The post Republican Glory Days? The Pre-Obamacare Insurance Market appeared first on CEPR.

Note: CR is on vacation, and I will return on October 21st.

In early 2009, many analysts were predicting the 2nd Great Depression. However I started seeing some positive signs ... and I was able to call the end of the recession in mid-2009.

From January 2009: Vehicle Sales

David Rosenberg at Merrill Lynch wrote a research piece last week: "Not Your Father’s Recession ...(But Maybe Your Grandfather’s)" (no link)

Needless to say, the piece wasn't too upbeat.

But I was intrigued by some of the comments on vehicle sales.
...
Currently this ratio is at 23.9 years, the highest ever. This is an unsustainable level (I doubt most vehicles will last 24 years!), and the ratio will probably decline over the next few years. This could happen with vehicles being removed from the fleet, but more likely because of a sales increase.
...
Sales won't increase right away (look at the depressed sales during the early '80s), but this does suggest that auto sales are closer to the bottom than the top, and that auto sales will increase significantly in the future - although sales in 2009 will probably be dismal.

And from February 2009: Looking for the Sun

2009 will be a grim economic year. The unemployment rate will rise all year, house prices will fall, commercial real estate (CRE) will get crushed ... but there might be a few rays of sunshine too.
...
Even though most of the economic news will be ugly in 2009, my guess is all three of these series will find a bottom (or at least the pace of decline will slow significantly). This means that the drag on employment in these industries, and the drag on GDP, will slow or stop.

These will be rays of sunshine in a very dark season. That doesn't mean a thaw, but it will be a beginning ...

CR Note: I do not have a crystal ball, but I was looking past the horrible day-to-day numbers and starting to see the end of the recession.

Will Russian-US Tensions Likely Spiral Out Of Control If Ukraine Obtains Tomahawk Missiles?

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

The precedent set by Russia’s restrained response to Ukraine obtaining the F-16s, which could also be nuclear-equipped, suggests that tensions with the US will remain manageable if Ukraine obtains the Tomahawks too due to the modus vivendi that’s arguably been in place for managing them.

The latest talk about the US transferring longer-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, which Putin said earlier this month could only be used with US military personnel’s direct involvement, has prompted concerns about a potentially uncontrollable escalation spiral. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov assessed that such a development would lead to “a significant change in the situation” but nonetheless reaffirmed that it wouldn’t prevent Russia from achieving its goals in the special operation.

Ukraine’s explicitly stated goal in obtaining these arms is to “pressure” Russia into freezing the Line of Contact without any concessions from Kiev, which would essentially amount to Moscow conceding on its aforesaid goals since none would be achieved in full should that happen, ergo why it hasn’t agreed. In pursuit of that end, Ukraine threatened to cause a blackout in the Russian capital, which would likely be accompanied by more attacks against civilian and military logistics targets far behind the frontlines.

Some are therefore worried that that Russian-US tensions could spiral out of control, especially after Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that the Tomahawks can be nuclear-equipped, but the precedent set by the F-16s suggests that they’ll remain manageable. Putin himself warned in early 2024 that they too could be nuclear-equipped, yet Russia ultimately didn’t treat their use as a potential nuclear first-strike. This is arguably due to the modus vivendi that was described here in late 2024:

“[Comparatively pragmatic US ‘deep state’ figures] who still call the shots always signal their escalatory intentions far in advance so that Russia could prepare itself and thus be less likely to ‘overreact’ in some way that risks World War III. Likewise, Russia continues restraining itself from replicating the US’ ‘shock-and-awe’ campaign in order to reduce the likelihood of the West ‘overreacting’ by directly intervening in the conflict to salvage their geopolitical project and thus risking World War III.

It can only be speculated whether this interplay is due to each’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (‘deep state’) behaving responsibly on their own considering the enormity of what’s at stake or if it’s the result of a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’. Whatever the truth may be, the aforesaid model accounts for the unexpected moves or lack thereof from each, which are the US correspondingly telegraphing its escalatory intentions and Russia never seriously escalating in kind.”

The latest talk about the US transferring longer-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine fits the pattern of leaks serving to tip Russia off about this preplanned escalation so it can prepare its responses in advance. Time and again, Putin has exercised an almost saintly degree of self-restraint in refusing to escalate, whether symmetrically or asymmetrically. Readers can learn more about these precedents from the eight analyses enumerated in the one from late 2024 that was hyperlinked to above.

The only exception was him authorizing the use of the Oreshniks in November after the US and UK let Ukraine use their long-range missiles inside of Russia, obviously through the direct involvement of their military personnel, which he might repeat if Ukraine obtains the Tomahawks. He didn’t authorize them after Ukraine’s strategic drone strikes against parts of Russia’s nuclear triad in June that were much more provocative, however, which might have been due to his diplomatic calculations vis-à-vis Trump.

Whether one agrees with the policy or not, it’s arguably the case that Putin wants to avoid doing anything that could reaffirm Trump’s perception (carefully crafted by the warmongers around him like Zelensky and Lindsey Graham) that Russia is escalating, thus falsely justifying “reciprocal US escalations”. So long as he continues formulating policy based on this calculation, and there’s no credible indication thus far that it’s changed, then any escalation over the Tomahawks will likely remain manageable.

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

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/15/2025 - 02:00

All Hell Broke Out In Boston As Police Cruiser Torched In 'Premeditated' Attack On Cops: Union Chief

The president of Boston's Police Patrolmen's Association has responded after a violent mob of over 100 people unleashed chaos in Boston’s streets, torching a police cruiser and pelting officers with fireworks, cones, and poles in what witnesses called a "riot-like" assault on law enforcement.

The wild attack, which unfolded in the early hours of October 5, was described as a deliberate and "hell-bent" targeting of police, according to Larry Calderone, president of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, in an interview with Fox News.

“They came with a plan to attack officers, and they executed it,” Calderone said, slamming the mob’s actions as “absolutely unacceptable.”

The mayhem began just after 2 a.m. when police responded to reports of illegal street racing, only to be met with an all-out assault. One cruiser was set ablaze and left in ruins, requiring a tow from the scene.

The rampaging group didn’t stop there, moving through four Boston communities and growing more aggressive at each stop before converging in the city’s South End. “This was premeditated,” Calderone warned. “If you’re coming to Boston to terrorize our city or assault our officers, you’re not welcome here.”

Boston Union Chief: Street Takeover Were Hell Bent On Attacking Cops

Larry Calderone: "They knew what they were going to do and they were hell-bent on attacking police officers. But that is not an everyday occurrence." pic.twitter.com/syHKopo0Dx

— Mr Producer (@RichSementa) October 14, 2025

Simran Nalhatra, a witness to the chaos, told Boston 25News, that “It was like a riot."

"We saw someone get arrested, and we looked to our right, and there was this cop car on fire," Nalhatra said. "It was really scary. I was like, ‘I don’t know why it was so loud,’ and everyone’s screaming, and it went on for an hour or two."

Calderone told Fox News that this wasn’t just reckless street racing, but was a direct and dangerous attack on police.

“Spinning tires is one thing. Assaulting officers and endangering the public is something we will never tolerate,” the law enforcement official said.

Shockingly, only two arrests were made: Julian Bowers, 18, of Cumberland, Rhode Island, and William Cantwell, 19, of Warwick, Rhode Island.

Both face serious charges, including assault and battery on a police officer and malicious destruction of property. Bowers allegedly hurled objects at officers, while Cantwell reportedly smashed a cruiser with a pole. In a stunning courtroom twist, the judge set bail at just $500 for Bowers and $1,000 for Cantwell. To add insult to injury, the suspects were seen fist-bumping after the low bail was announced.

Calderone called the incident unprecedented, saying it’s been over a year since Boston saw a street takeover of this magnitude. “This level of violence against our officers is a big deal,” he said. “It should never happen, and we won’t stand for it.”

Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden also condemned the chaos, saying, “dangerous, intolerable assaults on our police officers and our neighborhoods.”

“We and our law enforcement partners will do all we can to identify and hold accountable anyone involved. No one should think they can jeopardize public safety in such a brazen manner without consequences,” Hayden added.

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 23:25

Is Cuba Returning To US Crosshairs?

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

The US and Ukraine’s arguably coordinated fearmongering campaign about the regional security consequences of Cubans allegedly fighting for Russia hints that the island will soon come under more pressure.

Reuters exclusively reported in early October that the State Department sent an unclassified cable to dozens of US missions directing diplomats to tell countries that Cuba sent up to 5,000 fighters to support Russia against Ukraine.

Ukrainian intelligence then promoted these claims in the New York Post, arguably through coordination with the State Department, which coincided with the Russian Upper House ratifying a new military cooperation pact with Cuba that has itself been the subject of speculation too.

Some suspect that it’s meant to formalize Russia’s reported military recruitment pipeline in Cuba that incensed some officials in Havana two years ago as analyzed here at the time, which might now include formal troops along the lines of an earlier pact with North Korea, while others see grander plans. Alexander Stepanov, military expert at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, told TASS that Russia might send Iskanders and even Oreshniks to Cuba under this pact.

According to him, this “would create an effective deterrent capable of reaching strategically important targets on US territory, thereby maintaining the balance of power and parity in offensive capabilities”, particularly in the context of possible US plans to send long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. This line of speculation isn’t new since Deputy Chairman of the Duma’s Defense Committee Alexei Zhuravlev proposed in January 2024 that Russia base nukes there and elsewhere in the region.

That would be sensible in principle but unlikely in practice since Cuba probably doesn’t want to risk provoking Trump into considering an Iranian-like maximum pressure campaign against it, especially not after he just ordered a regional military buildup on the pretext of stopping drug trafficking. Continued high-profile speculation about the scenario of Russian missiles once again secretly being sent to Cuba, whether from publicly financed TASS or a Duma official, could still be exploited to this end though.

Much more likely, however, is that the State Department’s reported cable about Cuban fighters supporting Russia against Ukraine is taken advantage of to gradually justify more pressure upon the island. About that, this claim might be true (regardless of whether it concerns volunteers and/or actual troops) just like earlier ones about North Korean support were later confirmed by Russia, but it would be Cuba’s legal right to allow its citizens to cooperate with Russia like this and/or send direct support.

Even if that’s all that there is their newly ratified pact, Ukraine’s fearmongering about it to the New York Post – which Trump once called his “favorite newspaper” – could suffice for returning Cuba to the US’ crosshairs. According to them, “The combat experience Cuban nationals gain in Ukraine is a dangerous and transferable commodity. This experience could be used to train proxies and destabilize other regions, particularly in Latin America, threatening the security of US allies and partners.”

It’s unimportant that the aforementioned is speculation since all that matters is that Trump somehow or another comes to believe (whether on his own or per the urging of close advisors) that this is a credible scenario and correspondingly authorizes a more muscular policy against Cuba.

This could even be driven by cynical electoral interests ahead of next fall’s midterms but disguised as being in the US’ national security interests.

Observers should therefore keep a close eye on US-Cuban ties going forward.

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 22:35

Military Analyst Warns US Doesn't Have Enough Tomahawks To Send To Ukraine

Military analysts have told the Financial Times that even if President Trump decides to approve US Tomahawk transfers to Ukraine, this will have limited impact on the trajectory of the war, given especially that a mere dozens will be available to send.

The report also suggests that the US is involved in too many conflicts at once, and that Pentagon stockpiles of advanced weapons are being depleted.

Via Reuters

Trump started this week by issuing more ambiguous and vague statements on the Tomahawk issue. On Monday he had said Tomahawks are a "very offensive weapon," noting, "honestly, Russia does not need that." He hinted he 'might' pull the trigger on this escalation, amid Moscow warnings and threats.

FT found that out of over 4,000 Tomahawk missiles in the US arsenal, only "a few" could be given to Ukraine:

Mark Cancian, a former Pentagon official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think-tank, estimated in a recent war game that the US had 4,150 Tomahawks in total. However, the US would probably be able to supply only a few to Ukraine.

This is in light of the fact that, out of the 200 the Pentagon has procured since 2022, it has already fired more than 120, according to defense experts. The defense department has requested funding for only 57 more Tomahawks in its 2026 budget. Washington would probably also need Tomahawks for any strike on Venezuelan soil.

Again, this reference to Venezuela is interesting, at a moment of unprecedented American military build-up in the southern Caribbean near the Latin American country's coast. The US has also been expending its missiles on defending Israel, which happened at an increased pace especially over the past year.

Another Washington-based US military analyst put a number to how many Tomahawks American could afford to hand over:

Stacie Pettyjohn, director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security think-tank, said Washington could spare some 20 to 50 Tomahawks for Ukraine, “which will not decisively shift the dynamics of the war”.

While the long-range missiles could complement Ukraine’s own long-range attack drones and cruise missiles “in large complex salvos to greater effect”, they would “still will be a very limited capability . . . certainly not enough to enable sustained, deep attacks against Russia”, they added.

And of course, the understated if not unspoken part is that all of this risks WW3 with Russia, something that Trump has repeatedly and openly voiced that he wants to seek to avoid at all costs.

On Monday former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a chilling response which spelled out that this "could end badly for everyone… most of all, for Trump himself," according to a translation of his Telegram post.

"It's been said a hundred times, in a manner understandable even to the star-spangled man, that it's impossible to distinguish a nuclear Tomahawk missile from a conventional one in flight," Medvedev, who serves as the Russian Security Council Deputy Chair, further noted.

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 22:10

Where Not To Be In A Crisis

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

For many years, there have been those who have been prognosticating an economic crisis – not just a recession lasting a year or two, but a full-blown Greater Depression that would eclipse any major event we’ve seen in our lifetimes.

That may appear to be an overstatement, but historically, it’s the norm for a time of major upheaval to occur every eighty years or so. And although some of us began analysing and commenting on the Greater Depression many years ago, it’s clear to all of us that we’ve now entered the leading edge of the crisis.

All of the traditional warning signs are present, and although technology has changed considerably over the millennia, human behaviour has not. We are witnessing the same symptoms that were present in major collapses of the past, going back at least as far as the Roman Empire.

We are therefore seeing not only the initial stages of an economic collapse but the concurrent events, such as an almost total corruption of the political structure, a move toward totalitarian rule, the destruction of currencies, and a loss of faith in leadership across the board. Along the way, we’re also experiencing a decline in logic and morality and an eroding sense of humanity.

That’s quite a lot to take in, yet, sorry to say; we’re only in the first stages of collapse. It will get quite a bit worse before it gets better.

As the economy begins its collapse in earnest, what we shall witness will be a population that will be unable to adapt quickly to the symptoms of the crisis as they increase in frequency and magnitude. The reaction to each will be, first, shock (an inability to comprehend that the impossible has occurred), then fear (a state of confusion and inability to adjust to rapidly-changing conditions), and finally, anger.

This last development should give pause to us all, as it’s the stage when those who have been most strongly impacted realise that there’s precious little that they can do to regain normalcy. When they find that they can’t get their hands around the necks of those who actually are to blame, they’ll take out their anger on whomever is in their proximity – each other.

So, the questions arise: Where will these problems be most prevalent? Where will the situations exist that should be avoided as much as possible, in order to minimize the likelihood that we’ll become collateral damage of the crisis?

Having studied previous similar historical periods, I can attest that this is a question that, unfortunately, requires an extensive and complex answer. However, as a rough guide, there are three considerations that will be overarching.

Regardless of any other concerns that may affect the reader individually, all persons would do well to stay clear (as much as possible) from the following:

First World Countries

Since 1945, the First World countries (the US, UK, EU, Japan, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) have led the world in both prosperity and power. Under the driving force of the US, they’ve created not only the advances of the last eighty years but also the rot that has led to the current crisis. As such, these countries are not only the countries where we’re seeing the most dramatic oppression of people; they will also experience the most precipitous fall economically, politically, and sociologically.

Although these countries have, until recently, seemed to be the most attractive locations in which to live, that condition has now begun a reversal, and in the coming years, they’ll represent the very nexus of decline. As such, they’ll become the most unpredictable and even the most dangerous places to be.

Conversely, the choicest countries in which to live will be those countries where change will be minimal. Those countries where the populations and governments have been relatively unambitious over the last half century or more, will be the locations that are the least likely to change dramatically during the crisis. That one fact speaks loudly to the reader’s economic, political, and social well-being in this period.

Cold Climates

The colder a location is, the less hospitable it will be in a crisis. When governments collapse economically and seemingly basic amenities can no longer be paid for, politicians will look after their own needs before those of the people they are meant to represent. Simple services such as snow ploughing may be dropped from city budgets that must experience cutbacks.

More importantly, during an energy crunch, you’re likely to experience periods in which heat cannot be attained. This doesn’t mean that you will necessarily freeze to death, but it does mean that life will be much harder. In addition, produce cannot be grown in colder climates, which eliminates even the possibility of a kitchen garden in colder months.

Cities

By far, this is the riskiest of the three concerns. The more concentrated the population is the greater the risk. The larger your building, the less control you have over utilities. If the water, electricity, or heat is shut off due to energy shortages, you will have little or no recourse.

But, by far, the greatest risk in a city will be the inherent depersonalisation that exists even in the best of times. Even if you live in a very nice apartment building in a nice neighbourhood, you’re likely to be socially isolated from others. (You may not even know the people in the apartment across the hall.) People in cities tend not to help each other much at the best of times, but in a crisis, those around you can become a threat to your very existence.

Most importantly, food supplies are likely to be interrupted for indeterminate periods and, as Isaac Azimov stated, “After nine missed meals, a man will kill for food.” Even if you’re able to obtain a loaf of bread at a neighbourhood store, you may not be able to walk home with it without being waylaid. Even brief periods of interruption of food delivery to a population centre may result in a simple loaf of bread being worth killing for.

And even for those who live in prosperous neighbourhoods where the neighbours tend to be civil, poorer neighbourhoods are not so far away that their residents, if desperate, will not make the short trip to where they think others have the essentials.

Such breakdowns, as described above, tend to occur slowly, then suddenly. Those of us who have lived through city riots understand that tension builds as people attempt to maintain normal decorum, then some small event sparks off rioting. A citywide riot can go off like popcorn spontaneously. In good times, police can quell a riot in a few days or weeks, but when rioting is citywide, and the cause cannot be quickly remedied, riots can last for extended periods, potentially turning formerly-safe city streets into the equivalent of a war zone.

Of course, there’s the tendency to say, “Don’t be ridiculous – it can’t get that bad.” However, history tells us that whenever a major crisis period occurs, the above conditions almost always occur.

The reader may wish to assess his exposure to the three conditions above. Ideally, he’ll find a location to sit out the crisis – a country that’s likely to be less affected by the events that are now unfolding. He may choose a location that’s warm year-round, where food is plentiful even in harder times. And he may try to locate himself in a community of lower population density, where neighbours habitually help each other.

But regardless of what the reader chooses to do, he should be aware that the future of his well-being and that of his family may hinge on the choices he makes in the very near future.

*  *  *

The challenges described above are not hypothetical—they are unfolding now, and the pace of change is accelerating. Knowing where not to be is only part of the equation; what matters just as much is understanding the practical steps you can take today to protect yourself and your wealth before the situation deteriorates further. That’s why we’ve prepared an urgent, free PDF report: Guide to Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse. It reveals strategies to safeguard your assets, secure your freedom, and even find opportunity in the turmoil. You can access it immediately by clicking here.

*  *  * Now - get FREE shipping above $500 at ZeroHedge Store!

A few ideas...

Prepper loadout (this + this + this + this + this - or go big)

Deadly loadout (this + this + this)

Eat now or freeze loadout (this + this + this)

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 21:45

Making Sense Of The Wave Of Next-Gen AI Smart Glasses Launches

Apple is reportedly shifting its focus from the unaffordable, bulky Vision Pro headset to AI-powered smart glasses, as Ray-Ban Meta continues to dominate the fast-growing smart glasses space.

A wave of new AI and AR glasses has flooded the consumer market in the second half of this year. Goldman Sachs analysts, led by Allen Chang, provided clients with a breakdown of what the next phase of the smart-glasses boom will look like.

Wave of New Launches:

• Meizu StarV Snap (AI glasses),

• Ray-Ban Meta Gen 2 (AI glasses),

• Oakley Meta Vanguard (AI glasses),

• Meta Ray-Ban Display (AR glasses),

• and HTC Vive Eagle (AI glasses).

Another round of launches this month:

• INMO GO3 and RayNeo Air 4 AR glasses will be released in Oct 2025. INMO GO3 will come with a longer battery life as a result of new hardware design solutions, with enhanced AI features.

• RayNeo's Air 4 AR glasses will be the first product after their announced collaboration with audio player Bang & Olufsen.

AR glasses pipeline: New models in Oct and Dec

AI glasses pipeline: New models in Nov

AR / AI glasses price and shipments trends

Specification of recent AI / AR smart glasses

Ray-Ban Meta's shipments have been leading. 

Related:

• There's Something Odd About Meta's New Ray-Ban AR Glasses...

Hmm.

Important to note: Apple's Vision Pro was an outright flop (read here & here). Meta, on the other hand, has been dominating the market with its Ray-Ban smart glasses - a trend we believe will continue with the next iteration featuring an integrated AR display. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 21:20

Aussie Climate Agency Concedes It Did Not Scrutinize Data Behind Major Climate Risk Report

Authored by Alfred Bui via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Australian Climate Service (ACS) says it did not scrutinise data in a Climate Council report that underpinned last month’s National Climate Risk Assessment.

A flock of sheep graze near wind turbines at sunrise in the Snowy Mountains region of New South Wales on July 28, 2025. Saeed Khan/AFP via Getty Images

The Assessment, released in mid-September, was the first of its kind and warned of a dangerous future for Australia if climate change was not dealt with.

Questions on the Assessment were put forward by Liberal Party Senator Dean Smith during a Senate Estimates hearing featuring the heads of the ACS.

The Assessment contained alarming figures, including the conclusion that 1.5 million Australians would be impacted by rising seas by 2050, and that property values could plunge $611 billion (US$398 billion) by 2050, and $770 billion by 2090.

While the report was welcomed by climate advocacy groups and other organisations, it also attracted criticisms, with some alleging that it exaggerated risks and amounted to a scare campaign.

Reviewed But Not Scrutinised

As the hearing progressed, Smith noted that the Assessment relied on a 2019 report by the Climate Council, a non-profit organisation that advocates for stronger climate action.

He then questioned asked ACS representatives whether any government agencies had assessed the accuracy of the Climate Council’s work.

In response, Judith Landsberg, ACS general manager, said her agency did not scrutinise the report.

“We had a policy and economy reference group that reviewed all of the evidence that went into the economic assessment,” she said.

“It’s normal scientific practice to collect evidence from a range of previous studies. So they were not involved in assessing the work … for the Climate Council report.

“Part of their role was to review the report and ensure it was reflected accurately.

Liberal Senator Dean Smith speaks at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, on Nov. 28, 2017. Michael Masters/Getty Images

Smith then pointed out that not examining the Climate Council’s accuracy was a key matter of interest, as the document was referred to several times in the Assessment.

Landsberg said that was “normal scientific practice.”

“It’s a normal scientific practice to cite previous reports without … going back and checking the accuracy of those reports,” she said.

The response prompted the Liberal senator to probe further.

“That doesn’t sound scientific. Excuse me, I’m not a scientist, but that doesn’t sound scientific to me,” Smith said.

Landsberg said her agency had reviewed the Climate Council report and approved its inclusion in the Assessment, but that process did not necessarily involve scrutinising data.

“What is assessed as the preponderance of evidence, and the way that the evidence was synthesised was reviewed by our economy and policy reference group, which included officials from Treasury, from APRA [Australian Prudential Regulation Authority], from the climate change authority and a number of academics,” she said.

Question Over Why Impending 2030 Climate Harm Estimate Not Included

At the same time, Smith asked the ACS why the Assessment did not include the Climate Council’s 2030 estimate that property value losses could reach $571 billion—over $110 billion a year for the next five years from 2025.

Landsberg said that for the sake of “consistency” the Assessment often used 2050 and 2090 scenarios, rather than try to model a 2030 scenario.

“It’s consistent with the other facts and impacts that were cited in the overview report, so [this is] consistency across systems and across different points of evidence,” she said.

Landsberg’s remarks were disputed by Smith, who noted that the omitted information was only a few words long and would not affect the so-called “consistency.”

The Liberal senator then questioned the reliability of the 2030 scenario, saying the figures did not convince him.

“A 2019 report … suggests that Australian property values are going to fall by $571 billion in the next five years.

“To put that in context, that’s $114 billion a year. And assuming about 9.8 million households across Australia, this report is suggesting that Australian household values are going to fall in the order of $11,600 each year for the next five years,” Smith said. “That’s just not scientific. That’s just not believable.”

Landsberg noted that the figures in the report were not predictions of what would happen in the future.

“It is not a prediction. None of this is a prediction. It is an assessment of potential impacts which potentially could be avoided by adaptation and intervention,” she said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 20:55

Israel Won't Reopen Rafah Crossing As Hamas Fails To Return Bodies Of Slain Hostages

 Hamas returned just four of 28 hostages' bodies on Monday, upon releasing all remaining living hostages. But Israeli leaders have condemned what they call a serious breach of what was agreed to in the Trump-brokered ceasefire deal.

The Israeli military has so far confirmed the identities of at least two of them - Guy Illouz from Israel and Bipin Joshi, a student from Nepal. Hamas indicated Tuesday it plans to hand over four more of the deceased in late evening hours.

Stillframe via CNN

Israel is now saying it will not reopen the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt on Wednesday and will also take the punitive step of reducing the flow of aid into the territory, until Hamas follows through with returning all of the deceased.

The Red Cross has been warning it could take "much more time" to retrieve the remains of all the hostages due to the extreme conditions inside the Strip.

Some of the families of the hostages which have not been returned are calling on the government to put the Gaza deal on hold until they are returned.

Thus this appears to the be first significant challenge and hurdle in the post-swap part of the deal. Likely some among the hawks and hardliners within the Israeli government want to use this as a justification for the resumption of the war.

But Prime Minister Netanyahu is unlikely to want to provoke Trump, who has boasted that the deal will stick and that this marks a new dawn in the Middle East.

As for Israel not reopening Rafah, per what was agreed, the consensus within the IDF is that Hamas hasn't made a significant effort to retrieve the bodies.

Hamas accused of a "blatant breach"...

Hamas will release only 4 of the 28 hostage bodies — a blatant breach of the ceasefire deal.
Even in death, they break their word.https://t.co/lNASHpXPWc pic.twitter.com/zUQMjDPR9X

— Trisha Posner (@trishaposner) October 13, 2025

"The moves followed assessments by Israeli defense officials that Hamas has not made significant efforts to return the remaining bodies of the hostages and amid rising anger among their families, with the main group representing them demanding that the ceasefire agreement’s implementation be halted until their loved ones are returned," Times of Israel writes.

As for the other two bodies handed over, Hamas has said they are 53-year old Yossi Sharabia and 22-year old military officer Cpt. Daniel Perez. Egypt is said to be assisting in the retrieval of the remaining hostages' remains.

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 20:30

State Department Revokes Visas Of 6 Foreigners Who Cheered Charlie Kirk's Death

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

The State Department has revoked the visas of six foreigners after they publicly celebrated the assassination of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk.

“The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans,” the State Department posted on X on Oct. 14.

“The State Department continues to identify visa holders who celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk.”

The names of those who lost their visas were withheld, but their redacted social media posts were published by the department.

They included a South African national who lost their visa after mocking Americans who grieved Kirk’s death, saying “they’re hurt that the racist rally ended in attempted martyrdom” and said Kirk wouldn’t be remembered as a hero.

Others whose visas were revoked included an Argentinian, a Mexican, a Brazilian, a German, and a Paraguayan.

“Aliens who take advantage of America’s hospitality while celebrating the assassination of our citizens will be removed,” the State Department posted.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced last month he planned to begin the revocation process.

“Visa revocations are under way,” he posted. “If you are here on a visa and cheering on the public assassination of a political figure, prepare to be deported.”

President Donald Trump holds the Presidential Medal of Freedom before presenting it to Erika Kirk as a posthumous honor to her late husband, Charlie Kirk, at the White House on Oct. 14, 2025. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Kirk was shot and killed on Sept. 10 while hosting a debate at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

His widow, Erika Kirk, accepted the Medal of Freedom at the White House for the Turning Point USA founder on Oct. 14. President Donald Trump, a friend of Kirk’s, awarded him the medal posthumously.

The foreign nationals were the latest people to face consequences for posting celebratory or hateful messages following Kirk’s assassination. Companies and school districts across the United States warned employees—from teachers to pilots—that if they posted comments cheering or mocking Kirk’s death they would be fired.

One of the most well-known people fired was MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd who posted a comment the day after Kirk was fatally shot.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced Sept. 13 multiple American Airlines pilots had been immediately grounded and removed from service. Delta Air Lines employees were suspended pending investigation.

U.S. Secret Service agent Anthony Pough was also placed on leave.

In California, 20 public school teachers faced disciplinary measures after posting social media messages about Kirk’s death.

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 20:05

The Demographic Time-Bomb Threatening Your Retirement

Authored by Peter Reagan,

America’s aging population, combined with shrinking birthrates and falling immigration, mean fewer workers fund Social Security. Here’s how this demographic reversal could trigger a retirement meltdown…

Retirement: That dream of living comfortably, traveling where you want, spending time with who you want when you want, enjoying good health, and getting to play like teenagers again during your golden years.

For many people, especially as they’re (we’re?) getting older, a comfortable retirement has become more of the American dream than the traditional American dream of owning your own home in a nice neighborhood with your late model car in the driveway.

Like most things in life that are worth having, though, a comfortable retirement requires forethought and planning, and the start of that planning is to notice…

What is going on with Social Security right now?

For most Americans, any hope of a retirement is completely dependent on Social Security. And, as you probably know, Social Security, as a program, has been struggling for a while now. Investopedia tells us the latest: Full benefits currently projected to end in 2034.

Now, you might be thinking, “Hey, I’m frugal. I can comfortably live with a 19% decrease in what I receive in retirement,” but don’t get too excited, yet.

This estimate from the Social Security Administration (SSA) is, in some ways, a best case scenario.

Why do I say that?

It’s simple, really. To explain that, it’s important to first understand how Social Security works.

Social Security is not “your money”

Many people have the misconception that Social Security is kind of like a giant savings account that we’re all forced to pay into – but that we’ll receive back when we eventually retire.

Except that Social Security has never worked like that.

To make a long story short, via Dave Ramsey:

• “Your” contributions go into the same pot as “my” contributions

• The SSA uses that fund to pay benefits today

• …and, if there’s any left, it goes into the Social Security Trust Fund

There’s no account in anyone’s name. Like a business, the SSA uses its revenue (from our taxes) to pay its obligations to beneficiaries. (That’s the way that it’s worked from the beginning.)

So long as revenues exceed obligations, no worries. But when they don’t? This isn’t speculation, by the way – since 2021, the SSA has been running in the red every year. Paying out more than it collects.

That’s a cause for alarm.

The closer we look, the scarier it gets

So, with current Social Security costs being paid by current worker contributions, the easy fix for the revenue shortfall? More workers. Nobody wants to raise taxes – we just need more people gainfully employed to contribute to the system.

Right?

Sure, that could work, but where are they going to come from?

According to the Census Bureau, the share of childless women is rising dramatically – especially among women aged 20-35.

Now, of course, that, in and of itself, doesn’t cause an immediate problem. Starting a family is a personal decision and responsible people have to do a lot of planning before making this choice.

But fewer children means fewer grow up to be productive citizens – fewer workers paying their contributions to keep the SSA afloat. This is part of a larger demographic challenge, as Forbes recently reported:

Economists have warned that a declining birth rate, and aging population, could spell disaster for the nation’s Social Security program – without enough young, working people to counterbalance the number of Social Security dependents, the existing system isn’t sustainable. 

Population growth doesn’t only come from newborns, though. Historically, immigration has been a major source of new workers. Today?

Billal Rahman and Dan Gooding with Newsweek tell us that’s no longer the case:

After more than half a century of steady growth, the United States is experiencing its first decline in immigrant population since the 1960s… 

In January 2025, a record 53.3 million immigrants lived in the country, accounting for 15.8 percent of the population. But by June, departures and deportations outpaced new arrivals, reducing the immigrant population to 51.9 million, or 15.4 percent of all U.S. residents.

Errors in the data? Sorry, Rahman and Gooding address that, too. Regardless of how we look at it, our population is declining.

And the dwindling number of workers, compared to how many people are receiving Social Security benefits, is a real issue.

Worse, these trends are unlikely to change direction.

So, what is the solution?

Realistically, there are three solutions.

The first solution is to increase the number of workers paying into the system. With declining birthrates, the only way that can happen is for older Americans to delay retirement even further and/or for more immigrants to come into the country to work to pay into the system.

Neither of those ways to prop up the number of workers seems likely to happen anytime soon.

Which leads us to the second “solution,” which isn’t really a solution: increased government borrowing to pay Social Security benefits.

Of course, as we saw during the pandemic panic, massive government borrowing to pay benefits (and make no mistake, this would be massive borrowing, possibly on a scale that we’ve never seen before) causes ugly inflation.

So, in this scenario, the federal government could pay out the Social Security checks at the “full” amount, but the dollar would be devalued through inflation which would have the effect of that “full” payout amount to each Social Security recipient not going nearly as far at the grocery store.

I think that we can agree that would be a disaster.

The third solution? Take your retirement into your own hands and build a hedge both against declining Social Security payouts and against inflation by diversifying into inflation-resistant stores of wealth that hold their value regardless of what is going on in politics or the economy.

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 19:15

Musk's Manhattan Project For xAI Bets Big On 'World Models' That NVidia Says Could Rival 'Global Economy'

Elon Musk's xAI is setting its sights on something that could revolutionize everything from video games to AI-humanoid robots: "world models."

These next-generation artificial intelligence systems promise not just to read about the world but to understand it - to reason about gravity, motion, and cause and effect in a way that large language models never could.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at statistical patterning in text. “World models” aim at something deeper: they learn compact internal representations of how environments evolve over time, so an agent can imagine futures, evaluate them, and choose actions - before touching the real world. Foundational work by David Ha and Jürgen Schmidhuber showed how a learned generative model can compress visual environments and power a lightweight policy; the agent effectively practices inside its own learned simulator, FT reports.

If successful, world models could enable:

• Smarter humanoid robots,

• Fully simulated 3D environments, and

• AI-assisted design tools that blend text, image, and motion understanding.

Nvidia recently told the Financial Times that the potential market for world models could approach the size of the entire global economy, because of how broadly they could be applied.

"What is the opportunity for world foundation models? Essentially . . . $100tn if we can make an intelligence that can understand the physical world and operate in the physical world," said Rev Lebaredian, vice-president of Omniverse and simulation technology at Nvidia.

From Words to Worlds

Unlike current video generation tools - like OpenAI’s Sora, which “generate frames of images for videos by predicting patterns learned from training data” - xAI’s world models aim for a causal understanding of physics and real-time object interaction.

This is the leap from imitation to intuition. A world model doesn’t just replay what it’s seen; it learns the rules that govern reality. That could eventually allow AI systems to plan, experiment, and adapt inside virtual environments - an essential capability for robotics, autonomous vehicles, and perhaps even digital life forms that evolve in simulation.

xAI’s near-term application is interactive 3D game generation, with Musk signaling a “great AI-generated game” on the roadmap. Games are an ideal training ground: rich physics, controllable complexity, abundant feedback loops, and safe failure. At the same time, the industry’s simulation stack is getting serious: Nvidia’s Omniverse and robotics tools let developers create digital twins and physics-accurate training stages for "physical AI." Nvidia is also pushing foundation models for robots (e.g., GR00T/Isaac), arguing that generalist robotics is arriving as data generation and simulation pipelines scale.

These models could allow AI to move from guessing to grasping — predicting not just what should happen next in a sentence, but what will happen next in the real world. Instead of seeing frames of pixels, a world model perceives forces and trajectories, cause and effect - a physics engine for intelligence.

Here's what makes world models different:

• Causality over correlation: Instead of predicting pixels frame-by-frame, the model learns state transitions—how objects and forces evolve—enabling planning rather than mere imitation. (Ha & Schmidhuber; Dreamer; MuZero.)

• Latent imagination: Agents can “practice” billions of steps in their internal simulators, improving data efficiency and safety before touching reality. (Dreamer; DayDreamer.)

• Bridging sim and real: Modern simulation stacks (Omniverse, Isaac) plus learned models create a virtuous cycle—generate diverse scenarios, learn robust policies, transfer to real robots with fewer surprises.

Musk’s Manhattan Project for Reality Simulation

According to the Financial Times, xAI has hired Nvidia specialists Zeeshan Patel and Ethan He, two researchers with experience developing simulation-based AI. Nvidia’s own Omniverse platform has been a testbed for this technology, enabling digital twins of real environments to train both AIs and robots.

 xAI is on a hiring spree. Its listings call for engineers in image and video generation to join an “omni team” focused on “magical AI experiences beyond text.” Salaries range from $180,000 to $440,000, signaling the level of technical expertise the company expects.

It’s even seeking a “video games tutor” — someone who will train Grok to design games and help users “explore AI-assisted game design,” for $45 to $100 an hour.

Musk has teased that xAI will release a “great AI-generated game before the end of next year.”

Not everyone is convinced. Building accurate, scalable world models requires enormous amounts of data — video, robotic telemetry, sensor streams — and collecting it is slow and expensive.

Even within the gaming industry, some see limits. Michael Douse, head of publishing at Baldur’s Gate 3 studio Larian, argued this week that AI can’t fix the industry’s core problem: “leadership [and] vision.” The industry doesn’t need “more mathematically produced, psychologically trained gameplay loops,” he said, “but rather more expressions of worlds that folks are engaged with, or want to engage with.”

Still, Nvidia recently told the Financial Times that the potential market for world models could be almost as large as the global economy itself - an audacious claim that underscores the scale of expectation.

h/t Capital.news

*  *  * Now - get FREE shipping above $500 at ZeroHedge Store!

A few ideas...

Deadly loadout (this + this + this)

Eat like a king loadout (this + this + this)

Prepper loadout (this + this + this + this + this - or go big)

Healthy loadout (3x this + 3x this + 3x this + 3x this + ZH patch) 

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 18:50

RFK Jr. Demands Med Schools Teach Nutrition: "Master The Language Of Prevention"

Authored by Madison Fossa via The College Fix,

Arguing that preventable and chronic diseases can be ratcheted back through diet, nutritional health and lifestyle choices, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has directed medical programs to embed nutrition education into curricula and testing.

“Every future physician should master the language of prevention before they even touch a stethoscope,” he said in announcing the initiative recently.

“In the future, doctors won’t just prescribe drugs, they’ll be able to prescribe diets as well.”

The directive comes as the Department of Health and Human Services works to develop updated U.S. dietary guidelines, expected to be released by December.

The Health Department, along with the Department of Education, has tasked all medical programs across the nation with adding nutrition education into curricula, medical licensing exams, residency requirements, and board certification, according to a news release. 

Kennedy, in a video announcing the development, said poor nutrition takes over one million American lives per year through “diet-related illnesses.” 

He wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that nothing is being done to address this.

“Accrediting bodies and medical organizations look the other way, declining to set clear requirements. We train physicians to wield the latest surgical tools, but not to guide patients on how to stay out of the operating room in the first place,” Kennedy wrote.

A news release announcing the new requirements stated that while “recent Association of American Medical Colleges data shows that all U.S. medical schools claim to cover nutrition, other studies show the majority of medical students report receiving fewer than two hours of instruction.”

“Research published in 2024 documents that 75% of U.S. medical schools have no required clinical nutrition classes, and only 14% of residency programs have a required nutrition curriculum.”

“Future physicians must graduate prepared to prevent disease—by assessing risk, guiding lifestyle change, providing nutritional counseling, educating patients and addressing environmental factors, with nutrition education as the most proven and powerful tool,” Kennedy stated in his op-ed.

Dr. Joe Kosterich, a well-known medical expert, said he believes the effort is a bipartisan one.

He said he agrees that Kennedy has correctly identified the food chain as a significant contributor to ill health. Furthermore, Kosterich said that in his own experience, nutrition is given very little attention in medical school, which he equates to mechanics not knowing what fuel is best for a car. 

Using medical schools as the starting point for a reformation of nutrition education is a good start, according to Kosterich, but added that current doctors should not be neglected either; they need this fundamental knowledge as much as their successors.

Med school representatives at the University of Pennsylvania and UC San Diego did not respond to requests from The College Fix for comment.

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 18:25

'Most Humbling Thing I've Ever Seen': Western Business Leaders 'Terrified' After Touring Chinese Factories

Ford Motor Company CEO Jim Farley and other top business leaders are "terrified" over China’s breakneck technological advancements, warning that the Asian superpower’s innovations could crush American companies if they don’t act fast, according to a stunning report from The Telegraph.

Pictured: ZEEKR’s Intelligent Factory in Ningbo, China. Via The Telegraph

Farley, after touring Chinese factories, was left reeling by the cutting-edge tech packed into their vehicles - including self-driving software and facial recognition systems [zh: yikes] “Their cost and the quality of their vehicles is far superior to what I see in the West,” Farley warned, per The Telegraph.

The Chinese aren’t just outpacing U.S. car companies.

Greg Jackson, head of British energy supplier Octopus, described a jaw-dropping visit to a “dark factory” churning out mobile phones with barely a human in sight. “We visited a dark factory producing some astronomical number of mobile phones,” Jackson told the outlet.

“The process was so heavily automated that there were no workers on the manufacturing side, just a small number who were there to ensure the plant was working. You get this sense of a change, where China’s competitiveness has gone from being about government subsidies and low wages to a tremendous number of highly skilled, educated engineers who are innovating like mad.”

Australian mining billionaire Andrew Forrest scrapped plans to build electric vehicle powertrains after witnessing China’s dominance firsthand. “We are in a global competition with China, and it’s not just EVs. And if we lose this, we do not have a future at Ford,” Forrest told The Telegraph.

Forrest described futuristic factories where robots rise from the floor, assembling trucks with zero human involvement. “I can take you to factories [in China] now, where you’ll basically be alongside a big conveyor and the machines come out of the floor and begin to assemble parts,” the titan said. “And you’re walking alongside this conveyor, and after about 800, 900 metres, a truck drives out. There are no people – everything is robotic.”

The humanoid robotics market could explode into a $5 trillion industry by 2050, driven by supply chains, maintenance, and support networks, with Morgan Stanley analysts predicting a surge in adoption by the late 2030s. Over 1 billion humanoids could be in use by 2050, with 90% in industrial and commercial roles.

Venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, an early OpenAI backer, predicts a robotics breakthrough akin to ChatGPT within two to three years, envisioning robots that can chop vegetables or wash dishes.

China’s Unitree is already dominating, claiming 60% of the global quadruped robot market, leaving American players like Boston Dynamics scrambling to catch up. But there’s hope on the horizon: Tesla’s humanoid bots could give American consumers a fighting chance against China’s robotics juggernaut in the coming years.

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 18:00

Zombie Bioethics And WTF Do They Want With 'Modified' Human Bodies?

Authored by Aaron Kheriaty via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A recent article in MIT Technology Review carries the strange ­title, “Ethically sourced ‘spare’ human bodies could revolutionize medicine.” Three Stanford biologists and ethicists argue for the use of so-called bodyoids in science and medicine. This infelicitous term refers to hypothetical modified human bodies created from stem cells - bodies that have been genetically altered so that they lack brains, and thus, presumably, are without consciousness. The authors acknowledge that we do not yet have the technical capability to create such beings, but recent advances in stem cells, gene editing, and artificial uteruses “provide a pathway to producing living human bodies without the neural components that allow us to think, be aware, or feel pain.”

Strictly speaking, artificial uteruses are not necessary for the development of bodyoids. Such a reprogrammed embryo could ­theoretically be created in a lab and implanted in a woman’s uterus, as is done with IVF. But the notion that an entity regarded as subhuman should be born from a human mother seems too gruesome even for these bioethical pioneers to contemplate.

The authors admit that many will find the prospect of bodyoids disturbing, but they argue that a “potentially unlimited source” of “spare” human bodies will be immensely useful and should be pursued. We could, for example, harvest the organs of these ­presumably nonsentient humans and conduct experiments on them in order to test drugs and other medical interventions. The authors even suggest that it would be more ethical to do drug testing on humans who cannot feel pain, because they lack nervous systems, than on animals that can feel pain. There are other potential benefits for animal species as well, they aver, since we could use animal bodyoids to avoid causing pain and suffering in the cows and pigs we slaughter for food.

Human bodyoids are not entirely within the realm of science fiction. Scientists have recently produced “embryoids,” or “synthetic ­embryos,” from reprogrammed stem cells, without the use of sperm and eggs. Embryoids are living entities that seem to develop as human embryos do but that presumably lack the capacity for full human development. (We do not know for sure that they do, as they are typically destroyed after fourteen days, before the heart and brain have begun to develop.) Just as advocates for embryoids argue that their innovation allows us to avoid the ethical problems associated with embryo-destructive research, so advocates for bodyoids propose to provide us with “ethically sourced ‘spare’ human bodies.”

The Christian ethicist Oliver O’Donovan described “a position too familiar to technological society, that of having achieved something that we do not know how to describe responsibly.” In the case of bodyoids, I submit, advocates do not know how to describe them at all. One can hear them stumbling over their words and fumbling with descriptors.

Bodyoids are human bodies. Or rather, human-like bodies. But not human in any morally relevant sense - they lack brains, after all. But sufficiently human that we can harvest their organs for transplant and conduct experiments on them to see how “real” humans would respond to drugs. Indeed, they are of interest to scientists precisely because they are so, well, so very human. But not really. For the most part.

Well, then, what are human bodyoids? [ZH: Ask the dead guy from Kill Bill]

*   *   *

Long before ethicists began to contemplate living - or at least, undead - human creatures who lack all brain function, such entities were explored in science fiction and horror films. The precise name for such a creature is zombie. The concept has roots in Haitian folklore, where the term is zonbi, referring to a person who has been brought back from the dead through magical means to serve as a mindless slave. The problem with creating zombies, our stories suggest, is that they always come back to bite us. Creating them ­diminishes our humanity.

Are not zombies precisely what advocates of bodyoids want to conjure into existence—a mindless slave, biologically and physiologically human in all relevant ways, that can nevertheless be experimented upon, harvested, and killed with impunity? Indeed, by our current definition of brain death, such an entity cannot actually be killed because it is already dead. In this, too, it resembles a zombie. One can easily imagine a B-movie horror feature titled “Revenge of the Bodyoids.”

The concept of brain death - defined as total cessation of all brain function - arguably paved the way for advocates of the ­creation and exploitation of bodyoids. As the authors of the article point out, “Recently we have even begun ­using for experiments the ‘animated cadavers’ of people who have been declared legally dead, who have lost all brain function but whose other organs continue to function with mechanical assistance.” What are we to make of the term “animated cadaver,” which seems to express a manifest contradiction?

Advocates for the brain-death criterion argue that death is the disintegration of the unified organism, and the brain is responsible for maintaining organismic unity. Liberal bioethicists also argue that, without consciousness, though there may be a living human being, there is no morally or legally relevant “personhood.” But these arguments do not withstand scrutiny. The brain modulates the coordinated activity of the other organs; it does not create that coordinated activity. That is accomplished by the organic formal unity of the body as a whole—which modern science, with its reductionistic analysis of the body into component parts, fails to discern.

Although a brain-dead patient has no functional electrical activity of the brain, the patient continues, with the help of machines, to breathe and to circulate blood. The organs continue functioning and remain fresh for transplant. The body of a brain-dead person on a ventilator maintains homeostasis and ­coordinated unity of functions: The kidneys make urine; the liver makes bile; the immune system fights off infections; wounds heal; hair and fingernails grow; endocrine organs secrete hormones; broken bones ­heal and broken skin repairs; children grow proportionately as they age. Pregnant mothers can even gestate babies after brain death, sometimes for months. Consider the contradictions and manifest absurdities in this headline: “Brain-dead Virginia woman dies after giving birth.”

*   *   *

To all appearances, a patient in this state is not, in fact, dead. Some medical ethicists have therefore—quite sensibly—questioned the validity of “brain death” as a criterion for death. The brain-death criterion was developed by a Harvard Medical School committee in 1968 to free up ICU beds and promote organ ­transplantation—with death itself forming the foundation of the organ-transplant enterprise. For organ transplantation rests upon a paradox, perhaps an outright contradiction: a “dead” donor whose body, with its precious organs, is still living.

After a person is pronounced brain dead, if the family refuses transplantation or if the organs are deemed unsuitable for transplant, the following situations emerge. Once the ventilator is turned off, the patient’s heart may continue beating for several minutes, or even a few hours (especially if the patient is a newborn). Surely we would not send such a “dead” patient to the morgue, cremate her, or bury her while the heart still beats. Should we then give a drug, like potassium chloride, to stop the heart of the supposedly already dead patient? In some cases, we wait a day or two to shut off the machines of a patient who is pronounced brain dead, to allow family to travel and be at the bedside when the ventilator is discontinued and, eventually, the heart stops. Will the family witness the death of the patient, or merely the cessation of efforts to animate an already dead corpse? If the latter, why would family members want to be present for that?

Considering these oddities and absurdities, which stem from the legal fiction that brain death is the death of the person, “total brain failure” is a more accurate term than “brain death.” It indicates an irreversible coma, not a dead body. Perhaps such a person is “better off dead,” as many people assume. Certainly, it is ethically justifiable in such a situation, where meaningful recovery of human functioning is impossible, to discontinue life-extending measures such as ventilators or antibiotics. Even so, such a person is not yet dead.

Indeed, advocates of bodyoids, which would similarly lack all brain function, do not argue that a bodyoid is dead - merely that it is not human. Bodyoids are of interest precisely because they are living and human in all scientifically relevant respects. To their credit, the Stanford authors do mention the following danger: “Perhaps the deepest [ethical] issue is that bodyoids might diminish the human status of real people who lack consciousness or sentience” - such as those in a coma or babies born without a cerebral cortex (a severely disabling condition known as anencephaly).

However, the authors go on to dismiss this concern. They argue that, like bodyoids, a sufficiently detailed mannequin would look much like us; that does not make it human. But nobody is proposing scientific experiments on mannequins, and for good reason. However realistic they might appear, they are not human, and thus, unlike a bodyoid, they have no value for ­science and medicine.

A bodyoid’s value for science and medicine lies precisely in what it would be, which is not a zombie, not a dead person, not a mannequin that mimics the human form. It would be a profoundly disabled human being, designed and created to be profoundly ­disabled—a ­vulnerable human being so ­totally defenseless and voiceless that it could be exploited with ­impunity.

If this is the case, we would endorse this macabre project only if we ourselves had become, so to speak, moral zombies.

Originally published on First Things, reposted from the Brownstone Institute

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 17:40

Note: CR is on vacation, and I will return on October 21st.

In December 2007, most analysts were still dramitically underestimating the probably losses for lenders and financial institutions.

Here is an article from the WSJ quoting a crazy blogger: How High Will Subprime Losses Go?

The global race is on to find the best phrase to describe the housing and credit mess. The U.K.’s Telegraph quotes an economist who says it “could make 1929 look like a walk in the park” if central banks don’t solve the crisis in a matter of weeks.

The report cites the recent prediction from Barclays Capital that losses from the subprime-mortgage meltdown could hit $700 billion. That would top Merrill Lynch’s recent estimate of $500 billion. The Australian newspaper notes that a $700 billion “bloodbath” — potentially leading the U.S. economy into “the blackest year since the Great Depression” — would top the GDPs of all but 15 nations.

Back in the U.S., the Calculated Risk blog sidestepped the colorful language and went straight for the big number: “The losses for the lenders and investors might well be over $1 trillion.”

Many people thought I was crazy. But losses for lenders and financial institutions ended up over $1 Trillion.

And if you look at the post the WSJ referenced, the first paragraph starts: "Within the next couple of years, probably somewhere between 10 million and 20 million U.S. homeowners will owe more on their homes, than their homes are worth."

I was a grizzly bear!

Supreme Court Rejects Alex Jones' Appeal Of $1.4 Billion Defamation Judgment

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 14 rejected radio talk show host Alex Jones’s appeal of a $1.4 billion defamation judgment related to his description of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting as a hoax.

The court denied the petition in Jones v. Lafferty in an unsigned order without comment. No justices dissented.

The Infowars host, who called the large civil judgment “a financial death penalty,” had argued that a judge was wrong to find him financially responsible for defamation and infliction of emotional distress without first conducting a trial regarding the allegations made by relatives of the victims.

The shooting led to the deaths of 20 first graders and six school employees in Newtown, Connecticut.

Jones filed for bankruptcy in 2022.

His attorneys told the Supreme Court that the “plaintiffs have no possible hope of collecting” the full judgment.

In a separate proceeding, Jones is appealing a $49 million judgment in a related defamation lawsuit in Texas. He allegedly failed to hand over documents sought by the parents of a Sandy Hook victim.

In the Connecticut case, the judge entered a default judgment against Jones and his business in 2021 after saying Jones had repeatedly not abided by court rulings ordering him to produce evidence.

In 2022, a jury returned a $964 million verdict against Jones. The judge later added another $473 million in punitive damages against Jones and Free Speech Systems, which is Infowars’s parent company.

In November 2024, the satirical news outlet The Onion was named the winning bidder in an auction to liquidate Infowars’ assets to help pay the defamation judgments.

But the bankruptcy judge threw out the auction results, citing problems with the process and The Onion’s bid.

 

The attempt to sell off Infowars’ assets has moved to a Texas state court in Austin.

Jones is now appealing a recent order from the court that appointed a receiver to liquidate the assets.

Some of Jones’ personal property is also being sold off as part of the bankruptcy case.

*  *  * Now - get FREE shipping above $500 at ZeroHedge Store

A few ideas...

Deadly loadout (this + this + this)

Eat like a king loadout (this + this + this)

Prepper loadout (this + this + this + this + this - or go big)

Healthy loadout (3x this + 3x this + 3x this + 3x this + ZH patch) 

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 16:20

U.S. Government Adds To Bitcoin Reserve With Historic $15 Billion Seizure In Forced Labor Crypto Scam Case

The United States government has taken custody of roughly 127,271 Bitcoin, worth about $15 billion, marking the largest cryptocurrency forfeiture in Department of Justice history. The move effectively adds a massive tranche to the federal government’s strategic Bitcoin reserves following the dismantling of an alleged transnational cyber-fraud empire based in Cambodia.

The seizure stems from a sweeping federal indictment unsealed Tuesday in Brooklyn, charging Chen Zhi, 37, a U.K. and Cambodian national known as Vincent, and chairman of Prince Holding Group, with wire fraud conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy, according to a DOJ press release.

Prosecutors allege Chen and his associates “operated forced-labor scam compounds across Cambodia” that carried out “cryptocurrency investment fraud schemes, known as ‘pig butchering’ scams, that stole billions of dollars from victims in the United States and around the world.”

The DOJ release says that the seized funds—referred to in court documents as the Defendant Cryptocurrency—are now under U.S. government control. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and the Justice Department’s National Security Division also filed today a civil forfeiture complaint against approximately 127,271 Bitcoin … currently worth approximately $15 billion … presently in the custody of the U.S. government,” the department stated.

Attorney General Pamela Bondi called the case “one of the most significant strikes ever against the global scourge of human trafficking and cyber-enabled financial fraud,” emphasizing that the United States will “use every tool at its disposal to defend victims, recover stolen assets, and bring to justice those who exploit the vulnerable for profit.”

According to the indictment, Prince Group’s scam operations trafficked hundreds of workers who were “confined in prison-like compounds and forced to carry out online scams on an industrial scale.” Prosecutors allege the network laundered illicit crypto proceeds using advanced “spraying” and “funneling” techniques to obscure the origins of stolen assets.

Assistant Attorney General John A. Eisenberg described Chen as “the mastermind behind a sprawling cyber-fraud empire operating under the Prince Group umbrella,” adding that the “historic forfeiture, the largest in Department history, reflect[s] our commitment to using every tool at our disposal to ensure such crimes do not pay.”

Chen remains at large. The Department of the Treasury designated Prince Group a transnational criminal organization and announced sanctions against Chen and affiliated entities. The United Kingdom also announced parallel sanctions through its Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.

The FBI New York Joint Asian Criminal Enterprise Task Force, supported by the Bureau’s Virtual Asset Unit, led the investigation. “Today the FBI and partners executed one of the largest financial fraud takedowns in history,” said FBI Director Kash Patel. “This is an individual who allegedly operated a vast criminal network across multiple continents … targeting millions of innocent victims in the process. Justice will be done."

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 14:40

GM Takes $1.6 Billion Hit As It Scales Back EV Operations

General Motors said on Oct. 14 that it will bear a $1.6 billion loss to scale back its electric vehicle (EV) operations, citing weaker expected demand following recent U.S. policy changes that ended federal EV tax credits and loosened emissions rules.

The Detroit-based automaker said its Audit Committee approved the loss on Oct. 7, covering the three months ended Sept. 30.

The company noted that the loss is part of its plan to realign EV production and factory operations to better match customer demand.

The decision was made after the expiration of the $7,500 federal EV tax credit on Sept. 30, part of a broader policy rollback under President Trump.

The credit, officially started under the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, revised under The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and expanded under former President Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, had been a key driver of EV sales in the United States. Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, which set Sept. 30 as the final date for receiving EV purchase credits, effectively terminating the benefit.

“Following recent U.S. government policy changes, including the termination of certain consumer tax incentives for EV purchases and the reduction in the stringency of emissions regulations, we expect the adoption rate of EVs to slow,” GM said in a filing.

GM shares fell 2.5% in premarket trading, but have rebounded since as the broad market recovered...

As Evgenia Filimianova details below for The Epoch Times, according to the filing, $1.2 billion of the loss is related to non-cash impairments, mostly write-downs of EV assets.

The remaining $400 million will be paid in cash for contract cancellations and commercial settlements tied to EV investments.

The company said its review of EV manufacturing and battery component investments is ongoing.

“It is reasonably possible that we will recognize additional future material cash and non-cash charges that may adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows in the period in which they are recognized,” GM added.

GM noted that the costs, along with several smaller ones this quarter, will be recorded as adjustments in its non-GAAP results, which exclude one-time items from the company’s official earnings reported under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

The automaker also said its EV realignment will not affect current Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac electric models, which “remain available to consumers.”

The all-electric F-150 Lightning from Ford is displayed at the Los Angeles Auto Show in Los Angeles on November 18, 2021. Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

Industry Changes

GM had previously pledged to invest up to $35 billion in electric and autonomous vehicles through 2025, aiming to transition most of its portfolio to zero-emission models later in the decade.

However, slower-than-expected consumer adoption, high production costs, and uncertain government policy have made that goal more difficult to achieve.

GM joins other automakers reassessing the EV market, including rival Ford Motor Co. Last year, Ford said it would take a $1.9 billion hit from plans that included canceling an all-electric SUV and delaying an electric pickup truck.

Despite the planned cutbacks, GM said this month that its overall sales remain strong. The automaker reported total U.S. vehicle sales of 2.2 million through the first three quarters of 2025, its fastest pace in a decade.

GM said the Chevrolet Equinox EV was the best-selling electric model outside Tesla, while its Cadillac Lyriq, Optiq, and Vistiq models all ranked among the top 10 in U.S. EV sales.

Analysts have said that the end of the federal EV tax credit “will test whether the electric vehicle market is mature enough to thrive on its own fundamentals or still needs support to expand further.”

In a Sept. 2 report, Duncan Aldred, GM’s North America president, said the company expects lower EV sales next quarter after the tax credits end on Sept. 30. He added that it may take a few months for the market to steady.

“Still, we believe GM can continue to grow EV market share,” he wrote. “We are seeing marginal competitors dramatically scale back their products and plans, which should end much of the overproduction and irrational discounts we’ve seen in the marketplace.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/14/2025 - 14:00