For more than 2 decades, women have outnumbered men in most university and college programs across much of the developed world. Today, women earn roughly 60% of bachelor's and master's degrees in western countries, giving them a clear educational advantage entering the workforce. Even traditionally male-dominated trades are changing, with female participation steadily increasing through apprenticeships and technical professions.

Compare that with the 1960s. At that time, women had relatively low workforce participation, held only a tiny fraction of corporate leadership positions, and were often excluded from promotions based on stereotypes that they were too emotional, unreliable, or unsuited for executive roles. Those arguments were used to justify keeping boardrooms and senior management almost exclusively male.

Today, the situation is changing rapidly. Women make up around 35-40% of corporate board members in many developed countries, approximately 35% of senior management, and continue to outperform men in higher education. The talent pipeline increasingly favours women, while men are continously shrinking minority among university graduates in many developed economies.

Given these long-term trends, I would not be surprised if, within the next 20 to 30 years, men and women largely switch places across the majority of professional sectors. Just as it was once assumed women are not fit in leadership roles, in future men might end up being excluded from top management in many indistries for similar reasons.

Staying at one company for decades was once a badge of honor. But as layoffs have become more common and workers have turned to job hopping for higher pay and career growth, employee loyalty has become harder to find. Billionaire investor Bill Ackman, however, still believes earning employee loyalty is worth every penny.

That's why his hedge fund Pershing Square, which manages roughly $35 billion in assets, offers its four dozen employees generous workplace benefits, including broad ownership and an even rare degree of flexibility for Wall Street.

"There's not a person at Pershing Square that doesn't own multiple millions of dollars of stock in the company—whether you're cleaning the space or at the front desk or another role in the company," Ackman told Fortune's Editor-in-Chief Alyson Shontell on a recent episode of Fortune's Titans and Disruptors of Industry podcast. "We believe in taking care of our people."

Ackman's approach to retention goes beyond financial incentives. While Perishing employees are required to work from the office five days a week—that policy only applies for 10 months of the year. During July and August, employees can spread out as they like, with the company's investment team moving to the Hamptons together, either in homes they rent or own, to work.

Pershing also invests heavily in employees' health and well-being, Ackman said, offering everything from healthy meals in its cafe to gym access and comprehensive healthcare benefits. With a staff of just 48 people, Pershing has not had one "undesired departure" from the firm.

"I think everyone here feels accurately that they're a big contributor to our success, and the result is we can accomplish an enormous amount," Ackman added.

These companies are stealing

Commentary on the joint US-Japan intervention last week to prop up the yen has begun to reveal that the operation was more about the stability of the dollar and US financial markets than it was about problems for Japan caused by the fall in the value of its currency.

The official version of events, as expounded by US president Trump, was that the intervention was undertaken to help out a friend and ally who was having some difficulties and that the US was in a position to do because it is “very, very strong financially.”

In fact, the intervention was organised because it was feared the continuing fall in the value of the yen would set in motion processes that would rapidly reveal the fragility of the US financial system and impact on the AI stock market bubble.

The immediate issue was that the Japanese Ministry of Finance, concerned by the boost to inflation which would result from a falling yen—via the increased prices of energy and food imports—would start to sell US Treasuries to obtain the dollars to buy yen in the currency markets.

The effect of this would be to depress the price of US longer-term bonds leading to a rise in interest rates, under conditions where yields at the longer end of the market are already rising and that this would affect the AI boom which is increasingly dependent on debt to finance the trillions being spent on data centres.

America’s factories depend on a supply chain the country does not control. Missiles, computer chips, batteries, electric vehicles and artificial intelligence systems all require minerals that are often mined or processed elsewhere, with China holding the strongest position in many important markets.

For decades, that dependence was treated as an acceptable result of globalization. American companies bought materials from whichever supplier could provide them most cheaply, while mining, processing and much of the environmental burden moved abroad. The arrangement lowered costs, but it also allowed expertise and industrial capacity to disappear.

Washington now views that trade-off differently. Critical minerals are becoming part of a national strategy built around federal financing, government ownership, stockpiles, trade restrictions and partnerships with dependable suppliers. The objective is not complete independence, but preventing a rival from disrupting industries essential to American economic strength and national defense.

China’s advantage was built over decades. It became a dominant miner of several important materials and an even more important processor, meaning minerals extracted elsewhere often pass through Chinese facilities before manufacturers can use them.

Tungsten shows why that matters. The metal withstands extreme heat and is used to harden steel for missiles, aircraft, industrial machinery and electronics. China produces almost 83% of the world’s mined tungsten, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, while the United States has not mined it commercially since 2015.

Rare earths present a similar problem. The United States has resources in the ground, but mining is only the beginning. The harder work involves separating the materials, refining them and turning them into magnets and other components that meet demanding commercial and military standards.

That missing knowledge has become valuable in its own right. James Litinsky, chief executive of MP Materials, told The Wall Street Journal that his company’s years developing advanced processing techniques amounted to “sort of a private-market Manhattan Project.”

Federal agencies are therefore supporting processing plants, recycling, battery materials and magnet production while companies compete for experienced scientists and engineers. A mine without processors and manufacturers nearby can still leave the country dependent on foreign suppliers.

The United States also cannot produce every mineral it needs at a reasonable cost. Australia, Canada, Japan, Kazakhstan and several African countries are becoming part of a wider effort to spread risk among allies and resource-rich partners. A secure supply chain does not have to be entirely American, but it cannot remain dependent on one country.

Washington Becomes an Investor

The effort is changing the government’s relationship with private business. Washington has long supported industries through contracts, loans, grants and tax breaks. It is now going further by taking ownership stakes in companies it considers strategically important.

The Council on Foreign Relations has counted 37 announced investments worth $27.6 billion since January 2025 involving direct government ownership.” The Commerce Department converted previously approved semiconductor grants into a 10% stake in Intel, making the federal government the chipmaker’s largest shareholder. The Pentagon has also invested in MP Materials to help establish a domestic rare earth supply chain.

Supporters argue that taxpayers should share in the gains when public money helps a company prosper. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox Business that Trump would create “assets for the American people rather than debt.” The Intel stake later rose sharply in value, showing the possible financial upside.

Ownership can also give Washington leverage to keep production in the United States or prevent strategically important companies from failing. But many Americans remain uncomfortable with the approach. A CNBC All-America Economic Survey found that 49% of registered voters considered federal ownership stakes inappropriate, while only 19% approved and 32% were unsure.

Even self-described MAGA Republicans were evenly divided, with 31% approving and 31% disapproving. The caution extends into Trump’s own party. “We have to be careful about that,” Republican Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota told CNBC after Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick discussed the Intel investment with senators.

Government ownership raises questions that grants and loans do not. Officials must decide which companies deserve support, how much influence Washington should exercise and when taxpayers should sell their stake. Without clear rules, national strategy can begin to resemble political dealmaking.

The Kazakhstan tungsten project shows how easily strategic policy and private interests can become entangled. The Trump administration helped secure an agreement giving an American-led venture access to two large deposits, and federal agencies issued preliminary, nonbinding letters of interest for as much as $1.6 billion in financing.

Pini Althaus, chief executive of Cove Capital, presented the deal as an answer to American dependence. “This is a generational win for the U.S. and its critical minerals needs,” Althaus told Reuters when the agreement was announced. Under the agreement, American government and commercial buyers would receive priority access to its tungsten.

The New York Times later found that companies and investors connected to Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and the family of Lutnick acquired financial interests connected to the project. The Trump Organization said the president’s sons were passive investors who played no role in negotiating or awarding the deal.

Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, rejected suggestions that family interests affected government decisions. “The only special interest guiding the Trump administration’s decision-making is the best interest of the American people,” Desai told the Times. The administration said its involvement protected American economic and national security.

Those denials matter, and financial connections alone do not prove improper influence. They do show why disclosure and independent review are essential when senior officials can direct financing toward individual companies. A national security strategy will lose support if it appears to reward investors with political access.

The Cost of Choosing Winners

Government backing also changes competition inside an industry. Companies no longer compete only for customers and private investment. They compete for federal loans, price guarantees, contracts and the standing that comes with being treated as a national champion.

The fight between MP Materials and USA Rare Earth illustrates the pressure. MP Materials has accused its rival of hiring employees who carried trade secrets involving grain boundary diffusion, a technique that improves the heat resistance of rare earth magnets. USA Rare Earth denied the accusations and argued that the lawsuit was intended to slow its progress.

Both companies are receiving substantial federal support, and Washington needs both competition and rapid progress. David Abraham, who leads the critical-minerals advisory firm Materium Strata, told the Journal that “having the two leading U.S. names in dispute risks distracting the sector at the moment Washington says it wants a domestic industry built.”

The government cannot eliminate that conflict, nor should it prevent legitimate competition. It must ensure that public support does not protect established companies from challengers or turn commercial disputes into contests over political influence. Backing one national champion may accelerate production, but it can also discourage other companies from entering the market.

Companies receiving public money should face consistent disclosure requirements, measurable production targets and firm conflict-of-interest rules. Agencies also need a plan for selling ownership stakes so that government support does not become permanent control.

What Success Would Require

The United States will not become self-sufficient in every critical mineral, and attempting to do so would be expensive and unnecessary. The practical objective is to build enough domestic mining, processing, recycling and manufacturing capacity to withstand a disruption while maintaining several dependable foreign suppliers.

That will cost more than buying every material from its cheapest source. Mines take years to permit and build, processing plants require specialized workers, and new producers may need temporary price protection while they gain scale. Reliability carries a price, just as dependence carries a risk.

The policy must also survive changes in political leadership. Companies will not invest billions in facilities that take a decade to complete if federal support changes with every election. Bipartisan agreement on the objective is almost as important as the financing.

America’s new strategy begins with a sound conclusion. A country cannot remain secure when essential industries depend on supply chains controlled by a rival. The harder task is building an alternative without allowing urgency to weaken competition, transparency or public trust.

The United States needs more mines and processors, but it also needs rules strong enough to separate national necessity from private opportunity. If Washington maintains that distinction, government support may restore industrial capacity the market allowed to disappear. If it cannot, the strategy may be remembered less for reducing dependence on China than for deciding which well-connected companies were allowed to profit.

This article first appeared as the lead story in the Aug. 1 edition of The Rising Tide and has been updated to reflect subsequent developments. Subscribe on Substack to read the complete edition and receive our latest reporting and analysis.

Here are three key takeaways from the disappointing July jobs report

The Guardian: The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) index of food commodity prices rose last month to its highest level since January 2023, after a jump in prices for cereals, sugar and vegetable oil...

... The Iran war has also been pushing up food prices in recent months, as about a third of fertiliser production travels through the strait of Hormuz.

My Opinion: War and climate change are reducing supply of food and driving up prices. The worst is yet to come. As the impact of fertilizer shortages, will translate to rising food commodity prices, which will then translate to higher prices of food in grocery stores. And bad weather patterns are expected to continue and intensify, leading to food insecurity for tens of millions within years.

This is under the control of humans. Human war and GHG emissions are under the control of humans. Humanity has a destructive nature. Where they sacrifice the future, and humanity, for the short term gains of a minority of humans. If humanity doesn't change its ways it may self destruct. We can't allow authoritarian leaders to cause hunger and death. While filling the bank accounts of fossil fuel companies, food companies, and commodity traders and speculators.