Aggregator
The Revolutionary-era NYC bar that shaped a nation (and still has stories to tell)
Rangers and Islanders 2026 NHL Draft first-round predictions
Cory Booker opposes reforming the insane cash grab in college sports – despite the fact it’s ravaging this top school in New Jersey
"Unlike Anything I've Seen In 40 Years": Explosion In Data-Centers And Memory Costs Fueling Third Inflation Wave
We're finally starting to see hints of relief when it comes to inflation. Prices at the pump are starting to come down, monthly core CPI momentum has slowed, used cars were down around 2% YoY, and food inflation is starting to moderate. On the other hand, there's America's massive explosion in artificial-intelligence infrastructure - which is beginning to push prices up on everything from electricity to smartphones.
On Thursday Apple announced a 15-25% price hike on Mac computers and iPads, after CEO Tim Cook told the Wall Street Journal that the jump in costs was "unlike anything he had seen in any area in over 40 years." An Apple spokesperson placed the blame on the "rapid expansion of AI data centers, which has created an extraordinary surge in demand for memory and storage," causing component prices to surge.
Elon Musk agrees...
Tim Cook, who told The Wall Street Journal that the jump in costs was unlike anything he had seen “in any area in over 40 years.”
Biggest price jump in anything I’ve ever seen too. https://t.co/aypJGgssnN
As the Wall Street Journal notes;
The money pouring into the AI arms race is unprecedented. Analysts peg capital spending at five of the so-called hyperscalers—Alphabet, Amazon, Meta Platforms, Microsoft and Oracle—at $741 billion this year, according to FactSet, up nearly 75% from last year.
Where is all that money going? While much of the conversation is focused on what AI can do, the build-out itself is strikingly physical, said Columbia University economist Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh. -WSJ
AI data centers require specific, sophisticated equipment to ensure cool, stable operation - as well as electric and fiber-optic cables and backup generators in order to keep them running 24-7. According to the report, Van Nieuwerburgh estimates that the AI buildout could cost somewhere in the range of $8 trillion over the next six years. As such, the demand for components shared throughout the economy (memory, for example), the effects are now trickling down to consumer electronics - like iPads. Other companies such as Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony have all raised prices on devices.
According to the Labor Department, consumer prices for computer software and accessories were up around 15% from a year earlier in May, while the Department's measure of wholesale electronic components and accessories shot up 27% from a year earlier last month.
When it comes to electricity - the price began to rapidly increase during covid - and it's now slingshotting even higher. Note the rate of change in the lower panel.
According to Goldman, data centers will account for nearly half of US growth in power demand through 2030 - and see consumer electricity prices rising around 6% annually in 2026 and 2027.
The Journal also notes that while tariffs and oil were one-time economic shocks, the AI shock to demand could persist for years.
That dynamic is reflected in the rally in the shares of chip stocks, which have moved sharply higher on investor expectations of sharply higher demand. Even with a sharp selloff this week, the PHLX Semiconductor Index is up about 150% over the past year.
Of course, more than just chips go into data centers. And like chips, a lot of the other things that go into building and running a data center are used widely across the economy. That could raise costs for a variety of businesses, which may then try to recoup those costs by charging consumers higher prices.
In some instances, the AI build-out could also add to labor costs. Wages for workers who are in demand from data-center construction have been picking up: Average hourly earnings for electrical and wiring-installation contractors were up 6.5% in April from a year earlier, which compared with 3.6% for all private-sector workers. -WSJ
Still, economics aren't predicting an AI-fueled inflation surge like we saw during Covid.
On The Other Side Of This - Disinflation?In November, now-Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh wrote in a WSJ op-ed that "AI will be a significant disinflationary force, increasing productivity and bolstering American competitiveness," arguing "productivity improvements should drive significant increases in real take-home wages. A 1-percentage-point increase in annual productivity growth would double standards of living within a single generation."
Yet, UBS economists think that the delta between the current building frenzy and AI lowering prices will be at least a couple of years.
According to a Monday survey by the National Association for Business Economics, 81% of those polled said the AI build-out will add to inflation over the next year.
"In the first phase of any major technological revolution, you tend to have a strain on limited resources, and that tends to put upward pressure on prices," EY-Parthenon chief economist Gregory Daco - president of NABE - told The Journal.
TL;DR - the AI build-out may keep inflation broadly elevated, and at some point it may all be worth it in the form of disinflationary productivity. Then again, who's going to buy anything when tens of millions are without jobs that are now done by AI?
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/26/2026 - 06:55Is 43 the new 35? Anne Hathaway, (and the rest of Hollywood) take on the ‘geriatric’ pregnancy myth
Staten Island mom mowed down in hit-and-run as family sends chilling message to ‘animal’ BMW driver
What's The Likelihood Of A NATO-Russian Clash Around 2030?
If Russia continues fighting this “war of attrition” for years to come instead of decisively ending it soon, then it’ll be more vulnerable than ever to the “cordon sanitaire’s” invasion threats around 2030, thus compelling it to either capitulate or resort to nuclear weapons in self-defense.
RT drew attention to Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko’s recent assessment that “we proceed from the premise that [NATO is] really preparing for a military clash with Russia somewhere around 2030.” This followed the National Defense Strategy declaring that “European NATO dwarfs Russia in economic scale, population, and, thus, latent military power”, but these resources must be properly managed in order to unleash their full potential. The US seeks to fulfill this management role for the EU.
Accordingly, it was concluded that “The EU Poses A Much More Credible Threat To Russia Than The Inverse”, which preceded former President and incumbent Deputy Chair of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev warning about the 1941-like threat posed by Germany’s remilitarization. Earlier this month, former top Russian spy Andrey Bezrukov raised awareness of the “new war” that he believes that Russia is in and which might last decades, one primary goal thereof being to neutralize its nuclear capabilities.
Grushko’s assessment coincided with the start of Trump 2.0’s “war of attrition” against Russia, so taken in sequence, it’s arguably the case that the US hopes to atrophy Russia through Ukraine prior to the EU becoming powerful enough to threaten a then-weakened Russia with invasion. The “cordon sanitaire” that formed around Russia over the past year largely due to Trump 2.0’s Neo-Reagan Doctrine could also lead to Turkiye and/or Japan threatening the same in order to obtain maximum concessions from Russia
This US-organized geostrategic construct was built in the Arctic-Baltic through UK-led efforts, Central Europe through Polish-led efforts, along Russia’s entire southern periphery through Turkish-led efforts, and in Northeast Asia through Japanese-led efforts. If Russia’s nuclear capabilities are neutralized or severely degraded by that time, then it might be coerced into selling controlling stakes in its state natural resource companies to the West for pennies on the dollar, which is Trump 2.0’s grand strategic goal.
Given this goal and the modus operandi of first trying to achieve it through the incipient “war of attrition” against Russia before threatening the use of force by around 2030 if that fails, Russia’s urgent interests are as follows. It must swiftly end the Ukrainian Conflict on as many of its terms as possible in order to then focus on preparing for potentially impending clashes with the US-led “cordon sanitaire”. Remaining embroiled in the “war of attrition” will sap its strength and make it relatively weaker by then.
Between now and then, Russia must also employ creative means for breaking this “cordon sanitaire” or at the very least preventing it from extending to Kazakhstan, which could potentially involve prioritized intelligence operations against shadow NATO member Azerbaijan or even another special operation. In parallel, it might also leverage its influence with North Korea to embolden Kim Jong Un to carry out more missile and possibly nuclear tests, hoping to abruptly shift the US’ focus from Europe to the Asia-Pacific.
If Russia continues fighting this “war of attrition” for years to come instead of decisively ending it soon, then it’ll be more vulnerable to the “cordon sanitaire’s” invasion threats around 2030, thus compelling it to either capitulate or resort to nuclear weapons in self-defense. Neither scenario is favorable, but both would be due to Russia failing to restore deterrence by then. It’s therefore imperative to immediately restore deterrence, swiftly win the Ukrainian Conflict, and then break this new “cordon sanitaire”.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/26/2026 - 06:30DSA’s primary triumph exposes the movement’s limits — for now
It was hard to imagine Brent Headrick being this much of a Yankees savior
The abundant but expensive energy source that's under your feet
The IRS’s new CEO just hired one of Jamie Dimon’s most trusted lieutenants
We did the math and found $125 savings on the Prime Day deals you’re already buying
Russia reports one of the biggest Ukrainian drone attacks on its soil and annexed Crimea
US Forces Kill Senior ISIS Leader In Syria, After Large-Scale Troop Withdrawal
The US military is still conducting attacks inside Syria, at a moment its close regional ally Israel is gobbling up territory in the south, and Golan region, with IDF ground forces holding territory within dozens of miles of Damascus.
"A senior Islamic State leader was killed by an airstrike last week, Central Command announced on Wednesday, as the region grapples with a fraught security landscape amid U.S. base closures in Syria and the escape of ISIS personnel from detainment," Defense News writes based on a fresh Wednesday Pentagon statement.
via ReutersHussein Al-Alawi has been identified as the target killed in northwestern Syria in the special forces operation.
"The attack is part of our continued efforts to disrupt terrorist activities and to target those who seek to plan attacks on the United States of America and its interests both domestically and internationally," CENTCOM stressed in its statement.
"The continued collaboration with the regional partners in the fight against the group," added the statement.
"CENTCOM and its partners remain committed to defeating the last remnants of ISIS and to guaranteeing its demise," stated Admiral Brad Cooper, US Central Command commander.
The over decade-long proxy war to oust Assad, which heavily involved the CIA and Gulf states, as well as Israel, has long been discussed as part of the 'pipeline wars' theme, and has for years been an open secret.
President Trump, who helped put new Syrian self-declared President Sharaa in power, and vouched for him when they first met in Saudi Arabia, is expected to attend the G7 summit.
But despite Damascus under Sharaa now being a willing puppet of Washington, economic relief for the war-ravaged Syrian population has remained illusory, as one Middle East outlet previously underscored:
Because Syria had been under crushing sanctions since the start of the 14-year war that began in 2011, many expected the economic situation to improve after Sharaa toppled former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's government and western nations began easing sanctions.
However, “attracting foreign investment and restoring normal banking ties have proven slower and more difficult than many officials had hoped,” Reuters noted. More than 90 percent of Syrians live below the poverty line and have suffered from major increases in the price of fuel, electricity, and food in recent months.
All the while, looming large in the background is the fact that the Syrian government is now full of Sunni extremists, who have repeatedly targeted Alawites, Druze, and Christians for being "unbelievers".
Thousands have died at the hands of ISIS-style Syrian government-linked military members, who have sought to cleanse the country of its ancient Christian and Alawite communities.
Israeli officials have of late lumped Turkey and Syria into an 'axis' which threatens Israel and its interests in the region. Also, Washington has been putting pressure on Damascus to move against Hezbollah, and yet the reality remains that Syria's defenses have been largely obliterated - ironically enough through Israeli strikes in the wake of Assad's exit.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/26/2026 - 05:45Teachers, parents and even students trash disastrous impact of AI in schools: ‘My heart breaks for this generation’
When is Amazon’s next Prime Day? Here’s everything we know
Qatar & The US Warn EU Of Gas Crunch Over Methane Regulation
Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,
-
Major LNG suppliers say the EU’s methane regulations are too burdensome to comply with and could lead to reduced gas supplies.
-
The U.S. and Qatar contend that tracking methane emissions across complex gas supply chains is technically difficult or impossible.
-
With nearly 60% of its LNG imports coming from the U.S., the EU risks straining relations with key suppliers as it pursues stricter climate policies.
The United States and Qatar have once again warned the European Union against doubling down on climate policies seeking to penalize the LNG industry, saying that if it continues on this course, the EU will face a gas crunch and higher prices.
“There is no viable path to compliance with the regulation”, the top energy officials of the U.S. and Qatar, Chris Wright and Saad al-Kaabi, wrote in a letter quoted by the Financial Times.
“Because legal compliance remains paramount, exporters and importers alike are unwilling to enter into contractual agreements that knowingly violate EU law,” the U.S. energy secretary and the Qatari energy minister also wrote. “Significant supply and price impacts are a certainty.”
The letter comes ahead of a meeting on Friday when the energy ministers of EU member states will discuss the policies of the bloc. It was also signed by two other large gas suppliers to the European Union, Algeria and Nigeria, the FT also reported.
The so-called methane regulation, adopted by the European Union two years ago, aimed at reducing not only the bloc’s own emissions of the greenhouse gas that constitutes almost 100% of natural gas but also forcing countries outside the EU that do business with the bloc to cut their emissions as well, notably gas suppliers.
The regulation, starting this year, extends to all energy suppliers to the EU, and these suppliers were anything but happy about it.
Both the United States and Qatar have already repeatedly warned the EU that they are unwilling to do business with it under the methane regulation that requires gas producers to track their methane emissions from the wellhead to the liquefaction plant and the LNG carrier after that, report them, and take pains to reduce these emissions, or face financial penalties.
Qatar was blunt about it, saying last year that if the EU was so concerned about methane emissions, they should look for some other source of LNG because Qatar would stop selling to the bloc. Secretary Wright also said last year that the methane regulation was impossible to implement and described it as “a critical non-tariff trade barrier that imposes an undue burden on U.S. exporters and our trade relationship.”
In response, Brussels caved partially, saying it will not enforce the penalties stipulated in the regulation until 2030. LNG exporters are still not happy with this option, insisting on what would effectively be the cancellation of the regulation—and they are not alone because there are EU member states that are not really eager to pay the additional cost of low-methane LNG, which would be inevitable, as pointed out by Wright and al-Kaabi.
Not only are higher gas prices for European buyers inevitable, but Secretary Wright was not exaggerating when he said the regulation would be impossible to enforce in the U.S. shale gas patch. The reason is quite simple: U.S. natural gas is produced by multiple companies that then feed their output into a complex gas network that takes the gas to the liquefaction facilities on the Gulf Coast. Tracking every molecule to ensure it was produced and shipped with as few methane emissions as possible is quite literally, physically impossible.
According to energy consultancy Rystad Energy, however, there is no problem with the EU methane regulation, because there are three times as much compliant natural gas available in the world as the EU imports, it said in a study commissioned by climate outlet the Environmental Defense Fund, as cited by the FT. One wonders, however, if that is indeed the case, why would both Qatar and the United States, which together account for a pretty solid portion of global LNG output, claim compliance is impossible, meaning there is not enough compliant gas in the world.
The EU, for all its power posturing, is not in a position of strength. Bloomberg’s Javier Blas reported in a recent column that the bloc buys some 59% of its LNG from the United States, with the figure going all the way to 64% in April. As a result, Blas wrote, some in Brussels are starting to worry that the EU has become too dependent on a single supplier of a vital commodity—and it does not exactly have many alternatives should anything strain relations, such as, perhaps, an ill-conceived methane regulation.
Yet it appears the purpose of the methane regulation is not necessarily to make sure the gas that Europeans buy is “clean”. The purpose, as described by the FT and attributed to proponents such as the Environmental Defense Fund, is to reduce gas consumption, apparently by making the conditions for purchasing that gas unpalatable. For those proponents, reducing gas consumption would improve the EU’s energy security. European industrial energy consumers beg to differ. Who will prevail should become clear pretty soon.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/26/2026 - 05:00