old Victorians from being torn down for multifamily housing. That makes her neighborhood the ultimate safe NIMBY zone.

“Nothing has been built [in her neighborhood] for decades beyond the occasional mansion upgrade,” Van Voorhis noted.

Warren clearly understands there is a housing supply problem in Boston. In July, she helped shepherd the ROAD to Housing Act through the Senate, which, among other things, would provide grants to communities that change their land-use rules to make it easier to build new housing units.

“We have a real problem here in Massachusetts that we simply don’t have enough housing,” Warren explained to the Boston Globe, noting the state is about 200,000 units short of what is needed. “If we don’t start building more housing here, the housing crisis will continue to intensify.”

But when it comes to her own neighborhood – one of the least affordable in the state – she remains silent. Cambridge council members noted they didn’t hear “a peep” from Warren when they were recently debating zoning reforms to deal with the city’s growing housing affordability crisis.

In 2013, when Warren bought her home in Washington, D.C., she also happened to select an area of the capital city where zoning restrictions have entrenched the status quo. Valued at more than $1 million, her condo is in the trendy Penn Quarter section of D.C., which is a historic area protected by land-use rules.

Dubious Identity Politics

Most famously, Warren’s personal decisions seem at odds with the left’s leavening of traditional socialist positions with identity politics. Before moving to the Senate, Warren was a tenured professor at Harvard with a lucrative salary. Although the school denies that her claims to Native American ancestry influenced their decision to hire her, she and the administration trumpeted her diverse background.  

Warren also listed herself as a racial minority in a legal directory distributed by the Association of American Law Schools and was listed as a Native American in federal forms filed by Harvard Law School.

When she launched her political career in 2012 and released a memoir, “A Fighting Chance,” Warren described her alleged “Native American roots” as a Cherokee. Henry Holt & Company paid her a $525,000 advance for the book, which became a national bestseller that still earns her royalties.

She also helped publish a cookbook, “Pow Wow Chow,” exploiting the myth of her native American lineage.

Warren took in $430,000 a year as a tenured Harvard Law professor by claiming a Native American heritage – even as she has railed against whites appropriating minority culture or pretending to understand minority experiences. But, as she ramped up her run for the White House, Warren responded to persistent challenges of this claim by taking a DNA test. In late 2018, her campaign maintained it showed “strong evidence” of Native American ancestry dating back generations. 

When that failed to quiet her critics, Warren basically had to acknowledge that the test revealed that she is as little as 1/1024th Native American, making her less of that ancestry than the average white American. She also eventually apologized to the Cherokee Nation in 2019. The year before that admission, however, she lectured others during her Senate campaign about stolen valor: “It is wrong and cowardly for people to make fraudulent statements in order to receive distinctions that they have not earned. We need to ensure that no one can benefit from making false claims and steal the true valor of the courageous.”

“If there ever were a genuine case of cultural appropriation, Sen. Warren is guilty of it,” said Gad Saad, a business professor at Concordia University. “She literally appropriated Native American culture as her own by constructing a false narrative about her ancestry.”

“And yet,” he added, “she benefited for several decades from this false narrative both in her academic and political career.” 

Saad and others who have closely followed her career suggest the progressive senator appears to have a “good for me, but not for thee” ethic when it comes to her own personal ambitions. Though she’s carefully groomed a reputation as a fighter for the “have-nots” against the “haves,” the record shows that, outside the spotlight, she has often pursued her own interests and followed the path of the haves.

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 16:20

Quantifying The Benefits Of Capitalism

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The graph below presents another opportunity to revisit how capitalism and the economic freedom it entails lead to prosperity.

The scatter plot below shows the intersection of The Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom Index with per capita GDP for 102 of the largest economies. Before analyzing the graph and what it implies for capitalism, let’s gain a better understanding of its X-axis—the Economic Freedom Index.

The Freedom Index

All countries’ economic and political policies, laws, and regulations exist on spectrums. In turn, where a country lies on these spectrums helps define its level of economic and political freedom.

• The economic spectrum spans from market-driven capitalism to centrally planned communism, with socialism positioned somewhere in between.

• The political spectrum ranges from libertarian to authoritarian.

Measuring a country’s position on each spectrum is a very difficult task. Although not perfect, the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom Index is a highly regarded source for this measurement. Their index is based on five factors of economic and political freedom as listed below.

• Size of government

• Legal system and property rights

• Sound money

• Freedom to trade internationally

• Regulation

Underlying these five broad categories are 60 subcomponents. For example, tax rates fall under the size of government, while the legal enforcement of contracts is a part of the legal system and property rights.

With that, let’s review a few graphs to see the relationship between the Economic Freedom Index and GDP, income, and income equality.

GDP & Income

The first scatter plot below is the one we led with. It illustrates the relationship between each country’s Freedom Index and its GDP per capita. The second, involving income per capita and the Freedom Index, provides a more precise measure of how citizens’ wealth relates to economic freedom. Labeling every dot with the corresponding country name would clutter the graph. Accordingly, we only label a limited number of nations across the plot. The Freedom Index is calculated for 165 countries. However, our graphs below include only the 102 nations that also have reliable GDP and income data.

When the Freedom Index exceeds 7.0, a positive correlation exists between the Index, GDP, and income per capita. However, below 7.0, this relationship is absent. For example, in the income per capita graph, the R-squared value for points above 7.0 is statistically significant at 0.4731. In contrast, below 7.0, the R-squared drops to 0.1007, which is statistically insignificant.

We can’t explain why the economic advantages of economic freedom become apparent only once a country reaches a relatively high index score. However, the graphs confirm our beliefs. Countries with the most economic freedom tend to experience the greatest economic growth and have the highest incomes.

Interestingly, there isn’t much difference between some European countries that lean toward more socialist policies and those considered capitalist, like the United States, Japan, and Switzerland. Could our perceptions or definitions of how countries’ political and economic systems work be off?

Income Distribution

While wealth and GDP per capita are practical overall measures, they don’t reveal how wealth is distributed among citizens. The following set of graphs replaces income per capita with the shares of income held by the bottom 20%, the middle 20%, and the top 20% of society. 

As all three graphs indicate, there appears to be no correlation between income distribution and the Freedom Index. But we can use the data to see how economies balance income distribution.

For instance, the wealth gap in the United States shows up in these graphs. The top 20% of income earners in the US are above the average for countries with a Freedom Index of 7.0 or higher, while the middle and lowest groupings are below the average.

The “socialistic” European countries have a more even income distribution. In many of these nations, the top 20% of earners are below the average, the middle 20% are generally above the average, and the lowest are spread around the average.

Which Freedom Factors Matter Most?

As we wrote earlier, the Economic Freedom Index is divided into five main categories, which are comprised of 60 subcomponents. To better quantify the importance of these factors, we calculated the R-squared values (statistical significance) for all of them in relation to per capita income.

The first graph below shows that a nation’s legal system strength has the strongest link to wealth. Next is the level of business regulations and the freedom to trade and invest internationally. Sound money and government size have weaker correlations.

The subfactor with the most substantial impact on income is the impartiality of courts. Property rights and judicial independence follow. Among the least correlated to income per capita are those related to central bank policies, such as money growth and interest rate controls.

The graph below illustrates a strong correlation between the Freedom Index and its most significant relationship, impartial courts. Interestingly, the graph displays a consistent positive relationship between impartial courts and the Freedom Index across the entire range of the Index. As you may recall, our previous graphs show little correlation between the Freedom Index and income and GDP when the Freedom Index is below 7, and a positive correlation when it exceeds that level.

Global And USA Trends

Unfortunately, as we share below, courtesy of the Fraser Institute, the average economic freedom index for all nations has been declining since the Pandemic. Based on the relationships we established earlier, if this trend continues, we should expect global GDP and incomes for most of the largest developed countries to grow at slower rates or decline in some instances. 

In 2000, the USA ranked 4th on the Freedom Index. Only Hong Kong (1st), Switzerland (2nd), and New Zealand (3rd) ranked higher. The USA remains highly ranked at 5th, but as we detail below, its overall score has declined over the past 20 years. Singapore moved ahead of the US and into the top five.

Meanwhile, China, which is slowly shifting from communism toward capitalism, has seen its Freedom Index score steadily improve. Note that the graph uses two axes, which can be a little misleading. The US still has a much higher Freedom Index score than China.

Surprisingly, Hong Kong still has the highest Freedom Index score, despite China’s growing interference in its government’s affairs.

Does Economic Freedom Also Promote Happiness

Before we summarize this article, we would be negligent if we didn’t determine whether there is a relationship between happiness and economic freedom. The index we use to quantify happiness is from the World Happiness Report. The score is based on a single question as follows:

Please imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you, and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?

The report then assigns a score to six variables to better understand which ones have the most significant impact on happiness. The variables are:

• Economic production

• Social support

• Life expectancy

• Freedom

• Absence of corruption

• Generosity.

As the graph below illustrates, a strong correlation exists between economic freedom and happiness. Not only does economic freedom make a country more productive and wealthier, but it can also boost the happiness of its citizens. Statistically speaking, capitalism seems to be a win-win situation.

Summary

No country operates entirely under pure capitalism. Nor do they employ a strictly socialist or communist system. For instance, communist nations like China and Russia are gradually allowing capitalism to enter their economies. Therefore, while we have ideas about where countries might fall on the economic and political spectrums, this data helps us better quantify the accuracy of said ideas. From an investing perspective, the trends in a nation’s index help us appreciate its future growth potential.

Connecting the dots, we found that a nation’s court system and level of justice have the most significant impact on its Freedom Index, and therefore, by extension, on the wealth and happiness of its citizens.

Aristotle connected these ideas over 2000 years ago when he opined:

 A just life is inherently a happy one.

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 15:45