Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

A fiscal storm is brewing in the Netherlands. With the potential introduction of a tax on unrealized capital gains, The Hague is set to become a testing ground for the systematic transfer of wealth from the private sector to the state. Across all government levels, the European Union is increasingly transforming into an aggressive parasitic system.

A fundamental clash between the public and private sectors is intensifying across the EU. In March, both chambers of the Dutch parliament will decide on the implementation of an annual tax on unrealized gains. Going forward, all increases in value—from real estate and stocks to bonds and cryptocurrencies—would fall under this fiscal framework.

This move significantly accelerates the extraction of capital from the private sector, constituting a political rule violation. Already taxed income and assets would be hit again based on hypothetical gains, severely impeding private wealth accumulation.

Support for this measure spans both right- and left-wing parties. It reflects a form of fiscal horseshoe logic, apparently anticipating a severe national financial crisis.

For the EU as a whole, this is disastrous. That a nation with a debt ratio of just 46% and new borrowing of slightly over 2% of GDP would effectively declare war on private capital signals profound economic distortions in one of Europe’s most successful economies. One naturally asks: if this is happening in the Netherlands, what does it say about the rest of the European Union?

The End of the Productive Economy

A glance at Eurozone manufacturing suggests a storm is brewing. Deindustrialization in Germany, the largest industrial base in Europe, began in 2018 and has accelerated ever since, with massive capital flight. What applies to Germany applies even more so to the fragile peripheral European economies.

For decades, Europe’s economy has shifted from production toward financial and wealth-rentier models. As financialization advances, production and value creation increasingly relocate abroad. This mirrors a process the United States underwent for decades and attempted to reverse under President Donald Trump.

European states see no escape from the economic death spiral created by expanding welfare systems, uncontrolled migration, and slowly shrinking core industrial productivity. Politicians are buying time through the expropriation of citizen savings to evade growing reform pressure.

Once societal patience reaches a tipping point, Europe may witness scenes similar to those currently unfolding in the U.S., where the government has effectively declared war on illegal immigration amid a media-driven defensive battle coordinated by far-left forces, globalist media, and foreign foundations.

The pressing question for Europe: how long will native populations tolerate financial assault from the state without demanding corresponding migration and welfare reforms?

Several EU states already levy progressive inheritance and gift taxes. Norway recently introduced a wealth tax of roughly 1% on net assets above €160,000 per person, raising eyebrows in one of Europe’s richest nations. Spain applies a progressive wealth tax up to 3.5%, plus a solidarity wealth levy for assets above €3 million—“solidarity,” a political buzzword used to rhetorically justify impending fiscal expropriation.

This expropriation is imminent. Coalition parties have spent the past year laying the groundwork for a massive expansion of inheritance taxes. It would be unwise to rule out Germany’s politically influenced Constitutional Court approving a national wealth tax in the future.

Building the Command Economy

Germany is driving Europe toward socialism. Capital formation and independent family structures, which could form a powerful societal opposition, are increasingly despised by political elites.

There is no longer any denying it: the EU’s economic model and the manic drive to transform it into a green command economy reflect growing panic in Brussels, Berlin, and Paris. Every attempt to mask economic collapse with debt fails—the collateral damage of centrally planned green “artificial” economies seeps into public awareness.

The economic plight of weaker Southern European nations hardly needs detailed exposition. It is well known that the Eurozone has failed as a currency union attempting to integrate economies with wildly divergent productivity, such as Germany and Greece.

Now, cracks are visible, and states are defending their power through systematic extraction of private capital. Europe is on the defensive.

Europe in the U.S.

Wherever the European model has been adapted, politics is employing similar tools. The election of socialist Zohran Mamdani as New York City mayor last year drew attention. His victory was fueled by politically guided settlement of Muslim migrants, allied with the financial-left establishment, orchestrating a successful campaign.

With Mamdani’s election, vast capital is now politically—literally—trapped. Those who fail to relocate face massive taxation. Mamdani, campaigning on free public transit, rent caps, and public markets, announced plans this week to close a $10 billion budget gap with a wealth tax. 

New York is now a Democratic Party campaign hub, positioned against the heart of the conservative resurgence initiated by Donald Trump’s deregulation and tax cuts.

In California, the most European-leaning U.S. state, the “Billionaire Tax Act” was introduced, with Governor Gavin Newsom planning a one-time 5% wealth levy on net assets above $1 billion. Outmigration from the Golden State has already begun, along with tens of thousands of jobs relocating elsewhere. The shortsightedness of this policy is only surpassed by its childish aggressiveness.

Worldwide, it remains vital to preserve economic centers that defend market principles and private wealth accumulation—the torchbearers of civilization. Meanwhile, the EU’s descent into socialist barbarism seems all but inevitable.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a Germany a graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

On potential upcoming US-Iran talks, the two sides can’t agree on scope – with Washington wanting to go beyond just the nuclear sphere and into the question of Tehran putting limits on its ballistic missile arsenal. The Iranians have given a firm no on this, and so the talks look doomed to fail. But Russia is now offering – or at least reiterating – a potentially huge overture.

“Moscow is willing to take what remains of Iran’s enriched uranium,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said Wednesday.

“At the same time, it is important to note that the aforementioned stockpiles belong to Iran. Their presence in no way contradicts Tehran’s obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” Zakharova stressed in a  fresh press briefing, as quoted by Kommersant.

This explanation backs the longtime insistence by Iranian leadership that its nuclear development is only for peaceful domestic energy, and not for weapons.

“Tehran has full rights to the material, including deciding whether to remove it from Iranian territory and where to export it,”  Zakharova added.

This is not the first time Moscow has offered to mediate some kind of solution, but the current crisis takes on extra urgency, given President Trump has threatened to bomb Iran again.

“Russia once offered to export Iran’s enriched uranium reserves to its territory. This initiative is still on the table,” Zakharova said in reference to a prior plan to do the same.

But Washington might find this unsatisfactory, again as its demands are going well beyond nuclear arms into conventional ones, and Tehran is not going negotiate its way into being defenseless against Israeli attack.

In fresh Wednesday statements in response to a question, Trump upped the threat – while still remaining ambiguous in terms of articulating plans or intent…

Q: Should the Supreme Leader in Iran be worried right now?

Trump: He should be very worried.

Source: NBC News https://t.co/W39oaI6hm2 pic.twitter.com/5qjaWfKRe7

— Clash Report (@clashreport) February 4, 2026

“I would say he should be very worried,” Trump told NBC News when what Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s feelings should be when faced with US military action.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Following the Federal Network Agency, the umbrella organization of the energy industry is now also calling for the establishment of a national strategic natural gas reserve. The coordinated push by the sector makes it clear that the decline in gas storage levels is far more severe than politics has so far admitted.

Kerstin Andreae, chairwoman of the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW), called on Monday in an interview with the Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland for the creation of a national strategic gas reserve. 

Andreae emphasized the need for a robust buffer to absorb external shocks in Germany’s energy supply. With this demand, the BDEW explicitly aligned itself with the position of the Federal Network Agency, whose president Klaus Müller had already advocated for such a strategic reserve in a dpa interview last week.

Similar signals are now coming from the business world. The Oldenburg-based energy supplier EWE also considers the time ripe to discuss additional crisis instruments and to follow the examples of other European countries. Austria, France, and Poland already maintain strategic gas reserves to safeguard against supply crises.

Reality Ignored

It is remarkable that Germany has largely ignored fundamental questions of energy market design and the security of grids with baseload energy for years—a consequence of ideologically driven decisions, for which then-Federal Minister for Economic Affairs Robert Habeck also bears political responsibility.

Current figures underline the urgency of the situation. Gas storage levels in Germany are currently dropping by around one percent per day due to the cold weather, with overall fill levels now at roughly 30 percent.

In extreme cases—such as conditions similar to the winter of 2010—a gas shortage is entirely conceivable. In such a scenario, daily consumption could no longer be covered by additional LNG imports and remaining gas stocks. The result would be planned shutdowns, initially in energy-intensive industries, with cascading and dramatic economic effects across large parts of the economy. 

Germany in 2026 stands amid the ruins of its irrational energy policy. It reads like a bad joke that the country which dismantled its nuclear power, removed cheap Russian gas at Brussels’ behest, and now aims to exit coal-fired power, is discussing national gas reserves—all in the name of a politically and media-amplified climate hysteria.

Assurances and Stubbornness

Publicly, politics and the Federal Network Agency are working to downplay the problem of declining gas storage levels. Shortly before his dpa interview, Federal Network Agency President Klaus Müller told the Rheinische Post that the risk of supply problems was generally low. Germany had created greater flexibility through multiple import channels—both pipelines and newly built LNG terminals. Moreover, wholesale market prices showed no sign of scarcity, even if they had recently risen, Müller said. 

It is a rare skill to contradict oneself multiple times in just a few sentences, as Müller managed in this interview.

In contrast, the lobby group INES spoke of historically low levels of German gas storage. Last year at this time, the fill level was around 58 percent, and the year before, even 76 percent. The difference is not marginal, but structural—highlighting the growing vulnerability of the country’s energy security.

The Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs struck a similar tone. In January, it referred to the new import flexibility and recently saw no need for state intervention in the market—though one can hardly call the German energy network a “market” anymore, a fact perhaps still unnoticed in the ministry.

Energy economist Claudia Kemfert of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) also stated in January that there was no supply crisis and that imports remained stable. That now bad weather and cold snaps in North America threaten LNG deliveries from the main supplier, the USA—which is responsible for over 90 percent of Germany’s LNG supply—may be the irony of the weather gods. It changes nothing, however, about the fact that German energy policy is trapped between ideological blindness, general negligence, and an intellectual oversimplification of the core problem.

Germany now provides a textbook example of the consequences of centrally planned interventionist policy. Once set in motion, every further review of the increasingly distorted market design forces additional interventions and regulatory measures. The system is gradually transforming into a command economy. It is a downward spiral of supply that can only be broken if long-term measures enable the German energy sector to produce baseload-capable energy again.

This would include returning to Russian gas deliveries, reversing coal phase-out decisions, and adopting modern small modular nuclear reactors. These, by the way, do not produce traditional nuclear waste—an argument that immediately defuses reflexive objections from anti-nuclear opponents.

Worldwide, nuclear power is experiencing an impressive resurgence, particularly in the USA, China, and Russia. Only in Germany does ideological stubbornness prevent recognition of this reality.

Pressure must be applied to European policy to exploit substantial gas reserves, gaining geostrategic breathing space and at least partially freeing itself from the self-imposed stranglehold.

Irony of History

The emerging necessity of a national gas reserve carries two ironies. First, it is a belated admission of the complete failure of the energy transition. Renewable energies, due to their volatility and to maintain grid stability and supply security, require storage and reserve capacities that cannot be economically provided without massively burdening or partially collapsing the economy.

Second, it is precisely the declared arch-enemy of German policy, US President Donald Trump, who these days is calling not only for an existing strategic oil reserve but also for the creation of further national reserves. Washington intends to invest around twelve billion dollars to stockpile metals such as lithium, rare earths, nickel, and cobalt, thereby strategically reducing dependence on China and other raw material suppliers.

The terms “national” and “reserve” in the energy policy context are particularly offensive to the left-green milieu. There, people are unaccustomed to yielding to reality and recognizing that conservative thinking in matters of supply security, preparedness, and societal resilience is superior in every respect—including as a socio-political concept.

In the USA, supply security and strategic resilience sit prominently on the political agenda alongside energy market deregulation. In Germany, however, remarkable consistency is applied to stabilizing a green crony economy, whose economic viability is increasingly eroding.

German households will experience the consequences of this fatal error very concretely in their accounts over the coming weeks and months.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a Germany a graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

The chairman of one of the nation’s top law firms suddenly resigned Wednesday evening after a series of embarrassing emails emerged between him and Jeffrey Epstein became public in recent days.

Brad Karp, who has been at the helm of law firm Paul Weiss for 18 years, gave no explanation for his decision – aside form a statement that “Recent reporting has created a distraction and has placed a focus on me that is not in the best interests of the firm.”

The firm, which has over 1,200 lawyers, represents some of the largest companies in the world, including Amazon, Exxon Mobil and the NFL – and has a reputation for providing free work to immigrant groups. 

According to new emails released by the DOJ, Karp was not only a guest at Epstein’s New York Mansion, the two exchanged emails on a regular basis. 

He coached Epstein during his underage sex-trafficking scandal, referring to accusers as ‘victims,’ (in quotes), and suggesting that they “lied in wait and sat on their rights for their strategic advantage, knowing you were in prison, before they came forward.”

Karp met Epstein through legal work for billionaire Leon Black, co-founder of Apollo Global Management. Black paid Epstein nearly $170 million for tax and estate planning advice (and totally not blackmail). Karp then began socializing with Epstein – at one point asking the disgraced financier for help landing his son a job on a Woody Allen movie. 

After Karp attended a dinner at Epstein’s Manhattan mansion in 2015 where Allen was present, Karp wrote to Epstein in an email that it was “an evening I’ll never forget,” referring to Epstein as “an extraordinary host” who was “amazing.”

One lawyer at Paul Weiss told the NY Times that the relationship has become an embarrassment, while others were upset that Karp received an email where Epstein suggested that Black should retain a private investigator to surveil a former mistress. 

On Monday, Karp said he regretted his interactions with Epstein, and had only “attended two group dinners in New York City and had a small number of social interactions by email, all of which he regrets.”

The joke is that Karp will remain at Paul Weiss… while their head of corporate practice, Scott Barshay, will take over as Chairman. Weiss said that Barshay had “over 30 years advising boards of directors and management teams on some of the most complex and highest-profile legal matters.”

Paul Weiss was also notably one of the Big Law firms that struck a deal with the White House to sidestep an executive order that would have effectively barred the firm from representing clients before the federal government.

In deciding to settle with the White House, Mr. Karp explained to the firm’s lawyers that the restrictions proposed by the Trump administration — like preventing Paul Weiss lawyers from entering federal buildings — would have prevented Paul Weiss from effectively representing its clients. But the settlement rankled many of the firm’s top litigators who wanted to challenge the White House’s executive order in court. –NYT

And now, Karp joins a growing list of Epstein file casualties. 

As the latest Epstein Files release continues to provide premium toilet reading and no arrests, tech billionaires Bill Gates and Linkedin founder Reid Hoffman are in full damage control mode, while President Donald Trump – whose name is all over the files as well, is back to asking if we can just move on. Other notables mentioned in the release are Steve Tisch, Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Harvey Weinstein, Leon Black, Peter Mandelson (who just imploded), Sergey Brin, Jason Calacanis, Howard Lutnick and the Nobel Prize committee (more on that later, it’s a fun one), and of course Ehud Barak. 

To review – Gates, whose ex-wife Melinda says he ‘needs to answer to those things‘ in the Epstein files – was featured in a 2013 email Epstein sent to himself – three months after the disgraced financier appears to have brought top Gates ‘assistant’ Boris Nikolic and ‘two Russian girls’ to Richard Branson’s island for a crypto summit. According to Epstein, Gates – who apparently severed ties with Epstein after some incident involving Boris, ‘implored’ Epstein to ‘delete the emails regarding your std, your request that I provide you with antibiotics that you can surreptitiously give to Melinda and the description of your penis.’

Gates Denies

Gates responded to the latest email, claiming it was ‘never sent’ (incorrect) and that it’s ‘false,’ (though he did offer $100k to anyone that can make a ‘next generation’ condom earlier that year).

Bill Gates responds after Epstein files suggest he got an STD from “Russian girls” and planned to secretly medicate his then-wife, Melinda.

REPORTER: “You’ve no doubt seen the allegations… Are they true?”

GATES: “No. Apparently, Jeffrey wrote an email to himself. That email… pic.twitter.com/TpwRmuISCK

— Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 4, 2026

Hoffman vs. Musk

Meanwhile, LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman – who went to Epstein’s island, was invited to his weird fertility ranch, and apparently left his passport in a ‘gift bag’ for Epstein – has been trading Epstein ‘gotchas’ with Elon Musk, who asked Epstein if he could bring his ex-wife to the island for a ‘wild’ party. Hoffman claims he was only on Epstein’s island to fundraise with former MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito, while Musk claims Epstein used the fact that Hoffman was on the island to try to get him to go. 

Feb 1: Musk drops ‘reid was on the island last weekend,’ email Epstein sent him, and notes that Hoffman brought ‘gifts’ to Epstein. 

Hoffman, who says he deeply regrets associating with Epstein post-conviction, defended his visit, replying to ZeroHedge after we asked to clarify that he went to Epstein island to raise money for MIT. 

Yes, with Joi Ito, the Director of the MIT Media Lab, who had asked me to help MIT fundraise from Epstein. I regret ever interacting with Epstein.

Trump’s own FBI looked into me and found “no hits.”

We should focus on prosecuting those who committed crimes and finally getting… pic.twitter.com/kc7yy4gGJp

— Reid Hoffman (@reidhoffman) February 4, 2026

He also posted an email from Musk to Epstein asking what day “will be the wildest party on your island?” for Musk and ex-wife Talulah to visit. Musk replied; “The big difference between you and me, Reid, is that you went and I did not.”

And, as the email shows, I obviously didn’t anticipate anything actually shady, as I was bringing my wife at the time (Talulah).

Nonetheless, UNLIKE YOU, I came to my senses and declined to go. Epstein tried to get me to go to his island so many times that eventually I just…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 4, 2026

When asked if President Trump deserves the same ‘assumption of innocence’ that you are claiming, Hoffman pivots, saying he’s “been calling for an investigation,” adding “No one will need to assume anything if Trump releases all of the files, and we conduct a transparent investigation into those implicated in crimes.”

Shockingly, not everyone is buying Hoffman’s story…

🎯

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 4, 2026

TL;DR – Hoffman went to the island, he says, to raise money for MIT, brought gifts, and left his passport in a gift bag, and now regrets it. Musk was invited, and/or asked, to visit Epstein’s island with his ex-wife, which never happened. 

Weird Shit and Other Novelties

Aside from all that BS, there are some very odd things that also appear in the files…

• Epstein was living with the Pope, in the Vatican?

• An extremely disturbing diary entry or entries from a victim allegedly held at Epstein’s New Mexico ranch, where she was an ‘incubator’ for bearing children. 

Jeffrey Epstein’s 10,000 acre ranch in New Mexico, known as Zorro, was miles from civilization and featured a massive underground lair that an IT contractor compared to a dungeon outfitted with cameras.

It also had an airstrip, a helicopter pad, and much more—including,… pic.twitter.com/Q1KsrY53Oh

— Frankie Stockes (@realStockes) February 3, 2026

•  Is the DOJ protecting someone here here, when we were reliably told that only victims would be redacted? Or is this a woman referring to herself as ‘your littlest girl?’

• Sultan Bin Sulayim, CEO of DP World, to Epstein: “I am off to sample a fresh 100% female Russian on my yacht.” 

• Epstein said he wants ‘nothing to do with India, hot ,smells like shit, filthy…’ (eh, I mean…)

• British biotech investor, Nicole Junkermann, asked Epstein if he wanted to have a baby almost exactly 2 years after his 2008 conviction for child sex trafficking. 

NEW:

🇺🇸 🇬🇧 British biotech investor, Nicole Junkermann asked Epstein if he wanted to have a baby with her:

“Will you have a baby with me?
Where is the best place to do so?” pic.twitter.com/2gfb3uoYO7

— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) February 4, 2026

The Rothschilds are being deleted from the files… (among other reported ‘prunings’ since the latest release). Epstein notably told Peter Thiel “I represent the Rothschilds.” 

So we started at 12073 results for the term “Rothschild”

Later yesterday it was 11912

And a couple of hours ago we’re down 11860

Has anyone saved the entire batch immediately after release lol? https://t.co/nMwjJ9PuAn pic.twitter.com/2shU99VMp5

— dart (@poordart) February 3, 2026

• Was Epstein a “multinational covert operation” belonging “to both U.S. and allied intelligence services”?

• Epstein and Ghislaine were involved in Bitcoin and Ripple from the earliest days, directly corresponding with Satoshi (who told him to fuck off).

Check back for more! 

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

The US’ new National Security and Defense Strategies, which collectively articulate the “Trump Doctrine”, make clear that the US’ grand strategic goal is to restore its predominant position (unipolarity) over the world.

Unlike during the short-lived unipolar era that followed the end of the Old Cold War, this time the US is explicitly reluctant to embroil itself in overseas conflicts that risk overextending itself, and it’ll also now rely more on its regional partners to share the burden of advancing their shared interests.

China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are identified as the US’ adversaries, the first of them being described as “the most powerful state relative to us since the 19th century” in the National Defense Strategy, and each must now decide whether to challenge the US, balance it, or bandwagon with it.

To a lesser extent, the same also applies to rising powers like India that have complicated ties with the US.

In reverse order…

India won’t ever challenge the US, but it’s likely to balance and bandwagon instead. The balancing aspect relies principally on Russia for preemptively averting potentially disproportionate economic and military-technical dependence on the US that could be weaponized for coercive purposes.

As for the bandwagoning aspect, this concerns India’s sincere interest in complying with its new trade deal with the US and reaching more defense ones with it too, though conditional on the first not being exploited by the US to flood its market and the second not requiring basing US troops on its soil.

By contrast, North Korea is unlikely to ever bandwagon with the US.

It would instead prefer to balance it by triangulating between China and Russia (to avoid disproportionate dependence on either) while at times challenging it through military tests in response to the US’ regional moves.

Iran’s approach will probably continue to apply all three policies:

1. challenging the US in West Asia;

2. balancing it by triangulating between China and Russia;

3. and negotiating a new nuclear deal for bandwagoning with it one day.

Russia has been pursuing the same under Trump 2.0: its development of strategic arms challenges the US’ restoration of unipolarity; triangulating between China and India (to avoid disproportionate dependence on either) balances the US; and ongoing talks seek to reach an accommodation with it. China is no different: its own military build-up also challenges the restoration of unipolarity; its BRI partners help it to balance the US; and ongoing trade talks seek to reach an accommodation with it too.

From the US’ grand strategic perspective due to how it views China as “the most powerful state relative to us since the 19th century”, it’s expected to offer comparatively better partnership terms to India and Russia for incentivizing them to relatively distance themselves from China.

Iran will be subordinated one way or another in order for the US to control its resource flows to China, North Korea will remain contained, and China will be coerced into a lopsided trade deal for derailing its superpower trajectory.

As the saying goes, “the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry”, so the aforesaid approach might not be implemented in full.

In fact, it could also backfire if China feels like it’s being pressured into an Imperial Japanese-like 1941 zero-sum dilemma of subordinating itself to the US or initiating a war out of desperation to avert that worst-case scenario, which is precisely what the US wants to avoid.

The US’ restoration of unipolarity therefore risks sparking the next World War if cooler heads don’t prevail.

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

Hong Kong’s graduate job market reached its weakest level in five years in 2025, as hiring dropped sharply and wages showed almost no growth, according to SCMP. University data revealed that job openings fell by 55 per cent from the previous year, declining to just over 30,000 positions, even lower than during the pandemic period. This marked a major shift from earlier years, when more than 80,000 graduate jobs were available annually. The steady decline since 2023 suggests that opportunities for young people have been shrinking for some time, rather than collapsing suddenly.

At the same time, salary growth has slowed to a near standstill. The average monthly pay for new graduates rose by only 0.5 per cent to HK$20,961, the smallest increase in recent years. This was a sharp contrast to the stronger wage growth seen between 2022 and 2024. Management trainee positions, which are often viewed as a gateway to leadership roles, were also badly affected. Their numbers fell to the lowest level in five years, and average pay in this category even declined slightly.

These trends have had a direct impact on youth unemployment. The jobless rate among people aged 20 to 24 climbed to 12.3 per cent, one of the highest levels recorded in decades. More than 17,000 young people were without work during the final months of 2025. For many graduates, this means longer job searches, repeated rejections, and growing uncertainty about their future.

SCMP writes that frustration and anxiety have become common among jobseekers, especially on social media platforms. One graduate wrote, “I am also a graduate from a professional discipline and have been looking for a job since May, but I still have no offer.” Another shared her emotional struggle, saying, “Being unable to secure a job makes me feel very nervous, and my emotions have become difficult to control. When will I get a suitable job?” Some users also complained that available positions often came with low pay and limited prospects, making it difficult to build a stable career.

Experts point to rapid technological change as one of the main causes of the decline in entry-level jobs. Human resources consultant Alexa Chow explained, “The speed and penetration of AI have been so fast that it has created many challenges for jobseekers,” adding that “Jobs like general customer service and translation are quite easily replaced by AI.” As companies adopt automated systems, fewer junior staff are needed to handle routine tasks that once served as training grounds for graduates.

Economic uncertainty has also played a major role. Weak consumer spending, especially in retail, catering, and entertainment, has forced many businesses to cut costs. As a result, employers are more reluctant to invest in fresh graduates who require training and supervision. Management trainee programmes, which demand long-term commitment and resources, have been among the first to be reduced.

Recruiters say companies are now far more selective in their hiring. Jobsdb’s Bill Lee observed, “In the current environment, we observe that employers are more selective in their hiring criteria.” Many firms prefer candidates who can contribute immediately, rather than those who need time to develop. This puts fresh graduates at a disadvantage, particularly those without internship or part-time work experience.

Despite the gloomy outlook, experts stress that graduates are not without options. Developing practical skills, gaining real-world experience, and learning to use digital and AI tools can help improve employability. Some professions that rely heavily on human interaction, such as counselling and psychology, remain less affected by automation. In a tougher job market, adaptability, continuous learning, and resilience may be key to helping young people navigate an increasingly competitive employment landscape.

Via The Libertarian Institute

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told US envoy Steve Witkoff during a meeting in Jerusalem on Tuesday that Iran cannot be trusted, as Witkoff prepares for potential talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

“Ahead of Envoy Witkoff’s departure to meet with a representative of Iran, the Prime Minister clarified his position that Iran has proven time and again that its promises cannot be relied upon,” Netanyahu’s office said in a statement after the talks.

According to Haaretz, President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, also attended the meeting. While holding no official position in the Trump administration, Kushner has been deeply involved in US engagement with Israel and negotiations on Gaza.

Initial reports said Witkoff and Araghchi were expected to meet in Turkey, but the venue may now be changed to Oman. Axios reported on Tuesday that Iran was making new demands related to the talks, but the claim was contradicted by Ali Vaez of the Crisis Group.

“A senior Iranian official just told me that this report is not accurate: ‘Both sides are deciding together on the best format and venue,’ he noted,” Vaez wrote on X in response to the Axios report. The White House also said that talks are still planned for this Friday.

It’s unlikely that a deal between the US and Iran can be reached as the Trump administration is demanding that any agreement must include limits on Tehran’s missile program, a condition Iranian officials have said is a non-starter.

President Trump has been threatening to bomb Iran for weeks and has ordered a major US military buildup in the region, which has involved the deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its strike group and additional air defenses.

The president is now pushing the idea of some sort of deal with Iran, but before the launch of the 12-Day War, he was also calling for diplomacy as part of a deception campaign to keep Tehran offguard.

U.S. official to Axios:

It’s really the Israelis who want a strike on Iran.

The President is just not there. pic.twitter.com/dTpkxeHNAI

— Clash Report (@clashreport) February 3, 2026

Israel launched the war on June 13, a few days before the US and Iran were scheduled to hold another round of nuclear talks. Hours before the first Israeli airstrikes hit, President Trump said he was committed to diplomacy with Iran.

On the heels of today’s momentum collapse in the US, Silver prices have puked almost 20% in a matter of hours after Asian markets opened…

…erasing the rebound gains of the last three days…

The overall decline from when Trump’s announcement of Warsh’s nomination as the next Fed Chair is now back up to 40%.

“Sentiment seems to have turned soggy across most asset classes, including regional equities and metals,” said Christopher Wong, a strategist at Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd.

“This underscores fragile sentiment” and has created “a feedback loop amid thin market liquidity,” he said.

Spot Gold prices are also down (around 4-5%), with $5000 seemingly acting as serious resistance…

There’s no obvious specific catalysts for the decline in precious metals for now but Goldman Sachs does note that data suggested that Chinese speculators may have played a minor role in the recent volatility (until now).

The timing suggests that Western flows rather than Chinese speculative activity drove late January’s volatility.

Most of the buildup and unwind in gold prices occurred while SHFE–the venue for Chinese speculative futures trading–was closed.

Additionally, China’s strong tradition of physical precious metals ownership and easy access to physical keep it as the dominant form of demand, with the speculative paper market in China — including SHFE futures market and ETF market — being relatively small. 

But, given the magnitude and timing of tonight’s collapse, it would appear the speculative Chinese investor has pulled the rug (although gold-backed ETFs are gaining traction in China, their market size remains tiny compared to Western counterparts).

Silver’s relative underperformance has smashed the Gold/Silver ratio back above 65x (6 week highs)…

Bitcoin is also accelerating its losses during the US day session, back below $72,000…

The collapse of these ‘alt’ currencies is coming as the US dollar’s recent gains accelerate…

“Price action is likely to remain volatile until there is greater certainty on the monetary policy outlook,” Standard Chartered Plc analysts including Sudakshina Unnikrishnan said in a note.

Some of this near-term volatility is resulting from investors redeeming their holdings in exchange-traded products, they said, but “structural drivers remain intact and we continue to expect a rebuild to the upside.”