By Michael Every of Rabobank

Hoot Small-ly and Reverse Nixon Again

In line with the Churchillian tone I had struck, yesterday’s US tariffs were historic and suggest a world-wide battle. It remains to be seen in what form, with what outcome, but global bifurcation is again on the cards. The US raised its weighted-average tariff to 29%, the highest in over 100 years, and above the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s. That’s staggering, not just for the US, or inflation or GDP, but for the global system built on the US as consumer of last resort for everyone else’s overproduction and the US dollar as the lubricant for that trade and the US financial assets everyone accumulates as a result.

The US assumed a non-tariff barrier with each trade partner leading to reciprocal tariffs as the simple function of the US bilateral trade deficit as a ratio of exports to it, e.g., Indonesia runs a $17.9bn trade surplus with the US and exports $28bn to it, so $17.9/$28 = the 64% assumed Indonesian trade barrier, which the US offered a ‘discount’ on down to 32%. On one hand, this is nonsense. On the other, it’s exactly what Ricardian theory says should happen under free trade: all bilateral flows should balance, with the composition of the basket shifting with comparative advantage. That it never does for the US shows the theory isn’t true; so, the US is using both hands to pull down the system ostensibly based on it. It’s critical to understand that before talking about the numbers below and hooting small-ly about Smoot-Hawley.

We got massive increases in tariffs on Asian exporters like Bangladesh (37%), Cambodia (49%), China (34%), India (26%), Indonesia (32%), Japan (24%), South Korea (25%), Thailand (36%), and Vietnam (46%). Moreover, these are stackable on top of pre-exiting tariffs, so China faces 54% at least, with the threat of another 25% for buying Venezuelan oil and another 25-50% for buying Russian oil. That is a dramatic escalation between the world’s two largest economies.

The EU fared slightly better (20%), but which is four times higher than what we had presumed in our own model assumptions.

Most others, including the UK, Australia, and New Zealand got 10%, a divide-and-rule tactic we’d expected, as did Latin America, the Monroe Doctrine also expected, especially if the US now offers dollar liquidity to help shift supply chains in that direction. But what then for Brazilian agri trade to China?

Nobody –except Russia(but that’s because it is under sanctions)– was overlooked: even a small island off Australia got a 10% tariff for its population of penguins, and the closest of US defence allies like Israel and the Philippines face 17%, while Iran only sees 10%. The only exemptions apart from Canada and Mexico were on steel and aluminium, autos, copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, bullion, energy and other minerals not available in the US; but the first three already have 25% tariffs in place, with the rest waiting for one.

The US postal de minimis loophole is also over for everyone with a tariff once systems are ready, except for bonafide gifts and items brought into the US while traveling. That upends a lot of e-commerce.

We now start the next phase of negotiation and/or retaliation. It’s hard to imagine the UK, Australia, or New Zealand will rock the boat, and the same is true for anyone getting just a 10% tariff. Indeed, Latin America may be rubbing its hands at the geostrategic windfall ahead.

But what about Asia? For example, will China allow CNY to move lower? Does that drag other FX down with it? Does the US then raise tariffs even higher? Or will China switch to domestic consumption, which would be inflationary? What are the options for Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and India? They can’t “trade more with China” unless it plays the US importer/consumer role, but it won’t want to import more. So, does all of Asia inflate domestically with the US, or sink into deflation? Or does everyone but China pivot to the US side vs. China?

We have already published a report on what we expect Europe to do and underlined the risks of escalation that risks rapidly moving from trade into other areas. Indeed, the US is already pressuring Europe to buy American weapons rather than local as it rearms: if Europe accepts, maybe the trade war and security issues are resolved in tandem; and if it refuses, Europe may face more US intractability on NATO, and trade, and energy, and perhaps even on dollar swaplines.

Another key point to stress is renewed talk of ‘dedollarisation’. Notably, US 10-year yields are going down, now at just 4.06%, even though inflation will almost certainly be seen and for some time. The DXY broad dollar index is dropping, and even Asian exporters hit by massive tariffs are only seeing slight selloffs in their FX. Indeed, JPY is rallying despite Japan being reliant on the US for its defense as well as exports, as is EUR, with Europe reliant on the US for energy and tech on top of security and exports. Crypto tumbled, but gold hit a new record high before dipping.

However, the initial FX reaction reflects repatriation of US assets; and it overlooks the CNY threat and that there can’t be a global system within which JPY and EUR can thrive without the dollar’s current role. That’s hard to accept, but it’s true.

An ECB speaker just said Europe has a unique opportunity to push the global use of the Euro. Yet besides requiring the issuance of Eurobonds, a huge hurdle, that would see Europe run capital account surpluses, as funds flood in, and matching current account deficits, as foreign goods flood in too. In short, Europe would follow the US in deindustrialising, financialising, and polarising just as it needs unifying and militarising. Yet Europe would also need a large military to have a true global reserve currency role, because those with such muscle won’t just roll over!

While US actions show it wants to stop the dollar being a lubricant for most exporters to it and conduit for financial assets back to them, it doesn’t want to lose its role in commodity pricing, and global trade, settlements, and debt. History shows a country can retain a global FX reserve even without a trade deficit, but it takes mercantilism to do it – which we are now seeing.

As I say, the implications are so large that markets don’t fully grasp them, or don’t want to. It’s one thing for them to have been forced to recognize that guns now matter as well as butter, but it’s another to realize life is now about gunship diplomacy (“We have 11 aircraft carriers: we get to say which currency commodities are priced in. Understand?”). Equally, macro models trying to capture what this means presume everything returns to mean and vast net trade deficits are absorbed by the system. If they don’t, the model breaks; here, the system does.

One may disagree with Yanis Varoufakis on many things, but he knows his economic history – which markets don’t. He begins a recent must-read (‘Will Liberation Day transform the world? The Nixon Shock set a radical precedent’) thus:

“My philosophy, Mr President, is that all foreigners are out to screw us and it’s our job to screw them first.” With these words, the US Treasury Secretary convinced the President to deliver a colossal shock to the global economy. In the words of one of the President’s men, the objective was to trigger “a controlled disintegration of the world economy”.

No, those words were not spoken by members of President Trump’s team in advance of their “Liberation Day” tariff splurge. While the “foreigners are out to screw us” certainly has a Trumpian ring, it was uttered in the summer of 1971 by then Treasury Secretary John Connally, who succeeded in convincing his President to unleash the infamous Nixon Shock a couple of days later.

Commentators should know better than to pretend that the shock Trump is now delivering is both “unprecedented” and bound to fail like all “reckless” assaults on the prevailing order. The Nixon Shock was more devastating than the one delivered today, especially for Europeans. And precisely because of the economic devastation caused, its architects achieved their main long-term objective: to ensure American hegemony grew alongside America’s twin (trade and government budget) deficits.

The success of the Nixon Shock in no way guarantees the success of Trump’s version, but it does remind us that what is good for America’s rulers is not necessarily good for most Americans or, indeed, for the world.

One of the smartest Nixon advisers, who helped to convince Connally of the need for a shock, articulated this point with brilliant clarity: “It is tempting to look at the market as an impartial arbiter. But balancing the requirements of a stable international system against the desirability of retaining freedom of action for national policy, a number of countries, including the US, opted for the latter.”

Then with one additional phrase he undermined all of the assumptions on which Western Europe and Japan had erected their post-war economic miracles: “A controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate objective for the Eighties.”

And 10 months after giving this lecture, the man in question, Paul Volcker, rose to the Presidency of the Federal Reserve. Soon, US interest rates were doubled, then trebled. The controlled disintegration of the world economy, which had started when President Nixon was convinced by Connally and Volcker to dismantle the hitherto stable exchange rates regime, was now being completed with interest rate hikes that were far more devastating than Trump’s tariffs can ever be today.

Trump is therefore not the first President to seek the controlled disintegration of the world economy by means of a devastating blow. Nor is he the first to purposely damage America’s allies to renew and prolong US hegemony. Nor the first who was prepared to hurt Wall Street in the short run in the process of strengthening US capital accumulation in the long term. Nixon had done all that half a century earlier. And the irony is that the world the Western liberal establishment is grieving over today came into being as a result of the Nixon Shock.”

He concludes: “Every generation likes to think it is on a cusp of some historic transformation. But ours is cursed enough to actually be on such a cusp. So rather than focusing too much on the character of the man in the White House, we would do well to recall that the Nixon Shock was much more important than Nixon. If Nixon reshaped the world once, leaving it nastier and more unbalanced, Trump can certainly do it again.”

This Trump Shock is, again, a reverse Nixon: to take the US from trade deficits and financialisation back to raw US mercantilist power, using parts of the old system to do so. (As I have put it, using economic statecraft; or, using financial Fartcraft to shift back to Warcraft.)

That’s as: the US put sanctions on some Russian entities; Israel blew up the runway of the Syrian airbase Turkey is taking over; the US pours military equipment into the Middle East; the US senate pencils in $5 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade; and Elon Musk is rumored to be leaving the White House circle soon –stocks rallied (“No more DOGE corruption-cutting!”)– which he denied.

President Trump’s 25% tariffs on imported vehicles took effect overnight, with the first signs of impact materializing Thursday morning—i.e., shares of U.S. carmakers tumbled in the early cash session, and Stellantis NV announced plans to temporarily suspend production lines in both Canada and Mexico.

Bloomberg reported that the global automaker overseeing 14 car brands will pause production at its Windsor, Ontario plant for two weeks starting next Monday. Details about how long production lines in Mexico would remain offline were not disclosed.

“With the new automotive sector tariffs now in effect, it will take our collective resilience and discipline to push through this challenging time,” Antonio Filosa, head of the company’s North American operations, told employees in a memo earlier. He said the move will affect employees at “several” of the company’s U.S. powertrain and stamping facilities supporting Canada and Mexico operations. 

Bernstein analyst Daniel Roeska warned clients that a “25% automotive imports lasting beyond four to six weeks would likely have a chilling effect on the entire sector as [automakers] need to grapple with significant impact to the bottom line.” 

TD Cowen’s Itay Michaeli described the tariffs as “close to the worst case outcome vs. recent expectations,” while Barclays’ Dan Levy warned: “there are no ‘winners’ in the absolute – only relative winners.”

Upcoming production changes at some of Stellantis’ factories in Canada and Mexico are some of the first effects of Trump’s 25% tariffs on auto imports. The administration’s move is to revive America’s industrial base, and the only way to do that is to use tariffs to force companies to re-shore operations. 

Wedbush analyst Dan Ives told clients that “the concept of a U.S. carmaker with parts all from the U.S. is a fictional tale that does not exist and would take years to make this concept a reality.” 

CNBC noted, “Parts that are currently compliant with the USMCA trade deal will be tariff-free, but only until the secretary of commerce and Customs and Border Protection establish processes to impose levies on non-U.S. content.” 

In markets, automakers were pressured lower with broader main equity indexes. General Motors dropped 2.4%, Ford -2.2%, Rivian -3%, Lucid -4%, and Tesla -3.5%

An analysis we shared with readers on Tuesday, “Trade War Hits The Gas: Trump’s Auto Tariffs To Reshape Global Manufacturing,” provides more color into how the repercussions of the auto tariffs could be far more impactful than initially appear—impacting everything from dealership showrooms to global supply chains.

The move to restore America’s hallowed industrial core begins.

Authored by Jesse Coghlan via CoinTelegraph.com,

Elon Musk’s brain-chip company, Neuralink, is recruiting participants worldwide to trial its device, which enables users to control a computer using only their thoughts.

Neuralink is looking for people with quadriplegia — those who are not able to use their arms or legs — to sign up for a clinical trial, it said in an April 2 post on X, the social media platform also owned by Musk.

As of January, Neuralink has said that three patients have been implanted with a device. All are quadriplegic and are testing a small brain implant that tracks neural activity to control a computer or smartphone as part of a clinical trial called the Precise Robotically Implanted Brain-Computer Interface, or PRIME study.

Neuralink is one of several companies and academic institutions developing and testing so-called brain-computer interfaces, which vary from small wire-like implants as part of clinical trials to non-invasive devices akin to a hat.

Source: Neuralink

Neuralink’s website says its clinical PRIME study, which will take around six years, is looking for quadriplegics with spinal cord injury or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis to use their thoughts to control a computer.

Musk also heads vehicle maker Tesla and is the Trump administration’s government cost-cutting czar. He has said he wants Neuralink to move beyond just allowing humans to operate computers by thinking and wants to help “give people superpowers.”

First Neuralink patient reports no side effects after a year

Noland Arbaugh, Neuralink’s first patient, said in a March 28 X post that he’s “had no negative side effects, neither physically nor psychologically” in the year after receiving his brain implant. 

Arbaugh, a quadriplegic, demoed his brain chip about a year ago by controlling a computer cursor to play chess and surf the web.

https://t.co/OMIeGGjYtG

— Neuralink (@neuralink) March 20, 2024

Arbaugh said he’s now using his brain chip “for all sorts of things” and guessed he’s using it for over 10 hours a day.

He said the company’s researchers were “figuring out how to control a wheelchair with the implant,” which he added he won’t use “unless it’s next to perfect. I think it benefits everyone if I don’t lose control and drive into traffic.”

Arbaugh said he had found work as a traveling keynote speaker thanks to Neuralink’s implant, which helps him write, research, and communicate online.

“I can’t tell you how much hope and purpose this technology has provided me,” he wrote. “It’s only a matter of time before the implant is in dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of people.”

Authored by Peter Reagan via Birch Gold Group,

BRICS+ leaders are meeting in Rio de Janiero this summer. Their dedollarization drive has made huge progress over the last two years. Here’s what they’ve accomplished so far – and why the Rio Reset will stun the world…

The warning signs were there (but most people missed them)

In August 2023, all eyes were on Durban, South Africa when the leaders of the BRICS alliance met behind closed doors. A few weeks before, Russia’s top diplomat Sergey Lavrov made global headlines claiming the BRICS alliance was close to launching a “gold-backed currency.”

Their intentions were clear: First to challenge, then to replace, the U.S. dollar. 

It was a bold claim – and for everyone who understood the role the dollar plays in the global financial system, it was a truly frightening moment. It would be an exaggeration to say the world held its breath – but I don’t mind telling you, I certainly held mine!

The meeting came and went. BRICS held press conferences and announced new committees… 

But the gold-backed international BRICS currency never materialized.

Ever since, we’ve been wondering what happened. Did Lavrov overplay his hand? Was the foreign minister (or perhaps Putin himself) simply trolling the Biden administration? 

The election of President Trump seemed to put the final nail in the coffin. He swore instant, punitive sanctions on any countries that replaced the dollar in their global transactions. 

Trump understands that dollar dominance is a matter of national security. And he understands the consequences of losing – “If we lost the dollar as the world currency, I think that would be the equivalent of losing a war,” he told The Economic Club of New York in September 2024.

The shared BRICS currency experiment was dead even before arrival. 

Or was it?

I’ve always had my doubts and my suspicions. As a result, over the last few weeks, I’ve called in every favor. Cashed in every chip I have with the movers and shakers in Washington D.C. Consulted analysts and insiders on three continents (trust me, it wasn’t cheap!) – and I think I finally understand what happened.

In hindsight, the real story wasn’t what Lavrov or any of the other BRICS officials announced – it was what they didn’t say.

At the Rio Reset in July, BRICS will reveal their real plan

Back in 2023, BRICS never revealed their real plan. The threat of an international, gold-backed BRICSbuck was a brilliant distraction. The mainstream media laughed it off. The alternative media engaged in doom-mongering. 

And BRICS members quietly pressed ahead with something far more ambitious:

A complete, parallel global financial system – a new, 21st century Bretton-Woods – designed to bypass the dollar completely.

What Lavrov called a “currency” was just a decoy. A distraction meant to keep us focused in the wrong direction.

This summer, July 6-7, 2025, BRICS leaders are meeting again in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I want you to join me in watching this meeting closely. Because I expect truly astonishing news. An event truly worthy of the name Rio Reset.

But not for a new currency announcement! Let me explain why I think this is just a distraction…

When I say “money” or “currency,” what do you think of? 

Most people think of something like this: 

Author’s personal collection of currencies from The Bahamas, Brazil, China, Nigeria, the UK, the U.S., Vietnam and Zaire.

Or this: 

A mock-up of a shared BRICS currency, revealed by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the 2024 BRICS meeting in Kazan, Russian Federation.

These are all examples of currencies. We’re all familiar with currency, because we use it every day. Currency is the most visible part of the global financial system.

Compared to the scale of the global financial system, though?

Any single currency (even all currencies!) are just the tip of the iceberg… 

The true scope of the Rio Reset is staggering

This is what our global financial system looks like: 

Image via PlatON

That chart is not deliberately confusing, by the way. This really is what the global financial system looks like. Key institutions, clearing and settlement systems, domestic and international institutions, compliance and regulatory agencies – and that’s just the organizations. Each of them has its own set of compliance requirements, regulations, procedures and regulatory body at both the national and international levels.

Now, it would be silly to pretend that this entire post-World War II, Bretton-Woods global financial system was all carefully planned and painstakingly executed. Parts of it were – and the rest developed over time.

THAT is what BRICS have been working on!

What the Rio Reset really means

The term Rio Reset may be new – but the underlying idea is not.

This is the culmination of everything BRICS nations have worked toward since the Great Financial Crisis of 2008.

Their goal? To insulate themselves from dollar devaluation, dollar weaponization and the financial instabilities inherent in the dollar-based global financial system.

Far-left Maryland lawmakers, sitting high in their Annapolis castle, are completely detached from reality. They masquerade as public servants but are merely progressive activists who cannot govern properly. Instead of addressing the state’s incoming financial crisis and worsening power crisis, these woke lawmakers have focused on condoms for kids and other disastrous left-wing policies. It’s as if these politicians are sabotaging the state… 

Democrats in the state have been spending taxpayer monies like drunken sailors, driving the state to the brink of a financial crisis marked by a $3.2 billion deficit, heightened credit downgrade risk, and a worsening power crisis. Compounding the situation, DOGE-related cuts to the bloated federal bureaucracy threaten to trigger a devastating recession in the state, whose economy is mainly dependent on the federal government and produces little value in the private economy. 

On Wednesday, instead of addressing the mounting problems, Democratic lawmakers passed a bill in a 101–36 vote to establish a commission tasked with studying and recommending potential reparations for slavery and the lasting effects of racial discrimination in the state.

The bill now heads to far-left Gov. Wes Moore’s desk, who has previously said he will consider signing the statewide reparations commission. Remember, Moore is being primed by the Democratic Party for a presidential bid in the upcoming elections. However, he has already been accused of stolen valor. 

The Maryland House gave preliminary approval Tuesday to a bill creating a statewide reparations commission to study and recommend benefits for Marylanders whose ancestors were enslaved or impacted by inequitable government policies. The legislation, a top priority for the… pic.twitter.com/v2nD5ekFcU

— The Baltimore Sun (@baltimoresun) April 2, 2025

“I have said and long stated that the history of racism in this state is real,” Moore previously stated, adding that the impacts “are still very much being felt and they’ve been structurally felt within the state of Maryland.”

The governor and Democratic leadership in Annapolis are in over their heads when it comes to effectively managing the state. The reason is simple: they’re activists, not managers. 

Instead, these activist leaders are steering Maryland like a drunk driver on a busy highway—crashing into everything in sight while barreling toward a cliff. That cliff is a looming financial crisis, driven by reckless spending and further compounded by DOGE-related cuts.

The Democrats in Annapolis have no solutions to save the state. Actually, they do – it’s taxes, taxes, and more taxes, such as a proposed service tax, and, more recently, a “sleeping tax,” as we joked. “Is a Thinking Tax Next? “

Maryland Democrats Pass “Sleep Tax” – Is a Thinking Tax Next? https://t.co/ujScbAAnrT

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 29, 2025

Instead of addressing real crises—while tens of thousands, if not over 100,000, residents struggle with skyrocketing power bills caused by backfiring green policies—these lawmakers recently thought it was a good use of time to debate about installing vending machines filled with condoms for children. 

Maryland Democrats are pushing a bill to put VENDING MACHINE CONDOMS in KINDERGARTEN

Literally beyond parody pic.twitter.com/Ynd5X15vzP

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 26, 2025

Maryland’s current direction is disastrous and will likely spark an exodus of residents and businesses.

A large asset manager based in the state has already told us they’re advising clients against investing in Maryland municipal bonds—and are encouraging clients living in the imploding state to relocate.

If the solution to an imploding state is reparations, condoms for kids, and a tax on sleep, then Maryland voters are in dire need of a wake-up call. Honestly, it might already be too late.

The Senate has passed a largely performative rebuke of President Donald Trump’s ability to impose tariffs on Canada, after four Republicans crossed the aisle for a 51-48 vote.

The resolution – which has practically no chance of making it through the House (and Trump would veto anyway), passed hours after Trump announced his so-called “Liberation Day” of worldwide tariffs, would end Trump’s emergency declaration on fentanyl trafficking used to justify tariffs on Canada, though both Canada and Mexico are exempt from Trump’s 10% baseline rate, while products subject to CUSMA/USCMA are exempt.

“Tariffs on imports from Canada are still set to rise on Thursday. Auto tariffs announced last week will still push the average U.S. tariff rate on imports from Canada to about 3.5% from 2.5% by our count,” said RBC’s Nathan Janzen and Claire Fan.

“That increase will still matter, but looks small now compared to dramatically higher tariffs set to be imposed on other countries.”

The four Republicans who joined all Senate Democrats were; Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Following the vote, former Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, “As I have always warned, tariffs are bad policy, and trade wars with our partners hurt working people most.”

Trump has argued that Canada isn’t doing enough to stop the flow of illegal drugs from entering the USA. In 2024, CBP seized 43 lbs. of fentanyl in its northern border sector vs. 21,000 at the southern US border. Since January, authorities have seized less than 1.5 lbs in the north, according to federal data cited by AP.

“This is not about fentanyl. It’s about tariffs. It’s about a national sales tax on American families,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who initiated the resolution.

Democrats argued that Trump is using the tariffs to pay for proposed tax cuts that would benefit the wealthy, but will also make it more expensive to build homes, buy cars and pay for imported grocery products. Kaine pointed to aluminum imported from Canada that is used by businesses ranging from pie makers to shipbuilders. -AP

“Today, Donald Trump takes a sledgehammer to the American economy and even to the American dream,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who of course also had something to say, adding “Once the American people say, ‘I don’t want to embrace somebody, I don’t want to vote for somebody, I don’t want to support somebody who embraces Trump’s policies,’ things are going to change.”

During Wednesday’s presser, Trump singled out Canada as a chief beneficiary of “unfair” trading practices with the US despite not adding any new tariffs as part of the Lutnick plan.

“Why are we doing this? I mean, at what point do we say, ‘You’ve got to work for yourselves and you’ve got to’? This is why we have the big deficits,” said Trump.

Standing up for Trump were several Senate Republicans – who insisted that Canada’s punishment was more about fentanyl than the impacts of tariffs.

“There are unique threats to the United States at our northern border,” said Majority Whip Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) said during a floor speech, adding that former President Joe Biden had “also thrown open the northern border. The criminal cartels noticed and they took advantage.”

“President Trump is taking the bold, decisive, swift action that is necessary to secure that border as well,” he continued.

* * *

You can support ZeroHedge with the purchase of a high-quality, sharp, ZeroHedge Multitool.

Now that the neocons/libs and Israel had their way with Syria, former dictator Bashar Al Assad has been replaced with… Al Qaeda.

So what now?

Visit the ZeroHedge homepage tonight at 7pm ET for our live Syria Debate with Pulitzer winner and Daily Beast reporter Roy Gutman who will face off against Antiwar.com editorial director Scott Horton. The debate will be moderated by David “Viva Frei” Freiheit.

Has the latest iteration of Middle Eastern regime change paid off or been a total disaster? A quick primer on Gutman’s interventionism and Horton’s isolationism:

Gutman: “Assad Must Go”

Horton: “America is back on the side of al-Qaeda… quite frankly, it’s treason.”

“America is back on the side of al-Qaeda… quite frankly, it’s treason.”

Watch Scott Horton and General Wesley Clark’s full discussion on Syria, Assad, Putin and more 👇

📺 https://t.co/tkQyaIE64N@piersmorgan | @scotthortonshow | @GeneralClark pic.twitter.com/vjCYp3fehP

— Piers Morgan Uncensored (@PiersUncensored) December 10, 2024

We’ll see you at 7pm ET.

If you would like to listen to Scott take on another interventionist, check out his debate with historian Niall Ferguson on the war in Ukraine from December:

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

A copycat of alleged insurance executive assassin Luigi Mangione apparently harbored so much hatred toward large pharmacies that he targeted a Walgreens in California and fatally shot a vulnerable employee, police said. 

The accused perpetrator, Narciso Gallardo Fernandez, shot and killed Erick Valasquez inside a Walgreens in Madera, California during Velasquez’s shift in what investigators describe as a random attack, Madera Police Chief Gino Chiaramonte said. 

A chilling video widely shared on social media captured Gallardo Fernandez entering the Walgreens, waving his hands before firing at the camera.

He then targeted Valasquez, a husband and father of two young children. 

“He has generalized anger towards pharmacies through previous issues,” Chiaramonte said, according to local news outlet KSEE. 

In an apparent “Luigi style” shooting at a Walgreens in Madera, CA, 30-year-old Narciso Gallardo Fernandez murdered a father of two in cold blood due to a grudge against large pharmacies.

This is a deranged coward who deserves society’s deepest contempt and punishment. pic.twitter.com/VCvKvS90Ni

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 2, 2025

The unhinged man, who reportedly drove 80 miles to reach the Walgreens, also shot other store workers and customers as they fled. He was reloading his weapon when law enforcement approached him in the parking lot. 

“He not only point blank murdered the store employee Erick Velasquez, but the store manager and a female victim after the shooting fled out the front door and he turned and started shooting towards them,” Chiaramonte said. 

The police chief said the alleged gunman told officers that he knew it was over by the large presence of police, lights and sirens coming. 

Local resident Alexis Miller-Jones expressed shock at the harrowing incident, noting that she often visits the store with her 11-year-old child. 

“I’ve not seen anything to this magnitude in our town,” Miller-Jones told KSEE. “One time somebody busted in the doors and stole a bunch of cigarettes, but that was the biggest, this is a lot more scary.” 

Walgreens reacted to the killing in a press statement, stating:

“We are deeply saddened by last night’s tragic event, which resulted in the death of one of our team members. Our thoughts and prayers are with their loved ones during this difficult time.” 

The killing comes less than four months after UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was fatally shot by activist Luigi Nicholas Mangione in a New York City street. 

CCTV footage captured Mangione approaching Thompson and firing a 3D-printed pistol fitted with a 3D-printed suppressor in an assassination-style attack. 

Mangione now faces several state and federal charges for the murder, with the Trump-led DOJ seeking the death penalty. 

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

He hopes to strengthen the US’ supply chain sovereignty, renegotiate its ties with all countries with a view towards getting them to distance themselves from China, and shape the emerging world order.

Trump’s decision to tariff the entire world to varying extents as revenge for their tariffs against the US has shaken the global economy to its core. Instead of restoring free and fair trade like he claims to want, which would give American companies an advantage, he might inadvertently accelerate regionalization trends and the subsequent division of the world into a collection of trade blocs. Even in that scenario, however, he could still advance the three unstated goals that are responsible for this policy.

• The first is to strengthen the US’ supply chain sovereignty so as to eliminate the leverage that other countries have over it. This might not be pursued solely for the sake of it, but perhaps also as contingency planning, thus hinting at concerns about a major war. The two most likely adversaries are China and Iran, and a hot conflict with either would throw the global economy into turmoil. Trump might therefore want to prioritize reshoring in order for the US to preemptively minimize the consequences.

• The second goal builds upon the first and relates to the US prompting every country to renegotiate their bilateral ties, during which time the US could offer to reduce tariffs in exchange for certain concessions. These could take the form of distancing themselves from China to a degree and gradually replacing it with the US with their top trade partner. Other incentives could also be dangled such as technology-sharing and military deals. The purpose would be to weaken China by chipping away its foreign trade.

• And finally, the last goal is to shape the emerging world order, to which end the US had to speed up the end of the present one by shaking the global economy to its core like Trump just did. Obtaining supply chain sovereignty and replacing China as the top trade partner for as many countries as possible would give the US’ leverage over a sizeable portion of the world. While it’s premature to speculate the ways in which the US could exploit this, it’ll almost certainly be in the context of its systemic rivalry with China.

Even if Trump’s global trade war unintentionally turbocharges regionalization trends and the subsequent division of the world into a collection of trade blocs instead of serving as the unprecedented power play that he expects, the US could still take advantage of this to implement its “Fortress America” policy. This refers to the US restoring its unipolar hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, which would make it strategically autarkic if it receives preferential access to these countries’ resources and markets.

In that event, the US would survive and could even thrive even if it’s pushed out of the Eastern Hemisphere upon losing the major war that it might be planning or if the consequences thereof make that part of the world too dysfunctional for the US to manage, which could lead to the US returning to its 1920s-like isolationism. To be clear, the US is unlikely to voluntarily abandon the Eastern Hemisphere, but it would still make sense to plan for that possibility just in case circumstances compel it to do so.

All in all, Trump’s global trade war is an epochal event that’ll leave a lasting impact on International Relations regardless of its outcome, but it’s too early to say for sure exactly what’ll come from it. The only thing that can be said with any certainty is that Trump has a grand plan in mind even if he doesn’t ultimately achieve any of his goals, the three most likely of which were touched upon in this analysis. In any case, the old era of globalization is now over, but it remains to be seen what’ll replace it and when.

Following the significant decline in US Manufacturing ‘soft’ survey data (while hard data keeps rising with manufacturing jobs jumping most in years according to ADP), expectations for this morning’s Services Sector PMIs are mixed.

• S&P Global’s US Services PMI jumped from 15 month lows at 51.0 to 54.4 in March

• ISM Services PMI tumbled from 53.5 to 50.8 – its lowest since June 2024

Source: Bloomberg

Under the hood of ISM was not pretty as Employment plunged into contraction (46.2) and New Orders dropped significantly (while Prices Paid saw some respite)…

Source: Bloomberg

Baffle ’em with bullshit is back…

Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence, offered a silver lining after the Manufacturing survey’s slump:

“March saw a welcome rebound in service sector business activity after a weak start to the year, with employment also returning to growth after a decline seen in February. 

However, the rate of expansion remains below that seen throughout the second half of last year. [ZH: but still stronger than the rest of the world.]

Combined with a weak manufacturing reading for March, the survey data point to GDP having risen at an annualized rate of just 1.5% in the first quarter, down sharply from the 2.4% rate seen at the end of last year. 

But, it’s not all unicorns and rainbows:

“The focus turns to whether growth will also trend lower in the second quarter. 

In this respect, we note that some of the improvement in March reflected better weather, after adverse conditions dampened services activity in the first two months of the year at many companies. There’s a suggestion, therefore, that the expansion in March may exaggerate the true underlying growth momentum in the economy.

“This gloomier picture is supported by the PMI’s future activity index, which showed optimism edging lower again in March. 

Business sentiment is now the lowest since the end of 2022 barring only the heightened uncertainty seen ahead of last year’s Presidential election. 

“Companies report heightened concerns and uncertainty around the impact of political change, ranging from DOGE-related budget cutting to tariffs and the degree to which foreign demand may be affected by recent policy initiatives. 

Concerns have also risen in relation to costs, which rose in March at the fastest rate in nearly two years as firms across both services and manufacturing reported intensifying supplier-driven price hikes, fueled by tariffs.”

While less dramatic than the signal from Manufacturing suirveys, there is still the stench of stagflation as prices are soaring and growth is flagging.