Zero Hedge

More US Homebuyers Apply For Riskier Mortgages As Interest Rates Top 7%

More US Homebuyers Apply For Riskier Mortgages As Interest Rates Top 7%

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times,

Higher interest rates pushed prospective homebuyers toward riskier mortgages last week, new industry data show.

The total volume of mortgage applications declined almost 2 percent for the week ending Sept. 18, according to a report released by the Mortgage Bankers Association on Sept. 23. This represented the third consecutive weekly drop.

Applications for a mortgage to purchase a home fell 1 percent and were down 11 percent from the same time a year ago. Refinancing applications also fell to their lowest levels since February 2025, down 3 percent monthly, and were 62 percent lower year over year.

"Applications for both refinance and purchase loans declined further last week, noting that the comparison is to the week that included the Labor Day holiday," Mike Fratantoni, the group's senior vice president and chief economist, said in a news release.

Last week's decline aligned with the sharp increase in interest rates.

Because fixed-rate mortgage costs have accelerated in recent weeks, borrowers sought riskier adjustable-rate mortgages - also known as ARMs - Fratantoni added.

"With fixed rates much higher, more borrowers opted for ARMs, with the ARM share reaching 9.8%, as rates for 5/1 ARMs were more than a percentage point lower than those for fixed rate loans," he said in a statement.

The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages rose to 7.12 percent, from 6.97 percent - the highest since May 2024.

Mortgage rates have increased by more than 100 basis points since the United States and Israel launched a joint military operation against Iran in late February. The conflict, approaching the seven-month mark, has sent Treasury bond yields surging.

The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield reached 5 percent again midweek, up from 3.96 percent before the war in Iran began. The mortgage market generally tracks government bond yields, resulting in higher borrowing costs for prospective buyers.

ARMs start with a lower fixed rate for three to ten years, then change every six months or annually based on market conditions. This product saves borrowers money upfront but can swing higher or lower based on benchmark rates.

Mortgage rates have ticked up slightly so far this week.

As of Sept. 22, the average 30-year fixed rate was 7.17 percent, according to Mortgage News Daily.

Fueling Interest Rates

Global energy markets and inflation data have been the driving forces behind interest rates and will determine the Federal Reserve's next policy decision, says Jeff DerGurahian, head economist at loanDepot.

"For now, rates appear to be standing at a fork in the road. Softer inflation and lower oil prices could provide relief, while continued energy pressure could keep mortgage rates near or above 7%," DerGurahian said in a note emailed to The Epoch Times.

Crude prices have fallen sharply this week, with U.S. oil down about 10 percent to around $91 per barrel. Brent, the international benchmark, returned above $100 midweek.

As of Sept. 22, the national average for a gallon of diesel has risen to $6.52, according to the American Automobile Association.

Meanwhile, the next major inflation report will be August's personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, the Fed's go-to inflation measure.

After that, the September consumer price index report will be released in mid-October.

The Cleveland Fed projects annual headline consumer inflation will jump to 3.5 percent, but core inflation, which strips out volatile energy and food prices, will hold steady at 2.4 percent.

Until then, investors are leaning toward another quarter-point rate hike at the October Federal Open Market Committee policy meeting after the Fed followed through last week on the first increase to the benchmark federal funds rate since July 2023.

"Those expectations are not set in stone though," DerGurahian said.

"If oil prices move lower or the September core inflation reading comes in softer than expected, the October hike could be pushed further out. Continued improvement could even cause markets to remove one of the three future hikes currently priced in."

Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh will hold the next two-day meeting on Oct. 27 and 28.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 13:45

US Diesel Craters, EU Prices Skyrocket As Politico Reports White House Preparing Plan For 90-Day Export Ban

US Diesel Craters, EU Prices Skyrocket As Politico Reports White House Preparing Plan For 90-Day Export Ban

Summary: 

  • New Politico Report Suggests White House Preparing For Diesel Export Ban
  • "Definitely Doesn't Work": U.S. Energy Sec Rejects Diesel Export Ban, Risks Creating Bigger Supply-Squeeze Later
Politico Reports White House Prepares Plan For 90-Day Diesel Exports Ban

Diesel is certainly top of mind in the White House as a global refining crisis has sent prices at the pump for the industrial fuel to record-high levels, so high that Apollo's chief economist, Torsten Slok, warned earlier that it could spark a core inflation shock.

Policy maneuvering by the White House is limited, and what has been floated by Trump and some top Republicans is a diesel export ban, while top desks on Wall Street have warned that it's a terrible idea and could exacerbate prices around the world.

Earlier, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright was at odds with Trump's call for a diesel export ban; Wright said, "The blunt tool of banning diesel exports definitely doesn't work."

Around lunchtime in New York, a new Politico report said the White House was preparing a potential 90-day ban on diesel exports ahead of November's midterm elections.

The report stated that the proposal remains under discussion, with its legal framework unresolved. Politico cited five people familiar with the talks.

"What has overpowered cooler heads [in the White House] is the absolutely, sky-is-falling, we-have-to-do-something concern about prices at the pump" faction, said this person, who was granted anonymity to discuss conversations with White House officials. "That camp has been swept aside by the political camp, which says, 'dammit, something has to happen.'"

AAA Diesel v. Gas at pump

A White House official commented on the report, calling it "another fake news story from Politico."

The immediate price action in the fuel markets was:

  • US DIESEL FUTURES SINK MORE THAN 7% TO INTRADAY LOW
  • EUROPEAN DIESEL FUTURES SURGE OVER 7% TO SESSION HIGH

Here's what happened:

Last week, Barclays refining and midstream analyst Theresa Chen warned clients that a proposed U.S. diesel export ban would be "detrimental to the US refining complex and unlikely to provide the intended price relief."

Chen outlined one major problem: keeping diesel inside the country does not guarantee it can reach gas pumps.

On Tuesday, Goldman Sachs energy analyst Nikhil Bhandari told clients the global refining system will be stretched through 2027, with diesel and gas prices expected to remain elevated.

The latest EIA data (2025) shows that Mexico is the largest buyer of U.S. diesel, followed by Chile, Brazil, the Netherlands, and the UK.

  • Mexico: ~220,000 b/d (17% of total distillate exports). Still #1 but down ~18% from 2024. Mexico imports large volumes of U.S. refined products (gasoline and diesel) while sending heavier crude north.
  • Chile: Second-largest destination; volumes rose ~15–16k b/d from 2024.
  • Brazil: ~103,000 b/d (third). This is well below earlier peaks near 200k b/d; Brazil has taken more discounted Russian barrels since 2022 sanctions redirected Russian diesel away from Europe.
  • Netherlands: ~98,000 b/d (major European trading hub/re-export point).
  • United Kingdom: ~89,000 b/d (record annual average).

A case of resource nationalism? Or is the Politico report "another fake news story," as a White House source cited in the report suggests?

"Definitely Doesn't Work": U.S. Energy Sec Rejects Diesel Export Ban, Risks Creating Bigger Supply-Squeeze Later

President Trump will not be pleased...

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has publicly opposed calls for a ban on U.S. diesel exports, arguing on Wednesday that the measure would backfire by increasing gasoline and jet fuel prices.

"The blunt ​tool of banning diesel exports definitely doesn't ‌work," ⁠Wright said at an event in New York, as reported by Reuters.

Wright said restricting exports would leave refiners with excess diesel inventories, forcing them to cut refinery output.

Lower refinery runs, he warned, would tighten supplies of other fuels, ultimately driving up costs for consumers and businesses.

His comments put him at odds with President Trump, who signaled support for the idea on Tuesday as diesel prices surge to record highs in the U.S. and Europe (and Treasury Secretary Bessent has been assigned to see "if it's feasible."

Trump's comments already sent European pries for the fuel surging.

With flows from the region's top supplier at risk, Bloomberg reports that European diesel's premium to Brent crude jumped to more than $95 a barrel on Wednesday, a record in Bloomberg data going back to 2011.

Known as crack spread, the indicator has been keenly watched by central bankers as they seek to tame inflation. The equivalent measure in the U.S., meanwhile, weakened.

Trump's threat comes as Europe is already grappling with the loss of diesel shipments from the Middle East, and Russian export curbs have tightened the global fuel market further. The US has become Europe's main overseas supplier, with American exports of the workhorse fuel surging to a weekly record near 2 million barrels a day last month.

A key U.S. oil industry group cautioned against the move, saying it could lower American fuel production and damage the global economy.

Of the 8 million barrels of diesel traded globally by sea each day, the U.S. supplies about 1.5 million of them - about 20%. An export ban would remove the single largest source of global diesel from the market, and the consequences could be catastrophic.

"Restricting exports is not a solution to high prices," the American Petroleum Institute says.

"Removing US diesel from the market could instead result in reduced refinery runs, global economic damage and even higher US prices."

Indeed, as Bloomberg macro strategist, Michael Ball, write this morning,while The White House may be able to engineer a brief drop in U.S. diesel prices by limiting exports, it risks creating a bigger supply problem down the road.

With distillate stocks at seasonally record lows...

...the appeal is obvious with U.S. diesel above $6.50 a gallon...

But a broad curb could strand as much as 1.5 million barrels a day, roughly 29% of U.S. diesel output.

If enacted, Ball writes, the effects would be uneven across the U.S.

A surplus would build on the Gulf Coast, while pipeline, shipping and fuel-specification constraints limit how easily those barrels can reach tighter East and West Coast markets.

Bloomberg Intelligence estimates Gulf Coast storage could only absorb about three weeks of net diesel exports before constraints bite.

The global impact would be worse.

Kpler argues there is no real replacement for U.S. export volumes, leaving Latin America and Northwest Europe particularly exposed and increasing competition for Indian barrels.

China could compound the squeeze as domestic inventories fall and the risk of renewed export curbs rises.

The response from refiners would create a negative feedback loop.

If trapped barrels crush margins, refiners are incentivized to cut runs and undertake maintenance.

S&P Global Energy estimates crude runs might need to fall by nearly 2 million barrels a day - more than 10% of the current production level - to clear the surplus.

That is the asymmetry: lower U.S. diesel prices first, tighter global product markets follow, and potentially less U.S. fuel supply later.

The more aggressive the restriction, the greater the risk that today's price relief becomes tomorrow's supply problem.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 13:40

Bonds Crash Most Since Liberation Day After Catastrophic 5Y Auction; 2nd Biggest Tail On Record

Bonds Crash Most Since Liberation Day After Catastrophic 5Y Auction; 2nd Biggest Tail On Record

Coming into today's 5Y auction, the bond market was collapsing, with yields across the curve soaring but especially the 5Y exploding a crazy 15bps heading into today's auction (of 5 Year treasuries), a massive concession which we thought would lead to "lots of demand" for today's offering. 

Boy, were we wrong: moments ago the Treasury published results from today's auction and there were absolutely disastrous.

The sale of $70 billion priced at the first 5%+ yield since 2007, 5.033% to be specific (which means the first 5% cash coupon for today's buyers in 19 years), up from 4.391%. But the kicker is that the When Issued traded at 5.001%, meaning the auction tailed by a massive 3.1bps, which is the 2nd highest tail on record.

The bid to cover was ugly: down to 2.212 from 2.371, and the lowest since December 2018. 

The internals were even worse: Indirects plunged to 54.31% from 61.51%, the lowest since the depths of covid, in March 2020. And withj Directs inexplicably jumping to 29.92%, the highest since December '25, Dealers were left holding 15.8% of the auction, the most since May 2024.

Overall this was a horrific auction, where demand simply was not there contrary to what the When Issued indicated, and the results sparked a fresh rout acorss the curve, with the 10Y last trading just shy of 5.13% in what is shaping up as the worst day for the bond market since Liberation Day.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 13:31

CFTC Chair Pushes Tokenization As SEC Opens Door To Onchain Stocks

CFTC Chair Pushes Tokenization As SEC Opens Door To Onchain Stocks

Authored by Ezra Reguerra via Cointelegraph,

US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chair Michael Selig said financial markets should prepare for "mass tokenization" as regulators adapt existing frameworks for blockchain, artificial intelligence and onchain markets.

In remarks delivered Tuesday at the US Treasury Market Conference, Selig said tokenization of real-world assets (RWAs) could become the foundation of a more efficient financial system, enabling near-instant settlement and real-time collateral movement between clearinghouses, intermediaries and users.

"Just as the transition from hand signals to electronic trading advanced our financial system, I believe tokenization can do the same for all asset classes," Selig said, adding that the CFTC would pursue principles-based rules as tokenization and onchain finance evolve.

Selig said in August that the CFTC would move ahead with crypto rules under its existing authority if Congress did not pass the CLARITY Act. The Senate failed to advance the bill on Sept. 15.

On Sept. 17, the CFTC submitted a regulatory action covering crypto asset transactions and markets for White House review. The filing is still at the "prerule" stage and does not detail the planned regulations.

SEC also moves to bring markets onchain

Officials at the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have also promoted the development of tokenized markets.

In a Bloomberg TV interview, the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets Director Jamie Selway said that tokenization and crypto have recently become politicized but are "not naturally a politicized function."

Selway said US success in developing the markets should receive bipartisan support.

On Sept. 17, the SEC granted a temporary "Innovation Exemption" for tokenized US stock trading.

The exemption lets certain platforms trade digital versions of US-listed stocks under certain conditions.

SEC Chair Paul Atkins said in February that such an exemption could facilitate onchain trading while regulators developed longer-term rules.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 13:00

Brazil's Socialist Lula Cries 'Foreign Interference' At UN As Bolsonaro Ties Him In Runoff Polls

Brazil's Socialist Lula Cries 'Foreign Interference' At UN As Bolsonaro Ties Him In Runoff Polls

"Flávio Bolsonaro has moved marginally ahead of Lula in a potential run-off, with the race effectively tied," Daniel Lavarda, HSBC's head of Brazil macroeconomic research, wrote in a note to clients on Tuesday. 

Lavarda said, "Worsening approval ratings weigh on Lula's prospects, reducing probability of re-election to 18% (per to our model)," adding, "With the race tied up, the outcome will hinge on late-campaign developments, turnout and ability to mobilize voters." 

Lavarda's latest note on the Brazilian election continues the theme that the right-wing challenger, Bolsonaro, has a real chance of defeating the unhinged socialist, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. That theme largely began when Polymarket's election odds flipped to a Bolsonaro lead on September 10.

Lula (Left); Bolsonaro (Right)

Now, the Polymarket bet, with nearly $154 million traded, shows Bolsonaro leading at 59% versus Lula's 41%.

On Tuesday at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Lula cried foul, saying that countries shouldn't interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.

"We will not allow the enemies of democracy, whether domestic or foreign, to undermine popular will. Brazilian democracy belongs to Brazilians. Brazil will continue to be a sovereign country," Lula said. "Nobody will turn us away from this path."

Meanwhile ... 

Lula's speech comes as the prospect of a Bolsonaro win has shifted foreign capital flows back to Brazil. Goldman analysts found, after surveying 70 global investors, that EWZ, the US-listed Brazil equity ETF, could be set up for a 20% surge if the right-wing candidate wins.

Our technical analysts at The Market Ear see far greater upside in Brazilian stocks if a Bolsonaro win materializes early next month:

A Bolsonaro win would cement a rightward shift across much of South America as millions reject nation-killing progressive experiments.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 12:40

Market Warning Signs And The 'Perfect' Hedge

Market Warning Signs And The 'Perfect' Hedge

Via Crescat Capital,

We showed in prior letters that the US stock market has recently reached all-time high valuations across a variety of dimensions. Now, the market is flashing warning signals of a potential major market top based on a variety of divergent technical and cross-market indicators.

We show four of these in this letter:

New 52-week Highs vs. Lows Chart

Normally, when a stock market index moves up and down, the underlying stocks reaching new 52-week highs minus those hitting new 52-week lows go up and down, in sync. One can see that relationship most of the time in the NASDAQ Composite chart below over the last year. Recently, however, it’s been the opposite.

This index just closed at a marginal new all-time high, while the underlying stocks hitting new lows have exceeded those hitting new highs for 17 days straight. Weak, non-confirming market internals can signal a major market top. In this case, a narrow group of large stocks has driven the overall index return to new highs without confirmation from its underlying components.

Widening CCC vs. BBB Credit Spreads

Credit markets are generally quicker to pick up on deteriorating corporate cash flows than equity markets. While the S&P 500 Index has been hitting new all-time highs over the past six months, US triple-C credit spreads relative to triple-B have widened significantly over the same time, another non-confirming divergence, which we show in the chart below.

Similar warning signals of a pending stock market downturn from this indicator can be seen in the same chart historically:

  1. A divergence in credit spreads vs. the 2000 tech bubble and stock market top;
  2. Trends and levels consistent with the very beginning of the last two major stock market meltdowns and recessions: the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and the 2020 Covid recession; and
  3. Deterioration consistent with the 2022 bear market.

Recent Negative Correlation of the Advance-Decline Line vs. S&P 500

The advance-decline line is a plot of the cumulative sum of daily differences between the number of issues advancing and those declining for a given market index. In capitalization-weighted stock indices, such as the S&P 500, price changes of larger market-cap stocks will have larger effects on index returns. The advance-decline line can provide insight regarding the number of individual stocks participating in a market rally or decline.

Divergence occurs when the underlying index moves in one direction and the advance-decline line for that index moves in the opposite direction. When the advance-decline line is moving down while the underlying index pushes higher, one begins to question the true health and direction of the market.

Below is a chart showing the rolling 50-day correlation between the S&P 500 and its cumulative advance-decline line. Over 2026, we have seen their relationship weaken substantially and even turn negative. The last time we saw such divergence was during the peak of the Dotcom bubble.

S&P 500 Deterioration of Members Trading Above 200-day Moving Average

The percent of members in the S&P 500 trading above their 200-day averages has plunged over the past month, as we show in the chart below, even as the index itself has remained relatively flat, near all-time highs. This divergence points towards a breakdown in market breadth despite apparent top-line stability. Again, performance is becoming increasingly concentrated among a small group of megacaps.

As one can see in the chart, a similar setup emerged in the lead-up to Liberation Day (April 2nd, 2025), where technicals began to weaken before the broad market selloff. Selling pressure and risk reduction were already building beneath the surface ahead of the tariff announcement. The tariff announcement was the spark that lit the fire.

The Perfect Hedge

What do we see as the perfect hedge for today’s stock market? While no hedge is perfect, to us it means positioning for what we believe offers the strongest potential risk-adjusted outperformance, or alpha, relative to the S&P 500.

Today, we believe that opportunity is in gold. More specifically, we see even greater alpha potential in Crescat’s diversified activist precious and critical metals exploration strategy. Junior mining exploration carries operational risks and market volatility, but we believe it offers substantially better value and long-term growth potential than gold itself. That is where our precious metals hedge funds are focused.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 12:20

Traders Have Modest Hopes For A Trump-Xi AI Deal

Traders Have Modest Hopes For A Trump-Xi AI Deal

While we will provide a more detailed preview of the Trump/Xi summit in a subsequent post, there are signs that President Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, may emerge from their upcoming summit with an agreement about the artificial-intelligence industry, an increasingly prominent flash point between the world’s two biggest economies. But, as Bloomberg's Jacob Gu  notes, fund managers say it’s unlikely to be significant enough to provide a sustainable boost to AI-related stocks.

Over the weekend, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, after hours of talks with Vice Premier He Lifeng in New York, said the two sides agreed to create what he called a “US-China AI dialogue” about the technology’s benefits and threats.

The following day, Liao Min, the Chinese Vice Finance Minister, and a key member of the delegation, told Bloomberg that staff from the two countries were working together toward the details of a potential agreement on AI, investment and trade.

Bessent will present Trump with an AI agreement to review before his meeting with Xi, Fox Business reported.

The importance of AI at the US-China talks is being highlighted by the expected presence of Sam Altman and other industry executives at Trump’s state dinner for Xi to be held later this week, and while US tech execs will be present (again),  Xi is unlikely to bring a delegation of corporate executives when he meets Trump,, the WSJ reported.

But Gary Tan, portfolio manager at Allspring Global Investments, said investors shouldn’t expect it to have much immediate impact on the business between the two countries. “Given past experiences, our sense is that Trump’s visit to China earlier this year with a heavyweight technology entourage did not ultimately translate into meaningful progress on technology or hardware restrictions,” he said.

“From our side, this still looks more symbolic than substantive, and investors should continue positioning for a prolonged AI race rather than an imminent policy breakthrough,” Tan added.

Ashwin Binwani, founder of private investment firm Alpha Binwani Capital, was similarly cautious, since Bessent highlighted safety issues rather than an easing of US export controls.

“A pop on that news is a fade candidate, not a trend to chase,” he said. “Diversify away from pure semiconductor concentration into the hyperscaler capex story, which has its own momentum independent of the summit.”

He said traders have been burned previously when policy discussions failed to result in more concrete steps like licensing or purchase deals. That’s not to say there’d be no potential stock-market impact: He said “a modestly constructive readout” could fuel a rebound in the most heavily shorted Hong Kong stocks as investors close out positions.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 11:15

Where Will This All/Diesel End Up?

Where Will This All/Diesel End Up?

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Underlining how markets are now driven by geopolitics and geoeconomics, it’s all big names, big games, and big trades today. The UN general assembly is in session as the Wall Street Journal notes, ‘World leaders almost all agree on one thing: the UN is failing.’ Xi will also visit Trump: will those talks achieve anything substantive?

Oil is down on hopes for ‘peace in our time.’ The Saudi east-west pipeline will start again at lower capacity, China warned the Houthis not to block the Red Sea, Trump negotiators held a “very productive” three-hour meeting with the Iranians in New York, Iran floated reopening Hormuz in seven days if the US lifts its blockade, and Ukraine’s Zelenskyy stated Kyiv and Washington want that other war to end “before winter” and is ready for an “energy ceasefire.”

Yet elsewhere the question looks like ‘war at what time?’ Iran has hardened its demands for ending the war, and Trump just publicly threatened it with “annihilation”, then met with the Arab states expected to attack Tehran alongside it if that were to occur. Qatar is urging diplomacy as the Gulf enters “one of the most dangerous phases.” Ukraine’s press reports ‘Russia's rigged election gives Putin a mandate for all-out war’. In Russia, two more oil refineries were just hit, and bomb shelters in Moscow and St Petersburg are quietly being modernized. The US, Greenland, and Denmark signed a security deal that will see expanded US military bases and a larger NATO presence. UK PM Burnham did a U-turn on the Chagos islands deal after being told it was “terrible” by Trump, which is important but not market moving; his refusing to rule out rejoining the EU could be both - and he might notice Argentina considering new submarines and frigates.

The Senate Armed Services Committee chair has criticized the planned pageantry around the Trump-Xi meeting, which was not offered in Beijing in equal measure: but larger questions swirl around tariffs, rare earths, AI, and Taiwan. The Hong Kong press wonders if both men can use their leverage --recall ‘Who has the cards?’ was our 2026 theme this time last year-- to make progress. Do recall that in April 2017, when the two men first met in the US to talk trade and North Korea, Trump, over “a beautiful piece of chocolate cake”, told Xi that he had just launched 59 cruise missiles at Syria in response to its government’s use of chemical weapons against its own people. Today, could the US spare 59 missiles for the same level of opponent?

Ahead of that key meeting, speaking to our zeitgeist, Brazil's President Lula used his UN speech to warn against any foreign interference in his country’s upcoming presidential elections. Much is at stake there in both domestic policy and geostrategic terms.

Trump and Japan’s PM Takaichi met to reaffirm their close geopolitical and geoeconomic alliance. That now encompasses the BOJ and the Yen carry trade too: on which note, Japan’s big banks' domestic loan share is seeing its first sustained post-1991 bubble burst rise, exactly what the White House and Takaichi want as (defence) industry investment rises.

Nearby, South Korea’s President Lee urged the US to ease North Korea sanctions to encourage it to freeze its nuclear programs; and the EU announced it was moving towards an initial FTA with the Philippines, which sits within the US bloc in Asia – it just received a coastguard vessel from Taiwan, for example.

Where will this all end up? Markets must wait for the results of the big-name big game.

Relatedly, where will diesel end up? That question must be asked again today after Trump backed calls to halt US exports of refined products to address record high prices at home. Treasury Secretary Bessent said officials are now looking into if a total or partial diesel export ban is feasible.

As argued yesterday, in an integrated global energy market, such binary action wouldn’t achieve anything good for the US. However, why assume that backdrop?

The US didn’t export any crude at all from 1975 to 2015: shocking to some, perhaps, but true. Yes, the US wants to use “energy domination” as a strategic tool, which requires sharing it - yet why share with everybody, if to your own detriment? Today, why couldn’t the US opt for a partial, geopolitical diesel export ban and use economic statecraft like the Defence Production Act, to keep up refinery output of the ‘right’ products, more Jones Act waivers, to get fuel from the US Gulf to its west and northeast, and new state-backed mandated land and floating storage facilities at home and even regionally, if needed?

“Because markets?” If that is your answer, please recognize that such ideological thinking, for that is what it is at root, limits the ability to project potential future market outcomes, and sometimes expensively so.

Indeed, note that after Trump floated purchasing cheaper Belarussian potash, ‘elbows up’ liberal-world-order PM Carney floated his country and the US forming a self-reliant bloc for fertilisers. That is exactly what the US wants to do – but for far more than fertilisers, and with more countries than just Canada. For example, Mexico’s President Sheinbaum just had a “very good” call with Trump and touted progress towards a trade deal with what are rumored to be much tighter regional rules of origin.

As such, why not with refined crude products too? That doesn’t mean such a strand of US grand macro strategy would be well implemented – but that fact also doesn’t rule out it ever happening.

Meanwhile, against the above backdrop, the Fed’s Collins stated, “I now see an increased likelihood of future scenarios in which inflation remains notably above 2%.” To repeat what was said yesterday, the big trade is to correctly predict the big-name big game, not what a small-picture thinker like a central banker is saying long after the geopolitical facts were obvious.

If certain deals are struck, if certain countries are struck, if certain market flows are struck, energy prices can change dramatically – and then, suddenly, central bankers will be saying very different things. Those who listen only to them will think they are ahead of the curve rather than seeing they are behind the geopolitical and geoeconomic ones.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 11:00

Oil Holds Highs After Total Crude Stocks Rose, US Production & Gasoline Demand Dipped

Oil Holds Highs After Total Crude Stocks Rose, US Production & Gasoline Demand Dipped

Oil prices reversed initial losses (Brent back above $100) on Wednesday amid persistent Middle East supply risks, as investors weighed the prospect of improved Saudi export flows and U.S.-Iran diplomacy against the potential for further disruptions.

Saudi Arabia has begun testing its East-West pipeline for structural integrity and pressure, a step toward restoring oil flows after attacks knocked out the route earlier this month. Crude exports from the Red Sea port of Yanbu could restart within a couple of days if the tests are successful, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

U.S. envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff said in a post on X that American officials engaged in lengthy talks with the Iranian delegation through mediators on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. The mediators shuttled between the two sides throughout the day and completed a round of discussions that the U.S. hopes will prove constructive and promising, he said.

Reports of fresh attacks this morning didn't help any diplomatic optimism, but expectations (driven by last night's API report) suggest crude stocks stabilizing while product stocks are drawing down...

API

  • Crude +1.8mm

  • Cushing +2.1mm

  • Gasoline -2.2mm

  • Distillates -2.2mm

DOE

  • Crude +2.97mm

  • Cushing +2.27mm

  • Gasoline -1.69mm

  • Distillates -428k

Cushing stocks bounced off 'tank bottoms' and crude inventories jumped last week while product stocks both saw modest draws...

The SPR saw a very modest 405k barrel drain last week - the second tiny drain in a row since the war began. Last week's sizable Crude build was enbough to offset the drain and create only the second weekly build in total crude stocks since early April...

...as the caves hit 'tank' bottoms..

The dip in US distillates stocks leaves it 15% below seasonal averages (and a record low for this time of year)...

Crude production edged lower to 13.94 million barrels a day last week, down by 5,000 barrels a day from the previous week. The small drop came even as the number of rigs drilling rose for a third straight week, with another two units put into operation, according to Baker Hughes.

The 4-week moving average for US gasoline demand slipped by 49,000 per day for the EIA week, but remains within seasonal norms...

WTI was trading around $92 ahead of the official data and is maintaining those highs since...

Bank of America raised its Brent forecast for the second half of the year to $95 a barrel from $83, citing the large disruption to crude and refined-product supplies.

Continued skirmishes through year-end are now its most likely scenario, while alternative routes and escorted shipments through the Strait of Hormuz have mitigated some of the shortfall, Francisco Blanch of BofA Global Research said.

Damaged infrastructure and geopolitical tensions make a rapid normalization unlikely, he added.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 10:50

Pezeshkian Lashes Out In UN Speech: The Nuclear Bombs Are In Israel, But Inspectors Sent To Iran

Pezeshkian Lashes Out In UN Speech: The Nuclear Bombs Are In Israel, But Inspectors Sent To Iran Summary: Pezeshkian Addresses UN

As expected, the United States delegation immediately walked out as Iran's president began speaking, in front of what was not a very well attended address to begin with. He listed out a series of war crimes by the US aggressor but an accompanying theme was Iranian defiance while under the bombs. He also featured the Minab girls school attack by the US, underscoring that innocent children were killed - but contrasting this with Iran's response, saying it did not hit civilian populations

Iran's enemies have been make to learn we will not surrender, Pezeshkian declared. "They imposed the war on us, but we proved that we are not afraid of fighting a war, one that is defensive in nature."

Another theme was the ongoing hypocrisy over the fact that "atomic and nuclear bombs are in the hands of the Israeli regime, but the inspectors are sent to Iran." Pezeshkian further recalled that Iran while behind the table of negotiations came under the surprise bombs of US and Israeli warplanes. He repeated that "Israel has the [nuclear] bombs... and has not allowed a single inspection, yet they are rewarded."

He also said, "The US wants to sacrifice the population of a country in order to seek its illegitimate goals" and so "This will become a world much more dangerous for all of us."

On Hormuz and the question of negotiations, he said that the strait cannot be used for passage of weapons that will be used against Iran. While Iran is ready for diplomacy it strands ready to keep using its military power, the Iranian leader said. Overall, the speech did not focus very heavily at all on the prospect of new talks with Washington - something perhaps intentionally left out to appease domestic hardliners in the Islamic Republic.

*  *  *

Watch: Iran's President Pezeshkian speaks

Immediately upon the Iranian leaders starting his speech, the US delegation walks out.

Earlier: We once again have differing versions of a key meeting in the aftermath of a significant and rare US and Iranian diplomatic encounter. The Tuesday 3-hour meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York was headed by Tehran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, and on the other side by Trump's envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

The US side had called the talks "very productive" - with the suggestion that the Iranians were in the mood to compromise for the sake of achieving a swift ceasefire and peace deal. However, The Guardian reports Wednesday, "Iran has pushed back on claims that it dropped former preconditions for reopening the strait of Hormuz in surprise talks held in New York under the mediation of Qatar...".

via AFP

"Trump said the three-hour talks held in a room at the UN headquarters had gone very well and been very productive," the report continues. "He suggested further talks were possible imminently, which led to the price of a barrel of Brent crude to fall to below $100 (£75) for the first time in two weeks. Witkoff said the talks had been ‘encouraging, constructive and successful.'"

In Tehran, foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei did not convey that there has been any shift in Iran's negotiating position:

"The interaction that took place with the American side was through Qatari mediation. This interaction was aimed at conveying Iran’s conditions, including the end of the war in all its dimensions, the cessation of American aggressive actions, the naval siege, and the economic war, the release of Iranian assets and so on."

The Iranian delegation conveyed to the US side the precise five conditions that Tehran has been pushing all along, the Iranian official insisted..

Among the 'biggest asks' - which the Trump administration has thus far shown openness to - is the release of all Iranian frozen assets. Instead, Trump and his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have only sought to tighten the anti-Tehran noose with 'Economic D-Day' and secondary sanctions targeting anyone still doing business with Iran.

On Sept. 20, the Iranian parliament speaker said that Tehran had "clearly communicated" its strict conditions to Washington via mediators:

  • The chief negotiator warned that there would be “no return to the previous negotiating framework or reopening of the Strait of Hormuz” unless Iran's preconditions were met.
  • “We must both fight and negotiate,” Qalibaf said in remarks to the parliament, criticizing what he described as approaches that offer “no clear path to ending” the conflict. “This view…effectively takes the country toward an endless, exhausting war.”

Iranian 'hardliners' are said to be outraged upon learning of the Tuesday Kushner-Witkoff meeting, and so much of Tehran's messaging in the aftermath has also been geared for domestic consumption:

Iranian Foreign Minister Araqchi's move in dealing with Witkov was done without coordination with the relevant authorities, according to Tasnim, citing sources 

US state-funded RFERL has listed out the following responses from within Iran:

Some called for impeachment proceedings to be launched though they were not clear if they wanted Araqchi or Pezeshkian out of office. One user charged that the meeting was “an even bigger mistake” than Pezeshkian traveling to the US for the UN General Assembly.

“If anyone’s met and negotiated with the Americans, they better stay there. [Iran] is a country for honorable people,” wrote Vahid Azizi, an economist and former official at the Iranian National Tax Administration under hard-line late president Ebrahim Raisi.

Hard-line commentator Mohsen Maqsudi said it was “sheer stupidity” to negotiate with Washington while “under threat” and cause a drop in oil prices. Tehran has been hoping that the rise in fuel costs will pressure Trump into ending the war.

Hardliners ask: why negotiate with the Americans at all, and why provide optics which will push down the price of oil? Supreme National Security Council secretary Mohsen Rezaei has sought to calm domestic criticisms on Wednesday:

“If the United States does not comply,” he said, the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed and negotiations will not resume. He added that the U.S. must first “earn the trust of the Iranian people.”

Like Washington, the Iranian side does not want to 'endless war' - but has also vowed to outlast the Trump administration. The US President himself has lately conceded that the Iranians are waiting till after the November midterm elections to strike a deal, expecting that the Republics will lose Congress.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 10:46

San Francisco Sues Truth Social Over Early Access To Trump's Posts

San Francisco Sues Truth Social Over Early Access To Trump's Posts

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

San Francisco filed a lawsuit Sept. 22 against the parent company of Truth Social over President Donald Trump's posts, claiming the company created a corrupt business scheme through its $100,000-per-month Truth API plan that allows subscribers to get his posts before they become public.

City Attorney David Chiu claims in the lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, that Trump Media and Technology Group created financial gain for Trump Media and the president through the new service.

The paid access, launched on Aug. 1, allows subscribers to pay up to $100,000 a month for early access to 10 high-profile Truth Social accounts, including Trump's.

Chiu alleges the operation monetizes preferential access to information derived from Trump's position and access to information unavailable to the general public, allegedly violating the public trust and California's Unfair Competition Law.

"Trump Media has unlawfully created, priced, marketed, and operated a commercial mechanism that knowingly and willfully facilitates Trump's use of nonpublic information for private profit," Chiu wrote in the lawsuit.

The claim also alleged Trump Media violated other federal laws that protect against insider trading, including the prohibition on taking material nonpublic information from a person with a duty of trust and confidence and selling it to people who might trade on it to get an unfair financial advantage.

Chiu also claims the service in unfair by violating the state's unfair competition law "because the harm they impose greatly outweighs the utility of their conduct."

"Defendant's scheme facilitates the appropriation of information held in the public trust for private gain," Chiu wrote in the lawsuit.

He alleges the practice disadvantages law-abiding businesses and ordinary Californians who participate in financial markets in various ways, including their retirement accounts, pensions, and other public sector funds.

"These everyday investors are placed at a substantial disadvantage to sophisticated firms willing and able to pay extraordinary sums for advanced access to market-moving information," the lawsuit states.

In an Aug. 10 earnings call, Trump Media's interim Chief Executive Kevin McGurn told investors the company had signed more than 10 customer agreements for the service.

The city is asking the court to order Truth Social's parent company to stop offering the Truth API service.

Trump Media, based in Florida, did not respond to a request for comment about the lawsuit.

Trump launched Truth Social in February 2022. He holds the largest share of the company with 41 percent of the stock.

The company's agreement includes an exclusivity window requiring the president to wait six hours after posting on Truth Social before posting the same message on any other social media platform, according to the lawsuit.

San Francisco's legal action was the second taken against Truth Social's early-access product.

Two news organizations - The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation - seeking to shut down the service sued the social media company Aug. 12 in Manhattan federal court making similar claims about the president selling priority access to government information to enrich himself.

The lawsuit targets Trump in his position as president, and Natalie J. Harp as his executive assistant. It also names Daniel Scavino, the White House deputy chief of staff and director of the White House personnel office.

The other accounts offered in the service include those of Vice President JD Vance, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., FBI Director Kash Patel, and the White House.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 10:20

10Y Yield Spikes Above 5.00% After Blowout Beats For US PMIs

10Y Yield Spikes Above 5.00% After Blowout Beats For US PMIs

With 'hard' economic data still somewhat muted, expectations were for a modest retracement in US PMIs from recently optimistic levels in preliminary September data.

Instead, the 'soft' survey data soared:

  • Flash US Services PMI Business Activity Index: 58.7 vs 55.8 exp (August: 56.5). 59-month high.

  • Flash US Manufacturing PMI: 57.0 vs 53.7 exp (August: 53.9). 52-month high. 

The headline flash S&P Global US PMI Composite Output Index rose from 56.0 in August to 58.4 in September, registering the fastest expansion since July 2021 and an acceleration of growth for a fourth successive month.

Growth was driven by the service sector, which reported the steepest rise in output for over five years, but a welcome development in September was an accompanying acceleration of manufacturing output growth to the fastest since April 2022. New order inflows also gathered pace in both sectors, with growth reaching the highest since March 2022 in the service sector and the highest since April 2022 in manufacturing. In both cases, demand was buoyed principally by the domestic market, as goods export volumes continued to fall and services exports rose only modestly.

“US business continues to boom, with output growing at the fastest rate for over five years in September," said Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Historical comparisons suggest that the latest survey data point to annualized growth of around 5% with a 4% gain now signalled for the third quarter as a whole...

To put the growth surge in context, barring the spike in demand following the opening up of the economy after the COVID-19 lockdowns, the latest improvement in business activity is the greatest recorded since early 2015 with Williamson noting that:

"Business is clearly booming now in both manufacturing and services."

However, he adds, this growth is being accompanied by some of the most severe supply chain bottlenecks seen in the near-two-decade survey history if the pandemic is excluded, with companies also reporting increasing problems finding suitable staff.

Backlogs of work are consequently rising sharply. While this accumulation of uncompleted orders bodes well for the further expansion of output and capacity in the coming months, it also indicates that companies are developing more pricing power, and hence is a worry for the inflation outlook.

Firms’ input costs have meanwhile jumped in September at the steepest rate for four years, with fuel and transport costs spiking higher thanks to the rise in oil prices seen during the month, which will add further to the upward pressure on selling prices and inflation in the coming months.”

As a result of all this, 10Y yields have spiked back above 5.00%...

...and rate-hike odds picked up for October.

That was quite a shocker!!

FOR ZEROHEDGE READERSA $10 HEDGE,
ON US.$10 off one order of $30 or more. New or returning, one per person. YOUR EMAILGET MY $10 →Signs you up for ZeroHedge Store emails. $30 minimum, once per person, can't be combined. Every order helps support ZeroHedge. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 09:55

Elon Musk Is Powering The American Renaissance

Elon Musk Is Powering The American Renaissance

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via The Daily Signal,

Editor's note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today's video from Daily Signal senior contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to the YouTube channel to see more of his videos.

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for the Daily Signal.

There's a lot of controversy about Elon Musk. His reputation took a big hit, remember, right after the election, because half the country voted, roughly 48%, voted against Donald Trump. Elon Musk had flipped from a former Hillary Clinton supporter and Joe Biden supporter to a firm MAGA adherent and voted for Donald Trump in 2024.

As a result of that and his comments opposing illegal immigration, there were people who not only were demonstrating against [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], but attacking Tesla dealerships. Everybody said that Elon Musk's brand had suffered accordingly, that Tesla was on the way down, that European and American [electric vehicle] makers, along with Chinese EV makers, would dominate the market, given the tarnishing of the Musk brand and in conjunction with the end of the federal subsidy for electric vehicles.

So, people were suggesting that the era of Elon Musk was over. He was very controversial, and he was outspoken on his own platform, X, on conservative issues such as illegal immigration, green energy, [artificial intelligence] in ways that infuriated the Left. And the Left, remember, was considered the natural consumer of electric vehicles.

So, are we watching the decline of Elon Musk? No. No, no, no. The exact opposite is happening. In the second quarter of 2026, Tesla had a rebound, and it captured 52% of all the EVs sold in the United States. It has a market capitalization of $1.2 trillion. The other "Big Three" automakers are beginning to exit the EV market.

China cannot send their EVs into the United States. Why did Tesla rebound? Was it because all of a sudden Elon Musk had a fight with Donald Trump for a while? No. Was it because he apologized to the Left? No. It's because when you buy a Tesla and you drive it and you compare it with other brands of the Big Three in terms of distancing, acceleration, safety, appurtenances, it's not just better, but it keeps getting better geometrically, at a geometric rate, not just an arithmetic.

It has the best program for self-driving. It's the safest. It has the longest range. It's the most fun to drive, and people like it regardless of their politics. If you move to SpaceX, 67% of all the satellites in low orbit around the world today are associated with Elon Musk's SpaceX company - 67%, over 12,000 satellites.

The market capitalization of SpaceX is well over $2 trillion - $2 trillion. SpaceX, with its various rockets, has saved a morbid, calcified, ossified NASA. It alone, with its rocketry and space vehicles, has put the United States not just back into the so-called space race and return to the moon and eventually to Mars, it's made it preeminent over the Europeans, the Japanese, and the Chinese. More importantly, it's given the United States enormous technological advances in rocketry, ballistic missiles, which have a definite military component to them.

When Elon Musk paid an exorbitant fee for X, people felt that he had made an enormous mistake, that it was overpriced. And yet, people were saying that users would abandon him and go elsewhere. In fact, that has not happened. That has not happened. There are 560 million users of X today. BlueSky, the alternative that was supposed to break X, has 3 million users.

Three million versus 560 million users.

And remember that his Starlink satellite platform has captured 97% of all satellite internet usage.

There are 12 million people who have a Starlink receiver and are subscribers in 160 countries. Most of the U.S. military and our allied militaries, including the Ukrainians and the Israelis, count on Starlink to guide their missiles and their drones, to protect them from incoming attack.

Let's just put all of this in some kind of perspective.

In terms of market capitalization, Elon Musk has well over $3.5 trillion in his various companies. SpaceX is the largest and it's the most dominant, and it will either ensure that the United States is first in space exploration and satellite launching.

And, by the way, more satellites were launched on Elon Musk rockets last year than all of the satellites launched elsewhere put together. In addition to that, he created the electric vehicle market. It did not exist. He created the idea. Everyone said it would not work, that he was going to go broke, and he was finished.

He not only created the Tesla electric vehicle, he made it preeminent and dominant today. And he did it because, for the price and a cost-benefit analysis, it was unmatched. In terms of Grok, it is about third. About 16% of all AI platforms and chatbots use Grok. So, let's just keep that in perspective.

The United States is preeminent today in social media, in artificial intelligence, in satellite launches, in the number of rocket launches in general, in electric vehicles. And all of that put together is due to one person, Elon Musk, who has been reviled and attacked by the Left as either treasonous or insane or cruel or whatever.

One man has combined the talents of Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and Henry Ford all in one person, and he's an American. In other words, much of the success of the United States' current renaissance in digital media, in satellites, in electrical vehicles, in AI, in software is due to one person. One person can make a difference. In the case of Elon Musk, he made a big difference.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/22/2026 - 22:35

A Septennial Analysis Of Pre-Collapse Macroeconomic Indicators

A Septennial Analysis Of Pre-Collapse Macroeconomic Indicators

Authored by Milan Adams via Preppgroup,

Walk through any downtown financial district in mid-September 2026 and you'll see the same strange disconnect. Construction crews still raise glass towers. Restaurants at noon remain packed with expense-account lunches. Bespoke tailors on side streets measure suits for clients who haven't yet noticed their foundations shifting.

Surface-level appearances suggest continuity, even prosperity. Yet beneath this maintained facade, data streams flowing from Treasury servers, credit bureaus, and trading floors tell a markedly different story - one of accumulating strain that policy statements cannot wish away.

By September 8, 2026, United States federal debt reached $40.13 trillion. That figure translates to roughly $119,784 owed by every man, woman, and child in the country, a burden that would have seemed absurd to discuss seriously even fifteen years ago. More immediately concerning than the nominal amount is the speed at which carrying costs are escalating. Through August of fiscal 2026, gross interest payments on public debt hit $1.267 trillion - a record pace that consumes resources otherwise available for infrastructure, education, or research.

Congressional Budget Office projections now show net interest consuming 13.95% of all federal outlays in FY2026, rising to 14.25% in FY2027 and approaching 15% by FY2028. Nearly fifteen cents of every dollar spent serves not current needs but past obligations. That reallocation, gradual enough to escape daily headlines, nonetheless represents a fundamental shift in how America deploys its collective resources.

Several interconnected developments, examined together, illuminate why September 2026 marks a particularly precarious moment:

  • Sovereign Debt Saturation: Federal obligations exceeding 120% of GDP, with interest costs creating self-reinforcing cycles where new borrowing pays old debt service

  • Household Financial Distress: Consumer debt at $18.19 trillion as of Q1 2026, with delinquency rates in multiple categories approaching levels last seen during the 2008 crisis

  • Commercial Real Estate Deterioration: Approximately $875 billion in mortgages maturing during 2026 against depressed occupancy and valuation fundamentals

  • Currency Instability Signals: Gold prices swinging violently between $4,360 and $5,589, indicating deep uncertainty about fiat stability

  • Emerging Market Fragility: Over 54 nations currently in or near debt distress per IMF assessments, raising contagion risks

How the Debt Trap Springs Shut

Federal fiscal dynamics in 2026 reveal mechanics that compound faster than political timelines can address. That $40.13 trillion figure becomes genuinely alarming when viewed through debt-sustainability analysis. Average interest rates on marketable national debt reached 3.475% by August 2026 - substantially above the near-zero rates that prevailed through much of the pandemic period.

With debt stocks exceeding annual output by over twenty percentage points, even modest rate increases generate exponential service requirements. CBO forecasts $16.2 trillion in net interest payments across the coming decade, climbing from $1.0 trillion in 2026 to $2.1 trillion by 2036. At those levels, debt service crowds out virtually all discretionary spending.

Compounding works insidiously. Maturing debt rolls over at higher rates. Treasury auctions must attract sufficient participation to refinance existing obligations plus fund new deficits. Bid-to-cover ratios for four-week bills stood at 2.97 in August 2026 - technically adequate, yet vulnerable to sentiment shifts. Foreign holdings have grown concentrated and potentially volatile; Russia substantially reduced Treasury exposure, while other nations diversify reserves away from dollar assets.

Fiscal year 2026 deficits will likely exceed $2.67 trillion according to Joint Economic Committee data released September 8. That imbalance isn't temporary cyclicality but structural feature. Tax revenues, constrained by legislative gridlock and sectoral stagnation, fail to match expenditure growth driven by entitlements, defense commitments, and - ironically - debt service itself. Each year's deficit adds to debt stock, which raises next year's service costs, which widens future deficits.

Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates suggest U.S. federal debt cannot rationally exceed roughly 210% of GDP as an outer limit - a threshold that current healthcare cost growth could reach within two decades. Markets typically impose discipline well before theoretical limits. When confidence erodes sufficiently, crisis arrives suddenly.

Kitchen Tables Buckling Under Weight

Sovereign debt attracts political attention, yet household balance sheets show equally troubling patterns. Consumer debt reached $18.19 trillion in Q1 2026 according to Equifax data released May 28. That aggregate - encompassing credit cards, auto loans, student debt, and other obligations - masks severe distributional stresses threatening both individual welfare and aggregate demand.

Credit card delinquencies have risen to levels unseen since 2008-2009. Between Q3 2022 and Q1 2026, balances 90+ days delinquent jumped from 7.6% to 12.8%. Federal Reserve Bank of New York data from August 2026 shows these transition rates into serious delinquency remain elevated even as headline economic growth appears stable.

Student loans present particularly intractable challenges. Total outstanding: $1.66 trillion as of Q1 2026. Payment resumption following pandemic forbearance generated severe adjustment shocks. Delinquency rates hit 10.3% of balances 90+ days past due in Q1 2026, up from 9.6% in Q4 2025, with further deterioration expected as temporary relief expires. Unlike other debt categories, student loans cannot be discharged through bankruptcy, creating permanent drags on borrower capacity.

Auto loan delinquencies reached unprecedented highs per FRBNY data from May 2026. Behind these numbers lie structural conditions, not individual mismanagement: vehicle price inflation during 2021-2023, subsequent rate increases raising monthly payments, and wage growth failing to match cost-of-living adjustments.

Housing markets compound pressures. Mortgage rates near 6.57% in Spring 2026 - down from 2023 peaks but far above 3% rates many homeowners locked in during refinancing booms - created "rate lock-in" effects freezing turnover. Supply constraints maintain prices excluding first-time buyers. Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard data shows units affordable to households earning $75,000 or less dropped 60% from March 2019 to March 2026, creating generations of permanent renters or multi-generational households.

Consumer credit cycles enter dangerous phases when households exhaust pandemic-era savings and increasingly rely on credit to maintain consumption patterns. Rising delinquencies prompt lenders tightening standards, reducing availability precisely when households need it most. Such procyclical dynamics amplify downturns.

Empty Towers, Broken Loans

Commercial real estate illustrates delayed crisis dynamics perhaps better than any other sector. A $1.5 trillion "debt wall" approaches in 2026-2027 - loans originated during 2019-2021 low-rate environments now requiring refinancing at substantially higher costs. Approximately $875 billion in commercial and multifamily mortgages mature during 2026 alone. Borrowers face debt service coverage ratio trips, cash management challenges, and carve-out exposure threatening equity positions.

Office properties constitute epicenters. Hybrid work arrangements, initially viewed as temporary pandemic adaptations, proved structurally durable. Central business district occupancy remains 30-40% below pre-pandemic norms in many major markets, rendering obsolete vast Class B and C office inventories. Valuation compression has been severe; some metropolitan office markets saw price declines exceeding 50% from 2019 peaks.

Banking system exposure creates systemic vulnerabilities. Regional banks hold disproportionate commercial real estate loan shares relative to money center institutions, facing capital erosion as losses mount. By June 2026, nearly $37 billion in commercial real estate loans - 1.17% of all bank-held loans - were delinquent. While below 9% post-2008 levels, trajectories concern regulators and market participants.

Federal Reserve stress testing identifies commercial real estate concentration risk as primary regional banking vulnerability. Institutions with exposures exceeding 300% of risk-based capital face heightened scrutiny; several raised capital at distressed valuations or sought strategic alternatives. Metropolitan Bank's failure in early 2026, costing FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund approximately $19.7 million, exemplifies these pressures.

More troubling than realized losses is valuation uncertainty. Transaction volumes collapsed - buyer-seller bid-ask spreads remain too wide for price discovery. Banks face "extend and pretend" incentives avoiding loss recognition. Such dynamics, familiar from Japan's 1990s experience, transform acute crises into chronic stagnation as zombie assets clog balance sheets and impede credit creation.

Regional banks serve as primary small and medium enterprise credit intermediaries; their impairment threatens employment and investment far beyond real estate markets. 2023's Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic failures previewed dynamics that could recur if commercial real estate losses accelerate.

Gold's Warning, Dollar's Contradictions

Monetary instability appears not merely in inflation statistics - August 2026's 3.4% annual rate, improved from 2022 peaks yet above Federal Reserve targets - but in alternative store-of-value behavior. Gold prices reached record highs above $5,589 in early 2026, then corrected to approximately $4,360 by September, exhibiting volatility signaling deep uncertainty about fiat stability.

Such price action reveals investor ambivalence. Unprecedented gold rallies suggested profound dollar purchasing power and sovereign debt sustainability concerns. Corrections to $4,360 reflected profit-taking and temporary dollar strength, yet continued elevation well above norms indicates persistent non-fiat reserve demand. Central bank gold accumulation continues at rates unseen since Bretton Woods collapse.

Dollar positioning shows similar contradictions. Against major currency baskets, dollar indices show resilience, yet strength masks underlying fragility. Foreign Treasury holdings grew concentrated among allied nations, while strategic competitors systematically reduced exposure. Petrodollar systems underpinning dollar hegemony since the 1970s face structural challenges as energy exporters increasingly accept alternative settlement currencies.

Currency swap arrangements between non-U.S. central banks proliferate, creating parallel payment systems bypassing dollar intermediation. While remaining small relative to global trade volumes, growth trajectories suggest gradual, persistent erosion of dollar network effects. Transitions from unipolar monetary systems to fragmented, multipolar arrangements carry profound fiscal sustainability implications; reserve currency status historically permitted deficit financing at lower costs than otherwise possible.

Cryptocurrency complexes, despite periodic collapses and regulatory crackdowns, continue attracting capital flight from distressed jurisdictions. Bitcoin and Ethereum volatility serves as barometer for traditional monetary arrangement confidence. Continued existence and periodic rallies suggest persistent government-issued currency alternatives demand, even among populations never experiencing developing-nation hyperinflations.

Contagion Beyond Borders

No September 2026 economic analysis completes without examining international dimensions. Modern financial market interconnectedness ensures distress anywhere becomes distress everywhere - transmitted through trade flows, capital movements, and contagion effects defying geographic boundaries.

Over 54 countries currently stand in or near debt distress per International Monetary Fund assessments. That figure, representing over one-quarter of world nations, encompasses economies ranging from small island states to major regional powers. JPMorgan EMBI spreads between emerging-market dollar debt and U.S. Treasuries widened 17 basis points to 268 basis points since late February 2026, with particular stress in Egyptian debt (44 basis point widening) and Turkish obligations (36 basis point increases).

Argentina continues perpetual crisis-stabilization cycles, with inflation moderating from catastrophic levels yet structural vulnerabilities remaining unaddressed. Pakistan and Egypt, heavily dependent upon IMF support and Gulf state beneficence, face refinancing cliffs potentially triggering broader regional instability. World Bank reports indicate 29% of low-income country bonds mature by 2026, creating refinancing walls that could overwhelm available resources if market conditions deteriorate.

Structural shifts in emerging market debt composition offer limited comfort. While many nations reduced foreign currency-denominated obligations - lowering exchange rate shock vulnerabilities - remaining dollar debt concentrates in sectors with limited revenue flexibility. Sovereign borrowers shifting to local currency issuance find themselves paying substantially higher rates, as domestic capital markets demand inflation premia international investors once absorbed.

China's economic slowdown compounds pressures. As world's largest trading nation and commodity importer, Chinese demand contraction transmits directly to emerging market exporters. African nations financing infrastructure through Chinese lending face not merely debt service difficulties but export revenue collapses that might otherwise fund obligations. Latin American commodity producers confront simultaneous demand weakness and dollar strength increasing real debt burdens.

Global trade fragmentation into competing blocs - Western, Chinese, and non-aligned - further complicates adjustment mechanisms. Nations can no longer count on export-led growth resolving balance of payments difficulties when major markets impose tariff and non-tariff barriers. World Trade Organization dispute settlement paralysis leaves aggrieved parties without recourse, encouraging unilateral measures compounding fragmentation.

Institutions Showing Wear

Beyond specific debt figures or delinquency rates, 2026 reveals institutional framework degradation that previously stabilized economic fluctuations. Federal Reserve balance sheet expansion to unprecedented pandemic-era levels now confronts impossible trinities: price stability, full employment, and financial stability - with policy choices addressing one objective frequently worsening others.

"Higher for longer" interest rate environments necessary for inflation combat expose vulnerabilities accumulated during near-zero rate decades. Pension funds, insurance companies, and institutional investors extending duration to capture yield now face mark-to-market losses threatening solvency. Liability-driven investment strategies nearly collapsing UK gilt markets in 2022 remain prevalent in U.S. institutional portfolios, creating latent systemic risks.

Shadow banking - non-bank financial intermediation - expanded filling gaps left by regulated institutions subject to post-2008 capital requirements. Private credit funds, direct lending platforms, and fintech-enabled leverage now constitute parallel financial systems whose opacity frustrates risk assessment. When stress emerges in these channels, traditional lender-of-last-resort facilities may prove inadequate or inappropriate.

Labor markets, while showing low unemployment by headline measures, reveal structural deterioration beneath surfaces. Prime-age male labor force participation remains depressed by standards from earlier decades. Gig economies transformed stable employment into contingent arrangements lacking benefits and income predictability. Artificial intelligence adoption, while boosting aggregate productivity, threatens displacement in specific sectors potentially overwhelming retraining and transition support systems.

Demographic headwinds compound challenges. Developed economy population aging strains pension and healthcare systems precisely when debt service requirements escalate. Worker-to-dependent ratios continue declining, threatening tax bases that must support both elderly benefits and debt service. Immigration, which might address labor shortages, faces political opposition constraining policy responses.

"The real problem isn't any single vulnerability in isolation. It's how they correlate. When sovereign debt stress, household financial distress, commercial real estate deterioration, and banking fragility hit simultaneously, standard diversification strategies stop working. No asset class thrives when everything else falters. No jurisdiction offers refuge when contagion goes global. We've essentially made one big bet - that monetary expansion and fiscal forbearance can continue indefinitely. Eventually, that bet runs into basic arithmetic."

Reading the Dashboard: September 2026 Data:

Why the Warning Signs Go Unnoticed

Surface-level indicators in September 2026 create strange disconnects. Consumer confidence indices fluctuate yet remain above typical recessionary thresholds. Equity markets, despite volatility, trade near highs by some measures. Unemployment at 4.1% as of August 2026 appears benign.

Several factors explain gaps between quantitative reality and qualitative perception. Asset price inflation during 2020-2021 created substantial wealth effects continuing to support consumption among asset-owning households. Homeowners and equity portfolio holders feel wealthier than underlying conditions suggest, even as renters and non-asset owners face unprecedented affordability constraints.

Normalization of extraordinary monetary policy shifted baseline expectations. Generations of investors and consumers never experienced genuine tightening cycles; brief 2023-2024 rate increases were followed by expectations of renewed accommodation. "Higher for longer" concepts remain psychologically unavailable to market participants building careers during secular interest rate declines beginning in the early 1980s.

Government transfer payments and forbearance programs masked underlying income instability. Student loan payment pauses, mortgage forbearance options, and expanded pandemic-era unemployment benefits created official support expectations that may not sustain. When these programs expire - and many are scheduled for late 2026 and early 2027 - true household balance sheet fragility becomes apparent.

Denial psychology operates institutionally too. Regulatory forbearance allows banks avoiding loan loss recognition. Accounting standards provide asset valuation latitude permitting "mark to model" rather than "mark to market" approaches. Credit rating agencies, chastened by 2008 failures, may overcompensate through excessive issuer optimism.

Collective denial serves short-term functional purposes. If all market participants simultaneously acknowledged vulnerabilities described here, resulting panic would become self-fulfilling. Yet denial costs include postponed adjustment magnifying eventual dislocation. Delayed recognition brings more severe ultimate reckonings.

Sector by Sector: Where the Pressure Builds

Technology, despite artificial intelligence enthusiasm, entered consolidation phases marked by layoffs and valuation compression. "Magnificent Seven" stocks driving 2023-2024 returns showed divergent performance, some facing regulatory challenges, others confronting demand saturation. Venture capital funding contracted dramatically from 2021 peaks, forcing startups into down rounds or closures.

Healthcare costs escalate inexorably, with implications for federal budgets and household finances. Medicare Hospital Insurance trust funds face depletion during mid-2030s under current projections, yet political gridlock prevents structural reforms ensuring sustainability. Pharmaceutical price controls, while popular, may reduce innovation incentives generating mRNA technologies crucial to pandemic responses.

Energy markets exhibit volatility characteristic of transition periods. Renewable capacity additions continue at record rates, yet fossil fuels retain transportation and industrial dominance. Geopolitical supply chain disruptions - whether from Middle Eastern conflicts, Russian sanctions, or shipping interruptions - create price spikes feeding through inflation metrics and consumer sentiment.

Manufacturing, despite reshoring rhetoric, struggles with competitiveness against Chinese and other Asian producers. Domestic production capital intensity, combined with regulatory compliance costs and labor market rigidities, limits industrial recovery pace. Tariffs and trade barriers, while providing temporary protection, raise input costs and invite retaliation harming export-oriented sectors.

Agriculture faces climate-related stresses compounding traditional cyclical challenges. Drought conditions in major producing regions, combined with water rights disputes and input cost inflation, threaten farm profitability and food security. Foreign agricultural land ownership, increasing over 40% between 2016 and 2024 with Chinese entities controlling approximately 384,000 acres, raises national security concerns intersecting economic policy.

Policy Gridlock and Institutional Constraints

Responses to accumulating stresses proved notably inadequate. Monetary authorities, having exhausted conventional tools during previous crises, face constraints limiting new shock responses. Federal Reserve cannot cut rates substantially without reigniting inflation; cannot raise them without triggering debt service crises described earlier. Quantitative tightening reduced balance sheet holdings, yet remaining reserves and securities still represent extraordinary intervention by past standards.

Fiscal policy faces similar constraints. With debt service consuming nearly 14% of federal outlays and projections exceeding 15% within two years, substantial new spending initiatives face automatic opposition from deficit hawks and market vigilantes. Tax increases, while potentially necessary for sustainability, face political opposition making enactment improbable. Results include passive tightening through inflation and bracket creep falling most heavily upon middle-income households.

Regulatory policy oscillates between permissiveness and restriction without coherent strategy. Environmental mandates increase energy-intensive industry costs; financial regulations impose compliance burdens favoring large institutions over regional competitors; labor regulations create rigidities impeding adjustment. Cumulative effects discourage investment necessary for productivity growth.

International coordination broke down precisely when most needed. G20, IMF, and World Bank lack credibility and resources addressing systemic risks transcending national boundaries. Currency wars, trade disputes, and technological competition replaced cooperation characterizing post-2008 crisis management. Each nation pursues narrowly defined self-interest, ignoring collective action problems requiring coordinated solutions.

How Crises Spread

Understanding localized stress becoming systemic crisis requires examining transmission mechanisms. Most obvious channels are financial: losses in one sector force asset sales depressing prices in others, creating mark-to-market losses triggering further forced selling. Reflexivity - described by George Soros - can transform modest corrections into cascading collapses when leverage proves pervasive.

Credit channels operate similarly. Rising delinquencies in one sector prompt lenders tightening standards across all sectors, reducing availability precisely when most needed smoothing consumption and investment. Credit creation's procyclical nature amplifies business cycles, transforming mild downturns into severe recessions.

Confidence channels prove most dangerous because least susceptible to policy intervention. When economic agents lose future faith, they reduce spending and investment regardless of interest rates or fiscal stimulus. Animal spirit collapses become self-fulfilling as reduced demand generates feared outcomes. Money velocity declines, rendering monetary expansion ineffective.

International transmission occurs through trade, capital flows, and commodity prices. Developed economy recessions reduce emerging market export demand; capital flight from distressed jurisdictions raises global funding costs; commodity price collapses devastate resource-dependent economies. Dollar reserve currency status creates additional complications: dollar strength during crisis periods raises real debt burdens for dollar-denominated borrowers worldwide.

Learning from the Past - Carefully

Students of economic history naturally seek parallels. 1970s stagflation offers lessons about inflation control difficulties once expectations become unanchored, yet today's debt levels far exceed that era's. 2008 financial crises demonstrate confidence evaporation speeds, but current vulnerabilities distribute differently - across sovereign balance sheets rather than subprime mortgages. Japan's 1990s experiences illustrate failure-to-recognize-loss costs, yet Japan's current account surpluses provided cushions unavailable to contemporary deficit nations.

Each analogue breaks at crucial points. Global integration of modern financial markets, derivative exposure scales, information transmission speeds, and current political fragmentation create unique conjunctures defying simple comparison. Past knowledge provides essential context, yet cannot substitute for present condition analysis.

What history teaches unequivocally: unsustainable trajectories eventually correct. Debt growing faster than income cannot be serviced indefinitely. Asset prices exceeding fundamental values eventually revert. Political systems failing economic challenges lose legitimacy. Correction timing remains inherently unpredictable, dependent upon specific catalysts and confidence thresholds unobservable directly until breached.

Possible Paths Ahead

As 2026 progresses toward conclusion, several scenarios appear plausible, though relative probabilities shift with each data release and policy announcement.

"Soft landing" scenarios, still embraced by official forecasts, assume inflation moderating without triggering recession, debt service costs stabilizing as growth outpaces interest rates, and structural reforms addressing long-term challenges before they become acute. These outcomes, while theoretically possible, require assumptions about productivity growth, demographic adjustment, and political compromise appearing increasingly heroic.

"Stagflationary drift" scenarios envision continued moderate growth accompanied by persistent inflation and gradual living standard erosion. Here, debt service consumes growing national income shares, investment lags depreciation, and each generation finds itself materially worse off than predecessors. Japanification hypotheses applied to the United States - prolonged malaise rather than acute crisis.

"Sudden stop" scenarios involve sovereign debt confidence losses triggering currency crises, capital controls, and emergency austerity. Foreign investors refusing maturing obligation rollovers force either default or monetization generating hyperinflation. These extremes become more probable as debt levels rise and political dysfunction prevents preemptive adjustment.

"Contagion cascade" scenarios begin with shocks in one sector or jurisdiction transmitting globally through financial linkages. Major sovereign defaults, banking system collapses, or geopolitical events trigger reflexive dynamics described earlier, overwhelming policy responses and generating economic contractions exceeding anything since the 1930s.

Each scenario implies different optimal household, investor, and policymaker strategies. Yet uncertainty surrounding which materializes - indeed, possibilities that elements might combine unforeseen ways - paralyzes decision-making and encourages short-termism exacerbating underlying vulnerabilities.

What Comes Next

Analysis presented here suggests 2026's remainder and 2027's opening will prove decisive. Milestones loom: fiscal year 2026 conclusions with projected $2.67 trillion deficits; student loan payment full-scale resumption; commercial real estate loan maturities that cannot be refinanced at current rates; and potential geopolitical events disrupting energy markets or trade flows.

Policy responses to these challenges determine whether systems stabilize or deteriorate more rapidly. Technical sovereign obligation defaults remain unlikely immediately; the United States retains reserve currency status and deep domestic capital markets providing financing flexibility unavailable to emerging markets. Yet financing costs - measured in inflation, currency depreciation, or future tax burdens - continue escalating.

Household imperatives center on debt reduction and liquidity maintenance. Variable-rate obligation holders face rising service costs; fixed-rate asset holders benefit from inflation eroding real debt burdens. Monetary policy distributional consequences - favoring asset owners over wage earners - will continue shaping political economy.

Investor challenges involve navigating volatility while preserving capital. Traditional diversification strategies may prove inadequate when correlations converge toward unity during crisis periods. Searches for uncorrelated returns - whether commodities, alternative assets, or geographic diversification - will intensify even as such opportunities become scarcer.

Policymaker windows for preemptive adjustment narrow daily. Structural entitlement program, tax structure, and regulatory framework reforms require political capital dissipating as elections approach and polarization intensifies. Temptations postponing difficult choices - hoping growth resolves arithmetic impossibilities - will prove irresistible until markets impose discipline more painfully than voluntary adjustments would have required.

Final Assessment

September 2026's economy has not collapsed. Production and exchange machinery continues functioning; most citizens maintain employment and shelter; governance and finance institutions retain forms if not substance. Yet quantitative evidence assembled here - $40 trillion debt, $1.3 trillion interest burdens, 12.8% credit card delinquency rates, $875 billion commercial real estate maturity walls, 54 distressed nations - suggests systems approaching limits that cannot be indefinitely extended.

Questions are not whether adjustments occur, but when and in what forms. Postponements through accounting gimmicks, regulatory forbearance, and monetary accommodation make eventual manifestations more severe. Societies borrowing $2.67 trillion in single years to maintain consumption cannot do so indefinitely. Arithmetic remains inexorable, even when politics refuses acknowledgment.

What emerges from this analysis is not imminent catastrophe prediction but fragility recognition demanding preparation. Specific crisis triggers - whether sovereign defaults, banking panics, currency collapses, or geopolitical shocks - matter less than underlying conditions making such triggers effective. Those conditions are now present to degrees unmatched since 2008, and in certain respects unmatched in modern experience.

Careful observers tracking data without official optimism or partisan narrative filters can see signs. They appear in monthly Treasury statements, quarterly household debt reports, daily credit spread and currency market movements. They accumulate between headline silences, in financial statement footnotes, in budget projection assumptions.

Acknowledging these vulnerabilities is not pessimism surrender but rationality exercise that economic analysis demands. Problem recognition precedes all problem addressing. Evidence presented here suggests recognition is long overdue, and further delay costs will be measured in trillions of dollars and millions of livelihoods. Systems continue running, but those paying close attention can hear the strain.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/22/2026 - 21:45

New York Is Hemorrhaging Young People To Philadelphia

New York Is Hemorrhaging Young People To Philadelphia

New York continues to attract ambitious young people, but apparently it’s also getting pretty good at showing them the door.

The metro area recorded the largest net loss of Gen Z residents in the country in 2024, with nearly 30,000 more young adults leaving than arriving, according to Census data analyzed by Redfin, according to the NY Post. Millennials were even more eager to pack up, producing a net outflow of almost 43,000 people ages 28 to 43.

The Post writes that a sizable portion of those departures didn’t involve moving halfway across the country. More than 9,200 Gen Z residents went from the New York metro area to Philadelphia, making it the second-busiest migration route for that generation nationwide. Only the roughly 60-mile move from Los Angeles to Riverside attracted more Gen Z movers.

The economics aren’t particularly difficult to understand. Redfin estimates a typical New York-area home costs roughly $832,000, compared with about $309,000 in Philadelphia. That leaves plenty of room for someone to trade New York for a cheaper city while remaining close enough to friends, family and jobs in the Northeast.

And then there are New York’s famously welcoming taxes. Between state and city income taxes, eye-watering housing costs and the general expense of existing within the five boroughs, New York has constructed a fairly impressive financial obstacle course for anyone trying to accumulate savings or buy a home.

Apparently, some younger residents have discovered that one solution to the affordability problem is simply crossing a state line.

The trend extends beyond New York. Los Angeles also experienced sizable departures, with San Diego and Riverside among the most common destinations for Gen Z movers. Millennials, meanwhile, gravitated toward metros including Houston, Dallas, Baltimore, Las Vegas and Atlanta, where housing generally remains considerably cheaper than in the largest coastal cities.

The numbers suggest younger Americans aren’t necessarily searching for the absolute cheapest place to live. Instead, many appear to be making relatively short moves that improve affordability or employment prospects while keeping their existing social and professional connections within reach.

Redfin based its findings on the Census Bureau’s 2024 American Community Survey, defining adult Gen Zers as ages 19 to 27 and millennials as ages 28 to 43.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/22/2026 - 21:20

The West Might Soon Ramp Up Its Pressure On India To Distance Itself From Russia

The West Might Soon Ramp Up Its Pressure On India To Distance Itself From Russia

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

The US and France seem to be coordinating a concerted pressure operation against India...

Popular Russian outlet Izvestia raised awareness of a paywalled Bloomberg report alleging that India might reduce its import of Russian oil, which was 45% of its total last month, to avoid US tariffs of up to 100% after Trump recently signed into law a bill empowering him to punish Russia's top energy partners. Earlier in September, "India's Top Diplomat Signaled That It'll Defy Any New US Pressure Over Its Russian Oil Purchases", which are considered to be indirectly essential to its national security.

Such pressure might soon pile up too, however, as suggested by more than just the aforesaid punitive tariff bill's passing. The US and China are negotiating an extension to their trade war truce ahead of Xi's visit later this week. The current disagreements primarily concern its duration according to the Financial Times. In the event that any such extension is ultimately agreed to, then the US presumably won't impose punitive tariffs on China for its Russian oil purchases, which would draw attention to India's.

Although the US benefits from India's Russo-American balancing act since the strategic benefits that India derives most effectively empower it to serve as a counterweight of sorts to China, Trump 2.0 might nevertheless become "geopolitically greedy" and want the US to become India's senior partner. In that scenario, the threat of punitive tariffs over its Russian oil imports could be leveraged as a Damocles' sword to pressure India into gradually reducing them in parallel with joining the West's Hormuz coalition.

About that, the French Foreign Minister proposed jointly working with India on ensuring "freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait" during talks with his counterpart on the sidelines of the UNGA. This coincided with the French and US presidents agreeing to work on the Hormuz dimension according to Emmanuel Macron's tweet after his talks with Trump. India's potential participation in the West's Hormuz coalition, albeit under tariff duress if it happens, would be significant.

For starters, it would signify that the US decided to pressure India over its Russian oil imports while turning a blind eye to China's for the duration of their likely extended trade war truce, thus suggesting that the US is more comfortable bullying India on this issue than China.

Second, India's participation would confirm that such tariff-related pressure was successfully weaponized by the US,

...with the third significance being that India joined the coalition in order to unlock alternative oil supplies to Russia's.

Fourth, Russian policymakers would notice the US' successful policy of coercing India through tariffs-related pressure into distancing itself from their country, which could lead to them concluding that it's incapable of functioning as a reliable counterbalance to China.

The implication is that Russia might tighten its embrace of China with all that could entail for ties with India. And finally, India's association with a Western naval coalition could harm its hard-earned neutral reputation in the Global South's eyes.

France's involvement in coordinating what seems to be a concerted pressure campaign by the US against India is notable since it's now India's second-largest arms partner and has been eroding Russia's market share over the past decade. It therefore can't be ruled out that the US might threaten more CAATSA sanctions against India if its threatened tariffs are successful in order to accelerate the aforesaid trend. India's participation in the West's Hormuz coalition might thus bode ill for its future ties with Russia.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/22/2026 - 20:55

NYC Tossed Out Roughly 46,000 NYPD Civil Summonses Last Year Due To Errors

NYC Tossed Out Roughly 46,000 NYPD Civil Summonses Last Year Due To Errors

New York City is throwing out tens of thousands of low-level summonses issued by the NYPD, with the department’s reliance on pen-and-paper ticketing contributing to the problem, according to Gothamist.

Of roughly 98,000 civil summonses issued by police during the last fiscal year, about 46,000 were dismissed by the city’s administrative court system, according to data obtained by Gothamist. That works out to roughly 47%.

The tickets stem from offenses such as drinking alcohol in public, public urination, illegal vending and pedicab violations. Many never survive the administrative process because of paperwork problems rather than the underlying allegation.

The NYPD remains unusual among city agencies because officers still issue civil summonses entirely by hand. That can produce everything from unreadable writing and incorrect violation codes to omitted details and mistakes made when paper records are later entered into city databases.

Example of civil summons (Gothamist)

City watchdogs flagged the issue years ago. A 2020 Department of Investigation review recommended moving agencies away from paper summonses and toward digital ticketing. The NYPD at one point agreed to make the transition but has yet to implement an electronic system.

Gothamist writes that other departments have already moved in that direction. The Department of Buildings now issues about 80% of its summonses electronically. Its dismissal rate last fiscal year was approximately 13%, far below the NYPD’s 47%.

Government transparency and legal advocates argue the current system burns administrative resources while requiring people to contest tickets that may be invalid from the outset. City Councilmember Gale Brewer is considering legislation that could force the NYPD to switch to electronic summonses.

The NYPD maintains that officers are properly enforcing the law and says many of the dismissed cases failed because of procedural or paperwork errors rather than the substance of the alleged violations. The department says additional officer training is underway to reduce those mistakes.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/22/2026 - 20:30

The Big State Monetary And Fiscal System Is Over

The Big State Monetary And Fiscal System Is Over

Authored by Daniel Lacalle via dlacalle.com,

In 2021, The Economist ran an entire number hailing "The Return of Big Government" as the end of the so-called - but inexistent in practice - "austerity" paradigm and the evidence that more spending and a big state was the solution to the post-covid world, delivering economic growth, social spending, and sustainability.

In 2025, the same publication ran a number called "The Coming Debt Crisis." The outcome of the return of big government was the return of persistent inflation, stagnation, and unsustainable debt. Who would have guessed it? Anyone doing the numbers and everyone who understands that government stimulus and so-called public spending multiplier effects are simply myths of statism.

For more than two decades, the dominant policy assumption in the developed world was that there were no meaningful limits to government spending, public debt, monetary intervention, or regulation. Interest rates were near zero, central banks absorbed government bonds, and politicians concluded that budget control was an obsolete idea.

That illusion is over.

The rise in unison of sovereign bond yields across developed economies is not simply a market move. It is the financial system's verdict on a model that has exhausted its credibility, even for those bond investors accustomed to believing all that governments and central bankers say as if it were the truth revealed. Permanently expanding government, structurally unbalanced budgets, central-bank financing of fiscal excess, and the political belief that every economic problem can be solved with another "stimulus" package seemed like a comfortable solution, but it delivered the same results, including persistent inflation, high deficits, and economic stagnation.

The state-led monetary and fiscal regime surpassed all its limits many years ago, but some still believed that it could all be disguised by central banks' quantitative easing. They were wrong.

First, we saw central banks enter losses. No one seemed to care. Then we saw bonds slump on fears of persistent inflation. No one seemed to care. Now we see that all sovereign bond yields rise even when central banks maintain all the liquidity measures, and when they hike rates, the relief only lasts a couple of market sessions.

The choice now is not the fake austerity of 2008-2012, which basically perpetuated big government and raised taxes. It is between a return to sound money, fiscal balance, lower taxation, deregulation, and a smaller state. Unless citizens start demanding their governments for more freedom and less intervention, the result will be a larger and prolonged period of stagnation, inflation, debt accumulation, and declining living standards.

Many will blame geopolitical events and say that the solution is socialism.

If socialism was the answer, France would not be in stagnation, with an enormous fiscal problem and rising social discontent.

The answer to the economic stagnation and affordability crisis is not more socialism. More subsidies, price controls, redistribution, and direct state intervention have always delivered the opposite of what the politicians promise.

Socialism never works because it is a system of control, not progress. It destroys the incentives to generate wealth and creates a dependent and submissive population unable to defend itself. Socialists know that their promises do not work, but by the time citizens find out, they are already hostages of a powerful state machine.

Across Europe, governments that have continually expanded public spending, taxation, transfers, and regulation have not produced prosperity or relief from living costs. They have instead accumulated debt, weakened growth, raised the economy's cost base, and deepened social discontent. Governments do not reduce prices; they increase them.

The political appeal is easy to understand. Subsidies and transfers seem to offer immediate, visible relief. The government makes you blame the person or business that puts the price tag, not the one that destroys the currency's purchasing power, which is the government itself. Thus, those "subsidies" are always paid with units of currency that are constantly losing value. They do not address the reason prices rise in the first place. Price increases are a consequence of monetary inflation, which is created when governments print more currency than the private sector demands through spending and debt.

Big corporations do not increase prices; governments do.

Socialism has one objective: control. Subsidies leave recipients dependent on political discretion while denying them the opportunities that come from productive employment, rising real wages, investment, and a dynamic private sector. At the same time, taxpayers are asked to finance an ever-larger state with less disposable income and fewer incentives to save, invest, hire, or start businesses.

Politicians then blame "the rich," corporations, or markets for an affordability crisis that their own policies have created. Furthermore, no government can redistribute wealth from a private sector that is being steadily weakened by higher taxes, punitive regulation, inflation, and rising borrowing costs.

Affordability is not created by government control or by shifting existing income from one group to another. It is created when the private sector thrives, real wages rise alongside productivity, competition lowers prices, investment expands supply, and housing, energy, transport, health care, and essential services can be provided more efficiently and abundantly.

When governments confront structural supply constraints with redistribution, subsidies, price intervention, and debt-financed spending, they also undermine the incentives to invest, build, innovate, and improve productivity. The result is always a more expensive economy, greater dependency, and fewer opportunities.

For years, governments could disguise fiscal fragility because central banks repressed yields. Quantitative easing was presented as a magic wand and a technical monetary-policy tool, but in practice it became a mechanism through which governments financed unsustainable spending at artificially low rates, crowding out the private sector and making the public finances unsustainable.

The consequences were predictable. When the price of debt is manipulated downward, politicians borrow more. Quantitative easing was never a tool to give time for governments to reduce debt and spending, but to justify higher expenses.

Now the market is imposing the discipline that policymakers tried to avoid. However, politicians refuse to cut spending and, instead, pass the rising interest cost to taxpayers.

Monetarily sovereign states do not have an unlimited capacity to issue currency or accumulate debt. They can postpone adjustment for a time if their debt is denominated in their own currency and domestic institutions remain credible. However, they cannot abolish the limits imposed by economic reality.

Since 2021, developed economies have gone over their three limits.

The economic limit occurs when each additional unit of government debt produces progressively less growth. Governments can inflate headline GDP through deficit spending, transfers, and public consumption, but the result is not the same as creating wealth. In the developed world, the expansion of government expenditure has coincided with weak productivity growth, anemic private investment, and a rise in living costs.

The fiscal limit is when interest costs and entitlement obligations displace productive investment. Governments may attempt to delay this moment through financial repression, artificially low interest rates, regulatory pressure on domestic financial institutions, and central-bank purchases of sovereign debt. As debt stocks grow and bonds have higher rates, interest expenses consume a larger share of public budgets. Governments borrow more simply to finance existing commitments.

The inflationary limit is reached when repeated monetary financing and persistent fiscal deficits undermine confidence in the purchasing power of fiat currency. Inflation is not only an annual change in a price index. Families suffer its cumulative effect in food, energy, housing, transport, insurance, and essential services. More money creation and debt-financed public spending do not resolve that crisis. They risk prolonging it by weakening the currency, distorting capital allocation, and transferring resources from savers and wage earners to the state.

Government bond yields have risen across the G7. In September, the average ten-year yield of the G7's largest economies reached 4.285%, its highest level since mid-2008. US ten-year Treasury yields moved above 5%. However, these were not the worst performers. Long-term yields rose faster in Japan, France, and the United Kingdom.

The synchronized nature of this rise is important. Japan faces rising yields despite decades of yield-curve control and massive central-bank intervention. Germany, despite a lower debt burden than many peers, has seen yields rise to their highest levels since 2011. US thirty-year Treasury yields have reached their highest point since 2007.

Markets are repricing fiscal risk, inflation risk, and the declining credibility of monetary institutions at the same time.

Investors no longer assume that high-debt governments can inflate away their liabilities without consequences, nor that central banks can endlessly monetize debt without damaging the purchasing power of money.

The fiscal model of the past fifteen years depended on a false premise, built on the idea that government debt was virtually free. As long as interest rates stayed close to zero, governments could claim that debt ratios did not matter because debt-service costs remained manageable. The "Japan is a model, not a cautionary tale" recommendation given by Stiglitz proved to be very attractive for governments. It also proved to be awfully wrong.

Debt does not become sustainable merely because a central bank suppresses its price.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that global public debt rose to 94% of GDP in 2025 and will reach 100% of GDP by 2029. The world's major economies are driving the trend, as high deficits, rising interest burdens, and structurally higher spending demands destroy fiscal space.

The interest-cost problem is becoming critical. Global government interest spending is estimated to have risen from about 2% of GDP in 2020 to 2.9% in 2025. It is expected to continue increasing through the end of the decade. This is the deadweight cost of believing that Japan's Keynesian excess is a model.

Every additional unit of taxpayer revenue devoted to interest payments destroys money in the economy. Governments will inevitably respond by raising taxes, borrowing more, and demanding further monetary accommodation. Each of these responses weakens growth and affordability.

The modern welfare state has been unsustainable for years and has become dependent on low borrowing costs that no longer exist.

The predictable political response will be to call for another, even larger, round of quantitative easing, larger fiscal transfers, massive public-investment plans, industrial subsidies, and "strategic" spending programs.

This will be a massive mistake... Again.

Quantitative easing only disguises imbalances for a short period of time. It cannot solve a solvency problem.

Central banks can purchase government bonds, but they cannot create real savings nor productive money. They can expand their balance sheets, but they cannot increase productivity, restore competitiveness, or create the capital necessary for a sustainable recovery.

Printing money does not make a nation richer. It is a massive transfer of wealth from savers and wage earners to the state and the first recipients of new money. It distorts the price of capital, encourages malinvestment, and eventually feeds inflationary pressures.

Artificially low interest rates send a false signal to markets. They make unsustainable spending, borrowing, and investment appear viable. Furthermore, the newly created money is used by governments for current spending. The eventual slump is not caused by capitalism or market failure. It is caused by the prior distortion of money and credit.

The same principle applies to public finances. Governments have treated zero-rate policies and QE as a substitute for reform. They have used monetary intervention to preserve spending structures that taxpayers cannot sustainably finance. They have delayed necessary adjustments in pensions, public administration, subsidies, entitlement programs, and regulatory burdens.

The result has not been robust growth. It has been an unstable combination of weak productivity, high debt, elevated inflation risks, financial repression, and social frustration.

Advocates of ever-larger government frequently argue that fiscal stimulus creates growth. The evidence from developed economies is the opposite.

After years of extraordinary deficits, public spending programs, central-bank asset purchases, and industrial-policy initiatives, most advanced economies face low trend growth, weak private investment, declining productivity, unaffordable housing, high tax burdens, and increasingly poor public finances.

The problem is not just that governments spend too much. It is that governments spend resources in the worst possible way, worse than private actors, and direct capital according to political priorities rather than consumer demand, profitability, or long-term productive value. Governments are exceptionally bad at picking winners and even worse at picking losers.

The problem is also in the economics world. GDP accounting treats public spending as an addition to output. But real prosperity depends on whether resources are used productively. A government can borrow and spend billions while leaving the economy poorer in productive terms as that spending crowds out private investment, raises taxes, sustains unproductive activities, or fuels inflation.

The solution is not to borrow more in hopes the next stimulus will succeed where the last failed. The solution is to remove the obstacles that prevent private-sector growth.

Developed economies need a policy reversal based on four principles.

First, they need sound money. Central banks should shut down. However, since this will not happen, they must return to their mandate: protecting the currency's purchasing power. Monetary policy should not be used to fund deficits, manipulate sovereign-bond markets, or protect governments from the consequences of fiscal irresponsibility.

Second, governments must balance their budgets through durable spending reductions, not cosmetic measures, tax hikes, or optimistic growth assumptions. Spending cuts should focus on eliminating inefficient subsidies, duplicative administration, corporate welfare, politically directed investment schemes, and entitlement commitments that cannot be financed.

Third, policymakers must cut taxes, particularly those that penalize work, investment, savings, entrepreneurship, and capital formation. A tax-increase strategy is politically convenient because it avoids confronting the expenditure problem. However, it reduces incentives to produce, invest, hire, and innovate precisely when economies need more dynamism.

Fourth, advanced economies need an ambitious deregulation agenda. Lower barriers to business formation, energy production, housing construction, labor-market flexibility, and investment would do more for sustainable growth than another decade of deficit spending.

The big-state monetary and fiscal system is over because it is no longer credible financially, economically, or politically. The bond market is making clear that there is no permanent escape from fiscal arithmetic.

The reader may say that governments will choose more intervention, more debt, more monetary distortion, and more stagnation. However, for the first time, we are seeing citizens all over the world rejecting these promises. Governments and large political parties may have to change their policies because the failure is evident and the voter base simply says enough is enough. That is why the cultural battle is so important. The goal is to make voters understand that the solution is not more government, but less. A lot less.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/22/2026 - 17:40

Bessent Emerges As "AI Czar" Frontrunner

Bessent Emerges As "AI Czar" Frontrunner

Fresh off his recent spat with "Doomsday Dario", whom he scolded for his apocalyptic essay (which was attempted regulatory capture in all but name) and warned that the US government will not serve as a "liability shield" to the frontier AI company,  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appears to be one step closer to directly taking AI matters into his own hands. 

According to Semafor, Bessent is emerging as a frontrunner for President Donald Trump’s new "AI czar" position, after long playing a central role in the Trump administration’s AI policy. This week Bessent held an early dialogue with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, ahead of Trump’s meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Among the topics discussed, Bessent and He spoke about a potential US-China “notification mechanism” to facilitate communication about AI incidents that pose threats to national security, as part of what Bessent said were talks about a formal US-China dialogue on AI.

Other names in the mix for the czar position include White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios, a longtime Trump ally on tech, and Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor, who left VC giant a16z to join the government.

“When President Trump talked about appointing an AI czar, I think it is to put context, shape and contours around these questions, and they’re very important,” Bessent told CNBC earlier this week, adding that he thought humans are ultimately responsible for what AI does.

The Treasury chief became an active participant in AI policymaking earlier this year after financial institutions told him advanced AI systems could make their systems vulnerable.

As Semafor cautions, Trump’s decision on his AI point person is not final, and he is known to ultimately favor dark-horse candidates. But if Bessent were to ultimately get tapped, his Cabinet job wouldn’t be a barrier — Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has simultaneously held the “energy czar” moniker.

“Any reporting about personnel decisions that have not been officially announced by the administration should be regarded as baseless speculation,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/22/2026 - 17:20

Foreign Actors Disrupt 2 Colorado Water Systems: Governor's Office

Foreign Actors Disrupt 2 Colorado Water Systems: Governor's Office

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,

Foreign actors gained access to computer systems at two small private water utilities in Colorado in late August, changing equipment controls before operators restored normal operations, according to the governor's office.

Ally Sullivan, a spokeswoman for Gov. Jared Polis, said the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment followed up with the providers to confirm the issues had been resolved. The governor's office said it was unable to confirm which foreign actors and did not identify the utilities.

"The two water utilities impacted are small, private water providers that serve fewer than 200 people," Sullivan said in a statement to media outlets.

"The providers acted promptly and there was no impact to public safety or water services. We cannot confirm what foreign actors may have been involved, but we are aware of ongoing efforts across the nation by an Iranian-backed group to access drinking water and wastewater systems, as per the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency."

Sullivan did not immediately return a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

Treatment processes and water quality were not affected at either provider, according to the governor's office.

The Colorado incidents occurred weeks after a series of cyberattacks impacted water and wastewater systems in multiple states. Federal agencies had already flagged the threat.

In an Aug. 19 advisory, the FBI, National Security Agency, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and other agencies warned of an active cyber threat to Siemens S7 Series programmable logic controllers (PLC) used in water systems and other critical infrastructure.

The advisory said unnamed threat actors were conducting reconnaissance and capability development against the U.S.-based Siemens PLC installations, using AI-generated exploitation scripts disguised as legitimate monitoring tools. It noted that the hackers sought internet-connected PLCs running outdated software or that were otherwise poorly protected.

"The U.S. critical infrastructure sectors most targeted by this threat activity include Critical Manufacturing, Energy, Water and Wastewater, Chemical, Food and Agriculture, and Commercial Facilities," the advisory stated.

"This is not a theoretical risk - it is an active threat."

The advisory came amid reports of incidents targeting local water systems in several states in the preceding weeks. The FBI said that from July 27 to July 30, water and wastewater utility companies in seven states reported security-related incidents.

Michigan was among those states. Dale George, director of communications for the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, said that the state received the FBI's notice warning of attempts to tamper with operational technology at water systems.

"All systems continued to operate safely, issues were addressed by local operators, and there are no known impacts that posed a public health concern," George said.

Earlier in July, more than 30 community water systems in Minnesota reported a coordinated cyberattack. CISA urged water entities of all sizes to protect operational technology against activity targeting PLCs.

Attackers had targeted internet-facing Rockwell Automation and Allen-Bradley MicroLogix controllers, changing passwords and IP addresses. Some effects included loss of pressure. Federal officials warned that a significant pressure drop can allow untreated groundwater to enter drinking water pipes.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/22/2026 - 17:00

Pages