Is Netflix Washed Now?

Today’s headline poses a question you’ve probably never thought to ask, so I’ll start with my answer: yes, Netflix is washed now. The content on the platform has never been great, but it’s never been worse. I open the app these days and I’m amazed. What used to be a source of fun, buzzy, compulsively watchable, and occasionally excellent TV and movies is now an endless river of reheated IP, true crime documentaries, and filler dressed as prestige. Millions of people watch this stuff, and everyone instantly forgets it.

I offer this observation as a swirl of heightened anxiety surrounds the company, so let me clarify one thing up front: I’m not predicting imminent doom. Netflix content reaches a staggering 85% of American viewers and has 325 million subscribers globally. Growth is slowing, but that’s the law of large numbers. If practically everyone in America and much of the world is already subscribed to some version of Netflix, and churn rates are still low, then any concern is relative. Going forward: cable is still dying, and even if the biggest premium distribution platform in the world can’t make great content of its own, it can still license movies, TV and sports rights. Netflix can then spread those costs across hundreds of millions of subscribers and a steadily growing ads business, seeing more engagement in a week than Apple TV sees in a year.

So no, the company’s not doomed today or destined for collapse tomorrow. Instead, I think what’s interesting to consider is that Netflix has almost certainly peaked. As a cultural force, as a business success story, and as an entertainment death star destined to swallow Hollywood whole, the arrows are all pointing the wrong direction.

Here was Lucas Shaw at Bloomberg two weeks ago, writing about one of several problems the company has encountered over the past 12 months:

Netflix is struggling to get viewers to stick with its shows for more than a season.

One Piece, one of Netflix’s most-watched shows of 2023, lost more than 30% of its audience for the second season. Season two of Beef suffered a drop of more than 70%. The Night Agent shed 50% of its audience for the second season and another 35% for its third season. These figures are all through the first four weeks of a show’s release and come straight from Netflix.

Adding insult to injury, the latest season of Avatar: The Last Airbender, one of Netflix’s most-watched titles in 2024, suffered a drop of more than 60% over week one. That doesn’t bode well for the rest of the month.

That report went viral, prompting a week of commentary on Netflix’s binge model and elongated release schedules, with lots of Twitter users observing that viewers consume eight episodes across a few days and then often have to wait as long as two or three years for the next season. By that point, memories of plot or characters are faint at best. The emotional connection to the story doesn’t exist. No one should be surprised that the audience for a show like One Piece is cut in half in 2026, three years after the first season aired.

While that explanation certainly feels true, Shaw followed up this week to note that data is mixed as to whether extended breaks between seasons do in fact correlate to audience drop-off. Severance, on Apple, gained a ton of new audience after its nearly three-year break. Stranger Things and Bridgerton have been multi-season powerhouses at Netflix despite their long breaks between seasons. Conversely, Tina Fey’s Four Seasons debuted on Netflix in May last year, was met with pretty good reviews, and returned 13 months later with half its audience.

I think the Netflix problem is more fundamental than production schedules. What if these shows just aren’t very good or differentiated? Consider the original productions Netflix has surfaced in the past few months:

• A Good Girl’s Guide to Murder
• Running Point
• Lord of the Flies
• Something Very Bad Is Going to Happen
• Unchosen
• XO, Kitty
• Big Mistakes
• Beef
• Man on Fire
• Little House on the Prairie
• His & Hers
• Nemesis
• The Boroughs

That list is culled from a post by the Entertainment Strategy Guy charting Netflix originals that have under-performed in the second quarter of 2026, and one common thread between those titles is that I haven’t heard of almost any of them. Netflix is the one streaming service everyone subscribes to and is theoretically well positioned to be setting the cultural agenda, but that hasn’t happened for quite some time. Did you know that Avatar: The Last Airbender was a thing? Apparently that show lost 60% of its season one audience when its second season aired in late June.

Content and the Year of Discontent

I mentioned the anxiety surrounding Netflix these days, so let me take a step back here. Amazingly, it’s only been eight months since Netflix won the bidding war to buy Warner Bros. Discovery and looked poised to become an entire generation’s one-stop shop for high-end entertainment. The implications of that news produced lots of anxiety, including one of my first articles on this website—Netflix and the Flattening of Everything—and a memorably ominous Variety cover that captured Hollywood’s mood at the time:

The Warner Brothers deal was abandoned at the end of February, when Netflix walked away from the table in the face of regulatory pressure from Washington and an increased bid from Paramount. Even so, the market hated the initial play, as investors wondered en masse why the world’s most (only?) successful streaming platform was suddenly ready to take on a mountain of new debt to acquire a company that had already been the subject of several expensive, failed acquisitions over the past 25 years.

Now, even as the deal is off, the questions remain. Are we sure a Netflix world takeover is a forgone conclusion? Is Netflix sure? The stock is down 18% this year and over 40% across the past 12 months. Investors who did a double take last December seem to have noticed that YouTube has twice the overall engagement that Netflix does, and more time watched on televisions, while free, ad-supported TV services like Tubi and the Roku Channel are becoming meaningful engagement competitors themselves.

Meanwhile, alongside all the original programming that’s failed to launch (or re-launch?), Netflix is adding videos from BuzzFeed, Condé Nast, Hearst and Penske Media (as Shaw notes: “Get ready for lots of Bon Appétit cooking videos on Netflix.”) Last fall the platform also added a variety of high-end podcasts in a bid for relatively cheap, recurring content that may be seeing underwhelming results. Then again, they continue to buy more, so who knows? Elsewhere, the Wall Street Journal reports that Netflix executives have “recently discussed adding live channels that would continuously stream certain programs, or shows and films from a certain genre.” Can Netflix become HBO before HBO becomes Netflix? Can Netflix become Tubi before Tubi destroys Netflix’s long-term pricing power?

All of those moves might have once been seen as the savvy power plays of a world-conquering behemoth intent on taking the next step to expand its footprint. Today, in the shadow of a Warner Brothers bid that accidentally punctured the company’s air of inevitability, this year’s moves look more like spaghetti being thrown at a wall by a company that’s searching for something—anything!—that might hold people’s attention and scale more effectively than an expensive library of content that’s consumed, discarded, and then effectively worthless.

Looking back at the deal to acquire Warner Brothers, HBO and all that IP, I think it’s clear Ben Thompson was right when he wrote that concerns over competition from YouTube specifically and the internet generally were likely key drivers of Netflix’s decision-making. Those concerns seem to be animating all the other options the company is considering, and understandably so. The same way that the rise of social media has throttled the growth of the gaming market, it stands to reason it could do the same to demand for scripted content. With respect to the specific Netflix logic for buying WBD, that context is important: the biggest companies, with the deepest, most diverse libraries, will have the best chance at defending themselves in this new environment. [...]

I like to leave all Aggregator analysis to Ben, but I don’t think investors are crazy to have some questions about where this leads and what the upside looks like. For all the advantages its massive customer base affords (leverage over costs, advertising upside), an obvious difference between Netflix and businesses like Meta, YouTube, or Google—the other demand aggregators—is that Netflix has to spend far more money to deliver on its value proposition to customers and has fewer network effects to defend its long-term centrality to people’s lives.

by Ben Thompson and Andrew Sharp, Sharp Text |  Read more:

Images: Al Bello/Getty Images for Netflix; Variety

[ed. See also: Predictions on the Future of Netflix (and Other Huge Platforms) (Honest Broker).]

A Script for Mark Zuckerberg

The setting: Meta’s earnings call in early August, 2026.

The speaker: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to Meta Platforms’ Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. Our remarks today will include forward-looking statements, which are based on assumptions as of today. Actual results may differ materially as a result of various factors, including those set forth in today’s earnings press release and in our quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement.

I know it’s weird that I, Mark Zuckerberg, am doing the Director of Investor Relations job, but anything is possible when this speech is made up. What follows isn’t actually me: it’s what Ben Thompson of Stratechery thinks I should say on this call.

I know that Meta and myself are facing a lot of questions about AI, particularly the amount of money we are spending on capex. Our core business is an asset-light cash generation machine, so why are we spending tens of billions of dollars on AI? To answer this question I want to give you a quick recount of our history, what I’ve learned, and why I am so confident that we are doing the right thing for our future. So let’s get to it.

A Brief History of Facebook

Facebook was, as you know, the digital representation of Harvard’s analog Face Books. What was clear from the very first day we went live was the extent to which humans are, first and foremost, interested in other humans. People would spend hours clicking around to people’s pages. To put it another way, our first algorithm was human curiosity.

What truly super-charged Facebook usage, however — and which transformed the Internet — was the feed. Now, instead of actively surfing to friends’ pages to look for an update, we showed updates to you in a single feed on your homepage.

You might remember that we got a lot of heat for this decision, including protestors outside our office in Palo Alto. The lesson we took from that, however, is one that has guided us to this day: first, the revealed preference of users, as captured by data, was that they loved the feed: engagement skyrocketed. Second, we learned to trust our own — my own — product intuition, and that conviction has served us well over the years.

Another critical moment in our early history was the shift to mobile. We didn’t get this right in the beginning — more on that in a moment — but what was quickly apparent is that more access to Facebook meant more usage of Facebook. I can’t emphasize this point enough: when humans can connect to humans, they do, and when they can do it more conveniently and in more places, they do it more often.

Finally, I would be remiss to not mention Instagram. Obviously Instagram has been a major part of our growth over the last 15 years — and, I would add, we have been a major part of Instagram’s growth. To that end, an important thing to understand about Instagram is the extent to which it has evolved. Just because we gave our users what they wanted at one particular moment in time does not mean we can afford to sit still: more bandwidth first meant more pictures in Stories, and then video in Reels. Instagram has gone from strength-to-strength precisely because it has changed as technology has changed.

My Mistakes

We — I — haven’t done everything perfectly. We’ve taken our arrows through the years for lots of things that frankly aren’t our fault, but are rather the reality of being the primary communications platform for all of humanity, and humanity is flawed. I’m proud of the efforts we have made to ameliorate humanity’s worst impulses while enabling some of our best tendencies, including that desire to connect.

Rather, my mistake is itself a very human one: for many years I have resisted embracing what Facebook — now Meta — is, and spent too much time trying to emulate some of the tech titans who came before me. Specifically, I have been obsessed with becoming a platform.

The first manifestation of this error was the initial shift to mobile I referenced above. When Facebook was primarily a browser app I invested heavily in trying to build a platform, with things like Facebook Games, payments, etc. We had some success there — some of you on this call might have played Farmville back in the day — but when mobile came along we mistakenly tried to hold onto web technologies that supported my vision, and were years too late in investing in a truly native smartphone experience.

The reality — and this is hard for me to admit — is that Apple saved us from my mistaken obsession. Mobile Made Facebook Just an App, and that was Great News. Instead of diminishing the Facebook experience so that we could feature third-party developers, we had to cede that space to Apple and put our own content front-and-center. It turns out that was what people wanted the most; in fact, they wanted it so much that they willingly scrolled through and clicked on the most compelling ad units ever. And make no mistake, we paid back our debt: Facebook built the App Store just as much as Apple did.

My second error was Reality Labs. While in recent years I have framed our acquisition of Oculus and virtual reality as a necessary response to Apple’s attempt to handicap our business, the truth is that I invested twelve figures into this technology because I thought it was cool, and yes, because I wanted to own a platform. I do think we’ve made compelling strides in this area — and we’ve created technology that is going to matter in the long run — but I now recognize that part of the reason I am delivering this mea culpa right now is because I burned a lot of credibility with investors with all of the losses Reality Labs has endured with very little to show for it.

My third error was not in trying to make Facebook something it was not, but rather failing to appreciate what it had become. While I was thinking about platforms, I took it for granted that connection was enough for the core business; in fact, Facebook had evolved into entertainment, at least in its public-facing forms (I will take credit for the acquisition of WhatsApp and realizing that Messaging Was Mobile’s Killer App). This was an insight that TikTok figured out first, and it was a blindspot for me.

The Ad Blindspot

What I’ve come to realize is that all of these mistakes are symptoms of what has been my biggest failing as CEO: all of you on this call have appreciated our ad business more than I have. I’ve been very blessed as CEO to have excellent co-workers who have over the years developed the world’s best digital ad business, while I frankly haven’t taken as much interest as I should have.

My failure to appreciate our ad business is another lens through which to examine my mistakes:

• Building a platform is antithetical to building an ad business. A platform’s goal is to feature third-parties; an advertiser’s goal is to capture attention for itself.

• Investing in an entirely new technology, including developing hardware, fundamentally limits our addressable market; an advertiser’s goal is to maximize its market size.

• Entertainment is the best possible category for an advertiser to own: people willingly give entertainment their attention, which is exactly what an advertiser wants to sell.

This neglect as CEO left us badly exposed in our disputes with Apple. I firmly believe that Apple’s characterization of digital advertising was unfair, dishonest, and self-serving. What I failed to do, not just in that bruising battle but in the years leading up to it, was make the affirmative case for ads generally, and Meta ads in particular.

It’s easy to see how the Internet has made it possible for an entirely new category of entrepreneurs to create products that uniquely serve the tremendous capacity of humans to manufacture an infinite array of desires, growing the economy to the benefit of everyone; what’s harder to appreciate — in part because I haven’t made the case — is that the only way to connect those creators to the consumers who love them is digital advertising. We don’t serve ads like Google — or Apple in the App Store, or Amazon on Amazon.com — that in many respects function as a tax on search; we show people products they never knew existed, but that immediately generate desire and, ultimately, happiness. In short, I believe that we are a force for good in the world, not just because we connect people to each other, but because we connect entrepreneurs with customers in a way no one else does.

Why AI Matters

Forgive the long preamble, but this is necessary context for me to properly explain why AI is so important to Meta, and why I am making the right choice to invest so heavily in both talent and infrastructure.

First, when investors compliment our asset-light business, what they are complimenting is the fact that our business is purely digital. Everything digital, however, is firmly within AI’s cross-hairs. It may seem odd to begin my AI pitch by highlighting terminal value risk, but today is about honesty: every single digital company on earth faces an existential threat from AI, and we are no exception. Meta must invest in AI because a failure to do so would cost us far more in the fullness of time, particularly now that we’ve seen the very real risks entailed in depending on a third-party.

Second, AI makes our business better — and by “our business”, I mean ads. AI is more than LLMs: it is machine learning, and we have been using machine learning to improve our ads business for years. More recently, we have developed GPU-dependent algorithms that have significantly improved our ability to not just target ads but also recommend content, which keeps people entertained longer, which lets us serve them more ads. And, looking forward, LLMs themselves will transform advertising, not just by generating copy and images, but by predicting the ads and content that people want to see. Every single one of these improvements goes directly to our top line — and remember, because advertising enables us to offer our products for free, the capacity to increase our top line is unbounded by price elasticity.

Third, the single most important indicator that our business is on the verge of a step-change in growth is when we dramatically increase inventory. This is something investors regularly get wrong: back when we added Stories, investors panicked about falling prices-per-ad without realizing we were increasing inventory we could grow into. Five years later, investors made the exact same mistake with Reels. Those were the two best opportunities to buy Meta stock — or any stock, really — in history. We are facing an even larger opportunity over the next several years. AI makes every pixel monetizable, which means we are looking at the largest inventory expansion ever. Yes, it will take a few years to realize this opportunity, but the technology is there.

More importantly, what I’ve come to realize as I’ve embraced our status as an entertainment provider and ad purveyor is that — our nature as a digital business notwithstanding — we are remarkably well-placed to thrive in an AI era. Remember what we learned about humans: they are obsessed with other humans, and they want to connect with them; that obsession and desire are only going to increase as we interact more and more with AI. AI is going to make our properties more essential, not less.

Moreover — and here I must issue one more mea culpa — AI is a productivity tool, but productivity is not the end-all-be-all of the human experience. I have talked over the last year about building superintelligence that helps you get things done, but that’s a business story. What we can uniquely do is give people the experiences they want — from connection to entertainment to shopping — when they are off the clock. The fact that we are investing in AI but not selling solutions to businesses is actually one of our biggest advantages.

Oh, and by the way, AI might actually lead to new hardware paradigms. I admit I was wrong to spend so much time on virtual reality, but that did lay the groundwork for a unique opportunity to develop devices that make much more sense in a world where we want to access AI everywhere, not just on a phone in our pocket.

The Compute Hurdle

I know that many of you on this call have doubted my investment decisions before — and I understand the consternation about Reality Labs in particular. However, keep in mind that when our stock dipped in 2022, one of the big reasons was because of our aggressive capex spending, which went primarily to GPUs; ChatGPT came out a month later, and that decision to spend heavily with Nvidia looked incredibly prescient in hindsight.

That prescience, however, pales in comparison to the payoff that will accrue to anyone with the foresight to build data centers and buy compute over the last several years, and for years into the future. We don’t have the luxury of waiting until the future is invented and then investing; we need to invest now, especially when the opportunity in front of us — with ads specifically — is so apparent.

by Ben Thompson, Stratechery |  Read more:

Image: uncredited via

[ed. Less social network, more optimizing ad juggernaut. See also: Anthropic is in talks to lease computing power from Meta, potentially for $10 billion over two years, so this would be smaller than the Anthropic deal with SpaceX. Meta is considering it. They would turn a profit on the compute, but to do that they have to admit they don’t have a better use for it. via.]

Tariffs For Debt

Donald Trump’s most consequential construction project may not be a ballroom or an arch, but his tariff wall... By the end of this month, the administration is expected to introduce major tariffs on dozens of countries intended to ensure what once was a temporary regime lasts well beyond this presidency. Unlike most previous rounds of tariffs, including the ones just threatened on Canada, the new ones are backed by monthslong investigations into alleged unfair trade practices by other countries. No court has ever overturned this kind of tariff.

But the biggest obstacle to undoing Mr. Trump’s tariffs after 2028 won’t be legal. It will be financial. With the national debt clocking in at a staggering $39.6 trillion, the market responsible for selling this debt has quickly grown addicted to the money coming into the government every day thanks to tariffs. Few politicians are willing to upset the bond market given that it dictates the cost of borrowing money for some of the most important purchases Americans make including their cars and their homes. Rather than be constrained by these forces, the next president can find a way to use them to the country’s advantage.

It’s a situation almost no one saw coming. It was the bond market that originally thwarted Mr. Trump’s tariffs only 15 months ago.

In April 2025, on the so-called Liberation Day, the president threatened to raise tariffs on nearly everything America imports to their highest level in nearly a century. Bond markets panicked, fearing that a global trade war could bring higher prices and slow growth, and they went into a nosedive, leading Mr. Trump to pause his plans a week later. “I was watching the bond market. The bond market is very tricky,” he admitted at the time.

But Mr. Trump, still convinced that tariffs are the best economic weapon he has available to fix what he believes is an unfair trading system, never abandoned the strategy. In the months following, he relentlessly added tariffs on countries including America’s major trading partners. This time, the bond market shrugged. It certainly helped that the risk of a global trade war faded as Europe, India and Japan all declined to retaliate. At the same time, the United States was adding an estimated $40 billion a week to the national debt. Wall Street found that number much easier to swallow thanks to the new tariff money flowing into the Treasury.

Three months after Liberation Day, the Trump administration used the funds it had raised from tariffs to convince Congress that it had a way to pay for the sweeping tax cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill. “The Congressional Budget Office put out a 10-year estimate that says that the tariff revenue that’s already in place right now is going to raise $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years,” noted Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council. That, he said, was “deficit reduction right there.” By the end of 2025, the government had taken in a record $264 billion in net tariff revenue — more than triple the receipts from the previous year.

In less than a year, America’s financial markets went from hating tariffs, to being able to live with them, to needing them to help cope with the country’s deficit.

The latest evidence came this winter. In February, the Supreme Court struck down the president’s authority to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to levy tariffs. Investors rapidly sold off bonds over worries about the cost of refunds and the end of a revenue stream. Instead of panicking about the introduction of tariffs, the bond market was fretting over the possibility of losing them.

Mr. Trump had a plan ready. Within hours, the administration introduced backup tariffs, and by the end of the day, the market had settled down. When those backup tariffs expire this week, the administration will step in again with new tariffs, ones the courts have consistently said that presidents have the authority to impose. Those could generate nearly $ 1 trillion over the next 10 years.

Over that period, our increasingly untenable national debt is likely to put even more fiscal pressure on future presidents. Regardless of who wins in 2028, the desire to avoid the wrath of the bond market may be at a high.

Mr. Trump’s successor will have options. The next president could keep some tariffs while rebalancing where the revenue comes from — and he should.

Mr. Trump’s recent trade strategy has been to put tariffs on everyone, whether friend or foe. What about a more targeted approach? The logical place to focus is China. Considering that it is now running the largest trade surplus in history, the case against China is stronger than at any point in the past decade.

The smart move would be to cut our allies a deal. The United States could partly lower tariffs on its partners in return for their help raising tariffs on key sectors in China. European leaders, feeling pressure from a crushing wave of Chinese exports on everything from cars to chemicals to steel to solar panels, are likely to be much more receptive to this arrangement than in years past.

by Josh Lipsky, NY Times |  Read more:

Image: Daniel Ribar for The New York Times

[ed. I'm not an economist but it sounds like we're making everyone else pay for our insane, ballooning debt? How long can that go on?  And why would European countries want to help the US at this point after being forced to develop new supply chains for everything from defense to EVs to solar panels etc. after US trade policy became unpredictable and punitive? At least with China they know who and what they're dealing with.]

Our Uncertain Uncertainties

Even the experts inventing AI don’t know what will happen next. Is artificial general intelligence even possible? Can scaling continue? Will we need massive compute centers to make AI, or can we do it with a mere 25 watts like we do in our brains? What will humans do as AI gets smarter? What does the future of the economy, of warfare, or civil society look like?

Everyone has a different guess. The people creating the machines have as many different ideas as the onlookers, the pundits, the other scientists, and the wisest among us. No one knows. There is a vibe that we’ll know within the next three years. For some, the pace of change suggests that if things continue as they have been, by 2029 at the latest, the outlines of an AI-first world will have emerged. By then we’ll have answered the question of scaling, we’ll have seen the effects on employment, and we’ll have felt its acceleration in the economy – or not.

That’s a reasonable, and not outlandish scenario. But I offer an alternative scenario which I think we should also keep in mind: AI continues to surprise us at its core. As AI continues to evolve rapidly there will be no resolution to these questions in 3 years. By 2029, we still won’t know if AGI is possible, we can’t tell if employment is disrupted, and we still can’t say if it is worth the huge investment. I don’t mean AI progress stalls. I mean, AI continues to advance, but the new stuff doesn’t answer the old questions, it only expands our ignorance because the new is new in a new way. We have to alter our ideas (and measurements) of employment, we have to amend our concepts (and measurements) of the economy, and we have to shift our ideas of what AI even is.

In other words, we have a sustained, extended period of uncertainty. Not just a few years, but a decade or more. As AI continues to progress, rather than resolving our perplexity, it expands it. So for the next 10-15 years we have perpetual, continuous, severe uncertainty. This is a burdensome weight because people hate uncertainty more than bad news.

It goes deeper. AI is only one leg of this grand uncertainty. In the next decade the US will continue its slide off its pinnacle of a sole global superpower, while China continues to rise in power and prestige. This shift toward a duopoly prompts a new world order, and no one – especially the Chinese and Americans – knows how this will play out. The uncertainty around this shift is nearly boundless, and yet its indeterminate consequences will affect everyone in the world, but especially the US. Being dethroned from the century-long position of sole #1 will be a huge psychological blow, and the uncertainty of what follows will weigh heavy on all aspects of life. The uncertainty of a new role spreads over China as well, because while they are zooming ahead at 1,000 miles per hour, they have no idea where they are headed. The uncertainty of global relationships and new national identity, plus the uncertainty of individual worth and identity from AI increases the overall uncertainty levels to new highs. All this is a very large puzzle and will not be resolved in 3 years. This will be a sustained uncertainty.

It goes deeper still. After a long first wave of true globalization, there are now whirlpools of chaos and polarization as nations adjust to world-wide immigration and the borderless spread of modern culture, causing chaos in national politics, and sowing mistrust with the establishment. Anarchy, disruption, contrarian antics, blows to the states, seem to be the norm in countries all around the world. This wild chaos is being fueled in part by the new technologies of social media which have replaced the managed care of established media. News now is far more volatile, hard to control by anyone, and further elevates the already amplified uncertainty. There is a visceral sense that civics is headed into an unknown territory of near-permanent provisionalism.

Additionally, AI also forces even the most moderate person to question the truth of what they read, see or hear. Is that real or AI generated? How much has been manipulated? Who do you trust to disclose what is real? How do we come to agree that something is true? The traditional mechanisms of trust have been damaged by AI, so that this new technological realm generates a huge uncertainty. As AI gets more skilled at imitating reality, this uncertainty is likely to keep increasing for a while, and not just 3 years. The uncertainty meter is now deep in the red zone.

Finally, the ambiguity and indefinite nature of AI, or human identity, or whether what we see is real or generated, means that we are entering a period where we are even uncertain of our doubts. Our uncertainty is so deep and durable, yet elusive, that we will have extended uncertainty about whether we are uncertain. We can have major agreements on what we know versus what we don’t know. In the model of Rumsfeld’s Unknown Unknowns, we will be confronted by Uncertain Uncertainties. And they will prevail for at least a decade or more. [...]

Given the inherent unknowability of this era, what would some of the signs be that we are in it? They might look like this: in 5 years, 1) There are high-profile disagreements among leading AI researchers on whether AGI is here. 2) Reputable economists can’t determine if productivity has increased or decreased. 3) Lower public confidence in media platforms and established institutions. 4) The US and China cannot decide whether they are allies nor adversaries. 5) There are ambiguous spikes in employment rates in both directions. 6) Medical levels of anxiety increase. 7) Major court decisions leave as many questions as answers. 8) Commitments (marriage, work) are postponed even later in life. 9) Investing, capital allocation becomes more expensive. 10) Nihilism gets respect.

A great question to ask when creating a scenario is what could prevent it from happening? Maybe there is not a single force that can undo this sustained uncertainty, but perhaps it is a mixture of several. If AGI arrived without a doubt in 3 years and China took over Taiwan despite the US’s actions, and if companies found a way to embed reliability and trust in media, then maybe this extended uncertainty could cease.

A second question to ask, is if we find ourselves in this scenario, what should we do about it? The most effective response to this multi-layered persistent uncertainty is not to seek impossible stability, but to cultivate radical adaptability and radical optionality. Give up on having a reliable prediction of what happens next. Instead cultivate multiple scenarios of what could happen, and endeavor with each of them to maximize your options. Goals should be considered as disposable hypotheses, constantly ready to be discarded and replaced by better-fitting concepts later on. You will be dead wrong on 19 out of your 20 expectations, but at least one of them will allow you to proceed. Make your decisions not on whether they are “right” but on whether they tend to give you more options later.

In our era of uncertain uncertainty, certainty will be the killer. In this era more downfalls will happen because of overconfidence than questioning. The key is to not get stuck on just one option. You have to become at ease holding multiple contradictory possibilities at once. (To prevent yourself from being swept away by the latest current and fashionable whim, this radical adaptability must be anchored on a steadfast set of unchangeable virtues, as corny as honesty, or as slick as generosity.) The strategy for prospering in prolonged uncertainty must be one of constant, agile recalibration.

In short, in our age of uncertainty, you have to get good at changing your mind.

by Kevin Kelly, Substack |  Read more:

Image: uncredited

[ed. The diagnosis might be right but the prescription seems weak. Flexibility and adaptability are always good qualities to cultivate, but the challenges confronting us require more. Here's an example of embracing multiple contradictory possibilities: maybe in times of uncertainty we double down on the few things that we actually can be certain of. How? By making good choices, before and after AGI. For example, Buddhism starts with the acknowledgement that life is hard. It's what you do after internalizing that fact that matters. There are value systems and paths that can lead to a meaningful life, or enlightenment if you want to call it that, but we have to make the right choices if we're to find them. Love, family, friendships, ethical living (like the golden rule) are common values we all share. So why not embrace those values as tightly as we can while navigating the stormy seas to come - and using the best minds in the world (that are being born as we speak) to guide and assist us in strengthening those bonds? This might be one of the benefits of AI: forcing us to reorganize societies in ways that might never have been possible before, or even imaginable. If we make the right choices. Developing Plans A to Z and having 20 options each or something like that sounds like a Hunger Games scenario to me - all reaction and no responsibility. We have the opportunity now (even if forced) to redefine our human destiny. The choices we make will define our places in the future.]

The ACA Death Spiral Is No Longer Just a Theory

Insurers are now quantifying what experts long warned would happen: healthier consumers are leaving the marketplace, premiums are rising, and affordability is deteriorating.

I’ve long warned that letting the enhanced ACA subsidies expire could set off a classic insurance death spiral: healthier people priced out first, a sicker risk pool left behind, higher premiums as a result, more healthy people priced out — rinse and repeat. Reports this week from KFF News and other media outlets about 2027 rate filings is the first time I’ve seen that mechanism actually measured rather than predicted.

Insurers filing preliminary 2027 rates in 16 states and D.C. are asking for a median 14% increase, according to a Peterson-KFF analysis. If the rates are approved by state regulators, that would be the second-highest jump since 2018. What makes this year’s filings different from a routine “medical costs went up” story is that insurers are saying that about four percentage points of that increase is the direct result of the enhanced subsidies expiring because of Congressional inaction – and healthier people leaving the pool as a consequence. Another chunk — UnitedHealthcare put it at 12.7% in its New York filing — is attributed to new Trump administration enrollment rules that make it harder to sign up and stay signed up.

In other words, what we’re now seeing is insurance companies telling regulators that the failure of Congress to extend the subsidies, along with the Trump administration’s new enrollment rules — not just rising medical costs — are a measurable share of what ACA marketplace premiums will be next year.

I want to be careful here because its too early to suggest that a death spiral is definitely underway. A full death spiral means an insurance market becomes non-viable — premiums rise, enrollment collapses, insurers exit the market, and coverage disappears entirely for a region or population. That is not what’s happening in the ACA marketplace right now. Enrollment is down about 3 million from last year, which is not a collapse. Federal risk-adjustment programs are still functioning. Most subsidized, low-income enrollees — the bulk of the marketplace — are still price-protected because their subsidies rise automatically as premiums rise. Some insurers are leaving this market – including big ones like Aetna and Cigna, where I used to work – but most insurers are still filing to participate in 2027 in most states, not fleeing the market (not yet, anyway).

What we’re seeing so far seems to be a self-reinforcing cost spiral concentrated among the roughly 5% of enrollees earning above 400% of the federal poverty line who lost all subsidy protection when the enhanced tax credits expired at the end of 2025. For them, the mechanism KFF describes is real and is compounding. And this is the second consecutive year of double-digit marketplace rate increases, on top of last year’s subsidy cliff. While that’’s a genuine affordability crisis for a specific population, it’s not evidence the whole system is on the verge of collapse. But, going forward, as more people continue to drop coverage because of premium increases, the affordability crisis will encompass more enrollees, and more of them will join the ranks of the uninsured.

by Wendell Potter, Healthcare Un-Covered |  Read more:

Image: uncredited

[ed. Thanks to the Big, Beautiful, Backstabbing Bill passed by Republicans, which means more emergency room visits by uninsured people, and higher insurance premiums for the rest of us (exacerbated by cuts to Medicaid). Also, more people pushed into bankruptcy. See also: The Other Health Care Cliff Americans Are About to Fall Off  (high deductibles); and, In Preliminary Rate Filings, ACA Marketplace Insurers Largely Propose Double-Digit Premium Increase For 2027, Following a Steep Climb This Year (KFF); and, despite all this, Republican voters continue to internalize waste, fraud and abuse messaging as being the most important issue (KFF).]

We're Headed for a Depression Worse Than 2008; and Military Spending Isn't Helping

[ed. Which sounds like the good news if AI doesn't kill us all first.]

Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai discuss many of the long-operating forces that have been eating away at the foundations of the American economy, from its super-sized military to neoliberalism and financialization, now exhibiting many late-stage pathologies, from asset speculation to extreme wealth concentration. And as bad as those trends have been, Trump has succeeded in making them worse.

  

Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai examine the gap between Trump's promised economic boom and the reality of an economy sustained by asset bubbles rather than production. They show that the stock market's rise reflects cheap credit, buybacks, and speculation rather than profit, a Ponzi-scheme dynamic that cannot survive the oil shock triggered by Trump's war on Iran. His tariffs have not reversed deindustrialization, and his refusal to end that war guarantees the inflation he promised to kill. The result is a starkly K-shaped economy, in which the wealthiest 1% have seen their assets grow from $10 trillion to over $50 trillion in twenty-five years while the bottom half of Americans have gone from nothing to nothing, pushing the US toward a depression as serious as the 1930s and eroding even his own base's faith in him.

00:00 – Highlights 

01:12 – Channel introduction 

02:02 – Iran war escalation and the coming global oil/energy shock 

06:56 – The dollar's shift from treasury-based to stock market speculation (Ponzi bubble) 13:56 – China's stabilizing role vs. the Fed's inflation-vs-interest-rate gap 

25:06 – Inflation, GDP growth, and why "growth" numbers are largely fake (rents, fees) 34:00 – De-industrialization, manufacturing job losses, and shrinking labor force participation 

42:06 – The K-shaped economy: stock market boom vs. wealth inequality, and Trump's collapsing approval ratings  [...]

Radhika Desai:

Today we have decided to talk about the US economy under Trump. Now, of course, Trump is doing everything in his power to suck the oxygen out of the story about the economy. That includes continuing to escalate wars and all sorts of diplomatic and other shenanigans that he is constantly involved in, berating leaders of other countries and generally trying to make a big spectacle of himself... Anyway, all of these shenanigans are designed to distract attention from the biggest story, the condition of the US economy. Notwithstanding his unhinged and genocidal antics, the topic of the US economy simply will not go away. The world is settling down to summer before the midterm elections, and assessments of the US economy are proliferating. That is what we are going to talk about today, because the US voter votes on her economic condition, and her economic condition is not looking good at all. Michael, what are the headlines from your point of view?

Michael Hudson:

Well, the headline is really that the US economy is all about Donald Trump right now. The main thing, as you have just pointed out, is the war with Iran that he is escalating. Instead of rolling things back, he is bombing Iran. Iran has taken a response that is irreversible. It has closed down trade not only in the Strait of Hormuz but also in the Red Sea, with the Yemenis’ support, and it is bombing Bahrain’s port. It is absolutely certain that there is going to be a shutdown in the oil trade, and that is going to affect the entire world economy and push it into what I think is going to be as serious a depression as the 1930s. That is the US economy... It has been a huge expansion of financial wealth without any real expansion in living standards, real wages, or prosperity for most of the population. All of this financial wealth has been based on credit. Companies are not making more profits. The whole leadership of the stock market has been the seven AI companies linked to computers. AI is not making a profit; it is all speculation that we are going to expand and that there is going to be a huge market because everybody is going to use AI. But all of this market is dependent on computer chips that run on energy. We are going to see energy prices go way up, and that means electricity prices are going to go up. I want to briefly explain why the oil war is so important when we talk about the economy. [...]

Michael Hudson:

I want to explain just how that works. My whole premise in Super Imperialism is that after the United States went off the gold standard in 1971, all of this military spending, which is the major cause of the balance of payments deficit, ended up in foreign countries. The recipients took the dollars, turned them over to the central banks, and the central banks bought Treasury bonds and Treasury securities. What has happened in the last few years is that banks have stopped buying Treasury securities. The growth in international reserves has taken the form primarily of buying gold, not Treasury securities, and yet the US dollar remains strong. What has happened is that the private sector that has been receiving these dollars has not been turning them over to the government to recycle to the US as Treasuries, as you and I have been talking about. They have spent them into the US stock market. What has that done? It has inflated prices and ridden on the wave of the Federal Reserve supporting the banking system and creating huge asset price inflation, starting with the zero-interest-rate policy that Obama began. What has been creating all this financial wealth, making trillions of dollars for financial investors, has not been profits. It has been the ability to borrow at a low interest rate, including low interest rates in Japan, to buy US securities, bid up the prices of stocks, and create a huge credit overhead. So it is not a profit bubble; it is a Ponzi-scheme capital-gains bubble. It is a credit-creation bubble.

The problem is what happens when there aren’t the profits to support the stock buyback programs and the dividend payouts that have enabled borrowers to carry the debts they have taken on to bid up the stocks. If the credit begins to be rolled back here, and two weeks ago we talked about how Warsh and Bessent want to roll back the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, they want to begin selling the Federal Reserve bonds that they have been buying in recent years to help liquefy the economy. The economy is going to be made much less liquid, and all of a sudden it is like a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme requires more and more people buying into it to provide the revenue to pay off investors. If interest rates go up, there is no more recycling of all this money into the stock market to help support things, and there is going to be a huge write-down. When that happens, stocks begin to fall. With higher energy prices, higher food prices, and higher costs of doing business, companies will go out of business. The Financial Times and main business sites have been saying the real problem is private equity. They have borrowed money from the banking system to buy companies, and now some of these companies are going to be running losses and closing down operations because it is not profitable to operate with high oil prices, high energy prices, and high electricity prices. Once they close down operations, they will not be able to pay the debts they have taken on, creating the same snowball effect that people expected in 2008–2009, when Obama decided on a bailout of the banks and decades of asset-price inflation to keep the bubble going and save the banking system. We are talking about the dynamics set in motion by the oil war, the rise in energy prices, and the AI demands for electricity that cannot be met because there is no electricity supply. All of this hopium has evaporated, and the result is going to be the serious depression we have been talking about all along. Yet the stock market idles along as if everything is all right. Our point is that these changes are irreversible. You cannot reverse a debt-inflated economy without wiping out the debts. How does that happen? Companies go bankrupt. There is not going to be a Brady Plan for the American economy. It is going to be companies going broke, and there will be a capital flight out of the dollar, not into the dollar. The whole world balance is being thrown out of kilter in a way that, unlike 2009, there is no monetary solution to a problem of actual physical supply of energy, electricity, oil, and chemicals not being available. This is the grand interruption that we are going to be talking about.

by Radhika Desai with Michael Hudson, Naked Capitalism |  Read more:

Image: YouTube

[ed. Not to mention the trillion bucks or so we're spending on the military each year, and the insane level of national debt that's accruing each day (nearly $40 trillion and counting (see this real time clock). The military's current arsenal is also severely depleted and will likely require even more big bucks to replenish expensive weapons systems (that are likely to be antiquated as soon as they're delivered as kinetic warfare rapidly shifts to AI controlled drones (NYT); see also: The US is Blowing Billions on the Wrong Weapons (Atlantic). Finally, remember that non-war we're not fighting? Iran War: Brief US Pause Followed by Renewed Strikes as Iran Intensifies Attacks on Bases and Kuwait Desalination; Continued Speculation About US Operation (NC):]

***

From Larry Johnson in The US Faces a Strategic Crisis with Iran…The Rapid Depletion of US Battlefield Missiles: [...]

These are not just the numbers currently in the hands of US CENTCOM (i.e., the US military command in charge of the war against Iran), these are the total numbers available to all of the US military commands. If these missiles are allocated evenly to the other two critical commands — i.e., EUCOM (European Command) and PACOM (Pacific Command) — then you begin to understand the gravity of this deficit.

Let’s take the case of the Tomahawk missile. Let’s assume there are 3,000 left (I believe that is a generous over estimate) and the remaining number are divided evenly among CENTCOM, EUCOM and PACOM… That means each command gets 1,000. Does anyone want to argue that in the event of a hot war with Russia or China that EUCOM and PACOM respectively would be able to sustain combat operations for more than four weeks? Hell, CENTCOM fired 850 of them during the first four weeks of EPIC FURY.

Here’s another major problem: All eight missile systems rely on rare earth elements — there are no exceptions among modern US precision-guided weapons. The dependence is nearly universal because rare earth permanent magnets are irreplaceable for the high-performance actuators, guidance motors, and seeker gimbals that make these weapons accurate. And who controls the supply chain of these rare earth minerals? China!…

The supply chain isn’t just about mining — it’s about processing, separation, and magnet manufacturing, which China controls:

Mining: China ~60% of global rare earth oxide production
Refining/Separation: China ~91%
Sintered NdFeB Magnet Manufacturing: China **~94%**

More Bad Behavior in Prediction Markets

Trump teleprompter aide made $100,000 betting on what Trump would say, reports say.

Kalshi is a high-tech prediction market that allows people to “forecast the future” (their term). It is about contracts and information, the company says, making its offerings more like a soybean futures contract than a round of blackjack or a pull on the one-armed bandit.

Still, prediction markets look a lot like betting if you squint, which is why states like New York have tried to regulate them under gambling laws. To head this off, Kalshi has sought federal protection under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Yes, this means regulation for Kalshi, but it also means the CFTC will sue states like Kentucky, Minnesota, Illinois, and Rhode Island, trying to pre-empt their laws in favor of a single national standard that the CFTC controls.

While this battle plays out, government insiders continue to generate insider trading stories after using their work knowledge to place bets “forecast the future” and make huge sums of money. The classic example, of course, was Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a US soldier who participated in planning the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro and then made $410,000 from that knowledge on the prediction site Polymarket. Van Dyke was arrested in April.

But there are also more ridiculous stories, such as disgraced former Congressman George Santos, who allegedly talked up his upcoming appearance at the State of the Union, secretly bet on whether he would attend, and then didn’t go at the last minute to score a payout.

This activity raises questions, like: How many people are gambling forecasting the future based on government secrets or insider knowledge? How many are actively manipulating results they have bet on? Even the Trump White House was concerned enough to issue a memo in March telling employees not to “use nonpublic information to buy or sell these contracts.”

But concerns have lingered, especially after major wins on contracts involving US government policy or actions. Such suspicions will not be helped by new allegations today from multiple outlets that insider trading on Kalshi has extended even to President Trump’s teleprompter operator, who allegedly made $100,000 “forecasting” specific words and phrases that might appear in Trump speeches.

The mention market

According to sources speaking to NPR, Trump aide Gabriel Perez bet on something called a “mention market.” This is a section of Kalshi where you can sink money into contracts on crucial questions such as “What will Domino’s say during their next earnings call?” (Currently, $26,000 has been invested in this question; the smart money thinks that “Parmesan” and “DomOS” are more likely to be mentioned than not.)

In the case of Perez, his “forecasting” allegedly took place over several months at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, and his contracts were sometimes adjusted in the middle of Trump speeches. According to ABC:

Sources say Perez typically has the final eyes on nearly all of the president’s prepared remarks—and is often known to take last-minute edits from Trump himself… In certain instances, investigators uncovered times when Perez would back out of certain bets mid-speech when Trump skipped over a portion of the speech that included a word he had previously bet would be mentioned, the sources said.

This conjures up an amazing mental image: The teleprompter operator for one of the world’s most powerful people tapping away at his phone during a Trump speech to ensure he made more money for himself. [...]

Whatever you want to call it, “predicting the future with money at stake” has become huge business in America. A recent (and terrific) long article by McKay Coppins in The Atlantic showed people what a year of online sports gambling looks like, and it raised serious questions about the negative issues that widespread, legal, bet-from-your-phone gambling might cause in a country where “roughly half of men ages 18 to 49 have an active account with an online sportsbook.”

by Nate Anderson, Ars Technica |  Read more:

Image: Getty

[ed. See also: Sucker (The Atlantic article) mentioned. And: Truth Social to sell trading firms 'fastest' access to Trump's posts (Reuters).]

Anyone Can Be a Millionaire; Not Everyone Has Enough Testosterone

[ed. Beavis and Butt-Head have opinions.]

In America, Almost Anyone Can Be a Millionaire

This week, I ignited a small controversy on social media by claiming that “the rich are rich because they work, while the poor are poor because they don’t.” My critics were offended that I would, in their eyes, demean the poor this way. But it’s just simple reality: the top 10 percent of Americans income earners work more than 7 hours per week more than earners in the bottom 10 percent. Less-educated Americans are less likely to work at all than those with more education.

Not looking for work or working too little is indeed the main cause of poverty in America. This may seem unkind, but my critics are missing the wonderful upside: in America, anyone can become wealthy if they work full time and save reasonably over their careers.

This is one of the first things that wowed me about America. I still vividly remember the time I visited Florida from Venezuela in the early 2010s and met a Cuban-American cashier at a local Publix. While she was scanning our items, she told us she was taking a vacation with her husband the following week, a cruise to the Caribbean.

I was amazed. How could a cashier afford to go on a cruise vacation? Cashiers live in deep poverty in Venezuela; in America they get to live like the Venezuelan upper class.

That story is not unusual. The Wall Street Journal recently profiled a Costco worker named Tony Barzar from Arizona. Barzar never went to college, only taking some community college classes without finishing. Nonetheless, working his entire life in grocery stores and Costco, he has amassed over $1 million in his 401(k) account. He also owns a home with a pool and has traveled to Europe twice in the last decade—all while making just shy of $33 per hour.

He got there not by some great feat, but by slow and steady saving.

by Daniel Di Martino, City Journal |  Read more:

Image: Getty

[ed. Hope his job is one that gets taken out by AI sooner rather than later.]

******

Hegseth wants a “High-T” military; doctors call it a clinical minefield

On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made the startling announcement that the US military would begin requiring all active duty and reserve personnel aged 30 and older to undergo mandatory screening for testosterone deficiency. The screenings will take place during yearly health assessments. Those under age 30 can also get screened on request.

In a short video posted on social media, Hegseth explained to the military community that the screenings and possible subsequent treatments are intended to “optimize your performance, your resilience, and your long-term health.” While saying that the initiative wasn’t about “artificial enhancement” and that members could decline treatment, Hegseth claimed that the testing and potential treatment was for “restoring and optimizing” capabilities, protecting “longevity,” and “ensuring you have the biological foundation required to sustain the fight.”

But will testosterone screening and treatment actually “optimize” our “warfighters”? Will it help most of them live longer? Should everyone else get screened and treated, too?

“A big fat ‘Oh, no'”

Screening people widely for medical conditions and then treating those who need it may sound like a huge social positive. But issues around male hypogonadism—the condition in which the body doesn’t produce enough testosterone—can be complex.

That’s why the Endocrine Society—made up of experts in the complex systems that release hormones in the body—posted a statement on the topic in the wake of Hegseth’s announcement. The document notes that “there is insufficient evidence to support a general recommendation to perform population-level screening for hypogonadism in asymptomatic men with measurement of blood testosterone level.”

To find out why, Ars Technica spoke with Professor Bradley Anawalt, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center. He specializes in endocrinology and men’s health.

“This is a great big fat ‘Oh, no,’” Anawalt said in reaction to Hegseth’s announcement. “We’re turning the clock back on rational healthcare. … I’m worried about the ethics. I’m worried about the health consequences. I’m worried about unnecessary evaluations, incorrect assessments, and incorrect diagnoses that lead to inappropriate prescriptions of testosterone.”

To understand why, let’s start with the basic question: Why might someone have low testosterone?

by Beth Mole, Ars Technica |  Read more:

Image: Getty|Stefani Reynolds
[ed. Definitely read the Comments Section on this one. It's like a salve for dementia. As one person noted, why does everything from this administration sound like it just came out of The Onion? See also: Bony Soldier Diving On Top Of Grenade Only Makes It Deadlier.]

Samsung Blows Out the Stops

Samsung passes Nvidia to become most profitable company in the world

Samsung announced stellar results last night, noting a 19x quarterly increase in operating profit, allowing the firm to pass Nvidia as the most profitable in the world. Kim Yong-Kwan, president and head of corporate management, strategy, and operations for Samsung Electronics' Device Solutions (DS) division, said that the semiconductor unit's 2026 operating profit will exceed everything it has earned across roughly 40 years in the chip business at a company town hall last Friday, according to a report published Monday by Korea JoongAng Daily.

Brokerage consensus puts Samsung's full-year 2026 operating profit near 300 trillion won ($196 billion), and its second-quarter figure at about 84.6 trillion won ($55.1 billion). Samsung easily beat the consensus with $58.5 billion when it posted preliminary results on July 7, overtaking Nvidia's most recent quarterly operating profit of $53.54 billion and becoming the most profitable technology company in the world for the period, on the back of AI-driven memory demand.

Samsung's DS division booked 53.7 trillion won ($35.1 billion) of the company's 57.2 trillion won in total operating profit during the first quarter of 2026, roughly 94% of the total, which is why the division's projection sits so close to Samsung's full-year consensus.

"This year's profit will exceed the cumulative profit generated over the past 40 years since we entered the semiconductor business," Kim Yong-Kwan told staff, scoping the claim to the chip business rather than the wider conglomerate.

Samsung entered the semi space by acquiring Korea Semiconductor in 1974 and shipped its first 64Kb DRAM in the mid-1980s. SamMobile estimates the division's cumulative operating profit from 1985 to 2025 at under 300 trillion won. Samsung's smartphone, display, and appliance businesses have earned far more than that over the same period, so the record applies to memory and logic chips, not to Samsung overall. [...]

Samsung is releasing preliminary second-quarter figures on July 7, so these record projections are still estimates. The reported profit will also absorb a profit-sharing agreement that pays chip workers 10.5% of DS operating profit as stock, worth as much as $26.6 billion this year. 

by Luke James, Tom's Hardware |  Read more:

Image: Getty/Jung Yeon-Je

Moving On

The rupture of the world order is going much better than expected.

At first there was rage at America’s betrayal, when President Trump called for the annexation of Canada, threatened Greenland, imposed tariffs on its friends and began his campaign to undercut NATO, which continued at its latest meeting this week, in Ankara, Turkey. Now, a strange feeling is emerging in some of the countries that used to be known as America’s allies: Optimistic determination. There’s an established principle in chess that applies to geopolitics as well: “The threat is stronger than the execution.” The possibility of U.S. abandonment of the world order was terrifying. The reality turns out to be a new beginning.

Canada, America’s neighbor, was the first to see it, naturally. Since the beginning of Mr. Trump’s second term, American bullying on trade has been ferocious. As a result, Canada has had to consider what American favor or disfavor is worth. The Bank of Canada recently ran a scenario in which the United States imposed a 25 percent tariff on everything Canada exports to the United States. Canada’s growth of its gross domestic product would slow by about 2.4 percentage points, which over a period of adjustment is well within Canada’s capacity. A disaster, to be sure, but not the end of the world. That’s the worst-case scenario.

A recent study by economists at the Canadian Shield Institute, commissioned for the podcast “Gloves Off,” which I host, found that Canadian merchandise exports to the United States last year fell by over 30 billion Canadian dollars, (21 billion U.S. dollars), or over 5 percent of exports to the United States. But that loss was offset by nearly 29 billion Canadian dollars in new demand from the rest of the world. When services were included, total exports from Canada increased by almost 7 billion dollars. America can make whatever threats it likes, but if you have the aluminum or oil or potash, somebody will buy it.

It’s not just Canada. European equities outperformed American equities in 2025, and surged in the first two months of 2026. The European Defense Industrial Strategy, put in place in 2024, is keeping more of Europe’s rapidly expanding military spending within the continent. And after the threat of the European Union’s anti-coercion instrument, the so-called trade bazooka allowing rapid counter tariffs, forced Mr. Trump to back down from his early round of Greenland threats, the Europeans now know that they have their own Strait of Hormuz — their own pain point that can make America flinch.

American military threats have the same diminishing power. If recent history has taught us anything, it’s that when the United States decides to achieve a geopolitical aim by means of military force, you can make a pretty safe bet that aim will not be achieved. Against all odds in a war with the United States, Iran’s corrupt and cruel regime has maintained its power and is now receiving sanctions relief. While the U.S. military invents whole new genres of defeat, the Gulf states, and their airports, have now learned during the Iran war exactly what an American security guarantee is worth.

At the NATO meeting in Ankara, where Mr. Trump berated allied nations — especially Spain — and repeated his call for U.S. control of Greenland, the leaders of Spain and Denmark took Mr. Trump’s comments as the idle threats they self-evidently are. Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada may well say that Mr. Trump “won the argument” on NATO members raising their spending levels for defense. The reason they are spending more now may be that they know that American military power is in retreat. American support, whatever that even means anymore, guarantees nothing.

It’s not just NATO. Bureaucracies once defined by their lethargy are moving at surprising speed to limit their exposure to both the U.S. government and the companies that serve as outposts of American power. Since taking office a little over a year ago, Mr. Carney’s government has made just over 100 international trade deals. The European Union has expanded its defense procurement deliberately to avoid integration with American military forces. Disentanglement from American technology will be the thorniest knot to undo, but the work is already underway on this, too: The European Union has switched from Google to the French Qwant as a default search engine in its official systems, while Belgium and Finland have both moved away from Amazon Web Services.

The post-American reality is not a world without America, of course. As a geopolitical actor, the United States has become a kind of lumbering zombie — a beast that can be startled into reflexive actions but lacks higher functions. Much of the world understands that another round of elections in the midterms or in 2028 won’t solve anything. The American people are so divided that the future will be chaotic whoever wins, many outside the United States feel. They fear a sane Republican or Democratic president would not be able to guarantee a stable American policy or consistent application of even the vaguest principles in international relations.

“What is America?” is no longer a grand theoretical question. It is a practical matter. Governors of a number of U.S. states have rational political programs. American institutions survive. Some Americans have even kept their ideals. But as for the entity known as the United States of America, there’s no there there. There’s no America to deal with. An increasingly isolationist America is no longer the leader of the free world. How can it be, when it’s no longer the leader of itself? [...]

“The threat is stronger than the execution” was the wisdom of Aron Nimzowitsch, a leading figure of the hypermodern school of chess. The reason it applies to the chessboard is that all the time and energy you spend trying to figure out how to avoid a disaster turns out to be worse than the disaster itself. Once the worst has happened, you can focus on incremental improvement rather than avoidance. You can become active rather than passive. In geopolitics, too, so much of power is the appearance of power.

Everybody who believes in freedom and democracy and the dignity of the person and the right of nations to self-determination should be working toward the destruction of the United States’ capacity to project power — to end the strange hold it has over the world so we can all move on. So far, no one is helping more than the United States itself.

by Stephen Marche, NY Times | Read more:
Image: Aaron DuRall

Take the Money and Run

Fire Any Financial Advisor Who Tells You to Utilize a Trump Account

I’m serious, and this is not just my disgust with everything Trump. There is no good reason for the overwhelming majority of people in the country to ever put a dollar in a Trump account for their kids.

To be clear, I’m not in favor of tax-sheltered accounts in general. They strike me mostly as a very inefficient way to accomplish public goals, in this case making education more affordable. The more efficient route would be to have more public funds go to support public colleges and community colleges. [...]

In addition, tax-sheltered accounts put a lot of money in the hands of the financial industry. Tens of billions of dollars go to the people and companies who administer these accounts, creating a pointless layer of wasteful bureaucracy.

To be fair, the Trump accounts limit fees to 0.1 percent of assets, far lower than is charged by many accounts. This is an important point. People can get low-cost funds in other accounts also. Stock index funds generally have the lowest fees, and most people would be wise to take advantage of them. People will tell you that they will beat the market, but most won’t, and you’ll just end up wasting money in higher fees and trading costs.

But that has nothing to do with individuals’ decisions on where to put their money. For better or worse, Trump accounts exist. The question is whether people will be helping their kids by putting money into them. And, as I said above, the answer for almost everyone is no.

The main reason is that we already have 529 accounts for the purpose of saving for a kid’s education. The big difference between the accounts for this purpose is that it is possible to withdraw money from a 529 account, if it’s needed, where it is not possible to withdraw money from a Trump account for any reason, until the kid turns 18.

People do pay a penalty for taking money out of a 529 early, but at least they can have access to it if they need it. And unexpected events do happen. People can lose a job, have serious medical expenses, or get divorced. These and other unanticipated situations can require people to dip into whatever savings they have. With a 529 plan, they can use the money if they really need it. With a Trump account, they are out of luck.

It is important to recognize that withdrawals for non-education purposes are fairly common. A recent study by Vanguard found that 2 percent of accounts had an unqualified withdrawal in an average year. If an account is open on average for 20 years, this would mean that 40 percent of accounts have an unqualified withdrawal. People don’t expect bad things to happen, but they do.

Also, since the penalty is based only on the earnings portion of the 529 plan, not the whole sum in the plan, in most cases it is likely to be small. Suppose someone pulls $5K out of a 529 plan, where earnings are currently 40 percent of the money in the plan. That means they would pay taxes on $2,000, plus a penalty of 10 percent. If they are in the 10 percent bracket, their taxes would be $200, and their penalty would $200. If they were in the zero bracket, say because they had lost their job, they would only pay the $200 penalty. That compares to being unable to touch their money at all in a Trump account. (The money in a 529 is not taxable at all if used for educational purposes. The earnings in a Trump account are taxable.)

It’s also worth mentioning that it’s not even possible to change asset allocations in a Trump account. Suppose your kid is 17, one year too young to make a withdrawal. If you’re worried there is an AI bubble likely to burst, and you would rather have your money in Treasury bonds, you’re out of luck. Trump accounts won’t let you make the switch; you have to go down with Elon Musk and the rest of the market.

The silliest argument given by proponents of Trump accounts is that they can be rolled over into an IRA to allow for lifelong wealth accumulation. So can the money in 529 accounts, up to a ceiling of $35,000.

The Trump gang makes a big issue of the $35,000 ceiling, but this is something only elite types with lots of money would care about. Very few people ever accumulate more than $35,000 in a 529 account, and the vast majority of people who do will find some education-related expense that would reduce the value of the account to less than $35,000. Remember, even food and housing can count as education-related expenses.

But let’s say someone ends up with an amount over $35,000 that they can’t use for education-related expenses. Suppose they have $40,000 that they want to roll over into an IRA. In this situation they would have to pay a 10 percent penalty on the amount over $35,000. That would be $500 on the $5,000 difference.

They would also have to pay taxes on the $5,000. The beneficiary is the one receiving the money, so they would be paying the tax. Since they are just beginning their working career, they likely have a relatively low income. This means they will almost certainly be in the 10 percent or 15 percent tax bracket, and quite possibly the zero bracket.

So, this is the bad scenario that Trump account proponents say it is important to avoid, and therefore skip a 529 and put your money in a Trump account instead? That seems pretty whacky, and why you need to fire your financial adviser if they suggest putting money in a Trump account.

To be clear, take the $1K that Trump wants to give newborn kids. It would be a much better use of tax dollars if we provided food and medical care to kids from low-income families than giving out $1K checks to millions of families that don’t need it. But you aren’t going to change the policy by turning down the money. If it bothers you, donate the money to a good cause, but do take the money and don’t ever put another penny in a Trump account.

by Dean Baker, Common Dreams |  Read more:

Image: Koala imagess via

[ed. More details on the accounts here.]