Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

When silver surged to multi-year highs, veteran bullion dealer Andy Schectman didn’t see just another price move—he saw a rupture in the foundation of the global metals market.

In a wide-ranging interview last week, Schectman argued that what’s happening now represents the physical market finally “calling the bluff” of decades of paper manipulation.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” he began, emphasizing that this was not mere volatility. “Backwardation… shows extreme delivery stress… It’s the market exposing the shortages of physical silver, the frailty of the paper promises.”

For Schectman, “backwardation”—when spot prices exceed futures prices—isn’t just a technical quirk. It’s the alarm bell that the supply of real metal is running thin. He believes the era when investors could comfortably rely on “paper silver” derivatives is ending.

“People have accepted paper promises for a very long time and I think that’s coming to an end,” he said. “This is decisively bullish for silver and other precious metals.”

When asked what’s actually driving this rupture, Schectman pointed to signs of stress that only appear when market structures break down. Spot prices are now higher than future delivery prices—something, he said, “very rare” in silver and “a signal of desperate demand.” Lease rates in London, normally a fraction of a percent, “jumped up over 39%.” The picture he painted was one of panic beneath the surface.

“In London they have a 140 million ounce float, yet they’re trading 600 million ounces a day… There’s over two billion ounces in paper claims out there on a float of 140 million.”

In Schectman’s view, London is the epicenter of a quiet crisis, where years of “rehypothecation”—multiple claims on the same bars—are being exposed. “It’s being called under the carpet,” he warned.

Pressed on what happens when this paper structure breaks, he compared it to a run on a bank. When short sellers can’t find metal to deliver, and borrowing costs soar, margin calls start hitting.

“You’re beginning to see margin calls… they’re not able to get the silver to cover their position,” he said. “That’s when things begin to get very, very, very interesting.”

In the short term, he acknowledged, the chaos could create sharp swings—“liquidations and survival-driven selling”—but he sees that as temporary. “Once forced selling ends, the physical scarcity starts to dominate and silver sustains its higher prices $50 plus.” In the long run, he sees this as a system reset: “If confidence in this paper system collapses, a structural repricing of silver begins.”

Schectman doesn’t just lean on sentiment. He draws on chart analysis to argue that the market structure itself supports much higher prices. Describing a multi-decade “double cup and handle” formation stretching back to the 1980s, he claimed that silver’s breakout above $50 could technically project prices as high as $96.

“You take the distance from the bottom… from 50 to 4… and you add it to the top… the next target… is $96,” he explained.

Still, he conceded that nothing moves in a straight line. “There will be volatility,” he said, but he believes that each pullback will merely reset the stage for a higher base.

When the conversation turned macro, Schectman zoomed out. To him, this isn’t just about silver—it’s about the U.S. dollar and a global shift away from Western financial dominance.

“It’s not gold and silver going higher. It is the dollar losing ground and losing value,” he said, describing the currency as “a melting ice cube.”

He linked that decline to what he sees as an intentional policy effort to devalue the dollar in order to bring back U.S. manufacturing. Referencing former Trump adviser Judy Shelton and market analyst Luke Gromen, he speculated that policymakers may even be planning to quietly peg long-term U.S. Treasury debt to gold.

“If they back the back end of the Treasury market with gold and let gold slowly… go higher… you’re doing it to let the dollar devalue,” he said. “The biggest money in the world… the institutional traders who are standing for delivery left and right… they know what’s coming.”

Schectman’s thesis, then, is that the metals rally is not a speculative mania but a symptom of a global monetary adjustment. “This is the dollar devaluation trade,” he said flatly.

When asked how these stresses are playing out in his business, Schectman’s answer was direct: premiums are exploding and spreads are widening. He pointed to the backwardation gap as evidence of dealers’ exposure.

“We were about a $3 spread between the futures price and the spot price,” he said. “For dealers who have to buy metal at X, they can’t hedge it anywhere near X… So you’re exposed.”

That exposure is showing up in retail pricing. “Every major dealer in America right now is north of six, seven, eight an ounce over spot… just like that,” he said of Silver Eagle coins. On gold, he added, “Our cost on Gold Buffaloes is north of $200 over spot before we make a penny.”

He blames much of this on bottlenecks at the U.S. Mint, which he calls “the model of inefficiency,” unable to produce enough supply when demand spikes. But he also says premiums reflect a deeper issue—the public’s growing insistence on physical metal rather than paper exposure.

Schectman was even harsher when asked about exchange-traded funds like SLV and GLD.

“SLV and GLD… read pages 6 through 12 titled risk factors,” he warned, calling them “a scam” in essence. “I wouldn’t put my money in to save my life.”

[QTR: Pay attention here. I would also not use SLV or GLD to get long-term exposure to gold and silver. I would own the Sprott funds instead, if I needed to own something other than physical.]

He drew a bright line between paper and physical ownership.

“You can own physical metal within your IRA… you can say send me my metal… you can’t ever take possession of GLD and SLV.”

That distinction—between real custody and paper claims—runs through his entire worldview. “If you don’t hold it, you don’t really have it,” he repeated.

“We’re seeing nothing in the way of selling,” he said. “The big money has been doing this now for the last six months.”

Institutional investors, he claims, have been aggressively buying gold and silver, while wholesalers and refiners, lulled by a year of low demand, are now scrambling to catch up. “It will go from an environment of high prices… to people saying, ‘I can’t get it easily. It’s disappearing.’ And just like that, it will disappear.”

When asked about supply constraints, he pointed to both natural and industrial limits. Silver, he said, is being mined less each year, and only a fraction comes from dedicated silver mines. At the same time, industrial demand—from solar panels to electric vehicles—is surging.

“On top of an expansion in demand, you have a decrease,” he said. “It’s disappearing in nature.”

That dual squeeze makes silver, in his words, “a once-in-a-generation… shift into an asset that has been controlled by the West forever on leverage futures contracts.”

When asked if it was “too late” for new buyers, Schectman was pragmatic. He doesn’t dismiss the possibility of a pullback, but he argues that waiting for the perfect entry is risky.

“Cost average. Cost average is the only way to smooth out the uncertainty curve,” he said.

He recommends investors “build a core position first, then keep averaging,” suggesting pre-1965 U.S. coins—so-called “constitutional silver”—as “the best value by far… not even close really.” For buyers who prefer one-ounce coins, he notes that Maples, Britannias, Kangaroos, Philharmonics, and Krugerrands currently offer better value than Silver Eagles, though the Eagles have stronger liquidity.

He also cautioned against rotating out of silver into gold just yet.

“It’s not time to trade your silver for gold yet,”

he said, though he added that “gold’s going to go higher than anyone thinks possible.”

Schectman also drew a line between what the public is doing and what the insiders are doing. Retail investors, he noted, are still heavily exposed to stocks and options, while “the big money” is quietly moving into hard assets. “The public is all loaded into the equity market,” he said, “and the big money is leaving… standing for delivery on physical metal.”

In his mind, that divergence tells the story. The institutions aren’t chasing speculation—they’re moving to safety. And individuals, he argues, should follow. The goal isn’t short-term profit, it’s preservation.

“Buying gold and silver right now is not—you’re not buying it to get wealthy. You’re buying it because it is wealth.”

That line captures the ethos behind his warnings. Schectman sees backwardation, soaring lease rates, and a widening gap between physical and paper prices as signs that a generational shift is underway. He believes policy winds are turning toward deliberate dollar devaluation and that the market, quietly but surely, is repricing real assets accordingly. Whether one agrees with his interpretation or not, the conditions he describes—spot over futures, spiking premiums, and delivery stress—fit the profile of a market where confidence in paper promises is giving way to the demand for something tangible.

“The rush for gold and silver is real,” he concluded. “It’s intensifying.”

Watch Andy’s full interview hourlong interview here. And read my 10 areas of the market I’d be avoiding at all costs here. 

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Update (1430ET): In what appears to be yet another confirmation of our ‘Trump Proximity Theory’, The FT reports that after President Trump’s lengthy call with Russian President Putin, the American leader urged Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept Russia’s terms for ending its war in a volatile White House meeting on Friday, warning that Putin had said he would “destroy” Ukraine if it did not agree.

The FT further noted that, according to people familiar with the matter, the meeting between the US and Ukrainian presidents descended many times into a “shouting match”, with Trump “cursing all the time.”

The ‘people familiar’ reportedly added that the US president tossed aside maps of the frontline in Ukraine, insisted Zelenskyy surrender the entire Donbas region to Putin, and repeatedly echoed talking points the Russian leader had made in their call a day earlier.

Additionally, The FT reports that according to a European official with knowledge of the meeting, Trump told Zelenskyy that the Ukrainian leader needed to cut a deal or face destruction.

The official said that Trump told Zelenskyy he was losing the war, warning: “If [Putin] wants it, he will destroy you.”

Three other European officials briefed on the White House discussions confirmed that Trump had spent much of the meeting lecturing Zelenskyy, repeating Putin’s arguments about the conflict and urging him to accept the Russian proposal.

“Zelenskyy was very negative” following the meeting, according to one of the officials, adding that European leaders were “not optimistic but pragmatic with planning next steps”.

Trump told Fox News on Sunday that he was confident about securing an end to the conflict, and added that Putin is “going to take something, he’s won certain property”.

However, despite The FT’s source claiming the acrimony was heavy, Ukraine ultimately managed (as we detailed earlier – below) to swing Trump back to endorsing a freeze of the current front lines.

*  *  *

Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed agreement with President Trump on Sunday that the war should be frozen along current battle lines, and only then can comprehensive peace talks begin.

Zelensky said he’s ready to strike peace, but doubted that Putin is willing, saying “I’m not sure that Putin is ready to just finish this war” and that a ceasefire is vital before negotiations can start.

The Kremlin has at every turn rejected the idea of a ‘temporary’ truce, and has said it will accept nothing less than a comprehensive deal which tackles all the issues, for a permanent peace.

“President Trump is right: We have to stop where we are,” Zelensky had earlier said after meeting Trump at the White House, for his third visit there since January.

“The meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine was very interesting, and cordial, but I told him, as I likewise strongly suggested to President Putin, that it is time to stop the killing, and make a DEAL!” Trump wrote on Truth Social of the visit.

“Enough blood has been shed, with property lines being defined by War and Guts. They should stop where they are. Let both claim Victory, let History decide!” Trump wrote.

“No more shooting, no more Death, no more vast and unsustainable sums of money spent. This is a War that would have never started if I were President. Thousands of people being slaughtered each and every week — NO MORE, GO HOME TO YOUR FAMILIES IN PEACE!” – the message stated further.

Zelensky failed to persuade Trump to send Tomahawks, as the White House clearly wants to avoid this escalation.

In the meantime, a report in The Wall Street Journal paints a picture of Trump putting more pressure on the Ukrainian side rather than the Russian side:

Even within the administration, officials have taken note of Trump’s hesitation to push Putin, who so far has shown little interest in concessions needed to make a deal. The White House has put more pressure on Kyiv than on Moscow, one administration official noted.

“There are tools to put more pressure on the Russians economically and militarily—and we’re not using them,” said Daniel Fried, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for Europe.

Yet there’s still been no apparent pressure put on Zelensky to cede territory in the east, which remains a key compromise that Moscow is demanding. This pressure might be happening behind the scenes, but has not been a public talking point of the US administration.

Zelensky accepts defeat after Trump meet? | #WATCH

After meeting at the White House, Zelensky endorsed Trump’s proposal to “stop where we are,” calling it a first step toward “real peace” and stressing the need to end Russian aggression.

Watch more videos like this… pic.twitter.com/2tplmzlgSn

— Hindustan Times (@htTweets) October 18, 2025

But even NATO allies in Europe have time and again expressed they will never recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea, much less the Donbass. But all the while, Russian forces have continued making gains in the east along the front lines, even pushing into a central oblast of late.

By Diana DiGangi of UtilityDive

The planned Cascade Advanced Energy Facility in Washington, which will be built by Energy Northwest with funding from Amazon, will deploy 12 small modular reactors, Amazon said in a Thursday release.

The “modular nature” of the plant means that three 320-MW sections will together comprise a 960-MW plant within the space of a few city blocks, in contrast to “traditional nuclear power facilities whose single GW plant can take up more than a square mile of land,” Amazon said.

The SMRs will be supplied by X-energy, which received $500 million in Series C funding from Amazon last year, using X-energy’s advanced nuclear reactor design. The Cascade facility will be built outside Richland, Washington, near Energy Northwest’s Columbia Generating Station.

X-energy’s “advanced reactor design, the Xe-100, will be used in Amazon’s partnership with Energy Northwest to develop four SMRs in the first phase of Cascade, with an initial capacity of 320 MW and the option to expand to 12 units with a capacity of 960 MW,” Amazon said in its release.

Construction is expected to start at the end of the decade, “with operations targeted to start in the 2030s,” Amazon said.

Energy Northwest, a consortium of 29 public utility districts and municipalities across Washington, said in 2024 that the deal with Amazon would meet an “urgent need to develop advanced technologies in the Pacific Northwest that provide reliable, carbon-free and sustainable energy generation.”

“The SMRs will be the Xe-100 design, a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor developed by X-energy … Each Xe-100 module can provide 80 megawatts of full-time electricity,” Energy Northwest said. 

Amazon’s Thursday release said the energy will help power AI and other digital tools.

X-energy and Amazon, along with Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power and Doosan Enerbility, also signed a strategic collaboration agreement in August to “accelerate the deployment of new Xe-100 advanced nuclear reactors in the United States to meet increasing power demands by data centers, advanced manufacturing, and electrification,” according to a release from X-energy. 

“KHNP, Doosan, and additional Korean industrial partners have agreed to support Amazon and X-energy’s plans to deploy more than five gigawatts of new nuclear energy across the [U.S.] by 2039, while also exploring global regions,” X-energy said. “The parties aim to mobilize up to $50 billion in public and private investments for Xe-100 projects and the expansion of associated supply chain capacity to support the future of American energy dominance and artificial intelligence growth.”

*  *  * LIVE LONGER

• Smart Protein Collagen Peptides – blend of 3 peptides: Joints / Skin / Muscle Recovery

• Astaxanthin – high purity, extremely potent antioxidant (inflammation, eyes, skin, read more here)

• Ultimate Detox – Psyllium, Slippery Elm, Inulin, Chlorella, Black Walnut, Ginger, and Papaya

• Colostrum – Grass-fed, 1000mg IgG per serving + Lactoferrin and Proline-Rich Peptides (anti-inflammatory / immune)

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

The United Nations body specializing in regulating global shipping voted on Oct. 17 to delay a vote on the adoption of a proposed framework that will impose a global carbon tax on international shipping—a regulation the United States has strongly opposed.

Member states of the U.N.-backed International Maritime Organization (IMO) were set to approve the proposal on Oct. 17 when Saudi Arabia, which has voiced opposition to the plan, tabled a motion to defer the vote by one year.

The motion was passed with 57 votes in favor and 49 against.

The proposed net-zero framework would have required ships to comply with a global fuel standard for large oceangoing vessels of more than 5,000 gross tonnage, as part of an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the global shipping industry to net zero by 2050.

The IMO proposal has drawn strong opposition from the United States, the world’s largest oil producer.

President Donald Trump said ahead of the IMO vote that the United States would neither support a carbon tax on global shipping nor adhere to the plan “in any way, shape, or form.”

“I am outraged that the International Maritime Organization is voting in London this week to pass a global Carbon Tax,” he stated on a Truth Social post on Oct. 16, calling on others to reject the proposal.

“We will not tolerate increased prices on American Consumers or, the creation of a Green New Scam Bureaucracy to spend your money on their Green dreams.”

There are 176 member states of the IMO, but a passing vote would require a two-thirds majority of only the 108 member states that ratified previous legislation aiming to reduce shipping pollution.

IMO has said that the framework, due to take effect in 2027 if adopted, will be “the first in the world” to combine mandatory emissions limits and greenhouse gas pricing across an entire industry sector.

An Oct. 10 joint statement by U.S. State Secretary Marco Rubio, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the United States will not support any international agreement that “harms the interests of the American people.”

“The Administration unequivocally rejects this proposal before the IMO and will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists,” the officials said in the statement.

“The economic impacts from this measure could be disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10% or more,” they added.

They said the U.S. government was weighing possible actions against nations supporting the IMO proposal, including potentially blocking vessels registered under those countries from entering U.S. ports, imposing visa restrictions on maritime crews, and imposing commercial penalties on ships flagged under nations backing the net-zero regulations.

Ukraine has failed to secure approval to receive Tomahawk long-range missies from Washington, as various reports have made clear over the weekend in the wake of Zelensky’s Friday meeting with President Trump at the White House.

Trump had given a strong hint on where he stands when just before the two leaders’ working lunch when he declared he wants to resolve the war “without thinking about Tomahawks” and additionally that the weapon is one America “needs”.

Following the White House talks, Trump further said on social media that their talks were “very interesting, and cordial, but I told him, as I likewise strongly suggested to President Putin, that it is time to stop the killing, and make a DEAL!“

He added: “They should stop where they are. Let both claim Victory, let History decide!” 

In follow-up, Zelensky himself appeared to admit the mission to secure Tomahawks was a failure:

Zelensky said after the meeting that Russia was “afraid” of the U.S.-made long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, but that he was “realistic” about receiving the weapons from Washington.

He told reporters that while he and Trump talked about long-range weapons they “decided that we don’t speak about it because… the United States doesn’t want escalation.”

In the wake of all this there has been various contradictory reports over what has been communicated between both Trump to Zelensky and Trump to Putin – the latter in a recent lengthy phone call.

WaPo wasted no time trying to sabotage diplomacy between the US and Russia ahead of Budapest.

The article is based on “two senior officials familiar with the conversation.” One of the “senior officials” was “briefed on the Putin call.” The other official is, “a senior European… pic.twitter.com/66JXLtY6ps

— Alex Christoforou (@AXChristoforou) October 19, 2025

As for the Tomahawks, Trump had also on Friday said before reporters, “I have an obligation also to make sure that we’re completely stocked up as a country, because you never know what’s going to happen in war and peace.” He added: “We’d much rather have them not need Tomahawks. We’d much rather have the war be over to be honest.”

Tomahawks have recently been used in defending Israel against Iran. Also, as the Pentagon currently has a military build-up in the south Caribbean, they could possibly come into play in any future conflict with Venezuela.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

With the federal government shutdown now in its third week and officially one of the longest in modern U.S. history, Congress remains at an impasse with no negotiations underway to end it.

In the absence of talks, the clock is now ticking towards a string of critical dates and pressure points that could test lawmakers’ resolve and potentially break the stalemate.

Since the shutdown started at midnight on Oct. 1, multiple attempts to fund and reopen the government have failed in the Senate. Earlier this week, the Senate for a tenth time rejected a Republican-backed bill that would temporarily extend government funding.

Democratic lawmakers maintain that reopening the government must go hand in hand with extending the health care subsidies that are due to expire at the end of the year. Republicans counter that the two issues should be handled independently and say subsidy negotiations can only begin once the shutdown is over.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said on Oct. 17 that Republicans are willing to sit down with Democrats to discuss their health care demands—but only after the stoppage ends and the government is back open.

“I’m even willing to give them a vote. Today. Tomorrow. Next week. You name it,” Thune said in a post on X.

“But there’s one condition: End the Schumer Shutdown. I will not negotiate under hostage conditions, nor will I pay a ransom. Period.” He was referring to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

As the shutdown drags deeper into October, the calendar now becomes a significant factor in the drama.

Key Dates That Could Shift the Stalemate

On Oct. 24, more than two million federal workers will miss their first full paycheck.

While a 2019 law technically guarantees back pay, missing income will add financial strain on families, particularly in regions with large federal workforces.

Air traffic controllers—more than 10,000 of whom are currently working without pay—remain one of the most closely watched groups. During the 2019 shutdown, a wave of unscheduled absences among controllers forced cascading flight delays and helped bring that standoff to an end.

A second flashpoint is Oct. 31, when over a million active-duty service members face uncertainty over their next paycheck.

The administration used roughly $8 billion in leftover Pentagon research funds to cover military pay on Oct. 15, but some lawmakers say that funding maneuver cannot be repeated.

“I do want you to know that that option is not going to be available in two weeks for their next paycheck,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) told reporters on Oct. 17.

“We have 2 million service members that were able to get paid this week because of President [Donald] Trump’s creativity. These are families that are serving around the world. Many of them in very unfavorable conditions, making huge sacrifices for our freedom and safety, and most of them live paycheck-to-paycheck.”

Rogers noted that about 500,000 civilian federal employees will miss their first full paycheck next week, “and then the rest of them the week thereafter.”

“This is going to get really painful for a lot of civilian employees. Obviously, I think about the [Department of Defense] civilian employees. But throughout the federal workforce, people will start missing their first paycheck next week and the week after,” Rodgers said.

According to media reports, Thune has proposed a bill to pay U.S. troops and “excepted” employees—those still required to work during the shutdown—but it would not cover furloughed workers and is unlikely to advance without Democratic support.

Another politically fraught deadline arrives on Nov. 1, the start of the Affordable Care Act open enrollment.

Democrats have drawn a red line here, saying that millions of Americans will soon be selecting coverage without knowing if they can afford their premiums in 2026.

Republicans have countered that subsidies do not expire until the year’s end and that negotiations should resume only after the government reopens, while Democrats said public pressure will soar if they allow enrollment to proceed amid uncertainty.

“If we don’t deal with this before Nov. 1, it becomes trickier to solve legislatively, but the heat gets turned way up by the public to do something,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told Punchbowl News last week.

Looking even further ahead, Thanksgiving week could be another significant pressure point.

Unpaid TSA officers and air traffic controllers—already strained by weeks without income—would be working through one of the busiest travel periods of the year.

In 2019, aviation disruption during a similar shutdown helped tip the balance toward reopening the government.

Thieves broke into the Louvre Museum in Paris Saturday morning, making off with priceless jewels of ‘incalculable’ value belonging to Emperor Napoleon, according to Le Parisien. 

The heist, which took just seven minutes, was pulled off using an angle grinder and a lift mechanism on a truck to break into the Galerie d’Apollon, a first-floor wing of the museum that houses a collection which include the French crown jewels. Nine items were stolen, according to Visegrad 24, however they left behind the largest gem in the emperor’s collection – a 140-carat diamond. 

After they used the angle grinder to breach a window, they broke into two display cases, snagged the loot, and escaped on motor scooters according to France’s interior minister Laurent Nuñez – who said that the jewelry had “patrimonial” and “historical” value that made it “priceless.”

“It was a major robbery,” said Nuñez, adding that investigators believe three or four thieves were involved, and it looked like an experienced team of veteran criminals pulled it off based on the precision and speed. 

One items nabbed but which dropped during the escape is believed to be a crown belonging to Napoleon’s wife, Empress Eugénie, which was discovered damaged outside the gallery. 

The museum issued a statement announcing that they would stay closed on Sunday as “a security measure and to preserve traces and clues for the investigation.”

Investigators are now poring through evidence, including security footage and objects abandoned by the thieves. According to the Paris prosecutor’s office, “the extent of the losses is currently being assessed.”

“Beyond their market value, the items have inestimable heritage and historical value,” the French Interior Ministry said in a statement.

The Louvre – home to over 33,000 works of art including Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, sees up to 30,000 visitors per day, and has been no stranger to a number of high-profile heists. In 1911, an employee made off with the Mona Lisa, only to be arrested two years later while trying to sell the painting in Italy. In 1976, three burglars broke into the museum at dawn and stole a 19th-century diamond-studded sword belonging to King Charles X of France. The thieves accessed the museum by climbing a metal scaffolding and smashing windows on the second floor. 

And in 1990, someone stole the Renoir painting, “Portrait of a Seated Woman” by cutting it from its frame on the third floor. 

Update (1115ET): Following the State Department’s earlier “credible reports” of Hamas terrorists violating the terms of the ceasefire with Israel with an attack on Palestinian civilians in Gaza, CNN reports that Hamas fired towards Israeli forces beyond the Yellow Line – the line behind which Israeli troops have withdrawn according to the ceasefire deal – in three separate incidents Sunday, according to an Israeli military official.

The official said Hamas attacked Israeli forces in Rafah with rocket-propelled grenades and sniper fire, prompting Israel to carry out strikes in the area.

Both sides have accused each other of violating the truce since it began nine days ago, but Sunday’s incidents are the most serious yet.

In response, Israel carried out several strikes on Gaza after saying its troops came under fire from militants in a “blatant” violation of the ceasefire, the first major test of the US-brokered truce.

⭕️In response to Hamas’ blatant violation of the ceasefire agreement this morning, the IDF struck dozens of Hamas terror targets across Gaza.

The strikes targeted weapons storage facilities, firing posts, terrorist cells and additional Hamas terror infrastructure.

In addition,…

— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) October 19, 2025

Hamas said in a statement Sunday that it remains committed to the ceasefire agreement. Its military wing, Al Qassam Brigades (AQB), denied knowledge of “any events or clashes” in Rafah and said they are committed to the truce “throughout all areas of the Gaza Strip.”

However, CNN points out that while much is unknown about the incident in Rafah, it occurred on Sunday morning as Hamas said its internal Rada’a security force was targeting a “hideout” of an Israel-backed militia led by Yasser Abu Shabab. In June, Israel confirmed it was arming several such militias in an attempt to counter Hamas.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a security consultation with defense minister Israel Katz and military chiefs on Sunday, instructing them to “act forcefully” against “terrorist targets” in Gaza.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it had carried out airstrikes and artillery fire in Rafah, destroying Hamas infrastructure.

“Hamas will pay a heavy price for every shooting and violation of the ceasefire, and if the message is not understood, the intensity of our responses will continue to increase,” Katz said in a statement.

Since the ceasefire began last week, Hamas has carried out what it has called a “security campaign” aimed at “collaborators, mercenaries, thieves, bandits, and those cooperating with the Zionist enemy throughout the Gaza Strip.”

As General Mike Flynn noted in a post on X: “So much for lasting peace in the Middle East. It didn’t last one week.”

*  *  *

The U.S. State Department said Saturday that it has “credible reports” that the Hamas terrorist group could violate the cease-fire with an attack on Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

If the attack takes place, it “would constitute a direct and grave violation” of the agreement forged by President Trump to end the two-year war between Israel and Hamas, the statement said.

No further details were disclosed about the potential attack.

A Hamas official on Friday defended the terrorist organization’s recent killings of Palestinians in Gaza…

“This is a transitional phase,” Hamas politburo member Mohammed Nazzal told Reuters.

“Civilly, there will be a technocratic administration as I said. On the ground, Hamas will be present.”

…despite President Trump’s warning to Hamas on Thursday on social media that “if Hamas continues to kill people in Gaza, which was not the Deal, we will have no choice but to go in and kill them.”

I think Hamas realized that Trump is not someone to mess around with. Peace through strength:

“Hamas will disarm, and if they don’t, we will disarm them, and It will happen quickly and perhaps violently, but they will disarm. Do you understand me?” pic.twitter.com/J7SFJvp7ud

— Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) October 18, 2025

The U.S. president later clarified he won’t send U.S. troops into Gaza after launching the threat against Hamas.

Palestinians have warned Fox News and Reuters that the executions have not ceased so far, with at least 33 people killed in recent days, and Hamas said it could not commit to disarming itself amid the ceasefire.

”Should Hamas proceed with this attack, measures will be taken to protect the people of Gaza and preserve the integrity of the ceasefire,” the State Department said.

Israel blasted Hamas for its actions since the exchange of hostages for prisoners earlier in the week. 

“Hamas is supposed to release all hostages in stage 1. It has not. Hamas knows where the bodies of our hostages are. Hamas are to be disarmed under this agreement. No ifs, no buts. They have not. Hamas needs to adhere to the 20-point plan. They are running out of time,” said a statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office.

HBO host Bill Maher confronted the sudden silence from college activists during Friday’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” as Hamas kills Palestinians in Gaza.

💥💥 @billmaher: “Have you noticed now that Hamas has taken over again, they’re shooting everybody? Suddenly the keffiyeh-wearing college kids are very quiet.” @mcuban: “Can’t be found anywhere.”

Maher: “It’s just amazing the asymmetry of what goes on.” pic.twitter.com/yoi2QWFHKn

— Arsen Ostrovsky 🎗️ (@Ostrov_A) October 19, 2025

Maher asked guest Mark Cuban about the disappearance of “keffiyeh-wearing college kids” now that Hamas is “shooting everybody.”

“Where are the protesters?” Maher said. “Suddenly, the keffiyeh-wearing college kids are very quiet.”

Cuban agreed, responding “shooting everybody.” Maher repeated the phrase.

Authored by John Mauldin via MauldinEconomics.com,

Turn out the lights, the party’s over
They say that all good things must end
Call it a night, the party’s over
And tomorrow starts the same old thing again

     – Willie Nelson

Willie Nelson is not, to my knowledge, a proponent of any economic cycle theories – though now at 92, he’s seen more cycles than most of us. But he was singing back in the 1950s how good things eventually end… and then we quickly start them again.

Debt-driven growth definitely feels good. We all enjoy it immensely as long as it lasts.

Then the lights go out and the party’s over. Yes, it starts again, but not until we all stumble around in the dark for a while.

Unfortunately, The Debt Super Cycle is typically at least 80 years so nobody remembers the pain and why we should avoid it. Perhaps in this coming crisis we can do better. We can’t avoid it, but we can think about how to deal with it in advance rather than making decisions on the fly like we did during The Great Recession.

I’ve been reviewing Ray Dalio’s latest book, How Countries Go Broke. He shows in exhaustive detail how our current party is quickly approaching its lights-out moment. I can’t recommend this book highly enough. If you missed Part 1 and Part 2 of my review series, read them and then read the whole book. The quotes I’m sharing only scratch the surface.

Today we’re going to zoom in on that light switch.

Ray’s historical research found a specific sequence of events usually defined the cycle-ending crisis. Given where we are now, it may be a good preview of our next few years.

Broken Promises

Before we talk about the final crisis, I want to review a critical distinction Ray found in his research. Debt crises unfold differently depending whether the monetary system is based on hard money or fiat money.

Note that a “hard” currency in this sense doesn’t have to be gold, silver, etc. It can be a government-issued currency that’s pegged to some other currency the issuing government can’t control. This lack of control is the key. Here’s Ray:  

“In brief, the way the hard currency cases work is that the governments have made promises to deliver money that they can’t print (e.g., gold, silver, or another currency that the parties view as relatively hard, like the dollar). Throughout history, when coming up with these hard currencies that they can’t print to pay debts becomes tough, the governments almost always renege on their promises to pay in the currency that they can’t print, and the value of their money and the debt payments denominated in it tumble at the moment the promise is broken.

“After governments break their promise by not going back to having a hard currency, they have what is called a fiat monetary system. In these cases, the currency’s value is based on the faith and incentives that the central banks provide. The most recent shift of most currencies from being hard to being fiat started on August 15, 1971. I remember it well because I was clerking on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange at the time and was surprised by it; then I studied history and found that the exact same thing happened in April 1933, and I learned how they worked.

“In fiat monetary systems, central banks primarily use interest rates, their ability to monetize debt, and the tightness of money to provide the incentives for lender-creditors to lend and hold debt assets. And throughout history they, like central governments and central bankers operating in hard currency regimes, have created too much debt (which are claims that people believe they can turn in to get money, which they expect they can use to buy things), so there are the same types of debt/credit dynamics at work…

“Big Debt Cycles through history have typically included currency regimes going back and forth between being hard and fiat because they each led to extreme consequences and required movements to the opposite—the hard currency regimes broke down with big devaluations because the governments couldn’t maintain debt growth in line with their monetary constraints, and the fiat monetary systems broke down because of the loss of faith in the debt/money being a safe storehold him of wealth.”

One critical point here: debt cycles happen even if you have a hard currency. They look somewhat different but still occur. This is because both regimes consist of humans who demand and extend unwise amounts of credit. 

Coincident Cycles

The Big Debt Cycles Ray Dalio describes generally last around 80 years. They are composed of smaller cycles which average around six years. The US has seen 12 of these short-term cycles since 1945 (80 years ago). We are presently almost six years into the short-term cycle that began in 2020. These timespans can vary a bit, but it certainly appears we are approaching the end of a short-term cycle which will likely also conclude a Big Debt Cycle.

In my view, it is not coincidence other cycles are similarly approaching critical phases: Neil Howe’s Fourth Turning, George Friedman’s institutional and social cycles, and Peter Turchin’s “elite overproduction” theory. We should pay attention when great minds independently agree on something like this. Especially when significantly different theoretical foundations all point to the same end result.

So where is this last phase going? Ray Dalio says the current short-term debt cycle revolves around the monetization of government deficits. The shortfalls were already giant before the pandemic. The policies governments developed to handle that problem made the debt problem far worse. Here’s how Ray describes it.

“The 2020-21 debt monetization was the fourth and the largest big debt monetization since the original big debt monetization/QE in 2008 (which was the first since 1933). From the start of the easing cycle of 2008, the nominal Treasury bond yield was pushed down from 3.7% to only 0.5%, the real Treasury bond yield was pushed from 1.4% to -1%, and the non-government nominal and real bond yields fell a lot more (because credit spreads narrowed). Money and credit became essentially free and plentiful, so the environment became great for borrower-debtors and terrible for lender-creditors and led to an orgy of borrowing and new bubbles forming.

“That debt/credit/money surge in 2020 produced a big increase in inflation, which was exacerbated by supply chain problems and external conflicts (the third of the five major forces that I will touch on at the end of this chapter). That big increase in inflation led to the short-term debt cycle tightening by the Fed and the contraction in the balance sheet by having maturing debt roll off rather than buying more of it. As a result of the Fed (and other central banks) changing their short-term debt cycle mode from easing to tightening, nominal and real interest rates went from levels that were overwhelmingly favorable to borrower-debtors and detrimental to lender-creditors to levels that were more normal (e.g., a 2% real bond yield).”

That last point is important. The Fed’s 2022-2023 rates hikes seemed aggressive mainly because they followed (belatedly) a period of unprecedented debt stimulus. It didn’t so much “tighten” policy as simply bring it back closer to normal. But it didn’t feel that way those who had been feasting on debt.

Chief among those debtors was (and is) the US government, of course. Which is why the Final Crisis is drawing near.

The Final Crisis: This Is Our Future 

In How Countries Go Broke, Ray Dalio both describes individual cases and develops what he calls the “archetype” Big Debt Cycle. The archetype is a baseline that generally describes how the process goes, though individual cases all have their own twists.

Dalio’s archetypical “Final Crisis” has nine stages. He notes there can be big variations in what happens and when it happens. The nine stages are more like a list of the negative things that produce the crisis, and the steps that are usually taken to try and get out of it.

Here’s how Dalio describes the Final Crisis which, as I said above, is very near, if not already upon us. These are the unhealthy conditions that typify the last stages of the Big Debt Cycle. Note that Ray is describing what he (and to a great deal I) believes is going to happen. This is our future:

“1. The private sector and government get deep in debt.

“2. The private sector suffers a debt crisis, and the central government gets deeper in debt to help the private sector.

“3. The central government experiences a debt squeeze in which the free-market demand for its debt falls short of the supply of it. That creates a debt problem. At that time, there is either a) a shift in monetary and fiscal policy that brings the supply and demand for money and credit back into balance or b) a self-reinforcing net selling of the debt, which creates a severe debt liquidation crisis that runs its course and reduces the size of debt and debt service levels relative to incomes. Big net selling of the debt is the big red flag.

“4. The selling of government debt leads to a simultaneous a) free-market-driven tightening of money and credit, which leads to b) a weakening of the economy, c) declining reserves, and d) downward pressure on the currency. Because this tightening is too harmful for the economy, the central bank typically also eases credit and experiences a devaluation of the currency. That stage is easy to see in the market action via interest rates rising, led by long-term rates (bond yields) rising faster than short rates and the currency weakening simultaneously.

“5. When there is a debt crisis and interest rates can’t be lowered (e.g., they hit 0% or long rates limit the decline of short rates), the central bank “prints” (creates) money and buys bonds to try to keep long rates down and to ease credit to make it easier to service debt. It doesn’t literally print money; it essentially borrows reserves from commercial banks that it pays a very short-term interest rate on. This creates problems for the central bank if this debt selling and rising interest rates continue.

“6. If the selling continues and interest rates continue to rise, the central bank loses money because the interest rate that it has to pay on its liabilities is greater than the interest rate it receives on the debt assets it bought. When that happens, that is notable but not a big red flag until the central bank has a significant negative net worth and is forced to print more money to cover the negative cash flow that it experiences due to less money coming in on its assets than it has to go out to service its debt liabilities. That is a big red flag because it signals the central bank’s death spiral (i.e., the dynamic in which the rising interest rates cause problems that creditors see, which lead them not to hold the debt assets, which leads to higher interest rates or the need to print more money, which devalues the money, which leads to more selling of the debt assets and the currency, and so on). That is what I mean when I say the central bank goes broke. I call this “going broke” because the central bank can’t make its debt service payments, though it doesn’t default on its debts because it prints money. When done in large amounts, that devalues the money and creates inflationary recessions or depressions.

“7. Debts are restructured and devalued. When managed in the best possible way, the government controllers of fiscal and monetary policy execute what I call a “beautiful deleveraging,” in which the deflationary ways of reducing debt burdens (e.g., through debt restructurings) are balanced with the inflationary ways of reducing debt burdens (e.g., by monetizing them) so that the deleveraging occurs without having unacceptable amounts of either deflation or inflation.

“8. At such times, extraordinary policies like extraordinary taxes and capital controls are commonly imposed. (Read this twice! – JM)

“9. The deleveraging process inevitably reduces the debt burdens and creates the return to equilibrium. One way or another, the debt and debt service levels are brought back in line with the incomes that exist to service the debts. Quite often, there are inflationary depressions, so the debt is devalued at the end of the cycle, government reserves are raised through asset sales, and a strictly enforced transition from a rapidly declining currency to a relatively stable currency is simultaneously achieved by the central bank linking the currency to a hard currency or a hard asset (e.g., gold) and central government and private sector finances being brought back in line to a sustainable level.

“At the early stage of this phase, it is imperative that the rewards of holding the currency and the debt denominated in it, and the penalties of owing money, are great in order to re-establish the creditability of the money and credit by rewarding the lender-creditors and penalizing the borrower-debtors. In this phase of the cycle, there is very tight money and a very high real interest rate, which is very painful but required for a while. If it persists, the supply and demand for money, credit, debt, spending, and savings will inevitably fall back into line.

“How exactly this happens largely depends on whether the debt is denominated in a currency that the central bank can create and whether the debtors and creditors are primarily domestic so that the central government and the central bank have more flexibility and control over the process. If so, that makes the process less painful, and, if not, it is inevitably much more painful. Also, whether the currency is a widely used reserve currency matters a lot because when it is there will be greater marginal inclinations to buy it and the debt that it is stored in.”

Our current situation, as I see it:

• Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 have already happened.

• Stage 5 is underway as the Fed tries to see how low it can push rates without raising inflation, while Congress and the President seek ways to salvage politically popular spending programs and tax policies.

• Stage 7 may be starting as some of the riskiest private borrowers (First Brands, Tricolor) start hitting the wall.

• Stages 6, 8 and 9 are still over the horizon.

If I’m right, we still have some time to prepare, but it’s running out. Dalio holds out hope this could end in one of his “Beautiful Deleveraging” scenarios I described last week. I have a hard time thinking we will be so lucky. We’re definitely not doing the things needed to keep that possibility open.

What we know is that the economy will be deleveraged, beautifully or not. Nothing about the process will be fun. But we know it’s coming. Prepare while you can.

President Trump confirmed that U.S. forces “destroyed a very large drug-carrying submarine” off the coast of Venezuela – the sixth such strike on narco-vessels in recent weeks. The operation highlights a broader military reposturing toward hemispheric defense after three decades of endless wars in the Middle East, a strategic and urgent realignment we’ve told readers would unfold at the start of the year. In essence, Trump’s move to clean up the Western Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine 2.0), dismantle the command-and-control structures of transnational cartels and narco-terror groups, and purge these criminals from the financial system comes as the U.S. reasserts security across the Americas. 

Late Saturday afternoon, Trump wrote on Truth Social:

It was my great honor to destroy a very large DRUG-CARRYING SUBMARINE that was navigating towards the United States on a well known narcotrafficking transit route. U.S. Intelligence confirmed this vessel was loaded up with mostly Fentanyl, and other illegal narcotics. There were four known narcoterrorists on board the vessel. Two of the terrorists were killed. At least 25,000 Americans would die if I allowed this submarine to come ashore. The two surviving terrorists are being returned to their Countries of origin, Ecuador and Colombia, for detention and prosecution. No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike. Under my watch, the United States of America will not tolerate narcoterrorists trafficking illegal drugs, by land or by sea. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

President Donald Trump and the Pentagon’s public affairs team both shared a video showing U.S. air assets destroying the “drug-carrying submarine.” However, no details were provided regarding the type of aircraft or weapons used in the strike.

. @POTUS “It was my great honor to destroy a very large DRUG-CARRYING SUBMARINE that was navigating towards the United States on a well known narcotrafficking transit route. U.S. Intelligence confirmed this vessel was loaded up with mostly Fentanyl, and other illegal narcotics.… pic.twitter.com/0j3sOLNygp

— DOW Rapid Response (@DOWResponse) October 18, 2025

Our explanation above about the U.S. military reposturing to fulfill Trump’s Monroe Doctrine 2.0 also includes breaking the death loop of subsidized Chinese fentanyl precursor chemicals shipped to the Americas, and then cooked by drug cartels, that have in return flooded the nation during Biden-Harris regime’s globalist aligned nation-killing open orders (borders have since been shut) that contirubted to the worst drug-death overdose crisis this nation has ever seen – over 100,000 men and women died each year. 

China’s irregular warfare campaign – death by 1,000 paper cuts – has been an aggressive, multifaceted “total war” against the U.S. that leverages next-generation weapons (view weapons here), including synthetic narcotics (e.g., fentanyl and cannabinoids), bioweapons (e.g., Covid-19), psychological manipulation and influence (e.g., TikTok), and a broad arsenal of irregular warfare tools, according to CCP BioThreats Initiative and authored by Dr. Ryan Clarke, LJ Eads, Dr. Robert McCreight, and Dr. Xiaoxu Sean Lin, outlined in their book China’s Total War Strategy: Next-Generation Weapons of Mass Destruction. 

In short, viewing Trump’s military reposturing through the lens of Monroe Doctrine 2.0 helps make sense of the seemingly chaotic events unfolding in the Caribbean area. The U.S. is reasserting its influence, countering transnational gang threats and preparing to stabilize the hemisphere by pushing China out.