Economic News

We Won’t Back Down Back in 2022, I warned that the British pound would fall below par, and that is not over. “We will not see a straight decline into 2026/2027, but that is where this is headed. The ideal support will be at the 72 to 76 level by then…” The extreme support by 2027 lies at 51 cents. That would tend to imply they lose against Russia. Breaking the 1985 low of $1.03 will then point to the 89 area.” After that, it is a meltdown.  This is the hallmark of LABOUR, which is a direct assumption from Karl Marx that we are just economic slaves, and when they created the EU, they made sure that there was no right of the people to choose a new government. They get to vote only for a Parliament that is for show and lacks any power to make a single law. I warned at last year’s WEC in Orlando that the computer was projected to be the demise of the Democratic Party. They are deeply divided and refuse to even listen to any criticism of what they stand for, from transgender to open borders, which was NOT what the American people wanted. At least we retain the right to change leadership, unlike Parliamentary systems and the European Union. This song, We Won’t Back Down, brings tears to the eyes of patriots. The first international panic os 1683 was the attempt of the Ottoman Empire to conquer Europe. The turmoil of the Balkans is drenched in blood. The Ottoman Empire did engage in forced religious conversions in the Balkans, but this was not a consistent, empire-wide policy throughout its entire history. The nature and scale of conversion varied dramatically by time, place, and circumstance. Contrary to popular myth, the Ottoman Empire’s primary approach to non-Muslims was not forced conversion economically. The state was organized under the Millet System, which granted religious communities (Orthodox Christians, Armenian Christians, Jews) a significant degree of autonomy that came with a price. They could practice their religion, run their own courts for personal law, and collect their own taxes. However, Non-Muslims paid a special tax called the jizya. Mass conversion would have drastically reduced state revenue. They conquered and converted the non-Muslims into economic slaves. The significant Muslim presence in the UK began as a result of migration waves that happened decades ago, primarily from the 1950s to the 1970s. The primary sources were from South Asia (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India), where post-war labour migration filled jobs in Britain’s industrial centres like Birmingham, Bradford, and Manchester. The 340-year cycle from the 1683 attempt to conquer Europe by the Ottoman Empire was 2023. The year 2023 was notable for irregular migration, specifically small boat crossings across the English Channel. However, the data does not support the idea that this was a “major influx of Muslims.” The top nationalities arriving by small boats in 2023 were Albanians, Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, and Syrians. The issue is not that they are Muslim. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh were countries that had been Westernized by British occupation and the rule of law. So those migrants assimilated culturally. These new groups are clashing, demanding to bring their culture to Britain, even changing the rule of law. Starmer has indeed destroyed everything that Britain once stood for. One thing that Margaret Thatcher said to me during one of our conversations was that Britain’s most extraordinary gift to Asia was the rule of law. She was correct insofar as, without the rule of law, investment becomes impossible. These migrants are coming from Albania, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, none of which attract serious international investment because they lack the respect for the rule of law, and thus making decisions on trillion dollar portfolios, that were countries that I could NEVER consider because there was no legal system even to secure the title to property. I am sorry. I have shed a tear for Britain. I was asked when Starmer was coming to power if I would come over and meet. I declined. Only a fool tries to convince another fool he is a fool. There is no evidence that I could ever present to Starmer that would convince him he is destroying Britain. He would never listen and probably throw me in prison for free speech, which he has extinguished and indeed now rules Britain out of fear, like any tyrant. If neither the police nor the military rise up, then Britain will never again be able even to use the word “Great.” Æthelstan (ruled 924-939), who is widely regarded as the first true King of England. He wasn’t “united athered,” but he united the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms under one rule. Starmer appeared on the 128th interval of the 8.6-year cycle, from 924AD. The United Kingdom began with the merger of England and Scotland in 1707.33 (May 1st, 1707). The 309.6-year cycle from that union marked BRIXT 2016.93. That alone confirmed that BRIXT would win. At the end of 2016, the government, under new Prime Minister Theresa May, argued it had the “prerogative power” to trigger Article 50 (the formal mechanism for leaving the EU) without a vote in Parliament. A legal challenge was mounted, arguing that only Parliament, as the sovereign body, could take away rights that it had initially been granted (EU-derived rights). The High Court Ruling (November 3, 2016) held that Parliament must vote to authorize the triggering of Article 50. This was a major blow to Theresa May’s plan for a swift and executive-led Brexit. The Supreme Court Appeal (January 24, 2017) saw the government appeal of the decision, but the Supreme Court upheld the ruling by a majority of 8 to 3. The court confirmed that an Act of Parliament was required before Article 50 could be invoked. In a major landmark speech on January 17th, 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May set out her government’s 12-point plan for Brexit, clarifying for the first time the UK’s core objectives. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the government introduced the European Union

President Donald Trump inherited a nation that was invaded. The invaders were incentivized to stay and permitted to coast under the radar. His administration was forced to throw down the gauntlet and forcibly remove the people who were invited to stay by the Democrats. New data indicate that ICE has removed approximately 600,000 migrants since January, with over 2 million having left overall. ICE warned that “this is just the beginning.”  Over 1.6 million people voluntarily self-deported. They heard the warnings loud and clear. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin discussed how there were no consequences for invaders during the Biden Administration. Again, these people were INVITED to enter the nation by the Democrats. “Illegal aliens are hearing our message to leave now or face the consequences. Migrants are now even turning back before they reach our borders,” McLaughlin said.   FAIR, a conservative advocacy group, believes that the US government was paying $8,776 annually per illegal alien. The figure includes education ($78B), healthcare ($42.7B), and justice ($47B) among the costs to harbor non-citizens. That would place current savings at over $5.2 billion annually; however, migrants received different compensation packages depending on where they landed. The Heritage Foundation estimated the figure to be around $14,387 per household. No one ever determined how many migrants passed through the borders under Biden. The latest ad campaign is urging migrants to leave willingly. Detention centers are avoidable. By now, anyone remaining in America illegally knows that they’re facing serious consequences for breaking US law. pic.twitter.com/dRcjwUdvl1 — Wayne Dunlap (@wdunlap) February 18, 2025 In contrast, the Biden Administration deported 271,000 in 2024 and 142,000 in 2023. Far more people entered the nation and these deportations were merely to make it seem as if the government was working to address the problem. The majority of Americans voted against open borders. Democrats invited countless millions into our home and expected us to be hospitable and pay whatever they demanded to subsidize their lives. A new poll found that 78% of Americans favored “deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have committed crimes.” Even 69% of Democrats favored deporting criminals. I simply do not understand the controversy or the thought process behind the 22% of respondents who believe foreign criminals should stay in the US. The majority (56%) favored deporting “all immigrants who are here illegally.” Only 36% of Democrats favor mass deportation efforts. My condolences to those still living under Build Back Better policies with open borders.

Jacob Silverman Does the defense secretary have unclaimed earnings from a firm he formerly advised? The post Pete Hegseth’s Crypto History appeared first on The Nation.

From Alberto Cavallo in the Harvard Gazette: See the interactive in the article. More on Cavallo et al. in this post.

Stories are circulating that Barack Obama funneled money through the Cayman Islands to NGOs. While that cannot be entirely verified, the portion of the story regarding the Obama Administration setting up a Twitter clone for Cuba called Zunzuneo is accurate. The US government under Obama sought ways to subliminally target the people of Cuba while bypassing the strict communist government restrictions on social media. USAID paid government contractors to create “Cuban Twitter,” which first launched in 2009. Initially, ZunZeneo (translation: “hummingbird”) used the platform to discuss neutral topics such as sports, weather, and entertainment. Once the platform expanded to hundreds of thousands of Cubans, the US government began inserting political messages aimed at inciting civil unrest. The Associated Press even ran an article about the incident in April 2014, “US secretly built ‘Cuban Twitter’ to stir unrest.” A leaked memo from Mobile Accord Inc., the company responsible for creating the platform, emphasized the importance of hiding the US government’s involvement. “This is absolutely crucial for the long-term success of the service and to ensure the success of the Mission,” the memo said. Slow growth was essential for the covert operation. The social platform utilized cellphone text messaging to bypass Cuba’s internet restrictions. “Non-controversial content” on hot topic was used to build a mass subscriber base. Nearly half a million people were subscribed to the platform before the content changed with the goal of organizing “smart mobs” to “renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society,” as one USAID memo revealed. USAID did not attempt to conceal its involvement, noting in a public statement that the agency was “proud of its work in Cuba to provide basic humanitarian assistance, promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to help information flow more freely to the Cuban people,” whom it said “have lived under an authoritarian regime” for 50 years. USAID claimed it was operating legally, but covert mission to influence foreign politics must be approved by the president. Former President Obama was aware of the program but could not openly discuss his involvement. Cubans were persuaded to rebel with known legal repercussions, wholly unaware that the messaging was coming from a foreign government. “Mock ad banners will give it the appearance of a commercial enterprise,” one proposal suggested. “The Cuban government, like other regimes committed to information control, currently lacks the capacity to effectively monitor and control such a service,” Bernheim wrote in a proposal for USAID marked “Sensitive Information.” Acting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew of the mission. By 2011, she began openly discussing the importance of infiltrating foreign governments via the internet to lead to “revolutionary change.” Others in the Biden Administration were left in the dark. “We were told we couldn’t even be told in broad terms what was happening because ‘people will die,’” said Fulton Armstrong, who worked for both the Clinton White House and later the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The ZunZuneo management team was also unaware of US involvement. USAID NGOs hired Cuban artists to draft messages to appeal to the people. The “Peace without Borders” concert in 2009 was the largest gathering since the visit of late Pope John Paul II. The US government used the occasion to gather intel through ZunZeno. Unassuming polls were sent out to the people, with some messaging containing subtle political components. One message asked respondents if they believed anti-government artists should join the concert. The US government gathered the cell phone numbers of the people who seemed receptive to use in future targeted attacks. This is completely illegal and a violation of data laws. “If it is discovered that the platform is, or ever was, backed by the United States government, not only do we risk the channel being shut down by Cubacel, but we risk the credibility of the platform as a source of reliable information, education, and empowerment in the eyes of the Cuban people,” Mobile Accord noted in a memo. Shell companies were created throughout various nations, including the Cayman Islands where the company banked with N.T. Butterfield & Son Ltd. “In the implementation has the government taken steps to be discreet in non-permissive environments? Of course. That’s how you protect the practitioners and the public.” USAID spokesman Matt Herrick noted. “In hostile environments, we often take steps to protect the partners we’re working with on the ground. This is not unique to Cuba.” Influencing foreign politics is certainly not unique to Cuba. A USAID contractor by the name of Alan Gross was sent to Cuba to provide internet access to the people. The program was launched shortly after he was arrested, as his initial goal to compromise Cuba’s internet failed. USAID is solely used to influence foreign politics under the guise of providing aid that the American people provide through taxation. The platform vanished from the internet in 2012 when Obama was running for his second term. Social media is a favorite tool of government to influence the masses. The amount of money allocated to Cuban Twitter is unknown since USAID operated extremely discreetly, funneling money to endless NGOs to conceal its motives.

Download our free PDF report, which elaborates further on the below analysis and complements it with graphs, quotes from leading economists, and other key forecasts for the region.  The regional economy has been weak as of late: Latin America’s economy grew an average of just 1.4% in the decade to 2024—the weakest performance among all world regions. For comparison, the far-wealthier euro area expanded 1.5%, while the corresponding figure for Eastern Europe—the next-slowest-growing emerging market—was 2.7%. Latin America’s chronic political instability, high levels of crime and corruption, subpar education system, reliance on the volatile commodity sector and lack of presence in fast-growing industries such as electronics and IT are all factors that have held back regional GDP growth over the past decade.  U.S. tariff impact to be manageable: The U.S. rolled out fresh tariffs this year that hit Latin America with a 10% baseline on most imports, extra charges on aluminum, cars, copper, and steel, plus “reciprocal” duties on a handful of countries including Brazil, Mexico, and Bolivia. But compared with other regions, Latin America gets off relatively lightly—many nations dodged the reciprocal tariffs thanks to their U.S. trade deficits, and plenty of carve-outs soften the blow where tariffs do apply. Brazil’s 50% levy only bites on a fraction of imports, Chile and Peru’s copper exports stay safe as long as they’re unprocessed, and Mexican firms can sidestep penalties by sticking to USMCA rules. Still, the bigger worry isn’t today’s tariffs but tomorrow’s: the cloud of uncertainty is already cooling investment, with Tesla and BYD pulling the plug on planned Mexican factories.  Our GDP growth Consensus forecasts: Our Consensus is for Latin America to remain the slowest-growing emerging market over our forecast horizon to 2029, with average annual GDP growth of slightly above 2%. Unlike in the past decade, the inter-country forecast range is expected to be fairly narrow, with the region’s economies growing between 1 and 3% on average. However, our panelists expect individual years to still see considerable variability. For instance, next year, Venezuela’s economy is forecast to contract, Bolivia’s to roughly flatline, and Paraguay’s to record an over 3% expansion.  For more detailed insights into what’s in store for the region in the coming years, download our free PDF report on Latin America’s economic outlook.    Insight from our panelists:   On the outlook for the Latin American economy, EIU analysts said: “Regional economic growth will slow to 2% in 2025-26, as the fallout from US protectionism—including the uncertainty this is creating—will dampen trade and investment in Latin America. Mexico’s economy will be hit the hardest, given its close ties with the US, whereas the impact on Brazil and other South American commodity exporters will be partially offset by their greater trade relationships with China. A rebound in Argentina’s economy from a two-year slump has run into headwinds recently, but should resume following pledges of US financial assistance and assuming that the ruling party of the president, Javier Milei, strengthens its legislative position at mid-term elections in October. Opportunities in Latin America in critical minerals, energy and infrastructure will remain attractive for investors.”   Our latest analysis:   U.S. retail sales beat expectations in August.   Nigeria’s oil production ticked down in August.  The post A diamond in the rough: Will Latin America finally reach its potential?  appeared first on FocusEconomics.

Download our free PDF report, which elaborates further on the below analysis and complements it with graphs, quotes from leading economists, and other key forecasts for the region.  The regional economy has been weak as of late: Latin America’s economy grew an average of just 1.4% in the decade to 2024—the weakest performance among all world regions. For comparison, the far-wealthier euro area expanded 1.5%, while the corresponding figure for Eastern Europe—the next-slowest-growing emerging market—was 2.7%. Latin America’s chronic political instability, high levels of crime and corruption, subpar education system, reliance on the volatile commodity sector and lack of presence in fast-growing industries such as electronics and IT are all factors that have held back regional GDP growth over the past decade.  U.S. tariff impact to be manageable: The U.S. rolled out fresh tariffs this year that hit Latin America with a 10% baseline on most imports, extra charges on aluminum, cars, copper, and steel, plus “reciprocal” duties on a handful of countries including Brazil, Mexico, and Bolivia. But compared with other regions, Latin America gets off relatively lightly—many nations dodged the reciprocal tariffs thanks to their U.S. trade deficits, and plenty of carve-outs soften the blow where tariffs do apply. Brazil’s 50% levy only bites on a fraction of imports, Chile and Peru’s copper exports stay safe as long as they’re unprocessed, and Mexican firms can sidestep penalties by sticking to USMCA rules. Still, the bigger worry isn’t today’s tariffs but tomorrow’s: the cloud of uncertainty is already cooling investment, with Tesla and BYD pulling the plug on planned Mexican factories.  Our GDP growth Consensus forecasts: Our Consensus is for Latin America to remain the slowest-growing emerging market over our forecast horizon to 2029, with average annual GDP growth of slightly above 2%. Unlike in the past decade, the inter-country forecast range is expected to be fairly narrow, with the region’s economies growing between 1 and 3% on average. However, our panelists expect individual years to still see considerable variability. For instance, next year, Venezuela’s economy is forecast to contract, Bolivia’s to roughly flatline, and Paraguay’s to record an over 3% expansion.  For more detailed insights into what’s in store for the region in the coming years, download our free PDF report on Latin America’s economic outlook.    Insight from our panelists:   On the outlook for the Latin American economy, EIU analysts said: “Regional economic growth will slow to 2% in 2025-26, as the fallout from US protectionism—including the uncertainty this is creating—will dampen trade and investment in Latin America. Mexico’s economy will be hit the hardest, given its close ties with the US, whereas the impact on Brazil and other South American commodity exporters will be partially offset by their greater trade relationships with China. A rebound in Argentina’s economy from a two-year slump has run into headwinds recently, but should resume following pledges of US financial assistance and assuming that the ruling party of the president, Javier Milei, strengthens its legislative position at mid-term elections in October. Opportunities in Latin America in critical minerals, energy and infrastructure will remain attractive for investors.”   Our latest analysis:   U.S. retail sales beat expectations in August.   Nigeria’s oil production ticked down in August.  The post A diamond in the rough: Will Latin America finally reach its potential?  appeared first on FocusEconomics.

Legacy media exists to promote propaganda and political agendas. The 24/7 365 news cycle acts as a distraction from the topics plaguing society. The revolution will not be televised. Truth must be decoded and extracted from outside sources. Americans have woken up and realized that the mainstream media is an untrustworthy source. The latest Gallup poll has found that the majority of Americans now distrust the media. Only 28% of respondents have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in newspapers, television, and radio. The figure seems high considering everything that has unfolded since the pandemic. Around 31% of respondents trusted the media one year ago. Amid COVID in 2020, 40% of respondents held onto hope that the mainstream media was a reliable news source. Seven in 10 Americans reported that they do not have confidence in the mass media. Around 36% reported they have “not very much” confidence, while 34% reported “none at all.” Gallup noted that Americans had a much higher level of confidence in the media back in the day. Around 70% of US adults trusted TV, radio, and newspapers to deliver reliable information back in the 1970s. That figure plummeted to 53% by 1997 and fell beneath the 50% level in 2004. The latest reading from September 2-16, 2025, indicated the lowest confidence on record. There is one conservative news outlet in America, and naturally, Republicans have far lower confidence in reporting. MSM confidence among Republicans plummeted to 21% in 2015 and is now at a mere 8%. A little over half (51%) of Democrats continue to trust the media, but this low has not been seen since the 2016 US Presidential Election. Less than half of Independents have trusted legacy media since 2003, with the latest poll showing a record low of 27%. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Fakes-News-USA.mp4   Older Democrats are clinging to old beliefs that the legacy media is reporting on behalf of the people. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats over 65 still have confidence in broadcasting, with the figure declining ten points or more with each generation of self-reported Democratic voters. Republicans over 65 also have the highest levels of trust in the media among their peers at 17%, with young Republicans aged 18-29 expressing the second-most favorable view of mass media. In contrast, the next generation of Republicans aged 30-49 have the lowest level of confidence among any demographic at 6%. As the trend indicates, older Independents also express the highest level of confidence among their peers (42%), followed by the youngest Independent voters (29%) aged 18-29. The days of the Sunday paper are long gone, as are the days of gathering around the TV to watch the nightly news. “Journalism” has been oversaturated by the 24/7 news cycle ,bombarding the public with messaging at every turn. One cannot step outside or interact with society without seeing messaging from the media that is often pushed discreetly. Social media has turned everyone with a phone into an independent reporter with the same video loops and messages playing in a continuous loop. The American people are fatigued by the mockingbird media, and more importantly, by the establishment’s brainwashing onslaught.

Meet 73 Top Economists Worth Following From Across the FocusEconomics Network If you are reading this article, it’s probably because you’re interested in economics, or in what’s going on in the world economy. You might be a business owner or employee, investor, student, or indeed perhaps an economist yourself. And what better time to read from economists across the FocusEconomics analyst panel than now?  With the U.S. President seeking to roll back globalization, the world economy has become a moving target, ever more elusive and ever trickier to predict. But one of the enduring pillars of globalization—the internet—means we can still learn and teach about the world economy in a way that is far easier than our ancestors could ever have conceived. This article shares with you 73 economists whose commentary on the world economy is insightful, sharp, and often entertaining. They work for a variety of banks, consultancies and other firms across the FocusEconomics panel, including Capital Economics, Fitch Ratings and many more. Their analysis covers a wide range of the 198 countries and 40 commodities that FocusEconomics provides Consensus Forecasts for. 1,243 economists provide projections as part of the FocusEconomics Consensus Forecast. The point of boiling this number down to a list of just 73 is to provide you as the reader a bite-sized chunk of the huge offering of top-quality economic analysis that is available worldwide—in the same way that FocusEconomics seeks to aggregate various economic projections into one simple average: The Consensus Forecast. Skip ahead to the region or topic that interests you most: Asia Australia and New Zealand Eastern Europe Euro area The Caribbean plus Central and Latin America G7 / Major economies Nordic economies Middle East Sub-Saharan Africa Global Commodities If you have any questions or feedback on this article, please contact our Panelist Manager Alina Petryk at apetryk@focus-economics.com. Asia Taimur Baig Taimur Baig is Managing Director at DBS Bank, which received nine FocusEconomics Forecaster Awards this year, with a particularly strong showing for countries on home turf—the ASEAN region. Baig himself bagged a second-place award for his U.S. inflation forecasts. He hosts the Kopi Time podcast, and regularly shares media appearances and ad-hoc analyses, arguing in one that, after a strong showing in Q2, Asian economies are likely to have slowed in Q3. Follow Carlos Casanova Carlos Casanova is Managing Director and Senior Economist at UBP, and won awards this year from FocusEconomics for various Asian countries, including for being the best forecaster of Hong Kong’s GDP. Casanova shares UBP’s research generously, including a detailed six-page report available to read on LinkedIn on the last week’s developments in the Asian economy. Follow Hak Bin Chua Hak Bin Chua is Maybank’s Regional Co-Head of macro research, and this year scooped FocusEconomics Forecaster Awards with colleague Brian Lee Shun Rong for Singapore’s current and fiscal balances. Chua is regularly quoted in print media, including the Straits Times, and shares the relevant excerpts on LinkedIn—an insightful and speedy way of learning more about Singapore’s economy. Follow Alex Holmes Alex Holmes is the EIU’s Regional Director for the Asia-Pacific, having joined the company last year from Oxford Economics. If you want to hear about the latest cutting research on Asia in a prose that’s peppy and entertaining, Holmes is definitely worth following. In one of his recent posts, Holmes reminded his readers of the EIU’s view last year that global chip demand would bolster Asian exports ahead—a crucial question to examine in an age of rising U.S. tariffs. Follow Kalyani Honrao The EIU’s Kalyani Honrao—a relative newcomer compared to some of the other names on this list—is definitely worth following if you are interested in south Asian economies. She won FocusEconomics Awards both this year and last for her projections about Bangladesh’s economy, a country she posts about regularly on LinkedIn. In a recent post, she highlights a recent appearance in the Globe and Mail in which she examines the parallels between Nepal and Bangladesh’s recent political shifts. Follow Kelvin Lam Kelvin Lam is Senior China and North Asia Economist for Pantheon Macroeconomics. Along with colleague Duncan Wrigley, Lam was recognized this year by FocusEconomics as the most accurate forecaster of China’s inflation rate. On LinkedIn Lam regularly shares his media appearances, including recently one on the BBC World Service discussing talks between the Chinese and U.S. leaders. Follow Yun Liu Yun Liu covers ASEAN for HSBC, and was recognized as one of the top-three best forecasters of Malaysia’s economy in this year’s FocusEconomics Forecaster Awards. As well as sharing her thoughts on the likely impact of U.S. tariffs on ASEAN economies, Liu is active at conferences and in the media, recently appearing on CNBC to talk about the impact of Fed decisions on ASEAN central banks—a vital topic for those to follow that are interested in the region. Follow Euben Paracuelles Euben Paracuelles is the Chief ASEAN Economist at Nomura, covering key economies in the region including the Philippines, a country for which he was recognized as one of the top-three best overall forecasters in the latest FocusEconomics Awards. Paracuelles writes regularly on LinkedIn about Nomura’s podcasts and research, building on nearly 30 years of experience. Follow Nick Marro Nick Marro is Principal Economist at EIU, covering Asia. This year, he was recognized by FocusEconomics as the second-most accurate forecaster for Taiwan, an economy whose exports have consistently surged by over 30% in the past months on booming AI demand. Marro recently shared his recent interview on CNBC, examining what Taiwan will need to do to keep up its strong export momentum in the face of rising U.S. tariffs. Follow Allan Von Mehren Allan Von Mehren, Chief Analyst at Danske Bank and a member of our panel, is a keen watcher of China’s economy. In a recent post von Mehren offers snappy analyses regarding China’s latest monthly data dump, suggesting that a weakening of retail sales growth points to continued soft consumer spending and downbeat figures for home prices and sales augur a still-sluggish housing market.

Sasha Abramsky On the brink of a potentially devastating government shutdown, Trump spent his day with Pete Hegseth haranguing generals at a summit that should’ve been an e-mail. The post The Moral Hollowing Out of the United States appeared first on The Nation.