Aggregator
Yankees show they can win with more than power in wild-card triumph
Crypto thieves attack man in home and threaten to kill pregnant wife's baby in 'horrific' robbery
Joey Porter Jr. felt ‘disrespected’ by Steelers before trade to Cowboys
Have you heard the Higher Word? NYC grown Catholic orchestra going from strength to strength
Yankees get some ALDS deja vu with another divisional rival — with the hope of a different outcome
Massachusetts man charged for cyberstalking Stephen Miller’s wife
Trump Sees Likely Iran Link In FlyDubai Attack, Vows 'Very Hard' Response
It hasn't taken long at all for Israeli and US officials to strongly suggest a link between Wednesday's scary FlyDubai security incident and Iran.
President Trump raised Thursday that Iran may be linked to the copilot who tried to crash an Israel-bound plane, which forced it to make a dangerous rapid descent and an emergency landing, after passengers and crew rushed the cockpit.
But while investigators have yet to disclose a motive in what Israel called a full-fledged terror attack, which also left the flight's captain with a stab wound, Trump laid out the following on Thursday:
Fox's Peter Doocy: "Has anybody briefed you about whether or not the guy, the pilot of the flight in FlyDubai plane is linked to Iran?"
President Trump: "We're working on it right now. They're being very open with us. I would say the answer based on what I'm hearing is yes, but we're working on it right now.”
Doocy: "So this guy might have been either put in there by the IRGC or ratified some other way, and then he tried to take down the plane."
Trump: "It could have been, yeah."
JUST IN - Trump, asked whether the FlyDubai pilot is linked to Iran: “I would say the answer, based on what I’m hearing, is yes, but we’re working on it right now.” pic.twitter.com/9Q6rjIYz0v
— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) October 1, 2026So we've gone from no motive yet being publicly offered to assertions that the IRGC may have clandestinely inserted the pilot onto the flight with an aim to conduct some kind of 9/11-style terror attack against Israel and the over 170 passengers who were inbound from Dubai.
Trump was further asked whether - if it is established that Iran was behind it - he would retaliate, to which he responded: "Oh they’ll be hit, very hard, don’t worry."
"You just ask them," he added. "They know what happened. They’ll be hit very hard."
Netanyahu too has been quick to suspect Iran - though without saying if this is based on any evidence, though this is perhaps to be expected considering his history of such linkages.
"I spoke to the president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, and he agreed that Israel would join the investigation and we'll find out," Netanyahu told CNN..
"Look, we know that Iran is sponsoring a lot of this, but I can't speak specifically of this. I can say that they did stand behind the attack in Britain. We passed that information to the Brits."
He still acknowledge that ultimately it's too early to tell, while confirming that co-pilot accused of stabbing the captain and trying to bring down the plane is currently in the custody Saudi Arabia (where the plane diverted upon the emergency) and is expected to be sent to the UAE.
Netanyahu met the passenger who helped stop the Flydubai cockpit attack, telling him "without you it could have been another 9/11."
Yaniv Hayoun, a plumber still in a blood-stained shirt, said he put the attacker in a chokehold and pulled the controls back.
He told Netanyahu…
The timing of the horrible episode couldn't be worse (or also some pundits might also say the timing is curious), set against the background of the Iran conflict. Trump is said to be mulling resuming a major bombing campaign against the Islamic Republic by end of November, after the midterm elections in the US. The terror incident will likely exacerbate US-Iran tensions, and seems to already be doing so.
Tyler Durden Thu, 10/01/2026 - 19:40Klint Kubiak prepared all summer for Jackson Powers-Johnson injury
UCLA will honor legendary broadcaster and movie icon Jim Hill with ceremony
Two US brothers busted in $1.7M Hamas fundraising scheme — that was exposed with help from the NYPD
Trump trucks to Texas to tout ‘pain in the a–‘ Ken Paxton, economic wins
Why Congress Should Restore The Monetary Veto
Authored by Sean Fieler via RealClearMarkets,
American democracy prides itself on being "of the people, by the people, and for the people." But the people lack control over a key part of their daily lives: the money supply.
Its expansion and contraction affect the value of every paycheck, every dollar of savings, and the price of virtually everything that can be purchased. Americans once had the ability to redeem their dollars for gold at a fixed rate. Congress should restore that power. Doing so would give every American a direct check on monetary expansion and force Washington to reckon with the consequences of fiscal excess.
The idea is actually simpler than it sounds. If Americans believed Washington was undermining the value of their money, they could exchange dollars for a legally fixed quantity of gold. As those redemptions drew down the nation's gold reserves, monetary authorities would face pressure to contract rather than continue expanding the money supply. In effect, every dollar holder would possess a monetary veto.
For 55 years, America has relied upon a small group of experts to manage our money supply without the external discipline imposed by gold convertibility. The impact on fiscal policy has been disastrous and stands in stark contrast to much of the historical record before 1971. For much of the 182 years after the first federal budget in 1789, the nation treated balanced budgets - and, during prosperous peacetime years, surpluses - as the fiscal norm. Even accounting for spending spikes during crises like the Civil War, America's average budget deficit remained modest. Our democracy survived existential threats with reasonable fiscal discipline.
The developed world remained fiscally disciplined even after the enormous strain of WWII, crawling out from under mammoth wartime debts within a few decades. By 1971, the 23 countries in the OECD had an average debt-to-GDP ratio of just 35%. This discipline was encouraged in part by the design of Bretton Woods, which created a self-correcting feedback loop. The system of fixed exchange rates subjected countries, including America, to external discipline. Foreign monetary authorities could redeem dollars for gold if they lost confidence in American monetary policy. France famously exercised that power in the 1960s after Charles de Gaulle rebuked the U.S. for glutting the globe with dollars. The French government redeemed hundreds of millions of dollars of its foreign exchange reserves for gold, drawing down America's stock.
Yet foreign governments were not the first to possess such power. A century ago, ordinary Americans could redeem dollars for gold at $20.67 per ounce. Prior to 1933, the Federal Reserve was required to maintain gold reserves equal to at least 40% of the value of the currency it issued. Gold redemption therefore placed direct pressure on the monetary system and constrained its expansion. Washington, in other words, could not expand money without facing potential consequences from the people holding it. Americans did not need to understand the arcane financial terminology that bedevils monetary policy today. They could simply convert their dollars into gold.
That right disappeared in 1933 under President Franklin Roosevelt and was solidified into law the following year. Foreign monetary authorities could still redeem dollars at the new rate of $35 per ounce under the postwar monetary system. That lasted until 1971, when President Richard Nixon ended dollar-gold convertibility, beginning the collapse of Bretton Woods. The end of gold convertibility did not by itself cause the modern era of chronic deficits. But it removed one external constraint governments faced when financing them. The OECD countries' debt-to-GDP ratio has risen dramatically since the end of Bretton Woods.
Congress should use its authority clearly granted in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution to establish a statutory right of dollar-gold redemption and determine the conversion rate, appropriate gold backing, eligibility for redemption and responsibilities of the Treasury and Federal Reserve. Those are difficult questions of design, but they are precisely the questions Congress should begin examining.
Congress could start with hearings on convertibility and require the Treasury and Federal Reserve to report on possible redemption mechanisms, reserve requirements, conversion rates and transition periods. The objective would be to give millions of Americans an exit right. If citizens lose confidence in the stewardship of their currency, they could exchange it for an asset Washington cannot create at will.
Such a system would carry real costs. Gold redemption could contract the money supply and leave the Federal Reserve with little freedom to respond during financial crises. Indeed, the constraint of gold redemptions can certainly intensify economic contractions. But the alternative of monetary discretion carries the greater cost: fiscal profligacy and ultimately insolvency. Americans should not be expected to entrust something as fundamental as the value of their money exclusively to a small circle of experts. They deserve a direct check - and Congress should give it back to them.
Sean Fieler is Chief Investment Officer of Equinox Partners.
Tyler Durden Thu, 10/01/2026 - 19:15The spectatular practice play that typifies everything ‘generational’ Garrett Wilson is all about
Soros-backed advocates battle newborn drug tests — with deadly results
Small California company creates the world’s most boring robot — but it’ll save hours off your day
Trump must level with the public to face down Dem fearmongering as the economy gains ground
Eric Bieniemy compares Raiders to ‘Oakland Raiders’
Bridgewater CEO Warns Unregulated AI Could Trigger 'Societal Breakdown' - Even As The Firm Profits From It
Artificial intelligence could displace nearly one-fifth of the US labor market, threatening profound societal disruption if left unregulated, according to Bridgewater Associates CEO Nir Bar Dea. Speaking on an upcoming episode of The David Rubenstein Show: Peer-to-Peer Conversations, Bar Dea projected an 18% labor dislocation rate, noting that a technology capable of radically improving the world carries equally severe downside risks.
Nir Bar Dea Photographer: Zak Bennett/BloombergThe stark warning aligns Bar Dea with other prominent financial executives sounding the alarm on rapid technological upheaval. Bridgewater Managing Co-Chief Investment Officer Greg Jensen - an early backer of OpenAI and Anthropic - has likened the current public underestimation of AI to the early, dismissive days of the Covid-19 pandemic. Similarly, billionaire investor Paul Tudor Jones recently characterized the looming AI transition as "waiting for a Category 6 hurricane."
Despite these existential concerns, the $100 billion macroeconomic hedge fund remains deeply committed to integrating machine learning into its core operations. In 2024, Bridgewater raised nearly $2 billion for a dedicated AI-driven fund where technology generates market insights and human analysts manage the risk. Since its launch, the fund has beaten the market while producing distinct investment theses that diverge from the firm's traditional human traders.
"That just blows your mind thinking what the future holds," Bar Dea said, though he cautioned that achieving an institutional edge requires more than off-the-shelf software. Profitable integration, he argued, relies heavily on proprietary training and unique data sets to combine human intuition with technological processing.
Bar Dea, a former major in the Israel Defense Forces, has transformed the 51-year-old firm since taking over as sole CEO from founder Ray Dalio in 2023 - paring down in size. Both of its flagship funds are currently closed to new investors.
Bar Dea's is the third such warning from a hedge-fund heavyweight in three weeks. Jones, whose Skynet-style alarm we covered last year, took to the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 10 to argue AI is becoming a "third superpower" that Trump and Xi must jointly contain. Jensen followed a day later, telling Bloomberg that AI will probably have to kill people before regulators move.
Every one of these warnings comes from a firm that is long the trade. Bridgewater's machine-learning fund is beating its human traders; Jensen holds early stakes in two of the labs; Tudor's flagship is not short Nvidia. Which is roughly where this audience landed when the AI labs themselves started asking for regulation earlier this month: the people best positioned to profit from AI are also the ones most insistent that somebody else slow it down.
Tyler Durden Thu, 10/01/2026 - 18:50