Aggregator

Owain was best known for his roles as Agent Wilson in "Twin Peaks: The Return" and "The OA."

One of the officers "repeatedly told her he wanted an ‘Asian wife,’ called her his ‘baby momma,’ openly boasted of his ‘Asian fetish’ and sent her pornographic and racist videos, her lawyer said.

While US forces were winning the military battle, TikTok was helping the Islamist regime win the other air war. 

Mugrabi, ex-wife of the art collector David Mugrabi, is trying to hold onto her Bridgehampton mansion after not paying anything on its $3.5 million mortgage.

"No matter where you are in the world, that phrase ['the American dream'] is understood ... " said Dr. Joelle Simpson, Chief of Emergency Medicine at Children’s National Medical Center.

Each year, the eastern end of Long Island gets louder and livelier with new bars, clubs and even speakeasies. This summer, the scene promises to sizzle with a series of openings that offer different levels of fun. If martinis and mahjong are your dream night out, we know just the place. You’d rather guzzle magnums...

There is a mental burden on catchers like never before as the game-calling plan for each hitter, each pitcher and each situation has become so individualized.

The Post’s hockey experts make their selections for the Stanley Cup Final.

Grandma Gail has harsh words for a couple exploring a wilder sex life.

In an open society, official hostility tends to make targeted voices more famous and interesting, whether it’s James Joyce, the Sex Pistols — or malignant lefty Hasan Piker. 

The 49ers are approaching the 2026 season not with a sense of continued roster work ahead, but with a focus on some unfinished business.

Trump Slashes Tractor Tariffs In Bid To Revive Ag Belt Optimism

The Trump administration appears to be trying to inject new optimism across the nation's farm belt following the China meeting last month, during which Beijing committed to making billions of dollars of new purchases of U.S. agricultural goods. The White House's latest move is to reduce tariffs on tractors and combines, a policy shift aimed at easing cost pressures on farmers already squeezed by diesel, fertilizer, and machinery costs.

Late Monday, President Trump signed a proclamation slashing tariffs on imported agricultural equipment, including combines and harvesters, from 25% to 15% to lower costs for US farmers and manufacturers.

More color from the White House:

• The Proclamation adjusts the tariffs on agricultural equipment, like combines and harvesters, as well as certain other equipment, from 25% to 15%.  

• The Proclamation also expands the existing category of industrial equipment subject to a 15% tariff to include mobile industrial equipment, like bulldozers and forklifts, when imported from trade deal countries that are entitled to such treatment.

• The Proclamation encourages foreign companies to use more U.S. steel and aluminum by allowing them to qualify for a 10% duty rate, if their capital equipment include at least 85% U.S. melted and poured or smelted and cast steel or aluminum by weight.

• These tariff changes are temporary, lasting until December 31, 2027, to spur near–term investments that will rebuild the Nation's industrial base.

The move is a clear attempt by the Trump administration to spur optimism across the nation's farm belt following China's commitments last month to purchase $17 billion annually in additional U.S. agricultural goods.

The latest reading of the US ag economy via the Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer has been fading from a summer 2025 peak as trade wars and, now, the Gulf-related energy shock hurt farmers' incomes.

Trump's directive sent shares of the Japanese agricultural and industrial machinery company Kubota up 5% in Tokyo trading.

Efforts to boost farmer sentiment come ahead of the midterm election cycle, which is gearing up and is only 154 days away.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/02/2026 - 06:55

The deaths come nearly a month after two American soldiers died after falling off a cliff in Morocco. 

Gretzky, 65, and wife Janet moved to Florida to be near family.

The mayor of Newark is to file a lawsuit Tuesday calling for the shutdown of the Delaney Hall immigration detention center after 10 days of clashes between keffiyeh-clad leftist yobs and law enforcement.  Ras Baraka, 56, is filing the lawsuit on health and safety grounds, and lashed out at the GEO Group – the organization...

Three plastic surgeons spoke to The Post about the procedures patients tend to regret — and most often come in asking for reversals and revisions.

Ahead of the June 27, 2024, showdown hosted by CNN in Atlanta, Jill Biden noticed her husband "seemed tired -- overly tired," according to her book "View from the East Wing."

"Part of me still cannot believe she is gone."

Net Zero & Statism Deliver Stagnation: How Interventionism Undermined Growth In The UK & Canada

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

Governments are terrible at picking winners and even worse at choosing losers. Net zero and interventionist “Keynesian” policies in Canada and the UK have proven that government intervention has created a worse outcome than anyone would have expected. The result is higher costs, distorted incentives, and weakened productivity growth, with increased dependency on fossil fuels to attend to peak demand, exactly what Austrian economists predicted.

What has been sold as a recipe for prosperity and “green growth” has in practice eroded affordability while failing to deliver stronger, sustainable expansion.

It is not surprising to see that the world’s examples of green interventionism, the UK and Canada, have become economic failures. Years ago, some argued that these policies needed time to prove their success. Now, it is not even debatable that the stagnation and recession in the UK and Canada are self-inflicted.

Net zero in Canada and the UK is not a single policy but an entire regime of targets, regulations, limits, subsidies, and new bureaucratic requirements.

The Canadian federal plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 combines rising carbon taxes, prescriptive regulations, technology mandates, and public investment schemes intended to steer capital away from fossil fuels and into politically selected “green” projects.

In the UK, the government’s “Net Zero Growth Plan” is also built on regulatory limits, spending commitments, and industrial policy designed to phase out conventional energy and reshape entire sectors through top-down planning.

This is a classic example of interventionism. The state attempts to override market price signals and entrepreneurial judgment to engineer a politically preferred energy and industrial structure and achieves the opposite of what it wants to deliver. Rather than relying on decentralized knowledge, competition, technology, and creative destruction, dispersed among millions of consumers and firms, net zero regimes assume that politicians and regulators know exactly which technologies should win, what the “right” energy mix ought to be, and how fast the transition should occur.

In an open market, prices and profits coordinate production across time, and entrepreneurs interpret prices as signals about real scarcities and consumer preferences. However, net-zero policies deliberately tamper with these signals. Carbon taxes, subsidies, and regulatory mandates change relative prices not because underlying preferences or scarcities changed but because policymakers decided that certain activities should be penalized and others subsidized. All this is justified by a completely ideological and unreliable assumption of externality costs, where governments present themselves as the ones that know precisely what those alleged externality costs are and try to push a pricing signal imposed through ideology, creating enormous distortions that, ultimately, end benefiting the “old” and “loser” industries.

Governments are not worried about the failure of these policies. Bureaucrats always believe that interventionism did not work because there was not enough of it. Therefore, they impose additional burdens and regulations while portraying themselves as the solution to the inflation and stagnation problems they have caused.

In both Canada and the UK, this has pushed vast amounts of capital into projects that are unprofitable and can only subsist due to policy support rather than genuine market demand. “Green industrial strategies” crowd out investment in other sectors, especially in traditional energy and manufacturing, even when those sectors still deliver higher value at lower cost to consumers. Austrian theory predicts that politicized credit and subsidies will generate malinvestment: projects that look viable under distorted interest rates and prices but which fail to cover their costs once the policy support is withdrawn or the fiscal burden becomes unsustainable.

Canadian long-run productivity growth has fallen from annual rates above 3% in the postwar decades to less than 1% since 2000, despite repeated waves of policy activism and “pro-productivity” rhetoric. Chronic underinvestment in business capital and weak technological progress as key drivers of this decline, suggesting that the policy mix has not created an environment for genuine, bottom-up innovation. The more that investment decisions depend on regulatory favor and subsidy access, the less they depend on entrepreneurial assessment of consumer wants and long-term profitability.

Net zero has also harmed affordability in exactly the way Austrian economists would expect when governments interfere with relative prices. Carbon pricing, renewable mandates, and restrictions on fossil-fuel projects increase energy costs directly by making reliable sources of power more expensive or scarce. These higher input costs then cascade through the economy to transport, food, housing, and manufactured goods, eroding real wages and living standards.

In both Canada and the UK, affordability has become a central political issue. Households face higher utility bills, fuel costs, and housing expenses, while governments insist that the transition is “pro-growth” and “pro-jobs.” From an Austrian viewpoint, this contradiction is unsurprising: when the state deliberately raises the cost of dominant energy sources and limits investment in efficient, market-chosen technologies, the outcome is necessarily higher prices and reduced real income for consumers, especially for low- and middle-income households.

The C.D. Howe Institute has calculated the costs of justifying public “stimulus” projects based on their benefits, showing that a typical public-services stimulus in Canada needs to create at least 73 cents in benefits for every dollar spent, while many infrastructure projects must improve productivity by at least 61 cents per dollar just to be socially acceptable. This illustrates how difficult it is for discretionary fiscal programs to deliver genuine, net productivity gains, especially when they are designed around political objectives like net zero rather than around consumer demand.

Loose money, loose budgets, weak growth

Energy policy is just one aspect of the overall narrative. Canada and the UK have also pursued aggressively expansionary fiscal and monetary policies recently, justified in the language of Keynesian stabilization and “stimulus.” Central banks slashed interest rates and expanded their balance sheets, while governments ran large deficits to finance transfer programs, public investment packages, and targeted subsidies.

Such policies create an artificial boom by pushing interest rates below their market level, encouraging borrowing and investment that are not backed by genuine savings. When combined with interventionist climate and industrial policies, the result is a double distortion: not only is the cost of capital suppressed by central banks, but its allocation is further skewed by political targets and bureaucratic criteria.

The persistent weakness of productivity growth in both countries reflects the outcome. Despite waves of stimulus and intervention, neither Canada nor the UK has returned to the trend growth rates of earlier decades. Research on why productivity is stuck in advanced economies shows that slow business investment, poor use of resources, and uncertain policies are major problems—exactly what Austrian theory warns about when governments try to control demand and manage entire industries.

At the same time, the loose monetary and fiscal stance has fueled asset inflation and housing booms, worsening affordability while doing little to raise real wages in line with living expenses. For Austrians, this pattern is predictable: credit expansion inflates asset prices and encourages leverage, while deficit spending diverts resources from productive private activity toward politically selected uses, without solving underlying structural obstacles to innovation and entrepreneurship.

The “dynamics of interventionism” described by Austrian scholars such as Frank Shostak and Huerta de Soto captures what is now playing out in Canada and the UK. Initial interventions—carbon pricing, subsidies, ultra-loose money—create side effects such as higher energy costs, misallocated capital, and inflationary pressures. Rather than rolling back the original policies, governments respond with further interventions: price caps, windfall taxes, rent controls, targeted transfers, and new stimulus packages.

More layers mean more complexity, uncertainty, and lobbying, which sucks talent and capital out of productive activity and into regulatory arbitrage and rent-seeking. In the end, the private sector becomes less about serving consumers and more about navigating the policy maze, bidding for subsidies, and changing business models based on political risk, not market signals.

This process tends to push mixed economies toward either more radical intervention and taxation, because the accumulating distortions and contradictions become unsustainable. Rising public debt, chronic productivity stagnation, and growing discontent over affordability are all signs that the current policy mix in Canada and the UK is reaching such a breaking point.

An Austrian approach to the problems of growth, productivity, and affordability in Canada and the UK would start from the opposite principle: radically reduce the role of the state in credit allocation, industrial planning, and energy choices. The goal would be to restore genuine price discovery in interest rates, energy markets, and capital allocation, rather than using central banks and fiscal policy to engineer demand and support politically favored sectors.

That would require ending the “permanent emergency” stance in monetary policy and allowing interest rates to reflect real-time preferences and savings, rather than central-bank discretion; rolling back net zero mandates, technology bans, and targeted subsidies allow entrepreneurs and consumers to decide which energy sources and technologies best serve their needs at the lowest cost; and moving from government spending based on political choices to a system with clear rules and less government involvement that safeguards property rights, upholds contracts, and maintains low and steady taxes and regulations.

Under such a regime, capital would no longer be herded into fashionable, subsidy-dependent projects. Instead, entrepreneurs would once again be guided by undistorted profit and loss, discovering the production structures that genuinely align with consumer preferences and technological realities. Over time, such an approach is the only path consistent with higher productivity, faster real wage growth, and true improvements in affordability.

In short, the disappointing growth and deteriorating affordability in Canada and the UK are not market failures; they are the predictable result of layering net zero interventionism on top of already inflationary, deficit-driven macro policy. The solution is not more of the same but a decisive shift back toward sound money, fiscal restraint, and genuine economic freedom.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/02/2026 - 06:30

But Karmelo Anthony's lawyer may have one key trick up his sleeve.