CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Shares of Unitree Robotics have nearly halved since the Chinese company's blockbuster IPO almost two weeks ago, as concerns about a humanoid robotics bubble continue to mount. Not even China's World Humanoid Robot Games or World Robot Conference generated enough enthusiasm among retail or institutional investors to rekindle upward momentum.

The warning signs were first visible from the opening bell in Shanghai. Unitree initially surged 629% when it began trading on Shanghai's Star Market, immediately transforming China's first publicly traded humanoid robot manufacturer into a real-time indicator of the industry.

Unitree's valuation remains detached from even the assumptions of its own underwriting team. Citic Securities analysts valued the company at between 50.6 billion yuan and 55.9 billion yuan six to 12 months after listing. Even after the stock was halved, it is still worth more than four times the top of that range.

Through July, Unitree said it had produced about 18,000 humanoids, while first-quarter revenue increased 68.5% from a year earlier to 423 million yuan. Its current market capitalization is roughly 147 times its annualized first-quarter revenue.

"Given that level of uncertainty, Unitree's high valuation is probably not justified," said Chen Dong, CIO for Asia at Bank J. Safra Sarasin, citing the stock's lofty price-to-earnings ratio and the difficulty of staying ahead in an "infant-level" industry where competition is intensifying.

Zhang Ying, an economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, said, "Widespread adoption is currently hindered by financial constraints, such as high upfront and maintenance costs, and technical limitations, such as short battery life, which make it difficult for manufacturers to justify the investment."

Unitree founder Wang Xingxing told the World Robot Conference in Beijing shortly after the IPO that mass-market adoption of these robots would be achieved within the next decade. That timeline is broadly in line with the forecasts we have provided readers from multiple institutional desks.

Unitree Strikes Double Gold on Day One??????
The First World Humanoid Robot Games
Unitree takes first place in all Day-One races
1500m track race — 6:34.40 (Unweighted)
(Unitree H1 humanoid robot — the same model featured in the Spring Festival Gala)
400m track race — 1:28.03… pic.twitter.com/V1BPoNQMMP

— Unitree (@UnitreeRobotics) August 15, 2025

More broadly, the Solactive China Humanoid Robotics Index (a yuan-denominated equity benchmark tracking Chinese companies involved in humanoid robotics, including robot manufacturers, AI systems, motion controls, precision actuators, and industrial automation) shows that the bubble has been deflating since peaking in mid-2025.

The next big test for Unitree and China's robotics industry is whether they can scale commercially before Tesla brings its humanoid robot to market, which JPMorgan analysts expect to occur in the second half of 2027 (read here).

Authored by Daniel Lacalle via dlacalle.com,

The US $40 trillion debt has dominated global headlines. However, although the US fiscal challenges are relevant, we must remember an important lesson. Fiscal policy is not about who wins but who loses first.

According to official 2026 estimates, the present value of U.S. Social Security and Medicare financing gaps is about $95 trillion over 75 years, roughly 5% of the cumulative present value of projected GDP over that period, on top of federal debt held by the public, which is already projected at 101% of annual GDP in 2026.

However, the euro area's hidden fiscal burden is at least as large as its recorded debt. Official European Commission estimates put net accrued public-pension liabilities at around 150% of GDP, after future contributions are considered, while gross pension promises amount to roughly 371% of GDP. Importantly, this excludes much of the future pressure from health and long-term care spending.

What does this all mean? The next debt crisis may not come from the U.S. but from the eurozone.

First, the U.S. dollar remains the world reserve currency and treasuries are the most important asset for central banks globally, even with the recent gold purchases and rebalancing.

Second, the political landscape in most large European Union economies is one of fiscal denial. France's sovereign bond yields are now higher than Italy's. No eurozone government is willing to cut spending or limit future liabilities. Unfinanced committed liabilities (debt already assumed but not issued) exceed 300% of GDP in key euro area nations.

Third, euro area sovereign assets have generated negative real economic returns since 2021, leading to a declining appetite from global investors. U.S. debt is a challenge, but euro area debt is significantly more problematic because the reported debt is only the "excessive deficit protocol" figure, not the total liabilities of public administrations.

Euro-area Maastricht debt captures only consolidated currency and deposits, loans, and debt securities at face value. It is therefore materially smaller than the full balance-sheet liabilities of public administration and narrower still than the euro area's implicit pension and public sector-related commitments.

The key lesson is that investors should be rightly concerned about issued debt, but they should be even more scared of expanding government size added to unfunded liabilities in a region crippled by economic stagnation.

All of this tells us that the recent global bond sell-off is not a temporary issue. Markets are telling governments that no central bank is going to hide their irresponsibility anymore.

Developed economies' governments have pushed all the limits of debt-funded policies and surpassed their fiscal, economic, and inflationary limits.

• Fiscal limit: More spending creates persistent deficits, and tax hikes never solve the issue. Government spending is a burden on taxpayers and the economy.

• Economic limit: More government spending and bloating GDP with debt-fueled public sector outlays only weakens the economy and productive investment, leading to stagnation.

• Inflationary limit: Government spending leads to persistent inflation and markets discount higher-for-longer consumer prices, eroding the economy while the combination of higher taxes and consumer prices demolishes the middle class.

The United States creates headlines because Treasury yields remain the global benchmark for the price of money and collateral, but the euro area may generate the next big sovereign shock because its member states borrow in a currency they do not control and governments refuse to reduce spending, resorting constantly to tax hikes and regulatory burdens that make the economy weaker.

As of 21 August 2026, the U.S. 30-year Treasury yield traded at 5.27% and the 10-year Treasury yield around 4.73% after a week of sharp moves that briefly pushed long-dated yields to their highest levels since 2007. However, if the world saw the U.S. as a risk and other nations as safe havens, German bond yields would be falling, as happened in other periods of risk aversion. That is not the case. Germany's 10-year Bund has soared to 3.26%, the UK 10-year yield is at a record 5.1%, and Japan's 10-year yield is near 2.89%, confirming that the repricing is global rather than U.S.-centric.

This is what matters for investors and governments. Long-term sovereign bonds are no longer the unquestioned safe assets. That is why gold is soaring too.

Long-term bonds are being repriced for inflation risk, fiscal deterioration, high debt supply, and the inability of central banks to disguise fiscal irresponsibility.

When the U.S. 10-year and 30-year yields rise, financing conditions tighten globally through mortgages, corporate credit, bank funding, and emerging-market borrowing costs. In this environment, the market is not moving to euro area debt for protection; it is moving away from it.

The United States retains the world reserve currency and has the deepest and most liquid sovereign bond market in the world. This does not eliminate the debt problem, but it changes its transmission. Furthermore, at least the United States government is keeping federal spending under control, although not cutting it as fast as desired. That is not the case in the euro area, where none of the large economies seem to have any intention to control spending; rather, the opposite. Thus, this adds to the pressure of unfunded liabilities.

The euro is the only global currency that faces re-denomination risk, and the fiscal policy of the euro area has opted for interventionism and government control rather than free markets. The ECB centralizes monetary policy in the euro area, yet governments spend and borrow as if they possess unlimited monetary credibility. Their only fiscal tool is higher taxes. This creates the risk that what begins as a liquidity event quickly becomes a solvency concern, especially when markets doubt whether Brussels, Frankfurt, and national governments will respond with a coherent strategy. We saw it in 2011.

Now, the euro area has added more risks. The "savings and banking union" and central bank digital currency (CBDC) projects do not provide relief for global investors; rather, they raise concerns that the euro area may have opted for interventionism and government control by imposing the use of the currency instead of enhancing its appeal as a global hub for free markets and capital attraction.

The savings and banking union project will not avoid a debt crisis in the euro area. With governments that do not accept spending cuts, the digital currency may only lead to surveillance, control, and, ultimately, higher inflation.

This is why the next crisis may come from Europe, not despite the U.S. debt problem but because the euro area lacks institutional flexibility, discipline, and an open market approach. Thus, if the euro area accelerates its interventionist plans to force investment and promote the use of the currency through repression, the problem may become more significant. If monetary policy cannot be a limit to fiscal irresponsibility and governments refuse to reduce their spending, the currency and the financial system are at risk. Resolving the United States' debt problem requires implementing spending cuts and fostering higher productive growth. Unfortunately, euro area governments are not generating economic growth and are instead increasing government intervention. As such, when confidence in a large member state disappears, the consequences are systemic for the entire monetary union.

The world is seeing the German spending experiment fail in real time, and that is why German bonds are falling as fast as others, instead of strengthening.

Recent data from France and Germany show that the problem extends beyond a small country within the union. The core of the euro area is weakening while the peripheral countries are either disguising stagnation with immigration and political spending (Spain) or are still in post-crisis mode.

France's 10-year yield has soared to levels not seen since 2008. German bonds, once viewed as a safe haven, weakened alongside other euro area issuers. The ECB anti-fragmentation tool disguised imbalances for a while and now has transferred the risk to all sovereign issuers.

France matters because it is the core euro-area economy alongside Germany. French public debt is expected to be about 118% of GDP in 2026 and could rise toward 130% of GDP by 2030. Markets now understand that no new prime minister is going to cut spending. They will repeat the same failed approach of the past three decades: raising taxes and postponing necessary spending cuts.

As markets begin to reprice France as a fiscal weak link rather than a core strength, the euro area's internal problems become impossible to ignore. This European project has made rising government spending and a large public sector the focus of policy, treating the private sector as a cash machine for an ever-expanding bureaucracy.

The real problem is not simply the absolute level of debt. The combination of high borrowing, big government, high taxes, and a lack of real growth capacity leads to rising interest costs, and it is now evident that central banks can no longer disguise this problem.

When U.S. borrowing costs rise, global financial conditions tighten. It is a significant problem that requires spending cuts, government shutdowns, and higher private sector growth. When euro area borrowing costs soar, they show evidence of the unsustainability of a European project based on expanding the size of government at any cost. When governments reject short-term pain, they pass it to citizens.

The solution is not more government, monetization, intervention, or more taxes on productive capital. The answer is credible spending cuts, lower structural deficits, stronger incentives for private investment, and reforms that eliminate regulatory burdens and lift productivity as well as economic growth. If nothing changes, U.S. debt will continue to tighten global financial conditions, but the euro area may still be the place where the next sovereign crisis erupts.

If anyone had any doubt that Canada is a predominantly far-left country, one only need look at polls in support of Market Carney's trade war rhetoric against the US.  Over 70% of the Canadian population is currently in support of Carney's decision to dismiss trade negotiations with the Trump Administration. 

Much of the rhetoric online repeats leftist talking points, including the claim that America is now a "fascist" state and cutting a deal with Trump would be the same as "cutting a deal with the Third Reich".      

Keep in mind, Carney was so close to a deal with the US that Trump had paused new tariffs and Carney asked premiers to put American liquor back on provincial shelves.  The was two days before he abruptly backed out and abandoned any future talks.  Why?  Theories abound. 

The most prominent theory being that Carney has been talking with US Democrats and was convinced to avoid cutting a deal with Trump before the midterm elections in November.  Any deal would be seen as a win for Trump that might boost Republicans. 

Other theories cite potential foreign influence from the EU.  Carney was on vacation in Italy just before the negotiations were to finalize and he engaged in a flurry of meetings and calls with European officials just after his trade war decision.  Leftists governments in Europe and communists in China have much to gain by continued tensions between Canada and the US. 

It should be noted that the full text of the deal still has not been released to the Canadian public for review.  Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre called on the Prime Minister to release details of the failed trade deal with the United States and reconvene parliament. 

“We need to see the deal that we rejected. Canadians have not seen it,” said Poilievre.       

Whatever may have happened to convince Carney to walk away from the best tariff deal that was offered to any country, the aftermath has stirred plenty of Canadian citizens into a hostile frenzy.  One is reminded of Scrappy Doo, yipping and yapping and nipping at the heals of a much larger opponent in the delusion that this will accomplish something. 

In the meantime, 33% of Canada's GDP relies on exports and 78% of those exports rely on US markets.  Furthermore, there are no practical alternatives.  Without a near-term deal with the US, Canada faces severe recession, or worse.  Canadian officials and the public have not yet come to accept this reality.  They have been busy conjuring ways to "hurt" the US, but these tactics are based on an ignorance of the bigger picture. 

For example, Canadian officials recommended shutting off electric supplies to the US eastern seaboard.  However, Canada provides less than 1% of all US electricity.  Meaning, they have no leverage. 

They also called for a shutdown of oil exports to the US, but the US is a net exporter of oil and the largest oil producer in the world.  Going without Canadian oil would cause prices to rise, but it would not do the kind of damage they are hoping for.  Trump's latest landmark deal with Venezuela will mitigate any potential supply disruptions from Canada.    

Plus, 70% of Canadian oil traveling from Alberta to Ontario uses pipelines that cross into US territory (the Enbridge Mainline).  It would be a disaster for them to escalate. 

This brings us to the newest ingenious idea from Canadian leftists, which is to shut down US access to the St. Lawrence Seaway from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean.  Or, increase tolls to crippling levels at the various Canadian controlled locks. 

Canada is now considering charging a toll for US ships travelling the Straight Of Ontario. pic.twitter.com/jNjLYVaUsA

— Dean Blundell???? (@ItsDeanBlundell) August 28, 2026

There is a problem with this plan, though.  First, Canada already charges tolls at these locks and has done so for decades.  

Every ship entering the Great Lakes goes through the Welland Canal, located fully in Canada. There’s no other option. $26.3 billion of US trade depends on it. Would be a shame if tolls skyrocketed or it was transit-taxed heavily…

Thank you for your attention to this matter. pic.twitter.com/CmAfXiToOR

— Stephano??Barberis (@HelloStephano) August 28, 2026

On the other hand, the US also controls at least two locks on the same waterway which Canadian ships use regularly.  The US government waived collection of tolls on the seaway back in 1986.  Meaning Canada is the only country that collects tolls, but this could be easily changed.  If Canada tried to charge higher tolls or block access, the US could to do the same, and the US has the actual military resources to enforce such measures.  

By extension, if Canada tried to initiate a wider resource war against the US, their oil pipelines going through the US could be cut off.  Once again, Canada simply has no economic leverage.  The sooner they accept this, the sooner they can avoid a painful economic decline.     

Authored by Joshua Mawhorter via Mises Institute,

Originally, this article was intended to be an exploration as to how-after a period of initial patent monopoly and an all-too-brief episode of freer market competition-cronyism reestablished a telephone monopoly that would last for decades. While such an article is worthwhile and hopefully forthcoming, I was struck by the influence of one man's leadership strategy as president of AT&T/the Bell System and how open he was about limiting competition in his industry, inviting regulation, and seeking a "middle ground" between a pure state-owned monopoly and true free market competition.

That man was Theodore M. Vail. This article largely presents Vail in his own words and seeks to demonstrate how transparent he was about inviting state intervention to move his industry toward monopoly.

By way of brief introduction, Vail joined the Bell enterprise in 1878 as general manager, helping build the young telephone industry. After leaving in 1887, he returned in 1907 as president of AT&T, where he pursued his vision of "One Policy, One System, Universal Service" and moved the Bell System toward consolidation and government regulation. He provides a quintessential illustration of political entrepreneurship and cronyism in the telephone industry.

Historian Burton Fulsom's The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America makes the critical distinction between "political entrepreneurs" and "market entrepreneurs" (p. 1):

Those who tried to succeed in [business] through federal aid, pools, vote buying, or stock speculation we will classify as political entrepreneurs. Those who tried to succeed in [business] primarily by creating and marketing a superior product at a low cost we will classify as market entrepreneurs. (emphasis added)

Along similar lines, Patrick Newman defines cronyism in the following way, "government intervention that benefits special interests at the expense of the public interest." This distinction is critical because it qualitatively differentiates those who succeed through the production-and-exchange mechanism and those who use the political means and cronyism to gain wealth at the expense of the public.

Theodore N. Vail: The Beginning of the End of Competition (1907-1913)

"Effective, aggressive competition, and regulation and control are inconsistent with each other, and cannot be had at the same time." - Theodore M. Vail, AT&T's 1910 Annual Report

On April 30, 1907, Vail rejoined AT&T as president, "marking the beginning of the end of telephone competition." According to Adam D. Thierer in "Unnatural Monopoly: Critical Moments In the Development of The Bell System Monopoly," "His return to the firm changed its fundamental focus from competition to consolidation."

Rather than market competition, Vail's most important goals as president of AT&T were "the elimination of competitors, the befriending of policymakers and regulators, and the expansion of telephone service to the general public." Vail pushed for "One Policy, One System, Universal Service." Of course, since this could not be achieved on a free market, or even on a hampered market that allowed a good degree of genuine competition, it had to be achieved by further state intervention.

As the above quote from Vail recognized, market competition and "regulation and control are inconsistent with each other, and cannot be had at the same time." Obviously, Vail favored the latter. He went on to state further, "Control or regulation. . .means everything which is the opposite of and inconsistent with effective competition." And, in 1917-after several successful efforts to limit competition through state intervention-Vail declared,

These two [competition and control/regulation] are absolutely inconsistent. If the public is getting the fullest advantage of control and regulation, no competition except destructive competition can exist. . . .

Under proper control and regulation, complete, ??extensive competition could not exist.

What follows below are some selected quotes from Vail, in his own words and in context, that express his desire for government intervention and regulation into the telephone industry that would benefit AT&T. The interested reader should note Vail's transparency.

Regarding his goal of a universal telephone system and in the context of some competition, Vail wrote in AT&T's 1910 Annual Report,

It is not believed that this [a universal telephone system] can be accomplished by separately controlled or distinct systems nor that there can be competition in the accepted sense of competition.

It is believed that all this can be accomplished to the reasonable satisfaction of the public with its acquiescence, under such control and regulation as will afford the public much better service at less cost than any competition or government-owned monopoly could permanently afford and at the same time be self-sustaining.

Vail's belief, as stated above, was that there should be neither pure market competition nor full state ownership but the soothing and seductive "middle" solution-regulated capitalism or a "mixed market." Of course, this sounds reasonable to many people because they misunderstand or forget the nature of the state and also misunderstand the relationship between the state and big business. The key insight to understand is that state intervention-usually in the name of the "public good"-often purposely benefits big business at the expense of the consuming public.

Vail also openly expressed his desire for a monopoly under one system. He believed there would be two acceptable methods by which this could be accomplished:

This process of combination will continue until all telephone exchanges and lines will be merged either into one company owning and operating the whole system, or until a number of companies. . .[are] closely associated under the control of one central organization exercising all the functions of centralized general administration. But whatever may be the form of the operating organization, there is bound to be for legal purposes and the holding of franchises, some sort of subordinate state organization which will bring the business and property in each locality under the jurisdiction of the state in which it is situated and operated.

Vail opposed full nationalization, instead preferring cronyism. Over time, Vail's wishes were largely granted by the state as AT&T entrenched a monopoly through politics. In 1910, Vail directly argued that regulated companies should be protected from competition. He wrote,

If there is to be state control and regulation, there should also be state protection-protection to a corporation striving to serve the whole community (some part of whose service must necessarily be unprofitable), from aggressive competition which covers only that part which is profitable.

Governmental control should protect the investor as well as the public. It should ensure to the public good service and fair rates. It should also ensure fair returns to the investor.

A public utility giving good service at fair rates should not be subject to competition at unfair rates.

Keeping track, state control and regulation should provide protection from "aggressive competition," protect from the profit-and-loss test, assure "fair" returns to investors, and ensure that a firm offering its goods for "fair" rates should be protected from those who offer their services at "unfair" rates (i.e., lower prices). Of course, such high-minded rhetoric-"fair," "striving to serve the whole community"-are arbitrary and simply prejudge the conclusion in favor of whatever AT&T, industry insiders, and government regulators decide.

However, Vail reassures us that he is not an enemy of all competition,

It is not that all competition should be suppressed, but that all competition should be regulated and controlled. That competition should be suppressed which arises out of the promotion of unnecessary duplication, which gives no additional facilities or service, which is in no sense either extension or improvement, which without initiative or enterprise tries to take advantage of the initiative and enterprise of others by sharing the profitable without assuming any of the burden of the unprofitable parts or which has only the selfishly speculative object of forcing a consolidation or purchase. (emphasis added)

Thus, instead of allowing entrepreneurs and consumers to freely interact and decide the landscape of the market based on what goods they produce and value, the extent of alternative competitors, market prices, and profit and loss, competition only ought to be allowed within the range that the state and key firms decide.

As opposed to a pure free market and state ownership, Vail argued that regulated capitalism would have all the benefits of both without the disadvantages of either.

When thoroughly understood it will be found that "control" will give more of the benefits and public advantages, which are expected to be obtained by state ownership, than could be obtained through such [private[ ownership, and will obtain them without the public burden of either the public office-holder or public debt or operating deficit. It is conceded that as a rule private management is better, more economical and more efficient than public management, and much more advanced and enterprising.

When through a wise and judicious state control and regulation all the advantages without any of the disadvantages of state ownership are secured, state ownership is doomed.

Apparently, according to Vail, there was nothing to fear, "The proper use of corporate organization or combination under proper regulation or control cannot be objected to."

AT&T, Antitrust Danger, & the Kingsbury Commitment (1912-1913)

At first, to attempt to achieve his vision of a uniform system under AT&T, Vail began acquiring a number of independent competitors until such activity caught the attention of the federal government because of existing antitrust statutes. Michael K. Kellogg, John Thorne, and Peter W. Huber write in Federal Telecommunications Law (1999),

In 1912, fresh on the heels of its victory against Rockefeller, the U.S. Justice Department threatened to take on Vail. There followed a great deal of sound and fury, no doubt reflecting America's traditional populist mistrust of monopoly. In the end, however, government officials would conclude that monopoly in communications was much more tolerable than monopoly in oil.

To avoid antitrust lawsuits, Vail orchestrated the Kingsburg Commitment in 1913 (a year with which readers are doubtless familiar for several other reasons). According to industry historian Gerald W. Brock in his book The Telecommunications Industry: The Dynamics of Market Structure (1981),

Rather than risk legal action that could be adverse to the system, the Bell system entered into negotiation with the attorney general and in December 1913 reached an agreement known as the Kingsbury Commitment.

Correctly assessing the precarious situation of AT&T, Vail tried another-more successful-strategy. The strategy that was reached was essentially an agreement between AT&T and the federal government. AT&T agreed to abandon further acquisitions, sell its Western Union holdings ($30 million), and permit independent telephone companies to interconnect with its system, while the government allowed AT&T to retain its increasingly-dominant position. For Vail, this was a far more favorable alternative to having the government dismantle the Bell System. It constrained AT&T's expansion through acquisition but gave it something far more valuable-the government's acceptance of AT&T's dominant, regulated position in the telephone industry.

Richard Vietor writes in Contrived Competition: Regulation and Deregulation in America (1994, p. 172; also quoted in Thierer),

Vail chose at this time [i.e., around the time of the 1913 Kingsbury Commitment] to put AT&T squarely behind government regulation, as the quid pro quo for avoiding competition. This was the only politically acceptable way for AT&T to monopolize telephony. . . . It seemed a necessary trade-off for the attainment of universal service. (emphasis added)

This was precisely Vail's strategy. Robert W. Garnet-author of The Telephone Enterprise: The Evolution of the Bell's Horizontal Structure-writes (1985, p. 130; also quoted in Thierer),

Regulation played a crucial role in Vail's plans. Astute enough to realize that the kind of system he proposed-universal integrated monopoly-would stand little chance of gaining public approval without some form of public control, he embraced state regulation. In doing so, he broke with the company's long-standing opposition to what [AT&T] management had traditionally regarded as an unwarranted intrusion on its prerogatives. But after years of unfettered competition, during which the firm's financial strengths had been sapped and its efforts to build an integrated system had been dangerously undermined, regulation became a much-preferred alternative. (emphasis added)

Conclusion

All this provides ample evidence of the cronyism and political entrepreneurship within the telephone industry. While speaking of banking in particular, Rothbard provides a simple and profound general insight which every student of economic and political history ought to remember,

Fortunately for the cartelists, a solution to this vexing problem lay at hand. Monopoly could be put over in the name of opposition to monopoly! In that way, using the rhetoric beloved by Americans, the form of the political economy could be maintained, while the content could be totally reversed. (emphasis in original)

This history also serves to confirm the key insight of Gabriel Kolko's The Triumph of Conservatism, that-contrary to the popular historical narrative concerning the Progressive Era-certain key businesses often invited and helped shape regulations in order to achieve a cartel or a monopoly at the expense of the consuming public. Instead of the government and the consuming public teaming up against big business, the government and big business largely teamed against the consuming public. "Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial interests," writes Kolko, therefore, the power of the federal government had to be sought to establish monopoly. But don't just take Kolko's word for it, take that of Theodore M. Vail in 1917,

We have repeatedly and constantly contended that competition, so far as the public utilities are concerned, is costly, unsatisfactory, undependable. That as an incentive to development or improvement [competition] has passed its period of usefulness, if indeed it ever had any.

We have also contended with equal constancy, that with combination of like utilities under proper control and regulation the service to the public would be better, more progressive, efficient and economical than competitive service given by the separate systems.

The "climate crisis" headlines forced down the throats of the American people only began to emerge when socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and unhinged leftist Sen. Ed Markey introduced the Green New Deal in early 2019. That was the moment when global-warming headlines spiked and the NGO complex ramped up activist networks through protests and an informational war in the press, tricking the public into supporting climate bills intended to solve a made-up crisis.

Fake News

By March 2019, those climate-crisis headlines had intensified as Democrats desperately tried but failed to pass the Green New Deal.

More Fake News

Then, in 2022, those same headlines spiked again as Sen. Joe Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer unexpectedly announced the Inflation Reduction Act, reviving much of the climate agenda.

It was all a lie. 

By August 2022, the IRA had passed and President Biden had signed it into law, flooding the Democratic Party's pet projects with $369 billion.

But those headlines subsequently peaked in late 2022. Democrats moved on after securing their massive funding package, and climate was no longer the party's main focus. This suggests that the earlier propaganda push was merely an informational war against taxpayers designed to hustle them.

Climate-crisis headlines remain out of fashion in 2026 as Democrats pivot toward socialism, thirdworldism, protect criminal illegal aliens, and quadruple down on all things woke.

Even AP's new reporting makes the case for the retreat clear: Climate ranks poorly among voters' priorities, suggesting that the public has increasingly rejected the party's climate-grift narrative as bullshit.

The retreat in climate propaganda has become so pronounced that researchers have coined the term "climate hushing." The Democratic-aligned Searchlight Institute has urged candidates this election season to stop emphasizing climate change because it ranks poorly among voters' priorities.

The shift in talking points is playing out in Massachusetts, where Markey, a leading sponsor of the Green New Deal, is placing less emphasis on climate policy as he faces a primary challenge from Rep. Seth Moulton.

All of this demonstrates that the entire climate-crisis propaganda campaign was about pushing legislation through Congress to fund NGOs and climate projects, not actually about the climate.

Doha ranks as the safest major city in the world in 2026, while Caracas sits at the opposite end of the ranking.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, compares the world’s safest and least safe major cities using Numbeo’s 2026 Safety Index. Scores are based on five years of user submissions covering perceptions of crime, personal safety, property crime, and violent crime. They do not measure official crime rates or exposure to geopolitical conflict.

The Cities With the Highest Perceived Safety

Here are the 10 highest-scoring major cities with populations of two million or more.

Rank	Most Safe Cities	Country	Overall Score (0-100)
1	???? Doha	Qatar	84.6
2	???? Dubai	UAE	83.8
3	???? Taipei	Taiwan	83.4
4	???? Hong Kong SAR	China	78.2
5	???? Singapore	Singapore	77.7
6	???? Tokyo	Japan	75.9
7	???? Shenzhen	China	75.5
8	???? Riyadh	Saudi Arabia	75.4
9	???? Jeddah	Saudi Arabia	75.1
10	???? Seoul	South Korea	74.6

Four of the top 10 cities are in the Middle East, including two in Saudi Arabia: Riyadh and Jeddah.

Gallup’s latest Global Safety Report reinforces the pattern. Singapore had the world’s highest share of adults who said they felt safe walking alone at night, at 98%, followed by Saudi Arabia at 93% and the UAE at 90%.

Asia dominates the rest of the top 10. Outside the Middle East, every city represented is in East or Southeast Asia, while European cities are notably absent despite routinely leading global livability rankings.

The Cities With the Lowest Perceived Safety

At the opposite end of the index, the 10 lowest-scoring cities are concentrated in just two regions.

Rank	Least Safe Cities	Country	Overall Score (0-100)
1	???? Caracas	Venezuela	18.5
2	???? Johannesburg	South Africa	19.2
3	???? Durban	South Africa	19.5
4	???? Salvador	Brazil	23.5
5	???? Fortaleza	Brazil	24.1
6	???? Rio de Janeiro	Brazil	24.6
7	???? Recife	Brazil	25.0
8	???? Guayaquil	Ecuador	25.3
9	???? Cape Town	South Africa	26.4
10	???? Cali	Colombia	29.1

The bottom of the ranking is heavily concentrated by country. Brazil accounts for four of the 10 cities, while South Africa accounts for three, including Johannesburg and Durban. South Africa also has one of the world’s highest homicide rates.

Gallup data show a similar geographic pattern. Of the 10 countries where people felt least safe walking alone at night, nine were in sub-Saharan Africa or Latin America. South Africa ranked lowest globally, with just 33% of adults saying they felt safe walking alone at night.

Guayaquil’s low ranking also comes amid a sharp rise in violence. Guayas province, where the city is located, recorded 4,106 homicides in 2025, the most of any province in Ecuador and up 26.5% from 2024.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on America’s most dangerous cities.