Zero Hedge

He Co-Founded Wikipedia, Now He Says The Site Needs A Radical Change

He Co-Founded Wikipedia, Now He Says The Site Needs A Radical Change

Authored by Jan Jekielek and Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times,

Wikipedia, a popular online encyclopedia millions of people treat as an authoritative source of information, is systemically biased against conservative, religious, and other points of view, according to the site’s co-founder, Larry Sanger.

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia and former philosophy professor, among stacks of reference books at a library in Columbus, Ohio, on March 26, 2007. Kiichiro Sato/AP Photo

Sanger, 57, who now heads the Knowledge Standards Foundation, believes Wikipedia can be salvaged either by a renewed emphasis on free speech within the organization or by a grassroots campaign to make diverse viewpoints heard.

Failing that, Sanger said, government intervention may be required to pierce the shell of anonymity that now protects Wikipedia’s editors from defamation lawsuits by public figures who believe the site portrays them unfairly.

In an Oct. 9 interview with Jan Jekielek, host of EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders,” Sanger discussed Wikipedia’s derailing and what could get the site back on track.

Systemic Bias

Wikipedia, launched in 2001, was co-opted by a globalist, academic, secular progressive worldview in the early 2000s, Sanger said. He added that the viewpoint monopoly accelerated following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, when many media outlets began to abandon the notion of impartiality.

Though the site is overseen by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia describes itself as a self-governing project and states “its policies and guidelines are intended to reflect the consensus of the community.”

Sanger said that eventually, the site’s original neutrality rules, which he authored, were rewritten to instead forbid “false balance.”

“Basically, it’s required now, even for the sake of neutrality, that they take a side when [they believe] one side is clearly wrong,” Sanger said. “Pretensions of objectivity are out the window.”

One way this is enforced is through a color-coded rating system that favors or bans certain sources, Sanger said.

“You simply may not cite as sources of Wikipedia articles anything that has been branded as right wing,” he said. “I don’t think that The Epoch Times, for example, is particularly right wing, but it is colored red on this list.”

Information from some “green” sources is taken as fact and repeated without attribution, Sanger said.

Sanger, who has long campaigned for a restoration of free speech and accountability on the platform, said many people continue to think of Wikipedia as neutral and accurate.

“Even now, people are still sort of waking up to the reality that Wikipedia does, on many pages … act as essentially propaganda,” he said.

As evidence, Sanger listed a host of public figures, including novelist Philip Roth, journalist John Seigenthaler Sr., and filmmaker Robby Starbuck, who complained to him that they were misrepresented on Wikipedia.

In 2022, Wikipedia deleted its page on U.S. Senate candidate Kathy Barnette, a Republican, saying she was not a notable person. The page was later restored.

Pennsylvania U.S. Senate Republican candidate Kathy Barnette speaks during a Republican leadership forum at Newtown Athletic Club in Newtown, Pa., on May 11, 2022. In 2022, Wikipedia deleted its page on Barnette, saying she was not a notable person. The page was later restored. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

The same year, editors deleted an entry for Hunter Biden’s investment company, Rosemont Seneca Partners, saying it was not notable. An editor said keeping the page online could turn it into “a magnet for conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden.” That editor didn’t elaborate or provide any evidence.

Sanger likens the intellectual takeover of Wikipedia’s content to the “long march through the institutions,” a communist tactic of taking over a society by gaining control of essential institutions, including media, education, and government.

“Wikipedia is one of the institutions that the left marched through,” Sanger said.

Wikipedia did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.

Lack of Transparency, Accountability

The way Wikipedia is organized creates a self-perpetuating cycle that Sanger described as an “irrational bureaucracy.”

He said the application of Wikipedia’s editorial rules has become a way to enforce ideological conformity and that some rules need to be revived and others abolished.

One problem is the platform’s policy of preferring secondary sources over primary or original sources. This is contrary to the approach of journalists and higher education institutions, who favor original sources, such as direct quotes from public figures, documents written by historical figures, and original research.

Wikipedia, by contrast, favors sources that have already interpreted original sources, such as magazines and newspapers.

“As a former academic, I find that to be absurd,” Sanger said.

He recalled an incident in which Roth told Sanger he asked Wikipedia to correct its page mentioning the origin story of a character in his book “The Human Stain.”

Though Roth told Wikipedia directly how he created the character, the site’s editors refused to update the page, preferring to rely on a speculative account published in The New York Times. Roth then wrote an article about the matter in The New Yorker, Sanger said, giving Wikipedia a secondary source for what the author had told them directly.

“There’s something really ridiculous about that,” Sanger said.

Novelist Philip Roth in 1967. Roth is among a list of public figures that Sanger mentioned who have complained to him that they have been misrepresented on Wikipedia. Bernard Gotfryd/Public Domain

The anonymity of the majority of Wikipedia’s 62 most influential editors perpetuates the problem, Sanger said, noting it creates a situation in which no one is held responsible for the potential harm the site’s content may cause.

“Eighty-five percent of them are anonymous. So you can’t sue them,” Sanger said.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 shields companies from lawsuits related to user-generated content, meaning the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be sued either.

Ideas for Reform

On his website, Sanger outlines a series of ideas for returning Wikipedia to its original stance on fairness and free speech. A handful of his ideas center on increasing transparency into site management, such as revealing who Wikipedia’s leaders are, allowing the public to rate articles, ending decision-making by consensus, and adopting a legislative process for determining editorial policy.

Wikipedia’s current policies effectively make Wikipedia insular and ideologically exclusive, according to Sanger, who believes determining policies in an open forum could expose the site to other viewpoints.

Sanger’s other suggestions focus on free speech, such as enabling competing articles on the same subject, abolishing source blacklists, reviving the original neutrality policy, and ending the indefinite blocking of some editors.

Sanger also calls on the site to repeal the “ignore all rules” policy, which he created in Wikipedia’s early days. The rule was intended to encourage editors who were nervous about amending articles to simply focus on the task at hand.

“That was since made into a rule that is used by insiders to exert control over the newbies. So it’s, again, entirely inverted,” Sanger said.

A computer screen shows Larry Sanger’s website on Oct. 16, 2025. Sanger said the way Wikipedia is organized creates a self-perpetuating cycle that he described as an “irrational bureaucracy.” Oleksii Pydsosonnii/The Epoch Times

How Change Could Arise

More broadly, Sanger said change could come in one of three ways.

First, the Wikimedia Foundation could voluntarily end the ideological monopoly.

“Centrists and libertarians and Republicans and conservatives, religious people, religious Hindus and Jews and Christians, Falun Gong, they should all be able to participate,” Sanger said.

Failing that, Sanger said a public campaign seeking fairness might move the site to change.

“I’m going to set up a letter of protest,” Sanger said. “I’m going to try to circulate this to a lot of prominent people who have been wronged in various ways by Wikipedia.”

He invites others to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly to make their feelings known.

As a last resort, Sanger said Congress could intervene by creating an exception to Section 230 that would enable a site to be taken down if it published defamatory material. A precedent exists, according to Sanger, who cited a 2018 law that created a similar exception for websites used to organize human trafficking.

“Even if the people who run the website aren’t doing the human trafficking, if it’s being organized on the website, they can still be sued,” Sanger said.

“Wikipedia really does need some reform,” Sanger said.

Though he’s hopeful the site may adopt his proposals, he acknowledged it may not happen.

“They might find ways that are more palatable to them,” he added. “[If so,] I’d be all in favor of that.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 22:35

For The First Time, More Schoolchildren Worldwide Are Obese Than Underweight

For The First Time, More Schoolchildren Worldwide Are Obese Than Underweight

For the first time ever, more children and adolescents aged 5 to 19 worldwide are obese than underweight.

As Statista's Calentina Fourreau details below, according to UNICEF, around 188 million schoolchildren and adolescents worldwide are obese, while only around 180 million are underweight. In total, more than 420 million children of all ages are overweight. At the same time, an estimated 370 million children globally are underweight, almost half of them under the age of five and suffering from stunting or wasting due to food shortages and poor nutrition.

 For the First Time, More Schoolchildren Worldwide Are Obese Than Underweight | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

This year's UNICEF report on child nutrition sheds light on the reasons behind this long-standing reversal.

According to the report, ultra-processed, sugary and energy-dense food has been replacing fruits, vegetables and protein in children's diets, leading to potentially long-lasting health issues.

The UN sees this as directly linked to aggressive marketing by food companies, which, according to the report, countries around the world should counter with legislative changes, clear labelling, as well as targeted taxes.

In countries in the Global South in particular, growing prosperity has been accompanied for years by an increase in the consumption of unhealthy foods and thus the spread of obesity.

In the 5- to 9-year-old age group, there have been more obese than severely underweight children since 2019.

This change is predicted for older children and adolescents in 2028 and 2029, respectively.

While 60 per cent of adolescents between the ages of 15 and 19 worldwide consume more than one sweet drink or food item per day, the proportion in Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa, and East Asia already exceeds this average.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 22:10

Who's Most Affected By Federal Cuts To DEI And EBT

Who's Most Affected By Federal Cuts To DEI And EBT

The inherent threat of socialist programs rests in the fact that they can be used by a political party or a politician as a means to bribe voters from certain demographics to support destructive policies in exchange for handouts.  The Democratic Party understood this well when they introduced "The Great Society" welfare programs under President  Lyndon B Johnson in the 1960s. 

The idea?  Primarily to secure the votes of minorities and people under the poverty line in the US for the Democrats for generations by offering taxpayer funded subsidies that would eventually make these groups dependent on the government for their very survival.  Specifically, the welfare system lured in black women and single mothers, offering increasing incentives per child as long as there was no father in the picture. 

This encouraged black women to have multiple children out of wedlock and increased their divorce rate from 17% in 1960 to 48% in 2024.  Single mother households in the black community skyrocketed from 20% in 1960 to 65% in 2024.  Compare this to the white community in the US, which has an 18% single mother rate. 

Economist Thomas Sowell cites the Great Society programs and endless welfare as more destructive to black Americans than any other factor in US history, including the legacy of slavery that progressive activists often rant about.

In the past decade, welfare privilege took a backseat to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts.  Black women received overwhelming special treatment in college admissions (until 2023 when the Supreme Court stepped in) as well as job applications.  Schools and corporations were given access to government subsidies in exchange for increasing their minority quotas.    

DEI also gave black women preferential access to the jobs market through a multitude of subsidies offered to corporations.  These included tax cuts through the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and Affirmative Action.  Government programs, largely created by Democrats, funded a 103% jump in black female employment in white collar jobs from 2010 to 2024.    

The problem is, many of these women did not get those jobs based on ability, they got those jobs simply because of racial identity.  What happens when the government stops pumping cash into special privileges?  The result is a mass exodus of DEI workers because they no longer have any value for the companies that hired them.  It's a catastrophe for women that relied on handouts for so long. 

When Uncle Sam is no longer your sugar daddy, what do you do?

Over 300,000 black women have reportedly lost their jobs since February and the ending of DEI initiatives is cited as the most likely cause.  The black female unemployment rate has spiked to nearly 7%. 

Black women (and single mothers in general) have also been hit hardest by cuts to SNAP benefits (EBT). 

The percentage of black households on SNAP benefits in 2024 was around 25% (compared to 8% of white households).  Approximately 1.3 million of these families are slated to lose benefits this quarter.  Many more will lose benefits if the government shutdown continues into November and the programs run out of money.

The change has caused a panic among recipients who complain that they are required to apply for or hold a job in order to get the benefits back.

Critics of DEI argue that the disruption of subsidies is a reckoning for black women and single mothers after at least 15 years of life on easy mode.  Democrats argue that DEI is similar to "reparations"; a transfer of wealth to make up for slavery and segregation.  Regardless of the supposed effects of historic "inequality", a society cannot function based on "fairness", because fairness is largely subjective. 

Only merit keeps the world running smoothly, and it would appear that the black female community is learning quickly that merit matters far more than skin color.

*  *  *

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 21:20

Japan Eyes Letting Banks Hold And Trade Bitcoin As Crypto Adoption Grows

Japan Eyes Letting Banks Hold And Trade Bitcoin As Crypto Adoption Grows

Authored by Micah Zimmerman via BitcoinMagazine.com,

Japan’s Financial Services Agency (FSA) is reportedly considering reforms that would allow domestic banks to acquire and hold digital assets, including Bitcoin, for investment purposes. 

This would be a drastic move away from the conservative stance established in 2020, when local banks were barred from holding crypto due to concerns over volatility and financial stability.

Under the proposed framework, banks could trade digital assets similarly to stocks and government bonds, with specific safeguards designed to ensure their financial soundness. The FSA plans to develop risk management protocols to mitigate the potential impact of sudden price swings on banks’ balance sheets.

The reforms are expected to be discussed soon at a working group meeting of the Financial System Council, an advisory body to the Prime Minister. 

Officials are reportedly examining mechanisms that would allow banking groups to register as licensed cryptocurrency exchange operators. 

Back in 2020, Japan enforced strict crypto rules through amendments to the Payment Services Act (PSA) and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA). These laws established a comprehensive framework governing crypto asset service providers, custodial businesses, and derivatives trading. 

Japan as a safe crypto environment

By involving established banks, regulators hope to create a safer environment for crypto investment while expanding access to digital assets across Japan.

The timing of the proposed reforms comes as Japan faces significant economic challenges.

The country carries a debt-to-GDP ratio of approximately 240%, among the highest in the world, which has prompted policymakers to explore tools to manage financial pressures, including low interest rates and targeted regulation.

In this context, digital assets may offer investors alternative avenues for returns outside traditional financial systems, potentially boosting adoption.

Japan’s crypto market has grown rapidly in recent years. As of February 2025, over 12 million cryptocurrency accounts were registered in the country, representing a roughly 3.5-fold increase from five years prior. 

Major Japanese banks have already signaled their interest in expanding crypto services. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., and Mizuho Bank have collaborated to issue stablecoins pegged to both the Japanese yen and the U.S. dollar.

A great example of Japan’s booming crypto market comes from Metaplanet. Metaplanet has acquired and held Bitcoin as a treasury reserve while launching Bitcoin-backed financial products to generate income in Japan’s low-yield market. 

The company raises capital through equity and preferred shares, similar to Strategy, to fund its Bitcoin purchases. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 20:55

One Third Of Americans Have More Credit Card Debt Than Savings

One Third Of Americans Have More Credit Card Debt Than Savings

One in three Americans now have more credit card debt than emergency savings, according to the latest survey by financial services company Bankrate.

As Statista's Anna Flecks shows in the chart belowthis is up ten percentage points from 2011, when the company first started polling the question.

Meanwhile, around 53 percent of respondents said that their savings were currently exceeding their credit card debt.

This is down two percentage points from the same time last year, but slightly up from 2011.

Around one in ten Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck in 2025, not making any debt or saving up money.

 One Third of Americans Have More Credit Card Debt Than Savings | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Millennials were the most likely to say that they had tapped into their emergency savings over the past 12 months.

The most common uses for emergency savings among all groups were unplanned emergency expenses, such as car repairs or medical bills, followed by monthly bills, including rent and mortgages, followed by day-to-day expenses such as food.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 20:30

New Generation Of Industries Emerges In Texas As Rare Earths Race Ignites

New Generation Of Industries Emerges In Texas As Rare Earths Race Ignites

Authored by Dylan Baddour via Inside Climate News (emphasis ours),

Major oil companies are drilling in East Texas again, but not for oil. This time, they're after lithium for batteries and other rare elements.

Chevron and Halliburton announced East Texas projects this summer. Exxon has acreage across the border in Arkansas. Smackover Lithium, a joint venture of a Norwegian oil giant and a Canadian miner, announced in late September the discovery of the most lithium-rich fluids ever reported in North America, measured deep beneath its Texas claims in a massive brine deposit called the Smackover Formation.

"It's ripe for development," said Jamie Liang, a former Wall Street banker and founder of Houston-based lithium startup TerraVolta, which is developing a lithium refinery on the Smackover with federal support. "There's tremendous growth potential."

Lithium mining is one of several mineral industries emerging in Texas as part of broad federal efforts to urgently establish American production of the materials required for advanced manufacturing, from batteries and solar cells to wind turbines, microchips and cruise missiles. 

Competition with China looms over this effort. For much of this year, the world's two largest economies have been locked in trade tensions— and much of the ire is linked to minerals used in technology. This month, China announced new export controls on critical mineral products, including lithium battery components. President Trump, in social media posts, described China as "very hostile" and threatened to impose export controls on critical software and add 100 percent tariffs to Chinese imports. 

Near Texarkana, the chase for lithium is backed with robust federal support. Liang's TerraVolta received $225 million from the U.S. Department of Energy in 2024 for its lithium refinery complex. This year the project was selected for fast-tracked permit review. 

It will pump up the naturally metallic super-salty fluids from the Smackover, extract lithium and other minerals and then inject the leftover liquids back underground. At least two other lithium refineries are planned in the area and companies have leased tens of thousands of acres for drilling. More will likely follow as long as lithium prices stay strong. 

"There's going to be a very large-scale infrastructure buildout," Liang said. "You're going to be drilling wells. You're going to need those service companies. You'll need pipelines."

Elsewhere in Texas, a mine is planned near El Paso for the rare metals used in magnets for electric motors. On the rural Gulf Coast, the Department of Defense has invested almost $300 million in a project that would process rare metals like samarium, used in jet engines, guided munitions and stealth technology. From Houston's petrochemical complex to the Permian Basin, a flurry of startups, oil majors and mining giants intend to recover minerals from industrial waste like coal ash, discarded electronics, mine tailings and oilfield wastewater in hopes of accelerating U.S. mineral supplies. 

Presently, the United States produces a dribble of the raw materials. China broadly owns the global production lines, following decades of investment and securing a dominance that has raised national security concerns as well as financial risk. 

The United States has just one operating lithium mine, in Nevada, where a second mine with government backing expects to begin production in 2027. Only one lithium refinery operates in the country, on the Gulf Coast of Texas. 

"Our exposure to China is unacceptable," said Douglas Wicks, a former program director at the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Energy Department. It raises threats that the outbreak of conflict could leave the United States cut off from essential supply chains.

That's the biggest reason why federal agencies are pushing so hard to play catch-up and boost American mining, Wicks said. As geopolitical tensions squeeze the flow of globalized commerce, Washington hopes to challenge Beijing's monopolies in a battle of extraction.

"I think American industry can outproduce them," said Wicks, who retired this year. The United States has "the deposits to do this."

However, the United States has to contend with China's gargantuan economy where the state owns key industries and provides subsidies, preferential finance schemes and other market support. Still, Wicks said, the United States knows how to move quickly. Just consider the recent evolution of American oil and gas. Technical innovations and loosened environmental standards in the shale revolution turned the United States from the world's largest importers of oil and gas to a major exporter in barely over a decade. Wicks believes the United States can transform again.

In 2023, under the Biden administration, the Pentagon was ordered to establish mineral supply chains independent of China. Since then, billions of dollars have flowed to mining and processing projects across the country, spurring a rush of prospectors and entrepreneurs hoping to cash in on federal grants. 

Wisk said, "Now there's a big push in Texas to ask: 'Is there something else under the ground other than oil and gas?" 

Tiny Concentrations, Big Mines

In the desert of far-west Texas, a company called Texas Mineral Resources Corp. (TMRC) had plans to dig for rare earth elements at a 950-acre Round Top Mountain site. The company won its first Defense Department contract in 2015. In January it reported a "breakthrough," producing a sample of high-purity dysprosium, which is used in semiconductors and electric vehicle motors. .

These rare elements aren't actually hard to find. They're all over the world, but they exist in tiny concentrations that require a tremendous amount of effort to extract in significant volumes. The process also generates large waste streams.

TMRC had said it would crush up 20,000 tons of rock a day. The material then would soak for a month in pools of diluted acid and undergo a series of electromagnetic processes to separate and cull the much-desired minerals. According to TMRC, the rocks hold 15 rare earth elements and other metals including lithium, gallium, hafnium, zirconium and beryllium.

Some processed byproducts "are expected to show hazardous waste characteristics," and "the waste may contain naturally occurring radioactive material," according to a 2019 economic assessment by TMRC. It noted "potential impacts to water quality resulting from mine operations and the storage of mine waste." The operations are located in Hudspeth County, home to about 3,400 people, according to the latest census. 

However, financial analysts have warned about TMRC's viability, amid reports of a growing deficit and lack of revenue. In July, according to analyst reports, TMRC had a "severe liquidity crisis." 

The Round Top site is not an anomaly and, as TMRC struggles, other miners could step in, according to Brent Elliot, a geologist with the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin, the state's official geological survey. There are "many Round Top-like igneous rocks in west Texas to explore," he said, noting that a recent survey of the area "has shown some hot targets that I'll go out and investigate." 

Holiday O'Bryan, a 22-year-old PhD student at the University of Texas, plans a career in mining. At a recent conference in Austin on mineral industries, she pointed out that most mining related to new technologies occurs in faraway countries, which often have lower environmental standards and enforcement. America's surging investment in extraction should be seen in context of the clean innovations it will support. Mining operations will change the landscape—particularly as the Trump administration cuts backs on regulations of federal land—and no one should be surprised by the compromises that the race for rare earths will demand, she said. 

"You have to have extraction for these technologies to work," she said. "In the age of the green energy transition that doesn't fly very well for someone who is trying to protect the environment."

U.S. Mining Losses

Before 1990 the United States dominated the world's mineral markets. But domestic production dropped that decade, in part, because of rising environmental protections at home and enticing low-cost foreign production possibilities. New industries and products emerging in the mid-2010s—smartphones and Tesla cars among them—prompted a re-think of the American economy and future needs. Mining had become a lost opportunity. 

"People started looking at what you actually need to be able to build things like electric vehicles," said Michelle Michot Foss, fellow in energy, minerals and materials at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy. "We started realizing, oh my gosh, we don't produce any of this stuff."

In recent years, it became clear that China had invested in and developed a strategic market, she said. The first Trump administration, within its first year, assessed mineral production as a national security matter. 

A federal mandate was laid out in a 2017 Trump executive order, "A Federal Strategy To Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals." In 2018, 35 minerals were designated "critical" for vulnerable supply chains and essential economic functions.

Federal funding for mineral industries expanded at pace during the Biden administration. The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act injected billions of dollars into projects around the country. Notably, the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act ordered the military to remove and replace Chinese-processed minerals from its processes within four years, sparking a race to rebuild complex supply chains.

Amid escalating trade tensions in 2024, China banned exports of several key minerals to the United States.

The second Trump Administration so far has allocated billions more dollars toward mineral industries, opened federal lands to mining exploration, ordered expedited permitting for certain projects and imposed tariffs on imports from more than 90 countries. China responded with export controls on 17 minerals used in military manufacturing. 

The Modern War Institute at West Point military academy has called that, "a shot across the bow of the U.S. defense industrial base." 

Can America fill the gap? It won't be easy, said Foss of Rice University. As the U.S. mining sector faded, so did its talent, expertise and a workforce pipeline. 

"Nobody knows anything about this," Foss said. "Not even in the agencies themselves are there good metallurgists anymore… except for down in the bowels of USGS."

The United States will have to develop more than mines to secure a position in global mineral markets. It needs midstream and downstream industries to process extractions—or the raw material will have to be shipped to China, which has a proficient processing capacity. 

Rare earth elements are critical components of the advanced magnets used in electrical motors and generators. For every megawatt of generating capacity, a wind turbine requires 180 kilograms of neodymium, 17 kg of dysprosium and 7 kg of terbium, according to a 2023 report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory at the Energy Department. 

Notably, the first large-scale lithium refinery in the United States is owned by Tesla, the electric car manufacturer, and located near Corpus Christi, Texas. 

Launched in December, Tesla's plant imports ore from Canada's only lithium mine for processing into battery-grade material. It will eventually use eight million gallons of water per day. That might be difficult given the water shortages there.

About 70 miles north of Tesla's refinery, another rare earths processing plant, a joint project between an Australian miner, Lynas, and the Defense Department, is also planned. 

The Defense Department has invested $288 million since 2021 into Lynas Rare Earths Limited's plans for a processor near the tiny town of Seadrift, on the shore of San Antonio Bay. If completed, the mining company would oversee the country's first processor for elements such as samarium, used in ultra-high-temperature magnets for spacecraft, satellites, missile guidance systems, stealth aircraft and electronic warfare technologies. 

But there's a hitch, again, tied to water issues. Lynas aims to discharge wastewater through an existing treatment system at a nearby Dow Chemical plant, according to a draft environmental impact statement dated November 2023. That same month, Texas' environmental regulators issued a draft wastewater permit amendment for Dow, which would increase daily discharge limits at one of its outfalls from 17 million to 42 million gallons. 

The draft permit amendment did not mention Lynas or the reason for the sudden rise in daily discharges.. 

Diane Wilson, a 78-year-old environmental activist in Seadrift who has battled Dow for decades, filed a challenge to the permit amendment, questioning Dow's need. Dow's existing permit allows for about 80 harmful chemicals and metals in the wastewater.

To her surprise, Dow withdrew its application in February this year, shortly after state regulators recommended hearing Wilson's request. 

"They obviously did not want us going to a hearing," Wilson said about Dow and the mining company. "There is a real secret element here."

Two months later, Lynas announced its project faced rising costs due to "wastewater challenges," according to industry news reports. In August, its annual results statement noted "there is significant uncertainty as to whether the construction of the heavy rare earth processing facility at Seadrift, Texas will proceed and, if so, in what form." 

That's when Wilson said she surmised the Lynas mining project was behind the permit request. 

Lynas and Dow did not respond to a request for comment. 

Minerals from Waste 

In the heart of Houston's industrial complex, another Australian company, Metallium, announced in August that it had leased a fully permitted site for a first-of-a-kind facility to recover minerals from industrial and electronic waste. 

Many critical minerals mined or refined in China ultimately end up in American landfills as discarded consumer electronics. Metallium aims to use flash heating technology developed at Rice University to haul in the abandoned material and extract an array of elements. The facility plans operations in 2026. 

Other companies are exploring extraction of critical minerals from old industrial waste including coal ash, mine tailing and the red mud residues buried over decades at alumina processing sites along the coast. One pilot project in San Antonio is extracting the mineral graphite from methane gas.

A small landscape of startups has also cropped up around the tremendous volumes of mineral-rich–and toxic–wastewater that comes up from oil wells.

"We can basically turn an oil well into a mini-mine," said Jesse Evans, co-founder of a San Antonio-based startup, Maverick Metals. 

This year, Maverick began producing a proprietary chemical that is pumped at high pressure into new oil wells during fracking to dissolve metal-bearing rocks that rise to the surface in the brown frothy brine known as "produced water." 

Maverick has processes, equipment and chemicals to extract metals from that wastewater. Most startups in this space focus on lithium, Evans said. But oilfield wastewater also contains trace amounts of other metals like platinum, palladium and gold that are profitable business, he said.

"What makes the lithium space really difficult is competing with China," he said. 

Some Chinese companies are vertically integrated from mine to factory, including Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited, the world's largest battery manufacturer. Chinese companies also face looser environmental restrictions, lower labor costs and little media scrutiny. Critically, China's state-run economy can swiftly orchestrate production surges to lower prices and crush competition—and its state-backed companies can operate at a loss for months if not years. 

"We play by the rules of capitalism but a different set of rules applies to them," said Marek Locmelis, an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin who organizes an annual conference on critical minerals.

Lithium Hopes

Beyond the need for vast water supplies, the lithium pursuit also faces environmental and technical challenges. In Texas, the methods that companies plan to mine lithium haven't yet been used commercially at scale anywhere in the world. 

While traditional hardrock mines require stone crushing and grinding, the Smackover Formation contains a metal-rich brine that allows for quicker extraction. 

"If you extract directly from a brine you basically skip the mineral processing step that is energy intensive," Locmelis said.

Existing lithium brine operations—including Silver Peak in Nevada, the country's only operating lithium mine—let fluids evaporate in ponds over 18 months to concentrate the minerals. But projects in Texas plan to use new methods that extract metals in several days. 

These methods require much less freshwater than hardrock or evaporation mines but will still draw significant volumes from shallow aquifers. While water in East Texas may seem abundant, the area affected by lithium production lacks groundwater conservation districts to manage or track withdrawals, said Vanessa Puig-Williams, Texas water program director at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. 

"There is no entity that is managing the production of the fresh groundwater," she said. "That's worrisome because there is no oversight."

One Austin-based lithium startup, EnergyX, plans to use a process of "proprietary lithium-selective adsorbents, membranes, and extractants" which "enables faster, cleaner, and cost-efficient lithium extraction," said founder Teague Egan.

The process uses about 6,600 gallons of freshwater per ton of lithium produced, Egan said, just a fraction of traditional evaporation methods.

In September, EnergyX announced a site in Texarkana for its demonstration plant, which it plans to operate early next year. The company, backed by automaker General Motors, owns 330 adjacent acres where it plans a commercial-scale refinery. Four units would come online by 2030 to achieve 50,000 tons per year of production. 

"Texas—and specifically the Smackover Region—is quickly emerging as one of the central hubs for the U.S. lithium sector," Egan said. "In 10 years, we believe the Smackover Region will be the largest source of domestically produced lithium." 

His vision hinges on high hopes for strong lithium prices although there is some uncertainty about that. 

A trade war with China could crush the American sector. Technical advancements are making smaller batteries with less lithium and could dampen demand. Rapid evolution of recycling technologies could also reduce the need for lithium production. Scientists are developing new designs for energy storage that could eventually see lithium batteries join CD players and USB sticks in the land of obsolescence. 

Egan is not dissuaded. He is betting on Northeast Texas "evolving into a full-fledged lithium hub, with upstream brine production integrated directly into downstream refining."

"The region has the potential to become a global benchmark," he said. "Just as the oil and gas industry shaped the region's past, lithium can help define its future." 

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 20:05

Forget Harvard & Stanford, The University Of Chicago Has The Highest Tuition Costs Among Elite US Colleges

Forget Harvard & Stanford, The University Of Chicago Has The Highest Tuition Costs Among Elite US Colleges

The cost of attending America’s most prestigious universities continues to soar.

For the 2024–25 academic year, the total annual cost of the top 10 national universities now ranges from $77,500 to $98,300, according to data compiled from U.S. News & World Report and College Board.

In the graphic below, Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti compares tuition costs for the top 10 U.S. universities with national averages for both private and public four-year colleges.

Elite Education Comes at a Premium

The University of Chicago tops the list, with tuition reaching $71,300. Other elite schools like Duke, Yale, and Stanford also hover near the $70,000 mark. Even Harvard, despite having one of the largest endowments in the world, lists tuition at $59,300.

The Gap Between Elite and Average Colleges

Tuition at the top 10 U.S. universities ranges from $59,000 to $71,000 per year, averaging about 50% higher than the $43,400 charged by the typical private nonprofit four-year college. By comparison, public out-of-state universities average around $29,200, while in-state students pay just $11,600.

In fact, the average college tuition costs have climbed a remarkable 748% since 1963, after adjusting for inflation. This steady rise reflects expanding facilities, faculty salaries, and student services, but it also deepens accessibility challenges.

Fleeing Tuition Hikes

Facing soaring tuition costs, more American students are looking overseas for affordable alternatives.

According to the Institute of International Education’s Open Doors report, the number of Americans earning degrees abroad rose from about 50,000 in 2019 to over 90,000 in 2024.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Extra Earnings of a Bachelor’s Degree by State on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 19:40

The Crisis And Revolution Hidden In Plain Sight

The Crisis And Revolution Hidden In Plain Sight

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

While we focus on AI and finance, society is crumbling beneath our feet.

According to both the mainstream media and social media, the forces that will shape the future are:

1) AI (i.e. technology's impact on jobs and growth),

2) geopolitical competition for AI dominance, energy, resources, trade, military and financial power,

3) finance, which includes cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), federal deficits, hyperinflation / currency devaluation and precious metals --all of which boil down to "what can I do to ensure that my wealth will remain intact whatever happens."

The key issues are technology, finance and market forces--the core drivers of the global economy. Society isn't on the menu other than as a quickly dismissed source of dutiful hand-wringing.

While all these will be influential, no one seems to see the domestic crisis hidden in plain sight or the revolution it makes inevitable. In my analysis, these will be the dominant forces shaping the coming decade.

As I have documented in recent posts-- If We Measured the Economy by Quality-of-Life Instead of GDP, We'd Be In a DepressionFor Many, This Recession Will Feel Like a Depression and Crunch Time for Cities, Counties and States--the system has reached its limits and is coming apart.

What is the crisis? There are three self-reinforcing dynamics in play.

The first is the imbalance of the economy and society: The economy now dominates society, and historically this leads to disorder. Everyone looking at technology and finance as the solutions has it backwards: technology and finance are the problems, not the solutions, as they are the primary drivers of the imbalance between society and the economy.

As I explain in my new book's Introduction (free), society and the market forces that drive the economy have different timelines, tasks and priorities.

Market forces are focused on expanding new markets, heedless of consequences beyond profit and market share; the future consequences fall on society, which must take the long view and absorb the impacts on the workforce, social stability and the nation's commons, i.e. the environment.

The second is that inequality--of wealth, income, opportunity and power--has reached extremes that can be visualized as a pendulum: pushed to an extreme, the pendulum will swing to the opposite extreme.

It's not just inequality that's reached an extreme--so has exploitation, artifice and moral decay.

The average income of the bottom 60% households is $38,000 annually, while to qualify as a top 10% household requires about $250,000 annually.

As I have documented here, insecurity can't be measured solely by income--the other dynamic is precarity: the income of many households is variable, and unexpected expenses such as auto repairs or health emergencies (both of which have reached insane heights) can throw the household into a financial hole.

Those ignoring society to focus on the economy assume the bottom 60% of Americans--200 million people, 80 million households who own so little of the nation's financial wealth that their share is a rounding error--will just uncomplainingly accept their accelerating impoverishment as prices for essential soar and wages don't keep pace.

The problem with this assumption is this cohort is making too little money (even with increases in minimum wages) to afford the essentials of shelter, food, healthcare, childcare and transport.

Inflation is not dead; it's already changed the landscape permanently. Lower-cost alternatives have dried up: even old cars and apartments in seedy neighborhoods cost a fortune now.

Those between the bottom 60% and the top 10%--the 30% who self-identify as "middle class"-- may feel immune to precarity, but much of their financial stability rests on sands that will collapse in a recession / asset-bubble pop.

Their financial stability is fragile because it now rests on three fragile economic structures:

1) credit-asset bubbles that have increased "wealth" without increasing use-value;

2) the transfer of risk from corporations and the government to households,

3) the "trickledown economy" where the wealthiest 10% now collect virtually all the non-wage income from income-producing assets and account for 50% of all spending--wealth and income that's supposed to "trickle down" to the bottom 90%.

Once the asset bubbles pop and even the top 10% start experiencing job losses and declining income, the layoffs in the bottom 90% will cascade as spending dries up and stock portfolios and home values return to Earth.

Only those 62 and older were in the workforce in a "real recession," i.e. one that can't be reversed by the Federal Reserve lowering short-term interest rates and the federal government borrowing and spending more to "spend our way out of recession." The last real recession was 43 years ago, 1981-82.

There is also a demographic dynamic in play globally: Gen Z is no longer accepting that massive inequality between generations is "the way it has to be."

The second dynamic is the buffers that enabled people to hang on through recessions have all thinned: where debt was a modest percentage of GDP in the 1970s and 1980s recessions, now it's at historic highs. Households have already tapped credit cards and so borrowing more money to get by is not an option.

So when push comes to shove--when hours are cut or a job is lost--the only choice is what not to pay: student loan, car payment, rent, as food and utilities take precedence.

The buffers are already thinned and we haven't even slipped into recession yet.

The third dynamic is the least recognized: the moral decay that has pushed exploitation, profiteering and artifice to extremes, undermining the foundations of the economy and society.

Though it's unseen, the economy and society both rest on moral foundations. As moral decay consumes those foundations, the consequences are social and economic decay.

The authentic market--defined by transparency and competition--has been replaced by monopolies and cartels that generate outsized profits not by increasing value but by reducing the value of products and services.

Profits flow not from improving durability and quality but by reducing them. There are words that describe our economy: exploitation, profiteering, predation, extraction.

Since political influence is now an open auction in which corporations place the winning bids, there is zero political interest or will to address the inequality divide. The current administration's core economic policies are unchanged from 2008-09: cut taxes paid by the 10% (because they pay most of the income taxes), push interest rates down to goose borrowing, and inflate asset bubbles to create "the wealth effect." That these only increase wealth and income inequality--who cares? Not the political class of either party.

We've succumbed to normalization: all this is "the way it is."

But this is artifice: normalizing extremes doesn't make them stable. The system has reached its limits and the social order is crumbling.

*  *  *

My new book Investing In Revolution describes the inevitable result: a social revolution, not a political one that replaces one ruling elite with another. This will be a revolution that changes values and restores social norms. We will all have the opportunity to invest in revolution.

To me, this is all in plain sight, but since nobody else sees it, it's hidden in plain sight. The Introduction (free) summarizes the many dynamics in play.

I tend to think this might be my most important book, as I sincerely doubt the next decade will be a simple extension of the last decade. Just as the Ming Empire crumbled when it reached its limits, our system has reached its limits; while we focus on AI and finance, society is crumbling beneath our feet.

I'm offering the book at a 20% discount ($16 for the paperback, $20 for the hardcover and $7.95 for the Kindle edition) through Wednesday October 22, 6 pm EST.

Check out my updated Books and Films.

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 19:15

Slouching Towards Peace

Slouching Towards Peace

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

“Zelensky has been given a Russian ultimatum via Trump. Accept Russia terms or face total destruction.”

- SiriusReport on “X”

Well, “No Kings” came and went. Inflatable animal costumes did a brisk business for one week. The old Boomers got a social space to act out their nostalgic re-visit to the Age of Aquarius. They resisted. . . something. (Mainly authority of any kind, a retarded adolescent fantasy.) And now it’s back to Rachel Maddow for further instructions. The Republic slogs on, albeit with a shut-down government.

Did you forget about Ukraine? Yes, a war is still going on there and it’s a weeping lesion on Western Civ, possibly leading to fatal sepsis. US neocons set the stage in 2014 with the Maidan color revolution as a wedge to wreck and then loot Russia. Then, for eight years, Ukraine harassed the Donbas with US-supplied missiles and artillery. Russia had enough of that in 2022 and ventured in to stop it. For “Joe Biden,” the war was a nice smokescreen to cover his long-running grift operations in Ukraine.

The Euro club stupidly came along for the ride.

It was all a tragic and feckless waste.

Mr. Trump wants to stop it, but Western Civ as a whole is in such a state of florid strategic disorder that he’s had to pretend the US supports Ukraine. Mr. Zelensky could not possibly carry on this mischief without US weapons and loads of US taxpayer cash. Still, the Russians advance implacably on-the-ground. They are going to “win” this war eventually — meaning, the US and Europe will lose — and everybody knows it.

It would be nice if France, Germany, and the UK were still stable, thriving, rational nations, but they are not. They have entered an arc of collapse, largely due to their own stupendously bad choices, and their leadership is insane. Macron, Merz, Starmer. . . these are the Three Stooges of our time, and Europe’s collapse has degenerated to morbid, masochistic slapstick as their factories shutter and the Jihadis go about raping their wives and daughters. Do you think that’s not happening?

Mr. Trump surely realizes he has to cut the US loose from this evil clown-show. That they are our NATO allies complicates things, yet, really, the Euro gang is impotent and NATO has become an irrelevant anachronism. They have no effective military mojo. Their economies are imploding. They have surrendered their culture to a savage cult. Their populations are demoralized, emasculated, in thrall to the menopausal viragos in their councils and ministries. They know full-well that Ukraine lies in Russia’s sphere-of-influence — a centuries-long reality — and that it is none of their business. Yet, Macron, Merz, and Starmer keep pushing the fantasy that Russia seeks to invade them, and so they must strike at Russia before that happens . . . all pure delusion.

You can suppose that Mr. Putin wants a negotiated peace rather than continuing the long grind on-the-ground, with all its casualties and expenditures. Such a negotiated peace really amounts to the US ceasing to support Zelensky’s war effort. Of course, such is the insanity of US political life, that many in our government pretend that we have a stake in Ukraine, and must retain some control of it.

Mr. Trump must know this is insane and is against the interests of the USA. He knows that Ukraine is historically in Russia’s sphere of influence — as Venezuela is in ours — and that the best outcome of this mess would be for Ukraine to return to its prior status as a harmless frontier between Russia and western Europe — as it had been since 1945 — looking to its humble business of growing wheat for export.

We do not need Ukraine to be anybody’s problem, despite the insane yearnings of the neocons, the weapons manufacturers, and the reckless globalists of the EU, to make it everyone’s problem.

Hence, Mr. Trump’s dilemma: how to dissociate from this losing proposition and come out looking like a winner, saving Europe from becoming a smoldering ashtray, stanching the flow of US taxpayers’ money and US-made weapons into this black hole, and forging friendly relations with a Russia that is decades beyond being our ideological enemy? America and Russia’s interests are geopolitically aligned, though no one in the arena is willing to admit it. Russia has much more to worry about with China right at Siberia’s doorstep than with the USA, just as the USA has much more to worry about with China as it weaponizes A-I, moves into outer space, and casts a covetous eye on the resources of the USA, Australia, Africa, and its next-door-neighbor, Russia.

These are the matters that Presidents Trump and Putin must be touching on in those long, two-and-a-half-hour phone confabs they hold. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump must put on a vaudeville show for his US adversaries about maybe giving tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. . . no, maybe not doing that. . . and the rest of the song and dance to make it appear that we are kinda-sorta still on Ukraine’s side when the truth is we are not so much at all.

And so, the two presidents head for Budapest where — if the intel spooks of Euroland don’t try to bump them off there — they might come to the necessary agreement that the war will end because the US no longer supports it, not even the pretense of supporting it. President Viktor Orban of Hungary, who Mr. Trump respects, will be on hand for moral support. Expect some tough-talking mummery from DJT, just to throw the MSNBC lunatics off-balance. Rogue idiots such as Senators Blumenthal and Schiff will fume that “Trump lost Ukraine,” but the 50-plus percent of Americans who are not-insane will understand what actually happened.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 16:20

Slouching Towards Peace

Slouching Towards Peace

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

“Zelensky has been given a Russian ultimatum via Trump. Accept Russia terms or face total destruction.”

- SiriusReport on “X”

Well, “No Kings” came and went. Inflatable animal costumes did a brisk business for one week. The old Boomers got a social space to act out their nostalgic re-visit to the Age of Aquarius. They resisted. . . something. (Mainly authority of any kind, a retarded adolescent fantasy.) And now it’s back to Rachel Maddow for further instructions. The Republic slogs on, albeit with a shut-down government.

Did you forget about Ukraine? Yes, a war is still going on there and it’s a weeping lesion on Western Civ, possibly leading to fatal sepsis. US neocons set the stage in 2014 with the Maidan color revolution as a wedge to wreck and then loot Russia. Then, for eight years, Ukraine harassed the Donbas with US-supplied missiles and artillery. Russia had enough of that in 2022 and ventured in to stop it. For “Joe Biden,” the war was a nice smokescreen to cover his long-running grift operations in Ukraine.

The Euro club stupidly came along for the ride.

It was all a tragic and feckless waste.

Mr. Trump wants to stop it, but Western Civ as a whole is in such a state of florid strategic disorder that he’s had to pretend the US supports Ukraine. Mr. Zelensky could not possibly carry on this mischief without US weapons and loads of US taxpayer cash. Still, the Russians advance implacably on-the-ground. They are going to “win” this war eventually — meaning, the US and Europe will lose — and everybody knows it.

It would be nice if France, Germany, and the UK were still stable, thriving, rational nations, but they are not. They have entered an arc of collapse, largely due to their own stupendously bad choices, and their leadership is insane. Macron, Merz, Starmer. . . these are the Three Stooges of our time, and Europe’s collapse has degenerated to morbid, masochistic slapstick as their factories shutter and the Jihadis go about raping their wives and daughters. Do you think that’s not happening?

Mr. Trump surely realizes he has to cut the US loose from this evil clown-show. That they are our NATO allies complicates things, yet, really, the Euro gang is impotent and NATO has become an irrelevant anachronism. They have no effective military mojo. Their economies are imploding. They have surrendered their culture to a savage cult. Their populations are demoralized, emasculated, in thrall to the menopausal viragos in their councils and ministries. They know full-well that Ukraine lies in Russia’s sphere-of-influence — a centuries-long reality — and that it is none of their business. Yet, Macron, Merz, and Starmer keep pushing the fantasy that Russia seeks to invade them, and so they must strike at Russia before that happens . . . all pure delusion.

You can suppose that Mr. Putin wants a negotiated peace rather than continuing the long grind on-the-ground, with all its casualties and expenditures. Such a negotiated peace really amounts to the US ceasing to support Zelensky’s war effort. Of course, such is the insanity of US political life, that many in our government pretend that we have a stake in Ukraine, and must retain some control of it.

Mr. Trump must know this is insane and is against the interests of the USA. He knows that Ukraine is historically in Russia’s sphere of influence — as Venezuela is in ours — and that the best outcome of this mess would be for Ukraine to return to its prior status as a harmless frontier between Russia and western Europe — as it had been since 1945 — looking to its humble business of growing wheat for export.

We do not need Ukraine to be anybody’s problem, despite the insane yearnings of the neocons, the weapons manufacturers, and the reckless globalists of the EU, to make it everyone’s problem.

Hence, Mr. Trump’s dilemma: how to dissociate from this losing proposition and come out looking like a winner, saving Europe from becoming a smoldering ashtray, stanching the flow of US taxpayers’ money and US-made weapons into this black hole, and forging friendly relations with a Russia that is decades beyond being our ideological enemy? America and Russia’s interests are geopolitically aligned, though no one in the arena is willing to admit it. Russia has much more to worry about with China right at Siberia’s doorstep than with the USA, just as the USA has much more to worry about with China as it weaponizes A-I, moves into outer space, and casts a covetous eye on the resources of the USA, Australia, Africa, and its next-door-neighbor, Russia.

These are the matters that Presidents Trump and Putin must be touching on in those long, two-and-a-half-hour phone confabs they hold. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump must put on a vaudeville show for his US adversaries about maybe giving tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. . . no, maybe not doing that. . . and the rest of the song and dance to make it appear that we are kinda-sorta still on Ukraine’s side when the truth is we are not so much at all.

And so, the two presidents head for Budapest where — if the intel spooks of Euroland don’t try to bump them off there — they might come to the necessary agreement that the war will end because the US no longer supports it, not even the pretense of supporting it. President Viktor Orban of Hungary, who Mr. Trump respects, will be on hand for moral support. Expect some tough-talking mummery from DJT, just to throw the MSNBC lunatics off-balance. Rogue idiots such as Senators Blumenthal and Schiff will fume that “Trump lost Ukraine,” but the 50-plus percent of Americans who are not-insane will understand what actually happened.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 16:20

Trump Blasts Colombian President As 'Lunatic, Drug Leader' While Vowing New Tariffs

Trump Blasts Colombian President As 'Lunatic, Drug Leader' While Vowing New Tariffs

President Trump has put Colombia on notice, and will hit the South American nation with new tariffs. He has further charged President Gustavo Petro with being an "illegal drug leader," saying the US will also halt all aid to the country.

Trump asserted Sunday on social media that drug trafficking "has become the biggest business in Colombia" and said Petro "does nothing to stop it" despite years of US funding. "AS OF TODAY, THESE PAYMENTS... WILL NO LONGER BE MADE," the US president wrote.

All of this came after earlier on Sunday President Trump confirmed that US forces previously "destroyed a very large drug-carrying submarine" off the coast of Venezuela - the sixth such strike on alleged narco-vessels in recent weeks. 

In follow-up while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump officially confirmed what Senator Lindsey Graham had hinted at earlier, saying further details about the tariffs would be released Monday.

Senator Graham said on X that he'd a "very good conversation" with Trump, during which the president vowed to "hit Colombia not only by going after its drug traffickers but also where it hurts most - in its economy."

Soon after Trump while speaking to reporters decried Colombia as being "out of control" and that "they have the worst president they’ve ever had - a lunatic with serious mental problems."

Colombia has alleged that among the latest strikes in the south Caribbean was a fishing vessel carrying a Colombian national who was severely injured. But there's been some confusion over precisely which strike it was.

But speaking to reporters, Trump said "This submarine had one purpose - to transport massive quantities of drugs." But it appears Colombia is making the allegation about a prior attack, and not the submarine incident.

He added: "They’re producing enormous amounts of cocaine, shipping it worldwide, and destroying countless families."

And yet...

The two survivors of an American military strike on a suspected drug-carrying vessel in the Caribbean will be sent to Ecuador and Colombia, their home countries, U.S. President Donald Trump said Saturday.

The military rescued the pair after striking a submersible vessel Thursday, in what was at least the sixth such attack since early September.

Seeking to prove the US narrative of things, Trump and the Pentagon's public affairs team both shared a video showing US air assets destroying the "drug-carrying submarine." However, no details were provided regarding the type of aircraft or weapons used in the strike. Some analysts have questioned the legality of such 'executions' on the high seas, without warning or attempt to intercept.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 15:45

Trump Blasts Colombian President As 'Lunatic, Drug Leader' While Vowing New Tariffs

Trump Blasts Colombian President As 'Lunatic, Drug Leader' While Vowing New Tariffs

President Trump has put Colombia on notice, and will hit the South American nation with new tariffs. He has further charged President Gustavo Petro with being an "illegal drug leader," saying the US will also halt all aid to the country.

Trump asserted Sunday on social media that drug trafficking "has become the biggest business in Colombia" and said Petro "does nothing to stop it" despite years of US funding. "AS OF TODAY, THESE PAYMENTS... WILL NO LONGER BE MADE," the US president wrote.

All of this came after earlier on Sunday President Trump confirmed that US forces previously "destroyed a very large drug-carrying submarine" off the coast of Venezuela - the sixth such strike on alleged narco-vessels in recent weeks. 

In follow-up while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump officially confirmed what Senator Lindsey Graham had hinted at earlier, saying further details about the tariffs would be released Monday.

Senator Graham said on X that he'd a "very good conversation" with Trump, during which the president vowed to "hit Colombia not only by going after its drug traffickers but also where it hurts most - in its economy."

Soon after Trump while speaking to reporters decried Colombia as being "out of control" and that "they have the worst president they’ve ever had - a lunatic with serious mental problems."

Colombia has alleged that among the latest strikes in the south Caribbean was a fishing vessel carrying a Colombian national who was severely injured. But there's been some confusion over precisely which strike it was.

But speaking to reporters, Trump said "This submarine had one purpose - to transport massive quantities of drugs." But it appears Colombia is making the allegation about a prior attack, and not the submarine incident.

He added: "They’re producing enormous amounts of cocaine, shipping it worldwide, and destroying countless families."

And yet...

The two survivors of an American military strike on a suspected drug-carrying vessel in the Caribbean will be sent to Ecuador and Colombia, their home countries, U.S. President Donald Trump said Saturday.

The military rescued the pair after striking a submersible vessel Thursday, in what was at least the sixth such attack since early September.

Seeking to prove the US narrative of things, Trump and the Pentagon's public affairs team both shared a video showing US air assets destroying the "drug-carrying submarine." However, no details were provided regarding the type of aircraft or weapons used in the strike. Some analysts have questioned the legality of such 'executions' on the high seas, without warning or attempt to intercept.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 15:45

World's Most Advanced AI Chips Now Being Made In America Due To Trump's Policies: Nvidia Chief

World's Most Advanced AI Chips Now Being Made In America Due To Trump's Policies: Nvidia Chief

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said the United States has entered a new “industrial revolution” powered by artificial intelligence, crediting President Donald Trump’s tariff policies and manufacturing agenda for enabling the first-ever production of the company’s most advanced Blackwell AI chips on American soil.

While speaking from a semiconductor fabrication plant in Phoenix, Arizona, on Oct. 17, and later during an interview with Fox News, Huang said that Nvidia and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) have jointly reached volume production of U.S.-made Blackwell wafers—an achievement he called “a historic moment” in both technology and industrial policy.

“It’s the very first time in recent American history that the single most important chip is being manufactured here in the United States by the most advanced fab, by TSMC, here in the United States,” Huang said at the event.

“This is the vision of President Trump of reindustrialization—to bring back manufacturing to America, to create jobs, of course, but also, this is the single most vital manufacturing industry and the most important technology industry in the world.”

The milestone was marked in a ceremony at the Arizona fab, where Huang joined TSMC executives to sign the first U.S.-produced Blackwell wafer—a symbolic gesture meant to highlight the reemergence of cutting-edge semiconductor production in the United States.

In his Fox News interview, Huang credited Trump’s tariffs and energy policies with speeding up the decision to manufacture advanced chips in the United States rather than keeping production overseas.

“This last week was a historic week,” he said on “The Sunday Briefing.”

“We manufactured the most advanced AI chips in the world, in the most advanced fab in the world, here in America for the first time. All of this started with President Trump wanting to reindustrialize the United States. His tariffs were a pressing agent in making this possible at the speed that we’re doing, and now just shortly after less than a year, we’re now manufacturing the most advanced chips for AI here in the United States. This is just the beginning of it.”

Trump has made tariffs the centerpiece of a broader industrial strategy aimed at reshaping global supply chains and reducing reliance on foreign manufacturing. Since returning to the White House, he has imposed a range of duties on imports—from steel and aluminum to vehicles and electronics—while noting that companies can avoid tariffs entirely by building in the United States.

Trump administration officials have said the goal of the tariffs is not only to raise federal revenue but also to force corporate investment back onto U.S. soil—a stance that has drawn both manufacturing commitments and legal challenges.

Huang estimated that within several years, roughly $500 billion worth of AI supercomputing systems could be built and installed in the United States, including data centers, chip fabs, and advanced packaging plants. He said the scale of construction would also generate demand for skilled trades such as electricians, welders, and precision technicians.

With his remarks, Huang joins other business leaders who have recently endorsed Trump’s tariff approach as a catalyst for reshoring. Whirlpool CEO Marc Bitzer, for example, said recently that tariffs helped justify a $300 million expansion of its Ohio manufacturing plants, calling the policies essential to a “level playing field.”

“Any investment is a bet for the future,” Bitzer said. “Our bet is that these tariff policies stay.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s trade program faces a pivotal test at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is set to hear arguments next month on whether the administration exceeded its authority in imposing certain tariffs under emergency powers.

Trump has said that overturning the tariffs would jeopardize national security and undermine U.S. leverage abroad, saying during an Oct. 19 interview, “If they took away tariffs, then they’ve taken away our national security,” adding that an unfavorable ruling could mean the United States will struggle “for years.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 15:30

World's Most Advanced AI Chips Now Being Made In America Due To Trump's Policies: Nvidia Chief

World's Most Advanced AI Chips Now Being Made In America Due To Trump's Policies: Nvidia Chief

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said the United States has entered a new “industrial revolution” powered by artificial intelligence, crediting President Donald Trump’s tariff policies and manufacturing agenda for enabling the first-ever production of the company’s most advanced Blackwell AI chips on American soil.

While speaking from a semiconductor fabrication plant in Phoenix, Arizona, on Oct. 17, and later during an interview with Fox News, Huang said that Nvidia and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) have jointly reached volume production of U.S.-made Blackwell wafers—an achievement he called “a historic moment” in both technology and industrial policy.

“It’s the very first time in recent American history that the single most important chip is being manufactured here in the United States by the most advanced fab, by TSMC, here in the United States,” Huang said at the event.

“This is the vision of President Trump of reindustrialization—to bring back manufacturing to America, to create jobs, of course, but also, this is the single most vital manufacturing industry and the most important technology industry in the world.”

The milestone was marked in a ceremony at the Arizona fab, where Huang joined TSMC executives to sign the first U.S.-produced Blackwell wafer—a symbolic gesture meant to highlight the reemergence of cutting-edge semiconductor production in the United States.

In his Fox News interview, Huang credited Trump’s tariffs and energy policies with speeding up the decision to manufacture advanced chips in the United States rather than keeping production overseas.

“This last week was a historic week,” he said on “The Sunday Briefing.”

“We manufactured the most advanced AI chips in the world, in the most advanced fab in the world, here in America for the first time. All of this started with President Trump wanting to reindustrialize the United States. His tariffs were a pressing agent in making this possible at the speed that we’re doing, and now just shortly after less than a year, we’re now manufacturing the most advanced chips for AI here in the United States. This is just the beginning of it.”

Trump has made tariffs the centerpiece of a broader industrial strategy aimed at reshaping global supply chains and reducing reliance on foreign manufacturing. Since returning to the White House, he has imposed a range of duties on imports—from steel and aluminum to vehicles and electronics—while noting that companies can avoid tariffs entirely by building in the United States.

Trump administration officials have said the goal of the tariffs is not only to raise federal revenue but also to force corporate investment back onto U.S. soil—a stance that has drawn both manufacturing commitments and legal challenges.

Huang estimated that within several years, roughly $500 billion worth of AI supercomputing systems could be built and installed in the United States, including data centers, chip fabs, and advanced packaging plants. He said the scale of construction would also generate demand for skilled trades such as electricians, welders, and precision technicians.

With his remarks, Huang joins other business leaders who have recently endorsed Trump’s tariff approach as a catalyst for reshoring. Whirlpool CEO Marc Bitzer, for example, said recently that tariffs helped justify a $300 million expansion of its Ohio manufacturing plants, calling the policies essential to a “level playing field.”

“Any investment is a bet for the future,” Bitzer said. “Our bet is that these tariff policies stay.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s trade program faces a pivotal test at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is set to hear arguments next month on whether the administration exceeded its authority in imposing certain tariffs under emergency powers.

Trump has said that overturning the tariffs would jeopardize national security and undermine U.S. leverage abroad, saying during an Oct. 19 interview, “If they took away tariffs, then they’ve taken away our national security,” adding that an unfavorable ruling could mean the United States will struggle “for years.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 15:30

Now Amazon Package Delays? AWS Still Suffering "Degraded" Service Across US-East

Now Amazon Package Delays? AWS Still Suffering "Degraded" Service Across US-East

Update (1507ET):

Fast forward to late in the U.S. cash session, and Amazon Web Services (AWS) is still experiencing "degraded" service in its US-East-1 (Northern Virginia) region, resulting in disruptions across a number of apps and websites today.

But forget the disruptions seen on Snapchat, Facebook, Fortnite, and many other websites today. We want to focus on the potential for delays in Amazon package deliveries. 

For instance, several packages we ordered for the research desk early in the European session were just delayed, as we received this notification from Amazon via email:

"We're encountering a delay in delivering your order. We'll send a confirmation as soon as it ships and communicate the expected delivery date. We know this delivery is important, and we apologize for the inconvenience." 

Next. We clicked on the "track package" button for each package, but a "Sorry, something went wrong on our end" page appeared.

Now packages? Are all those warehouse robots running on AWS fine?

*   *   * 

Update (0615ET):

Amazon Web Services (AWS) has largely restored operations after a major disruption in its US-East-1 (Northern Virginia) region earlier this morning that affected numerous apps and websites relying on the service.

Root Cause Identified:

AWS engineers traced the issue to a DNS resolution problem affecting the DynamoDB API endpoint in the US-East-1 region. The failure also disrupted other AWS services and global features dependent on that region, including IAM updates and DynamoDB Global Tables.

Timeline of Recovery:

  • 2:01 AM PDT: Engineers identified the DNS issue and began applying fixes.

  • 2:22 AM PDT: Early signs of recovery appeared after initial mitigations, though many requests were still failing.

  • 2:27 AM PDT: AWS reported significant progress, with most requests beginning to succeed.

  • 3:03 AM PDT: AWS confirmed broad recovery across most affected services, including global systems relying on US-East-1, though teams continue working toward full resolution.

*   *   * 

A massive internet outage is being reported at the start of the new workweek. The problem appears to be originating from Amazon Web Services (AWS), which provides infrastructure that powers much of the modern internet.

AWS' Service Health Dashboard shows "operational issues" in its US-East-1 region (Northern Virginia), one of its largest data centers.

What’s happening:

  • Several AWS services, including DynamoDB and others, are experiencing slow performance (high latency) or failures (high error rates).

Impact:

  • Apps and websites that rely on AWS may be loading slowly, timing out, or not working at all.

  • Users may be unable to create or update support cases through AWS' help system.

  • Widespread slowdowns and outages are being reported across major platforms that depend on Amazon's cloud, including Snapchat, Roblox, Amazon Alexa, Fortnite, Ring, Robinhood, Venmo, Lyft, and many others.

There's no official statement yet on what sparked the outage at AWS' Virginia data centers.

Developing.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 15:07

Sustaining The Unsustainable

Sustaining The Unsustainable

By Rabobank

The Dow Jones, NASDAQ and S&P500 closed around half a percentage point higher on Friday following comments by Donald Trump to Fox News that elevated tariffs on China are not “sustainable”. Markets seem to be interpreting this line as the latest incidence of TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) and bidding up risk (except Bitcoin) as a result. Gold prices dipped from record highs, yields on 10-year Treasuries fell 3.5bps and the DXY index strengthened to 98.43

Unfortunately, Trump didn’t quite clarify who the tariffs were unsustainable for, and neglected to mention that other features of the US economic relationship with China are not sustainable either. Large and growing trade imbalances and Chinese power over critical supply chains are cases in point. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pointed to these last week when he accused China of pointing “a bazooka at the supply chains and the industrial base of the entire free world.” Saying “we’re not going to have it.” Thems don’t sound like TACO words to me.

Happily, for markets, Bessent DID say that there is a good chance that the additional 100% tariff on China slated to come into effect on November 1st won’t actually happen, but he framed this as a decision that would ultimately depend on the outcome of an upcoming meeting between Trump and Xi Jinping later this month. Effectively, this should be read as a statement that the ball is in China’s court.

If Beijing engages on rebalancing its economy towards domestic consumption and walks back restrictions on the export of critical minerals, the tariffs won’t happen (this might be called the ‘XACO trade’). If Beijing doesn’t engage, well... Bessent also just warned that national policy won’t be directed by the price action of the S&P500 – he doesn’t care about your stock portfolio.

The United States is hardly standing still on addressing its own weaknesses when it comes to supply chains. US port fees on Chinese-owned and Chinese-built vessels took effect last week, and the Australian PM Albanese will be meeting with President Trump today with a menu of offerings to help solve US vulnerabilities regarding rare earths.

Albanese himself will be walking something of a geopolitical tightrope as he seeks to offend China (Australia’s #1 trading partner) as little as possible while also securing US investment in rare earths mining and processing to break China’s monopoly, US commitment to the China-oriented AUKUS defence pact and a sweetheart deal on tariffs (perhaps emulating the UK’s arrangements for steel and aluminium), all while resisting Scott Bessent’s suggestion of last week that the world should “decouple” from China over rare earths. Securing US subsidies for investment in foreign commodity production is likely to be a tall ask. Might Trump seek to extract a 3.5% of GDP defence spending commitment in return? Would Albo agree? What will Beijing say if he does?

Needless to say, the US continues to make waves geopolitically. This is particularly the case regarding the revamped Monroe Doctrine in South America. Trump recently disclosed that the CIA has been active in Venezuela while holding out the possibility of land strikes. The FT yesterday reported that Trump’s goal has now shifted from countering drug trafficking to toppling the Maduro regime, who happens to preside over the world’s largest proven oil reserves alongside deposits of gold, diamonds and coltan (used for capacitors, aerospace applications, electric vehicles and 5G infrastructure).

Additionally, Trump has recently tied commitments to provide financial bailouts and US Dollar swaplines to Argentina to Javier Milei’s fortunes at upcoming midterm elections. “If he wins, we’re staying with him. If he doesn’t win, we’re gone.” He has also suspended aid payments to Colombia, accusing the country’s left-wing President of being a “drug dealer”. Bolivia, meanwhile, looks set to close the book on 20 years of socialist government to elect a right-wing hardliner in what US Secretary of State Rubio described as “one of the more promising developments” in Latin America.

Clearly, the US is directing traffic in its own backyard. The ‘Western Hemisphere’ is seen as the US’s exclusive domain, and other Great Powers are not invited. For evidence of this think the tariff treatment of Brazil after cozying up to China, the bolstering of US naval supremacy across two oceans by taking back the Panama Canal, and the joking-but-not-really offers to make Canada the 51st state and to buy Greenland to freeze China and Russia out of Arctic shipping and resources (to whit, the US is now collaborating with Finland to build a new fleet of icebreakers). Expect all of this to feature in the updated National Defense Strategy set to be published soon.

Additionally, the US has been racking up wins in the Middle East and denting the ambitions of Russia and China to exert influence in central Asia – a geography that virtually every Great Power since Alexander the Great has understood to be vitally important. The Gaza peace is holding, despite wobbles over the weekend, and Iran has been cowed (for now). Oil continues to be priced in Dollars and the Israeli strike on Qatar seems to have sufficiently put the wind up other regional players to convince them to play ball with US foreign policy goals. Saudi Arabia is reportedly in talks for a new defense pact with the USA that is likely to be signed next month, the Abraham Accords are suddenly back in play and hints of trade détente with India might put the IMEEC corridor back on the horizon as a challenger to China’s One Belt One Road initiative.

So, geopolitically the cards still look to be falling the way of the United States in many respects but the huge structural imbalances on trade remain. Before we get too carried away with buying the dip on the latest hopes of TACO perhaps it is worth remembering that the advocates of TACO theory are mostly the same people who told us that universal tariffs would never happen, yet here we are. To predict what is likely to be the direction of travel on trade there is only one indicator you need to watch, and that is the US goods trade balance.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 13:20

"I Want China To Thrive, But...": Trump Outlines Three Demands For Beijing Before High-Level Trade Talks 

"I Want China To Thrive, But...": Trump Outlines Three Demands For Beijing Before High-Level Trade Talks 

President Trump spoke about his relationship with Xi and the possibility of trade deals with China during his meeting with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese this morning.

"I expect we'll probably work out a very fair deal with President Xi of China," Trump said Monday, as he repeatedly returned to his dynamics with China.

"They will threaten us with rare earths. I don't think they're threatening us too much right now, but they could do that," Trump said.

"But I threaten them with something I think is much more powerful, and it's tariffs."

Trump's words moved markets up and down (but not significantly)...

  • 1145ET *TRUMP: CHINA MAY PAY 155% TARIFF IF NO DEAL BY NOV 1 - Stocks down

  • 1155ET *TRUMP: WE'LL END UP WITH STRONG TRADE DEAL WITH CHINA - Stocks up

  • 1215ET *TRUMP: COULD THREATEN CHINA WITH AIRPLANE EXPORT CONTROLS - Stocks down

  • 1220ET *TRUMP: I WANT CHINA TO THRIVE - Stocks up

This follows comments late Sunday by President Trump, speaking aboard Air Force One while en route from Florida to Washington, telling reporters that rare earths, fentanyl, and soybeans would be key topics in his upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit later this month.

The goal of the meeting is to defuse the latest round of trade war tensions between the world's two largest economies, which have sent financial markets on a rollercoaster ride in recent weeks. 

"I don't want them playing the rare earth game with us," Trump told reporters. Just days earlier, he warned that he would impose a 100% tariff on Chinese imports starting November 1 unless Beijing reverses its newly expanded export restrictions on rare-earth minerals and magnets. Goldman briefed clients on rare-earths and tariff threats on Sunday (read here). 

The president noted that he wants Beijing "to stop with the fentanyl," referring to his calls for the world's second-largest economy to halt the export of fentanyl precursor chemicals fueling America's drug crisis, which has led to 100,000 U.S. overdose deaths each year (read this). Some view the fentanyl trade as a form of "reverse opium war," or, as we detailed in a recent note, part of a multifaceted "total war" against the U.S. that leverages next-generation weapons, including synthetic narcotics (e.g., fentanyl and cannabinoids), bioweapons (e.g., Covid-19), psychological manipulation and influence (e.g., TikTok), and a broad arsenal of irregular warfare tools. 

Another key demand Trump laid out on Air Force One ahead of his meeting with Xi is that Beijing resume soybean purchases. He said these three topics were all "very, you know, normal things." 

Soybeans have been a big issue in recent weeks:

This week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is set to meet with China's top trade negotiators in Malaysia, following a virtual meeting last Friday with Vice Premier He Lifeng that Chinese state media characterized as a "constructive exchange of views." The talks are seen as a key pathway to de-escalating tensions ahead of the Trump–Xi meeting.

Bloomberg noted a regular press briefing in Beijing earlier today, where Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun was asked about Trump's three issues.

 Jiakun responded by saying that a "trade war does not serve the interests of either party, and both sides should negotiate and resolve relevant issues on the basis of equality, respect and mutual benefit."

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 13:00

Zelensky Presses Plan For 25 Patriot Batteries Using Frozen Russian Funds

Zelensky Presses Plan For 25 Patriot Batteries Using Frozen Russian Funds

President Zelensky got rejected on Tomahawks, but is now seeking to finalizing a deal to purchase 25 Patriot air defense systems, which the Ukrainian leader has described as a major step forward in strengthening the country's defenses against Russia's ongoing aerial assaults.

Zelensky has told reporters in fresh remarks that the agreement envisions the delivery of multiple systems each year over a period of several years. Additionally, key European partners are expected to grant Ukraine priority access to Patriot systems when they come off the production line.

Getty Images

What's more is that Zelensky wants to use Russian funds to buy the air defense missiles. "Speaking in Kyiv after talks with Trump and American weapons-makers, Zelenskyy said Ukraine needed 25 US Patriot anti-missile batteries and that Russia's frozen assets in the west should be used to buy them," The Guardian reports.

Ukraine's energy sites and electrical grid are getting pummeled by nightly Russian missile and drone assaults, which have resulted in forced rolling blackouts to keep the lights on as much as possible across the country, and all ahead of winter when resources tend to be at their most strained.

At the moment, President Trump is being widely accused in mainstream media of essentially selling out the Ukrainians and siding with Putin related to potential future terms of a peace settlement:

Behind the scenes, Trump had pushed Zelenskyy to give up swaths of territory to Russia, two people briefed on the discussion told Reuters. “Let it be cut the way it is,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday. “It’s cut up right now,” he said, adding that you can “leave it the way it is right now”.

“They can negotiate something later on down the line,” he said. But for now, both sides of the conflict should “stop at the battle line – go home, stop fighting, stop killing people”.

This would indeed give Russia effective control of some 20% of Ukraine, and the idea is that the battlelines would be 'frozen' as a more comprehensive deal is hammered out.

It could be that Trump is finally getting realistic about the conflict - the Russians are not going to pack up and leave the battle lines, and territorial concessions are what will end the war, whether Kiev likes it or not.

Interestingly, Zelensky has also newly indicated he would be open to traveling to Budapest, where Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are expected to meet, in the scenario of trilateral or "shuttle diplomacy"; however, neither side has offered this to him.

He and the Europeans fear getting 'cut out' or sidelined from Moscow-Washington agreements. So far, the biggest hawks who seek to prevent Zelensky from striking real compromise are in the European capitals.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 12:25

Speculative Bull Runs And The Value Of A Bearish Tilt

Speculative Bull Runs And The Value Of A Bearish Tilt

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The recent market crack certainly woke up the more complacent bullish investors. Of course, the complacency was warranted, given the recent market surge, conversations about “TINA” (There Is No Alternative), and how “this time is different.” But that is what a speculative bull run looks and feels like. However, deep inside, you know there are risks. Valuations seem insane, credit spreads are historically tight, and sentiment and trading activity push more speculative extremes. Such is why, while considered “bearish,” we discuss risk management protocols. Why? Because such actions can protect you when it matters most. This is why I want to discuss a different approach to portfolio management with you today. Rather, how to think like a “bear,” so you see the risks of the speculative bull run. However, to act like a “bull” to capture the gains while available.

But that is a difficult skill to master.

Yes, thinking like a bear means you are aware of the exceedingly high levels of investor complacency, that valuations are stretched, and credit spreads have been crushed. Furthermore, margin debt is at very high levels, which provides the fuel for the eventual downturn.

The problem with speculative bull runs is that they always end, and most of the time that ending is destructive. It is inherently logical that, as an investor, you want to move to protect your capital. The problem is that a bearish posture can lead to more severe underperformance because the market is in full speculative mode. Such is why, as an investor, it is logical to engage in bearish thinking, but must maintain a bullish bias amid a bull run. That means you must engage selectively, ride momentum where it leads, and keep disciplined exits.

As noted, that is a difficult skill to master, but that is your edge: you see the warning signs, yet you don’t surrender to them too early.

Howard Marks once argued that psychology overwhelmingly defines speculative bull runs. Price divorces value as crowds chase narratives. While the optimists win short-term, and the pessimists are mocked, Marks warns that during these periods, “value” takes a back seat and momentum becomes the dominant force. Marks underscored that manias shift the center of gravity from intrinsic worth to consensus euphoria. So when you think like a bear, your job is not to dogmatically short every overvalued name, but to structure your exposure to survive the mania’s reversal.

However, marrying the two mindsets is challenging. While valuation models can anchor your long‑term expectations, near-term indicators like relative strength and momentum overlays can help navigate potentially dangerous waters. Like any good captain in uncharted waters, they follow the navigation but pay attention to their instincts.

Why Fundamental Analysis Alone Fails in Mania Mode

Under normal conditions, valuation metrics drive returns. You buy cheap (low P/S, high free cash flow yield, strong ROE) and wait for mean reversion. But in a speculative bull run, those rules often fail. As discussed recently, high volatility and “bad balance sheet” (poor fundamentals) are what investors are chasing. That is because the perceived risk of loss is extremely low, even though it is not.

But that is what happens during market manias. As the crowd chases momentum and dismisses warnings, it pushes prices beyond what the underlying assets justify. This is what is called “valuation expansion.” As shown below, valuations, in the short term, reflect consumer (investor) sentiment. The chart shows the correlation between consumers’ expectations of higher prices in 12 months versus trailing 12-month valuations.

Warren Buffett emphasized this point, stating that in speculative manias, the market becomes a voting machine first (popularity), then later a weighing machine (intrinsic value). In mania phases, price can outrun value over long periods before eventually reverting. Betting on the value convergence too early is dangerous. The reason, as John Maynard Keynes noted, is that.The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”

As we discussed in a recent #BullBearReport on the AI Bubble:

“The critical issue for investors, both then and now, was that many were “right” about the Dot.com bubble. However, they were so early in their warnings that they were wrong in their portfolios. The same warning applies currently. Is there a bubble in AI? Maybe. But, I would even suggest that it is pretty likely. As investors, we must realize that during the “inflation” phase of the bubble, there is a lot of money to be made, but the cycle will eventually end.”

That’s why fighting parabolic moves can be so problematic. As Peter Lynch once stated:

“Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in the corrections themselves.”

Thus, if you followed pure valuation discipline, you would often be sidelined during the high-return leg. Worse, you might have to “catch the knife” when the reversal begins. So you need to adapt your thinking to allow “bearishness” to control risk, but remain “bullish” to allow for the fact that momentum may temporarily drive prices higher..

One pitfall, however, is correlation. Historically non-correlated assets in speculative environments will move in tandem as investors look for the next speculative opportunity. Large-cap, high volatility, emerging market, international, gold, and bitcoin are all being chased higher in the current market. Each has its own narrative to justify its move higher, but buyers’ speculative fervor outstripping supply pushes prices further. In this environment, traditional diversification will likely fail to protect you in a downturn. Your differentiation comes from picking “which” levered momentum plays to hold and having triggers to exit them before they become toxic.

The good news is that markets do not collapse at once, and you will not wake up one morning with stocks down 50%. Instead, the initial sharp move lower will signal that some market “dynamic” has shifted. No one will ever know what that will be in advance. However, it will be an event that causes investors to “revalue” their forward earnings estimates. If those estimates decline, the current market will be repriced for lower future earnings. As shown, there is a high correlation between the market and the 12-month rate of change in forward earnings estimates.

The lesson is that valuation signals are essential but insufficient. You need momentum lenses, risk thresholds, and rules for scaling exposure and exiting when conditions shift. These give you a fighting chance in a speculative bull run.

How to Manage Risk & Exposure During the Mania

You have a framework now: think like a bear, engage like a bull, and overlay defenses. But how do you operationalize that in real portfolios? Below are the steps and principles from our approach and Mark’s wisdom.

  • Establish trend break rules and define when the trend is broken. Use moving averages, momentum divergences, or multi‑timeframe trend signals. When a trend breaks, reduce exposure.

  • Scale into exposure. Don’t go all in at once. Add when strength confirms. If the market corrects, your position is still manageable.

  • Use stop zones and dynamic trailing thresholds. Set stop levels or trailing stops that adapt. Cut losers early. Lock in profits on winners when they begin to stall.

  • Tier exposure by risk class. Have distinct layers: value core, momentum growth sleeve, and optional speculative layer. The speculative layer should be small, optional, and easy to cut.

  • Monitor outside‑equity signals. Watch credit spreads, yield curves, bond markets, and sentiment extremes. Those often show cracks before equities do.

  • Transition to a defensive posture incrementally. Move from “stop buying” to “reduce aggressive holdings” rather than all at once. You don’t have to hit complete defense unless the trends demand.

  • Always maintain optionality. Hold dry powder. Leave capacity to enter new momentum trends or reallocate when the old ones shed. You want to be able to pivot.

  • Accept uncertainty and probabilistic thinking. Risk and probability matter more than certainty. You can’t know exactly when the shift happens, but you can manage positioning around probabilities.

  • Be unemotional and contrarian at extremes. Great investors are unemotional. In extremes, follow contrarian logic: reduce exposure when others lean heavily in. Resist being swept by sentiment. At mania highs, the crowd is usually at its most overextended.

  • Review and adapt constantly. Conditions change. What looks good today may become a trap tomorrow. Stay vigilant. Reassess allocations regularly.

By applying these rules, you can capture much of the upside of a speculative market while protecting against the inevitable reversion.

A Roadmap: Where This Strategy Wins and When It Loses

This hybrid approach is not perfect. There are strengths, and there are risks. But it’s more durable than rigid value or blind momentum.

When it wins:

  • During strong speculative rallies, where momentum dominates, investors can participate in the gains and avoid collapsing names.

  • Technical signals can keep investors aligned with the market in environments where fundamentals are weak but liquidity and psychology are strong.

  • When the trend eventually breaks, stop rules trigger exits, preserving investor capital.

When it struggles:

  • Momentum-based strategies will fail if the trend reverses abruptly and violently without warning.

  • During choppy market phases, investors will likely suffer underperformance when the trend direction is unclear, as trend signals whipsaw.

  • A pure value strategy will outperform in sustained value-driven rebounds (after deep crashes), where fundamentals again dominate.

You mitigate those risks by:

  • Staying light in speculative exposures

  • Keeping a strong value core

  • Loosening stop logic in volatile whipsaw phases

  • Being ready to switch investment strategies when the cycle changes

The path isn’t perfect, but it gives you flexibility.

Think Like a Bear, Invest Like A Bull

In today’s market environment, where risk is elevated, it can pay to “think like a bear, but invest like a bull.” As Howard Marks previously wrote about navigating speculative manias:

In hot times, the few who do remember the past are dismissed as relics of the old, lacking the ability to imagine the new. But it invariably turns out that there’s nothing new in terms of investor behavior. Mark Twain said that “history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme,” and what rhymes are the important themes.

The bottom line is that even though knowing financial history is important, requiring people to study it won’t make a big difference, because they’ll ignore its lessons. There’s a very strong tendency for people to believe in things which, if true, would make them rich. As Demosthenes said, For that a man wishes, he generally believes to be true”

Just like in the movies, where they show a person in a dilemma to have an angel on one side and a devil on the other, in the case of investing, investors have prudence and memory on one shoulder and greed on the other. Most of the time greed wins. As long as human nature is part of the investment environment, which it always will be, we’ll experience bubbles and crashes.

There have only been a few points in history where the market is as overbought and extended, technically, as it is currently.

Given that knowledge, investors must learn to live in tension. Think like a bear, so you’re ready for danger. Invest like a bull to participate in the current wealth-building opportunity. No rule says you can ONLY be a bull or a bear. It is okay, and logical, to be a bit of both.

Critically, you must adopt probabilistic thinking and reject certainty.

This combined approach gives you a fighting chance in environments where liquidity and psychology override fundamentals. It also preserves your survival when sentiment eventually reverses.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 12:10

OpenAI-Microsoft Friction Grows As ChatGPT App Growth Slows, Data Center Buildout Risks Overcapacity

OpenAI-Microsoft Friction Grows As ChatGPT App Growth Slows, Data Center Buildout Risks Overcapacity

OpenAI's aggressive expansion of datacenters and infrastructure investments - along with its massive pipeline of future projects, fueled by what we call a "circle jerk" in AI vendor financing - has prompted warnings from Microsoft executives that meeting all of Sam Altman's infrastructure demands could generate overcapacity risks over data centers, according to The Information. Meanwhile, a separate TechCrunch report indicates that ChatGPT's mobile app growth may have already peaked.

An OpenAI employee told The Information that the chatbot startup ($500 billion valuation) has budgeted approximately $450 billion in server expenses through 2030, with additional plans to rent servers from Microsoft and Oracle. 

OpenAI has made requests for increased computing capacity with Microsoft, which has sparked internal friction between both companies. Microsoft retains "first dibs" on supplying OpenAI data center capacity due to its $13 billion investment; however, practical constraints such as construction limits and power market woes have slowed its ability to scale

Microsoft executives, including CFO Amy Hood, cautioned against overbuilding servers that might not yield returns, while OpenAI CEO Altman pushed for faster expansion

The Information continued:

There are usually two sides to most stories of marital friction. For OpenAI, its frustrations speak to the startup's seemingly bottomless computing needs, which have multiplied by the month. Over the past year, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman frequently pressed Microsoft to move more quickly in adding capacity to meet those needs.

And for their part, Microsoft leaders told Altman the company simply couldn't supply that capacity as fast as he wanted due to fundamental constraints in the construction process, such as connecting new data centers to power. Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood and her staff told colleagues that catering to OpenAI's demands could put Microsoft at risk of overbuilding servers that might not produce a financial return, according to people involved in the discussions.

Eventually, the two companies came to a resolution. In the summer of 2024, Altman and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella agreed it would be impossible for Microsoft to be the startup's sole cloud provider given OpenAI's recent growth, according to people who spoke to them. As a result, Microsoft began granting OpenAI waivers to strike deals with other cloud providers.

Hood's overbuilding server risk comes around the time that new global daily active user (DAUs) data from third-party app intelligence firm Apptopia shows "ChatGPT's mobile app growth may have hit its peak," according to TechCrunch. 

In the U.S...

And more evidence that ChatGPT's hype is fading.

Fueling the data center bubble and breaking down how the giant "circle jerk" works, we exposed the infinite money glitch earlier this month.

More complex via Bloomberg.

Super impressive Capex by hyperscalers. 

And comes as:

While the Bank of England warned earlier this month that AI-related valuations are "stretched." The irony of this warning is that central bankers very rarely make the right calls. 

This story builds on:

The bigger question is whether user fatigue with AI products is only now beginning to emerge. If that's the case, Hood's concerns about OpenAI's aggressive expansion may be justified, as Goldman's James Schneider told clients, "The net impact of our model updates extends the duration of peak datacenter occupancy well into 2026 (from the end of 2025 previously). After this point, we forecast a modest, but gradual loosening of supply/demand balance in 2027..."

Schneider added more color:

Reconciling our revised supply and demand updates, our baseline forecast for supply sufficiency stays largely unchanged in 2025 at 92% but increases by an average of 2% in 2026 to 92%, and 2% in 2027 to 92% - with a longer-term forecast supply sufficiency of 89% by 2030 - a 1% increase from our prior version of the supply/demand model. As a result, we now believe the peak of datacenter supply sufficiency is likely to be pushed out into 2026, from the end of 2025 as previously forecast. We believe the datacenter market's current supply/demand tightness will extend for longer, and our model continues to suggest that market occupancy will stabilize around average levels seen over the past 18 months. In summary, we believe the outlook for datacenter supply, demand, and their implied supply sufficiency remains relatively healthy for now. We continue to watch for incremental datapoints that could cause a shift in expectations - and we are closely watching for any changes (GPU demand, AI model efficiencies, announced incremental supply additions such as Stargate) that could significantly impact medium-term supply/demand balance.

ZeroHedge Pro Subs can read the full global datacenter supply/demand report in the usual place.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/20/2025 - 11:50

Pages