My extended long weekend reads:

• The World Cup Shows What’s Great About America: Even if the so-called “Pro-America” crowd hates it. Kinzinger finds a burst of unforced patriotism in the tournament crowds. An earnest note for the holiday weekend. (Adam Kinzinger)

• This Simple White Line Is America’s Greatest Unsung Innovation: The painted road line as overlooked genius, part of the WSJ’s America-at-250 series. A perfect Fourth-of-July ode to the unglamorous stuff that works. You know about the lightbulb and the iPhone. This is the unknown story of another ingenious creation that changed a nation (Wall Street Journal)

• The Case for Buying Individual Muni Bonds. There are advantages for those with muni holdings of $250,000 or more to opting for an individualized, actively managed portfolio. There are unique aspects of the muni market supporting this preference. (Barron’s)

• Meet the Bodyguards Signing Up to Protect America’s Frightened Billionaires: After a season of high-profile assassinations, political violence, and kidnappings, wealthy Americans are racing to hire personal security services. GQ on the private-security boom catering to anxious tech and finance moguls. Genuine threat or vanity expense — the budget moves either way. (GQ)

• Seven observations from playing with AI: I thought it was important to try this technology for myself and see how good it is. Here are seven hype-free observations I have taken from the experiment: Hands-on field notes from actually using the tools, not theorizing about them. (Gavin Jackson) see also Claude: What Are You Good At? I had a little chat about how to best use AI with Claude, see what AI itself had to say on the topic of using AI. Practical, from the user’s chair. My own notes on where these AI assistants actually earn their keep — and where they don’t. (The Big Picture)

• The Internet I Grew Up With Doesn’t Exist Anymore: A thorough retrospective of my time on the internet. A wistful elegy for the open, weird, pre-platform web. Familiar territory, but this one’s heartfelt. (Christian Cleberg)

• $22,000 Per Hour: Assistants Use a Legislative Loophole to Outearn Surgeons: The Upshot finds a billing loophole turning surgical assistants into improbable high earners. American health-care economics, distilled. A law meant to end surprise medical billing has led to large paydays for some surgical assistants, who can earn far more than the doctors they help. (New York Times)

• ‘All I Have Is the Power to Talk and Be Heard’  The Interview: Tucker Carlson on pitying Donald Trump, never listening to podcasts, and planning a new political party—while selling you nicotine pouches. (Columbia Journalism Review)

• Inside the Food Truck Mafia Wreaking Havoc Around the National Mall: Turf wars. Food and fire hazards. $15 ice-cream cones. How an organized network of unlicensed food trucks took over America’s Front Lawn (Washingtonian) see also The Capital Is a Mess: Chain-link fences, construction cranes, armed guards, and portable toilets everywhere. Construction chaos remakes the National Mall. Washington as perpetual job site — and a fitting backdrop to the food-truck turf wars above. Chain-link fences, construction cranes, armed guards, and portable toilets everywhere (The Atlantic)

• The Tick That Hunts Down Its Hosts—Including Us: The unsettling biology of a tick that actively pursues its prey. Excellent, mildly horrifying nature writing. Lone-star ticks don’t just pursue and bite people. The affliction they’re spreading, an allergy to red meat known as alpha-gal syndrome, attacks a way of life. (New Yorker)

• Phil Mickelson’s Long History of Misconduct: A detailed accounting of behavior the golf world has long whispered about. The reporting Lefty’s carefully managed image was built to outrun. Interviews with 19 sources reveal two incidents of lewd language and unwanted advances, and the behavior that led to his departure from two additional golf clubs. (Skratch)

Video of the day: Google Maps is unreasonably fast. Let me explain

Be sure to check out our Master’s in Business with Mamoon Hamid, partner at Kleiner Perkins. He is a leading investor in enterprise-software and AI. He was an early investor in Slack, Figma, Rippling, Glean, Netskope, and Box. Hamid co-founded Social Capital with Chamath Palihapitiyal. In 2017, joined Kleiner Perkins

 

America at 50, 100, 150, 200 & 250

Source: Bruce Melhman

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Monday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

On 250th Anniversary, A Look Back At Gun Ownership In America

Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees what may be the most uniquely American of all rights. Those 27 words have inspired millions of words in thousands of debates over the Amendment's meaning and what, if any, limits may apply.

"The Shot Heard 'Round the World," 2009, by Domenick D'Andrea. Public Domain

There is no question that firearms played a pivotal role in the birth and growth of the United States of America.

From the Pilgrims' matchlock muskets and the six shooters carried by cowboys, to the modern semiautomatic rifles wielded by Korean business owners in the Los Angeles riots of 1992, guns are an integral part of American culture.

The right to keep and bear arms is unique, says Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow with Advancing American Freedom and Second Amendment scholar.

"It's an incredibly short list [of countries that recognize the right to own guns], and there are none of them have anything in theory or practice that is what I would say [is] a true equivalent of the American right to keep and bear arms," Swearer told The Epoch Times.

Based on sales data, permit applications, background checks and other factors, there are an estimated 400 million to 500 million firearms in civilian hands in the United States, according to the Sixguns Fraternity. This is an average of two firearms for every person over age 18.

Yet, while America celebrates 250 years as a society that honors the individual right to keep and bear arms, gun ownership remains one of the nation's most divisive issues.

Gun control groups did not respond to emails seeking comment for this article, but many have posted their concerns online. Gun control advocates say violence intervention strategies, strict gun control - including bans - and tighter regulation of the firearms industry are elements of common-sense gun laws.

They point to high-profile stories of mass shootings, school shootings, and violent crime involving firearms.

"The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is 26 times higher than that of other developed countries, but research shows that common-sense public safety laws can reduce gun violence and save lives," Everytown for Gun Safety, states on its website.

The group, along with others, say gunshots are the number one cause of death for American children.

The Centers for Disease Prevention and Control reports that the top cause of death for children between 1- and 17-years-old are "unintentional injuries." Matthew Garnett with the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, defines unintentional injury as, deaths from fatal injuries that were "unintended, unplanned, and did not occur on purpose."

"Unintentional injury deaths include a wide array of mechanisms, with the four most common being: poisoning, motor vehicle crashes, drowning, and falls," Garnett wrote.

Second Amendment activists say gun control policies harm law abiding citizens rather than criminals. They say the data presented by gun control organizations are cherry-picked or manipulated to get the desired result.

Gun Owners of America says Everytown skews its data on children killed by firearms because it includes 18- and 19-year-olds. Generally, most data involving children only includes children aged 1 to 17, while 18- and 19-year-olds are considered adults.

Public safety has always played a role in American gun legislation, says Robert J. Spitzer, professor emeritus at the State University of New York, College at Cortland.

This includes laws on where and how guns could be carried, who could own them, and which arms are protected by the Second Amendment.

Spitzer has written extensively on the Second Amendment. In a 2017 article published by Duke University, "Gun Law History in the United States and Second Amendment Rights," he describes gun laws from pre-Revolutionary times to the modern day.

He contends that while America has a "wild west" reputation, it has also worked to tame that reputation. Spitzer wrote that "stand-your-ground" laws, the unlicensed carry of firearms, allowing those younger than 21 to legally carry a gun in public, and similar policies, do not align with America's tradition of gun regulation.

"[These] laws are not a return to the past. They are a refutation of America's past, and a determined march away from America's gun regulation tradition," Spitzer wrote. "And these changes have nothing to do with improving safety or security in society, but everything to do with politics."

So, what did the founders have to say? How did they view guns and their impact on public safety? And what route have the courts taken in trying to answer those questions?

Founding View Of Guns

The founders appear to have considered the ability to defend oneself a responsibility as much as a right. As Englishmen and lawyers, they studied English Common Law. Most of them were familiar with the "Commentaries on the Laws of England," by Sir William Blackstone.

Blackstone was an English jurist and legal scholar. His commentaries are considered an authoritative text when it comes to English law.

In the first chapter, Blackstone outlines the process for relief when a person's rights are violated or they are violently attacked. The first avenue is the court and the law, according to Blackstone. If that fails, the next step is a petition to the King and Parliament, and "lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense."

The right to be armed for self-defense underpinned legal arguments John Adams, Founding Father and second U.S. president, made when defending British soldiers charged with murder in the 1770 "Boston Massacre." His argument, voiced before there was a second amendment, informs his, and other founders', world view on the matter.

On March 5, 1770, a group of colonists was berating a British soldier guarding the Customs House in Boston. British Army Capt. Thomas Preston brought a squad of seven soldiers to support the lone guard.

As the situation grew tense, one of the soldiers fired his musket. Thinking the order to fire had been given, the others followed suit. Three colonists, including a black sailor named Crispus Attucks, were killed immediately. Two others died later.

Adams, Josiah Quincy Jr., and Robert Auchmuty, Jr., represented Preston in court. Adams argued that the soldiers had every reason to believe they were in danger.

"Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defence, not for offence, that distinction is material and must be attended to," Adams stated.

Preston was acquitted of his murder charges.

Civilian gun ownership is necessary for a "well-regulated militia," according to Stephen Halbrook, a Fairfax, Virginia-based attorney and senior fellow with the Independent Institute.

"It was considered a duty," Halbrook told The Epoch Times.

Halbrook pointed out that the first settlement at Jamestown, Virginia, almost failed partly because of conflict with Indians who were hostile to the colonists.

"You had a responsibility ... to have arms in your home and basically to carry them around with you. After the Constitution comes into being in 1792 the federal militia laws ... required, that every able-bodied white male citizen would have to provide arms for himself and enroll in the militia, and to go when called to duty," Halbrook said.

This was outlined by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 29. Hamilton explained that the militia consists of armed residents prepared to defend themselves and their communities.

According to Hamilton, "well-regulated" means the members will "acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness." While Hamilton called on the federal government to support the militias, he stressed that they would operate under local authority.

"Reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress," Hamilton wrote.

The federal government has a militia law, 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: Composition and Classes, as do 45 states.

The federal law states that the unorganized militia is made up of all able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia, and females who are members of the National Guard and Naval Militia.

Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and West Virginia do not have established militias. Twenty-two states have active militias, though Connecticut's militia is ceremonial. The rest of the state militias are inactive unless they are called to service.

Self-Defense

Swearer said that America has drifted away from the original intent of the militias. But there have been militia-style actions.

During the 1992 Los Angeles riots that erupted after four police officers were acquitted of charges stemming from the March 3, 1991, beating of Rodney King, several Korean business and property owners took up arms to defend their homes and businesses.

As the riots spread into the area known as Koreatown, many business owners and residents noticed that police were standing by, watching. So, the Korean residents armed themselves, got on their roofs, and held off the rioters. They became known as the "Rooftop Koreans."

"It is arguably a militia usage. It's that same understanding of the people protecting themselves when the government fails to protect them," Swearer said.

It was hardly the first time Americans armed themselves to defend their property. The United States was born in armed conflict.

Halbrook said that around the time of the Boston Massacre, the first gun control laws were passed. As Spitzer noted in his article, many of the laws were focused on public safety.

Firearms regulations from this era covered brandishing firearms, bans on certain types of weapons, carry restrictions, dueling, hunting, inspection of gun manufacturing facilities, and storage requirements, and the responsible discharge of firearms, among others.

There were also laws on who could possess guns. Halbrook said the main objective was to prevent certain groups from being armed.

For example, in his article, Spitzer points out that in 1619 the first General Assembly made it illegal to sell guns, powder, or shot, to Indians. A person convicted under the law faced hanging.

As part of a law requiring church attendance, the General Assembly included language requiring that "all such as bear arms shall bring their pieces, swords, powder and shot." Though not specified in the law, the likely reason for this requirement is to defend the colonists gathered in the church.

These early gun prohibitions were not focused as much on the guns as who could carry them. And, like the colonial governments, America has prohibitions on who can keep and bear arms.

Today, as in those early days, the United States prevents felons, the mentally ill, and others who could be considered dangerous to society from legally owning firearms. This was upheld in the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case, Lewis v. U.S.

In that case, the court ruled that under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, "the fact of a felony conviction imposes firearm disability until the conviction is vacated or the felon is relieved of his disability by some affirmative action," such as having his rights legally restored.

This legal concept was affirmed in the June 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi, when the court ruled that disarming people deemed by a court to be dangerous aligns with the Second Amendment.

According to the court record, Zackey Rahimi, of Arlington, Texas, abused his girlfriend. Subsequently, she won a domestic violence restraining order against him. Rahimi was disarmed under 18 USC 922 (g) (8), the federal law that bars people under such an order from possessing or purchasing firearms.

After agreeing to the order, he assaulted another woman and was involved in at least five shootings. His firearms were confiscated because of the restraining order. Rahimi appealed the confiscation to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which found the law unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court reversed that.

"Since the Founding, the Nation's firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms," the decision states. "As applied to the facts here, Section 922(g)(8) fits within this tradition."

In a subsequent case, United States v. Hemani, the court in June 2026 rejected the idea that the federal government could automatically strip someone of their right to bear arms based on the mere fact that they took drugs. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch indicated more consideration was needed over whether the individual had lost their capacity to reason.

Gentleman's Honor

Halford said it wasn't until the early 19th Century that the first laws resembling modern gun control were passed. He said that in 1813 Kentucky and Louisiana passed laws prohibiting the concealed carry of weapons, including knives and other weapons.

He pointed out that the first such laws were passed in the South, but it was years before northern states passed similar laws. Halbrook said the new law had more to do with the concept of a Southern gentleman's honor.

"In Kentucky ... you had the code of dueling ... and it would be ungentlemanly to carry an arm concealed," Halbrook said. "It was kind of a macho thing ... only a person with bad intentions would hide [his weapons]."

Prohibitions based on politics, race, and similar factors did not fare well with the judicial system.

In the 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court found that slaves were not citizens and did not have Constitutional rights, including Second Amendment rights.

"It cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went," the decision reads in part.

In 1865, the Freedman's Bureau was established to ensure that freed slaves enjoyed the same civil rights as other Americans, including their Second Amendment rights. Though there were subsequent attempts to deny black Americans their civil rights, the court has generally ruled those laws unconstitutional.

In the following decades, a variety of gun laws were passed with the objective of promoting safety or preventing crime. Three of the most notable are the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986.

The National Firearms Act was a response to organized crime in the 1920s and 1930s. The law designated some weapons as dangerous or unusual. These included fully automatic machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and silencers.

Backers of the law knew it was doomed as a gun-control measure. So, it was passed as Congress exercising its taxing authority. But, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) website, the tax was a secondary purpose.

"Its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in [National Firearms Act] firearms," the website states.

Only Federal Firearms License holders who pay a $200 tax can deal in National Firearms Act items. The tax, which remained $200 until last year when it was reduced to $0, was meant to inhibit ownership of National Firearms Act items.

The Gun Control Act corrected the constitutional problems in the National Firearms Act.

In 1968, the Supreme Court found in Haynes v. United States that forcing a person to register a National Firearms Act item, then prosecuting that person using information from the registration process violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

In 1986, the Firearm Owners' Protection Act was enacted. It added to the definition of "silencer" combinations of parts, and any part to make a silencer to the list of National Firearms Act items. It also prohibited the transfer or ownership of machine guns except for state and law enforcement agencies, and machine guns lawfully owned prior to May 19, 1986.

But in the 2000s, three landmark decisions was issued that turned the gun debate upside down.

Supreme Court Returns To History

Prior to 2008, the courts used a two-step "means test" to determine if a gun law was constitutional. Under this method, courts considered whether a law would obtain a favorable objective - such as crime reduction - even if it did not strictly align with the text of the Second Amendment.

It was accepted that a law might infringe on the right, but that could be acceptable if the end result outweighed the degree of restriction.

In its June 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen the court said the two-step approach was excessive.

By a 6-3 vote, the court concluded that the standard for applying the Second Amendment was determining whether the gun control policy was consistent with the nation's history and tradition. The court also found that New York State's licensing scheme, along with prohibitions on carrying guns in public, were unconstitutional.

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said any gun control law must align with the Second Amendment's language and have a "historical analog" from the time of the Amendment's ratification to pass constitutional muster.

This meant that if the law covered the activity listed in the amendment, specifically keeping and bear arms, it was unconstitutional unless a similar law existed around the time of the amendment's ratification.

The Bruen decision shook the gun debate and will impact Second Amendment cases for years to come. Two other Supreme Court rulings helped set the stage for the landmark decision.

In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the high court ruled that the Washington's prohibition on handguns, and requirements that privately owned guns be kept unloaded under lock and key, violated the Second Amendment.

In Heller, the court found that the Amendment protects an individual right to carry firearms for protection, which the District's law made all but impossible.

Then on June 28, 2010, the Supreme court ruled 5-4, in MacDonald v. Chicago, that the Second Amendment applied to state and local governments, as well as to the federal government.

Post-Bruen Developments

After Bruen, some states with strict gun laws, including New York, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Rhode Island, and others doubled down passing so-called "Bruen response laws."

Hawaii implemented a law prohibiting firearms on all private property open to the public unless the property owner gives express permission to gun owners to carry on their property.

The Supreme Court recently struck down that law in Wolford v. Lopez, ruling that it placed an undue burden on licensed gun owners.

Rhode Island, Virginia, and Illinois banned certain semiautomatic firearms, so-called assault weapons. New York and California instituted background checks for ammunition purchases in 2023.

As she announced the ammunition background check law, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said her state was dedicated to promoting gun safety.

"We know this has nothing to do with lawful gun owners, nothing to do with them at all. These are people who have been convicted of felonies or other categories of people that should be prohibited from firearms and ammunition," she said.

At the time, President Joe Biden was in the White House and had successfully implemented much of his agenda to increase firearms regulation. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which included funding for violence intervention programs as well as stronger gun control laws, was enacted in 2022.

Biden opened an Office of Gun Violence Prevention in the White House. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives was taking a much tougher stand on regulating firearms manufacturers and dealers through its zero-tolerance policy, and he was making strides toward implementing universal background checks.

Gun rights advocates, on the other hand, have been energized by the Supreme Court decisions, as well as what they consider to be a pro-Second Amendment president in Donald Trump.

Trump is currently 18 months into his second term. He closed the office in the White House, dismantled almost all of Biden's gun control programs and opened a Second Amendment office in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.

Gun rights activists said there is more to be done. They are calling for the repeal of the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act, the shutdown of the ATF, and the destruction of billions of gun sales records, which they say the agency is using to build an illegal registry.

The ATF denies it has such a registry.

The experts say that, like all the other constitutional rights, the Second Amendment will continue to be examined and possibly limited or expanded.

Halbrook offered advice for gun owners that could be applied to either side of the debate.

"They have to pay attention to politics, they have to vote, they have to support candidates who are going to be on their side, and they have to vote against those who are against them," Halbrook said.

The second amendment is spelled on a U.S. flag in a gun store in Rio Rico, Santa Cruz County, Ariz., on Sept. 17, 2025. Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 21:00

South Korea Plans Investment Fund From Chip Tax Revenue

At a time when chip and memory companies are disproportionately receiving the benefits of hundreds of billions in capex, and a growing number of politicians are consider ways to socialize these outsized gains, Yonhap News reported that South Korea plans to create an investment fund using tax revenue from its burgeoning semiconductor industry to finance long-term economic growth.

In a senior-level meeting of the government and the ruling party, presidential chief of staff Kang Hoon-sik said the additional revenue from the country’s chip industry should be invested for future growth, the news agency reported.

“By launching the fund with the extra tax revenue, we aim to make bold investments for the future, including supporting the three mega projects, creating future growth engines, addressing K-shaped polarization, and supporting housing, startups and jobs for those in their 20s and 30s,” Kang said.

South Korea recently unveiled its three mega projects initiative, which involves significant investment in semiconductors, physical AI and data centers.

Investments of at least 1,350 trillion won ($880 billion) from companies including Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix will be made, as the government looks to strengthen the country’s long-term competitiveness and position itself as an AI powerhouse.

Samsung Group and SK Group said they plan to build two chipmaking plants apiece in the southwest for a total of 800 trillion won, to rapidly expand production capacity to meet increasing demand. South Korea also announced 550 trillion won of investment from companies including internet leader Naver Corp. to build 8.4 gigawatts of AI data-center capacity by 2029.

The country aims to double its memory production capacity within five years and secure world-class manufacturing capabilities to pull far ahead of competing nations, the industry ministry said in a statement. South Korea must move faster than its global rivals to secure leadership in chips, data centers and physical AI, President Lee Jae Myung said at a briefing where he called the Samsung and SK Hynix leaders “national heroes.” 

Kang said the mega projects will help create new growth engines to determine the country’s future over the next 20 to 30 years, Yonhap added.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 20:58

Nvidia Supplier Hon Hai Sales Beat As Continued AI Demand Offsets Consumer Electronics Decline

Nvidia’s server assembly partner Hon Hai Precision Industry reported a bigger-than-expected 40% jump in quarterly sales and said AI demand is growing further, according to Bloomberg. 

Hon Hai’s revenue grew to NT$2.51 trillion ($79 billion) in the three months to June, beating the average of analyst estimates of NT$2.37 trillion. Demand for AI-related products drove sales, compensating for a slight decline in demand from consumer electronics and computing products, where soaring memory prices have resulted in widespread demand destruction.

Shipments of AI racks are expected to maintain their momentum in the current quarter, while demand for information and communications technology products is entering peak season, the company said in a statement Sunday quoted by Bloomberg. Overall operations are expected to grow both quarter-on-quarter and year-on-year.

Hon Hai, also known as Foxconn, has established itself as a key AI hardware player by assembling servers that house Nvidia accelerators. This comes as Alphabet, Amazon, Meta Platforms and Microsoft are setting aside about $725 billion for AI spending this year, a total which Goldman believes could rise as high as $1.4 trillion in 2027, even as warnings abound about overcapacity and questions about how to monetize the technology grow louder.

In March, the Taiwanese company projected strong sales growth in 2026, fueled by sustained AI momentum. It derives a significant chunk of sales from assembling Apple’s iPhones and MacBooks and is in a position to benefit from any positive reception for the latest iPhone 17 product family, although in light of the upcoming price hikes across Apple products it remains to be seen what consumer reception will be for the higher-priced products.

But like many electronics manufacturers, Hon Hai faces a shortage of memory chips used in a wide range of products from smartphones to PCs and servers. Executives have said the crunch should not significantly impact demand for premium handset and computer products the company makes for major customers.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 20:34

Iran To Grant China, 'Friendly' Countries 'Special Consideration' On Hormuz Fees

Via The Cradle

Iran's ambassador to China stated on Saturday that the Islamic Republic would impose service fees on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, but that China and other "friendly" countries would be granted "special considerations."

During a speech at the World Peace Forum in Beijing on Saturday, Iranian Ambassador Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli affirmed that Iran was working in "collaboration and cooperation" with Oman on "new arrangements" for the strait.

via Associated Press

Ships passing through Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world's oil exports moved before the US-Israeli war on Iran, must travel along Iranian territory to the north and Omani territory to the south.

"As a country where the Hormuz is part of its territorial waters, we will definitely charge service fees," Fazli said. However, the fee would not be a "toll," he added, as tolls are considered illegal under international maritime law. Instead, the fees would be for security and administration.

"These new arrangements will be concerning guaranteeing the security of passage through the Straits of Hormuz, supervision of the passage of the vessels … and also guaranteeing and dealing with the environmental consequences of the massive number of ships," he stated.

Iran's NourNews agency quoted the ambassador as saying that "special considerations" would be applied to China and other friendly nations when determining the level and type of service fees charged for their vessels.

Beijing began importing large amounts of Iranian crude in the early 1990s as China industrialized and sought new energy sources to shift away from coal.

Beijing's purchases typically account for roughly 90 percent of Iran's oil exports, providing tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue that support Iran's government and military. To bypass US economic sanctions, much of the oil is transported using trans-shipment hubs and a shadow tanker fleet to obscure its origins.

The Strait of Hormuz was closed by Iran after the US and Israel launched an unprovoked war on the Islamic Republic on February 28.

In April, as energy prices soared, the US responded by imposing a naval blockade on Iran's southern ports to attempt to halt Iranian oil exports.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by Iran and the United States on June 15 to halt hostilities stipulated that commercial ships would be allowed to transit through the Strait of Hormuz free of charge for 60 days. Fazli added that new arrangements regarding Hormuz would be made in cooperation with Oman.

Last month, Oman proposed that ships transit the strait via a new southern route close to its coast and a new northern route along Iran's coast, while the central route through the strait is de-mined. Omani officials worked with the UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO) to develop the plans.

However, Iran rejected plans for the southern route, which would have been overseen by the US, saying it would violate Clause 5 of the MoU.

On Thursday, Iranian forces attacked a Singaporean ship attempting to pass through the southern Omani route, causing the IMO to abandon the effort.

The last 24 hours in the Strait of Hormuz are a doozy.

At the start of the clip, you will see many of the vessels that were going through the Oman route take the Iran route instead.

Now there's something I should probably point out. In the last week or so, US escorts through… pic.twitter.com/rK1iKRtrYm

— HFI Research (@HFI_Research) July 5, 2026

On Friday, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf announced Iran and Oman had reached an agreement on the joint management and regulation of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. 

Tehran has repeatedly vowed that the strait will not return to its pre-war status despite an illegal US blockade on its ports and attempts to undermine Iranian control of the waterway. 

"Hormuz is defined under Iran's command, not CENTCOM," Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister and top negotiator Kazem Gharibabadi said in a statement on July 2nd.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 19:50

OPEC+ Approves Another Oil Output Increase As Hormuz Exports Start To Recover

OPEC+ agreed a further increase in output targets from August, the group said in a statement on Sunday, ‌adding to global supply at a time when oil prices are falling due to the gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz for oil exports. 

Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman adjust production and reaffirm commitment to market stability

Read Press Release▶️https://t.co/dyMd6A6Fpj

— OPEC (@OPECSecretariat) July 5, 2026

The oil-producing cartel, which recently lost the UAE as a core member, agreed during an online meeting to increase quotas by 188,000 barrels per day from August, on top of similar increases for June and July. That said, the producers reserved the right to increase, pause, or reverse the phase-out, including the November 2023 cuts already unwound. Furthermore, every country that overproduced since January 2024 still has to fully compensate for it, tracked monthly by the JMMC. 

The seven ​core members of OPEC+, which groups OPEC and allied producers including Russia, have hiked their output quotas from April through July ​by almost 800,000 bpd. Yet the increase has remained largely on paper because of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, ⁠which closed the Strait of Hormuz to tanker traffic for some of the most important OPEC+ members, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and ​Iraq.

According to Reuters, OPEC+ output fell to 33.13 million bpd in May, according to OPEC data, from 42.77 million bpd in February. It began ​to recover in June thanks to U.S. efforts to help the UAE and other OPEC+ nations export more oil, but is still below pre-war levels.

Despite persisting supply disruptions, oil prices have returned to pre-war levels, pressured by sharply lower Chinese imports, higher exports from non-Middle East producers, and a record global strategic stock release coordinated ​by the International Energy Agency.

"The group of seven kept unwinding their production cuts as widely expected," UBS analyst Giovanni Staunovo said. "The near-term focus ​will remain on how many tankers will manage to cross the Strait of Hormuz and how quickly demand and Chinese crude imports recover."

A memorandum of understanding ‌between Washington ⁠and Tehran to end the war, which has been breached on several occasions but is still holding, has also helped convince traders that supply will ultimately return to normal levels.

Brent crude prices traded near $72 per barrel on Friday, down from recent peaks of more than $120 per barrel and back to levels traded just before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on February 28.

Besides agreeing production targets, OPEC+ is also facing other challenges after the United Arab Emirates left ​the group and Iraq signaled it wants ​higher quotas.

OPEC+ includes 21 members ⁠including Iran, but in recent years only the seven nations - and the UAE until its departure - have been involved in monthly production management. Those seven producers, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Kazakhstan and Oman, are ​boosting output as part of the phased rollback of a 1.65 million bpd supply cut agreed ​in 2023, when ⁠the group still included the UAE.

In a stunning twist, the UAE quit the alliance in late April because it wanted to align its capacity more closely with its production, free of production restraints imposed by the group. From August, taking into account the UAE's exit from May 1, the seven core members will still ⁠have about ​379,000 bpd of the original cut to return to the market, according to ​Reuters calculations.

With the August increase now decided, they will have fully unwound the 2023 cut if they make one more hike of around the same size for September at ​their next meeting on August 2.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 16:55

The Biggest Problem With AI Today

By Christopher Penn, of Almost Timely News

What’s the biggest problem in AI today? Is it cost, with token budgets being blown out of the water by agentic AI? Is it sustainability, with AI consuming electricity and fresh water? Is it ethics, with tech companies cramming AI into everything?

I think it’s deeper than that. Those are all symptoms of a much deeper-rooted problem: nobody’s making decisions.

Or more correctly, we’ve abdicated far too much of our executive function to AI. We’ve surrendered our thinking. 

Let’s dig in.

Part 1: Where This Issue Came From

On Friday afternoon, I was mulling over what I wanted to cover in this week’s issue. It’s a holiday weekend here in the USA, so not as many folks will be reading, and that’s okay. (I appreciate that YOU are) And I’ve covered a ton recently:

• How to improve advertising with AI
• Why listicles may cause more harm than good
• Setting up private, local models
• How AI detection works
• AI for GEO mental models
• AI for retail GEO
• 18 ways to save token budgets
• How to make AI write better

So on a whim, I set up a NotebookLM with the last 180 days of conversations from over 40 different subreddits, like r/marketing, r/chatgpt, etc. - everything around marketing, business, and AI. I connected it to Claude Code with the NotebookLM command line tool (the most token—efficient way for Claude to talk to NotebookLM), and then put all of my 2026 newsletters year to date into an input folder.

I asked Claude to compare what I’ve written about thus far this year with what folks are finding their hardest problems are with AI. Claude spit out a list of 10 major things derived from over 800,000 words of foaming at the mouth on Reddit that it thought might be good newsletter topics:

• AI Visibility challenges
• Agentic oversight is degrading
• AI deployment is broken
• 40-60% of company budget is wasted on the wrong models
• AI is a rental
• AI sycophancy is screwing up synthetic focus groups
• AI detectors don’t work
• AI is hollowing out corporations and no one’s hiring junior staff
• People measure AI by tokenmaxxing
• Marketers are basically unpaid labor for AI companies training data

Claude was REALLY pushing for me to write about how measurement is broken in marketing and AI today, and I might do that at some point, but that’s not what I see when I look at this laundry list. Yes, there are measurement issues in many of them, data issues in many of them, but... measurement being broken is the symptom of what I said earlier - we’ve abdicated executive function.

For those who aren’t analytics nerds, you know that measurement is a trailing indicator. It’s not a leading indicator.

Part 2: Executive Function Recap

As a reminder, I bucket executive function into four categories that I call PODS:

• Plan: you think about achieving something in the future and make a plan to get there from here
• Organize: you take what you have and try to make sense of it
• Decide: you take what you have and make decisions about it
• Solve: you solve the problems you have

Yes, there is more nuance to executive function than this, but this handy, short list is an easy way to see what our brains are doing. That’s critical thinking, one of the worst-named practices we have.

Why? Because critical thinking isn’t about being critical, per se. It’s about metacognition - the definition of which is thinking about thinking. When you’re thinking about how you think, you open the door to improvements, to growth.

Thinking about thinking means asking questions and reflecting - is this the best way to do something? How could I do this better? How could I derive more enjoyment from this thing I’m doing? It’s not criticizing yourself as much as it is recognizing what you’re doing and whether it’s working or not.

When you’re planning, organizing, deciding, and solving, you’re inherently thinking about thinking. Every time you plan, every time you bring order to chaos, you have to check in with your own brain to see if what you’re doing is moving you closer to the goal posts.

Executive function is one of the things that defines our sentience as living creatures. Every sentient creature from a mouse to us does these tasks. You’ve read or heard stories about crows fashioning tools from wire to solve problems, you’ve watched dogs and cats make decisions and plan. I’ve watched my own cat measure optically whether or not she can make a particular jump.

Properly prompted, today’s AI tools are superb at executive functions as well. Given the right frameworks, harnesses, and data, they can plan, organize, decide, and solve better than we can at most language-based tasks.

And therein lies the actual problem.

Part 3: The Tale of the Tape

Let’s look at each of the 10 topics Claude suggested to see the threads that connect them.

AI Visibility challenges: when you read the verbatims of what people are saying about AI visibility measurement, you can tell they’re pretty much making it up. This is especially true of software vendors that are offering and peddling solutions that have very little grounding in reality - and yet, stakeholders eat this stuff up because they’d rather have certainty about a wrong number than accept uncertainty or no number at all. they are not thinking about their thinking.

Agentic oversight is degrading: the commenters on Reddit focused on the fact that as agents get more sophisticated, it’s harder and harder to follow along to see what they’re doing. So we just hit OK all the time - if we’re even thinking about a human in the loop. We’ve forfeit our authority here. In fact, some AI tools have this built in as a feature. Claude calls it dangerously skip permissions. Qwen calls it YOLO mode.

AI deployment is broken: here, the discussion is about stakeholders telling their stakeholders that the organization has deployed AI without any sense of the impact that it’s had. One poster cited a statistic that 29% of companies see significant ROI from AI, even though individual employees are claiming 5x productivity increases. The math doesn’t math. Here, people don’t want to think and reflect about what deployment even means. Katie’s been writing a lot about this in the Trust Insights newsletter the last few weeks. At its heart, we are confusing using AI with getting results out of AI.

40-60% of budget is wasted: here, folks are talking about how everyone just accepts the default model in AI tools, which is typically the most expensive one. Claude, for example, defaults to Opus 4.8, which is a much more expensive model than Sonnet 5 or Haiku 4.5. We’re not thinking. We’re not making decisions about cost trade-offs versus effectiveness. Another person pointed out that this is by design to create habits. It’s about habit formation for the most expensive models so that when the subsidization of today’s AI ends, we are accustomed to using the most expensive models. This is brain hijacking in a way.

AI is a rental: in this particular topic, the discussion centers around what you actually own in AI, which is very little if you are using today’s closed weights frontier models. Particularly Anthropic’s on-again, off-again rollout of Fable 5, thanks to U.S. export controls, was a wake-up call to the entire industry that you don’t own anything in SaaS, any more than you own music in Spotify or own videos in Netflix - but people think they do.

Sycophancy in focus groups: even though we have good academic research showing that properly prompted AI models can emulate human purchase intent with about 90% accuracy, the level of sycophancy in AI models steers them towards confirmation bias in most situations. This is especially true of synthetic focus groups; when people use AI to simulate consumer intent, what they’re really doing is reinforcing their own biases most of the time. There’s no reflection or questioning the AI output.

AI detectors don’t work: A perpetual favorite topic of mine. This thread of conversation revolved around how companies are using AI detectors to identify the use of AI in situations where it’s not appropriate, without recognizing that the detectors themselves are also broken. In testing I did 3 weeks ago now, AI detectors falsely flagged human outputs 1 out of 7 times. No one is thinking and reflecting enough about who’s watching the watchers.

AI is hollowing out companies: I really liked this quote from the agency owners subreddit:

“What’s strange is nobody decided this. There was no meeting where we discussed this. We automated one annoying task, then another, and one day the job had hollowed out from the inside.“

This erosion of tasks is all about a lack of cognition, a lack of reflection, a lack of a plan. No one’s making decisions - just leaving it up to the machines, a bit more each day.

Tokenmaxxing: this was reflecting on Meta’s most recent news story in which they were on track to spend several billion dollars in AI tokens because they measured AI productivity based on token spend, the dumbest possible way to measure AI.

Marketers as unpaid trainers: this was a whole bunch of ranting about how marketers are effectively unpaid trainers for AI platforms. The more content we produce, the more AI has to train on while simultaneously competing for the tasks we’re paid to do. Here, the thread was about how the average marketer isn’t thinking or reflecting about their relationship to AI.

And this laundry list of 10 items isn’t everything, not by a long shot. Think about how else people use AI without thinking, without thinking about their thinking. Go on LinkedIn and look at the endless streams of comment-bots all paraphrasing the same template over and over again. Look at the workslop flooding your inbox, read the reports your agencies send you that are clearly copy paste jobs.

When we put aside the direction that Claude wanted to nudge this issue of the newsletter, it becomes pretty apparent that it’s really about how much we think about thinking. How self-aware are we? How well and accurately do we perceive our relationship with AI?

Most of all, do we see the amount of executive function we’ve ceded to AI?

Part 4: The Antidote

“Nobody decided this” is haunting me. When you hand off executive functions to AI, who is making the decisions? No one. There’s no one accountable for a decision because the machine is making it for us. Whether it’s building a PowerPoint deck, assembling a report for a client, creating content for a newsletter, when the machine does it, there’s no accountability and there’s no decision making on our part other than approving it.

And this leads to a bunch of bad outcomes, everything from job loss to dissatisfaction with your own work. You know, when you use AI to offload a task, that you didn’t do the work - and you take no pride in it, any more than you’d take pride in the work that a contractor did on your behalf.

Think about this in the context of parents. Go to any parent’s house and you’ll likely see art that the kids made when they were young. The art is generally, objectively, pretty bad. But the parent values it not because of the quality of the art, but because of the level of effort made by the child. They take pride in their child’s efforts, and the child takes pride in what they did in their efforts. For good or ill, when people use AI, they themselves feel like they haven’t made an effort, and the person on the receiving end also feels like they didn’t make an effort.

Sometimes, you don’t even understand the work if you’ve outsourced it. You present it to your stakeholders, and the first question they ask that isn’t in the prepared materials leads to panic city because you can’t answer it, like buying a cake at the store instead of baking it yourself and then having someone ask if a specific allergen is in it. And you’re left scrambling, looking for the label to see what’s actually in the cake.

So my suggested antidote is this: for every task that matters, always start with someting you lead, and force the machines to educate you.

For example, when I compile monthly reports for Trust Insights clients, I turn on my voice recorder and I review the data myself. I talk out loud what I see, what I think, what makes sense and what doesn’t make sense, and then I have AI transcribe it. After the transcription is complete, I ask AI to review it and show me what I missed. I ask it to ask me questions, to record more information, to fish more information from me.

I also ask it, especially around anything in my subject matter expertise, to find me resources to learn and read about its recommendations. Recently, I was asking it to choose from a catalog I’d prepared of over 1,000 different analytical techniques, and it chose an interesting ensemble of 3 techniques, one of which I didn’t know well. So I had it teach me that, so that instead of me passively accepting its recommendations, I learned something. I got better as a professional. I grew my subject matter expertise.

If you think about it, this is not only rational from the perspective of delivering great quality work, it’s also rational from the perspective of my value. If I’m nothing more than a copy paste drone, a meat-based interface to an LLM, then why does my company need me? Why would my clients pay for me when they could just pay to ask ChatGPT or Claude the exact same things?

What they’re paying for is my expertise, my skills not only at using the technology, but the specific lens I direct it with, and the perspective that only I can bring. And if I’m using AI to constantly improve that expertise, to improve that domain knowledge, then they should keep paying for me.

Outside my subject matter expertise, I start with deep research, using AI tools to gather information and then having them create a synthesis. Once I’ve got that, then I have it create a checklist of what constitutes quality in the domain I’m working in. Finally, I sit down with the creations and I read and learn for myself. I have AI make infographics or podcast summaries to learn the domain so that I can connect it to my expertise.

Agentic AI - tools like Claude Code, OpenCode, etc. - are phenomenal researchers, far better than the web-based deep research tools folks have become accustomed to in the past couple of years. When you use a research agent, it has a lot more latitude to gather up sources, to take the time to write down notes and observations, and to synthesize conclusions from the data it has. If you use something like the Trust Insights CASINO research framework, you’ll get some amazing results from the tools that tend to have fewer hallucinations than their web-based counterparts.

Then with that research data in hand, you use it to become a better professional within your domain. You use it to level yourself up. You use it to add to your insights instead of substitute for your insights.

Part 5: Wrapping Up

The biggest problem in AI today is the delegation of our executive function to machines. Whether it’s accountability (machines have none), deskilling, or dissatisfaction with our work, the moment we forfeit executive function is the moment when AI becomes more problem than solution.

We can boil it all down to a simple set of questions:

1. Does the use of AI make the output better?

2. Does the use of AI make me better?

If the answer isn’t yes to BOTH, then you’re not using it well.

Properly used, AI is one of the greatest professional development tools ever created.

Improperly used, it’s one of the most destructive forces your career has ever known, because the moment you offload a task to AI, your own skills at that task get rusty.

And once something becomes rusty enough, it’s cheaper and easier to replace it.

More in the Almost Timely Newsletter

* * * Next-level Wagyu, now at ZeroHedge Store

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 16:20

Japan Bankruptcies Surge To All-Time High As A Result Of Plunging Yen

In recent months one of the more frequent questions in FX trading has been the relentless collapse in the yen, which recently sank below a 40 year low despite rate differentials stubbornly headed in the opposite direction, and is increasingly flirting with levels which on previous occasions always prompted BOJ intervention.

Among the reasons cited for the chronic weakness of the Japanese currency have been the following three:

1. Real short-term rates in Japan are negative, which is why Ueda has been slow to hike
2. There is a growing perception that Japan's PM Takaichi doesn't want a higher rates or a stronger yen.  A weak yen certainly helps big JP firms profits (while hurting households) so there is a clear weak yen constituency inside the LDP. Japanese financial institutions are also short the yen generally
3. JP financial institutions (notably lifer insurers) see the upfront cost of hedging (the nominal ST rate differential) and have made a mint on unhedged fx assets, and they have been reluctant to change their position just because the yen looks exceptionally undervalued.

Effectively a feedback loop has emerged, whereby the weaker yen leads to an even weaker yen, and despite token resistance by the BOJ - the latest long overdue rate hike being an example - the market clearly anticipates further weakness in the currency, and is pushing it to new lows.

However, a limit to the yen's weakness is now emerging, and it goes to the growing damage on the country's households noted in point 2 above.

As Bloomberg reports, Japan’s weak currency caused the most bankruptcies for the first half of a year since 2022, underscoring the growing economic costs of the currency’s slump. 

Forty-five firms failed from January to June for that reason, up more than 30% from a year earlier, according to a report by Tokyo Shoko Research published last Wednesday. The figure was the highest since 2022, when the data firm started counting companies that specifically cite currency weakness in filing for bankruptcy.

The findings suggest the smaller firms that employ most of Japan’s workers are finding it increasingly difficult to withstand the yen’s prolonged weakness, casting a shadow over the nation’s economy, even as large-cap exporters benefit. 

The data also strengthen the case for continued interest-rate hikes from the Bank of Japan. While higher borrowing costs alone would typically push more firms toward insolvency, closing the gap with US rates could help support the yen.

The yen has steadily weakened against the dollar in recent years as US interest rates climbed to combat pandemic-era inflation while Japanese rates were negative to break free of deflation. While the rate differential has since narrowed, a rally in the dollar and high oil prices from the war in Iran are pressuring the yen.  

The yen hit a new 40 year low of 162 per dollar on Thursday, before rising higher amid some speculation that Japan's financial authorities may finally seek to rein it in. While the weaker currency has boosted exporters’ earnings, it has also driven up import costs, squeezing profit margins across a broad range of import-dependent industries, and has also helped sustain the worst inflation in Japan's recent history.  

The conflict in the Middle East has also drastically boosted costs. A price index for raw materials and merchandise purchases among a broad range of smaller firms surged in the second quarter, according to a survey by the Organization for Small & Medium Enterprises and Regional Innovation. The Bank of Japan’s producer price index has also jumped in recent months.

Tokyo Shoko Research’s report showed bankruptcies were particularly concentrated in the wholesale sector. One example was Tokyo-based Merry Time Foods, an importer of crab, shrimp and tuna from other parts of Asia. The company went bankrupt in May, citing deteriorating profitability due to the weak yen and political instability in its supplier countries.

The research firm said in the report that currency-related bankruptcies are likely to remain elevated for some time, particularly among wholesalers, retailers and manufacturers with limited pricing power.

According to Bloomberg, the strain has been acute for small- and mid-sized businesses, who are more affected by higher borrowing costs than their larger counterparts. They’re also contending with mounting wage hike pressures amid persistent labor shortages. Smaller firms often have limited ability to pass higher costs onto customers due to intense competition.

“The weak yen is one contributing factor,” said Yoshihiro Sakata, manager at Tokyo Shoko Research. “Combined with inflation and rising labor costs, it is creating a cumulative burden on businesses.”

Another source of pressure on smaller businesses may be foreign-exchange hedging, including the use of so-called reverse knockout options, according to Yuji Saito, executive adviser at SBI FXTrade. Such products are widely sold by regional banks as structured hedging products, particularly to small and regional importers seeking to minimize upfront option premiums.

Once the exchange rate reaches a preset knockout level, the option expires and the hedge ceases to provide protection. Companies needing dollars must then either purchase them in the spot market, enter into a new hedge - often at less favorable levels - or leave themselves exposed to further currency moves.

“The weaker the yen gets, the more importers roll into increasingly risky option structures,” Saito said. “Once the knockout level is breached, they are forced to buy dollars in the spot market, creating a negative spiral that puts even more downward pressure on the yen."

Analysts estimate that remaining reverse knockout levels are clustered between 163 and 170 yen per dollar, territory that many firms didn’t think the currency would reach as intervention from the central bank would likely be forthcoming due to the adverse economic impact of such unprecedented currency collapse.

“The number of knockouts could increase if the yen weakens further,” said Hiroyuki Machida, director of Japan FX and commodities sales at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group. “The situation is becoming significant for companies that are unable to pass on higher costs.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 15:45

Russia's Buffer Zone On Ukrainian Border 'Expanding' As Result Of Worsening Drone Attacks: Kremlin

Russia has announced that one key measure that will be taken in response to Ukraine's ramped-up drone attacks on Russian territory, including last month's major strikes on the Moscow area, is the significant expansion of the border 'buffer zone' between the waring countries.

"A security buffer zone on the Russian-Ukrainian border is conditioned by the aggressive nature of the Kiev regime and the Russian military is engaged in this process systematically reaching the appropriate progress," presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Sunday.

Source: Kremlin/Reuters

In essence this is the Kremlin saying that Russian forces plan to permanently take over territory deeper into Ukraine.

"Based on the aggressive nature of the Kiev regime and in order to insure the safety of our citizens, we are setting up a security zone, or the so-called, buffer zone," Peskov continued. "This buffer zone is being created systematically. We do register significant results regarding the terms of our troops’ advancing."

"There area should be no in no one doubts that it would will be serve to extend the necessary area ensuring our security," he added.

"Our troops are advancing," Peskov continued. "No one here should have any doubt that our military is proceeding systematically, and we are seeing concrete results."

He cited the taking of Konstantinovka: "This is a milestone, it is the most important step towards taking the common fortified area of Kramatorsk and Slavyansk," he claimed according to TASS.

President Putin has of late been taking steps to strongly signal he's committed as ever to completing the war aims of Russia's 'special military operation' - despite reports of nationwide fuel shortages, and also a full-blown gasoline supply crisis in Crimea.

The Kremlin released footage on Friday evening of the 73-year old Russian leader visiting an auxiliary command post to meet with the chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces.

Putin wore a military uniform, which Russian state sources described as a sign of his resolve to "finish off the terrorist neo-Nazi vermin".

English-language RT's response: "...seems to desire for that security zone to begin on the Polish border."

Putin: "The more strikes the enemy attempts to carry out on our civilian facilities, the larger the security zone we will have to create in adjacent territories."

Sadly, the current Kiev regime seems to desire for that security zone to begin on the Polish border.…

— Chikhi Cato (@KatoHus56872326) July 4, 2026

The scene appeared aimed primarily at the West, which has been questioning Moscow's resolve due to the now frequent Ukrainian drone hits on sensitive energy infrastructure.

President Trump has also lately appeared to pivot back to wanting the resolve the Ukraine conflict, while still seeking permanent offramp regarding to the Iran war crisis.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 14:35

A Bad Moon Is Rising On Our Nation's 250th Birthday

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

Burning Down The House...

"I forgot to get napkins. I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me."

- Darializa Avila-Chevalier, primary election winner, New York’s 13th Congressional District

Who are all these Democratic Socialists of America, anyway?

DSA on the March shoulder to shoulder with the Pride Brigade

“We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization,” one of their spoxes declared on Instagram in 2024.

Hmmmm . . . . I wonder if you can be a little more specific. Like, including democracy and socialism, two western civ constructs? Kind of looks like a baby / bathwater situation, followed by burning down the house where the baby lived. Do we get a chance to debate this proposition in the midterm election?

Likewise, a St. Paul, Minnesota, school board member, one Chauntyll Allen offered the following policy recommendation on the We Love Our Dog Park Facebook page:

A bad moon is rising on our nation’s 250th birthday. The country is in a rancid mood. You begin to see what happens when political ideas are carried to their last limits. Question is: does all this add up to a winning party platform? You must suppose that higher-ups in the Democratic Party are asking themselves the question now. What do Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer think when they see these Angels of Death on the march (or in flight) over the midterm battlefield?

Darializa Avila Chevalier, Claire Valdez, and Melat Kiros are going to Congress to link arms with “The Squad” — AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley — and they will bring their cargo of DSA policy ideas with them: racial, gender, and social justice; abolish ICE (no more deporting anybody); defund the police; end incarceration (no more jails); free housing and medical care; green this-n-that; government ownership of business; abolish the Senate and the electoral college; pack the SCOTUS...

The platform apparently has a lot of appeal to a certain demographic — which, I suspect, includes the many young recent graduates of the diploma mills who are pissed-off that Mr. Trump & Company are methodically shutting down the NGOs that were supposed to furnish these young race-and-gender studies majors with cushy, six-figure jobs doing “activism.” Alas, that pathway is increasingly blocked and the country only needs so many baristas.

What to do then? Take it to the limit! Be communists. . . with all that entails. 

What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine, too.

This new gen of Democratic Socialists is arguably worse than the Confederates of 1861. Those Rebs only wanted to secede from USA and go their own way in one corner of the land. They didn’t want to piss on Johann Sebastian Bach, Leonardo DaVinci, Jane Austen, Margaret Fuller, and Ralph Waldo Emerson as they walked out. The Democratic Socialists of our day are fully aligned with their avatars: Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot, who operated human meat-grinders at scale to tamp down the opposition. Not a great look to align with the great mass-murderers of history.

It must be agony for Schumer and Jeffries. Eradicate Western Civ. . . ? Piss on white people’s corpses. . . ? Are they really going to get behind that? No-o-o-o-o. But they will try to wriggle around this steaming pile for some weeks to come until it is obvious that the Democratic Party has blown itself up, hoisted itself on that old petard. It may be too late for the party’s old guard. No matter how many rain-dances Elizabeth Warren does, nothing will put out this dumpster fire.

Another question for the months ahead: can that party control its increasingly maniacal street warriors, the Antifas, the Pink Pistols, the Transgender Armed Defense forces, and whatever remains of BLM. There is still a lot of money in circulation for public demonstrations and disruptions from George Soros and other sponsors. And apart from that are the forces of jihad, with their own foreign patrons. Gawd knows how many jihadis came into the country during “Joe Biden’s” orchestrated alien invasion. Not just a few, you can be sure.

By the way, can somebody at the Office of Management and Budget do an audit of the $370-billion that “Joe Biden” handed over to John Podesta in the fall of 2024 to administer “climate-related provisions” of the Inflation Reduction Act, and figure out how much of it bounced right back into Democratic Party-adjacent NGOs and down to party capos like Stacey Abrams in Georgia, Brandon Johnson in Chicago, and Karen Bass in LA?

And happy 250th birthday to you, America — if you can keep yourself.

* * * Next-level Wagyu, now at ZeroHedge Store

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 14:00

Paul Pelosi Faces Charges In Napa County Hit-And-Run

Paul Pelosi, the 86-year-old husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), faces misdemeanor charges for a hit-and-run after allegedly striking a parked car in Napa, California on Friday. 

According to a statement from the Napa County Sheriff’s Office, the collision occurred around 2:30 p.m. on July 3, 2026, on the 6700 block of Yount Street in Yountville. A witness reported seeing a brown convertible traveling northbound on Yount Street strike a parked car that was legally positioned on the shoulder of the roadway. The parked vehicle sustained significant rear-end damage. Pelosi briefly stopped before continuing on.

The witness called 911 to report the hit-and-run. Deputies responded and located Paul Pelosi a short time later, roughly a quarter-mile away. His brown convertible was found partially blocking Yountville Cross Road, with a California Highway Patrol vehicle positioned behind it. The front right side of Pelosi’s car showed significant damage consistent with the rear damage on the parked vehicle.

6700 block of Yount Street in Yountville

Pelosi told investigators that he knew he had hit something but did not know what it was or when it happened, so he kept driving until his vehicle became disabled and he could no longer continue.

No injuries were reported in the incident. A preliminary alcohol screening device administered at the scene detected no alcohol in Pelosi’s system, and deputies ruled out suspicion of driving under the influence.

Because there were no injuries, deputies did not arrest Pelosi at the scene - and instead issued him a misdemeanor citation for fleeing the scene of an accident. The Napa County Sheriff’s Office has submitted the case to the Napa County District Attorney’s Office for review and possible prosecution.

The sheriff’s office also submitted a referral to the California Department of Motor Vehicles to initiate a re-evaluation of Pelosi’s driving privileges, a process it described as common for older drivers.

Prior Legal History

This is not Pelosi’s first encounter with law enforcement in Napa County. In May 2022, he was involved in a DUI crash in the county. He later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury. He was sentenced to five days in jail, three years of probation, ordered to complete a three-month driving class, install an ignition interlock device on his vehicle, and pay $5,000 in restitution for the victim’s medical bills plus $2,000 in additional fines.

In a separate 2022 incident, Pelosi was seriously injured when a suspect broke into the couple’s San Francisco home and struck him with a hammer. He underwent surgery for a skull fracture.

A spokesperson for the Pelosi family issued the following statement regarding the latest incident:

“Mr. Paul Pelosi has personally apologized to the owner of the vehicle and assured them that he would take responsibility for the damage to their vehicle. Speaker Pelosi will not be commenting further on this private matter.”

The Pelosis maintain ties to the Napa Valley region. Yountville is located approximately 50 miles north of San Francisco.

The Napa County Sheriff’s Office said it is continuing to investigate and will forward its findings to the district attorney. No further details on the condition of either vehicle or the identity of the parked car’s owner have been released.

* * * Next-level Wagyu, now at ZeroHedge Store

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 13:25

Vertically Integrated Nations, Production For Security, And Rate Cuts

Submitted by Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Let’s start with the important stuff: Hope you are having a great 4th of July 250th Anniversary Weekend.

Yields gained back some ground after the relatively weak jobs report (headline plus revisions was negative, the private sector underwhelmed, and unemployment only dropped because the labor force participation rate dropped by a relatively large 0.3%).

I will continue to pound the table (or rant and rave as the case may be) that this Fed Will Cut Rates in September. That was our main topic of discussion on the Bloomberg Radio segment above (and I did get to hear Tom Keene say my view looked smarter after the jobs data, than it had before the jobs data, when we spoke). MarketWatch also picked up on the interview and our prospect for cuts rather than hikes.

I have yet to hear compelling arguments on:

• Why the Cleveland Fed’s Rent metrics are not more accurate than what is currently used in “official” data?
• Why Truflation doesn’t deserve a lot more attention than it gets?

If anything, we’ve received comments pointing us to additional indices, surveys, etc., that likely present a more accurate picture of inflation (and they virtually all signal that we understated inflation post-Covid (hence Affordability is the Issue) and we are overstating the inflation rate now).

I really like the 2-year Treasury here, given what the market is pricing versus what I expect the reality to be.

The TV interview wound up focusing on AI. It wasn’t the topic I was most looking forward to, but was difficult to avoid when overnight headlines included:

• OpenAI potentially “giving” the U.S. a 5% stake.
• Meta offering to sell compute rather than using all of their compute for themselves.
• Apple requesting the ability to use Chinese made memory chips, in phones to be sold in China.

On any given day, one of those headlines would be interesting. To get all 3 in one day certainly attracted a lot of attention! It gave us a chance to talk about some of our main themes in AI:

• The need for the AI and Data Center Industry to ramp up their community outreach. My view that this industry needs to do a better job convincing people why they not only want and need AI, but that they also want it in their backyard.
• The comparisons to the fiber buildout during the dot.com boom!
• The risks of an AI “Revolution” (i.e., political backlash with negative consequences) and the risk to jobs. Trying to answer the question of whether humans are the horses in the current “Buggy Whip” transformation playing out. I admit that every time I write Buggy Whip, Rihanna’s song comes to mind, which is maybe why I didn’t say it on national TV. 

In case you missed it, Academy published this month’s Around the World this week focusing on Iran, Cuba, Russia/Ukraine, and Economic Tensions with China.

ProSec 2026 and Vertically Integrated Nations

We started 2026 with a comprehensive view of ProSec 2026 (yes, the font is obnoxiously large, but if you haven’t read that report, we urge you to read it now). The concept had evolved from National Production for National Security and Resilience to ProSec. There are many names attached to what is going on (HALO, Mercantilism, etc.) but we think ProSec captures the concept of “needing to produce more of some things for true national security” more fulsomely. Academy does have the advantage of being able to tap into the Geopolitical Intelligence Group for behind the scenes insight into national security discussions, both here and abroad.

Before we update our thoughts on ProSec, I want to go back to something we published back in October of 2025 – Is ProSec the New ESG? Even suggesting that something could replace ESG, let alone something along the lines of ProSec replacing ESG, less than a year ago, seemed half (or fully) insane. Now, people mostly shrug, or provide us examples (at the very least) of how they’ve seen thinking in their organization adapt ESG to incorporate the key elements of ProSec.

We won’t spend much time on these two thoughts today, but they should be highlighted:

• ProSec is Going Global. We won’t spend time on this today because it seems self-evident (and also I haven’t been able to work in the lyrics of Going Underground to Going Global, but I’m confident that eventually I will).
• ProSec will continue regardless of election outcomes. We won’t dwell on this, but the 250th birthday of a nation doesn’t seem like the appropriate time to sound political, and it is pretty difficult to not sound political when addressing this subject (though I think we have done a decent job on that front in reports, interviews, and presentations).

A Nation as a Human Being

We have discussed Vertically Integrated Nations, but I think this concept of trying to think of a nation as a living breathing organism (which it pretty much is) helps frame the prioritization of ProSec Industries.

The decision to include this chart from the start of the year report makes me cringe for a couple of reasons:

• The chart is pretty pathetic looking, even by my relatively basic charting skills. I spent some time using AI to try to make some cooler looking charts, but I was struggling, and it is a long weekend, and I might as well just accept my inability to make nice charts.
• I was horribly worried the chart would be missing a lot! Not like 6 months is a long time to withstand the pressures of time, but the chart (as ugly as it is) has held up reasonably well, at least in terms of the information it was trying to convey.
  • One regret (and poor decision) that we rectified months ago is that we gave SPACE short shrift. We did not highlight space appropriately. We did “lump it into” Defense, but if we wanted to redo the industry table, SPACE would have its own vertical.

The “chart” attempts to convey the following information:

• The sectors that we view as playing a crucial role in ProSec. For many people, their first thoughts on Production for Security is Military and Defense spending and production. That is only a small part of ProSec (at least in the U.S. which has invested heavily in this space for decades; whereas it might be a bigger part of ProSec for countries that have neglected spending to protect themselves on the military front).
• The width of the columns was meant to give an indication of the importance (the wider the column, the more there is to be done in that sector). I’d probably give SPACE its own column now.
• The colors were meant to be a “guesstimate” of how easy or difficult it would be. I’d probably reduce the amount of green in AI and Data Centers, as well as Electron Production, because I did think there would be a lot more progress on deregulation than there has been. NIMBY is strong in much of this country. I thought the defense spending would be easier (green), and may have underestimated entrenched politics and how long it can take the military to change direction. Drones seem like such an obvious area to focus on, and Undersecretary of War (for Personnel and Readiness) Tata had discussed the importance even before he submitted his information for the confirmation process. It seems slower to develop. I do think that Europe needs an Airbus type of consortium framework for drones to get some sort of reasonable defense capability built in a reasonably short time.

Let’s look at how we’d prioritize them now.

The ProSec Equivalents of Air

Humans cannot go more than a few minutes without air. We cannot exist without air. It is just that plain and simple.

What is the equivalent of air to a nation?

• Electricity. Not too long ago Spain suffered a major disruption in its ability to get electricity to its people. Industry (and the economy) ground to a halt. People died. Lack of electricity is hampering rescue efforts in Venezuela. The ability to generate electricity and get it to where it is needed should be one of the most important priorities for a country! We were trying to “solve” for many things with “sustainable energy” and I fully expect over time, we will get there on sustainable energy, but first and foremost we must prioritize our ability to generate plentiful amounts of electricity and ensure that it can get to where it is needed. This is a hill I’m prepared to die on. We need all forms of electricity and a plan to build out a backbone with supplemental capacity, that can, over time, include a different mix than today, but we (and every nation) needs to focus on this (possibly with a single-minded determination that I don’t think we’ve seen, even in the U.S.).
• Semiconductors. Every time I think that maybe chips aren’t the equivalent of “air” to a nation, at least a developed nation, I find it difficult to move it lower in prioritization. I had picked Intel in my start of the year favorites, but I regret not being even more vocally bullish on companies with strong U.S. roots in the industry.
• Fresh Water. Maybe living in the United States and Canada has made me “complacent” on water. I didn’t really include it as a critical industry or part of our U.S. ProSec theme, largely because it is so abundant. We have been arguing that areas with access to fresh water are increasingly attractive to industry, but that was more a function of ProSec than part of ProSec. We will be thinking of how to correct this mistake, especially for nations where access to fresh water is far from a given and needs to be part of their version of ProSec.

We will discuss the allocations between:

• Domestic production.
• Working with close allies and neighbors.
• Using the “open” market and global trade.

Those allocations will differ by country (maybe even by region). They will differ based on their trust of their neighbors and allies, as well as what the neighbors and allies can produce.

In conversations, the 80/20 rule has been discussed. That makes sense to a large degree. Achieve 80% of what you can, for 20% of the cost. Having said that, I would be willing to pay more to do more domestically with respect to sectors that are the equivalent of air to a nation.

The ProSec Equivalents of Hypothermia

General Spider Marks is a wealth of knowledge. He pointed out that humans in cold water die within 3 hours. He is correct, and it would fill a gap in my narrative, but it just doesn’t resonate with how I think about humans – sorry Spider.

The ProSec Equivalents of Water

Humans cannot last more than about 3 days without water.

What are the ProSec sectors that are the equivalent of water? Yeah, I get that I put fresh water in the air category, but work with me.

• Some processed and refined rare earths and critical minerals. First, for almost all rare earths, critical minerals, and commodities, I would prioritize the smelting, processing, and refining over the extraction. Sourcing the underlying elements is important, but the current/real bottleneck is the processing, refining, and smelting! The U.S. Department of the Interior is one source that can help prioritize which subsectors will be treated as the highest priorities. It is clear that the U.S. has taken the time to prioritize certain things and is executing a plan around those priorities.
• Defense. Other countries probably need to do this. For the U.S. I would prioritize drones (surface, air, underwater, etc.) as well as SPACE. Where are we at risk of being deficient? It seems incredibly difficult to argue that after years of Russia/Ukraine and a couple months of Iran/U.S. that we don’t need to close the gap in asymmetric warfare. We still need the exquisite platforms, but we cannot be expending difficult to make, time consuming to make, and expensive to make weapons systems to defend against cheap drones. In space, the U.S. is the world leader, but we may not have spent enough time and energy on “protecting” space, from potential bad actors. For the U.S., for the vast majority of areas, I’d put defense into the next category, but right now, it is difficult to argue that drones and space aren’t the equivalent of water when we look to the nation’s ability to be secure and prosperous.
• Some portion of biotech and pharma. Similar to the rare earths sector, not everything within the biotech and pharma sectors should be given the same priority that humans give to having access to fresh water, but some should be. This industry is incredibly complex, and I’m not yet sure of how I would even think about prioritizing this. I suspect that the current administration has some of the same issues. Tiering rare earths and critical minerals seems relatively simple compared to tiering things in this sector (not that it is less important to do so, it is just a lot more difficult). Should we be more worried about the highest end of tech? Or should we be more worried that the precursors and base drugs come primarily from China and India? Or both?
• A smattering of some heavy industry, commodities, and maybe even ship building. On the ship building side, drones and subs would be a priority. Surface and underwater drones will play a key role in warfare going forward. Submarines, according to most of Academy’s GIG members, is one area where we are still massively ahead of any other nation. Let’s maximize that advantage.

The ProSec Equivalents of Food

Apparently, humans can go 3 weeks without food. 3 weeks without food seems ridiculous, but I’m told it is true. So, if you are part of ProSec but not given the priority of air or water, you are part of the “food” category.

I did not include food as a sector, which might be fair in the U.S. with the amazing agricultural bounty we have, but it would be a sector for many other countries.

Just because the “food equivalent” is the “third” category of ProSec doesn’t mean these sectors shouldn’t be given a much higher priority than they have been. The rest of biotech, pharma, rare earths, commodities, ship building, heavy industry, and defense all need attention and prioritization.

We all spend time making sure that we can put food on the table for our families. Prayers include “our daily bread.” We celebrate as a nation – Thanksgiving – of which an element of the thanks is directed toward food.

Investment, prioritization, etc. will be done for these sectors (and subsectors too), but there is probably more time before it is urgent to be overweight these areas in your portfolio (for asset managers) or in your supply chain (for corporations).

The Founding Fathers Would Likely Be In Favor of ProSec

While I don’t want to appropriate the 4th of July, it does seem like ProSec is about as American as things can get in the economy. I do argue that ProSec is doing a couple of major things:

• Revitalizing areas and geographic regions that may not have been engines of growth for the past few decades. Areas that are ideal for manufacturing, that struggled while the U.S. was busy de-industrializing? Could we see the return of the “Company Town”? Think about the access to logistics for some of the “company towns.” Highways were built around their production. Many are situated on useful waterways. Certainly, access to fresh water helped situate many of these “company towns.” There are the bones of real prosperity there – historic, often magnificent buildings. Affordability may also be addressed by this revitalization. There may well be new “company towns” formed. I think the potential benefits for affordability and to geographically spreading wealth cannot be overestimated. Think about pride in communities, which already abounds in the U.S., growing! I’m excited about this front and think commercial real estate needs to be thinking about what areas will benefit from ProSec.
• A Resurgence of the Middle Class. I’ve always thought that the “middle class” was more of a vibe than an “income level.” Going home for the weekend and knowing will you have a job Monday morning, and that job is important to the fabric (and survival/sustainability) of a nation is very different than wondering if the owners found someone, somewhere in the world, who will deliver something 20% cheaper than you can. Pride in jobs and knowing that whatever you are doing (maybe even writing weekend financial missives) is part of something bigger.

Since I’m sounding a bit like I’ve got the rose-colored glasses on, I will say one thing that can be construed as negative, because it probably is.

When I think about humans’ ability to live without air, water, or food, versus our ability to adapt to a 1 degree temperature change over the course of a decade, you can guess what I’d prioritize. I am all for having bigger plans for a “better” future, but that “better” future should make sure we are taken care of with respect to things we cannot live long without.

I hope everyone is enjoying their long weekend and I hope that not only does this report resonate with you on the business front, but that I can also convey why I’m so excited about this concept on a much bigger level than what we do in our day jobs!

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 12:50

Food Retailers Troubled By This Chart

Consumer staples and food retail equity analyst Scott Marks at Jefferies told clients Saturday that one of the most concerning charts for food retailers is the sharp decline in average benefits per SNAP participant under the Trump administration, as the USDA intensifies efforts to root out fraud, waste, and abuse.

SNAP's elevated payment error rates are setting up a new fiscal fight between the Trump administration and states.

Marks said food retailers are caught in the crosshairs:

SNAP error rates set up state cost-sharing showdown. USDA last week released FY2025 SNAP payment error rates, showing a national rate of 10.62% (a modest improvement vs. FY2024) that still translates to roughly $10B in improper payments, with all but 10 states landing above the 6% congressional threshold.

Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, FY2025 marks the first year of data that can be used to determine state cost-sharing obligations beginning October 2027, when states above the threshold will be on the hook for 5%, 10%, or 15% of their benefit costs depending on tier.

Combined with already-falling SNAP participants (down ~11.6% y/y to ~37.3mm recipients in March on tighter work requirements), the looming cost shift raises the risk of further benefit tightening or eligibility friction at the state level, which would be an incremental headwind for food retailers and center-store packaged food categories most exposed to SNAP spend.

Here's the chart:

Value-focused food retailers such as Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, 7-Eleven, WinCo Foods, Save A Lot and Food 4 Less are among the most exposed to SNAP spending.

Major grocery and retail names with meaningful SNAP exposure include Walmart, Kroger, Albertsons, Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Costco Wholesale, BJ's Wholesale Club and Ahold Delhaize, the parent of Food Lion, Giant, Stop & Shop, Hannaford and other U.S. grocery brands.

The Trump administration continues to purge SNAP of fraud, waste, abuse and, of course, illegal aliens. Since President Trump signed the OBBBA into law one year ago, enrollment in the food program has fallen to just 37 million people, down 5 million from a year earlier.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 12:15

Putin Invites Trump To Visit Russia In 'Constructive' July 4th Phone Call

A nearly 90-minute phone call between Presidents Trump and Putin on July 4th could signal shifting White House priorities, as it tries to find permanent offramp and settlement in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, but also as the Ukraine war seems to be fast heating up again.

Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said in comments made public Sunday that Trump offered Putin to help find a solution to the war in Ukraine.

Shutterstock, Sputnik via EPA

"The American president once again confirmed his readiness to work towards a rapid end to the fighting and find solutions to overcome the crisis," Ushakov said of Trump's call. He called conversation "business-like and quite constructive."

The spokesman further stated that Russia sought "a political-diplomatic resolution of the conflict, with due account of Russia's fundamental approach."

But Ushakov also lashed out at the Zelensky government, accusing it and its European allies of "counting on extending and even escalating the conflict, and on terrorism against civilians."

This referred to the fact that Ukraine's repeat drone strikes deep inside Russian territory have severely damaged energy infrastructure, as well as hit residential buildings and areas, resulting in casualties.

Ushakov further described that in the call Putin "depicted the real situation on the battlefield where the Russian armed forces are confidently advancing, liberating one locality after another."

Putin had also apparently renewed his initial Alaska Summit invitation for Trump to visit Russia, where further bilateral dialogue can take place, Axios noted.

Trump on Saturday had also held a call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, who later said on Telegram the talk was "very good".  Zelensky stated that "There is a real prospect to end this war and American resolve will have a crucial meaning."

Zelensky and Trump are expected to continue the discussion at the upcoming NATO Summit in Ankara, set for July 7-8.

Zelensky had further taken the opportunity to highlight some of the latest weapons support from Washington: "We are grateful to the United States for all the assistance we have received – from Javelins and Patriots to political support – and we deeply value that America stands by us in defending our independence. I am grateful to every American heart that cares about the future of Ukraine, Europe, and everyone around the world for whom freedom matters," he said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin called President Trump and congratulated him for the U.S. 250 independence day. The Kremlin says the call lasted an hour and a half. Putin invited Trump to visit Russia https://t.co/ZOfR0tE4fv

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) July 4, 2026

Currently each warring side disputes the degree to which Russian forces are advancing. Supporters on either side have even been issuing contradictory battlefield maps, and the fog of war is thick.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 11:05

UK Government's Shocking Bid To Rig YouTube Algorithm To Force-Feed BBC Propaganda

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

In a brazen move that reeks of authoritarian control, the UK government is pushing plans to seize influence over YouTube's recommendation system. Their goal is to prioritise content from the BBC, and other state backed propaganda machines, while burying independent journalists and creators who dare challenge the official narrative.

This isn't subtle nudging - it's direct engineered suppression, which they're dressing up as "protecting democracy" from so-called disinformation. As public trust in legacy media plummets, the establishment's response is to rig the game rather than earn back credibility.

YouTube itself has warned creators about the proposals. The platform alerted users that new rules could force it to give privileged positioning to approved outlets, limiting growth for everyone else and reshaping what millions see daily. Independent voices who built audiences by speaking truth to power now face algorithmic exile.

Look at this appalling state censorship.

Labour now want to seize control of YouTube's algorithm.

They want YouTube to artificially boost the BBC and Channel 4's content, and suffocate independent journalists and producers.

The BBC has been biased to pro-mass migration,... pic.twitter.com/QbwrRNjkSo

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) July 5, 2026

GB News' Alex Armstrong labelled the move "an act of pure tyranny, designed to control you, your family and your friends on an industrial scale."

'An act of pure tyranny, designed to control you, your family and your friends on an industrial scale. They want you to be sheep.'@AlexArmstrong shares his outrage at government plans to push 'propaganda' and state controlled media to the top of your social media feed. pic.twitter.com/kZ2cQ6ykmS

— GB News (@GBNEWS) July 4, 2026

The Free Speech Union described the move as "beyond dystopian."

This is beyond dystopian. https://t.co/fnaA4FOm5A

— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) July 5, 2026

People fled to platforms like YouTube and X precisely because of the BBC's documented biases on mass migration, Net Zero, and more - biases even internal BBC reports have acknowledged. Now, the government wants to drag that failing model into your feed by law.

Technology and free speech lawyer Preston Byrne slammed it as the British government seeking to "influence and control the marketplace of ideas."

'It's the British government seeking to influence and control the marketplace of ideas.'

Technology and free speech lawyer Preston Byrne reacts to government plans to push 'propaganda' and state controlled media to the top of your social media feed. pic.twitter.com/CSWuyVWaqw

— GB News (@GBNEWS) July 4, 2026

Lord Toby Young highlighted the absurdity in The Spectator: calling the targeted media "trustworthy" is a misnomer when people have already abandoned it. Forcing platforms to promote it won't restore trust - it will confirm the desperation.

In my latest @Spectator column, I ridicule the Government's Media Green Paper and its proposal that social media platforms should be forced to boost 'trusted' media sources, like the BBC.

"Isn't it a bit of a misnomer to describe the media content the government wants people to...

— Toby Young (@toadmeister) July 4, 2026

The Free Speech Union also linked the development to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy's exit from X, where she cited threats to democracy all while her department advances state-favoured content rules.

Lisa Nandy has quit X. Yes, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has decided that, rather than challenge so-called misinformation and disinformation, she would rather vacate the stage.

She has dubbed the platform a threat to democracy and free speech.

Since when... pic.twitter.com/n5MrboDwup

— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) July 4, 2026

It's the same playbook we've seen over and over: label dissent as dangerous, then legislate your preferred sources into prominence.

The Mercian News pointed out the BBC's own admission that only around 30% of the public trusts national news organisations, with over 50% trusting social media more. Forcing exposure won't fix that - it exposes the contempt for audience choice.

The BBC is so trusted that the government has to use the law to force you to pay for it and now has to use the law to force you to watch it. https://t.co/BAmXtFGZce

— The Mercian (@TheMercianNews) July 5, 2026

Even some on the left, like the Labour Digital Rights Network, have criticised the hypocrisy of engineering a sanitised internet while claiming to fight Big Tech.

? The government's new media consultation is a blatant attempt to seize control of social media algorithms and enforce a "state-approved" news feed.

Under the guise of promoting "trustworthy news", @DCMS is exploring legislative options to force platforms like YouTube to give... pic.twitter.com/J8HOlOgyon

— Labour Digital Rights Network (@LabDRN) July 5, 2026

? The government's new media consultation is a blatant attempt to seize control of social media algorithms and enforce a "state-approved" news feed.

Under the guise of promoting "trustworthy news", @DCMS is exploring legislative options to force platforms like YouTube to give... pic.twitter.com/J8HOlOgyon

— Labour Digital Rights Network (@LabDRN) July 5, 2026

The post continues...

The hypocrisy is staggering. Just days after @lisanandy proudly announced she was abandoning @X because it "favours abuse and misinformation", her department is now trying to artificially engineer a sanitised internet elsewhere. We cannot afford to let the state become the sole arbiter of truth online. Yes, we are highly critical of Big Tech's toxic algorithms that monopolise our attention and harvest our data to generate profit. But the solution to surveillance capitalism is robust regulation, algorithmic transparency, and data protection - not a state-dictated media feed.

Resistance is already brewing. YouTube's warnings have sparked calls for pushback. Creators and users are urged to respond to the government's consultation, which closes August 31. Ben Graham suggested a practical defence: block the BBC, ITV, and Channel 4 channels to starve the forced promotion of engagement.

If you think the algorithm is being reshaped, the simplest response is to take control of your own feed.

Block the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 if you don't want them in your recommendations.

They can't push content you don't engage with. https://t.co/zpOYPWJGAL

— Ben Graham (@BenGrahamUK) July 4, 2026

Of course, the government could, via it's regulator Ofcom, simply mandate that these sources cannot be blocked and must be injected into people's feeds. They could also employ a more subtle manipulation of the algorithm to ensure it happens, regardless of any blocking.

Preston Byrne argued Google should draw a hard line - threatening to close its UK data centre and operations rather than comply with foreign censorship demands. American tech shouldn't bend to UK overreach.

Google has exactly one data center in the UK.

All it has to do is threaten to close it and pull out its personnel. That is the answer to foreign censorship, it is the only answer, and the longer Big Tech ignores the option the more cancerous foreign regulation will become. https://t.co/YANnrNtkoc

— Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne) July 4, 2026

The government frames this as voluntary cooperation with legislation as backup, especially during unrest. Critics see it as the thin end of the wedge toward a Ministry of Truth, where "approved" sources drown out scrutiny of open borders, policy failures, and elite consensus.

This isn't about quality journalism - it's about control. When legacy outlets lose the audience on merit, the state steps in to mandate relevance. Independent creators built YouTube's vibrancy; now they're collateral in a war on wrongthink.

Britons deserve better than algorithmically enforced propaganda. The pushback must be fierce: block, respond to consultations, support platforms that resist, and back politicians who reject this surveillance-state creep. Freedom of information is too vital to surrender to failing institutions desperate to cling to power.

This UK initiative does not stand alone. Similar moves are advancing in lockstep across the continent as governments seek greater leverage over information flows.

Germany has pursued measures to force social media platforms to boost state-aligned content and sideline dissenting material under the banner of "public value."

The EU's Democracy Shield framework has drawn sharp criticism as a vehicle for mass censorship that effectively ends open discourse under the guise of protecting democracy.

In France, President Macron has pushed aggressive censorship proposals widely described as a Ministry of Truth power grab.

The pattern is unmistakable: governments leveraging regulatory power to privilege official or state-funded sources while algorithmically demoting alternatives.

The BBC prioritization scheme fits into a rapid succession of UK measures that collectively tighten state influence over digital space and public narrative.

The under-16s social media ban has been exposed as a monumental pretext for total digital surveillance infrastructure.

Telegram founder Pavel Durov warned that the policy represents the digital iceberg that could sink the free internet.

Separate reporting revealed the UK government maintains a dedicated "thought police" unit aimed at controlling the mass migration narrative.

Further proposals would empower authorities to block "false information" during crisis events, creating an official Ministry of Truth mechanism.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has separately called for a government social media disinformation unit, adding another layer of official narrative enforcement.

Advocates insist elevating BBC content will help users encounter more "reliable" information. The claim collapses under even cursory examination of the broadcaster's recent track record.

The BBC has repeatedly been accused of sinking to new lows on accuracy and impartiality.

Its former news director stated that trans bias and progressive orthodoxy drove her departure.

Additional controversies include a high-profile fake news editing scandal that prompted a $10 billion lawsuit from President Trump.

Further examples involve portrayals of Islamic child slavery in Afghanistan as somehow necessary, biased handling of Islamist issues in Britain, and presenter conduct that drew sharp rebukes from figures like John Cleese.

 

Mandating algorithmic favoritism for any single outlet, especially one with the BBC's baggage, will not restore trust. Alternative platforms continue to grow, and Community Notes-style transparency tools already expose manipulation faster than official gatekeepers can suppress it.

Governments that distrust citizens to navigate information without state curation reveal more about their own insecurities than about any genuine disinformation crisis.

The free exchange of ideas, even uncomfortable ones, remains the only proven defense against real propaganda.

These latest European and British maneuvers represent the opposite impulse: centralized narrative control dressed up as public protection.

Citizens on both sides of the Atlantic have seen this playbook before and are increasingly unwilling to play along.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 10:30

Red Sea Blockage Fears: Cargo Ship Attacked Off Southwest Yemen

A Red Sea disruption would be terrible timing for global shipping and energy markets, coming just as vessel traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has started to normalize in recent weeks.

An overnight report that a cargo ship was attacked by "armed assailants" in the southern Red Sea off Yemen is a reminder that the region's maritime-risk premium has not totally disappeared; it has simply shifted chokepoints.

"UKMTO has received a report of an incident 30NM southwest of Al Hudaydah, Yemen. A cargo vessel has triggered a distress alert stating that they are under attack by unknown armed assailants," the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations wrote in an alert published on X early Sunday morning.

If the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the southern gateway of the Red Sea that sits between Yemen and the Arabian Peninsula, begins flashing red again, the Suez-Red Sea maritime trade route could quickly become a major headache for global shipping companies, forcing more vessels around the Cape of Good Hope and reigniting pressure on freight rates, insurance costs, and energy-linked supply chains - thus fueling inflation.

Nomura's Chief Economist for India and Asia ex-Japan, Sonal Varma, recently outlined for clients the critical importance of the Red Sea:

Since the Houthi attacks in 2023, global trade via the Red Sea has fallen, but the Bal el-Mandeb Strait and Suez Canal still account for 9% of global maritime traffic, ~20% of global container traffic and ~8.7% of world oil supply (including the SUMED pipeline). The Cape of Good Hope is an alternative route that will be used, but it involves longer transit times, higher fuel costs and increased freight rates.

Why this matters for Asia:

Most of the crude oil and condensate shipped via the Red Sea is destined for Asia (~68% of total), especially India. Around 40% of Asia-Europe trade transited through the Suez Canal in early 2024, including manufactured goods (electronics, vehicles and textiles), intermediate inputs for supply chains (auto and electronic components) and agricultural products (wheat, rice, sugar and tea).

Implications for Asia:

With the Strait of Hormuz blocked, Red Sea disruptions would aggravate the supply crunch. The cost of oil and petroleum product imports would rise for the region overall, with a higher burden for India, owing to its dependence on Russian oil via the Suez Canal. Asia's exports to Europe could also be adversely affected, due to higher freight costs and longer transit times. The dependence of the European auto industry on component imports from Asia would also likely impact the auto sector.

Latest Gulf area news (courtesy of Bloomberg):

Khamenei Funeral Proceedings

• Iran began a mass funeral for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday, July 4, with his body lying in state at Tehran's Imam Khomeini Mosalla mosque complex for public visits over the weekend

• Tens of thousands of mourners streamed to the Grand Mosalla religious complex in Tehran on Saturday to view the caskets of Khamenei and some of his family members

• Iranian authorities predict up to 20 million people will turn out over six days of funeral ceremonies beginning Saturday

• Khamenei's coffin, wrapped in an Iranian flag, was placed on a platform alongside the coffins of family members killed in the same US-Israeli attack on February 28

Khamenei's Death and War Context

• Khamenei, who ruled over Iran for 37 years, was killed along with several family members in a US and Israeli airstrike on the first day of the war in late February

• Iran feared it was too dangerous to hold funeral rites for four months, but is now proceeding shielded by a tentative truce and an America distracted by its 250th July Fourth celebration

Post-War Political Landscape

• Iran's new leadership is described as younger, savvier, ruthless and even more hard-line, contradicting Trump's claim of accomplishing "regime change"

• After surviving months of strikes by the US and Israel, the Iranian regime has emerged emboldened

Hormuz Tensions

• At least eight ships attempting to leave the Persian Gulf along the Omani coast turned back between Friday and Saturday, with some switching to a route closer to Iran

• The number of vessels sailing through the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani coast fell to a trickle on Sunday, after several made sharp reversals on Saturday

• Iran's ambassador to Beijing said China and other friendly nations will be granted 'special considerations' when Tehran determines service fees for ships using the Strait of Hormuz

• Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister warned the UK and France against meddling in the Strait of Hormuz, stating it is not a military playground for extra-regional powers

International Naval Presence

• French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle will return to its home port in Toulon after a nearly two-month deployment near the Strait of Hormuz, while mine countermeasure assets will remain deployed 

Oil Market

• Major OPEC+ members agreed on Sunday to add 188,000 barrels a day to their output target for next month, adding to the prospect of more supply if a US-Iran peace pact can stick

• Flows of oil and natural gas have been returning to normal and prices have tumbled since an interim US-Iran accord was signed last month that pried open the Strait of Hormuz

Latest ZH Coverage:

• Ships Abruptly U-Turn Near Hormuz As Some Shift To Iran-Approved Routes

• Europe Capitulates, Sees Iranian Hormuz Fee Collection As 'Inevitable'

• Iran Runs Into Big Problem: No Buyers For Its Oil, As Full Tankers Pile Up Off China

• 'Gave Iran Week Off Because We're Nice': Trump References Ayatollah Funeral In Rushmore Speech

Professional subscribers can read more on energy markets and chokepoints here at our new Marketdesk.ai portal. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 09:55

Wage Growth As A Leading Inflation Indicator

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Wage growth peaked four years ago. Since 1985, it has led CPI by three to seventeen months in every single cycle. The May 4.2% inflation print is the noise. Watch the wages.

Headline CPI just printed 4.2% year-over-year for May. The highest reading since April 2023. The 10-year Treasury punched above 4.6% on the back of it, then pulled back recently. Energy ran +23.5% over the past twelve months on the Iran war, accounting for roughly 60% of the monthly all-items gain, and the doom crowd keeps pushing this is 1979 all over again with rate hikes ahead, a recession behind, and a cornered Fed. Here is why they are likely wrong.

After three decades of watching inflation cycles turn, I can tell you the variable that actually leads CPI peaks is wage growth. And wage growth peaked fifty months ago.

Wage Growth Leads. CPI Follows.

For decades, economists taught the Phillips Curve as if it were a law of physics. Tight labor markets push wages up. Higher wages push prices up. Inflation is born. That model worked through the 1970s. It hasn’t worked since.

Two things broke it. First, Paul Volcker pushed the funds rate to 19% in 1981 and held it there until the wage-price spiral snapped, and union density collapsed. COLA clauses vanished from labor contracts, globalization began pulling tradeable-goods prices toward the global marginal cost of production, and the entire institutional architecture that had transmitted wage gains into consumer prices through the 1970s came apart. By the mid-1980s, the relationship had inverted.

Second, the Fed earned credibility. Once households and firms believed the central bank would tolerate a deep recession to stop inflation, expectations re-anchored near 2%. Workers stopped pricing future inflation into today’s wage demands. I walked through the duration implications of this regime in my recent rising-rates piece, so I won’t relitigate the bond math here.

Here’s the inversion in plain terms. Before 1985, CPI ran first. Workers chased it with catch-up raises. Wages followed prices. After 1985, the causation flipped. Wage growth comes first because tight labor markets signal demand pressure before that pressure is transmitted to consumer prices. Wages aren’t reacting anymore. They’re forecasting.

That distinction sounds small, but it changes everything. It changes which indicator tells you something, and whether today’s CPI print is information or noise. It also changes how to interpret the current data, which the doom crowd is misreading.

Four Cycles, Four Times Wages Led

The chart below plots wage growth in black against CPI in red, from 1965 through May 2026. The gold-tinted section is pre-Volcker. The white section is post-1985.

Look at the pre-1985 stretch. The red line peaks first. The black line follows. In 1970, CPI peaked in February. Wages didn’t top out until May 1971, fifteen months later. In 1980, CPI peaked in March. Wages peaked in January 1981, ten months later. The 1974 oil shock is the only pre-1985 case in which wages and the CPI peaked together.

Now look at the post-1985 stretch. The pattern flips.

In 1990, wages peaked in June and CPI peaked in October, a four-month lead. Then, in the 2008 cycle, wages peaked in February 2007 while CPI didn’t peak until July 2008, a seventeen-month lead. In the post-Great Recession cycle, wages peaked in May 2010, and the CPI peaked sixteen months later in September 2011. And in 2022, wages peaked in March, and CPI peaked in June, a tight three-month lead driven by goods inflation transmitting quickly through broken supply chains rather than the slower wage-to-services pathway that had run the previous three cycles. Same direction every time.

Over four different cycles, wages repeatedly led. The lead ranged from three to seventeen months, and the direction never broke.

When Real Wages Compress, Inflation Dies

The lead-lag pattern is the headline finding. The deeper mechanism runs through real wages.

Real wage growth is nominal wage growth minus CPI inflation. When workers’ wages outpace prices, they spend more. They sustain demand, and inflation has room to keep running. When prices outpace wages, workers cut back. Demand falls. Inflation rolls over within about a year.

I ran the correlation across every monthly observation from January 1965 through May 2024. The correlation between today’s real wage growth and the change in CPI over the following twenty-four months is +0.72 across 713 monthly observations. That’s an extraordinarily strong relationship in macro data, where values above 0.5 are rare.

When real wages compress to negative levels, the next two years see CPI deceleration. When real wages run hot, CPI accelerates over the following two years. The relationship holds in both regimes. The gold pre-1985 dots show it. The navy post-1985 dots show it.

Now look at where we are.

Real wage growth ran +1% to +1.5% through most of 2024. It’s now -0.6%. Workers are no longer outrunning inflation; they’re falling behind, and although this isn’t the four-percent compression of 1980 or the deep negative readings that preceded the 2008 demand collapse, the direction matters because every single time real wages have crossed below zero in the post-1985 sample, CPI has rolled over on a twelve-to-twenty-four-month lag. The pattern is clean.

2008, Re-Run

The closest parallel to the current setup isn’t 1979. It’s 2008.

In early 2007, wage growth peaked at around 4.1%. The labor market was strong. Unemployment was below 5%. Real wages were positive but compressing. Then oil prices rose from $60 to $147 in 18 months. Headline CPI followed the oil chart straight up. By July 2008, CPI was running at 5.5%, and every television commentator was warning of runaway inflation.

What happened next? Demand cratered. The real-wage compression had been working in the background for over a year. By the time CPI peaked, the consumer was already broken. Within twelve months, CPI was negative. The worry wasn’t inflation anymore. It was deflation.

I’m not predicting a 2008-style collapse. Bank balance sheets are stronger now, household leverage is lower, the labor market hasn’t started shedding jobs the way it did in late 2007, and the Fed has more room to act than it did when the funds rate was already at 5.25% on the eve of the financial crisis. But the inflation setup is structurally identical. We have a clean wage peak that led the cycle by years. We have an oil-driven CPI bump landing on top of decelerating wage growth. And we have a bond market still digesting, which signal matters.

Notice in the chart above how cleanly wages turned over in March 2022. CPI followed three months later. Since then, both have fallen. The May bounce on the red line is the Iranian energy shock. Wages didn’t bounce. That divergence is the tell.

What The Doom Crowd Needs To Believe

The bear case isn’t crazy. It needs two things to be true that aren’t true yet.

First, wage growth has to re-accelerate. The story goes that tariffs and immigration restrictions tighten the labor market, wages rise again, and a second wave of inflation ratifies the headline bounce. The problem is the data. Wage growth in May was 3.56%, the lowest reading of the entire current cycle. The deceleration has been monotonic from the 7.0% peak in March 2022 through every month of the past four years, and labor market indicators from the JOLTS quits rate to the Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker continue to point in the same direction. No turn yet.

Second, long-run inflation expectations have to de-anchor. That’s the 1970s playbook. It’s also where the Fed’s credibility lives. Currently, there is little risk of that as the 10-year breakeven inflation rate sits near 2.4%. The Cleveland Fed’s 5-year forward rate expectations are near 2.5%.

What This Means For Portfolios

Three implications. First, the duration sell-off looks overdone. When the 10-year is above 4.5%, it is pricing structural inflation. However, wage growth is telling you the structural force runs in the opposite direction, the breakeven curve is barely budging from its 2.4% base, and the bond market’s ten-basis-point rally on the Iran peace headline told you exactly what the marginal buyer thinks is driving the recent move. I made the broader case for owning duration into a wage-led disinflation in my recent rising-rates piece, and nothing in the May print changes the view.

Second, the trade is asymmetric. If wages keep decelerating, 10-year yields will fall meaningfully over the next 12 months. If wages re-accelerate, the monthly prints will tell you in time to adjust. The cost of being wrong is small. The cost of missing the move is high.

Third, the equity tilt favors quality compounders and long-duration growth over commodity producers. Disinflation expands multiples but compresses cyclical earnings. The 2008-2009 pattern was multiples up, EPS down. A milder version of that setup tilts the same way.

Inflation isn’t a single print. It’s a regime. Regimes are determined by what leads, not what follows.

The doom crowd is staring at a coincident indicator being pushed around by an oil shock and calling it a trend, when the actual leading indicator, the one that’s worked in every single post-Volcker cycle, the one with a +0.72 correlation against the path of CPI over the next two years, is wage growth, and wage growth peaked fifty months ago, sits at 3.6%, and is dragging real wages into compression. That setup forecasts disinflation. NOT acceleration.

I’m not saying inflation is dead. I’m saying the burden of proof has shifted. Until wages turn up and expectations de-anchor, watch the wages

Frequently Asked Questions Why does wage growth lead CPI after 1985 but lag it before?

In the pre-Volcker era, inflation expectations were unanchored. Workers and firms priced wages today based on expected future inflation, so wages tracked CPI. After Volcker broke the wage-price spiral and the Fed established credibility, expectations stabilized. Wages now reflect labor-market tightness rather than expected inflation, meaning wage growth signals demand pressure before it shows up in consumer prices.

If wage growth peaked in March 2022, why did CPI peak only three months later?

The 2022 cycle was unusual because the CPI peak was driven heavily by goods inflation from supply-chain disruptions and the oil price spike driven by the war, which quickly translated into higher prices. In more typical cycles, such as 2008 or 2011, the lead time stretched to 16-17 months. The current setup more closely resembles 2008, where an oil shock layered on top of an already-decelerating underlying trend.

How do you measure real wage growth, and why does it matter?

Real wage growth is nominal wage growth (AHETPI YoY) minus CPI YoY. It measures whether workers are getting richer or poorer in real terms. When real wages are positive, consumers sustain demand, and inflation has room to keep running. When real wages turn negative, consumers cut back, demand falls, and inflation tends to roll over within twelve to twenty-four months. The May 2026 reading is -0.6%, the lowest of this cycle.

What would change your view on this thesis?

Two things. First, a sustained re-acceleration in wage growth, meaning the labor market is tightening again rather than slowly normalizing. Second, a meaningful rise in long-run inflation expectations, particularly the 10-year breakeven rate above 3% or the Michigan 5-10-year survey above 4%. Either would shift the probability distribution. Until then, wage growth continues to point toward disinflation.

Why is the 10-year Treasury elevated if wages are pointing to disinflation?

The bond market is reacting to the May CPI print and the renewed oil shock, both of which are coincident or backward-looking signals. The 10-year breakeven sits near 2.4%, meaning most of the yield rise reflects higher real rates and term premium rather than higher inflation expectations. That’s a different story from 1979. Yields fell roughly ten basis points the day the Iran peace headlines hit, which tells you the market knows the inflation bump is energy-driven.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 09:20

Avert your eyes! My Sunday morning look at incompetency, corruption and policy failures:

• Surveillance Tech Company Is Pitching An Unholy ALPR/Stingray Hybrid To Law Enforcement: Here’s something no one but cops and the tech firms that love cops wanted: an Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) that can scoop up pretty much any information being broadcasted by cars and the devices carried by the people inside them. As if ALPRs weren’t already controversial enough, here comes a tech company offering that makes most ALPRs (including those sold by Flock!) look absolutely innocuous. License-plate readers meet fake cell towers in one tidy package. The surveillance-creep beat keeps finding new lows. (TechDirt)

• How Some Private-Equity Managers Collect Big Fees on Paper Gains: Fee structures are among the pitfalls of investing in semiliquid funds (Wall Street Journal) see also Private Credit Is Making Bets on Consumer Debt at a Precarious Time: Billions are flowing from firms like Blue Owl and KKR into Buy Now, Pay Later companies. It’s an untested model and skeptics are worried about what happens in a downturn. The private-credit boom wades into buy-now-pay-later just as households strain. A flashing-yellow-light story worth your attention. (Bloomberg)

• How a Master of Deception Conned Investors Out of $50 Million—in His Own Words: Paul Regan recorded himself ripping off clients to teach others how to do it, too. A fraudster narrates his own scheme. First-person grift is uncomfortably compelling — and instructive. Those tapes reveal the inner workings of a fraud. (Wall Street Journal)

• What Big Food Did to Ice Cream: The slow degradation of the supermarket pint, explained with real food science. Enshittification comes for dessert. The “encrapification” of the American pint — a chemist’s plain-language dissection. (Medium)

• Forget Baseball: Gambling Is America’s Real National Pastime. “It is one of the defects of our national character… that no sooner do we get hold of a good thing of this sort, than we proceed to make it hurtful by excess.” A book-bite argument that betting, not baseball, is the true American sport now. Fits the week’s wildfire-and-insider-betting theme uncomfortably well. (Next Big Idea Club)

• A Terrible Thing Happened to My Family: Buttigieg writes personally about a family ordeal: Many times over the years, I have been denounced, yelled at, protested, threatened, and heckled. I’ve been through political attacks in office, death threats in public life, and rocket attacks in war. But this is the ugliest thing that has happened to me since my career in service began. Even in today’s climate, there should be one fundamental principle everyone respects: whatever you think about someone in politics, you leave their kids alone.  (Pete Buttigieg)

• How BP Execs Influenced a Climate Study That Shaped a Generation of Global Policy: ProPublica traces how an oil major’s hand quietly steered the influential ‘wedges’ framework. A story about who gets to write the science. (ProPublica)

• Trump Cut a Billion-Dollar Mining Deal. His Sons Stand to Profit.: A Kazakhstan minerals deal with a familiar conflict-of-interest aroma. The family-business presidency, chapter umpteen. An agreement between the U.S. and Kazakhstan has given a group of American investors with ties to the president and the commerce secretary access to one of the world’s largest untapped reserves of tungsten. (New York Times) see also A Trumpworld Events Company Is Raking In Millions in Federal Contracts: The Trump administration has awarded Event Strategies several contracts—including one that could be worth up to $100 million—with little competition, according to federal filings. The team behind the January 6 rally now cashes government checks. Wired follows the money from the Ellipse to the federal ledger. (Wired)

• Alarming New Trend Dominating Youth Sports: Repeating 8th Grade. Families Pay Thousands for It.: Parents paying to hold kids back for an athletic edge. A depressing arms race dressed up as opportunity. A surge of for-profit ‘reclass’ academies are raising equity and oversight concerns across N.J. scholastic sports. (NJ.com)

• EU Politicians Investigated Pegasus Spyware. Then It Ended Up on One of Their Phones: “It is a direct attack on the rule of law,” says one European Parliament member of the new findings from Citizen Lab. The watchdogs become the targets. A chilling reminder that commercial spyware doesn’t respect who’s supposed to be holding it accountable. (Wired)

Video of the day: Are Humans Badly Designed For Modern Life?

Be sure to check out our Master’s in Business next week with Mamoon Hamid, partner at Kleiner Perkins. He is a leading investor in enterprise-software and AI. He was an early investor in Slack, Figma, Rippling, Glean, Netskope, and Box. Hamid co-founded Social Capital with Chamath Palihapitiyal. In 2017, joined Kleiner Perkins

Do Competitive Seats Matter?

Source: Bruce Mehlman’s Age of Disruption

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

 

The post 10 Sunday Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

What Happened To The 56 Signatories Of The Declaration Of Independence

Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,

Today the United States celebrates the 250th - or semiquincentennial - anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

Congress voting on the Declaration of Independence. Library of Congress/Public Domain

While July 4 marks the day Thomas Jefferson's revised draft of the Declaration of Independence was adopted, it would take months for the document to be signed by all 56 men who would eventually affix their names to it.

Several key figures in American history - George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, among others - don't appear among the signatories of the Declaration of Independence at all, having been serving in military roles or other capacities at the time.

None of the 56 signers died as a result of their signature, but before the war was over, five would be captured, 12 would have their homes destroyed, and 17 would lose their entire fortunes. None of the 56 signatories ever renounced the cause of independence of their own free will.

Here's what happened to the men who pledged "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to the cause of American independence, on the basis of "self-evident ... Truths" that not even a global empire - or a king - could deny.

'The Sage Of Monticello': Thomas Jefferson

Easily the most well-known of the Declaration's signatories - as well as its author - Thomas Jefferson enjoyed several benefits later in life from his role in the document's drafting.

During the war, Jefferson nearly faced capture by the British during his tenure as governor of Virginia, forcing him to flee from his Monticello estate. That led to accusations of "cowardice" that eventually prompted Virginia legislators to launch a formal inquiry, in which Jefferson was acquitted.

Later, Jefferson served in a series of key posts, first as the U.S. ambassador to France, then as secretary of state under President George Washington and vice president under President John Adams.

After he was elected president - an event dubbed the "Revolution of 1800" - Jefferson's egalitarian vision expressed in the Declaration of Independence came to be viewed as one of the most critical documents of the American founding.

'The First American': Ben Franklin

While Jefferson often gets the lion's share of the credit for drafting the Declaration, Ben Franklin is credited with one critical edit to the document.

Widely recognized as a multi-disciplinary polymath, Franklin has been dubbed "the First American" by history for his early and long-running calls for American colonial unity.

In the preamble to the Declaration, Jefferson had originally written, "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable."

Franklin - who served on the drafting committee - replaced this with the revision: "We hold these truths to be self-evident."

Franklin later served as ambassador to France and lead negotiator on the deal to end the war with Great Britain, was the "president" - or governor - of Pennsylvania from 1785 to 1788, and served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Shortly before his death in 1790, Franklin made his last political statement with his support of a petition calling on the federal government to abolish slavery.

'The Atlas Of American Independence': John Adams

John Adams, the future second president, was one of the first delegates to the Continental Congress to call for independence. He was also among the most outspoken in its defense, leading him to be dubbed by some as "the Atlas of American Independence."

In February 1778, Adams was nearly captured by British warships while leaving on a diplomatic mission for Paris with his son. Adams took up a musket to fight the British vessels, but it took a mix of skillful navigation and a fortuitous storm to shake the pursuers. Had he been captured, Adams likely would have faced imprisonment in the Tower of London and execution for treason.

In one of the most remarkable coincidences in history, Adams and Jefferson both died on July 4, 1826 - 50 years after the Declaration's adoption day. Adams's final words, "Jefferson still lives," were in fact mistaken: the third president had passed away at Monticello hours earlier.

'The First Founding Father': Richard Henry Lee

Less well-known than either Jefferson or Adams, the Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee was no less instrumental in bringing about independence, authoring the part of the Declaration stating the 13 colonies "are, and of Right ought to be, free and independent States."

On July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted this "Lee Resolution." Adams famously predicted incorrectly that July 2, rather than July 4, would be celebrated as the American Independence Day, and would be commemorated with, "pomp and parade ... from one end of this continent to the other."

During the war, Lee faced military attacks on his property, chronic stress that took a toll on his health, and a severe hit to his finances as the war hit international shipping and the tobacco trade he relied on.

He later served as the first Virginia senator alongside William Grayson, joining the anti-Federalists in opposing a national government. Lee died in June 1794 at age 62.

The Midnight Rider: Caesar Rodney

A lesser-known but critical signatory of the Declaration was Caesar Rodney, who rode 80 miles to Philadelphia while suffering from facial cancer to cast a tie-breaking vote for Delaware's delegation in favor of independence.

Unanimous support from all colonies was required to authorize the Lee Resolution - meaning Rodney's vote was critical to final adoption.

Rodney later served as "president," or governor, of Delaware until 1781, and died in 1784 of facial cancer at age 55.

The First Signer: John Hancock

John Hancock's signature on the Declaration - the first - was so large that his name became an American idiom for one's signature.

The Massachusetts revolutionary leader had been serving as president of the Second Continental Congress since May 24, 1775.

Hancock, aside from being the first signer, is the only person who actually signed the document on July 4, 1776.

Hancock was at the head of a massive commercial empire, deriving his wealth partially from inheritance and partially from smuggling. Had American independence failed, Hancock - as well as his family - would have lost everything.

Despite close calls, he made it through the Revolution without facing capture. However, several of his properties were destroyed or occupied by the British during the conflict, while Hancock expended nearly half of his personal wealth financing the cause of independence.

He later served as the first governor of independent Massachusetts, and died in 1793 at 56.

The Last Signer: Thomas McKean

Like several other delegates to the Second Continental Congress, Thomas McKean of Delaware left to join the Revolution as soon as he cast his ballot in favor of independence.

This meant that he was ultimately unable to sign the documents until months - or, by some estimates, years - later. While historians are confident that McKean is the final signatory, the exact date is disputed, with estimates ranging from early 1777 all the way to 1781.

McKean took part in key battles during the conflict, assisting in the defense of New York City and Delaware. By 1781, McKean was serving as president of the Continental Congress, making him the civilian authority directing the Battle of Yorktown, which ended the war.

After the Revolution, McKean served as chief justice and governor of Pennsylvania. During the War of 1812, he led a civilian defense group against the British, taking up arms one final time before his death in 1817 at the age of 83.

The One Who Renounced His Signature: Richard Stockton

While none of the 56 signers ever willingly renounced their support for the Declaration, historians think that signer Richard Stockton of New Jersey renounced his signature under coercion and following a long period of captivity by the British.

Imprisoned by the British, Stockton signed a parole agreement in which he reneged on his signature and pledged not to take part in the war. Under the agreement, Stockton resigned his seat in the Continental Congress.

Later, Stockton reaffirmed his loyalty to the United States before his death at age 50 in 1781.

The Fighters

Like McKean, several signers went on to take part in the conflict.

These included Rodney, Oliver Wolcott of Connecticut, Thomas Nelson Jr. of Virginia, and William Floyd of New York.

Others who left Philadelphia to join the conflict were taken as prisoners of war during the Revolution.

One of these was George Walton, who was wounded and captured during the Battle of Savannah. Despite spending months in British custody, Walton survived and was eventually freed, going on to serve as a governor, chief justice, and U.S. senator for Georgia.

Three others - Thomas Heyward Jr., Arthur Middleton, and Edward Rutledge - were taken prisoner during the Battle of Charleston. All three survived months of captivity at St. Augustine, Florida, with Heyward becoming the last of the three to die at age 62 in 1809.

Homes Looted, Occupied, Or Destroyed

Many other signers faced consequences related to their properties and estates. Some of the most prominent of these included Lee and Hancock.

In New York, meanwhile, signer Francis Lewis had his property destroyed by the British, who captured his wife during the attack. Held in captivity for months without a change of clothes or adequate food, Elizabeth Annesley Lewis was ultimately freed under a prisoner exchange negotiated by Washington, but died shortly thereafter from the stress of the ordeal.

Also in New York, signers William Floyd, Philip Livingston, and Lewis Morris had their vast estates occupied by the British during the war, with the properties being used as barracks or stables.

Signer John Hart of New Jersey was also forced to flee from his home - and his wife's deathbed - when Hessian troops attacked his farm and mills.

The Longest-Lived Signer: Charles Carroll

In 1832, Charles Carroll of Maryland knew that he was dying.

The only Catholic signer of the Declaration, Carroll had by then been the sole remaining signatory of the document for around six years.

He gained the accolade on July 4, 1826, following the deaths of Adams and Jefferson, who were among the final three living signers. Franklin had passed more than 40 years earlier.

By 1832, Carroll was well-used to the questions he received from young people and reporters, who were set on preserving as much of the early Republic as possible during the twilight years of the 1820s.

Before his death, Carroll played a key role in welcoming the new era of American life, laying the first stone of the B&O railroad, one of the first steps toward the transcontinental railroad that would take decades yet to be completed.

Carroll's passing was commemorated in the papers and on the streets of the blossoming American republic, whose citizens recognized that with Carroll's passing, the first generation of the United States was truly over.

Commenting on his status near the end of his life, Carroll wrote, "Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings. ... I do hereby recommend to the present and future generations the principles of that important document ... and pray that the civil and religious liberties they have secured to my country may be perpetuated."

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 23:20

Majority Believes They Will Achieve The American Dream

250 years after American independence, a majority of people in the United States continue to believe in their personal American Dream.

As Statista's Kathraina Buchholz reports, 69 percent of those interviewed by Gallup in the beginning of the year say that they will achieve it in their lifetime.

This is in contrast, though, to 54 percent saying that not everybody can achieve the American Dream in this day and age.

You will find more infographics at Statista

While in a question about other people, Americans' answers are driven by a more sober view, positivity still prevails in regard to one's own success story.

58 percent of Americans also say that they think the American dream is unfinished, a further indication for the disillusionment many feel with the idea in the current environment.

The number is similar among Republicans and Democrats. Republicans, however, are more likely to say that the American Dream has succeeded and less likely to say that it has failed.

When asked what the American Dream means for them in an open-ended question, a third of respondents mention freedoms and individual rights, while 28 percent say financial stability or homeownership.

Only 18 percent mention upward mobility explicitly.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 22:45