Aggregator

File Rob Bonta’s latest stunt under “Democrats’ dirty tricks.”

Under the plan, unhoused residents would be paid to clean areas around encampments.

The Grammy-nominated R&B singer opened up about her gratitude for life following her health diagnosis.

The Grammy-nominated R&B singer opened up about her gratitude for life following her health diagnosis.

Fetcher allegedly used a co-worker's card to buy kratom from a smoke shop after returning from substance abuse rehab.

From Cash To Trash, Rinse And Repeat

Authored by Frank Giustra,

The Continental dollar, born in 1775, was meant to finance the colonies’ fight against Britain—the American Revolution. What it actually financed was a masterclass in how quickly a currency can evaporate when it has no anchor, no credible backing, and no one willing to stop the printing presses. Hundreds of millions of Continental notes were issued with nothing but the promise of future redemption in gold or silver—which the colonies did not possess in sufficient quantity. 

As wartime expenses mounted and the conflict dragged on, the colonies’ solution was a time-honored tactic. Just dig yourself a deeper financial hole by printing more currency. When confidence in the Continental buck inevitably collapsed, merchants demanded ever-larger stacks of paper for the same goods. 

By 1781, a barrel of flour that once cost a few Continental dollars cost hundreds or thousands. The exchange rate against silver reached the point where it took five hundred to a thousand Continentals to buy a single hard dollar (meaning a silver or metal coin). Some states saw the writing on the wall and simply stopped accepting the notes altogether.

The British, who had plenty of practice in meddling in colonial internal affairs, helped the debasement process along. They knew that counterfeiting Continentals on an industrial scale was cheaper than fighting military battles, and more effective. The result, as intended, was hyperinflation. When the dust settled, the phrase “not worth a Continental” had entered the language as shorthand for worthless. 

The Founders, having lived through the destruction of the Continental dollar, carried a deep suspicion of unbacked paper money into the constitutional debates. That suspicion helped produce a document that at least tried to constrain monetary experimentation. George Washington famously said, “Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open a door to every species of fraud and injustice.”

That was not the only such inflationary episode before the colonies became a republic. During and after the American Revolution, individual states issued their own notes with similarly dismal results—sharp depreciation, hyperinflationary spikes in the 1780s, and the general chaos that made a stronger federal hand on currency seem necessary. 

The War of 1812 brought another suspension of convertibility and the circulation of Treasury notes at discounts. The so-called Free Banking Era that followed (1837–63) is not unlike today’s cryptocurrency industry. It produced thousands of state-chartered banknotes, many of which traded at steep discounts or became worthless when the issuing (“wildcat”) banks, beset by fraud and panics, collapsed.

The Confederate currency of 1861–65 offers perhaps the cleanest parallel to the Continental story. Once again, massive overprinting to finance a war without adequate taxation was followed by hyperinflation so severe that prices rose thousands of percent before the notes became essentially worthless by the end of the Civil War. 

In every case, the pattern resurfaces predictably. Governments (or would-be governments) facing extraordinary expenses turn to the printing press when taxation and borrowing prove inadequate or inconvenient. It’s as if politicians and policy makers either never read a history book or had their memories magically erased. Without a credible anchor in hard assets or ironclad fiscal discipline, public confidence erodes, money velocity rises, and the currency loses purchasing power—sometimes gradually, sometimes in a sudden rush.

The modern version of this story began in earnest with the end of dollar convertibility into gold. Domestically this occurred in 1933, when FDR confiscated privately held gold. Internationally, the break came in 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window. 

Ever since, the dollar has functioned as a pure fiat currency. The cumulative effect on purchasing power has been substantial. What $1 bought in 1971 is what about 15 cents buys today. In other words, you need $6.50 to $7 to purchase what a single dollar bought in 1971. That’s a loss of roughly 85 percent of purchasing power over half a century—an outcome entirely consistent with the long-run behavior of unbacked paper currencies. It’s not hyperinflation in the dramatic sense we saw in 1920s Weimar Germany, or in 2000s Zimbabwe, but it’s a steady, grinding, quasi-invisible debasement that compounds across generations.

The usual excuses, “This time is different”, assume that American institutions are uniquely resilient or exceptional, that the dollar’s reserve status grants permanent immunity, and that the U.S. can abuse its currency without serious consequences.

These sound like the rationalizations heard at the late stages of any long monetary experiment. 

The historical record is not kind to such beliefs. Empires from the Spanish to the British to the French have discovered that the ability to print unlimited currency eventually encourages the very behaviors that undermine the currency. Countless wars have been financed by debt and debasement. Political fragmentation prevents corrective action, confidence bleeds away, and alternative stores of value gain traction. De-dollarization today, whether measured in central-bank gold purchases or shifting trade-settlement patterns, reflects a repeat of that loss of confidence.

The Founders understood something that today’s generation, lacking direct experience of currency collapse, finds easy to overlook. Paper money untethered from hard assets removes the shackles that keep politicians from doing what politicians would always rather do—abandon fiscal responsibility. 

The Founders had seen the Continental experiment up close. They knew that once the printing press becomes the path of least resistance, the incentive structure for politicians and central bankers alike encourages more spending, more debt, and more monetary accommodation. The result, over time, is the gradual erosion of purchasing power we’ve seen since 1971, punctuated by sharper episodes when political or geopolitical pressures intensify.

None of this is to predict imminent hyperinflation or the sudden disappearance of the dollar as a medium of exchange. Fiat currencies can limp along for decades, sustained by network effects, institutional inertia, and the absence of a clearly superior alternative. But the long-run arithmetic is unforgiving and requires only elementary school math to foresee. Every historical example of sustained, unbacked issuance ends the same way. The currency loses most of its value, new arrangements eventually emerge, and those who held real assets, particularly gold, preserve wealth while others do not.

The lesson is not complicated, just inconvenient. When a great power abandons any credible link to hard money, the currency loses purchasing power over time, and the temptation to finance geopolitical ambitions through debt and debasement grows ever stronger. 

The phrase “not worth a Continental” was once popular in the U.S. It wasn’t part of a Cadillac marketing campaign. It came about after the Continental Congress decided that printing its way out of a war was preferable to the messy and difficult business of collecting taxes.

As we’ve seen, the United States has lived through several episodes of this series. The only novelty today is the scale at which the experiment is being run and the amnesia with which it’s being conducted. Those who imagine the outcome will be any different this time around might usefully recall that the Continental Congress also believed its circumstances were unique—until the notes stopped buying anything at all. 

Is it too far-fetched to imagine that our descendants will one day adopt the expression “Not worth a US dollar”? 

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/23/2026 - 16:20

They're leaders of the fry world.

Iran's increasingly precise missile and drone attacks — including strikes that evaded US air defenses and killed American troops last week — are fueling fears inside the Pentagon that Tehran is getting help from American adversaries such as Russia and China.

The morning show, anchored by Gayle King and Nate Burleson, averaged just under 1.6 million total viewers for the week, according to Nielsen figures.

Details matter. Just ask Matt Nagy.

Intel Saves The Tech Day, Sees 15-Year High For Sales Growth, "Unprecedented Demand"

After a dismal day that saw tech stocks wrecked on the shores of hyperscalers' CapEx and inferred from Alphabet's earnings, tonight sees Intel's Lip-Bu Tan ride to the rescue with better-than-expected second-quarter results on Thursday, notching its fastest revenue growth rate for any quarter since 2011 and issuing guidance that topped expectations. 

Beat on the top- and bottom-line:

• Earnings per share: 42 cents, adjusted, versus 21 cents expected

• Revenue: $16.1 billion, versus $14.42 billion expected

Upped Guidance: For the current quarter, Intel said it expects adjusted earnings per share of 38 cents on revenue between $15.8 billion and $16.8 billion.

Analysts were expecting revenue of $15.1 billion and EPS of 27 cents, according to consensus.

"AI is driving unprecedented demand for compute," CEO Lip-Bu Tan said in the statement.

"As we continue to execute, Intel is well-positioned to capture sustainable growth across our CPU franchise."

Additionally, Intel said it's boosting its capital expenditures, targeting a "meaningful increase" next year, as it aggressively tries to morph into a manufacturer of chips for other companies.

CFO David Zinsner told CNBC's Kristina Partsinevelos that the company's latest manufacturing process, called 14A, is ahead of where older technologies were at the same point in the cycle.

INTC is up around 10% from the close...

And that narrative-confirmer is pulling all of tech higher (Nasdaq futs)...

Finally, however, Intel did not reveal a major customer for its foundry, as investors and potential customers keep waiting. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/23/2026 - 16:15

Rasmus Dahlin and co. look to get revenge against the Canadiens at the KeyBank Center on Dec. 18.

KANSAS CITY — For too much of this season, in manager Tony Vitello’s eyes, the Giants have been playing as if they have “everything to lose.” He’d like to see more of the opposite. “And that’s understandable,” Vitello said. “It’s one of the most, if not the most, proud organizations in the MLB. We’ve got...

One of the most well-known Havana Syndrome victims has settled his lawsuit against the State Department for $650,000, The Post has learned.

If he is going down — and it seems as if he is, now forced to begrudgingly adjust a routine he had perfected — he is going down swinging at Major League Baseball.

We've reached the end of the road...

Expect to see a lot of TBBT favorites in this strange and funny spinoff.

What does it mean if aliens are real?

Four House Republicans Break Ranks To Help Democrats Pass Iran War Powers Resolution

The House on Thursday approved a Democratic-led war powers resolution aimed at restricting President Trump's military operations in Iran, with four Republicans providing the decisive votes.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and forced to the floor with Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), passed 214-208. Joining every Democrat were Reps. Tom Barrett (R-Mich.), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) - the same quartet that crossed the aisle on a similar resolution last month.

It will not end the war, or slow it. The measure is a concurrent resolution, meaning it never reaches the president's desk for signature or veto and carries no force of law. Both chambers passed comparable measures in June. The war continued. This one is a message, delivered twice.

The vote comes as the death toll among U.S. service members climbs. Eighteen troops have been killed since the United States and Israel launched joint strikes on Iran in February - four of them since July 17. U.S. forces have sustained nearly 500 injuries, roughly 100 in the past two weeks, according to the Pentagon. On Wednesday, Trump participated in a dignified transfer ceremony for three service members killed in Jordan and Iraq.

Jayapal framed the resolution as a reassertion of congressional authority. "This is a vote of conscience," she said on the House floor Wednesday. "This war must end." Afterward she added: "Congress has not been consulted. And hostilities have been driven over and over again by a president who won his election by promising to end forever wars."

Republicans who opposed the measure defended the campaign as necessary given Iran's record of attacks on Americans in the region. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast (R-Fla.) held up photographs of U.S. service members killed in the war during floor debate. "To belittle this mission is to belittle and demean the very service these members gave their life for," Mast said. "This operation is bringing reckoning for the hundreds of times Iran has attacked and killed people of the United States of America."

The four who broke ranks did so for different reasons. Massie and Davidson are longstanding critics of foreign intervention; Fitzpatrick and Barrett are moderates facing competitive re-election bids. Massie suggested the number could grow.

"I think you will see more Republicans come on board to war powers resolutions if we bring them up again, and I'd be happy to vote on one every day, but I don't think we need to," he told CNN on Wednesday evening. "We've already passed a concurrent resolution in the House and in the Senate."

The Senate did not follow. Hours after the House vote, Senate Democrats moved to advance a war powers resolution of their own and fell short, 47-49. In June, GOP Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Bill Cassidy (La.) had joined Democrats on the earlier measure.

One Bridge Per Ship

The congressional rebuke arrived a day after Trump escalated in the other direction. In a Wednesday Truth Social post, he committed the United States to destroying a piece of Iranian infrastructure for every vessel Iran attacks.

"From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by Missile, Rocket, Drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital City of Tehran," Trump wrote.

Tehran answered within hours. An Iranian military source told the semi-official Tasnim News Agency that if the United States targets a bridge or power plant in Iran, Iran will "strike infrastructure and bridges in the region, including energy facilities where the United States has interests." The source restated Tehran's position that ships may transit the strait safely only if coordinated with Iran and conducted under Iranian arrangements.

U.S. Central Command says Iran has attacked more than 30 commercial vessels in the strait over the past three months, and the U.S. had completed 11 consecutive nights of strikes on Iranian military infrastructure as of Wednesday. Several of those Iranian attacks came after Washington and Tehran signed a June memorandum of understanding calling for a ceasefire - an agreement the administration says Iran has violated. Qatari mediators are still working toward a deal that would stop the fighting and reopen the waterway.

The House action underscores persistent bipartisan unease with the trajectory of the conflict, even as the White House signals a willingness to escalate. Two chambers have now told the president to stop, twice, in language he is free to ignore.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/23/2026 - 15:50

"A Bridge Too Far": Middle East Set For A Massive Escalation

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Unless things change dramatically, the Middle East seems set for massive escalation.

President Trump yesterday warned every missile, rocket, or drone Iran fires at ships in Hormuz will be met with the destruction of an Iranian bridge or power plant.

This morning, the IRGC says a tanker is on fire after an explosion in the strait and Kuwait is under drone attack. Moreover, the Houthis claimed attacks on two Saudi tankers in the Red Sea, raising the risks of a new global energy chokepoint besides Hormuz.

Reports say the US is surging military forces to the region, heavy bombers are being prepared, and Mossad is coordinating with the CIA. Equally, Iran’s Ghalibaf has stated there will be no safety if Iran’s security is not guaranteed, read as more or less a declaration of war against the entire region’s infrastructure and energy should its own be hit.

Worse, Iranian strikes on CIA Middle-East facilities are prompting US questions about Russian involvement, which would conflate the war more deeply with Russia-Ukraine, where epic damage to Russian energy, shipping, and logistics infrastructure continues to mount. On that note, after Kazakhstan was forced to stop piping oil via the Black Sea due Ukraine’s drone attacks, the EU is launching a mission to board Russian shadow fleet ships in the Indian Ocean; however, Russian LNG is to remain exempt from EU sanctions - realpolitik or real weakness?

In the Middle East, the UK is evacuating its remaining diplomatic personnel from Iran, just as it did the day before the Iran war started in February, but Bulgaria is aiding US military operations from its territory. That could potentially make it a target for Iranian reprisals – and it’s a NATO and EU member, each with collective defense clauses.

If we see military escalation, it’s likely to drive energy prices even higher than the $95.5 level Brent was at this morning with benchmark crack spreads at $68. However, it’s unlikely to last long. Neither the US nor Israel, nor Iran, nor the GCC can sustain a no-holds-barred war for long – and the world economy obviously can’t either. As such, we may be close to the beginning of the end of this crisis - it’s just unclear if it will prove a bridge too far for the US or Iran.

Meanwhile, the White House is considering military options in Mali, where the Al-Qaeda-linked JNIM are advancing on the capital. That risks further US overstretch. Then again, after the former imperial power France and arrivistes Russia both got a bloody nose in the country, it doesn’t look like anyone else is going to act against these jihadis – certainly not Europe, though Mali uses the West African CFA franc that is pegged to the Euro. Of course, Mali is also rich in resources.

As climactic in geoeconomics --but likely to last much longer than events in the Middle East-- yesterday saw Financial Times editor Martin Wolf ask, “Who will win the war of neo-mercantilists?”, making clear, “We are living in a mercantilist era.” We aren’t, because we don’t all want to hoard gold (yet) so it’s a neo-mercantilism that wants national-security trade surpluses – but he’s close enough. Likewise, Stephen Roach today asks in the same paper, “How long can China defy history and logic with its imbalances?” and argues, “The country is demanding far too much of a world fixated on cheap consumer goods.”

This looks a Damascene conversion for a media source that long rejected that a now undeniable reality we’ve been arguing for since 2015, along with every Western policy step that could have prevented its emergence, while instead cheering everything that accelerated its arrival.

Yet will the Establishment financial press now offer analysis that adapts to a new old world?

It seems unlikely looking at the Bloomberg response to Trump’s planned 100% generic drug tariffs with a two-year delay: “But prices will go up!” Really? Such drugs have a low labor input; shipping them in from abroad costs a lot; and this overlooks the national-security argument – a Great Power cannot be reliant on others for key medicines, among other things. (Plus, the EU says its generic exports to the US are protected by last year’s EU-US trade deal.)

In short, even the FT is now implying that if you use the terms “economic statecraft” or “neo-mercantilism,” yet default to “But prices will go up!” when they are in action, then you don’t understand either - nor that those making decisions in the US, China, and elsewhere do.

The looming implications of this are potentially explosive, and already evident:

• The US Congress is again exploring tariffs and/or sanctions to counter China’s shipbuilding dominance; the USTR says the US isn’t getting the critical minerals from China it had been promised; Boeing has asked the US to intervene over a record EU loan to Airbus; and Mercedes risks a US sales ban under Senate China bill that penalises Chinese ownership and tech, which the German car-marker had happily embraced even with that threat overhanging it.
• EU tariffs on China have accelerated Korean tire makers' exit from the country: imagine what broader EU tariffs might achieve (beyond “But prices will go up!”) “Voila! l'art de gouverner par l'économie!” – indeed, many of the early neo-mercantilists were Europeans. That said, a report calls the bloc’s 2040 target to double its electrification an “unattainable dreamland.”
• Nvidia's CEO unsurprisingly defended Chinese AIs that might use lots of his chips; Axios reports that an OpenAI AI models “went rogue during testing.”; and AI-driven soaring memory chips costs are forcing others, such as Asian carmakers, to consider price hikes.
• In markets, where this all ultimately ends up, the White House is still looking at the Fed. Bloomberg reports Barr may be ousted over her conduct during the SVB bailout. That could open the door for another pro-Trump voice on the FOMC, as a legal sword still hangs over Cook’s tenure and a recent Supreme Court ruling has opened the door to even more sweeping changes.

More mundane, today saw Aussie jobs data at 76.3K, which is the equivalent of a US payrolls print of 1,000K. That’s after news that the limp economy is seeing the worst per capita income trend since WW1. What, beyond bad data, could allow that staggering divergence? Expect more questions about political economy to erupt – and more resistance from the usual crowd.

To conclude, are Hormuz and the Red Sea a bridge too far for the US or Iran? Is the emergence of neo-mercantilism a bridge too far for traditional macro-commentary (or macro-ideology)? Is the Fed a bridge too far for the White House? All three are linked: we have to wait for the outcomes.

Tyler Durden Thu, 07/23/2026 - 15:30