JP Alegre of The Deep Dive reports Ottawa plans to fund worker buyouts with their own pension money:

The Canadian government plans to use public servants’ own pension money to fund early retirement buyouts for 68,000 workers, a decision unions are calling “borderline theft.”

The $1.5 billion program, announced in letters distributed last week, would allow eligible federal employees to retire early without penalties as Ottawa pursues 40,000 job cuts from a peak of 367,772 employees in 2024. But the decision to source funding from the Public Service Pension Fund has ignited fierce criticism from labor groups who say younger workers will subsidize their older colleagues’ departures.

“It’s all well and good to protect the jobs of younger people, but they are the ones who, throughout their careers, will pay half the cost of the program through their contributions to the pension plan,” said Nathan Prier, president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees. “In the same vein, the government is using civil servants’ money as if it were its own, which sounds like borderline theft.”

Federal regulations normally impose a 5% annual reduction on benefits for civil servants who leave before reaching retirement age. The new program would eliminate this penalty for eligible participants.

Two categories of employees received the letters. The first group includes workers aged 50 or older with at least 10 years of federal employment and two years of pensionable service. The second covers employees 55 and older who joined the pension plan after January 1, 2013, meeting the same service requirements.

Treasury Board communications director Mohammad Kamal said notification letters reached about 68,000 employees who may qualify for the program. The government estimates the program will save $82 million annually in pension contributions once fully implemented.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada, representing the largest federal public service union, raised separate concerns about the program’s structure. National president Sharon DeSousa said workers considering early retirement might forfeit lump-sum severance payments based on years of service.

“That’s real money owed to workers under the collective agreement that this government seems to be trying to bypass,” DeSousa said in a statement released last week. She added that any early departure program must be negotiated with unions and warned members against making hasty decisions.

DeSousa told reporters in November she does not expect significant uptake given current cost of living pressures. The union is pressing the government to release complete program details before members commit to participation.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada echoed concerns about institutional knowledge loss. President Sean O’Reilly said the program would drive out experienced professionals rather than retaining talent.

“Let’s be clear: this program will drive out some of the most experienced people in the federal public service,” O’Reilly said. “Instead of retaining talent, the government is actively incentivizing its most seasoned professionals to leave. That should concern anyone who cares about effective government.”

The letters sent to employees emphasize that the program is voluntary and note that acceptance of applications is not guaranteed. Treasury Board will set parameters designed to maintain essential services and business continuity, according to the letter reviewed by media outlets.

The government plans to launch the one-year program as early as January 15, 2026, though Kamal confirmed legislation is still required before implementation. The application window would remain open for 120 days following the program’s start or legislative approval, whichever comes later.

Employees whose applications receive approval must retire within 300 days. The letters direct workers to internal pension calculators for personalized projections and caution that the Pension Centre is experiencing increased call volumes.

The federal workforce reached 367,772 employees in 2024 before falling to 357,965 this year through attrition. Budget 2025 targets further reductions to approximately 330,000 positions by 2028-29, a 10% decrease from peak levels.

Kamal did not respond to questions about whether departments would announce job cuts before gauging employee interest in voluntary departures. He said departments will manage workforce reductions through attrition and voluntary programs to the greatest extent possible, working to reassign employees where feasible.

The unions raise a number of concerns but let me tackle an important issue in this post.

Let's discuss inter-generational fairness. I don't agree with unions that younger generations will be paying half the cost of the $1.5 billion pension buyout program.

Typically, the assets in these pension plans are made up of 1/3 pension contributions and 2/3 investment gains.

In fact, the Public Service Pension Plan had a $9 billion surplus mostly owing to investment gains by its investment manager, PSP Investments, which is money that belongs to the federal government.

As I explained in detail here, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (and other unions) are wrong to claim this money belongs to members, it doesn't because this is not a jointly sponsored DB plan where members (retired and active) share the pain or gain of that plan. 

The federal government (ie. taxpayers) are on the hook if there's a deficit so the surplus belongs to taxpayers.

PSP's former CEO Neil Cunningham had good ideas of what the government can do with that $9 billion surplus which he shared with my readers here.

I believe that $9 billion surplus was transferred to a government account. 

A year ago, the federal public service pension plan posted a surplus of $1.9 billion, according to a report presented to the House of Commons by Treasury Board President Anita Anand.  

That surplus which belongs to the federal government is at the centre of debate on who gets to cash out of it:

A $1.9bn pension surplus is at the centre of a sweeping federal plan to shrink Canada’s public service, as the government prepares to offer $1.5bn in early retirement incentives to thousands of eligible employees, according to the Ottawa Citizen.  

The move, part of a broader strategy to cut 30,000 public sector jobs by 2028-29, is set to rely heavily on attrition, with new retirement rules allowing certain public servants to leave with an immediate, penalty-free pension based on years of service. 

Eligibility for the program, as outlined by the Department of Finance, extends to public servants over 50 who joined before 2013, or over 55 who joined after, provided they have at least 10 years of employment and two years of pensionable service.  

The incentive program is expected to run for one year, launching as early as January 15, 2026, or once budget legislation receives royal assent. 

The government’s plan to tap into the Public Service Pension Plan’s surplus has drawn sharp criticism from public sector unions, who argue that the reallocation of the “non-permitted surplus” into a general account lacks transparency and could undermine retirement security.  

Treasury Board spokesperson Barb Couperus confirmed to the Ottawa Citizen that the surplus remains at $1.9bn, but the Board has not clarified whether these funds will directly finance the early retirement program. 

Union leaders have responded with public rallies and warnings about the broader impact of job cuts. 

Jessica McCormick, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, told CBC News that “there are real people, real families, lives behind those cuts,” emphasizing the human cost of what the government describes as efforts to “streamline” the public service.  

Chris Di Liberatore of the Public Service Alliance of Canada added that “critical programs and services will be gutted, and communities will be left behind,” urging the government to reconsider its approach. 

Meanwhile, Tom Osborne, parliamentary secretary to the president of the treasury board, acknowledged to CBC News that the public service has grown by 100,000 positions over the past decade, much of it in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Osborne described the current size as “unsustainable,” but said the government is committed to mitigating the impact on workers, particularly those nearing retirement. 

Well, I agree with Osborne, the current size of the public sector is unsustainable and we need to restore balance. Also consider this, more than 27,000 federal public servants now earn at least $150,000 a year, even as Ottawa moves to cut tens of thousands of jobs and roll out an early retirement program funded from the public service pension plan: 

According to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, more than 20,000 employees received total compensation between $150,000 and $199,999 in 2024-25, The Canadian Press reported.  

Nearly 5,000 employees were in the $200,000 to $249,999 range, almost 1,400 were between $250,000 and $299,999, 654 were between $300,000 and $399,999, 42 were between $400,000 and $499,999, and six received $500,000 or more. 

The document says compensation includes salaries, bonuses, benefits and overtime pay. It covers permanent, term, casual and student workers.   

While it's unclear to me whether the $1.9 surplus will be used to pay for these early retirements, it would be the easiest way to fund them and maintain inter-generational equity. 

Discussing the early retirement option with friends working in Ottawa, many are seriously considering it, fed up, they want out.

Are you losing experienced people? No doubt, you'll lose some, but you're also losing dead wood, people that just counting the minutes to retire.    

And unfortunately, from what my friends tell me, there's a lot of dead wood in Ottawa.

Let's not forget the civil service grew exponentially under the fiscal profligacy of the Trudeau Liberals, across all departments.

So even with these cuts (early retirement), we are just getting back to "normal size" of the civil service, hardly draconian by any measure.

Anyways, take everything the public sector unions claim with a grain of salt, they love to play the victim card.

Still, I do believe the $1.9 billion surplus can and should be used to fund this $1.5 billion early retirement program. It's the easiest way to fund this program without asking taxpayers to pitch in.

As far as PSP Investments, it will continue to manage the assets of a shrinking pool of federal workers, the demographics of the plan will change (become younger) and it will need to revise its risk-taking behaviour across all assets.

That's my two cents, please feel free to email me if you have anything to add here (LKolivakis@gmail.com).

Lastly, it's up to every worker to decide for themselves whether or not to take this early retirement if eligible. Unfortunately, I cannot give advice to everyone, please sit down with a financial advisor and see if it makes sense for you.

Below, the Treasury Board is sending letters to approximately 68,000 federal public servants regarding a potential early retirement incentive. The government aims to reduce the public service by 28,000 jobs by 2029 through voluntary attrition to avoid layoffs. Unions like PSAC warn that employees should not be pressured into giving up rights during a tough economic climate. CTV's Stefan Keyes has more.

Note: Mortgage rates are from MortgageNewsDaily.com and are for top tier scenarios.

Wednesday:
• At 7:00 AM ET, The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) will release the results for the mortgage purchase applications index.

• At 2:00 PM, FOMC Meeting Announcement. The Fed is expected to cut rates 25bp at this meeting.

• Also at 2:00 PM, FOMC Forecasts This will include the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) participants' projections of the appropriate target federal funds rate along with the quarterly economic projections.

• At 2:30 PM, Fed Chair Jerome Powell holds a press briefing following the FOMC announcement.

Rich People, Poor Morals: Wealthy Are The Most Likely To Rip Off Self-Checkout Machines

Rich people, poorer morals? A new LendingTree report claims the shoppers most likely to rip off the self-checkout machine aren’t the desperate — they’re the well-off, according to the NY Post.

Americans making over $100,000 a year are twice as likely to steal at self-checkout compared to low-income shoppers. A hefty 40% of six-figure earners admitted they’ve deliberately skipped scanning an item, while just 17% of those making under $30,000 confessed to the same.

The Post writes that middle-income households didn’t look much better: 27% of people earning between $50K and $99K say they’ve helped themselves without paying. And men are the biggest culprits overall, with 38% admitting to theft versus only 16% of women.

Even with AI scanners and weight sensors trying to outsmart sticky fingers, self-checkout theft is still rising.

A chunk of shoppers don’t feel bad about it either. Nearly one-third say big retailers make plenty of money, so swiping something “doesn’t hurt.” Another 35% defend the habit by claiming they’re basically unpaid store workers and grabbing an item or two is “compensation.”

Still, most blame inflation rather than guilt-free shoplifting. Forty-seven percent say rising prices are forcing people to cheat at the register — meaning even wealthy shoppers might be feeling the squeeze, just not enough to pay for everything in their cart.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 16:40

Question Everything

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

The average person in the First World receives far more information than he would if he lived in a Second or Third World country. In many countries of the world, the very idea of twenty-four hour television news coverage would be unthinkable, yet many Westerners feel that, without this constant input, they would be woefully uninformed.

Not surprising, then, that the average First Worlder feels that he understands current events better than those elsewhere in the world. But, as in other things, quality and quantity are not the same.

The average news programme features a commentator who provides “the news,” or at least that portion of events that the network deems worthy to be presented. In addition, it is presented from the political slant of the controllers of the network. But we are reassured that the reporting is “balanced,” in a portion of the programme that features a panel of “experts.”

Customarily, the panel consists of the moderator plus two pundits who share his political slant and a pundit who has an opposing slant. All are paid by the network for their contributions. The moderator will ask a question on a current issue, and an argument will ensue for a few minutes. Generally, no real conclusion is reached—neither side accedes to the other. The moderator then moves on to another question.

So, the network has aired the issues of the day, and we have received a balanced view that may inform our own opinions.

Or have we?

Shortcomings

In actual fact, there are significant shortcomings in this type of presentation:

1. The scope of coverage is extremely narrow. Only select facets of each issue are discussed.

2. Generally, the discussion reveals precious little actual insight and, in fact, only the standard opposing liberal and conservative positions are discussed, implying that the viewer must choose one or the other to adopt as his own opinion.

3. On a programme that is liberally-oriented, the one conservative pundit on the panel is made to look foolish by the three liberal pundits, ensuring that the liberal viewer’s beliefs are reaffirmed. (The reverse is true on a conservative news programme.)

4. Each issue facet that is addressed is repeated many times in the course of the day, then extended for as many days, weeks, or months as the issue remains current. The “message,” therefore, is repeated virtually as often as an advert for a brand of laundry powder.

So, what is the net effect of such news reportage? Has the viewer become well-informed?

In actual fact, not at all. What he has become is well-indoctrinated.

A liberal will be inclined to regularly watch a liberal news channel, which will result in the continual reaffirmation of his liberal views. A conservative will, in turn, regularly watch a conservative news channel, which will result in the continual reaffirmation of his conservative views.

Many viewers will agree that this is so, yet not recognise that, essentially, they are being programmed to simply absorb information. Along the way, their inclination to actually question and think for themselves is being eroded.

Alternate Possibilities

The proof of this is that those who have been programmed, tend to react with anger when they encounter a Nigel Farage or a Ron Paul, who might well challenge them to consider a third option—an interpretation beyond the narrow conservative and liberal views of events. In truth, on any issue, there exists a wide field of alternate possibilities.

By contrast, it is not uncommon for people outside the First World to have better instincts when encountering a news item. If they do not receive the BBC, Fox News, or CNN, they are likely, when learning of a political event, to think through, on their own, what the event means to them.

As they are not pre-programmed to follow one narrow line of reasoning or another, they are open to a broad range of possibilities. Each individual, based upon his personal experience, is likely to draw a different conclusion and, thorough discourse with others, is likely to continue to update his opinion each time he receives a new viewpoint.

As a result, it is not uncommon for those who are not “plugged-in” to be not only more open-minded, but more imaginative in their considerations, even when they are less educated and less “informed” than those in the First World.

Whilst those who do not receive the regular barrage that is the norm in the First World are no more intelligent than their European or American counterparts, their views are more often the result of personal objective reasoning and common sense and are often more insightful.

Those in First World countries often point with pride at the advanced technology that allows them a greater volume of news than the rest of the world customarily receives.

Further, they are likely to take pride in their belief that the two opposing views that are presented indicate that they live in a “free” country, where dissent is encouraged.

Unfortunately, what is encouraged is one of two views—either the liberal view or the conservative view. Other views are discouraged.

The liberal view espouses that a powerful liberal government is necessary to control the greed of capitalists, taxing and regulating them as much as possible to limit their ability to victimise the poorer classes.

The conservative view espouses that a powerful conservative government is needed to control the liberals, who threaten to create chaos and moral collapse through such efforts as gay rights, legalised abortion, etc.

What these two dogmatic concepts have in common is that a powerful government is needed.

Each group, therefore, seeks the increase in the power of its group of legislators to overpower the opposing group. This ensures that, regardless of whether the present government is dominated by liberals of conservatives, the one certainty will be that the government will be powerful.

When seen in this light, if the television viewer were to click the remote back and forth regularly from the liberal channel to the conservative channel, he would begin to see a strong similarity between the two.

It’s easy for any viewer to question the opposition group, to consider them disingenuous—the bearers of false information. It is far more difficult to question the pundits who are on our own “team,” to ask ourselves if they, also, are disingenuous.

This is especially difficult when it’s three to one—when three commentators share our political view and all say the same thing to the odd-man-out on the panel. In such a situation, the hardest task is to question our own team, who are clearly succeeding at beating down the odd-man-out.

Evolution of Indoctrination

In bygone eras, the kings of old would tell their minions what to believe and the minions would then either accept or reject the information received. They would rely on their own experience and reasoning powers to inform them.

Later, a better method evolved: the use of media to indoctrinate the populace with government-generated propaganda (think: Josef Goebbels or Uncle Joe Stalin).

Today, a far more effective method exists—one that retains the repetition of the latter method but helps to eliminate the open-ended field of alternate points of view. It does so by providing a choice between “View A” and “View B.”

In a democracy, there is always an “A” and a “B.” This illusion of choice is infinitely more effective in helping the populace to believe that they have been able to choose their leaders and their points of view.

In the modern method, when voting, regardless of what choice the individual makes, he is voting for an all-powerful government. (Whether it calls itself a conservative one or a liberal one is incidental.)

Likewise, through the modern media, when the viewer absorbs what is presented as discourse, regardless of whether he chooses View A or View B, he is endorsing an all-powerful government.

Two Solutions

One solution to avoid being brainwashed by the dogmatic messaging of the media is to simply avoid watching the news. But this is difficult to do, as our associates and neighbours are watching it every day and will want to discuss with us what they have been taught.

The other choice is to question everything.

To consider that the event that is being discussed may not only be being falsely reported, but that the message being provided by the pundits may be consciously planned for our consumption.

This is difficult to do at first but can eventually become habit. If so, the likelihood of being led down the garden path by the powers-that-be may be greatly diminished. In truth, on any issue, there exists a wide field of alternate possibilities.

Developing your own view may, in the coming years, be vital to your well-being.

*  *  *

In times when the mainstream narrative grows louder, the rarest and most valuable act is to think independently. True understanding comes not from passively absorbing information, but from questioning every assumption handed to us. If you’re ready to explore what’s really unfolding behind the headlines—and how to protect yourself from the consequences of mass deception—see Doug Casey’s urgent new special dispatch: “The US and the World are Heading for a Serious Crisis.” Click here to see it now. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 16:20

Rules Committee Print 119-16, As Posted on the Website of the House Committee on Rules on December 7, 2025

Adam Schiff Laments Trump Wasn't Jailed Sooner As DOJ Turns On Him

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., lamented that the Biden administration did not move more quickly to incarcerate President Donald Trump, suggesting that even more aggressive action could have thwarted his 2024 electoral prospects. 

Schiff, who himself is facing a federal investigation into allegations of mortgage fraud, claimed in an interview with the New Yorker Radio Hour that had former Attorney General Merrick Garland acted sooner, “we might be in a very different place today.” 

Schiff’s remarks came after podcast host David Remnick asked, “Do you feel that Merrick Garland moved too slowly, too cautiously?” 

The senator replied, “I absolutely do. Yeah.” 

Remnick then asked why Garland acted “so slowly,” adding, “What about his character or tactics or strategy led him to behave that way?” 

Schiff then misleadingly claimed that Garland had been brought in to correct what Schiff viewed as partisanship in the first Trump administration. 

These comments appear at odds with newly declassified documents that showed that the Biden-led DOJ and FBI undertook sweeping investigations targeting Trump and his allies after he left office in 2021. 

The New York Times even reported that former President Joe Biden actively supported Garland taking action against Trump. 

The Biden-led probe triggered 197 subpoenas against 430 Republican organizations and individuals. The subpoenas included phone records of at least 11 Republican lawmakers. 

These records were later transferred to Special Counsel Jack Smith, whom Garland appointed to pursue the Trump investigation under the guise of independence. 

Despite this, Schiff framed Garland’s actions as part of an attempt to restore credibility. 

“The Justice Department in the first Trump was abused and made partisan, and he wished to restore the Department’s reputation for independence,” Schiff claimed.

 “Now, what they did in the first Trump Justice Department is peanuts compared to today.” 

Schiff continued, “But nevertheless, Merrick Garland wanted to restore the reputation of the Department for strict non-partisanship. And that made him very reluctant to pursue an investigation of the president, too reluctant.” 

In conclusion, Schiff claimed that Garland’s reluctance allowed the Supreme Court time to issue a decision on presidential immunity. 

“Ultimately that gave the Supreme Court the time it needed to drag things out further and make the case against Trump go away completely when it could have been brought to fruition. And we might be in a very different place today,” he stated. 

Watch the remarks below:

Adam Schiff laments that Trump wasn’t prosecuted fast enough to be put in prison. He blames Garland for being just too darned non-partisan:

“He wanted to restore the reputation of the department for strict non-partisanship. And that made him very reluctant. Too reluctant." pic.twitter.com/jpmVZMLnBj

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) December 8, 2025

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 15:20

Goldman Reminds Clients Where Travel & Leisure Cracked First Ahead Of 2008 Crisis

Goldman analysts led by Lizzie Dove examined how different segments within travel and leisure reacted to, and ultimately recovered from, the 2008-09 recession. Her analysis offers a valuable framework for identifying where consumer stress tends to appear first inside the travel space and whether today's warning signs in a K-shaped, bifurcated consumer landscape warrant closer scrutiny.

Buried in the middle of Dove's note on the cruise industry is an infographic showing that the downturn in the cruise industry tends to be late-cycle, whereas pullbacks in gambling, airlines, and hotels typically materialize much earlier - and right before the cycle begins to turn down.

Dove pointed back to the GFC crisis, where early in the downturn Vegas and airlines cracked first:

• Vegas gambling revenue starts falling as early as Feb–Mar 2008

• Airlines (enplanements) show declines by mid-2008

Then hotel demand dried up in mid-cycle:

• US RevPAR drops mid- to late-2008

Followed by the late-cycle downturn in the cruise industry:

• Cruise net yields don't hit peak decline until mid-2009

• They don't return to growth until mid-2010

So there was a full 18 to 24 months lag versus the late-cycle cruise downturn and the early-cycle pullback in Vegas and airlines.

Why highlight this consumer behavior right now?

Because the current K-shaped recovery and bifurcated spending environment are flashing early warning signs. Las Vegas trends are already pointing lower, yet airlines are still holding up, and baby boomers continue booking Caribbean cruise-line trips.

Track these consumer trends through early 2026 to see whether weakness spreads more broadly across the travel industry. If airline demand begins to fall, it will provide a much clearer indication that economic softness is widening. And if that's the case, Powell better be open to more rate cuts.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has already communicated that tailwinds for working-class consumers will begin to materialize sometime in the first quarter.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 15:00

Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge Tosses Trump's Order Halting Wind Energy Projects

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on Dec. 8 vacated President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order that halted federal permitting and leasing for wind energy projects, saying it violated U.S. law.

U.S. District Judge Patti Saris of the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of a coalition of state attorneys general from 17 states and the District of Columbia, which argued that federal efforts to halt authorization for wind energy projects violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the agencies failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions.

Trump’s order directs federal agencies to halt approvals and leasing for all new offshore wind power projects pending a comprehensive review.

In a 47-page ruling, Saris stated that the order’s indefinite suspension of wind energy project authorizations violates a statutory requirement that agencies proceed to conclude matters “within a reasonable time.”

“No permits have [been] issued since the wind order was promulgated, and the agency defendants acknowledge that they will not issue any permits at least until they complete the comprehensive assessment, for which there is no timeline,” the judge stated. “That action is contrary to law.”

The judge also noted that federal agencies failed to provide “a reasoned explanation” for halting wind project authorizations, even as they were carrying out the president’s directive.

“Given that the wind order constitutes a change of course from decades of agencies’ issuing (or denying) permits related to wind energy projects, the agency defendants were required, at minimum, to ‘provide a reasoned explanation for the change’ and to ‘display awareness that (they were) changing position.’ They failed to do so,” Saris stated.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, part of the coalition in the lawsuit, hailed the ruling as a “critical victory” for the states.

“Massachusetts has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into offshore wind, and today, we successfully protected those important investments from the Trump Administration’s unlawful order,” Campbell said in a statement.

New York Attorney General Letitia James welcomed the ruling and said there is a need to develop more energy sources, including wind energy, amid rising costs.

“I am grateful the court stepped in to block the administration’s reckless and unlawful crusade against clean energy,” she added.

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers defended Trump’s directive, saying that offshore wind projects were given “unfair, preferential treatment” under the Biden administration while other energy sources faced burdensome regulations.

“President Trump has ended Joe Biden’s war on American energy and unleashed America’s energy dominance to protect our economic and national security,” Rogers said in a statement.

Trump has pushed to increase U.S. use of fuel and coal energy sources in a move to reduce reliance on foreign supply. On July 7, Trump signed an executive order to end federal subsidies for wind and solar energy projects, citing their unreliability and dependence on foreign-controlled supply chains.

The order states that such renewable energy sources are expensive, compromise the nation’s electric grid, and threaten national security. It instructs the Interior Department to review and eliminate regulations that give preferential treatment to wind and solar projects.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 14:40

Trump Threatens Tariff Increase On Mexico Over Rio Grande Water Dispute

President Donald Trump weighed in on a decades-old border water dispute on Monday, saying he would impose a 5 percent tariff hike on Mexican imports if the country fails to swiftly deliver the water it owes from the Rio Grande.

The ultimatum is designed to help struggling U.S. farmers, especially in Texas, amid alleged treaty violations over the past five years.

In a post on social media, Trump underscored an alleged 800,000 acre-feet debt from the recently ended cycle, demanding the release of 200,000 acre-feet before Dec. 31 and additional volumes shortly after.

The president highlighted the impact on Texas agriculture, where insufficient water undermines crop yields and livestock sustainability.

“As of now, Mexico is not responding, and it is very unfair to our U.S. Farmers who deserve this much needed water,” Trump said on Truth Social on Monday.

“That is why I have authorized documentation to impose a 5% Tariff on Mexico if this water isn’t released, IMMEDIATELY.”

As Kimberley Hayek reports for The Epoch Times, Mexico has in the past cited significant drought conditions curtailing its capacity.

The 1944 U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty regulates shared resources from the Rio Grande, Colorado, and Tijuana rivers.

For the Rio Grande segment south of Fort Quitman, Texas, the agreement states that the United States would receive one-third of flows from six Mexican tributaries—Conchos, San Diego, San Rodrigo, Escondido, Salado, and Las Vacas Arroyo—with a guaranteed minimum average of 350,000 acre-feet per year, or 1.75 million over each five-year cycle. The agreement allotted Mexico two-thirds of those flows, as well as allocations from U.S. tributaries, including the Pecos and Devils rivers.

In April, Trump criticized Mexico, threatening tariffs or sanctions if the country failed to adhere to the terms of the treaty.

“Mexico has been stealing the water from Texas farmers,” he posted at the time, pledging to “keep escalating consequences, including tariffs and, maybe even sanctions, until Mexico honors the Treaty, and gives Texas the water they are owed!”

Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum highlighted the ongoing drought but vowed to help resolve the issue. Mexico said it would draw from its reserves and increase flows from the six tributaries through October, as announced by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. IBWC data, however, showed deliveries came in at approximately 730,000 acre-feet by mid-2025, 42 percent short of the 1.75 million obligation.

A history of lenient enforcement, hydrological changes, and rapid population increase in Mexico has been blamed for the current conditions.

Evan Ellis, a Latin American studies professor at the U.S. Army War College, said the current situation can be attributed to “years of looking the other way” by the United States.

The treaty allows for deferrals only during “extraordinary drought,” which is left undefined but requires repayment in the following cycle.

In March, the United States rejected Mexico’s request for Colorado River water diversions to Tijuana, noting Rio Grande shortfalls. It is the first time the country has denied such a request under the treaty.

The Texas agricultural sector depends on consistent water supplies, and the allocation shortfalls have led members of Congress to introduce bills proposing fund withholdings until remedies are secured.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 14:20

Today, in the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter: Lawler: More on the “Neutral” Interest Rate (R*)

A brief excerpt:

From housing economist Tom Lawler:

Executive Summary: Policymakers and financial analysts looking for “models” as a guide for assessing the neutral interest rate are faced with a dilemma: various models produce significantly different results, and it is far from clear which if any model is the “most” accurate. While it is perhaps interesting to note that the average R* estimate from various models available within the Federal Reserve System is currently very close to “market-based” estimates based on TIPS forward rates adjusted for term prema estimates, that may simply be a coincidence.

However, if one takes the approach that the “best guess” estimate of R* is found by looking at the average of various models and the “market’s” assessment of R*, one would come to the conclusion that the current “best guess” estimate of the neutral real rate of interest is very close to 1.5%,

If that is the case, and if, as expected, the FOMC decides to cut its federal funds rate target by 25 bp tomorrow, then the resulting level of the federal funds rate will be very close to the neutral nominal policy rate.

There is much more in the article.

Harvard Hires Graduate Charged With Assaulting Israeli Classmate As Teaching Fellow

Authored by Gabrielle Temaat via The College Fix,

Harvard University recently hired a graduate of its Divinity School who was criminally charged with assaulting an Israeli classmate during an anti-Israel protest. 

Elom Tettey-Tamaklo; Across the Divide/Youtube

Elom Tettey-Tamaklo is now working as a teaching fellow at the school, earning a stipend of up to $11,000, according to The Washington Free Beacon. 

Tettey-Tamaklo’s LinkedIn page states that he advises “faculty on curriculum design” and offers consultation “on complex subject matter by translating expertise in migration and refugee studies.”

In October 2023, a video surfaced showing Tettey-Tamaklo confronting a first-year Israeli business student who can be heard saying “don’t grab me” and “don’t touch my neck.” The student said Tettey-Tamaklo pushed and shoved him. 

In 2024, Tettey-Tamaklo was charged with misdemeanor assault and battery. Then, about a year later, a judge ordered him to complete anger management classes and 80 hours of community service. 

The university did not punish him formally, but Tettey-Tamaklo lost his freshman proctor role because students reported feeling uncomfortable. Still, he was later awarded a $65,000 Harvard Law Review fellowship, according to National Review.

While the case moved through the courts, the Trump administration urged the school to expel him, but it refused, the Free Beacon reported. 

Now he’s on Harvard’s payroll. 

The Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office stated that Harvard refused to cooperate with its investigation, stalled the criminal case, and blocked prosecutors from identifying other individuals involved in the assault.

The school’s conduct in handling the case led the assaulted Israeli student, Yoav Segev, to sue the school in July. 

Segev alleged that Harvard violated his Title VI rights by failing to meaningfully discipline Tettey-Tamaklo and another student involved in the incident, according to The Harvard Crimson. 

However, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit last week.

“While the court does not condone an assault on a fellow student by campus protestors, nothing in the Amended Complaint plausibly supports the notion that his assailants’ conduct was motivated by race-based antisemitism,” U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns wrote. 

Earlier this year, the Trump administration withheld federal grant funding from Harvard, citing its failure to address rampant antisemitism on campus, The College Fix previously reported. 

In September, however, a U.S. district judge ruled that the Trump administration violated the school’s First Amendment rights by freezing research funding, asserting the government’s actions were aimed at promoting a “governmental orthodoxy” rather than genuinely combating antisemitism.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 14:00

Indoctrination Starts Early: New Book Tells 5-Year-Olds Abortion Is A 'Superpower'

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

In a brazen push to normalise the unthinkable, radical abortion activists are now targeting America’s youngest minds with a colorful children’s book that glorifies killing the unborn as some kind of heroic “superpower.”

The extreme left are coming for the kids, framing abortion as destiny-shaping magic in a bid to “rewrite cultural scripts” and stomp out any resistance to their anti-life ideology.

The book, titled Abortion Is Everything, is being peddled by the pro-abortion group Shout Your Abortion (SYA), set to ship in January 2026. Aimed squarely at children aged five to eight, it uses vibrant, water-color style illustrations to hook young imaginations—while slipping in messages that abortion is not just acceptable, but empowering.

?THREAD: A new “children’s book” called Abortion Is Everything is being marketed to 5–8 year olds to “speak directly” to them about abortion.

Yes, you read that correctly.

And the book is downright evil. pic.twitter.com/PRwc36BNbN

— Jenna Ellis ? (@realJennaEllis) December 3, 2025

According to the group’s own description, the book tells children “about what abortion is, how it might feel, and why people have abortions.”

A blurb of the book proclaims that “With accessible, inclusive language, Abortion Is Everything frames abortion as the actualization of a uniquely human superpower: our capacity to imagine the future and make choices that lead us towards the life we envision.”

The book frames abortion as a “superpower” — the ability to imagine a future and “make choices” to create the life we want.

But here’s the truth Scripture teaches: real power is found in loving sacrifice and recognizing the inherent dignity and value in all human beings created… pic.twitter.com/RU2HZByyMs

— Jenna Ellis ? (@realJennaEllis) December 3, 2025

It continues, “Abortion is a tool that allows human beings to shape our destinies, and which has shaped the entire world around us.”

Excerpts reveal the indoctrination tactics, with text stating: “Human beings are different from plants and non-human animals, because we have the ability to IMAGINE our lives many seasons from now… and make CHOICES.” Bright colors and playful drawings accompany this, masking the grim reality of what abortion truly entails.

The book also tells children that “living things reproduce” and “sometimes pregnancy ends” — but it never tells them when human life begins.

Science does: at conception.

And Scripture does: Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1, Luke 1 — God knows, forms, and calls every child in the womb.

— Jenna Ellis ? (@realJennaEllis) December 3, 2025

Parents: This is your reminder that discipleship is not optional.

If activists are creating abortion propaganda for elementary schoolers, you can be sure they are aiming to catechize your children before you do.
Teach them God’s truth before the world sells them a lie made with…

— Jenna Ellis ? (@realJennaEllis) December 3, 2025

And to the creators of this book:

Children don’t need help “imagining” a future without their siblings or friends. They need adults who protect life, who honor God, and who refuse to manipulate their innocence for political gain.

Life is a gift. Abortion is not “everything.”…

— Jenna Ellis ? (@realJennaEllis) December 3, 2025

SYA claims “Parents, caregivers, and educators who work with children have long been searching for a tool to talk with kids about abortion, especially given the volume of political noise currently surrounding the issue.” They position the book as a way to “introduce the concept of abortion in a way that empowers parents and kids to begin rewriting our cultural scripts about abortion at the most foundational level.”

Authored by ‘activist’ Amelia Bonow and artist-educator Rachel Kessler, with illustrations by Emily Nokes, the hardcover is being offered signed for donations of $100 or more to SYA’s year-end campaign. The group, launched in 2016, openly seeks to “normalize abortion and eradicat[e] stigma.”

The authors and illustrator of the new abortion book for toddlers look exactly how you expect … https://t.co/rAIijFj0Cw pic.twitter.com/KokcaPC8xU

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) December 3, 2025

Their mission is described as building “a collective that is committed to aiding and abetting abortion—in the form of elevating resources, funding abortions, sharing information about pills, and saving independent clinics.”

Conservative lawyer and Trump ally Jenna Ellis has slammed the book as “downright evil,” urging “Why even introduce such a violent, adult topic to kids who still sleep with stuffed animals and ask for night lights? Because reshaping morality always starts with shaping the minds of the youngest.”

Ellis tore into SYA’s framing, noting: “SYA claims abortion is just one of three ‘normal’ pregnancy outcomes, like birth and miscarriage. But a miscarriage is a tragedy no mother chooses; abortion is the intentional ending of a child’s life.”

This highlights the hypocrisy of equating a natural loss with deliberate destruction, a tactic straight out of the leftist playbook to desensitize society.

This push comes amid global crackdowns on pro-life expression. The US State Department recently labeled NHS abortions in the UK as human rights violations, criticizing organizations for being “conspicuously silent” on arrests near clinics. Examples abound: An anti-abortion campaigner arrested at a peaceful protest in Cambridge on November 1, and 75-year-old grandmother Rose Docherty hauled into a police van in Glasgow for holding a sign outside a hospital.

US Vice President JD Vance called out these “buffer zone” laws, warning that free speech is “in retreat” in Europe. He spotlighted the conviction of physiotherapist Adam Smith-Connor for praying outside an abortion center in Bournemouth, stating: “I wish I could say that this was a fluke, a one-off, crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person. But no. This last October, [then] just a few months ago, the Scottish Government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law.”

By targeting five-year-olds, SYA and their ilk aim to breed a generation numb to life’s sanctity, paving the way for more control. This isn’t education—it’s straight-up leftist brainwashing aimed at eroding family values and life-affirming principles from the cradle.

 

The more this crowd pushes, the more galvanised parents are to reject the radical left’s assault on innocence. True superpowers lie in protecting life, not ending it.

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 Tue, 12/09/2025 - 13:20

Solid 10Y Auction Sees Jump In Foreign Demand, Prices On The Screws

After a solid, but tailing, 3Y auction to start the FOMC week yesterday had little impact on the yield curve, moments ago the Treasury sold $39BN in 10Y paper in another solid auction, which however once again had no impact on the secondary market.  

The auction priced at a high yield of 4.175%, which was up from 4.068% in November and the highest since August. The high yield also priced on the screws with the When Issued which was also at 4.175%. It followed two tailing auctions but for the most part demand has been solid historically with most auction in the past year stopping through.

The bid to cover was solid up to 2.550 from 2.433 and the highest since September; it was also above the recent average 2.51.

Internals were also solid: Foreign buyers took down 70.2%, the highest since September, and above the six auction average of 69.5. And with Directs awarded 20.96%, down modestly from 22.55% in November but in line with the 20.52% recent average, Dealers were left holding 8.8%, the lowest since September.

Overall, this was a good auction with solid demand metrics. Yet in line of the continued hawkish retracement observed across the globe which has lifted yields sharply in recent days, the auction did little to boost rates sentiment and 10Y yields were unchanged in the second market trading around 4.17%, near the highest in three months.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 13:17

As Russia Makes More Gains In East, Trump Concedes "At Some Point, Size Will Win"

Little has changed on the US-proposed peace plan for Ukraine. Zelensky and the Europeans are rejecting it while Trump is calling out the Ukrainian leader, telling him he better "get on the ball" and accept reality.

Not much has changed on the ground either, with battlefield trends pretty much being consistent stretching back many months. Moscow forces keep making gains in the east, major Ukrainian cities struggle to keep the power grid operating, and in return Ukraine keeps sending drones on Russian territory.

via Reuters

The latest drones were sent against the Russian capital itself, though this certainly isn't a first of the war. But it remains rare. Local media is reporting that three drones were destroyed by anti-air systems as they approached Moscow Tuesday evening.

The city's Mayor Sergei Sobyanin announced the intercepts on Telegram, but didn't disclose whether the attack resulted in any casualties or damage on the ground. Emergency crews were dispatched to the locations where the drones fell after being intercepted. 

This is the fourth such Ukrainian drone attack targeting Moscow since November. It could be in 'answer' to Russian forces more heavily targeting the Ukrainian capital of late in missile and drone strikes, which have plunged whole neighborhoods into long periods of darkness.

Le Monde has observed of the current situation in many Ukrainian towns and cities, "While Russian attacks on Ukrainian power plants and electrical infrastructure have continued for three years, they tend to intensify as winter approaches, disrupting the daily lives of residents. Immersed in a darkness punctuated by the hum of generators, people try to maintain a semblance of normalcy."

As for the ground war in the east, Russia's military has been reporting more gains, in the wake of capturing the key city of Pokrovsk:

Russian forces took control of the villages of Kucherivka in Ukraine's northern Kharkiv region and Rivne in the eastern Donetsk region, the Defence Ministry said on Sunday.

Moscow carried out group strikes on Ukrainian transport infrastructure, fuel and energy facilities, military airfields and long-range drone complexes, the ministry added.

Meanwhile, President Trump in a freshly published Politico interview has said Russian forces have the clear upper-hand and so Zelensky should get serious about reviewing and accepting his peace deal.

"It would be nice if he would read it," Trump said of the US peace deal. "You know, a lot of people are dying. So it would be really good if he’d read it."

The number of Russians favouring peace talks is close to an all-time high at 65% (it was 66% in Aug) against 26% who prefer continued hostilities.

The peace camp was steadily expanding since the start of the all-out war. The only time when the pro-war camp briefly prevailed was… pic.twitter.com/WGuatqgplX

— Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) December 9, 2025

Trump seemed to acknowledged this has long been a war of attrition and that no magical battlefield or weapons solutions will tilt things in favor of Kiev. He asserted that Russia has the "upper hand. And they always did. They’re much bigger. They’re much stronger." He described that while the Ukrainians have fought bravely, the reality remains that "At some point, size will win."

Zelensky has been huddling with the European leaders to come up with a counter-plan (which Putin is very unlikely to accept), and said Tuesday that the White House should expect "refined documents on peace" to be submitted soon.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 13:05

Defense Bill Requires Trump Spy Agencies To Declassify COVID-19 Origins Intel, Chinese Obstruction

Slipped into the nearly 3,100-page National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a provision that requires "declassification" and "transparency" related to the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and would require the Trump administration's spy agencies to release its intelligence related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology where COVID research was offshored by the Obama administration in October of 2014 with a grant to EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City nonprofit run by Peter Daszak. 

Chinese Virologist Shi Zhengli of the WIV

In March of 2018, Daszak submitted a grant proposal titled Project DEFUSE (short for "Defusing the Threat of Bat-borne Coronaviruses") to DARPA, which sought to create genetically modified bat coronaviruses with enhanced potential for human infectivity - including features that could enable aerosol (airborne) transmission. The proposal was ultimately rejected by DARPA over safety concerns - however "if funding became available," then certain components of particular interest could proceed.

So, let's see if the NDAA passes with this language - and whether it confirms the above Fauci-funded adventures in Wuhan. Of note, Peter Daszak - unlike Fauci - was not pardoned by former President Joe Biden and the infamous autopen. 

The text of the NDAA - specifically section 6803 of the text, calls on the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to work with the heads of all 18 US spy agencies to "perform a declassification review of intelligence" related to "the origins of Coronavirus Disease 2019," and related to "efforts by government officials of entities of the People’s Republic of China" to cover up the origins of the pandemic. 

"DNI Gabbard remains committed to declassifying COVID-19 information and looks forward to continued work with Congress to share the truth about pandemic-era failures with the American people," a DNI spokesperson told Just the News. 

Shi and Daszak clinking glasses, undoubtedly after lots of humanized mice successfully died horrible COVID deaths.

Recall that while the government was locking us down, Dr. Anthony Fauci and those in his orbit were actively fabricating a 'wet market' narrative that would conceal US research as a possible origin - despite his own advisors initially insisting that COVID-19 looked manmade.

Among other things, the NIH helped fund experiments at WIV that infected genetically engineered mice with “chimeric” hybrids of SARS-related bat coronaviruses in what some scientists have described as unacceptably risky research. 

...

Andersen laid them out plainly in an email to Fauci that same evening. “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen wrote in the email. “I should mention,” he added, “that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.” -The Intercept

Those who questioned this narrative, including ZeroHedge, were harshly punished - while outlets like the LA Times went so far carrying water for Fauci that it opined "The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health."

The Trump administration meanwhile has begun a renewed push to get to the bottom of the COVID-19 virus, Just the News reports, adding "there's more and more evidence — including by non-U.S. intelligence agencies — indicating that it came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

Yet, a massive pile of intelligence related to the origins of the virus remain classified, and Congress now wants the Trump intelligence community to provide clarity. 

The Chinese government, meanwhile, continues to deflect from the possibility of a Wuhan lab leak, instead pushing the theory that COVID-19 originated from Fort Detrick, a US military base that's home to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases' (NIAID) Integrated Research Facility (IRF-Frederick). 

While there is no direct evidence that USAMRIID was involved in pre-pandemic research, the facility has studied SARS-CoV-1 (2003) and MERS-CoV since the early 2000s, including reverse genetics for chimeric viruses and interferon therapies. Collaborations with UNC's Ralph Baric - who created 'humanized mice' for Wuhan scientists to infect, informed later gain-of-function debates but predate SARS-CoV-2. 

In short, it looks like: 

• The US government offshored risky gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses to Wuhan, China
• The WIV had poor lab security
• American researchers collaborated with WIV scientsts to create chimeric (genetically modified) bat coronaviruses, likely including COVID-19.
• The virus coincidentally escaped just in time to cause a global pandemic that crushed Trump's economic momentum, resulting in vote-by-mail during the 2020 'fraud-free' election that saw Joe Biden receive more votes than any president in US history. 

During Gabbard's Senate confirmation hearing in January, she said that many senators had "expressed bipartisan frustration about recent intelligence failures and the lack of responsiveness to your requests for information," including related to "failures to identify the source of the COVID."

As a result, she established the Director's Initiatives Group (DIG) in April, which has a goal of "investigating weaponization, rooting out deep-seeded politicization, exposing unauthorized disclosures of classified intelligence, and declassifying information that serves a public interest."

An ODNI official told Just the News that Gabbard and her team are working hard to investigate intelligence failures related to COVID-19, including investigating possible suppression of the lab leak hypothesis within the intelligence community and carrying out a wide-ranging review of U.S.-funded gain-of-function research.

The official also said ODNI is coordinating with other spy agency elements such as the FBI and Department of Energy to share details about COVID-19 inquiries.

The ODNI official added that Gabbard’s office had provided Congress with requested documents on COVID origins, including records that were improperly withheld by the Biden Administration. Gabbard’s office is also interviewing whistleblowers and weighing the declassification of further records, the official said. -Just the News

If the NDAA is passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by Trump, it would require Gabbard and the ODNI to conduct two separate classification reviews related to COVID-19. The first review would cover the origins of the virus, and calls on Gabbard to review the intelligence on "research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology or any other medical or scientific research center within the People’s Republic of China," and "information relating to Gain of Function research and the intention of this research." The review would also look into "information relating to sources of funding or direction for research on coronaviruses, including both sources within the People’s Republic of China and foreign sources."

The second declassification review would call on ODNI to look at Beijing's efforts "to disrupt or obstruct information sharing or investigations into the origins" of COVID-19, and "to disrupt the sharing of medically significant information relating to the transmissibility and potential harm of SARS–CoV–2 to humans." This second review would also look into China's attempts "to deny the sharing of information with the United States, allies and partners of the United States, or multilateral organizations, including the United Nations and the World Health Organization," along with Beijing's efforts "to pressure or lobby" governments, organizations and officials related to COVID-19.

Let's see if the Trump administration squanders yet another chance to provide long-promised clarity on a major issue of national interest, after thoroughly botching the Epstein release.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 12:20

 

 

Last week’s Sturgeon’s Corollary generated a bit of pushback. The most relevant questions were about ETFs as a group: “Surely 90% of all ETFs are not crap” was the most common issue. Do the math: As of last count, there are 4,297 ETFs; as a comparison, there are only ~3,500 publicly traded equities (but ~2 million unique CUSIPs for Bonds).

But the basic theme that “Most issuances of mainstream financial instruments are mediocre” remained unchallenged. Expand that to adjacent and/or speculative investments, and the stark reality presents itself. In Crypto, there is Bitcoin and Ether, followed by 1,000s of other tradeable blockchain issuance collectively known as “Shitcoins.” If you lose money on a product best described by a phrase with literally “shit” in its name, who else can you blame but yourself?

Which brings me to the late, not-so-great, tradeable assets known as NFTs…

~~~

A quick refresher:

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are unique digital tokens on a blockchain – think of them as certificates of ownership built on infrastructure such as Ethereum. During the pandemic, with people bored at home and sitting on idle capital, traders and degenerate gamblers were swept up into a speculative frenzy.

Leading the charge were the Crypto Bros, flush with newfound wealth. Other speculators and more than a few Main Street degens bought into the hype, following the fervor. People who had no business wagering with 10,000 or 20,000 dollars dived in. And so NFTs became lottery tickets with all the hallmarks of a classic psychological bubble: a new product of dubious fundamental value, rapid price surges, celeb endorsements, and fawning media attention combined to push prices sky-high.

The NFT peak sale was The Merge by Pak, which on December 2, 2021, traded hands at an astonishing $91.8 million. That was followed by Beeple’s Everydays: The First 5000 Days, auctioned for $69.3 million at Christie’s. Beyond single pieces, there are eight collections of NFTs that sold for more than a billion dollars, according to CryptoSlam. Notable issuers include Axie Infinity at $4.3 billion; Bored Ape Yacht Club at $3.4B; CryptoPunks at $3.3B; Mutant Ape Yacht Club is $2.2B; #6 is the NBA Top Shot at $1.5B.

 

Adding up the top 100 collections shows a total of $39.2 billion in sales.1

All of the above raises an obvious question: How did so much capital get deployed into something with (arguably) zero intrinsic value?

I understand the unique status of joining an exclusive club, and the ability to authenticate ownership of unique items, from luxury goods to concert tickets – but the shift from useful tool to speculative mania was a very short trip. This was a pure FOMO-based bubble, much more akin to the Dutch Tulip frenzy than anything else in recent years. It was a huge misallocation of capital for individuals, and collectively, a waste of $50 billion. Say what you will about the AI Capex frenzy, it looks almost rational in comparison to the NFT boom and bust.

It is true: most of the SPACs, Hedge funds, ETFs, NFTs, Shitcoins, and even Equities that trade are not worth your time. Still, we are all fascinated by the game. My solution has been to use a cowboy account to satisfy the inner degenerate gambler in all of us; the goal is to keep those demons away from your real money and accounts.

Modern history is filled with all sorts of booms and busts, along with the occasional true bubble. NFTs are a textbook example of what happens when degenerate speculation runs amok…

 

 

 

Previously:
Sturgeon’s Corollary (December 4, 2025)

A Short History of Bubbles (October 24, 2025)

10 Quotes That Shaped My Investment Philosophy (October 2, 2023)

Why Most SPACs Suck (October 26, 2020)

90% of Everything is Crap (July 25, 2013)

RealTime Bubble Checklist (October 16, 2025)

 

See also:
Is It a Bubble? (Oaktree, December 9, 2025)

How much is the NFT market worth (Coinledger, September 4, 2025)

Why 98% of 2024 NFT Drops Are Dead DewFi Planet, 14 December 2024)

NFT Market Faces 19% Decline in 2024 as Investors Shift to Cryptocurrencies: (AI Invest Jul 8, 2025)

NFT Market 2025 Update (SCB10x, March 27, 2025)

How much is the NFT market worth? (CoinLedger, August 2025)

 

__________

1. More precisely, $39,243,490,966 via Cryptoslam.

 

 

The post Whatever Happened to NFTs? appeared first on The Big Picture.

Federal Judge Orders Release Of Old Ghislaine Maxwell Files About Jeffrey Epstein

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge in New York on Dec. 9 ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) can unseal records in the case against Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, weeks after the passage of a law that required the government to disclose case records related to both Epstein and Maxwell.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued the ruling after the DOJ, in November, asked two judges in New York to unseal grand jury transcripts and exhibits from Maxwell and Epstein’s cases, along with investigative materials.

Last month, President Donald Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law, meaning that the records could be made public within roughly 10 days.

The law requires the DOJ provide Epstein-related records to the public in a searchable format by Dec. 19.

In the order, the judge wrote that the law “does not explicitly refer to grand jury materials,” but added that it “textually covers the grand jury materials in this case.”

“The Court thus finds that modification of the Protective Order is necessary to enable DOJ to carry out its legal obligations under the Act,” he added.

“The Act unambiguously applies to the discovery in this case,” Engelmayer stated, adding that “unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials” are covered in relation to Maxwell, Epstein, and connected individuals.

Nothing New

The decision comes after Engelmayer previously denied DOJ’s bid to release the documents - when he wrote that a “public official,” “lawmaker,” “pundit,” or “ordinary citizen” concerned with the Epstein case would expect them to reveal new information, based on the government’s descriptions, and “come away feeling disappointed and misled.” Most of the material is “entirely a matter of longstanding public record,” he said at the time.

The ruling was issued days after a federal judge in Florida granted the DOJ’s request to release transcripts from a grand jury investigation into Epstein in the 2000s.

Engelmayer is the second judge to allow the DOJ to publicly disclose previously secret Epstein court records. Last week, a judge in Florida granted the department’s request to release transcripts from an abandoned federal grand jury investigation into Epstein in the 2000s.

The Florida judge also cited the recent passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, noting that it supersedes DOJ rules and procedures around the sealing of grand jury materials. In its request, the DOJ wanted documents in a 2006–2007 Florida grand jury sex trafficking investigation into Epstein in which he ultimately pleaded guilty on lesser charges.

The records that Engelmayer unsealed pertain to the case against Maxwell, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for her role in a sex trafficking scheme involving minors.

Following the signing of the Epstein law, the DOJ also submitted a request to unseal records in a New York case against Epstein before he was arrested in 2019. He was later found dead in a New York City jail cell in August 2019 as he was awaiting federal sex trafficking charges.

Another judge in New York has not yet ruled on that request connected to the final Epstein case.

Maxwell’s attorneys, in a letter to Engelmayer, opposed the release of grand jury materials because she is aiming to seek a new trial, although they noted that Maxwell “does not take a position” in response to the request to release the files.

“Releasing the grand jury materials from her case, which contain untested and unproven allegations, would create undue prejudice so severe that it would foreclose the possibility of a fair retrial should Ms. Maxwell’s habeas petition succeed,” her attorneys stated in the Dec. 3 letter.

ZeroHedge contributed to this report

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 12:00

Today, in the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter: 1st Look at Local Housing Markets in November

A brief excerpt:

Tracking local data gives an early look at what happened the previous month and also reveals regional differences in both sales and inventory.

November sales will be mostly for contracts signed in September and October, and mortgage rates averaged 6.35% in September and 6.25% in October (lower than for closed sales in October).

In November, sales in these early reporting markets were down 10.8% YoY. Last month, in October, these same markets were down 2.3% year-over-year Not Seasonally Adjusted (NSA).

Important: There was one fewer working days in November 2025 (18) as in November 2024 (19). So, the year-over-year change in the headline SA data will be more than the change in NSA data (there are other seasonal factors).
...
This was just several early reporting markets. Many more local markets to come!

There is much more in the article.

Goldman Tracks "Lovely Polar Vortex Spinning Into Third Week"

Waking up across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast on Tuesday morning, temperatures are hovering in the upper single digits in some spots, especially in interior areas west of the I-95 corridor. Those regions have already seen their first accumulating snow, marking an early start to winter.

Goldman sales trader Ranald Falconer updated clients on weather forecasts and natural gas markets, noting that persistent cold continues to grip the eastern half of the US, while the western part of the country is experiencing well-above-seasonal temperatures.

In the gas space, I just had a glance through Sam's note over the weekend; definitely worth a read if you are looking at gas dynamics into next year and beyond. Forecast short term in North America looks mild across the West Coast but well below in the East over the next 10 days; our lovely polar vortex looks to be spinning and behaving into the 3rd week of December, but it's southern edge has been spilling colder air into Alaska for the last week.

This colder than normal winter in the US is driving us to leave our end of Oct26 storage balances at a relatively low level; this leaves Winter 26/27 vulnerable to tightening shocks. We maintain our $4.50/mmBtu Summer 2026 NYMEX gas price forecast, though we close our long Apr26 trading recommendation given Summer 2026 forwards are now well above our estimated marginal cost of production. This morning I have Summer 26 HH settling at $4.004 and Cal26 $4.203.

Most important takeaway for me was the impact on continued LNG growth; potential to lead NW European storage into congestion and push TTF and JKM prices low enough to reduce LNG incentives, closing the US LNG export arb and putting pressure on Henry Hub. Flagging our $2.70/$2.75/mmBtu 2028/29 NYMEX gas price forecast, well below current forwards at $3.80/$3.71

Touching on U.S. NatGas futures, unusually cold weather across parts of the Lower 48 - mostly the eastern half - sent prices sharply higher in recent weeks and months, rising from about $3.50/MMBtu at the end of October to a peak near $5.50 last week. Warmer forecasts heading into Christmas have since driven a roughly 14% pullback.

After roughly six weeks of unseasonably cold weather across the Lower 48, a warmup appears to be materializing by the middle of the month.

But then there's this...

NOAA flagship model GFS keeps forecasting devastating cold into Christmas.

Keep stretching/pulling on polar vortex, eventually it wrecks, and cold blasts out.

Surface pressure patterns here (Day 16) would be unprecedented in 21st Century. pic.twitter.com/w2Vvcp6OjX

— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) December 8, 2025

Related:

• Timeline For "Largest-Ever LNG Supply Wave" To Hit Global Markets

Global warming and climate-crisis alarmists have been unusually quiet as of late. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 11:40

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson Argues For Supreme Power Of DC Bureaucracy

Authored by 'sundance' via The Last Refuge,

Highlighting exactly why Barack Obama, Joe Biden and James Clyburn needed to deploy a 2021 Machiavellian strategy to get her moved onto the Supreme Court, Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson (KBJ) argues for the supreme power of the DC bureaucracy that must not be challenged by the President of the United States (Executive Branch).

In the case of Trump v Slaughter, the removal of the FTC Chair, Justice KBJ argues that presidential authority must be kept in check by the unelected “professionals and experts” who make up the bureaucracy underneath him.  The “No Kings” argument is entirely ridiculous given the plenary power of the executive and the constitutional authority of the office.

Ketanji lost it today during oral arguments and went on a “No Kings” style rant about President Trump wanting to rule like a monarch, and how we should instead have many issues handled by “the experts and PhDs” like Dr. Fauci, Dr. “Rachel” Levine, and the gay bondage AIDS dude. pic.twitter.com/Z8qFZgZzsR

— Bad Hombre (@Badhombre) December 8, 2025

Ketanji Brown-Jackson was always going to be installed in the supreme court as part of the overall Obama team’s use of Joe Biden.  Merrick Garland was removed from his position specifically to create the path for KBJ to travel.  Everything about this was planned well in advance of Biden’s installation.  KBJ is to the judicial branch what BHO was/is to the executive branch.

It was February 25th, 2020, to be precise, just four days before the South Carolina Democrat primary.  South Carolina Representative James Clyburn went backstage at the presidential debate and told Biden, “You’ve had a couple of opportunities to mention naming a Black woman to the Supreme Court,” Clyburn lectured his friend of nearly half a century, like a schoolteacher scolding a child. “I’m telling you, don’t you leave the stage tonight without making it known that you will do that.” {link}

Unbeknownst to Biden at the time, just two days earlier Barack Obama and James Clyburn came to an agreement and created the most consequential alliance of the 2020 Democrat campaign. 

Barack Obama the figurative and ideological leader of the movement known as “Black Lives Matter”, and James Clyburn the figurative and ideological leader of the political construct within the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church, had struck a deal.

Obama and Clyburn really had no choice but to come to an agreement and form the alliance. 

If they did not act fast, Bernie Sanders was gaining momentum, and they could not have Sanders at the top of the 2020 ticket, because he was too outside the club system which was now almost exclusively focused on racial identity as a tool for political power.

A Bernie Sanders -vs- Donald Trump general election would have been a disaster; and it would be almost impossible for the racial operatives in the key precincts [Atlanta (GA), Philly (PA), Clark County (NV), Wayne County (Mich), Madison (WI)] to feel inspired enough to risk themselves and commit fraud to help Bernie win.

To get rid of Sanders, BLM and AME aligned.  This was the actual moment when Hillary Clinton was cast into the pit of irrelevance in Democrat politics.

Within the agreement, Obama and Clyburn selected Biden as the tool they could easily control to deliver on their larger, progressive, leftist intentions.

I sought a nominee with the strongest credentials, record, character, and dedication to the rule of law. That’s why I’m excited to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the United States Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/iGHLqqRAD0

— President Biden Archived (@POTUS46Archive) February 25, 2022

A few days later, James Clyburn then endorsed Biden while Barack Obama began making phone calls telling each of the other candidates to drop out in sequence and support Biden or else the club would destroy them.  The only one told not to drop out yet was Elizabeth Warren, as she would be needed as the insurance policy, the splitter against Bernie Sanders.

Each of the candidates was promised the traditional indulgences for toeing the party line, and the rest is history. 

Joe Biden wandered around doing what everyone told him to do, which was mostly stay in his basement and let the club work on his behalf, until the club delivered the nomination.

Inside that process, the strategic map was modified to ensure Ketanji Brown-Jackson would advance to the Supreme Court.

With Biden installed, he would select Merrick Garland as his Attorney General.  Judge Garland was an important judge on the important DC Circuit Court. 

Garland’s replacement would need to be a Senate confirmed seat for that court.  Brown-Jackson would be put into Garland’s open spot. {Go Deep}

As a standalone Supreme Court nominee, Brown-Jackson would have been a radical pick.  Justice Brown-Jackson is a known activist in the DC District Court; however, with this maneuver she could get through nomination easier and then sit on the highest court for thirty years.

The three Republicans who voted to confirm Brown Jackson for appeals court https://t.co/h1bHRTQBEg pic.twitter.com/V3THUKOMQo

— The Hill (@thehill) February 25, 2022

Once Brown-Jackson was Senate confirmed for the DC Circuit Court, the countdown began until she was elevated as a Supreme Court nomination to replace Justice Stephen Bryer, now 83-years-old.  The Senate had no political ammunition to block or not confirm the radical SCOTUS pick, because she was confirmed a few months before with support from Republicans.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/09/2025 - 11:20