Authored by Ben Lam and JoJo Novaes via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Lingzhi (Reishi Mushroom) is a medicinal mushroom regarded as a precious Chinese medicinal herb since ancient times. It is well known for its benefits of “tonifying the five internal organs and prolonging life.”

In NTDTV’s “Health 1+1” program, Shu Rong, a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practitioner and director of Dr. Rong’s Clinic in Cambridge, England, gave an in-depth analysis of the efficacy of Reishi Mushroom, how to take it, and key points for purchasing. She also provided us with practical health advice and identified risk groups that should avoid eating it.

Reishi Mushroom’s Many Health Benefits

Reishi Mushroom provides nourishment to all organs, Shu said. The ancient TCM text on agricultural and medicinal plants, “Shennong’s Herbal Classics,” lists Reishi Mushroom as a “superb product,” which means it can be taken for a long time without side effects, and its continued use will produce better and better results. The book records the beneficial effects of two types of Reishi Mushroom—purple and red.

According to the ancient text, purple Reishi Mushroom was used to cure deafness and arthritis, strengthen muscles and bones, pacify the mind, promote fertility, and improve skin condition.

Red Reishi Mushroom was said to treat heart disease, memory loss, lack of concentration, and slow aging.

Modern medical research has confirmed that more than 200 polysaccharides and more than 400 secondary metabolites have been found in Reishi Mushroom. Reishi Mushroom is anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, can prevent cardiovascular disease, and prevent and treat diabetes. It can also improve respiratory diseases such as bronchitis, asthma, chronic cough, improve sleep, promote digestion, and regulate the function of our immune system.

6 Types of Reishi Mushroom

There are many varieties of Reishi Mushroom. Shu said that according to the renowned TCM classic “Compendium of Materia Medica,” Reishi Mushroom can be divided into six categories according to their colors. TCM believes that different colors correspond to different organs. Thus, different-colored Reishi Mushroom acts on various parts of the body.

1. Red Reishi Mushroom: enters the heart, improves cardiovascular health, pacifies the mind, enhances physical strength.

2. Purple Reishi Mushroom: enters the heart and kidneys, pacifies the mind, strengthens joints and tendons, and fights fatigue.

3. Black Reishi Mushroom: enters and protects the kidneys, promotes diuresis, nourishes the brain.

4. Yellow Reishi Mushroom: enters and nourishes the spleen, can nourish stomach functions, and balance the intestinal microecology.

5. White Reishi Mushroom: enters the lungs, can help lung health, relieve cough, and asthma.

6. Green Reishi Mushroom: enters the liver, can protect the liver, improve eyesight, relieve anxiety, soothe emotions.

Best Ways to Take Reishi Mushroom

Since Reishi Mushroom has mild medicinal attributes, it can regulate and improve physical fitness and usually requires long-term and continuous consumption to exhibit its full effects. Shu recommends primarily the following four forms of administration:

1. Broken Wall Reishi Mushroom Spore Powder

Reishi Mushroom spores are the reproductive part of Reishi Mushroom. They contain higher concentrations of active ingredients than Reishi Mushroom fruit bodies, but are not easily absorbed by the human body, so they need to be broken down. Breaking the peel is hard, so it’s best to buy ready-made Reishi Mushroom powder.

Shu recommends taking 1 to 2 grams per day of peeled Reishi Mushroom spore powder in 158-degree Fahrenheit water, split into 2 to 3 doses according to your condition. Healthy people without any symptoms can take it in the morning. Those with any illness should consult their doctor and adjust the dosage accordingly.

Shu said that seeing the full effects of Reishi Mushroom can take time. It may take up to one to two months for its full effects to become apparent.

2. Reishi Mushroom Spore Oil

The oil version extracted from Reishi Mushroom spores is easily absorbed and is thus suitable for older people. Reishi Mushroom spore oil is mostly sold in capsules. Be sure to pay attention to the product instructions and take it according to the doctor’s advice.

3. Reishi Mushroom Fruiting Body

Reishi Mushroom fruiting body refers to the main body of Reishi Mushroom, which can be ground into powder and eaten as it is. Due to its naturally bitter taste, it is often encapsulated for easier intake, with a typical dosage of 3 grams per day.

4. Reishi Mushroom Medicinal Diet

Reishi Mushroom fruiting bodies can be used to make medicinal food. Shu recommends a nutritious and delicious medicinal dish: “Adenophora, Polygonatum, Chinese Yam, Reishi Mushroom, and Lean Meat Soup.”

Ingredients

• 20 grams each of Reishi Mushroom, Adenophora sibiricum,  Polygonatum odoratum, and dried Chinese yam
• 3 figs
• 15 grams of sweet apricot kernels
• 1 gram of preserved tangerine peel
• 250 grams lean meat
• 3 liters water

Preparation

• Wash ingredients, slice the Reishi Mushroom, cut figs in half, blanch meat, then place all the ingredients into a clay pot.
• Add water and boil for 10 minutes.
• Reduce heat and simmer for 2 hours.
• Add a little salt to add taste and serve.

According to Shu, this soup can moisten the lungs, relieve coughs, balance immune function, and enhance disease resistance. It is suitable for people with weak pulmonary function, prone to coughing and colds. However, even people who do not have a cough can eat it and use it as a health food.

Wild Reishi Mushroom Versus Its Cultivated Peer

Shu said that wild Reishi Mushroom is not necessarily better than cultivated Reishi Mushroom. Although the ancients may have been able to pick high-quality wild Reishi Mushroom due to a better environment or better expertise in identifying wild medicine, modern wild Reishi Mushroom may be contaminated by heavy metals, toxic plant spores, and other substances, which may endanger health.

The output of wild Reishi Mushroom is limited, and due to their different origins, the active ingredients vary greatly, the quality is difficult to control, and the efficacy varies a lot, she said. On the other hand, the active ingredients of cultivated Reishi Mushroom are relatively stable, resulting in a more reliable therapeutic effect. In addition, cultivated Reishi Mushroom has been evaluated and certified, making it a safer choice. Therefore, under normal circumstances, cultivated Reishi Mushroom can often achieve satisfactory results.

Guidance at Purchase

According to Shu, when purchasing Reishi Mushroom, we need to pay attention to the following:

1. Choose wild sources carefully. Be extra careful with wild Reishi Mushroom of unknown origin, as they may be toxic and even life-threatening.
2. Choose certified products. For cultivated Reishi Mushroom, choose products from reliable sources. You need to check whether they have undergone qualified inspection programs with certification and proof of quality.
3. It is better if the whole plant is intact: When purchasing Reishi Mushroom, choose the whole plant version. It should be one complete piece, without any damage or insect infestation.
4. Pay attention to its grade identification: Grade identification directly indicates the toxicity of Reishi Mushroom, an important yardstick to ensure safety with no toxic contents.

Contraindications

Although Reishi Mushroom is a top-grade Chinese medicine, it is not suitable for everyone. Shu said the following people should avoid, or take it with caution:

1. People who are allergic to Reishi Mushroom. Shu said that an exceedingly small number of people may have allergic reactions to Reishi Mushroom. If you experience skin rashes or discomfort, such as bloating, after taking it, you should stop taking it immediately. People with allergies should be cautious and consult their doctors before taking Reishi Mushroom.

2. Infants and minors. Reishi Mushroom is often used primarily for the elderly, weak, and those who are prone to illness to help regulate their bodies. Under normal circumstances, infants, minors, and healthy adults only need a balanced diet to maintain good health. If the latter group of people feel they need to take Reishi Mushroom, they should first consult a doctor to confirm whether it is suitable for their physical condition.

3. Those with wounds. People with wounds or long-term unhealed injuries should not eat Reishi Mushroom. Because Reishi Mushroom promotes blood circulation and removes blood stasis, it may affect blood coagulation and hinder wound healing.

4. Those with an upcoming surgery. Reishi Mushroom should not be taken one week before surgery because it may interact with anesthetic drugs and affect their effectiveness. Since wounds need to heal as quickly as possible after surgery, the blood-activating effect of Reishi Mushroom can interfere with the coagulation mechanism and may prolong the healing process. Therefore, you should consider taking Reishi Mushroom only one to two weeks after surgery.

5. Those taking Western medicine. Reishi Mushroom may interact with certain drugs. People taking Western medicine are advised to consult a doctor to confirm whether it is appropriate for them to take Reishi Mushroom at the same time.

Note: Some of the herbs mentioned in this article may be unfamiliar, but they are generally available in health food stores and Asian markets. Treatment methods may vary depending on the person. Consult a health care professional for a personalized plan.

As the global AI race heats up, a growing share of AI funding is being funneled into a few dominant tech ecosystems.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, visualizes the top 10 regions with the highest share of venture funding in the ecosystem that went to AI-native companies.

The data comes from Startup Genome, with data covering 2023 and 2024 funding.

AI-native companies are defined by Startup Genome as companies that build cutting-edge generative AI models and deploy AI agents that automate tasks, enhance decision-making, and drive innovation.

Top Cities by AI Funding

Below, we show the top 10 regions with the highest AI funding concentration.

Beijing’s startup investors are placing their biggest bets on AI, dedicating more funding to the growing sector than anywhere else.

The Chinese capital now leads the world in AI deal concentration, with 66% of its ecosystem’s startup funding directed toward AI-native companies—just edging out Silicon Valley at 62%.

Yet in absolute terms, Silicon Valley remains the dominant global hub.

It attracts over 65% of all AI-native funding worldwide—double its share of overall tech funding, which stands at 32.2%.

Together, the “AI Big Three”—Silicon Valley, Beijing (10% of global AI-native funding), and Paris (4.3%)—account for a staggering 79.4% of all AI-native investment across the top 40 global startup ecosystems. The remaining 20.6% is split among all other ecosystems.

Beijing has quickly emerged as a magnet for AI investment, with major local startups like Baichuan AI, Zhipu AI, Moonshot AI, and Shengshu Technology collectively raising billions from tech giants and government-backed funds to advance AI models and tools.

In terms of top hubs by AI deal concentration, both Asia and North America boast four cities each in the global top 10 for AI funding, underscoring the regions’ aggressive push in the sector.

Meanwhile, some traditional tech powerhouses like New York and Seattle are falling behind in the AI race.

Only 14% and 15% of their venture funding, respectively, is going toward AI-native startups.

To learn about the global AI race from a different perspective, check out this graphic that compares who’s winning the AI patent race.

Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

It’s that time again.

Time for the annual BRICS+ Leaders Summit. The BRICS have hundreds of meetings over the course of the year on every topic from sports to women’s issues to agriculture. But there is only one Leaders Summit. That’s when the heads of state of the members convene to discuss policy issues and to make announcements of major importance.

For those new to BRICS, it’s an acronym from the names of the founding members of Brazil, Russia, India and China who first met in 2009. That gave us BRICs. South Africa joined in 2010 and the group became BRICS. Iran, Ethiopia, UAE and Egypt joined in 2024 and Indonesia joined in 2025. I refer to this expanded group of ten as BRICS+.

In 2024, a partner category was established for countries that are not full members of BRICS but are invited to join the Leaders’ and Foreign Ministers’ Summits. The current partners are Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. Some of these partners may become full members in the near future.

In addition, there is an even longer waiting list of potential future members including important economies such as Turkey, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia. Regardless of the specific dates on which particular countries join BRICS or become partner members, the continued expansion of the group seems assured.

Not A Motley Crew

While the Leaders’ Summit is an annual event, it does not occur at the same time each year. The exact date depends on the schedules of the leaders themselves as well as seasonal conditions in the host country. The overall leadership of BRICS+ is a rotating presidency among Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Last year, the summit was held in Russia in October with President Putin as host.

This year Brazil has the rotating presidency and the summit will be in Rio de Janeiro on July 6 – 7, 2025. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is host. All of the founding BRICS leaders are expected to attend including Lula da Silva (Brazil), Vladimir Putin (Russia), Narendra Modi (India), Xi Jinping (China) and Cyril Ramaphosa (South Africa), along with many others.

A brief comparison of the combined resources of the first five BRICS members with the resources of the G7 (U.S., UK, Germany, Italy, France, Japan and Canada) is instructive.

In terms of population, the BRICS have 3.3 billion people compared to 0.8 billion in the G7. The total land area is 39.7 km2 for BRICS versus 21.7kn2 for the G7.

Real annual growth in GDP is about 5% for the BRICS versus 2% in the G7. Nominal GDP for the G7 leads the BRICS by $45.3 trillion (43.7% of global output) compared to $26.7 trillion (28.7% of global output). But when purchasing power parity accounting is used, the BRICS lead G7 $51.6 trillion to $48 trillion.

The point is not that the BRICS are overtaking the G7 across the board – they’re not. The point is that the BRICS are a powerful group demographically and economically and not a motley collection of what were once called third-world countries.

Prepared To Go Their Own Way

The BRICS do far more than gather for summits. They have spent the last sixteen years carefully and methodically building a parallel version of the original Bretton Woods institutions (1944) to suit their own purposes.

The BRICS New Development Bank based in Shanghai functions much like the World Bank as a development lender. The BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) functions much like the IMF as a swing lender to members experiencing temporary liquidity or foreign exchange distress. The new BRICS payment system (BRICS Pay) functions as a financial payment, settlement and clearance system to displace Western institutions such as SWIFT and Euroclear.

Simply stated, the BRICS are preparing to go their own way and leave the Western financial architecture behind.

What’s NOT Happening This Year

The next BRICS summit in Rio on July 6 promises to be momentous in terms of announcements related to the continued development of this new financial architecture and possible new members. Before considering what these announcements will be, it’s helpful to list what the BRICS will not be doing. BRICs meetings are often surrounded by unfounded conjecture and wild speculation. Let’s dismiss the speculation before turning to the real.

The BRICS will not be announcing a new BRICS currency. There was a lot of speculation about that two years ago at the Leaders’ Summit in South Africa. It didn’t happen then and it’s not happening now. In fact, there may not be a BRICS currency for many years, maybe ever.

The BRICS members have been expanding trade with each other and have been paying with their local currencies and sometimes using the U.S. dollar for convenience. The euro was not created overnight. It took ten years from the Maastricht Treaty in 1991 to the launch of the euro in 2000 to solve all the technical problems. Even the Maastricht Treaty was the result of over twenty-years of experimentation with the European Monetary System (1979-1999), which was an earlier effort to peg exchange rates after the end of the gold standard. So, don’t expect a unified BRICS currency for the foreseeable future.

The BRICS will not be returning to a gold standard. When we use the term “gold standard,” we’re referring to a system in which one or more currencies are pegged to a fixed quantity of gold and the currency is freely convertible into gold at that fixed rate. When more than one currency is on such a gold standard, those currencies are pegged to each other also by the transitive law.

The world was on an ad hoc gold standard from 1870 to 1914 and was on a version of the gold standard by international agreement from 1925 to 1936 and again from 1944 to 1971 under Bretton Woods. There has not been a true gold standard since 1971, and there won’t be one emerging from the BRICS anytime soon.

Finally, there is nothing on the BRICS agenda about abandoning U.S. dollars or ending the role of the U.S. dollar as the unit of account. Today, the dollar accounts for about 60% of global reserves and over 80% of global energy purchases. Despite numerous flaws and complaints, the end of the dollar reserve system and the Petrodollar Accord is not in sight.

What To Expect

With the BRICS currency, a new gold standard and the “end of the dollar” put to one side at least for now, what will the BRICS actually be doing?

The most important initiative will be to admit new members and add new countries to the partner list. The key to creating a BRICS currency (in the long run) and displacing the dollar (in the long run) is to create a large trading area that will accept whatever new currency might be proposed. That was one key to creation of the euro.

The European Monetary Union (EMU) had 11 members in 2000 and has 20 members today with more on a waiting list. The euro is also widely accepted and traded by banks around the world, even outside the EMU. By adding members, the BRICS are making important strides in the direction of a large trading area with mutual payment arrangements.

Another key area for BRICS expansion is the build-out and launch of new systems for payments, settlement and custody. Currently, BRICS members are forced into Western-dominated payment systems such as SWIFT, FedWire, DTCC and Euroclear. These systems are efficient and secure but they are controlled by the U.S. and other G7 governments.

This means that BRICS assets cleared or held in those systems are subject to freezes and seizures by the U.S. and its allies for geopolitical reasons. This has already happened to Russia with regard to $300 billion of its reserves held in the form of U.S. Treasury securities in custody at U.S. banks and Euroclear. Those assets are gradually being stolen by the U.S. to prop-up the neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine. Having alternative systems will weaken U.S. financial sanctions and protect BRICS assets.

The BRICS Golden Currency

While the buzz about a new gold standard is overhyped, gold is still a central part of what the BRICS are all about. Those calling for a new BRICS currency seem not to realize that the BRICS already have a common currency – it’s gold.

If Russia has a trade surplus with China, they will accumulate an excess reserve in yuan. If China builds up a trade surplus with Brazil, they will accumulate an excess reserve in reais. These reserves are not useful beyond a certain point and there are no large liquid bond markets in which they can be invested with liquidity and safety. Conversion to U.S. dollars and the purchase of U.S. Treasury securities is an option, but it leaves the holder subject to U.S. sanctions and outright theft.

The alternative is to convert the BRICS currency reserves into gold. In effect, gold is a leading reserve monetary asset for BRICS central banks. When held in physical form in a safe location, gold cannot be frozen or stolen by the U.S. And gold is freely acceptable by the other BRICS members.

This phenomenon is borne out by hard data. Since 2009, Russia has increased its gold reserves from 531 metric tonnes (mt) to 2,333 mt. China has increased its gold reserves from 600 mt to 2,293 mt. India has increased its gold reserves from 358 mt to 880 mt.

These are official holdings, not including private ownership. It is estimated that citizens of India may have as much as 5,000 mt in the form of jewelry and bullion. There is also good reason to believe that Chinese official gold holdings are significantly larger than the figure reported above. Finally, some countries are acquiring large reserves of gold but are non-transparent about their holdings. BRICS member Iran is in this category.

So, the BRICS already have a common currency in the form of gold.

Geoeconomics Rules

It’s important to emphasize that the BRICS are not a military alliance. There are no mutual defense treaties at the BRICS level. The BRICS are a multilateral organization focused on cooperation in economics and other social and person-to-person issues. Critics who say that the BRICS cannot work because of geopolitical tensions, including those between China and India, are missing the point. Geopolitics does not stand in the way of geoeconomics when there are issues that can be addressed on a win-win basis.

The BRICS summit in Rio may disappoint those who are predicting a “global reset” or the “end of the dollar.” But it will be momentous, nonetheless. The end of the role of sterling as a global reserve currency took thirty years (1914-1944). The rise of the euro as a global reserve currency also took thirty years (1979-2000). These were real monetary resets but they didn’t happen overnight. The key is to watch for important moves in a direction that enables us to see the future of the global monetary system. There will be plenty of that on display in Rio de Janeiro this July.

The U.S. and China are in the midst of their second trade war in seven years.

Earlier this year President Trump announced an initial 34% “reciprocal” tariff rate on China, leading to a swift Chinese retaliation.

For a brief period, both crossed into 100% territory (i.e., more than the entire cost of the goods itself).

Experts cautioned that the resulting chaos could wipe off hundreds of billions from both economies and financial markets saw a swift downturn in response.

Since then, tariff rates have come down: varying between 40–50% on Chinese goods entering the U.S. and 10–30% on U.S. products entering China.

In this chart, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao compares the combined GDP of the U.S. and China versus everyone else, using April 2025 data from the International Monetary Fund.

Ranked: Countries by GDP in 2025

The latest estimates for 2025 have America’s and China’s combined GDP at roughly $50 trillion.

Of the two, the U.S. is much larger, at about $31 trillion, with China at $19 trillion.

Note: Data missing for Afghanistan, Eritrea, Lebanon, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Syria, and Palestine.

If we skip the next three economies—Germany, India, and Japan—then the entire rest of the world (184 countries), also has an economic output of around $50 trillion.

Which means that despite the rise of regional trade, there is no escaping one of the two economic giants.

Note: Figures are rounded to the closest trillion in the visualization. China’s figures do not include Hong Kong or Macao.

The U.S. is the world’s largest importer of consumer goods, and China is the largest exporter. Most of the world picks one of these two as their largest trading partner.

So even when countries might not enjoy the geopolitics of both countries, their economic might effectively makes them the loudest voice in the room.

Want more fun comparison maps? Check out: Germany’s Economy Equals 22 Other European Countries Combined for regional-specific breakdowns.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

This is a predictable response to Finland’s unnecessary and highly provocative decision to join NATO…

The New York Times (NYT) recently published an article about how “Russia Beefs Up Bases Near Finland’s Border”, which relied on satellite imagery to reach that conclusion. Russia’s northern military build-up is portrayed as ominous in their piece, with speculation abounding about its post-Ukraine plans among those who they interviewed. To their credit, the NYT’s authors did reference Russia’s perceptions about NATO expansion, but they didn’t take them to their logical conclusion with regard to Finland.

No mention is made about how unnecessary its decision to join NATO was. Prior to that, Finland was already a so-called “shadow member” of NATO in the sense of having closely integrated with the bloc and practically obtained interoperability with its forces after years of joint training. Nevertheless, it didn’t have Article 5 mutual defense guarantees, but they objectively weren’t needed since there was never any credible scenario where Russia would launch an unprovoked attack or all-out invasion of Finland.

Shortly after the special operation began over three years ago, Finland’s liberal-globalist elite fearmongered that their country might be next after Ukraine, which was the false pretext upon which they reversed their decades-long stance towards formal NATO membership. Far from joining out of sincere concerns for their security, they did so solely to expand NATO’s border with Russia, which could then be presented as a symbolic Western victory no matter the outcome of this ongoing proxy war.

Here are three background briefings about this to bring unaware readers up to speed:

* 8 February 2024: “Finland Is Opening Up NATO’s Arctic Containment Front Against Russia”

* 25 May 2024: “A New Iron Curtain Is Being Built From The Arctic To Central Europe”

* 1 October 2024: “Don’t Forget About How NATO’s Northeastern Flank Can Stir Up A Lot Of Trouble For Russia”

They’ll now be summarized and placed in the larger geostrategic context of the New Cold War.

In short, Finland’s NATO membership enables the bloc to divert a portion of Russia’s forces from other fronts like the Ukrainian one while also expanding the West’s capabilities to project force into Russia, thus making it a highly strategic but also extremely dangerous move. The new Iron Curtain that’s descending upon the region upon linking together Finland’s newly strengthened border defenses, the “Baltic Defence Line”, and Poland’s “East Shield” will guarantee that post-Ukrainian tensions persist.

Even in the scenario of the nascent Russian–US “New Détente” evolving into a full-fledged strategic partnership built upon resource cooperation like joint Arctic projects of the sort that Moscow has proposed, NATO’s European members could still unilaterally threaten Russia via these means. In other words, the same strategy that the prior US administration sought to employ against Russia could be used by its nominal allies to provoke a crisis for complicating the new one’s ties with Russia, which is ironic.

That said, the likelihood of this being attempted – let alone succeeding – would be greatly reduced if the aforesaid “New Détente” enters into force since the US might simply refuse to extend Article 5 mutual defense guarantees to any of its “rogue allies” that stir up trouble along this front, thus deterring them. That said, the possibility always remains that a future US administration isn’t so friendly towards Russia or “decouples” from it on whatever pretext, so Russia can’t ever let its guard down from here on out.

The world’s $12.5 trillion informal economy covers nearly every corner of the world, seeing the highest concentration in emerging economies.

Yet in absolute terms, China, the U.S. and India are home to the largest black markets—covering everything from street vendors to illegal activities that evade governmental oversight. Overall, this generates lower tax revenue and poorer working conditions given the absence of worker protections, leaving millions exposed to poor working conditions.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows the largest shadow economies in the world, based on data from the EY Global Shadow Economy Report 2025.

Measuring the Informal Economy

While measuring the size of show economy activity is challenging, Ernst & Young used more than 70 variables to analyze unobserved economic activities in a country.

Primarily, a currency demand approach was used to examine cash use patterns across 131 jurisdictions covering 97.2% of world GDP. This is largely due to the informal economy driving significant demand for cash, especially high-denomination bills.

China’s Informal Economy is the World’s Largest

Since 2004, workers employed in China’s informal economy have nearly doubled, reaching approximately 200 million.

Driving this trend are jobs are found in the labor-intensive services sector, such as drivers, nannies, and roadside repairmen. As a result, China’s income tax revenue accounts for about 6% of GDP—far lower than the 24% OECD average.

Ranking in second is the U.S. shadow economy, valued at $1.4 trillion. Overall, states with lower real GDP and higher regulatory burdens tend to have more active underground economies.

Meanwhile, Brazil leads in Latin America, with a shadow economy valued at $448 billion. In Europe, Germany is home to the largest at $308 billion, equal to 6.8% of GDP.

To learn more about this topic from a country-based perspective, check out this graphic on the size of the shadow economy by country.

Authored by Jake Scott via The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE),

In the United Kingdom, a mini political earthquake has thrown everything up into the air.

At the beginning of May, several local councils held elections for the county, allowing voters a say in how their local services are managed—bin collection, potholes being filled in, local development plans, etc.

These elections are not, therefore, the most decisive electoral events of the calendar. But politically, they can be used to send a message, and that is certainly what happened this time.

Often seen as a chance for voters to express their discontent, local elections can be taken as a test of the current government’s performance, and this is one they definitively failed. Reform UK, the populist-right party led by Nigel Farage, won 677 wards out of 1,632, and took control of ten county councils, including County Durham, a Labour stronghold for 100 years.

Because of their political relevance, but limited national impact, local elections that go against the government can often be hand-waved as protest votes, expressing general discontent with the status quo. On this occasion, doing so would be a serious mistake, for two reasons.

First, the Labour Party, as the current government, did not expect to do well due to the country’s broad dissatisfaction with the economy, high levels of immigration, and climbing costs of living. But it was the Conservatives who suffered the most, having previously held more councils before the elections, and the electorate still has not “forgiven them” since they were voted out in the national elections of July 2024. Indeed, they were the real losers of this round, losing about the same number of wards as Reform gained.

Second, the victories of Reform in the locals, especially in the Midlands and the North East, track with consistent regional patterns that suggest this is truly not a flash in the pan. As I have been pointing out for a while now, Reform’s core areas of support seem to be in the Midlands, North East, and East Anglia, though they are also now breaking through in Kent. Indeed, Reform also won the byelection in Runcorn by six votes, coming from a standing start to take a Labour stronghold.

Meanwhile, YouGov’s first poll after the locals put Reform in the lead on 29 percent, a full 7 percent points ahead of Labour in second place. A national bump after a successful performance in the local elections is to be expected, but this is a serious shift, if it materializes. It may be the case that people who support Reform, but won’t say so publicly out of fear of being judged for it—the “Shy Reformers”—are now emboldened by the success of the party, and no longer shy about supporting them. A similar phenomenon occurred in 2015, when the Conservatives won a majority despite the polls suggesting otherwise.

Reform’s support comes largely from its opposition to mass migration, with leader Farage declaring in April that a Reform government would create a “Minister for Deportations” in the Home Office—which is about the only real concrete policy that the party has put forward. But in this proposal, and in response to the local victories, we can discern Reform’s economic agenda, and it’s one not far from President Trump’s.

In relation to the “Deportations Minister,” Farage stated that “we will need to recruit new people, as the evidence at the moment suggests those who work in the Home Office would willfully obstruct policy if we won the next general election.”

Such comments are reminiscent of Trump’s rhetoric regarding the Deep State, the fear that an obstructive civil service will sabotage any real measures being implemented. Often disregarded as a “conspiracy theory,” there is nevertheless a perception that the “will of the people” is obstructed by independent and unelected officials with their own agendas, contrary to the electorally victorious.

Coming from Farage, it indicates a distrust of the established civil service, and a desire either to strip it back, or to dislodge and replace any servants who are not “on-side.” This would suggest a preference for a minimalist state, but one that is still active in key policy areas.

Such a stance seems to be confirmed by Chairman Zia Yusuf’s statements following the local elections on what Reform plans to do in each council. Talking to the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, Yusuf said that Reform “will cut waste” principally by sending “teams in, taskforces; we will be opening up applications soon.” In a move reminiscent of DOGE’s strategy, of sending small teams into each agency and demanding audits, Reform is clearly hoping to bring public spending under control. Meanwhile, Dame Andrea Jenkyns—formerly of the Conservative Party, and now Reform Mayor for Lincolnshire—has set the goal of cutting departments by 10 percent.

Economically then, Reform’s government strategy seems attractive, and this may well bear fruit at the national level, but the obstacle at the local level is remarkably simple: it doesn’t have that much autonomy.

As I say above, councils are not that significant, but where their spending is directed is pretty tightly controlled. For example, as much as 60 percent of local councils’ budgets are dedicated to social care, a statutory obligation determined by the central government in Westminster, so other services must be the first to be cut. And since these are the issues that residents notice daily—road maintenance, bin collection, bus services, etc.—it can be electorally difficult to cut those without losing support.

Reform’s strategy might, therefore, be a necessary one, but the capacity to implement it at the local level is likely to be a struggle, and one that they may not succeed in.

Authored by Roger Kimball via The Epoch Times,

“To be deceived about the truth of things and so to harbor untruth in the soul is a thing no one would consent to.”

— Plato, The Republic

Let me start with the genus. What is conservatism? The answer? It is cheerful allegiance to the truth. This is especially true of conservatism’s American variant. Conservatism in America has some distinctive features, traceable mostly to two things: the Founders’ vision of limited government supporting individual liberty and the historical accidents of newness, on the one hand, and geographical amplitude and separateness on the other.

Although it may sometimes seem that conservatives are constitutionally averse to cheerfulness, writing works with titles such as Leviathan, The Decline of the West, The Waste Land, and Slouching Towards Gomorrah, by habit and disposition, I submit, conservatives tend, as a species, to be less gloomy than—than what? What shall we call those who occupy a position opposite that of conservatives? Not liberals, surely, since the people and policies that are called “liberal” are so often conspicuously illiberal, i.e., opposed to freedom and all its works.

Indeed, when it comes to the word “liberal,” Russell Kirk came close to the truth when he observed that he was conservative because he was a liberal, that is, a partisan of ordered liberty and the habits and institutions that nurture it. (Is that another definition of conservatism?) In any event, whatever the opposite of conservatives should be called—perhaps John Fonte’s marvelous coinage “transnational progressives” is best, though the old standby “Leftists” will do—they tend to be gloomy, partly, I suspect, because of disappointed utopian ambitions.

Conservatives also tend to enjoy a more active and enabling sense of humor than leftists. Has anyone ever accused Elizabeth Warren of having a sense of humor? How about Rachel Maddow? Or Jamie Raskin?

The nineteenth-century English essayist Walter Bagehot once observed that “the essence of Toryism is enjoyment.” What he meant, I think, was summed up by the author of Genesis when that sage observed that “God made the world and saw that it was good.” Conservatives differ from progressives in many ways, but one important way is in the quantity of cheerfulness and humor they deploy. Not that their assessment of their fellows is more sanguine.

On the contrary, conservatives tend to be cheerful because they do not regard imperfection as a moral affront. Being soberly realistic about mankind’s susceptibility to improvement, they are as suspicious of utopian schemes as they are appreciative of present blessings.

Conservatives, that is to say, are realists. Like Plato, they recoil from the prospect of being fundamentally out of touch with reality.

In a word, conservatives are not “woke.” They strive to call things by their proper names. Like Oscar Wilde’s Cecily Cardew, they call a spade a spade, just as they prefer to call “affirmative action” what it really is: “discrimination according to race or sex.” Ditto about taxation, which they describe, accurately, as “government-mandated income redistribution,” and “Islamophobia,” which is a piece of Orwellian Newspeak foisted upon an unsuspecting public by irresponsible “multiculturalists” colluding more or less openly with Islamofascists.

At a time when culture and intellectual life are everywhere beholden to the imperatives of political correctness, even insisting on clear prose seems a daring provocation. Thus, one follower of the French deconstructionist Jacques Derrida declared that “unproblematic prose” and “clarity” were “the conceptual tools of conservatism.”

Similarly, simply telling the truth about a whole host of controversial subjects is regarded as an unacceptable challenge to the reigning pieties of established opinion.

Creeping multiculturalism intersects in poignant ways with a subject that is always at the center of concern for conservatism: change. Granted, change is a great fact of life.

But an equally great fact is continuity, and it may well be that one adapts more successfully to certain realities by resisting them than by capitulating to them. “When it is not necessary to change,” Lord Falkland said some centuries ago, “it is necessary not to change.”

I recognize that “change,” like its conceptual cousin “innovation,” is one of the primary watchwords of the modern age. But the great conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr. was on to something important when he wrote, in the inaugural issue of National Review in November 1955, that a large part of the magazine’s mission was to “stand athwart history, yelling Stop.”

It’s rare that you hear someone quote that famous line without a smile—the smile meaning “he wasn’t really against change, innovation, etc., etc.” But I believe Buckley was in earnest. It was one of the things that made National Review, in its first decades at least, unzeitgemässe, “untimely” in the highest sense of the word.

Back then, National Review, as Buckley wrote, “is out of place, in the sense that the United Nations and the League of Women Voters and The New York Times and Henry Steele Commager are in place.”

The late Australian philosopher David Stove saw deeply into this aspect of the metabolism of conservatism. In an essay called “Why You Should Be a Conservative,” he rehearses the familiar scenario:

A primitive society is being devastated by a disease, so you bring modern medicine to bear, and wipe out the disease, only to find that by doing so you have brought on a population explosion. You introduce contraception to control population, and find that you have dismantled a whole culture. At home you legislate to relieve the distress of unmarried mothers, and find you have given a cash incentive to the production of illegitimate children. You guarantee a minimum wage, and find that you have extinguished, not only specific industries, but industry itself as a personal trait. . . .

This is the oldest and the best argument for conservatism: the argument from the fact that our actions almost always have unforeseen and unwelcome consequences. It is an argument from so great and so mournful a fund of experience, that nothing can rationally outweigh it. Yet somehow, at any rate in societies like ours, this argument never is given its due weight. When what is called a “reform” proves to be, yet again, a cure worse than the disease, the assumption is always that what is needed is still more, and still more drastic, ‘reform.’

Progressives cannot wrap their minds (or, more to the point, their hearts) around this irony: that “reform” so regularly exacerbates either the evil it was meant to cure or another evil it had hardly glimpsed.

The Victorian poet and essayist Matthew Arnold was no enemy of reform. But he understood that what he described as “the melancholy, long, withdrawing roar” of faith had left culture dangerously exposed and unprotected. In cultures of the past, Arnold thought, the invigorating “remnant” of those willing and able to energize culture was often too small to succeed. As societies grew, so did the forces of anarchy that threatened them—but then so did that enabling remnant.

Arnold believed modern societies possessed within themselves a “saving remnant” large and vital enough to become “an actual power” that could stem the tide of anarchy. As I look around at our present discontents, I hope more than ever that he was right.

On Friday the NY Times published a report highlighting the Trump administration’s increasing use of software from data analysis firm Palantir, which has been deployed across at least four federal agencies for the stated purpose of increasing operational efficiency through data modernization.

For now, each deployment of Palantir software is focused on department-specific services, but the fact that they’re now embedded across multiple agencies – combined with Trump’s March executive order calling for the federal government to share data across agencies – has raised concerns over whether the US government is laying the groundwork for what could become an interconnected and unified surveillance apparatus created by a company which has been in business with the government since 2008. 

On Wednesday we noted that Fannie Mae, the quasi-government financial firm overseen by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), announced a partnership with Palantir to detect mortgage fraud using the firm’s proprietary technology, which includes some elements of artificial intelligence. 

According to the report, since Donald Trump took office Palantir has received over $113 million in government spending – which doesn’t include a $795 million contract from the Department of Defense (DoD) awarded last week. According to the Times report (citing six alleged government officials and Palantir employees), the company is also in discussions with the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service (the latter of which contracted with Palantir during the Biden administration). 

Former Employees Revolt

Palantir was founded in 2003 by Alex Karp and Trump ally Peter Thiel, and specializes in finding patterns in data and streamlining it into easily presentable formats. While Thiel is clearly a conservative, Karp – a self-described “socialist” who voted for Hillary Clinton, bragged about stopping the “far right” in Europe. 

CIA agent and head of Palantir Alex Karp says his company’s software “single-handedly” stopped the “far right” in Europe.

Founded in 2003 with funding from the CIA’s In-Q-Tel program, Palantir’s only client before 2008 was the CIA. pic.twitter.com/Shq0uA5x16

— Reed Cooley (@ReedCooley) May 31, 2025

Via @ReedCooley

And so it’s of little surprise that employees would flip out and leave over Palantir’s recent $30 million contract with ICE to build a platform to track migrant movements in real time. (Palantir notably designed software for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to identify and track Hamas targets).

This month, 13 former employees signed a letter urging Palantir to stop its endeavors with Mr. Trump. Linda Xia, a signee who was a Palantir engineer until last year, said the problem was not with the company’s technology but with how the Trump administration intended to use it.

“Data that is collected for one reason should not be repurposed for other uses,” Ms. Xia said. “Combining all that data, even with the noblest of intentions, significantly increases the risk of misuse.”

…

Ms. Xia said Palantir employees were increasingly worried about reputational damage to the company because of its work with the Trump administration. There is growing debate within the company about its federal contracts, she said.

“Current employees are discussing the implications of their work and raising questions internally,” she said, adding that some employees have left after disagreements over the company’s work with the Trump administration.

Last week, a Palantir strategist, Brianna Katherine Martin, posted on LinkedIn that she was departing the company because of its expanded work with ICE. -NY Times

According to Xia’s letter, “We no longer believe Palantir’s executives are upholding these values. By supporting Trump’s administration,Elon Musk’s DOGE initiative, and dangerous expansions of executive power, they have abandoned their responsibility and are in violation of Palantir’s Code of Conduct.”

“As Musk’s DOGE operation dismantles U.S. government institutions under the guise of exposing corruption, opposition remains silent. Companies are placating Trump’s administration, suppressing dissent, and aligning with his xenophobic, sexist, and oligarchic agenda.Government databases are already erasing references to transgender people and gender-affirming care.These injustices could be facilitated by the very software infrastructure we help build.”

Palantir Responds

In response to the Times, Palantir pointed to a blog post on how the company handles data, which reads: “We act as a data processor, not a data controller.” 

“Our software and services are used under direction from the organisations that license our products: these organisations define what can and cannot be done with their data; they control the Palantir accounts in which analysis is conducted.”

What say you?

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Ukraine carried out strategic drone strikes on Sunday against several bases all across Russia that are known to house elements of its nuclear triad. This came a day before the second round of the newly resumed Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul and less than a week after Trump warned Putin that “bad things..REALLY BAD” might soon happen to Russia. It therefore can’t be ruled out that he knew about this and might have even discreetly signaled his approval in order to “force Russia into peace”.

Of course, it’s also possible that he was bluffing and the Biden-era CIA helped orchestrate this attack in advance without him ever finding out so that Ukraine could either sabotage peace talks if he won and pressured Zelensky into them or coerce maximum concessions from Russia, but his ominous words still look bad. Whatever the extent of Trump’s knowledge may or may not be, Putin might once again climb the escalation ladder by dropping more Oreshniks on Ukraine, which could risk a rupture in their ties.

Seeing as how Trump is being left in the dark about the conflict by his closest advisors (not counting Witkoff) as proven by him misportraying Russia’s retaliatory strikes against Ukraine over the past week as unprovoked, he might react the same way to Russia’s inevitable retaliation.

His ally Lindsay Graham already prepared legislation for imposing 500% tariffs on all Russian energy clients, which Trump might approve in response, and this could pair with ramping up armed aid to Ukraine in a major escalation.

Everything therefore depends on the form of Russia’s retaliation; the US’ response; and – if they’re not canceled as a result – the outcome of tomorrow’s talks in Istanbul. If the first two phases of this scenario sequence don’t spiral out of control, then it’ll all depend on whether Ukraine makes concessions to Russia after its retaliation; Russia makes concessions to Ukraine after the US’ response to Russia’s retaliation; or their talks are once again inconclusive.

The first is by far the best outcome for Russia.

The second would suggest that Ukraine’s strategic drone strikes on Russia’s nuclear triad and the US’ response to its retaliation pressured Putin to compromise on his stated goals.

These are Ukraine’s withdrawal from the entirety of the disputed regions, its demilitarization, denazification, and restoring its constitutional neutrality. Freezing the Line of Contact (LOC), even perhaps in exchange for some US sanctions relief and a resource-centric strategic partnership with it, could cede Russia’s strategic edge.

Not only might Ukraine rearm and reposition ahead of reinitiating hostilities on comparatively better terms, but uniformed Western troops might also flood into Ukraine, where they could then function as tripwires for manipulating Trump into “escalating to de-escalate” if they’re attacked by Russia. As for the third possibility, inconclusive talks, Trump might soon lose patience with Russia and thus “escalate to de-escalate” anyhow. He could always just walk away, however, but his recent posts suggest that he won’t.

Overall, Ukraine’s unprecedented provocation will escalate the conflict, but it’s unclear what will follow Russia’s inevitable retaliation. Russia will either coerce the concessions from Ukraine that Putin demands for peace; the US’ response to its retaliation will coerce concessions from Russia to Ukraine instead; or both will remain manageable and tomorrow’s talks will be inconclusive, thus likely only delaying the US’ seemingly inevitable escalated involvement. Tonight will therefore be fateful for the conflict’s future.