This year, 22 states are raising their minimum wage, impacting almost 10 million workers across the country.

Many states raise the minimum wage each year to adjust to a cost of living index, while others have raised the pay floor for delivery drivers and fast-food workers. Today, the federal minimum wage stands at $7.25, a rate that has remained the same for 15 years.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows the states with the highest minimum wage in America, based on data from Bloomberg Law.

The Highest Minimum Wages, by State

Here are the states with the highest minimum wage as of January 1, 2024:

1 District of Columbia: Indexes hourly minimum wage rate to inflation

2 New Jersey: Seasonal/small employer with five employees or less= $13.90, agricultural employers= $12.81, long term care facility direct care staff= $18.13

3 New York: New York City, Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties= $16.00

4 Oregon: Indexes hourly minimum wage rate to inflation. Nonurban counties= $13.20, Portland metro= $15.45

The District of Columbia has the highest minimum wage in the country, at $17 an hour.

Next in line is Washington state, where the minimum wage was raised to $16.28 an hour at the start of the year, up from $15.74. Both jurisdictions tie their minimum wage increases to inflation, along with several of the states on this list such as New York, Colorado, and Arizona.

With the largest planned increase nationally, Hawaii is raising its minimum wage to $18 an hour by 2028. Currently, the minimum wage stands at $14 an hour in the Aloha State.

As we can see, many of the top states have minimum wages that are more than double the federal minimum wage, which has declined in real value for many years. For context, the real value of the federal minimum wage hit a peak in 1970, where it would be worth $12.61 today.

California’s New Fast-Food Wage Hike

Fast-food workers in California recently received a pay bump after a new law raised the minimum wage to $20 an hour, $4 more than the state’s minimum wage.

In response, Pizza Hut announced it was laying off over 1,200 delivery drivers, while McDonalds said that it would increase prices in California due to higher wage costs. Other chain operators are reducing hours, while El Pollo Loco plans to automate part of how it makes salsa.

Affecting half a million workers at 33,000 restaurants, the law applies to chains with 60 or more locations across the country, making it the highest minimum wage in America.

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

In one of the most fascinating discussions I’ve had in a while, I spoke last weekend with my friend Andy Schectman about the state of the world, markets, geopolitics and the economy.

What started as a friendly catch-up quickly turned into delving into angles on the state of our nation that I had never before considered — specifically, Andy laying out one theory that started in the 1960’s that could explain the chaos that it appears our economy — and nation — is devolving into.

First, we talked about the bond market, excessive fiscal spending and why gold continues to be the answer. Andy told me: “I think it’s a lot deeper than that, too. I think that we have proven to the rest of the world, largely through weaponizing of the dollar, that if you don’t align ideologically with us, well, that’s even a bigger problem. So, yeah, when you look at what gold has done over the past 25 years, it’s outpaced the bond market, but it doesn’t have the counterparty risk.”

“And I think that’s really the big problem here,” he continued, explaining why he thinks the bond market will eventually lose its footing. “It’s counterparty risk on top of brain-dead monetary policy and as irresponsible a fiscal policy as you could ever imagine. So, yes, I do think it is. And I don’t know if 5% is the line in the sand. I mean, it just seems as though, according to Jim Willey, we can hand money to Ireland and the Caymans and the United Kingdom under the table to continue to, you know, continue the facade, if you will. as to who would be stupid enough to buy any treasuries of maturity, any U.S. bonds of length of maturity, 10-year or greater, who in their right mind would do that?”

Speaking about the Fed potentially cutting rates, Andy said: “Look, I think by cutting, we’ve lost all credibility at that point, complete and total credibility. And I don’t think there is any way that they can lower rates. I really don’t think that there is.”

“And I think there’s nothing but inflation and higher rates ahead of us. But if I had to guess, it will be range bound, you know, just like there was no inflation and then it was transitory and then it was structural, then it was gone, then it was back. It’ll be the same thing here,” he added.

As an example: “Well, the economy is a, you know, the economy is a little bit hotter than it was supposed to be. And also we’re not going to be higher for longer. And, you know, but we’re thinking of lowering and maybe we’ll do two rate cuts by the end of the day. Okay. Maybe one, well, maybe we’re not going to do it. They’re not going to do shit. And I don’t think they really can do much of anything.”

Andy says: “You know, they can’t really raise rates because we have to sell $14 trillion in bonds this year to retire the maturing debt and also pay the current bills. And a lot of this debt’s going to cost far more than the debt it’s replacing, which could lead to even more printing to cover that cost. So you can’t really raise rates.”

Andy then told me about the “Cloward–Piven theory”, which I had never heard of before.

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. The strategy aims to utilize “militant anti poverty groups” to facilitate a “political crisis” by overloading the welfare system via an increase in welfare claims, forcing the creation of a system of guaranteed minimum income and “redistributing income through the federal government”

The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party, Wikipedia notes:

“Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition…Whites – both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few… would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”

Andy laid out how the theory makes all too much sense: “So what is the Fed going to do? Maybe they’re doing what they want to do, and that is to incentivize the reset and not at the hands of Powell or not at the hands of Janet Yellen, even though it really is, but a villain to blame it on. And I mean, I don’t know how else you can explain the stupidity. I mean, you would be a far better president and a far better, you know, head of the Federal Reserve or Treasury Secretary, and I mean that sincerely, I think anyone who listens to this would agree, just because you ooze common sense. Where is the common sense in any of the policy decisions of this government and of this Federal Reserve? Or is it too stupid to be stupid? And I’ll leave that up to you.”

Talking about the Treasury buying back bonds, and how that turns into pure debt monetiazation, Andy added: “They say, ‘And this is gonna happen in the next few days,’ but who will be the entity that will do the buying? Because the treasury is broke. It ain’t gonna be the treasury. So who is it? It’s the New York Fed. And they’re gonna have to conjure up cash to buy those bonds. And while a good portion of the world is shunning our bonds, and for good reason, keeping in mind that we do need to sell almost 14 trillion this year to retire 9 trillion and maturing at higher rates, plus the current bills. You know, who’s going to do it? And this is debt monetization. This is the beginning to Weimar Republic. The Treasury says they’re going to do it, but they’re broke. So it’ll be the Fed that will come up with the cash to do it.”

Finally, we talked about the unrealized gains tax that I wrote about just days ago: Taxing Unrealized Gains Would Obliterate The U.S. Economy

🔥 40% off FOR LIFE: Use this special coupon link and get 40% off an annual subscription, good for as long as you wish to remain a subscriber.

“You know, they’re looking to raise 4.3 trillion over 10 years by imposing the unrealized gain tax. And I thought your comment was brilliant when you said we could save a trillion just by not sending 100 billion a year to other nations for starters, right?”

“If you spend a hundred dollars every second of every day, it would take you almost 2,000 years to equal the 6.2 trillion the U.S. government has spent in just the last 12 months,” Andy said.

“And the point that you bring up about, you know, what would happen, well, the first thing what happens that everyone would sell. And they would sell before the thing got enacted and it would cripple. Think what Nvidia and think of what Bitcoin, all of those unrealized gains, think of the collapsing. And then your point, which I didn’t think about until I read your article, was spot on. These are the people who have enough money. Like I said, ‘fuck it’ to Minnesota. And I left my corporate office there. I left all my friends there. I left, you know, half my family there. And I said, ‘I’m out’ when they lost their mind. when they defunded the police, led the nation’s charge in defunding the police and let the third precinct, of which one of my best friends from childhood was the sergeant there, watched that third precinct burn down on TV. And then the governor had the audacity to raise income taxes to over 10% in Minnesota, for God’s sakes, where you freeze your ass off.”

Talking about the bifurcation of the global economy and China, Andy said: “Little by little, they continue to distance themselves from the system, slowly selling treasuries, slowly accumulating commodities, striking deals all around the world. You know, I focus a lot on precious metals.”

He adds: “Obviously, the Chinese are the biggest buyers of it and producers of it, but it’s not just precious metals. You know, with the Belt Road Initiative and the BRICS, they’re making relationships with all of these countries for everything from rare earths to soft commodities like corn and wheat and soybeans. They’re buying all of that, not from the US and Australia anymore. In fact, they just canceled big contracts with them in favor of buying them from Brazil, paying for it in Yuan, which is immediately convertible into gold on the Shanghai Gold Exchange. I don’t know how many people know this, but the Chinese bought the LME, the London Metals Exchange a few years ago. That’s not the LBMA where the precious metals are traded, but those are all the base metals that you would need to build an economy. And now they are warehousing these metals in China that are traded in London. See, they’re setting the stage and they are buying everything that you need to bust away from a country that’s lost its bearings.”

Andy is the President & Owner of Miles Franklin Precious Metal Investments. Prior to starting Miles Franklin, Ltd. in 1989, Andrew became a Licensed Financial Planner, specializing in Swiss Franc Investments and alternative investments. At Miles Franklin Ltd., a company that has eclipsed $5 billion in sales, Andrew has developed an operation that maintains trust, collaboration, and ethical behavior, superior customer service and satisfaction to better serve their clients. He is responsible for overseeing the firm’s operations and business functions; including strategy and planning, account management, finance, and new business. He is andy@milesfranklin.com on email. 

You can listen to the full interview audio, spanning more than an hour and including much more, here. 

QTR’s Disclaimer: I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR, reprinted under a Creative Commons license or with the permission of the author. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. These positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Via OpenTheBooks substack,

FOUR MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES GAVE $10.3 BILLION TO U.S. COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES!

The civil unrest playing out at America’s elite universities continues to headline the news.

And OpenTheBooks is here to follow the money.

Previously, our reporting broke down the massive taxpayer subsidy of America’s elite universities.

This week, we continued to highlight it in national media.

We found that foreign countries also are providing immense subsidy of the U.S. university.

In fact, more than $44 billion in FOREIGN gifts have been disclosed under the Higher Education Reporting Act since 1986.

Here’s what Mark Tapscott, at PJ Media noted:

“If you aren’t already familiar with OpenTheBooks, you are missing one of the crown jewels of the transparency in government movement…

The facts are front and center, including the reality that the total amount in checks written by the U.S. Treasury and sent to these elite campuses exceeds the income the schools receive in tuition payments.”

Here are some media highlights from the week: 

Yesterday FOX News aired segments of my interview across daytime programming including FOX & Friends and Varney & Co.

Economist Larry Kudlow at FOX Business showcased our oversight of the elite universities on the air and in his column.

My interview on The National Desk by Sinclair Broadcast, owners of nearly 200 ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX local stations across America, broke down all the numbers:

INTERVIEW: AMERICAN COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES MUST BE UNABASHEDLY “AMERICAN!”

Here is just a sample of our findings: 

• $10.3 billion given by Qatar ($5.2 billion), Saudi Arabia ($3 billion), United Arab Emeritus ($1.3 billion) and Kuwait ($800 million) dwarfed China who gave $2.8 billion.   

• During the past 40 years $1 of every $4 of foreign gifts into U.S. colleges and universities flowed from these four countries.

• Are these countries buying seats in our elite schools? Our auditors found millions of dollars in restricted gifts paying the tuition bills for their students.  

Columbia, Harvard, Yale and other elite universities are turning out graduates who believe that open antisemitism and the championing of terrorism are forms of “social justice.”

Congress should convene hearings to preserve our top schools as unabashedly “American” institutions. 

Authored by Owen Ashworth via The Mises Institute,

It is the waning days of the Sunak premiership, and the Conservative party still has a stonking majority despite its cataclysmic capitulation in the polls. The government is effectively a lame duck; everyone knows it has no support, yet it will still be around for a few more months. One would think that since the Conservative party still has a large majority in the House of Commons that it would let loose with policy and attempt real reform so that the MPs have something to take to the people when election time begins.

The Conservative party could radically reform the housing sector so that young people do not turn their backs even more on the free market, they could be tackling NHS reform so our healthcare could match, or even surpass, international standards. Alas, it chose the path that states around the world naturally desire: more state intervention.

The prime minister has decided to go on a crusade against smoking! The government passed its legislation that effectively bans smoking for those born after 2009. The government says it is doing this to reduce the burden on the NHS, billions of pounds will be saved in the long run due to fewer people developing smoking related illnesses. The NHS needs saving so the conservatives are standing their defense of the legislation on the grounds they know are extremely popular amongst the electorate. Perhaps this is the perfect encapsulation of how MPs being guided by public opinion necessitates creation of bad policy.

Members of Parliament from all political parties voted for the legislation showing bipartisanship is alive and well. MPs scrambled to save the NHS and the government’s reasoning that this legislation saves the NHS billions is magnificent PR for all parties. There is a bigger matter at stake here, bodily autonomy. You own yourself, and this is indisputable. Thus, you can put whatever you like in your body as long as it does not harm anybody else. I will return later why this applies to smoking despite it seemingly violating the rule I have set out through the creation of second-hand smoke. If the sole reasoning behind running roughshod over one’s bodily autonomy is to save the NHS billions of pounds, then this logic raises absolutely zero issues with a rather uncomfortable number of crazy policies.

Obesity is becoming a major health issue in the UK, particularly in children, it will undoubtedly cost the NHS billions of pounds to treat these people once they get to an age where the massive medical issues become prevalent. To save the NHS, we should force feed these people a healthy diet so they lose the weight and do not develop costly obesity related diseases. In fact, we should force feed everyone a healthy and balanced diet so a myriad of other diet related health issues does not cost the NHS billions in treatment.

You see how this is nutty right? They would clearly object to these policies but there is nothing in their own logic telling them it is wrong. This means the matter of bodily autonomy to them is a completely arbitrary one, there is no limit except one they “feel” is just about right. Bodily autonomy is not an arbitrary matter; you either own yourself or you don’t. There can be no in-between unless you want to take the massive risk of going down a dystopian path where bodily autonomy is slowly chipped away until you have none left, since it is entirely arbitrary for our politicians to decide. State policy should never be decided based on a completely incoherent, inconsistent and arbitrary view on your right to self-ownership.

Reason Magazine does an amazing series titled “Great Moments in Unintended Consequences”. Readers should watch a few of their videos in that series because they illustrate how the law of unintended consequences can create some absolutely wild outcomes. It also relates to the smoking ban. The government has been slowly restricting smoking over the years until its now becoming a full-fledged ban where it is entirely realistic to say that in 30 years there may be very few people who can legally smoke. The UK had not even reached the stage of a complete ban before the vaping market exploded.

While this is anecdotal, I have witnessed how the development of the vaping market has meant that people who I thought would never touch that stuff have happily accepted vaping as part of their life. Vaping is becoming something of an epidemic amongst young people who would never have smoked normal cigarettes but the government has slowly restricted the market for normal cigarettes, creating the market for vapes. Obviously, the government did not intend to create the perfect storm for such an unintended consequence, yet it has done just that and we will not know for years if the storm will make landfall and destroy any of the savings accumulated from the smoking ban through health issues created by excessive vaping.

The law of unintended consequences is well-established, yet state actors will never connect the dots that lead to the problems. It is also quite amusing (but incredibly revealing about the level of thought our leaders do) to hear from contributors to the Politics Live daily show that they want to heavily restrict vaping too! They even acknowledge that mass vaping is an unintended consequence of the restrictions on smoking, but their solution is to further restrict vaping because, presumably, they will get it right this time with no further unintended consequences.

Returning to how we should deal with second hand smoke. This is a problem entirely perpetuated by the state. Any of the public areas that the state purports to own are havens for smokers who know there will be no private citizen who can legally tell them to stop. If public property did not exist, then private owners could either choose to accept or refuse smokers who will create second hand smoke on their property. That way, individuals would clearly know which route to take and what establishments allow smoking and refuse to allow smoking.

The conception of public property supported through our current system allows for actions that some people do not approve of with no restriction. If all property were private, then we could easily control the actions we wish to approve or disapprove. Smokers can frequent those dark and cloudy bars that are ever-present in some of our favorite classic films while those who do not wish to have any relation to such activity can completely avoid those establishments. Clear, coherent private property law shifts the choices about second hand smoke to individuals instead of taking it away from them.

The smoking ban is an entirely ludicrous policy. To add one last dash of inconsistency to the mix, the government also wants to reduce the burden on police for events they describe as “non-police demands.” The logic is the exact same for the smoking ban but the legislation will be incredibly costly to enforce so it is just going to lead to demands for more funding for the police as they need extra resources to deal with the extra workload now heaped on them by this legislation; the inconsistency is alarming.

Rishi Sunak could have gone to his government, acknowledged that he will most likely lose the next election and decide to fight for what really matters but alas, he chose to be a spineless individual and further drive us down the slippery slope towards zero bodily autonomy. Even his own reasoning for the ban perfectly captures the pitiful level of thought that goes into his (along with many other members of the government, including most other political parties) decisions. The smoking ban should clearly magnify to everyone the state of our supposed political leaders and how intellectually shallow they really are.

Trump has long touted on the campaign trail that he can stop the Ukraine war in 24 hours while taking shots a Biden’s inability to oversee a negotiation that would ultimately end the war.

The Daily Telegraph is now reporting, citing an unnamed source who is said to be close to the former president and current GOP frontrunner going into the November election, that Trump has developed a detailed plan for achieving Ukraine peace.

“There is a plan, but he’s not going to debate it with cable news networks because then you lose all leverage,” the source said.

Below is the section of the Friday Telegraph report which previews the plan: 

A source close to the Trump campaign has told The Telegraph that a detailed Ukraine-Russia peace plan has been drawn up but will not yet be disclosed in any detail before his in an effort to maintain leverage.

Mr Trump will style himself as the only candidate who can end the war, with a simple “bumper-sticker” slogan, they said.

“He wants to stop the killing,” said the source. “That’s the bumper sticker: Trump will stop the killing.”

Last month a Washington Post report claimed that key to Trump’s plan would be pressuring Kiev to permanently give up Crimea and part of the Donbas to the Russians.

The Post had cited aides who said the plan is to push for “Ukraine to cede Crimea and Donbas border region to Russia” in return for an end the Russian occupation and invasion.

But the truth is that at the very least Kiev would have to forever relinquish claims of sovereignty over Crimea. Moscow is also never going to let go to the four annexed territories in the east.

But Trump had slammed the apparently premature report as “fake news”. At the time a statement from the Trump campaign said “The whole thing is fake news from the Washington Post. They’re just making it up.” Spokesman Jason Miller did emphasize, however, that “President Trump is the only one talking about stopping the killing. Joe Biden is talking about more killing.”

Meanwhile, things on the battlefield are making it increasingly clear that Ukraine may soon have no other option. The country’s military and intelligence leadership also appears to be coming around to the hard reality that it will have to surrender territory, or else continue suffering massive losses and ceded ground. The Telegraph writes in its fresh report:

Ukraine is preparing for peace talks with Russia as there is “no way to win on the battlefield alone”, Kyiv’s deputy spy chief has said.

Maj Gen Vadym Skibitsky, the deputy head of Ukraine’s HUR military intelligence agency, said both sides were currently vying for “the most favorable position” ahead of possible negotiations in 2025.

As with virtually all wars, negotiations will likely be the final stage of the conflict, he told the Economist.

Yet President Zelensky himself has yet to echo this perspective. Instead he’s currently urging the West for more and more advanced weapons, and talking about “ten year defense” plans ensured by the US and Kiev’s backers.

He has further recently said that if Ukraine ever hopes to formally join NATO, it must ‘win’ against Russia – which at this point seems in the realm of fantasy. The White House has so far done nothing to dispel this fantasy, but has instead encouraged it.

Russian state media had captured and translated key lines of Zelensky’s address. “I believe that we will be in NATO only if we win. I don’t think that we will be admitted […] during the war,” Zelensky had said during a meeting with officers. Ukrainian sources also confirmed the remarks.

Authored by Alastair Crooke via the Ron Paul Institute,

Theodore Postol, Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at MIT, has provided a forensic analysis of the videos and evidence emerging from Iran’s 13th April swarm drone and missile ‘demonstration’ attack into Israel: A ‘message’, rather than an ‘assault’.

The leading Israeli daily, Yediot Ahoronot, has estimated the cost of attempting to down this Iranian flotilla at between $2-3 billion dollars. The implications of this single number are substantial.

Professor Postol writes:

“This indicates that the cost of defending against waves of attacks of this type is very likely to be unsustainable against an adequately armed and determined adversary”.

“The videos show an extremely important fact: All of the targets, whether drones or not, are shot down by air-to-air missiles”, [fired from mostly U.S. aircraft. Some 154 aircraft reportedly were aloft at the time] likely firing AIM-9x Sidewinder air to air missiles. The cost of a single Sidewinder air-to-air missile is about $500,000”.

Furthermore:

“The fact that a very large number of unengaged ballistic missiles could be seen glowing as they reenter the atmosphere to lower altitudes [an indication of hyper-speed], indicates that whatever the effects of [Israel’s] David’s Sling and the Arrow missile defenses, they were not especially effective. Thus, the evidence at this point shows that essentially all or most of the arriving long-range ballistic missiles were not intercepted by any of the Israeli air and missile-defense systems”.

Postel adds, “I have analyzed the situation, and have concluded that commercially available optical and computational technology is more than capable of being adapted to a cruise missile guidance system to give it very high precision homing capability … it is my conclusion that the Iranians have already developed precision guided cruise missiles and drones”.

“The implications of this are clear. The cost of shooting down cruise missiles and drones will be very high and might well be unsustainable unless extremely inexpensive and effective anti-air systems can be implemented. At this time, no one has demonstrated a cost-effective defense system that can intercept ballistic missiles with any reliability”.

Just to be clear, Postol is saying that neither the U.S. nor Israel has more than a partial defense to a potential attack of this nature – especially as Iran has dispersed and buried its ballistic missile silos across the entire terrain of Iran under the control of autonomous units which are capable of continuing a war, even were central command and communications to be completely lost.

This amounts to paradigm change – clearly for Israel, for one. The huge physical expenditure on air defense ordinance – 2-3 billion dollars worth – will not be repeated willy-nilly by the U.S. Netanyahu will not easily persuade the U.S. to engage with Israel in any joint venture against Iran, given these unsustainable air-defence costs.

But also, as a second important implication, these Air Defense assets are not just expensive in dollar terms, they simply are not there: i.e. the store cupboard is near empty! And the U.S. lacks the manufacturing capacity to replace these not particularly effective, high cost platforms speedily.

‘Yes, Ukraine’ … the Middle East paradigm interlinks directly with the Ukraine paradigm where Russia has succeeded in destroying so much of the western supplied, air-defence capabilities in Ukraine, giving Russia near complete air dominance over the skies.

Positioning scarce air defense ‘to save Israel’ therefore, exposes Ukraine (and slows the U.S. pivot to China, too). And given the recent passage of the funding Bill for Ukraine in Congress, clearly air defence assets are a priority for sending to Kiev – where the West looks increasingly trapped and rummaging for a way out that does not lead to humiliation.

But before leaving the Middle East paradigm shift, the implications for Netanyahu are already evident: He must therefore focus back to the ‘near enemy’ – the Palestinian sphere or to Lebanon – to provide Israel with the ‘Great Victory’ that his government craves.

In short, the ‘cost’ for Biden of saving Israel from the Iranian flotilla which had been pre-announced by Iran to be demonstrative and not destructive nor lethal is that the White House must put-up with the corollary – an attack on Rafah. But this implies a different form of cost – an electoral erosion through exacerbating domestic tensions arising from the on-going blatant slaughter of Palestinians.

It is not just Israel that bears the weight of the Iranian paradigm shift. Consider the Sunni Arab States that have been working in various forms of collaboration (normalissation) with Israel.

In the event of wider conflict embracing Iran, clearly Israel cannot protect them – as Professor Postol so clearly shows. And can they count on the U.S.? The U.S. faces competing demands for its scarce Air Defenses and (for now) Ukraine, and the pivot to China, are higher on the White House priority ladder.

In September 2019, the Saudi Abqaiq oil facility was hit by cruise missiles, which Postol notes, “had an effective accuracy of perhaps a few feet, much more precise than could be achieved with GPS guidance (suggesting an optical and computational guidance system, giving a very precise homing capability)”.

So, after the Iranian active deterrence paradigm shift, and the subsequent Air Defence depletion paradigm shock, the putative coming western paradigm shift (the Third Paradigm) is similarly interlinked with Ukraine.

For the western proxy war with Russia centered on Ukraine has made one thing abundantly clear: this is that the West’s off-shoring of its manufacturing base has left it uncompetitive, both in simple trade terms, and secondly, in limiting western defense manufacturing capacity. It finds (post-13 April) that it does not have the Air Defence assets to go round: ‘saving Israel’; ‘saving Ukraine’ and preparing for war with China.

The western maximalization of shareholder returns model has not adapted readily to the logistical needs of the present ‘limited’ Ukraine/Russia war, let alone provided positioning for future wars – with Iran and China.

Put plainly, this ‘late stage’ global imperialism has been living a ‘false dawn’: With the economy shifting from manufacturing ‘things’, to the more lucrative sphere of imagining new financial products (such as derivatives) that make a lot of money quickly, but which destabilize society (through increasing disparities of wealth); and which ultimately, de-stabilise the global system itself (as the World Majority states recoil from the loss of sovereignty and autonomy that financialism entails).

More broadly, the global system is close to massive structural change. As the Financial Times warns,

“the U.S. and EU cannot embrace national-security “infant industry” arguments, seize key value chains to narrow inequality, and break the fiscal and monetary ‘rules’, while also using the IMF and World Bank – and the economics profession– to preach free-market best practice to EM ex-China. And China can’t expect others not to copy what it does”. As the FT concludes, “the shift to a new economic paradigm has begun. Where it will end is very much up for grabs.”

‘Up for grabs’: Well, for the FT the answer may be opaque, but for the Global Majority is plain enough – “We’re going back to basics”: A simpler, largely national economy, protected from foreign competition by customs barriers. Call it ‘old- fashioned’ (the concepts have been written about for the last 200 years); yet it is nothing extreme. The notions simply reflect the flip side of the coin to Adam Smith’s doctrines, and that which Friedrich List advanced in his critique of the laissez-faire individualist approach of the Anglo-Americans.

‘European leaders’, however, see the economic paradigm solution differently:

“The ECB’s Panetta gave a speech echoing Mario Draghi’s call for “radical change”: He stated for the EU to thrive it needs a de facto national-security focused POLITICAL economy centered around: reducing dependence on foreign demand; enhancing energy security (green protectionism); advancing production of technology (industrial policy); rethinking participation in global value chains (tariffs/subsidies); governing migration flows (so higher labour costs); enhancing external security (huge funds for defence); and joint investments in European public goods (via Eurobonds … to be bought by ECB QE)”.

The ‘false dawn’ boom in U.S. financial services began as its industrial base was rotting away, and as new wars began to be promoted. It is easy to see that the U.S. economy now needs structural change. Its real economy has become globally uncompetitive – hence Yellen’s call on China to curb its over-capacity which is hurting western economies.

But is it realistic to think that Europe can manage a relaunch as a ‘defense and national security-led political economy’, as Draghi and Panetta advocate as a continuation of war with Russia? Launched from near ground zero?

Is it realistic to think that the American Security State will allow Europe to do this, having deliberately reduced Europe to economic vassalage through causing it to abandon its prior business model based on cheap energy and selling high-end engineering products to China?

This Draghi-ECB plan represents a huge structural change; one that would take a decade or two to implement and would cost trillions. It would occur too, at a time of inevitable European fiscal austerity. Is there evidence that ordinary Europeans support such radical structural change?

Why then is Europe pursuing a path that embraces huge risks – one that potentially could drag Europe into a whirlpool of tensions ending in war with Russia?

For one main reason: The EU leadership held hubristic ambitions to turn the EU into a ‘geo-political’ empire – a global actor with the heft to join the U.S. at Top Table. To this end, the EU unreservedly offered itself as the auxiliary of the White House Team for their Ukraine project, and acquiesced to the entry price of emptying their armories and sanctioning the cheap energy on which the economy depended.

It was this decision that has been de-industrializing Europe; that has made what remains of a real economy uncompetitive and triggered the inflation that is undermining living standards. Falling into line with Washington’s failing Ukraine project has released a cascade of disastrous decisions by the EU.

Were this policy line to change, Europe could revert to what it was: a trading association formed of diverse sovereign states. Many Europeans would settle for that: Placing the focus on making Europe competitive again; making Europe a diplomatic actor, rather than as a military actor.

The CIA is engaged in an “infinite race” with China when it comes to AI and other top technologies, according to the agency’s Chief Technology Officer, Nand Mulchandani, who outlined a strategy that prioritizes technological prowess as crucial to national security.

Speaking at the Hill & Valley Forum’s gathering of top technology and government officials in Washington this week, Mulchandani’s made it clear that the agency is aggressively pursuing advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) to bolster both offensive and defensive capabilities, the Washington Times reports.

“We’re looking at transforming every single part of what the agency does,” he stated, underscoring the depth of the CIA’s commitment to integrating AI into its core operations. The agency’s push includes the development of large language models, sophisticated algorithms that are the backbone of generative AI tools, aiming to enhance everything from field operations to analytical and support functions.

This strategic pivot comes as geopolitical rivalry with China is intensifying. The CCP has repeatedly expressed its ambition to dominate the AI sphere, which would present profound challenges and implications for global power dynamics. Mulchandani emphasized the need to rethink the concept of this competition as a “race,” suggesting that viewing it as having a definitive end is a misstep. “This is an infinite race. This is not going to stop. It’s going to keep on going,” he explained, framing the scenario as a continuous struggle for technological superiority.

The implications of this shift are profound. If the deployment of these new tools escalates to warfare, it will test America’s position in the technology stakes, a scenario Mulchandani hopes will never materialize. He predicts the next major conflict will be “primarily a software war,” driven by AI, changing the nature of warfare from hardware-dependent to software-driven.

The concerns are not just theoretical. At Stanford’s Hoover Institution, Herbert Lin of the Stanford Emerging Technology Review highlighted the shift in global tech leadership, with the U.S. losing its primacy in certain key areas like AI. Lin pointed out the critical need for a robust talent pipeline and a strategic vision, especially in fields like biotechnology, to maintain competitiveness.

Moreover, the CIA is particularly wary of AI-driven Ubiquitous Technical Surveillance (UTS), which threatens the secrecy of U.S. intelligence operations. In response, the agency is engaged in foundational infrastructure work, which Mulchandani described as the “sewer and plumbing work” necessary to navigate the AI revolution. This involves constant adaptation to rapid technological changes, ensuring that the CIA remains agile in its tech tactics.

“We talk about UTS, which is basically something that’s really, really killing us out in the field in terms of competitively, you know, biometrics, video cameras,” he said. “Well, how do we turn it around [and continue] those operations in the face of this much AI being thrown at us is another big area that they’re looking at. So directorate by directorate, we’re rethinking, reshaping every part of what CIA needs to do in the face of using it and deploying it.“

The urgency of these initiatives is echoed in the broader governmental plea for collaboration from Silicon Valley. House Speaker Mike Johnson’s call to technologists and venture capitalists at the forum to guide and assist the government underscores the critical role of public-private partnerships in navigating the technological labyrinth.

As the U.S. and China continue their relentless pursuit of technological dominance, the narrative is clear: this is not a sprint with a finish line but a marathon without end, defining the future of global power, security, and technological innovation.

Big Mike Begs

No, not that Big Mike… House Speaker Mike Johnson (R?-LA), who implored the technologists and venture capitalists at the forum to help the government wherever they can.

“There are not many industries, not many leaders and experts, who we just openly plead for your counsel, but I am doing that here today,” said Johnson. “Because a lot of the people who are of goodwill here, who want to do the right thing, could use some of your guidance along the way to make sure that we don’t step on any land mines that we don’t see. You have a much better vision, I think, on a lot of that than we do.”

Days ago, for the first time Russian forces mounted a major air attack on the Ukrainian command’s southern headquarters in the port city of Odessa. This suggests Moscow is increasingly targeting Ukraine’s top command and control centers.

There’s been another key development late in the week suggesting Russia is escalating in response to more and more weapons and billions pouring into Kiev from the West: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has just been added to a Russian government most-wanted list of criminals.

It was revealed Saturday that Zelensky’s name is now on the Russian Interior Ministry’s “wanted” list, which is an important online database. 

The database lists Zelensky as wanted “under an article of the criminal code” but provides no other specifics or details. This designation comes after well over two years of war, so the question is: why now?

It seems the Kremlin is signaling a new escalation which could focus on ‘decapitation strikes’ targeting Ukraine’s top leadership. Or else, is Russia establishing a legal ground for arresting him in some future scenario?

While command and intelligence HQ’s have been hit by Russian airpower in the past, strikes have yet to directly target top-ranking civilian and military leadership. But it seems this is about to change.

President Putin has for years demonstrated that he is very law-oriented and ‘by the book’ – that is, he must have a legal basis or rationale for acting. So Zelensky now personally being designated as ‘wanted’ perhaps provides the ‘rationale’ in a sense, from the Kremlin’s perspective.

The anti-Kremlin independent news outlet Moscow Times suggests this sets the stage for new plots to try and assassinate Zelensky: 

The Ukrainian President said last year he was aware that at least “five or six” assassination attempts against him had been foiled.

The day after sending troops into Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an address to the nation in which he called on the Ukrainian army to overthrow Zelensky.

Russia has placed several foreign politicians and public figures on its wanted list, which has tens of thousands of entries.

As for Russia’s unrelenting and recently stepped-up aerial campaign, it has continued to pummel and degrade Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. This appears a tit-for-tat retaliation for Ukraine’s own devastating cross-border attacks on Russian oil depots and refineries. 

A fresh Russian Defense Ministry (MoD) statement has outlined that “In the past 7 days, the Russian Armed Forces carried out 25 group strikes via precision weapons and drones, hitting Ukrainian energy and transportation infrastructure facilities and Ukrainian military-industrial complex enterprises.”

Zelensky is now officially WANTED by Russia!

At least that’s what the database for Russia’s MVD (Ministry of Internal Affairs–basically, police) states: Zelensky is wanted under an undisclosed article of the Russian criminal code.

An interesting development to say the least.… pic.twitter.com/FS8tdWAJxt

— Nina 🐙 Byzantina (@NinaByzantina) May 4, 2024

“Between April 28 and May 4, in response to the Kiev regime’s attempts to inflict damage to Russian energy and industrial facilities, the Russian Armed Forces carried out 25 group strikes via precision weapons and drones, hitting Ukrainian energy and transportation infrastructure facilities, military-industrial complex enterprises, missile and ammunition storage areas, as well as unmanned speedboats and drone manufacturing workshops,” the ministry said.

The MoD has also warned that any “mercenary” positions and also foreign military equipment will be specifically targeted. There are reports that Ukraine has had to pull back it US-supplied M1 Abrams tanks precisely because they make for such an attractive target.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Approximately half of the health care workers in a Polish study were found to be averse to taking COVID-19 booster shots, with one of the reasons for this hesitancy being their negative experiences with previous vaccinations.

The peer-reviewed study, published in the Vaccines journal on April 29, examined factors underlying “hesitancy to receive COVID-19 booster vaccine doses” among health care workers (HCW) in Poland. Almost 50 percent of the participants were identified as being wary of the boosters. “Our study found that 42 percent of the HCWs were hesitant about the second booster dose, while 7 percent reported no intent to get vaccinated with any additional doses.”

“As reasons for not vaccinating, participants most frequently highlighted lack of time, negative experiences with previous vaccinations, and immunity conferred by past infections.”

The study involved 69 healthcare workers composed of nurses, midwives, physicians, other health associate professionals, and administrative staff.

At the time of enrollment, 47 had a history of lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection and 31 had at least one comorbidity, a situation where a person suffers from more than one disease or medical condition at the same time.

Over 92 percent of study participants received at least one vaccine booster, with 50.73 percent getting two doses. Five out of the 69 HCWs did not take any boosters.

“Booster hesitancy among health professionals (physicians, nurses, and midwives) was lower than among administrative staff and others. Almost 79 percent of the physicians had received two COVID-19 vaccine booster doses. However, apart from physicians, about half of the HCWs from each occupation group were hesitant about the second booster dose.”

“The highest number of HCWs without any vaccine boosters was observed among administration personnel.”

HCWs in the age groups of 31-40 and 41-50 were found to be the most skeptical about taking the second booster shot. Thirty-four out of the 69 HCWs provided reasons for their COVID-19 booster vaccine hesitancy.

Two of the health care workers who did not take booster shots said their decision was based on their personal experience with the vaccines.

“They reported negative experiences with past COVID-19 vaccination and stated that the natural immunity developed after SARS-CoV-2 infection could protect them against COVID-19, which, overall, does not pose serious health risks,” the study said.

“Responses from HCWs who received only one COVID-19 booster dose can be categorized into two themes: (i) influences arising from personal perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine and disease prevention and (ii) issues directly related to vaccination and its safety.”

Six health care workers reported suffering negative adverse effects after previously taking COVID shots. Four had safety concerns about the vaccines.

In an earlier study conducted by the researchers, COVID-19 antibody levels among HCWs after receiving the mandatory primary vaccine series were found to have decreased by around 90 to 95 percent within seven months of vaccination. However, “none of the HCWs contracted COVID-19,” it said.

The current study was funded by the Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry Polish Academy of Sciences. The authors of the study reported no conflicts of interest.

Vaccine Concerns, Harms

Other studies have also explored vaccine hesitancy among health care workers. A March 2023 study that looked at HCWs from Cameroon and Nigeria found that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was “high and broadly determined by the perceived risk of COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines on personal health, mistrust in COVID-19 vaccines, and uncertainty about colleagues’ vaccine acceptability.”

An April 2022 study found that “a concern for vaccine side effects” and “the belief that the vaccines are inadequately studied” were some of the key reasons for vaccine hesitancy among health care workers.

A May 2022 analysis at BMJ Global Health warned that indulging in policies like mandatory vaccination “may cause more harm than good.”

“Current mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good,” it said.

“Current policies may lead to a widening of health and economic inequalities, detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduce the uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines as well as routine immunizations.”

The analysis recommended that vaccines should only be mandated “sparingly and carefully to uphold ethical norms and trust in institutions.”

During Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-Wis.) roundtable discussion on COVID-19 vaccines on Feb. 26, researcher Raphael Lataster, associate lecturer at the University of Sydney, claimed that data from Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials exaggerated the efficacy of the shots.

The data exaggeration could make an ineffective vaccine have a perceived effectiveness of up to 48 percent, he stated.

Meanwhile, a Jan. 27 narrative review found that repeated COVID-19 vaccination may end up boosting the likelihood of experiencing COVID-19 infections and other pathologies. Taking multiple vaccine doses could trigger higher levels of IgG4 antibodies and impair activating white blood cells that protect a person from infections and cancers.

“While booster doses have been recommended to enhance and extend immunity, especially in the face of emerging variants, this recommendation is not based on proven efficacy, and the side effects have been neglected,” the paper said.

In an interview with EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program last year, clinical pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole said that DNA contamination in some of the COVID-19 vaccines could be behind an increase in cancers. He pointed to “turbo cancers,” referring to the phenomenon of cancer symptoms arising faster.

“Now I’m seeing the solid tissue cancers at rates I’ve never seen … Patients that were stable, or cancer-free for one, two, five, ten years and their cancer’s back, it’s back with a vengeance and it’s not responding to the traditional therapies,” he said.

Friday night’s ZeroHedge Debate explored which is the superior asset: Gold or Bitcoin.

Arguing in favor of Gold were investor Peter Schiff and NYU economist Nouriel Roubini, who went toe-to-toe with crypto proponents Erik Voorhees, a cryptocurrency entrepreneur and wealth manager Anthony Scaramucci.

Schiff made the case that Bitcoin cannot be a viable currency because “money needs to be a commodity” and that Bitcoin has no inherent value.

“It’s not just a unit of account and a medium of exchange. It needs to be a store of value,” he added.

“[Bitcoin] is no more ‘digital gold’ than if I create an image of a hamburger on a computer screen. That’s not digital food.”

Does Bitcoin’s transferability give it value?

Voorhees argued that Bitcoin’s ability to seamlessly cross borders is an example of inherent value.

“I can send $1 million to Europe in five minutes from my phone.”

As things heated up, Roubini echoed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), suggesting that crypto could be exchanged between a “criminal and a terrorist” and that Bitcoin’s transferability allows for the subversion of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know-Your-Customer (KYC) laws.

He blasted Voorhees for being too idealistic.

“Live in your Libertarian cave! That’s not the world we live in.”

Voorhees then gave his best impression of Socrates, attempting to dissect Roubini’s argument that Bitcoin is not “decentralized.”

Roubini, meanwhile, made the case that Bitcoin mining is controlled by an oligopoly, and that “The Gini coefficient of Bitcoin is worse than North Korea,” – a point he’s made in the past, suggesting that Bitcoin contributes to income inequality, rather than reducing it.

One topic the panelists agreed on: inflation is crushing the work class.

According to Schiff, “there’s only one source of inflation and that’s government.”

So, who do you think won?

If you would like to protect yourself from rising inflation, consider checking out this debate’s sponsors: Preserve Gold and Bitlayer Labs. ZeroHedge would like to offer a special thank you to each of them for helping to facilitate free speech and open debate.