Skip to main content
The FYCKL Project
No AI. No Bull.

Main navigation

  • Home
User account menu
  • Log in

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Aggregator
  3. Sources

Zero Rss

Europe Dodges A Rhine Crisis For The Worst Possible Reason

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Europe Dodges A Rhine Crisis For The Worst Possible Reason

Authored by Natalia Katona via OilPrice.com,

  • Rhine freight from ARA to Karlsruhe has surged from €45/t to €215/t as Kaub remains below the 77-cm threshold needed for normal commercial traffic.
  • The squeeze is disrupting 3.1 million t/y of ethylene capacity and product movements from the 320,000-b/d Miro refinery.
  • Europe is avoiding a deeper crisis only because crackers are running at around 70% and fuel demand is weak.

The Rhine has slightly risen from its mid-August record low (when Kaub's water level gauge - at the river's decisive chokepoint - was below 10 cm), but the relief is mostly optical. Barges still cannot carry normal loads through it, leaving the industrial corridor from Rotterdam and Antwerp to southern Germany, eastern France and Switzerland short of transport capacity. The immediate result is expensive freight, constrained chemical production and uneven fuel supply. However, the more troubling conclusion is that Europe is avoiding a deeper disruption only because its factories and consumers are already demanding less. This way, the Rhine's low-water crisis is a stress test for an industrial system built around cheap, high-volume river transport, and a reminder that pipelines, railways and roads cannot quickly reproduce what the Rhine does.

Kaub, on the Middle Rhine, determines how much cargo can move between the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) hub and industrial centres farther south. When its navigable water depth fell below 10 centimetres in mid-August, the waterway was roughly 1.2 metres deep (in comparison, just a year ago water depth was around 2.3 meters). The level has since recovered to about 45 centimetres, but that remains below the 77-centimetre benchmark - far from a return to normal commercial traffic. At the lowest levels, only specialised low-draft barges can cross Kaub, and while the Lower Rhine may remain open, the route to the Upper Rhine is effectively shut for most vessels, fragmenting what normally functions as one market.

The chemical industry feels that fracture first. Several of Germany's largest steam crackers are located along the Rhine corridor and are affected by restrictions at Kaub. The BASF, INEOS, LyondellBasell and Shell sites in this area have around 3.1 million t/y of combined ethylene capacity. BASF's Ludwigshafen complex is particularly exposed because it lies south of Kaub and moves about 40% of all incoming and outgoing goods by river.

Naphtha supply is not much of a problem - most of Germany's naphtha moves by pipeline, offering protection against a river bottleneck. But pipelines do not redistribute the broad range of finished products made by a cracker, and if those materials cannot leave, storage fills, and operators must curb runs. With low water levels continuing to limit the normal movement on the river, barges are forced to carry smaller loads, while specialised chemical vessels are limited. Related: U.S. Billionaires Are Piling Into Argentina's Vaca Muerta Shale

The effects can spread quickly into smaller downstream markets. LyondellBasell's force majeure at its 170,000 t/y Wesseling butadiene unit followed restricted feedstock flows to its crackers and a resulting decline in crude C4 production. Crude C4 is produced during the steam cracking of naphtha alongside ethylene and is then processed to extract butadiene. A relatively small reduction in cracker output can therefore cause a much larger squeeze in the smaller butadiene market - and other co-products that are difficult to reroute, such as pyrolysis gasoline, face similar pressure.

This restricted inland movements of chemical products contributed to naphtha inventories in ARA reaching 598,000 tonnes in mid-August (75% more than a month earlier). However, the problem is not only in the movement restrictions: weaker cracker operations have overall reduced naphtha consumption by the crackers even before the Rhine's levels became an issue - the crackers have been running at 70% due to weak demand on their production across the wider European market.

The same effect is emerging in refining. Most inland German refineries receive crude through pipelines, so the Rhine does not automatically force crude runs lower. Their exposure lies in intermediate feedstocks, blending components and, above all, moving gasoline, diesel and heating oil to customers.

Karlsruhe illustrates the issue. Road trucks have been shuttling to and from the Miro refinery (320,000 b/d capacity) to collect fuel, but the site also normally ships products by barge both toward ARA and upstream to Switzerland. With movements restricted in both directions, Karlsruhe must hold surplus refined products in its storage facilities, while markets farther away pay shortage premiums.

The Rhine's freight rates reflect this physical imbalance. The assessed ARA-Karlsruhe barge rate rose five-fold to €215/t currently from about €45/t at the end of June, while ARA-Basel reached €275/t in mid-August. At extreme low water, even those assessments become partly theoretical because few normal cargoes can pass.

Road and rail offer relief, but not replacement. Chemicals require appropriate tankers and transportation conditions, while the volumes involved overwhelm available vehicles and infrastructure. One fully loaded barge carrying 2,400 tonnes of diesel is equivalent to 90 trucks. Germany's temporary relaxation of Sunday and public-holiday restrictions for heavy vehicles may improve flexibility, but it cannot manufacture tank cars, specialist trailers, drivers or road capacity.

Yet the constraints extend even beyond crackers and refineries. Covestro declared force majeure on polyether polyols made at Dormagen, while Salzgitter shifted coal from Rotterdam to rail for its HKM steelmaking division. Such workarounds keep selected flows moving, but they also compete for the same scarce trains and trucks needed elsewhere. The disruption is therefore cumulative: every industry solving its own bottleneck makes the alternatives tighter for the next.

Nor is this only a German problem. Eastern France has experienced localised gasoline shortages as barges serving Strasbourg carried a fraction of their normal loads. Switzerland faces higher import costs and the possibility of drawing on strategic stocks. Rotterdam and Antwerp remain supplied by sea, yet congestion and slower terminal turnover spread costs across the wider northwest European market. This way, low water does not create a single European shortage but rather creates a dispersed issue of trapped supply and local shortages.

For now, weak demand is preventing isolated local shortages and oversupplies from becoming a broader crisis. European crackers were operating at only about 70% in July, after years of pressure from expensive energy, weak construction and automotive demand, and cheaper imports from Asian competitors. Fuel consumption in inland Germany has also been decreasing. However, if chemical plants and fuel markets were operating near normal levels, the shortage of river capacity would be much harder to absorb. A recovery in manufacturing, higher diesel demand or winter stockpiling could therefore intensify the disruption even if water levels improve modestly.

The Rhine may have risen slightly, but Europe's industrial margin of safety has not. This summer's lesson is that weak demand can cushion a logistics failure, but it cannot solve one. When (or if) the economy rebounds and supply chains are once again required to handle normal volumes, the problem will extend far beyond the river itself.

And besides, this summer should not be mistaken for a worst-case scenario. A super El Niño could bring a warmer winter, less Alpine snow and a weaker meltwater buffer. If another hot, dry summer follows, Rhine levels in July and August 2027 could fall even lower than this year's records.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/24/2026 - 05:00
Tyler Durden

Clean Energy Spending Tracking Toward Record $180 Billion In 2026

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Clean Energy Spending Tracking Toward Record $180 Billion In 2026

Authored by Haley Zaremba via OilPrice.com,

  • U.S. utility-scale battery storage has reached 52 GW after three years of 70 percent average annual growth, with 8.3 GW of that added in the first six months of 2026 alone.
  • Clean energy capital spending hit $74 billion in the first half and is on pace for a record $180 billion this year, even after the rollback of federal incentives.
  • Grid operators have another 54 GW queued through 2028, while China holds roughly half of global capacity and the EU moves to triple its own by 2030.

Donald Trump is accidentally overseeing a massive buildout of the country's renewable energy capacity and infrastructure. Not only are investments in renewable technologies soaring to new highs, the national energy grid is rapidly transforming to accommodate an increasingly solar- and wind-powered energy mix.

Despite massive rollbacks of Biden- and Obama-era clean energy incentives and financial supports, investment in clean energy tech keeps soaring to new heights, buoyed by market forces far outside of the federal government's control. Clean energy capital expenditures already reached $74 billion in the first half of 2026, and they're on track to reach a record $180 billion by the end of the year, according to fintech firm Crux's State of Clean Energy Finance: 2026 Mid-Year Market Intelligence Report.

"The market is proving resilient," Crux CEO and co-founder Alfred Johnson was recently quoted by Politico's E&E News. "We're seeing a significant amount of investment subsequent to the tax law changes of last year."

The insatiable energy demand coming from data center hyperscalers and the artificial intelligence boom has spurred a tidal wave of investment into all kinds of energy projects, and especially renewables due to their noted advantages when it comes to energy security and affordability. These advantages have been underscored in recent months by extreme volatility in fossil fuel markets thanks to the war in Iran and resultant supply chain vulnerabilities. "Renewables and storage continue to be the fastest way to get new electrons on the grid until additional gas-fired generation can be built," NextEra Energy CEO John Ketchum was recently quoted by Reuters.

As a result, we are currently "living in what arguably is one of the best periods to invest in renewables in the US over the last 20 years" according to Miguel Stilwell d'Andrade, chief executive officer of Portuguese electric utilities company EDP. Accordingly, EDP is directing approximately USD $5.3 billion - more than half of its capital expenditures - toward United States renewables projects over the next three years.

All of that renewable energy buildout is being accompanied by a massive and unprecedented uptick in battery storage buildout, resulting in a rapid transformation of the nation's energy grid. Over the past three years, utility-scale battery storage capacity increased at a blistering rate of 70 percent per year on average to reach 52 gigawatts (GW) today. Nearly 16 percent of that - 8.3 GW - was added in the first half of this year alone.

"This expansion depends mostly on co-locating batteries with solar photovoltaic (PV) plants to capitalize on wholesale price arbitrage across major energy markets," Interesting Engineering reported earlier this week. Connecting battery packs directly to solar farms allows the farms' operators to store excess clean energy at peak production hours until the evening hours, when production wanes, demand rises, and rates reach a premium. "This lucrative business model has sparked a massive construction boom across solar-heavy states, turning temporary energy storage into a primary driver of modern grid infrastructure," Interesting Engineering goes on to report.

As stunning as this year's figures are, the battery storage revolution is just getting started. Grid operators already have plans to add another 54 GW of battery capacity by the end of 2028. That means that the nation's energy storage capacity will double again by 2030, compared to current levels.

And the United States is not alone - the energy storage renaissance is proving to be a global trend. China is leading buildout by a wide margin, controlling more than half of global capacity. But other major global leaders are hurrying to get a foothold into the rapidly expanding market. Just this month, the European Union formalized a plan to triple the bloc's energy storage capacity by 2030. European Leaders are banking on energy storage - alongside renewable energy expansion - to steady the continent's energy markets and protect member states from the next energy crisis.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/24/2026 - 03:30
Tyler Durden

Anti-Social Media

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Anti-Social Media

Social media may have been built to connect people, but entertainment and diversion now appear to be its main draws.

As Statista's Felix Richter reports, according to Statista Consumer Insights, nearly half of U.S. respondents say entertainment is an important criterion when it comes to social media, ahead of passing time and communicating with friends and family.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Among young adults aged 18 to 29, the social dimension of social media is even less pronounced: 32 percent cite staying in touch with friends and family as important, compared with 37 percent who value simply passing time.

With only 25 percent naming meeting new people as a priority, the findings illustrate how social platforms increasingly function as an always-on source of content, diversion and passive consumption, as opposed to it original purpose of staying in touch with friends.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/24/2026 - 02:45
Tyler Durden

Israel DM Orders IDF To Escalate Demolitions In Southern Lebanon

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Israel DM Orders IDF To Escalate Demolitions In Southern Lebanon

Authored by Jason Ditz via Antiwar.com,

A week after ordering the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to prepare for a "long-term stay" in occupied southern Lebanon, Defense Minister Israel Katz has now also ordered them to escalate the rate at which they're destroying what is being framed as "Hezbollah infrastructure" across the south.

The issue with this is the same as it's been throughout the war, that Israel's definition of Hezbollah infrastructure generally boils down to civilian infrastructure at large, with a particular emphasis on the municipalities where Shi'ite Muslims live, but by no means restricting the attacks just to them.

Officials aimed to frame the tiny Shi'ite villages that the IDF already occupies as "Hezbollah fortresses," and presented the ongoing demolition of those villages as "engineering activity." Much of that engineering involves explosions, whether it's heavy artillery fire on the villages or increasingly the deployment of incendiary white phosphorus munitions to set fires in the villages and the surrounding area.

IDF military vehicles seen smashing solar panels in Debel, Lebanon | Image from X

Katz has made clear that a number of the villages in the southernmost parts of Lebanon will simply have to "disappear," and with tens of thousands of homes destroyed in recent months, there are a number of villages which it can be said simply no longer exist.

But Israel has allowed a handful of non-Shi'ite villages to remain in that area, but living under the occupation leaves those villages in a very tenuous situation. Local leaders in Kfar Chouba reported that the IDF warned them that if anyone in the village was armed, the entire village population would be expelled and the buildings destroyed. So far, that hasn't happened.

But obeying the occupiers doesn't mean the villagers can live as they would in peacetime. The village's economy is based heavily around farming and olive orchards, but the Israeli troops regularly restrict villagers' access to those lands. There's no formal rule given to the villagers as to where they're allowed or not allowed at any given time, and even the southernmost parts of the village are "no go" areas, with IDF troops reportedly setting up operations within buildings in that part of the village.

Further north, Israel continues to heavily attack the Ali Taher Ridge, though in the past few days they haven't made any serious attempts to advance on the ground into the area. Israel reportedly sees the ridge as strategically valuable, as it overlooks much of the northern part of Nabatieh District, the northernmost part of Lebanon that Israel intends to occupy, at least at this point.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/24/2026 - 02:00
Tyler Durden

"Iran Is Losing Its Grip On Hormuz": Strait Traffic Explodes Nearly 400%

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
"Iran Is Losing Its Grip On Hormuz": Strait Traffic Explodes Nearly 400%

Summary:

  • Nearly 200 Ships Navigated Strait Last Week, Up From 150 the Previous Week
  • Trump Views Hormuz As "an American Territory" 
  • Axios: 40 Tankers Transited Hormuz Friday Night, But Real Crisis Is Diesel
Hormuz Commercial Traffic Surges 

Shortly after President Trump declared the Strait of Hormuz "an American territory" on Friday evening, the New York Post published a new report citing UK Maritime Trade Operations data showing that commercial traffic through the critical waterway has rebounded sharply as more vessels use a US-backed route along Oman's coast. This suggests that the US military presence and offensive operations in the region have degraded Tehran's ability to fully control the waterway.

Nearly 200 ships navigated the strait last week, up from about 150 the previous week and just 40 two weeks earlier, according to UKMTO data. Traffic has recovered to roughly 20% of prewar levels, when the waterway carried about one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil.

"It increasingly looks like Iran has at least partially lost control of the strait," Homayoun Falakshahi, head of crude oil analysis at Kpler, told CNN.

"The Oman route absolutely makes the most sense," added Dan Pickering, founder of Pickering Energy Partners, noting that it allows vessels to avoid the possibility of paying a toll to Tehran.

President Trump told a crowd in South Carolina late Friday, "We don't even know if we won, because I view the Strait of Hormuz as an American territory right now."

BREAKING: Trump says he view Strait of Hormuz as an American territory pic.twitter.com/NBKGGBgvWu

— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) August 21, 2026

Let's revisit a mid-March note from Ex Uno Plures' Zoltan Pozsar, who explained at the time that Trump was "methodically building a portfolio of assets" to pressure China, centered on strategic energy-supply nodes and maritime chokepoints that have historically supported Beijing's access to cheap crude imports. His note highlighted the Panama Canal, Venezuelan oil flows, and the broader significance of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.

Axios: 40 Tankers Transited Hormuz Friday Night, But Real Crisis Is Diesel

Axios political reporter and Middle East correspondent Barak Ravid reported early Saturday that 40 tankers transited the Strait of Hormuz on Friday night, citing three unnamed US officials.

"Around 16 million barrels of oil moved out of the strait through the southern channel on Friday night," Ravid wrote on X.

🚨🚢🛢️Around 40 tankers transited in and out of the Strait of Hormuz through the southern deep channel on Friday night. Around 16 million barrels of oil moved out of the strait through the southern channel on Friday night, three U.S. officials told me

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) August 22, 2026

The latest Bloomberg vessel-tracking data show that 13 ships transited the critical waterway on Saturday, with seven traveling east to west and six moving west to east. Traffic remains well below the levels recorded during the brief memorandum-of-understanding period from June 15 through mid-July.

On Friday, President Trump called the Hormuz chokepoint "an American territory"...

"We don't even know if we won, because I view the Strait of Hormuz as an American territory right now," Trump said, addressing a crowd in South Carolina.

Trump joked about bombing Iran during the speech, saying, "It's a Friday night. We have plenty of time... and what the hell do I have to do? Go back and bomb Iran a little bit more?"

Axios reported Wednesday that the US military had established a shipping corridor in the critical waterway, which carries millions of barrels of oil each day. There was no word from Ravid on whether the 40 tankers sailed through the new shipping corridor.

Even with these transits, the emerging energy crisis is not centered on crude availability, as SPRs around the world are being tapped to offset lost production in the Gulf region. Instead, the real crisis is materializing in the refined-products market.

The focus emerged at the start of the week when Bloomberg's front-month US diesel crack spread (HOCL1 Index) topped $100 a barrel, as we warned: "Industrial economy either grinds to a halt or consumers about to be hit with the biggest energy pass-through in history."

Diesel crack hits record $102. This is absolutely unprecedented.

Industrial economy either grinds to a halt or consumers about to be hit with the biggest energy pass through in history pic.twitter.com/OtAdgrCvb3

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 17, 2026

Then, by Wednesday, Jeff Currie, the former Goldman Sachs commodities chief and now co-chair of Abaxx Markets, appeared on CNBC to explain that the real crisis is not in crude but in diesel markets.

"Nobody on the planet Earth consumes crude oil," Currie told CNBC. "Refineries do. Everyone else consumes gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, and those markets look considerably uglier."

By Thursday, Currie explained that the convergence of tight physical markets, currency debasement and policy intervention represents the hallmark of a structural commodity bull cycle.

"Stop looking at crude. Nobody consumes it but refineries. The economy runs on gasoline and diesel, and that consumption-weighted basket costs $165 against $85 WTI," Currie wrote on X. Read the report.

Related:

  • Diesel Crack Spread Madness Deepens As Jefferies Finds No Easy Exit From Russia's Refining Crisis

The US diesel crack spread closed below $100 on Friday, but the Hormuz disruption, compounded by Ukraine's decimation of Russia's refining capabilities, is creating a perfect storm for global diesel markets ahead of the Northern Hemisphere winter.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 23:55
Tyler Durden

MAGA, The DSA, & The Politics Of No Competition

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
MAGA, The DSA, & The Politics Of No Competition

Authored by Katherine Gehl via RealClearPolitics,

Despite the narrow loss by Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong in the Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial primary last week, DSA candidates have prevailed in primaries this year from Maine to California. The Democratic Party establishment believed it dodged a bullet in Wisconsin, but this threat is not going away any time soon.

The roots of the radical left's success were seeded almost a decade ago. In 2017, a writer in a Democratic Socialists of America publication laid out a strategy under a plain title: "Want to Elect Socialists? Run Them in Democratic Primaries." The Democratic Party, the article conceded, was deeply flawed - but it was the easiest available path for socialists to win elections and build power. Nearly a decade later, that strategy is bearing fruit. Democratic Socialist and allied candidates are winning Democratic primaries, and with them, safe Democratic seats - maybe even some competitive seats.

We have seen this before, on the right side of the political spectrum. Donald Trump - who sought the Reform Party's presidential nomination in 2000 and registered as an independent in 2011 - ultimately abandoned the outsider path. His nationalist-populist movement could not realistically win elections as a third party - under our rules it would only split conservative votes and hand elections to Democrats. So Trump and his MAGA movement didn't build. They captured. Trump fought inside the Republican Party, where a committed faction could dominate low-turnout primaries, threaten incumbents, and seize the party's brand. Today MAGA owns that brand, the infrastructure, the finances, and the power of the GOP.

These two stories are usually told as ideological earthquakes - the radicalization of the right, the leftward lurch of the left. They are better understood as the same structural event, produced by the same underlying cause. The cause is the century-long determination of America's two dominant political parties to retain their power at all costs.

To retain their stranglehold on the levers of power they employ a dozen different strategies, ranging from restricting ballot access to manipulating political primaries. But the single rule allowing Democrats and Republicans to keep control is one most of us never even notice - and one that sounds perfectly reasonable: In most U.S. elections, the winner is the candidate with the most votes. The technical term is plurality winners.

This seems simple and fair on its face, but it turns out to be wildly consequential - and not in a good way. You see, if the winner is only required to have "the most votes," that means in any race with more than two candidates, a candidate can win with less than a majority. For example, a candidate can win with 34% in a three-way race, meaning two-thirds of voters preferred someone else. In a five-way race, the winner could emerge with 21%. This dynamic creates the "spoiler" or the "wasted vote."

In plurality winner elections, we often don't feel free to vote for the candidate we like best, out of fear our vote will inadvertently help elect the candidate we like least. For example, in the 2016 presidential race, if you liked Green Party candidate Jill Stein, you knew you probably shouldn't vote for her because that would take votes from Hillary Clinton and help elect Donald Trump. The mirror on the right: You may have wanted to vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson, but you knew that would take votes from Trump and help elect Clinton.

Plurality winners aren't just a problem for "fringe" views. They're the reason so many voters experience November general elections as a choice between the "lesser of two evils."

Consider 2024. Numerous polls found that most Americans didn't want a rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden - roughly two-thirds said they were tired of the same candidates and wanted someone new. Clear majorities of Americans said neither man should run at all.

Into that vacuum stepped the group No Labels, whose founder and chief executive, Nancy Jacobson, reached out to some 30 potential candidates for a centrist "unity" ticket. The names were serious people - Joe Manchin, Larry Hogan, Kyrsten Sinema, Liz Cheney, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley among them. Not one would run.

Manchin said the quiet part out loud - he ruled it out publicly stating he refused to be a spoiler. There is the whole trap, in a single word. Under plurality winners, a credible independent - or third-party candidate - doesn't enter the race as an equal competitor; he enters as a spoiler. The spoiler problem means no votes, no votes means no chance, no chance means no money, no money means no messaging, no messaging means no chance, and no chance means no votes. It is a vicious cycle, and it shuts out new competition before a single ballot is cast. No Labels went looking, in its own words, "for a hero," and a hero never emerged. The system disqualified them before the starting line.

So why do we do it this way? Because in the early days of our Republic, we made a mistake.

At the time, democratic elections barely existed anywhere on earth, so Americans copied the one working model, Great Britain's. For centuries, the freeholders of each English county gathered at the county court - a public assembly summoned by the sheriff - to choose the "knights of the shire" who would sit for them in the House of Commons, and the town boroughs did the same. The rule was identical and unquestioned: The most votes won, majority or not. There was no mathematical science of voting yet, no menu of alternatives to weigh. So, we reached for the only template in existence and carried it across the Atlantic. We didn't carefully design our rule for who wins. We backed into it.

Today, the plurality winner system is the greatest barrier to entry in American politics. Consider this: In any other industry as large and thriving as the politics industry, with 86% customer dissatisfaction (the public disapproval of Congress per Gallup's most recent data), some entrepreneur would see a phenomenal business opportunity and enter the market to give the customers what they want. One would think that a marketplace of ideas so vastly underserved would produce third - or fourth, fifth, and sixth - alternatives. But American politics doesn't work this way. The cause: plurality elections.

Political scientists call this phenomenon Duverger's law, the tendency of plurality winners to produce exactly two parties. No new major party has emerged in American politics since the Republicans in 1854.

Economists also have a name for this kind of system: a non-clearing marketplace. In a healthy market, competition keeps working until supply rises to meet demand and the market "clears." Our political market never clears. Economists know why a market gets stuck like this: It's rarely nature; it's almost always an artificial barrier. Housing is the textbook case - demand for homes in a thriving city dwarfs supply, yet zoning, permitting, and other government requirements choke off new construction.

Plurality winners are the corollary in American politics: the rule that keeps new supply from ever reaching the voters clamoring for it. The demand for a real alternative is enormous and unmistakable. Poll after poll finds a majority of Americans want a third choice. When a market is barred from clearing, the built-up pressure doesn't vanish - it escapes into the black market. That is precisely what the hostile takeovers are: the black market of a rigged political economy, demand forcing its way in where honest competition is blocked.

End plurality winners and let the market clear, and that same energy would flow where it belongs - into new candidates, new ideas, and politicians who must satisfy their general elections customers to survive.

Modern attempts to crack the market only prove the rule. Predating No Labels' effort, in 2012 the financier Peter Ackerman poured his own fortune and energy into Americans Elect, an audacious bid to put a bipartisan "unity" ticket on the ballot through the first-ever national online primary - its nominee required to choose a running mate from the opposing party. Ackerman's team did something almost unimaginable, winning ballot access in 29 states before a single vote was cast. Then it collapsed, in large part because no credible candidate would step forward. The serious contenders all understood what Ross Perot's example in the 1990s and, later, Joe Manchin would confirm: Under plurality rules an independent cannot win, only spoil. Americans Elect built the doorway. The spoiler problem meant no one dared walk through it.

Even more contemporaneously, a disillusioned Elon Musk vowed only last summer to launch a third party. Within a month, he'd pumped the brakes on it. Money wasn't the issue - he's the richest man in the world. The barrier is plurality voting and the dreaded "spoiler" label. This summer, Tucker Carlson merely floated a third party trial balloon, Within days, the chattering class was handicapping how Carlson's fantasy might spoil Marco Rubio's chance at the 2028 presidential nomination - and Republican chances generally.

Changing the status quo

The most devastating cost of a market with no real competition is not dissatisfying candidates. The true devastation: We don't get results.

Ask a simple question: When did this country last balance its federal budget? The answer is 1998-2001. President Bill Clinton and his working relationship with House Speaker Newt Gingrich are generally credited with this accomplishment. But most analysts have missed an essential driver: The last time we had balanced budgets followed soon after the last time we had genuine competition in the presidential general election. In 1992, billionaire Texan Ross Perot used his own fortune to do what our system almost never permits: Compete nationally as an independent because he didn't mind investing his own money in a spoiler race. His message was blunt - America was drowning in debt - and he delivered it himself, buying up half‑hour blocks of network television for folksy "infomercials" in which he stood before hand‑drawn charts and walked the country through the federal balance sheet. The first edition drew more than 16 million viewers.

On the first Tuesday of November, Perot won not a single electoral vote but nearly one-fifth of the popular vote. He lost, but citizens won. Before Perot's candidacy, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats had balanced budgets on their party platforms. He proved that deficit reduction had a constituency neither party could afford to ignore, or to cede to his nascent Reform Party. Competitive pressure persuaded Clinton and Gingrich that they had to tackle it. In the years that followed, Washington produced four consecutive balanced budgets, the first since 1969. Paul Begala confirmed the theory from the inside, writing in the Washington Post at Perot's death, "I am not sure we would have ever balanced the budget without the pressure Perot and his voters brought to the issue." Multiple factors contributed to the balanced budgets, but Perot delivered the otherwise never-existent "political will."

Here's the point: Competition changes results even when it doesn't change who wins. In Silicon Valley when a breakthrough technology emerges, if it benefits customers it will eventually make it to market. The new company will succeed in the marketplace on its own or it will be acquired or copied. Either way, consumers win. That's the alchemic brilliance of competition.

We desperately need dynamic competition in politics too - not just among candidates but for innovative policy ideas, and competition "to get shit done," to quote Joe Manchin in a recent interview making the case for independent candidates. In the political marketplace with only two competitors, neither of our two parties are incentivized to tell voters a hard truth or, more importantly, to do hard things like casting votes they know will help the country but perhaps put their political career at risk.

Add a third candidate who can, and the truth suddenly has a market. That is why there will never be a real candidate of fiscal sanity - on the debt, or on anything else that demands shared sacrifice or requires dealing powerfully with tradeoffs - until we eliminate plurality winners. In a marketplace with only two competitors, neither wins reelection if they do a hard thing - balancing the budget, reaching a bipartisan compromise on immigration, rethinking health care. So, they don't.

Healthy competition, in any human endeavor, delivers innovation, results, and accountability - all of which are sorely missing in our current politics. If we want the benefits of free market politics, we must tear down the barrier to entry that plurality winners create. The fix is simple: To win, you must earn a majority.

A preference for majority winners is neither radical nor new. The Constitution built in a safeguard for the Electoral College: If no candidate wins a majority there, the U.S. House picks the president in a "contingent" election. Massachusetts required a majority to elect its governor from 1780 until 1855. When no one won a majority outright, the choice fell not to the voters but to the state legislature.

A few states still use majority requirements today. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, California, and Texas require majority winners in various races and use two-person runoffs to deliver those. The instinct is right. The mechanisms are the problem. Polarized legislatures breaking ties aren't acceptable today; that method does nothing to eliminate the deterrent effect of spoiler and wasted votes. Traditional runoffs are expensive, they demand a whole second election, and turnout collapses the second time around. Worse, a two-person runoff coming out of a crowded field can simply recreate the spoiler problem, as California's top-two primary has done - vote-splitting knocking out the majority's real choice before the final round.

The elegant answer is to hold runoffs instantly. Instant runoffs are mostly new to America, but they're time tested by other established democracies. The Australians and Irish have used them in various elections for more than a century. And, of course the idea of runoffs isn't foreign at all given their use in nine states. An instant runoff is exactly the same, except you don't have to come back to the polls for each new round. Instead, you rank the candidates from your first to last choice all at once (ideally on Election Day or in a mail-in ballot arriving by Election Day) using a ranked ballot.

After the polls close, assuming a dynamic five-person race, there are four runoff rounds.

  1. In Round One, your vote is cast for your favorite candidate (i.e., the one you ranked first on your ballot) just like always. At the end of the round, the candidate who came in fifth/last place is eliminated.
  2. In Round Two with four candidates remaining, your vote is cast for your favorite among the remaining four. At the end of the round, the candidate in fourth/last place is eliminated.
  3. In Rounds Three and Four, the process repeats, narrowing the four to three and then three to the final two, at which point, of course, majority wins.

Here's the part people worry about, so let's be plain: In every round, your vote goes to your favorite candidate still in the race. As long as your first choice is standing, that's who you're voting for - round after round. Your lower rankings are just backups. They come into play only if your favorite is knocked out, and then your vote moves to the next name on your list who's still running. It's exactly what you'd do in a Georgia or Texas or Louisiana runoff: Your candidate didn't make it, so you pick your favorite among those who did. The difference is only that you expressed your preference in advance, so you didn't have to make the trip back to the polling place.

One election. Five candidates. Four instant runoff rounds. One vote for each voter in each round. A majority winner. No spoiler.

'Frenemies' of reform

Those of us pushing for "Final Five Elections" (FFE) know what the ranked ballot conjures in those who are unconvinced. In no small part this is because liberal reformers have spent years giving it a bad name. They've deployed it in sleepy, low-turnout, low-information municipal races, and in cities like San Francisco they asked voters to rank long rosters of little-known candidates.

Democratic Party reformers added ranked ballots to party primaries in New York City, but they deliberately didn't install it in the general election because the Democrats didn't want real competition in November. They prefer knowing who to call "Mr. Mayor" after the Democratic primary in July. Reformers also like to pair a ranked ballot with proportional representation. The first is basically sabotage; the second is just a terrible idea. In both cases, they're using a tool for the wrong job. The instant runoff has one narrow use case for which it is tailor-made: a November general election with a manageable field of up to five candidates. Used there, it does exactly one job impeccably - it guarantees a majority winner with no spoiler. It's the key that unlocks healthy competition.

That is precisely how we use it in Final Five Elections. FFE is the combination of two simple changes to our election system: First, a single-ballot primary open to every candidate and voter regardless of party, and out of which the top five advance regardless of party; and second, an instant-runoff general election resulting in a majority winner. Open the market; require a majority. That is the whole design, and it is not just theory.

In 2017, I published my politics-industry theory out of Harvard Business School with my co-author, economist Michael E. Porter. Our work made its way to Alaska, where prominent Anchorage attorney Scott Kendall used it to design a ballot initiative built around these new rules. In November 2020 Alaska voters passed Final Four Elections (an earlier version of Final Five Elections in which four candidates advance to the general). Alaska became the first state in the nation to choose healthy competition in its elections for Congress and its entire state government. It won't be the last.

You could be forgiven for thinking Final Five Elections are about electing more moderates. They will certainly make that more likely - the market for moderate dealmakers doesn't clear today, and moderates are essential for delivering consensus solutions to tough policy challenges. But unlike the reformers who imagine that's the whole point, I don't see it that way. Reforms that provide artificially disproportionate advantages for moderates (e.g., Condorcet winners) are a bad idea. Innovation in any human endeavor usually emerges from what might be considered fringes or extremes. It's the same for public policy where innovation rarely arises at the current midpoint of public opinion. As Porter and I wrote in 2017, "transformational changes in the U.S. have often begun at the fringes - in decidedly non-moderate camps." Think civil rights. We need moderates and we need "extremes." We need a competition of ideas. What Final Five Elections really does is let both markets clear at once - the market for dealmakers and the market for leaders and new ideas.

To envision what Final Five Elections would change, watch what's happening right now - then imagine the same candidates, the same voters, the same political mood, under different rules. This season, Democratic socialists won a string of Democratic primaries in places where the primary is the only election that matters. In Denver's safe-blue 1st District, 29-year-old Melat Kiros, backed by Bernie Sanders and the DSA, ousted 15-term Rep. Diana DeGette by more than 13 percentage points. In Upper Manhattan, Darializa Avila Chevalier knocked off five-term Rep. Adriano Espaillat. Because these are overwhelmingly Democratic seats, that small, committed primary electorate didn't merely choose a nominee - it chose the member of Congress even though the general election is still months away. General election voters who might have preferred the non-DSA Democrats will never get a say.

Now run those same races under Final Five Elections. The socialists would still claim a spot on the November ballot but they could no longer back into the seat as the only Democrat on offer, or as the lesser of two evils. To win, the socialist would have to assemble an actual majority of the entire district. The same logic runs on the right - which is why MAGA would still exist under Final Five Elections but would likely not have rendered establishment Republicans extinct. In Texas, John Cornyn led the first round of the Senate primary and still lost to Ken Paxton in a low-turnout runoff decided by the base - even as analysts judged Cornyn the stronger November candidate. In Louisiana, Bill Cassidy was eliminated by his own party's primary voters, punished for a vote of conscience against Donald Trump. Under Final Five Elections, Cornyn and Cassidy would each have stood on the November ballot beside their Trump-endorsed challenger (and the leading Democrat) and the whole electorate - not a closed-primary faction - would decide the race. If MAGA earns a majority, MAGA wins. If it doesn't, the establishment Republican, or an over-achieving Democrat, prevails.

To be clear, while I am no fan of the Democratic Socialists' platform, my objection is not that they might win, it's that we could back into their agenda - not because a majority of Americans chose it, but because a structural error in our democracy routinely distorts our elections. When and if DSA candidates win and their policies are tried in a laboratory of democracy (as in Mamdani's grand New York City experiment), I bet voters will discover what history has already shown: Socialism doesn't work.

Under Final Five Elections, voters would have a way back, because traditional Democrats wouldn't be extinct or new alternatives to the DSA would be able to enter. Under Final Five Elections, Mike Pence Republicans would have market access to compete for the post-Trump right-of-center vote. And for ideas that do work from any of these competitors, they can be adopted by other parties. I do this work because I believe in the value of competition. Even if certain candidates don't win, some of their good ideas might be adopted by those who do, a la Perot. That's as it should be.

In evaluating Final Five Elections, it's essential to see that it is not the sum of its parts. It is one machine whose several precision components work only in combination, engineered to deliver a single result: a majority winner drawn from a field of up to five credible candidates in November. Adopt just one component - ranked ballots, say, or some version of an "open" primary - and nothing structural moves. The piece that does the real work is the one most reformers omit: advancing five candidates from a single open primary into the general, so that the decisive, competitive election is November and not a low-turnout party primary.

Washington, D.C., shows what happens when that piece is missing. There, reformer Lisa Rice led an impressive campaign to pass Initiative 83, which put ranked ballots in both the primaries and the general and even opened those primaries to the District's independents - several of the "parts," adopted at once, with real skill and the best of intentions. But Rice's hands were tied by D.C.'s Home Rule Act which bars an essential piece - the top-five primary that would carry five candidates into a contested November - and so the dynamics of the election didn't change in Final Five style because party primaries still exist and each advance only one candidate to the general.

As a result, we saw a campaign similar to other DSA races: In June 2026, Councilmember Janeese Lewis George, a democratic socialist, won the Democratic mayoral primary and, in a city this blue, is all but certain to become mayor, with no credible contender waiting in the general. The primary still crowned the winner. Notice, too, what this reveals about the ranked ballot: In a low-turnout, low-information primary, ranking is an unnecessary complication. In Final Five Elections the primary is a simple "pick-one." You choose your single favorite, as always, and the top five advance; ranking does its real work later, in the general, where it forges a majority from genuine competition.

Opening the primary as a stand-alone reform, which is currently advocated by many major reform organizations, is not the missing piece either. The impulse behind it is understandable: If the party primary is the election that truly decides, then shutting independents out of it really is unfair. But the best cure for that unfairness is not to usher outsiders into a party's nomination; it is to make the general election the contest that matters, so that everyone is finally voting in the election that counts. Making a broken election system "fairer" is not the same as making it work, and we must not let the fix for a real unfairness talk us into a reform that leaves us just as unlikely, or more so, to get results.

Many reformers who have adopted my prescription for Final Five Elections nonetheless incorrectly suggest that FFE will weaken parties and describe that as a benefit. I believe those reformers are wrong on both counts. I am a fan of political parties, and, like esteemed political writer Jonathan Rauch, I want them strong - because in the industries that serve us best, you always find strong players. The trouble with our parties isn't that they're strong. It's that their strength is artificial. They are powerful in the one way no healthy competitor should ever be: They have demonstrated a nefarious talent for keeping rivals out of the market altogether. In the one place they ought to be strong - choosing the candidates who can actually win a November majority and deliver on the party's agenda - they've grown weak, even too weak for their own good or ours. The current system is why Mitch McConnell lamented "candidate quality" in 2022 when he didn't get the strongest general election candidates out of the Republican primaries. Separate the public function of the election from the parties' private one of choosing nominees, and we can finally afford to let the parties truly control their candidates, because the voters keep ultimate control at the ballot box. FFE is a win for (well-run) parties and for voters.

Now to the critics of Final Five Elections - and I have heard from a lot of you: You say it's a liberal plot. It isn't. Final Five forces every candidate, left and right, to win an honest majority. (For a strong proof point, in 2022 Nevada Democrats hired famed partisan lawyer Marc Elias to try to shut down FFE ballot initiatives, and defeating Final Five Elections was about the only thing the D and R parties agreed on in 2022 and 2024. Neither of them wants new competition.)

Critics also say it's too confusing. But surely Americans are as capable as the Australians and the Irish? And mainlanders as capable as Alaskans? You say it delays results. It doesn't. As long as the ballots are required to be submitted by Election Day and election authorities release the cast-vote record data, AP can call races on election night just like they do today. You say it's an incomprehensible algorithm. It isn't; you can use paper ballots, count manually and conduct a manual recount on any race if you want (though if you want results on Election Day, I'd suggest a computer). Used as a tool to support the emergence of the majority winner in a five-way general election, FFE is none of the things you say it is.

So here is my challenge. Don't just tell me what's wrong with Final Five Elections. Show me another plan that produces healthy competition of both candidates and ideas and the resulting benefits to customers, a.k.a. American citizens. If you do find a better one, I'll happily get on board with yours. But assuming you can't, it means that what the critics of FFE are really defending, whether they admit it or not, is the failed status quo - intense polarization, division and dysfunction, gridlock, party capture, and dismal policy results - over dynamic competition to solve problems. The United States became the most powerful and prosperous nation in human history for a reason we ignore at our peril: We unleashed free market-style competition and let it do its work. Competition is what drives our innovation. Competition is what lifted American life to a standard the world had never seen. America deserves the same exemplary results from free market politics.

And a special note to my conservative critics, chief among them the Wall Street Journal editorial page. You should be the last to need convincing. No entity has taught American readers more faithfully than you that market competition positively motivates incumbents and serves customers, and that artificial protectionist barriers to entry are the enemy of both.

Yet, you have been consistently hostile to Final Four Elections adopted by Alaska in 2020. Don't let the ranked ballot's abuse in the wrong hands blind you to its one indispensable use. Confined to a five- (or four-) candidate general election, the instant runoff does exactly one job: It demolishes the single greatest barrier to entry in American politics - the spoiler - and forces every candidate to win real competition on the merits. That is not a left-wing scheme (or a right-wing one). It is free markets for our republic, and it is the purest application of your own creed I can offer arriving, at last, in the one market where you have been strangely content to let a protectionist market thrive.

Our call to action goes out to all governors and state legislators. The Founders anticipated this moment and, in Article I, handed the power over the machinery of elections to the states. The Constitution provides that "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections... shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The rules of the game, for both state and congressional elections, are yours to write. Final Five Elections is not a pie-in-the-sky idea; it's actionable now, by any governor or legislature willing to lead. I can't imagine a better test case for laboratories of democracy than Final Five Elections in a handful of states. Over time, the results will create demand for expansionor - they won't. I'm betting on FFE.

But of course, governors and legislators can only do what their citizens ask of them. So here's to you citizens: It is crazy, when you actually stop and think, that we accept our current state of affairs as if we're powerless. The most detrimental driver of American politics is sitting in plain sight, and almost no one names it. Turn on the news and you'll hear endless coverage of the DSA's rise or MAGA's takeover treated as ideological weather and never as what they actually are: structural, the predictable product of party primaries and plurality rules.

Here's to you, journalists: It is crazy that the people whose whole job is to explain the world keep missing the one explanation that ties it together - that there are barriers to entry, and that those barriers, not the passions of the moment, are why we can no longer solve problems.

Here's to you, business leaders: You of all people should see this instantly, because it is your world exactly - a market, protected incumbents, competition strangled, customers ignored - and yet even you look right past it.

Here's to you, editorial boards, forever demanding better behavior from politicians while ignoring the rules that guarantee the behavior you claim to deplore: We do not need more outrage at the symptoms. We need people to finally understand the cause and then to do something about it. Because the extraordinary thing, once you see it, is that this is not rocket science. In the scheme of political challenges, it's not overwhelmingly hard. The fix is not a constitutional amendment. It does not require an act of Congress, or the consent of 50 states, or even two. A single state can adopt Final Five Elections on its own, through its legislature or by ballot initiative, at no cost to its neighbors and enormous benefit to its own citizens. As hard as our politics feels, this part is not that hard.

And to the frustrated business titans who keep circling this problem without solving it, this one is for you. Elon Musk, enraged at both parties, floated an "America Party." Howard Schultz, disgusted with the duopoly, explored an independent run. Mark Cuban tells all who will listen that both parties have failed us. Gentlemen: You are brilliant innovators, and you are misdiagnosing the problem. If this were your company, you would never pour a fortune into a doomed product line inside a rigged market. You would fix the market. That is the move here. Stop trying to win the broken game and start championing the rule change that ends its rigging for good. Put the same relentless, systems-level thinking that built your fortunes behind Final Five Elections in a few states, and you will do more for this country than any third-party campaign ever could. At the very least, Mr. Musk, don't fund the effort to repeal Final Four Voting in Alaska, the one state in which you could launch your new party without undue barriers. Give me a call. I think you've received bad counsel.

This has been a long argument. So let me reduce it to its essence - two images. In Image A, our current system, there is virtually no connection - no overlap at all - between our politicians solving problems in the public interest and the likelihood that they get reelected. Sit with that, because it is the whole tragedy in a single sentence: If America's elected representatives did their jobs the way we actually need them to, they would be more likely to lose those jobs (in their next low-turnout party primary) than to keep them. Congress doesn't solve problems because, under the current rules, solving problems is not a good way to win an election. In fact, it's a good way to lose one. No one would ever design a hiring-and-firing system like that on purpose. And yet here we are.

Final Five Elections does one essential thing: it creates the connection in Image B. It makes solving problems a good way to win - and to win again. Under these rules, what it takes to get elected finally overlaps with what it takes to serve the public interest, and in that overlap sits everything we have been missing: results and accountability. That overlap is the whole secret. Everything else in this essay - the open primary, the instant runoff, the majority winner, the end of the spoiler - is simply the machinery that produces it.

My passion may inadvertently suggest I'm presenting Final Five Elections as the gateway to a political utopia. It's not. I agree with Winston Churchill that "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..." Democracy is messy. It is hard. What we have now messy, hard, and bad results. With Final Five Elections, we'd still have messy and hard - but with some good results to show for it. That is utopia for democracy.

Katherine Gehl, former CEO of Gehl Foods, is the author of "The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy" and the architect of Final Five Elections.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 23:20
Tyler Durden

Evergrande Founder Gets Life But Homebuyers, Suppliers Bear The Costs Of China's Property Collapse

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Evergrande Founder Gets Life But Homebuyers, Suppliers Bear The Costs Of China's Property Collapse

Authored by Michael Zhuang via The Epoch Times,

The sentencing of China Evergrande founder Hui Ka Yan to life in prison has brought a legal reckoning for one of the country's most spectacular corporate collapses. However, for hundreds of thousands of homebuyers, investors, and other creditors, the ruling does little to resolve the financial losses left behind by the property giant.

Xu Jiayin, also known as Hui Ka Yan, founder of property developer Evergrande, appears for sentencing at the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in Shenzhen, China, on Aug. 20, 2026. Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court /Xinhua via AP

Hui, the founder and former chairman of China Evergrande Group, was sentenced on Aug. 20 after being convicted of crimes including fundraising fraud and embezzlement. His personal assets were confiscated, while Evergrande and its property subsidiary were fined a combined 15.82 billion yuan ($2.35 billion).

Chinese authorities also ordered the continued recovery of illegal proceeds and repayment of losses where funds remain insufficient. Fifty-six other people involved in related Evergrande cases, including Hui's two sons, were given prison sentences ranging from 18 years to one year and 10 months, along with fines or asset confiscations.

Separately, on Aug. 21, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court accepted a bankruptcy-liquidation application against Evergrande Real Estate Group and appointed a liquidation team as administrator, according to an official court bankruptcy notice. Creditors are being directed to file claims in that proceeding.

The penalties, however, do not automatically compensate the people who lost money when Evergrande collapsed.

Evergrande reported total liabilities of 2.437 trillion yuan at the end of 2022, including 721.021 billion yuan in contract liabilities, of which 664.244 billion yuan related to property development. Reuters later cited Gavekal Dragonomics as estimating that Evergrande's advance payments from homebuyers were equivalent to about 600,000 housing units.

Davy Jun Huang, a U.S.-based economist and former columnist for Chinese state media outlet CNTV, told The Epoch Times that Hui's life sentence answers the question of who committed crimes, but does not answer who should bear responsibility for Evergrande's enormous debts and unfinished projects.

"These are two completely different questions," Huang said. "The harsher Hui Ka Yan is punished, visually it feels like the problem has been solved, but in reality, the houses will not automatically be completed because of this, and creditors' money will not be recovered because Hui Ka Yan has been sentenced."

The question of who ultimately absorbs Evergrande's losses is likely to remain more consequential for ordinary Chinese than Hui's punishment.

Who Will Pay?

Evergrande's collapse has left losses spread among several groups, including homebuyers, suppliers, banks, investors, and other creditors.

Huang argued that the fines imposed on Evergrande and its property subsidiary do not themselves amount to direct compensation for homebuyers or unfinished projects. An official Supreme People's Court summary adds an important qualification: restitution for losses takes priority over enforcement of fines and confiscation, while illegal proceeds are to be recovered and any shortfall is subject to restitution. Huang argued that the losses from Evergrande had effectively been distributed throughout society among homebuyers, suppliers, and investors.

This has fueled broader debate over whether the regime should use other revenues associated with the property sector to compensate victims.

Huang said such demands were reasonable from both legal and economic perspectives. He pointed to the U.S. government's 2008 intervention in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as an example of the government assuming responsibility when a major part of the housing finance system was threatened.

China's regime, he said, played multiple roles in the property boom, as the dominant supplier of land, regulator, and major beneficiary of property-related revenue, but did not assume the corresponding losses when the market collapsed.

"When real estate was rising, the government used land-sale revenues, land-transfer taxes, and layers of extraction to squeeze out the last penny," Huang said. "When the real estate bubble burst, under the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) political model, the government would not bear any of the losses."

The halted under-construction Evergrande Cultural Tourism City in Taicang, Suzhou city, in China's eastern Jiangsu Province, on Sept. 17, 2021. Vivian Lin/AFP via Getty Images Suppliers Face Steep Losses

The impact of Evergrande's collapse extends well beyond unfinished apartment complexes.

Xu Zhen, a senior professional in China's capital markets, told The Epoch Times that China's local governments were among the biggest beneficiaries of Evergrande's expansion. He estimated that local governments collected roughly 1.2 trillion to 1.7 trillion yuan ($180 billion to $250 billion) in land-sale revenues and taxes directly associated with Evergrande between 2016 and 2021.

That money had already entered regime coffers and would not be affected by Evergrande's bankruptcy or Hui's imprisonment, Xu said.

Xu also argued that state finances would benefit from the penalties. That point is subject to the judgment's express restitution priority, which can affect the order in which recoveries are enforced.

Banks initially benefited from lending to Evergrande but later became creditors themselves. Some of their claims were eventually sold at steep discounts after the company's collapse. Xu cited a claim held by China Minsheng Bank that was ultimately sold for roughly 13.5 percent of its original value.

Homebuyers have faced a different kind of loss - years of waiting while continuing to carry mortgages on homes they may not be able to occupy.

However, Xu identified suppliers as the group that suffered the most severe financial damage.

Under a 2023 Supreme People's Court interpretation, qualifying consumers who bought homes for residential use can, if statutory conditions are met, assert delivery or refund claims ahead of construction-price priority claims, mortgages, and other claims. Construction contractors and secured creditors otherwise retain separate priority rights. Evergrande's June 2023 interim results reported 1.05657 trillion yuan in trade and other payables, including 596.17 billion yuan in construction-material payables.

The debts affected thousands of small and medium-sized companies, many of which had limited bargaining power and few legal resources.

Some construction contractors and materials suppliers collapsed after failing to collect commercial bills issued by Evergrande. In the liquidation of an Evergrande project company in Zhanjiang, ordinary creditors ultimately received a recovery rate of about 0.69 percent, according to Chinese financial reports; Reuters also cited the figure in April 2026.

Evergrande said its targeted wealth-management financing products totaled approximately 92.1 billion yuan, with about 34 billion yuan in unpaid principal and interest as of the end of 2022. Separately, Reuters reported in 2021, citing an Evergrande Wealth sales manager, that more than 80,000 people had bought wealth-management products that raised more than 100 billion yuan over five years.

Evergrande's shares have also been delisted, leaving many retail investors with substantial losses.

Construction workers rent shared bicycles as they leave a building site for a new office tower in the Central Business District of Beijing on April 3, 2025. Kevin Frayer/Getty Images A Boom Built on Political Ties

The collapse has also revived questions about how Evergrande grew so rapidly in the first place.

Taiwan-based Japanese journalist Akio Yaita, a prominent critic of the CCP, told The Epoch Times that the company's downfall was not simply the result of excessive leverage and a bursting property bubble. He said it exposed deeper problems in China's system of political and business relationships.

As long as entrepreneurs maintained strong political connections, Yaita said, access to land, regulatory approvals, and financing becomes much easier. Rising property prices then allowed companies to expand rapidly.

However, such a model was inherently vulnerable to changes in political power, he said.

"China's system makes it difficult to produce people like Konosuke Matsushita, YK Pao, and Morris Chang, who build corporate culture and industrial foundations over decades, and it is also difficult to produce entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Jensen Huang, who rely on technological innovation to change the global industrial landscape," Yaita said.

Instead, he said, the system was more likely to produce entrepreneurs who rose rapidly through political connections and then fell just as quickly when those political relationships changed.

Huang described Evergrande's rise as a form of mutually beneficial cooperation between business and the regime.

During the property boom, he said, developers helped local governments generate land revenue and economic growth, while banks expanded lending and met credit targets. The interests of developers, banks, and government officials were therefore aligned.

Huang said he visited Evergrande's headquarters in 2018 to give a lecture on policy analysis and forecasting and warned Hui that the company should stop expanding after 2018. Hui and the company did not heed the warning, he said.

That does not absolve Evergrande or Hui of responsibility, Huang said.

However, the collapse illustrates a broader problem. According to Xu, private property developers can become highly dependent on a system in which land and access to capital are heavily controlled by the state.

"From an employee to a scapegoat is the fate of private real estate owners under the CCP's monopoly over land and capital," Xu said. "Hui Ka Yan is a typical example."

"If you do well, the CCP lets you gain both fame and fortune; if you do badly, it makes you a prisoner," he said.

Hui's imprisonment therefore does not end the questions raised by Evergrande's collapse. For the company's former customers and creditors, the larger issue remains who will ultimately bear the cost and whether any of the money and homes lost in the collapse can be recovered.

Tang Bing and Luo Ya contributed to this report.

```

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 22:45
Tyler Durden

Has Trump Turned The Tables On Iran - Or Is Another Round Of War Coming?

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Has Trump Turned The Tables On Iran - Or Is Another Round Of War Coming?

Authored by Trita Parsi via Antiwar.com, reprinted with permission from Trita Parsi's Substack.

The Trump administration believes it has turned the tables on Iran. Washington assesses that the rerouting of maritime traffic through the Omani corridor, combined with a global shift away from Persian Gulf oil, has reduced the effectiveness of Tehran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, the U.S. blockade has sharply constrained Iran's ability to sell its oil. The result, in Washington's view, is a status quo that imposes greater costs on Iran than on the United States.

That calculation changes the strategic equation. Rather than being forced to accommodate Iranian demands, President Donald Trump now believes he can afford to wait Tehran out. For the first time since the war began, the White House has concluded, time is working in America's favor.

Assuming that assessment is correct, the more important question is what Trump intends to do with this newfound leverage. If Washington interprets Iran's vulnerability as an opportunity to extract capitulation rather than to negotiate a durable settlement, the result is more likely to be another round of war than an end to the conflict. Tehran has already demonstrated that when confronted with a choice between surrender and escalation, it will choose the latter. Giving Iran the same choice again is therefore unlikely to produce a different outcome.

The only way to turn this unexpected shift in the balance of leverage into a political victory is through diplomacy. If Washington's assessment is correct, it now has an opportunity to use its leverage to secure a compromise that addresses its core interests while giving Tehran sufficient reason to accept an agreement. If, instead, the administration pursues maximalist demands, it risks converting a moment of leverage into another cycle of war.

Historically, however, Washington has tended to make precisely this mistake. Whenever U.S. policymakers have concluded that time and leverage are on their side, they have often treated Iranian weakness not as an opening for compromise, but as an opportunity to seek capitulation. The danger is that Trump will repeat that pattern. He will mistake leverage for victory and turn a potentially favorable negotiating position into the continuation of the tragedy that is US-Iran relations.

Trump failed militarily, but thinks he can win economically

America has run out of military options. The clearest indication is that the Trump administration has stopped striking Iranian targets even as Tehran continues to attack ships transiting the Strait. On Monday, an Iranian attack killed a sailor aboard a vessel using the southern corridor. Yet Washington did not respond militarily - even though the second round of the war began precisely because the administration had declared that it could not accept Iran firing on ships.

According to Reuters, U.S. forces have used virtually all of their global stockpile of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) during the five-month Iran conflict. Moreover, roughly 65% of Patriot interceptors, 38% of THAAD interceptors, and almost half of the Navy's Tomahawk cruise missiles have been expended.

The depletion of these stocks appears to have forced Trump to abandon its pursuit of a military knockout and instead shift the burden of economic pressure onto Tehran. That strategy, in turn, appears to be producing results faster - and to a greater degree - than the administration anticipated.

In the American description of events, this success is mainly due to three factors: New, much larger ships are being used that carry primarily crude oil. These VLCCs (Very Large Crude Carrier) can carry up to 2 million barrels of oil. In comparison, other oil tankers can transport between 350,000 and 1 million barrels.

Before the outbreak of the war, approximately 21 million barrels of petroleum and crude oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz on a daily basis. These were carried by 65 to 80 tankers. Roughly the same amount of oil transition through the strait can now be achieved by only ten VLCCs a day. And given that the vast majority of ships transitioning through the Strait in the Southern Corridor have their transponders off, this traffic has not been noted by outlets tracking the traffic.

Secondly, demand for Persian Gulf oil has significantly dropped as numerous economies have started to transition to other sources of supply. Brazil, for instance, has increased its exports and started to serve markets that previously relied on Persian Gulf oil. Most importantly, Beijing appears to have deliberately reduced its oil consumption to prevent prices from remaining above $100 a barrel and thereby aggravating the risk of a global recession.

Third, the war has created economic incentives strong enough to attract ships and crews willing to assume substantially greater risks. The growing volume of traffic through the Southern Corridor, despite the obvious dangers, is evidence that these incentives are surprisingly powerful.

Unlike its earlier illusions about the blockade as a guaranteed knockout blow against the Iranian theocracy, Washington no longer expects economic pressure to produce a quick surrender. Instead, the administration appears to be betting on a slower process of economic strangulation that will eventually force Tehran to capitulate. Faith in a knockout blow has given way to the more fragile hope of prolonged strangulation.

Tehran isn't worried - for now

Iran's calculation is effectively the opposite of Washington's. Tehran doubts the United States can sustain the flow of VLCC traffic through the Strait and believes Trump will have little choice but to return to the Islamabad MOU within the next two to three weeks. Trump may have made progress on oil exports, but LNG and many petrochemical products, including fertilizers, remain unable to leave the Persian Gulf.

Tehran also appears to believe that it retains the ability to halt the VLCC traffic, but is deliberately refraining from doing so for now. The calculation is to avoid escalation while waiting to see whether the United States' depleted military options ultimately compel Trump to return to the MOU.

In short, Tehran does not appear overly concerned - for now. But that could change. If Trump refuses to return to the MOU, or succeeds in turning the balance of economic pain against Iran, Tehran will face a far harsher reality. Just as Washington underestimated Iran's resilience, Tehran may have underestimated the both resilience of the global economy and Trump - the former's ability to shift away from oil and the latter's craftiness in finding non-military ways to effectively reopen parts of the Strait.

Between surrender or escalation, Iran will almost certainly choose escalation. Even if Trump has gained the economic upper hand, Tehran still believes it holds a military advantage. Its options range from more aggressive attacks on VLCCs to strikes on Emirati pipelines that bypass the Strait, and potentially to renewed escalation in the Red Sea.

Indeed, it was precisely Trump's erroneous assumption that Iran would choose surrender over war that helped drive the United States toward escalation in the first place. Washington's recurring search for Iran's breaking point has repeatedly produced escalation rather than capitulation. There is little reason to expect the pattern to be different this time.

The US-Iran tragedy

Herein lies the tragedy of the lethal dance between Washington and Tehran. America's winner-take-all approach makes agreement unacceptable when Iran has the momentum. When the momentum shifts to Washington, the United States comes to believe that nothing short of Tehran's full capitulation is palpable.

Because Iran fears surrender more than war, the cycle oscillates between economic pressure and military escalation, interrupted only by brief and often fragile periods of diplomacy. Put simply, the structure of the situation favors war.

This is particularly visible today as neither side is investing in any real diplomacy with the other. Tehran's "diplomacy" is to simply wait for Trump to return to the MOU, while Trump has barred U.S. officials from engaging with Iran and committed himself instead to economic warfare.

When you don't negotiate when you're weak, because you are weak, and you don't negotiate when you are strong, because you are strong, then war becomes the baseline.

Trita Parsi is the Executive VP of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an award-winning author. Washingtonian Magazine has named him one of the 25 most influential voices on foreign policy. Noam Chomsky calls him "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran"

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 22:10
Tyler Durden

Assassination Sing-A-Long: Hasan Piker Mocks The Murdered Charlie Kirk To Cheering Crowd

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Assassination Sing-A-Long: Hasan Piker Mocks The Murdered Charlie Kirk To Cheering Crowd

Authored by Jonathan Turley via Jonathan Turley,

We have seen protesters on the left around the country mocking the assassination of Charlie Kirk, even reenacting his murder. Hate traffickers like Jennifer Welch have even justified his assassination. It is all shocking and depressing, but none reached the level of Hasan Piker leading a huge crowd in mocking Kirk and his faith. Before he was murdered, Kirk debated Piker and called him a "socialist hypocrite." What is shocking is not the utter depravity and cruelty of Piker, but the ecstasy of the crowd in relishing the death of someone with opposing views. It is part of the conditioning in what I have previously called an "age of rage."

In the video, Piker leads the crowd in the meme song "We Are Charlie Kirk" at a stop of his "Fear& LIVE" tour, including such lines as "We are Charlie Kirk, we carry the flame. We'll fight for the Gospel, we'll honor his name." His co-hosts and the crowd seem to be laughing with joy.

Joining him at this hatefest at the Golden Gate Theatre in San Francisco on August 21 were reportedly Will Neff, QTCinderella, and AustinShow.

Hasan is wearing his now-signature Mao jacket as the young crowd and his co-hosts laugh hysterically. It is the very essence of this movement to desensitize people, particularly young people, to violence and hate.

In Rage and the Republic, I wrote about this national ragefest. It allows people to hate completely and without thought to the humanity of those being hurt. What people will not admit is that they like it. Rage is addictive, and it is contagious. Just look at the crowd in San Francisco, and you will see the addictive quality of uncut, undiluted hate:

Piker, Will Neff, QTCinderella, AustinShow, and these fans have every right to spread hate. It is protected speech just as KKK and neo-Nazi groups are allowed to promulgate their own hateful values.

What is exasperating is how hatemongers on the left want to enjoy hate speech while accusing others of hate and intolerance. They do so by excusing their actions or views by demonizing those who disagree. Democratic leaders continue the false claim that democracy is dying in America and that this may be our last free election. While made over multiple elections, the claim of the imminent death of democracy (unless they are elected) does not appear to register with their supporters.

Recently the rhetoric has reached hysterical levels. Florida Democratic Senate candidate Angie Nixon has compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to "modern-day slave catchers" and the government is "literally trying to kill us."

It is a narrative that allows you to speak like a Nazi while claiming to be fighting Nazis.

Piker thrilled the crowd by mocking a murdered man over his faith and his death. It is more than being simply classless. It is commodifying rage. Piker is reportedly raking in a fortune as are other hatemongers like Jennifer Welch. They traffic in rage to a nation of rage addicts.

It is a scene that only reaffirms the work of Kirk who sought to expose the hate and intolerance of the left, particularly on our campuses. Kirk infuriated many by challenging them to debate. There is no room for reason in an age of rage. Those who try to introduce opposing views on campuses are cancelled or attacked.

Recently, a group of pro-life teenagers were kicked out of the Wydaho Roasters coffee shop in Idaho by an owner who found their presence intolerable. At universities, faculty members have attacked displays and even students in righteous rage. One professor who pleaded guilty to assaulting pro-life students was not only attained on the faculty but even honored by another school.

Civility, and even humanity, become signs of weakness in these times. They gravitate to figures like Abdul El-Sayed who has campaigned with Piker and promises to "choke out" Republicans and refers to moderates like Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman (D) as ogres to have their heads cut off and put on pikes.

The American left has found their berserkers, the old Norse warriors who were known to fight in a virtual violent trance. The new berserkers offer the chance to hate completely and without remorse or reflection. Over time, supporters are conditioned to disregard even the murder of those with opposing views. As shown in San Francisco, assassination becomes nothing more than a sing-a-long in an age of rage.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 21:00
Tyler Durden

The AI Boom Runs On Tungsten, But Global Supplies Are "Running On Empty"

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
The AI Boom Runs On Tungsten, But Global Supplies Are "Running On Empty"

Authored by Almonty Industries CEO Lewis Black [emphasis our own], 

Plenty to delve into with this edition: a stockpile order nobody can fill, two factory shutdowns that should be on your radar and the awkward truth about how few tungsten projects will ever produce a single tonne. It's a busy one. In we go.

Cash in hand but no one's selling

Earlier this year America's strategic stockpile did something that should have been routine and instead caused a small panic. The Defense Logistics Agency – the people who hold the national reserve – went out to the market asking what tungsten would cost. Not an order. Just a question: what's the price?

The market recoiled. There was no spare material to be had, prices were already climbing and here was the US government signalling it might step in and buy at scale. The existing consumers – the people who turn tungsten into the things the military needs – were not pleased about a state-backed competitor showing up. The complaints landed and the request quietly went nowhere.

Because a government agency isn't allowed to move the market it's buying in – its own mandate forbids shoving the price around with taxpayer money. So the buyer who most needs the material legally can't buy it at scale without breaking its own rules. Worse still: the day the DLA puts out an open call for tungsten, it's told every adversary exactly where the soft spot is. You need the munitions, and you're advertising that you can't make enough of them.

The problem is that 30 years of cheap and outsourced can't be undone in two. It's like eating fast food every night for decades – inexpensive, easy, you feel fine, until you're at the doc being told you have terminal health problems. Reshoring is like going back in the kitchen: the shopping, the prep, the washing up. A pain. But the alternative is worse.

There's tungsten in the world. There just isn't much the Pentagon can legally get its hands on – non-Chinese, uncommitted, deliverable at scale. The little the West produces is spoken for. Ours is sold years out. That's not me dodging the point – that is the point. When even the producers are sold out, there's nothing left for anyone to stockpile.

Tungsten markets

Michael Dornhofer, ISBP – assessment as of 14 August, 2026

The response to my last note surprised me. After 20 years in tungsten, I have rarely seen this much interest in the metal – which tells you how hot the price and supply situation has become.

There is still little activity on the tungsten spot market, and so no clear price trend can be seen. Some data providers report slightly lower world-market prices, others keep their figures unchanged, and Chinese domestic prices are even rising. In general, the APT price in the West remains above 3,000 USD/mtu WO₃.

Image via Cantor Fitzgerald: 

Slowly, more downstream companies are realizing that it is not only raw-material prices going up – the whole industry is in a real supply crisis.

The situation in Japan is especially severe. From last year, the tungsten trade between China and Japan came almost to an end, and since the start of 2026 no APT at all has been delivered from China to Japan. That has put Japanese hardmetal and tool producers in serious trouble.

In reaction to the missing Chinese raw material, Japan significantly increased its scrap imports over the last twelve months. Now, however, the USA – one of its main sources – has stopped the export of tungsten-containing scrap by imposing export restrictions. Some market participants say there is not yet enough recycling capacity in the US to process all the scrap it generates, so that without exports there could be an oversupply at home, and pressure on domestic scrap prices.

Some European and US tool producers are also complaining about shortages of raw material. Most confirm that, although they have had to raise their prices, demand for their products has not dropped – which is not surprising: nobody stops building cars or aircraft simply because the tools cost more. It confirms that tungsten demand, at least in the short and mid term, is not elastic to price.

We are in for a very interesting fall and winter.

Michael Dornhofer is founder of ISBP (Independent Supply Business Partner) in Graz, Austria. He has spent more than 20 years in tungsten, including 13 years at Wolfram Bergbau und Hütten, Sandvik's tungsten business, and has worked as an independent agent and consultant to the tungsten and hard metal industry since 2019.

Running on empty

While everyone watches the defense story, you need to keep an eye on semiconductors too. There's a gas called tungsten hexafluoride – WF₆. It's what lays down the microscopic tungsten wiring inside advanced memory chips, the kind the entire AI boom is built on. No WF₆, no advanced chips.

Two Japanese producers, Kanto Denka and Central Glass, made about a quarter of the world's supply between them. Past tense. As of the first of July, they stopped. Not an accident on the factory floor – they ran out of the pure tungsten powder they need, the powder comes from China, and China stopped letting it leave the country in 2025. The Japanese producers ran on stockpiles until the stockpiles were gone. Then so were they.

Samsung and SK Hynix are now scrambling to qualify new suppliers – normally a year-and-a-half job they're trying to do in a hurry – and prices for the gas are being talked about 70 to 90 percent higher for the back half of the year.

So who's filling the gap? China. A Chinese producer has already announced it's expanding WF₆ capacity by a thousand tonnes a year. So: China restricts the raw material, the producers who depend on it go dark, and Chinese producers expand to serve the customers those factories just lost. Starve the competition, inherit the market. I'm not saying anyone drew it up that way. I'm saying it works whether they did or not.

Tungsten stopped being a mining story a while ago. It's a memory story, an AI story, sitting a link or two up from almost everything you're told is the future. It took two factories few people have heard of going quiet to show it.

Everyone's got a tungsten project. Almost nobody's got a tungsten mine.

Ask the strategic metals crowd to name the projects riding to the rescue and you'll get a list that comprises real resources, mostly run by serious people.

Then ask which is producing tungsten today, and the room goes quiet. There's one that went into administration a while ago, which wiped some of its permits, and it's been clawing them back ever since. Even now it's in a phased restart and the financing is still not closed. Elsewhere, there are some former Soviet holes in the ground that Moscow never finished, (China's already taken the best one), and the New York Times had plenty to say about that operation. Then comes the investment decision, engineering, construction, commissioning. Nobody's buying tungsten from there this decade.

I've bored you before on why tungsten resists going from deposit to metal, so I won't again. What's crucial is that Sangdong is processing – not next year, not after a study, running. When the whole field is measured in "targeted for 2027," being the one name in the present tense is the difference between a supply chain and a slide deck.

Behind the Q2 numbers

I try to make this something more than just a company newsletter, but we reported Q2 this fortnight, the numbers are public, and they say something about the market, not just us. Revenue up 498 percent on the same quarter last year, and the business turned from burning cash to making it. One caveat I'll flag myself: the headline $182m net income is mostly a non-cash accounting gain on our convertibles – real under the rules, but not money through the door. The operating number is the one that counts, and it's finally real.

None of it came from Sangdong. Through the end of June the mine was still commissioning – it's only been fully operational since July 1, after the quarter closed. So every dollar of that 498 percent came from existing operations at record prices.

What I'm reading

Tungsten leads critical mineral price gains

In the last edition I said tungsten wasn't like the other critical minerals we all get lumped in with. Here's the chart that proves it. Visual Capitalist ranked 27 of them by price move, using IEA data, and tungsten came out on top at 622 percent – more than three times the next metal on the list.

Scale is the easy story to sell

Two of the world's biggest drug companies, AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb, reportedly talked about merging into one giant. The deal itself is normal enough. The reaction is the interesting part: AstraZeneca's shares fell on the news. Investors looked at two big companies becoming one bigger company and asked the question the press release never does: what does the combined firm do well that neither could do alone? More revenue, more staff, more assets – none of that answers it. It just adds up to size. The Guardian has the story.

The AI boom sees a wobble

Almost every advanced chip in the world is made using machines from one Dutch company, ASML – nobody else could build them. Last week China reportedly built its own, breaking the monopoly. Markets panicked: chip shares fell worldwide, South Korea's main index dropped 11.5 percent in a day, and Nvidia fell more than five percent and lost its place as the world's biggest company to Apple. Sound familiar? It's the concentration problem I keep going on about with tungsten – too much of something critical in one country's hands, and everyone downstream exposed when that grip looks like slipping. Read more here.

Opinion

Ask a room of investors why tungsten matters now and you'll hear one word: defense. Rearmament, drones, munitions, the bunker-buster headlines. It's the stock answer. It's also nowhere near the whole story.

Around 60 percent of US tungsten goes into cemented carbides – cutting tools, drill bits, the wear parts that chew through rock and steel. That's the US Geological Survey's number. Globally it runs close to two-thirds, a figure S&P Global's recent market report puts in the same range. Defense and semiconductors matter – they're why governments suddenly care – but by volume they're the smaller part.

Defense demand is political. It moves with budgets and elections and it can stall the moment the headlines do. Industrial demand doesn't work that way. As Michael notes above, when tool prices rise the buyers don't stop – nobody halts a car plant because the cutting tools got more expensive.

So watch the geopolitics, but don't mistake the loudest demand for the largest. The metal is going into the most ordinary work imaginable, and that's why it isn't getting cheaper.

*   *   * 

Related Reads: 

  • China's Tungsten Chokehold Turns Almonty Into a Critical-Metal Lifeline
  • Taiwan Tech Insiders Warn Beijing's Germanium Squeeze Is Hitting Production

Whether the chokepoint is tungsten, germanium, or other critical materials, China's tightening grip on supply has brought our decoupling theme into sharp focus. 

As Western governments accelerate efforts to reduce their dependence on Beijing, companies that control scalable, non-Chinese sources of critical minerals, processing capacity, and secure supply agreements are well positioned to become dominant players in the emerging industrial order.

Assets once thought of as just conventional mining operations are quickly becoming essential ex-China supply channels capable of bypassing Beijing and supporting Western defense, semiconductor, and advanced-manufacturing demand.

 Almonty vs. Tungsten Prices 

Yet, as Almonty Industries CEO Lewis Black emphasized above, tungsten is not solely a defense metal. It is also a critical input for the infrastructure powering the AI boom. Wall Street has yet to realize this fully - but they will. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 19:50
Tyler Durden

Wary Of Backlash, Pro-Israel GOP Senate Hopeful Asks AIPAC Not To Spend On His Behalf

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Wary Of Backlash, Pro-Israel GOP Senate Hopeful Asks AIPAC Not To Spend On His Behalf

With Israel's standing in the United States crumbling, America's leading pro-Israel organization has become a focal point of anger among those who think the US government is putting Israel's interests ahead of America's. Political candidates have started seizing on this, attacking opponents who are backed by that group -- AIPAC. So for, that's largely been a phenomenon in the Democratic primaries, but now -- in a jarring indication of AIPAC's ballot-box toxicity -- staunchly pro-Israel GOP Senate hopeful Mike Rogers has asked AIPAC not to spend money on his general election campaign.  

Rogers, a former US representative who chaired the House intelligence committee from 2011 to 2015, has been a stalwart backer of US aid to Israel, and was one of 12 federal legislators honored in 2015 by the US-Israel Security Alliance for his work to arm the Israel Defense Forces. 

Having won the Republican primary, Rogers faces Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed in the general election. El-Sayed is an outspoken critic of Israel and US support for Israel, which is why AIPAC blew through $30 million in a failed attempt to secure the Democratic nomination for the Israel-catering Haley Stevens. In that campaign, El-Sayed deftly portrayed Stevens as beholden to Israel. Stevens had given him all the ammo he needed; indeed, the El-Sayed campaign created a website that did nothing but show this cringy Stevens performance on a continuous loop: 

Rep. Haley Stevens: "In the United States Congress, I will continue to fight for the people of Israel!"

"Israel comes to me in my dreams!" pic.twitter.com/flVVYp3EWP

— AIPAC Tracker (@TrackAIPAC) June 9, 2026

When his primary victory was nearly in hand, El-Sayed taunted AIPAC, saying, "AIPAC, if you're listening, come back and burn it again" in the general election. AIPAC was poised to start running an already-produced commercial for the November race when Rogers talked to AIPAC chair Michael Tuchin in Los Angeles last week, Axios reports. The next day, the commercial was put on ice. 

The extraordinary move by the Rogers campaign is a humiliation for AIPAC, which has long been nearly omnipotent in securing lopsided congressional votes on pro-Israel bills, and in installing pro-Israel legislators while ousting those who dare to offer even mild criticism of Israel. While AIPAC has hit "pause" on its effort in the Michigan Senate campaign, angry AIPAC officials want back in. 

The Rogers camp is wary of El-Sayed using AIPAC support of Rogers as a powerful cudgel in the Michigan Senate race

Rogers' allies are urging AIPAC to use indirect ways to influence the race, so that AIPAC's backing isn't used against Rogers. One technique under discussion is telling AIPAC donors to give their money to a pro-Rogers super PAC rather than AIPAC, Axios reported. The Rogers team has also floated the idea of directly hiring AIPAC's political strategists. However, not wanting to own up to the fact that it has become political poison, AIPAC wants a visible role in the race, with hopes of notching a big win that reinforces the group's power as other politicians stake out their positions on Israel. Things have gotten so icy between the Rogers camp and AIPAC that other GOP players are attempting to intermediate, including Jewish Republican donors. 

According to a recent Fox News poll, 55% of the Michigan electorate want US aid to Israel to stop altogether. The state has one of the larger Arab American populations, and from election to election, it's demonstrated mobility across the Red-Blue divide. Outraged over the Biden administration's blank-check support for Israel's devastation of Gaza, the most heavily-Arab precincts in east Dearborn went for the self-described "peace candidate" Donald Trump in 2024, with 45% voting for Trump, 29% for the Green Party's Jill Stein, and only 16% for Biden's VP Kamala Harris.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 19:15
Tyler Durden

Elon Musk's Huge Midterm Investment Widens GOP's Money Advantage

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Elon Musk's Huge Midterm Investment Widens GOP's Money Advantage

Republicans already have a significant financial advantage heading into the 2026 midterm elections, but Elon Musk is preparing to spend up to $200 million to give them an even bigger boost. Wired reports that officials with knowledge of Musk's plans said the range could still change, and that he intends to direct much of that money toward voter-turnout operations in the cycle's most competitive races, with the Texas Senate contest emerging as a likely landing spot.

The Texas Senate race between Republican nominee Ken Paxton and Democrat James Talarico gives Musk a lopsided fundraising contest, though polling suggests the race is closer than Republicans should be comfortable with. Talarico has raised $68.6 million through June 30, mostly from out of state, more than seven times what Paxton has brought in, and he closed the month with $21.5 million in cash on hand against $1.8 million for Paxton, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

The polling numbers complicate that picture. An Emerson College poll from Aug. 9-10 showed Paxton leading Talarico 47% to 46% among likely voters, and eight nonpartisan public polls since the Republican runoff have shown the race hovering around a dead heat.

Costas Panagopoulos, a political science professor at Northeastern University, said Musk's money could help Paxton close some of that financial gap if it goes toward a disciplined get-out-the-vote operation rather than television ads alone. He also flagged competitive Senate races in Georgia, Ohio and Maine as likely destinations for Musk's spending beyond Texas.

"It's a considerable sum that has the potential to shake things up in certain races across the country," Panagopoulos told The New York Post.

Musk's expected 2026 outlay would extend a pattern he set in 2024, when he spent at least $288 million helping Donald Trump and other Republicans win office. Most of that money ran through his super PAC, America PAC, which took in $239 million by early December along with another $11.2 million in in-kind petition-incentive spending, and which paid third-party canvassing firms more than $46 million across the battleground states. Trump carried all six of those states, though his own campaign officials were not convinced the paid canvassing operation deserved credit over Trump's own appeal to voters.

He kept writing checks after the election. Musk gave more than $73 million to Republican causes in 2025, including roughly $45 million to America PAC and three separate $5 million contributions on June 27 to MAGA Inc., the Congressional Leadership Fund and the Senate Leadership Fund. This year he opened with a $10 million contribution in January to Fight for Kentucky, the group that backed GOP Senate candidate Nate Morris before he suspended his campaign in May, and America PAC has attributed at least $1.6 million more to him through March 31.

Panagopoulos expects Democrats to answer Musk's spending in some form. "This is not going to happen in a vacuum," he said. "Democrats will respond, and even if they can't find someone with pockets as deep as this, there are other ways to raise funds to combat what might be happening on the Republican side."

However, money has been the one thing Democrats have struggled with this year. The Republican National Committee entered the stretch run of the midterms with $128 million in the bank. The Democratic National Committee, however, has a roughly $2 million net deficit.

Politico reported in July that the three main GOP party committees and their two caucus-aligned super PACs held a combined $657 million in cash at the end of June, nearly double the $334 million their Democratic counterparts held, and that tally does not include MAGA Inc., the pro-Trump super PAC that reported more than $400 million in the bank a few weeks earlier. Democrats have no comparable vehicle. Add Trump's super PAC to the party committees and caucus-aligned groups, Politico found, and Republicans control more than three times the money Democrats have across their equivalent organizations.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee holds $55.9 million to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's $41 million, and the National Republican Congressional Committee holds $92.7 million to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's $79 million.

Of course, money alone rarely settles an election. In Florida this past week, Democratic socialist Angie Nixon defeated former National Security Council aide Alex Vindman in the Florida Democratic Senate primary, despite Vindman raising $16 million compared to Nixon's $975,000.

But having money helps and can be critical in competitive races. Heading into the final stretch of the 2026 cycle, the GOP is running with a financial structure Democrats do not have, and Musk's expected investment will widen that advantage further.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 18:05
Tyler Durden

What Makes A Great Entrepreneur? Lessons From The Greats

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
What Makes A Great Entrepreneur? Lessons From The Greats

Authored by Rainer Zitelmann via RealClearMarkets,

What personality traits distinguish successful entrepreneurs? This question has occupied academic research on entrepreneurship for decades, with scholars examining the relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial success.

When we want to understand or recognize something, we often do so by making comparisons. About 200 years after the birth of Christ, the Greco-Roman historian and philosopher Plutarch wrote a collection of parallel biographies of famous figures from Greek and Roman history. By comparing their characters, decisions, and lives, he sought to reveal similarities and differences and thereby arrive at a deeper understanding of each individual.

The American economist and entrepreneur Greg Autry has followed this model. In his book "Barons and Bros", he presents four pairs, each consisting of a living entrepreneur and an entrepreneur from the 19th century.

Many readers will be familiar with five of the names: SpaceX founder Elon Musk, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Virgin founder Richard Branson, steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, and railroad and shipping entrepreneur Cornelius Vanderbilt. In addition, Autry has chosen Monty Ward, the pioneer of mail-order retailing; Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the machine gun; and Palmer Luckey, the founder of the virtual-reality company Oculus.

Formal education played hardly any role. Only two of these eight successful entrepreneurs completed a university degree, and only one of them - Musk - studied economics, among other subjects. The inventor Hiram Maxim, who received 122 U.S. patents and 149 British patents and developed, among other things, the first automatic fire sprinkler, attended a one-room schoolhouse for only five years. Richard Branson is dyslexic and left school at the age of 16.

In my dissertation The Wealth Elite, for which I conducted in-depth interviews with 45 wealthy self-made entrepreneurs, I reached a similar conclusion: there was no correlation between performance at school or university and the level of wealth these individuals later attained. Those who had excelled at school or university were generally not among the very wealthiest later in life.

For these entrepreneurs, implicit learning - "learning by doing" - and the implicit knowledge acquired through this process played a much more important role. Six of Autry's eight heroes were already engaged in entrepreneurial activities as teenagers, learning skills that would later contribute to their success. This, too, corresponds to the findings of my dissertation: What was striking was the way the future wealthy entrepreneurs earned money while still at school or university.

Typical student jobs in which they simply worked for an hourly wage were the exception. There is little doubt that these experiences shaped the young people who later became entrepreneurs. They learned how to organize, sell, and think entrepreneurially. Without even being aware of it, they acquired the implicit knowledge that is so important for successful entrepreneurs and investors. Their early entrepreneurial experiences were the best possible preparation for becoming self-employed later in life.

Most of the entrepreneurs featured in Autry's comparisons would probably never have made careers in large corporations because they were often difficult personalities, unwilling or unable to conform and subordinate themselves to others. All of them were undoubtedly outstanding salesmen and networkers. Again and again, Autry describes his heroes making "cold calls" - contacting strangers they did not know but who were important to their plans.

How often have you tried to write to or call an important person you did not know?

All the heroes in this book suffered major setbacks. Musk's companies Tesla and SpaceX repeatedly came close to bankruptcy, and many of Branson's companies failed.

Palmer Luckey was forced out of Facebook after the company acquired his business because he was considered politically "too right-wing." Vanderbilt suffered a major defeat in the so-called Erie War and, in his unsuccessful attempt to gain control of the Erie Railroad, at one point lost around $7 million - the equivalent of perhaps $170 million today.

Andrew Carnegie experienced one of the greatest crises of his life during the bloody Homestead conflict of 1892; the confrontation permanently damaged his reputation as an employer sympathetic to workers.

Perseverance alone does not explain their success. What matters is the combination of perseverance, a willingness to experiment, and the ability to learn from mistakes. The crucial skill shared by Autry's heroes was their ability to recognize opportunities where other people saw none. This corresponds to the insights of the great economist Israel Kirzner, whose theory of entrepreneurship places the entrepreneur's "alertness" to new opportunities at its center.

In his definition, the "pure entrepreneur" is a decision-maker whose entire role consists of discovering previously unnoticed opportunities.

When it comes to the personalities of Autry's heroes, one thing stands out: they were all nonconformists - in the sense described by the economist Joseph Schumpeter. According to Schumpeter, the entrepreneurial type does not regard the fact that something has never been done before as an argument against doing it. Inhibitions that constitute firm boundaries for the behavior of others do not constrain him in the same way.

He draws different conclusions from the circumstances around him than the mass of static economic actors. He does not care much how others judge his enterprise - and often even takes pleasure in swimming against the current. All of this applies without qualification to the people portrayed in this book.

And there is something else that stands out: Autry's entrepreneurs think very, very long term. Not in months, and not even in years, but in decades. This sets them apart from the overwhelming majority of people.

There is almost no theory in Autry's book, and that is a good thing. His accounts are vivid, entertaining, and full of anecdotes. "The thing I have noticed is when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right." This statement would drive most academics to despair, but it comes from Jeff Bezos, one of the richest people in the world. The entrepreneur's knowledge is different from the academic's knowledge - something intellectuals will never understand.

This book could only have been written by an author who is both a scholar and an entrepreneur himself, and who therefore possesses a kind of knowledge superior to that of the pure academic.

Autry has met all of the entrepreneurs featured in the book who are still alive - some only briefly, others more closely. I have read many biographies of Musk, Bezos, and Branson, and of course I was already familiar with Vanderbilt and Carnegie. Nevertheless, I learned a great deal from this book and read it in one sitting. As a reader, I am already looking forward to Autry's next parallel biographies, since he announces that he intends to write more.

Anyone interested in entrepreneurship will learn more from this book than from many years spent studying business administration.

In June, Skyhorse Publishing will release Rainer Zitelmann's book "New Space Capitalism."

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 17:30
Tyler Durden

Trump Accuses BBC Of Turning Defamation Case Into 'Jan 6' Investigation

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Trump Accuses BBC Of Turning Defamation Case Into 'Jan 6' Investigation

Authored by Tom Gantert via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump is asking a federal judge to reject the BBC's attempt to subpoena three members of his family as part of discovery in his defamation lawsuit against the British broadcaster.

Trump's attorneys filed a memorandum Aug. 21 opposing the BBC's request for permission to use alternative methods to serve subpoenas on Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner.

Trump's lawyers accused the BBC of attempting to transform what they described as a narrow defamation case into a broad investigation of the events surrounding Jan. 6, 2021.

The lawsuit concerns a BBC documentary in which the BBC spliced together portions of the president's Jan. 6 speech, delivered nearly 55 minutes apart, while omitting his statement that supporters should march "peacefully and patriotically" to the U.S. Capitol.

The BBC apologized for the editing but said it was an unintentional error and does not meet the legal threshold for defamation.

Trump's filing says the BBC chairman acknowledged that the editing created a "mistaken impression."

According to Trump's attorneys, the BBC sought 126 document requests and approximately 150 requests for admission from Trump, and issued subpoenas to 47 family members, former officials, political associates, and federal agencies.

The court ruled Aug. 6 that the lawsuit did not permit the BBC to "relitigate and discover every aspect" of Jan. 6 or seek discovery from "any and all individuals" with knowledge of the events. The judge directed the parties to conduct a meaningful conference to resolve remaining discovery disputes.

Trump's attorneys argue the BBC filed its latest motion eight days later, without following that process.

They also contend the BBC is seeking authorization to serve subpoenas that have not been presented to the court. The filing says the BBC has not submitted revised document subpoenas or proposed deposition subpoenas detailing what the three family members would be required to provide or testify about.

Trump's attorneys also argued that additional depositions would be redundant because all three were previously interviewed by the House committee investigating Jan. 6. Those interviews totaled 585 pages and addressed subjects the BBC says it wants to explore, according to the filing.

The filing particularly challenges the effort to depose Kushner, saying that he was outside the country during Trump's speech and the subsequent riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Trump's attorneys asked the court to deny the BBC's motion, arguing the broadcaster has failed to justify its proposed ways to deliver the subpoenas and failed to comply with the court's Aug. 6 discovery order.

The BBC declined to comment in response to an email from The Epoch Times seeking comment.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 16:20
Tyler Durden

Temporary Protected Status Ends For 13 Nationalities

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Temporary Protected Status Ends For 13 Nationalities

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,

A court on Aug. 18 effectively ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for the last of 13 nationalities that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) targeted during President Donald Trump's second term.

In total, more than a million foreign nationals living in the United States with such deportation protections are now up for removal.

The 13 countries included Haiti, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Nepal, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela, South Sudan, Burma, Somalia, and Ethiopia.

In June, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to end the status for Syrians and Haitians and did so with reasoning that applied to cases involving other nationalities as well. Some lower courts initially resisted Trump's revocations, but by Aug. 18, each of those judicial blocks had fallen.

Here's what we know about what this means and what's next.

Are Mass Deportations Coming?

DHS and legal experts say the more than one million foreign nationals previously covered by TPS are now, technically, illegal aliens.

The first deportation flight to Haiti since the Supreme Court ruling departed on Aug. 20, carrying more than 160 individuals. Among those removed were former TPS holders and Haitians who served prison sentences in the United States, according to Haitian officials.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who worked on immigration issues, told The Epoch Times that few options remained for the foreign nationals to challenge their deportations.

"That designation is gone. That protection disappears," Rahmani said. "Now, that doesn't mean a million people get deported. ... They still have to go through the normal removal proceeding."

He said that some could self-deport or be removed under orders that were in place before they received protected status.

DHS did not respond to requests for more information on enforcement of the TPS revocations for more than a million foreign nationals.

After the Aug. 18 decision, DHS urged foreign nationals to self-deport - take a free flight home and a $2,600 check - or be removed.

"For decades, TEMPORARY Protected Status was used as a [de facto] amnesty program. Those days are OVER. Those with terminated TPS are now in our nation ILLEGALLY. They must leave now or be swiftly DEPORTED," said the DHS on X.

Court Battles

The DHS secretary has authority to decide when a country merits a TPS designation.

The secretary is also required to periodically review and extend or revoke the status, which is meant to be granted for countries affected by armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary or temporary dangerous conditions. If the DHS secretary finds that conditions in a designated country no longer warrant protected status, they can terminate it.

Lawsuits seeking to block the terminations, which were done under then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, alleged the administration failed to follow proper procedures, including reviewing conditions in these countries, before terminating the protections.

Some judges agreed, before the Supreme Court issued a decision over protections for Syrians and Haitians in which a majority of justices agreed with the administration's argument that federal judges lacked authority to review the department's TPS determinations. They noted a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that bars judicial review and clarified that it applied even to procedural challenges, like those brought under the Administrative Procedure Act.

While some countries' terminations were already in effect, others were still blocked when the Supreme Court ruled.

Some of the lower court judges overseeing those remaining cases were accused by DHS of dragging their feet in issuing orders that comply with the high court's ruling.

DHS special counsel James Percival began posting on X a daily reminder of each judge who had not followed the Supreme Court precedent. He singled out District Judge Brian Murphy, who oversaw Ethiopia's case, for waiting more than 50 days to lift his administrative stay on the country's TPS termination.

Although the final judicial block fell on Aug. 18, appearing to be the last breath of the legal challenges against TPS terminations, there remains a small chance that at least one case could be revived.

Lawyers jointly representing Nepalese, Honduran, and Nicaraguan former TPS holders are attempting to amend their initial lawsuit with a new bare animus claim alleging that the Trump administration's efforts to end protected status were unconstitutional "because they were motivated by explicit animosity and a desire to harm TPS holders," an Aug. 20 court filing said.

Lawyers for the federal government argued in their own court filing that the plaintiffs "do not have any prospect of victory."

They pointed to an Aug. 7 decision in Burma's TPS lawsuit that rejected a similar attempt to amend the challenge with a bare animus claim.

"There is a distinction between bare desire to harm TPS holders and animus against TPS policy," wrote District Judge Matthew Kennelly of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. "The Supreme Court's reasoning in [the Syria and Haiti case] points to the latter, not the former."

District Judge Trina Thompson for the Northern District of California, overseeing the Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua case, had not ruled on the matter at the time of this publication.

Judge Murphy, overseeing Ethiopia's case, denied the plaintiff's motion to postpone termination of TPS but granted their motion to amend their complaint with a new ultra vires claim, arguing then-Secretary Noem acted beyond her authority in ending protected status.

Regardless, Rahmani said he believed any further challenges or appeals would likely have very little success considering the Supreme Court's decision.

"They can sue, but they're probably gonna lose," he said. "It's been pretty clear the executive branch can remove these protections."

How TPS Was Granted

Protected status can be designated for six, 12, or 18 months at a time and must be periodically reviewed by the DHS secretary to ensure a country is still experiencing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary or temporary conditions.

Some of the 13 countries were initially granted TPS due to armed conflict, like a bloody civil war in Syria that prompted the United States to grant its citizens protected status in March 2012.

Other countries were designated under TPS after devastating natural disasters, including a 7.0-magnitude earthquake in Haiti in 2010, a 7.8-magnitude earthquake in Nepal in 2015, and Hurricane Mitch that ravaged Honduras and Nicaragua in 1998.

Somalia remained under protected status the longest out of these 13 countries - since September 1991. Three decades of armed conflict and instability warranted extensions of TPS across multiple U.S. administrations.

About 170,000 Salvadorans living in the United States are set to become the 14th nationality to lose their deportation protections on Sept. 9. The country has remained under TPS since March 2001 after catastrophic earthquakes.

The Debate

Advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers have criticized the Trump administration's efforts, arguing that some of the 13 countries remain war-torn and unsafe for their nationals to return to. Some judges who oversaw TPS cases wrote words critical of the policy changes in new orders to overturn their previous blocks.

District Judge Allison Burroughs, overseeing Somalia's case, noted in her order lifting her previous block that Somalis once under TPS face a humanitarian crisis in their home country. She described the foreign nationals as "productive members of our communities who have lived here for years, built a life here, worked here and raised their families here."

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul wrote a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, urging him to reinstate protected status. She said the deportation of foreign nationals from the state's workforce will have a "heavy impact" on a myriad of industries.

"By knowingly and cruelly forcing thousands of families to leave our country and return to their home countries, regardless of any ongoing or worsening humanitarian crises, the White House is committing a reckless and inhumane act," Hochul wrote.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) demanded that the Senate return to session to pass a bill that would extend TPS specifically for Haiti, where she said, in an Aug. 21 post on X, has an "ongoing humanitarian crisis."

The lower chamber already passed the legislation earlier this year in a 224-204 vote.

Meanwhile, federal officials have said TPS is meant to be temporary and has never been designed as a pathway to obtaining permanent U.S. citizenship.

Foreign nationals could attempt to claim asylum, Rahmani noted, which is very difficult to do now in the United States.

Asylum claims are designated for foreign nationals with a well-founded fear of persecution or torture in their home countries.

Rahmani said some foreign nationals could fight their deportation on the grounds that they are married to an American citizen - as long as it's a "bona fide marriage" and not fraudulent.

Marriage is the quickest and easiest way for a foreign national to gain status, he said.

Some may self-deport, taking DHS's offer of a free flight and a $2,600 check, Rahmani said, but others may continue living in the United States "under the radar," as enforcing the end of TPS for more than a million foreign nationals will take time.

"I expect that a lot of people who don't have legal status to be here, they'll continue to remain here, live in the United States unlawfully," Rahmani said. "It'll be up to DHS to find them, apprehend them, and remove them."

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 15:10
Tyler Durden

Karmelo Anthony Request For New Trial Denied After Disturbing Revelations

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Karmelo Anthony Request For New Trial Denied After Disturbing Revelations

The narrative of the innocent black kid standing up to "white bullies" is falling apart.  Karmelo Anthony, age 19, was convicted in June 2026 of murdering 17-year-old Austin Metcalf (who was also 17 at the time) by fatally stabbing him in the chest during a confrontation at a high school track meet in April 2025.  A Collin County jury sentenced him to 35 years in prison. Anthony claimed self-defense; arguing that Metcalf "shoved him" and that he was protecting himself.

Anthony's family raised $634,000 from gullible liberals on claims self defense and racism, but their story started to fall apart early in the trial.  His conviction was met with outrage by progressive commentators and Democrat politician who continue to assert that Anthony should be freed from prison.  Efforts were immediately launched for a new trial.

However, Kaufman County Judge Michael Chitty (appointed after the original trial judge was recused) denied the motion in a brief order after a two-day hearing, stating he had reviewed the motion, record, evidence, arguments, briefs, and case law.

  

During the new-trial hearing, previously excluded character evidence was discussed that was kept out of the original trial.  Under an informal “gentleman’s agreement” between prosecutors and defense, this evidence was omitted and focus was limited to the day of the incident in order to avoid "inflaming racial tensions".  

This new evidence included text messages and notes from Karmelo Anthony expressing extreme violence.  Examples included messages about stabbing someone and “licking the blood off the blade.”  There were threats toward an ex-girlfriend, including a photo of a knife and Anthony saying he was “low key on the verge” the day he murdered Austin Metcalf. 

There were also reports of Anthony stalking his ex-girlfriends, other threats of violence, school disciplinary issues involving fights, jokes about school shootings, and related content.

These revelations help to paint a picture of a warped individual that seemed to be looking for an opportunity for a violent encounter.  This helps to explain why Anthony invaded the tent of an opposing high school team and refused to leave - He may have wanted someone to confront him, and that person just happened to be Austin Metcalf.  Had it not been Metcalf it's likely that Anthony would have simply killed someone else down the road.

Defense lawyers say they plan to appeal the case to the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas.

  

The incident became a flashpoint for racial tension in the US, with leftists and black activists celebrating the murder of Metcalf as "payback" for the "crimes of white America."  It's a trend which has been gestating for many years due to woke ideology and the concept of social and financial "reparations" in the name of righting the wrongs of the past by punishing white people today.  

The case also brought many misconceptions about self defense law to the surface and proved that, sadly, far too many people are ignorant of how these laws work.  Deadly force cannot be used without a legitimate threat to life and limb.  Feeling insulted because someone call you out for bad behavior, or being shoved out of a tent, is not legal grounds to murder that person.

Ultimately, the Karmelo Anthony case once again exposed a dangerous disconnect between black culture and the rest of America.  Their seething obsession with "respect" that they have not earned is leading the black community down a path to disaster.    

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 14:35
Tyler Durden

WHO Says Pandemic Determinations Can Be Made Without 'Evidence Of Illness'

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
WHO Says Pandemic Determinations Can Be Made Without 'Evidence Of Illness'

Authored by Jon Fleetwood via Modernity News,

The World Health Organization (WHO) says evidence that a person is actually sick is not required for a "laboratory-confirmed" human influenza infection with "the potential to cause a pandemic" to trigger mandatory international reporting.

"Evidence of illness is not required for this report," WHO states in its latest Influenza at the Human-Animal Interface assessment, which covered July 8 through August 7, 2026.

WHO says countries must "immediately notify WHO of any laboratory-confirmed case of a recent human infection caused by an influenza A virus with the potential to cause a pandemic."

Then, immediately afterward:

"Evidence of illness is not required for this report."

The statement raises an obvious question: If evidence of illness is not required to set off a chain of events that could trigger authoritarian international pandemic response, what evidence is required?

WHO points to a "laboratory-confirmed" finding.

But WHO's own influenza laboratory manual shows that such determinations are made using real-time RT-PCR tests.

But PCR does not directly observe a virus.

It measures fluorescence (the amount of light emitted) from test chemicals mixed with a sample.

WHO describes PCR methods using fluorescent dyes and probes carrying a fluorescent reporter and quencher.

But fluorescence can also increase through unintended pathways, potentially contributing to a false-positive reading.

Those pathways include reagent cross-reactions, probe cleavage or degradation, reporter or quencher detachment or degradation, optical cross-talk, and changes in reporter - quencher behavior caused by heat - which PCR intentionally applies to the sample over and over during testing.

WHO's manual confirms that PCR repeatedly heats the test material, including to 95°C, and that real-time PCR results are evaluated by whether fluorescence rises above a threshold.

It also explicitly acknowledges background signal, contamination, and false-positive results.

The implications are difficult to ignore.

WHO is saying evidence of illness is not required at the gateway to its pandemic-potential reporting system, while the "laboratory-confirmed" evidence that can substitute for illness may itself rest on light readings susceptible to false-positive signals.

Bottom Line

The world saw what can follow a pandemic determination during COVID-19: lockdowns, business and school closures, masking and distancing mandates, travel restrictions, and vaccination requirements.

WHO now says "Evidence of illness is not required" for certain "laboratory-confirmed" infections with pandemic potential to trigger international reporting.

If nobody has to be sick, and "laboratory confirmation" can ultimately rest on a fluorescence reading, what evidence of actual disease must exist before governments begin exercising pandemic powers?

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 14:00
Tyler Durden

The Fed Owns Over 50% Of All Bonds Maturing Between 10 And 15 Years From Now

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
The Fed Owns Over 50% Of All Bonds Maturing Between 10 And 15 Years From Now

Submitted by Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Treasuries, Treaties, and Treatises

Let’s start with Treasuries. We laid out the approach we would take if we were Warsh last weekend in Warsh’s Mark Antony Moment (a play on coming to “bury” inflation, yet having quite the opposite effect, at least in terms of interest rate policy). 

After Bessent’s “attempt” to drive bond yields lower, we analyzed the possibilities in Treasury, Treasuries, The Fed, and Iran. The primary focus was on bonds, though we had to toss in the “possibility” of Economic Armageddon for Iran.

On Monday we discussed the Fed on Fox Business, but they picked up our theme on Tuesday where Academy was the chyron on Varney & Co. Academy had the pleasure of spending the first half hour on Bloomberg TV on Thursday where we covered rates, Iran, energy, Global ProSec, and maybe even Situational Awareness (it all becomes a bit of a blur).

Please read Thursday’s report, in conjunction with last weekend’s report (or watch the video links) to get a sense of our outlook for Jackson Hole and what the Fed should (or needs to do) to support Bessent’s efforts.

Today, we will add some additional information to reinforce our take on the power of a Federal Reserve Operation Twist.

A Fed “Operation Twist” Is the “Real” Deal

As of today, according to Bloomberg, the U.S. government has $7.5 trillion of T-bills outstanding and $21.7 trillion of coupon debt outstanding.

Bessent is buying “at least $4 billion” per “operation.” These operations are almost weekly, and while the threat of “at least” is interesting, jumping from $2 billion to $4 billion wasn’t enough to move markets for long. This is NOT QE. Gold rose, and the dollar fell, in response to Bessent. Likely overdone as this is more about re-arranging the deck chairs, rather than creating “money,” which is what the “debasement” trade seemed to buy into.

I’m not sure the Treasury Secretary should ever refer to any part of the US yield curve as illiquid. But Bessent did. Maybe he is remembering the “good old days” when nothing happened in August. I don’t think this August was sleepy, nor particularly illiquid.

Having said that, the Federal Reserve owns over 50% of all bonds maturing between 10 and 15 years from now. That seems a long way from “free” markets. The Fed’s holdings of longer-dated bonds are quite high (nearing 20%). It might be illiquid and partially “artificial,” but not in the way that Bessent implied.

The Fed owns almost half a trillion of bonds maturing within the next year.

These are coupon bonds (not T-bills).

The average coupon is 2.9%, so the Fed is bleeding money. They own, on an accrual counting basis, these bonds at the yield they purchased them at (probably lower than 2.9%) and fund at Fed Funds Effective (3.63%). It explains why the Fed was helping to “artificially” reduce the deficit with their payments to Congress, and now they are adding to our deficit woes by bleeding carry.

Let’s imagine the Fed selling that $426 billion, and buying the same notional amount of bonds with 20+ years maturity. A small up-front loss (they’d have to monetize the premium they paid for their bonds), but a very big pick-up in carry (5.25% or so on carry vs funding of 3.63%). It would also represent over 15% of the total amount of bonds with a maturity of 20 years or more (and over 20% of the float the Fed doesn’t already own).

If they decided to do the same with their bonds maturing in 1 to 3 years, they’d have a bigger up-front loss, but more carry going forward, and would own over 50% of the debt outstanding.

I don’t know what percentage of ownership constitutes “cornering” a market, but we’d pretty much be there.

From Warsh’s perspective (and that of all Fed members), Operation Twist does NOT count as QE because it keeps notional amounts the same. If the admin wants to see the long end of the yield curve go down, they need to stop “playing” with the amounts Bessent controls and go all in on a Fed-driven Operation Twist.

Can’t say I’m a fan, but why not?

In the coming days we should find out if Bessent is “on his own” or if the Fed is throwing their weight behind his efforts to control the longer end of the bond market.

When Bond Traders Say “Done” – They Mean “Done”

Whatever else you learned in school, or on the trading desk, the most important thing you are taught is “done means done.” You’ve committed your capital (or the firm’s capital) and it might be a good or bad decision, but you are “done.” You are stuck with that trade. Trying to back out, or change the terms, or beg for some accommodation, may work (exactly once), but your reputation is toast.

I haven’t done a deep dive on any of the following (so I could be wrong), but it is difficult not to see a pattern emerging, that seems problematic down the road. There are many factors outside the public domain, and we all know negotiating deals is not easy, especially when the parties involved are very far apart on many of the issues. However, the concern is that the negotiating strategy we sometimes use could be misconstrued by certain countries and work against us in some circumstances.

  • Canada getting 50% tariffs (again). But according to Canada they walked away when the U.S. introduced unfavorable terms at the last minute.
  • Saudi Arabia getting help to develop non-military nuclear capabilities. But that seemed to derail almost immediately, when there was “confusion” over terms that supposedly required the Saudis to agree to join the Abraham Accords. Again, the goal is for the Saudis to join the Accords one day, and it is unclear if this was a part of the discussions initially.
  • The “Board of Peace” (a misnomer if there ever was one, given some of the cast of characters involved) announced a peace deal between Israel and Hamas. Which would be great if even one of the sides had agreed.
  • Not sure why we are “both” pulling back on military exercises in South Korea and reaching out to North Korea. Yes, there are reasons (South Korea importing a lot from the Middle East and not helping in the war, etc.) but still seems odd.
  • The original MOU with Iran. Within days, the $300 billion of economic relief sounded like it needed to come from other countries, none of whom had agreed. The language about the Strait seemed pretty favorable to Iran, and different than what the President said (hence why we were quickly back to fighting over it). Iran is notorious for changing terms and making any negotiation difficult, which is why it is said that while Iran has never won a war, it has never lost a negotiation. We know it will likely take more time to get Iran to agree on a satisfactory deal, but the devil is always in the details.
  • The UK had the first “friendly” trade deal. Who knows what has actually been documented, but it didn’t stop the U.S. from adding some tariffs for sending troops to Greenland while the U.S. talked about annexing Greenland.
Bottom Line

Either the Fed helps Bessent on Treasuries, or this recent intervention will fall flat (and probably do more harm than good, which is often the case when an intervention is attempted but doesn’t succeed).

My gut is there is more to come, but we really need to see something from Warsh and the Fed at or before Jackson Hole.

Whatever negotiating tactics worked well in Trump 1.0 don’t seem to be as effective during Trump 2.0. I could be wrong, and am playing chess in the wrong dimension, but I’m concerned the U.S. is “kicking the hornet’s nest” (which probably needed to be kicked), but the outcome might not be as good for the U.S. economy (and the stock market) as it could be!

On Iran, it seems there is only so much we can do economically without confronting China, and that is a confrontation that is fraught with dangers to our economy (and another reminder of why we need to smelt, process, and refine things here in the U.S. ASAP – or with our close neighbors, but that seems to have taken another step in the wrong direction).

Or maybe I’m just tired and cranky as the dog days of summer have taken a toll on my psyche. 

And this report had nothing to do with Treatises, but it seemed to go well with Treaties and Treasuries, and I thought it might attract Spider’s attention as he teaches me a new word almost every time we see clients together!

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 12:50
Tyler Durden

Did Canada Just Sign Its Own Economic Death Warrant?

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Did Canada Just Sign Its Own Economic Death Warrant?

Canadian Prime Minister and WEF globalist Mark Carney has been a disaster for Canada since he entered office.  There were many critics who believed the Trudeau regime could not be topped in terms of self destructive behavior, but one could easily argue that Carney is far more dangerous and far more devious.

This week the Canadian government abandoned a nearly finalized trade deal with the US in the final hour of talks, leaving many analysts (and Canadians) bewildered.  According to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and related reports on the negotiations, the U.S. offered significant tariff reductions that would have given Canada preferential treatment relative to other major exporters.  

The offer included a reduction of tariffs on steel from 50% to 25%, a reduction on Canadian autos from 25% to 15%, a removal of the 10% tariff on Canadian lumber and cooperation on numerous other measures, representing the best deal offered in comparison to any other country which relies on heavily US markets.  Carney abruptly ordered negotiators to walk away, claiming the deal was "not good enough", and declared further retaliation against the US.  

So basically, Carney is saying:
Canadians will lose buying power, pay more for goods, and lose jobs, but it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make to save face with the “elbows up” crowd. pic.twitter.com/cGVMnahbxy

— Pascal Anglehart (@DemosKratosCA) August 22, 2026

As of this moment 50% tariffs have been implemented on the majority of Canadian goods - The sudden shift represents economic suicide for Canada given their deep dependence on the US.  And what Carney doesn't tell Canadian citizens is, there are no practical alternatives to fill the trade void left behind.

Around 78% of all Canadian exports rely on US consumer markets.  These goods and resources only make up around 13% of all US imports.  Meanwhile, around 15% of US exports go to Canada.  In the US, exports make up 11% of total GDP.  In Canada, exports make up 33% of GDP.  

Economic is partially about psychology, but it's mostly about numbers, and the numbers just don't add up for the "Great White North".  By every metric, Canada needs the US more than the US need Canada.  Without these exports, Canada would suffer severe instability within a few years.    

The Canadian Central Bank, though, has tried to dismiss the dangers of prolonged trade disruptions with the US and Carney has sought to temper public concerns with posturing and bluster:

“You’re at war when you get attacked. We got attacked.”

This "war" rhetoric from the Prime Minister has been constant since he entered office - A clear attempt to sensationalize trade negotiations and excite the Canadian public with existential fears.  Bizarrely, Carney insinuated that the US was threatening Canada's sovereignty, culture and languages.  The hypocrisy of a devout globalist pontificating about national culture and "sovereignty" is stomach churning, but these declarations are highly strategic. 

‼️Just in - Mark Carney addresses Americans in French:

-to my American collegues, let me be CLEAR ... our culture, French language and our soverignty are NOT on the table

-announces SWEEPING retaliatory tariffs on American goods

He will burn us to the ground for Quebec. pic.twitter.com/2OaPPhplSO

— Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸 (@Tablesalt13) August 22, 2026

Carney has been pursuing trade deals with the EU and China in an attempt to "replace" US markets and save Canadian exports.  These agreements are being hailed by the Davos crowd as a "New World Order" that decouples from the US economy.  However, there are a number of problems.

The US makes up over 30% of total global consumer markets.  The entirety of the EU makes up around 15% of consumer markets and China makes up around 12%.  Together these regions still don't fill the hole left by the US, and there are numerous expenses attached.

China regularly enforces tariffs on Canada, while shipping goods overseas to Europe or Asia adds price hikes to Canadian goods that would not be an issue in trade with the US.  Meaning, they will sell far less overseas. 

Furthermore, Chinese trade deals tend to come with strings attached.  China is seeking economic and resource expansion into Canada, which is ruffling feathers among Canadian companies and citizens.  Beyond that, the CCP often demands influence over government policy within the smaller countries it partners with economically (Canada's relationship with Taiwan has been a point of contention as the CCP exerts pressure). 

This is Carney today admitting that limiting trade with China due to forced labor practices was part of the deal he walked away from.
Translation - Ya we care about forced labor, but not enough to stop dealing with Chinese markets that may or may not use it. pic.twitter.com/YfUTbfrUae

— Ryan Gerritsen🇨🇦🇳🇱 (@ryangerritsen) August 22, 2026

In other words, Carney claims to be saving Canada from being dominated by the US, but he will end up selling his nation's sovereignty to China or the EU just to spite the Trump Administration.

Carney's behavior in light of these negotiations might seem bizarre, but it makes perfect sense if we consider the possibility that his goal is to cripple the Canadian economy deliberately and make it a pawn in a greater war waged by the Davos elite to isolate conservative movements in the US.  The majority of anti-globalist and anti-multicultural movements around the world rely on American efforts to defeat the progressive agenda.

In other words, global lines are being drawn right now for a fight over who will decide the course of the future.  Carney is clearly steering Canada to the side of the WEF ideal.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 12:15
Tyler Durden

Tehran At The Crossroads: Iran's Civilian Leaders Call For Peace Amid Crippling U.S. Blockade

Zero Rss
1 month 2 weeks ago
Tehran At The Crossroads: Iran's Civilian Leaders Call For Peace Amid Crippling U.S. Blockade

Iran's top civilian officials are publicly urging an end to the ongoing conflict with the United States, exposing a deepening internal rift as they attempt to rein in hardliners who champion continued resistance.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian speaks during a visit to the shrine of the leader of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in southern Tehran, Iran, January 31, 2026

The financial and social toll of the U.S. blockade is proving too severe to ignore - as Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian recently declared that the country cannot endure a state of perpetual limbo, though he cautioned against making concessions that would appear humiliating on the global stage.

"The war must come to an end at some point," Pezeshkian stated in a Friday address, according to state media. "It is better that we demonstrate our strength and dignity today and tell the world that we have won and that we are ending the war."

President Donald Trump has maintained a relentless blockade on the Islamic Republic after a previous memorandum of understanding imploded - effectively severing the regime's ability to export oil - its primary source of income. This has plunged Iran into a domestic crisis characterized by skyrocketing inflation and an increasingly desperate cost-of-living crisis. The pressure is expected to intensify further this week, as U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent prepares to unveil what President Trump has characterized as an "economic D-Day."

While the exact nature of these punitive measures remains classified, Bessent has strongly signaled the implementation of sweeping secondary sanctions targeting any nation that continues to do business with Tehran.

A Regime Divided

The push for diplomacy from Iran's civilian government stands in stark contrast to the shifting power dynamics among its clerics and military elite. Pezeshkian claims his diplomatic push aligns with the broader goals of the regime, referencing past speeches by Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei - who has conspicuously vanished from the public eye since the conflict escalated.

"I was in the presence of the Supreme Leader, and in his speeches as well, he openly stated that we must move beyond this state of 'neither war nor peace,'" Pezeshkian noted. "We are not going to humiliatingly back down before the enemy or bow our heads. We can sit down with strength, but also with logic, and resolve our problems."

Prior to his public absence, Khamenei had elevated hardline factions who favor military confrontation over the moderates seeking a renewed deal with Washington. Despite this, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf echoed the President's warnings, underscoring the severe national security risks of a collapsing economy.

"No matter how much military power we have, if our people are struggling and the country lacks financial circulation and economic growth, we will not achieve progress," Ghalibaf stated. "As someone who has experienced war, I understand the true value of peace."

Washington's Stance: The "Right Deal"

The Trump administration's distrust stems from the fraught history of recent negotiations, during which U.S. officials reported receiving deeply conflicting signals from Tehran. The previous agreement shattered after Iran launched a series of strikes on maritime vessels navigating the Strait of Hormuz.

For the United States, the objectives remain twofold and uncompromising: Nuclear Prevention: Ensuring Iran permanently loses the capacity to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon. Maritime Security: The full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to global trade.

Currently, the Trump administration claims it's securing the safe passage of 8 to 9 million barrels of oil through the strait daily - a steep decline from the roughly 20 million barrels that traversed the waterway before the conflict erupted.

Washington is signaling that it will dictate the terms. Addressing reporters on Friday, President Trump summarized the diplomatic standoff: "They would love to make a deal, but they're not ready to make the right deal."

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 12:00
Tyler Durden

Pagination

  • First page
  • Previous page
  • …
  • Page 98
  • Page 99
  • Page 100
  • Page 101
  • Page 102
  • Page 103
  • Page 104
  • Page 105
  • Page 106
  • …
  • Next page
  • Last page
Checked
58 seconds ago
URL
https://www.zerohedge.com
Zero Rss feed

zero rss

News feeds

  • Consumers May Be Eligible For Up To $280 In Equifax Credit Reporting Settlement
  • Iran Expands Tanker Assaults Beyond Narrow Confines Of Hormuz In Rare Escalation
  • Thumos-Maxxing
  • Jobless Claims Confirm 'Low-Hire, Low Fire' Economy
  • Blame The Parents...
  • Futures Slide As Oil Jumps On Iran Strike Report, Bond Rout Resumes Ahead Of 30Y Auction
  • Le Pen Seen As Most Credible Presidential Candidate As French Bonds Suffer Worst Decade Since 1803
  • One Year For Killing A Young Father...
  • 25% Of US Offshore Gulf Oil Output Shut As Hurricane Isaias Nears, Threatens Refineries
  • Pentagon Prepares 'Options' For Trump To Strike Iran Before Midterms; Tanker Attacked Off Qatar
More

zero rss

Copyright (c) 2026 FYCKL Project