Zero Hedge

Goldman Thinks Nintendo's Switch 2 Will Blow Away Estimates, Sees No Supply Constraints

Goldman Thinks Nintendo's Switch 2 Will Blow Away Estimates, Sees No Supply Constraints

Nintendo's first sales forecast for its highly anticipated Switch 2 console came in at 15 million units for the fiscal year ending March—falling short of Bloomberg's analyst consensus of 16.8 million. The miss may reflect growing trade uncertainty and mounting macroeconomic headwinds souring consumer sentiments. The console is slated for release in June.

Goldman gaming analysts Minami Munakata and Haruki Kubota said Nintendo executives typically provide "conservative" estimates before any new console launch. 

Here's Munakata and Kubota's first take on the weaker-than-expected sales forecast for Switch 2:

FY3/26 guidance calls for operating profits of ¥320 bn (+13.3% yoy), assuming shipments of 15 mn units for Switch 2 hardware and 45 mn units for software. This is well below GSe (¥483.6 bn) and the Bloomberg consensus (¥449.3 bn).

However, we would note that Nintendo's guidance has tended to be conservative at the time of new hardware launches, with upward revisions then following over the course of the fiscal year (as was the case when the Switch was launched).

Management also said that its 15 mn volume assumption for the Switch 2 is a level it is targeting for year one, and that there are no supply constraints. Given strong demand, with around 2.2 mn customers registering for the Switch 2 ballot sale in Japan alone via the My Nintendo Store website, we think there is ample upside potential to guidance.

The analysts continued: 

It explained that while the Switch 2 has a higher selling price than the Switch, which could present a hurdle to early adoption, the Switch 2 offers platform continuity, including backward compatibility with existing game software, which could support penetration. The company also plans to offer bundled software. Management underlined that the 15 mn unit assumption does not reflect any supply constraints. Our conversations with investors have indicated expectations for shipments of 17-18 mn units, which we consider achievable given that Nintendo has confirmed no major supply constraints and that demand appears strong based on ballot sale registrations.

Separately, Pelham Smithers, managing director at Japan equity research firm Pelham Smithers Associates, noted, "You will have a good portion who will think management is being cautious, knowing that there's little upside in being too bullish at this stage. However, you'll also have a portion that will be concerned that Nintendo may look to keep the Switch 2 in short supply through this fiscal year."

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Nathan Naidu commented on the positive pre-order trends:

Nintendo's softer-than-expected fiscal 2026 sales and profit guidance vs. consensus is in line with an historically conservative stance, which tariffs probably justify. Positive pre-order trends in Japan, the US and other key markets suggest the company might achieve the 15 million-unit sales goal earlier for its Switch 2 video-game console. The 45 million software-unit goal also seems beatable, with the strong lineup of third-party games — including Cyberpunk 2077 — and in-house ones helping activate or entice upgrades among Nintendo's 366 million users.

Two weeks ago, we commented on the numerous reports from major retailers about the Switch 2 selling out...  

Recall that the Goldman analysts are Nintendo bulls who have previously stated that Switch 2 (the successor to the Nintendo Switch) will "unlock dormant hardware and dormant users" and send "the number of active consoles to continue to renew record highs." 

Maybe Goldman and other analysts are correct—management could simply be offering conservative estimates ahead of the highly anticipated Switch 2 launch in June.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/09/2025 - 05:45

Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Swiftly Deporting Illegal Immigrants To Libya

Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Swiftly Deporting Illegal Immigrants To Libya

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from deporting illegal immigrants to Libya or any other country of which they are not citizens without first giving them notice and an opportunity to claim protection under U.S. law, after reports surfaced of an imminent military flight carrying detainees to the North African nation.

Venezuelans arrive home after being deported from the United States, at Simon Bolivar International Airport, in Maiquetia, Venezuela, on April 3, 2025. Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/Reuters

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, in a series of rulings issued on May 7 from the bench and in court filings, said that any effort to remove noncitizens without procedural safeguards would be a clear violation of an earlier injunction that he issued on April 18.

“If there is any doubt—the Court sees none—the allegedly imminent removals, as reported by news agencies and as Plaintiffs seek to corroborate with class-member accounts and public information, would clearly violate this Court’s Order,” Murphy wrote in his May 7 ruling.

Murphy’s April 18 order prohibits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from carrying out a so-called third-country removal unless the detainee is first given written notice in a language he or she understands, a chance to request a reasonable fear screening, and at least 15 days to file a motion to reopen his or her immigration case if the screening is denied. That order effectively barred DHS from deporting an illegal immigrant with final removal orders to a country that is not his or her home country without first giving the immigrant a chance to raise claims that, if sent there, he or she would face persecution, torture, or death.

The judge’s emergency ruling on May 7 came hours after the plaintiffs in the class-action case filed a request for a temporary restraining order, citing news reports and attorney declarations indicating that DHS and possibly the Department of Defense (DOD) were preparing to deport several Laotian, Vietnamese, and Filipino nationals to Libya without those protections in place.

This motion should not even be required as it blatantly defies this Court’s preliminary injunctions,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote, while describing Libya as a country “notorious for its human rights violations.”

In two electronic orders issued later on May 7, Murphy reinforced the scope of his prior injunction and indicated that deportations carried out in coordination with the DOD may also fall under the court’s scrutiny. He scheduled expedited discovery into the role of both the DHS and DOD in recent removals and requested a briefing on whether the Pentagon should be formally added to the case as a defendant.

In their emergency motion, attorneys for the plaintiffs cited a reported flight plan involving a U.S. Air Force C-17 departing from Kelly Field in Texas to Misrata Airport in Libya, along with accounts that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers had allegedly instructed detainees to sign documents agreeing to removal to Libya or face what amounted to solitary confinement.

According to filings in the case, some plaintiffs had previously been granted protection from removal to their home countries under the Convention Against Torture but were later told they could be sent to third countries not included in their original orders.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

The case comes amid the Trump administration’s broader effort to expand its deportation program and explore new destination countries for foreign nationals ordered removed from the United States.

President Donald Trump recently questioned whether individuals who entered the United States illegally are entitled to the same due process rights as citizens.

In an interview that aired on May 4 on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Trump said that such a requirement would require having “a million or 2 million or 3 million trials,” suggesting that a fast-tracking of deportations of proven illegal immigrants may be the most appropriate solution.

The president added that his administration’s lawyers “are going to obviously follow” U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/09/2025 - 05:00

India's Defense Budget Outgrows Pakistan's

India's Defense Budget Outgrows Pakistan's

Pakistan and India have long been at loggerheads over territory in the region of Kashmir and this week saw tensions explode again as India launched air strikes on Pakistan's territory Wednesday morning in the aftermath of a terrorist attack that killed 26 Indians two weeks ago.

Both countries have been at war several times and have seen mobilizations on their respective borders over countless issues, most of them territorial. 

The last border crisis in 2019 also emerged after a terror attack in Kashmir, which killed 40 and was allegedly planned by militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed. India subsequently launched airstrikes into Pakistan's territory, at the time the first such maneuvers by the Indian Air Force since the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971.

As Statista's Katharina Buchholz shows in the chart below, India is the larger nation of the two and also has a larger military budget, according to data by Stockholm Internation Peace Research Institute. 

 India’s Defense Budget Outgrows Pakistan’s | Statista 

You will find more infographics at Statista

Recently, India has grown its defense budget significantly, far outperforming Pakistan. 

Looking at per-capita defense spending, however, the two nations are closer together.

Media reports that both countries have modernized their militaries after 2019.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/09/2025 - 04:15

Brussels Sues Five EU Countries For Failing To Enforce Digital Censorship

Brussels Sues Five EU Countries For Failing To Enforce Digital Censorship

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix news,

The European Commission announced on Wednesday that it is referring five member states to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for failing to properly implement the Digital Services Act (DSA), Brussels’ flagship legislation aimed at regulating online platforms.

The countries facing legal action are Czechia, Spain, Cyprus, Poland, and Portugal. According to the Commission, these member states either failed to appoint a national Digital Services Coordinator (DSC) or failed to empower those bodies with the authority required to enforce the DSA.

Additionally, none of the five countries has established penalties for violations of the regulation, as mandated by Brussels.

“The DSA required member states to designate one or more competent authorities for the supervision and enforcement of the DSA, and to designate one of them as their national DSC by Feb. 17, 2024,” the Commission said in its press release

“Member states are also required to empower their DSCs to enable them to carry out their tasks under the DSA.”

Poland is singled out for not appointing or authorizing a national coordinator at all, while Czechia, Spain, Cyprus, and Portugal appointed such bodies but did not grant them the legal powers necessary to fulfill their responsibilities.

The European Commission insists the DSA, which came into force in 2022, is designed to create a safer and more transparent online environment by requiring large platforms and search engines to combat illegal content, protect user privacy, and address public safety risks.

Critics, however, argue that it risks overreach by incentivizing platforms to over-remove content, potentially stifling free speech; imposes disproportionate burdens on smaller platforms, reinforcing the dominance of Big Tech; and compromises user privacy through mandated data access for regulators.

Disapproval of the regulation has been met by both libertarian politicians in Europe and by Republicans in Washington, DC.

In February, United States House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan sent a letter to the European Commissioner for Technology Henna Virkkunen expressing his “serious concerns with how the DSA’s censorship provisions affect free speech in the United States.”

He argued that overregulation from Brussels would effectively create a “de facto global censorship standard” as social media platforms generally use one set of content moderation policies for consistent implementation worldwide.

X owner Elon Musk has also weighed in on the bureaucratic nature of the DSA and its overzealous approach to content moderation, while U.S. President Donald Trump himself also called fines imposed on U.S. tech companies by Brussels for failing to adhere to the DSA a “form of taxation.”

In Europe, Alternative for Germany (AfD) MP Maximilian Krah has argued that the DSA is designed to suppress dissenting viewpoints, claiming the legislation “is intended to prevent unorthodox and creative ideas from being shared on the internet,” while Sweden Democrats MEP Jessica Stegrud claimed an overfocus on combating disinformation and “harmful content” could undermine freedom of speech.

The Commission first launched infringement proceedings against the five countries in 2024. Letters of formal notice were sent to Czechia, Cyprus, Poland, and Portugal in April, and to Spain in July. After the member states failed to comply, the Commission escalated the matter to the EU’s highest court.

If the Court of Justice rules against them, the countries could face financial penalties and be required to act swiftly to meet their legal obligations.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/09/2025 - 03:30

Ukraine's Parliament Ratifies US Minerals Deal In Hopes Of Securing Future Arms

Ukraine's Parliament Ratifies US Minerals Deal In Hopes Of Securing Future Arms

The minerals deal is now official and legally binding for Ukraine as on Thursday Ukraine's parliament voted in favor of ratifying the controversial resources agreement with the United States. This was a final key step in its adoption.

The Zelensky government is hoping this will more firmly secure future military assistance from Washington. The vote was unanimous: 338 Ukrainian lawmakers approved of ratifying it, and none opposed.

Via AFP

"The Ukrainian Parliament has ratified the historic Economic Partnership Agreement between Ukraine and the United States," First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko announced on X.

"This document is not merely a legal construct — it is the foundation of a new model of interaction with a key strategic partner," Svyrydenko added.

Critics have warned that this could be a big resource grab by the United States, but since it's signing was accomplished in Washington last month, Trump administration rhetoric toward Kiev has softened. For example, Trump is no longer demanding that Ukraine quickly move toward holding new presidential and parliamentary elections.

Meanwhile, Moon of Alabama has highlighted that there's still a fight on as well as confusion over some suppressed details of the deal, citing Strana, which reported (machine translation)...

The opposition already accuses the authorities of concealing the main points about the deal. The fact is that the agreement on the creation of the fund, signed last week and already made public, is being submitted for ratification, and there are very few specifics in it. This is essentially a framework agreement. For all the main points in the text of the agreement, there are references to another document - the Limited Partnership Agreement. There is also a third document - the Foundation's charter.

A number of deputies claim that all three documents have actually been signed (or agreed upon). But they showed only one-the least important and most abstract of them, from which it is not even clear what the Foundation will do in general.

The government denies this, saying that only one document has been signed, and the rest will still be discussed.

Trump has indicated the US could just walk away from efforts to mediate peace, if neither side is a willing partner. The White House has not said whether this means it would halt arms for Ukraine's military, or intelligence-sharing. 

But the minerals deal means the US is indeed very likely to continue arming Kiev. After all, the White House now has more of an interest in protecting US 'investment' now and into the future.

Still, it is a very long-haul agreement: "Two supplements would spell out the details and would be published at a later date, officials have said about the deal which might not see a payoff for a decade or longer," France24 notes.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/09/2025 - 02:45

Trump's Victory Day Decision Aligns With The Trend Of The Times

Trump's Victory Day Decision Aligns With The Trend Of The Times

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Historical revisionism and nostalgic nationalism typify modern-day discussions of World War II...

Trump announced that he’s “hereby renaming May 8th as Victory Day for World War II and November 11th as Victory Day for World War I”, adding that “We won both Wars, nobody was close to us in terms of strength, bravery, or military brilliance, but we never celebrate anything — That’s because we don’t have leaders anymore, that know how to do so!” He also claimed that “we did more than any other Country, by far, in producing a victorious result on World War II.”

He posted this less than a week before the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, which is celebrated in the West (and Ukraine since 2023) on 8 May and in Russia on 9 May, but the larger context concerns the trend of historical revisionism towards that conflict and nostalgic nationalism. World War II has taken on an almost mythological status in the West and Russia due to their brief wartime alliance, the war’s unprecedented carnage, and the way in which it shaped the world that everyone lives in today.

80% of the Wehrmacht’s casualties occurred on the Eastern Front and the USSR ultimately captured Berlin to end the war, but not before the Nazis killed 27 million Soviet citizens, all of which Russians remember on this sacred day. The West’s contribution to victory wasn’t insignificant, nor was the number of their people who were also killed by the Nazis, but the Soviets’ were still much greater.

This isn’t to downplay the West’s role and suffering but simply to remind people of the facts.

In recent years, however, the Baltic States, Ukraine, and others like Poland have led the European effort to present the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which was analyzed here, as proof that the USSR shares equal responsibility with Nazi Germany for starting World War II. They then built upon this allegation to detract from the Soviets’ contribution to victory, refocus attention on their own people’s suffering, and in the Baltic States’ and Ukraine’s case, downplay large-scale local collaboration with the Nazis.

As these narratives proliferated across the West, leading countries like the US, the UK, and France then exploited them to exaggerate their contribution to victory, which led to the West as a whole developing a warped perception of exactly what happened during World War II.

Trump appears to be one of those who fell for this revisionist framing seeing as how he falsely claimed as fact that “we did more than any other Country, by far, in producing a victorious result on World War II” when it was actually the USSR.

Whether he knows the truth or not, his counterfactual assertion aligns with the trend of Western politicians taking advantage of the aforesaid narratives’ proliferation across their societies to stoke nostalgic nationalism, which sometimes translates into political dividends for them. 

In Trump’s case, he wants Americans to remember their country’s military greatness that contributed to varying extents to its victory in the two World Wars, ergo his decision to rename both anniversaries accordingly.

Russians and others who know the historical facts about the Soviet Union’s unparalleled contribution to victory in World War II will understandably object to his historically revisionist claim, but it shouldn’t have surprised them given the trend of the times. 

If anything, it was surprising that it took this long for the US to finally catch up with its Western peers in this respect, but unlike them, Trump might seek to emphasize the US’ wartime alliance with the USSR in order to legitimize his envisaged “New Détente”.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/09/2025 - 02:00

China Panics Ahead Of Trade-Talks, Shuts Down Its Economic Data

China Panics Ahead Of Trade-Talks, Shuts Down Its Economic Data

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

There is a social contract of sorts among all governments of the world to share economic data on prevailing conditions. Behind that practice is a collegial contest to see which nation has the healthiest system, which in turn serves the capital markets by helping to direct resources where they are needed.

Sometimes the data is inaccurate. Sometimes there are lies. But in general, there is at least an attempt to play along with the expectation. This allows agencies and investors to make better assessments and prognostications, plus assist policy makers and central bankers in particular to make better judgments.

There is a general rule in operation. The more transparent governments are with the data they collect, and the more freedom of speech that is permitted to interpret the data in different ways, the more credible it is. It is also likely that governments which share and discuss also have numbers of which they can feel pride.

Rarely do nations go entirely silent on the market, as in turning off the switches and making the data rooms go dark. It is an ominous sign.

This is precisely what has happened in China.

Starting the last several months, and, in some cases, dating back several years, China has gone dark in reporting the following: land sales, foreign investment, unemployment numbers, business confidence, numbers of investors in financial markets, real estate valuation, retail sales, and even vital data on cremations so that health authorities have no idea what is going on. The bureaus have simply stopped reporting.

With the second largest economy, and widespread doubt about the country’s economic health, this is gravely concerning.

Close watchers have long raised doubts about China’s GDP data. We are told that the economy grew 5 percent last year, which would be extremely impressive. But such huge measures are subject to manipulation in every country but especially in one that has made the promise of extreme economic growth central to the power and permanent control by the CCP. Experts have suggested that growth rates have been exaggerated by 2 to 3 percentage points.

This past December, a highly regarded Chinese economist, Gao Shanwen, was visiting Washington, D.C. colleagues at the Peterson Institute and sat on an expert panel. Thinking that perhaps he should speak his mind, he said very plainly that no one knows for sure what the growth rates in China are. He speculated that they might be about 2 percent.

“My own speculation is that in the past two to three years,” he said, “the real GDP number on average might be around 2 percent even though the official number is close to 5 percent.”

No one in the room thought anything about it. The speaker seems to have temporarily forgotten that he is not an independent actor and was in no position to offer his objective assessment.

But word got out immediately in Beijing. He was immediately disciplined and silenced. He no longer holds a job in his old securities firm. His comments have been scrubbed from any sites accessible within China. He has lost his license to speak about economic affairs. Meanwhile, the Securities Association of China has instructed all people who speak about China’s economic health only to say nice things.

We can gather from the above that the data that was once routinely reported is not saying nice things. It’s one thing to silence the economists but to silence the underlying data only ends in raising alarm bells.

And those alarms have been rung, and now observers are considering the worst. There might be a hidden real estate crisis, and a major problem with unemployment added to it. Investment might be collapsing and government finances might be in major trouble.

For decades, China has developed a stable system for economic growth that relied on five main pillars:

  1. Lower-cost manufacturing to compete and ultimately displace manufacturing in the West;

  2. U.S. consumers hungry to get ahead of their own falling wages and salaries with cheaper consumer products and intermediate goods;

  3. Central bank credits for business development built on large holdings of U.S. denominated debt;

  4. A domestic currency trading far below the trade-weighted average of the U.S. dollar, the world reserve currency, thus favoring exports over imports;

  5. State-directed and funded infrastructure development that calibrated investment based on national goals.

It was never the free market that pundits imagined that it would become in the 1990s and beyond. But it was also helped by a loose regulatory environment that minimized the litigation overhang that vexes Western economies, and its agency impositions were tolerant of enterprise insofar as it never threatened political priorities.

Crucially, China was able to benefit from the presumption that the global system of trade would never raise foundational questions about low tariffs and cross-border investment.

That last presumption has dramatically changed. The first Trump administration began the process of reevaluation. This was in 2018 and the result was a documented decline in U.S. imports from China. This was reversed two years later with the pandemic onset that called upon China to provide vast goods back into the United States. Mass numbers of Americans found themselves mandated to wear masks, for example, most of which were imports from China.

Five years later, the push to decouple the United States from dependence on China’s manufacturing sector is back on. The second Trump administration has wholesale reversed 80 years of U.S. precedent in trade policy with a turn toward tariffs. The hope is that these will help settle accounts, boost U.S. manufacturing, and provide a revenue stream to reduce reliance on high income taxation.

Whether and to what extent this dramatic shift has this effect domestically in the United States, it has likely had a major impact on China’s economic prospects, simply because it challenges a long-running assumption that the U.S. would forever serve as China’s consumer marketplace.

We should pause to consider the great irony of this whole situation. For centuries, businessmen have fantasized about the sheer size of China as a consumer, and imagined ways to invent products and services to sell.

“A pair of shoes for every Chinese foot;” “China’s market will make us rich;” “A market of 400 million customers”—these slogans were bandied about for a century.

But when it came right down to it, and herein we find the essence of the unpredictability of economic affairs, it was not China as consumer but China as manufacturer that dominated the landscape for decades following its opening.

Only now do we see full consciousness dawn in the United States concerning the implications for U.S. manufacturing.

What is to be done? A better path than protectionism is mass deregulation, a dollar more powerful at home and more competitive abroad, and lower costs of doing business through a renewal of the American entrepreneurial spirit. This will need to come one way or another. Trade barriers alone cannot hold back the tide.

Meanwhile, China suddenly faces its own grave economic challenges, which could grow so substantially as to threaten even the political stability of the country. Right now, outside observers have been largely blinded as to how serious the situation has become. We just don’t have the data.

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

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/08/2025 - 23:25

These Are The Most Reliable Used-Car Brands In 2025

These Are The Most Reliable Used-Car Brands In 2025

In today’s environment, buying a new car has become a stretch for many households - fueling demand in the used-car market

But not all used vehicles are created equal, and reliability plays a major role in long-term ownership costs.

For buyers looking to avoid expensive repairs down the road, brand reputation is more important than ever.

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu ranked the best used-car brands of 2025, using data from Consumer Reports.

Data & Methodology

To come up with these reliability scores, Consumer Reports asked its members to report how many problems they’ve had with their vehicles over the past 12 months.

This analysis focused only on cars from the 2015 to 2020 model year, with a sample size of over 150,000 vehicles.

From this data we can see that Japanese brands are generally the most reliable when buying used, with the lowest ranked Japanese brand being Subaru, in ninth place. Toyota and its luxury arm, Lexus, hold the top two spots, while Honda and Acura come in fourth and fifth.

Brands like Lexus and Toyota have a history of conservative redesigns, incrementally improving their entire product line rather than introducing many all-new systems. Our data consistently shows over time that cars from those brands are reliable when new, and they continue to be reliable as they age.

Steven Elek, Senior Automotive Data Analyst at Consumer Reports

Top Used-Car Picks in 2025

​Consumer Reports has released its latest list of top used-car picks, all of which offer good reliability, safety, and value across various price points. These selections are based on comprehensive road tests and owner satisfaction surveys.

For more detailed information and additional recommendations, visit the full article on Consumer Reports.

If you enjoyed this post, check out our ranking of the most reliable new-car brands based on data from J.D. Power.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/08/2025 - 23:00

Gold Reconsidered: A Strategy To Facilitate 21st Century United States Excellence

Gold Reconsidered: A Strategy To Facilitate 21st Century United States Excellence

By Vincent Lanci

Summary: This report explores gold’s reemergence not merely as a store of value, but as a strategic monetary tool for circumventing sanctions, supporting trade diplomacy, and conducting debt management. Drawing upon historical precedent, contemporary developments, and theoretical frameworks such as Stephen Miran’s Mar-a-Lago Accord, this essay proposes that the United States is positioned to reengage in a sovereign-level gold trading for purposes of reducing debt, rewarding trade partners, and restoring the US manufacture-export base. This mechanism, once dominated by bullion banks and now emulated by sanctioned states, enables the monetization of gold without outright liquidation. Gold-forward hedges provide the United States with an opportunity to strategically weaken the dollar as a component of its need to remain competitive in export driven global economies, reduce debt obligations, and support trade-partner allies through targeted currency support. This report argues that gold’s transformation under Basel III, coupled with a shift in U.S. monetary strategy, marks a return to gold’s core geopolitical function.

I. Introduction. Gold is a store of value; it is money. With its immutable physical properties, universal recognition, and lack of counterparty risk, gold serves as a uniquely effective asset in sovereign monetary operations. This paper explores how the U.S. can operationalize gold as a monetary instrument to manage debt, influence foreign exchange dynamics, and pursue geopolitical leverage in a deglobalizing world.

II. Historical Foundation: The Bullion Bank Carry Trade. Beginning in the 1990s, bullion banks employed a gold carry trade model that enabled monetization without sale. This involved:

  • Holding physical gold owned or on loan from another party (spot position)
  • Selling that gold forward (creating a future potential liability)
  • Investing the proceeds in higher-yielding assets (e.g., Treasuries, stocks, or foreign bonds)

This trade structure provided income while keeping physical reserves intact and suppressed upward pressure on gold prices. It became a cornerstone of central bank expectation management strategy and a projection tool of a stable, reliable USD.

III. The Mar-a-Lago Accord. Stephen Miran’s Mar-a-Lago Accord offered a blueprint for leveraging gold to manage U.S. debt and trade imbalances. That proposal involved:

  • Selling U.S. gold reserves
  • Using proceeds to purchase foreign currencies with higher yields
  • Reducing the effective interest burden on U.S. liabilities

Though politically toxic, the ESF and similar tools had already historically been used in currency stabilization crises. While Miran’s Accord was publicly shelved, some of its core mechanisms remain feasible.

U.S. Sovereign Carry Workflow (Treasury → Forward Sale → Currency Purchase)

IV. Gold and Sanctions Evasion. The Russia-Iran Model Sanctioned states such as Russia and Iran have leveraged gold to access dollar liquidity via trusted counterparties. By holding and hedging gold through countries like China, they generate liquid proceeds in local or global currencies that are ultimately converted to dollars. This allows them to fund operations while avoiding SWIFT and U.S. financial enforcement.

The oil-for-gold arrangement between Russia and China first described by this paper’s author in 2017. set a precedent. Initially dismissed as rumor, it gained traction when later acknowledged by credible banking analysts. Most recently, an offshoot of its success was announced between China and Saudi Arabia in which the Saudis would receive payment for their oil in RMB with gold optionality attached. The gold would be held by China as it had been for Russian deals. This shows that gold can function as a sanctions-neutral reserve and transfer mechanism while simultaneously being a monetary bridge (mBridge) to the USD or other currencies if needed.

Gold-Backed Sanction Evasion Flow (Russia → China → Trade → Dollars)

V. Structural Shifts in the Gold Market: The macro and regulatory backdrop has shifted:

  • Basel III reclassifies gold as a Tier 1 asset
  • Recent OCC Gold derivative reclassification at Banks
  • These banks held over 90% of U.S. gold derivative exposure
  • BRICS countries now prioritize gold over Treasuries for trade reserves

Together, these changes signal a revaluation of gold within both private and sovereign balance sheets.

VI. A New U.S. Strategy: Gold-Backed Trade Diplomacy. The U.S. can now pursue a sovereign gold carry trade:

  • Forward-sale gold to trusted banks
  • Use proceeds to buy foreign currencies or EM debt
  • Prop up allied currencies, reduce dollar strength
  • Execute monetary stimulus while avoiding inflation mismanagement

This framework allows integration of trade and monetary policy. As part of bilateral trade negotiations, the U.S. can offer to stabilize emerging-market currencies, reducing resistance to tariff reform and strengthening political ties.

VII. Conclusion. Gold is returning to center stage as a versatile tool for 21st-century financial statecraft. By adopting carry trade mechanisms pioneered by bullion banks and mirrored by adversarial regimes, the U.S. has the opportunity to align debt management, currency strategy, and trade diplomacy. The convergence of regulatory changes, gold repatriation, and geopolitical fragmentation makes this moment uniquely ripe for gold’s strategic reintegration.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/08/2025 - 22:35

Israeli-Made Suicide Drones Launched By India Against Pakistan, Some Intercepted

Israeli-Made Suicide Drones Launched By India Against Pakistan, Some Intercepted

Via Middle East Eye

Pakistan shot down Israeli-made drones launched by India into its airspace on Thursday, following a series of Indian strikes across the country on Wednesday. Pakistan’s military said it had shot down 25 Israeli Harop drones on Thursday, including in Karachi and Lahore. An Indian government source confirmed that at least one Israeli drone had been downed by Pakistan. Both sides view the military claims made by the other as propaganda.

The Indian source told Middle East Eye the drones were made in Israel and supplied to the Indian military by the Adani Group, a multinational company founded by Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, who has been close to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for decades.

An IAI Harop drone, used by India, pictured in a promotional video (screenshot)

The Adani group shares a production line with Israeli military company Elbit, from which India provided Israel with Hermes 900 drones after the start of the war in Gaza.

Over the last decade, India has imported military hardware worth $2.9 billion from Israel, including radars, surveillance and combat drones, and missiles.

The Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) Harop drone launched by India into Pakistan is an unmanned "suicide" or "kamikaze" aircraft, also known as a loitering munition. It is 2.5 meters long and has a three-meter wingspan. 

The drone has been used in the Syrian war, by Israel, India and by Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh war with Armenia.  

Pakistan’s military spokesperson, Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, said that aside from the drones shot down above Lahore and Karachi, Pakistan’s largest cities, one drone had been downed over the garrison city of Rawalpindi, home to the army’s headquarters.

One drone hit a military target near Lahore and four Pakistani army personnel were injured in this attack, Chaudhry said. “Indian drones continue to be sent into Pakistani airspace... [India] will continue to pay dearly for this naked aggression,” he said. 

This latest round of hostility between the nuclear-armed neighbors comes after India said it had hit “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan in the early hours of Wednesday, two weeks after it accused Pakistan of involvement in an attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir in which 26 people were killed.

The Indian defence ministry said Pakistan had attempted to engage military targets in northern and western India on Wednesday night and early Thursday morning, and that they were “neutralized” by Indian air defense systems.

While fears of an all-out war between Pakistan and India are growing, sources on both sides described the current situation as a “rhetoric war” that would not escalate further.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/08/2025 - 21:45

When Will The US Lose Its Last WWII Veterans?

When Will The US Lose Its Last WWII Veterans?

As today marks the 80th anniversary of the official end of World War II in Europe, the number of people who witnessed the horrors of the war against Nazi Germany first hand is quickly dwindling. 

Speaking to contemporary witnesses is perhaps the most effective way to learn from history, but fewer and fewer are available to recount what happened 80 years ago. 

According to a recent YouGov survey, 37 percent of Americans said they knew little or nothing about World War II or the events leading up to it, showing how important it is to make sure the lessons learned in WWII outlive those who served in the conflict.

16 million Americans fought in the World War II, but today their ranks are rapidly diminishing. 

U.S. men and women who served in the conflict are now in their 90s (some are much older) with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs estimating that less than 70,000 are still alive today, a significant decline from the 930,000 alive in 2015 and more than two million five years before that.

As Statista's Felix Richter reports, based on the best available Veteran data at the end of FY2023, the National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics used a deterministic projection model to estimate and project the veteran population for the next 30 years. Its findings show how the number of living WWII vets will rapidly decline over the coming years with the last ones expected to pass away in the early 2040s. The last American veteran of the First World War, Frank Buckles, passed away in February 2011, aged 110.

 When Will the U.S. Lose Its Last WWII Veterans? | Statista 

You will find more infographics at Statista

World War II was the largest and deadliest conflict in human history claiming the lives of over 50 million combatants and civilians by the time it ended in 1945. 

More than 400,000 American service members died in the conflict, making it the deadliest war in America's history as well.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/08/2025 - 21:20

FDA To Ramp Up Unannounced Inspections At Foreign Facilities

FDA To Ramp Up Unannounced Inspections At Foreign Facilities

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be conducting more unannounced inspections at facilities outside the country, the agency announced on May 6.

Dr. Marty Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, speaks in Washington on May 5, 2025. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The FDA conducts about 3,000 inspections of foreign facilities each year, but many facility operators are informed of the inspections weeks or even months ahead of time.

For too long, foreign companies have enjoyed a double standard—given advanced notice before facility inspections, while American manufacturers are held to rigorous standards with no such warning,” Dr. Marty Makary, the FDA’s commissioner, said in a statement. “That ends today.”

The FDA said it intends to expand unannounced inspections at facilities that manufacture a range of goods, including food and medicine. According to the FDA, the expansion will “help expose bad actors—those who falsify records or conceal violations—before they can put American lives at risk. ”

The move builds on an FDA pilot program that tested more unannounced inspections in China and India.

Some U.S. lawmakers, including Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), had recently asked the FDA to conduct more unannounced inspections.

Investigators with the FDA previously told the Government Accountability Office that the downsides of letting facilities know before inspections are conducted include giving them time to clean up and implement new operating procedures. Twelve of the 18 inspectors who spoke to the office said that unannounced inspections are generally better.

The office recommended that the FDA increase the number of inspections of foreign facilities in 2008 and found that the FDA was conducting many more domestic inspections than foreign inspections in 2010. In 2016, the office said the FDA had increased the number of foreign inspections, but that many facilities manufacturing drugs that enter the United States were never inspected.

Click pic... add to cart... enjoy clean meat delivered cold to your door directly from the ranch...

The FDA suspended virtually all foreign inspections after the COVID-19 pandemic started, although it later resumed the work.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, a former FDA official, told lawmakers in 2019, before the pandemic started, that the FDA typically gives notice for foreign inspections because of logistics such as securing visas, “and partly because of the high costs of conducting foreign inspections.”

When a surveillance inspection is announced, some manufacturers conduct a self-inspection or hire an independent inspector to ensure that manufacturing processes meet requirements,” she said.

An audit of FDA inspections of foreign facilities producing drugs, reported in 2022 by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, identified problems with the inspections, including a lack of training documentation for some of the inspectors and a failure to issue warning letters to companies on a timely basis.

The FDA concurred with the watchdog’s recommendations for improvement, including making sure inspectors have adequate training before conducting inspections.

 

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/08/2025 - 20:55

Columbia University Lays Off Nearly 180 Staff After Federal Grant Revocations

Columbia University Lays Off Nearly 180 Staff After Federal Grant Revocations

Authored by Rudy Blalock via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Columbia University announced on Tuesday that it will lay off nearly 180 staff members after the Trump administration revoked more than $400 million in federal research funding, Columbia’s Office of the President said in a May 6 statement.

The main campus of Columbia University in New York City on April 12, 2025. Caitlin Ochs/Reuters

The layoffs, which represent about 20 percent of university employees who were funded by the now-terminated federal grants, come as Columbia grapples with the fallout from the U.S. Department of Education’s decision to cancel hundreds of millions in grants and contracts.

The department cited the university’s alleged failure to adequately address persistent anti-Semitism on campus as the reason for the funding withdrawal.

In a message to the Columbia community, acting President Claire Shipman, Provost Angela V. Olinto, Executive Vice President for Finance Anne Sullivan, and Executive Vice President for Research Jeannette Wing described the decision as “deeply challenging” and said it was made after a thorough review of the university’s research activity and financial outlook.

Across the research portfolio, we have had to make difficult choices and unfortunately, today, nearly 180 of our colleagues who have been working, in whole or in part, on impacted federal grants, will receive notices of non-renewal or termination,” the statement read.

The university said it has been engaged in a two-pronged effort in response to the funding crisis. First, it is working to restore partnerships with federal agencies that support critical research. Second, it has asked deans and principal investigators to prioritize research activities and develop plans for managing projects affected by the loss of federal support.

During the review period, Columbia continued to pay salaries and stipends for those whose compensation had been covered by the terminated grants, according to the press release.

Columbia’s leadership said they are continuing discussions with federal officials in hopes of resuming activity on the canceled research awards and other projects that remain active but unpaid.

They said the financial strain is “intense,” and the university has been forced to reduce expenditures and scale back research infrastructure in some areas. Some departments are winding down activity but are prepared to reestablish capabilities if funding is restored, according to the university.

The funding revocation follows President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14188, signed on Jan. 29, which directs federal agencies to use all available legal tools to prosecute and hold accountable those accused of anti-Semitic harassment and violence on college campuses.

The Department of Education launched investigations into several universities, including Columbia, where “widespread antisemitic harassment has been reported.”

Universities must comply with all federal anti-discrimination laws if they are going to receive federal funding. For too long, Columbia has abandoned that obligation to Jewish students studying on its campus,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement.

The Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, which includes the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, and the General Services Administration, has been reviewing Columbia’s compliance with federal regulations, particularly under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs.

In response to the crisis, Columbia has established a Research Stabilization Fund to help mitigate future funding risks and support its scientific community. The fund will provide internal grants to scientists seeking alternate sources of funding or completing research for publication. The university will also contribute funds to support graduate students and postdoctoral fellows affected by the loss of federal training grants, according to the press release.

“We are grateful for the exceptional leadership and professionalism of our deans, chairs, and senior management who have come together to navigate this critical moment with care and integrity, while upholding and advancing Columbia’s mission, values, and the unique qualities that make this a vital, extraordinary place,” the statement said.

The university warned that further actions may be necessary in the coming months to preserve financial flexibility and invest in key areas.

From NTD News

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/08/2025 - 20:30

In 'Weird' Austin, A Double Shot Of Academic Counter-Revolution

In 'Weird' Austin, A Double Shot Of Academic Counter-Revolution

Authored by John Murawski via RealClearInvestigations,

AUSTIN, Texas — Lacking three crucial components – students, faculty, and facilities – the two educational experiments proposed in this state capital sounded like moonshots just a few years ago. 

Today, the School of Civic Leadership at the University of Texas and a feisty startup calling itself the University of Austin are not just up and running, but helping lead the movement to revive classical liberal education across the country.

Now in their second semesters, the two unrelated schools – one public, one private – offer a mix of courses emphasizing political theory, economics, philosophy, and canonical texts that appeal to big-time donors eager to fund traditional academic subjects that have fallen into neglect, or even disdain, in the ivory tower. A big part of their strategy relies on a naked grab for the academic market share by being perceived as more relevant, more exciting, and more consequential. 

We’re a throwback to an older model that sees serious engagement with the great debates of the Western tradition as the best possible preparation for leadership,” said Antonio Sosa, a professor at UT-Austin’s School of Civic Leadership. “We’re not interested in deconstructing America’s founding and the West; we’re not focused on race and gender.”

The reform efforts underway in Austin are now approaching a major milestone: the end of their first academic year, with further expansion around the corner. Commonly known by their acronyms, SCL will be launching a Civics Honors major with about 100 students this coming fall, while UATX will be adding a second freshman cohort of about 100 students as the current batch advances to its second year. 

Both are part of a national academic civics movement to create viable alternatives to higher ed trends that their backers deem intellectually bankrupt and moral dead ends: the penchant for DEI and social justice activism, training students in narrow careerism or “jobism,” and incentivizing the faculty fetish for fads and hyper-specialization.

Over the past quarter-century, more than 100 academic civics initiatives have arisen, emphasizing such themes as the Great Books, the Western canon, free markets, and individual liberty. In the latest incarnation of this trend, the University of Austin is comparable, at least superficially, to niche, independent colleges like HillsdaleRalstonSt. John’s (Maryland), and Deep Springs that emphasize intellectual foundations and distinctive academic cultures. UATX’s board of advisers is a who’s who of public intellectuals, most of whom require no introductions in academic circles: Richard Dawkins, Jonathan Haidt, Robert George, Glenn Loury, Harvey Mansfield, Deirdre McCloskey, Nadine Strossen, Larry Summers, Andrew Young, among others.  

UT-Austin’s program is part of a new wave backed by conservative donors, trustees, and lawmakers that includes 13 autonomous civics schools established at eight public universities – including five in Ohio  – that have their own deans, their own majors, and, in some cases, their own Ph.D. programs. The School of Civic Leadership includes its own think tank, The Civitas Institute, which is modeled on Stanford’s Hoover Institution; its roster of fellows includes John Yoo, a lawyer who served in the George W. Bush administration; Jenna Silver Storey, an American Enterprise Institute fellow who specializes in the civics movement; Arthur C. Brooks, former AEI president and Harvard scholar of leadership and happiness; and Vincent Phillip Muñoz, a University of Notre Dame legal scholar and well-known constitutional originalist. 

UATX President Pano Kanelos, who compares the creation of the University of Austin to Plato’s founding of the Academy in Athens in 387 BC, predicts that “we’re growing a university that’ll be around for centuries.” But observers note that these and other civic education reform efforts are some years away from achieving the movement’s ultimate goal: producing a permanent infrastructure with a pipeline of scholars to lead and populate similar programs across the country. In the coming years, they must deliver on their long-term promises to their backers that they can attract competitive students, produce consequential scholarship, place graduates in solid careers, and grow their programs into lasting institutions.

It’s no coincidence that both are located in Austin, a vibrant college town and state capital known for its music festivals, its Silicon Hills tech hub, and its countercultural motto: Keep Austin Weird. The Austin-American Statesman newspaper describes the city's famed South By Southwest Festival (a.k.a. SXSW) as "a giant, caffeine-and-booze-fueled playground for creatives."

With conservative intellectuals creating their own anti-establishment ethos, Austin has also become home to the global headquarters of Elon Musk’s EV venture, Tesla, and the home of the dissident political podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. In a nod to these counter-cultural landmarks, an earlier iteration of UATX’s FAQs page used to proclaim: “If it’s good enough for Elon Musk and Joe Rogan, it’s good enough for us.”

Support independent media. Grab a ZeroHedge hat at the ZH Store, or buy any 2 bags of coffee and receive a free ZeroHedge Tumbler!

Nevertheless, both schools are still in their infancy. The University of Austin, for example, is now housed in a repurposed department store in downtown Austin that looks like a hip, Gen Z shared workspace. To attract top students, it’s covering all tuition costs for the teenagers who are taking the risk of attending a startup that lacks accreditation, a complicated review process that could take longer than expected. Likewise, at the University of Texas, School of Civic Leadership Dean Justin Dyer said that a common question that arises in faculty searches is “whether our funding is secure and whether this is a viable long-term project.”

Even as they grapple with challenges common to start-ups, the two programs continue to face skepticism from the entrenched academic interests they are seeking to reform. The common refrain is that they function as conservative safe spaces and cheerleaders for Western Civilization, out of touch with contemporary scholarship. And yet, for the most part, the educational reforms underway in Austin have avoided major public controversy, and their early success is evident in their confidence that they represent the future of higher education.

We are a self-conscious rebel faction that’s offering a new university on the model of the old,” said Morgan Marietta, UATX’s dean of economics, politics, and history. “Our movement is: We’re going to take their students, we’re going to take their faculty, we’re going to take their money – that’s how we’re going to win.” 

A recent visit to Austin offered a glimpse of how these two programs are alike, how they differ, and what they look like in practice. The University of Austin leadership is brash and provocative, and tends to hire public intellectuals active on the podcast circuit and in other journalistic outlets. Within weeks of launching in 2021, two high-profile advisers – Harvard professor Steven Pinker and then-University of Chicago chancellor Robert Zimmer – resigned from the advisory board, with Zimmer stating that he could not abide by the startup university’s exaggerated statements about the incorrigibility of academia. UATX does not offer tenure to its faculty, but instead hires on five-year renewable contracts. 

As a public entity, UT’s School of Civic Leadership is more traditional, hiring tenure-track faculty and evoking the marble-and-mahogany solemnity of a present indebted to the past. Many of SCL’s classes are offered in the school’s current headquarters, the Victorian-era Littlefield House, appointed with wood-paneled walls, antique furniture, and regal paintings of Texas grandees.

The students in the maiden class are essentially ambassadors for these programs, and tend to speak in that mode.  

“I think every student should take at least one civics class because the ideas are so expansive, so inspiring, and thought-provoking,” said Debbie Chu, a sophomore and a government major currently taking Professor Sosa’s “Perennial Problems in Civic Thought” class. 

Both of these programs are in their infancy, and they are still undecided on where their permanent facilities will be located. UATX might at some point create an open campus away from the downtown office it now occupies, and has enlisted famed architect Léon Krier to draw up a master plan, Kanelos said. It has raised over $200 million from more than 3,000 donors, including real estate developer Harlan Crow, notable friend of Justice Clarence Thomas; hedge fund titan Bill Ackman; and billionaire trader Jeff Yass, who has given $35 million, the single biggest gift to date to UATX. The donations and pledges so far can fund UATX’s operations until at least 2030, Kanelos said, by which time the new college expects to have accreditation, which will be retroactive to all graduates, and will be charging tuition. 

UT’s School of Civic Leadership was initially funded with $6 million from the Texas state legislature and Board of Regents, and the Regents are tentatively looking at adding $5 million more for a total of $11 million, said Dyer, SCL’s dean. The school now has 14 tenure-line faculty members, approaching its Board of Regents mandate of hiring 20 faculty within three years. SCL has also netted $20 million in donations and pledges from the likes of Crow and Robert Rowling, a hotel magnate ranked 126 on Forbes’ 400 richest Americans. 

Getting to this point could be considered a minor miracle, but such accelerated development hasn’t come without growth pains. 

A finance professor at UT-Austin who had planned to start a conservative “Liberty Institute” has accused the university administration of hijacking the idea, diluting it, and threatening him with retaliation for public criticism. The professor, Richard Lowery, has aired his allegations in conservative outlets, The National Review and the James Martin Center for Academic Renewal. Lowery’s lawsuit against UT was dismissed by a federal judge and is now pending on appeal

Last September, UT-Austin’s Faculty Council approved SCL’s Civics Honors major by a razor-thin vote of 23 to 21. According to the description of the course of the study, the curriculum will be tailored to “high-performing students” who “will study the wisdom of the past not in order to become antiquarians but in order to subject the conventional orthodoxies of the present to rational critique.” To anyone in academia, “conventional orthodoxies” has unambiguous overtones: wokeness, DEI, and social justice advocacy. 

According to a transcript of the meeting, a number of professors voiced their opposition. 

“I think it’s important for us to, as the Faculty Council, take note and perhaps a stand on the political origin of this discipline imposed upon the University by the legislature,” said astronomy professor Paul Shapiro. “When does the legislature get to tell us we need to teach something we’re not teaching? And I think that is the question we should be asking. How is this free of that political origin?”

Mathematics professor Lorenzo Sadun, who served on the committee that hired Dyer as SCL Dean, told the Faculty Council that the hiring committee members were initially very skeptical, but “the more we talked with our top candidates, one of whom became our Dean, the more we were really impressed” with the project. 

In an email to RealClearInvestigations, Sadun said the School of Civic Leadership is unquestionably a political project, but one that can be justified on the merits.

The impetus for creating the school was overtly and unambiguously political, with a lot of pressure from outside the University,” Sadun explained. “I hated the idea, as did most of the faculty.” 

“However, the people charged with creating it saw an opportunity to make lemonade out of lemons,” Sadun continued. “To make a place where conservative thought can thrive, but in dialogue with liberal thought, not in isolation. That sort of dialogue is what universities are for, regardless of how much I may personally disagree with the SCL leaders' political ideas.”

Civics advocates describe their schools and curricula as nonpartisan and apolitical, but at the same time, anchored in the vision of America’s founding principles that were erected upon the foundation of Western Civilization. 

UATX President Kanelos was formerly the president of St. John’s College, a small liberal arts institution in Annapolis, Maryland, emphasizing a Great Books curriculum. He said that University of Austin students read more than 20,000 pages in their first two years, which constitute UATX’s Intellectual Foundations curriculum, where all the students take the same core classes in the same order.

A Mix of Old and New 

Dyer comes from a different background. In a 2017 article, he described himself as “a conservative, straight out of central casting, a pro-life evangelical who is an unapologetic admirer of the American Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution.” In his 2013 book, “Abortion, Slavery, and Constitutional Meaning,” published by Cambridge University Press, Dyer argues that abortion is legally analogous to slavery, in that certain classes of humanity are deprived of legal status and legal protections.

The course selections at both programs, more than two dozen in all, offer a mix of old and new. This semester, UATX is offering “Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Cryptocurrency” and “Artificial Intelligence II” alongside “Crown, Cathedral, and Crusade” and “Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy.” 

About two miles away, UT-Austin’s School of Civic Leadership is offering multiple units of “Intro to Philosophy, Politics, and Economics” and “Constitutional Principles: Core Texts” alongside “Democracy and Capitalism” and “The Age of Reformation.”

An RCI reporter’s visit to three SCL classes revealed courses taught by a combination of lecture and discussion, with a heavy reading load. SCL’s syllabi for the classes being taught this semester show that the readings hew to the classical liberal model of exposing students to primary sources and historical debates about slavery, due process, libel, abortion, and other controversies.

Introduction to Philosophy, Politics, and Economics readings include Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Adam Smith, Thomas Sowell, John Rawls, Friedrich Hayek, John Jacques Rousseau, Kurt Vonnegut, among a host of others. The Democracy and Capitalism class likewise includes reading selections and podcast episodes representing a variety of perspectives – Milton Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom,” Robert Heilbroner’s “Socialism,” Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom,” Irving Kristol’s “On Corporate Capitalism in America,” George Stigler’s “Monopoly,” those being just a sample.

Dyer is teaching a course called Constitutional Rights that is heavy on U.S. Supreme Court rulings and dissents. Dyer’s syllabus contains a two-word clue – “close reading” – to the way historical texts are interpreted in the civics culture, a phrase that also appears on other SCL syllabi. The phrase means much more than simply careful reading or attention to detail. The words contain an entire philosophy governing the relationship between a reader and a text, which is based on the belief that texts contain objective meanings, and that the student’s job is to attempt to comprehend that meaning. Once a mainstay of academia, that approach has fallen out of favor and is a radical departure from contemporary methods that dismiss traditional interpretations of classical texts as naïve or sycophantic, and say that today’s readers are heir to an evolved understanding of history that gives them the moral authority to stand in judgment of the past. 

As Professor Sosa explained in an interview after his class, “We don’t study with the assumption that the students and faculty are better or smarter than the things they’re studying.”

Zach Lacy, a UT-Austin sophomore triple-majoring in government, philosophy, and classical languages, said he was not exposed to a single “great book” in high school, and the School of Civic Leadership is unlike any other education he has experienced. 

“I really get to chew on the texts, read deeply and fully understand it,” he said. “There’s a sincerity in approaching the text and acknowledging there is wisdom that we do not have.”

John Murawski reports on the intersection of culture and ideas for RealClearInvestigations. He previously covered artificial intelligence for the Wall Street Journal and spent 15 years as a reporter for the News & Observer (Raleigh, NC) writing about health care, energy and business. At RealClear, Murawski reports on how esoteric academic theories on race and gender have been shaping many areas of public life, from K-12 school curricula to workplace policies to the practice of medicine.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/08/2025 - 20:05

Executive Orders By President In The First 100 Days

Executive Orders By President In The First 100 Days

As of just 100 days into his term, Trump had already signed 130 executive orders—more than some presidents issued over their entire time in office.

This graphic, created by Visual Capitalist's Julia Wendling in collaboration with Inigo, offers a visual look at the presidents who made the most prolific use of executive orders throughout American history.

A Closer Look at Orders

Using data from UC Santa Barbara, we’ve broken down how many executive orders each president issued in their first 100 days.

Data as of April 30, 2025.

President Trump and President Biden are the only presidents from the last 50 years to hit the top 10 list.

Trump’s Executive Orders

Trump’s rapid-fire use of orders underscores his intent to drive change and disrupt the status quo on an unprecedented scale. On his first day in office alone, he signed a record-breaking 26 executive orders—nearly triple the next-highest first-day total, set by President Biden with 9.

These orders span a wide range of issues, including boosting American industry, cutting government inefficiencies, and addressing topics like foreign aid, border security, discrimination, innovation, and trade policy.

Executive Activity of Past Presidents

Upon taking office in January 2021 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Biden directed his early efforts toward anti-discrimination measures and pandemic containment. Obama, on the other hand, prioritized labor rights and ethics reforms during his early days in office.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who assumed the presidency during multiple national crises, including the aftermath of the Great Depression and World War II, centered his early executive actions on securing economic stability and recovery.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/08/2025 - 19:40

Hyperbole, Lies, And Delusions

Hyperbole, Lies, And Delusions

Authored by Richard Porter via RealClearWire.com,

Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s speech in New Hampshire last week was greeted by the media as yet another stirring call to arms for the rudderless Democratic Party.

“Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption – but I am now,” Pritzker thundered.

“These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They have to understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soapbox and then punish them at the ballot box.”

Republicans protested that the governor came close to inciting political violence – and they have a point, given the attempts to assassinate Donald Trump, the dangerous attacks on Tesla, and the near-kidnapping of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 

However, what Pritzker had to say in his speech before channeling Maxine Waters’ infamous call to harass Republicans should not be overlooked. It raises an important question: Is Pritzker delusional, a liar, or merely hyperbolic?

Hyperbole, lies, and delusions are all forms of falsehoods, but of different magnitudes. 

  • The first are exaggerated claims not meant to be taken literally. Trump himself is no stranger to this oratorical device.

  • Lies are exaggerations or falsehoods the speaker wants others to believe – and, while shameful, are a too-frequent feature of modern political discourses. 

  • Delusions are false beliefs at odds with observable reality.

Jerry Seinfeld’s “Soup Nazi” is an example of hyperbolic name calling. Seinfeld and his audience understood it was an exaggeration so grotesque that it was funny. No one thought the soup guy was actually a member of the SS. Jussie Smollett’s claim that MAGA bros assaulted him was a lie, albeit a calculated, elaborate, and harmful hoax. The Salem witch trials were the terrible consequence of a mass delusion.

So, is Pritzker channeling Seinfeld, Smollett, or Cotton Mather?

“It’s wrong to snatch a person off the street and ship them to a foreign gulag with no chance to defend themselves in a court of law,” Pritzker said.

“Standing for the idea that the government doesn’t have the right to kidnap you without due process is arguably the most effective campaign slogan in history,” he said before adding, “Today it’s an immigrant with a tattoo, tomorrow it’s a citizen whose Facebook post annoys Donald Trump.”

He went on in this vein for a while:

  • “Our retirees don’t deserve to be left destitute by a Social Security Administration decimated by Elon Musk.”

  • “Our citizens don’t deserve to lose health care coverage because Republicans want to hand a tax cut to billionaires.”

  • “Our federal workers don’t deserve to have, well, a 19-year-old DOGE bro called Big Balls destroy their careers.”

  • “Autistic kids and adults who are loving contributors to our society don’t deserve to be stigmatized by a weird nepo baby who once stashed a dead bear in the back of his car.”

This is all absurd.

Activists have brought hundreds of lawsuits on behalf of illegal migrants, as Democrats fight to keep criminals and gang members from being deported. 

Long-standing immigration laws set forth the process that’s due to non-U.S. citizens before they are deported – processes pursuant to which prior presidents of both political parties deported millions of non-citizens.

There’s not the slightest suggestion that Republicans (who have been fighting Big Tech censorship) support criminalizing Facebook posts. 

To the contrary, Vice President J.D. Vance was widely criticized by Democrats for condemning Britain and Germany for criminalizing Facebook posts.

Not a single person receiving Social Security payments legally is losing their government pension. 

Improving efficiency, eliminating waste, and rooting out fraud protects retirees and strengthens the system.

No American receiving health care legally will lose health care coverage. 

And preventing states (like Illinois) from providing health care to noncitizens under Medicaid will result in more funding to cover health care for U.S. citizens. 

There will be no tax cut for high earners in the budget reconciliation; the existing rate structure will be maintained.

Trump is reducing federal employment through buyouts, layoffs, and dismissals to improve government efficiency (i.e., doing more with fewer workers) and to redirect government policy (i.e., eliminating DEI).

In his speech, Pritzker also accused Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F.  Kennedy Jr. of nepotism. 

That’s rich coming from the heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune who used inherited money to buy his way into office. In any case, it’s the opposite of nepotism for the scion of Democrat royalty to become a Republican leader. And Kennedy is trying to stop the autism epidemic, not shame autistic people.

So, everything Pritzker said in New Hampshire was obviously false. What’s interesting to consider is: What does he, and what does his audience, actually believe about these topics?

When asked by Jen Psaki on MSNBC about his speech, Pritzker replied with yet another apocalyptic fantasy: “We are in a perilous moment in this country,” he replied. “There is, I mean, tumult around everyone in this country. We have had our economic rights taken away, we have had our civil rights taken away, and it’s only been a hundred days.”

Consider further that in February, Pritzker – who helped build the Illinois Holocaust Museum – compared the new Trump Administration to the Third Reich, volunteering that he didn’t make the comparison to Nazis lightly.

Put it all together, and it sounds like Pritzker is channeling Jussie Smollett, not Jerry Seinfeld. He’s not trying to entertain, and I think he knows better. He wants to frighten and anger people. He wants outrage, not knowing smiles.

There’s a worst-case scenario, however. What if the governor of Illinois, and apparent 2028 presidential candidate, is delusional and believes his falsehoods?  He wouldn’t be alone – and that’s even more scary. 

In a world in which many progressives believe Luigi Mangione is a hero, Pritzker’s lies in the cause of his ambition to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president are more outrageous – and more perilous – than Smollett’s lies to make himself a civil rights icon.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/08/2025 - 19:15

Ontario To Debut World's First Small Modular Reactor, GE Predicts

Ontario To Debut World's First Small Modular Reactor, GE Predicts

The world of nuclear energy and small modular reactors - which we believe is the next obvious secular bull market in energy - keeps moving forward. 

Ontario officials have granted final approval for the construction of a small modular reactor (SMR) developed by GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, according to new reporting from Axios.

This reactor, known as the BWRX-300, is anticipated to be the first SMR to become operational in the Western world. The 300-megawatt unit will be located next to the existing Darlington Nuclear Station, operated by Ontario Power Generation. Once completed, it will generate enough electricity to power approximately 300,000 homes.

The successful implementation of this reactor at the Darlington site is expected to serve as a model for the feasibility and benefits of SMR technology.

Ontario’s energy ministry emphasized the significance of the project, noting that it will be the first SMR of its kind among G7 nations. GE has stated that early site preparations have been completed and full construction will commence soon, with the reactor projected to begin operations by 2030, the report says. 

The Darlington site is planned to host a total of four SMR units, all of which are expected to be operational by 2035. The entire project is estimated to cost 20.9 billion Canadian dollars, which is about 15.06 billion USD. According to Stephen Lecce, Ontario’s energy minister, this initiative is a crucial part of the province's strategy to meet an anticipated 75% increase in electricity demand by 2050.

"Ensuring that we have reliable, affordable energy is essential to the economic sovereignty of our province and country," Lecce said. 

Recall just days ago nuclear names popped on news that The White House is poised to issue executive orders aimed at accelerating the deployment of nuclear reactors across the United States.

The White House actions are expected to leverage the Departments of Defense and Energy to expedite reactor deployment, potentially circumventing delays from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

This initiative aligns with the administration’s strategy to meet the surging energy demands driven by sectors like artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing.

Publicly traded companies positioned to benefit from this nuclear expansion include our favorite, Oklo, formerly backed by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. The company is among eight companies selected to provide microreactors for U.S. military bases, aiming to supply 100% of critical energy needs at these sites.

The ADVANCE Act of 2024, signed into law in July, aims to streamline the licensing process for advanced nuclear technologies, reduce regulatory costs, and promote the development of next-generation reactors.

Additionally, in a rare show of bipartisan agreement, the Biden administration had formerly expressed intentions to triple the nation’s nuclear power capacity by 2050, recognizing nuclear energy’s role in achieving carbon-free electricity goals.

For those who missed it, in our note "The Next AI Trade" from April 2024, more than one year ago, we outlined various investment opportunities for powering up America, most of which have dramatically outperformed the market since then.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/08/2025 - 18:50

Washington Should Take Efficiency Seriously

Washington Should Take Efficiency Seriously

Authored by Nancy Brinker via RealClearPolitics,

DOGE is saving billions and it’s doing what voters asked for.

As someone who has represented the United States abroad, first as ambassador to Hungary and later as U.S. chief of protocol, I’ve seen how American leadership is measured not just by strength or ideals, but by functionality. Our allies watch how we govern ourselves. And too often, what they’ve seen in recent decades is an increasingly bloated federal government, mired in duplication, inefficiency, and bureaucratic inertia.

That’s why the work of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, deserves serious consideration. Led by Elon Musk, DOGE has taken on a task that most administrations have promised but failed to achieve: modernizing how our federal government operates. It has consolidated overlapping offices, canceled wasteful contracts, sold underutilized properties, and implemented data-driven reforms, all aimed at reducing cost, improving performance, and saving taxpayer money. 

Since it began in January, DOGE has either cut or reduced grants, leases, and contracts in over 176 departments or agencies. On its website the department reports saving $160 billion. For comparison, that’s more than the entire annual budget of the Department of Transportation. Even according to independent data and analysis, DOGE efforts have already generated billions in savings. This is not a theoretical exercise in reform. It is tangible, measurable, and aligned with what the American people have repeatedly said they want: a government that delivers more by doing less.

Polling backs this up. A February Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found that 72% of Americans support the existence of an agency focused solely on eliminating waste and inefficiency in government. A clear majority (60%) said they believe DOGE is helping to rein in unnecessary federal spending. That’s not a left-wing or right-wing perspective; that’s a mainstream one.

DOGE’s creation may have sparked controversy, particularly among those uncomfortable with Musk’s unconventional approach and public persona. But we shouldn’t allow style to eclipse substance. If government is functioning more effectively and at a lower cost to taxpayers, then we must look seriously at how those outcomes are being achieved, and what lessons can be responsibly applied more broadly.

Having served in federal roles that demand strict compliance with law, protocol, and tradition, I know firsthand that reform must operate within the boundaries of our values. Rule of law and adherence to institutional norms are non-negotiable. Yet so, too, is the need for honest appraisal: Much of our federal bureaucracy has become outdated, sprawling, and resistant to change. Streamlining is not an assault on government. It is, in fact, an affirmation of it – an attempt to make public institutions worthy of public trust.

Of course, DOGE’s approach is not without flaws. Musk himself has candidly admitted as much. Critics have questioned whether all reported savings are fully verified, and transparency around decision-making needs improvement. Oversight is not only appropriate – it’s essential. But the existence of imperfections should not be a pretext for dismissing a bold, productive effort to modernize government. We cannot let perfect be the enemy of progress.

It’s a time-honored tradition in Washington for good ideas to wither under partisan suspicion. But government reform should not be the property of any one party. For decades, both Republicans and Democrats have campaigned on promises to cut waste, modernize services, and rein in unnecessary spending. 

DOGE is doing what many in both parties have failed to do: take those promises seriously.

The real question is not whether DOGE is controversial – it is. The real question is whether it is effective. So far, the evidence suggests that it is. The challenge ahead is to preserve that momentum, institutionalize the best of what DOGE is doing, fix mistakes, and ensure it is guided by transparency, accountability, and legal rigor.

This moment presents a rare opportunity: the chance to reshape how government operates in a way that is more responsive to the people it serves. Instead of vilifying reformers, we should come together around a shared goal that transcends politics: building a government that works.

If DOGE continues to help us get there, it deserves not derision, but support.

Nancy Brinker served as U.S. ambassador to Hungary and as chief of protocol during the George W. Bush administration. She is the founder of the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure and the Promise Fund.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/08/2025 - 18:25

Off The Rails: Amtrak Slashes 20% Of Management In $100 Million Savings

Off The Rails: Amtrak Slashes 20% Of Management In $100 Million Savings

Amtrak is cutting roughly 20% of its senior management positions, aiming to reduce expenses amid uncertainty over President Donald Trump’s infrastructure investment plans, sources familiar with the matter told Bloomberg.

The federally-owned passenger railroad - which operates as a for-profit entity, is targeting $100 million in annual cost reductions through these cuts, a source disclosed anonymously, sharing details not publicly announced.

In an official statement, Amtrak confirmed the elimination of roughly 450 management roles, reiterating the goal of achieving $100 million in yearly savings. The company emphasized these layoffs only impact corporate-level positions and assured that operational railroad jobs would remain unaffected. As of 2024, Amtrak employs approximately 22,700 people. (what!?)

"Amtrak identified opportunities to better align resources with the important work we are doing for America," the statement reads.

Amtrak President Roger Harris communicated the details of these layoffs to employees in a recent letter, indicating that impacted staff would receive notifications in the first half of May. Additionally, the railroad has implemented a hiring freeze and halted promotions for management roles, Harris wrote.

"Amtrak is making a full review of our cost structure, which includes evaluating the size of our management staff," reads the letter, adding that leadership plans "to notify impacted employees in the first half of May."

Planning for these cuts reportedly began months ago, driven by uncertainty following Trump’s presidential victory and his subsequent moves to withhold previously approved grants. This has cast doubt over future infrastructure funding.

Significant projects potentially impacted by the management layoffs include new multi-billion-dollar rail tunnels in New York City and Baltimore, as well as a replacement of the Susquehanna River Bridge and other major initiatives along the Northeast corridor.

While construction on these major projects is currently ongoing, future financing—particularly funding initially expected from the fifth year of former President Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill—is now uncertain.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/08/2025 - 18:00

Tesla Tantrums: Consumer Choices In The Age Of Performative Ethics

Tesla Tantrums: Consumer Choices In The Age Of Performative Ethics

Authored by Patrick Keeney via The Epoch Times,

The French have an apt expression for those vexing moments when, having exited a spirited exchange, the perfect rejoinder belatedly arrives. They call it l’esprit de l’escalier—“the wit of the staircase.”

The phrase captures that all-too-human affliction of eloquence delayed. The sharp retort, the subtle riposte—these come not in the heat of dialogue but only after one has turned his back and descended the stairs. “If only I had said ...” It’s an experience with which I’m intimately familiar.

Yet every so often, I rise to the occasion. One such instance still affords a small measure of satisfaction. A visitor from England took it upon himself to scold me for driving a German automobile. He declared he could never own one, not after the destruction wrought by the Luftwaffe on England during the war. The implication was unmistakable: my vehicular choice constituted a moral failing. He drove, he proudly informed me, a Toyota Camry. For once, I replied in real time, “Ah, well, I could never own a Japanese car, not after what the Japanese Army did to our Canadian boys in Hong Kong.” 

We changed the subject.

That brief exchange came to mind as I watched the recent paroxysms of hostility directed at Tesla

Dealerships have been torched, vehicles vandalized, and owners accosted in parking lots by sanctimonious citizens, sneering moral condemnation.

It is not necessary to be a shareholder, Tesla owner, or admirer of Elon Musk to find this troubling. The issue transcends personalities or partisanship.

It is a symptom of a civic pathology, one where ideological grievance takes precedence over shared achievement, and where economic success is no longer a cause for celebration but a litmus test of political allegiance.

If Mr. Musk espouses views one finds disagreeable, there are democratic mechanisms to contest them. 

But to vilify an entire enterprise—its workers, consumers, products—based on its founder’s political eccentricities is intellectual laziness masquerading as moral conviction.

It also prompts a deeper question, leading us to the heart of the matter: which corporations, if any, are so morally unblemished that we can consume their products without public disapproval? In an age increasingly saturated with virtue signalling and performative ethics, should we now consider our consumer choices as moral declarations?

If so, the standard quickly becomes untenable.

Consider Henry Ford, whose contributions to American industry were matched only by the virulence of his anti-Semitism. 

Ford financed the dissemination of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a notorious forgery, and his newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, published material that later delighted Nazi propagandists. By the logic of ideological purity, must we now abandon our Fords and dismantle every endowment bearing his name?

Or ponder Apple. Lauded for its sleek design and innovation, the company has also drawn fire for its reliance on overseas manufacturing, particularly through Foxconn, where reports of dire labour conditions have prompted global concern. 

Are we then to discard our iPhones, torch our MacBooks, and boycott the Apple Store as gestures of resistance?

Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Nike, and Amazon have all faced their respective reckonings—environmental degradation, exploitative labour, tax evasion, and anti-competitive conduct. 

Even the so-called “green industries,” ostensibly paragons of sustainability, are entangled in troubling realities: the mining of cobalt and lithium (often involving child labour), the environmental toll of solar and wind technologies, and the geopolitical implications of rare earth extraction.

And what of legacy media organizations, whose selective coverage, ideological slant, and occasional falsehoods have sown confusion and deepened division? If we are to demand moral rectitude from our manufacturers, should we not hold our journalists and media organizations to the same standard?

The list is endless. In a fallen world, condemning every corporation and institution for its moral shortcomings takes little imagination. Yet, this is precisely the point: the moral outrage directed at Tesla is not principled but opportunistic. It is less about ethics and more about tribalism.

This is not to say that ethics should not play a role in commerce. Instead, it is to warn against the politicization of consumption, whereby our purchases become emblems of ideological identity. A society that demands moral perfection from its corporations but does so selectively, based not on a coherent principle but on partisan affinity, is not morally serious. It is merely moral theatre. The recent wave of anti-Tesla fervour has less to do with conscience than spectacle.

But moral seriousness requires more than slogans. It demands consistency, humility, and, most critically, an acknowledgment of our shared imperfection. Without these, protests that take us to task for our consumer habits are not acts of ethical resistance, but empty gestures—tribal totems in the theatre of cultural war.

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

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/08/2025 - 17:40

Pages