Individual Economists

Tuesday: Case-Shiller House Prices, PPI, Pending Home Sales

Calculated Risk -

Mortgage Rates Note: Mortgage rates are from MortgageNewsDaily.com and are for top tier scenarios.

Tuesday:
• At 8:30 AM ET, The Producer Price Index for September from the BLS. 

• At 9:00 AM, S&P/Case-Shiller House Price Index for September.

• Also at 9:00 AM, FHFA House Price Index for September. This was originally a GSE only repeat sales, however there is also an expanded index. The Conforming loan limits for next year will also be announced.

• At 10:00 AM, Richmond Fed Survey of Manufacturing Activity for November. This is the last of the regional Fed manufacturing surveys for November.

• Also at 10:00 AM, Pending Home Sales Index for October.

Waste Of The Day: California's Clean Energy Investment Doesn't Pay

Zero Hedge -

Waste Of The Day: California's Clean Energy Investment Doesn't Pay

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: In 2007, California invested $468.4 million of its pension funds into private companies through its Clean Energy and Technology Fund. Today, the money is worth just $138 million, and the state won’t explain why its investment performed so poorly. Several open records requests filed by The Center Square were denied by the California Public Employees Retirement System, citing legal exemptions. 

Key facts: CalPERS’ clean energy investments declined by 71% and lost the state $330.4 million. It’s unclear where the money was spent, except that it was invested “across the spectrum of the global clean energy and technology value chain.” The state’s website lists two equity firms that received nearly $48 million in investments and lost almost $32 million of it.

The Center Square estimated that if California had invested its $468.4 million in an S&P 500 index fund in 2007 instead of the Clean Energy Fund, the money would now be worth $3 billion.

Private equity firms were paid at least $22 million to manage California’s clean energy investments, according to The Center Square. 

CalPERS has been increasing its investments in private companies for years, as opposed to public equity investments in publicly-traded stocks and bonds. The state now plans to invest 17% of its pension fund in private equity, up from 7% in 2021, according to The Center Square.

Critical quote: State Assemblyman Carl DeMaio was among those to respond to the report. He wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice asking for an investigation into how California’s pension savings were spent, and claimed that “If CalPERS were a private entity, people would be going to jail over this outrageous violation of fiduciary responsibility — but California politicians have passed laws allowing CalPERS leadership to get a pass.” 

“CalPERS’ job is to safeguard retirement funds, not gamble them away to score political points,” DeMaio said. “This is financial malpractice and a betrayal of public trust, and the public deserves to know exactly who made these reckless decisions.”  

Background: CalPERS only has 79% of the money it needs to pay pensions it has already promised to retirees. If the money does not materialize before the pensions are due, taxpayers will likely be responsible for the remaining 21%.

In dollar terms, CalPERS is underfunded by $174.6 billion, according to Equable. No other retirement system in the country has more than $85 billion worth of debt. Executive Officer Marcie Frost earned a $530,000 salary last year.

California also manages a separate pension fund for teachers, which is underfunded by $69 billion. Its Chief Investment Officer Christopher Ailman made $561,000 last year, the highest salary on the state payroll. 

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com

Summary: Taxpayers deserve full transparency into even small amounts of government spending, but oversight of one of the largest pools of state funding in the U.S. is especially important.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 17:40

Waste Of The Day: California's Clean Energy Investment Doesn't Pay

Zero Hedge -

Waste Of The Day: California's Clean Energy Investment Doesn't Pay

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: In 2007, California invested $468.4 million of its pension funds into private companies through its Clean Energy and Technology Fund. Today, the money is worth just $138 million, and the state won’t explain why its investment performed so poorly. Several open records requests filed by The Center Square were denied by the California Public Employees Retirement System, citing legal exemptions. 

Key facts: CalPERS’ clean energy investments declined by 71% and lost the state $330.4 million. It’s unclear where the money was spent, except that it was invested “across the spectrum of the global clean energy and technology value chain.” The state’s website lists two equity firms that received nearly $48 million in investments and lost almost $32 million of it.

The Center Square estimated that if California had invested its $468.4 million in an S&P 500 index fund in 2007 instead of the Clean Energy Fund, the money would now be worth $3 billion.

Private equity firms were paid at least $22 million to manage California’s clean energy investments, according to The Center Square. 

CalPERS has been increasing its investments in private companies for years, as opposed to public equity investments in publicly-traded stocks and bonds. The state now plans to invest 17% of its pension fund in private equity, up from 7% in 2021, according to The Center Square.

Critical quote: State Assemblyman Carl DeMaio was among those to respond to the report. He wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice asking for an investigation into how California’s pension savings were spent, and claimed that “If CalPERS were a private entity, people would be going to jail over this outrageous violation of fiduciary responsibility — but California politicians have passed laws allowing CalPERS leadership to get a pass.” 

“CalPERS’ job is to safeguard retirement funds, not gamble them away to score political points,” DeMaio said. “This is financial malpractice and a betrayal of public trust, and the public deserves to know exactly who made these reckless decisions.”  

Background: CalPERS only has 79% of the money it needs to pay pensions it has already promised to retirees. If the money does not materialize before the pensions are due, taxpayers will likely be responsible for the remaining 21%.

In dollar terms, CalPERS is underfunded by $174.6 billion, according to Equable. No other retirement system in the country has more than $85 billion worth of debt. Executive Officer Marcie Frost earned a $530,000 salary last year.

California also manages a separate pension fund for teachers, which is underfunded by $69 billion. Its Chief Investment Officer Christopher Ailman made $561,000 last year, the highest salary on the state payroll. 

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com

Summary: Taxpayers deserve full transparency into even small amounts of government spending, but oversight of one of the largest pools of state funding in the U.S. is especially important.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 17:40

Venezuela Says Trump Has Designated 'Non-Existent' Drug Cartel As Terrorist Org; US Covert Ops Believed 'Imminent'

Zero Hedge -

Venezuela Says Trump Has Designated 'Non-Existent' Drug Cartel As Terrorist Org; US Covert Ops Believed 'Imminent'

With talk of anti-Caracas US covert operations set to begin imminently, President Trump's labelling of the so-called "Cartel de los Soles" as a foreign terrorist organization has become official, and taken effect Monday.

However, Venezuela has hit back, rejecting the label and going so far as to call the group, which translates to "Cartel of the Suns, as "non-existent".

"Venezuela categorically, firmly, and absolutely rejects the new and ridiculous fabrication by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio, which designates the non-existent Cartel de los Soles as a terrorist organization," said Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil on his Telegram account. Caracas is dismissing it as an 'absurd' lie.

via AP

Gil claimed that this revives "an infamous and vile lie to justify an illegitimate and illegal intervention against Venezuela, under the classic U.S. regime-change format. This new maneuver will meet the same fate as previous and recurring aggressions against our country: failure."

Indeed the Trump administration has admitted that regime change targeting President Maduro is an option which is on the table, amid the unprecedented military build-up in the Caribbean. 

Reuters has said that Trump held several meetings with senior advisers last week to explore options for a possible military strike on Venezuela.

But then later the commander-in-chief said, "I can’t tell you what it would be, but I’ve kind of made up my mind" while aboard Air Force One.

President Maduro has lately compared the situation to the US invasion of Iraq, well-known to have been launched on false claims about weapons of mass destruction. He accused Washington crafting "a bizarre narrative" since it cannot accuse Venezuela of hiding chemical or biological weapons.

The US has lately linked Fentanyl trafficking with "chemical weapons" - given the substance is technically classified as dangerous chemical substance. 

Meanwhile, on Monday Fox News has issued the following headlineVenezuela 'covert actions' could begin soon, reports say.

But at this point, nothing about any of this seems so "covert" after all. There's a possibility that power grid disruptions could ensue, or also missile or drone strikes could begin targeting cartel locations by land.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 17:20

Vindman Brothers, Who Helped Impeach Trump In 2020, Are Now Under Investigation

Zero Hedge -

Vindman Brothers, Who Helped Impeach Trump In 2020, Are Now Under Investigation

Authored by Ken Silva via Headline USA,

Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., and his twin brother Alexander are reportedly under investigation for illegally acting as “paid brokers” for U.S. defense firms seeking business in Ukraine.

“Pentagon General Counsel Earl Matthews alleges that Vindman and his twin brother Alex did not have approval from the U.S. government before seeking to act as ‘paid brokers’ for American defense firms pursuing contracts with Ukraine after Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion,” the Washington Post revealed over the weekend, citing a Nov. 19 letter for War Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“The letter does not explicitly allege the Vindmans received money from the Ukrainian government, arguing only that they “did not insulate themselves from the requirements of federal law,” the Post added.

Eugene Vindman confirmed the investigation Friday on Twitter/X. He claimed it’s politically motivated in response to his calls for the White house to release the transcript of a recent call between President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

“Instead of transparency, I was met with retaliation,” Vindman claimed.

However, the Trump administration has signaled that it may investigate since before Trump took office. Last November, billionaire Elon Musk accused Alexander Vindman of treason.

“Vindman is on the payroll of Ukrainian oligarchs and has committed treason against the United States, for which he will pay the appropriate penalty,” Musk said in November on his platform, Twitter/X.

Politico revealed in 2023 that that Alex Vindman is heading a group called Trident Support, which wants to send American military contractors to Ukraine. According to the documents, Vindman, who is of Ukrainian origin, is seeking $12 million for his project—$2 million for “initial operating capability” and another $10 million for “full operating.”

While such a scheme may not be illegal, it demonstrates that the Vindman brothers are war profiteers who benefit from an escalation in Ukraine.

Before President Joe Biden left office, Alexander’s wife vented about the administration not pardoning her husband.

“Whatever happens to my family, know this: No pardons were offered or discussed,” said the wife, Rachel Vindman, in January. “I cannot begin to describe the level of betrayal and hurt I feel.”

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 17:00

Bill Clinton Reveals Which Democrat He Thinks Can Win The White House In 2028

Zero Hedge -

Bill Clinton Reveals Which Democrat He Thinks Can Win The White House In 2028

With the Democratic Party still reeling from its defeat in the 2024 elections, there is no shortage of speculation about who might be the party’s best chance for victory in 2028. Now a familiar power broker has stepped forward: Former President Bill Clinton. The 42nd president has reportedly indicated which contender he believes offers Democrats their strongest shot at reclaiming the White House.

According to a Democratic source speaking to Jonathan Martin of Politico, Clinton has been telling allies that California Governor Gavin Newsom is the one Democrat who looks ready to win the White House. 

The former president, who interviewed Newsom at this fall’s Clinton Global Initiative, has told people how impressed he is by Newsom’s talent, a well-connected Democrat relayed to me recently. Clinton said he thought his dedicated student had what it takes to be elected president. -Politico

Martin called Newsom the clear front-runner. “No Democrat has had a better two years than Gavin Newsom,” he writes. “And because of it, the California governor — a national figure since he was a 36-year-old boy mayor — has claimed a new title: front-runner.”

Polling certain bears that out. The latest Atlas Intel poll had Newsom at 37%, a full 16 points ahead of the nearest opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, whose chances of winning the nomination are slim after her billion-dollar defeat in 2024.

Though he’s made no official declaration, Newsom’s White House ambitions are no secret, and he’s been positioning himself to run for president for years now. He has been using social media and public appearances to position himself as a counterweight to President Trump. In September, he signed multiple laws aimed at restricting Trump’s immigration enforcement, including limits on officers’ access to schools and health facilities, requirements for officers to identify themselves, and bans on wearing face masks while on duty.

Not all Democrats are convinced that Newsom is the future of the party, however. Earlier this month, Sen. John Fetterman called out Newsom’s “shift to the center” as pure political theater, and not representative of his true values.

"Everyone's going to go into the middle," Fetterman said. "But people forgets [sic] that the internet exists and all of the clips and all of the outlandish things that they've said or they've done, that's going to have about 20 or 30 million dollars that can pound you for those things."

Newsom has been trying to have it both ways on cultural issues. In 2023, he vetoed AB957, legislation that would have allowed state courts to weigh a parent’s affirmation of a child’s “gender identity” in custody disputes. His veto was widely seen as a calculated effort to appear more moderate on transgender issues. But three years earlier, he signed SB145, ending automatic sex offender registry requirements for certain adults who commit sexual acts with minors, which was deemed unfair to the LGBTQ community.

Fetterman made it clear he thinks Newsom and other Democrat contenders for the 2028 nomination won’t be able to hide from their radical records.

"They'll pander, scream to the base,” he said. “Then they're going to have to try to just walk it back, or now just pretend that all these things weren't said or done. That's how it works. And that's one thing I refuse to do."

By signaling his support for Gavin Newsom, Clinton is weighing in significantly early on the battle for the 2028 Democratic Party nomination. But whether his endorsement will translate into real momentum is far from certain.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 16:40

Bankruptcy Filings Increase 10.6 Percent

Calculated Risk -

From the U.S. Courts: Bankruptcy Filings Increase 10.6 Percent
Personal and business bankruptcy filings increased 10.6 percent in the twelve-month period ending Sept. 30, 2025, compared with the previous year.

According to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, annual bankruptcy filings totaled 557,376 in the year ending September 2025, compared with 504,112 cases in the previous year.

Business filings rose 5.6 percent, from 22,762 to 24,039 in the year ending Sept. 30, 2025. Non-business bankruptcy filings increased 10.8 percent to 533,337, compared with 481,350 in the previous year.
Still fairly low.

Sedition Before Tradition: American Needs A Break

Zero Hedge -

Sedition Before Tradition: American Needs A Break

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak."

 - Sun Tzu

You understand, don’t you, what the aim was of the “Seditious Six” politicians who made last week’s now-notorious video suggesting that US military personnel should refuse the president’s orders if they deemed them to be “illegal?”

This was the old Lefty game of provoking the authorities to react intemperately so they can be labeled “fascist.”

It’s like the old schoolyard game of the kid who goes I’m touching you. . . I’m touching you. . . until the touched kid explodes. . . so the toucher can then say, look, he’s hitting me!

And they certainly succeeded in pissing-off the president enough for Mr. Trump to suggest they could be hanged for their little prank — though he was probably incorrect about the legal niceties therein.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe in a pensive moment

That members of the out-party in Congress and the Senate must resort to this kind of skylarking japery tells you how desperate they are.

The organizer, Minnesota Senator Elissa Slotkin, is a former CIA officer. Is she in communication regularly with any of her former colleagues at the Agency? And did she coordinate any part of her prank with them? I bet DNI Tulsi Gabbard could find out and let CIA Director John Ratcliffe know so he can fire their ass.

The intel bureaucracy remains a hotbed of resistance to the swamp-draining project underway since 01/20/25. The swamp creatures like their swamp fecund and fetid as it has been, with the rich revenue stream it is used to feeding on, and Mr. Trump has done much to change that. Alas, the CIA remains the most implacably opaque major operation in government. It insists that its activities require secrecy, and the awful downside is that the Agency has run without real oversight since its inception after the Second World War. Gawd knows how many John Brennan clones are still lodged over in the Langley, VA, HQ.

Of all the celebrated new appointees in the agencies, Mr. Ratcliffe has been the least visible.

He went into the job with very promising credentials, having served as DNI in the last months of Trump 1.0. He must know where a whole lot of bodies are buried (some of them actual bodies) but the public has heard squat from him all year.

Surely Mr. Ratcliffe must also know by now who in the CIA was scheming along with John Brennan to perpetrate RussiaGate, and who was on the leak-line to the news media. He must know how Adam Schiff coordinated impeachment No. 1 with CIA agent Eric Ciaramella, then Intel Inspector-General Michael Atkinson, Col. Alexander Vindman, and Lawfare ninjas Norm Eisen, Mary McCord, and Andrew Weissmann. He must know who in “Joe Biden’s” White House was coordinating the 92 felony prosecutions against Mr. Trump with DA Alvin Bragg and AG Letitia James in New York and DA Fani Willis Fulton County, GA.

He must know how BLM and Antifa were allowed to burn down Minneapolis in 2020, and riot in scores of other places. He must know what agencies and what persons in them coordinated the Covid-19 operation and which foreign entities were involved. (Was it the US military, as many suspect, and how, if at all, did freelance players such as Bill Gates and George Soros’s myriad organizations fit in the picture?) And how is the machinery of the Democratic Party entangled in the workings of US intel? (Prime suspects: Sen. Mark Warner and his staff.)

You can say much the same thing about FBI Director Kash Patel and his Deputy Director, Dan Bongino. They were apparently horrified by the rot they encountered there on taking office earlier this year. What is so difficult about firing people, even a whole lot of people? And why wouldn’t you say you are doing it? Likewise, Pam Bondi, at her resistance-infected DOJ?

My bags are packed, I’m ready to go. . . .

Mr. Trump had a rough week working through his “divorce” from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Both of them behaved rather badly; he the usual name-calling; she playing up to the cluster-B ignoramouses on The View, and then resigning from Congress in a snit (walking away from Daddy). The Epstein Files legislation she was twanging on the president about got passed in a flash and signed, but it contained rules that can easily be used to keep key documents suppressed. The suspicion will linger that it’s all about protecting Israel, and thereby stir-up continued animus against the Jews.

Mr. Trump had a ju-jitsu session in the Oval Office with NYC mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, the avowed communist jihadi — putting the young insta-celebrity pol off-balance by acting all nice and accommodating. “I want him to do a great job. . . “ “We agree on a lot more than I would have thought. . .” “It was a great honor [to meet him]. . . .” the president declared on his Truth Social account. Stand by on what any of that means.

And now, as we plunge into Thanksgiving week, comes the Ukraine peace proposal. Everybody knows it is a recognition that Russia is grinding toward victory in any case, and carrying-on further slaughter and destruction on-the-ground is insane. But then, Ukraine’s ruler, Mr. Zelenskyy, is insane (probably high on drugs, too), and the EU leadership is insane seeking to start a war with Russia that it has zero ability to prosecute — and nevermind whatever the obdurate defenders of the UK’s sclerotic empire think they’re doing to keep the Ukraine War going. But, bottom line: there’s a good possibility that the war will be over before Christmas, and the world will be better off for that.

With all the above going on, America needs a break.

Enjoy a turkey, if you can afford to buy one, and count your blessings — for we are still a blessed people in a blessed land, and we should all show a little gratitude for the privilege of just being here on a planet so superbly suited to our needs.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 16:20

Ignored Red Repo Signals = More Obvious Golden Tailwinds

Zero Hedge -

Ignored Red Repo Signals = More Obvious Golden Tailwinds

Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via VonGreyerz.gold,

Markets are many things, but in simplest terms, they are a paradox.

From the Complex…

By this, I mean they are incredibly and intentionally complex, which makes them a kind of exclusive environment managed, allegedly at least, by cadres of well-versed experts (?) trained in, and comfortable with, complexity.

The extraordinarily complex mechanics, for example, of layered derivative trades or currency and rate swaps, the hedging of futures contracts on the New York COMEX or the maze-like liquidity and collateral movements in repo and reverse repo facilities are indeed settings of just mind-numbing complexity.

…To the Simple

But herein lies the paradox, for despite such deliberate and gated complexity, these markets—from the most basic ETF purchase to the most confusing asset-backed securities—operate upon one extraordinarily simple force, namely: Liquidity.

Or stated even more simply, everything hinges upon one question: Is there enough cash to keep these systems afloat?

And even if you have never had the time to study every market correction from the first Persian trading huts or Roman currency collapses to the great crashes of 18th-century France, 19th-century America or even the more recent ghosts of 2008, the key takeaway is equally simple: Every market crisis is at heart a liquidity crisis.

In short: Liquidity matters.

Engines Need Oil, Markets Need Cash

Liquidity—or cash flows—are like the oil levels in a basic engine, and anyone who has ever owned or driven a car knows it’s never a good thing when the dashboard signals a glowing, red low-oil warning.

Unless more oil is added soon, the warning phase progresses quickly to a stalled car phase.

What many investors may not realize is that these otherwise immortal risk asset markets are riddled with “low-oil warnings” which few are discussing, but which gold is recognizing.

Warning Lights in the Repo Market: Boring but Important

Take the current “Standard Repo Facility”—a topic so boring and complex that it’s easy to both ignore and misunderstand.

In simplest terms, the repo market is where big banks (“primary dealers”) go to get overnight loans (i.e., “liquidity”) from each other to keep their bank engines humming along.

It is here where they execute what are called “repurchase agreements”—i.e. where Party A asks for cash from Party B by offering Party B overnight collateral in the form of “safe” USTs.

The next day, Party A pays back the loan and buys back its collateral at a slightly higher price/rate than the Fed Funds Rate set by the FED (the FFR), otherwise known as the “repo rate.”

Such repo transactions keep the wheels of banking, money market yields and even hedge fund leverage tools comfortably “greased” and chugging along smoothly so long as the FFR and repo rates are aligned, affordable and hence: “Liquid.”

But when the repo rates begin to climb noticeably above the allegedly calming Fed Funds Rate, this is a dashboard warning that trust among the counterparties’ collateral is falling and that future liquidity is stalling.

Or, and stated more simply: Rising repo rates signal tightening liquidity, which for bankers is like the appearance of a rising shark fin for a weekend ocean swimmer.

Nervous “Experts” …

Recently, a bunch of market “swimmers” (i.e. primary dealers and their representatives) met at the home of the New York Fed in a very nervous mood and behind closed doors.

Why?

Because they are seeing shark fins circling and low-oil signals flashing from their dashboards.

The repo rates are decoupling from (rising above) the FFR, which means the cost of borrowing between insiders is getting painful.

This also means liquidity is drying and the engine of US and global markets (as literally everything and every asset is impacted by expensive liquidity) is slowly beginning to smoke, rattle and choke.

If repo rates go from rising to dangerously spiking, as they did in September of 2019, the engine stalls altogether, and the repair bill (i.e., Fed-injected liquidity) becomes extraordinary.

Prepare the Firehose

In other words, this means rapidly expanding liquidity measures from the Fed’s “emergency funding” source (aka: “reverse repo facility”), which is nothing more than QE (money printing) by another false title.

What’s equally creepy, and equally off the radar of most investors and coopted financial media sources, is that even before these nervous bankers met in New York, the Fed had already injected $125B of short-term funding operations to keep these repo rates “controlled,” but with little success.

Why?

Because after 3 years of Powell desperately trying to reduce the Fed’s embarrassingly fat balance sheet via QT while its commercial banking nieces and nephews on Wall Street were simultaneously reducing their own balance sheets to meet regulatory measures, liquidity was already quietly drying up even before the engine warning lights finally went red in the repo market.

The Past is Prologue

So, what does this mean going forward for markets in general or gold in particular?

By now, it should be no surprise to any that the Fed, which is a private bank owned by other commercial banks as part of a legalized cabal that is little more than a dishonest, unelected and insider trade, will do “whatever it takes” to keep themselves alive and “liquid.”

This means the Fed will inevitably, and once again, face an inflection point in which more bazooka/firehose money will flow into this “system.”

In short, “liquidity,” ultimately created from thin air, will save a now entrenched and parasitic system at the expense of the inherent purchasing power of the USD in general and the paper wealth of its citizens in particular, in this hidden backdrop of serfs and lords otherwise masquerading as free market capitalism.

The Future is Simple

As for gold, it may not be as human as our central bankers and primary dealers, but it is a heck of a lot more honest.

Its price moves today (which are increasingly less inhibited by the tapped-out COMEX and LBMA banks who lack the free-float to legally price fix precious metals) are telling us what our leadership and banks cannot, namely: Paper money is being debased at alarming levels to keep liquidity flowing into a debt-draped and broken system.

Throughout history, gold has always been nature’s honest monetary reaction to fiat currencies’ “human, all too human” debasement sins.

The market knows that more QE and QE-like liquidity is coming, which means a USD, which has already lost more than 99% of its purchasing power when measured against gold, will continue to lose its “punch” in the same way a glass of wine loses its flavor when buckets of added water dilute its vintage.

Gold, whose bull market is just beginning in such a backdrop, will continue its secular and historical rise, because fiat currencies will continue their secular, political, human and oh-so historically familiar fall.

In short, and despite pages, centuries and layers of complexity, the case for gold is ultimately as simple as that.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 15:45

The Selective Outrage Of Judge James Boasberg

Zero Hedge -

The Selective Outrage Of Judge James Boasberg

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in The Hill on two controversies involving Chief Judge James Boasberg this week in Washington, D.C. Both involve claims that branches undermined or intruded on the authority of another branch. However, these separation-of-powers conflicts produced strikingly different responses from Judge Boasberg. It seemed that the court’s concerns depended greatly on whose ox was being gored in a tripartite contest.

Here is the column:

For months, District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg has been very much in the news.

This spring, he issued a 46-page decision finding that the Trump administration may be in contempt of court for violating his order to return flights of deportees being sent to El Salvador.

In that ruling, Boasberg insisted that it was essential for him to know the facts on whether “officials of a coordinate branch” had undermined judicial integrity.

After all, nothing short of the separation of powers was at stake. This week, Boasberg announced that he was moving forward without further delay to ferret out who was responsible for the alleged violation.

That message, however, has now been undermined by another Judge James Boasberg, who is in the news this week as part of the controversy over the Justice Department’s acquisition of telephone records of leading Republican members of Congress.

Boasberg had imposed a gag order on telephone companies to prevent them from informing Congress that the executive branch was snooping on who had been in contact with them.

These two James Boasbergs seem as different as the two Jeffrey Epsteins referenced this week by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) — one a presumably respectable medical doctor, the other a deceased sex offender. However, to use Crockett’s formulation, it was indeed “that James Boasberg” in both cases.

The growing scandal over the seizure of telephone records of Republican members of Congress by former Special Counsel Jack Smith has continued to grow with new disclosures. This includes revelations that Smith obtained of records for former Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Judiciary Chair James Jordan (R-Ohio).

It is difficult to overstate the gravity of this intrusion into the legislative branch. These records can reveal whom members spoke with and when such calls took place. It can reveal communications with journalists, whistleblowers, and others speaking confidentially with representatives. It can also reveal embarrassing information about members from their personal numbers.

The gathering of such information without an obvious good cause can potentially deter members in confronting the Justice Department, which is notorious for leaking information against critics and targets.

Ironically, such leaks are at the heart of investigations led by the very targets of these orders, including Jordan and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). It also included McCarthy, the person second in line for the presidency, who could ultimately assume authority over the Justice Department under the Constitution.

The demand under Operation Arctic Frost was unprecedented in scope, with dozens of subpoenas going to such carriers as Verizon and AT&T. Nineteen such orders for these telephone records were accompanied by judicial nondisclosure orders for subpoenas signed by Boasberg. While commonly issued, these nondisclosures have long been controversial. It did not seem to matter that the Justice Department was targeting the very members exercising oversight over investigations into its own previous abusive use of investigatory powers.

It is still not clear for what crimes these members were being investigated. The order on Jordan in 2022 covered two prior years.

Not surprisingly, some Democratic apologists such as Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) immediately dismissed the gravity of such demands by the Justice Department. However, other Democrats have expressed alarm over the intrusion into such communications.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) stated, “On the surface of it, it would strike me as a significant invasion of the right of Senators to conduct their jobs, so this is something that needs urgent follow-up.”

Indeed, the move by Judge Boasberg shattered the very rules of engagement between the coequal and “coordinate branches” that the same Boasberg has repeatedly raised in his investigation of the Trump administration.

Boasberg signed these orders despite a federal law designed to prevent precisely this type of secret investigation of Congress. Federal law requires that “no law, rule, or regulation may be used to prevent a service provider from notifying a Senate office that data or records have been sought through legal process.”

Just in case there was any doubt, the law further states that “any provider for a Senate office … shall not be barred, through operation of any court order or any statutory provision, from notifying the Senate office of any legal process seeking disclosure.”

However, Boasberg signed orders that prevented the phone providers from informing members of Congress — members who were actively investigating abuses by the Justice Department — that they were now being subjected to precisely such investigations.

There is little question how Congress would have responded. You are seeing it unfold this week. However, they were never told even as they objected to open-ended and abusive investigations of thousands of citizens after the January 6 Capitol riot.

Boasberg was fully aware of those abuses, stretching back to the debunked Russiagate investigation, in which false information had been given to courts to carry out surveillance of Trump associates.

Indeed, it was Boasberg again who ordered the resulting investigation into the false information given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as part of the Russiagate investigation. He was criticized for appointing an attorney to assist him, David Kris, whom the Washington Post described as “highly controversial” given his past denials of any wrongdoing by the Justice Department.

The wrongdoing was very real. An attorney at the FBI ultimately pleaded guilty to lying to the court in an effort to justify surveillance. Others were fired after Inspector General investigations exposed their abuse of investigatory powers.

Despite that history, Boasberg gagged phone carriers from informing Congress of the seizure of the telephone records of key Republican members overseeing investigations of the Justice Department.

do not support the calls for Boasberg to be impeached, but his role in this scandal cannot be ignored. He not only enabled this abusive effort but also expressly told these companies not to reveal the demands to anyone.

None of this means that there are no legitimate questions raised about the failure to comply with his orders on the El Salvador flight. But Boasberg’s separation-of-powers concerns seem strangely selective, depending on whose powers are being usurped.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” He has also represented the House of Representatives in court.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 15:05

Analyst Warns Of 2032 Demographic "Crossover Point" Poised To Reshape Housing Market

Zero Hedge -

Analyst Warns Of 2032 Demographic "Crossover Point" Poised To Reshape Housing Market

Nick Gerli, CEO and founder of the real estate analytics firm Reventure Consulting, has posted another informative housing-market update on X. This time, he outlines how a major demographic turning point will reshape housing demand and even the size of homes people will want.

By 2032, Gerli pointed out that deaths will exceed births in the U.S., and this crossover point - four decades in the making - will have significant implications on the housing market, including

  1. structurally lower homebuyer demand, as declining births and family formation lowers the need and urgency for young people to buy houses

  2. more inventory, as incrementally more deaths and the aging out of the Baby Boomer generation increases listings (Freddie Mac estimates 9 million homes by 2035).

"This will likely have a disinflationary and/or deflationary impact on home prices over the long-term," Gerli said. 

He noted this trend will ultimately lead to "fewer children will invariably lead to lower homebuyer demand, and more renter demand."

He said this will ultimately lead to "an increase in the demand for other types of houses to buy — such as smaller ranch-style homes and starter homes," adding that "McMansion-style neighborhoods probably won't fare as well based on current demographic trends."

Gerli hedged his outlook with this...

He did not mention the open border invasion of tens of millions of migrants and their impact on the housing market. 

Also, we pointed out the other week that multigenerational living has surged to a record high as families increasingly combine households to cope with elevated inflation after the Biden-Harris regime years, effectively pooling more resources under one roof (read the report).

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 14:45

Market Bubbles: A Rational Guide To An Irrational Market

Zero Hedge -

Market Bubbles: A Rational Guide To An Irrational Market

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

We’re hearing it everywhere: AI is in a bubble. The surge in capital, the parabolic stock charts, and the bold claims from CEOs all have a familiar rhythm. Nvidia’s valuation has soared, along with AI-related startups raising billions with little to no revenue. Investment in data centers, chips, and infrastructure is happening at a scale not seen since the internet boom of the 1990s, which immediately reminds investors of what happened next. The question isn’t whether AI is important; it’s whether the price of that importance is being inflated beyond reason. That is the nature of market bubbles.

Voices in the market are split. Some, like Jared Bernstein, former Biden CEA chairman, said:

“We point out that the share of the economy devoted to AI investment is nearly a third greater than the share of the economy devoted to internet related investments back during the dotcom bubble. So, we think there are enough analogies there to make the call.”

Others argue this is not a bubble, at least not yet.

“Macro bubbles” – asset price distortions with large economy-wide consequences – have generally involved not just overvalued asset prices but also dramatic impacts on spending and capital flows that have been both clues that a bubble is under way and forces that serve to undermine it.

The 1990s was a classic example. Alongside soaring equity prices, investment spending boomed, leverage rose, capital poured in, and profitability and balance sheet strength declined, while credit spreads and equity volatility moved higher. The macro and market imbalances that we saw then, particularly from 1998 onward, are not generally visible yet.” – Goldman Sachs

This split is normal. Every major innovation cycle creates a divide between skeptics who see overvaluation and optimists who see a new era of growth. The challenge for investors is not to take sides, but to understand what bubbles do, why they’re so hard to identify in real time, and how to benefit from them without being destroyed by them.

Yes, we may be in the second market bubble of this century. Alternatively, the market may be pricing in a shift as fundamental as the transition to either electricity or the internet. Either way, investors must think clearly, act deliberately, and avoid the kind of blind speculation that turned past booms into bloodbaths.

Market Bubbles Aren’t All Bad

Market bubbles carry a negative reputation because we witness the devastation in the aftermath of their collapse.

However, from a broader perspective, market bubbles also carry active value. During the inflation of a bubble, you see excessive optimism, capital flowing rapidly, and valuations detached from fundamentals. This is undoubtedly the case with respect to Artificial Intelligence as we currently see it.

Still, this environment often gives rise to genuine innovation. As Jeremy Grantham once argued:

“Bubbles are wonderful at generating new technologies.”

His point echoes through history.

Take the British railway mania of the 1840s. Investors poured capital into rail lines, many of which failed. However, in the end, the result was a vast transport network that transformed the economy. Or consider the late‑1990s dot‑com boom. The always wrong Paul Krugman once said:

“The Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine.”

That quote was made during the height of the dot-com bubble, a period that many now consider a textbook example of financial excess. However, it also laid the foundation for the modern digital economy. The infrastructure that powers Amazon, Google, and Microsoft was created because billions of dollars flowed into companies, many of which failed. Yet their collective capital expenditures left behind fiber optic cables, server farms, and developer tools that enabled the next wave.

When capital floods into a technological frontier, many bets fail. But some win. That outcome sets a foundation for future growth.

The AI boom is following a similar path. Companies are spending heavily on GPUs, data centers, and custom models. Most of them will not survive, but their investments are accelerating real capabilities. AI is being integrated into products, streamlining operations, and driving the creation of new business models. Nvidia, Microsoft, and Meta are racing to build the next layer of compute infrastructure. This isn’t abstract theory; it’s already showing up in earnings reports and productivity metrics.

Understanding that a bubble can be beneficial involves recognizing two key points.

  1. You don’t dismiss the boom simply because it is speculative. You acknowledge that capital is being deployed and that it will have future positive implications.

  2. You accept that risk is inherent during such periods. From one angle, the bubble looks reckless. However, from another, it seems like the stage where breakthroughs become possible. By appreciating the positive aspect, you gain clarity about what is happening and why it matters for investors.

You should treat a bubble not as a spectacle to be ignored, but as a phenomenon to be studied. Market bubbles are periods where capital loses discipline, but that loss of discipline funds the future. The value created during inflation often matters more than the value destroyed during the burst.

That’s why you don’t ignore market bubbles; you study them, respect them, and use them to your advantage.

Why Bubbles Are Only Obvious in Hindsight

Currently, many predict that the AI market bubble is set to burst. Every time the technology sector wobbles, the media is quick to push headlines of the end of the AI boom. However, each time, those warnings turned false and impaired investors who paid attention to them.

This doesn’t mean the warnings aren’t valid. Yes, current valuations are very high in many cases, and many of the companies either in the market today, or coming to it, likely won’t succeed. The problem is always the “timing” of the call.

For most investors, bubbles are never evident until they pop.

While rising prices may seem like evidence of irrational behavior, this may not be the case today or in the future if the future turns out as expected. Of course, there are a lot of “ifs” in that forecast. A good example was from Research Affiliates discussing Tesla (TSLA) in 2018:

“Tesla’s current price is arguably fair if most cars are powered by electricity in 10 years, if most of these cars are made by Tesla, if Tesla can make those cars with sufficient margin and quality control and can service the cars properly, and if Tesla can raise additional capital sufficient to cover a $3 billion annual cash drain and another billion to service its debt.”

As noted, there were many “ifs” in that statement. However, as we approach that 10th anniversary, TSLA is still operating and growing, but doesn’t sell MOST of the cars in America. However, for investors who bailed on Tesla in 2018, assuming it was a bubble, they have paid a price for that decision.

As noted, while the RA’s analysis was sound, that is what makes market bubbles so hard to identify. Valuations can exceed what you consider reasonable and remain elevated for longer than you anticipate.

In real-time, a bubble appears to be a trend backed by solid fundamentals. The early phases attract smart capital. The next phase brings in copycats and momentum traders. But by the time people start warning about a bubble, the narrative is fully established. Calling a market bubble too early can be just as costly as calling it too late. As Howard Marks wrote:

“Being too far ahead of your time is indistinguishable from being wrong.”

Even seasoned investors misjudge it. During the late 1990s, Warren Buffett was widely mocked for sitting out of the tech rally. His response was simple: he didn’t understand how to value the companies. He was right, eventually, but missed a massive run. Others, like Julian Robertson, tried to short the bubble and suffered enormous losses before it burst.

The AI surge fits the classic pattern. A legitimate breakthrough in computing power and algorithmic capability has led to rapid adoption. OpenAI’s ChatGPT reached 100 million users faster than any consumer product in history. Nvidia’s revenue tripled in a year. These facts are real. What’s unknown is how much of this growth is sustainable.

You only know it was a bubble when prices collapse and companies disappear. But by then, it’s too late to protect your capital. The Spyglass article put it well:

“You never really know it’s a bubble until the knife is already halfway through your chest.”

That’s why humility is essential.

If you think it might be a bubble, you’re already ahead of most investors. But timing it? That’s luck, not skill.

How to Participate During the Inflation and Avoid the Deflation

Participating in a bubble doesn’t mean going all in. It means allocating resources wisely, managing risk effectively, and knowing when to step back. The goal is not to call the top. It’s to avoid the worst of the collapse while capturing some of the upside..

Recognize the structural backdrop.

  • AI is a genuine transformative technology. The AI surge entails substantial capital expenditures in data centers, chips, computing capacity, and cloud services. That means there is real substance beneath the hype.

  • Nonetheless, the valuations and the speed of investment suggest that the market is pricing in extremely optimistic scenarios, characterized by high growth, low risk, and rapid monetization.

How you should position your investment. To participate while managing risk, you might follow these steps:

  • Focus on companies with strong fundamentals and realistic business models. Since bubbles bring many “spray and pray” investments, your edge lies in filtering.

  • Allocate only a portion of your portfolio to the “bubble zone,” and recognize the high-risk/high-reward nature.Do not rely on it for core returns.

  • Use this bubble to invest in infrastructure and enabling technologies rather than pure “moonshot” names. The infrastructure often survives the bust. For example, in the dot‑com era, the winners included those who built the backbone rather than the most hyped storefronts.

  • Consider time‑horizon and liquidity. If you invest in bubble‐type assets, you must be prepared for high volatility and potential loss of capital if the bubble deflates.

How to avoid the consequences of the eventual deflation. Since bubbles eventually correct, you must adopt safeguards:

  • Set exit rules. Define ahead of time the conditions under which you’ll reduce exposure (e.g., valuation multiple, margin of safety erosion, fundamental deterioration).

  • Diversify across themes. Do not place all your bets in one bubble. If the bubble bursts, you want other anchors in your portfolio.

  • Monitor fundamentals. The bubble phase often disconnects from fundamentals. When you observe that the disconnect is widening, the risk rises.

  • Avoid leverage. Borrowing into a bubble makes the downside much steeper. Many historic bubble collapses were amplified by excessive debt.

  • Keep long‑term winners in view. Some companies will emerge stronger post‑bubble. Try to identify them now, hold them, but be wary of paying hype‑driven valuations.

Start with this: focus on quality. In every bubble, a few companies emerge stronger. Amazon fell by over 90% during the dot-com crash but survived because it had a real business model and strong execution. The rest disappeared. Today, investors should look for companies with free cash flow, pricing power, and tangible applications of AI. Nvidia might be expensive, but it’s selling the picks and shovels in this gold rush. That’s a more sustainable model than a startup burning cash to fine-tune a chatbot.

Even using something as simple as a 40-week moving average can help you navigate both the inflation and deflation of a bubble.

No, you won’t get in at the bottom, or out at the top. But remember what is most important: participation is optional, but survival is mandatory.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 13:45

Solid 2 Year Treasury Auction Prices At Lowest Yield In Over 3 Years

Zero Hedge -

Solid 2 Year Treasury Auction Prices At Lowest Yield In Over 3 Years

The first coupon auction of the holiday-shortened week just priced and it was a snoozer, which came in right as expected. 

The sale of $69BN in 2 year notes, priced at a high yield of 3.489%, down from 3.504% in October and the lowest since August 2022; it also priced on the screws with the 3.489% when issued.

The bid to cover was 2.684, up from 2.590 and the highest since August.

The internals were also solid, with Indirects awarded 58.1%, the highest since June, and above the six auction average of 57.9%. And with Directs taking 30.7%, in line with the recent average of 30.9%, Dealers were left with 11.2%, also right on top of the recent average of 11.1%. 

Overall, this was a solid auction, which came in line with expectations on most metrics, which explains why the market reaction was non-existent with yields trading near session lows after news of the auction priced, and why traders took one look at the results and went on their merry way.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 13:35

Dallas Fed Manufacturing Survey Sees Production Soaring As Tariff Terrors Fade

Zero Hedge -

Dallas Fed Manufacturing Survey Sees Production Soaring As Tariff Terrors Fade

"Signs indicate business activity is improving," according to one respondent from The Dallas Fed's Manufacturing survey in November. However, the comments and the mixed data could leave readers confused...

Texas factory activity expanded at a markedly faster pace in November, according to business executives responding to the Texas Manufacturing Outlook Survey.

The production index, a key measure of state manufacturing conditions, rose 15 points to 20.5, indicating a notable pickup in output growth. Expectations for manufacturing activity six months from now remained positive. The future production index increased notably, to 33.7 from 21.0, while the future general business activity index edged up to 11.

Other measures of manufacturing activity also pointed to faster growth this month. The new orders index increased to 4.8 from -1.7. The capacity utilization index jumped 21 points to 19.4, and the shipments index increased nine points to 15.1. Price pressures remained flat as tariff talk in the survey's respondents reduced significantly.

However, perceptions of broader business conditions worsened this month. The general business activity index fell further into negative territory to -10.4 from -5.0. Outlooks also worsened, with the company outlook index falling six points to -6.3 in November. 

In pictures, it looks like this: Texas manufacturers are pumping production higher (and expect more in the future) but their headline sentiment above business activity is tumbling to its lowest since June...

Choose your own adventure...

The respondents comments continue the dissonance. Bear in mind that data were collected Nov. 10–18 (right as the shutdown ended), and 70 of the 115 Texas manufacturers surveyed submitted responses.

Bad news (but hopeful)

  • We don't know if it's the shutdown or just that demand has dropped, but our orders have dropped in half.

  • We continue to see soft incoming orders, with poor general activity in our industry. It's as if all the chaos in Washington is creating a lot of wait-and-see attitude among our customers' customers. We are very hopeful that things will improve in the next 6 months.

  • Business is as delicate today as it was under the previous administration. Small, established businesses have nowhere to turn for help when suddenly paying new tariffs.

  • We’re currently facing challenging business conditions on several fronts...

  • There is a continued weakness in the retail consumer market. 

Good News:

  • November was our most profitable month this year. We are seeing increased business activity and many new projects.

  • Looking forward to a tax rebate for the month of government shutdown.

  • It seems even the modest decrease in interest rates has assuaged fears of inflation and provided comfort that we are indeed headed in the right direction. Tariff revenue has not dramatically impacted opportunity to grow in our industry, and it has seemingly improved our overall economy. We remain hopeful of continued progress through 2026.

  • Signs indicate business activity is improving, i.e. lowering of interest rate, improving economy and consumer confidence for major purchases.

And finally, we have a simple question that raises our own doubts about how 'real' these responses are: 

A 'Beverage and Tobacco product manufacturer' is worried about Fed Independence and is unsure about uncertainty?

Concerns about the economy, the independence of the Fed and tariffs continue to cause uncertainty. We are not certain that [uncertainty] has actually increased as much as it has remained at an uncomfortably elevated level.

Perhaps they'd be better off just worrying about 'beverages'?

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 13:15

Judge Dismisses Cases Against Comey, Letitia James

Zero Hedge -

Judge Dismisses Cases Against Comey, Letitia James

A federal judge has dismissed cases against former FBI Director James Comey and NY Attorney General Letitia James, after finding that US Attorney Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed to the role, and that AG Pam Bondi cannot ratify her actions.

Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton appointee, dismissed the case without prejudice over Halligan's appointment, meaning the DOJ can try again when they get their act together. 

"I conclude that all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan's defective appointment, including securing and signing Ms. James's indictment, constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside," the judge wrote in an order in James' case.

While the White House says they'll appeal, the statute of limitations has already passed for Comey's case - which Judge Currie noted in a footnote that the DOJ could not bring a similar indictment against him, as "there is no legitimate peg on which to hang such a judicial limitations-tolling result" with a voided indictment. 

As the Epoch Times notes, the Justice Department had argued that even if Halligan’s appointment were invalid, the indictments should stand because they were approved by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Currie rejected that premise and described Bondi’s attempts to ratify Halligan’s actions as “ineffective.”

Currie’s decision focused on 28 U.S. Code Section 546, which allows interim attorneys to serve for 120 days, further providing that district courts “may appoint” a U.S. attorney to fill vacancies at the end of that timeframe if the Senate has not already appointed a replacement.

During a hearing on Nov. 13, the Justice Department argued that the law did not confine the attorney general to an initial 120 days for appointing prosecutors. Rather, it said, the law allowed for successive appointments of attorneys who would each have 120-day limits on their time in office.

Comey pleaded not guilty to charges that he lied to Congress during a 2020 hearing and obstructed their proceeding.

As Axios notes;

  • The indictment against Comey came as the statute of limitations was set to expire. Trump ousted U.S. attorney Erik Siebert, who had reportedly believed there was not enough evidence to bring a case against Comey or New York Attorney General Letitia James.
  • Trump replaced Siebert with Lindsey Halligan, who had previously worked for him. She is now serving as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia despite having no prosecutorial experience.
  • Judge William Fitzpatrick warned in a November opinion that "a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps" could have undermined the proceedings, leaving the indictment in jeopardy.

Developing...

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 12:48

'Great Deal For US Farmers': Trump Says Relationship With China 'Extremely Strong', Will Visit Xi In April

Zero Hedge -

'Great Deal For US Farmers': Trump Says Relationship With China 'Extremely Strong', Will Visit Xi In April

Update (1240ET): President Trump has just posted on his Truth Social feed, breaking down his 'debrief' on the call with China's Xi: (emphasis ours)

I just had a very good telephone call with President Xi, of China.

We discussed many topics including Ukraine/Russia, Fentanyl, Soybeans and other Farm Products, etc.

We have done a good, and very important, deal for our Great Farmers — and it will only get better.

Our relationship with China is extremely strong!

This call was a follow up to our highly successful meeting in South Korea, three weeks ago.

Since then, there has been significant progress on both sides in keeping our agreements current and accurate. Now we can set our sights on the big picture.

To that end. President Xi invited me to visit Beijing in April, which I accepted, and I reciprocated where he will be my guest for a State Visit in the U.S. later in the year.

We agreed that it is important that we communicate often, which I look forward to doing. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

We do note that there was no mention of Taiwan in President Trump's breakdown.

*  *  *

At a moment US-ally Japan is in a rare full-blown diplomatic and (increasingly) military showdown with China, the country's President Xi Jinping held a phone call with US President Donald Trump on Monday, both sides have confirmed. The last time the two leaders met and talked in detail, which was on the sidelines Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in late October, they had declared a "tariff truce" in an effort to de-escalate trade tensions.

But the Taiwan issue is once again taking center stage, at a moment Tokyo has quite provocatively decided to place medium-range missiles on an island which lies less than 70 miles east of Taiwan. The White House has so far into its term been relatively quite on the issue.

Trump, rather than stoking tensions further, appears to be striking a conciliatory position

Chinese leader Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump discussed bilateral cooperation and the issue of Taiwan in a phone call on Monday, Beijing's state news agency Xinhua reported.

Xi told Trump that the two countries should "maintain momentum in ties" after the two leaders met last month in South Korea, and "stressed that Taiwan's return to China is an important part of the post-war international order", according to Xinhua.

And so it appears Trump is content to maintain Washington's longstanding doctrine of 'strategic ambiguity' regarding the Taiwan crisis. Trump's Taiwan policy has been a big question mark, but arguably this is precisely what strategic ambiguity seeks to convey. 

Via Reuters

Still, MIT has featured some recent analysis, also citing the non-interventionist Quincy Institute, suggesting Trump could be ready to abandon the US policy which has been in place for decades:

Despite uncertainty in the Trump administration’s China policy, dangerous trends across the Taiwan Strait continue to raise the chance of crisis. Tensions are deepening in the overall U.S.–China relationship, and the credibility of Washington’s One China policy and Beijing’s support for peaceful unification is mutually eroding. While China continues to expand its military capabilities and intimidate Taiwan, the U.S. is keen to mobilize its regional alliances to enhance warfighting against China.

These developments raise the question of whether the longstanding U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity, which contains the possibility of U.S. military intervention to defend Taiwan against China, remains the best approach to preventing war over the island.

Quincy Institute senior research fellow Michael Swaine recently published two policy briefs arguing that Taiwan is not a sufficiently vital interest for the United States to go to war over. He contends that Washington should begin transitioning to a policy beyond strategic ambiguity — a new approach that seeks to enhance support for Taiwan but rules out the possibility of joining a war over the island.

And Nikkei has recently published a report in a similar vein, suggesting Trump could be listening more to those voices which urge a more hands-off approach in China's backyard, and that the US would be unwilling ultimately to commit military forces to aid in the self-ruled island's immediate defense:

Trump's rhetorical vagueness on Taiwan, compounded by the continued absence of any authoritative policy documents on the topic, has prompted observers to look elsewhere for possible reflections of the administration's views.

One such report that has gone viral on both sides of the Taiwan Strait came from researchers at my former home organization, RAND. Their report from last month, "Stabilizing the U.S.-China Rivalry," contained the following sentence within its recommendations: "Stabilizing the Taiwan issue should focus on creating the maximum incentive for Beijing to pursue gradual approaches toward unification [my emphasis added]." Although it seems like the authors are advocating Chinese unification with Taiwan, this is hardly the case. Rather, they were highlighting the importance of slowing Beijing's unification efforts down and basically encouraging Washington to trick China into thinking this is possible, even if the U.S. would still severely complicate forceful unification, to buy more time for the uneasy status quo to persist.

Despite Trump not having raised the issue much with Xi, there have still been a couple of Trump-approved weapons sales to Taipei of late. For now though it looks like Trump is playing nice with Xi on the issue, given the sensitivity of the subject could sour positive momentum in trade relations.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 12:45

"Never Had These Problems Before": Violent Illegal Street Takeover Rocks Queens Neighborhood, Terrifying Residents

Zero Hedge -

"Never Had These Problems Before": Violent Illegal Street Takeover Rocks Queens Neighborhood, Terrifying Residents

A late-night illegal street takeover in Queens, New York, over the weekend turned extremely violent when a private security guard attempting to intervene was assaulted, and his vehicle was set on fire. The incident highlights the growing public-safety crisis in Democrat-run cities and may only suggest what's to come under Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. 

City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino, who represents the neighborhood of Malba, a small, wealthy residential area in northeastern Queens, was absolutely disgusted by the lawlessness...

On X, Paladino raged: 

Last night in Malba, a large group of individuals from outside my district conducted an illegal 'takeover' of a quiet residential street at approximately 12:30am. This is not the first time it's happened.

A private security guard attempted to calm the situation -- he was assaulted by the mob and his vehicle was set on fire. He suffered significant injuries. A local resident was also assaulted.

Response to this incident was less than ideal. Residents reporting the incident to 911 were told that 'quality of life team' and 311 should handle the situation. Unacceptable. In fact, these violent street takeovers should be met with maximum force by the police department.

We have NEVER had these problems before. Now it's an epidemic. What changed? We stopped arresting criminals.

I am meeting this morning with the chief of department and the local precinct at the scene to discuss exactly what happened last night. I have already been assured that Malba will receive four dedicated patrol cars from this point forward, as well as additional security upgrades that we cannot disclose.

However, the city MUST do something to stop this lawlessness. All the speed cameras in the world do absolutely NOTHING to prevent these incidents -- we need police response and the most severe consequences for these criminals, not to simply allow them to drive away after they've completed their mayhem.

These incidents are happening citywide, and they're happening because there are no longer any real consequences to this kind of criminality. But let me make something very clear to the criminals -- you are risking your lives bringing this chaos into our neighborhoods.

I know for a fact there were multiple armed residents who exercised extreme restraint last night, however that level of restraint is not guaranteed. If the city refuses to do what's necessary, the people might.

Once again I want to urge any residents of my district who are interested in obtaining their carry or premises permits to contact my office. We are offering assistance with the application process and legal fees to all who wish to exercise their constitutional right to self protection.

Paladino posted another view of the mob attack:

More chaos. 

This latest incident of lawlessness in NYC comes just as far-left Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani prepares to take control of City Hall. Though he's recently tried to soften his past "defund the police" rhetoric, his decision to tap radical leftist anti-cop activist Elena Leopold to his transition team tells a different story. 

Mamdani's policy framework mirrors the same nation-killing agenda of the Democratic Party, weakening law enforcement, opening all borders, shielding illegal aliens, promoting the climate crisis hoax agenda, and doubling down on the failed social and criminal-justice experiments that have hollowed out public safety across the country and, in some cases, sparked national security threats

The result, well, more NYC outflows to red states... 

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 12:25

Every Housing Down Cycle is "unhappy in its own way"

Calculated Risk -

Today, in the CalculatedRisk Real Estate Newsletter: Every Housing Down Cycle is "unhappy in its own way"

Excerpt:
“All happy families are alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina
Maybe we could say that all housing booms look alike, but every down cycle is “unhappy in its own way.”

In March 2022, I wrote Don't Compare the Current Housing Boom to the Bubble and Bust. Instead, I suggested a more similar period was the late ‘70s to early ‘80s.
It is natural to compare the current housing boom to the mid-00s housing bubble. The bubble and subsequent bust are part of our collective memories. And graphs of nominal house prices and price-to-rent ratios look eerily similar to the housing bubble.

However, there are significant differences. First, lending has been reasonably solid during the current boom, whereas in the mid-00s, underwriting standards were almost non-existent (“fog a mirror, get a loan”). And demographics are much more favorable today than in the mid-00s.

A much more similar period to today is the late ‘70s and early ‘80s. House prices were increasing sharply. Demographics were very favorable for homebuying as the baby boomers moved into the first-time homebuying age group (similar to the millennials now). And inflation picked up from an already elevated level due to the second oil embargo in 1979, followed by the Iran-Iraq war in 1980, driving up costs.
Sure enough, there hasn’t been a national crash in house prices. However, although there are similarities to the late ‘70s / early ‘80s period, there also significant differences. The most obvious difference is the sharp slowdown in population growth and immigration. The population and workforce were expanding sharply in the early ‘80s.
There is much more in the article.

As Japan Deploys Missiles Near Taiwan, China Blasts 'Right Wing' Forces Taking Tokyo To 'Disaster'

Zero Hedge -

As Japan Deploys Missiles Near Taiwan, China Blasts 'Right Wing' Forces Taking Tokyo To 'Disaster'

The ongoing China-Japan dispute and diplomatic flare-up has just gone from bad to worse, and has taken a turn toward potential military confrontation. Japan’s defense minister, Shinjiro Koizumi, visited a Japanese island which has a military outpost that lies close to Taiwan on Sunday. The optics were unmistakable, signaling Tokyo doesn't plan on backing down after two weeks of Beijing demanding a retraction. It all started when earlier this month Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi made comments in a parliamentary meeting which made clear Japan could possibly intervene militarily in the scenario of China invading Taiwan.

"If there are battleships and the use of force, no matter how you think about it, it could constitute a survival-threatening situation," Takaichi had said, becoming the first Japanese top official in decades to link the Taiwan crisis to a potential Japanese military response. 

These are 'fighting optics': Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi speaks to reporters after inspecting the Ground Self-Defense Force garrison on Yonaguni Island, Okinawa Prefecture, on Sunday. Source: JIJI, Japan Times

Beijing immediately embarked on punishing measures, including threatening trade relations alongside urging Chinese citizens to avoid all travel to Japan.

It was only last Friday that China again warned, "Prime Minister Takaichi's openly erroneous remarks concerning Taiwan have fundamentally undermined the political foundation of China-Japan relations and severely damaged bilateral economic and trade exchanges," according to the words of a foreign ministry spokesperson.

The following threat was emphasized, "Should the Japanese side persist on its course of action and continue down the wrong path, China will resolutely take the measures required and all consequences shall be borne by Japan." The United States is standing by Tokyo's side, even as the Trump admin appears to be sticking by the long-running Washington doctrine of 'strategic ambiguity' related to Taiwan's defense.

But instead of heeding the warning and reversing course, Japanese Defense Minister Koizumi unveiled the deployment of placing medium-range surface-to-air missiles on Yonaguni island.

"The deployment can help lower the chance of an armed attack on our country," Koizumi told reporters while sporting an military commander-style jacket. He also expressly rejected Beijing's concerns, though without invoking China directly. "The view that it will heighten regional tensions is not accurate," he said.

Importantly, the island in question - and thus the new highly provocative missiles deployment - lies just under 70 miles east of Taiwan. It looks to become part of a broader military build-up in Japan's southern island chain.

China has in turn already reacted to the development, saying Sunday: "Right-wing forces in Japan are ... leading Japan and the region toward disaster," foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told a regular news briefing. Beijing "is determined and capable of safeguarding its national territorial sovereignty," she continued.

Various regional watchers are lining up on either side of the dispute, but nearly all of expressed surprise at Japan's new 'boldness'...

“The move is extremely dangerous and should raise serious concerns among nearby countries and the international community,” Mao added, also relating the whole spat back to PM Takaichi’s earlier remarks.

China has earlier warned Japan will suffer a "crushing" defeat if it ever decided to directly intervene in the Taiwan dispute. Recent years have also seen Beijing's anger grow after NATO briefly talked about opening an official office in Tokyo, but these plans were soon abandoned for the time being.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 11:40

EU And Whose Army?

Zero Hedge -

EU And Whose Army?

By Benjamin Picton, senior market strategist at Rabobank

Bonds and equities rallied on Friday and Brent crude prices fell by more than 1% as markets digested the details of a 28-point peace plan drafted by US and Russian officials. The most contentious elements of the plan are the recognition of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk as being de facto Russian, the requirement for Ukraine to reduce its armed forces to 600,000 personnel (from approximately 800-850,000 currently), a commitment from both NATO and Ukraine that the latter will never be admitted as a NATO member, and the provision for Russia to rejoin the G7 and have sanctions lifted in stages.

In return for formally ceding control of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk and renouncing ambitions to NATO membership, Ukraine would receive confirmation of sovereignty (including from Russia) be granted a NATO-style security guarantee from the United States that has been long-sought by Volodomyr Zelenskyy, be granted short-term preferential access to the EU common market, a pathway to EU membership and substantial aid for reconstruction and development – including from $100bn in frozen Russian assets.

President Trump has set a deadline of the Thanksgiving holiday this Thursday for signing the agreement, with the possibility of withholding arms and intelligence dangled as a ultimatum for delay. President Zelenskyy has said that the plan presents an “impossible choice” for Ukraine between a loss of dignity or the loss of a key defence partner. Trump seemed to acknowledge that the deal would be a bitter pill for Ukraine but that Ukrainian concessions were an inevitability if peace was going to be achieved. “He’s [Zelenskyy] going to have to like it, and if he doesn’t like it, then you know, they should just keep on fighting... at some point he’s going to have to accept something.” 

It should be pointed out that European politicians have been completely sidelined during this process. Some have balked at the terms and instead proposed alternative plan that is more favorable to their own interests and the interests of Ukraine, but lacks buy-in from the United States or Russia and does not appear to be taken seriously by Ukraine. Others have said that the EU should take the US plan as a starting point and haggle over the details. Once again, Europe’s incoherent and slow-moving political apparatus is being exploited by outside powers to its cost.

Of course, Europe has precious little leverage to inject itself into the negotiations because the defense guarantees critical to the process can only be realistically enforced by the weight of US arms. This was seemingly confirmed by the political reaction to recent comments by top French General Fabien Mandon who said that Europe has “all the knowledge, all the economic and demographic strength to deter the Moscow regime”, but “is not prepared to accept losing its children, [or] to suffer economically because priorities will be given to defense production”. The fear for some European politicians will be that if they do not accede to American terms (especially if they are grudgingly accepted by Ukraine), the United States will simply hand them the keys and tell them that Russia is now their problem to deal with. How does that fit with the “sell America, buy Europe” narrative that was driving markets earlier this year?

This process highlights the extraordinary geopolitical impotence of the EU as it – like Ukraine – has terms imposed upon it from the outside without so much as a “by your leave”. It also highlights the ongoing determination by the administration in Washington to pursue détente with Moscow as it views the Kremlin as a natural partner in the United States’ geopolitical competition with China. This is the noxiN (‘reverse Nixon’) strategy of splitting the junior partner away from the senior.

Consequently, the 28-point agreement also includes provisions for economic cooperation between Russia and the United States, explicitly in the domains of “energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.” This suits Washington on many fronts, whether it be shoring up its own supply chain vulnerabilities, keeping the EU off-balance, or ensuring that Russia can present a credible check against Chinese dominance of central Asia (where Russian influence has been waning).

Of course, there are also risks here for the United States. Impatience to reach a deal to end the war so that the USA can focus its attentions on the Indo-Pacific risks agreeing to terms that would be too generous to Russia, and effectively vindicate its strategy of using military force to reset the geopolitical order in Eastern Europe. As President Zelenskyy has repeatedly pointed out, Russia has already violated peace agreements numerous times in the past. Would a US defence guarantee be sufficiently credible to deter such violations in the future? Is it credible to believe that Russia is willing to abandon its conception of the Russkiy Mir (Russian World) in the Baltics, the rest of Ukraine and Transnistria? Can Vladimir Putin credibly seek to end a war that has driven rapid growth in real wages and commensurately rapid growth in consumer spending at home?

Striking an agreement that allows Russia to achieve the objectives of its war also risks legitimizing force as a tool of state policy elsewhere. This is an obvious risk in East Asia, where relations between China and Japan are at their most tense in decades as the former accuses the latter of meddling in its internal affairs by saying that it would consider a Chinese invasion of Taiwan to constitute a threat to its own security – and therefore justify a military response. What message will be taken by parties to simmering territorial disputes in the Middle East, or Kashmir, or any number of other geopolitical hotspots?

While the world digested the US-Russia plan for peace in Ukraine another conception of world order was being promoted at the G20 Summit in South Africa over the weekend. The theme of the summit was “Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability”, which sounds very idealistic and perhaps feels a bit 2010s in its optimism for multilateralism in an environment where great powers are embracing realist conceptions of foreign policy. Canadian Prime Minister Carney said that the summit was “a reminder that the center of gravity in the global economy is shifting”, pointing out that it “brought together nations representing three-quarters of the world’s population, two-thirds of global GDP and three-quarters of the world’s trade, and that’s without the United States formally attending.”

While the sums are undoubtedly right, Carney is perhaps glossing over the Achilles heel that is the lack of cohesion among the group’s constituent parts, and also over the degree to which a unified marginal power can still set the agenda globally. After all, it was only in the recent past that the EU had a greater population, larger GDP and conducted more trade than the USA, but who calls the tune in that relationship?

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/24/2025 - 11:20

Pages