iftttwall

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The collapse of Germany shocks many. But I have been discussing why this was inevitable for over a decade…

Germany Is Unraveling Just When Europe Needs It Most

Bloomberg reports Germany Is Unraveling Just When Europe Needs It Most

Germany is reaching a point of no return. Business leaders know it, the people in the country feel it, but politicians haven’t come up with answers.

That has set Europe’s largest economy on a path of decline that threatens to become irreversible.

Following five years of stagnation, Germany’s economy is now 5% smaller than it would have been if the pre-pandemic growth trend had been maintained.

More worryingly, Bloomberg Economics estimates that the bulk of the shortfall will be tough to recover, due to structural blows such as the loss of cheap Russian energy and Volkswagen AG and Mercedes-Benz Group AG struggling to keep pace with China’s auto firms. The decline in national competitiveness means every household is worse off by about €2,500 ($2,600) a year.

To revive competitiveness, Germany ultimately needs to spend more. Just to catch up with other advanced economies, the country will have to increase annual investment on infrastructure and other public goods by about a third to €160 billion, according to Bloomberg Economics. That’s a rise equivalent to more than 1% of GDP.

The private sector has also held back. Expenditures on machinery are more than 9% below pre-pandemic levels. A recent survey among family-owned companies showed nearly half aren’t even planning to replace what breaks, blaming bureaucracy and unpredictable policies. That’s effectively a no-confidence vote in an economy fighting to retain its status as third-largest in the world.

Collapse of the German Government

Yesterday, I noted The German Government Collapses, Early Elections Are Coming up

Chancellor Olaf Scholz [SPD party] lost a confidence vote on Monday leaving a deeply fragmented Germany in his wake.

The only thing an election will do is shift the power from one very unstable coalition to another very unstable coalition.

I ran the coalition math. It’s pathetic.

The current Traffic Light coalition is SPD, FDP, and the Greens. FDP might not get 5 percent of the vote to stay in parliament.

All of the parties rule out an alliance with AfD (reportedly Far Right) and BSW (reportedly Far Left). Combined, that is 22-25 percent of the total.

AfD and BSW have three things in common. They are both anti-immigration, anti-NATO, and anti-Green.

A failure of the last “Grand Coalition” SPD + Union (CDU/CSU) led to the failed traffic light coalition.

Another Grand Coalition cannot possibly solve anything.

Conflicting Agendas

The Wall Street Journal has these humorous insights on the German Government Collapse.

Opinion polls show the center-right Christian Democratic Union, led by veteran conservative politician and businessman Friedrich Merz, as the likely winner of the ballot on Feb. 23. Yet the party is unlikely to command a big enough majority to govern alone or with the FDP, the other center-right party in Parliament, and will likely need to form an alliance with one or several center-left parties, forcing it to dilute its pro-business and law-and-order agenda.

“Mr. Chancellor…you had your chance. You didn’t use that chance,” Merz said in Monday’s parliamentary debate. “And it applies today, as it does on Feb. 23, 2025: You, Mr. Scholz, don’t deserve the trust!”

Merz and Scholz have different solutions in mind. The current chancellor has called for bailouts and subsidies to save jobs and prop up struggling carmakers, while Merz has floated a menu of supply-side measures such as lower taxes, less bureaucracy and steps that would make it cheaper for businesses to reach Berlin’s climate goals.

How is that Grand coalition supposed to make sense?

Without AfD there is no coalition math that makes any sense. But SPD and CDU/CSU have ruled out working with AfD.

The entire structure is nonsensical because neither Merz nor Scholz make much sense.

Merz is still wedded to nonsensical climate goals while Scholz wants to prop up struggling automakers. Sheeeh.

Shocked? I’m Not

This is all so predictable. The only thing debatably shocking is how it too so long.

Flashback April 11, 2013: Eurozone Math; One Size Fits Germany; Door Number Two

Eurozone Math

• Germany was the primary beneficiary of the ECB’s “one size fits Germany” interest rate policy.
• It is mathematically impossible for every country to be an exporter like Germany
• It is mathematically impossible for one interest rate to work when there is a multitude of fiscal policies
• It is mathematically impossible for the euro to survive without a transfer mechanism of some sort from Germany to peripheral Europe, and Germany will not allow any transfer mechanisms
• It is mathematically impossible within the realm of the euro for Spain to be more like Germany, unless Germany is less like Germany
• Germany has ruled out everything that could possibly make the eurozone work.

Euro Architects and Politicians to Blame

I do not blame Germany. I blame all the architects of the euro. I also blame all the politicians making matters worse by trying to force their will on the markets. In that sense, I do blame Merkel, but I also blame Hollande, Sarkozy, Trichet, Draghi, and everyone else involved in this mess, past or present.

One Size Fits Germany (Until it Doesn’t)

The math of the matter is Germany benefited from the Euro and from the ECB’s “one size fits Germany” interest rate policy more than any other country.

As a direct result of the unstable eurozone treaty, sovereign interest rate imbalances, Target II imbalance, and trade imbalances are out of control. Germany and the other European creditor countries are owed money that cannot be paid back.

More Like Germany

For years Germany insisted the rest of Europe should be more like Germany.

Germany skimped on infrastructure. It has pathetic internet compared to the rest of Europe.

Germany did protect old aging industries, especially diesel engines which I discussed many times.

It’s now payback time.

April 28, 2018: Bosch Announces Better Diesel Engine: Sorry Germany, Diesel is Dead

Eurointelligence: This story reminds us of the German company that developed the last generation of analogue telephone exchanges in the 1990s, hoping to fight off the relentless advance of the digital technology. It was mature and stable. And probably with some technical advantages over the then still-not-fully-developed digital technologies. But it came too late.

Eurointelligence: We find it hard to believe that this technology can be introduced early enough and in sufficient quantities to prevent diesel bans in German and other European cities. And the latter is the reason for the acute sales crisis of diesel cars, which has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. At a time when the US and China are developing electrical smart cars, the fate of the ultimate diesel engine looks to be the same as that of the world’s best analogue telephone exchange.

May 9, 2018: More Diesel Cheating: Germany Concocts New Ways, Audi Caught, Halts Production

Confirming a report in news weekly Der Spiegel, Germany’s transport ministry told AFP it was investigating the use of a new “illegal defeat device” in some 60,000 Audi cars, half of which are driving on German roads.

September 4, 2024: Volkswagen’s Choice: Fire Union Workers and Cut Costs, or Go Bankrupt

The unions and government leaders are howling but what must be done will be done.

Now chancellor Sholz has called for bailouts and subsidies to save jobs and prop up struggling carmakers. What a hoot.

But the German auto industry is dead. It lags the US and China on EVs, on batteries, on energy, and on basic infrastructure.

For decades Germany subsidized doomed technologies like diesel and analog phones.

The ECB’s interest rate policy “One Size Fits Germany” led to a housing bubble crisis in Spain and a near blowup of Greece.

Now Greek bonds trade at lower yields than French bonds.

Inevitable De-Industrialization of Europe

On October 12, 2018 I discussed the Inevitable De-Industrialization of Europe

Merkel has lost control. She is no longer able to protect German industry.

The European Parliament just voted to cut CO2 emissions by 40%. The European ministers voted for a 35% reduction. The latter is binding.

On June 25, 2019 I commented Rise of the Greens = Deindustrialization of Germany

Germany’s Green party killed nuclear power. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, once a strong supporter of nuclear energy, reversed course in a nod to the Greens. It did her party, nor Germany, any good.

Diesel is dead, and rightfully so, but Germany is not prepared for it. The Greens are also after coal, GMOs, and in general big business.

Deindustrialization of Germany

The Greens are going to force the deindustrialization of Germany.

• They do not want coal
• They do not want nuclear
• They do not want diesel
• The do not want Round-Up
• They do not want GMOs
• They do not want Google, Amazon, or any other large organizations
• They do want low-skill immigration

Merkel Bashes Trump

Here’s a pretty amusing flashback from May 28, 2017: Merkel Bashes Trump, Wants Europe to Control Its Own Destiny: EU Hypocrites

If the EU was really serious about “leading the way” I suggest the EU should not be big hypocrites.

I propose a good start would be to stop tariffs on solar panels, ban diesel autos, and reverse Merkel’s ban on nuclear power, and embrace rather than banning Uber.

If Europe wants to save the world, let them.

The EU Will Lag on AI for the Same Reason it Lost on Phones and EVs

Returning to more recent history, please consider my February 4, 2023 post The EU Will Lag on AI for the Same Reason it Lost on Phones and EVs

EU vs US Explained

Microsoft alone will spend over three times what Germany as a country will spend. Factor in Google, Amazon, and the US defense industry. 

The EU likes to protect existing businesses. Germany cheated to protect legacy diesel engines for years.

On mundane matters like agriculture, France protects the small farm. 

The EU now has lawsuits against Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. The US leads because the EU would bust up any company before it got big enough to lead on anything. 

It’s the same story on artificial intelligence where Greens are hell bent on protecting rather than investing. 

And heaven forbid any European company get big enough to achieve anything. The EU would bust them all up in the name of competition. 

Four Fundamental Sets of Issues

1. The Euro itself

2. The EU

3. German Fiscal Policies

4. Governmental Structures

1: The Euro is fatally flawed. One interest rate for Greece, Germany, Spain, 20 nations in all, does not work. Productivity in Greece is not the same as Germany. Pensions and work rules are vastly different. There is no single eurobond like there are US Treasuries. Instead, Germany has bonds, Greece has bonds, France has bonds. The ECB rules out default. But if that was the case, there should be no differences in bond yields. Target2 Imbalances put a spotlight on the issue. That link is from 2012. I have been discussing these issue and how it relates to Germany for at least that long. To make any treaty changes all 20 nations have to agree.

2: The EU is structured such that it takes unanimous agreement to change anything not specifically allowed by treaty. A simple trade treaty with Canada took decades because one country held things up. France won’t budge on agricultural policy and a number of states including Germany won’t budge on eurobonds or fiscal debt brakes. The EU nannycrats do have energy policy authority and have made a total mess of things. The EU overregulates everything. And despite lagging the world on AI, it seems hell bent on regulating it to death. Google, Microsoft, Nvdia, Apple, and Tesla could not exist in the EU, because in the name of competition, the EU would have busted them apart before they amounted to anything.

3: Germany’s export model has crashed. It is no longer the leader in anything. German infrastructure is pathetic. Germany exported cars to China. Well guess what. China does not want those cars and the US doesn’t either. German leaders still want to protect its auto industry. Merkel destroyed Germany’s nuclear industry despite the fact that Germany is one of the safest places for nuclear plants based on fault data.

4: Review the German coalition math and conflicting goals I mentioned above. No math makes any sense. I have been writing about the failure of the Grand Coalition for a long time. That morphed into unsustainable Traffic Light Coalition that just collapsed. And now the only chance to get 50 percent is another Grand Coalition. And every country is saddled with Eurozone treaty rules as well as EU treaty rules.

5. The German constitution prohibits the types of changes needed to fix some of the problems. I discuss this in an addendum.

It’s Hopeless

The lead Bloomberg article in this post said “Europe’s largest economy on a path of decline that threatens to become irreversible.“

Threat? There is no threat. The entire Eurozone has been in an irreversible decline from the beginning because the structure of the Eurozone and EU are both fatally flawed.

Factor in country-specific issues and broken governments and it’s amazing that it took this long for as many issues to finally surface as they have in the past two years.

Even now, few have thought about the four fundamental issues that I just mentioned. And the treaties make things impossible to fix because every nation has to agree to rule changes.

The only unresolved issue is how much longer this foolish EU structure can last. I don’t know, and no one else does either, but perhaps Trump II brings it all to a head.

Addendum

I left off a 5th German issue, it’s constitutional court. The German constitution, in addition to the the Maastricht Treaty, mandates debt brakes, no debt comingling, etc.

There cannot be a eurobond until that is fixed (not that a eurobond makes any sense in the first place given the fragmented policies and work rules of various nations).

Instead, Germany is saddled with a broken target2 system in which all sovereign debt allegedly the same by treaty, but in practice isn’t, as noted by various sovereign bond yields. Implied odds of default are very different from what’s guaranteed by treaty.

Germany would like to fix EU agricultural issues but cannot because of a French veto. Every year for decades, world trade negotiations blow up because of France.

Germany (at least some political parties) would like to fix energy policy but cannot because of EU-wide rules set by the European Parliament and lack of internal agreement how.

Arguably energy is the most easiest problem to fix among those I discussed because it does not take 100 percent agreement to do so. However, addressing energy would take the European parliament and an internal German commitment to fix. Alternatively, Germany can tell the EP and European Commission President Ursula von Der Leyden (from Germany) to go to hell.

In the US, with its two-party political system, things can get only so crazy before someone comes along to fix at least some things. Trump will not be the savior his fans think, but he will fix some things.

Meanwhile, the US still has the largest, most free capital markets in the world. Europe has an unworkable, tangled mess of target2 and individual state bonds.

The center parties like SPD and CDU/CSU in Germany, and Macron’s party in France have imploded. Both governments are unworkable.

Euro apologists blame AfD, BSW, Le Pen in France, Vitor Orban in Hungary, and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands for being problems and causing unworkable governments.

In reality, all of these parties are a result, not a cause, of a fundamentally broken EU.

The only unresolved issue is how much longer this foolish EU structure can last before it implodes in a major treaty failure or currency crisis.

I don’t know, and no one else does either, but perhaps Trump II brings it all to a head.

One of the most revealing narratives that surfaced during the 2024 US election campaign was the argument from establishment journalists that the Constitution and the voting system might be allowing “too much freedom” for the general public.  How can this be true?  Progressive activists claim that voter choice can be manipulated by abuses of free speech (disinformation) and that without controls on that speech the Constitution essentially has a built in self destruct mechanism.

Outlets like the New York Times made these arguments specifically in reference to the presidential bid of Donald Trump.  Trump, leftists assert, represents the rise of “far-right fascism” in America and the normal rules of the democratic process no longer apply.  They argue that he must be stopped at all costs.  

One could dismiss all this rhetoric as the coping and seething of sore losers, but it goes well beyond that.  

The self destructing democracy theory would be interesting, except that it’s driven completely by the arrogance, elitism and biases of political leftists hellbent on keeping power for themselves.  When a group of people believes that they represent the totality of the “greater good” and that their ideas should never be questioned or challenged because to do so is akin to heresy, that’s what we call zealotry.  This is exactly what progressives have become – So much so that across the western world they have deemed themselves righteous enough to delay or sabotage the election process.

We covered this problem in detail in our recent article Democracy Is Dead: A Coup Against Right Wing Movements Is Underway In Europe, focusing primarily on the exploitation of fearmongering over Russia in order the overturn the recent Romanian election in which a “right wing” candidate won the first round.  The rise of populist and conservative movements has triggered a progressive and globalist scramble to shut down or silence opposition parties and prevent them from winning elections fair and square. 

This trend has extended into the UK, with the British Labour Party making a move to delay local elections for up to a year using a bizarre loophole.  The ploy comes at a time when the public approval ratings for Prime Minister Kier Starmer and the Labour Party are at record lows.

Through a process of “reorganization” of local councils into larger regional bodies, Labour says annual elections (held in May) could be delayed up to a year in order to give local governments time to handle mergers.  The timing could not be more suspect; Labour candidates are considered unelectable in most quarters of England and the leftists are certain to lose significant power.  

 

According to recent surveys only 26% of Britons think Starmer is doing a good job.  Over 53% are disappointed with the Labour Party and the rest are unsure.  The reasons for the unpopularity are obvious – Starmer has gone full authoritarian with the utter destruction of British free speech.  Native English people are not allowed to criticize third world immigration programs or political officials and such comments online are likely to inspire a visit from police.  Protests against open immigration have been essentially banned, with many fearing arrest simply for participating.  

The problem for the political left is that they have spent the better part of the past four years pontificating about how they are the “guardians” of democracy while the right wing is a threat to free elections.  They can’t be authoritarian and also allow normal elections to continue.  The public will simply vote them out of office at the first opportunity.    

These kinds of polling numbers signal the death knell of a political party and the leftists know it.  Nigel Farage’s Reform Party which launched in 2018 is on the rise, meaning progressive and globalist programs to forcefully introduce thousands of third world migrants into every rural and semi-rural county could be disrupted.  Furthermore, Reform leaders could also disrupt Starmer’s programs of censorship and intimidation, which is the only tool the Labour has left to stay in control.    

Leftists suggest that the common voter cannot be trusted to elect officials with their best interests in mind; they have to be forced to vote the right way (for leftist candidates).  The next stage is, of course, to delay or end elections altogether when the majority of the public is at odds with the ruling party’s agenda.  

Authored by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times,

National security adviser Jake Sullivan has said that with the emerging “alignment of autocracies” as the world takes sides in the Russian–Ukraine war, China faces a defining moment in cementing how the world will view it. If it takes the “darker path,” he said, it will no longer have a way forward as the world’s second-largest economy.

“China has a choice to make,” Sullivan said on Dec. 17 in a conversation with Eurasia Group and GZERO Media President Ian Bremmer at the 92NY in New York City. “It can either continue to tighten those links militarily, diplomatically … [or] end up in a circumstance where it is really part of an axis.

“Or it could do what I think is much more natural from the point of view of China’s perspective interests and opportunity, which is to be a huge competitor to the United States.”

With Russia facing international sanctions that prevent it from legally obtaining funds and materials needed for war, it has created new partnerships. Chief among them is an official pact with North Korea. International officials have also confirmed that Russia is receiving financial or material support via Chinese and Iranian channels to evade sanctions.

Russia, North Korea, China, and Iran—which Sullivan referred to as the “alignment of autocracies”—have been called a new “axis” by experts. But these are still early days, Sullivan said, and how China chooses to act will set the tone for how the United States responds.

As an example, he said tensions between the United States and China are expected to only increase with the incoming Trump administration previewing high tariffs on Chinese imports across the board. Both the Biden administration and the first Trump administration have sanctioned China on various grounds, Sullivan said, and officials from both administrations repeatedly state that these are in response to actions from China, which range from trade violations to human rights abuses, rejecting claims that the United States is an aggressor.

“Most of the time, people ask … from the point of view of: ‘What are you going to do, America, to help make that happen? How are you going to be nicer to China so China is willing to do these things?’” he said.

“Actually, it’s China’s choice to make more than it is ours.

“They have to decide. Is Xi going to make the Xi–Putin [relationship] the dominant issue, or is the [People’s Republic of China] going to think of itself as a distinct kind of actor that is not part of this axis.”

The People’s Republic of China is the official name of the nation under the Chinese communist regime’s rule.

“I personally don’t think they fully made that decision one way or the other. The risk is really there that they will go down a darker path. … It is not preordained that China ends up foursquare in this axis,” Sullivan said.

“I think the world should put the onus on China to make the right choice.”

Sullivan said he has had conversations with incoming national security adviser Mike Waltz because national security and foreign policy are issues that transitioning administrations consider pressing.

Sullivan said there are two camps of thought regarding the U.S.–China relationship: one that expects “clear-eyed” competition and the other that says the United States should play a critical role in ending the Chinese Communist Party.

“No matter what the trajectory, the United States and China are going to have to learn to live alongside one another as major powers in the world for the foreseeable future, and we need terms upon which we can do that,” he said.

 

Authored by Wilk Wilkinson via RealClearPolicy,

Just weeks before President-elect Trump announced that Dr. Jay Bhattacharya would be his nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Bhattacharya and I were together at Stanford University for a bold, first-of-its-kind symposium on public health decision making during the COVID-19 crisis. 

The idea behind the symposium was to shatter the public health echo chamber and bring diverse perspectives together in respectful dialogue. Dr. Bhattacharya and I are close friends, but our backgrounds are quite different. He is firmly at home at Stanford, having gone there as an undergraduate, and then going on to get a medical degree and a Ph.D. there before joining the faculty as a Professor of Health Policy. I, on the other hand, am a blue-collar Midwesterner who enlisted the in U.S. Navy after high school. I carry no titles of academic distinction and was likely the only participant at the symposium without a medical degree or PhD.

Yet, I was invited by Stanford to moderate the symposium’s opening panel with seven leading public health authorities from top institutions across the world. What brought me into this unusual position was my expanding work to rebuild truth and trust in public health—a collaboration that began with former NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins and the Braver Angels organization, which is nation’s largest movement working to bridge the partisan divide.

My work with the Truth & Trust Project began in early 2022 when Dr. Collins was the outgoing Director of NIH. He approached Braver Angels – of which I am an active member, ambassador and volunteer – with a unique request: he wanted to better understand his own “blind spots” and find ways to rebuild public trust in the U.S. health system after America’s bitter experience with it throughout the COVID-19 crisis. Braver Angels saw an opportunity to pair Dr. Collins with someone outside the the typical public health echo chamber, but who cares deeply about the subject. That unlikely someone was me.

Dr. Collins and I began having regular conversations, including public ones on my podcast, DerateTheHate. Our work together was eye-opening for both of us. Dr. Collins brought deep expertise and years of leadership in public health, while I offered a fresh perspective, shaped by my experiences in blue-collar Middle America. Through our collaboration, Dr. Collins and I kept returning to the critical question of how to rebuild trust in institutions that have grown disconnected from the people they serve.

Since our collaboration in this project began, I have had the opportunity to interview, engage, and develop personal relationships with many leading public health officials from across the nation, including Dr. Bhattacharya. The public health experts I have engaged do not always see eye-to-eye with each other on public health policy—in fact they often deeply disagree—but all are deeply troubled by the sharp declines in public health trust, and all have perspectives worth hearing. If we do not broaden our aperture and listen to dissenting voices from across America about where we went wrong in the last pandemic, we will not be prepared to manage the next one. It could arrive without warning at any time.

The Stanford conference felt like the start of something significant. The symposium brought together leading public health experts with different viewpoints on the pandemic response and it demonstrated how intellectual pluralism and dialogue only sharpen our thinking. The conference reinforced the idea that meaningful change can only come when we move beyond echo chambers and engage with those who see the world differently. 

What lessons did the COVID-19 crisis teach us?

COVID-19 exposed glaring weaknesses in our public health response, which in my view were largely driven by an overreliance on centralized decision-making. Federal agencies issued sweeping directives that often ignored the diverse needs and realities of local communities. Schools were closed, businesses were shuttered, and lives were upended by policies that felt disconnected and, at times, arbitrary.

We failed to recognize that local health departments, educators, and community leaders understand local needs, culture, geography and resources better than anyone at the federal level. We failed to empower them in the public health decision making process. By sidelining them in favor of centralized mandates, we not only eroded trust but also missed opportunities for effective and responsive solutions that could be supported and promoted by trusted local leaders.

Had public health institutions prioritized the concept of localized decision making – the principle of subsidiarity– trust might not have been so deeply eroded. Rather than a faceless bureaucracy issuing mandates, imagine a system where local doctors, school principals, and community leaders were the primary messengers of public health guidance. These are the people families trust, the voices they are more likely to listen to and follow.

The concept of subsidiarity is much more than a political or philosophical principle—it’s a deeply human and American idea that centers relationships, empowerment, and shared responsibility. Subsidiarity recognizes that the best solutions often come from those closest to the problem, and the principle fundamentally respects the knowledge, context, and capacity for self-governance of the American people.

What Can We Expect from Dr. Bhattacharya’s Leadership of NIH?

As I look to the future of public health under Dr. Bhattacharya, I am hopeful about what we can achieve. Dr. Bhattacharya demonstrated great professional courage and clarity during and after the pandemic, and he is a forceful advocate for a more localized and balanced response to the pandemic crisis. In The Great Barrington Declaration, which he co-authored, Dr. Bhattacharya underscored the importance of protecting the most vulnerable while minimizing societal disruptions like children’s learning loss, which the nation feels acutely as a result of pandemic school closures. Dr. Bhattacharya has argued that the federal government must focus on better equipping local health systems with tools and data rather than imposing rigid, top-down mandates. His vision is a public health system that is responsive, equitable, and grounded in trust – I could imagine no one better positioned to lead the NIH than him.

As President Trump’s nominee, Dr. Bhattacharya will bring the principle of subsidiarity to life on a national scale. His advocacy for empowering local communities to manage public health challenges will not only lead to a better pandemic response next time; it will repair the trust we lost in our handling of the last one. In our highly polarized environment, the principle of decentralized decision making is more vital than ever because trust is built from the ground up—through relationships, transparency, and mutual respect. 

Subsidiarity is about more than governance; it is about relationships, empowerment, and shared responsibility, too. Whether in public health, education, or any other area of American life, the principle reminds us that the solutions we seek are often closer to us than we realize. I know Dr. Bhattacharya well. I am confident that he will not only help us restore trust in public health as director of NIH but will demonstrate how the principle of subsidiarity can be help America rebuild trust in other areas of our democracy where it is deficient today. 

Wilk Wilkinson is a devoted husband, a loving father, a steadfast Christian conservative, and the insightful host of the “Derate The Hate” podcast.

Authored by JP Errico via RealClearHealth,

In March of 2016, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated a program to see whether it was possible to literally enhance cognitive function, i.e., become inherently smarter, through technological intervention.  The quest for greater intelligence may sound like the stuff of ancient mythology or dystopian science fiction, complete with tragic moral teachings about hubris.  This tale, however, is less Greek tragedy and more Gene Roddenberry!

DARPA’s mission was launched after a decade or so of provocative case reports and small uncontrolled studies that revealed improved mental capacities among various neuromodulation patients.  These seemingly enhanced abilities included memory, verbal facility, spatial relations, and combined accuracy and speed on specialized learning tests.

The TNT, or Targeted Neuroplasticity Training program was established to test a series of different technologies to see if any could accelerate learning by enhancing the brain’s curious ability to continuously evolve based on experiences.  Neuroplasticity is a fancy term that simply means changing neural connections to improve performance, and it encompasses learning, recall, and applying acquired knowledge.

After a series of tests conducted by multiple research groups across a dozen different technologies, one stood head and shoulders above the rest.  Before telling you what it is, however, I need to explain a little about how human brains form and how they evolve through life.

The human brain starts forming just a few weeks after conception when the embryo is made up of only a few layers of cells. At this stage, a structure called the yolk sac exists inside the placenta, adjacent to the embryo. At a well-choreographed moment in the development, a group of cells, called macrophage progenitors, migrate en masse, from the yolk sac and invade the embryo. These cells settle into areas where major organs like the brain, heart, and liver will form, and they begin creating special immune cells called tissue resident macrophages (TRMs).

The TRMs that settle in the neural tube (the future site of the brain) are called microglia. These cells stay inside the developing brain region, behind a protective layer called the blood-brain barrier, that they construct. Within that space, they help build the brain by guiding the growth, placement, and connections of neurons and all the other supporting tissue and structures. Rather critically, neurons need to communicate with each other across the brain, and microglia ensure this network gets set up correctly.

More specifically, microglia initially encourage the brain to form as many connections as possible. But as the brain grows, their role shifts as they begin to refine and organize these connections, removing ones that aren’t useful. This process, called synaptic pruning, is guided by sensory inputs and other circumstances and helps the brain become more efficient and specialized based on individual experiences. It’s like trimming excess branches from a tree to help it grow stronger.

Some brain regions stop developing after a certain point, but others—like the hippocampus, which helps with memory and learning—continue to grow and change throughout life. (An interesting observation that demonstrates this is how London cab drivers, who have to learn the entirety of the Gordian knot that is the city’s roadways in order to be licensed, have substantially larger hippocampi than “normal”.)

Microglia are essential for brain development, but because they’re also immune cells, they can be affected by inflammation. When inflammation distracts microglia from their tasks, brain development can be disrupted, potentially leading to conditions like autism or schizophrenia. Even mild inflammation can impact brain development and can impact memory and learning functions in adults.

It stands to reason, therefore, that any intervention that prevents microglia from being diverted by inflammation or helps inflamed microglia return quickly and effectively to their constructive state can enhance learning. DARPA’s TNT program identified exactly that, and it’s called brain development or more specifically, non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS).

VNS using implanted devices, was already a proven medical treatment to treat drug-resistant epilepsy, refractory depression, and had even been found effective in treating obesity.  In fact, many of the provocative reports mentioned above had come from VNS patients.  Surgical implantation of a medical device to try to make soldiers smarter, however, sounded too much like The Terminator for even the military.  What they wanted was a hand-held device that was marketed as a wellness product.  Fortunately, such a device was being developed, to treat stress and enhance sleep quality, and thus, broader real-world studies began.

Just a few months ago, the latest results on the benefits of this technology were reported in Nature’s Scientific Reports.  In this study, the therapy was tested at the Defense Language Institute – where high-performing military personnel learn new languages prior to deployments.  This study found that using the nVNS for just 2 minutes, twice per day, reduced mental fatigue by >30%, enhanced focus by >40%, and improved actual recall by >50%.  The military version of the product is called TAC STIM, but the same therapy is also available to the general public as a device called Truvaga.

As amazing as all of this may seem (and it is), it pales in comparison to the final parts of this story, which are ones in which I am proud to be playing an active role.

Remember when I mentioned that inflammation can distract microglia, impacting neurodevelopment, and how that can lead to autism or schizophrenia?  Well, this same nVNS therapy is now being tested to see if it can be used during pregnancy and in early childhood to help prevent the neurodevelopmental harm that inflammation can cause, and alter the skyrocketing rates of autism and the epidemic of mental health challenges.

As remarkable as it may seem, at the other end of the developmental spectrum, nVNS is also being studied to see if it can modify neurodevelopment, not simply to protect against damage and disability, or temporarily enhance learning, but to optimize brain development permanently, e.g., deliver enhanced IQ!  Given the importance of intelligence in the modern world, the degree to which every measure of success depends on intelligence, and the fact that medical and sociological research continues to reveal the damaging impact of economically and socially disadvantaged environments on childhood cognitive growth, nVNS may provide an immediate leveling of the cognitive playing field for the next generation of American children.  That is a future worth imagining!

And until you opt for an implant… boost neuroplasticity and reduce brain inflammation with IQ Biologix’s Peak Focus and Brain Rescue. We’ve been on it for months…

JP Errico is a highly accomplished scientist with a diverse range of expertise as an executive, entrepreneur, and inventor. He is an expert on the Autonomic Nervous System. He is the Founder of ElectroCore, where he pioneered a non-invasive Vagus Nerve stimulator. JP has been credited as an inventor on over 250 issued US patents. He went to MIT for undergrad and holds graduate degrees in both law and mechanical/materials engineering from Duke University.

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

California’s zero emission regulations are causing truck shortages and rising costs, according to the trucking and heavy-duty vehicle industry.

State officials plan to end traditional combustion truck sales by 2036.

California’s Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation requires manufacturing companies to gradually increase the percentage of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) they sell on the market—such as electric or hydrogen—and reduce the number of gas and diesel trucks.

Anthony Bento, chief legal officer for the California New Car Dealers Association, said dealers in the state have seen dramatic decreases in available trucks for the 2024 model year as a result of the new rules.

“These rules are decreasing product availability, and when there’s less product available, there’s increasing costs,” Bento told The Epoch Times. “The on-the-ground reality is that California consumers and businesses are going to be paying more, because there’s not an adequate supply of new product available that meets customers’ demands.”

California’s goals include reducing tailpipe emissions and requiring the progress and adoption of advanced clean trucks. By the end of the 2024 model year, 5 to 9 percent of sales in California must be ZEVs.

The ACT regulation was adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 2020 and approved by the state Office of Administrative Law in March 2021.

Industry representatives say the rules are forcing businesses to drive out of state to purchase trucks and parts that are non-compliant, leave the state of California, or close up shop altogether. They also say truck business owners are delaying upgrading their fleet so as to not deal with the requirements.

Mark Baatz, owner of Tow Industries in Los Angeles, which supplies trucks to emergency roadside services, told host Siyamak Khorrami on EpochTV’s “California Insider” in an interview published on Dec. 15, that the towing industry doesn’t yet have any available ZEV options.

“In our industry, regardless of cost, there isn’t an electric truck that works for us at this time,” he said. “That next technology hasn’t arrived for us yet.”

As a result, the number of diesel trucks available has been reduced dramatically, he said. Last year, his company sold around 600 trucks, and next year, only around 30 to 50 trucks are expected to be available. He said this will heavily impact the emergency towing industry.

Meanwhile, CARB representatives have said the state’s ACT regulations may not be the problem, citing a nationwide downturn in the market, supply chain issues carrying over from previous years, and manufacturers not being sufficiently prepared to comply with other emissions regulations.

“Inconsistencies in communication have led dealers and fleets to believe that the ACT regulation’s requirements are leading to the product shortages in the medium- and heavy-duty space which, upon discussions with all affected parties, is not backed by the data available,” Steven Cliff, executive officer for CARB, wrote in a memo on Sept. 25.

“Additionally, some vehicle upfitters producing specialty vehicles, including tow trucks, have reached maximum production capacity thresholds nationwide and cannot increase production levels, which affects the manufacturers’ ability to accept new orders.”

Cliff also said California zero-emission trucks have increased in price by an average of $86,512 since 2021–22, while such European trucks have decreased in price by an average of $12,641 during that same time period.

“There appear to be no clear reasons for this disparity between regions,” he wrote.

On Dec. 6, the board published a “Myth vs. Fact” fact sheet to address concerns raised about the ACT rules, stating for example, “The ACT regulation does not have any provisions prohibiting or restricting the types of diesel-powered vehicles that can be registered or operated in California.”

CARB did not reply to The Epoch Times’ request for comment by publication time.

A separate major regulation facing the California trucking industry is the Heavy-Duty Low NOx rule, which went into effect in 2021 and requires a 90 percent reduction in certain emissions for new heavy-duty vehicles compared to traditional diesel engines by 2031.

ZEV Compliant Trucks

At a CARB board meeting on Oct. 24, Bento said data suggests that the magnitude of declines in available trucks are significant—over 80 percent for Class 8 heavy-duty trucks weighing more than 33,000 pounds—and the scale of these declines is unique to California. Therefore, he said they cannot be attributed to national or economic factors.

If the supply of new combustion trucks does not increase, businesses that rely on these vehicles will be left with a couple of choices, Bento said.

“Continue to operate their older, more polluting vehicles for longer or purchase vehicles from out of state that do not comply with CARB requirements,” he said. “Both options undermine our state’s environmental goals and will harm air quality.”

Brian Banks, owner of Action Towing and Road Service in the San Francisco Bay Area, said that while he supports clean energy and wants his children to live in a world with clean air, he also wants to support his 200 workers and their families.

“Unfortunately at this point, there is no application that will work in our industry. I ask the board to please reconsider the regulations and continue to make amendments to allow us to run our businesses until there is a solution,” he said.

Other commenters suggested emergency tow trucks be exempt from the ACT regulation or postpone the regulation altogether until the technology catches up.

Ashley Porter, sales manager for Oakland-based Tec Equipment, said she has seen many of their large truck customers leave California or pass the costs of updating their fleet onto customers.

She said it has been heart-wrenching to walk her clients through the ACT and other regulations and noted that certain businesses don’t have the resources to meet the requirements.

“The impact of these regulations as it is written today will impact the California economy negatively for years to come,” Porter said.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Tuesday unveiled a new set of rules outlawing the practice of hiding so-called “junk fees” from consumers until the end of the purchase process. However, the long-awaited rules have a relatively narrow scope: They only encompass live event tickets, hotels and vacation rentals — sparing airlines, auto dealers and many other prominent generators of consumer grievances.  

“Consumers searching for hotels or vacation rentals or seats at a show or sporting event will no longer be surprised by a pile of ‘resort,’ ‘convenience,’ or ‘service’ fees inflating the advertised price,” said the FTC in a statement accompanying the publishing of a 313-page explanation of the rules and the process used to draft them. The FTC claims the rule will save consumers upwards of 53 million hours annually in “wasted time spent searching for the total price,” putting a price tag of $11 billion on the time savings. Advocates for the rule also hope that clearer all-in pricing will also nudge prices downward.  

Rather than banning “junk fees,” the rule demands that they be disclosed earlier, and requires businesses to display the total price more prominently than than most other pricing information. “This means that the most prominent price in an ad needs to be the all-in total price,” said the FTC. Sellers must “clearly and conspicuously disclose the true total price inclusive of all mandatory fees whenever they offer, display, or advertise any price of live-event tickets or short-term lodging.” 

The rule is far narrower than what the unconstitutional FTC first had in mind: A 2023 proposal would have sweepingly applied the rules across the entire US economy. Meanwhile, other attempts by the Biden administration to limit fees have hit legal headwinds. For example, a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau-declared $8 cap on credit card late fees has been blocked by a federal judge in Fort Worth. 

“I urge enforcers to continue cracking down on these unlawful fees and encourage state and federal policymakers to build on this success with legislation that bans unfair and deceptive junk fees across the economy,” said lame-duck FTC chair Lina Khan. 

The FTC adopted the rule in a 4-1 vote. The sole dissenter was Republican Andrew Ferguson, Trump’s pick to chair the commission in his upcoming administration. In a dissenting statement, Ferguson said his “no” vote wasn’t a statement on the merits of the rule. “I dissent only on the ground that the time for rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC is over,” he said in a statement. “It is particularly inappropriate for the Biden-Harris FTC to adopt a major new rule that it will never enforce,” given the rule won’t take effect until April.

Under Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, Trump’s “Department of Government Efficiency” is promising to hack away at the sprawling thicket of federal regulations, it’s unclear if the new rules will be shredded by the new administration and its accompanying Republican-controlled House and Senate. Given the popular appeal, that seems doubtful.  

Authored by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Klaus Pflugbeil, a Canadian man currently residing in China, was sentenced on Dec. 16 to 24 months in prison for selling trade secrets stolen from an American company.

Pflugbeil was charged in March and pleaded guilty in a New York federal court in June.

He and co-conspirator Yilong Shao, who remains at large, had worked for a Canadian manufacturer that sold precision equipment to battery companies. That company was acquired in 2019 by a leading U.S.-based manufacturer of battery-powered electric vehicles and battery energy systems, which Pflugbeil and Shao stole from.

The American company has been identified as Tesla. Pflugbeil had worked at Canadian manufacturer Hibar System Ltd. in Canada and China from 1995 to 2009, and Hibar was later purchased by Tesla.

According to communications between Pflugbeil and Shao referenced in court documents, Pflugbeil detailed the original documents and drawings of proprietary technology he had stolen from Tesla. In or around July 2020, Pflugbeil joined Shao’s company, which made and sold the same equipment that their original employer made and sold.

“The defendant built a business in China to sell sensitive technology that belongs to a U.S. company,“ said U.S. Attorney Breon Peace for the Eastern District of New York. ”His actions were bold—he even advertised that he was selling the victim’s products—because he thought, incorrectly, that he was outside the reach of U.S. prosecutors.”

Pflugbeil had advertised these products on YouTube, through LinkedIn, and via Google, where the ads were shown tens of thousands of times per week. In direct advertising messages, Pflugbeil falsely stated his products did not infringe on patents, copyrights, or other intellectual property. According to the Justice Department (DOJ), Pflugbeil made more than $1.3 million on the stolen trade secrets.

DOJ officials said the case implicated national security, referencing the Chinese communist regime’s practice of pricing out competitors in strategically important industries.

The department stated that this had the potential to aid “Chinese automakers to swamp the U.S. and global market.” That market dominance also “presents a potential national security risk.”

In September, the Biden administration had proposed a ban on Chinese vehicle software and hardware based on national security concerns, noting that all new cars are “connected” vehicles, which possess the capability to capture and transmit great amounts of sensitive data.

“In stealing trade secrets from an American electric vehicle manufacturer to use in his own China-based company, Pflugbeil’s actions stood to benefit the PRC in a critical industry with national security implications,” stated Assistant Attorney General for National Security Matthew G. Olsen.

“The Justice Department will mobilize every available resource to prevent our adversaries from advancing their global ambitions at the expense of U.S. national security.”

Pflugbeil’s arrest occurred after undercover agents made contact with Shao in September 2023 at a trade show and were later connected with Pflugbeil via email. Pflugbeil had emailed the agents a 66-page document with technical details containing the stolen trade secrets.

Aviation Week revealed that US-based Kratos Defense successfully tested its Thanatos stealth Uncrewed Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) prototype within the last few months.

Steve Fendley, president of Kratos’ Unmanned Systems Division, told the aviation news website that the company’s Thanatos stealth UCAV was successfully tested in recent months. However, he declined to provide specifics about the test or its location.

“Kratos unveiled the Thanatos design in November 2023 when company CEO Eric Demarco said in an earnings report that the company hoped to have a contract within a year. The design shows what appears to be a single-engine UCAV with two inlets and a single exhaust,” Aviation Week said, adding, “The aircraft does not have a vertical tail and horizontal stabilizers, showing the company’s stealth approach.” 

On Dec. 7, during an interview at the Reagan National Defense Forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, Fendley said: “The air vehicle for Thanatos is now effectively proven. We’re not trying to figure out does the airplane fly, we’re now trying to figure out does the integrated system tick the mission box.”

Kratos has indicated that it seeks a contract with an undisclosed customer for Thanatos. While the company has not confirmed its client, the USAF has been a potential customer because of its Collaborative Combat Aircraft program.

As ‘dronegate‘ continues to escalate for the federal government amid mysterious drone sightings across New Jersey and New York, the latest test flights of super secretive UCAV by Kratos imply that ‘Tic Tac’-shaped unidentified flying objects reported by fighter pilots over the years may not be aliens, but instead top-secret stealth drones. 

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Two astronauts who have been stranded in space for months won’t be able to return to earth until March, NASA said on Dec. 17 as it announced the latest in a string of delays sparked by problems with their Boeing-designed Starliner spacecraft.

NASA said it needed more time to complete the processing of SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft, which is scheduled to arrive at the space agency’s processing facility in Florida in early January.

Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams were initially expected to return within a week after traveling to the International Space Station (ISS) on NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight Test mission in June.

Their mission was later extended after NASA decided to return the spacecraft empty in September after the pilots identified helium leaks and issues with the Starliner’s reaction control thrusters on June 6.

NASA initially planned to launch the Crew-10 mission in February 2025, with Wilmore and Williams returning home by the end of that month alongside two other astronauts who arrived at the ISS on Sept. 29 aboard the SpaceX Dragon capsule.

The pair now face another delay, as NASA announced on Tuesday that Crew-10 will not launch until March 2025. By the time they return next year, they will have spent more than nine months in space.

“Fabrication, assembly, testing, and final integration of a new spacecraft is a painstaking endeavor that requires great attention to detail,” Steve Stich, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, said in a statement. “We appreciate the hard work by the SpaceX team to expand the Dragon fleet in support of our missions and the flexibility of the station program and expedition crews as we work together to complete the new capsule’s readiness for flight.”

NASA stated that it had considered using another SpaceX spacecraft but ultimately decided to wait until the Dragon spacecraft was ready and launch the Crew-10 mission in late March.

On Sept. 30, NASA launched the SpaceX Crew-9 Dragon capsule carrying NASA astronaut Nick Hague and Roscosmos cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov to join the Expedition 72 crew at the ISS to do research, technology demonstrations, and maintenance activities. Another two seats on the capsule were saved for Wilmore and Williams.

NASA stated Tuesday that Crew-9 will return to Earth only after Crew-10 arrives at the orbital laboratory for a handover period.

According to the space agency, Crew-9 will “share any lessons learned with the newly arrived crew and support a better transition for ongoing science and maintenance at the complex” during the handover period. NASA did not specify the duration of the handover process.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.