Escobar: How The BRICS+ 'Unit' Can Save Global Trade

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

The Unit project, first revealed by Sputnik in 2024, is emerging as the most viable option for breaking the US dollar’s stranglehold on global trade and investment.

In his book co-written with top economist Sergey Bodrunov, Regulations of the Noonomy (international edition published this year by Sandro Teti Editore in Rome), leading Russian economist Sergey Glazyev stresses the need to “ensure a full-fledged switch to national currencies in mutual trade and investment within the EAEU and the CIS, and further – within the BRICS and SCO, the withdrawal of joint development institutions from the dollar zone, the development of their own independent payment systems and interbank information exchange systems.”

When it comes to financial innovation – compared to the current structure of the international financial system – The Unit is in a class of its own.

The Unit is essentially a benchmark token – or an index token; a post-stablecoin, digital monetary tool; totally decentralized; and with intrinsic value anchored in real assets: gold and sovereign currencies.

The Unit can be used either as part of a new digital infrastructure – what most of the Global South is striving for; or as part of a traditional banking setup.

When it comes to fulfilling traditional money functions, The Unit is – pardon the pun – right on the money. It’s meant to be used as a quite convenient medium of exchange in cross-border trade and investments – a key plank of the diversification actively pursued by BRICS+.

It should also be seen as an independent, reliable measure for value and pricing, as well as a better store of value than fiat money.

The Unit is academically validated – including by Glazyev himself – and properly governed by IRIAS (International Research Institute for Advanced Systems), set up in 1976 in accordance with the UN statute.

And crucial at this next step, The Unit is to be launched early next year on the Cardano blockchain, which uses the digital currency Ada.

Ada has a fascinating background – named after Ada Lovelace, a 19th-century mathematician, daughter of none other than Lord Byron, and recognized as the first computer programmer in History.

Anyone, anywhere can use Ada as a secure exchange of value; and very important, without the need to ask a third party to mediate the exchange.

That means every Ada transaction is permanently secured and recorded on the Cardano blockchain. That also means that every Ada holder also holds a stake in the Cardano network.

Cardano has been around for 10 years now – and is a quite popular blockchain. It’s backed by some quite big venture capital firms such as IOHK, Emurgo and the Cardano Foundation. Essentially, Cardano is an excellent option for regular payments because transactions are cheap and fast.

Neither a crypto nor a stablecoin

Enter The Unit.

The Unit is neither a cryptocurrency nor a stablecoin – as it’s shown here.

A concise definition of The Unit would be a resilient reserve of value – backed by a structure of 60% gold and 40% diversified BRICS+ currencies.

The major appeal for the Global South is that such a unique mix provides stability and protection against inflation, especially under the current global financial landscape of wobbly macroeconomics and widespread uncertainty.

Using Cardano, The Unit is bound to become accessible to everyone, via a combination of centralized and decentralized exchanges.

So to enter this new market, individuals and companies will be able to acquire The Unit directly with fiat through regulated banking partners. That means a bridge between traditional finance and emerging decentralized ecosystems – in favor of liquidity, accessibility and reliability, opening the door to full adoption by the Global South.

The Unit can even evolve into a new form of digital cash for emerging economies.

Following exactly the path delineated by BRICS even before the ground-breaking annual summit in Kazan in 2024, The Unit may be the best solution currently available for cross-border payments: a new form of international currency, issued in a de-centralized way, and then recognized and regulated at a national level.

And that brings us to the top conceptual strength of The Unit: it removes a direct dependency on the currency of other nations, and offers the Global South/Global Majority a new form of non-censored, apolitical money.

Better yet: apolitical money featuring an enormous potential for anchoring fair trade and multiple investments.

What the Global South really needs

A good next step for The Unit would also be to set up an Advisory Board, uniting world standard stars such as Prof. Michael Hudson, Jeffrey Sachs, Yannis Varoufakis and the co-founder of the NDB Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr. (here at the Global South Academic Forum in Shanghai) .

When it comes to BRICs-emphasized de-dollarization – done with a hefty degree of sophistication, without having to spell it out – The Unit will be key. It’s also key that The Unit is not a cryptocurrency.

Wall Street behemoths – especially BlackRock – are big on cryptocurrencies, an enormously unstable set up which eschewed individual holders to the profit of massive institutional players. For example, it’s BlackRock that essentially shapes Bitcoin’s market.

US stablecoins essentially perpetuate US dollar dominance – aiming their firepower directly against possible, future digital currencies offered by BRICS+.

The Unit is the stark opposite, offering a reliable digital monetary tool for the fast advancing Multipolar World. It’s an evolution in itself, bridging the fiat and the crypto worlds; and last but not least, it is a solid foundation for the emerging post-Bretton Woods economy.

Of course the challenges ahead are huge – and The Unit will be fought tooth and nail by the usual suspects as a new concept offering borderless financial resilience for the Global South/Global Majority.

And here may lie the key takeaway: the only way BRICS+ as well as the Global Majority may be strengthened is by developing closer and closer geoeconomic, financial ties. For that, the toxic power of Western speculative capital must be contained – to the benefit of more intra-Global South commodity trading, and more investable capital for productive, sustainable development.

The potential is limitless. The Unit may well be able to unlock it. Even JP Morgan admitted The Unit is “perhaps the most thoroughly fleshed-out of de-dollarization proposals that exist in the cross-border transactions space for BRICS+.”

And there’s no other similarly effective plan anywhere in the world.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 23:25

NY Times Sues Department Of War Over New Media Rules

The New York Times on Friday sued the Department of War over new rules for media outlets which restrict reporters' movements around the Pentagon, require ID badges, and restrict the solicitation of "criminal acts" (encouraging someone to leak). 

The Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, on March 3, 2022. Joshua Roberts/Reuters

"The policy, in violation of the First Amendment, seeks to restrict journalists’ ability to do what journalists have always done—ask questions of government employees and gather information to report stories that take the public beyond official pronouncements," the NYT wrote in its lawsuit which was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. 

The new rules state that soliciting nonpublic information from department personnel or encouraging employees to break the law "falls outside the scope of protected newsgathering activities." 

Journalists will also be denied press passes if they pose a safety or security risk. 

The Times and several other outlets took issue with a request from the Department of War to sign papers acknowledging that they had received, read and understood the rules - and that while they may not agree with the policies, signing the paper did not waive any legal rights.

After some outlets declined to sign the acknowledgement, the Pentagon required them to hand over their press passes, resulting in some reporters ceasing to report from the DoW. 

Meanwhile, several in the media were later granted passes who had not had them before, including National Pulse EIC Raheem Kassam. 

"Legacy media chose to self-deport from this building," said Pentagon spokeswoman Kingsley Wilson during a Wednesday press briefing, adding 'we’re welcoming new media outlets that actually reach Americans, ask real questions, and don’t pursue a biased agenda."

According to the NY Times complaint, "These developments place the purpose and effect of the Policy in stark relief: to fundamentally restrict coverage of the Pentagon by independent journalists and news organizations, either by limiting what kind of information they can obtain and publish without incurring punishment, or by driving them out of the Pentagon with an unconstitutional Policy.

The new Department of War logo inside the Pentagon in Arlington, Va., on Sept. 8, 2025. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

"While Plaintiffs’ enterprising reporting on the military will continue, the Pentagon’s Policy ensures the suppression of certain newsworthy information—information, for instance, gathered by directly questioning officials at press conferences or through routine unplanned interactions between journalists and Pentagon personnel on Pentagon grounds," the outlet continued. 

Pentagon chief spox Sean Parnell told the Epoch Times; "We are aware of the New York Times lawsuit and look forward to addressing these arguments in court." 

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 23:00

Health Department Investigating School That Vaccinated Child Without Parental Consent

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

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said on Dec. 3 that it has launched an investigation into a school that officials said illegally vaccinated a child without parental consent.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in Washington on Dec. 2, 2025. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

HHS did not name the school. The department said it is in the Midwest and acted illegally in part because it ignored a religious exemption for the vaccination that had been filed pursuant to state law.

The HHS Office for Civil Rights will be looking into the matter to ascertain whether the school failed to comply with a requirement under the federal Vaccines for Children Program. The program, which provides vaccines to various institutions, mandates that immunization providers comply with state law surrounding exemptions from mandated vaccines.

“To protect the integrity of the investigation, HHS cannot share additional details at this time,” an HHS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.

Officials also released a letter on Dec. 3 to doctors and others, informing them that they must generally provide parents access to the medical records of children, with limited exceptions. The letter warned that HHS was making access to minor records a priority and that the agency will use tools it has at its disposal, including fines, to ensure compliance.

“Today, we are putting pediatric medical professionals on notice: you cannot sideline parents,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement. “When providers ignore parental consent, violate exemptions to vaccine mandates, or keep parents in the dark about their children’s care, we will act decisively. We will use every tool at our disposal to protect families and restore accountability.”

Jim O'Neill, deputy HHS secretary and acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the Vaccines for Children Program “should never circumvent parents’ rights.”

The program, which began operations in 1994, sends vaccines to providers to administer to children at no cost. The program “reduces disparities in child vaccination rates, ensuring that any child can access recommended vaccines regardless of income or geography,” the CDC states on its website.

Schools across the country mandate multiple vaccines for school attendance, based on the CDC’s immunization schedule.

Exemptions are granted in all 50 states on medical grounds. Most states also allow exemptions for religious reasons.

HHS officials also said on Dec. 3 that they directed the Health Resources and Services Administration, which is part of the department, to start requiring that grant recipients adhere to both federal and state parental consent laws for any health care services at health centers supported by the administration. That includes obtaining parental consent before a minor receives medical or dental work.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 22:35

China's Teapot Refiners Boost Crude Buying After New Import Quotas

By Michael Kern of Oilprice.com

Helped by the newly-issued crude import quotas, China’s independent refiners are buying sanctioned Iranian crude again and raising their processing rates, making room for Iran’s oil to move out of floating and bonded storage and potentially easing the year-end glut on the market. 

Chinese teapot refiner

The independent refiners in China’s Shandong province, the so-called teapots, have been buying cheap Iranian oil from onshore storage in China, including bonded storage, since the Chinese authorities issued a fresh batch of import quotas last week. 

These quotas are important for China’s purchases and storage of crude as all refiners except the five big state-owned giants need to be allocated quotas in order to import crude. 

The teapots are now using their quotas to buy Iranian crude from bonded storage and boost processing rates, traders and analysts told Reuters on Friday. 

The independent refiners exhausted their previous quotas as early as in October and were waiting for a new issuance at the end of the year. Authorities issued quotas of a total volume that was higher compared to last year’s last batch. 

“As for the effect on sanctioned flows, the new quotas will sustain — rather than lift — China’s sanctioned crude inflows,” Emma Li, Lead Market Analyst at Vortexa, said on Thursday. 

Despite tightening sanctions against Iran and Russia, and the U.S. now targeting China’s hubs for Iranian oil imports, shipments into the Shandong province have remained robust this year, Li noted. 

Part of the volumes have been accumulating in onshore storage, including in bonded storage, instead of going into processing immediately. 

“This means new quotas will partly be used to draw down inventories rather than drive incremental seaborne imports,” Li said. 

The new quotas have already spurred higher processing rates, with utilization rates estimated to have jumped to over 60% compared with about 50% of the past few months when the teapots were out of quotas. 

Due to the more active independent refiners, analysts at Energy Aspects have raised their estimate of China’s crude processing volumes in December by about 150,000 barrels per day (bpd), senior analyst Sun Jianan told Reuters.   

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 21:45

Major Climate Crisis Study Retracted Over "Inaccuracies" As Doom Narrative Collapses

A widely hyped climate-doom study published in Nature in April 2024, and then amplified by left-wing corporate media outlets (CNN, Bloomberg, you name it), desperate to push the "green" narrative and weirdly obsessed with driving Americans into a state of severe climate shock, has now been embarrassingly retracted.

On Wednesday, Nature retracted the study titled "The economic commitment of climate change" after economists discovered that flawed data from Uzbekistan had heavily skewed the results.

If Uzbekistan data were excluded, the paper's eye-popping forecast of a 62% collapse in global economic output by 2100 under unabated emissions would only fall to 23%.

The retraction should intensify the debate over how accurate long-term climate forecasts actually are - and by our estimates, Al Gore, thirty years and counting, is still very wrong.

For 20 months, the study was touted by Bloomberg, CNN, Forbes, and countless MSM outlets, and even cited by the World Bank and the OECD. This helped manufacture a wildly misleading narrative of an impending climate catastrophe.

The study's authors, led by Leonie Wenz of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, and Maximilian Kotz, a postdoctoral researcher at the institute, wrote in a retraction notice that the issues were "too substantial for a correction," forcing the paper's withdrawal."

The retraction will send shockwaves through the Network for Greening the Financial System, a coalition of central banks and financial supervisors that leaned heavily on the study to shape its outlook.

In recent months, Bill Gates, one of the biggest climate-alarmism offenders, right alongside Al Gore, had to acknowledge that the climate-crisis narrative was mostly fake news.

But why did left-wing billionaires, their networks of NGOs, their allies in Washington, and the left-wing MSM push climate doomerism to such extremes, a propaganda campaign that only really kicked off after Marxist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unveiled the "Green New Deal" in 2019?

Because it was never about "saving the planet" from an imaginary crisis. It was about looting the U.S. Treasury, which is exactly what they accomplished through the Inflation Reduction Act. 

And we'll leave you with Victor Davis Hanson proclaiming, "The End of Climate Change."

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 21:20

FDA Appoints Doctor Who Led COVID-19 Vaccine Death Investigation As Top Drug Regulator

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

The doctor who led an investigation into deaths following COVID-19 vaccination is now the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) top drug regulator, the agency announced on Dec. 3.

Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg during a meeting in Atlanta, Ga., in a file image. Megan Varner/Reuters

Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, who had been a senior adviser to FDA leadership, has been appointed acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

Dr. Richard Pazdur, a longtime FDA official who was head of the center, is retiring, the FDA said this week. Pazdur was appointed in November, after the previous center director resigned after he was accused in a lawsuit of illegally targeting a company by saying its FDA-approved product has “significant toxicity.”

CDER regulates drugs available over-the-counter and via prescriptions, including generic drugs and sunscreens. The center has nearly 5,000 employees; the FDA employs about 18,000 people.

Hoeg has worked in the past with Dr. Vinay Prasad, who heads the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which regulates vaccines and other biological products and has about 1,150 workers; and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, including on a 2022 paper that estimated COVID-19 vaccine mandates at universities resulted in more harm than benefit.

After joining the FDA this year, Hoeg undertook an investigation into post-vaccination child deaths and determined that some were caused by a COVID-19 vaccine, Prasad said in a Nov. 28 memorandum. Other FDA staffers independently agreed on at least some of the deaths, he said.

“Dr. Hoeg is the right scientist to fully modernize CDER and finish the job of establishing a culture of cross-center coordination there,” Makary said in a statement. “At CBER, she advanced scientific rigor through her commitment to providing the public with the highest quality of evidence, including our roadmap to reduce and replace animal testing with new technologies.”

Hoeg said in a statement that CDER plays an important role in making sure medicines are safe and effective.

“This is an incredible opportunity to serve my fellow Americans,” she stated. “I am committed to transparency, honesty, and decisions based on rigorous science and ensuring important changes happen efficiently. I am humbled to support the FDA’s work to modernize and strengthen how we evaluate evidence so the public benefits from the best science.”

Hoeg graduated from the University of Wisconsin in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts. She obtained her medical degree from the Medical College of Wisconsin and a Ph.D. in public health and epidemiology from the University of Copenhagen. She holds American and Danish citizenship.

As part of her role as senior adviser, Hoeg had served as the FDA’s liaison to a federal committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccines. During its most recent meeting, she said the FDA was taking seriously indications that the COVID-19 vaccines are contaminated.

The FDA over the summer withdrew emergency authorization for the COVID-19 vaccines. It then issued updated approvals for three existing shots and a new vaccine for all seniors, as well as younger people who have at least one risk factor that officials say places them at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes.

The CDC, based on advice from the federal committee, shifted from recommending that most people receive one of the vaccines to saying people should consult with health care professionals and take into account various factors, including whether they have any of the risk factors.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 20:55

Sean Conlon and Pia Singh of CNBC report the S&P 500 closes higher, notching four-day win streak and nearing record after light inflation reading:

The S&P 500 edged higher on Friday, securing its fourth straight winning day, as traders digested inflation data that could provide further incentive for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates next week

The broad market index closed 0.19% higher at 6,870.40, putting the index about 0.7% off its intraday record. Friday also marked its ninth positive session in 10. The Nasdaq Composite increased 0.31% to settle at 23,578.13, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 104.05 points, or 0.22%, to end the day at 47,954.99.

The market sorted through a fresh slate of economic releases Friday. The Commerce Department said that the core personal consumption expenditures price index for September – which was delayed due to the record-setting U.S. government shutdown – showed an annual rate of 2.8%, lower than the 2.9% Dow Jones estimate. Core PCE’s 0.2% rise on the month was in line with expectations, as were the monthly and annual inflation readings for headline PCE.

Also on Friday, the University of Michigan’s consumer survey, a report that provides a glimpse at sentiment as well as the view on inflation over the near and longer term, came in higher than expected for December.

The PCE report, which serves as the Fed’s primary inflation gauge, gives the central bank its final inflation view before Wednesday’s interest rate vote. With inflation being mild, jobs remains more in focus after recent reports showed signs of weakening in the labor market. Investors are hoping that this will influence the central bank to lower its benchmark rate by a quarter percentage point when it announces the decision Wednesday.

Traders are pricing in an 87% chance of a cut next Wednesday, far higher than just a couple weeks ago, according to the CME FedWatch tool. The key fed funds futures rate is currently targeted between 3.75%-4%, trading near the high end of that range amid ongoing pressures in short-term funding markets.

“I think it really just solidifies what the market’s already been pricing in, which is almost certainty of a cut for next week,” David Krakauer, vice president of portfolio management at Mercer Advisors, told CNBC. “If inflation does continue to stay somewhat relatively tame and [is] potentially decreasing, then what’s the outlook for more rate cuts into early next year?”

With expectations running high for a rate cut, Krakauer doesn’t necessarily believe that it will serve as a catalyst for stocks to move higher as the new year approaches. That said, he still thinks the market is in a healthy position for some upside, at least enough to reach new highs on the S&P 500.

“It may be a steady move, it may be a choppy move, but I certainly see the path for equities forward as being very positive,” he said.

Stocks posted gains for the week. The S&P 500 finished up 0.3% week to date, while the Nasdaq and 30-stock Dow have added almost 1% and 0.5%, respectively.

During Friday’s trading session, Netflix shares seesawed after initially seeing sizable losses earlier in the day following the company’s announcement that it struck a deal with Warner Bros. Discovery to buy its film and streaming assets for $72 billion — a transaction that’s expected to close in 12 to 18 months. Netflix shares were nearly 3% lower, while shares of WBD jumped more than 6%.

The streaming giant’s stock came off its lows of the session after a senior administration official told CNBC that the Trump administration views the deal with “heavy skepticism.”

Rian Howlett , Karen Friar and Ines Ferré of Yahoo Finance also report the S&P 500, Nasdaq notch fourth day of gains with next week's Fed meeting in focus: 

US stocks moved higher on Friday as Wall Street digested a cooling in the Federal Reserve's preferred inflation gauge, increasing the odds that the central bank will cut rates next week.

The S&P 500 (^GSPC) rose 0.19%, within striking distance of its first record close since October. The Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC) also gained about 0.3%, eyeing its ninth positive close in 10 sessions. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI) rose around 0.2%, following a mixed Thursday session for the gauges.

Investors continue to bet heavily on a quarter-point interest rate cut from the central bank next Wednesday. Traders are pricing in 87% odds of a move lower, compared with 62% a month ago, according to CME FedWatch.

On Friday, a delayed reading of the PCE price index showed inflation rose about as expected in September. The "core" PCE index — the Fed's favored price gauge — cooled slightly, rising 2.8% on an annual basis. Meanwhile, US consumer confidence rose for the first time in five months as respondents' inflation expectations improved.

The jobs market, meanwhile, has presented more of a mixed bag of data this week. A Challenger report on Thursday showed US companies cut 71,000 jobs last month, the worst November print since 2022. Yet new weekly jobless claims fell to their lowest since September 2022, reinforcing the picture of a labor market cooling gradually rather than rapidly.

Meanwhile, news landed that Netflix (NFLX) will buy Warner Bros. Discovery's (WBD) studios and its streaming unit for $72 billion, following a weeks-long bidding war. Netflix stock ticked down 3%, while WBD shares moved 6% higher.

In earnings, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) stock rose slightly after the server maker's quarterly sales outlook missed high AI-fueled expectations.

S&P 500 hovers near record, while bitcoin has decoupled from stocks

S&P 500 (^GSPC) was a stone's throw away from reaching a new high on Friday, while bitcoin (BTC-USD) tumbled below $90,000 per token.

The world's largest cryptocurrency is on pace to close out the year decoupled from stocks for the first time since 2014.

Bitcoin is down roughly 3% year-to-date compared the the S&P 500's 17% gain.

It hovers about 30% off its all-time high, north of $126,000 in October. 

Alright, a strong week in stocks all based on expectations the Fed will cut 25 basis points next week. I have no doubt the Fed will cut as employment is trending lower but given the stock market is a leading indicator and all stock indices including small caps are flirting with record highs, it's hard to envision more rate cuts in the new year. Interestingly, Bank of America strategist Michael Hartnett is warning that a dovish Fed rate cut could imperil the rally: 

“Only thing that can stop Santa Claus rally is dovish Fed cut causing a selloff in long-end,” Hartnett wrote in a note, referring to Treasuries with a longer maturity date. US stocks have rallied as investors bet the central bank would reduce rates further to shore up a softening labor market. Wagers on a quarter-point cut at the meeting on Dec. 10 have soared to over 90% from 60% just a month prior, according to swaps markets. Traders have also fully priced in three cuts by September 2026. 

The S&P 500 is now about 0.5% away from its October peak, and seasonal trends generally bode well for a year-end rally. However, this time the market faces two risk events in the form of key jobs and inflation reports due later in December after being delayed by the government shutdown.

Hartnett and his team also note that the US administration is likely to intervene to stop inflation from running hot and the unemployment rate rising to 5%. They recommend positioning for that possibility by buying “inexpensive” mid-caps into 2026. They also see the best relative upside in sectors linked to the economic cycle, such as homebuilders, retailers, REITs and transportation stocks.

The strategists had reiterated a preference for international equities through 2025, a call that proved correct as the S&P 500’s  advance trailed a  rally in the MSCI All-Country World ex-US index. 

So, is Hartnett right, will stocks sell off if it's a dovish rate cut? I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "sell the news" initial reaction but in the weeks following the December rate cut, I expect stocks to continue grinding higher until March, with volatility of course. The reality is with fiscal and monetary policy being accomodative, it's hard to envision stocks selling off right now as we head into the new year.  And even though US Treasuries sold off this week, I expect yields to behave as employment growth and inflation expectations remain muted. The bigger story today was in Canada: 

A much bigger selloff in Canadian government bonds Friday, sparked by stronger-than-expected employment data, was a factor. But US yields had already risen to weekly highs.

The US 10- and 30-year yields climbed more than 12 basis points since Nov. 28, with the 10-year closing at 4.14%.

The move held after the delayed release of September personal income and spending data — which includes the inflation gauge the Fed aims to keep around 2% — showed that it accelerated to 2.8%, as economists estimated. Several Fed policymakers have said the inflation trend should forestall rate cuts.

I know a really good Canadian fixed income trader who got dinged today but I agree with him, employment trends in Canada are not strong, the data was stronger than expected because of part-time workers and I'd remain long Canadian bonds here/ short the loonie. What else? The big news today was Netflix (NFLX) will buy Warner Bros. Discovery's (WBD) studios and its streaming unit for $72 billion, following a weeks-long bidding war. Netflix stock lost 3% today, while WBD shares gained 6%. Is Netflix a buy here? I have no idea what will happen with this acquisition as it will face political and regulatory scrutiny but it's a good time to initiate a position in Netflix but don't expect it to pop back up to a new high any time soon (can go lower before it stabilizes): 
With or without Warner Bros. Discovery, Netflix will remain a global powerhouse and a defensive tech stock that does well even in a downturn (the last hing people cut in desperation in their Netflix). But the stock moves violently to the downside sometimes like it did back in 2022 so you need to remain alert and humble even if I think a nice buying opportunity is emerging here. What else? On Wednesday Oracle reports and we shall see the post-earnings reaction as the stock has sold off recently quite a bit on debt concerns: 
It could pop back over $250 or drop back to retest its recent low of $185, nobody really knows, but sentiment is so bearish on this stock that I wouldn't be surprised if it reaccelerates up if earnings are good. Either way, it's a leader in ts field and just like Netflix, you need to see these selloffs as an opportunity to add or initiate a position (imho). Of course, this week was all about banks (US and Canadian) with a lot of them making new highs. I invite you to carefully scroll down the list of stocks making a new high here (you should be doing this every single trading day to see where strength lies).  Lastly, I know there is a lot of angst on the spillover from surging Japanese bond yields but I agree with Dhaval Joshi of BCA Research, the idea that, past a certain point, Japanese government bond yields could trigger a global stock-market meltdown is pretty far-fetched: 

"There isn't a critical level [for Japanese bond yields] that is going to cause a tsunami of capital flooding back to Japan. That's not going to happen," Joshi said.   

I've seen this "yen carry trade unwind" story so many times in the past 25 years that I tend to be more skeptical about a potential global stock market rout from rising Japanese bond yields. Alright, let me wrap this up with the best performing US large cap stocks this week:  Below, Andrew Davis, Bryn Mawr Trust Advisors SVP & Head of Macroeconomic Research, joins 'Fast Money' to talk the current state of play in teh market and how to position going into next year.

Also, Jeremy Siegel, Wharton professor emeritus and WisdomTree chief economist, joins 'Closing Bell' to discuss Siegel's thoughts on equity markets, if investors are afraid of missing out on equity markets growth and much more.

Lastly, Bloomberg's Asia Trade discusses how Japan's 2-year yield hit the highest level since 2008.

The Average Wait For A Doctor's Appointment Is 31 Days - How To Get Seen Sooner

Authored by Sheramy Tsai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

It starts with a call. A sore knee, a lingering cough, a changing mole - nothing urgent - but not quite ignorable. The receptionist is polite, but the first available appointment is three weeks away.

For millions of Americans, health care begins with a wait. For many, walk-in clinics have replaced family medicine.

“People have started to accept that,” Dr. Dorothy Serna, a primary care physician who left traditional practice for a concierge model, told The Epoch Times. “They think, ‘I can’t get my doctor, so I won’t even try. I’ll just go to urgent care. I’ll wait. I’ll Google it.’”

Such scenarios have become the norm rather than the exception. What was once a simple task—seeing your doctor when you need care—has evolved into a complex navigation challenge that requires strategy, persistence, and insider knowledge to overcome.

A Month, If You’re Lucky

More than 100 million people lack a regular primary care provider, a figure that continues to climb each year. New patients wait an average of 23.5 days to see a primary care doctor, often longer in cities. Even existing patients face significant waits, although generally shorter than those of new patients.

The problem continues to grow. A 2025 survey by AMN Healthcare found the average wait for a physician appointment in major metro areas has stretched to 31 days—up 19 percent since 2022 and nearly 50 percent since 2004. In Boston, patients wait more than two months, the longest wait time in the nation.

Across all six specialties, average wait times range widely, from weeks in some cities to just days in others. The Epoch Times

If this is the situation in cities with the most doctors, rural patients can expect even worse outcomes. Only 9 percent of U.S. physicians practice in those communities, leaving patients to travel farther, wait longer, and often go without care altogether.

The problem is reshaping how Americans access health care. Primary care, traditionally the system’s front door, has become its biggest bottleneck. Routine problems escalate into emergencies, and preventive care gets delayed.

The shortage is structural. Nearly half of primary care doctors are older than 55, and few younger physicians are choosing the field. Only 15 percent remain in primary care five years after completing their training. The United States has 67 primary care doctors per 100,000 people—about half the rate of Canada. While many other wealthy nations devote 7 percent to 14 percent of their health budgets to primary care, the United States spends less than 5 percent.

Preventive medicine is collapsing into fragmented, reactive care, and patients are left waiting while disease advances.

The Specialist Referral Maze

Seeing a specialist presents its own set of challenges. Even after securing a coveted primary care appointment and obtaining a referral, patients face another round of lengthy delays.

Specialist wait times vary dramatically by field and location. New patients wait about two weeks for orthopedic surgery, a month for cardiology and dermatology, and six weeks for obstetrics and gynecology—and often longer in big cities.

Across six specialties, appointment wait times continue to climb. The Epoch Times

The referral process itself creates additional friction. Insurance authorizations can add weeks to the timeline. Paperwork gets lost between offices. Some specialists require specific diagnostic tests before scheduling, adding another layer of delay.

Online patient forums overflow with stories of months-long waits for neurology consultations and gastroenterology appointments that stretch nearly a year.

Among the six specialties surveyed, some patients face extreme delays. The Epoch Times Strategies for Gaining Access to Care

Whether it’s finding a new doctor, landing a specialist appointment, or just breaking through your provider’s backlog, the challenge is access. Some patients manage access by knowing how the system works. The following tactics won’t fix the shortage, but they can shift the odds in our favor.

Step 1: Finding a Primary Care Doctor or Specialist

Start With People 

The fastest way to find a doctor isn’t online—it’s through people. A 2022 study in Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation found that most patients turn to family, friends, or trusted professionals.

Try these approaches:

• Ask for Specific Names, Not Just Practices: When you call, mention who referred you: “My friend Maria is a patient of Dr. Green and suggested I call.” Clinics often note these connections, which can move you up the callback list.
• Verify Fit Before Booking: Ask about insurance acceptance, after-hours options, and same-day visits. Research shows that these logistics often influence satisfaction more than credentials.
• Tap Professional Circles: Pharmacists, therapists, or other doctors often know who’s taking new patients or who communicates well.
• Combine Word-of-Mouth With Research: Once you have a few names, check online reviews for red flags rather than perfection. A consistent theme of poor communication is more telling than a few harsh comments.
• Keep a Running Short List: Save the contact info of doctors recommended by friends or professionals, even if you’re not looking right now. It can save weeks if you suddenly need care.

Go Digital

Hospital and insurer websites often have hidden scheduling tools—but you have to know where to look.

• Start With Your Insurance Portal: Log in and click “Find Care” or “Find a Doctor.” These directories usually show which providers are in-network and, increasingly, whether they’re accepting new patients. Some include direct links to schedule an appointment.
• Check Hospital or Health-System Pages: Look for a “Patient Portal,” “Book Online,” or “Schedule a Visit” tab. Large systems such as Mass General Brigham, Cleveland Clinic, or Mayo Clinic sometimes let patients view real-time openings and book directly, often without calling.
• Check Official Directories: State medical boards list every licensed provider, and state chapters of the American Academy of Family Physicians or internal-medicine societies often post searchable directories by region or availability. These sources verify credentials and can uncover clinicians not featured on commercial platforms.
• Use Third-Party Tools: Zocdoc, Healthgrades, and One Medical integrate with clinic calendars, allowing you to filter by specialty, insurance, and sometimes the soonest available appointment.
• Double-Check Listings: Online directories can lag by weeks. Once you find an opening, call or message the office through its portal to confirm.

Expand Your Definition of ‘Doctor’

When appointment backlogs stretch for weeks, the key may be to expand what “care” looks like.

• Look for Team-Based Clinics: Nurse practitioners and physician assistants can diagnose, prescribe, and manage most common conditions. They’re often easier to book than physicians, and Medical Group Management Association data show practices that rely more on team-based care are better able to keep wait times under control.
• Consider Direct Primary Care or Concierge Medicine: These membership models offer longer visits, direct messaging, and same-day scheduling in exchange for a monthly fee—usually $50 to $150.
• Explore Integrative or Naturopathic Care: ​​In 26 states, licensed naturopaths can diagnose conditions, order labs, and prescribe medications. Functional-medicine doctors—typically medical doctors or doctors of osteopathic medicine—combine conventional care with nutrition and lifestyle approaches. These options can offer more time and continuity, though insurance coverage varies.

Be Flexible About How–and Where–You’re Seen

When options are limited, flexibility can make the difference between waiting weeks and getting care today.

• Try Virtual Visits: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth use by primary care doctors jumped to nearly 50 percent from 5 percent, and many patients plan to keep using it. Virtual visits aren’t a substitute for hands-on exams, but they can bridge gaps until you’re seen in person.
• Widen Your Search: Appointment backlogs don’t move in sync from place to place. A 30-minute drive to a nearby town or a different hospital system can sometimes mean being seen weeks sooner.

Step 2: Getting Seen Sooner

Once you’ve identified the provider or practice that fits your needs, the next challenge is securing an appointment. That’s where persistence, flexibility, and a few behind-the-scenes strategies can make all the difference.

• Work the System–Nicely: Staff work within limits, but your tone matters. “Create a sense of urgency,” Serna said. “Say, ‘I’m worried and would like to be seen sooner if something opens up.’” A little empathy goes a long way—schedulers often remember polite persistence.
• Call Early: Most offices hold a few same-day or next-day slots for urgent needs, but they go fast. Call right when the office opens to improve your chances of landing one.
• Join the Cancellation List: Ask the office to add you to their cancellation list—a roster of patients willing to come in on short notice if someone else cancels. Patients who are flexible often get the first call, and a quick weekly check-in helps keep your name visible.
• Ask About Virtual Options: For non-urgent issues that don’t require a physical exam, virtual care can be a quicker route. “It saves time for everyone,” Serna said. Many systems offer virtual visits within days, particularly for follow-up appointments or initial consultations.
• Bring in Backup: When care stalls, someone has to move it along. “Most people don’t know how to get past the scheduler to the clinical team,” said Serna. She sometimes makes those calls herself, reaching out directly to a specialist when a patient’s referral has hit a wall.

Ask whether your doctor’s office can do the same by contacting the specialist or testing center on your behalf. If that doesn’t work, an outside advocate may help. A 2024 review found that patients with advocates began treatment sooner in 70 percent of cases. The National Association of Healthcare Advocacy and the Patient Advocate Foundation connect patients with professional or nonprofit advocates.

Navigating From Within

The U.S. health care system may be slow and fragmented, but it is not impenetrable. With preparation, patience, and the right questions, it is still possible to find a way through. That might mean asking for multiple referrals, using portals to spot cancellations, or simply knowing how to frame urgency without panic.

These recommendations aren’t shortcuts so much as survival skills—the small, persistent acts patients use to keep the system from shutting them out entirely. It’s about finding agency in a system that often rewards persistence over passivity.

What’s Next: Getting the appointment is only the first victory. Making it count is the next—something we’ll tackle in the following article.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 20:05

USA Or China: Goldman Breaks Down Who Will Win The AI War

Even after the latest US-China trade truce, the superpower race for technological dominance remains red hot - and will only intensify through the end of the decade.

The battle is over who controls the technologies that will dominate the 2030s: AI chatbots, advanced chips, drones, humanoid robots, clean tech, EVs, satellites, reusable space rockets, hypersonic weapons, next-gen grid power generation, and the critical minerals that make all of it possible.

The latest comments from U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer reveal that the Trump administration is pushing for a stable trade environment with Beijing, which makes perfect sense heading into the midterm election cycle.

"I don't think anyone wants to have a full-on economic conflict with China and we're not having that," Greer said Thursday at the American Growth Summit in Washington.

Greer continued, "In fact, President Trump has had the opportunity to use all the leverage we have against China — and we've had a lot, right — whether it comes to software, semiconductors or all kinds of things. A lot of allies are interested in taking coordinated action, but the decision right now is we want to have stability in this relationship."

"For this moment in time, we want to make sure that China is buying the kinds of things from us we should be selling them: aircraft, chemicals, medical devices and agricultural products," he said. "We can buy things from them that are not sensitive."

Greer added, "We have to get our own house in order. We need to make sure that we are on a good path to reindustrialization, including for critical minerals."

Being only a trade truce, the real superpower battle continues to rage behind the scenes.

The latest Goldman Sachs Top of Mind, one of the firm's flagship research publications edited by Allison Nathan, offers clients a broad framework of why the geopolitical race for technological dominance remains as intense as ever.

Mark Kennedy, Founding Director, Wahba Initiative for Strategic Competition at New York University's Development Research Institute, told Goldman's Ashley Rhodes, "It is entirely possible that neither the U.S. nor China emerges as the outright victor in the tech race. I can envision a world in which the U.S. leads in developing the most advanced technologies, while China leads in global installations."

On the rare-earth mineral front, it's very clear that while the U.S. is still playing catch-up, China remains years ahead in both mining and refining.

But not all is lost: the U.S. is well ahead on the semiconductors.

Rhodes asked Kennedy:

Who is currently "winning" the tech race?

Kennedy responded:

It's important to understand that there are four key arenas in this race: technological innovation, practical application of the technology, installation of the digital plumbing or infrastructure underpinning the technology, and technological self-sufficiency. The U.S. is currently leading in most advanced technologies, including semiconductors, AI frameworks, cloud infrastructure, and quantum computing, as well as in attracting global talent. However, China is ahead in areas such as quantum communications, hypersonics, and batteries.

China is also making rapid strides to catch up to and, in some cases, overtake the U.S. in technological application. For example, China deploys robotics in manufacturing on a scale twelve times greater than the U.S. when adjusted for differences in employee income. And while U.S. regulations often limit applications like drone deliveries to your door, China is proactively testing and deploying advanced physical AI and robotics like uncrewed taxis and vertical takeoff vehicles, accelerating their practical adoption.

China is also dominating on the global installations front. It has established a strong presence in the Global South, surpassing the U.S. and other Western nations in building essential digital networks there. And China has made significant strides toward achieving technological self-sufficiency through its dual circulation strategy aimed at reducing its reliance on the West while increasing Western dependence on China. Recent Chinese government measures, such as restricting domestic purchases of Western chips and offering incentives for using domestic alternatives, underscore this push for technological independence. At the same time, China's vast overproduction capacity in batteries and critical minerals has further increased Western dependence on China's supply chains. The U.S. has been ambivalent at best as it relates to this aspect of the tech race and remains reliant on China in many ways. So, on net, while the U.S. leads in the development of the technology itself, China is rapidly closing the gap — or even leading — in application, infrastructure installations, and tech self-sufficiency.

Reindustrialization in the U.S. should reverse this...

The U.S. and allies lead on chips.

Dominates in data centers.

But again, not in rare earths.

China leads in nuclear power.

Our takeaway from the Top of Mind note: the U.S. still leads in innovation, software, and frontier AI models, while China dominates in application, infrastructure, critical minerals, and manufacturing scale. The U.S. is the brain of the global economy, while China is the manufacturing powerhouse. The Trump administration is now trying to preserve America's innovation edge while single-handedly rebuilding its industrial base. All of this continues to point toward a deeply bifurcated world by the 2030s.

The full note can be read in the usual place by ZeroHedge Pro subs. It's epic and packed with additional conversations from leading experts, offering even more visibility into the superpower race ahead of the 2030s. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 19:40

Two Cities, Two Crime Strategies: What I Learned Living In Both

Authored by Don Tracy via RealClearPolitics,

I’ve watched two American cities make opposite choices about the same problem.

As a young man, I worked in Memphis: first as a traveling salesman, then as a law student, and finally as an attorney at a Memphis law firm. As an associate lawyer, I dreamed of escaping the daily grind by writing a great American novel. A fellow named John Grisham beat me to it, writing a book called “The Firm,” which was loosely based on my then-Memphis law firm, Baker Donelson. I guess that is why, many years later, I’m still a practicing attorney and John Grisham has written 55 published books.

Although I reside in Springfield, I’ve spent considerable time in Chicago over the past 10 years. While Chicago is bigger than Memphis, the two cities are similar in that I love them both and both are high crime cities. Based on 2024 numbers, Chicago has led the U.S. in total murders for 13 years. Memphis ranked second in homicides per capita among large cities. 

I happen to know what it means to be on the wrong end of urban violence. I was held up at gunpoint in Memphis. That experience taught me something that no policy paper ever could: When you’re facing a criminal with a weapon, political debates about federal jurisdiction become meaningless. What matters is whether your city is doing everything possible to keep people safe.

To that end: Memphis said yes to federal help. Chicago said no. The results tell you everything you need to know about what happens when politics overrides public safety.

Memphis Chose Cooperation

In Memphis, the numbers speak louder than any political speech. When the city partnered with federal law enforcement through the Memphis Safe Task Force, murders dropped 48%, sexual assaults fell 49%, and robberies decreased 61% in just 56 days.

Overall crime hit a 25-year low. Murder reached a six-year low. Sexual assault dropped to a 20-year low.

A Memphis resident at a Grizzlies game said what statistics can’t: “It is so peaceful … we’re just enjoying life and it just feels so free.”

Chicago Chose Politics 

Chicago took a different path. Mayor Brandon Johnson stated that the city “does not intend to apply for any federal grants that require the city to comply with President Trump’s political aims.”

The cost of that decision? A Chicago nonprofit lost $3.7 million in federal funding for violence prevention. Programs that could have saved lives disappeared because of political positioning.

Meanwhile, only 6% of major crimes result in arrests in Chicago. Less than 20% of murders get solved. For non-fatal shootings, the clearance rate drops to 5%.

The False Frame

Some frame this as a battle between local control and federal overreach.

That’s inaccurate.

Memphis didn’t surrender authority. The city multiplied its resources. Federal agents brought additional manpower, expertise, and the ability to prosecute cases in federal court where sentences carry more weight.

Mayor Paul Young said efforts were “guided by one purpose: to uplift our community.” The partnership worked because it focused on outcomes, not ideology.

The real question is: Do you want leaders to prioritize safety or political statements?

Politics Has a Body Count

Do you want leaders to prioritize safety or political statements?

I’ve seen both approaches. The difference isn’t subtle.

In Memphis, people feel safer walking their streets. Crime data confirms what residents experience daily.

Chicago rejected the offer of federal help, and encouraged a rebellion against enforcement of federal immigration law. In the past month, we saw another deadly teen takeover of downtown Chicago, career criminals terrorizing CTA riders, school children beating up a mom with her child, and more gang violence.

You can debate federal policy all you want. But when your city faces a crime crisis, the question becomes simple: Will you accept help or grandstand while people suffer?

Memphis answered that question. So did Chicago.

The results speak for themselves.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 19:15

The War On Pete Hegseth

Authored by 'Cynical Publius' via American Greatness,

I have had enough. I can no longer sit still while the Deep State does its very best to smear Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and have him removed from his post via lies, rumors, propaganda, and innuendo. It feels exactly like version 2.0 of the “Trump/Russia Collusion” disinformation campaign, and it needs to be called out for what it is.

Enough.

I am here to defend the best Secretary of War/Defense since Caspar Weinberger.

What we have seen in the last few weeks is clearly an orchestrated, carefully constructed character assassination campaign against Hegseth.

The campaign began in the early days of November when the leaders of the Sedition 6 introduced legislation known as the “No Troops in Our Streets Act,” legislation clearly designed to undermine the roles of President Trump and Secretary Hegseth in the military chain of command. Then, of course, on November 18, the Sedition 6—led by Senators Mark Kelly and Elisa Slotkin—launched their infamous video calling (via innuendo and plausible deniability) for military members to disobey lawful orders they disagree with politically by pretending such lawful orders are “unlawful.” For the next eight days, the Deep State went into a full media onslaught that seemed designed to foment a military mutiny against Trump and Hegseth. Suddenly, these wannabe seditionists were forced to hit the brakes on their information operation, as on November 26 two West Virginia National Guard soldiers patrolling the streets of Washington, D.C., in support of anti-crime operations were shot by an Afghan civilian with former ties to the CIA, and America saw an easy connection between that attack and the calls to undermine Trump, Hegseth, and the anti-crime mission.

But the Deep State never rests and was quick to shift gears and change the subject away from their own perfidy. On November 28, the Washington Post published its anonymously sourced hit piece on Hegseth, alleging that he personally directed war crimes, and in a matter of minutes, the entire Democrat hierarchy and its minions in the national media ran with Nancy Pelosi’s beloved “wrap-up smear” in a transparent effort to remove Hegseth.

We now know, of course, it was all a lie. The Democrats and the national media want you to believe that two “fishermen” survived a first strike on their drug-laden speedboat and were then floating in the water helplessly like Rose and Jack at the end of “Titanic,” and we gunned them down as helpless victims and in violation of the Geneva Conventions. In reality, the two narco-terrorists were back on board their partially damaged boat, seeking to conduct damage control and recover their WMD cargo. The narco-terrorists and their lethal cargo were lawful targets under all U.S. laws and all treaties to which the U.S. is a party. No war crimes were involved—just an effective and entirely lawful military strike on narco-terrorists who kill thousands of Americans annually. The Washington Post lied, as is its wont in any matter involving the Trump Administration.

But the damage was done, and too many Americans are still clinging to the lies. In fact, it was an opinion piece I saw today by the desiccated remains of George Will, published in that same Washington Post and uncritically repeating all of that tabloid’s original lies, that pushed me over the edge and caused me to rise to the defense of Pete Hegseth with this article.

As a veteran of the same wars Hegseth fought in and as a retired Army colonel who also fought the Beltway wars of the Pentagon, I take the attacks on Hegseth personally, as he is trying to fix all of the ills that I saw so clearly in my time in service. My sincere belief is that at this time in American history, Pete Hegseth is the perfect person to serve as Secretary of War.

I’ll explain why.

America’s military spent 20+ years engaged in a GWOT battle that, after its first few years, became a predominantly political, economic, diplomatic, and law enforcement mission where the military was not the right tool in the DIME-FIL (DIME-FIL = The “elements of national power” under U.S. military doctrine, or diplomatic, informational, military, economic, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement) toolbox. “Nation building,” ridiculously restrictive, JAG-inspired rules of engagement, social justice experimentation, Military Transition Teams and Security Force Assistance Brigades, and the bastardization of combat arms units away from their mission-essential tasks all created a U.S. military that was risk averse to a crippling degree, lacked adequate training and equipment readiness levels for high-intensity conflict, had broken morale and poor retention/recruiting, and was more concerned about DEI than closing with and destroying the enemy.

The military that Donald Trump inherited from Joe Biden in January of this year was a broken shell of the military that entered the GWOT in 2001. It had lost its focus on lethality, valued skin color and genitalia more than warfighting competency, and was not even able to fully recognize its own missions in a world rife with peer competitors bent on high-intensity global or regional domination, such as China and Russia. Yes, low-intensity conflict was still on the menu in places like Yemen, Syria, and the battles against narco-terrorists, but a military trained for high-intensity conflict can adjust to low-intensity conflict quickly, but it does not work so well the other way around.

As Donald Trump took office, what America needed was a Secretary of War who was intimately familiar with these failures—somebody who had fought those GWOT battles and understood our failings deep in his or her soul. Such a person could not be one of the Perfumed Princes who engineered and would repeat our failures. Instead, it needed to be someone with muddy boots who had experienced the mess we had become at a deeply personal, tactical level.

Moreover, it needed to be someone who understood information operations and the climate of global, instantaneous messaging that is our new day-to-day.

This person did not need to have a comprehensive understanding of military procurement and the military/industrial complex that accompanies Beltway jockeying with Congress and defense contractors—those skills are widely available and could easily be obtained by hiring effective subordinates with the shared vision of a military that needed to be once again focused on lethality.

What might such a person have looked like?

Well, he or she would need to have the following qualifications:

1. A military career that involved killing the enemy up close and personal in the most efficient manner possible. An infantryman, if possible. A Combat Infantryman Badge would be double plus good.

2. Muddy boots experience leading troops in direct combat in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

3. Deep experience in leading one of the failed coalition training missions in Iraq or Afghanistan.

4. Someone who shared the dark personal struggles of every veteran who had come home from our endless wars.

5. A final military rank that meant he or she was never a Perfumed Prince and was never polluted by the Beltway mind virus that seems to infect every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, or Guardian who ever pins on a star.

6. Deep experience in information operations, such as being a best-selling author on military affairs or being a military expert on a major news network.

Those are the qualifications that were needed to turn America’s military around and restore it to once again being the premier warfighting force in world history. We did not need more of the same. We did not need a former Raytheon board member. We did not need a former congressman who cared more about politics than winning wars. We did not need yet another retired general who was an architect of our useless, endless wars. What we needed was someone who truly understood the errors of the GWOT, understood that the mission of the U.S. military is to close with and destroy the enemy in the most violent and expeditious manner possible, and who had the chops in the 24/7 modern information environment to wage information warfare just as effectively as his opponents.

One American and one American only had those qualifications: Pete Hegseth, and that man is doing everything I could have ever hoped for to restore the pride and skill we have lost. His focus on lethality and warfighting skill is the one and only antidote to the intentional failures that have scarred veterans like Hegseth and me over the past 24 years.

Please realize this: Hegseth is a threat to anyone who prefers the Obama/Biden vision of an impotent social justice military. He is a threat to anyone who thinks R2P (R2P = “Responsibility to Protect,” i.e., a leftist, globalist doctrine popularized under the Obama Administration that says the U.S. military has a core mission of protecting foreign populations against the deprivations of their own or neighboring governments or warlords. Although legitimate in some instances, it prioritizes the national interests and lives of foreigners over the national interests of the USA and the lives of American servicemen and servicewomen) is a core competency of the American military. He is a threat to anyone who thinks enriching the military/industrial complex is more important than winning wars. Basically, he is a threat to anyone who sees the military as a politicized force and not an effective warfighting endeavor. In other words, Hegseth is a threat to the Beltway defense establishment that has exchanged failure for dollars since the days of Robert McNamara.

Which is why it is so very, very important that the same defense establishment (elected, unelected, and media) smear him in every way imaginable and at every opportunity. When you see and hear the abject lies of the Sedition 6 and their ilk, and when you see and hear wholly fabricated, libelous stories like the “Kill Them All” Hoax, realize why this is happening. These fake news stories are designed to attack and defeat an existential threat to the leftist vision of a social justice American military that exists to enrich defense industry campaign contributors.

Like Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth is an existential threat to the leftist evils that nearly defeated America and the Constitution via Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

It takes a strong man to withstand the onslaught of the Deep State, with all of its lies, libel, and propaganda. Donald Trump is one man who withstood that fire of infamous defamation. Pete Hegseth is another.

We all owe Pete Hegseth our gratitude for the personal cost he is enduring in the name of freedom. He could be sitting at home enjoying his writings and his Fox News appearances. Instead, he is enduring the cowardly slings and arrows of powerful liars as he strives to fix the ills that have long beset our nation’s military.

The disgusting disinformation campaign against Hegseth needs to be challenged vigorously, and I encourage all of you readers to help lead the counterattack.

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

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 17:40

World Risks 'Disintegration Of The International Order' As Macron Fails To Woo Xi Into Pressuring Putin

"We are facing the risk of the disintegration of the international order that brought peace to the world for decades, and in this context, the dialogue between China and France is even more essential than ever," Macron said on Thursday while on a tour of China. It was his fourth state visit, and part of a renewed effort to woo Chinese President Xi Jinping to the West's side on stepping up pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"I hope that China will join our call, our efforts to achieve, as soon as possible, at the very least a ceasefire in the form of a moratorium on strikes targeting critical infrastructure," the French leader said. But the consensus is that Macron's latest effort has once again failed to gain anything in the way of a concession from Xi on the Ukraine issue. 

Xi only vaguely stated that "China supports all efforts that work towards peace" while urging a peace deal that all parties would accept, in a clear nod to Moscow's position that there are still a number of unsatisfactory aspects to the Trump-proposed peace plan.

via Reuters

President Xi also interestingly used language and themes often employed by Putin, for example stressing the needs to carry on the "banner of multilateralism" when it comes to China-France relations:

"No matter how the external environment changes, both sides as major powers should always demonstrate independence and strategic vision, show mutual understanding and mutual support for each other on core matters and major critical issues," he said.

"China and France should demonstrate their sense of responsibility, raise high the banner of multilateralism ... and firmly stand on the right side of history."

Friday's commentary from Rabobank says this is all a case for pessimism when it comes to the closeness or else great distance of a potential Ukraine peace deal:

The kind of multilateralism that Xi has in mind is an important point to consider. Is Xi talking about an idealistic evolution of the United Nations where more power is given to the developing world but disputes are resolved via dialogue? Or is he talking about ending US hegemony to carve the world up into spheres of influence for regional great powers to preside over? Xi’s reluctance to get involved in brokering a peace deal in Ukraine and recent naval deployments in the wake of a diplomatic spat with Japan will make many nervous that it is the latter.

A spheres of influence paradigm is certainly favorable in the eyes of Vladimir Putin. He has reportedly rejected the latest peace overtures from US special envoy Witkoff and told India Today that Ukrainian troops will either leave the Donbas region or Russia will “liberate these territories by force”. Kremlin officials have reportedly told journalists that a peace deal remains a long way off. The Wall Street Journal editorial today says “maybe it is time to conclude that Mr. Putin doesn’t want peace” while arguing that Putin has no incentive to negotiate in good faith while he feels that he is winning.

So, peace in our time? Don’t count on it.

European leaders have not been pleased that the US plan is the first to ever seriously offer territorial concessions since the war's start. Some European officials alongside media reports in the EU have gone so far as to accuse Putin of 'faking' interest in peace efforts.

While the Kremlin has called the prior Tuesday Moscow talks involving Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner "constructive" - it conceded that little actual progress was made toward a deal, given Russia is demanding nothing less than full legal and international recognition of the territories under its control. 

Putin has followed up with a warning that Russia is ready seize more Ukrainian territory as the 'special military operation' continues. "Either we liberate these territories by force of arms. Or Ukrainian troops leave these territories," he has freshly warned.

Images from Macron's three-day rare "sightseeing" tour of China with President Xi:

Chinese President Xi Jinping and visiting French President Emmanuel Macron had friendly exchanges on Friday in Dujiangyan in Chengdu, capital city of southwest China's Sichuan Province, Xinhua reported.

Upon their arrival, Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, were warmly… pic.twitter.com/xoPQsuzH4R

— Global Times (@globaltimesnews) December 5, 2025

Mutual strikes on energy infrastructure are only continuing to escalate. President Putin has also warned his military is readying to expand strikes on Ukrainian ports, in retaliation for a spate of drone attacks on tankers transporting Russian oil to global markets.

With Ukraine peace being elusive, apparently, Xi and Macron handled a series of lesser matters Thursday and Friday," EuroNews reports. "They signed 12 agreements, including ones calling for cooperation on a new round of panda conservation efforts and exchanges in higher education and research." The same report notes that the European Union "ran a massive trade deficit with China of more than €300 billion last year. China alone represents 46% of France's total trade deficit."

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 17:20

Watch: Biden Called For Strike Force To Crush Drug Cartels In 1989!

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Democrats are melting down over Trump’s targeted strikes on narco-terrorists, yet a freshly resurfaced clip shows Joe Biden demanding the same aggressive action decades ago, proving their opposition is pure partisan sabotage as cartel poison floods America unchecked.

A 1989 C-SPAN clip of then-Senator Joe Biden has gone viral amid the Trump administration’s boat strikes on drug runners, highlighting the glaring double standard from Democrats who now baselessly cry “war crimes” over actions Biden once championed.

In the speech, Biden urged, “Let’s go after the drug lords where they live with an international strike force. There must be no safe haven for these narco-terrorists …”

1989. Joe Biden delivers a televised message from the Democrat party, calling on then President Bush to do more to stop the flow of drugs into the country.

In addition to calling for more prisons and more cops, Biden said that Democrats want the creation of a strike force to… pic.twitter.com/mV8SbVsnob

— MAZE (@mazemoore) December 3, 2025

What changed? Under Biden’s presidency, fentanyl deaths skyrocketed, with cartels controlling swaths of the border and trafficking exploding to record levels. Now, as Trump delivers on promises to hit back hard, Dems side with the traffickers out of sheer Trump derangement.

The clip, from a February 7, 1989, Senate hearing on crime and drugs, shows Biden pushing for swift, severe punishment of dealers and international operations to dismantle cartels before they infiltrate the U.S. 

He emphasized, “We have to join together to ensure that drug dealers are punished swiftly surely and severely.”

This echoes Trump’s designation of cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, a move Biden never pursued despite his tough talk.

Fast-forward to 2025, and Trump’s team is executing precision strikes on vessels linked to Venezuela’s Maduro regime and cartel operations, destroying drug cargoes and neutralising threats in the Caribbean.

Joe would watch that clip today, and say, "Who is this idiot conservative? He's got it all wrong. C'mon mannnn."

— Zeeko Jr (@ZeekoJr) December 3, 2025

That's the Biden I remember. Pro America, back when Dems could be patriots. Now you have to piss all over everything.

— RB of Jonesboro (@RBJboro) December 3, 2025

It’s amazing. Trump is everything the democrats ever wanted in a single package and they hate him for it.

— ccypbg (@ccippk) December 3, 2025

Then he finally got into office and escorted criminals & drugs directly into our country

— logicallydumb (@logicallydumbb) December 3, 2025

Trump security advisor Stephen Miller blasted Democrats Wednesday for their twisted priorities in an explosive interview.

Miller declared, “This is the first time I can EVER think where a major political party has sided with narco-trafficking, murdering, terrorist SCUM!”

He added, “A Democrat says ‘oh, there’s no such thing as a narco-terrorist. They’re just narco-persons!’ ISIS and these narco-terrorists in our hemisphere use the same tactics. They use r*pe as a weapon. They skin people alive. They cut off their heads. They burn them to death!”

Miller further asserted “We’re not going off running around the Middle East trying to ‘build democracies’ in caves and deserts and in distant sands that have never known democracy.”

“We’re using the military to protect American security, American prosperity, American lives right here where we live, where our children live!” he urged.

Democrats, meanwhile, are inciting military discord while soft-pedaling cartel savagery. As we covered earlier, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner echoed seditious calls on MSNBC, stating “the uniformed military may help save us from this president.”

Warner ranted, “I’m going to want to get answers on what did Pete Hegseth order? Why haven’t we seen the whole unedited video if there’s nothing inappropriate here? You could have cleared this up without the admiral coming in. He’s got a great reputation, I respect him. I want to get the truth. And I’m not sure we’ve had the truth from Hegseth yet.”

Fresh reporting dismantles media smears. The New York Times revealed Hegseth authorized a Sept. 2 strike “to kill the people on the boat, destroy the vessel, and eliminate its drug cargo,” but it “did not specifically address what to do if a first missile failed to fully accomplish these goals, and it was not based on surveillance showing at least two survivors after the initial blast.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified Hegseth “authorized Adm. Frank M. Bradley to conduct kinetic strikes, ensuring the boat was destroyed and the threat eliminated.”

In addition, ABC’s Martha Raddatz provided key updates on ‘World News Tonight’, noting  “According to a source familiar with the incident, the two survivors climbed back on to the boat after the initial strike. They were believed to be potentially in communication with others, and salvaging some of the drugs.”

Raddatz added, “Because of that, it was determined they were still in the fight and valid targets.”

ABC’s Martha Raddatz on Wednesday’s ‘World News Tonight’ about drug boat-gate: “And tonight, new information: According to a source familiar with the incident, the two survivors climbed back on to the boat after the initial strike. They were believed to be potentially in… pic.twitter.com/R5eHFzzDql

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 4, 2025

This confirms the strikes followed rules of engagement, with legal oversight—completely debunking Dem hysteria.

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

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 17:00

Was The J6 "Insurrection" A Government-Sponsored Seditious Conspiracy?

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

Cold Case Heats Up

"[The current FBI] was competent at cracking the case; [Christopher Wray's] was competent at corruption and obstructing it."

- Mike Benz

Do you have any idea what tapestry of corruption and crime is attached to the little thread of the J6 / DNC / RNC pipe bomber suspect arrested yesterday by the FBI? Consider this: suspect Brian Cole, Jr., is alive and probably talking, unlike, say, Jeffrey Epstein and Thomas Matthew Crooks in other matters of public interest. Let’s hope he is under FBI protection in custody, lest something. . . say. . . happen to him.

Dressed for government work?

As of early this morning, the country knows next to nothing else about Cole and what he was up to the night of Jan. 5, 2021.

The FBI has not even said how he is employed. But his photo shows a young man dressed for office work. . . he lives in a nice house in the DC suburbs of Virginia. . .and you might infer that he is, possibly, a federal government worker. Oh, and the FBI was unable to catch him through the whole four years of “Joe Biden?”

You can suppose at this point that the story of that four-year botched investigation will be a way bigger thing than the pipe bomber’s little prank itself.

It probably leads to the story of wholesale corruption in Christopher Wray’s FBI, and even more consequentially, to the realization that the so-called J6, 2021 “insurrection” was a government op from top to bottom, aimed at eradicating Trump and Trumpism.

First, what was supposed to happen in a joint session of Congress that day?

Answer: certification of electoral college votes in the 2020 election. What else was liable to happen that day? Answer: under the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (3 U.S.C. §§ 5–6, 15–18) — as amended, and by the rules laid out in the U.S. Constitution (Article II and the 12th Amendment) — objections to several states’ slates of electors were expected to be entertained, triggering debate and possible rejection of those states’ electors on the basis that the votes were not “lawfully certified” (under 3 U.S.C. § 6), or not “regularly given” (meaning the vote was marred by fraud, corruption, or violence). Any state’s electoral votes could be rejected if both the House and Senate voted by simple majority, after up to two hours of separate debate.

At mid-day, objections meeting the written requirement (one House member + one Senator) were filed for Arizona and Pennsylvania. The objection to the Arizona vote (Rep. Paul Gosar + Sen. Ted Cruz) was the first scheduled to be debated shortly after 1:00 p.m. It was not allowed to happen. Instead, Congress evacuated the chamber. When Congress returned at 8:00 p.m., votes objecting to Arizona and Pennsylvania slates failed and no others were taken up. Senators who previously had committed to debating the votes of several other swing states demurred, citing the breach of demonstrators into the Capitol. The full tally concluded at 3:44 in the morning, Jan 7, “Joe Biden” and Kamala Harris were certified as winners of the 2020 election.

Here are some things to know about the pipe bomb subplot in the J-6 story.

Kamala Harris, vice president-elect, still a sitting Senator (CA), was not in the chamber for the certification process. She arrived at the DNC headquarters some blocks away from the Capitol by motorcade at 11:30 a.m. and stayed until she was evacuated from the DNC at 1:14 p.m. Couple of questions about that? 1) did she not want to be present in the chamber at the momentous instant that her election as veep was certified? 2) Did she not have a duty to be present for voting on any of the procedure? Weird, a little bit. She has never explained what she was doing at the DNC that day.

Kamala Harris was in the DNC building when the pipe bomb was discovered there, around 1:07 p.m. The pipe bomb at the RNC had been discovered some 20 minutes prior, and it was the discovery of that bomb, at 12:44 p.m. that prompted the evacuation of the joint House / Senate session in Congress, not any breach of the Capitol building, which did not occur until 2:13, p.m., more than an hour later.

Now, to the FBI response to all this.

They quickly collected tons of closed-circuit video of a suspect planting these pipe bombs. The footage they released showed the suspect at a one-frame-per-second recording rate which, as Mike Benz points out, is a hundred times slower than any common gas station closed circuit camera nowadays. The FBI also doctored the recordings, specifically blurring out the section of the suspect’s face at one angle captured by a CC camera about eight meters away. The rectangular blur patch over his eyes can be clearly seen. How’d that happen?

The FBI also managed to botch every other aspect of the investigation into the act that actually triggered the evacuation of Congress that day — which was (repeat) not the breach of the Capitol building but the pipe bombs. In the months afterward, FBI Director Wray took agents off the case. He had in place as chief of the FBI’s Washington office an assistant director named Steven D’Antuono who had been in charge previously, as Detroit field chief, of the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case in which at least 12 confidential informants and three FBI agents were involved in what looked like an entrapment scheme. D’Antuono had demonstrated considerable skill in constructing skeezy FBI ops when he was put in charge of the DC office. The agency managed to lose the chain-of-custody for much of the evidence in the case, including originals of the videos, cell phone records, communications records between Capitol police, DC metropolitan police, Secret Service, and the FBI, and more.

So, the pipe bomber has been a cold case lo these many years. And now we’re informed as of yesterday’s FBI / DOJ press conference, that the FBI under Director Patel cracked the case using only information and evidence already in the FBI files. So, get this: there must be a record of exactly which agents were on the pipe bomber case those four years under Christopher Wray. There must be a record of who, by name, was in charge of chains-of-custody for all that evidence. And there must be a record of the senior agents and deputy directors who oversaw all their activities, all the way up to Director Wray. Why would they not be subject to charges of obstruction of justice?

All of this is just the pipe bomber subplot of the J6 story. There remains the weird business with then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her failure to request national guard protection at the US Capitol that day. And there remains the question of how many agents, assets, and confidential informants the FBI had in-place at the Capitol on J6, 2021, including Antifa members, and which actions, including the breach inside the building, they instigated. Then there is the question of the House J6 committee, how it was constructed with the help of lawfare ninja Norm Eisen, and how it deliberately destroyed all the evidence it collected over the months of its existence.

Be prepared to learn how the J6 “insurrection” was a government-sponsored seditious conspiracy and then ponder who, by name, will be held responsible for it. That’s the tapestry that Brian Cole, Jr.’s little thread leads to.

Shout out to Mike Benz for his nearly four-hour discussion about the pipe bomber case on “X”.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 16:20

From the Association of American Railroads (AAR) AAR Data Center. Graph and excerpts reprinted with permission.

Continued Economic Uncertainty Reflected in Rail Volumes
...
In November 2025, total U.S. rail carloads were up 1.5% over November 2024, and 9 of the 20 major rail carload categories posted year-over-year gains. ...

U.S. rail intermodal shipments, which are driven primarily by consumer goods, fell 6.5% in November 2025 from November 2024. Year-to-date intermodal volume through November was 13.00 million containers and trailers, up 1.9% (nearly 247,000 units) over last year.
emphasis added

The AAR Freight Rail Index (FRI) combines seasonally adjusted month-to-month rail intermodal shipments with carloads excluding coal and grain. The index is a useful gauge of underlying freight demand associated with the industrial and consumer economy. The index fell 0.4% in November 2025 from October 2025, its seventh decline in the past eight months. The index is 4.4% below its year-earlier level, largely because of the intermodal slowdown in recent months.

Full Metal Retard: Walz Rolls Out Taxpayer-Funded Paid Leave For Illegals

Less than one week after the NY Times (of all rags) torched Minnesota governor Tim Walz over a massive and sprawling fraud scandal involving Somalians that federal prosecutors say siphoned over $1 billion from the state's social safety net programs, Walz is opening yet another avenue for fraud - giving taxpayer-funded leave illegal immigrants.

Under the Minnesota Paid Family and Medical Leave Program which Walz signed into law ahead of its Jan. 1 start date, "undocumented workers" will receive benefits, according to the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce's FAQ page. 

The program provides payments to Minnesota residents who need time away from work for "serious health" reasons, or to take care of a family member - be it an infant or an ill relative, the Washington Examiner reports. What's more, if an individual qualifies for both medical and family leave, they can "double dip" - getting taxpayer funds for a total of 20 weeks or 5.5 months, each year. These receiving benefits can also "top off" paid leave by using paid time off (PTO), sick days, and vacation hours in addition to their leave of absence. 

Program beneficiaries will receive between 55% and 90% of their regular wages while on paid leave - up to a maximum amount of $5,692 per month. 

"Are people going to abuse the program?" Walz replied when questioned on Tuesday at an event about potential fraud. "How disrespectful to people to assume that ailing Minnesotans are scamming. That’s what I hear from [critics] all the time. I trust Minnesotans."

"I believe they know you’re not gonna get rich, and it’s not your full salary. You’re not gonna scam and take time off," Walz continued. 

Meanwhile, Walz continues to downplay growing concerns after a $1 billion fraud was uncovered by City Journal, in which Somali immigrants were stealing welfare funds and funneling the money home to Somalia. 

The fraud involved a series of schemes that federal authorities say took root over the past five years, many centered within Minnesota’s Somali diaspora, where individuals established companies that billed state agencies for services that were never performed. Prosecutors say 59 people have been convicted across various cases so far, in three separate plots.

Minnesota’s fraud scandal stood out even in the context of rampant theft during the pandemic, when Americans stole tens of billions through unemployment benefits, business loans and other forms of aid, according to federal auditors. - NYT

Federal prosecutors have emphasized the seriousness of the cases being prosecuted by career federal attorney Joseph H. Thompson - who warned that the scale of fraud threatens public confidence. “No one will support these programs if they continue to be riddled with fraud,” Mr. Thompson said. “We’re losing our way of life in Minnesota in a very real way.”

Also meanwhile, Minnesota is awarding public outreach grants to community groups that are focused on "equity" and helping "priority populations" including minorities, LGBT people, immigrants, and people who can't speak English. 

Funding for the grants comes from a portion of the annual projected PFML payments. For fiscal 2026, grants will be awarded from an available fund of $1.9 million, increasing to $3.7 million the following year.

‘The next big fraud scandal in Minnesota’

Some policy experts are raising fraud-related concerns about bad actors abusing the paid leave program, especially exploiting the minimal eligibility criteria that allow illegal immigrants to benefit from the coverage plan.

“Why are Minnesota taxpayers, which I’m one, funding people who, legally speaking, should not be in America or in Minnesota?” questioned Bill Glahn, a policy fellow at the Minnesota-based Center of the American Experiment.

Proponents of PFML, however, believe that illegal migrants should reap the rewards if they pay into the program via the payroll tax, which is split between employers and employees, whose half is deducted from their wages. -Washington Examiner

Evidence continues to mount that Walz is, as President Trump claims, a complete retard. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 15:40

Consumer Credit Below Expectations On Slowdown In Student, Auto Loans; Credit Card APRs Back To All Time High

After several months of wild swings, moments ago the Fed published the latest consumer credit report (G.19) and it was quite tame by recent volatile trends.

Total consumer credit rose by $9.178BN in October (which is more contemporaneous than more other data points we have received in recent weeks thanks to the govt shutdown), which was down from a downward revised $11.0BN in Sept ($13.09BN pre-revision), and below the $10.48BN median estimate. The latest monthly increase pushed the total to a new all-time high of $5.084 trillion. 

Looking at revolving credit (i.e., credit cards), the increase was $5.407BN to $1.317 trillion, the biggest monthly increase since July, if on the low side compared to the $8.7 billion average monthly increase from 2021 until the end of 2024.

Non-revolving credit (primarily auto and student loans), rose by $3.771BN, the lowest increase since February when we saw a decline of $2.4 billion. This increase brought the total nonrevolving credit to $3.767 trillion, a new record high.

While there was no detailed breakdown for October, the historical data showed that when broken down by components, student loans - now that the repayment moratorium is over - surged by $27.4 billion in Q3 to a record $1.841 trillion. As discussed previously, student loans have a magical capability of being abused for everything but college, which is why enterprising "students" binge on them any time they can to fund all their other purchases, except education-related. Meanwhile, car loans rose by a far more modest $4.0 billion to $1.564 trillion.

A few weeks ago Kelley Blue Book reported that the average new car price hit $50,000 for the first time ever. Well, as the next chart shows, there's a reason why: it's because the amount finance by new car loans also hit a new record high of $41K.

Finally, and this will come as a surprise to nobody, despite 1.50% in rate cuts by the Fed since last September, we can now confirm that rates on credit cards have gone... higher, as banks continue to bleed US consumers dry: at the start of 2025 the average rate on credit card accounts was 22.80%... and on Sept 30 the number was higher at 22.83%, just barely below the all time high of 23.37% set one year ago.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 15:30

Supreme Court Will Hear Trump Birthright Citizenship Case

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Supreme Court decided on Dec. 5 to review whether President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship is constitutional.

The Supreme Court in Washington on Oct. 20, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

The court’s decision took the form of an unsigned order without comment. No justices dissented. The case is known as Trump v. Barbara.

Trump’s Executive Order 14160, signed on Jan. 20, states that “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

According to the order, an individual born in the United States is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” if that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the country and the individual’s father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the person’s birth.

It also states that the privilege of U.S. citizenship does not apply to an individual whose mother’s presence was lawful but temporary and whose father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of that individual’s birth.

The executive order has prompted debate over the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on July 23 that the executive order was “invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of citizenship to ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”

Before that, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled against the executive order on Feb. 6. That court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the order because it “subjects” the states challenging the order to “immediate economic and administrative harms.”

That court said the executive order would compel the states to disqualify many people it considers citizens and, in the process, cause them to lose federal funds they would otherwise be eligible to receive. The states are likely to succeed on their claim that the executive order violates the 14th Amendment, the court added.

No oral argument in the case has yet been scheduled.

This developing story will be updated.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 15:00

This is Part 1 of a two-part series analyzing the impact of an amendment to the House Homeland appropriations bill on the H-2A and H-2B visa programs.

Key takeaways:

• The government funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security may include a rider amendment that would expand the H-2A visa program for seasonal farm jobs. This amendment (originally known as Amendment #1 but later dubbed the Bipartisan Visa En Bloc amendment) proposes to open the H-2A visa program to year-round occupations.
• There were 410,000 year-round jobs in agriculture and 353,000 seasonal H-2A workers in 2024.
• The Trump Department of Labor has issued a new 2026 H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) to set H-2A wages. Based on their own estimates, the 2026 H-2A AEWR will result in a $24 billion pay cut for H-2A farmworkers over 10 years and incentivize growth in the H-2A program to 500,000 jobs a year. EPI has estimated that U.S. farmworkers will lose $2.7 to 3.3 billion in wages per year.
• If employers are allowed to use H-2A visas for year-round jobs via the House Homeland appropriations rider, farmworkers in those jobs will see massive pay cuts of $20,000 to $40,000 per year, starting in 2026.
• The Trump DOL wage reductions combined with H-2A visas for year-round jobs could expand the H-2A program to 900,000 workers in 2034, meaning that workers on temporary visas would account for 42% of average annual employment in agriculture.
• This rider in Congress and the proposed regulation at DOL would only benefit farm employers, allowing them to hire workers they can control for as little pay as possible. These changes would drastically lower pay for all farmworkers and lead to job losses for U.S. workers, a complete reversal from the Trump administration’s original claims that U.S. workers would fill the farm jobs left open due to deportations.

For well over a decade now—time and time and time and time again—Congress has been making policy changes to temporary work visa programs not through the normal process of debating and passing legislation, but through a backdoor process. This involves amendments to annual appropriations legislation (known as “riders”) that fund the U.S. government. Riders that make policy changes are much more likely to pass without much public notice, debate, or pushback relative to dedicated legislation, since they are smaller parts of larger, must-pass legislation to fund the whole U.S. government. The significant changes proposed or passed in riders over the past decade have all pushed temporary work visa programs in the same direction: expanding and deregulating the H-2A and H-2B visa programs, which benefits employers at the expense of U.S. workers and hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who will continue to see reduced wages and poorer working conditions. It’s already clear that low-wage work visa programs won’t be improved during the Trump administration; instead, they’ll be made much worse.

This fiscal year, there is a particular urgency around the riders to expand and deregulate the H-2A and H-2B visa programs, in light of the Trump administration’s mass deportation effort that is arresting and deporting workers at a breakneck pace, as well as canceling temporary immigration protections that provided work authorization to millions. The Trump administration got the ball rolling on this effort with a new proposed H-2A wage regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on October 2, 2025. This proposed regulation contains a stunning admission: The administration’s mass deportation effort is likely to raise food prices. DOL’s solution to this problem of the administration’s own creation is an irrational and anti-worker solution. Instead of pushing the administration from within to stop their campaign of mass deportation, DOL proposes to lower farmworker wages by $24 billion over the next 10 years.

Having seen this proposed rule, employers who are heavily reliant on migrant laborers—especially those in the hospitality, construction, and agricultural industries—can now be confident they have a friendly administration willing to dismantle labor standards and are lobbying furiously for more work visas that allow them to employ a vulnerable workforce. Employers are making the case that H-2 visas are “a workforce issue, not immigration,” as well as an essential service that must continue to function even during the recent government shutdown. A number of lawmakers and the Trump administration seem to agree.

The latest legislative vehicle that has a chance at furthering these goals is a rider that the Homeland Security subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee proposed and passed. It was originally known as Amendment #1 but was later dubbed the “Bipartisan Visa En Bloc” amendment. As Politico Pro reported, “House appropriators from both parties came together…to back big changes to visa policies that would boost the number of seasonal workers who can come to the United States.” The rider was cosponsored by three Republicans and one Democrat (but the Democrat was Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), the recent recipient of a pardon from Trump for federal bribery charges). However, it’s worth noting that because rider passed by a voice vote, there is no on-the-record vote tally showing who voted for it.

The rider still has a long way to go before becoming law and will also depend on whether an omnibus government spending bill is ultimately passed for fiscal year 2026. As of the time of publication, the Senate has not yet released their version of a Homeland Security appropriations bill. To become law, the Senate would also have to adopt the same rider provision for it to become part of the broader omnibus appropriations legislation. Nevertheless, the rider is a statement of intent from legislators who are willing to go to bat for employers seeking new exploitable and underpaid migrant workers to replace their long-term immigrant workers who have been deported or lost status.

Below is a summary of the four major changes that the Bipartisan Visa En Bloc rider amendment would make to the H-2A and H-2B visa programs. Only the first major change is discussed in this explainer, but a follow-up to this blog post will discuss the other three changes. Under the rider:

• Employers would be permitted to hire H-2A farmworkers to fill year-round jobs.
• The H-2B visa program would be expanded by at least 100,000 workers relative to its size in 2024.
• H-2B workers employed at carnivals, traveling fairs, and circuses would be moved to the P visa program, a program that has no wage rules or worker protections and over which DOL has no formal oversight role.
• DHS would not be permitted to spend funds to implement the January 2024 regulation that incrementally improves rights and protections for H-2A and H-2B workers. This regulation allows them to be eligible for green cards through existing pathways and helps them more easily change employers, reducing the indentured nature of the visa programs, and requires additional scrutiny on employer applications if they’ve committed certain violations.

The H-2A program has expanded rapidly and is rife with abuse

Employers use the H-2A visa program to fill seasonal and temporary jobs in agriculture, after employers go through a (mostly pro forma) process to prove that they could not find an available U.S. worker to hire. There is no annual limit on the number of H-2A workers that can be hired, and H-2A has in recent years been the fastest-growing U.S. work visa program, tripling over the past decade. Figure A shows the three available data sets on H-2A job certifications, petitions, and visas, as well as an estimate of the total number of H-2A workers between 2015 and 2024, with 352,682 H-2A workers estimated to have been employed in the United States last year. The vast majority of H-2A workers are employed on crop farms, picking fruits and vegetables, and the average duration of an H-2A job is roughly six months.

Figure A

There have been countless exposés from journalists and advocates that reveal how H-2A farmworkers are indentured to their employers, frequently robbed, exploited, victimized, and trafficked, and how the main source of wage and hour violations on farms comes from employers breaking H-2A rules.

The rider adopted in the House would allow H-2A workers to be employed in year-round jobs—which is currently prohibited—expanding the scope of the program and allowing H-2A workers to fill jobs on dairy, livestock, and poultry and egg farms, as well as in nurseries and greenhouses and other nonseasonal agricultural occupations. This would be a major change to H-2A, and it has long been a demand of agribusiness.

Making H-2A year-round raises three key questions:

• How many permanent, year-round jobs might be impacted?
• How will farmworker wages be impacted?
• How much will the H-2A program expand?

There are 410,000 year-round jobs in agriculture

For an answer to the first question, see Table 1, which lists four of the major agricultural industries employing farmworkers year-round, the largest of which are greenhouse and dairy jobs. Together they total nearly 410,000 full-time equivalent jobs. The industries listed do not include the many year-round (or nearly year-round) jobs that can be found on crop farms, including equipment operators and supervisors. In total, it’s possible that up to one-third of the total 1.6 million full-time equivalent jobs in agriculture could be year-round.

Table 1 DOL’s new Adverse Effect Wage Rate will result in a pay cut for H-2A workers and U.S. workers that will line the pockets of employers by billions

Next, let’s consider what would happen to the wages of farmworkers in year-round occupations if the H-2A visa program were expanded to include them.

The wages of nearly all H-2A farmworkers are set by the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), unless the federal, state, or local hourly minimum wages are higher, or if there is an applicable local prevailing wage or collective bargaining agreement in place. The purpose of the AEWR is to ensure that H-2A workers are paid a wage that is consistent with U.S. wage standards and prevent adverse impacts of H-2A employment on the wages of farmworkers in the United States.

On October 2, 2025, DOL issued an interim final rule laying out a new AEWR methodology. A recent EPI post describes in detail how the new Trump AEWR will cut wage rates dramatically by using an inferior data set for agriculture and creating two artificial “skill levels,” which set H-2A wages at the 17th percentile of wages surveyed for farm occupations (skill level 1) and at the 50th percentile, which is the median of wages surveyed (skill level 2).

In the new AEWR, the Trump DOL also removes the previous H-2A program requirement that employers pay for 100% of housing costs for H-2A workers. In its stead, the new AEWR deducts a set amount out of every hour of an H-2A worker’s pay, to compensate the employer for H-2A housing costs. This shifts housing costs to H-2A workers who will have the added burden of paying for housing costs out of the already-low wages they earn. The housing deduction is subtracted from the AEWR—lowering a low wage even further—so low that in many states, the state minimum wage will be higher and become the de facto AEWR.

In total, DOL estimates that over $1.7 billion will be transferred from H-2A workers’ pockets back to farm employers under the new wage rule in 2026, amounting to $24 billion over the next 10 years as the program grows to over 500,000 jobs. EPI’s own estimates are that H-2A workers will see a wage cut of between $1.7 billion and $2.1 billion in 2026, depending on how state minimum wage laws are enforced. Reducing the AEWR for H-2A workers will also lower wages for U.S. farmworkers—one-third of whom are U.S.-born citizens, according to the latest DOL survey. A fall in the H-2A wage will increase demand for H-2A workers, since employers can save significantly on labor costs if they hire them. As a result, it will become relatively more expensive to hire non-H-2A U.S. farmworkers. Employers will therefore reduce demand for U.S. farmworkers, putting downward pressure on their wages, with U.S. farmworkers seeing wage reduction of $2.7 to $3.3 billion in annual pay.

This would represent a shocking upward redistribution of income away from some of the country’s most underpaid and essential workers for the food system.

Under the new AEWR, H-2A farmworkers in year-round jobs would be paid tens of thousands of dollars less annually compared with what U.S. farmworkers earn now

The wage cuts from the AEWR described above currently apply only to H-2A farmworkers, who can only be employed in seasonal jobs. However, if the rider to make H-2A year-round goes into effect, farmworkers in year-round jobs will see the biggest pay cuts.

Table 2 lists a sample of some of the main year-round agricultural industries in major agricultural states, along with average annual employment, which together accounts for about 15% of the total year-round full-time equivalent jobs in agriculture. Table 2 shows how much farmworkers earned annually, on average in 2024 in those industries and states, and compares the annual earnings of farmworkers in 2024 with what H-2A workers would earn in 2026 if they had worked in the same jobs and had been paid the corresponding 2026 AEWR at skill level 1 for the entire year (40 hours per week for 52 weeks), minus the annualized amount that will be deducted from hourly wages for housing according to the 2026 AEWR.1

The final column in Table 2 shows a few examples that illustrate the difference between what year-round U.S. farmworkers in the selected industries earned in 2024 and what H-2A workers at skill level 1 would earn if they were paid the annualized AEWR in 2026. Table 2 shows that the reduction in wages for H-2A farmworkers in year-round jobs could range from an annual pay cut of nearly $21,000 for farmworkers on hog and pig farms in North Carolina to a pay cut of almost $44,000 for farmworkers on poultry and egg farms in Texas.

Outcomes such as these—in which farmworkers paid the 2026 AEWR would earn tens of thousands of dollars less than what U.S. farmworkers earned in major year-round jobs in 2024—are egregious and in violation of the spirit and letter of the AEWR and the H-2A statute, but will be the norm and allowed if the year-round H-2A provision in the rider becomes law. This would hurt some of the most vulnerable and lowest-paid workers in the U.S. labor market and create an almost unstoppable incentive for employers to replace their current farmworkers who now fill year-round jobs with H-2A workers who can’t easily switch employers or effectively complain when their wages are stolen and when they’re forced to work in unsafe conditions.

Table 2 The year-round H-2A rider with the new AEWR rule could triple the current size of the H-2A program and cause wages to drop sharply for farmworkers

The ultimate result of the new H-2A wage rule combined with making the H-2A program year-round would be a likely tripling of the size of the H-2A program to about 900,000 workers, which includes the complete decimation of job quality for the 410,000 jobs in agriculture that can provide stable year-round employment and sometimes a living wage for U.S. farmworkers.

How would this occur? The Trump DOL’s new wage rule estimates that the lower pay for farmworkers it institutes will encourage farms to rapidly increase hiring through the H-2A program, estimating that 515,000 H-2A workers will be employed in 2034. If those low wages remain in effect and the year-round H-2A rider becomes law and is renewed yearly (as the H-2B riders have been every year), employers are likely to ramp up hiring for year-round jobs until nearly all are filled by H-2A workers who can be paid extremely low wages and, because of their precarious immigration status, have little bargaining power or the ability to complain in the face of employer lawbreaking.

For context, the 410,000 H-2A workers in year-round jobs plus the estimated 257,500 year-round equivalent jobs done by H-2A workers in seasonal jobs (i.e., 515,000 H-2A workers employed in 2034 for six months out of the year), would equal 667,500 full-time equivalent jobs in agriculture, or roughly 42% of all annual average employment in agriculture.

Instead of ballooning the H-2A program, policymakers should create a pathway to citizenship for farmworkers to ensure their rights on the job

Policymakers and the public must reject the harmful and unjustified proposals coming from Trump and Congress to pay less to farmworkers who already live on the margins of society, and to keep more of them indentured through the H-2A program. This rider is another example that reveals the truth about the Trump administration’s immigration agenda: They have no real interest in protecting jobs or pay for American or “native-born” workers, only in giving employers what they demand.

Using H-2A, a problematic temporary work visa program—in which workers are virtually indentured to their employers and that accounts for most of the wage and hour violations that take place on farms—to fill permanent, year-round jobs should give pause to all members of Congress. It makes no sense, unless the goal is to keep the workers employed in those jobs from having equal rights and fair pay. If migrant workers are filling true labor shortages in permanent, year-round jobs, then those workers should always get lawful permanent residence (i.e., green cards) that puts them on a path to citizenship.

If members of Congress want a reliable, healthy, and stable farm labor force that can continue to produce food domestically for Americans, they should pass legislation that legalizes undocumented farmworkers and reforms the H-2A program so that all migrant farmworkers have equal rights, fair wages, and a quick path to permanent residence and citizenship. That’s the only way to ensure that the workers who sustain the food supply chain will be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve and that honors their contributions to the U.S. economy.

1. The amounts have not been adjusted for inflation. The 2026 AEWR provides two “skill levels” for farmworkers—which are set at specific percentiles along the distribution of OEWS wages surveyed. Skill level 1 is the 17th percentile while skill level 2 is the median of wages surveyed, which is also the 50th percentile. For this calculation, I am only calculating the wage differentials for H-2A workers in year-round jobs who are classified by employers at skill level 1, which DOL estimates will account for 92% of all H-2A workers.

 

World's Billionaire Population Surges To New Record High: UBS

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The ultra-rich grew even wealthier this year and the world has more billionaires than ever, according to Swiss bank UBS.

A megayacht, built by Dutch yacht builder Royal Van Lent for former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, is piloted past a bridge in Woubrugge, Netherlands, on May 28, 2025. Josh Walet/ANP/AFP via Getty Images

Global billionaire wealth hit a record $15.8 trillion in 2025, up by 13 percent from 2024, UBS said in its 11th Billionaire Ambitions Report, published on Dec. 4. This is the second-largest annual increase, after 2021, “lifted by existing tech billionaires’ appreciating wealth and the number of new billionaires across a range of sectors,” the report reads.

UBS’s analysis includes cash, securities, corporate ownership interests, property, and other material assets.

“In a highly uncertain time for geopolitics and economics, entrepreneurs are innovating at scale across a range of sectors and markets,” UBS Global Wealth Management executive Benjamin Cavalli said. “They’re creating wealth as they do so.”

Inheritance was also a factor in the growth of the billionaires’ ranks.

In the 12 months through April, 91 people became billionaires through inheritance, receiving almost $298 billion, and the trend is likely to continue as the great wealth transfer intensifies.

The bank calculated that at least $5.9 trillion will be inherited by billionaire children over the next 15 years, “either directly or indirectly through spouses who inherit it first and then pass it on.”

A majority of respondents, 82 percent, said they hope that their children develop the skills and values necessary to succeed on their own without “relying solely on inherited wealth.”

The number of billionaires rose by 8.8 percent in 2025, to 2,919 from 2,682 a year earlier.

The United States has the most billionaires worldwide, with 924 individuals owning approximately $6.9 trillion. This is followed by mainland China, where 470 billionaires own about $1.8 trillion. India (188 billionaires), Germany (156), and the UK (91) rounded out the top five.

UBS said this could change, as billionaires have become more mobile amid geopolitical concerns, tax policy changes, and living standards.

Debating the Wealth Tax

For years, U.S. and European governments have debated the idea of a wealth tax, or an annual levy on net worth, to be imposed once assets minus debts exceed a threshold.

In 2024, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) introduced legislation—the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act—to implement a wealth tax on individuals with more than $50 million.

“All my bill is asking is that when you make it big, bigger than $50 million dollars, then on that next dollar, you pitch in 2 cents, so everyone else can have a chance,” Warren said in March 2024.

The bill stalled in both chambers. Overseas, politicians and voters have been reluctant to back similar schemes.

Billionaire businessman Elon Musk speaks during a town hall meeting at the KI Convention Center in Green Bay, Wis., on March 30, 2025. Scott Olson/Getty Images

Nearly 80 percent of Swiss voters recently turned down a proposed 50 percent tax on inherited fortunes greater than 50 million Swiss francs ($62 million).

The French Parliament rejected a proposed 2 percent tax on wealth greater than 100 million euros ($116 million) in October. Although the UK has not adopted a formal wealth tax, it has announced plans to impose higher taxes on wealthier residents.

Economists have presented divergent opinions on the concept in general. Proponents say it can improve governments’ deteriorating fiscal health and address income inequality. Critics have said that it would disincentivize wealth creation.

In June 2024, a study by French economist Gabriel Zucman estimated that a Group of 20 motion to slap a minimum 2 percent tax on the ultra-wealthy could generate $250 billion in additional revenue.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, speaking at a 2020 virtual event, argued that the United States needs a wealth tax.

“Where we are today in the 21st century, a basic middle-class life is not accessible to very large portions of America,” Stiglitz said. “I think a wealth tax is a good idea because we have so much inequality in wealth ... [that] even a moderate rate like 3 percent on billionaires and 2 percent on those over $50 million ... [would raise] an enormous amount of revenue.”

Economist Ludwig von Mises wrote in “Human Action” that a wealth tax would be a detriment to capital accumulation and a hindrance to wealth creation, since it would disincentivize the building of wealth.

“Capital levies, inheritance and estate taxes, and income taxes are similarly self-defeating if carried to extremes,” Von Mises wrote. “The power to tax is, as Chief Justice [John] Marshall pertinently observed, the power to destroy.”

Years later, economist Milton Friedman also said a wealth levy would punish saving and investment because it would incentivize the affluent “to dissipate wealth.”

“Where do you get the factories?” Friedman said during a university lecture in the 1970s. “Where do you get the machines? Where do you get the capital investment? Where do you get the incentive to improve technology?”

According to Friedman, a wealth tax would be on top of all the other taxes wealthier households already pay.

The Tax Foundation concluded in 2024 that wealth taxes would produce unintended consequences, including job destruction, reduced capital and innovation, slower economic activity, and higher administrative costs. This would result in little revenue being generated, it said.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 14:40