Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

If there’s one characteristic that defines Donald Trump it’s his habit of switching his positions on a dime – Leaving many a critic looking rather foolish when they establish an argument against him today, only to discover he mostly agrees with them tomorrow. I’ve learned it’s best to wait a little while before commenting on the man’s policy decisions and allow time for the debate to ferment. After months of deflection and now retraction, the Jeffery Epstein controversy has turned especially ripe.

To understand the chaos surrounding the Epstein issue we have to first recognize that it’s the product of an inherent division within the MAGA movement that needs to be addressed. The campaign to support Trump is built on two groups that intersect but don’t always agree:

1) Average Republicans (and some moderates) who are most concerned with defeating the agenda of leftists and keeping woke activists out of government power.

2) Hardcore conservatives and libertarians from the “conspiracy” end of the movement who are most concerned with defeating the globalist cabal.

I find myself in rooted in both camps and I see both as essential, though it’s clear to me that the goals of the second group are ultimately more important.

To be clear, leftist saboteurs are a legitimate enemy that has been employed as a weapon against the rest of the populace. I’m growing especially tired of the laziness of libertarians who cry “False left/right paradigm!” while forgetting the living hell we all experienced under the reign of Joe Biden and Democrats. The differences between conservatives and leftists cannot be denied.

The country has at least been tolerable under Trump – No more “transing” or grooming of children in schools. No more pride month. No more pandering to DEI. No more open borders. No more federal accusations of conservatives being “terrorists” and a “danger to democracy”. If you can’t at least give some credit for these changes then you’re not a serious person and I have no time for you.

That said, in the end the threat of the political left pales in comparison to the threat presented by the globalists. These are people with a luciferian ideology of self worship and moral relativism and they are in positions of immense power (at least in financial terms). Though their political reputation in the US is faltering, they still have near total control of the narratives in Europe, Australia and Canada, not to mention invasive financial influence throughout most of the world.

Look at it this way: Have you ever heard of a globalist being punished or arrested for their attempts to manipulate and corrupt the social and governmental institutions of any given nation? How many globalist NGOs have been shut down in recent memory? Isn’t the US still pouring tax dollars into globalist institutions like the IMF, BIS (through the Federal Reserve), World Bank, etc.?

Political factions may battle for the minds of the masses and many times these fights are very real, but the globalists always remain in the background watching and waiting for another chance to push civilization further towards their dystopian vision. They don’t care what happens politically as long as their money and influence remain intact. No one ever aims their cannons at the whispering men lurking behind the curtain.

For conservative patriots, dealing with the evils of the political left serves the immediate purpose of treating symptoms, but not the disease. Globalists are a parasitic organism that feeds on humanity, spawning more and more decline and despair as they grow. They must be eliminated from the equation if our future is to ever improve.

Trump has openly admonished the globalists on many occasions and he ran his 2016 and 2024 campaigns on reversing the economic damage they have done. Defeating globalism was a big part of his election platform, it’s undeniable. The problem is, he has consistently backed away from any direct prosecution or punishment of said devils.

Trump stated succinctly in 2024 that he would release the Epstein list, and he now refuses. The haphazard dismissal of the Epstein files despite the embarrassing controversy is a reality check for the conspiracy subset. For the anti-globalist portion of MAGA, especially libertarians and conservative Christians, you have been given notice; Trump is not your gladiator or your savior. He’s not going to fulfill your dreams of government reform, nor is he going to bring the hammer down on the elites.

I warned back in May in my article ‘The Trump Administration’s Biggest Wins And Biggest Fails So Far’ that his handling of the Epstein case was an epic blunder. I noted:

“All we want is a concise list of who engaged with Epstein and his “services”. These people need to be called out and brought to justice NOW. If they are in government they need to be removed ASAP. There is no room for pedos in American leadership anymore.

I can understand certain obstacles, such as keeping victims protected. An outright dump of info would be reckless, not to mention illegal. That said, the feds have had years to go over this evidence. I suspect that the White House is stalling because the client list could destroy a large portion of the government. The number of leaders exposed must be extensive enough that a release of the list would cripple the system. It’s the only explanation that makes sense for why they continue to keep the American people waiting…”

For those seeking answers as to why Trump is running away from the Epstein client list like it’s a nuclear bomb, it’s because it IS a nuclear bomb. I continue to hold that the list is pure poison for the existing government and that its release would be so detrimental it would trigger the collapse of the US system and create a cataclysmic domino effect around the world.

It’s so dangerous, in fact, that Trump is now asserting it “doesn’t exist” or that it’s a “Democrat conspiracy” with files manipulated by Democrats before Biden left office. There’s no explanation as to what Trump means by this other than he seems to be saying the existing evidence is fabricated.

Epstein was arrested for child trafficking. He conveniently died “by suicide” before going to trial (psychopathic personalities like Epstein rarely kill themselves) nullifying any court discovery and public release of his files. Numerous victims have come forward, but we’re supposed to believe that there were no clients?  Or, that Epstein never kept a list of those clients? It’s pure stupidity.

The Trump Administration admits to obtaining an endless array of videos featuring minor victims. The question is simple: WHO is in those videos abusing those young girls (or boys)? It’s not that difficult to understand – WE WANT THE NAMES, and we’re never going to stop demanding those names.

But lets not fool ourselves, we’re not going to get our hands on the real, unredacted list. Why? Because some of the most powerful people in the world are on that register and pedophilia is still an unforgivable sin in the eyes of the west. Proof of a mass conspiracy of wealthy pedos and political diddlers is one of the few things that would inspire the public to actually pick up torches and pitchforks and burn Washington DC to the ground.

It’s not a coincidence that woke activists and NGOs have sought to normalize pedophilia through trans propaganda. Globalists eventually want to turn the crime into a social issue; labeling it a matter of “sexual preference” protected by inclusion ideology so they can pursue their disgusting fetish with impunity.

Though leftists have intricate arguments as to why children should be allowed to legally “consent”, the act of pedophilia is still considered worthy of long term imprisonment, castration and even death. No normal person is convinced by the “consent” theory.

Meaning, if a sweeping list is produced that includes the names of government officials, those officials would be dealt with by someone even if they never face prosecution. Trust in government would plummet. The normal functions of American institutions would cease. The country would collapse.

Could this calamity be managed? Possibly, but I don’t think any political leader including Trump wants to to take responsibility for the repercussions. Some say that Trump is on the list – Obviously he knew Epstein as did most people in the upper echelons of society. Epstein made a point to slither into every wealthy circle he could find.

Trump did reportedly kick the guy out of Mar-a-Lago after finding out he made a pass at the underage daughter of an associate. If Trump is on the list then there must be extensive blackmail evidence – So, why didn’t Democrats ever release it?  Democrats had four years to flood the media with information (real or fake) on the Epstein case and they did absolutely nothing. No, I think Trump is withholding the list because it’s a weapon of mass destruction, not because he’s on it.

Everyone expected the Dems to suppress the list. No one expected them to do the right thing. People are fuming about Trump because they had high hopes.  They expected him to damn the torpedoes and release the files regardless of the aftermath.

I’m here to tell you, government will ALWAYS protect itself first. It’s not an excuse, it’s just a fact.

You’re probably familiar with the concept of the “thin blue line”; the assertion that police act as the only barrier between order and mayhem in American society. The notion has been criticized as elitist and fundamentally untrue. Cops rarely stop crimes in progress and only clean up the mess afterwards, leaving most Americans to protect themselves.

But one could argue that the mere existence of law enforcement as an institution acts as a deterrent to societal decay. And, in the past this idea of the “greater good” has led LEOs to protect each other from prosecution rather than pursue the ugly truth about their brothers in arms.

I think that many people within government also see themselves as a “thin line” of protection; a morally gray barrier between civilization and annihilation. A line between order and anarchy. I think they view their mandate as sacrosanct and that the ends always justify the means.

There’s a large percentage of the normal population that is also willing to overlook the Epstein debacle if it means defeating the chaos of the woke revolution. Recent polls show Trump’s overall approval rating among Republicans actually INCREASED after his handling of the Epstein issue, even though a majority of people in polls also believe the case is being covered up.  There’s a lot of us that will continue to call attention to the client list, but don’t doubt for a second that many other people will forget and move on within weeks.

Again, the anti-globalists need to accept the reality that they have limited influence within MAGA. Plenty of people care about libertarian economic theory, the Bildergberg Group, Davos, CBDCs, foreign aid to Israel and cults of ultra-rich luciferian pedos, but not enough people to make any of these things a popular priority. The deeper agenda of globalist control is barely on their peripheral radar, or they don’t take it seriously enough to worry about it over their morning coffee.

Could Trump suddenly change his stance and unleash a torrent of files tomorrow?  Like I said in the beginning, he switches positions on a dime, but it will be hard for him to go back on his claims that the client list represents a “hoax”.  I am doubtful we’ll see an uncensored version of the list and even more doubtful that anyone will be prosecuted.

Trump is certainly pulling America back from leftist extremism (that’s a good thing), but he has no intention of going to war with the globalists (that’s a bad thing). As I have noted over and over again, if liberty proponents want to get rid of the cabal they will have to stop waiting for political solutions that will never materialize. The war to unseat the globalists will not be fought by MAGA. The eternal mandate of the political edifice is self preservation, and Trump is part of that edifice.

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Few are as candid and historically accurate as hedge fund manager Kyle Bass when identifying structural breaks in the global economy. In a recent interview, Bass painted a grim but telling picture of China’s economic condition, warning:

“We are witnessing the largest macroeconomic imbalances the world has ever seen, and they are all coming to a head in China.”

While China has long been touted as the next great economic superpower, its recent trajectory reveals a far different story, one marked by policy missteps, systemic financial rot, and a rapidly eroding growth engine.

Bass didn’t mince words either:

“China’s economy is spiraling with no end in sight.”

China’s GDP deflator, the broadest measure of prices across goods and services, continues to decline as economic activity erodes.

For investors around the globe, this isn’t just a regional concern; it’s a seismic macroeconomic event that will ripple through capital markets. The implications are significant for U.S. investors because when global economies falter, especially one as large and interconnected as China’s, capital doesn’t just vanish. It moves. That movement will significantly impact U.S. assets as flows transfer back into U.S. dollars and Treasury bonds. This global repositioning of capital isn’t merely a symptom of market volatility; it reflects a profound reevaluation of risk in the face of deteriorating confidence in China’s financial system.

China’s Backstory

We must examine what’s breaking in China to understand why this matters so profoundly. Bass emphasized that the issue’s core lies in the real estate sector, which accounts for roughly 30% of China’s GDP. This massive share of economic activity is under severe strain, with property developers defaulting, sales volumes collapsing, and home prices declining across major cities. However, this should be unsurprising as, after the financial crisis, we wrote many times about the mass overbuilding of “ghost cities” that were responsible for China’s growth at the time. However, the “bullwhip” effect of that massive overbuilding was inevitable.

“They’re sitting on 60 to 70 million vacant homes. It’s a Ponzi scheme that is finally collapsing.” – Kyle Bass

This particular real estate bubble, which is unprecedented in magnitude, is bursting. This creates deflationary pressures and undermines the value of collateral supporting large portions of China’s shadow banking system.

Adding to the concern is the Chinese Communist Party’s refusal to implement reforms that would bring greater transparency, capital discipline, and market-based corrections. Rather than allow markets to clear, Beijing is opting for control through capital restrictions, state intervention, and increased surveillance of financial activity.

“China is experiencing a slow-motion banking crisis, and capital is doing everything it can to escape.” – Kyle Bass.

That capital flight is inevitable and, as noted, will significantly impact the U.S. economy and financial markets.

Capital in Search of Safety

This exodus of domestic and foreign capital will reshape the global macro landscape. We recently discussed that the “Death of the Dollar” narrative was vastly exaggerated. While that post goes into more detail, there are five primary reasons why the dollar will remain the reserve currency of the world:

1. Lack of a viable alternative currency

2. Strength of the U.S. economy

3. Network effects and global financial inertia

4. Limited scope of de-dollarization efforts

5. Resilience amid policy changes.

Most importantly, the dollar dominates the composition of global currency transactions.

China’s economic collapse only exacerbates the world’s dependence on the U.S. dollar for trade and storing reserve assets to support that trade.

In times of crisis, investors don’t seek yield; they seek safety. Despite the U.S. running its fiscal imbalances and maintaining high levels of debt, the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds remain the world’s premier safe havens. There is no alternative with the same depth, liquidity, and perceived security.

The Dollar Is Set To Rise

As capital flees China and other riskier markets, the U.S. dollar strengthens. This is not just a theoretical concept; it’s an observable pattern in every major crisis over the last several decades. The Global Financial Crisis, the Eurozone debt crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Russia/Ukraine conflict all prompted a sharp rally in the dollar as investors sought the perceived stability of the U.S. financial system.

The mechanics of this are straightforward. When global capital flows into dollars, it often flows directly into U.S. Treasuries. Treasury securities remain the world’s deepest and most liquid sovereign debt market. As discussed in that same article, global Central Banks are cutting rates at one of the fastest paces on record. To wit:

“The ECB has been aggressively cutting rates, eight times in this recent cycle, while the U.S. Federal Reserve remains on hold. The result is a divergence that is developing between U.S. Treasury bond yields and, for example, the German Bund.”

It is crucial to understand why this is so vital for investors.

1. Higher yields attract capital inflows.

2. Treasuries remain the preferred store of foreign reserves, and:

3. Yield differentials drive dollar appreciation.

In other words, as the demand for Treasuries increases, bond prices push up and yields decline. Even when the U.S. is running record deficits and issuing vast amounts of new debt to fund government spending, foreign demand can offset the downward pressure this supply might otherwise have on prices.

In a stable global environment, one would expect rising Treasury issuance to push yields higher. But in a world where the second-largest economy is in decline and trust in its financial system is evaporating, Treasury bonds find buyers not because they offer high returns, but because they provide a guaranteed return of capital. That distinction is critical. Investors are not allocating capital for growth but reallocating it for preservation. That behavioral shift has enormous implications for markets.

China’s Deflationary Impact on the U.S.

It also has consequences for the U.S. economy. The United States has benefited tremendously from China’s rise over the last 20 years. During that period, the U.S., through its corporations, could “export inflation” and “import deflation” via China’s cheap labor, rising middle class, and voracious demand for commodities and goods. From industrial machinery to high-end consumer brands, China was a reliable marginal buyer for U.S. exports and a production partner for U.S. supply chains. As that engine falters, U.S. multinational earnings will increasingly come under pressure.

A structurally weakened China means less global trade, less demand for U.S. goods and services, and slower investment flows from international corporations. The knock-on effect will be lower nominal GDP growth in the U.S., even if domestic consumption remains resilient. As such, markets will begin to price in a lower terminal growth rate for the U.S. economy, particularly in sectors exposed to international demand.

Moreover, China’s descent into deflation could export disinflationary pressures globally. That risk will likely exacerbate the risk that the Fed is making a “Transitory Mistake.”

“This link between the economy and inflation is evident from the Economic Composite Index, which comprises nearly 100 hard and soft data points. Following the spike in economic activity post-pandemic, economic growth continues to decline. Given that inflation is solely a function of economic supply and demand, it is unsurprising that it continues to cool.”

Understanding that the U.S. imports deflation from China, the risk of a sharper disinflationary impact from China on the U.S. will become evident in the economic data. As Bass noted:

“They’re not just dealing with a cyclical downturn. This is a permanent shift toward zero or negative real growth.”

That assessment has profound consequences for China and how policymakers and investors think about global growth in the decade ahead.

Conclusion

In this environment, the traditional drivers of market performance, earnings growth, productivity gains, and capital investment, will take a back seat to macro stability and risk management. Investors should shift their analysis from “Where can I grow my capital?” to “Where can I protect it?”

For now, the answer appears to be the U.S. Treasury market. Ironically, even with sticky fiscal deficits and political gridlock, capital prefers the U.S. over every alternative. That should tell us something.

As we’ve written many times before:

“Capital doesn’t care about ideology—it cares about trust, liquidity, and rule of law.”

When trust in a significant economic power like China evaporates, the resulting capital flows don’t walk, they run.

Investors would be wise to pay attention. The shift underway isn’t temporary. It reflects a deeper reordering of global economic leadership and risk tolerance. While the U.S. faces plenty of its structural challenges, it is still, for now, the cleanest shirt in a very dirty laundry pile.

For more in-depth analysis and actionable investment strategies, visit RealInvestmentAdvice.com. Stay ahead of the markets with expert insights tailored to help you achieve your financial goals.

On Tuesday, Brett Lemieux, a seasoned sports memorabilia dealer, was found dead by authorities during the execution of a search warrant at his business, which was under investigation for alleged fraudulent activities, the New York Post reports.

Lemieux, founder of the sports memorabilia website MisterManCave, claimed in a striking Facebook post on the “Autographs 101” group Wednesday morning that he had sold over four million counterfeit items, amassing more than $350 million in sales, authorities said. Shortly after Lemieux posted the 1,200-word message, which has since been removed, Westfield, Indiana, police reported that he died by suicide from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Lemieux claimed in a Facebook post that he orchestrated a large-scale counterfeit scheme, forging holograms and authentication stickers for sports collectibles that imitated products from major companies like Fanatics and Panini.

Lemieux claimed he flooded the market with 80,000 pieces of counterfeit memorabilia following the death of Kobe Bryant in 2020.

The sports memorabilia industry is reeling from Brett Lemieux’s suicide and his confession of orchestrating a large-scale counterfeit scheme, though some industry insiders expressed little surprise at the revelations.

“People have known about this guy. They’ve known his work. They know what he’s been up to,” said Steve Grad, an industry expert. “He has been at it for years and years. And he’s driven down the price of things. You know, you look at a Tom Brady autograph and Tom Brady’s value is affected drastically by this individual.”

Others expressed concern that Lemieux’s actions will cast a long shadow over the industry. “He did professional framing services for us probably four or five years ago — never had direct interaction with the memorabilia piece of it,” said Andy Albert, owner of Indy Card Exchange. “Thank God. Ninety-nine percent of the people in this industry do things the right way. And that one bad apple ruins the entire apple cart. It just infuriates me. Unfortunately, that’s going to have shockwaves for years to come.”

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

In less than six months, the entire world has been turned upside down.

There is no longer such a thing as conventional wisdom or the status quo.

The unthinkable has become the banal.

Take illegal immigration—remember the 10,000 daily illegal entries under Biden?

Recall the only solution was supposedly “comprehensive immigration reform”—a euphemism for mass amnesties.

Now, there is no such thing as daily new illegal immigration.

It simply disappeared with common-sense enforcement of existing immigration laws—and a new president.

How about the 40,000-50,000 shortfall in military recruitment?

Remember all the causes that the generals cited for their inability to enlist soldiers: generational gangs, obesity, drugs, and stiff competition with private industry?

And now?

In just six months, recruitment targets are already met; the issue is mostly moot.

Why? The new Pentagon flipped the old, canceling its racist DEI programs and assuring the rural, middle-class Americans—especially white males—that they were not systemically racist after all.

Instead, they were reinvited to enlist as the critical combat cohort who died at twice their demographic share in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How about the “end of the NATO crisis,” supposedly brought on by a bullying U.S.?

Now the vast majority of NATO members have met their pledges to spend two percent of GDP on defense, which will soon increase to five percent.

Iconic neutrals like Sweden and Finland have become frontline NATO nations, arming to the teeth. The smiling NATO Secretary-General even called Trump the “daddy” of the alliance.

What about indomitable, all-powerful, theocratic Iran, the scourge of the Middle East for nearly fifty years?

Although it had never won a war in the last half-century, its terrorist surrogates—Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—were supposedly too dangerous to provoke.

Now?

Most of their expeditionary terrorists are neutered, and their leaders are in hiding or dead.

Iran has no air force, no real navy, no air defenses, and no active nuclear weapons program.

Its safety apparently depends only on the mood of the U.S. or Israel on any given day, not to fly into its airspace and take out its missiles, nuclear sites, generals, or theocrats at will.

What happened to the supposedly inevitable recession, hyperinflation, stock market collapse, unemployment spikes, and global trade war that last spring economists assured us would hit by summer?

Job growth is strong, and April’s inflation rate is the lowest in four years. GDP is still steady. The stock market hit a record high. Trade partners are renegotiating their surpluses with the U.S.

It turns out that staying in the U.S. consumer market is the top priority of our trading partners.

It seems their preexisting and mostly undisclosed profits were large enough to afford reasonable U.S. symmetrical tariffs.

For now, news of tax cuts, deregulation, ‘drill baby, drill’ energy policies displacing Green New Deal strangulation, and $8–10 trillion in potential foreign investment has encouraged—rather than deterred—business.

Then there were our marquee elite universities, whose prestige, riches, and powerful alumni made them answerable to no one.

And now, after the executive and congressional crackdown on their decades of hubris?

Supposedly brilliant university presidents have resigned in shame.

The public has caught on to their grant surcharge gouging.

Campuses have backed off their arrogant defiance of the Supreme Court’s civil rights rulings.

They are panicked about the public exposure of their systemic anti-Semitism.

They are scrambling to explain away their institutionalized ideological bias and their tawdry profit-making schemes and mass recruitment of wealthy foreign students from illiberal regimes.

So, the mighty Ivy League powerhouses are now humbling themselves to cut a deal to save their financial hides and hopefully return to their proper mission of disinterested education.

What happened to the trans juggernaut of sex as a social construct and its bookend gospel that biological men could dominate women’s sports?

People woke up. They were no longer afraid to state that sex is binary and biologically determined. And biological men who dominate women’s sports are bullies, not heroes.

Where are the millionaire scamming architects of BLM now?

Where is the “DEI now, tomorrow, and forever” conventional wisdom?

Where are Professor Kendi and his $30,000 Zoom lessons on how to fight racism by being racist?

They have all been exposed as the race hustlers they always were.

Their creed that it is okay for supposed victims to be racist victimizers themselves was exposed as an absurd con.

So, what flipped everything?

We were living in an “emperor has no clothes” make-believe world for the last few years.

The people knew establishment narratives were absurd, and our supposed experts were even more ridiculous.

But few—until now—had the guts to scream “the emperor is naked” to dispel the fantasies.

When they finally did, reality returned.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

China has vowed to rein in “irrational competition” in its electric vehicle (EV) sector as deflationary price wars threaten economic stability and industrial progress, according to a new report from Bloomberg.

The pledge came from a State Council meeting led by Premier Li Qiang, where officials emphasized guiding automakers toward innovation and higher quality rather than relentless price cuts.

The move follows earlier warnings from top leadership to address aggressive discounting, which has dragged down prices across the supply chain. “If EV prices can stabilize, then prices in upstream industries like steel could also stabilize and ultimately that could help ease some of the downward pressure on overall prices,” said Tianlei Huang of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

EV prices have been falling rapidly since 2023, with fierce domestic competition leading to steep discounts. Though China remains on track for 5% GDP growth this year, persistent deflation—especially in sectors like autos—poses a growing threat. Transportation and communications products make up more than 10% of the consumer price index, and automobile prices have declined for three consecutive years.

Authorities now plan to tighten oversight of pricing and costs, inspect product quality, and ensure carmakers pay suppliers on time. They also aim to establish a long-term mechanism to regulate competition, though specifics remain unclear.

EV giants like BYD and Geely—whose stocks rose following the announcement—have already faced pressure to settle supplier debts and limit destructive price cuts. Last month, the government summoned major manufacturers to discuss pricing concerns. BYD and Geely later agreed to shorten supplier payment terms to 60 days.

Bloomberg reports that despite being a global leader—BYD outsold Tesla in Europe in April—China’s EV boom is facing structural strain. Overcapacity is rampant, with the industry operating at under 50% utilization. “I expect they will look at traditional fuel car-making too,” said Duncan Wrigley of Pantheon Macroeconomics, citing resistance from local state-owned enterprises to mergers that could reduce excess capacity.

Finding effective tools to manage competition without undermining confidence in a flagship green industry remains difficult. “I don’t think there’s a way to regulate the car prices like they do for the property market or for the commodity markets,” said Xiao Feng of CLSA. “So at the end of the day, this is going to be window guidance.”

Even without direct price cuts, automakers can still lure buyers with free upgrades or financing deals. “Competitive pressure is not going away,” said Joanna Chen, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence.

Meanwhile, local protectionism adds another layer of complexity. Regional governments often resist letting unprofitable firms fail, fearing tax losses and job cuts. Huang noted, “Instead of encouraging competition among localities… the central government would need to stress coordination and make this a bigger part in evaluating local cadres’ performance.”

…and despite a recent dip in the number of EV makers, it would appear to us the shakeout in the sector is likely far from over.

Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.com,

The irony is thick enough to choke on…

The New York Times, that bastion of so-called journalistic integrity, churned out yet another hit piece on President Donald Trump, painting him as some vengeful tyrant hell-bent on crushing his political foes. 

According to the paper, Trump supposedly views his opponents as downright evil, promising a campaign of retribution that sends shivers down the spines of the elite media class. 

Last week, he denounced a reporter as a “very evil person” for asking a question he did not like. This week, he declared that Democrats are “an evil group of people.” 

“Evil” is a word getting a lot of airtime in the second Trump term. It is not enough anymore to dislike a journalistic inquiry or disagree with an opposing philosophy. Anyone viewed as critical of the president or insufficiently deferential is wicked. The Trump administration’s efforts to achieve its policy goals are not just an exercise in governance but a holy mission against forces of darkness.

The characterization seeds the ground to justify all sorts of actions that would normally be considered extreme or out of bounds. If Mr. Trump’s adversaries are not just rivals but villains, then he can rationalize going further than any president has in modern times. 

This isn’t journalism; it’s selective outrage at its finest. The Times acts like Trump’s tough talk is some unprecedented assault on democracy, conveniently forgetting or willfully ignoring the years of venomous rhetoric that the left spewed against Trump and conservatives everywhere. It has the gall to portray Trump as the villain while pretending that its side hasn’t been fanning the flames of division for nearly a decade. 

If the Times is so concerned about demonizing political enemies, maybe it should look in the mirror, or better yet, revisit one of the most egregious examples from its own camp: from Barack Obama’s spying on Trump to frame him for colluding with Russia to Joe Biden’s lawfare campaign that literally tried to put Trump in prison.

Actions may speak louder than words, but Joe Biden spoke rather loudly during his infamous speech at Independence Hall back in 2022, where he didn’t even hide the fact that he saw his political allies as evil.

Remember that spectacle? There was Biden, standing in front of the birthplace of American liberty, bathed in dramatic red lighting that appropriately gave off a fascistic vibe. He wasn’t there to unite the nation; he was there to declare war on half of it. 

“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” he thundered, as if conservatives were some invading horde rather than fellow Americans exercising their right to disagree.

He didn’t stop there. He literally called Trump and his supporters a “clear and present danger” to the country.

Biden’s words weren’t just heated; they were incendiary. It was pure demagoguery, designed to otherize and vilify millions of Americans who simply wanted secure borders, economic strength, and a government that puts America first. 

And where was The New York Times during all this? Cheering it on, of course. The paper didn’t call out Biden for his divisive rant; it amplified it, framing it as a noble defense of democracy against the supposed fascist threat of Trump. 

“Biden Warns That American Values Are Under Assault by Trump-Led Extremism,” read the headline of one article reacting to the speech.

Another article detailing four takeaways from the speech lacked any outrage at all at Biden’s rhetoric.

Fast-forward to today, and leftists are clutching their pearls over Trump’s promises to hold corrupt officials accountable, like the ones who weaponized the DOJ against him. Trump’s talk of retribution isn’t about personal vendettas; it’s about restoring justice after years of witch hunts, from the Mueller probe to the sham impeachments. Yet the Times ignores how the left’s rhetoric has real-world consequences. We’ve seen assassination attempts on Trump, violent protests egged on by Democrat leaders, and a media ecosystem that normalizes calling conservatives Nazis or threats to humanity.

And the Times is crying over Trump for saying mean things about his political adversaries?

This double standard is the real threat to our republic. The Times’ piece reeks of desperation, a last gasp from a dying media empire that’s lost all credibility. Leftists whine about sources going silent, as if that’s proof of some authoritarian chill, but maybe those experts are just tired of being props in the left’s endless anti-Trump crusade. 

If the paper truly cared about toning down the rhetoric, it should start by acknowledging its own role in escalating it. Biden’s speech wasn’t a one-off; it was the blueprint for the left’s strategy — demonize, divide, and conquer.

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

On Tuesday, the yield on the 10-year Treasury surged nearly 10 basis points in a few hours, rising above 4.49 percent. The rising yield came after the release of new price-inflation data showing that CPI growth had hit a five-month high and remained well above the Federal Reserve’s two-percent target for price inflation. Rising yields often indicate that bond investors believe price inflation will continue to grow, so it was probably no coincidence that bond yields—especially on longer-term bonds—jumped following the report’s release. 

Whatever the reason behind the rising yield, this is bad news for those who were looking for a good reason to believe that mortgage rates will significantly fall again soon. Mortgages for single-family homes closely follow the 10-year yield, and, as the 10-year yield has risen in recent years, the average 30-year mortgage more than doubled. Ity rose from under three percent in mid 2021 to above seven percent by late 2023. It has remained above six percent ever since. 

Meanwhile, home prices continued to rise well into mid 2025. This combination of rising home prices and rising mortgage rates has made housing unaffordable for a growing share of propsective homebuyers.

In response to this trend, The Trump administration’s FHFA Director, Bill Pulte—a scion and nepo baby from a wealthy family of homebuilders—has demanded that the central bank intervene to force down mortgage rates in order to stimulate residential home sales and home prices. Pulte claims that Fed chairman Jerome Powell’s lack of enthusiasm for lowering interest rates is “the main reason” that there is not more home-sales activity. Pulte concludes that Powell is “hurting the mortgage market” by “improperly keeping interest rates high.” Pulte apparently believes that more people would buy homes if only the Fed fixed the situation with lower interest rates. 

When the Fed intervenes to lower interest rates, monetary inflation is required. To demand lower interest rate policy—as Pulte is doing—is to demand more inflation. At the core of this inflationist position is the misconception that rising home prices—and their negative effect on homeownership—can somehow be “fixed” or rendered irrelevant by lower interest rates. This is not how things work, however. Even if mortgage rates were to go down again, rising prices mean homeowners would still be stuck with higher costs and higher property taxes that result from rising prices. Moreover, Pulte is wrong to even assume that Fed intervention via the policy interest rate would somehow, magically, bring down 30-year mortgage rates. 

Problems with Rising Home Prices 

Last week, we explored the many ways that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy and asset purchases have fueled rising home prices. There is a close correlation between the central bank’s purchases of mortgage backed securities, the falling federal funds rate, and rising home prices. Falling interest rates have fueled rising home prices. This has led to historic lows in the affordability of homeownership, and a rising average age for home owners. 

As home prices have risen, homes have become less affordable. Notably, the median home price has become much larger over time, when compared to the median household income. In 1985, for example, the median home price was 3.6 times the size of annual median household income. By 2023, the median home price was 5.3 times the median household income.

Source: US Census Bureau (MSPUS and MEHOINUSA646N)

Rather than address the larger issues of asset-price inflation fueled by easy money, advocates of central planning, like Pulte, insist that the best way to “solve” the problem is to have the central bank somehow force down mortgage rates.

Assuming that the central bank has the power to do this, would it make housing more affordable? In certain ways, yes. If the only measure of affordability is the size of the monthly mortgage payment, then lower mortgage rates, all else being equal, make home purchases more affordable. For example, a $500,000 loan at 3% for 30 years will require a monthly payment (on principle and interest) of about $2100. On the other hand, the same loan at 6% will require a monthly payment of nearly 3,000 per month. 

But, monthly costs associated with a home purchase do not consist of only payments on a loan’s principal and interest. Homeowners must also pay property taxes and insurance. Home buyers must also come up with down payments which, of course, are proportional to the home price. Thus, home-price inflation leads to higher down payments while also driving up property taxes—which are also tied to the home price. The monetary inflation that underlies rising home prices also tends to inflate the price of services like homeowner’s insurance. Principal and interest may be fixed in a 30-year mortgage, but taxes and insurance—which increase with price inflation—are not fixed. Thus, these costs are certainly not made irrelevant by falling interest rates. 

It is not surprising that, as home prices increased in the wake of the covid panic’s runaway monetary inflation, the Atlanta Fed’s affordability index plummeted to historic lows. 

Source: Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank.

We can partly see why this happened if we compare prices and income over time. In 1985, for example, the median home price was about $81,000, but rose by 406 percent to about $426,000 in 2023. Obviously, any taxes, insurance, and down payments that are proportional to the home price were far lower in 1985 than they are now. Moreover, as home prices quintupled from 1985 to 2023, median household income only increased by 241 percent, rising from about $23,000 in 1985 to $84,000 in 2023. 

Source: US Census Bureau (MSPUS and MEHOINUSA646N)

These rising prices took their toll on affordability, even as interest rates were falling. For example, from 2006 through 2021, the average mortgage rate fell consistently. Yet, during most of that period, the affordability index only moved sideways.

Moreover, this proved to be unsustainable. The problem with constantly falling interest rates is that, eventually, they get so low that there’s not room to move downward. In 2021, mortgage rates were at or near all-time lows. Yet, the very small uptick in average mortgage rates that occurred from 2021 to 2025—with rates still below historically normal levels—caused affordability to collapse. 

So, Pulte is simply wrong if he’s claiming that the Fed would increase the affordability of homes if only Jerome Powell would intervene to force down mortgage rates.

Does the Fed Have the Power to Reduce Mortgage Rates?

Finally, we have to ask ourselves if the Fed even has the ability to somehow force down mortgage rates by lowering the Fed’s policy interest rate. It appears that this may be possible some of the time. For example, from 2008 to 2022—a period when bond investors showed little concern over deficits or price inflation—both long-term and short-term yields declined as the Fed cut the target policy interest rate. 

Those days, however, appear to be over. For example, when the Fed cut the policy rate in September of last year, the average mortgage rate increased. In the wake of the Federal Reserve’s extreme monetary inflation of 2020-2021, and as federal deficits continue to mount bond yields are likely to increase if the Fed tries to embrace a new easy money stance pushing lower interest rates. 

Source: Bloomberg.

Not only is Pulte wrong that falling mortgage rates necessarily make homeownership more affordable, he is also probably wrong that the Fed can reduce those rates by targeting a lower policy rate. If Pulte really wanted to see homes become more affordable, he would push for less monetary inflation and for lower federal deficits. He would push for the Fed to reduce its balance sheet of mortgage backed securities. All that, however, would lead to falling home prices, and that would run afoul of the administration’s Wall Street allies who incessantly demand more asset price inflation. 

On Thursday, July 17, capping off what was dubbed “Crypto Week” by Congress, the US House just passed three digital assets related bills. Here is a breakdown of all that was passed:

The GENIUS Act:

The Senate’s stablecoin bill, by a vote of 308-122.  By bringing regulatory clarity to the asset class, the law is expected to stimulate the growth of the stablecoin industry. The GENIUS Act first passed the Senate on June 17 by a vote of 68-30, with 18 Democrats supporting the bill and 2 Republicans (Senators Hawley and Paul) voting against it. Two Senators were not present (Senators Cotton and Kelly). Broadly, the GENIUS Act creates a regime for the issuance and regulation of U.S. dollar-backed payment stablecoins. By bringing regulatory clarity to the asset class, the legislation, if passed into law, is expected to stimulate the growth of the stablecoin industry.

What the bill does

• The bill sets forth standards for regulatory oversight, striking a balance between federal and state authorities.

• The bill allows payment stablecoins to be issued by subsidiaries of banks and non-bank entities. Banks would be overseen by their primary federal regulator, while non-bank entities would be overseen at a federal level by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) or under qualifying state regimes.

• Sets up reserve requirements, supervision and enforcement, ie at least 1 to 1 backing with U.S. dollars, short-term Treasuries (93 days or less), or similarly liquid assets.

• Requires Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)/Anti-money Laundering (AML) compliance for issuers.

• Mandates insolvency requirements with customer protections.

Other Key Provisions of the bill

• Bank Permissibility:

  • Banks can issue stablecoins and act “as a principal or agent with respect to any payment stablecoin and payment of fees to facilitate customer transactions.”

  • Preserves current custody practices, allowing banks to hold stablecoin reserves under existing rules.

  • Carves out tokenized deposits from the legislation.

• Federal licensing preemption: Federal licensing supersedes and preempts any state licensing requirement for any federally chartered payment stablecoin issuer.

• Bank Secrecy Act / Anti-Money Laundering Requirements: Issuers shall be treated as a financial institution for the purposes of the Bank Secrecy Act; Issuers (domestic and foreign) must demonstrate the ability to freeze or burn tokens.

• “SAB 121” prevention clause: Prevents federal regulators from requiring custodied digital assets to be held on balance sheet.

• Capital treatment: A non-permitted stablecoin can NOT be treated as a cash or cash equivalent for accounting purposes. 

• Fed Master Accounts: The bill stays neutral on Fed account access and does not alter who is currently legally eligible for Federal Reserve services or deposit access.

• Interest Payments: Prohibits domestic and foreign issuers from offering interest to holders, although it does not address 3rd parties or affiliates.

• Licensing: Provides both a state and federal (OCC) licensing path for non-bank issuers, although state issuers must get federal license once over $10B in assets.

• Reserve Authentication: Monthly public disclosures of reserve composition; Annual financial audits for issuers with market capitalizations exceeding $50 billion.

• Activity Limits: Creates limits on the types of activities a non-bank stablecoin issuer can conduct (ie issue & redeem stablecoins; manage reserves; and custody stablecoins).

• Non-Security clarification: Payment stablecoins are explicitly excluded from being classified as securities.

• Marketing restrictions: Prohibits the use of “USG”, “United State Government” or “legal tender” as part of materials and naming conventions; allows the use of “USD”.

• International Stablecoins: Non-compliant foreign issuers may be barred from U.S. markets unless they comply with U.S. regulations and/or are licensed by an approved similar regime.

• Conflict of Interest: Clarified that financial conflict of interest standards apply uniformly to both regular and special government employees, although the referenced statute in the bill carves out the President and Vice President. 

• Big Tech company issuance: Restricts issuance by large U.S. public or foreign companies not primarily engaged in financial services, unless they meet certain standards (TBD by the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee (SCRC), which is made up of the Treasury Secretary, FDIC Chair, and Fed Chair or Vice Chair) and are unanimously approved by the SCRC.

The CLARITY Act:

The House’s digital assets market structure bill, by a vote of 294-134. This vote total is notable because it received 78 Democratic votes, a larger number than market structure legislation received in last Congress’ FIT21 bill. 

• The CLARITY ACT establishes the framework to define digital assets and related technology and establishes the regulatory regime for digital asset exchanges and intermediaries. 

• With the vote total, there is perceived momentum for market structure legislation going into the Senate, which is working on its own market structure bill.

Key provisions of the CLARITY Act:

• Bank Permissibility: The bill provides clarity for bank permissibility to trade and custody spot digital commodities by defining these activities as “financial in nature.” 

• Custody in a Broker-Dealer: The bill prevents a future SAB 121 approach from the SEC. Although SAB 121 has been rescinded by the SEC in recent months, it forced public companies to hold custodied digital assets on balance sheet, which for banks would mean punitive capital treatment and in essence a strong disincentive to custody digital assets.

• Portfolio Margining: The bill includes a directive for the SEC and CFTC to provide for portfolio margining across securities, repo, securities lending / borrowing, futures, options, swaps and digital assets. This is a priority for both the traditional and digital assets markets.

• Capital Netting: The bill also directs the banking agencies to provide for cross-product netting in the risk-based capital and leverage rules, which has been an issue in traditional markets for quite some time and will be important for both traditional and digital assets markets.

• Deference to regulators:  Considerable amount of policy development is left to future rulemakings by the SEC and CFTC.

• Intermediary Regulation Focused on Retail:  Dealer registration is only required for off-exchange with retail; broker registration is only required for soliciting / accepting retail orders.

• Trading through SEC Broker Dealers, ATS, exchanges:  Digital commodities can be traded through Broker-Dealers, ATS or national exchanges, granting SEC significant jurisdiction over the spot crypto markets.

• Digital Commodity Exchange Verticals:  Exchanges are vested with SRO authority;  no prohibitions on affiliations to traditional exchanges, CCPs or intermediaries; requires exchange to write conflicts of interest rules.  Prohibited from having an affiliate that trades on the exchange for its own account. 

• Direct Access:  No requirements for exchange trading to occur through brokers or dealers. 

• Speed to Market:  Through provisional and notice registration processes and self-certification by exchanges of products to list, the bill provides an expeditious process to bring new products to market.

The Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act:

By a vote mostly along party lines. 

• This stand-alone bill attempts to prevent the Fed from issuing a retail CBDC, although it will be an uphill battle to move forward in the Senate, due to strong Democratic opposition. 

• The House activity this week included a series of delays and last-minute internal GOP negotiations to get to yesterday’s floor vote, which were reported publicly, including involvement of President Trump, which ended with an internal GOP agreement to include anti-CBDC language in a future must-pass defense spending bill (the National Defense Authorization Act) (link). 

Next steps: 

• The GENIUS Act is slated to be signed into law by President Trump on Friday (7/18) at a White House ceremony. 

• The CLARITY Act will now move to the Senate for consideration, although, as noted above, the Senate is working on its own market structure legislation. With the momentum from the CLARITY Act, including the relatively strong number of Democrats in support, though, Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott (R-SC)’s goal of a September markup has increased potential, although still an uphill battle to get strong bipartisan support, which is required to get the 60 votes necessary to avoid a filibuster. The Senate Agriculture and Banking committees will work together on drafting legislation. 

• The Treasury Department’s long-awaited Digital Assets report, mandated by the WH Executive Order earlier this year, is expected to be released soon. This report will likely push for market structure legislation, as well as touch on additional issues at the banking and regulatory agencies that are needed to meet the President Trump’s stated goal of making the U.S. the “crypto capital of the world.”

Authored by Kenneth Schrupp via The Center Square,

The Trump administration officially terminated its funding of California’s 171-mile high speed rail segment in the state’s more sparsely populated Central Valley, citing an inability to complete the project by the 2033 deadline.

The administration also noted there’s no plan for closing a $7 billion funding gap on the $36.3 billion segment.

“[California High Speed Rail Authority] does not have a viable path to complete the [Early Operating Segment] by 2033 per its commitment,” wrote Federal Railroad Administration Acting Administrator Drew Feeley in a final determination letter.

“CHSRA has a $7 billion funding gap (based on FRA’s conservative estimates) to complete the EOS, with no credible plan to secure additional funds.”

The notice terminates the $4 billion committed by the FRA to CHSRA, effective immediately.

Notably, the initial segment of the EOS would have been a 119-mile segment connecting Madera, which has a population of nearly 70,000, and Poplar Avenue in Kern County, which is near Shafter, a small city of just over 20,000 residents northwest of Bakersfield.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded by tying the rail project to international geopolitical competition with China.

“Trump wants to hand China the future and abandon the Central Valley,” said Newsom in a statement.

“We won’t let him.”

California Republican legislators in turn shared their confusion about the relationship between the state’s high speed rail program and China.

“He is so clueless that he actually believes that a train project utilizing antiquated technology, that is billions of dollars over budget and behind schedule is the ‘key’ to beating China? That a bullet train to help urbanites zip through on the way to LA will ‘help’ the Central Valley instead of water and energy investments, cutting high utilities and gas costs, and fast tracking next-gen AI and other technology to leap past China,” said California Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher, R-East Nicolaus.

“Meanwhile, he has hamstrung our economy, raised our cost of living beyond belief, and literally forced us to buy Chinese solar panels and electric vehicles,” the continued Gallagher.

Newsom just reauthorized funding from the state’s cap-and-trade program, which charges companies for carbon dioxide emissions, to provide about $1 billion per year for the project, which appears to be continuing without federal funding.

Dell has secured its position as a major player in the AI infrastructure space. Earlier this year, the company secured a $5 billion deal to supply advanced AI servers to Elon Musk’s xAI, powering the startup’s next-generation and ever-expanding AI compute workloads. Dell also recently signed a deal with AI hyperscaler CoreWeave to deliver high-performance server racks that underpin its rapidly expanding cloud services platform.

We’re building a Dell AI factory with @nvidia to power @grok for @xai @elonmusk pic.twitter.com/2aTYLtCBup

— Michael Dell 🇺🇸 (@MichaelDell) June 19, 2024

A team of Goldman analysts, led by Michael Ng, visited Dell’s headquarters in Round Rock, Texas, on Thursday. They met with several Dell executives, including Arthur Lewis (President of the Infrastructure Solutions Group) and Paul Frantz (Investor Relations), to gain more color on Dell’s rapid innovation and strong execution in the AI infrastructure space.

“The field trip gave us a deeper appreciation for DELL’s AI server engineering and design capabilities, which we view as a competitive advantage in the market,” Ng told clients. 

The analysts’ biggest takeaway is that Dell has established itself as a major player in AI infrastructure, driven by its world-class engineering, deep relationships across customers and supplier ecosystem, and accelerating demand for its AI servers—highlighted by a $14.4 billion backlog for its advanced servers. 

Here’s the list of takeaways the analysts had from their investor trip to Dell’s AI lab:

• We gained a deeper appreciation for DELL’s AI server engineering and design capabilities. Following DELL’s recent milestone of shipping the first NVIDIA GB300 NVL72 (July 3, 2025), seven months after shipping the first NVIDIA GB200 NVL72, our visit to DELL’s headquarters and AI lab visit was helpful in providing us with a deeper appreciation for DELL’s leading capabilities – and resulting relationships with key customers, suppliers, and other partners. First, DELL has dedicated teams (“pods”) of thermal, network, storage, and system architects that work with and partner with customers to understand – and deliver – unique customer requirements. Notably, these requirements are ever-changing given the pace of innovation in AI. Second, DELL’s engineering capabilities includes designing and delivering several custom designed components to accommodate specific demands. Execution is supported by the company’s best-in-class supply chain management teams. Third, DELL works in partnership with key suppliers in preparation for delivering on the new product roadmap and should realize operating leverage as revenue scales.

• AI lab tour and F1Q26 results demonstrated strong demand for AI servers. Last quarter, DELL had $12.1 billion of AI server orders and grew its backlog to $14.4 billion. Despite the conversion of $12.1 billion of pipeline to AI server orders, DELL continued to grow its pipeline, illustrating the growing demand for AI systems. Sovereign demand is contributing to pipeline growth, but the majority of demand continues to be tier 2 CSP. Our visit to a DELL AI lab included a tour and conversations with several members of DELL’s AI team that had deep AI/HPC experience and technical expertise and provided us with a greater appreciation for the complexity in the elements required for successful AI server execution: cooling, rack design, power, cabling, networking, and software.

• Traditional server refresh ongoing; underlying storage momentum. 70% of DELL’s traditional installed base is on 14th generation servers or older, leading to a refresh opportunity. In addition, enterprises are seeing opportunities to consolidate data center equipment to optimize power and cooling resources. Although DELL had six consecutive quarters of yoy growth in traditional servers, the growth has been primarily driven by content and pricing — rather than units — supporting the view that much of the installed base remains aged. Storage continues to see headwinds from the VXRail wind-down, but DELL IP is helping to drive storage revenue growth for 3 consecutive quarters – gaining traction in private cloud, AI, and security.

Ng maintains a “Buy” rating on Dell with a 12-month price target of $140 (up from $130).

However, the stock’s price action over the past 18 months—peaking around $179 in the first half of 2024 and trending lower with a series of lower highs—remains a concerning technical signal.

.  .  .