Costco Sues For Refunds Before Supreme Court Rules On Tariff Legality

Authored by Rob Sabo via The Epoch Times,

Retail giant Costco Wholesale Corporation filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government on Nov. 28 in an effort to lay the groundwork for refunds of tariffs collected since President Donald Trump enacted global tariff policies under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The complaint filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan argued that the president’s invocation of the act beginning in February illegally imposed tariffs on goods imported from Mexico, Canada, and China. Trump has said that tariffs were justified as a matter of national emergency because of the amount of fentanyl making its way into the United States from those countries, and that the global levies are a necessary tool to negotiate trade deals that level the playing field between the United States and key global trade partners.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Trump’s authorization to invoke the IEEPA in early November. The issue has been fast-tracked, but the justices have not announced when they intend to make a ruling. Costco’s complaint requests a complete refund of duties it has already paid if the Supreme Court decides that the tariffs are unlawful.

Additionally, Costco is seeking “an injunction preventing Defendants from imposing further duties on it under the executive orders challenged in this lawsuit; and full refund from Defendants of all IEEPA duties Plaintiff has already paid to the United States as a result of the executive orders challenged in this lawsuit, as well as those it will continue to pay,” its lawyers wrote.

The complaint was filed after Costco was denied a request for additional time to finalize its tariff calculations assessed on imported goods. That decision could impact the company’s ability to collect a refund in full if the tariffs are invalidated, the company’s lawyers argue.

The lawsuit does not say how much Costco has paid in tariffs; however, revenue from tariffs has soared throughout the year. For fiscal year 2025, the federal government collected nearly $196 billion in duties, taxes, and fees—a 122 percent increase from the prior fiscal year.

On Aug. 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a 7-4 decision that Trump’s global tariff policies were illegal, sending the case to the nation’s highest court. The tariffs remain in place while the justices consider the case.

More than a dozen states have sued the Trump Administration over the president’s tariff policies. In April, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont filed suit against the president, arguing that only Congress has the power to enact tariff policies. California filed a similar suit.

The states join a growing list of companies that have filed similar suits, including Revlon Consumer Products LLC, Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corporation, Bumble Bee, Yokohama Tire, and EssilorLuxottica.

Costco did not immediately respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times.

Kush Desai, White House spokesperson, said in a statement sent to The Epoch Times: “The economic consequences of the failure to uphold President Trump’s lawful tariffs are enormous and this suit highlights that fact.

“The White House looks forward to the Supreme Court’s speedy and proper resolution of this matter.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 08:40

Costco Sues For Refunds Before Supreme Court Rules On Tariff Legality

Authored by Rob Sabo via The Epoch Times,

Retail giant Costco Wholesale Corporation filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government on Nov. 28 in an effort to lay the groundwork for refunds of tariffs collected since President Donald Trump enacted global tariff policies under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The complaint filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan argued that the president’s invocation of the act beginning in February illegally imposed tariffs on goods imported from Mexico, Canada, and China. Trump has said that tariffs were justified as a matter of national emergency because of the amount of fentanyl making its way into the United States from those countries, and that the global levies are a necessary tool to negotiate trade deals that level the playing field between the United States and key global trade partners.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Trump’s authorization to invoke the IEEPA in early November. The issue has been fast-tracked, but the justices have not announced when they intend to make a ruling. Costco’s complaint requests a complete refund of duties it has already paid if the Supreme Court decides that the tariffs are unlawful.

Additionally, Costco is seeking “an injunction preventing Defendants from imposing further duties on it under the executive orders challenged in this lawsuit; and full refund from Defendants of all IEEPA duties Plaintiff has already paid to the United States as a result of the executive orders challenged in this lawsuit, as well as those it will continue to pay,” its lawyers wrote.

The complaint was filed after Costco was denied a request for additional time to finalize its tariff calculations assessed on imported goods. That decision could impact the company’s ability to collect a refund in full if the tariffs are invalidated, the company’s lawyers argue.

The lawsuit does not say how much Costco has paid in tariffs; however, revenue from tariffs has soared throughout the year. For fiscal year 2025, the federal government collected nearly $196 billion in duties, taxes, and fees—a 122 percent increase from the prior fiscal year.

On Aug. 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a 7-4 decision that Trump’s global tariff policies were illegal, sending the case to the nation’s highest court. The tariffs remain in place while the justices consider the case.

More than a dozen states have sued the Trump Administration over the president’s tariff policies. In April, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont filed suit against the president, arguing that only Congress has the power to enact tariff policies. California filed a similar suit.

The states join a growing list of companies that have filed similar suits, including Revlon Consumer Products LLC, Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corporation, Bumble Bee, Yokohama Tire, and EssilorLuxottica.

Costco did not immediately respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times.

Kush Desai, White House spokesperson, said in a statement sent to The Epoch Times: “The economic consequences of the failure to uphold President Trump’s lawful tariffs are enormous and this suit highlights that fact.

“The White House looks forward to the Supreme Court’s speedy and proper resolution of this matter.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 08:40

Today, in the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter: Final Look at Housing Markets in October and a Look Ahead to November Sales

A brief excerpt:

After the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) releases the monthly existing home sales report, I pick up additional local market data that is reported after the NAR. This is the final look at local markets in October.

There were several key stories for October:

• Sales NSA are essentially unchanged YoY through October, and sales last year were the lowest since 1995! And the YoY comparisons for November and December will be more difficult.

• Sales SAAR (seasonally adjusted annual rate) have bounced around 4 million for the last 3 years.

• Months-of-supply is above pre-pandemic levels.

• The median price is up 2.1% YoY, and with the increases in inventory, some regional areas will see further price declines - and we might see national price declines later this year (or in 2026).

Sales at 4.10 million on a Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate (SAAR) basis were at the consensus estimate.

Sales averaged close to 5.38 million SAAR for the month of October in the 2017-2019 period. So, sales are about 24% below pre-pandemic levels.
...
In October, sales in these markets were up 2.4% YoY. Last month, in September, these same markets were up 7.7% year-over-year Not Seasonally Adjusted (NSA). The NAR reported sales were up 2.9% YoY NSA, so this sample is close.

Important: There were the same number of working days in October 2025 (22) as in October 2024 (22). So, the year-over-year change in the headline SA data was similar to the change in NSA data (there are other seasonal factors).
...
More local data coming in December for activity in November!

There is much more in the article.

<

Copper Hits Record High; Goldman Warns A "Circular Melt-Up" Is Now Driving Global Market

Copper futures on the London Metal Exchange broke out of the post-Thanksgiving trading range and into record-high territory on a massive tariff-driven scramble for supply.

Copper jumped nearly 1% on the LME to $11,294.50/ton, while Comex futures surged 1.6%, blowing out the US-London spread as traders scramble to rush metal into the U.S. ahead of potential Trump-era import tariffs.

The arbitrage continues to pull supply from the rest of the world into the U.S., compounding a year already plagued with unexpected mine outages and tightening fears.

Goldman's commodity specialist, James McGeoch, commented on this dynamic, calling it a "circular melt-up":

Post Thanksgiving – breakout in Copper: Have been watching LME, that $11,100 level, now 3 times, it's felt like a coiled spring, we have seen it in precious this year (Gold, Silver, PGM's), so why not pivot to the Doctor. As we do just remember commodities are highly emotive, basis the touch point at all levels of life, they rarely move in linear fashion, overreact up and overreact down, look at the awakening in Rare Earths in 2025. Whilst the CESCO feedback from a bottom-up perspective was kinda meh (China -8% QTD, y/y, worth noting YTD +7% y/y to end Oct), it's the balances that matter. This wasn't a conference about mine supply, or Chinese Q4 demand, this was dominated by the traders and the desire to purchase and ship into the Comex (U.S.) arb. GS commods sales were on the ground (feedback link), outside China they note EUR demand <2019 and they suggest positioning is 5/10….

I liken this to a "circular melt-up." The tighter LME gets tighter basis US (CMX arb) pull, the stronger the LME backwardation, which in turn tightens the CMX arb as the forward curve is underpinned by stock builds….. Circular motion – LME stock contraction, CMX arb strengthens…. Those watching supply have for some time been looking at 1H26: Grasberg tightness, Kakalua stockpiles rundown, Codelco friction, Collahuasi weakness, QB sustains lower rates. China smelter utilisation rates at record lows, copper premiums at record highs, TC settlement structures are breaking… there is nothing the Chinese can do about it, and in the meantime the U.S. is sitting whistling Dixie as stocks get onshored, it's a strategic stockpile, basis the "threat" of tariffs, that they so desperately need and the traders are providing the balance sheet. Who would have thought 12 months ago that the U.S. would be the only game in town when it comes to copper. By luck or by design, Uncle Sam holds all the aces…. I think last week's move was the hangover of CESCO washing off and traders realising that near term the asymmetry is higher. … Colleagues gone reminded us daily, commodities are spot assets, they are not traded in Excel models, they are art as much as science. Go back to summer, the same traders that owned CMX at 500, sold it at 550/575, the guys that got slammed as the unwind happened were machines. It's these same buyers today stepping in.

Year-to-date, copper is up 30% on the LME as investors pile in - both on the lucrative U.S. arbitrage trade that is fueling shortages elsewhere, and on long-term structural demand from the "Next AI Trade" and major power-grid buildouts.

Commenting on copper markets, super-bull Kostas Bintas of Mercuria told Bloomberg that the U.S. tariff arbitrage is draining global inventories and is about to ignite another leg higher in prices.

"This is the big one," Bintas told the media outlet in an interview during an industry conference in Shanghai. "If the world keeps going like this we will be left without copper cathodes in the rest of the world."

Bintas continued, "Just looking at the facts, mathematically… What is going to happen if all of this continues? There's only one answer: there will be tightness and a higher price."

Last March, Bintas forecasted that copper prices could reach $12,000 or $13,000 a ton, driven by U.S. import drawdowns.

"China is, for now at least, not the marginal buyer," said Nick Snowdon, Mercuria's head of metals and mining research. "That role has now shifted to the US."

Bintas noted, "If we run to $12,000 or $15,000 or whatever it is, the SHFE will take time to catch up. You're going to see a lot of Chinese copper cathodes coming out. And then when the Chinese will come back from Chinese New Year, there will not be enough copper cathodes." He said more than half a million tons could arrive in the U.S. in the first quarter of 2026.

Related:

• Goldman: $10,000 Is New Price Floor For Copper

Earlier this year, Jeff Currie, who led commodities research at Goldman for nearly three decades and now serves as the chief strategy officer of the energy pathways team at Carlyle Group, told Bloomberg's Odd Lots that copper is the "most compelling trade I've seen in my 30-year trading career."

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 08:20

Copper Hits Record High; Goldman Warns A "Circular Melt-Up" Is Now Driving Global Market

Copper futures on the London Metal Exchange broke out of the post-Thanksgiving trading range and into record-high territory on a massive tariff-driven scramble for supply.

Copper jumped nearly 1% on the LME to $11,294.50/ton, while Comex futures surged 1.6%, blowing out the US-London spread as traders scramble to rush metal into the U.S. ahead of potential Trump-era import tariffs.

The arbitrage continues to pull supply from the rest of the world into the U.S., compounding a year already plagued with unexpected mine outages and tightening fears.

Goldman's commodity specialist, James McGeoch, commented on this dynamic, calling it a "circular melt-up":

Post Thanksgiving – breakout in Copper: Have been watching LME, that $11,100 level, now 3 times, it's felt like a coiled spring, we have seen it in precious this year (Gold, Silver, PGM's), so why not pivot to the Doctor. As we do just remember commodities are highly emotive, basis the touch point at all levels of life, they rarely move in linear fashion, overreact up and overreact down, look at the awakening in Rare Earths in 2025. Whilst the CESCO feedback from a bottom-up perspective was kinda meh (China -8% QTD, y/y, worth noting YTD +7% y/y to end Oct), it's the balances that matter. This wasn't a conference about mine supply, or Chinese Q4 demand, this was dominated by the traders and the desire to purchase and ship into the Comex (U.S.) arb. GS commods sales were on the ground (feedback link), outside China they note EUR demand <2019 and they suggest positioning is 5/10….

I liken this to a "circular melt-up." The tighter LME gets tighter basis US (CMX arb) pull, the stronger the LME backwardation, which in turn tightens the CMX arb as the forward curve is underpinned by stock builds….. Circular motion – LME stock contraction, CMX arb strengthens…. Those watching supply have for some time been looking at 1H26: Grasberg tightness, Kakalua stockpiles rundown, Codelco friction, Collahuasi weakness, QB sustains lower rates. China smelter utilisation rates at record lows, copper premiums at record highs, TC settlement structures are breaking… there is nothing the Chinese can do about it, and in the meantime the U.S. is sitting whistling Dixie as stocks get onshored, it's a strategic stockpile, basis the "threat" of tariffs, that they so desperately need and the traders are providing the balance sheet. Who would have thought 12 months ago that the U.S. would be the only game in town when it comes to copper. By luck or by design, Uncle Sam holds all the aces…. I think last week's move was the hangover of CESCO washing off and traders realising that near term the asymmetry is higher. … Colleagues gone reminded us daily, commodities are spot assets, they are not traded in Excel models, they are art as much as science. Go back to summer, the same traders that owned CMX at 500, sold it at 550/575, the guys that got slammed as the unwind happened were machines. It's these same buyers today stepping in.

Year-to-date, copper is up 30% on the LME as investors pile in - both on the lucrative U.S. arbitrage trade that is fueling shortages elsewhere, and on long-term structural demand from the "Next AI Trade" and major power-grid buildouts.

Commenting on copper markets, super-bull Kostas Bintas of Mercuria told Bloomberg that the U.S. tariff arbitrage is draining global inventories and is about to ignite another leg higher in prices.

"This is the big one," Bintas told the media outlet in an interview during an industry conference in Shanghai. "If the world keeps going like this we will be left without copper cathodes in the rest of the world."

Bintas continued, "Just looking at the facts, mathematically… What is going to happen if all of this continues? There's only one answer: there will be tightness and a higher price."

Last March, Bintas forecasted that copper prices could reach $12,000 or $13,000 a ton, driven by U.S. import drawdowns.

"China is, for now at least, not the marginal buyer," said Nick Snowdon, Mercuria's head of metals and mining research. "That role has now shifted to the US."

Bintas noted, "If we run to $12,000 or $15,000 or whatever it is, the SHFE will take time to catch up. You're going to see a lot of Chinese copper cathodes coming out. And then when the Chinese will come back from Chinese New Year, there will not be enough copper cathodes." He said more than half a million tons could arrive in the U.S. in the first quarter of 2026.

Related:

• Goldman: $10,000 Is New Price Floor For Copper

Earlier this year, Jeff Currie, who led commodities research at Goldman for nearly three decades and now serves as the chief strategy officer of the energy pathways team at Carlyle Group, told Bloomberg's Odd Lots that copper is the "most compelling trade I've seen in my 30-year trading career."

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 08:20

The US Manufacturing Sector Wins While Net Zero Destroys Industry Elsewhere

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The US manufacturing sector clearly outperforms all its G7 peers, especially Germany, France, and the UK.

The main reason is that the United States never implemented the aggressive net zero emissions policy that has destroyed the industry by giving the reins of industrial policy to activists. In the latest S&P Global/HCOB PMI readings, the United States manufacturing sector is clearly expanding, while the UK is only slightly expanding, and Germany and France remain in contraction after years of decline.

The US also shows much stronger momentum in new orders and has better pricing power, margins, and investment plans than its European peers. Furthermore, the US has reduced CO₂ emissions and protected the environment without destroying its industrial fabric.​ According to the EIA, the United States has reduced its GHG/energy‑related CO₂ by 18% between 2010 and 2024, while the European Union is at a similar level, reducing emissions by 18–22%.

The latest flash S&P Global US Manufacturing PMI stands at 51.9 for November 2025, marking the tenth expansion reading in the past eleven months. On the other hand, Germany’s Manufacturing PMI has fallen back to 48.4, while France remains below 50, signalling a contraction and indicating disastrous manufacturing performance in the past three years. The UK has only just edged back to 50.2, barely into growth after months of contraction. There is a clear structural difference: the US is in a continued, broad-based expansion phase, while the euro area’s industry remains stuck in stagnation, and the UK has stabilised after years of a negative trend.

New orders show the trend in a clear way. In the US survey, new orders are in positive territory, supporting output and employment. In Germany, new orders are falling again, with reports of a sharp decline in export demand and renewed drops in backlogs and jobs, and France’s manufacturers continue to report falling new business after more than three years of demand weakness, according to SP Global. The UK is seeing some modest improvement in domestic orders but still faces a drag from exports, whereas US factories benefit from a large internal market and reshoring‑related demand that is largely absent in the European Union.

If we analyse prices, the US manufacturing sector is in a much better position to defend its margins. The S&P Global US survey shows a moderate input cost increase, stable margins and no negative impact on demand. In Germany and France, the PMI reports describe a context where manufacturers face weaker pricing power, with output prices often under pressure and a fragile demand environment. It is undeniable that there is evidence of a profitability and cash‑flow advantage for US manufacturers.

European business surveys and experts frequently highlight that high energy prices, complicated regulations, and climate-related policies are hurting orders, investments, and pricing, while US producers benefit from lower energy costs and more flexible regulations. Thus, US manufacturers can maintain investment and job creation plans despite slower global growth, whereas most German, UK and French firms are trying to survive in an environment of rising regulatory and tax burdens, focusing on cost cuts and capacity control.

Europe’s approach to net zero has clearly damaged the competitiveness of its energy‑intensive industries. The combination of carbon pricing, a hidden tax with no discernible positive final impact, renewable‑support surcharges, increasing regulated costs in electricity bills, and increasingly stringent wrongly called environmental restrictions are raising operating expenses for manufacturers that already face higher baseline energy prices than their US counterparts. Germany’s chemical, metal, and glass sectors are often highlighted as examples of industries whose margins and investment plans have been damaged by expensive electricity and gas, aggravated by climate-related surcharges, and the rapid phase-out of nuclear and conventional generation.

In France, industrial firms have benefited from nuclear power and face lower energy costs than their German or UK competitors, but they still suffer from high network charges, environmental taxes, and regulatory uncertainty related to future climate policy, all of which weigh on long-term investment decisions. UK think tanks and strategy firms point out the same points, stressing that carbon prices, green levies, and planning barriers have made energy costs structurally higher than in the US, pushing some producers to relocate or scale back capacity. Across the three countries, leading business groups warn that accelerated decarbonisation timetables, combined with insufficient support for industrial transformation, have widened the gap in input costs, making some multinationals shift incremental investments to North America or other regions, according to PWC studies. ​

The net zero‑related burdens are direct causes of a weak PMI picture. When demand is weak and new orders are falling, as in Germany and France, higher regulatory and energy costs cannot be offset by higher selling prices, so firms respond by cutting investments, reducing capacity, and, in some cases, closing plants. In the UK, climate‑policy‑related costs and uncertainty add another layer of concern. The US has followed a tax-cut-driven approach to energy transition without destroying cheap alternatives, which helps PMI readings and explains stronger investment intentions than in Europe.

In the US, firms have announced ongoing investment increases related to reshoring, supply chain diversification and technology. In Germany and France, repeated references to prolonged downturns in new orders mean weaker investment plans, delays in large projects and a continued focus on efficiency rather than expansion.

US firms invest in capacity and drive productivity‑enhancing spending in digitalisation and robotics, supported by a combination of fiscal incentives, more competitive energy costs and a clearer policy environment for industrial decarbonisation, according to PWC.

The US manufacturing sector is “clearly winning” relative to Germany, France and the UK on all fronts: volume, pricing, technology, and future capacity. The US has focused its industrial policy in leaders of alternatives and proactive improvement, rather than giving all the power to ideologically motivated activists obsessed with regulation, limits, and taxes.

Unfortunately, nothing seems to be changing. Europe and the UK seemed to be handing the future of industry, automation and manufacturing investment to China and other nations under a misguided view of environmental protection based on “not in my backyard”, while other countries grow and improve their environmental protection measures without abandoning key strategic sectors.

The US manufacturing sector is winning because its future was not left in the hands of PowerPoint activist politicians. This is a warning for Americans: if you copy Germany, France or the UK, you will face the stagnation and decline they are suffering.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 08:05

The US Manufacturing Sector Wins While Net Zero Destroys Industry Elsewhere

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The US manufacturing sector clearly outperforms all its G7 peers, especially Germany, France, and the UK.

The main reason is that the United States never implemented the aggressive net zero emissions policy that has destroyed the industry by giving the reins of industrial policy to activists. In the latest S&P Global/HCOB PMI readings, the United States manufacturing sector is clearly expanding, while the UK is only slightly expanding, and Germany and France remain in contraction after years of decline.

The US also shows much stronger momentum in new orders and has better pricing power, margins, and investment plans than its European peers. Furthermore, the US has reduced CO₂ emissions and protected the environment without destroying its industrial fabric.​ According to the EIA, the United States has reduced its GHG/energy‑related CO₂ by 18% between 2010 and 2024, while the European Union is at a similar level, reducing emissions by 18–22%.

The latest flash S&P Global US Manufacturing PMI stands at 51.9 for November 2025, marking the tenth expansion reading in the past eleven months. On the other hand, Germany’s Manufacturing PMI has fallen back to 48.4, while France remains below 50, signalling a contraction and indicating disastrous manufacturing performance in the past three years. The UK has only just edged back to 50.2, barely into growth after months of contraction. There is a clear structural difference: the US is in a continued, broad-based expansion phase, while the euro area’s industry remains stuck in stagnation, and the UK has stabilised after years of a negative trend.

New orders show the trend in a clear way. In the US survey, new orders are in positive territory, supporting output and employment. In Germany, new orders are falling again, with reports of a sharp decline in export demand and renewed drops in backlogs and jobs, and France’s manufacturers continue to report falling new business after more than three years of demand weakness, according to SP Global. The UK is seeing some modest improvement in domestic orders but still faces a drag from exports, whereas US factories benefit from a large internal market and reshoring‑related demand that is largely absent in the European Union.

If we analyse prices, the US manufacturing sector is in a much better position to defend its margins. The S&P Global US survey shows a moderate input cost increase, stable margins and no negative impact on demand. In Germany and France, the PMI reports describe a context where manufacturers face weaker pricing power, with output prices often under pressure and a fragile demand environment. It is undeniable that there is evidence of a profitability and cash‑flow advantage for US manufacturers.

European business surveys and experts frequently highlight that high energy prices, complicated regulations, and climate-related policies are hurting orders, investments, and pricing, while US producers benefit from lower energy costs and more flexible regulations. Thus, US manufacturers can maintain investment and job creation plans despite slower global growth, whereas most German, UK and French firms are trying to survive in an environment of rising regulatory and tax burdens, focusing on cost cuts and capacity control.

Europe’s approach to net zero has clearly damaged the competitiveness of its energy‑intensive industries. The combination of carbon pricing, a hidden tax with no discernible positive final impact, renewable‑support surcharges, increasing regulated costs in electricity bills, and increasingly stringent wrongly called environmental restrictions are raising operating expenses for manufacturers that already face higher baseline energy prices than their US counterparts. Germany’s chemical, metal, and glass sectors are often highlighted as examples of industries whose margins and investment plans have been damaged by expensive electricity and gas, aggravated by climate-related surcharges, and the rapid phase-out of nuclear and conventional generation.

In France, industrial firms have benefited from nuclear power and face lower energy costs than their German or UK competitors, but they still suffer from high network charges, environmental taxes, and regulatory uncertainty related to future climate policy, all of which weigh on long-term investment decisions. UK think tanks and strategy firms point out the same points, stressing that carbon prices, green levies, and planning barriers have made energy costs structurally higher than in the US, pushing some producers to relocate or scale back capacity. Across the three countries, leading business groups warn that accelerated decarbonisation timetables, combined with insufficient support for industrial transformation, have widened the gap in input costs, making some multinationals shift incremental investments to North America or other regions, according to PWC studies. ​

The net zero‑related burdens are direct causes of a weak PMI picture. When demand is weak and new orders are falling, as in Germany and France, higher regulatory and energy costs cannot be offset by higher selling prices, so firms respond by cutting investments, reducing capacity, and, in some cases, closing plants. In the UK, climate‑policy‑related costs and uncertainty add another layer of concern. The US has followed a tax-cut-driven approach to energy transition without destroying cheap alternatives, which helps PMI readings and explains stronger investment intentions than in Europe.

In the US, firms have announced ongoing investment increases related to reshoring, supply chain diversification and technology. In Germany and France, repeated references to prolonged downturns in new orders mean weaker investment plans, delays in large projects and a continued focus on efficiency rather than expansion.

US firms invest in capacity and drive productivity‑enhancing spending in digitalisation and robotics, supported by a combination of fiscal incentives, more competitive energy costs and a clearer policy environment for industrial decarbonisation, according to PWC.

The US manufacturing sector is “clearly winning” relative to Germany, France and the UK on all fronts: volume, pricing, technology, and future capacity. The US has focused its industrial policy in leaders of alternatives and proactive improvement, rather than giving all the power to ideologically motivated activists obsessed with regulation, limits, and taxes.

Unfortunately, nothing seems to be changing. Europe and the UK seemed to be handing the future of industry, automation and manufacturing investment to China and other nations under a misguided view of environmental protection based on “not in my backyard”, while other countries grow and improve their environmental protection measures without abandoning key strategic sectors.

The US manufacturing sector is winning because its future was not left in the hands of PowerPoint activist politicians. This is a warning for Americans: if you copy Germany, France or the UK, you will face the stagnation and decline they are suffering.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 08:05

Three Years On, How Accurate Are AI Chatbots?

Three years ago, on November 30, 2022, the official release of ChatGPT marked a turning point in artificial intelligence, propelling AI chatbots (or large language models) into the mainstream.

Since then, progress has been undeniable: LLMs' ability to process complex queries, summarize vast amounts of information and even assist in coding has improved considerably.

Yet, as Statista's Tristan Gaudiat details below, hallucinations, misinterpretations of context and inaccuracies continue to plague even the most sophisticated of currently available models.

A study from the European Broadcasting Union and the BBC reveals that while the rate of inaccurate responses has declined since the end of last year, errors continue to be widespread.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Data collected between May and June 2025 and analyzed by a cohort of journalists revealed that almost half of the responses (48 percent) from popular chatbots - free versions of ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot and Perplexity - contained accuracy issues.

17 percent were significant errors, mainly regarding sourcing and missing context.

In December 2024, the rate of inaccurate responses (observed using a smaller answers sample) was significantly higher: 72 percent for all four LLMs. 31 percent were major issues in that case.

Despite gradual improvements, these shortcomings raise critical questions about reliability, especially in high-stakes applications like healthcare, legal advice or education. While AI developers keep pushing boundaries, users must remain aware of the technology's current limitations.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 07:45

Three Years On, How Accurate Are AI Chatbots?

Three years ago, on November 30, 2022, the official release of ChatGPT marked a turning point in artificial intelligence, propelling AI chatbots (or large language models) into the mainstream.

Since then, progress has been undeniable: LLMs' ability to process complex queries, summarize vast amounts of information and even assist in coding has improved considerably.

Yet, as Statista's Tristan Gaudiat details below, hallucinations, misinterpretations of context and inaccuracies continue to plague even the most sophisticated of currently available models.

A study from the European Broadcasting Union and the BBC reveals that while the rate of inaccurate responses has declined since the end of last year, errors continue to be widespread.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Data collected between May and June 2025 and analyzed by a cohort of journalists revealed that almost half of the responses (48 percent) from popular chatbots - free versions of ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot and Perplexity - contained accuracy issues.

17 percent were significant errors, mainly regarding sourcing and missing context.

In December 2024, the rate of inaccurate responses (observed using a smaller answers sample) was significantly higher: 72 percent for all four LLMs. 31 percent were major issues in that case.

Despite gradual improvements, these shortcomings raise critical questions about reliability, especially in high-stakes applications like healthcare, legal advice or education. While AI developers keep pushing boundaries, users must remain aware of the technology's current limitations.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 07:45

Tether CEO Slams S&P Ratings Agency And Influencers Spreading USDt FUD

Authored by Vince Quill via CoinTelegraph.com,

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino and market analysts pushed back against S&P Global’s downgraded rating of USDt’s ability to maintain its US dollar peg, saying that the ratings agency did not account for all of Tether’s assets and revenues.

The Tether Group’s total assets at the end of Q3 2025 totaled about $215 billion, while its total stablecoin liabilities were about $184.5 billion, according to Ardoino, who referenced Tether’s Q3 attestation report. He added:

“Tether had, at the end of Q3 2025, about $7 billion in excess equity, on top of the about $184.5 billion in stablecoin reserves, plus about another $23 billion in retained earnings as part of our Tether Group equity. 

"S&P made the same mistake of not considering the additional Group Equity, nor the roughly $500 million in monthly base profits generated by US Treasury yields alone,” Ardoino continued.

Source: Paolo Ardoino

S&P Global downgraded USDt’s dollar-peg rating to “weak”  on Wednesday, the lowest score on its scale, prompting fear, uncertainty, and doubt from some analysts about the company, which has become a critical piece of crypto market infrastructure.

Analysts debate Tether’s balance sheet fundamentals

Arthur Hayes, a market analyst and founder of the BitMEX crypto exchange, speculated that Tether is buying large quantities of gold and BTC to compensate for income shortfalls produced by falling US Treasury yields.

As the Federal Reserve slashes interest rates, the gold and BTC should go up in value, Hayes said, but he also warned that a steep correction in these assets could spell trouble for Tether.

“A roughly 30% decline in the gold and BTC position would wipe out their equity, and then USDt would be, in theory, insolvent,” he said.

Source: Arthur Hayes

Joseph Ayoub, the former lead digital asset analyst at financial services giant Citi, said he spent “hundreds” of hours researching Tether as an analyst for the company, and rebuffed Hayes’ analysis.

Tether has excess assets beyond what it reports, has an extremely lucrative business that generates billions of dollars in interest income with only 150 employees, and is better collateralized than traditional banks, Ayoub said. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 07:20

Tether CEO Slams S&P Ratings Agency And Influencers Spreading USDt FUD

Authored by Vince Quill via CoinTelegraph.com,

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino and market analysts pushed back against S&P Global’s downgraded rating of USDt’s ability to maintain its US dollar peg, saying that the ratings agency did not account for all of Tether’s assets and revenues.

The Tether Group’s total assets at the end of Q3 2025 totaled about $215 billion, while its total stablecoin liabilities were about $184.5 billion, according to Ardoino, who referenced Tether’s Q3 attestation report. He added:

“Tether had, at the end of Q3 2025, about $7 billion in excess equity, on top of the about $184.5 billion in stablecoin reserves, plus about another $23 billion in retained earnings as part of our Tether Group equity. 

"S&P made the same mistake of not considering the additional Group Equity, nor the roughly $500 million in monthly base profits generated by US Treasury yields alone,” Ardoino continued.

Source: Paolo Ardoino

S&P Global downgraded USDt’s dollar-peg rating to “weak”  on Wednesday, the lowest score on its scale, prompting fear, uncertainty, and doubt from some analysts about the company, which has become a critical piece of crypto market infrastructure.

Analysts debate Tether’s balance sheet fundamentals

Arthur Hayes, a market analyst and founder of the BitMEX crypto exchange, speculated that Tether is buying large quantities of gold and BTC to compensate for income shortfalls produced by falling US Treasury yields.

As the Federal Reserve slashes interest rates, the gold and BTC should go up in value, Hayes said, but he also warned that a steep correction in these assets could spell trouble for Tether.

“A roughly 30% decline in the gold and BTC position would wipe out their equity, and then USDt would be, in theory, insolvent,” he said.

Source: Arthur Hayes

Joseph Ayoub, the former lead digital asset analyst at financial services giant Citi, said he spent “hundreds” of hours researching Tether as an analyst for the company, and rebuffed Hayes’ analysis.

Tether has excess assets beyond what it reports, has an extremely lucrative business that generates billions of dollars in interest income with only 150 employees, and is better collateralized than traditional banks, Ayoub said. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 07:20

Another Russian Shadow-Fleet Tanker Hit By Drones

A fourth Russia-linked tanker was attacked in less than a week, marking a sharp escalation in strikes on commercial vessels tied to Moscow as the war in Eastern Europe nears its fourth year.

⚡️Photos from the Russian tanker MIDVOLGA-2, which was hit by a drone this morning near the Turkish coast

Preliminary reports suggest the strike was carried out by a fixed-wing drone, likely an FP-1. https://t.co/2k8jTmWGPR pic.twitter.com/bkhdVO7TWh

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) December 2, 2025

Bloomberg reports that the Midvolga-2, a Russian-flagged tanker hauling sunflower oil from Russia to Georgia, was hit by Ukrainian kamikaze drones about 80 miles off Turkey's northern coast. Turkish officials said the crew of 13 was unharmed in the attack.

Russian tanker 'Midvolga 2' carrying sunflower oil ATTACKED by drones in the Black Sea — Turkish officials

All 13 crew members on board are safe. The ship is reportedly en route to Georgia pic.twitter.com/VegeZT5pvF

— RT (@RT_com) December 2, 2025

The incident is part of Ukraine's intensifying and broadening attack on Moscow's oil/gas infrastructure and shadow tanker fleet. 

On Sunday, the Russian paper Kommersant reported that the M/T Mersin tanker, hauling Russian oil, was attacked by Ukrainian drones off the west coast of Africa. This marks the first incident of its kind in the region and suggests a further broadening of the battlefield.

• Moscow Paper Claims Ukrainian Drones Hit Russia-Linked Oil Tanker Off West Africa

Last week, two Russia-linked tankers were hit by kamikaze drone boats. Here's our reporting:

• Ukraine Releases Footage Of Kamikaze Drone Boats Striking Russian Shadow-Fleet Tankers

• Sanctioned Russia-Bound Oil Tanker At Risk Of Sinking After Mine Strike

Ukraine and its Western allies have spent the past several years targeting Russia's oil and gas infrastructure with kamikaze drones and naval drones in an effort to pressure Moscow's finances. This campaign, accompanied by sanctions, has yet to collapse Russia financially.

Attacks on Russia's oil/gas infrastructure jumped to a record last month as the Trump administration rushes to end the four-year war.

With U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff coming off negotiations with Ukrainian officials this past weekend in Miami and now in Moscow to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin about a possible peace deal, it appears Ukraine is making one final push to inflict maximum damage on Moscow.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 06:55

Another Russian Shadow-Fleet Tanker Hit By Drones

A fourth Russia-linked tanker was attacked in less than a week, marking a sharp escalation in strikes on commercial vessels tied to Moscow as the war in Eastern Europe nears its fourth year.

⚡️Photos from the Russian tanker MIDVOLGA-2, which was hit by a drone this morning near the Turkish coast

Preliminary reports suggest the strike was carried out by a fixed-wing drone, likely an FP-1. https://t.co/2k8jTmWGPR pic.twitter.com/bkhdVO7TWh

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) December 2, 2025

Bloomberg reports that the Midvolga-2, a Russian-flagged tanker hauling sunflower oil from Russia to Georgia, was hit by Ukrainian kamikaze drones about 80 miles off Turkey's northern coast. Turkish officials said the crew of 13 was unharmed in the attack.

Russian tanker 'Midvolga 2' carrying sunflower oil ATTACKED by drones in the Black Sea — Turkish officials

All 13 crew members on board are safe. The ship is reportedly en route to Georgia pic.twitter.com/VegeZT5pvF

— RT (@RT_com) December 2, 2025

The incident is part of Ukraine's intensifying and broadening attack on Moscow's oil/gas infrastructure and shadow tanker fleet. 

On Sunday, the Russian paper Kommersant reported that the M/T Mersin tanker, hauling Russian oil, was attacked by Ukrainian drones off the west coast of Africa. This marks the first incident of its kind in the region and suggests a further broadening of the battlefield.

• Moscow Paper Claims Ukrainian Drones Hit Russia-Linked Oil Tanker Off West Africa

Last week, two Russia-linked tankers were hit by kamikaze drone boats. Here's our reporting:

• Ukraine Releases Footage Of Kamikaze Drone Boats Striking Russian Shadow-Fleet Tankers

• Sanctioned Russia-Bound Oil Tanker At Risk Of Sinking After Mine Strike

Ukraine and its Western allies have spent the past several years targeting Russia's oil and gas infrastructure with kamikaze drones and naval drones in an effort to pressure Moscow's finances. This campaign, accompanied by sanctions, has yet to collapse Russia financially.

Attacks on Russia's oil/gas infrastructure jumped to a record last month as the Trump administration rushes to end the four-year war.

With U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff coming off negotiations with Ukrainian officials this past weekend in Miami and now in Moscow to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin about a possible peace deal, it appears Ukraine is making one final push to inflict maximum damage on Moscow.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 06:55

Visualizing The Declining Purchasing Power Of The US Dollar

The U.S. dollar has steadily lost value over the past century. According to Federal Reserve data, the purchasing power of one dollar today is equal to just a few cents in 1913 (the year the Fed was created).

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu tracks the decline in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar since the early 1900s, illustrating how inflation has eroded its value.

Data & Discussion

The data for this visualization comes from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED). It measures the “Purchasing Power of the Consumer Dollar” across all U.S. city averages, indexed to consumer prices.

The higher the index, the more purchasing power the dollar has. As the index declines, goods and services become relatively more expensive.

Date Purchasing Power of the Consumer Dollar in U.S. City Average 1913-01-01 1017.8 1914-01-01 994.2 1915-01-01 987.6 1916-01-01 956.2 1917-01-01 855 1918-01-01 715.9 1919-01-01 604.5 1920-01-01 517.7 1921-01-01 524.9 1922-01-01 590.2 1923-01-01 595 1924-01-01 578.8 1925-01-01 577.9 1926-01-01 557.3 1927-01-01 570.1 1928-01-01 578.8 1929-01-01 584.5 1930-01-01 584.5 1931-01-01 628.8 1932-01-01 699.1 1933-01-01 775.4 1934-01-01 755.7 1935-01-01 733.5 1936-01-01 722.8 1937-01-01 709.3 1938-01-01 702.4 1939-01-01 715.9 1940-01-01 717.7 1941-01-01 709.3 1942-01-01 638.1 1943-01-01 591.4 1944-01-01 574.3 1945-01-01 561.4 1946-01-01 549.2 1947-01-01 464.8 1948-01-01 421.4 1949-01-01 415.7 1950-01-01 424.4 1951-01-01 393.2 1952-01-01 377.4 1953-01-01 375 1954-01-01 370.8 1955-01-01 373.5 1956-01-01 372.6 1957-01-01 361.5 1958-01-01 349.3 1959-01-01 344.8 1960-01-01 340.6 1961-01-01 335.2 1962-01-01 332.8 1963-01-01 328.6 1964-01-01 323.2 1965-01-01 319.6 1966-01-01 313.6 1967-01-01 303.5 1968-01-01 293.3 1969-01-01 280.4 1970-01-01 264.3 1971-01-01 251.1 1972-01-01 243 1973-01-01 234.3 1974-01-01 214.3 1975-01-01 191.8 1976-01-01 179.6 1977-01-01 170.6 1978-01-01 159.8 1979-01-01 146.3 1980-01-01 128.4 1981-01-01 114.9 1982-01-01 105.9 1983-01-01 102.1 1984-01-01 98.2 1985-01-01 94.6 1986-01-01 91.3 1987-01-01 89.9 1988-01-01 86.4 1989-01-01 82.6 1990-01-01 78.5 1991-01-01 74.3 1992-01-01 72.4 1993-01-01 70.1 1994-01-01 68.4 1995-01-01 66.5 1996-01-01 64.8 1997-01-01 62.8 1998-01-01 61.9 1999-01-01 60.8 2000-01-01 59.2 2001-01-01 57.1 2002-01-01 56.5 2003-01-01 55 2004-01-01 54 2005-01-01 52.4 2006-01-01 50.4 2007-01-01 49.4 2008-01-01 47.4 2009-01-01 47.4 2010-01-01 46.1 2011-01-01 45.4 2012-01-01 44.1 2013-01-01 43.4 2014-01-01 42.8 2015-01-01 42.8 2016-01-01 42.2 2017-01-01 41.2 2018-01-01 40.3 2019-01-01 39.7 2020-01-01 38.8 2021-01-01 38.2 2022-01-01 35.6 2023-01-01 33.4 2024-01-01 32.4 2025-01-01 31.5 2025-09-01 30.8 Inflationary Eras and Economic Shocks

Major inflationary periods can be identified by looking at the steepest drops in the chart. For example, World War I and World War II strained government finances, leading to massive increases in public spending and money creation, which pushed prices sharply higher.

Similarly, the oil shocks of the 1970s caused energy costs to spike throughout the world, feeding into broad-based inflation. In each case, rising prices significantly eroded the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar.

From Gold Standard to Fiat Currency

Until 1971, the U.S. dollar was backed by gold.

This system was ended by President Nixon because the U.S. was creating more dollars than it had gold to support. Furthermore, foreign countries were increasingly demanding gold in exchange for their dollar reserves.

While ending this system gave policymakers more flexibility to manage the economy, money creation became easier, as shown by this chart of the M2 money supply. M2 comprises the most liquid forms of U.S. money, including physical currency, checking deposits, plus near-liquid assets like small-value time (CD) deposits, retail money-market funds, and other readily convertible savings vehicles.

An expanding money supply can be healthy when it grows in line with factors like population, economic output, and demand for credit, but becomes inflationary when it outpaces real economic growth.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Gold Production by Region in 2024 on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 05:45

Visualizing The Declining Purchasing Power Of The US Dollar

The U.S. dollar has steadily lost value over the past century. According to Federal Reserve data, the purchasing power of one dollar today is equal to just a few cents in 1913 (the year the Fed was created).

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu tracks the decline in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar since the early 1900s, illustrating how inflation has eroded its value.

Data & Discussion

The data for this visualization comes from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED). It measures the “Purchasing Power of the Consumer Dollar” across all U.S. city averages, indexed to consumer prices.

The higher the index, the more purchasing power the dollar has. As the index declines, goods and services become relatively more expensive.

Date Purchasing Power of the Consumer Dollar in U.S. City Average 1913-01-01 1017.8 1914-01-01 994.2 1915-01-01 987.6 1916-01-01 956.2 1917-01-01 855 1918-01-01 715.9 1919-01-01 604.5 1920-01-01 517.7 1921-01-01 524.9 1922-01-01 590.2 1923-01-01 595 1924-01-01 578.8 1925-01-01 577.9 1926-01-01 557.3 1927-01-01 570.1 1928-01-01 578.8 1929-01-01 584.5 1930-01-01 584.5 1931-01-01 628.8 1932-01-01 699.1 1933-01-01 775.4 1934-01-01 755.7 1935-01-01 733.5 1936-01-01 722.8 1937-01-01 709.3 1938-01-01 702.4 1939-01-01 715.9 1940-01-01 717.7 1941-01-01 709.3 1942-01-01 638.1 1943-01-01 591.4 1944-01-01 574.3 1945-01-01 561.4 1946-01-01 549.2 1947-01-01 464.8 1948-01-01 421.4 1949-01-01 415.7 1950-01-01 424.4 1951-01-01 393.2 1952-01-01 377.4 1953-01-01 375 1954-01-01 370.8 1955-01-01 373.5 1956-01-01 372.6 1957-01-01 361.5 1958-01-01 349.3 1959-01-01 344.8 1960-01-01 340.6 1961-01-01 335.2 1962-01-01 332.8 1963-01-01 328.6 1964-01-01 323.2 1965-01-01 319.6 1966-01-01 313.6 1967-01-01 303.5 1968-01-01 293.3 1969-01-01 280.4 1970-01-01 264.3 1971-01-01 251.1 1972-01-01 243 1973-01-01 234.3 1974-01-01 214.3 1975-01-01 191.8 1976-01-01 179.6 1977-01-01 170.6 1978-01-01 159.8 1979-01-01 146.3 1980-01-01 128.4 1981-01-01 114.9 1982-01-01 105.9 1983-01-01 102.1 1984-01-01 98.2 1985-01-01 94.6 1986-01-01 91.3 1987-01-01 89.9 1988-01-01 86.4 1989-01-01 82.6 1990-01-01 78.5 1991-01-01 74.3 1992-01-01 72.4 1993-01-01 70.1 1994-01-01 68.4 1995-01-01 66.5 1996-01-01 64.8 1997-01-01 62.8 1998-01-01 61.9 1999-01-01 60.8 2000-01-01 59.2 2001-01-01 57.1 2002-01-01 56.5 2003-01-01 55 2004-01-01 54 2005-01-01 52.4 2006-01-01 50.4 2007-01-01 49.4 2008-01-01 47.4 2009-01-01 47.4 2010-01-01 46.1 2011-01-01 45.4 2012-01-01 44.1 2013-01-01 43.4 2014-01-01 42.8 2015-01-01 42.8 2016-01-01 42.2 2017-01-01 41.2 2018-01-01 40.3 2019-01-01 39.7 2020-01-01 38.8 2021-01-01 38.2 2022-01-01 35.6 2023-01-01 33.4 2024-01-01 32.4 2025-01-01 31.5 2025-09-01 30.8 Inflationary Eras and Economic Shocks

Major inflationary periods can be identified by looking at the steepest drops in the chart. For example, World War I and World War II strained government finances, leading to massive increases in public spending and money creation, which pushed prices sharply higher.

Similarly, the oil shocks of the 1970s caused energy costs to spike throughout the world, feeding into broad-based inflation. In each case, rising prices significantly eroded the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar.

From Gold Standard to Fiat Currency

Until 1971, the U.S. dollar was backed by gold.

This system was ended by President Nixon because the U.S. was creating more dollars than it had gold to support. Furthermore, foreign countries were increasingly demanding gold in exchange for their dollar reserves.

While ending this system gave policymakers more flexibility to manage the economy, money creation became easier, as shown by this chart of the M2 money supply. M2 comprises the most liquid forms of U.S. money, including physical currency, checking deposits, plus near-liquid assets like small-value time (CD) deposits, retail money-market funds, and other readily convertible savings vehicles.

An expanding money supply can be healthy when it grows in line with factors like population, economic output, and demand for credit, but becomes inflationary when it outpaces real economic growth.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Gold Production by Region in 2024 on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 05:45

How A Generation of Women Was Misled About Hormone Therapy

Authored by Jingduan Yang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

“Was I misled?”

That’s the question I hear most from my patients lately—asked with anger, exhaustion, and the quiet devastation of women who wonder if they lost years of their lives to menopause symptoms they were told were untreatable.

Getty image/MoMo Productions

The answer came earlier this month when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced it would remove “black box” warnings from hormone therapy products after 23 years. For many women, the reversal is an admission that arrives decades too late.

What Happened in 2002

In July 2002, preliminary data from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) were published in JAMA, showing that combined hormone therapy (estrogen and progestin) increased the risk of breast cancer, stroke, and pulmonary embolism. Major media outlets interpreted early signals from the study as definitive danger, and the announcement led to an instant and dramatic decline in the use of hormone therapy.

Women who had been sleeping well for the first time in years suddenly poured their medications into the trash. Pharmacies fielded calls from panicked patients demanding immediate discontinuation. Primary care doctors, most of whom had never been trained deeply in menopause management, told their patients to “stop now and ask questions later.”

Women did stop, and many suffered in silence for the next 20 years.

The FDA’s Historic Reversal

On Nov. 10, the FDA announced that it is initiating the removal of broad “black box” warnings referencing risks of cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, and probable dementia from hormone replacement therapy products for menopause.

When FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary spoke publicly about the shift, he didn’t mince words. He said the media had frightened women away from a potentially life-changing therapy, and he noted the difference between estrogen-only therapy and synthetic combination regimens. He acknowledged, openly, that the “fear machine” had begun long before the scientific data had been fully understood.

He also said something that struck many women deeply: “After 23 years of dogma, the FDA is stopping the fear that has steered women away from this life-saving treatment.”

For many of my patients, that sentence felt like a validation they had waited half a lifetime to hear.

The Devil Is in the Details

The details that matter most sat quietly in the medical literature for years—in the 2002 article and the two follow-up studies published in 2011 and 2020 in JAMA.

The Study Population Was Older

Women recruited in the WHI study were all postmenopausal, aged 50 to 79 years, with an average age of 63—more than a decade past the onset of menopause. Most had not used hormones before, and many had cardiovascular risk factors.

The Hormones Were Synthetic

The adverse results found among older women taking combined conjugated equine estrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate—both older, synthetic formulations developed in a different era—were generalized to all hormone therapy types and all age groups.

Estrogen-Only Therapy Showed Different Results

The estrogen-only group in the WHI study—women who had hysterectomies and therefore received estrogen without synthetic progestins—had a lower rate of breast cancer.

In the storm of fear that followed, no one wanted to hear nuance.

The Critical Factor

Yet even in the early 2000s, there were physicians who paused, confused because something about the reporting didn’t align with what they were seeing clinically. The hormones used in the WHI study weren’t the bioidentical estradiol and progesterone that many clinicians were already prescribing with good results. More importantly, the women who seemed to benefit most from hormone therapy were those who began it near menopause—not in older age.

Timing is critical. The body responds to estrogen very differently pre-menopause versus a decade post-menopause. After years of low estrogen, the blood vessels lose their flexibility, plaque accumulates, and metabolic changes settle in. The risk-benefit balance is fundamentally different for women who initiate hormone therapy at different ages.

This is what we in medicine now call the “timing hypothesis”—a concept that should have been central to every headline but was lost entirely.

And for two decades, women lived inside that headline and endured the consequences of fear and misinformation.

What Women Lost

The point is not that hormone therapy is perfect or appropriate for everyone. It’s that women were never given the chance to make an informed choice.

Women who begin hormone therapy earlier—ideally within 10 years of menopause—tend to experience improved sleep, reduced anxiety and irritability, and protection against bone loss.

Many report better cognition, improved cardiovascular markers, and enhanced sexual health and relationship well-being. Although spoken about more quietly, perhaps the most profound benefit is the simplest one: the return of themselves.

Takeaways

The new FDA guidelines do not signal a new fad or a sudden reversal. They mark a return to evidence-based medicine—the kind that millions of women should have received all along.

Hormone therapy is not appropriate for every woman, and it is not a cure-all. However, it is a powerful tool, and for the right woman at the right moment, it can restore a quality of life she thought she’d lost forever.

Our job now—as clinicians, as journalists, as a society—is to give women back what fear took from them: clarity, choice, and control.

Everything that follows in this series of columns will build on that mission.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 05:00

Which Countries Prescribe The Most & Least Antibiotics?

World Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Awareness Week ended last week.

Antimicrobials are medicines used to prevent and treat infectious diseases. These can be used on humans, animals and plants and come in the forms of antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals and antiparasitics.

Although resistance to these medicines occurs naturally, due to genetic changes in pathogens over time, this process can be exacerbated when humans use antimicrobials too frequently or do not finish a course fully. The result can be deadly, with dangerous strains of bacteria endangering lives and threatening the ability to treat common infections and, as a result, to perform life-saving procedures from cancer chemotherapy to caesarean sections.

As Statista's Anna Fleck details below, a recent report by the OECD highlights significant disparities in antibiotic prescribing practices across countries.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Among those providing data, Greece had the highest prescription rate in 2023, with 26.7 defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1,000 people.

This is well above the OECD average of 16 DDDs and nearly three times the level seen in Sweden and the Netherlands, where the rates were 8.7 and 8.8 DDDs per 1,000 people, respectively.

While the volume of antibiotics prescribed has generally decreased across most OECD countries, Finland (-5.8 DDDs/1,000) and Canada (-5.6 DDDs/1,000) have shown the greatest reductions since 2013.

The OECD states that antibiotics should only be prescribed when supported by clear evidence.

Antibiotic resistance can also build up through more indirect means, such as via eating the meat of live feed that has been treated with antibiotics, or consuming meat or dairy products contaminated with antibiotic resistant pathogens. 

Data from 2020 shows that countries such as Thailand, China and Australia rely on the practice of giving animals antibiotics far more heavily than nations including Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 04:15

Britain Is Lost

Authored by T.L.Davis, 

A recent interview Tucker Carlson had with George Galloway, a long-time member of the British Parliament and with a show himself in Britain, who was recently detained at the border under terrorism charges for, apparently, the opinions broadcast on his show.

No nation has fallen quicker or more completely than Britain into the totalitarian mindset.

It’s why we highlighted this aspect of modern Europe into the film Deconstruction.

Britain, as long as it pursues the same oppression of free speech as the Soviet Union, can not be called or considered an ally of the United States.

This is what we have to decide as a people, the American people, who will and who will not be our allies. Governments, especially now, are poor judges of character. They will hold onto traditional alliances, when those alliances have long been strained, simply because they would be unsure of what that would do to international relationships. If we lose Britain, France and Germany as allies, what effect does that have on NATO?

My question, however, is what damage does continued alliances with nations who punish their people for what they have said, posted or broadcast do to international perception? Are we not tarnished by their brush? Yes. It also signals that the United States is not determined to uphold the right to free speech. That in order to maintain these alliances will betray their own people.

As Britain, France and Germany turn toward implementing a police state to support immigrants who rape and kill their sons and daughters, put protesters in jail and silence not only their own citizens, but any who arrive through the internet, can they still be considered allies of a free nation? No. So, how free is that “free” nation? It is not free as it supports and continues alliances with nations diametrically opposed, not only to free speech, but a series of democratic principles.

The battle taking place within the European nations draw a stark contrast to the Central and Eastern European nations, formerly Soviet client states, who distance themselves from European Union dictates that promote illegal migration and the silencing of objectors.

The whole idea of democracy comes from the idea that the people have a say in who governs them and the policies they impose. When freedom of speech is so blatantly outlawed and only approved narratives permitted, there is no democracy. I don’t know what sort of government Britain has, but it is not a democracy as it claims. Yes, I know it’s technically a Monarchy, but the King or Queen has nowhere near the political power they once held.

All of this centers around illegal migration, it’s where people like Keir Starmer intend to derive their power, in the end. If he supports the replacement population when it is unpopular to do so, they might look kindly on him when the Islamists take full control of the politics, but he is a useful idiot.

They continue to put forth the idea that a declining birthrate is the reason for the importation of these migrants, but if European and American birthrates are dropping, as it is in all Western societies, it would seem that the logical conclusion would be to outlaw abortion, not import rapists and murderers.

But that’s not the reason. It isn’t the birthrate, it’s an attempt to forever change politics that eliminates the right, the Christians. This point was made clear by Viktor Orban in the film Deconstruction that’s coming out soon.

Communists and Islamists work well together. They have the same goal, supremacy through murder and imprisonment of an uncompliant populace. Democracies must tolerate the naysayers, the critics, that’s the difference. It won’t be long and the UK will be an Islamic nation, just as Iran became an Islamic nation. Are they still allies of the US? If so, why are not all Islamic nations allies? Because Islamic nations are at war with the US. “Death to America” does not seem like the pronouncement of an ally. Will it be heard across Britain, while we still consider it a close ally? Of course.

The United States had better figure this out, too. The only true allies the US has in Europe are the Central and Eastern European nations.

They are also the ones that need more protection from Russia and China, because, as smaller economies, they can’t afford to be too choosy about who they do business with and the more that the United States can be a better economic partner, the stronger we will all be.

The world is changing rapidly and our government is incapable of keeping up with the pace. It has to be led by the people.

The film Deconstruction makes this point. 

Here’s a trailer that we’ve produced that gives one a sense of where we’re going with the message of the film.

It’s important, because a lot of changes are coming down the pike and if we don’t build some sort of resistance mechanism by which the people will have an increasing say in what policies our government promotes, all is lost. Governments can’t understand issues as quickly as the people can. When the internet came along, the government did not prevent corporations from using and selling information required to establish an account. They did nothing, now it’s just a land of pillage and plunder, unless one spends an inordinate amount of time protecting oneself from it.

AI is coming and the government is not in a position to be able to control it, or protect its citizens from being victimized. Already, I get AI solicitations for marketing my books. No human has read the books and has come up with the information about them. I delete those, even though they are quite complimentary about my work. I don’t want anything to do with AI, or as little as I can tolerate. I don’t want anything to do with AI film production, even though it can be a lot cheaper and quick to produce.

There’s value in simply rejecting what is obviously detrimental to the people. Who gains form AI? Just corporations. Yes, it might be slightly more convenient, but is that worth the ultimate sacrifice of a doomed economy, soaring electric costs and depleted water resources? Not to me.

The need to fight back is urgent. And I expect my warnings to go unheeded, as always. The average person is much too willing to give up, to not fight it when everyone in a position of power decides something. This was illustrated during the pandemic. A lot of us knew it was a false flag, that what they were saying was untrue, that masks didn’t help, that the vaccine wasn’t even a vaccine, but a DNA altering injection. Yet, everywhere I went, people just lined up and took it, accepted the ridiculous distancing and mask wearing.

We’re now in for a lot of that, because it was not ridiculed out of existence from the very beginning. That’s the power of the people, the ability to ridicule nonsense. Finally, slowly, the whole transgender nonsense is losing potency due to that very ridicule that we all possess naturally. Use it.

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 03:30

Visualizing The World's Total Supply Of Gold

Gold is on a hot streak, up more than 50% to-date despite retreating from October’s record highs of $4,380 per troy ounce.

Driving global demand is the mixture of geopolitical tensions, a weaker U.S. dollar, and sticky inflation. In Q3 2025, central bank purchases were up 28% over the quarter, while inflows of gold-backed ETFs hit $26 billion.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, breaks down the total global supply of gold, both above and below ground, based on data from the World Gold Council.

All of the World’s Above and Below-Ground Gold

As of year-end 2024, the total above-ground stock of gold was 216,265 tonnes. Based on a gold price of $4,166 per troy ounce, all of the world’s mined gold is valued at $29 trillion.

When including identified underground gold, the total reaches 348,375 tonnes. All of the world’s gold together in a sphere would be about 107 feet tall, matching the approximate height of the White House from the south side’s lawn to the top of its flagpole.

The data table below breaks down all of the world’s above and below-ground gold and its value.

 

The world’s below-ground stock (gold that hasn’t been mined yet) is an estimated 132,110 tonnes, covering reserves and resources. Gold reserves are the part of underground gold resources (identified deposits) that are economically viable to extract at current prices.

Resources are not yet proven to be economically viable to mine and process.

How Much Gold is Left to Mine?

With most of the world’s gold already having been mined, only about 38% of the known gold supply remains underground, identified as reserves and resources.

At 2024’s pace of roughly 3,661 tonnes of gold production a year, that below-ground stock equates to just under four decades of additional output, assuming prices or technological advancements make resources economically feasible to mine in the future.

For investors, that mix of finite physical supply, ongoing central-bank purchases, and rising investment demand helps explain why this 107-foot sphere of gold now represents more than $47 trillion in combined above- and below-ground value at current prices.

To learn more about where the world’s gold is mined, check out this graphic which breaks down global gold production by region and country.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 02:45

Putin Increasingly Depends On Beijing For His Growing Arsenal Of Military Drones

Via Remix News,

While Russia is routinely portrayed as a serious military power, as the war drags on, Russia is becoming more and more reliant on Chinese drone components to survive.

Now, China’s drone component supplier Wang Dinhua has just purchased a 5 percent stake in Russia’s Rustakt, a top drone manufacturer in Russia.

Rustakt is subject to sanctions imposed by both Ukraine and the European Union, reports Do Rzeczy, citing an article from FInancial TImes. 

Samuel Bendett, a drone expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted the growing cooperation between the Russian and Chinese military-industrial complexes, as well as Putin’s reliance on Chinese components for Russia’s growing drone needs.

However, this reliance is nothing new. 

Another Russian company, Aero-HIT, has also benefitted from this partnership, reportedly producing up to 10,000 drones per month this year.

It also plans to produce more advanced models.

China is generally considered the leading drone component manufacturer in the world, dominating much of the supply chain to the point that many of the components also purchased by the United States also come from China.

Ukraine has also discovered laser sensors manufactured by a South African company in Russian drones attacking its cities.

It remains unclear how products intended for civilian use ended up on the kamikaze drones, the independent Russian-language website The Moscow Times reported on Friday.

Laser rangefinders from several countries, including South Africa, have been detected in long-range drones modified from the Iranian Shahed, according to Vladislav Vasilyuk, a Ukrainian official responsible for sanctions policy.

Industrial lasers from South Africa’s Lightware are small and lightweight, making them suitable for installation in drones.

The supply of military equipment to countries engaged in armed conflict without the consent of the South African government is prohibited, but Lightware is not registered as a trader in ammunition or dual-use products or technologies.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 02:00