Rian Howlett ,  Karen Friar and Laura Bratton of Yahoo Finance report the Dow, S&P 500, Nasdaq slide to cap volatile week and month, metals sink after Trump taps Warsh for Fed:

US stocks slid on Friday as President Trump said he would nominate Kevin Warsh to lead the Federal Reserve, against a background of a rising dollar and a screeching halt to 2026's roaring metals rally.

The S&P 500 (^GSPC) and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC) fell 0.4% and 0.9%, respectively, recording another down session for tech stocks. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI) dropped 0.4%.

Despite Friday's volatility, all the gauges notched slight January gains. The Dow and Nasdaq both posted their third straight losing weeks, while the S&P 500 snapped its losing streak, rising 0.3% over the past five days.

Markets are calculating the potential impact after Trump said he has chosen frontrunner Warsh as the US central bank's next chair. The former Fed governor has a hawkish record on interest rates but has recently voiced support for cuts — which Trump has aggressively campaigned for.

The dollar (DX-Y.NYB) rose on the prospect of Warsh as the Fed's leader. Meanwhile, gold (GC=F) and silver (SI=F) plunged, putting the brakes on runaway rallies. Gold fell below the $5,000 level, while silver sank as much as 25%, its biggest daily drop on record.

In addition, the watch is on for the next trade move from Trump, who threatened to hit Canadian aircraft imports with a 50% tariff. The US would also decertify all new jets from the likes of Bombardier (BDRBF), Trump said, claiming Canada has used certification hurdles to effectively ban the sale of US Gulfstream jets. Meanwhile, Mexico is facing new levies after Trump promised to impose new tariffs on countries providing oil to Cuba.

On the earnings front, Apple's (AAPL) shares rose after the iPhone maker's results closed out a mixed bag of Big Tech reports for the week. While its quarterly profit topped estimates, fueled by record phone sales, its CEO Tim Cook warned the global memory shortage would hit future margins.

 Meanwhile, shares in Sandisk (SNDK) rose 5% following upbeat forward guidance from the data storage company. Oil producers were another highlight on Friday's docket with Exxon (XOM) and Chevron (CVX) beating earnings estimates by slim margins. Results from American Express (AXP) and Verizon (VZ) were also in focus. 

Lisa Kailai Han, Alex Harring and Pia Singh of CNBC also report S&P 500 falls for third straight day as speculative silver trade unwinds, but ends month positive:

Stocks retreated on Friday as technology shares remained in a funk, even as investors largely approved of President Donald Trump’s pick of Kevin Warsh to lead the Federal Reserve. Still, the S&P 500 squeaked out a January gain, despite Friday’s losses and volatile trading this month.

The broad index fell 0.43% to finish at 6,939.03, its third straight down day. The Dow Jones Industrial Average pulled back 179 points, or 0.36%, to settle at 48,892.47. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite underperformed, dropping 0.94%, to end the day at 23,461.82. All three indexes fell more than 1% at session lows.

“I have known Kevin for a long period of time, and have no doubt that he will go down as one of the GREAT Fed Chairmen, maybe the best,” said Trump in a Truth Social post.

Warsh’s selection was likely to ease concern about Fed independence because of his experience as a Fed governor and strong stance at times against inflation. While he is likely to push for lower rates in short term as Trump wants, the financial markets view him as someone who wouldn’t always follow the president’s direction and maintain credibility for monetary policy.

The U.S. dollar rallied and U.S. Treasury yields held steady, signaling that investors appeared satisfied with Trump’s pick.

“Kevin Warsh’s nomination for Fed Chair is exactly what markets were hoping for, as he’s a steady hand, well known in market circles and is expected to maintain the independence of the central bank, which is critical for markets,” said Richard Saperstein, chief investment officer of Treasury Partners. “Most importantly, Warsh faces few hurdles when it comes to being confirmed by the Senate.”

But other variables threw cold water on stocks in the session.

Spot gold and silver dropped around around 9% and 28%, respectively. Over the past year, gold and silver futures have soared about 67% and 142%, respectively.

Retail investors have piled into trades tied to the precious metals, especially in recent weeks as a speculative bubble formed. The iShares Silver Trust (SLV), a popular choice among individual traders, plunged more than 28% in Friday’s session, its worst day on record. Such a move can be indicative of forced selling, given that fundamentals rarely change on a trade so quickly, according to Matt Maley, chief market strategist at Miller Tabak.

“This has been the hottest asset for day traders and other short-term traders recently,” Maley said. “There has been some leverage built up in silver. With the huge decline today, the margin calls went out.”

Still, investors continued to parse through earnings reports.

Apple swung between gains and losses despite beating fiscal first-quarter expectations and reporting a significant surge in iPhone sales. That follows Microsoft’s 10% post-earnings drop on Thursday, marking its worst day since 2020 and wiping out more than $350 billion in market cap. KLA Corp lost more than 15% on Friday after its forecast suggested a deceleration in growth.

But outside of tech, Verizon shares surged nearly 12%, marking their best day since 2008. The telecommunications giant beat analyst expectations and provided a strong full-year outlook for earnings.

Despite Friday’s weakness, the major averages recorded a positive month. The S&P 500 and Dow logged gains of 1.4% and 1.7%, respectively, for January, while the Nasdaq notched a 1% gain. The small cap-focused Russell 20009 jumped more than 5% in the month.

Chloe Taylor of CNBC also reports silver plunges 30% in worst day since 1980, gold tumbles as Warsh pick eases Fed independence fear:

Gold and silver prices plunged Friday, as President Donald Trump’s nomination for the next chair of the Federal Reserve, Kevin Warsh, appeared to relieve concerns about the central bank’s independence and sent the dollar soaring.

Spot silver was down 28% at $83.45 an ounce, trading near its lows of the day. Silver futures plummeted 31.4% to settle at $78.53, marking its worst day since March 1980.

Meanwhile, spot gold shed around 9% to trade at $4,895.22 an ounce. Gold futures dropped 11.4% to settle at $4,745.10.

The sharp moves down were initially triggered by reports of Warsh’s nomination. However, they gained steam in afternoon U.S. trading as investors who piled into the metals raced to book profits. Metals were also under pressure as the dollar spiked higher, making it more expensive for foreign investors to buy gold and silver and spoiling the theory that metals would replace the greenback as the globe’s reserve currency.

The dollar index last traded around 0.8% higher.

“This is getting crazy,” said Matt Maley, equity strategist at Miller Tabak. “Most of this is probably ‘forced selling.’ This has been the hottest asset for day traders and other short-term traders recently. So, there has been some leverage built up in silver. With the huge decline today, the margin calls went out.”

Trump picks Warsh

National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett had been the favorite to replace Powell for some time, but Warsh became the front-runner in prediction markets in recent days.

In a note on Friday morning, Evercore ISI’s Krishna Guha said the market was “trading Warsh hawkish.”

“The Warsh pick should help stabilize the dollar some and reduce (though not eliminate) the asymmetric risk of deep extended dollar weakness by challenging debasement trades – which is also why gold and silver are sharply lower,” the firm’s vice chairman said.

“But, we advise against overdoing the Warsh hawkish trade across asset markets – and even see some risk of a whipsaw. We see Warsh as a pragmatist not an ideological hawk in the tradition of the independent conservative central banker.”

Claudio Wewel, FX strategist at J. Safra Sarasin Sustainable Asset Management, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Friday that a “perfect storm” of geopolitical tensions had helped precious metals move higher this year, pointing to the U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Washington’s threats to use military force in Greenland and Iran.

More recently, he said, speculation over who would be nominated as the next Fed chair had been influencing metals markets.

“The market has clearly been pricing the risk of a much more dovish contender, that’s been largely helping the gold price along with other precious metal prices. Over the last 24 hours, the news flow has changed a little bit,” Wewel said, prior to Trump’s announcement.

‘Even good assets can sell-off’

Gold and silver both enjoyed record-smashing rallies in 2025, surging 66% and 135%, respectively, over the course of the year.

Coeur Mining lost 17%. Silver ETFs were dragged into the action, with the ProShares Ultra Silver fund last seen more than 62% lower. The iShares Silver Trust ETF lost 31%. Both funds were headed for their worst days on record.

Precious metals have been on a stellar rally over the past 12 months, amid broader market volatility, the decline of the U.S. dollar, bubbling geopolitical tensions and concerns about the independence of the Federal Reserve.

Katy Stoves, investment manager at British wealth management firm Mattioli Woods, told CNBC on Friday morning that the moves were likely “a market-wide reassessment of concentration risk.”

 “Just as tech stocks — particularly AI-related names — have dominated market attention and capital flows, gold has similarly seen intense positioning and crowding,” she said. “When everyone is leaning the same way, even good assets can sell off as positions get unwound. The parallel isn’t accidental: both represent areas where capital has flooded in based on powerful narratives, and concentrated positions eventually face their day of reckoning.”

Meanwhile, Toni Meadows, head of investment at BRI Wealth Management, contended that gold’s run to the $5,000 mark had happened “too easily.” He noted that the unwinding of the greenback had supported gold prices, but that the dollar had appeared to stabilize.

“Central bank buying has driven the longer-term rally but this has tailed off in recent months,” he said. “The case for further reserve diversification is still there though as Trump’s trade policies and intervention in foreign affairs will make a lot of countries nervous about holding U.S. assets, especially those countries in the emerging markets or aligned to China or Russia. Silver will mirror the direction of gold, so it is not surprising to see falls there.”

Alright, another wild week on Wall Street which ended with a good old fashion selloff in precious metals.

Last week I discussed how silver and gold took off after Davos highlighted geopolitical tensions and and warned to be wary of parabolic moves (ie. never chase them higher, especially when they go full vertical).

Yesterday I went over IMCO's World View 2026 and stated the slide in the US dollar was overdone and I was expecting a snapback.

I know the dollar slid earlier this week after Trump's comments but even that signalled to me that something was afoot.

Call it the "Warsh effect", call it what you want but the Trump administration manipulates markets and you have to almost read right through their statements if you plan on making money. 

Of course he picked Kevin Warsh, the best choice by far, Scott Bessent made sure of that and I'm sure top hedge funds were advised ahead of time (that's why they charge the big fees!). 

So the dollar rallied and metals sold off but they were due for a major reckoning, including copper:

 

 

Now, to be clear, these weekly charts remain bullish as long as price remains above 10-week exponential moving average and weekly MACD is positive and trending up but when you have such a steep red candle like today, it typically means something has fundamentally changed.

We shall see, I expect more volatility next week and it's not all about Kevin Warsh and geopolitical tensions, there's strong demand for metals, especially copper where billionaire investor Robert Friedland warns the world has an insatiable thirst for metals, from surging military budgets to AI data centers and the greening of the global economy, but it does not have a credible way to supply the metals it intends to consume over the next few decades.  

On the daunting scale of copper the world needs to produce over the next two decades, he states:

“You can’t build electric cars and windmills and solar and have a modern military without these metals. So, there’s a reason why underwater power cables are so expensive. That’s what it looks like when you put up a windmill offshore Nantucket Island and you want to bring that electricity and be green. It’s all copper, copper, copper, copper, copper. Copper right now, we’re expecting that to be a $270 billion a year market by tomorrow morning. And where’s this metal going to come from? There’s no copper inventory at all.”

“How much copper are we using? We’re consuming 30 million tonnes of copper a year, only 4 million tonnes of which is recycled. That means to maintain 3% GDP growth…..now listen carefully, with no electrification…this is with burning oil and gas. To maintain global 3% GDP growth, we have to mine the same amount of copper in the next 18 years as we mined in the last 10,000 years (combined). In the next 18 years, I’ve got to mine the same amount of copper as we mined the last 10,000 years…without electrification, without data centers, without solar and wind and the greening of the world economy. You people have no idea whatsoever what we’re facing. You’re dreaming.” 

He might be right but price action of copper and other metal shares can experience violent volatility as this all plays out.

Alright, let me wrap it up with some stock market action.

Here are this week's top-performing US large cap stocks (full list here):

When you see Verizon (VZ) and AT&T (T) among the top performers, you know it's not a great week (I can kick myself for selling Deckers Outdoor too soon!). 

Below, George Heppel, BMO, joins 'Closing Bell Overtime' to talk the steep drop in metal commodity prices.

Next, Jeremy Siegel and Tom Lee join Closing Bell to discuss Kevin Warsh's nomination as Fed Chair and the move in gold and silver today.

Third, the Investment Committee debate what the Warsh pick means for the market and your money.

Fourth, Jay Hatfield, founder, CEO, and portfolio manager at Infrastructure Capital Advisors, joins BNN Bloomberg to discuss gold and silver prices moving amid trade tensions.

Lastly, Kevin Warsh, President Trump's choice for the next Fed Chair, was in conversation on federal monetary policy and the role of the Federal Reserve during the 2025 Reagan National Economic Forum in Simi Valley, California.

 

 

So, we announced our succession plan this morning.

My emails and DMs lit up immediately, with all sorts of questions, but mostly asking, “Are you retiring?!?”

No, but I’ll get to that shortly.

The reason we announced this: As a financial planning firm, I wanted all of our clients, partners, employees, and colleagues to see that we practice what we preach. If you want clients to take you seriously when you advise them to think in decades, make estate and business continuity plans, you have to follow your own advice.

From the beginning, when we self-funded our launch and had just five of us, we have been inviting key employees to become partners. We have always done this with our own capital, a bank line of credit, and no outside investors. By the end of our first decade, we had 20 partners. In 2024, there were 26 partners. This year, we grew to 29 partners.

Our goal is to be the best employee-owned advisory shop in the country.

As for my daily routine, nothing has changed. I still hold the roles of Chairman and Chief Investment Officer. My daily activities are essentially the same. I am still in the office the same number of times a week; I am still doing my pods at Bloomberg, still blogging, speaking at conferences, and writing more books.

What is going to change? More of our RWM rockstars are now employee-owners, with many more expected to become owners over the next decade.

Maybe I’ll swap the old Cabrio for a newer model, one with ABS & airbags. I recently found a new timepiece I’d been hunting for a while, and I pulled the trigger on that. And, I added more Munis to my personal portfolio. Aside from that, not much is different…

~~~

For the past 12 years, we have built a firm dedicated to putting clients first. Every day, we share with investors what we truly believe are the best ways to manage their portfolios and financial lives. We do this for free to the general public, and in great specificity and detail for our clients. I have been doing this publicly since the late 1990s, and that will go on for as long as I can cobble together an intelligent sentence.

I am excited about what we have built so far, and I look forward to what this team will accomplish over the next decade!

 

 

Source:
Ritholtz Wealth Management Executes Employee-led Succession Plan to Create Industry’s Most Visible, Dominant “Forever Firm”
BusinessWire, Jan 30, 2026

 

See also:
Inside Ritholtz Wealth Management’s Succession Plan
By Andrew Welsch
Barron’s Jan 30, 2026

Barry Ritholtz sells shares in $7.6bn RIA’s planned succession
By Ian Wenik
CityWire, Jan 30, 2026

Ritholtz Wealth Puts Succession Plan in Place As Co-Founder Barry Ritholtz Nears 65
By Alex Ortolani
Wealth Management, January 30, 2026

 

The post Succession appeared first on The Big Picture.

Watch: Jennings Destroys Dems For Refusing To Condemn DA's Vow To "Hunt Down Nazi" ICE Agents

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

CNN contributor Scott Jennings unloaded on Democrats during a heated panel discussion, exposing their failure to denounce Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s inflammatory threats against federal ICE agents enforcing immigration laws.

Jennings highlighted how such rhetoric from left-wing officials undermines law enforcement and fuels division, especially as the Trump administration ramps up deportations of criminal illegal immigrants.

“Yeah, this is highly inappropriate. No prosecutor in America should be doing that, let alone yelling at and about law enforcement officers,” Jennings urged.

? BREAKING: Scott Jennings just DROPPED THE MIC on every Democrat in America

"The fact that Democrats cannot, in unison, condemn a loony tunes prosecutor for vowing to 'HUNT DOWN' ICE agents like 'Nazis' is beyond chilling!"

"Yeah, this is highly inappropriate. No prosecutor… pic.twitter.com/cRoDA6PibL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 29, 2026

He laid out the core issue plainly: “Look, this debate, a lot of words and a lot of talking around it. We have existing federal immigration law. We have law enforcement agencies, duly sworn officers that have been ordered by the president to go out and enforce those laws. That’s really all the debate is about here.”

Jennings pointed to successful enforcement elsewhere: “And in most jurisdictions, these laws are being enforced quite amicably. There are no incidents. Transfers are happening.”

“People are being deported that have a reason to be deported. It’s just in this specific jurisdiction, people have decided that federal immigration law shouldn’t apply!” he added.

He then escalated his critique to the broader pattern among Democrats: “And now you have sort of radical Democrats around the country ramping this up even further by claiming that they’re going to ‘hunt down’ federal law enforcement officers as though they were Nazis.”

Jennings called out Rep. Eric Swalwell specifically: “You have Eric Swalwell in California promising a reign of terror if he becomes governor against anybody who’s ever worked for ICE!”

“I mean, this kind of division and this kind of threat against people who basically signed up to enforce the law and do public service, it’s outrageous. And any Democrat ought to be able to sit here and say this is way over the line!” Jennings concluded.

The outburst came in response to Krasner’s recent vows during a City Hall event in Philadelphia, where he joined city councilmembers to unveil the “ICE OUT” legislation package. 

The bills aim to bar ICE agents from city-owned property, restrict agency cooperation and data sharing, and limit access to public facilities like libraries, shelters, and health centers without a judicial warrant.

Krasner labeled ICE agents as “a small bunch of wannabe Nazis” and threatened, “If we have to hunt you down the way they hunted down Nazis for decades, we will find your identities. We will find you. We will achieve justice.”

Backlash has been swift. Pennsylvania State Sen. Jarrett Coleman dismissed the comments as “empty threats,” emphasizing that local officials cannot interfere with federal law enforcement. 

House Minority Leader Jesse Topper called them “not just hypocritical [but] outright laughable,” urging focus on community security instead. 

The White House noted a 1,300% surge in assaults on ICE officers, blaming “dangerous, untrue smears by elected Democrats” and praising agents for “act[ing] heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities.”

This rhetoric from Krasner fits into a larger pattern of incitement from Democrat-led cities against federal immigration enforcement. 

As we highlighted earlier, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson admitted to coordinating with other Democrat mayors, including Minneapolis’ Jacob Frey and Boston’s Michelle Wu, to impede ICE operations. 

Johnson has even established “ICE-Free Zones” prohibiting agents from city properties without warrants and is pushing measures to hold them accountable for alleged misconduct.

Tucker Carlson accused Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Mayor Frey of deliberately fueling chaos to spark a “color revolution” and civil war by refusing to protect citizens and allowing riots. 

Carlson warned that such actions lead to states rejecting federal authority, resulting in “warring nations within the same borders” and “killing at scale.”

These escalating threats from radical Democrats not only endanger federal agents doing their jobs but also erode the rule of law that protects American communities from criminal elements. 

With polls showing a majority of Americans supporting mass deportations, this resistance looks increasingly out of touch and dangerous. 

Enforcing immigration laws isn’t optional—it’s essential to putting America First and restoring order after years of open-border chaos.

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 Fri, 01/30/2026 - 14:17

Tesla Shares Jump 5% After Musk Reportedly Mulls Merging SpaceX, xAI, Tesla Merger

Tesla shares jumped about 5% on Friday after reports suggested that Elon Musk is considering bringing his companies closer together through a possible merger involving SpaceX, Tesla, and artificial intelligence startup xAI. The news helped reverse losses from the previous session, when the stock slid following the company’s earnings report.

According to people familiar with the discussions, SpaceX has been evaluating different ways to combine parts of Musk’s business portfolio ahead of a potential public offering. One option involves a tie-up with Tesla, while another centers on xAI. These talks are still preliminary, and no agreement has been reached, but investors welcomed the possibility of deeper cooperation across the group.

The market reaction was swift. After falling to its lowest level in two months on Thursday, Tesla rebounded strongly in early Friday trading. The rally lifted the company’s valuation back toward $1.65 trillion, signaling renewed confidence in Musk’s long-term strategy despite recent financial pressures.

Much of that optimism reflects the potential overlap between the companies’ ambitions. Musk has repeatedly floated the idea of using SpaceX technology to support large-scale computing in orbit, which could benefit xAI’s push to expand its artificial intelligence systems. Tesla, meanwhile, could contribute through its battery, energy storage, and manufacturing operations, creating a tightly linked ecosystem spanning transportation, robotics, space, and AI.

Financial ties between the firms have already been growing. Tesla recently committed $2 billion to xAI, matching a similar investment made earlier by SpaceX. In a shareholder letter, Tesla said, “As set forth in Master Plan Part IV, Tesla is building products and services that bring AI into the physical world. Meanwhile, xAI is developing leading digital AI products and services, such as its large language model (Grok).”

Musk reinforced that view during the earnings call, arguing that collaboration is central to Tesla’s future. “But if there are things xAI can help accelerate our progress, then why should we not do that?” he said. “And that is the reason why we’ve gone ahead with such an investment. Because this is part of the strategic initiative.” The company has also highlighted links between AI development, its Optimus robots, and autonomous driving systems.

Still, significant uncertainty surrounds any potential deal. People close to the matter say the companies may ultimately decide against merging, and any transaction could complicate SpaceX’s plans for a major stock market debut later this year. That offering, if it moves forward as expected, could be one of the largest in history.

The surge in Tesla’s share price also comes as the company faces near-term challenges. Recent earnings showed weaker profitability, and management has warned that heavy spending is coming as it ramps up investments in autonomy and robotics.

Musk acknowledged the scale of those plans, saying, “This year for Tesla is the first major steps as we increase vehicle autonomy and begin to produce Optimus robots at scale — we’re making very, very big investments.” For now, investors appear to be focused less on short-term risks and more on the possibility that Musk’s interconnected vision could unlock new sources of growth.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/30/2026 - 14:00

The House Committee on the Budget convened a hearing at which Phillip L. Swagel, CBO's Director, testified about the agency's work. This document provides CBO's answers to questions submitted for the record after the hearing.

My end-of-week morning train WFH reads:

• The average 50-something American is now worth $1.4 million: Want to get rich? Get old. That’s what the data tells us about net worth in America. The average 50-something American has a net worth of $1.4 million, according to a report from Empower, the financial services firm. The average 60-something is worth $1.6 million. By contrast, the average 20-something is worth a mere $127,730. (USA Today)

• America’s own goal: Americans pay almost entirely for Trump’s tariffs: Contrary to US government rhetoric, the cost of US import tariffs are not borne by foreign exporters. Instead, they hit the American economy itself. Importers and consumers in the US bear 96 percent of the tariff burden. (Kiel Institute) see also TACO Tracking: Trump Carries Out Just One in Four Tariff Threats: Financial markets and C-suite executives have mostly shrugged off Trump’s latest warnings involving Iran’s trading partners, Greenland’s supporters, Canada and South Korea, seeing them as merely words intended to gain leverage or change behavior — nothing he’d actually carry out. (Bloomberg)

• How a BlackRock Loss Reignited Worries About What Is Hiding in Private Credit: Fund had marked investments as full-valued as recently as November, before disclosing a 19% decline last week. (Wall Street Journal)

• Who’s been buying all the gold? “Some will argue that global central banks are moving their reserves away from dollars and into gold, and this is a better measure of debasement than the bond market.” (Financial Times)

• U.S. Trade Deficit Widens Despite Trump’s Tariffs: The monthly trade deficit and imports rebounded in November after shrinking significantly in prior months, new data show. (New York Times)

• Anthropic Is at War With Itself: The AI company shouting about AI’s dangers can’t quite bring itself to slow down. (The Atlantic)

• The World Is Drowning in Tourists. Who Should Pay the Price? I’m the problem, it’s me. Last summer a French tabloid sting operation uncovered that Americans (or at least journalists posing as Americans) were being charged up to 50% more than Parisians in some of the city’s most touristy cafes. (Bloomberg)

• How popular is Donald Trump? Silver Bulletin approval ratings for President Trump — and all presidents since Truman. (Silver Bulletin)

• Yes, one image from space can change humanity’s perspective: Our view of the world, the Universe, and ourselves can change with just one glimpse of what’s out there. It’s happened many times before. (Starts With a Bang)

• Michael J. Fox and Harrison Ford on Shrinking, Parkinson’s, and Donald Trump: Following his first TV role in five years, Fox hopes to meet with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about funding research for the incurable brain disease. But as he exclusively tells VF, the current administration “seems that they’re involved in other things that have less impact on peoples’ lives.” (Vanity Fair)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Kate Burke, CEO of Allspring Global Investments a global asset manager with more than 600 billion dollars in assets under advisement. She is also a director on the firm’s board. Previously, she was at AllianceBernstein as COO/CFO.

 

YouTube leads all media, but legacy studios saw a live sports boost in Nielsen’s latest snapshot of TV distributors

Source: The Hollywood Reporter

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

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

What's Worrying Billionaires The Most In 2026?

This infographic, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, highlights the factors most likely to negatively impact the global market environment over the next 12 months, based on responses from billionaires across regions.

The data for this visualization comes from the UBS Billionaire Survey 2025.

Trade and Geopolitics Dominate Concerns

Tariffs rank as the top concern overall, cited by 66% of respondents. Close behind, 63% of billionaires point to major geopolitical conflict as a key risk, underscoring fears around wars, regional instability, and great-power rivalry.

Policy uncertainty is the third-largest concern, flagged by 59% of respondents. Meanwhile, 44% of billionaires remain worried about higher inflation, indicating that price stability is still not taken for granted after years of elevated inflation across major economies.

Regional Differences Reveal Uneven Risk Exposure

While global results show common themes, regional differences stand out.

In Asia-Pacific, 75% of billionaires cite tariffs as their biggest concern, reflecting the region’s deep integration into global supply chains and export-driven growth models.

Meanwhile in the Americas, 70% of respondents are most worried about higher inflation or major geopolitical conflict.

Lower-Ranked but Persistent Threats

Concerns such as debt crises (34%), higher taxes (28%), and global recessions (27%) still rank meaningfully, though below headline geopolitical risks.

Interestingly, technological disruptions (15%) and climate change (14%) appear lower on the list, suggesting that billionaires may view these as longer-term or more manageable challenges compared to immediate political and economic shocks.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out How Balanced Is Economic Growth Within Countries? on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/30/2026 - 02:45

What's Worrying Billionaires The Most In 2026?

This infographic, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, highlights the factors most likely to negatively impact the global market environment over the next 12 months, based on responses from billionaires across regions.

The data for this visualization comes from the UBS Billionaire Survey 2025.

Trade and Geopolitics Dominate Concerns

Tariffs rank as the top concern overall, cited by 66% of respondents. Close behind, 63% of billionaires point to major geopolitical conflict as a key risk, underscoring fears around wars, regional instability, and great-power rivalry.

Policy uncertainty is the third-largest concern, flagged by 59% of respondents. Meanwhile, 44% of billionaires remain worried about higher inflation, indicating that price stability is still not taken for granted after years of elevated inflation across major economies.

Regional Differences Reveal Uneven Risk Exposure

While global results show common themes, regional differences stand out.

In Asia-Pacific, 75% of billionaires cite tariffs as their biggest concern, reflecting the region’s deep integration into global supply chains and export-driven growth models.

Meanwhile in the Americas, 70% of respondents are most worried about higher inflation or major geopolitical conflict.

Lower-Ranked but Persistent Threats

Concerns such as debt crises (34%), higher taxes (28%), and global recessions (27%) still rank meaningfully, though below headline geopolitical risks.

Interestingly, technological disruptions (15%) and climate change (14%) appear lower on the list, suggesting that billionaires may view these as longer-term or more manageable challenges compared to immediate political and economic shocks.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out How Balanced Is Economic Growth Within Countries? on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/30/2026 - 02:45

Berlin's Real Estate Market: Socialism On The Rise

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Germany’s debt crisis continues to tighten the political leeway of the Federal Republic. The latest push by Berlin’s SPD for stricter real estate regulation clearly signals the direction ahead: Parties at the brink are choosing state-controlled economics over a market-driven turnaround.

The German capital, Berlin, functions as a political testing ground and as ground zero for the united left of the Federal Republic. Like a magnifying glass, Berlin’s state politics reveal the broader response patterns of German politics to current social and economic challenges. The city’s real estate market now demonstrates trends likely to define the political character of the years to come.

Faced with dramatic housing shortages, steadily rising rents, and exploding property prices, policymakers respond with even stronger regulation and rent controls. This is a policy of artificial scarcity, as investors systematically retreat from the market due to declining expected returns. The SPD’s recent move confirmed that the course remains steady: increasing regulation and direct control over investors (Apollo News reported).

Overview of Regulatory Measures 

The SPD’s legislative initiative includes: severely restricting short-term tourist rentals to relieve the regular housing market; limiting potential rent surcharges for furnished apartments, preventing landlords from adjusting rents to reflect past investment in quality or amenities; capping index rents; and restricting modernization charges for property upkeep within narrow legal boundaries.

Investment incentives and expected returns are thus significantly curtailed. The government is executing a consistent departure from economic fundamentals, addressing a self-created scarcity with measures that further exacerbate it. Without prospects of refinancing, investors are increasingly withdrawing from the market, putting further strain on housing availability.

An additional measure is the introduction of a digital rental register—a sort of digital public ledger designed to enforce transparency and regulatory compliance. Larger landlords will be required to allocate a portion of their apartments to households with housing vouchers or the homeless. The state thus dictates down to the contractual level who may enter rental agreements.

The SPD initiative marks the next stage of a fundamentally socialist market design. One can easily imagine how such rules impact potential developers, private investors, and larger investment groups. At its core, this policy is likely to further damage an already pressured real estate market, at least in Berlin’s current conditions.

One development leads to another. In recent years, the construction sector has increasingly become a pawn of climate policy. Regulations are transposed into rental and building law without regard for economic consequences, inflating costs and freezing the status quo of building stock.

Ultimately, tenants bear the brunt, as investors face mounting pressure and withdraw. Lengthy permitting processes, economically unrealistic energy standards, retrofit obligations, and increasingly visible government interventions in rental and contract law make many projects unattractive. The result is a slowdown in new construction and systematically rising housing costs. Climate policy thus directly multiplies the existing housing shortage.

Reasons Behind the Property Price Explosion 

Property prices in Germany have surged for multiple reasons: First, over a decade of massive migration acted as a demand turbo. In urban centers like Berlin, Hamburg, or Frankfurt, the so-called “flow rate”—the part of the housing market ensuring mobility for tenants changing jobs or starting families—is completely blocked by the policy of perpetually open borders. Second, real estate has increasingly served as protection against systematic monetary depreciation, which follows rising public debt. The ECB expands the money supply through bond purchases while keeping interest rates low, steadily pushing property prices and rents higher to maintain profitability.

But that’s not all: the next political assault on real estate came through climate regulation, high investment requirements tied to the green transition, insulation mandates, enforced heating technologies, and construction rules. These act as massive barriers to market entry for new capital. In effect, the state artificially restricts housing supply on three levels: regulation, control, and building mandates.

Germany’s political refusal, for ideological and intellectual reasons, to rationally address migration and economic necessities has dramatic consequences. Last year, Berlin’s central planners set a nationwide housing target of 400,000 units. Yet massive regulatory interventions led to only around 205,000 completions—a decline of over 20% from the previous year. Similar numbers apply in Berlin, where massive migration requires roughly 20,000 new units annually. With only around 14,000 completed, the capital falls short despite state support and public housing. The market tightens, and the government responds with the same medicine—ultimately, those paying the price are tenants earning their own rent and not yet dependent on the growing social safety net.

The question remains how Berlin’s politics will react grosso modo to this massive encroachment on market freedom. The city’s leftist bloc will likely push to further tighten regulations, while Berlin’s CDU, as seen in the inheritance tax debate, quickly falls in line with the SPD. When it comes to increasing the tax burden on the middle class and holding them accountable for the reckless transformation into a green-socialist society, the Merz-CDU stands ready.

Strategic decisions in Germany today will economically burden future generations. The bloated debt state engages in a perverse game of wealth redistribution from the private sector to the bureaucracy. Rising taxes and contributions systematically disperse reform pressure on migration, welfare, or economic regulation. Credit is available; the middle class pays. Germany faces social redistribution battles artificially fueled by the SPD’s rental law.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/30/2026 - 02:00

Berlin's Real Estate Market: Socialism On The Rise

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Germany’s debt crisis continues to tighten the political leeway of the Federal Republic. The latest push by Berlin’s SPD for stricter real estate regulation clearly signals the direction ahead: Parties at the brink are choosing state-controlled economics over a market-driven turnaround.

The German capital, Berlin, functions as a political testing ground and as ground zero for the united left of the Federal Republic. Like a magnifying glass, Berlin’s state politics reveal the broader response patterns of German politics to current social and economic challenges. The city’s real estate market now demonstrates trends likely to define the political character of the years to come.

Faced with dramatic housing shortages, steadily rising rents, and exploding property prices, policymakers respond with even stronger regulation and rent controls. This is a policy of artificial scarcity, as investors systematically retreat from the market due to declining expected returns. The SPD’s recent move confirmed that the course remains steady: increasing regulation and direct control over investors (Apollo News reported).

Overview of Regulatory Measures 

The SPD’s legislative initiative includes: severely restricting short-term tourist rentals to relieve the regular housing market; limiting potential rent surcharges for furnished apartments, preventing landlords from adjusting rents to reflect past investment in quality or amenities; capping index rents; and restricting modernization charges for property upkeep within narrow legal boundaries.

Investment incentives and expected returns are thus significantly curtailed. The government is executing a consistent departure from economic fundamentals, addressing a self-created scarcity with measures that further exacerbate it. Without prospects of refinancing, investors are increasingly withdrawing from the market, putting further strain on housing availability.

An additional measure is the introduction of a digital rental register—a sort of digital public ledger designed to enforce transparency and regulatory compliance. Larger landlords will be required to allocate a portion of their apartments to households with housing vouchers or the homeless. The state thus dictates down to the contractual level who may enter rental agreements.

The SPD initiative marks the next stage of a fundamentally socialist market design. One can easily imagine how such rules impact potential developers, private investors, and larger investment groups. At its core, this policy is likely to further damage an already pressured real estate market, at least in Berlin’s current conditions.

One development leads to another. In recent years, the construction sector has increasingly become a pawn of climate policy. Regulations are transposed into rental and building law without regard for economic consequences, inflating costs and freezing the status quo of building stock.

Ultimately, tenants bear the brunt, as investors face mounting pressure and withdraw. Lengthy permitting processes, economically unrealistic energy standards, retrofit obligations, and increasingly visible government interventions in rental and contract law make many projects unattractive. The result is a slowdown in new construction and systematically rising housing costs. Climate policy thus directly multiplies the existing housing shortage.

Reasons Behind the Property Price Explosion 

Property prices in Germany have surged for multiple reasons: First, over a decade of massive migration acted as a demand turbo. In urban centers like Berlin, Hamburg, or Frankfurt, the so-called “flow rate”—the part of the housing market ensuring mobility for tenants changing jobs or starting families—is completely blocked by the policy of perpetually open borders. Second, real estate has increasingly served as protection against systematic monetary depreciation, which follows rising public debt. The ECB expands the money supply through bond purchases while keeping interest rates low, steadily pushing property prices and rents higher to maintain profitability.

But that’s not all: the next political assault on real estate came through climate regulation, high investment requirements tied to the green transition, insulation mandates, enforced heating technologies, and construction rules. These act as massive barriers to market entry for new capital. In effect, the state artificially restricts housing supply on three levels: regulation, control, and building mandates.

Germany’s political refusal, for ideological and intellectual reasons, to rationally address migration and economic necessities has dramatic consequences. Last year, Berlin’s central planners set a nationwide housing target of 400,000 units. Yet massive regulatory interventions led to only around 205,000 completions—a decline of over 20% from the previous year. Similar numbers apply in Berlin, where massive migration requires roughly 20,000 new units annually. With only around 14,000 completed, the capital falls short despite state support and public housing. The market tightens, and the government responds with the same medicine—ultimately, those paying the price are tenants earning their own rent and not yet dependent on the growing social safety net.

The question remains how Berlin’s politics will react grosso modo to this massive encroachment on market freedom. The city’s leftist bloc will likely push to further tighten regulations, while Berlin’s CDU, as seen in the inheritance tax debate, quickly falls in line with the SPD. When it comes to increasing the tax burden on the middle class and holding them accountable for the reckless transformation into a green-socialist society, the Merz-CDU stands ready.

Strategic decisions in Germany today will economically burden future generations. The bloated debt state engages in a perverse game of wealth redistribution from the private sector to the bureaucracy. Rising taxes and contributions systematically disperse reform pressure on migration, welfare, or economic regulation. Credit is available; the middle class pays. Germany faces social redistribution battles artificially fueled by the SPD’s rental law.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/30/2026 - 02:00

Davos 2026: Acknowledging The End Of Pax Americana

Authored by Ret. Admiral Cem Gürdeniz via Michel Chossudovsky's substack,

The end of the Pax Americana established after 1945 was officially acknowledged by both the leaders of finance capital and the elected leaders in Davos 26.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) 2026 in Davos, which has served as the vision and doctrine center of global capitalism for half a century, was held between January 19–23 under the theme “A Spirit of Dialogue.”

At what was arguably the most significant meeting in its history, the end of the Pax Americana established after 1945 was officially acknowledged by both the leaders of finance capital and the elected leaders of states inheriting Europe’s colonial-imperial legacy, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

Another point openly recognized was the end of globalization and neoliberalism.

Representatives of finance capital emphasized that political and economic elites had lost public trust and conceded that the neoliberal order had reached the stage of collapse due to the unsustainability of income inequality.

Politicians, for their part, admitted that law has increasingly been replaced by force and that the so‑called rules‑based international order is partly a fiction, as great powers suspend rules whenever it suits their interests. Among these statements, perhaps the most unsettling for Donald Trump came from Canada.

The Canadian Prime Minister, whom Trump had explicitly included within the Western Hemisphere in his revised national security doctrine and openly threatened, acknowledged that the narrative of a rules‑based order is fictional. He stated that finance, trade, energy, and supply chains no longer function as mechanisms of mutual benefit but as tools of pressure and weaponization, and that the Western world is not undergoing a transition but an open rupture. This was, in fact, an inevitable outcome of geopolitical realities and the interests of finance capital.

The Forced Acceptance of U.S. Withdrawal is Now Evident

The United States no longer possesses the geopolitical capacity to shape the entire globe. Its parity with China in military, technological, and industrial indicators, and in some areas its lagging position, demonstrates a structural break that makes the continuation of unipolar hegemony impossible. Trump has already been compelled to retract some of his threats. In the Greenland case, for example, he initially suggested the use of military force but later abandoned this option after nearly 800 billion dollars were wiped off U.S. stock markets on the eve of Davos.

In reality, the United States is attempting to reposition itself within a new world order. Its effort to bind the Western Hemisphere unconditionally to itself through a revival of the Monroe Doctrine is itself an admission of declining global capacity. Even within this framework, Washington cannot prevent Canada or Brazil from expanding relations with China, nor can it stop Argentina from maintaining comprehensive economic ties with Beijing. These cases, alongside BRICS and other Global South countries, demonstrate how a policy based on pressure and threats is counterproductive.

States increasingly seek balance with China, whose trade, infrastructure financing, and mutual‑benefit model creates attraction precisely because it does not rely on coercion. At Davos, China was discussed through the lens of controlled uncertainty rather than open rupture. While the United States draws a sharp line of systemic competition, European countries attempt to balance economic realities with geopolitical pressures. On one hand, they seek to maintain trade, investment, and market access with China; on the other, they pursue distancing in technology, security, and critical infrastructure. This reflects a European policy characterized by tactical flexibility rather than strategic clarity.

By contrast, the United States’ coercive approach generates rupture rather than loyalty. For Washington, multipolarity is no longer a strategic choice but the symptomatic outcome of weakening power and the forced acceptance of reality. The open acknowledgment by allies such as France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and Saudi Arabia that the U.S.‑centered order has ended is a direct result of this erosion. If this trajectory continues, the United States will eventually face the necessity of returning to a policy of peaceful coexistence with China, reminiscent of Cold War‑era coexistence with the Soviet Union. The alternative, of course, is war.

The End of the Rules-Based Order

The most evident common denominator of Davos 2026 was the recognition that the global order is undergoing a rupture rather than an evolution. For decades, the discourse of a rules‑based international system functioned as a narrative that concealed arbitrary exemptions and asymmetric practices by great powers. In Davos, this curtain was openly lifted. Selective application of law, the bending of trade rules in favor of the powerful, and the transformation of security into a bargaining instrument were no longer denied. The most striking political statement on this issue came from Canada’s Prime Minister, former financier Mark Carney. He stressed that finance, trade, energy, and supply chains have become instruments of pressure and coercion. By declaring that he no longer shared belief in the rules‑based order, Carney effectively dissolved the ideological legitimacy of the U.S.‑led liberal system. His declaration can be regarded as epoch‑making, signaling the collapse of the ideological foundation of the Western order sustained since the Cold War.

Yet this moment of truth also exposes hypocrisy: states that have supported imperial interventions from Libya to Iraq, and from Syria to Gaza, confront reality only when threats are directed at themselves, such as in the case of Greenland and Denmark.

Confrontation Against the Replacement of Law by Power

Participants at Davos 2026 broadly agreed that the world is rapidly drifting toward an order in which law recedes and power prevails. Although German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer approached this development from different angles, the resulting picture was the same. These leaders, who had remained largely silent in the face of legal violations in Gaza, Israel’s attacks on Iran, the abduction of Venezuela’s president by the United States, or the harassment of civilian merchant vessels under the pretext of a “shadow fleet,” suddenly discovered the dangers of a world governed by raw power. Those now warning that even great powers become insecure when rules collapse were themselves active participants in power politics against weaker states only a year earlier. The outcome of their speeches revealed a clear confrontation between two camps: those who view power as the sole source of legitimacy, and those who seek to restrain power through law.

Trade is Now a Weapon

Nearly every economic discussion at Davos underscored that trade is no longer a neutral vehicle of prosperity. Tariffs have become negotiating tools, sanctions geopolitical punishment mechanisms, and supply chains zones of vulnerability. The efficiencies of global integration have evolved into advantages used by great powers to suppress competitors. Consequently, the concept of commercial security has moved to the forefront, particularly in middle and advanced economies, where free trade is increasingly replaced by selective, controlled, and politicized exchange. Davos also highlighted that the structural distance between the United States and Europe is no longer a temporary tension. Trade deficits, automotive and industrial exports, regulatory conflicts, and defense spending have become focal points of divergence. Washington views Europe as a bloc that benefits economically while failing to share security burdens, whereas Europe perceives the United States as unpredictable, unilateral, and cost‑imposing. The transatlantic relationship has shifted from a shared‑values partnership to a hard bargaining arena.

Breaking the Security-Economy Connection

Although NATO was not discussed explicitly at Davos, it loomed large in the background. The U.S. share of alliance defense spending is increasingly wielded as an economic and political lever. The United States accounts for roughly two‑thirds of NATO defense expenditures and about 16 percent of its annual budget. Trump’s longstanding criticism of Europe’s strategic complacency has evolved into a broader attempt to monetize the U.S. security umbrella through trade, energy, and strategic concessions. European states, however, increasingly interpret this as an assault on sovereignty and autonomy, thereby eroding the traditional balance between security and economics within NATO. Trump’s insistence that Greenland is vital to U.S. security, rather than NATO’s collective defense, further undermined alliance cohesion and symbolized a deeper crisis of trust.

The New Geopolitical Conjuncture and the Rise of the Middle Powers

The Davos 2026 process also strengthened the self‑confidence of medium powers such as Türkiye. Intensifying great‑power competition creates both risks and opportunities for states that avoid rigid alignment or outright rupture. Countries capable of building resilience in energy, food, critical minerals, finance, and diplomacy can redefine cooperation in a fragmenting global system. Europe’s gradual rapprochement with China, mirroring Russia’s earlier turn eastward, suggests a future in which the United States consolidates the Western Hemisphere while Europe increasingly recognizes itself as Eurasia’s western peninsula. Internal fragmentation within the United States, driven by competing interests among MAGA factions, neoconservatives, lobbies, the arms industry, finance capital, and think tanks, further undermines Washington’s strategic coherence.

Türkiye Lessons

For Türkiye, Davos 2026 offers stark lessons. No global order narrative is permanent. Concepts such as a rules‑based order, strategic partnership, or alliance solidarity can be suspended whenever they conflict with great‑power interests. Türkiye must therefore ground its security, economy, and foreign policy in concrete capabilities, deterrence, and multidimensional relations rather than abstract norms. Trade, energy, and finance have become security issues, making self‑sufficiency, diversification, and resilience imperative. Agriculture, water management, and critical resources demand urgent strategic reassessment. Security architecture can no longer rely on a single‑axis alliance logic; it must rest on national capacity, a robust defense industry, and layered deterrence.

Multipolarity, while risky, also expands room for maneuver. Türkiye’s path lies in flexible, principled, interest‑based balance rather than alignment or isolation. The harshest lesson of Davos is that in a world where power overrides law, those who truly need law are those capable of defending it. International law must be treated not as abstract morality but as a framework safeguarding sovereignty and national interest. Ultimately, the sources of security, prosperity, and prestige are internal capacity and strategic intelligence, not external references. In this new era, survival belongs to states that combine strong governance, productive economies, independent defense, and multifaceted diplomacy.

This is Türkiye’s lesson from Davos.

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

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 23:25

Davos 2026: Acknowledging The End Of Pax Americana

Authored by Ret. Admiral Cem Gürdeniz via Michel Chossudovsky's substack,

The end of the Pax Americana established after 1945 was officially acknowledged by both the leaders of finance capital and the elected leaders in Davos 26.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) 2026 in Davos, which has served as the vision and doctrine center of global capitalism for half a century, was held between January 19–23 under the theme “A Spirit of Dialogue.”

At what was arguably the most significant meeting in its history, the end of the Pax Americana established after 1945 was officially acknowledged by both the leaders of finance capital and the elected leaders of states inheriting Europe’s colonial-imperial legacy, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

Another point openly recognized was the end of globalization and neoliberalism.

Representatives of finance capital emphasized that political and economic elites had lost public trust and conceded that the neoliberal order had reached the stage of collapse due to the unsustainability of income inequality.

Politicians, for their part, admitted that law has increasingly been replaced by force and that the so‑called rules‑based international order is partly a fiction, as great powers suspend rules whenever it suits their interests. Among these statements, perhaps the most unsettling for Donald Trump came from Canada.

The Canadian Prime Minister, whom Trump had explicitly included within the Western Hemisphere in his revised national security doctrine and openly threatened, acknowledged that the narrative of a rules‑based order is fictional. He stated that finance, trade, energy, and supply chains no longer function as mechanisms of mutual benefit but as tools of pressure and weaponization, and that the Western world is not undergoing a transition but an open rupture. This was, in fact, an inevitable outcome of geopolitical realities and the interests of finance capital.

The Forced Acceptance of U.S. Withdrawal is Now Evident

The United States no longer possesses the geopolitical capacity to shape the entire globe. Its parity with China in military, technological, and industrial indicators, and in some areas its lagging position, demonstrates a structural break that makes the continuation of unipolar hegemony impossible. Trump has already been compelled to retract some of his threats. In the Greenland case, for example, he initially suggested the use of military force but later abandoned this option after nearly 800 billion dollars were wiped off U.S. stock markets on the eve of Davos.

In reality, the United States is attempting to reposition itself within a new world order. Its effort to bind the Western Hemisphere unconditionally to itself through a revival of the Monroe Doctrine is itself an admission of declining global capacity. Even within this framework, Washington cannot prevent Canada or Brazil from expanding relations with China, nor can it stop Argentina from maintaining comprehensive economic ties with Beijing. These cases, alongside BRICS and other Global South countries, demonstrate how a policy based on pressure and threats is counterproductive.

States increasingly seek balance with China, whose trade, infrastructure financing, and mutual‑benefit model creates attraction precisely because it does not rely on coercion. At Davos, China was discussed through the lens of controlled uncertainty rather than open rupture. While the United States draws a sharp line of systemic competition, European countries attempt to balance economic realities with geopolitical pressures. On one hand, they seek to maintain trade, investment, and market access with China; on the other, they pursue distancing in technology, security, and critical infrastructure. This reflects a European policy characterized by tactical flexibility rather than strategic clarity.

By contrast, the United States’ coercive approach generates rupture rather than loyalty. For Washington, multipolarity is no longer a strategic choice but the symptomatic outcome of weakening power and the forced acceptance of reality. The open acknowledgment by allies such as France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and Saudi Arabia that the U.S.‑centered order has ended is a direct result of this erosion. If this trajectory continues, the United States will eventually face the necessity of returning to a policy of peaceful coexistence with China, reminiscent of Cold War‑era coexistence with the Soviet Union. The alternative, of course, is war.

The End of the Rules-Based Order

The most evident common denominator of Davos 2026 was the recognition that the global order is undergoing a rupture rather than an evolution. For decades, the discourse of a rules‑based international system functioned as a narrative that concealed arbitrary exemptions and asymmetric practices by great powers. In Davos, this curtain was openly lifted. Selective application of law, the bending of trade rules in favor of the powerful, and the transformation of security into a bargaining instrument were no longer denied. The most striking political statement on this issue came from Canada’s Prime Minister, former financier Mark Carney. He stressed that finance, trade, energy, and supply chains have become instruments of pressure and coercion. By declaring that he no longer shared belief in the rules‑based order, Carney effectively dissolved the ideological legitimacy of the U.S.‑led liberal system. His declaration can be regarded as epoch‑making, signaling the collapse of the ideological foundation of the Western order sustained since the Cold War.

Yet this moment of truth also exposes hypocrisy: states that have supported imperial interventions from Libya to Iraq, and from Syria to Gaza, confront reality only when threats are directed at themselves, such as in the case of Greenland and Denmark.

Confrontation Against the Replacement of Law by Power

Participants at Davos 2026 broadly agreed that the world is rapidly drifting toward an order in which law recedes and power prevails. Although German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer approached this development from different angles, the resulting picture was the same. These leaders, who had remained largely silent in the face of legal violations in Gaza, Israel’s attacks on Iran, the abduction of Venezuela’s president by the United States, or the harassment of civilian merchant vessels under the pretext of a “shadow fleet,” suddenly discovered the dangers of a world governed by raw power. Those now warning that even great powers become insecure when rules collapse were themselves active participants in power politics against weaker states only a year earlier. The outcome of their speeches revealed a clear confrontation between two camps: those who view power as the sole source of legitimacy, and those who seek to restrain power through law.

Trade is Now a Weapon

Nearly every economic discussion at Davos underscored that trade is no longer a neutral vehicle of prosperity. Tariffs have become negotiating tools, sanctions geopolitical punishment mechanisms, and supply chains zones of vulnerability. The efficiencies of global integration have evolved into advantages used by great powers to suppress competitors. Consequently, the concept of commercial security has moved to the forefront, particularly in middle and advanced economies, where free trade is increasingly replaced by selective, controlled, and politicized exchange. Davos also highlighted that the structural distance between the United States and Europe is no longer a temporary tension. Trade deficits, automotive and industrial exports, regulatory conflicts, and defense spending have become focal points of divergence. Washington views Europe as a bloc that benefits economically while failing to share security burdens, whereas Europe perceives the United States as unpredictable, unilateral, and cost‑imposing. The transatlantic relationship has shifted from a shared‑values partnership to a hard bargaining arena.

Breaking the Security-Economy Connection

Although NATO was not discussed explicitly at Davos, it loomed large in the background. The U.S. share of alliance defense spending is increasingly wielded as an economic and political lever. The United States accounts for roughly two‑thirds of NATO defense expenditures and about 16 percent of its annual budget. Trump’s longstanding criticism of Europe’s strategic complacency has evolved into a broader attempt to monetize the U.S. security umbrella through trade, energy, and strategic concessions. European states, however, increasingly interpret this as an assault on sovereignty and autonomy, thereby eroding the traditional balance between security and economics within NATO. Trump’s insistence that Greenland is vital to U.S. security, rather than NATO’s collective defense, further undermined alliance cohesion and symbolized a deeper crisis of trust.

The New Geopolitical Conjuncture and the Rise of the Middle Powers

The Davos 2026 process also strengthened the self‑confidence of medium powers such as Türkiye. Intensifying great‑power competition creates both risks and opportunities for states that avoid rigid alignment or outright rupture. Countries capable of building resilience in energy, food, critical minerals, finance, and diplomacy can redefine cooperation in a fragmenting global system. Europe’s gradual rapprochement with China, mirroring Russia’s earlier turn eastward, suggests a future in which the United States consolidates the Western Hemisphere while Europe increasingly recognizes itself as Eurasia’s western peninsula. Internal fragmentation within the United States, driven by competing interests among MAGA factions, neoconservatives, lobbies, the arms industry, finance capital, and think tanks, further undermines Washington’s strategic coherence.

Türkiye Lessons

For Türkiye, Davos 2026 offers stark lessons. No global order narrative is permanent. Concepts such as a rules‑based order, strategic partnership, or alliance solidarity can be suspended whenever they conflict with great‑power interests. Türkiye must therefore ground its security, economy, and foreign policy in concrete capabilities, deterrence, and multidimensional relations rather than abstract norms. Trade, energy, and finance have become security issues, making self‑sufficiency, diversification, and resilience imperative. Agriculture, water management, and critical resources demand urgent strategic reassessment. Security architecture can no longer rely on a single‑axis alliance logic; it must rest on national capacity, a robust defense industry, and layered deterrence.

Multipolarity, while risky, also expands room for maneuver. Türkiye’s path lies in flexible, principled, interest‑based balance rather than alignment or isolation. The harshest lesson of Davos is that in a world where power overrides law, those who truly need law are those capable of defending it. International law must be treated not as abstract morality but as a framework safeguarding sovereignty and national interest. Ultimately, the sources of security, prosperity, and prestige are internal capacity and strategic intelligence, not external references. In this new era, survival belongs to states that combine strong governance, productive economies, independent defense, and multifaceted diplomacy.

This is Türkiye’s lesson from Davos.

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

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 23:25

Maine Is The 'Oldest' State, Utah The 'Youngest'

Across the U.S., age profiles vary widely by region.

This map, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, highlights those differences using the most recent nationwide estimates.

The data for this visualization comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 2024 1-Year Estimates.

It reports the median age for each state and the District of Columbia.

The Oldest States Are Concentrated in the Northeast

The national median age stands at 39.2 as of 2024.

Rank State Median age overall 1 Maine 44.9 2 Vermont 43.9 3 New Hampshire 43.6 4 West Virginia 42.9 5 Florida 42.7 6 Delaware 42.1 7 Hawaii 41.5 8 Montana 41.3 9 Connecticut 41.2 10 Pennsylvania 41.2 11 Rhode Island 41.0 12 Oregon 40.8 13 South Carolina 40.7 14 Wisconsin 40.7 15 Michigan 40.4 16 Wyoming 40.2 17 Massachusetts 40.1 18 New Jersey 40.1 19 New York 40.1 20 New Mexico 39.9 21 Maryland 39.8 22 Ohio 39.8 23 Alabama 39.6 24 Nevada 39.5 25 Arizona 39.4 26 Illinois 39.4 27 Missouri 39.4 28 North Carolina 39.4 29 Virginia 39.4 30 Kentucky 39.3 31 Mississippi 39.3 32 Minnesota 39.2 33 Arkansas 39.1 34 Tennessee 39.1 35 Iowa 39.0 36 Louisiana 38.7 37 South Dakota 38.7 38 Washington 38.7 39 California 38.4 40 Indiana 38.3 41 Colorado 38.0 42 Georgia 38.0 43 Kansas 38.0 44 Idaho 37.8 45 Nebraska 37.4 46 Oklahoma 37.4 47 North Dakota 36.7 48 Alaska 36.3 49 Texas 35.9 50 District of Columbia 34.9 51 Utah 32.5 -- U.S. Median Age 39.2

New England and nearby states dominate the top of the ranking. Maine leads the country with a median age of 45, followed by Vermont and New Hampshire at 44. Several other northeastern states—including Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island—also exceed 41.

These older age profiles reflect long-term trends such as slower population growth, lower birth rates, and limited in-migration of younger workers.

The Sun Belt Shows a Mixed Demographic Picture

Many Sun Belt states cluster near the national average, but with some exceptions.

Florida stands out with a median age of 43, driven by its large retiree population. In contrast, Texas has a median age of 36, reflecting faster population growth and a younger workforce.

Meanwhile, states like Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina sit close to 39.

Younger Populations Dominate the West and Plains

The youngest states are largely found in the West and Great Plains.

Utah is the clear outlier at 33, supported by higher fertility rates and larger households. The District of Columbia also skews young at 35, due in part to a concentration of working-age adults.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: Renters vs Homeowners by State on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 23:00

Maine Is The 'Oldest' State, Utah The 'Youngest'

Across the U.S., age profiles vary widely by region.

This map, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, highlights those differences using the most recent nationwide estimates.

The data for this visualization comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 2024 1-Year Estimates.

It reports the median age for each state and the District of Columbia.

The Oldest States Are Concentrated in the Northeast

The national median age stands at 39.2 as of 2024.

Rank State Median age overall 1 Maine 44.9 2 Vermont 43.9 3 New Hampshire 43.6 4 West Virginia 42.9 5 Florida 42.7 6 Delaware 42.1 7 Hawaii 41.5 8 Montana 41.3 9 Connecticut 41.2 10 Pennsylvania 41.2 11 Rhode Island 41.0 12 Oregon 40.8 13 South Carolina 40.7 14 Wisconsin 40.7 15 Michigan 40.4 16 Wyoming 40.2 17 Massachusetts 40.1 18 New Jersey 40.1 19 New York 40.1 20 New Mexico 39.9 21 Maryland 39.8 22 Ohio 39.8 23 Alabama 39.6 24 Nevada 39.5 25 Arizona 39.4 26 Illinois 39.4 27 Missouri 39.4 28 North Carolina 39.4 29 Virginia 39.4 30 Kentucky 39.3 31 Mississippi 39.3 32 Minnesota 39.2 33 Arkansas 39.1 34 Tennessee 39.1 35 Iowa 39.0 36 Louisiana 38.7 37 South Dakota 38.7 38 Washington 38.7 39 California 38.4 40 Indiana 38.3 41 Colorado 38.0 42 Georgia 38.0 43 Kansas 38.0 44 Idaho 37.8 45 Nebraska 37.4 46 Oklahoma 37.4 47 North Dakota 36.7 48 Alaska 36.3 49 Texas 35.9 50 District of Columbia 34.9 51 Utah 32.5 -- U.S. Median Age 39.2

New England and nearby states dominate the top of the ranking. Maine leads the country with a median age of 45, followed by Vermont and New Hampshire at 44. Several other northeastern states—including Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island—also exceed 41.

These older age profiles reflect long-term trends such as slower population growth, lower birth rates, and limited in-migration of younger workers.

The Sun Belt Shows a Mixed Demographic Picture

Many Sun Belt states cluster near the national average, but with some exceptions.

Florida stands out with a median age of 43, driven by its large retiree population. In contrast, Texas has a median age of 36, reflecting faster population growth and a younger workforce.

Meanwhile, states like Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina sit close to 39.

Younger Populations Dominate the West and Plains

The youngest states are largely found in the West and Great Plains.

Utah is the clear outlier at 33, supported by higher fertility rates and larger households. The District of Columbia also skews young at 35, due in part to a concentration of working-age adults.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: Renters vs Homeowners by State on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 23:00

Isaac Newton's Lost Papers - And His Search For God's Divine Plan

Authored by Duncan Burch via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Few have had as profound an effect on modern scientific understanding as Sir Isaac Newton.

A drawing by Isaac Newton of his telescope contained in a book of his letters is displayed next to a statue of him at the Royal Society on November 24, 2009 in London. Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

Many people are familiar with the story of how a falling apple first inspired Newton to investigate the force that would come to be known as gravity, and as he later concluded in his seminal scientific treatise, “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” it is this same force that pulls a fruit to ground that keeps the planets in orbit.

While Newton undoubtedly possessed a keen sense of observation and an insatiable curiosity that enabled him to make some of the most influential mathematical and scientific discoveries in recorded history, his prolific notes and writings—especially the vast amount of manuscripts that went unpublished until hundreds of years after his death—reveal a more profound motivation.

Newton wrote more, arguably significantly more, on theology than on scientific phenomena. According to those most familiar with the totality of his writings, he viewed the two not as distinctive pursuits, but as one unified quest to map out the divine order of the universe.

Although Newton is justifiably renowned for his numerous astounding scientific contributions, what is less known about him is that he was also a devout Christian, a dedicated scriptural scholar, and one of the most preeminent theologians of his time. While his public scientific works blossomed in full view of the world, it was his private religious studies that served as the unseen roots providing sustenance to those blooms.

A Devout Christian

Because of his demonstrated mathematical prowess, in 1669, at the age of 26, Newton was appointed as the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. At the time, all Cambridge professors were required to take the holy orders of the Church of England, but Newton at first delayed and ultimately refused to take the oath.

However, this refusal did not stem from his lack of faith or a rejection of the Bible, but in fact just the opposite—he believed that the church had embraced certain misinterpretations of the Bible that he could not in good conscience profess to believe. Newton was fluent in both Latin and Greek, and it was his extensive studies of original scriptures that led him to reject certain tenets of the church, specifically those concerning the Trinity. 

Though he did not speak or write publicly about his disagreement with church doctrine, fearing that controversial theological arguments could inhibit or undermine his scientific research, his refusal to take the holy orders posed a serious threat to his early career.

Fortunately, some of his fellow teachers petitioned the king on his behalf, and he was ultimately granted a special dispensation that exempted him from the oath requirement and allowed him to remain in his position at Cambridge. It was around this time that Newton began to record his theological research in notebooks. And this was no passing fancy for the great scientist, as throughout the remainder of his life, he continued to write and revise his extensive theological notes and Biblical interpretations.

A statue of Isaac Newton stands in Trinity College on March 13, 2012 in Cambridge, England.Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Many of his contemporaries were aware of his private work and considered him an authority on Biblical theology. Newton corresponded extensively on matters of Biblical interpretation with luminary thinkers and scholars, including the philosopher John Locke and the influential theologian John Mill. At one point, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior bishop of the Church of England, stated that Newton knew more about the Bible than any members of the clergy.

A Divine Order

Despite the fact that Newton never published the vast majority of his theological writings, what he did publish during his life left little doubt as to his belief in the intelligent design of the universe by a divine creator. Although Newton almost completely avoided the topic of theology in his most famous scientific work, the “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” when he published the second edition of the work in 1713, he included an addendum known as the “General Scholium,” around half of which is devoted to his theological conception of the universe.

“The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect,” he wrote. “And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being. ... He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present ... by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space.”

So even during his lifetime, Newton’s belief in a divine order and a supreme creator was well known. What was not well known, though, was the vast extent of his scriptural scholarship and writing. His unpublished papers consisted of more than 6 million words, approximately one-third of which were devoted to scriptural study and theology.

After Newton’s death in 1727, thousands of pages of notes and unpublished writings were acquired by his closest living relatives, but out of concern that the papers would offend the church and damage his scientific reputation, the relatives kept them private. As a result, the majority of his papers remained hidden from public view for nearly 150 years.

In 1872, most of Newton’s scientific and mathematical papers were donated to the University of Cambridge, where they were catalogued and made available to scholars. But the remainder of the papers, including those concerned with theology and biblical scholarship, remained private until they were put up for auction by Sotheby’s in 1936.

The auction was not widely publicized and was generally overshadowed by other auctions occurring around the same time, and as a result, the papers were scattered to various collectors and dealers around the world. However, shortly after the auction, two men set out to acquire different portions of Newton’s lost papers.

People attend an auction at Sotheby's auction house in London on July 8, 2004. Graeme Robertson/Getty Images Saving the Lost Papers

One of these men was the prominent economist and mathematician John Maynard Keynes, who focused primarily on acquiring Newton’s notes on the subject of alchemy, of which there were many. The term alchemy connotes different things to different people, and while it is sometimes associated with occult magic, it is also considered to be influential in the development of modern chemistry. Even among Keynes and others who have studies Newton’s lost writings on alchemy, there seems to be no clear consensus on what he was studying or why.

The other man who aggressively set out to acquire Newton’s lost papers was the Jewish scholar and linguist Abraham Yahuda, who focused primarily on the acquisition of Newton’s theological writings.

Yahuda was a rabbinical philologist who taught and lectured at numerous prominent universities in Europe and around the world throughout the early decades of the 1900s, and he was also a collector of rare manuscripts. Although he was an accomplished linguist who studied the early writings of many cultures, his primary field of study was the philology of the Torah, and he recognized Newton as someone who was also deeply interested in accurately interpreting the symbolic language of the Old Testament.

By the late 1930s, Yahuda had acquired thousands of pages of Newton’s manuscripts, with which he fled to London at the outbreak of World War II.

In early 1940, his acquaintance and fellow scholar Albert Einstein helped arrange for Yahuda and his wife to travel to New York, and later that summer the two men met at Einstein’s summer retreat in the Adirondacks. Apparently, they discussed Newton’s lost papers that Yahuda acquired because Einstein wrote to him later that year concerning the topic.

“Newton’s writings on biblical subjects seem to me especially interesting,” Einstein wrote, “because they provide deep insight into the characteristic intellectual features and working methods of this important man. The divine origin of the Bible is for Newton absolutely certain, a conviction that stands in curious contrast to the critical skepticism that characterizes his attitude toward the churches.”

In his letter, Einstein also lamented the fact that most of the preparatory works of Newton’s physics writings had been lost or destroyed, but he was convinced that the theological works could provide valuable insight into Newton’s thinking and methods. At least, he concluded, “we do have this domain of his works on the Bible drafts and their repeated modification; these mostly unpublished writings therefore allow a highly interesting insight into the mental workshop of this unique thinker.”

Although Yahuda never published or sold his collection of Newton’s papers, he did write about them, and he was one of the first scholars to understand and note the importance of Newton’s theology on his broader work. After his death in 1952, his wife donated the papers to the Jewish National and University Library at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where for the first time they were made available to the public.

A signature of Isaac Newton contained in a book of his letters is displayed next to a statue of him at the Royal Society in London on Nov. 24, 2009. Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

In the ensuing decades, many scholars and writers began to study and publish papers on Newton’s theological writings, ultimately providing an expanded perspective into the thinking of one of the world’s most influential scientists. At the turn of the century and in the years since, several organizations, including The Newton Project, have set out to catalogue and publish the lost theological writings of Isaac Newton, many of which are now available to the general public and easily accessible online.

Newton’s Search for God’s Divine Plan

“Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” published in Latin in 1687, in which Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, is perhaps the most influential scientific treatise ever composed, not only for its insights into classical mechanics and the functioning of the physical world but also for its advancements of scientific methods of inquiry. 

Newton made significant contributions to many fields of scientific study, including mathematics, optics, and physics. His studies of prisms and the light spectrum led him to design and build the first reflecting telescope, and he also made the first attempts to calculate the speed of sound. As a mathematician, he was the first person to employ the principles of modern calculus, and he was a pioneer in numerous areas of mathematical theories and calculations.

While his influence on the history of science is well known and undeniable, his prominence as a theologian has only come to full light more recently with the publication of his lost papers.

There is no doubt that Newton was a man of devout faith, and that faith inspired and informed his scientific inquiry. As he wrote in the General Scholium, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

As scholars continue to study his lost papers, perhaps more insights into Newton’s conception of the universe will be revealed.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 22:35

Isaac Newton's Lost Papers - And His Search For God's Divine Plan

Authored by Duncan Burch via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Few have had as profound an effect on modern scientific understanding as Sir Isaac Newton.

A drawing by Isaac Newton of his telescope contained in a book of his letters is displayed next to a statue of him at the Royal Society on November 24, 2009 in London. Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

Many people are familiar with the story of how a falling apple first inspired Newton to investigate the force that would come to be known as gravity, and as he later concluded in his seminal scientific treatise, “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” it is this same force that pulls a fruit to ground that keeps the planets in orbit.

While Newton undoubtedly possessed a keen sense of observation and an insatiable curiosity that enabled him to make some of the most influential mathematical and scientific discoveries in recorded history, his prolific notes and writings—especially the vast amount of manuscripts that went unpublished until hundreds of years after his death—reveal a more profound motivation.

Newton wrote more, arguably significantly more, on theology than on scientific phenomena. According to those most familiar with the totality of his writings, he viewed the two not as distinctive pursuits, but as one unified quest to map out the divine order of the universe.

Although Newton is justifiably renowned for his numerous astounding scientific contributions, what is less known about him is that he was also a devout Christian, a dedicated scriptural scholar, and one of the most preeminent theologians of his time. While his public scientific works blossomed in full view of the world, it was his private religious studies that served as the unseen roots providing sustenance to those blooms.

A Devout Christian

Because of his demonstrated mathematical prowess, in 1669, at the age of 26, Newton was appointed as the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. At the time, all Cambridge professors were required to take the holy orders of the Church of England, but Newton at first delayed and ultimately refused to take the oath.

However, this refusal did not stem from his lack of faith or a rejection of the Bible, but in fact just the opposite—he believed that the church had embraced certain misinterpretations of the Bible that he could not in good conscience profess to believe. Newton was fluent in both Latin and Greek, and it was his extensive studies of original scriptures that led him to reject certain tenets of the church, specifically those concerning the Trinity. 

Though he did not speak or write publicly about his disagreement with church doctrine, fearing that controversial theological arguments could inhibit or undermine his scientific research, his refusal to take the holy orders posed a serious threat to his early career.

Fortunately, some of his fellow teachers petitioned the king on his behalf, and he was ultimately granted a special dispensation that exempted him from the oath requirement and allowed him to remain in his position at Cambridge. It was around this time that Newton began to record his theological research in notebooks. And this was no passing fancy for the great scientist, as throughout the remainder of his life, he continued to write and revise his extensive theological notes and Biblical interpretations.

A statue of Isaac Newton stands in Trinity College on March 13, 2012 in Cambridge, England.Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Many of his contemporaries were aware of his private work and considered him an authority on Biblical theology. Newton corresponded extensively on matters of Biblical interpretation with luminary thinkers and scholars, including the philosopher John Locke and the influential theologian John Mill. At one point, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior bishop of the Church of England, stated that Newton knew more about the Bible than any members of the clergy.

A Divine Order

Despite the fact that Newton never published the vast majority of his theological writings, what he did publish during his life left little doubt as to his belief in the intelligent design of the universe by a divine creator. Although Newton almost completely avoided the topic of theology in his most famous scientific work, the “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” when he published the second edition of the work in 1713, he included an addendum known as the “General Scholium,” around half of which is devoted to his theological conception of the universe.

“The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect,” he wrote. “And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being. ... He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present ... by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space.”

So even during his lifetime, Newton’s belief in a divine order and a supreme creator was well known. What was not well known, though, was the vast extent of his scriptural scholarship and writing. His unpublished papers consisted of more than 6 million words, approximately one-third of which were devoted to scriptural study and theology.

After Newton’s death in 1727, thousands of pages of notes and unpublished writings were acquired by his closest living relatives, but out of concern that the papers would offend the church and damage his scientific reputation, the relatives kept them private. As a result, the majority of his papers remained hidden from public view for nearly 150 years.

In 1872, most of Newton’s scientific and mathematical papers were donated to the University of Cambridge, where they were catalogued and made available to scholars. But the remainder of the papers, including those concerned with theology and biblical scholarship, remained private until they were put up for auction by Sotheby’s in 1936.

The auction was not widely publicized and was generally overshadowed by other auctions occurring around the same time, and as a result, the papers were scattered to various collectors and dealers around the world. However, shortly after the auction, two men set out to acquire different portions of Newton’s lost papers.

People attend an auction at Sotheby's auction house in London on July 8, 2004. Graeme Robertson/Getty Images Saving the Lost Papers

One of these men was the prominent economist and mathematician John Maynard Keynes, who focused primarily on acquiring Newton’s notes on the subject of alchemy, of which there were many. The term alchemy connotes different things to different people, and while it is sometimes associated with occult magic, it is also considered to be influential in the development of modern chemistry. Even among Keynes and others who have studies Newton’s lost writings on alchemy, there seems to be no clear consensus on what he was studying or why.

The other man who aggressively set out to acquire Newton’s lost papers was the Jewish scholar and linguist Abraham Yahuda, who focused primarily on the acquisition of Newton’s theological writings.

Yahuda was a rabbinical philologist who taught and lectured at numerous prominent universities in Europe and around the world throughout the early decades of the 1900s, and he was also a collector of rare manuscripts. Although he was an accomplished linguist who studied the early writings of many cultures, his primary field of study was the philology of the Torah, and he recognized Newton as someone who was also deeply interested in accurately interpreting the symbolic language of the Old Testament.

By the late 1930s, Yahuda had acquired thousands of pages of Newton’s manuscripts, with which he fled to London at the outbreak of World War II.

In early 1940, his acquaintance and fellow scholar Albert Einstein helped arrange for Yahuda and his wife to travel to New York, and later that summer the two men met at Einstein’s summer retreat in the Adirondacks. Apparently, they discussed Newton’s lost papers that Yahuda acquired because Einstein wrote to him later that year concerning the topic.

“Newton’s writings on biblical subjects seem to me especially interesting,” Einstein wrote, “because they provide deep insight into the characteristic intellectual features and working methods of this important man. The divine origin of the Bible is for Newton absolutely certain, a conviction that stands in curious contrast to the critical skepticism that characterizes his attitude toward the churches.”

In his letter, Einstein also lamented the fact that most of the preparatory works of Newton’s physics writings had been lost or destroyed, but he was convinced that the theological works could provide valuable insight into Newton’s thinking and methods. At least, he concluded, “we do have this domain of his works on the Bible drafts and their repeated modification; these mostly unpublished writings therefore allow a highly interesting insight into the mental workshop of this unique thinker.”

Although Yahuda never published or sold his collection of Newton’s papers, he did write about them, and he was one of the first scholars to understand and note the importance of Newton’s theology on his broader work. After his death in 1952, his wife donated the papers to the Jewish National and University Library at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where for the first time they were made available to the public.

A signature of Isaac Newton contained in a book of his letters is displayed next to a statue of him at the Royal Society in London on Nov. 24, 2009. Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

In the ensuing decades, many scholars and writers began to study and publish papers on Newton’s theological writings, ultimately providing an expanded perspective into the thinking of one of the world’s most influential scientists. At the turn of the century and in the years since, several organizations, including The Newton Project, have set out to catalogue and publish the lost theological writings of Isaac Newton, many of which are now available to the general public and easily accessible online.

Newton’s Search for God’s Divine Plan

“Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” published in Latin in 1687, in which Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, is perhaps the most influential scientific treatise ever composed, not only for its insights into classical mechanics and the functioning of the physical world but also for its advancements of scientific methods of inquiry. 

Newton made significant contributions to many fields of scientific study, including mathematics, optics, and physics. His studies of prisms and the light spectrum led him to design and build the first reflecting telescope, and he also made the first attempts to calculate the speed of sound. As a mathematician, he was the first person to employ the principles of modern calculus, and he was a pioneer in numerous areas of mathematical theories and calculations.

While his influence on the history of science is well known and undeniable, his prominence as a theologian has only come to full light more recently with the publication of his lost papers.

There is no doubt that Newton was a man of devout faith, and that faith inspired and informed his scientific inquiry. As he wrote in the General Scholium, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

As scholars continue to study his lost papers, perhaps more insights into Newton’s conception of the universe will be revealed.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 22:35

Here's Morningstar's Safe-Withdrawal Rate For 2026 Retirees

Factoring in projected rates for asset-class returns and inflation, Morningstar analysts say the highest "safe" starting withdrawal rate for people retiring in 2026 is 3.9% of portfolio assets. By "safe," Morningstar means this is the highest rate that has a 90% chance of having some money at the end of a 30-year retirement. Depending on the scheme you use for subsequent withdrawals, you may be able to succeed with a higher initial withdrawal rate. 

Morningstar calculates the safe initial-withdrawal rate each year. This year's rate is up 20 basis points from last year's 3.7%. It was just 3.3% in 2021. It bears emphasizing that Morningstar's 3.9% rate isn't for anyone at any point in their retirement: It's an initial withdrawal rate for someone just starting to tap a portfolio in 2026, and then planning to increase subsequent withdrawals by the previous year's inflation rate. For example, someone with a million-dollar portfolio would take $39,000 out in the first year. Let's say price-inflation in 2026 is 5%. Next year's withdrawal would be $39,000 x 1.05, or $40,950. 

We project your portfolio can support a $12.95 withdrawal for a handsome ZeroHedge mug - find yours at the ZeroHedge Store

Morningstar's 3.9% rate also assumes an equity allocation between 30% and 50%. "Because of the higher volatility associated with higher equity weightings, boosting stocks detracts from the starting safe withdrawal percentage rather than adds to it," Morningstar says. That equity-weighting dynamic springs from what makes retirement-withdrawal planning so dicey: "sequence of return" risk. It's the chance that dismal returns in the critical first years of retirement put a major dent in your portfolio, increasing your risk of running out of money.

On a 30-year retirement, Morningstar found equity allocations of 30% to 50% support a 3.9% initial withdrawal. However, an 80% equity weighting dropped it to 3.6%, while a 10% stock exposure cut it to 3.7%. Of course, the duration of your retirement -- how long you expect to live -- is another critical factor. Longer retirements lower the initial safe withdrawal rate. At a 50% equity allocation, the safe rate for a 35-year drawdown is 3.5%, and it's just 3.2% for a 40-year retirement. 

Morningstar acknowledged that increasing withdrawals every year by the inflation rate is just one of many schemes for planning for retirement income. Calling that method the "base case," the firm also projected a safe initial rate using eight other approaches, each of which comes with its own pros and cons. Two methods were tied at the top, supporting a 5.7% initial "safe" withdrawal rate for a 30-year retirement: 

• Endowment Method: Borrowing from a spending methodology used by college endowments, this one applies a percentage withdrawal rate to the portfolio's average value over time. Morningstar used a 10-year average. At first though, it used the value as of the end of the last year before retirement. With each year into retirement, it added another year to the average, until eventually hitting 10 years and using a 10-year look-back from that point on.
• Constant Percentage Method: If you're wary of trying to teach complex methods to a spouse who may outlive you, this method shines in its simplicity, as it calculates each year's withdrawal by applying a never-changing rate to the value of the portfolio at year-end. Morningstar put in a floor: Even if the calculation suggests otherwise, the retiree doesn't withdraw less than 90% of the very first withdrawal. 

Retirement-income planning relies heavily on assumptions on a host of variables. Morningstar's calculations from year to year are driven in large part by the firm's expectations for 30-year returns on various asset classes, as well as a projected inflation rate over that horizon. Here are the 30-year return assumptions baked into Morningstar's 3.9% base case: 

• US Large Growth: 8.58%
• US Large Value: 8.74%
• US Small Growth: 10.23%
• US Small Value: 12.69%
• Foreign Stocks: 9.36%
• US Investment-Grade Bond: 4.64%
• Foreign Bond: 4.68%
• Cash / US T-Bill: 2.92%
• Inflation: 2.46%

We'd also note that your spending patterns aren't likely to be uniform over your retirement. Many financial planners break retirement into three conceptual phases, calling the first one "Go-Go," as active, relatively healthy, younger retirees live it up, indulge in frequent travel and restaurant dining, and equip themselves with new leisure goods. Next comes "Slow-Go," where retirees are still up and about, but maybe less adventurous and more satisfied with their possessions. Then, typically in the 80s or 90s, they reach "No-Go," where they're much more prone to staying close to home -- if not confined there -- and spending much less on themselves. (Long-term care expenses can be a wild card here.) 

You can dive deeper into Morningstar's methods here. At the bottom of the top-line report, you can request a far more detailed, 54-page treatment of the topic, with elaborations on nine different retirement income methodologies. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 22:10

Here's Morningstar's Safe-Withdrawal Rate For 2026 Retirees

Factoring in projected rates for asset-class returns and inflation, Morningstar analysts say the highest "safe" starting withdrawal rate for people retiring in 2026 is 3.9% of portfolio assets. By "safe," Morningstar means this is the highest rate that has a 90% chance of having some money at the end of a 30-year retirement. Depending on the scheme you use for subsequent withdrawals, you may be able to succeed with a higher initial withdrawal rate. 

Morningstar calculates the safe initial-withdrawal rate each year. This year's rate is up 20 basis points from last year's 3.7%. It was just 3.3% in 2021. It bears emphasizing that Morningstar's 3.9% rate isn't for anyone at any point in their retirement: It's an initial withdrawal rate for someone just starting to tap a portfolio in 2026, and then planning to increase subsequent withdrawals by the previous year's inflation rate. For example, someone with a million-dollar portfolio would take $39,000 out in the first year. Let's say price-inflation in 2026 is 5%. Next year's withdrawal would be $39,000 x 1.05, or $40,950. 

We project your portfolio can support a $12.95 withdrawal for a handsome ZeroHedge mug - find yours at the ZeroHedge Store

Morningstar's 3.9% rate also assumes an equity allocation between 30% and 50%. "Because of the higher volatility associated with higher equity weightings, boosting stocks detracts from the starting safe withdrawal percentage rather than adds to it," Morningstar says. That equity-weighting dynamic springs from what makes retirement-withdrawal planning so dicey: "sequence of return" risk. It's the chance that dismal returns in the critical first years of retirement put a major dent in your portfolio, increasing your risk of running out of money.

On a 30-year retirement, Morningstar found equity allocations of 30% to 50% support a 3.9% initial withdrawal. However, an 80% equity weighting dropped it to 3.6%, while a 10% stock exposure cut it to 3.7%. Of course, the duration of your retirement -- how long you expect to live -- is another critical factor. Longer retirements lower the initial safe withdrawal rate. At a 50% equity allocation, the safe rate for a 35-year drawdown is 3.5%, and it's just 3.2% for a 40-year retirement. 

Morningstar acknowledged that increasing withdrawals every year by the inflation rate is just one of many schemes for planning for retirement income. Calling that method the "base case," the firm also projected a safe initial rate using eight other approaches, each of which comes with its own pros and cons. Two methods were tied at the top, supporting a 5.7% initial "safe" withdrawal rate for a 30-year retirement: 

• Endowment Method: Borrowing from a spending methodology used by college endowments, this one applies a percentage withdrawal rate to the portfolio's average value over time. Morningstar used a 10-year average. At first though, it used the value as of the end of the last year before retirement. With each year into retirement, it added another year to the average, until eventually hitting 10 years and using a 10-year look-back from that point on.
• Constant Percentage Method: If you're wary of trying to teach complex methods to a spouse who may outlive you, this method shines in its simplicity, as it calculates each year's withdrawal by applying a never-changing rate to the value of the portfolio at year-end. Morningstar put in a floor: Even if the calculation suggests otherwise, the retiree doesn't withdraw less than 90% of the very first withdrawal. 

Retirement-income planning relies heavily on assumptions on a host of variables. Morningstar's calculations from year to year are driven in large part by the firm's expectations for 30-year returns on various asset classes, as well as a projected inflation rate over that horizon. Here are the 30-year return assumptions baked into Morningstar's 3.9% base case: 

• US Large Growth: 8.58%
• US Large Value: 8.74%
• US Small Growth: 10.23%
• US Small Value: 12.69%
• Foreign Stocks: 9.36%
• US Investment-Grade Bond: 4.64%
• Foreign Bond: 4.68%
• Cash / US T-Bill: 2.92%
• Inflation: 2.46%

We'd also note that your spending patterns aren't likely to be uniform over your retirement. Many financial planners break retirement into three conceptual phases, calling the first one "Go-Go," as active, relatively healthy, younger retirees live it up, indulge in frequent travel and restaurant dining, and equip themselves with new leisure goods. Next comes "Slow-Go," where retirees are still up and about, but maybe less adventurous and more satisfied with their possessions. Then, typically in the 80s or 90s, they reach "No-Go," where they're much more prone to staying close to home -- if not confined there -- and spending much less on themselves. (Long-term care expenses can be a wild card here.) 

You can dive deeper into Morningstar's methods here. At the bottom of the top-line report, you can request a far more detailed, 54-page treatment of the topic, with elaborations on nine different retirement income methodologies. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 22:10

Harvard-Backed Program Drops 'Students Of Color' Requirement After Legal Complaint

Authored by Anna Poff via The College Fix,

A Harvard-backed summer scholarship program accused of racial discrimination quietly revised its eligibility language after a legal complaint, but critics told The College Fix the change came too late.

The Union Scholars summer scholarship program is headed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, with support from Harvard University, including the use of its facilities and a partnership with the school’s Center for Labor and a Just Economy and the Wurf Fund, according to a federal complaint from the Equal Protection Project.

“After we filed the complaint and it was reported in The NY Post, AFSCME changed its website to remove the ‘students of color’ language – but that’s too late and too little,” EPP President William Jacobson told The College Fix via email.

“The program itself is intended for students of color, the website just said the quiet part out loud. This program still violates the law even though they are trying to hide the evidence,” he said. 

Jacobson also said that “The removal of incriminating language after the complaint was filed reflects a consciousness of guilt – there would be no reason to change the website if the program didn’t discriminate.”

He added that “the Harvard programs must be open without regard to race as a matter of law and common decency.”

The program is “a summer scholarship and internship opportunity” for students who want to promote “social and economic justice,” according to its website.

“Like our union, the program supports our vision of growing a diverse union movement founded on principles of inclusivity,” the website states.

It takes place over seven weeks in the summer, including a four-day orientation followed by six weeks of field placement at a “union organizing campaign in one of several locations across the United States.”

A disclaimer at the bottom of the website says AFSCME is an equal opportunity employer and prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, disability, or other protected characteristics.

The College Fix attempted to reach the AFSCME and Harvard via email, but has not received a reply.

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark Perry told The Fix that he “wasn’t surprised to hear about another case of illegal discrimination involving Harvard University.”

Perry said he “has filed nearly 1,000 federal civil rights complaints for more than 2,500 violations of Title VI (race) and Title IX (sex) at more than 850 colleges and universities.”

Of those, roughly a dozen were “federal civil rights complaints against Harvard.” 

Some complaints targeted Harvard alone, while others involved the school’s participation in joint ventures with outside organizations, similar to its current relationship with AFSCME.

Perry said that “those complaints were successfully resolved when Harvard agreed to discontinue its partnerships with external organizations that used Harvard’s brand name, facilities, faculty, and academic reputation to promote programs that discriminated based on race.”

He said he anticipates a similar outcome in the EPP’s complaint against Harvard, arguing that the university’s partnership with AFSCME and the program’s discriminatory practices cannot be legally justified.

“Given the past successful challenges of Harvard’s violations of federal civil rights laws, it’s disappointing that Harvard continues to engage in illegal race-based discrimination, especially after the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies were unconstitutional and illegal,” Perry told The Fix.

“Unfortunately, Harvard apparently still hasn’t learned that compliance with federal civil rights laws isn’t optional or voluntary: it’s legally mandated,” he said.

Perry commended the EPP “for exposing and challenging Harvard’s latest attempt to circumvent federal civil rights laws.”

He said he is expecting the group to “prevail with a legal victory at the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 21:45

Harvard-Backed Program Drops 'Students Of Color' Requirement After Legal Complaint

Authored by Anna Poff via The College Fix,

A Harvard-backed summer scholarship program accused of racial discrimination quietly revised its eligibility language after a legal complaint, but critics told The College Fix the change came too late.

The Union Scholars summer scholarship program is headed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, with support from Harvard University, including the use of its facilities and a partnership with the school’s Center for Labor and a Just Economy and the Wurf Fund, according to a federal complaint from the Equal Protection Project.

“After we filed the complaint and it was reported in The NY Post, AFSCME changed its website to remove the ‘students of color’ language – but that’s too late and too little,” EPP President William Jacobson told The College Fix via email.

“The program itself is intended for students of color, the website just said the quiet part out loud. This program still violates the law even though they are trying to hide the evidence,” he said. 

Jacobson also said that “The removal of incriminating language after the complaint was filed reflects a consciousness of guilt – there would be no reason to change the website if the program didn’t discriminate.”

He added that “the Harvard programs must be open without regard to race as a matter of law and common decency.”

The program is “a summer scholarship and internship opportunity” for students who want to promote “social and economic justice,” according to its website.

“Like our union, the program supports our vision of growing a diverse union movement founded on principles of inclusivity,” the website states.

It takes place over seven weeks in the summer, including a four-day orientation followed by six weeks of field placement at a “union organizing campaign in one of several locations across the United States.”

A disclaimer at the bottom of the website says AFSCME is an equal opportunity employer and prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, disability, or other protected characteristics.

The College Fix attempted to reach the AFSCME and Harvard via email, but has not received a reply.

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark Perry told The Fix that he “wasn’t surprised to hear about another case of illegal discrimination involving Harvard University.”

Perry said he “has filed nearly 1,000 federal civil rights complaints for more than 2,500 violations of Title VI (race) and Title IX (sex) at more than 850 colleges and universities.”

Of those, roughly a dozen were “federal civil rights complaints against Harvard.” 

Some complaints targeted Harvard alone, while others involved the school’s participation in joint ventures with outside organizations, similar to its current relationship with AFSCME.

Perry said that “those complaints were successfully resolved when Harvard agreed to discontinue its partnerships with external organizations that used Harvard’s brand name, facilities, faculty, and academic reputation to promote programs that discriminated based on race.”

He said he anticipates a similar outcome in the EPP’s complaint against Harvard, arguing that the university’s partnership with AFSCME and the program’s discriminatory practices cannot be legally justified.

“Given the past successful challenges of Harvard’s violations of federal civil rights laws, it’s disappointing that Harvard continues to engage in illegal race-based discrimination, especially after the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies were unconstitutional and illegal,” Perry told The Fix.

“Unfortunately, Harvard apparently still hasn’t learned that compliance with federal civil rights laws isn’t optional or voluntary: it’s legally mandated,” he said.

Perry commended the EPP “for exposing and challenging Harvard’s latest attempt to circumvent federal civil rights laws.”

He said he is expecting the group to “prevail with a legal victory at the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/29/2026 - 21:45