64.6 F
Chicago
Thursday, July 23, 2026
type here...
Home Blog Page 28

Rubio Pledges To Dismantle International Criminal Court’s Threat To US Sovereignty

survivalnomics
-
0
Rubio Pledges To Dismantle International Criminal Court’s Threat To US Sovereignty

Authored by Victoria Friedman via The Epoch Times,

The State Department is launching a campaign to “dismantle the threat posed by the International Criminal Court to U.S. sovereignty,” the department said, including through disabling the court’s ability to target American servicemen or officials.

The State Department said in a July 13 statement that actions under consideration include U.S. officials contacting foreign nations to highlight the ICC’s abuses and the risk posed to other countries by the court, and urging them to withdraw from the body.

The Trump administration is also considering revoking visas and imposing travel bans on ICC personnel, imposing increased sanctions against the ICC and its affiliates, and increasing pressure on nations that refuse to reject ICC rulings while still relying on U.S. assistance.

“No diplomatic option will be off-limits in the campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the ICC to Americans,” the department said.

The ICC was established in 2002 to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, asserting its jurisdiction if a member of the ICC is unable or unwilling to undertake prosecutions itself.

The United States has never been a member of the ICC; however, the court’s statutes give it the power to prosecute crimes committed in a member state by nationals of non-member states, including Americans.

“The ICC poses an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty – it claims the authority to prosecute and even imprison American servicemen and officials operating on behalf of America’s national interest,” the State Department said.

“Americans never signed up for this, and all American presidents since the ICC’s ratification have maintained that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Americans.”

The ICC’s spokesperson, Oriane Maillet, said the court would not comment on the matter at this stage.

President Donald Trump’s opposition to the court goes back to his first term in office. He and other officials in Washington have long said the ICC should not have the authority to investigate and prosecute U.S. citizens, particularly members of the military.

In March 2020, ICC prosecutors opened an ​investigation in Afghanistan that included looking into possible crimes by U.S. military personnel. However, since 2021, it has deprioritized the United States’ role, focusing ⁠on alleged crimes committed by Taliban forces and the Afghan government.

‘Waging a War Against Our Country’

“As we speak, the ICC and its friends are waging a war against our country, not with bullets or missiles, but with statutes and compacts and the force of so-called international law,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a video message posted on July 13.

Rubio said that when the ICC was established, it said it was limited to dealing with the most serious of offenses.

“But the truth is, it was something far more radical and extreme. It was a global tribunal staffed by unelected globalist bureaucrats who claim their power is almost unlimited,” he said.

Rubio said that the court’s power has only continued to grow, and that the United States should not stand idle and let judges living thousands of miles away make determinations well beyond their jurisdiction.

“The American people never agreed to any of this, and they never will,” Rubio said.

“Read the words of our Declaration of Independence. We fought a revolution against a foreign power, transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses. Independence is our birthright. We will never let foreign bureaucrats take that away from us.”

In December 2025, Rubio sanctioned two ICC judges after accusing them of being engaged in the “illegitimate targeting” of Israel. Rubio said at the time that neither the United States nor Israel is a party to the Rome Statute, the international treaty that established the ICC, and therefore rejected the court’s jurisdiction.

“The ICC has continued to engage in politicized actions targeting Israel, which set a dangerous precedent for all nations. We will not tolerate ICC abuses of power that violate the sovereignty of the United States and Israel and wrongly subject U.S. and Israeli persons to the ICC’s jurisdiction,” Rubio said in the Dec. 18 statement.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/14/2026 – 17:00

New York Becomes First State To Enact One Year Ban On New Data Centers

survivalnomics
-
0
New York Becomes First State To Enact One Year Ban On New Data Centers

The blowback against data centers escalated this morning, when New York became first state in the nation to enact a moratorium on data centers, pausing construction on new facilities for one year.

An executive order by Gov. Kathy Hochul bans state lawmakers from approving environmental permits for hyperscale data centers. Hochul said Tuesday the pause will give lawmakers time to create a framework to protect residents and the environment. 

“Massive data centers are being built across our state and our country. The scale and speed of this development has put unprecedented demand on energy and water resources, and threatens to drive up utility costs. Before it goes any further, I need safeguards in place to protect New Yorkers,” Hochul said in a social media post. 

AI data centers, which contain thousands of servers and typically use 50 or more megawatts of power to operate, have been blamed for everything from noise pollution to sending regional electricity prices soaring. They also require a steady supply of water to keep cool. 

Hochul said the state still welcomes AI investments and businesses, and looks forward to helping them grow and thrive. 

“But when you benefit from the talent and energy of New York, we expect you to protect our resources and give back to our communities,” Hochul said. 

The order comes as the state is experiencing unprecedented growth in the demand for data center development driven by AI and other computing operations, according to the governor’s office. The data centers require “millions of gallons of water, draining the local supply.” 

“The bottom line is progress shouldn’t arrive with a higher utility bill, depleted water supplies, or noise pollution. So we have no choice but to address these challenges created by these massive facilities,” Hochul said. 

Hochul said New York will require data centers to either produce their own energy or pay a premium for accessing New York’s grid. Hochul also said she opposes any tax subsidies for AI data centers as well. 

The Department of Public Service will create the guidelines for centers to ensure new facilities meet consistent standards. 

Hochul said the process will take up to a year, prompting the moratorium. Once state officials finalize the standards, the ban will be lifted. 

Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand applauded the move: “This one-year moratorium is fundamentally about trust. Right now, New Yorkers aren’t convinced these massive facilities benefit them. Before we move forward, our communities need ironclad guarantees that their energy bills won’t spike, their water will be protected, and their air will remain clean,” Gillibrand said.   

Gillibrand described the need for federal action regarding AI as well: “That requires establishing clear, reliable rules of the road. We must build a framework that protects our kids from harmful algorithms and social media tools; shields seniors and consumers from AI-driven scams and fraud; and safeguards American jobs and livelihoods from displacement.”
“It kills good-paying union jobs”

Not everyone is pleased with the moratorium. 

“A shortsighted moratorium only accomplishes one thing: it kills good-paying union jobs. Rather than implementing guardrails to build the future of American ingenuity, Governor Hochul is taking her ball and going home. We urge the governor to work with all parties, including the hardworking New Yorkers whose jobs are at stake, to implement common sense guardrails,” United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters general president Mark McManus said. 

The  Associated General Contractors of New York State also objected to the moratorium, calling it “the wrong policy for New York.” 

“Halting permits for as much as a year in this fast-moving sector will not simply delay projects—it will send them permanently to Virginia, Texas, Georgia and other states actively competing for these investments and the construction and other jobs that come with them. Once a developer breaks ground somewhere else, that project—and the opportunities and tax revenue that come with it—are not coming back,” AGS NYS president and CEO Mike Elmendorf said. “Data center construction is the strongest-performing segment in an otherwise uncertain construction market nationwide, and New York’s construction industry—which still has not recovered to pre-pandemic employment levels—cannot afford to forfeit it.”

Elmendorf called the moratorium a “de facto ban that tells the marketplace New York is closed for business.”

Meanwhile, PA senator John Fetterman, snubbed the NY decision by simply stating “China wins.”

A grassroots pushback against data centers has been spreading across the nation in the past year and most recently culminated in the so-called Silion Alley in Virginia – which has the highest concentration of data centers in the US – and where we reported a week ago that giant data center landlord Blackstone is walking away from plans to build its portion (which at this point is the only portion left after its partner already pulled out days earlier) of a 2,100-acre data center campus in Virginia – also known as Prince William Digital Gateway which would house as many as 37 data-center buildings – handing a win to residents who fought for years to topple the project. 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/14/2026 – 16:40

Offload Risks Onto The Bottom 90% And Immiseration Follows

survivalnomics
-
0
Offload Risks Onto The Bottom 90% And Immiseration Follows

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The underlying story of the past 50 years has been the offloading of risk onto workers and consumers.

On my map of how the world works, we start with structures of control that distribute the good stuff–resources, assets, income and power–and the bad stuff: costs, losses and risks. As I explained in The US Economy In a Nutshell: Privatize the Gains, Socialize the Costs, the current arrangement distributes the gains to the top 10% and the costs and risks to the bottom 90% via privatizing the gains and socializing–i.e. dumping them onto the biosphere and the public–the costs and losses.

This follows a power-law distribution: the few at the top reap most of the gains, and the leftovers, scraps and crumbs are distributed in descending order, with most of what’s left going to the top 9.5% and a diminishing dribble is scattered over the lower 90%, so that by the time we get to the bottom half of households, 170 million people own a grand total of 2.5% of the nation’s financial assets, while the top 0.1% own 16.6%–6.6X the bottom 50%.

A key mechanism in this wildly asymmetric distribution of gains and costs is the system favors capital over wages. As the charts below illustrate, the financial gains go to the owners of capital, and since ownership of capital is highly concentrated, these few owners siphon up the vast majority of the gains.

One way to understand how the current arrangement favors capital over wages is to reverse the tax liabilities of capital and wages. Employers and employees pay 15.3% of every dollar of wages in Social Security / Medicare taxes, plus income taxes that quickly rise to 22%, for a total tax rate of 37.3% on wages. (Note self-employed people like myself pay the full 15.3% ourselves, as we’re both employer and employee.)

Capital gains are taxed at 20%, but only when the asset is sold, so the wealthy borrow against their unrealized gains and live off this borrowed money to avoid selling and having to pay tax on capital gains. And since the system depends on debt to survive, the interest on debt is deductible, giving the wealthy borrowers a tax deduction for avoiding capital gains.

Now imagine all capital gains, realized or unrealized, were taxed at 37% and the first $80,000 of wages were tax-free. The median wage is around $80,000, hence my picking that number. As for the hue and cry about unrealized capital gains being taxed, that’s easily addressed: unrealized gains in primary-residence owner-occupied homes and retirement accounts would be exempted. Every other gain made playing in the casino would be taxed.

Reversing the asymmetry of tax liabilities would dramatically alter the distribution of gains and costs. Wages have lost ground for 50+ years, and the favoring of capital is a key driver of this decline in the share of the economy that’s distributed to wage earners.

Half the nation’s households–170 million people own a grand total of 2.5% of the nation’s financial assets:

The winner-take-most arrangement favoring capital:

Another key driver is the offloading of risk from owners to consumers and workers, a perverse process that has been obscured by incremental degradation. Risk is a strange phenomenon that defies easy definition. Risk isn’t a direct loss or cost; it’s the probability of losses and costs arising in what appears on the surface to be a stable arrangement.

Consider the stunning decline in the quality of durable goods such as appliances, and global industry adopting a laughably valueless one-year warranty across the board. Appliances that routinely lasted 30 years before “Progress” took the reins now routinely fail in 3+ years.

In the good old days before “Progress” took the reins, manufacturers absorbed the risk of premature failure of the goods they produced. Now this risk has been offloaded onto consumers, who are now forced to buy “extended warranties” as the only means of mitigating the risk they now carry of premature failure.

This is in effect a form of extortion: “nice refrigerator you got there, too bad it’s at risk of breaking.” Well, if current manufacturers had the same standards as previous generations, we wouldn’t need “extended warranties.” Welcome to the Mafia Economy: low quality goods and services force “upgrades,” i.e. extortion.

Consider the offloading of risk onto workers. Employment other than casual labor once included healthcare insurance and other basic benefits. In the “gig economy” of contract employment and gigs, the worker is now responsible for paying their Social Security / Medicare taxes, healthcare insurance and retirement contributions.

The decline of hourly wages is another offloading of risk onto the worker. The percentage of workers paid by the hour has declined in favor of salaried positions with open-ended demands on workers: where hourly workers get paid for hours on the job, salaried workers are now on the hook for work beyond a conventional 8-hour work shift.

Then there’s the immense mass of risk and labor that’s been offloaded onto consumers and workers as shadow work, often the result of having to fix failures in goods and services that were once the responsibility of the provider or employer and have been dumped on consumers and workers. This is a topic I’ve often addressed.

This Is Why You’re Drowning in Busywork: We have been told that A.I. will take people’s jobs. What no one mentions is that many of those jobs are landing on us. The A.I. revolution involves a huge transfer of labor– not from worker to machine but from worker to consumer. (nytimes.com, paywalled)

Another source of risk is the dependence on debt to fund the lifestyles we deserve: as the purchasing power of wages has declined, the easy “solution” is to fill the gap between what earnings can buy and what we want / need / expect / deserve with borrowed money.

As we all know, debt comes with risk, as falling behind greases the slide to default, bankruptcy and ruin. 27% interest rates on credit cards steepen the slide into a cliff: one missed payment can trigger a cascade of events that cannot be reversed. This is why I often observe that fewer bad things can happen if you have no debt.

Last but far from least, is the current arrangement’s dependence on serial credit-asset bubbles as the sole driver of “growth”, a dependence that has led to a casino economy in which wage earners lose ground and in desperation turn to gambling as their last-ditch hope of gaining ground.

But despite 24/7 assurances that “this isn’t a bubble,” all bubbles pop with devastating consequences for those who believed the assurances of those operating the casino.

The underlying story of the past 50 years has been the offloading of risk onto workers and consumers, with the inevitable consequences being higher costs and losses leading to impoverishment and immiseration. We’re frogs in water that’s getting measurably hotter, and it’s getting harder to muster the means to jump out of the simmering pot.

*  *  *

My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free). Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/14/2026 – 16:20

Venezuela’s Oil Revival Faces A Critical Services Bottleneck

survivalnomics
-
0
Venezuela’s Oil Revival Faces A Critical Services Bottleneck

Authored by Rystad Energy via OilPrice.com,

  • Venezuela could increase crude production by about 194,000 bpd by late 2028, with most growth coming from existing producing fields rather than new discoveries.

  • International oil companies led by Chevron are expected to deliver nearly two-thirds of the forecast production increase through brownfield investments.

  • The biggest obstacles are operational, including drilling rigs, diluent supplies, infrastructure upgrades, and a competitive fiscal regime capable of attracting long-term investment.

Venezuela’s upstream industry has entered a new phase. Following sweeping hydrocarbon reforms and broader geopolitical developments in early 2026, the conversation has shifted from whether the country can reopen its oil sector to whether it can successfully execute a meaningful production recovery. The country’s resource potential has never been in doubt. The greater challenge now lies in converting policy momentum into sustained operational growth.

Rystad Energy estimates Venezuela’s crude production could increase by approximately 17%, or around 194,000 barrels per day (bpd), between the fourth quarter of 2025 and the fourth quarter of 2028. Importantly, this growth is expected to come primarily from existing producing assets rather than large-scale new discoveries, highlighting that operational execution, not resource availability, will determine the pace of recovery.

Near-term production growth will be dominated by heavier crude grades. Around three-quarters of Venezuela’s output through 2028 is expected to come from heavy, extra-heavy crude and bitumen, with the Orinoco Oil Belt accounting for roughly 60% of total production. This makes access to diluents, workover activity, infill drilling, and mature field management considerably more important than reserve additions over the next several years.

Venezuela upstream figure 1

International operators are driving the recovery

International oil companies (IOCs) are expected to contribute nearly two-thirds of Venezuela’s forecast production increase through 2028. Chevron remains the largest contributor, followed by Repsol, Eni, Maha Energy and Maurel & Prom. Most of this growth is expected to come from expanding production at existing joint ventures, reflecting renewed investment following regulatory changes and sanctions relief rather than greenfield developments.

Chevron continues to occupy a particularly strategic position. Recent portfolio adjustments have strengthened its exposure to the Orinoco Oil Belt, while future production growth is expected to rely on brownfield optimization, infill drilling and the phased development of Ayacucho 8. Beyond Chevron, companies such as Eni and Repsol continue to play a dual role in both Venezuela’s crude and natural gas sectors through assets including the Cardón IV block and the giant Perla gas field.

However, international participation remains highly selective. Companies continue to balance the opportunity presented by Venezuela’s vast resource base against fiscal uncertainty, operational complexity and long-term investment risk.

Execution, not geology, remains the key constraint

While policy reforms have improved the investment outlook, they do not eliminate the operational bottlenecks that have constrained production for years.

Sustained production growth will require continuous access to diluents, higher drilling activity, extensive workover campaigns, improved infrastructure and significantly greater rig availability. These operational requirements represent the critical link between resource potential and realized production.

Fiscal competitiveness also remains an important consideration. International operators have indicated that future capital commitments will depend on further improvements to Venezuela’s fiscal framework, particularly around royalty rates and taxation. Lower project breakeven costs through more competitive fiscal terms could materially improve investment economics and encourage broader participation across the sector.

Oilfield services could become the industry’s defining bottleneck

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing Venezuela’s recovery lies beyond the upstream operators themselves. The Venezuelan Oil Ministry has identified a requirement for 93 active drilling rigs by 2028, a significant increase from current activity levels. Achieving this target would require a phased expansion involving reactivating domestic rigs, refurbishing idle equipment, and eventually importing additional rigs from international markets.

This creates substantial opportunities for drilling contractors and oilfield service providers but also highlights the scale of the execution challenge. Companies must balance equipment mobilization costs, contract duration requirements, and country risk before committing capital.

Local contractors have begun reactivating existing fleets, while international service providers remain more cautious, waiting for greater evidence that recent policy reforms will translate into a stable, commercially attractive operating environment. As a result, rebuilding operational capacity may ultimately prove just as important as attracting upstream investment.

Venezuela upstream figure 2

The next phase depends on implementation

The 2026 Hydrocarbons Law represents one of the most significant structural reforms to Venezuela’s upstream sector in decades. By expanding opportunities for private participation and introducing greater fiscal flexibility, the legislation has created a more attractive framework for future investment.

Yet legislation alone cannot restore production. The speed of implementation, the stability of fiscal policy, continued sanctions relief, and the industry’s ability to rebuild operational capacity will ultimately determine whether Venezuela can translate ambition into sustained output growth.

For investors and operators alike, the opportunity is considerable. But the country’s upstream revival will depend less on the size of its resource base than on its ability to consistently execute across drilling, infrastructure, services, and investment policy. That execution gap, not geology, is likely to define Venezuela’s production trajectory over the remainder of the decade.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/14/2026 – 15:45

Lucid Crashes On Report It’s Weighing A Take-Private Or Bankruptcy

survivalnomics
-
0
Lucid Crashes On Report It’s Weighing A Take-Private Or Bankruptcy

Shares of struggling EV maker Lucid plunged as much as 49% after auto-industry news website Electric-Vehicles.com reported that the company is working with restructuring adviser AlixPartners to evaluate strategic options, including a potential take-private transaction or a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.

Lucid EV

Here’s more from the report:

According to the sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the review is strictly confidential, AlixPartners is urging the board to run one more round of restructuring in the United States and Europe, and to narrow the company’s focus onto its Gravity SUV.

. . .

One person close to the matter told EV that the two starker questions, whether Lucid should be taken private or seek Chapter 11 protection, are among the scenarios the adviser has been asked to weigh.

Neither, the person stressed, is a decision the board has taken.

Shares were halved in late afternoon trading in New York… Multiple trading halts seen. 

How long until Lucid denies the report?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/14/2026 – 13:55

Whose-muz?

survivalnomics
-
0
Whose-muz?

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Whose-muz?

Oil leaped 9%, the largest move since 2020. Today, it’s up another 2.5% to $85 at time of writing. It’s a good job we also have the Cleveland Fed’s trimmed-mean inflation measure out as well, right? Obviously, oil was driven by developments in Hormuz – or rather Whose-muz? There, besides reimposing the naval blockade of Iran, President Trump stated those using the waterway will now pay 20% of the value of cargo as compensation to the US, the strait’s new guardian. While the proposed Iranian toll the US rejected was $2m per tanker, or $1 per barrel of oil and $22 per tonne of LNG, Bloomberg estimates Trump fees at $30m per supertanker, the equivalent of $8 on oil and $177 on LNG. Naturally, the UN shipping agency is opposed to any fees for any strait and wants details on that Trump tariff – as if that will stop it.

More bluntly, Iran responded with missile attacks on tankers, with two from the UAE hit, as well as more strikes against the GCC and US military bases, the latter so far avoiding both energy and critical infrastructure. As we noted in ‘Comfortably Bomb’ yesterday, Iran can’t destroy such facilities and build bridges to the GCC if it sees itself defeating the US and gaining regional leadership. By contrast, the US is again in ‘take it down’ mode: Trump is reportedly weighing taking out Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain nuclear site, requiring a phenomenal explosion to neutralise.

Keeping out of the fight so far is Israel: the 2026 headline there from the New York Times is Mossad trying to recruit former Iranian President Ahmadinejad as an agent, and potential front man, in a failed plan for regime change. However, the Yemeni government, OK’d by the Saudis after Trump approval, bombed a runway in Houthi-occupied Sanaa to try to prevent an Iranian plane landing; now the Houthis are firing at the Saudis again for the first time in years, potentially endangering vital east-west oil flows via Yanbu on the Red Sea.

The realpolitik take is more evidence of a new (old) Mahan world disorder where countries use force to impose or restrict maritime trade flows: first Iran, now the US; the devastating Ukrainian attacks on Russian ships in the Sea of Azov is another concurrent example; and note the Hong Kong press asks, ‘Will Manila and Hanoi’s maritime deal challenge Beijing in the South China Sea?’

It’s also the US underlining that it’s fighting for a region, and world economy, that benefits from an open Hormuz but will no longer do it for free. Indeed, there’s a US message to the GCC and NATO/Europe/US allies – help us win this fight rather than saying ‘Not our war’ again. Don’t be surprised if anyone who aids the US now gets the 20% tariff lifted – which still implies it will have to be imposed on others to create that incentive.

If you think that’s cynical, in some see this as the US keeping Hormuz closed so it benefits as an LNG exporter. Indeed, as Dubai plans a new east-coast port for oil, LNG giant Qatar looks badly placed, Doha now looking at a project with the US (which likely won’t pay a penny?) for an Iraq-Syria pipeline. Even outside energy, the Asian press note the US has emerged as the helium winner amid the Iran war and China’s restrictions on exports of that key gas needed for chipmaking, with Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea turning to America for flows.

Which model?

Obviously not recalling all the reports on how Germany was artificially competitive within the Eurozone because of the low FX rate it was allowed to join at, Chancellor Merz just called for a dialogue with China on its monetary and FX policy, saying that the EU could not win, no matter how innovative or good the bloc may be, against a competitor that artificially manipulates its currency. He argued that CNY is 20-30% undervalued and needs to be allowed to float more freely so that it can appreciate to a fairer level. In this, listening to Europe in 2026 is like listening to the US in 2016.

To be clear, there is no world in which China will allow, or Europe is in any way able to impose, a new Plaza Accord on China: it is not going to happen. End of discussion. China could decide it wants to see CNY appreciate for its own reasons, such as to shift towards consumption as a growth driver, which is different. However, that’s a strategic theme echoed for decades by (mostly Western) economists, who are constantly surprised when it doesn’t happen and China’s trade surplus grows, and ever higher up the value-added ladder.

Yet the surging Chinese trade surplus with the EU, which is now larger than with the US and is close to doubling since 2020, must be addressed by October (by magic; or Chinese pledges of purchases of EU soybeans; or of Airbus aircraft when Beijing is also winking at Boeing?) or Europe says it will be forced to follow the US high tariff path after many years of patronising eyerolling at how disruptive such atavistic tactics are. China trade data today saw its imports up 36% y-o-y vs. 26.1% expected and exports up 27% vs. 19%: we will have to wait for the breakdown of the EU numbers, but they are unlikely to show what Brussels wants to see.

The larger point here is one repeatedly underlined in this Daily for many years: the problem is not one of FX levels, per se. Rather, it is of economic statecraft (a neomercantilist model) vs. neoclassical/neoliberal economic policy (a ‘free trade’ Merkelcantilist model), between which there is only one realpolitik winner: the former. If you dispute that fact, look at any pertinent production data, especially on the military side, or ask yourself which of the two is better placed to ride out an energy crisis. The logical trajectory on that basis is therefore to either assume the macroeconomic and market dynamic wherein:

  • (i) the latter model adapts to the former by mirroring it, as we specifically projected in the case of the US vis-à-vis China in 2017 – and here we are in 2026; or
  • (ii) the latter model doesn’t change, so continues to see ever-wider trade deficits, deindustrialisation, political polarisation, lack of strategic autonomy, and “slow agony,” as Draghi put it. And that’s before we get the fast-forward pain of who controls Hormuz.

Anyway, while we wait for Warsh’s take on the above, the Fed’s Waller has just warned of sticky inflation suggesting more rate hikes might be needed, as has the RBNZ’s Conway. Yet that all depends in large part on who wins the current battle in the Middle East, and how quickly – which is a reflection of the effectiveness of a given political-economy model.

Whocouldanooed?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/14/2026 – 13:45

China’s Helium Export Ban Raises New Risks For Global Supply Chains

survivalnomics
-
0
China’s Helium Export Ban Raises New Risks For Global Supply Chains

Authored by Michael Zhuang via The Epoch Times,

China has imposed a temporary ban on helium exports, adding fresh uncertainty to global supplies of a gas essential to semiconductor manufacturing, aerospace, medical equipment, and other high-tech industries.

The first pilot helium production facility in Europe, located in Saint-Parize-le-Châtel, France, on Sept. 11, 2024. FREDERIC MOREAU/Hans Lucas via AFP/Getty Images

The July 10 announcement by China’s Ministry of Commerce and General Administration of Customs comes as Beijing faces mounting pressure on its own helium supplies following disruptions to imports from Qatar and Russia.

Analysts who spoke to The Epoch Times say the move appears primarily aimed at safeguarding China’s domestic supply rather than directly targeting the United States. However, since Chinese companies have increasingly served as intermediaries for Russian helium exports, the restriction could further disrupt global supply chains, particularly in Europe.

Beijing Announces Temporary Export Ban

The Chinese regime said the export restriction was imposed under the country’s Foreign Trade Law. It took effect immediately. The regime did not specify how long the temporary measure would remain in place.

Helium is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic inert gas extracted as a byproduct of natural gas processing. Since it cannot be manufactured or replenished, it is considered a strategic resource.

The gas plays a critical role in semiconductor production, where it is used for wafer cooling, plasma etching, chemical vapor deposition, atomic layer deposition, photolithography support, and leak detection. It is also widely used in medical imaging, aerospace, scientific research, and advanced manufacturing.

Despite expanding domestic production, China still relies heavily on imported helium.

According to industry data from China Fortune Securities, approximately 84 percent of China’s helium supply is dependent on foreign imports, with natural gas producers Qatar and Russia accounting together for nearly half of global helium production. The United States is the world’s largest helium producer, producing more than 40 percent of global production.

China sources roughly 46 percent of its helium imports from Qatar and about 35 percent from Russia. But these import channels have come under increasing pressure this year.

According to a report on Chinese news portal Sina, maritime routes carrying Qatari helium through the Persian Gulf were disrupted amid the Iran war. In April, Russia announced temporary export controls on helium through the end of 2027, reducing export quotas to Asia to roughly 40 percent of 2025 levels. The China Liquefied Natural Gas Association estimated that those developments have created a helium supply shortfall exceeding 60 percent for China.

Cheng Cheng-ping, a professor of finance at Taiwan’s National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, told The Epoch Times that Beijing’s decision appears to be driven largely by domestic supply concerns rather than geopolitical retaliation.

“The timing suggests this is primarily an act of self-preservation,” he said. “It is different from previous export controls on rare earths, which were more directly aimed at the United States.”

Beijing has been working to expand China’s domestic semiconductor industry while reducing reliance on advanced chips restricted by U.S. export controls.

“China is engaged in intense competition with the United States in high-end industries but remains behind technologically,” Cheng said. “Restricting exports allows it to retain more resources to support its own advanced manufacturing.”

Shen Ming-shih, a research fellow at Taiwan’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research, told The Epoch Times that several factors likely influenced the decision, but domestic industrial demand appears to be the primary consideration.

“The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can still import helium from Russia for now,” Shen said. “But if Russian supplies tighten further through 2027 while imports from other sources remain constrained, China’s own helium resources will become increasingly scarce.”

China’s Role as a Russian Helium Middleman

While the export restrictions may help preserve domestic supplies, they could also tighten international markets because Chinese companies have become important intermediaries in the global helium trade.

According to a June report by U.K.-based industry intelligence firm Gasworld, Western sanctions have largely prevented Russia from exporting helium directly to Europe. Instead, Chinese companies have been importing Russian helium at relatively low prices – often in volumes exceeding China’s own domestic consumption – and re-exporting part of those shipments to overseas markets, including Europe.

Russian helium exports to China averaged 38 million cubic feet per month in 2025, a 60 percent increase from the previous year, according to the report. Shipments reached 71 million cubic feet in December alone.

China’s export ban could further tighten global helium supplies because of the country’s growing role as a redistribution hub for Russian helium.

Cheng said the United States is unlikely to be significantly affected because of its own supplies.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the United States accounted for 44 percent of global helium production in 2024, followed by Qatar at 34 percent, Russia at 9 percent, and Algeria at 6 percent.

“The impact will be much greater for Europe and other countries that previously relied on Russian or Qatari helium but increasingly obtained those supplies through China,” Cheng said.

With Russian exports constrained by sanctions and Middle Eastern supplies facing periodic disruptions, China has gained considerable leverage as an intermediary, he said.

“By restricting exports now, China is increasing risks across the global supply chain,” Cheng said.

He added that Beijing has previously leveraged its position in global supply chains to exert pressure on agricultural imports from Australia, Brazil, and Taiwan.

“Now, helium has become another example,” Cheng said. “China is only an intermediary, but it is using that position as a tool to influence markets and supply chains. Companies trading with authoritarian regimes need to factor these risks into their supply-chain planning.”

Shen said the ultimate impact of the export restrictions will depend on how heavily individual countries rely on Chinese helium exports and whether they can secure alternative suppliers.

European countries may experience greater short-term disruptions, he said, but the move could also encourage importers to diversify their sources and reduce dependence on China.

Tang Bing, Luo Ya, and Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/14/2026 – 13:05

Just 27.6% Of Stocks Outperform The Market While 60% Destroy Shareholder Wealth, New Study Finds

survivalnomics
-
0
Just 27.6% Of Stocks Outperform The Market While 60% Destroy Shareholder Wealth, New Study Finds

From 1926 through 2025, just 27.6% of stocks beat the broader market. Nearly 60% actually destroyed shareholder wealth, and the median stock delivered a lifetime return of -6.9%. Yet despite those sobering odds, U.S. stocks collectively created roughly $91 trillion in wealth over the last century, with just 46 companies responsible for half of it.

Those are some of the headline findings from a new study by Hendrik Bessembinder of Arizona State University’s W.P. Carey School of Business, who examined the performance of nearly 30,000 U.S. stocks over the last century. The research paints a striking picture of how wealth is actually created in the stock market: while broad market indexes have generated exceptional long-term returns, the vast majority of individual stocks have failed to keep pace.

Bessembinder analyzed 29,754 publicly traded U.S. stocks between 1926 and 2025. Over that period, the overall stock market produced an annualized return of about 10.1%, turning every dollar invested into more than $15,000, according to the study, detailed in this white paper. 

But those impressive aggregate returns mask an uncomfortable reality. The typical stock fared far worse. In fact, the median stock lost 6.9% over its lifetime, fewer than half of all stocks generated a positive lifetime return, only about 41% outperformed Treasury bills during the time they were publicly traded, and just 27.6% managed to outperform the market itself.

The reason is simple: stock market returns are incredibly uneven. While any stock can fall to zero, there is effectively no limit to how much a winner can rise. Over long periods, a tiny number of extraordinary companies generate gains so large that they more than offset the thousands of stocks that stagnate, disappoint, or disappear altogether. Those rare winners account for an outsized share of the market’s overall success.

Perhaps the most surprising finding is that this concentration has become even more extreme. In Bessembinder’s original research covering 1926 through 2016, 89 companies accounted for half of all shareholder wealth created by the U.S. stock market. After adding the last nine years of data, total wealth creation more than doubled to roughly $91 trillion, yet the number of companies responsible for half of it fell to just 46.

At the top of the list are many of today’s biggest technology names. Apple ranks first, generating more than $5 trillion in shareholder wealth, followed by Nvidia, Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon. Collectively, those five companies account for more than one-fifth of all net wealth created by the U.S. stock market over the past century, while Apple and Nvidia alone make up more than one-tenth of the total.

The concentration becomes even more remarkable further down the data. Out of more than 29,000 companies included in the study, just 1,082, less than 4% of the total, were responsible for all of the market’s net wealth creation. Meanwhile, nearly six out of every ten companies actually reduced shareholder wealth relative to simply investing in one month Treasury bills.

The study also pushes back against the idea that market legends are built on impossible annual returns. Many of history’s greatest investments didn’t earn 50% or 100% per year. Instead, they compounded at annual rates in the low to mid teens over extraordinarily long periods. The lesson is that consistent returns sustained over decades are often far more powerful than eye popping gains that prove impossible to maintain.

For investors, the findings reinforce one of the strongest arguments for diversification. While the stock market as a whole has created enormous wealth over the past century, identifying the relatively small group of companies that ultimately drive those returns has always been exceptionally difficult. Missing just a handful of those long-term winners can dramatically reduce investment results, which helps explain why broad index funds have consistently outperformed most active stock pickers over long horizons.

Bessembinder concludes that the tendency for a small number of companies to drive most of the market’s returns is unlikely to disappear because it is a natural consequence of how returns compound over time. The bigger question, he suggests, is whether technologies like artificial intelligence will make wealth creation even more concentrated in a handful of dominant firms, or broaden the playing field enough to create the next generation of market leaders.

You can read the full white paper here.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/14/2026 – 12:45

AI Companies Absorbing Office Space At Record Pace: Report

survivalnomics
-
0
AI Companies Absorbing Office Space At Record Pace: Report

Authored by Rob Sabo via The Epoch Times,

Artificial intelligence (AI) firms are absorbing office space in primary markets such as San Francisco and New York City at a record pace, and the sector’s voracious demand for office space to build out development teams and products has begun spilling into a select subset of submarkets as well.

National AI office demand was up 85 percent in the 12 months through May and spiked 179 percent in major AI hubs, a new AI report published on July 9 by AI-powered commercial real estate platform VTS states.

AI companies represented office demand of 16.8 million square feet across 17 markets during the period, VTS senior research manager Rene Moreira noted.

However, three metro areas represented nearly two-thirds of total office demand from AI companies, with San Francisco—the global epicenter for AI talent and development—accounting for 25 percent.

Office properties in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, California, and New York accounted for 63 percent of all current AI leasing, Moreira said.

“San Francisco alone sits at 5 million square feet, nearly a third of the national total,” he said.

Unprecedented office demand from AI companies in San Francisco is powering the city’s office market to a modest recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic. In the second quarter of 2019, San Francisco’s office market hit a vacancy rate of 4.7 percent. Vacancy soared following work-from-home initiatives, however, reaching 30 percent in 2023 and topping out at 35.7 percent as recently as the second quarter of 2025, the City of San Francisco reported.

San Francisco’s office vacancy stood at 32.6 percent at the end of the first quarter of this year.

“San Francisco’s 81 active AI requirements average 62,000 square feet, 2.3 times the average tech requirement across all markets,” Moreira said.

The 45 active AI office lease searches in New York average 61,00 square feet each, while the 58 active searches in Silicon Valley average about 48,000 square feet, or 2.8 million square feet of office space.

Each submarket caters to different AI users, VTS noted. San Francisco is the headquarters of AI pioneers Anthropic (Claude) and OpenAI (ChatGPT), while Silicon Valley’s AI firms tend to be chip designers, hardware manufacturers, and infrastructure providers. New York’s AI companies are skewed toward enterprise-level AI firms, a nod to the city’s massive financial, legal, and media industries. AI firms in Washington, such as Anduril, Palantir, and Shield AI, serve the defense industry.

Expansion

As the industry continues to grow, other markets are likely to become AI epicenters themselves, VTS said. Expansion will hit primary office markets such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Austin, Texas.

Seattle has already experienced a 390 percent year-over-year spike in growth from AI-related demand, the report said, signaling that outward expansion is already underway.

“Three pressures will push demand outward: AI engineering talent is scarce, San Francisco real estate is expensive, and 25 percent of active AI demand concentrated in a single submarket will produce the crowding that pushed prior cycles outward,” VTS said.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/14/2026 – 12:25

Warren Buffett Cuts Gates Foundation From Annual Stock Giving As Epstein Scandal Shadows Over Bill Gates

survivalnomics
-
0
Warren Buffett Cuts Gates Foundation From Annual Stock Giving As Epstein Scandal Shadows Over Bill Gates

Warren Buffett excluded the Gates Foundation from his annual charitable stock gifts for the first time in two decades, as scrutiny over Bill Gates’ connections with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein continues to cast a dark shadow over Gates and the foundation.

CNBC reports that the 95-year-old chairman will donate 9 million Class B shares to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, and 1 million shares each to the Sherwood Foundation, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, and the Novo Foundation.

“My goal is to dispose of all of my Berkshire shares within about eight years,” Buffett wrote in a statement announcing the gifts.

He added, “As I explained last year, my children are unfortunately growing older. I have every hope that the three of them are able to carry out the disposal of my shares by December 31, 2034.”

Buffett’s exclusion of the Gates Foundation breaks decades of giving; the foundation has received more than $47 billion in Berkshire stock from Buffett since 2006. This follows scrutiny of the foundation’s ties to Epstein, and Buffett has recently said he has not spoken with Gates since the controversy erupted.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Gates Foundation slashed 500 jobs, or about 20% of its staff, as the organization has come under fire for Gates’ ties to Epstein. Back in February, Gates pulled out as a keynote speaker at a high-profile global AI summit in India.

The Gates Foundation CEO recently told employees during a town hall event that the Gates-Epstein relationship had deeply tarnished the nonprofit’s reputation, according to a Financial Times report.

Bill Gates with an unidentified but manifestly well-proportioned brunette number, in a photo from the Epstein files (House Oversight Committee)

However, it is not just the Gates-Epstein ties that Buffett should be concerned about.

Late last year, the Gates Foundation had to publicly sever ties with far-left philanthropic adviser Arabella Advisors, which engineered a revolutionary network of nonprofit entities, including the New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Hopewell Fund, and Windward Fund, that support the permanent protest industrial complex against President Trump.

Meanwhile, even left-wing outlets like Bloomberg are criticizing the Gates family.

How will Bill repair his image, or will he ever be able to?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/14/2026 – 09:25

1...272829...4,286Page 28 of 4,286

About Us

Popular Category

Editor Picks