nuclear-news

Gaza Genocide, Inc.: The Permanent-Conflict Industry

Imran Khalid for Foreign Policy in Focus, 12 June 26 https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/12/gaza-genocide-inc-the-permanent-conflict-industry/

 The international community’s approach to conflict resolution has undergone a profound and dangerous structural shift, moving away from the pursuit of political settlements toward the permanent administration of crisis. This transition is vividly apparent in Rafah, where the newly established National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) has begun overseeing a reconstruction process stripped of any path toward genuine sovereignty or political renewal. What is being built instead is a sprawling, technocratic bureaucracy designed to manage human suffering indefinitely, transforming a site of active geopolitical dispossession into a permanent administrative holding pattern.

The rollout of Phase Two of the Trump administration’s Comprehensive Gaza Plan—secured with a UN Security Council endorsement—exposes the nakedly corporate logic underpinning modern foreign policy. By placing a “Board of Peace” stacked with billionaire financiers and political hawks like Marco Rubio, Tony Blair, Jared Kushner, Ajay Banga, and Marc Rowan in charge of post-conflict governance, Western hegemony has effectively financialized geopolitical containment. The plan treats Gaza not as a nation deserving of self-determination but as a high-risk economic asset to be secured, stabilized, and folded into regional trade corridors while its population remains permanently disenfranchised.

This containment model carries severe consequences both for the occupied population and the broader global order. For Palestinians, it institutionalizes a bleak daily reality of endless aid lines and checkpoints under an international apparatus that has traded the promise of liberation for technocratic stabilization. Globally, this reveals a deeper systemic reality: the traditional assumption that regional conflicts are temporary shocks awaiting a diplomatic fix has completely collapsed.

For global political and economic elites, perpetual instability is no longer a failure to be corrected but a baseline structural condition around which modern global capitalism is choosing to organize itself.

A Shift in Logic

In the twentieth century, major conflicts were viewed as massive disruptions to globalization. In the twenty-first, globalization is rapidly adapting itself around endless disruption. Entire corporate, financial, and bureaucratic systems now operationalize instability as a baseline condition rather than a temporary shock.

Private-sector logistics firms are securing long-term contracts to manage continuous delivery corridors into high-risk zones. Maritime conglomerates are permanently adjusting pricing models and routing assets around Africa as a structural business reality. Digital and physical infrastructure protection has transitioned from an annual insurance check-box to a core operational expense that drives tech-sector hiring and venture capital investment.

Markets are internalizing this shift. Oil prices no longer spike the way they once did after escalations because commodity investors increasingly price in chronic, localized instability rather than assuming systemic collapse. Capital markets are no longer asking whether a crisis will end but whether it can remain geographically contained. That distinction changes everything for how corporate treasuries allocate capital.

Gaza and Ukraine

Gaza illustrates this vividly. The NCAG’s reconstruction mandate and the Board of Peace’s integration of Gaza into the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) show that crisis management itself has become a growth industry. Reconstruction is not about closure; it is about embedding instability into global supply chains.

This economic adaptation mirrors a deeper systemic fatigue within international governance. The post-Cold War era operated on the logic that major conflicts eventually reached closure, whether Bosnia after Dayton or Northern Ireland after the Good Friday Agreement. Today, that logic is spent.

Instead of diplomacy aimed at structural architecture, modern institutions are becoming highly efficient at administering instability rather than ending it. The UN’s Resolution 2803 did not declare peace; it endorsed a framework for managing crisis indefinitely. The NCAG’s mandate is to restore services under conditions of volatility, not to deliver closure.

Ukraine offers a parallel. Western institutions have become adept at stabilizing financial flows, managing refugee integration, and sustaining military aid—but without a credible path to settlement. Sudan’s humanitarian corridors are similarly managed as permanent relief operations. Gaza’s plan institutionalizes this model: reconstruction without resolution, administration without settlement.

Normalization

The third transformation is occurring inside the human infrastructure of the modern workplace, driven by algorithmic fatigue and the workspace paradox. The digital age has fundamentally altered how societies, consumers, and employees process global trauma.

Previous generations experienced major conflicts sequentially. Today’s professional workforce experiences them simultaneously, continuously, and instantly. In any given hour, a professional’s algorithmic stream displays corporate Slack messages alongside real-time updates from Gaza, Ukraine, Taiwan, and climate disasters.

This continuous exposure has created a dangerous psychological paradox. The global workforce is more emotionally connected to macro-level crises than at any point in history, yet constant exposure is triggering widespread psychological numbness and professional exhaustion. Public and corporate outrage surges rapidly, then stabilizes into fatigue. For leaders, managing a workforce under the weight of this continuous cognitive load is a quiet crisis in itself.

The ultimate danger of the era of permanent crisis is that it becomes intellectually and socially normalized. Once corporate strategies and public expectations internalize the assumption that global disruption never truly ends, ambition contracts. Leaders stop pursuing long-term expansions because planning horizons narrow from years to weeks. Innovation takes a backseat to survival and containment.

History offers a stern warning: the late Roman Empire did not collapse because every frontier failed simultaneously. It declined because permanent emergencies became routine, and tactical crisis management slowly replaced strategic renewal.

The modern international order risks entering a similar phase. Gaza, Ukraine, and shipping vulnerabilities matter immensely for their immediate human and material costs, but they matter even more because they reveal the new template of global operations. Trump’s Gaza plan, with its NCAG, Board of Peace, and IMEC linkage, is not just a reconstruction blueprint. It is a case study in how global institutions now design for permanence of crisis rather than its resolution.

The challenge for the next generation of business leaders is not simply navigating the next disruption but learning how to build sustainable, human-centric enterprises when disruption is the baseline condition. The permanent crisis economy is here: industries are monetizing instability, institutions are administering it, and workforces are absorbing it.

Gaza’s reconstruction framework, endorsed by the UN and operationalized by Trump’s Board of Peace, crystallizes this reality. It shows that the world’s most powerful actors are no longer promising closure. They are promising management.

For commerce, governance, and society, the task is clear: to resist the temptation to normalize crisis as the only horizon. Otherwise, the machinery of global order will become a treadmill of containment, and the ambition for renewal will fade. The permanent crisis economy may be the present reality, but it must not become a permanent destiny.

June 18, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

The Entire Human Species Has Been Turned Into A Profit-Generating Machine

Caitlin Johnstone, Jun 12, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-entire-human-species-has-been?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=201685469&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The human species has essentially been transformed into a giant machine to generate profit for corporations.

Under capitalism, humanity exists to serve the interests of the corporation. We are all livestock; beasts of burden used to carry margin expansion forward from quarterly statement to quarterly statement. Enjoyment of life has no value other than the extent to which it can be used to increase the net worth of the shareholders.

That’s why everyone’s so unhappy. We’re not living with purpose. We’re not working together to build a better world and a better future, we’re just pulling levers to turn gears to make the arrow line go up on the graph in the conference room. It’s a hollow, pointless way for people to live.

It makes our whole culture vapid and soulless.

Music is made to be as profitable as possible, which means giving it the broadest possible appeal using formulaic song structure calculated to cause a chemical response in the largest number of human brains.

Movies are designed to draw the largest possible box office revenue at the lowest possible risk to studios and investors, often by just rehashing a movie that’s already proven successful in the past or by slapping together a story about an IP with pre-existing mass appeal.

Food is made to be fast and addictive rather than nourishing.

Healthy human connection has been commodified as social media intertwines with friendships and dating apps insert themselves into the development of romantic relationships.

Human sexuality is being warped and twisted as internet porn normalizes violence and degradation for the maximum number of clicks.

Attention and engagement have been monetized, creating an information ecosystem dominated by conflict and gossip designed to appeal to our baser instincts.

Advertisement is injected into every possible corner of our waking sensory experience, with any available space where the eye might rest or the ear might listen being flooded with psychological manipulation compelling us to consume. They’ll start running commercials in our dreams the instant they have the technology to do so.

You spend eight hours at the office working to generate corporate profits, then you come home and consume products to profit other corporations. You need your beer and snacks to unwind, your streaming services and social media to distract your mind from the stress of it all, your online clothing purchase to try to feel good about yourself, and your prescription drugs to get to sleep at night. People live their entire lives like this.

And that’s those of us who are lucky enough to be living in the global north. In the global south you get wage slavery and exploitation with far more toil, far less relaxation time, and no cheap products made by impoverished workers on other continents with which to comfort yourself.

All of humanity has been roped into this mess. And for what? To make the numbers in some bank accounts increase. To get some green arrows pointing upward on the stock exchange. To enable a few billionaires to buy islands and elections.

All while destroying the biosphere we all depend on for survival.

This, we are told, is the best possible system we could possibly be living under.

I personally do not believe this is true. I personally believe we can have better. Those who benefit from this current arrangement are going to assure us it’s impossible and do everything they can to stop us from changing it, but we do have the means to reclaim the wealth, dignity and happiness that they have stolen from us.

They built this whole machine on our backs. All we need to do is stand up.

June 18, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

We economists have done the maths: ‘growth’ is a doomed strategy – there is a better way

Our roadmap has been shaped by experts across the world, from UN agencies to grassroots movements. We call on political leaders at all levels to use it

Olivier De Schutter, Joseph Stiglitz, Jayati Ghosh, Thomas Piketty, Kate Raworth and Jason Hickel, 10 June 26, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/10/economists-maths-growth-doomed-strategy-un-agencies-political-leaders

We live in an age of manufactured scarcity. In a world richer than ever before, roughly one 10th of the world’s population still lives in extreme destitution. Millions of people cannot afford enough food, proper housing or basic healthcare, while a tiny minority accumulates unprecedented wealth and power. At the same time, droughts, megafires, floods and heatwaves remind us that our economies are pushing the planet beyond its limits.

These are not separate crises. They are symptoms of an economic model that has reached the end of the road. Poverty and inequality are not accidents; they are predictable outcomes of policy choices: how we design tax systems, regulate labour markets, value care, structure public services and decide whose needs and whose voices matter. Crucially, if governments can manufacture poverty, they can also dismantle it.

For decades, the recipe was simple: grow the economy, and poverty would gradually disappear. But the promise that economic growth would “lift all boats” has not been kept. While national incomes expanded, wages stagnated, work became more precarious and public services were cut. At the top, fortunes ballooned; at the bottom, families turned to food banks. Growth has become decoupled from shared prosperity.

It has also become ecologically unsustainable. We are edging towards a “hothouse Earth”, where rising emissions and biodiversity loss are destabilising the conditions that support human life. Around 92% of excess global carbon emissions can be attributed to the global north, and the wealthiest 10% of individuals are responsible for nearly half of global emissions, while people in poverty are the first to face crop failures and rising food prices. An economic model that depends on endless expansion on a finite planet is not just unfair; it is dangerous.

Many low‑income countries still need growth to build roads, hospitals, schools, renewable energy and decent jobs. But the dominant path to growth – based on resource extraction, cheap and compliant labour, export dependence and deepening debt – has widened inequality and degraded the environment. The real question today is not whether growth continues, but what kind of economies we are building, who they serve and whether they allow everyone to live in dignity within planetary boundaries.

That is why we have come together to develop and support the “roadmap for eradicating poverty beyond growth”. The roadmap provides a range of alternatives on how to move beyond the narrow “grow-tax-transfer” approach that has shaped policy for decades. It is not a blueprint shaped by a handful of experts. It is the exact opposite: over 18 months, more than 400 people – UN agencies, national governments, academic experts, civil society organisations, trade unions, social and solidarity economy actors and grassroots movements, from the global north and south – worked to answer a simple question: how can we end poverty and reduce inequalities without treating GDP growth as the primary condition for progress? More than 350 signatories have put their names to the plan, including Jean Drèze, Pavlina Tcherneva, Tim Jackson, Bhumika Muchhala, Julia Steinberger, Ndongo Samba Sylla, Timothée Parrique.

We do not agree on every policy detail. But we are united in the conviction that our economies must be redesigned around the fulfilment of rights and collective wellbeing within planetary boundaries, rather than maximising output at any cost. Human rights here are not an afterthought; they are the organising principle for how we measure progress, set priorities and resolve trade‑offs. Social protection and public services are essential, but they cannot indefinitely compensate for economies that by design generate poverty wages, insecure jobs and unaffordable housing.

We need to change the rules upstream. That means, for instance, decent work and employment guarantees, living wages and fair remuneration, stronger unions and workplace democracy, tackling discrimination and valuing the paid and unpaid care work on which our societies depend. It means investing in children, housing, health, education and transport through universal public provisioning. It means public control of strategic assets, credit guidance to steer investment towards social and ecological priorities, and support for the development of the social and solidarity economy.

Implementing this vision means changing the rules of the global economy. Today, governments in the global south are chided for not doing enough to tackle poverty, while being squeezed by unilateral sanctions, restrictive trade agreements, unequal exchange and debt burdens rooted in centuries of colonial dispossession. About 3.4 billion people live in countries that spend more on debt servicing than on healthcare or education. Meanwhile, global supply chains enable a vast net transfer of labour and resources from south to north. International solidarity is therefore a legal and moral obligation rooted in the historical reality that many rich countries built their wealth by impoverishing the south, through patterns of extraction that continue today in new forms. A just transition beyond growth must include debt justice, increased south-south cooperation, reparative climate finance and support for universal social protection floors, rooted in the principles of non-domination and self-determination so that countries can chart their own sovereign economic futures.

Equally crucial is who gets to shape this transition. All too often, policies affecting people in poverty are designed without them – and sometimes against them. When welfare systems are built around suspicion, sanctions and humiliating conditions, they deepen stigma and deter people from claiming their entitlements. Those who live in poverty know better than anyone how systems can fail in practice. Their expertise must guide the design, implementation and monitoring of anti‑poverty strategies, from local councils to parliaments and international forums.

We are not starting from zero. Around the world, Indigenous struggles, feminist organising, trade unions and climate justice movements are defending and building alternative futures rooted in collective care and territorial rights. New coalitions of states are advancing new visions of global economic governance, and governments are experimenting with rights‑based anti‑poverty strategies, citizens’ assemblies and community wealth building. The UN and many partners are exploring “beyond GDP” indicators and new institutions, such as an international panel on inequality, to help chart this shift.

Our roadmap builds on these efforts, connects them and pushes them further. We offer it now as a common reference point for those who refuse to accept that poverty and ecological breakdown are the price to pay for how we currently define economic “success”. Governments and multilateral institutions have a choice: double down on a failing growth-first model or commit to eradicating poverty by transforming the economic rules that produce it.

Poverty is manufactured. That is the bad news – and the good news. What has been manufactured can be dismantled and replaced. We are putting concrete options on the table, all backed by detailed policy profiles that spell out evidence, implementation steps and real‑world examples. We call on political leaders at all levels to use them, to listen to those most affected, and to treat the end of poverty, the reduction of inequalities and the effective realisation of human rights as the measure by which economic policy should be judged.

• Olivier De Schutter is the chair of New Economies for Eradicating Poverty; Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics; Jayati Ghosh is professor of economics at University of Massachusetts Amherst; Thomas Piketty is professor of economics at the Paris School of Economics; Kate Raworth is an economist at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute; JJason Hickel is a political economist and professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona

June 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Like Midas, our rulers want to monetise everything they touch – and kill it

War and profit are intimately tied together. The billionaires cannot secure their profits without war, or the threat of it – whether it is against workers at home or against other nations abroad.

War and profit are intimately tied together. The billionaires cannot secure their profits without war, or the threat of it – whether against workers at home or against other nations abroad

Jonathan Cook, Jun 10, 2026

I am old enough to remember the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the wave of excitement it unleashed. With the Soviet Union consigned to the history books, the world was going to become a better, safer place.

Liberals crowed that the West’s superior, democratic values had won out. Intellectuals like Francis Fukuyama wrote about the “end of history”: the triumph of free-market capitalism and a resolution of ideological struggle.

Nearly half a century on, the celebratory mood of that time looks not just misplaced but positively deluded.

The end of the Cold War brought not a peace dividend. Rather, it unleashed a surfeit of greed and hubris.

With the fear of mutually assured destruction behind it, the United States unveiled a new doctrine: “full-spectrum global dominance”, militarily and economically.

Fukayama’s vision of a world rallying to capitalism’s side ignored the fact that capitalism isn’t just a neutral, disinterested idea that everyone can subscribe to on equal terms.

It has a physical form too. Giant corporations that seek monopolistic control over other countries’ resources. And a gargantuan war machine headquartered in the US, but with 800 bases around the globe, that is ready to crush those who stand in the way of ever-greater wealth accumulation by a tiny elite of billionaires.

There could be no end of history because capitalism’s billionaire stewards are never satiated. They are driven to constantly entrench and expand their control, to amass more wealth, to buy more influence in our pretend-democracies, to be more ruthless against anyone or anything that threatens their dominance.

Fukayama forgot that capitalism isn’t socialism. It doesn’t seek the best for everyone. It doesn’t want to share the wealth. It doesn’t prioritise dignity over profit. Its lifeblood is exploitation – of individuals and of entire peoples.

Fukuyama forgot that capitalism without constraints would produce resistance.

War and profit

War and profit are intimately tied together. The billionaires cannot secure their profits without war, or the threat of it – whether it is against workers at home or against other nations abroad.

The “end of history” has brought not a unity of interests, and end to struggle, but ever greater polarisation between the haves and have-nots, between powerful nations and weak ones.

War drums sound ever more loudly across the globe. Ask Venezuelans, Cubans, Greenlanders, Ukrainians, Russians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians how the “end of history” is working out for them.

Ask Europeans and Americans too, now permanently mired in the politics of austerity. Ever more workers have been forced into the gig economy, with zero-hours contracts. And that is before an AI “revolution” makes swathes of jobs redundant.

The ever-growing arrogance of the Epstein class, however, is catching up with it. A mood of unrest is beginning to find its voice, recognising that we are already deep in a class war.

Meanwhile, Iran – by refusing to submit to US and Israeli aggression, and in realising its power to throttle global oil supplies – has shown that full-spectrum dominance was never as complete as the “masters of the universe” assumed. It has an Achilles’ heel, after all.

The truth is we should all have been terrified by the idea that our leaders might assume and behave as if history had come to an end.

In practice, it could mean only an end to constraints on capitalism – an end to any humanising limits on its reach, on its ambitions, on its cruelty.

Like King Midas, the Epstein class expected to monetise everything it touched. And like King Midas, hubris will be its downfall.

Limits of power

There are constraints, both immediate and long term, that even the billionaires cannot overcome…………………………. https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/like-midas-our-rulers-want-to-monetise

June 13, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Screwed again: small investors to bail out billionaires from SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic

In the past, companies had to wait, and have a track record of revenues and profits.

But that rule is gone. Now, a newly public company can qualify, simply based on size—how big it is.

This is work the Wall Street Journal is supposed to be doing. That’s what the Securities and Exchange Commission is supposed to be asking questions about. Instead it’s left to “Where’s your Ed at?” and a handful of podcasts who are showing the world that the investment thesis for the entire American AI industry is blowing up. Costs are rising, not falling.

Inside China / Business, Kevin Walmsley, Jun 07, 2026

SpaceX will soon go public, in an offering that will value the company at over a trillion dollars.

Anthropic and OpenAI are Artificial Intelligence companies, who also plan IPO’s for later in the year.

Recent changes to indexing rules will compel massive share buys into these companies by retirement and pension plans, and by passive ETF’s and mutual funds.

In the past, new companies were required to wait until insiders sold most of the shares after the lockup periods before being added to investment indices. Companies also needed to show a strong history of growth and sound financial practices.

The heads-up on this story comes from one of our favorite Substacks, Gold and Geopolitics. Our concern is that the public, normal people, are at least unaware, and maybe even indifferent, to how really screwed they are at the highest level, and by people at the highest level. It’s not the kind of story that is felt tangibly, at least not at first, like a big spike in gas or food prices. And it’s also difficult to follow, and that’s exactly what the architects of our financial and political system are counting on.

It involves the qualification requirements for a new company to be included in the NASDAQ-100. The regulators changed those rules, so that new public companies can be part of the index. In the past, companies had to wait, and have a track record of revenues and profits. Because trillions of dollars’ worth of pension investments—which is money invested on behalf of workers, millions of private retirement plans, plus exchange-traded funds and other mutual funds, are invested in those indices. And they do so, assuming that the top 100 tech companies, in this case, are well-managed and profitable businesses.

But that rule is gone. Now, a newly public company can qualify, simply based on size—how big it is. And they changed the definition of “public”. Companies can qualify as a megacap public company simply by being large at the time of its IPO, then limiting how many shares they sell to the public. The index now accepts a weighting multiplier. That is what “small float” means—insiders of the company still own almost all of shares, and so completely control the company, even though it’s “public”.

They also threw out the rule for four consecutive quarters—one full year—of profits.

With these rule changes, the guardrails are down and regular Americans will be forced to buy shares of bad companies, that don’t make money.

The NASDAQ, in this case, gets big fees from the Initial Public Offerings of companies that want to avoid the rules that used to govern the industry, and protect small investors, somewhat, and SpaceX, in this case, will have tens of millions of passive investors buying their shares. That massive, passive buying will put a floor under the stock price no matter what happens, at the same time that insiders are allowed to dump their stock. Insiders and early investors are restricted from selling their shares during the IPO; they must wait to do so, until later.

That was previously a major risk to company insiders, and early investors: if the IPO price is set too high, or if the company does poorly after the IPO, their shares will be worth far less than they had hoped, just as they and all the other insiders are selling. But with these rule changes, passive investors will be buying shares, every single month, because they’re buying the index.

This is the source document. Paragraph 2 explains the new “fast entry” rules for new companies that list on the NASDAQ exchange. If the company’s market cap is in the top 40 of companies already there, it’s a Fast Entry addition, and will be put into the index after 15 trading days. So 15 days after the IPO, SpaceX will go into the index. The company will be exempt from “seasoning and liquidity requirements”—seasoning is how much experience the company has, earning money, and liquidity is how much money it has in the bank. Exempt………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

This is work the Wall Street Journal is supposed to be doing. That’s what the Securities and Exchange Commission is supposed to be asking questions about. Instead it’s left to “Where’s your Ed at?” and a handful of podcasts who are showing the world that the investment thesis for the entire American AI industry is blowing up. Costs are rising, not falling. AI data centers today are budgeted to cost $50 billion per gigawatt to build—and they’re not getting built anyway. Soon they’ll cost $80 to $100 billion per.

And the costs are rising just as companies who use the AI are realizing they’re not getting their money’s worth. Uber is a client of Anthropic, and has already spent its entire 2026 budget. Will they load up on some more tokens, to get through the rest of the year? Doubt it—it was a “head exploding moment” to learn how much Uber spent on tokens, which did NOT result in useful consumer features.

Alibaba is a Chinese company, and their Qwen large language model is the world’s most popular AI tool for business owners outside the United States. Airbnb tried to use ChatGPT to design a new reservation feature on their app, and even though the CEO of Airbnb is good friends with Sam Altman at OpenAI, his company switched over to Qwen instead. It works faster and costs less.

And that is catching on. Other companies are quietly making the switch to Chinese large-language models because they cost far less, and they’re open source and easier for their teams to use in their companies. The performance of Chinese models is similar to Silicon Valley’s best products, and are easier to use, cost less, and are more efficient. Companies are enterprise users—they pay for tokens, and executives lose their jobs if other executives heads blow up when they see their AI bill and ask what they’re getting for it. Companies are looking for alternatives to OpenAI and Anthropic, and signing up for DeepSeek instead. That also means that data is not going through US data centers, it’s coming to China instead, where electricity also happens to cost a lot less.

That could be the biggest challenge of all. For active investors – not the passive ones — business models matter. Revenues and profits – they matter. And the cost of compute is what is driving these corporate users of AI. They pay for the AI. Their engineering teams use it, every day, to develop new tools and applications, and they’re switching over to Chinese LLM’s.

Anthropic and OpenAI are fundamentally bad companies, with bad valuations, and produce financial reports that not even their own top executives trust. Their customers are moving away. And that used to mean that the insiders cannot cash out and make billions of dollars. They might even go to jail. But that was before they changed the rules, and so they’ll make you buy them instead.

Be Good.

Resources and links:……………………………………………………………………………………….. https://kdwalmsley.substack.com/p/screwed-again-small-investors-to?publication_id=3320368&post_id=200908108&isFreemail=true&r=3alev&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

June 11, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment