Novak Djokovic just dropped a shocker in the world of professional tennis; he’s cutting ties with the very players’ association he helped create.

The 24-time Grand Slam champion announced Sunday on X that he has stepped away completely from the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA), saying his “values and approach are no longer aligned with the current direction of the organization.”

I am proud of the vision that Vasek and I shared when founding the PTPA, giving players a stronger, independent voice – but it has become clear that my values and approach are no longer aligned with the current direction of the organization.

— Novak Djokovic (@DjokerNole) January 4, 2026

The move marks a dramatic turn for Djokovic, who once stood front and center promoting the PTPA as a new force to represent pro players outside the sport’s traditional structure.

From disruptor to dissenter

Djokovic and Canadian Vasek Pospisil unveiled the idea for the PTPA at the 2020 U.S. Open, aiming to build a players’ group that could function like a union, giving athletes a powerful, unified voice in a sport where players are independent contractors and tours operate separately.

The new organization was pitched as an alternative to the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) and Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) councils – advocating for equal representation, better pay, and greater input in decisions that affect players’ careers.

In recent months, however, tensions have emerged behind the scenes.

Djokovic said his decision stems from “ongoing concerns regarding transparency, governance, and the way my voice and image have been represented within the organisation.”

Lawsuits, splits and strategy disputes

The PTPA grabbed headlines last year when it filed a sweeping class-action lawsuit in March against tennis’ governing bodies – including the ATP, WTA, International Tennis Federation, and the sport’s integrity unit – accusing them of “systemic abuse, anti-competitive practices, and a blatant disregard for player welfare,” RTE.ie reports.

Later, the four Grand Slam tournaments – the Australian Open, Roland-Garros, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open – were added as defendants, with Tennis Australia reaching a settlement.

Notably, Djokovic’s name was not on the legal filing when it went public – a sign of early distance between him and the group’s legal strategy. In March, Djokovic himself admitted he didn’t agree with parts of the lawsuit.

Reports surfaced late last year that internal disagreements intensified after the PTPA reached a separate deal with Tennis Australia — a move seen by some as undermining the unity of the lawsuit and the organization’s broader mission.

The PTPA’s official account on social media struck back at Djokovic’s departure, defending its mission and pushing back against what it called “misinformation” about the association’s work, though it did not directly single him out.

A statement from the PTPA. pic.twitter.com/WIlRInXDur

— Professional Tennis Players Association (@ptpaplayers) January 5, 2026

With more than 500 members at its peak and backing from some top players, the PTPA had been trying to shake up tennis’ longstanding power structures and push for reforms.

What’s next for Djokovic?

Djokovic said he will now focus on his tennis, his family and contributing to the sport in ways that reflect his principles and integrity – language that suggests he’s closing the chapter on this particular fight.

The news comes just ahead of the Australian Open in January, where Djokovic is expected to compete as he chases more major titles even as this off-court drama unfolds, the Guardian reports.

Authored by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World,

• Growing inequality reflects deeper physical limits on energy and resource extraction rather than purely financial or policy failures.

• Rising debt and higher interest rates are emerging as binding constraints on governments, businesses, and households alike.

• The 2026 downturn is likely to be uneven, with deflationary pressures, weaker oil demand, and selective regional resilience rather than a single global collapse.

Recently, many people have begun talking about the US having a k-shaped economy. In it, a handful of wealthy people are doing very well financially, while many others are falling further and further behind. I expect that the low wages of the majority of workers will soon lead to adverse impacts on businesses, governments, and international organizations. This phenomenon is likely to lead to a very uneven world economic downturn in 2026.

The world economy is subject to the laws of physics. The world economy seems to be reaching growth limits because there are too few easily extractable energy resources (as well as other resources, such as fresh water), relative to the world’s population. The Maximum Power Principle strongly suggests that even as limits are hit, the world economy cannot be expected to collapse all at once. Instead, the most efficient producers of goods and services will be able to succeed as long as resources are available, while less efficient producers will tend to fall by the wayside. Thus, the Maximum Power Principle somewhat limits the speed of the world’s economic downturn.

In this post, I will try to explain the challenges the world economy is now facing. I will also provide some thoughts on how 2026 will turn out.

[1] The k-shaped economy that the US and many other countries are experiencing is an indication that resources are, in some way, “running short.”

Humans all have similar basic needs. They need food to eat, and they need to cook at least some of this food before they eat it. They tend to need transportation services, both for themselves (to get to work) and for goods, such as the food they eat. They also need governments to keep order and to provide basic services, such as roads and schools. All these goods and services require energy of a suitable kind, such as human labor, burned biomass, or fossil fuel energy. They also require arable land, fresh water, and minerals of many kinds.

If there are not enough resources to go around, the easiest way to accomplish this is by creating a k-shaped economy. One example is with farmland. In many traditions, when a farmer dies, his oldest son inherits the farm. Younger children are then forced to find other kinds of employment, such as being a craftsman, farmer’s helper, or priest in a church. Wages for these younger children can easily fall lower than the income of their land-holding older brothers, especially if large families become common. Creating jobs that pay well for all the younger children becomes a problem.

A similar phenomenon has been happening in many Advanced Economies (US, UK, and other countries included in the OECD) in recent years. Parents are doing quite well financially, but their children often have difficulty finding jobs that pay well, even after advanced schooling. Some adult children are also left with educational debt to repay. This is a new type of k-shaped economy.

[2] The world’s current problem is an ever-rising population paired with resources that are becoming ever-more “expensive” to extract.

World population has exploded since fossil fuel consumption became abundant. This has allowed more food to be grown, inexpensive transportation of goods and people, and the development of antibiotics and other drugs.

Figure 1. Chart made by Gail Tverberg based on several population sources.

At the same time, the most accessible resources were extracted first. For example, fresh water initially came from streams, lakes, and shallow aquifers. As the population grew and industrial needs became increased, wells had to be dug deeper and aquifers began to be drained. In some places, desalination now needs to be used. Each of these advances in producing fresh water became more resource-intensive. It became increasingly difficult to gather enough fresh water using human labor alone. Instead, increasing quantities of physical materials, energy supplies, and debt were needed to make the new systems work.

The reason debt was needed to purchase capital goods, such as those required to obtain high-cost water, was because the devices purchased were expected to provide the desired output (water, in this case) for a long time in the future. Securing this future benefit required advance funding, using an approach such as debt. The sale of shares of stock, which are expected to appreciate over time and pay dividends, provides a similar benefit to debt.

A similar issue arises with the increasing extraction of minerals of many kinds, such as copper, tin, uranium, lithium, coal, and oil. Early on, extraction using manual labor and simple tools was sufficient. However, once the easiest to extract resources were removed, capital goods became necessary to make extraction efficient.

Capital goods, such as coal fired power plants, wind turbines, solar panels, and hydroelectric power plants also allowed electricity to be produced, extending the benefits of fossil fuels. Producing these capital devices requires physical materials and energy supplies, as well as debt or the sale of shares of stock for financing.

[3] A major limit on the system seems to be debt and the interest required on the debt.

In an economy, the growth of inexpensive energy supply acts very much like leavening works in making bread; it greatly helps economic growth. With the increasing use of inexpensive energy supply, vehicles can be made ever-less expensively, compared to using much hand labor for manufacturing (literally, making goods by hand). With this growing efficiency, wages rise faster than inflation. In the 1950s and 1960s, young people found that they could marry and live in nicer homes than their parents. Now, the reverse seems to be happening: many adult children are finding it difficult to keep up with the lifestyles of their parents.

Once the inexpensive-to-extract energy supply is depleted, economies tend to add an increasing amount of debt, in an attempt to pull the economy forward. It seems to me that a major limit on the system comes when an economy slows down so much that it can no longer repay its debt with interest.

Figure 2. The author’s view of the analogy of a speeding upright bicycle and a speeding economy. “Debt with its time-shifting ability helps pull the economy forward, but it only works if the economy is moving fast enough.”

Political leaders like to believe that growing debt, by itself, will pull the economy forward. In fact, this does work, for a time, as long as interest rates are falling. But falling interest rates stopped happening in 2022.

Figure 3. Interest rates on 10-year Treasuries (red) and on 3-month Treasuries (blue), based on data of the Federal Reserve of St. Louis.

Of course, all the added debt contributes to the k-shaped economy. The already wealthy disproportionately benefit from debt payments. They also tend to benefit from dividends on shares of stock and from share price appreciation. The poorer people find that an increasing share of their wages goes to paying interest on debt, especially as interest rates rise.

As debt levels grow, governments eventually have a problem with repayment of debt with interest. They need to raise taxes simply to cover their rising interest payments. This is the reason why Donald Trump wants to get interest rates down. Interest payments are rising rapidly, with near-zero interest rates in the rear-view mirror (Figure 3).

[4] Added technology and economies of scale have been adding to the k-shaped economy.

Technology requires specialization. People with more training and higher skill levels tend to earn more than others. Economies of scale encourage the growth of ever-larger businesses. The people at the top of huge organizations tend to earn more than those at the bottom. Also, as international trade is added, low-wage people in the hierarchy increasingly compete for wages with workers from countries with much lower wage scales. Thus, the wages of less-skilled individuals are increasingly squeezed down.

Furthermore, both added technology and economies of scale require added debt. Again, the interest on this debt (and dividends on stock) disproportionately benefits those who are already wealthy.

[5] In a sense, artificial intelligence (AI) is simply an extension of added technology, with a huge need for electricity, water, and debt.

The hope for AI is that it will make our already k-shaped economy, a great deal more k-shaped. The hope is that AI can eliminate a significant share of jobs, with such high profits that the owners of this technology can become very rich. If it works, the wealth will be even more concentrated at the top than today.

I see the need for electricity, water, and debt as stumbling blocks for AI. I expect that, starting in 2026, the AI rapid growth spurt will seize up because it is already using more resources than are available in some areas. I expect that a significant downshift in AI will adversely affect the US stock market and the rate of growth of the US economy. My hope is that the loss of growth in the AI sphere will not, by itself, bring down the US economy–just nudge it toward recession.

[6] In 2026, with an increasingly k-shaped economy, I expect that world oil prices will drift lower than today.

“Demand” for oil really means “the quantity of oil that people, businesses, and governments around the world can afford to purchase.” As the economy becomes more k-shaped, fewer people can afford to buy vehicles of any kind. Poor people, in the lower part of the k, are hardest hit. They will tend to increasingly rely on low energy approaches, such as ride-sharing, walking, or using a bicycle. They will tend to buy fewer goods that are transported internationally. Governments, as they begin collecting less in tax revenue from the many poorer people, will be inclined to cut back their spending on new buildings and road improvements. These changes work in the direction of reducing oil demand, and thus oil prices.

It is this increasingly k-shaped economy that has been holding world oil prices down in 2025. I expect that prices will drift even lower in 2026 because of the increasingly k-shaped world economy. There aren’t enough very rich people to hold up oil and other resource demand by themselves.

Oil production will not immediately drop in response to these low prices, although it may start drifting lower in 2027. The US Energy Information Administration is forecasting that world oil production will rise by 1.1 million barrels per day in 2025 and by 1.2 million barrels per day in 2026. These amounts do not seem unreasonable based on new developments that have already started producing higher amounts of crude oil.

[7] The heavier types of oil, from which diesel and jet fuel are disproportionately made, are in short supply now. They are likely to continue to be in short supply in 2026.

World oil production has risen in recent months. When I investigated, I found that the vast majority of the recent growth seems to be in light oil. Thus, the shortfall in diesel and other heavy fuels is likely to continue as in the recent past.

Figure 4. Chart showing the level of per-capita diesel consumption, relative to the per-capita consumption in 1980. Amounts are based on Diesel/Gasoil amounts shown in the “Oil-Regional Consumption” tab of the 2025 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute.

This shortage of the heavy types of oil has several impacts:

1. With a shortage of heavy oil, a fairly strong country, such as the US, is tempted to attack Venezuela, which has the world’s largest reserves of heavy oil.

2. Island nations without their own fossil fuel supplies tend to use a disproportionately large share of diesel and jet fuel, for several reasons: (1) Such islands often burn diesel fuel for electricity. This is an expensive way to make electricity; goods produced with this electricity become too expensive to export. (2) Imports and exports need to be shipped in by boat or by air, again using limited types of fuel supply. Physics tends to push these economies down by making their products expensive to sell elsewhere. Examples of islands with these problems include Cuba, Puerto Rico, Madagascar, and Sri Lanka. Such places tend to be adversely affected by shortages of heavy oil sooner than other locations.

3. Without enough jet fuel, long distance tourism is likely to be reduced in 2026. One issue is the lack of jet fuel for flying planes. Another issue is that an increasing share of the population will not be able to afford long-distance tourism because of the k-shaped economy.

4. Tariffs are a way of discouraging the shipping of goods long distance, to indirectly save on heavy oil. We should not be surprised by their increasing usage.

[8] In my view, deflation is a greater risk than inflation in 2026.

With a k-shaped economy, demand for apartments (especially smaller ones) tends to stay low. As an economy becomes increasingly k-shaped, low-paid workers tend to share an apartment with one or more friends or move in with family members to save money. In a December 23 report, Apartment Advisor writes that the US average asking rent for studio apartments fell by 2.81% in 2025 compared to 2024. The similar comparison for one-bedroom apartments showed a price drop of 1.72% in 2025. In an increasingly k-shaped economy, I would expect this trend toward lower rental prices of smaller apartments to continue and perhaps become more pronounced.

Real estate selling prices may also be an area for downward price pressure. Young people who have not built up equity through prior home ownership tend to find themselves shut out from buying homes. Also, commercial real estate of many kinds seems to be grossly oversupplied in many areas. Given this situation, downward price adjustments seem likely.

Underlying this downward pressure on prices may be some actual cuts in wages. One law firm reports that cuts in wages are becoming increasingly common, especially for employees of smaller companies.

There are precedents for deflation becoming a problem. The US had problems with deflation at the time of the Great Depression. Japan had problems with deflation after its crash in real estate prices in the 1990s, and China (with its real estate price crash) has recently been having problems with deflation.

[9] “Bread and circuses” become more important as the economy becomes more k-shaped.

Many readers have heard about bread and circuses. Before the Roman Empire collapsed, it used bread and circuses to keep its citizens from rioting from a lack of food. The way to prevent food riots is by making sure everyone has enough to eat through food distribution programs, described as “bread.” Providing circuses offers a distraction from the fact that there are not enough well-paying jobs to go around.

Today, with our increasingly k-shaped economies, leaders have figured out that meeting citizens’ basic needs is essential if unrest is to be avoided. Political leaders somehow need to provide food and healthcare to their poorer citizens. They also need to keep people distracted with entertainment. For many years, governments of Advanced Economies have been trying to provide the equivalent of bread and circuses. In the US, legislation providing Social Security for the elderly was enacted in 1935, during the Great Depression. Many other financial support programs have been added over the years. Today’s circuses today are provided through televised entertainment and video games.

A major problem is that the costs of these programs have become more expensive than tax revenue can support. This is especially true of the cost of “bread,” if its cost is defined as including healthcare and pensions for the elderly, in addition to food. Ultimately, these high-cost programs can bring an economy down. The high cost of bread and circuses is thus a second limiting factor, besides excessive interest payments on government debt, (discussed in Section [3]).

[10] Leaders of many countries are already making plans that can be used to deal with shrinking resources per capita.

If there aren’t enough resources to go around, what can governments do to prevent riots? Two obvious choices come to mind:

(a) Tighten controls on citizens to prevent riots. China has been a leader in this area, and the UK and US seem to be trending in a similar direction. In a sense, the Covid requirements of 2020 were practice with respect to restrictions on movement.

(b) Develop a rationing system that can be used, in case of a shortfall of essential goods. Many countries are looking at central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). These are a digital form of central bank money that is widely available to the public. In the US, I expect CBDCs will be rolled out initially as a way for those who are entitled to food stamps to easily access their benefits. If these digital currencies work, CBDCs can easily be expanded into a widespread rationing system. Government leaders will then be able to decide who can afford to buy what, rather than depending on the way the k-shaped economy currently allocates buying-power.

[11] What lies ahead in 2026?

I don’t think any of us know for certain. The general direction of the world economy seems to be toward contraction, but some parts of the world economy will fare better than others.

Europe looks increasingly like it is an “also-ran” behind the US and China in the world economy. I expect its resource use will continue to shrink back in 2026, indirectly benefiting the United States and the rest of the world. I am hoping that with cutbacks in oil usage by island nations and Europe, and the resulting lower world oil prices, the United States will be able to avoid the worst of the recessionary tendencies looming in 2026.

There are some reports that AI, as it is being applied in China, is providing major success in reducing the cost of coal mining in China. If this is true, it may allow China’s economy to grow in 2026, despite downturns in many other countries.

I am fairly certain that AI, as it is being developed in the US and Europe, cannot continue its recent exponential growth trajectory, and I expect this to become obvious in the next few months. This shift seems likely to pull down US stock market indices. Here again, I am hoping that despite this issue, the US will be able to avoid the worst of the world’s recessionary tendencies.

I don’t expect a world war in 2026. For one thing, no country has adequate ammunition capability. I think civil wars and wars against nearby countries are more likely.

It is possible that the EU will collapse in 2026, leaving the individual countries on their own.

At some point in the future, I expect that the central government of the US will also collapse, in the manner of the Soviet Union in 1991. States will likely regroup and issue new local currencies; the new combined governments will likely provide much more limited benefits than the US government provides today.

Many people think that different leadership will change the current trajectory, but I am doubtful about this. Most of the world’s problems are “baked into the cake” by resource shortages and by too high a population relative to resources. Keeping immigration down is one way of trying to keep resources and population in closer balance.

All in all, I expect a very uneven world economic downturn in 2026. Economies will continue to become more k-shaped. Governments will do their best to hide problems from the public. Stock markets will likely not do well in 2026, if they can no longer count on AI for an uplift.

One year after taking over as Senate Majority Leader, John Thune has answered the question many skeptics were asking: could an old school , process-oriented senator function under President Donald Trump?

The answer is yes – Thune is going full send on Republican initiatives, providing Trump with an arsenal of wins to brag about as we head into midterms. 

Trump of course dominates the headlines – using his bully pulpit to excoriate enemies, while steamrolling those who step out of line with ‘revised’ agenda like MTG and Thomas Massie. Apparently he’s made Foreign Intervention Great Again (with some arguing that removing Maduro denied foreign adversaries a foothold in the region). 

And while mainstream MAGA twists itself into a pretzel to justify the whiplash, Thune has been quietly running the Senate the way it has long been run – using majorities, rules, and procedural control to move legislation and nominations efficiently, Punshbowl News reports following an interview with Thune marking his first year as GOP leader.

When Thune replaced Mitch McConnell, pundits assumed that friction with the executive branch was a foregone conclusion. Thune’s skepticism of tariffs, his attachment to Senate norms, and his discomfort with public political combat seemed ill-suited to a president who thrives on chaos as a tool to apply pressure. Instead, he’s making hay while the sun shines. 

In 2025, Senate Republicans passed a sweeping tax-and-spending-cut bill, confirmed Cabinet nominees at a historic pace, and altered Senate rules to accelerate nominees stalled by Democratic obstruction. These were not concessions extracted by Trump so much as long-standing Republican priorities that moved once political obstacles were cleared.

Trump supported the outcomes. Thune managed the process.

“I feel like I’ve gotten to a point where [Trump] respects enough how I view the world and look at these issues,” Thune told Punchbowl. “And he has an understanding that I want what’s in his and our best interest. Let’s talk about the things we can do and not the things we can’t.”

The boundaries of the relationship are most visible in what Thune has refused to do. Despite pressure from Trump and his allies, he has not eliminated the filibuster or abandoned the blue-slip process for judicial nominees. Those guardrails remain intact, but they remain intact alongside rapid confirmations, large spending packages, and of course – they need Trump’s signature at the end of the day. 

Rather than confronting Trump publicly when disagreements arise, Thune has chosen to raise concerns privately. He has said he prefers to “not litigate these things in public.” 

Democrats argue they no longer trust Thune, accusing him of failing to push back when Trump pressures Congress on spending and funding decisions. Republicans complain that Thune is too cautious and too deferential to process. Thune’s response is essentially the same to both: public resistance is not how power operates in the current environment.

“The president has his way of doing things,” Thune said. “We’ve got to figure out how to work around that.”

Meanwhile, Thune continues to pursue bipartisan deals on housing, market structure, and permitting reform, and he has left the door open to a limited Obamacare compromise. He has acknowledged how difficult legislating has become in a polarized, election-year environment, calling these “not normal times.”

Authored by Nate Kostar via CoinTelegraph.com,

Parcl and Polymarket have partnered to launch real estate prediction markets that will settle against Parcl’s daily housing price indexes, bringing housing price data into prediction markets for the first time.

Under the partnership announced Monday, Polymarket will list and operate markets tied to movements in housing price indices, while Parcl will supply the index data used to determine market outcomes and settlement values.

Each market will link to a Parcl resolution page showing the final settlement value, historical index data and the methodology used to calculate the index, providing a standardized reference for verifying outcomes once markets close.

The initial rollout will focus on major US housing markets, with contracts structured around whether local home price indexes rise or fall over set periods, as well as threshold-based outcomes tied to published index levels.

The companies said the rollout will occur in phases, beginning with a limited set of high-liquidity US cities and expanding to additional markets and contract types over time.

Parcl, a platform founded during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic when housing markets became volatile, publishes real-time housing price indexes and analytics and operates onchain products tied to residential real estate prices, using Solana for settlement.

Parcl’s native token, PRCL, was up about 120% over the past 24 hours at time of writing, according to CoinGecko data.

Source: CoinGecko

Polymarket is a prediction market platform where users trade on real-world events, ranging from sports and politics to forecasts for Bitcoin’s price on a given date.

Prediction markets expand in 2025-2026

After a surge in user activity during the 2024 US presidential election, prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket became a mainstream narrative in crypto in 2025.

Polymarket bets. Source: Polymarket

Both platforms secured high-profile partnerships during the year, including Kalshi’s deal with CNBC and Polymarket’s partnerships with DraftKings, the Ultimate Fighting Championship and PrizePicks.

In September, Polymarket was reported to be weighing a US launch while seeking new funding at a valuation of up to $10 billion. The discussions followed a reported $200 million raise in June led by Founders Fund, the investment company co-founded by Peter Thiel.

In November, Kalshi was reported to have raised $1 billion, valuing the company at roughly $11 billion, with Sequoia Capital and CapitalG leading the round. The raise followed a $300 million funding round in October.

President Trump has now made clear that he has reversed his position on the alleged Ukrainian massive drone attack on Russian President Putin’s residence last week.

Trump explained to reporters that he’s now been given a chance to be presented with more information, based on intelligence briefings and other undisclosed data which has come to light. He says Ukraine was not responsible, after previously seeming to agree with Kremlin allegations, which Trump had earlier called “deeply concerning”.

The US President explained American officials had determined that Ukraine did not do it. According to his newest remarks:

Trump said that “something happened nearby” Putin’s residence but that Americans officials didn’t find the Russian president’s residence was targeted.

“I don’t believe that strike happened,” Trump told reporters as he traveled back to Washington on Sunday after spending two weeks at his home in Florida. “We don’t believe that happened, now that we’ve been able to check.”

On December 29 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Ukraine launched multiple drones toward Putin’s official residence in the northwestern Novgorod region, describing that the drone wave was in the dozens, but that Russian air defenses intercepted all them.

The timing was further interesting given that just the day prior Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Florida to meet Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate to take up the issue of the stalled 20-point peace plan.

As for this week, the whole world is talking about Trump’s removal of Venezuelan President Maduro by military force, which likely also had elements of a coup from within, based on Venezuelan officials cooperating with the CIA and US military.

This Latin American intervention against a Putin ally is likely to further complicate talks to achieve Ukraine peace. 

The Kremlin has already blasted the blatant ‘double standard’ – given Washington has spent years berating Moscow for the Ukraine ‘special military operation – yet now effortlessly invades a country in its own backyard.

Now, after the US intervention against Venezuela, Putin will see less incentive in making any kind of peace deal which falls anything short of Russia’s complete and maximalist demands.

China could also get more aggressive in its anti-Washington rhetoric, as its citizens have been loudly highlighting American hypocrisy on the Taiwan issue.

Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com,

This is Happening, This is Really Happening

On New Year’s Day, Zohran Mamdani was sworn in as mayor of the financial capital of the world, with his hand on a copy of the Koran, and in his inauguration speech, he proclaimed:

“I was elected as a democratic socialist and I will govern as a democratic socialist.”

As a guy who normally tunes out political speeches (to this day, I haven’t a single speech by Trump, Trudeau, let alone Carney or Biden), this one got my attention to the point where I downloaded the transcript and read the entire thing.

It gave me some serious Pol Pot “This is Year Zero” vibes…

“Beginning today, we will govern expansively and audaciously… to those who say the era of Big Government is over, hear me when I say this: no longer will city hall hesitate to use its power to improve New Yorker’s lives.”

Most people don’t know who that was. Except maybe the odd Cambodian.

The banger pull quote was this:

“We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

…and the crowds, no doubt cheered.

A few years ago, before the pandemic, I re-released a version of the public domain work: Pictures of The Socialistic Future, from my foreword:

This remarkable little novella posits a fictional socialist sweep into power in Germany towards the end of the 19th century, anticipating the Bolshevik and Marxist revolutions of the subsequent decades. It follows the arc of a family as narrated by its patriarch as he initially enthuses over the socialist ascension to the seat of government.

Quickly, however, he progresses through various stages of disenfranchisement that inevitably ensue: first tempering his expectations, then ratcheting them downward, followed by grappling with cognitive dissonance brought about by the internal contradictions of the new system. When those conflicts are inescapable,  he finally spirals into angst and despair as he comes to fully comprehend the horrors of socialism.

I released that around the same time we did the audiobook version of Dr. Kristian Niemietz’s “Socialism, The Failed Idea That Never Dies“, which has obviously not been read by many New Yorkers.

The historical pattern with all collectivist experiments is: honeymoon, underperformance, disenfranchisement, collapse.

NYC has entered the honeymoon phase, Mandami will be celebrated by Western, liberal intellectuals as a trailblazer and and bulwark against “Trumpism”, he plans to release inmates from jails, freeze rents, launch government run grocery stores and eliminate fares for public transit.

It remains to be seen what kind of radical reforms a mayor can make in one American city – where property rights could (theoretically) still be upheld at higher levels, and where those with much to lose have the ability to flee.

Over the weekend, a useful contrast emerged: Venezuela already ran this experiment. After their honeymoon came repeated hyperinflations, food shortages so extreme people were eating zoo animals, and Chávez’s successor turned the place into a dictatorial narco-state.

The nightmare finally ended when Maduro was removed by the U.S. military in a one-shot operation on January 3rd.

“Collectivism” means: the end of economic reality

In Eugen Richter’s parable – which invariably replays in every collectivist adventure, the first order of business is not “compassion.” It’s confiscation.

Mamdani’s platform specifies a new flat 2% income tax on all New Yorkers earning more than a million annually and boosts the corporate tax rate from 7.5% to 11.5%. My prediction is that after six to twelve months of policy failure, he’ll follow that up with a wealth tax. Bet on it.

Mamdani frames collectivism as “warmth,” but the actual content of his program is an expanding universe of guarantee: universal child care, rent freezes, “fast and free” buses, baby baskets. etc.

As a Canadian who’s lived my whole life under the yoke of “free health care,” I know how it actually collectivism works: anything the government gives everyone “for free” comes at a cost. And when it’s imposed through a state monopoly, that cost tends to exceed the returns, by a wide margin. (Which is why Canadians routinely die on waiting lists, or while sitting in the ER waiting for treatment.)

I’m frequently saying “Incentives are everything“, this is what collectivists don’t get…

The economic reality is that when you turn City Hall (or any government) into the allocation engine for entitlements, you turn erstwhile productive citizens into a doom loop of dependancy. Nobody in a collectivist paradise wants use their excess productive capacity only to have it redistributed to everybody else, so they simply won’t produce at anything above subsistence levels. There’s no point in doing so.

At the municipal level what we can expect then, this:

Rent freezes = housing shortages

Saving for an investment property is one of the more accessible avenues for improving one’s lot in life. When governments freeze rents, it squeezes out the small “mom-and-pop” landlord from being able to hold a cashflowing property, they get squeezed out. Developers won’t build or invest, because there’s no point if they can’t sell any units, and there’s no point investing in new units if you can’t at least break even operating them.

The result: fewer homes get built.

City run grocery stores = food shortages

We don’t need to look at Venezuela to see what happens here, this is already being tried in America and it’s a shit-show: empty shelves, rotting food, it’s almost as if when you try to force goods and services to price below their market clearing rates, the system simply breaks down as producers withhold their remaining labour and capital from a money-losing exercise.

Taxing the “wealthy” = capital flight

We’re already seeing the wealthy pull up stakes and leave – the highest earners did so even before the election, and after Mamdani secured victory, the next level: middle and higher-income earners, headed for the exits (most popular destination: Florida).

There is now an influx among low income earners – (defined as “under $200K annually!) headed to NYC, perhaps lured by the promise of free stuff, streets paved with gold, and a collectivist utopia.

We’ll see how long New York’s honeymoon phase with collectivism lasts.

What we’ll inevitably see play out instead is not theory, it’s been borne out in every collectivist experiment over the 20th and 21st centuries.

Sign up for the Bombthrower mailing list and get a free copy of Pictures of the Socialistic Future. Follow me on X here.

Hilton Hotels is in damage-control mode after Homeland Security posted on X an email showing that a Hilton property in the Minneapolis area canceled a reservation for federal agents amid a large-scale operation to identify, arrest, and remove illegal alien criminals from Tim Walz’s state.

“NO ROOM AT THE INN!” DHS wrote on X, alleging that the hotel chain “launched a coordinated campaign in Minneapolis to REFUSE service to DHS law enforcement.”

The agency continued, “When officers attempted to book rooms using official government emails and rates, Hilton Hotels maliciously CANCELLED their reservations.”

“This is UNACCEPTABLE. Why is Hilton Hotels siding with murderers and rapists to deliberately undermine and impede DHS law enforcement from their mission to enforce our nation’s immigration laws?” DHS concluded in the post.

NO ROOM AT THE INN!@HiltonHotels has launched a coordinated campaign in Minneapolis to REFUSE service to DHS law enforcement.

When officers attempted to book rooms using official government emails and rates, Hilton Hotels maliciously CANCELLED their reservations.

This is… pic.twitter.com/qKMKypGtzi

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) January 5, 2026

The hotel in question is the Hampton Inn by Hilton Lakeville, located just off Interstate 35 in the southern Twin Cities suburbs, about 30 minutes from downtown Minneapolis. Hampton Inn is owned by Hilton.

DHS’ post went viral by early Monday afternoon, sparking outrage among America First supporters and prompting calls to cancel Hilton-branded credit cards and even future reservations.

🚨 JUST IN: Conservatives are demanding a boycott on Hilton after they launched a COORDINATED ANTI-ICE campaign in Minneapolis, outright refusing service to any DHS law enforcement

“We found immigration work connected with your name and are CANCELLING your reservation.” 😠

DHS:… pic.twitter.com/JYcHrBmwSm

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 5, 2026

Time to Bud Light Hilton!!! pic.twitter.com/Gs2MMVWZR3

— Right Side Out 1776 (@rso1776) January 5, 2026

Just canceled my Hilton Honors credit card… BYE! pic.twitter.com/sO7brnYAtH

— Corey Inganamort 🪚🌴🪚 (@TheBirdWords) January 5, 2026

I am a long time @HiltonHonors Diamond Member. I am asking Christopher J. Nassetta, Hilton CEO, to reconsider this mistake and correct it immediately. @HarmeetKDhillon

— Matt Sweetwood (@MSweetwood) January 5, 2026

Hilton executives, facing what can easily be described as a potential “Bud Light moment,” were quick to clarify that the cancellation involved not the company as a whole but an “independently owned and operated” hotel.

BREAKING: This particular hotel, the Hampton Inn Lakeville outside Minneapolis was bought for $15 million last summer, according to news reports.

The LLC that was used to purchase the hotel is owned by four Indian partners—Parmjit Singh, Amanpreet Hundal, Karandeep Nagra, and… https://t.co/yZm0ymVs1h pic.twitter.com/2iU1l9mSdo

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 5, 2026

“Hilton hotels serve as welcoming places for all. This hotel is independently owned and operated, and the actions referenced are not reflective of Hilton values. We are investigating this matter with the individual hotel, and can confirm that Hilton works with governments, law enforcement, and community leaders around the world to ensure our properties are open and inviting to everyone,” Hilton told Fox News reporter Bill Melugin.

BREAKING: Hilton statement to @FoxNews:

“Hilton hotels serve as welcoming places for all. This hotel is independently owned and operated, and the actions referenced are not reflective of Hilton values. We are investigating this matter with this individual hotel, and can confirm… https://t.co/e9UHjL4L1m

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) January 5, 2026

Hilton shares in New York were down about 1.5% by late afternoon trading. The swift response from Hilton underscores growing concern about boycott calls circulating on X.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Health officials announced on Jan. 5 that they’re narrowing the number of vaccines recommended broadly for children in response to a recent order from President Donald Trump.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is moving forward with only broad recommendations for eight vaccines for children, down from 14.

Trump, in December 2025, directed Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill to review vaccine schedules in the United States and peer countries and determine if the U.S. schedule should be updated.

He named three countries, including Denmark, that recommend fewer vaccines and fewer vaccine doses.

“President Trump directed us to examine how other developed nations protect their children and to take action if they are doing better,” Kennedy said in a statement.

“After an exhaustive review of the evidence, we are aligning the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus while strengthening transparency and informed consent. This decision protects children, respects families, and rebuilds trust in public health.”

Moving forward, the CDC will stop broadly recommending vaccines against influenza, rotavirus, hepatitis A, and meningococcal disease. The CDC in 2025 already narrowed recommendations for hepatitis B and COVID-19 vaccination based on advice from advisers selected by Kennedy. The agency is maintaining its recommendation that children whose mothers did not receive a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine receive an antibody, or passive immunization, against the virus.

The old schedule can be viewed here, and the new schedule can be viewed here.

The changes were recommended by Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, acting director of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, who, during a recent presentation, commented favorably on Denmark’s vaccine schedule, and Martin Kulldorff, whom Kennedy appointed a senior adviser in 2025. Hoeg and Kulldorff said in a 34-page assessment that an update was needed because of falling trust in public health, decreases in vaccination rates, and evidence that some recommended vaccines had limited benefits.

A CDC official told reporters on a call on Jan. 5 that the agency consulted with officials in Denmark, Germany, and Japan, as well as vaccine scientists at the CDC and FDA.

Vaccine manufacturers were not consulted, another official said.

The administration says the update does not prevent children from accessing vaccines and that insurers will continue to cover them without cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act.

The CDC still recommends some of those vaccines for certain populations, such as hepatitis B vaccination for children born to women who test positive for the virus. For others, it is focused on shared clinical decision-making or recommending that people consult doctors and consider factors such as the risk of illness when deciding whether to have their children vaccinated.

The CDC is keeping in place broad recommendations for vaccines against diphtheria; tetanus; acellular pertussis, or whooping cough; haemophilus influenzae type b; pneumococcal disease; polio; measles; mumps; rubella; varicella, also known as chickenpox; and human papillomavirus (HPV).

The new schedule lowers the number of recommended HPV doses from two to one, after some recent research indicated that one dose is as effective.

“Important vaccines … will be continued to be recommended for our children,” a Department of Health and Human Services official said on the call.

“This change is going to spark major pushback, but that reaction was inevitable,” Dr. Joel Warsh, a pediatrician based in California, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Reducing universal recommendations doesn’t mean vaccines are being banned or declared unsafe—it means the CDC is finally acknowledging that not every vaccine has the same risk-benefit profile for every child.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it opposed the changes.

“At a time when parents, pediatricians, and the public are looking for clear guidance and accurate information, this ill-considered decision will sow further chaos and confusion and erode confidence in immunizations,” Dr. Andrew Racine, president of the group, which partners with vaccine companies, said in a statement.

“This is no way to make our country healthier.”

President Trump took his social media account to explain…

The Department of Energy (DOE) has finally awarded the billions of dollars for uranium enrichment announced back in 2024. The contracts span the full range of uranium enrichment from low-enriched uranium (LEU) used by the current global reactor fleet, through high-assay LEU (HALEU) which is planned to be used by multiple advanced reactor designs. Yet while three companies were chosen for huge awards, peaking at almost 900 million each, a few were notably left out.

https://t.co/azVc88b2HP

— U.S. Department of Energy (@ENERGY) January 5, 2026

Centers Energy was awarded $900 million to support the expansion of their currently-operating 900 kg/yr HALEU production capacity and toward the development of next-generation reactor fuel. We covered their recent announcement about finally starting the production of new centrifuge units for LEU production. Centrus now has US government supply on the HALEU side and Korean government support on the LEU side.

Centrus shares rose as much as 9.2% in New York, and closed up almost 25% in the past two days, one of its biggest gains in the past year.

“President Trump is catalyzing a resurgence in the nation’s nuclear energy sector to strengthen American security and prosperity,” said Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. “Today’s awards show that this Administration is committed to restoring a secure domestic nuclear fuel supply chain capable of producing the nuclear fuels needed to power the reactors of today and the advanced reactors of tomorrow.”

General Matter, started by Founders Fund’s Scott Nolan, was awarded $900 million for HALEU capacity development at their future facility in Kentucky. General Matter has been tight-lipped about the enrichment technology they plan to utilize at their new facility, but will submit an application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the facility planned at Paducah this calendar year.

Orano, a French enrichment company majority owned by the French government, was awarded $900 million for developing and constructing their planned LEU enrichment facility in Tennessee. They have vaguely discussed their intended plant size, but have remarked it will have a capacity in the “millions of SWU”. Separate Work Unit (SWU) is the measurement of uranium enrichment production capacity, with Russian imports currently clocking in at roughly 3-4 million SWU/yr.

Senator Tom Cotton last month argued that companies, such as Orano, which coordinate with China’s nuclear program should be barred from receiving US taxpayer dollars.

Global Laser Enrichment (GLE), a company co-owned by Silex and Cameco, was awarded $28 million to continue the advancement of their novel laser enrichment technology. They currently have an enrichment facility application under review with the NRC for their Kentucky facility, and are currently producing hundreds of kg of LEU at their North Carolina test center.

Notably left out of the list of award recipients was Nano Nuclear’s partner LIS Technologies, a company also developing a novel uranium laser enrichment method. While they have been busy pounding the table for months that their laser technology is the only US-origin technology, so far the US government seems to be uninterested.

Also left off the list is the only enrichment company producing commercial quantities of product in the US, Urenco. Their facility in New Mexico has been operating for years, and recently received permission from the NRC to increase their enrichment levels. Owned by a combination of UK, Dutch, and German government and private entities, the company failed to secure an award for this round.

This is likely only the first of many awards and contracts to come with companies in the domestic nuclear fuel chain, as we discussed at length last week. Many more such announcements are likely over the coming weeks. 

Authored by Cynthia Cai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

California is cracking down on extreme speeding in a move that could lead to faster license revocation for drivers exceeding 100 mph on highways, according to the California State Transportation Agency.

Drivers cited by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for the crime “will have their citation automatically forwarded to the DMV’s Driver Safety Branch—no matter their prior record” under the new joint pilot program between CHP and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the agency stated in a press release.

The DMV will review each case and the person’s driving history to determine the penalty, which may include “suspension or revocation of driving privileges,” before the person is even scheduled for court.

“We believe that early intervention is the key to saving lives,” said DMV Director Steve Gordon in a press release. “We want to take immediate action against dangerous drivers before their carelessness leads to a deadly crash.”

CHP cites roughly 1,600 individuals each month for driving 100 mph or faster. In 2024, the CHP issued a total of more than 18,000 citations for extreme speeding, the DMV stated.

In May 2025, the CHP adopted a fleet of 100 low-profile patrol cars, allowing officers to blend in with traffic better and spot reckless behavior. During the following six months, CHP officers driving these cars issued close to 33,000 speeding tickets across the state, according to the DMV.

“Driving over 100 miles per hour is not a mistake; it is a reckless choice that endangers everyone on the road,” said CHP Commissioner Sean Duryee in the DMV press release. “This new program delivers swift consequences to keep dangerous drivers off California’s roadways before their actions cause irreversible harm.”

The DMV stated that the process of penalizing drivers through the legal system is often lengthy. Once a driver is cited for extreme speeding, the citation is sent to the courts for processing.

Under the current California vehicle code, driving over 100 mph will result in a maximum fine of $500 and potentially a license suspension of up to 30 days for the first offense. Subsequent violations result in higher fines and a license suspension.

Drivers who are cited for speeding can also receive additional citations for other violations that may result in jail time, including reckless driving or causing bodily injury to others on the road.

The new DMV–CHP pilot program is “designed to act more quickly” than the court system, according to the DMV.

The state reported speeding as a “major factor in traffic deaths statewide,” as it contributes to about a third of traffic fatalities, according to the transportation agency.

In October 2025, the state launched a Southern California-focused initiative to address speeding-related traffic fatalities.

The state allocated $7 million to the Los Angeles Department of Transportation to help fund safety upgrades along Avalon Boulevard, and invested over $191 million for safety improvements along State Route 91, the state transportation agency stated on its website.

The improvements may include automated speeding detection cameras, high-visibility traffic markings, redesigning intersections to reduce conflicts, and upgrading infrastructure for safe walking and biking, in addition to promoting community engagement and law enforcement partnerships.

At that time, the agency said it set an “interim goal to cut deadly and serious injury crashes” by 30 percent by 2035.

The agency said the DMV will compare citation and outcome data to evaluate the effectiveness of the CHP–DMV pilot program in reducing car crashes.