Ether Vs Bitcoin Treasuries: Which Strategy Is Winning In 2025?

Authored by Dilip Kumar Patairya via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The treasury model: Why corporations and nations hold crypto

In recent years, companies and countries have increasingly included cryptocurrencies in their treasury strategies. Traditionally, corporate treasuries relied on cash, gold or government bonds to maintain value, ensure liquidity and provide financial stability. Governments had gold reserves to back their currencies.

However, cash loses purchasing power. Bonds carry rate and duration risk. Foreign exchange shocks hit balance sheets without warning. Ideally, you want a reserve that holds value, moves fast across borders and plugs into digital rails. That is why Bitcoin, Ether and, in some cases, stablecoins now sit beside cash, gold and T-bills.

For corporations, the brief is simple: hedge inflation, diversify currency exposure, keep 24/7 liquidity and test digital settlement.

For sovereigns, meanwhile, the brief expands to strategic reserves, sanctions resilience and access to neutral, global liquidity. 

Bitcoin treasuries: The digital gold standard

Since its inception, BTC has held a unique position as the first and most well-known cryptocurrency, often referred to as the digital equivalent of gold. It is an appealing option for treasuries looking to safeguard against inflation and risks associated with traditional currencies.

Senator Cynthia Lummis in the US has proposed a bill called the Bitcoin Act. If it becomes a law, the bill would require the US Treasury to acquire 1 million BTC over five years for a federal reserve. Earlier, in March 2025, President Donald Trump announced the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, a reserve asset funded by the US Treasury’s forfeited BTC.

El Salvador gained attention in 2021 by adopting BTC as legal tender, while countries such as Bhutan have quietly included Bitcoin in their reserves. In the corporate world, Strategy is known for continuously acquiring BTC, making it the main asset in its treasury.

Bitcoin offers several advantages. It is highly liquid due to active global markets, scarce because of its limited supply and widely recognized across the financial world. To make earnings with BTC lying idle, you need to pair it with external lending or derivatives strategies. 

While it does have its drawbacks, like price volatility affecting balance sheets, the positives outweigh the negatives.

Did you know? Semler Scientific emulated Strategy but at a smaller scale. The firm added 210 more BTC to its balance sheet, acquiring the additional coins from July 3 to July 16 for approximately $25 million at the time, or an average price of $118,974 each.

Ether treasuries: The programmable alternative

While BTC remains the cornerstone of crypto treasuries, Ether has gained traction as an attractive alternative, particularly after its 2022 shift to proof-of-stake (PoS), known as the Merge. This change reduced energy consumption and introduced staking, which generates annual returns of 3%-5%, making ETH a productive asset unlike BTC. For treasuries, this positions ETH as both a store of value and a source of income.

Ethereum’s ecosystem adds to its value. Through decentralized finance (DeFi), treasuries can access liquidity without selling their holdings. The growing use of tokenized real-world assets, such as bonds or commodities, strengthens Ethereum’s role as a financial platform.

Institutional adoption of ETH is increasing. Companies are starting to hold ETH, and asset managers have introduced Ether-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) for regulated investment.

Even decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are using ETH as a reserve to ensure long-term stability.

However, challenges remain. Regulatory uncertainty in major markets, risks related to staking performance and Ethereum’s technical complexity create hurdles. Despite these, in 2025, ETH stands out as a versatile treasury asset, combining value storage, income potential and practical utility.

Did you know? Long before ETH ETFs launched in 2024, institutions gained exposure through Grayscale, showing early institutional faith in Ether.

2025 data: Comparing Bitcoin and Ether treasury holdings

As of Sept. 10, 2025, BTC remains the leading choice, with companies and institutions holding over 1 million BTC. ETH, though less widely held, is gaining popularity, with corporations, DAOs and asset managers increasingly adding ETH to their reserves.

Data from blockchain analytics highlights different strategies: Bitcoin treasury holdings are typically kept idle for long-term storage, while a larger portion of Ether holdings is actively staked, earning steady returns.

As of Sept. 10, 2025, Strategy alone controls approximately 638,460 BTC worth billions in valuation, highlighting a long-term hodl strategy focused on holding rather than generating yield.

The number of listed firms holding BTC grew from 70 in December 2024 to 134 by mid‑2025, accumulating nearly 245,000 BTC.

This difference in returns between Bitcoin and Ether is significant. BTC serves as a stable but passive reserve, while Ether’s 3%-5% staking yields make it a more active, income-generating asset, illustrating the choice between Bitcoin’s reliability and Ether’s growth potential.

Considering ETH reserves, as of Sept. 10, 2025, 73 entities held 4.91 million ETH, worth $21.28 billion. Bitmine Immersion Tech (BMNR) was the top holder of Ether with 2.07 million ETH, worth $9 billion. SharpLink Gaming (SBET) comes second with 837,230,000 ETH, worth $3.7 billion.

What are dual strategies?

As the cryptocurrency market matures, some governments and corporations are adopting a dual treasury strategy by holding both BTC and ETH. This approach combines Bitcoin’s stability and global recognition as a reserve asset with Ether’s potential for generating yield and its programmable features.

Here are two examples of dual treasury strategies.

United States federal government (Strategic Crypto Reserve)

• BTC Reserve: In March 2025, an executive order set up the US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, which holds an estimated 198,000-207,000 BTC (approximately $17 billion-$20 billion), as of Sept. 9, 2025, obtained through seizures and other means.

• ETH allocation: A US Digital Asset Stockpile has been created for non-Bitcoin assets, including Ether. As of Aug. 29, 2025, this stockpile contained approximately 60,000 ETH, worth around $261 million, according to an Arkham Exchange analysis of government-owned addresses.

BitMine Immersion Technologies (BMNR)

• BTC Holdings: BitMine, a company focused on crypto mining and treasury management, maintains a moderate Bitcoin reserve of 192 BTC worth over $21 million, as of Sept. 10, 2025.

• ETH Holdings: As mentioned before, Bitmine Immersion Tech (BMNR) holds 2.07 million ETH, with an estimated value of approximately $9 billion, as of Sept. 10, 2025.

This dual-asset approach highlights BitMine’s shift from solely Bitcoin mining to a diversified crypto reserve strategy. It is now more focused on combining Bitcoin’s value preservation with Ether’s income-generating potential.

Did you know? Institutions are issuing billions of dollars in tokenized government bonds directly on the Ethereum blockchain, intertwining ETH with TradFi.

Which strategy is winning in 2025?

The competition between BTC and ETH treasuries showcases their unique strengths. As of mid-2025, the trend points to a future where treasuries may increasingly adopt both assets.

BTC, for instance, stands out for its stability, widespread trust and global recognition, acting as the crypto world’s “reserve currency.” Its role as digital gold makes it the preferred choice for institutions and nations focused on long-term wealth preservation and straightforward liquidity.

Ether, on the other hand, has gained traction due to its ability to generate income, offer practical utility and support a growing ecosystem of tokenized assets. Treasuries holding ETH can earn 3%-5% annual returns through staking, access liquidity through DeFi and engage in markets for tokenized real-world assets, positioning ETH as an active, income-producing reserve.

The choice depends on goals. Bitcoin suits those prioritizing capital security and established trust, while Ether attracts those seeking growth and income potential. While BTC currently leads in total treasury holdings, ETH is catching up by drawing companies and DAOs that value its programmable financial features.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 15:10

Ether Vs Bitcoin Treasuries: Which Strategy Is Winning In 2025?

Authored by Dilip Kumar Patairya via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The treasury model: Why corporations and nations hold crypto

In recent years, companies and countries have increasingly included cryptocurrencies in their treasury strategies. Traditionally, corporate treasuries relied on cash, gold or government bonds to maintain value, ensure liquidity and provide financial stability. Governments had gold reserves to back their currencies.

However, cash loses purchasing power. Bonds carry rate and duration risk. Foreign exchange shocks hit balance sheets without warning. Ideally, you want a reserve that holds value, moves fast across borders and plugs into digital rails. That is why Bitcoin, Ether and, in some cases, stablecoins now sit beside cash, gold and T-bills.

For corporations, the brief is simple: hedge inflation, diversify currency exposure, keep 24/7 liquidity and test digital settlement.

For sovereigns, meanwhile, the brief expands to strategic reserves, sanctions resilience and access to neutral, global liquidity. 

Bitcoin treasuries: The digital gold standard

Since its inception, BTC has held a unique position as the first and most well-known cryptocurrency, often referred to as the digital equivalent of gold. It is an appealing option for treasuries looking to safeguard against inflation and risks associated with traditional currencies.

Senator Cynthia Lummis in the US has proposed a bill called the Bitcoin Act. If it becomes a law, the bill would require the US Treasury to acquire 1 million BTC over five years for a federal reserve. Earlier, in March 2025, President Donald Trump announced the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, a reserve asset funded by the US Treasury’s forfeited BTC.

El Salvador gained attention in 2021 by adopting BTC as legal tender, while countries such as Bhutan have quietly included Bitcoin in their reserves. In the corporate world, Strategy is known for continuously acquiring BTC, making it the main asset in its treasury.

Bitcoin offers several advantages. It is highly liquid due to active global markets, scarce because of its limited supply and widely recognized across the financial world. To make earnings with BTC lying idle, you need to pair it with external lending or derivatives strategies. 

While it does have its drawbacks, like price volatility affecting balance sheets, the positives outweigh the negatives.

Did you know? Semler Scientific emulated Strategy but at a smaller scale. The firm added 210 more BTC to its balance sheet, acquiring the additional coins from July 3 to July 16 for approximately $25 million at the time, or an average price of $118,974 each.

Ether treasuries: The programmable alternative

While BTC remains the cornerstone of crypto treasuries, Ether has gained traction as an attractive alternative, particularly after its 2022 shift to proof-of-stake (PoS), known as the Merge. This change reduced energy consumption and introduced staking, which generates annual returns of 3%-5%, making ETH a productive asset unlike BTC. For treasuries, this positions ETH as both a store of value and a source of income.

Ethereum’s ecosystem adds to its value. Through decentralized finance (DeFi), treasuries can access liquidity without selling their holdings. The growing use of tokenized real-world assets, such as bonds or commodities, strengthens Ethereum’s role as a financial platform.

Institutional adoption of ETH is increasing. Companies are starting to hold ETH, and asset managers have introduced Ether-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) for regulated investment.

Even decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are using ETH as a reserve to ensure long-term stability.

However, challenges remain. Regulatory uncertainty in major markets, risks related to staking performance and Ethereum’s technical complexity create hurdles. Despite these, in 2025, ETH stands out as a versatile treasury asset, combining value storage, income potential and practical utility.

Did you know? Long before ETH ETFs launched in 2024, institutions gained exposure through Grayscale, showing early institutional faith in Ether.

2025 data: Comparing Bitcoin and Ether treasury holdings

As of Sept. 10, 2025, BTC remains the leading choice, with companies and institutions holding over 1 million BTC. ETH, though less widely held, is gaining popularity, with corporations, DAOs and asset managers increasingly adding ETH to their reserves.

Data from blockchain analytics highlights different strategies: Bitcoin treasury holdings are typically kept idle for long-term storage, while a larger portion of Ether holdings is actively staked, earning steady returns.

As of Sept. 10, 2025, Strategy alone controls approximately 638,460 BTC worth billions in valuation, highlighting a long-term hodl strategy focused on holding rather than generating yield.

The number of listed firms holding BTC grew from 70 in December 2024 to 134 by mid‑2025, accumulating nearly 245,000 BTC.

This difference in returns between Bitcoin and Ether is significant. BTC serves as a stable but passive reserve, while Ether’s 3%-5% staking yields make it a more active, income-generating asset, illustrating the choice between Bitcoin’s reliability and Ether’s growth potential.

Considering ETH reserves, as of Sept. 10, 2025, 73 entities held 4.91 million ETH, worth $21.28 billion. Bitmine Immersion Tech (BMNR) was the top holder of Ether with 2.07 million ETH, worth $9 billion. SharpLink Gaming (SBET) comes second with 837,230,000 ETH, worth $3.7 billion.

What are dual strategies?

As the cryptocurrency market matures, some governments and corporations are adopting a dual treasury strategy by holding both BTC and ETH. This approach combines Bitcoin’s stability and global recognition as a reserve asset with Ether’s potential for generating yield and its programmable features.

Here are two examples of dual treasury strategies.

United States federal government (Strategic Crypto Reserve)

• BTC Reserve: In March 2025, an executive order set up the US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, which holds an estimated 198,000-207,000 BTC (approximately $17 billion-$20 billion), as of Sept. 9, 2025, obtained through seizures and other means.

• ETH allocation: A US Digital Asset Stockpile has been created for non-Bitcoin assets, including Ether. As of Aug. 29, 2025, this stockpile contained approximately 60,000 ETH, worth around $261 million, according to an Arkham Exchange analysis of government-owned addresses.

BitMine Immersion Technologies (BMNR)

• BTC Holdings: BitMine, a company focused on crypto mining and treasury management, maintains a moderate Bitcoin reserve of 192 BTC worth over $21 million, as of Sept. 10, 2025.

• ETH Holdings: As mentioned before, Bitmine Immersion Tech (BMNR) holds 2.07 million ETH, with an estimated value of approximately $9 billion, as of Sept. 10, 2025.

This dual-asset approach highlights BitMine’s shift from solely Bitcoin mining to a diversified crypto reserve strategy. It is now more focused on combining Bitcoin’s value preservation with Ether’s income-generating potential.

Did you know? Institutions are issuing billions of dollars in tokenized government bonds directly on the Ethereum blockchain, intertwining ETH with TradFi.

Which strategy is winning in 2025?

The competition between BTC and ETH treasuries showcases their unique strengths. As of mid-2025, the trend points to a future where treasuries may increasingly adopt both assets.

BTC, for instance, stands out for its stability, widespread trust and global recognition, acting as the crypto world’s “reserve currency.” Its role as digital gold makes it the preferred choice for institutions and nations focused on long-term wealth preservation and straightforward liquidity.

Ether, on the other hand, has gained traction due to its ability to generate income, offer practical utility and support a growing ecosystem of tokenized assets. Treasuries holding ETH can earn 3%-5% annual returns through staking, access liquidity through DeFi and engage in markets for tokenized real-world assets, positioning ETH as an active, income-producing reserve.

The choice depends on goals. Bitcoin suits those prioritizing capital security and established trust, while Ether attracts those seeking growth and income potential. While BTC currently leads in total treasury holdings, ETH is catching up by drawing companies and DAOs that value its programmable financial features.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 15:10

Trump Backs Off Promise To Sanction Russia, Issues Ultimatum To NATO

President Trump's prior two week deadline where he vowed to make a big decision on Russia has come and gone. He's now backing off the prior threat to impose heightened sanctions on Russia, including secondary sanctions which would seek to punish its trading partners, particularly China and India.

There's been no peace agreement, and the latest out of both Russian and Ukrainian leaders suggests negotiations are effectively dead at this point, as Moscow forces keep advancing in the east village by village. There's been little to no momentum from the Alaska summit with Putin.

On Saturday Trump made clear in a long Truth Social post that he's backing off pulling the trigger on new sanctions, and listed things NATO members would have to do for it to happen. He set some new standards which are very unlikely to met by all NATO countries - or rather a significant ultimatum. 

Momentum has waned in the weeks after the historic Trump-Putin summit.

All NATO countries must stop buying oil from Russia and in parallel agree to sweeping tariffs on China, Trump explained Saturday, throwing down the gauntlet. 

"I am ready to do major Sanctions on Russia when all NATO Nations have agreed, and started, to do the same thing, and when all NATO Nations STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA," Trump wrote Social Saturday morning.

He described his words as a letter to America's allies and to the world: "As you know, NATO’S commitment to WIN has been far less than 100%, and the purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking," he continued.

"China has a strong control, and even grip, over Russia, and these powerful Tariffs will break that grip," Trump's 'letter' continues. He then made his position clear that tariffs on China would "be of great help in ENDING this deadly, but RIDICULOUS, WAR."

China and India are of course at this moment the two biggest importers of Russian oil, in that order, but what's less well known is that NATO member Turkey is the third largest. Ironically, Turkey maintains the second largest military in NATO, next to the United States.

It continues, alongside Orban's Hungary and Fico's Slovakia, to be a thorn in the side of 'NATO unity' regarding Russian energy imports. According to one recent energy industry study:

In the first half of 2024, Turkey has risen from being the 14th largest buyer of Russian crude oil before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, to the third largest importer.

In the same period, three Turkish refineries have used EUR 1.2 bn worth of Russian crude to create oil products that are then imported by G7+ countries.

Imports of refined oil products from Turkey’s STAR Refinery, Tupras Izmit Refinery, and the Tupras Aliaga Izmir Refinery have generated an estimated EUR 750 mn in tax revenues for the Kremlin to finance its brutal war on Ukraine. 

The Russian oil and gas sector is a crucial revenue stream for the Kremlin, contributing 32% to the federal budget in 2023, a decrease from 42% in 2022. Furthermore, the Kremlin allocated a third of all 2024 spending on the military.

OIL MARKET: Donald Trump sets tall conditions to impose any sanctions on Russia. It’s a cynic tactic as he knows well that others won’t accept.

But, and it pains me to say, he’s not 100% wrong: Europe continues buying Russian oil and natural gas. pic.twitter.com/g8DytLUB4D

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) September 13, 2025

This means that getting all of NATO on the same page regarding both Russian energy imports and China tariffs would be all but impossible.

Trump additionally pointed out in his fresh message, "This is not TRUMP’S WAR (it would never have started if I was President!), it is Biden’s and Zelenskyy’s WAR. I am only here to help stop it."

*  *  *

Reminder: Secure your order by Sunday night for Wednesday delivery

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 14:35

At the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter this week:

Click on graph for larger image.

• Part 1: Current State of the Housing Market; Overview for mid-September 2025

• Part 2: Current State of the Housing Market; Overview for mid-September 2025

• The "Home ATM" Mostly Closed in Q2

• 1st Look at Local Housing Markets in August

• September ICE Mortgage Monitor: House Prices Up Slightly Year-over-year

This is usually published 4 to 6 times a week and provides more in-depth analysis of the housing market.

Economic Measurement & The Mirage Of Exactness

Authored by Peter C. Earle via the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)

In contentious political environments, economic data rarely stand as objective measures. They are transformed into talking points and wielded to justify policies as much as to describe reality. A monthly jobs report, a quarterly GDP release, or an inflation figure splashed across financial headlines is treated with the solemnity of a laboratory result. Markets react, central bankers pontificate, and legislators posture—all on the basis of a handful of daunting numbers. Yet beneath the veneer of rigor lies a reality that economists have long known but the public too rarely hears: economic measurement is messy, contingent, and riven with flaws. To take these figures as seriously as one might an engineering calculation is to misunderstand their very nature.

The Concept-Measurement Gap

Unlike the physical sciences, where experiments can be replicated under controlled conditions, economic data arise from millions of decentralized transactions, informal exchanges, and shifting definitions. The “measurement gap” describes the yawning space between what we wish to know and what our tools can actually capture.

For instance, gross domestic product (GDP) is intended as a comprehensive measure of economic output. Yet among other shortcomings it fails to account for the shadow economy and values government services at cost rather than output. Likewise, productivity metrics often rely on assumptions about hours worked that blur the line between logged time and effective effort. The gap is structural: We seek neat aggregates in a world of fluid, heterogeneous activity.

Periodicity Versus Accuracy

Part of the problem stems from the tradeoff between the regularity of data publication and the accuracy of the estimates. The public and policymakers demand frequent updates. Employment figures are released monthly, GDP quarterly, inflation monthly. This rhythm provides a semblance of continuous monitoring, but it comes at a cost. Initial estimates are often based on partial surveys, extrapolations, or seasonal adjustment algorithms that rely on historical patterns. As more information arrives, revisions follow—sometimes minor, sometimes seismic. GDP growth in a given quarter may be reported at 2.5 percent, only to be revised months later to 1.2 or 3.4 percent. Markets and pundits rarely revisit their earlier pronouncements; the initial number is what shapes expectations and headlines. In this sense, economic statistics resemble a kind of Heisenberg problem: the very act of requiring frequent measurement reduces their reliability, and yet without regularity, the public and policymakers would demand answers from even shakier conjecture.

If employment or inflation data were released only quarterly, the estimates might gain in accuracy, but each observation would capture a far larger temporal gap—implying greater structural and cyclical changes between each data point. Conversely, producing employment or price measures weekly, or even daily, would rapidly push reported figures toward statistical noise. Shorter intervals would yield estimates that rapidly approach randomness, while longer intervals risk creating more accurate but discontinuous, contextless “islands” of spaced-out information with limited practical application.

The False Allure of Precision

The inclination to take economic statistics with engineering-like seriousness is understandable. Numbers carry authority and convey expertise at work. A decimal place conveys credibility. When unemployment is reported at 4.2 percent, the impression is that it is truly 4.2 percent. In reality, margins of error of half a percentage point or more are common, and survey nonresponse, definitional ambiguities, and model-based imputations mean that the figure could as reasonably be 3.8 or 4.7 percent.

This tendency to misinterpret approximations as finely measured truth is neatly captured in an old joke: a man was once asked how old the pyramids were. He confidently answered, “Exactly 4,504 years old.” When pressed on how he came up with such a specific figure, he explained, “Well, four years ago someone told me they were built 4,500 years ago.” The absurdity lies in mistaking a rough estimate for an exact data point—an error that gives the illusion of exactness while straying further from accuracy.

Moreover, concepts evolve. Inflation indices now incorporate hedonic adjustments, imputing quality improvements into price data. A smartphone that costs the same as last year but now has a sharper camera is treated as “cheaper” in real terms. This may be defensible, but it is hardly intuitive—and it introduces further scope for both debate and misinterpretation.

Bureaucratic Incentives and Political Objectives

Even if economic measurement were a purely technical endeavor, it would remain prone to error. But the reality is that numbers are produced in a political environment. Statistical agencies face resource constraints, pressures to maintain credibility, and the ever-present possibility of political interference. Bureaucrats, like all individuals, respond to incentives: budgets, prestige, or the desire to avoid controversy. Meanwhile, political figures have every reason to weaponize statistics.

A favorable inflation print will be heralded as evidence of prudent stewardship; an uptick in unemployment will be attributed to opponents’ policies or to global shocks conveniently beyond control. Numbers do not speak for themselves. They are framed, spun, and selectively emphasized.

Variability Beyond Malfeasance

It is tempting to view puzzling fluctuations in economic data as the result of manipulation. A GDP figure that surprises on the upside, or a sudden revision to employment data, can look suspicious to the cynical observer. But the truth is usually more mundane and more troubling: the sheer multiplicity of errors, approximations, and compromises in measurement more than accounts for the volatility.

Sampling error, late survey responses, benchmark revisions, and definitional tweaks combine to create a statistical fog that obscures as much as it reveals.

Caution Is the Watchword

None of this is to argue that measurement is futile. Imperfect statistics are arguably better than flying blind. But a greater humility is warranted in how we interpret them. Economic figures should be seen as estimates, surrounded by wide confidence intervals and conditioned on assumptions. Numbers are best treated as fuzzy inputs toward decisions, not substitutes for them. Headline numbers must be treated with considerable caution, especially the first release of any major statistic. Revisions can, and often do, change the story. Second, recognize that the authority of numbers does not make them apolitical. They are generated in bureaucracies, filtered through political incentives, and presented in ways that serve narratives; sometimes several at the same time.

In the end, the multiplicity of errors and compromises in measurement explain far more of the wild and suspicious variations than do any grand conspiracy theories. Numbers are indispensable, but nevertheless incomplete, persnickety guides. To treat them as precise representations of the current state of a phenomenon, rather than rough maps of a shifting and inherently complex terrain, is to demand of economics what only the hard sciences can provide.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 14:00

Economic Measurement & The Mirage Of Exactness

Authored by Peter C. Earle via the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)

In contentious political environments, economic data rarely stand as objective measures. They are transformed into talking points and wielded to justify policies as much as to describe reality. A monthly jobs report, a quarterly GDP release, or an inflation figure splashed across financial headlines is treated with the solemnity of a laboratory result. Markets react, central bankers pontificate, and legislators posture—all on the basis of a handful of daunting numbers. Yet beneath the veneer of rigor lies a reality that economists have long known but the public too rarely hears: economic measurement is messy, contingent, and riven with flaws. To take these figures as seriously as one might an engineering calculation is to misunderstand their very nature.

The Concept-Measurement Gap

Unlike the physical sciences, where experiments can be replicated under controlled conditions, economic data arise from millions of decentralized transactions, informal exchanges, and shifting definitions. The “measurement gap” describes the yawning space between what we wish to know and what our tools can actually capture.

For instance, gross domestic product (GDP) is intended as a comprehensive measure of economic output. Yet among other shortcomings it fails to account for the shadow economy and values government services at cost rather than output. Likewise, productivity metrics often rely on assumptions about hours worked that blur the line between logged time and effective effort. The gap is structural: We seek neat aggregates in a world of fluid, heterogeneous activity.

Periodicity Versus Accuracy

Part of the problem stems from the tradeoff between the regularity of data publication and the accuracy of the estimates. The public and policymakers demand frequent updates. Employment figures are released monthly, GDP quarterly, inflation monthly. This rhythm provides a semblance of continuous monitoring, but it comes at a cost. Initial estimates are often based on partial surveys, extrapolations, or seasonal adjustment algorithms that rely on historical patterns. As more information arrives, revisions follow—sometimes minor, sometimes seismic. GDP growth in a given quarter may be reported at 2.5 percent, only to be revised months later to 1.2 or 3.4 percent. Markets and pundits rarely revisit their earlier pronouncements; the initial number is what shapes expectations and headlines. In this sense, economic statistics resemble a kind of Heisenberg problem: the very act of requiring frequent measurement reduces their reliability, and yet without regularity, the public and policymakers would demand answers from even shakier conjecture.

If employment or inflation data were released only quarterly, the estimates might gain in accuracy, but each observation would capture a far larger temporal gap—implying greater structural and cyclical changes between each data point. Conversely, producing employment or price measures weekly, or even daily, would rapidly push reported figures toward statistical noise. Shorter intervals would yield estimates that rapidly approach randomness, while longer intervals risk creating more accurate but discontinuous, contextless “islands” of spaced-out information with limited practical application.

The False Allure of Precision

The inclination to take economic statistics with engineering-like seriousness is understandable. Numbers carry authority and convey expertise at work. A decimal place conveys credibility. When unemployment is reported at 4.2 percent, the impression is that it is truly 4.2 percent. In reality, margins of error of half a percentage point or more are common, and survey nonresponse, definitional ambiguities, and model-based imputations mean that the figure could as reasonably be 3.8 or 4.7 percent.

This tendency to misinterpret approximations as finely measured truth is neatly captured in an old joke: a man was once asked how old the pyramids were. He confidently answered, “Exactly 4,504 years old.” When pressed on how he came up with such a specific figure, he explained, “Well, four years ago someone told me they were built 4,500 years ago.” The absurdity lies in mistaking a rough estimate for an exact data point—an error that gives the illusion of exactness while straying further from accuracy.

Moreover, concepts evolve. Inflation indices now incorporate hedonic adjustments, imputing quality improvements into price data. A smartphone that costs the same as last year but now has a sharper camera is treated as “cheaper” in real terms. This may be defensible, but it is hardly intuitive—and it introduces further scope for both debate and misinterpretation.

Bureaucratic Incentives and Political Objectives

Even if economic measurement were a purely technical endeavor, it would remain prone to error. But the reality is that numbers are produced in a political environment. Statistical agencies face resource constraints, pressures to maintain credibility, and the ever-present possibility of political interference. Bureaucrats, like all individuals, respond to incentives: budgets, prestige, or the desire to avoid controversy. Meanwhile, political figures have every reason to weaponize statistics.

A favorable inflation print will be heralded as evidence of prudent stewardship; an uptick in unemployment will be attributed to opponents’ policies or to global shocks conveniently beyond control. Numbers do not speak for themselves. They are framed, spun, and selectively emphasized.

Variability Beyond Malfeasance

It is tempting to view puzzling fluctuations in economic data as the result of manipulation. A GDP figure that surprises on the upside, or a sudden revision to employment data, can look suspicious to the cynical observer. But the truth is usually more mundane and more troubling: the sheer multiplicity of errors, approximations, and compromises in measurement more than accounts for the volatility.

Sampling error, late survey responses, benchmark revisions, and definitional tweaks combine to create a statistical fog that obscures as much as it reveals.

Caution Is the Watchword

None of this is to argue that measurement is futile. Imperfect statistics are arguably better than flying blind. But a greater humility is warranted in how we interpret them. Economic figures should be seen as estimates, surrounded by wide confidence intervals and conditioned on assumptions. Numbers are best treated as fuzzy inputs toward decisions, not substitutes for them. Headline numbers must be treated with considerable caution, especially the first release of any major statistic. Revisions can, and often do, change the story. Second, recognize that the authority of numbers does not make them apolitical. They are generated in bureaucracies, filtered through political incentives, and presented in ways that serve narratives; sometimes several at the same time.

In the end, the multiplicity of errors and compromises in measurement explain far more of the wild and suspicious variations than do any grand conspiracy theories. Numbers are indispensable, but nevertheless incomplete, persnickety guides. To treat them as precise representations of the current state of a phenomenon, rather than rough maps of a shifting and inherently complex terrain, is to demand of economics what only the hard sciences can provide.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 14:00

Germany To Add More Than 100K Troops To Army In Preparation For War With Russia

Via The Libertarian Institute

The head of the German army is calling for more than doubling its forces in response to a perceived threat from Russia. The Army Chief said Berlin must be ready to fight a war with Moscow by 2029. 

Reuters reports viewing confidential German documents that show Army Chief Alfons Mais wants to add 100,000 new troops to the military. The increase in armed men will more than double the size of the German Army. 

German troops, Getty Images

"It is imperative for the army to become sufficiently ready for war by 2029 and provide the capabilities Germany pledged (to NATO) by 2035," he wrote on September 2. 

The proposal comes as Berlin is increasing its defense commitments to Eastern European nations. Germany is in the process of establishing a permanent deployment of 5,000 troops in Lithuania.

Additionally, Berlin is planning to increase its surveillance in Poland after about two dozen Russian drones entered Polish airspace. 

Berlin has yet to reach its 2018 goal of having 203,000 troops across its military. Earlier this year, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius announced Berlin was now trying to increase the size of its military to 260,000. 

According to further analysis and summary in Modern Diplomacy:

• Germany may need to reintroduce conscription or offer substantial incentives to attract and retain military personnel, amid a competitive labor market.

• Failure to meet troop targets could weaken NATO's eastern flank and strain alliances, particularly with frontline states like Poland and the Baltics.

• Increased defense spending will be necessary to equip and train new troops, testing Germany’s fiscal priorities and public support for militarization.

• Russia may view Germany’s military buildup as provocative, potentially escalating tensions in Eastern Europe.

Mais went on to say that Germany would also need hundreds of thousands of reservists that can quickly mobilize.

"According to a first rough estimate, a total of around 460,000 personnel (from Germany) will be necessary, divided into some 260,000 active troops and around 200,000 reservists," he wrote. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 12:50

'No Palestinian State, This Place Is Ours': Netanyahu Rejects UN Two State Recognition

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has firmly rejected the idea of Palestinian statehood at a moment it is being pushed in the UN General Assembly, declaring, "There will be no Palestinian state - this land belongs to us."

His audience burst into loud applause, at a celebratory event marking a major housing deal in Ma'ale Adumim this week. The occasion was an "umbrella agreement" between the Israeli government and Ma'ale Adumim, which includes the planned development of the highly contested E1 area, a highly sensitive zone both Israel and the Palestinians recognize as geopolitically crucial to their futures.

TOI/GPO

Construction in E1 would effectively sever the territorial continuity of a future Palestinian state, which has resulted in fierce condemnation from those who deem it an intentional and decisive blow to any two-state solution.

Underscoring how controversial developing this piece of land has been, the 12-square-kilometer (4.6 sq. mile) area in Judea has sat untouched for several decades. It was first proposed for Israeli development in 1994, but has seen no movement since, amid international pressure.

Ma'ale Adumim, at currently some 40,000 residents, will see the expanse into the contested land zone result in an additional 7,000 new housing units, or enough for about 30,000 more Israelis.

"[T]his is about to realize the doubling of the city of Ma'ale Adumim. There will be 70,000 people here in five years. That will be a huge change," Netanyahu said in his speech.

Netanyahu's firm declaration that "there will be no Palestinian state" was a direct challenge on the ground to what's happening at the United Nations meeting in New York:

The U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly Friday to support a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and urge Israel to commit to a Palestinian state, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vehemently opposes.

The 193-member world body approved a nonbinding resolution endorsing the “New York Declaration,” which sets out a phased plan to end the nearly 80-year conflict. The vote was 142-10 with 12 abstentions.

Of course, this is largely symbolic - but Israel's relations with leading European countries such as France and Germany have been very negatively impacted, also as some like Denmark even mull sanctions.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has approved a move that he says “buries the idea of a Palestinian state.” After a 20 year freeze, he gave the green light to the construction of 3,401 housing units in the E1 (East 1) area between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim.

Let’s break down… pic.twitter.com/0St0sTx3th

— Amit Segal (@AmitSegal) August 14, 2025

Gaza too is expected to be occupied indefinitely by an Israeli troop presence, especially now that Netanyahu has committed to the full Gaza City offensive and takeover.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 12:15

Zelensky's Incentive Problem: Unmasking The Media's Darling

Authored by Steve Cortes via American Greatness,

You won’t hear this from the mainstream press, but you’ll hear it here first: Volodymyr Zelensky, the Western media’s darling, is in real political trouble at home.

I just commissioned credible polling from inside Ukraine. The war-weary population there wants a new president and a negotiated peace.

This reality makes Zelensky less a heroic statesman and more a vulnerable incumbent with a perverse incentive: to keep slow-walking peace, continue milking Western taxpayers, and delay the elections he’s almost certain to lose.

The Best Data We Have

To learn the truth within Ukraine, we used experienced pollsters who surveyed more than 1,000 citizens. These results represent the clearest and most reliable snapshot of Ukrainian opinion:

• In a hypothetical presidential election against General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Zelensky loses by -13 points.

• Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine’s former armed forces chief, isn’t even in the country. He now serves as ambassador to the United Kingdom—an appointment widely seen as a “consolation prize” from Zelensky meant to marginalize his most popular potential rival. But that move has backfired badly: instead of diminishing Zaluzhnyi, it has only underscored Zelensky’s insecurity and boosted the general’s stature. A man sidelined abroad now leads him by double digits.

• 71% of Ukrainians say corruption is one of the country’s major problems. Just 1% say it isn’t serious.

• A majority, 53%, view Zelensky’s powerful chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, as corrupt. Only 15% disagree.

• By contrast, 64% of Ukrainians do not view Zaluzhnyi as prone to corruption.

• 77% want the war to end through diplomacy alone or through a combination of diplomacy and military action. Only 13% favor a purely military solution—the maximalist line Zelensky and Yermak promote.

Taken together, these numbers reveal fatigue. Ukrainians are tired of corruption, tired of maximalist slogans, and tired of a leader whose act has worn out its welcome—even as the rival he tried to sideline has eclipsed him.

The Perverse Incentive to Stall

That fatigue creates a dangerous dynamic. Zelensky and Yermak know that once the war ends, elections must follow—and polling suggests they will almost certainly lose. Hence, they slow-walk diplomacy, prolong the fighting, and keep Western money flowing to delay the day of reckoning.

It’s a survival scheme, not a real strategy.

The Entertainer Act

Zelensky is an entertainer, not a statesman. His image was carefully built for Western elites to virtue-signal over—a custom-made performer cast as a wartime saint. But entertainers live on image, not accountability. And polling shows the halo has already slipped where it matters most: inside Ukraine.

Ukrainians now see him less as a heroic leader and more as that shady relative you always knew was a scam artist—the Uncle Rico-style hustler with his hand in your pocket. The type you spot as a fraud before anyone else does, until one day it becomes obvious to everyone.

The U.S. Angle

Americans get it, too. In my national polling, 62% of U.S. voters said we should disengage if Kyiv and Moscow cannot negotiate a peace. Ordinary Ukrainians and ordinary Americans both want diplomacy, not blank checks.

But instead of aligning with the people, Washington keeps footing the bill for a leader whose act has already worn out its welcome. As for Putin? To borrow from former NFL coach Dennis Green, he is who we thought he was. An adversary, a rival, a problem—but never a media darling. No halo, no surprise.

The Way Forward

President Trump deserves credit for forcing both sides into talks.

If Kyiv and Moscow remain obstinate, he knows how to raise the cost. For Putin, that means harsh secondary sanctions. For Zelensky, that means drawing down American financial and intelligence support. Unlike Biden, Trump understands that endless giveaways create weakness, not strength.

Because here’s the lesson—one I highlighted in my Obama documentary, and one Americans keep learning the hard way: hero worship is a trap. The harder the media sells you a halo, the more likely there’s a heel underneath it.

And the best, most accurate polling available proves it: Ukrainians are fatigued, Americans are fatigued, and Zelensky’s halo won’t survive the unmasking.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 10:30

Zelensky's Incentive Problem: Unmasking The Media's Darling

Authored by Steve Cortes via American Greatness,

You won’t hear this from the mainstream press, but you’ll hear it here first: Volodymyr Zelensky, the Western media’s darling, is in real political trouble at home.

I just commissioned credible polling from inside Ukraine. The war-weary population there wants a new president and a negotiated peace.

This reality makes Zelensky less a heroic statesman and more a vulnerable incumbent with a perverse incentive: to keep slow-walking peace, continue milking Western taxpayers, and delay the elections he’s almost certain to lose.

The Best Data We Have

To learn the truth within Ukraine, we used experienced pollsters who surveyed more than 1,000 citizens. These results represent the clearest and most reliable snapshot of Ukrainian opinion:

• In a hypothetical presidential election against General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Zelensky loses by -13 points.

• Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine’s former armed forces chief, isn’t even in the country. He now serves as ambassador to the United Kingdom—an appointment widely seen as a “consolation prize” from Zelensky meant to marginalize his most popular potential rival. But that move has backfired badly: instead of diminishing Zaluzhnyi, it has only underscored Zelensky’s insecurity and boosted the general’s stature. A man sidelined abroad now leads him by double digits.

• 71% of Ukrainians say corruption is one of the country’s major problems. Just 1% say it isn’t serious.

• A majority, 53%, view Zelensky’s powerful chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, as corrupt. Only 15% disagree.

• By contrast, 64% of Ukrainians do not view Zaluzhnyi as prone to corruption.

• 77% want the war to end through diplomacy alone or through a combination of diplomacy and military action. Only 13% favor a purely military solution—the maximalist line Zelensky and Yermak promote.

Taken together, these numbers reveal fatigue. Ukrainians are tired of corruption, tired of maximalist slogans, and tired of a leader whose act has worn out its welcome—even as the rival he tried to sideline has eclipsed him.

The Perverse Incentive to Stall

That fatigue creates a dangerous dynamic. Zelensky and Yermak know that once the war ends, elections must follow—and polling suggests they will almost certainly lose. Hence, they slow-walk diplomacy, prolong the fighting, and keep Western money flowing to delay the day of reckoning.

It’s a survival scheme, not a real strategy.

The Entertainer Act

Zelensky is an entertainer, not a statesman. His image was carefully built for Western elites to virtue-signal over—a custom-made performer cast as a wartime saint. But entertainers live on image, not accountability. And polling shows the halo has already slipped where it matters most: inside Ukraine.

Ukrainians now see him less as a heroic leader and more as that shady relative you always knew was a scam artist—the Uncle Rico-style hustler with his hand in your pocket. The type you spot as a fraud before anyone else does, until one day it becomes obvious to everyone.

The U.S. Angle

Americans get it, too. In my national polling, 62% of U.S. voters said we should disengage if Kyiv and Moscow cannot negotiate a peace. Ordinary Ukrainians and ordinary Americans both want diplomacy, not blank checks.

But instead of aligning with the people, Washington keeps footing the bill for a leader whose act has already worn out its welcome. As for Putin? To borrow from former NFL coach Dennis Green, he is who we thought he was. An adversary, a rival, a problem—but never a media darling. No halo, no surprise.

The Way Forward

President Trump deserves credit for forcing both sides into talks.

If Kyiv and Moscow remain obstinate, he knows how to raise the cost. For Putin, that means harsh secondary sanctions. For Zelensky, that means drawing down American financial and intelligence support. Unlike Biden, Trump understands that endless giveaways create weakness, not strength.

Because here’s the lesson—one I highlighted in my Obama documentary, and one Americans keep learning the hard way: hero worship is a trap. The harder the media sells you a halo, the more likely there’s a heel underneath it.

And the best, most accurate polling available proves it: Ukrainians are fatigued, Americans are fatigued, and Zelensky’s halo won’t survive the unmasking.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 10:30

Where VPN Demand Surged Due To Internet Blocks In 2025

Violence and chaos have gripped Nepal as protests sparked by the blocking of social media sites spiralled out of control.

The country's prime minister resigned Tuesday after security forces fired on protestors Monday. Hundreds were injured and at least 22 people died, most by live ammunition. The army assumed control Tuesday night after many government and other buildings were set ablaze by protestors.

Young people were reported to lead the uprising, which was catalized by the attempt to surpress online expression but brought to the surface the population's deep discontent with issues like corruption, inequality and political participation.

Democracy in Nepal only has a relatively short history and despite the last remnants of its monarchy abolished in 2008, nepotism and deep-seated corruption have continued to rule the country, drawing the ire of the population.

This is especially true for young Nepalese who struggle with finding employment and opportunity. In a country dependent on the remittances of workers abroad, the social media ban has been described as a very strong trigger as it cut off communications with the diaspora.

As Statista's Katharina Buchholz shows in the chart below, using data from website Top10VPN, Nepal's social media blocks elicited the most pronounced response in terms of people looking for a way around via VPNs this year.

On September 7, VPN search volume in the country had risen almost 3,000 percent above the previous month's average - the biggest spike recorded globally this year by the source.

You will find more infographics at Statista

On July 17, the introduction of new online age verification requirements led to a momentary increase of almost 2,000 percent of VPN search volume in the United Kingdom, while a similar law change led to volumes in France spiking by 570 percent on June 5.

Ongoing protests and unrest in Iran which has led to the authorities restricting internet access reached a high point on June 15, when VPN search volume rose 707 percent over the previous month's level.

The shortlived U.S. TikTok ban saw search volumes soar up 827 percent on January 19.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 08:45

The key reports this week are August Retail Sales and Housing Starts.

For manufacturing, August Industrial Production, and the September New York and Philly Fed surveys will be released this week.

The FOMC meets this week and is expected to cut rates.

----- Monday, September 15th -----
8:30 AM ET: The New York Fed Empire State manufacturing survey for September. The consensus is for a reading of 4.0, down from 11.9.

----- Tuesday, September 16th -----
8:30 AM ET: Retail sales for August will be released.  The consensus is for a 0.3% increase in retail sales.

This graph shows retail sales since 1992. This is monthly retail sales and food service, seasonally adjusted (total and ex-gasoline).

9:15 AM: The Fed will release Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization for August.

This graph shows industrial production since 1967.

The consensus is for no change in Industrial Production, and for Capacity Utilization to decrease to 77.4%.

10:00 AM: The September NAHB homebuilder survey. The consensus is for a reading of 33, up from 32 in August. Any number below 50 indicates that more builders view sales conditions as poor than good.

----- Wednesday, September 17th -----
7:00 AM ET: The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) will release the results for the mortgage purchase applications index.

8:30 AM: Housing Starts for August.

This graph shows single and total housing starts since 1968.

The consensus is for 1.375 million SAAR, down from 1.428 million SAAR.

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

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

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

----- Thursday, September 18th -----
8:30 AM: The initial weekly unemployment claims report will be released. The consensus is for initial claims to decrease to 240 thousand from 263 thousand last week.

8:30 AM: the Philly Fed manufacturing survey for September. The consensus is for a reading of 2.5, up from 0.0.

----- Friday, September 19th -----
10:00 AM: State Employment and Unemployment (Monthly) for August 2025

The Five Most Likely Outcomes From The Russian Drone Incursion Into Poland

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Some commentators on both sides think that this might lead to World War III...

NATO forces directly intercepted Russian drones for the first time since the special operation began after some of them veered into Poland earlier this week, with this unprecedented incident arguably being due to NATO jamming as explained here.

Some commentators on both sides think that this might lead to World War III, but that’s a far-fetched scenario since NATO isn’t expected to kinetically respond by bombing Russia (even just Kaliningrad) and/or Belarus. The five most likely outcomes are actually that:

* The “EU Defense Line” Becomes A “Drone Wall”

The “Baltic Defense Line” and Poland’s “East Shield”, which are collectively known as the “EU Defense Line” that functions as the new Iron Curtain, might soon be outfitted with cutting-edge anti-drone capabilities as suggested by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. She spoke about creating an “Eastern Flank Watch” that would also become a “drone wall”, which the Baltic States have wanted for a while, and it makes sense to expand this program in both directions to Poland and Finland.

* Poland Expands Its Military Influence In The Baltics

As the most populous and prosperous formerly communist country in Central Europe, which has already built the third-largest army in NATO, Poland could easily expand its military influence over the region on the pretext of “defending against Russia”. New President Karol Nawrocki implied over the summer that the “Three Seas Initiative” would be the means towards this end and even declared during his latest trip to Lithuania that “we are responsible for entire region of Central Europe, including the Baltic States”.

* The US Expands Its Military Presence In Poland

Poland has been asking for more US troops for years, and Trump seemed willing to satisfy this request when he said during Nawrocki’s visit last month that “We'll put more there if they want.” That might be what he had in mind when he tweeted “Here we go!” on Wednesday. As was assessed earlier this year, “Poland Is Once Again Poised To Become The US’ Top Partner” and “Trump Is Unlikely To Pull All US Troops Out Of Central Europe Or Abandon NATO’s Article 5”, so this is within the realm of possibility.

* Poland Host Elements Of A NATO Sky Shield…

Less likely but nonetheless still possible is that Poland hosts elements of a NATO Sky Shield, whether for protecting the bloc’s eastern flank and/or extending this umbrella into Western Ukraine, the latter of which aligns with a proposed security guarantee. The 10,000 US troops in Poland might reassure it that Russia would be deterred from deliberately targeting these assets, not to mention if even more are deployed, but public opinion might keep this shield centered on Poland instead of shared with Ukraine.

* …But That’s As Far As Its Response Will Go

Regardless of whatever happens with the aforesaid scenario, Poland won’t go any further by deploying troops to Ukraine for example, which Nawrocki ruled out. Despite occasional speculation, Poland has no revanchist plans since it doesn’t want to be responsible for millions of ultra-nationalist Ukrainians, who could also wage a terrorist insurgency against its troops. It’s already exploring the lease of land and ports to recoup its aid and even profit so there’s no need to take such risks, including a hot war with Russia.

All in all, Poland is expected to avoid the trap of mission creep after last week’s incident, having already concluded some time ago that the potential benefits of escalating its involvement in the Ukrainian Conflict even further than it already has aren’t worth the risks.

The most that Poland expected to do is host elements of a NATO Sky Shield, but its extension into Ukraine during wartime or afterwards would likely only happen if the US gives Poland security guarantees, which Trump doesn’t seem interested in.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 08:10

Belarus Frees 52 Political Prisoners, Gains US Sanctions Relief, Warm Letter From Trump

In an unexpected development this week, the United States has lifted some key sanctions on close Russian ally Belarus, with President Trump also issuing a warm thank you to the country.

Over 50 political prisoners have been released, reportedly at Trump's request, and have been transferred to freedom in bordering Lithuania. In return, the US is lifting sanctions on the country's national airline, Belavia - which go back to 2023.

Kremlin.ru, The White House

There are reports that direct flights between the US and Minsk will also resume. The State Dept has signaled that it might even reopen its embassy in the Belarusian capital.

Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda said her country is "deeply grateful" to Trump and the US. Among the freed were many Lithuanian citizens.

"52 prisoners safely crossed the Lithuanian border from Belarus today, leaving behind barbed wire, barred windows and constant fear," she wrote on social media.

As for President Trump, he also proclaimed, "52 is a lot. A great many. Yet more than 1,000 political prisoners still remain in Belarusian prisons and we cannot stop until they see freedom!" This strongly suggests there's more deal-making to come.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko met Thursday with senior Trump admin official John Coale in Minsk, with the two discussing "a range of issues, including additional prisoner releases and regional security issues, like ending the weaponization of illegal migration from Belarus into neighboring NATO countries."

Coale announced that the sanctions lifting includes "limited relief package will allow Belavia to service and buy components for its existing fleet, which includes Boeing aircraft."

"Dear Mr. Lukashenko, Melania joins me in sending our best wishes on the occasion of your birthday... As you look forward to the coming year, we pray for your health and well-being."https://t.co/iHU0CgEFHS

— Vitaly Shevchenko (@VitalyBBC) September 11, 2025

Russia's aviation sector has also long been sanctioned, leading to the potential for unsafe travel or possible aerial disasters - as aging fleets are in need of regular servicing, often dependent on access to US and Western parts.

As part of the exchange, Trump indicated that he looks forward to meeting with President Lukashenko in the future, in a sign of a likely further thawing of relations.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 07:35

Germany's Sycophantic Elite And The Coming Economic Crash

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

When it comes to the causes of Germany’s collapse, there is an iron silence in both corporate boardrooms and political circles. They have made themselves comfortable in the green subsidy Valhalla. Meanwhile, the Chancellor shows satisfaction with his policies, clinging faithfully to the communication patterns of the past.

From a media-political perspective, Friedrich Merz resembles a dinosaur. His understanding of media work follows the routines of the 1990s. If a deficit opens in the social insurance system, Merz loudly demands budget cuts. If an industry falls into crisis, a “summit” is supposed to provide healing. Coalition conflicts are resolved on camera over a beer. This is sluggish communication aimed at an increasingly disinterested audience—an attempt to suppress the painful symptoms of a failed political agenda that has grown far beyond the ability of politics to manage.

Smiling and self-satisfied 

And so, on Friday morning, the Chancellor declared himself fundamentally content with his government’s decisions—cheerful, upbeat, and self-absorbed. Only communication, according to Merz on “CDU.TV,” left something to be desired. True to the motto: if there is no political substance, at least the style should appear harmonious and well-mannered.

The Chancellor, who just months ago declared that he had “taken over the country,” thus awarded himself a glowing report card. Why should he care about the actual state of the nation, which from both an economic and domestic perspective must already be described as systemically fragile?

Domestically, Merz has already failed on the facts created by the German party-state: unrestrained migration and the ideological reprogramming of the economy. Abroad, his main achievement is finding money for the proxy war in Ukraine and occasionally playing tourist in Kyiv in a casual outfit for the cameras. Merz embodies a chancellor from a bygone era when everything still seemed controllable. In today’s world, his role-playing appears clumsy, directionless, and utterly lacking the strategic foresight our time demands.

Germany has no elites 

Merz faces no serious resistance within society because Germany lacks credible elites. A true elite—in politics or business—would grasp the larger trajectory of policy, comprehend the central questions of societal progress in depth, and present them to the public for sober deliberation.

Criticism of elites is not limited to their silence on ecological socialism, which has been unleashed on society like a plague. The ethical foundation of a true elite must include rigorous analysis of conflicts and problematic developments. Ask yourself why in Germany—and indeed in all of Europe—there is not even the beginning of a public debate about our monetary system and its systemic destruction of purchasing power.

Monetary policy operates largely in the shadows, and rarely does the truth about political leadership come into such stark light as with Ursula von der Leyen’s utter failure in trade negotiations with the United States. The geostrategic future of the EU lies in the hands of dilettantes and ideologically blinkered amateurs.

A true elite would seek to position Germany in the reordering world with the BRICS nations, open trade routes, and disentangle the fatal involvement in the proxy war in Ukraine. None of this is happening.

Half-knowledge on an odyssey 

And yet the pressure from the streets is slowly reaching Berlin. Exploding insolvencies are already leaving scars on the labor market and social funds—and will soon carve a path of devastation through public budgets.

In municipalities that have suffered most from the infantile transformation policies—think of Stuttgart, once the heart of the German auto industry—local coffers are already exhausted.

On Friday, Bavaria’s Prime Minister Markus Söder demanded a “small revolution”: the return of the combustion engine. At the same time, however, he insisted on continuing e-mobility subsidies. Söder has not grasped what is truly at stake—his job, and the future of his own children.

He is the best example of the elite problem: they vaguely perceive the connections but consistently draw the wrong conclusions, being too deeply enmeshed in the networks of Brussels, Berlin, and the power machinery of lobby interests.

The welfare entrepreneur 

Take the lobbyists of the solar industry—or, more broadly, the green transformation crash economy. Here again we see corporatism: the tight fusion of political and business leaders into a common-interest cartel. It is a historical, recurring phenomenon, usually marking the final chapter of social and economic cycles. The motto: grab what you can, and to hell with what comes after—après moi, le déluge!

True elites create value through their own actions—without siphoning off anonymous funds through political promises or the coercive machinery of the state.

The EU’s green policy has produced the subsidy entrepreneur. At heart, this political player resembles a welfare recipient—dependent on public handouts, seeing society only as the paymaster for his useless activity. He produces no goods or services demanded by the market and thus never attains the status of an economic elite, which must legitimize itself through performance and success.

Preparing for the aftermath 

Perhaps some still remember the coffee party that the Chancellor styled as an “investment summit,” where 61 German CEOs gathered for a photo op with him. Packaged by the media as “Made for Germany,” it was in truth a symbol of the corporatist status quo. Everything staged for effect, no one daring to slaughter one of politics’ golden calves—like the Green Deal—to signal a real restart.

A real investment summit would have to exclude politics. It would bring together leading corporations and—ideally—medium-sized businesses (which barely exist in Germany) to draw up a clear list of demands and put pressure on policymakers. Germany’s economy has long passed the point of no return. A crisis is inevitable, no matter what reforms are attempted now.

The timid complaints of Mercedes-Benz CEO Ola Källenius or the IGBCE chemical union about high energy costs do nothing to change this. They shy away from naming the real cause: the green transformation and unrestrained eco-socialism that is paralyzing the country.

Entrepreneurs could, however, perform a decisive service by already sketching the economic framework for the post-crisis era—just as the Bretton Woods system was created even before World War II ended.

That framework is simple: Germany must recommit to free markets and private property, moving toward a minimal state that renounces interventionism and ideological steering.

The importance of excluding politics—prone as it is to ideological excess and intellectual reductionism of economic complexity—from designing this framework, and limiting it only to execution, is proven by the catastrophe into which these ideologues have already plunged us.

* * * 

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 07:00

The weekend is here! Pour yourself a mug of Colombia Tolima Los Brasiles Peaberry Organic coffee, grab a seat outside, and get ready for our longer-form weekend reads:

• How Tim Cook sold out Steve Jobs: There’s a tech industry habit of second-guessing “what would Steve Jobs have done” ever since he passed away, and most of the things people attribute to him seem like guesses about a guy who was very hard to predict and often inconsistent. But recently, we have one of those very rare cases where we know exactly what Steve Jobs would not have done. Tim Cook and Apple’s leadership team have sold out the very American opportunity that made Steve Jobs’ life and accomplishments possible, while betraying his famously contemptuous attitude towards bullshit institutions. (Anil Dash)

• AI Will Not Make You Rich: The disruption is real. It’s also predictable.  (Colossus) see also ChatGPT as the Original AI Error: The human fascination with conversation has led us AI astray (Paul Kedrosky)

• 5 forecasts early climate models got right – the evidence is all around you. The earliest climate models made specific forecasts about global warming decades before those forecasts could be proved or disproved. And when the observations came in, the models were right. The forecasts weren’t just predictions of global average warming – they also predicted geographical patterns of warming that we see today. (The Conversation)

• ‘JennaWorld’ Spotlights Jenna Jameson and the Glory Days of Porn: The 13-part podcast, from Molly Lambert and iHeartPodcasts, recalls an era in the late ’90s and 2000s when porn stars were (almost) mainstream.  (New York Times)

• How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads: The death rate per mile driven has declined 22-fold since 1950. (Our World In Data) see also How to Build a Medieval Castle: Why are archaeologists constructing a thirteenth-century fortress in the forests of France? (Archaelogy Magazine)

• Rivals Rub Shoulders in the World of Competitive Massage: Each year, massage therapists from around the globe gather to face off, collaborate, and make sure that no body gets left behind. (New Yorker)

• The European Heir Restoring Forgotten American Cars to Glory: An Italian jewelry scion has turned an old drive-in theater in Pennsylvania into a showplace for his collection of domestic vehicles. (New York Times)

• How Ben Franklin’s French Diplomacy Raised Money—and Saved the American Revolution: He led the effort to secure the financing the fledgling country needed to survive and win the war. It’s hard to imagine anybody else could have succeeded. (Wall Street Journal)

• NASA discovers ‘clearest sign of life that we’ve ever found on Mars’ Detailed analysis of images of speckled rocks found by NASA’s Perseverance rover has found a “potential biosignature.” (Washington Post) see also Happy Birthday, LIGO. Now Drop Dead. Ten years ago, astronomers made an epic discovery with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory. Cosmology hasn’t been the same since, and it might not stay that way much longer. (New York Times)

• The argument against the existence of a Theory of Everything: The Holy Grail of physics is a Theory of Everything: where a single equation describes the whole Universe. But maybe there simply isn’t one? (Big Think)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Heather Boushey, previously a member of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Biden, and chief economist to the president’s Invest in America cabinet. She is currently a senior research fellow at the Reimagining the Economy Project at the Harvard Kennedy School.

 

Technology can change the world in ways that are unimaginable until they happen

Source: @OurWorldInData

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

 

The post 10 Weekend Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Retarded Or Evil? Leftist Arguments Justifying The Murder Of Charlie Kirk

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

If you’re like me and have been watching the news feeds and social media for developments on the Charlie Kirk assassination, you have probably also come across a disturbing army of leftists online cheering for the conservative speaker’s death. Some posts, featuring people laughing and celebrating, have tens-of-thousands of upvotes. It’s not just the comments, it’s the mob of crazies supporting the comments.

What I see in this mountain of degenerate psychopathy is confirmation. I and many other analysts have been warning for years that the fight for what remains of the western world will happen on two fronts: The globalists at the top, and the leftist hordes on the bottom. While it’s true that globalists often fund woke groups through NGOs and corporations, they are simply giving aid to people that already have the will and the intent to destroy the US.

That is to say, the idea of the “false left/right paradigm” no longer applies. At the bottom of the pyramid there are millions of insane people with violent intentions that want to see you dead because you disagree with them. They won’t go away simply because the globalists go away. They represent a parallel threat.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is truly delusional and I have no patience for such stupidity any longer. Look at it this way – The woke movement is a death cult. In every cult there are certainly people who are useful idiots who do bad things because they are told to, but there are also many people who are consciously evil.

And if you want to see pure evil, take a gander at the endless array of grotesque reactions from activists to Kirk’s death. Endless social media posts cheering for Kirk’s murder. Leftist leaders like Ilhan Omar essentially blaming Kirk for his own assassination. Democrats trying to stop a silent moment of prayer for Kirk in Congress. Witnesses even report that leftist protesters at the Utah event cheered right after Kirk was shot.  The list of horrors is mind boggling.

If you have any doubts about the nature of the progressive cult just watch how they revel in the blood and maybe then you will understand. These people are not human beings, they are monsters, and now they feel very emboldened because they think they can get away with political killings.

A prime example is in the numerous arguments they present to justify Kirk’s assassination. Social media is rife with them, thousands of posts supported by hundreds of thousands of people. What I would like to do is break some of the most common arguments down and identify if the ideas are retarded, or evil (or both). Let’s get started…

Leftist Claim: “Charlie Kirk’s words were offensive and caused harm, therefore he deserved to die.”

Diagnosis: Retarded And Evil

The political left has long treated words as being equal to violence. For them there is no distinction. This is the foundation of the “wrong think” ideology. Charlie Kirk never harmed a living soul and under the law he had every right to express his views regardless of whether or not people get offended. He never led a mob to burn down a city block. He never organized a terror cell. He never advocated for violence. He never even punched a commie. The most he did was advocate for the right to self defense.

If opinions are violence, then anyone can be killed for their opinions. Thinking you are immune because you have the “right opinions” is perhaps the most ignorant assumption a person can make, but leftists are generally low IQ individuals.

On the other hand, there is also the underlying agenda among elitist groups to make “hate speech” a subject of government enforcement. We have seen this in full swing in the UK the past year and it’s getting ugly. ANYTHING can be designated hate speech, from posting jokes online to flying your national flag.

Strangely, only conservatives seem to get arrested for speech violations. It’s almost as if only conservative ideas are being outlawed.

Hate speech laws are the doorway to mass censorship, and if progressives and their globalist partners can’t put those laws in place, then they have decided to enforce color of law through political violence so that conservatives are afraid to speak.

Leftist Claim: “It’s Ironic That Charlie Kirk Was Pro-Gun And Then He Was Killed By A Gun…”

Diagnosis: Retarded

It’s actually not ironic at all. Kirk often pointed out that the majority of gun violence is committed by leftists – In leftist controlled cities and in minority neighborhoods which vote predominantly Democrat. If leftists were removed from the equation, gun crimes (and crime overall) in the US would plummet.

Charlie was most likely murdered by a leftist (the evidence released so far indicates this). We’ll find out soon enough. If so, then the assassination only supports his argument that the political left is the danger. Not gun rights.

Leftist Claim: “Where Was The Good Guy With A Gun To Protect Charlie…?”

Diagnosis: Retarded

Good guys with guns stop at least 1.8 million crimes per year according to surveys on DGU (Defensive Gun Use) data. But Kirk never argued that the presence of good guys with guns makes him bulletproof. Good guys with guns die all the time, especially if they are targeted for political assassination. The gun is to give someone a fighting chance if they see the threat coming. It doesn’t make them invincible.

Leftist Claim: “If only Charlie hadn’t defended gun rights, maybe he would be alive today…”

Diagnosis: Evil

When leftists make this argument what they are really saying is: “If you don’t give up your gun rights, we have the right to shoot you.”

Leftist Claim:  “Kirk would have been saved by the increased gun control he opposed…”

Diagnosis:  Retarded

The murder weapon was a basic .30 Cal hunting rifle, probably holding a maximum of four rounds.  It’s not the type of firearm on any ban wish list that the Democrats have put forward.  

If leftists are going to make this argument then they will have to admit that their true intention is to ban ALL guns, not just scary “black rifles”.  

Leftist Claim: “Charlie Kirk Lived By The Sword And Died By The Sword…”

Diagnosis: Retarded

As noted earlier, Kirk never attacked anyone, never harmed anyone, and only fought for the right to speak his views without being censored or threatened. If debate is a threat to the political left then their ideas must not hold up to public scrutiny. In other words, they killed Charlie Kirk because he exposed their ideas as faulty.

That’s not “living by the sword”, that’s being nice. Leftists don’t want to see us truly take up the sword, which is why the media is currently scrambling to call for peace.

Leftist Claim: “Kirk Was A Radical And Now Is A Time To Abandon Radicalism And Make Peace…”

Diagnosis: Evil

Lets be clear, the vast majority of the violence is only coming from one side, and that’s the progressive Marxist/globalist side.  It’s rather convenient that progressives suddenly want peace after years of violent rhetoric and actions. Why are they doing this? Because they know that retribution on a large scale is so near. When an opponent has waged aggressive war for years and then suddenly wants a ceasefire, it’s usually because he’s about to get hurt and he wants to regroup.

Woke activists have been begging for an ass kicking for at least the past decade and now they are starting to realize they just might get it.  They desperately want our anger over Kirk’s death to fizzle out over time.

Kirk was not a radical in the slightest. He only spoke the facts to the best of his ability, Facts cannot be radical. The truth is never extreme. However, now that he has been killed, I suspect leftists are going to see a lot of actual “radicals” in the near future.

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

Tyler Durden Fri, 09/12/2025 - 23:25

New EPA Proposal Would Restore About 50% Of Lost Biofuel Demand

The White House is reviewing an EPA proposal that would make large refiners cover about half or less of the 1.1 billion gallons of biofuels exempted last month for small refineries, according to three sources familiar with the matter, according to Reuters/Yahoo.

The plan, still under discussion, could leave roughly 550 million gallons of demand unmet, potentially boosting the supply of renewable fuel credits and pushing their price lower.

Farm-state lawmakers and biofuel producers have been pressing for full restoration of lost demand. The oil industry, meanwhile, has resisted, warning of higher compliance costs. The EPA’s approach is seen as a compromise to stabilize the credit market without overwhelming refiners.

"The EPA is in the process of evaluating a range of options that strike an appropriate balance between obligations, reallocation, and other factors that will deliver for farmers, consumers and American energy dominance," a White House official told Reuters. The EPA declined to comment further.

Reuters reports that the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires refiners to blend billions of gallons of biofuel each year or buy credits, but small plants can seek waivers for financial hardship. In August, the EPA cleared a backlog of more than 170 such requests dating to 2016. It is only required to reallocate gallons exempted in 2023 and beyond, as earlier credits have expired.

The proposal under review would cover 2023 and later years, with percentages applied differently depending on the year, sources said. It is expected to be finalized before October 30, the deadline for setting 2026–2027 blending quotas.

The debate underscores the long-running clash between Big Oil and the farm lobby — two constituencies President Donald Trump has sought to keep on side. The stakes are high: the 2023 and 2024 waivers alone amounted to 1.4 billion credits, equal to 1.1 billion gallons, and more exemptions could follow as 2025 applications are reviewed.

Tyler Durden Fri, 09/12/2025 - 23:00

Researchers Found Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated, Didn't Publish Findings

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Researchers from a large health care system in Michigan found that vaccinated children were more likely to develop a chronic health condition, but never published the findings, according to a copy of the study obtained by The Epoch Times.

A nurse practitioner holds a vaccine in an undated file photograph. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Henry Ford Health System, whose employees carried out the study, said it was deficient.

Dr. Marcus Zervos, an infectious disease specialist at the Henry Ford Health, and colleagues studied 18,468 children born between 2000 and 2016 who were enrolled in the health system’s insurance plan, drawing data from medical, clinical, and payer records and supplementing with information from Michigan’s immunization registry.

After 10 years, 57 percent of the vaccinated children had a chronic health condition such as asthma, compared to just 17 percent of the unvaccinated children.

“This study found that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold increase in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, when compared to children unexposed to vaccination,” the authors wrote. “This association was primarily driven by asthma, atopic disease, eczema, autoimmune disease and neurodevelopmental disorders. This suggests that in certain children, exposure to vaccination may increase the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, particularly for one of these conditions.”

The study was first reported by Aaron Siri, managing partner of Siri & Glimstad LLP, this month in his book, Vaccines, Amen: The Religion of Vaccines.

Before receiving a copy of the study, The Epoch Times asked Zervos and his coauthors for it and questioned why it was never published.

Zervos responded to questions about the study by asking in an email, “Can you tell me what book this appeared in.” When told, he did not respond further.

Co-authors did not return inquiries.

A spokesperson for Henry Ford Health acknowledged that researchers there carried out the study.

“This report was not published because it did not meet the rigorous scientific standards we demand as a premier medical research institution,” a spokesperson for Henry Ford Health told The Epoch Times in an email. “Data has consistently shown vaccinations are a safe and effective way to protect children against potentially life-altering diseases.”

‘The Only Real Problem’

Siri, who has worked with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., represents a group called the Informed Consent Action Network. He and Del Bigtree, the group’s CEO, say they met with Zervos in 2017 and proposed that he compare the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

They initially proposed obtaining data from a federal network called Vaccine Safety Datalink, but Zervos suggested utilizing the health data from Henry Ford Health, Siri wrote in his book.

Siri requested that the researchers publish the results of the study, regardless of what it showed.

“Dr. Zervos looked us right in the eyes and assured us that he was a man of integrity and would publish the results, whatever the finding,” Siri said.

Siri received a copy of the study in 2020. He and Bigtree say that Zervos and a coauthor told them that superiors at Henry Ford Health did not want it submitted for publication and that they were concerned they could lose their jobs if they submitted it.

“The only real problem with this study—and why it didn’t get submitted for publication—is that its findings did not fit the belief and the policy that ‘vaccines are safe,’” Siri said during a Senate hearing in Washington on Sept. 9. “Had it found vaccinated children were healthier, it no doubt would have been published immediately. But because it found the opposite, it was shoved in a drawer.”

Previous research comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children has returned mixed results. A German study published in 2011, for instance, found that unvaccinated children were more likely to suffer diseases targeted by vaccines. An American study published in 2020 found vaccinated children had higher odds of suffering from developmental delays, asthma, and ear infections in their first year of life.

Dr. Jake Scott, an infectious disease doctor at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, told the hearing that he reviewed the study and found it problematic. One issue was how vaccinated children visited doctors during the study period more often than unvaccinated children, according to Scott.

“When diagnoses require doctor visits, children seeing doctors more often will inevitably have more recorded conditions,” he said. “This is classic detection bias that inflates risk estimates without reflecting true health differences.”

Even after excluding unvaccinated children whose parents never took them to the doctor following birth, the vaccinated group still had an increased risk of developing a chronic health condition, the researchers stated, according to Zervos and the other researchers. They also analyzed the data at one, three, and five years following birth and found that the vaccinated children were still more likely to develop a chronic health condition. “Therefore, our findings do not appear to be due to differential use of health resources,” they wrote.

The researchers also said that their findings “cannot prove causality and warrant future investigation.”

The hearing was held by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the panel, said during the hearing that the study was “high-quality” and “suspiciously withheld by the authors.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), its ranking member, questioned why it has taken five years following completion for the study to be disclosed to the public.

“My hope has always been that the scientists would publish it,” Siri said. “And we’ve tried to persuade them many, many times, so it could go through the normal, peer-review process.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 09/12/2025 - 22:35

Visualizing Americans' Median Salaries By Age Group

How much do Americans earn at different stages of life?

The discrepancies between the median earnings of each age group in the U.S. might surprise you.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, highlights the median annual earnings of full time wage and salaried workers across age groups in the U.S., using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Median Salary by Age in America

As seen in the data table below, America’s youngest workers (aged 16 to 19) earn the least, with annual earnings of just $33,280. This figure is almost half the national median, reflecting their limited experience and lower-paying entry-level roles.

As workers gain more education and experience in their 20s, earnings rise significantly to $40,664 for those aged 20 to 24.

Income growth accelerates as workers enter their 30s and 40s. Median earnings reach $59,228 for ages 25 to 34 and peak at $70,824 between ages 45 and 54.

This period typically reflects career stability, advanced skills, and leadership roles, contributing to higher paychecks. Notably, the 35 to 44 bracket ($70,252) is nearly identical to the peak decade, showing sustained strength in mid-career earnings.

Later Career and Retirement Age Earnings

After 55, earnings begin to taper off as workers aged 55 to 64 earn $67,392. After that, those 65 and older see median earnings of $62,296, nearly identical to the overall national median.

Interestingly, older workers (65+) earn around $3,000 more than those in the 25 to 34 bracket, reflecting a group of late-career professionals who continue to command strong wages.

To learn more about household finances and earnings in the U.S., check out this map of poverty by state on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Fri, 09/12/2025 - 22:10