Nearly Two-Thirds Of Americans Say College Degree Isn't Worth The Cost: Poll

Authored by Gabrielle Temaat via The College Fix,

Nearly two-thirds of Americans don’t believe that a college degree is worth its price tag, according to a recent NBC News survey.  

Sixty-three percent of registered voters said a four-year degree is “not worth the cost because people often graduate without specific job skills and with a large amount of debt to pay off,” according to the poll. 

Meanwhile, only 33 percent said a degree is “worth the cost because people have a better chance to get a good job and earn more money over their lifetime.” 

The survey included 1,000 registered voters, with 655 interviewed by cellphone and 300 reached through an online questionnaire sent via text message.

Responses varied significantly depending on the respondents’ political party affiliation.

Only 22 percent of Republicans said college is worth the cost while 47 percent of Democrats said a degree is worth pursuing. 

Asked about the primary factor eroding their confidence in the value of a college education, respondents overwhelmingly cited escalating tuition costs.

Further, respondents were much more evenly split on the question eight years ago. In 2017, 49 percent felt a college degree was worth the price, while 47 percent disagreed, NBC News reported. 

Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies.

“It’s just remarkable to see attitudes on any issue shift this dramatically, and particularly on a central tenet of the American dream, which is a college degree. Americans used to view a college degree as aspirational — it provided an opportunity for a better life. And now that promise is really in doubt,” Horwitt said. 

He also said he was surprised by how widespread the shift has been. Attitudes have changed across all groups, not just among those without college degrees.

“This is a political problem. It’s also a real problem for higher education. Colleges and universities have lost that connection they’ve had with a large swath of the American people based on affordability,” Horwitt said. “They’re now seen as out of touch and not accessible to many Americans.”

College tuition has surged, roughly doubling in the past 20 years, and doubling again from two decades before, The New York Post reported. 

At some universities, including the University of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, and Columbia, annual costs to attend the school are nearing $100,000, The College Fix previously reported. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 12:50

Journal Retracts 'Ghost Written' Monsanto Study Claiming Glyphosate Is Safe

Over the past year massive scandals involving academic research have come under the microscope, after dedicated researchers uncovered rigged studies that made it through peer-review with flying colors, and are now being retracted. 

On Friday, the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal announced that it has retracted a review, safety evaluation, and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, after it emerged that Monsanto was heavily involved in its production. 

"This decision has been made after careful consideration of the COPE guidelines and thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the authorship and content of this article and in light of no response having been provided to address the findings," the journal said in a statement. 

"Litigation in the United States revealed correspondence from Monsanto suggesting that the authors of the article were not solely responsible for writing its content," and contributions by Monsanto employees were not disclosed, including in the acknowledgements section of the review. 

The journal also said that the authors may have been paid by Monsanto - which was also not disclosed. 

The Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology had been frequently cited in defending glyphosate, an ingredient in Roundup, including citations on Wikipedia, researchers said in a paper published in September. Since 2017, multiple juries have concluded that Roundup exposure has resulted in non-Hodgkin lymphoma in people. Bayer took over legal cases involving the matter after it purchased Monsanto in 2018, including a case that may be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. -Epoch Times

Meanwhile the study's lead author, Gary Williams - a former pathologist at New York Medical College, is MIA, according to an Epoch Times inquiry. 

An internal email from February 2015 presented as evidence in a 2017 court case revealed that Monsanto employees worked with the authors of the review, with one employee writing that it would be expensive to involve experts from all major areas in a review - and would be cheaper to simply involve certain experts and "we ghost-write" other sections. 

"We would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams Kroes & Munro, 2000," the employee wrote. 

So of course, the journal retracts the dodgy study almost 10 years later - even as other journals - including Critical Reviews in Toxicology, attached expressions of concern co-authored by Williams because they said they authors didn't disclose the involvement of Monsanto employees and contractors in authoring their research. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 12:15

Impeachment Mania Returns In Time For The Midterm Elections

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The military has long had a saying that “when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” When it comes to impeachment power, Democrats have long acted as if every problem is a high crime and misdemeanor.

After two impeachments against President Donald Trump (including what I labeled as an infamous “snap impeachment“), Democratic politicians and pundits are back calling for the impeachment of President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) was the latest to prepare articles of impeachment. He is demanding the removal of Hegseth over his use of the encrypted messaging app Signal to convey battle plans and the “double tap” order on a disabled drug boat.

The Signal app controversy was a legitimate objection raised by critics. The Pentagon inspector general recently found that such use can endanger both missions and personnel, even though it did not appear to have resulted in damage in this case. Nevertheless, the Pentagon is claiming that the report is a “TOTAL exoneration of Secretary Hegseth.”  That is hardly convincing. It is akin to Harris claiming that Gov. Josh Shapiro’s description of her book as “utter bulls**t” is a glowing review.

However, such a controversy does not even come close to meeting the constitutional standard for impeachment. Democrats did not call for the removal of Democratic presidents or cabinet members for such past controversies, including the use of social media and private email accounts.

The inclusion of the boat strike ignores how the war crimes story has collapsed this week. Even the New York Times and ABC News (and some Democratic members) now admit that it is not true that Hegseth gave an order to kill any survivors of these attacks or that such an order was issued by military commanders.

A finishing shot on a still floating vessel is not uncommon in war. There is a legitimate debate over the policy of striking these boats. However, in terms of the president’s inherent constitutional powers, he has the authority to strike such vessels outside the United States. Other presidents have asserted such authority. This includes President Barack Obama, who claimed in his “kill list” policy to have the right to kill even American citizens anywhere and at any time based on his unilateral decision that they represent an imminent threat to national security.

With respect to the laws of war, if the military had the authority to sink the boat, the commander could order a finishing shot or shots to complete the mission. It has long been common in war to deliver such finishing shots even when there are survivors on board or in the area of the vessel. The commander must not re-engage for the sole purpose of killing survivors. There is no evidence of any such order in this strike. The Washington Post based its sensational claim on a single anonymous source.

Throughout history (including the famed sinking of the Bismarck in World War II), there have been finishing shots delivered in sea engagements to destroy vessels.

The same is true with aerial attacks. It is common for the military to deliver multiple hits on a target if it is not completely destroyed despite the presence of wounded or survivors in the area. Once again, this does not mean the decision was correct or commendable in any given circumstance. Still, it falls within the discretion historically afforded to military commanders in achieving mission objectives.

In the end, the laws of war reflect the fluidity and uncertainty of military engagement. The “fog of war” is a reality of military conflicts, even with the added technological advances that we have today.

We still have not seen the full video and have not yet confirmed the timeline of orders. That will help establish if the successive strikes were plausibly tied to the mission objective of destroying the still floating vessel and stopping the salvaging of the drugs. It will also help establish that the boat and the drugs were indeed still viable targets. The latter recovery of survivors by the military would indicate that there was no “kill them all” policy with regard to survivors.

What is clear is that this is not even close to an impeachable offense.

Thanedar is not the only one reviving calls for impeachment.

Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta is calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump over his “hateful comments” about the Minnesota Somali community, which he claims are grounds for impeachment:

“What needs to be said that isn’t being said enough in our press over the last 24 hours is that the President of the United States said a blatantly, obviously racist thing in the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday when he said what he said about Somali immigrants in this country. That they don’t contribute anything, that they’re not of value. In no normal world should the President of the United States of America ever, ever say something like that to the American people or even say it privately… I mean, if the President of the United States says it privately, it means he’s a bad person, and we should get rid of him.”

But to me, that was an impeachable moment. There have been so many impeachable moments since Donald Trump has come back to the White House, but to blatantly say something as racist and as hateful and as nasty and cruel and mean-spirited as what he said yesterday. The impeachment proceedings should begin right now. But of course, they won’t.”

There is a reason why they won’t . . . because this is ridiculous. Many of us have objected to the President’s comments about whole groups in this country. It is wrong to attack all Somalis in this country. I have previously written about how many of these immigrants from authoritarian nations embrace the essence of our country in seeking a free and better life.

However, past presidents have also used offensive or objectionable terms to refer to groups in the United States from Hillary Clinton’s reference to black men as “super predators” to Joe Biden’s referring to school desegregation as forcing white students to study in a “racial jungle” or claiming that any blacks who do not support him “ain’t black.”

I also do not remember these critics denouncing the attacks on figures like Elon Musk over his nationality.

The suggestion that these comments by Trump are an impeachable offense is absurd.

There is little danger that such impeachments will move forward.

However, if Democrats retake the House, the impeachment impulse will be overwhelming.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 11:40

Is A Backdoor Gold Standard Coming?

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

For decades, I’ve been vexed over a monetary issue. How can we transition from the present fiat money system to a sound-money standard like we once had in the United States and the world?

Clearly the gold standard was superior whereas we now have a fiat standard that has mired the world in debt and big government. A central-bank digital currency with programmable debt-based money and omnipresent surveillance is the dystopian nightmare of which many dream.

But this would pile calamity on top of disaster.

What we really need is the gold standard back. But how could it happen? There has never been a viable transition plan.

Rather, I’ve seen many such plans but they all have their limits. A clean redefinition of the dollar as a title for physical gold has huge transition problems and probable pricing chaos. We don’t even know for sure how much gold the federal government owns now. President Trump had spoken of auditing Fort Knox but that hasn’t happened.

Many other plans for a new Bretton Woods falter on grounds that they depend on sound management by the central bank. Such a system does not allow for domestic convertibility and will therefore lack a mechanism of discipline and a proof of credibility. It would also plunge us back to the very problem that ruined that system in its first try: gold flows break when governments overextend.

A purely pricing model—whereby the Fed targets the gold price—requires a level of precision, judgment, and knowledge that the Fed lacks. If it cannot manage the system now, why should we think it could manage a gold-price standard well?

There is a political problem that afflicts even the best reform plan. Any transition to a sound system requires the cooperation of many parties that benefit from the status quo: government, industry, finance, and banks. They are all nuts for the fiat system despite how it has eroded the standard of living for the middle class and fueled endless rounds of booms and busts.

We are relying on government to reform itself. This problem is intractable.

Keep in mind that the 19th-century gold standard was itself codified in the form of legislation. The Coinage Act of 1873 recognized that gold was money. This was not so much an imposition but a bow to reality. Forty years later, the central bank came along and that began the long process of destroying sound money.

It’s hard to shake the idea that a new gold standard would be a wonderful idea. How do we get from here to there?

Recent trends in gold and silver prices provide a strong hint that we could be slouching our way toward hard money in any case, with or without official planning.

Both gold and silver are experiencing a stunning renaissance. You would have to be naive not to observe the significance of these moves. These trends amount to a vote of confidence in the real over the financial fictions of the fiat world.

Source: Bloomberg

Over 10 years, the price of gold has moved from $1.1K per ounce to $4.2K, a 256 percent increase. The price of silver has moved from $13 to $57 per ounce, a 315 percent increase.

This beats both the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500. This is an outstanding investment, one that beats dollar depreciation.

To be sure, the silver demand is driven by industrial interest. Gold is being pushed by investors. Still, to see the two move together suggests tremendous insecurity in the financial system. It could portend some significant moves in the future.

Demand has also increased based on new purchases from central banks and the new stablecoins (with a $308 billion market cap, up 50 percent in a year). Stable coins are trying to balance out their debt-dominated portfolios with some hard-money backing. This alone is remarkable, especially since intellectuals have been calling gold a “barbarous relic” for nearly one hundred years. Still to this day, these metals are considered to be safe havens.

The Basel III rules that took full effect in 2022 explicitly reclassified allocated gold as a zero-risk-weight asset again.

This is the first time since the 1970s. The timing is significant because this took place when the world economy was locked down and suffering from pandemic-related attacks.

Another crucial fact: more banks are today accepting gold and silver as collateral for dollar-based loans. This is a form of backdoor monetization. It is a small step for a liquid and portable metal to serve as money, with on and off ramps being provided by the banks themselves. Gold is already allowed to be used this way, and silver is on the way toward this status.

This path is consistent with F.A. Hayek’s speculations on the denationalization of money. He was an economist who had been writing for sound money since the 1930s. His plans were continually foiled by governments and the trends of his time. For his work on this topic, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974.

After this, he decided it was time to say the unthinkable. He wrote that governments would never reform the money in a good way because governments love bad money. He said that the best path forward would be for the banks to shepherd the change themselves. He posited that banks could create a new currency based on their own assets or on a commodity basket of real goods.

Hayek speculated that when the money fails, the banks’ own hard money could serve as the monetary safe haven.

To some extent, his vision for choice in currency is being realized within the crypto sector. It was designed to be a non-state money. Bitcoin itself took a different direction when the core developers refused to allow it to scale, as Roger Ver explains.

This led to forks of new tokens. Now there are thousands of them, many with privacy protection that far exceeds Bitcoin. They are the go-to choice for people who actually use crypto for transactions.

But now we are seeing the advent of hybrid models, such as stablecoins backed by physical gold, thus uniting the soundness of gold with the speed and low cost of blockchain exchange of ownership titles.

If the money fails this time, and even if government defaults on its debt, these monetary instruments could immediately swing into action.

If the dollar actually degrades to the point that it is not useful, new pricing structures could emerge rooted in crypto and/or hard money like gold and silver.

Would that not be fascinating if we eventually end up with a gold standard as fact even without legislation?

As in 1873, Congress can come along later and recognize reality after the fact.

Such a path would be consistent with the long history of money. It was never a creation of the state but rather emerged from markets. A new and better path to sound money in our times might travel the same trajectory.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 10:30

Anti-Free-Speech War Escalates As EU Unleashes DSA On Musk's X

For years, many in the free speech community (most vehemently, Jonathan Turley) have warned about the threat of the European Union to free speech, particularly in the enactment of the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA).

The EU has virtually declared war on free speech and is targeting American companies.

That war just began with the first DSA fine.

Not surprisingly, X was the chosen target - a company blamed by many in the EU and the U.S. for rolling back free-speech protections.

In essence, it’s punishment for not bending the knee to the EU’s iron-fisted control over online content.

As Modernity.news' Steve Watson points out, the fine reeks of the same vindictive playbook the EU has used since Musk took over Twitter in 2022. It’s no coincidence; Brussels has been gunning for him precisely because he’s turned the platform into a haven for unfiltered discourse, refusing to censor at the whim of unelected technocrats.

This isn’t a one-off slap; it’s the culmination of years of threats and harassment. Back in January 2023, EU Commission Vice-President Vera Jourová openly warned Musk that his “freedom of speech absolutism” wouldn’t fly, declaring the “time of the Wild West is over” and threatening sanctions if Twitter didn’t comply with DSA rules. She conflated illegal content with anything the elites deem offensive, setting the stage for today’s fine.

At the WEF annual meeting, the EU regulator threatens Twitter and Elon Musk with sanctions.

She is very unhappy about unapproved thoughts being expressed freely on Twitter.

Your thoughts are too dangerous for the EU bureaucrats to handle! pic.twitter.com/M27cykXqtF

— Igor Chudov (@ichudov) January 23, 2023

In October 2023, EU Commissioner Thierry Breton fired off a letter demanding X address “illegal content and disinformation” related to the Gaza conflict. Musk fired back, demanding a specific list of violations so the public could judge for themselves.

Breton’s vague accusations—citing repurposed images and unverified claims—highlighted the EU’s preference for opacity over accountability. Musk called it out: “List the violations you allude to on X, so that the public can see them.” The EU’s response was not forthcoming, but the threats continued.

Our policy is that everything is open source and transparent, an approach that I know the EU supports.

Please list the violations you allude to on ?, so that that the public can see them.

Merci beaucoup.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 10, 2023

We take our actions in the open.

No back room deals.

Please post your concerns explicitly on this platform.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 11, 2023

Further, Musk brings receipts showing the European Union sent him a formal letter demanding that he censor Donald Trump during the 2024 US presidential election.

Since Musk’s acquisition, X has become a battleground for free expression, reinstating accounts banned under the old regime and prioritizing user-driven content over algorithmic suppression. But for the EU, that’s the problem.

Their DSA empowers regulators to dictate what platforms promote or demote, under the guise of fighting “hate speech” and “misinformation.” In reality, it’s a tool to silence dissent against open borders, climate hysteria, or any narrative challenging the globalist agenda.

This fine doesn’t exist in a vacuum - it’s part of a chilling pattern of EU overreach that threatens privacy and free speech across the continent.

Take the proposed Chat Control law, which would mandate backdoors into encrypted messages on apps like WhatsApp and Signal.

Sold as a child protection measure, it would scan billions of private conversations, exposing users to hacking, fraud, and government spying. Signal’s CEO Meredith Whittaker slammed it as a “catastrophic about-face” that betrays Europe’s privacy commitments, while experts warn of mass false positives and geopolitical abuse.

Then there’s Brussels’ aggressive enforcement tactics. In May of this year, the European Commission sued Czechia, Spain, Cyprus, Poland, and Portugal for dragging their feet on DSA implementation—specifically for not appointing national coordinators or setting penalties. Critics see this as forcing member states into a surveillance straitjacket, where platforms must over-censor to avoid fines, stifling smaller voices and user privacy.

At the heart of it all is the EU’s obsession with controlling information flows. In a January 2024 speech at Davos, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared disinformation the “top concern” for the coming years, calling for a “new global framework” where governments and Big Tech collaborate to police AI and online content.

She praised the DSA for defining platform responsibilities, but the subtext was clear: crush platforms like X that don’t toe the line. Jourová echoed this, meeting with Meta and YouTube execs to ensure compliance while targeting Musk’s “absolutism.”

These moves expose the hypocrisy: the EU claims to champion democracy but builds an Orwellian apparatus that monitors, scans, and punishes speech. It’s not about safety—it’s about power.

This latest EU assault on X has infuriated US Vice President JD Vance, who yesterday, as rumors of the impending penalty circulated, took to X and posted:

“The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage.”

Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship. The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage.

— JD Vance (@JDVance) December 4, 2025

Vance’s previously blistering critiques of European tyranny sent shockwaves through Brussels. In a February 2025 speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vance tore into EU leaders for preaching democracy while arresting citizens for silent prayer, canceling elections, and ignoring voters on mass migration.

“No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants,” he declared, labeling Europeans as more than “interchangeable cogs in a global economy.”

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius called Vance’s opinions “unacceptable,” proving Vance’s point about normalized authoritarianism.

Vance’s words were prescient—today’s fine on X exemplifies how the EU weaponizes laws to crush free speech platforms, treating them as threats to their controlled narrative. With Trump back in the White House and Vance as a key ally, expect pushback: America won’t stand idly by as allies erode the very freedoms that define the West.

The $140 million hit on X isn’t just a fine—it’s a declaration of war on uncensored dialogue.

Musk’s platform remains one of the last major outposts where ideas flow freely, unhampered by globalist filters. As the EU tightens its grip, the message is clear: comply or be crushed.

As Jonathan Turley concludes, this is the first fine under the DSA and the EU officials acknowledged that it will lay the foundation for additional penalties to come to force companies to comply with EU “values” on free speech.

Specifically, the European Commission has imposed a €120 million ($140 million) fine on X after finding that it misled users with its paid-for blue checkmark verification symbol, failed to provide researchers with access to data, and did not properly set up an advertising repository. 

Bingo https://t.co/JRrMjn1UfO

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 6, 2025

X has 60 days to develop solutions to address the issues and 90 days to implement the changes, or it may face additional fines.

The “EU” imposed this crazy fine not just on @X, but also on me personally, which is even more insane!

Therefore, it would seem appropriate to apply our response not just to the EU, but also to the individuals who took this action against me. https://t.co/n2LE0eZiI7

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 5, 2025

Under the DSA, the EU can impose fines of up to 6% of an online platform’s annual global revenue for failing to address illegal content, disinformation, or transparency requirements.

It is still investigating X as well as several other major US tech firms, including Apple, Google, and Meta, under the DSA and the Digital Markets Act.

This includes investigations for failing to carry out demands for censorship, including of American citizens.

The EU woke Stasi commissars are about to understand the full meaning of the “Streisand Effect” https://t.co/2XgsSzwJ7z

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 5, 2025

This is just the first salvo in a war that some of us have warned is coming. We cannot be passive at this moment. The EU is threatening the very indispensable right that has long defined us as a people. Many in the United States are rooting for the Europeans to roll back free-speech protections at X and Meta. Some have appeared before the EU to call for this type of action. They could use the EU to achieve abroad what they have failed to accomplish in the United States. The results will be the same for Americans, who will find themselves subject to European censors and “values.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 09:55

Germany Scales Back Offshore Wind Auctions After Latest Flop

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Germany moved to reduce the capacity it will auction in its offshore wind tender in 2026, following the flop in the latest auction without a single bid made.  

The German Parliament approved legislation narrowing the capacity in the 2026 tender to just 2.5 gigawatts (GW) to 5 GW, compared with an earlier plan of auctioning off 6 GW of offshore wind capacity and with as much as 10 GW offered in the auction in August. 

The August offshore wind auction without government subsidies failed to attract a single bid, alarming the local offshore wind sector, which is calling for a fundamental redesign of Germany’s renewable energy auctions. 

The Federal Network Agency’s auction for 10.1 GW offshore wind farms in the German part of the North Sea ended with no investor submitting a bid for any of the two proposed sites, the Federal Association for Offshore Wind Energy, BWO, said.  

The auction flop signals that offshore wind power developers are wary of taking on riskier, zero-subsidy projects amid rising costs and supply chain issues. 

In response to the failure in the August auction, Germany’s ruling coalition proposed reduced capacity up for grabs, and the proposal was approved by Parliament in a package also aimed at speeding up permitting and other approvals for offshore wind projects and power grid upgrades. 

“Offshore wind is facing a difficult market environment, both internationally and in Germany,” the Economy Ministry said in a statement carried by Bloomberg. Surging costs and tight supply chains deter offshore wind expansion, the ministry noted.   

Germany is expanding onshore wind installations but offshore wind capacity additions are nowhere near its targets. 

Days before the flop in the August auction, German industry associations said that offshore wind power installations had stagnated in the first half of 2025. For offshore wind to reach the ambitious government targets of boosting capacity to 70 GW by 2045, policy makers need to fundamentally revise the tenders and ensure additional revenue and planning security, the German wind energy association, Bundesverband WindEnergie (BWE), and several other sector groups said.  

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 09:20



 

This week, I speak with Paul Zummo, Chief Investment Officer of J.P. Morgan Alternative Asset Management. They discuss the state of alternatives and Paul’s “30 Pearls of Investment Wisdom.” They also discuss the early days of hedge funds, investing in the 90’s and building a hedge fund division.

We discuss how his career evolved, and the ways the industry has changed.

A list of his current reading is here; A transcript of our conversation is available here Tuesday.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Stephen Cohen, BlackRock Chief Product Officer and Head of Global Product Solutions. He is a member of BlackRock’s Global Executive Committee. Previously, he was Global Head of Fixed Income Indexing (iShares); and Chief Investment Strategist for International Fixed Income and iShares. Blackrock manages $13.5 trillion in AUM; its iShares division is over$5 trillion.

 

 

 

Favorite Books

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post MiB: Paul Zummo, Chief Investment Officer of J.P. Morgan Alternative Asset Management appeared first on The Big Picture.

French Soldiers 'Open Fire' On Drones Threatening High-Secure Nuclear Submarine Base

A major security breach of French military airspace has been revealed Friday at a moment European officials have been hyping the 'hybrid warfare' threat from Russia, which has of late centered on many dozens of 'mystery' drone breaches in EU airspace especially near sensitive locations like airports.

French Marines opened fire on five unidentified drones that breached restricted airspace above a key nuclear submarine base Thursday evening, military officials said, according to EuroNews. But one official has said a "jammer" was hot and not necessarily live ammunition. 

via Telegram

At around 7:30pm local at the Île Longue naval base in Brittany, which importantly is the command center for France's fleet of nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines, radar detected incoming unauthorized UAVs at the high-secure facility.

The marine infantry battalion responsible for protecting the site immediately deployed anti-drone procedures, which included firing several shots at the aircraft in an effort to disable and bring them down.

As it wasn't confirmed whether the drones were actually hit, the security forces initiated a large-scale search operation. Authorities still haven't confirmed that any drones were brought down or recovered.

The drones may have been electronically thwarted or intercepted, based on vague references from French military officials, but not much in the way of details have been offered: 

Defense Minister Catherine Vautrin confirmed that troops at the base intercepted an overflight, without detailing whether they fired shots, used electronic jamming or other means against the aerial intruders. It wasn’t clear who was responsible.

“Any overflight of a military site is prohibited in our country,” Vautrin said. “I want to commend the interception carried out by our military personnel at the Île Longue base.”

The installation is located near Brest in western France, and is guarded by more than 120 maritime forces alongside naval security forces, according to French media.

It hosts four ballistic missile submarines — Le Triomphant, Le Téméraire, Le Vigilant, and Le Terrible — and provides maintenance for the vessels which support the nation's nuclear deterrent. According to official policy, at least one nuclear submarine is deployed on patrol at all times.

"No link with foreign interference has been established," Frédéric Teillet, the public prosecutor in Rennes, was quoted in AFP as saying. He also indicated that no operators behind the drones have been apprehended or identified.

European officials have of late and without firm evidence been pointing the finger at Russian intelligence for a series of drone incidents near commercial and military airports and installations in northern Europe.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 08:45

Special Note: There is still uncertainty on when some economic reports will be released. The employment report for November will NOT be released this week.
This will be a light week for economic data.  The FOMC meets this week and is expected to cut rates by 25bp.

----- Monday, December 8th -----
No major economic releases scheduled.

----- Tuesday, December 9th -----
6:00 AM: NFIB Small Business Optimism Index for November.

10:00 AM: Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey for October from the BLS.

This graph shows job openings (black line), hires (purple), Layoff, Discharges and other (red column), and Quits (light blue column) from the JOLTS.

obs openings increased in August to 7.23 million from 7.21million in July.

The number of job openings (black) were down 6% year-over-year. Quits were down 3% year-over-year.

----- Wednesday, December 10th -----
7:00 AM ET: The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) will release the results for the mortgage purchase applications index.

2:00 PM: FOMC Meeting Announcement. The Fed is expected to cut rates 25bp at this meeting.

2:00 PM: FOMC Forecasts This will include the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) participants' projections of the appropriate target federal funds rate along with the quarterly economic projections.

2:30 PM: Fed Chair Jerome Powell holds a press briefing following the FOMC announcement.

----- Thursday, December 11th -----
8:30 AM: The initial weekly unemployment claims report will be released.  There were 191,000 initial claims last week.

8:30 AM: Trade Balance report for September from the Census Bureau.

This graph shows the U.S. trade deficit, with and without petroleum, through the most recent report. The blue line is the total deficit, and the black line is the petroleum deficit, and the red line is the trade deficit ex-petroleum products.

The consensus is the trade deficit to be $65.5 billion.  The U.S. trade deficit was at $59.6 billion in August.

10:00 AM: the Q3 2025 Housing Vacancies and Homeownership from the Census Bureau.

10:00 AM: State Employment and Unemployment (Monthly) for September 2025

----- Friday, December 12th -----
No major economic releases scheduled.

UK Sanctions Russia After Inquiry Holds Putin Responsible For 2018 Novichok Poisonings

Authored by Guy Birchall via The Epoch Times,

The UK issued new sanctions on Russia on Dec. 4, after a public inquiry into the death of a woman poisoned by the nerve agent Novichok in the UK in 2018 held Russian President Vladimir Putin responsible for her demise.

London also summoned the Kremlin’s ambassador for a response to the inquiry’s findings and over what it called an “ongoing campaign of hostile activity” against the UK.

The public inquiry into the death of Dawn Sturgess concluded that Putin had ordered the 2018 Novichok attack by GRU agents on Sergei Skripal, a Russian defector and former GRU colonel, in Salisbury, Wiltshire, which eventually resulted in the death of Sturgess, who had no connection to Skripal or Russia.

“The Salisbury poisonings shocked the nation and today’s findings are a grave reminder of the Kremlin’s disregard for innocent lives,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement. “Dawn’s needless death was a tragedy and will forever be a reminder of Russia’s reckless aggression. My thoughts are with her family and loved ones.”

He said the UK “will always stand up to Putin’s brutal regime” and “call out his murderous machine for what it is.”

“Today’s sanctions are the latest step in our unwavering defense of European security, as we continue to squeeze Russia’s finances and strengthen Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table,” he added.

Along with the GRU in its entirety, London specifically sanctioned eight cyber military intelligence officers, as well as three other GRU officers, it said were responsible for orchestrating hostile activity in Ukraine and across Europe, including plotting an attack on Ukrainian supermarkets.

The latest sanctions build on a string of packages that have been issued by the UK against Moscow in support of its ally, Ukraine.

Russia has always denied any involvement in the Salisbury incident and dismissed the latest move by the UK.

“The Russian side does not recognize illegitimate sanctions imposed under far-fetched pretexts in circumvention of the UN Security Council, and reserves the right to retaliatory measures,” Moscow’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said, Russian state news agency TASS reported.

“The British can be confident in the inevitability of such measures.”

Zakharova criticized British allegations that the phone of Skripal’s daughter, Yulia, was allegedly hacked by GRU agents.

“Britain announced that Yulia Skripal’s ‘electronic device was hacked.’ Why won’t Yulia Skripal herself speak out about what’s going on? How has she been living all these years? What’s happened to her father? Why is hacking ‘Yulia Skripal’s electronic device’ equated to ‘undermining the integrity of the state?’” she wrote on Telegram.

“I’m tired of these tasteless tales from the English crypt.”

Sturgess, 44, died after being exposed to Novichok, which had been left in a discarded perfume bottle in Amesbury, Wiltshire, in July 2018.

Her death followed the attempted murder of the Skripals and then-police officer Nick Bailey, who were poisoned in nearby Salisbury in March of that year.

According to the public inquiry, they were harmed when members of a Russian GRU military intelligence squad smeared the nerve agent on Sergei Skripal’s door handle.

In the inquiry’s final report, published on Dec. 4, Judge Lord Hughes concluded that the attempted assassination of Skripal “must have been authorized at the highest level, by President Putin.”

Hughes said GRU agents Alexander Petrov, Ruslan Boshirov, and Sergey Fedotov were “acting on instructions” when they carried out the attack.

Following the report’s publication, Lord Hughes said: “The conduct of Petrov and Boshirov, their GRU superiors and those who authorized the mission up to and including, as I have found, President Putin, was astonishingly reckless.

“They, and only they, bear moral responsibility for Dawn’s death.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 08:10

The weekend is here! Pour yourself a mug of Danish Blend coffee, grab a seat outside, and get ready for our longer-form weekend reads:

• In the Shadow of Jane Street and Citadel Securities, Hudson River Mints Billions: The quiet flash boy has morphed into a powerhouse among non-bank market makers. (Bloomberg free)

• In every corner of the country, the middle class struggles with affordability. The nation’s affordability crisis has not spared middle-class families, one-third of which struggle to afford basic necessities such as food, housing, and child care. Across the 160 U.S. metro areas studied, at least 20% of middle-class earners cannot afford to live in that place, after adjusting for local income ranges and price variations. The share of struggling middle-class families varies by race: 27% of white families, 39% of Black families, 41% Asian, 46% Native American, and 50% of Latino are unable to afford basic necessities. (Brookings) see also ‘The New Price of Eggs.’ The Political Shocks of Data Centers and Electric Bills: Democrats zeroed in on utilities and affordability to win Republican support in upset elections in Georgia and Virginia. Can the same playbook work in 2026? (New York Times)

• When Donald Trump Fired David Rubenstein: The private-equity billionaire spent decades building influence in the capital. Then his philanthropy collided with the president. (The Atlantic)

• The Airport-Lounge Wars: When you’re waiting for a flight, what’s the difference between out there and in here? (New Yorker)

• Is Gen X Actually the Greatest Generation? (no): How one era changed everything about the culture — and why we’re so nostalgic for its creations. (New York Times Magazine)

• Ozempic is changing how we spend money and time, plus what we eat: In just over a year, the percentage of U.S. adults taking drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and Zepbound more than doubled to 12.4 percent, according to Gallup. The survey also reported that the obesity rate fell from almost 40 percent in 2022 to 37 percent in 2025. Some companies are already responding by acquiring health food brands, renovating hotel gyms and changing lunch menus. But that’s only scratching the surface, said Diana Melencio, a partner at XRC Ventures, an early-stage venture capital firm. (Washington Post) see also Ozempic and Other GLP-1s Are Now Being Marketed to People Who Aren’t Obese: “You don’t need to be obese to start a GLP-1,” reads an ad from a telehealth startup, the words scrawled in icing on a cake. Another one features a slender woman excited to lose a little weight before her wedding. Yet another says patients can drop 17 pounds in two months by microdosing copycat Ozempic. (Bloomberg) see also Calories In, Calories Out is Preventing You From Understanding Ozempic. People are more likely to talk about GLP-1s as appetite suppressants that happen to have a lot of mysterious, incomprehensible side effects. Why, they ask, do the brain, the heart, the reproductive system, and other organs seem to respond to GLP-1s, sometimes in the absence of significant weight loss? (Eurydice Lives)

• The New German War Machine: After World War II, Germany embraced pacifism as a form of atonement. Now the country is arming itself again. (The Atlantic)

• The Oceans Are Going to Rise—but When? The uniquely vulnerable West Antarctic Ice Sheet holds enough water to raise global sea levels by 5 meters. But when that will happen—and how fast—is anything but settled. (Wired)

• A Mechanistic Framework for Targeted Intervention in Single-Gene Mental Illness: The statistical signatures are unambiguous: individuals carrying GRIN2A: loss-of-function variants face an 87-fold increased hazard ratio for psychotic disorders, 11.8-fold for anxiety disorders, and 5.84-fold for depressive disorders relative to the general population.  The GRIN2A Paradigm: Monogenic Psychiatry and the Precision Phytochemical Revolution. (Shanaka Anslem Perera)

• Why One Man Is Fighting for Our Right to Control Our Garage Door Openers: If companies can modify internet-connected products and charge subscriptions after people have already purchased them, what does it mean to own anything anymore? (New York Times)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Paul Zummo, Chief Investment Officer and Co-founder of JPMorgan Alternative Asset Management. The JPM group manages $35 billion in external hedge fund solutions for institutional and high-net worth investors. He also heads the Portfolio Management Group, and is a member of the JPMAAM Investment Committee.

 

How much equity are founders selling to VCs per round

Source: @PeterJ_Walker

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

 

The post 10 Weekend Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

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

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither a crypto nor a stablecoin

Enter The Unit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the Global South really needs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NY Times Sues Department Of War Over New Media Rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Department Investigating School That Vaccinated Child Without Parental Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Michael Kern of Oilprice.com

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

Chinese teapot refiner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Month, If You’re Lucky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Specialist Referral Maze

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 1: Finding a Primary Care Doctor or Specialist

Start With People 

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

Try these approaches:

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

Go Digital

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

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

Expand Your Definition of ‘Doctor’

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

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

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

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

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

Step 2: Getting Seen Sooner

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

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

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

Navigating From Within

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rhodes asked Kennedy:

Who is currently "winning" the tech race?

Kennedy responded:

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

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

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

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

The U.S. and allies lead on chips.

Dominates in data centers.

But again, not in rare earths.

China leads in nuclear power.

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

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

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

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

Authored by Don Tracy via RealClearPolitics,

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

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

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

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

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

Memphis Chose Cooperation

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

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

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

Chicago Chose Politics 

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

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

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

The False Frame

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

That’s inaccurate.

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

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

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

Politics Has a Body Count

Do you want leaders to prioritize safety or political statements?

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

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

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

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

Memphis answered that question. So did Chicago.

The results speak for themselves.

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