The Wall St Bear thesis on AI is there are no visible results to show productivity growth.
The data suggests that the Bear thesis is just Doomer porn.
Companies promised AI gains — here's how the payoff showed up in earnings cnb.cx/4sASRrW
The data suggests that the Bear thesis is just Doomer porn.
Companies promised AI gains — here's how the payoff showed up in earnings cnb.cx/4sASRrW
16
12
82
8,038
Elections have consequences.
Democrats blocked the Clarity Act in the Senate over Trump’s crypto holdings. The bill would have required covered platforms to register, use qualified custodians, segregate customer assets, and allow faster temporary freezes. Weeks later Binance was hit by the largest crypto hack on record (~$6.3B). The safeguards the bill would have put in place never took effect. This is what happens when politicians vote on political vendettas instead of policy.
Democrats blocked the Clarity Act in the Senate over Trump’s crypto holdings. The bill would have required covered platforms to register, use qualified custodians, segregate customer assets, and allow faster temporary freezes. Weeks later Binance was hit by the largest crypto hack on record (~$6.3B). The safeguards the bill would have put in place never took effect. This is what happens when politicians vote on political vendettas instead of policy.
Yesterday, hackers stole more than $6 billion from Binance in less than 4 hours, the biggest heist in history. The Clarity Act would have given crypto firms legal cover to freeze suspicious transactions the instant law enforcement calls. Every minute lost is money gone for good.
13
70
381
14,959
Remove Geopolitical Risk, Deflate Inflation Fear
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says oil flows from the Persian Gulf and alternative export routes have surpassed prewar levels, excluding Iranian barrels. That is the first step.
The next is a Trump deal that eliminates Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon and removes the geopolitical risk premium. Relief at the gasoline pump and in diesel prices, would be significant.
My bet: Trump gets a deal, oil falls, and bond yields drop. Markets are not positioned for that reversal. Investors and the Keynesians at the Fed are treating the oil shock as permanent rather than a disruption whose costs can unwind.
The overlooked factor is delivery.
Brent and West Texas Intermediate do not capture the full expense of getting crude to refineries. Tanker costs from the Persian Gulf to Asia have exceeded $37 a barrel. Shipping American crude to Asia has cost $30–35. Insurance adds another burden.
Restored flows are necessary but insufficient. Barrels are moving through an expensive network of detours, transfers, and constrained shipping capacity. An enforceable deal that ends Iran’s nuclear threat and restores normal passage through Hormuz would attack both the underlying danger and its economic cost.
Voyages would shorten. Tankers would return to normal service. Freight and insurance costs would fall. Crude would lose its supply-disruption premium.
Consumers would benefit twice: cheaper oil and cheaper delivery.
Falling gasoline prices would reverse households’ most visible inflation signal. Cheaper diesel would ease costs throughout trucking, agriculture, construction, and distribution.
The energy-driven inflation spiral anchoring the Fed’s fears would evaporate as its catalyst ran backward. Bond yields would fall before official inflation figures caught up, weakening the case for restrictive policy.
Restore flows. Eliminate the nuclear threat. Remove the risk premium.
Trump gets a deal. Oil and rates drop. Markets are looking the wrong way. And the world is safer. Yes a peace dividend.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says oil flows from the Persian Gulf and alternative export routes have surpassed prewar levels, excluding Iranian barrels. That is the first step.
The next is a Trump deal that eliminates Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon and removes the geopolitical risk premium. Relief at the gasoline pump and in diesel prices, would be significant.
My bet: Trump gets a deal, oil falls, and bond yields drop. Markets are not positioned for that reversal. Investors and the Keynesians at the Fed are treating the oil shock as permanent rather than a disruption whose costs can unwind.
The overlooked factor is delivery.
Brent and West Texas Intermediate do not capture the full expense of getting crude to refineries. Tanker costs from the Persian Gulf to Asia have exceeded $37 a barrel. Shipping American crude to Asia has cost $30–35. Insurance adds another burden.
Restored flows are necessary but insufficient. Barrels are moving through an expensive network of detours, transfers, and constrained shipping capacity. An enforceable deal that ends Iran’s nuclear threat and restores normal passage through Hormuz would attack both the underlying danger and its economic cost.
Voyages would shorten. Tankers would return to normal service. Freight and insurance costs would fall. Crude would lose its supply-disruption premium.
Consumers would benefit twice: cheaper oil and cheaper delivery.
Falling gasoline prices would reverse households’ most visible inflation signal. Cheaper diesel would ease costs throughout trucking, agriculture, construction, and distribution.
The energy-driven inflation spiral anchoring the Fed’s fears would evaporate as its catalyst ran backward. Bond yields would fall before official inflation figures caught up, weakening the case for restrictive policy.
Restore flows. Eliminate the nuclear threat. Remove the risk premium.
Trump gets a deal. Oil and rates drop. Markets are looking the wrong way. And the world is safer. Yes a peace dividend.
The Strait of Hormuz transit levels are back to pre-conflict levels minus Iranian barrels.
The world can live without Iranian oil.
Iran cannot live without oil exports.
23
26
177
12,057
America First Is Not a Passing Phase
Prime Minister Mark Carney appears to be betting that America First is a temporary departure from the economic order Canada once knew. I respectfully disagree. The tone in Washington may change under a new administration. Canada should not assume the underlying policies will change with it.
The mistake is to confuse Donald Trump’s political style with the durability of his economic agenda. A successor can reject his rhetoric while retaining the emphasis on domestic production, investment and American economic interests. Canada cannot afford to build its strategy around the expectation that those priorities will disappear when Trump leaves office.
Nor should we confuse a more diplomatic president with a renewed American embrace of globalization. Friendlier language does not necessarily mean more open markets. Washington can be warmer toward its allies while remaining determined to bring investment, manufacturing and supply chains home.
Carney himself has supplied the right warning: “Nostalgia is not a strategy.” Yet treating America First as a passing episode risks precisely the nostalgia he cautions against, the belief that Canada can wait out an uncomfortable administration and then resume business as usual.
John F. Kennedy offered a useful warning in a 1963 speech in Frankfurt: “Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future.” His subject was Atlantic partnership, not economic nationalism, but the warning against looking backward fits Canada’s predicament.
Canada must recognize the structural changes underway in the United States and adjust accordingly. Accepting that reality does not mean endorsing every American policy. It means recognizing that our economic strategy must respond to the America that exists, not the one we would prefer.
Yes, Canada needs access to the American market. That is precisely why we must strengthen our own position: attract investment, expand productive capacity, remove domestic barriers and make ourselves a more competitive and more valuable, economic partner.
The question is not whether the next president will sound like Trump. It is how much of his economic agenda will survive him. Canada should prepare for continuity rather than count on restoration.
Nostalgia is not a strategy. Neither is hope.
Carney brushes back Trump on trade, Europe and Russia politi.co/4koN8TU via @politico
Prime Minister Mark Carney appears to be betting that America First is a temporary departure from the economic order Canada once knew. I respectfully disagree. The tone in Washington may change under a new administration. Canada should not assume the underlying policies will change with it.
The mistake is to confuse Donald Trump’s political style with the durability of his economic agenda. A successor can reject his rhetoric while retaining the emphasis on domestic production, investment and American economic interests. Canada cannot afford to build its strategy around the expectation that those priorities will disappear when Trump leaves office.
Nor should we confuse a more diplomatic president with a renewed American embrace of globalization. Friendlier language does not necessarily mean more open markets. Washington can be warmer toward its allies while remaining determined to bring investment, manufacturing and supply chains home.
Carney himself has supplied the right warning: “Nostalgia is not a strategy.” Yet treating America First as a passing episode risks precisely the nostalgia he cautions against, the belief that Canada can wait out an uncomfortable administration and then resume business as usual.
John F. Kennedy offered a useful warning in a 1963 speech in Frankfurt: “Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future.” His subject was Atlantic partnership, not economic nationalism, but the warning against looking backward fits Canada’s predicament.
Canada must recognize the structural changes underway in the United States and adjust accordingly. Accepting that reality does not mean endorsing every American policy. It means recognizing that our economic strategy must respond to the America that exists, not the one we would prefer.
Yes, Canada needs access to the American market. That is precisely why we must strengthen our own position: attract investment, expand productive capacity, remove domestic barriers and make ourselves a more competitive and more valuable, economic partner.
The question is not whether the next president will sound like Trump. It is how much of his economic agenda will survive him. Canada should prepare for continuity rather than count on restoration.
Nostalgia is not a strategy. Neither is hope.
Carney brushes back Trump on trade, Europe and Russia politi.co/4koN8TU via @politico
66
95
449
23,009
For the record.
Yes, Buy the Dip!
Nothing has changed. Ignore the doomers.
S&P 500 target still 8000 by year end.
Have a great weekend
Yes, Buy the Dip!
Nothing has changed. Ignore the doomers.
S&P 500 target still 8000 by year end.
Have a great weekend
122
157
2,608
98,841
AI’s future is not its current valuation.
We’re still in AI’s MS-DOS moment. Broad adoption across the economy and society still lies ahead.
The technology’s potential and the investment trade are different things. The “AI is the only game in town—own the bottleneck stocks and ase is over.
Chip names (Nvidia, TSMC, Micron) may still have room. The bigger risk is richly valued AI-linked stocks whose prices raced far ahead of revenues. The latest correction looks like the market starting to make that distinction.
AI itself doesn’t have to roll over. Rationality may simply be returning and the fever phase ending.
We’re still in AI’s MS-DOS moment. Broad adoption across the economy and society still lies ahead.
The technology’s potential and the investment trade are different things. The “AI is the only game in town—own the bottleneck stocks and ase is over.
Chip names (Nvidia, TSMC, Micron) may still have room. The bigger risk is richly valued AI-linked stocks whose prices raced far ahead of revenues. The latest correction looks like the market starting to make that distinction.
AI itself doesn’t have to roll over. Rationality may simply be returning and the fever phase ending.
8
27
226
11,716
The risk to the market.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders get control of US Industrial policy.
Elections have consequences
Have a great weekend.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders get control of US Industrial policy.
Elections have consequences
Have a great weekend.
My biggest concern is that if there is a clean sweep by Democrats of the House, Senate and Presidency in 2028, they will:
1. Make DC and Puerto Rico states to gain a strong majority in the Senate.
2. Open the borders and legalize everyone living in America illegally to cement a permanent majority.
3. Increase the size of the Supreme Court to gain an immediate majority.
This would result in America becoming a permanent one-party state and the end of democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.
All that is needed to ensure this doesn’t happen is 51 Republican senators in 2029. That is why you should vote for Republican senators this election. Other reasons are irrelevant compared to this one.
8
32
400
14,810
Wall Street is positioned for the wrong future.
The fundamental misdiagnosis treats the US economy as a monolith. It is not. Different sectors face different financing constraints and effectively different neutral interest rates, or r*. The Federal Reserve and Wall Street err by rowth represents the whole economy. It does not.
Companies build computing capacity to compete in a technological transformation, not because financing is cheap. Reindustrialisation adds another strategic investment impulse. Neither shows the broader economy is overheating.
Housing, smaller businesses and credit-dependent industries face a different economy. Their weakness is masked by extraordinary investment supporting headline growth.
Credit markets worsen the problem. We hear they lead the Fed, yet Wall Street rarely asks if they have tightened financial conditions excessively. Market-led tightening can amplify a policy mistake rather than correct it.
The danger is circular: restrictive policy and tighter credit undermine the investment sustaining growth, exposing the underlying economy’s fragility.
Strip out AI capital expenditure and economic and earnings growth look far weaker. Economies without comparable investment booms warn that American resilience does not prove monetary restraint is insufficient.
Recall the 2018 midterms: the Powell Fed kept tightening before a sharp year-end market dislocation. The lesson is to recognise deterioration before markets force it, not to accommodate elections.
Inflation should be assessed via the composition of personal consumption expenditures, not inferred from technology spending. Claims of second- and third-round effects need evidence.
An Iran agreement could ease energy risks, but the cyclical economy also needs rate relief.
Wall Street is positioned for persistent inflation. If credit chokes off AI investment, the surprise will be weaker growth and earnings, not overheating. That path leads to a 10-year Treasury yield of 4% and another reckoning with an economic misdiagnosis.
The fundamental misdiagnosis treats the US economy as a monolith. It is not. Different sectors face different financing constraints and effectively different neutral interest rates, or r*. The Federal Reserve and Wall Street err by rowth represents the whole economy. It does not.
Companies build computing capacity to compete in a technological transformation, not because financing is cheap. Reindustrialisation adds another strategic investment impulse. Neither shows the broader economy is overheating.
Housing, smaller businesses and credit-dependent industries face a different economy. Their weakness is masked by extraordinary investment supporting headline growth.
Credit markets worsen the problem. We hear they lead the Fed, yet Wall Street rarely asks if they have tightened financial conditions excessively. Market-led tightening can amplify a policy mistake rather than correct it.
The danger is circular: restrictive policy and tighter credit undermine the investment sustaining growth, exposing the underlying economy’s fragility.
Strip out AI capital expenditure and economic and earnings growth look far weaker. Economies without comparable investment booms warn that American resilience does not prove monetary restraint is insufficient.
Recall the 2018 midterms: the Powell Fed kept tightening before a sharp year-end market dislocation. The lesson is to recognise deterioration before markets force it, not to accommodate elections.
Inflation should be assessed via the composition of personal consumption expenditures, not inferred from technology spending. Claims of second- and third-round effects need evidence.
An Iran agreement could ease energy risks, but the cyclical economy also needs rate relief.
Wall Street is positioned for persistent inflation. If credit chokes off AI investment, the surprise will be weaker growth and earnings, not overheating. That path leads to a 10-year Treasury yield of 4% and another reckoning with an economic misdiagnosis.
8
17
72
5,882
Calm down
S&P 500 EW grinding higher.
Looks like another HF got liquidated.
Normal natural healthy correction in AI.
Ignore the noise,
S&P 500 EW grinding higher.
Looks like another HF got liquidated.
Normal natural healthy correction in AI.
Ignore the noise,
47
59
735
46,315
My thesis
Yield curve normalizes
US 10 yr yield heading to 4%
Wall St is positioned for the wrong future.
Yield curve normalizes
US 10 yr yield heading to 4%
Wall St is positioned for the wrong future.
58
62
772
79,692
Trump’s Economic Progress Deserves More Credit
President Trump’s economic accomplishments deserve more recognition. Beneath disappointing payroll headlines, an economy investing in productive capacity is taking shape.
Third-quarter GDP grew at a 3.4% annualized rate. Consumer stment together expanded 4.9%, hardly an economy losing momentum.
September’s establishment survey showed just 29,000 additional jobs. But the household survey asks people directly whether they have a job. It showed 406,000 more Americans working. Private employers added 46,000 payroll jobs while government employment declined by 17,000. Reducing unnecessary bureaucracy while businesses hire is a welcome rebalancing.
Two forces underpin the opportunity: AI capital spending and America First reindustrialization. Trump’s restoration of 100% immediate expensing for eligible equipment strengthens investment incentives, including for qualifying AI hardware.
A separate provision extends that treatment to qualifying manufacturing facilities.
Manufacturing has added 72,000 jobs since December. New factory commitments from Audi and Bayer reinforce the potential. America’s world-leading oil production and record natural-gas output provide another advantage for factories and power-hungry computing infrastructure.
Even the Federal Reserve recognizes the supply-side improvement. Its latest statement declares that “productivity growth is strong, and capital investment is robust.” Its Monetary Policy Report explains why that matters: strong productivity gains make current wage growth roughly consistent with 2% inflation over time. More investment and greater output per worker can support higher wages without fueling inflation.
With twelve-month trimmed-mean PCE inflation near 2.3%, below spring readings, that opportunity deserves attention.
Grocery inflation is easing, too: annual CPI food-at-home inflation slowed to 1.8% in September, down from 2.7% a year earlier, an encouraging development for household budgets.
Affordability remains a challenge, but the latest acceleration in headline inflation owes much to higher energy prices associated with the Iran conflict. Gasoline accounted for more than half of September’s monthly CPI increase. Those costs are real, but they must be weighed against the stakes: preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. That is a price worth paying to confront a far greater danger.
President Trump’s economic accomplishments deserve more recognition. Beneath disappointing payroll headlines, an economy investing in productive capacity is taking shape.
Third-quarter GDP grew at a 3.4% annualized rate. Consumer stment together expanded 4.9%, hardly an economy losing momentum.
September’s establishment survey showed just 29,000 additional jobs. But the household survey asks people directly whether they have a job. It showed 406,000 more Americans working. Private employers added 46,000 payroll jobs while government employment declined by 17,000. Reducing unnecessary bureaucracy while businesses hire is a welcome rebalancing.
Two forces underpin the opportunity: AI capital spending and America First reindustrialization. Trump’s restoration of 100% immediate expensing for eligible equipment strengthens investment incentives, including for qualifying AI hardware.
A separate provision extends that treatment to qualifying manufacturing facilities.
Manufacturing has added 72,000 jobs since December. New factory commitments from Audi and Bayer reinforce the potential. America’s world-leading oil production and record natural-gas output provide another advantage for factories and power-hungry computing infrastructure.
Even the Federal Reserve recognizes the supply-side improvement. Its latest statement declares that “productivity growth is strong, and capital investment is robust.” Its Monetary Policy Report explains why that matters: strong productivity gains make current wage growth roughly consistent with 2% inflation over time. More investment and greater output per worker can support higher wages without fueling inflation.
With twelve-month trimmed-mean PCE inflation near 2.3%, below spring readings, that opportunity deserves attention.
Grocery inflation is easing, too: annual CPI food-at-home inflation slowed to 1.8% in September, down from 2.7% a year earlier, an encouraging development for household budgets.
Affordability remains a challenge, but the latest acceleration in headline inflation owes much to higher energy prices associated with the Iran conflict. Gasoline accounted for more than half of September’s monthly CPI increase. Those costs are real, but they must be weighed against the stakes: preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. That is a price worth paying to confront a far greater danger.
10
36
160
6,787
The Financial Establishment’s Crypto Blind Spot
When a cryptocurrency exchange gets hacked, the verdict comes quickly: Bitcoin is unsafe. When a technology provider connected to America’s banking infrastructure leaks credentials and system configurations, the reaction is a shrug. Apparently, cybersecurity becomes a systemic concern only when the target is crypto.
Consider the contrasting responses to October’s Binance and Finzly incidents.
At Binance, attackers reportedly entered through a DevOps engineer’s compromised laptop, reached a service container and initiated unauthorized withdrawals totaling roughly $6.3 billion. Binance subsequently described a complex attack involving additional breach points. It said no private-key leak had been found, customer funds were safe and the company would absorb the losses.
That is a serious failure of exchange security. It is not evidence that Bitcoin’s blockchain was hacked. Confusing the two is like treating a bank robbery as proof that the dollar’s monetary architecture has failed.
Yet that distinction routinely disappears when cryptocurrency supplies the headline.
Meanwhile, an extortion group published keys, credentials and firewall configurations belonging to Finzly, which connects banks and credit unions to ACH, Fedwire and FedNow. The exposed material reportedly described a direct Federal Reserve connection and rules governing payment traffic.
Finzly said the files could not provide system access, keys had been rotated, and neither customer data nor banking access was compromised. Those assurances matter. So does the distinction between exposed configurations and a successful intrusion into payment networks.
But why does nuance survive for traditional finance while disappearing for crypto?
The irony is not that Finzly necessarily suffered the more damaging incident. Binance’s reported losses were enormous. It is that one event became an indictment of an entire asset class, while the other barely disturbed confidence in established infrastructure.
The standard should be consistent: identify what failed, establish what was compromised and assess the consequences. Institutional familiarity is not cybersecurity.
Extortion group threatens to leak bank vendor's secrets americanbanker.com/news/extortion…
When a cryptocurrency exchange gets hacked, the verdict comes quickly: Bitcoin is unsafe. When a technology provider connected to America’s banking infrastructure leaks credentials and system configurations, the reaction is a shrug. Apparently, cybersecurity becomes a systemic concern only when the target is crypto.
Consider the contrasting responses to October’s Binance and Finzly incidents.
At Binance, attackers reportedly entered through a DevOps engineer’s compromised laptop, reached a service container and initiated unauthorized withdrawals totaling roughly $6.3 billion. Binance subsequently described a complex attack involving additional breach points. It said no private-key leak had been found, customer funds were safe and the company would absorb the losses.
That is a serious failure of exchange security. It is not evidence that Bitcoin’s blockchain was hacked. Confusing the two is like treating a bank robbery as proof that the dollar’s monetary architecture has failed.
Yet that distinction routinely disappears when cryptocurrency supplies the headline.
Meanwhile, an extortion group published keys, credentials and firewall configurations belonging to Finzly, which connects banks and credit unions to ACH, Fedwire and FedNow. The exposed material reportedly described a direct Federal Reserve connection and rules governing payment traffic.
Finzly said the files could not provide system access, keys had been rotated, and neither customer data nor banking access was compromised. Those assurances matter. So does the distinction between exposed configurations and a successful intrusion into payment networks.
But why does nuance survive for traditional finance while disappearing for crypto?
The irony is not that Finzly necessarily suffered the more damaging incident. Binance’s reported losses were enormous. It is that one event became an indictment of an entire asset class, while the other barely disturbed confidence in established infrastructure.
The standard should be consistent: identify what failed, establish what was compromised and assess the consequences. Institutional familiarity is not cybersecurity.
Extortion group threatens to leak bank vendor's secrets americanbanker.com/news/extortion…
5
17
103
9,490
Canada’s GDP Headline Hides a Stalling Economy
Canada’s 1.3% annualized third-quarter growth headline masks an economy going backward. GDP was flat in July, flat in August and down 0.1% in September: a June-to-September contraction of 0.4% annualized. The positive quarterly figure reflects carryover, not growth through the summer. The headline says expansion. The monthly numbers say stagnation followed by contraction.
And the BOC looks at Canada and the World with a straight face and says the Canadian Economy is strong and hiked rates.
And Bay St applauds Macklem and Rogers as being in the right track. Can’t make this insanity up.
Canada’s 1.3% annualized third-quarter growth headline masks an economy going backward. GDP was flat in July, flat in August and down 0.1% in September: a June-to-September contraction of 0.4% annualized. The positive quarterly figure reflects carryover, not growth through the summer. The headline says expansion. The monthly numbers say stagnation followed by contraction.
And the BOC looks at Canada and the World with a straight face and says the Canadian Economy is strong and hiked rates.
And Bay St applauds Macklem and Rogers as being in the right track. Can’t make this insanity up.
The Canadian economy is tracking 1.3% annualized growth between July and September, slowing down from a robust second quarter and coming in weaker than the Bank of Canada forecasted. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
14
68
301
12,940
Fighting the 1970s, Squeezing Today’s Economy, Macklems historic mistake!
Tiff Macklem and his Bay Street defenders are fighting the last inflation war, with today’s stagnant economy paying the price.
August GDP was flat. September’s preliminary estimate points to a 0.1% contraction. Third-quarter growth of just 0.3% hardly describes an economy running too hot. With employment weakening, underlying inflation easing and output below potential, the case for tightening is collapsing.
Yet the fear of another 1970s inflation spiral substitutes for an assessment of present conditions. Historical trauma is not a policy framework. Where is the evidence of a self-reinforcing 2nd and 3rd order effects of tariffs or the energy shock, that warrants squeezing an already faltering economy?
Canada’s problem is weak investment, poor productivity and industrial erosion, not runaway prosperity. Higher borrowing costs will not build factories, accelerate AI adoption or repair failed supply-side policies. They will make those failures more expensive.
The insanity is Macklem states the economy is strong! And Bay St agrees.
Macklem’s supporters mistake rigidity for credibility. But credibility comes from responding to evidence, not mechanically replaying the lessons of a different era.
The Bank should be not guarding against an inflation resurgence like the 1970s. Fighting a hypothetical 1970s spiral while dismissing today’s weakness is not vigilance. It is monetary policy by historical nightmare.
Macklem and Rogers historic incompetence.
Tiff Macklem and his Bay Street defenders are fighting the last inflation war, with today’s stagnant economy paying the price.
August GDP was flat. September’s preliminary estimate points to a 0.1% contraction. Third-quarter growth of just 0.3% hardly describes an economy running too hot. With employment weakening, underlying inflation easing and output below potential, the case for tightening is collapsing.
Yet the fear of another 1970s inflation spiral substitutes for an assessment of present conditions. Historical trauma is not a policy framework. Where is the evidence of a self-reinforcing 2nd and 3rd order effects of tariffs or the energy shock, that warrants squeezing an already faltering economy?
Canada’s problem is weak investment, poor productivity and industrial erosion, not runaway prosperity. Higher borrowing costs will not build factories, accelerate AI adoption or repair failed supply-side policies. They will make those failures more expensive.
The insanity is Macklem states the economy is strong! And Bay St agrees.
Macklem’s supporters mistake rigidity for credibility. But credibility comes from responding to evidence, not mechanically replaying the lessons of a different era.
The Bank should be not guarding against an inflation resurgence like the 1970s. Fighting a hypothetical 1970s spiral while dismissing today’s weakness is not vigilance. It is monetary policy by historical nightmare.
Macklem and Rogers historic incompetence.
#BREAKING: Statistics Canada says the economy stalled for a second month in a row in August, and early estimates suggest growth declined in September. bnnbloomberg.ca/business/econo…
12
29
103
5,866
My response to the Central Bankers Policy mistakes. 👇
As central banks around the globe hike #InterestRates, @DrJStrategy gives his take on the current inflationary environment, encouraging forward-thinking investment strategies. #Investing
Discover more commentary from James Thorne: ow.ly/GLwy50ZBTMj
4
8
35
7,103
Observation of the day.
Bank of Canada hikes into a weak economy.
The next day, employment data comes out.
Close to 50K in job losses and the previously reported number revised from 26k to -16K
Canadian MSM ignoring this. No one is reporting it. As well as the BOC acolytes on Bay St.
Bank of Canada hikes into a weak economy.
The next day, employment data comes out.
Close to 50K in job losses and the previously reported number revised from 26k to -16K
Canadian MSM ignoring this. No one is reporting it. As well as the BOC acolytes on Bay St.
137
641
2,259
65,590
Canada’s Economic Elite Needs a History Lesson
Canada’s economic elite has strong opinions and a short memory. Before the 2008 financial crisis, Canada faced an energy-price and growth shock. The Bank of Canada hiked once in July 2007, then reversed course that December. One-and-done.
We face another energy shock today, yet the pundit class treats one hike as an inevitable march toward more. They’re mistaking a talking point for analysis. Open a history book.
Canada’s economic elite has strong opinions and a short memory. Before the 2008 financial crisis, Canada faced an energy-price and growth shock. The Bank of Canada hiked once in July 2007, then reversed course that December. One-and-done.
We face another energy shock today, yet the pundit class treats one hike as an inevitable march toward more. They’re mistaking a talking point for analysis. Open a history book.
Bank of Canada rarely hikes just once, says Douglas Porter
financialpost.com/news/economy/b…
8
23
142
9,239
