Every four years the Summer Olympics come around and athletes vie for medals, sporting glory, and the success of their country.

Athletes in peak condition stun crowds, create new records, and push the limits of the human body. And over time, those bodies have gotten noticeably bigger.

Using data from Sports Reference (via Kaggle), Visual Capitalist’s Georgios Karamanis plotted the average height and weight of Olympic athletes by sport to show how their body dimensions have changed over the years.

Sports Where Olympic Athletes are Getting Bigger

At first glance, all sports seemed to have moved to the right and ascended up the chart (a higher average weight and height) over the last 50 years.

Here’s a table of the average weight of male Olympians, in kilograms, categorized by sport. Only sports where a direct comparison could be made between 1960 and 2016 were included:

The biggest example of the phenomenon is in basketball, where the average weight for men has gone up by more than 16 kilograms (35 lbs). The average height has also increased by 12 centimeters (5 in) as seen in the next table.

Wrestling, weightlifting, and water polo have also seen significant increases in weight and height for men. Under the Body Mass Index (BMI), all three have pushed clearly into overweight classification, with weightlifting especially close to obese.

On the women’s side, though more sports have been included in the Olympics since 1960, the sport-by-sport differences in average weight and height are less meteoric. Swimming, canoeing and diving saw the most change, though all three still fall well within normal BMI classification.

Does that mean athletes are becoming unhealthier? Not necessarily. Muscular athletes often have a high BMI because the index doesn’t differentiate between weight from fat, muscle, or bone. BMI also tends to exaggerate obesity in tall people, and thin-ness in short people.

The Outliers

Again, though most sports have seen athletes get bigger over time, there are some outliers.

Notably, gymnastics bucks the trend for both men and women in the chart. The average gymnast in 2016 was both lighter and shorter than their counterparts in 1960. Women gymnasts in particular weighed 4 kilograms (9 lbs) less and were nearly 3 centimeters (1 in) shorter.

Here’s a table of all the changes in weight for female Olympians:

In gymnastics, studies have shown that “smaller gymnasts with a high strength-to-mass ratio” have greater potential for performing rotations. One notable example is American gymnast Simone Biles, the most decorated gymnast in history, who measures 142 centimeters (4’8″) or a full 14 centimeters shorter than the average female gymnast at the 2016 Olympic games.

Here’s a table of the height changes for women Olympians.

Female Olympians also saw weight decreases in athletics and sailing, even as they logged height increases in the same sports.

However, as the Olympics have added and removed categories from the games over the years, several sports don’t have direct comparisons available. For women in particular, only eight categories of sport from the 1960s were still present in the Rio Olympics. For men, that number goes up to 19 sports.

We’ll have to wait for the next few Olympics to see if this trend continues or starts to plateau at an ideal height and weight combination for athletes competing at the highest levels of sport.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

A top Russian expert candidly analyzed their country’s newly signed gas pipeline Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Iran from late June in two interviews with Sputnik and Azerbaijan’s News.Az. Igor Yushkov, who’s described by the prestigious Russian International Affairs Council as a Professor at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation and leading expert at the National Energy Security Fund, strongly suggested that this might be more about optics than substance.

This agreement appears to be a game-changer at first glance since some of the 300 million cubic meters of gas per day that Russia plans to export to Iran, which Sputnik calculated roughly equals the maximum output of the now-defunct Nord Stream pipelines, could also meet some of India’s growing energy needs. The primary obstacle though will be in getting the approval of all Caspian states for an undersea pipeline, which Yushkov hinted to his country’s media might be much more difficult than it seems.

He elaborated more on this to Azerbaijani media, explaining that the estimated $10 billion worth of investments required wouldn’t make the venture profitable if Kommersant’s report about the gas being sold at around $100 per thousand meters is true. That’s close to the price paid by the CIS countries and is 62% lower than what China pays for importing gas from the Power of Siberia pipeline. He concluded that the plans “seem unrealistic and are most likely pursuing political rather than economic goals.”

Yushkov might be onto something too since it’s important for readers to remember that Russia is reportedly embroiled in a pricing dispute with China over the Power of Siberia II pipeline that was analyzed in this piece here from early June shortly after Putin’s latest trip there the month prior. In brief, Russia wants to get the highest price possible while China wants the lowest, with each believing that the other will bend to their demands the longer that the talks drag on.

From Russia’s perspective, the US’ impending “Pivot (back) to Asia” will inevitably lead to more credible threats against the maritime energy supply chains that China is dependent upon for powering its economy, thus compelling the People’s Republic to agree to higher prices for more reliable Russian gas. Meanwhile, China’s view is that growing financial pressures on Russia will compel it to agree to lower prices for reasons of convenience, helped along as they are by the difficulty of selling its gas elsewhere.

With these competing calculations in mind, the newly signed Russian-Iranian gas MoU might actually be a ploy for improving Moscow’s negotiating leverage with Beijing by showing the latter that it does indeed have supposedly viable alternatives for selling its gas to Asia. As for what Kommersant reported regarding the low rate that Russia allegedly agreed to sell its gas to Iran for, it’s either inaccurate or a preliminary understanding that could very well change as the talks towards a final deal evolve.

After all, if Russia is supposedly desperate enough for revenue that it’ll begin the long process of trying to seek all Caspian states’ approval for an undersea pipeline which can’t be assured and which’ll require a huge investment that’ll barely pay off in the event that they agree, then it doesn’t make sense to hold off on a deal with China. The Power of Siberia II could begin construction immediately after the contract is signed, would predictably cost less, and wouldn’t face anywhere near the same technical challenges.

For these reasons, it’s apparent that everything isn’t as clear-cut as it seems when it comes to the Russian-Iranian gas MoU, with this agreement being less of a game-changer than it appeared at first glance upon further scrutiny and much more like a ploy of sorts to bolster Russia’s hand in talks with China. Iran is probably playing along since the optimistic reports that followed from friendly media drew awareness to its crucial geostrategic position and accordingly improved its soft power at no cost to itself.

Altogether, it can therefore be concluded that their newly signed understanding is a mutually beneficial way to advance their respective ulterior interests and isn’t as substantive as some might have initially thought. To be sure, it would indeed be a game-changer if their envisaged undersea pipeline is built and Russian gas either directly travels to India or is provided to it by Iran via a swap arrangement, but that’s unlikely to happen. Absent any serious progress, most people might even forget about this by next year.

Over 2 billion people are current drinkers, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, shows the percentage of the population over 15 years old that consumed alcohol in the previous 12 months by region. The data is from 2019 and was published in the 2024 Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health and Treatment of Substance Use Disorders.

According to the World Health Organization’s definitions, the map is divided into six regions.

European Countries Have the Highest Percentage of Drinkers

The level of drinking is highest in European countries. Seven of the 10 countries with the highest alcohol consumption in 2019 were members of the European Union.

Countries in North Africa and the Middle East have the lowest alcohol consumption rates due to cultural and religious factors. On the map, these countries can mostly be seen in the WHO’s Eastern Mediterranean classification, where just 4% of the population consumes alcohol on a semi-regular basis.

Health Consequences of Alcohol Consumption

According to WHO, 2.6 million people (2 million of them men) die from alcohol-related causes each year.

The highest levels of alcohol-attributable deaths per 100,000 people are observed in countries in Africa and Europe.

Globally, an estimated 400 million people, or 7% of the world’s population aged 15 years and older, live with alcohol use disorders, and an estimated 209 million (3.7% of the adult world population) live with alcohol dependence.

If you liked this post, check out Ranked: Which Countries Drink the Most Beer? This graphic compares global beer consumption by country.

Update(02:00ET): The Venezuelan government has announced official election results shortly after midnight: Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has won a third term with 51% of the vote, announced the country’s electoral authority, with 80% of ballot boxes counted. But there are widespread reports that several key exit polls pointed to a huge opposition upset victory by Edmundo González.

The opposition is claiming victory and that the election has been stolen amid reports that Maduro’s security forces have deployed significant numbers of armored vehicles and heavily armed-police to the streets of Caracas ahead of likely unrest.

The opposition is further calling on the military to turn against Maduro and back the ‘rightful’ victory of Gonzalez.

Venezuela’s political opposition vehemently rejected the electoral authority’s ruling that Nicolás Maduro was reelected as the nation’s president, calling on the military to intervene https://t.co/mDQI7sWEEb

— Bloomberg (@business) July 29, 2024

The Associated Press has detailed in an overnight update:

Venezuela’s opposition claimed Edmundo González defeated President Nicolás Maduro in Sunday’s presidential election, setting up a showdown with the government, which earlier declared Maduro the winner.

“The Venezuelans and the entire world know what happened,” González said in his first remarks. Opposition leader María Corina Machado made the announcement standing alongside González, whose margin of victory she said was “overwhelming.” Earlier the opposition said it had obtained voting tallies from about 30% of ballot boxes nationwide, with more expected overnight.

The National Electoral Council, which is controlled by Maduro loyalists, has yet to provide the tallies from 30,000 polling booths nationwide.

Regardless of what actually happen or what will happen in terms of the possibility of violence, it’s clear that the leftist and socialist Venezuelan government just suffered its most significant electoral test and shock in decades.

Some regional and external governments have signaled they will not recognize Maduro’s ‘win’…

BREAKING: Venezuelan National Electoral Council says President Nicolas Maduro has won the election despite exit polls suggesting the opposite.

The council claimed Maduro won with 51.20% of the vote.

Argentina president Javier Milei announced that Argentina would not be… pic.twitter.com/ItctgVzvz9

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 29, 2024

The populace could be gearing up for a fight, but if violence doesn’t spiral within the next 24-48 hours, the situation is likely to remain stable. All eyes will also be on Washington Monday, waiting to see how forcefully the US administration condemns the outcome.

Meanwhile, an interesting recent admission and revelation…

Ahead of Venezuela’s election, John Bolton admitted to the Washington Post that he knew that the Trump admin’s crippling sanctions and coup attempt against Venezuela would destroy its economy and force millions to flee:

“There was no doubt the sanctions, along with the general… pic.twitter.com/woW7cVYlf3

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) July 29, 2024

* * *

President Nicolas Maduro alarmed and riled his enemies as well as Washington and its allies by declaring just ahead of Sunday’s elections: “If you don’t want Venezuela to fall into a bloodbath, into a fratricidal civil war, due to the fascists, let’s ensure the greatest success and greatest victory in the electoral history of our people.”

Many pundits are taking this as a warning that he’ll refuse to give up power in the unlikely event he loses his bid for six more years in office, which would be his third term. While there are eight names total on the ballot as Venezuelans wait in long lines to vote Sunday, 74-year old opposition candidate and former diplomat Edmundo González Urrutia is considered the only real contender who has a chance of defeating Maduro.

González is basically the surrogate candidate for María Corina Machado, who has organized the opposition and has become wildly popular, even recently gaining name recognition abroad and in US media.

Maduro and his United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) have ruled over the central American country since 2013, after he took over following the death of his mentor, far-left icon Hugo Chavez.

Millions of desperate citizens have already left their country in search of work and opportunities abroad amid a crushed economy and rampant accusations of corruption against Maduro government officials. Millions more may leave if his power is extended for another term.

Polls have seen massive queues since they opened at 6am, but already there are reports of barriers in pro-opposition areas and stories of black-clad, masked men blocking voting stations, as The New York Times has alleged. “The destiny of Venezuela depends on our victory,” Maduro has proclaimed at campaign rallies, while decrying efforts of a hidden imperialist foreign hand to thwart his aims, as well as longtime US-led sanctions.

Both the United States and Brazil have issued messages of “we’re watching closely”:

Asked in a press briefing whether Maduro was likely to rig Sunday’s vote, John Kirby, White House national security spokesperson, said it was difficult to know how the situation would play out but that the U.S. wanted “to make it clear to Mr. Maduro that we’re watching, we’re watching closely.”

Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has also urged Maduro to respect the results, telling international news agencies that he was “scared” by the Venezuelan’s recent remarks, Reuters reported.

Brazil’s president added that Maduro “needs to learn that when you win, you stay; when you lose, you leave.”

Very, very long queues to vote in Venezuela’s election today. Here’s a timelapse #VenezuelaVOTA #venezuela pic.twitter.com/l3jMQ4hZJH

— Catherine Ellis (@Cat_lucy1) July 28, 2024

Some analysts expect some degree of unrest and violence to break out no matter who emerges victorious, with either side set to contest.

“On the basis of their own exit polls, the opposition will probably declare victory and push for regime change, ushering in a period of heightened political tension and uncertainty ahead of the inauguration,” Andre Masuko, a research analyst with the Economist Intelligence Unit, stated to CNBC.

President Nicolas Maduro ahead of Sunday’s elections: “If you don’t want Venezuela to fall into a bloodbath, into a fratricidal civil war, due to the fascists, let’s ensure the greatest success & greatest victory in the electoral history of our people.” pic.twitter.com/rao45c0NIC

— Vera Bergengruen (@VeraMBergen) July 24, 2024

“However, we do not expect the Maduro regime to be overthrown. His strict control over the country’s institutions, including the security forces, the judiciary and the electoral national council (CNE), will be instrumental in helping him to stay in power,” he underscored.

One big unpredictable scenario of huge consequence is whether the US would throw its support behind any opposition allegations claims of widespread election abuse and fraud.

Meanwhile, the usual Neocon suspects in Congress are alleging a ‘stolen’ national election before the ballots are even in…

If the election in #Venezuela today is legitimate Maduro will lose by 40 points

But the election commission that counts the votes is controlled by the Maduro regime and they will do everything they can to try and steal it pic.twitter.com/EhxzGZjb1j

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) July 28, 2024

Washington weighing in too forcefully would set the stage for another anti-opposition crackdown by Maduro government security services.

Authored by Robert Malone,

Surveillance capitalism is a novel economic system that has emerged in the digital era. It is characterized by the unilateral claim of private human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. In this version of capitalism, predicting and influencing behavior (political and economic) rather than producing goods and services is the primary product. This economic logic prioritizes extracting, processing, and trading personal data to predict and influence human behavior by exploiting those predictions for various economic (marketing) and political objectives. 

In many cases, surveillance capitalism merges with PsyWar tools and technologies to power the modern surveillance state, giving rise to a new form of Fascism (public-private partnerships) known as techno-totalitarianism.  Leading corporations employing the surveillance capitalism business model include Google, Amazon and Facebook.  Surveillance capitalism has now fused with the science and theory of psychology, marketing, and algorithmic manipulation of online information to give rise to propaganda and censorship capabilities that go far beyond those imagined by the twentieth-century predictions of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell.

Key Features of Surveillance Capitalism

1. One-way mirror operations: Surveillance capitalists engineer operations to operate in secrecy, hiding their methods and intentions from users, who are unaware of the extent of data collection and analysis.

2. Instrumentation power: Surveillance capitalists wield power by designing systems that cultivate “radical indifference,” rendering users oblivious to their observations and manipulations.

3. Behavioral futures markets: The extracted data is traded in new markets, enabling companies to bet on users’ future behavior, generating immense wealth for surveillance capitalists.

4. Collaboration with the state: Surveillance capitalism often involves partnerships with governments, leveraging favorable laws, policing, and information sharing to further entrench its power.

Historical Development

Surveillance capitalism has its roots in the early days of the internet, when companies like Google and Facebook exploited the “ungoverned spaces” of the digital realm. The dot-com bust, the success of Apple’s consumer-centric approach, and the surveillance-friendly environment created by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and CIA’s investments in the “war on terror” all contributed to the rise of surveillance capitalism.

Consequences

1. Loss of autonomy: Surveillance capitalism erodes individual autonomy as users are manipulated and influenced by algorithms designed to predict and shape their behavior.

2. Threat to democracy: The concentration of power in the hands of surveillance capitalists undermines democratic processes, as they use their influence to shape public opinion and policy.

3. Economic inequality: The wealth generated by surveillance capitalism exacerbates economic inequality, as those who own and control the data and algorithms reap the benefits while users are exploited as free commodities.

Resistance and Reform

To counter surveillance capitalism, it is essential to:

1. Promote transparency and accountability: Demand greater openness about data collection and processing practices and mechanisms for users to exercise control over their data.

2. Regulate surveillance capitalism: Establish robust regulations to limit the power of surveillance capitalists, protect user rights, and promote fair competition.

3. Foster alternative economic models: Encourage the development of alternative economic systems that prioritize human well-being, autonomy, and democracy over profit and surveillance.

“Surveillance Capitalism unilaterally claims our private human experience as a free source of raw material for its own production processes. It translates our experience into behavioral data. Those behavioral data are then combined with its advanced computation capabilities, what people today refer to as AI machine intelligence. Out of that black box come predictions about our behavior, what we will do now, soon and later. Turns out there are a lot of businesses that want to know what we will do in the future, and so these have constituted a new kind of marketplace, a marketplace that trades exclusively in behavioral futures, in our behavioral futures. That’s where surveillance capitalists make their money. That’s where the big pioneers of this economic logic, like Google and Facebook have become so wealthy by selling predictions of our behavior first to online targeted advertisers, and now of course, these business customers range across the entire economy, no longer confined to that original context of online targeted advertising.

All of this is conducted in secret. All of this is conducted through the social relations of the One-Way mirror. Ergo surveillance, the vast amounts of capital that have been accumulated here are trained to create these systems in a way that keeps us ignorant. Specifically the data scientists write about their methods in a way that brags about the fact that these systems bypass our awareness so that they bypass our rights to say yes or no. I want to participate, or I don’t want to participate. I want to contest, or I don’t want to contest. I want to fight, or I don’t want to fight. All of that is bypassed. We are robbed of the right to combat because we are engineered into ignorance. We saw these same methods being used by Cambridge Analytica with those revelations a year ago with only a tiny difference. All they did was take these same every day routine methods of surveillance, capitalism, pivot them just a couple of degrees toward political outcomes rather than commercial outcomes, showing that they could use our data to intervene and influence our behavior, our real world behavior, and our real world thinking and feeling in order to change political outcomes.”

Authored by Artis Shepherd via The Mises Institute,

In modern America, an obsessive fixation on “safety” has given rise to a culture of fear, paralyzing action and warping decision-making across all levels of society. The conditioning begins early, with children trained to be fearful rather than competent in facing challenges or unfamiliar situations. In their formative years, children are inundated with rules and guidelines, ostensibly designed to maintain safety. But this only stunts their adventurous spirit, undercuts the development of real confidence, and provides an excuse to avoid the uncertain striving necessary for growth.

Corporations and commercial establishments claim “safety is the highest priority” while failing to understand what that statement entails when taken to its logical extreme. If safety is indeed the highest priority, then we should all stay home and slowly decompose.

Without irony, governments use the safety of the citizenry as a pretext to commit brutal acts of war and strip away natural freedoms at the point of a gun. The same is done to provide cover for merging the state with the economy, to the detriment of most and the benefit of a politically connected few.

It is evident that the pursuit of safety, with fear as the motivator, prevents one from living a good life — one consisting of productive work driven by the attainment of values through reason and effort, the result of which is true self-esteem.

Rather than safety, pursue competence. Genuine safety lies in acquiring the skills necessary to deal with life’s challenges, not simply avoiding them.

Baby Kneepads

In her book “Free Range Kids,” Lenore Skenazy discusses her decision to let her 9-year-old son ride the New York City subway by himself. By her telling, he was ready, capable and prepared. So she let him do it, and he did. Her son had just accomplished something of which he could be proud and which would be challenging for many adults.

Unfortunately, the response to Ms. Skenazy’s decision was not one of approbation. National media, so-called parental experts and the frightened masses all learned about the event and condemned it. She was called horrible names and dubbed “America’s Worst Mom” by the U.S. media.

The people who attacked Ms. Skenazy view the world as a scary place, one where selective observation substitutes for rational thinking — where the risk-reward equation is reduced to a big neon “RISK” sign flashing red. These are the same people who put kneepads on their babies when they learn to crawl.

Ms. Skenazy highlights the benefits of kids spending time in nature, building skills of self-reliance and eschewing today’s conventional methods of risk avoidance. One gets the sense that children are capable of much more than they’re given credit for. Far from pushing them into danger, allowing children to confront and overcome challenges on their own provides the ultimate safety — a true sense of competence.

The “Fed Put” and Subversion of the Free Market

For over a century, the American economy has been subject to the vagaries of central bank control, including the management of “inflation” — poorly defined as the change in the general price level, an absurd abstraction that’s impossible to accurately measure — and the overall stability of the job market. Another stated goal of the Federal Reserve was ensuring the “stability of the banking system.” Despite this, all of the most severe episodes of bank failure in the U.S. occurred on the Fed’s watch, including the Great Depression.

Since the 1980s, the Federal Reserve has been employing an all-but-explicit program of bailing out the capital markets — the stock market especially — every time there is a significant pullback in prices. Known as the Fed put, this is an especially sickening example of welfare for those of mediocre ability but the right political connections.

While a desire to control — and enrich a small group at the expense of the majority — is at the heart of the motivations in creating the Federal Reserve, or any central bank, the ostensible reasons have to do with safety. In the rationale of the state and its adherents, Americans need to be kept safe from high price inflation, bank failures and other perceived threats of a free market. By this rationale, people need protection from the consequences of voluntarily exchanging goods and services at market prices, unimpeded by a bureaucracy. Heaven forbid.

As a result, the central bank and federal government essentially control most of the economy. For single-family homes, 95% of mortgages are ultimately held and guaranteed by federal government agencies. As a profession, medicine has been subsumed by the requirements of government insurance and research funding. Food is regulated to the extent that obtaining a glass of real milk is impossible in many states. The costs of buying an automobile are substantially due to compliance with government regulations. No industry is untouched.

The Welfare State

As with the creation of a central bank, the forcible redistribution of capital — from the capable and driven to the incapable and indolent — is an attempt to remove the risk of failure from favored groups. Tellingly, these programs are referred to as “safety nets.”

What the welfare state accomplishes, however, is the elevation of weakness as a character trait. Rather than allowing the freedom to achieve, the state acts as a mother with Munchausen syndrome by proxy — facilitating the dependency and helplessness of its wards so as to increase its own relevance via the caretaking process. In keeping with its role as the oppressive mother, one result is that fatherhood has become nonexistent, particularly in those groups most reliant on welfare.

The destruction of the productive spirit is nowhere more obvious than in those reliant on government handouts, who have attempted to trade independence for safety but end up with neither.

The Warfare State

Woodrow Wilson’s slogan for entering World War I at the beginning of the 20th century was “making the world safe for democracy.”

The world, then ostensibly safe for democracy with the entry of the U.S. military, incurred 40 million casualties during that war. That’s before counting the many tens of millions more over the following decades caused by events and regimes, including the Bolshevik Revolution, facilitated by that war. World War II, which would not have happened in the absence of World War I, saw another 75 million deaths, with some estimates north of 100 million.

The war on terror has only reduced freedoms at home while creating increasingly aggressive enemies elsewhere. The cost is in the trillions, with no material benefit of which to speak.

The Covid Panic

Using “public health and safety” as a front, the Trump and Biden regimes, as well as most state governments, implemented one of the most blatant examples of wicked government action in history. People were locked down inside their homes, unable to even enjoy open spaces like parks and beaches. Children were encouraged to gaze into a computer all day instead of going outside or to school. The truly sick, those with cancer and other serious conditions, were discouraged from hospital visits to increase capacity for patients who seemed to have a minor cold virus—one that leaked from a research lab in China.

That government would gin up a crisis out of nothing is expected. It was the lack of pushback from the public that was astounding. There was almost total mask compliance, even in “conservative” states and counties. Low-status individuals took it upon themselves to push the government’s safety propaganda — the only chance for them to wield authority. When an injection was offered — one whose trials had no control arm, an absolute necessity in scientific studies, and blanket immunity for the manufacturers — people lined up to take it, then bragged about it.

The Nature of Risk

In human activity, risk is involved — sometimes a considerable amount. In seeking to manage that risk, one should strive for competence over it, not avoidance of it. This naturally entails confronting fear, especially the fear of failure, and using it for productive gain. The accumulation of skills, confrontation of hurdles and commitment to a process with uncertain outcomes are essential to a life worth living.

Authored by Wanjiru Njoya via The Mises Institute,

In her essay “Racism,” Ayn Rand argues that racism – which she describes as “the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism” – is incompatible with capitalism and can only be defeated through capitalism. She defines capitalism as “a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” She explains that a defense of private property and laissez-faire capitalism is the only way to defeat racism:

“There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism. … It is capitalism that gave mankind its first steps toward freedom and a rational way of life. It is capitalism that broke through national and racial barriers, by means of free trade. It is capitalism that abolished serfdom and slavery in all the civilized countries of the world.”

Walter Williams adopts a similar view of the role of capitalism in defeating racism. He argues that only in a capitalist system, where economic gains are made through free market exchange and not by seeking political preferences and protections, can minorities make economic progress:

“Free-market resource allocation, as opposed to allocation on political grounds, is in the interests of minorities and/or less preferred individuals. … The market encompasses a sort of parity nonexistent in the political arena, where one person’s dollar has the same power as anyone else’s.”

Williams’ point is that a racist seller of course wishes to sell his produce; therefore, he will not reject black buyers as he values their dollars as much as the dollars of white buyers. Most sellers would not consider it worth losing the sale simply to be true to their racist beliefs. Even in the case of a racist seller who is willing to pay a price for his desire not to transact with other races, a point is likely to come where his costs mount to a degree that he no longer considers it worthwhile to continue rejecting sales purely on racist grounds. This explains why even in the segregated states, many whites entered into commercial transactions with blacks. Williams writes:

“The fact that some blacks were able to earn a comfortable living and indeed become prosperous — in both the antebellum South, in the face of slavery and grossly discriminatory laws, and in the North, where there was at best only weak enforcement of civil rights — gives strong testament to the power of the market as a friend to blacks.”

Williams defends “free markets and the profit motive” against the charge that they reduce economic opportunities for victims of racism. He argues that on the contrary, even disadvantaged people can enjoy an advantage in free markets, based on the principle that “customers prefer lower prices to higher prices, and businessmen prefer higher profits to lower profits.” For example, a disadvantaged person could choose to work for a lower wage than his competitors in the labor market and thereby avoid both unemployment as well as the need to rely on the charity or largesse of others.

Williams acknowledges that in the absence of mandatory pricing, some may be charged higher prices than others for the same product based on their race. For example, a landlord may charge a higher rent to black tenants than to white tenants. In this case, we can stipulate that it is unfair for anyone to have to pay a higher rent than someone else based purely on his race. However, we must go further and ask: Unfair compared to what? What are the available alternatives? Williams points out that a black tenant may prefer to pay a higher rent than his white neighbor if the only alternative is to go without housing altogether. While the state can seek to equalize everyone’s rental payments and can even seek to force landlords to rent to all comers regardless of race, the state cannot force people to build or supply housing for rent, nor can the state itself undertake to house the entire population to “protect” them from having to encounter a racist landlord. Even the Soviet Union at the height of its power, when the state owned most of the housing stock and undertook to construct housing for the entire population, could not achieve that.

The risk of suffering unfairness in a free market must therefore be weighed against the hazards of marching down the path to communism in a misguided attempt to create “fair” conditions for everyone. In an argument echoed by Thomas Sowell in “The Quest for Cosmic Justice,” Williams argues that sound economic policy cannot be derived from a utopian desire to promote fairness for everyone: For example, it may be “unfair” that anyone works for less than $20 an hour, but it does not follow that working for that sum should be prohibited. Nor is it “unfair” to work for less than someone else is prepared to work for. Minimum wage legislation may seem “fair” as it guarantees that nobody earns below the set wage, but it raises the overall level of unemployment, which leaves the most disadvantaged out of work altogether. As Williams puts it, the real minimum wage is zero. His view is that “economic theory as such cannot answer questions of fairness. However economic theory can predict the effects of not permitting some people to charge lower prices for what they sell and higher prices for what they buy. … They will be worse off than otherwise would be the case.”

Williams argues that the reduction in economic opportunities, as seen for example in unemployment rates, is not due to free market exchange but to “policies, regulations, and restrictions emanating from federal, state, and local governments” as well as “the power of vested groups to use, as a means to greater wealth, the coercive powers of government to stifle market competition.” He shows that interventions designed to eradicate “racism” often leave people worse off. The solution lies in promoting capitalism, which in turn creates opportunities for economic advancement.

Williams’ analysis shows the importance of understanding economic theory as a prerequisite to understanding economic events. The economic progress among the disadvantaged races that he documents is not attributable to the policies, regulations and restrictions that people consider to be the source and guarantee of prosperity but is instead attributable to voluntary exchange. Robert Higgs, who has also documented prosperity and progress among black people in the U.S., reminds us that it is to human endeavor that we owe economic progress and not to the state:

“In any event, society’s positive, productive forces always resided within the people themselves. All the genuine peace, cooperation, production, and order the society enjoyed sprang from them. So the state was never a solution to a problem the people could not solve for themselves, but itself a problem masquerading as the only solution to problems whose real solutions already lay close at hand, if they existed at all.”

It isn’t just in Europe and the U.S. where the EV industry is seeing jolting effects of Chinese EVs entering their respective markets.

It looks like the industry in Thailand has accidentally also set off chaos in their home market by offering subsidies to Chinese EV makers, a move that Nikkei Asia reports is “wreaking havoc” in Thailand. 

The unintended consequences of EV subsidies have also affected supply chains, with at least a dozen parts producers shutting down as subsidized Chinese EV makers avoid buying from most of them.

Since the Thai government introduced the EV subsidy scheme in 2022, 185,029 EVs have been imported. However, new EV registrations stand at 86,043, indicating an oversupply of around 90,000 vehicles.

EVAT President Krisda Utamote, noting more Chinese EV makers are now investing in Thai production, said: “We are experiencing an EV oversupply as plenty of EVs imported from China over the past two years [remain in dealer] inventories.”

The EV subsidy program, initiated in 2022 under the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement, aimed to make EVs more affordable by offering up to 150,000 baht ($4,130) per vehicle and eliminating tariffs on Chinese imports, provided the manufacturers produce an equivalent number in Thailand. Manufacturing was required to begin this year.

Nikkei Asia reports that BYD, China’s largest EV maker, aggressively cut the price of its Atto model by 37%, while Neta reduced its V-II model price by 9%. When fully operational, Chinese EV makers in Thailand will have the capacity to produce about 750,000 vehicles annually.

These subsidies have impacted the Thai automotive sector, which employs over 750,000 workers and contributes 11% to the GDP. The automotive sector is the fourth-largest economic contributor, following tourism (18%), retail (16%), and ahead of agriculture (8.6%).

Sales of fossil fuel vehicles have declined since the subsidies, significantly affecting Japanese automakers who produce 90% of these vehicles in Thailand. Additionally, economic weaknesses have led consumers to cut back on expensive purchases, with vehicle sales in the first five months of the year down 23% from the same period in 2023, the lowest in a decade, according to the article. 

Recall, we have extensively covered how the EU is attempting to tariff their way out of oversupply problems and what the Union sees as a price distortions as a result of China’s contributions to the industry. 

As we noted earlier this summer, SAIC is being hit with a 38.1% tariff and BYD is being hit with a 17.4% tariff, the report says. Geely Auto will face a 20% tariff and all tariffs are on top of the EU’s existing 10% tariff. 

EV-makers that cooperated with the probe but weren’t in the three-company sample will face an additional 21% duty, while uncooperative ones will incur the full 38.1%. European brands like Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Renault, which export China-assembled EVs, will also face extra tariffs, according to Caixin.

China’s Ministry of Commerce criticized the decision, stating the EU ignored facts, WTO rules, and objections from China and EU member states. Beijing vowed to protect Chinese companies’ rights.

Authored by Ethan Huff via NaturalNews.com,

The medical establishment is teeing up for the launch of another “pandemic,” this one centering around H5N8 Influenza, also known as avian influenza or bird flu.

The American Medical Association (AMA) made a few changes this past week to its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) system, described as “the leading medical terminology code set for describing health care procedures and services.” One change is the creation of a new CPT code for H5N8 Influenza virus “vaccine” candidates that “receive emergency use authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”

You may recall that during the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “pandemic,” the FDA granted EUA to the lineup of injections unleashed through Operation Warp Speed. Now, for the first time since COVID, the medical establishment is readying itself for what appears to be the next scamdemic: bird flu.

To ensure that health care systems across the United States are up to date with the codes in their electronic systems, the AMA is updating its CPT system right away “in advance for the potential FDA authorization,” which appears imminent.

“The new CPT code is a vital preparatory step in response to the potential danger to humans from a highly infectious avian influenza disease,” commented AMA President Dr. Bruce A. Scott, M.D.

“A CPT code that clinically distinguishes the avian influenza vaccine allows for data-driven tracking, reporting, and analysis that supports planning, preparedness, and allocation of vaccines in case a public health response is needed for avian flu prevention.”

If Trump wins, a bird flu “pandemic” is likely

Attorney Tom Renz commented on the development after Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom (OAMF) – Ohio is the state where Renz is based – warned that bird flu is more than likely the next scamdemic coming down the pike.

“I expect the next pandemic after Donald Trump gets back into office unless he finds a way to shut it down,” Renz wrote. “That said – can you imagine another plandemic with a Kamala Harris president? No way.”

OAMF noted that the AMA’s CPT codes cover both adults and children who will be expected to take not just a “first” bird flu shot but also “each additional vaccine,” this referring to so-called boosters.

“Mandates will come,” OAMF warned.

Ohio could become the first state in America to pass protective legislation for conscientious and religious objections to adult vaccination, the group further revealed, which is good news for everyone who lives there – but what about the rest of the country?

“This is just further confirmation that the next control pandemic is in route,” OAMF said. “We’re all focused on the election, but we need to pay attention to what they’re doing in the dark!”

Renz also had a few things to say to Elon Musk and the other controllers of X concerning the apparent censorship still taking place on the social media platform.

“Why is it that the pics on this threat keep being hidden and the thread does not appear in any searches for mRNA or elsewhere?” Renz asked after observing what he believed to be shadow-banning and other censorship actions occurring on his thread about all this.

“Obviously it is being discussed and trending but – much like many other items on my feed – the pics are continually suppressed and the post cannot be found in a search. I never get a response and simply do not understand why this keeps happening on a free speech-based platform. Elon Musk is pushing for free speech – is the staff @X listening?”

It looks as though bird flu is scheduled to be the next COVID.

Learn more at Plague.info.

Nearly every American teen has access to a smartphone or tablet and actively uses multiple social media platforms, including TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram. In recent years, the number of social media challenges has skyrocketed and become increasingly dangerous, such as the “Tide pod challenge” and “Benadryl challenge.” Some teens are engaging in risky stunts and even orchestrating events in the real world that pose significant risks to themselves and others—all to get the clicks. 

A 17-year-old Nebraska teenager has been slapped with two felony counts of criminal mischief after he was accused of derailing a BNSF Railway freight train while filming the incident for a YouTube video. 

Here’s more from NBC News:

The 17-year-old was charged in Lancaster County Juvenile Court on Wednesday, but prosecutors have filed a motion to have the case transferred to adult court.

An investigator with BNSF Railway said in court documents that the teenager alerted authorities to the derailment and asked the investigator who arrived what caused the crash.

He is accused of tampering with a rail and causing two locomotives and five loaded BNSF cars to jump the rails in Bennet on April 21.

Under the YouTube account “Capitol City Rail Productions,” the teen uploaded this five-minute video titled “Loaded BNSF Arbor COLLIDES and DERAILS in Bennet, NE! MOST INSANE VIDEO I’VE EVER TAKEN!” 

It’s evident that the title’s wording was crafted in a way to drive clicks on social media.

“Join us as we delve into the dramatic events that unfolded when a falsely set switch altered the course of destiny. Unbeknownst to the crew of the loaded arbor coal train, a parked deflective coal car lay in wait on the wrong track, setting the stage for disaster,” the description in the video read. 

The derailment caused approximately $350,000 in damages after the freight train smashed into an empty coal car, causing two locomotives and five loaded BNSF cars to derail. 

The teen has denied trespassing on the tracks and tampering with the switch. However, investigators wrote in court documents that he knew where the switch was. They also noted a padlock that was supposed to be on the switch was missing.