Get Woke, Go Broke: Hollywood Productions Plummet To All Time Lows
Film and TV production in the Los Angeles area has hit an all-time low, sinking to levels worse than the SAG union strike of 2023. The city has introduces new tax incentives to generate enthusiasm but many in Tinseltown are questioning if the industry will ever recover.
FilmLA, the city and county’s film permitting office, said Tuesday that on-location production in the greater Los Angeles area declined 13.2% from July through September 2025 compared to the same period last year. Once again, this continues a multi-year trend in declining local production.
LA motion picture employment dropped from 142,000 in 2022 to 100,000 by end-2024 – a 30% cut (42,000 jobs gone). Below-the-line crew were hit hardest; 63% earned less in 2024, and 41% are considering an exit. High taxes in LA and California have forced some productions to leave the area, but total US film and TV productions are still in decline no matter where you go in the country. There has been a 28% drop in theatrical releases since 2019 and a 25% drop in scripted TV projects.
The vast majority of film and TV media are shot in the greater Los Angeles area due to proximity to studios, editing facilities, effects houses and actor pools. A drop in Hollywood and LA production indicates are decline in the film industry as a whole. The plunge in activity coincides with the overall drop in box office receipts since 2019.
Profits never recovered after the pandemic shutdowns and this has been used for years by the progressive media as the excuse for Hollywood’s failures. However, by 2023 US markets were wide open along with most foreign markets and the covid scapegoat no longer exists. Adjusted for inflation, theatrical numbers were already in decline after 2015.
Another factor that many analysts don’t take into account is Democrat mismanagement on cities and states, leading to higher costs, higher crime and an underlying malaise that suffocates business. This has been taking place for many years; well before covid.
From 2015 to 2019 audience numbers had already dropped around 10%. Today, audience numbers are at least 30% below 2015 levels. What no one in the business wants to address is the woke takeover and its negative effects on media. The industry’s woke shift has clearly been affecting receipts.
Production companies cite the rise of inflation and higher ticket costs as a ticket killer. This makes more sense than the covid claims, but it does not explain why movies without woke messaging continue to greatly outperform movies that push woke messaging. The solution to Hollywood’s dilemma seems clear: Stop making woke garbage, hire decent writers, and the cash will roll in.
The short answer to why both the Biden and Obama administrations failed to achieve peace in the Middle East is that they took actions opposite to Trump’s current efforts, which have led to a ceasefire.
First, consider Iran.
Iran was flush with cash, on a trajectory toward a nuclear weapon, and arming Israel’s “ring of fire” enemies: Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
The radical Islamic world of the Middle East was convinced that Israel would be doomed eventually.
Yet both Democratic administrations let Iran profit from oil sales.
They talked of delaying, but not ending, Iran’s nuclear program. And they feared that Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis were indomitable terrorist threats.
Thus, the disruptors of peace were appeased rather than deterred.
Two, both Obama and Biden pressured Israel in general and Netanyahu in particular to make constant concessions.
But neither offered any plan for how Israel was to survive when Iran sought its destruction, and Tehran’s terrorist triad aimed to bombard it with missiles, rockets, and drones.
Worse, once the larger Middle East saw Democratic presidents appeasing Iran and its terrorist appendages, they concluded it was unsafe to take risks by allying with a delusional United States.
Three, both Obama and Biden despised and personally insulted Benjamin Netanyahu, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and the Saudi royal family.
Biden called Saudi Arabia a “pariah state”—at least until he needed it to pump more oil to lower gas prices before the 2022 midterms.
Both presidents sought to isolate Sisi and remove him from power.
Obama had his team leak insults to Netanyahu, most infamously the “chicken sh—t” smear.
Middle Easterners have long memories.
Obama never would have thought up the Abraham Accords. Biden foolishly derailed and then pathetically tried to resurrect them.
Neither the Gulf monarchies, Egypt, nor any conservative government in Israel had any incentive to deal with Obama and Biden, whom they despised.
Yet the more Trump respected and engaged with the Gulf sheikhs, Sisi, and Netanyahu, the more their collective fortunes—and his influence over their nations—increased.
Four, the Obama and Biden administrations were reluctant to use force to curb terrorism in the Middle East.
Neither would ever have taken out Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and the ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, destroyed ISIS, obliterated much of Russia’s Wagner group, or hit the Houthis hard.
The result was that neither the Israelis nor the Arabs trusted Obama and Biden. So they were careful not to take risks, fearing the U.S. would leave them hanging.
Five, on the global stage, both Democratic administrations had radiated a general sense of appeasement and indecision that empowered enemies and scared off friends.
The Middle East remembered the 2011 Libyan bombing misadventure and John Kerry’s pathetic 2013 courting of Russian help in the Middle East.
It recalled the 2014 Russian takeover of Crimea and Donbass, the 2016 appeasement of Iran to cut a nuclear deal, and the 2021 Chinese dressing down of Biden diplomats in Anchorage.
It was shocked by the 2021 humiliating skedaddle from Afghanistan, the 2022 Russian assault on Kyiv, and the 2023 Chinese balloon fiasco.
The Middle East concluded that America was in managed decline. It could not or would not defend its own interests, much less those of its expendable friends.
Six, Obama—and especially Biden—were constrained by their domestic bases in a way Trump was not.
The pro-Hamas, anti-Israel left deterred Democratic presidents from taking risks. In contrast, Trump withstood MAGA fury about bombing Iran or allowing Netanyahu to destroy most of Hamas.
Seven, the Democrats talked diplomatese. They looked down on mercantilism—and so never connected with either the Arabs or Israelis.
Trump equated a peace deal with prosperity. He promised that almost all interests would profit mutually.
For negotiations, he preferred businessmen—himself, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff—to diplomats.
It turned out that the Arabs and Israelis did as well.
Eight, Obama and Biden were infamous for their empty threats. Few ever believed Obama’s 2012 “redlines” issued to Syria on WMD.
No one took seriously Biden’s 2022 threat of “don’t” when Russia was on the verge of invading Ukraine.
In contrast, Trump’s threats were all too real.
Nine, past American administrations were frustrated with a duplicitous Qatar. And so they appeased it.
Trump offered both carrots and sticks. After Israel bombed Qatar, the regime sought Trump’s support, shaken and ready to help.
Ten, the Obama and Biden teams—Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Susan Rice, Leon Panetta, Jake Sullivan, Antony Blinken, and Lloyd Austin—were force multipliers of their presidents’ naïveté and incompetence.
By contrast, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gens. Erik Kurilla and Dan Caine, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner shaped, shared, and empowered Trump’s agenda.
* * *
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.
Senate Candidate Returns AIPAC Money As Pro-Israel Group Becomes Political Poison
In the latest indication that the war in Gaza is significantly threatening Israel’s dominance over American politics, a sitting US congressman and Senate hopeful has announced he’s returning donations received from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC),and refusing to accept any more.
“In recent years, AIPAC has aligned itself too closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government,” said Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton on Thursday, one day after announcing he was launching a primary challenge against incumbent Dem Senator Edward Markey.
“I’m a friend of Israel, but not of its current government, and AIPAC’s mission today is to back that government…I don’t support that direction. That’s why I’ve decided to return the donations I’ve received and will not be accepting their support.”
Moulton will refund $35,000 that he’s received from AIPAC.
“His statement comes after years of him repeatedly asking for our endorsement and is a clear message to AIPAC members in Massachusetts, and millions of pro-Israel Democrats nationwide, that he rejects their support and will not stand with them.”
AIPAC has long been regarded as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in US politics. Historically, politicians from both parties have been eager to accept AIPAC money – and quick to accept AIPAC’s voting instructions. Similarly, they’ve been fearful of incurring the group’s wrath, which could quickly turn into a potent primary challenge. In 2024, AIPAC and allied pro-Israel groups spent enormous sums in successful efforts to oust New York Dem. Rep. Jamaal Bowman and Missouri Dem. Rep. Cori Bush. AIPAC’s $15 million spent against Bowman helped make that race the most expensive House primary in US history.
However, in a political earthquake emanating from Israel’s staggering destruction of Gaza with US-supplied weapons, AIPAC now finds its position in American politics wobbling like never before, as citizens across the political spectrum demonstrate growing unease with Israel’s influence over politicians and policy. Increasingly, both Republicans and Democrats find themselves under fire for accepting AIPAC money. In an August town hall, Massachusetts GOP Rep. Jake Auchincloss was repeatedly grilled for just that:
Watch this congressman realize that his voters know he is bribed by Israel in realtime. Treason. The tides are shifting. pic.twitter.com/xAB3ywfWE4
This week, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Corey Booker was confronted about his acceptance of AIPAC money by the hostesses of the “I’ve Had It” podcast :
SEN. BOOKER: “I don’t take corporate PAC money.”@MizzWelch: “What about AIPAC money?🤔 — There was a photo shoot with you with Netanyahu, and I was like: what in the actual fuck? We want credible messengers.”
In the most comical display of discomfort over the AIPAC question, California Gov. Gavin Newsom positively malfunctioned this week when asked about AIPAC’s role in US politics, calling the topic “interesting” 8 times in 30 seconds, and disingenuously claiming “I haven’t thought much about AIPAC” — a preposterous claim for a likely 2028 presidential candidate.
While opposition to AIPAC and US support of Israel is strongest on the left, it’s becoming a stance that can be found across America’s political spectrum. A September New York Times/ Siena College survey found that, for the first time, more Americans sympathize with the Palestinians instead of the Israelis. The most striking shift in sentiments is seen inside the Republican Party, where younger party members are resoundingly rejecting the party’s traditional embrace of the Israel. When asked whether they sympathize more with the Israelis or Palestinians, only 24% of Republicans under age 34 side with Israel, according to a University of Maryland poll taken this summer.
Though Democrat Moulton is making headlines with his public divorce from AIPAC, some of the loudest AIPAC critics on Capitol Hill are Republicans — namely, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Massie is staring down the barrel of a PAC created for the sole purpose of ousting him from the House — a PAC funded entirely by three Israel-backing billionaires. Earlier this month, Greene dared AIPAC to back a challenger in her own district, telling Matt Gaetz:
“I think Americans have very much become aware that Israel is a foreign government that has been meddling not only in campaigns and elections, but also meddling in government policy…If AIPAC wants to take a shot at me in Northwest Georgia, then you know what? Giddy-up, go ahead. I’m America First. I will not apologize for that, and AIPAC is Israel First, and I don’t think my district will tolerate it.”
Congressional members & candidates wore name badges with QR codes @AIPAC donors would scan to contribute if they liked the pol, per former Rep. Gaetz:
“Can you just imagine how demoralizing that is… hoping they would scan you like a can of tomato soup?
In contrast to Massie and Greene, Moulton is seemingly attempting to walk a political tightrope in which he repudiates the high-profile AIPAC while stopping short of thwarting the ongoing redistribution of American wealth to Israel: His campaign website doesn’t mention Israel or any foreign policy topic at all.
In Maine, Democrat Graham Platner, who’s challenging incumbent Susan Collins, has made his own opposition to AIPAC a central theme of his campaign, saying, “I refuse to take money from AIPAC or any group that supports the genocide in Gaza.” As we wade deeper into the 2026 political cycle, watch for AIPAC and Israel to increasingly become a wedge issue, particularly in Democratic Party primaries.
Seth Moulton never saw a military aid package to support Israel’s genocide that he didn’t like, and vote for. But AIPAC is too toxic even for him.
Popular protein powders and shakes contain high levels of lead, Consumer Reports (CR) said on Oct. 14.
Twenty-two of 23 products tested by CR had detectable amounts of lead, and more than two-thirds had unsafe levels of lead, according to the organization.
“About 70 percent of products we tested contained over 120 percent of CR’s level of concern for lead, which is 0.5 micrograms per day,” CR said.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says there are no known safe levels of lead.
“The FDA can take action if it finds unsafe lead levels, but the lack of enforceable standards means it doesn’t happen nearly enough,” Brian Ronholm, CR’s director of food policy, said in a statement.
He said that the FDA should establish enforceable limits for foods and supplements.
“FDA does not comment on outside studies. The agency continues to follow gold-standard science to protect consumers,” a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, the parent agency of the FDA, told The Epoch Times via email.
An FDA spokesperson also told CR that it would review the findings from the testing “along with other data we have collected to better inform where to focus our testing efforts and enforcement activities.”
CR is a nonprofit that describes itself as working with consumers “for truth, transparency, and fairness in the marketplace.”
CR found Huel’s black edition, chocolate flavor, and Naked Nutrition’s Vegan Mass Gainer had the highest levels of lead per serving. Huel did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.
A Naked Nutrition spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that the tested product is a weight gainer, so it has a larger serving size than standard protein powders.
“This difference means that comparing ‘per serving’ data across products with drastically different serving sizes does not provide an accurate, apples-to-apples comparison. When viewed on a per-gram basis, our results are consistent with other plant-based protein products,” the spokesperson said, adding later that “Naked Nutrition remains fully committed to transparency, science-based quality standards, and providing our customers with safe, high-quality nutrition products that meet or exceed all U.S. safety regulations.”
Other powders and shakes with unsafe levels, according to CR, included Momentous’s 100 percent plant protein and KOS organic superfood plant protein.
A Momentous spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that the products CR tested have been discontinued. The spokesperson also said that its own testing found lower levels of lead than CR did.
A KOS spokesperson said that the amount of lead and metal in each serving of its protein powders is “significantly small.”
CR recommended seven powders and shakes with lower levels of lead, including Owyn’s Pro Elite High Protein Shake and BSN’s Syntha-6 Protein Powder.
A spokesperson for Owyn told The Epoch Times in an email that the company carefully sources all of its ingredients and that every ingredient “is compliant with all applicable state and federal safety standards.” BSN did not return an inquiry by publication time.
CR also said it detected cadmium and inorganic arsenic, two toxic heavy metals, at unsafe levels in three products.
CR first tested protein shakes in 2010. It detected lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury in some products.
In the new testing, the average level of lead was higher, and fewer products had undetectable amounts.
“It’s concerning that these results are even worse than the last time we tested,” Tunde Akinleye, the CR researcher who led the project, said in a statement.
Federal Courts To Scale Back Operations As Shutdown Exhausts Funds
With the government shutdown about to enter its third week, the federal court system announced Friday that it will begin operating in a limited, unpaid capacity starting Monday – having exhausted the last of the court fees and other stopgap funds that had kept its doors open since Oct. 1.
In a statement, the judiciary said that beginning Oct. 20, it will “no longer have funding to sustain full, paid operations” across its 94 district and 13 circuit courts. The move marks one of the most significant contractions in the judicial branch in decades, as courts transition to the minimum operations required by law until Congress restores government funding.
Essential Functions Only
“Until the ongoing lapse in government funding is resolved, federal courts will maintain limited operations necessary to perform the Judiciary’s constitutional functions,” the statement read.
Under the Anti-Deficiency Act, federal employees are prohibited from working without appropriations except in narrowly defined circumstances, such as activities essential to human safety, the protection of property, or the performance of constitutional duties.
Judges, who serve under Article III of the Constitution, will continue to work. But most court employees – including clerks, probation officers, and administrative staff – will either befurloughed or required to work without pay if their duties qualify as “excepted activities.”
Each appellate, district, and bankruptcy court will decide independently how to manage its docket and staffing. Some proceedings will move forward, particularly those involving urgent matters such as detention hearings or imminent deadlines, while other civil and criminal cases are expected to be delayed indefinitely.
Jury Trials, PACER to Continue
Despite the funding lapse, the jury program will remain operational because it draws on funds not tied to congressional appropriations. Jurors have been instructed to continue reporting to courthouses unless otherwise notified.
The judiciary’s electronic filing and case management systems (CM/ECF and PACER) will also remain functional, allowing attorneys to file motions and review case information online. But administrative offices in Washington will be closed, and public telephone lines for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts will go unanswered.
Mounting Strain on a Burdened System
The slowdown will deepen the strain on a court system that was already struggling under heavy caseloads before the shutdown began. Legal analysts warn that even a short disruption in operations could ripple through the justice system, delaying trials, probation supervision, and appeals work for months.
The judiciary has been warning since Oct. 1 that it could keep business running only briefly using non-appropriated funds, a senior court administrator who was not authorized to speak publicly told Axios.
The Senate on Thursday rejected a House plan to reopen the government for the tenth time since the shutdown began, and lawmakers do not plan to reconvene on the issue until next week—making it increasingly unlikely that courts will be fully funded before the shutdown enters its fourth week.
With thousands of judicial employees joining the ranks of the hundreds of thousands already furloughed or laid off across the federal government.
Somehow, we imagine activist judges will still find the time to issue TROs whenever Trump issues an executive order.
Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio stated on Friday that gold has started replacing some U.S. Treasury holdings as the riskless asset for investors, amid a continued surge in the yellow metal’s prices.
This comes after he said investors should allocate as much as 15% of their portfolios to gold even as the precious metal surged to new all-time highs this week.
“Gold is a very excellent diversifier in the portfolio,” Dalio said Tuesday at the Greenwich Economic Forum in Greenwich, Connecticut.
“If you look at it just from a strategic asset allocation perspective, you would probably have something like 15% of your portfolio in gold … because it is one asset that does very well when the typical parts of the portfolio go down.”
Dalio took to social media on Wednesday to invite questions about gold as an investment.
While I have been explaining for some time my thinking about gold (I like it) and debt assets (I don’t like them) as storeholds of wealth in the context of how the world order is changing, now that gold is hotter than AI stocks (and the meme is now changing to recognize that it…
In a follow-up post on X, Dalio summarized his answers to the many questions and his views on the barbarous relic…
You seem to look at gold and the gold price differently from most people. How do you think about gold?
You’re right. I think most people make the mistake of thinking of gold as a metal rather than as the most established form of money, and they think of fiat money as money rather than debt and they think that fiat money will be created to prevent debt defaults. That’s because most people have never lived with gold being the most fundamental money, and they haven’t studied the debt-gold-money cycles that have occurred in almost all countries over almost all time. However, anyone who has seen gold-money and debt-money evolve over time has a different view. In other words, to me gold is money like cash—over time, it has had about the same real return (1.2%)—because it doesn’t produce anything. But like cash, it has buying power that can be used to create money that is borrowed and enable people to do things like build money-making businesses that are owned via stocks. If those stocks are solid and produce the cash needed to pay back the loans, then of course the stocks are better. When they can’t pay back the loans and fiat money is printed to prevent the default problems, then non-fiat money (gold) is most valued. So, to me, gold is money like cash, except unlike cash it can’t be printed and devalued. It’s a good diversifier to stocks and bonds when bubbles pop and/or when people and countries don’t accept each other’s credit, like in wars.
In other words, to me gold is the most sound fundamental investment rather than a metal. Gold is money like cash and short-term credit, but unlike cash and short-term credit which creates debt, it settles transactions—i.e., it pays for things without creating debt and it pays off debt.
Anyway, it has been obvious to me for some time that the relative supplies and demands of debt-money and gold-money were shifting against debt money’s value relative to gold money’s value. As for the right price for debt money to be relative to gold money, given the ratios of supplies and demands for each of them, and given the sizes of bubbles that could go pop, I know that I want to keep my piece of gold that’s part of my portfolio, and I think that those who are wrestling between having no gold at all or a small amount of gold are making a mistake.
Why gold? Why not silver, platinum or other commodities, or inflation-indexed bonds as you have suggested.
While other metals can be good inflation hedges, gold occupies a unique place in the portfolios of investors and central bankers because it is the most universally-accepted non-fiat currency-based medium of exchange and store-hold of wealth, and it is a good diversifier to other assets and currencies in these portfolios. Unlike fiat currency debt, it doesn’t have the same inherent credit and devaluation risks—in fact, it diversifies against them because when they are doing worst, gold does best —acting almost like an “insurance policy” within a diversified portfolio.
While silver and platinum share some similarities with gold—particularly in terms of industrial applications—they do not possess the same level of historical and cultural significance as a store of value. Silver, for instance, is more heavily influenced by industrial demand, which can lead to greater price volatility, though it has been used as the basis of currency systems before. Platinum, though valuable, is even more constrained by its limited supply and specific industrial uses. Consequently, neither metal enjoys the same universal acceptance or stability as gold when it comes to wealth preservation.
Regarding inflation-indexed bonds, while they are a good and under-appreciated inflation hedge asset in normal times (depending on the real interest rate they offer at the time) and I believe more investors should consider them in their portfolios, they are still fundamentally debt obligations. So if there is a big debt crisis, their performance is tied to the creditworthiness of the issuing government. They are also subject to government rigging, like rigging the official inflation numbers or other terms governing them, which history has shown to be the common problem with inflation-indexed bonds when there was high inflation in countries led by leaders who wanted to get around high debt-service costs. Moreover, while effective in combating inflation, they do not provide the same degree of diversification or safety net as gold during systemic financial crises or periods of severe economic distress.
As for stocks, especially those in high-growth sectors like AI, they undeniably carry the potential for substantial returns, though they have proven to be bad performers in inflation-adjusted terms both because their inflation hedging characteristics are limited and because, during really bad times, the economy and the businesses do badly.
To summarize, gold is a uniquely good diversifier to these other assets and diversification matters, so it has a place in most portfolios.
Hi Ray, at least AI has enormous upside and debt instruments pay interest, while gold may only look pretty solid until any of the big holders like the banks want to sell.
I can see that you don’t like gold for the reasons you said, and I don’t want to advocate for it (or any other investment) because I don’t want to drift into becoming a tipster. That won’t do anyone any good. I just want to share what I know about the mechanics. As for investing, I’m more in favor of great diversification than in favor of any single market, though I tilt my portfolio significantly based on my indicators and what I think, which for quite some time has led (and still leads) me to a big tilt toward gold. If you’re interested in why, my book How Countries Go Broke: The Big Cycle explains my thinking much more comprehensively than I can do here.
As far as the alternative markets you mention, it seems to me that in the case of AI stocks, in the long run their upside depends on their pricing relative to their future cash flows, which are extremely uncertain, and, in the short run, it depends on bubble dynamics. I believe that we should be mindful of the lessons that analogous cases in history provide, in which the breakthrough technology companies became very popular as they are now. I’m not saying definitively that these companies are in bubbles—though they are showing lots of signs of being in bubbles based on my bubble indicator. In any case, an awful lot about the markets and the economy hinges on the AI boom companies doing better than is discounted in their pricing, because, if they don’t, their stocks will go down. These stocks have accounted for 80pct of the gains in U.S. stocks, the top 10pct of income earners own 85pct the stocks and account for half of consumer spending, and these AI companies’ capital expenditures have accounted for 40pct of this year’s economic growth, so a downturn would be really bad for people’s wealth and the economy. It seems obvious that some diversification of one’s holdings would be prudent.
As far as your observation that “debt instruments pay interest,” for these debt instruments to be good storeholds of wealth, they have to pay a decent real after-tax interest rate. There is a lot of pressure to lower the real interest rate, and there is an oversupply of debt that is being added to more quickly than the demand for it. So, we are seeing a diversification out of debt and into gold, while there isn’t enough gold to diversify into.
Putting aside tactical considerations, gold is a very effective diversifier to these other investments and if individual and institutional investors and central banks put an appropriate share their portfolios in gold for diversification purposes, the price would have to be much higher (I will soon send you my analysis of it) because the quantity is so limited. In any case for me, I want to have some piece of the portfolio in it, and figuring out what that piece should be is important. Without giving specific investment advice, I do recommend that people ask themselves the fundamental question of how much to allocate to gold. For most investors, I think this is likely 10-15pct.
Now that the price of gold has gone up, should I still own it at this price?
To me, the most simple and fundamental question that everyone should ask themselves and answer is what percentage of my portfolio should I have in gold if I don’t have a clue about the direction of gold and other markets? In other words, how much gold should I have for strategic asset allocation reasons, rather than because I want to make a tactical bet on it. Because of its historical negative correlations with other assets (mostly stocks and bonds), most importantly when the real returns of stocks and bonds are bad, the answer is that about 15pct is best because that would give the best portfolio return-to-risk ratio.
However, because gold’s expected return over time is low just like the return of cash is low (though it behaves spectacularly in the times of greatest need), over long periods of time that better return-to-risk portfolio comes at the expense of a lower return. Because I like the better return ratio and don’t want to lower the expected return, I hold my gold position as an overlay, or I lever up the whole portfolio a bit so as to have both the better return-risk ratio and the same expected return. That’s how I view, the right amount of gold to have for most people.
As for tactical bets, that’s another subject that I have shared my points of view about and won’t reiterate here, other than to say I wouldn’t encourage others to make them.
How has the expansion of gold ETFs (dominated by retail) affected the overall direction of the price of gold?
The price of anything equals the total amount of money buyers have to give sellers divided by the quantity of the item that sellers have for buyers. The motivations of buyers and sellers and the vehicles used to buy and sell are of course important influences. The rise of gold ETFs has created more vehicles to buy and sell for both retail and institutional investors, and this change has generally increased liquidity and transparency while making it marginally easier for a broader range of investors to participate. But at the same time, the market for gold ETFs is still much smaller than traditional physical gold investment or central bank holdings, so it has not been the main source of buying or the main reason for the price increase.
Has gold begun to replace US Treasury holdings as the riskless asset? If so, can gold support a massive shift in holdings?
A factual answer to your question is yes gold has begun to replace some US Treasury holdings as the riskless asset in many portfolios, most importantly in central banks and large institutional portfolios. The holders of these portfolios have decreased their U.S. Treasury holdings relative to their gold holdings. By the way, anyone with a long-term historical perspective would say that, compared to Treasuries or any other fiat currency denominated debt, gold is the more riskless asset.
Gold is the most well-established currency—in fact it is now the second largest held by central banks—and has proven to be much less risky than all government’s debt assets. Historically and now, debt assets are commitments by debtors to deliver money to the creditor. Sometimes that money was gold and sometimes it was fiat money that could be printed. Historically when there was too much debt to be paid back with the money that existed, central banks printed money to pay back the debt. This devalued it. When money was gold, they defaulted on their promises to pay back in gold and instead paid back with printed money, and when the money was fiat money, they just printed the money. History shows us that the biggest risk is that debt assets like U.S. Treasuries will either be defaulted on or devalued, more likely devalued. History has also shown that gold is a money and store-hold of wealth that has intrinsic value, so it doesn’t depend on anyone giving the holder of it anything other than the gold itself. It has been a timeless and universal money. History has also shown that, since 1750, about 80pct of all currencies have disappeared and the other 20pct have all been severely devalued.
Finally, Dalio reminded readers that gold stands apart as a hedge in times of monetary debasement and geopolitical uncertainty: “Gold is the only asset that somebody can hold and you don’t have to depend on somebody else to pay you money for,” he said.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is deploying the Texas National Guard and state troopers to Austin ahead of a planned “No Kings” protest Saturday.
The governor in a post on X described the protest as “Antifa-linked.” He didn’t say how Antifa is connected to the scheduled protest.
Antifa is a far-left extremist group that originated under the Soviet Union and functioned as the violent wing of Germany’s Communist Party to target political rivals. The group generally labeled its perceived enemies as “fascists.” Antifa’s mission is to stop people it deems to be fascists by “any means necessary,” including violence, its leaders say.
Abbott’s action follows President Donald Trump’s designation of Antifa as a domestic terrorist group on Sept. 22. Trump also signed a presidential memorandum on Sept. 25 with the aim of dismantling what he said are left-wing terrorism networks in the United States. The presidential actions were taken after conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking at an event at a university in Utah on Sept. 10.
“No Kings” protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests of illegal immigrants are also planned for Saturday in Dallas, Houston, and other locations across Texas and the United States.
“Texas will not tolerate chaos,” Abbott wrote on X. “Anyone destroying property or committing acts of violence will be swiftly arrested.”
In a statement, Abbott said that the surge in troops will support the thousands of Texas Department of Public Safety troopers already stationed throughout the state.
However, the governor didn’t specify if guardsmen would be sent to other Texas cities involved in the protests, such as Houston, Dallas, and Lubbock.
The state’s Homeland Security Division is actively monitoring the planned protest in Austin, as well as any other potential violent demonstrations across the state, according to the statement.
“These law enforcement officers and soldiers will be supported by aircraft and other tactical assets,” Abbott’s release stated.
“DPS will investigate any links to known terrorist organizations and swiftly bring charges against those who engage in unlawful activity.”
In June, Abbott sent guardsmen to “No Kings” protests statewide after anti-ICE riots broke out in Los Angeles.
Masses of demonstrators participated in “No Kings” protests in cities across the United States on June 14, rallying against Trump’s agenda.
Organizers of the protests said millions had marched in hundreds of events.
Earlier this month, Abbott also deployed 400 Texas National Guard members to Chicago in support of Trump’s ongoing immigration enforcement operations.
Santos pleaded guilty to inflating fundraising figures and falsifying donor names to secure the Republican Party’s financial support during the 2022 election cycle.
He was expelled from the party in December 2023.
“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our country who aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump said on Truth Social.
“Therefore, I just signed a commutation, releasing George Santos from prison IMMEDIATELY,” he added.
Trump said that he decided to commute Santos’ sentence after he was reminded of other lawmakers who falsified their backgrounds, including Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal who lied about serving in Vietnam.
“[Blumenthal] stated for almost twenty years that he was a proud Vietnam Veteran, having endured the worst of the War, watching the Wounded and Dead as he raced up the hills and down the valleys, blood streaming from his face,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
“He was ‘a Great Hero,’ he would leak to any and all who would listen — And then it happened! He was a COMPLETE AND TOTAL FRAUD.
“He never went to Vietnam, he never saw Vietnam, he never experienced the Battles there, or anywhere else,” Trump continued.
“His War Hero status, and even minimal service in our Military, was totally and completely MADE UP. This is far worse than what Santos did, and at least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to always vote Republican.”
Trump has previously pardoned other criminals, including 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants.
When her youngest child was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes, Dunlap’s whole family stopped eating sugar and grains. By eliminating these foods, her older son, John – whose behavioral and social struggles hadn’t been resolved with various therapies or medication – was suddenly like a different person.
“He brought home A [grades]. All of his teachers were happy. He was organized. His constipation went away. All sleep issues went away. There were no peer problems anymore. It was literally like a light switch,” Dunlap said. [ZH: we’re sure John appreciates the world knowing about his constipation, thanks Mom…]
Removing certain foods from a child’s diet appears to be a promising therapeutic approach for those with ADHD. Diet is not likely to be recommended in a conventional setting because special diets are among lifestyle modifications that are often dismissed for too little evidence or benefit to recommend. However, there is evidence for guidance elsewhere.
Power of Elimination
Some children with ADHD may benefit from eliminating foods from their diet, according to a review on the role of nutrition in managing ADHD. Published in Current Nutrition Reports, the review found scant evidence to support supplementing with micronutrients, probiotics, and omega-3 fatty acids.
However, a diet described as a “few-foods diet” may become a therapeutic option for children with ADHD. The strategy involves eliminating most foods from the diet for a period of time and then slowly reintroducing them one at a time to see whether they trigger ADHD symptoms.
Up to 60 percent of those using the diet responded positively, the authors wrote, revealing the role food intolerance may play in ADHD symptomatology.
“This promising personalized nutrition-based approach to the management of ADHD deserves further systematic investigation and should be considered in all children with ADHD,” the authors stated.
The review noted several double-blind placebo-controlled studies that have linked foods to ADHD triggers and the few-foods diet to improvement of symptoms. The few-foods diet eliminates all but easily digestible, plain foods, such as lamb, turkey, rice, butter, corn, potatoes, honey, and some vegetables.
Other research has shown that hyperactivity in children is associated with artificial food colors and chemical preservatives.
Currently, the American Academy of Pediatrics’ treatment recommendations highlight diet modification among non-medication treatments for ADHD that have either too little evidence to recommend or have little or no benefit. The academy didn’t respond to The Epoch Times’ question about whether recommendations have been updated to include diet.
Official Recommendations
Currently, conventional treatment for children with ADHD offers a dichotomy of either behavioral therapy starting in preschool-age children or medication.
Medication should not be a first-line treatment for preschoolers. Instead, younger children should receive behavioral classroom interventions as the first line of treatment.
Parent training in behavior management is so effective for all children that the guidelines suggest it be recommended before pursuing an ADHD diagnosis.
Methylphenidate, a nervous system stimulant known by brand names such as Concerta and Ritalin, can be used for 4- and 5-year-olds if behavioral interventions don’t result in significant improvement and if there is moderate to severe functional disturbance.
“The clinician needs to weigh the risks of starting medication before the age of 6 years against the harm of delaying treatment,” according to guidelines.
There is concern, however, that medication might be given too soon in many cases. A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that among preschool-age patients who visited their primary care doctor for ADHD at eight U.S. health systems, 68.2 percent were prescribed medication, and 42.2 percent had medications prescribed within 30 days of their diagnosis.
The guidelines note that methylphenidate is the only ADHD medication that can be used for preschoolers, as it has the best safety and efficacy record. Nevertheless, the guidelines said that the drug does not have U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for use in preschool-age children. Methylphenidate can cause low appetite, sleep disruption, headache, increased heart rate, and other side effects.
Proper Use of Medication
Dunlap was less concerned with the official guidelines and more focused on following her intuition when John was young. That meant avoiding medication as long as possible.
The wild one of her three children, John, often got into trouble, lost friends, and was kicked off a team sport. His teachers frequently complained, and after various vitamins, cognitive behavioral therapy, coping skills, and meditation failed, Dunlap finally relented to the medication she’d been avoiding. By then, he was in the fourth grade.
John tried several stimulant medications until he ended up on Concerta, which she describes as “the best of the worst.” Still, the drug wasn’t a panacea. He struggled emotionally and didn’t have optimal sleep or bowel movement habits.
Reflecting on John’s journey, Dunlap was frustrated that nutrition or diet was never addressed at any of the appointments John had over the years, particularly after failed cognitive behavioral therapy and continued struggles.
“It’s just so easy to label everybody, and it’s too easy to hand out these prescriptions,” Dunlap said. “Parents aren’t told, ‘Hey, let’s check some other avenues and see why your kid is behaving this way.’”
Food as a Root Cause?
It’s conceivable that poor, sugar-laden eating patterns are driving symptoms that mimic or exacerbate ADHD, psychotherapist Karen A. Dwyer-Tesoriero told The Epoch Times.
One common scenario is children who eat sugary cereals for breakfast, starting their school day with a sugar crash that causes them to act out or become lethargic and inattentive, she said.
Psychologists and researchers Bonnie J. Kaplan and Julia J. Rucklidge recommend dietary changes before counseling and family therapy.
In their book, “The Better Brain,” they recommend that mental health clinics educate all new referrals on nutrition and how to shop for whole foods. They estimated that one-third of mental health referrals, including ADHD, would need no further services if they adjusted their diets.
“Given that all our mental health resources are stretched very thin, isn’t this a good-news story?” they wrote, adding that in years of practice, clients reported that they could better implement therapeutic strategies once they began eating more whole foods.
The Ease and Affordability of Diet
A good start is eliminating artificial dyes, flavors, and additives, according to Julie Matthews, certified nutrition consultant and author of “The Personalized Autism Nutrition Plan,” a book that also covers ADHD.
From there, parents can consider a gluten-free or dairy-free diet, or the Feingold diet, a whole-food diet with no artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives that is also low in naturally occurring salicylates, a toxin produced by some plants, she told The Epoch Times.
In an observational study she authored on various healthy diets in children with autism, the Feingold diet was found to reduce hyperactivity by 45 percent.
“It comes down to what is bothering the individual and removing that,” Matthews said. “It’s a bit tragic that something so simple could make such a profound difference, and yet people are not hearing about it when it’s such an easy thing to change.”
In some cases, she said, there may be imbalances in the gut microbiome or other nutritional changes that are more complicated to pinpoint. However, in many cases, it boils down to eating a healthier diet with fewer additives.
A plant-based Mediterranean diet, for instance, has proven beneficial for brain health, among other lifestyle interventions such as sleep and exercise.
Careful Integration of Guidelines
Medication is helpful, and it holds a place among other tools.
Integrative pediatrician Dr. Joel “Gator” Warsh told The Epoch Times that a careful application of ADHD recommendations should involve earnestly trying behavioral therapy and parent training before medication, particularly in younger children, as the guidelines suggest.
Cognitive behavioral therapy begins with a diagnosis that identifies a child’s unique struggles and then involves tools that target that child’s specific struggles, such as improving focus or reducing impulsivity.
Parent training is used to educate parents on the way their child’s brain works and how to best support deficiencies with tools learned in therapy.
“When symptoms remain severe—impacting safety, school performance, relationships, and daily functioning—medications can have an important role,” Warsh said. “In those cases, short-term use of stimulants, carefully monitored, can give children the ability to focus, follow routines, and begin building healthier work and life habits.”
The goal is to use the lowest effective dose for the shortest time necessary while continuing to work on behavioral, educational, and lifestyle changes, he added.
Other Options
Besides behavioral and parental training, experts said there are plenty of other ways to deal with symptoms such as hyperactivity, behavioral outbursts, and lack of focus that are common in young children.
Warsh suggested offering daily opportunities for vigorous play, creating more structured routines, reducing screen time, and optimizing sleep. Additionally, there could be underlying contributors such as anxiety, learning differences, and poor gut health.
Be cautious about trendy programs, he added, such as mindfulness apps and broad elimination diets, in which evidence is mixed. Consider asking about an individualized education program at school.
Dwyer-Tesoriero suggested some strategies that can work in the morning and evening when parents are most likely to be with their children:
Identify an exercise or movement like dancing or stretching that your child likes and encourage it daily.
Encourage kids to hyperfocus on something they love.
Calmly tell your children, if they start misbehaving, that there will be consequences, rather than reacting to intense emotions.
Pick one battle at a time, such as working on closing cabinet doors after use. Don’t work on other behaviors until they’ve mastered one.
Substitute immediate rewards for behavior charts, such as offering time for video games when you notice they’ve completed a task without asking or behaved well.
Use visual checklists for routine expectations, such as getting dressed and ready to leave the house or for brushing teeth.
It’s helpful to remember that not all ADHD traits are negative, Dwyer-Tesoriero added, noting that some are actually quite useful.
“There are a lot of careers out there that really lend themselves to ADHD,” she said. “Our society is filled with adults who have ADHD, and it is not, for lack of a better word, like the kiss of death.”
* * * [ZH] The first two weeks are the hardest. We recommend this channel for more.
Youth sport participation among boys in the United States has been declining rapidly over the past ten years. The cancellation of sports seasons during the unscientific and draconian COVID lockdowns has only exacerbated this devastating trend.
According to a survey conducted earlier this year by The Sports & Fitness Industry Association, the percentage of boys who regularly competed in sports dropped by nine points over the past decade—while the participation rate for girls, while still less than boys, has increased slightly.
The increased youth participation rate among girls should obviously be applauded, but the significant drop among boys is cause for alarm.
So, what exactly is to blame?
There are several contributing factors, including a disturbingly high increase in screen time, with most of that time being spent on social media and video games.
According to Pew Research, 85 percent of U.S. teens say they play video games, and about four in ten do so daily.
The top five reasons that youth athletes play sports are for the enjoyment of competition, meeting new people, getting in better shape, having fun, and building teamwork.
But by the age of thirteen, a staggering 70 percent of youth athletes quit playing sports altogether. The primary reason (surprise, surprise) is that sports competition stops being fun. Other reasons include not getting to play, being scolded by coaches and parents, loss of interest, burnout—particularly among athletes who play one sport year-round, too much of a time commitment, too much emphasis on winning, and too much pressure to perform at a high level.
It is certainly understandable why an adolescent who has spent the majority of their childhood rushing off to soccer or tennis tournaments might one day decide they would rather spend their weekends hanging out with friends in a less competitive environment. Likewise, it is also understandable why a less athletically gifted athlete might decide they would rather devote their time to an activity where they feel more confident and better about their ability.
I get it. Not everyone loves playing sports, not everyone enjoys competition, and not every sport is easily accessible or affordable.
We don’t all have homes slopeside in Park City or within minutes of Pebble Beach.
That being said, in this day and age, it is unlikely that there isn’t at least one sport that an individual can excel at without bankrupting their family. Sorry, Wii golf doesn’t count!
The average monthly YMCA membership cost for a child ranges from $15 to $30 for youth memberships and $70 to $100 for family memberships. Sometimes, half the battle is just showing up and trying something new.
Respectfully, just because you can’t hit a baseball, serve a tennis ball, or catch a football does not mean that there isn’t a sport or physical activity out there for you. It’s also not an excuse to be lazy. Swimming, biking, karate, rock climbing, or, dare I say, pickleball, are just a few of many alternatives.
Yes, it’s true that some parents and coaches can put too much pressure on young athletes to succeed. But the goal does not necessarily need to be “collegiate recruit or bust.” The point is, by failing to even participate in an athletic endeavor, not only are our youth destroying their health, developing lazy habits, and becoming more socially isolated, but they are also missing out on valuable lessons that sports can teach.
Baseball, as in life, teaches you that it’s okay to fail. Even the best hitters only get a hit three out of ten times. But just because a player strikes out in their previous at-bat does not mean they won’t have a more positive result the next time up. Having the right attitude and confidence in your ability to execute is almost as important as having the right mechanics and strong eye-hand coordination. As an aside, there is almost nothing more fun than sitting in a dugout and laughing with your teammates. Even if you can’t hit or field, maybe you can still boost player morale!
Basketball teaches you to trust your teammates as much as you need to trust yourself. Most players will never shoot or dribble as well as Stephen Curry or grow to be seven feet tall, but that does not mean that you can’t still prove that you belong on the court. Maybe you know how to move without the ball and trust your teammates to find you, making a backdoor cut under the basket—for an easy layup. Or maybe you can take pride in being a great rebounder or a strong lockdown defender who makes it difficult for your opponents to score. Talent is important, but so are communication, effort, and hustle.
If team sports aren’t your cup of tea, then why not give tennis a try? Yes, it’s lonely out there, especially when your serve is misfiring, the timing on your backhand is off, and you’re standing flat-footed like you’re in quicksand. But is there a better feeling than problem-solving, honing in on your opponent’s weakness, refusing to miss, and chasing down every single shot until the guy on the other side of the net starts screaming in an inaudible language at anyone and everything in his direction?
Finally, there’s golf, which teaches preparation, patience, and mental toughness. Although it may not be as accessible as other sports, there are still plenty of public courses that are relatively inexpensive. If the course is in rough shape, that’s even more of a reason to learn how to keep it on the fairway, which is what the driving range is for. Yes, it may be one of the most frustrating games ever invented—but at the end of the day, you’re outside with nature, and if you stick with it, there are very few things more rewarding than hitting a hole-in-one.
I could go on about the benefits of playing other sports, but I think you get the idea.
Aside from the obvious fact that physical activity is better for your mental and physical well-being than spending hours sitting in a dark room on a beanbag chair, eating Cheez-Its, and screaming through a headset while playing Fortnite, it is also true that it improves your sense of time management, teaches discipline, and provides camaraderie.
It sure would be nice if the adults in the arena spent less time worrying about promoting the ‘pronoun Olympics’ and more time promoting the obvious benefits of youth sport participation.
