Gold prices per ounce surpassed $2,500 USD for the first time ever in August 2024, setting a new all-time high.

The surge in gold value this year has largely been driven by increased central bank demand amidst an increasingly complicated geopolitical and financial landscape. A World Gold Council survey conducted in April 2024 found that 29% of central bank respondents intend to increase their gold reserves in the next 12 months.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, visualizes the gold price per troy ounce in USD from 1989 to August 29, 2024, with the change in price labeled for each U.S. president’s term.

The figures come from the World Gold Council, who compile price data from ICE Benchmark Administration and the Shanghai Gold Exchange.

Gold Prices Surged During Recent Presidencies

Below, we show the price change in gold per troy ounce in USD between the start and end of each U.S. president’s term.

*For President Biden, the date of August 29th, 2024 was used for the ending gold price in calculations.

Gold has historically been seen as a safe-haven asset during times of geopolitical uncertainty and economic instability. While gold’s prices increased by over 50% under Trump’s presidency, and by another 37% during Biden’s, the greatest increase of 215% (since 1989) came during George W. Bush’s presidency.

Spurred by the 9/11 attacks and the geopolitical instability which followed, gold’s bull run during Bush’s presidency from 2001 to 2009 could’ve been even greater had the 2008 global financial crisis not occurred. Instead, fear of deflation and a flight to the safety of the U.S. dollar resulted in a 30% dip from the peak to trough of gold prices in 2008.

Events like 9/11, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Ukraine-Russia war have all contributed to significant increases in gold prices, as investors seek stability during turbulent times​.

Whether Donald Trump is reelected or Kamala Harris becomes the first female president of the U.S., Citigroup analysts forecast gold prices exceeding $3,000 by the end of 2024.

To learn more about gold’s recent performance on the markets, check out this graphic that shows the value of a gold bar in various sizes as of August 2024.

Via Eurasianet.org,

• Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin’s visit to Uzbekistan aimed to strengthen ties and promote Uzbekistan’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

• Uzbekistan maintained a cautious stance, prioritizing its strategic partnership with Russia but avoiding commitments on EAEU membership or specific joint projects.

• The visit resulted in minor agreements on rail transport, medicinal product labeling, and medical personnel training, with a protocol signed for the construction of nuclear reactors in Uzbekistan.

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin’s two-day visit to Uzbekistan highlights the limits of the Kremlin’s geopolitical leverage these days. Mishustin arrived with high hopes of drawing Uzbekistan closer into Russia’s orbit, but he left with little of substance.

Uzbekistan and other Central Asian states have walked a fine line since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, striving to remain on the sidelines of the conflict without riling the Kremlin and provoking Russian leader Vladimir Putin into taking some sort of punitive action. Helping to keep Moscow happy is the fact that Central Asian states have acted as a backdoor trade conduit, tacitly helping Russian leaders soften the impact of Western sanctions, and keeping the Russian war effort going. 

Mishustin arrived in Uzbekistan on September 9 with a declared aim of securing Tashkent’s commitment to becoming a full member of the Moscow-dominated Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). “Uzbekistan’s participation in Eurasian integration can give additional advantages for business. First of all, thanks to the opening of new sales markets, the creation of conditions for fair competition,” the TASS news agency quoted Mishustin as saying during a September 9 meeting of the joint Russian-Uzbek governmental commission.

And unnamed experts cited by the Russia-based URA news agency said the main reason Moscow wants Uzbekistan to join EAEU boils down to population numbers: Russia is facing a demographic disaster exacerbated by already large, and constantly rising, wartime losses. Uzbekistan, meanwhile, has a young and rapidly growing population. Russia needs more bodies to ensure a stable economic future.

“Russia is interested in Uzbekistan’s accession to the EAEU because it is a country with a population of 35 million, and according to forecasts, by 2035 it will already have more than 40 million inhabitants,” URA quoted the expert as saying.

“The total population of the [Eurasian economic] union would exceed 200 million people [if Uzbekistan became a member]. For Russia, this is an opportunity to strengthen the combined weight of that side of the multipolar world that is being built around our country as a regional leader.”

At the joint commission meeting, Mishustin also expressed hope that the two countries could develop a venture to produce drones for “civilian” uses.

“We are exploring the possibilities of organizing the high-tech production of polymers, localizing the production of civilian unmanned aircraft systems and their components,” TASS quoted Mishustin as saying.

The suggestion raised eyebrows among some local observers, given that an entity in Kazakhstan has already come under US sanctions for supplying Russia with dual-use components, including parts for drones used against Ukrainian forces. 

Uzbek officials appeared to listen politely to Russian proposals, but provided no indication that they would go along with Moscow’s wishes. A statement issued by President Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s office following a September 10 meeting with the Russian prime minister offered the usual platitudes on the importance of the bilateral “strategic partnership” without mentioning the EAEU or specific joint projects. About the most specific the presidential statement got was an acknowledgement that “an exchange of views occurred on issues of mutual interest.”

The joint commission’s outcome the previous day was similarly modest. There was lots of discussion about boosting trade and investment and following up on joint projects agreed upon during Putin’s visit to Uzbekistan last May. But the talks produced few results. 

An Uzbek government statement noted that three relatively minor agreements were signed at the conclusion of the commission session, including one on accelerating the rail transport of agricultural products and another covering standardized labeling of medicinal products. The third item was a protocol on the training of medical personnel.

Perhaps the most significant development arising out of the visit was the signing of a protocol concerning implementation of an agreement signed back in May under which Russia pledged to build up to six low-power nuclear reactors to generate electricity in Uzbekistan. The protocol “will allow us to begin direct work on the construction site in the near future,” a report published by the Spot.uz new outlet quoted Otabek Amanov, a top Uzbek official overseeing the project, as saying. Uzbek officials say they hope the first reactor will be ready to go online within five years.

During the commission meeting, Mishustin expressed satisfaction with bilateral energy cooperation. “Our energy partnership is progressing successfully. Including the supply of natural gas, oil, and petroleum products from Russia to Uzbekistan,” Mishustin stated.

Uzbek officials have no reason to argue on that point. Uzbekistan is buying up Russian natural gas at a bargain-basement rate of $160 per thousand cubic meters (tcm), according to local media reports. By comparison, the Russian energy behemoth Gazprom sold China gas at an estimated rate of just over $286/tcm in 2023. The low purchase price of Russian gas helps explain why Uzbekistan, itself rich in gas reserves, has turned into a net importer of the blue fuel. Low-cost Russian supplies are enabling Uzbek leaders to offer domestic customers highly subsidized rates for gas consumption.

We already know that emission free or EV trucking isn’t a cost efficient endeavor, which is why many companies like Pepsi have done token purchases of a couple of EV semis, but are still using ICE 18 wheelers to get product to shelves. 

Today a new article from Reuters lays out the numbers behind why emission free trucking remains a fallacy: emissions-free trucks need to drop in price by up to 50% to compete with diesel models, according to a McKinsey study.

Currently, less than 2% of the EU’s heavy freight vehicles are electric or hydrogen-powered, but this must rise to 40% of new sales by 2030 to meet EU climate goals. Electric trucks cost 2.5-3 times more to produce than diesel ones, and logistics companies are reluctant to bear the higher costs, making this target challenging, the report says. 

McKinsey suggests electric truck prices should be no more than 30% higher than diesel models, requiring major battery advancements. 

Reuters writes that a 25% reduction in charging costs and 900,000 private charging points by 2035, needing a $20 billion investment, are also key to the EU’s CO2 strategy. Additionally, European truckmakers face competition from Chinese manufacturers, who have captured 20% of the bus market with cheaper products.

A co-author of the McKinsey study said: “I don’t think it’s impossible that this could actually happen in electric trucks over time.”

Recall we wrote earlier this year that demand for electric semis was plunging. 

“The economics just don’t work for most companies,” Robert Sanchez, the chief executive of Ryder, said in May. 

Ryder’s experience highlights the difficulties state and federal governments encounter in encouraging truckers to transition from polluting diesel rigs to zero-emissions vehicles, the report says.

It also indicates that significant improvements in battery weight, range, and charging times are necessary for battery-electric trucks to effectively compete with diesel rigs in the cost-sensitive freight industry.

Rakesh Aneja, head of eMobility at Daimler Truck North America, told Wall Street Journal: “Quite frankly, demand has not been as strong as what we would like.”

Authored by Wanjiru Njoya via The Mises Institute,

Many people were shocked when over 1,000 protesters were arrested in the UK and jailed for various offenses including “violent disorder” and stirring up racial hatred. Most shocking were the cases of those arrested for posting social media comments on the riots, despite not being present at the scene and there being no evidence that anybody who joined in the riots had read any of their comments.

In societies which uphold the value of individual liberty, the only purpose of the criminal law should be to restrain and punish those who commit acts of aggression against other people or their property.

The criminal law should not be used to prevent people from “hating” others or to force them to “love” each other. In announcing yet another raft of laws “to expand the list of charges eligible to be prosecuted as hate crimes,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said that “During these challenging times, we will continue to show up for each other. We are making it clear: love will always have the last word in New York.” To that end, she introduced “legislation to significantly expand eligibility for hate crime prosecution.”

Attempts to promote love between different racial or religious groups in society, for example, by charging people with stirring up “hate” when they protest against immigration, misunderstands the role of the criminal law. Threats to public order entail violating the person or property of others—as happens in a violent riot—not merely the exhibition of “hate” towards others. Yet increasingly, public order offenses are linked to hate speech or hate crimes.

Laws prohibiting hate speech and hate crimes typically define “hate” as hostility based on race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Often, hostility is understood simply as words that offend others. For example, in the UK, the Communications Act 2003 prohibits sending “a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.” The Online Safety Act 2023 targets illegal content online including both “inciting violence” and the publication of “racially or religiously aggravated public order offenses.” Conduct online includes writing posts or publishing blogs or articles on websites.

Given that inciting violence is already a crime—“conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection”—there seems to be no discernible purpose in adding the concept of “hate” to such crimes. To give an example, writing “burn down the store” on social media might be seen as inciting violence, but writing “burn down the Muslim store” in the same circumstances would be categorized as a hate crime. Arson (actually burning down the store) is a crime, but based on the racial or religious identity of the store owner arson is deemed to be a “worse” crime—a hate crime—even though the harm in both cases and the loss suffered by store owners who are victims of arson does not vary based purely on their race or religion.

Therefore, no “hateful conduct” laws are needed to further “criminalize” what is already a crime. The conclusion is inescapable that the only goal of these types of “hate” laws is to create a special category of crime based entirely on the identity of the victim. Identity politics is now part of criminal law. “Hate” based on race or religion is now a priority in criminal law enforcement with resources increasingly diverted towards it. For example, New York has devoted a budget of $60 million to “fight hate.”

Events in the UK over the past month chillingly illustrate the consequences of an identity-based approach to law enforcement. In the ongoing police purge of rioters, those who wrote “hate speech” posts on social media platforms were charged with “inciting racial hatred” and sentenced to prison terms of up to two to three years. Far from fighting against “hate,” this is likely only to further fuel resentment and racial antagonism.

Free speech and the first amendment

The U.S. has so far avoided going down this socially destructive path, like the UK has, owing to the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The importance of the first amendment in thwarting attempts to outlaw “hate speech” can be seen in New York’s Assembly Bill A7865A (2021-2022), which provides that humiliating or vilifying anyone on social media based on their identity is hateful conduct and, therefore, illegal. The bill requires social media networks to report “hateful conduct on their platform,” and defines hateful conduct as “the use of a social media network to vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” This attempt to regulate “hateful conduct” is a clear restriction of free speech, and it was predictably opposed by free speech groups on grounds that it violates the first amendment.

In linking criminal law to the protection of property rights, Murray Rothbard argues that “incitement” is an element of free speech. Under the principle of free will, no one should claim that the reason he committed arson (a crime against the property of another) was that he read a post on social media saying “burn down the store.” The arsonist would be responsible for his own crime. He may have read the post but the choice to go out and commit the crime was his own. Rothbard explains:

Should it be illegal, we may next inquire, to “incite to riot”’? Suppose that Green exhorts a crowd: “Go! Burn! Loot! Kill!” and the mob proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these criminal activities. Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him, because of his exhortation, at all responsible for their crimes. “Inciting to riot,” therefore, is a pure exercise of a man’s right to speak without being thereby implicated in crime.

Rothbard adds that much would, of course, depend on the context: “there is a world of difference between the head of a criminal gang and a soap-box orator during a riot.”

One of the British people in jail for social media posts wrote on Facebook that “Every man and his dog should smash the f—k out of Britannia hotel,” which was a hotel well known for housing immigrants. The writer of the post—a 28-year-old with no notable following—was not himself present at the riots, nor was there any reason to think those present at the riots had read his post or intended to follow his exhortation. In that sense, he seems to have been nothing more than a “soap-box orator” offering commentary on the riots from the safety and comfort of his armchair. Yet he was charged with “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending thereby to stir up racial hatred” and jailed for 20 months.

That social media commentary is now treated in this way as a reason to jail people for “racial hatred” represents a grave threat to individual liberty, and illustrates the folly of criminalizing “hate.”

China has shrugged off accusations issued by the United States this week that it is directly supporting Russia’s ‘war machine’. US deputy secretary of state Kurt Campbell told reporters Wednesday that China is providing more than just dual use items, but instead is transferring “component pieces of a very substantial effort on the part of China to help sustain, build and diversify various elements of the Russian war machine.” This allegedly included submarine and missile technology.

On Thursday, Chinese state media confirmed the start of joint China-Russia naval patrols in the Pacific. Global Times says that Chinese warships and warplanes have arrived in the Peter the Great Bay and Vladivostok just ahead of the exercises, which will run through September.

But it was Russia which verbally hit back directly against Washington accusations in a new, ominous warning. Russia and China could “combine their potential” if faced with aggression, Moscow’s foreign ministry asserted.

“I would like to remind you that Moscow and Beijing will respond to ‘double containment’ by the United States with ‘double counteraction’,” ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said.

While the two powerful countries as yet have no formal military treaty, President Putin recently declared Russia and China to be “allies in every sense of the word” while Xi has touted the “no limits friendship”. 

Zakharova in the latest explosive remarks (issued in a Wednesday briefing) spoke about combining forces. Here are the words in their full context:

“It is clear that both Russia and China will react to the emergence of additional and very significant missile threats, and their reaction will be far from being political, which has also been repeatedly confirmed by the two countries.

“Our relations are not directed against third countries… and double counteraction does not contradict this. This is a defensive position, this is not an initiative to target other countries.

“But if an aggressive policy of attack is being implemented against us from one centre, why don’t we combine our potential and give an appropriate rebuff?” 

It seems that among the original questions from reporters which triggered this response was an inquiry related to the possibility that the US will deploy US Typhon mid-range missiles to Japan.

While reports have said these will be present on a temporary basis as part of drills, it remains the missiles were banned under the now defunct INF Treaty. China has of course vehemently condemned this, and independent analysts have pointed out it would be akin to China placing banned missiles capable of hitting Florida and the US Gulf coast in Cuba or Mexico.

In many ways, these recent displays of close coordination between Beijing and Moscow are but more blowback from round after round of US sanctions and punitive actions aimed at both countries.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Turkish President Erdogan has attempted over the years to present himself as the voice of the international Muslim community, or Ummah, most recently by calling for an Islamic alliance against Israel. His strong rhetoric about the latest Israeli-Hamas war has earned him the praise of many and also resulted in sharp responses from Israelis, which in turn feed into the perception that he’s seeking to form. All his tough talk is just pure demagoguery, however, since he isn’t willing to go to war with Israel.

The Palestinians claim that over 40,000 of their own have been killed in this nearly year-long conflict that most of their supporters consider to be a genocide. The living conditions in Gaza are atrocious, almost all of the strip has been damaged or destroyed by Israeli bombs, and Egypt continues to keep its border closed to prevent the outflow of refugees into its territory. By all indications, it’s more than a little late for anyone to suggest forming a multilateral alliance against Israel, whether they’re really sincere or not.  

Erdogan is a very clever politician and therefore predictably has a few tricks up his sleeve for proposing this so belatedly.

First and foremost, he wants to reaffirm Turkiye’s image as the historical protector of the Ummah from back during its Ottoman days, hence why he’s calling so loudly for forming such an Islamic alliance.

The second objective is to build upon the aforesaid in order to position Turkiye atop the regional military hierarchy in the minds of those who take his proposal seriously.

Third, he also knows very well that no Muslim country will voluntarily subordinate itself to Turkiye’s implied military hegemony, especially not the Gulf Kingdoms. Their rejection of his proposal or at least public indifference to it can then be spun as passing the buck along to them for supposedly “failing to save Palestine”. The fourth reason is related to the preceding one and concerns the public pressure that Turkiye is coming under from some to cut off Azerbaijan’s oil exports to Israel via Georgia and Turkiye.

Ankara owns neither the pipeline nor the oil that transits through it so any interference with these shipments would be a blatant violation of international law and a stab in its Azeri brother’s back. Its allied relations with Baku mean that Turkish officials can’t pressure their counterparts on this, let alone publicly condemn them for continuing to literally fuel the Israeli economy, but having the public see their lack of response to Erdogan’s proposed Islamic alliance might take some of the heat off of him on this.

And finally, the last goal that he’s seeking to advance is to wage psychological warfare on Israelis by making them fear the grand strategic consequences of continuing the conflict and thus ideally inspiring them to ramp up their protests to stop it, though this could also backfire. By exacerbating their existing siege mindset, he risks some reconsidering whether it’s worth ending the conflict now if all their country’s goals have yet to be achieved seeing as how this Islamic alliance is already forming anyhow.

Altogether, observers shouldn’t forget that Erdogan knows how to play to the Ummah’s crowds, so little of what he says about his plans against Israel should ever be taken seriously. There’s always an ulterior motive or several behind it like in this case as was explained. His strong rhetoric leads to extreme dopamine bursts from those who think that he’s being sincere, but the rush will inevitably wear off once they realize that he’s not, and some might in turn think less of him afterwards.

Authored by  Nadia Schadlow & Craig Mundie via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

American policymakers have spent years decrying the loss or impending loss of key competitive sectors to China, including 5G telecommunications networks, solar panels, advanced manufacturing, and quantum computing. Recently, it was reported that China was outspending the United States on fusion energy and that it could surpass U.S. fusion capabilities in three to four years. The United States can’t let this happen.

Fusion will provide reliable, carbon-free electricity for an expanding global economy. That will have profound geopolitical consequences. If we allow China to dominate fusion technology and to deploy it at scale at home and abroad, Beijing will hold a central position in the geopolitics of energy going forward.

Fusion occurs when two atoms combine into one, releasing astronomical amounts of energy. Some new fusion designs produce superheated plasma that can reach temperatures of up to 100 million degrees Celsius, producing energy with minimal radiation risks.

For generations, fusion has been the stuff of science fiction because of the challenge of recreating the physics of the sun in a controlled environment on earth. But in the last few years, scientists and engineers, working on competing models for producing fusion, have made transformational progress on several classes of daunting problems, faster than the public perceives.  And faster than U.S. policy is reflecting.

Just as important as the physics behind these milestones are the advances in key “adjacent technologies” that help to manage the hot plasma at the heart of all fusion reactions. Advances in fiber optics, semiconductors, and computing, including AI, have been critical to progress. Power semiconductors have allowed the introduction of different fusion architectures, creating more opportunities and faster progress. Advanced fiber optics mean we don’t have to worry about electromagnetic interference. Powerful computers allow this intricate atomic ballet to be choreographed and repeated thousands of times per second.

Thanks to American innovation and determination, the fusion moment is here. When matched with private sector investment, it’s a potent force. But we could lose this moment to China unless the U.S. government takes steps now to accelerate manufacturing at scale and deployment.

First, fusion must be considered a considered a key part of the shift to clean energy. The focus for years has been almost exclusively on renewable solar and wind – which cannot solve the problem of intermittent energy. A Department of Energy report in 2022 advanced a U.S. strategy to secure supply chains for “Robust Clean Energy Transition” without mentioning fusion. The Biden Administration’s “Decadal Vision” for commercial fusion was a corrective, but fusion will need wider acceptance to take its place in the world’s energy mix.

Second, the U.S. government must create a regulatory environment that differentiates modern fusion technology from 20th century nuclear energy and that allows for scaled deployment. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission – which controls matters related to fission and fusion energy – has taken some important first steps. In April 2023, for example, it acknowledged that fusion energy should be treated as a technology separate from nuclear fission. Notably, the U.K. government also ruled on the “fundamental differences between nuclear fission and fusion” and that it would be “unnecessary to incorporate fusion energy facilities into nuclear regulation.”  These are key steps toward a regulatory structure that would allow U.S. companies to produce fusion generators at scale. We can’t afford to wait 10 years to plan for power plants to come on-line. Just as our airline industry produces scores of airplane designs without having to separately approve each plane, U.S. fusion companies need to be able to manufacture generators in a repeatable way in large-scale factories to be effective.

Deploying fusion generators at scale will have the added benefit of catalyzing American manufacturing. But to achieve this, the U.S. needs to make the needed components. Most attention in the Act is focused on leading-edge microchips for computing – the kinds that are now primarily made in Taiwan. But it’s critical that the United States and its allies produce the kind of other semiconductors that enable the sophisticated physics synthesis required by fusion. Currently, a large majority of high-power semiconductor production and innovation takes place outside the United States.

Third, loan programs and tax incentives that apply to renewables need to be opened up to fusion. Currently for example, the production tax credit for manufacturing is geared towards renewables and does not include fusion. These programs and various Department of Energy efforts, while well-funded, need to prioritize fusion.

In the 19th century, the great powers scrambled to develop technology and secure petroleum supplies around the globe to ensure a secure foothold in the energy future. Today, a similar scramble is unfolding. Electrification for economic growth coupled with the new energy requirements of generative AI – which are immense – together will have critical geostrategic consequences. Beijing recognizes that fusion is a source of near-unlimited energy and that achieving it at scale will not only give China the energy independence it craves but also a leading position as supplier of these new sources of energy around the world.

Fusion is a moonshot opportunity. We can’t afford to miss it.     

Nadia Schadlow is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. Craig Mundie was formerly the Chief Research and Strategy Officer at Microsoft. Both are strategic advisors to Helion Energy, a U.S. based fusion energy company.

2024 was the year when the runaway US budget deficit was supposed to gradually normalize, and after two crisis-years, the US was supposed to end its drunken sailor spending ways. And for a while there, it seemed touch and go, with the cumulative US deficit initially overtaking 2023 – forget about the batshit insane 2021 and 2022 when the deficit hit a mindboglilng 18% of GDP…

… before slowly easing back for a few months, only to sprint ahead  of 2023 once more in August…

… when THIS happened: an August budget deficit of a staggering $380 billion, up more than 50% from the $243 billion in July, and up more than 55% from July, and up 66% from last August… oh, and almost $100 billion more than the median estimate of $292.5 billion, which may be why the Treasury quietly snuck the number out by leaking it after 5am ET when everyone was sleeping, not at its regular time of 2pm ET.

That’s right, in a year when the monthly budget deficit was meandering along in the merry Chernobyl way, not great, not terrible, someone in the BIden admin had the brilliant idea to spend a metric asston of money to reboot the economy so we don’t get a recession just in time for the elections, and sure enough, government spending went into absolutely epic overdrive, as outlays hit a mindblowing $686 billion, the highest since March 2023, and only a handful of crisis months during the covid crash saw greater government spending in any given month.

Here is another way to show the data: smoothing out for outlier months, by presenting the 6 month moving average: well, it just hit the highest… since covid!

For those wondering how government receipts have performed during this period of exploding spending, here is the answer:

… which is remarkable because while spending is absolutely exploding, revenues have also managed to bounce back, largely thanks to capital gains taxes on the surging stock market.

Yet looking at the dire big picture, it is unfortunately all downhill from here for one simple reason: we have now crossed the Minsky Moment in terms of how much the US spends on interest on its debt, which as regular readers know is hitting a new record high every day – it just closed above $35.3 trillion – and is growing by about $1 trillion every 100 days. That means that with interest rates at 40 year highs, the prediction we made last July, has finally come true because according to today’s Budget statement, the amount spent on gross interest in August was $92.3 billion…

… which means that the cumulative total for Fiscal 2024 – where there is one more month to go until the end of the fiscal year (which ends Sept 30) – just hit an all time high of $1.049 trillion, the first time in history when interest on US debt has surpassed $1 trillion.

And what’s worse, this number is not even annualized (as explained, it’s just for 11 months of the year): annualized, US debt comes out to $1.158 trillion, or $1.2 trillion rounded up as the Treasury Department itself admits…

… and the stunning punchline is that as of today, gross interest on US debt has surpassed not just Defense spending, but also Income Security, Health, Veterans Benefits and Medicare, and is now the second biggest outlay of the US government, second only to Social Security, which is roughly $1.5 trillion annualized.

But wait, there’s more: the latest numbers confirm that we are well on our way to hitting our other forecast from April 1, of the US hitting an insane $1.6 trillion in interest expense by the year-end…

Why oh why are yields surging? Oh yes…

US Interest To Hit $1.6 Trillion By Year End, Making It The Largest US Government Outlayhttps://t.co/pGdjRlhuPX

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 1, 2024

… which mean interest expense will soon surpass Social Security spending and become the single largest outlay of the US government, some time in late 2024 or early 2025 at the earliest.

In other words, game over.

Which begs the question: why would Trump even want to be in charge when the house of cards finally comes crashing down. Let Kamala have it…

Authored by Ryan Silverstein via RealClearPolitics,

This summer saw a slew of court cases over the issue of ballot access. Now the litigation is threatening to undermine voters’ confidence in this fall’s election.

The ability to reflect on and elect our own leaders is the core of our democracy. Democrats should have been thrilled to see third-party candidates like Jill Stein and Cornel West stepping up to provide voters with an alternative choice to the two-party monopoly.

They were not.

The Democratic Party has filed multiple lawsuits in key swing states to restrict third parties’ ballot access. This lawfare will undermine voter confidence in the 2024 election by limiting voters’ ability to exercise choice.

Jill Stein, the Green party nominee, launched her White House campaign in November of 2023. Since then, Democrats have filed multiple lawsuits across the country to keep her off the ballot in swing states such as Wisconsin and Georgia. She survived the challenge in Wisconsin after Democrats claimed that the Green Party’s candidates should be barred from the ballot because the party lacked officeholders to nominate them. Unfortunately for Stein, Democrats’ efforts have been successful in Georgia after the court held that the Georgia Green Party cannot prove they will have ballot access in twenty states by Georgia’s ballot printing deadline – mainly because the documentation used to prove ballot access is not provided to the Green Party until after the deadline. According to her website, Jill Stein or the Green Party have ballot access in thirty states.

Cornel West has faced similar technical challenges to his ballot access. Just last weekend it was confirmed that he survived a challenge to his ballot appearance in Michigan after Democrats argued technical errors with signatures and his affidavit of identity precluded his inclusion. West has fared worse in other swing states. A Pennsylvania judge sided with the Democratic secretary of the commonwealth to bar West from the ballot on a technicality. In Georgia, an administrative law judge sided with the Georgia Democratic Party and barred him from access to the ballot on a technicality despite finding his petitions met Georgia’s minimum signature threshold.

These actions by the Democratic Party are self-serving. In Michigan, a recent poll shows Trump leading Harris by 1 point, with Jill Stein and Cornel West each earning 1% in the state. The CBS estimates tracker shows similar results in Wisconsin, where Harris is barely edging Trump and with third-party candidate Jill Stein sitting at 1%. Finally, a recent poll conducted by Cook Political Report composed of voters in the swing states of Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Nevada shows Harris with a meager 3-pont lead over Trump, with third-party candidates garnering 10% of the vote. Democrats must prevent third parties from appearing on the ballot so they can bolster Kamala Harris’ fledgling campaign.

This use of lawfare to limit voters’ choice is a far cry from the democracy messaging Democrats have been utilizing. On the contrary – it is the exact opposite of what democracy looks like. A robust democracy is one where multiple parties compete for votes in free and fair elections. Democrats are attempting to limit free elections by using lawfare to bar from the ballot candidates who inconvenience their grasp on power. In effect, this use of lawfare subverts our democracy. Consequently, this tactic will undermine voters’ faith in our election system and republic.

Voters are already wary of the U.S. electoral system. A recent poll found that 40% of Republicans and 26% of independents are not confident that their votes will be accurately counted. Moreover, a separate poll found over 50% of voters are concerned that ballots are not counted accurately and that mail-in ballots or drop boxes are illegally used or misused.

Democrats must cease the lawfare and enable all candidates who meet the thresholds for ballot access to appear on the ballot. The continued use of lawfare to restrict voter choice will exasperate voters’ wavering faith in the electoral process.

Ryan Silverstein is a J.D. candidate at Villanova University and a fellow with Villanova’s McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy. His work has previously appeared in the New York Daily News, Post & Courier, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

A California car rental company was found to be at the center of a nationwide crime-tourism spree, authorities in Los Angeles revealed this week. 

U.S. Attorney Martin Estrada said during a news conference in on Wednesday: “Those thinking they can come to our country, take advantage of our liberties and steal from the American people should think again.”

Estrada claimed that two operators of Driver Power Rentals, a Los Angeles car rental company, brought in South American criminals to steal millions in cash and property from businesses and homes in Southern California and nationwide, according to KFOX TV.

“There will be serious consequences for those people and we will collaborate with our local partners in creative ways to make sure we’re holding you accountable,” Estrada added.

“These defendants facilitated and directed crime tourists who committed hundreds of robberies across the country – in essence, they acted as quarterbacks for a team of thieves. We will continue to work with our local partners to hold accountable those who would come to our country and take advantage of our liberties to steal from the American people.”

The KFOX report writes that Juan Carlos Thola-Duran and his girlfriend, Ana Maria Arriagada, allegedly rented vehicles to criminals they directed to commit hundreds of crimes nationwide, including burglaries, thefts, and money laundering, according to a 46-count indictment.

The thefts spanned 80 cities and involved 120 cases, with the pair earning $5.5 million.

Most of the criminals were from Chile, taking advantage of a visa waiver program. The defendants also allegedly used stolen money to buy real estate and horses and fraudulently obtained $275,000 in COVID-19 relief loans.

Each defendant now faces a maximum of 30 years behind bars. 

Ventura County Sheriff James Fryhoff concluded: “Since 2019, we have arrested over 130 suspects responsible for perpetrating these crimes, with the vast majority using cars supplied by Driver Power Rentals.”