Individual Economists

10 Sunday Reads

The Big Picture -

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.

Six California Cities Ranked Among Top 10 Least Educated In US

Zero Hedge -

Six California Cities Ranked Among Top 10 Least Educated In US

Six California cities ranked among the top 10 least educated metropolitan areas in the United States, according to a report by WalletHub published on June 29.

Looking at the 150 most populated metro areas, the city of Visalia ranked as the second least educated, while Bakersfield was fourth, and Modesto, Fresno, Stockton, and Salinas followed.

All six are in central California.

The other four metros that rounded out the top ten were all in Texas - McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Brownsville-Harlingen, Beaumont-Port Arthur, and El Paso, at first, third, ninth, and tenth least educated, respectively.

“Higher education doesn’t guarantee better financial opportunities in the future, but it certainly correlates with it,” WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo said in the report.

“The most educated cities provide good learning opportunities from childhood all the way through the graduate level.”

As Dylan Morgan reports for The Epoch Times, to determine the ranking, WalletHub equally factored in the share of adults at least 25 years old who have a high school diploma or higher, who have at least some college experience, who have a bachelor’s degree or higher, and who have a graduate or professional degree.

Visalia ranked last among the 150 metros in percent of bachelor’s degree holders and percent of graduate or professional degree holders.

It ranked 107th highest in median annual household income, and there appeared to be a general correlation between income and education rates across the nation.

However, Visalia still had a lower poverty rate than the state average—11.3 percent compared to 11.8 percent, according to U.S. Census data—and Stockton ranked as having the 31st highest median household income while Salinas ranked as 26th highest, though those two cities were near the bottom in education.

Education and income rate correlations may not reflect California’s higher cost of living and regional economic structures, such as the Central Valley’s reliance on agriculture, an industry that has not historically required higher education the same way other California hubs have, such as Silicon Valley.

The San Jose metro, home to Silicon Valley, ranked as the fourth most educated in the United States.

WalletHub said that more than 55 percent of the San Jose metro’s population over the age of 25 have at least a bachelor’s degree, while nearly 28 percent have an advanced degree. .

It also ranked third for university quality. San Jose is near Stanford University and has Santa Clara University and San Jose State University in the center of the metro.

The nearby San Francisco metro area, which is home to the University of California—Berkeley, ranked as the eighth most educated.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 18:05

Canada Seizes 7 Tons Of Drugs, Fentanyl Chemicals, And Signal Jammers In China-Linked Narco Bust

Zero Hedge -

Canada Seizes 7 Tons Of Drugs, Fentanyl Chemicals, And Signal Jammers In China-Linked Narco Bust

Authored by The Bureau's Sam Cooper (emphasis our own), 

A Burnaby RCMP investigation that began with a routine traffic stop last summer has ended in one of the largest drug-chemical seizures in British Columbia’s history — 6,765 kilograms of finished narcotics and fentanyl-production chemicals pulled from three homes and two shipping containers in Richmond, alongside tactical shotguns, cash, contraband cigarettes — and a multi-antenna device consistent with the signal jammers used to defeat electronic surveillance.

The Bureau assesses that a seizure of this magnitude, staged in residential properties and sea can containers in Richmond — the city that court records and Canada’s largest money-laundering investigation have established as a central node of Chinese transnational organized crime — is consistent with the industrial-scale flow of precursor chemicals from China through the Vancouver gateway that senior American law enforcement and intelligence sources have described to this publication, moving in coordination with Mexican cartel logistics.

Chemicals in these volumes are not assembled from Canadian production sources. They arrive by shipping container. Burnaby RCMP has stated no such link, named no suspects, and identified no network; what follows on sourcing and supply lines is The Bureau’s analysis, built on years of documented seizures in this corridor and on the stated concerns of the American government itself.

The case began on July 30, 2025, when Burnaby officers stopped a vehicle and seized approximately four kilograms of precursor chemicals commonly used in fentanyl production. The Burnaby Gang Enforcement Team continued investigating the driver, work that police say produced three more suspects and several crime scenes. On April 1, 2026, the gang unit — supported by Burnaby RCMP’s Strike Force, Prolific Offender Suppression Teams, and Ottawa’s Clandestine Laboratory Enforcement unit — executed five search warrants simultaneously. Investigators recovered 6,765 kilograms of finished narcotics and precursor chemicals. Some of the finished product is suspected methamphetamine, fentanyl, and oxycodone.

All five sites were in Richmond.

The geography matters, and Washington has said so at the highest levels. Richmond was the home of Silver International, the underground bank at the center of the RCMP’s E-Pirate casino money laundering investigation.

In January 2019, David Eby — then British Columbia’s attorney general, now its premier — publicly cited a Financial Action Task Force report, containing information provided by the government of Canada, estimating that the single Richmond entity laundered over one billion Canadian dollars per year for global syndicates before the prosecution collapsed with no convictions.

The Bureau’s expert sources say that Silver International operated as an entity within the Sam Gor syndicate, the Chinese transnational narcotics network that American and allied agencies rank among the largest drug trafficking organizations in the world.

The collapse of that case, and what it revealed about the financial architecture available to Chinese networks in British Columbia, became a matter of direct diplomatic concern. In a prior interview with The Bureau, Port Coquitlam Mayor Brad West disclosed that then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in a 2023 meeting, described Canada as a worrisome weak link in the global fentanyl supply chain — and identified the convergence of Chinese state-linked actors, triads, and Mexican cartels operating from Canadian soil.

He was incredibly candid and very serious about the threat fentanyl poses to North America,” West told The Bureau. “He confirmed the connection between the Chinese Communist Party, the triads, and the Mexican cartels, telling me these groups are working together — and it’s Canada where they’re finding a safe operating base.”

“This is no longer just a Canadian domestic issue,” West said. “Secretary Blinken made it clear that the Biden administration sees fentanyl as an existential threat. They’re building a global coalition and need Canada fully on board. If we don’t show real progress, the U.S. will protect itself by any means—tariffs or otherwise.”

Blinken’s dismay, West said, centered on E-Pirate itself. “He expressed genuine dismay that we haven’t secured meaningful convictions,” West said, paraphrasing the secretary. “When our most prominent laundering case ends with zero prison time, you can see why the Americans are alarmed.”

Against that backdrop, the Richmond seizure reads as one explosive scene in a feature length film.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 17:30

These Are The World's Top Destinations For Wealth Migration

Zero Hedge -

These Are The World's Top Destinations For Wealth Migration

Countries are increasingly competing to attract wealthy individuals alongside businesses and skilled workers. For many governments, internationally mobile wealth represents a source of investment, entrepreneurship, and long-term economic growth.

This graphic, via Visual Cspitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, ranks the world’s most competitive destinations for wealth migration using data from The Henley Private Wealth Migration Report 2026, which evaluates countries across 12 factors including tax policy, investor pathways, regulatory quality, and overall business environment.

The Most Competitive Countries for Wealth Migration

Below, countries are measured by their competitiveness for attracting internationally mobile wealth.

Singapore leads globally, ahead of New Zealand and the Cayman Islands. Europe also performs strongly, with the Netherlands, Cyprus, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, and Greece all appearing in the top 15.

Singapore’s position reflects its combination of low taxes, political stability, and business-friendly policies. Together, these strengths have made it one of the safest countries for investors, and a magnet for wealth across Asia.

Small Countries Stand Out

One of the clearest patterns is the strength of smaller economies. Overall, 11 of the 16 most competitive countries have populations under 10 million.

Many of these countries have spent decades building investor-friendly ecosystems. Singapore offers a globally connected financial hub, Cyprus provides attractive residency pathways, and Switzerland combines political stability with an established private banking industry.

Rather than relying on domestic market size, many of these countries compete by offering predictable regulation, efficient tax systems, strong legal institutions, and straightforward pathways for investors to establish residency or relocate wealth.

The U.S. Falls Behind

Despite having the world’s largest economy, the U.S. faces several structural challenges in attracting wealth.

Citizenship-based taxation, fiscal complexity, longer investor processing times, and political polarization are among the factors weighing on its score. By contrast, many higher-ranked countries offer simpler tax regimes, making them more attractive to internationally mobile wealth.

Unlike most countries, the U.S. taxes its citizens on worldwide income regardless of where they live, a feature that can increase tax burdens for internationally mobile individuals.

Why Countries Are Competing for Wealth

Countries are increasingly competing for more than businesses and skilled workers. They are also competing for private capital.

In 2025 alone, nearly 1 million people globally became millionaires, highlighting the growing pool of internationally mobile wealth.

High-net-worth individuals often relocate with businesses, investment capital, and philanthropic spending. As global wealth continues to grow, attracting even a relatively small number of affluent residents can have an outsized economic impact, particularly for smaller countries.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the world’s most powerful passports.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 16:55

Historians Set Record Straight On 5 Events That Shaped America

Zero Hedge -

Historians Set Record Straight On 5 Events That Shaped America

Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times,

As America celebrates its 250th birthday, it’s prime time for historians such as Jeff Bloodworth to set the record straight.

Bloodworth, a professor at Pennsylvania’s Gannon University, noted that it had become trendy among historians to “demythologize” the Founding Fathers.

“But it has gone too far,” he told The Epoch Times. “The achievements of the Founders and the founding are obscured by the lists of sins.”

Now, he thinks “the pendulum is swinging back” toward a more balanced, nuanced, and accurate view of the Founders—and about other aspects of American history.

Through his role with Heterodox Academy—a bipartisan group advocating for open inquiry on college campuses—Bloodworth said he sees “there’s a real pushback against this stuff.”

Any fair appraisal of the Founders requires “lauding their achievements but also recognizing their omissions and their flaws and their hypocrisies,” he said.

Bloodworth and two other historians who spoke to The Epoch Times shed light on myths, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings about the nation’s foundational period; The Epoch Times also reviewed dozens of historic references for this story.

Without historical knowledge, it’s easy to “get sucked into believing things have never been worse, that there’s never been a time like this—and that just isn’t true,” Bloodworth said.

Jeff Bloodworth, professor of history, holds up a copy of his book

Stanley Schwartz, a professor at Cedarville University in Ohio, echoed many of Bloodworth’s observations.

Stanley Schwartz, assistant professor of history at Cedarville University in Cedarville, Ohio. Courtesy of Cedarville University

When students question how early American history relates to them, he responds that issues the Founders faced remain relevant. Those include “how to govern well,” he said, along with “how to relate to foreign powers.”

Many students who expected to be bored in class end up realizing that history “speaks to a person, helps you find your roots, find your place in the world,” Schwartz said.

Anna Vincenzi, a professor at Hillsdale College in Michigan, said learning about America’s history fulfills “a deeply human need ... to know the truth about where we came from.” That knowledge helps people understand “the good things about the history that has brought us here, and also the origin of the problems.”

The Boston Tea Party and Why It Happened

On Dec. 16, 1773, hundreds of angry colonists—many disguised as Native Americans—dumped 92,000 pounds of tea into Boston Harbor.

The Boston Tea Party thus became one of the most iconic acts of defiance in U.S. history. Yet modern Americans often misconstrue the reasons for the protest and overestimate its aftereffects, historians say.

Yes, the British Parliament’s passage of the Tea Act of 1773 sparked the protest. But contrary to popular modern belief, the act resulted in lower tea prices.

So why did the act anger the colonists so much?

Part of the reason: It reinforced an existing import tax on tea.

Another factor: Drinking tea is so quintessentially British that “taxing tea is ... like making them feel like they’re not quite British,” Vincenzi said. “It was perceived as a statement on their status as British citizens.”

A work of art by Nathaniel Currier depicts the 1773 Boston Tea Party, entitled “The Destruction of Tea at Boston Harbor,” created in 1846. Colonists known as the “Sons of Liberty” dressed as Mohawk American Indians and smashed 342 chests of tea and emptied the contents—valued at nearly $2 million today—on Dec. 16, 1773. Public Domain

The larger issue, however, was that colonists had no representation in the British Parliament. Yet Parliament repeatedly imposed policies “without the consent of the people through their representatives, in a way that they say is violating the rights and liberties of a British citizen,” Vincenzi said.

Those actions conflicted with the British constitution’s traditional limits on the king’s power, dating to the 13th century, she said.

At the time of the tea party, American colonists were drinking about 1.2 million pounds of tea each year. Much of it came from England and was subject to taxes imposed by the Townshend Revenue Act, according to the Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum.

American colonists started smuggling lower-priced tea from the Dutch and other European markets.

In response, Parliament imposed the Tea Act, which helped a private British company, the East India Tea Company, undercut prices of the smuggled tea. If colonists bought that cheaper, British-subsidized tea, they still would be forced to pay the Townshend Act’s import duty.

Thus, many colonists feared that acquiescing would embolden the British government to impose even more taxes.

The Sons of Liberty—some of whom were tea smugglers—began organizing meetings to address “the tea crisis.”

Up to 6,000 people met on Nov. 29, 1773, after the first shipload of unwanted tea docked in Boston Harbor. Attendees reached a consensus: The tea would be sent back to England and no tax would be paid.

An engraving made by John Karst in 1865 depicts John Lamb, a Sons of Liberty leader, reading the British Parliament’s Tea Act of of 1773 at New York City Hall on Dec. 17, 1773. Colonists took issue with the Act as they had no representation in the British Parliament. John Karst/Public Domain

After exhausting all legal remedies to achieve those goals, leaders executed their last-ditch secret plan: trashing the tea.

Protesters donned wool blankets, grabbed tomahawks, and smeared coal dust on their faces—called “Indian dress” then. The disguises weren’t meant to be convincing; they mostly served to conceal identities so protesters could avoid punishment.

Tea partiers smashed 342 chests of tea and emptied the contents—valued at nearly $2 million today.

The protest had an impact—but not in the way many people might think.

“While the Tea Party itself didn’t mobilize Americans en masse, it was Parliament’s reaction to it that did,” according to a History.com article.

In 1774, the British enacted “punitive measures meant to teach the rebellious colonists who was boss,” the article said. The British closed Boston Harbor, replaced Boston’s elected officials with the king’s appointees, and forced private citizens to quarter British troops in their homes.

Those actions inspired colonists to hold the first Continental Congress meeting.

“Revolution was officially in the air,” the article said.

Colonial fife and drum corps play in front of the Old South Meeting House during the Boston Tea Party 250th Anniversary celebration, in Boston in 2023. The Boston Tea Party has became one of the most iconic acts of defiance in American history. Courtesy of Caroline Talbot/December 16.org

Patriot Paul Revere and ‘The British Are Coming!’

Revere was among “many messengers spreading the alarm” across the Massachusetts countryside on April 18 and 19, 1775, according to the National Park Service.

The Revere-as-lone-rider myth arose partly from the celebrated poem “Paul Revere’s Ride” by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. It omits any mention that other horsemen helped alert townspeople about British soldiers heading toward Concord.

There, the soldiers intended “to arrest patriots and seize colonial militia stockpiles,” the CIA said in an April 2026 article.

Notably, before his famous ride, Revere and others formed “the first Patriot intelligence group on record,” the CIA said in a report about the role intelligence played in the American Revolution.

Called “The Mechanics” or “The Liberty Boys,” the secret group of about 30 men grew out of the old Sons of Liberty organization that opposed British taxes on colonists, the CIA said.

A statue of Paul Revere near Old North Church in Boston on April 8, 2026. Historical records from that era suggest that Revere did not shout “The British are coming!” Instead he warned, “The regulars are coming!” The term, “regulars,” referred to the British professional soldiers. Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times

Starting in late 1774, the group gathered information to oppose British authority. In 1775, operatives exposed “the cover story the British had devised to mask their march on Lexington and Concord,” the CIA said.

That information laid the foundation for Revere’s ride.

As he rode, Revere never shouted, “The British are coming!”

That phrase “would not have made sense at the time,” because many of Revere’s fellow colonists considered themselves to be British, according to the Paul Revere House website.

Historical records from that era suggest that Revere instead warned, “The regulars are coming!” The term “regulars” referred to the British professional soldiers.

According to the Paul Revere House, the enduring but inaccurate “British are coming” phrase appears to have originated during a dinner party in 1822—nearly a half-century after Revere galloped into history.

(Top) The Marrett and Nathan Munroe House in Lexington, Mass., on March 26, 2025. (Bottom) The Buckman Tavern on the Lexington Battle Green. The Battle of Lexington, which began the American Revolution, took place in this area. Learner Liu/The Epoch Times

‘The Shot Heard ’Round the World’ and Its Origin

Historians still disagree over who fired the first shot in the initial clash between British troops and Patriots.

They do agree that the first volleys were fired at Lexington, but the next ones fired at Concord reverberated more loudly in history.

Weeks before those pivotal confrontations, Revere’s secret group had forewarned Patriots about British Gen. Thomas Gage’s plans to send troops to Lexington and Concord.

Late on April 18, 1775, about 800 British regulars started their 20-mile march toward Concord, according to the American Battlefield Trust.

After covering about 12 miles, the soldiers reached Lexington as the sun rose the next morning and confronted about 70 armed colonists on the town green.

Although the rebels began dispersing under their commander’s order, “at some point a shot rang out,” the trust said.

“The nervous British soldiers fired a volley, killing seven and mortally wounding one of the retreating militiamen. The British column moved on towards Concord, leaving the dead, wounded, and dying in their wake.”

An oil painting by William Barnes Wollen created in 1910 depicts the Battle of Lexington on April 19, 1775. About 800 British soldiers reached Lexington as the sun rose on April 19, 1775, and confronted about 70 armed colonists on the town green. Public Domain

In Concord, because of warnings from Revere’s secret group, colonists had hidden or relocated most of their stockpile before the redcoats arrived, the park service notes.

As a result, “the mission to destroy military goods in Concord turned out to be a miserable failure for the British,” the park service said.

The British soldiers also encountered a much larger contingent in Concord.

Within 24 hours, “more than 70 of the King’s finest troops lay dead and many more wounded,” along with 49 militiamen, the park service said. “Following a horrific day of bloodshed, the war General Gage hoped to avoid arrived at his doorstep.”

Many years later, a poem immortalized Concord as the site where a ragtag bunch of farmers, merchants, and blacksmiths stunned the world by overcoming the sophisticated redcoats.

“Concord Hymn” by Ralph Waldo Emerson debuted July 4, 1837, during the dedication of a Battle of Concord monument. The poem’s second line reads, “Here once the embattled farmers stood/ And fired the shot heard ‘round the world.”

Decades later, the 1970s educational cartoon series “Schoolhouse Rock” inspired children across the United States to sing “Shot Heard ’Round the World,” a song that retraces early U.S. history. Today, it still sparks nostalgia among Americans who grew up at that time—and amusement among younger generations.

(Top and Bottom) The Lexington Battle Green, where the Battles of Lexington and Concord started, in Lexington, Mass., on March 26, 2025. In Concord, because of warnings from Revere’s secret group, colonists had hidden or relocated most of their stockpile before the redcoats arrived. Learner Liu/The Epoch Times

Why the Revolution Started and How It Evolved

Although the colonists’ war would later be called “the Revolution” and “the war for American independence from Britain,” it was neither revolutionary nor independence-focused at the outset, historians say.

Schwartz said his Cedarville students will sometimes say that the Revolution centered on “destroying things to make everyone equal.”

That’s not so. Harvard University historian Bernard Bailyn pointed out that “things were already a lot more equal in the colonies than they were in Great Britain,” Schwartz said.

“In America, it was a lot easier to have the right to vote, a lot easier to own land ... to participate in society,” Schwartz said.

Colonists saw the British Crown trying to take away those advances.

“So the American Revolution wasn’t about tearing down old structures to get to equality,” he said. “It was about preserving healthy traditions of equality in the community that already existed.”

Vincenzi said her research challenges popular impressions of the nation’s early history.

“I do think Americans think of the American Revolution as more revolutionary ... more of a break from the British political tradition than it actually was,” said the Italian-born professor.

A still taken from video of Bernard Bailyn, Harvard University professor and historian, as he delivers a lecture at Brown University in Providence, R.I., on June 7, 2012. Bailyn pointed out that “things were already a lot more equal in the colonies than they were in Great Britain.” Screenshot via Brown University/CC BY 3.0

“That’s not a bad thing. There is a richness of tradition to be rediscovered there. ... It speaks to the wisdom of the Founders; they knew that starting something on a blank slate is more dangerous than building on a very rich tradition of thought.”

And the “revolutionists” weren’t initially focused on breaking free from England, either.

When the first shots rang out at Lexington and Concord, militiamen still considered themselves “loyal subjects to England’s King George the III,” the park service said. “Independence was the furthest thing from their minds.”

Rather, they “assembled to defend their rights, as they perceived them under English law.”

Vincenzi said she often reminds her Hillsdale students that Revolutionary-era Americans “wanted to be British, and to look British.”

They bought porcelain tea sets that looked “as aristocratic and as British as possible,” Vincenzi said. They also admired and emulated British fashion, portrait styles, and architectural designs.

Calls for independence finally surfaced in 1776.

Until then, “Americans felt British,” Vincenzi said. Yet the British treated the colonists as second-class citizens.

“And that is what eventually ... pushes them to consider independence,” she said.

Had that not been the case, “Americans could still be carrying a British passport,” Vincenzi said, echoing a statement she heard from noted historian Jack Greene.

Lexington Minute Men gather for a battle reenactment of the Battle of Lexington and Concord as part of Patriot's Day celebrations in Lexington, Mass., on April 18, 2026. The following day marks the 251st anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord, the first major military actions between the British Army and the Colonial American militias during the American Revolutionary War. Joseph Prezioso / AFP via Getty Images

The Founding Documents and Whom to Credit for Them

Some people mistakenly believe that Thomas Jefferson penned the entire Declaration of Independence by himself in a single night before Congress ratified the document unanimously on July 4, 1776.

The truth: Jefferson worked with four other committee members. They chose him to write the first draft—a process that took three weeks, followed by 86 edits from committee members and the Continental Congress, the National Park Service said.

“He was especially sorry they removed the part blaming King George III for the slave trade, although he knew the time wasn’t right to deal with the issue,” a National Archives article said.

The Declaration listed grievances against the British government and outlined core principles of the fledgling nation.

Years after defeating the British, America’s leaders met to establish the Constitution, which remains the supreme law of the land today.

Jefferson, however, never signed the document.

“This is the most popular myth at the National Constitution Center, especially when visitors enter our Signers’ Hall, [comprising] statues of the Constitution’s different signers—and ask where the Jefferson statue is,” the center’s website said.

Life-sized statues of the signers of the Constitution in Signers' Hall at the National Constitution Center, in Philadelphia, on July 18, 2012. Thomas Jefferson did not sign the Constitution–he was in Paris as the U.S. envoy to France at the time. Ziko van Dijk/CC BY-SA 3.0

Jefferson, the U.S. envoy to France, was in Paris when the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787.

When people think about crafting the Constitution, “we emphasize the two bright young men, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton,” Schwartz said. Both deserve credit for major roles in shaping the document. But in doing so, “we overlook a lot of the compromisers, the deal-makers, the older statesmen” whose influence was less obvious but essential, he said.

Those delegates “took Madison and Hamilton’s ideas, made them workable, built compromises out of them, and often changed them completely or went a completely new direction,” Schwartz said.

Those lesser-known contributors include Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth. The two Connecticut delegates helped bridge an impasse over the rights of small states versus large states. The Great Compromise provided equal representation for each state in the Senate and population-based seats in the House of Representatives.

Sherman is among six Founders who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The other five were George Clymer, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, George Read, and James Wilson.

John Trumbull's painting, “Declaration of Independence,” depicts the five-man drafting committee of the Declaration of Independence presenting their work to the Congress. The painting can be found on the back of the $2 bill. The original hangs in the U.S. Capitol rotunda. It does not represent a real ceremony; the characters portrayed were never in the same room at the same time. Another Believer/CC BY-SA 3.0

Schwartz emphasized that the Founders weren’t “just this collection of really intelligent people.” Many members of the Constitutional Convention had business experience, had traveled the world, and were “middle-aged or a little bit older.”

Thus, “they had wisdom, a lot of practical experience,” Schwartz said, which strengthened the Constitution.

Many people don’t realize that beyond the “young firebrands” known for their constitutional contributions, quiet leadership came from delegates such as George Washington, an elder statesman and war hero who became the first president.

“Just by being there and overseeing the proceedings, he’s adding a lot to it,” Schwartz said.

Without Washington and lesser-known delegates such as Ellsworth and Sherman, America would have ended up with a very different Constitution, he said.

“That’s a lesson that’s relevant for us today. We have a lot of people in our current politics who say, ‘Hey, I’m young. I want to charge to the front of this scene,’” Schwartz said.

“I think the Founders show us a different path. ... It’s good to have big ideas, but you also need people who are going to work hard behind the scenes and get things done.”

A sculpture by Adolph Alexander Weinman depicts the Committee of Five, on the pediment of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington. The committee was composed of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman. They drafted and presented to the full Congress in Pennsylvania State House what would become the U.S. Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. Another Believer/CC BY-SA 3.0

Slavery and How the Founders Saw It

In recent years, young Americans have been taught that the Founding Fathers “were all pro-slavery, they all owned slaves, they all thought slavery was a good thing—and that’s just not true,” Schwartz said. “That’s a big myth and a big mistake that we have to deal with in today’s society.”

Actually, the Founders were divided over slavery; some were very much against it. However, they didn’t insist on action in the Constitution, Schwartz said, because they believed people could see it was dehumanizing—which would lead to its abolishment.

He and Bloodworth concurred on that point.

While it is “appalling” that people could “own other human beings,” Bloodworth said, it’s essential to remember that “slavery was the norm” at the time.

“The past is ‘another country,’ and we have to understand it on its own terms,” he said. “Too often, contextualizing is seen as ‘excuse-making,’ which it’s not the same thing.”

He credits the Founders for embedding “the logic of racial equality” into America’s foundational documents, even though many weren’t yet ready to fully embrace it.

The opening words of the U.S. Constitution are displayed on the exterior of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, on Sept. 15, 2003. Roger Sherman is among six Founders who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution. Jeffrey M. Vinocur/CC BY 2.5

“Many of the Founders’ documents indicate that they most certainly believed that slavery was going to ... die a slow death,” Bloodworth said.

Significantly, Washington freed his slaves upon his death.

“It doesn’t erase the fact that he owned slaves,” Bloodworth said, but that “momentous” act set the tone for others to follow suit.

Vincenzi warns against “over-simplified” views of the debate over slavery during the age of the nation’s founding.

“It’s complicated,” she said.

A significant number of delegates to the Constitutional Convention were determined to defend slavery. Many others wanted slavery to be abolished, yet they worried that “the sudden abolition of slavery could create a lot of problems,” Vincenzi said.

They asked questions such as “If you treat people as non-people for decades, how are they going to live once they’re emancipated?”

The slavery issue was a pivotal one that perhaps made a big compromise at the Constitutional Convention inevitable “for the sake of establishing a union that otherwise would have probably not been born,” she said.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 16:20

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

Zero Hedge -

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

On Friday President Trump delivered a speech at Mount Rushmore to kick off the nation's 250th anniversary celebrations, and in it he confirmed that everything regarding Iran - whether on the military or diplomatic fronts - have been paused to allow for the Islamic Republic to bury its late supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

Trump said Washington "knocked the hell out of Iran" and that the country was "dying to settle". He also made comparisons between the lengthy Iran conflict and the brief US operation to overthrow Maduro of Venezuela.

"We beat Venezuela in one day, and we knocked the hell out of Iran," he said. That's when he claimed that the current US posture and pause in action is all about allowing the Iranians time to conduct a week-long funeral for the slain Khamenei, killed during the opening day of Operation Epic Fury.

"We gave them a week off for a funeral because we're nice," he said.

Bloomberg News

The funeral ceremonies began in Tehran on Friday, with government representatives from dozens of countries paying respects, and with the public multi-city procession in full swing on Saturday, amid a heavy Iranian security presence.

While the US administration is touting its Iran 'excursion' as a 'win' - the reality is that it is looking more like a quagmire with each passing week.

Iran is no closer to abandoning its nuclear program, it is proclaiming its own control over the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian protocol, and its ruling clerics and IRGC military apparatus are firmly in place. Trump and White House officials had from day one vowed a rapid engagement, saying repeatedly it would end 'fast' - and had even initially touted that regime change would be imminent - but now it's been 127 days since the conflict's start.

Trump in his Rushmore speech didn't dwell long on the Iran (mis)adventure, but moved on rather quickly to themes of American exceptionalism.

"Americans honor excellence; we admire boldness; we respect ambition," Trump said. "We are a nation of dreamers and believers, warriors and explorers, doers and fighters and in every human endeavor Americans see an unfinished competition.

"What is strong can be made stronger. What is fast can be made faster. What is great can be made greater than ever before. And that's what's happening with America."

He continued: "Show us a mountain, and we'll just climb it. Show us an ocean and we'll just cross it. Show us a problem and we will just solve it. Show us a task the world calls impossible and Americans will get it done."

There's a rich irony in Khamenei's public funeral starting on the very day, July 4th, that America celebrates the 250th anniversary of its founding. The founding fathers warned the young Republic that America "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

John Quincy Adams famously warned, "She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 15:45

CFPB Orders Remote Employees To Relocate To Washington Or Lose Jobs

Zero Hedge -

CFPB Orders Remote Employees To Relocate To Washington Or Lose Jobs

Via American Greatness,

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has directed hundreds of employees who live outside the Washington area to relocate to the agency’s new headquarters or face losing their jobs, a move that could significantly reduce the bureau’s workforce.

Acting Director Russell Vought notified employees in a memorandum Tuesday that approximately 450 remote workers must commit to relocating to Washington by July 14. Employees who agree to the move are scheduled to begin reporting to the bureau’s new headquarters September 6.

According to the directive, employees who decline to relocate or fail to respond by the deadline will be separated from the agency.

The CFPB’s new headquarters, located at 445 12th St. SW in Washington, previously housed the Federal Communications Commission and currently houses the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The facility has space for about 550 employees, roughly half of the bureau’s current workforce of approximately 1,100.

The bureau’s employee union characterized the relocation order as a de facto workforce reduction, arguing the requirement is likely to prompt many employees to resign rather than move to Washington.

A limited number of employees appear to have been exempted from the relocation requirement, though the agency has not publicly explained the exemptions.

The CFPB has not publicly commented on the relocation notices.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 15:10

Could The Government Use Tax Dollars To Bail Out Bitcoin?

Zero Hedge -

Could The Government Use Tax Dollars To Bail Out Bitcoin?

 Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

There was a time when Bitcoin’s biggest selling point was that it existed outside the financial system. No governments. No central banks. No bailouts. No “too big to fail.” It was supposed to be the antidote to everything that happened in 2008. In fact, I once argued that another 2008 is what could standardize bitcoin.

Fast forward fifteen years, and we’ve somehow reached the point where I’m asking myself whether the last remaining bailout for crypto might actually be...the U.S. government. Think about how unbelievably sickening that would be. It’s the terminus I kept arriving at yesterday while thinking about the only way Strategy would be able to survive if Bitcoin continued getting decimated from these prices. And sadly, the idea isn’t really unimaginable given our current administration’s ties with crypto.

Yesterday I wrote that Strategy’s new capital framework effectively buys the company time. And to be fair, it does. Management rolled out dedicated cash reserves, formal dividend policies, billions of dollars in buyback authorizations, and what at least appears to be a more disciplined approach to capital allocation.

But none of those changes alter the one variable that ultimately matters: Bitcoin’s price. Everything rests on the price of Bitcoin, from Strategy’s trajectory as a public company, to some of Bitcoin’s biggest and most well known advocates using it as a gauge as to when they would admit defeat on the long thesis.

Strategy has now openly acknowledged that Bitcoin is no longer untouchable. For years, Strategy built its identity around buying Bitcoin and never selling it. Now it has explicitly stated that those holdings can be monetized if necessary to fund dividends, replenish reserves, service obligations, or support buybacks. If Bitcoin keeps climbing, nobody will care. If Bitcoin starts falling hard, suddenly everyone will.

Selling Bitcoin to raise liquidity sounds perfectly prudent until you’re forced to sell into a declining market. At that point, the math starts working against you. Selling creates additional supply. Additional supply can pressure prices. Lower prices reduce the value of Strategy’s largest asset, potentially creating an even greater need for liquidity. That can lead to more selling, which creates more pressure, and before long you’ve got the financial equivalent of a dog chasing its own tail into a neighborhood wood chipper.

I’m not predicting that’s how this ends. Bitcoin is a massive global asset, and Strategy alone isn’t going to dictate where it trades. But the possibility now officially exists because management has crossed a line that investors once assumed would never be crossed. Bitcoin is no longer sacred. It’s now part of the liquidity toolkit.

That raises a much bigger question. What happens after every private-sector solution has been exhausted? What happens when the equity markets stop funding you, the preferred market dries up, convertible debt becomes too expensive, and you’ve already started selling Bitcoin? Who’s the buyer of last resort?

Historically, there’s almost always been one. Banks got one. Money market funds got one. The auto industry got one. Regional banks got one. The corporate bond market got one. During COVID we were buying damn near everything that wasn’t bolted to the floor. Whenever markets become sufficiently interconnected with the rest of the financial system, Washington inevitably starts talking about “systemic risk,” and once those two words enter the conversation, almost anything becomes possible. And remember, back in August of last year, I already asked whether or not Bitcoin was too deep in the fabric of the U.S. financial system: Is Bitcoin Too Deep In The Fabric Of The U.S. Financial System?

So why not a Bitcoin bailout from the government?

The Trump administration has developed some of the closest ties to the cryptocurrency industry of any U.S. administration in history. It has installed officials viewed as supportive of digital assets, pushed for clearer rules governing the industry, and repeatedly framed Bitcoin and blockchain innovation as strategic priorities for American competitiveness.

Trump himself has gone from skeptic to outspoken advocate, publicly backing Bitcoin mining, supporting the creation of a national strategic Bitcoin reserve, and cultivating close relationships with many of the industry’s largest executives and investors. The result is an administration that is no longer merely tolerant of crypto, but one that is increasingly politically invested in its success, making the industry’s fortunes more closely aligned with the White House than at any point since Bitcoin was created.

I can already imagine the press conference. “Today, in order to preserve financial stability, the United States government is announcing a Strategic Bitcoin Stabilization Facility.”

I honestly think I’d oscillate between laughing, crying and vomiting. The irony would be almost too perfect. The asset invented to escape governments...saved by the government. The people screaming “End the Fed”...saved by the Fed. The same crowd that spent fifteen years explaining why Bitcoin doesn’t need the traditional financial system suddenly hoping Washington becomes the biggest whale on Earth.

You couldn’t write satire this good.

Politically, I think it would be suicide. The government would be accused of bailing out crypto bros. Every taxpayer would ask why Washington is spending public money supporting digital assets while families are still struggling with the cost of living. It would probably become one of the most universally despised bailouts in modern American history. Democrats would run rampant in trying to regulate and suffocate crypto if they won in 2028. And yet...I can’t completely dismiss it.

We’ve spent the better part of two decades responding to every financial emergency with the same basic solution: print money, borrow money, guarantee money, or throw taxpayer money at the problem until everyone stops panicking. If crypto continues weaving itself into public companies, pension funds, ETFs, banks, retirement accounts, and increasingly complex financing structures, politicians will eventually start arguing that the consequences of doing nothing are worse than the consequences of stepping in.

The funny part is that, by Washington standards, Bitcoin wouldn’t even be that expensive to rescue. With a market capitalization hovering around a $1.2 trillion dollars, you’re talking about an amount of money that barely registers compared to the trillions we’ve borrowed, printed, guaranteed, and spent over the past twenty years.

I’m not saying the government would do it, but it’s amazing that we’re now living in a world where it’s no longer completely absurd to imagine the conversation taking place.

If Strategy’s increasingly elaborate financial engineering ultimately isn’t enough...if Bitcoin falls much faster and much farther than anyone expects...and if every private buyer finally disappears, the last remaining bailout may come from the very institution Bitcoin was created to replace.

And if that day ever comes, don’t tell me it’s impossible. The government has done a lot dumber sh*t with a lot more money.

--

QTR’s DisclaimerPlease read my full legal disclaimer on my About page hereThis post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.

As of May 20, 2026 I personally no longer actively trade (read my story here). My investing/saving is done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, via index funds, ETFs and individual equities it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything at any point. As of the same date, May 20, 2026, in an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.

And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 14:00

DRAMageddon Deepens As Samsung Prepares 20% Memory Price Hike

Zero Hedge -

DRAMageddon Deepens As Samsung Prepares 20% Memory Price Hike

There is no immediate price relief coming for cutting-edge memory chips, even as South Korea moves to double memory capacity. New fabs and expanded lines take time to build and then ramp production, meaning the supply response will lag demand. For now, DRAM inventories remain tight through year-end as data center buildouts accelerate, keeping producers like Samsung in control of the market, with more price hikes likely ahead.

The memory-chip squeeze is not easing anytime soon. That is the clear takeaway from a new report by the Shanghai-based Chinese financial media group Yicai, which says Samsung plans to raise average third-quarter DRAM prices by about 20% from the prior quarter.

More color from Yicai:

On July 3, it was reported that Samsung Electronics plans to raise the average selling price of its DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory) by 20% in the third quarter of this year compared to the previous quarter.

"It's true," an executive from a consumer electronics manufacturer told CBN reporters. "Samsung had already spoken with us in June and we have now received verbal notification from Samsung about raising DRAM prices."

"The significant price increase of upstream components will be passed on to the final price of the finished product, which will curb market demand to some extent. However, since the overall price of consumer electronics products is not high now, even if prices rise, it is not expected to significantly affect users' purchasing decisions," said the person in charge of the aforementioned consumer electronics terminal manufacturer.

Another industry veteran also told reporters that the news that Samsung plans to raise DRAM prices by 20% in the third quarter is true, and Samsung has already notified some customers of the verbal price quote.

DDR4 DRAM spot prices tracked by inSpectrum Tech suggest the memory squeeze still has room to run, with the latest rebound pointing to another potential leg higher.

The industry response, and in South Korea's case, a national-level response, has been a massive push by giants Samsung and SK Hynix to double memory-chip production. But that chip capacity buildout will take years, meaning the current supply crunch is unlikely to ease quickly in the near term.

The situation is worsening, with a recent report detailing Apple's plan to buy cheaper DRAM from China. Meanwhile, there have been price hikes on popular gaming consoles, from Xbox to PlayStation, as tech giants can no longer shield consumers from memory-chip inflation and are now being forced to pass those costs along to customers.

JPMorgan analyst Jay Kwon recently broke down South Korea's push to double memory production. Read the note here.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 12:15

New York City Appropriates $7 Million For 'Trans Equity', Drag Queen Story Hours

Zero Hedge -

New York City Appropriates $7 Million For 'Trans Equity', Drag Queen Story Hours

Authored by Bryan Hyde via American Greatness,

A massive $126 billion spending plan approved by the New York City Council earlier this week includes nearly $7 million for so-called ‘trans equity’ programs and drag queen story hours.

The New York Post reports that the budget was approved by Mayor Zohran Mamdani and directs the taxpayer money to programs and services “to help empower the transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC) community.”

The city council said, “Funding may support education programs, employment services, workforce development, healthcare navigation, legal guidance, community workshops, or academic research, among others.”

According to The National Review, the new budget doesn’t include any spending for the additional 580 police officers Mayor Mamdani promised to hire.

State Conservative Party Chairman Gerard Kassar questioned, “Why isn’t there more money for police?”

Kassar added, “There are countless dollars going toward extreme, far-out programs,” Kassar said.

“This goes way beyond recognizing transgender individuals into spending millions of taxpayer dollars to promote transgenderism.”

Key funding initiatives of the nearly $7 million earmark include $1 million for directed to Destiny Tomorrow for the first transitional housing program for transgender individuals in the Bronx as well as $705,000 for community health for the Gay Men’s Health Crisis and $600,000 for the Caribbean Equality Project.

The allocation also includes funding for education and tolerance with funds for the Advocates for Trans Equality Education Fund and the Trans Formative Schools program, alongside localized funding from city council members for drag story hours in schools and libraries.

Allen Roskoff, head of the Jim Owles Liberal LGBT Democratic Club, told the New York Post, “Transgender youth need our support. These individuals are the most vulnerable people out there. We will do everything in our power to protect these children from hate orchestrated by far right Republicans. We are going to see to it they get the health care and protection they deserve.”

The approval of the nearly $7 million earmark comes on the heels of Mamdani encouraging New Yorkers to set their thermostats to 78 degrees to conserve energy, with Republicans calling the mayor’s budgeting priorities into question.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 11:40

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

Zero Hedge -

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

The reopening of the Hormuz chokepoint has proceeded relatively smoothly for weeks, but an overnight development shows that the process remains fragile. At least eight ships attempting to exit the Persian Gulf abruptly reversed course near the critical waterway.

Bloomberg cites ship-tracking data showing that the vessels, including oil tankers, product carriers, bulk carriers, and vehicle carriers, were moving toward the strait along the Omani coast before abruptly turning back. Several ships later resumed their transits through the strait by shifting northward onto a route closer to the Iranian coast, in line with Tehran's request that ships use authorized Iranian-designated lanes.

via Bloomberg: 

It is unclear why the ships abruptly altered course, though Tehran has repeatedly warned vessels by VHF radio to follow designated routes.

Earlier on Saturday, Iran warned Western powers that the Hormuz waterway is not a "theater for the military display of extra-regional powers."

Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Iran views itself as the responsible power and security guarantor of the strait, adding that Tehran would closely monitor any foreign military movements in the waterway.

Gharibabadi's warning came shortly after the UK and France announced that their navies were ready to support freedom-of-navigation operations in the waterway.

"Iran, as the responsible power and guarantor of the Strait's security, warns with sensitivity to any military movement in this waterway," Gharibabadi said on X.

He added, "The security of Hormuz lies with the coastal states; the crisis-makers will be held accountable for the consequences of their adventurism; this is a serious warning."

While daily commodity vessel crossings have averaged around 34 since Monday, Hormuz vessel traffic remains well below pre-war levels.

Natasha Kaneva, JPMorgan's top commodities strategist, provided clients with more color on Hormuz ship flows and what it means for energy markets:

There is now a rush to move stranded cargoes out of the Strait of Hormuz. Average crude exports from the Persian Gulf plus re-routed volumes over the last ten days have already recovered to about 19 mbd, just 3 mbd below pre-war levels. The backlog is also disappearing quickly: floating storage has fallen to just 20 million barrels, while another 10 million barrels remain in onshore tanks awaiting exports.

Meanwhile, inbound tankers are lining up to enter the Strait, preparing to load barrels that have been sitting in storage tanks for months. More entering vessels will be needed as production across the Gulf gradually returns to normal operating levels. We are already seeing a growing queue of ballast VLCCs moving towards the Gulf.

The line is long and deep—an important signal that the logistical chain is reconnecting and that loadings can continue uninterrupted as the system works its way back toward normal.

Professional subscribers can read more about Hormuz and Gulf energy markets on our new Marketdesk.ai portal.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 11:05

MiB: Mamoon Hamid, Kleiner Perkins on AI Investing

The Big Picture -

 

 

This week, I speak with Kleiner Perkins partner Mamoon Hamid. We discuss Mamoon’s thoughts on the AI revolution and his approach to early AI investing.  Mamoon also breaks down how he became an early investor in giants like Slack and Figma, and how the firm assesses the investments they missed.

He explains how Kleiner Perkins pivoted towards earlier-stage seed investments.

A transcript of our conversation is available here Tuesday.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube (video), YouTube (audio), and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

Be sure to check out our bonus Masters in Business this coming next week with McKeel Hagerty, CEO/Chairman of Hagerty Specialty Insurance. He transformed a family specialty-insurance agency into an enthusiast-driven platform focused on collectible cars, events, valuation data, and auctions. HGTY is now a public company that insures everything from classic cars to boats, trucks, tractors, and military vehicles for over 2.8M collectors.

 

 

 

 

 

The post MiB: Mamoon Hamid, Kleiner Perkins on AI Investing appeared first on The Big Picture.

Russia Planning Provocation Against Poland To Test NATO Resolve, US Reportedly Warned

Zero Hedge -

Russia Planning Provocation Against Poland To Test NATO Resolve, US Reportedly Warned

The Telegraph along with various Eastern European media outlets, including Polish national sources, are reporting that United States passed Warsaw a warning based on intelligence that Moscow is considering an armed provocation against Poland to "test NATO's resolve".

Provocation scenarios are said to potentially include drone attacks on critical infrastructure such as power plants, or else testing airspace by simulating a large-scale air attack to try and force Poland to prematurely activate its air defenses.

An official within President Karol Nawrocki's administration said the US "systematically informs Poland about ever-new Russian plans for a conventional attack on NATO's eastern flank, from which Poland is by no means excluded." These reports are rife with wild speculation, however, and thus could be standard wartime propaganda. 

Polish armed forces/Anadolu

A "hybrid attack" on the border region, possibly involving Belarusian armed forces, is considered to be the most serious possibly scenario, according to the reports.

It would be portrayed as an 'accidental' incursion:

Moscow could portray such an incursion as accidental, claiming troops crossed the border because of a GPS failure or entered Poland to retrieve a malfunctioning helicopter, according to the report.

Russia could then seek negotiations rather than a military response, betting that the United States would pressure Poland not to open fire on Russian or Belarusian personnel.

The Telegraph lays out a potential motive in the following:

Russia would count on the fact that, instead of opening fire on Russian or Belarusian soldiers in such a situation, Poland would be forced by the US to negotiate with Russia or Belarus rather than respond forcefully, Polish sources told Onet.

A scenario in which the Russians would withdraw from Poland as a result of those negotiations, rather than because they were forced to do so by military means, would be seen as a win from Moscow’s perspective.

An end to Western support for Ukraine could even be a central Russian demand of such talks in return for withdrawal from Poland.

Given the reporting on all of this ultimately originated in Polish media, and cited sources close to the presidency, there's also the likelihood that it is pure propaganda - aimed at dialing up Western pressure and 'readiness' with an eye on Moscow.

Poland is meanwhile busy with ongoing plans to complete a new set of anti-drone fortifications along its eastern borders, part of a broader EU and NATO push for a protective 'drone wall' in defense of European airspace.

There's been much speculation that 'Union State' Belarus could play a key role in future Russian maneuvers targeting Poland.

This planning began in earnest in 2025 after repeat aerial spillover incidents related to the Ukraine war - at various times errant drones, missiles, interceptors - and also even warplanes - have breached Baltic and Eastern European nations' airspace. Often, however, these incidents arise from off-course Ukrainian drones.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 08:45

ISIS Terrorist Reaches Britain Via Small Boat After TikTok Assured Him UK 'Accepts Everyone'

Zero Hedge -

ISIS Terrorist Reaches Britain Via Small Boat After TikTok Assured Him UK 'Accepts Everyone'

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

A convicted ISIS terrorist who attended beheadings and public floggings in Iraq has been jailed for two years after arriving in Britain on a small boat. He told officials he came because he heard on TikTok that the UK "accepts everyone" and respects human rights.

Mohammed Yaseen, 35, had lived a desolate existence in Iraq before aligning with ISIS. He watched ceremonies including stonings and was found with a Kalashnikov rifle. He later travelled to Germany in 2014, made multiple asylum claims, and was convicted in Dusseldorf for participating in a terrorist organisation and membership of ISIS. He received a four-year-and-three-month sentence and a 20-year expulsion order.

Instead of being returned to Iraq, Yaseen made his way to France and then crossed the Channel. On 13 December 2025 a Border Force vessel intercepted the small boat carrying around 80 people. Yaseen gave a false name, claimed to be from Kuwait, and lied about his age and background. He was placed in a hotel in Basingstoke with clean clothes and asylum support.

Of course he was.

Biometrics exposed the deception. He was arrested on Christmas Eve and later admitted attempting to enter the UK without valid clearance. Winchester Crown Court heard the full extent of his past.

Prosecutor Steven Molloy told the court: "He said he travelled from Kuwait to France from Belgium and was seeking asylum. He said he did not like it in France but heard on TikTok that the UK accepts everyone and respects human rights."

Molloy added: "There is a deeper and lengthy involvement in terrorism and Islamic extremist ideology. Our assessment is that he is high risk in all categories. There is a danger that this individual poses to the whole of the UK."

Defence barrister Katie Porter-Windley acknowledged the German convictions but insisted they had no bearing on his UK intentions and that he had committed no further offences here.

Yes, they really argued that the convicted ISIS terrorist should be allowed to claim asylum.

Judge Christopher Parker KC noted evidence that Yaseen could speak English despite claiming otherwise and stated: "You made absolutely no mention of what had happened in Germany in 2020 when you were convicted of a serious offence. My judgment is that your culpability is exceedingly high. There is a strong likelihood that you will be deported from this country either at the start of or before your sentence is concluded."

Yaseen is now serving his sentence and faces removal.

The question is, how many more cases like this have slipped through the net?

The case occurs against the backdrop of sustained small boat arrivals across the English Channel. Official figures show around 36,000 people reached the UK by small boat in the year ending 31 May 2026, down 13% on the previous period.

In 2025 the total stood at approximately 41,500. The first five months of 2026 saw roughly 9,000 arrivals, 38% lower than the same stretch of 2025, though numbers typically rise through summer. Recent daily counts have fluctuated, with over hundreds arriving some days.

A Home Office spokesperson claimed the government is "bearing down on small boat crossings, with removals of small boat migrants at record levels and asylum claims down by 12%," adding that joint work with France has stopped over 44,000 attempted crossings since the election and that nearly 70,000 people here illegally have been removed or deported, up 41%.

Yet the presence of a convicted ISIS operative who simply watched a TikTok video and decided Britain would take him demonstrates that vetting and deterrence remain dangerously inadequate.

Footage captured by GB News shows the mindset of some arrivals. Illegal migrants on a small boat in the Channel can be seen discarding passports and shouting "this is the end of England" moments before landing on British shores.

Meanwhile, the government plans to house more than 1,000 adult single male boat migrants at a former MOD site near the villages of Upper Arncot and Piddington (combined population around 1,600).

The men, who crossed from France, will not be detained and will be free to wander local areas. Even voters in areas that backed pro-migration parties are now confronting the direct consequences.

The same pattern appears in housing decisions that have sparked fury in rural communities. There is outrage over plans to move more than 80 asylum seekers into £250,000 new-build homes on what locals call "Migrant Street" in Stoke Heath, Shropshire.

The properties had been promised as social housing for local families. Residents described feeling lied to and expressed fears for safety, particularly around children.

GB News correspondent Alex Armstrong spoke to locals in Stoke Heath. One resident stated: "These houses were built for locals, for families who've never had a chance... It's putting our lives in danger."

The new-build estates purported to be for social housing are instead now being allocated to hundreds of random foreign men, placed next to a children's playground and primary school.

Proposals for large numbers at sites such as Linton-on-Ouse and former military bases, stand in stark contrast with 1.5 million British households on council waiting lists and the lack of local consultation or amenities in many receiving areas.

Residents have voiced concerns about safety, cultural change, and the sudden tripling of small village populations.

Beyond immediate arrivals and housing, policy shifts are accelerating the erosion of British identity. The Centre for Migration Control has today highlighted how citizenship is being systematically devalued.

After the earlier emphasis on vague "British values," the Home Office is now allowing illegal migrants to obtain British citizenship simply by remaining in the country for six years, regardless of integration or values.

Further examples underscore the enforcement gap. GB News reported that Labour has been urged to pursue rapid deportation after the so-called "Godfather of smugglers," who boasted "this city is ours," claimed asylum in the UK.

The cumulative picture is stark. A terrorist who attended beheadings enters because social media told him Britain would accept him - and the court record confirms the claim aligned with his experience. Migrants on incoming boats declare the end of England. Rural communities watch new homes handed to unvetted arrivals while local families remain on waiting lists. Citizenship rules loosen further, and even notorious smugglers are benefitting from the system.

Britain's borders are not merely porous; they function as an open invitation that high-risk actors and economic migrants alike have learned to exploit.

Every fresh arrival and every housing dispute adds to the pressure on communities already stretched by years of uncontrolled inflows.

Secure borders, rigorous vetting, swift removals of those without valid claims, and an end to policies that place newcomers ahead of citizens are baseline requirements for any nation that intends to remain sovereign and safe.

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 Sat, 07/04/2026 - 08:10

German Clampdown On Sick Leave: No More Phoning It In, Doc Note Needed On Day 1

Zero Hedge -

German Clampdown On Sick Leave: No More Phoning It In, Doc Note Needed On Day 1

In a stark departure from its reputation for employee-coddling, the German government is attacking the mass abuse of sick leave with strict new policies that would require a doctor's note obtained on the very first day an employee is sick, with no ability to simply take a sick day with a mere phone call. The reform package also targets retirement ages, tax rates,  regulations, welfare benefits and the ease of hiring and firing. It's expected to pass parliament by year's end. 

“The number of sick days is too high,” German chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters. “We are creating a set of tools that will enable those involved, both employees and companies, to correct this. We know this is a tough decision. But we can no longer afford the competitive disadvantage caused by prolonged absences from work.” Merz said the changes are needed to invigorate Germany's economy, which has faltered after the COVID pandemic and suffered from the West's interventions in the Ukraine war and Iran. 

Previously, employees in Germany didn't need a doctor's note until their third day of absence, and they could obtain the note via a phone call to a doctor. The rules also granted up to six weeks of leave per illness. A new bout of sickness started a new six-week clock. 

On top of enjoying six weeks of vacation time, the average German has been taking nearly three weeks of sick leave per year. The German sick-time pace is about double the US pace, and is also higher than the call-out frequency in Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland and Italy. However, sick-leave abuse is even worse in France and most of the Nordic states. 

Predictably, German trade unions are up in arms. Frank Werneke, who leads the services-sector union Verdi, said Merz was "creating a culture of distrust of employees." (Seems like maybe the employees collectively cultivated that distrust by casually calling out sick.)  

Medical professionals are squawking too, warning the policy will be a hammer-blow to efficiency and doctor availability. The German Association of Family Physicians called the new rules "an absolute catastrophe," adding that "our practices would be flooded with patients who don’t need in-person care and would be better off in bed." 

The German reform package resulted from negotiations between Merz's center-right Christian Democratic Union Party and the Left-wing Social Democrat Party that is part of the ruling coalition. The package also includes:

  • A gradual increase of the retirement age from 65 to 67
  • The introduction of a capital-markets fund for the investment of contributions to the state pension system
  • Greater ease in hiring short-term workers and firing top-earners
  • Welfare reform that incentivizes laid-off workers to get a new job as soon as possible 
  • €10 billion in income tax relief for working-class and middle-income households, fueled by a tax hike on those earning more than €250,000 a year, along with reductions of assorted tax breaks
  • Deregulation, including sweeping relief that drops most requirements for employers to feed statistics to government bureaucracies, and the easing of data privacy regulations for small firms
  • Bakeries and pastry shops will have the freedom to stay open later on Sundays
Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 07:35

The American System Rejects Europe's Economic Suicide

Zero Hedge -

The American System Rejects Europe's Economic Suicide

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

National self-sufficiency beats globalism’s mass dependency.

What makes a nation wealthy?  It’s not just arable lands surrounded by other lands filled with water, timber, coal, gas, oil, metals, and minerals.  It’s the farmer who knows best how to cultivate those lands in order to maximize food production.  It’s the woodsman, miner, fisherman, and oilman who can extract nature’s bounty and provide the raw materials for every kind of manufacturer.

Producing things requires knowledge and skill.  Competition between producers creates an incentive to innovate.  This motor of discovery — in which human ingenuity uses established knowledge and long-harnessed skills as inputs for creating new forms of knowledge and skill — generates increasing efficiencies in production.  Costs go down; prices go down; producers produce more; consumers consume more.  Economic freedom, therefore, is a wealth-generating feedback loop that benefits all of society.

A nation that can do all of these things on its own is a self-sufficient nation.  A nation that is capable of producing more than it consumes is an exporting nation.  A nation that exports more than it imports is a nation whose people become increasingly wealthy.  The rest of the world pays that nation for its way of life.  The world pays that nation simply for existing.

Anyone who says that a nation’s culture is irrelevant to a nation’s standard of living is a liar.  Productive cultures generate national wealth.  Lazy, reckless, or destructive cultures ensure lasting poverty.  There’s an adage so old and universally embraced that numerous cultures claim authorship: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.  People generally acknowledge these truths.  Whether you are a ninth-century Viking raider or a twenty-first-century welfare queen, if you cannot produce for yourself, you cannot feed yourself without taking from others.  Whether a Somali pirate or a Somali “l-e-a-r-i-n-g” center fraudster, you are dependent on theft from others because self-sufficiency is out of reach.

What might a nation do to encourage wealth creation?  Just as a good farmer cultivates the land to maximize a harvest, good national leaders cultivate social values that maximize personal production.  A culture that values knowledge, skill, and hard work encourages members of society to learn and labor in pursuit of productive innovation.  A legal system that prioritizes protections for private property and personal liberty encourages increased production and wealth creation.  A society that takes pride in building and manufacturing new things fosters a spirit of entrepreneurship.  An entrepreneurial society encourages a self-sufficient society.  A self-sufficient society produces a self-sufficient nation.  Therefore, the cultivation of virtue within society simultaneously cultivates a wealthy nation.

These aren’t difficult concepts to understand.

Why, then, do most Western nations reject the proven path toward national wealth?  Why do Western politicians celebrate “multiculturalism” over the historically productive virtues of Western culture?  Why do Western pundits disparage knowledge, skill, and hard work as attributes of “white supremacy”?  Why do Western lawmakers make it more difficult for Western citizens to own land and personal property?  Why do Western bureaucrats churn out rules and regulations that limit what can be built and manufactured?  Why do Western governments make it difficult for small businesses to thrive?  Why do Western news media claim that only foreign migrants are willing to perform blue-collar jobs?  Why do Western bankers claim that only foreign slave laborers are capable of manufacturing critical goods?  Why do Western professors spend more time lecturing about racism and oppression than how to critically think, invent, and build new things?  Why do Western NGOs support open borders, “climate change” regulations, and economy-killing taxes?  Why do religious leaders praise the criminal and not the faithful Christian?  Why do cultural leaders encourage citizens and foreigners alike to become dependent on social welfare?  Why do pop culture leaders extol frivolous excess over hard work and discipline?  Why do Westerners celebrate gay “pride” for at least a month each year instead of encouraging all citizens to take pride in what they build, learn, and accomplish?  Why do Wall Street and the City of London work so hard to deprive the United States and the United Kingdom of economies that benefit Main Street businesses as much as multinational conglomerates?

Reading through the above questions should lead a rational person toward a reasonable conclusion: The people who currently maintain economic and political power in the West have no interest in making the nations that they ostensibly call “home” wealthy.  The United Kingdom and the European Union cannot produce wealth if their manufacturers are forced to use windmill-generated energy that has been exponentially outpowered by coal and steam for four centuries.  Germany cannot produce wealth if it subsidizes Chinese automakers while bankrupting its own with “green energy” regulations.  Canada cannot produce wealth if it refuses to use its abundant natural resources while importing most manufactured goods from Asia.

Western nations that refuse to use hydrocarbon and nuclear energies are nations dependent on foreign powers for manufacturing.  Western nations that refuse to allow their farmers to grow crops and produce meat and dairy supplies for their home populations are nations dependent on foreign powers for food.  Western nations whose people lack the knowledge and skills to repair everything from small appliances to entire electric grids are nations dependent on foreign powers during crises.  Western nations that lack the cultural will to be self-sufficient are nations stuck in a permanent state of dependency.  If you hand out food stamps liberally and look down on people who insist on providing for their families without government assistance, then you will produce a nation of pirates and fraudsters who make, grow, and build nothing.

How does the United Kingdom survive when it produces next to nothing?  Right now it generates most of its revenue by acting as the economic middleman for most of the globe.  Even though its empire has collapsed and its navy has disappeared, the City of London’s army of bankers, consultants, and lawyers still take a nice cut of every economic transaction around the planet.  They collect insurance fees, regulatory fees, and investment fees like an absentee landlord still bilking old colonies with “rules-based” trade agreements that put money in the pockets of English lords who create nothing.  The Bank of England and the Secret Intelligence Service work together to game the international economy by stirring up regional conflicts and using insider knowledge to bet on the eventual market winners.  Britain’s central bank has ensured that the wealthiest members of society profit from market manipulation while the rest of society suffers from currency depreciation.  This is an economic model engineered to benefit a small cabal of “noble elites” while impoverishing the larger nation.

Ever since some of Britain’s nobles succeeded in convincing some of America’s nobles to erect a Federal Reserve central bank in the Bank of England’s image back in 1913, this funny money con game has drained America’s wealth, too.  Although Americans’ can-do spirit has buoyed economic liberty and growth, the parasitic structure of central banking has steadily deprived the United States of its once unparalleled self-sufficiency.  The gradual debasement of the U.S. dollar has led to the decoupling from the gold standard, the creation of a petrodollar dependent on forever-wars and foreign entanglements, the offshoring of industry and manufacturing, and international trade “deals” that make America more dependent on foreign powers while kicking back “service” fees to Wall Street and City of London bankers.

This is what globalization really produces: dependency.

For the United States to be wealthy and strong, we must return to an American system that mines, grows, and builds everything.  Our people must embrace both personal and national self-sufficiency.  We must reject Europe’s economic suicide.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/04/2026 - 07:00

10 July 4 Reads

The Big Picture -

The weekend is here! Pour yourself a mug of Danish Blend coffee, grab a seat outside, and get ready for our longer-form weekend reads:

Why You Grieve the End of Summer Before It’s Even Over: If you’re already stressed about the end of the season, you’re not alone. On anticipatory nostalgia and the human knack for mourning things mid-enjoyment. A lovely small essay for late June. (Vox)

US at 250 – Why Has the US Been So Successful, and Can It Continue? First, we consider how the US went from being a comparatively small country to the world’s pre-eminent global power. These reasons range from the US’ natural advantages, like favourable geography, to factors like its institutional stability and risk-tolerant capital markets. We then consider the challenges that threaten US outperformance. A big-picture bank note on American exceptionalism and its durability, timed to the semiquincentennial. Sweeping, and a useful counterweight to the doomers. (Deutsche Bank Research Institute) see also How a Nation of Immigrants Traces Its Roots: A data-rich map of where Americans say they come from. The census as a mirror of a changing self-image. Melting pot, tapestry, mosaic, kaleidoscope, salad bowl. Every cliché is true. (New York Times)

Abraham Lincoln’s War on King Cotton: How economic warfare over cotton shaped the Union strategy. A sharp piece of history for the long-read pile. Secessionists in America’s South were convinced that Britain’s mills could not survive without their cotton. They had not reckoned with how adaptable an economy under strain can be. (Engelsberg Ideas)

Combat Experience as a Strategic Resource: Lessons of the Red Army Purges: How Stalin’s purges gutted military expertise, and what that teaches about institutional knowledge — History with uncomfortably current echoes:  “Instead, at its core, a central question is their impact on the combat effectiveness, indeed the lethality, of our armed forces. I take up this question through the lens of a case study drawn from one of the most consequential instances of rapid military leadership depletion in modern history, the Red Army purges of 1937-1938 and their effects on its performance during the conflicts that followed. My central proposition is straightforward: Operational experience, especially in combat, is a strategic resource, a form of military capital that takes decades to develop and that can be squandered in months.” (Just Security)

David Foster Wallace and Democracy. Despite the relative obscurity of even successful writers, especially those most regarded for literary fiction, Wallace continues to generate conversation sixteen years after his death. In the immediate aftermath of his suicide, the literary press, his most enthusiastic and loyal readers, and many journalists beatified him. His college commencement speech, a brilliant call for empathy later published as a booklet, This is Water, served as evidence of blessed intercession. Thus, those mourning from afar nominated the late author of the contemporary masterpiece, Infinite Jest, for sainthood. Hollywood cooperated, releasing an interesting, even moving, but also cartoonish film. (Liberties)

Hamptons Billionaires Call These Doctors for ‘Boat-tox’: For everything from aesthetic touch-ups to 9-1-1 emergencies, the wealthy are calling on providers who charge membership fees ranging from a few thousand dollars to six figures a year (Wall Street Journal)

A Terrible Thing Happened to My Family: Buttigieg writes personally about a family ordeal. Whatever you make of the politics, it’s a reminder these figures are people first. 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’s Substack)

This Cell Feeds, Grows and Reproduces. And It’s Manmade. Scientists build a synthetic cell that does the things living cells do. A genuine landmark — and a fresh set of questions about where the line sits. We have long dreamed of discovering the alchemy by which chemicals can be turned into life. On Wednesday, a team at the University of Minnesota announced that it had taken a major step toward that vision.  (New York Times)

On the origin of continents: Continental drift is as fundamental to geology as natural selection is to biology. Why did it take us hundreds of years to discover it? Why Earth has continents at all, and what that has to do with life. Deep-time science writing at its most satisfying. (Works in Progress)

Where the Light Falls: Who was Johannes Vermeer? Clare Bucknell on Vermeer and the mystery of his light. Art criticism that makes you want to stand in front of the paintings again. (Harper’s Magazine)

Video of the day: How this helicopter survived 1004 days on Mars, then disappeared

Be sure to check out our Master’s in Business this weekend with McKeel Hagerty, CEO/Chairman of Hagerty Specialty Insurance. He transformed a family specialty-insurance agency into an enthusiast-driven platform focused on collectible cars, events, valuation data, and auctions. HGTY is now a public company that insures everything from classic cars to boats, trucks, tractors, and military vehicles for over 2.8M collectors.

 

Summer gets more expensive

Source: Bloomberg

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

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

 

The post 10 July 4 Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Would The Founders Still Recognize Their Republic?

Zero Hedge -

Would The Founders Still Recognize Their Republic?

Authored by Andrew P. Napolitano

Which is better — to be ruled by one tyrant 3,000 miles away or by 3,000 tyrants one mile away?
— Rev. Mather Byles (1706-1788)

Does it really matter if the instrument curtailing liberty is a monarch or a popularly elected legislature? This conundrum, along with the witty version of it put to a Boston crowd in 1775 by the little-known colonial-era preacher with the famous uncle — Cotton Mather — addresses the age-old question of whether liberty can long survive in a democracy.

Byles was a loyalist who, along with about one-third of the American adult white male population in 1776, opposed the American Revolution and favored continued governance by Great Britain.

He didn’t fight for the king or agitate against George Washington’s troops; he merely warned of the dangers of too much democracy.

Many of us who monitor federal excess are fearful of out-of-control democracy, which is what we have in America today, yet there remain in our federal structure a few safeguards against runaway federal tyranny, such as the equal state representation in the Senate, the Electoral College, the state control of federal elections, the remnants of state sovereignty, and life-tenured federal judges and justices.

via Fund for American Studies

Of course, the Senate as originally crafted did not consist of popularly elected senators. Rather, they were appointed by state legislatures to represent the sovereign states as states, not the people in them.

Part of James Madison’s genius was the construction of the federal government as a three-sided table. The first side represented the people — the House of Representatives. The second side represented the sovereign states that created the federal government by surrendering limited powers to it — the Senate. And the third side manifests the nation-state — the presidency, which is both head of state and head of the executive branch of the federal government. The judiciary, whose prominent role today was unthinkable in 1789, was not part of this mix.

In his famous Bank Speech, Madison argued eloquently against legislation chartering a national bank because the authority to create a bank was not in the Constitution and thus was retained by the states and reserved to them.

In that speech, he warned that expansion of the federal government would trample the powers of the states and also the unenumerated natural rights of the people that he would soon protect in the Ninth Amendment.

Madison gave the Bank Speech in February 1791, 11 months before the addition of the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments — to the Constitution. Given the popular fears of a new central government, Madison assumed that the Bill of Rights would be quickly ratified. He was right.

Had Madison been alive during the presidency of the anti-Madisonian Woodrow Wilson — who gave us World War I, the Federal Reserve, the administrative state of government by experts, the popular election of senators, the judicially sanctioned suppression of political speech, and the federal income tax — he would have recoiled at a president destroying the three-sided table. Wilson did that by leading the campaign to amend the Constitution so as to provide for the direct popular election of senators.

Part of Madison’s genius was to craft anti-democratic elements into the Constitution, as well. And some of them — like state sovereignty — created laboratories of liberty, since some states protect more personal liberties than the Bill of Rights does. President Ronald Reagan reminded the American public in his first inaugural address that the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. Had I been the scrivener of that speech, I’d have encouraged him to add: “And the powers that the states gave to the feds, they can take back!” Of course they can.

Reagan also famously said that we could vote with our feet. If you don’t like the over-the-top regulations in Massachusetts, you can move to New Hampshire. If you’re fed up with the highest state taxes in the union in New Jersey, you can move to Pennsylvania.

But the more state sovereignty the feds absorb — the more state governance is federalized — the fewer differences there are among the regulatory and taxing structures of the states. This has happened because Congress has become a general legislature without regard for the constitutional limits imposed on it.

If Congress wants to regulate an area of governance that is clearly beyond its constitutional competence, it bribes the states to do so with borrowed or Federal Reserve-created cash. Thus, it offered hundreds of millions of dollars to the states to lower their speed limits on highways and to lower the acceptable blood alcohol level in peoples’ veins — this would truly have set Madison off — before a presumption of DWI may be argued; all in return for cash to pave state-maintained highways.

The states are partly to blame for this. They take whatever cash Congress offers, and they accept the strings that come with it. And they, too, are tyrants. The states mandated the unconstitutional and crippling COVID lockdowns of 2020-2021, not the feds. The states should be paying the political and financial consequences for their misdeeds, not the feds. They took property and liberty without paying for it as the Constitution requires them to do. And, of course, some of the states maintained legal protections for slavery.

Byles feared a government of 3,000. Today, the feds employ close to 3 million. Thomas Jefferson warned that when the federal treasury becomes a federal trough, and the people recognize it as such, they will only send to Washington politicians — faithless to the Constitution — who promise to bring home the most cash.

In a democracy, a faithless majority will take whatever it wants from the minority — including its liberty and property. That’s where we are today on the 250th anniversary of the start of this Jeffersonian and Madisonian experiment — a country the Founders wouldn’t recognize as their creation.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/03/2026 - 23:20

First $1 Billion, Now $50 Million: Khanna Says Wealth Tax "Must Not Stop At Billionaires"

Zero Hedge -

First $1 Billion, Now $50 Million: Khanna Says Wealth Tax "Must Not Stop At Billionaires"

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) - fresh off endorsing California's November ballot measure to seize 5% of billionaire wealth - published a Substack essay Wednesday titled, no really, "Why I Support a Billionaire Wealth Tax."

He makes it roughly a dozen paragraphs before explaining that it isn't one.

"The tax should not stop at billionaires, it must reach centimillionaires," Khanna writes, before spelling out exactly what that means: every fortune of $50 million and up, hit with a 2% federal levy on wealth above that line - every year, forever, on top of everything else you already pay. The vehicle is Elizabeth Warren's Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, which Khanna notes he has cosponsored every single year it's been introduced.

And before anyone reaches for the estate planner: Khanna wants the levy to pierce irrevocable trusts, with the tax billed to the grantor who set them up - because parking a fortune in a trust, in his telling, shouldn't take it off the government's books.

Former Microsoft executive Steven Sinofsky summed up the reveal in eight words: "Just like that, no longer a billionaires tax."

Pirate Wires' Mike Solana was less diplomatic, characterizing the scheme as an annual asset seizure in which the government tallies everything you own and demands a cut on top of your existing tax bill - now openly targeting anyone worth $50 million. His prediction for where the ratchet stops: "this ends with your 401k."

For those keeping score at home, the threshold discourse has traveled a long way in a short time:

The measure headed to California voters in November is a one-time 5% tax on the state's roughly 250 billionaires. Newsom, opposing it, countered on June 26 with a national "billionaires' tax" - which, in its original form, applied to anyone worth $100 million or more, language that was quietly scrubbed after multiple outlets quoted it as we reported. Six days later, Khanna planted the flag at $50 million.

None of this is exactly new, of course. The Warren bill has carried the $50 million line since she rolled it out in 2019, and Biden's 2022 "Billionaire Minimum Income Tax" kicked in at $100 million households. The branding always says billionaire, but the fine print ios a slippery slope.

Then there's inflation... The bill's $50 million threshold is a flat statutory number that hasn't moved since 2019 - meaning inflation has already quietly cut the real threshold by more than a fifth. The creep shows up in the sponsors' own math: when the bill debuted, backers said it touched the top 0.05% of American households; the 2026 reintroduction, per the same Saez-Zucman analysis the sponsors tout, now reaches 260,000 households - the top 0.15%. Same words, triple the coverage, five years. Asset inflation does the broadening automatically. Congress just has to sit still.

The escalator, meanwhile, is pre-drafted: buried in the bill is a provision doubling the top rate to 6% automatically in any year that qualifying trigger legislation is on the books

And anyone curious where a "normalized" wealth tax eventually settles can consult the countries that already normalized one. Norway's kicks in around $160,000 of net worth. The Netherlands taxes deemed returns on assets above roughly €57,000. Swiss cantons start in the low six figures. The European wealth taxes that stayed rich-only - France, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Denmark - were repealed as revenue duds. The ones that survived did so by reaching the middle class. The slippery slope is quite literally the only way these things 'work.' 

Khanna spends a portion of the essay taking intramural shots at Newsom, dismissing the governor's version as an income tax billionaires will never feel - since they take no salary, borrow against their stock, and pass fortunes to their kids without selling a share - while boasting that he and Bernie Sanders tax the wealth itself, to the tune of a claimed $4.4 trillion.

The replies were not kind. Christopher Rufo suggested Washington recover the estimated half-trillion dollars a year lost to fraud before inventing new revenue streams. The most-liked response, from James Hafner, noted that the essay's "philosophical case" never actually argues its one load-bearing premise - that one man's need constitutes a claim on another man's property. "There is arithmetic, and there is need," Hafner wrote of the piece's actual contents.

Khanna's comeback - asking Hafner what he thinks of property taxes - was promptly ratioed, sitting at 135 replies to 11 likes at press time.

Except - property taxes are local, visible, and appealable; they pay for the pothole crew, the 2 a.m. patrol car, and the school down the street - and when assessments outran paychecks, voters famously revolted and capped them. Khanna's essay actually frames the California fight as Proposition 13 in reverse, which is a remarkable self-own: he's marketing the sequel to a movie that ended in a taxpayer revolt, triggered by precisely the dynamic critics warn about - paper valuations rising faster than the cash available to pay the levy.

The federal version offers none of the offsetting virtues. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax deposits into the general fund; the child-care-and-community-college wish list lives in the press release, not the bill text. What the bill text does contain is enforcement - just not of the spending. It orders the IRS to audit at least 30% of everyone subject to the tax, every single year. It hands the agency expanded authority to assign values to private businesses, farmland, art, and anything else that's hard to price. It wires in FATCA-style third-party reporting. And should you decide you've had enough of the annual appraisal and leave, it imposes a 40% exit tax on net worth above $50 million on your way out the door. In other words: relentless annual oversight of the taxpayers, and none whatsoever of where the money goes. Even Khanna seems to grasp the trust problem - he launched a state-fraud probe in December, conceding taxpayers "need to have a receipt" for what their money funds - which rather makes Rufo's point: by his own estimate Washington loses half a trillion a year to fraud, and the remedy on offer is an audit of your art collection.

All of which lands a little awkwardly next to this week's Free Beacon report detailing how Khanna's own family fortune - courtesy of centimillionaire father-in-law and auto-parts magnate Monte Ahuja - is sheltered through the very sort of irrevocable trusts the congressman now wants taxed to the grantor. Per the Beacon, Khanna's minor children hold trust stakes in three private golf clubs and multiple hedge funds, the family occupies a $6 million, marble-clad Washington home with a private elevator, and the congressman's financial disclosures run to 333 pages of conveniently non-searchable tables.

What it does say, in writing, is what the fine print has said all along: the number was never $1 billion. This week it's $50 million. Ask again next cycle.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/03/2026 - 22:40

Alibaba Bans Employees From Using Anthropic's Coding Tool Over Distillation Scandal

Zero Hedge -

Alibaba Bans Employees From Using Anthropic's Coding Tool Over Distillation Scandal

While in the US, the government's periodic bans of the latest model from Anthropic (which has made AI doomerism - in hopes of getting the government to regulate everyone else expect Anthropic, yet repeatedly achieving just the opposite - into an art form) has been all the rage in recent months, in China it is the other way around, with China's tech giant Alibaba banning employees from using Anthropic's Claude ‌Code at work after the tool drew scrutiny for features that can help identify China-linked users, Reuters reported.

The ban is part of a deepening spat between the two companies after Anthropic accused Alibaba of illicitly extracting ​its Claude AI model capabilities - a dispute that highlights the frantic race between the U.S. and ​China to take the lead in artificial intelligence.

Claude Code is Anthropic's AI coding assistant for software developers, and has become popular among programmers in China despite Anthropic's restrictions on access by users and entities in China.

To avoid further escalation of the distillation scandal, Reuters says that Alibaba employees were being told to use the company's own coding platform Qoder.

As we reported at the time, in late June Anthropic said that it had suffered a strike by Alibaba, which it described as a "distillation" effort that involves training a less capable model on the outputs of a stronger one.

The distillation helps accelerate China's ability to reach Anthropic's advanced Mythos Preview capabilities, the company alleged in a letter sent to two U.S. senators.

Alibaba's ban comes just days after developers said Claude Code contained mechanisms that inspected user environments, including timezone and proxy-related information, and inserted subtle markers into prompts sent to Anthropic's servers.

An Anthropic employee wrote on Tuesday on X that the feature was "an experiment we launched in March" intended to prevent account abuse by unauthorized resellers and protect against model distillation.

The person who spoke to Reuters about Alibaba's ban said that Anthropic's restrictions targeting China were difficult to enforce on individual users who can deploy servers in the United States and make traffic appear as if it originated there. But companies were now more aware of legal and compliance risks.

As US AI model developers seek to prevent unauthorized access, resale and distillation of their systems, Chinese cloud and AI firms have shifted toward domestic and open-source models such as DeepSeek, Alibaba's ?Qwen, Moonshot and Zhipu.

At the same time, Chinese AI models are making inroads in the U.S. market — a development that sparked concern among some U.S. industry experts, since China's models are about 90% cheaper yet perform just fractionally worse than the latest US frontier models. 

Souce: UBS

We discussed this extensively in one of our flagship reports, "Answering The "Trillion Dollar Question": Are China's AI Models A Better Value Than US Models."

The answer, judging by the rapid token transition to China, is a resounding yes.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/03/2026 - 22:00

Pages