Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

One of the defining aspects of Ukraine’s strategy in the war against Russia is escalation – Not so much in terms of damage to Russia, but in terms of western involvement. Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky has made it his primary mission to convince western allies that their direct intervention in the war is absolutely necessary. Why?  He asserts that Ukraine is the “guardian at the gate” supposedly preventing Russia from steamrolling through Europe.

The claim is absurd for a few reasons.

First, NATO officials and the establishment media have spent the better part of the last three years claiming that Russia was on the ropes and their military was crippled. Now, suddenly, as it becomes clear that Ukraine is losing the war badly (a result I predicted at the beginning of the conflict), those same people are asserting that Russia has the ability to invade multiple countries and rampage through the EU.

Second, we’ve heard the “domino effect” argument before. The public was fooled by the same idea during the Vietnam War. The notion that Americans MUST play world police in every fight or face a series of toppling catastrophes is a lie that has plagued our society for generations. The fact of the matter is, most wars have nothing to do with us.

Third, Ukraine is already a proxy nation; the real conflict has always been between NATO and Russia. The Ukrainians would have been overrun within the first year of the war without NATO intel and NATO weaponry. But what Zelensky and his handlers from globalist think-tanks want is US boots on the ground, and they will say or do ANYTHING to make that end result a reality.  They WANT world war.

The play for Ukraine during the Biden Administration was to assert that they are the vital buffer, the shield protecting the US and EU from harm.  The Trump Administration appears to be far less inclined to embrace or promote this narrative. In fact, Trump’s disgust for Zelensky has been made rather evident.

This leaves Europe to fill the gap, and if they do attempt deployments in the region a world war is assured. Whether or not the US gets involved at that point is hard to say, but the Europeans clearly seem to think they can lure America into the fray.

A similar scenario is developing in the Middle East right now. It’s an issue I have written about and warned about for many years, but this time it appears the escalation is entrenched and irreversible. Not to mention, unlike Ukraine, Donald Trump’s affinity for Israel is far more of a factor.

In April of 2024 in my article ‘World War III Is Now Inevitable – Here’s Why It Can’t Be Avoided’ published on April 5th I noted that:

“I warned months ago…that the war in Gaza would expand into a multi-front conflict that would probably include Iran. I also warned that it would be to Israel’s benefit if Iran entered the war because this would eventually force the US to become directly involved…”

Tensions ultimately diminished at the time as US elections approached and the world waited to see which way America would go in terms of domestic and foreign policy. Now that the White House has changed hands and the US stance is more evident, the situation has exploded again.  Everything that is happening in the Middle East revolves around Israel, and Israel’s activities are limited by how much or how little the US is willing to support them.

In my article ‘Iran vs Israel: What Happens Next Now That Shots Have Been Fired?’, published in April of 2024, I predicted:

“I have little doubt that Israel will commit to extensive aerial strikes on Iran this year or early in 2025, and we’ll see very quickly if Russian air defense technology sold to the Iranians is effective or ineffective…

The Israeli public position will be that their strikes are focused on taking down any existing Iranian nuclear labs. There is no solid evidence that Iran has made much headway in developing nukes (they might have dirty bombs), but the notion of nukes is more than enough in terms of public relations and justification for the war…”

Trump has always been the wild card, and he still is to some extent.  His comments on the nuclear negotiations suggest that he is continuing to push for a peace agreement, but Israel put the kibosh on any diplomatic plan when they assassinated multiple Iranian military leaders (Mohammad Bagheri, Hossein Salami, Gholamali Rashid, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Fereydoon Abbasi). There’s no going back after the direct targeting of so many high ranking officials, and that may have been Israel’s intention.

This is the same strategy Israel used against Lebanon in the now infamous “pager bombings”. To be sure, Israel’s ability to infiltrate enemy governments and gain strike ready knowledge on their leadership is impressive, but in some ways it’s also desperate. These are guerrilla tactics, not the tactics of a country confident in its ability to win a conventional war.

The regime change in Syria and the decapitation strikes in Lebanon are part of an obvious long term guerrilla-style war on the part of Israel designed to weaken Iranian allies in preparation for the final conflict with Iran itself.  The idea that Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon and this is the trigger for the most recent bloodshed is nonsense.  The staging for war with Iran has been ongoing for the past several years.

Iran’s active duty military is composed of at least 610,000 troops along with 310,000 reservists, and they do have ample conventional weaponry, hypersonic missiles and drones.  Israel only has 170,000 active duty personnel; their technological advantage is not going to be enough to balance the scales.  Unless there is a domestic breakdown in Iran that leads to an internal rebellion, there is no chance that Israel will be able to fight them on the ground.

The reality is, just like Ukraine, Israel cannot win a protracted war without aid from the US. In order for them to execute an actual ground invasion of Iran (not to mention Lebanon and a host of other regions throughout the Middle East) they will need US weapons and troops.

As I’ve mentioned over and over again, I really don’t care about either side. I don’t care about Gaza, I don’t care about Iran, I don’t care if Israel succeeds or fails. I also find Islamic fundamentalism to be authoritarian, degenerate and parasitic to the west, but if they stay in the Middle East then it’s not really my concern.  I don’t care about ancient tribal vendettas.

I find people with an overt hatred of Israel politically suspicious, and I find people who worship Israel as if their government is devoid of corruption politically suspicious.  I find anyone that demands I pick a side politically suspicious.  I find leftist activists that hijack Muslim causes suspicious and reprehensible.   I don’t care what goes on in the Middle East, and I think most conservatives agree with me.

What I do care about is America and Americans. It’s clear that Israel NEEDS the US deeply involved in any long term war with Iran, and this is where I have a problem. Everyone wants the US to fight their wars for them and the scheming is growing tiresome.

The nuclear question is the angle Israel is exploiting to appeal to Trump and it may very well work. Trump has said the US will not involve itself in the conflict, but he has also said that Iran “cannot be allowed to have a nuke”. Where is the evidence of Iran developing nukes? It’s nowhere to be found. Maybe it exists, but the American public certainly hasn’t seen it.  The claims are starting to sound familiar – “WMDs in Iraq” anyone?

If the problem was simply Iranian nuclear weapons then limited precision strikes on such facilities would have sufficed. However, that’s not what happened. Instead, Israel attacked a multitude of targets outside of possible nuclear labs and assassinated half a dozen military leaders. That’s an action designed to start a wider war, not stop the creation of a nuke.

One group that I believe is key in the attempt to get Trump onboard with a full spectrum war in Ukraine and Iran is the Atlantic Council. In my article ‘The Atlantic Council Has Big Plans For A War Between The US And Iran’, published in October of 2024, I noted that they had been pushing the narrative that Iran was behind at least one assassination plan against Trump and that the Iranians were behind a hacking attack on Trump’s election campaign in an effort to give his data over to Democrats.

It’s the same narrative that Benjamin Netanyahu and Neo-Cons pushed this past week, and again, there’s no tangible evidence to support the accusations so far.  Every narrative is carefully crafted to get MAGA voters to back a wider war.

In the article I noted:

“I believe the Atlantic Council is a root instigator behind every globalist scheme to trigger a larger war between the East and the West. Their ideal scenario seems to be the creation of a proxy conflict that acts as a first domino in a chain that leads to world war, a bit like DARPA’s “Linchpin Theory”…

To be clear, the council is not only interested in Ukraine and Russia. They’re happy to embroil Americans in a larger war wherever they can. This past week, the Atlantic Council published another war scenario report dealing with Iran titled ‘The Future of US Strategy Toward Iran: A Bipartisan Roadmap For The Next Administration’. The goal of the report is to influence a new defense doctrine with a mission to insert the US directly in the middle of the burgeoning war between Iran and Israel.”

They need conservatives to commit to boots on the ground in the near future (this has been Lindsey Graham’s sales pitch for the past several days).  I continued:

“The establishment media reports that Iran hacked the Trump campaign’s election strategies and gave them to the Harris camp. There are also rumors spread by US intelligence agencies that Iran was working to have Trump assassinated. Are these claims true? There’s little public evidence available to prove it.

Maybe Iran really wants to take Trump down. Or, maybe this is part of a plot to ensure that Trump backs a full blown war with Iran should he win the election. Trump has said repeatedly that he intends to end the war in Ukraine upon his return to the White House. This would ruin over a decade of planning by the Atlantic Council. But what if they can sink the US into a different conflict with the same potential for a world war? That’s what Iran is – Another linchpin…”

The Atlantic Council is a globalist institution and they’re relatively open about their intentions.  Their goal is regime change in Iran and their reasoning is that Iran is a primary obstacle to bringing the Middle East into the globalist fold.  It’s not about nukes.  It’s not about assassination threats against Trump.  These are mere justifications for a final war that will usher in a new era of global centralization.

Keep in mind that the US and UK engineered the overthrow of the democratically elected leadership of Iran in 1953 through Operation Ajax and put the Islamic fundamentalists in power.  The fact that the Atlantic Council pretends like this never happened tells us all we need to know about them.

What we have is a revolving dynamic of foreign governments and globalist think tanks working both sides of a con game designed to lure Americans into combat. They are trying to influence Trump through the typical pathways: Making him fear for his personal safety while painting a picture of nuclear catastrophe.

There is also the problem of skyrocketing oil prices, which Trump is deeply concerned about. Wider war will mean the Strait of Hormuz will become impassable and around 20% of global oil shipping will be delayed or obstructed. Oil prices will skyrocket. There may be nothing that can prevent that outcome now.

The problem is that everything Trump says he fears is more likely to come to pass if America gets involved in Israel’s war.

Iran is, at the very least, a perfect proxy for Russia and perhaps China. A place where the US could be trapped in a quagmire for years (just as Russia is trudging through the mud and blood in Ukraine).  The Neo-Cons are pretending as if the conflict can be won overnight, but this is delusional.  Israel is STILL trying to remove Hamas from Gaza with minimal success.  Think about how difficult it will be to invade Iran?  Using air strikes is not going to be enough.

Iran will receive ample weaponry and intel from Russian sources, prolonging the conflict. Iran will also be compelled to secure nuclear weapons if they have the ability. Why not? If they’re going to be destroyed over seeking nukes, they might as well get their hands on some nukes.  Chinese energy interests are tied to Iran’s oil exports.  Pakistan and other Muslim nations are invested in Iran’s survival.  War in Iran has the potential to spread far beyond the region.

On the political front there will be a deep divide between pro-Israel conservatives and anti-war conservatives. Trump will lose a large percentage of his base if the US deploys troops.  Americans might hate leftists enough that this won’t matter in 2026, but we’re not going to give Neo-Cons a free pass, either.  There will be an aggressive movement to get rid of warhawks in the next elections.  And if escalation leads to world war, Neo-Con politicians will suffer direct consequences.

Finally, I can’t help but smell another potential false flag event on the horizon. I simply can’t see how the elites are going to be able to convince Americans to rally around another ambiguous war in the Middle East without an attack on a US target blamed on Iran (or an Iranian proxy group). There’s no way the public will agree to support troop deployments or conscription unless something catastrophic occurs.

My point is, be vigilant. The best case scenario is that the US provides material support for Israel including anti-missile defense, but we stay out of the fighting. Worst case scenario? A calamitous attack is tied to Iran and in a haze of vengeance Americans rally around an ill conceived plan that will lead to global disaster.

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

Trump has repeatedly expressed his displeasure with the ECB cutting rates 8 times since the end of the central bank’s hiking cycle one year ago; he certainly won’t be happy that three other European central banks joined the easing fray overnight as the global economy once again careens toward the abyss.

In the span of less than 24 hours, three rate cuts by three central banks in Europe underscored the dramatic global shift toward policy easing as monetary officials seek to manage “the fallout from Trump’s unpredictable trade policies” as Bloomberg puts it, but really that’s just a diversion for the real cause: global economic slowdown now that the last traces of stimulus from the post-covid monetary and fiscal bonanza fade away.

Central bankers in Switzerland and Sweden had suggested as recently as March that they were likely done easing, but the Swiss National Bank instead trimmed borrowing costs by 25 basis points on Thursday – and becoming the first major bank to cut rates back to zero (and in some cases, negative) – following a similar move by Sweden’s Riksbank a day earlier. And an easing pivot by Norway, also on Thursday, was altogether more dramatic, with another quarter-point cut that none of the economists surveyed by Bloomberg predicted.

With policy decisions from at least 18 central banks managing more than 40% of the global economy scheduled for this week, the easing across much of Europe contrasted with a wait-and-see approach predominating around the world. Also on Thursday, the Bank of England held rates but the much more dovish than expected decision (6-3 voted to keep rates unchanged, while expectations were for a 7-2 split) sent the pound sliding. 

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve, and Bank of Japan both held, the first however because it has a political vendetta against Trump…

The day is August 27, 2019. Former NY Fed president Bill Dudley writes a Bloomberg oped saying “the Fed shouldn’t enable Donald Trump” and urged the central bank not to “provide offsetting stimulus” in Trump’s trade war with China.

Six years later, here we are pic.twitter.com/H6WT5O0cMD

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 11, 2025

… and the second because it has no idea how to grow rice anymore and the local population has been crushed by surging food prices which somehow a stronger yen is expected to make better. 

All that comes against the backdrop of a July 9 deadline that could see the US reintroduce punitive trade tariffs across the world. Combined with continued uncertainty over the war in Ukraine and a potential US strike on Iran, it’s left some policymakers unwilling or unable to move.

Meanwhile, the reasons for the rate cuts in Sweden, Norway and Switzerland are all linked to inflation, even if the situations diverge.

Swiss consumer prices fell 0.1% from a year ago in May and new SNB forecasts published Thursday show inflation will average just 0.2% this year. That’s primarily due to the haven franc, which has appreciated against the dollar and euro since Trump took office.

Price pressure in Sweden, whose currency has soared against the dollar in 2025, has eased after a temporary spike at the start of the year and as a nascent rebound in the largest Nordic nation has fizzled out. That’s allowing space for more stimulus, Riksbank Governor Erik Thedeen said Wednesday.

The krona has been the best performer this year in the G-10 of major currency holders, surging 15% against the dollar, and also helping to reduce the risk of imported inflation.

In Norway, price growth has been stickier over the last year, partly due to a weaker performance of the krone. Even so, the local core CPI last month matched this year’s lowest level, at 2.8%. The Norwegian central bank now sees headline price growth next year at 2.2%, down from 2.7% seen in March, while this year’s inflation is still seen at 3%.

The three institutions are also at very different stages in their policy paths: Norway’s Thursday move is its first post-pandemic reduction in borrowing costs, while Sweden and Switzerland carried out their seventh and six moves respectively. 

Uniting them, however, is the fact that they all may cut again. Riksbank’s Thedeen and Norges Bank Governor Ida Wolden Bache both told reporters as much, while SNB President Martin Schlegel wouldn’t exclude such an option, even if that would push the Swiss rate into negative territory.

Which again begs the question: just how deflationary are tariffs anyway?

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said her office has seized more than $225.3 million in cryptocurrency linked to a sprawling international fraud and money laundering network responsible for defrauding hundreds of victims through online investment scams.

Pirro announced at a June 18 news conference in Washington that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia has filed a civil forfeiture complaint in federal court.

The action targets the proceeds of a vast international fraud operation with ties to organized crime syndicates and human trafficking networks operating out of scam compounds in Southeast Asia.

The $225.3 million seizure, now in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service, is “the largest cryptocurrency seizure in U.S. Secret Service history,” according to Special Agent in Charge Shawn Bradstreet of the Secret Service’s San Francisco Field Office.

The U.S. Secret Service and FBI used blockchain analysis to trace a complex laundering network involving more than 144 cryptoexchange accounts, 263,000 transactions, and more than $3 billion in digital currency, according to the complaint.

Funds were routed through layers of intermediary “pass-through” accounts to obscure their origin, with evidence pointing to scam centers operated with trafficked labor.

The schemes—also known as “pig butchering” scams—typically involve criminals luring victims into sending funds for purported investments, often in the form of cryptocurrency, which turn out to be fraudulent.

One notable case cited in the complaint involved a Kansas bank CEO who was persuaded by scammers running a cryptocurrency confidence scheme to embezzle $47 million from the bank to invest in a fake crypto platform—through which the criminals then defrauded him of the embezzled funds.

In another case, a Texas victim lost $7 million after being persuaded to invest in a platform that he realized was fraudulent when he tried to withdraw his funds.

More than 430 individuals fell victim to the scams detailed in the complaint.

“This is about quick money,“ Pirro said. ”It’s about old crimes being committed in new ways. Every fast and loose criminal for centuries knows how it’s done, and they’ve done it over and over again, and they continue to do it today.”

Criminals begin by identifying targets—often on social media, through deceptive job postings or fraudulent investment pitches. They work to earn the victim’s trust, then exploit that trust to siphon funds under the guise of legitimate investment opportunities.

The perpetrators behind the scams often use techniques such as “peel chains”—in which crypto is broken into smaller amounts and passed through hundreds of wallets—and “chain hopping” to move assets across blockchains and currencies to mask their movement and origin, according to the complaint.

What sets today’s schemes apart, Pirro said, is the unprecedented speed and scale made possible by digital platforms and emerging technologies.

“So the hopeful investor now enters the Wild West on an international scale, where the crime is global, where there are no borders, and where the crypto criminals avoid the rules because this is an unregulated Wild West,” Pirro said.

Bradstreet said in a statement: “These scams prey on trust, often resulting in extreme financial hardship for the victims.

“The U.S. Secret Service, FBI, and our private partners worked diligently to trace these illicit transactions, identify victims, and seize these funds so that they can eventually be returned to their rightful owners.”

Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Long-term marijuana smoking and THC edible use may harm the blood vessels as much as tobacco, a new study suggests. The research indicates that cannabis users might face an increased risk of heart disease, even if they are otherwise healthy.

Both smoking and eating cannabis caused the blood vessel linings to not work as effectively, even in otherwise healthy adults who never used tobacco, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) found.

“The blood vessels don’t seem to care whether the smoke is from tobacco or cannabis,” study author Matthew L. Springer, professor of medicine at the Cardiovascular Research Institute at UCSF, told The Epoch Times. The research shows cannabis users had blood vessel function “very similar” to tobacco smokers in previous studies, he noted.

Different Methods, Same Damage

For the estimated 17.7 million Americans who use marijuana in some form every day, according to polling data, the study raises important questions about long-term health risks that remain largely unstudied.

The research, recently published in JAMA Cardiology, tracked 55 healthy adults aged 18 to 50, dividing them into three groups: marijuana smokers, THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) edible users, and non-users. All cannabis users consumed their preferred method at least three times weekly for more than a year—making them regular, not casual users.

Springer said they had a good reason for the relatively small number of participants. “We were very picky!”

“The study is very clean in that our cannabis user groups have never been tobacco smokers/vapers, and tend to avoid secondhand smoke,” he added. “The marijuana smokers only smoke marijuana and don’t vaporize it or vape THC, and our THC edibles group avoids all smoke.”

Researchers measured blood flow-mediated dilation, which shows how well blood vessels relax and contract. Both cannabis groups showed significantly worse vascular function than nonusers, with heavier use linked to greater damage.

Smoked or Eaten: Same Effect, But for Different Reasons

While smoking marijuana and eating edibles both harmed blood vessels, researchers noted they likely do so for different reasons.

Marijuana smokers showed reduced production of nitric oxide, a compound that helps blood vessels stay healthy. This effect was not seen in edible users, though their blood vessels sustained similar vascular damage.

Other measures of blood vessel health, such as arterial stiffness, did not differ among the groups.

For cannabis smokers, Springer believes that smoke is the culprit for their blood vessel damage.

“Tobacco smokers have the same functional problems, and there’s no THC in tobacco smoke,” he noted. Previous rat studies showed that even marijuana smoke without any cannabinoids still damaged cardiovascular function.

For edible users, the mechanism remains unclear, though the damage is equally real.

Springer emphasized that the bottom line is that smoking marijuana does not appear to avoid the harmful vascular effects of smoking tobacco, and neither does frequent use of THC edibles. He noted the study had some limitations, including variability in cannabis strains and self-reported use, which could affect results.

“It’s a relatively small study,” Springer said. “Nonetheless, the differences between groups are clear, and the statistics are robust and show that our results have a high confidence level.”

Public Policy Implications

The study findings come as cannabis legalization spreads nationwide, raising questions about public health messaging and regulation.

The study contributes to a growing body of evidence linking heavy cannabis use with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, according to Dr. Ryan Sultan, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who studies and treats cannabis use disorders, and not involved in the study.

“As with early tobacco research, such epidemiological findings could support more precautionary cannabis regulation—especially with respect to labeling, public health messaging, and restrictions on high-potency or inhaled products,” he told The Epoch Times.

He compared the situation to early tobacco research, noting that such findings historically led to warning labels, public smoking restrictions, and enhanced health surveillance.

Cannabis industry leaders question the study’s scope and implications.

Avis Bulbulyan, CEO of SIVA Enterprises, a national cannabis holding company, called the sample size of 55 people inadequate for drawing medical conclusions. He argued that with fewer than 20 cannabis smokers in the study, the findings shouldn’t drive policy decisions.

Via Open The Books,

Following a week of protests that have given way to rioting in Los Angeles, Open the Books is taking a look at the cost of restoring and maintaining order.

Already ravaged by wildfires earlier this year, the city is now dealing with violence toward law enforcement, incendiary devices, arson and more. And all of that is on the heels of years of seemingly endless, rolling Covid lockdowns under Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass. The latter had the effect of shrinking revenues and thus staffing levels across the city, putting Los Angeles – America’s second-most populous city – in a unique financial and logistical position as it faces a summer of more disorder.

A record-breaking era of overtime pay is likely to keep costs high as police, fire and other first responders carry out their duties.

The cost to taxpayers isn’t limited to California or Los Angeles, though. City officials have alternately declared the protests peaceful and claimed they had them well in hand, and then also admitted they were “out of control” and that the LAPD was “overwhelmed.” Regardless of the varying protestations and the outright legal and political battle being waged by Newsom, President Trump has taken control of the state’s National Guard to defend federal property and officers. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has allowed that it’s likely a 60-day investment with an accompanying $134 million price tag for federal taxpayers.

That’s all before we factor in the cost of duking it out in federal court as Newsom seeks to stop the President from utilizing the Guard.

The Overtime Epidemic

The City of Los Angeles is no stranger to excessive overtime pay. Open the Books reported last year that 20 city employees earned at least $300,000 in overtime pay in 2023. That’s before even factoring in their base salaries.

But overtime costs reached new heights in 2024, with the city spending a record $1.1 billion on extra hours. That’s enough money to pay off the city’s entire budget deficit. In overtime alone, five people earned more than the $400,000 salary we pay the President of the United States.

A revenue pinch amid Covid lockdowns led to a spate of early retirements that have exacerbated the need for extra-hours pay. And as the Los Angeles Police Department faces rioting, the force’s ranks are at their smallest in two decades—but the payroll is still growing.

Los Angeles Police Department

The LAPD spent $265.5 million on overtime, another record, in 2024. Prior to that, no police officer had ever earned more than $235,000 in overtime. Last year? It happened seven times. The pay raises Mayor Karen Bass gave police in 2023 — 13% over four years — were likely a contributing factor as overtime is calculated from base pay.

Detective Nathan Kouri took home a $404,875 overtime check. He made $603,887 in total when combined with his base salary. Thirty-five other police officers also had cash compensation of at least $400,000.

Payments like Kouri’s don’t just affect the city’s budget; they have prevented the police from doing their jobs properly for at least 15 years. In 2010, the LAPD ordered Kouri and several others to stop working for six weeks because they had no money left to pay their overtime salary. The LA Times reported, “The drain on homicide squads has hampered investigations … Detectives said their investigations are frequently put on hold while they take days off, delaying witness interviews and other potentially important leads. And, in the crucial first hours after a killing, several supervisors said they now dispatch fewer detectives to the crime scene.”

Today, the LA Times says the problem is worse than ever. The LAPD’s budget request predicts it will lose 150 cops next year, leaving 8,620 police officers — the smallest force since 1995.

Although staffing levels have dropped, payroll expenses have not. The LAPD’s 2020 payroll lists 14,902 employees making a total of $1.71 billion. In 2024, there were 12,617 employees making $1.73 billion.

Overtime Beyond the Cops

None of that means the problem is limited to the LAPD. There were 2,092 city workers who earned at least $100,000 in overtime in 2024, with firefighters and Department of Water & Power (LADWP) employees topping the list.

SIDENOTE: LADWP came under fire in March when historic wildfires spread across the Palisades and Altadena, and firefighters were confronted with empty hydrants. Read our Substack on that here.

Fire Battalion Chief Nicholas Ferrari made $644,456 of overtime and $905,060 in total in 2024. From 2021 to 2024, Ferrari took home over $2.5 million from the city.

Ricardo Pacheco, an electric distribution mechanic with the Water & Power department, made $425,632 in overtime.

The staffing shortages have existed for years but reached new heights after the Covid-19 pandemic. The most recent data from the city controller shows a 17.5% job vacancy rate as of December 2023, meaning one in six city positions were unfilled. The vacancy rate was only 11% before the pandemic, but more than 2,000 workers retired early in 2020 under a program meant to reduce the city payroll after the pandemic harmed revenues.

Dana Brown, head of the city’s personnel department, blamed the staff shortages on “archaic” civil service rules that often force applicants to wait six months or more during the hiring process. Police data supports that claim. The LAPD received 53% more job applications in 2024 than in 2022, but delays meant 9% fewer candidates received a background check from the city.

Overtime Boosts Rank-and-File Employees to Leadership Pay

Although staffing shortages mean rank-and-file employees are the highest earners, top officials are still doing well for themselves. Police Chief Jim McDonnell makes $450,000, $100,000 more than his predecessor and almost double the police chiefs in New York and Chicago.

Mayor Karen Bass made $328,394 last year.

Overall, there were 4,114 Los Angeles employees who outearned Gov. Newsom’s salary of $242,295.

CONCLUSION

Between draconian lockdowns, inefficient onboarding processes, and sky-high union-negotiated deals, Los Angeles is set to take a financial beating as it deploys officers and personnel to respond to the chaos.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk waxed poetic about his time leading the Department of Government Efficiency in Washington, D.C., describing the experience as significant but secondary to a more pressing challenge: preparing society for the rapid rise of disruptive artificial intelligence.

“Fixing the government is like, say, the beach is dirty and there’s some needles and feces and trash,” Musk begin in an interview with Garry Tan of Y Combinator. “But then there’s also this thousand-foot wall of water, which is a tsuami of AI.”

“How much does cleaning the beach really matter if you’ve got a thousand-foot tsumai about to hit? Not that much,” the Tesla CEO continued. “Back to the main quest of building technology, which is what I like doing.”

“The signal to noise ratio in politics is terrible,” he added.

.@elonmusk on DOGE: “Fixing the government is kind of like there’s some needles, feces and trash, and you want to clean up the beach.”

“How much does cleaning the beach matter if you’ve got a thousand-foot AI tsunami about to hit?”pic.twitter.com/ECRhrgcR3s

— Josh Caplan (@joshdcaplan) June 19, 2025

On May 28th, Musk announced his departure from DOGE, concluding his 130-day tenure as a special government employee in the Trump administration.

Later in the interview, Musk predicted that AI will drive an economy thousands or millions of times larger than today’s size, if it doesn’t wipe us out first.

“AI will so profoundly change the future, it’s difficult to fathom how much. But, you know, the economy, assuming we don’t, things don’t go awry, and AI doesn’t kill us all and itself, then you’ll see ultimately an economy that is not, not ten times more than the current economy,” Musk said. “Ultimately, if we become, say, or whatever our future machine descendants, or mostly machine descendants, become a Kardashev scale two civilization or beyond, we’re talking about an economy that is thousands of times, maybe millions of times, bigger than the economy today.”

Exactly https://t.co/bw6DQ4pBVa pic.twitter.com/OYcugl9Aqb

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 19, 2025

Musk then mused how society is on the brink of digital superintelligence that could outsmart humans, predicting it might hit as soon as this year or next.

“I think we’re quite close to digital superintelligence,” the billionaire said. “It may happen this year and if it doesn’t happen this year next, year for sure.”

🚨 BREAKING: Elon Musk says we’re very close to Digital Super Intelligence. It may happen this year, and if it doesn’t happen this year, next year for sure.

A Digital Super Intelligence is defined as smarter than any human at anything. pic.twitter.com/ItODkyOrVA

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) June 19, 2025

Musk’s artificial intelligence startup, xAI, is reportedly seeking to raise $4.3 billion in equity financing This capital raise would complement a separate $5 billion debt financing effort for a combined entity encompassing xAI and X, the social media platform. The fundraising push follows a $6 billion cash injection xAI received in December, signaling the company’s aggressive drive to bolster its AI capabilities amid intensifying industry competition. 

By Michael Every of Rabobank

The hawks and doves are split. Tehran rejected US calls for its unconditional surrender while insulting President Trump, who stated “Nobody knows what I’m going to do,” but wants, “total and complete victory” rather than a ceasefire. The Wall Street Journal claims he’s approved attack plans but is holding the final order to see if Tehran surrenders; the New York Times suggests that might still happen, and the UK, France, and Germany are meeting Iran’s foreign minister tomorrow. Axios notes: “Trump wants to make sure such an attack is really needed, wouldn’t drag the US into a prolonged war in the Middle East – and most of all, would actually achieve the objective of destroying Iran’s nuclear program.” Others suggest he has gotten cold feet, as Israel implied it could take out the Fordow nuclear facility alone with special forces if needs be.

Yet the US is withdrawing some embassy staff from Israel and joins Russia, China, and India in telling its citizens to leave. It’s also moving regional military assets that could be hit by retaliation, as Hezbollah warned it would attack Israel and other targets if the US hits Iran. The UK –whose PM was convinced Trump wouldn’t attack days ago– is now sure he will, and The Times says he may join in, rural broadband locked and loaded, even though the attorney general who said the UK had to give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius says it could be illegal to do so. 

Russian President Putin offered to mediate over Iran, but Trump told him to focus on Ukraine. There, Putin says he’s ready for substantive peace talks –after another massive drone attack– and has no plans to attack the EU or NATO, so there’s no need for anyone to spend 5% of GDP on defence. I suspect there will be few buyers – and I don’t mean for military goods.

While oil is in a holding pattern, the benchmark rate for tankers moving it from the Middle East to China has risen 40% since June 13 on a higher risk premium, with further increases expected, lifting rates in other regions in tandem. Likewise, around 40% of global urea exports are at risk as Iran has shut all seven of its ammonia-urea facilities and Egypt urea production remains halted due to halted gas supply from Israel. Prices are already climbing there too.

The Fed left rates on hold at 4.50% as expected and we also have a hawk-dove clash – as Trump pondered pre-meeting if he could replace “too late” Powell as Fed Chair himself. The FOMC statement indicated uncertainty about the economic outlook has diminished(!) but remains elevated. Their projections are finally recognizing the stagflationary effects of tariffs: GDP growth was revised downward; unemployment and inflation upward. The median rate projections still showed two rate cuts in 2025, but only one cut in 2026 (down from two), but the dot plot revealed a more complicated story with two camps emerging. During the press conference Powell repeated the Committee is waiting for more clarity about trade policy and the impact of tariffs. When asked how the FOMC can state that uncertainty has diminished when there’s a war between Israel and Iran going on, Powell answered, “because of the surveys.” If that doesn’t show you the disconnect between central banks and reality, nothing will. (See here for more from Philip Marey.)

A bomb was also dropped in today’s FT op-ed by the former governor of the Indian central bank, who repeats my call of “DM = EM”. He argues without political consensus — which requires all voters to see economic gains — western institutions won’t work, so macroeconomic stability can’t be expected. Play EM games, win EM prizes. And, no, that isn’t positive for markets.

That’s as the PBOC followed the ECB in talking up their currency’s “global” role in a post-dollar world. It appears China is going to try to internationalise CNY again – without making any of the structural changes that hindered its last attempt (it just dropped to 2.9% from 3.5% in the SWIFT share, including HKD-CNY transactions); after the recent episode of Common Prosperity that shook investor confidence; and while running a trade policy described by some as “we export but don’t import”. Yet the market still appears willing to buy any narrative if it means ‘sell the dollar’.

Moreover, Bloomberg says ‘Hong Kong Dollar’s Volatility Fuels Talk on How FX Peg May Shift’, noting chatter of a shift to a basket of currencies, CNY, widening the trading range, a free float, or gold. Not so long ago, this would have created a market maelstrom. Now, not even a ‘meh’.

Yet gold is doing better than EUR or CNY or HKD with many central banks right now. Crucially, however, whereas in the past people held fiat currency as an easier way to hold underlying gold, today central banks are still holding gold as an easier way to hold underlying dollars. What else are they going to sell it for? Conch shells? Until that changes nothing really changes – and the risk is of a massive dollar short squeeze at some point; or true market chaos if the ‘post-dollar world’ ever appears rather than the polite nonsense we are seeing today. 

Meanwhile, the world is waiting to see if the US topples the Iranian regime and physically remakes the Middle East (again), locking its oil into the dollar system: and somehow that means the dollar is ‘over’? The disconnect in Powell’s press conference comments on Iran-Israel is replicated in the parts of the market that doesn’t see where true power sits: ‘on you, if needed’.

For example, dealmakers are unhappy that (only?) the US will use the economic statecraft Golden Share it insisted on in the Nippon Steel merger as a benchmark ahead.

The ‘EU eyes higher fees on US, British tourists to repay post-Covid debts’ (Politico), which I am *sure* won’t see a decline in visitor numbers, honest. The same article breezily notes that the EU might tax lots of other things more instead – such as small parcels coming from China. Wasn’t that the kind of thing that saw everyone selling the dollar?

China’s COSCO is in talks to join the $19bn CK Hutchison port sale: so, rather than a Hong Kong firm controlling a swathe of global ports, including at both ends of the Panama Canal, they might go to a consortium that includes a European ocean carrier (MSC) and a state-owned Chinese one? You can’t see the (geo)political issues in that “because markets” proposal?

And as New Zealand pauses funding for the Cook Islands over its recent China deal, the Australian carries an op-ed from former PM Keating arguing: “The US is running about trying to sweep gullible allies into its declining and failing pitch. Yet, it believes there is always a mug who will buy its venal view of affairs. And in Australia, the US is not disappointed. The Australian Labor Party, at its grassroots, will not support Australia being dragged into a war with and by the US over Taiwan, “ and talks of “a careless betrayal of the country’s policy agency and independence in its ability to make decisions in its own national interest and not in the interest or interests of another country.” That just screams to sell USD and buy AUD, right?

Yet it’s The Economist which outdoes itself today in being neither hawk nor dove, but cuckoo. It argues “Investors ignore world-changing news. Rightly” in “The Nothing Ever Happens Market”. Until it does, on multiple fronts, from Iran to the Fed, and from trade flows to financial architecture, and then investors can’t. To be frank, this 30-something, smug, DM financial market/media argument sounds like the kind of stereotypical self-satisfied, privileged echo-chamber babble that EM banana republic elites live in right up until the peasants start revolting – which they always think they are. I’m with the FT op-ed on what this means for central bankers.

That’s as Brazil hiked rates 25bps to 15% against market expectations, and today has the BOE, which will attempt to Keep Calm and Rates On Hold: but will it again speak out against the populist Reform Party’s fiscal plans four years ahead of an election?

Fossil fuel advocate Alex Epstein delivered a hard-hitting briefing to nearly all Senate Republicans on Wednesday, emphasizing that the Inflation Reduction Act’s “toxic subsidies” for the green energy industry—totaling billions—must be “terminated.”

“Today I got the opportunity to speak to almost all Republican Senators about the IRA subsidies at their Wednesday lunch,” Epstein wrote on X late Thursday. 

He said, “The discussion was private, so I won’t tell you what the Senators said. But you better believe I told them the subsidies are toxic and need to be terminated!” 

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, commented on Epstein’s post by saying, “I was there. As always, Alex Epstein was full of deep and helpful insights.” 

I was there

As always, @AlexEpstein was full of deep and helpful insights

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) June 19, 2025

Epstein’s slide titled “How the Senate can save hundreds of billions of dollars—and our grid—by truly terminating IRA subsidies,” explained to lawmakers how to save up to $1 trillion and boost grid reliability by fully terminating IRA green-energy subsidies and sealing major loopholes.

Here’s a breakdown:

The Senate can save hundreds of billions of dollars—and our grid—by

1. terminating all IRA subsidies during Trump’s presidency and closing the IRA’s worst loopholes.

2. The current Senate proposal is weak on savings and bad for the grid, but it can largely be fixed with some simple coding changes.

Key points

• Republicans were right to run on “terminating” IRA subsidies, because these subsidies are destroying our grid, increasing the cost of energy, and increasing our debt.

• The only way to truly “terminate” IRA subsidies as promised is to end eligibility during Trump’s term using a strict “placed in service” deadline.

• Contrary to lobbyist lies, a strict eligibility deadline does not affect completed or near-completed projects.

• While the House at least terminated new solar/wind subsidies using a 2028 “placed in service” deadline, Senate Finance’s proposal extends them indefinitely.

• If the Senate applies the end-of-2028 eligibility limit to all projects and closes loopholes, it can terminate savings and save hundreds of billions in the process.

• These loopholes are worth another $160 billion by closing the IRA’s most egregious loopholes, which send extravagant subsidies to solar/wind/battery companies.

The latest hearing by the Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency focused on how the Biden-Harris regime used the IRA to divert taxpayer funds into its ideological woke green agenda.

🚨💰GAI has identified more than $100 billion from Biden’s Great Climate Caper (aka the Inflation “Reduction” Act and other climate boondoogles) that American taxpayers should never have had stolen from them. For example, Biden’s Dept. of Energy gave staggering sums (~$93BN) to… pic.twitter.com/HKFgHcKWyn

— Seamus Bruner (@seamusbruner) June 19, 2025

Terminating IRA subsidies would effectively defund the climate-industrial complex that leveraged ‘climate crisis’ propaganda to orchestrate a massive heist on the U.S. Treasury. 

Five years after covid sparked a once in a generation inflationary surge and forced all central banks to push their interest rates well above the zero (and in some cases negative) lower bound which defined the post-QE era, overnight the Swiss National Bank became the first to show that the world of higher rates is over and ZIRP is coming back, after the central bank cut its rate from 0.25% back to 0.00% for the first time since 2022.

But it’s not just ZIRP that is back: NIRP is also here courtesy of the Swiss, because while the SNB may have cut its interest rate to zero, the way it penalizes banks’ excess reserve holdings means lenders will face negative rates if they park too much cash at the central bank.

Ah yes, the magic of the zero lower bound is once again with us!

According to a statement by the SNB published on Thursday morning, Swiss banks can hold up to an unchanged 18 times their minimum reserve requirement in sight deposits at the SNB for free but anything over that they will be charged interest of -0.25% as the discount from the policy rate remains unchanged at 25 basis points.

The goal behind the “tiered remuneration”, according to Bloomberg, is to incentivize lending between banks so that enough liquidity is exchanged on the Swiss money market. For lenders holding more than their limit it’s cheaper to pass on excess reserves to institutions which are under their thresholds, because they have to pay them less than the central bank.

For all lenders which don’t have a minimum reserve requirement the threshold is set at a paltry 10 million francs ($12 million) in sight deposits, the SNB said.

The system, which the SNB has had in place since it lifted its key rate above zero in 2022, means that the average money-market rate — known as Saron — has usually been a few basis points below the central-bank rate.

Which means that starting Friday, negative funding costs for banks are therefore likely, as board member Petra Tschudin told reporters in Zurich. She added that she expects only “very little” sight deposits to be remunerated at the negative rate. That chimes with experience from some three years under the regime, where typically only a tiny fraction of them were hit by the lower rate.

Still, little or not so little, negative rates are back in at least one country… and soon in many more. 

While Switzerland’s main banks lobby called the SNB’s decision “understandable,” it criticized its consequences.

“It’s clear that a zero interest rate environment diminishes the incentive for responsible saving and places additional pressure on retirement provision,” the Swiss Bankers Association said in a statement. “As in previous periods of low interest rates, banks and their customers once again bear a significant share of the monetary policy burden.”

Similarly, the insurance association welcomed the SNB not going negative, but stressed that “even the return to a low interest rate environment already poses a challenge” to the sector.

SNB President Martin Schlegel acknowledged the discomfort the new rate environment creates for banks and signaled that there’s an elevated bar for further cuts.

“We would not take the decision to go negative lightly,” he said. “But I want to stress that the profitability of banks is not within the national bank’s objectives.”

Finally, while some argue that negative rates are a way for capital deficient central banks to restock their coffers after years of high rates pushed them all into technical insolvency, given the small share of deposits affected, it’s unlikely that the SNB will make a lot of money from charging lenders. Between 2015 and 2022, the central bank earned almost 12 billion francs from negative rates, though it then paid out 14.5 billion francs from when rates turned positive through the end of March of this year.

Via The Brownstone Institute,

Over the weekend, thousands of anti-Trump advocates gathered for “No Kings” protests across the country, but their aims were not directed at constitutional norms; instead, they are engaged in a protest against the President’s authority over the Executive Branch. 

The chief issue in Washington since the second Trump inauguration is whether the commander-in-chief is empowered to control the Executive Branch, which houses nearly all federal agencies. 

The Vesting Clause answers that question with absolute certainty: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. 

In response to the Trump administration’s efforts to abolish the government’s vast censorship apparatus, however, Democrats and judicial activists offer an anti-constitutional alternative for the country: The power to fire taxpayer-funded bureaucrats or reduce their funding shall be vested in no person.

In April, Secretary of State Rubio announced the closure and defunding of the State Department’s Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R/FIMI), formerly known as the Global Engagement Center (GEC). 

Under Rubio’s predecessor, Antony Blinken, the GEC was instrumental in silencing dissent, as it worked to “limit the reach of, the circulation of, and render unprofitable, disfavored press outlets by funding the infrastructure, development, and marketing and promotion of censorship technology and private censorship enterprises to covertly suppress speech of a segment of the American press,” according to one lawsuit. 

But this week, California District Judge Susan Illston upended the President’s control of the executive branch and ordered Secretary Rubio to halt the abolishment of R/FIMI. According to Judge Illston, not only is the Ministry of Truth permitted to censor Americans for alleged “disinformation,” such as the Hunter Biden laptop, the lab-leak theory, or natural immunity; but the Constitution actually prohibits the president from exercising control over the State Department. 

Unsurprisingly, the “No Kings” crowd offered no pushback to the judge’s defense of a censorious cabal’s entitlement to taxpayer funding. 

This is familiar territory for Judge Illston. Previously, she issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting President Trump from “reorganizing” or “reducing” staff at 22 executive branch agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services (annual budget, $1.8 trillion), the Social Security Administration (annual budget, $1.5 trillion), the Department of Veterans Affairs (annual budget, $350 billion), and the Treasury Department (annual budget, $1.3 trillion). 

Illston is not alone. After President Trump ordered “all executive departments and agencies to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS,” the outlets responded that the First Amendment requires the disbursement of taxpayer funds to their operations. 

In February, five former Secretaries of the Treasury wrote in the New York Times that the nation’s payment system is “operated by a very small group” of “career civil servants” and that allowing the duly appointed members of the Executive Branch to change that bureaucratic mandate would be “unlawful and corrosive to our democracy.” 

More recently, judges have blocked the President from exercising control over the Department of Education, the border, the NIH, and the National Guard. 

Viewed as a whole, President Trump’s opponents insist that they have an unalienable right to taxpayer funding, control over the citizenry, and deployment of government resources. They fight for a monarchy without splendor, and their aim is to usurp the President’s explicit authority to control the executive branch, as the Constitution makes clear. 

So we live amidst the grave irony. Many of the people who came out to proclaim loyalty to no king only recently were pushing for business, school, and church closures without legislation, in addition to wild social protocols, travel restrictions, pharmaceutical controls, limits on gatherings, and forced masking and injections, all forced under conditions of quasi-martial law. 

This is the same crowd that is now proclaiming to be against kings. The question is: what do they favor? If the lockdown era is any indication, this is a movement not about freedom and self-government but of millions of Lilliputians – in the public and private sectors, elites with high incomes and job security – throttling, tethering, and restricting the freedom of the people and funding their armies of bureaucrats with taxes and debt.