Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

By Elwin de Groot, head of macro strategy at Rabobank

Highs and Lows

Bond yields were up some 5 basis points globally whilst the euro made a slight reversal after having pushed for a near high of 1.15 as the ECB concluded its press conference. From a ‘low’ inspired by 50% tariffs on US steel and aluminium imports going ‘live’ earlier this week and growing concerns about the US economy and the labor market, sentiment in financial markets briefly swung back to a ‘high’ as President Donald Trump said he had a “very good phone call” with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Gains in equity markets were modest but still good enough for S&P500 to extend its rally to 20% from its 8 April low. That is, before the falling-out between Trump and Musk reached a boiling point on social media. Enough is being written about that right now, so we’ll leave you at it.

After the call with Xi, Trump said that both leaders have agreed to further talks and that there “should no longer be any questions respectively the complexity of Rare Earth products”. That’s up for various interpretations, but it suggests China has offered to speed up its process of lifting its export restrictions. Still, the Chinese readout of the call, unsurprisingly, was more nuanced and said that Xi had urged Trump to remove “negative” measures that have affected trade between the countries in recent months. The upshot, from the market’s perspective is that both sides are, at least, talking and that holds the prospect of further progress in removing some (still very high) tariffs. But, just for balance, Commerce Secretary Lutnick yesterday called for increased enforcement of US export controls on technology, warning that China was “only attacking great American companies.” If President Xi was referring to those export controls with “negative measures”, the market’s positive assessment may be, well, too high.

That further talks with the US can lead to a ‘deal’ (as Keir Starmer can confirm), a stalemate (see EU-US) or a major escalation, as Zelensky can attest, is on any global leader’s mind. Nikkei Asia reports that US negotiators Bessent, Lutnick and Greer keep Japan guessing. “At one point the three cabinet officials put the talks with the Japanese side on hold an began debating right in front of them”, a source tells the Nikkei. In that sense, German Chancellor Merz came away nicely after a 40-minute meeting in the Oval Office, as he let Trump do most of the talking. Little concrete came from that meeting, though Trump acknowledged the ramp-up in German defense spending.

Trade data are going from lows to highs as well, which in some cases makes the Covid-episode data look pale. As the Commerce Department confirmed, the US trade deficit for April shrunk by the most on record, to $61.6bn from $138.3bn in March, driven by the largest-ever decline in imports.

Frontloading in the run-up the tariffs clearly was massive and then collapsed. This also suggests that after its big negative contribution to US GDP growth in Q1 it will be a significant positive factor in Q2. Inventory effects will likely attenuate some of its effect. Bloomberg noted that a drop in imports of pharmaceuticals from Ireland was responsible for an almost $20bn swing in the deficit. The opposite (statistical) effect is thus going to be seen in Europe in Q2. Ireland yesterday reported a significant upward revision in Q1 GDP (which now points to a revision in Eurozone GDP growth to around +0.6% q/q (!) from 0.3% previously). But this will obviously turn to a significant drag in Q2 as those US trade numbers for April just signaled.

Staying in Europe, the ECB seemingly presented itself as an anchor of stability in these times of highs and lows. Lagarde’s new mantra is now “well positioned”, which could be viewed in our opinion as code language for “we’re done cutting, unless…”. This becomes even clearer when you compare it to the previous mantra Lagarde introduced in March when she called ECB policy “meaningfully less restrictive”. We had expected little to no guidance from yesterday’s policy meeting, but these new words – despite lower oil prices and a stronger euro – lead us to maintain our view that we have reached the terminal rate.

However, the ECB leaves ample room to respond if things do not work out the way they envisage. Indeed, it lowered its inflation forecast significantly with core inflation positioned around 2% for the coming years. Moreover, its new scenario analyses unveiled a dovish reaction function to a potential escalation of trade tensions. Should this happen, and paused tariffs were to be reinstated, the ECB’s economists estimate that this could lower GDP growth through 2027 by about 1% cumulatively. And, interestingly, they conclude that inflation would be somewhat lower as well: in such a scenario inflation would average 1.8% in 2027, and that includes the assumption that the EU retaliates. By contrast, our own econometric analysis indicates that European tariffs on the US would be (mildly) inflationary instead.

Lagarde did say that their modelling exercise assumed that higher tariffs could lead to lower demand for euro area exports and to countries with overcapacity rerouting their exports to the euro area thereby putting more downward pressure on inflation. However, she acknowledged that the ECB’s analysis did not include any inflationary impact from a disruption of supply chains. Although this effect, admittedly, is surrounded by even more uncertainty, we did take this into account in our own scenario analysis (which explains why we still have inflation somewhat above the ECB’s target even in 2026). And one only need to take a quick glance at container freight rates (benchmark composite by WCI up by a staggering 175% compared to last month) to understand why be believe the ECB the ECB could be under-estimating the potential highs.

Time will tell, of course. But one thing that the ECB may be right about, is the (initial) downward pressure on imported goods prices due to a diversion of trade. The European Commission yesterday published its first assessment from its trade diversion monitoring tool that was launched in April. The early warning system tracks shipments and prices of goods at a high level of detail. In the short-run lower prices may benefit European importers and thereby consumers, but if those prices are the result of overcapacity in other parts of the world (such as China) this could also undermine European producers. The South China Morning Post reported that “in the month to May 25, imports of light-emitting diodes surged 156 per cent, while their price fell 65 per cent. Shipments of industrial robots shot up by 315 per cent, paired with a 35 per cent price decline. And imports of some bars and rods made from steel alloy soared by over 1,000 per cent as their price plunged 86 per cent.”

Whilst such figures can be extremely volatile due to their level of detail, seasonal patterns etc. and make no distinction between the origin of the content, a heatmap by the Commission shows that China was a significant contributor to these changes. The FT writes that the surge in steel imports, driven by trade diversion, is setting off alarm bells in the steel sector. Forecasting the next steps by the European Commission is a rather speculative affair, but we’d not be surprised if this leads to some form of action. This year the Commission has already launched more than 10 cases against China and/or Chinese producers (based on our count of news articles on the EU’s trade defense website).

Ukraine overnight targeted key Russian sites with more drone attacks, while simultaneously Russian cruise missiles were fired against Kiev and other regions of Ukraine, killing at least four and wounding twenty in the Ukrainian capital.

"Kyiv came under another attack involving drones and ballistic missiles. Rescuers are responding to the aftermath at several locations across the city," the State Emergency Service of Ukraine announced on Telegram. Russia allegedly fired over 400 projectiles into Ukraine, though most were said to be downed by air defenses. On the other side, two airbases, a fuel depot and aviation were reportedly struck deep in Russia overnight.

Aftermath of Russian air strike in Kyiv on June 6, 2025, AFP

"A successful strike was carried out on the Engels airfield in the Saratov region, a place where enemy aircraft are concentrated," Ukraine’s General Staff said in a statement, in reference to the Engels-2 base which lies roughly 500 kilometers (300 miles) east of the Ukrainian border,

Several fuel tanks at the base were set ablaze, which dramatic images appeared to show following "multiple hits" on the site, per Ukrainian military statements.

Additionally, in the Ryazan Region, Ukraine said it targeted the Dyagilevo airbase, which supports Russian missile operations. The regional governor said the incoming drones were downed by anti-air defense systems.

And in the Tambov Region, drones reportedly targeted a high-tech aviation and missile control systems plant in Michurinsk. Ukrainian sources allege the plant is a military-industrial site, producing components for Russian missile and artillery systems.

Russian military-industrial complex attacked

One Ukrainian analyst describes the Tambov plant as follows: "Through facilities like this, Russia maintains serial production of Hyacinth, Msta, Tornado, and even components for Iskander missiles."

The analyst further says "the Progress plant is one of the key enterprises in Russia’s military-industrial complex, and its destruction represents a significant blow to the country’s defense production. This involves the loss of key components that power the military's missile and artillery systems."

BREAKING:

Ukraine launches huge drone swarm attack against military targets across Russia:

- Fuel depot of the Engels Air Base hit
- Dyagilevo Air Base hit
- Military electronics plant in Tambov hit
- Bryansk Airport hit

+ Podolsk near Moscow & Crimea pic.twitter.com/bC15Tgop94

Clearly Russia's anti-air defense systems have been struggling to thwart these now nightly waves of drone swarms. Likely Russia will continue stepping up its major aerial assaults on Ukraine in retaliation.

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

California’s long-delayed high-speed rail project is in default of federal grant agreements and may soon lose more than $4 billion in funding, the U.S. Department of Transportation said on June 4.

A report released by the department accuses the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) of chronic mismanagement, unrealistic projections, and failure to meet key obligations, despite receiving billions in taxpayer money.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) concluded that the bullet train has “no viable path” to finish the project’s first operational segment by 2033, the deadline outlined in federal agreements.

In a letter to Ian Choudri, CHSRA’s CEO, the FRA stated that the agency intends to terminate two grants totaling roughly $4 billion unless California responds with a satisfactory corrective plan. CHSRA has up to 37 days to avoid a final termination.

The letter outlines nine key findings from a 310-page compliance review, including a $7 billion funding gap, missed procurement deadlines, and what the FRA referred to as “substantially overrepresented” ridership forecasts.

The FRA letter called the rail project “a story of broken promises and of waste of Federal taxpayer dollars.” It noted that what began as a proposed 800-mile system was “first reduced to 500 miles, then became a 171-mile segment, and is now very likely ended as a 119-mile track to nowhere.”

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the report justifies reprogramming the funds to other projects.

“This report exposes a cold, hard truth: CHSRA has no viable path to complete this project on time or on budget,” Duffy said in a statement.

“CHSRA is on notice—If they can’t deliver on their end of the deal, it could soon be time for these funds to flow to other projects that can achieve President Trump’s vision of building great, big, beautiful things again. Our country deserves high-speed rail that makes us proud—not boondoggle trains to nowhere.”

The FRA report found that CHSRA has not yet laid a single mile of high-speed rail track, despite more than $6.9 billion in total federal funding since 2009. It also said that CHSRA continues to rely on unstable funding sources, such as California’s cap-and-trade auction revenues, to fill budget gaps.

According to the FRA, CHSRA has already spent about $1.6 billion on change orders over the past two years and still faces legal disputes and procurement delays and hasn’t started construction on key segments.

The state originally promised an 800-mile rail line connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles by 2020 for $33 billion. Estimates now range from $89 billion to $128 billion.

In a statement last month, CHSRA said construction is active on 119 miles in the Central Valley and has created more than 15,000 jobs. The agency also said it was making progress on a 171-mile segment from Merced to Bakersfield.

But FRA officials say even that scaled-back version may be unreachable. The agency noted that CHSRA’s internal inspector general found no credible plan to close the current $7 billion gap for the Merced-Bakersfield stretch.

A CHSRA Authority spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that they “strongly disagree” with the FRA’s conclusions, which they said are “misguided and do not reflect the substantial progress made to deliver high-speed rail in California.”

“We remain firmly committed to completing the nation’s first true high-speed rail system connecting the major population centers in the state,” the spokesperson said. “While continued federal partnership is important to the project, the majority of our funding has been provided by the state. To that end, the Governor’s budget proposal, which is currently before the Legislature, extends at least $1 billion per year in funding for the next 20 years, providing the necessary resources to complete the project’s initial operating segment. The Authority will fully address and correct the record in our formal response to the FRA’s notice.”

The compliance review concluded that continued federal support would not achieve the goals of the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program. The FRA said it may redirect unspent funds from the grants to other infrastructure projects and is not currently seeking repayment of the funds already used.

Reuters contributed to this report. 

A better than expected headline payrolls print has sparked a surge in stocks and bond yields this morning as the long-await (and hoped for by some) recessionary collapse in the labor market remains elusive.

Even if below the surface things are not so healthy, rate-cut expectations for 2025 have plunged to less than two total cuts (2026 expectations up marginally)...

Never one to miss an opportunity - even on a day when he should probably take a break from social media - President Trump dropped some more advice for Fed Chair Powell:

Strong unemployment, falling inflation, and no signs (except in partisan survey responses) of economic weakness from Trump's tariff-nado. One has to wonder what it is that Powell is waiting for... unlike in September of last year?

Finally, one thought - is this Trump pivoting his rage from Musk to Powell - a far easier, and less wealthy, opposition.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down three major cases with unanimous decisions. One, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, raises additional questions over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that have been widely used in higher education and businesses. There is no reason to believe that DEI measures are DOA, but the decision is likely to accelerate challenges based reverse discrimination after the Court rejected the imposition of an added burden for members of any “majority group” including straight, white males.

The immediate question before the Court was a circuit split over the standard that applies to a member of a “majority” group who claims that he or she was treated unfairly based on majority characteristics. The Sixth Circuit, along with four other circuits, held that such litigants must shoulder additional pleading burdens under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Many of us long argued that this long-standing rule was itself discriminatory and at odds with both constitutional and statutory authority. It was a bizarre interpretation of a law that barred employees from discriminating based on “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.”  That would ordinarily require a plaintiff to support a claim of disparate treatment by showing that she applied for a position for which she was qualified but was rejected under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. However, judges began to add their own burden of white, male or straight litigants in requiring them to show additional “background circumstances” that show the defendant is an “unusual employer” that discriminates against majority groups.

In this case, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, claimed that she was demoted at the Ohio Department of Youth Services after Ginine Trim, a gay woman, replaced her supervisor. Trim hired a younger gay man allegedly based on her sexual orientation and sex. Both the district court and the Sixth Circuit dismissed the complaint because Ames failed to identify any other “background circumstances” that demonstrated her employer discriminated against heterosexual women.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court that reversed the Sixth Circuit and rejected the “additional circumstances” test as at odds with the plain text of Title VII.

“As a textual matter, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The “law’s focus on individuals rather than groups [is] anything but academic.” Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). By establishing the same protections for every “individual”—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, filed a concurrence that chastised lower courts and “judges creating atextual legal rules and frameworks.”

The opinion has broader implications for businesses and higher education where DEI has been used to brush aside such reverse discrimination claims. Often such claims are mocked as suggesting that members of a majority group are “victims.” While not imposing this specific “add-on,” these controversies involve much of the same bias against reverse discrimination claims. Litigants complain that they often face greater demand and resistance to their claims as opposed to employees who are part of minority groups.

The Ames decision is a welcome development in bringing greater uniformity in the treatment of discrimination claims. It is also a shot across the bow of businesses and universities that have used DEI to dismiss the countervailing interests and claims of majority-group employees.

Here is the decision: Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services

The Trump administration has just nominated a slew of new generals to head up top US military commands in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe.

Importantly, Air Force General Alex Grynkewich has been nominated as NATO’s new Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (SACEUR) and head of U.S. European Command (EUCOM).

Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, via CENTCOM

This comes amid reports that the US under the Trump administration is growing frustrated enough to 'step back' from NATO leadership, with lack of collective defense spending out of Europe.

For example, Defense News last month acknowledged, :The nomination to head European Command, which is not yet final, comes at a moment of uncertainty for America’s military commitment to Europe, potentially including cuts to U.S. forces on the continent and a lesser role in the NATO alliance."

Brussels is meanwhile pushing plans for NATO buildup plans in connection with a new spending goal, also at a moment Washington has told the UK that it should reach a target of 5% of GDP spending on defense, according to The Telegraph.

Grynkewich currently serves as Joint Staff Director for Operations and was formerly the top US Air Force commander in the Middle East, which means he oversaw the aerial response to CENTCOM's prior bombing raids against the Houthis of Yemen, as well as previously 'counter-ISIS' ops in northern Syria.

According to his official Air Force bio:

Lt. Gen. Grynkewich received his commission in 1993 after graduating from the U.S. Air Force Academy. He has served as an instructor pilot, weapons officer and operational test pilot in the F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-22 Raptor. Lt. Gen. Grynkewich has commanded at the squadron, wing and Air Expeditionary Task Force levels. His staff assignments include service at Air Combat Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Central Command, Headquarters Air Force, and the Joint Staff. Prior to his current assignment, he served as the 9th Air Force (Air Forces Central), Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina, and the Combined Forces Air Component Commander for U.S. Central Command, Southwest Asia.

President Trump also nominated Navy Vice Admiral Brad Cooper, currently CENTCOM’s deputy commander, to lead CENTCOM. Additionally, Dagvin Anderson, director for Joint Force Development, has been tapped to lead US Africa Command (AFRICOM).

The Pentagon announces U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Alexus Grynkewich as NATO's new Supreme Allied Commander and head of U.S. European Command. pic.twitter.com/IIofVrs7W3

This fresh crop of commanders are likely being tapped for their loyalty to Trump's vision of 'make deals, not chaos' for the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

While there's no peace on the horizon as yet when it comes to Ukraine, Gaza, or Yemen - there's been noticeably quiet from the White House these past few days as both conflict theatres heat up. This could be a good thing, given Trump is not issuing threats, but could be patiently waiting for how Russia's retaliation on Ukraine - for example - plays out.

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

Maybe there was a time—when I was a kid watching “The Jetsons”—when I fantasized about a walking, talking, productive robot in my house. It would do the laundry, the cooking, the cleaning, answer the door, walk the dog, dress the kids, make the bed, and so on.

Many companies, most notably Tesla, are working on this now. We see the prototypes all over social media. Artificial intelligence (AI) language models have made their speech very impressive. Their movements are looking ever more natural. They do seem to be on the way, and Elon Musk says they will be the biggest consumer product in history.

These days, I’m not so sure. In fact, the prospect seems absurd to me, destined to make our lives worse not better. Do we really need fewer routines and more excuses to sit and stare at our computers while machines do even more work for us?

Count me among the skeptics. We have been replacing household routines with machines for a century. Some have merit because the manual way is too arduous. I would rather have a vacuum cleaner than beat out rugs, even if the latter method is better in the long run. Same with dishwashers and washing machines. I get that they save time.

But there comes a point when it is all too much. The trigger for me was the “smart” lightbulb. That’s where I drew the line. I would rather stand up and turn it off and on than become nothing but a couch potato with a smartphone. There are reasons perhaps for the ability to remotely manage household temperature, but if I were building today, I would look long and hard for analog over digital thermostats.

After my decision to reject smart bulbs, I started de-digitizing my domestic space. No more home assistants. I can stand up and turn the volume on the speaker up and down with my fingers. I can look through a hole in the door to see who is there. I can walk to the car and turn it on. And so on. I also appreciate not being surrounded by tools of surveillance.

As this process unfolded, I began to realize something culturally insidious about all of these new technologies. They all teach us to regret however it is we are using our time except and to the extent we are frittering away our lives on digital devices. They teach us that everything else we are doing is a waste of time.

We are encouraged always to get things done faster and with ever less effort. Whatever we are doing is regrettable. Adopting a new tech means saving time and energy. But ask yourself: For what are we actually saving this time and energy? Very likely it is something else that you are supposed to regret.

This becomes a major attitude problem. It creates a culture of grumbling and discontent. That attitude invades our hearts and souls, so eventually the normal stream of life itself becomes nothing other than a big pain in the neck. This then fuels the consumer demand for ever more products that promise to do everything for us.

How many actual skills are we losing along the way? Plenty.

Quick story about how I had wax melted all over a linen cloth. I had no idea what to do about it. So I looked it up on Grok. The suggestion came in two parts. First, freeze the cloth and scrape off the excess with a credit card. Second, iron it with a hot iron with a brown bag or newspaper between the iron and cloth.

I did it and was utterly astounded. It worked like a dream.

I thought, “Thank goodness for AI for teaching me this amazing trick.”

But in talking with others about it, it turns out that this is not some great secret. This is how people have been removing wax from cloth for centuries.

Apparently, our grandfathers all knew this. But for me, I somehow missed out on that lesson. Now it can be part of my routines.

One wonders how much other knowledge is being lost as we turn over more and more parts of our lives to AI and robots. There is a genuine danger here of intellectual and spiritual atrophy. We should think about this carefully before we plunge full-on into a machine-run world.

Every new technology brings benefits, but also costs. Musical skill is evaporating in the home, for example, and has for decades. Most young people today have no idea how to iron. When inflation hit restaurants so hard a few years ago, many people had to learn how to cook for the first time.

Most people have no clue about how clothing comes to be washed without a machine and would not even know how to begin cleaning a pair of socks by soaking them in hot water. Instead, we think the machines do some mysterious magic inside a rumbling box.

This is not a case against streaming music or washing machines but only a heads-up that they come at the cost of our own capacity to manage our lives in their absence. We become less useful as human beings. That surely must be recognized as something to regret, even if only a bit.

We should be more aware of the way the product market thrives off feeding our disgruntlement. It’s not evil, and that’s the market at work. There’s always going to be a better mousetrap.

But we should still be aware of the effect on our lives and attitudes. There is merit and joy in simple routines such as cleaning, cooking, folding, walking the dog, standing up from time to time and doing things, and even gardening and hard work.

If we come to think of all these things as pointless expenditures of time and energy, better done by a machine, a major swath of our lives becomes nothing but drudgery.

This is all about the attitude we bring to routine tasks. If we go into them with a sense that someone or something else should be doing them, we have a downcast mind, do a sloppy job, and let our brains be invaded by all kinds of negative energy.

If you look at the same task as an opportunity to be scrupulous, to be useful, to achieve something with one’s own hands, to better our little part of the world, and to take pride in what we have done, the opposite happens. Our blues turn to joy, gradually over time.

As I’ve written, this is how farmers think. They rise early to feed the chickens, repair the fences, fix the water well, brush the horses, or whatever else, not with a sense that all of this is terrible but rather that this is how life is, its very essence. It is all about using one’s own energy to exercise some controlling and civilizing cooperative relationship with the natural world around us.

Most of us are not farmers, but we can adopt the same patience, persistence, and joy that they have, even if we are dealing with urban commutes, buying groceries, or keeping our homes and spaces clean and orderly. Or gardening. We don’t need robots for this. We can do this with our own hands.

Again, what precisely are we preparing to do with the time we supposedly save with all this automation and rushing around? If you think about it, you are probably merely doing something else that you are regretting just as much as the previous thing. Honestly, this is no way to live.

It’s all about the attitude we bring to the conduct of daily life. If we listen to the constant screams that our lives are miserable—that it is darn near slavery to fold clothes and do dishes—so we need robots to do things for us, the result will be sadness all around instead of a constant sense of achievement.

Maybe there is a role for these machines for the sick and infirm, just like autonomous driving can be a dream for those in no position to drive themselves. But as usual with new products, we have a tendency to wildly exaggerate their merits, believing that they will take away all the demons that surround us. When that doesn’t work, we turn to substances.

Buy a robot if you must, but it is just as crucial to learn and do so-called menial tasks with joy, if only to remind ourselves of the high place of the human person—ourselves—in the unfolding of our lives. Maybe we should stop spending money on toys that encourage us to believe that we are ever less useful as human beings.

Every new technology in the 21st century seems to go in the same direction: overpromised results, wild enthusiasm, roaring stock markets, release, disappointment, and finally reality. Remember the way we were all going to wear headsets and live in the Metaverse? That did not happen.

Similarly on robots for domestic use. I’m bearish. My intuition is that society has already seen peak techno-utopia and is now ready for a return to the physical world with all its beautiful routines, the mastery of which requires human hands.

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

Via InternationalMan.com,

International Man: What is it about silver that makes it viable as a monetary metal—that is, something people actually use to store and exchange value?

Doug Casey: Let’s look at the definition of what makes a good money. There are basically six characteristics. A good money has to be durable, divisible, convenient, consistent, have use value, and some limit on supply. Using those six key characteristics, gold ranks first, silver second, and copper third. That’s why those three metals have been preferred money throughout history. They were superior to seashells, salt, cows, paper, and other commodities. In today’s world it makes sense to bring Bitcoin, which also satisfies those six characteristics into the mix.

So, to answer the question: Silver has always been a monetary metal, and it likely always will be.

International Man: Do you think gold functions better as money than silver—and if so, why? If not, why not?

Doug Casey: Gold is much scarcer than silver. It has an extremely high unit value. And its value relative to silver has increased throughout history. In the days of Ancient Egypt, gold traded at only three times the value of silver. In Rome, at the time of Caesar, the gold aureus was worth about 12 times more than the silver denarius. The US initially fixed the value of gold against silver at 17.5 to 1. Incidentally, fixing the value of any commodities—which fluctuate widely for many reasons—is always a bad idea. As of now, the ratio is about 100 to 1. The increase in gold’s value relative to silver is a trend that, with fits and starts, has been in motion for over 3,000 years.

It’s important to have an adequate quantity of money available for use in commerce. This was a problem in the early days of the US, when there was neither enough gold nor silver in circulation. Of course, the terms “adequate” and “enough” are rather arbitrary. That’s one reason why money itself should be strictly a function of the free market, not government. If there’s not “enough” gold or silver, more will be mined at a profit. When there’s too much, mining becomes unprofitable, and stops. Unlike government money, free market money is self-regulating.

Out of maybe 7 billion ounces of gold that have ever been mined, almost all is stored in vaults, safe deposit boxes, or worn as jewelry. Most is owned by governments and their central banks. It doesn’t circulate in any meaningful way.

Governments—including the US government—used to hold large amounts of silver in storage too. But now none do.

International Man: The long-term trend has been for silver to be demonetized and increasingly treated as an industrial metal. Do you see that continuing, and what are the implications?

Doug Casey: Let’s look at silver as an element. In the past, it was only used as jewelry. But out of the 92 elements, it’s the most reflective and the most conductive of both heat and electricity. There’s every reason to believe that silver is going to gain many more industrial uses over time because of these properties. It’s a high-tech metal.

A great deal of silver used to be consumed in photography and X-rays, until a generation ago, but it’s hardly used there at all anymore. Digital photography has nearly replaced it.

About 850 million ounces of silver are mined every year, and about another 150 million ounces are recycled. The available supply of bullion, therefore, is about a billion ounces—versus about 100 million ounces of gold. That’s roughly a ten-to-one ratio on the supply side, although most of the silver is “consumed,” whereas almost all the gold is added to inventory. Since 2019, silver has been in deficit. Roughly 150 million ounces a year have been taken from various stockpiles. That explains why its price has risen to a new base level in the $30 to $35 range, and done better than gold, percentage-wise.

And while we’re talking about silver’s unique qualities, it’s worth mentioning that gold also has unique metallic properties. It’s the most non-reactive of all metals; gold doesn’t oxidize. It’s the most ductile, meaning it can be drawn into the thinnest wire of any metal. It’s the most malleable, meaning it can be beaten into the thinnest sheet of all metals.

When people talk about gold and silver, they often treat them as if they were one metal. While they do share a lot of characteristics, they each have unique qualities. You’ll notice that, on the Periodic Table of Elements, copper (with 29 protons) is at the top of the file, above silver (with 47), and gold (79). The three metals are closely related atomically, as well as by their traditional use as money.

International Man: During times of monetary chaos and runaway inflation, people tend to rush into traditional forms of money—assets that hold value better than rapidly depreciating government paper.

Silver often sees a surge in demand during these moments, despite its limited monetary role today.

Do you see something like that happening again?

Doug Casey: I don’t think there’s any doubt that we’re heading into a massive monetary crisis. The dollar is going to lose value at an accelerating rate because of the US government’s profligate spending policies.

DOGE, which was an excellent idea, has failed; the deficits are going to rise from $2 trillion to $3 trillion. And when the economy takes a downward turn, the government’s tax revenues will fall, even while its obligations rise. I expect that within the next five years, we’ll see $5 to $6 trillion annual deficits.

That’s why bonds are in a world of trouble, for reasons we’ve discussed in the past. The stock market is grossly overpriced. Real estate is also in bubble territory, with large carrying costs aggravating the problem. The average guy is likely to rediscover gold, and especially silver.

International Man: Where do you see silver prices heading, and what do you think are the best ways to speculate on a rise?

Doug Casey: Both gold and silver are in major bull markets. Silver is the poor man’s gold. The average guy, who can’t lay his hands on $500 cash if he needs it, really can’t afford gold. But when he gets scared enough about what’s going on, silver will still be relatively affordable. The average guy will start accumulating silver as a place to hide.

I’ve accumulated silver for many years, just like gold. I’ve only bought it, never sold it. The problem with silver is that its unit value is so low, you’d need a vault like Uncle Scrooge to store a substantial amount. That’s not true with gold.

That said, everybody should have 100 ounces of silver coins. If you can, set aside a few thousand ounces as a savings vehicle. If the US government succeeds in destroying the dollar, many people are likely to prefer being paid, and buying and selling, with gold and silver coins. They’ll want something real and tangible, not a digital abstraction, or pieces of paper.

It really doesn’t matter how high the price of silver goes from a supply point of view. That’s because almost all new silver is a byproduct of mining other metals—gold, copper, lead, and zinc. To major mining companies, silver is only a nice bonus. Even at $100 it won’t have a material effect on their production plans.

Years ago, there was a Spokane Stock Exchange. It closed in 1991. Most people are unaware the US used to have a number of regional stock exchanges—Denver for oil, Salt Lake for uranium, and so forth. Scores of small silver stocks were traded in Spokane. From about 1960 to 1970, those little penny stocks went up by orders of magnitude. The boom was chronicled in a book called “Small Fortunes in Penny Gold Stocks.” The best one was Coeur d’Alene Mines, which went from 2 cents to $20. That kind of thing could happen again.

There are a few pure publicly traded silver companies now, and they’re generally very small-cap stocks. Institutions don’t own them, and few care about them. However, I think we’re going to see $100 or $200 silver in the next few years, and these stocks should catch fire. There used to be a whole class of investment advisors who published newsletters and made a living beating the drum about silver. They no longer exist. That tells me that silver is under-owned, nobody cares about it, and it’s going higher.

I consider silver stocks a superb speculation.

*  *  *

Doug Casey’s analysis lays bare the forces reshaping our financial future—and why silver may once again emerge as the “people’s money” during times of crisis. In a must-watch video, Doug pulls back the curtain on what the mainstream media won’t tell you about precious metals. Click here to watch it now.

Authored by Bart Marcois via American Greatness,

Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala built his political brand on being the ethical alternative to his populist rival, Andrej Babiš.

His supporters in Prague call him “Mr. Clean”—the pro-EU, pro-NATO leader who would restore moral authority to Czech politics after years of scandal. But he just destroyed that carefully crafted image with his tepid response to a drug money scandal.

When Your Justice Minister Takes Drug Money

The scandal reads like a dark comedy of political incompetence. Justice Minister Pavel Blažek was forced to resign after revelations that his ministry had accepted and sold 480 Bitcoin worth $45 million from Tomáš Jiříkovský—a name that should have set off every alarm bell in the Justice Ministry.

Jiříkovský wasn’t just any donor—he was the mastermind behind Sheep Marketplace and Nucleus, notorious cryptocurrency platforms where users bought illegal drugs, weapons, and other contraband. The platforms were shut down in 2016, and Jiříkovský was imprisoned for drug trafficking and weapons possession. Following his release, he apparently decided to donate his fortune to the very ministry responsible for locking him up.

The sheer audacity is breathtaking. In March 2025, Jiříkovský’s lawyer approached Blažek and offered one-third of the criminal’s Bitcoin stash as a “donation” to help digitize the justice system and combat drug use in prisons. The irony was apparently lost on everyone involved, and nobody knows where the rest of the money went.

Fiala’s Loyalty Problem

What makes this scandal particularly damaging for Fiala isn’t just the spectacular failure of due diligence—it’s how he responded when the story broke. Rather than immediately distancing himself, Fiala rushed to defend Blažek, insisting his justice minister “acted in good faith” and calling his eventual resignation a “responsible step.”

This wasn’t Fiala’s first time defending the indefensible regarding Blažek. Last year, coalition partners called for Blažek’s dismissal after he met with Russian agent of influence Martin Nejedlý, yet Fiala stood by him.

The situation is further complicated by revelations involving Fiala’s own circle. As one senior retired DEA special agent bluntly put it, “These darknet marketplaces have long been hubs for laundering money tied to Russian organized crime and intelligence services. Anyone connected with these funds should be immediately arrested, and their assets frozen without hesitation.”

Bad Political Timing

The timing couldn’t be worse for Fiala. With parliamentary elections scheduled for October, his center-right coalition is already trailing former Prime Minister Andrej Babiš’s populist ANO party by a comfortable 12 points. Fiala’s government has suffered some of the lowest approval ratings in a decade, largely because of economic pressures and a series of smaller scandals.

Now, Babiš—whom Fiala has spent years attacking for his own ethical lapses—has been handed the perfect ammunition. The government of the man who positioned himself as the ethical alternative has just been caught accepting millions from dark web drug dealers. The attack ads practically write themselves.

How Did This Happen?

The most damning aspect isn’t the donation itself—it’s the complete breakdown of basic governmental safeguards. How does a Justice Ministry staffed with prosecutors and investigators accept $45 million without conducting elementary background checks?

Intriguingly, Fiala established the office of National Security Advisor to get better security advice. He appointed self-styled hawk Tomas Pojar to that position, who in turn hired the former director of military intelligence, Jan Beroun, as his staffer. Was the failure of his national security team incompetence, or were they part of the attempted cover-up?

Their past associations cast further shadows over this scandal. Pojar was previously exposed for collaborating with Chinese intelligence officials during a trip to Beijing. Beroun was highly decorated by former President Miloš Zeman, a known ally of Vladimir Putin. Both are political allies of Blazek.

The connecting threads of this web seem to be Martin Nejedlý, a self-admitted agent of influence for Vladimir Putin. Even Tomáš Jiříkovský’s attorney, who negotiated the deal with Blazek, is an associate of Mr. Nejedly. Nejedly’s relationships with Czech political elites raise profound questions about the integrity of the Czech government’s stance on Russia. Mr. Nejedly has many friends in the Fiala cabinet.

Fiala now admits the state may have been “abused to launder criminal proceeds” and promises to convene the National Security Council to investigate. But the activities of the National Security Council are coordinated by Pojar, Blazek’s ally.

What’s Next?

With elections just months away, this scandal may have sealed Fiala’s fate. Czech voters, already frustrated by economic hardship and governmental incompetence, now have a vivid example of leadership failure: a justice minister who let his government launder drug money.

Babiš, despite his own troubles, now has a compelling narrative: the establishment lectures on ethics while covertly accepting money from criminals. It’s a narrative that resonates easily and may propel him back to power.

Ultimately, the dark web donation scandal will likely be remembered as the moment Fiala’s “Mr. Clean” image died—not through his opponents’ efforts but through his own profound failure to meet the ethical standards he set for others. In politics, there’s nothing more dangerous than hypocrisy. And this hypocrisy raises questions about Fiala’s Russian associations. If Mr. Clean isn’t so clean, maybe he isn’t so anti-Putin either.

Authored by Owen Evans via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Swedish government commission has recommended halting all international adoptions after an investigation found that decades of illegal adoptions amounted to child trafficking involving state authorities and adoption agencies.

Children at Wang Jiayu Orphanage in Anhui Province, China, on July 9, 2006. China Photos/Getty Images

At a news conference in Stockholm, Swedish Social Services Minister Camilla Waltersson Gronvall told the Swedish language Epoch Times on June 2: “[There are] appalling cases of deficient background information, and even children simply being stolen from their parents.

“There has been an unreasonable level of trust in the governments of the countries of origin for the children adopted to Sweden.”

According to Human Rights Watch, roughly 60,000 people have been adopted into Sweden. It started with children from South Korea in the 1950s, and then began to include children from China, Chile, Ethiopia, India, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, peaking in the mid-1970s to 1980s. By the early 2000s, the numbers began to steadily decline.

Amid growing concerns that adopted children may have been taken from their biological parents illegally, the commission found confirmed cases of child trafficking spanning every decade from the 1970s to the 2000s.

Head of the inquiry Anna Singer, professor of civil law, told The Epoch Times that this practice is “winding down by itself.”

“Last year, 54 children were adopted to Sweden [from abroad]. ... Many countries have ceased putting children up for intercountry adoption,” she said.

“Adoption agencies are not a sustainable solution for meeting the needs of these children. It’s better to try to improve conditions in their countries of origin. Intercountry adoption may have worked to slow down such efforts.”

China in the Spotlight

The final two-volume report released on June 2, the result of a probe that started in 2021, states that Swedish adoption organizations “have taken great risks by operating in China, which has been a closed country with very limited opportunities for transparency throughout the period.”

It states that all children adopted from China were described as abandoned and lacked any background history, making it difficult, or impossible, to assess whether the adoptions were in the children’s best interests.

“Chinese authorities have confirmed that four adoptions to Sweden were linked to the systematic child trafficking in Hunan [Province] that was exposed in 2005,“ the report reads. ”However, it cannot be ruled out that more Swedish adoptions are affected by the child trafficking in China.”

Financial incentives were created, as orphanages in China were compensated with $3,000 to $5,000 per child placed for international adoption. The Swedish supervisory authority found that the orphanages were dependent on these fees.

In total, almost 4,300 adoptions from China have been carried out to date, making China the fourth-largest country of origin for adoptions to Sweden in terms of total numbers.

Most adoptions occurred during the period 2000 to 2010, when more than 3,200 children were adopted from China to Sweden.

China is one of the few countries that approved adoption of young children to single adoptive parents.

The report also states that Swedish adoption companies failed to ensure that children were made available for adoption through proper channels or that the process was in the children’s best interests.

In many cases, signed documentation from biological parents was missing, even when those parents were known. Files also often lacked critical details needed for adoptees to understand their origins.

“Ultimately, it is the Swedish State that has failed to protect the rights of children in intercountry adoption activities,“ the report reads. ”This means that the State must take responsibility for what has happened and take measures to ensure that it does not happen again.”

It recommends an official apology to adopted people and their families as well as financial aid to help those who have been adopted to travel to their country of origin.

The Netherlands said in December 2024 that it would phase out international adoptions over the next six years, after an official 2021 report found that children had been stolen or bought from their birth parents in cases going back to the 1960s.

Switzerland said in January that it also plans to end international adoptions, amid similar concerns of abuse.

Roger Sahlstrom and Reuters contributed to this report.