74.2 F
Chicago
Wednesday, September 9, 2026
type here...
Home Blog Page 43

“This Is Crazy” – FTC Chair Responds To Soaring Chip Costs, Floats Possible Antitrust Action

survivalnomics
-
0
“This Is Crazy” – FTC Chair Responds To Soaring Chip Costs, Floats Possible Antitrust Action

We’ve covered soaring “chipflation” for months and the trend does not seem to be abating. Nvidia is reportedly informing its largest customers to expect price hikes of at least 15% for next year, possibly to set expectations of a still larger move upward… and meanwhile the semi component in the PPI looks like a 2021 memecoin:

All this has earned the attention of FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, who apparently enjoys building his own personal computers. In an interview last week in Aspen, Ferguson said he was floored by the recent explosion in prices.

“I build my own desktops at home mostly for fun, and a year ago, I decided that my rig needed to be updated, and I was like, ‘Oh well, you know, RAM is pretty cheap right now, maybe I’ll do that.’ And then the job got busy, and I was like, ‘I’ll take a look at this later.’ In six months, I looked at RAM prices and went, ‘Oh my God, I’m not building this right now. This is crazy.’”

As we covered last month, consumer electronics across the board are forecasting price hikes in the double digits, with Samsung tablets and Xbox consoles expected to increase by 20-25% by next year, per Haver Analytics. On this topic, Ferguson added that he “[does not] want consumers to have to pay way more for chips than they have to for all sorts of other applications, including the phones that we have cast all about us.”

And just yesterday, Amazon announced 60% price hikes for its major hardware products, blaming the chip shortage.

In April, Senator Bernie Moreno, who represents many car manufacturers in Ohio, wrote to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick asking the government to restrict chip exports to increase domestic supplies, citing concern that the American auto industry won’t be able to compete on the global market due to “higher prices and supply delays” of chips.

FTC Chair Ferguson floated the idea of using antitrust measures to crack down on some of the chip giants, in an effort to “focus on the meat and potatoes” of what’s fueling the broader AI-related inflation crisis.

“That we can do,” he said when asked about whether his agency could intervene. “That’s just ordinary industrial organization economics and antitrust,”

FTC chair Andrew Ferguson (right) sat down with CNBC’s Brian Sullivan last week at the Technology Policy Institute’s Aspen summit.

“We know when consolidation there becomes dangerous. We know when agreements are likely to raise prices or reduce competition or cut off innovation, as opposed to trying to get out in front of the AI developers,” Ferguson continued. “It would be insane for a regulator to say, ‘I know where it’s going, and I’m going to make predictive regulatory choices on that basis.’ But further back in the supply chain, that we can apply ordinary antitrust to.”

Pressed on a hypothetical merger between Nvidia and chip designer ARM, the chairman appeared to issue a soft warning.

“I think if Nvidia and ARM were to merge, we would have to take a very careful look at that,” Ferguson said. “That is antitrust enforcer speak for, you know, we would have concerns.”

Ferguson said earlier in the conversation that keeping AI’s raw inputs competitive is his top antitrust priority.

“I want to make sure that the markets for the inputs for AI remain competitive. I don’t want there to develop overnight sudden bottleneck monopolies in the inputs for AI that deprive downstream users of the benefits of competition because someone upstream in the supply chain gets to jack up everyone’s prices because it’s enjoying a monopoly and maintaining it illegally,” he said.

Some foreign chip makers are already under fire for potential collusion and price fixing.

In June, a class action lawsuit was filed against the three dominant DRAM makers – South Korea’s Samsung and SK Hynix and America’s Micron. The lawsuit alleges that the three companies, which control ~90% of the DRAM semiconductor, have conspired to restrict the supply of memory and have driven prices up 697% compounded by 2022 to 2026. The lawsuit alleges all three companies had simultaneous production cuts and have not expanded supply despite record prices.

The lawsuit notes: “DRAM is embedded in virtually every electronic device manufactured today. When Defendants coordinate to restrict DRAM supply and inflate prices, the cost increase is passed through to consumers across every one of these product categories—smartphones, PCs, gaming consoles, servers, automobiles, and consumer electronics. No device category escapes the impact.”

If found guilty, it wouldn’t be the first time.

In the mid-2000s, Samsung and Hynix pleaded guilty to fixing DRAM prices. Samsung paid a whopping $300 million fine, the second largest criminal antitrust fine in U.S. history at the time.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/26/2026 – 10:00

Meta Settles With US States For $16.7 Billion Over Social Media Harms To Children

survivalnomics
-
0
Meta Settles With US States For $16.7 Billion Over Social Media Harms To Children

Meta Platforms has reached a $16.7 billion settlement to resolve a landmark claim brought by several states that the company designed Instagram and Facebook to addict children, improperly collected children’s personal data, and misled consumers about their safety. 

The deal was in a Wednesday court filing in California after a lawsuit was brought by 29 states – with attorneys for  Colorado, California, New Jersey and Kentucky – leading the group. The states argued that features like infinite scroll were purposely engineered to keep young users hooked, that Meta misled the public about the safety of its platforms for adolescents, and that the company improperly collected and monetized children’s personal data in violation of federal law.

As part of the settlement, Meta must implement daily usage limits and ‘nighttime blocks’ for teenagers who use the company’s apps like Facebook and Instagram, as well as “enhanced age assurance measures” that would prevent children from using them, and also providing parents with additional tools, CNBC reports.

Additionally, Meta is tying another $5.3 billion of the settlement to Google and TikTok adopting similar teen safety measures – cutting default teen time limits from 2 hours to 1 hour per day. 

The attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming joined the settlement.

Prior to the settlement, Meta warned that maximum statutory penalties could theoretically reach $1.4 trillion, while the attorneys general have indicated they may seek around $200 billion. That said, the company still faces thousands of lawsuits filed by school districts and individual plaintiffs alleging harms from social media. 

While shares spiked as much as 5% premarket on the news, the move was quickly reversed at market open.

h ttps://x.com/TrwendSpider/status/2092360371138932969?s=202

Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/26/2026 – 09:19

Oil Extends Decline As Rubio Rules Out New Strikes, Iran-Oman Transit Deal Nears Finalization

survivalnomics
-
0
Oil Extends Decline As Rubio Rules Out New Strikes, Iran-Oman Transit Deal Nears Finalization

An IRGC spokesman has announced Wednesday that Iran and Oman have reached agreements on their share of the Strait of Hormuz and its revenues, according toTasnim news agency. So essentially the “fee” scheme has been set. There’s talk of reopening the strait on an “interim” basis, Bloomberg says.

“We entered into negotiations with Oman about a month ago and have reached results that have been accepted by both sides,” the official said. “Agreements have been reached on the share of each country in the waters of the strait and the share of Iran and Oman in its revenues,” the statement continued, while also alleging that negotiations were previously delayed only due to the US obstructing negotiations.

via Reuters

Tehran is still insisting on the United States lifting its naval blockade of the country’s ports. However, it seems that for now at least Tehran is open to some level of negotiations, or at least seems content to see where this current period of rare calm leads.

This is evident in the latest words of Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who argued Wednesday that any negotiations with the US don’t equate to retreat from Iran’s demands.

“Negotiation, in my view, has neither intrinsic value nor is it a taboo; it is neither absolutely good nor absolutely evil,” he wrote in a letter responding to more hardline critics, IRNA reports.

He insisted this does not mean abandoning resistance to US-Israeli aggression. “If necessary, dialogue, too, according to this logic, is the same arena of struggle and resistance; neither a replacement for it nor a sign of retreat from it,” he said.

Ghaliban further suggested this is being done by the Islamic Republic from position of strength while holding on to the nation’s “dignity, wisdom and interests.”

Meanwhile, it seems Washington is also in no mood to rush back into military action, following the Monday announcement by Scott Bessent of the Economic D-Day action against Iran, which is to including secondary sanctions on any country found not complying.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told several foreign officials in recent days that “for the time being” the US is not planning to initiate any new strikes against Iran, but instead the focus is on other means of pressure, especially the sanctions initiative, Axios reports. According to more:

  • The U.S. official said that while Rubio made clear that the U.S. isn’t planning a return to major combat operations, he didn’t rule out strikes if Iran attacks first.
  • Another U.S. official said the clearing of mines from the Strait of Hormuz by the U.S. Navy is a watershed moment in the war, largely neutralizing one of Iran’s main sources of leverage.

Also on Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and his Omani counterpart Badr Albusaidi confirmed their further work on the “interim framework” aimed at resuming shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, according to a joint statement.

State television has indicated Iran and Oman agreed that the new transit corridor would enter through Iranian territorial waters, with part of the exit route also passing through them. The corridor will span roughly seven miles.

On this and other headlines, oil prices continue to fall…

  • Oil extends declines as Iran, Oman continue finalizing talks to reopen Hormuz
  • Satellite image shows surge in Iraq’s Persian Gulf oil loadings

The day prior, on Tuesday, President Trump hinted that military options are still on the table. While announcing the new claim that all mines had been detonated or removed from international waters of the Strait of Hormuz, he said the US Space Force was watching “every square inch” of the Strait, and that “There is ⁠a Zero Tolerance policy ‌on mine ‌placement in full force and ​effect.” But Iran is still asserting that the strait remains “closed”.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/26/2026 – 09:05

When Paris Went Hungry Under Government Food Controls

survivalnomics
-
0
When Paris Went Hungry Under Government Food Controls

Authored by Daniel J. Smith via The Daily Economy,

How does Paris get fed? Frédéric Bastiat famously explained in Economic Sophisms (1845) how market exchange reliably provisioned the (then) million people of Paris with agricultural produce from the countryside that they were able to enjoy “peaceful slumbers…not disturbed for a single instant….”

In stark contrast, Bastiat predicted that there would be “much suffering within the walls of Paris – poverty, despair, perhaps starvation…” if a presumptuous minister decided to replace the market with their own decision-making for what “should be produced, transported, exchanged and consumed….”

We can appreciate Bastiat’s observation about the miraculous functioning of the market even more when we look at a time when Paris actually went hungry.

France’s Experiment in Forced Provisioning

Leading up to the French Revolution in 1789, France found itself in a precarious fiscal position. It had accumulated crippling debt from the Seven Years’ War and its support for the American colonies during their War of Independence. This heavy debt burden left the kingdom woefully unprepared to withstand the economic shocks that followed.

Economic shock came in the form of the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland in 1783, which contributed to climatic disruptions and poor harvests in France in the years that followed. These problems were compounded by a severe hailstorm in 1788 that devastated crops and livestock, raising prices, especially for bread, which was the main staple at the time. Increased demand for grain to support the military and its draft animals, when France declared war on Austria in 1792 (followed by war with Great Britain), pushed prices even higher. When France implemented a draft that drew agricultural workers into the military and then began requisitioning agricultural horses and wagons, the supply of grain was further reduced.

Henry Bourne, writing a two-part article in the Journal of Political Economy in 1919 about this era, notes that in the fall of 1792, “One of the longest and most important debates [of the National Convention] was upon the best method of insuring a supply of bread at a reasonable price.” This was a problem that especially loomed over the major city of Paris. Bourne argues that the threat of starvation fueled not only the French Revolution, but the mob mentality and interventionism that followed. As Bourne writes, “People, in a panic because they do not know where next week’s bread, meat, and coal are to be found, are not likely to apply the rules of evidence to every rumor.” The French clamored for state intervention on the “fixed idea that dearness and scarcity were the result of speculation” rather than underlying economic conditions.

Transporting grain became a risky enterprise as mobs sprang up to seize it, further decreasing the supply of grain to Paris. To add insult to injury, the transportation of grain to major cities was further suppressed by inflation, which made the issued assignats unappealing to country farmers.

The National Convention and the Paris Commune turned to “a series of ventures in price-fixing and food control” to solve the problem. Bourne notes that “price-fixing became one of the characteristic features of the Reign of Terror.” In 1793, the National Convention imposed a maximum price, or what economists today call a price ceiling, on grain. In a futile attempt to warn of the potential consequences, Pierre Vergniaud, who later that year was executed under the accusation of the radical Jacobin Maximilien Robespierre, urged that “If you destroy commerce, you decree famine.”

French attempts to deny the economic reality reflected by market prices, by attempting to suppress them, resulted in severe shortages and long lines.

“The scheme not only failed to encourage the farmer, it threatened him with ruin,” Bourne noted. “His expenses for tools, draft animals, and wages were steadily rising, but his profits were cut down, with the prospect of further losses every succeeding month.”

But politically savvy politicians blamed these disappointing outcomes on greed and used them to justify further interventions backed by the threat of imprisonment and death. The National Convention created a Commission of Subsistence and Provisioning to be the “Food Director” of France. Swarms of officials were commissioned to survey farmers’ inventories and fields in an attempt to enable government officials to redirect grain to where it was needed. Rules were issued detailing the precise percentage of bran that millers could extract and even dictated the one type of bread that would be allowed. A bread card rationing system was created but was abused as families failed to report the death of family members to continue receiving the same allotment. Bourne reports that in 1794, rations fell to a single pound of bread for each laborer and three-fourths of a pound for others, and that “it was practically impossible to obtain meat, butter, eggs, oil, and other articles of food commonly regarded as necessary,” as price ceilings were extended to these items as well.

Officials attempted to appeal to the higher motives of the people, telling them that they were “brothers and that they should help” even if it meant turning over the grain needed for their family, for storage for future use, or even the seed necessary to plant the next year’s crop. This proved insufficient, however, so the officials eventually turned to force.

Bourne writes that “An attempt was made to provide for Paris by compelling every farmer to furnish within twenty-four hours sixteen bushels of wheat for each hide of land.” French dragoons were soon released upon the countryside to “scour the country” for food and to arrest any suspected hoarders. As Bourne notes, “merchants were thrown into prison upon the accusation of the first intriguer who shouted out his suspicions at a popular society. The local revolutionary committees acted as judges without appeal. To escape a similar fate the other merchants hastened to dispose of their merchandise and did not restock.”

If a farmer had grain in the field but no laborers to gather it, laborers were drafted by local authorities. Millers and bakers in Paris were drafted and forbidden from abandoning their work without sufficient notice. Eventually, the National Convention even attempted to extend maximum price laws to the wages of laborers as well.

Despite the substantial and systematic efforts of the National Convention and the boards of the separate departments of France, Parisians and much of the rest of France, went hungry under government control. In Cahors, people “were so poorly fed that they were falling in the street from sheer weakness.” In Nord, “grain of every sort disappeared from the markets…” The people of Paris would stand “with famished eyes” for hours in line “only to be told when their turn came that nothing was left.” As Bourne concludes, “If the maximum laws were meant to save the common people from want and wretchedness, they failed.”

Bastiat’s Market-Fed Paris

It is unclear whether Bastiat, when writing in the 1840s about the remarkable way in which free markets coordinated the efforts of countless individuals to feed Paris every day, was implicitly contrasting this outcome with the French Revolution’s earlier rejection of market exchange. He almost certainly knew that revolutionary France had experienced severe food shortages and government price controls, making the contrast between the two episodes striking even if he did not intend it.

As Bastiat stressed, government officials could not replace the information and incentives provided by market prices. Orders, price controls, requisitions, forced sales, and even forced labor failed to feed Paris. When the National Convention tried to do so, it produced exactly the outcome Bastiat had predicted more than half a century later: not peaceful slumbers, but long lines, empty markets, and widespread hunger. Notably, these outcomes began to recede as the Commission was abandoned and markets were restored.

Dr. Daniel J. Smith is the Director of the Political Economy Research Institute and Associate Professor of Economics in the Jones College of Business at Middle Tennessee State University. His academic research and policy work uses Austrian and public choice economics to analyze private and public governance institutions.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/26/2026 – 05:00

ICE Begins Deporting Illegal Immigrants To Dangerous African Countries

survivalnomics
-
0
ICE Begins Deporting Illegal Immigrants To Dangerous African Countries

Imagine entering the US illegally and enjoying the fruits of the American economy for years, only to wake up one day in the darkest of Africa in a country known for cannibalism?  The strategy might be ugly, but it might also be ingenious.  

Last year, illegal Cuban immigrant Yasmany Moreno de Armas was working and living in Florida. He’s now in the Central African Republic, after the Trump administration sent him and dozens of deportees to the deeply impoverished and conflict-ridden nation.

The 31-year-old said he only learned the U.S. government was deporting him to Africa after he arrived there in late July, alongside detainees from countries across the globe, including Ecuador, Honduras, Serbia, Russia and Vietnam. 

“We cannot leave, we don’t have documents and we’re suffering and missing our families, in a continent we don’t know…”

Armas claims he committed no crime, but he committed the crime of invading US borders without citizenship.  The ongoing narrative from the political left is that this particular crime somehow doesn’t count.

Illegals shipped to Africa are appealing to the media to plead their case, though there’s not a whole lot anyone can do about their situation.  Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) the US government has the right to deport illegal migrants with expediency.  And technically, ICE isn’t required to take these migrants back to the countries they originally came from.  

The US established an agreement with more stable countries like Liberia in West Africa to accept illegal migrant deportations over a year ago.  Liberia has recently accepted over 1200 of these deportations.  However, ICE and DHS are branching out to other countries in Africa that are not so stable.   

The Central African Republic has a history of extreme sectarian violence.  It also has a long history of cannibalism.  European explorers noted the cannibal practices of the Azande tribes in the 19th Century and the habit has continued into present day, with warlords in the region famously committing cannibalistic acts against their enemies. 

The seemingly random nature of these deportations and the severity of them might sound like unorganized brutality, but if we ponder it for a moment, it’s actually highly effective.  Any illegal migrant from anywhere could win the African lottery; no one is guaranteed a ride home.  Therefore, it would be smarter for migrants to self deport and ensure they end up in a place they’re familiar with.   

In other words, as news spreads that the US is dumping illegals in the middle of the worst countries in Africa, self deportations could skyrocket and ICE won’t be required to hunt these people down in the streets.  It’s brilliant.

Appeals to sympathy are having less and less effect as the political left continues to fail to drum up any substantial public opposition to deportations.  In fact, many Americans feel that the sooner illegal migrants are removed from the country the sooner the US can get back to normal business.  

Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/26/2026 – 04:15

US Removes Syria, Including Al-Nusra Front, From Its List Of Terrorism Sponsors

survivalnomics
-
0
US Removes Syria, Including Al-Nusra Front, From Its List Of Terrorism Sponsors

Following a decade-and-a-half of a Washington-led full economic siege of the Syrian state, and after a fierce CIA-backed proxy war (Timber Sycamore) to oust Assad over that same period, this week has witnessed the huge milestone of the United States finally removing Syria from its state sponsors of terrorism list.

The designation itself had stretched back several decades, and it placed major hurdles in the way of international investment, but with the Monday move by the State Department many of the related sanctions have now been eased.

Jabat Al-Nusra, including the current US-backed President of Syria (center). Via Orient News TV/EPA

“Today’s action will help foster additional investment in Syria to promote political and economic stability,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, signaling new US efforts to help the war-ravaged country recover.

Of course, this came only after it was ‘mission accomplished’ in terms of overthrowing the secular Ba’ath government of Bashar al-Assad. He fled the country in December 2024, as Jolani’s al-Qaeda linked militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham entered Damascus, and since then there have been widespread reports of an ‘Islamization’ of the capital and various other cities and towns. The first year of Jolani’s rule witnessed thousands of religious minorities kidnapped or slaughtered – with Alawites and Druze particularly targeted, but also many Christians.

The whole population was brought to its knees by the long-running sanctions, resulting in runaway inflation and soaring food prices, as wages remained stagnant – also as petrol became hard to come by (and as US soldiers occupied Syria’s eastern oil and gas fields which previously met domestic fuel needs).

The delisting exposes an ultra-ironic and deeply awkward reality: Al Nusra Front, which is Syrian Al Qaeda (and was founded by the self-declared president Ahmed al-Sharaa, aka Jolani) is no longer deemed a terror organization. According to the NY Times:

The removal of the state sponsor of terror designation on Monday came after a U.S. congressional review process and after Syria joined the Global Coalition to Defeat the Islamic State, according to the State Department. The United States also revoked the terrorism designation for Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a rebel group that was headed by Mr. al-Sharaa and that was previously known as the Al Nusra Front, the State Department said.

It also once again highlights that when Trump on multiple occasions met President Sharaa, he was literally palling around with with an officially designated terrorist (and who until recently had a $10 million FBI bounty on his head).

It wasn’t just the US which supported jihadist groups seeking the overthrow of Assad, but Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE also played a big role (and Israel too at times admitted its support).

Saudi Arabia is among those welcoming the sanctions relief news on Tuesday. Its foreign ministry congratulated the Syrian government and people, expressing hope for security, stability and prosperity.

Can’t make this up: Top Syrian envoy to the United States once kidnapped Americans for Nusra Front/HTS…

Syria had been on the State Sponsor of Terrorism for 47 years. So essentially the US waged a near half-century ‘long war’ for regime change against Bashar and his father Hafez al-Assad before him.

As for the lifting of sanctions, they ultimately hit the common populace the hardest – whether they be Christians, Muslims, Alawites or Druze – and so at the very least hopefully normal people can have some relief going forward.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/26/2026 – 02:45

Normal Brits Are Unwittingly Funding Pro-Illegal Migrant Charities

survivalnomics
-
0
Normal Brits Are Unwittingly Funding Pro-Illegal Migrant Charities

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

Every week millions of ordinary Brits buy a National Lottery ticket hoping for a life-changing win. What most never realise is that a chunk of that money has been systematically channelled into pro-migrant activist charities that push open borders and far-left ideology.

A GB News exclusive has revealed that the National Lottery has handed more than £140 million in donations to these organisations.

The figure draws on the Lottery’s own Good Causes data showing over 2,500 projects and organisations have collectively received more than £143 million to support refugees since 1994, alongside a detailed five-year audit of Community Fund grants that identified £114.7 million flowing into refugee, asylum and migrant projects between July 2021 and June 2026.

Presenter Martin Daubney put it bluntly on air: “When you buy your lottery ticket every week, were you aware that millions of pounds were going to left-wing migrant activist charities?”

Commentator Rafe Heydel-Mankoo went further, describing the situation as institutional capture. “We’re talking about the capture of these institutions by far-left ideology that should have no place in the charitable world.”

The recipients are not neutral soup kitchens. Among the largest beneficiaries in the recent audit were Refugee Action (£3.21 million), the British Refugee Council (£2.97 million), the Scottish Refugee Council (£1.75 million), Task Force Trust / Action Asylum (£1.62 million) and the Refugee and Migrant Centre (£1.10 million).

Smaller but telling grants went to groups running yoga and English classes for refugee women, comedy workshops branded “Comedy Asylum,” alpaca encounters led by asylum-seeker women, and projects explicitly framed around anti-racism and the “fundamental right to move.”

Refugee Action’s own language is unambiguous. One statement captured in the coverage declares the goal of building “a future rooted in the fundamental right to move, underpinned by a commitment to anti-racism.” The Scottish Refugee Council has pushed MSPs to “detoxify” the immigration debate. These are political positions dressed up as charity.

The timing of the spending is striking. Funding identified in the audit ran at £16.1 million in 2021/22, rose, then jumped sharply to £43.3 million in 2024/25 alone – more than double the earlier annual figures – before adding another £19.6 million in the most recent period. London and the North West alone accounted for more than £43 million of the total.

This is public money in all but name. Roughly 23 pence of every pound spent on a National Lottery ticket goes to charitable causes. The distributing bodies are public institutions with obligations of political neutrality. Yet year after year the cash has flowed disproportionately toward organisations whose core mission is to expand and defend mass migration at a time when Channel crossings, hotel costs, crime and community tensions remain at crisis levels.

The irony is impossible to ignore, given the organised theft of charity clothing banks across Britain and Ireland.

Migrants and organised groups have been emptying donation bins in broad daylight, selling the clothes at car boot sales or shipping them abroad, and fly-tipping the rest. Charities that depend on those donations to fund genuine local need have lost revenue while police often treat the thefts with shrugs about “need.”

So the same communities that see their donated clothes stolen by migrants are, through their lottery tickets, helping bankroll the activist infrastructure that campaigns for still more arrivals. The circle is complete: public generosity is extracted at both ends.

National Lottery Good Causes material celebrates the funding as life-changing support for people forced to flee. In practice a significant portion has gone to groups that treat borders themselves as the problem and British public opinion as something to be managed or “detoxified.”

The Charity Commission guidance even notes that charities may engage in political activity where it advances their purposes – an opening many of these organisations have driven a coach and horses through.

British families struggling with the cost of living, veterans’ charities, children’s hospices and community groups serving the indigenous population receive a fraction of the attention. Players who thought their tickets were supporting Olympic athletes, heritage projects or local youth clubs have instead been underwriting an ideological project they never voted for.

The Lottery is currently under public review of its Good Causes priorities for the first time in more than twenty years. That review arrives not a moment too soon. When an institution charged with distributing the public’s spare change becomes a reliable cash machine for open-borders activism, the social contract that sustains it begins to fray.

Ordinary people are entitled to know exactly where their money goes – and to demand that “good causes” start looking a lot more like the country they still call home.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/26/2026 – 02:00

Pitch For Defense Treaty And Moving US Military To Israel Is Insane

survivalnomics
-
0
Pitch For Defense Treaty And Moving US Military To Israel Is Insane

Authored by Jennifer Kavanagh via Responsible Statecraft,

On August 18, Israel bombed a non-operational Syrian air base, reportedly to derail Turkish plans to deploy military forces to the installation. The move drew swift condemnation from the United States, which did not receive prior notification despite its growing support for Syria, its alliance with Turkey, and the presence of thousands of U.S. military personnel based nearby, in Jordan and other parts of the region.

Is this the behavior of a “model ally“? The Jewish Institute for National Security of America seems to think so.

The group, which promotes “strategic cooperation” between the United States and Israel, tries to defend this position in its new report, “Shifting the Center of Gravity: Transforming the U.S.-Israel Security Partnership.” It also lays out an ambitious set of proposals JINSA hopes will be part of a renewed 10-year U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding (the current one expires in 2028). JINSA wants this “final” direct aid package to include $38 billion total and be “paired with new, mostly non-monetary initiatives that deepen and expand the U.S.-Israel partnership.”

The recommendations in this report – which also include signing a mutual defense pact, basing U.S. military forces in Israel, and integrating Israeli technology into U.S. homeland defense – should be rejected as threats to U.S. national security. Not only would they cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, but the prescriptions would make the United States less safe than it is today, by institutionalizing U.S. military entanglement with (and even dependence on) Israel and increasing the risk of future wars.

Instead the Trump administration should instead let the current MoU expire in 2028 with no replacement. With a strong military and nuclear arsenal, Israel can defend itself.

The JINSA report opens by heralding Israel as “America’s most important ally,” praising its military prowess, technological capability, and willingness to project military power in pursuit of supposedly shared goals. Missing from its account of Israel’s support during Operation Epic Fury, however, is any mention of Israel’s role in starting, escalating, or widening the war. These are certainly relevant details if we are judging whether the bilateral relationship is an asset or a liability to the United States.

The report sidesteps these realities and instead moves quickly to a set of 10 proposals that it argues will take the bilateral partnership to the “next level.” From the perspective of protecting U.S. national interests, these ideas range from bad to insane.

Among the more worrying recommendations are those that suggest the United States should form a mutual defense treaty with Israel and begin shifting U.S. assets away from current positions in the Persian Gulf to a wider and permanent force posture in Israel – including a new CENTCOM headquarters and a “regional U.S. prepositioned arsenal hub.” These would break long-established firewalls in the U.S.-Israel relationship and undermine U.S. interests.

Since 1975, the United States has had a security commitment to Israel, formalized in a memorandum of agreement, that promises “remedial action” should Israel face external threat. In recent years, this commitment has functioned as a de facto security guarantee on par with Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Still, the United States has intentionally refrained from signing a more explicit mutual defense agreement with Israel or basing U.S. personnel inside Israel’s borders for two reasons.

First, it was Israel’s preference. Jerusalem has long prided itself on the fact that only its soldiers directly defend the country and that it could fight its own battles as long as the United States offered military support. Second, Washington feared a more formal defense obligation or forward bases in Israel would increase the risk that the United States would eventually become entangled in Israel’s ongoing border skirmishes or complicate relationships with U.S. Gulf state partners, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, on whom the United States relied to keep oil prices low.

The recommendations by JINSA, which count 43 retired U.S. officers – including 24 generals and nine admirals – on its roster discard these redlines. The mutual defense agreement they describe is framed as a narrow one that would be triggered “by the high bar of existential threat to Israel or Iranian use of weapons of mass destruction against U.S. bases in the region.” But history tells us that, for Israel, the “existential threat” threshold is met easily and often.

In recent years, Israel has argued that Iran posed an existential threat while also claiming Hezbollah and Hamas as existential challenges to Israel’s security. In other words, signing onto this agreement would all but guarantee U.S. involvement in future Middle East wars against Iran or possibly even Turkey, which some in Israel have already identified as the next target despite the fact that it is a NATO ally.

Of course, this is the goal of the recommendation: to ensure that no matter how far Israel falls in U.S. public opinion, the United States will be obligated to come to its defense, or risk undermining the credibility of its other commitments.

Basing U.S military forces inside Israel would only worsen the moral hazard engendered by U.S. support to the country. With U.S. personnel as a tripwire, Israel’s leaders would feel assured that any attack would almost certainly drag in the United States, giving them little incentive to act with restraint. The risk that the United States might be ensnared in Israel’s future military adventures would be high.

The second major focus of JINSA’s recommendations covers the sharing of military technology and joint industrial projects between Israel and the United States. Most of these proposals demand that Israel gain the same level of access to U.S. technology as is enjoyed by the closest NATO allies who have spent years working to meet U.S. security standards. That Israeli officials are suspected of spying on the United States should be warning enough that giving Israel this type of access to sensitive U.S. technology would be a mistake.

The most dangerous of these tech sharing ideas, however, is one suggesting that Israeli technologies should be directly integrated into U.S. air and missile defense, specifically the Golden Dome project. This provision would mean that, if the Golden Dome project or something like it eventually covers the United States, Israeli technology would be part of its foundation, making the U.S. dependent on Israel for its own defense.

The United States tried something similar once before with Israel and the project had to be cancelled. The reason? Israel refused to allow the United States access to the source code needed to integrate the Iron Dome systems it planned to purchase into the U.S. air defense network. Experimenting with this type of cooperation a second time would be an act of self-harm on the part of the U.S. government.

Taken together, then, the JINSA proposals do not advance U.S. interests in the Middle East or elsewhere. In fact, they do just the opposite. They will increase the U.S. security burden and tie the United States down in the Middle East in ways that may quickly become irreversible while also undermining the physical security of the homeland. And they will do so at a cost of $38 billion from U.S. taxpayers in the form of annual military aid.

This outcome should be entirely unacceptable to any American president, regardless of the specific ally or partner in question and especially for a president who ran on promises to put U.S. interests first.

Elsewhere, President Donald Trump is pushing allies to defend themselves without so much (or any) U.S. support. He should do the same with Israel. The endless cycle of MoUs has run its course. The current one should be the last.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 08/25/2026 – 23:25

This Is The Income A Family Needs To Live Comfortably In Every US State

survivalnomics
-
0
This Is The Income A Family Needs To Live Comfortably In Every US State

Here’s the short version of what it takes for a family of four to live comfortably in 2026 by state:

In Massachusetts, you’d need nearly $330,000 a year – the highest figure in the entire country. Only three states clear the $300,000 mark: Massachusetts, Hawaii, and California. At the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi is the most affordable at about $188,000. That’s a full $142,000 less than what you’d need in Massachusetts.

So… how much does a family of four need in your state?

This map shows the pre-tax income a household with two working adults and two kids needs to live comfortably in every U.S. state.

The numbers come from SmartAsset (as of February 2026). They’re based on the familiar 50/30/20 budget: 50% for necessities, 30% for discretionary spending, and 20% for savings or other goals. These aren’t bare-minimum survival numbers—they’re what it takes to live pretty well while still putting money aside.

And as Visual Capitalist notes, Massachusetts sits at the very top of that list. Massachusetts tops the ranking, with a family of four needing $329,555 per year to meet the 50/30/20 benchmark.

Hawaii follows at $313,165, while California ranks third at $302,682.

Rank State Income needed for family of four (2026)

  • 1 – Massachusetts – $329,555
  • 2 – Hawaii – $313,165
  • 3 – California – $302,682
  • 4 – Connecticut – $298,189
  • 5 – New Jersey – $295,110
  • 6 – New York – $291,533
  • 7 – Colorado – $283,213
  • 8 – Washington – $281,798
  • 9 – Oregon – $280,966
  • 10 – Vermont – $280,384
  • 11 – Alaska – $272,064
  • 12 – New Hampshire – $267,904
  • 13 – Rhode Island – $264,659
  • 14 – Minnesota – $263,078
  • 15 – Maryland – $257,837
  • 16 – Maine – $250,931
  • 17 – Montana – $249,434
  • 18 – Pennsylvania – $247,936
  • 19 – Illinois – $244,109
  • 20 – Virginia – $242,944
  • 21 – Nevada – $242,278
  • 22 – Indiana – $241,696
  • 23 – Wisconsin – $238,451
  • 24 – Arizona – $236,870
  • 25 – Utah – $235,789
  • 26 – Delaware – $228,134
  • 27 – Ohio – $226,221
  • 28 – Idaho – $226,054
  • 29 – Florida – $223,392
  • 30 – New Mexico – $223,142
  • 31 – Nebraska – $223,059
  • 32 – Missouri – $217,734
  • 33 – Georgia – $214,573
  • 34 – Michigan – $214,323
  • 35 – South Carolina – $212,909
  • 36 – North Carolina – $212,410
  • 37 – Wyoming – $212,410
  • 38 – Oklahoma – $211,910
  • 39 – North Dakota – $210,496
  • 40 – Kansas – $207,917
  • 41 – Iowa – $204,422
  • 42 – Texas – $203,424
  • 43 – West Virginia – $202,592
  • 44 – South Dakota – $201,760
  • 45 – Alabama – $198,931
  • 46 – Louisiana – $197,933
  • 47 – Tennessee – $197,267
  • 48 – Arkansas – $195,437
  • 49 – Kentucky – $194,854
  • 50 – Mississippi – $187,533

Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York aren’t far behind, bringing the number of states with comfortable-income thresholds above $290,000 to six.

Colorado and Vermont Make the Top 10

As expected, many of the highest income thresholds are concentrated in the Northeast and along the West Coast.

However, Colorado has the seventh-highest threshold in the country at $283,213, ranking above Washington and Oregon.

Vermont rounds out the top 10 at $280,384, despite having the second-smallest population of any U.S. state. Meanwhile, nearby states like New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island all fall outside the top 10.

Just Six States Come in Below $200,000

Despite the wide range in living costs across the country, only six states have a comfortable-income threshold below $200,000 for a family of four.

Mississippi ranks lowest at $187,533, followed by Kentucky. The states of Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama also fall below the $200,000 mark.

The gap between Massachusetts and Mississippi exceeds $142,000 per year, meaning the Massachusetts benchmark is about 76% higher.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 08/25/2026 – 23:00

DEA Seized 47 Million Fentanyl-Laced Counterfeit Pills In 2025

survivalnomics
-
0
DEA Seized 47 Million Fentanyl-Laced Counterfeit Pills In 2025

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) confiscated more than 47 million fentanyl-laced counterfeit pills and almost 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder in 2025.

Just two milligrams of fentanyl is considered a lethal dose. Courtesy of the DEA

The seized narcotics are equivalent to 369 million lethal doses of fentanyl, according to an announcement made by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in an Aug. 21 post on X as part of the National Fentanyl Prevention and Awareness Day. So far this year, the total fentanyl seized by the DEA represents more than 239 million deadly doses.

“Just 2 milligrams – smaller than a grain of salt – can kill. This Justice Department is committed to combating the fentanyl crisis and keeping Americans and our communities safe,” the post said.

In an Aug. 21 statement, the DEA asked the public to remain aware of the threat fentanyl poses to American communities, highlighting that the synthetic opioid is around 100 times more potent than morphine and about 50 times more potent than heroin.

Mexican cartels CJNG and Sinaloa Cartel are pressing fentanyl into counterfeit pills with a similar appearance to prescription medications such as Xanax, oxycodone, and Percocet. The criminal groups are also mixing fentanyl with cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin. Both Sinaloa Cartel and CJNG were designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations last year.

According to the DEA, many people who were poisoned with fentanyl didn’t even know they were ingesting the substance. The department asserted that the only safe medications are those coming from accredited and licensed medical professionals.

“Parents are often the first line of defense in protecting our children from the dangers of fentanyl and counterfeit pills,” Farhana Islam, DEA New York Enforcement Division special agent in charge, said in the statement. “A single conversation can provide the knowledge that saves a life.”

According to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, for fiscal year 2026 through July, the agency has seized 9,600 pounds of fentanyl. In the entirety of fiscal year 2025, 12,000 pounds were confiscated.

In a May 13 statement, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that synthetic opioids such as fentanyl accounted for the largest share of deaths by drug overdose in the United States last year. Psychostimulants, including meth, were in second place.

China Fentanyl Supply

According to a September 2025 report from the Government Accountability Office, most of the fentanyl trafficked into the United States comes from Mexico, and the chemicals and equipment used to manufacture narcotics come from China.

The Trump administration has taken action to stem the outflow of fentanyl precursors from China. In November 2025, FBI Director Kash Patel said at a press briefing that Beijing has reportedly committed to restrict the export of 13 fentanyl precursor chemicals to Mexico, Canada, and the United States.

In December 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order designating fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction. Trump warned that adversaries were trafficking fentanyl into the United States, partly to kill Americans.

“They’re trying to drug-out our country,” Trump said. “You can look throughout history. Look at China when they were loaded up with drugs; they were suffering greatly, and others were able to take them over.

“No bomb does what this is doing,” Trump said.

Trump said there has been a 50 percent decline in the amount of fentanyl coming across the border, highlighting that Beijing has been working with Washington to cut down smuggling of these narcotics.

In June, Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.) said during a House subcommittee hearing on the Chinese communist regime’s role in the fentanyl crisis that Beijing subsidizes the export of at least 17 deadly chemicals that have zero legal use.

When China announces restrictions on one precursor chemical, manufacturers in the country simply shift to another precursor, according to Kim.

“Why does Beijing allow these factories of death to remain open? Because the Chinese Communist Party sees strategic value in America’s suffering. It has repeatedly chosen geopolitical leverage over human life,” she said.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 08/25/2026 – 21:45

1...424344...4,426Page 43 of 4,426

About Us

Popular Category

Editor Picks