Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via VonGreyerz.gold,

As gold continues to rocket north with continuous all-time highs, some investors are still wondering, well… why?

The answer has less to do with gold’s consistent physical and monetary properties, and more to do with historical human –and hence policy—weakness, which makes this metal almost too easy to understand.

Let’s dig in.

Lead to Temptation

Some crimes are harder to see than the classic patterns of masked men robbing citizens at gunpoint.

Here, we examine the ironic yet hard truth that unmasked policy makers are deliberately and quietly robbing their citizens with embarrassing impunity.

This temptation toward sovereign sins hiding in plain sight is done without black cowboy hats or stuffing cash into a burlap bag while scared bystanders hold their hands in the air.

Instead, politicos, in neckties and blue suits, commit identical theft with far greater subtlety and destruction—smiling the entire time for re-election.

How?

Currency De-Valuation as Policy: History 101

The answer, as always, lies in the history and math of deliberate currency devaluation to pay down unfathomable sovereign debts by robbing from the people.

To see this clearly, let’s start with a little history.

As far back as the 1500s, Sir Thomas Gresham (from which “Gresham’s Law” originated) explained that whenever trusted money (i.e., gold) circulates at the same time as bad currency (i.e., paper/fiat “money”), some folks eventually figure out that it is better to save in gold and spend in fiat.

From Ancient Rome Onwards

These patterns go as far back as ancient Rome, when leaders—over their ears in debt from too many promises, wars and drunken spending—began to chip away at the silver in their Denarius coins, debasing their currency to “pay” down debt.

Eventually (over a period of about 250 years), this resulted in a Denarius with zero silver content.

Medieval Europe later followed this desperate playbook by replacing its gold money with copper money.

The French did a similar debasement in the 1780s, and it ended with a lot of rolling heads…

This is because real money eventually drives out bad currencies whenever a fiat system approaches its breaking point.

This cycle became an economic rule which the 18th century French economist, Adolphe Thiers, spelled out clearly and which history subsequently confirmed from the wheelbarrow money of Weimar Germany to similar currency/debt debacles in Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

In such contexts of extreme debt and debased currencies, no one wants to hold worthless paper money.

The desire for real money-gold-becomes a desperate and historical thirst.

Gone With the Wind

During the US Civil War, for example, the Confederate States of 1865 were on their last leg, as its Army of Northern Virginia bled out during the Petersburg siege.

The army’s commander, Robert E. Lee, was obviously worried about saving his dwindling troops, but in the waning hours of the Confederacy, the primary theme of the letters to his most trusted general, James Longstreet, centred around gold rather than cannons, artillery or horses.

Why?

Because without real money, even his most devoted soldiers could not be supplied.

Unfortunately, their fiscally over-stretched Confederate President, Jefferson Davis, had already debased the Confederate currency to pay debts which their rebel economy could not sustain.

Wages, salaries and savings could not keep up with inflation rates (currency debasement), which not even the cleverest liars in Richmond could hide or deny.

After failed policies of familiar financial repression and capital controls, the jig was up on the rebel currency, and gold mattered more than bullets…

But there was not enough gold to go around.

Not long after, the Confederacy, like so many other paper-currency nations before and since, was gone with the wind…

But Not the USD!?

Some, of course, will rightly say: “The US today is nothing like ancient Rome, Weimar Germany or the Rebel South of 1865!”

Well, yes and no…

The USA (and USD) is certainly stronger than 19th 19th-century Confederate currency, a 3rd-century Roman Denarius or the German Mark of 20th 20th-century Weimar.

But debt is still debt, and US debt is embarrassing…

And global debt is no less so…

Unfortunately, Gresham’s law, like Thiers’ rules, still apply as much today as yesterday. The death just takes a little longer for a world reserve currency…

What we are seeing today with the USD’s open decline and mis-reported inflationary decay is, in fact, nothing new to man, history or economic rules.

Inflation Is Theft

Take another forgotten truth-teller of the forgotten science of honest economics, the 18th century Irish/Frenchman, Richard Cantillon, from which the “Cantillon Effect” got its name.

The Cantillon Effect, like history, teaches us that inflation is not only a deliberate theft by policy makers, but also a wealth transfer from the masses to the elites—something familiar to anyone paying attention to US history…

Cantillon shows how new money (i.e., printed or mouse-clicked money) is not accidental nor class-blind.

New money always goes to (and enriches) the top 10% first before it later shafts the bottom 90% second.

That is, the elites, who already own stocks and real estate (90% of US stocks are held by the top 10%), are the first to benefit from the obvious inflation in stocks and real estate, which always follows money creation in lock-step.

The TARP/QE-rescued Wall Street, for example, saw this first hand, when every new version of QE correlated 1:1 with a rise in a stock market drunk on the money printed post-GFC/2008.

In fact, commercial banks saw their greatest bonuses the very year that those same banks nearly broke the economy on a subprime mortgage scandal/scam.

But Main Street, temporarily quieted by stimmy checks, was slowly measuring their wages and savings accounts in dollars whose inherent purchasing power was melting by the day from the currency expansion which saved Wall Street while slowly gutting Main Street.

This inflation, of course, is an invisible theft, one which starts slowly and then comes all at once.

Dishonesty as Deliberate Policy

Average citizens feel themselves getting poorer while their leadership tells them inflation is only “transitory” or contained within “a 2-3% target range”—all of which is an open lie.

Actual (as opposed to “reported”) inflation is compounding at levels of at least 10% per year, which means the absolute purchasing power of the USD is dying at a similar rate.

US M2 money supply has expanded by 40% since 2020, which means the USD is effectively debasing at a similar rate.

This is precisely what policy makers in debt (from ancient Rome to modern DC) need to do in order to pay down debt with devalued money.

In other words, policy makers crush the currency—and hence the people—to sustain their debt and themselves.

But as clever thieves, policy-makers (central bankers, treasury secretaries and national leaders) do this slowly and with deliberate complexity, as well as with deliberate dishonesty, a fact which a more modern economist, Charles Goodhart, made clear in the 1970s.

That is, Goodhart was among the first to reveal that whenever sovereigns create inflation, growth or employment “targets” they are almost always, well: Lying.

And as we, and many others, have written with facts rather than drama, the tools, math, and tricks used to measure employment, inflation, growth, and even the definition of recession are all open lies to anyone willing to look under the hood of the creative math and writing coming out of DC, Brussels or London…

History Made Current

If we apply the admittedly simplified historical lessons and economic rules above to today’s current headlines, as to: 1) the decline of the dollar and 2) the undeniable rise in gold, we see our situation with almost eerie clarity: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Just as Gresham and Thiers warned, central banks as well as informed investors have already begun to see the debasement of paper money.

They increasingly prefer real money – gold – over fiat toilet paper, even if that paper is the world’s reserve currency.

This explains the BRICS+ rise and open de-dollarization process away from the greenback and UST, which is no longer a slow-drip trend but a rapidly expanding direction.

This explains how the DXY has sunk below 100 since the US M2 expansion became desperate.

This explains why central banks have been net stacking gold and net selling USTs since 2014.

This explains why 20% of global oil sales are now occurring outside the US petrodollar.

This explains the open panic and disintegration on the COMEX and London exchanges, who are seeing net outflows of physical gold to satisfy counterparty thirst for the metal.

This explains why even the BIS has made gold a Tier-1 asset.

This explains why the IMF sees pure gold as fundamental to its otherwise impure CBDC initiatives.

This explains the three consecutive years of central bank gold stacking at record levels of above 1000 tons per annum since the USA weaponized the USD in 2022.

This explains why central banks now hold more gold than USTs on their balance sheets for the first time since 1996.

This explains why even Morgan Stanley must now openly confess/recommend a 20% gold allocation.

This explains why Judy Shelton wants to introduce a gold-backed UST.

This explains the desperation of the Genuis Act to create stablecoin demand for otherwise unloved USTs and USDs.

In short, and just as Gresham and Thiers warned centuries ago, the world is hoarding gold and turning away from bad money.

And just as history also warned, the USD is being openly devalued to pay down a debt crisis of their own making.

We’ve Seen this Movie/De-Valuation Before

But this, too, is nothing new for our clever thieves from above.

In 1933, FDR, by executive order, confiscated gold at $20/ounce and then, overnight, revalued it to $35/ounce, and in doing so, devalued the dollar by 69% in order to make its debt burden 69% less onerous.

In 1971, Nixon shamelessly welched on the USD and the world by removing its gold backing. Since then, the dollar has lost well over 90% of its purchasing power.

Honest vs. Dishonest Money

Such measures certainly made Uncle Sam’s appalling bar tab easier to repay, but only by gut-punching those trusting citizens who measure their wealth, savings, portfolio returns and retirement in USDs.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how policymakers attempt to stay in power– by quietly robbing their citizens of paper wealth, which in the end, is slowly no wealth at all.

And that too, fully explains the record highs and headlines in the current gold price, for gold is not rising due to speculative mania, it’s merely and honestly reflecting its relatively superior value over dishonest paper money—something gold has done throughout history.

As noted bluntly before, Gold is the lie detector for a broken financial system.

Or stated even more clearly: Gold is rising because corrupted fiat money is falling, yet again…

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday heaped praise on President Donald Trump’s efforts to broker a ceasefire in the Middle East and at the same time trashed the Nobel Committee.

Putin said to reporters while in Tajikistan that Trump “is definitely making an effort and working on these issues – on achieving peace and resolving complex international affairs. The clearest example of that is the situation in the Middle East.”

“Whether the current US president deserves the Nobel Prize or not, I don’t know. But he is truly doing a lot to resolve complex crises that have dragged on for years, even decades,” the Russian leader added.

He then slammed the Nobel Committee for awarding its prestigious peace prize to “people who did nothing for peace” – in reference to the announcement just hours before that of Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado being this year’s winner.

“In my view, those decisions have done enormous damage to the prize’s reputation,” Putin told reporters.

President Trump had actually later in the day acknowledged Putin’s words, and expressed agreement with them on Truth Social. He thanked the Russian leader in a rarity for a US president. Also, Russian media was quick to take note…

Trump sends THANKS to Prez Putin for his Nobel Peace Prize endorsement

Today Putin lamented the Prize often goes to ‘people who have done nothing for the world’

Adding Trump ‘SOLVES complex problems’ https://t.co/MN2Z0njcPJ pic.twitter.com/vtNzvaE5s5

— RT (@RT_com) October 10, 2025

But one crucial area where there hasn’t been much of a breakthrough is the Ukraine war. Putin described in his comments that Russia and the United States “could still accomplish a lot more” based on what was discussed and agreed upon with Trump during their Aug. 15 summit in Alaska.

“We didn’t fully disclose what was discussed in Anchorage. We continue to operate based on those talks and have made no changes on our part,” Putin said.

This somewhat contradicts his own officials, who have said that any positive momentum from the engagement has faded and been exhausted. Currently the US may still be mulling sending Kiev Tomahawk missiles, which would certainly sink US-Moscow relations.

For peace to be achieved, Ukraine would have to make territorial concessions, but the Zelensky government and its European backers have shown no interest in taking this step. Instead they have openly resisted it even as a possibility, with Zelensky not even appearing to contemplate giving up Crimea.

Authored by Victoria Friedman via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump suggested on Oct. 9 that Spain could be thrown out of NATO after Madrid declined to commit to boosting defense spending to 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Trump made the remarks during an Oval Office meeting with the leader of the defense alliance’s second-newest member, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, where the world leaders discussed NATO’s almost-universal pledge to increase defense expenditure.

The U.S. president said to his Finnish counterpart: “Well, we had to do it, and you were great about it. Spain has not been. Spain is the one that didn’t do it. And so, I think you people are going to have to start speaking to Spain. The only one that didn’t do it, the only NATO country that didn’t do it is Spain, and you’ll figure what that’s all about, right?”

Trump said later during the exchange: “We had one laggard. It was Spain, Spain. You have to call them and find out why are they a laggard, and they’re doing well, too.

“They have no excuse not to do this, but that’s all right. Maybe you should throw them out of NATO, frankly.”

Responding, Spain reaffirmed its commitment to the alliance, with the country’s defense minister, Margarita Robles, saying that Spain delivers on its pledges.

“These statements were made in a specific context, but I know for a fact that the U.S. Armed Forces are well aware of Spain’s commitment,” Robles said.

The defense minister in July had spoken of Spain’s reliability in the alliance during a visit to NATO headquarters in Naples, Italy, where she said that “NATO can count on Spain.”

According to a Spanish government statement from July 18, Robles said that “there are no debates or speeches that can overshadow Spain’s commitment and reliability in terms of NATO, because our commitment is robust.”

5 Percent of GDP

On June 25, Trump joined the leaders of the 31 other NATO member countries at a summit in The Hague, the Netherlands, where the alliance endorsed a new defense spending target of 5 percent of GDP—more than double the 2 percent benchmark set during a summit in Wales in 2014.

The president had been pushing for an increase in spending to redress an imbalance between what the United States and its non-U.S. allies spend.

A document called Funding NATO on the alliance’s website points to this imbalance, stating:

“The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States.

“However, non-U.S. Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defence.

“This imbalance has been a constant, with variations, throughout the history of the alliance and has grown more pronounced since the tragic events of 11 Sept. 2001, after which the United States significantly increased its defence spending.”

During his first term, Trump frequently brought up this disparity, and the subject reemerged during the 2024 presidential election.

In October 2024, Trump’s then-running mate and now vice president, JD Vance, said: “Donald Trump wants NATO to be strong. He wants us to remain in NATO. But he also wants NATO countries to actually carry their share of the defense burden.”

Spain’s Exemption

In the run-up to the June 25 summit, several countries had already backed Trump’s call to increase their pledges, including Poland, Lithuania, and Estonia.

However, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said his country had made a deal with NATO to exclude itself from the increased target.

“Spain will, therefore, not spend 5 percent of its GDP on defense, but its participation, weight, and legitimacy in NATO remain intact,” Sánchez said in a televised address on June 22.

“We fully respect the legitimate desire of other countries to increase their defense investment, but we are not going to do it.”

He added that Spain could meet all of its commitments to NATO, in terms of staff or equipment, by spending only 2.1 percent of its GDP.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez speaks during a press conference after the plenary session at the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025. Markus Schreiber/AP

According to NATO’s latest estimates from June, Spain is one of the lowest spenders on defense, just hitting 2 percent of GDP.

Poland is the highest spender out of the alliance, at 4.48 percent, followed by Lithuania (4 percent), Latvia (3.73 percent), Estonia (3.38 percent), Norway (3.35 percent), the United States (3.22 percent), and Denmark (also 3.22 percent).

At a pre-summit press conference on June 23, a journalist asked NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte how, given the exemption for Spain, he was going to make sure the 5 percent pledge did not become an empty promise.

Rutte replied, “Alluding to Spain, NATO has no opt-out, and NATO doesn’t do side deals.”

He said countries within the alliance “have the sovereign right, and also the flexibility, to determine their paths for delivering on the NATO commitments.”

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix news,

Polish President Karol Nawrocki has told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that Poland will not accept any attempt by EU institutions to impose migrant relocations within its borders.

In a letter sent to Brussels, Nawrocki stated that such actions would be unacceptable and urged the Commission to focus on securing the European Union’s external frontiers and combating illegal immigration.

“I would like to kindly inform you that Poland will not agree to any actions by European institutions that would be aimed at relocating illegal migrants in Poland, and I hope that you will take this fact into account in your actions,” the president wrote, honoring his electoral pledge to firmly reject the bloc’s Migration and Asylum Pact.

Nawrocki reminded von der Leyen that Poland’s eastern frontier has for years faced “constant migratory pressure, controlled by the Moscow regime with the help of the Belarusian state and intelligence services.” He noted that Warsaw has devoted “significant resources” to protecting the EU’s border and to supporting Ukrainian refugees displaced by Russia’s war.

“In 2025, there are still nearly a million Ukrainian refugees in Poland,” Nawrocki wrote. “After Feb. 24, 2022, the Polish state acted responsibly and accepted Ukrainian citizens fleeing the war. We offered not only our own homes but also the state’s support that was needed at that time. Poland acted in solidarity, even though it was not bound by the obligation to show solidarity.”

Nawrocki said the bloc’s focus should not be on redistributing migrants within Europe but on stopping illegal crossings in the first place.

“I agree that illegal migration is a problem that Europe must address, but the solution is not to forcibly return migrants to Central and Eastern European countries,” he wrote. “Our common task should be, above all, to seal borders and combat smugglers.”

The Polish leader also noted that opposition to migrant relocation is shared across the political spectrum in Poland, including, at least in principle, Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s left-wing coalition government.

“If it occurs to anyone in Europe to consider that Poland should take on other burdens, then regardless of who says it, I will say that Poland will not implement it. End of story,” Tusk said earlier this year, albeit ahead of the presidential election.

“The overwhelming majority of Poles, regardless of political affiliation, oppose the forced relocation of migrants to Poland,” Nawrocki wrote, adding that his election campaign had centered on ensuring “that Poles feel safe in their own country” and preserving national sovereignty.

“One element of this security is undoubtedly the absence of the risk of illegal migration, which has been flooding Western Europe since German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s memorable decision in 2015,” he continued.

Nawrocki reaffirmed that he “will not consent to the implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum in Poland” but said Warsaw remains ready to cooperate in other areas. “At the same time, I remain ready to cooperate on border protection, joint operational activities, information exchange, and technical support for Member States most exposed to migratory pressures,” he concluded.

In February, the Polish legal foundation Ordo Iuris told Remix News that the European Union’s migration pact could see up to 100,000 migrants relocated to Poland every year.

“All will depend, of course, on the number of migrants arriving by the Southern routes, so it is a very rough estimate. But we stand by it,” said the institute’s Olivier Bault.

“In most cases, Poland will be unable to deport them, even if their asylum applications are denied,” Bault added.

When asked specifically about Poland and any possible exemption previously, EU commission spokesman Markus Lammert told press that “EU law is binding on the member states and the migration pact, as a result of its entry into force, is binding law.”

Read more here…

Update (Saturday):

The Trump administration revealed in a late-Friday court filing that the White House has begun laying off more than 4,000 federal employees as the government shutdown entered its 10th day. Unlike standard temporary furloughs, these moves are permanent layoffs. The decision has infuriated Democrats, who called it politically motivated and “illegal,” while conservatives praised it as a long-promised effort to trim the bloated federal bureaucracy (continued DOGE-related efforts). 

The filing by the White House was in response to a lawsuit over the shutdown layoffs from the left-wing American Federation of Government Employees and the AFL-CIO.
Reduction-in-force notices were sent to federal workers across seven departments, with the Treasury Department and the Department of Health and Human Services being the most impacted, according to the filing. 

Earlier on Friday, White House budget director Russ Vought wrote on X that “RIFs have begun.” RIFs are short for reduction in force. 

Here comes the reaper… pic.twitter.com/LeyC9co6c9

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) October 10, 2025

Late Friday, President Trump told reporters, “It’ll be a lot and it’ll be Democrat-oriented because we figure they started this thing… It’ll be a lot of people — all because of the Democrats.” The president was referring to the number of federal workers who would be cut from the bloated federal government. 

.@POTUS: “It’ll be a lot and it’ll be Democrat-oriented because we figure they started this thing… It’ll be a lot of people — all because of the Democrats.” https://t.co/chyqg5x3tX pic.twitter.com/7IIqDW4FNN

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 10, 2025

Late Friday, a senior administration official told NBC News, “those RIFs are a snapshot in time and represent only where things were at the time of the court filing,” suggesting the situation remains fluid.

*  *  * 

The White House has begun laying off a “substantial” number of government employees, OMB Director Russ Vought announced Friday on X. 

“The RIFs have begun,” Vought wrote, referring to reduction-in-force plans. 

The RIFs have begun.

— Russ Vought (@russvought) October 10, 2025

“Can confirm RIFs have begun and they are substantial,” an OMB spokesperson told POLITICO, adding “These are RIFs not furloughs.” 

The news comes on the 10th day of the government shutdown after Senate Democrats insisted on maintaining Obama-era benefits that include illegal immigrants, and both sides of the aisle have repeatedly failed to pass subsequent packages to fund the government. 

According to the report, the layoffs have hit agencies including: Interior, Homeland Security, Treasury, EPA, Commerce, Education, Energy, HHS and HUD.

On Thursday, Trump said his administration would target programs backed by Democrats – saying during a cabinet meeting: “We’re only cutting Democrat programs, I hate to tell you, but we are cutting Democrat programs,” adding “We will be cutting some very popular Democrat programs that aren’t popular with Republicans, frankly.”

The move follows an OMB memo leaked two weeks ago which ordered Trump administration officials to prepare to carry out reduction-in-force (RIF) plans during the shutdown, targeting employees that aren’t legally required – OR, those which conflict with Trump’s priorities. 

Democrats are of course freaking out.

“We believe that they are not only unethical and immoral but illegal for him to be RIFing people in a shutdown,” said Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-MD) on Friday. 

The cuts also come hours ahead of a court deadline for the DOJ to file a report detailing any plans to terminate workers during the shutdown – ahead of an Oct. 16 hearing on a request by federal worker unions to block layoffs.

Over 2/3 of civilian federal employees have remained on the job during the shutdown, between essential workers or jobs that receive longer-term funding. The vast majority of employees are going without pay. 

*  *  * Got Lithium? Also contains: B6, B12, 5-HTP, C3 Curcumin (learn more about low-dose lithium here)

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Pakistan has been pivoting towards the West since April 2022’s post–modern coup against former multipolar Prime Minister Imran Khan, with this trend accelerating since Trump’s return to power and his obsession with punishing India for not subordinating itself as the US’ largest-ever vassal state.

Their rapid rapprochement aims to geostrategically reshape South Asia via the revival of their Old Cold War-era partnership, which would advance US interests by greatly decelerating regional multipolar processes.

To that end, Pakistan is suspected of facilitating the flow of foreign terrorists into Afghanistan as anti-Taliban proxies per what can be intuited by Secretary of the Russian Security Council Sergey Shoigu in his article from late August that was analyzed here last month. In parallel, Trump’s recently reaffirmed goal of returning US troops to Afghanistan’s Bagram Airbase can only succeed with Pakistan’s support. To top it all off, the Financial Times (FT) reported that Pakistan is now offering the US a commercial port too.

They cited unnamed advisors to Pakistani army chief Asim Munir, the country’s de facto ruler who’s visited the US three times this past year alone and met with Trump twice thus far, to inform their audience that he envisages this being established in Pasni. That town is in close proximity to Iranian-bordering Gwadar, the terminal point of the Belt & Road Initiative’s China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) flagship that which the US has long fearmongered could one day host the Chinese Navy.

The FT reported that the project’s blueprint plays on these fears as well as the US’ ones about Iran and even Russia to make their Pasni proposal more appealing to Trump 2.0. The document allegedly declares that “Pasni’s proximity to Iran and Central Asia enhances US options for trade and security…Engagement at Pasni would counterbalance Gwadar…and expand US influence in the Arabian Sea and Central Asia…China’s Gwadar investments under the Belt and Road Initiative raise dual-use concerns.”

The US presence in Pasni would aid the export of minerals that US companies were invited by Pakistan to mine in Balochistan province but could quickly take on military dimensions. The US naturally has an interest in helping Pakistan defeat the terrorist-designated “Balochistan Liberation Army” that’s been menacing this resource-rich region. That could lead to mission creep in Afghanistan given Pakistan’s claims that the Taliban backs that group, however, and more sanctions against India for the same reason.

The pretext of assisting “Major Non-NATO Ally” Pakistan in its own “War on Terror”, especially if Americans (even if only security contractors) are killed after attacks on US mining projects in Balochistan, could serve to justify the basing of US naval forces, ground troops, and/or aerial assets in or near Pasni. A Qatari-like pact could then follow for guaranteeing Pakistan’s security vis-à-vis Afghanistan, India, and even Iran, which Pakistan has also accused of backing terrorist-designated Baloch groups.

Through these means, which are dependent on a US presence of some sort in Pasni, Pakistan would complete its pro-Western pivot by fully restoring its Old Cold War-era partnership with America that Imran Khan opposed (and is why he was deposed). The regional multipolar processes championed by Russia, India, Iran, and China would therefore be challenged like never before, but that could also lead to them cooperating like never before too, with Pakistan bearing the brunt of their collective pressure.

Central banks have crossed a symbolic line: their combined gold reserves now exceed their U.S. Treasury holdings for the first time in nearly three decades.

The crossover underscores a gradual diversification away from dollar-denominated securities and toward hard assets.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, tracks how these shares have evolved from the 1970s to today.

The data comes from Crescat Capital macro strategist Tavi Costa.

From Petrodollars to De-Dollarization

After the end of Bretton Woods, soaring real interest rates and the rise of the petrodollar steered reserve managers toward U.S. Treasuries through the 1980s and 1990s.

In the 2000s, the dollar’s depth and liquidity reinforced that preference. Since 2022, however, heavy official gold buying has picked up again — 1,136 tonnes in 2022, a record — with 2023 and 2024 maintaining historically strong accumulation. The trend is even more striking considering that nearly one-fifth of all the gold ever mined is now held by central banks.

As political uncertainty and geopolitical risks continue to fuel safe-haven demand, this purchasing momentum has also lifted prices: gold surpassed $4,000 an ounce for the first time ever in October 2025.

Why “More Gold than Treasuries” Matters

Crossing above Treasuries signals that reserve managers are prioritizing durability, portability, and neutrality over yield.

According to the IMF, gold’s share of global reserves climbed to about 18% in 2024, up sharply from mid-2010s levels, reflecting a structural reweighting toward tangible assets.

Seen as an alternative to heavily indebted fiat currencies, especially the U.S. dollar, the share of gold in central bank reserves has increased most among emerging market economies. China, Russia, and Türkiye have been the largest official buyers over the past decade.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out U.S. Dollar Index Falls 10.1% in 2025, Steepest Drop in Three Decades on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A subtype of breast cancer is on the rise among American women, with incidence rates highest among White females, according to an Oct. 7 peer-reviewed study published in the American Cancer Society’s (ACS’s) journal Cancer.

Except for skin cancers, breast cancer is the most common cancer among American women, making up one out of every three new female cancers occurring annually, according to ACS data.

Invasive breast cancer occurs when cancer cells spread into the surrounding breast tissue. There are two common types—invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC).

According to the study, breast cancer stats and clinical data typically reflect IDC as the dominant subtype. As such, researchers analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to identify incidence and outcomes of ILC.

“The incidence of lobular breast cancer has increased from 6 cases per 100,000 women in 1975 to approximately 14 in 2021, mirroring patterns for all other breast cancers that are largely driven by the widespread uptake of mammography screening,” the study stated.

“Rising incidence for ILC, as well as other breast cancers, is thought to be driven by changing patterns in risk factors, such as increasing excess body weight, younger age at first menarche, later age at first birth, fewer children, later age at menopause, and increased alcohol consumption in some age groups.”

The study projected that roughly 33,600 women in the United States will be newly diagnosed with ILC this year. Women aged 60–69 are estimated to account for the majority of these cases, with 10,320 diagnoses.

Between 2017 and 2021, more than half of invasive lobular diagnoses happened among women over 65 years of age. Similar to other breast cancers, the most prevalent tumor sizes for lobular cancer types are less than two centimeters.

For the most recent decade, between 2012 and 2021, incidence rates for ILC have increased “more steeply” at 2.8 percent annually compared to 0.8 percent for other breast cancer types, said the study.

Unlike other breast cancers, ILC incidence was found to be rising at a similar pace among women under the age of 50 years and those above it.

Race-wise, White women had the highest incidence rate for ILC at 14.7 per 100,000 females. Incidence rates among black, Native American, and Hispanic women were roughly 33 to 55 percent lower.

In terms of survival, women diagnosed with ILC have a higher survival rate than those with IDC seven years after diagnosis, the study said.

At 10 years, survival rates for ILC and IDC are similar. For regional- and distant-stage disease, in which the cancer has spread wider in the body, ILC survival rates are lower.

ILC originates in the lobules, glands in the breasts responsible for producing milk, ACS said in an Oct. 7 statement.

“ILC tumors grow in a linear or dispersed pattern, instead of forming a lump typical of other breast cancers. This can contribute to delayed detection by patients and doctors, treatment challenges, and poorer long-term prognosis for advanced disease,” it said.

Angela Giaquinto, an ACS scientist and lead author of the study, said that while ILC makes up only 10 percent of all breast cancers, the rising number of these cases makes the disease “important to understand.”

“Also, survival rates beyond seven years are significantly lower for ILC than the most common type of breast cancer, highlighting the pressing need for prevention and early detection strategies targeting this subtype to be brought to the forefront,” she said.

Three of the researchers in the study were employed at the ACS, which receives grants from corporate and private sources.

One researcher reported a conflict of interest, having received grants from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Fashion Footwear Association of New York, and biotech company Genentech. Another researcher received grants from Genentech/Roche, Puma Biotechnology, and pharmaceutical company Eisai.

According to a Sept. 22 post by the CDC, risk factors for breast cancer include things that people can change and some that they can’t.

Changeable risk factors include being physically active, consuming less alcohol, reducing hormone intake, and reducing weight.

Risk factors that are not changeable include genetic mutations, having dense breasts, a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, and old age.

On Sept. 25, the Food and Drug Administration announced it had approved a new therapy for advanced breast cancer—Imlunestrant from Eli Lilly.

The therapy, expected to be made available in the United States over the coming weeks, is set to have a price tag of $22,500 per 28 days for the 400 milligram dose.

According to a 2024 survey, women who delayed mammograms typically had low breast cancer risk and were concerned about overdiagnosis and the resulting harms.

“Commonly stated reasons for delaying screening included lack of family history, low cancer risk, and concern about screening harms,” the study authors said.

Although mammography can save lives through early detection, it also comes with certain risks, including false positives, unnecessary biopsies, and overdiagnosis, with false positives being quite common.

The survey discovered that 239 out of 1,000 women who did breast cancer screenings between 40 and 49 years of age received a false positive result.

If there are two issues that dominate America’s online discourse, they’re the soaring cost of housing and the even steeper price of staying healthy.

The U.S. pours almost $13,000 per person into healthcare, yet average life expectancy is below nearly every other high-income nation.

It’s a study of contrasts.

As Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao notes, the country boasts of state of the art facilities and cutting edge research, while nearly 10% of Americans can’t afford healthcare.

This number comes from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data that lists the share of surveyed adults who skipped seeing a doctor in 2023 because it simply cost too much.

In the map and article below we break down the varying trends per state.

ℹ️ Note: Source figures unavailable for Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

Ranked: States Where Americans Skip the Doctor

Texas leads the nation in not being able to afford healthcare. More than 18% of surveyed adults said skipped a doctor’s visit due to cost, far above the 10.6% U.S. median.

Closely following are the U.S. Virgin Islands (17.2%), Georgia (15.6%), and Nevada (15.2%).

However the map shows a clear clustering of the worst rates.

Eight of the top 10 jurisdictions with the highest cost-related avoidance are in the South. This underlines how lower average incomes and higher uninsured rates compound affordability challenges.

ℹ️ Related: See the most recent data for average incomes by state.

Policymakers in these states have also been slower to expand Medicaid, a factor that researchers link to higher out-of-pocket burdens for residents.

For example, Texas has one of the strictest Medicaid eligibility requirements. Adults under 65 who aren’t disabled or raising a child are ineligible for Medicaid regardless of how low their income is, per Healthinsurance.org.

Even parents can only qualify if their household income is extremely low. This would make it impossible for parents to hold even part-time jobs, as they will lose health coverage if their earnings rise above the threshold.

ℹ️ Related: Texas has a 13% poverty rate, 11th-highest in the country.

Where Fewer Americans Skip the Doctor

At the other end of the spectrum, Hawaii (6.7%), Vermont (7.0%), and Massachusetts (7.1%) report the lowest shares of adults dodging care for financial reasons.

In Massachusetts’ case, a legacy of near-universal coverage dating back to its 2006 healthcare reform was a model for the Affordable Care Act.

Interestingly, high-cost-of-living states like New York and California sit close to the national median, suggesting that robust insurance networks can offset other cost pressures.

ℹ️ Related: Californians and New Yorkers have the lowest purchasing power in the U.S.

With the federal Medicaid continuous-coverage provision now expired, analysts expect affordability gaps to widen unless state safety nets expand.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out How Often People Go to the Doctor, by Country on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.