74.1 F
Chicago
Thursday, September 10, 2026
Home Blog Page 76

More Than Half Of Gen Z Investors Have Moved Money Into Sports Bets

0
More Than Half Of Gen Z Investors Have Moved Money Into Sports Bets

A growing share of young Americans is folding sports gambling into their long-term financial plans, according to new research from the investment platform Betterment.

In an online survey of 1,000 U.S. retail investors conducted in late March and early April and released this week, 52% of Gen Z investors said they had shifted money originally set aside for stocks or other investments into sports wagers over the past year. Only about one-third of Gen Z participants reported no involvement in sports betting at all, compared with 63% across all age groups in the survey.

26% of Gen Z respondents – those born between 1997 and 2007 – said they view sports betting as a deliberate, ongoing part of their wealth strategy. That figure drops sharply with age: 14% of millennials, 6% of Gen X, and just 1% of baby boomers reported the same outlook.

Of those Gen Z respondents, roughly 11% described betting as an investment strategy aimed at high returns, while 15% treated it as a short-term way to raise cash.

The betting numbers sit inside a broader shift in where young investors get their information. Social media is now Gen Z’s most commonly cited source for financial news, rising from 45% in 2024 to 60% this year – nearly three times the 21% who cite a financial advisor.

The findings highlight how the rapid growth of legal sports gambling and prediction markets is competing for the same discretionary dollars that once flowed into retirement accounts and brokerage portfolios. The state-regulated sports betting industry in the United States has expanded into a nearly $17 billion business in recent years. Prediction markets have also surged; Robinhood Markets, long known for democratizing stock trading, added them to its app in 2025 and has called the segment its fastest-growing business line ever.

Betterment Chief Executive Officer Sarah Levy warned that the trend carries risks. “When a prediction market or sportsbook starts to feel like a retirement strategy, we have a problem,” she said in a statement. “These products are designed to keep people seeking the next quick score, not to help them build toward the next decade. Younger investors deserve access to the tools and information that meet them where they are, but the industry also has a responsibility to be clear about the difference between participating in a trend and building lasting wealth.”

Robert Kosciuk, a 32-year-old from Huntington, New York, illustrates the shift – maintaining a Robinhood account for stocks but devoting more energy this year to betting, Bloomberg reports. He says he approaches sports wagers with the same discipline he applies to investing: researching outcomes carefully, avoiding emotional decisions, and limiting most bets to $100. He acknowledges the activity is gambling but believes he manages it more thoughtfully than casual players. So far this year he has earned roughly $2,500, enough to cover a vacation he attributes in part to successful bets on the Carolina Hurricanes.

Industry representatives push back on the idea that betting should be treated as investing. Joe Maloney, president of the Sports Betting Alliance – whose members include FanDuel, DraftKings, Fanatics Betting & Gaming, bet365, and betMGM – told Bloomberg that sports wagering is entertainment, not a wealth-building strategy. Adults who choose to bet, he added, should do so responsibly within a fixed entertainment budget and never with money needed for savings or essentials.

Broader economic pressures may be amplifying the appeal of high-risk options. Eighty percent of Gen Z respondents who already use or are considering speculative investments said concerns about falling behind financially played a role, according to a Northwestern Mutual study of 4,357 adults conducted by the Harris Poll in January. As homeownership grows more difficult and everyday costs rise, some younger adults are turning to sports betting, prediction markets, and crypto in hopes of accelerating progress toward their goals.

The Betterment survey also examined how investors make decisions. 56% percent said they rely primarily on their own research and judgment – more than any other single source. That self-reliance increased with age, rising from 40% among Gen Z respondents to 69% among baby boomers. About one in three participants reported trusting artificial intelligence for financial advice. Of those, 53% said AI had prompted a decision they would not otherwise have made, including 48% of all Gen Z respondents. Gen Z investors were eight times more likely than baby boomers to say they were comfortable using AI for long-term financial planning – 41% against 5%.

The survey polled 1,000 U.S. retail investors between March 27 and April 3, split evenly across four generations, meaning each generational figure rests on roughly 250 respondents. Participants were recruited through an incentivized online panel and were required to hold at least one investment outside a 401(k).

Tyler Durden
Sat, 08/15/2026 – 16:55

Rage Politics: Hakeem Jeffries Will Take A Baseball Bat To The Supreme Court

0
Rage Politics: Hakeem Jeffries Will Take A Baseball Bat To The Supreme Court

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has struggled to pander to the mob to secure power in the midterm elections, including brandishing a baseball bat on social media to show his radical bona fides.

With Democratic Socialists chanting “you’re next” when seeing Jeffries, he continues to struggle to stay in front of the mob.

This week, he doubled down on his pledge to throw the Supreme Court to the mob if they make him the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

After the recent gains by far-left candidates in states like Minnesota and the near victory of Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong in Wisconsin, Jeffries came out to reaffirm his intent to radically change the highest court. According to the Washington Times, Jeffries declared, “There’s a variety of different options that are on the table, and I think that we can’t foreclose any single one of them.” He added that the “conservative, right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has become basically a subsidiary of the MAGA Republican Party.”

He promised to make far-left Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) the driving force behind changing the Court, including possible 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices and expanding the Court to create an instant liberal majority.

Notably, none of these figures were claiming that the Court was fundamentally flawed until it ruled against them, particularly in cases that impacted their political power such as declaring racial gerrymandering to be unconstitutional.

What is interesting is that the liberal justices reject this narrative, reminding citizens that the Court has delivered major losses to the Trump Administration. Indeed, President Trump has routinely attacked conservative justices for ruling against him and his Administration.

In addition, polls show that the majority of the public supports virtually all of the recent major rulings, including the ban on racial gerrymandering.

It is only the Democrats who oppose those rulings and are now demanding a hostile takeover of the Court.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has called for packing the Court because it does not follow her views and those of “widely held public opinion.” I have pushed back on that rationale, given the Court’s function as a countermajoritarian institution. However, these polls even challenge the flawed rationale for court packing.

So Jeffries is promising that the work of James Madison will be undone by the likes of Jamie Raskin and Elizabeth Warren. To have these calls on our 250th anniversary is crushingly ironic.  Other leading Democrats have lined up to pledge to fundamentally change the Court, which has played a key role in making this the oldest and most stable republic in history.

It is simply about power. Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has put packing the Supreme Court front and center, explaining, “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.”

I have called it the Nike School of Constitutional Law. Democratic leaders are pledging to “just do it” to appease the mob. Of course, some of these measures would be challenged if done without constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court would then have to rule on the effort to pack or limit its members. The expansion can be done by legislative vote. Although most Americans oppose court packing, Democrats view control of the Court as essential to pushing through a radical agenda to change the political system to their advantage.

Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.

In Federalist 10, Madison discussed the destructive impact of factions in forcing through opportunistic changes to advance their interests:

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

We are witnessing the same factional politics being pushed by leaders who believe that they can ride a rage wave into power. They have a greater likelihood of causing lasting damage to our system than guaranteeing their own lasting power. History is not on their side. Today’s revolutionaries are often tomorrow’s reactionaries in an age of rage.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 08/15/2026 – 16:20

Woke 2.0 Will Be Worse

0
Woke 2.0 Will Be Worse

Authored by Spencer Klavan via AmericanMind.org,

Readers familiar with Dr. Seuss’s classic, The Cat in the Hat, will remember the twin chaos agents Thing 1 and Thing 2.

“‘These Things are good Things,’” the Cat reassures the children whose mother has inexplicably left them under the supervision of a fish.

“‘They are tame. Oh, so tame! / They have come here to play.’”

The Things briefly feign innocence, then quickly reveal themselves to be marauding imps, knocking over nightstands and ruining the linens.

“I do not like the way that they play!” says the son of the house.

Now here comes Woke 1 and Woke 2.

“Woke 1 was crazy,” said U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, quoting an unnamed city councilman in a viral interview for ABC. The congresswoman sheepishly acknowledged that Americans did not like the way Woke 1 played out, while also implicitly announcing that there will soon be, or already is, a Woke 2. And it will be tame. Oh, so tame!

There is, in fact, a new version of wokeness in the making. But just as Thing 2 was fundamentally identical to Thing 1, Woke 2 will not be any different in essence from Woke 1. They are both here to upend the furniture.

Wokeness in all its forms is grievance politics.

Its central idea is that an injustice lies at the heart of America and must be corrected to atone for the historical misery inflicted on groups of innocents.

What is changing in Woke 2 is the account of who those innocents are, and how they have been wronged. Woke 1 was founded on the notion that black women are the most oppressed, and therefore most righteous, of all people. “I’m thinking,” said Kamala Harris in her vice presidential victory speech, “about the generations of women—black women.” She mentioned many other kinds of women, of course, but the list began and ended with “the black women—who are too often overlooked, but so often prove that they are the backbone of this country.”

This approach had rhetorical power, up to a point. It traded on the successes of second-wave feminism and the reality of black slavery in America’s past. But it ran into some problems. Third-wave feminism, as worked out by theorists like Judith Butler, made it basically impossible not to affix the prefix “trans-” wherever the word “woman” appeared. So the flag of Woke 1 became the complicated and confusing progress pride flag—a gay rainbow with black and trans colors intruding from the left.

To make matters worse, the legacy of slavery did not actually touch all the racial minorities that Democrats wanted to bring into their fold. Most Nigerians, for example, had not experienced segregation in the United States. Nor had the millions of unvetted South and Central Americans streaming across the border. They were certainly “people of color.” But so were Chinese, Japanese, and Indian Americans, whose typically enviable life outcomes fit awkwardly into the narrative that the country was built on a ruthless caste system.

The contradictions heightened as Woke 1 faced a series of embarrassments such as Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the 2023 Supreme Court case in which Asian students complained that admissions officers were discriminating against them in favor of black applicants. Then there were the notorious Trump ’24 ads that pinned Harris to her previous support of taxpayer-funded gender surgeries for federal prison inmates. Placing black women at the center of the moral universe created an unexpected and electorally unworkable set of obligations to illegal immigrants and queer felons.

Clearly, the coalition needed shuffling. And so rearranging the order of priorities in the grievance hierarchy is what the reinvention of woke has actually been about. In place of the black trans woman who defined Woke 1, Woke 2 has chosen as its ideal victim the dispossessed Palestinian liberationist, fighting with Hamas against Israel. This has a number of interesting strategic advantages.

First, the racial argument has been neatly streamlined. Rather than implausibly analogizing every racial group in America to the victims of Jim Crow, Woke 2 presents the black American story as just one instance of a global fight for justice carried out by minorities everywhere and epitomized in the intifada.

In 2023, on a panel for the Democratic Socialists of America, future New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani claimed that “when the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it’s been laced by the IDF.” He was outlining the blueprint for Woke 2, which takes its cues not from Judith Butler but from post-colonialist Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth (1961). “Between colonial violence and the insidious violence in which the modern world is steeped,” wrote Fanon, “there is a kind of complicit correlation, a homogeneity.” Therefore, “The colonized, underdeveloped man is today a political creature in the most global sense of the term.”

Recently, in an intriguing interview with The New Yorker’s David Remnick, Democratic Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed put forward an argument that connects Fanon’s global struggle to America’s domestic economy. He claimed that pro-Israel politicians are allowing “the money that should be spent taking care of our kids to be sent to a military that has done a genocide.”

In other words, Woke 2’s new order of priorities allows its proponents to suggest that white or white-coded (read: Jewish) oppressors are funneling money away from America’s working poor to fund a worldwide campaign of mass slaughter. Distant as this account is from reality, it is much more ruthlessly focused as a line of woke reasoning. It emphasizes foreign policy and the economy, where the public’s real anger lies, and deftly mutes the discredited claims of LGBTQ extremists.

In practice, any woke administration of any variety will end up imposing pretty much the same bizarre sexual priorities on the country once elected. But for purposes of advertisement, Woke 2 will try to keep its trans members less conspicuous than Woke 1 did, for at least as long as it takes to re-establish national power. Replacing the progress pride flag with the Palestinian flag will distract from the ravages of queer excess while infusing socialist revolution with the moral self-righteousness of anti-white resentment.

Whether this tactic succeeds with voters is another matter.

If it does, though, Americans will discover that both Woke 1 and Woke 2, like Thing 1 and Thing 2, only play nice until they can start pitching over tables.

If we want to avoid a rerun of the early 2020s, then—to paraphrase Seuss—we will have to get rid of Woke 1 and Woke 2.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 08/15/2026 – 15:10

Ukraine Hits Key Russian Space Facility With Flamingo Cruise Missiles

0
Ukraine Hits Key Russian Space Facility With Flamingo Cruise Missiles

Ukraine’s long-range drone attacks have frequently targeted military bases and oil refinery and energy sites of late, and more recently warehouses of major Russian online retailer Wildberries – but on Saturday a new target has been added: space facilities.

Ukrainian forces have touted that they’ve struck the Progress Rocket and Space Center in Russia’s Samara region. The facility focuses on the manufacturing and operation of space launch vehicles.

Illustrative: Baikonur Cosmodrome, Space.com/NASA

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on X that Ukraine hit the space manufacturing center with FP-5 Flamingo cruise missiles – among the largest in Ukraine’s arsenal, and which are domestically developed and produced.

He said it was necessary to target Russian space agency Roscosmos as among Russia’s “key enterprises” – and that the targeted site was also involved in “electronics production” connected to military operations.

Other sites targeted in the fresh wave of attacks included Savasleyka air base in the Nizhny Novgorod region, which hosts aircraft used to attack Ukraine, as well as an oil facility in Ust-Luga, which lies close to the Estonian border.

“Our plan of long-range sanctions against Russia for this war is being implemented, and it is important that Russia’s war potential be reduced,” Zelensky stated.

Ukrainian national media offered this as a backgrounder:

The “Progress” Rocket and Space Center is one of the key enterprises in the Russian Federation’s rocket and space industry, producing launch vehicles of the “Soyuz” family. These are used to launch Russian spacecraft for military, reconnaissance, and communications purposes into orbit.

In particular, the “Soyuz-2.1b” is used to deploy the Russian “Rassvet” satellite constellation – a broadband satellite communications system that Russia positions as an analogue to Starlink.

The Progress Rocket and Space Center also manufactures Earth observation satellites, which the enemy uses for reconnaissance purposes.

Russia also attacked Ukraine overnight, as has long been the norm. Over 150 Russian drones were sent on the country, with Ukrainian forces claiming shootdown or neutralization of 124 of these, according to a military statement.

The fresh onslaught resulted in dozens of injures. As for potential casualties inside Russia, little is yet known of this in terms of secretive space and airbase facilities targeted.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 08/15/2026 – 14:35

Somali Piracy Surges Amid Hormuz Blockade

0
Somali Piracy Surges Amid Hormuz Blockade

Authored by Alex Kimani via OilPrice.com,

The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has forced hundreds of commercial ships onto longer routes around Africa, and Somali pirates are moving quickly to exploit the sudden increase in traffic off the continent’s eastern coast. Oil tankers MT Honour 25, MT Eureka and MT Asana were hijacked in the Gulf of Aden and off Puntland between April and July 2026, the largest attacks by Somali pirates in years. The Iran war has now delivered these groups more targets, spread across thousands of miles of ocean, while diverting naval resources to the Persian Gulf and Red Sea.

Somali piracy peaked in 2011 before an international crackdown reduced attacks to a fraction of their former levels. The first major revival came in late 2023, when Houthi attacks in the Red Sea forced hundreds of vessels away from the Suez Canal and around the Cape of Good Hope. And with U.S. forces all diverted to the war against Iran in the Persian Gulf, it’s largely a free-for-all for Somali pirates.  Unlike the disorganized bands of the early 2000s, today’s Somali pirates are ranging much farther from shore, and their operations have become much more sophisticated. And perhaps even more concerning, according to reports from a UN panel of experts, there is now direct coordination between Yemeni militants and Somali networks.

In exchange for creating maritime chaos to keep Western navies distracted, the Houthis have supplied Somali pirate cells with advanced weaponry, military training and precision GPS tracking devices to pinpoint commercial hulls. Al-Shabaab–one of the most lethal terrorist groups in Africa–provides onshore logistical backing along parts of the Somali coast where pirate gangs launch operations or hold hijacked vessels. Intelligence reports indicate the group receives a generous cut of up to 30% from successful maritime ransom payouts.

According to a joint study by Interpol, the World Bank and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Horn of Africa piracy generated over $400 million in ransom payments from 179 hijacked ships between 2005 and 2012, averaging roughly $2.23 million per ship. The money follows a structured economy, with pirate crews receiving a standard 10% to 15% fee, local financiers claim 30% to 50% for funding food, fuel and weapons, while the rest is laundered into legitimate businesses, according to the study. And it’s only becoming more lucrative with time. 

A June 30, 2026, analysis by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC) reports that ransom demands have been made for all three commercial vessels hijacked in the current wave.

The demand for Eureka was reportedly $10 million.

Separately, the pirates holding Honour 25 have demanded $3 million for the tanker, cargo and crew. 

GI-TOC says pirates received $1.2 million-$1.5 million for the release of the Chinese fishing vessel Liao Dong Yu 578 in March this year. The same vessel had reportedly generated another $2 million ransom in 2024. GI-TOC says counter-piracy officials believe the latest payment helped catalyze the current wave of attacks.

The Gulf of Guinea is yet another piracy hotspot in Africa thanks to the region’s riches in oil and gas as well as a well-trained militia due the Delta’s secessionist movement. While local law enforcement and naval forces have managed to curb attacks in shallower waters, pirates are highly adaptable to new environments. Now, they are using heavily armed mother ships to strike targets well outside state jurisdictions and exclusive economic zones. The region’s pirate networks now operate with military-grade weapons, an intricate shipping intelligence network and complicated financial backing.

War-risk insurance premiums for commercial shipping transiting the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf spiked by over 1,000%–surging from pre-conflict levels of roughly 0.15%–0.25% of a vessel’s value up to 7.5% and 10% per voyage shortly after the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in March.

With African maritime zones highly vulnerable due to a lack of equipment and manpower, and with American forces diverted to the Persian Gulf indefinitely, piracy sees its biggest opportunity yet. It means an African diversion isn’t necessarily going to avoid risk premiums.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 08/15/2026 – 14:00

Democratic Socialist Leaders Squirm When Asked About Cuba, Venezuela, And Nicaragua’s Dictatorships

0
Democratic Socialist Leaders Squirm When Asked About Cuba, Venezuela, And Nicaragua’s Dictatorships

Mexican journalist and Miami-based news anchor Jorge Gilberto Ramos Ávalos had one of the most revealing exchanges yet with the leadership of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Ramos repeatedly pressed the socialists’ national DSA co-chairs on whether Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua should be classified as dictatorships. Neither of the far-left extremists could provide a direct answer.

Ramos asked Ashik Siddique, co-chair of the DSA:

But help me understand the difference between the kind of democratic socialism that you support and what’s happening in Cuba and in Nicaragua, in Venezuela. Recently we heard Daniel Ortega saying that he doesn’t want to have elections in Nicaragua.

Of course, Cuba hasn’t had multiparty elections since 1959. In Venezuela it is clearly still a dictatorship. So what’s your relationship with these countries? Do you believe that Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua are dictatorships?

Siddique responded to Ramos’ question but could not answer it directly.

Ramos asked again:

And I understand the situation, but I mean, is Cuba a dictatorship for you?

Yet, in a familiar display of Trump derangement syndrome, Siddique again deflected the question, shifting the discussion away from Cuba’s communist system and toward his claim that President Trump is a “dictator”: 

I think in the United States it’s hard for us to judge other countries being dictatorships when we have Donald Trump as president, when basic voting rights are under attack in the U.S., validated by the Supreme Court just a few months ago. I think we have a lot of work to do in the United States to make sure we have a democracy.

What’s most revealing in this exchange is that DSA leaders won’t acknowledge left-wing dictatorships but instead default to blaming Trump, rather than communism, for Cuba’s problems. Their ignorance is unbelievable and not rooted in reality, despite much of South America having rejected decades of nation-killing left-wing regimes in recent elections that have only ushered in a right-wing wave of common sense across the continent.

Related:

This is not based in reality. The DSA is an authoritarian movement seeking to dissolve our government, and their justification, enabled by self-described democratic moderates, is ‘Trump did it too.’ But he didn’t do it. America is not a dictatorship. We’ve allowed the TDS to go on unchallenged long enough. It’s time for everyone to stop coddling the crazy toddlers and to put away the communism,” Mike Solana responded to a post on X by the Manhattan Institute’s Stu Smith.

Watching DSA co-chairs refuse to call Cuba and Venezuela dictatorships while claiming that American democracy is no better than those authoritarian regimes could be viewed as ideological subversion (read here) intended to change Americans’ perception of reality and eventually gain enough political power to usher in their agenda to abolish the U.S. empire from within:

Other DSA leaders have stated their exact goal: to “destroy America from within.”

Daniel Di Martino, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, stated on X, The Cuban regime pays these people and their group. They are NOT ALLOWED to question or criticize Cuba because of this. It’s like the North Korean agents that crash out when you ask them to say “F*** Kim Jong Un.” Keep putting them on the spot.” 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 08/15/2026 – 13:25

Lutnick Draws Red Line: “Great American Companies” Shouldn’t Use Chinese Memory Chips

0
Lutnick Draws Red Line: “Great American Companies” Shouldn’t Use Chinese Memory Chips

One week after The Wall Street Journal reported that Tim Cook’s Apple was testing memory chips from China’s CXMT, a company blacklisted by the Pentagon over alleged ties to the People’s Liberation Army, the outlet published a follow-up story with an interview with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who publicly urged Apple not to proceed. The standoff comes as the AI data-center buildout absorbs global memory supplies, driving prices sharply higher and forcing consumer-electronics manufacturers to explore alternative sources.

The Trump administration is not in favor of that,” Lutnick said in an interview after touring a new Apple manufacturing plant in Houston, Texas. There have to be “other solutions to the memory issue, but it’s not great American companies using Chinese memory.”

Lutnick said he has told Apple “plainly” that US tech giants shouldn’t use Chinese memory. Apple has tested chips from CXMT and Yangtze Memory Technologies for potential use in devices sold in China, though Chief Operating Officer Sabih Khan declined to comment on the trials, saying her team must examine “all options.”

Apple can buy standardized Chinese memory chips without government approval, but customized components could require licenses.

As we’ve covered, the iPhone maker has been waging a lobbying campaign to secure the White House’s blessing to ease the financial pressure from soaring memory-chip prices. A recent FT report said Apple approached the Commerce Department earlier this summer about procuring Chinese memory chips.

Related:

But Lutnick’s comments to the WSJ make clear that the White House has, at least for now, withheld that blessing.

Meanwhile, Micron Technology and US senators from states benefiting from planned US memory investments are lobbying the administration to block US tech giants from procuring Chinese memory chips, warning that doing so would undermine domestic production and national security.

The WSJ previously reported that other device companies are also seeking supplies from CXMT:

Laptop makers HP and Acer have started using memory chips from CXMT in devices sold outside the U.S. to alleviate some of the memory supply strain, people familiar with the matter said.

Back to the Lutnick interview from Friday, the outlet reported:

Even so, Lutnick, who is spearheading the administration’s plan to increase domestic chipmaking, said the administration continued to press Apple to bring more production to the U.S. 

“Relentlessly, more and more and more,” he said, describing the pressure. “They’ve built their supply chains on low-cost labor. And now they need to build a supply chain on advanced manufacturing. Can Apple do it? Of course they can.” 

“You’re going to see step by step, and piece by piece, they’re going to bring significant portions of their business home,” Lutnick said. 

Most of Apple’s supply chain is in Asia, and the company has been working with contract manufacturers to build new iPhone assembly plants in India.

Asked if Apple has any plans to bring iPhone production to the U.S., Khan pointed to efforts the company has already made, including commitments to spend tens of billions of dollars on made-in-USA chips for iPhones, as well as adding an assembly line for Apple’s popular Mac Mini desktop computer in Texas. He also said Apple was focused on helping chip manufacturers reshore their supply chain end to end.

To sum up, Apple does not appear to have the White House’s blessing to use Chinese memory chips, leaving the company with fewer options to offset soaring component costs and signaling continued upward pressure on product prices.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 08/15/2026 – 12:15

The Gold Tax Surprise: When Gold Profits Get Taxed At 28 Percent

0
The Gold Tax Surprise: When Gold Profits Get Taxed At 28 Percent

Authored by Adam H. Douglas via The Epoch Times,

If you bought gold during its 2023-2026 rally, you may be sitting on a large profit and a tax rule you have never heard of.

Gold’s tax treatment can surprise investors, especially when selling after a major rally. Nattapon Saisaard/shutterstock

The IRS classifies physical gold, and even the popular bullion-backed gold exchange-traded funds (ETFs), as collectibles, a category shared with art, stamps, and antiques. That classification changes the tax bill when you sell. Most holders discover it at the worst possible moment: after the sale, when nothing can be done.

Here is the rule to understand before you sign anything.

Quick Answer: How Is Gold Taxed When You Sell?

Long-term gains on physical gold and bullion-backed ETFs are taxed as collectibles: at your ordinary income tax rate, capped at a maximum of 28 percent. That cap is the part many investors misunderstand and what a lot of media coverage gets wrong. If you are in the 12 percent bracket, you pay 12 percent, not 28 percent. The 28 percent figure only bites investors whose ordinary rate would otherwise be higher, and it compares unfavorably to the 15 or 20 percent long-term rates on gains on stocks.

Gold held for one year or less generally produces short-term gain taxed at ordinary income rates. State tax and, for some higher-income taxpayers, the 3.8 percent net investment income tax may apply separately. Choosing the year you sell can be a structural advantage, so learn the rules first.

The 28 Percent Rule – The Details

Two important details about the 28 percent rule:

  • It’s a ceiling, not a flat rate. Long-term collectibles gains are taxed at whatever your ordinary rate is, up to 28 percent. Many retirees selling in a modest-income year owe far less than the headline rate.
  • It only applies after one year. If you sell gold that was held for a year or less, the gain is short-term, taxed as plain ordinary income with no cap benefit at all. For someone in the 35 percent bracket, selling a month early costs more in tax than if they were to wait another month.

Higher earners should also budget for the 3.8 percent net investment income surtax and any state income tax, which stack on top for gold just as they do for stocks.

The Same ‘Gold’ Is Taxed Three Different Ways

The ETF row surprises the most people. Funds that hold physical bars in a vault are typically structured as grantor trusts, so the IRS looks straight through the fund wrapper to the metal inside. You never touched a coin, but you are taxed as if you had.

Mining stocks, by contrast, are shares of companies, taxed like any other stock. Gold in a traditional IRA or 401(k) is generally taxed as ordinary income when withdrawn, not at the collectibles rate. Roth treatment differs.

Cost Basis: Where Sellers Save or Lose Thousands

You are taxed on the gain, not the sale price, and the gain depends on your cost basis. Basis generally starts with what you actually paid for the gold, including any dealer premium and applicable acquisition costs, not merely the spot price. A seller who reports only the spot price on the purchase date overpays.

The classic problem arises from coins bought for cash years ago. If you cannot document what you paid, the IRS may treat your basis as zero and tax the entire sale price. Before selling, gather what you can:

  • Dealer invoices and receipts, the gold standard of proof
  • Credit card or bank statements showing the purchase
  • Records of the date acquired, so you can reconstruct the price and premium from that day

Even partial reconstruction beats nothing, and a folder of paperwork assembled before the sale is worth thousands after it.

Inherited Gold and Gifted Gold Are Opposites

These two get confused constantly, and the difference is the whole tax bill. Inherited gold generally receives a stepped-up basis: Your cost resets to the market value on the date of death, and the holding period is automatically long-term, so selling soon after often produces little or no taxable gain.

Gifted gold is the trap. It carries over the giver’s original basis and holding period, so if mom hands you coins she bought decades ago, and you sell, you owe tax on all those decades of appreciation. Families deciding whether to give gold now or leave it later should understand they are choosing between those two treatments.

The Deadline You Choose

Almost every other tax rule happens to you on someone else’s schedule. This one waits for your signature. You decide the year the gain lands, which means you can sell in a lower-income year, split a large sale across two tax years, or confirm your documentation first.

Knowing the collectibles rule before the sale, rather than after, is the entire game.

FAQs About the Gold Collectibles Tax Rate

Does Everyone Pay 28 Percent on Gold Profits?

The 28 percent figure is a maximum, not a flat rate. Long-term gains on gold are taxed at your ordinary income rate, capped at 28 percent, so a seller in the 12 or 22 percent bracket pays that lower rate. The cap only matters for investors whose ordinary rate would exceed 28 percent. Short-term gains, on gold held for a year or less, get no cap at all and are taxed as regular income.

Are Gold ETFs Really Taxed as Collectibles?

The physically backed gold ETFs are taxed as collectibles. ETFs that hold bullion in vaults are generally structured as grantor trusts, so shareholders are treated as owning a slice of the metal itself, and long-term gains face the collectibles rate of up to 28 percent. Funds that hold mining stocks are taxed as ordinary equity funds at 15 or 20 percent. Check the fund’s tax documentation before assuming, because the ticker alone does not tell you.

What If I Have No Receipts for Gold I Bought in Cash?

Act before you sell. Search for any payment records, dealer correspondence, or notes establishing when you bought your gold, then reconstruct the price and typical premium from that date. Documented partial basis is far better than none, because without any support, the IRS can treat your basis as zero and tax the full sale amount. For large holdings, a tax professional can help you build a defensible basis file.

Does the IRS Know When I Sell Gold?

Form 1099-B reporting depends on the transaction, the dealer’s status as a broker, the form of the metal, and applicable quantity thresholds. Current IRS instructions provide exceptions for many precious-metals sales, including transactions below the minimum quantity required for a CFTC-approved regulated futures contract (CFTC stands for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission); related sales within 24 hours, however, may be aggregated. Regardless of whether a Form 1099-B is issued, you must report a taxable gain or loss.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 08/15/2026 – 11:40

Hawaii Braces For Direct Tropical Storm Hit On Big Island

0
Hawaii Braces For Direct Tropical Storm Hit On Big Island

Hawaii’s Big Island is under a hurricane warning as Tropical Storm Lala is expected to make landfall on Saturday local time, according to the National Hurricane Center.

This is a very serious storm,” Hawaii Gov. Josh Green told reporters late Friday night. “We have not had a hurricane make landfall in quite some time. So none of us really have experienced this really in, you know, the last couple of decades.”

Green said Hawaii will see “an incredible amount of water,” warning residents and visitors to prepare for extremely heavy rain and widespread flooding, as well as the possibility of major power outages.

“We’re hoping that it’s going to be sufficiently far south that we just get the periphery of the storm, but, no promises, we’ve seen storms turn,” Green said.

As of 0800 local time, the NHC said Tropical Storm Lala was roughly 140 miles southeast of South Point, Hawaii, packing sustained winds of 65 mph and moving west-northwest at 13 mph.

The FOX Forecast Center warns that “30 inches of torrential rain could deluge higher terrain and favored windward slopes, triggering widespread, life-threatening flash flooding and severe mudslides.”

The last hurricane to make landfall in Hawaii …

… was Category 4 Hurricane Iniki in 1992.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 08/15/2026 – 11:05

Socialism Simplified: A System Where Government Uses Your Money To Solve Everyone Else’s Problems

0
Socialism Simplified: A System Where Government Uses Your Money To Solve Everyone Else’s Problems

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

They are coming for your money, and they have a ton of momentum right now. Democratic Socialists are winning election after election by promising free stuff, but of course free stuff is never actually free. Somewhere along the way, someone has to pay for it. If you find yourself protectively reaching for your wallet as you read this, I don’t blame you one bit. Socialism is a system where the government uses your money to solve everyone else’s problems. Unfortunately, it is also a system that is becoming increasingly popular among our young adults.

In a previous article, I noted that a poll that was taken in 2025 found that a whopping 62 percent of U.S. adults under the age of 30 now have a positive view of socialism.

That should chill you to the core.

Meanwhile, Americans view capitalism less favorably than they once did…

  • Fewer than half of Americans say capitalism is working even “somewhat” well — down from 60% about a decade ago, according to a June Wall Street Journal-NORC poll.

  • 61% of Americans said they were bothered “a lot” by the feeling that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share in taxes, per a Pew Research Center poll in January. That included 41% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents.

  • The same poll showed another 60% overall — and 42% of Republican-inclined voters — said the same about some corporations paying their fair share.

  • And views of big business went from 19 points positive in 2012 (58%-39%) to 25 points negative last year (37%-62%), according to the Gallup data.

This is crazy.

So why is this happening?

Well, the truth is that a large portion of the population is very frustrated with the economy.

The rising cost of living has been absolutely eviscerating the middle class, and many young adults consider homeownership to be completely out of reach because home prices are so absurdly high.

When someone comes along and starts promising all sorts of free stuff in this very harsh economic environment, it can be very seductive.

But if the Democratic Socialists of America were actually able to implement their entire agenda on the federal level, it would more than triple federal spending

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) propose new spending that could more than triple federal outlays. They propose the government pay for health care, housing, higher education, and electricity. Jobs are government-guaranteed, retirement benefits are expanded, paid family leave is universal, fossil fuels are eliminated, and reparations are paid.

The DSA platform claims that the bill for all this will be sent to “the richest individuals and corporations.” Tally up that bill, and it ballparks between $71 trillion and $212 trillion in new spending over the next decade. Confiscating every dollar of high-end wealth and corporate profits would cover only a fraction of those costs. The DSA agenda necessitates high taxes on middle-class Americans.

If you took every penny from every billionaire in America, that would only account for 8.4 trillion dollars.

So where is the rest of the money going to come from?

They don’t have an answer to that question, but they have been winning major races all over the country.

And now a 37-year-old Democratic Socialist named Francesca Hong is favored to win Wisconsin’s Democratic gubernatorial primary…

The 37-year-old restaurateur and chef-turned-member of the state Assembly is leading in polls by relatively wide margins ahead of Tuesday’s Democratic gubernatorial primary. Hong, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who represents the famously liberal state capital of Madison, comes equipped with politically problematic tweets covering everything from abolishing the police to the racist origins of Thanksgiving.

It is hard to believe that someone like that could actually become the next governor of Wisconsin.

I wouldn’t even hire her to run a Dairy Queen.

But this is where we are at as a society, and it appears that lots of Democratic Socialists will be heading to D.C. after the midterm elections.

In 2026, Democratic Socialists have been repeatedly winning primaries in deep blue congressional districts…

  • Claire Valdez (New York – 7th District): Won the Democratic primary in an open congressional race.

  • Darializa Avila Chevalier (New York – 13th District): Defeated a 30-year progressive incumbent in a highly publicized upset.

  • Melat Kiros (Colorado – 1st District): Defeated long-time incumbent Representative Diana DeGette in the Denver-based Democratic primary.

  • Christopher Rabb (Pennsylvania – 3rd District): Won the open Democratic primary race for this Philadelphia-based congressional seat.

  • Donavan McKinney (Michigan – 13th District): Unseated incumbent Representative Shri Thanedar in the Michigan Democratic primary.

What will D.C. look like if the Democrats take back both the House and the Senate?

Some of the Democrats that are running for seats in Congress appear to be absolutely psychotic.

If there is a major progressive wave in the fall, that could potentially make Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez one of the frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028.

As Ben Shapiro has aptly pointed out, she seems to be pushing a new version of “woke” that is more palatable to many Americans…

Woke 1.0 forced Americans to say, “Am I racist or am I not?” Woke 2.0 is, “Is American capitalism inherently corrupting and bad? Is the West’s system of freedoms and free markets inherently imperialistic, colonialist, genocidal, and racist?”

It’s easier to pitch woke 2.0 than woke 1.0. Why? Americans have been convinced over the course of the last 25 years or so that America is the bad guy, that we and our allies are fundamentally evil, that our foreign policy decisions of the past two decades and maybe longer, going all the way back to World War II, according to some, are actually terrible and horrible, and we’re the bad guys in the world.

Add the economic angst right now, combine those two things, and you get woke 2.0, Ocasio-Cortez’s new program. It is about hatred of America.

But no matter how AOC may want to market it, the content is still the same.

In so many ways, the socialists want to turn our country completely upside down and make it the exact opposite of what it once was.

They intend to do this by taking over the Democratic Party.

Democratic Socialists always run for office as Democrats, and most of them openly identify themselves as Democrats

Self-identified democratic socialists do not see socialism as being mutually exclusive and continue to identify with other terms on the left, including more mainstream Democratic labels. Of Socialist Democrats, 92% consider themselves to also be Democrats, 84% consider themselves to also be Obama Democrats, and 80% consider themselves to also be progressive.

We are being told that there is a civil war in the Democratic Party, but the truth is that the differences between “mainstream Democrats” and Democratic Socialists are not actually that significant these days.

They are all heading in the same direction. Mostly, their disagreements are about how far to go and how fast it will take to get there.

We already have the biggest government in human history, but they want to make it even bigger.

But socialism doesn’t work.

As Margaret Thatcher once warned, the problem with socialism is that the socialists always eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.

Considering the fact that we are nearly 40 trillion dollars in debt, our country is rapidly approaching that point too.

Michael’s new book entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 08/15/2026 – 10:30