Authored by Ian Miller via The Brownstone Institute,

Six years since “15 Days to Slow the Spread”, data shows why our policies didn’t work…

That policy has to have been one of the most disastrous in world history, created by “experts” who took all established pre-pandemic planning documents and tossed them out the window at the first opportunity.

It was a policy based on inaccurate reports out of China, which claimed that their lockdowns effectively stamped out transmission of Covid-19 within a matter of days.

It was a policy that ignored solid research – from established epidemiologists like Dr. Jay Bhattacharya – which found that the coronavirus had already spread much more widely than previously realized.

It must be noted forever that lockdowns and the associated mask mandates, vaccine passports, and school closures continued in some places for several years. The ramifications of those wretched policies will be quite literally endless. It’s not an exaggeration to say that lockdowns, our policies, and responses have quite literally changed the course of world history.

One would think that there would definitely be a concerted effort to understand whether such policies were effective or not. Whether approaching respiratory viruses with authoritarian crackdowns on businesses and schools was necessary to save lives.

Yet six years later, there’s unfortunately very little interest in examining those questions. And when you understand the data from Sweden, you will see exactly why.

Study on Swedish Approach to Covid Shows Lockdowns Didn’t Work

A study published in PubMed examined the Swedish approach to Covid policy, relative to its European counterparts, primarily because Sweden did not rely on lockdowns in response to the pandemic, but instead used “voluntary and sustainable mitigation recommendations,” the study says.

Despite a “majority of Swedes” supporting those policies, “this approach faced rapid and continuous criticism.”

That criticism came primarily from public health figures such as, surprise, surprise, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who criticized Sweden repeatedly for going against the herd.

“You’ve compared us to Sweden, and there are a lot of differences,” he said during a Senate Committee hearing in September 2020. “But compare Sweden’s death rate to other comparable Scandinavian countries. It’s worse. So I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare Sweden with us.”

“If you look at Sweden, they are in some trouble,” Fauci claimed on Good Morning America in late 2020. “They are starting to see that their death rate is much higher than the surrounding countries of Norway, Denmark, and Finland…They’re starting to see now that they’re having to rethink some of the things they did.”

This was, of course, not true. They did not “rethink” their strategy of light touch recommendations over lockdowns. And comparing Sweden exclusively to its neighbors is an absurd misdirection that no other country was subjected to. But Fauci, obviously never one for honesty or intellectual integrity, represented many public health figures who were anxious to see Sweden fail.

Yet as this research shows, reality was precisely the opposite.

The study explains that Sweden received criticism for “not legally enforcing mask-wearing in public spaces,” as well as keeping schools open and “being too permissive” with its policies. All the things that we were told were necessary to stop Covid and save lives. The researchers tested these statements using excess mortality data and stringency indices to compare Sweden across the whole of Europe, not just its neighbors.

They chose excess mortality because, unlike Covid specific measurements, it’s less subject to bias, differences in testing, and counting, and individual definitions of Covid-caused outcomes. It also accounts for deaths that “could potentially be indirectly attributed to the negative effects of strict lockdown measures and the overall strain on healthcare systems, leading to reduced access to healthcare for other diseases, among other factors.”

Turns out that what they discovered was that Sweden vastly outperformed the rest of Europe from 2020-2022, with outcomes that were remarkably similar to the other Nordic countries.

“Among 42 European countries, the cumulative excess all-cause mortality from January 2020 to December 2022 ranged from 46 (Luxembourg) to 1,080 (Bulgaria) deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, with a median of 351/100,000,” they write. “In Sweden, the excess mortality rate of 158/100,000 was among the lowest, ranked 37th among 42 countries, and not very different from other Nordic countries: Norway (129), Denmark (97), and Finland (228).”

So why did Sweden underperform in 2020 relative to their neighbors? Likely due, as the study explains, to “mortality displacement due to low all-cause mortality in 2019,” as well as “poorly organized older adult care structures.”

What does this mean? Essentially, there were significantly fewer deaths from all causes in Sweden in 2019, meaning there were more extremely elderly people alive in 2020 that were susceptible to severe outcomes from Covid. This is reflected in the massive age gradient with Covid-associated deaths. In Sweden, “~40% of the COVID-19-associated deaths were among patients in nursing homes,” the study says, “and 67% of all COVID-19 deaths were among individuals above 80 years of age, representing 10% of all deaths in that age group.”

For younger age groups, Covid was mostly a non-issue. “COVID-19 deaths below 50 years of age represented only 1.2% of all COVID deaths, including 21 individuals below 20 years of age, mostly with underlying co-morbidities, representing 1% of all deaths in that age group.”

Effectively, Covid ravaged extremely elderly people, while those under 50, despite the lack of mask mandates and lockdowns, saw very limited impact.

Sweden’s Lack of Lockdowns Led to Better Outcomes

Equally important, they examined the “stringency index” for countries across Europe, then made a data table comparing that stringency to excess mortality from 2020-2022. Effectively, how strict were a country’s policies, and how much did that matter to reducing excess mortality?

Turns out, there’s a definitive, resounding answer which this chart demonstrates perfectly. Countries are plotted based on their stringency index, the x-axis, and excess mortality, the y-axis. The line demonstrates the trend in mortality rates, and there’s virtually no relationship between the severity of policy and preventing excess mortality.

The R-squared, effectively the relationship between stringency index and excess mortality, is just 0.14. The closer to 1, the more related stringency is to outcomes. This is 0.14.

Countries like Italy and Spain were some of the strictest when it came to lockdowns and mandates, yet ranked near the top in excess mortality rates. The UK, Portugal, the Netherlands and others were significantly more stringent and also had demonstrably worse outcomes. Denmark was the second least strict country and had the best outcomes, at least in this examination.

What does this tell us? Well, put simply, Fauci was wrong. Sweden did not underperform relative to its neighbors. It did significantly better than the rest of Europe, and of course, the United States. Lockdowns and stringency were not related, whatsoever, to reducing excess mortality. They never mandated masks, one of his chief policy recommendations, and outperformed other countries like Germany which imposed N95-level mandates for months on end.

This is a clear repudiation of the lockdown model. Which is precisely why Sweden’s example is deliberately being ignored today.

Because learning the actual results of these historically bad policies requires humility, accountability, and honesty, all qualities that many in public health are truly incapable of possessing.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Authored by Bryan Hyde via American Greatness,

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is will meet with delegations from scores of countries this week for a summit focused on the neglected threat posed by “the resurgence of transnational far-left terrorism.”

ABC News reports that a note shared with foreign governments describes the concept of the meeting as addressing a threat that “has remained a blind spot in the international community’s counterterrorism focus, underestimated and under-resourced, despite the danger it poses.”

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott told Newsmax that the Trump administration is taking seriously the gaps that have persisted for decades in counterterrorism strategy.

The United States is taking the resurgence of transnational far-left terrorism incredibly seriously. Under President Trump’s leadership, we are addressing gaps in our counterterrorism strategy that have been largely ignored by previous administrations. pic.twitter.com/fm0AXscLTT

— Tommy Pigott (@statedeptspox) July 13, 2026

The conference seeks to combat international organizations, specifically the decentralized antifa movement, which the administration has formally designated as a domestic terrorist organization.

Law enforcement and counterterrorism experts have exposed a “clear trend” of “globally networked, politically-motivated terrorists — particularly far-left terrorists” increasingly turning to “organized, deadly violence to advance their political objectives.”

The gathering will include senior ministers from over 60 countries — including nations across Europe, Latin America, Asia, as well as India and Israel—to discuss intelligence sharing and law enforcement cooperation.

The meeting, scheduled to take place in Washington on Thursday, will lay the foundation for “coordinated action” to counter international organizations that are “seeking to implement an extreme political vision through intimidation and coordinated campaigns of terror” according to ABC News.

The initiative aligns with a new U.S. counterterrorism strategy released in May 2026 that prioritizes “violent secular political groups” alongside traditional threats.

Some allies and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other critics have accused the administration of utilizing counterterrorism authorities to target politically opposed but peaceful activists and donors, according to ABC News.

🚨 IT’S OFFICIAL: Sec. of State Marco Rubio in the coming days will converge a swath of allies to DECIMATE Antifa and communist-linked terrorists across the world

ANY rioter or agitator waving Antifa flags should be arrested on the spot, because they are supporting terrorists! pic.twitter.com/le736pigYJ

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 12, 2026

The State Department has clarified that the terrorist designations are aimed at groups that are “engaged in violent terrorist activities such as kidnapping, targeting U.S. law enforcement, targeting the civilian population.”

The largest US power grid failed for a third straight year to secure enough future supply commitments to ensure reliability for the future amid a historic boom in data center demand.

PJM Interconnection, the largest US power grid (Regional Transmission Organization), which serves 67 million customers in 13 states and Washington, DC, said its auction to procure power for the year starting June 2028 fell 6.8 gigawatts short of what it will need to guarantee system reliability during demand spikes, in a statement released Tuesday. The shortfall is equivalent to almost seven traditional nuclear reactors.

The result ramps up pressure on a grid that’s home to Virginia’s Data Center Alley, the biggest concentration of data centers in the US, and has borne the brunt of criticism for the struggle to manage the AI boom and sufficiently protect customers from soaring costs. Attention now shifts to an emergency procurement mechanism later this year that aims to shift the burden of ramping up power generation to hyperscalers.

6.831 Megawatt Shortfall

PJM Interconnection today announced the results of its 2028/2029 Base Residual Auction (BRA), which secured 138,318 MW of unforced capacity generation (UCAP) and demand response to meet projected electricity needs for the more than 67 million people across 13 states and the District of Columbia, which fall under the RTO’s umbrella.

Regions under the Fixed Resource Requirement (FRR) acquired an additional 10,864 MW in UCAP, for a total of 149,182 MW in UCAP available to serve forecasted peak electricity demand, plus a reserve margin. UCAP represents a generation resource’s maximum output adjusted for its estimated ability to reliably perform at times of highest system risk. The capacity of the resources procured in the auction, plus FRR resources, is short of PJM’s reliability requirement by 6,831 MW, meaning that the committed supply is less than what would be required to meet the one-event-in-10-year reliability standard (and with electricity-guzzling data centers popping up almost daily these days, the one-event-in-10-year has become a daily occurrence).

This shortfall was not unexpected given the conditions PJM has been observing, including a shortfall of approximately 6,500 MW in the previous capacity auction (for the 2027/2028 Delivery Year). These most recent auctions were the first in PJM history in which the entire RTO fell short of the reliability requirement. PJM plans to seek FERC approval to hold a special “Backstop Procurement” in September to help address the near-term shortfall in electricity supply.

In coordination with the governors of all 13 PJM states and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, PJM established a price cap and floor, or collar, for four capacity auctions to protect both consumers and investors from market volatility. This was the third consecutive auction with the price collar.

The clearing price came in at the FERC-approved price ceiling of $325 per megawatt-day which will show up in users’ monthly utility bills; the price was a 2.5% decrease from the 2027/2028 Base Residual Auction cap of $333.44 per megawatt day.

Costs would be even higher if not for the price cap first negotiated in 2024. While that has helped keep a (loose) lid on costs, PJM has been among those to say that the system also means there isn’t a sufficient price signal for producers to build new power generation. 

The table below from the PJM statement shows what prices would have been without a price cap.  For 2028/2029, all prices cleared at $554.72  except the COMED LDA, which cleared at $776.69. 

In other words, absent a regulatory cap, the price of electricity would be 70% higher ($554.72 vs $325).

Meanwhile, advanced technology providers of nuclear energy such as modular reactor companies Nano Nuclear and Oklo are just waiting for the green light to plug their energy sources into the grid. 

Payouts to generators for the year starting June 2028 matched the last auction’s all-time high of $16.4 billion set in December, according to PJM (the total value does not equate to the total cost to load because load that is hedged through self-supply or bilateral contracts is not exposed to the clearing prices in the auction). 

PJM power prices jumped 76% during the first quarter due to rampant demand from data centers, according to a report from Monitoring Analytics, the grid’s independent market monitor.

PJM CEO David Mills recently described such a situation as “untenable.”

Commenting on today’s auction, Mills said that “these auction results show that demand for electricity continues to grow faster than electricity supply. At the same time, PJM recognizes how this supply-and-demand imbalance impacts the reliability of the system and costs for consumers. We are working with government and industry leaders on multiple fronts to restore that balance by bringing on new generation as fast as possible and managing the growth of new load on the grid.”  

As we have repeatedly warned when discussing just how little excess capacity there is in the US grid – with PJM already well below the critical reliability threshold – a searing heat dome earlier this month showed just how close the PJM grid is to reaching its limits, with power demand likely surpassing a record that had stood for over two decades. Without urgent action, the grid risks further deterioration with demand outstripping oncoming supply.

Next summer the Eastern seaboard will look like North Korea at night thanks to chatbots pic.twitter.com/NEY97pa1LB

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 6, 2026

PJM already was under intense scrutiny with data centers and power generators saying they are not being connected fast enough as consumer groups and politicians hammer the grid for spiraling power bills. Those concerns are likely to come to a head at a July 23 conference called by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to discuss grid governance.

The latest auction result, intended to guarantee enough capacity is available for the few hours in a typical year when demand peaks, will also put further onus of an emergency measure slated for later this year to fill the supply gap and ensure data centers pay. As Bloomberg notes, PJM has yet to submit its proposal for exactly how that will work, but the process is set to get underway in September after heavy pressure from the White House and state governors.

Authored by Victoria Friedman via The Epoch Times,

The State Department is launching a campaign to “dismantle the threat posed by the International Criminal Court to U.S. sovereignty,” the department said, including through disabling the court’s ability to target American servicemen or officials.

The State Department said in a July 13 statement that actions under consideration include U.S. officials contacting foreign nations to highlight the ICC’s abuses and the risk posed to other countries by the court, and urging them to withdraw from the body.

The Trump administration is also considering revoking visas and imposing travel bans on ICC personnel, imposing increased sanctions against the ICC and its affiliates, and increasing pressure on nations that refuse to reject ICC rulings while still relying on U.S. assistance.

“No diplomatic option will be off-limits in the campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the ICC to Americans,” the department said.

The ICC was established in 2002 to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, asserting its jurisdiction if a member of the ICC is unable or unwilling to undertake prosecutions itself.

The United States has never been a member of the ICC; however, the court’s statutes give it the power to prosecute crimes committed in a member state by nationals of non-member states, including Americans.

“The ICC poses an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty – it claims the authority to prosecute and even imprison American servicemen and officials operating on behalf of America’s national interest,” the State Department said.

“Americans never signed up for this, and all American presidents since the ICC’s ratification have maintained that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Americans.”

The ICC’s spokesperson, Oriane Maillet, said the court would not comment on the matter at this stage.

President Donald Trump’s opposition to the court goes back to his first term in office. He and other officials in Washington have long said the ICC should not have the authority to investigate and prosecute U.S. citizens, particularly members of the military.

In March 2020, ICC prosecutors opened an ​investigation in Afghanistan that included looking into possible crimes by U.S. military personnel. However, since 2021, it has deprioritized the United States’ role, focusing ⁠on alleged crimes committed by Taliban forces and the Afghan government.

‘Waging a War Against Our Country’

“As we speak, the ICC and its friends are waging a war against our country, not with bullets or missiles, but with statutes and compacts and the force of so-called international law,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a video message posted on July 13.

Rubio said that when the ICC was established, it said it was limited to dealing with the most serious of offenses.

“But the truth is, it was something far more radical and extreme. It was a global tribunal staffed by unelected globalist bureaucrats who claim their power is almost unlimited,” he said.

Rubio said that the court’s power has only continued to grow, and that the United States should not stand idle and let judges living thousands of miles away make determinations well beyond their jurisdiction.

“The American people never agreed to any of this, and they never will,” Rubio said.

“Read the words of our Declaration of Independence. We fought a revolution against a foreign power, transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses. Independence is our birthright. We will never let foreign bureaucrats take that away from us.”

In December 2025, Rubio sanctioned two ICC judges after accusing them of being engaged in the “illegitimate targeting” of Israel. Rubio said at the time that neither the United States nor Israel is a party to the Rome Statute, the international treaty that established the ICC, and therefore rejected the court’s jurisdiction.

“The ICC has continued to engage in politicized actions targeting Israel, which set a dangerous precedent for all nations. We will not tolerate ICC abuses of power that violate the sovereignty of the United States and Israel and wrongly subject U.S. and Israeli persons to the ICC’s jurisdiction,” Rubio said in the Dec. 18 statement.

The blowback against data centers escalated this morning, when New York became first state in the nation to enact a moratorium on data centers, pausing construction on new facilities for one year.

An executive order by Gov. Kathy Hochul bans state lawmakers from approving environmental permits for hyperscale data centers. Hochul said Tuesday the pause will give lawmakers time to create a framework to protect residents and the environment. 

“Massive data centers are being built across our state and our country. The scale and speed of this development has put unprecedented demand on energy and water resources, and threatens to drive up utility costs. Before it goes any further, I need safeguards in place to protect New Yorkers,” Hochul said in a social media post. 

AI data centers, which contain thousands of servers and typically use 50 or more megawatts of power to operate, have been blamed for everything from noise pollution to sending regional electricity prices soaring. They also require a steady supply of water to keep cool. 

Hochul said the state still welcomes AI investments and businesses, and looks forward to helping them grow and thrive. 

“But when you benefit from the talent and energy of New York, we expect you to protect our resources and give back to our communities,” Hochul said. 

New York will lead in responsible innovation while protecting families and communities.

Today, I’m signing a first-in-the-nation Executive Order to hit pause and set the rules for AI data centers.

Join me live: https://t.co/5T2eFyoc7m

— Governor Kathy Hochul (@GovKathyHochul) July 14, 2026

The order comes as the state is experiencing unprecedented growth in the demand for data center development driven by AI and other computing operations, according to the governor’s office. The data centers require “millions of gallons of water, draining the local supply.” 

“The bottom line is progress shouldn’t arrive with a higher utility bill, depleted water supplies, or noise pollution. So we have no choice but to address these challenges created by these massive facilities,” Hochul said. 

Hochul said New York will require data centers to either produce their own energy or pay a premium for accessing New York’s grid. Hochul also said she opposes any tax subsidies for AI data centers as well. 

The Department of Public Service will create the guidelines for centers to ensure new facilities meet consistent standards. 

Hochul said the process will take up to a year, prompting the moratorium. Once state officials finalize the standards, the ban will be lifted. 

Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand applauded the move: “This one-year moratorium is fundamentally about trust. Right now, New Yorkers aren’t convinced these massive facilities benefit them. Before we move forward, our communities need ironclad guarantees that their energy bills won’t spike, their water will be protected, and their air will remain clean,” Gillibrand said.   

Gillibrand described the need for federal action regarding AI as well: “That requires establishing clear, reliable rules of the road. We must build a framework that protects our kids from harmful algorithms and social media tools; shields seniors and consumers from AI-driven scams and fraud; and safeguards American jobs and livelihoods from displacement.”
“It kills good-paying union jobs”

Not everyone is pleased with the moratorium. 

“A shortsighted moratorium only accomplishes one thing: it kills good-paying union jobs. Rather than implementing guardrails to build the future of American ingenuity, Governor Hochul is taking her ball and going home. We urge the governor to work with all parties, including the hardworking New Yorkers whose jobs are at stake, to implement common sense guardrails,” United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters general president Mark McManus said. 

The  Associated General Contractors of New York State also objected to the moratorium, calling it “the wrong policy for New York.” 

“Halting permits for as much as a year in this fast-moving sector will not simply delay projects—it will send them permanently to Virginia, Texas, Georgia and other states actively competing for these investments and the construction and other jobs that come with them. Once a developer breaks ground somewhere else, that project—and the opportunities and tax revenue that come with it—are not coming back,” AGS NYS president and CEO Mike Elmendorf said. “Data center construction is the strongest-performing segment in an otherwise uncertain construction market nationwide, and New York’s construction industry—which still has not recovered to pre-pandemic employment levels—cannot afford to forfeit it.”

Elmendorf called the moratorium a “de facto ban that tells the marketplace New York is closed for business.”

Meanwhile, PA senator John Fetterman, snubbed the NY decision by simply stating “China wins.”

China wins. 🇨🇳 pic.twitter.com/tTiMwxPNaq

— U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) July 14, 2026

A grassroots pushback against data centers has been spreading across the nation in the past year and most recently culminated in the so-called Silion Alley in Virginia – which has the highest concentration of data centers in the US – and where we reported a week ago that giant data center landlord Blackstone is walking away from plans to build its portion (which at this point is the only portion left after its partner already pulled out days earlier) of a 2,100-acre data center campus in Virginia – also known as Prince William Digital Gateway which would house as many as 37 data-center buildings – handing a win to residents who fought for years to topple the project. 

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The underlying story of the past 50 years has been the offloading of risk onto workers and consumers.

On my map of how the world works, we start with structures of control that distribute the good stuff–resources, assets, income and power–and the bad stuff: costs, losses and risks. As I explained in The US Economy In a Nutshell: Privatize the Gains, Socialize the Costs, the current arrangement distributes the gains to the top 10% and the costs and risks to the bottom 90% via privatizing the gains and socializing–i.e. dumping them onto the biosphere and the public–the costs and losses.

This follows a power-law distribution: the few at the top reap most of the gains, and the leftovers, scraps and crumbs are distributed in descending order, with most of what’s left going to the top 9.5% and a diminishing dribble is scattered over the lower 90%, so that by the time we get to the bottom half of households, 170 million people own a grand total of 2.5% of the nation’s financial assets, while the top 0.1% own 16.6%–6.6X the bottom 50%.

A key mechanism in this wildly asymmetric distribution of gains and costs is the system favors capital over wages. As the charts below illustrate, the financial gains go to the owners of capital, and since ownership of capital is highly concentrated, these few owners siphon up the vast majority of the gains.

One way to understand how the current arrangement favors capital over wages is to reverse the tax liabilities of capital and wages. Employers and employees pay 15.3% of every dollar of wages in Social Security / Medicare taxes, plus income taxes that quickly rise to 22%, for a total tax rate of 37.3% on wages. (Note self-employed people like myself pay the full 15.3% ourselves, as we’re both employer and employee.)

Capital gains are taxed at 20%, but only when the asset is sold, so the wealthy borrow against their unrealized gains and live off this borrowed money to avoid selling and having to pay tax on capital gains. And since the system depends on debt to survive, the interest on debt is deductible, giving the wealthy borrowers a tax deduction for avoiding capital gains.

Now imagine all capital gains, realized or unrealized, were taxed at 37% and the first $80,000 of wages were tax-free. The median wage is around $80,000, hence my picking that number. As for the hue and cry about unrealized capital gains being taxed, that’s easily addressed: unrealized gains in primary-residence owner-occupied homes and retirement accounts would be exempted. Every other gain made playing in the casino would be taxed.

Reversing the asymmetry of tax liabilities would dramatically alter the distribution of gains and costs. Wages have lost ground for 50+ years, and the favoring of capital is a key driver of this decline in the share of the economy that’s distributed to wage earners.

Half the nation’s households–170 million people own a grand total of 2.5% of the nation’s financial assets:

The winner-take-most arrangement favoring capital:

Another key driver is the offloading of risk from owners to consumers and workers, a perverse process that has been obscured by incremental degradation. Risk is a strange phenomenon that defies easy definition. Risk isn’t a direct loss or cost; it’s the probability of losses and costs arising in what appears on the surface to be a stable arrangement.

Consider the stunning decline in the quality of durable goods such as appliances, and global industry adopting a laughably valueless one-year warranty across the board. Appliances that routinely lasted 30 years before “Progress” took the reins now routinely fail in 3+ years.

In the good old days before “Progress” took the reins, manufacturers absorbed the risk of premature failure of the goods they produced. Now this risk has been offloaded onto consumers, who are now forced to buy “extended warranties” as the only means of mitigating the risk they now carry of premature failure.

This is in effect a form of extortion: “nice refrigerator you got there, too bad it’s at risk of breaking.” Well, if current manufacturers had the same standards as previous generations, we wouldn’t need “extended warranties.” Welcome to the Mafia Economy: low quality goods and services force “upgrades,” i.e. extortion.

Consider the offloading of risk onto workers. Employment other than casual labor once included healthcare insurance and other basic benefits. In the “gig economy” of contract employment and gigs, the worker is now responsible for paying their Social Security / Medicare taxes, healthcare insurance and retirement contributions.

The decline of hourly wages is another offloading of risk onto the worker. The percentage of workers paid by the hour has declined in favor of salaried positions with open-ended demands on workers: where hourly workers get paid for hours on the job, salaried workers are now on the hook for work beyond a conventional 8-hour work shift.

Then there’s the immense mass of risk and labor that’s been offloaded onto consumers and workers as shadow work, often the result of having to fix failures in goods and services that were once the responsibility of the provider or employer and have been dumped on consumers and workers. This is a topic I’ve often addressed.

This Is Why You’re Drowning in Busywork: We have been told that A.I. will take people’s jobs. What no one mentions is that many of those jobs are landing on us. The A.I. revolution involves a huge transfer of labor– not from worker to machine but from worker to consumer. (nytimes.com, paywalled)

Another source of risk is the dependence on debt to fund the lifestyles we deserve: as the purchasing power of wages has declined, the easy “solution” is to fill the gap between what earnings can buy and what we want / need / expect / deserve with borrowed money.

As we all know, debt comes with risk, as falling behind greases the slide to default, bankruptcy and ruin. 27% interest rates on credit cards steepen the slide into a cliff: one missed payment can trigger a cascade of events that cannot be reversed. This is why I often observe that fewer bad things can happen if you have no debt.

Last but far from least, is the current arrangement’s dependence on serial credit-asset bubbles as the sole driver of “growth”, a dependence that has led to a casino economy in which wage earners lose ground and in desperation turn to gambling as their last-ditch hope of gaining ground.

But despite 24/7 assurances that “this isn’t a bubble,” all bubbles pop with devastating consequences for those who believed the assurances of those operating the casino.

The underlying story of the past 50 years has been the offloading of risk onto workers and consumers, with the inevitable consequences being higher costs and losses leading to impoverishment and immiseration. We’re frogs in water that’s getting measurably hotter, and it’s getting harder to muster the means to jump out of the simmering pot.

*  *  *

My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free). Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free

Authored by Rystad Energy via OilPrice.com,

• Venezuela could increase crude production by about 194,000 bpd by late 2028, with most growth coming from existing producing fields rather than new discoveries.

• International oil companies led by Chevron are expected to deliver nearly two-thirds of the forecast production increase through brownfield investments.

• The biggest obstacles are operational, including drilling rigs, diluent supplies, infrastructure upgrades, and a competitive fiscal regime capable of attracting long-term investment.

Venezuela’s upstream industry has entered a new phase. Following sweeping hydrocarbon reforms and broader geopolitical developments in early 2026, the conversation has shifted from whether the country can reopen its oil sector to whether it can successfully execute a meaningful production recovery. The country’s resource potential has never been in doubt. The greater challenge now lies in converting policy momentum into sustained operational growth.

Rystad Energy estimates Venezuela’s crude production could increase by approximately 17%, or around 194,000 barrels per day (bpd), between the fourth quarter of 2025 and the fourth quarter of 2028. Importantly, this growth is expected to come primarily from existing producing assets rather than large-scale new discoveries, highlighting that operational execution, not resource availability, will determine the pace of recovery.

Near-term production growth will be dominated by heavier crude grades. Around three-quarters of Venezuela’s output through 2028 is expected to come from heavy, extra-heavy crude and bitumen, with the Orinoco Oil Belt accounting for roughly 60% of total production. This makes access to diluents, workover activity, infill drilling, and mature field management considerably more important than reserve additions over the next several years.

Venezuela upstream figure 1

International operators are driving the recovery

International oil companies (IOCs) are expected to contribute nearly two-thirds of Venezuela’s forecast production increase through 2028. Chevron remains the largest contributor, followed by Repsol, Eni, Maha Energy and Maurel & Prom. Most of this growth is expected to come from expanding production at existing joint ventures, reflecting renewed investment following regulatory changes and sanctions relief rather than greenfield developments.

Chevron continues to occupy a particularly strategic position. Recent portfolio adjustments have strengthened its exposure to the Orinoco Oil Belt, while future production growth is expected to rely on brownfield optimization, infill drilling and the phased development of Ayacucho 8. Beyond Chevron, companies such as Eni and Repsol continue to play a dual role in both Venezuela’s crude and natural gas sectors through assets including the Cardón IV block and the giant Perla gas field.

However, international participation remains highly selective. Companies continue to balance the opportunity presented by Venezuela’s vast resource base against fiscal uncertainty, operational complexity and long-term investment risk.

Execution, not geology, remains the key constraint

While policy reforms have improved the investment outlook, they do not eliminate the operational bottlenecks that have constrained production for years.

Sustained production growth will require continuous access to diluents, higher drilling activity, extensive workover campaigns, improved infrastructure and significantly greater rig availability. These operational requirements represent the critical link between resource potential and realized production.

Fiscal competitiveness also remains an important consideration. International operators have indicated that future capital commitments will depend on further improvements to Venezuela’s fiscal framework, particularly around royalty rates and taxation. Lower project breakeven costs through more competitive fiscal terms could materially improve investment economics and encourage broader participation across the sector.

Oilfield services could become the industry’s defining bottleneck

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing Venezuela’s recovery lies beyond the upstream operators themselves. The Venezuelan Oil Ministry has identified a requirement for 93 active drilling rigs by 2028, a significant increase from current activity levels. Achieving this target would require a phased expansion involving reactivating domestic rigs, refurbishing idle equipment, and eventually importing additional rigs from international markets.

This creates substantial opportunities for drilling contractors and oilfield service providers but also highlights the scale of the execution challenge. Companies must balance equipment mobilization costs, contract duration requirements, and country risk before committing capital.

Local contractors have begun reactivating existing fleets, while international service providers remain more cautious, waiting for greater evidence that recent policy reforms will translate into a stable, commercially attractive operating environment. As a result, rebuilding operational capacity may ultimately prove just as important as attracting upstream investment.

Venezuela upstream figure 2

The next phase depends on implementation

The 2026 Hydrocarbons Law represents one of the most significant structural reforms to Venezuela’s upstream sector in decades. By expanding opportunities for private participation and introducing greater fiscal flexibility, the legislation has created a more attractive framework for future investment.

Yet legislation alone cannot restore production. The speed of implementation, the stability of fiscal policy, continued sanctions relief, and the industry’s ability to rebuild operational capacity will ultimately determine whether Venezuela can translate ambition into sustained output growth.

For investors and operators alike, the opportunity is considerable. But the country’s upstream revival will depend less on the size of its resource base than on its ability to consistently execute across drilling, infrastructure, services, and investment policy. That execution gap, not geology, is likely to define Venezuela’s production trajectory over the remainder of the decade.