The income threshold for being considered rich in Europe varies considerably from country to country.

In Luxembourg, wealth begins for a three-person household with an annual net income of 175,000€, while in Turkey, even less than 20,000€ is enough to cross the threshold (higher pane below).

Germany ranks in the upper mid-range. 

It is also interesting to see how the figures change after adjustment for the cost of living (lower pane below).

Source: Voronoiapp.com

Although the gap remains, the income differences even out when you take into account what the income can actually buy locally. 

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The European Commission is relentlessly advancing its project to subjugate independent media. Beyond classic censorship, sophisticated technologies like algorithmic search control are being deployed. Alternative outlets such as Tichys Einblick are thus increasingly blocked from public reach. The republican spirit is quietly dying.

In recent months, there has been intense debate over Brussels’ dangerously anti-civilizational tendencies and its growing obsession with control. It is telling that EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen herself has highlighted the stark contrast between the EU citizen’s impotence and a bureaucracy operating with ever fewer limits.

Currently, Brussels is pulling every lever to scrutinize private chats via invasive algorithmic mechanisms, restricting and censoring public communication across digital and social media. Meanwhile, von der Leyen has refused transparency in the Pfizer vaccine scandal.

This behavior can only be described as neo-feudal and post-Enlightenment. Where else in the world do sovereign nations allow their governments to spider-web their own repressive bureaucracies across member states—except in EU-Europe?

London as a Dark Lab 

Anyone wanting a glimpse into Brussels’ current trajectory should look to London. Since Brexit, the UK has served as a kind of laboratory for the EU’s centralizing project.

Several years ahead, Britain has enacted some of the harshest censorship laws in the (still) free world. Authorities are no longer focused on uncovering Islamist plots, dismantling rape gangs, or implementing a necessary remigration process to preserve English culture.

No—the state’s attention now targets opposition activity. Leveraging the broad definitions of “hate” and “incitement” online, thousands of law-abiding citizens have been raided and arrested simply for criticizing migration policy or urban chaos.

Under the deceptively benign Communications Act and Malicious Communications Act, the British executive now makes over 30 politically motivated arrests per day for online posts deemed offensive or threatening by authorities—a direct assault on citizen liberties in the birthplace of liberalism.

The Algo-Filter 

A similar approach is envisioned by the EU Commission and its loyal satellite capitals. It serves as the center, the guiding spirit of this policy. As political opposition rises—from Germany’s AfD to right-conservative forces in the Netherlands, Czechia, and Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz in Hungary—the narrative foundation for climate socialism and open-border policies risks dissolving in public perception.

Through ever-expanding definitions of “hate and incitement,” framed as shields to immunize social developments—Islamization, economic decline due to Brussels’ growing centralism, or urban decay—from critique, the EU attempts to crush a resurgent conservative bloc before it can form.

This tendency was already noted in February by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance during his Munich Security Conference speech. According to Vance, the partnership with the EU is at stake if this institutionalized attack on free speech is not firmly blocked.

Enter the Stiletto

To avoid international scrutiny, Brussels also employs a second strategy: the stiletto—finer but equally effective. At the center of censorship remains Google’s dominant search algorithm, where control operates occultly, invisible to the average internet user.

Under the euphemism European Democracy Shield, a practice has emerged of monitoring online content and politically defining “disinformation” to cleanse the digital space. The EU funds allegedly independent fact-checkers who alert national authorities to supposed hate speech, triggering legal actions.

It is a malicious intimidation apparatus. Erich Mielke could not have orchestrated it better.

Submission to EU Dictates 

For Google, this architecture effectively forces submission to the EU regime: content rated positively by EU-accredited fact-checkers is prioritized, while alternative publications—like Tichys Einblick, Apollo News, NIUS, or Junge Freiheit—are algorithmically demoted. This occurs even when posts generate substantial traffic that would normally place them at the top of search results.

What happens when media discourse is pressed into a state corset? Power shifts from the sovereign to a limitless, invasive political elite that—particularly in the EU—can advance its eco-socialist project farther than ever conceivable under normal conditions.

A broadly informed, critically awake society would never have allowed entire populations to be driven into unemployment and poverty under the destructive dictates of man-made climate alarmism. Nor would open-border policies have persisted in the face of Europe’s visible Islamization, threatening social security systems and the cultural ferment of the continent.

Trump Ended the Censorship 

In the United States, this practice ended with President Donald Trump’s election. As a result, people using VPNs navigate a completely different news environment from those unaware of such manipulations.

Through this, the EU controls public discourse and seeks to reduce the spectrum of opinion into an EU-compatible monologue. It mirrors the so-called Tal der Ahnungslosen (Valley of the Clueless) during the GDR era, where people around Dresden had no access to West German TV and believed in socialism’s blessings.

If von der Leyen and her commission are not stopped in institutionalizing this regime EU-wide, freedom will vanish. Public discourse will be silenced. The iron cloak of dictatorial lethargy will descend over EU-Europe. What we observe in the UK now threatens EU citizens.

The Snake Bites Its Own Tail 

So, to answer the opening question: is the EU wielding a sledgehammer or a stiletto in its censorship campaign? Both tools are used simultaneously in the fight for interpretive dominance online. If the right-conservative opposition does not intervene in time, public debate will be brutally stifled.

New cryptographic communication methods may emerge to preserve rudimentary free speech—until Brussels’ own arrogance strangles it. The cynical consequence: people will self-censor even in private, cultivating a climate of mutual distrust. This is utterly condemnable.

Add in the digital control euro, and the picture becomes clearer. An institution that dictates both public discourse and citizen transactions is a dictatorship. In Europe, it is an eco-socialist dictatorship, economically so weak that we can hope both attacks on freedom will literally starve mid-course.

* * * 

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.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

The bewildering truth behind human technological enslavement is that it is impossible without the voluntary participation of the intended slaves. People must welcome technocracy into their lives in order for it to succeed. The populace has to believe, blindly, that they cannot live without it, or that authoritarianism by algorithmic consensus is “inevitable.”

For example, the average person living in a first world economy voluntarily carries a cell phone everywhere they go at all times without fail. To be without it, in their minds, is to be naked, at risk, unprepared and disconnected from civilization. I grew up in the 1980s and we did just fine without having a phone on our hip every moment of the day. Even now, I refuse to carry one.

Why? First, as most people should be aware of by now (the Edward Snowden revelations left no doubt), a cell phone is a perfect technocratic device. It has multilayered tracking, using GPS, WiFi routers, and cell tower triangulation to track your every step. Not only that, but it can be used to record your daily patterns, your habits, who your friends are, where you were on any given day many months or years ago.

Then there’s the backdoor functions hidden in app software that allows governments and corporations to to access your cell’s microphone and camera, even when you think the device is shut off. The private details of your life could be recorded and collated. In a world where privacy is being declared “dead” by boasting technocrats, why help them out by carrying something that listens to everything you say and chronicles everything you do?

Globalists often openly admit that the dynamic of global tracking and the end of anonymity is about willful participation. In a 2023 Swiss TV interview former head of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, made this statement:

Schwab was discussing his vision of the “new world” and the sacrifices people will have to make to live within it. I would point out that he says “YOU will have to accept total transparency…” not “WE will have to accept total transparency…” He’s not including the elites in his futurist ideal of total surveillance.

Michael F. Neidorff, then-Chairman and CEO of Centene Corporation (a major US health insurer), during a 2017 World Economic Forum (WEF) session in Davos titled “What If: Privacy Becomes a Luxury Good?” asserted that:

“By definition you give up privacy by being involved in something. Big data can be incredibly beneficial, but the fact that it is not anonymised is where the problem emerges…”

The globalist concept of the end of privacy is expanded upon in WEF member Ida Auken’s essay titled: “Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.” Her paper is the quintessential technocratic propaganda narrative – Similar to the narratives of Soviet futurists early in the Cold War, the elites often lure the public into participation in technocracy by promising them a life of infinite wealth and ease. “One day soon…” they say, “…our technology is going to erase labor, the need for money and the wealth gap.”

That is to say, they all promise the same bullshit about how you won’t have to work, your time will be free and owning property will become superfluous because everything will be handed to you for nothing. Of course, the trade-off is that your life will become an open book for the people in power and your very survival will be completely dependent on their whims. Step out of line, and they can easily push a button and end your existence as you know it.

Every aspect of technocracy requires ever growing dependency, but also a certain level of faith; faith that the technocrats are smarter than you and have your best interests at heart. Most people don’t have that kind of faith in other people, especially government bureaucrats and corporate CEOs. However, I have noticed an unsettling trend of blind faith in Artificial Intelligence.

After all, algorithms are the ultimate objective source, are they not? They have no emotions, so how could they suffer from bias?

Ah, and there’s the big con. As I’ve said for many years now, AI is so overrated it’s mind boggling. The amount of electrical power and human capital being invested into AI is already immense and even more resources will be required for these systems to continue “evolving”. And yet, no AI has EVER invented anything new without extensive human input at every level. AI does not create autonomously and I question if it ever will.

Why are we pumping so many resources into something that really is nothing more than a glorified search engine? Don’t get me wrong, I realize that AI has great potential as a tool for development. It certainly makes things easier for research and for speeding up projects, but it’s not intuitive and it’s often wrong.

I’ve used apps like ChatGPT and Grok on occasion to find obscure sources for data and quotes, but you already have to know what you’re looking for in order to do this. Every app has lied to me at times, giving false information and unprompted propaganda (Grok at least admits it can provide biased content or admits it was wrong when cornered by conflicting data).

But once again, AI cannot mislead you unless you participate in the delusion that AI in infallible. Sadly, too many people are stumbling into this trap. I see people constantly quote AI without checking sources. They use AI as the source, and this is what globalists want.

If the majority of people on the planet start using AI as the academic or philosophical default, then the globalists win. Every person will get the same answers, which will be programmed by the powers-that-be, and even if those answers are wrong they will be considered correct because no one will have contrary information.

I explored this problem last year in my article “Three Horrifying Consequences Of AI That You Might Not Have Thought About.” Again, participation is the key to enslavement. The human laziness factor is, in a way, giving AI permission to rule over us.

I was recently watching a discussion with Elon Musk at the Saudi Investment Forum launched as an extension of the Saudi 2030 Agenda (it’s basically all the same people as the World Government Summit in Dubai), as well as his comments at the recent Tesla shareholder’s meeting. Musk argued that:

“Long term, the AI is going to be in charge, to be totally frank, not humans… If artificial intelligence vastly exceeds the sum of human intelligence, it is difficult to imagine that any humans will actually be in charge. So we just need to make sure that AI is friendly…”

He also expounded on a rather Utopian vision of the next couple decades (as all futurists do), predicting a world without work, without scarcity and without most human struggles we are accustomed to. It’s a very similar vision sold to the public by elites and corporate moguls predicting a 15 hour work week during the First Industrial Revolution. Musk’s ideal is only different in that he calls for a benevolent AI trained by libertarians rather than an overlord AI trained by globalists.

Bottom line: AI will only “be in charge” if the populace allows it to be in charge. We can shut it all down anytime we like. You can pull your cell phone out of your pocket right now and throw it away, cutting down your digital footprint and becoming virtually invisible compared to yesterday. By extension, society as a whole can say no to AI governance. The question is, will we?

I’ll give Musk the benefit of the doubt for now that he wants AI for good, but I can’t help but point out that the collectivist ideal is always floated on the promise of economic Elysium. The world of ease Musk imagines will probably never exist. I think the system would collapse first.

That is to say, technocracy will be attempted but it will implode when it is discovered that AI is not a miracle drug and that the benefits do not outweigh the loss of freedoms the digital gulag requires. Laziness only works as an opiate for the masses when it does not result in pain. Pain creates motivation, and motivation leads to rebellion.

Furthermore, the energy resources we have right now are in no way capable of fueling the kind of AI renaissance the elites want. Even Musk admits that energy is the ultimate bottleneck and that a 50% to 100% increase in output worldwide would be needed to power future AI development. Alternative estimates call for a 300% increase in energy output.

No large-population country in the world including the US has the kind of grid needed to allow every citizen to own and operate an electric car. Imagine the amount of power required to to employ millions upon millions of AI run robots and machines to take the place of human laborers?

Typical green energy is not going to do this, it’s highly inefficient. Only a vast expansion of nuclear power might do the trick (or fusion if they ever get it right). The economic cost would be unprecedented (hundreds of trillions of dollars). The labor required to generate that kind of energy wealth would mean MORE work for humanity, not less. Meaning more struggle, more anger, and a greater chance of societal breakdown.

I have a lot of problems with futurists, but one thing that bothers me the most is their habit of ignoring the human factor in their technocratic theories. AI running the world is not inevitable, it is contingent on voluntary human compliance, just as everything about technocracy relies on human compliance.

I’m not saying we should be “anti-technology”, just that we can and must be masters of technology. We determine the future, not AI. Technology is peripheral and ultimately irrelevant in comparison to the human experience. If a piece of tech doesn’t actually make our lives better and more free and instead makes our existence a misery, then it should be turned to ashes along with the globalist institutions that demand we “own nothing and be happy.”

As migration patterns shift across the U.S., some cities are emerging as magnets for new residents. A combination of affordability, climate, and job opportunities continues to draw people to the South and West.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, highlights where Americans are choosing to move, based on new residency data from 2024 compiled by Point2Homes.

Sun Belt Cities Dominate the Rankings

Las Vegas stands out with the highest share of newcomers from other states at 33%. Mesa, Arizona (30%), and Colorado Springs, Colorado (30%) follow closely, reflecting the continued appeal of the Sun Belt. Affordable housing, favorable tax environments, and strong employment in sectors like logistics and construction make these cities attractive to many Americans.

Big Cities Still Draw the Most Movers

Despite slower growth, America’s largest metros continue to see huge inflows.

New York City tops the list with more than 702,000 new residents in 2024, even though only 20% came from out of state.

Los Angeles (371,000) and Houston (356,000) also remain top destinations, driven by work opportunities and cultural influence.

Regional Trends Reveal Shifting Appeal

Texas dominates the top 10 with four cities—Houston, San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas—all drawing strong inflows.

Meanwhile, colder cities like Minneapolis and Detroit show much lower out-of-state shares, suggesting domestic migration continues to favor warmer climates and lower costs of living.

Coastal cities such as Seattle (27%) and Boston (28%) still attract significant out-of-state movement, likely reflecting their robust job markets.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Visualizing the Cost of the American Dream on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Vincent Cook via The Mises Institute,

With the fiat US dollar price of gold multiplied 2.6x since October of 2022 (as of October 20, 2025 when this was written) and rising exponentially (Figure 1), some people are deeply worried that something is seriously wrong with the dollar and with the global financial system generally. Is the soaring price of gold a sign of monetary instability? Or is it just a transitory “nothingburger”?

Figure 1: Gold spot price per troy ounce, most recent five years

Central bankers are now being asked such awkward questions, and they are giving sharply divergent answers. During a Q&A session at a convention of business economists on October 14, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell responded:

EMILY KOLINSKI MORRIS: You used the term gold standard. And you didn’t mean it in this context that I’m going to pivot here, because there’s a question from the audience that’s getting a lot of upvotes. So, one of your predecessors, Alan Greenspan, used to view the price of gold as an indicator of inflation risk. So, in that context, how do you view the rally that we’ve seen in gold? And if you want to throw in Bitcoin, you can comment on that too.

JEROME POWELL: I’m not going to comment on any particular asset price, including that one. And I think we think of inflation as driven by fundamental supply and demand factors. And it’s not something we look at actively.

Powell is saying that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which tries to fix the quantity of dollars in existence, allegedly doesn’t care about the price of gold in particular because it views gold’s price as just one price among a vast array of prices that informs their decision-making. According to this view, gold is just another commodity which makes only a small, insignificant contribution to the overall demand for dollars and has no impact on the supply of dollars.

During the October 19 broadcast of CBS’s Face the Nation, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde gave a startlingly different answer:

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you have also said recently that you think investors have begun to question whether the dollar would still warrant its status as the ultimate safe haven currency. I mean, the American dollar is one of the strongest weapons, frankly, that the administration has to use. Do you think that it is the rise of cryptocurrency that is most threatening to that or why are you worried?

CHRISTINE LAGARDE: I see signs that the attraction of the dollar is slightly eroded, and future will tell whether there is more erosion of that. But when you look at the rise of cryptos, number one, when you look at the price of gold. Gold is typically, in any situation, the ultimate destination for safe haven. Price of gold has increased by more than 50% since the beginning of the year. —

MARGARET BRENNAN: — So people are worried. —

CHRISTINE LAGARDE: — That’s a clear sign that the trust in the reserve currency that the dollar has been, is and will continue to be, is eroding a bit. In addition to that, we’ve seen capital flows outside of the U.S. towards other destinations, including Europe. So, you know, for a currency to be really trusted you need a few things. You need geopolitical credibility. You need the rule of law and strong institutions. And you need, I would call it, a military force that is strong enough. I think on at least one and possibly two accounts, the U.S. is still in a very dominant position, but it needs to be very careful because those positions erode over the course of time. We’ve seen it with the Sterling Pound, you know, way back after, after the war. But it happens gently, gently, you don’t notice it and then it happens suddenly. And we are seeing intriguing signs of it, which is why I think that having a strong institution with the Fed, for instance, is important. Having a credible environment within which to trade is important. So volatility, uncertainty, to the extent it is fueled by the administration, is not helpful to the dollar.

While Lagarde seems to agree with Powell that cryptotokens are not that important, gold is profoundly different. For her, gold is the “ultimate destination for safe haven” and the rise of its dollar price is a sign that “trust in the reserve currency” of the world is eroding. According to Lagarde, trust in a currency requires geopolitical credibility, a rule of law, strong institutions, and a strong military. Trust is something that can disappear suddenly and, without it, gold is the haven that the world turns to.

As an empirical matter, gold is still critically important as a part of the official reserves that central banks and governments use to prop up the purchasing power of their fiat currencies when needed. In fact, reported official reserve holdings of gold now exceed those of US Treasury securities, the first time that has happened since 1996. Lagarde seems to be correct (at least to the extent one can believe official Reserve statistics) that trust in the dollar is slipping away in favor of gold, at least among her central banking peers.

More importantly, economic theory and a common sense understanding of economic history favors Lagarde’s views over Powell’s. The fundamentals of monetary supply and demand are well described in chapter 11 of Murray Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State. While a government can often use its tax codes and regulations to compel domestic use of its own currency, it can’t effectively prevent its citizens from holding other highly-marketable assets (what Rothbard calls a quasi-money) as substitutes for holding cash balances as a reserve for their future purchases, nor can it always compel foreigners to use its currency to settle international transactions (though, as Lagarde noted, superior military strength might sometimes enable it to do so).

The anticipated future purchasing power of money (PPM) is always an issue because the utility of money depends entirely upon subjective anticipations that it can be exchanged for a sufficient quantity of other goods whenever desired. In the case of constantly-depreciating fiat monies like the US dollar, the use of short-term US Treasury securities as a quasi-money reserve asset makes the dollar itself acceptable overseas because Treasuries can be readily exchanged for dollars whenever needed, and because interest payments on Treasuries reduce the costs associated with on-going dollar PPM declines.

Trust in the issuer of a fiat global reserve currency is always a challenge because foreigners have to depend upon the ability and willingness of the issuer to honor its obligations (e.g., US Treasury securities) to pay sufficient interest on those obligations to offset PPM declines sufficiently, and to keep its markets open to imports so that foreigners can earn enough revenues denominated in the reserve currency to purchase and accumulate those obligations.

If the issuer gets in a fiscal jam and can’t or won’t pay enough interest to compensate for PPM declines (which themselves are often closely linked to using fiat money creation to deal with fiscal problems), or gets in the habit of selectively reneging on its obligations to particular foreigners it doesn’t like, or starts closing its markets to foreign exporters or foreign investors, the crutch of using interest-bearing debt as a quasi-money to shield foreign users of the currency against PPM declines no longer works. In that case, foreigners will be obliged to find some other reserve that does work.

What does always work is a quasi-money that isn’t someone else’s liability and isn’t denominated in terms of someone else’s fiat currency or propped up by reserves of someone else’s fiat currency, namely, gold. Gold is a natural substance that doesn’t require trust in other governments or even trust in the behavior of gold miners (who can at most add only a small percentage annually to the total stock of gold in existence). Gold doesn’t lose its real purchasing power over the long run like fiat-denominated assets do; it has lower storage and transaction costs than other highly marketable natural commodities and doesn’t have the technological vulnerabilities and limitations of artificial commodities like cryptotokens.

While it is a matter of entrepreneurial judgment and not economic theory to affirm gold’s superiority as the ultimate “store of value” and potentially even as the preferred replacement for fiat monies (though silver has often been a strong competitor to gold for the latter role), I must agree with Lagarde’s assessment of the empirical facts concerning reserve asset competition, not with Powell’s dismissive attitude about gold—when the chips are down and the world is forced to turn to an unconditionally trustworthy reserve of purchasing power, the world will turn to gold. What soaring gold prices might indicate is that the world is now turning to gold.

One day after the FAA issued a Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM), or an alert notifying pilots of potential serious hazards in certain airspace, for the Maiquetía Flight Information Region above Venezula, Reuters reported that the US is poised to launch a new phase of Venezuela-related operations in the coming days, citing four U.S. officials.

Amid a sharp escalation of pressure by the Trump administration on President Nicolas Maduro’s government, including proliferating reports of looming action as the US military deployed forces to the Caribbean amid worsening relations with Venezuela, two of the sources said covert operations would likely be the first part of the new action against Maduro, while two US officials told Reuters the options under consideration included attempting to overthrow Maduro.

A senior administration official on Saturday told Reuters that nothing had been ruled out regarding Venezuela.

“President Trump is prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice,” said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Before the Reuters report, six airlines had already cancelled flights to Venezuela on Saturday after the US aviation regulator warned major airlines of dangers from “heightened military activity” amid a major buildup of American forces in the region, as well as a “potentially hazardous situation” when flying over Venezuela and urged them to exercise caution.

Spain’s Iberia, Portugal’s TAP, Chile’s LATAM, Colombia’s Avianca, Brazil’s GOL and Trinidad and Tobago’s Caribbean have suspended their flights to the country, said Marisela de Loaiza, president of the Venezuelan Airlines Association (ALAV). Panama’s Copa Airlines, Spain’s Air Europa and PlusUltra, Turkish Airlines, and Venezuela’s LASER are continuing to operate flights for now.

The Trump administration has been weighing Venezuela-related options to combat what it has portrayed as Maduro’s role in supplying illegal drugs that have killed Americans. He has denied having any links to the illegal drug trade. 

Maduro, under whose rule Venezuela has experienced crushing hyperinflation and a collapse in its oil production sector amid staggering corruption, has contended that Trump seeks to oust him and that Venezuelan citizens and the military will resist any such attempt. He also has characterized U.S. actions as an effort to take control of Venezuela’s oil.

A military buildup in the Caribbean has been underway for months, and Trump has authorized covert CIA operations in Venezuela.

The United States plans on Monday to designate the Cartel de los Soles a foreign terrorist organization for its alleged role in importing illegal drugs into the United States, officials said. The Trump administration has accused Maduro of leading Cartel de los Soles, which he denies.

Washington in August doubled its reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million. But U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said last week that the terrorist designation “brings a whole bunch of new options to the United States.”

Trump has said the upcoming designation would allow the United States to strike Maduro’s assets and infrastructure in Venezuela, but he also has indicated a willingness to potentially pursue talks in hopes of a diplomatic solution.

Maduro said earlier this week that the countries’ differences should be resolved through diplomacy and that he is willing to hold face-to-face talks with anyone interested. Two U.S. officials acknowledged conversations between Caracas and Washington. It was unclear whether those conversations could impact the timing or scale of potential U.S. operations.

The U.S. Navy’s largest aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, arrived in the Caribbean on November 16 with its strike group, joining at least seven other warships, a nuclear submarine and F-35 aircraft.

U.S. forces in the region so far have focused on counter-narcotics operations, even though the assembled firepower far outweighs anything needed for them. U.S. troops since September have carried out at least 21 strikes on alleged drug boats, killing at least 83 people, mostly in the Caribbean, although vessels in the Pacific Ocean also have been targeted.

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

Last week, I was able to generate from artificial intelligence a fake study that proved that eating waffles increases baldness. It was filled with footnotes, citations, and complicated math and models. It was kind of scary to see how credible the results felt. You had to look carefully to see the problems. I shared it with others who immediately said something like, “I can believe it.”

Don’t eat those waffles; your hair will fall out. Science says so!

Think of this. We’ve never before been in the position to generate such seemingly scientific content on any subject under the sun within a matter of seconds. This power has only existed for two years. Many people do not even know it exists, much less how easy it is. Bad actors are in a position to use this power anytime they want. They can count on legacy levels of trust in “science” to pass off such fakery as real.

This past week, we saw yet another piece of fake science retracted from publication. This one is a big deal. The publication is The Lancet, one of the most prestigious venues in the world. It had published the study, which was thoroughly peer-reviewed. But it turns out that the authors had pulled the wool over the eyes of the experts.

The retracted paper is one of many generated from a huge and well-funded trial of therapeutic drugs used to treat COVID-19. The trial in question was called TOGETHER. It was funded with grants from FTX, the crypto company later shut down for fraud, alongside financial companies holding large pharmaceutical stocks and think tanks funded by the industry that hoped to sell vaccines. If the study was correct, getting the shot would seem like the only option.

The authors peppered all the journals with papers on the results.

Only one has been pulled so far, but the others will likely do the same in time. This includes the New England Journal of Medicine, a venue that prides itself on its low retraction rate.

The TOGETHER trial was conducted then released fully four years ago. Questions and criticisms have been roiling and boiling all this time.

When the study came out in 2021, it was invoked as one of the major reasons to pull hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin from the shelves. Even if your own doctor wrote a prescription, the answer was no.

I will never forget that day when I walked into my neighborhood pharmacy and showed them my prescription. The girl behind the counter excused herself to talk to her manager, who shook his head no without saying a word. That sent me on a scramble to get some sent by overnight mail from New York City, from a person who had ordered some from India. I felt better in three hours.

I later learned that although millions of people did something similar, because it was the only way to get effective meds, the practice is, shall we say, frowned upon.

Why had all the pharmacies in my local neighborhood denied me proven treatments that my own doctor had prescribed me? Because they believed the science.

This is the problem of fake science. It has real-world consequences. We supposedly live in the age of science, but the credibility of all the institutions is now in free fall. The slogan “science” was deployed to justify a level of attack on freedom that we had never before seen. As a result, the reputation of science in general has taken a huge hit.

The TOGETHER trial at least had the appearance of plausibility. After all, they had actually done a real trial. The SURGISPHERE trial, in contrast, released early on in the summer of 2020, was discovered to have entirely made up all its data. Its conclusions were thereby invalid. And to be fair, the fake science was not entirely one-sided. Some studies indicating the reverse results have also been shown to have faked data.

In the end, hundreds of thousands of papers during this period were published, and these days, the retractions are happening as quickly as the acceptances in the old days. My friends, this is not just a PR problem. This is a genuine crisis for the credibility of science itself.

When the science tells you that you cannot safely have a Thanksgiving dinner in your home or sing praises to God without killing grandma, it is risking the very foundations of the scientific revolution.

Add artificial intelligence to the mix, and you make the problem worse by ten-thousand-fold.

A major incident along these lines happened to me one week ago. I was at an event when two British guys with big smiles and posh accents were going around to attendees to rail against fake meat. It’s a cause with which I’m sympathetic. That is the beginning of how people let their guard down.

They were putting people on camera, and just before turning it on, they would present a study stating that fake meat causes autism. The interviewee is then instructed to endorse the study on camera. They got me on camera to denounce fake meat—I fully complied—but then pressed me to endorse their study. At that point, the incredulous part of my brain engaged and realized something was wrong. I declined to say what they demanded.

The next morning, I realized the prank. These very compelling guys had generated this unsigned study for the purpose of tricking people. The goal was simple but also rather brilliant. It was to prove that advocates of health freedom will endorse any study that seems to back their biases. The final product was likely a documentary designed to discredit the whole movement—and the Trump administration along with it.

The plot was foiled. In the meantime, I’ve had the chance to reflect on the meaning of it all. We live in very strange times when empirical science has been deployed as a weapon for political purposes. More than 500 papers have been retracted, but countless others stand vulnerable.

My worry is that this experience has bred a kind of nihilism that surrounds the entire enterprise. Pranksters moving around scientific conferences with fake studies intended to troll people are not only unhelpful, they further undermine trust.

A key point of the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries was to advance a firmer way of knowing what is true. In former times, faith took center stage with theology as the queen of academic disciplines. But the work of Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon, Descartes, and Newton—all were great thinkers—seemed to prove that observation and induction were a better basis of knowing.

This revolution in thought coincided in time with huge advances in technology, medicine, and prosperity for everyone. The world was changing dramatically, with growing levels of mobility, choice, and material advance. We had firmly left what came to be called the “dark ages” and entered into new times. Science was the new king of thought.

There was always a problem lurking in the background. If we want to elevate observation and empirical work over faith and deduction, we are indeed overthrowing one form of ecclesiastical authority. But are we not valorizing another form of authority, namely the observers, the scientists, the people generating, holding, and interpreting the data?

Indeed, we are.

In other words, we can talk all day about science, but there is no getting around the issue of trust itself. We can trust the church and theological authorities. We can trust our own reading of revelatory texts such as the Bible. Or we can trust science and the scientific establishment.

The reason is simple.

No one person is in a position to know and verify all the facts associated with what we call science. We have no choice but to believe the teller. When it turns out that the teller is not playing fair or has another agenda, where does that leave us?

Here is the core problem we face today in the realm of science. It seems that so much has gone wrong that the scientific revolution is itself losing its grip on the public mind. We do not yet know what replaces it.

Reflect for a moment on what has survived with no injury to its reputation. I speak of Euclidean geometry, named for the Greek philosopher of the fourth century B.C. Euclid’s methods survive today. The reason is that the bridges work and buildings soar to the clouds. Consider the method: deduction based on the logic of space as measured with math.

There are schools of logic, math, and geometry, but internal consistency is a must and something anyone can verify. Deduction is democratic. It does not invoke the credibility of any authority but logic itself, and hence builds in its own reliability test. The proof is whether the thing being built actually stands.

I’m struck by the incredible irony that these principles have stood the test of time, even 2,400 years later. Euclid’s insights predated the scientific revolution by more than 2,000 years.

None of us knows what will emerge from this chaos, but these do seem like times of tremendous transition. We are moving from one failed paradigm of knowing what is true to something yet to be determined. That is the most important debate of our time.

As for those waffles, be careful out there!

Washington’s State Sentencing Guidelines Commission has voted 7–2 to recommend lighter penalties for adults caught in online child-sex sting operations, urging lawmakers to create alternatives to incarceration for cases they classify as having “no identifiable victim” , according to Seattle’s 770AM.

The category includes “net nanny” investigations where adults take steps to meet people they believe are minors but are actually undercover detectives. Three members abstained. Conservative talk-radio host Jason Rantz argues this recommendation fits into a broader pattern of Democratic-backed policy shifts that downplay or weaken consequences for adults attempting to exploit children.

Rantz writes that during the meeting, Washington Sex Offender Policy Board Chair Brad Meryhew reinforced the commission’s logic. He described these sting cases as “cases which do not involve an identifiable victim,” saying “most of those are attempted crimes or communication with a minor, with for an immoral purpose, with a victim who the person believes to be a minor, when in fact they’re a detective.”

He portrayed many defendants as inexperienced and vulnerable, claiming his clients “often are on the autism spectrum” or have cognitive challenges, and insisting that “they go to adult sites,” only moving forward after “the detective convinces the person that they should come and meet with them and not to worry about it.”

Rep. Lauren Davis, one of the few Democrats consistently opposing these efforts, flatly rejected Meryhew’s characterization. “Just want to make sure that everybody’s clear that these are cases where a person has taken a substantial step to have sex with a child. That is the totality of these cases,” she said. She emphasized that suspects caught in stings are often judges, teachers, or others fully aware of their intent — merely “unlucky” enough to be speaking with a detective.

Rantz notes this isn’t an isolated shift. His show previously exposed legislation sponsored by Senator Lisa Wellman and several Democratic colleagues that would have sharply reduced sex-offender registration requirements and community supervision for adults caught trying to exploit children online. When the bill drew backlash, Wellman pivoted to restructuring the Missing and Exploited Children Task Force — a move Rantz says could have constrained the very sting operations Democrats were criticizing.

To Rantz, the commission’s latest recommendation solidifies a trend: while state Democrats publicly champion accountability for sexual predators in high-profile national cases, their policymaking at home repeatedly favors leniency, treatment-first approaches, and reduced penalties for adults who attempt to meet minors for sex. As he frames it, each new vote and proposal signals a political class more focused on protecting offenders than protecting children.

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

AI Trade Lives On As “Santa Rally” Comes Into View

The markets experienced another volatile trading week as we head into a shortened trading week due to the Thanksgiving holiday. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq both closed the week lower, but rallied on Friday as options expiration took hold. The consistent selling pressure in AI and semiconductor-related stocks had reversed previous overbought conditions enough for a bounce. The big news was Nvidia’s earnings. Despite the market’s poor reaction (a very normal response following its earnings report), the numbers were stellar.

Nvidia’s earnings beat didn’t just meet expectations; it crushed them on nearly every metric. Revenue jumped 34% quarter over quarter, with data center sales up 41%. Demand for high-performance GPUs continues to outpace supply, and CEO Jensen Huang dismissed fears of a bubble, saying, “This is the beginning of a new industrial revolution.” That quote made the rounds for good reason. The stock’s post-earnings surge lifted the entire tech complex and added another leg to the year’s dominant trade: AI infrastructure.

Importantly, Nvidia’s numbers were more than a sentiment boost. They were confirmation that capital expenditures in AI, particularly by the largest tech platforms, remain robust. Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta are all spending aggressively on AI buildouts, and Nvidia sits at the center of that spend. That’s why the stock’s move matters: it’s not just about one company, it’s a read-through on the entire AI supply chain.

On the macro side, the data flow stayed supportive. Jobless claims ticked up slightly, but not enough to suggest deterioration. Inflation expectations, as measured by both breakevens and consumer surveys, remained anchored. Bond yields eased modestly, allowing equities more breathing room. This backdrop checks the boxes on what Nomura refers to as the “Santa Rally” setup: cooling inflation, stable employment, improving liquidity, and no immediate Fed pushback.

Still, not all signals are green. Valuations, particularly in the tech sector, remain elevated, with the forward P/E ratio on the Nasdaq 100 above 25x, significantly higher than historical averages. Meanwhile, earnings growth has slowed in some areas. The market is clearly pricing in an ideal scenario, continued growth, disinflation, and no policy mistakes. That leaves little room for error.

Heading into December, the seasonal tailwinds remain intact, as noted above. December is historically the best month for equities, with the “Santa Claus rally” often delivering average gains of 1.5% to 2.0%. With corporate buybacks in full swing, adding $5-6 billion in daily volume, investor positioning remaining stable, and professional managers underweight in exposure, particularly in technology companies, the fuel for a rally is present. However, the market also remains fragile due to poor underlying breadth and rising volatility, so caution is advised.

The near-term outlook is constructive, provided the Fed remains quiet and bond volatility remains contained. But any surprise, in inflation, growth, or geopolitics, could shift sentiment quickly. The key for investors is discipline. Don’t chase the rally blindly. Stick to quality, stay diversified, and use elevated prices to trim into strength where appropriate. While the potential for a year-end rally is higher after the recent correction, nothing is guaranteed.

Let’s review the technical backdrop.

📈Technical Backdrop – Breadth Tumbles

The bullish run of the past few weeks lost its footing as the S&P 500 closed back below its 50-day moving average, ending the week at 6,603. That break is notable. This level, which had previously served as reliable support since the late October low, gave way under broad selling pressure across sectors. Volume picked up on the move lower, and market breadth weakened significantly, with relative strength and breadth remaining very weak. Furthermore, money flows show the shift from accumulation to distribution.

From a technical standpoint, the index broke below the 50-day moving average, a key support level, and fell to the 100-day moving average during Thursday’s market reversal. While there was much speculation about why the market reversed so significantly on Thursday, most of that reversal was likely due to positioning changes ahead of the options expiration on Friday, which was the largest November expiration on record.

While Friday’s strong bounce of the 100-day moving average is encouraging, we are not out of the woods just yet. As noted above, relative strength and breadth continue to be a concern. Should the 100-day moving average not hold, the next area of support sits around the 200-day moving average near 6,163. However, for now, the current pullback remains within a larger bullish structure, but pressure is mounting that should not be dismissed.

Other markets did not escape the selling pressure this past week. The Nasdaq Composite saw downside follow-through, losing nearly 2.75% on the week and closing back below short-term support levels. The AI-related stock basket declined by more than 5%, while Bitcoin fell by almost 10%. Overall, it was a tough week for investors, but the good news is that most markets are now decently oversold, which is enough for a bounce.

We suggest that investors who struggled emotionally during the recent selloff reassess their positioning. If you found the drawdown difficult to handle, take some action:

1. Trim Back to Your Risk Tolerance: If the recent decline caused panic or second-guessing, it’s a signal your risk exposure may be too high. Use the bounce to reduce position sizes in volatile or high-beta names. Rebuild your portfolio around positions you can hold through 10–15% corrections without emotional strain. Don’t wait for another leg down to adjust.

2. Raise Cash Strategically: Cash is not a missed opportunity — it’s optionality. If you had no flexibility during the decline, use the rally to raise some cash. Trim weaker positions or those that only work in one market scenario. A 10–20% cash allocation gives you the ability to buy future dips rather than sell into fear.

3. Reassess Asset Allocation: Market pullbacks test more than individual stock picks — they expose flaws in allocation. Were you too tech-heavy? Too concentrated? Use this bounce to shift into a more balanced mix of growth, value, and defensives. Ensure your exposure isn’t overly reliant on a single theme, such as AI, small caps, or speculative sectors.

4. Review Your Exit and Stop Levels: The last two weeks exposed the cost of not having an exit plan. Use this rally to establish or tighten stop-loss levels based on support/resistance — not emotion. Define your max risk per trade or position and write it down. If the market weakens again, you’ll respond with rules, not reactions.

5. Document What Went Wrong: Use this bounce as a debrief. What specifically made you uncomfortable during the decline? Was it overexposure, leverage, position sizing, or lack of diversification? Write it out. Then build a checklist for your following trades or allocations. Market stress is unavoidable, but self-inflicted damage can be minimized with better preparation.

This is not the time to chase losses or gamble on full recovery. Use strength to reposition with discipline and clarity. Let the market work for you, not against your temperament.

💰 AI Trade Falters

The recent market correction places the “AI trade” under intense scrutiny. Stocks tied to artificial‑intelligence infrastructure, software, and platforms have pulled back, signalling more than a simple sentiment swing. According to Reuters, “investors are fretting over the pace of rate cuts and pricey valuations of heavyweight artificial‑intelligence stocks that have fueled much of the rally.” However, beyond valuation concerns lies a more profound problem: mounting debt issuance and rising credit default-swap (CDS) spreads in key AI-leveraged firms.

Recently, the credit markets have been flashing warning signs. For example, the 5‑year CDS spread for Oracle Corporation has surged to over 100 basis points, up markedly from earlier this year, reflecting increased cost to insure its debt. The trading volume in CDS tied to AI sector debt increased to approximately $4.2 billion over a recent six-week period.

As we discussed in our #DailyMarketCommentary,

“CDS stands for credit default swaps. These are derivative contracts in which one party, the default protection buyer, pays a quarterly fee, expressed in basis points. In return, the counterparty, or protection provider, assures that in the event of default, the buyer will receive par for their bonds. CDS spreads, or the cost of default insurance, provide the market with an easy way to quantify the implied market default probability. While simplified, here is the math to calculate default risk:”

Essentially, the formula divides the cost of insurance by the bond’s par value less the recovery rate. The recovery rate represents the percentage of the bondholders’ investment that will be recovered in the event of default. Often, the market assumes only a 30- to 40-cent recovery of the original investment. Therefore, if we apply that math to the five-year Oracle and CoreWeave CDS spreads, and assuming a 35% default recovery, we get the following annual default probabilities.

• Oracle CDS 108 bps: 108 / (10,000*(1-0.35)) = 1.66%
• CoreWeave CDS 675 bps: 675 / (10,000*(1-0.35)) = 10.38%

In other words, despite the fear-mongering of the media, default risks remain exceptionally low. So, why this spike? Because tech firms are raising huge sums to build AI data centres and platforms, which took the markets a bit by surprise. Oracle alone plans a $38 billion debt raise and could see net debt near $290 billion by 2028.

The increased leverage introduces refinancing and interest-rate risks, which were previously mostly nonexistent. While the “Mega-cap” companies have large free cash flows, a rising concern is that they are “over-investing” in the future.

“For the first time since Aug’05, a majority (net 20%) of FMS investors say companies are overinvesting; this jump is driven by concerns over the magnitude & financing of the AI capex boom.” – BofA

These are companies counting on large future cash flows to justify their expenditures and debt loads. When investors buy CDS protection, it means they assign a non-trivial probability to default or distress. That signals the market’s growing caution toward the AI growth narrative. Therefore, it is understandable why the recent correction in the “AI trade” has been more than just a minor fluctuation. It is reflecting investors’ demand for proof regarding execution, earnings, and balance-sheet resilience.

From an investor’s viewpoint, this means determining whether the current correction is genuinely a “thesis shift” or just a long-overdue price correction. The AI trade that powered recent rallies was built on promise and narrative. Now, the same firms are being evaluated on their ability to convert that promise into profits while managing sizable debt burdens in a higher interest rate environment.

These concerns raise a critical question.

Is the recent equity sell‑off an early warning or an entry point?

Opportunity or Warning?

The structural opportunity for the “AI trade” remains substantial. According to a report from McKinsey & Company, generative AI and other advanced AI use cases could unlock as much as $4.4 trillion in productivity gains for business users alone. Meanwhile, research from S&P Global Market Intelligence indicates that the market for code‑generation tools is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (“CAGR”) of about 53% from 2024 to 2029.

These data points underscore a broad expectation: companies that adopt AI at scale will see top‑line growth and cost efficiency improvements. Another research piece from the Boston Consulting Group shows that the adoption of “agentic AI” is set to rise from 17% of total AI value in 2025 to 29% by 2028, suggesting a transition from pilot phases to genuine business deployments. Further adding to the opportunity, the Bank of England has flagged that between 2025 and 2028, AI infrastructure capital expenditure may reach as high as $2.9 trillion, with roughly $1.5 trillion of that coming from external capital sources.

While debt is being used to build data centers, that same debt is “productive” and will boost economic growth, which in turn increases revenues to these companies from increased demand. For more on the impact of spending on economic growth, you can read:

• The Deficit Narrative May Find Its Cure In Artificial Intelligence – RIA

• Economic Reacceleration: A Contrarian View – RIA

• Capex Spending On AI Is Masking Economic Weakness – RIA

Further supporting the bull case, Nvidia’s recent earnings shattered expectations. The company reported record sales and raised its guidance again, with CEO Jensen Huang explicitly rejecting the notion of an AI bubble.

“We are at the beginning of a new computing era. What we see is not hype. It’s real, broad-based demand across nearly every industry.” – CNBC

Demand for GPUs remains so high that hardware is selling out despite increased supply, a sign that adoption is continuing at a substantial pace. These fundamentals suggest that companies correctly positioned in the AI ecosystem may experience significant increases in revenue and cash flow. For example, platforms that host AI workloads, chipmakers who supply the infrastructure, and software vendors who embed AI into enterprise applications could all benefit from a multi-year growth phase. Given that many firms are still in the early stages of monetizing their AI investments, the long-term horizon remains favorable. In other words, if this thesis proves to be true, the current weakness in some AI stocks could represent a tactical entry point for the patient and selective investor.

However, the warning side of the ledger is equally essential.

The rapid advance of AI-related mega-cap stocks in 2025 has already delivered exceptional gains. According to Business Insider, investors are “rethinking the red‑hot AI trade,” noting that some firms with strong earnings still experienced share-price declines because valuation expectations had outpaced actual performance. Similarly, the Bank of England has raised concerns that a “sharp market correction has increased” given stretched valuations, especially in the AI‑tech segment. Goldman Sachs analysts estimate that much of the upside from the AI boom may already be reflected in current stock prices, as they estimate $5 trillion to $19 trillion in extra revenue upside. As noted, their concern, and a valid one, is that the market has already priced in a significant portion of that.

From a fundamental perspective, the warning is two-fold:

1. While long-term revenue growth expectations remain strong, many companies have yet to convert investments into substantial cash flows. A study in the arXiv preprint archive introduces a “Capability Realisation Rate” (CRR) model. It states that many AI-native firms are valued based on their future potential rather than their current results, creating a “valuation misalignment risk.”

2. The sheer pace of gains in AI‑exposed stocks has raised the bar for future performance. As one analyst put it: “Even a company like Palantir Technologies has seen its share price hammered, even though its results did top expectations, nosebleed valuations got in the way.” In other words, the risk is not just execution, but also expectations that are unrealistically high and already factored into the price.

In summary, the fundamentals support the AI opportunity, driven by a large addressable market, accelerated adoption, and potential for margin improvement. But at the same time, the warning signs are real, from elevated valuations, compressed margins for error, and a market that has already rewarded much of the expected growth. This brings us to two crucial takeaways:

• If you take the long view and are willing to invest in companies with proven execution and realistic valuation, then a measured exposure makes sense.
• But if you are chasing momentum in speculative names, this moment leans more toward caution than indiscriminate buying.

To succeed, you must know yourself.

Know Your Investing Behavior Before You Bet on AI

Before you take a position in the AI trade, you need to understand how you respond to volatility. This is not a casual theme. It is a long-term investment tied to one of the most transformational technologies in decades, but it also comes with risk, hype cycles, and rapid repricing. How you behave during corrections will shape your outcomes more than your entry point.

If you tend to panic sell at the first sign of a 10% decline, then the warning signs discussed earlier should weigh heavily in your decision-making. AI stocks have seen massive runs and are now facing increased scrutiny. The price declines we’ve seen recently are not anomalies, and they are reminders that high-momentum sectors can turn quickly. Even companies with strong fundamentals are vulnerable if investor expectations are unrealistic. As Credit Suisse’s recent behavioral finance outlook put it:

“Narrative-driven investing creates price swings that reward patience and punish emotional decisions.”

This is the phase we’re entering now.

If you’re a long-term investor and can withstand volatility, the AI trade may still be early in its cycle. According to Goldman Sachs, the bulk of AI-driven revenue gains may not materialize until 2027 or later, especially for enterprise use cases and infrastructure services. If you understand that, and you’re building a position with a 3–5 year horizon, the current reset offers an opportunity to build into positions that you will want to own. This assumes you’re disciplined about risk, diversified in your exposures, and clear-eyed about the timeline required for these investments to deliver.

If you don’t know how to manage risk, read: Portfolio Risk Management: Accepting The Hard Truth – RIA

AI is not a meme stock story. It’s a structural transition playing out unevenly across sectors and balance sheets. The volatility will continue, and if you’re inclined to sell during the inevitable drawdowns, then your odds of capturing the long-term value shrink. Recognize your personal investment behavior before deciding how — or if — to engage.

🔑 Key Catalysts Next Week

Next week is a shortened trading week due to the Thanksgiving holiday, but that doesn’t mean it will be quiet. Liquidity will be thinner, which can exacerbate volatility around key data releases. The most important report to watch is the October PCE Price Index, the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation. It will be released on Wednesday and could have a significant impact on rate expectations leading up to December’s FOMC meeting.

Markets are coming off a technically weak stretch, and any upside surprise in PCE could pressure yields higher, further challenging equity valuations. On the flip side, a soft print would reinforce the “Goldilocks” narrative and increase the odds of a continued year-end rally. Also worth watching will be consumer sentiment and spending data. With the holiday shopping season underway, any signs of weakness could impact retail stocks, which have underperformed broadly in the fourth quarter.

Additionally, Fed officials are entering the quiet period ahead of the following policy meeting, meaning this is the final week to hear public comments. Traders should pay attention to any comments around financial conditions or balance sheet policy. With the bond market still adjusting to the Fed’s recent dovish tilt, language from speakers like Waller and Goolsbee could matter more than usual.

With fewer trading sessions and lower volume, markets will be more sensitive to headline risk. Stay nimble and be selective with your positioning as we enter a potentially volatile week.

Via Middle East Eye

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday that the America’s top diplomat assured him US legislation will prevent Saudi Arabia from buying the most sophisticated F-35 warplanes, directly contradicting President Donald Trump.

“Regarding the F-35, I had a long conversation with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who reiterated his commitment that the United States will continue to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge in everything related to supplying weapons and military systems to countries in the Middle East,” Netanyahu said in a Hebrew-language interview widely circulated on X. 

Netanyahu said that Rubio told him the US was “committed to maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge in all areas, including Israel’s advantage regarding the supply of F-35 aircraft.”

Netanyahu’s comment emphasizes Rubio as an apparent advocate for maintaining Israel’s military superiority over that of other US allies in the region. His comments would be in keeping with previous diplomatic engagement. 

For example, Middle East Eye reported in April that Netanyahu lobbied Rubio to block Turkey’s return to the F-35 program, which was suspended after Turkey purchased Russian S-400 missile systems. Turkey is a member of NATO.

Trump pledged that Saudi Arabia and Israel would be treated as equal partners when it comes to the F-35. He appeared to reference Israeli lobbying to sell Saudi Arabia an inferior product to Israel’s. 

“You are asking me, is it the same? I think it’s going to be pretty similar,” Trump said in an Oval Office meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Monday. “I know they [Israel] would like you to get planes of reduced caliber. I don’t think that makes you too happy… I think they [Saudi Arabia and Israel] are both at a level where they should get top of the line.”

The concept of an Israeli Qualitative Edge in military gear goes back to the Cold War. In 1979, the US brokered a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, then the Arab world’s dominant military power, alongside the Shah’s Iran. Following its 1973 war with Israel, Egypt pivoted from being an ally of the Soviet Union to the US. Egypt’s peace with Israel was underwritten by the promise of US military aid, which Israel wanted to ensure was inferior to the weapons it received. 

Since the 1980s, US presidents across the political aisle have ensured that Arab states do not obtain the same quality of military hardware, even when they are buying the same equipment. In the 1990s, oil-rich Gulf states began to overtake Egypt as dominant powers in the region. 

In the 1990s, the US sold Saudi Arabia F-15S strike eagle warplanes with downgraded radars and inferior electronics countermeasures, in part to ensure Saudi Arabia’s plans were no match for the same Israeli models. 

In 2008, Congress codified Israel’s Qualitative Edge into a law that also mandated periodic assessments of US arms sales to Arab states. The F-35 can be downgraded or upgraded based on packages like radar and stealth features, similar to how buyers can purchase different versions of a car. 

Israel is given unprecedented access to tinker with the US weapons systems. Israel modified its version of the warplane, the F-35I Adir, to carry external fuel compartments without compromising on its stealthy features, MEE reported. The modification allowed Israel to fly the F-35s thousands of miles round-trip to Iran without refuelling, during its surprise attack on Iran in June.