Zero Hedge

Corrections Vs Bears: How The Fed Rewired The Market

Corrections Vs Bears: How The Fed Rewired The Market

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

After three decades of watching market cycles play out from both sides of the trade, I’ve come to a simple conclusion: Wall Street’s love of simple rules is one of the most dangerous aspects of investing. When stocks fall 10%, it’s just a “correction.” However, if they decline 20%, it’s a “bear market.” Simple, clean, repeatable, and printed on every financial media graphic from here to Tokyo. The problem is that the definitions of a correction and bear market have not been updated since Alan Shaw developed them at Smith Barney in the 1960s. Moreover, the market those definitions were designed to describe no longer exists.

Currently, the S&P 500 index is roughly 83% above its long-term trend line, with the Shiller CAPE (cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio) hovering near 40. That valuation level was only exceeded once in the history of American financial markets. The Fed’s balance sheet, still at $6.7 trillion, is more than eight times its pre-2008 level. Under these conditions, the old bear-market definition no longer measures what it was built to measure. A 20% decline from here doesn’t signal either a regime or price trend change. In other words, it would be only a “correction” within an ongoing bullish trend. That understanding is key to today’s discussion.

The Current Bear Market Definition Is Arbitrary

As noted, the “20% rule” traces to Alan Shaw, a technical analyst at Smith Barney in the mid-20th century. His framework was simple. Anything up to 10% was noise. A decline of 10% to 20% was a correction. Anything beyond 20% was a bear market. Shaw’s colleague Louise Yamada, who took over Smith Barney’s technical analysis practice in 2000, later described its staying power with characteristic directness: “It’s just so easy and simple to remember.”

Shaw’s framework made sense in its time. Markets in those decades lived much closer to a gravitational center of fair value. When prices fell by 20%, they often broke the market’s longer-term trend. A decline of that magnitude carried real information. It told you that selling pressure had overwhelmed buying, the market’s price trend had reversed, and the market’s direction of travel had changed from up to down. That’s precisely what the bear market definition was supposed to capture. A change in regime, not just a number.

The question is: after a 17-year-long bull market that stretched prices well beyond long-term trends, is Mr. Shaw’s measure still valid?

To answer that question, let’s clarify the premise.

  • A bull market is when the market price is trending higher over a long-term period.
  • A bear market is when the previous advance breaks, and prices begin to trend lower.

The chart below provides a visual of the distinction. When you look at price “trends,” the difference becomes both apparent and useful.

The distinction is essential.

  • “Corrections” generally occur over short time frames, do not break the prevailing trend in prices, and are quickly resolved by markets reversing to new highs.
  • “Bear Markets” tend to be longer-term affairs in which prices grind sideways or lower over several months as valuations revert.
What a Real Bear Market Actually Looks Like

The two genuine bear markets of this century make the definition’s original intent clear. Between March 2000 and October 2002, the S&P 500 lost nearly 49% of its value. It didn’t recover to its prior peak until 2007. Seven years lost. The bullish trend didn’t pause; it broke, and investors who sat through it got years of negative real returns with no policy rescue from Washington or the Fed.

The 2008 crisis was worse. From October 2007 to March 2009, the S&P fell about 57%. It didn’t return to its prior highs until early 2013. The price structure didn’t just dip below an arbitrary threshold. It collapsed, stayed down for years, and required one of the most aggressive monetary policy responses in the Fed’s history to eventually stabilize. That’s a bear market in the original sense of the word. A sustained, structural reversal of the prior bullish trend.

Now compare that to 2022. The S&P peaked on January 3 of that year, fell 25.4% to its October trough, and technically satisfied every condition of a bear market under the standard definition. By July 2023, every point of that decline had been recovered. By early 2024, the index was making new all-time highs. The 2022 decline was painful, but it did not reverse the underlying trend. Yes, prices fell, but found support well above any reasonable measure of long-term fair value, and resumed their climb. Putting the 2022 episode in the same category as 2000 or 2008 doesn’t just mislead investors; it tells the story exactly backward.

How the Fed Rewired the Market

To understand why the bear market definition needs to be revised, you have to reckon honestly with what the Federal Reserve has done to the market’s structural foundation. Before the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed’s balance sheet sat at roughly $800 billion. Modest. Stable. Largely inconsequential to equity prices on any given day.

Then came the crisis. The Fed launched three rounds of quantitative easing between 2009 and 2014, pushing its balance sheet to roughly $4.5 trillion. It tried to normalize beginning in 2018, then COVID hit. In two years, the balance sheet more than doubled again, from $4.3 trillion to nearly $9 trillion. As of April, 2026, it still sits at $6.7 trillion, even after years of several years of quantitative tightening.

That liquidity didn’t evaporate. It repriced every financial asset upward. It suppressed yields, starved investors of income alternatives, and effectively forced capital into equities regardless of underlying valuation. The market didn’t reach these levels because corporate America suddenly became dramatically more profitable. It reached them because the price of money was artificially held low for over a decade, which changed the math in every valuation model investors use. The result is a market structure with no historical precedent for its distance from the long-term trend.

What the P/Es Actually Tell You

The more bearish crowd consistently points to the Shiller CAPE ratio as a measure of impending doom. However, investors should understand that the CAPE ratio measures the market’s current price relative to 10 years of inflation-adjusted earnings. At 40, investors are currently paying 40 times that earnings figure for every dollar of S&P 500 exposure. That’s a lot by any historical measure, considering the historical median is 16x. The bear’s argument, and rightly so, is that the market has traded above 40 on the CAPE ratio only once before in its history, and that was at the dot-com peak. We know how that ended.

But this is important, as we have discussed many times, the problem is that valuation measures are just that – a measure of current valuation. More importantly, when valuations are excessive, it is a better measure of “investor psychology” and the manifestation of the “greater fool theory.”

Notably, valuation models are not, and were never meant to be, “market timing indicators.” There are many articles penned suggesting that if a measure of valuation (P/E, P/S, P/B, etc.) reaches some specific level, it means that:

  1. The market is about to crash, and
  2. Investors should be in 100% cash.

Such is incorrect.

What valuations provide is a reasonable estimate of long-term investment returns. It is logical that if you overpay for a stream of future cash flows today, your future return will be low. We can see this evidence by comparing the 10-year total return of a $1000 investment in the stock market to Shiller’s CAPE ratio, as noted above.

However, here’s where it gets interesting. Even if you don’t use the long-term median as your target, the math of mean reversion is sobering at any reasonable level. At the time of this writing, we can map each scenario from the S&P close of 7,399 (May 10, 2026), and the picture becomes clear.

Notice what that table shows. A 20% decline from current levels leaves the market at roughly 32x cyclically adjusted earnings. That’s twice the historical median. The market doesn’t even begin to approach a valuation floor that has historically supported the start of a new secular bull market until you’re down 50% to 60% from here.

That’s not a prediction; that’s arithmetic, and the difference between a correction and a bear market in today’s financial markets.

The recovery math compounds the problem. A 30% loss requires a 43% gain just to break even, before accounting for the time lost while recovering. A 50% loss demands a full 100% return to get back to where you started. For investors in or near retirement, that’s not a temporary setback. That’s a structural threat to financial security.

“A 20% decline from a market that’s 83% above trend doesn’t reach trend. It barely dents the excess. The old bear market definition was built for a different world, and that world no longer exists.”

Two Halves To A Full Cycle

I wrote about this in August 2020, right after the COVID crash had recovered, and everyone was declaring it the shortest bear market in history. My argument then was the same one I’m making now: March 2020 was a correction, not a bear market, because it never broke the long-term bullish price trend that started in 2009. The same is true of 2022. And of the Iran-related correction we saw in early 2026. Those were all pressure releases within an ongoing bull market. None of them completed the cycle.

Because that’s the part Wall Street glosses over. Every bull market is only half of a full market cycle. The second half, the bear, is when the excesses accumulated during the upswing, the overvaluation, the leverage, the speculative positioning, get wrung out through a sustained decline that resets prices back toward fundamental value. That process has played out after every major bull market in the historical record. From the 1929 collapse to the 1970s grind, the dot-com bust, and the financial crisis. None of them was optional; they were just the structural corrections of prior excesses.

The bull market that started at S&P 683 in March 2009 is now 17 years old. It’s the longest on record and has been sustained by:

  • Three rounds of QE,
  • A zero-interest rate policy for most of a decade,
  • $5 trillion in pandemic stimulus, and
  • A generational AI investment cycle that’s still in its early innings.

All of that is real. But none of it changes the underlying valuation math, and eventually, prices will reflect fundamentals. They always do. The problem for investors, however, isn’t whether a real bear market will happen; it’s when, and more practically, whether your portfolio is built to survive the transition.

As noted, the 2020 and 2022 declines share one critical feature: both recovered before prices touched the long-term trend line shown above. They were corrections in an ongoing bullish trend, and both required a significant Fed or fiscal response to stabilize. A genuine bear market, one that resets valuations toward historical norms, would require neither a quick recovery nor a policy rescue. It would require a decline large enough to reach that trend line.

The bottom line is that the 20% threshold isn’t wrong. It’s just not calibrated for a market that’s trading 83% above its long-term trend. In a world where markets lived near fair value, a 20% decline carried information about the trend. Today, it carries sentiment information. That’s a meaningful difference, and it changes how you should think about both potential corrections and portfolio risk.

Stop anchoring your risk budget to the 20% number.

The relevant question isn’t “how far has this fallen?” It’s “how far is this from where prices would need to be for the bull market trend to genuinely reverse?”

Right now, that gap is enormous. A real bear market, in the structural sense, would likely need to be a 30% to 50% decline, and possibly deeper, before prices would reach the kind of valuation support that has historically ended bear markets and started new secular bulls.

That doesn’t mean panic. It means position sizing, risk management, and stop-loss disciplines need to account for a potential drawdown far larger than the 20% threshold Wall Street treats as the danger zone.

We continue to suggest that investors maintain appropriate hedges, keep risk allocations proportional to their time horizon and income needs, and resist the “buy the dip” impulse when the dip doesn’t actually bring you closer to value.

Make no mistake, the trend is still up. The AI investment cycle is real, earnings are growing, and the tape remains technically constructive at current levels. But the distance between current prices and genuine long-term fair value is wider today than at any point outside the dot-com peak. That’s not a reason to be out of the market. It is a reason to know exactly what you own, why you own it, and what your exit plan looks like if the second half of this cycle finally arrives.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/25/2026 - 15:15

Pope Sounds Alarm On AI "Slavery" While Church Aligns With Lefty Anthropic

Pope Sounds Alarm On AI "Slavery" While Church Aligns With Lefty Anthropic

Pope Leo XIV published his first encyclical on Monday, entitled Magnifica Humanitas (The Magnificence of the Human Person).

The roughly 42,300-word declaration, issued as a papal encyclical, warned, "The fight against new forms of slavery is a decisive test for the ethical discernment of AI and digital transformation."

"If technology promises emancipation, yet produces new forms of global subordination, it stands in contradiction to the fundamental principle of human dignity," the pontiff explained in the encyclical, while urging governments to regulate the private companies driving AI advances and warning that the pursuit of profit cannot justify mass job losses.

The pontiff called for retraining and protections for working-class folks threatened by AI-related job loss, stronger education to help students understand AI risks, and safeguards against violent, sexualized, or fake AI-generated content targeting children.

His strongest warning came on the military use of AI. Leo said AI risks making life-and-death decisions faster, more impersonal, and easier to justify, especially as cyberattacks, influence campaigns, AI kill chains, and hybrid warfare blur the line between defense and aggression.

At the event earlier today, where the pontiff unveiled the encyclical, attendees included prominent cardinals and theologians, as well as Christopher Olah, a co-founder of the left-leaning AI startup Anthropic, who leads its interpretability team.

The pope said the church and Anthropic will cooperate to "find a path for humanity in the age of artificial intelligence" ... 

To note, encyclicals are among the highest forms of teaching from a pope to the Catholic Church's 1.4 billion members worldwide.

The full text can be viewed here.

Odd that the pope bashes AI but aligns with lefty Anthropic ... 

How much Anthropic does the Vatican Bank own? 

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/25/2026 - 14:40

Everyone Talks About The Cost Of Gasoline... Soon Everyone Will Be Talking About The Cost Of Food

Everyone Talks About The Cost Of Gasoline... Soon Everyone Will Be Talking About The Cost Of Food

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse Blog. 

For most people, the price of gasoline is the most obvious consequence of the war in the Middle East. As I write this article, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States is $4.56. Of course, in some parts of the country, consumers are paying much more than that. This is a big story, and the truth is that gasoline prices are going to go even higher in the months ahead.

But if you think that the price of gasoline is bad, just wait until you see what eventually happens to food prices. The price of diesel has been rising even faster than the price of regular gasoline, and fertilizer prices have been absolutely skyrocketing. Those costs will get passed along to the rest of us. It is just a matter of time. Meanwhile, our farmers are dealing with drought conditions that are unprecedented, and now a “Super El Niño” is coming.

What all of this means is that food prices will rise to very painful levels.

So even though everyone is complaining about rising gasoline prices at the moment, one prominent economist is warning that “the next story is food”…

The cost of food in the U.S. appears poised to rise sharply alongside oil prices, as war-related supply disruptions put pressure on the companies and farmers who keep the country’s shelves stocked.

“The big story right now is oil,” economist Justin Wolfers told MS NOW on Tuesday. “The next story is food.”

Oil prices have risen over 50 percent since the conflict began on February 28, pushing gas prices to a nationwide average of over $4.50 for the first time since 2022.

Can you imagine what would happen if food prices were to rise another 50 percent from current levels?

Over the past year, many of the most common items that Americans purchase at the grocery store have already become much more expensive…

When compared to the same time last year, fruits and vegetables have seen some of the biggest price hikes. Tomatoes are 40% more expensive now than they were this time last year. Bad growing weather, tariffs, and rising fuel prices have all contributed to the huge change in tomato prices, reports the New York Times.

Coffee, another imported product, is 19% more expensive than it was last spring.

You’re also likely seeing inflated prices at the butcher counter. Meat is up 9% overall, but beef has grown even more expensive. Ground beef is about 15% pricier, beef roasts are 18% more, and steak is up 16%.

We can blame the war with Iran for the recent price hikes that we have been experiencing, because the war has made diesel much more expensive.

And diesel is used to transport most of what we eat…

What’s contributing to the price spikes? Fuel prices have soared while the Iran war prevents cargo ships from passing through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital corridor for global oil supplies. Diesel fuel powers fishing boats, tractors and the trucks that ship 83% of U.S. agricultural products.

Just as you’re paying more at the pump, so are truckers who transport goods all around the country. Some vendors and suppliers are adding fuel surcharges to make up for the increased cost of transporting and delivering their goods.

In addition, fertilizer prices have gone absolutely haywire, and those costs will be passed along to us once harvest season arrives.

The solution to this crisis would be for the Strait of Hormuz to reopen.

But Iran isn’t willing to do that.

Instead, Iran intends to make the status quo in the Strait of Hormuz permanent…

Iran and Oman are actively discussing a permanent security mechanism for the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is pushing to institutionalize and normalize a transit fee or toll on commercial shipping vessels navigating the narrow waterway. According to an Iranian diplomatic envoy, the proposed system is designed to secure the long-term positioning of Iran and Oman as the primary regulators of the strait, effectively transforming a temporary leverage point from the recent military conflict into a permanent sovereign right.

To formalize its grip, Iran’s newly established Persian Gulf Straits Authority began applying conditional rules and hefty transit tolls, in some cases exceeding one million dollars per vessel, while granting selective exemptions to friendly nations like Russia or China. By engaging Oman, which shares territorial jurisdiction over the Strait, Iran is seeking to build a coalition that validates these tolls under the guise of funding localized maritime security.

The US maintains an opposing view on the matter, viewing the permanent toll as a non-negotiable barrier to reaching a sustainable peace deal. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, international straits are governed by transit passage protocols that guarantee the uninterrupted flow of global commercial shipping, a principle the US insists must be restored without conditions.

This is one of the reasons why there is not going to be an agreement to end the war.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio just warned that what Iran is attempting to do with the Strait of Hormuz “will make a diplomatic deal impossible”…

“A toll collection system in the Strait of Hormuz will make a diplomatic deal impossible.”

“We are very disappointed with NATO allies, we will discuss the issue of troop deployment at the upcoming meeting.”

If the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, a global inflation crisis is guaranteed.

And on top of everything else, now a “Super El Niño” is rapidly approaching.

We are being warned that it could potentially be the most powerful “Super El Niño” in recorded history…

Scientists have warned that an imminent ‘super El Niño’ could be even more powerful than a previous event which caused over 50 million deaths.

The 1877 El Niño was one of the most severe climate events in recorded history, triggering a global humanitarian disaster known as The Great Famine.

Climate reconstructions suggest water temperatures in a key region of the Pacific Ocean rose by 2.7°C (4.86°F), which caused disruption to rainfall patterns around the world.

If the Super El Niño of 1877-1878 killed 50 million people when the global population was just a fraction of what it is today, what would an even more powerful Super El Niño do?

An associate professor at Washington State University is telling us that “multiyear droughts similar to those in the 1870s could happen again”…

Estimates indicate the resulting scarcity of food and disease outbreaks killed up to four per cent of the Earth’s population at the time.

That would be the equivalent of at least 250 million people if it happened today.

Now, forecasts suggest water temperatures could potentially exceed 3°C (5.4°F) above average later this year – making the upcoming super El Niño even more powerful than the one nearly 150 years ago.

‘Simultaneous multiyear droughts similar to those in the 1870s could happen again,’ Deepti Singh, associate professor at Washington State University, told the Washington Post.

Worldwide food production was already going to be way down this year due to the global fertilizer crisis.

Now an immensely powerful “Super El Niño” is being added to the equation.

What do you think that all of this is going to do to food prices?

Needless to say, the answer is obvious.

We are in far more trouble than most people realize, but for now, most of the population just continues to party.

Michael’s new book, entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next,” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/25/2026 - 14:05

Trump Tells Arab States Joining Abraham Accords Should Be 'Mandatory' - Throws Open Door For Iran In Grand Deal

Trump Tells Arab States Joining Abraham Accords Should Be 'Mandatory' - Throws Open Door For Iran In Grand Deal

President Trump is still trying to play the role of the globe's ultimate deal-maker via Truth Social, using a mix of mandatory diplomacy and ultimate economic carrots, issuing a lengthy missive on Iran talks and the Abraham Accords on Monday morning.

He introduced the post by stating that negotiations with Tehran are "proceeding nicely" before dropping a provocative diplomatic bombshell: a demand that a big list of major Middle Eastern nations immediately sign onto the Abraham Accords as a prerequisite for any broader peace framework.

The most unexpected aspect to the post laid out that if Tehran plays ball with Washington, Trump is dangling the prospect of the Islamic Republic itself joining the regional coalition, which it must be remembered hinges on 'normalization' with Israel.

"I stated that, after all the work done by the United States to try and pull this very complex puzzle together, it should be mandatory that all of these Countries, at a minimum, simultaneously, sign onto the Abraham Accords," Trump wrote Monday, referencing a Saturday phone call with Arab leaders.

Trump detailed further:

Those Countries discussed are Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates (already a Member!), Qatar, Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain (already a Member!). It may be possible that one or two have a reason for not doing so, and that will be accepted, but most should be ready, willing, and able to make this Settlement with Iran a far more Historic Event than it would, otherwise, be. The Abraham Accords have proven to be, for the Countries involved (The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and Kazakhstan), a Financial, Economic, and Social BOOM, even during this time of Conflict and War, with the current Members never even suggesting leaving, or taking so much as even a pause.

The above was coupled with the following ultimatum: "It should start with the immediate signing by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and everybody else should follow suit. If they don’t, they should not be part of this Deal in that it shows bad intention."

And then he dropped the significant twist related to Tehran, in claiming that several of the regional leaders he spoke with "would be honored, as soon as our Document is signed, to have the Islamic Republic of Iran as part of the Abraham Accords. Wow, now that would be something special!"

Inviting Iran to join the Abraham Accords as a part of a broader final deal framework has resulted in a lot of head-scratching, given that just weeks ago Trump repeatedly threatened to bomb the country 'back to the stone age' and effectively end 'civilization' there. US rhetoric has been filled with scorn for Iran, and yet it is now being asked to join a grand US-backed alliance.

Trump is his very long message issued a final directive in the following:

"Therefore, I am mandatorily requesting that all Countries immediately sign the Abraham Accords, and that, if Iran signs its Agreement with me, as President of the United States of America, it would be an Honor to have them also be part of this unparalleled World Coalition. The Middle East would be United, Powerful, and Economically Strong, like perhaps no other area, anywhere in the World! By copy of this TRUTH, I am asking my Representatives to begin, and successfully complete, the process of signing these Countries into the already Historic Abraham Accords."

Meanwhile, look who's fully on board and has returned to singing Trump's praises (after expressing concern over a 'bad' Iran deal in the works)...

Whether Trump can single-handedly force countries as far apart in their foreign policies as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey... or especially Iran, into a binding alignment with Tel Aviv remains a massive question mark (to put it mildly), or rather would be incredible and highly unrealistic. 

But with the threat of "shooting, but bigger and stronger than ever before" serving as the baseline, the White House has put regional powers officially on notice - in Trump's logic at least.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/25/2026 - 13:30

It Was Never About The Climate

It Was Never About The Climate

Authored by Silvio Canto Jr via AmericanThinker.com,

Here is a question for your long weekend:

Why haven’t you ever seen a climate change protest before the Chinese embassy anywhere?

Why is it always the US or capitalism messing up the environment?

Why don’t they show up at all when China is a bigger threat to clean air than any US city?

The answer is obvious, but I’ll say it.

It was never about the climate but rather capitalism or the US.

Check this out:

In 2024, climate activists in New York City protested alongside anti-Israel protesters at a rally headlined “Climate Justice Means Free Palestine.”

Last year, climate change celebrity icon Greta Thunberg tried to storm Israel by sea on a flotilla protesting the country’s war in Gaza, yelling “Free! Free! Palestine!” when she was refused entry.

And, last week, activists from CodePink, a far-left feminist activist group that has received funds from an American expatriate, Neville Roy Singham, living in Shanghai, took a break from their rallies supporting the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Cuba Communist Party to circulate a video on Instagram, attacking a Utah data center project backed by investor Kevin O’Leary.

That’s a busy bunch protesting against the West.

Maybe someone should tell them that the clean air in Cuba is due to a collapse of industrial activity.

Or we can always remind them of how they treat gays in Palestine or women in general.

As the article points out, these marches were always about hating the West and what we stand for.

So don’t be fooled by the slogans or some well-meaning people showing up to protest.

The root of all of this is hatred of the West and our individual freedoms.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/25/2026 - 12:55

Huawei Touts Sanctions-Busting Chip Breakthrough, SMIC Shares Erupt

Huawei Touts Sanctions-Busting Chip Breakthrough, SMIC Shares Erupt

Semiconductor Manufacturing International soared to a record high in China after Huawei unveiled what it described as a breakthrough pathway for advanced semiconductor production at the IEEE ISCAS conference, without relying on the West's most advanced chipmaking equipment.

Huawei's semiconductor chief, He Tingbo, told the audience earlier today that the company has developed a "New Semiconductor Path in Practice" that replaces traditional Moore's Law-style geometric scaling with time scaling and reducing signal propagation delay across devices, circuits, chips, and systems.

Huawei's press release stated:

In her speech, she presented the Tau (τ) Scaling Law, a new principle for guiding the future development of the semiconductor industry. This law proposes replacing geometric scaling with time (τ) scaling as a new guiding principle for the evolution of both semiconductors and electronic systems. Based on this principle, innovative technologies such as LogicFolding can be used to continuously compress signal propagation delay and steadily improve transistor density, which will drive the ongoing evolution of semiconductors and electronic systems.

Tingbo said Huawei plans to make 1.4-nanometer chips by 2031 using its own "LogicFolding" architecture. TSMC has said it expects to begin mass production of 1.4nm chips in 2028, leaving Huawei about five years behind the global leader, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing.

Tingbo claims LogicFolding can boost chip performance and will be used in upcoming Kirin mobile chips expected this fall.

This comes as U.S. sanctions on advanced chipmaking equipment and high-end semiconductors have been aimed at slowing China's push into cutting-edge chip production.

Shares of Chinese chip stocks surged, with SMIC jumping more than 18% and Hua Hong Semiconductor hitting daily limits.

The view is that this is a potential breakthrough in China's effort to bypass U.S.-led export controls and reduce dependence on Western semiconductor equipment.

We suspect someone in the Trump team will likely weigh in on this development in the coming days, if not weeks.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/25/2026 - 11:10

Spencer Pratt Literally Uses LA Shithole Filth As Campaign Ad

Spencer Pratt Literally Uses LA Shithole Filth As Campaign Ad

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Spencer Pratt is running a campaign unlike anything seen in Los Angeles politics. The former reality star turned mayoral candidate isn't just talking about the city's collapse into filth, crime, and decay - he's making the evidence work for him.

His team has taken to the streets with power washers and stencils, blasting clean messages like "IMAGINE IF THE STREETS WERE THIS CLEAN" and "SPENCER PRATT FOR MAYOR" directly into the grime accumulated under Democrat leadership.

The tactic is as simple as it is devastating. The cleaned sections stand out starkly against the surrounding trash and dirt, creating a living advertisement for change.

If Democrat Mayor Karen Bass wants the signs gone, her administration has to actually clean the streets - something residents say hasn't happened consistently for years.

Pratt's approach highlights the stark reality Los Angeles faces.

Recent reports and viral videos paint a picture of a once-great city reduced to dystopian conditions: massive homeless encampments overrun by rats, open-air drug markets operating brazenly, and public spaces buried under tents, trash, and human waste.

One video shows entire networks of makeshift homes under bridges tapping into city power.

Another resident-driven idea gaining traction involves marking potholes and blighted areas with pro-Pratt messages, forcing city crews to respond faster to erase political opposition than to basic maintenance.

Pratt has been vocal about the root causes. In campaign videos, he stresses that Los Angeles doesn't have a homelessness problem so much as a drug addiction and failed leadership crisis. He points to billions spent with little visible improvement, calling out the "Homeless Industrial Complex" of nonprofits and bureaucrats who profit from perpetuating the cycle rather than solving it.

His five-step plan focuses on mandatory treatment, clearing encampments, cracking down on crime and drug use, and prioritizing public safety. "If that addict on your street were your own son, what would you do?" he asks, framing the issue as a moral and practical emergency.

The establishment is not amused. As Pratt surges in polls and fundraising - recent figures show him closing the gap on incumbent Karen Bass - the attacks have intensified. Hollywood figures and metropolitan leftists have lashed out, with "Price is Right" host Drew Carey calling Pratt a "serial scammer" and telling voters to reject him in a foul-mouthed rant.

Pratt's organic, creative tactics, and direct appeals - have rattled the machine. Supporters see it as a masterclass in connecting with frustrated residents tired of excuses.

Decades of progressive policies prioritizing open borders, soft-on-crime approaches, and massive unchecked spending have produced predictable results. California has funneled enormous sums into homelessness programs, yet streets remain filthy and unsafe. Residents navigate urine-soaked doorways and blocked infrastructure daily while officials tout statistics that don't match lived experience.

Pratt's personal stake adds weight. His home in Pacific Palisades was lost in the fires, an event he ties directly to leadership failures. He frames his run as fighting for his family and the city he loves, rejecting the decline as inevitable.

This isn't just another election cycle in LA. Pratt's campaign forces a confrontation with reality: voters can continue down the path of managed decay or demand basic competence - clean streets, safe neighborhoods, and accountability. The power-washed messages make the choice literal. As the June primary approaches, Angelenos are paying attention.

The broader lesson extends beyond one city. When leadership prioritizes ideology over results, everyday life suffers. Pratt's unorthodox push represents a rejection of that status quo in favor of practical restoration. Whether it translates to victory remains to be seen, but the conversation he has sparked is long overdue. Los Angeles deserves better than managed decline.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/25/2026 - 10:35

Pentagon Conducts First Military Drill In Venezuela Since Maduro Overthrow

Pentagon Conducts First Military Drill In Venezuela Since Maduro Overthrow

On Saturday, the US military conducted a highly visible drill right in the heart of Caracas, marking the first known American military exercise on Venezuelan soil since the chaotic January 3rd operation to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

The show of force involved two US Marine Corps Osprey aircraft touching down near the recently reopened US Embassy in Caracas, which went operational only two months ago, in March.

via Reuters

"The drill, which the Venezuelan government said it had authorized as an evacuation drill for possible medical emergencies or disasters, included two MV-22B ​Osprey aircraft that landed near the U.S. embassy and vessels that entered Venezuelan ​waters in the Caribbean Sea," Reuters detailed.

Venezuela's Foreign Minister Yván Gil had announced and previewed the drill to the local population, and dubbed the action a 'rapid response' exercise in the heart of the capital.

There were reports of protests in the capital, by those who reject their country being used for American military drills:

While some Caracas residents gathered to observe the aircraft, a group of protesters elsewhere in the city displayed a Venezuelan flag with the message 'No to the Yankee drill' to express their opposition.

However, other crowds reportedly gathered just the watch the large Marine Corps Ospreys sweep in low to the city.

The US Embassy later revealed that Gen. Francis L. Donovan, the head of US Southern Command, was personally on board one of the Ospreys.

This marks Donovan's second high-profile visit to Caracas since the January raid, which left a bloody trail of at least 83 dead - mostly Venezuelan military forces, Cuban presidential guards, but also reportedly four civilians.

According to an official post on X by the US Embassy, Donovan's itinerary made for a busy day: "[Donovan] participated in bilateral talks with high-ranking representatives of the interim government, met with the leadership and staff of the United States Embassy, and observed the joint force conducting a military response exercise," it said.

The current Venezuelan government, now helmed by Acting President Delcy Rodriguez (Maduro's own former vice president), has been moving quickly to manage domestic optics.

The irony is that there has not in the end actually been 'regime change' in Venezuela - only government 'decapitation' - with Maduro on US soil and in federal custody. Rodriguez is a socialist as Latin American leaders have come, and she presides over the same government - only this time while serving Washington oil and business interests.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/25/2026 - 10:00

Dr. Oz Fires Back After Joy Behar's TrumpRx Meltdown

Dr. Oz Fires Back After Joy Behar's TrumpRx Meltdown

Authored by David Manney via PJMedia.com,

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the 17th administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, answered Joy Behar after the longtime co-host of The View warned viewers about President Donald Trump's prescription drug initiative.

Behar said once Trump puts his name on prescriptions, “We're all going to die.”

She also reached for Trump's past business failures, as if cheaper medicine belongs in the same dusty joke drawer as casino chatter and late-night monologue scraps.

Dr. Oz didn't need a medical chart to spot the problem, saying TrumpRx.gov still has no medication for Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), though they're working on it.

His joke landed because Behar's reaction sounded less like analysis and more like a smoke alarm installed over a toaster sitting near a burning pile of pine boughs: loud, frantic, and not especially useful once breakfast remains intact.

President Trump announced on May 18 that TrumpRx would expand with over 600 generic medications. The AP reports:

The beefed-up website is the Trump administration’s answer to criticism from Democrats who have called TrumpRx performative and noted that many of the brand-name drugs it has featured are cheaper with insurance or have lower-cost generic versions sold elsewhere.

It also marks an effort to respond to a top voter concern for November’s midterm elections: affordability. Health costs are a worry for many Americans, an issue compounded by the Republican-led Congress’ recent cuts to Medicaid and the expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies this year that sent some people’s premiums skyrocketing.

The expansion is made possible by partnerships with other online pharmacies, including Amazon Pharmacy, GoodRx and billionaire investor Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus Drugs, Trump said at an event at the White House.

TrumpRx doesn't directly sell drugs, and it won't replace insurance for everyone, but it gives uninsured patients, high-deductible families, and cash-paying customers another place to check before surrendering at the pharmacy counter.

Mark Cuban, co-founder of Cost Plus Drugs and a regular Trump critic, appeared at the White House event and backed the expansion. Cuban's presence should've slowed the usual reflexive sneering; a Trump critic stood beside Trump because lowering drug prices helps people who don't care which political tribe gets credit when the receipt shrinks.

Behar could've asked fair questions;.

Americans should want details about pharmacy benefit managers, deductibles, manufacturers, and insurance rules. Drug pricing has enough trapdoors to swallow a family budget whole.

Instead, she saw Trump's name, grabbed the nearest panic button, and started whacking it like a carnival game she had no chance of winning.

The token conservative on The View, Alyssa Farah Griffin—I think she's the sacrifice, honestly; I can't keep up with the dissected corpses—pushed back during the segment and pointed out that lower drug prices can help real families. Sunny Hostin, unsurprisingly, also raised concerns, but Behar gave viewers doom theater.

Behar's verbal bullets were blanks, and even the blanks sounded tired. She didn't test the claim against the numbers, or anything for that matter, simply firing first and hoping the smoke would pass for thought.

Dr. Oz held the stronger ground because he kept the focus on access, prices, and practical relief. Prescription bills don't arrive with political footnotes; seniors on fixed incomes don't care whether Joy Behar approves of the label. Parents stretching paychecks want to know whether the medicine costs less, whether the pharmacy has it, and whether they can make rent after filling the bottle.

TrumpRx won't solve every failure in American health care; no website can unwind decades of government bloat, drugmaker games, insurance headaches, and pharmacy middlemen. Yet a price-comparison tool with more than 600 generic medications gives families one more way around a broken system.

Behar mocked the name, while Oz pointed back to the medicine cabinet. One side filled airtime, as the other side at least tried to lower the bill.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/25/2026 - 08:00

At Last Minute, SEC Suddenly Delays Plan To Allow Crypto Versions Of US Stocks

At Last Minute, SEC Suddenly Delays Plan To Allow Crypto Versions Of US Stocks

Authored by Micah Zimmerman via Bitcoin Magazine,

The Securities and Exchange Commission has pumped the brakes on its highly anticipated “innovation exemption” for tokenized stocks, pushing back the release of the framework as it weighs input from traditional stock exchanges and other market participants wary of the plan’s sweeping implications, according to Bloomberg reporting.

The SEC, under Chair Paul Atkins, was preparing to release the so-called innovation exemption as soon as this week.

The framework would create a new regulatory pathway allowing digital tokens linked to publicly traded company shares to trade on decentralized crypto platforms — 24 hours a day, seven days a week — bypassing the constraints of traditional stock exchanges. 

The exemption is part of Atkins’ broader “Project Crypto” initiative, which aims to relax existing crypto restrictions in line with the Trump administration’s pro-crypto agenda.

The SEC was reportedly leaning toward permitting third-party tokens — digital representations of stocks like Apple, Nvidia, or Tesla — to be issued and traded without the consent of the underlying public companies. 

This means outside actors, not the issuers themselves, could create blockchain-based wrappers tracking a company’s share price and list them on decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms.

These tokens may not carry traditional shareholder rights like voting or dividends, though the SEC is reportedly considering requiring platforms to provide those rights or risk delisting.

Why the SEC is delaying

The timing of the exemption’s release has been pushed back as the agency weighs feedback from stock-exchange officials and other market participants who met with SEC staff in recent days. 

The World Federation of Exchanges — whose members include Nasdaq, Cboe, and CME Group — previously warned the SEC in a November 2025 letter that such exemptions could “dilute” existing investor protections and “distort” competition by giving crypto exchanges a regulatory shortcut unavailable to traditional markets. 

The group cautioned that granting legitimacy to tokenized stocks before full compliance implementation would “undoubtedly have negative — potentially acute — consequences” for U.S. markets.

The tokenization debate is unfolding against a backdrop of competing visions for the future of U.S. equity markets. Nasdaq, which received SEC approval in March 2026 for its own tokenized securities proposal, is pursuing a different model: one that keeps all trades on-exchange with full shareholder rights intact, built on the DTCC’s enterprise blockchain. 

The innovation exemption, by contrast, would sanction a parallel, crypto-native market running alongside the existing system — potentially fragmenting liquidity across dozens of third-party token issuers for the same underlying stock.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/25/2026 - 06:20

70% Of All Crypto 'Wrench Attacks' Happen In France: Report

70% Of All Crypto 'Wrench Attacks' Happen In France: Report

About 70% of all wrench attacks, physical attacks against crypto holders and their families, carried out in an attempt to steal digital assets, occur in France, according to Bitcoin journalist Joe Nakamoto. 

There have been 41 crypto-related kidnappings in France so far in 2026, Nakamoto said, or about one attack every two and a half days, he added. 

As CoinTelegraph's Vince Quill reports, Nakamoto attributed the rise in wrench attacks to know-your-customer data collection, which is stored in centralized servers that were compromised in several high-profile data leaks, including the 2020 leak of hardware wallet provider Ledger’s customer data.

That data leak disclosed the identities, home addresses and emails of more than 270,000 customers worldwide, he added. Jameson Lopp, the CEO of crypto wallet and key management company Casa, said:

“France is the canary in the coal mine, demonstrating how financial regulations create a surveillance apparatus that causes direct harm to bitcoin holders.”

An overview of wrench attacks in France so far in 2026. Source: Joe Nakamoto

Opposition to know-your-customer data collection is mounting inside the crypto and Bitcoin communities, as digital asset holders continue to be targeted with physical attacks and kidnappings, prompting a need for increased security measures.

Don’t become a target: Bitcoiners offer advice to safeguard against attacks

The attacks are typically orchestrated by criminals living abroad, who contract young people living in France to carry out the physical attacks, Nakamoto said.

Users can stay safe by using crypto custody services that offer security features like a pre-agreed-upon word or phrase that lets a custodial or key management company know the holder is being actively attacked.

A database of known wrench attacks. Source: GitHub

The company can then freeze the assets, making sure they are not accessed by the attackers, and can even alert law enforcement authorities, he said.

He also suggested keeping a “decoy” crypto wallet with a small amount of funds to hand over to criminals in the event of an attack. 

Finally, crypto holders should keep a low profile and not discuss crypto topics online or make it public knowledge that they hold digital assets, he added.

At least 88 individuals have been arrested in connection with crypto wrench attacks in France, according to Vanessa Perrée, the country’s national prosecutor for organized crime.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/25/2026 - 04:35

"The World Is Losing Trust": Foreign Investment In Germany Plunges To Lowest Level Since 2009

"The World Is Losing Trust": Foreign Investment In Germany Plunges To Lowest Level Since 2009

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Foreign companies are continuing to shy away from investing in Germany, with the number of new projects falling last year to its lowest level since 2009, representing an eighth consecutive annual decline.

An analysis by the auditing and consulting firm EY, reported by the German Press Agency, found that foreign investors announced 548 new projects in Germany in 2025. That was 10 percent fewer than the year before.

Henrik Ahlers, the head of EY in Germany, said the figures were a “warning sign for Germany as a business location. Germany is falling behind, and other European locations are developing significantly better.”

He said Germany has talked for years about the need for reform, but has done too little, while other countries have made government services more digital, simplified their tax systems, and made it easier for companies to do business.

“In Germany, high taxes, high labor costs, expensive energy, and at the same time, paralyzing bureaucracy are stifling investment,” Ahlers noted.

“Germany’s inability to reform has now become known worldwide. Unfortunately, little remains of its image as a strong, high-quality location and an economic rock in turbulent times,” he added.

The fall in investment comes at a difficult time for the German economy. Last month, the Halle Institute for Economic Research said company bankruptcies in Germany had reached their highest level since 2005.

The institute recorded 4,573 bankruptcies among partnerships and corporations in the first three months of the year. That was higher than the level seen during the 2009 financial crisis.

The last time the figure was higher was in the third quarter of 2005, when 4,771 bankruptcies were recorded.

The rise was especially sharp in March, when bankruptcies were 71 percent above the average for the same month between 2016 and 2019.

Germany’s industrial sector is also under pressure. A Reuters report last August said 245,500 industrial jobs had been lost in Germany since 2019, before the coronavirus crisis.

Volkswagen has become one of the clearest examples of the problems facing German industry. The carmaker plans to cut around 50,000 jobs in Germany by 2030 after reporting a sharp fall in profits.

Its net profit fell 44 percent in 2025 to €6.9 billion, the lowest level since the fallout from the emissions scandal. Revenue was almost unchanged at just under €322 billion, while global deliveries slipped slightly to just under 9 million vehicles.

Volkswagen blamed the fall in profit on problems at Porsche AG, U.S. import tariffs, and the cost of restructuring the business. Porsche’s operating profit fell from more than €5 billion to just €90 million in a year.

Volkswagen finance chief Arno Antlitz said the company’s current level of profit was not good enough, explaining the drop had been “shaped by geopolitical tensions, tariffs, and intense competitive pressure” but noting that the company’s current operating margin was “not sufficient in the long run.”

Across wider Europe, EY said foreign investors announced 5,026 new projects last year, down 7 percent from the year before.

France remained in first place with 852 projects, followed by the United Kingdom with 730. Germany was third.

AfD co-leader Alice Weidel said the figures showed that international confidence in Germany was falling.

“The world is losing trust: Foreign companies are investing less and less in Germany,” she wrote on X. “In 2025, the number of investments fell by 10% to the lowest level since 2009. Germany can no longer afford the reform refusal of the Black-Red coalition!”

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/25/2026 - 04:00

Shurk: Prominent Democrats Must Go To Prison

Shurk: Prominent Democrats Must Go To Prison

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

Until then, it’s open season on all of us...

Reports last week confirmed that former special counsel Jack Smith “secretly arranged” to preserve evidence in his criminal cases against President Trump in order to maintain the threat of future prosecution once the president leaves office.  This is not a big surprise.  

Democrats have thrown every civic norm out the window in their ruthless efforts to target Trump’s businesses and send him to prison for life.

In his quest to imprison an American president, Jack Smith accused Trump of engaging in a conspiracy to “overthrow” the 2020 election, as well as retaining possession of classified documents after leaving the White House.  Both allegations are ridiculous, and Smith’s own words make him sound like a lawfare hitman and anti-MAGA zealot.  He told members of Congress in January, “Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is the person who caused Jan. 6, it was foreseeable to him, and that he sought to exploit the violence.” 

 Smith stated emphatically that Trump committed “serious crimes.”

Serious crimes?  You mean like using the FBI to spy on all the Republican presidential primary candidates in 2015 and 2016?  Oh right, that was President Obama.  Or fabricating intelligence in order to justify a counterintelligence operation against candidate Trump?  Oh, that was Obama’s corrupt CIA director, John Brennan.  Or paying British Intelligence operatives to manufacture a fake “Russia collusion” dossier implicating Trump?  Oh, that was Hillary Clinton.  Or using the FBI and CIA to frame President Trump as a Russian spy?  Oh, that was Obama and Clinton, too.  Or sabotaging President Trump’s administration by using a Democrat spy on the National Intelligence Council to construct a false story about an innocuous phone call in order to trigger a bogus impeachment?  Oh, that was Intelligence Community Democrats attempting to hide Joe Biden’s corruption in Ukraine by, again, framing President Trump for a quid-pro-quo “crime” he never committed.  Or submitting fraudulent documents to the FISA Court in order to maintain spying operations against President Trump?  Oh, that was corrupt James Comey, corrupt Robert Mueller, corrupt Andrew Weissmann, corrupt Norm Eisen, corrupt Mary McCord, and their Democrat accomplices in the FBI and DOJ who covered up Obama’s illegal spying operations while framing President Trump as a criminal, spy, and traitor.

Listening to Jack Smith call President Trump a “serious” criminal sounds ridiculous when serious criminals Obama, Clinton, Brennan, Comey, and legions of their Democrat colleagues, subordinates, and co-conspirators in the DOJ, FBI, CIA, D.C. courts, and FISA Court (see Judge James Boasberg’s impeachable offenses) have never been properly investigated or punished for undermining President Trump’s election, sabotaging his administration, and framing him for treason.  The most powerful Democrats in the country organized a coup d’état in broad daylight and dragged the country through a barbed-wire field of partisan propaganda for the last ten years, and Jack Smith wants Americans to be upset that President Trump retained documents that he was entitled to possess?  It’s just such lunacy.  The constant gaslighting from D.C. operatives is equally infuriating and exhausting.

Glossing over the Democrats’ monstrous Russia Collusion Hoax, their relentless efforts to subvert the Trump-led government, and their continuing obsession with tossing the president in prison for imaginary crimes is bad enough, but Jack Smith does what all Democrats do: He pretends that the January 6, 2021, protest for election integrity was an attempt by Trump and his supporters to overthrow the government.  This lie is so brazen that it’s astonishing how Democrats can keep telling it with straight faces.

The people who showed up at the Capitol that day had one objective: to express their strong belief that mail-in-ballot fraud, violations of multiple states’ electoral statutes, and numerous voting discrepancies had tainted the 2020 election.  Several senators intended to make these very arguments before the certification of the election’s results.  The people who gathered outside the Capitol were exercising their First Amendment right to assemble peaceably.  They were unarmed.  Most had no criminal records.  A large number had served their country in various capacities.  Most who entered the Capitol walked around as tourists, took pictures, interacted in a friendly manner with Capitol Police, and posed no threat to anyone.

Only after law enforcement officers chose to fire flash-bang grenades on the assembled crowd did a section of the protest turn into something that could be described as a riot.  Trump supporters — not police officers — died on January 6.  Ordinary Americans exercising their constitutional rights were thrown into a state of fear of being hurt or killed.

Nevertheless, Smith continues to propagate the lie that the three-hour event at the Capitol was somehow the greatest threat to the country since 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War (real comparisons that Democrat propagandists continue to make).  Smith and his fellow Democrats desperately wish for Americans to believe that a hot-chocolate-drinking gathering of grandparents, revelers, and veterans was somehow going to topple the government of the United States.  If a crowd of retirees is capable of overrunning Washington, what’s the point of a trillion-dollar military budget?

Smith’s perpetuation of the Democrats’ J6 propaganda is bad enough, but the fact that he treats that day as equivalent to the Civil War is all the more preposterous given that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and their fellow Democrats openly encouraged Black Lives Matter domestic terrorists to burn down neighborhoods, loot businesses, and murder civilians throughout the summer of 2020.  If President Trump “caused Jan. 6” and the events of that day were “foreseeable” to him, then the violence and mayhem of 2020’s so-called “summer of love” were certainly foreseeable to Democrats.  The BLM riots of 2020 were the most costly in American history, and Vice President Harris encouraged Democrats to donate money to a bail fund that put arsonists, rapists, and murderers back on the street.

Were the Democrat-organized riots of 2020 “foreseeable”?  

Of course.  

Did prominent Democrats “exploit the violence,” as Smith accuses Trump of doing with January 6?  

They absolutely did. 

Biden and Harris ran for the White House on the message that the violence would end once they were elected.  

Will preening, self-righteous Jack Smith investigate, harass, arrest, or prosecute any of these Democrats?  Of course not.  Will Democrat rioters be tossed into pre-trial solitary confinement and refused bail by partisan prosecutors and judges?  Definitely not.  To this day, Democrats celebrate BLM and Antifa domestic terrorists as champions for civil rights.  When Democrats burn cities to the ground, the arsonists get statues.  When MAGA Americans protest for free and fair voting, they are condemned for crimes they never committed.

Unfortunately, this is how leftists all over the world now operate.  

Brazil’s communist President Lula has imprisoned his predecessor, President Bolsonaro, for supposedly trying to overthrow the government.  French President Macron has permitted his political opposition, Marine Le Pen, to be prosecuted and convicted for similarly bogus “embezzlement” crimes.  Germany has flirted with designating the popular anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany, a “terrorist” organization and banning its candidates from running for office.  When the “wrong” candidate won Romania’s presidential election eighteen months ago, the country’s Constitutional Court annulled the outcome by blaming “Russian interference.”

If President Trump hadn’t possessed the financial resources and sheer grit to face down the onslaught of malicious and meritless prosecutions against him, he would likely be in a courtroom or a prison today.  If he hadn’t been re-elected a third time, January 6 defendants would still be awaiting trial or serving time in prison for an imaginary “insurrection.”

Screw Jack Smith.  He’s no lawman, and he has no principles.  He’s nothing but a corrupt propagandist, partisan hack, and lawfare assassin.

Nothing will change until prominent Democrats are prosecuted and convicted for their crimes.  Until then, it’s open season on all of us.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/24/2026 - 23:20

Which US States Gained The Most Residents In 2025

Which US States Gained The Most Residents In 2025

Nearly 15 million Americans moved in 2025, with many relocating across state lines in search of lower costs, job opportunities, and warmer climates.

This map, via Visual Capitalist's Gabriel Cohen, shows net migration per 10,000 residents across all 50 states in 2025, revealing where population inflows were strongest and which states saw the biggest outflows.

The data comes from HireAHelper.

Southern and Mountain West states dominated the rankings for inbound migration, while several high-cost coastal states continued to lose residents.

The data reflects large-scale shifts happening in the country’s population distribution, both from the Eastern half to the Western half, as well as shifts away from more expensive states to cheaper, often inland ones.

The Mountain West Over the West Coast

In 2025, the Western half of the U.S. saw a continuation of post-COVID trends as people left behind coastal states like Washington (-10.7) and Oregon (-9.0) in favor of more inland Mountain West states like Wyoming (+26.0), Utah (+7.3), and especially Idaho (+63.2).

The data table below highlights the net migration loss/gain per 10,000 inhabitants in 2025:

The more populous coastal states, which have long been hubs for key economic sectors like tech and aviation, have seen a number of moves in recent years owing to jobs either relocating or shifting to remote work.

Nowhere on the West Coast saw a bigger drop than California, which saw a net migration loss of -25.1, as nearly 100,000 residents left behind the increasingly unaffordable state in favor of cheaper neighboring states like Nevada, which lacks a state income tax.

The Cost of Living Factor

California is not alone in losing people over affordability issues. If net migration trends are any indication, other high cost of living states such as New York (-28.2) and Massachusetts (-37.9) also increasingly shed residents.

A majority of the Northeast fared similarly, with all states but Delaware, Maine, and New Hampshire seeing more people leave than arrive in 2025.

And in the immediate region surrounding the nation’s capital, the states of Maryland (-27.4) and Virginia (-13.7) also saw negative net migration, likely reflecting in part the large reduction in the federal workforce seen over the course of the year.

The Rise of the Sunbelt

If one region is seeing across-the-board growth, it’s the South, led by states like South Carolina (+79.7), Tennessee (+43.6), and Alabama (+36.6).

Long one of the more economically depressed regions of the country, a combination of lower costs of living and nicer weather has led to rapid growth for southern “Sun Belt” states such as Arkansas and Oklahoma, to say nothing of massive favorites like Texas and the Sunshine State of Florida.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Decline of Housing Affordability in the U.S. on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/24/2026 - 22:45

The Inherited IRA 10-Year Rule Is Fully Enforced In 2026 - What Beneficiaries Need To Do Now

The Inherited IRA 10-Year Rule Is Fully Enforced In 2026 - What Beneficiaries Need To Do Now

Authored by Adam H. Douglas via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

If you inherited a traditional IRA from someone who was already taking required minimum distributions (RMDs), you may have to take annual withdrawals for the next decade, and the account must be empty by the end of the tenth year.

Many inherited IRA beneficiaries must now take annual RMDs. Vitalii Vodolazskyi/Shutterstock

The Internal Revenue Service waived penalties for missed withdrawals from 2021 through 2024 while the rules were being finalized. That grace period is over. Starting with the 2025 tax year, the rules are fully enforced. If you missed a 2025 RMD, a 25 percent penalty applies unless you take corrective action now.

Who Does The 10-Year Rule Apply To?

The SECURE Act, passed in 2019, eliminated the "stretch IRA" for most non-spouse beneficiaries. Under the old rules, you had an option to spread withdrawals across your own lifetime. That option is gone for most people who inherit today.

If you are a non-eligible designated beneficiary (NEDB), which covers most adult children and other non-spouse heirs, the 10-year rule is probably going to apply to you. In general, you are exempt if you fall into one of these categories:

  • The surviving spouse of the deceased
  • A minor child of the deceased, though the 10-year rule applies once you reach adulthood
  • A beneficiary who is chronically ill or disabled
  • A beneficiary who is not more than 10 years younger than the original owner

What if none of those apply to you? Then the 10-year rule is likely to be your framework.

When Do Annual Withdrawals Have To Start?

The answer depends on whether the original IRA owner died before or after their required beginning date (RBD), generally April 1 of the year following the year they turned 73.

  • If the original owner died before their RBD and was not yet taking RMDs: No annual withdrawals are required, and the account must be emptied by end of year 10.
  • If the original owner died on or after their RBD and was already taking RMDs: The general rule is that annual withdrawals are required every year, and the account must be emptied by end of year 10.

If your parent was already taking RMDs when they passed, you must take a distribution every year from year one through year 10 - you cannot skip years and take everything in year 10.

The 10-year clock starts the year after the original owner's death. If you inherited the IRA in 2022, your deadline to fully empty the account is Dec. 31, 2032.

How Much Has To Come Out Each Year?

There is no fixed percentage. Your annual RMD is calculated using two inputs:

  • The account's balance as of Dec. 31 of the prior year
  • Your life expectancy factor from the IRS Single Life Expectancy Table in IRS Publication 590-B

The calculation:

Prior year-end balance ÷ life expectancy factor = Your RMD for the year

Your life expectancy factor is based on your age as of Dec. 31 of the current distribution year. Look up that number in the IRS table each year; it changes as you age. You recalculate annually using the updated factor and the prior year's Dec. 31 balance.

Your IRA custodian can often provide this calculation directly. A tax professional can verify it, which is worth doing in your first distribution year.

What Happens If You Missed Your 2025 RMD?

The penalty for a missed RMD is 25 percent of the amount you should have withdrawn. The IRS reduces that to 10 percent if you take the corrective distribution and file Form 5329 within the two-year correction window.

Here is what to do if you missed a 2025 distribution:

  • Take the missed distribution now. Withdraw the full amount you should have taken in 2025 as soon as possible.
  • File Form 5329. This IRS form reports additional taxes on qualified retirement plans. You will attach it to your tax return or file it as a standalone form.
  • Request penalty abatement, if applicable. If this is your first missed RMD and you have a reasonable explanation, the penalty might be waived by the IRS. Attach a written explanation to Form 5329 when you file.

Rather than risk it not being waived, act now. The two-year window for the reduced 10 percent penalty is already running.

FAQs About The Inherited IRA 10-Year Rule What Is The Difference Between An Eligible Designated Beneficiary And A Non-Eligible Designated Beneficiary?

An eligible designated beneficiary includes surviving spouses, minor children of the deceased, disabled or chronically ill individuals, and beneficiaries not more than 10 years younger than the original owner. These individuals can spread withdrawals over their lifetime instead of following the 10-year rule. Everyone else is a non-eligible designated beneficiary subject to the 10-year rule. Most adult children who inherit a parent's traditional IRA fall into the NEDB category.

Can I Wait Until Year 10 And Take Everything Out At Once?

It depends on when the original owner died. If they died before their required beginning date and had not yet started RMDs, you are not required to take annual distributions and may take the full balance in year ten. If they had already started RMDs, annual withdrawals are required throughout the 10-year period. Taking everything in year ten in that case does not avoid penalties for missed annual distributions in earlier years.

How Do I Find My Life Expectancy Factor For The RMD Calculation?

Your life expectancy factor comes from the Single Life Expectancy Table in IRS Publication 590-B, available at irs.gov. Find your age as of Dec. 31 of the current distribution year and read the corresponding factor. Divide the account's prior December 31 balance by that factor to get your RMD amount. Your IRA custodian may also calculate this for you. Verifying it independently is advisable, particularly in the first year of distributions.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/24/2026 - 22:10

$150 Humanoid Robot House Cleaning Service Threatens To Undercut Maid Services

$150 Humanoid Robot House Cleaning Service Threatens To Undercut Maid Services

It's no secret that some humanoid robotics companies are training their machines for work on factory floors, while others are positioning their bots to enter homes in the coming years.

One of the first real signs of humanoids entering homes today is a new cleaning service in San Francisco that uses what appear to be Unitree humanoid robots trained to clean everything from floors and countertops to stovetops, mirrors, and nearly any surface in the house.

Called "Gatsby," the new service deploys humanoid robots to homes for a flat service charge of $150.

"We just made U.S. history. Today, Gatsby ran the first-ever consumer cleaning by a humanoid robot in the United States," Gatsby wrote in a press release earlier this month.

The company noted, "We picked someone random off our SF waitlist, they booked a cleaning, we delivered the robot, and it cleaned their entire apartment on its own. No humans inside. This is the first of its kind in the U.S., and we're proud to be the pioneers writing this line in the history books today."

For the average deep clean of a typical U.S. home, the price ranges between $200 and $400, and for much larger homes, $500 or more, according to Angi List. This means the robotic cleaning service can even undercut an independent cleaner or a professional cleaning company, which often employs migrant workers.

News of Gatsby's cleaning service comes as shipments of humanoid robots are expected to ramp up this year and accelerate by the end of the decade, according to a recent UBS note.

The goal of tech firms is very clear: deploy these bots first on factory floors, in warehouses, and at logistics hubs, then move into consumer markets once the machines become reliable enough for home use.

Once these bots enter the consumer market, they will begin to chip away at demand for migrant labor and drive down household costs for services such as cleaning, cooking, laundry, and other chores, which have traditionally required human labor and can cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per month.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/24/2026 - 21:35

Trump Indicates He'll Sign Bill Making Daylight Saving Time Permanent

Trump Indicates He'll Sign Bill Making Daylight Saving Time Permanent

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump has indicated he would sign a bill to make daylight saving time permanent as a House of Representatives committee advanced a measure that would codify the change.

U.S. President Donald Trump returns to the White House in Washington on May 15, 2026. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

"Big Vote today (48-1!) in the Energy and Commerce Committee on a Bill including The Sunshine Protection Act, which will be making Daylight Saving Time Permanent! This is so important in that Hundreds of Millions of Dollars are spent every year by people, Cities, and States, being forced to change their Clocks. Many of these Clocks are located in Towers, and the cost of renting, or using, Heavy Equipment to do this twice a year is prohibitive!" Trump wrote on Thursday in a Truth Social post.

The president said that there is considerable "work and money that is spent on this ridiculous, twice yearly production," referring to the changing of the time. He also said that "it will also be a very nice WIN for the Republican Party."

"We are going with the far more popular alternative, Saving Daylight, which gives you a longer, brighter Day - And who can be against that - This is an easy one!" Trump added.

Known as the Sunshine Protection Act, the bill was proposed by Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), who released a statement saying that it would "bring us one step closer to ending the outdated and unpopular practice of changing our clocks twice a year."

"Floridians and Americans across the country are tired of the biannual time change, and the evidence is clear that permanent daylight saving time can improve public health, reduce traffic accidents, lower crime and encourage more outdoor activity," he said in the statement.

In a social media post last year, Trump urged Congress to address the issue.

"The House and Senate should push hard for more Daylight at the end of a day. Very popular and, most importantly, no more changing of the clocks, a big inconvenience and, for our government, A VERY COSTLY EVENT!!!" he wrote in April 2025.

For years, advocates have called for the United States to stop making the twice-yearly changes. Among those urging that the country stick to one time for the entire year are the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

A poll from The Associated Press and NORC released in October 2025 also found that only 12 percent of Americans favor the current daylight saving time system. Around 47 percent are opposed to the current system and 40 percent are neutral, it also found.

The United States first started using the time shift more than a century ago, during World War I, and again during World War II. Congress passed a law in 1966 that allowed states to decide whether to participate but required their decisions to be uniform across their territories. All states except Arizona and Hawaii make the time shifts, and those two states remain on standard time year-round.

According to Buchanan's office, the Sunshine Protection Act was included in an amendment to a larger bill, the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/24/2026 - 21:00

Colbert Blames Trump, But Massive Profit Losses Killed His Show

Colbert Blames Trump, But Massive Profit Losses Killed His Show

Progressive ideologues in entertainment are well known for avoiding responsibility for their failures at any cost, which is what makes them incredibly dangerous.  Scapegoats are targeted for destruction while activists elude scrutiny so that they can bungle another project or institution, and another, and another.  On and on it goes; like a bacteria they travel from one organ to the next, breaking it down from the inside.  

This is what people like Stephen Colbert represent.

From 2019 to 2025 The Late Show lost approximately 25% of its peak viewership.  Much like Jimmy Kimmel and other midnight comedy programs obsessed with politics instead of telling jokes, Colbert lost any ability to make fun of his own side.  Instead, he became a propaganda mouthpiece for the establishment and a complete disgrace as a conduit for Covid hysteria and vaccine mandates. 

Whatever esteem he might have had as an entertainer was lost.  His career was now tied to woke activism and running interference for the "elites".  He likely believed that in a town like Hollywood this would cement his position and keep him safe from cancellation.  However, despite their grand theatrics as "soldiers of the revolution", Hollywood executives still love money. 

Colbert's show was losing around $50 million per year.  His bloated production crew of 200 people and ludicrous salary of $20 million per season created an annual filming cost of over $100 million.  Ad revenues for the show dropped from $121 million in 2018 to $70 million in 2024.  Keep in mind, there are thousands of creators on YouTube that do essentially what Colbert does with almost no budget, and they bring in a far larger audience.

There's no doubt that Colbert will go on to other productions well after the cancellation of his disastrous Late Show.  Hollywood has pedestalized the former comedian as a martyr for the great woke cause.  The corporate media has done the same, suggesting that the death of the Late Show will be looked on by historians as "Exhibit A" of Trump's "attack on democracy".  But, it's still a fact that he lost his show because he was losing vast amounts of money for CBS. 

The key to satire, and most comedy in general, is to shine a spotlight on hard truths while suppressing one's inherent bias.  The ability to throw one's own sacred cows on the pyre is what makes satirists famous.  One cannot be a propagandist and be a successful satirist at the same time.  One cannot be a court jester and be afraid to take the risk of making fun of royalty.

The royalty in Colbert's case is not Trump, but the progressive elite and Big Pharma.  Attacking Trump in Hollywood or New York presents no risk.  Poking fun at the woke mafia presents incredible risk.  Colbert has long been a coward in this regard.  He has, though, thrown perhaps the biggest toddler fit in recent memory over the end of The Late Show in an attempt to make the event as political as possible.    

Colbert will never be out of work completely.  Recent announcements have him writing on the script for Peter Jackson's next Lord of the Rings spin-off film (which is shaping up to be a disaster).  He also made a surprise appearance on the cable access show "Only In Monroe" with an average audience of 12 people, which is perhaps a venue more suited to his talents. 

The idea that Colbert has been censored by a vengeful White House is complete fantasy.  The claim that this is an "attack on democracy" is merely designed to inflame more leftist madness.  No one is entitled under the Constitution to their own late night TV show, especially when they're burning $50 million a year. 

Losing the respect of a large swath of the American public, though, makes it unlikely that Colbert will do well in any future project.  In the end, he will fade from memory as just another establishment shill.    

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/24/2026 - 20:25

Child Safety Groups Urge FTC To Investigate Roblox

Child Safety Groups Urge FTC To Investigate Roblox

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Two child safety groups filed a complaint against online interactive gaming platform Roblox with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on May 20, alleging that children face sexual and financial harm on the platform.

A boy poses for a photo while holding a game pad in front of a screen displaying the logo of the children's gaming platform Roblox, in this illustration taken on Dec. 8, 2025. Ramil Sitdikov/Illustration/Reuters

Filed by nonprofits National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) and Fairplay, the complaint claims that certain Roblox features are "developmentally inappropriate for the platform's massive young user base and pose a substantial risk of harm." Such features include engagement-maximizing design features, a complex virtual currency system that can result in more user spending, and chat and communication features that expose children to sexual exploitation.

These components "capitalize on young users' developmental vulnerabilities, exploit their desire for authentic self-expression, monetize their lack of impulse control, and turn in-game purchasing power into a form of social status," the complaint states.

"As a result, young users say they feel a constant pressure to keep up with their peers on the platform, and are thereby driven to buy and spend Robux in order to enjoy Roblox's experiences.

"At the same time, the voice and text chat features that make the platform social repeatedly expose children to sexual content and harmful adults, resulting in sexual exploitation and abuse."

According to the complaint, Roblox requires users to be at least 5 years old to open an account.

Last month, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford said at a press conference that Roblox, which has roughly 151.5 million daily active users, is used by almost half of all American children under 16. Around 42 percent of the platform's users are children under the age of 13.

The nonprofits asked the FTC to investigate Roblox for violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and check whether the company is in compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

Meanwhile, Roblox's share price has crashed. On July 31, 2025, the company's share price hit its year-high of $150.59. On May 21, 2026, prices closed at $46.14, a decline of nearly 70 percent. Since Sept. 29, Roblox's market capitalization has tumbled from $98.7 billion to $32.8 billion as of May 21, a loss of almost $66 billion.

Design, Currency, Communication Issues

Regarding the platform's design and marketing features, the complaint alleged that the company leverages them to "capitalize on child users' vulnerabilities."

For instance, one tactic used by the company is making users' game inventories of virtual assets visible to each other.

"By allowing children to investigate who owns what, Roblox takes advantage of their developmental proclivity for social comparison, which involves measuring their self-worth relative to others," the complaint reads.

To take part in Roblox's in-game economy, users must navigate a wide range of virtual currencies, including the platform's primary currency, Robux, and other currencies issued by developers.

To calculate the real-world dollar costs of the items, users must perform complex calculations that greatly surpass children's mathematical skills, making them susceptible to financial harm, according to the complaint.

As for chat and communication on Roblox, the complaint raises concerns that these features could facilitate "predation and abuse by enabling adult contact with minors."

The company gives parents control over how their children can communicate on the platform. However, Roblox's webpage on parental controls clarifies that these settings "do not apply to chat features developed independently by developers."

In a statement to The Epoch Times, a Roblox spokesperson said that the company "strongly disputes" the claims made in the complaint.

"Our platform is designed to provide a positive, healthy, and enjoyable experience - we build for fun and connection, not short-term engagement. While no system can be perfect, we have a set of safeguards designed to support a safe and civil environment, and clear policies for game creators that require fair treatment of players," the spokesperson said.

"Most games on Roblox are free to play, and no one is required to purchase Robux.

"In addition, we have clear policies prohibiting both actual and simulated gambling, and a set of rules governing how game creators can use gameplay mechanics like paid random items."

Lawsuits, International Scrutiny

Roblox is facing several lawsuits from states such as Iowa, Louisiana, Texas, Kentucky, and Florida, citing child safety issues.

In December 2025, Iowa sued the company, accusing the platform of being the "perfect environment for child predators, pornographers, scammers, fraudsters, online sex rings, and inappropriate content."

Amid growing concerns about child safety, Roblox announced age-based accounts and expanded parental controls for users under 16 on April 13.

Under the policy, users aged 5 to 8 and 9 to 15 will have separate accounts subject to stricter censorship of adult content.

"All content uploaded to Roblox goes through their existing moderation systems, including AI asset scanning, ongoing user report review, and multimodal moderation that evaluates scenes in real time for potential policy violations," the company said in a statement.

In addition to the United States, Roblox has faced bans and scrutiny in other nations.

The platform has been banned in Turkey and Iraq. Russia blocked Roblox in December 2025, accusing the platform of enabling "LGBT propaganda" and the dissemination of extremist materials.

In January, the Netherlands announced opening an investigation into the platform, citing potential risks to minors. Last month, Australia issued formal notices to major gaming platforms, including Roblox, asking the companies to describe how they prevent the radicalization and grooming of children.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/24/2026 - 19:50

My Retirement Accounts Fail In The World I Actually Live In

My Retirement Accounts Fail In The World I Actually Live In

Authored by Patrick Brenner via RealClearMarkets,

I remember the first time I logged into my retirement account as a young professional. It felt like a milestone: proof that I had entered the world of adulthood, of long-term thinking, of ownership. I work in the nonprofit sector, so technically it's a 403(b), not a 401(k). The distinction is academic; the promise is the same: contribute consistently, invest wisely, and over time, build financial independence.

The longer I've contributed, the more I've realized something uncomfortable: my retirement plan isn't built for the world I actually live in.

Like many in my generation, I came of age during a period of profound economic change. Companies stay private longer. Technology, infrastructure, and energy companies increasingly raise capital outside public markets. The most dynamic growth in the economy often happens before a company ever reaches a stock exchange. When I look at my retirement options, I'm locked out of that world.

Instead, we see a familiar menu consisting of a handful of mutual funds and some index options that quietly steer me toward a standardized allocation. These are not bad investments, but they represent only a fraction of real economic growth.

For my younger peers just entering the workforce, this gap is even more consequential. The directions are thus: start early, take advantage of compounding, and think long term. If we each had a dollar for every time we got the lecture about the "time value of money," we'd all retire tomorrow. But we are also being funneled into portfolios that exclude entire categories of assets like private equity, private credit, real estate, and infrastructure that have historically delivered higher long-term returns and meaningful diversification.

Brett Arends at Market Watch incorrectly asserts that opening retirement plans to these assets would expose workers to high fees, illiquidity, and complexity. He misses a more important question: compared to what?

There's real asymmetry. Institutional investors regularly allocate 20 to 30 percent of their portfolios to private markets. They do so because these assets offer diversification, illiquidity premiums, and exposure to parts of the economy unavailable in public markets. Ordinary workers are confined to a narrower universe because litigious zealots neutered the system, compelling fiduciaries to avoid risk at all costs.

This narrowing of investment options originates in the legal environment surrounding employer-sponsored retirement plans. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), plan sponsors face an onslaught of litigation. The risk of lawsuits compels employers to increasingly default to the safest legal options rather than to the best outcomes for participants, thereby directly limiting potential returns.

Even if you set aside litigation, the deeper issue is structural. The retirement system hasn't kept pace with the evolution of capital markets.

The proposed rule from the Department of Labor deserves serious attention. At its core, the rule introduces a safe-harbor framework for evaluating "designated investment alternatives" in defined-contribution plans. The definition encompasses everything from traditional mutual funds to more complex vehicles, including those that can incorporate private assets.

The framework is asset-neutral. It outlines how fiduciaries should choose. Plan sponsors are obligated to evaluate investments using a set of common-sense factors: fees, performance, liquidity, valuation, benchmarks, and complexity. If they do so objectively and analytically, they are presumed to meet their fiduciary obligations.

The White House's Council of Economic Advisers suggests that younger participants could benefit from allocating up to 30 percent of their portfolios to private markets. Institutional investors have approached portfolio construction using private markets for decades.

Yet parts of the proposed rule undermine that very goal. A 15 percent cap on private assets, derived from SEC Rule 22e-4, would limit exposure, a particular problem for collective investment trusts, which are regulated differently and historically operated without such constraints.

Angela Antonelli offers helpful insights. Georgetown Univerisity's research from the Center for Retirement Initiatives and other CRI analysis, even relatively modest exposure to private real assets, private credit, and private equity has the potential to boost outcomes by 7% to 8%, not just for the "average" DC participant but also across a range of more real financial savings patterns that DC participants too often find themselves in over the course of their working years.

Large institutions, from university endowments to public pension funds, routinely invest in private markets and reap the benefits of diversification and higher returns. We've created two classes of retirement savers: those with access to the full spectrum of capital markets, and those without.

That divide is the difference between participating in today's economy and being stuck in a version of it that no longer exists. Retirement policy should be about equipping workers to build wealth in the modern world.

Right now, my 403(b) originated on a promise that has become so antiquated it might be unattainable. Instead of "taxing the rich," can't we just be allowed to invest like them?

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/24/2026 - 18:40

Pages