Skip to main content
The FYCKL Project
No AI. No Bull.

Main navigation

  • Home
User account menu
  • Log in

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Aggregator
  3. Sources

Zero Rss

Eating Meat Is The Norm Almost Everywhere

Zero Rss
13 minutes 16 seconds ago
Eating Meat Is The Norm Almost Everywhere

On average, 91 percent of people surveyed for Statista's Consumer Insights in 32 countries said that their diet contained meat – highlighting that despite the trend around meat substitutes and plant-based products, eating meat remains the norm almost everywhere in the world.

To satisfy the world's hunger for meat, 373 million tons of it were produced globally in 2024.

Because meat consumption typically increases as countries grow wealthier, that number has been rising.

As Statista's Katharina Buchholz shows in the chart below, in only three out of 32 countries – the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates and India – fewer than 90 percent of respondents said that they ate meat.

The latter country had the lowest score at 56 percent meat eaters. The Philippines still counted 88 percent of respondents saying they ate meat, while that number was 86 percent in the United Arab Emirates, likely influenced by the large South Asian diaspora there. India’s penchant for vegetarian fare is connected to Brahmanism or Vedic religion, a belief system connected to the caste of Brahmans, which are highly regarded in the Indian caste system, making vegetarianism equally desirable.

You will find more infographics at Statista

In Western countries, vegetarianism is more often tied to concerns about environmental impact or unethical practices in meat production. Despite higher meat consumption in these countries, meat substitutes are relatively more popular there. For example, 19 percent in the Netherlands and 15 percent in Switzerland said they bought them regularly. In Vietnam, 22 percent purchase meat substitutes regularly - the highest in the survey. Asian economies produce many traditional meat substitutes like tofu and seitan, whose long-standing popularity is intertwined with the history of Buddhism in the region.

The conceptualization of foregoing meat not only as a moral but as an environmental act has led to meat-eaters also purchasing meat substitutes, as the overlapping of figures from the survey suggest. Regular purchase of meat substitutes was among the lowest in the meat-loving nation of South Korea, where only 6 percent of people said they purchased them on the regular.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 05:45
Tyler Durden

China's Return To The Oil Market Could Boost Inflation

Zero Rss
58 minutes 16 seconds ago
China's Return To The Oil Market Could Boost Inflation

Submitted by Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

The U.S.-Iran agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz could prompt China to return to buying more crude after months of multi-year-low purchases, which could reignite inflationary pressures despite the expected ease of oil flows from the Middle East.   

Late on Sunday, the U.S. and Iran announced a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz more than 100 days after its closure. This re-opening could happen as soon as an agreement is signed on Friday. News of the deal sent oil prices tumbling early on Monday, with Brent Crude prices down to $83 per barrel, and WTI Crude at the $80 a barrel handle.

If the agreement holds and flows through the Strait of Hormuz, begin to tick up relatively quickly, China could resume buying more crude, and this additional demand, which had vanished in the past three months, could tighten the oil market and drive up inflation, analysts at Bloomberg Economics said in a note on Monday.

“Any recovery in Chinese oil demand — particularly if energy flows remain constrained — could tighten global energy markets, reignite inflation pressures and complicate the task facing central banks,” Bloomberg Economics’ analysts wrote.

Energy flows are likely to take months to recover to pre-war levels, assuming the deal holds and traffic through the Strait of Hormuz sustainably increases, analysts say.

China’s severely reduced crude oil imports have been a key anchor keeping oil prices below $100 per barrel during the past few weeks, alongside record U.S. crude and fuel exports and global releases from strategic oil stockpiles coordinated by the International Energy Agency.  

Crude oil imports to China in May fell to their lowest since October 2017 due to the price spike.

The world’s top crude importer started tapping its huge oil reserves last month, in a sign that Beijing is still refraining from paying top-dollar for prompt crude deliveries.

So far into this unprecedented crisis, China has slashed refinery run rates, limited exports, and cut demand for road transportation fuels as consumers prefer driving EVs over paying high gasoline prices.

The key question for the oil market is how much demand China would generate when it returns to more active crude purchases.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 05:00
Tyler Durden

Lebanon Hosts The World's Highest Concentration Of Refugees, US Ranks 82nd

Zero Rss
1 hour 43 minutes ago
Lebanon Hosts The World's Highest Concentration Of Refugees, US Ranks 82nd

The countries carrying the world’s largest refugee burden are often not the ones most people expect.

Using data from the UNHCR via Our World in Data, this graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, ranks countries by the number of refugees hosted per 1,000 residents in 2024.

The results reveal how proximity to conflict frequently matters more than economic size. Many of the countries at the top of the ranking border active war zones and have absorbed large refugee populations relative to their own populations.

Which Countries Carry the Largest Refugee Burden?

Roughly two-thirds of the world’s refugees remain in neighboring countries, helping explain why several relatively small nations rank ahead of much larger economies.

Rather than being distributed across the world’s wealthiest countries, refugee populations are often concentrated in states that share borders with major conflicts. The ranking below shows which countries carry the largest refugee burden relative to their population.

Why Does Lebanon Rank So High?

Lebanon tops the ranking by a wide margin, hosting 130.7 refugees per 1,000 residents. Put differently, about one out of every eight people living in the country is a refugee, the highest ratio in the world.

Its position reflects the country’s proximity to Syria, which has produced one of the world’s largest refugee crises since civil war broke out in 2011. Over the past decade, millions of Syrians have sought refuge in neighboring countries, with Lebanon absorbing one of the largest shares relative to its population.

The country has also faced mounting economic and political challenges of its own. More recently, fighting between Israel and Hezbollah displaced more than one million people within Lebanon, adding further strain to public services and infrastructure.

Taken together, these pressures help explain why Lebanon remains one of the countries most affected by displacement anywhere in the world.

Geography Matters More Than Wealth

Many of the countries hosting the largest refugee populations are located near active conflicts or regions experiencing prolonged instability.

Jordan and Lebanon border Syria. Moldova shares a border with Ukraine. Chad hosts refugees from neighboring Sudan, while Uganda has long received people fleeing violence in South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The pattern helps explain why many smaller countries appear near the top of the ranking despite having far fewer economic resources than larger developed nations.

For refugees, crossing a nearby border is often the fastest and safest option. As a result, neighboring countries frequently absorb the largest influxes long before refugees are resettled elsewhere.

Why the U.S. Ranks 82nd

At first glance, America’s ranking may seem surprisingly low.

The United States hosts hundreds of thousands of refugees and remains the world’s 18th-largest refugee destination in absolute terms.

However, its population of more than 340 million significantly changes the picture.

When refugee numbers are adjusted for population size, the U.S. hosts roughly 1.3 refugees per 1,000 residents, placing it 82nd globally.

The gap highlights why per-capita measures can reveal a different reality than headline totals. While large countries often host more refugees overall, smaller nations can experience a much greater impact relative to their population size.

Refugee Pressures Are Reaching Record Levels

The number of forcibly displaced people worldwide has surpassed 120 million, nearly double the level seen a decade ago. Conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, and other regions continue to drive displacement across borders.

For host countries, the impact extends beyond humanitarian assistance. Large refugee populations can increase demand for housing, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and public services, particularly in smaller countries with limited resources.

The ranking highlights a reality often overlooked in global migration debates: the countries carrying the largest refugee burden are frequently those located closest to conflict, not necessarily those with the largest economies.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the world’s largest migration corridors.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 04:15
Tyler Durden

Ebola Cases, Deaths Jump In Congo As Outbreak Spreads

Zero Rss
2 hours 28 minutes ago
Ebola Cases, Deaths Jump In Congo As Outbreak Spreads

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The number of Ebola cases and deaths has risen in Congo, the epicenter of an ongoing outbreak, officials said on June 14.

Response personnel carry the body of a person who died from Ebola in Bunia, Congo, on June 13, 2026. Jospin Mwisha/AFP via Getty Images

Thirty-two new deaths and 72 new cases have been confirmed in the central African country, Congo's Ministry of Communications said in a statement.

The cumulative number of cases is up to 782, and the cumulative number of deaths is 181.

The case fatality rate, or the percentage of sick people who have died, is 23.1 percent.

The outbreak, which was first detected in May but believed to have started earlier, has also spread to two additional health zones in Congo, officials said. One of the new zones is in Ituri province, where most of the cases are; the second is in North Kivu province.

The three provinces with reported cases are all in eastern Congo.

Health officials have been working to identify suspected cases and encourage people with symptoms to travel to health facilities.

"Vigilance remains essential. Anyone presenting with fever, vomiting, diarrhea, or any other suspicious symptoms must go immediately to the nearest health facility for prompt care," the ministry stated. "Adherence to preventive measures - particularly regular handwashing, acceptance of contact tracing, and avoidance of any contact with sick or deceased individuals from suspected causes - remains crucial to curb the spread of the epidemic."

The largest Ebola outbreak in history was in West Africa and ran from 2014 through 2016. There were 28,610 reported cases, and 11,308 reported deaths.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a June 11 paper that, if crucial public health measures are not implemented, the new outbreak could become as large as the 2014 outbreak.

"Although the worst outcomes (higher numbers of cases and associated deaths) in these projections were less likely when a larger proportion of patients were identified, isolated, and treated, this outbreak could, within 3 months and under low-isolation scenarios, become the second largest Ebola outbreak in history," the CDC said.

Ebola is a disease caused by orthoebolaviruses. The current outbreak is caused by the rarely seen Bundibugyo virus.

Transmission primarily happens through direct contact with bodily fluids from infected individuals.

While Ebola can in many cases be deadly, 56 people have recovered in the outbreak in Congo, according to the latest figures.

Another 359 patients are in isolation or being treated in a hospital.

Uganda, which shares a border with Congo, has reported 19 Ebola cases and two deaths. Ugandan officials said Monday that there have been no cases for 10 days.

"Ebola is under control in Uganda," Uganda's Ministry of Health said in a Jun 13 post on X. Ugandan officials said people should visit the country.

Sanitation workers from Bunia city government spray disinfectant in the central market area near a rubbish truck in Ituri province, as they continue efforts to combat the Ebola outbreak in Bunia, Congo, on May 23, 2026. Moses Sawasawa/AP Photo Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 03:30
Tyler Durden

Norwegian Royal Family Rocked: Crown Princess's Son Convicted of Rape, Sentenced To Four Years

Zero Rss
3 hours 13 minutes ago
Norwegian Royal Family Rocked: Crown Princess's Son Convicted of Rape, Sentenced To Four Years

In a verdict that has rocked Norway's monarchy, Marius Borg Høiby, the 29-year-old son of Crown Princess Mette-Marit, was found guilty of two counts of rape and sentenced to four years in prison.

Marius Borg Høiby, son of Norwegian Crown Princess Mette-Marit, pictured in Oslo, Norway on June 16, 2022. Hakon Mosvold Larsen/NTB/AFP/Getty Images

The Oslo District Court convicted him on 34 of 40 charges, spanning rape, assault, abuse in close relationships, drug offenses, and restraining order violations. He was acquitted on the other two rape counts. Prosecutors had demanded over seven years; the defense sought 18 months. He must also pay victims around $61,000 in compensation.

Key Facts from the Verdict
  • Guilty on two counts of rape
  • Sentenced to four years in prison
  • Acquitted on two other rape charges
  • Convicted on 34 out of 40 total charges
  • Ordered to pay approximately $61,000 to victims
  • Defense plans to appeal rape and domestic violence convictions

The seven-week trial detailed Høiby's struggles with drug addiction and a lifestyle of excess. Evidence included self-made videos of sexual encounters and more than 800 electronic messages. In court, he described an "extreme need for recognition" from his unique position in the royal family.

"I’m mostly known as my mother’s son, not anything else. So I’ve had an extreme need for recognition my whole life," he told the court. "And that manifested itself in a lot of sex, a lot of drugs, and a lot of alcohol."

The incidents took place between 2018 and 2024 after nights of partying. Prosecutors argued that what began as consensual sex became non-consensual when the women were asleep or incapacitated. Høiby insisted he was "not in the habit of having sex with women who are asleep."

His lawyers have said he will appeal and have pushed for his release so he can support his ailing mother.

Princess Mette-Marit's Health and Royal Family Pressure

Crown Princess Mette-Marit, 52, is battling pulmonary fibrosis and is on a lung-transplant waiting list. Doctors have indicated she may have only about a year left without a successful transplant.

Marius Borg Høiby with his mother Crown Princess Mette-Marit, pictured in 2022 Credit: PDKOB/The Mega Agency

The scandal comes amid other challenges for the royals, including criticism over the princess's past contact with Jeffrey Epstein after his 2008 conviction. Polls showed support for the monarchy falling to a record low of 60% during the trial, with a slight recovery later.

The Royal House has stated it has no comment on the court outcome.

This case underscores the contrast between the public image of the Norwegian royal family and the private difficulties faced by its members.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 02:45
Tyler Durden

Remigration & The Save Europe Act

Zero Rss
3 hours 58 minutes ago
Remigration & The Save Europe Act

Authored by 'eugyppius' via American Greatmess,

In 2024, the Austrian Identitarian activist Martin Sellner began serious efforts to push his concept of remigration into the political mainstream, and since then the German state and its civil society collaborators have extended him every assistance.

Gregory Bovino, ex-Customs and Border Patrol Chief, appears with (from left) Eva Vlaardingerbroek, Martin Sellner, and Alfonso Gonçalves at the second Remigration Summit in Portugal last week.

Domestic intelligence agents and activist journalists at Correctiv collaborated to convict Sellner and Alternative für Deutschland of planning the mass deportation of naturalized Germans in a late 2023 meeting in Potsdam. They called this small private meeting a “Secret Plan against Germany” and drew not-so-subtle comparisons to the notorious Wannsee Conference. Ensuing anti-AfD protests lasted months, even as litigation succeeded in deconstructing much of the slander Correctiv had propagated. The hysteria cost AfD some support ahead of the European elections, but it also succeeded in making “remigration” a household word throughout the Federal Republic—something that Sellner and his Identitarians could never have achieved on their own. Unbelievably, the Correctiv reporting was turned into a theater piece, and the actual Wannsee Villa where Nazi government officials and SS leaders met to plan the Final Solution in 1942 received a sign advising visitors of Sellner’s Potsdam meeting and “the . . . obvious . . . link between today’s ethno-nationalist fantasies of deportation and the historic Wannsee Conference.”

For their next act, authorities toyed with legally doubtful schemes to ban Sellner from Germany, while police devised pretenses to disrupt the speaking events Sellner had scheduled in the Federal Republic to present his book on Remigration. All this meant more press and more eyeballs for Sellner’s cause. When Sellner co-organized the inaugural “Remigration Summit” last spring in Italy, authorities tried to prevent the attendance of several German Identitarian activists by temporarily banning them from leaving the country, and they did the same again when the second “Remigration Summit” convened in Portugal last week. In each case, their restrictions ensured that small conferences held in other countries and attended by no more than a few hundred people could remain the subject of reporting and controversy here at home.

I don’t know to what degree the German approach to Sellner’s remigration program reflects a calculated strategy, and to what degree it’s just all the pinched head girls in the state bureaucratic apparatus having a collective aneurysm over the latest politically naughty thing to come across their desks. Either way, the unique German system of “defensive democracy” requires an enemy against which to array its defenses, and in the decades since the Berlin Wall fell this enemy has become “the extreme Right”—concentrated like the old Communist foe in the eastern states of the former DDR, embodied by Alternative für Deutschland rather than the SED, and constructed as an equal if not greater threat to Our Democracy. Because, unlike the Communists, this enemy does not really exist, it requires regime propagandists to engage in heavy revisionism—for example, by casting as an NSDAP successor a populist-Right party with politics broadly equivalent to the 1980s-era CDU, and by building up and deploring particular villains like Sellner.

Now, political dissidents and activists of all stripes have a curious relationship with establishment discourse. The one is like oil and the other is like water; they cannot occupy the same space. In the past years, the myth that Diversity Is Our Strength and that mass migration might fix our pension plans, alleviate our cultural ennui, and improve our culinary offerings has collapsed. Anti-migrationism has gone mainstream in many circles, driving right-populists to seize upon remigration as the new cause. I would imagine that a similar process unfolded from the establishment perspective; as major politicians and journalists decided the time had come to put the brakes on the steady stream of younger males streaming into our country from the Global South, they needed to draw a new line in the sand to differentiate themselves from the populist rabble-rousers.

Thus, with the help of literally everybody from Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s benighted traffic light government to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution to Alternative für Deutschland to Martin Sellner and his Identitarians, remigration became the new anti-migration. Which is fine, as far as it goes; people should support the causes they want, and nobody would dispute that, particularly in the last ten years, a great many people have forced their way into Europe, where they have proceeded to abuse our social welfare systems, violate the law at disproportionate rates, and substantially degrade the quality of life. If I could push a button and make these people leave, I would.

Unfortunately, this problem does not come packaged with any easy solutions, and I am less and less certain (1) how remigration is supposed to work and (2) whether the newly ascendant and highly dogmatic remigrationists on the Right have any path toward realizing their vision. While remigrationists preach the manifold benefits of putting migrants on airplanes back to the Global South, the migrants’ native countries in many cases refuse to accept them, mass migration continues, if at a somewhat slower pace, the AfD remains firewalled out of German politics, our elaborate NGO machinery continues to push migrationist humanitarianism, a broad elite consensus resists even efforts to deport many of those who are here illegally, and primary EU law confounds remigrationist proposals at numerous points. Remigration would prove a tall order if 85 percent of Germans reversed their stance on the idea tomorrow. Sellner’s full, heavily technocratic vision, meanwhile, would require broad institutional buy-in and support from all major parties, including large parts of the Left, over a period of decades. We are talking about a new social consensus to compel or encourage the mass resettlement of entire populations, as deep and broad as the consensus that until recently existed behind climatism. That probably can’t happen without serious generational turnover or some kind of serious political upheaval.

I do not write this as a condemnatory political ninny or an incurable contrarian. I consider Sellner a friend, and I am even his translator. Yet personal considerations like these aren’t enough to blunt my skepticism.

The most recent initiative in remigration land is something called the Save Europe Act, rolled out by Sellner and Dutch political activist Eva Vlaardingerbroek at the Remigration Summit 2026 in Portugal. Basically, there’s an EU procedural mechanism known as the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), whereby ordinary people can bring a legal proposal for consideration directly before the European Commission. To do this, they need only gather a million signatures in support and meet a few other requirements. Among other things, the Save Europe Act demands “legislative and policy measures” to impose a “moratorium” on non-European migration, to deport “illegally staying migrants, rejected asylum seekers,” and criminals, to “establish a harmonized EU-wide framework for broader remigration” and to “remove social welfare incentives and benefits that function as pull factors for migration.”

All of that sounds great, as does the fact that Sellner and Vlaardingerbroek claim to have gathered well over 200,000 “signatures” so far. Unfortunately, reality tends generally to be less great. To begin with, Sellner and Vlaardingerbroek have yet to register the Save Europe Act with the European Commission at all. The signatures they are collecting—really, just email addresses—are part of an internet publicity campaign and have no wider significance. According to me, chances that the Commission agrees to register the Save Europe Act as a formal ECI are quite low, for the Commission may reject any proposal that “is . . . manifestly contrary to the values of the Union.” If Sellner and Vlaardingerbroek do manage to squeeze their initiative through registration and the Save Europe Act becomes more than a buggy website, then they’ll still need to collect a million signatures—not from random internet people, but from verified citizens of EU member states. And if they meet that hurdle, they’ll compel a response from the Commission and a hearing in the European Parliament. Even in this best-case scenario, there is no chance that the Save Europe Act becomes law, inspires any laws, or changes anything at the EU level at all.

Defenders of the Save Europe Act who have bothered to read the fine print accept that they are not on the path to making Remigration official EU policy. They argue instead that publicity surrounding the Save Europe Act will “move the Overton Window” and normalize remigration as a concept. These arguments neglect the fact that remigration has already been normalized; as I wrote above, since 2024, it has become almost a household word in Germany, if one denoting a very bad and fascistic concept approximately on par with outright genocidal fascism. Otherwise, I have learned to be wary of intangible, immeasurable ends in the world of political activism. Western politics abounds with activists who are changing perceptions, challenging conventions, deconstructing myths, complicating assumptions, correcting prejudices, deepening understandings, and now moving Overton Windows, and the only thing these projects and their goals have in common is that nobody can work out what any of them mean in concrete terms.

Mass migration has been an absolute curse. People want the migrants to stop coming, and they want the ones who are already here to go back home. They feel impotent to change the situation, and it’s natural that they should support social media campaigns promising at the very least to give them a voice. That’s fine, and most of this is probably harmless, but the truth is that we’re not going to petition the migrants away. I’ve read so many appeals to the Overton Window at this point that the concept has become quite threadbare for me, but if anything has shifted mass media discourse these past years, it is not activist campaigns but the manifold and quite serious problems caused by mass migration itself. As in so many other areas—from COVID to climatism—retarded elite policies are failing and unwinding themselves, but we’re not yet winning.

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 02:00
Tyler Durden

Who Won The Third Gulf War?

Zero Rss
6 hours 33 minutes ago
Who Won The Third Gulf War?

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Iran is poised to gradually return to the US-led Western order within certain limits exactly as Iran’s moderate faction has long wanted, its hardline faction has successfully preserved the armed forces and their missile stockpile, while Israel achieved none of its goals in its most epic defeat ever.

Iran and the US plan to sign a Zarif-inspired memorandum of understanding (MoU) on ending the Third Gulf War this Friday in Switzerland. The exact details aren’t yet known, and Fortune reported that there were at least three competing texts, but all of them “include similar elements around reopening the vital Strait of Hormuz waterway, giving Iran sanctions relief and opening the door to longer-term negotiations around its nuclear program.” That’s already enough to arrive at several very important conclusions.

For starters, reopening the strait without Iran’s wartime petroyuan toll booth in place would represent a significant concession by the Islamic Republic, whose media surrogates celebrated this model as an historic multipolar milestone. The same goes for resuming negotiations on its politically sensitive nuclear program. The sanctions relief in exchange might arguably be worth it, however, judging by this estimate here of the profound economic-financial damage caused by the US’ (imperfect) blockade.

On that topic, it was explained here in late March that “The US will have lost the Third Gulf War if China can still rely on Iran as a reliable low-cost energy supplier while turning the yuan into a global reserve currency that challenges the petrodollar”, so preventing both is imperative from the US’ perspective.

With the petroyuan reportedly out of the picture, that leaves Iran’s oil export dependence on China, but sanctions relief could help gradually redirect its sales (such as to India) without disrupting the market.

Likewise, if reports about a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran are true (even if the final sum is much lower but still tens of billions of dollars), then US and Gulf investments in Iran’s energy industry could lead to them controlling its exports.

It was assessed in January that “The US Wants To Replicate The Venezuelan Model In Iran”, which would be on the path to implementation in that scenario.

The resultant interdependence could advance collective security and facilitate the US’ regional withdrawal.

Iran’s moderate (“reformist”) and hardline (“principalist”) factions would therefore achieve some of their goals, the first with respect to sanctions relief and the second with regards to preserving the country’s (arguably battered) armed forces as well as their missile stockpile, not to mention their political system.

Nevertheless, the factional balance would have shifted in the moderate’s favor since the US wouldn’t sign a MoU if the moderates couldn’t control “rogue” hardliners, who could potentially rekindle the war.

It can therefore be concluded that the moderates beat the hardliners in Iran’s deep state power struggle, but this was due to the US and Israel killing dozens of top hardline figures, after which their respective institutions (especially the IRGC) were weakened and ultimately tamed by the moderates.

To be sure, “rogue” hardliners – regardless of their relationship to the IRGC – could still sabotage the MoU, but Trump 2.0 feels comfortable enough that they won’t otherwise it wouldn’t go through with the signing.

A new regional era is emerging whereby the Third Gulf War might very well lead to Iran’s gradual reincorporation into the US-led Western order, albeit within limits, which lays the groundwork for better ties with its Gulf neighbors.

In that scenario, Israel would stand to lose since it could no longer divide-and-rule Iran and the Gulf, nor would the US have its back if Israel resumes hostilities with Iran due to the recent revival of the possibly irreconcilable Trump-Bibi rift. Israel is therefore the war’s biggest loser.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 23:25
Tyler Durden

Gun Safety: Violent Crime Drops As More Americans Pack Heat

Zero Rss
7 hours 23 minutes ago
Gun Safety: Violent Crime Drops As More Americans Pack Heat

Authored by John R. Lott jr via RealClearInvestigations,

Alessandra Coote was walking on a trail with her 2-year-old daughter and dog two-and-a-half years ago when a man began yelling at her and threatened to kill her dog. When the petite single mom made it back to her Utah home, she decided she needed a firearm for protection.

A few months later, while living in what she described as a “shady part of town,” a homeless man threatened her. After that encounter, she began regularly carrying a firearm under Utah’s Constitutional Carry law.

Coote, who just graduated this spring from the University of Utah, says carrying the gun has given her the confidence to feel safe in public. “It’s been life-changing,” she told RealClearInvestigations (RCI). Although she has never had to draw or fire the weapon, she has faced a threatening individual when she was armed, but stopped the attack by merely letting the man know she was carrying.

Coote is part of a growing trend of strapped Americans. A new survey of 1,000 general election voters conducted last month by McLaughlin & Associates found that almost 30 percent of respondents said they carry a firearm. More specifically, the survey found that 13.2 percent respondents said they carry a firearm all or most of the time, while an additional 16.6 percent said they carry one sometimes or rarely. These results show a 5.5 percent increase in the number of respondents who said they carry firearms since a similar poll was conducted in December 2024.

Both polls were commissioned by the group I lead, the Crime Prevention Research Center, and have a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent.

Since 2021, 13 states, covering 34 percent of the U.S. population, have adopted constitutional carry laws. As a result, 29 states do not require law-abiding citizens to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. A little less than two-thirds of those who are carrying a concealed handgun in these states have a permit.

The survey is the latest evidence challenging claims linking firearms and violent crime. As data show both the number of firearms and the percentage of people carrying them is increasing, preliminary estimates show the U.S. murder rate is likely to hit a record low in 2025—at least 10 percent below the previous record low.

“It doesn’t surprise me that while the country is experiencing record-low murder and violent crime rates, we are also experiencing a record high number of people legally carrying concealed handguns for self-protection,” Alan Gottlieb, the executive vice president and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told RCI.

Bradford County, Fla., Sheriff Gordon Smith said lowering crime rates “isn’t rocket science.” He told RCI, “You reduce crime by putting more cops on the street, increasing arrest and conviction rates, and imposing meaningful prison sentences. But you also cut crime by empowering law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families through constitutional carry.”

Gun control groups—Everytown, Brady United, and Giffords Law Center—declined repeated requests to respond to the survey data and crime statistics.

Blacks, Hispanics & Women

The CPRC survey also found that politically engaged citizens are more likely to carry firearms. Respondents who identified as general election voters were twice as likely to have concealed handgun permits as other adults.

Blacks and Hispanics also carry at disproportionately high rates. Black people make up 11.0 percent of likely voters but account for 15.9 percent of those who carry all or most of the time. Hispanics are even higher, accounting for 18.8 percent of frequent carriers despite comprising only 11.0 percent of likely voters. By contrast, whites and Asians carry at rates below their shares of likely voters. Whites constitute 72 percent of likely voters but only 62.6 percent of those who carry all or most of the time, while Asians account for 4.0 percent of likely voters but just 2.0 percent of frequent carriers.

Audrey Bodiford, a 5’2” black woman living in Lansing, Michigan, told RCI she owes her life to her handgun and having a concealed handgun permit. On Valentine’s Day in 2022, she said, the over 6-foot-tall man she had been dating “kind of went crazy,” threatened to kill her, and pulled a knife on her. Fearing for her life, she shot him in self-defense.

Because she lives in what she describes as a “not good” neighborhood, this was not the only time she relied on her firearm for protection. In another incident, she said she accidentally let a door slip from her hand while trying to hold it open for a man leaving a store. The man became verbally abusive, followed her, and aggressively closed in on her. She turned slightly so he could see that she was armed. He immediately backed off, ending the confrontation. Asked if carrying has given her more confidence: “I feel more safe, definitely,” she said.

The survey found relatively small differences between men and women. While women make up 52 percent of general election voters, they comprise 45.1 percent of Americans carrying concealed weapons; men are 48 percent of the electorate and 54.9 percent of those who carry all or most of the time. The breakdown for Constitutional Carry states is relatively higher for women, with 47.5 percent of those carrying all/most of the time being women and 52.5 percent men. Constitutional Carry may benefit women who suddenly face threats from a stalker or former partner and often do not feel they can wait the months it takes for officials to approve a permit application.

Research shows that two groups benefit the most from carrying firearms: physically weaker individuals, such as women and the elderly, and those most likely to become crime victims, such as poor blacks living in high-crime urban areas. These groups have also experienced the largest percentage increases in concealed handgun permits over the last decade (2015–2024). During that period, permits for women increased 112 percent faster than permits for men, while permits for blacks increased 284 percent faster than permits for whites.

“A firearm dramatically increases a woman’s ability to defend herself,” Professor Carl Moody, a crime researcher at the College of William & Mary, told RCI. “Without a firearm, a woman is almost always at a significant disadvantage if attacked by a man. With a firearm, she can avoid an unfair fight with an opponent who usually has a size and strength advantage. Almost always, it is only necessary to announce or display the weapon to dissuade the attacker.”

More Guns, Fewer Violent Crimes

After the Supreme Court struck down a New York state law in 2022 which had sharply limited the number of people who could carry concealed weapons, six states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, were forced to make it easier to get a concealed handgun permit by eliminating arbitrary discretion and establishing objective rules on training and other qualifications. “This dangerous decision will make America a less safe country,” Democratic New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy warned. Those states did, indeed, see an enormous increase in the number of permits issued. In New Jersey, the number of concealed carry permit holders increased from 1,212 in 2022 to 57,245 in 2025. In Hawaii, the total has now gone from zero to 4,000.

Violent crime, however, has fallen in all six states. The murder rate in New Jersey fell from 3.9 per 100,000 people in 2022 to 2.4 in 2024, and the preliminary numbers show it falling to as low as two per 100,000 in 2025. A press release from New Jersey’s attorney general announced a “Historic Low in Gun Violence for 2025.” Some attribute the drop to the increase in permits. “Today, more than 58,000 law-abiding New Jerseyans can exercise their right to carry a firearm. And while some warned this would turn our streets into the Wild West, the reality has been far different,” Republican New Jersey Assemblyman Greg Myhre claimed.

An easier thing to measure is that permit holders are exceptionally law-abiding. States revoke their licenses for firearm-related violations at rates measured in thousandths or even tens of thousandths of a percentage point. Police officers rarely commit crimes, yet concealed handgun permit holders prove even more law-abiding than cops. Permit holders are convicted for firearms offenses at just one-twelfth the rate at which police are convicted of comparable firearm-related crimes.

“The data clearly show that concealed carry permit holders are among the safest and most responsible users of firearms,” David Mustard, a distinguished professor at the University of Georgia who researches extensively on crime, told RCI. Bradford County Sheriff Gordon Smith confirmed that this is his experience with Constitutional Carry: “The data is clear: The vast majority of concealed carriers are among our most responsible residents, not the problem.”

Despite the fears raised by gun-control advocates, over 91 percent of street police officers support concealed handgun laws. Law enforcement professionals understand that self-defense is a key element of public safety, in part because they know they usually arrive only after criminals commit crimes. An overwhelming body of academic research finds that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces crime.

This is especially true for women, who often struggle to defend themselves against much larger and stronger men, who also tend to run faster. While both men and women benefit from carrying a concealed handgun, research shows that each additional woman who carries a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by roughly three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

“Too often, women who are being stalked or threatened are told to limit their movements, alter their routines, or rely on a piece of paper to stop someone determined to harm them,” Robyn Sandoval, the president of A Girl & A Gun, told RCI. “Women deserve better than living in fear. By learning to responsibly carry a firearm, they can gain the confidence and means to protect themselves and live their lives without fear.”

“Every day, more law-abiding citizens choose to legally carry firearms because they refuse to be victimized by criminals and thugs,” Brevard County, FL, Sheriff Wayne Ivey told RCI. “Responsible gun owners know that even the best police response times takes minutes, while violent criminals can take a life in seconds!”

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 22:35
Tyler Durden

New Study Exposes How The Left Turned Mental Illness Into A Political Identity

Zero Rss
7 hours 48 minutes ago
New Study Exposes How The Left Turned Mental Illness Into A Political Identity

Something researchers have observed for decades is finally crystallizing into a measurable cultural phenomenon. Political conservatives consistently report higher levels of happiness, better mental health, and stronger psychological well-being than their liberal counterparts. A new study published in Political Behavior takes that finding several steps further, arguing that mental illness has begun functioning as its own political identity, and that identity clusters most tightly on the left.

Columbia University's magazine originally flagged the underlying trend back in 2023, reporting that "American adults who identify as politically liberal have long reported lower levels of happiness and psychological well-being than conservatives," Based on the data of four different studies, researchers from the Universities of Florida and Toronto, found an explanation: conservatives tend to exhibit greater personal agency, religiosity, moral clarity, self-worth, and a more optimistic general disposition.

The Political Behavior study was conducted by Prof. Lauren Van De Hey of Utah State University, and the implications of her findings were significant. "I further find that there is an emerging mental health political identity that is most pronounced among younger (Gen Z) and more liberal Americans," she said.

She also noted that "the political predictors and political consequences for the emerging mental health identity differ from those for physical disability and serious physical illness categorization and identification," suggesting that mental health, unlike physical illness, has acquired a distinctly ideological character in American life.

Approximately half of the study participants with mental illness reported that their identity as a person with a mental health condition is "very important or somewhat important" to them. Meanwhile, conservatives are less likely than liberals to categorize anxiety and depression as mental health conditions and seek clinical treatment at lower rates. Van De Hey speculates this may reflect a "personal responsibility ethos: they do not seek help when they think they can resolve the issues on their own." That framing, notably, does not treat the conservative approach as a pathology.

The study concludes that "these findings have far-reaching consequences for mental health advocacy, and the role mental health identity will play in the political sphere - especially as Gen Z matures as a cohort," with conservative and specifically Christian beliefs credited as having a stronger track record for producing happiness and well-being than leftist counterparts.

"It is becoming increasingly clear which ideas do what! Conservative, and specifically Christian, ideas have a much better track record than their leftist counterparts," writes Glenn T. Stanton of Daily Citizen. "This has deep personal and political implications."

The gender dimension of this divide deserves its own examination. Academic literature going back to the 1970s establishes that women generally report worse mental health than men. A separate body of research establishes that conservatives report greater happiness than liberals. Among young liberal women, both trends converge. Last year, the Institute for Family Studies report found that 37% of conservative women report being "completely satisfied" with life, compared to 28% of moderates and just 12% of liberal women. Young conservative women are more than three times as likely as liberal women to report feeling very happy, and IFS found that "liberal women are two to three times more likely to report they are 'not satisfied' with their lives, compared to conservative women."

The loneliness numbers were just as striking. Among women ages 18 to 40, 29% of liberals reported feeling lonely many times a week. Among conservative women, that figure dropped to 11%. The explanatory variables IFS identified were that young conservative women are far more likely to be married, far less likely to be cohabiting, and nearly five times more likely to attend weekly church services.

IFS concluded that closing the happiness gap "will seemingly require not only a change in thinking but also a renewal of young liberal women's connection to America's core institutions - family and faith." That's a direct challenge to a progressive framework that has spent years telling young women that traditional institutions are the source of their suffering rather than the solution.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 22:10
Tyler Durden

Federal Agents Dismantle Human Smuggling Stash House In Texas

Zero Rss
8 hours 13 minutes ago
Federal Agents Dismantle Human Smuggling Stash House In Texas

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,

U.S. Border Patrol and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents busted a stash house used for human smuggling in El Paso, Texas, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) exclusively told The Epoch Times on Monday.

U.S. Border Patrol agents monitor the southern border outside of San Diego, Calif. on May 27, 2026. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

The joint investigation, which resulted in the arrests of 11 illegal immigrant adults and one unaccompanied child found in the house on May 27, highlights the need for strict enforcement efforts at the border to dissuade individuals from entering the country unlawfully through human smugglers, CBP officials said.

"This operation, in partnership with U.S. Border Patrol, reflects our mission to safeguard the homeland and uphold the integrity of our immigration system," HSI El Paso Special Agent in Charge Ryan McRae said. "We remain committed to ensuring the safety and security of El Paso and beyond."

Of the 12 illegal aliens arrested, 10 were from Mexico and two from Guatemala.

The 11 adults were processed and charged with violations of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, CBP said, which encompasses immigration offenses including unlawful entry, unlawful reentry, alien harboring or smuggling, and more.

The unaccompanied minor was "administratively processed," CBP told The Epoch Times.

Following apprehension, an unaccompanied child is transferred into the care and custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which sits under Department of Health and Human Services.

Chief Patrol Agent Jessie Munoz for the El Paso Sector said his agents and agency partners at HSI are making progress in dismantling criminal smuggling organizations in the region.

The Epoch Times exclusively spoke with other top leadership at the U.S.-Mexico border who echoed the same message.

They described the border as more secure than at any other point in American history, yet some vulnerabilities remain that criminal organizations will attempt to exploit, Chief Patrol Agent Justin De La Torre of the San Diego Sector said.

"Our primary focus is to prevent people from illegally entering in the first place, and it is my strong belief that the only way we can do that is if people know if they choose to use the cartels to come to the United States, they will not be successful," De La Torre said.

Every individual who illegally crosses the border, the San Diego Sector chief said, equates to money going into the hands of the cartels, which charge roughly $10,000 per person to be smuggled into the country.

More often than not, an illegal immigrant doesn't have enough money up front to make this payment, De La Torre said. Instead, they have an agreement with the cartels that if they are successfully smuggled in, they will illegally work in the United States and send money back each paycheck.

"It could take them a year, it could take them six years, but they're paying the smuggling organization until that debt is paid off, and that's usually through fear [from the cartels saying] ... 'If you don't, we know where your family lives,'" De La Torre said.

CBP officials told The Epoch Times that they hear countless stories of illegal immigrants alleging they were sexually assaulted, robbed, or beaten by their smugglers.

"If they can't get a group through, they will kidnap people, call their family members for ransom, just to gain some type of profit," De La Torre said about the smuggling organizations.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 21:45
Tyler Durden

New Radar System Can Detect High-Speed Drones Nearby Ports, Vessels In Extreme Environment

Zero Rss
9 hours 3 minutes ago
New Radar System Can Detect High-Speed Drones Nearby Ports, Vessels In Extreme Environment

Authored by Prabhat Ranjan Mishra via Interesting Engineering,

A new type of radar to detect drones nearby ports, vessels, harbours, and critical maritime infrastructure has been introduced. Developed by Robin Radar Systems, IRIS OTM at Sea is designed for seamless land-to-sea deployments.

The system can operate effectively in extreme environments thanks to its salt- and corrosion-resistant engineering.ROBIN

The new system is a major expansion of its IRIS On-The-Move (OTM) capability.

The comprehensive update is aimed at strengthening counter-UAS protection for shipping lanes, naval operations, and coastal assets.

Offshore Assets Are Exposed To Low-Cost Aerial Threats

"What we are seeing globally is that the drone threat is no longer confined to the battlefield or to land-based infrastructure. Shipping lanes, ports, harbours and offshore assets are now all exposed to low-cost aerial threats that can disrupt trade, damage infrastructure and threaten civilian safety," said Siete Hamminga, CEO, Robin Radar Systems.

"The Strait of Hormuz has once again demonstrated how vulnerable critical maritime corridors can become during periods of instability. IRIS OTM at Sea is being designed to answer that challenge with a rapidly deployable, software-defined capability that can move seamlessly between land and sea."

IRIS OTM At Sea Will Detect, Track, And Classify Drones

Originally developed to operate from moving land vehicles traveling at speeds exceeding 62 mph (100km/h), IRIS On-The-Move will now be adapted for maritime environments through advanced software enhancements that compensate for sea clutter, vessel movement, and challenging coastal conditions, according to a press release.

Designed to be mounted on vessels, IRIS OTM at Sea will detect, track, and classify drones while travelling at speeds of up to 54 knots, operating effectively in extreme environments thanks to its salt- and corrosion-resistant engineering, resonance tolerance, and EMC-compliant architecture.

Unlike traditional static radars, IRIS is designed to move with the threat itself, providing persistent situational awareness across highly dynamic environments, as per the release.

The company revealed that the radar's software architecture will be updated to filter out heavy sea reflections and environmental clutter to isolate small airborne threats operating close to the waterline, an increasingly important capability as drone incursions continue to evolve across maritime theatres.

Robin Radar Systems highlighted that the maritime update has been shaped directly by operational lessons from ongoing live-fire environments, where the need for flexible, mobile counter-UAS systems capable of protecting dynamic environments has accelerated dramatically. The company's engineering teams reportedly adapted the system specifically to address the increasing use of fixed-wing drones and low-altitude aerial threats around strategic shipping corridors and maritime infrastructure.

"Modern security demands speed and flexibility. Operators need systems that can deploy quickly, integrate easily, and adapt as threats evolve," said Vivien Croes, Chief Technical Officer, Robin Radar Systems.

"What makes this update important is that we are taking a combat-proven radar and extending its capabilities into one of the most operationally complex environments in the world. The future of counter-UAS is not static infrastructure, it is agile, mobile sensing systems capable of protecting people, critical infrastructure and global commerce wherever threats emerge."

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 20:55
Tyler Durden

SpaceX Erupts In After Hours Trading, Hits $3 Trillion Market Cap, Surpassing Microsoft

Zero Rss
9 hours 15 minutes ago
SpaceX Erupts In After Hours Trading, Hits $3 Trillion Market Cap, Surpassing Microsoft

Update (9:00pm): just a few minutes after the initial post, the squeeze is accelerating and SPCX hit just shy of $230, or $3 trillion in market cap, surpassing MSFT in value.

And what is even crazier, tomorrow SPCX options start trading, which means one good, solid gamma squeeze could send this stock to $400, surpassing NVDA as the world's biggest company in the process.

Earlier:

After a relatively calm first day of trading, the gamma squeeze crew has finally sniffed out that SpaceX's float makes it a perfect candidate for an OTM-call option driven meltup, and the stock soared ~20% today, adding over $400 billion in market in the regular session.

Commenting on the move, Vanda Track earlier noted that SpaceX topped the leaderboard as the most bought stock by retail investors for a second consecutive session, with net buying potentially set to clear $100mn for the second day in a row.

On a net basis, retail investors have now bought almost as much SPCX over the last two sessions as they bought across the entire US stock market last week. In fact, today's $93.8mn of net buying in SpaceX accounts for roughly 73% of all retail net buying across single stocks so far today.


 
The one notable development today according to Vanda, is that we're seeing some appetite return to semiconductor stocks. Names such as MRVL, MU, SNDK and AVGO have all seen some modest buying today amid the rebound. However, retail flows remain selective rather than broad-based, with leveraged bearish ETFs such as SQQQ and SOXS also among today's most bought securities by retail investors.

Vanda's conclusion is that "the broader message remains unchanged: SpaceX has not sparked a retail buying frenzy across the market. Instead, retail investors continue to direct capital into this one name, while maintaining a relatively cautious stance elsewhere."

And since momentum elsewhere is fading, retail has decided to double down on the very illiquid SPCX after hours, where its low float has made it a great squeeze candidate by the retail crew, and the stock is now exploding higher, and at last check was trading just over $210, meaning the stock has added $250 billion in market cap after the close - or a total of $650 billion today alone...

...  which translates into a market cap of $2.75 trillion or more than Apple's $2.65 trillion, and just behind MSFT's $2.97 trillion

 

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 20:42
Tyler Durden

Which US States Have The Highest GDP Per Capita?

Zero Rss
9 hours 28 minutes ago
Which US States Have The Highest GDP Per Capita?

Where you live in the U.S. can make a huge difference in economic output per person.

GDP per capita varies widely across states, from under $60,000 in Mississippi to nearly $280,000 in Washington, D.C.

This chart, produced by Visual Capitalist's Jenna Ross, in partnership with Terzo, breaks down GDP per capita in 2025. 

GDP per Capita by State

Washington, D.C. has the highest GDP per capita. The capital’s economy is concentrated in high-value professional services like consulting, IT, and legal, as well as government spending. 

Its large commuter workforce from outside states also boosts the figure, as many workers contribute to economic output without being counted in the local population.

State 2025 GDP per Capita Washington, D.C. $278k New York $123k Massachusetts $115k Washington $112k Delaware $111k California $108k North Dakota $102k Connecticut $102k Alaska $102k Nebraska $98k Colorado $97k Illinois $95k New Jersey $93k Texas $92k Minnesota $91k Maryland $91k Virginia $90k Wyoming $89k Utah $89k New Hampshire $89k Hawaii $87k South Dakota $86k Nevada $86k Iowa $86k Georgia $82k Ohio $81k Kansas $81k Pennsylvania $81k Tennessee $81k Oregon $80k North Carolina $80k Wisconsin $79k Arizona $78k Florida $78k Indiana $78k Rhode Island $75k Vermont $75k Missouri $75k Louisiana $74k Maine $73k Michigan $72k Montana $72k New Mexico $72k South Carolina $68k Idaho $67k Kentucky $67k Oklahoma $67k Alabama $66k Arkansas $64k West Virginia $62k Mississippi $56k

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Census Bureau. Figures rounded.

New York takes the second spot as a global financial hub with strong output in other high-value industries, including real estate and professional services. 

Massachusetts and Washington also top the ranks. While Massachusetts drives value through professional services like biotechnology, Washington is home to big tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft.

Resource Economies

Outside of more service-based economies, both North Dakota and Alaska pump out over $100,000 in GDP per capita. 

Both states are driven by natural resources and mining, ranking as the third (North Dakota) and fifth-highest (Alaska) producers of crude oil in America. These states also have some of the lowest populations in the country, driving up output per person.

More recently in 2026, both states have seen monetary benefits from oil transport disruptions and rising prices. North Dakota typically sells crude oil at a discount to benchmark pricing, but has been earning $7 more per barrel above the benchmark. In Alaska, the state recently increased its projected revenue by $0.5 billion as a result of higher oil prices.

Maximizing Value

As economies push to create more value per person, businesses are also focused on getting more from what they have.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 20:30
Tyler Durden

India's Solar Demand Set For 22% Annual Growth Through 2035

Zero Rss
9 hours 53 minutes ago
India's Solar Demand Set For 22% Annual Growth Through 2035

Submitted by Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

India’s solar capacity is set to surge by 22% each year by 2035 as the data center boom will drive increased power consumption, a new report by Nuvama showed on Monday.   

The consultancy estimates that India’s total power demand will rise by 6% every year over the next decade, “driven by economic growth, rising urbanisation, manufacturing expansion and increasing electrification across sectors,” according to the report cited by Indian news outlet ANI.

Solar growth will vastly outpace overall power demand as power-intensive data centers will drive 22% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in solar energy capacity from 2026 to 2035, the report found.

“Our base case suggests green hydrogen and data centre capacity shall add another 251GW solar capacity, while it is 406GW capacity in the bull case scenario,” Nuvama analysts said in the report.

“Given solar capacity expansion in our base case, the share of solar shall rise from 28% in FY26 to 61% by FY35 and to 65% in the bull case,” they added.

India expects to nearly quadruple its solar power capacity and triple wind power-generating assets within ten years, according to the new Generation Adequacy Plan published by the country’s Central Electricity Authority earlier this year.

India projects to have a total of 509 gigawatts (GW) of solar power capacity installed by the end of the 2035-2036 fiscal year, up from 140 GW installed solar PV capacity as of January 2026.   

“The installed generation capacity projection in 2035-36 shows that the country is moving toward a strong transition to non-fossil energy. Renewable sources, especially solar PV, hydro, and wind, will dominate future capacity, supported by Energy Storage Systems,” according to the policy.

In 2025, India boasted that it was five years ahead of schedule when it achieved its target of having 50% of its installed electricity capacity coming from non-fossil fuel sources.

However, India's electricity grid is expanding at a slower pace than the boom in renewable energy installations, leading to an increased share of clean energy curtailments and threatening to slow the solar and wind boom in the world’s most populous country.   

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 20:05
Tyler Durden

How The World Added Decades To Life Expectancy

Zero Rss
10 hours 18 minutes ago
How The World Added Decades To Life Expectancy

The average person today can expect to live far longer than someone born in 1960, regardless of where they live.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, tracks life expectancy at birth across four World Bank income groups. While high-income countries still have the longest lifespans, the biggest gains have come elsewhere. Upper-middle income countries have added more than three decades to life expectancy, while low-income countries have made substantial progress as well.

The data for this visualization comes from World Bank via FRED. It tracks life expectancy at birth by income group from 1960 to the latest available data (2024).

High-Income Countries Still Lead

High-income countries still have the highest life expectancy, reaching 80.3 years in 2024.

That is up from 68.3 years in 1960, a gain of 12 years. These countries started from a much higher baseline, meaning their gains have been slower but still substantial.

Examples include the U.S., Germany, and Japan.

 

Upper-Middle Income Countries Saw the Fastest Gains

 

Upper-middle income countries posted the largest increase, rising from 41.9 years in 1960 to 76.3 years.

That is a gain of 34.4 years, the fastest improvement of any group in the dataset. This category includes countries such as China, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa.

Much of this improvement coincided with rising incomes, better sanitation, expanded vaccination programs, lower child mortality, and broader access to healthcare. Together, these changes helped push life expectancy in many middle-income countries toward levels once seen only in the world’s wealthiest economies.

The Global Life Expectancy Gap Has Narrowed

In 1960, people in high-income countries lived about 27 years longer than those in low-income countries.

Today, the gap stands at roughly 16 years. While a significant difference remains, low-income countries have added more than 23 years to average life expectancy since 1960. In other words, much of the world’s longevity progress has come from countries that started furthest behind.

However, the remaining gap shows that income, healthcare access, and living conditions continue to shape longevity worldwide.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: Countries With the Most Ultra-Rich Residents in 2026 on Voronoi.

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 19:40
Tyler Durden

Domesticating AI - It's Not Coming, It's Already Here

Zero Rss
10 hours 43 minutes ago
Domesticating AI - It's Not Coming, It's Already Here

Authored by Howard Armitage via New Atlas,

When my neighbor wanted a vision of what his fence could look like, I didn't hesitate to ask ChatGPT to create a mock-up. I took a photo of the fence and asked it to overlay a potted Jasmin espaliered to it, after a couple of tweaks, and all of about one minute later, it gave me this:

AI-generated mock-up created from the author’s original fence photograph
Howard Armitage

During a recent conversation with a diving buddy, he pulled out his phone mid conversation and said "Hey Grok, show me that dive computer we were talking about this morning." And yes, it's $580 worth of gorgeous.

Its translation abilities are spectacular, and occasionally hilarious. It really is the Babel fish. Not that long ago I moved to a bank simply because it supported Apple Pay years before the big players. At that time, paying with just the tap of a wrist always garnered astonishment and commentary. Around the same time, voice assistants started crossing the line from novelty to genuinely useful. Set a timer, make an appointment, play some music. Super!

"Alexa, turn the kitchen light on." Light comes on. "No, turn it off." "There is no device called 'it' to turn off." Oof!

No memory, no context.

Enter Nabu (yes I know, I haven't got round to changing the wakeword name yet). Naby knows it turned the kitchen light on, and knows I was referring to the kitchen light when I said "turn it off." It remembers, it has context, because it's not just a dumb voice assistant anymore, it is plumbed into my local AI.

The big commercial AI platforms can be connected to these systems, but running it locally means the data stays within the boundaries of my house. It won't process that mountain of documents or win that tricky legal case yet, but it can keep track of the state of my home and understand what I mean when I speak naturally.

That's a big deal - because now I don't have to write and memorize tiresome automations for rigid pre-programmed commands, I can converse with Nabu in human and it understands "all the lights" or "just the downstairs aircons."

Only five years ago, running an AI model at home was a ridiculous proposition - you'd need datacenter hardware and a tech-bro budget. Now, it's dramatically cheaper and easier - with consumer GPUs, mini PCs, Ollama and Hugging Face, technically curious people are quietly building surprisingly capable AI systems at home. The GPU that I can hold in my hands doesn't compete with a datacenter the size of several football fields - but for my homelab tinkerings, it's surprisingly capable, and is only becoming more so.

I should probably backtrack a little here - I'm enthusing about Home Assistant, which I've been running for about 12 years - originally on a Raspberry Pi, now in a VM on ProxmoxVE. Sensors and controllers are scattered all over the house, with a dashboard in a browser acting as mission control. Lights automated with timers and presence detectors. Sun elevation adjusts blinds, curtains react to sunrise and sunset, and moisture sensors trigger irrigation on demand. Solar and battery systems respond to dynamic electricity pricing, buying and selling power depending on what the grid is doing.

Home Assistant proclaimed 2023 to be the Year of the Voice and duly launched a prototype Voice Assistant. At launch, its capabilities were limited. Today, it is genuinely good at a variety of tasks, and it's all open source so you can build your own device from very inexpensive hardware, and the software is on GitHub.

Local models - Llama, Gemma, Mistral, Qwen - very much lag behind the giant commercial systems, but for experimentation, home automation, and general day-to-day interaction, they're becoming more and more usable. I personally care about data sovereignty (a huge topic in its own right), so running a local AI grants me a more privacy-conscious workflow, and it still works when the internet doesn't.

Quite how many months of commercial AI subscriptions I could have got for the price of my GPU is a question I'm deliberately avoiding, predominantly for marital reasons. I rather think of myself as a data nerd. All those sensors collecting all that data in a "If this, then that" environment makes for endless tinkering possibilities. And with an AI-powered Nabu gradually replacing Alexa, my office edges ever closer to Tony Stark's lair. We're no longer at "deploying Kubernetes clusters" level of difficulty, but it's still very much a tinkerer’s space rather than a mainstream consumer appliance. Even so, it feels like a taste of where we're heading.

The strange thing is how quickly this all stops feeling strange. Talking naturally to an AI that understands context, remembers previous conversations and controls my house may have garnered astonishment and commentary. Now, it's just another thing sitting quietly in my server rack.

Home Assistant acting as “mission control” for lighting, climate and automation around the author’s home Howard Armitage Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 19:15
Tyler Durden

Final Ivy Folds As Columbia University Abandons Test-Optional Admissions Policy

Zero Rss
11 hours 8 minutes ago
Final Ivy Folds As Columbia University Abandons Test-Optional Admissions Policy

More than three years after adopting test-optional admissions, Columbia University is reversing course and will once again require standardized test scores from prospective students.

Columbia announced on June 13 that, beginning in fall 2027, first-year and transfer applicants will have to submit either SAT or ACT scores to be considered for admission. The university will remain test-optional for the upcoming 2026–27 admissions cycle.

University officials said the decision follows a “multiyear faculty review” that found “test scores, among other factors, were a useful indicator of potential student success.”

“Standardized testing is one of many elements that can demonstrate a foundation of academic excellence; others include your performance in your secondary school coursework and the rigor of your curriculum,” the university stated on a webpage outlining its new policy.

As Bill Pan reports for The Epoch Times, Columbia was among the first elite universities to suspend testing requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic, when widespread school closures and testing disruptions limited students’ access to the SAT and ACT. In 2023, the university extended its test-optional policy indefinitely, becoming the first Ivy League institution to make the change permanent.

It was also the last of the eight Ivy League schools to maintain a test-optional admissions policy.

Princeton University reinstated standardized testing requirements in October 2025, leaving Columbia as the sole Ivy League holdout.

The debate over standardized testing has intensified in recent years as some of the nation’s most selective institutions have restored testing requirements. Like Columbia and Princeton, many of those schools have cited internal data showing that test scores are a strong predictor of academic performance and graduation outcomes.

When Princeton announced its decision, university officials said data collected during five years of test-optional admissions showed that “academic performance at Princeton was stronger for students who chose to submit test scores than for students who did not.”

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which reinstated its testing requirement in 2022, also said that considering SAT and ACT scores—particularly math scores—“significantly improves” its ability to predict whether applicants will succeed in the institute’s highly demanding mathematics and math-based science courses.

Critics of standardized testing, however, argue that emphasizing those scores may disadvantage students from low-income and historically underrepresented backgrounds who lack access to expensive tutoring, test-preparation courses, and other educational resources.

Columbia’s move also comes amid renewed interest in standardized testing from the Trump administration.

Administration officials have argued that test-optional admissions policies allow colleges to rely more heavily on subjective criteria, such as personal statements, potentially serving as illegal proxies for race in admissions decisions, a practice the U.S. Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional.

“The persistent lack of available data—paired with the rampant use of ‘diversity statements’ and other overt and hidden racial proxies—continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice,” President Donald Trump wrote in an August 2025 memorandum to the secretary of education.

In a proposed compact offered to nine institutions in exchange for preferential access to certain federal funding opportunities, the Trump administration also demanded that they require standardized test scores as part of the admissions process.

The proposal further urged schools to publicly release anonymized admissions data, including applicants’ GPAs, standardized test scores, and other academic measures, broken down by race, national origin, and sex.

Despite the revival of testing requirements at some elite institutions, test-optional admissions remain widespread nationwide.

According to FairTest, an advocacy group opposing the use of standardized testing in college admissions, more than 90 percent of ranked four-year colleges and universities in the United States will not require applicants to submit SAT or ACT scores for fall 2026 admissions. The organization’s survey covered approximately 2,000 four-year institutions.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 18:50
Tyler Durden

Power Transformer Lead Times Hit Record Highs As US Grid Equipment Shortage Deepens

Zero Rss
11 hours 33 minutes ago
Power Transformer Lead Times Hit Record Highs As US Grid Equipment Shortage Deepens

By West Garrett of Industrial Sage

Summary:

  • Power transformer lead times now average 128 weeks — nearly 2.5 years — with generator step-up transformers averaging 144 weeks
  • Prices for power transformers have risen 77% since 2019, driven by surging demand and constrained raw material supply
  • Cleveland-Cliffs is the only domestic producer of grain-oriented electrical steel, the specialized material transformers require
  • Demand for generator step-up transformers has grown 274% since 2019, outpacing any increase in manufacturing capacity
  • For industrial developers, equipment availability has replaced capital and permitting as the primary constraint on project timelines
  • Roughly 80% of large power transformers used in the U.S. are imported, exposing critical infrastructure to global supply chain pressures

Power transformer lead times have reached levels that are now dictating the pace of industrial expansion across the United States. According to Wood Mackenzie’s second quarter 2025 survey, standard power transformers average 128 weeks for delivery. Generator step-up transformers, which connect large power generation assets to the grid, average 144 weeks. Some orders extend to four years.

For plant operators, energy developers, and infrastructure planners, that math has a direct consequence: a facility that breaks ground today cannot energize its electrical systems on a standard timeline. Equipment availability has become the gating factor for industrial growth, replacing capital availability and permitting as the primary project constraint.

Power Transformer Lead Times: What the Numbers Actually Mean

128 weeks is nearly two and a half years of wait time before a transformer ships. That figure comes from actual utility and developer order data, not theoretical capacity projections. Generator step-up transformers, which are larger and more specialized, run even longer at 144 weeks. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation reported lead times crossing 120 weeks in 2024, and the trend has continued upward into 2025.

The cost pressure is equally significant. Power transformer prices have risen 77% since 2019, according to industry sourcing data. Distribution transformer prices have climbed 78% to 95% over the same period. The underlying material drivers are straightforward: grain-oriented electrical steel prices have roughly doubled since 2020, and copper prices have risen more than 50%. Both materials are core inputs in every transformer manufactured.

The demand surge is not temporary. Generator step-up transformer demand has grown 274% since 2019. Power transformer demand has grown 119% over the same period. AI data center construction, large-scale electrification of industrial processes, and grid modernization programs are all pulling from the same constrained supplier base simultaneously.

The Cleveland-Cliffs Bottleneck: One Domestic Supplier for Critical Steel

The transformer shortage is not simply a volume problem. It has a structural bottleneck at the material level. Transformer cores require grain-oriented electrical steel, a highly engineered material that gives the steel specific magnetic properties needed for efficient power transformation. In the United States, Cleveland-Cliffs is the only domestic producer of this material, operating plants in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

That concentration means that every U.S. transformer manufacturer drawing on domestic steel supply draws from a single source. When that source faces capacity constraints, pricing pressure, or supply disruptions, the effect ripples through the entire domestic transformer manufacturing base immediately. Roughly 80% of large power transformers used in the U.S. are imported, primarily from Mexico, South Korea, and other international manufacturers, creating additional exposure to global trade conditions.

The Biden administration awarded Cleveland-Cliffs $500 million to upgrade its electrical steel plants under the CHIPS and Infrastructure framework. Key elements of that grant have since been reviewed under the current administration, adding uncertainty to the domestic steel expansion timeline.

Who Is Driving the Demand Surge

Three distinct demand categories are converging on the same equipment market at the same time:

  • AI data centers: Hyperscale data center construction requires massive electrical infrastructure. A single large AI training cluster can require hundreds of megawatts of power delivery, each requiring transformers at multiple points in the distribution chain.
  • Industrial electrification: Manufacturing facilities converting from fossil-fuel-powered processes to electric systems require new transformer capacity at the facility level, compounding grid-level demand.
  • Grid modernization: Aging transmission infrastructure across the U.S. requires transformer replacement at a scale that was already behind schedule before the AI and electrification waves arrived.

These three demand categories do not share a common peak cycle. They are all active simultaneously, and none shows signs of near-term deceleration.

What Industrial Leaders Should Do Now

The strategic implication for any organization with capital projects in the pipeline is straightforward: equipment procurement planning must now precede, not follow, project financial approval. Waiting until a project clears its budget and permitting phase to begin transformer sourcing can add two to four years to a project timeline before the first piece of steel is bent on site.

Long-term supply agreements with transformer manufacturers are becoming a competitive tool. Organizations that lock in delivery slots years in advance gain a scheduling advantage that cannot be bought at spot pricing once a project is ready to execute. Similarly, projects with flexibility on grid interconnect timing may benefit from engaging utilities earlier in the planning process to understand equipment delivery realities.

The domestic manufacturing response is underway: nearly $2 billion has been directed toward North American transformer production expansion, with new capacity from Hitachi Energy, Siemens Energy, and others projected to come online by 2028. However, that capacity does not solve the current shortage. Projects executing between now and 2028 face the current market as it exists today.

IndustrialSage tracks domestic infrastructure investment and supply chain constraints through the US Manufacturing Investment Tracker. For additional context on grid infrastructure and industrial power, visit the IndustrialSage news section. This story was covered on IndustrialSage Headlines Episode 23.

Frequently Asked Questions: U.S. Power Transformer Shortage How long are power transformer lead times right now?

As of the second quarter of 2025, standard power transformers average 128 weeks for delivery. Generator step-up transformers average 144 weeks. Some specialized orders are extending to four years. These are verified order-based averages from Wood Mackenzie’s industry survey, not theoretical estimates.

Why are transformer lead times so long?

Demand has outpaced manufacturing capacity across all transformer categories simultaneously. Generator step-up transformer demand grew 274% since 2019. Power transformer demand grew 119%. Meanwhile, domestic manufacturing capacity has not scaled proportionally, and the sole U.S. producer of the required grain-oriented electrical steel faces its own capacity limits.

How much have transformer prices increased?

Power transformer prices have risen 77% since 2019. Distribution transformer prices have risen 78% to 95%. Generator step-up transformer prices have risen 45%. The increases reflect both raw material cost inflation and the pricing power that comes with constrained supply against surging demand.

Who makes grain-oriented electrical steel in the United States?

Cleveland-Cliffs is the only domestic producer of grain-oriented electrical steel, operating facilities in Pennsylvania and Ohio. This concentration creates a single point of supply constraint for all U.S. transformer manufacturers relying on domestic steel. Approximately 80% of large power transformers used in the U.S. are imported, reflecting the limited domestic manufacturing base.

What is driving the surge in transformer demand?

Three concurrent demand waves are driving the surge: AI data center construction requiring massive power delivery infrastructure, industrial electrification converting fossil-fuel processes to electric systems, and grid modernization replacing aging transmission infrastructure. These three categories do not share a common peak cycle, and all are active simultaneously.

What should industrial planners do about transformer lead times?

Equipment procurement planning must precede project financial approval. Waiting until a project clears budget and permitting to begin transformer sourcing can add two to four years to the execution timeline. Long-term supply agreements and early utility engagement on grid interconnect timing are the two most effective tools available in the current market.

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 18:25
Tyler Durden

Newsom Announces He's Being Investigated By Trump Justice Department

Zero Rss
11 hours 58 minutes ago
Newsom Announces He's Being Investigated By Trump Justice Department

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Monday that the Department of Justice has opened an investigation into him and his wife, claiming the probe is political retaliation as he weighs a bid for president in 2028.

"In recent days, federal agents have knocked on the doors of family, friends, and former employees, not because they found a crime, because they're simply trying to find one," Newsom said in a video posted to X.

In recent days, federal agents have knocked on the doors of family friends and former employees.

Not because they found a crime. Because they are simply trying to find one.

They are demanding records.

They are abusing the grand jury process.

Digging through years and years of random documents.

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 15, 2026

"They're demanding records, they're abusing the grand jury process, digging through years and years of random documents. Donald Trump isn't just coming after me because of my mean tweets, he's coming after me because I'm considering running for president, because he hates that I've consistently called him out over and over again for his lies and deceit."

"Donald Trump is simply the most corrupt president in American history," the governor added.

The White House declined to comment when reached by the New York Post.

"He's coming after my wife, Jen, a public servant, a woman who's dedicated her life to supporting women and girls, someone who has done nothing wrong other than having the temerity to advocate for what she believes in," Newsom said. "If they can't intimidate me, they'll go after the mother of our children. Donald Trump picked the wrong target. We have nothing to hide."

Newsom said Trump's "political operatives can take every record and read every page," but said they "will be looking in the wrong place."

"Because if they really want to find corruption, look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.," he said, before accusing Trump of using the White House to enrich himself.

"Donald Trump is selling the presidency. He's running the largest cash heist in American political history, trading foreign tariff relief for approval of his golf courses, day trading behind the Resolute Desk, reaping hundreds of millions of dollars in personal profit," the governor said. "And he's doing it openly, he's doing it on camera. He did it last night on the White House lawn. He's doing it through crypto currencies, he's doing it through the receipt of a $400 million private jet from a foreign government that he plans to keep when he leaves office through his son's ventures in countries where his own administration is simultaneously making policy."

Earlier this year, President Trump launched a sweeping "Fraud Investigation of California," blasting the state for wasting and potentially stealing billions in federal taxpayer dollars. California officials, including Newsom, have whined that the probes are nothing but political revenge.

New: A source familiar with the situation tells me that there are “several investigations” ongoing relating to Gov. Gavin Newsom — I’m told they are focused on his wife’s taxes + his chief of staff. They did not originate from the main DOJ, but are out of Sacramento and involve…

— Shelby Talcott (@ShelbyTalcott) June 15, 2026

Federal prosecutors say the state's hospice industry is absolutely riddled with fraud, with Los Angeles County alone responsible for a staggering 18% of the entire nation's home health care billing. Officials estimate up to $3.5 billion in potential fraud, including one crooked doctor who reportedly billed $120 million in a single year for just 1,900 patients.

U.S. First Assistant Attorney Bill Essayli didn't hold back, ripping Newsom as the "king of fraud" for his disastrous oversight of $24 billion poured into homelessness programs in recent years with shockingly little to show for it.

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 18:00
Tyler Durden

An Open Letter To Elizabeth Warren About Trillionaires And Inequality

Zero Rss
12 hours 18 minutes ago
An Open Letter To Elizabeth Warren About Trillionaires And Inequality

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

Dear Senator Warren,

When I watched your recent video on X about Elon Musk becoming the world’s first trillionaire, I found myself in the unusual position of agreeing with you—at least in part. That is not a sentence I write often.

You see…you are correct that something has gone profoundly wrong in an economy that can produce a trillionaire. You are correct that the gap between the financial elite and ordinary Americans has become so vast that most people can barely comprehend it. And you are correct that millions of Americans increasingly feel as though the economy is rigged in favor of a small group of people at the top.

According to The Wall Street Journal, there are now roughly 430,000 American households worth more than $30 million, including approximately 74,000 households worth over $100 million. The growth of these groups has dramatically outpaced overall population growth over the past several decades.

You are correct that the wealth inequality gap is widening quickly:

Where I part ways with you is on the question of why.

You see Elon Musk’s wealth and conclude that the problem is Elon Musk. I see Elon Musk’s wealth and conclude that the problem is the system that made such wealth possible in the first place. Those are very different diagnoses, and they lead to very different solutions.

The irony is that I suspect we agree on more than either of us would like to admit. I do not believe it is healthy for today’s society to have trillionaires. When comparing Musk’s wealth to the next richest person on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, where the difference in rankings is $20 billion or so among the top 10 richest, there is a massive $800 billion difference. 40 times the average of the rest of the list. That should raise eyebrows.

I do not believe an economy is functioning normally when wealth accumulates on that scale. I do not believe it is sustainable for financial assets to appreciate so rapidly while wages struggle to keep pace. And despite being a Republican who has frequently defended markets, capitalism, and entrepreneurship, I find the emergence of this trillionaire fortune difficult to view as evidence of a healthy economic order.

But where you see a trillionaire problem, I see a monetary policy problem.

For years, Americans have been told a story about wealth inequality. The story goes something like this: billionaires are getting richer because they are hoarding wealth, exploiting workers, avoiding taxes, and accumulating ever greater control over the economy. There is some truth in parts of that narrative. Human nature has not changed. Powerful people have always sought more power, and wealthy people have always sought more wealth.

What the story leaves out, however, is the role of the institutions that have systematically inflated the value of financial assets for decades. One of the strangest things in American politics is that everyone wants to talk about wealth inequality until the conversation reaches the actual source of it.

The modern American economy is built on a foundation of cheap money. Whenever markets stumble, politicians demand intervention. Whenever economic growth slows, politicians demand intervention. Whenever unemployment rises, politicians demand intervention. The Federal Reserve responds with lower interest rates, asset purchases, liquidity programs, and other mechanisms designed to support economic activity and financial markets.

The result is entirely predictable. More money creation, which leads to more price inflation, which hits financial assets first, which benefits the “haves” and not the “have nots”.

Aside from money creation, when interest rates are pushed lower, investors seek returns elsewhere. Money flows into stocks. Money flows into real estate. Money flows into private equity, venture capital, and speculative assets. Valuations rise. Asset prices rise. Balance sheets expand. The people who own those assets become wealthier, often dramatically so.

The people who rely primarily on wages do not.

This is not a conspiracy theory, it is simply the mathematical reality of how asset inflation works. If stocks rise faster than wages, stockholders become richer relative to workers. If housing prices rise faster than incomes, homeowners become richer relative to renters. If financial assets appreciate because trillions of dollars are flowing into the system, then the people who own financial assets will inevitably pull further away from everyone else.

That is exactly what has happened. As I have recently written about, our public markets have become distorted beyond recognition as a result of money printing. The fundamental rules of economics, math and money no longer apply when trillions can be printed in hours. The Fed has launched us into a reality distortion field and that’s why stocks are the most overvalued they have ever been…and yet liquidity still keeps coming from somewhere.

This overvaluation as a result of money printing is what emboldens bankers, the financial media, exchanges and analysts to tacitly bless one of the most aggressively (and insanely) overvalued IPOs in modern history without batting an eye. It is what made SpaceX “worth” more, quicker, than most other companies before going public, despite hemorrhaging billions in cash instead of turning a consistent profit.

The wealth gap that concerns you did not emerge from nowhere. It did not appear because Elon Musk woke up one morning and decided to become worth a trillion dollars. It emerged from decades of policies that consistently rewarded ownership of assets more than productive labor. And by new policies being put in place that quickly link unprofitable public companies to the retirement accounts of average Americans.

And this is where your critique becomes frustrating. You identify the outcome correctly. You recognize that wealth concentration has reached extraordinary levels. You understand that many Americans feel excluded from the prosperity they are constantly told exists. Yet when it comes time to identify the cause, your focus immediately shifts to the people benefiting from the system rather than the system itself.

Your solution is a wealth tax. Then it is an AI tax. Then it is another tax. Then another. The underlying machinery is almost never discussed.

What makes this particularly difficult to take seriously is that the policies that contributed to this environment have enjoyed bipartisan support. Republicans share responsibility. Democrats share responsibility. Donald Trump has publicly pushed for lower interest rates. Many Democrats, including yourself, have repeatedly supported monetary policies aimed at stimulating economic activity through easier financial conditions.

The underlying direction has been remarkably consistent: both parties have become dependent on asset appreciation. Both parties celebrate rising stock markets. Both parties fear the consequences of allowing markets to fully clear. Both parties prefer the short-term benefits of easy money to the long-term consequences of asset inflation. And then both parties act surprised when wealth inequality worsens.

So can we just cut the act at this point?

The truth is that Elon Musk is not the architect of this system. He is one of its most successful participants. He did not invent quantitative easing. He did not establish the Federal Reserve’s framework. He did not create an economy in which every financial downturn is met with demands for intervention. He did not spend decades encouraging policies that inflated asset values across the board. He simply rode the wave.

But you have to ask, what type of system allows a man to be worth $1 trillion when the sumtotal of all of his companies’ profits dating back decades is barely $30 billion?

ou can criticize Musk for his public market hustle. You can criticize his behavior, his politics, his business decisions, or his public statements. But blaming Musk for the existence of the wave itself is like blaming a surfer for the tide. The larger question is why the wave became so enormous to begin with.

Why are valuations reaching levels that previous generations would have considered absurd? Why are financial assets appreciating so much faster than the real economy? Why does every crisis seem to result in more intervention, more liquidity, and more upward pressure on asset prices? Why is it that the people closest to financial markets consistently emerge as the biggest winners?

These are the questions that should be dominating the discussion about inequality. Instead, our politics increasingly revolves around personalities. The billionaire becomes the headline, the outrage becomes the story, yet the underlying incentives remain untouched.

That is unfortunate because I believe your instincts are partially correct. There is something unhealthy about a society that produces trillionaires right now. There is something unhealthy about a system in which asset ownership increasingly determines economic outcomes. There is something unhealthy about a financial structure that appears to reward speculation more aggressively than productive work.

Where you lose me is when you conclude that the answer is simply to tax the visible winners more heavily.

🔥 80% Off If You Subscribe Today. This coupon allows for 80% off of annual subscriptions and results in a 85% savings over paying the monthly rate for a subscription to the blog. You keep the discounted rate for as long as you wish to remain a subscriber.: Get 80% off forever

f the machine continues operating exactly as it does today, new trillionaires will emerge. If asset inflation continues to outpace income growth, wealth concentration will continue. If monetary policy remains focused on supporting financial assets whenever they come under pressure, inequality will continue to widen regardless of how many new taxes are created.

You cannot permanently solve a structural problem by targeting its most visible beneficiaries.

That is why your recent comments strike me as an example of getting the right answer to the wrong question. Yes, something is broken. Yes, the gap between ordinary Americans and the financial elite is becoming unsustainable. Yes, the emergence of trillionaire fortunes should force us to ask difficult questions about the economy.

But the first question should not be, “How do we punish the trillionaire?”

The first question should be, “What kind of economic and monetary system produces trillionaires in the first place?”

Until policymakers are willing to confront that question honestly, the cycle will continue. Asset prices will rise. Wealth concentration will increase. Politicians will express outrage. Billionaires will become convenient villains. New taxes will be proposed. And the underlying forces driving inequality will remain largely untouched.

If you genuinely want to reduce wealth inequality, Senator, start with the institutions and policies that inflate asset values across the economy. Start with the monetary framework that has helped make financial assets the primary engine of wealth creation. Start with the bipartisan addiction to easy money and perpetual intervention.

Because if Elon Musk’s trillion-dollar fortune is evidence that something is broken, then the real culprit is not the man standing at the top of the mountain. It is the system that spent decades building the mountain beneath him.

Respectfully yours,

QTR

--

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.

As of May 20, 2026 I personally no longer actively trade (read my story here). My investing/saving is done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, via index funds, ETFs and individual equities it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything at any point. As of the same date, May 20, 2026, in an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.

And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 17:40
Tyler Durden

Pagination

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Page 6
  • Page 7
  • Page 8
  • Page 9
  • …
  • Next page
  • Last page
Checked
11 seconds ago
URL
https://www.zerohedge.com
Zero Rss feed

zero rss

News feeds

  • Lebanon Hosts The World's Highest Concentration Of Refugees, US Ranks 82nd
  • Ebola Cases, Deaths Jump In Congo As Outbreak Spreads
  • Norwegian Royal Family Rocked: Crown Princess's Son Convicted of Rape, Sentenced To Four Years
  • Remigration & The Save Europe Act
  • Who Won The Third Gulf War?
  • Gun Safety: Violent Crime Drops As More Americans Pack Heat
  • New Study Exposes How The Left Turned Mental Illness Into A Political Identity
  • Federal Agents Dismantle Human Smuggling Stash House In Texas
  • New Radar System Can Detect High-Speed Drones Nearby Ports, Vessels In Extreme Environment
  • SpaceX Erupts In After Hours Trading, Hits $3 Trillion Market Cap, Surpassing Microsoft
More

zero rss

Copyright (c) 2026 FYCKL Project