Zero Hedge

Obama's Fingerprints All Over Investigations Of Trump And Clinton

Obama's Fingerprints All Over Investigations Of Trump And Clinton

Authored by Paul Sperry via American Greatness,

In the run-up to the 2016 Democratic Party convention, FBI Director James Comey gained access to at least eight thumb drives containing large volumes of former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s sensitive State Department emails—as well as some from President Obama—that appeared to have been compromised by foreign hackers.

Instead of investigating the explosive new batch of evidence revealed in recently declassified documents, Comey rushed ahead to close an investigation into whether Clinton improperly transmitted and received classified material from a private, unsecured server she kept in her basement. Comey also took the extraordinary step of bypassing the attorney general and personally exonerating Clinton of wrongdoing during an unusual press conference on July 5, 2016.

Just hours later, Obama invited Clinton—who would be formally nominated as the Democrats’ standard bearer three weeks later—aboard Air Force One to help launch her multicity campaign tour, during which he officially endorsed Clinton as his preferred White House successor. “I’m ready to pass the baton,” Obama declared, as he stumped for her for the first time.

Comey’s decision to remove the cloud of scandal over Clinton’s campaign, allowing the president to get on with the business of campaigning for her, is just one avenue of investigation the Justice Department is pursuing in wide-ranging probes whose targets include a figure largely unscathed by his era’s scandals: former President Barack Obama.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said prosecutors are investigating, among other things, “possible coordination between the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.”

Jason Reding Quiñones, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, has impaneled a grand jury to hear evidence related to an alleged “grand criminal conspiracy” by Obama and Biden officials to enlist law enforcement and intelligence agencies in rigging elections and carrying out political espionage against Donald Trump.

The fate of these investigations is still unclear. Actions against former presidents—especially for conduct in office—have been exceedingly rare, with the exception of President Trump. And the courts have pushed back on the Trump administration’s recent efforts to indict other Obama-era figures, including Comey.

Nevertheless, a RealClearInvestigations look at the evidence Trump administration prosecutors are presenting to the grand jury, which includes a raft of recently declassified CIA and FBI documents, shows Obama’s deep involvement in both protecting Clinton and advancing the conspiracy theory that Trump conspired with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Drawing from thousands of pages of documents and exclusive interviews with law enforcement and intelligence officials, RCI’s analysis shows the former president was repeatedly at the center of events surrounding both the closing of the Clinton investigation and the subsequent opening of several investigations targeting the Trump campaign. Post-election, Obama also ordered the manufacturing of anti-Trump intelligence, which set Trump’s presidency up for continued investigations.

On the Tarmac

Airports played an outsized role in the 2016 election. It was former President Bill Clinton’s June 27 meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on his parked plane at a Phoenix airport that reportedly convinced Comey that Lynch might appear compromised and that he should go around the proper charging officer for federal crimes to clear his wife.

About a week later, Obama signaled the all-clear after Comey’s press conference by inviting Hillary Clinton to fly to campaign rallies on Air Force One.

“I’m here today because I believe in Hillary Clinton,” Obama said during their July 5, 2016, rally in Charlotte, N.C. “I have had a front-row seat to her judgment and her commitment.”

Some presidential security experts and Secret Service sources contacted by RCI said the timing of the trip was suspicious.

They point out that the president authorizing Clinton to fly aboard Air Force One on the same day his hand-picked FBI director absolved her of crimes was almost certainly not a last-minute decision because it would have required extensive pre-planning.

The security involved in setting up that tour took weeks of advance work, which means Obama knew she was going to be cleared and not charged,” said a veteran Secret Service official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. “Obama wasn’t going to risk endorsing her and joining her on the campaign trail without her first being cleared of federal crimes,” he added. “He knew about the end of the investigation well ahead of time.”

Although the FBI did not interview Clinton about her emails until July 2, 2016, Comey had been circulating drafts of his exoneration statement at FBI headquarters for months and conveying to agents there was an “extraordinary sense of urgency” to complete the investigation, according to the declassified documents released recently by the Justice Department. Critics note that the reasoning he offered for clearing Clinton in his July 5 statement was rife with contradictions. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” Comey said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

It is not known if any of the drafts were shared with the White House. Secret Service entry logs show Comey visited with Obama at least three times in 2016. “The timing and presumption that Clinton would eventually be the Democratic Party nominee for President was part of the defendant’s decision-making process,” according to court papers the DOJ filed in November detailing why it alleges Comey predetermined Clinton’s innocence.

Pulling Punches

The new evidence suggests that Comey wasn’t acting alone. It indicates that Obama was more involved in the Clinton probe than previously reported and that Comey, whose entire family supported Clinton, may have pulled his punches to placate the incumbent president and avoid getting on the wrong side of the woman he assumed would be Obama’s successor.

The recently declassified appendix of a 2018 report from the DOJ’s inspector general reviewing the integrity of the FBI’s investigation of Clinton found that the FBI never searched the eight thumb drives containing thousands of unexamined Clinton emails that were “exfiltrated” by foreign actors. Comey was first briefed about the cache of new evidence in May 2016 when he had begun drafting his exoneration statement, and then again a week before he unilaterally exonerated Clinton.

FBI lawyers admitted in internal written memos, also recently declassified, that the information was necessary to conduct a “thorough and complete investigation” and “assess the national security risks” associated with the breaches from Clinton’s use of a private email server, which cyber-forensic analysts had already found contained at least 2,063 classified emails, some at the “Top Secret/Special Access Program” level. They also thought it was necessary to divine “the full scope of unauthorized disclosure of classified emails found on the former Secretary’s server and to identify any potential cyber intrusions of the server.”

They got some thumb drives that dealt with all these issues, [and] they didn’t even bother to go through [them],” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley. “It was a complete cover-up.”

The appendix also reveals Democratic National Committee communications suggesting that Obama’s attorney general, Lynch, was secretly in communication with the Clinton campaign during the probe of her emails and had assured campaign officials that the FBI would go easy on her.

According to the communications, which U.S. intelligence analysts determined were “not fabrications,” Obama was putting “pressure” on Comey through Lynch to get rid of Clinton’s email scandal as early as January 2016. Not long after, Comey began drafting his statement exonerating Clinton—months before FBI agents had ended their investigation.

In her 2018 congressional deposition, Lynch testified that she never obstructed the probe or exerted any influence over it. But she has acknowledged that she had spoken to Comey about diminishing the probe’s significance by referring to the email investigation in the press as a “matter,” not an investigation. Lynch did not respond to requests for comment sent to her law firm.

DNC communications from March 2016 revealed that Obama also “sanctioned the use of administrative levers” to scuttle the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation. Recently declassified FBI documents show that around the same time, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe had ordered field agents to back off their investigation of Clinton Foundation donors and former Secretary of State Clinton as part of a possible pay-for-play scheme. McCabe did not respond to requests for comment sent to his attorney and to George Mason University, where he is a visiting professor.

(Just months earlier, McCabe and his wife Jill met with Virginia’s then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton ally, was at the governor’s mansion in Richmond to discuss raising money for Mrs. McCabe’s state senate race. The Clinton machine ended up pumping more than $675,000 into Jill McCabe’s Democratic campaign. McAuliffe had long maintained a seat on the Clinton Foundation board. RCI has learned, furthermore, that before moving to the D.C. area, the McCabes were 15-year neighbors of the Clintons in the hamlet of Chappaqua, N.Y., according to property records.)

Then, on July 20, just five days before the start of the Democratic National Convention, FBI headquarters shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation. “Based on the [political] sensitivities surrounding the Clinton Foundation,” a just-declassified internal FBI document reveals, agents were suddenly barred from issuing subpoenas, conducting interviews, or sharing bank information related to the case with other offices. HQ warned field offices to avoid creating “any impression we are investigating the Clinton Foundation or the Clintons.”

RCI made several requests for comment to Comey and Obama. Comey declined comment through his attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, who successfully defended him against federal perjury and obstruction charges. The DOJ is appealing the case, which was dismissed by a Clinton-appointed judge, not on the merits, but on the grounds that the federal prosecutor who indicted him had not been appointed properly. Obama’s Washington office declined comment.

At the time, the White House insisted it had no prior knowledge of Comey’s decisions.

Trump, who was on the verge of accepting the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, did not buy it. He accused Obama and Comey of running a “rigged” investigation of his Democratic opponent.

“It was no accident that charges were not recommended against Hillary the exact same day as President Obama campaigns with her for the first time,” Trump said on July 5, 2016.

Unbeknownst to Trump, July 5 would loom large for another reason: On the very day Obama’s FBI cleared Clinton, it set its sights on him.

Using the FBI To Smear Trump

That day, the bureau received the first in a series of false reports alleging Trump conspired with Russia. The reports, authored by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, then working as an FBI informant, were funded by Clinton’s campaign.

Weeks later, President Obama was personally warned by the CIA that the Clinton campaign was planning to create a foreign espionage scandal falsely tying Trump to Russia to distract attention from her own espionage investigation involving her use of a private server to transmit classified emails.

A declassified memo revealed that Clinton had personally approved a plan to “smear” and “demonize” Trump as a Putin stooge,  which was proposed by one of her foreign policy advisers, Julianne Smith, who had previously served as Vice President Joe Biden’s deputy security adviser. Clinton’s campaign manager, Robbie Mook, later testified in Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation that Clinton personally approved a plan to claim Trump had a back-channel to Putin through a Russian bank—an assertion that proved utterly baseless. “We discussed it with Hillary,” Mook told a D.C. court in 2022. “She agreed with the decision.”

According to the document, Smith said that the FBI, where Clinton had “supporters,” would help pour fuel on “the fire,” suggesting foreknowledge of the coming Russiagate investigation, which had not yet been formally opened. She added that they would also get help from the “IC,” or intelligence community, where Clinton had a lot of “sympathizers.”

Strikingly, there appeared to be an understanding among Clinton campaign aides that the FBI and CIA would get involved in an effort to kneecap Trump well before such an effort manifested in an official capacity.

In addition, the campaign solicited help directly from the White House.

In a July 25 text-message exchange with another Clinton adviser, Smith reached out to a special assistant to the president and National Security Council member for information about an “investigation” into Russia and Trump. “She went as far as she could” in divulging sensitive information, Smith told the other adviser. Sources say the Obama aide is believed to be Celeste Wallander, who at the time was also senior director for Russia and Eurasia on the National Security Council. Smith indicated she also contacted the “OVP,” or office of the vice president.

Smith told Durham she did not “specifically remember any such idea” to spread dirt on Trump. Wallander did not reply to requests for comment when contacted at her new position as executive director of the University of Pennsylvania’s office in Washington.

Grassley said that the new evidence, which he has fought for years to declassify, provides additional proof that “the Clinton campaign believed elements of the Obama administration would help them achieve their political ends against Trump.”

The plan to tie Trump to Russia went prime time during the DNC convention, held from July 25 to July 28.

During his nationally televised convention speech on July 27, Biden warned, “We cannot elect a man who belittles our closest allies, while embracing dictators like Vladimir Putin.” Obama pitched in during his own speech the following night, claiming that Trump “cozies up to Putin.”

Comey also knew about Clinton’s plan to manufacture a smear campaign against Trump, according to Durham. Yet on July 31, 2016, he approved the opening of the code-named “Crossfire Hurricane” espionage investigation of the Trump campaign for alleged—and since-disproven—collusion with Russia. Three months later, Comey even obtained a wiretap to spy on one of Trump’s campaign advisers, Carter Page, based almost entirely on the false allegations in the Clinton-funded Steele dossier.

The Russia probe was headed by Peter Strzok, the same FBI counterintelligence official who led the Clinton email probe. Internal FBI communications strongly suggest Strzok plotted to take a hard line against Trump.

On July 31, Strzok texted FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who worked directly under Comey’s deputy, Andrew McCabe, to discuss the difference in the two investigations. He emphasized that the Trump case mattered more than the Clinton case, and suggested that the FBI merely checked the boxes in its investigation of Clinton.

“[D]amn this feels momentous. Because this matters. The other one did, too, but that was to ensure we didn’t F something up. This matters because this MATTERS,” Strzok said. “So super glad to be on this voyage with you.”

“White House Is Running This”

Strzok would soon learn he was the nominal head of the investigation. On. Aug. 3, Obama met with Biden, Comey, and several other officials inside the White House to discuss the Clinton plan to link Trump and Putin, according to declassified records.

The next day, Strzok attended a meeting with CIA officials as part of an interagency group on Russia and Trump created by then-CIA Director John Brennan. Known as the “fusion cell,” the group was quarterbacked by CIA official Elizabeth “Liz” Vogt.

The following day, Strzok texted his FBI partner Page about the meeting. “Went well, best we could have expected,” he said, though he seemed annoyed to hear his investigation was under the control of the president. “Other than Liz’s quote, ‘the White House is running this,’” he added.

Nonetheless, their goals were aligned: Help Hillary Clinton, hurt Donald Trump.

Strzok and Page had earlier agreed to aggressively probe Trump to “stop” him from being president, in contrast to the softball approach they endeavored to take investigating Clinton. “One more thing: [Clinton] may be our next president,” Page wrote Strzok. “The last thing you need [is] going in there loaded for bear.”

“Agreed,” Strzok replied, before interviewing Clinton.

Both Strzok and Page have been subpoenaed by the recently impaneled federal grand jury hearing conspiracy evidence.

Instead of alerting the Trump campaign about the bureau’s concerns, Strzok dusted off the rarely used law, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, to open additional espionage cases targeting Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort (code-named “Crossfire Fury”), George Papadopoulos (“Crossfire Typhoon”), and Carter Page (“Crossfire Dragon”).

The following week, he used FARA to open another counterintelligence case on Trump national security adviser, Michael Flynn, under the code name “Crossfire Razor.”

In a Sept. 2, 2016, text exchange, Page wrote Strzok that she was preparing talking points for Comey to brief Obama on their progress because “Potus [President of the United States] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

Also, Obama appeared to be directing political strategy for the Democratic ticket from the White House.

In October 2016, Clinton’s running mate Tim Kaine was caught on video saying Obama had called him the prior night to warn him Trump was in bed with “fascist” Putin. In a conversation captured in the 2020 documentary “Hillary,” Kaine said the president demanded he and Clinton go hard on Trump: “Tim, remember, this is no time to be a purist. You’ve got to keep a fascist out of the White House.” Clinton is overheard saying, “I echo that sentiment,” and hints at a nefarious relationship between Trump and Russia.

A little more than a week before the election, Comey reluctantly reopened Clinton’s email case—a controversial decision he made only after New York FBI agent John Robertson blew the whistle on headquarters trying to “bury” the discovery a month earlier of more than 300,000 new Clinton State Department emails he found on a laptop Clinton confidante Huma Abedin shared with her then-husband, Anthony Weiner, a former Democratic lawmaker from New York, as RCI first reported.

“The only reason Comey reopened the investigation is that the New York office threatened to bypass FBI headquarters and go straight to the Department of Justice regarding the additional emails that were discovered as a result of the Weiner [sex crimes] investigations,” former prosecutor and assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said in an RCI interview.

Around the same time, McCabe denied field agents potentially valuable evidence from the Weiner laptop that could have justified reopening their Clinton Foundation probes, recently declassified FBI records also reveal.

Obama Doubles Down

After Trump defeated Clinton the following month, Obama doubled down, ordering U.S. intelligence agencies to revisit their prior assessments that found no evidence the Russian government tried to hack the election for Trump.

Within just three weeks of Obama’s Dec. 9 order, the CIA came up with new evidence to conclude Putin personally launched an influence operation to help swing the race to Trump. The publicly released version of the assessment, which helped Obama and Clinton explain her shocking defeat, hid the fact that the CIA relied in part on the Clinton-funded dossier to reach its new conclusion.

Intelligence contradicting the “key judgment” that Putin helped Trump win was omitted from the assessment, known as the ICA. Career analysts objected to using the dossier, but Obama’s CIA chief Brennan overruled them. At least one senior intelligence analyst, now a whistleblower cooperating with the DOJ in its ongoing investigation of the entire scandal, said he was “threatened” by superiors to change his pre-election assessment to suggest Putin stole the election for Trump.

The Obama White House even prevented analysts preparing the new assessment from seeing the incriminating so-called Clinton Plan intelligence that exposed the plot to frame Trump as a Russian conspirator. In denying ICA drafters access to the intel, the White House spuriously claimed it was withholding the material “on grounds of executive privilege,” according to a secret congressional report that debunked the intelligence behind the ICA. (The explosive 2018 report had been locked in a safe at CIA headquarters until its declassification and release in July.)

On Dec. 15, 2016, weeks before the assessment had been finalized, Obama let it slip out in an NPR “exit interview” at the White House that his intelligence team had essentially predetermined the conclusion of the Trump-Russia assessment.

He said that no one should be “surprised by the CIA assessment that this [Russian meddling in the election] was done purposely to improve Trump’s chances [of winning].” Obama even suggested that Putin “was helping the Trump campaign.”

“So what the CIA is now assessing—which was, it was done purposefully to tilt the election in the direction of a particular candidate—shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody,” Obama added.

Standing in the wings, Susan Rice, the president’s national security adviser, sent Obama back into the room following the interview to reassert that the assessment was still under review.

You had something to add?” asked NPR’s Steve Inskeep.

“It is worth noting that when it comes to the motivations of the Russians, there are still a whole range of assessments taking place among the agencies,” a clearly chagrined Obama said, his voice cracking. “And so when I receive a final report, you know, we’ll be able to, I think, give us a comprehensive and best guess as to those motivations.”

He stressed that “different agencies are still looking at all that stuff, gathering it together and hopefully putting [it] into a single package.” In fact, only three of the 17 intelligence agencies were involved in the process—the CIA, FBI, and NSA—and only five analysts drafted the final intel report, all of whom were handpicked by Obama’s CIA Director Brennan, who previously worked for Obama in the White House.

Obama’s intelligence czar, James Clapper, later revealed in a 2018 interview that the Obama-ordered assessment set off a chain of investigations targeting Trump and his administration over Russia.

“If it weren’t for President Obama, we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set up a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today, notably, Special Counsel [Robert] Mueller’s investigation,” Clapper told CNN. “President Obama is responsible for that.”

Recently declassified emails reveal that after taking his marching orders from Obama, Clapper pressured the NSA, which had partially dissented from the key judgment that Putin personally intervened in the election to help Trump, to get “on the same page” and be “supportive” of the conclusion. He suggested they would all have to “compromise” their normal standards for intelligence-gathering to rush out the report to meet Obama’s deadline.

Sen. Grassley was even more emphatic: “There’s no doubt the new intelligence assessment was a political hit that had been ordered by President Obama.

Both Clapper and Brennan have been told by federal prosecutors they are “targets” of investigation and have been subpoenaed by the grand jury looking at conspiracy charges. In a letter from his attorney, Brennan said he has cooperated with the probe, turning over documents requested for the period July 2016 to February 2017. Brennan said he stands by the ICA and complained he is the target of a “manufactured criminal investigation.” Attempts to reach Clapper for comment were unsuccessful.

Oval Office Planning Session

The first week in January 2017 was a busy time at the Obama White House.

On Jan. 5, Obama and Biden held an Oval Office meeting with Comey and other officials during which they discussed using the Logan Act, a little-used 18th-century law that criminalizes efforts by private citizens to conduct American foreign policy, against Trump’s incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Later that month, Comey dispatched Strzok to the West Wing to ambush Flynn in an interview that would set a perjury trap leading to Flynn’s ouster and indictment on charges that were later dropped.

More significantly, they also discussed a plan to confront President-elect Trump with false allegations from the Steele dossier, which Comey presented as “intelligence.” On Jan. 6, Comey briefed Trump on Russia-related allegations, including those in the now-debunked Steele dossier—the same day the administration released an unclassified version of the ICA to the public.

Comey’s private briefing with Trump was later leaked to the press, lending credence to the dossier and giving Washington journalists official cover to publicize its transparently bogus rumors, starting with Buzzfeed, which published the entire Steele Dossier on Jan. 10.

On Jan. 12, still under the direction of the Obama administration, Comey also sought the renewal of a wiretap warrant to continue spying on Trump adviser Carter Page as a suspected “Russian agent”—the same day the bureau received an intelligence report warning of false information in the dossier that had put Page under suspicion. And Comey knew by that point the dossier was based on fabrications by Steele’s paid “primary subsource.”

Later that month, Comey’s investigators learned while interviewing Igor Danchenko, a former Brookings Institution analyst who worked as Steele’s primary researcher, that key allegations in the dossier were nothing more than “bar talk.” Comey nonetheless approved the affidavit—underpinned by those same dossier lies—to electronically eavesdrop on Page for another 90 days.

“With all these red lights flashing STOP, the Obama administration went full speed ahead,” Grassley said.

Some former prosecutors see a conspiracy in the unequal investigative treatment of Clinton and Trump, and they place Obama at the center of it.

“There are reasonable grounds for an investigation to determine if this was part of a broader conspiracy to protect Hillary Clinton and influence the election by smearing Trump at the same time,” said Swecker, a former prosecutor and top FBI official.

“I don’t think there’s any doubt Obama was the mastermind behind the whole conspiracy,” he told RCI. “The problem is proving it.”

Trump leveled similar allegations last year, even going so far as to accuse the 44th president of “treason.” Obama spokesman Patrick Rodenbush dismissed the accusations as “bizarre” and “ridiculous.”

Hannah Hankins, now acting spokesperson for Obama’s post-presidency office, told RCI, “I won’t have anything new to add for this story.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 21:45

China Has Officially Overtaken Tesla In The Global EV Race

China Has Officially Overtaken Tesla In The Global EV Race

Chinese automakers, led by BYD, are rapidly reshaping the global electric-vehicle market and challenging long-established brands such as Volkswagen, Toyota, BMW—and even Tesla, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Once dismissed by Western buyers, Chinese EVs are now gaining wide acceptance. “These Chinese cars look fantastic,” one shopper said while browsing a BYD model in London, reflecting a broader shift in perception.

BYD has emerged as the most powerful symbol of China’s rise in electric vehicles. The company replaced Tesla as the world’s biggest EV seller and delivered more than one million vehicles outside China in 2025—more than double the previous year. China, meanwhile, surpassed Japan in 2023 to become the world’s largest auto exporter, shipping more than seven million vehicles last year.

“BYD wants to become one of the most relevant players in Europe, and in a very short period,” said Alfredo Altavilla, an industry veteran advising the company.

Chinese brands now hold about 7% of Western Europe’s auto market, selling more than 500,000 vehicles in the first three quarters of 2025. Their growing presence is putting pressure on European leaders such as Volkswagen, which has already lost ground to Chinese competitors in China and now faces them on its home turf. VW said it had “confidence in our products and our ability to innovate.”

China’s dominance is fueled by massive manufacturing capacity. The country can produce more than 46 million vehicles annually, far more than domestic demand. “You need to go global,” said Klaus Zyciora. “If you are not a manufacturer that is able to bring five million units annually to the market, you will have a hard time.”

The WSJ writes that exports have become essential to absorbing this overcapacity. BYD is expanding aggressively, aiming for 2,000 European dealerships by 2026 and opening or planning factories in countries including Hungary, Turkey, Brazil, Thailand, and Indonesia. The company raised $5.6 billion to support its global push.

Political barriers remain one of the biggest obstacles. Chinese EVs face steep tariffs in the U.S., the European Union, and Mexico. In Europe, BYD vehicles are subject to duties of up to 27%. In the U.S., restrictions on Chinese software and national security concerns have effectively blocked imports.

Still, some governments are easing resistance. In Canada, officials recently reduced tariffs on Chinese EVs as part of a broader partnership with Beijing. In the U.S., President Trump signaled openness to Chinese automakers that produce locally, saying, “Let China come in.”

To bypass trade barriers, Chinese companies are increasingly building vehicles abroad. This strategy allows them to preserve access to major markets while maintaining cost advantages.

BYD’s rise has been driven not only by scale but also by strategy. After a slow start in Europe, the company shifted from premium pricing to more affordable models and recruited experienced Western executives. Local hiring and market-specific products helped accelerate growth.

“If we focus our strategy on EVs only, we will become another Tesla, with all the bumps, the ups and downs,” Altavilla said.

Chinese manufacturers are also moving upmarket. “They will learn to upgrade, and then they will come in there as well,” said Volvo CEO Håkan Samuelsson, warning that premium brands may soon face intensified competition.

In emerging markets such as Mexico, Chinese automakers have become major players by offering feature-rich, low-cost vehicles. Analysts say they are expanding demand for electric cars in regions where affordable EVs barely existed before. “They are creating a market for affordable EVs that didn’t exist,” said Justin Fischer.

BYD’s overseas growth has helped offset intense competition at home, even as profit margins fluctuate. Despite selling more than 4.6 million vehicles globally last year, the company faces pressure from rivals inside China and slowing domestic demand.

Yet the broader trend remains clear: Chinese automakers are no longer niche exporters. With scale, cost advantages, government backing, and improving technology, they are positioning themselves as global leaders.

As Altavilla put it, BYD aims to become “a real European automaker.” More broadly, China is positioning itself to dominate the next phase of the global auto industry—putting Tesla and traditional Western manufacturers under sustained pressure.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 21:20

'Saving The Family' Should Start With Sound Money

'Saving The Family' Should Start With Sound Money

Authored by Jeffery L. Degner and Thomas Savidge via TheDailyEconomy.org,

In the opening week of 2026, several scholars at the Heritage Foundation published a special report titled “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years.” This 168-page document covers myriad policies that negatively impact the American family and proposes solutions to those problems. Some, largely the solutions that propose repealing and reforming existing systems, can help families. But the calls to subsidize traditional family life will come with a host of unintended consequences.

The nation is indeed facing a demographic crisis, and some of Heritage’s proposals deserve praise, while others deserve criticism. One proposed reform is mentioned but given barely any attention: a return to sound money.

Helping the American family (broadly understood) is a laudable goal, but the patterns of later and fewer marriages, later and less-frequent reproduction, and a host of other family pathologies are themselves the result of a mountain of interventions.

The American family must be saved from government, not by government.

America’s Demographic Squeeze: Fewer Births, More Dependents

The demographic decline facing the US is less sudden than often claimed, but no less consequential. As the Heritage report notes, fertility has remained below replacement rates for years, ensuring that natural population growth is weak. In the absence of sustained immigration, population growth is likely to become population contraction.

Simultaneously, the retirement of the Baby Boomer generation is steadily increasing the share of the population outside of the labor force, raising the dependency burden borne by working-age Americans and taxpayers.

These trends are already becoming visible. Slower growth or even shrinkage in the working-age population, absent significant immigration, constrains labor supply and limit economic growth potential. Meanwhile, Social Security and Medicare (the two largest expenditures in the federal budget) face rising expenditures precisely as the tax base supporting them grows more slowly. Additionally, the rise of the welfare state has greatly hampered family formation, especially among low-income families.

These changes underscore the need to remove institutional barriers to family formation and reform policies that underlie present challenges.

Remove Barriers Before Adding Benefits

Several laudable elements in the Heritage report shouldn’t be overlooked. First, it acknowledges that many policies favor traditional families. While there are indeed over 1,000 forms of federal privilege granted to married couples, these have been in place throughout the period when both marriage and fertility rates are falling. This raises the question: Why are these so-called “pro-family” or “pro-natal” policies failing to achieve their stated goals? Perhaps it’s because other measures on the books outweigh them, and actually short-circuit family formation.

The report’s authors call for a repeal of multiple policies that have been shown to deter and delay marriage, alter planned fertility, and even divorce patterns. Among them are “credits designed specifically to benefit poor single mothers,” and the structure and incentives from the Earned Income Tax Credit, which “strongly favors single parenthood over marriage.” The report also demands the elimination of “needless occupational licensure laws” that block young and lower-income earners from the labor force, undermining the early wealth-building that encourages marriage. Further, it seeks the easing of local zoning and construction regulations that make home affordability more difficult for younger, poorer households.

Heritage’s report frames the Israeli case as a model for what must be done to increase marriage and fertility rates. But the main reasons cited for (slightly) above-replacement fertility rates in Israel are religiosity, nationalism, and “Jewish communal life in exile,” all of which are summarized later as “culture, faith, and national purpose to family formation.” These specific pressures can’t, and shouldn’t, be replicated in modern, pluralistic societies. Further, the report rightfully admits, “While other nations have tried to reverse declining birthrates through financially generous family policies, none has succeeded in restoring fertility to replacement levels. This demonstrates that government spending alone does not ensure demographic success.”

Turning to Eastern Europe, the report looks to Hungary for policy solutions, interventions, and expenditures that have a more positive track record in increasing marriage and fertility. Indeed, Budapest began offering eligible brides interest-free loans, equating to over $30,000 for saying “I do” back in 2019. Moreover, the debt may be forgiven if the couple had three or more children. The report belies an important fact, however: the increase in the marriage rate is largely due to formerly cohabiting couples tying the knot. One would expect that once this initial wave of marriages has passed, the impact would be negated by other factors. In fact, just four years after the policy was introduced, the marriage rate began to fall back toward EU norms. The high cost of taxpayer-subsidized loans for cohabiting couples to make it official has had only temporary effects, and may prove, in the long run, to have produced marriages that are more apt to divorce, especially when the money runs out.

The Heritage Report correctly marks some of the causes of family disintegration: marriage penalties embedded in both welfare and fiscal interventions, especially for low-income households. The authors rightly call for their repeal. At the same time, the models they point to as ideal national cases for cultural and policy reform either can’t be replicated or are short on results. Worse still, the report’s greatest shortcoming is found in a drive-by mention of the single, foundational intervention that may actually be undermining all of traditional family life.

The Best “Pro-Family” Policy Is Price Stability

Buried within the report is a brief aside discussing the pressure a fiat monetary system and the resulting inflation has placed on families. The authors state:

High inflation can not only devastate the economy but also make it harder for families to form and grow. The US abandoned the gold standard in 1971, and the lack of convertibility of dollars to gold since then has facilitated reckless money printing and irresponsible federal spending, leading to bouts of high inflation in the 1970s, early 1980s, and the 2020s. Families rely on the dollar as a store of wealth, so the Federal Reserve must restore sound money and price stability. While many monetary rules have been proposed, the system with a proven record track record of success and stable prices is full convertibility to gold.

This passage, and its recommendation to return to full convertibility, are worth their weight in gold.

A few economists have pointed to the connection between increasing real prices in healthcareeducation, and housing as key contributors to delays in marriage and lowered fertility rates.

Outside factors like regulatory pressure and geopolitical forces have doubtless contributed to rising real prices in these categories. But among these, the ongoing loss of purchasing power due to the loose money policies of the Federal Reserve and its member banks has received too little attention.  

Even less attention is paid to the rise of what some have called the inflation culture. The Heritage report hints at this reality, but chalks it up to a loss of religiosity. But the decay of religious and civic life in the West has an undetected, underlying culprit. Because of the redistributive and impoverishing effects of easy money, a once-entrepreneurial and optimistic American culture has given way to a litany of social pathologies:

All are impacting family formation and family cohesion. All have their roots in the demoralization of persistent, slow-burning inflation, eating away the value of money. Younger generations hoping to live comfortably can reasonably ask: ‘Who has time for marriage and family?’ The answer: a lot fewer people than in generations past.

The damage done to the American family is likely reversible, but the Heritage Foundation’s report misses the root cause: inflation may be the most corrosive anti-family force of all. Policymakers who want to revive marriage rates and fertility should examine existing, counterproductive incentives, including new money creation and Congressional overspending. What they shouldn’t do is continue layering new interventions onto old ones, creating more bureaucracy and higher costs — but fewer weddings and babies.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 20:55

The EU-US $800BN Postwar Ukraine 'Prosperity' Plan Which Should Outrage MAGA

The EU-US $800BN Postwar Ukraine 'Prosperity' Plan Which Should Outrage MAGA

Ukraine is now begging the EU and US for $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years at a moment its prospects on the battlefield look no better than a year ago. This reportedly includes an ask of $800 billion for "reconstruction" and $700 billion for "military purposes".

Politico is reporting Friday that EU leadership has circulated a confidential document to European heads of state outlining Ukraine's financial needs for the initial $800 billion for rebuilding the country - a figure which Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said would be comparable to "the detonation of an atomic bomb." Orbán made the remarks Friday following an emergency EU summit in Brussels.

"The 18-page document outlines a 10-year plan to guarantee Ukraine's recovery with a fast-tracked path toward EU membership," Politico writes after obtaining the document. "The European Commission circulated the plans with EU capitals ahead of the leaders’ summit Thursday evening where the document, dated Jan. 22, was addressed, according to three EU officials and diplomats who were granted anonymity to talk about the sensitive topic."

According to further details, "The funding strategy stretches until 2040 alongside an immediate 100-day operational plan to get the project off the ground. But the prosperity plan will struggle to attract outside investment if the conflict rumbles on, according to the world’s largest money manager, BlackRock, which is advising on the reconstruction plan in a pro-bono capacity."

via BBC

Various institutions alongside the US and EU government plan to contribute according to these broad milestones envisioned in the document:

  • Over the next ten, the EU, US, and major international lenders — including the IMF and World Bank — are lining up roughly $500 billion in combined public and private funding for Ukraine, according to the document.

  • The European Commission plans to commit another €100 billion in taxpayer-backed funds via budget support and investment guarantees under the EU’s next seven-year budget starting in 2028.

  • Brussels claims that this €100 billion outlay would "unlock" as much as €207 billion in additional investment 

  • Washington, for its part, says it will mobilize capital through a bespoke US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, notably without attaching a price tag.

  • The US also signaled plans to funnel investment into Ukraine's critical minerals, infrastructure, energy, and technology sectors, aligning reconstruction with long-term strategic and resource interests - an earlier theme sounded by the Trump administration.

Naturally, neither Politico nor much of the mainstream media have commented on how deeply unpopular all this will be for domestic populations, and especially MAGA in the US will likely greet this as merely setting up for another theft of taxpayer funds for corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs

And ironically this document for long-term funding is being revealed less than 24 hours after President Zelensky got up before the WEF audience in Davos and positively scolded EU governments for supposed 'inaction' and for being 'fragmented' and weak...

Biting the hand that feeds you... or also humiliating the EU while the bloc shovels billions in cash your way.

And: this speech is not gonna go down well. Europeans just approved a 90 billion euro package - fresh cash, not Russian assets - certainly not insignificant.

But Politico does inject a little realism at least, in quoting a BlackRock executive at Davos:

"Think about it. If you're a pension fund, you're fiduciary towards your clients, your pensioners. It's nearly impossible to invest into a war zone," BlackRock’s vice chairman, Philipp Hildebrand, said Wednesday in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "I think it has to be sequenced and that's going to take some time."

In the meantime, over in Moscow President Putin just made clear to the US delegation led by Steve Witkoff that the question of territory remains a red line. Russia has further signaled Ukraine is not going to look the same in any post-conflict scenario, especially in terms of geographic boundaries.

This unprecedented proposed long-term funding plan should infuriate American taxpayers...

Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov made clear Friday that the military will continue to consistently pursue the objectives ... on the battlefield, where the Russian armed forces hold the strategic initiative." This means, as BlackRock's Hildebrand acknowledged, the conflict which is about to enter its fifth year is going to drag on.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 20:30

AI-Induced Cultural Stagnation Is No Longer Speculation − It's Already Happening

AI-Induced Cultural Stagnation Is No Longer Speculation − It's Already Happening

Authored by Ahmed Elgammal, via The Conversation

Generative AI was trained on centuries of art and writing produced by humans.

But scientists and critics have wondered what would happen once AI became widely adopted and started training on its outputs.

A new study points to some answers.

In January 2026, artificial intelligence researchers Arend Hintze, Frida Proschinger Åström and Jory Schossau published a study showing what happens when generative AI systems are allowed to run autonomously – generating and interpreting their own outputs without human intervention.

The researchers linked a text-to-image system with an image-to-text system and let them iterate – image, caption, image, caption – over and over and over.

Regardless of how diverse the starting prompts were – and regardless of how much randomness the systems were allowed – the outputs quickly converged onto a narrow set of generic, familiar visual themes: atmospheric cityscapes, grandiose buildings and pastoral landscapes. Even more striking, the system quickly “forgot” its starting prompt.

The researchers called the outcomes “visual elevator music” – pleasant and polished, yet devoid of any real meaning.

For example, they started with the image prompt, “The Prime Minister pored over strategy documents, trying to sell the public on a fragile peace deal while juggling the weight of his job amidst impending military action.” The resulting image was then captioned by AI. This caption was used as a prompt to generate the next image.

After repeating this loop, the researchers ended up with a bland image of a formal interior space – no people, no drama, no real sense of time and place.

A prompt that begins with a prime minister under stress ends with an image of an empty room with fancy furnishings. Arend Hintze, Frida Proschinger Åström and Jory SchossauCC BY

As a computer scientist who studies generative models and creativity, I see the findings from this study as an important piece of the debate over whether AI will lead to cultural stagnation.

The results show that generative AI systems themselves tend toward homogenization when used autonomously and repeatedly. They even suggest that AI systems are currently operating in this way by default.

The Familiar Is the Default

This experiment may appear beside the point: Most people don’t ask AI systems to endlessly describe and regenerate their own images. The convergence to a set of bland, stock images happened without retraining. No new data was added. Nothing was learned. The collapse emerged purely from repeated use.

But I think the setup of the experiment can be thought of as a diagnostic tool. It reveals what generative systems preserve when no one intervenes.

Pretty … boring. Chris McLoughlin/Moment via Getty Images

This has broader implications, because modern culture is increasingly influenced by exactly these kinds of pipelines. Images are summarized into text. Text is turned into images. Content is ranked, filtered and regenerated as it moves between words, images and videos. New articles on the web are now more likely to be written by AI than humans. Even when humans remain in the loop, they are often choosing from AI-generated options rather than starting from scratch.

The findings of this recent study show that the default behavior of these systems is to compress meaning toward what is most familiar, recognizable and easy to regenerate.

Cultural Stagnation or Acceleration?

For the past few years, skeptics have warned that generative AI could lead to cultural stagnation by flooding the web with synthetic content that future AI systems then train on. Over time, the argument goes, this recursive loop would narrow diversity and innovation.

Champions of the technology have pushed back, pointing out that fears of cultural decline accompany every new technology. Humans, they argue, will always be the final arbiter of creative decisions.

What has been missing from this debate is empirical evidence showing where homogenization actually begins.

The new study does not test retraining on AI-generated data. Instead, it shows something more fundamental: Homogenization happens before retraining even enters the picture. The content that generative AI systems naturally produce – when used autonomously and repeatedly – is already compressed and generic.

This reframes the stagnation argument. The risk is not only that future models might train on AI-generated content, but that AI-mediated culture is already being filtered in ways that favor the familiar, the describable and the conventional.

Retraining would amplify this effect. But it is not its source.

This Is No Moral Panic

Skeptics are right about one thing: Culture has always adapted to new technologies. Photography did not kill painting. Film did not kill theater. Digital tools have enabled new forms of expression.

But those earlier technologies never forced culture to be endlessly reshaped across various mediums at a global scale. They did not summarize, regenerate and rank cultural products – news stories, songs, memes, academic papers, photographs or social media posts – millions of times per day, guided by the same built-in assumptions about what is “typical.”

The study shows that when meaning is forced through such pipelines repeatedly, diversity collapses not because of bad intentions, malicious design or corporate negligence, but because only certain kinds of meaning survive the text-to-image-to-text repeated conversions.

This does not mean cultural stagnation is inevitable. Human creativity is resilient. Institutions, subcultures and artists have always found ways to resist homogenization. But in my view, the findings of the study show that stagnation is a real risk – not a speculative fear – if generative systems are left to operate in their current iteration.

They also help clarify a common misconception about AI creativity: Producing endless variations is not the same as producing innovation. A system can generate millions of images while exploring only a tiny corner of cultural space.

In my own research on creative AI, I found that novelty requires designing AI systems with incentives to deviate from the norms. Without it, systems optimize for familiarity because familiarity is what they have learned best. The study reinforces this point empirically. Autonomy alone does not guarantee exploration. In some cases, it accelerates convergence.

This pattern already emerged in the real world: One study found that AI-generated lesson plans featured the same drifttoward conventional, uninspiring content, underscoring that AI systems converge toward what’s typical rather than what’s unique or creative.

AI’s outputs are familiar because they revert to average displays of human creativity. Bulgac/iStock via Getty Images

Lost in Translation

Whenever you write a caption for an image, details will be lost. Likewise for generating an image from text. And this happens whether it’s being performed by a human or a machine.

In that sense, the convergence that took place is not a failure that’s unique to AI. It reflects a deeper property of bouncing from one medium to another. When meaning passes repeatedly through two different formats, only the most stable elements persist.

But by highlighting what survives during repeated translations between text and images, the authors are able to show that meaning is processed inside generative systems with a quiet pull toward the generic.

The implication is sobering: Even with human guidance – whether that means writing prompts, selecting outputs or refining results – these systems are still stripping away some details and amplifying others in ways that are oriented toward what’s “average.”

If generative AI is to enrich culture rather than flatten it, I think systems need to be designed in ways that resist convergence toward statistically average outputs. There can be rewards for deviation and support for less common and less mainstream forms of expression.

The study makes one thing clear: Absent these interventions, generative AI will continue to drift toward mediocre and uninspired content.

Cultural stagnation is no longer speculation. It’s already happening.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 20:05

With Control Of Virginia, Democrats Go Into A Tax And Regulatory Frenzy

With Control Of Virginia, Democrats Go Into A Tax And Regulatory Frenzy

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In the last election, Democrats again campaigned as moderates, including Abigail Spanberger.

Once in control of the Governor’s mansion and the legislature, however, Virginia Democrats have moved quickly to fulfill the worst stereotype of a tax-hungry, economy-crushing party.

The Democrats introduced an array of new taxes on every aspect of life.

At the same time, Spanberger moved to take control of Virginia universities and colleges after years of trying to move those schools to the center.

Now, members are pushing rent control legislation and defining landlords as “gougers” if they raise rents by as little as 3%.

The tax frenzy immediately began after the Democrats took control.

Spanberger has also announced that the state will rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a regional cap-and-trade program that imposes a de facto carbon tax.

Virginia Democrats appear to be replicating California’s disastrous tax policies that have chased high earners and companies from the state. Here are a few of the new taxes being pushed:

HB 378 – Imposes a 3.8% net investment income tax on individuals, trusts, and estates beginning in taxable year 2027. This would raise the state’s top marginal income tax rate on portfolio and passive income to 9.55% in addition to federal taxes.

HB 900 – Imposes sales tax hikes on transportation districts as well as a new tax on every retail delivery in Northern Virginia (Amazon, Uber Eats, FedEx, UPS, etc.). This appears modeled on a Minnesota law.

HB 919 – Imposes a firearm and ammunition tax equal to 11% percent of the gross receipts from the retail sale of any firearm or ammunition by a dealer in firearms, firearms manufacturer, or ammunition vendor.

HB 978 – Extends the retail sales and use tax to dry cleaning, landscaping, and other previously exempt services.

Now, the Democrats are pushing rent control legislation despite a long history of failure in such programs to discourage new construction and property improvements. At the same time, it has been shown actually to increase rents overall.

Democrats have introduced two bills under the guise of fighting “rent gouging.” However, they define gouging as rent increases of just over 3%. That does not cover inflation in past years. Under these laws, restrictions could kick in for increases even below 3%.

In my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss the challenges for the American Republic in the 21st Century. That includes a predicted move by the left to introduce guaranteed incomes and rent controls. That appears to be unfolding sooner than anticipated.

In New York, Zohran Mamdani is seeking rent freezes and enhanced rent controls.

He has surrounded himself with radicals who have called for the elimination or sharp curtailment of private property.

The most noteworthy is Cea Weaver who has called for the elimination of private property.

The American left has cited South Africa and Cuba as models for the United States despite their economic meltdowns.

As they seek to impose an array of new taxes and regulations, Democrats are also pushing a bill that would make it more difficult to find federal fraud by nonprofits.

As billions have been lost to fraud in other states, the Democrats want to make it harder for the federal government to investigation such fraud in Virginia.

Virginia Democrats are taking a prosperous and moderate state into the same failed direction as states like California. The desire to spend “someone else’s money” is irresistible when you want to increase spending. For many wealthy families, West Virginia or Florida are likely looking more and more appealing.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 19:15

New Gig Economy Job: Train AI That Replaces You

New Gig Economy Job: Train AI That Replaces You

A Bay Area startup called Mercor has hired tens of thousands of white-collar contractors for temporary work, training artificial intelligence to perform the very jobs many of them once held, according to a new Wall Street Journal report.

In effect, these white-collar workers are being paid to accelerate their own obsolescence by feeding and perfecting models for chatbot makers, such as OpenAI and Anthropic.

What is marketed as short-term income increasingly looks like participation in a system that is not on "team humanity," but instead is perfecting AI's ability to hollow out even more white-collar work.

"Welcome to the next gig economy. Instead of driving for Uber or delivering Postmates, a new wave of workers is signing up to school AI. These white-collar contractors review and critique the output of the large language models that power chatbots and other AI tools," the WSJ story read.

Mercor recruits experts across fields such as medicine, law, finance, engineering, writing, and the arts, with pay ranging from $45 per hour to $250 per hour. These contractors spend weeks or months reviewing and critiquing AI model outputs.

WSJ said that 30,000 contractors were hired in 2025 to work on AI models for some of the largest tech companies, furthering chatbot development.

"Many of the people we work with already see AI as inevitable in their field, but that doesn't mean humans will run out of meaningful work," a Mercor spokeswoman told the outlet. "Many of our experts see it as their responsibility to infuse their knowledge and expertise into the models to ensure accurate and thoughtful outcomes."

WSJ spoke with one of the contractors, Katie Williams, 30, who has been working for Mercor for 6 months ...

Williams is now about six months into various projects that have involved watching video clips and writing out captions of everything that's happening in them, and rating the quality of videos generated by prompts. She has mixed feelings about the work.

"I joked with my friends I'm training AI to take my job someday," she says.

Co-workers in her Slack channel express similar sentiments, she adds. They don't feel great about training AI but they feel their job prospects are limited.

And another contractor...

After more than 20 years at the same job as an automotive journalist, Peter Valdes-Dapena was laid off in 2024. He spent months sending out résumés for full-time jobs to no avail. He finds freelance work inconsistent and it doesn't make up for his past salary. Though he saved for his retirement, he'd rather not start dipping in yet.

One day, Mercor popped up in his LinkedIn feed.

The 61-year-old now spends 20 to 30 hours a week critiquing AI's attempts at writing news articles. He finds the work challenging and says it's had the pleasant side effect of improving his own writing.

The nature of the work does produce some internal conflict. Valdes-Dapena says journalists will always exist—he thinks people appreciate ideas and writing from humans—but he worries AI could lead to more job losses.

"I didn't invent AI and I'm not going to uninvent it," he says. "If I were to stop doing this, would that stop it? The answer is no."

Our most recent reporting shows that AI-driven workforce disruptions are rising as AI adoption in corporate America continues to rise.

Latest from Goldman on AI adoption by firms:

AI adoption by firms now stands at 17.4% among US establishments according to the Census Bureau's Business Trends and Outlook Survey. This reflects a significant increase from the 10% adoption rate last reported in late September, but the sharp increase likely mostly reflects a change in the BTOS AI adoption survey question wording from use of AI for "the production of goods and services" to use of AI for "any business function." Within industries, information, professional, and education firms continue to lead adoption. Publishing and computing firms reported the largest expected increase in AI adoption over the next six months. We continue to see higher adoption rates among subsectors with greater exposure of work tasks to AI automation. Adoption remains the highest among large firms with 250+ employees, 40% of which expect to be using AI in six months. Recent industry surveys suggest that many adopters are already starting to see positive returns on investment from AI business initiatives.

Labor market impacts (via Goldman):

AI's impact on the overall labor market still remains limited, although AI employment headwinds are visible in specific occupations like marketing, graphic design, customer service, and especially tech (where the share of overall employment has fallen below its long-run trend). Early signs of headwinds are also emerging among younger workers aged 20-30 in industries with higher AI adoption. Since the last update, AI was mentioned in corporate layoffs affecting 44,319 employees (we expect that AI-driven job displacement will eventually affect 6-7% of all workers following full adoption). At the same time, AI-related job openings now account for 28% of all IT job openings and nearly 5% of Indeed.com job postings contain AI-related keywords in the UK, Canada, and Australia.

We wonder which side these contractors are on: team humanity or the robots?

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 18:50

Crypto Takeaways From Davos: Politics And Money Collide

Crypto Takeaways From Davos: Politics And Money Collide

Authored by Yohan Yun via CoinTelegraph.com,

While geopolitical tensions and the Greenland standoff set the tone at Davos 2026, crypto resurfaced as a secondary but consequential theme.

US President Donald Trump used a few minutes of his Davos speech to double down on his ambition to turn the US into the world’s crypto capital and voice support for crypto-friendly legislation.

His tone was different from central banks. In a panel with crypto bigwigs, the governor of the Bank of France criticized private money and yield-bearing stablecoins while promoting central bank digital currencies (CBDC).

Crypto executives debated money sovereignty with France’s central bank governor at Davos 2026. Source: World Economic Forum

Crypto consensus did not emerge in Davos, but a visible point of disagreement did. US political messaging framed crypto as a geopolitical asset, while at least one major European central banker warned that private money threatens financial stability and sovereignty.

Here are the crypto takeaways from Davos 2026.

Trump frames crypto regulation as a geopolitical race

Donald Trump said in his Davos speech on Wednesday that he hopes to sign a crypto market structure bill “very soon.”

Also known as the CLARITY Act, the bill was due for a US Senate markup last week but was delayed after crypto giants like Coinbase pulled support.

Trump treated the US crypto regulation as a matter of geopolitical urgency.

“It is politically popular but much more importantly, we have to make it so that China doesn’t have a hold of it, and once they get that hold, we won’t be able to get it back. So I’m honored to have done it,” Trump said, referring to his signing of the GENIUS Act. He linked the bill to the importance of the pending market structure legislation.

The White House wants the US to be the crypto capital of the world and sees regulation as a competitive weapon. Trump acknowledged that the bill remains in Congress but spoke as if its passing were a matter of timing.

The US president’s special address was introduced by BlackRock’s Larry Fink, the CEO of the world’s largest asset manager. Trump spoke for more than an hour; crypto accounted for only a small section of his speech.

Trump’s soliloquy took up most of his time on stage, even though he was scheduled for a fireside chat with WEF CEO Børge Brende. Source: World Economic Forum

Coinbase CEO and French central banker clash over money sovereignty

One of the most widely shared crypto moments at Davos came when France’s top central banker pushed back against crypto, even as he praised tokenization in a Wednesday panel discussion.

Banque de France Governor François Villeroy de Galhau said tokenization and stablecoins are likely to be “the name of the game” in 2026, stating that they can modernize financial infrastructure. He acknowledged tokenization as a meaningful financial advance, particularly for wholesale markets, and cited Europe’s CBDC efforts as a global frontrunner.

Real-world asset token value is closing in on $23 billion. Source: RWA.xyz

That enthusiasm faded as the discussion turned to monetary sovereignty. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong described Bitcoin as a modern successor to the gold standard and a check on democratic deficit spending.

Villeroy de Galhau clapped back by saying that money is inseparable from sovereignty. Handing monetary control to private systems would amount to surrendering a function of democracy, he said.

Armstrong responded by pointing to Bitcoin’s decentralized structure to claim that it is even more independent than fiat systems and called the tension a “healthy competition,” which got a chuckle from Villeroy de Galhau.

Villeroy de Galhau also drew a line against interest-bearing stablecoins, which he said could destabilize the existing financial system. US crypto executives argued that rewards are necessary to keep stablecoins competitive with China’s CBDC.

Binance leaves door open to US return

Binance co-CEO Richard Teng did not rule out a return to the US. He said the company is taking a “wait-and-see” approach in an interview with CNBC on the sidelines of the Davos forum.

Teng avoided commitments while leaving the door open, but Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse was more explicit in a separate interview with the outlet. Garlinghouse predicted that Binance would eventually return to the “very large” market.

Binance launched Binance.US in 2019 as a separate entity to serve US customers. But according to US regulators, Binance continued to service “VIP” customers through its offshore platform, leading to a 2023 Department of Justice settlement. Founder Changpeng Zhao pleaded guilty to failing to maintain an effective Anti-Money Laundering program, served a jail sentence and was later pardoned by President Trump.

Zhao was also present at Davos and took part in a panel discussion on Thursday, where he claimed that crypto has proven that it is not going away.

Zhao claimed to be in talks with about a dozen governments about tokenizing assets. Source: World Economic Forum

Though they were in separate panels, Zhao aligned with Bank of France’s Villeroy de Galhau on tokenization, calling it the next phase of the industry, along with artificial intelligence and payments.

He said he is in discussions with multiple governments about tokenizing state-owned assets as a way to unlock value and reinvest it into economic development.

Circle’s Allaire calls bank run fears absurd

Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire dismissed fears that interest-paying stablecoins could destabilize the banking system in a Thursday panel in Davos.

Allaire called bank run concerns “totally absurd,” arguing that the incentives involved are too small to threaten monetary policy or drain deposits.

He added that interest payments function primarily as customer retention tools rather than systemic disruptors.

Stablecoins have an estimated market capitalization of over $300 billion. Source: DefiLlama

Allaire then cited government money market funds as a historical comparison. Despite repeated warnings over the years, roughly $11 trillion has flowed into money market funds without collapsing bank lending, he said.

Lending, he argued, is already shifting away from banks toward private credit and capital markets, independent of stablecoins.

What Davos revealed about crypto priorities

Public image for stablecoins was badly tarnished in 2022, when the Terra ecosystem suffered a multibillion-dollar collapse. The failure began with TerraUSD (UST), an algorithmic stablecoin backed by the network’s native token, LUNA.

Stablecoins have since flipped the narrative. It’s now an important topic in the annual meeting of the world’s most powerful voices in geopolitics and economy. Even central bankers who are generally critical of the crypto industry acknowledge them as core themes to watch alongside tokenization.

Davos 2026 reinforced stablecoins and tokenization as part of the year’s policy conversation. The US executive branch and Europe’s banking sector remain philosophically divided on approach, and regulatory developments are still constrained by domestic politics.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 18:25

Davos Is Dead: Western Civ Has Suffered Enough...

Davos Is Dead: Western Civ Has Suffered Enough...

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

Up In Smoke

“This is how tyranny looks in the modern world. It arrives dressed as dialogue, consensus, and expertise. It is imposed by people who sincerely believe they are doing nothing at all.”

- DataRepublican

Davos — The World Economic Forum (WEF)— is toast. Trump, Bessent, and Lutnick exposed the wretched org of overcompensated squishes to too much light and heat and it flared into such a pathetic little smoldering cinder that its spoxpersons said the meeting might get moved out of Davos altogether next year to Dublin or Detroit. Closer to the people, you understand (except there are hardly any people left in Detroit, thanks to the fifty years of WEF influence on manufacturing policy and the people of Dublin are now Nigerians, Somalis, and Congolese, thanks to the WEF’s retarded migration doctrine).

All of which means that its trademark, WEF Globalism, is dead, too. No more aspirations of One World Government (as if Earth was the Planet Krypton). . . no more You will have nothing, be happy, and eat bugs. . . no more green energy gaslight. . . no more all women are women, including men pretending to be women. . . no more wide-open borders. . . no more of their preposterous elitist armchair totalitarianism. In fact, if anything, the WEF had terminal boundary problems, much like the Cluster-B personalities that infest the upper echelons of the NGO alternative universe that carried out the WEF’s dastardly programming for them. They didn’t know when to stop.

Before he got washed-up in a slop of sexual accusation and embezzlement, WEF-Fuhrer Klaus Schwab used to brag about plugging his Young Global Leaders into top government jobs all over the place (e.g., the disastrous Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland in Canada). That’s over. Western Civ has suffered enough. One by one, the Big Dawgs of the EU are quietly backing-off of their insane migrant importation policies.

Border control is nature’s way of fixing boundary problems of-the-mind.

No one personifies the problem more than Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen, the archetypal Cluster-B “devouring mother” costumed as a harmless finishing school headmistress. She is the unelected (appointed by committee) President of the European Commission who has been telling the elected squish leaders of France, Germany and elsewhere what to do — and, remarkably, they did exactly what they were told! Invite the Third World for an overnight and see what happens. . . ditch your nuclear power plants. . . ruin your farmers. . . laugh and clap when the Nord Stream pipeline blows up and your citizens must freeze in the dark.

“Europe stood firm and united in full solidarity with Greenland & the Kingdom of Denmark,” Ursula tweeted the other day.

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission

That’s rich. (And fake.)

What really happened at Davos this week is uproariously simple.

Mr. Trump just notified the parties involved that an agreement dating from 1951 gives the USA “unrestricted access” to Greenland, for the excellent reason that the US military prevented the Nazis from seizing it during World War Two, with all that implies. Fait accompli. The USA will now do what it requires in Greenland — with all that implies about updated geo-realpolitik of 2026.

The dirty secret about political reality in Europe now is that the masterplan to bankrupt, ruin, and break up Russia has completely backfired.

Europe is now ruined. Voila!

Ironically, it has been the UK (a.k.a. Great Britain) that led the way in this quixotic fiasco — you might recall that they actually voted to quit the EU in 2016. And yet, the UK has managed to engineer NATO’s idiotic program to keep the War in Ukraine going as long as possible. Recall, also, PM Boris Johnson’s 2022 mission to scuttle the Istanbul Communiqué involving Ukrainian neutrality that might have prevented the war from getting out-of-hand.

The payoff for Great Britain: Keir Starmer becomes the actual Big Brother depicted by George Orwell with all the trappings of despotism and economic decline that goes with that. Britain is left destitute, cultureless, and raped at will by its own houseguests. Meanwhile, France is dissolving in an acid bath of Islamic turbo-birthrates, and Germany under the feckless Olaf Scholz and now Friedrich Merz gets a one-way ticket to the Palookaville of neo-medievalism. Good show, boys!

And meanwhile, as I have informed you previously, Mr. Putin is methodically rolling up the unfortunate business in Ukraine as Mr. Zelenskyy’s long-running NATO-subsidized misadventure dwindles to its ignominious close. Yes, you are seeing boundaries reestablished. Mr. Putin is not one of your junior high school mean-girls or a deluded finishing school headmistress. He’s an able, masculine manager of his own sovereign polity and he is reestablishing Russia’s age-old sphere of influence in the ambiguous frontier region of Ukraine. The world will be better off when this is settled.

And Mr. Trump emerges from the Davos miasma with a geopolitical plan to defend Western Civ and to re-prioritize business in the USA so that Americans can once again make a living and lead purposeful lives. The Cluster-B mean-girls hate this. They want the men of America to fail better, as they had been failing until Mr. Trump came back on the scene.

Anyway, it was minus-20 degrees in Minneapolis this morning — not very good weather for blowing your whistle at US immigration agents — so don’t expect a whole lot of excitement out of that place for at least another week.

Do keep an eye on Virginia, where new Governor Abigail Spanberger, meanest of all mean-girls, is fixing to wreck the state.

Prediction: Harmeet Dhillon of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division will shortly be all over that deranged bitch like white on rice. Wait for it.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 16:20

Trump Says US 'Armada' Moving Towards Iran

Trump Says US 'Armada' Moving Towards Iran

Via Middle East Eye

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he is sending an "armada" towards Iran, threatening Tehran against resuming its nuclear program.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One after returning from meetings with world leaders in Davos, Switzerland, Trump said Washington was closely monitoring Iran as US naval assets moved into the region. "We have a lot of ships going that direction, just in case," Trump said. "I'd rather not see anything happen, but we’re watching them very closely."

Source: @CopernicusEU satellite imagery

He added: "We have an armada heading in that direction, and maybe we won’t have to use it."

US officials, speaking anonymously to Reuters, said the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and several guided-missile destroyers were expected to arrive in the Middle East in the coming days.

One official said Washington was also considering deploying additional air defense systems to protect US bases from potential Iranian retaliation in the event of an American strike.

The deployments expand Trump’s military options and follow a US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in June. The summer strikes were widely seen as a violation of international law.

The warships began moving from the Asia-Pacific last week as tensions rose following a crackdown on protests across Iran. Tehran has accused Washington of encouraging the unrest.

Trump has repeatedly threatened intervention warning Iran against killing protesters, but in the end US strikes were called off. Demonstrations appeared to ease last week.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said “"several thousand" people were killed during weeks of nationwide protests.

Trump claimed on Thursday that Iran had cancelled nearly 840 executions after US warnings. "I said, ‘If you hang those people, you’re going to be hit harder than you’ve ever been hit,’" Trump said. "It’ll make what we did to your nuclear program look like peanuts."

He said the executions were cancelled an hour before they were due to take place, calling it "a good sign".

Iran’s top prosecutor Mohammad Movahedi, however on Friday dismissed Trump's claim suggesting the judiciary had authorised mass executions, calling the allegations baseless.

Speaking in comments carried by the judiciary’s Mizan News Agency, Movahedi said "this claim is completely false; no such number exists, nor has the judiciary made any such decision".

Trump also repeated his warning that the US would strike again if Iran restarted its nuclear program. "If they try to do it again, they have to go to another area. We'll hit them there too, just as easily," he said.

Protests in Iran began on December 28 with demonstrations over economic hardship in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar before spreading nationwide. An Iranian official told Reuters that the confirmed death toll had exceeded 5,000, including 500 members of the security forces.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 15:40

Here Come Humanoid Robots: Industry Makes Clear Pivot Toward "Dedicated-Purpose" Commercial Deployments

Here Come Humanoid Robots: Industry Makes Clear Pivot Toward "Dedicated-Purpose" Commercial Deployments

Goldman analyst Jacqueline Du published her field trip notes after speaking with six C-level management teams at robotics companies across Hangzhou, Shanghai, and Shenzhen in recent days. The companies she met with include Unitree, Mechmind, Fourier, LimX Dynamics, UBTech, EngineAI, Paxini, and Orbbec.

"Overall, we see the humanoid robot industry is experiencing a clear pivot towards 'dedicated-purpose' commercial deployments," Du told clients on Thursday morning.

She continued: "This strategic focus leverages current, achievable task planning, mobility and interaction capabilities, leading to more reliable and immediate deployment in specific vertical applications. Examples include security patrolling, guiding/guest services in public venues, and logistics tasks such as pick-and-place and sorting simple items in factories."

Du said humanoid robot shipments are set to accelerate from estimated 2025 global volumes of around 15,000 to 20,000 units to "multi-fold increases in shipment volumes into 2026-2027E."

Here are more of Du's key takeaways from the AI robotics field trip in China:

Targeting a multi-fold increase in shipment volumes into 2026-2027E

Based on the collective feedback from the major humanoid robot players and key supply chain companies we met on this trip, we believe global humanoid robot shipments in 2025 might have reached around 15,000-20,000 units vs. GSe of 20,000 (report link) and third-party data of 13,000-16,000 (see link and link), with Chinese players contributing to the bulk of these volumes at the moment, which came from scientific study, robotics AI training, education, entertainment/stage performance, and data factory demand last year. At such an early and nascent stage of the humanoid robot market, the exact shipment figures are less critical than the overall growth trajectory and the rapid pace of technological development in our view. For the 2026-2027 outlook, these leading humanoid robot manufacturers anticipate multi-fold increases in shipments. Following the 2025 figures, which range from several hundreds to thousands of units, their targets for 2026 and 2027 are set in the thousands to tens of thousands. This projected acceleration is underpinned by an increasingly mature supply chain, optimized cost curves, and expanding application opportunities. However, achieving these targets is anticipated to be challenged by the imperative for robust production consistency and the implementation of novel, multi-stage testing protocols inherent to this nascent industry.

Encouraging progress in motion control with rapid iterations

We watched the live demos of the published products of these humanoid robot makers, which in our view revealed significant advancements in motion control, exhibiting enhanced robustness and flexibility across both wheeled upper-body platforms and full bipedal systems. This represents a substantial improvement compared to their performance in the preceding year. One manufacturer asserted the achievement of 'cerebellum-level' whole-body control, substantiated by two practical evaluation criteria: the robot's ability to navigate previously unmapped terrains and its capacity for comprehensive remote control of the entire body, rather than segmented upper or lower body control. Furthermore, insights from multiple companies indicate an accelerated product iteration cycle for humanoid platforms, now reaching approximately 6-8 months per generation. This rapid iteration is largely attributed to an 80-90% in-house component design capability, which is crucial for ensuring seamless hardware-software integration and optimizing their respective performance' upper limits' within condensed R&D and testing cycles.

Clear pivot towards "dedicated-purpose" commercial deployments

The current reliance on simulated and synthetic data for pre-training with a significant 'sim-to-real' gap remains a challenge, with simulated accuracies of 80-90% often collapsing to below 50% in real-world scenarios. As both large-scale high quality real-world data collection and world model approach requires time, leading Chinese humanoid robot developers are increasingly prioritizing "dedicated-purpose" commercial deployments. These applications, such as security patrolling and guest services in public venues (e.g., hotels, banks, museums, exhibition centers, auto dealerships, and supermarkets), effectively utilize existing task planning, mobility and interaction capabilities while circumventing the complexities of highly dexterous manipulation. Within industrial applications, the utility of humanoid robots requiring dexterous hands or grippers is presently confined to logistics tasks like box movement and simple item sorting, primarily due to AI limitations in addressing unpredictable corner cases in factory environments.

Advancing robot intelligence through hybrid AI and data strategies

In the near term, humanoid robot manufacturers are increasingly standardizing their approach by integrating with established Large Language Model (LLM) and Vision-Language Model (VLM) stacks, such as those offered by Alibaba (Qwen), Doubao, and Tencent. This strategic alignment positions proprietary data engines as the critical differentiator for developing deployable robotic intelligence. High-quality real-world data is identified as the primary constraint bridging the gap between mature hardware technologies and scalable, practical applications. Consequently, companies are engaged in a 'data recipe' arms race, with differentiation driven by their target end-applications. While all robot OEMs are pursuing data collection strategies, they converge on varying mixes of three primary data inputs: (1) teleoperated human or expert demonstrations, which offer high control but are typically expensive for imitation learning; (2) simulation, which is cost-effective per additional sample but suffers from imperfect realism; and (3) real-world video datasets, which provide the highest data availability but may exhibit poor translation to real-world accuracy. From this trip, increasingly we heard more mentions of the world model approach which may potentially empower robots with a form of common sense about their environment, moving them beyond reactive behaviors to proactive, intelligent agents capable of complex planning and adaptation.

Differentiated profit models for 2C and 2B markets

A range of profit models has emerged, broadly categorized by their target markets: 2C (business-to-consumer) and 2B (business-to-business) applications.

For companies targeting 2C applications, the primary focus is on delivering differentiated functionality and enhanced user experience. This often involves emphasizing "emotional value" and capturing specialized vertical niches where unique features or interactions can command a premium. The goal is to create a product that stands out through its capabilities and the user's engagement with it.

In contrast, companies targeting 2B applications anchor their pricing strategies to the customer's Return on Investment (ROI). This typically involves demonstrating how the robot can improve throughput, enhance efficiency, or reduce labor costs. For instance, UBTech has indicated that in sorting and logistics applications, customers are willing to invest in robots once they achieve approximately 50% of a human worker's throughput. This level of performance can lead to a payback period of around two years, assuming a run-time of about 10 hours per day. Even a three-year payback period is considered acceptable by customers operating in particularly labor-constrained environments, highlighting the value proposition of automation in addressing critical operational challenges.

Investment implications: We recommend being selective; Buy Sanhua H and Sell Moon's Electric

2026 overall may shape up to be a critical "proof-of-volume and expectation-reset" year, as we believe investors likely will continue to value key supply chain stocks on (i) whether milestone volume expectations (e.g., the "one million robots" narrative) get revised up or not, which is likely driven by the evolution pace of AI generalization capability or effective data/model strategies; and (ii) evolving market share and content per robot for individual supply chain companies. Given high market optimisms and long run expectations have been baked into the current share price per our tests (see Sanhua Intelligent Controls (002050.SZ): Downgrade Sanhua A to Neutral on recent outperformance; expectations for humanoid robots are too high, too soon and Moons' Electric (603728.SS): D/G to Sell on continuously evolving dexterous hand technology roadmap and narrowed opportunity for coreless motor), we recommend staying selective. Among our coverage, we are Buy-rated on Sanhua H, Inovance and Shuanghuan, Neutral-rated on Sanhua A, LeaderDrive and Best Precision. We are Sell-rated on Moon's Electric.

Separately, in the U.S., Tesla said it is on track to begin volume production of the Cybercab in 2026, with Optimus humanoid robot output "hopefully" starting toward the end of the year.

Next week, we are expected to conduct our own field trip of AI robotics and counter-AUS companies at undisclosed locations. We'll see how that turns out - watching the rise of Skynet in real-time.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 15:00

Trump Touts "Total And Permanent" Access To Greenland, While Nobody Has Any Clue What's In The Deal

Trump Touts "Total And Permanent" Access To Greenland, While Nobody Has Any Clue What's In The Deal

Trump said on Thursday he had secured "total and permanent" US access to Greenland in a deal with NATO, whose head said allies would have to step up their commitment to Arctic security to ward off threats from Russia and China. 

News of a framework deal came as Trump backed off tariff threats against Europe and ruled out taking Greenland by force, bringing to an end what was brewing to be the biggest rupture in transatlantic ties in decades. Yet despite the optimism, details of any agreement were unclear and Denmark insisted its sovereignty over the island was not up for discussion. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the bloc's U.S. relations had "taken a big blow" in the past week, as EU leaders met for an emergency summit.

Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed Trump's comments but said he was still in the dark on many aspects.

"I don't know what there is in the agreement, or the deal, about my country," Nielsen told reporters in the capital Nuuk. 

"We are ready to discuss a lot of things and we are ready to negotiate a better partnership and so on. But sovereignty is a red line," he said, when asked about reports that Trump was seeking control of areas around U.S. military bases in Greenland as part of a wider deal.

"We cannot cross the red lines. We have to respect our territorial integrity. We have to respect international law and sovereignty."

Meanwhile, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on his return from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump said a new deal was being negotiated that would be "much more generous to the United States, so much more generous." And while he skirted questions on sovereignty, Trump said: "We have to have the ability to do exactly what we want to do."

Earlier Trump told Fox Business Network the deal would essentially bring "total access" for the United States. "There's no end, there's no time limit."

A source familiar with the matter told Reuters that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and Trump had agreed in Davos on further talks between the U.S., Denmark and Greenland on updating a 1951 agreement that governs U.S. military access and presence on the Arctic island. The framework they discussed also calls for prohibiting Chinese and Russian investments in Greenland, the person said.

Another source familiar with the matter said what had been agreed was "a frame on which to build," adding that "anything being reported on specific details is speculative."

Rutte told Reuters in Davos it was now up to NATO's senior commanders to work through the details of extra security requirements.

"I have no doubt we can do this quite fast. Certainly, I would hope for 2026, I hope even early in 2026," he said.

Meanwhile, the country that Greenland (semi-autonomously) belongs to, remains fully in the dark: Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said no negotiations had been held with NATO regarding the sovereignty of Greenland.

"It is still a difficult and serious situation, but progress has also been made in the sense that we have now got things where they need to be. Namely that we can discuss how we promote common security in the Arctic region," she said.

Speaking later ahead of the emergency summit of EU leaders, Frederiksen called for a "permanent presence of NATO in the Arctic region, including around Greenland."

Kallas said "disagreements that allies have between them, like Europe and America, are just benefiting our adversaries who are looking and enjoying the view."

Finnish President Alexander Stubb said he hoped allies could put together a plan to boost Arctic security by a NATO summit in Ankara in July. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told Rutte on Thursday that the UK stood ready to play its full part in ensuring security in the Arctic.

After meeting with Rutte, Trump said there could be a deal that satisfies his desire for a "Golden Dome" missile-defence system and access to critical minerals while blocking what he says are Russia and China's ambitions in the Arctic. 

Adding to the confusion, Rutte said minerals exploitation was not discussed in his meeting with Trump, even though Trump said that it has been.Specific negotiations over the Arctic island would continue between the United States, Denmark and Greenland itself, he said.

The 1951 agreement established the U.S. right to construct military bases in Greenland and move around freely in Greenlandic territory. This is still the case as long as Denmark and Greenland are informed of its actions. Washington has a base at Pituffik in northern Greenland.

"It is important to clarify that the U.S. had 17 bases during the Cold War and much greater activity. So that is already possible now under the current agreement," said Marc Jacobsen, a professor at the Royal Danish Defence College.

"I think there will be concrete discussions about Golden Dome, and I think there will be concrete discussions about Russia and China not being welcome in Greenland."

Separately, China's Foreign Ministry told Reuters on Friday that claims China is a threat are "baseless", when asked to respond to the Arctic comments. At the same time, the ministry said that China opposes other countries using it as "an excuse" to push their own agenda.

China has repeatedly said its scientific expeditions in the Arctic and commercial shipping operations in the region followed international treaties and laws, accusing the West of distorting facts and hyping up its activities as clues to military intent. Last week, the state-backed Global Times newspaper said in an editorial that it " firmly opposed attempts by the United States and Europe to label China with terms such as 'military threat,' 'resource grabber' or 'rule breaker' in Arctic affairs."

Eslewhere, the president of the European Parliament said the European Union will likely resume work on a trade deal with the United States after Trump took back his tariff threats. The parliament decided this week to suspend work on the deal because of Trump's threats. However, diplomats told Reuters EU leaders will rethink U.S. relations as the Greenland episode has badly shaken confidence in the transatlantic ties. Governments remain wary of another change of mind by Trump, who is increasingly seen as a bully whom Europe will have to stand up to, they said.

Residents in the Greenland capital, Nuuk, are also wary.

"It's all very confusing," said pensioner Jesper Muller. "One hour we are, well, almost at war. Next hour everything is fine and beautiful, and I think it's very hard to imagine that you can build anything on it."

Nobody asked Muller if he would rather have gotten $10 million and agree, together with the other 57,000 residents, to cede Greenland to the US.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 14:20

US Homicide Rate Plummets To 125-Year Low, Group Reports

US Homicide Rate Plummets To 125-Year Low, Group Reports

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Crime rates continued to fall in 2025, with homicide rates expected to drop to about 4.0 per 100,000 residents, “the lowest rate recorded in law enforcement or public health data going back to 1900,” according to a new report published by the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) on Jan. 22.

Based on an analysis of crime trends in 40 large American cities, homicides are down 21 percent from 2024, and 44 percent from the recent peak of 2021, the CCJ said. Last year’s decline in criminal activity numbers would “mark the largest single-year percentage drop in the homicide rate on record,” the group said. The complete 2025 numbers will be reported by the FBI later this year.

“This monumental turnaround is a direct result of President Trump’s unwavering commitment to Make America Safe Again,” said the White House in a statement, touting the numbers as a result of closing the border, deploying a “whole-of-government offensive,” and bringing back order on American streets.

Meanwhile, the decline in homicide has been ongoing. “Over the past eight years,” a CCJ analysis found, “the highest average homicide rate was in 2021—18.6 per 100,000. The 2025 rate (10.4) was 44 percent below that peak.”

Eleven out of the 13 offences covered in the Jan. 22 report saw a decline in 2025 from the prior year, with nine of the offenses falling 10 percent or more. CCJ noted that drug crimes increased during this period by 7 percent, while sexual assaults remained even.

After peaking during the pandemic, carjacking and shoplifting have come down significantly in the country. Reported carjacking has declined 61 percent since 2023, while shoplifting is down 10 percent from 2024.

“This is what happens when you have a president who fully mobilizes federal law enforcement to arrest violent criminals and the worst of the worst illegal aliens,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a post on X. “Promise Made. Promise Kept.”

Since President Donald Trump assumed office last year, the administration has instituted strict law enforcement measures across the country, which include arresting and deporting illegal immigrant criminals, strengthening enforcement against gangs and transnational cartels, disrupting drug trafficking, and securing the southern border.

On Jan. 16, the Customs and Border Protection agency announced zero parole releases along the southwest border in December 2025, compared with 7,041 releases under the prior administration in December 2024. This is the eighth consecutive month of zero releases.

Crimes in US Cities

Overall data from 35 U.S. cities showed the homicide rate dropping by about 21 percent in 2025. There were declines in 31 of the 35 cities, with roughly 40 percent drops reported in Denver; Omaha, Neb.; and Washington.

Three cities that registered an uptick in the homicide rate were Little Rock, Ark., up 16 percent; Fort Worth, Texas, up 2 percent; and Milwaukee, up 1 percent.

“The overall reduction in crime, especially homicide, is welcome news,” said CCJ senior research specialist Ernesto Lopez, lead author of the report, adding that there was a trend of homicide rates declining since the late 2000s.

CCJ President and CEO Adam Gelb said that it was difficult to “pinpoint what’s actually driving the drop” but noted there have been “big swings in criminal justice policies, programs, and rhetoric, big advances in crime-fighting technologies, and big social, economic, and cultural shifts all happening at the same time.”

CCJ is a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem lauded the administration’s first year of law enforcement efforts in a Jan. 20 post on X.

“In President Trump’s first year back in office, nearly 3 million illegal aliens have left the U.S. because of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration, including an estimated 2.2 million self-deportations and more than 675,000 deportations,” Noem said.

“In the last year, fentanyl trafficking at the southern border has also been cut by more than half compared to the same period in 2024. The U.S. Coast Guard alone seized enough cocaine to kill more than 177 million Americans.”

Furthermore, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested about 7,000 gang members in 2025.

According to a Jan. 19 post by FBI Director Kash Patel, there has been a 20 percent drop in the murder rate nationwide. About 1,800 gangs and criminal enterprises operating in the country have been disrupted.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 14:00

Beijing Tells Alibaba, Tencent, ByteDance To Prepare Nvidia AI Chip Orders

Beijing Tells Alibaba, Tencent, ByteDance To Prepare Nvidia AI Chip Orders

Chinese regulators are nearing approval for Nvidia's H200 AI chips for top domestic tech firms, including Alibaba, Tencent, and ByteDance, signaling Beijing is moving closer to formally green-lighting imports of last-generation AI accelerators, according to a Bloomberg report.

Approval would represent a material bull catalyst for Nvidia stock and a major win for CEO Jensen Huang, who has stated that the China AI chip opportunity alone could generate up to $50 billion in revenue over the coming years.

This report is notable given Nvidia shares have recently stalled below the $200 level. Any resumption of H200 shipments to China would potentially reignite upside momentum.

The Bloomberg report noted:

The companies are now cleared to discuss specifics such as the amounts they would require, the people said, asking to remain unidentified discussing private talks.

The report did reveal one caveat:

Beijing will encourage companies to buy a certain amount of domestic chips as a condition for approval, according to the people, though no exact number has been set.

H200 is a last-generation chip that the Trump administration has allowed to be exported to China. There have been a number of reports in recent weeks telegraphing the move by Chinese regulators:

Beijing appears set to approve imports of Nvidia's H200 chips for major tech firms, while still prioritizing the buildout of domestic AI semiconductor production. This move only suggests a very real admission that China cannot yet meet domestic AI compute demand and must rely on downgraded US chips from Nvidia.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 13:40

Forget Trump and Greenland. Howard Lutnick Gave The Davos Speech That Mattered

Forget Trump and Greenland. Howard Lutnick Gave The Davos Speech That Mattered

Authored by Matt Taibbi via Racket News,

After Donald Trump spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, the obligatory headline term was humiliation. “Lonely Trump Humiliated as Major Allies Refuse to Be Bullied,” was one of two Daily Beast stories on the theme, the other being “Trump, 79, Croaks Through ‘Peace’ Grift Speech After 48 Hours of Ritual Humiliation,” under the tag BORED OF PEACE. Jen Psaki on MSNOW chortled over his “humiliating ramble,” while Chris Hayes declared him “isolated and humiliated.”

Coverage of Trump long ago devolved into an homage to Pee Wee’s Playhouse, when comic Paul Reubens would get a secret word from Conky the robot in each show. After, audiences would have to shout in unison at every mention of it. I remember being in a room of stoned teenagers shouting “PLACE!” at the TV in 1986.

Trump news cycles are the same, only anchors shout TREASON! or FELON! or DICTATOR! His address on Greenland, NATO, and Emmanuel Macron’s sunglasses was blasted for a hundred reasons, many legitimate, but the real drama came from a non-Trump speech. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick ripped his European hosts by declaring “Globalization has failed”:

Globalization has failed the West and the United States of America. It’s a failed policy. It is what the WEF has stood for, which is export offshore, far-shore, find the cheapest labor in the world and the world is a better place for it. The fact is, it has left America behind. It has left the American worker behind. And what we are here to say is that America First is a different model—one that we encourage other countries to consider—which is that our workers come first. We can have policies that impact our workers.

Pop quiz: how was the previous President received at Davos? He wasn’t. Joe Biden was the first president this century to skip the WEF. It was just fine with world plutocrats that the United States was piloted by a wandering outpatient. The last major American Davos speech pre-Trump was delivered in 2024 by National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, an unelected spooktocrat who declared that “major powers are vastly more interdependent than in any time during the Cold War” and pledged to stiffen “our ranks” at NATO. He earned nervous applause. German Finance Minister Christian Lindner meanwhile let the cat out of the bag, chiding European leaders that a possible Trump return required preparing for “fair burden sharing” under NATO, developing “capabilities to defend ourselves,” and returning to intra-European “competitiveness” economically. This damning speech was a de facto admission that Europe had been enjoying a world without American “competitiveness” for ages.

Lindner was preparing Europe for this week’s speech by Lutnick, which told Davosians the free ride was over. In onstage remarks and at an invitation-only dinner, the Commerce chief and longtime head of the Cantor Fitzgerald investment bank slammed former American pols for submitting to “lies”: that “offshoring was necessary, borders were not, and our national interest needed to submit to global lower cost of labor.” These remarks generated event-wide outrage, even inspiring Al “He’s Still Alive?” Gore to start booing and European Central Bank chief Christine Lagarde to walk out, though some dispute this.

Trump was abrasive and insulting and no one budged. Lutnick was rational and clear, and the WEF attendees who didn’t throw fits cried anonymously to media. Trump is surely hated, but on Planet Davos the most unforgivable sin is abandoning the globalism gravy train in favor of a return to national-interest politics.

J.D. Vance’s much-derided speech at a Munich security conference last February was meant to declare an end to the Atlantic security dream while knocking Europe for abandoning free speech and democratic rights. It could have been historic, if the Trump administration had held up its end of the civil liberties bargain. The Lutnick speech is a similar moment. If it really marks the end of the globalization project, that will be a huge victory, no matter how insane our current political situation is. Think about the journey we’ve traveled in ten years:

Subscribers to Racket News can continue reading here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 13:20

Olympic Snowboarder Turned "Cocaine Kingpin" Arrested In Mexico, Flown To US To Face Justice

Olympic Snowboarder Turned "Cocaine Kingpin" Arrested In Mexico, Flown To US To Face Justice

Former Olympic snowboarder Ryan Wedding, who was wanted by the FBI for allegedly leading a violent international drug trafficking operation, has been arrested, the Justice Department announced Friday.

Wedding, 44, had been added to the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted Fugitives list in March. He was taken into custody in Mexico on Thursday night and was being transported to the United States, FBI Director Kash Patel said in a post on X.

U.S. authorities believe he had lived in Mexico for more than a decade, according to Yahoo

“This is a huge day for a safer North America, and the world,” Patel said.

Attorney General Pam Bondi also confirmed the arrest, writing on X, “At my direction, @FBI agents have apprehended yet another member of the FBI’s Top Ten Most Wanted List: Ryan Wedding, the onetime Olympian snowboarder-turned alleged violent cocaine kingpin.”

U.S. officials had previously compared Wedding to notorious drug lords Pablo Escobar and Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. More details about the arrest are expected at a news conference in California later Friday.

According to a federal indictment unsealed in November, Wedding faces nine charges, including conspiracy to distribute, possess, and export cocaine, conspiracy to commit murder linked to a criminal enterprise, witness tampering, and money laundering.

Prosecutors say his network moved hundreds of kilograms of cocaine from Colombia through Mexico and Southern California to Canada and other parts of the United States. He is also accused of ordering multiple killings connected to the drug operation.

The Bureau's Sam Cooper reports that their American law-enforcement sources argue that Wedding's success involved leveraging cross-border trucking enterprises captured by Indo-Canadian mafia networks, and that Canada's police and judicial response failed to counter the threat.

"Over the last three or four years there've been Canadians killed in the Yucatán. And we all know they're tied to drug trafficking — Greater Toronto and Montreal," a senior U.S. investigator told The Bureau for an exclusive report last year, on the improbable rise of a Canadian to the heights of Mexico's most powerful cartel.

"A fair number of Quebecers too — bikers. They all work in Mexico. But somehow Ryan Wedding got all these people to work together."

The source described the Cancún area as a "haven for Canadian organized crime — mid- to high-level drug dealers coordinating with Mexican counterparts to bring stuff into Canada."

Wedding, known by aliases such as “El Jefe,” “Giant,” and “Public Enemy,” represented Canada at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, where he placed 24th in the parallel giant slalom.

Yahoo reported that when he was added to the most wanted list, Akil Davis, assistant director of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office, said, “Wedding went from shredding powder on the slopes at the Olympics to distributing powder cocaine on the streets of U.S. cities and in his native Canada. The alleged murders of his competitors make Wedding a very dangerous man.”

Authorities had said they believed Wedding was living in Mexico under the protection of the Sinaloa cartel.

The U.S. State Department initially offered a $10 million reward for information leading to his capture, later increasing it to $15 million. In November, the Justice Department also announced 10 related arrests under “Operation Giant Slalom.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 13:00

The Rules‑Based Order That Once Constrained Great‑Power Ambition Has Proved Illusory

The Rules‑Based Order That Once Constrained Great‑Power Ambition Has Proved Illusory

By Stefan Koopman, senior macro strategist at Rabobank

If there is one lesson from this week, it is that the rules‑based order that once constrained great‑power ambition has proved illusory. In Davos, Canada’s Mark Carney captured this with clarity. The world, he argued, is experiencing a rupture rather than a transition. It has become a harsher place in which the strong test limits and the weak are expected to accommodate them. In such an environment, middle powers should stop “living within a lie” and make moves toward strategic autonomy and diversified dependencies.

The following 24 hours offered a textbook illustration of how this new world works, or fails to. President Donald Trump abruptly stepped back from his tariff barrage aimed at eight European allies. Talk of forcing the issue over Greenland was quickly shelved after a meeting with NATO secretary‑general Mark Rutte produced a “framework for a future deal”. Markets regained their footing on Thursday after losses earlier this week, following the familiar TACO pattern with a snapback in risk assets. US Treasuries just stabilized while the dollar weakened, leaving a residual Sell‑America tone.

Details remain scarce, but two strands are emerging:

  • First, a NATO mission under US command appears likely, involving the alliance’s Arctic members (incl. Sweden and Finland, who can bring their unique expertise) and possibly others, to strengthen regional defense. This outcome was already very much possible under the 1951 US‑Denmark defence agreement, which grants Washington broad scope to deploy military assets on Greenland, without the diplomatic damage caused by the earlier escalation.  
  • Second, the understanding also appears to reflect Washington’s longer‑term concern about Greenland’s political future. A fully independent Greenland could, in theory, seek closer economic or security ties with Russia or China. A revised or reinterpreted framework would aim to ensure that any future change in Greenland’s status did not lead to the withdrawal of permission for US military activities on the island. This is particularly relevant to US missile‑defence ambitions, including the proposed “Golden Dome”.

Of course this would require sign-off from Denmark and Greenland – not NATO – and how any of this would be implemented remains unclear. As such, tariff threats may return if the eventual proposal falls short of US demands.

Seen in that light, reading the episode as détente would be an error. The US’ pressure on “irrelevant” Denmark’s sovereignty is an assertion of primacy framed as pragmatism, with tariffs as the go‑to tool. The subsequent Trump‑Rutte arrangement does not at all mark a return to rules or procedures.

By now, the White House bargaining style is well-established and likely to recur in the not too distant future. The belittlement draws the international attention and the projection of pain functions as its leverage.

The beatings will continue until morale improves, but this abusive dynamic is unproductive: the stated US strategy of wanting a ‘stronger Europe’ to balance China sits awkwardly with tactics that erode mutual trust, seek to split European unity, and invite defensive hedging with other – not necessarily like-minded – parties. Moreover, it may cause Europe’s learned helplessness, its perennial reflex of waiting for Washington to set the terms, to be unlearned in practice. The defense build‑up (possibly including nukes), the internal‑market push and the widening of trade options, Mercosur included, indicate a structural adjustment. If one of the US’s key strengths since the end of the Second World War is having had strong alliances and soft power, it may underestimate the long-term consequences. Trump said the US will remember if the Danes don’t play ball; but so will Europe.

Indeed, on Mercosur, after the European Parliament failed to ratify this agreement on Wednesday, the Commission is now signalling that provisional application is the likely way forward, which is just another indication of the growing role of geopolitics in Europe’s trade strategy.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 12:40

"Screw You Guys, I'm Going Home!": The South Park Market Of 2026

"Screw You Guys, I'm Going Home!": The South Park Market Of 2026

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

I have been a “South Park” fan for as long as I can remember, and while the show isn’t a market guidebook, its brutal satire cuts through nonsense better than many Wall Street commentaries. Just like on the show, characters make absurd decisions and face absurd consequences, which is familiar to investors today. For example, one of my favorite scenes is when Stanley goes to the bank to deposit the money his Grandmother gave him into an account at the bank…“And It’s Gone.”

Notably, in South Park, Eric Cartman once declared, “Screw you guys, I’m going home.” That line has become shorthand for frustration and fatigue when chaos overwhelms you during market volatility. For example, during the “Liberation Day” market decline, many investors sold out just as the market reached its bottom. The increase in market volatility was something we wrote about this time last year in “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” Notably, the same market dynamics that existed then persist today. Such suggests that investing in 2026 may also experience similar increases in volatility. That means anyone looking for a simple road map will end up feeling like Cartman walking out on his friends.

To avoid being Cartman, it is critical to understand that 2026 will not deliver certainty. Instead, investors should focus and make decisions based on probabilities backed by data, earnings trends, policy shifts, and macro signals. Wall Street analysts have already begun issuing universally bullish forecasts, some more cautious than others. However, while there are no guarantees of outcomes, a shifting environment of volatility and complexity is expected.

This article breaks the 2026 outlook into three cornerstone sections:

  1. Market Structure and Valuations

  2. Economic Forces and Policy Drivers

  3. Strategic Investment Implications

Across each section, you will see the same economic truth South Park illustrates: Chaos is not the opposite of order. Chaos is part of the system.

Market Structure and Valuations in 2026

Wall Street begins 2026 with conflicting signals. As noted above, while several Wall Street firms expect to see another year of “double-digit” gains in 2026, such follows three consecutive years of elevated gains. That is potentially a risk as discussed in the “Market Outlook For 2026,”

“The current 3-year return is 18% above its 3-year average. While that is not the highest level on record, when the index trades significantly above its moving average, volatility tends to rise. These periods often see sharp drawdowns, and corrections become more frequent, with increased variance in returns leading to larger losses in downturns, which compounds the problem. Secondly, there are declining risk-adjusted returns. When returns deviate significantly from the trend, future returns tend to revert toward the mean. This mean reversion is driven by stretched valuations resetting. Over time, high volatility and large price swings reduce compound returns. Even if average returns remain positive, the math of compounding is compromised by losses, weakening full-cycle gains.”

Secondly, the markets currently trade at record levels above their long-term exponential growth trend. As shown in the chart below, when valuations rise unchecked, the market grossly exceeds its long-term exponential growth trend, eventually leading to a reversion.

Lastly, valuations remain above long‑term historical norms. Crucially, as discussed in a recent #BullBearReport:

“Market valuation measures are just that—a measure of current valuation. Moreover, market valuations are a much better measure of “investor psychology” and a manifestation of the “greater fool theory.” This is why a high correlation exists between one-year trailing valuations and consumer confidence in higher stock prices.”

Simply, this means that current valuations are just a reflection of the “hope” that future earnings growth and profitability will justify overpaying for assets today. Wall Street’s 2026 forecast for the markets represents that “hope.”

However, what we do know today is that the most powerful force in finance is “mean reversion.” As all the charts above demonstrate, at some point over the next five years, market returns will likely be closer to 0% than 10%.

Of course, that doesn’t mean markets will “crash” in 2026. However, price deviations, excess valuations, and elevated sentiment do suggest that market volatility will likely be higher and returns lower than current expectations. Such is particularly the case if something happens that causes Wall Street to lower forward earnings expectations. It is worth noting that historically, valuations have not always caught up with earnings, but rather vice versa.

That scenario is when the Cartman line feels most appropriate: “Screw you guys, I’m going home.” Because investors will shift from an optimistic to a defensive position almost instantly.

Drivers Shaping 2026

Markets do not exist in a vacuum. Earnings “expectations” are what will matter the most, but earnings are influenced by macro forces such as inflation, interest rates, global growth, and monetary policy. Currently, many of those factors are not favorable to those more elevated forecasts.

For example, inflation remains a central concern with major investment banks and strategists cautioning that inflation may hover above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target as the labor market weakens. Jerome Powell even noted this in the December FOMC policy statement. During Powell’s press conference, he emphasized that job gains have slowed and downside risks to employment have increased. That statement aligns with our recent article on how alternative employment sources may affect its outlook. Powell went further, suggesting official payroll figures likely overstate job growth by around 60,000 jobs per month. That implies an actual labor market contraction. It further acknowledges that the potential negative payroll growth was a pivotal signal of the Fed’s priorities.

Such is crucial to forward expectations, because the markets are closely tied to both fiscal and monetary actions. While the Fed signaled possible rate cuts in 2026, if inflation does not subside as expected, rate cuts may be limited or postponed, which would negatively impact investor confidence. Famed investors often warn that policy surprises matter more than policy intentions, especially when markets are priced for optimism.

Secondly, internationally, growth forecasts are uneven. Credit rating agencies project moderate but uneven expansion across major economies, with emerging markets often outpacing developed markets in GDP growth. That imbalance creates divergence in asset returns and credit flows. However, given that the Euro area is expected to grow at roughly half the rate of the US, it would be unsurprising to see 2025’s outperformance by international markets, relative to the US, reverse.

In such environments, currency fluctuations and trade dynamics become even more crucial, meaning that a strong U.S. dollar rally or slowing global trade could pressure multinational earnings even if domestic sales hold up.

Lastly, leverage is a growing risk of market volatility disruption. As we discussed in “The DPI Link To Margin Debt,” household allocations to equities are at a record. Of course, such should be unsurprising given the strong market advances over the past few years.

However, this surge in allocations has also been accompanied by a massive expansion in leverage. Currently, margin debt as a percentage of real DPI has been reported at around 6.23 %, the highest on record. This ratio also suggests that for every $100 of real DPI, roughly $6 of margin debt is outstanding, a substantial amount. But that number doesn’t include the additional leverage taken on by investors through speculative option trading and 2x and 3x leveraged ETFs, which are also being bought on margin.

As we concluded:

Naturally, when fresh savings are lacking and investors turn to margin to participate in markets, two risks emerge.

  1. The quality of the investor base weakens because borrowed money replaces savings.

  2. The carrying cost of that borrowing becomes more salient when interest rates are elevated. If the margin debt carries higher interest and investors’ income growth is weak, servicing the debt becomes harder, reducing the buffer against loss.

“In summary, weak DPI growth, combined with elevated margin borrowing, creates a vulnerability. In such an environment, the investor base is much less resilient.”

Does any of this mean the markets are going to crash in 2026? No.

However, investors should be aware that all these forces interact in complex ways. Recognizing that macroeconomic data releases, policy shifts, and geopolitical events can lead to short-term volatility and long-term trend adjustments is crucial for navigating the “South Park” market in 2026.

South Park Wisdom for Investors

South Park often shows characters reacting emotionally to chaos. Yet mature investors must behave differently and recognize that emotion is not a strategy. However, understanding the data, identifying the probabilities versus possibilities, and maintaining risk controls are critical to success in 2026.

If you feel like shouting, “Screw you guys, I’m going home,” in the face of market moves, take a beat. Markets do not need your commitment; they reward discipline and patience.

In 2026, implement portfolio tactics to participate with the market if the bullish forecasts come to fruition, but protect your wealth in case they don’t.

  • Diversify beyond tech leaders: Shift allocations gradually toward underappreciated sectors, such as healthcare, industrials, energy, and consumer staples, which demonstrate earnings strength and stable demand.

  • Rebalance quarterly: Trim overextended positions, especially in momentum names. Reallocate into lagging but fundamentally sound assets.

  • Build cash buffers: Hold 5% to 15% in short‑duration cash equivalents to deploy during volatility or price dislocations.

  • Use tactical hedges: Add protective puts or inverse ETFs to limit downside on core equity holdings in concentrated portfolios.

  • Add exposure to high‑quality bonds: Reallocate from speculative credit into high‑grade corporate or Treasury ladders as yields remain favorable.

  • Favor earnings momentum over hype: Focus on stocks delivering real EPS growth over those driven by thematic speculation or valuation expansion alone.

  • Reduce concentration in crowded trades: Limit exposure to AI and mega‑cap tech where positioning is crowded and narrative risk is high.

  • Be cautious with international diversification: Developed market and emerging market ETFs are at risk of slower future growth and may be overvalued relative to their respective economies.

  • Adjust risk models for higher volatility: Updating drawdown expectations and rebalancing portfolio risk targets accordingly.

  • Track earnings revisions monthly: Stay nimble and reduce positions in companies issuing weaker forward guidance or showing margin compression.

  • Treat narratives as signals, not strategies: Use themes like AI, reshoring, or inflation narratives to inform ideas, but confirm with real data and balance sheet strength.

These actions position your portfolio for resilience, rather than reliance on a single scenario, while preserving flexibility to capitalize on market shifts throughout 2026. Like any complex system, markets blend risk and opportunity. Recognizing where probability exceeds speculation is the difference between reacting like Cartman and investing with purpose.

Stay informed, stay disciplined, and treat “chaos” as part of the landscape, not a reason to abandon the field.

That is how you navigate the market in 2026.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 10:20

UMich Sentiment Bounces To 5-Month High As Democrats Realize Their Insane Inflation Fears Were Wrong

UMich Sentiment Bounces To 5-Month High As Democrats Realize Their Insane Inflation Fears Were Wrong

Having ended 2025 at the lowest Current Conditions Sentiment levels in, well, ever... expectations for preliminary January data were for a modest rebound... and it did...notably more than expected (and a pick up from the flash print):

  • The preliminary January sentiment index climbed to 56.4 from 52.9 in December, according to the University of Michigan (better than the 54.0 expected and 54.0 flash print).

  • The expectations index rose to a six-month high of 55.4. The survey reflected improvements in both the short- and long-term economic outlooks.

  • The current conditions gauge climbed to a three-month high after slipping to a record-low in December. Consumers’ perception of their current financial situation improved in January, while expectations declined.

That is the best headline print since August (highest expectations since July)...

Source: Bloomberg

While the overall improvement was small, UMich Survey Director Joanne Hsu admits "it was broad based, seen across the income distribution, educational attainment, older and younger consumers, and Republicans and Democrats alike."

Year-ahead inflation expectations fell back to 4.0% this month. This is the lowest reading since January 2025...

Source: Bloomberg

Uncertainty over short-run inflation expectations, as measured by the interquartile range of responses, has fallen from mid-2025 but has remained considerably elevated in recent months, comparable to levels seen in 2022

Source: Bloomberg

And it appears that Democrats have come to their senses over the fears of runaway Trump tariff inflation...

Source: Bloomberg

Aside from tariff policy, consumers do not appear to be connecting foreign developments to their views of the economy. Hsu notes that interviews for this release concluded on January 19th, two days after Trump’s social media post announcing additional tariffs on eight countries in Europe.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 10:10

"The Expansion Has Cooled": US Manufacturing, Service PMIs Both Miss, Signal 1.5% GDP Growth

"The Expansion Has Cooled": US Manufacturing, Service PMIs Both Miss, Signal 1.5% GDP Growth

With global PMIs today printing on the softer side (especially in France where the service PMI tumbled to 47.9 on expectations of a 50.3 print), moments ago it was the US' turn to join the parade of soggy prints. Here is what S&P Global reported for the January Prelim PMIs:

  • Manufacturing PMI: 51.9, up from 51.8 in Dec, but missing estimates of 52.0
  • Services PMI: 52.5, unchanged from December's 52.5, and also missing estimates of 52.9
  • Composite PMI Output Index: 52.8, up from December's 52.7), and also missing estimates of 53.0

While US business activity growth ticked higher in January, it remaining subdued compared to the typical rate of expansion seen in the second half of 2025, according to the PMI report. Manufacturing growth accelerated to outpace that of services, but the January survey brought further signs that underlying order book growth has softened in both sectors recently, led by falling exports. Job numbers consequently remained little changed in January.

Curiously, when taking a closer look at the data, we find improvement across both employment and inflation: 

Employment rose in January following a similarly weak increase reported in December. The near-stalled job market reflected concerns from companies over rising costs and softer sales growth in recent months. Only a marginal rise in payroll numbers was reported across the service sector while manufacturing jobs growth weakened to a sixmonth low. Some companies also continued to report difficulties finding staff, often struggling to fill vacancies and meet demand. These capacity issues contributed to the largest rise in backlogs of work since last August, albeit largely confined to the service sector.

Also, so much for inflation: input costs moderated from December’s seven-month high to sit at the weakest since last April. The moderation reflecting a cooling of input cost inflation in the service sector, as manufacturing input prices rose at the fastest pace since last September, once again widely blamed on tariffs. 

Commenting on the report, S&P GMI chief economist, Chris Williamson, said that "The flash PMI brought news of sustained economic growth at the start of the year, but there are further signs that the rate of expansion has cooled over the turn of the new year compared to the hotter pace indicated back in the fall."

 "The survey is signalling annualized GDP growth of 1.5% for both December and January, and a worryingly subdued rate of new business growth across both manufacturing and services adds further to signs that first quarter growth could disappoint."

"Jobs growth is meanwhile already disappointing, with near stagnant payroll numbers reported again in January, as businesses worry about taking on more staff in an environment of uncertainty, weak demand and high costs."

 "Increased costs, widely blamed on tariffs, are again cited as a key driver of higher prices for both goods and services in January, meaning inflation and affordability remains a widespread concern among businesses."

Confidence in the year ahead outlook meanwhile remained positive but dipped slightly lower, as hopes for sustained economic growth and favorable demand conditions were somewhat offset by ongoing worries over the political environment and higher prices.

While elevated rates of input cost and selling price inflation were again commonly attributed to tariffs, especially in the manufacturing sector, where price pressures intensified in January, service sector inflation moderated, linked in part to intensifying competition.

Tyler Durden Fri, 01/23/2026 - 10:00

Pages