75.7 F
Chicago
Monday, August 17, 2026
Home Blog Page 135

What England Can Teach Us About ‘Democratic Socialism’

What England Can Teach Us About ‘Democratic Socialism’

Authored by Stephen Moore via The Epoch Times,

If you want to see modern-day socialism in action, look no further than to the other side of the pond at not-so-jolly old England. The story of Britain’s decline is a warning signal to those here in the States who are thrilled by the warm embrace of socialism.

Right now, the Brits are having the same debate about the merits of socialism as we are in our major cities and blue states. In England, the Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the Labour Party is out. But instead of turning to the right, it appears the UK will swerve further to the collective ownership of the left. Andy Burnham—the former socialist mayor of Manchester—is next in line. God save the queen.

As Greg Ip of The Wall Street Journal reports, “Burnham’s socialism is the real deal. He wants the state to control more of the means of production. … (H)e advocates public ownership of water, housing, energy and transportation.”

Burnham calls it “business-friendly socialism.”

Sure.

That will make the trains run on time.

What short memories.

After World War II, the Brits experimented with creeping socialism for more than three decades. The Labour Party handed over to public bureaucrats and unions the means of production: the Bank of England, the coal mines, the airlines, iron, steel, and phone service, to name a few. Prices soared, nothing worked, unemployment lines lengthened, and the Brits got a lot poorer.

Britain’s share of world output fell by half, from more than 10 percent to less than 5 percent. About the only thing Britain had going for it was four lads from Liverpool called the Beatles, who singlehandedly brought deep pride back and caused a mini-stimulus. But in the 1970s, the downturn worsened.

We interrupt this story with the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979. She saved the kingdom by slashing taxes and privatizing everything she could get her hands on. It was the precursor to Reaganomics.

That didn’t last long. Now it’s Thatcherism in reverse—just as the left in America wants to reverse the Reagan and Trump legacies of deregulation, lower taxes, and sound money.

What seems to be driving this leap toward “democratic socialism” on both sides of the Atlantic is a middle-class fury over inflation. The idea of free food, housing, child care, and health care is alluring.

But prices have risen not because of a failure of capitalism. It was mostly caused by massive money printing, widespread shutdowns of private industry, retail businesses and schools, and stay-at-home orders during COVID-19. Government became the provider, and the leap forward in state expenditures was never entirely extinguished.

In both the United States and in England, the “affordability crisis” is mostly in government-owned, government-operated, or heavily regulated businesses. In the U.S., that’s health care, education, and college tuition. In Britain, it’s those industries plus energy, housing, and child care.

There is an infestation of socialism in Britain that has sucked the dynamic and wealth-producing spirit out of the UK.

We need a socialism vaccine in America.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/03/2026 – 05:30

Ukraine Plans To Hyper-Innovate Humanoid Robot Soldiers

Ukraine Plans To Hyper-Innovate Humanoid Robot Soldiers

At the start of February, we pointed out that “humanoid warfare nears” and suspected these war bots were headed for Ukraine for testing. 

That hunch was confirmed by early March, after a TIME Magazine article reported that Foundation Robotics, a U.S.-based startup developing humanoid robots for industrial and military applications, had recently sent two Phantom MK1 robots to Ukraine for testing. 

Mike LeBlanc, co-founder of Foundation… 

The modern battlefield across western Eurasia has become the world’s AI weapons lab, where drones, autonomous systems, electronic warfare, and ground bots are being stress-tested in real time. 

For any ‘war unicorn’ startup trying to validate AI-enabled killing machines, Ukraine has become the proving ground, and soldiers on the front lines will quickly tell these startups whether their products work or not – that’s the part of hyperinnovation that people aren’t seeing yet, but it is becoming visible as low-cost AI killing systems begin to spread across the world. 

Last month, we were the first to debut a new video showing the Phantom MK1 robot operating a mobile light mortar system during a live-fire training exercise in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Now several Ukrainian news outlets, including United24 Media, say that Ukraine plans to launch a grant competition to develop humanoid robots for military use, part of a broader push to automate the front line and reduce battlefield risk for its troops.

Here’s more from the report:

Ukraine will launch a grant competition focused on developing humanoid robots for the needs of the Defense Forces, Brave1 head Andrii Hrytseniuk said during the Brave1 Advantage event, attended by a Militarnyi correspondent on July 2.

The main goal of the initiative is to robotize as much of the first line of contact as possible and reduce risks for Ukrainian service members.

According to Hrytseniuk, the project follows a wider global trend, as humanoid robotics is rapidly developing in the United States and China.

At the initial stage, Ukrainian developers are expected to focus on simpler platforms that can gradually receive more advanced functions.

Unlike the global civilian humanoid robot market, Ukraine’s program will focus strictly on defense needs and military use cases.

Meanwhile, CNBC finally caught up in the reporting … 

With Phantom MK1 robots reportedly making their debut in Ukraine earlier this year, Foundation could be emerging as one of the leading humanoid robotics players for the modern battlefield among Western militaries.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/03/2026 – 04:45

Europe’s Climate-First Policies Fuel Resistance To Air Conditioning As More Than 1,300 Die In Heat Waves

Europe’s Climate-First Policies Fuel Resistance To Air Conditioning As More Than 1,300 Die In Heat Waves

Via American Greatness,

Europe continues to rely on alternatives to air conditioning even as deadly heat waves claim lives across the continent.  Officials argue that expanding air conditioning is not a long-term solution.

France’s record-breaking heat last week has been linked to about 1,000 deaths, most involving elderly people.

According to World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Europe has recorded more than 1,300 excess heat-related deaths since June 21.

Despite experiencing fewer hot days than many other regions, it also records the highest number of heat-related deaths per capita.

A 2007 study found that air conditioning can reduce heat-related deaths by 75%. Even so, only about 20% of European homes have air conditioning, compared with roughly 90% of homes in the United States.

Rather than expanding air conditioning, many European officials have focused on alternative strategies, including public cooling stations and other measures designed to reduce heat in densely populated historic cities.

Ine Vandecasteele, an urban adaptation expert with the European Environment Agency, said widespread air conditioning is not the preferred solution.

“My honest response is I don’t think that should be the solution anywhere,” Vandecasteele told CBS News.

“It is an immediate response, which can support essentially those who may be vulnerable in hospitals, or in very short term can help. But in the longer term, what happens is, installing more air conditioning actually emits more heat into our environment, so it will actually increase the speed of warming.”

Higher energy costs have also discouraged broader adoption of air conditioning across much of Europe.

Italy has taken a different approach than many of its European neighbors.

According to the National Institute of Statistics, about 56% of Italian homes had air conditioning as of 2024.

European Union data also show Italy accounts for roughly one-third of the bloc’s electricity consumption for air conditioning.

Italian officials have also distributed wearable devices in Rome to monitor elderly residents, who face the greatest risk during periods of extreme heat.

Public attitudes toward air conditioning also differ from those in the United States. A recent survey in France found that one in six respondents said they would rather endure the heat than increase air conditioning use for environmental reasons.

Vandecasteele said she was not surprised by those findings. “We’re not doing this for us,” she said. “We’re doing this for the future generations.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/03/2026 – 04:00

Canada Was A Liberal Paradise… Until The Liberals Took Over

Canada Was A Liberal Paradise… Until The Liberals Took Over

Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com,

There was a version of this country that worked.

This was a country that used to punch above its weight across all key metrics and in a large part, did so espousing classical liberal values.

Multiculturalism here was both uncontroversial and functional. People came from everywhere, integrated, and got on with building lives, businesses and contributing to that overall ethos Canadian culture.

Minority rights and gender equality stopped being fights and became defaults.

Ontario, the most populous province, ran one of the cleanest grids on the continent for half a century on the back of CANDU, a reactor we designed ourselves. Peaceful, homegrown, zero-carbon, clean energy, and nobody lost any sleep over it. In fact, most people probably weren’t even aware of that.

By every classical liberal measure that actually mattered, Canada was a success story that inspired the rest of the world.

I want to be precise about the word “liberal”. The small-l, “classic” version meant open markets, open minds, equal treatment, and a state clueful enough to stay out of the way. That Canada earned its stature honestly.

Then, in 2015, the big-L Liberals took over the small-l idea. They have spent a decade undertaking what looks like something between a “controlled demolition” and act of subversion.

Start with energy, our single largest missed opportunity

We can’t build pipelines. A country sitting on one of the largest energy endowments on earth cannot get its own product to its own coast or even to its own citizens. In 2017 the Trudeau government changed the rules and moved the goalposts on the Energy East pipeline which resulted in its cancellation.

Canada is sitting on the fourth largest oil reserves on earth, after other political temperate zones: Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and we import between 500K – 600K barrels per day, nearly all of it, from the United States (“Elbows Up!”)

When Germany came knocking in 2022, Chancellor Scholz flew here and asked, practically begged, for us to sell them natural gas. Russia has just invaded Ukraine, and that put the Germans (which had wisely demolished their own nuclear power grid) into an awkward spot of having to buy energy from Putin.

Our answer?  There has “never been a strong business case.” Maybe we could interest the Germans in some solar panels and windmills. They went and signed a fifteen-year deal with Qatar instead. Qatar. Not exactly a human-rights exemplar, especially during Pride Month.

We did eventually sign an LNG deal with Germany, off the West Coast, in May of this year. Four years late, for volumes that would have looked modest in 2022. Better than nothing. Slower than everything.

None of this was an accident of incompetence. It was ideology. A decade of WEF-flavoured talking points, degrowth dressed up as climate virtue, and a governing instinct that treated Canadian resource wealth as something to apologize for.

Ottawa’s own reports spelled out the anti-capitalist drift in black and white (Bombthrower covered one here). When the environment file is handed to a former Greenpeace activist pinned to the far left of the spectrum, the pipeline math and the LNG math and the nuclear math all start to make a grim kind of sense.

Speaking of nuclear. The recent strategy was supposed to prove we still build things. “10 New Nuclear Reactors!” Oh boy.

Read past the headline. The plan is:

  • two reactors under construction …by 2035, and
  • five more “planned” (or “under development”) by… (checks notes)… 2040.

Planned. Under development. Unserious.

Meanwhile…. over in China,  they’re projecting roughly 200 gigawatts of total capacity, which means about 100 new reactors, finished and powered-on by 2040. They finish a reactor in about five years, and they a couple dozen under construction simultaneously. We are going to have started two.

We invented the CANDU. We are now a rounding error in the industry we helped create.

On Indigenous affairs, honesty requires two things at once

Most people can only manage one.

The first is that the historical record is genuinely damning. Broken treaties. Mishandled reserves. The residential schools. Generational neglect. Like slavery in the United States and elsewhere across the world, our treatment of First Nations casts a long shadow, and pretending otherwise isn’t helpful.

The second is that none of us alive today built that system. Nobody alive today bears any culpability for it. How could we?

The dichotomy between responsibility and duty was always so cogently captured in a lecture I remember in college, given by the late Jack Richardson: the great Canadian producer. I remember it well, but I’ll paraphrase:

“When you’re the producer on a record, your job is to deliver the master to the label – full stop.

Anything that gets in the way of that: the bass player dies of a heroin overdose, somebody burned the studio down, the lead singer’s wife left him and now he’s out on a ledge…

…all kinds of things can go wrong and none of them may actually your fault, but every single one of them is your problem.

You have to deliver the fucking record. That’s on you.

That is exactly where reconciliation should sit. Something we did not cause and still have to remedy… somehow.

But nothing that we do are actual remedies.

Instead of the hard, unglamorous business of clean water, functioning services and honoured agreements, we got theatre: Never-ending land acknowledgements read off laminated cards. Streets renamed, it seems deliberately, to incomprehensible text strings. Empty gestures that move no needle on any stated goal and instead breed the exact resentment they claim to be healing.

A growing share of the public has stopped seeing any of this as a lingering injustice to be addressed but now views it as a permanent guilt-management industry to tune out.

The elephant in the room: Immigration

Immigration was our masterpiece.

For decades we skimmed the cream of the planet. Skilled, educated, motivated people from every culture and country, selected through a points system that drilled down on simple KPI: can you come here, integrate, and build something? Successful applicants kept their heritage, celebrated it, added it to the mix, …and got to work.

We took people on humanitarian grounds too, generously so, but never more than we could economically and culturally absorb.

That gave us extraordinary dynamism. Entrepreneurs and investors who arrived with nothing and hit it out of the park. Chamath Palihapitiya came as a refugee from Sri Lanka and became one of the most influential venture investors of his generation.

Prem Watsa came from India and built Fairfax into a company that earned him the “Canadian Warren Buffett” tag honestly.

Legends, both. We could use as many of those as the world will send us.

Then we changed the filter.

The points system asked whether you could succeed here. The volume model, switched on after (guess when?) 2015, asked almost nothing. The targets stopped being calibrated to housing, services, and absorption capacity, and got calibrated to two different things instead: cheap imported labour for the mega-employers who lobbied for it, and a river of tuition to turn colleges into degree farms selling permanent residency with a diploma stapled to it.

The numbers got loud. Population grew faster in 2023 than in any year since the 1950s, almost entirely through immigration, into a housing market that was already broken. We’ve all seen the graph, I don’t need to repost it. By 2024 Ottawa was admitting north of 480,000 permanent residents a year, with temporary-resident inflows stacked on top that pushed the real figure far higher.

Then, even the Capital-L Liberals blinked. In late 2024 they slashed the targets and Justin Trudeau conceded, in his own words, that they “didn’t get the balance quite right.” Permanent-resident targets came down to 395,000 for 2025 and 380,000 for 2026, with brutal cuts to international students. Mark Carney, having replaced him, kept the lower numbers. Governments do not reverse that hard, that fast, on policies that are working.

Here is the part that gets people shouted down for raising, so let me be clear here:

This is a screening argument, and nothing else.

When you select immigrants, you screen. At least you’re supposed to.

Skills, language, education, and yes, background. When you stop selecting and simply move volume, you stop screening, and you get the entire Bell-curve of humanity – and quite possibly the wrong tail of it. That includes people from low-trust societies who carry their grievances and factional conflicts across the border with them, and it includes the criminal minority that any large, unvetted inflow will contain.

Ethnicity is beside the point here. The removed filter is the entire point.

The failure compounds when institutions respond to the predictable problems by looking away or dismissing credible criticisms as racism. When a serious crime involving a recent arrival gets softened in the media coverage, or when the judge sentencing a convicted violent criminal dials back the penalties in order to avoid deportation, ordinary people notice. They are not stupid.

People start rumbling about “two-tier” justice systems and “immigration discounts” for criminals, and they are correct.

True story: Racism in Canada had been all but eradicated.

This is reason I bothered writing any of this. Because it’s Canada Day. And I see too many reactions to what has happened in this country get boiled down to the lowest-IQ filter that exists: racism.

For what now seems like a bygone Golden Age, racism in this country was basically over.

Structural racism had been excised from the systems and institutions while garden variety cultural racism was confined to relatively few fringe dwellers. Every few families had one of those Archie Bunker type uncles and nobody really took them seriously.

The overwhelming majority of Canadians, born here and immigrants alike, simply did not organize their lives around skin colour. That was the win. That was paradise. We had it.

Some may say we always sorted ourselves, that Little Italy and Little India prove it (“Checkmate, multiculturists!”). They actually prove the opposite. Ethnic neighbourhoods are on-ramps: the first generation clusters for the food and the familiarity, the second scatters to the suburbs and marries out (including inter-marriage with other groups); and the whole thing runs on choice and empties itself by design. A bakery on a corner is culture. A hiring rule keyed to race is policy. The paradise ran on the former and its destruction happens on the latter.

Look at where a decade of dismantling this has left us.

For starters, racism is back from both sides, with a twist:

Structural racism came back, only this time wearing progressive branding. Job postings openly signal racial and other identity preferences. Criminal sentencing now weighs a defendant’s race, background and immigration status.  A system that largely made race irrelevant has spent the last decade making it central again, then acts astonished at the reaction.

And because of that reaction cultural racism is now, also back with a vengeance. Resentment festers among perfectly normal people, including fully integrated immigrants from the earlier waves who did everything right and now watch the standard collapse behind them. That Archie-Bunker racism, the crude ambient kind we had mostly shamed out of public life, is back and being said out loud. Grassroots organizations that used to sit at the crank-fringe are growing past it. Social media runs on lowest-common-denominator rage bait, and a lot of it is now straight-up racist.

We spent forty years turning down the temperature on race in this country and it worked. Then, in the name of turning it down further, we cranked it al the way back up.

The title isn’t a joke, it’s the truth.

A classically liberal paradise is precisely what we built. Open, tolerant, prosperous, boringly functional, (“peace, order, good government”) the envy of people who had to flee places that were none of those things. The small-l achievement was real, and it was ours.

The big-L party inherited it, mistook the inheritance for a mandate to undertake a mass civilizational social engineering project, and spent a decade trading competence for platitudes, energy for symbolism, selection for volume, and hard-won racial peace for a fresh cycle of division marketed as inclusivity.

We had this one in the bag.

Now, not so much.

Happy Canada Day.

If you’re a net-producer, high agency Canadian interested in joining a like-minded group for the politically homeless in Canada, check out Ready.ca

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 23:25

US Fentanyl Crisis Eases But Remains Dominant

US Fentanyl Crisis Eases But Remains Dominant

According to the latest provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. drug overdose deaths have come down from the peaks of the past years while remaining at high levels.

Recent figures suggest a notable decline to around 70,000 annual fatalities in 2025, following a peak of nearly 110,000 in 2023.

Still, synthetic opioids, primarily fentanyl, continue to be the main driver of overdose mortality, involved in more than half of the U.S. cases and underscoring the scale and persistence of the crisis.

As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz shows in the chart below, the role of synthetic opioids has grown dramatically over the past decade… 

Infographic: Fentanyl Crisis Eases but Remains Dominant | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

In early 2015, fentanyl and related substances were involved in just 12 percent of all drug overdose deaths. This share rose steadily in the following years, surpassing 50 percent by early 2020 and reaching around two-thirds of overdose deaths by 2021-2022, as the Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated the situation.

At its peak in 2023, synthetic opioids accounted for roughly 70 percent of all overdose fatalities in the country, highlighting how decisively fentanyl has overtaken other drugs, in part because its extreme potency makes it cost-effective to mix into other drugs, thereby increasing the risk of overdoses.

The underlying trend reflects both a sharp increase in deaths linked to synthetic opioids and a relative stabilization, or even decline, of fatalities involving other substances. 

Deaths involving fentanyl surged from fewer than 6,000 per month in early 2015 to more than 75,000 annually by 2023 (12-month rolling totals), while deaths linked to other drugs remained broadly flat or declined slightly over the same period.

However, the latest provisional CDC data point to a potential turning point.

Throughout 2024, overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids declined from around 72,700 in January to below 50,000 by December (rolling totals), bringing their share of total overdose deaths down to about 60 percent.

While this marks a notable improvement, fentanyl remains at the center of the U.S. overdose epidemic.

Public health experts attribute the recent decline to a combination of factors, including expanded access to naloxone (a medication used to reverse opioid overdoses), increased public awareness, intensified prevention efforts and shifts in drug supply.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 23:00

The 4 Percent Rule Is Showing Its Age: Smarter Withdrawal Strategies For 2026

The 4 Percent Rule Is Showing Its Age: Smarter Withdrawal Strategies For 2026

Authored by Peter Daisyme via Due,

The 4 percent rule has guided retirement planning for three decades. The idea is simple: withdraw 4 percent of your savings in year one, adjust that dollar amount for inflation each year after, and your money should last about 30 years. It is a useful starting point and a great mental shortcut. But the person who created it has spent recent years telling people it is far more flexible – and often more generous – than the rigid version most savers cling to.

Experts say the best retirement withdrawal strategy adjusts to changing conditions. oneinchpunch/shutterstock

Where The 4 Percent Rule Came From

Financial planner William Bengen introduced the rule in 1994 after crunching decades of historical market data. He wanted to find the highest withdrawal rate that would have survived even the worst market conditions of the 20th century, including the Great Depression and the brutal 1970s. The answer he landed on was about 4 percent, and the figure stuck so firmly that it became gospel.

The crucial detail that gets lost is what “survived the worst case” actually means. Bengen was not describing the typical retirement – he was describing the single most unfortunate starting year in history. For the vast majority of retirees, a portfolio drawn down at 4 percent not only lasted; it grew substantially.

What The 4 Percent Rule Gets Right – And Wrong

The rule’s strength lies in its simplicity and conservatism. It forces you to think in terms of a sustainable withdrawal rate rather than a lump sum, and it builds in a margin of safety. The weakness is that the same conservatism can leave you underspending for decades and dying with a fortune you never enjoyed.

The 4 percent rule – or the newer version of the 4.7 percent rule – is the worst-case scenario. It’s really designed for only the most conservative person to use in retirement planning.”

That is Bengen himself, quoted by Bankrate. With broader diversification across asset classes, he has argued that retirees may be able to start with withdrawal rates closer to 4.7 percent in some circumstances. In other words, the famous 4 percent figure is better viewed as a conservative baseline than a hard spending limit.

Why 2026 Calls For A Flexible Approach

A fixed percentage ignores what is actually happening around you. Markets rise and fall, and inflation eats into every dollar you pull out. Bengen has called inflation retirees’ “greatest enemy” for exactly this reason – a few bad inflation years early in retirement can do lasting damage to a portfolio. Morningstar’s ongoing research has landed on a more cautious starting figure in some years, underscoring that there is no single magic number that works in every environment.

The real risk hiding behind the 4 percent rule is called sequence-of-returns risk. If the market drops sharply in your first few years of retirement while you are also withdrawing, you sell assets at depressed prices, and your portfolio may never fully recover. The same average return delivered in a different order can produce wildly different outcomes. That is why when you retire and how you adjust matter as much as the percentage you choose.

A Real-World Look At Sequence Risk

To see why flexibility matters so much, picture two retirees who both start with $1 million and both average the same 7 percent return over time. The only difference is the order of those returns. The first retiree hits a string of strong market years right after retiring; the second runs into a steep downturn in years one and two. Even though their average returns are identical over the long run, the second retiree is withdrawing money from a shrinking portfolio at the worst possible moment, locking in losses they can never fully recover. Years later, the first retiree may have more money than they started with, while the second is watching their balance dwindle.

That is sequence-of-returns risk in plain terms, and it is the best argument against rigidly withdrawing a fixed inflation-adjusted amount no matter what. A retiree willing to trim spending modestly during the early bad years dramatically improves their odds of never running out.

Three Withdrawal Strategies Worth Considering

Instead of locking yourself into one rate, build in flexibility. These approaches all reduce the odds of running dry while letting you spend more when conditions allow:

  • Guardrails: Start near 5 percent, then trim spending in down years and give yourself a raise after strong ones.
  • The bucket approach: Keep one to two years of expenses in cash so you never sell investments during a downturn.
  • Dynamic spending: Tie withdrawals to portfolio performance rather than a rigid inflation adjustment, so your spending breathes with your balance.

Each acknowledges a simple truth: real retirees do not spend the exact same inflation-adjusted amount every year for 30 years. They flex, and a strategy that flexes with them is more realistic and usually more efficient.

How To Set Your Own Number

Your personal safe rate depends on several factors the rule of thumb ignores:

  • Your retirement age and realistic life expectancy.
  • How much of your spending is covered by guaranteed income, such as Social Security or a pension?
  • Your asset mix and your tolerance for spending cuts in a bad year.
  • Whether leaving a large inheritance is a goal or a non-issue.

A 70-year-old with a pension and modest spending can safely withdraw far more than 4 percent. A 55-year-old early retiree with no other income should probably start at a lower level. The number is personal, which is exactly why a one-size-fits-all rule eventually breaks down. The healthiest approach is an annual check-in where you review your balance, spending, and remaining time horizon, and then adjust. Early in retirement, when sequence risk is highest, these reviews matter most.

Don’t Forget Taxes In Your Withdrawal Plan

Your withdrawal rate is only half the equation; the order in which you tap your accounts matters too. Pulling money tax-efficiently – generally from taxable accounts first, then tax-deferred accounts like a traditional 401(k), and finally Roth accounts – can stretch your savings meaningfully further than withdrawing haphazardly. Required minimum distributions, the taxation of Social Security, and Medicare premium thresholds all interact with how much you withdraw and from where. A retiree who coordinates withdrawals with taxes can often support a higher effective spending rate than one who ignores them, simply by keeping more money out of the government’s hands. It is one more reason the rigid 4 percent rule is just a starting point rather than a complete plan.

The Bottom Line

Treat the 4 percent rule as a floor for planning, not a ceiling for spending. Run your own numbers, account for your guaranteed income and time horizon, stay flexible enough to adjust in volatile years, and revisit the plan annually. Done right, you avoid both nightmares: running out of money too soon and reaching the end of a long life having denied yourself a retirement you could easily have afforded. If you want a deeper framework, our retirement planning guide can help you pressure-test your assumptions before you stop working.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 22:35

FBI Mole Wore Wire Inside Newsom’s Inner Circle: Lawyer

FBI Mole Wore Wire Inside Newsom’s Inner Circle: Lawyer

A mole working for the Biden FBI was secretly recording Gavin Newsom’s inner circle before the agency expanded its corruption probe into the California governor and his wife, according to a bombshell report by the NY Post

Gov. Gavin Newsom, Alexis Podesta

Democrat insider Alexis Podesta, a 45-year-old Sacramento consultant and Newsom appointee – no known relation to John Podesta – secretly taped conversations for the FBI as early as June 2024, while Joe Biden was still in the White House, according to McGregor Scott, the former US attorney now representing Dana Williamson. Williamson, 53, ran Newsom’s office as chief of staff until late 2024; in May she pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, filing a false tax return, and lying to federal agents.

Federal prosecutors accused Williamson and others of orchestrating a scheme to siphon roughly $225,000 from a dormant campaign account which belonged to former HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra -disguising the payments as legitimate consulting fees while routing the money to benefit Becerra’s former chief of staff, Sean McCluskie. According to Podesta’s attorney, she was placed in charge of overseeing the account in question – but did not know the payments were improper.

Becerra is now the Democratic nominee to succeed Newsom as governor. 

Alexis wore a wire, and Dana did not,” said Williamson’s lawyer and former US attorney for the Eastern District of California, McGregor Scott. 

“A lot of people received letters essentially informing us that there were certain periods of time where the FBI was given access to follow phone calls,” said assemblymember Josh Hoover (R-Folsom), who said he was among those who received a letter even though he had never spoken with either Podesta or Williamson. 

“I don’t know how these investigations work, but it sounds like they cast a pretty broad net across the Capitol community to see what they could find.” 

A separate source with knowledge of the matter said they knew of four Sacramento insiders who also received FBI notifications confirming they had been recorded.

One recipient told the source: “Dude, I got this f—ing letter. I never even met with Dana Williamson!

“Their curiosity was that they never even met with Dana Williamson, so they were wondering what this is all about,” the source said.

“And now you have the answer.” -NY Post

News of the wire comes just over two weeks after Newsom claimed that the Trump administration is punishing him because he may run for president in 2028. 

“They’re demanding records, they’re abusing the grand jury process, digging through years and years of random documents. Donald Trump isn’t just coming after me because of my mean tweets, he’s coming after me because I’m considering running for president, because he hates that I’ve consistently called him out over and over again for his lies and deceit,” Newsom said, before sending a mass email asking for political donations. 

Sources close to the investigation, however, told The Post that the feds have spent the past year digging into Newsom, his staff, and his wife’s taxes after whistleblowers reportedly dropped the dime that led to the probe. Williamson’s attorney told the outlet that his client declined to cooperate because she didn’t have anything on Newsom. 

Podesta – a former staffer for the late Dianne Feinstein, is a longtime Democratic power broker who remains on California’s State Compensation Insurance Fund board – to which Newsom appointed her in January 2020. She also held senior positions in Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration, and served as secretary of the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency. While she hasn’t been charged with a crime, her attorney identified her as an uncharged co-conspirator in the Williamson indictment.

Of note, Podesta is still getting paid $60,797 by the state while cooperating with the FBI, while she sits on the Insurance Fund Board. 

Campaign finance records show Becerra’s committee making $10,000 monthly payments to ‘Podesta Company’ during 2023 and 2024. During this period, Williamson – while Newsom’s CoS – shared confidential info with Podesta regarding a corporate client that has now been identified as Activision Blizzard.

Williamson’s plea agreement states that she was captured in a June 2024 wiretap strategizing with the co-conspirator about how to respond to a Public Records Act request involving the state’s litigation against the company. Williamson and Podesta exchanged text messages on the issue, according to court records. Podesta has not publicly commented on the matter. -NY Post

Hoover, the Republican assemblymember, told The Post: “All of this stuff just raises so many questions … “What is going on in this administration? What types of conversations are being had? I think the entire case should be really concerning for the general public. It’s really raising a lot of mistrust.”

“I think it underlines how problematic this current administration is. [Newsom] is someone who wants to run for president of the United States. It’s really disappointing to see that this is the level of our politics.”

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 22:16

US Navy Tests 3D-Printed Composite Patches To Speed Up F/A-18 Fighter Jet Repairs

US Navy Tests 3D-Printed Composite Patches To Speed Up F/A-18 Fighter Jet Repairs

Authored by Mrigakshi Dixit via Interesting Engineering,

The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) and Fleet Readiness Center Southwest (FRCSW) have co-developed a 3D-printed composite repair method designed to reduce F/A-18 Super Hornet maintenance times by approximately 50 percent.

An F/A-18 Super Hornet pilot prepares for flight at Fleet Readiness Center Southwest in San Diego.NAWCAD Visual Information

When an F/A-18 fighter jet gets damaged at a remote base, fixing its advanced composite parts typically takes weeks. The Navy had to wait for specialized technicians to arrive or ship massive parts across the globe to repair depots in the US, keeping combat jets grounded.

Also, the Navy faces a drop in critical combat readiness as it struggles to keep up with fighter jet repairs.

The new method could solve this challenge. The engineers have designed a high-performance, 3D-printed composite patches that can be manufactured and applied directly onto grounded aircraft. Rather than waiting weeks for a shipping container, sailors at forward bases can soon hit print.

“Our goal is to put capability directly into the hands of the Fleet,” said NAWCAD Commander Rear Adm. Todd Evans. “By simplifying a complex repair so it can be done forward, our engineers would get aircraft back in the fight faster – it’s a smart solution that makes our squadrons more self-sufficient and directly improves operational readiness.”

Print, Patch, Fly

The strategy’s real advantage is that it leverages infrastructure the Navy already owns. As per the official release, the service has deployed industrial 3D printers to 22 maintenance sites around the world. The process strips away geographic vulnerability.

Sailors can complete repairs on-site instead of waiting for replacement parts to be shipped from repair depots in the United States by manufacturing the necessary patches where the aircraft are deployed.

Transitioning 3D printing from a novelty to a flight-ready combat repair requires extreme precision. To guarantee safety, the joint engineering team developed extensive application procedures and specialized quality checks. The patches are designed to withstand the extreme aerodynamic forces and thermal environments typical of supersonic fighter operations.

The technology has already passed strict laboratory tests.

Flight Testing Expected Soon

In the summer, it faces the ultimate test: a live flight demonstration on an operational Super Hornet. This is the U.S. Navy’s primary carrier-based, twin-engine fighter jet. It handles everything from air-to-air combat to precision bombing runs.

Testing the 3D-printed patch on an operational jet, instead of a stripped-down laboratory model, will be a huge milestone. It will ultimately showcased whether or not the Navy is confident enough to let a pilot fly a frontline combat jet at high speeds with a 3D-printed part attached to it.

Reportedly, this deployment of the new patch method aligns with a major structural shift for the U.S. Marine Corps, which plans to deactivate all remaining Hornet squadrons by 2030. The service is phasing out the maintenance specialties associated with the aging fighter jet as it transitions entirely to a tactical fleet of fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II aircraft.

Nevertheless, if the method gets widely adopted, the patch method will fundamentally alter how naval aviation views sustainment. The Navy will be able to respond to the demands of modern combat with much greater speed and agility.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 21:45

America’s $31 Trillion Economy By State

America’s $31 Trillion Economy By State

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary in 2026, its economy has grown to nearly $31 trillion, making it the world’s largest by a wide margin.

Using the latest estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), this visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Gabriel Cohen, ranks every state by nominal GDP in 2025, showing how each contributes to national output.

California: The Economic Engine of America

If California were an independent country, it would have the world’s fourth-largest economy, behind only the U.S., China, and Germany, and ahead of all other nations. It is currently the world’s largest subnational economy.

This data table lists U.S. states by their 2025 nominal GDP.

Rank State Nominal GDP in 2025 (billions $) Share of U.S. GDP (%)
1 California 4,251 13.8
2 Texas 2,904 9.4
3 New York 2,468 8.0
4 Florida 1,835 6.0
5 Illinois 1,202 3.9
6 Pennsylvania 1,056 3.4
7 Ohio 967 3.1
8 Georgia 925 3.0
9 Washington 895 2.9
10 North Carolina 894 2.9
11 New Jersey 887 2.9
12 Massachusetts 820 2.7
13 Virginia 798 2.6
14 Michigan 730 2.4
15 Arizona 598 1.9
16 Tennessee 590 1.9
17 Colorado 584 1.9
18 Maryland 568 1.8
19 Indiana 545 1.8
20 Minnesota 531 1.7
21 Wisconsin 473 1.5
22 Missouri 468 1.5
23 South Carolina 379 1.2
24 Connecticut 376 1.2
25 Oregon 343 1.1
26 Alabama 341 1.1
27 Louisiana 340 1.1
28 Utah 316 1.0
29 Kentucky 307 1.0
30 Nevada 281 0.9
31 Iowa 277 0.9
32 Oklahoma 274 0.9
33 Kansas 241 0.8
34 Arkansas 198 0.6
35 Nebraska 198 0.6
36 District of Columbia 193 0.6
37 Mississippi 165 0.5
38 New Mexico 153 0.5
39 Idaho 136 0.4
40 New Hampshire 126 0.4
41 Hawaii 125 0.4
42 Delaware 117 0.4
43 West Virginia 109 0.4
44 Maine 103 0.3
45 Rhode Island 84 0.3
46 Montana 82 0.3
47 North Dakota 82 0.3
48 South Dakota 81 0.3
49 Alaska 75 0.2
50 Wyoming 53 0.2
51 Vermont 48 0.2
🇺🇸 U.S. 30,762 100.0

California is a powerful, diversified economy in which different sectors dominate different areas. Los Angeles, for example, is a major media hub, while San Francisco and the Bay Area’s Silicon Valley remain a global center for many of the world’s most valuable tech firms.

The Central Valley, meanwhile, serves as one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world, with high output in dairy products, wine, nuts, fruits, and vegetables.

Beyond these well-known sectors, the Golden State is also a major player in energy, particularly solar power, as well as a key logistics hub owing to the massive ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.

The Trillion-Dollar Club

Beyond California, five other states have a GDP exceeding a trillion dollars as of 2025: Texas ($2.9 trillion), New York ($2.5 trillion), Florida ($1.8 trillion), Illinois ($1.2 trillion), and Pennsylvania ($1.1 trillion).

Some of these state economies, like Illinois and New York, are highly concentrated in one major city, such as Chicago or New York City. Others, like Florida and Texas, are more diffuse. Four Texan cities, for example, number among the country’s 10 most populous as of 2025.

In line with its diversified economy, Texas is a major agricultural, defense, and energy player. The Lone Star State also has more Fortune 500 companies than any other state.

The Diversified U.S. Economy

While technology and entertainment drive California, Texas combines energy, manufacturing, agriculture, and defense.

Elsewhere, states specialize in industries ranging from finance and pharmaceuticals to tourism and farming. This geographic diversity helps make the U.S. economy more resilient, as slowdowns in one industry or region can be offset by strength in others.

The Great Plains, for example, are major producers of agricultural goods like soy and corn, as seen in the Iowan ($277 billion) and Nebraskan ($198 billion) economies. These states are particularly sensitive to droughts or trade disputes with major agricultural markets like China or Mexico.

Meanwhile, other states depend more on tourism, particularly in major cities. Nevada’s $281-billion economy, for example, is heavily concentrated in Las Vegas, making the state vulnerable to drops in tourist numbers.

Curious how each U.S. state ranks in terms of its business reputation? Check out Ranking the Best State Economies in 2024 on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 21:20

‘Something Has Gone Completely Wrong’: Palantir’s Alex Karp Goes Ballistic On OpenAI, Anthropic

‘Something Has Gone Completely Wrong’: Palantir’s Alex Karp Goes Ballistic On OpenAI, Anthropic

On Wednesday, Palantir CEO Alex Karp delivered a blistering critique of frontier AI labs, accusing them of having an “effing insane” business model that leaves enterprises paying escalating token costs for limited value while risking their proprietary data and intellectual property. He said that top AI labs such as Anthropic and OpenAI were misleading corporate partners – “overselling” the risks of AI while at the same time offering their most powerful models to companies and governments worldwide. 

When CNBC host Becky Quick said “You sound pretty angry,” Karp replied: “This is the voice of American business that is being channeled through me,” he told CNBC, joking later that he might “get kicked out of the room.”

Karp’s comments come amid a “revolt” against U.S. AI labs – driven by a combination of high costs, questionable ROI, and increasing regulatory headwinds which have driven some major U.S. companies to cheaper Chinese alternatives, creating multiple pressure points for OpenAI, Anthropic, and others.

“Something Has Gone Completely Wrong”

Karp slammed the token model used by Anthropic and OpenAI – saying “I’m not throwing shade at them, but something has gone completely wrong,” he said. “The basic view among enterprises in this country is I’m going to chillax and waste my time with tokens.”

He argued that that labs were overselling risks while simultaneously pushing powerful models, and that companies were effectively paying a “wealth tax” that transferred their “alpha” (competitive advantage) to third parties. On national security, he warned: “Are we really going to outsource the battlefield of this country to the consensus view in Silicon Valley? That is effing insane.”

The remarks aligned with a 9-point “AI sovereignty” manifesto Palantir posted on X the day before, which criticized “tokenmaxxing” for incentivizing disposable scripts over robust systems and urged institutions to retain control over their data, model weights, and competitive edge.

Via X: 

Our thoughts on the importance of AI sovereignty.

1. Your AI sovereignty dictates your institution’s future. Sovereignty is the precondition for choice. Relinquishing sovereignty transfers the future choices of your institution to others, who are likely to exploit it for their gain and your loss.

2. Data retention is your treasure. Transfer it at your own peril. Your ability to win is dictated by your ability to recognize and use your unique edges, and you keep winning by compounding the underlying data to generate new insights. Transferring that data hands over access to your pre-existing winning plays and yields the means of production for new ones.

3. Tokenmaxxing hijacks your value orientation and decreases your institutional fortitude and intelligence. The pursuit of high token usage incentivizes disposable scripts over robust software — with the addictive feeling of false progress. There is a reason why those selling tokens refuse to charge based on value.

4. Controlling your weights is controlling your fate. Weights are the distilled form of hard-won, accumulated institutional knowledge. If you let others control your weights, you are allowing them to migrate the alpha of your business to theirs.

5. There is no contradiction between sovereignty and alpha. The architecture that maximally preserves sovereignty is one that enables institutions to own their tribal knowledge, and to compound it as alpha.

6. Politicizing the technical issues involving sovereignty is what your adversary wants. Techno-politicization is the wellspring of false sovereignty. Techno-politicization drives decisions that seem to reduce dependency, but ultimately limit agency — especially on the battlefield in the West.

7. Real expertise is existential. Allowing politics or favoritism to determine your technical decisions rewards whoever is best at politics, not whoever is right. Listen to those closest to the problems, not those speaking most compellingly about them.

8. Learn from institutions that are winning or that have consistently delivered. Institutions facing existential threats do not have the luxury of making technical decisions based on political preferences.

9. Only listen to institutions, countries, and people who have a proven record of being right. A track record of correctness is the best and only signal for future correctness. Judging something as right or wrong based on who you like is exceedingly misguided.

Controlling your weights is controlling your fate,” the manifesto stated. “If you let others control your weights, you are allowing them to migrate the alpha of your business to theirs.”

Karp noted Palantir’s expanded Nvidia partnership, which enables custom, sovereign AI deployments where customers retain control over compute, models, data, and weights – a direct counter to the metered frontier API model.

Watch CNBC’s full interview with Palantir CEO Alex Karp

The Cost-Driven Shift To Chinese Models

As we’ve been noting, high token prices and mixed returns have prompted several U.S. companies to adopt or explore Chinese open-weight models:

  • Microsoft is considering a Microsoft-hosted, fine-tuned version of China’s DeepSeek V4 (or another open-source model) as a lower-cost engine for its Copilot Cowork agentic tool, as it moves toward usage-based pricing.
  • Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong revealed the company cut internal AI spending by nearly 50% by defaulting engineers to Chinese open-weight models (Zhipu AI’s GLM 5.2 and Moonshot AI’s Kimi series) via an internal gateway, while maintaining high usage.
  • Cursor, a fast-growing AI coding startup, built its Composer 2 model on top of Moonshot AI’s Kimi K2.5 (backed by Alibaba).

Data from OpenRouter shows Chinese models capturing a rapidly growing share of global token consumption – in some periods exceeding 60% among top models – as enterprises seek cost relief without fully sacrificing capability.

Karp had warned against underestimating China’s progress; these examples illustrate the trend in real time.

Watch the entire interview below:

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 21:15