Cargo theft is rising sharply across North America, with criminals increasingly targeting high-value commodities and employing complex fraud tactics, according to new data from CargoNet, a product of Verisk Analytics. 

In the second quarter of 2025, CargoNet recorded 884 supply chain theft incidents across the United States and Canada—a 13% increase over the same period in 2024 and a 10% rise from the first quarter of this year. The estimated total loss exceeded $128 million, based on average loss values applied to incidents without specific reports.

The data also shows a month-over-month acceleration in theft activity during the quarter: incidents rose 14.6% in April, 4.4% in May, and a staggering 21.9% in June, highlighting growing urgency around supply chain security.

Certain commodities saw significant spikes in theft, indicating a shift from opportunistic theft to more calculated, market-driven operations. Metals theft nearly doubled, surging 96% year-over-year to 53 incidents, a rise that coincides with copper trading near record highs.

Food and beverage products were another major target, with 180 reported thefts, marking a 68% increase from Q2 2024. This category now accounts for over 20% of all cargo thefts, with alcoholic beverages, energy drinks, and meat products among the most commonly stolen items.

“The strategic targeting of specific commodities reveals the business-like approach of modern cargo theft operations,” said Keith Lewis, vice president of operations at Verisk CargoNet. “These aren’t opportunistic crimes – they’re calculated operations targeting goods with the highest illicit-market value and easiest resale potential.”

The average stolen shipment value in Q2 reached $203,586, with downstream effects including increased insurance premiums, delivery disruptions, order replacements, and ultimately higher consumer prices.

In addition to physical theft, CargoNet warns of a rising trend in sophisticated fraud-based cargo theft, involving document forgery and identity theft. These schemes are often executed by international organized crime groups and are becoming increasingly difficult to detect.

“Traditional physical security measures alone are no longer sufficient,” Lewis cautioned. “The industry must adopt a multi-layered approach combining physical security, digital verification, and real-time intelligence sharing to combat these evolving threats.”

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

EU Budget Showdown: A Choreographed Conflict?

One day after the European Commission unveiled its new multi-annual budget, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz cast himself as its fiercest opponent. What we are witnessing, however, is nothing more than a choreographed quarrel between allies.

Merz was the first senior European politician to officially reject the EU Commission’s mega-budget proposal. He called Brussels’ ambitions “unacceptable” and ended with the classic political platitude that one must make do with the resources at hand. The same man, however, presides over a debt-driven government in Berlin — so does the maxim apply to himself?

The Commission’s proposal outlines €1.816 trillion in spending between 2028 and 2034 — an increase of an astounding €750 billion.

Diversionary Tactics and Strategic Intent

What we are watching is a staged performance — a well-worn ritual designed for public consumption. The declared goal of European elites is to crown Brussels with full tax sovereignty and expand the EU’s central body into a gravitational hub of geopolitical power. The endgame is a government of governments — a supranational mega-structure.

But to achieve this, public approval must be secured. Let’s not say “manipulated” — let’s say: shaped. So the elites serve up political theater and media distractions. The script is simple: Brussels demands the maximum. Predictable outrage follows — as from Merz — and in the end, both parties “compromise” on a figure that lets everyone save face and claim victory.

Even if Merz ends up trimming €100–200 billion off the budget, it’s likely still part of the Brussels PR playbook.

Fiscal Consolidation — Whether We Like It or Not

Over-indebted EU member states — particularly in the South — are seeking to consolidate their liabilities under the Commission’s protective umbrella. And they’ve found the ideal vehicle in the European Central Bank. With the ECB backstopping debt through ongoing interventions and yield curve control, the illusion of solvency can be maintained — at the expense of European taxpayers.

This would mark the end of a fragmented European bond market. Full integration would eliminate the last vestiges of fiscal competition between member states. From there, it’s “fire at will,” to quote the style of Germany’s SPD General Secretary.

Should Brussels succeed in enacting its unholy trinity — debt consolidation, its own tax sovereignty via CO₂ levies and corporate taxes, and the introduction of a digital euro to stem capital flight — then little will remain to stop the fortress-Europe vision from materializing.

United States of Europe

Brussels believes itself close to achieving its long-sought objective. This explains the growing hostility toward national-conservative parties — the last real bulwark against the centralizers’ dream of total government. The United States of Europe is being built atop vulgar Keynesian economics, propped up by media control and narrative discipline.

At its core, it’s grotesque. With laws like the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, EU bureaucrats inadvertently confirm their fear: that their frontal assault on national autonomy and economic liberty may ultimately fail. Brussels’ policy signals are defensive — and this budget draft is a preemptive effort to shore up its crumbling authority.

The Zombie’s Arms

A quick glance at the budget confirms the diagnosis: €131 billion is earmarked for European military projects. That’s a fivefold increase — and it comes on top of massive national military expansions. The EU’s central body, finding itself in the early stages of a fiscal crisis, is now retreating into militarism.

Media-fueled Putin panic serves as the justification to activate this new limb of the artificial euro economy.

The other limb — the so-called Green Deal – is kept alive by another €700 billion in subsidies. Thirty percent of the entire EU budget will now rotate the subsidy machine, pumping debt-financed money into the carbon-neutral, biodiversity-friendly fantasies of anemic euro-zone planners.

It’s bizarre. While the Commission tries to weave the Green Deal into mainstream media narratives, environmental groups reflexively attack the budget draft as strategically incoherent. Predictably, subsidies can never satisfy society’s growing dependency on the sweet drug of “free” money. EU-Europe has become the dealer — injecting that drug into the continent with no regard for social or economic consequences.

The entire debate is detached from economic reality. It’s as if Brussels is trying to drown all criticism in cheap money — and buy NGO support with state funding. Unless opponents of euro-centralism finally catch a tailwind, more lost years lie ahead. Especially alarming: the creeping militarization — in both rhetoric and policy.

That the left remains largely silent about this marks a significant political shift. Party competition has been replaced by a cartel of interests.

Militarism as Endgame

Historically, militarization is often a symptom of regimes entering their terminal phase — a sign they’ve lost internal control. The Brussels offensive is not a show of strength, but a confession of weakness: the EU construct is cracking. Its facade of unity is held together only by floods of credit and increasing repression of dissent.

The militarist push not only signals a new arms race — it ushers in a post-democratic EU. National interests are sacrificed — in energy, migration, and fiscal sovereignty. The political price: simmering discontent, rising anti-system sentiment, and a collapse of trust in institutions.

The staged budget clash continues in migration policy — where flashy deportation flights and symbolic border controls offer the illusion of responsiveness, but nothing more. Here too, Brussels’ interests and the will of the European majority diverge sharply.

Let’s be honest: Brussels, with help from its national outposts, is executing a globalist agenda. Cleaning up the aftermath will define the political and cultural future of the continent.

If you’ve ever thought all those “NO METAL” signs around MRI machines—on doors, walls, and even in the waiting room—seemed a little over the top, here’s your proof they’re not.

Today in Darwinism…a 61-year-old man was critically injured Wednesday after an accident involving an MRI machine at a medical facility on Long Island, according to the Nassau County Police Department.

The incident occurred around 4:30 p.m. at Nassau Open MRI in Westbury, New York. Authorities say the man entered the MRI room without authorization while the machine was operating, according to Fox 8.

Police reported that the man was wearing a large metal chain around his neck, which triggered a dangerous reaction. The powerful magnetic field of the MRI machine pulled him toward the device, resulting in a severe injury.

Fox 8 writes that the man experienced a “medical episode,” police said, and was transported to a nearby hospital in critical condition. No further details about his condition or the circumstances were immediately released.

MRI machines rely on extremely strong magnets to scan the body and produce images of soft tissues. According to the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, “The magnetic field extends beyond the machine and exerts very powerful forces on objects of iron, some steels, and other magnetizable objects; it is strong enough to fling a wheelchair across the room.”

No other injuries were reported in the incident, and the investigation is ongoing.

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by NBC New York (@nbcnewyork)

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Britain’s left-wing Labour government has announced plans to lower the voting age in time for the next U.K. general election, allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in what it described as sweeping electoral reforms to “modernize democracy.”

Ministers say the move is designed to rebuild public trust, but critics have accused the government of trying to tilt the electoral playing field in its favor, with recent polling suggesting Labour would benefit from a third of the votes.

The voting age reform is part of a broader Elections Bill that will also ease voter ID rules by allowing bank cards as accepted identification and introduce tougher regulations on foreign donations, campaigner abuse, and digital voter registration.

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said the plan would “break down barriers to participation” and deliver on Labour’s manifesto promise to extend the vote to young people who already “work, pay taxes, and serve in the military.”

Minister for Democracy Rushanara Ali called it a “generational step forward.”

But Nigel Farage, leader of Reform U.K., responded:

“I’m not in favor of it, but I’m really encouraged by the number of young people that are coming towards us. It’s an attempt to rig the political system, but we intend to give them a nasty surprise.”

Polling by Merlin Strategy suggests the issue is divisive even among teenagers.

Of 500 16- and 17-year-olds surveyed, 49 percent said they did not believe they should be allowed to vote, while 51 percent supported the move.

When asked how they would vote, 33 percent backed Labour, but Reform U.K. came in second with 20 percent. Only 10 percent of respondents said they would vote Conservative.

BREAKING: The UK is set to lower the voting age to 16 in landmark electoral reforms.

Julia: “Just when you think things couldn’t get any worse… we’re going to let kids vote over who runs the country – completely and utterly insane!”@JuliaHB1 pic.twitter.com/xXaRoOH2px

— Talk (@TalkTV) July 17, 2025

Shadow Communities Secretary Kevin Hollinrake told the Daily Mail the move risks undermining democracy:

“Even 16- and 17-year-olds don’t think they’re ready to vote. With only 18 percent saying they’d definitely take part in an election, it’s clear this is more about politics than principle.”

Former editor of The Sun, Kelvin MacKenzie, was blunter:

“In a desperate attempt to find anybody to vote Labour, Angela Rayner has announced 16-year-olds can vote. At 16, they know nothing of life and finance and therefore make great socialist fodder.”

In a desperate attempt to find anybody to vote Labour Angela Rayner has announced 16-year-olds can vote at the next General Election.
At 16 they know nothing of life and finance and therefore make great socialist fodder. Older voters sick of subsidising teenagers born with their…

— Kelvin MacKenzie (@kelvmackenzie) July 17, 2025

In a European context, the U.K. now joins Austria and Malta in allowing 16-year-olds to vote in all elections. Germany, Wales, and Scotland permit voting at 16 for local or regional elections, but most European countries still set the national voting age at 18.

The move could backfire for the Labour government. Just 43 percent of young people are supportive of the two legacy parties in Britain, Labour and the Conservatives, with the data suggesting they are sympathetic to left and right-wing causes.

With talk of a potential splinter party from Labour in the pipeline being set up by far-left MPs Zara Sultana and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and the indisputable success Reform U.K. had at the last general election through its use of social media targeting young people, Keir Starmer’s party could find itself being squeezed from both sides.

Read more here…

Authored by Bruce Abramson via RealClearWire,

I began studying AI in the mid-1980s. Unusually for a computer scientist of that era, my interest was entirely in information, not in machines. I became obsessed with understanding what it meant to live during the transition from the late Industrial Age to the early Information Age.

What I learned is that computers fundamentally alter the economics of information.

We now have inexpensive access to more information, and to higher quality information, than ever before.

In theory, that should help individuals reach better decisions, organizations devise improved strategies, and governments craft superior policies. But that’s just a theory. Does it?

The answer is “sometimes.” Unfortunately, the “sometimes not” part of the equation is now poised to unleash devastating consequences.

Consider the altered economics of information: Scarcity creates value. That’s been true in all times, in all cultures, and for all resources. If there’s not enough of a resource to meet demand, its value increases. If demand is met and a surplus remains, value plummets.

Historically, information was scarce. Spies, lawyers, doctors, priests, scientists, scholars, accountants, teachers, and others spent years acquiring knowledge, then commanded a premium for their services.

Today, information is overabundant. No one need know anything because the trusty phones that never leave our sides can answer any question that might come our way. Why waste your time learning, studying, or internalizing information when you can just look it up on demand?

Having spent the past couple of years working in higher education reform and in conversation with college students, I’ve come to appreciate the power—and the danger—of this question. Today’s students have weaker general backgrounds than we’ve seen for many generations because when information ceased being scarce, it lost all value.

It’s important to recall how recently this phenomenon began. In 2011, an estimated one-third of Americans, and one-quarter of American teenagers, had smartphones. From there, adoption among the young grew faster than among the general population. Current estimates are that over 90 percent of Americans, and over 95 percent of teenagers, have smartphone access.

Even rules limiting classroom use cannot overcome the cultural shift. Few of today’s college students or recent grads have ever operated without the ability to scout ahead or query a device for information on an as-needed basis. There’s thus no reason for them to have ever developed the discipline or the practices that form the basis for learning.

The deeper problem, however, is that while instant lookup may work well for facts, it’s deadly for comprehension and worse for moral thinking.

A quick lookup can list every battle of WWII, along with casualty statistics and outcome. It cannot reveal the strategic or ethical deliberations driving the belligerents as they entered that battle. Nor can it explain why Churchill fought for the side of good while Hitler fought for the side of evil—a question that our most popular interviewers and podcasters have recently brought to prominence.

At least, lookup couldn’t provide such answers until recently. New AI systems—still less than three years old—are rushing to fill that gap. They already offer explanations and projections, at times including the motives underlying given decisions. They are beginning to push into moral judgments.

Of course, like all search and pattern-matching tools, these systems can only extrapolate from what they find. They thus tend to magnify whatever is popular. They’re also easy prey for some of the most basic cognitive biases. They tend to overweight the recent, the easily available, the widely repeated, and anything that confirms pre-conceived models.

The recent reports of Grok regurgitating crude antisemitic stereotypes and slogans illustrate the technological half of the problem. The shocking wave of terror-supporting actions wracking college campuses and drawing recent grads in many of our cities illustrate the human half.

The abundance of information has destroyed its value. Because information—facts and data—are the building blocks upon which all understanding must rest, we’ve raised a generation incapable of deep understanding. Because complex moral judgments build upon comprehension, young Americans are also shorn of basic morality

We are rapidly entering a world in which widespread access to voluminous information is producing worse—not better—decisions and actions at all levels. We have outsourced knowledge, comprehension, and judgment to sterile devices easily biased to magnify popular opinion. We have bred a generation of exquisitely credentialed, deeply immoral, anti-intellectuals on the brink of entering leadership.

When the ubiquity of instant lookup evolves beyond basic facts and into moral judgments, banal slogans and mindless cruelty will come to rule our lives.

Is there a way out of this morass? Perhaps the only one that the ancients discovered back when information, understanding, and morality all retained immense value: faith in a higher power. Because the path we’ve set on our own is heading into some very dark places.

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

President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are negotiating what’s being widely dubbed a potential “mega deal” which allows for Ukraine to exchange its growing small drone arsenal and technology for more advanced American weapons.

Reports say that under the scheme the United States would purchase Ukrainian-made drones, while Ukraine would in turn buy American weapons, according to a Zelensky interview with the New York Post. “The American people need this technology—it should be part of your defense arsenal,” Zelensky told the Post.

Ukraine was never much of a drone-producer, but the war with Russia has resulted in the country’s transformation into a small-drone manufacturing powerhouse, now producing millions of small, cheap drones – amid a growing UAV and aerial war which over the past months has seen hundreds exchanged between Russia and Ukraine on a nightly basis.

Apparently US defense planners were impressed by Ukrainian UAVs’ reach and effectiveness particularly during ‘Operation Spiderweb’ – which involved nearly 120 Ukrainian drones disabling or destroying multiple Russian bombers across four different airbases.

The Pentagon recently emphasized the urgent need to scale up drone production, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also calling for more drone training across all branches of the US military. The defense budget for next year will also seek to ramp up America’s small drone warfare readiness.

As for the ‘mega deal’ being teased by Zelensky, it’s anything but certain the degree to which the White House will actually sign on to this. Trump’s emphasis of late has been for NATO’s European members to give up their US-made weapons and transfer them to Ukraine first.

It’s also clear that Ukraine doesn’t have much in the way of weapons or technology to offer Washington, and there are currently many military tech companies and defense contractors which are ramping up small drone production. The tech offered by American firms like Anduril Industries is also without parallel – given AI integration.

But given Ukraine’s drones are somewhat ‘proven’ – Zelensky is eager to tout whatever he has to offer, in hopes of convincing Trump to step up offensive and long-range weapons transfers to Ukrainian forces.

Ukrainian officials have been relentless in their demands that Kiev immediately receives more advanced hardware, even after hundreds of billions sunk into the Ukrainian cause.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

A Russian loss would be catastrophic for China’s security, while a Russian victory could end the discounted energy bonanza that’s helping it maintain its economic growth amidst the slowdown, not to mention accelerate the US’ “Pivot (back) to (East) Asia” for more muscularly containing it.

The South China Morning Post (SCMP) cited unnamed sources to report that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his EU counterpart that China doesn’t want Russia to lose in Ukraine because the US’ whole focus might then shift to China. His alleged remarks were spun by the Mainstream Media as an admission that China isn’t as neutral as it claims, just as they and their Alt-Media rivals suspected. Both now believe that China will help Russia win, as in obtain its maximum goals, but that’s likely not the case.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Wang did indeed say what was attributed to him, it would align with the assessment around the conflict’s one-year anniversary in February 2023 that “China Doesn’t Want Anyone To Win In Ukraine”. The SCMP channeled the gist of the preceding analysis by writing that “One interpretation of Wang’s statement in Brussels is that while China did not ask for the war, its prolongation may suit Beijing’s strategic needs, so long as the US remains engaged in Ukraine.”

To explain, not only would the US be unable to “Pivot (back) to (East) Asia” for more muscularly containing China at the scale that Trump envisages if the Ukrainian Conflict drags on, but the continued pressure placed upon the Russian economy by Western sanctions would benefit the Chinese economy. China already imports a staggering amount of discounted Russian oil, which helps maintain its economic growth amidst the slowdown that it’s experiencing, but this could end if sanctions were curtailed.

Additionally, the greater that China’s role becomes in serving as a valve for Russia from Western sanctions pressure (both in terms of energy imports for helping to finance the Russian budget but also exports that replace lost Western products), the more dependent Russia will become on China. The increasingly lopsided nature of their economic relations could then be leveraged to clinch the most preferential long-term energy deals possible as regards the Power of Siberia II and other pipelines.

These outcomes could restore China’s superpower trajectory that was derailed during the first six months of the special operation as explained here at the time, thus strengthening its overall resilience to US pressure and therefore making it less likely that the US can coerce a series of lopsided deals from it. It’s for this reason that Trump’s Special Envoy to Russia Steve Witkoff is reportedly pushing for the US to lift its energy sanctions on Russia in order to deprive China of these financial and strategic benefits.

The nascent Russian–US “New Détente” could restore the Kremlin’s energy clientele as a first step via phased sanctions relief, thus expanding its range of partners to preemptively avert the aforementioned Russian dependence on China, especially in the event of joint energy cooperation in the Arctic. The purpose, as explained here in early January, would be to deprive China of decades-long access to ultra-cheap resources for fueling its superpower rise at the US’ expense.

All in all, a Russian victory (whether in full or in part via compromises) could end the discounted energy bonanza that’s helping China maintain its economic growth amidst the slowdown, ergo why Beijing won’t send military aid or troops to facilitate this (apart from also fearing serious Western sanctions).

Likewise, the scenario of the West inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia would be catastrophic for China’s security, ergo another reason for the aforesaid imports in order to help Russia maintain its war economy.

PepsiCo’s top executive indicated on July 17 that the company may switch Pepsi’s sweetener from high-fructose corn syrup to sugar, one day after President Donald Trump said Coca-Cola would soon be making the change.

“Same journey that we have in foods, we’re following in beverages. This is a consumer-centric strategy. We’re following the consumer,” Ramon Laguarta, PepsiCo’s CEO, told investors on a call after being asked about Trump’s announcement.

“If the consumer is telling us that they prefer products that have sugar and they prefer products that have natural ingredients, we will give the consumer products that have sugar and have natural ingredients. So, this is a journey of following the consumer, trying to be a little bit maybe one step ahead of the consumer, but not too many steps. And it applies to both beverages and food.”

As Jasper Fakkert reports for The Epoch Times, Trump said on Wednesday that he had been discussing with Coca-Cola the possibility of switching Coke’s sweetener to cane sugar in the United States, “and they have agreed to do so,” he said.

A Coca-Cola spokesperson told The Epoch Times that the company appreciates Trump’s enthusiasm for its brand and promised to soon share “more details on new innovative offerings within our Coca‑Cola product range.”

Some Coca-Cola products feature cane sugar, although most Coke sold in the United States is made with corn syrup. Both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo updated their soda formulas in the 1980s to use corn syrup instead of sugar.

Laguarta’s announcement came during a call in which executives said that PepsiCo will relaunch its Lay’s and Tostitos brands later this year to highlight that they contain no artificial colors or flavors.

“We’re trying to elevate the real food perception of Lay’s. If you think about the simplest and most natural snack, it is a potato chip; it’s a potato, it’s oil, and it’s a little bit of salt—the most simple, no artificial ingredients,” Laguarta said.

The company also said it was expanding the use of avocado and olive oil across its brands, rather than the canola or soybean oil it uses. Some health influencers, including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have promoted removing seed oils from food.

PepsiCo officials had announced in April that they were quickening the company’s transition to natural colors, in the wake of the Food and Drug Administration’s banning of two artificial dyes. Lays and Tostitos will not contain artificial colors by the end of 2025, he said at the time.

PepsiCo already offers Lays and Doritos without artificial colors or flavors under its Simply segment.

“The Simply line extension for existing chip brands is still in early innings,“ F/m Investments senior portfolio manager Christian Greiner said. ”Consumers have not engaged so far, and given that, it will be seen how consumers react to a rebranding of Lays and Tostitos over the next couple of quarters.”

Authored by Stephen Moore via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump should follow up on his historic “big, beautiful” tax bill with an extra booster shot for the economy by immediately indexing the capital gains taxes for inflation.

There is a reasonable chance he can do this without having to go through Congress. And our sources in the administration tell us Trump is interested in doing just that.

The tax on inflationary gains is patently unfair.

Consider a middle-class investor who bought a stock at the start of the Biden presidency for $10,000 and sold it off four years later at a valuation of $12,200. The investor would pay a tax of about $400 on the “gain” of $2,200. But over that time period, prices of everything rose on average by 22 percent, thanks to Bidenflation, so the investor didn’t really gain anything.

In this way the 23.8 percent (20 percent plus the 3.8 percent Obama add-on investment tax) cap gains tax on the sale of a stock, business or property can rise to 50 percent, as during the Bidenflation years, or even above 100 percent if inflation gets into double digits, as in the 1970s. Back then many investors paid a tax even when they sold investments that lost money.

Presidents dating back to George H.W. Bush have toyed with the idea of an executive order to end this unjust inflation tax. Lawyers have always talked them out of it.

But Trump has proven time and again that he goes boldly where previous presidents wouldn’t. When the flocks of starch-white-shirt legal eagles and the tenured swampy political pros advise no, he routinely responds: Why not?

Trump could order the Treasury Department to properly define a “capital gain” as any increase in the value of a stock or property AFTER INFLATION ADJUSTING from the time of the purchase of the asset to the time of the sale. In that case, the real rate of tax on capital gains would fall, and investment would rise. And tax revenues would RISE!

We have decades of evidence that when the tax on capital gains is lowered, the government gets more revenue. Under current law, the best way to avoid paying ANY capital gains tax is to hold on to the asset for as long as possible. This is called the “lock-in effect of the cap gains tax.” Investors refuse to sell old stocks not because they expect a higher rate of return but to avoid paying the tax penalty.

Inflation adjusting the tax would instantly inspire a selling of old assets and then inject potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of fresh capital into promising entrepreneurial startups that could grow and expand to be the next generation of Microsoft, Nvidia or Walmart.

Indexing the capital gains tax is a no-brainer for the economy, but it’s a political winner too. Seniors—millions of whom are asset-rich but income-constrained—would have an open window to sell stocks or other property that have risen in value, but the inflation tax makes selling unattractive.

Farmers whose land has appreciated over 20, 30 or even 40 years would also be able to cash out for their retirement years at a much lower tax rate and then live out their dreams.

The media and the greed and envy crowd would shout “tax cuts for the rich.” But IRS data shows that more than two of three tax returns reporting capital gains have incomes of less than $200,000. That’s not rich.

Outside of Washington, Trump would get a hero’s welcome if he issued an executive order immediately indexing gains. How could Democrats defend such a punitive tax?

There’s no guarantee Trump would win in the courts, but even if he loses, he wins. So go for it, Mr. President.

It’s not just in autos where Chinese brands are expanding their global reach…

Chinese consumer brands are quickly expanding in Southeast Asia, especially in home appliances and cosmetics—markets once led by Japanese, South Korean, and European companies, according to Nikkei Asia. Their rise is powered by acquisitions, e-commerce, and domestic overcapacity.

“Innovation in China is very cutthroat,” said Tim Chuah, senior global insight manager at Euromonitor. “For the very strong players who have survived in China, once they get into Southeast Asia, it becomes much easier for them to increase their market share.”

Appliance makers like Haier and Midea have grown globally through local production and acquisitions like GE Appliances and Japan’s Aqua. In Thailand, Haier launched AI-equipped washing machines and expects 2025 sales to hit 14 billion baht, up 28%. “You can see our growth speed is [faster than] other brands,” said Dong Jianping, Haier’s head in Thailand.

Nikkei Asia writes that Chinese appliance market share in Southeast Asia rose from 3.6% in 2015 to 8.6% in 2024. Gains are sharper in specific segments: vacuum cleaners (1.3% to 22.9%), washing machines (12.8% to 20.4%), and microwave ovens (5.2% to 18.2%).

Lesser-known firms like Guangdong Deerma Technology, once contract manufacturers, are thriving with low-cost, online-first models. “Although the international landscape remains highly uncertain, overseas sales are expected to grow rapidly due to China’s supply chain advantages,” the company said.

Chinese brands have taken share from Japanese and Korean firms. In air conditioning, Japanese companies lost 7 percentage points between 2015 and 2024, while Chinese brands grew from 9% to 25%.

E-commerce plays a key role. At a Hangzhou expo, TikTok Shop offered perks like no merchant or withdrawal fees and low deposits for Southeast Asia sellers. “Prices of products may not match those in the U.S. and Europe, but merchants can make up for it by selling in large quantities,” a TikTok Shop rep said.

Chinese cosmetics brands are also gaining ground. While L’Oreal and Unilever still lead, Chinese skincare brands posted 115% annual growth from 2019 to 2024. In Indonesia, Chinese color cosmetics brands grew their market share from 2% to 15%.

Guangzhou-based Focallure runs multiple TikTok accounts per brand per country. “Because they’re from China, they naturally understand how the algorithm on TikTok works,” said Yang Hu, APAC insight manager at Euromonitor.

However, food remains a weak spot. Past safety scandals still affect trust. “Unlike electronics,” Chuah noted, “food products require a deeper level of localization in terms of tastes and branding.”

Still, Chinese exports to ASEAN hit $322.5 billion in the first half of 2025—more than to the EU or U.S.—while imports rose just 1%. “Most of the time, the products [from China] are more competitive than those produced by local companies,” said Chuah. “And obviously that’s where a lot of the industrialization risk is coming