Authored by Emric Egbert via Mises.org,

In light of recent developments in New York City, specifically on the recent primary elections and the emergence of self-described democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as a potential mayoral candidate, as well as the increasingly aggressive public engagement of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in their tour around the United States, and the fact that AOC’s chances of becoming the 2028 Democratic presidential nominee have doubled within one week, it has become clear to me that socialist rhetoric is gaining momentum in American political discourse.

This trend is further reflected in survey data from the Pew Research Center, which shows that approximately 36 percent of U.S. adults aged 18 to 29 now view socialism positively. In response to these developments, it is imperative to contribute to the proper education and clarification of what these socialists are actually advocating for, or even what true socialism truly advocates for.

Friedrich von Hayek, Nobel laureate and one of the most influential economists and political philosophers of the 20th century, once remarked, “If socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.”

Building on his erudition, I would add: If socialists understood socialism, they wouldn’t be socialists.

The true definition of socialism is a social and economic doctrine that advocates for public, rather than private, ownership or control of property and natural resources—the means of production. It is both a political and economic system in which the means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the community or the state, rather than by private individuals. In other words, in practice, the means of production are controlled by a minority political elite.

Now, no matter whether an economic system is capitalist, socialist, or any other, it is important to note that the system itself is not a utopia or an end in and of itself, but a means to an end. Economic systems ration scarce resources, goods, and services, and each one does this through either a private or a social decision-making process, but only individuals can truly make decisions. Modern money economies operate on prices which reflect the value assigned by either individuals or groups, as well as supply and demand. However, who gets to decide what is supplied and what is demanded differs across these systems. Socialism claims that shared ownership will foster broader participation, leading to everyone sharing in the benefits. Although this is impossible, it remains the foundational argument.

Many socialists have bypassed the foundational principle of collective ownership of production and have instead jumped straight to demands for ownership or redistribution of the output of production. Production is seemingly taken for granted. This conceptual shortcut makes socialism seem like a dream economic system by avoiding what socialism really is.

Therefore, although many public and political arguments are made in the name of socialism, what is often advocated for is not true socialism. In reality, the debate has rarely centered on collective ownership of the means of production—such as the factories, tools, land, and capital that make production possible—but instead on ownership or control of the outputs of production (goods and services).

Simply put, many self-identified socialists are less interested in owning the means of production and more interested in claiming entitlement to what is currently being produced or the production that someone else already owns.

Thus, the economic system debate is rarely about who controls the means of production itself but rather about the redistribution of final goods and services.

This desire for control over what is produced—rather than the means of production itself—is evident in many policies, programs, and agendas often associated with socialism. These initiatives frequently call for “free” goods and services (although, in reality, nothing is ever truly free, as someone always bears the cost and goods must be produced).

Examples of such policies include socialized healthcare, public housing, state-owned utilities, welfare and unemployment benefits, rent control, and progressive taxation aimed at being provided by the redistribution of wealth. What these policies have in common is a focus, not on who owns or manages production, but on how the final outputs are distributed. This raises an important question: Are socialists really interested in the means of production?

The application and results of these socialist policies have proven otherwise. These so-called socialist policies do not truly advocate for the collective ownership of the means of production, but rather for control over the final products of production. The only “means” of production that is regularly targeted for redistribution is capital in the form of money, but even this is not desired for its own sake. What people ultimately seek is not money itself, but the actual outputs of production, or, put more plainly, the goods and services that money can buy. In this sense, many modern redistributive policies function, not by socializing production, but by reallocating its results.

A common argument made in defense of modern socialist policies is that there are too many multi-billionaires, and then there are the rest of us. The implication is that no one needs that much wealth and that it should be redistributed, often without regard for how that wealth was earned. Many have concluded that they somehow have an inherent personal right to someone else’s wealth. But I ask the same question Thomas Sowell asked many years ago: What is your “fair share” of what someone else has worked for? Further, Sowell has also said, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

In any case, let us entertain the socialist argument that wealth should be distributed. It is often framed as a moral critique of the “haves” and the “have-nots”—that those who have simply have too much, and that if only the have-nots had what the haves have, they too could be successful or “rich.” A common example involves a single parent struggling to meet basic needs, or a poor college student or recent graduate trying to get started, which is a sympathetic and often-used illustration of inequality. (Of course, this overlooks the universal reality that everyone has unmet needs to varying degrees, and that such needs are inherently subjective.)

Let us ask a more precise question: Do these single parents or recent college graduates want ownership of the means of production—the land, machinery, raw materials, and complex processes involved in creating goods and services? Or do they simply want more of the outputs—more goods, more services, more income—ideally provided at someone else’s expense? This is the crucial distinction. The socialist argument is not about democratizing production—it’s about redistributing consumption. And that is a fundamentally different conversation from what traditional socialism proposed initially.

Even when the argument shifts to wealth, the esteemed economist Thomas Sowell challenges its underlying premise, stating: “There is a crucial question as to whether the redistribution of income or wealth can actually be done, in any comprehensive and sustainable sense.” Sowell cites the expulsion of the Jews from Spain near the end of the 15th century. As often happens when a group is forcibly removed, the Jews were not allowed to take their material wealth with them. However, they carried with them something far more valuable—their skills, knowledge, and cultural capital. Over time, many of these Jewish communities rebuilt their lives and raised their standard of living wherever they resettled, particularly in the Netherlands. While Spain may have once benefited from the wealth that was left behind, it now lags behind most of its Western European peers in both GDP per capita and productivity.

This historical example illustrates a critical economic principle: you can redistribute existing wealth, but not necessarily the capacity to create wealth. Sowell also references a case study in Detroit, where policy and regulatory changes led to the departure of a significant portion of the city’s skilled population. Despite the factories, machines, and infrastructure being left behind, those who remained lacked the know-how to operate or maintain them effectively. As a result, the inherited wealth deteriorated. Sowell’s conclusion is clear: confiscated wealth eventually wears out, and those who inherit it without the capacity to use or sustain it will struggle to preserve it, let alone grow it. This is because redistributive efforts deter future innovation by signaling to potential wealth creators that they may not be allowed to retain the fruits of their labor.

This is what happens when people confuse money itself with capital—treating it as the part of production that can be redistributed—without recognizing that money only has value when there is something on the other side of the transaction to purchase. Wealth only has long-term value when it is combined with the entrepreneur’s knowledge, skills, time, risk-taking, and coordination. It is not money alone that drives production and wealth, but rather the combination of numerous other factors.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Having captured Russian drones bomb NATO logistics hubs in Poland and Romania via a modern-day “Gleiwitz incident” could achieve Ukraine’s goal of sparking a hot NATO-Russian war…

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova raised global awareness of Hungarian media reports about a planned Ukrainian false flag drone provocation against NATO in her Telegram post on Friday. She hyperlinked to one of the outlets, Pesti Srácok, a little more than two hours after they published their editorial. It ended by citing unspecified Telegram posts about Ukraine’s plans to bomb logistics hubs in Poland and Romania with captured Russian drones and then blame Moscow.

Accordingly, there’s no solid intelligence about this, just social media reports that were picked up by the Russian Foreign Ministry and amplified by their spokeswoman. Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that such a scenario isn’t credible, especially given the larger context. Trump just greenlit NATO downing Russian jets that violate the bloc’s airspace, which could arguably embolden some members to attempt this on false pretexts, thus risking a major escalation of NATO-Russian tensions exactly as Ukraine wants.

Likewise, if the most zealously anti-Russian ones along the alliance’s eastern frontier ultimately get cold feet after fearing that Trump might hang them out to dry, Ukraine could nudge them in the direction of offensive operations against Russia disguised as “reciprocal retaliation” via this false flag plot. The essence is similar to what Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service warned about twice over the summer regarding joint British-Ukrainian plots to stage false flag provocations in the Baltic Sea.

According to their sources, this would involve Ukrainian-transferred Soviet/Russian torpedoes hitting a US ship there or at least exploding in close proximity to it and/or fishing up Ukrainian-transferred Soviet/Russian mines, either of which could suffice for pulling Trump into mission creep. They could also falsely justify offensive actions on the grounds of “reciprocal retaliation”, albeit at sea in these scenarios, while the latest one that Zakharova warned about could include drones, airstrikes, and/or a no-fly zone.

Russia continues to gradually gain ground in the special operation zone, and while no breakthrough has yet to occur, the military-strategic dynamics are clearly in its favor and decisively against Ukraine’s. Taken to its conclusion, this trend will inevitably result in Russia controlling all the disputed territory with time, thus enabling Moscow to end the conflict on more of its terms by then. Ukraine wants to avert that scenario so it’s desperately trying to engineer the game-changer of direct NATO intervention to that end.

It’s only through such a dramatic development that the abovementioned dynamics could possibly be altered to at the very least freeze the conflict, which Ukraine and the West have demanded of Russia to no avail since that would leave unmet many of its goals in the conflict, ergo Ukraine’s false flag motives. Having captured Russian drones bomb NATO logistics hubs in Poland and Romania via a modern-day “Gleiwitz incident” as Zakharova described Ukraine’s reported plans to be might easily achieve that.

Therefore, while there’s no proof in support of the claim that Ukraine is preparing a false flag drone provocation against NATO, it still can’t be ruled out. Zakharova’s post was meant to expose this plot and thus deter Ukraine, but in the event that it still happens, Trump shouldn’t let himself be manipulated by Zelensky into a disaster of epic proportions by involving the US in NATO’s faux “reciprocal retaliation” or pledging to defend the bloc ahead of Russia likely teaching it an unforgettably painful lesson afterwards.

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

Recall that in the opening months of the Russia-Ukraine war, authorities in Europe and the US began canceling all things Russian. Everything from famous Russian musical compositions, to Russian athletes’ appearances in world competitions, to even great authors like Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy were basically banned from Western institutions and public mention.

Xenophobia was all the rage among Western liberals, and even Russian tea rooms in American cities were vandalized. Innocent individuals faced discrimination for mere Russian ethnicity or Russian-sounding names. Absurdly, alongside banning Russian teams under the Russian flag at the Olympics – something which never happened to team USA even as Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, killing some one million people according to some estimates – even Russia’s Paralympic teams were barred.

That’s right, not even Russia’s disabled athletes could participate in world sports under their flag. Finally, this harsh and unnecessary measure has been reversed, as the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has voted to lift Russia’s partial suspension, along with Belarus, finally allowing disabled athletes from the countries to participate under their national flags.

As Russian media describes Saturday, the Paralympic ban is no more:

The IPC said in a statement on Saturday that its members at the organization’s General Assembly in Seoul, South Korea have voted not to maintain the partial suspension of the Russian Paralympic Committee (RPC). In the final stage of the vote, 91 delegates supported lifting all restrictions on Moscow, with 77 being against it and eight abstaining.

“This decision means NPC (national Paralympic committee) Russia now regain their full rights and privileges of IPC membership… The IPC will work with NPC Russia to put practical arrangements in place for this as soon as reasonably possible,” the statement read.

The ban on Russia and Belarus went back to 2022, though exceptions were later made which allowed some individual athletes to compete under a neutral flag.

Next, Moscow is going to lobby for a lifting of all of its athletes to compete under the national flag. Many viewers of the Summer and Winter Olympic games all over the globe have observed that the games have suffered in both quality and excitement of competition as a result of the Russian team remaining out.

Of course, Ukraine is furious, and wants the IPC to repeal its latest move. Ukraine’s Sports Minister Matviy Bidnyi has called it a betrayal of “conscience and the Olympic values.”

Kremlin officials celebrate the major decision in Russia’s favor…

Paralympic Committee lifting Russia’s partial suspension ‘LANDMARK event for world sport’

Sports Minister Degtyarev says it highlights ‘illegality, perfidy and STUPIDITY’ of sanctions on Russian athletes https://t.co/1vXeelpPyD pic.twitter.com/tbf5DqCvWy

— RT (@RT_com) September 27, 2025

“We call on our European partners, who will host the upcoming Winter Paralympic Games, not to allow the flag of the aggressor state to be raised over the free and democratic space while the war of aggression continues,” he said. He suggested that Ukraine itself could mull dropping its participation in the games as form of protest. It would certainly be ironic if Ukrainian athletes didn’t show up to compete, and the Russians did.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Slovakia’s parliament has approved a constitutional amendment defining gender strictly as male and female, a move that has sparked both celebration among conservatives and fierce criticism from liberal and pro-European parties.

The measure, which required 90 votes to pass, was adopted on Friday after two deputies from the opposition Movement Slovakia broke ranks and supported the government’s proposal. Marek Krajčí and Rastislav Krátký, who had publicly pledged not to vote with Prime Minister Robert Fico’s ruling Smer party, switched positions at the last minute. They later said they wanted to help their allies in the Christian Democratic Movement (KDH), which strongly backed the change.

The amendment, which takes effect on Nov. 1, enshrines “two genders – man and woman” in the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. It also bans surrogacy, reinforces parental rights in schools, and defines marriage and parenthood in strictly biological terms.

The text states that the new rules are intended to protect “traditional values” and Slovakia’s “sovereignty in cultural and ethical matters.”

It also ensures that EU law cannot override issues related to such matters, as lawmakers effectively ignored warnings from Brussels not to follow through with the amendment.

European Commissioner for Justice Michael McGrath penned a letter to Bratislava earlier this summer stating that the proposed amendments “raise concerns in connection with the principles of the primacy of European law.”

“The primacy of EU law is not open for debate,” he warned.

Robert Fico hailed the result, thanking “influential people” who helped secure support, though he declined to name them. He said his party had made clear that Friday’s vote would be the last chance to anchor such provisions in the constitution.

The Christian Democrats welcomed the outcome. Party leader Milan Majerský said the amendment safeguarded human dignity and praised the deputies who ensured its adoption. “The constitution protects women in connection with surrogacy, but also children and families,” he said.

But liberal and centrist parties condemned the result. Michal Šimečka, leader of Progressive Slovakia, called the amendment “shameful” and said it would harm the country’s citizens while raising questions about Slovakia’s place in the European Union. He accused the Movement Slovakia of betraying its voters by siding with Fico. “After this, there can be no thought of cooperation with them,” he said.

Branislav Gröhling, leader of Freedom and Solidarity (SaS), also criticized the two deputies who switched sides. “One night was enough for the anti-corruption movement to change its mind and support Robert Fico,” he said. SaS lawmaker Mária Kolíková warned that the change could put Slovakia’s EU funding and membership in the Council of Europe at risk.

The right-wing Republic movement and the nationalist Slovak National Party welcomed the vote, calling it a historic moment that confirmed Slovakia’s commitment to traditional values.

Read more here…

Via Camus (@newstart_2024),

At the WEF 2025, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez presented a vision for the digital future that should send a chill down the spine of every free citizen.

Framed as a solution to online harms, his proposal is, in reality, a blueprint for a panopticon of digital control, perfectly aligned with the globalist agenda of the World Economic Forum.

At the WEF 2025, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez presented a vision for the digital future that should send a chill down the spine of every free citizen. Framed as a solution to online harms, his proposal is, in reality, a blueprint for a panopticon of digital control,… pic.twitter.com/QK9V8QEU8w

— Camus (@newstart_2024) September 24, 2025

What Sánchez Said:

He called for an end to online anonymity, demanding that every social media profile in Europe be linked to a state-issued “European Digital Identity Wallet.”

He compared the internet to public streets, arguing that just as one cannot drive without a license plate, one should not post online without a state-verified ID.

What Sánchez Is Really Saying:

He is declaring that the digital public square—the last truly global space for free, unvetted discourse—must be brought under the direct supervision of the state.

His rhetoric is a masterclass in misdirection:

• “Fighting misinformation” is code for establishing a verifiable identity for dissent. Under this system, any opinion deemed inconvenient by the authorities can be traced directly back to the citizen who voiced it.

• “Ending cyber-harassment” is the pretext for ending digital privacy. The principle that one can speak without fear of state retribution is being reclassified as “impunity.”

• “Pseudonymity” is a Trojan horse. It offers the illusion of a nickname while ensuring that a government database holds the key to your real identity, accessible whenever “public authorities” deem your speech a “crime.” This is not pseudonymity; it is state-mandated identity registration for speech.

This is the ultimate goal of the WEF’s “Great Reset” and “Digital ID” agenda: not safety, but control. It creates a system where participation in modern society is contingent on accepting a government-issued digital leash. The threat of being “banned or prosecuted” for undefined crimes will inevitably lead to self-censorship, silencing legitimate criticism and neutralizing opposition.

Sanchez’s second proposal—to “force open the black box of algorithms”—completes the picture. It is not about transparency for users, but about regulatory capture for the state. The goal is for governments to dictate what content is amplified and what is suppressed, shaping public opinion under the guise of managing “the public conversation.”

This is not the path to a safer internet. It is the path to a sterile, state-managed internet where freedom is traded for the false promise of security. The globalist elite at the WEF are not solving the problems of the digital age; they are exploiting them to build the architecture of control.

Microsoft has restricted access to certain technologies for Israel’s military intelligence Unit 8200 – an elite unit responsible for clandestine operations, especially collecting signal intelligence (SIGINT), along with counterintelligence, cyberwarfare, and surveillance. It is often also referred to as the Central Collection Unit of the Intelligence Corps

Reports emerged that the IDF unit violated the company’s terms of service by using Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform to collect and store mass surveillance data on Palestinians, according to The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, and other prominent publications.

A sophisticated surveillance system was erected by Israeli intelligence reportedly using Microsoft’s infrastructure to collect data from millions of phone calls made daily by Palestinians across the West Bank and Gaza.

“We do not provide technology to support mass surveillance of civilians. This principle has guided our actions globally for over 20 years,” Microsoft President and Vice Chair Brad Smith stated in an internal email to employees.

Microsoft has also since notified Israel’s Ministry of Defense that it will terminate and deactivate specific subscriptions and services used by the military. This is said to include access to certain cloud storage, AI tools, and related technologies.

Smith had further described the company took this drastic action due to its “longstanding protection of privacy as a fundamental right.”

According to WSJ, it was initial media scrutiny which spurred on Microsoft’s own investigation into the matter:

The company looked into the matter again following the Guardian article. Law firm Covington & Burling, Smith’s former employer and a longtime Microsoft legal resource, has been investigating the matter.

The company, which shared few details of its findings, said its policies prohibit its technology’s use to facilitate mass surveillance of civilians. It said it had found evidence that “elements of the Guardian’s reporting” were true.

Current and former employees have criticized the company’s relationship with Israel. Organizers have disrupted company conferences by shouting during keynote speeches and hung Palestinian flags and banners around the Microsoft corporate campus in Redmond, Wash.

Microsoft said that it had found key elements of the public investigative reporting to be true. It comes amid growing international outrage at the soaring Palestinian death toll in Gaza, and as PM Netanyahu has vowed to fully take over Gaza City.

Watch: Given this was likely known about or at least suspected for a long time, what’s behind Microsoft’s move?

Pressure has been mounting among Microsoft’s own employees for the powerful company to take more action since the Gaza war began.

However, the company has made clear that it will continue to support Israel’s cyber-defense efforts and other services which don’t involve mass surveillance. 

Authored by ‘sundance’ via The Last Refuge,

It is difficult not to notice the strategy of how certain Trump administration officials are targeted.

Any cabinet member that looks inward to reveal the status of corrupt activity within the information silo itself becomes a target. Cabinet officials who focus externally, meaning the majority of their effort looks outside government, are seemingly left alone.

HHS Secretary RFK Jr and Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, are examples of those receiving the worst ideological targeting from operations within HHS and the Intelligence Community respectively.

Conversely, CIA Director John Ratcliffe faces almost no scrutiny or targeting by the Intelligence Community as the silo operators frame narratives almost exclusively against DNI Gabbard.

The latest effort surfaces as embeds within Main Justice and the CIA frame a storyline that Tulsi Gabbard’s action in removing the security clearances of 37 current and former officials, has now resulted in those same officials being incapable of testifying against former CIA Director John Brennan (and others).

The premise of the narrative is ridiculous.  If we are to accept some current or former IC officials are willing to testify against Brennan (or others), regardless of whether Tulsi Gabbard has revoked their security clearances, their retroactive knowledge is still pertinent.  They are completely free to give statements and testimony based on their prior conduct.

What the leakers to Axios and the New York Times are trying to establish, is groundwork for the removal of Tulsi Gabbard. This stops her objective of investigating internal corruption.  I suspect most of the people trying desperately to undermine Gabbard are from within the CIA Directorate of Analysis, or at least in alignment with the directorate’s agenda.

The narrative’s author, Marc Caputo, claims AG Pam Bondi is hampered in her effort to criminally indict John Brennan because the witnesses Main Justice would use have lost their security clearances.  Again, the game of leveraging internecine friendships in/around the office of Trump becomes an overlay.

It is certainly true that AG Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have refused to look internally; and it is also true that DNI Tulsi Gabbard has spent much of her focus time looking internally.  Bondi and Patel continue the preferred game of institutional blame-casting in Main Justice. Meanwhile, Gabbard is busy focused on cleaning up her IC house.

The Fourth Branch embeds do not fear the approach of Bondi/Patel, but the Fourth Branch embeds are petrified by the approach of Tulsi Gabbard.  That reality underpins the baseline of opposition against the Director of National Intelligence.

As the dynamic unfolds, CIA Director John Ratcliffe is certainly not corrupt; however, nor is he brave.  Director Ratcliffe is willing to let Director Gabbard clean up his house, and then he takes credit for the reform.  As the weeks unfold into months, this is becoming increasingly obvious.

Mark Zaid is the current anti-Trump Lawfare operative likely seeding the narrative to Axios/New York Times.

Mark Zaid, a Trump administration critic who represents six of the intelligence professionals whose clearances were revoked, said administration officials fretting about the Brennan case have “valid concerns.”

“This seems to be, as usual, an unforced error by Trump administration officials who don’t think things through in the long game in favor of a quick-pass completion,” he said.

“If I were the defense counsel [for Brennan], I would raise the revocation in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the witnesses.” (more)

Mark Zaid knows the game-changing process that DNI Tulsi Gabbard is using.

Gabbard is directly going into each IC agency to review and retrieve information.  When she finds something that connects to the overall plots being used by the Fourth Branch, the DNI takes that information directly to President Trump who subsequently declassifies it and then she releases it.

Zaid and the Deep State operatives he represents, want to stop Tulsi Gabbard with urgency.   They are throwing every available IC narrative into the media flow in the hope that something stops Tulsi’s effectiveness.

Across the United States, median full-time salaries vary widely depending on the state. From booming coastal economies to regions with lower costs of living, geographic differences play a major role in shaping income levels.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte, maps out the median full-time salary by state in 2024 using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the latest data available as of September 2025.

Median Full-Time Salary Across the U.S. in 2024

The U.S. overall median full-time salary sits at approximately $61,702 per year, though the gap between the highest and lowest earning states exceeds $50,000.

The data table below shows the median earnings of the full-time, year-round civilian workforce aged 16 and older in every U.S. state:

At the very top is the District of Columbia, where the median full-time salary reaches $102,970—well above any state.

Massachusetts ($79,113), Washington ($76,323), Maryland ($74,982), and New Jersey ($74,164) round out the top five. These states benefit from strong tech, finance, and government sectors that boost wages significantly above the national level.

While it’s primarily coastal states that have a median full-time salary above $70,000, Colorado is the notable exception of a landlocked state with higher median earnings at $72,028.

States with the Lowest Median Full-Time Salary in 2024

At the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi ranks last with a median full-time salary of $50,120.

Other low-earning states include Arkansas ($50,899), Oklahoma ($51,676), West Virginia ($52,080), and Louisiana ($52,959). Many of these states are concentrated in the South, reflecting broader regional wage gaps tied to industry mix, job availability, and cost of living.

A clear divide emerges between coastal and interior states. High salaries cluster in the Northeast and on the West Coast, while much of the South lags behind the U.S. median of $61,702.

To learn more about earnings in the U.S., check out this graphic which breaks down how education affects earnings in every single state on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Democratic and Republican congressional leaders are digging their heels in ahead of a critical meeting with President Donald Trump to avoid a potential government shutdown this week, each pinning the blame for any negotiations that fail tomorrow on the opposing party.

Trump agreed to meet with Senate and House leaders of both parties on Sept. 29 to hopefully broker a deal to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government funded until a long-term spending bill can be passed.

Democrats say that Republicans need to agree to extend certain tax subsidies for the Affordable Care Act Marketplace—also known as Obamacare—that were passed in 2021 as part of the American Rescue Plan and are set to expire at the end of the year.

Republicans are countering by saying the tax subsidy discussion can occur after passing a continuing resolution to keep the government afloat in the short term, saying the Affordable Care Act is beset by “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

A government shutdown is “totally up to the Democrats,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sept. 27.

“The ball is in their court,” he said. “So this decision, in my judgment, at this point in time, is up to a handful of Democrats. We need eight Democrats to pass it through the Senate, something that 13 times, when the Democrats had the majority over the last four years and President [Joe] Biden was in the White House, Republicans helped Democrats do.”

He said the tax credits don’t expire until the end of the year and that Democrats need to “release the hostage” on refusing to approve the continuing resolution before having that conversation on health care.

“That particular program is desperately in need of reform. It’s fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse, so we are going to have to have reforms if we take action there,” Thune said. “But I think there’s potentially a path forward.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said his coalition has been pushing for a meeting and “real negotiation” with Trump present, saying “we need the president as part of it.”

“We need Speaker Johnson; let the four leaders and the president sit down,” he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sept. 28, referring to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and the meeting with Trump scheduled for 2 p.m. on Sept. 29.

Schumer said the Democrats are focused on health care.

“Rural hospitals are closing. People are going to get notices of $4,000-a-year increase in their premiums. So our job is to represent the people of America,” he said. “So far, they’ve stonewalled and said we’re not discussing any of that, and we’ll see if it changes.”

Johnson said Trump is always open to talks but wants to “operate in good faith, so he decided to bring us all in.”

“He wants to talk with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries and just try to convince them to follow common sense and do what’s right by the American people,” Johnson told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sept. 28. “It’s important to point out the only thing we are trying to do is buy a little time.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that negotiations would hinge on “find[ing] a path forward to actually fix the health care system that Republicans have broken for the good of everyone.” He was referring to the expiring tax credits and cuts to Medicaid included in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act earlier this year.

Johnson called the statement “absolutely absurd.”

“The [topic of] Obamacare subsidies is a policy debate that has to be determined by the end of the year, Dec. 31,” Johnson said. “Not right now, while we’re simply trying to keep the government open so we can have all these debates.”

CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Johnson about health care experts who have said that Americans’ premiums could increase by as much as 75 percent—as early as October—if the Obamacare subsidies expire without extension, and pressed the House leader if he’s “worried at all that those people might blame Republicans for those health care costs, for the insurance costs going up.”

“No, they’re not being truthful about that,” Johnson said. “The program doesn’t expire until the end of December, so we have time to have all those discussions and debates.”

Lawrence Wilson contributed to this report.

Authored by Daphne Posadas via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

According to experts, the best way to maintain a new habit is to track it. I’ve recently taken up running. And as runners typically do, I’m now hooked on tracking my distance, measuring my pace, and setting goals to get better. Naturally, this sent me down the rabbit hole of finding the best tracking device.

There are many options. From Fitbit to Apple Watch to Garmin, there’s a wide variety of gadgets to monitor our habits. Especially since it’s a growing market. According to Yahoo Finance, the global fitness tracker market was valued at $52.29 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $189.98 billion by 2032, growing 17.5 percent every year from 2026 to 2032. Looks like more and more people are interested in quantifying our health.

Beyond smartwatches, there are also rings. Oura, a Finnish company, pioneered data tracking 10 years ago through a smart ring. The design is unobtrusive, and yet it has the capacity to measure all kinds of information, of course, at a price. To access its full power, you need to pay $349 for the ring plus a $6 monthly subscription.

The Wall Street Journal reported last year that Oura is “the leading smart-ring brand, with over 60 percent of the market,” representing 5 million rings sold worldwide.

Oura and its competitors Ringcon and Ultrahuman have become popular for rings with nice aesthetics as well as a good capacity to track steps, heart rate, sleep cycles, and even menstrual health. But competition will be no more: earlier this year, the International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled against Ultrahuman and Ringcon for patent infringement, effectively banning them from import and sales in the U.S. market starting Oct. 21.

These rings may be less benign than they seem. On Aug. 27, Oura sent out a press release announcing a partnership with the Department of Defense (now unofficially renamed Department of War) and Palantir’s FedStart platform to support “population-level analysis of risk and readiness.” Whatever that means. This triggered all kinds of online backlash over privacy concerns.

Oura CEO Tom Hale said that the company does not and “would never sell customer data.” That has not stopped users from literally trashing their $349 smart rings. Privacy concerns, even if exaggerated by social media, should not be dismissed.

On the one hand, private companies profit from collecting data, but only if consumers willingly participate. If users feel betrayed, we cancel our subscriptions, delete the apps, and move on. That’s the market feedback loop. But it looks like the concern isn’t really about the companies but the possibility of the government accessing this private health data.

We’ve seen what this looks like in countries where the state is more overarching. In China, health surveillance is routine, and health data has become a tool for social control, especially after COVID. There’s a growing concern over the data leviathan wherein the alliance of tech companies and the state enables “social governance” in what some are naming a new era of “digital authoritarianism.”

Science fiction, the art of “what ifs,” has long warned us of this. Some might remember Gattaca, where genetic information dictates social status. What appeared as a futuristic dystopia is getting closer to home. Cutting through the noise of social media, it seems like there’s a legitimate fear.

To be fair, most of us are already handing over vast amounts of personal information. Amazon knows our purchase patterns, Instagram holds our photos, and Google tracks nearly everything in between. It’s quite possible the government is aware of all of this. It’s not as if avoiding a smart ring or a fitness tracker puts us “off the grid.” The difference is one of intimacy: we’re measuring our sleep cycles, stress levels, physical recoveries—it’s the literal state of our bodies.

While concerns might be overblown on social media, it does warrant the question: Should we be more careful and intentional about who we are sharing our sensitive data with?

Granted, no one is forcing us to purchase these devices, but what’s concerning is how little thought is put into the amount of information we are willingly giving to tech companies, especially if it comes in a cute ring that goes with everyday lifestyle, but even more, whether or not there’s a government overreach and how they might use the info.

In the meantime, I’ll keep running and tracking “manually,” and because I bring my phone with me, I’ll be sharing my health info with Apple (and Strava for my two friends who cheer me on, even though, as FEE’s Editorial Director pointed out a few months ago, it’s leaking information). Until then, please read the terms and conditions. We might be feeding the machines & co. more information than we should. It’s not about what we’re tracking; in reality, it’s about who is tracking us.

From the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)