By Elwin de Groot, head of macro strategy at Rabobank

Whatever…

US equity markets extended their losses yesterday as bond yields fell on the back of a decline in US regional bank shares. The S&P index lost 0.6%, the yield on 10y UST’s dropped more than 5 basis points. The market had the finger pointed at the collapse of the subprime auto lender Tricolor Holdings, underscoring the increased sensitivity of the equity market at these elevated levels. Meanwhile, the IMF said it sees “significant downside risks” to global growth following the renewed tensions between the US and China.

Bloomberg writes that Argentinians are dumping the peso, as they believe a devaluation is unavoidable. This potentially undermines the rescue package, including a $20bn swap line, put up by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Things likely got worse when, earlier this week, President Trump linked Argentinian leader Javier Milei’s success in the upcoming midterm elections to US support: “If he wins we’re staying with him, and if he doesn’t win we’re gone”, Trump said. That sounds more like a ‘whatever’ than a ‘whatever it takes’ US strategy …

French PM Lecornu can already buy himself an “I’m a survivor” t-shirt after surviving two confidence votes yesterday. Whether he survives the looming budget debate is another matter, as his fate now rests with MPs willing to back the budget. If the government sticks to its pledge not to invoke Article 49.3, a majority must actually vote for it.

Socialists leader Olivier Faure warned: “If parliament is not respected and the pension reform isn’t suspended, we would censure immediately.” Markets, meanwhile, are back at square one: the 10-year yield spread narrowed to 76bp from 86bp last week, and the CAC-40 erased October losses—though spreads remain wider than before Bayrou’s confidence vote announcement in August. MNI quoted EU officials saying the “New Fiscal Rules give Lecornu Budget leeway.” Where have we heard that before?

Macron and Lecornu have bought time, but France’s fiscal—and economic—challenges remain.

Beyond Paris, the global stage looks increasingly like an “eat or be eaten” arena where statecraft tools dominate. Wielding such tools successfully, however, is reserved for the ‘happy few,’ requiring economic heft, financial reach, strategic commodities, a strong bureaucracy, political agility, and military muscle.

That explains why small but wealthy economies like Switzerland drew the short straw: since August 7, Swiss goods face a 39% tariff—except generic drugs and Ticino-refined gold. It explains why weaker economies, especially in Africa, struggle against dumping practices due to weak frameworks and enforcement. It explains why several Asian nations agreed to lower tariffs on U.S. goods in exchange for still-high U.S. tariffs. And even the economically large but politically and militarily weaker EU faces limits. Meanwhile, if you have the commodities, you call the shots: Qatar warned yesterday it may halt business with the EU—including LNG supplies—unless Brussels revises its corporate sustainability rules, Reuters reported.

The US has demonstrated the clearest examples of applying such statecraft, as highlighted by our global strategist Michael Every. Presumably, also, because the US does hold the strongest cards (or at least thinks it holds them). This week and last, it was China’s turn to show it has such statecraft cards up its sleeve. It has introduced port fees for US ships (in response to the US port fees on Chinese built/operated ships coming into effect on 14 October) and underscored its dominance in critical raw materials, particularly rare earths, with a further tightening of its export controls regime.

Whether both players have a full grasp of their own and their opponent’s tools and power(s) remains an open question; uncertainty over that may actually be the strongest guardrail to prevent this power struggle from running completely out of control. That said, it’s even harder to see the spirit going back into the bottle. In other words, the world is changing more rapidly and profoundly than many would have imagined only a few months ago.

And the US keeps trying to drag its allies into its statecraft framework – “President Trump has instructed the ambassador and myself to tell our European allies that we would be in favour of whether you would call it a ‘Russian oil tariff’ on China or a ‘Ukrainian victory tariff’ on China,” Mr Bessent told reporters in Washington on Wednesday. “But our Ukrainian or European allies have to be willing to follow. We will respond if our European partners will join us.”

The strategy would introduce a 500 per cent levy on imports from China, with the money generated being used on weapons for Ukraine’s military. 500 is obviously Trump-style language, -and would effectively be counterproductive as it would halt most trade with tariff revenue close to nothing- but it does carry a serious undertone and the line of reasoning more fits ‘decoupling’ than ‘de-risking’.

For Europe de-coupling seems like no entry territory (unless China would truly block critical raw materials to European markets ?). It explains why Europe is often portrayed as the one being ‘squeezed’ in the middle. Whilst that remains a useful framing of the overall global picture, Europe is not standing still completely. The lack of key enabling factors such as military strength and political agility (read: unity) are visibly slowing things down, however.

For example, the EU has been slow with the implementation of its Competitiveness Compass agenda (a descendant from the 20204 Draghi and Letta reports); The ‘Draghi Observatory’ concluded in September that out of 383 recommendations, only 11.2% have been fully delivered.

That said, the European Commission (EC) is intensifying trade defense measures, making 2025 a record year for anti-dumping tariffs and protectionist actions. On 7 October, it proposed a new steel safeguard regime to replace the current system in July 2026, cutting tariff-free import volumes by 47% and doubling out-of-quota tariffs to 50%, a move partly influenced by the recent US-EU framework agreement. The EC is also considering pre-conditions for Chinese investments in Europe, such as mandatory technology transfers, signaling a strategic shift toward statecraft. Meanwhile, the EU announced it has achieved its €300 billion Global Gateway investment target two years early, focusing on sustainable infrastructure and strategic corridors, particularly in Africa, to rival China’s Belt and Road.

Energy independence remains a priority, with plans to ban Russian oil imports by early 2026 and gas by 2027, pending (final) parliamentary approval. At the Copenhagen summit (1–2 October), leaders debated strengthening EU defense capabilities, including a proposed “European Drone Wall,” though feasibility concerns persist. Discussions also revealed divisions over a €140 billion interest-free loan for Ukraine funded by frozen Russian assets, despite Germany softening its stance. A plan to “buy European” in public procurement – to boost domestic firms and counterbalance protectionist US trade policies as well as China’s weaponization of critical dependencies – is also in the works. But countries haggle about the definition of ‘European’. Overall, the EC’s actions underscore a more assertive and strategic EU posture globally, but it obviously cannot match the depth and speed of the US.

The EU yesterday unveiled a five-year defense roadmap aimed at closing critical capability gaps and modernizing its security architecture.

The plan introduces four flagship initiatives:

1. the European Drone Defence Initiative (operational by end-2027),
2. Eastern Flank Watch,
3. European Air Shield, and
4. European Space Shield.

It calls for coordinated defense spending, joint coalitions, and a target of 40% joint procurement by 2027. Member States are urged to collectively address shortfalls by 2030, accelerating production and strengthening defense industries while maintaining support for Ukraine.

The roadmap signals concrete ambition beyond bureaucracy and is expected to feature prominently at next week’s Brussels summit. This looks set to be the key event to watch next week.

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Every market cycle eventually changes investor psychology to believe risk has been conquered. The storylines may change, from “this time it’s different” to “the Fed has our back,” but the psychology does not. When markets rise steadily and volatility remains low, investors confuse stability with safety. That’s precisely the illusion forming in markets today. The S&P 500’s relentless climb, paired with suppressed volatility and ample liquidity, has given the impression that downside risk has somehow been engineered out of the system.

This is where the trap begins. Behavioral finance tells us that people respond more to “how” risk feels than to what the data shows. When investors no longer feel anxious, they begin to take risks they wouldn’t otherwise tolerate. Rising prices reinforce optimism, optimism drives more buying, and the cycle continues until the most minor shock shatters the illusion. Low volatility environments create the psychology for instability by suppressing the healthy corrections that usually reset investor expectations. The longer the calm lasts, the more fragile the market becomes beneath the surface.

“Hyman Minsky argued that financial markets have inherent instability. As we saw in 2020-2021, asymmetric risks rise in market speculation during an abnormally long bullish cycle. That speculation eventually results in market instability and collapse. We can visualize these periods of ‘instability’ by examining the daily price swings of the S&P 500 index. Note that long periods of “stability” with regularity lead to “instability.”

The illusion of safety doesn’t just emerge spontaneously; it’s nurtured by central bank policy. For nearly fifteen years, the Federal Reserve has acted as a stabilizer of last resort, flooding the system with liquidity at the first sign of stress.

Even though the Federal Reserve has withdrawn that monetary support, investors still believe that the Fed can and will always prevent pain. Over the last three years, investors have shifted their focus away from fundamentals and to each “Fed Meeting” for clues as to when the subsequent monetary intervention will arrive.

That shift in psychology is crucially important to understand.

The Fed and the Mirage of Control

The belief that the Federal Reserve can always come to the rescue carries its own danger: it encourages behavior that assumes the absence of consequence. Markets built on faith rather than fundamentals are inherently unstable, no matter how calm they appear.

The Federal Reserve’s well-intentioned interventions have created one of modern finance’s most powerful behavioral distortions: the conviction that there is always a safety net. After the Global Financial Crisis, zero interest rates and repeated rounds of quantitative easing conditioned investors to expect that policy support would always return during volatility. Over time, that conditioning hardened into a reflex: buy every dip, because the Fed will not allow markets to fail.

This is the concept of “moral hazard” in action.

What exactly is the definition of “moral hazard?” 

Noun – ECONOMICS: The lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences, e.g., by insurance.

A good example of this is shown below.

For their survival, zombie companies depend on a speculative investment climate for bond issuance. As discussed in “Recessions Are A Good Thing:”

“‘Zombies’ are firms whose debt servicing costs are higher than their profits but are kept alive by relentless borrowing. Such is a macroeconomic problem. Zombie firms are less productive, and their existence lowers investment in, and employment at, more productive firms. In short, a side effect of central banks keeping rates low for a long time is it keeps unproductive firms alive. Ultimately, that lowers the long-run growth rate of the economy.” – Axios

We also see the same “moral hazard” in the spread between “junk bonds” and A-rated corporates. At a spread of just 1.9%, investors are not being “paid” for the default risk they take with “junk bonds.” The only reason those spreads exist is that investors believe, with almost absolute certainty, that companies will pay their obligations, if not on their own, then with the help of the Federal Reserve.

This mindset has reshaped corporate behavior as well. Companies, confident that credit will remain cheap and plentiful, used debt not to invest productively but to repurchase their shares, shrinking equity floats and boosting earnings per share. This financial engineering, which is currently running at a record pace, helps drive valuations higher, reinforcing the illusion that fundamentals were improving. In reality, liquidity is doing the heavy lifting. The absence of meaningful corrections gave investors an unbroken string of positive reinforcement, a psychological loop that made risk feel optional.

Liquidity, however, is not the same as stability. It masks fragility the way calm seas hide strong undercurrents. When liquidity recedes, even modest disruptions can become magnified. Consider 2018’s “Volmageddon,” when volatility-shorting strategies that had profited for years imploded in a single session. Investors mistook a quiet market for safety, believing their models had tamed uncertainty. In truth, they had only suppressed it.

That lesson is timeless: every era’s innovation eventually finds its limit when liquidity dries up and the illusion of control vanishes.

Behavioral Biases and the Return of Fear

If the Fed and liquidity conditions create the structure of the zero-risk illusion, human psychology provides its fuel. The psychology of investing, in particular, explains why investors underestimate danger when markets are calm. However, psychology is the most significant reason for underperformance by investors who participate in the financial markets over time. Behavioral biases leading to poor investment decision-making are the greatest contributor to underperformance over time. Dalbar defined nine of the irrational investment behavior biases specifically:

• Loss Aversion: The fear of loss leads to a withdrawal of capital at the worst possible time.  Also known as “panic selling.”

• Narrow Framing: Making decisions about on part of the portfolio without considering the effects on the total.

• Anchoring: The process of remaining focused on previous events and not adapting to a changing market.

• Mental Accounting: Separating the performance of investments mentally to justify success and failure.

• Lack of Diversification: Believing a portfolio is diversified when it is a highly correlated pool of assets.

• Herding: Following what everyone else is doing. Leads to “buy high/sell low.”

• Regret: Not performing a necessary action due to regret over a previous failure.

• Media Response: The media is biased towards optimism to sell products from advertisers and attract viewers/readership.

• Optimism: Overly optimistic assumptions lead to rather dramatic reversions when met with reality.

Recency bias also leads us to project the recent past into the future. When markets rise for months, we instinctively assume they will keep doing so. The longer an uptrend persists, the more investors become anchored to it emotionally, treating it as the new normal. Confirmation bias then compounds the problem. Bullish investors seek information that validates their optimism and dismiss data that challenges it. Financial media and social networks amplify this echo chamber, drowning out contrarian voices. Finally, reverse loss aversion, a flip of the classic behavioral rule, takes hold. When portfolios swell, investors become less sensitive to risk because the pain of potential loss feels abstract compared to the pleasure of ongoing gains.

As shown in the chart below, this behavioral trend contradicts the “buy low/sell high” investment rule.

These psychological patterns explain why market collapses often appear to come “out of nowhere.” In truth, the seeds of every downturn are sown during the good times, when caution fades and discipline erodes. A lack of volatility anesthetizes investors, dulling their instinct to manage risk. When the inevitable reversal comes, it is not just unprepared portfolios but mindsets that suffer. The speed with which optimism turns to panic reflects how thoroughly investors have internalized the belief that markets cannot fall.

In the end, we are just human. Despite the best of our intentions, it is nearly impossible for an individual to be devoid of the emotional biases that inevitably lead to poor investment decision-making over time. This is why all great investors follow strict investment disciplines to reduce the impact of human emotions.

Lastly, history offers endless proof. The dot-com mania, the housing bubble, and the “meme stock” frenzy shared the same behavioral DNA. Confidence became arrogance, diversification gave way to concentration, and the line between investing and speculation vanished.

The illusion of safety made investors their own most significant risk factor.

Breaking the Zero-Risk Illusion

The challenge for today’s investor is not merely spotting risk, but feeling it again. In a world where central banks have blurred the boundaries between market cycles, developing a healthy respect for uncertainty is an edge. Successful investors do not try to eliminate volatility; they prepare for it. They recognize that risk is not a variable to be avoided but a constant to be managed.

That starts with reframing risk awareness. Calm markets should not be a source of comfort but a warning sign that risk is being mispriced. Maintaining liquidity through cash or short-term instruments is not an act of fear but one of readiness. Cash provides optionality: the ability to act when an opportunity arises and others are forced to sell. Diversification should go beyond the surface level of asset classes; proper diversification comes from owning assets that respond differently to changes in inflation, liquidity, and interest-rate expectations.

Here are five practical steps to employ today before the next “event” occurs:

1. Reframe Risk as a Constant, Not a Variable: Risk doesn’t go away—it simply migrates from one part of the system to another. If volatility is low, it’s often being stored somewhere else, waiting to be released. Treat calm periods as warnings, not assurances.

2. Diversify by Source of Return, Not Label: Don’t just diversify across asset classes; diversify across drivers of return. Own assets that respond differently to inflation, liquidity, and policy shocks. Real diversification is behavioral, not cosmetic.

3. Maintain Cash as Optionality: Cash isn’t trash—it’s future opportunity. Holding liquidity during euphoric markets gives investors the flexibility to act when others panic.

4. Recognize the Fed Is Not Omnipotent: Monetary policy can influence liquidity, but it can’t repeal the business cycle. Believing otherwise is the foundation of the zero-risk illusion.

5. Measure Success by Time Horizon, Not Headlines: The best investors think in decades, not days. Their goal isn’t to beat the market every quarter; it’s to compound wealth across complete cycles by avoiding permanent losses.

Markets don’t punish greed; they punish complacency. The most dangerous words in investing are still “this time is different,” and the illusion of a risk-free market is just another version of that fallacy. As investors, our job isn’t to eliminate risk; it’s to respect it.

The irony of the zero-risk illusion is that it thrives precisely when markets are calmest. Lulled into comfort, investors stop hedging, questioning, and preparing. When volatility inevitably returns, the same psychology that fueled the rally becomes its undoing.

Just as important is recognizing that the Federal Reserve is not omnipotent. Policy can influence timing but not the laws of cycles or valuation. Believing otherwise invites the same complacency that precedes every correction.

Markets will always swing between fear and greed. The illusion of zero risk is simply the latest iteration of an old behavioral story; the belief that we’ve outgrown the past. But risk never disappears; it only hides until complacency pulls it back into view.

The best investors understand psychology deeply. They remain humble in good times, skeptical when everyone else is euphoric, and disciplined when the crowd forgets what real risk feels like.

New York City mayoral candidates Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani, his primary opponent Andrew Cuomo, and Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa squared off on Oct. 16 in a bid for the seat that current Mayor Eric Adams is vacating in 2026.

Adams dropped out of the race on Sept. 28.

The debate, co-hosted by POLITICO, NBC 4 New York, and Telemundo 47, took place at 30 Rockefeller Center in Manhattan.

Socialist New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani denies being a “communist,” yet his limited job track record and history of promoting Marxist ideology raise alarm bells. He has long pushed nation-destroying policies, echoing the globalist agenda pushed by dark-money-billionaire-funded NGOs such as all things ‘woke’, and of course, the “defund the police” movement, made famous by the Marxist rioters BLM that helped trigger a nationwide crime wave in recent years. That’s one of the key reasons President Trump has deployed federal officers and National Guard members to certain progressive cities plagued by out-of-control crime because of police shortages.

And yet, after left-wing Democrats pushed toxic social and criminal justice reforms that sparked nothing but chaos, the democratic socialist still has strong odds of becoming the next mayor of New York City.

Here are the top five moments from the debate (courtesy of Fox News):

1. Mamdani flips on Hamas

During the debate, Mamdani appeared to backtrack on his position about Hamas laying down their arms, saying, “Of course I believe that they should lay down their arms.”

Mamdani was responding to a question from a moderator who said his previous answer, which was made to Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum, was “confusing,” after he dodged questions when she asked if he believes Hamas should lay down their weapons and leave leadership in Gaza, according to the cease-fire agreement they entered into.

“I’m proud to be one of the first elected officials in the state who called for a ceasefire,” Mamdani said.

“That means all parties have to ceasefire and put down their weapons. And the reason that we call for that is not only for the end of the genocide, but also an unimpeded access of humanitarian aid. I, like many New Yorkers, and I’m hopeful that this ceasefire will hold.”

Mamdani was also pressed by Cuomo on his refusal to condemn the phrases “from the river to the sea” and “globalize the intifada,” both of which are widely seen as calls for the extermination of Jews. Sliwa pressed on this issue as well,  telling Mamdani, “Jews don’t trust that you will be there for them when they are victims of antisemitic attacks.”

Mamdani answered that he will be a mayor for all New Yorkers, saying, “Jewish New Yorkers who have told me about their fear in living in this city, and I will be a mayor who finally addresses that, not through the theatrics of the politics on the stage, but through action.”

2. National Guard not welcome

President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to major American cities also loomed large over Thursday night’s New York City mayoral debate.

Candidates were asked about the “threat hanging over the city” of National Guard troops being sent to New York City. All three candidates indicated they would oppose troops being sent to the city.

Mamdani asserted that “What New Yorkers need is a mayor who can stand up to Donald Trump and actually deliver on that safety.”

“When Donald Trump sent ICE agents on people in Los Angeles, Andrew Cuomo said that New Yorkers need not overreact. That is the furthest answer that New Yorkers are looking for. They are looking for someone who will lead, someone who will say that they will have their back, someone who will actually fight for the people of this city,” said Mamdani.

Cuomo, meanwhile, said that “the answer in the subways is not more National Guard” but rather “more NYPD is the answer.”

3. ‘Literally has never had a job’

Cuomo attacked Mamdani’s thin resume, saying, “He has no experience.”

“This is not a job for someone who has no management experience, to run around 300,000 people, no financial experience to run a $115 billion budget,” said the former governor.

“He literally has never had a job. On his resume, it says he interned for his mother. This is not a job for a first timer. Any day you could have a hurricane, God forbid, a 9-11, a health pandemic, if you don’t know what you’re doing, people will die.”

Mamdani immediately shot back, “If we have a health pandemic, then why would New Yorkers turn to the governor who sent seniors to their death in nursing homes? That’s the kind of experience that’s on offer here today.”

“What I don’t have in experience I make up for in integrity, and what you don’t have in integrity you could never make up for in experience,” he added.

Cuomo dismissed the nursing homes dig as a political investigation that “went nowhere.”

4. Defund the police continues to haunt Mamdani

Cuomo also knocked Mamdani for previous calls to defund the police and statements denouncing law enforcement.

“Respect the police. They’re not racists as the assemblyman calls them, they’re not a threat to public safety as he says, they’re not anti-queer, they are here to protect New Yorkers, work with them, fortify them,” said Cuomo.

Sliwa jumped in at this moment to deliver a jab to Cuomo, saying, “That’s ironic that you say that now … your parole board released 43 cop killers back into the street. Your father, when he was governor, released none. I knew Mario Cuomo; you’re no Mario Cuomo.”

In response to Cuomo’s attack, Mamdani said, “As much as Andrew Cuomo wants to bring up tweets from 2020, which is around the same time that he was sending seniors to their death in nursing homes, I am looking to work with police officers, not to defund the NYPD.”

Mamdani again touted his plan to have “dedicated teams of mental health outreach workers” deployed to the top 100 subway stations with the highest levels of mental health crises and homelessness.

5. No love for Hochul

In a debate filled with candidates interjecting and talking over each other constantly, the room suddenly went silent when a moderator asked, “Show of hands. Who supports [New York Gov.] Kathy Hochul for re-election?”

Not a single candidate raised their hand.

Cuomo, who picked Hochul as his lieutenant governor, said, “We have to know who’s running.”

Mamdani said, “It’s a decision that should be made after this general election.”

He noted, however, that he believes Hochul is “doing a good job, and not only delivering for New Yorkers but also standing up to Donald Trump.”

“Then endorse her!” Cuomo interjected. “Why don’t you endorse her?”

Mamdani noted, “I appreciate her support, and I appreciate her work,” but said, “I’m focusing on November.”

Sliwa signaled his support for the gubernatorial campaign of Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., saying, “a Republican Mayor Curtis, a Republican Governor Stefanik … save this city.”

Hmm. 

🚨 BREAKING: Zohran Mamdani declares Andrew Cuomo is not qualified to be mayor of New York City because Cuomo REFUSED to visit a Muslim mosque

“He had over 10 years and he couldn’t name a single mosque that he visited! […] Muslims [want] equality and respect!!”

“Name a SINGLE… pic.twitter.com/cdzIKzbLN6

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 16, 2025

Over at cryptocurrency-based prediction market Polymarket, Mamdani’s odds ticked higher by 2% to 90% probability of winning the mayoral election next month. Cuomo is down to 10%, while Siwa is

Resurfacing overnight… 

Hmm https://t.co/wrBdtBgMTT

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 17, 2025

Typical politician. 

Zohran Mamdani lies, claims he doesn’t want to defund the police.

He has publicly called to defund the police over 15 times. pic.twitter.com/sJcb70ES2P

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 17, 2025

NYPost this AM.

Related: 

• Peter Schweizer: Mamdani Family Is “Joined At The Hip” With Foreign Radical Powers

• Schweizer Exposes Foreign-Linked Cash Funneled Into NYC Candidate Zohran Mamdani’s Campaign

• Zohran Mamdani’s Socialist Policies Would Put The Final Nail In New York’s Coffin

• Billionaires For Socialism: The $2 Billion “Grassroots” Operation Behind Zohran Mamdani

• China-Linked Tech Tycoon Neville Roy Singham’s Niece Backs NYC’s Next Marxist Mayor

The candidates are scheduled to meet for a second and final debate next week.

An Oct. 9 Quinnipiac University’s New York City poll shows Mamdani leading with 46 percent of likely voters backing him, followed by 33 percent supporting Cuomo and 15 percent in favor of Sliwa.

If elected, Mamdani would be the city’s first Muslim and Indian American mayor. The 33-year-old’s mother is award-winning filmmaker Mira Nair.

Any Polymarket bets on whether Bill Ackman stays in NYC if Mamdani wins?

Hungary has announced that “preparations are in full swing” for a big anticipated near-future summit between Presidents Trump and Putin, following their Thursday lengthy ‘positive’ phone call.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stated that Budapest is ready and willing to host the meeting, which would be the second of Trump’s administration since the Alaska bilateral summit, calling it “great news for the peace-loving people of the world” and describing Hungary as an “island of peace.”

No date was given, but it was concluded in the phone call that the aim of a future Budapest meeting would be to “bring this ‘inglorious’ War, between Russia and Ukraine, to an end,” according to Trump’s words on Truth Social.

This immediately raised questions among some pundits over how Putin would be allowed to travel to Hungary, given he’s facing an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has impacted the Russian leader’s ability to fly into or even over some European countries. 

But Hungary has assured Putin can enter the country for such a summit, it’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto made clear on Friday. It is also clear that Hungary is eager to be in the spotlight as a potential peace-broker related to the Ukraine war.

Orban has long criticized EU and NATO policy regarding Moscow, and has alongside Slovakia continued to resist cutting dependency on Russian energy imports.

All of this has led to an important Friday phone call between the Hungarian and Russian leaders, conveyed in state media as follows:

Peskov did not disclose the details of the Putin-Orban call, but stated that the Kremlin will soon provide more information about the discussions.

The Kremlin’s press service noted that during the call, the Hungarian leader expressed a willingness to provide all the conditions for holding the Russia-US summit in Budapest.

The press service also stated that Putin had informed Orban about the main content of his recent conversation with Trump. According to the Russian leader, Moscow expects to discuss with the US the roadmap towards a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict, “with a view of holding a future Russian-American summit in the Hungarian capital.”

But much could be determined based on Ukrainian President Zelensky’s meeting with Trump at the White House Friday, given there’s anticipation that the US could announce Tomahawk missiles for Ukraine.

🇪🇺🇭🇺 EU ELITES FUMING: TRUMP–PUTIN TO MEET IN BUDAPEST IN HISTORIC SUMMIT

Putin’s first EU visit since the Ukraine war won’t be to Brussels, Berlin, or Paris, it’ll be to*Budapest.

And the host? Viktor Orbán, the man EU elites love to hate.

For years, Brussels has smeared… https://t.co/LUkzwXDDHh pic.twitter.com/VEcmFHAJSY

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) October 16, 2025

This could certainly put any forward diplomatic momentum between Trump and Putin on hold once again. No one expects, however, that a limited number of long-range US missiles to be an ultimate game-changer in the war, but it could potentially devastate key targets in Moscow, for example. 

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Democrat mouthpiece talk show host Jimmy Kimmel has dismissed reports of unrest in major U.S. cities, claiming there is “no chaos” and that it is all being manufactured by the Trump Administration in order to justify a “military takeover.”

Kimmel, back on air despite having abysmal ratings, stated “There’s no chaos in Portland. None. There is no chaos in Chicago. There was no chaos in Los Angeles. They’re pretending there’s chaos as a pretense for a military takeover.”

KIMMEL: “There’s no chaos in Portland. None. There is no chaos in Chicago. There was no chaos in Los Angeles. They’re pretending there’s chaos as a pretense for a military takeover.” pic.twitter.com/Rz53116jlc

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) October 16, 2025

Kimmel’s show has basically become the television presentation of whacked out BlueAnon leftists’ fever dreams. He’s passing off their unhinged BlueSky rants as his own monologue.

The comments fly in the face of documented repeated ambushes, assaults, and coordinated threats against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, particularly in Portland and Chicago.

These incidents not only demonstrate ongoing chaos but also highlight a dangerous collaboration between criminal elements and domestic extremists.

Portland has long been a flashpoint for protests against federal immigration policies, but 2025 has seen a marked intensification of attacks on ICE personnel. In early October, DHS reported deploying special operations teams following multiple violent incidents where Border Patrol officers were ambushed by individuals ramming federal vehicles.

This wasn’t an isolated event; anarchists and rioters have been accused of illegally doxxing ICE officers, exposing their personal information to incite further harassment and potential violence.

Such tactics have created a hostile environment where federal agents face constant threats.

Protests outside ICE facilities have frequently turned confrontational. On October 4, Portland Police made arrests during demonstrations at a South Portland ICE site, where criminal activity was monitored amid escalating unrest.

🚨 BREAKING: Illinois police just arrested the RING LEADER of tonight’s anti-ICE “protest” in Broadview.

They are now in the FINDING OUT stage. Arrests are being made.

This needs to become the NORM and it needs to happen in Portland.

pic.twitter.com/fz3BM7h3J0

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 5, 2025

Just days later, federal officers fired tear gas and made multiple arrests as hundreds of protesters marched on the facility, with projectiles and gunfire reported in similar encounters.

A particularly alarming incident involved a federal agent drawing a weapon on a vehicle entering the ICE facility, underscoring the heightened state of alert.

The White House has cited a dramatic rise in assaults—claiming over a 1,000% increase.

Nonetheless, DHS and FBI warnings about “domestic violent extremists” targeting ICE facilities indicate an evolution in tactics, including escalated violence like armed attacks.

Local leadership has exacerbated the chaos. Portland’s mayor reportedly ordered the removal of police tape around an ICE facility despite federal demands for a secure perimeter, potentially leaving agents vulnerable to attacks.

These examples illustrate not just sporadic unrest but a pattern of targeted aggression against federal law enforcement.

Chicago’s situation mirrors Portland’s, with ICE agents facing ambushes that have led to injuries, arrests, and federal investigations. On October 14, CBP agents were involved in a vehicle-ramming attack during an immigration operation, described by DHS as an ambush by domestic terrorists.

🚨 UPDATE: After a DHS vehicle-involved crash in Chicago, leftists waving Mexican flags threw ROCKS at federal agents

They had to deploy crowd control to get the rioters to stop.

Foreign flags and total DISORDER. It’s a WARZONE. Gov. Pritzker and Mayor Johnson are totally… pic.twitter.com/CxdW0sTFrG

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 14, 2025

Protesters have been accused of boxing in ICE SUVs with vehicles to facilitate attacks, including instances where an armed individual assaulted agents.

A high-profile shooting occurred on October 4, when federal agents injured an armed U.S. citizen woman during a confrontation in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood.

This followed a chase that ended in a crash, sparking protests where tear gas was deployed, affecting Chicago Police officers.

Further incidents include the arrest of a Chicago TV producer during an ICE raid, where she was accused of throwing objects at a Border Patrol vehicle.

Activists and residents report increasingly combative federal tactics, but evidence points to so called protesters clashing violently outside ICE facilities.

DHS reports that early this morning in Broadview, federal agents were attacked when 10 vehicles surrounded and rammed their patrol cars, trapping them inside. Agents were forced to exit their vehicles as the attack escalated.

One of the drivers, armed with a semi-automatic… pic.twitter.com/PMzD3dPTEF

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) October 4, 2025

Local authorities have compounded the issue. Chicago Police were reportedly ordered not to assist ICE agents under attack, a decision criticized by national police unions as a “shocking violation of duty.”

This hands-off approach has left federal agents isolated amid ambushes, contributing to the very chaos Kimmel denies exists.

The violence isn’t merely spontaneous; DHS has uncovered “credible evidence” of coordinated threats. Earlier this week, the department announced that Mexican cartels, in collusion with domestic extremist groups, have placed bounties—up to $50,000—on ICE and CBP officers, specifically targeting operations in Chicago.

These bounties incentivize assassinations and attacks, representing an unprecedented fusion of transnational crime and leftist extremism. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem highlighted this alliance, noting how cartels are enlisting gangs and extremists to execute hits.

FBI assessments corroborate this, warning of escalated violence against ICE facilities by domestic violent extremists.

This intelligence underscores that the chaos is not imagined but a calculated campaign to undermine federal enforcement.

Kimmel’s ludicrous dismissal of chaos aligns with his earlier denial of Antifa’s existence, calling it an “entirely imaginary organization.”

Jimmy Kimmel lies to cover for Antifa:

“There is no Antifa. This is an entirely imaginary organization. There is not an Antifa.”

That’s about as Orwellian as it gets. Legacy media continues to function as Antifa’s propaganda apparatus. pic.twitter.com/zhyrFDCaEg

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) October 10, 2025

This rhetoric echoes Democratic talking points that downplay organized leftist extremism, even as arrests and DHS probes reveal Antifa-linked networks fueling the violence.

By parroting these denials, late-night hosts like Kimmel serve as mouthpieces for a narrative that ignores the ambushes, bounties, and bloodshed faced by ICE agents daily. The evidence is clear: Chaos exists, driven by real threats that demand a robust response, not dismissal. Pretending otherwise only emboldens those perpetuating the violence.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

With U.S. car prices continuing to climb, the average cost of a new vehicle has officially crossed the $50,000 mark – a milestone analysts say was inevitable, according to Yahoo Finance.

According to Kelley Blue Book (KBB), the average transaction price reached a record $50,080 in September, up 2.1% from August and 3.6% year over year—the largest annual increase in more than two years.

“We’ve been expecting to break through the $50,000 barrier. It was only a matter of time, especially when you consider the best-selling vehicle in America is a pickup truck from Ford that routinely costs north of $65,000,” said Erin Keating, executive analyst at Cox Automotive, which owns KBB.

Keating noted that wealthier households are driving demand for new cars, supported by access to capital and better loan terms. Meanwhile, lower-income buyers have shifted to the used market as cheaper new models disappear. The $20,000 market for cars is “extinct,” she said.

Yahoo writes that recent CPI data backs this up: new vehicle prices rose 0.3% in August and 0.7% year over year, while used vehicles climbed 1% and 6%, respectively. The September CPI report has been delayed by the government shutdown.

KBB said tariffs have created “new cost pressure” across the industry, with many trade deals unfinished and a 25% rate still applied to vehicles imported from Mexico and Canada.

A surge in electric vehicle sales also pushed prices higher. The expiration of the federal EV tax credit on Sept. 30 prompted a wave of last-minute purchases, lifting September’s numbers. KBB estimated EVs made up 11.6% of sales, with an average transaction price topping $58,000.

Incentives also played a growing role in September’s record prices, Zero Hedge noticed while digging deeper into the KBB report, with average discounts rising to 7.4% of the average transaction price, or about $3,700 — the highest level so far in 2025. A wave of new 2026 model-year vehicles and a richer mix of luxury and EV models helped push transaction prices higher, with more than 60 models now averaging above $75,000.

Electric vehicle sales surged nearly 30% year over year in the third quarter, reaching a record 437,000 units, as buyers rushed to lock in incentives before they expired. KBB estimated the average EV price at $58,124 in September, up 3.5% from August, while Tesla’s average slipped to $54,138, down 6.8% year over year amid lower-priced Model 3 and Model Y trims.

Looking ahead, KBB doesn’t expect relief. The average new MSRP hit $52,183 in September, up 4.2% year over year. “It is important to remember that the new-vehicle market is inflationary. Prices go up over time, and today’s market is certainly reminding us of that,” Keating said.

Via SchiffGold.com,

A new round of tariff announcements from the Trump administration sent markets reeling, with gold dropping briefly only to soar back to new record highs above $4300 today, signaling collective doubt in the system itself as investors rush to protect themselves with hard assets. 

Collectively, markets are reaffirming gold’s role at the center of sovereignty, monetary stability, and global reserve strategy, even as it has become a favorite target of Keyneseian ridicule as everything from a “barbarous relic” to a waste of physical and financial space in investment portfolios and balance sheets.

Yet, confidence in US debt continues to decline, with the “safe” status of Treasuries increasingly being questioned. That’s why now, for the first time in decades, collective central bank gold holdings have surpassed the value of their Treasuries. Central banks now hold 20% of all gold ever mined, protecting themselves from the effects of currency debasement even as they, ironically, cause it. Instead of earning yield by holding Treasuries, they continue stocking up on gold, which is a powerful statement against the results of their own monetary experiments.

Because gold is very difficult to manipulate compared to other asset classes, and isn’t subject to the whims of central bankers or the ability of an overindebted, over-spending country to pay back what it owes, central banks are rushing to stock more of it. While uncontrolled debt issuance, dollar weakness, and a massive sovereign balance sheet, central banks buy gold to protect themselves from exactly the same problems that were caused by centralized control.

Meanwhile, investors, commentators, and asset managers, love to sing about stock market highs while ignoring the problem: those stocks are being measured in a currency that’s constantly being debased.

When you price them in gold, you’re using a true measuring stick that hasn’t been reconfigured by central bank wizards.

Suddenly, denominated in real money, most other “booming” assets don’t look nearly as good.

Equity indexes like the S&P 500 are well off their nominal highs when you measure them in gold instead of dollars.

Even as equities rise in dollar terms, zoom out, and those gains often fail to beat gold’s rise.

That’s because asset booms are being driven by manipulations in the form of money printing, low interest rates, and liquidity instead of real fundamentals.

‘Dow Jones to Gold Ratio is about to cross a level only seen 3 times in history. 2008, 1973 and 1929’ via @FinanceLancelot 📉 pic.twitter.com/MhyCyhCHM1

— Davide Iacovozzi (@davideiacovozzi) October 10, 2025

Bitcoin is no different. Bitcoiners, who love dunking on gold, are celebrating recent latest all-time highs, but love to ignore the fact that real gold is massively outperforming “digital gold.” 

A spectacular Bitcoin crash after Trump’s recent tariff announcements brought Bitcoin down from its highs of over $125k down to $107k, all while gold held its ground.

Bitcoin is crashing. It just dropped below $112,000. In terms of gold, Bitcoin is now down over 25% from its record high set in August. It still has a long way down to fall.

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) October 10, 2025

As Peter Schiff said on X, formerly Twitter, last week:

“Today is another example of why Bitcoin is not digital gold or even digital silver. Gold closed the week up 3%, above $4,000, and silver rose 4.4%, closing above $50. Both represent record-high weekly closes. In contrast, Bitcoin dropped over 5%, double the decline of the Nasdaq.”

Despite being the subject of status quo ridicule, gold is still the king of financial assets. 

Wall Street’s reflexive scorn of gold is due to the fact that gold exposes Keynesians as frauds and sometimes thieves, and threatens the premise of the existence of an entire category of academics and professionals, from Ivy League academics to mom-and-pop retail investment advisors. If a 5,000-year old rock performs just as well as a traditional 60/40 stock-bond portfolio, a lot of people are wasting their time and money.

When you measure much of the financial world in gold, many of the supposed winners lose their luster.

All you needed was a honest yardstick.

Novo Nordisk A/S shares in Copenhagen appear to be experiencing yet another dead cat bounce following last month’s surge. That’s because President Trump told reporters late Thursday that GLP-1 drugs like Novo’s Ozempic, which currently costs about $1,000 per month, could soon cost “$150 out of pocket.” Bad news for Goldman analysts, who have been Novo’s ‘super bulls’ –  but for those trying to catch a bottom in the stock, there may still be more downside ahead. 

Trump told reporters the cost of Ozempic will soon be “much lower,” adding,  “Those are going to be $150 out of pocket.” The comments were made at a press conference in the Oval Office, during an event centered around a deal Trump folks made with Germany’s Merck KGaA to reduce fertility treatments in exchange for a reprieve on looming pharmaceutical tariffs. 

Mehmet Oz, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, quickly chimed in after Trump spoke about future Ozempic pricing. He said negotiations over the drug’s price are still ongoing. “We haven’t negotiated those yet.” 

Q: “You mentioned a $1,300 drug?”

Trump: “Ya, I was referring to Ozempic, or the fat loss drug.”

Q: “Those are going to be $150 out of pocket?”

Trump: “They’ll be much lower.”

Dr. Oz, interjecting: “We have not negotiated those yet…Ozempic has not been negotiated yet.” pic.twitter.com/IlmCexTJL9

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) October 16, 2025

BMO Capital Markets analyst Evan Seigerman told clients that Trump’s comments “signal aggressive posturing” in the negotiations. However, he pointed out that the negotiated price may not represent a fundamental change to Novo’s business. 

When Trump was asked about a timeline for the negotiations, the president responded that GLP-1 drug prices would come down “pretty fast.”

The comments were enough to send Novo shares down 7% in Copenhagen trading. The risks of a bounce in the stock, which started with a positive study revealed at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes last month, could soon reverse. Yet elevated risks of yet another dead cat bounce in the 16-month bear market. 

We asked a simple question last month: Dead Cat Bounce or Bottom?

Related:

• Goldman, UBS React To Novo Nordisk Axing 9,000 Jobs, Slashing Guidance Amid GLP-1 Headwinds
• Novo Shares Gain As Wegovy Shows Big Edge Over Lilly’s Tirzepatide In Heart Study
• Dead Cat Bounce Or Bottom? Novo Jumps On Ozempic Study As Goldman Weighs In

U.S. headwinds for Novo still include compounded GLP-1s from companies such as Hims & Hers Health. Earlier this year, Novo nuked its partnership with the telehealth firm due to violations of federal law related to mass sales of compounded drugs disguised as “personalized” treatments, along with deceptive marketing practices that allegedly jeopardized patient safety. 

• Novo Shares Crash Most On Record After Forecast Slashed On Compounded GLP-1 Headwinds

All indications appear that Novo shares will retest 300 DKK. 

Via Remix News,

New data shows that foreigners account for a substantial share of people living in absolute poverty in Italy, even as the poverty rates of families with two Italian parents drops. One director of La Verita newspaper, Maurizio Belpietro, has run an opinion piece in his newspaper lamenting that Italy is “importing poverty.”

“We are importing poor people. Of the total immigrant population, 35.6 percent live in absolute poverty. This rate is five times higher than that of Italians,” writes Belpietro, who is an influential voice in Italian politics with 360,000 followers on X.

He further notes that although foreigners make up a small percentage of the population, they represent a huge share of the number of people living in poverty.

“Of the 2.2 million households living in poverty, i.e., do not have enough income to support a minimum standard of living, 1.5 million are Italian and 733,000 are foreigners. This means that, despite being less than a tenth of the population, poor non-EU citizens are one third of the total,” he wrote.

The data, from the Italian government’s Istat, shows that for those families with one Italian and one foreign parent, the absolute poverty rate is only slightly lower, at 30.4 percent.

Claims that mass immigration would “save” European pension systems are increasingly running into reality.

Citing the article, Italian commentator Francesca Totolo wrote on X: “No, immigrants do not pay pensions to Italians. The absolute poverty rate among families of only foreigners is 35.2%, while among families of only Italians it is 6.2%. This means that it is and will be Italians who have to pay for assistance, subsidies, housing, and pensions to foreigners without resources.”

No, gli immigrati non pagano le pensione agli italiani.

Il tasso della povertà assoluta

👉 fra le famiglie di soli stranieri è pari al 35,2%

👉 fra le famiglie di soli italiani è pari al 6,2%

Ciò significa che sono e saranno gli italiani a dover pagare assistenza, sussidi,… pic.twitter.com/MqxL8XnN5K

— Francesca Totolo (@fratotolo2) October 15, 2025

This finding has been replicated in many other countries, which shows that the left’s promise that foreigners would feed into the pension system falters when confronted with the data. Notably, there are substantial differences between EU and non-EU foreigners, with EU foreigners often boosting GDP and contributing to the tax base, in particular those from certain EU countries.

According to a landmark study from the Netherlands, the report found that migrants had cost the state €400 billion between 1995 and 2019.

In Germany, the estimated cost of migrants is currently at €50 billion a year, including social benefits, housing, integration, education, and child allowances.

In 2021, French author and academic Jean-Paul Gourévitch said in an interview with Radio Sud that employment data show that it is a myth that immigration to France has economic benefits.

“I have studied this topic extensively and today everyone in France, from the left to the right agrees that immigration costs more than it brings in,” Gourévitch said. “There is a major difference between left and right (oriented) economists regarding the costs: the leftist economists say the deficit is six to ten billion [euros per year], while those on the right say it is 40 to 44 billion. My own scientific research shows that the deficit is 20 to 25 billion [euros],” he said.

As Remix News recently reported, the rapid economic progress of China in relation to the EU — despite China’s extreme immigration restrictions policy — has blown up the myth that foreigners are needed to fuel the wave of future innovation and support the pension system.

Germany is a case example, with China dominating the nation in a wide range of industries, including green technology and automobile manufacturing.

Read more here…

The long-rumored iPhone Fold could finally become a reality in the next few years, according to industry insider and analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, who recently revealed new details about the smartphone’s construction costs. But that’s not the focus here. The spotlight we shine is on YouTuber JerryRigEverything, who put Google’s Pixel 10 Pro Fold through a durability test that ended in a catastrophic fire. 

“This is by far the weakest folding smartphone I’ve ever tested,” JerryRigEverything, also known as Zack Nelson, stated in the video. “And it gets worse. While straightening it back out for round two, the battery decides it’s had enough. Surprisingly, in the decade that I’ve been durability-testing phones, I have never had a smartphone explode before.” 

Nelson continued, “The Pixel 10 Pro Fold is the first phone to go up in smoke.” And while he explained this is an extreme test,” he added that “I’ve also subjected every mainstream smartphone made in the past 10 years to these exact same tests. And this is the first time I’ve ever had one fail so spectacularly to the point where my fire alarm is going off.”

the Pixel 10 pro fold HAS EXPLODED in the latest JerryRigEverything durability test 😭 pic.twitter.com/ZyeOK3cknF

— Holly – I like tech (@AnxiousHolly) October 14, 2025

iFixit’s Elizabeth Chamberlain told The Verge, “As dramatic as a battery fire is, we don’t think this is necessarily a sign that something is wrong with the Pixel 10 Pro Fold design. The possibility of thermal runaway is just a reality of Li-ion batteries. Looks like Zack probably didn’t discharge the battery before opening up the phone (most new phones have 60%+ charge out of the box). We usually recommend discharging a battery below 25%, but with the extreme stresses Zack places on devices, that may even be too high.”

As for the first foldable iPhone, rumored for release in 2027, let’s hope Apple irons out all the kinks before its commercial launch.