Individual Economists

Black Dems Up In Arms As Party Considers Giving Nevada First 2028 Primary

Zero Hedge -

Black Dems Up In Arms As Party Considers Giving Nevada First 2028 Primary

It's always fun watching the party that cherishes identity politics being torn apart by identity politics. 

That's once again the case, as the Democratic National Committee endeavors to lay out its sequence of primaries for the 2028 presidential race. As a DNC panel convenes in Washington this week, there's substantial momentum behind the idea of taking the coveted "first in the nation" spot away from 25% black South Carolina, and handing it over to 31% Hispanic Nevada. Party sources tell the New York Times that the black vs brown infighting over the possibility is getting increasingly nasty. 

If the switch happens, South Carolina's tenure in the top slot will have only lasted one election cycle. After a decades-long tradition that had both Republicans and Democrats kicking off their presidential primary balloting in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Biden team maneuvered the DNC into putting South Carolina first in 2024, after the state's black voters played an outsize role in helping Biden win the 2020 nomination. The move was made easier by the fact that, when it was setting the 2024 calendar, the Democratic Party still had a strong, post-2020 case of Black Lives Matter fever, and was fixated on pandering to blacks at every turn. 

Christale Spain, who became South Carolina Democrats' first black party chair in 2023, says putting Nevada first would be disrespectful to blacks (Meg Kinnard/AP)

“If Nevada gets elevated over South Carolina, it would be because of their Latino vote,” South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Christale Spain told the New York Times. “So you would then be telling black voters that you matter less than brown voters. And I refuse to believe that our party wants to send any type of message like that.” Of course, a corollary of Spain's assertion is that putting Nevada second tells brown voters that they matter less than black voters.

It's increasingly apparent that America's Latino population is a critical swing vote. Factor in Nevada's status as one of the swing states, and it's easy to see why Democrats are rethinking the batting order -- especially when South Carolina is a solid red state that hasn't given its electoral votes to a Democrat since Jimmy Carter won 56% of the vote in 1976.  

Nevada Democratic Party chair Daniele Monroe-Moreno says putting her swing state first would be a smart strategic move

In an interesting twist to this colorful controversy, the indignant black female South Carolina chair is facing off with the determined black female chair of the Nevada Democrats. “I’m a Black mama whose children are Black and Latino, Native American," Daniele Monroe-Moreno told the Times. Nevada is about 11% black, slightly lagging blacks' 13% share of the US population.  

Reverend Al Sharpton -- yes, he's still alive, though not all that relevant -- is among those decrying the idea that South Carolina might be told to give up its seat at the front of the metaphoric primary bus. "Pushing South Carolina to the back of the line would be a slap in the face to the very voters who’ve kept this party alive," he said on Thursday.  

The 2024 Electoral College map: Nevada was part of Trump's sweep of all seven swing states, but the state went to Biden in 2020

Some black leftists are ridiculing the uproar. "I'm sorry, this is absurd," tweeted Briahna Joy Gray, former press secretary for the 2020 Bernie Sanders Campaign, adding: 

"Democrats do not respect the Black vote because they don't have to -- Black Americans vote blue no matter who. The *most* Black voters ever get are rhetorical gestures like promises to pass the George Floyd Act (which never happened) or Junteenth (hooray). By contrast, Latinos are swing voters & consequently will be courted. Moreover, NV is a winnable state for Dems -- SC is not -- so it makes sense to prioritize it."

Other states are making a dark-horse bid to go first, including substantially-Latino (49%) New Mexico and substantially-black (19%) Virginia. Democrats may put off a final decision until after the midterms, to avoid throwing cold water on the voter enthusiasm of whatever states end up losing the race to go first. 

Gray questioned the sincerity of black South Carolina pols who are expressing outrage over the prospect of losing their slot: "The scramble to keep SC as the first state to vote in the primary is 100% about SC local politicians trying to preserve their newfound endorsement power & influence. It bears no relationship to the interests of Black Americans in SC or anywhere else."

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 17:20

Confirmed Deaths In Ebola Outbreak Eclipse 1,000

Zero Hedge -

Confirmed Deaths In Ebola Outbreak Eclipse 1,000

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The Ebola outbreak spreading in Africa has killed more than 1,000 people, authorities said on July 23.

A doctor provides care to a patient with Ebola virus disease at an Ebola treatment center in Bunia, Congo, on July 13, 2026. Benediction Murhabazi /AFP via Getty Images

The number of confirmed deaths from Ebola in Congo in recent months hit 1,033, Congolese authorities said.

Forty percent of the confirmed 2,536 patients have died.

Another 506 people have recovered, and 738 are currently in isolation or being treated in hospitals, according to officials in the central African country.

"Health teams are pursuing surveillance operations, case management, and contact tracing to contain the spread of the disease," Congo's Ministry of Communications said.

Teams have been able to track the contacts of 77 percent of patients in a bid to control the outbreak, much lower than the 90 percent threshold suggested as ideal by the World Health Organization.

The only other deaths confirmed in the outbreak are two in Uganda, which has not recorded any new cases in several weeks.

The outbreak was detected in Congo in mid-May, although it is believed to have started weeks or even months earlier. It is caused by the Bundibugyo virus, a rare type of ebolavirus for which there are no approved treatments or vaccines.

"These are people dying. They are dying because we don't have vaccines, we don't have medicine, we don't have funding," Dr. Jean Kaseya, director-general of the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a summit in Ghana on Wednesday.

The Africa CDC and other entities have been seeking and have received tens of millions in funding from the United States and other countries to combat the outbreak, but say they need more funds and resources.

World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told reporters earlier in July that the outbreak was "continuing to outpace the response" and that the response plan needed more than $400 million in additional funds.

Ebola was first identified in 1976 after an outbreak in modern-day Congo. The deadliest Ebola outbreak on record ran for two years starting in 2014 in West Africa, causing 28,610 cases and killing 11,308 people.

That outbreak was caused by the Zaire ebolavirus.

The current outbreak is growing at a much faster rate than that outbreak did, according to Kaseya.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientists said in modeling projections released in June that absent "large-scale and sustained public health interventions," the outbreak centered in Congo could become as large as the 2014-2016 outbreak.

"Rapid identification of cases, contact tracing, isolation and treatment of persons with [Ebola], community engagement, and use of safe and dignified burial for persons who die from [Ebola] are necessary to control the outbreak," they said.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 17:00

LA Is Finally Cleaning Up Its Infamous "Graffiti Towers" Before The Olympics Arrives

Zero Hedge -

LA Is Finally Cleaning Up Its Infamous "Graffiti Towers" Before The Olympics Arrives

For years, the unfinished Oceanwide Plaza towers have stood as one of downtown Los Angeles' most notorious landmarks. Not because of their architecture, but because of what they became. After construction stalled, the empty high-rises were transformed into a massive canvas for graffiti artists, attracting vandals, urban explorers and thrill-seekers who repeatedly scaled the abandoned buildings.

Covered in colorful tags and visible across the city's skyline, the so-called "graffiti towers" have come to symbolize both the project's collapse and the city's struggle to deal with one of its most recognizable eyesores. But now Los Angeles' infamous graffiti-covered Oceanwide Plaza towers are expected to be cleaned within the next 90 days under a commitment from the project's proposed new owner, according to Mayor Karen Bass' office, according to NBC Los Angeles

NBC reports that with the 2028 Olympics approaching, KPC Development Co. has agreed to remove the graffiti from the unfinished skyscrapers, allowing the city to withdraw its objection to the project's revised bankruptcy plan so cleanup can begin before construction resumes.

If the bankruptcy court approves the sale, KPC plans to complete the long-stalled development, which is slated to include apartments, a hotel, restaurants and retail space. The company will pay for the graffiti removal, city officials said.

Residents who have long complained about the vandalized towers welcomed the announcement, saying the cleanup is an important step toward improving downtown Los Angeles before the Olympics.

And hey...cleaning up the towers is a start. Now the city just has to get around to cleaning up the rest of Los Angeles before the world arrives for the Olympics.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 16:40

"I'm Not Racist": Musk Slams Snooty Leftist Interviewer, Says "I Support The Normal People"

Zero Hedge -

"I'm Not Racist": Musk Slams Snooty Leftist Interviewer, Says "I Support The Normal People"

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

During a terse exchange, Elon Musk told the virulently leftist editor-in-chief of The Economist that civil war in Britain is inevitable on current trends - driven by rapid migration of people whose beliefs clash with Western civilisation.

In response, Zanny Minton Beddoes accused Musk of supporting the "far right," and amplifying racists.

Musk called the coming confrontation a "reckoning," rejected the racist smear, and turned the tables on an interviewer determined to paint secure borders and opposition to rape and murder as fringe extremism.

When the interviewer insisted she lived in Britain and called the claim "nonsense," he shot back: "You live a very closeted existence!"

He expanded:

"If you have a large and growing, rapidly growing, group of people whose beliefs are antithetical to western beliefs, at some point there will be a reckoning."

Musk described the prospect as inevitable and called it a "crying shame" that mainstream outlets refuse to recognise the threat to Western civilisation.

Pressed on whether he was racist or anti-Muslim, Musk answered directly:

"My partner is half-Indian and I have four children with her. One of them was named after a famous Indian physicist. So I would say I'm not racist."

He continued:

"If people are coming to a country with antithetical views, I am against that. I'm against rape and murder, I'm against the imposition of rules and laws that are contrary to what we've come to accept in the West."

The interviewer's line of attack was clear.

She framed Musk's support for parties defending borders and cultural continuity as backing for the "far right" and even "very fringe parties."

Musk refused the frame.

"No, I support the NORMAL people," he said. "What you call the far right FALSELY."

He pointed out that the same positions - secure borders, safe cities, sensible spending - were mainstream only 10 or 15 years ago.

Speeches by Obama or Hillary Clinton on these subjects would today be denounced as Trumpian extremism by the "lunatic left."

When Beddoes claimed people "loathe" him, Musk was unmoved, firing back "I don't care, but the fact that, as you pointed out, a quarter billion people follow me is that I think a lot more people actually like me than don't. And I think a lot more people hate you and the media more than you realize."

OOF. Feel the burn.

The pattern is familiar. Positions once held by centre-left politicians are now labelled extreme so that any defence of Western norms can be pathologised. Musk called it out without apology.

The full interview, spanning AI, Europe, politics and the rest, is available here (for now):

Musk's warning with regards to Britain is not abstract theorising. It lands against a backdrop of UK government moves that look like quiet preparation for internal fracture.

Last year Professor David Betz of King's College London warned that official talk of a Russian invasion threat was a convenient cover for hardening infrastructure and building a citizen's militia against domestic conflict.

Low trust, political factionalism and demographic change, he argued, are pushing Britain toward civil strife.

Just days ago the UK government urged households to stockpile long-life food, water, medicines and wind-up radios while announcing the largest home-defence wargame in decades - Operation Albiston Shadow - again framed around hybrid Russian threats. Betz's analysis remains the same: the real concern is internal, not external.

Musk's latest comments connect those dots in plain language.

The UK has seen repeated outbreaks of disorder linked to migration failures - Southport, Southampton and beyond. Official responses have often appeared two-tier. At the same time, the state is stockpiling resilience messaging and running large-scale domestic defence exercises while insisting the danger is primarily Russian.

The academic critique from Betz and others is that this is politically safer language for a deeper problem: a society whose cohesion has been eroded by rapid demographic change and elite refusal to confront incompatible values.

Musk is simply saying the quiet part out loud. Large-scale importation of populations that reject core Western principles - equality under the law, free speech, protection of women and girls - creates friction that does not magically resolve. When media and political classes treat any discussion of that friction as "far right," the pressure only builds.

Britain's leadership can keep pretending the only threats come from Moscow or from citizens who notice the transformation of their own towns. Musk is not pretending. Neither should anyone else who values the civilisation that still, for now, allows such interviews to happen.

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

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 16:30

"The Polycrisis Of 2026 Whirls Like A Demon-Infested Storm Overcoming This Human Project..."

Zero Hedge -

"The Polycrisis Of 2026 Whirls Like A Demon-Infested Storm Overcoming This Human Project..."

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

Struggle session

“. . .there is no saving the Left. There is only saving America from them.” — Sasha Stone

The polycrisis of 2026 whirls like a demon-infested storm overcoming this human project of ours like a medieval panorama of the world’s end. Everything is fraught, tilting toward hazard, menace, ruin. Even under a summer sun, the mind sees only darkness everywhere it looks.

Apocalypse now, it seems like.

You almost can’t blame the doomers, the black pill-ers, lost in their transports of dread.

But I tell you, we will get through this.

Is it a surprise that the IRGC has a death wish for its host, Iran? They’ve been advertising it loudly for half a century, yearning for martyrdom, the bliss of paradise, marriage to multiple perfumed virgins, all the pomegranates you could ever want, and perpetual dreamtime beside a gently burbling fountain in the palace of eternity. Trouble is, to get there you must have your head blown off.

That’s exactly what the IRGC is asking for, though the millions of ordinary Iranians probably have their doubts about the ask. They are hostages of the IRGC regime, which refuses to just stop being a problem for the world. Mr. Trump’s proffer for Iran still abides: become a normal nation, sovereign and all, only without atom bombs. Let ships sail through Hormuz unmolested. Sell your oil, make some money, trade with the other fellas across the Persian Gulf, have a nice civilized life with all the refinements of age-old Persian culture, even with its Islamic overlay. Be happy!

The USA does not seek to occupy Iran, steal its resources, subjugate its people, force them to buy Minnie Mouse plush toys, play baseball, eat Jimmy Dean sausage for breakfast, strum banjoes, or wear cowboy hats. Just stop projecting violence and discord all over the Middle East.

You can’t make us, the IRGC says. Yes, we will, the USA replies. And so it goes. Next up: bridges and power plants. Plus, every ship you damage, we’ll deduct the cost of repair from your frozen assets held in our banks. This is where things stand after the thirteenth night of strategic bombing against the IRGC’s launch sites, drone factories, missile storage caverns, and shoreline military installations. Iran prepared assiduously for this death-scene for decades, building hidey-holes here, there, and everywhere. But every time they launch something now, our satellites mark the coordinates, and boom, now there’s one less hidey-hole.

Iran’s currency, the rial, has an exchange rate against the US dollar of about 1,900,000 to one dollar. There is hardly a functioning economy left. The people are flat broke. Everyday life must be hell now. Could be the IRGC was getting tons of munitions and material for free from China, but days ago we blew up the railroad bridge at Aq Tekeh-Khan that was China’s main connection to Iran, so that’s over with.

You must doubt that Russia is capable of sending arms to Iran at this point. Russia needs every drone and missile it can fabricate now that Ukraine is sending drones clear into Moscow and St. Petersburg on a regular basis. Of course, that war is being stoked by NATO, which perforce includes the USA. A bill (H.R. 2913 — the Ukraine Support Act) that would furnish $1.3-1.8 billion in direct security, military, and reconstruction assistance for Ukraine plus $8 billion in loans was passed by the House in June, but languishes in the Senate. President Trump has threatened to veto it, as running counter to the administration’s preference for negotiations with Russia to end the Ukraine War rather than extend it.

These two conflicts must seem intractable for now, but the mojo driving them has clear and present limits.

If the USA does not underwrite Ukraine’s war effort, then that leaves the EU nations, who are increasingly broke, and for all their idle talk are really incapable of mounting a major arms production campaign.

The UK especially is skating on thin ice these days as Mr. Trump methodically cancels its long-running command and control of global finance through the City of London (as its “Wall Street” is called). In fact, it looks as if the floundering UK — with dopey Andy Burnham rolling in as Britain’s seventh Prime Minister in a decade — has passed the ball of globalist leadership to its forward striker (and all-purpose fixer) Mark Carney the Prime Minister of Canada.

Carney, who was previously chief of the Bank of England, has played a series of losing games against President Trump the past year, while Mr. Carney is busy wrecking the Canadian economy for the sake of the globalist “green” flimflam, a sustained high volume of third world immigration, and outlandish DEI activism that includes giving vast tracts of real estate back to Canada’s First Nations people, their Indians. Carney has also very actively played footsie with the CCP to a degree that is seriously pissing off Mr. Trump. Among all the other shocks and surprises upcoming, you might imagine him having to send the 82nd Airborne up to Ottawa to inform PM Carney that there will be no globalist seat of operations in North America.

Yes, things are getting that strange. And then, continuing the clean-up operation south of our border, there is Cuba to straighten out. Cuba is obviously next. Our patience with that failing state’s communist export project is particularly thin, now that the Democratic Party here is entertaining Marxist-Leninist dreams of glory.

On top of all that, we have serious concerns with the financial markets and the widening income inequality that drives the younger generations’ yen for “socialism” (free rent, free medicine, free stuff).

Financialization concentrates and compounds wealth while the salary-mule class stagnates, suffers, goes broke, and nurses its grievances.

We’re pushing into the season of financial train wrecks. AI has cornered all the free capital in the land — for something that appears to be an existential menace as much as any potential economic benefit — and it is wildly perverting the equity market. The bond market groans under the debt burden and the impossibility of fiscal prudence. Capitalism that can’t self-correct invites financial and political violence.

It’s probably a greater threat to us than the faraway wars, bad as they are. Mr. Trump, Secretary Bessent, and others in charge surely know this — that the American ownership class has become tiny, and that the cure for that is getting the vast dis-owned, forsaken middle-class back into businesses that they will own, in an economy based on production of real goods, not on playing games with money.

There is so much to be done and we can get it done if we screw our heads back on.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 16:20

Financial Repression: How The US Government Will Quietly Confiscate Your Wealth

Zero Hedge -

Financial Repression: How The US Government Will Quietly Confiscate Your Wealth

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

When I first heard the term “financial repression,” I thought it had to be a joke.

Why would governments and central banks use a term with such a negative connotation? Even people who are financially illiterate can understand that financial repression is a bad thing.

Simply put, financial repression is a strategy governments use to reduce their debt burden by manipulating interest rates below inflation.

It allows them to borrow in dollars and repay in dimes.

Here’s how the IMF describes it, emphasis mine:

“Financial repression includes directed lending to government by captive domestic audiences (such as pension funds), explicit or implicit caps on interest rates, regulations of cross-border capital movements, and (generally) a tighter connection between government and banks.”

More from the IMF:

“High public debt often produces the drama of default and restructuring.

But debt is also reduced through financial repression, a tax on bondholders and savers via negative or below-market real interest rates.

After WWII, capital controls and regulatory restrictions created a captive audience for government debt, limiting tax-base erosion.

Financial repression is most successful in liquidating debt when accompanied by inflation.”

For example, if inflation is 9% and governments fix interest rates at 4%, there is an ongoing 5% wealth transfer from the lender to the borrower. And that transfer compounds over time.

I think financial repression is how the US government will try to manage its otherwise impossible debt situation.

Consider this.

Among the biggest expenditures for the US government are so-called entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.

It’s unlikely any politician will cut entitlements. On the contrary, I expect them to continue growing.

That’s because tens of millions of Baby Boomers—about 22% of the population—will enter retirement in the coming years. Cutting Social Security and Medicare is a sure way to lose an election.

With the most precarious geopolitical situation since World War 2, National Defense—another large expenditure—is unlikely to be cut. Instead, defense spending is all but certain to increase. President Trump has proposed increasing it from $917 billion to $1.5 trillion. The ongoing war with Iran guarantees military spending has nowhere to go but up, way up.

Different types of welfare programs also make up a considerable part of the federal budget and are unlikely to be cut.

In short, efforts to reduce expenditures will be meaningless unless it becomes politically acceptable to make chainsaw-like cuts to entitlements, national defense, and welfare, while also reducing the national debt enough to lower interest costs.

In other words, the US would need a leader who—at a minimum—returns the federal government to a limited Constitutional Republic, closes the 800 military bases abroad, ends entitlements, kills the welfare state, and repays a large portion of the national debt.

However, that is a completely unrealistic fantasy.

It would be foolish to bet on it happening.

In any case, don’t count on increased tax revenue to offset these increases in federal expenditures.

Even if tax rates went to 100%, it still wouldn’t be enough to stop the debt from growing.

According to Forbes, there are around 902 billionaires in the US with a combined net worth of about $6.8 trillion.

The US federal government spent around $7 trillion in FY 2025, and will almost certainly spend a lot more in FY 2026 and beyond.

Even if the US government confiscated 100% of billionaire assets through a wealth tax, it wouldn’t cover even a single year of current federal spending.

And even after confiscating all billionaire wealth, the US government would still have to borrow more than $200 billion to cover FY 2025 spending.

Here’s the bottom line: increasing taxes, even to extreme levels, isn’t going to change the trajectory of this unstoppable trend—even slightly.

The truth is, no matter what happens, the deficits will not stop growing, nor will the debt needed to finance them.

In short, it’s politically impossible to even slow the federal spending growth rate, let alone cut it.

That means issuing ever-increasing amounts of debt is the only way to finance continuously expanding budget deficits.

The ever-growing interest expense on the ever-growing federal debt compounds the problem. It adds to the deficit, which must be financed with even more debt, which creates even more interest expense.

So what options does the US government have to deal with this impossible situation?

In my view, the US government has no choice but to implement financial repression.

The idea is to stealthily confiscate wealth from bondholders without causing too much alarm.

Financial Repression

There are many flavors of financial repression.

Capital controls. Mandates forcing banks, pension funds, and insurance companies to buy government bonds. Regulations that make government debt appear “safe” or “risk-free” on institutional balance sheets. Yield curve control. Interest rate caps. Restrictions on moving money abroad.

And countless other policies designed to trap capital inside the system and push it toward government debt.

For example, many countries have forced private retirement funds into unwanted government debt. I have no doubt the US government would do the same under pressure.

They could try to sell it to a scared and financially ignorant public as a safety measure—a way to help people protect their retirement savings by moving them into “safe” Treasuries amid a stock market collapse.

They could sell it with patriotic lies and push War Bonds, as they have done in the past.

They could mandate that a certain amount—say, 25%—of all new contributions to private retirement accounts must consist of Treasuries. For your own good, of course.

They could even forcibly convert existing assets held in retirement accounts into government bonds.

No matter the method, the result is the same.

The government needs to borrow enormous amounts of money at artificially low interest rates.

So it creates rules, incentives, and restrictions that force or pressure savers and institutions to finance government deficits on terms they would never voluntarily accept in a free market.

That is the essence of financial repression.

It’s no wonder financial repression is so attractive to politicians.

It allows them to reduce the real value of the debt without admitting they defaulted, without officially raising taxes, and without making the politically impossible spending cuts that would otherwise be required.

And they can do it while perhaps not even 1 in 100 people truly understand what is happening.

Financial repression will not arrive with a public announcement. It will come through policies that appear reasonable, temporary, and even protective—while quietly eroding the value of your savings and limiting your financial freedom.

This is only one part of a much larger crisis now taking shapeRead our free report to understand the forces driving it, the risks they pose to your wealth and personal freedom, and the three strategies you can use right now to prepare.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 15:40

US Bombing Campaign Effectiveness In Doubt As Iranians Rebuild At Rapid Pace

Zero Hedge -

US Bombing Campaign Effectiveness In Doubt As Iranians Rebuild At Rapid Pace

Neocon war hawks thought that Iran's defense capabilities could be obliterated through shock and awe style heavy bombing raids, such as during the opening days and weeks of Operation Epic Fury, but just like pretty much every other assumption about how things would go in the little Iran "excursion" - they are once again proven wrong.

Several fresh reports from both American and Israeli sources say that Iran is rebuilding damaged and destroyed facilities at much faster-than-expected pace. This is despite the well over 20,000 US-Israeli strikes carried out at the height of the war.

Analyzing the latest satellite imagery assessing the damage, The Wall Street Journal writes that the Islamic Republic has "quickly rebuilt infrastructure damaged during the U.S. and Israeli bombing campaign over recent months, from missile bases nestled deep inside mountains to bridges, ports and production facilities, according to Israeli and Western officials and a review of satellite imagery."

Handout satellite image courtesy of Vantor shows tunnel entrances at a missile complex in Isfahan, in central Iran. via Vantor/AFP

The publication says that this is a significant factor in explaining how the Iranians have managed to maintain their grip on the Strait of Hormuz and thus serious economic and political leverage.

Everything from roads to bridges to tunnel entrances have also be restored at surprising speeds, which also suggests the US bombings have had a rallying effect among civic workers and the broader population in support of the nation and the government.

WSJ offers but one example as follows: "Near Kangavar, in western Iran, satellite imagery from Planet Labs in March showed two tunnel entrances and an access road damaged by airstrikes aimed at blocking access to an Iranian missile base. Within weeks, imagery from Airbus revealed a neatly paved road leading to freshly excavated entrances."

Israeli media too has listed out the following further examples:

Kangavar Missile Base: Attacked in early March; satellite images show an access road was destroyed, but a newly paved road was built weeks later to bypass the damage.

Bandar Anzali Port: Despite Israel claiming significant damage in March to the IRGC-linked port, command center, and shipyard - early July images show active reconstruction underway.

Tehran Missile Plant: Recent imagery documents active rebuilding efforts at a missile production facility near the capital.

This is causing US and Israeli officials to revisit strategy concerning potential future major bombing campaigns over Iran.

It was in April that the US and Israel began ramping up attacks on bridges and rail lines to cripple Iran's national transport network. Israel especially adopted attacks against key civilian infrastructure as a battle tactic, in hopes that eventually there would be a groundswell of anti-Tehran anger domestically, leading to government overthrow. Of course, regime change has never happened, and is proving an illusive Neocon fantasy. 

President Trump himself had also at the time repeatedly threatening to bomb bridges, power plants, and other infrastructure to send Iran "back to the Stone Age."

Iranian officials say multiple damaged rail lines and bridges have been restored in record time - sometimes within 40 to 96 hours - using domestic engineering teams. The ceasefire which was declared on April 8, but which is now defunct, was used as a time of rapid rebuilding - something which even US officials have acknowledged

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 15:20

'Caution Is Warranted': Ed Dowd Warns Wall Street's AI CapEx Party Is Ending

Zero Hedge -

'Caution Is Warranted': Ed Dowd Warns Wall Street's AI CapEx Party Is Ending

Authored by Ed Dowd via 'Beyond The Narrative' substack,

The signs are piling up faster than the hype can spin them. AI capex has been the rocket fuel for markets, but the second derivative is turning. Factors ending the party:

  • Private credit stalled — flows reversing, redemptions surging, industry effectively paused.

  • Enterprise demand cracking — ROI skepticism, token costs biting, data/alpha extraction backlash.

  • Power constraints hitting hard — the grid can’t scale without massive, long lead time builds or dystopian reallocation.

  • Open-source pressure — Chinese based DeepSeek and now the new open-source frontier model Kimi K3 are rivaling OpenAI and Anthropic frontiers labs at fraction of the price, commoditizing the economics.

Credit markets always end the party. We’re watching it live.

Private Credit: The Silent Pause Button on AI Capex

This is where financing reality bites. Morgan Stanley estimated private credit could fund up to 50% of the external financing needs for the massive AI data center buildout. That channel is now under serious stress.

Flows in private credit are going the wrong way. The industry is effectively paused. Redemption requests are surging, funds are gating, and high-profile bankruptcies plus underwriting scrutiny are flashing warnings. Private credit has become the new junk bond market…except it lacks transparency, liquidity, and is now being stress-tested in real time.

With outflows accelerating, near-term funding from Private credit for AI data center buildouts looks less likely. NVIDIA and others keep popping up in private credit loan books. What happens to repossessed GPUs in a stressed environment?

Continued capex relies on credit markets keeping the spigot open. When that spigot slows or gets expensive, the capex math breaks. Financing could turn prohibitively costly, pausing or dramatically slowing the cycle that has supported the S&P 500 index with roughly 45% of the market cap being AI or AI-adjacent.

Additionally AI infrastructure inflation itself is credit driven. This reflexive credit driven surge in demand has caused cost inflation for chips and data center construction making the past cost projections moot. These inflated costs make ROI hurdles even harder. Current creditors are reassessing their exposure as the Goldman Sachs credit desk has recently highlighted.

Enterprise Demand Is Cracking

The people who are supposed to use this stuff are slowing down. Companies that rushed AI tools into workers’ hands are now reining them in because costs at scale are biting. That’s not theory…it’s the second derivative showing up in real budgets. They are stepping back and trying to assess the ROI from this investment as their AI budgets come in above initial cost projections.

Alex Karp of Palantir laid it out bluntly. Enterprises are livid. They’re paying for tokens that create no reliable value. They’re watching their own workflows, customer data, and competitive alpha get extracted and potentially sold back to competitors. Token pricing itself is the confession…if these models delivered durable, defensible productivity gains at scale, the labs would price on value or take equity cuts, not meter compute.

Open-source pressure

DeepSeek and other cheaper open-source models were already pressuring token pricing for those users who didn’t need the frontier models. To make matters worse, recent newcomer Moonshot AI’s Kimi K3 is a Chinese open-weight model rivaling top US frontier leaders OpenAI and Anthropic at a fraction of the cost. It’s putting direct pressure on closed-source pricing and exposing how over-hyped the token economics have become. Why pay premium rates when open-source alternatives deliver competitive performance? Competitive pricing hurts revenue growth for the two US frontier leaders which is likely to push their IPOs into next year (if at all) and raises the cost of their debt capital. The downstream effect is an eventual capex slowdown for the pick-and-shovel crowd (semiconductors etc.). Simple as that.

Power Constraints: The Physical Wall Nobody Wants to Talk About

Even if the money were flowing freely, the electricity isn’t. AI compute requires tremendous amounts of energy and water. Currently installed electrical capacity can’t handle the aggressive projections without massive new builds, which take years of capital, permitting, and construction or drastic reallocation of existing power away from other uses.

One path is slow and practical: add real capacity. The other gets dystopian fast: reduce human usage or rolling blackouts to free up juice. The reality will be somewhere in between and will play out politically. Local opposition to data centers is already rising over electricity rates, water use, and land. Towns are pushing back. This isn’t abstract futurism…it’s a hard physical constraint on timelines and costs.

Power adds another multiplier to the capex problem. Data centers need gigawatts. Hyperscalers are already forecasting enormous spending just to keep up. When private credit tightens and power infrastructure lags, the combined effect is a slower, more expensive buildout than the bull-case spreadsheets assume. The second derivative doesn’t just slow…it can stall.

Market Concentration and Cyclical Reality

Semiconductor stock valuations have hit record levels recently around 19-20% of the entire S&P 500. That’s not healthy diversification; it’s concentration in a notoriously cyclical industry whose recent boom has been funded by debt to business models that remain unproven at scale.

The biggest AI capex spenders have seen their stocks pull back meaningfully from highs even as broader indices hover near records. ROI concerns are finally showing up in price action. Even the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) has been more sober: ‘AI has boosted confidence via productivity expectations, but it’s also raising job fears, supply bottlenecks, and the risk of overinvestment boom-bust cycles we’ve seen before.’ Power and credit constraints make that overinvestment risk even more acute.

Bottom Line

We’ve seen this movie before. Credit questions profitability first. Physical limits and cheaper open-source alternatives (hello Kimi) force the timeline and pricing reckoning. Circular deals, negative free cash flow, sky-high chip prices, and now power realities all point in the same direction.

The party isn’t over tomorrow but closing time signals are everywhere: semis at peak gross margins, enterprises pausing, private credit tightening, power wall rising, open-source commoditization accelerating. Stock market AI concentration at extremes.

Skepticism isn’t denial of eventual AI value. It’s calling the current valuation and frenzy for what it is…priced for perfection that customers, credit markets, the electrical grid, and open-source competition aren’t delivering.

Watch the flows. Watch power builds. Watch Kimi-style pricing pressure. Watch the second derivative across money, megawatts, and model costs. The unwind in these concentrated, debt-fueled, physically constrained narratives tends to be swift once the marginal equity buyer and/or lender steps away.

Caution is warranted…the bright bar lights are about to be turned on. The distance to a real repricing is shrinking fast. Protect capital. The math doesn’t lie.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 15:00

SpaceX Reportedly Turns Away Falcon Customers As Starship Gamble Comes Into Focus

Zero Hedge -

SpaceX Reportedly Turns Away Falcon Customers As Starship Gamble Comes Into Focus

Yet another corporate media report based on anonymous sources is likely to draw an immediate response from Elon Musk. He has repeatedly used X this year to challenge reporting on Tesla and SpaceX.

Bloomberg reports that SpaceX has begun turning away satellite operators seeking dedicated Falcon 9 launches after 2028 and is no longer accepting future reservations. The report was based on people familiar with the matter, and the company has not confirmed it.

The report continued:

Engineers at Musk's rocket, satellite and artificial intelligence juggernaut have halted building some non-reusable components for the Falcon family, such as the rocket's massive upper stage, said one of the people.

. . .

SpaceX's plans could change for a number of reasons, including development setbacks with the futuristic Starship vehicle, the people said. The company is likely to still use the Falcon 9 for launches for the Department of Defense and NASA, some of the people said.

If Starship isn't operational by the end of 2028 and Falcon production isn't extended, satellite operators could face a shortage of heavy-lift launch capacity. That means a lot is riding on the mega-rocket Starship getting through the testing phase and achieving commercial viability.

Starship's execution risks weighed on SpaceX shares this week after last week's test-launch delay. Over the past several weeks, more than $1 trillion in market capitalization has been wiped out.

Shares have fallen about 16% below the $135 IPO price in recent days.

The CIO of Tigress Financial Partners noted that the latest Starship launch abort "underscores ongoing execution risk around ramping Starship to high-cadence, reusable operations, and reinforces that repeated delays could push out revenue and margin trajectories."

Starship's Thursday launch attempt was postponed due to adverse weather conditions, with another attempt scheduled for later this evening. Check back for updates.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 14:45

A Quantum Roadmap Would Push Bitcoin Much Higher

Zero Hedge -

A Quantum Roadmap Would Push Bitcoin Much Higher

Authored by Ciaran Lyons via CoinTelegraph.com,

Bitcoin developers need to swallow their pride and outline a clear plan to harden the blockchain against quantum computing attacks, according to Capriole Investments founder Charles Edwards. He says the day they finally bite the bullet, the price will respond very quickly.

“If the Bitcoin core team says in two or three months: ‘this is our roadmap, we’re gonna solve it in the next two years, these are the rough steps we’ll take,’ that would be amazing news,” Edwards tells Cointelegraph on Trade Secrets. 

“I think that would discount a lot of the risk pretty much overnight,” Edwards says.

The question of whether Bitcoin developers should modify the network to make its cryptography quantum-resistant has sparked heated debate within the Bitcoin community, with some arguing that major changes could conflict with Bitcoin’s core ethos. Others claim quantum computers are many years away, and a rushed cure could be worse than the disease.

Charles Edwards says a clear roadmap could push price up “very quickly”

Edwards often highlights the risk of quantum computing to Bitcoin to his 132,800 X followers. The fear is that, one day, powerful enough quantum computers could break the cryptography that protects the Bitcoin network and potentially compromise Bitcoin wallets.

The uncertainty has impacted investor sentiment, and some analysts say it has contributed to the downfall in Bitcoin’s price. The world’s largest asset manager, BlackRock recently pointed to quantum computing as a potential long-term risk in materials for spot Bitcoin ETF investors. 

However, Edwards says if Bitcoin developers outline a clear roadmap to address the quantum threat, as some other chains have already done, it could send Bitcoin’s price higher “very quickly.” 

Source: Charles Edwards

“Double digits probably,” Edwards predicts.

He adds the quantum issue is “somewhat counterintuitively an upside catalyst potential,” because it is currently on the back burner and the Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) to date are “not really” a genuine solution.

Edwards is no stranger to making high-conviction calls on Bitcoin. Based in Melbourne, Australia, he founded Capriole Investments in 2019, a hedge fund focused on Bitcoin and digital assets. The firm uses a combination of quantitative models, AI, and macroeconomic analysis to guide its investment strategy across crypto markets.

Charles Edwards says Bitcoin is 40% below its fair value

A growing number of observers worry the risk could become more serious if Bitcoin developers fail to make the necessary changes to the network before 2030. Ethereum is due to complete it’s post quantum overhaul by 2029, which will shine a spotlight on Bitcoin’s own preparations.

Bitcoin is trading at $65,270 at the time of publication. Source: CoinMarketCap

Edwards estimates that Bitcoin is currently around 40% below what he considers its fair value based on energy value, while arguing that quantum risk accounts for roughly a 30% discount. “That means it’s more than priced in,” Edwards said. Bitcoin is trading at $65,270 at the time of publication, roughly 49% below its October all-time highs of $126,100.

Edwards clarifies that Bitcoin’s current price reflects the quantum risk based on the information available today, rather than any unknown future developments that could accelerate the threat and tank the price further. 

His estimate is based on the timelines outlined by leading quantum computing companies and researchers for when “Q Day” could arrive, the point at which quantum computers become powerful enough to reverse engineer private keys from public keys. 

“That sits in that four to five year range, give or take, a few years,” Edwards says.

Edwards says he also factors in the time Bitcoin would need to develop and implement a solution, which BIP-360 author Ethan Heilman estimates could take years.

“If we’re gonna get into maths, it’s pretty simple; it is just an aggregation of those expert opinions. So it’s based on that, and based on the fact that there’s currently no solution for Bitcoin.”

“That risk again falls significantly if there’s a solution or if there’s a roadmap to a solution. But it also could grow if tomorrow we find out that Google is, you know, twice as far ahead on their roadmap to Q Day or some other major company,” he said.

“It’s priced in today, but it’s not to say that it can’t get worse or better. It’s just I think it’s skewed more probabilistically to the upside from here,” Edwards says.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 14:20

Nine Potential Commodity Wildcards As "Once-A-Decade" Shocks Become New Normal

Zero Hedge -

Nine Potential Commodity Wildcards As "Once-A-Decade" Shocks Become New Normal

A growing number of institutional desks sounded alarms over physical commodity markets this week as maritime chokepoint disruptions intensified across the Gulf.

Goldman Sachs, RBC Capital Markets, JPMorgan, and others warned that a tightening physical market could keep Brent firmly in triple-digit territory and drive prices sharply higher if the disruptions persist.

Joining the conversation was Citigroup Senior Commodities Strategist Eric Lee, who warned Thursday that commodity markets have entered an era of near-constant disruption, with geopolitical, climate, and technological shocks increasingly overwhelming traditional supply-and-demand analysis.

Lee warned:

Commodities markets are in an era where geopolitical, climate and technological shocks routinely overwhelm traditional supply-demand analysis. Rather than only what is most likely, investors need to consider what is plausible, and what markets are least prepared for.

The frequency of major commodities market disruptions appears to be rising. Events once considered "once -a-decade" now seem to emerge every year, or even every six months.

Since the early 2000s, markets have navigated the Global Financial Crisis, the Arab Spring, the US shale revolution, OPEC's strategic policy shifts; since 2020, wildcards include COVID-19, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, trade wars, gold-positive macro concerns, weather-driven agricultural disruptions, and repeated Middle East conflicts.

Timeline showing notable wildcards and shocks impacting commodities, 2000-2026

List of notable wildcards and shocks impacting commodities:

Lee outlined nine high-impact commodity-market wildcards for the second half of 2026 and beyond, warning that the scenarios are not base-case forecasts but risks with consequences too large for investors to ignore:

  1. US-Iran conflict goes from temporary shock to multi-year disruption of Gulf oil production capacity, driving crude oil to $150+, wholesale refined products to $200+, US retail gasoline to $6/gal sustained.

  2. Russia-Ukraine escalation drives renewed oil and gas export restrictions: this could be even more bullish for global gas than for oil.

  3. Critical minerals hoarding goes into overdrive: drives copper to $20k/t and more.

  4. Gold falls another 15–20% near-term before doubling.

  5. Hyper El Niño and other extreme weather: drives ag price spikes, e.g. cocoa back to >$10k/t.

  6. AI boom and bust: buffet electricity, natural gas, uranium, and power-infrastructure metals like copper and aluminium one way, and gold the other way.

  7. Trade war hits US farmers again: US-China trade war resumes, hitting US ag exports, which could push corn below $4.2/bu and soybeans below $10/bu.

  8. 2030 LNG glut worsens on Russian Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline to China: driving global LNG prices like JKM down to $5–6/MMBtu.

  9. Monroe Doctrine extreme: US blockades all Americas oil exports, driving global oil prices to well above $100/bbl, while US benchmarks might be discounted by over $30/bbl.

A look at the Bloomberg Commodity Index (BCOM), a widely tracked commodity-futures benchmark, shows the broader complex, spanning energy, agriculture, metals, and livestock, continuing to climb from its Covid-era lows.

Professional subscribers can access deeper commodity analysis at our new Marketdesk.ai portal.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2026 - 12:40

Tariffs, Yet Again

The Big Picture -

 

 

Overnight, the Trump Administration announced a new, massive set of tariffs, claiming authorization by Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The full list of the 60 countries tariffs were levied on is at The Independant.

These are as likely unlawful as the IEEPA tariffs were, but for different and more technical reasons. Congress did give the Executive branch limited authority to impose these sorts of tariffs, but with a very specific set of guidelines and procedures to follow.

The documents filed claim these were followed properly, but their own language makes it clear this is unlikely.

The new strategy is to use the complexity of Section 301 to provide SCOTUS cover to allow what is plainly a usurpation of Congressional authority.1   It was impossible for any credible court to have supported the IEEPA tariffs, as they were so clearly unconstitutional.2 

This time, the tactic was slightly cleverer, and enumerated by the WSJ’s Greg Ip:

“To Trump, though, court rulings are road maps, not roadblocks. February’s court ruling simply rerouted him to tools the court hadn’t explicitly prohibited. And fortunately for Trump, Congress has over the years scattered many such tools through the law books, many largely forgotten or unused.”

When the WSJ accuses the White House of abusing rules to accomplish their agenda, regardless — well, that’s really something.

Note that the document filed at 12:01 am last night was the USTR’s final “Notice of Action.” It references the evidentiary findings in a separate June 2, 2026 document titled “Acts, Policies, and Practices…” (See sources below)

On March 12, 2026, the USTR initiated, on its own, 60 simultaneous investigations. This is not the comprehensive document it appears to be at first glance. About 360 of the 431 pages (page 73 on) are the tariff schedule.

Rigorous, they are not.

All 60 country-specific “Determinations of Action” are identical boilerplate. Each is a single paragraph, and the template is word-for-word the same — only the country name, the rate (10% or 12.5%), and the cross-references change. No country-specific evidence, no discussion of any particular economy’s laws, enforcement record, or forced-labor exposure appears. Somehow, every major trading partner qualifies for tariffs — which is the reveal that this is not specific to any one nation’s behaviors.

Technically busy, analytically thin boilerplate is no way to manage trade policy…

Sorry, but nobody really believes that this administration performed 60 investigations, created a comprehensive report, analyzed 1,600 comments, and held a hearing, all in ~4 months, with seven weeks from proposed action to final tariffs that was anything more than just going through the motions. None of the 60 economies received individualized analysis or consideration in that window as required by statute.

A West Coast friend who alerted me to this late last night had already done the deep dive into the Federal Register and the 431-page United States Trade Representative document. His conclusion?

“The most recent research shows US economy paid 95% of the tariffs cost, and while more than half of that was initially borne by companies in lower profits, by this spring it was mostly consumers paying. His voters are innumerate, as is he… It basically concedes there were no USTR investigations, DJT picked the countries, and picked the rates.”

A document whose superficiality confesses that none of the applicable laws or procedures were followed should not withstand court scrutiny. No true analysis of various countries (only 1/2 page each); no calibration of tariffs in response to specific illegality; most important of all, no analysis of how the behavior in question negatively impacted US companies as required by section 301.

To actually determine what countries are using forced labor and its economic impact on US companies would take a lot more time, personnel, and intellectual firepower than the 4-month attempt applied here.

This was simply a response to the IEEPA loss at the Supreme Court. And if SCOTUS acts as it has since 2024, by the time they get around to striking this down in 2028, the damage will have already been done.

~~~

You would be wrong to think of these critiques against tariffs as merely a leftist tirade or partisan attack. The conservative Reason Foundation, a libertarian organization, observed: Trump Imposes Massively Harmful and Illegal Section 301 Tariffs, stating, “The new policy is based on sham investigations, and runs afoul of the major questions and nondelegation doctrine.”

Of course, these tariffs should be struck down, but if SCOTUS takes another year (again), there will be real economic and reputational harm done.3

 

 

 

Previously:
Winners & Losers of SCOTUS Decision Striking Down Tariffs (February 20, 2026)

Part II: IEEPA Tariff Ruling’s Losers (February 23, 2026)

Tariffs archive

 

See also:
Trump’s Trade Wars Are Back—Despite the Supreme Court
By Greg Ip
WSJ, July 23, 2026

 

Sources:
Report in Section 301 Investigations Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure to Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced with Forced Labor
USTR, June 02, 2026

USTR Makes Findings and Proposes Action in 60 Section 301 Investigations Relating to Failures to Take Action on Trade in Forced Labor Goods.
Press Release
USTR, June 02, 2026

Notice of Actions in Section 301 Investigations of Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure of Each Economy to Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced with Forced Lab
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, July 24, 2026
Docket Nos. USTR–2026–0265, USTR–2026–0266

 

 

 

__________

1. t is very difficult to predict what a renegade, corrupt, partisan court will do.

2. And yet it still attracted three votes in favor: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh ignored the plain text of the Constitution.

3. There is a real chance SCOTUS allows this to slide, 5-4.

 

The post Tariffs, Yet Again appeared first on The Big Picture.

Pages