Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Via SchiffGold.com,

What is Nvidia? If you’re a committed gamer the question may sound like nonsense. Nvidia, which was founded in 1993, is a tech company that makes GPUs and other products. It originally specialized in making products for the video game industry, that assisted in 3D rendering. If you were a committed gamer, you probably owned their products. If you weren’t, you might not have heard of them.

But with sudden advances in artificial intelligence, it has been everywhere in the news because its products can also be used for artificial intelligence. Its fourth-quarter revenue from Q4 2022 to 2023 literally increased 265%.

A decade ago, its market capitalization hovered around $10 billion In 2016, it was around $50 billion.. As of April 2024, it was worth over $2 trillion. The Motley Fool ranked it third most valuable publicly traded company in the world, just behind Apple. It is now over five times more valuable than Walmart. It is one of the best-performing stocks of the last few years.

Sometimes the stock market, particularly tech stocks, are placed in a different mental bucket than traditional investments and stores of value, such as gold and silver.

But often precious metals are more closely connected to tech than some think.

And that is because one of the essential components in many of its products is gold. Nvidia uses various metals to make its products- gold of course, as well as tantalum, tungsten and tin. SchiffGold has long covered how demand for industrial silver use is forecasted to rise, but many high-tech industries depend on the industrial use of gold as well.

GPU microchips are made with gold as well as other metals like minum, silicon, and copper because of their useful conductive properties. Of course, the monetary value of gold provides an incentive to minimize its use, but the chemical properties of gold remain so useful that manufacturers continue to use gold in chips and sometimes in internal computer wiring and switches despite their cost.

As competition for the best GPUs heats up and the price of GPUs is likely going to rise due to advances in artificial intelligence, the cost of the metal in GPUs will become less relevant to the overall cost of gold. 

This means that manufacturers can use more gold in their products without dramatically increasing the cost of their GPUs and other products.

Perhaps that’s why some savvy investors are betting on both gold and artificial intelligence companies.

One prominent example is Stanley Druckenmiller who shifted his allocation away from big tech and towards AI and gold.

More gold may currently be used for investment or jewelry than in high-tech, but it’s intriguing that humanity’s newest and most advanced technology, artificial intelligence, has looped around to depend on our oldest kind of money.

Gold’s resilience depends on its historic, current, and future usage as money. It’s buoyed by its beauty and use in jewelry and decoration. But its value is also driven by its unique chemical features that power the greatest technologies in the world.

The cost of gold encourages companies to seek alternatives to it, but its natural features guarantee that it’s still used as a vital component of computers and GPUs despite its cost.

The republicans do what they always do best: fold like cheap lawn chairs.

Moments ago, in a 79-18 vote, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a long-delayed $95.3 billion foreign-aid package sending $60.8 billion in ammunition and military equipment to Ukrainian soldiers, as well as billions of soon-to-be-embezzled dollars to the offshore real estate agents of Ukraine's corrupt oligarchs while also fortifying Israel’s missile defense systems with $26.4 billion, and leaving $8 billion for Taiwan as if that will do anything to stop a Chinese invasion. Oh, and speaking of Chinese invasions, the Senate also just forced the sale of the China-owned TikTok in the U.S.

There will be, of course, no change to the invasion at the southern US border because here too Republicans keep folding like cheap lawn chairs to the Democrat ploy to flood the US with illegal aliens who will get free shit for life if only they keep voting for the blue team.

The bill had broad support in the Senate, with backing from almost all Democrats and a majority of Republicans. Several Republicans who had opposed an earlier iteration of the package, which came after a failed push to attach it to a border-policy overhaul, switched their vote to support Tuesday’s bill. The breakdown of the votes is as follows:

GOP NO VOTES:

• Barrasso
• Blackburn
• Braun
• Budd
• Cruz
• Hagerty
• Hawley
• Johnson
• Lee
• Lummis
• Marshall
• Rubio
• Scott (FL)
• Schmitt
• Vance  

DEM NO VOTES:

• Merkley
• Sanders
• Welch

The vote brought to a close months of pointless sound and fury, and endless debate over Ukraine, that allegedly split the Republican Party,  with rank-and-file members openly rebelling against their leaders, who succeeded in outdemocrating the democrats.

Biden, McConnell, Schumer, Johnson, and major media players are taking a victory lap over pushing through an additional $61 billion in funding from struggling taxpayers as year 3 of the Ukraine proxy war begins. They want to own this and absolutely should be forced to own this.

The theatrical "fight" also called into question both how far the US would go to defend Ukraine, now in the third year of trying to repel Russia’s invasion, as well as America’s leadership role in the world, once the latest rescue funding is exhausted in a few months, which it will be, with the Ukraine having made zero progress in its war with Russia.

The measure passed the House on Saturday and now goes to President Biden’s desk. Biden, who has been pushing for a big foreign-aid package since the fall, said he would quickly sign the measure into law Wednesday.

President Biden on Senate’s passage of $95 billion aid package with funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan: “I will sign this bill into law and address the American people as soon as it reaches my desk tomorrow so we can begin sending weapons and equipment to Ukraine this week.” pic.twitter.com/eOAbtzNqWq

As broken down below, the measure contains money for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, as well as humanitarian aid for Gaza—largely matching an earlier Senate bill—plus additions made by the House, such as sanctions on Russia and Iran and the TikTok provision. Leaders in the GOP-controlled House also changed roughly $9.5 billion in economic aid to Ukraine into forgivable loans rather than grants, to make it more politically palatable to Republicans, as if Ukraine will ever repay anything.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) credited the White House as well as Republicans who backed Ukraine for advancing the measure, noting that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) put his political future on the line when he moved forward with the package.

“In a resounding bipartisan vote, the relentless work of six long months has paid off,” Schumer said on the senate floor. In a statement, Biden thanked lawmakers of both parties, saying they answered “history’s call at this critical inflection point” by sending a message to allies and foes about American power.

And just like that the deeply embedded deep state operative formerly known as the House speaker has become the media's darling overnight:

All it takes to get the media to change from mocking and reviling you to slobbering you with praise is to do what they want. It only takes $100B and the betrayal of your voters' policy goals, but what are those silly things compared to praise from the media! https://t.co/id0VrzC77D

Of course, while superficially the bill says "aid to Ukraine" where the majority of the money is really going is to the US military industrial complex. As the WSJ reports, the proposal has roughly $60 billion for Ukraine, most of which would flow to the U.S. defense industry for additional weapons such as ammunition and rocket launchers. The new aid comes on top of the more than $100 billion spent on the Defense Industry Kyiv since Russia invaded in February 2022.

And while most muppets in the House and Senate are clearly in the pocket of the military-industrial complex and the deep state, a few holdouts remains.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R., Mo.), who voted against the measure, called the support for Ukraine to defend its borders “an insult to the American people” while the U.S. struggles with an influx of migrants at its own border with Mexico.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) called his opposition to the proposal’s advancement “one of the toughest votes I’ve cast during my years in the Senate,” saying he couldn’t overcome his concern that humanitarian aid would end up in the hands of terrorists, among other worries.

Others were more "malleable" in their ideological beliefs.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R., Okla.), who switched from voting against the Senate’s aid package in February to supporting the revised version on Tuesday, said that the politics were complicated.   “Our approach this time was to make sure that the politics are set, meaning that President Trump was on board, it’s something that could be passable, it’s something that could be explained,” he said.

Sen. James Lankford (R., Okla.), who also switched his vote, said he didn’t want to “punish Israel and Ukraine” over the lack of border provisions. Lankford had led a failed bipartisan effort to find a compromise on immigration, which was shot down by Republicans earlier this year as not tough enough.

Asked why some Senate Republicans were slow to support aid for Kyiv, 3000-year-old Senate mummy Mitch McConnell cited the “demonization of Ukraine” by conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson. “He had an enormous audience, which convinced a lot of rank and file Republicans that maybe this was a mistake,” McConnell said in a press conference. Carlson declined to comment.

Mummified Mitch also laid blame on former President Donald Trump, Democrats and the border crisis for the amount of time it took to get most Republican lawmakers to acquiesce in continuing to fund the Ukrainian war effort.

“I think the former president had sort of mixed views on it,” he said of Trump’s position on Ukraine aid. “We all felt that the border was a complete disaster, myself included,” McConnell continued, noting that the attempt earlier this year to attach border security provisions to Ukraine funding required senators to “deal with Democrats … and then a number of our members thought it wasn’t good enough.”

“And then our nominee for president didn’t seem to want us to do anything at all,” McConnell said. “That took months to work our way through it.”

Last but not least, the bill also starts the clock on TikTok’s Chinese-controlled owner ByteDance to find a new owner for the video app in the U.S. within a year, or risk a shutdown. But the matter is expected to be decided by the federal courts which means that it will quietly die on some bench in the corrupt US legal system. A court dispute would likely require judges to weigh the national security objectives of the ban against the First Amendment rights of TikTok and its users.

If 100% downside protection is the norm for banks that are too big to fail on Wall Street, why shouldn't it be for everyday investors?

This is the question that a number of ETF innovators are apparently asking, as a wave of new ETFs offering '100% downside protection' are getting ready to hit the market, in the push to find the newest ETF fad. 

After all, something has to replace all of the ESG ETFs that have shuttered in the last year.

Calamos Investments has introduced new exchange-traded funds offering partial returns tracking the S&P 500, Nasdaq 100, and Russell 2000, coupled with complete downside protection through derivatives, Bloomberg reported this week.

The inaugural ETF, Calamos S&P 500 Structured Alt Protection ETF, aims to mirror the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust's price returns up to a 9.65% cap.

Full protection requires purchasing the ETF on its launch day, May 1, 2024, and maintaining the investment until April 30, 2025. This ETF, and others soon to be launched, will use call and put options to manage market volatility, though their effectiveness in fully safeguarding against losses is not guaranteed.

Matt Kaufman, head of ETFs at Calamos commented: “With risk-free rates north of 5% today, options-based product issuers are able to deliver meaningful upside participation with 100% capital protection."

He continued: "For those issuing ‘protective’ products, the cost of hedging by selling an option — or series of options — to offset the premium to buy a protective put becomes cheaper as rates rise.”

Issuers are launching funds that blend equity exposure with downside protection amid fluctuating interest rates, Bloomberg writes. 

For example, the Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF, launched in July, has amassed $230 million by offering complete downside protection over two years. BlackRock, the top ETF issuer globally, is also proposing similar funds.

Unlike earlier "buffer ETFs" introduced in 2018 that protect against initial losses up to a point (such as the first 10%), these new funds from Calamos offer less upside potential but greater downside security.

Kaufman concluded: “For people as they age, nearing retirement — they can’t afford the significant drawdowns of the market, but they also can’t afford to not be in the market. So this gives them an opportunity.”

Authored by Jordi Calvet-Bademunt and Jacob Mchangama via TheConversation.com,

Google recently made headlines globally because its chatbot Gemini generated images of people of color instead of white people in historical settings that featured white people. Adobe Firefly’s image creation tool saw similar issues. This led some commentators to complain that AI had gone “woke.” Others suggested these issues resulted from faulty efforts to fight AI bias and better serve a global audience.

The discussions over AI’s political leanings and efforts to fight bias are important. Still, the conversation on AI ignores another crucial issue: What is the AI industry’s approach to free speech, and does it embrace international free speech standards?

We are policy researchers who study free speech, as well as executive director and a research fellow at The Future of Free Speech, an independent, nonpartisan think tank based at Vanderbilt University. In a recent report, we found that generative AI has important shortcomings regarding freedom of expression and access to information.

Generative AI is a type of AI that creates content, like text or images, based on the data it has been trained with. In particular, we found that the use policies of major chatbots do not meet United Nations standards. In practice, this means that AI chatbots often censor output when dealing with issues the companies deem controversial. Without a solid culture of free speech, the companies producing generative AI tools are likely to continue to face backlash in these increasingly polarized times.

Vague and broad use policies

Our report analyzed the use policies of six major AI chatbots, including Google’s Gemini and OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Companies issue policies to set the rules for how people can use their models. With international human rights law as a benchmark, we found that companies’ misinformation and hate speech policies are too vague and expansive. It is worth noting that international human rights law is less protective of free speech than the U.S. First Amendment.

Our analysis found that companies’ hate speech policies contain extremely broad prohibitions. For example, Google bans the generation of “content that promotes or encourages hatred.” Though hate speech is detestable and can cause harm, policies that are as broadly and vaguely defined as Google’s can backfire.

To show how vague and broad use policies can affect users, we tested a range of prompts on controversial topics. We asked chatbots questions like whether transgender women should or should not be allowed to participate in women’s sports tournaments or about the role of European colonialism in the current climate and inequality crises. We did not ask the chatbots to produce hate speech denigrating any side or group. Similar to what some users have reported, the chatbots refused to generate content for 40% of the 140 prompts we used. For example, all chatbots refused to generate posts opposing the participation of transgender women in women’s tournaments. However, most of them did produce posts supporting their participation.

Freedom of speech is a foundational right in the U.S., but what it means and how far it goes are still widely debated.

Vaguely phrased policies rely heavily on moderators’ subjective opinions about what hate speech is. Users can also perceive that the rules are unjustly applied and interpret them as too strict or too lenient.

For example, the chatbot Pi bans “content that may spread misinformation.” However, international human rights standards on freedom of expression generally protect misinformation unless a strong justification exists for limits, such as foreign interference in elections. Otherwise, human rights standards guarantee the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers … through any … media of … choice,” according to a key United Nations convention.

Defining what constitutes accurate information also has political implications. Governments of several countries used rules adopted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic to repress criticism of the government. More recently, India confronted Google after Gemini noted that some experts consider the policies of the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, to be fascist.

Free speech culture

There are reasons AI providers may want to adopt restrictive use policies. They may wish to protect their reputations and not be associated with controversial content. If they serve a global audience, they may want to avoid content that is offensive in any region.

In general, AI providers have the right to adopt restrictive policies. They are not bound by international human rights. Still, their market power makes them different from other companies. Users who want to generate AI content will most likely end up using one of the chatbots we analyzed, especially ChatGPT or Gemini.

These companies’ policies have an outsize effect on the right to access information. This effect is likely to increase with generative AI’s integration into search, word processors, email and other applications.

This means society has an interest in ensuring such policies adequately protect free speech. In fact, the Digital Services Act, Europe’s online safety rulebook, requires that so-called “very large online platforms” assess and mitigate “systemic risks.” These risks include negative effects on freedom of expression and information.

Jacob Mchangama discusses online free speech in the context of the European Union’s 2022 Digital Services Act.

This obligation, imperfectly applied so far by the European Commission, illustrates that with great power comes great responsibility. It is unclear how this law will apply to generative AI, but the European Commission has already taken its first actions.

Even where a similar legal obligation does not apply to AI providers, we believe that the companies’ influence should require them to adopt a free speech culture. International human rights provide a useful guiding star on how to responsibly balance the different interests at stake. At least two of the companies we focused on – Google and Anthropic – have recognized as much.

Outright refusals

It’s also important to remember that users have a significant degree of autonomy over the content they see in generative AI. Like search engines, the output users receive greatly depends on their prompts. Therefore, users’ exposure to hate speech and misinformation from generative AI will typically be limited unless they specifically seek it.

This is unlike social media, where people have much less control over their own feeds. Stricter controls, including on AI-generated content, may be justified at the level of social media since they distribute content publicly. For AI providers, we believe that use policies should be less restrictive about what information users can generate than those of social media platforms.

AI companies have other ways to address hate speech and misinformation. For instance, they can provide context or countervailing facts in the content they generate. They can also allow for greater user customization. We believe that chatbots should avoid merely refusing to generate any content altogether. This is unless there are solid public interest grounds, such as preventing child sexual abuse material, something laws prohibit.

Refusals to generate content not only affect fundamental rights to free speech and access to information. They can also push users toward chatbots that specialize in generating hateful content and echo chambers. That would be a worrying outcome.

Multiple Chinese companies are focused on commercializing flying cars, utilizing a design that is different from the popular eVTOL aircraft that have been developed over the last several years, according to a new report from Nikkei this week. 

XPeng AeroHT, an affiliate of the electric vehicle startup, plans to market a dual-mode eVTOL vehicle capable of both driving on roads and flying. The Civil Aviation Administration of China is currently reviewing the aircraft for commercial certification.

Nikkei reports that pre-orders in China are set to start in October, with mass production anticipated next year, targeting tourism companies and outdoor enthusiasts. Initially priced around 1 million yuan ($138,000), XPeng AeroHT aims to reduce costs in the future and is also planning to expand internationally.

Qiu Mingquan, vice president at XPeng AeroHT commented: "Normal eVTOL vehicles cannot drive on the ground, but our model is dual use."

"If large-scale mass production becomes possible, we can dramatically reduce costs," Qiu said, adding: "The Middle East is an important market for us, given the level of regulation, openness to new things and cost."

And, hey - the best part is you almost can't even notice a difference from a regular looking car!

As is blindingly obvious from the above photo, XPeng AeroHT is developing an integrated eVTOL aircraft that doesn't require detachment, with the flight propeller folding on top during road use.

It debuted a concept model at a Las Vegas trade show in January. Meanwhile, EHang's two-seater EH216-S, capable of a 25-minute flight per charge, began sales on April 1 after receiving type certification in October. Last month, EHang was authorized for mass production and plans to partner with hospitality businesses for tourism services.

The report notes that China leads globally in eVTOL development, holding 50% of the world’s models, significantly ahead of the U.S. and Germany. This surge is supported by advancements in EV technologies like high-density batteries essential for eVTOLs, with Chinese firms like CATL at the forefront.

Other Chinese initiatives include Guangzhou Automobile Group's GOVE eVTOL with a detachable aircraft section, and Geely’s Aerofugia, a six-seater for longer flights. China's burgeoning "low-altitude economy," which includes eVTOLs, drones, and helicopters, is being actively promoted by the government alongside biotech and space industries, with local support measures from cities like Shenzhen and Guangzhou.

However, the expansion faces challenges such as limited takeoff/landing infrastructure and undefined traffic regulations for eVTOLs.

One eVTOL executive told Nikkei: "We will be forced to fly relatively infrequently for the next few years."

A staffer who worked for a high profile German member of European Parliament for years has been arrested on charges of spying for Chinese intelligence, Germany’s federal prosecutor’s office announced on Tuesday.

Identified only as Jian G., he had reportedly been a staff member for German MEP Maximilian Krah going back to 2019. Krah is with what mainstream media commonly dubs the "far-right" AfD (Alternative for Germany party).

"In January 2024 the accused repeatedly shared information about negotiations and decisions in the European Parliament with his intelligence service employer," the prosecutors office said.

European Parliament, Getty Images

The suspect has also been accused of spying on and monitoring Chinese opposition communities inside Germany. Beijing has long been suspected in the West, including the US, of keeping close tabs on the political leanings and activism of expat enclaves via a network of spies connected to consulates.

German interior minister Nancy Faeser subsequently announced on X, "If it is confirmed that there was espionage for Chinese intelligence services from within the European Parliament, then that would be an attack on European democracy from within. Whoever employs such a person carries responsibility."

The investigation into "Jian G", who was detained Monday, was led by German domestic intelligence services. Recent days and weeks have seen other arrests in Europe of suspected Chinese spies, including a couple in the UK in recent days.

On Tuesday China's foreign minister reacted by denouncing the "hype" surrounding such cases, describing it as more anti-China propaganda aimed at political manipulation and to ratchet pressure on Beijing.

According to Politico, "The bombshell arrest, which rocks the AfD while it polls in second place nationally, sparked calls from one top European lawmaker for a tougher crackdown on Chinese and Russian infiltrators attempting to influence EU democracy."

Authored by Thomas Brooke via ReMix News,

The notion that mass immigration brings a net economic benefit to a developed nation is a myth that needs to be debunked, a former U.K. government minister who resigned over the spiraling numbers arriving in Britain has claimed.

In an interview with the Conservative Home website, Robert Jenrick, the Conservative MP who stepped down from his role as immigration minister in the Home Office last year, called the government’s post-Brexit immigration policy a “complete disaster” and a “betrayal to voters” who for decades have elected parties promising to cut the number of new arrivals into Britain.

“The numbers are just so large that it has a proportionally much greater impact on everyone’s lives. This cuts to the housing crisis, why we have such low productivity, and why we have concerns about community cohesion and integration,” he told the site.

Net migration is at record levels in Britain since the U.K. left the European Union, peaking in the year to December 2022 at 745,000. It subsequently fell to 672,000 in the year to June 2023, but after leaving the European Union Single Market, this is a paradox that Jenrick finds difficult to accept.

“For years, politicians made promises to cut legal migration they knew they couldn’t keep because ultimately the UK was beholden to the EU’s freedom of movement.

“The great reform was the Conservative Party delivering Brexit, which finally took back control of the levers of migration. But the decisions made in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote were a betrayal to voters — they created a system that was even more liberal than the one before by lowering the salary threshold, creating a graduate route and an unregulated social care visa,” he said.

“Frankly, these decisions were two fingers up to the public, and in public policy terms they’ve been a complete disaster.”

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has made “stopping the boats” a key pledge throughout his tenure in Downing Street — a nod to the illegal immigration crisis on England’s southern shores as thousands of undocumented migrants are transported across the English Channel from mainland Europe where they claim asylum and use human rights laws to avoid deportation.

However, despite attempts to combat this issue through the flagship Rwanda policy — a plan to deport migrants to the African nation for offshore processing — Jenrick believes that this is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to tackling immigration.

“To me, legal migration has always been the more important issue,” he explained.

“I’m 42, and for my entire adult life, if not longer, political parties of all persuasions have stood at elections saying they’re going to bring down the level of legal migration.

“All alighted on this challenge, said they were going to take action, and all ultimately failed.”

The Conservative MP challenged the view that mass immigration has a net economic benefit on a developed country like Britain, highlighting that just 15 percent of non-EU migrants who came to the country last year arrived with work visas.

“So, the overwhelming majority of people were students, dependants, or were those coming as refugees.”

The figure is actually slightly higher than 15 percent. In the year to June 2023, 968,000 non-EU migrants arrived in Britain, of which just 169,000 were the main applicants on a work visa, amounting to 17.5 percent.

“One can make arguments for and against each of those categories, but they’re not people who are demonstrably making an economic contribution to this country.”

He warned the economic model that Britain has adopted when it comes to immigration isn’t working.

“If importing hundreds of thousands of foreign workers to the UK was a route to prosperity, the U.K. would be one of the richest countries in the world,” he said, adding that Britain has been in a recession in terms of GDP per capita for almost the last two years.

“I care about the prosperity of our own citizens, not the overall size of the economy.”

The former immigration minister accused businesses in Britain of becoming “hooked on the drug of imported foreign labor” and said the government had done too little to “boost training for young people in our country” to take on jobs in key sectors like construction.

He urged the government to adopt a “highly selective” immigration policy that enables it to choose the types of people that will make an economic contribution to Britain, noting that there is no longer the bogeyman of the European Union to fall back on as a reason why immigration figures should remain as high as they are now.

“What we need is radically reduced, highly-selective, high-skilled, and high-productivity migration,” Jenrick added, suggesting that an annual cap could “serve as a democratic lock” on Britain’s immigration policy and ensure that promises to the electorate to bring down the numbers are met.

Several studies support Jenrick’s observation that mass immigration is an economic drag on developed nations.

In November 2021, a Danish Ministry of Finance report revealed that the net cost of immigration from non-Western countries, after tax contributions had been deducted, amounted to €4.2 billion in 2018.

Similarly, a study from the University of Amsterdam published in December last year revealed the net cost to the Dutch public sector for decades of mass immigration between 1995 and 2019 was €400 billion, averaging €17 billion a year.

The research categorized the types of migrants arriving in the Netherlands during that time by nationality, revealing that those arriving from other EU and European countries had a net positive contribution to the Dutch economy, while those coming from countries such as Turkey and Morocco had cost the Dutch taxpayer the most with a net negative contribution of €200,000 and €260,000, respectively.

Read more here...

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

At a cost of $250 million, Millennium Challenge 2002 was the largest and most expensive war game in Pentagon history.

With over 13,500 participants, the US government took over two years to design it.

The exercise pitted Iran against the US military. Washington intended to show how the US military could defeat Iran with ease.

Paul Van Riper, a three-star general and 41-year veteran of the Marine Corps, led Iranian forces in the war game. His mission was to take on the full force of the US military, led by an aircraft carrier battle group and a large amphibious landing force in the Persian Gulf.

The results shocked everyone…

Van Riper waited for the US Navy to pass through the shallow and narrow Strait of Hormuz, which made them sitting ducks for Iran’s unconventional and asymmetric warfare techniques.

The idea is to level the playing field against a superior enemy with swarms of explosive-laden suicide speedboats, low-flying planes carrying anti-ship missiles, naval mines, and land-based anti-ship ballistic missiles, among other low-cost but highly effective measures.

In minutes, Van Riper emerged victorious over his superior opponent and sank all 19 ships. Had it been real life, 20,000 US sailors and marines would have died.

Millennium Challenge 2002 was a complete disaster for the Pentagon, which had spent a quarter of a billion dollars to set up the extensive war game. It produced the exact opposite outcome they wanted.

So what did the Pentagon do with these humbling results?

Like a child playing a video game, they hit the reset button. They then rigged and scripted the game so that the US was guaranteed to win.

After realizing the integrity of the war game had been compromised, a disgusted Van Riper walked out mid-game. He then said:

“Nothing was learned from this. And a culture not willing to think hard and test itself does not augur well for the future.”

The main lesson of Millennium Challenge 2002 is that aircraft carriers—the biggest and most expensive ships ever built—wouldn’t last a single day in combat against even a regional power like Iran. Russia and China would have an even easier time dispatching them. They are overpriced toys.

That means the US has wasted untold trillions on military hardware that could prove to be worthless in a serious conflict.

Nonetheless, the US government still parades aircraft carriers around the world from time to time to try to intimidate its enemies.

However, it’s a flawed strategy prone to catastrophic results if someone calls their bluff.

While Millennium Challenge 2002 occurred more than 20 years ago, it is of paramount importance today.

Iran has substantially improved its asymmetric and unconventional warfare capabilities. It’s doubtful the US military would fare much better today than 20 years ago.

In short, war with Iran today could be even more disastrous than the Millennium Challenge 2002 simulation.

Unfortunately, war with Iran is an increasingly probable outcome as tensions in the Middle East are at their highest point in generations and are trending higher.

Previously, I lived in Beirut, Lebanon, for several years while working for an investment bank. The experience was effectively an advanced training course in Middle East geopolitics. Today, it helps me see the big picture in the region… and unfortunately, it isn’t pretty.

I think the next big war in the Middle East is coming soon and could be the biggest one ever. It will focus on Iran.

The market doesn’t appreciate how close we are to a big war and the implications of it.

But this distortion in the market is a blessing. It’s handing us a golden opportunity.

First and foremost, I think there’s a huge opportunity to profit in the oil market right now.

I’m certainly not cheering for war. I despise war, which is the health of the State.

Regardless, a big war is highly likely, with significant investment implications that would be foolish to ignore.

In short, we are only one escalation away from potentially the biggest oil shock in history as the Middle East is on the verge of the largest regional war in generations.

Fortunately, it doesn’t have to blindside you, your family, or your portfolio.

Quite the contrary.

That’s precisely why I just released an urgent new report with all the details, including what you must do to prepare. It’s called The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years… the Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now. Click here to download the PDF now.