Tag: finance

Authored by John Rosenthal via DailySceptic.org,

Data provided in a German Government response to a parliamentary question on online censorship show that Google met with top German government officials dozens of times between early 2022 and spring 2024 to discuss suppression of online “hate speech” and “disinformation”.

Major online platforms and search engines (X, Facebook, TikTok, Google, etc.) are required to take measures to suppress “illegal hate speech” – i.e., illegal per the standard of European laws – and allegedly harmful “disinformation” under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). As shown in the US House Judiciary Committee’s recent report on European censorship of the internet, the tech companies are in constant contact with EU officials on DSA “enforcement”.

But the German Government’s parliamentary response shows that there have been regular and extensive contacts with the German Government on these subjects as well – and that by far the most frequent such contacts have been with Google. The DSA creates censorship prerogatives not just for the EU as such, but also for EU member states, and Germany is known to make particularly ample use of these prerogatives. It is indeed national “speech laws”, of which Germany has the strictest in Europe, that platforms are required to enforce under the DSA.

The revelations are relevant not just to Germans, but also to Americans, British and indeed the world, because DSA enforcement is neither territorially nor linguistically limited. It applies to all speech in any language from any source anywhere in the world: i.e., so long as it is visible via the internet in the European Union. Online platforms may choose to comply by geo-blocking certain content – in particular, alleged “hate speech” – just in the EU where it is illegal. But they also can and frequently do take the technologically simpler and less costly path of removing the content in question outright.

Moreover, the DSA explicitly sanctions the use of visibility-filtering – i.e., algorithmically limiting the reach of content rather than removing it – and visibility-filtering is necessarily global. It affects the discoverability and visibility of speech all around the world. As shown here, under the pressure of the DSA, visibility-filtering has become the go-to method employed by social media platforms to suppress alleged ‘mis-’ or ‘disinformation’.

Search engines like Google can, of course, act even more decisively to restrict the reach of alleged ‘disinformation’: namely, by downranking websites or webpages in search results or even excluding them altogether.

The parliamentary question submitted by Germany’s opposition AfD (Alternative for Germany) party in March 2024 expressly relates to both censorship methods, or what its authors describe as “removal or reach throttling of user posts or user accounts”.

Both question and answer bear the title “Meetings of Representatives of the Federal Government with [Tech] Companies and Funded Non-Governmental Organisations on the Topics of ‘Hate’ or ‘Disinformation on the Internet’”. A first set of data provided in the Government response concerns meetings with NGOs. These include, for instance, the publicly-funded German NGO HateAid, which has been assigned the status of a “trusted flagger” of allegedly problematic online content under the DSA.

A second set of data covers the meetings on “hate speech” and “disinformation” with the tech companies themselves. It provides details – date, place, participants, topic, etc. – on no fewer than 53 meetings in the stated time period. An excerpt can be seen below. (The Government also included a few meetings on other topics, such as the protection of minors, in the data.)

It should be noted that, by the Government’s own admission, the data are not exhaustive and only cover meetings involving top German government officials, such as ministers or ‘state secretaries’ – i.e., the highest-level civil servants in German government ministries. Lower-level contacts are explicitly not included, and the Government response notes that it has no legal obligation to record all meetings, i.e., even at the highest levels.

Some of the meetings were publicised by the German government at the time of their occurrence, but most of them were confidential. This is noted in the data, with some of the meetings even being deemed “not suitable” for public knowledge. In other cases, it was merely deemed “unnecessary” to inform the public.

The data include, for instance, a January 2023 meeting in San Francisco between Elon Musk, who had only just recently completed his acquisition of Twitter, and the German government’s then minister for digital affairs Volker Wissing. The subject of the meeting was “how Twitter deals with false information, new requirements under the Digital Services Act”. This meeting was publicised in Germany.

The data also include no fewer than 13 meetings with representatives of Meta on topics like “disinformation in the context of RUS[sian] war against UKR[aine]” (March 3rd 2022 at the Digital Affairs Ministry in Berlin) and “questions of cybersecurity and how Meta deals with disinformation” (February 12th 2024, with a German Interior Ministry official in Menlo Park, California). TikTok was involved in seven of the meetings.

But by far the greatest number of meetings were with Google. Google participated in no fewer than 34 of the meetings included in the data, and no fewer than 29 of them were bilateral meetings between Google or its parent company, Alphabet, and the German government. YouTube, a Google subsidiary, was also sometimes involved.

Then German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, identified by the initials “BK” (Bundeskanzler), participated in two of the meetings with Google and three of the meetings overall. Other participants on the German side included Scholz’s chief of staff Wolfgang Schmidt; another top Scholz advisor, state secretary Jörg Kukies; the minister of the interior, Nancy Faeser; the minister of justice, Marco Buschmann; the economics minister, Robert Habeck; two top officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; a top official of the Ministry of Digital Affairs; and Klaus Müller, the head of the agency responsible for German DSA implementation, the Federal Network Agency. Müller remains the President of the Federal Network Agency under current German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The vice-president of the agency, Wilhelm Eschweiler, also met with Google on two different occasions.

Participants from Google’s side included Alphabet/Google CEO Sundar Pichai; Alphabet/Google’s President of Global Affairs; the Google Vice-President for Trust and Safety; and Google’s Director of Government Affairs and Public Policy. CEO Sundar Pichai personally participated in no fewer than four of the meetings.

Topics discussed included “hate speech, fake news and disinformation on the web”, “disinformation in the context of RUS[sian] war against UKR[aine]”, “Digital Services Act and how to deal with mis- and disinformation on platforms”, “disinformation and DSA”, “disinformation, resilient democracy, illegal content, hate crime”, “strengthening the resilience of democracy and dealing with disinformation”, “key challenges of Google and YouTube with respect to cybersecurity and disinformation”, and so on and so forth.

Among other venues, meetings took place at the German Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other relevant ministries in Berlin, as well as at the offices of the Federal Network Agency.

No fewer than three of the meetings took place at the Federal Chancellery in Berlin, the German equivalent of the White House.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s party has won parliamentary elections, according to Monday’s result, after a vote which has signified the small Caucasus nation’s major pro-Western shift.

His Civil Contract party secured 49.81 percent of the vote, while the main opposition party Strong Armenia – seen as pro-Moscow, finished a distant second with 23.29 percent. National turnout in the country of three million people was close to 60%.

Pashinyan claimed a “historic victory that will ensure Armenia’s eternity and development” while also vowing to “continue the course of rapprochement with the West” – but while balancing the pursuit of positive relations with Russia.

Prime Minister Pashinyan has made known his intentions for his country to eventually join the EU. However, Strong Armenia party is claiming that the winning side in reality mounted a campaign of interference and intimidation: 

The second-placed Strong Armenia bloc is led by Samvel Karapetyan, a Russian-Armenian billionaire who made his fortune in Russia and is under house arrest for allegedly advocating for the government’s overthrow. He has rejected the charge as politically motivated.

Karapetyan called the elections “shameful” and denounced alleged violations and repression, saying dozens of his campaign staff had been arrested. Armenia’s Investigative Committee said it had opened 59 criminal cases over alleged electoral violations and detained nine people.

The Kremlin itself has also pounced on this theme, with Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova alleging unfair and illegal tactics unleashed by local authorities on Russia-friendly interests inside Armenia.

“On June 7, parliamentary elections were held in Armenia in an atmosphere of unprecedented pressure on the opposition and interference from the West, primarily the EU,” Zakharova commented.

And more of her remarks via TASS:

She stressed that the preliminary results announced by the republic’s Central Election Commission indicate that the Civil Contract party of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, which declared its victory, “did not receive a monopoly on power.” “Moreover, compared to the previous electoral cycle, its support has noticeably decreased,” Zakharova added.

Recent years of war between Christian Armenia and its better-armed Muslim neighbor Azerbaijan (which is a secular Republic) has seen tensions ratchet between one-time close allies Armenia and Russia. 

Armenia has long been a key member of the regional Russian-led bloc, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). However, Armenia froze its participation since 2024, outraged over Russia’s failure to protect ethnic Armenians during Azerbaijan’s 2023 takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh.

PM Nikol Pashinyan’s party has won the election in Armenia with 50% of the votes, securing a comfortable majority in Parliament.

Pashinyan will now be able to continue strengthening Armenia’s relations with the EU, move away from Russia and signing a peace deal with Azerbaijan pic.twitter.com/QdWsHwQ8S3

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 8, 2026

Russia since played a ‘peacekeeping’ role with some limited troop deployments; however, Armenian Christians had already been booted from the ancient enclave. Armenian officials (and the population) have since expressed bitterness that Moscow didn’t do more to bolster its historic claims on Nagorno-Karabakh. The episode was seen as a devasting, region-altering loss.

Authored by Jake Johnson via Common Dreams

Albanians took to the streets in droves for the eighth consecutive day on Sunday to protest a proposed $1.6 billion luxury resort complex backed by US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, one of several investors in the project, which opponents say is both corrupt and disastrous for wetlands and wildlife.

“One week later, we are still here, stronger than yesterday,” said the Albanian Ornithological Society, a leading critic of the proposed development. “Millions around the world are united in one voice for nature, for justice, and for the protection of what belongs to everyone, standing for every protected area in Albania.”

Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama has vocally defended the project amid mounting public backlash, saying in a recent interview that the land marked for development “belongs to the investors,” not the Albanian people.

Rama also criticized the thousands of people who have turned out to protest the luxury hotel project as well as international media coverage of the demonstrations, saying that “there is no chance” that “the projects in Albania will be defined by street protests.”

Demonstrators, many raising pink flamingo cutouts to decry the project’s expected impacts on the vulnerable bird and other wildlife, have demanded cancellation of the resort project and Rama’s resignation, accusing him of steamrolling environmental concerns to bolster the country’s tourism industry and curry favor with the Trump administration. Kushner currently works for the administration as a “special peace envoy.”

“We are stronger than your bulldozers,” chanted demonstrators over the weekend.

As The New York Times reported last year, Rama heads the government committee that gave “Kushner and his business partners the right to move ahead with accelerated negotiations to build the luxury resort on a 111-acre section of the 2.2-square-mile island of Sazan that will be connected by ferry to the mainland.”

“Mr. Kushner’s Affinity Partners, a private equity company backed with about $4.6 billion in money mostly from Saudi Arabia and other Middle East sovereign wealth funds, is pursuing the Albania project along with Asher Abehsera, a real estate executive that Mr. Kushner has previously teamed up with to build projects in Brooklyn, New York,” the Times added.

Lea Ypi, an Albanian academic, wrote in an op-ed for The Guardian on Monday that “Albanians know that real-estate speculation without state support means ordinary citizens will struggle to buy a flat or pay the rent.”

Protests in Albania are exploding for a seventh straight day like nothing before.

Thousands of Albanians are refusing to surrender their land to Jared Kushner’s elite private island wish.

They are also demanding the immediate removal of their prime minister for colluding with… pic.twitter.com/fbQK0oIB6D

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) June 7, 2026

“They know that luxury tourism means holidays in your own country become a privilege for the few,” Ypi added. “With no unions to speak of and a labor movement that only appears in communist-era footage of May Day parades, work conditions are so exploitative that only those from countries even more desperate are willing to take the jobs that arise.”

Authored by Nikolai G. Wenzel via The Daily Economy,

Adam Smith (1723-1790) is widely considered to be the father of modern economics. There were precursors, such as the School of Salamanca and the French Physiocrats, but Adam Smith’s 1776 magnum opus, “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” was the first comprehensive treatise.

In this 250th anniversary year, much ink will be spilled – and with good reason – celebrating the legacy of Adam Smith. My purpose here is as joyous as it is modest: to share ten quotations that are particularly relevant today, and demonstrate Adam Smith’s enduring influence. I like to weave them into my lectures – on markets, on political economy, on constitutional economics, or on the moral foundations of capitalism. Adam Smith, in the versatility of his writings, was indeed a man for all seasons.

1. The Invisible Hand Acts

“[B]y directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention …. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”

Perhaps the single best-known concept from Adam Smith, the invisible hand was famously picked up by the Austrian school of economics and its key lesson of spontaneous order. F.A. Hayek, especially, noted the importance of phenomena that were “the result of human action, but not of human design.” Alas, interventionists of all stripes still think they can supersede the invisible hand of the market.

2. People Are Not Pawns

The flip side of the invisible hand involves social and economic engineering. Adam Smith was prescient in describing the psychology of social engineers, those self-proclaimed experts who believe, in their hubris, that they can run an entire economy.

“The man of system … is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it.”

3. Collective Action Can’t Be Imposed

The “man of system” quotation is long enough that it bears cutting in two. In the second part, Smith laments the unintended consequences of social engineering. If the policymaker is cautious and respects both human nature and local knowledge, the results can be a marginal improvement over the status quo – this is the basis of Buchanan and Tullock’s theory of collective action through the state.

“If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.”

4. Markets Coordinate Effort

Adam Smith’s key theoretical contribution is the division of labor. But this is not merely an economic model, to be calculated with production charts by eager students of microeconomics. For Smith, it is something more, an instrument of cooperation to overcome the limitations of human beings:

“This division of labor, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom …. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain propensity in human nature …, the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.”

The division of labor solves a social problem:

“It is thus that man, who can subsist only in society, was fitted by nature to that situation for which he was made. All the members of human society stand in need of each others’ assistance, and are likewise exposed to mutual injuries. Where the necessary assistance is reciprocally afforded from love, from gratitude, from friendship, and esteem, the society flourishes and is happy. All the different members of it are bound together by the agreeable bands of love and affection, and are, as it were, drawn to one common centre of mutual good offices.

“But though the necessary assistance should not be afforded from such generous and disinterested motives, though among the different members of the society there should be no mutual love and affection, the society, though less happy and agreeable, will not necessarily be dissolved. Society may subsist among different men, as among different merchants, from a sense of its utility, without any mutual love or affection; and though no man in it should owe any obligation, or be bound in gratitude to any other, it may still be upheld by a mercenary exchange of good offices according to an agreed valuation.”

5. Self-Interest Actually Helps Everyone

Smith was excited about the potential for markets to align incentives. In another famous quip, he reminded us that markets transform private interest into public harmony:

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”

In more recent terms, we are reminded of Deirdre McCloskey and Art Carden, both fellows of AIER. The title of their book speaks for itself: “Leave Me Alone, and I’ll Make You Rich: How the Bourgeois Deal Enriched the World.”

6. Permissionless Societies Create Prosperity

The bourgeois deal has alternately been described in Physiocrat A.R.J. Turgot’s plea: “laissez-faire, laissez-passer” – let us act, let us pass. Ever the professor of moral sentiments, and not just the founder of modern economics, Smith was quick to show that the bourgeois deal was instrumentally good, indeed – but it was also the grounding for a free society:

“Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way.”

7. Cooperation Connects Us

Smith’s first major work, “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” (1759), predated “The Wealth of Nations” by almost two decades. While demonstrating how markets advance the public good by appealing to and channeling private interests, Smith made it clear that human beings are fundamentally creatures of cooperation:

“How selfish ‘soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.”

8. Individual Responsibility… With Limits

While emphasizing the importance of individual responsibility, Smith was also realistic about the limitations of what human beings could do. He warned:

“The administration of the great system of the universe … is the business of God and not of man. To man is allotted a much humbler department, but one much more suitable to the weakness of his powers, and to the narrowness of his comprehension; the care of his own happiness, of that of his family, his friends, his country: that he is occupied in contemplating the more sublime, can never be an excuse for his neglecting the more humble department.”

In a similar spirit, Ludwig von Mises explained in his 1927 book, “Liberalism”: “[Classical] liberalism limits its concern entirely and exclusively to earthly life and earthly endeavor. The kingdom of religion, on the other hand, is not of this world. Thus, liberalism and religion could both exist side by side without their spheres’ touching.” Smith, Mises, and the classical liberal tradition stand as a foil against the busybodies – on the right and on the left – who would attempt to administer the universe through temporal means.

9. Collusion Threatens Competition

If Smith was worried about the political “man of systems,” he was also worried about business colluding against the consumer, instead of serving the market through competition.

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices …”

Smith cautioned us, however, against state efforts to prevent industry collusion:

“It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice …”

But he did offer a solution, in the form of more free trade, and fewer regulations to discourage competition:

“But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.”

10. Institutions Drive Economic Growth

I am an institutional economist. I first came to economics from a preoccupation with economic development and ending, or at least abating, poverty. With economist Robert Lucas, if not with the same success, I am obsessed with such questions. When observing that some countries are rich and others poor, and that some grow slowly and others quickly, he commented:

“I do not see how one can look at figures like these without seeing them as representing possibilities. Is there some action a government of India could take that would lead the Indian economy to grow like Indonesia’s or Egypt’s? If so, what, exactly? If not, what is it about the ‘nature of India’ that makes it so? The consequences for human welfare involved in questions like these are simply staggering: once one starts to think about them, it is hard to think about anything else.”

International development is infuriating, for two reasons. First, it has been a massive failure – well, international aid has been a massive and expensive failure; behind the futile efforts of the men and women of systems, markets have been plugging along, and poverty has fallen radically in the past 200 years. Second, because the recipe for growth is so obvious. It works every time it’s applied, from the United States and Western Europe in the early 1800s to China after Mao’s death and India after the end of the licensing raj, and to every country that embraced globalization and market reforms.

It’s the recipe that Smith offered as early as 1755, twenty years before “The Wealth of Nations,” and well before the Enlightenment ideals were translated into economic policy:

“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice, [… the] rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”

This quotation is thought to come from a transcript of a 1755 Adam Smith lecture, from Dugald Stewart’s lecture notes.

In more modern language, peace is obvious, as is low and transparent taxation. A “tolerable administration of justice” might be translated as rule of law. Taken together, we have economic freedom, which is closely correlated with growth and wealth. Instead of fancy macroeconomic policies, imposed from the top down by the men and women of systems, the New Development Economics proposes a radical and simple solution. Focus on microeconomics, institutions, incentives, and the transmission of knowledge in the Austrian tradition.

Smith warned us what happens when the basic conditions for economic growth are ignored by conceited policymakers and politicians:

“All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavor to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”

Tyranny is the midwife of poverty; liberty, of prosperity.

Reprinted from The Daily Economy, a publication of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER).

Back in January, when we profiled Meta’s landmark $27.3 billion SPV deal named “Beignet” for the Hyperion data center located in Louisiana, in which Blue Owl provided the private credit, we said to “expect hundreds of billions of these in 2026.”

As a reminder, META is already neck deep in off-balance sheet debt. Here is a schematic of its $27.3 billion SPV with Blue Owl “Project Beignet” for the Hyperion data center. None of this touches META’s balance sheet.

Expect hundreds of billions of these in 2026 https://t.co/794EgSiiZ9 pic.twitter.com/7hMyVW6Lno

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 29, 2026

Fast forward five months when we now read that Apollo and Blackstone have finalized a $35BN private credit deal that will help finance Anthropic’s growth plans, even as traditional “banks are choking” on the amount of AI debt they have to issue. 

The two private credit giants – which in a parallel universe are struggling with soaring redemption requests and gating retail investors in their private credit BDCs as documented here extensively in recent months – led the financing, one of the largest private credit deals completed, which will fund Anthropic’s purchase of Alphabet-developed chips.

The deal, dubbed project “Big Sky”, comes amid concerns that the AI frenzy has overheated the broader market. Shares in chipmakers rebounded on Monday after tumbling last week, led by Broadcom’s fall in market value. It also adds to a deluge of chip-backed loans that sparked debate over how quickly graphics processing units would depreciate as AI technology evolves.

In this type of financing structure, a special-purpose vehicle raises capital through a mix of debt and equity to purchase the chips, which are then leased to a customer, in this case Anthropic. The debt is primarily backed by the resulting lease payments, along with the unknown long-term value of the chips. In this case, the $35 billion debt facility was structured across three tranches. The senior layers — the $6 billion notes dubbed A1 and $24 billion of A2 notes — are backed by Broadcom, allowing the debt to secure lower borrowing costs aligned with Broadcom’s strong credit profile. The notes received private ratings in the mid-investment grade tier.

The transaction wrapped up days after Alphabet completed one of the largest equity offerings in history, as it looks to raise $85bn to fund Google’s AI build-out, and as SpaceX prepares for a flotation that could raise a record $86bn. Anthropic also announced it had confidentially filed for an IPO shortly after its blockbuster $65bn private financing round.

As discussed previously, the AI borrowing spree has reached beyond traditional US capital markets, where AI is expected to raise $400 billion in debt, rising to over $1 trillion through 2028 to meet roughly $1.8 trillion in capex needs over the next two years, according to Morgan Stanley…

… with Amazon raising C$14bn (US$10bn) on Monday in the largest ever Canadian dollar bond sale. 

Similar to Meta’s Beignet deal, Anthropic’s deal with Apollo and Blackstone relies on a complex structure that private investment groups routinely use to finance start-ups with backing from blue-chip companies. A special purpose vehicle formed by Apollo’s Atlas SP Partners raised the debt and equity, with lease agreements for the chips ultimately supporting the value of the transaction.

Per the FT, Apollo and Blackstone structured the loan across three tranches, with interest payments on the two senior segments backstopped by Broadcom. The chipmaker is making the so-called tensor processing units, or TPUs, with Google. Its agreement to provide support if Anthropic misses an interest payment helped vastly reduce the costs on the debt.

The two senior portions of the debt were split between banks and investors. Some $6bn of so-called A1 notes were sold to banks with an interest rate 1% over Treasuries. A further $24bn of A2 notes were sold on to investors in asset-backed credit markets, priced with a yield of 5.75 per cent. Buyers of the A2 tranche included institutional investors like Apollo’s Athene insurance arm, which favors high-quality debt to back its long-term liabilities. 

The $4.5bn of junior debt, which is not supported by Broadcom and therefore exposes lenders more acutely to Anthropic, carried an interest rate of 8.5%. Investors were also offered an original issue discount of 98 cents to 99 cents on the dollar depending on cheque sizes. In other words, without the implicit guarantee from an investment grade guarantor – like Broadcom in this case – the cost of capital is roughly double. 

In addition to the debt, Apollo’s Atlas SP Partners’ structured-finance unit provided $800 million in equity, meaning it’s effectively the owner of the SPV.

A key feature of the deal is Broadcom providing a “residual value support” agreement. That means that if Anthropic fails to make the lease payments for a certain period of time, the SPV will sell the chips to pay back the debt investors. If the value of the chips doesn’t make the debt investors whole, then Broadcom will make up the shortfall for 100% of the value owed to the A1 and A2 investors.  

This type of residual value feature has been used in another mega debt deal, though it financed the construction of a data center rather than chips. As noted above, Meta provided a similar protection for the value of its Hyperion facility in Louisiana – a transaction that Morgan Stanley arranged. That allowed the so-called Beignet bonds to trade in line with Meta’s corporate debt.

For those whose head is spinning with the circularity involved, this is how we described the deal last week when it was first floated: 

Broadcom is backstopping a massive $36 billion private credit SPV with Apollo and Blackstone which will help Anthropic buy Google chips… made by Broadcom. Oh, and yes: Google owns 14% of Anthropic…

*BROADCOM: WORK WITH APOLLO, BLACKSTONE SERVES OPENAI, ANTHROPIC

Translation: Broadcom is backstopping a massive $36 billion private credit SPV with Apollo and Blackstone which will help Anthropic buy Google chips… made by Broadcom.

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 3, 2026

But wait, there’s more… because if that wasn’t enough, Morgan Stanley, which advised Broadcom and arranged the transaction, is also lending money to investors participating in the deal!

And just because this is a “chip-backed” off-balance sheet SPV where nobody really knows who holds the debt, the monstrous circularity of all the deal aspects will be ignored until the AI credit bubble cracks. 

As for the punchline: demonstrating the insane frenzy of anything involving AI, investors involved in the deal did not even know what they were investing in! According to the FT, investors pitched on the deal were not given early access to Anthropic’s financials ahead of its IPO.

Not everyone involved in the deal is a total idiot: some investors passed on the deal over the delayed-draw format of the debt, which drives down yields because the money can be withdrawn in multiple tranches over a period of time.

Yet despite the smashing success of the deal, one glaring question remains. Recall, last week SpaceX penned a massive deal with Google (to urgently burnish the IPO candidate’s financials just days ahead of its IPO), according to which Google will pay Elon Musk $920 million a month for access to about 110,000 Nvidia GPUs (unlike its hyperscaler peers, SpaceX has plenty of spare compute to rent out). And yet, despite seemingly telegraphing it is dramatically “compute constrained” as the SpaceX deal implies, it still has plenty of chip available that it can sell $35B of their chips to their biggest competitor, Anthropic.

This wasn’t the only such deal: just days prior, Anthropic (which will use proceeds from this private credit SPV to purchase Google chips made by Broadcom), agreed to pay $1.5 billion a month for access to 325,000 Nvidia GPU also held by SpaceX. No wonder these sham agreements were structured so they can be terminated by either party after December 2026. 

For those shaking their heads at these glaring examples of circular bubble euphoria, fear not: you will have plenty of opportunities to enjoy more such deals (going back to our point up top): Broadcom chief executive Hock Tan said the company hoped to connect “investor partners with the strongest balance sheets to deliver at scale sufficient compute capacity at the lowest cost”, pointing to the deal with Apollo and Blackstone as the first of many transactions to come.

Authored by Tokyo Metropolitan University via ScienceDaily,

Researchers at Tokyo Metropolitan University have used simulations to show that a small, newly developed X-ray telescope could help create a chemical map of the entire lunar surface. Such a map would be a major step toward understanding how the Moon formed, changed, and evolved over time.

Their detailed modeling, which included both the telescope detector and a realistic Moon orbiting satellite mission, suggests that one telescope could map five important elements in about two years. A larger five by five array of detectors could produce sharper maps and complete the work more quickly.

Mapping The Moon’s Chemistry

The Moon’s geological history is still not fully understood. One major reason is that scientists do not yet have a complete geochemical map of the lunar surface. Because researchers cannot simply collect samples from every part of the Moon, they must rely on remote sensing methods.

One of these methods is X-ray fluorescence imaging. In this approach, detectors are pointed at the Moon to capture X-rays emitted by specific elements after they are struck by solar radiation. Those signals can help reveal which elements are present across different regions of the surface.

Why Complete Lunar Maps Are Difficult

Earlier observations from the Apollo and Chandrayaan missions produced useful partial maps, but a full global map is still missing. Creating one is technically difficult for several reasons. Missions have limited time to gather enough sunlight driven X-ray signals, and detectors can degrade during long periods in space.

The problem is especially difficult near the Moon’s poles. In these regions, solar X-rays are weaker, which makes it harder to collect the signals needed to identify surface elements.

A Compact X-Ray Telescope For Lunar Orbit

To address these obstacles, a team led by Airi Toida and Prof. Yuichiro Ezoe of Tokyo Metropolitan University has proposed using a compact X-ray telescope on a satellite orbiting the Moon. The telescope would allow wide area observations of the lunar surface during strong solar flares, when the Sun provides more intense X-ray illumination.

Traditional X-ray telescopes are often too large and heavy for this type of mission. By contrast, the team’s compact telescope was originally designed for studying Earth’s magnetosphere and weighs less than ten kilograms. Its small size could make it practical for long term lunar satellite observations.

The detector has also been tested in radiation conditions far harsher than those expected in lunar orbit. That durability could support robust, wide area, high resolution imaging over an extended mission.

Simulations Show A Path To A Full Moon Map

The researchers then added the telescope’s specifications into a numerical simulation to test whether a satellite mission could successfully map the Moon. Assuming 300 solar flares per year and a single telescope aboard a Moon orbiting satellite, the simulation showed that the whole lunar surface could be mapped for five elements – oxygen, iron, magnesium, aluminum, silicon – in two years, using a grid size of 70 x 70 kilometers.

Because the telescope is so compact, the team also examined a satellite carrying a five by five array of telescopes. According to the simulations, this 25 telescope system could reduce the mission time to one year. With two years of operation, it could also map sodium, while improving the grid size to 30 x 30 kilometers.

A New Window Into Lunar Geology

If either mission concept becomes reality, it would produce the first complete map of elemental abundance across the entire Moon. That achievement would give scientists a powerful new tool for studying lunar geology and reconstructing the Moon’s long and complex history.

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 21H04972.

Journal Reference: Airi Toida, Daiki Ishi, Yuichiro Ezoe, Masaki Numazawa, Kumi Ishikawa. “Numerical simulation of light-element geochemistry of the lunar surface using a compact and lightweight XRF imaging spectrometer.” Earth, Planets and Space, 2026; 78 (1). DOI: 10.1186/s40623-025-02326-2

Over the past few years, a lot of progress has been made in accepting and understanding mental health problems.

Having long been seen as a sign of weakness, mental health issues in their many varieties and severities have become much less of a taboo.

As Statista’s Valentine Fourreau notes, the pandemic, which left many people feel isolated, powerless or overwhelmed, accelerated that trend, as it not only caused a spike in symptoms of anxiety or depression, but also led more people to open up about their problems.

In a Statista survey from 2025-2026, the prevalence of self-reported mental health problems varies greatly across countries, suggesting that people in some countries, e.g. China or Japan, may be more hesitant to open up about mental health or simply less likely to identify certain problems as mental health issues.

You will find more infographics at Statista

As Statista’s chart shows, more than 4 in 10 U.S. adults reported that they experienced symptoms of mental health problems, such as stress, anxiety or depression in the 12 months preceding the survey, making an open discourse about mental health issues all the more important.

With that in mind, we give the last word to AOC, who exclaimed over the weekend that “we are not the crazy ones. We are sane!”…

AOC : “We are not the crazy ones. We are sane!”

If you have to tell people that you’re sane in public, you probably…aren’t.

Also, have you seen the Democrat platform policies wishlist?

Pretty crazy. pic.twitter.com/oyIQ9Jk3ls

— Justin Theory (@realJustATheory) February 19, 2026

Arguably, if you have to tell people that you’re sane in public, you probably…aren’t.

Authored by Michael Zhuang via The Epoch Times,

A widely circulated Chinese social media article warning that internet users can be punished simply for bypassing China’s online censorship system has drawn attention to what observers say is an expanding clampdown on access to the global internet.

The article, published June 2 on Chinese social media WeChat and later archived by California-based nonprofit China Digital Times, which tracks China’s state censorship, compiled a series of publicly reported cases of suppression on the use of virtual private networks (VPNs).

The cases included fines imposed on users who accessed overseas websites, penalties for selling VPN services, arrests related to the dissemination of overseas political content, and investigations into internet activity dating back several years.

The article challenged a common assumption among Chinese internet users that using VPNs for research, accessing foreign websites, or utilizing overseas artificial intelligence (AI) tools is unlikely to attract official scrutiny as long as no sensitive content is shared.

“But from publicly disclosed cases, VPN use itself has already become a target of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) investigation,” the article said.

The examples highlighted in the article suggest that the CCP is increasingly focused not only on what users do online, but also on how they access the internet.

One of the most notable cases involved a resident of Ningde, Fujian Province, who was penalized in 2024 for allegedly using a VPN to browse overseas websites in 2020.

According to the article, police reviewed historical internet records and later imposed an administrative penalty, prompting criticism from some legal observers who questioned whether the action complied with China’s statutory limitations on administrative punishment.

The case stood out because it appeared to demonstrate the communist regime’s ability to revisit years-old internet activity rather than relying solely on real-time monitoring and censorship.

Chinese legal professionals interviewed by The Epoch Times said that the enforcement action raised questions about the scope of retroactive investigations. Under China’s Administrative Penalty Law, administrative violations generally cannot be punished if they remain undiscovered for more than two years, although certain exceptions apply.

The article also cited cases involving individuals punished for selling VPN services and users fined solely for establishing unauthorized internet connections, when there was no indication they had distributed overseas information.

The reported cases come amid broader efforts by the CCP to tighten control over cross-border internet access.

Under Chinese regulations, businesses and foreign nationals requiring international connectivity are generally expected to use telecommunications channels approved by the regime, while unauthorized VPNs and proxy services remain subject to censorship.

Wang Xin contributed to this report.

The rush by AI companies to go public before the window closes (i.e., “market conditions” emerge) entered its final lap late on Monday, when OpenAI joined its two mega peers in filing for a blockbuster IPO that could value the ChatGPT creator at more than $1tn as it races rival Anthropic to list its shares publicly, following an imminent offering by SpaceX.

OpenAI said it had confidentially submitted a draft IPO prospectus to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, formally kicking off the process for one of the year’s most hotly anticipated debuts. The company is also planning to launch a tender sale of its shares to provide liquidity to employees in the coming weeks, before the company goes public, Bloomberg reported. Why employees would want to sell shares ahead of an IPO is not exactly clear, unless they fear the market reaction to the public offering would disappoint. 

OpenAI’s listing announcement comes days before SpaceX is set to IPO in a deal that could raise a record $86bn and value Elon Musk’s rockets-to-AI conglomerate at $1.78tn. Anthropic, the startup behind the chatbot Claude, said last week that it had filed confidentially for an IPO of its own. The company soared to a $965 billion valuation in its latest private funding round – above OpenAI’s for the first time – as its revenue surged.

The three Wall Street listings comes at a time of unbridled euphoria among investors over AI, which has helped propel US stocks to a series of record highs but also prompted worries that markets are overheating. Last week, Goldman published a note seeking to preempt the big question: “Can Markets Absorb Massive Stock Supply From Coming Mega IPOs Without A Crash:” While Goldman did not express concerns about the coming flood of stock supply (its argument is that demand will more than offset the flood of new shares), the bank which is also a lead underwriter for both SpaceX and Anthropic calculated that recent and upcoming IPOs will result in roughly $500 billion of additional unlocked shares available to sell in 2026 and likely a larger quantity in 2027 as insiders sell and distribute their stakes to public (mostly retail) shareholders. The bank expects the majority of potential equity supply from the current pipeline of IPOs will become free float in 2027. 

OpenAI’s IPO – which also comes at a time when CEO Sam Altman has floated handing out shares to US taxpayers ostensibly in hopes that such an action would lead to a government backstop and/or bailout if and when the AI cycle turns – will mark a test of investors’ appetite for a company posting booming revenue growth but also staggering losses that are forecast to continue for many years as the company spends vast sums on data centres and other infrastructure: its funding commitments to hyperscalar companies are well north of $1 trillion and unless the company manages to dramatically boost its revenue growth it will find itself woefully undercapitalized in coming years. Hence the IPO, as well as a bevy of private credit deals which mask the company’s true debt exposure. 

OpenAI has been investing heavily in AI research to compete with rivals including Google and Anthropic, as well as to expand the computing capacity needed to serve ChatGPT’s 900mn users. In February, the company told investors it was planning to spend about $600 billion on AI infrastructure by 2030.

It said in a statement on Monday that it had not “decided on timing yet; it may be a while because there are things we want to do that are likely easier as a private company”.

“But it’s a complicated set of trade-offs and this gives us the option to go public sooner if that ends up being best,” it added.

A public debut in 2026 would also pit Altman squarely against Elon Musk on a different plane than the failed lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO. SpaceX, Musk’s rocket, satellite and AI firm, is targeting an IPO at a valuation of roughly $1.8 trillion on Thursday, which would immediately make it one of the world’s most valuable public companies.

As an indication of the staggering demand for AI exposure, OpenAI has already dwarfed even SpaceX’s IPO in a single funding round. The company completed a deal to raise $122 billion from investors at an $852 billion valuation.

The ChatGPT maker also planned to launch an employee share sale ahead of going public at its current $852bn price tag, according to people familiar with the matter. One said OpenAI’s decision to announce its confidential filing was intended to give employees who were considering selling shares “transparency” about the upcoming IPO.

US tech groups often file IPO paperwork privately, keeping their financial figures out of the public eye while the SEC reviews documents. That allows start-ups to gauge investor demand, make revisions and sometimes scrap IPO plans without broader scrutiny.

The San Francisco-based company’s move to progress its listing plans received a boost after a California court last month threw out Musk’s legal case against OpenAI and its chief Sam Altman. 

A public debut in 2026 would also pit Altman squarely against Elon Musk on a different plane than the failed lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO. SpaceX, Musk’s rocket, satellite and AI firm, is targeting an IPO at a valuation of roughly $1.8 trillion on Thursday, which would immediately make it one of the world’s most valuable public companies.

OpenAI had been working with bankers at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and lawyers at Cooley for the past few months, people familiar with its preparations previously told the FT. Monday’s filing sets OpenAI on a path to start trading as early as the autumn, they said.

It is already one of the world’s most valuable private companies, after closing a record funding round of up to $122bn in March. As part of that deal it raised $3bn from retail investors, who will be given a wider opportunity to invest in the start-up when it becomes publicly traded.

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

Lifelong citrus farmer Sidney Tillett cut a path through a grove that has endured in his family for four generations, stopping his SUV between two rows of trees. On one side was a long plot of lush green saplings, covered with protective mesh bags tied to stakes in the ground.

Directly on the other side, a row of petite orange trees with withering leaves were all battling a bacterial infection, caused by an invasive insect that has decimated the state’s orange industry in just two decades.

“It’s a story of survival,” Tillett told The Epoch Times, remembering his father’s 25-foot-tall citrus trees that could sometimes produce 1,000 pounds of fruit in a single season.

Now, what trees survive are lucky if their canopies get half that size, or produce any fruit that can be sold at market. What was once 600 acres of citrus trees in the 1970s has now dwindled to five.

The orange – Florida’s inextricable insignia that emblazons license plates, T-shirts, and bumper stickers from affluent coastal towns to rural farming communities – was once the state’s largest cash crop, and positioned the Sunshine State as the country’s majority citrus producer.

Florida harvested a record 244 million boxes of oranges during the 1997-1998 season. This year, the Department of Agriculture estimates Florida will only produce 12.2 million boxes, a stunning 95 percent drop in just under 30 years.

While occasional freezes, catastrophic hurricanes, and an on-and-off, decades-long battle with the citrus canker disease proved to be frustrating setbacks for many orange growers, the destruction of Florida’s citrus industry kicked into high gear in 2005.

That was the year an invasive insect from China – which made its way to the United States through Mexico – introduced a disease that would ultimately decimate Florida’s citrus industry.

The Asian citrus psyllid feeds on citrus tree leaves, causing the plant to contract a bacterial infection known as huanglongbing, commonly called citrus greening.

The disease causes rapid root loss, slowly draining the life from healthy trees as they struggle to absorb and retain nutrients. Oranges languish, struggling to reach full maturity and normal sugar composition – losing the sweet taste that made the fruit an in-demand crop worldwide.

There is no known cure. And the impacts extend far beyond the Sunshine State.

Citrus greening has slashed total U.S. orange production by 80 percent and grapefruit production by 88 percent since 2000, according to a report from the American Farm Bureau Federation. California has now overtaken Florida to become the United States’ largest citrus producer, and nations such as Egypt and South Africa now export more oranges worldwide.

But Florida citrus farmers are not giving up.

Recent studies by the University of Florida’s Citrus Research and Education Center have offered several paths for the industry to take.

Insecticides are a major component of citrus greening management, the center stated in an August 2025 production guide, but a specialized protective netting known as exclusion mesh “is currently the only tool that can fully prevent [Asian citrus psyllid] infestation in citrus.”

Farmers have covered young saplings with translucent mesh bags that tent the tree’s canopy to keep the Asian citrus psyllid out long enough for the tree to take hold and mature.

Meanwhile, light and moisture can pass through the cover’s fine mesh.

While effective at stopping immediate tree death – as many saplings are infected within the first six months – the bags have some limitations.

They allow citrus trees to produce quality fruit for at least 30 months after they’re planted, but the trees eventually begin to falter after the bags are removed two to three years later.

That’s why citrus farmers such as Katie and Shane Bevilacqua are trailblazing a different, even more radical approach to fighting citrus greening.

They have built massive permanent mesh tents over their nearly 750 acres of grapefruit trees at Golden Ridge Groves in Bartow, Florida, where customers can self-pick or buy bushels of fruit in the couple’s market. The tents are known as “citrus under protective screen” structures.

“It’s early, but it’s proving to keep the psyllid out, allow the tree to remain healthy, and put on the healthy crop and beautiful fruit that Florida has been known for for decades,” Shane Bevilacqua told The Epoch Times.

“Even if this could be our small contribution to keeping it going, we’re excited about that.”

Road to Ruin

The near-total decimation of Florida’s citrus industry did not happen overnight.

When officials first found citrus greening in the state in 2005, farmers had already battled irregular cold seasons with freezing temperatures that damaged their crops.

Citrus canker – a different, but still harmful bacterial infection – arrived in Florida more than 100 years ago, and was believed to be eradicated until subsequent outbreaks in the 1980s and ’90s.

Despite strong efforts to eradicate citrus canker, the historic 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons spread the disease far and wide across the state. It was later found in Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama, but is currently considered endemic in Florida.

Those years would not see the end of hurricanes’ impact on Florida’s once famous orange market either, as the catastrophic Category 5 Hurricane Ian would buzz-saw through the center of the state in 2022, slicing through thousands of trees in its path.

Then just two years later, two back-to-back major hurricanes – Helene first, then Milton – would slam into Florida in the course of less than two weeks, further devastating the state’s citrus crops.

Tillett lost a fifth of his grove during those storms, as the hammering winds blew over many of his younger trees.

But citrus greening, Tillett said, has been the biggest factor in so many multigenerational growers choosing to leave the state’s cherished orange industry.

“The groves fell into nonproduction. Everybody lost,” he said. “I mean, it’s hard to justify a citrus grove when you’re not making money.”