By 1999, Stan Druckenmiller was already a legend.

From 1981 to 2000, his hedge funds had never had a losing year.

His returns averaged a crazy 30% per year. Druck caught the attention of George Soros and was soon running the legendary Quantum hedge fund.

In 1999, Druckenmiller saw the internet bubble forming and built up a $200 million short on tech stocks.

But the bubble kept inflating. Soon he was down $600 million on the short position.

So Druck hired two tech “gunslingers”, and gave them some money to manage. They bought all the hot stocks and were soon making 3% a day.

The young tech bros were making their boss look like a dinosaur.

Druckenmiller describes how the FOMO (fear of missing out) seized him:

“So like around March [of 2000] I could feel it coming. I just — I had to play. I couldn’t help myself. And three times the same week I pick up a phone — don’t do it. Don’t do it. Anyway, I pick up the phone finally.

I think I missed the top by an hour. I bought $6 billion worth of tech stocks, and in six weeks I had left Soros and I had lost $3 billion in that one play.”

Let’s pause for a second and reflect. One of the greatest investors in history bought the tippy-top of the dotcom bubble. And took a $3 billion loss.

Druckenmiller has since said that he already knew it was a bad idea, but simply couldn’t resist.

“I didn’t learn anything. I already knew that I wasn’t supposed to do that… I was just an emotional basketcase and I couldn’t help myself.”

This is the power and danger of FOMO. Watching stocks go up can cause us to do irrational things.

Berkshire’s $397B Cash Hoard

Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A, BRK.B), the famous firm founded by Warren Buffett, is sitting on a record $397 billion in cash and Treasury bills.

That’s almost a third of Berkshire’s assets. Capital that’s only earning 3-4%, while the market rockets higher. The S&P 500 jumped 10% in April alone, during one of the most serious energy crises in history. This is clearly not a logical market.

But Berkshire is standing firm. They are patiently waiting for “fat pitches”. In other words, they’re waiting for a crash and much cheaper stocks.

The conglomerate did something similar before the 2008 crash. Their cash reached 23% before the crisis set in.

So when those juicy pitches finally came, they had cash to spend. Berkshire famously invested in Goldman Sachs (GS) at a time when bank confidence was shaky.

Buffett bought $5 billion in preferred stock with a perpetual 10% dividend. And they got warrants to buy $5 billion in stock at $115 a share. Goldman Sachs trades at $917 today.

Berkshire’s best investment during the crisis was Bank of America (BAC). That “blood in the streets” investment returned an impressive $20 billion.

Buffett and team also bought GE, Dow Chemical, and many other stocks at bargain basement prices during the crash.

It was a lesson in patience and waiting for great opportunities.

However, Warren Buffett has intentionally limited his choices. He refuses to look at emerging market stocks, and hates precious metals.

So while it is good to keep some cash around, we don’t have to sit on 32% like Berkshire Hathaway.

Assets With Less Downside, Huge Upside

Before we get into it, I want to make one thing clear. What I’m talking about here applies to long-term investments. If you’re just in hot stocks for a trade, that’s fine.

But the long-term portion of my portfolio is invested in stocks that will weather the coming storm. Natural resources, emerging markets, precious metals. And I think most people should have more exposure to these sectors.

When the crash hits, you don’t want to be overweight the most crowded sectors. When it happens, the exit door will be very small, and millions will be rushing through it.

For example, from 2000 to 2002, the Nasdaq fell 78% peak to trough. The S&P 500 fell about 49%.

During that same period, oil stocks gained around 20%, plus dividends. Gold miners did even better, with the NYSE Arca Gold BUGS Index rising more than 100% from 2000 to 2002.

And these natural resource stocks continued to outperform for another 8 years.

Emerging markets also crushed the S&P 500 and Nasdaq during the dotcom crash. The MSCI EM index only fell around 25% during the crash, quickly rebounded, and outperformed U.S. stocks for years to come.

The point is simple. U.S. stocks are very expensive today. Historically when this has happened, forward returns have been very low.

The chart below shows the CAPE ratio (a 10-year measure of how expensive stocks are) of the S&P 500 (x-axis) and the annualized returns which followed (y-axis).

Based on today’s CAPE ratio (around 36), returns have averaged around 0% over the next 10 years.

Source: Tom McClellan

Sure, the S&P 500 could rocket up another 15%, but that would likely signal a “blow-off” top. There will be a crash at some point. And following that crash, we don’t know how long it will take overpriced stocks to recover. After the 2000 dotcom bubble bust, it took over a decade.

I’m not saying to go out and sell all your pricey stocks. What I’m recommending is diversifying into alternative investments. Natural resources, emerging markets, and precious metals.

Eventually, the time will come to sell these unusual assets, and shift into more traditional growth and income stocks.

But that time will only arrive when yields on “normal” U.S. stocks are much higher, and prices are much lower.

Just to reiterate – this applies to long-term investing. For quick trades, buying overpriced stocks can be profitable. Just be sure to manage your risk appropriately.

The post Druckenmiller’s -$3B FOMO Moment appeared first on Daily Reckoning.

Today, let’s discuss “America 250,” in which the country celebrates a quarter-millennium since the Declaration of Independence. It ought to be big news. Indeed, I recall the 200^th national commemoration in 1976, a huge deal at the time.

But this year? To me at least, the 250^th comes across as lackluster so far, and we’re already into May. Perhaps it’s a sign of the times and coarsening culture. (Ugh… speaking of coarse: did you see any imagery of the Met Gala from last night, in New York? Yuck.)

Meanwhile, time flies, we’re all busy, gasoline is expensive, and maybe this 250-thing isn’t at the top of your list. Still, the fact remains that we have but two months until the July 4^th festivities.

And oh-by-the-way, just so you know: Mark your calendar because Paradigm Press will hold an online “250” event on June 4^th for subscribers to Strategic Intelligence, via broadcast from Philadelphia. Details are coming soon.

Meanwhile, at least some 250-related merchandise is out there. It ranges from kitsch like T-shirts and ball caps to fancy, engraved bottles of whiskey, and even commemorative coins from the U.S. Mint, like this proof-set of Walking Liberties priced well north of $10,000:

Commemorative “250” gold coins. Courtesy U.S. Mint.

But now, let’s dig in… Because what if there had been no American Revolution? No Declaration of Independence? No July 4^th?

Historians call this a “counter-factual” scenario. And I mention it because no less than the King of England raised the matter last week, during a state visit to the U.S.…

“You’d be Speaking French.”

Yes, in honor of America 250, Britain’s King Charles III paid a call. And befitting his office, the man was ceremoniously welcomed, wined, dined and feted… all quite royally.

Fit for a King: Charles III at the White House amidst splendid fanfare. Courtesy AP.

Indeed, during an address to Congress, the King was cheered and applauded, including several standing ovations. And those stander-uppers included a sizeable number of politicians who are known to attend domestic rallies premised on the idea of “No Kings.” Astonishing, although it definitely demonstrates how American politics are truly bizarre.

King Charles III addresses a Joint Session of Congress. Courtesy AP.

When he spoke before Congress, and then at several other venues, the King delivered remarks with a characteristic British sense of history, humor, and diplomacy. He described the U.K.-U.S. relationship as one of the most consequential alliances in modern history.

At one point during a state dinner, Charles aimed a tongue-in-cheek, yet pointed remark towards President Trump, referencing an earlier comment by the U.S. leader about World War II:

“You recently commented, Mr. President, that if it were not for the United States, European countries would be speaking German. Dare I say that if it wasn’t for us, you’d be speaking French.”

The line drew laughs. And indeed, much humor is fundamentally rooted in truth. But what kind of truth? Because a comment like this actually raises questions. It opens the door to what are called “counter-factual” versions of history. And what does that mean?

What If? What If?

More than a few professional historians don’t hold much use for counter-factual questions, and theirs is a respectable position. That is, many people believe that history is history, so stick to what it was; follow the script in a manner of speaking. Don’t play fiction-games.

Then again, back when I studied at the Naval War College, the instructors – solid thinkers with impressive amounts of academic wax and ribbon to their names – often posed counter-factuals. Indeed, they loved posing contrarian questions to spur discussion, debate and thorough thinking. For example:

• What if, in 1941, the Japanese navy had sent a third wave of aircraft to attack Pearl Harbor, and destroyed the fuel storage area for the Pacific Fleet? Or…
• What if, in 1942, the Japanese navy had prevailed at the Battle of Midway? Or…
• What if, in 1950, General MacArthur’s landing at Inchon, Korea had failed?

I could go on, but you get the idea… What if…? What if…? Pick any event and ask “what if” things had gone differently.

Of course, in our own reality there’s always just plain “what actually happened,” although even that is not necessarily clear in the mists of history, if not the fog of war. And definitely, entire realms of critical, controlling information may be classified, such as what pertained to, say, signals intelligence for 40 or more years post-World War II. (Seriously, how do you discuss World War II absent knowledge of code-breaking?)

Still, the pedantic point is that there’s a “forcing” aspect to counter-factual questions. Sometimes you cannot really know what happened until you examine the matter from the standpoint of what “didn’t” happen, or what “might have” happened. And only then can you see the granularity of events as they occurred. (eg., What if Pickett’s Charge had succeeded at Gettysburg?)

I could go on with this, but let’s get back to King Charles III, and how he raised the question of why the U.S. speaks English versus French.

No Revolution Without a Pre-Revolution

People who study revolutions will tell you that such events don’t happen in a vacuum. For a revolution to occur, there must be something “pre-revolutionary” going on.

In the case of the American Revolution of 1774, 75, 76 – and historians argue about even those dates! – the forcing mechanism was the French & Indian War, 1754-63, aka the “Seven Years’ War” despite the longer indicated time from start to finish. (The peace treaty took two years to hammer out.)

Basically, this war was about who would control the interior of North America, meaning what’s now Canada and lands west of the Appalachian Mountains. Among other things, the war involved Colonists moving westward versus Natives, plus regular British forces fighting French over control of Quebec and the Maritime provinces.

In the end, Britain prevailed over France, and the door was wide open for “British” interests – the coastal colonies – to move westward, all be it there were extensive Spanish claims out towards the Mississippi region and beyond.

But for now, let’s not dwell on the military or even geographic outcomes of the French & Indian War. Because the important point for the American “pre-Revolution” is that Britain wanted the Colonials to pay for the effort which led to new taxes via the Sugar Act (1764), Stamp Act (1765), Townshend Acts (1767), and Tea Act (1773).

Of course, the Colonials generally were not pleased to be taxed to pay for the war, although of course it benefitted them greatly; and this alone sowed many seeds of the Revolution of the mid-1770s.

Meanwhile, at a different level of governance, many within the British governing class looked down at rough-hewn American Colonials, and in fact treated them with disdain and disrespect.

One telling moment that defined transatlantic class difference came in the late 1760s, in London, when a Colonial representative – Benjamin Franklin – was mocked by members of Parliament. Then and there, Franklin realized that he was no longer “British,” despite his birth in a Colonial America, ruled by an English King. And thus did Franklin become, in the words of historian H.W. Brands, “The First American.”

Benjamin Franklin, “The First American” by H.W. Brands (2002). Fabulous book!

And What If Things Were… “Different”?

So again, we return to the counter-factual question behind King Charles III’s comment: what if the original 13 Colonies had followed a different course?

For example, what if the French had prevailed in the French & Indian War? What if, by the 1770s, British colonies were hemmed in to a narrow space between the Appalachians and the sea?

British Empire in North America, 1776. Courtesy Muir Maps.

What if the French controlled the interior of most of North America, with extensive Spanish holdings further West? And note that at the same time, Russia had expanded into what’s now Alaska, and was establishing settlements down the West coast? Already, the eventual geography and map lines begin to alter greatly.

Offer up just a few “what if” premises like that, and the next 250 years would be quite different, right? Or take King Charles’s musings another step, and ask what if there had been no American Revolution, of it the Revolution had been suppressed relatively quickly? That is, what if Britain had remained dominant in the 13 Colonies?

One key fact is that France financed a large portion of the American Revolution (1776 – 81) and went deep into debt to do so. And consider that by the mid-1780s France had fallen into dire financial straits. But in an alternative scenario, with no American Revolution, King Louis XVI would not have called the Estates General, which means that there might not have been a French Revolution in 1789.

No French Revolution means, in due course, no Napoleon; no Napoleonic Wars; no invasion of Egypt; no conquest of the Iberian Peninsula; no Louisiana “Sale” to the U.S.; no 1812 invasion of Russia; no armies marching back and forth across the German territories; no rise or unification of Germany; probably no unification of Italy.

Just on the point of, say, Napoleon’s invasion of Spain, consider that this broke down Spanish imperial governance across Central and South America. And this led to the rise of populists like Simon Bolivar, and revolutions that brought independence to countries that range from Mexico south to Argentina and Chile.

Meanwhile, Britain’s loss of 13 American Colonies led that island nation to expand elsewhere, particularly into India – another prize from the French & Indian War – as well as into the South Seas. Or stated another way, had Britain retained its hold over what became the U.S., there would have been fewer reasons to sail around the globe and colonize Australia and New Zealand.

Indeed, speaking of sailing, if Britain had remained more deeply involved in administering what became the U.S., there would have been less incentive to expand into Africa or Asia. So, imagine China without the Opium Wars of the 1830s-40s; or less meddling in, say, Crimea in the 1850s; or less British interest in the mostly Dutch region of what became South Africa, meaning no Great Trek, or no Boer War.

Closer to home, imagine if mid-1800s Britain had received ample and assured supplies of food from North America. Perhaps there would have been a less harsh British policy towards Ireland; no “Potato Famine,” and the mass-exodus of Irish to North America and across the world (Australia as a destination, again).

And a solidly British-controlled “America” would likely have been less of a welcoming place to other immigrants from Europe, such that large numbers of Eastern and Southern Europeans would never have set foot on North America.

Obviously, if we all “spoke French,” per King Charles III’s quip, it would truly be a different world. Indeed, almost assuredly, we’d not be here and the planet would be populated and run by others.

Wrap-Up

We could go on with these lines of questions, but past a certain level it gets deep into the realm of just raw speculation, no matter how informed it all may be by actual events. So, let’s return to the “real” history, meaning what happened 250 years ago and what followed.

We’ve got this country, the United States of America. Along the way, a lot of great things happened, and more than a few not-so-great things. But we’re here, it’s our time, and we can only make the best of what’s in the here and now.

For all the “what ifs” out there, the big question is… What do we do next? What about energy, industry, the economy, education, culture? How do you want to live? Where do we steer this ship? And who sets the rudder orders?

Well… as it all unfolds, we’re here at Paradigm Press to help you see through the smoke and fog. Our focus is the future, and how to make the best of it. That’s what we do. And that’s all for now.

Thank you for subscribing and reading.

The post America Turns 250… But what if? appeared first on Daily Reckoning.

After a 4-week ceasefire, the war with Iran is heating up once again.

Yesterday President Trump announced that “Project Freedom” would start early this morning. The plan would guide ships and tankers through the Strait of Hormuz.

However, it wasn’t clear if this meant that U.S. Navy ships would escort vessels.

Then we found out that no escorts would be happening. Project Freedom was a coordination effort designed to help ships navigate through safe parts of the Strait.

Today CENTCOM announced that two American-flagged vessels successfully transmitted through the Strait. It appears they may have slipped through undetected by the IRGC.

However, Project Freedom hasn’t solved the problem of Iranian missiles and drones blocking the vast majority of ships.

Getting Hot Again

Early this morning, CENTCOM announced that two U.S. destroyers had passed through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran claims they fired two anti-ship missiles as a warning and forced the ships to turn around. What actually happened isn’t clear yet.

Additionally, at least one cargo ship and one oil tanker were hit in the last 24 hours by Iranian drones. Thankfully the tanker was empty.

The tanker appears to be owned/operated by the UAE, the most hawkish American Gulf ally. One of the cargo ships appears to be owned by a South Korean firm.

President Trump put out a statement around 1:30pm ET about the attacks. He stated that the Navy had “shot down seven small boats”.

Source: Truth Social

Additionally, Iran struck the UAE’s critical Fujairah oil export terminal with drones. Various videos showing at least one oil tank on fire have appeared as of midday.

The UAE’s Fujairah oil terminal on fire today, 5/4/2026

Fujairah is a key export facility for the UAE. It allowed them to bypass the Strait of Hormuz and continue to export large volumes of oil. Fujairah can be seen on the right side of the map below.

Source: ABC News

Iran’s IRGC has published a new map claiming control over a wider part of the waterway, which includes Fujairah. The orange lines represent Iran’s new claimed zone.

Mixed Signals

In summary:

• Iran has struck a number of tankers and cargo ships
• Iran has fired “warning” missiles at U.S. Navy ships
• Iran has struck the UAE’s key Fujairah oil export facility
• The U.S. Navy has sunk 6 Iranian fast attack boats
• The U.S. Navy is encouraging ships to pass through the Strait without Iranian approval

While it does look bad, both sides appear to have pulled their punches. Iran did not attempt to sink the ships and only hit a small section of the UAE’s oil export infrastructure. The U.S. claims to have sunk some small fast-attack boats, and avoided striking Iranian infrastructure.

In his recent Truth Social post (above), President Trump did not threaten an immediate resumption of full combat. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t in the works behind the scenes.

As a result of all this news, oil spiked about 5% higher on the day. U.S. stocks fell only slightly, with the S&P down 0.35% as of 1:45 pm ET.

Rickards’ Take

Jim Rickards has consistently highlighted how far apart America and Iran are in negotiations. And he has hammered the point home that more escalation is likely.

Jim laid out his thesis in an appearance on Steve Bannon’s War Room late last week.

“This is a game of chicken between the United States and Iran,” Jim says.

He goes on to explain that if President Trump were to declare victory and leave today, it would be seen as a strategic defeat. The same would be true if he accepted the Iranian proposal with its “red lines”.

So Jim says his only real option is escalation, similar to the Vietnam War.

Let’s dig into how this epic game of chicken is shaping up.

Economic or Kinetic?

The United States is betting on Iran folding first. The Trump team points out that the country’s currency is collapsing, it’s nearly out of oil storage, and its wells are at serious risk of long-term damage if forced to shut down.

However, Iran has operated under sanctions for 47 years. Now the pressure is being ramped up even further.

Meanwhile Americans are getting hit hard by higher fuel prices. And the world is about to feel serious pain from soaring energy and fertilizer prices.

Jim Rickards says that approaching midterm elections are going to be a serious concern for Trump. The GOP doesn’t want $7 gas going into a critically-important election cycle.

The clock is ticking for both sides. It may come down to which side can endure the most economic pain. Or full-scale fighting could resume.

A negotiated resolution seems unlikely anytime soon. I was hopeful we could see a deal where Iran lifts its blockade, and the U.S. lifts its in turn. But Trump has already rejected any such deal, stating that Iran has not “paid a big enough price” for what they have done to humanity.

So for now, we’re stuck with no resolution in sight. And the chances of a return to full-on fighting are increasing.

For Iran, this is an existential crisis. If they lose, their sovereignty is likely gone. In the worst case, they could end up like Libya after Obama turned it into a failed state. At the very least, Iran would likely have to agree to limits on missile/drone capabilities, which would crush their firepower and deterrence capabilities.

For America, Trump may also see this as an existential crisis. If Iran is perceived as “winning” in any way, it would hurt our perceived military and economic power. So he’s unlikely to agree to any deal where his critics could say Iran won.

At some point, something’s gotta give. Whether through economic or kinetic means, one side will outlast the other.

In the meantime, things could get gnarly for a while. Oil spikes always take a big economic toll.

And stocks are still basically at all-time highs. What a crazy world… In my opinion, it’s a good chance to de-risk and raise some cash if you haven’t yet.

More tomorrow.

The post SitRep: Shots Fired appeared first on Daily Reckoning.

Even before this energy price spike, affordability was a growing problem. A structural, long-term trend.

The chart below, via Goldman Sachs, shows how costs have risen in the U.S. since 2000. The dotted lines represent projections out to 2035.

Source: Goldman Sachs

Hospital services are up nearly 300% in 26 years. Tuition more than 165%. Daycare costs up 150%. And these are based on government statistics, which always undercount true inflation.

There are fluctuations, but the pattern is clear. Steadily higher.

As a percentage of income, these items are eating up a bigger piece of the pie.

It’s affecting Americans across the board. As our colleague Zach Scheidt recently highlighted in our app’s Daily Feed, the savings rate recently dropped to 3.6%.

Download the free Paradigm Press app here.

Americans are saving less, and more people are living paycheck to paycheck.

A shocking example of this comes from that same Goldman Sachs report. The firm’s survey showed that 41% of households making more than $300,000 per year consider themselves “paycheck to paycheck”.

Source: Goldman Sachs

Shockingly, 40% of those making more than $500,000 per year also report living paycheck to paycheck.

Look, much of this comes down to inflationary factors we can’t control. But if you’re making more than $300,000 or $500,000 per year, and not saving, that’s… not ideal.

Lifestyle Creep

This phenomenon is known as “lifestyle creep”. In other words, as we make more money, we spend more.

Too many people get a raise or bonus and spend it on expensive vacations, optional home renovations, or a new car, rather than investing it.

Most of us are guilty of this to some extent. But if you’re reading this newsletter, that means you’re actively looking to become a more effective investor.

And in today’s pricey world, being better at investing means spending less.

Driving your car until it dies. Cancelling that cable package and switching to a cheaper streaming service. Moving your money out of that big bank that pays 0.03% on savings and getting a better yield. Keeping those older appliances and fixtures. Ditching expensive meals out and cooking great food at home for less.

A lot of it boils down to not falling into status traps. We need to look at living beneath our means as a superpower. That’s the first step.

And then there’s the investment angle…

Adapt, Survive, Thrive

I understand saving and investing isn’t easy in this environment. Costs are rising and the job market stinks.

For those who are already retired, finding attractive income investments is also a challenge. The S&P 500’s dividend yield is down to a paltry 1.1%. Stocks have done well of course, but yields are tiny at current levels.

Treasuries could perform well over the next few years, especially if the Federal Reserve is forced to cut rates and restart QE. But after that, inflation is likely to outpace bond yields. And there’s always a chance rates rise significantly (and Treasury prices fall) before the Fed is forced to act.

During such times, having exposure to alternative investments is important. This is why we here at Paradigm have been focused on these ideas.

Gold, silver, miners, oil, and other natural resources. These themes have all beat the S&P 500 handily over the past few years. And most investors owned very little of them. But if you were a member of Jim Rickards’ services over that time, you did.

Our goal is to continue helping you find solid and profitable ideas for these crazy times. But in order to take full advantage of them, some need to take that first step – and spend less.

The post Avoid “Lifestyle Creep” at All Costs appeared first on Daily Reckoning.

Scale is the biggest innovation in nuclear power today. Historically, nuclear power plants were massive constructs.

As we can see in the graph below, the existing power plants generated between 600 and 1,500 megawatts.

Those kinds of plants are incredibly expensive. The most recent nuclear power reactors completed, Georgia’s Vogtle Units 3 and 4, cost a whopping 15,000 per kW…that’s about $16 to $17 billion per unit. They also take many years to plan, permit, and build.

New power plants are incredibly rare in America. Most of the U.S. nuclear fleet is old…built before 1990. The Vogtle Units are two of only three nuclear power plants built since 2000. The industry retired over 30 new plants since then.

According to Jacopo Buongiorno, professor of nuclear science and engineering and Director of the MIT Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, cost over-runs and construction delays played a large part in sidelining nuclear power in favor of other sources.

That’s changing thanks to the introduction of small modular reactors (SMRs).

There are two new SMRs in Oak Ridge Tennessee (Kairos Power Hermes 1 & 2). These are in a demonstration facility that will eventually be tied into the grid.

The military is also building several small reactors. The Air Force plans to construct one at the Eielson AirForce base in Alaska next year. And the Army’s Janus program plans to build multiple SMRs on bases.

Commercially, NuScale Power (ticker: SMR) and the Tennessee Valley Authority plan to build SMRs at its Clinch River site. And Holtec International plans to build two 300-megawatt SMRs at its Palisades site in Michigan. They plan to be online by 2031.

There is a lot of discussion around using SMRs for data center power. X-Energy (ticker: XE), Energy Northwest, and Amazon (ticker: AMZN) plan to build a complex in Washington state up to 960 MW. That’s a fairly large plant.

The U.S. government is onside with these new power plants, which should encourage companies to get them built. The government must streamline the permitting process to allow the projects to meet timelines.

Red tape has crippled projects over recent decades. The Trump administration has worked to improve the process.

The problem soon will be fueling these new power plants. Here’s the current state of uranium mines in the U.S.:

You can see the problem…we don’t produce enough fuel.

These new SMRs need 300 to 500 tons of uranium fuel per year. It takes about 45 to 50 tons of mined (yellow cake) uranium to make a ton of uranium fuel. A quick, back of the envelope calculation, means each new SMR will add between 13,500 and 25,000 tons of new uranium demand.

The U.S. currently produces about 680,000 tons of uranium per year. But the situation isn’t that simple. The U.S. consumes about 5 million tons of uranium per year! So each new SMR will add to an already significant deficit. And there are many SMRs in the pipeline.

Small modular nuclear reactors are set to revitalize nuclear power in America. But we need a lot more uranium production to meet the new demand.

Even small reactors need significant amounts of fuel. And we currently don’t have it. That’s why we see U.S. uranium miners as an excellent investment opportunity for the next decade.

The post SMRs and the Uranium Miner Opportunity appeared first on Daily Reckoning.

California is a beautiful state blessed with rich natural resources and a booming tech industry.

It’s a shame they have the dumbest politicians.

In November, the Golden State will vote on a wealth tax.

It would be a “one time” tax of 5% on total billionaire wealth. Not on capital gains, mind you. A tax on net worth. This is a dangerous concept, as we’ll explore today.

Fleeing Billionaires

Thanks to the tech boom, California has (had) plenty of billionaires. But they are rapidly fleeing the state.

The California Tax Foundation estimates that $777 billion of wealth has already left. And that’s only publicly-announced departures.

Among the high-profile names who are leaving or have already left California are:

• Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin
• Oracle founder Larry Ellison
• Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk
• Uber founder Travis Kalanick
• Billionaire investor David Sacks

Those are just some of the high-profile, wealthy entrepreneurs and investors leaving the state.

Over time, it would cost the state far more in lost revenue than is gained. These billionaires pay tens of millions annually in taxes, invest in local companies, and support massive numbers of high-paying jobs.

But it may happen anyway. Bettors on Polymarket give the wealth tax a 45% chance of passing. That’s up 23% from late last year.

All so billionaires will finally “pay their fair share”. But in the U.S., the top 10% of earners already pay 77% of income tax.

Source: Visual Capitalist

If this bill passes, it will undoubtedly accelerate the financial disaster in California.

And whenever the next recession hits, the “one time” wealth tax would certainly be extended to more people. “First they came for the billionaires, and I did nothing because I wasn’t a…”

The once-golden state is tarnishing and it’s sad to see. Crime is rampant in big cities due to Soros-funded District Attorneys letting perps off the hook for serious crimes. Homeless people get big benefits so they flock to the promised land.

Additionally, as Byron King highlighted this week, California has already closed most of its oil refineries and limited drilling. Diesel fuel is pushing $8 a gallon. And California’s reckless spending has blown a huge hole in the state’s budget.

A wealth tax would be the nail in the coffin.

Chase the Money Out

In 2000, France instituted a wealth tax. Every year, millionaires had to pay up to 1.5% of their net worth. And that was in addition to a 75% top income tax rate!

Needless to say, it was a disaster. At least 42,000 millionaires fled the country. They left for Switzerland, the U.K., and elsewhere.

Tax revenue fell. Entrepreneurs picked up shop and brought their businesses elsewhere.

Why do you think we don’t see many big companies come out of France these days? Because they’re taxed beyond belief, and they’ve chased all the business people out.

In 2017, France finally admitted defeat and killed the wealth tax. But the damage was already done. And tax rates remain ridiculously high, crushing entrepreneurs and growth.

Don’t Give Them an Inch

In 1939 only about 5% of Americans were subject to federal income tax.

By 1945, more than 60% were paying Uncle Sam a portion of their income.

This is how it works. Taxes rise to pay for some emergency, and don’t go down after it’s over.

Before you know it, civil servants are making $200k+ a year. Hiring gets out of control.

The story is playing out across the country.

But it’s particularly bad in deep blue states.

State Matters More Than Ever

Here in Maryland we have some of the highest taxes in the country. And they’re set to rise even more.

Over the past few years, two of my close friends have left for greener pastures in Florida and Texas. One is a surgeon, the other a CPA.

Once our kids are out of school, my wife and I will probably leave too. Paying state income on top of federal, sales, capital gains, and other taxes is beyond absurd. It would be one thing if we were getting amazing benefits from these sky-high levies.

But we’re not. The roads are full of potholes. Corruption runs deep at every level. We constantly have to fight against being re-districted out of our top school system.

The future of high-tax states looks bleak. With underfunded pensions, high debt, and soaring costs, it’s going to get worse.

Eventually we will see a painful reckoning at both federal and state levels. Spending will need to be slashed. Headcount deeply cut. Pension benefits and healthcare, unfortunately, also may need to be cut.

There’s no getting around it.

When that reckoning hits, it’ll be best to be in a fiscally-responsible, low-tax state. It’s unfortunate, but that’s where we’re at.

The post Tax the Rich, Watch Them Leave appeared first on Daily Reckoning.

“You know who’s buried in Grant’s Tomb?” asked Philosopher-Truck Driver John Ring, many moons ago.

After a long and considered think, I replied, “I dunno. Who, Pop?”

“GRANT!”

My father got me with that at least 10 times before I figured it out.

Those were the good old days, when my father, mother, and I would take a ride up River Road, along the Jersey side of the Hudson River. I’d stare in awe at the most majestic skyline in the world, lucky to have seen it before the Hudson Yards developers destroyed the view.

When we’d get to Edgewater, we’d see the tower of the Riverside Church, which sits to the southeast of the General Grant National Memorial, or, as it’s more commonly known, Grant’s Tomb.

And then, the inevitable exchange would occur.

I’m not sure why, but I’ve always preferred the Revolutionary War to the Civil War. I stand in awe of Civil War buffs. And now, after living in England for a decade, my reading of America is slightly more nuanced than a red-blooded, dyed-in-the-wool Yankee or Rebel.

And yet, when Grant’s name came up on Tuesday, on what would have been his 204th birthday, I wanted to find out more.

And since the man deserves far better than I could give him, I thought I’d merely write about 3 things that make him an outstanding American, in the hopes that you’d be curious to explore this patriot in your free time.

So who was this man?

Most folks remember Ulysses S. Grant for one or two things.

He beat Robert E. Lee. And his presidency had some scandals.

That’s it. That’s the whole picture for the average American.

And that’s a damn shame… for the average American.

The truth is, Grant was one of the most remarkable men this country ever produced. A brilliant strategist. A fearless defender of Black rights when it cost him everything. And a dying man who wrote one of the finest books in American history.

It’s time to show you why this quiet Ohioan deserves a spot on your hero list.

The General Who Outsmarted Everyone

Forget the “butcher” myth. Grant didn’t just throw men at the enemy.

His 1863 Vicksburg Campaign was a work of art.

The city sat on bluffs over the Mississippi River. Confederate guns made a head-on attack suicide. Every Union general before Grant had failed to take it.

So Grant did something nobody expected.

He marched his army down the wrong side of the river. He cut his own supply lines. He crossed the Mississippi south of the city. Then he turned inland and crushed multiple rebel armies one by one before they could join up.

He fought five battles in seventeen days. He won them all.

Then he laid siege to Vicksburg. The city fell on July 4, 1863.

This wasn’t just a battle won. Grant split the Confederacy into two. He gave the Union total control of the Mississippi. The South was cut in half and bleeding.

Grant had proven an army could live off the land and move like lightning.

He was a chess master with mud on his boots.

The President Who Crushed the Klan

Quick question: Which American president was toughest on the Ku Klux Klan?

U.S. Grant, that’s who.

After the Civil War, white supremacist gangs spread across the South. They were ugly racists and political terrorists. Their goal was simple: stop Black Americans from voting and kill anyone who tried to help them.

Most Northern politicians wanted to look the other way. The war was over. People were tired.

Grant refused.

He knew the real fight didn’t end at Appomattox. It just shifted from battlefields to ballot boxes.

So he acted.

He pushed Congress to pass the Enforcement Acts. These laws gave the federal government real power to go after the Klan. He sent federal troops to protect Black voters in the South. He created the Department of Justice in 1870 to prosecute civil rights crimes.

Then he used it.

Federal marshals arrested hundreds of Klansmen. Federal courts convicted them. In parts of South Carolina, Klan violence dropped sharply almost overnight.

This wasn’t easy. It was wildly unpopular up North. Newspapers attacked him. His own party got nervous. But Grant didn’t care.

He had freed men in his army. He had promised them their rights. And that was that.

The “Lost Cause” myth would later paint Reconstruction as a disaster. That’s propaganda. The real disaster was what happened after Grant left office, when the federal government walked away.

For a brief, shining moment, Black Americans had a president who had their back.

The Dying Man Who Wrote a Masterpiece

Grant’s last act might be the most heroic of all.

After his presidency, he got swindled. A business partner cheated him blind. Grant lost everything. He was broke and humiliated.

Then came worse news. Throat cancer. Terminal.

He had no money to leave his wife and children. He was facing a slow, painful death.

So he made a choice. He picked up a pen.

His great friend Mark Twain offered him a publishing deal with an unheard-of 70% royalty on his memoirs. Grant took it. Not for glory. For his family.

He wrote in agony. The cancer made speaking nearly impossible. He took just enough painkillers to keep going, never enough to dull his mind. Some days, he could only manage a few pages.

He finished the manuscript. Just four days later, he died.

Critics still rank Grant’s Personal Memoirs among the greatest books ever written by an American.

Nearly every critic who’s commented on it claims it’s clear, modest, and honest. Grant praises his enemies. He admits his mistakes. He tells the truth about a brutal war in plain American English. It’s now on my reading list.

Grant’s final, Herculean effort paid off. The book sold like wildfire. Grant’s widow eventually received about $450,000 in royalties (equivalent to over $16,000,000 in today’s money). His family was saved.

A dying man, broke and in pain, sat down and wrote a classic to take care of the people he loved. If that’s not heroism, nothing is.

Wrap Up

Strip away the myths. What’s left?

Grant was a general who outthought every rebel he faced. He was a president who wielded federal power to protect Black lives when nobody else would. But perhaps he should be remembered as a family man who turned his last breaths into a legacy.

That’s Ulysses S. Grant.

That’s a great American.

The post The Quiet American Giant appeared first on Daily Reckoning.

In March 2026, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced it will invest $1.9 billion to accelerate improvements to the nation’s electrical grid. Of course, this program has a stupid acronym: “Speed to Power through Accelerated Reconductoring and other Key Advanced Transmission Technology Upgrades” (SPARK).

What’s important about SPARK is that it will accelerate the purchase of electrical components made in the U.S. from metals like aluminum, steel, and copper. The DOE will announce the recipients of the money at the end of May this year.

To add to the urgency, the White House announced an executive order that marks America’s electric infrastructure as critical to national defense under the Defense Production Act:

The President has issued a determination under Section 303 of the Defense Production Act finding that grid infrastructure –including transformers, transmission lines, substations, high-voltage circuit breakers, power electronics, protective relay systems, capacitor banks, electrical core steel, and related manufacturing equipment – is essential to national defense. The determination finds that domestic industry cannot timely provide these capabilities due to limited domestic production capacity, extended procurement timelines, foreign supply dependence, and insufficient capital investment.

I fully agree with this determination. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) publishes its Report Card for America’s Infrastructure every few years. In 2021, the ASCE gave the electric grid a C-. In 2025, that grade fell to a D+.

The reason for the lower score is that the demand for electricity rose to a 20-year high thanks to the growth of data centers. As of the publication of that report, a single data center required the same amount of power as about 80,000 homes. That figure is going up every month.

The cost of upgrading America’s massive electrical grid is enormous. The ASCE put a $578 billion gap between what will be spent on maintenance and what needs to be spent on upgrades. There’s only so many bandaids you can put on failing systems. At some point you need to tear it down and fix it. That’s why SPARK and the new executive order are so critical. Right now, the aging grid can’t meet demand. And the electricity costs for average Americans are soaring.

This is another tailwind to our critical metals investment thesis. The U.S. cannot make these upgrades without buying metals. Lots of them. And the focus on domestic supply means our miners will get that money.

The money spent on the grid will find its way to copper miners through higher domestic copper prices. Another metal that is already soaring is aluminum. And that is a trend we really should be in as well…

The Power Grid Metal

The best aluminum play right now, the one every investor should own, is the giant miner Alcoa (NYSE: AA). It’s already responding to the higher prices, and it’s a great idea to own it in your personal portfolio.

While electric motors must have copper, transmission lines are primarily made of aluminum… and they are old.

According to David Roberts’ blog Volts (one of my favorite reads), power line design dates back to the early 1900s. The “modern” design used by the U.S. today comes from the 1970s. Roberts’ argument (supported by industry experts) is that simply replacing the old lines and conductors with new technology could double the capacity of the existing grid.

We don’t have anywhere near enough aluminum supply.

According to the Aluminum Association, the U.S. needs about five new 750,000-metricton primary smelters to “fully meet current metal needs”. They estimate that the U.S. needs roughly 3.75 million metric tons per year to meet new demand for aluminum. The U.S. currently consumes about 5 million metric tons per year, across all sectors. That includes construction and packaging.

Once again, we’ll be following this trend as a critical investment area.

There are a lot of tailwinds for critical metals. But sometimes the most boring metals (like aluminum) can surprise you with outstanding returns.

The post Grid Emergency = Bullish for Aluminum appeared first on Daily Reckoning.

In the past year, software stocks have gotten crushed while semiconductors soared.

In the chart below, we can see that semiconductor stocks (blue) are walloping software (red) in 2026.

Source: Opening Bell Daily

Software stocks include companies like Microsoft (MSFT), Adobe (ADBE), and Figma (FIG). Fears over AI disruption, combined with silly-high valuations, have caused investors to flee the sector.

Meanwhile, all the money is being made in semiconductors (microchips). Companies like Nvidia (NVDA), AMD (AMD), Intel (INTC), Qualcomm (QCOM), are absolutely crushing it.

Semiconductor firms have been the prime beneficiaries of the AI boom. They are the ones selling picks and shovels in this gold rush.

The hottest semi stock lately is Intel (INTC). It has now risen from an August 2025 low of $19 to its current price of $83.54. For decades, the company was a dog. But ever since the U.S. government invested in the company back in August of 2025, it’s been on a record-breaking run.

After such incredible performance, semiconductor stocks are getting extremely expensive. Take a look at the chart below, which shows the SOX semiconductor index’s P/E ratio (blue, left side) and price/book ratio (white, right side).

Source: Bloomberg

As you can see, semiconductor companies on average are trading at a 60 P/E. And a price/book ratio of 10.

Here’s an easy way to think about P/E ratios. At a P/E of 60, if earnings stayed the same, it would take 60 years for semiconductor stocks to generate profits equal to their market value. That’s a long time. Justifying that valuation means counting on decades of high growth ahead. Could it happen? I suppose anything is possible.

But those are some very bubbly numbers. Reminiscent of the dotcom bubble. Below is a chart comparing the weight of semiconductor stocks over the past 50+ years.

As you can see, chip companies currently make up around 14% of the total stock market value. That’s double what they peaked at in 2000.

Semiconductor stocks look highly overbought at this stage. They’re now more than 40% above the 200-day moving average.

In 2000, it briefly got over 100% of its 200-day moving average. So I suppose we could still have further to go.

But historically, these types of moves end the same way. In a crash.

In 2000, Intel shares reached $75. By 2002, the stock had fallen to a low of around $12. An 83% collapse. Intel just recently surpassed its 2000 peak, 26 years later.

So if you’ve got a lot of exposure to semiconductor stocks, like Nvidia, Intel, or Qualcomm, now might be a good time to take some profits. Honestly, Nvidia looks like the cheapest of the bunch. But still, when this bubble pops, it’ll undoubtedly take a big hit.

I’m confident we’ll get a better chance to buy semiconductor/chip stocks sometime in the next 3 years.

Yes, AI is going to play a big role in the future of tech. And that will require a lot of semiconductors. But AI efficiency is improving by leaps and bounds, and eventually chip production will catch up with demand.

And the bubble will pop. Be sure to take some profits before that happens.

The post The Semiconductor Bubble Goes Nuclear appeared first on Daily Reckoning.

Do you remember the song, California Dreamin’? If you’re of a certain age, it was a hit in the 1960s by a group called The Mamas & The Papas.

The music and lyrics were what was called “California sound.” It was an ode to the West Coast counterculture of the era. Basically, the song was about someone who moved away from sunny Los Angeles and missed the great vibes of the Golden State.

I mention this item of Americana only because right now, California is in deep trouble. And it’s no dream, I assure you. Indeed, we’re looking straight down the barrel of a California nightmare.

California Nightmare of fuel shortages. Courtesy ChatGPT.

Here’s the bottom line: California has maybe six weeks before disaster strikes. By mid-June life as we know it out there will be in turmoil. No doubt – and I’ll lay it out below – California’s looming problems will cross state lines into Nevada and Arizona as well, to make the usual hot summer out West even hotter. And the effects will ripple east, all across the U.S.

Let’s dig in…

A West Coast “Energy Island”

Sure, California has many problems: budget problems, homelessness, water shortages, migration, crime, deteriorating roads, declining schools… But one problem dwarfs all else. It’s immediate, as in the old saying that “the wolf is at the door.”

Right now, meaning today and as you read this, California is running out of gas. Specifically, the state is burning down its gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and a host of other refined petroleum products. The tanks are going dry. We’re looking at true shortages within a matter of weeks.

California fuel shortages in 1974. Courtesy LA Times.

Why? It’s a self-inflicted wound. That is, over many decades, California has created an energy mess for itself. A long list of magical-thinking, energy-challenged, feel-good politicians and bureaucrats have left their fingerprints at the scene of this crime. But for now, let’s avoid naming names and just focus on the problem.

Begin with a broad look at the U.S. pipeline system that moves oil, gas and refined products. This map below shows just some of the oil and refined product lines that crisscross the U.S.

Major U.S. oil & gas pipelines. Courtesy US Dept. of Energy.

To be clear, it’s difficult to obtain comprehensive maps of U.S. pipelines and related systems because exact details add up to critical national infrastructure. And federal, state and local governments want to keep things like this under wraps, and not make life too easy for potential saboteurs or criminals. It’s totally understandable.

Still, the map above is revealing, certainly with respect to California. Notice how few pipelines go into or out of the state. While in contrast, much of the U.S. Midcontinent and East is well-served by pipelines.

California only has a few lines that enter the state at the north and south. One reason is just plain geography. From down south at the Arizona border, and northward to Oregon, eastern California follows the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and no one has ever tackled that engineering challenge by laying pipe. It’s not worth the trouble or investment.

Up north a few pipelines cross from mountainous regions of Oregon and Nevada, with the same engineering challenges for oil or refined product movement from Midcontinent. It’s tough.

In southern California, a few lines cross from/into Arizona, itself a mountainous and challenging place to build anything; but yes, there’s at least there’s some connectivity at a relatively small scale to Texas.

The point is that California is what’s called an “energy island.” Sure, it’s a big state connected to the North American continent. But it’s isolated from the rest of the U.S. oil, gas and refined product infrastructure.

California, the Former Energy Powerhouse

This last point raises the question of how California prospered so mightily over the past 150 years or so, if it’s not connected into a national-scale energy system of pipelines for oil and refined products.

The answer is that California has long been an energy powerhouse in its own right.

In fact, oil production in California dates to the late 1860s, and the arrival of oil prospectors and drillers from back East, post-Civil War. California’s first big, home-grown oil company was the old Union 76 brand (from 1876, the U.S. Centennial), which is now part of Chevron (CVX).

And Chevron is the former Standard Oil Company of California, spun out from John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust in the early 1900s. Indeed, this West Coast part of the Standard Oil family was so important that President Theodore Roosevelt’s trust-busters allowed it to operate independently, to serve the fast-growing California economy.

There’s plenty more history and geology regarding California oil, which I’ll skip except to say that the state has long been a prolific oil producer. The place has petroleum-bearing rocks, plus oilfields, well systems, pipeline gathering complexes, and of course associated refineries.

Indeed, until the early 2000s California produced most of its own oil, supplemented by output from Alaska and an occasional tanker from abroad. But not anymore, as you can see from this graph of oil supply published by the California Energy Commission.

Oil supply to California refineries. Courtesy California Energy Commission.

As this image shows, California has steadily used less and less self-produced oil, with less oil available from Alaska. And the difference has been imported oil, much of it from the Middle East; that is, for many years tankers from the Persian Gulf have been making an almost 90-day voyage across the Indian and Pacific Oceans to unload oil at California terminals.

But since February 28, 2026, and the start of the Iran conflict, no tankers have left the Gulf bound for California. And the few tankers that remain on the high seas – those late February sailings – will soon dock, unload, and then there’s nothing else coming in. Very soon, the view from California’s oil unloading terminals will be just big, blue, empty Pacific Ocean.

So, are you beginning to sense why California is about to experience an energy nightmare?

Lack of Refineries and Fuel

Then again, California’s energy problems are not really due to the Iran conflict. Many issues are purely internal. Just consider how, over the past quarter century, California has taxed, litigated and regulated primary oil exploration and production down to bare bones, despite significant hydrocarbon potential in the state.

This makes for another long story, but in essence California has many still-prospective areas for oil, both traditional production and fracking, let alone offshore. But state politics and environmentalism have shut it in. The state’s problem is politics and culture, not geology.

And then there’s the California refinery story, another key element of the state’s looming energy disaster. That is, in the 1980s California hosted 42 oil refineries and produced almost all of the liquid fuels and related products that the state consumed. The above-noted energy island was self-sufficient.

Today, however, California hosts a mere 7 refineries, with two of them devoted to recycling garbage (i.e., materials like used cooking oil) into so-called “biodiesel.” And for many reasons, those biodiesel plants are unprofitable, only kept alive by state subsidies and tax credits.

As for the dozens of closed refineries, the story is a typical California tale: environmental regs, taxes, litigation, punitive business climate, etc. Indeed, in recent years Chevron, Conoco Phillips (COP), and Valero (VLO) have closed and written off major refinery investments in California; it’s impossible for them to do business.

In fact, California state policy is blatantly anti-oil: to go total “net-zero” by the mid-2030s, which means that regulators want to close down all remaining refineries, and somehow California will run on batteries, and so-called “renewable” power and charging. It’s Green New Scam lunacy, some might say; but that’s what you have out there.

Meanwhile, the current refinery and fuel segment of California’s GDP is about 8%. To which, again, some might wonder how the other 92% will get along without gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc. But policymakers and regulators live in their own world, where such doubts are forbidden.

Of the five remaining oil refineries in California, the total output is about 40-50% of total fuel usage in the state, depending on whether it’s gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel. And that’s not enough to run things, so the difference is made up of imports via tankers.

For example, about 40% of California’s jet fuel comes from South Korea; 20% of gasoline recently arrived from Indian refineries; and a new source of gasoline and diesel, of as-yet-unknown percentage, is from… yes… Russia.

But not so fast, Grasshoppers… Because India and South Korea refine fuels from petroleum that also sailed (past tense) out of the Gulf on tankers, and obviously these nations have their own issues now. Hence, neither of these nations are currently exporting fuel to California, nor will they do so anytime soon. And Russian sourcing is problematic, also for obvious reasons.

High Prices, Shortages, Rationing

California has long been burdened with relatively high fuel prices, certainly versus the price back East. And right now, prices out there are going through the roof. For example, gasoline in SoCal is in the range of $6 per gallon and more; while diesel fuel in California is up around $8 per gallon, with some stations up at $10.

Much of the California fuel price is legacy regulation. That is, high prices trace back to massive environmental regs, especially from an entity called the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The idea is “clean air,” right? Although CARB jurisdiction doesn’t extend to, say, polluting refineries in India or South Korea, let alone to oil-burning tankers that traverse entire oceans.

Then again, CARB or no-CARB, California’s problem right now is insufficient state oil production or refinery capacity, and fast-dwindling imports via tankers.

So, what happens over the next month? Well… Stand by for the Nightmare.

We’ll see an unfolding energy disaster as California fuel stocks drain down, with not enough replacement fuel from state refineries, let alone imports from distant sources.

And note that California refineries and tank farms supply Nevada and much of Arizona, which means that these two states are about to get walloped by fuel price increases and shortages as well.

Here’s a summary of California’s energy predicament:

• Not enough in-state oil production.
• Loss of oil imports from the Middle East.
• Not enough refinery capacity.
• Loss of refined products from South Korea, India and other pre-Iran sources.
• Looming shortages of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and related refined products.
• High and higher fuel prices are a given; the next issue will be physical availability.
• Military will get first call for fuel; that’s just the way it works.
• Look for fuel shortages and non-availability; even gas lines and rationing.
• Diesel shortages will affect agriculture and trucking, key parts of the California economy.
• Agricultural and trucking problems may lead to food distribution issues.
• Other trucking problems will affect cargo from California import terminals like Los Angeles and Long Beach.
• Freight rail and commercial air travel will also be affected, with likely serious ripple effects across the entire U.S. economy.

Wrap-Up

California is beyond an energy mess. We’re not California Dreamin’ here; no, it’s a real Nightmare.

On the “plus” side, last week the Trump administration applied the Defense Production Act (DPA) to domestic oil and gas development. This means that the federal government can begin to make energy policy from a national security perspective. In essence, the Departments of War and Energy can exercise wartime-level control over oil production, refining, imports and distribution.

DPA is not “nationalization” of oil or refining, etc. But it is an effective way to put California’s disastrous regulators on the bench – especially CARB – so that they can do no further harm to the overall energy situation. And harm they have done…

Where does it go from here? Well, California’s Energy Nightmare will become a dynamic situation. Fuel shortages, gas lines, high prices, and ripple effects across America. So, prepare as best you can. It’ll be a long, hot summer…

And we’ll have more for you as it all unfolds. But that’s all for now.

Thank you for subscribing and reading.

The post California Nightmare: A Looming Energy Disaster appeared first on Daily Reckoning.