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

Across 150 years, familiar urban giants rise, fall, and give way to a new generation of megacities.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist's Gabriel Cohen, ranks the 15 most populous cities worldwide from 1950 to 2100 using population estimates from the European Commission’s JRC via Our World in Data. City boundaries were consistently defined based on satellite imagery and population data.

The Transatlantic Era

Tokyo led the 1950 ranking with 12.6 million people, followed by New York with 9.3 million.

The Big Apple was not the only massive Western city at the time. Of the 15 most populous cities in 1950, over half were found in either Europe or the Americas. This included London (7.9 million), Moscow (5.5 million), and Paris (5.4 million).

The table below ranks the 15 most populous cities in 1950:

The rankings began changing quickly over the following decades. By 1975, London had fallen out of the top 15, while Paris (7.4 million) and Los Angeles (7.7 million) had also slipped in rank.

The second half of the 20th century also saw the rise of Latin American metropolises such as São Paulo and Mexico City, which by 2000 had surpassed New York as the most populous cities in the hemisphere.

The Rise of Asia

By 2000, Asia dominated the upper reaches of the ranking.

Tokyo maintained its lead at 30.3 million inhabitants, while Guangzhou had climbed to third with 19 million and New Delhi to sixth with 18 million.

Urbanization and a continental population boom continued, and by 2025 all but one of the 10 most populous cities worldwide were in Asia. The sole exception was Cairo, with 25.6 million people.

The World in 2100

By 2100, Dhaka is projected to rank first with 55 million people, followed by Jakarta at 49.7 million and Karachi at 43.7 million. Tokyo, the world’s largest city in 1950 and 2000, is projected to fall to ninth place with 24.1 million residents.

Cairo will remain the most populous city outside of Asia, with 36.7 million people. It will be joined in the upper rankings by other African megacities including Luanda (30.7 million), Dar es Salaam (20.1 million), and Lagos (17.9 million).

Tokyo is projected to see its population fall below its 1975 level as declining birth rates contribute to long-term population decline.

To learn more about national population growth, check out The Top 10 Countries Driving Future Population Growth on Voronoi.

For decades the European elites have pretended as if US integration into the progressive agenda is an afterthought on the way to a liberal Utopia.  The EU has long criticized Americans as backwards in their principles and politics, while at the same time being desperately dependent on American consumers, American innovation and American military might.  They simply never considered the possibility that the US might walk away from the old post-war arrangements.

Well, now it's happening and the European establishment doesn't know what to do.

ECB chief and former head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, took to the podium at the World Economic Forum’s International Business Council in Geneva, Switzerland this week to discuss the growing uncertainty in Europe.  

"Europe’s post-war growth model rested on three mutually reinforcing pillars. Today, all three are weakening as the international environment changes...."

"The third pillar was a stable, rules-based global order, underpinned by a US security umbrella. That environment allowed European supply chains to deepen, and enabled firms to organise investment around efficiency rather than resilience.  Today, that global order is under pressure. Geopolitical tensions are bringing critical dependencies and chokepoints into sharper focus, while Europe faces growing security threats on its doorstep..."

The WEF and its members have been suspiciously quiet in the past two years about their globalization projects.  The media coverage for the council meeting in Geneva has been thin.  It would seem, though, that the agenda so openly and enthusiastically promoted by the WEF during the Covid pandemic is not going as planned.

This event may be one of the clearest indications of the state of globalism since the failure of the pandemic coup and the return of the Trump Administration in 2025.  Largarde called for "better integration" across Europe for defense and more innovation, otherwise the region might miss out on the next digital revolution of AI. 

"In some respects, Europe is well placed to make the most of new technologies. We have a world-class research and knowledge base. The EU accounts for around 6% of the world’s population but as many as 15% of its researchers. It also produces almost one-fifth of the world’s most-cited scientific publications.

The challenge lies in turning that knowledge into commercial success and ensuring that new technologies diffuse across the economy. Too often, the barriers that prevent firms from scaling also hold back that diffusion..."

In other words, European governments are realizing that extensive bureaucratic barriers and overt taxation is crushing new businesses and preventing natural growth.  Better late than never...unless it's too late.  

Europe's economy is on a fast track to disaster.  An estimated 30-40 million migrants (legal and illegal) have entered the region in the past 10 years alone.  Most of these migrants come from third-world countries with no wealth, no skills and are largely dependent on European welfare systems in order to survive.  

Mass immigration has not led to the "explosion" in economic activity promised by multiculturalists.  In fact, the countries with the most migrants face increasing joblessness, housing shortages, inflation and a strangulation of taxpayer subsidies.  Meanwhile, as the US undergoes mass deportations of migrants, the economy is improving, including growth in GDP, manufacturing jobs and housing relief.  

National rental vacancy rates in the US climbed to around 7.2–7.3% by late 2025/early-mid 2026 (highest levels since 2017).  European vacancies are frozen at around 1%-3%.  The situation is dire.

The very globalists that created this mess are now complaining that, without US integration, they are about to sink into economic crisis.  This has inspired multiple European governments to dump funding into tech startups in a last-ditched effort to catch up to the US and China.  They are seeking to close their $1 trillion investment gap, but they plan to use taxpayer money to do it.  As Lagarde notes:

"Innovative European firms can often finance their early growth, but a gap tends to open as they scale. According to the European Investment Bank, EU and San Francisco-based scale-ups raise broadly similar amounts during their first five years of operations. But by the tenth year, EU scale-ups have raised roughly 50% less..."

"Fragmented capital markets can also incentivise young, innovative firms to vote with their feet. Some 12% of EU scale-ups have relocated outside the EU, most notably to the United State..."

It's unlikely that the EU plan for socialized funding and "capital market integration" will accomplish much without far more freedom and less taxes for entrepreneurs.  The elites pretend they want to revitalize economic growth but every new policy tends to cripple free markets with greater centralization. 

It is interesting, however, that these socialist and socialist-adjacent economies are struggling to function and survive the moment more free markets systems like the US walk away.  It's almost as if socialist systems are parasitic and require host organisms to feed off of, otherwise they begin to die. 

Authored by Milan Adams via Preppgroup,

I used to think the whole “debanking” panic was overblown. I really did. I’d roll my eyes at the Twitter threads and the think-pieces about how we’re all living in some dystopian soft-censorship nightmare. I’m a reasonable person, you know? I vote, I pay my taxes, I have a 401k that I check maybe twice a year when I’m feeling particularly masochistic. I thought the people screaming about being deplatformed or debanked were probably extremists, probably saying genuinely horrible stuff that any reasonable company would want to distance themselves from.

I was wrong about all of it, and I learned that lesson the hard way on a Tuesday morning that started like any other.

Let me tell you about March 14th, 2026. I remember the date because it was the day after my daughter’s seventh birthday, and we were still cleaning up wrapping paper and trying to find homes for the avalanche of plastic toys that had taken over our living room. I woke up, made coffee in the same black mug I always use, sat down at my desk to start the workday like I do every morning. I’m a freelance copywriter. Boring stuff. Product descriptions, email campaigns, the occasional blog post about software I don’t understand for companies I’ve never heard of. It pays the bills, or at least it used to before everything went sideways.

I tried to log into my Chase account to check if a client had paid an overdue invoice and got an error message. Weird, but not unheard of. I tried the app. Nothing. I called the number, waited through forty minutes of hold music that sounded like it was composed by an AI having an existential crisis, and finally got through to a human being who told me my accounts had been “restricted” and that I’d need to come into a branch with two forms of ID.

Restricted. That’s the word they used. Not frozen, not closed. Restricted. Like I was a teenager who’d hit their data limit.

So I drove to the branch during my lunch break, still thinking this was some kind of mistake, probably related to that time my card got skimmed at a gas station in 2019. I brought my passport, my driver”s license, a utility bill, my Social Security card, basically every piece of identification I’ve accumulated in my thirty-four years of existence. I sat down with a nice woman named Patricia who had the kind of patient smile that people develop after years of telling customers things they don’t want to hear. She typed for a while, her face slowly changing from professional neutrality to something more complicated, something that looked almost like embarrassment. Then she told me she couldn’t discuss the matter further and that I’d receive a letter explaining everything within ten business days.

Ten business days. I had maybe three hundred dollars in cash in my apartment, a mortgage payment due in five days, and a family that likes to eat food on a regular basis. I asked her what I was supposed to do until then, how I was supposed to pay for groceries or gas or the medication my wife takes for her migraines, and she just gave me that smile again and said she was sorry but there was nothing she could do.

The letter came six days later, after I’d already borrowed money from my brother-in-law and explained to my daughter why we couldn’t go to the trampoline park we’d promised her for spring break. It was three paragraphs of corporate legalese that boiled down to one sentence: my accounts had been flagged for “suspicious activity related to potential money laundering and the financing of extremist organizations.”

I read it three times sitting on my porch, feeling like I’d slipped into some alternate reality where I was a completely different person than the one I thought I was. I’m not an extremist. I’ve never been arrested. The most radical thing I’d done in the past year was argue with my HOA about whether I could plant tomatoes in my front yard. But then I got to the second page, and there it was: the specific transactions that had triggered their algorithms. A $500 transfer to a legal defense fund. A $200 donation to a nonprofit that I’d later learn had been added to some obscure watchlist. A subscription to a newsletter that apparently shared contributors with other newsletters that shared contributors with organizations that someone, somewhere, had decided were problematic.

Here’s the thing nobody tells you about the modern financial system: it’s not really run by humans anymore, not in any meaningful sense. It’s run by algorithms and risk-assessment matrices and third-party vendors that sell “reputational intelligence” to banks who are terrified of bad press and regulatory scrutiny. Somewhere in a server farm in Virginia or maybe Bangalore, a piece of software had scraped my social media, cross-referenced my donations with databases I’d never heard of, and decided I was a risk factor. And because banks are incentivized to be paranoid, because the cost of a false positive is nothing compared to the cost of missing a real bad actor, there was no appeal process that mattered. I called the number on the letter and spoke to people who genuinely seemed to want to help but had no power to do anything. I escalated to supervisors who read from scripts that all ended with the same phrase: “The decision has been made in accordance with our risk management protocols.”

I spent the next three weeks living in a kind of financial limbo that I wouldn’t wish on anyone. I couldn’t access my savings, which represented years of careful budgeting and sacrifice. My automatic payments started bouncing, which meant late fees and angry emails from creditors who didn’t care about my explanations. I had to ask my parents for a loan at thirty-four years old, which was humiliating in ways I can’t fully describe. My wife tried to be supportive, but I could see the worry in her eyes, the question she was too kind to ask: what if this doesn’t get fixed? What if this is just how things are now?

The Efficiency of the Surveillance Machine: Hard Data from 2026

Below are the official figures from FinCEN’s 2026 reporting cycle.

These numbers tell their own story about the scale of financial monitoring and its actual effectiveness:

A 0.001% success rate is not a law enforcement system. It is a mechanism of collective punishment designed to produce compliance through fear.

The part that really broke me wasn’t the practical stuff. It was the realization that someone, somewhere, had looked at my life and decided I was dangerous based on a handful of data points and association chains that I had no control over. I’ve always been politically engaged, sure. I post about local elections and environmental policy and sometimes I get into arguments in comment sections that I regret the next morning. But I’m not a radical. I’m a guy who likes to grill on weekends and worries about his kids’ education and thinks healthcare should be affordable. The donations that flagged me were to organizations that are completely legal, that have 501(c)(3) status, that operate in broad daylight. But someone had decided they didn’t like those organizations, or the people who run them, or the people who donate to them, and that dislike had cascaded through the system until it landed on me, sitting on my porch with a letter that made me feel like a criminal.

Eventually, after I hired a lawyer I couldn’t afford and threatened to go to the press, the bank reversed their decision. I got a call from someone in their “executive relations” department who explained that there had been a “misunderstanding” and that my accounts were being restored with a “goodwill credit” for the inconvenience. Just like that, after weeks of stress and shame and financial precarity, it was over. I was supposed to be grateful, I think. I was supposed to accept their apology and move on and be happy that I could pay my mortgage again. But I can’t shake the feeling that I got a glimpse behind the curtain, and what I saw there scares me more than I can articulate.

We talk a lot about free speech in this country, about the First Amendment and the marketplace of ideas, but we don’t talk as much about the infrastructure that makes participation in society possible. You need a bank account to get paid. You need a bank account to pay rent. You need a bank account to buy food, to access credit, to function in the modern economy. When that gets taken away, it doesn’t matter what rights you have on paper because you’re locked out of the systems that make those rights meaningful. And when the decision to exclude you is made by algorithms acting on criteria that are proprietary and secret, when you have no right to know who accused you or why, when the burden is on you to prove you’re not a bad person rather than on them to prove you are, that’s not freedom. That’s just a more sophisticated form of control.

I don’t know what the solution is. I’m not a policy expert. I just know that I’m different now than I was before March 14th. I self-censor more. I think twice before donating to causes I care about, before signing petitions, before posting opinions that might be controversial. I keep more cash in my safe. I’ve opened accounts at two different banks, trying to diversify my risk like I’m a portfolio instead of a person. My wife and I have talked about keeping more of our savings in physical assets, which feels paranoid until you remember that paranoia is just pattern recognition in people who’ve been burned before.

The worst part is the isolation. When this happened to me, I didn’t know who to talk to about it. I was ashamed, for one thing. There’s a stigma to having your accounts frozen that feels uncomfortably close to the stigma of being arrested, even though I hadn’t done anything wrong. And the people I did tell mostly didn’t understand. They’d say things like “just use a different bank” or “you must have done something suspicious” or “this is why I don’t mix politics and money.” They couldn’t grasp that the problem wasn’t one bank making a bad decision, it was a system that allows private companies to act as gatekeepers to economic participation based on secret criteria and political whim. They couldn’t see that this isn’t about me and my specific situation, it’s about what happens when we build a society where the infrastructure of daily life can be withdrawn as punishment for wrongthink.

I’m telling this story now because I think people need to understand that this is real, that it happens to normal people who aren’t extremists or criminals or threats to anyone. It happens to freelancers trying to pay their mortgages. It happens to parents saving for their kids’ college. It happens to people who thought they were safe because they follow the rules and stay in their lane. And once it happens, you don’t see the world the same way anymore. You realize how fragile your place in the economy really is, how conditional your participation in society has become, and how little it takes to transform a respectable citizen into a financial untouchable.

I got my accounts back, but I didn’t get my sense of security back. That disappeared somewhere between the hold music and the form letter, and I don’t think it’s coming back. I used to believe that if you were honest and worked hard and stayed out of trouble, the system would basically work for you.

Now I know better.

Now I know that the system works for whoever controls the algorithms, and the rest of us are just living at the mercy of their judgment. And that’s no way to live at all.

Following the historic slump in air travel during the Covid-19 pandemic, passenger volume at U.S. airports has gradually recovered, roughly matching pre-pandemic levels in 2023 and exceeding it in 2024 and 2025.

In fact, 2025 was the busiest year ever at U.S. airports with an average of 2.48 million travelers passing through TSA checkpoints each day.

Despite the latest surge in ticket prices – airline fares have risen 12.6% since January and more than 25 percent since July 2025, Statista's Felix Richter reports 2026 is on track to match or even exceed last year’s passenger volume.

You will find more infographics at Statista

As of August 11, TSA agents screened an average of 2.49 million passengers per day this year, trailing last year’s number over the same period by less than 8,000 passengers per day.

While airline fares have been impacted heavily by this year’s inflation surge caused in large part by the Iran war and its effect on global oil prices, they haven’t risen as much as overall price levels in the longer run.

Since February 2020, the last month before the pandemic hit, the all-items Consumer Price Index in the United States has increased more than 28 percent.

The sub-index for airline fares has only risen 16 percent.

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung has reaffirmed his push for South Korea to regain independent control of its military from the US after President Trump announced the scaling back of joint US-South Korean military drills taking place this week.

The US has had wartime operational control of South Korea’s military since the Korean War, which technically never ended. Combat was halted by a 1953 armistice, but the two sides never signed a formal peace treaty.

South Korea took peacetime operational control, or OPCON, of its military in 1994, but the US still holds wartime OPCON. Lee previously committed to regaining wartime OPCON by the end of his term in 2030, which he reaffirmed at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday.

"A strong alliance makes the foundation of security stronger, and strengthening our own capabilities increases our value and necessity as an ally," Lee said, according to The Guardian.

Also on Tuesday, Wi Sung Lac, Lee’s national security advisor, said that South Korea remained in close coordination with the US regarding joint military exercises.

"Based on the strong South Korea-US alliance, our government has been continuing coordination with the US side on combined exercises and drills between South Korea and the US," Wi said, according to the YONHAP News Agency.

Trump announced on Sunday that he ordered US War Secretary Pete Hegseth to "substantially reduce" Ulchi Freedom Shield, major joint US-South Korean war games that began on Monday, though it’s unclear if they are being reduced in any significant way.

The US president said he took the step based on his "very good relationship" with North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un, whom he met with three times during his first term.

Lee’s office responded by saying it hoped that relationship would lead to "meaningful dialogue" and "discussions aimed at advancing peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula."

Pyongyang has meanwhile downplayed the Trump overture and has not acknowledged any new contacts...

Q: Why hasn't Kim Jung Un responded to your request to have a conversation?

Trump: How do you know he hasn't?

Q: Has he?

Trump: Uh... Yeah he has. pic.twitter.com/RXuoNkvK03

— FactPost (@factpostnews) August 17, 2026

While Trump has framed his action as some sort of punishment over South Korea’s lack of support for the Iran war, it aligns with the agenda President Lee has been attempting to pursue. Just one day before Trump’s announcement, Lee proposed direct talks with North Korea.

Amazon's Prime Air drone delivery service, first teased by Jeff Bezos in a 2013 60 Minutes interview as a way to get packages under 5lbs to customers in 30 minutes or less, represents the broader push toward autonomous aerial last-mile logistics that could bypass traffic and cut delivery times dramatically. 

After years of regulatory hurdles with the FAA, technical iterations, and limited trials, the service has matured into a commercial offering using the MK30 drone, which hovers to drop packages.

A major breakthrough came in 2024, when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) granted Amazon a waiver allowing its drones to fly beyond the visual line of sight of their operators, and has already completed hundreds of thousands of deliveries in 2026 across 11 sites in seven states. 

Today Amazon announced plans to expand it to nearly 500 US cities and towns by year-end - a roughly sixfold increase - bringing ultrafast options (as quick as 30 minutes) to tens of millions more customers in places like the Chicago, Atlanta, Cleveland, Syracuse, and Boise metro areas.

The drones will primarily operate in suburban areas, away from skyscrapers and major airports that could complicate operations.

Amazon describes the aircraft as “highly autonomous,” with onboard cameras and sensors for navigation, obstacle detection, and safe delivery.

The cameras do not transmit a live video feed, according to the company.

The company also sought to address the potential concern about noise.

“During drop-off, the sound level is below that of an idling delivery truck parked curbside and lasts about 30 seconds,” Amazon said.

Someone standing outside may hear a sound “comparable to a window fan on low” as the drone arrives, while people indoors may not hear it at all, the company added.

Prime Air delivery is free for Prime members on orders of at least $50, but orders below that threshold carry a $2.99 delivery fee, while customers without a Prime membership are charged $4.99.

The plan will intensify the battle between Amazon and Walmart to provide consumers with the fastest delivery times.

Both giants rely on a mix of drones and drivers to deliver everything consumers have ordered.

The goal is not necessarily about cutting costs by replacing drivers and trucks - and drones that can only carry one package at a time would have a hard time doing that. But instead, these companies are using drones as one tool to help keep customers happy with quicker deliveries, banking on a faster delivery system attracting more shoppers.

“It’s still an experiment. It’s still in test and learn mode,” said Sucharita Kodali, who is a retail analyst with Forrester.

However, it's not all instant utopian dreams as The Epoch Times reports that the program also faces safety scrutiny following recent incidents.

In October 2025, two Amazon drones collided with a crane in Tolleson, Arizona, prompting separate investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board and the FAA.

Another FAA investigation was opened last November after an Amazon drone struck and severed an internet cable while ascending from a customer’s yard in Waco, Texas.

All three investigations are ongoing.