Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The Berlin Senate has passed the Climate Adaptation Act. It obliges the city to plant 560,000 trees by 2040. After Hamburg’s referendum on an earlier entry into climate neutrality, this marks the second plebiscitary victory for the climate movement.

Now, Berlin’s drivers are in the crosshairs. Beyond rising car taxes and CO₂ fees, two popular initiatives in particular are about to make life difficult for daily commuters.

Referendum Turned into Law

Alongside the citizens’ initiative Volksentscheid Berlin Autofrei, which aims to enforce a largely car-free city center within the Berlin S-Bahn ring, a second movement has now successfully inserted itself into the legislative process for the first time: the BaumEntscheid initiative.

On November 3, the Berlin House of Representatives approved the now legally codified BaumEntscheid initiative as part of the Climate Adaptation Act by a wide majority. Only the AfD voted against the law.

The original “Tree” referendum had been rejected for cost reasons, estimated at roughly twice the price of the now-adopted citizens’ initiative.

The new law requires the Berlin Senate to provide one million healthy urban trees across the city by 2040. Given the current stock of 440,000 trees, this means an additional 560,000 trees must be planted.

Known under the code name “TreesPlus Act,” the Climate Adaptation Act stipulates that in public streets, especially on each sidewalk and on sufficiently wide medians, a healthy, maintained, or developing tree should be planted every 15 meters on average. This applies particularly in densely built areas deemed “heat-prone” by policymakers.

The goal is to compensate for the loss of street trees in recent years and, in the first phase, to plant around 10,000 new street trees by the end of 2027.

Berlin politics envisions broad citizen participation. Guided by professional horticultural expertise, neighborhoods are to help plant trees. Companies are also encouraged to participate in the effort.

Berlin Idyll. Pure Friedrichshain vibes, unbounded climate activism, detached from the reality of the rest of the country.

Idyll for Some, Nightmare for Others

What sounds idyllic in Berlin’s green bubble is likely to mean one thing in practice: fewer parking spaces, fewer lanes—and more pressure on everyone who commutes by car every day.

But that’s not all. Alongside the massive reforestation initiative, the Senate is compelled to designate 170 so-called “heat districts” within a year—areas where local temperatures are to be lowered by at least two degrees through de-densification and de-paving measures. These are densely built areas with high traffic and extensive sealing, now facing major redesigns under the Climate Adaptation Act.

Specifically: parking strips and side areas are to be unsealed and greened, parking spaces converted into bike lanes, and new public transport spaces created. The law refers to a so-called environmental network—a priority system for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport that will take precedence over individual car mobility.

Additionally, 1,000 so-called cooling islands are to be created, providing citizens safe retreats from heatwaves. These include small parks or air-conditioned entry areas in designated buildings that open as needed.

Berlin is fully indulging its climate paranoia.

Triumph of the Climate Movement

That the referendum has now become law is seen as a major triumph for the climate movement. As often happens, Berlin could become a model for other German metropolises, with Hamburg a likely candidate for further experiments.

The timing of this climate policy step is remarkable: while key political actors—primarily the U.S. government—are increasingly stepping back from strict climate policies due to the economic damage of high energy prices and deindustrialization, Berlin is taking the opposite course.

The capital—highly subsidized, often criticized as an eco-socialist biotope among Europe’s cities—is intensifying its fight against individual mobility. Trees versus parking spaces—the battle against the automobile is now official policy.

Fiscal Detachment

How detached Berlin politics and the politically active citizenry are from economic reality and fiscal prudence is evident in the state budget. This year, the city is expected to receive around €4 billion from the federal financial equalization system. Yet the net deficit remains over €3 billion.

Realistically, there are no funds for this initiative, and whether Berlin can freely draw from federal special funds is uncertain. The city is currently at the mercy of climate NGOs and their political enforcers in the House of Representatives.

Berlin is clearly pursuing political utopianism in two ways: first, at the expense of other states practicing stricter fiscal policies and forced to transfer funds to the notoriously cash-strapped Berlin; second, in an economic reality completely detached from the needs of the urban economy and trade. A policy targeting commuters, tradespeople, and anyone reliant on individual mobility.

Economy Overlooked

In Berlin, the interests of business seem to play almost no role. Almost unanimously, only the quasi-religious climate movement is honored, in hopes of political gains. It is a struggle of left-radical, eco-socialist, and socialist forces, with even the Union now occupying the midfield.

Berlin, the capital of Antifa, green radical environmentalism, and a peculiar form of political escapism, ventures onto thin ice with its Climate Adaptation Act. It may not yet be widely recognized that the surrounding areas are in severe economic crisis—a state apparently assumed as natural in the capital.

Yet this detachment means that utopian experiments, such as the deliberate assault on individual mobility under the guise of urban greening, could quickly run aground on the cliffs of state debt, catching many by surprise.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, born in 1978 in Neuss/ Germany, is a graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

About one month ago, when the Mag 7 stocks were screaming higher every day without a care in the world, and before the masses had even considered who would fund the trillions in future capex needs once the organic cash flow topped out – something we had just discussed in “AI Is Now A Debt Bubble Too, Quietly Surpassing All Banks To Become The Largest Sector In The Market” in which we explained why attention would very soon turn to AI companies issuing gargantuan amounts of debt (something we first discussed in July, long before anyone was considering this issue) as has now become the case – we decided to move even further beyond the curve and said that not even the debt would be the gating factor for the AI revolution-cum-arms race, but rather access to energy. That’s because at some point – somewhere around the time companies realized they would no longer be able to rely on either equity or debt capital markets – the US government itself, if it wanted to win the AI war with China where the state directly subsidizes local data centers and AI figures, would have to step in and provide the required capital. 

Specifically, we said that “The money is not the problem: AI is the new global arms race, and capex will eventually be funded by governments (US and China). If you want to know why gold/silver/bitcoin is soaring, it’s the “debasement” to fund the AI arms race.”

The money is not the problem: AI is the new global arms race, and capex will eventually be funded by governments (US and China). If you want to know why gold/silver/bitcoin is soaring, it’s the “debasement” to fund the AI arms race.

But you can’t print energy https://t.co/qwdD8QbVON

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 14, 2025

Even Elon Musk decided to respond to that particular observation. 

And since it had become the norm, we thought it would take the market the usual 6-9 months to catch up to what we – and our readers – were already considering, especially since there still was ample “dry powder” capital among the hyperscalers to delay the rather unpleasant conversation of who would fund what once the money was gone, or so we thought. 

Because this time it took less than a month.

What happened, as the market learned the hard way this week, is that OpenAI’s CFO Sarah Friar, with all the finesse of a bull in a China data center, slammed the growing market skepticism that AI would cure cancer, slice bread and lead to universal utopia, and said “I don’t think there’s enough exuberance about AI, when I think about the actual practical implications and what it can do for individuals.” 

Her comments came in response to a podcast in which her boss Sam Altman participated, and where he was grotesquely – in a Jeff Skilling sort of way – defensive when billionaire Brad Gerstner asked how a company with $13BN in revenue can afford $1.4T in commitments. Altman’s reply? “If you want to sell your shares, I’ll find you a buyer.” 

🚨 Brad Gerstner, an OpenAI investor, asks Sam Altman how a company with $13B in revenue can afford $1.4T in commitments. Altman’s reply? “Happy to find a buyer for your shares.” Translation: No answer. Very concerning. 🚩 pic.twitter.com/9jJKGw9QbF

— WallStreetPro (@wallstreetpro) November 2, 2025

Gerstner did not want to sell his shares – at least not yet – but the fact that Altman did not have a clear answer (that would have to come several days later in an Bill Ackman-size tweet), and instead responded by attacking what would be considered a very rational question, while refusing or being unable to give a clear answer. 

However, what Friar did say – and what promptly spooked the market on Wednesday – is a mangled explanation of where the $1+ trillion in required funding would come from, saying OpenAI is “looking for an ecosystem of banks [and] private equity” to support its ambitious plans. But what triggered the selling is when she explicitly said that the US government would have to “backstop the guarantee that allows the financing to happen.” 

In other words, when all the other sources of funds dried up – clearly a scenario the company is considering judging by her response – the company would have to come to the US taxpayer.

She further explained that “Federal loan guarantees would really drop the cost of the financing,” enabling OpenAI and its investors to borrow more money at lower rates to meet the company’s ambitious targets. Right… because there is nothing like a company with $14BN in revenue, $1 trillion in “valuation” and $1.4 trillion in commitments, than loading up to the gills with government-backstopped debt. See, if only Enron and Lehman could do the same, both would still be around…

Her comments from Wednesday afternoon immediately spooked the market and NVDA shares suffered their biggest weekly drop since April. 

And the reason for the drop is precisely the fact that OpenAI was clearly considering what it would do when the money to fund the trillions in spending – first cash from operations, then debt, then equity – and circular deals dried up, the capital that had lifted NVDA to a $5 trillion market cap and OpenAI reportedly worth around $1 trillion ahead of its looming IPO (which will come just as the AI bubble truly peaks).

The fact that US taxpayers were basically the source of that money, is a little truth the market wasn’t read to hear just yet…. a truth which we laid out clearly one month ago.

The reaction – both in the market and within the heretofore complacent narrative surrounding the AI bubble – set off fire alarms, and prompted Sam Altman to publish his longest yet post (clocking in at almost 1100 words), in which he meant to “clarify a few thing”, namely that Friar had “misspoken” and that the ChatGPT maker was not seeking a bailout for its infrastructure commitments, and contrary to what his CFO mentioned, he “does not have or want government guarantees.” 

Only, he does… but don’t call it a guarantee, or bailout.

You see, Friar’s comment was a carefully planted trial balloon, one meant to not only gauge the market’s reaction to what is obviously coming, but also to plant the seed of expectation that one day, Sam Altman would crawl to the White House, tell Trump that OpenAI is now too big to fail as it would take down not only the market but about 20% of GDP growth (which is roughly what datacenter construction accounts for these days), and demand a bailout, only of course it wouldn’t be called that. 

Things got worse when Trump’s tech/AI advisor David Sacks said “There Will Be No Federal Bailout For AI… If One Fails, Others Will Take Its Place” refusing to let what had by now become the biggest and most uncomfortable market narrative (i.e., why does the company at the forefront of the AI revolution need government guarantees, or a bailout), leave the front page. And then it got even worse, when it emerged that Sam Altman was – once again (just ask Elon Musk) – lying, after it was revealed that on Oct 27, OpenAI’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane, had submitted a document in which they advocated for including datacenter spend within the “American manufacturing” umbrella.

As Bloomberg explained, contrary to Sam Altman’s representation that he wants nothing to do with the government, OpenAI had in fact asked the Trump administration to revamp a Chips Act tax credit to help lower the cost of artificial intelligence infrastructure, as the startup was exploring additional ways the US government can support an industrywide data center build-out for AI.

In the letter, Lehane suggests the administration work with Congress to expand a 35% chips-focused tax credit to AI data centers, AI server producers and electrical grid components, such as transformers and the specialized steel used to produce them. 

Broadening the tax credit will “lower the effective cost of capital, de-risk early investment and unlock private capital to help alleviate bottlenecks and accelerate the AI build in the US,” Lehane said in the letter. 

Caught up on this latest web of circular lies (what is it about OpenAI and circles), which is suddenly existential to the viability of the circle-jerk complex^TM Altman had to publish yet another “explainer” today to discuss just how he sees his relationship with the government, now that this very touchy topic was all anyone could talk about… not to mention was hammering NVDA stock which has long been the barometer of sentiment toward the AI bubble.

The government has played a role in critical infrastructure builds. Our public submission (posted on our blog) shares our thinking and suggests ideas for how the US government can support domestic supply chain/manufacturing.

This is very in line with everything we have heard… https://t.co/1kAyLKtK6a

— Sam Altman (@sama) November 7, 2025

In its letter, OpenAI advocated for the government to issue grants, cost-sharing agreements, loans, or loan guarantees to “manufacturers” in the AI industry broadly, without specifying exactly which kinds of companies. It is clear that OpenAI would be one of the beneficiaries since it is at the center of the entire AI circle-jerk complex^TM.

Altman said an effort to revitalize the US chip industry “across the entire stack — fabs, turbines, transformers, steel, and much more — will help everyone in our industry, and other industries (including us).”

“To the degree the government wants to do something to help ensure a domestic supply chain, great.” Altman wrote. “But that’s super different than loan guarantees to OpenAI, and we hope that’s clear.”

Yes, it’s “super different”, because what Sam is asking for is subsidies, which is precisely what China is bestowing upon its companies. The only difference is that in China all companies are effectively state owned. Meanwhile OpenAI hopes to one day become Zorg Industries and control everyone, including nation states. 

And here we go back to square one – namely what we said a month ago is the emerging AI arms race between the US and China, one which OpenAI quietly hoped to piggy back on and supercharge its returns and equity value. OpenAI said the type of financial support it is asking from the government, would help counter China in instances where it is “distorting the market,” such as copper, aluminum and electrical steel. Direct funding would also help shorten lead times for critical grid components such as transformers.

In a separate September white paper on infrastructure policy, OpenAI actually came much closer to admitting it does in fact want explicit government guarantees, in that it supports loan guarantees to allow AI companies to “confidently purchase US-made chips at scale.” The move would shore up demand for US semiconductor facilities while reducing costs for AI companies purchasing chips, the white paper said.

Which it not to say OpenAI hasn’t done its homework: the US has a prototype for loans and loan guarantees for strategic industries, as it offered these incentives to the semiconductor industry as part of the Chips Act. As of the end of January this year, only $5.5 billion of up to $75 billion were awarded, per a Commerce Department report.

OpenAI’s requested tax credit aligns with the Trump administration’s consistent messaging about winning the AI race and its high-level determination to remake the Chips Act of 2022. Earlier this year, it converted a Chips Act grant in Intel Corp. into an equity stake, marking a significant departure from the original plan. 

But here’s the thing: sure, go ahead and demand – sorry, politely ask for – government guarantees, backstops, or bailouts – whatever you want to call it – but be prepared to compensate the government by handing over a sizable chunk of equity so that everyone can participate in the upside, and not just be stuck with the soaring electricity and water bills which are needed to fund the explosion of data centers across the nation.

It happened with Intel, which gave up a major equity check to US taxpayers in return for US government support, it happened to rare earth minerals company MP Materials, and all other companies the US has directly invested in as part of Trump’s new industrial policy. To be sure, all those companies which the Chinese government is directly subsidizing, none of them are truly private enterprises! This may come as a shock to Sam, but China is a communist nation, which explains the far greater generosity to engage in collective investment on behalf of the state.

Which is why, in our response to Sam, we said “It’s not a loan guarantee. It’s just the government – ie taxpayers – onboarding the risk for your expansion and growth of your equity value.”

Which then became a question: “What do taxpayers get in return: Intel gave them an equity stake. Will OpenAI do the same? Or is it just higher electricity prices”

It’s not a loan guarantee. It’s just the government – ie taxpayers – onboarding the risk for your expansion and growth of your equity value

What do taxpayers get in return: Intel gave them an equity stake. Will OpenAI do the same? Or is it just higher electricity prices https://t.co/uFaGpxEgdM

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 7, 2025

Sam Altman already stole incalculable value by working at an Elon Musk-funded non-profit for years – with all the inherent benefits of such an organization as opposed to a traditional Corporation – before uprooting its corporate structure and transforming it into a traditional corporation, one in which he plans to have the biggest chunk of ownership. And now he is doing it again, only this time he hopes to benefit from taxpayer generosity by pretending it is all for the greater American good without handing over even one share to Uncle Sam.

Don’t let him. 

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an informative interview to Kommersant in mid-October.

Russian international media mostly focused on his remarks about ties with the US, concerns about its potential transfer of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, and the special operation, but he also importantly exposed the US’ double standards towards resolving the Levantine and Ukrainian Conflicts.

Here’s exactly what he said, which will then be analyzed in terms of its practical relevance:

“[The Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity] emphasizes that the protection of human rights, ensuring security, respect for the dignity of both Israelis and Palestinians, as well as tolerance and equal opportunities for all regions, are the keys to the sustainability of the agreement (this declaration). The declaration calls for the eradication of extremism and radicalism in all forms. Golden words. But for some reason, this applies to Palestinians and Israelis, but not to Russians in Ukraine.

More recently, regarding another part of the Middle East, Syria, US Special Representative for Syria (and also US Ambassador to Turkey) Thomas Barrack said that the Syrian Arab Republic needs a system close to a federation that would preserve the culture and language of all ethnic and religious groups in society. This is precisely what the Minsk agreements were about. For some reason, the West is ready to apply these principles everywhere, but in Ukraine, it is ‘not ready.’”

Beginning with the first part, Russia demands Ukraine’s denazification, which requires “the eradication of extremism and radicalism” in all forms there through hybrid kinetic-legal means. The kinetic ones are being advanced through attacks against fascist-inspired Ukrainian militiamen like the Azov Brigade while the legal ones are envisaged as part of the lasting political solution that Putin wants. A similarly symbolic multilateral call as Trump’s declaration could be the first step to that end amidst ongoing negotiations.

As for the second part, Russia won’t cede to Ukraine the disputed regions under its control after their people voted to join Russia in September 2022, but it could demand sub-federative cultural-linguistic rights for the Russians who remain in the Ukrainian-controlled parts if the frontline freezes.

To be clear, Russia officially insists that it’ll liberate the entirety of the disputed regions, but the aforesaid Minsk- and Syrian-inspired proposal could facilitate a grand compromise if all sides have the political will.

The relevance of exposing the US’ double standards towards resolving the Levantine and Ukrainian Conflicts therefore isn’t just to score soft power points, but to hint at creative ways in which the aforesaid US-endorsed Levantine solutions could be applied to Ukraine in the interests of consistency.

This assumes that the US is interested in policy consistency, but whether right or wrong, it doesn’t detract from Lavrov’s motives in bringing up the policy precedents that the US itself just established.

Realistically speaking, Trump doesn’t seem interested over half a year since the start of his talks with Putin in suddenly acceding to Russia’s proposals on Ukraine since he would have already pressured Zelensky if he was, not escalated his rhetoric and contemplated a military escalation too.

Nevertheless, Russia’s continued on-the-ground gains and the predictable failure of Ukraine’s next potential US-backed offensive might get him to reconsider, in which case Lavrov’s implied proposals would become relevant.

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

Even as headline inflation stabilizes, the cost of everyday items and services in the U.S. continues to shift unevenly across categories. For example, while beef has gotten more expensive, eggs have gotten cheaper.

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu breaks down inflation by product type, revealing where Americans are seeing the biggest price changes.

Data & Discussion

The data for this visualization comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), accessed via USAFacts. It details year-over-year inflation rates from Sept. 2024 to Sept. 2025, based on CPI-U (a measure of the average change over time in prices paid by urban consumers).

Food and Household Staples Lead Price Increases

Among the categories shown, beef and veal prices jumped 14.7%, leading the pack.

Food inflation has been a major pain point in recent years, with a recent survey finding that 90% of American adults are stressed about the cost of groceries.

Sugar, sweets, and other processed food items also became more expensive, reinforcing the trend that grocery store essentials are rising in cost.

Deflation Hits Tech, Apparel, and Energy

While some prices continue to climb, other categories are seeing declines. IT hardware and services (-2%), women’s apparel (-2%), and gasoline (-0.4%) have all recorded price decreases over the past year ending Sept. 2025.

Note that within the IT hardware category (e.g. computers, peripherals, smart-home devices), the BLS makes price adjustments based on quality. As devices become more capable, the “effective price” paid by consumers may fall even if nominal sticker prices have not.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Biggest Challenges Americans Face in 2025 on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Christopher J. Ferguson via RealClearInvestigations,

In 2023, then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy released a bombshell report, “Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation,” that painted a bleak picture of citizens feeling “isolated, invisible, and insignificant.” Most provocatively, it stated that perhaps half of Americans face a personal crisis of aloneness that poses health risks “similar to that caused by smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day.”

The report received wide attention as it resonated with myriad data points – including declining marriage and birth rates and the rise of remote work – showing Americans are spending less face time with one another. But a RealClearInvestigations inquiry has found that its warnings of a loneliness epidemic are unsupported and that its claims of severe health risks stem from a misreading of the data. 

The University of Rochester’s Viji Kannan, whom Murthy partly relied on for his claims of a loneliness increase, told RCI her study focused on measurable declines in social connections and not more subjective feelings of loneliness. “YES!” she said in an email. “Loneliness is a different thing.” 

Daniel Cox at the American Enterprise Institute, whose research on loneliness was also cited by the surgeon general, had a similar take. He told RCI, “The evidence more strongly supports an epidemic of ‘aloneness’ rather than loneliness. We are spending more time by ourselves.” 

Hans IJzerman, who studies loneliness at the University of Oxford, concurred. “The biggest story may be how the surgeon general basically butchered the narrative by not relying on solid data,” he said.

Murthy, who now works outside of government, did not respond to request for comment. The Department of Health and Human Services, which still posts the loneliness report on its website, declined to comment, citing the government shutdown.

Critics say the former surgeon general’s questionable assertion of a loneliness epidemic – which has been amplified extensively in the media – reflects a larger pattern whereby science is invoked to make larger arguments about American culture. These include claims that systemic racism is a public health crisis or that technologies such as cell phones are increasing rates of depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues among teens. These assertions take kernels of truth – racism exists, mental health problems were on the rise until the last few years – and then attach them to specific causes to add a patina of scientific credibility.

The alleged loneliness epidemic seems to stem in part from concerns over how technology in particular may be enabling people to choose to spend more time by themselves – which can seem counter to democratic ideas of community – and from a conflation of two very different phenomena: loneliness and being alone. Being alone is not the same thing as being lonely, and research shows social obligations in heavy doses can be as stressful for many as they are supportive. 

Research results have clarified that true feelings of loneliness only kick in at the extreme end of social isolation. Quality time with others is more important than simply time spent with others overall (sometimes other people are annoying!) Unsurprisingly, those who enjoy being alone are less likely to feel lonely when not around others.

More Time Alone

A wealth of data suggests that Americans are spending more time by themselves. The surgeon general’s advisory, for example, pointed to slow declines in family and friend engagement during the early 2000s, though the most serious drop-offs occurred after the COVID-19 pandemic due to lockdowns and social distancing.

More people are forgoing marriage and parenthood. We have fewer close friends. More Americans live alone than ever before, partly because we’re living longer. 

Source: National Vital Statistics, US Census Bureau and American Community Survey, and previous work by John Loo

According to Gallup Data, U.S. church membership has been on a steady decline since the 1990s, though that decline may have slowed or leveled off as of 2018.

Remote work, already slowly increasing, skyrocketed after the pandemic. Whether this is bad or not is debatable, given people seem eager enough for it.

While these trends are clear, their meaning and effect are harder to pinpoint. Even though people are alone more often, data for the period 2003-2019 shows a very small decline in social connection. Professor Kannan calculated that time spent with others declined by about 146 hours per year, or about 1.7% – a relatively slight decrease that hardly seems reflective of an epidemic. 

That period was, of course, also marked by the rise of smartphones and social media, forcing researchers to ask new questions about connectivity: Is aloneness defined by physical proximity? If someone is playing Dungeons and Dragons online with friends all over the world, are they truly alone?

Loneliness By the Numbers

Loneliness is, of course, a common and universal human trait. It is a subjective feeling of unwanted aloneness that is accompanied by a sense of social emptiness. A connection is desired but missing. Feeling lonely from time to time is not a sign of a problem. Loneliness becomes a clinically relevant issue when it is chronic and becomes a precursor for persistent distress and dissatisfaction with life. 

Tracking loneliness over time can be trickier than time spent alone, perhaps one reason why so many conversations about loneliness seem to subtly shift to time spent alone instead. There appear to be few high-quality datasets tracking subjective loneliness over time. Though some data suggests a very small, gradual trend upward in loneliness among young adults since the 1970s, the increase is remarkably small over a 40- to 50-year period, hardly an “epidemic.” Data from Gallup suggests that loneliness has decreased since a high during the pandemic, although their data does not appear to extend back earlier. As one recent summary of the evidence put it, “There is an epidemic of headlines that claim we are experiencing a loneliness epidemic, but there is no empirical support for the fact that loneliness is increasing, let alone spreading at epidemic rates.”

As Bad as Smoking?

One of the surgeon general’s more dramatic claims was that “lacking social connection is as deadly as smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day.” 

This comparison appears to come straight from the research of Professor Julianne Holt-Lunstad at Brigham Young University, who was the lead science editor on the surgeon general’s report. However, this comparison appears to be for light smoking (defined as 15 cigarettes or less per day). Had comparisons been made with medium (15-25 cigarettes) or heavy smoking (25+ cigarettes), smoking would clearly come out far more dangerous. 

Further, the impact of smoking is pretty direct … lung cancer, heart attacks, strokes. Loneliness’s impact on mortality is clear. It could involve everything from more stress to fewer people around to help with medical issues. Causal claims are also tricky, given the degree to which the evidence relies on self-report correlational studies of subjective loneliness, associating it with mortality. In some cases, prolonged illness could prompt social abandonment, which would cause loneliness. Using correlational data to suggest that loneliness is causing illness is fraught, but that did not stop the surgeon general.

While Holt-Lunstad declined to address RCI’s questions about the surgeon general’s use of her study, her co-author, University of Arizona Professor David Sbarra, expressed some unease with the epidemic framing. “In terms of a loneliness epidemic, I think I am more skeptical than most…demographic changes that would establish an epidemic are really challenging,” he told RCI. “I think loneliness can spread through social networks…but what are the best data that loneliness and social disconnection are increasing? It’s quite equivocal, in my opinion.” 

There is little disagreement that loneliness is bad and can be associated with declining health. This may be because the distress of loneliness can cause stress and related health problems such as high blood pressure. But also because close social connections can help people with their medications and medical complications. 

It’s less clear that, if the prevalence of loneliness has risen, it’s risen dramatically or that simple interpretations of loneliness = health risk are warranted.

IJzerman, who is also CEO of Annecy Behavioral Science Lab and an expert on loneliness, has been critical of the way Kannan’s data was used by the surgeon general. IJzerman noted that trends regarding time spent alone don’t tap into subjective loneliness and may be due to changes in how questions are asked over time. Further, they may simply reflect more people using technology for social interaction, which isn’t necessarily bad. IJzerman suggested we tend to get distracted by vanishingly small time trends and a tendency to look for technology to blame, such as social media or smartphones. Instead, we should be more concerned with the structural barriers some people face regarding social connection, for example, older adults and lower-income individuals.  

Children and Loneliness

Much attention has focused on the world of teens. Buffeted by COVID-19 lockdowns, with increasingly structured lives, and navigating new technology worlds, legitimate concerns have been raised about teen loneliness. Though some studies have suggested an increasing loneliness trend among youth, IJzerman has said they are seriously flawed. He has critiqued these studies as “mining noise,” saying, “We cannot afford to base our understanding of loneliness on the psychological equivalent of wetted fingers in the wind.” 

IJzerman also noted the difficulties of measuring loneliness across various cultures, as some studies have done. “While measuring loneliness across different societies might seem as simple as translating a questionnaire, the reality is far more complex. A Dutch student’s understanding of loneliness may differ fundamentally from their British peer’s interpretation, shaped by distinct cultural norms and social expectations. Even within the same country, temporal shifts in social attitudes can dramatically affect responses – as stigma around loneliness waxes and wanes, respondents’ willingness to acknowledge these feelings may change accordingly.”

While arguing that our difficulty in measuring loneliness should give society pause – especially when it comes to advancing specific policies as a response – he also noted that our current concerns around technology have a long lineage. “Socrates warned that writing would erode memory and authentic dialogue; the printing press faced condemnation for encouraging solitary reading over community gatherings; early telephones were criticized for disrupting social norms; television was blamed for isolating families. Even mundane innovations like heating stoves faced resistance for disrupting traditional communal practices. Time has generally proven these fears exaggerated, suggesting we should approach current concerns about social media with similar careful skepticism.” 

This doesn’t mean we should dismiss all concerns about loneliness.  Whether subjective loneliness has declined or people have simply changed how they interact with others remains something of an open question.  Whatever is occurring, it does not appear that changes in technology are central, so we might look to the breakdowns in institutions, reduced marriages, problems with schools, etc.  

Our difficulty seems to be that our national conversation can occur in only two modes. Either something is a crisis, or it is not worth talking about at all. Perhaps in having a more nuanced understanding of loneliness concerns, we could begin to appreciate that some issues are still worthy of consideration even if they are not a 5-alarm fire.

Christopher J. Ferguson is a professor of psychology at Stetson University in Florida and author of “Catastrophe! The Psychology of Why Good People Make Bad Situations Worse.”

The 1990s were a different time. Dial-up internet, gas costing a dollar, and many states still leaning on manufacturing.

Even then, new tech clusters and improved drilling methods were starting to reshape the map, setting up today’s energy-rich and tech-focused states for the strongest economies.

The visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, ranks all 50 states and the District of Columbia by inflation-adjusted GDP growth between 1998–2024.

Data for real GDP growth by U.S. state is sourced from Bureau of Economic Analysis.

ℹ️ Real GDP growth measured from chained 2017 dollars.

America’s Shale Boom in One Map

North Dakota’s economy more than doubled thanks to the Bakken shale boom, which lifted its real output by 164%—twice the U.S. average.

Texas, already the nation’s largest oil-producing state, followed closely with 141% growth.

New Mexico and Oklahoma also landed in the top 20. Cheap feedstock, rising exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), and associated midstream build-out helped these states capture much of the value created by soaring U.S. energy production.

ℹ️ Related: New Mexico overtook North Dakota as the second-largest oil producing U.S. state.

Tech & Tourism Hubs Sustain Rapid Expansion

Utah (+157%), Idaho (+144%), and Washington (+134%) show how a diversified tech sector can supercharge state-level GDP.

Microsoft’s cloud push, Idaho’s semiconductor fabs, and Utah’s “Silicon Slopes” collectively fostered high-wage job growth and attracted inbound migration.

Even the giant economies of California (+115%) and Florida (+113%) managed to outpace the national average rate of GDP growth by U.S. states. This shows how tech and professional-services clusters spill over into broader economic activity.

Rust Belt and Coastal Laggards

Manufacturing-heavy states in the Midwest and Appalachia largely underperformed. Michigan (+30%) and West Virginia (+34%) never fully recovered the industrial output lost after the early-2000s recession and the Great Financial Crisis.

Connecticut (+35%) and New Jersey (+47%) illustrate how high costs and slow demographic growth weighed on East Coast economies.

Louisiana, hit by multiple hurricanes and refinery shutdowns, posted the slowest gain at just 23%, one-quarter of the national pace.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The World’s Largest Economies, Including U.S. States on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

• Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang publicly stated that China is positioned to win the global AI race due to its significantly lower energy costs and less stringent regulation compared to the United States and Europe.

• The pursuit of net-zero ambitions has led to high electricity costs in the UK and EU, which directly threatens their plans to become AI superpowers, as AI development is highly dependent on affordable power.

• The surge in demand for electricity from data centers is driving up power prices even in the energy-rich United States, potentially jeopardizing the country’s lead in artificial intelligence.

Not long ago, the UK’s Prime Minister declared his government would turn the country into an “AI superpower”. The EU leadership has similar plans for the bloc—while China and the U.S. race ahead without looking back. Neither the UK nor the EU will catch up soon. Their energy is too expensive. Now, Nvidia’s boss is warning that even the United States’ energy costs may be too high to help it win the race.

“China is going to win the AI race.” Jensen Huang made the blunt statement at the Financial Times’ Future of AI Summit this week, going on to list as reasons for this prediction the fact that China enjoyed lower energy costs and, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, less regulation than the United States. He then proceeded to accuse the collective West of “cynicism” with regard to the AI pursuit, calling for some optimism instead. “Power is free” in China, he said, referring to generous state subsidies for the industry—and likely to the fact that China has a lot of low-cost hydrocarbon power generation, unlike, notably, the UK and the EU.

In fairness, Nvidia’s chief executive has a very good reason to be angry with the U.S. leadership. Beijing this week banned foreign microchips from AI data centers receiving state funding. Per the new regulation, new data centers are to only use Chinese-made chips, Reuters reported, citing unnamed sources. It was unclear from the report whether the regulation had a national or local scope, but in either case, Nvidia chip sales to China would be affected by it.

Personal reasons for disgruntlement aside, Huang’s critique of energy policies and overall regulation are quite on point. The European Union is a perfect case in point: it has for years used regulation as a means of stimulating innovation and competitiveness, only to achieve the complete opposite, drawing strong criticism from industries about it.

The UK, meanwhile, is a perfect case in point on energy costs. The country has some of the highest electricity prices in the world because of the net-zero push by several successive governments. AI development, however, depends on low electricity costs. In other words, the UK’s AI superpower dream will likely remain a dream unless the Starmer cabinet finds a way to bring costs down—even though Nvidia recently announced plans to invest $2 billion in fostering an AI startup culture in the UK.

Yet even in the United States, which is a lot more self-sufficient in affordable energy than either the UK or the EU, the artificial intelligence race is driving electricity prices higher, which may jeopardise the country’s success in that race. Earlier this year, the biggest capacity auction in the country, covering a fifth of Americans, ended with a record-high price of $329.14 per megawatt-day. The number was 22% higher than the final price of last year’s auction and reflected the surge in demand for electricity driven by the data center industry. States with high concentrations of data centers are seeing soaring electricity prices that some households are struggling to pay.

Meanwhile, China is subsidizing its AI industry and building new coal plants to ensure stable, reliable, and affordable electricity even as it remains the largest wind and solar installer in the world. Since 2021, the Chinese state has paid an estimated $100 billion in subsidies to the AI industry, Reuters reported this week, after reviewing government tenders in that sector. Nvidia’s CEO has criticized the Trump administration openly for its export curbs on chips, saying it was smart to keep Chinese AI developers hooked on U.S. chips, which, of course, would also boost Nvidia’s profits, but the Trump administration has refused to listen, focusing on what it sees as a risk of the Chinese government using U.S. chips in military technology.

Corporate interests aside, however, it is true that energy costs will determine the winner of the AI race.

The challenge for the West is to choose between bringing those costs down and suffering defeat in AI as it remains focused on net zero ambitions.

By early next week, much of the eastern United States “will be about as cold as Nuuk, Greenland,” warned meteorologist Ben Noll, adding, “It will be warmer in St. John’s, Newfoundland, than in parts of northern Florida.” 

On Tuesday morning, parts of the Southeast U.S. will be about as cold as Nuuk, Greenland — near the edge of the Arctic Circle.

It will be warmer in St. John’s, Newfoundland, than in parts of northern Florida. pic.twitter.com/SU1TNvQAdx

— Ben Noll (@BenNollWeather) November 7, 2025

Temperatures in the Mid-Atlantic region, particularly around Washington, D.C., will begin sliding this weekend and could average in the mid-30s by Tuesday morning.

The Arctic cold blast detailed in a note earlier this week isn’t expected to linger long, with temperatures forecast to rebound to seasonal 5,10,30 year seasonal norms between 45°F and 50°F by the end of the week.

“The COLDEST part of the airmass will actually be felt into the south through midweek with some of the highest anomalies from GA into FL especially with morning lows,” meteorologist Jim Cantore wrote in a note on X, adding, “Lake effect snow should really set up from Sunday night to Tuesday from west to east and down the spine of Appalachia.” 

Separate from the upcoming cold blast, but something we told readers weeks ago, is that globalist Bill Gates’ climate-change crisis doom narrative turned out to be utter nonsense; the billionaire himself even admitted as much.

Other folks watching the same soap opera noticed this, too. Climate fueled gaslighting! https://t.co/YbF7jbvsC1

— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) November 6, 2025

Remember, the only reason Democrats ramped up their “climate crisis” propaganda against the American taxpayer was to put a heist on the U.S. Treasury and enrich their globalist allies.

Like this guy. 

Now, far-left Al Gore just has to admit that he has been wrong for three decades. 

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

There’s a lot of black-pilling Republicans out there this week after a handful of elections in the northeastern US led to “sweeping” Democrat victories in New York, New Jersey and Virginia. As is always the case whenever Republicans lose any race no matter how insignificant to the bigger picture, suddenly the sky is falling and doom is about to come crashing down on America for all eternity. The panic has become quite tiresome.

Keep in mind, the gloom is limited mostly to social media and is exacerbated by a few hundred conservative influencers. As usual, these people still don’t realize that the social media world is not the real world.

If you were shocked by someone like Zohran Mamdani winning the mayor’s race in New York for example, then you have not been paying any attention to what’s been happening in blue cities lately. I predicted that liberals would turn out in droves to vote for the guy back in July. In my article “Batman vs The Joker: Democrats Will Double Down On Chaos To Save Their Party”, I noted:

“Leftists in the US will rally around uncompromising socialists like Mamdani because they’re tired of pretending that they care about “democracy”, free markets, property rights, moral codes or freedom in general. They need an all encompassing vision, even if it’s a monstrous and dystopian one. And, they want leadership that is transparent and unapologetic in its psychopathic intent. They don’t want to play the role of humanitarians anymore – They want to take the mask off and taste the flavors of blood and power…”

It’s New York, folks. It’s one of the largest hives of far-left scum and villainy in the world and conservatives only make up 26% of the city’s population.  OF COURSE Mamdani won. He represents everything the political left wants; a radical repudiation of western culture and free markets. Let’s not forget, these are the same people who celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

The same goes for New Jersey. In Virginia, the GOP decided to run a woman (Winsome Earle-Sears) who positioned herself as a “Never-Trumper” in 2022. She claimed that Trump was a liability for the Republican Party and that he should step aside. She then suddenly flipped in 2024 after Trump won again. OF COURSE she lost the race in Virginia. Conservatives have scruples about their candidates. They aren’t going to show up at the ballot box for someone who trashes their party leader and then jumps on the bandwagon at the last minute.

My point is, the hysteria going around social media over these “losses” is limited to a tiny bubble of people bouncing their ideas around in perpetuity. These few elections are in no way an indicator of America shifting far-left. They are, however, a reminder that our country is thoroughly divided on almost every issue and policy. Conservatives and progressives could not be more opposed in every way.

And, as I keep saying but I’m not sure if conservatives are hearing, it’s a reminder that leftists and Democrats are fighting A WAR while conservatives continue to play politics.  The leftists are consolidating around communist figures and ideas of radical insurgency.   Meanwhile GOP members and influencers are freaking out about “how to get more college-age white women in NYC” to vote for them.  It’s pure stupidity.

I would like to use the EBT/SNAP debate as a model for this divide because I think it’s revealing. Food subsidies are the epitome of socialism and the growing dependency on government that they create cannot be denied. Over 42 million Americans are now collecting SNAP; that’s 12.5% of the population. When the program first started in the late 1960s (on a national level), only 1.4% of the population qualified.

When SNAP was created it was promoted as a stop gap, a temporary safety net for people out of work and looking for employment. The primary focus of welfare benefits was supposed to be the disabled and the elderly, not able bodied working-age people (who now make up 80% of SNAP recipients). The program was a helping hand and then it became a crutch or a trap.

Right now the government shutdown is up in the air and emergency funds will do little to keep food subsidies running. The crux of the shutdown is the debate over healthcare benefits (more socialism) going to illegal immigrants (at least 1.8 million illegal migrants collected ACA in 2024). Only 5 Senate Democrats are need to vote for a clean funding bill, but they have refused 14 times.

As I have been warning for the past couple months, the Democrats are hoping for food riots that can be blamed on Trump and conservatives. Another few weeks and yes, this could happen in some major cities where Democrats refuse to enforce property theft laws.  The Democrat message is this:  “We will use mob violence and chaos to FORCE you to give us what we want.  Even if you win elections, we are in control…”

It’s political extortion.  Give them what they want and they will only continue to mobilize angry mobs over and over again to exert leverage over government decisions.

But what will the result be? Corporate chains and grocers will inevitably close up shop and those cities will become permanent food deserts. Leftists can’t force retailers to stay open, stock shelves and put employees at risk. Food riots will not have the effect that Democrats are hoping for.  Businesses will leave these cities. Smart people will leave these cities.  And the Democrat politicians still running the cities will be targeted by the same criminal mobs they have allied with.

There are certainly a number of people out there that are in actual need. I would never hold it against someone if they turned to a government program for support when life goes wrong. If they’re trying to rebuild and get a job and they need a short term boost, that’s okay. I prefer charity be private and personal rather than government enforced, but I grew up dirt poor; I know people will take whatever help they can get and usually they don’t care if it comes from the government.

The problem arises when welfare becomes a social mainstay, or an expectation. The level of entitlement surrounding SNAP is truly incredible. The number of people taking to the internet to call for blood because “Trump is stealing their SNAP” is disturbing. It’s the same thing that always happens with socialist projects – They draw support because they start small and innocuous. Then, they turn into an expensive society draining monstrosity that the populace is addicted to.

A number of commentators have been ringing warning bells about potential food riots, but I would like to point out some positives if cuts to SNAP continue.

First, the program was never supposed to become as large and costly as it is today. Reducing it to people who are truly in need (disabled, elderly and short term jobless) would help to reduce government spending which helps to reduce national debt and inflation.

Second, with 42 million people on food subsidies, grocery retailers are collecting billions in taxpayer dollars through artificially created demand. This demand eats up supply and, in turn, helps to drive up food prices. Cutting down SNAP would lead to a reduction in grocery traffic and deflation in prices for everyone.

Third, if labor shortages are persisting as the BLS claims, then able bodied people living on SNAP for years will now be forced to go back to work, filling the labor pool and solving the shortage problem. All the talk of migrant deportations leaving industries without workers? That goes away.

Free stuff is not free stuff. There is always a terrible price to be paid for government subsidized living. There are only two kinds of people that support long term welfare for the able bodied – Entitled people who are lazy and don’t want to work for what they have, and the politicians that want those people to vote for them.

Zohran Mamdani won in New York in part because of his many promises of socialist handouts, from government run grocery stores with cheap food to a rent freeze to free public transportation and subsidies for minorities and low income residents.  Mamdani is growing a “free stuff army” and the only way he can fund these programs is through overt taxation; he has admitted this.

He claims rich individuals and corporations will pay the heft of the bill, but we’ve seen similar attempts in cities like Seattle and San Francisco. They all end the same way – With wealthy residents leaving the city by the thousands and taking their businesses with them. The socialist politicians are then left with only middle-class taxpayers who then bear the pain of funding those programs.

The goal of the far-left is to make everyone equal: Everyone becomes equally poor. Meanwhile the wealthy have the ability to simply leave and go to economies where they are more appreciated. Socialism and communism lead to a larger wealth gap, not a smaller wealth gap.

Mamdani will likely attempt a capital flight tax, which will not work. Businesses and money will rush out of New York like blood from an arterial wound. The rent freeze will push many property owners to stop leasing or sell, which will result in a shrinking rental market for the poor and middle class. Within 2-3 years the metropolis will be an economic wasteland.

Socialism only works when you can force everyone to participate in the scam, and even then it still ends with a far lower standard of living for most people. The only places where this doesn’t happen are highly homogeneous countries with small populations and vast natural resources.  In every other case, progressive economic policies encourage dependency and then trigger disaster.

Is America facing food riots if the shutdown continues? Probably. In limited pockets of the country certainly, but mostly in places where Democrats are already running the economy into the ground. In other words, people who vote far left will suffer the most.  The riots will take place in their backyards.

Is the increasing radicalism of the left a sign that the US will descend into full bore communism? Is Mamdani just the beginning?

No, that’s not going to happen. Even if GOP fears over the mid-terms turn out to be accurate, elections are not the only determinant of the direction of a nation. Millions of conservatives and patriots are not going to allow widespread communism/globalism to take hold. We’ve already got a taste of that under the Biden Administration. We’ve also seen many progressives brag about how they plan to take revenge on us (for winning in 2024) once they get back into power.

Conservatives need to STOP constantly worrying about the next election and start considering what needs to be done now.  They need to stop playing politics and start defending themselves against the insurgency that is targeting them. Many of us are prepared to fight an internal war before we become a punching bag for the political left (there will never be another covid shutdown, for example).  And if a war happens, the left will lose.

Let’s hope violence isn’t necessary.  Let’s hope that a political solution is possible, but let’s prepare accordingly anyway.  The only way war can be avoided is if the political left changes their ways and stops poking the bear.  Who actually thinks they will change?

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