Zero Hedge

Jim Beam Shuttering Kentucky Distillery, Halting Production, For 2026

Jim Beam Shuttering Kentucky Distillery, Halting Production, For 2026

One of Kentucky’s largest bourbon producers will halt whiskey production at its main Clermont site for 2026. Jim Beam plans to pause distillation at the James B. Beam campus in Happy Hollow beginning Jan. 1 while investing in site enhancements, according to the Lexington Herald Leader.

“We are always assessing production levels to best meet consumer demand and recently met with our team to discuss our volumes for 2026,” the statement said. “We’ve shared with our teams that while we will continue to distill at our (Freddie Booker Noe) craft distillery in Clermont and at our larger Booker Noe distillery in Boston, we plan to pause distillation at our main distillery on the James B. Beam campus for 2026 while we take the opportunity to invest in site enhancements. Our visitor center at the James B. Beam campus remains open so visitors can have the full James B. Beam experience and join us for a meal at The Kitchen Table.”

Bottling and warehousing will continue at Clermont, and the visitor center will remain open for Kentucky Bourbon Trail tourists. The pause was first reported by the Louisville Business Journal.

The Herald writes that the move comes as Kentucky’s $9 billion bourbon industry faces oversupply and weaker demand. Production statewide is down more than 55 million proof-gallons—over 28%—through August, the lowest level since 2018. Exports have also fallen, with U.S. whiskey sales to Canada down more than 60% through October amid a boycott tied to trade tensions.

Beam has not filed a layoffs notice with the state, and it is unclear how many jobs could be affected. Workers are represented by United Food and Commercial Workers, and the company said it is in discussions with the union “to assess how best to utilize our workforce during this transition.”

The Clermont facility produces Jim Beam’s flagship bourbon along with Basil Hayden and Knob Creek. A larger distillery in Boston, Ky., will not be affected. Distilling at Maker’s Mark also is unaffected. As of 2024, Jim Beam employed nearly 1,500 people in Kentucky.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 13:25

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

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

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crackdown on Child Predators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authored by Shaurya Malwa via CoinDesk.com,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plans to fight back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Christmas Gift That Climate Grinches Can't Abide

The Christmas Gift That Climate Grinches Can't Abide

Authored by Vijay Jayaraj via American Greatness,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fed's Soft Landing Talk Meets Hard Data

Fed's Soft Landing Talk Meets Hard Data

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Falling Inflation Tells a Demand Story

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

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

“The Federal Reserve WANTS inflation.”

Here is another critical point: So do you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retail Sales Growth Is Not What It Appears

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

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

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

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

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

The Market Risk If The Fed Is Wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trade accordingly.

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

Britain's Ruling Class Loves To Cosplay As A Titan

Britain's Ruling Class Loves To Cosplay As A Titan

Authored by Gerry Nolan via The Ron Paul Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this is where the mockery turns into indictment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pages