My Two-for-Tuesday morning train reads:

• All-time highs have been great times to invest in the stock market: Sam Ro with the empirical companion piece: forward returns from all-time highs have historically beaten forward returns from random days. The chart is the argument. (TKer)

• The Spanish Exception: The Atlantic on why Spain keeps outgrowing Europe despite — and partly because of — the political reaction to immigration. The contrarian European data point. (The Atlantic) but see Germany Has Lost What It Did Best: NYT opinion on Germany’s industrial model snapping under the combined weight of energy, China, and tariffs. The Merz government is finding out which post-war assumptions still hold. (New York Times)

• If It Walks Like a Bubble and Quacks Like a Bubble, Then It’s Probably a Bubble. Indisputably, there are signs—some of which hark back to the dot-com era—that it is. For instance, take a gander at this not-so-little equation: $1.75 trillion divided by $18.674 billion equals 93.71 times. (Barron’s)

• Berkshire Beyond Buffett. In the 60 years he led Berkshire, he returned 6,000,000%, beating the S&P 500 by a factor of 130. Those wanting an education in business could do worse than listening to recordings of those Q&A sessions over the years. They could also do worse than by reading Buffet’s 60 years of annual letters. (The Weekend Reader)

• Amazon Thinks the Future of Data Centers Depends on a Technical Problem It Just Solved: The tech giant says a breakthrough in data center networking has dramatically accelerated the flow of information through its massive cloud infrastructure. (Wired)

• The SpaceX IPO: How Index Funds Will Adapt: Upcoming mega-IPOs will force tough choices for index providers. (Morningstar)

• I Profile Celebrities for a Living. Nothing Prepared Me for Tilly Norwood.: NYT Magazine on profiling the AI “actress” Tilly Norwood — what the interview actually consists of, who the handlers are, and what publicity for a synthetic person looks like in practice. Strange and well done. (New York Times)

• The Wild, Strange Case Todd Blanche Can’t Seem to Escape: Vanity Fair on the case that keeps following the President’s lawyer-turned-deputy-AG. The kind of slow-burn legal exposure that doesn’t show up in cable coverage until it does. A fake Mossad agent. Twin grifters. The nation’s top lawman. A head-spinning legal drama has the attorney general fighting off accusations of forgery, malpractice, and more. (Vanity Fair)

• How a mysterious particle could explain the universe’s missing antimatter: Knowable on the neutrino results that might finally close the matter-antimatter asymmetry gap. Patient, well-sourced physics writing; pair with coffee. (Knowable Magazine)

• The Tall Man Who Changed Basketball: You Cannot Miss Victor Wembanyama: WSJ on Wembanyama’s Finals run and what he is doing to a sport that has not had a true mold-breaker in a decade. Even if you only check in for the Finals, worth it. A mystery not long ago, San Antonio’s star from France has conquered the NBA and vanquished its defending champion. Does New York have an answer? (Wall Street Journal)

Video of the day: The SpaceX IPO… It’s Worse Than You Think

Be sure to check out our special Masters in Business this week, Remembering Jonathan Clements with Bill Bernstein and Jason Zweig. The two recall Clements’ impact on the investor community; they discuss his posthumous book, “Money and Me.”

Industries from footwear to computers require huge expansion to satisfy domestic demand

Source: McKinsey

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Tuesday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Net Zero & Statism Deliver Stagnation: How Interventionism Undermined Growth In The UK & Canada

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

Governments are terrible at picking winners and even worse at choosing losers. Net zero and interventionist “Keynesian” policies in Canada and the UK have proven that government intervention has created a worse outcome than anyone would have expected. The result is higher costs, distorted incentives, and weakened productivity growth, with increased dependency on fossil fuels to attend to peak demand, exactly what Austrian economists predicted.

What has been sold as a recipe for prosperity and “green growth” has in practice eroded affordability while failing to deliver stronger, sustainable expansion.

It is not surprising to see that the world’s examples of green interventionism, the UK and Canada, have become economic failures. Years ago, some argued that these policies needed time to prove their success. Now, it is not even debatable that the stagnation and recession in the UK and Canada are self-inflicted.

Net zero in Canada and the UK is not a single policy but an entire regime of targets, regulations, limits, subsidies, and new bureaucratic requirements.

The Canadian federal plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 combines rising carbon taxes, prescriptive regulations, technology mandates, and public investment schemes intended to steer capital away from fossil fuels and into politically selected “green” projects.

In the UK, the government’s “Net Zero Growth Plan” is also built on regulatory limits, spending commitments, and industrial policy designed to phase out conventional energy and reshape entire sectors through top-down planning.

This is a classic example of interventionism. The state attempts to override market price signals and entrepreneurial judgment to engineer a politically preferred energy and industrial structure and achieves the opposite of what it wants to deliver. Rather than relying on decentralized knowledge, competition, technology, and creative destruction, dispersed among millions of consumers and firms, net zero regimes assume that politicians and regulators know exactly which technologies should win, what the “right” energy mix ought to be, and how fast the transition should occur.

In an open market, prices and profits coordinate production across time, and entrepreneurs interpret prices as signals about real scarcities and consumer preferences. However, net-zero policies deliberately tamper with these signals. Carbon taxes, subsidies, and regulatory mandates change relative prices not because underlying preferences or scarcities changed but because policymakers decided that certain activities should be penalized and others subsidized. All this is justified by a completely ideological and unreliable assumption of externality costs, where governments present themselves as the ones that know precisely what those alleged externality costs are and try to push a pricing signal imposed through ideology, creating enormous distortions that, ultimately, end benefiting the “old” and “loser” industries.

Governments are not worried about the failure of these policies. Bureaucrats always believe that interventionism did not work because there was not enough of it. Therefore, they impose additional burdens and regulations while portraying themselves as the solution to the inflation and stagnation problems they have caused.

In both Canada and the UK, this has pushed vast amounts of capital into projects that are unprofitable and can only subsist due to policy support rather than genuine market demand. “Green industrial strategies” crowd out investment in other sectors, especially in traditional energy and manufacturing, even when those sectors still deliver higher value at lower cost to consumers. Austrian theory predicts that politicized credit and subsidies will generate malinvestment: projects that look viable under distorted interest rates and prices but which fail to cover their costs once the policy support is withdrawn or the fiscal burden becomes unsustainable.

Canadian long-run productivity growth has fallen from annual rates above 3% in the postwar decades to less than 1% since 2000, despite repeated waves of policy activism and “pro-productivity” rhetoric. Chronic underinvestment in business capital and weak technological progress as key drivers of this decline, suggesting that the policy mix has not created an environment for genuine, bottom-up innovation. The more that investment decisions depend on regulatory favor and subsidy access, the less they depend on entrepreneurial assessment of consumer wants and long-term profitability.

Net zero has also harmed affordability in exactly the way Austrian economists would expect when governments interfere with relative prices. Carbon pricing, renewable mandates, and restrictions on fossil-fuel projects increase energy costs directly by making reliable sources of power more expensive or scarce. These higher input costs then cascade through the economy to transport, food, housing, and manufactured goods, eroding real wages and living standards.

In both Canada and the UK, affordability has become a central political issue. Households face higher utility bills, fuel costs, and housing expenses, while governments insist that the transition is “pro-growth” and “pro-jobs.” From an Austrian viewpoint, this contradiction is unsurprising: when the state deliberately raises the cost of dominant energy sources and limits investment in efficient, market-chosen technologies, the outcome is necessarily higher prices and reduced real income for consumers, especially for low- and middle-income households.

The C.D. Howe Institute has calculated the costs of justifying public “stimulus” projects based on their benefits, showing that a typical public-services stimulus in Canada needs to create at least 73 cents in benefits for every dollar spent, while many infrastructure projects must improve productivity by at least 61 cents per dollar just to be socially acceptable. This illustrates how difficult it is for discretionary fiscal programs to deliver genuine, net productivity gains, especially when they are designed around political objectives like net zero rather than around consumer demand.

Loose money, loose budgets, weak growth

Energy policy is just one aspect of the overall narrative. Canada and the UK have also pursued aggressively expansionary fiscal and monetary policies recently, justified in the language of Keynesian stabilization and “stimulus.” Central banks slashed interest rates and expanded their balance sheets, while governments ran large deficits to finance transfer programs, public investment packages, and targeted subsidies.

Such policies create an artificial boom by pushing interest rates below their market level, encouraging borrowing and investment that are not backed by genuine savings. When combined with interventionist climate and industrial policies, the result is a double distortion: not only is the cost of capital suppressed by central banks, but its allocation is further skewed by political targets and bureaucratic criteria.

The persistent weakness of productivity growth in both countries reflects the outcome. Despite waves of stimulus and intervention, neither Canada nor the UK has returned to the trend growth rates of earlier decades. Research on why productivity is stuck in advanced economies shows that slow business investment, poor use of resources, and uncertain policies are major problems—exactly what Austrian theory warns about when governments try to control demand and manage entire industries.

At the same time, the loose monetary and fiscal stance has fueled asset inflation and housing booms, worsening affordability while doing little to raise real wages in line with living expenses. For Austrians, this pattern is predictable: credit expansion inflates asset prices and encourages leverage, while deficit spending diverts resources from productive private activity toward politically selected uses, without solving underlying structural obstacles to innovation and entrepreneurship.

The “dynamics of interventionism” described by Austrian scholars such as Frank Shostak and Huerta de Soto captures what is now playing out in Canada and the UK. Initial interventions—carbon pricing, subsidies, ultra-loose money—create side effects such as higher energy costs, misallocated capital, and inflationary pressures. Rather than rolling back the original policies, governments respond with further interventions: price caps, windfall taxes, rent controls, targeted transfers, and new stimulus packages.

More layers mean more complexity, uncertainty, and lobbying, which sucks talent and capital out of productive activity and into regulatory arbitrage and rent-seeking. In the end, the private sector becomes less about serving consumers and more about navigating the policy maze, bidding for subsidies, and changing business models based on political risk, not market signals.

This process tends to push mixed economies toward either more radical intervention and taxation, because the accumulating distortions and contradictions become unsustainable. Rising public debt, chronic productivity stagnation, and growing discontent over affordability are all signs that the current policy mix in Canada and the UK is reaching such a breaking point.

An Austrian approach to the problems of growth, productivity, and affordability in Canada and the UK would start from the opposite principle: radically reduce the role of the state in credit allocation, industrial planning, and energy choices. The goal would be to restore genuine price discovery in interest rates, energy markets, and capital allocation, rather than using central banks and fiscal policy to engineer demand and support politically favored sectors.

That would require ending the “permanent emergency” stance in monetary policy and allowing interest rates to reflect real-time preferences and savings, rather than central-bank discretion; rolling back net zero mandates, technology bans, and targeted subsidies allow entrepreneurs and consumers to decide which energy sources and technologies best serve their needs at the lowest cost; and moving from government spending based on political choices to a system with clear rules and less government involvement that safeguards property rights, upholds contracts, and maintains low and steady taxes and regulations.

Under such a regime, capital would no longer be herded into fashionable, subsidy-dependent projects. Instead, entrepreneurs would once again be guided by undistorted profit and loss, discovering the production structures that genuinely align with consumer preferences and technological realities. Over time, such an approach is the only path consistent with higher productivity, faster real wage growth, and true improvements in affordability.

In short, the disappointing growth and deteriorating affordability in Canada and the UK are not market failures; they are the predictable result of layering net zero interventionism on top of already inflationary, deficit-driven macro policy. The solution is not more of the same but a decisive shift back toward sound money, fiscal restraint, and genuine economic freedom.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/02/2026 - 06:30

Tesla Posts Strong Registration Growth Across Europe In May

Tesla showed signs of regaining momentum in Europe during May, posting strong registration growth across several major markets, according to Reuters. New registrations climbed to 1,750 vehicles in Denmark (+136%), 1,690 in Spain (+113%), and 858 in Sweden (+71%), based on data released by local industry groups.

Reuters writes that the trend extended across the region. Norway recorded 3,345 Tesla registrations, up 29% from a year earlier, while France saw registrations rise to 5,446 vehicles—more than seven times last year's level.

The gains come as demand for electrified vehicles continues to strengthen across Europe. Battery-electric, plug-in hybrid, and hybrid vehicles represented more than two-thirds of all new registrations in April, with total electrified vehicle registrations increasing roughly 21%, according to ACEA.

Industry observers note that Tesla is benefiting from the overall expansion of the EV market, particularly in Scandinavia, while countries such as Spain are beginning to catch up in adoption. Consumer incentives, emissions-focused policies, and elevated fuel prices are also helping accelerate the shift toward electric mobility.

The recent improvement follows a difficult period for Tesla in Europe. The company lost a significant share of the regional market in 2025 as competition intensified—especially from Chinese manufacturers—while a limited refresh cycle and controversy surrounding CEO Elon Musk also weighed on demand. Registration figures from Germany and the UK, Europe's largest auto markets, are still to come.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/02/2026 - 05:45

The Cost Of The Grain That Feeds Half The World Just Posted Biggest Monthly Surge Since 2008

Asian rice prices logged their biggest monthly gain in nearly two decades in May, as a Gulf energy shock collides with an expected El Niño event later this year. The spike adds to the mounting risks of a broader food price shock that could emerge as soon as six months from now.

Any time rice prices spike, it is a major concern because the grain feeds more than half the world's population, estimated at 3.5 to 4 billion people.

Thailand white rice, a regional Asian benchmark, surged 20% in May, the largest monthly increase in data going back to 2008, according to Bloomberg. Chicago rice futures rose 15% last month.

Seasonality:

BMI analyst Bin Hui Ong warned that an expected El Niño event later this year will unleash adverse weather conditions across major rice-growing belts in Asia, including hotter, drier conditions. She noted this adds further upside to rice prices in the months ahead.

It is not just the threat of a severe El Niño event on analysts' radars. There are also continued elevated diesel and fertilizer costs tied to disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz. This will further weigh on rice production yields across import-reliant Asia.

Rice farming is already highly fertilizer-intensive, while irrigation systems often depend on diesel-powered pumps.

In Vietnam's Vinh Long province, a farmer told Bloomberg that he plans to skip one of his usual three annual crops due to rising input costs and extreme heat.

Fertilizer prices in Thailand, Cambodia, and the Philippines have soared by nearly 50% since late February, according to the International Rice Research Institute.

The Philippines has warned that a strong El Niño could cut rice production by up to 700,000 tons, or 3.5% of its annual production target.

Already, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's FAO Food Price Index, which tracks monthly changes in the international prices of a basket of globally traded food commodities, is trending upward and risks a further leg higher.

Alexandra Prokopenko, a fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, warned in mid-March that disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz would spark shortages of energy and fertilizers, translating into higher food prices in "six to nine months from now."

Related:

• We Are 6 Months From Global Food Shortages Because Farmers Are Facing A Quadruple Whammy Crisis

• Everyone Talks About The Cost Of Gasoline... Soon Everyone Will Be Talking About The Cost Of Food

Last month, ZeroHedge Debates held a roundtable to ask: How bad will the food inflation mess get?

View here:

Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld outlined where food inflation is expected to hit the hardest, on a country-by-country level, this year (see report)

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/02/2026 - 04:15

Potential Offshore Strike In Norway Could Add Fresh Uncertainty To Global Energy Markets As Wage Talks Collapse

By Michael Kern of OilPrice.com

A potential strike over wages could threaten smooth operations offshore Norway, Western Europe's top oil and gas producer, at a time when the world is scrambling for oil and gas supply amid the Middle East crisis.

Almost 8% of oil and gas workers offshore Norway could go on a strike from June 5 if trade union negotiations with industry fail to reach an agreement in a government-brokered mediation process, according to data from the labor unions on Monday.

More than 600 workers out of about 8,100 in total offshore Norway could begin a strike later this week, Reuters reported on Monday, citing the office of the government-appointed mediator.

Negotiations between the offshore industry and the workers organized in the Styrke, Lederne, and Safe trade unions continue.

At the end of last week, talks between Offshore Norway, which represents the oil industry in the wage talks, and the unions broke down.

Offshore Norway and the trade union Styrke held negotiations on May 27 on the onshore base agreements, which cover approximately 875 employees at supply bases along the Norwegian coast. But they failed to reach agreement on a new collective agreement for supply base employees.

“By evening, the parties remained too far apart, and the negotiations ended in a breakdown,” Offshore Norway said last Thursday, citing disagreements over advance payment of sickness benefits, parental benefits, and care benefits.

While talks continue, the possibility of a strike is looming over the oil and gas operations offshore Norway. It’s not clear how a strike would affect Norway’s oil and gas output, if at all.

Norway produces more than 4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, with oil and gas nearly equally divided at 2 million boepd each. Norway is shipping crude as far as Asia, which struggles without a large part of the Middle Eastern supply. Norway is also Europe’s single biggest gas supplier, having replaced Russia in 2022 when Putin invaded Ukraine.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/02/2026 - 03:30

How Contagious Is Ebola?

More than 200 people are suspected to have died in Ebola outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, according to the latest figures published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on May 29.

The vast majority of these are in the DRC.

With no vaccine available for this strain, the World Health Organization declared a public health emergency of international concern on May 17.

As Statista's Anna Fleck details below, Ebola is a severe and often fatal disease which is spread through direct contact with blood, secretions or other bodily fluids of infected individuals or through contact with contaminated surfaces.

There are six strains of Ebola, four of which are known to cause disease in humans, with varying fatality rates.

The Zaire ebolavirus, commonly known as just the Ebola disease, is the most lethal strain, with historical case fatality rates reaching up to 90 percent among those who have not been treated.

The Bundibugyo strain of the ebolavirus is currently causing outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda.

While the Zaire ebolavirus' basic R₀ value, which is the measure for counting how easily disease spreads, is lower than several other diseases, transmission through close contact makes it highly dangerous in healthcare settings.

According to data published by Encyclopædia Britannica, the average number of people infected by an individual with the Ebola disease is 1.5 to 2.5.

You will find more infographics at Statista

By contrast, the Omicron variant of Covid-19 had a basic R₀ value of spreading to eight to 10 people from every infected individual.

Measles is even more contagious, with a value ranging from 12 to 18.

It is spread by droplets released into the air by coughing and sneezing, with the virus able to remain in the air for up to two hours.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/02/2026 - 02:45

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus



In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets. Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helped the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system. All this means more liquidity — central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.” Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up — and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs. In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.” In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question. The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down. Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks at central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.” Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy. In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.” Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up. The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.” Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies. Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.” Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy – which of course, is not booming.

We are living in crazy times. I have a hard time believing that most of the general public is not awake, but in reality, they are. We've never seen anything like this; I mean not even under Obama during the worst part of the Great Recession." Now the Fed is desperately trying to keep interest rates from rising. The problem is that it's a much bigger debt bubble this time around , and the Fed is going to have to blow a lot more air into it to keep it inflated. The difference is this time it's not going to work." It looks like the Fed did another $104.15 billion of Not Q.E. in a single day. The Fed claims it's only temporary. But that is precisely what Bernanke claimed when the Fed started QE1. Milton Freedman once said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." The same applies to Q.E., or whatever the Fed wants to pretend it's doing. Except this is not QE4, according to Powell. Right. Pumping so much money out, and they are accusing China of currency manipulation ? Wow! Seriously! Amazing! Dump the U.S. dollar while you still have a chance. Welcome to The Atlantis Report. And it is even worse than that, In addition to the $104.15 billion of "Not Q.E." this past Thursday; the FED added another $56.65 billion in liquidity to financial markets the next day on Friday. That's $160.8 billion in two days!!!! in just 48 hours. That is more than 2 TIMES the highest amount the FED has ever injected on a monthly basis under a Q.E. program (which was $80 billion per month) Since this isn't QE....it will be really scary on what they are going to call Q.E. Will it twice, three times, four times, five times what this injection per month ! It is going to be explosive since it takes about 60 to 90 days for prices to react to this, January should see significant inflation as prices soak up the excess liquidity. The question is, where will the inflation occur first . The spike in the repo rate might have a technical explanation: a misjudgment was made in the Fed's money market operations. Even so, two conclusions can be drawn: managing the money markets is becoming harder, and from now on, banks will be studying each other's creditworthiness to a greater degree than before. Those people, who struggle with the minutiae of money markets, and that includes most professionals, should focus on the causes and not the symptoms. Financial markets have recovered from each downturn since 1980 because interest rates have been cut to new lows. Post-2008, they were cut to near zero or below zero in all major economies. In response to a new financial crisis, they cannot go any lower. Central banks will look for new ways to replicate or broaden Q.E. (At some point, governments will simply see repression as an easier option). Then there is the problem of 'risk-free' assets becoming risky assets. Financial markets assume that the probability of major governments such as the U.S. or U.K. defaulting is zero. These governments are entering the next downturn with debt roughly twice the levels proportionate to GDP that was seen in 2008. The belief that the policy worked was completely predicated on the fact that it was temporary and that it was reversible, that the Fed was going to be able to normalize interest rates and shrink its balance sheet back down to pre-crisis levels. Well, when the balance sheet is five-trillion, six-trillion, seven-trillion when we're back at zero, when we're back in a recession, nobody is going to believe it is temporary. Nobody is going to believe that the Fed has this under control, that they can reverse this policy. And the dollar is going to crash. And when the dollar crashes, it's going to take the bond market with it, and we're going to have stagflation. We're going to have a deep recession with rising interest rates, and this whole thing is going to come imploding down. everything is temporary with the fed including remaining off the gold standard temporary in the Fed's eyes could mean at least 50 years This liquidity problem is a signal that trading desks are loaded up on inventory and can't get rid of it. Repo is done out of a need for cash. If you own all of your securities (i.e., a long-only, no leverage mutual fund) you have no need to "repo" your securities - you're earning interest every night so why would you want to 'repo' your securities where you are paying interest for that overnight loan (securities lending is another animal). So, it is those that 'lever-up' and need the cash for settlement purposes on securities they've bought with borrowed money that needs to utilize the repo desk. With this in mind, as we continue to see this need to obtain cash (again, needed to settle other securities purchases), it shows these firms don't have the capital to add more inventory to, what appears to be, a bloated inventory. Now comes the fun part: the Treasury is about to auction 3's, 10's, and 30-year bonds. If I am correct (again, I could be wrong), the Fed realizes securities firms don't have the shelf space to take down a good portion of these auctions. If there isn't enough retail/institutional demand, it will lead to not only a crappy sale but major concerns to the street that there is now no backstop, at all, to any sell-off. At which point, everyone will want to be the first one through the door and sell immediately, but to whom? If there isn't enough liquidity in the repo market to finance their positions, the firms would be unable to increase their inventory. We all saw repo shut down on the 2008 crisis. Wall St runs on money. . OVERNIGHT money. They lever up to inventory securities for trading. If they can't get overnight money, they can't purchase securities. And if they can't unload what they have, it means the buy-side isn't taking on more either. Accounts settle overnight. This includes things like payrolls and bill pay settlements. If a bank doesn't have enough cash to payout what its customers need to pay out, it borrows. At least one and probably more than one banks are insolvent. That's what's going on. First, it can't be one or two banks that are short. They'd simply call around until they found someone to lend. But they did that, and even at markedly elevated rates, still, NO ONE would lend them the money. That tells me that it's not a problem of a couple of borrowers, it's a problem of no lenders. And that means that there's no bank in the world left with any real liquidity. They are ALL maxed out. But as bad as that is, and that alone could be catastrophic, what it really signals is even worse. The lending rates are just the flip side of the coin of the value of the assets lent against. If the rates go up, the value goes down. And with rates spiking to 10%, how far does the value fall? Enormously! And if banks had to actually mark down the value of the assets to reflect 10% interest rates, then my god, every bank in the world is insolvent overnight. Everyone's capital ratios are in the toilet, and they'd have to liquidate. We're talking about the simultaneous insolvency of every bank on the planet. Bank runs. No money in ATMs, Branches closed. Safe deposit boxes confiscated. The whole nine yards, It's actually here. The scenario has tended to guide toward for years and years is actually happening RIGHT NOW! And people are still trying to say it's under control. Every bank in the world is currently insolvent. The only thing keeping it going is printing billions of dollars every day. Financial Armageddon isn't some far off future risk. It's here. Prepare accordingly. This fiat system has reached the end of the line, and it's not correct that fiat currencies fail by design. The problem is corruption and manipulation. It is corruption and cheating that erodes trust and faith until the entire system becomes a gigantic fraud. Banks and governments everywhere ARE the problem and simply have to be removed. They have lost all trust and respect, and all they have left is war and mayhem. As long as we continue to have a majority of braindead asleep imbeciles following orders from these psychopaths, nothing will change. Fiat currency is not just thievery. Fiat currency is SLAVERY. Ultimately the most harmful effect of using debt of undefined value as money (i.e., fiat currencies) is the de facto legalization of a caste system based on voluntary slavery. The bankers have a charter, or the legal *right*, to create money out of nothing. You, you don't. Therefore you and the bankers do not have the same standing before the law. The law of the land says that you will go to jail if you do the same thing (creating money out of thin air) that the banker does in full legality. You and the banker are not equal before the law. ALL the countries of the world; Islamic or secular, Jewish or Arab, democracy or dictatorship; all of them place the bankers ABOVE you. And all of you accept that only whining about fiat money going down in exchange value over time (price inflation which is not the same as monetary inflation). Actually, price inflation itself is mainly due to the greed and stupidity of the bankers who could keep fiat money's exchange value reasonably stable, only if they wanted to. Witness the crash of silver and gold prices which the bankers of the world; Russian, American, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Arab, all of them collaborated to engineer through the suppression and stagnation of precious metals' prices to levels around the metals' production costs, or what it costs to dig gold and silver out of the ground. The bankers of the world could also collaborate to keep nominal prices steady (as they do in the case of the suppression of precious metals prices). After all, the ability to create fiat money and force its usage is a far more excellent source of power and wealth than that which is afforded simply by stealing it through inflation. The bankers' greed and stupidity blind them to this fact. They want it all, and they want it now. In conclusion, The bankers can create money out of nothing and buy your goods and services with this worthless fiat money, effectively for free. You, you can't. You, you have to lead miserable existences for the most of you and WORK in order to obtain that effectively nonexistent, worthless credit money (whose purchasing/exchange value is not even DEFINED thus rendering all contracts based on the null and void!) that the banker effortlessly creates out of thin air with a few strokes of the computer keyboard, and which he doesn't even bother to print on paper anymore, electing to keep it in its pure quantum uncertain form instead, as electrons whizzing about inside computer chips which will become mute and turn silent refusing to tell you how many fiat dollars or euros there are in which account, in the absence of electricity. No electricity, no fiat, nor crypto money. It would appear that trust is deteriorating as it did when Lehman blew up . Something really big happened that set off this chain reaction in the repo markets. Whatever that something is, we aren't be informed. They're trying to cover it up, paper it over with conjured cash injections, play it cool in front of the cameras while sweating profusely under the 5 thousands dollar suits. I'm guessing that the final high-speed plunge into global economic collapse has begun. All we see here is the ripples and whitewater churning the surface, but beneath the surface, there is an enormous beast thrashing desperately in its death throws. Now is probably the time to start tying up loose ends with the long-running prep projects, just saying. In other words, prepare accordingly, and Get your money out of the banks. I don't care if you don't believe me about Bitcoin. Get your money out of the banks. Don't keep any more money in a bank than you need to pay your bills and can afford to lose.











The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more













The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

The FBI released a summary of its file from the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Friday, showing details of Clinton's explanation of her use of a private email server to handle classified communications. The release comes nearly two months after FBI Director James Comey announced that although Clinton's handling of classified information was "extremely careless," it did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the next day that she would not pursue charges in the matter. "We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests," the FBI noted in a statement sent to reporters with links to the documents. The documents include notes from Clinton's July 2 interview with agents, as well as a "factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter," according to the FBI release. Throughout her interview with agents, Clinton repeatedly said she relied on the career professionals she worked with to handle classified information correctly. The agents asked about a series of specific emails, and in each case Clinton said she wasn't worried about the particular material being discussed on a nonclassified channel.