Podcasts about Liberation Day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmnux6MriXE Podcast audio: In this episode of the Ayn Rand Institute podcast, Onkar Ghate and Ben Bayer discuss the recent decision in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, striking down the President's expansive “Liberation Day” tariffs.   The majority's reasoning The major questions doctrine Statutory interpretation and legislative intent The dissent's plausibility The separation of powers A stopgap against eroding separation of powers Scrutinizing deprivation of economic liberty, property Emergency powers Resources:  Ben Bayer, “Ayn Rand on Free Trade, the 'Essence of Capitalism's Foreign Policy'” Ben Bayer, “The Constitutionally Dubious Law Empowering Trump's ‘Emergency' Tariff Authority” Ben Bayer, “The Lawyers Defending Trump's Tariffs Know They're Un-American. Here's How We Can Tell” This episode was recorded on February 25, 2026.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's IEEPA tariffs in a landmark 6-3 decision. In this episode of The Deduction, hosts Kyle Hulehan and Erica York break down what the ruling actually means, from how collections could be refunded to how the administration is already scrambling to put new tariffs in place. Erica walks through why businesses may face even more uncertainty in the near term as a messy patchwork of replacement tariffs takes shape.---TIMESTAMPS:0:00 – Weekend tariff chaos and IEEPA "pdu"2:00 – What the Supreme Court decided on IEEPA tariffs4:36 – Which tariffs were struck down (Liberation Day, fentanyl, and more)5:42 – Will importers get refunds on $160 billion in unlawful collections?7:54 – Does the ruling improve the economic outlook?9:00 – What tariff authority does the president still have?9:42 – Updated Tax Foundation tariff model numbers12:00 – Section 122 explained: 150-day tariffs and legal questions14:00 – Section 232, Section 301, and the coming patchwork of tariffs15:42 – The compliance and administrative waste of tariff policy17:00 – Can Congress step in and reclaim tariff authority?---RESOURCES:Tax Foundation Tariff Tracker: https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/Tax Foundation IEEPA Tariff Analysis: https://taxfoundation.org/tags/ieepa/---CONTACT:Email: podcast@taxfoundation.orgTwitter/X: @DeductionPodTwitter/X: @EricaDYork Drop a comment below with your tax questions.---ABOUT:The Deduction is a podcast by the Tax Foundation, the world's leading independent tax policy nonprofit. The Tax Foundation has been providing trusted, nonpartisan tax research and analysis since 1937.Support the showFollow us!https://twitter.com/TaxFoundationhttps://twitter.com/deductionpodSupport the show

24/2 Wall Street prova il rimbalzo, futures in verde, stasera lo State of The Union di Trump. Bitcoin sotto 63mila dollari, prese di profitto su oro e argento. Caos dazi, agenzia dogane: da oggi in vigore dazi globali al 10%. Europa: dazi al 15% violano accordi. Tornano i timori di obsolescenza di interi settori scatenati da AI. Software sotto pressione (-5% sui minimi dal 2003) per MS, e JPM non ha ancora toccato il fondo. Segue il private equity che è molto esposto al software. Il “Rapporto Citrini” su un futuro distopico AI affossa finanziari (peggior seduta dal day after del Liberation Day), sistemi di pagamento e carte di credito. IBM peggior seduta dal 2000 su nuovo use case Claude Code che modernizza COBOLT. Novo Nordisk -15%, Anthropic accusa le società cinesi AI di frode, Paramount presenta nuova offerta per WB Discovery. Nvidia: quanto vale prima dei conti? In Asia, ripartono Cina e Nikkei. Hang-Seng sotto il preso Tech. Banca centrale cinese: tassi prestiti invariati. Yen in calo su dollaro, Usa avviano “Rate check”, intervento congiunto sul tavolo. Europa, quattro anni di guerra in Ucraina. Leader EU a Kiev dopo che Orban ha bloccato 90mld prestiti. Futures in rosso. Focus su Enel, Unicredit (editoriale Orcel su Sole24), Saipem, Automotive (Stellantis, crescono immatricolazioni a gennaio) e Telecom Italia oggi conti e aggiornamento Piano.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In today's episode of The Daily Brief, we cover two major stories shaping the Indian economy and global markets: 00:04    Intro 00:34    US court stops tariffs 12:49    A banking scandal unfolds 23:09    Tidbits We also send out a crisp and short daily newsletter for The Daily Brief. Put your email here and we'll make you smart every day: https://thedailybriefing.substack.com/ Note: This content is for informational purposes only. None of the stocks, brands, or products mentioned are recommendations or endorsements.

Monday, February 23rd, 2026 Today, an armed man has been fatally shot at Mar-a-Lago, a Judge scolded Mark Zuckerberg's team for wearing their douche glasses at a social media trial; the labor secretary's husband has been barred from the department after sexual assault reports; DHS admits it's website showcasing the “worst of the worst” immigrants is full of shit; the Supreme Court strikes down Trump's sweeping tariffs; and Dana delivers your Good News and Allison is on vacation. Thank You, HomeChef For a limited time, get  50% off and free shipping for your first box PLUS free dessert for life!  HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS.  Must be an active subscriber to receive free dessert. Thank You, Shopify Sign up for a $1/month trial at shopify.com/dailybeans   Dana is on Patreon! At Dana's Dugoutpatreon.com/cw/dgcomedy The LatestAllison Live with JoJoFromJerz | YouTube StoriesArmed Man Is Fatally Shot at Mar-a-Lago, Secret Service Says | The New York Times Judge scolds Mark Zuckerberg's team for wearing Meta glasses to social media trial | CBS News Labor Secretary's Husband Barred From Department Premises After Reports of Sexual Assaults | The New York Times Exclusive: DHS admits its website showcasing the ‘worst of the worst' immigrants was rife with errors | CNN Politics Supreme Court strikes down Trump's sweeping tariffs | AP News Good Trouble Call your Democratic Representatives and Senators to ask them not to attend the State of The Union unless they're escorting an Epstein survivor.Find Your Representative | house.govContacting U.S. Senators →Public Comment Period Open: White House Ballroom Proposal →How to Film ICE | WIRED →Standwithminnesota.com →Tell Congress Ice out Now | Indivisible →Defund ICE (UPDATED 1/21) - HOUSE VOTE THURSDAY →Congress: Divest From ICE and CBP | ACLU →All 23 warehouses ICE wants to turn into detention camps →ICE List  →iceout.org  →Demand the Resignation of Stephen Miller | 5 Calls →2026 Trans Girl Scouts To Order Cookies From! | Erin in the Morning Good News Beans Talk audio -beans-talk.simplecast.com Freedom Fund Inc. AbortionFunds.org Nevada Brothel Workers Are Unionizing to Protect Their Digital Rights – Mother Jones →Share your Good News & Good Trouble - The Daily Beans Subscribe to the MSW YouTube Channel - MSW Media - YouTube Our Donation Links Pathways to Citizenship link to MATCH Allison's Donationhttps://crm.bloomerang.co/HostedDonation?ApiKey=pub_86ff5236-dd26-11ec-b5ee-066e3d38bc77&WidgetId=6388736 Allison is donating $20K to It Gets Better and inviting you to help match her donations. Your support makes this work possible, Daily Beans fam. Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans Fundraiser Join Dana and The Daily Beans with a MATCHED Donation http://onecau.se/_ekes71 More Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - Donate

The Supreme Court's latest ruling on tariffs has thrown existing trade agreements into uncertainty. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and Arunima Sinha, from the U.S and Global Economics teams break down the fallout.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Arunima Sinha: And I am Arunima Sinha on the U.S. and Global Economics teams. Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about the recent Supreme Court decision on tariffs, what it means for existing trade deals, and where trade policy is headed from here. It's Monday, February 23rd at 9am in New York. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose broad-based tariffs. The ruling didn't give a clear signal on what it could mean for potential refunds, but the Trump administration said it plans to replace the existing tariffs, which is something that we'd long expected – first leveraging Section 122 to impose 15 percent tariffs for 150 days. The president is simultaneously going to launch a few new Section 301 investigations to eventually replace those Section 122 tariffs, since they're only allowed to be in place temporarily. So Arunima, let's start by breaking down some of this tariff math. What does this mean for the headline and effective rate given where we are now versus before? Arunima Sinha: Before the decision, Ariana, we were at a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent. What this decision does is that with the move, especially to 15 percent, for other countries, we think that it takes about a percentage point off of the headline tariff rate. So, we would go to about 12 percent, and then we have another percentage point coming off just because of the shifts in trade patterns. And so instead of a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent, we think that we're going to be at a headline tariff of just about 11 percent. But that's really just related to the Section 122s. And as you noted, this is only going to apply for the next 150 days. So how should we be thinking about trade policy going forward? Ariana Salvatore: I think we should view the 15 percent as probably a likely ceiling for these rates in the medium term; in particular because this 150-day period expires some time around the summer, so even closer to the midterm elections. And as we've been saying politically speaking, it's unpopular to impose high levels of tariffs. We've also been saying that the president will continue to lean on trade policy as his real, only way to address the affordability issue for voters, which is something that we've actually seen on the policy side for the past few months with the imposition of exemptions, more trade framework agreements, et cetera.So really, I think this is just another way for him to continue leaning on this policy avenue. But in that vein, let's talk about specific pockets of relief. What are we thinking about some of their findings on a sector level? Arunima Sinha: So, let's tie this into the affordability aspect that you mentioned, Ariana, and specifically using the consumer goods sector. What we think is that with, just in the near-term period, with the Section 122s applying, for different consumer goods categories, we could see tariff rate differentials go down. So, they could be anywhere between 1 to 4 percentage points lower across different categories. But what we also think could happen is that once we get beyond the 150-day period, and there are no additional sector tariffs that go on. So, the 232s or the 301s, particularly for this particular sector, we could see some of the largest tariff relief that we're expecting to see. So, for example, apparel and accessories could see something like a 16 to 17 percentage point tariff drop. So that particular part I think is important. Just the upside risks to consumer goods. But that of course brings us to the question of bilateral trade deals and how they come into play. What do you think about that, Ariana? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, I think when it comes to the bilateral deals, as we mentioned, there's some opportunities for relief depending on the sectors and the type of tariff exposure by country. As you mentioned, the consumer goods are a good example of this. So, in general, I think that trading partners will have little incentive to abandon the existing deals or framework agreements, just given that the president and the administration have messaged this idea of continuity. So, replacing the IEEPA tariffs with a more durable, legitimate, legal authority. But what's notable is that many of our trading partners are actually now facing potentially even lower levels than they were before. Even with the increase to 15 percent on the 122s from 10 percent over the weekend. In particular, many countries in Southeast Asia are actually now facing lower tariff levels since there were somewhere in the range of 20 or maybe even 25 percent before. But as I mentioned, the export composition of these countries matters a lot. So, Vietnam, for example, most exports are subject to the 20 percent tariff because of the IEEPA exposure. This ruling is more meaningful than somewhere like South Korea, where the exports are more exposed to the Section 232 tariffs. Based on the export composition – and that's a level, remember, that's not changing as a result of this ruling. So that's how we're trying to disaggregate the impact here. Now, my last question to you, Arunima, what does this all mean for the macro-outlook? As we mentioned, refunds weren't addressed in this ruling. We've sketched out a few different scenarios, most of which leaned toward a long lead time to eventually paying back the money – if and when the administration is actually, in fact, mandated to do that. But safe to say in the near term that we aren't going to see much action on that front. That probably means status quo. But why don't you put a finer point on what this means for the macroeconomic outlook? Arunima Sinha: That's absolutely right, Ariana, for the very near term and the second quarter, we don't think we're going to be very different from what our baseline expectation is. In the third quarter and in the last part of this year, there could be some upside risks, especially once the timeline on the 122s run out, they're not extended. And the different sector and country investigations take longer to implement. So, there could be some upside risks to demand. Consumer goods, for example. If there were to be some sort of an incremental tailwind to corporate margins that might lead to better labor demand from these companies. There could be additional goods disinflation; that would support just purchasing power. So, both of those things could be some incremental uplift to demand, relative to our baseline outlook. But then the last thing I think just to emphasize from our perspective, is that we do think that there is some sort of a near-term ceiling about how high effective tariff rates can go. We don't think that we're going to be going back to Liberation Day tariff rates in the near-term or even in the latter half of this year. Because if history is any guide, many of these investigations are going to take time and that full implementation may not actually occur before early 2027. Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. Arunima, thanks for joining. Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me.Ariana Salvatore: And thank you for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

On Friday, the Supreme Court voted 6–3 to strike down most of President Donald Trump's tariffs, finding that the president exceeded his authority when he imposed duties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court's ruling invalidates the president's “Liberation Day” tariffs, which imposed a 10% baseline duty on U.S. trading partners as well as steeper tariffs on individual countries.Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!ICYMI.Last Friday, we ran a little experiment: How would ChatGPT do if we had it write a Tangle take? Isaac gave his opinion on the future of AI, asked ChatGPT to try to mimic him, then evaluated how well it delivered its take. That piece generated a lot of interest, questions, and criticism — and in case you missed it, you can read it here and join the discussion in the comments.You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What do you think of the Supreme Court's ruling? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and audio edited and mixed by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Perhaps the biggest surprise from Friday's historic Supreme Court ruling striking down President Trump's “Liberation Day” tariffs, is that there really weren't any surprises.

After the US Supreme Court struck down his "Liberation Day" tariffs as unlawful, US President Donald Trump has doubled down on his trade policy and warned countries around the world not to "play games" with the court ruling and stick to recently agreed trade deals. The EU, meanwhile, has decided to hold off on ratifying its agreement with the US while waiting for clarity. 

In a massive blow to the administration's trade agenda, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on February 20, 2026, that President Trump exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping global tariffs. This decision effectively invalidates the "Liberation Day" reciprocal tariffs and raises immediate questions about billions of dollars in potential refunds for U.S. importers.In this episode, we dive into:The Ruling: Why Chief Justice Roberts and Trump-appointees Gorsuch and Barrett ruled that the power to tax belongs solely to Congress.The "Major Questions" Doctrine: How this judicial philosophy was used to curb a "transformative expansion" of executive power.Economic Impact: What the end of IEEPA tariffs means for inflation, supply chains, and your wallet.The Administration's Pivot: Analysis of the President's plan to use Section 122 as a "stopgap" to keep a 10% baseline tariff in place.The Refund Chaos: How businesses can navigate the complex process of recovering illegally collected duties.Key Fact: While the court struck down IEEPA-based tariffs, Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum remain in effect, as they are governed by a different statute.

Morse code transcription: vvv vvv Calls for Andrew to be removed from royal line of succession Newspaper headlines Throne Out and Liberation Day levies ruled illegal Two found dead on Yr Wyddfa in search for missing men Trump brings in new 10 tariff as Supreme Court rejects his global import taxes Thats me Hundreds tell BBC that medication triggered gambling and other addictions The best looks at London Fashion Week 2026 Why fake AI videos of UK urban decline are taking over social media Andrew and King Charles, a personal battle of royal brothers Killing of nationalist student leaves French far left in deep trouble as elections loom Palestinian Authority in dire straits as Israels hold on West Bank deepens

Morse code transcription: vvv vvv Killing of nationalist student leaves French far left in deep trouble as elections loom Two found dead on Yr Wyddfa in search for missing men Palestinian Authority in dire straits as Israels hold on West Bank deepens Why fake AI videos of UK urban decline are taking over social media Calls for Andrew to be removed from royal line of succession Trump brings in new 10 tariff as Supreme Court rejects his global import taxes Newspaper headlines Throne Out and Liberation Day levies ruled illegal Thats me Hundreds tell BBC that medication triggered gambling and other addictions Andrew and King Charles, a personal battle of royal brothers The best looks at London Fashion Week 2026

Morse code transcription: vvv vvv Palestinian Authority in dire straits as Israels hold on West Bank deepens Thats me Hundreds tell BBC that medication triggered gambling and other addictions Trump brings in new 10 tariff as Supreme Court rejects his global import taxes Newspaper headlines Throne Out and Liberation Day levies ruled illegal Calls for Andrew to be removed from royal line of succession The best looks at London Fashion Week 2026 Andrew and King Charles, a personal battle of royal brothers Why fake AI videos of UK urban decline are taking over social media Two found dead on Yr Wyddfa in search for missing men Killing of nationalist student leaves French far left in deep trouble as elections loom

It's been 10 months since "Liberation Day." The Day that President Donald Trump issued tariffs on the world. Today, Friday, February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling striking down Trump's use of the "International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as an authority reserved for Congress.

Morse code transcription: vvv vvv Killing of nationalist student leaves French far left in deep trouble as elections loom Palestinian Authority in dire straits as Israels hold on West Bank deepens Trump brings in new 10 tariff as Supreme Court rejects his global import taxes Two found dead on Yr Wyddfa in search for missing men Thats me Hundreds tell BBC that medication triggered gambling and other addictions Andrew and King Charles, a personal battle of royal brothers Why fake AI videos of UK urban decline are taking over social media Calls for Andrew to be removed from royal line of succession The best looks at London Fashion Week 2026 Newspaper headlines Throne Out and Liberation Day levies ruled illegal

Monday 23 February 2026 Australia has emerged as a loser after the US Supreme Court’s decision to knock back Donald Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs triggered the imposition of a global 15 per cent levy, which is higher than what we pay now. Strong earnings from Aussie companies pushes the ASX to record territory. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says his government will be focusing on cost-of-living pressures and the economy in the run up to the May budget Which Australians feel best about life The end of the winter Olympics Join our free daily newsletter here. And don’t miss the latest episode of How Do They Afford That? - this week, the kids’ money blueprint. Get the episode from APPLE, SPOTIFY, or anywhere you listen to podcasts.Find out more: https://fearandgreed.com.au/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court just dropped a shocking 6-3 ruling striking down President Donald J. Trump's “Liberation Day” tariffs under IEEPA. In this urgent 15-minute breakdown, The Right Side with Doug Billings gives you the full story: who voted what, the explosive dissents from Clarence Thomas, what it means for your job and wallet, and — most importantly — President Trump's complete playbook to fight back and WIN.Timestamps:0:00 – High-energy intro & hook0:45 – Exact 6-3 breakdown + Roberts & Thomas quotes3:30 – Real impact on prices, jobs & Treasury6:00 – How the lawsuits happened & who's really behind them8:30 – Trump's full fight-back playbook (Section 232, 301, 122 & more)12:00 – Historical lessons & 3 biggest takeaways13:45 – Your action steps + powerful closePresident Trump is already moving with national-security tariffs, unfair-trade investigations, and fast-track legislation in Congress. This is NOT a defeat — it's a wake-up call for Article I restoration and stronger America First trade policy.If you want raw, no-spin truth and the America First fight, hit PLAY now!✅ Subscribe to The Right Side on your favorite podcast app✅ Watch the full video on YouTube: @TheRightSideDougBillings✅ Follow Doug Billings daily:X → @DougBillingsTruth Social → @DougBillingsDrop your comment: “Checks and balances or deep state in robes?”Subscribe (it's FREE) to Doug's channel on YouTube: @TheRightSideDougBillings#SupremeCourt #TrumpTariffs #LiberationDay #6-3Ruling #Trump2026 #AmericaFirst #TariffFight #SCOTUS #DougBillings #TheRightSide #DeepStateInRobes #ArticleI #TradeWar #MakeAmericaFirstSupport the show

John walks through the CBO's 2026–2036 outlook showing persistent deficits and a rising debt-to-GDP “hockey stick” trajectory The hosts argue the “gradual print + occasional big print” pattern is structurally embedded in fiat incentives and political constraints Supreme Court strikes down key Trump tariffs (reciprocal “Liberation Day” and fentanyl-related duties), framed as a separation-of-powers moment Market reaction appears muted and “wait-and-see,” with uncertainty over how the administration may reassert tariffs via other authorities A Bloomberg/EY-style projection is cited: debt potentially reaching ~$64T by 2036 with interest costs swelling materially Bitcoin ETFs: despite a drawdown from peak cumulative inflows, the broader flow base suggests many holders treat ETF exposure as long-term allocation 13F chatter: a new Hong Kong entity holding substantial IBIT is floated as possible capital-flight behavior, with caution that it could also be speculative positioning Quick hits: a congressman discloses additional Bitcoin purchases; Goldman CEO David Solomon (“DJ D-Sol”) mentions owning a small amount of BTC A Fed voice (Neel Kashkari) dismisses crypto cross-border narratives; hosts rebut that “no country will abandon monetary policy” is exactly why Bitcoin exists Crypto credit stress: BlockFills halting withdrawals is flagged as potential post-drawdown plumbing fallout and a reminder of leverage unwind dynamics ► For high-net-worth individuals and corporations seeking to build generational wealth with Bitcoin, Swan Private is your guide ✔ https://www.swanbitcoin.com/private?utm_campaign=private&utm_medium=sponsorship&utm_source=podcast&utm_content=swan_signal_live ► Secure your bright orange future with the Swan IRA today! Real Bitcoin, no taxes ✔ https://www.swanbitcoin.com/ira?utm_campaign=ira&utm_medium=sponsorship&utm_source=podcast&utm_content=swan_signal_live ► Secure your Bitcoin with Swan Vault ✔ https://www.swanbitcoin.com/vault?utm_campaign=vault&utm_medium=sponsorship&utm_source=podcast&utm_content=swan_signal_live ► Download the all-new Swan Bitcoin App ✔ https://www.swanbitcoin.com/app?utm_campaign=app&utm_medium=sponsorship&utm_source=podcast&utm_content=swan_signal_live ► Want to learn more about Bitcoin? Check out Welcome To Bitcoin a FREE Introductory course. Learn about Bitcoin in under 1 hour! ✔ https://www.swanbitcoin.com/welcome?utm_campaign=welcome_to_bitcoin&utm_medium=sponsorship&utm_source=podcast&utm_content=swan_signal_live ► Connect with Swan Bitcoin: ✔ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Swan ✔ Instagram: https://instagram.com/SwanBitcoin ✔ LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/company/swanbitcoin ✔ Threads: https://www.threads.com/@swanbitcoin ✔ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SwanBitcoin/ ✔ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@realswanbitcoin

In a blow for President Donald Trump's tariff agenda, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 20 that the Trump administration exceeded its authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in a 6-3 decision. In other words, they deemed that the sweeping tariffs he issued on Liberation Day against nearly every U.S. trading partner were unlawful. Now, many people in the retail industry, whose companies have been impacted by these tariffs, are left wondering what will happen next in the days and weeks to come. In this emergency episode of the Modern Retail Podcast, executive editor Anna Hensel, special projects editor Melissa Daniels and senior reporter Gabriela Barkho break down what the Supreme Court ruling means for brands and retailers. They get into: Their initial reactions to the news that the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's tariffs.  Whether or not brands and retailers will be able to get refunds for the tariffs they paid over the past year.  What this could mean in the push for more domestic manufacturing.  What they'll be watching next as President Trump vows to impose his tariffs agenda through other means.

After a year of build-up, the Supreme Court has ruled on President Trump's signature Liberation Day tariffs, and it's not the result the president wanted. So, what will happen next? John Carney describes how the president still have many options to impose tariffs and pursue his protectionist plan, and explains what will happen with the $300 billion in tariffs that have already been collected. Then, veteran reporter Mark Halperin dissects the political ramifications of the decision, the White House's strategic pivot to domestic issues, and the Administration's difficulty in converting its biggest wins into long-term polling strength. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nicolle Wallace covers the stunning ruling from the Supreme Court, where the Justices chose 6-3 to strike down Donald Trump's global tariffs. It is a stark example of the power of the checks and balances system of the United States government, where the Supreme Court has limited the power of the presidency. More importantly, it has limited the power of Donald Trump. Later, Senator Maria Cantwell joins Nicolle to discuss what might happen next now that the Supreme Court has upended a large part of Trump's economic policy. For more, follow us on Instagram @deadlinewh To listen to this show and other MS NOW podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. For more from Nicolle, follow and download her podcast, “The Best People with Nicolle Wallace,” wherever you get your podcasts.To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Nearly a year ago, Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs, slapping high import taxes on goods from countries around the world. The sweeping tariffs hurt the New York-based wine importer VOS Selections, one of several plaintiffs that challenged the Trump administration in court, arguing the president lacked the ability to impose the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.Today, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that many of President Trump's tariffs are unconstitutional. NPR's Scott Detrow talks with NPR Chief Economics Correspondent Scott Horsley and NPR Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg about the court's decision and what it means for businesses and consumers.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.  Email us at considerthis@npr.org.This episode was produced by Tyler Bartlam, with audio engineering from Ted Mebane. It was edited by Christopher Intagliata, Courtney Dorning, Scott Horsley and Krishnadev Calamur. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

The Justices strike down the President's "emergency" tariffs, ruling that a law called IEEPA doesn't give him limitless power to tax imports on a whim. But will Trump try to reimpose his tariff policy using other laws, or is the GOP quietly breathing a sigh of relief, as the 2026 midterms near amid mixed economic signals? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The markets are moving FAST. Following the Supreme Court's historic ruling today, February 20, 2026, striking down the administration's sweeping global tariffs, the "Liberation Day" trade policy has been thrown into absolute chaos.

It’s Friday, February 20, 2026 — The Scott Jennings Show is LIVE on Salem from New York City with a Supreme Court bombshell that just knocked out President Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs, plus a major medical about-face on trans surgeries for minors, and the latest on Iran war planning. https://balanceofnature.com/ https://www.joincrowdhealth.com/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After a year of build-up, the Supreme Court has ruled on President Trump's signature Liberation Day tariffs, and it's not the result the president wanted. So, what will happen next? John Carney describes how the president still have many options to impose tariffs and pursue his protectionist plan, and explains what will happen with the $300 billion in tariffs that have already been collected. Then, veteran reporter Mark Halperin dissects the political ramifications of the decision, the White House's strategic pivot to domestic issues, and the Administration's difficulty in converting its biggest wins into long-term polling strength. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In a historic 6-3 ruling the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump's sweeping global tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), holding that the Constitution's taxing power belongs squarely to Congress — not the executive branch. TCS President Steve Ellis and Director of Research and Policy Josh Sewell break down the ruling in real time.The court's majority, which included Trump appointees Gorsuch and Barrett alongside Chief Justice Roberts and the three liberal justices, found that Congress never authorized the president to levy tariffs under IEEPA — and that the word "tariff" doesn't even appear in the law. Steve and Josh trace TCS's position back to Liberation Day and the August tariff escalation episodes, where they argued that a tariff is a tax and that speculative tariff revenue could never be a reliable budget offset. Today's ruling validated that argument.But don't pop the champagne yet. Steve and Josh walk through what the ruling doesn't do: it doesn't end tariffs. The administration has already signaled it will pursue tariffs under other statutes — Section 232, Section 301, Section 122, and even the ghost of Smoot-Hawley. They also dig into the fiscal fallout: over $133 billion in tariff revenue collected under IEEPA may be subject to refunds, with potential losses of $1.5 trillion over the next decade. With a $38.6 trillion national debt and $1.8 trillion annual deficit, that's not a rounding error.The bottom line: Congress can no longer hide behind executive tariff revenue to paper over its fiscal failures. The court just slammed shut that escape hatch. Now it's time for Congress to do its job.

Our Global Head of FX and EM Strategy James Lord and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss what's driving the U.S. policy for the dollar and the outlook for other global currencies.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----James Lord: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Lord, Global Head of FX and EM Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter:  And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. James Lord: Today we're talking about U.S. currency policy and whether recent news on intervention and nominations to the Fed change anything for the outlook of the dollar. It's Thursday, February 19th at 3pm in London. So it's been an interesting few weeks in currency markets. Plenty of dollar selling going on But then, we got news that Kevin Warsh is going to be nominated to Chair of the Board of Governors. And that sent the dollar back higher, reminding everybody that monetary policy and central bank policy still matter. So, in the aftermath of the dollar-yen rate check, investors started to discuss whether or not the U.S. might be starting to target a weaker currency. Not just be comfortable with a weaker currency, but actually explicitly target a weaker currency, which would presumably be a shift away from the stronger strong dollar policy that Secretary Bessent referenced. So, what is your understanding? What do you think the strong dollar policy actually means? Seth Carpenter: Strong dollar policy, that's a phrase, that's a term; it's a concept that lots of Secretaries of the Treasury have used for a long time. And I specifically point to the Secretary of the Treasury because at least in the recent couple of decades, there has been in standard Washington D.C. approach to things, a strong dichotomy that currency policy is the policy of the Treasury Department, not of the central bank. And that's always been important. I remember when I was working at the Treasury Department, that was still part of the talking points that the secretary used. However, you also hear Secretaries of the Treasury say that exchange rates should be market determined; that that's a key part of it. And with the back and forth between the U.S. and China, for example, there was a lot of discussion: Was the Chinese government adjusting or manipulating the value of their currency? And there was a push that currencies should be market determined. And so, if you think about those two things, at the same time – pushing really hard that the dollar should be strong, pushing really hard that currencies should be market determined – you start to very quickly run into a bit of an intellectual tension. And I think all of that is pretty intentional. What does it mean? It means that there's no single clear definition of strong dollar policy. It's a little bit of the eye of the beholder. It's an acknowledgement that the dollar plays a clear key role in global markets, and it's good for the U.S. for that to happen. That's traditionally been what it means. But it has not meant a specific number relative to any other currency or any basket of currency. It has not meant a specific value based on some sort of long run theoretical fair value. It is always meant to be a very vague, deliberately so, very vague concept. James Lord: So, in that version of what the strong dollar policy means, presumably the sort of ambiguity still leaves space for the Treasury to conduct some kind of intervention in dollar-yen, if they wanted to. And that would still be very much consistent with that definition of the strong dollar policy. I also, in the back of my head, always wonder whether the strong dollar policy has anything to do with the dollar's global role. And the sort of foreign policy power that gives the Treasury in sanctions policy. And other areas where, you know, they can control dollar flows and so on. And that gives the U.S. government some leverage. And that allows them to project strength in foreign policy. Has that anything to do with the traditional versions of the strong policy? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. I think all of that is part and parcel to it. But it also helps to explain a little bit of why there's never going to be a very crisp, specific numerical definition of what a strong dollar policy is.So, first and foremost, I think the discussion of intervention; I think it is, in lots of ways, consistent, especially if you have that more expansive definition of strong dollar, i.e. the currency that's very important, or most important in global financial markets and in global trade. So, I think in that regard, you could have both the intervention and the strong dollar at the same time. I will add though that the administration has not had a clear, consistent view in this regard, in the following very specific sense. When now Governor Myron was chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, he penned a piece on the Council of Economics website that said that the reserve currency status of the dollar had brought with it some adverse effects on the U.S., and in terms of what happened in terms of trade flows and that sort of thing.So again, this administration has also tried to find ways to increase the nuance about what the currency policy is, and putting forward the idea that too strong of a dollar in the FX sense. In the sense that you and your colleagues in FX markets would think about is a high valuation of the dollar relative to other currencies – could have contributed to these trade deficits that they're trying to push back against. So, I would say we went from the previous broad, perhaps vague definition of strong dollar. And now we're in an even murkier regime where there could be other motivations for changing the value of the dollar. Seth Carpenter: So, James, that's been our view in terms of the Fed, but let me come back to you because there are lots of different forces going on at the same time. The central bank is clearly an important one, but it's only one factor among many. So, if you think about where the dollar is likely to go over the next three months, over the next six months, maybe over the next year, what is it that you and your team are looking for? Where are the questions that you're getting from clients? James Lord: Yeah, so when we came into the start of this year, we did have a bearish view on the dollar. I would say that the drivers of it, we'd split up into two components. The first component was a lot more of the conventional stuff about growth expectations, what we see the Fed doing. And then there was another component to it where – what we defined as risk premia, I suppose. The more unconventional catalysts that can push the dollar around, as we saw, come very much to market attention during the second quarter of last year, when the Liberation Day tariffs were announced and the dollar weakened far in excess of what rate differentials would imply. And so, I would say so far this year, the majority of the dollar move that we've seen, the weakening in the dollar that we've seen, has been driven by that second component. What we've kind of called risk premia. And the conversations that, you know, investors have been having about U.S. policy towards Greenland, and then more recently, the conversations that people have been having around FX intervention following the dollar-yen rate check. These sorts of things have been really driving the currency up until , when the Kevin Warsh nomination was announced. When we look at the extent of the risk premia that we see in the dollar now, it is pretty close to the levels that we saw in the second quarter of last year, which is to say it's pretty big. Euro dollar would probably be closer to 1-10, if we were just thinking about the impact of rate differentials and none of this risk premia stuff over the past year had materialized. That's obviously a very big gap. And I think for now that gap probably isn't going to widen much further, particularly now that market attention is much more focused on the impact that Kevin Warsh will have on markets and the dollar. We also have, you know, the ECB and the Bank of England; , house call for those two central banks is for them to be cutting rates. That could also put some downward pressure on those currencies, relative to the dollar. So all of that is to say for some of the major currencies within the G10 space, like sterling, like euro against the dollar, this probably isn't the time to be pushing a weaker dollar. But I think there are some other currencies which still have some opportunity in the short term, but also over the longer run as well. And that's really in emerging markets. So all of that is to say, I think there is a strong monetary policy anchor for emerging market currencies. This is an asset class that has been under invested in for some time. And we do think that there are more gains there in the short term and over the medium term as well. Seth Carpenter: So on that topic, James, would you then agree? So if I think about some of the EM central banks, think about Banxico, think about the BCB – where the dollar falling in value, their currency gaining in value – that could actually have a couple things go on to allow the central bank, maybe to ease more than they would've otherwise. One, in terms of imported inflation, their currency strengthening on a relative basis probably helps with a bit lower inflation. And secondly, a lot of EM central banks have to worry a bit about defending their currency, especially in a volatile geopolitical time. And you were pointing to sort of lower volatility more broadly. So is this a reinforcing trend perhaps, where if the dollar is coming down a little bit, especially against DM currencies, it allows more external stability for those central banks, allowing them to just focus on their domestic mandates, which could also lead to a further reduction in their domestic rates, which might be good for investors. James Lord: Yeah, I think there's something to that. given the strength of emerging market currencies. There should be, over time, more space for them to ease if the domestic conditions warrant it. But so far we're not really seeing many EM central banks taking advantage of that opportunity. There is a sort of general pattern with a lot of EMs that they're staying pretty conservative and more hawkish than I think what markets have generally been expecting, and that's been supporting their currencies. I think it's interesting to think about what would happen if they're on the flip side. What would happen if they did start to push monetary easing at a faster pace? I'm sure on the days where that happens, the currencies would weaken a little bit. However, if the market backdrop is generally constructive on risk, and investors want to have exposure to EM – then what could ultimately happen is that asset managers will simply buy more bonds as they price in a lower path for central bank policy over time. And that causes more capital inflows. And that sort of overwhelms the knee jerk effect from the more dovish stance of monetary policy on the currency. You get more duration flows coming into the market and that helps their currency. So, yes, if EM central banks push back with more dovish policy, significantly, it could pose some short-term volatility. But assuming we remain a low-vol environment globally, I would use those as buying opportunities. Seth Carpenter: Thanks, James. It's been great being on the show with you. Thank you for inviting me, and I hope to be able to come back and join you at some point in the future if you'll have me. James Lord: Thank you, Seth, for making the time to talk. And to all you listening, thank you for lending us your ears. Let us know what you think of this podcast by leaving us a review. And if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Since the beginning of 2026, US forces have killed people in Caracas, Venezuela, on boat strikes in the Pacific, and in Minneapolis, Minnesota. This is a new era, where US law enforcement kill people in plain sight and then blame it on the victims, accusing them of being agitators or terrorists — domestic or foreign — whether they are in fishing boats in the Caribbean and Pacific or protesting on the streets of Minneapolis.Today's episode turns the lens back on the United States. Because the shadow of the United States itself is hanging dangerously over US cities and communities like never before.This is episode 6 of Under the Shadow, Season 2.Under the Shadow is an investigative narrative podcast series that walks back in time, telling the story of the past by visiting momentous places in the present. Season 2 responds in real time to the Trump administration's onslaught on Latin America.Hosted by Latin America-based journalist Michael Fox.This podcast is produced in partnership between The Real News Network and NACLA.Theme music by Michael Fox's band, Monte Perdido. Monte Perdido's 2024 album Ofrenda is available on Spotify, Deezer, Apple Music, YouTube or wherever you listen to music. Other music from Blue Dot Sessions.Guests: Nikhil SinghAlexander AvinaSarah LazareGreg WilpertScript editing by Heather Gies. Hosted, written, produced, mixed and edited by Michael Fox.Please consider supporting this podcast and Michael Fox's reporting on his Patreon account: patreon.com/mfox. There, you can also see exclusive pictures, video, and interviews.Resources: Notes From The Palestine-Mexico Border | NACLAThe 13th Largest Army in World Is Unleashing Violence in Chicago | In These Times“You Could Be Arrested,” ICE Agent Confronts Minneapolis Resident as ICE Continues Arrest | AC1NFrom Minneapolis To Baltimore, Anti-Ice Protests Explode | TRNNU.S. Citizens Describe Surviving Violent Attacks by Immigration Agents | Democracy Now!De-ICEing The Big Easy (Documentary Report) | TRNNUNSEEN VIDEO: ICE Agents SURROUNDED by Furious Crowd After Stopping Man in Minneapolis | AC1GTrump Seizes Control of DC Police, Activates National Guard | TODAYTrump declares D.C. ‘Liberation Day' as he orders National Guard takeover | ABC10Governor Walz Addresses Ongoing Federal Presence in MinnesotaUnder the Shadow, Season 1:You can check out the first season of Under the Shadow by clicking hereThe Beginning: Monroe and migration | Under the Shadow, Episode 1Panama. US Invasion. | Under the Shadow, Episode 13The legacy of Monroe | Under the Shadow, Bonus Episode 4 Michael Fox's recent reporting on the boat strikes and the ramp-up for war in Venezuela: With the strike on a ‘drug-carrying boat,' Trump returns to a dangerous US policy for Latin AmericaCaribbean leaders call for unified Latin American resistance to US attacksTrump's Monroe Doctrine 2.0 outlines imperial intentions for Latin AmericaYou can check out Michael's recent episode of Stories of Resistance about the protests against US intervention in Venezuela.NACLA's Curated Guide to the US Attack on Venezuela Truthout's ongoing reporting on War and Peace and the US invasion of VenezuelaVisit TRNN for all of TRNN's coverage on this and so much moreBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-news-podcast--2952221/support.Help us continue producing radically independent news and in-depth analysis by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer.Follow us on:Bluesky: @therealnews.comFacebook: The Real News NetworkTwitter: @TheRealNewsYouTube: @therealnewsInstagram: @therealnewsnetworkBecome a member and join the Supporters Club for The Real News Podcast today!

Jeden Monat Geld aus dem Depot – klingt verlockend. Aber funktioniert das auch wirklich? Eckhard Sauren, Gründer von Sauren Fondsservice aus Köln und einer der erfahrensten Dachfondsmanager Deutschlands, hat Ende 2024 den Sauren Ruhestandsfonds 0,3 FM gestartet: 3,6 Prozent Ausschüttung im Jahr, monatlich, mit dem Ziel des Kapitalerhalts. 50 Millionen Euro Zufluss in einem Jahr sprechen für sich. Im Gespräch erklärt er, warum er 5-Prozent-Versprechen der Konkurrenz für gefährlich hält, wie der Fonds den Liberation Day überstand, was Stiftung Warentest bei der Kostenkritik falsch denkt – und welche Ausschüttungsstrategie er für sein eigenes Geld fährt. Eine ehrliche, pointierte Diskussion über das Thema, das die Fondsindustrie gerade dominiert: Ruhestandsplanung.

Faith Driven Investor Podcast - Episode 216Join hosts Richard Cunningham and Luke Roush as they sit down with Steve Cook, Executive Managing Director of LFM Capital, for a deep dive into the state of US manufacturing and the reshoring revolution transforming American industry. From the deck of an aircraft carrier to the shop floor to private equity boardrooms, Steve brings a unique perspective on what it takes to build manufacturing companies that strengthen both portfolios and national security.Key Investment Topics:The economics of reshoring: Why major manufacturers are bringing supply chains back to the USLFM Capital's operator-led approach to buyout private equity in manufacturingHow tariffs, supply chain disruptions, and geopolitical tensions are reshaping investment opportunitiesWhy aerospace, defense, and B2B manufacturing offer compelling risk-adjusted returnsThe role of leadership and operational excellence in driving EBITDA margins and enterprise valueInterest rates, deal flow, and the creative structuring required in today's PE marketPowerful Quotes:"We won World War One and Two predominantly because we had a strong industrial base that could step up and pivot when the country needed it. We're woefully unprepared for World War Three." - Steve Cook"It costs more to hire an English-speaking manager in China than it does in the US today. Labor cost equilibrium is happening faster than anyone expected." - Steve Cook"The absolute worst form of ownership I've ever seen is 50/50. Someone has to make the final decision - that's true in a company and true in a marriage." - Steve CookEpisode Description:What does it take to rebuild American manufacturing in an era of global uncertainty? Steve Cook knows firsthand. As a former Navy fighter pilot who flew combat missions during Desert Shield, then an operations leader at Dell managing 2,200 manufacturing employees, Steve brings unparalleled shop floor DNA to private equity investing. Now leading LFM Capital - a buyout firm exclusively focused on US manufacturing - he's witnessing the early stages of a reshoring revolution that could reshape both the American economy and investment portfolios.This episode cuts through the headlines to reveal what's really happening on the ground with US manufacturing. Steve explains why companies are finally bringing production back home, which industries offer the most compelling opportunities, and how LFM's operator-first approach generates returns by elevating leadership and operational excellence rather than financial engineering. From the impact of Liberation Day tariffs to the quiet convergence of global labor costs, from AI's limited role on today's shop floor to the creative deal structures emerging in a higher interest rate environment, this conversation delivers actionable insights for investors seeking exposure to the manufacturing renaissance.Steve also vulnerably shares lessons from Genesis on leadership, partnership, and the biblical principles that shape both his marriage and LFM's investment philosophy - including why 50/50 ownership structures consistently fail and what that reveals about decision-making authority in both business and family.Guest Background:Steve Cook is Executive Managing Director of LFM Capital, a Nashville-based private equity firm investing exclusively in US manufacturing companies. A graduate of the US Naval Academy and MIT's Leaders for Manufacturing program, Steve flew F/A-18s off aircraft carriers for seven years before transitioning to operations leadership roles at Dell and venture-backed technology companies. At LFM, he leads a team of operators and engineers who partner with manufacturing CEOs to build enterprise value through operational excellence, not financial engineering. Steve and his wife Shannon live in Nashville and are active members of Long Hollow Church.

Against the backdrop of a meeting of national security luminaries – including Secretary of State Marco Rubio – last weekend in Munich, Germany, a most amazing event took place. According to police estimates, a quarter of a million people took to that city's streets in solidarity with the people of Iran, demanding an end to the horrific sharia-supremacist tyranny that has brutally repressed them and threatened us for nearly fifty years. Senator Lindsay Graham conveyed America's support for liberating the Iranian people. His comments came shortly after President Trump observed the end of the ayatollahs' regime would be “the best thing that could happen.”  Mr. Trump now has in place military forces that can destroy the  mullahs' remaining security apparatus. It's time for the promised “help is on the way” to be translated into help delivered and a true “Liberation Day” achieved.   This is Frank Gaffney.

Steve Moore and financial expert Robert Wolf engage in a bipartisan dialogue regarding the current state and future trajectory of the American economy. The conversation highlights a tension between macroeconomic growth and the affordability crisis facing everyday families, specifically examining how widespread tariffs and "Liberation Day" policies may act as a regressive tax on consumers. Beyond immediate fiscal policy, the pair explores structural shifts in the financial landscape, offering a bullish outlook on productivity while expressing deep concern over how artificial intelligence might displace mid-level employment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There are some days in the calendar that people will never forget. 8 December 2024 is a day Syrians will certainlt remember: Liberation Day. Now a national holiday, it marks the fall of the Assad family regime—a dictatorship that had ruled Syria for half a century.Fourteen months on, where is Syria today? Internationally, the country has secured a number of diplomatic victories. At home, however, the road to rebuilding and ensuring safety and stability remains long. Much of the country still lies in ruins, sectarian tensions have flared up periodically, and there are ongoing threats to Syria's territorial integrity, including incursions by Turkey and Israel.What, then, are the main priorities for Syria and al-Sharaa's government—and what key challenges does the country face as it rebuilds?And today, to unpack this further, we are joined by a familiar voice, Dominic Bowen, the host you are used to listening to on the International Risk Podcast. Yes, today he is back in the interviewee spot, joining us live from Damascus, and I, Anna Kummelstedt, one of the producers of the show, take on the interview hat once again. Many of you may be used to hearing Dominic's voice,but what you may not know is that this is not Dominic's first time in Syria. In fact, he was working with MSF (Doctors without Borders) as a field coordinator in northern Syria in 2014; he then became the Head of the NGO Forum for northern Syria, where Dominic provided leadership and coordination of humanitarian activities. He also authored the report in 2025, “Failing Syria: Assessing the impact of UNSC Resolutions in protecting civilians, and in 2018-19, he supported Save the Children's operations in Syria. The International Risk Podcast brings you conversations with global experts, frontline practitioners, and senior decision-makers who are shaping how we understand and respond to international risk. From geopolitical volatility and organized crime, to cybersecurity threats and hybrid warfare, each episode explores the forces transforming our world and what smart leaders must do to navigate them. Whether you're a board member, policymaker, or risk professional, The International Risk Podcast delivers actionable insights, sharp analysis, and real-world stories that matter.The International Risk Podcast is sponsored by Conducttr, a realistic crisis exercise platform. Conducttr offers crisis exercising software for corporates, consultants, humanitarian, and defence & security clients. Visit Conducttr to learn more.Dominic Bowen is the host of The International Risk Podcast and Europe's leading expert on international risk and crisis management. As Head of Strategic Advisory and Partner at one of Europe's leading risk management consulting firms, Dominic advises CEOs, boards, and senior executives across the continent on how to prepare for uncertainty and act with intent. He has spent decades working in war zones, advising multinational companies, and supporting Europe's business leaders. Dominic is the go-to business advisor for leaders navigating risk, crisis, and strategy; trusted for his clarity, calmness under pressure, and ability to turn volatility into competitive advantage. Dominic equips today's business leaders with the insight and confidence to lead through disruption and deliver sustained strategic advantage.Tell us what you liked!

Markets were mixed yesterday, with European shares dragged down by weak results from Adyen, Magnum and Mercedes-Benz, despite solid updates from Siemens and Hermès. Schroders jumped on a takeover approach from Nuveen. In the US, deepening concerns over AI‑driven disruption hit tech stocks hard, pushing the ‘Magnificent Seven' lower and marking Apple's worst day since Liberation Day. Gold and silver slipped on stronger US labour data, oil fell on rising supply signals, and US housing data highlighted growing structural weakness. We're joined by Tim Gagie, Head of FX Advisory in Geneva, for the latest on metals and currencies ahead of key US inflation data.(00:00) - Introduction: Helen Freer, Product & Investment Content (00:31) - Markets wrap-up: Lucija Caculovic, Product & Investment Content (06:45) - FX & metals update: Tim Gagie, Head of FX/PM PB Geneva (10:59) - Closing remarks: Helen Freer, Product & Investment Content Would you like to support this show? Please leave us a review and star rating on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

If this year is like 2025, it's time to start absolutely knowing why you own things. Good stocks will recover so know what you own if we have another Deepseek and Liberation Day moment in 2026. SPONSORED BY SEEKING ALPHA Get my FREE newsletter or sign up for the paid version with benefits like the Office Hours and tracking the portfolios in Savvy Trader ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://dailystockpick.substack.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠THESE SALES END SOON: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TRENDSPIDER SALE - get any annual plan and I'll send you my 4 hour algorithm. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Seeking Alpha's "VALENTINES DAY SALE"⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SEEKING ALPHA BUNDLE - Save over $150 and get Premium and Alpha Picks together ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ALPHA PICKS - Want to Beat the S&P? Save $75 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Seeking Alpha Premium - FREE 7 DAY TRIAL and 15% OFF⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SEEKING ALPHA PRO - TRY IT FOR A MONTH FOR ONLY $89 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠EPISODE SUMMARY

SBS Finance Editor Ricardo Gonçalves speaks with George Boubouras from K2 Asset Management to find out why the market has been so volatile of late as he takes a closer look at how investors will be analysing AI investments during the upcoming reporting season.

George Saunders is an author known for his inventive short stories and the Booker Prize–winning novel Lincoln in the Bardo. His works include the collections Tenth of December and Liberation Day and the craft book A Swim in a Pond in the Rain. Named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people, he has received numerous honors, from a MacArthur Fellowship to the National Book Foundation's 2025 Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters. Saunders teaches in the creative writing program at Syracuse University, where he has mentored generations of emerging authors. ------ Thank you to the sponsors that fuel our podcast and our team: AG1 https://drinkag1.com/tetra ------ Athletic Nicotine https://www.athleticnicotine.com/tetra Use code 'TETRA' ------ LMNT Electrolytes https://drinklmnt.com/tetra Use code 'TETRA' ------ Squarespace https://squarespace.com/tetra Use code 'TETRA' ------ Sign up to receive Tetragrammaton Transmissions https://www.tetragrammaton.com/join-newsletter

George Saunders returns to the Shakespeare and Company Podcast to talk with host Adam Biles about Vigil, his long-awaited new novel. Set on the threshold between life and death, Vigil follows a dying oil executive and the ghost tasked with comforting him, unfolding as a darkly comic, morally urgent meditation on guilt, responsibility, and free will in the age of climate collapse.Saunders discusses his fascination with liminal spaces and afterlives, the technical challenges of writing beyond realism, and how revision allows fiction to think more deeply than polemic ever could. Drawing on his own past in the oil industry, he reflects on writing characters implicated in environmental harm with both empathy and moral seriousness. The conversation ranges across Dickens, Tolstoy, Buddhism, and the novel's central question: whether redemption is possible when action is no longer an option. As ever, Saunders brings humor, generosity, and intellectual daring to a discussion that embraces complexity rather than easy answers.*George Saunders is the author of thirteen books, including the novel Lincoln in the Bardo, which won the Booker Prize in 2017, and five collections of stories including Tenth of December, which was a finalist for the National Book Award, and the recent collection Liberation Day (selected by former President Obama has one of his ten favourite books of 2021). Three of Saunders' books –Pastoralia, Tenth of December, and Lincoln in the Bardo – were chosen for the New York Times' list of the 100 Best Books of the 21st Century. Saunders hosts the popular Story Club on Substack, which grew out of his book on the Russian short story, A Swim in a Pond in the Rain. In 2013, he was named one of the world's 100 Most Influential People by Time magazine. He teaches in the creative writing program at Syracuse University.Adam Biles is Literary Director at Shakespeare and Company.Listen to Alex Freiman's latest EP, In The Beginning: https://open.spotify.com/album/5iZYPMCUnG7xiCtsFCBlVa?si=h5x3FK1URq6SwH9Kb_SO3w Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ever since Donald Trump's Liberation Day tariffs were announced in April last year, the price of gold has been rising.Its price is about 80 percent higher than it was a year ago and it's still near its all time record after a recent sell off.So, what's been moving the price of gold and what does it say about investor's faith in the US and global economy? Today, business correspondent David Taylor on why Australians have been queuing to buy the shiny metal and where the price could go next. Featured: David Taylor, ABC business correspondent

Our Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Serena Tang and senior leaders from Investment Management Andrew Slimmon and Jitania Kandhari unpack new investment trends from supportive monetary and fiscal policy and shifting market leadership. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Serena Tang: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Serena Tang, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist. Today we're revisiting the 2026 global equity outlook with two senior leaders from Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Andrew Slimmon: I am Andrew Slimmon, Head of Applied Equity Team within Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Jitania Kandhari: And I'm Jitania Kandhari, Deputy CIO of the Solutions and Multi-Asset Group, Portfolio Manager for Passport Strategies and Head of Macro and Thematic Research for Emerging Market Equities within Morgan Stanley Investment Management.It's Tuesday, February 3rd at 10 am in New York. So as investors are entering in 2026, after several years of very strong equity returns with policy support reaccelerating. As regular listeners have probably heard, Mike Wilson, who of course is CIO and Chief Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley – his view is that we ended a three-year rolling earnings recession in last April and entered a rolling recovery and a new bull market. Now, Andrew, in the spirit of debate, I know you have a different take on valuations and where we are at in the cycle. I'd love to hear how you're framing this for investment management clients. Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I mean, I guess I focus a little bit more on the behavioral cycle. And I think that from a behavioral cycle we're following a very consistent pattern, which is we had a bad bear market in 2022 that bottomed down 25 percent. And that provided a wonderful opportunity to invest. But early in a behavioral cycle, investors are very pessimistic. And that was really the story of [20]23 and really 2024, which were; investors, you know, were negative on equities. The ratios were all very negative and investors sold out of equities. And that's consistent with a early cycle. And then as you move into the third-fourth year, investors tend to get more optimistic about returns. Doesn't necessarily mean the market goes down. But what it does mean is the market tends to get more volatile and returns start to compress, and ultimately, bull markets die on euphoria. And so, I think it's late cycle, but it's not end of cycle. And that's my theme; is late cycle but not end of cycle.Serena Tang: And I think on that point, one very unusual feature of this environment is that you have both monetary and fiscal policy being supportive at the same time, which, of course, rarely happens outside of recession. So how do you see those dual policy forces shaping market behavior and which parts of the market tend to benefit? Andrew Slimmon: Well, that's exactly right. Look, the last time I checked, page one of the investment handbook says, ‘Don't fight the Fed.' And so, you have monetary policy easing. And what we; remember what happened in 2021? The Fed raised rates and monetary policy was tightening. Equities do well when the Fed is easing, and that's one of the reasons why I think it's not end of cycle. And then you layer in fiscal policy with tax relief coming, it is a reason to be relatively optimistic on equities in 2026. But it doesn't mean there can't be bumps along the way – and I think a higher level of optimism as we're seeing today is a result of that. But I think you stick with those more procyclical areas: Finance, Industrials, Technology, and then you move down the cap curve a little bit. I think those are the winning trades. They really started to come to the fore in the second half of last year, and I think that will continue into 2026. Serena Tang: Right. And we've definitely seen some bumps recently, but I think on your point around yields. So, Jitania, I think that policy backdrop really ties directly to your idea of the age of capped real rates. In very simple terms, can you explain what that means and what's behind that view? Jitania Kandhari: Sure. When I say age of real rates being capped, I mean like the structural template within which I'm operating, and real rates here are defined by the 10-year on the Treasury yield adjusted for CPI.Firstly, I'd say there was too much linear thinking in markets post Liberation Day. That tariffs equals inflation equals higher rates. Now, tariff impacts, as we have seen, can be offset in several ways, and economic relationships are rarely linear.So, inflation may not go up to the extent market is expecting. So that supports the case for capped rates. And the real constraint is the debt arithmetic, right? So, if you look at the history of public debt in the U.S., whenever there was a surge in public debt during the Civil War, two World Wars, Global Financial Crisis, even during COVID. In all these periods, when debt spiked, real rates have remained negative.So, there can be short term swings in rates, but I believe that markets not necessarily central banks will even enforce that cap. Serena Tang: You've described this moment, as the great broadening of 2026. What's driving this and what do you think is happening now after years of very narrow concentration? Jitania Kandhari: Yes. I think like if last decade was about concentration, now it's going to be about breadth. And if you look at where the concentration was, it was in the [Mag] 7, in the AI trade. We are beginning to see some cracks in the consensus where adoption is happening, but monetization is lagging. But clearly the next phase of value creation could happen from just the model building to the application layer, as you guys have also talked about – from enablers to adopters.The other thing we are seeing is two AI ecosystems evolve globally. The high cost cutting edge U.S. innovation engine and the lower cost efficiency driven Chinese model, each of them have their own supply chain beneficiaries. And as AI is moving into physical world, you're going to see more opportunities. And then secondly, I think there are limitations on this tariff policies globally; and tariff fears to me remain more of an illusion than a reality because U.S. needs to import a lot of intermediate goods And then lastly, I see domestic cycles inflecting upwards in many other pockets of the world. And you add all this up; the message is clear that leadership is broadening and portfolio should broaden too. Serena Tang: And I want to sort of stay on this topic of broadening. So, Andrew, I think, you've also highlighted, you know, this market broadening, especially beyond the large cap leaders, even as AI investment continues, I think, as you touched on earlier. So why does that matter for equity leadership in 2026? And can you talk about the impact of this broadening on valuations in general? Andrew Slimmon: Sure. So I think, you know, I've been around a long time and I remember when the internet first rolled out, the Mosaic browser was introduced in 1993. And the first thing the stock market tried to do is appoint winners – of who was going to win the internet, you know, search race. And it was Ask Jeeves and it was Yahoo and it was Netscape. Well, none of those were the winners. We just don't know who's ultimately going to be the tech winner. I think it's much safer to know that just like the internet, AI is a technology productivity enhancing tool, and companies are going to embrace AI just like they embraced the internet. And the reason the stock market doubled between 1997 and the dotcom peak was that productivity margins went up for a lot of companies in a lot of industries as they embraced the internet. So, to me, a broadening out and looking at lower valuations, it is in many ways safer than saying this is the technology winner, and this is technology loser. I think it's all many different industries are going to embrace and benefit from what's going on with AI. Serena Tang: You don't want to know where I was in 1993. And I don't recognize most of those names. Andrew Slimmon: Sorry. I was 14! Serena Tang: [Laughs] Ok. Investors often hear two competing messages now. Ignore the macro and buy great companies or let the big picture drive everything. How do you balance top-down signals with bottom-up fundamentals in your investment process? Andrew Slimmon: Yeah, I think you have to employ both, and I hear that all the time; especially I hear, you know, my competitors, ‘Oh, I just focus on my stock picks, my bottom up.' But, you know, look statistically, two-thirds of a manager's relative performance comes from macro. You know, how did growth do? How did value do? All those types of things that have nothing to do with what stock picks... And likewise, much of a return of an individual stock has to do with things beyond just what's happening fundamentally. But some of it comes from what's happening at the company level. So, I think to be a great investor, you have to be aware of the macro. The Fed cutting rates this year is a very powerful tool, and if you don't understand the amplifications of that as per what types of stocks work, because you're so focused on the micro, I think that's a mistake. Likewise, you have to know what's going on in your company [be]cause one third of term does come from actual stock selection. So, I'm a big believer in marrying a top down and a bottom up and try to capture the two thirds and the one third.Serena Tang: Since that 2022 bear market low that you talked about earlier. I mean, your framework really favored growth and value over defensives. But I think more recently you've increased your non-U.S. exposure. What changed in your top-down signals and bottom-up data to make global opportunities more compelling now? Is it the narrative of the end of U.S. exceptionalism or something else? Andrew Slimmon: No, I really think it's actually something else, which is we have picked up signals from other parts of the world, Europe and Japan. That are different signals than we saw really for the last decade, which is namely that pro-cyclical stocks started to work. Value stocks started to work in the first half of 2025. And you look at the history of when that happens, usually value doesn't work for a year and peter out. So that's been a huge change where I would say, a safer orientation has shown the relative leadership, and we have to be – recognize that. So, in our global strategies, we've been heavily weighted towards, the U.S. orientation because we didn't see really a cyclical bias outside. And now that's changing and that has caused us to increase the allocation to non-U.S. exposure. It's a longwinded way of saying, look, I think what the story of last year was the U.S. did just fine. But there were parts of the world that did better and I think that will continue in 2026. Serena Tang: Andrew, Jitania thank you so much for taking the time to talk. Andrew Slimmon: Great speaking with you, Serena. Jitania Kandhari: Thanks for having us on the show. Serena Tang: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

This week's episode of Wealth Formula features an interview with Claudia Sahm, and I want to share a quick takeaway before you listen — because she's often misunderstood in the headlines. First, a quick explanation of the Sahm Rule, in plain English. The rule looks at unemployment and asks a very simple question:Has the unemployment rate started rising meaningfully from its recent low? Specifically, if the three-month average unemployment rate rises by 0.5% or more above its lowest level over the past year, the Sahm Rule is triggered. Historically, that has happened early in every U.S. recession since World War II. That's why it gets cited so much. And to be clear — it's cited a lot. The Sahm Rule is tracked by the Federal Reserve, Treasury economists, Wall Street banks, macro funds, and economic research shops globally. When it triggers, it shows up everywhere. That's not by accident. Claudia built one of the cleanest early-warning indicators we have. But here's the part that often gets lost. The Sahm Rule is not a market-timing tool and it's not a prediction machine. Claudia emphasized this repeatedly. It was designed as a policy signal — a way to say, “Hey, if unemployment is rising this fast, waiting too long to respond makes things worse.” In other words, it's a call to action for policymakers, not a command for investors to panic. What makes this cycle unusual — and why talking to Claudia directly was so helpful — is what's actually driving the data. We're not seeing mass layoffs. Layoffs remain low by historical standards. What we're seeing instead is very weak hiring. Companies aren't firing people — they're just not expanding. That distinction matters. And this is where I think the big picture comes in — not just for understanding the economy, but for investing in general. When you step back, the big picture includes a government with massive debt loads that needs interest rates to come down over time. It includes fiscal pressures that make prolonged high rates politically and economically painful. And it includes the reality that if the current Fed leadership won't ease fast enough, future leadership will. History tells us that governments eventually get the monetary conditions they need — even if it takes time, even if it takes new appointments, and even if it takes a shift toward a more dovish Federal Reserve. That doesn't mean reckless money printing tomorrow. But it does mean that structurally high rates are unlikely to be permanent. And when you combine that with investing, the question becomes less about this month's headline and more about what's positioned to benefit when the environment normalizes. That's why I continue to focus on real assets that are already deeply discounted — things like multifamily real estate — assets that were repriced brutally during the rate shock, but still sit at the center of a growing, rent-dependent economy. This conversation with Claudia reinforced something I've been talking about for a long time:The biggest investing mistakes usually happen when people zoom in too far and forget to zoom back out. I've made this mistake myself. If you want a thoughtful, non-sensational, data-driven discussion about where we actually are in this cycle — and what the indicators really mean — I think you'll get a lot out of this episode. Transcript Disclaimer: This transcript was generated by AI and may not be 100% accurate. If you notice any errors or corrections, please email us at phil@wealthformula.com. Welcome everybody. This is Buck Joffrey with the Well Formula Podcast coming to you from Montecito, California. Before we begin today, I wanna remind you, uh, listen, we’re back in, uh, back in the saddle in here in, uh, 2026. I know it’s takes some time to get used to it, but we’re, gosh, we’re at the end of the month actually by the time this plays. I think we’re in February. It’s time again to start thinking about investing. And so if you are interested in potentially using this year, which I believe and which many believe to potentially be the last year, uh, big discounts, uh, in real estate and, uh, various other types of offerings. Make sure. To sign up for the Accredit Investor group, our investor club, as we call it wealthformula.com. You do need to be an accredit investor and then you get onboarded. An accredit investor is just defined by who you are. If you make over $300,000 per year filing jointly, or 200 by yourself, every reasonable expectation to do so in the future. Or you have a net worth of a million dollars outta your personal, outside of your personal residence, you’re an accredit investor. Congratulations. Join the club wealthformula.com. Interesting podcast. Today we have, uh, Claudia Sahm She’s a Big Deal, Claudia Sahm. You may recognize that last name som, for this som rule. And what is a som rule in plain English. You actually have heard of the som rule multiple times from other economists who’ve been on the show. The som rule looks at unemployment. And asks a very simple question. Now, has the unemployment rate started rising meaningfully from its recent low? So specifically, if the three month average unemployment rate rises 0.5% or more above its lowest level, over the past year, this som rule is triggered. Now, historically, that has happened early in every US recession since the World War ii. That’s why it gets cited so much. It gets cited a lot. By the way, the sum rule is tracked by the Fed treasury economists, wall Street Banks, macro funds, economic research shops globally, and when it triggers, it shows up everywhere, and that’s not by accident. Uh, Claudia has built one of the cleanest early warning indicators we have, but here’s the part that often gets lost. The som rule is not a market timing tool, and it’s not a prediction machine. Claudia, uh, emphasized that repeatedly. It was designed as a policy signal, a way to say, Hey, if unemployment’s rising this fast, wait, waiting too long to respond makes things worse. In other words, it’s call to action for policy makers, not a command for investors to panic per se. So what makes this cycle unusual and why talking to Claudia directly was so helpful? Well, it’s what’s actually driving the data. We’re not seeing mass layoffs. Layoffs remain low by historical standards. Um, what we’re seeing instead is very weak. Hiring companies aren’t firing people, they’re just not expanding, and that distinction matters. This is where the big picture comes in, not just for understanding the economy. For investing in general and when you step back, the big picture includes a government with massive debt loads that need interest rates to come down over time. It includes fiscal pressures that make prolonged high rates politically and economically painful. I’ve mentioned this before and it includes the reality that have to fed, fed, uh, if the current Fed leadership won’t ease fast enough. I am likely the case that future leadership appointed by. Donald Trump himself, uh, will, so history tells us that governments eventually get the monetary conditions they need, even if it takes time, even if it takes new appointments. And even if it takes a shift towards a more dovish federal reserve. Uh, that doesn’t mean, uh, reckless money printing tomorrow, but it does mean that structurally. High interest rates are unlikely to be permanent. Okay? And when you combine that with investing, the question becomes less about this month’s headline and more about what’s positioned to benefit when the environment normalizes. Okay? That’s really, really important, and that’s why I continue to focus on things like real estate, right? Real estate is currently. Not for long, in my opinion, but deeply discounted things like multifamily real estate, um, that were repriced brutally during the rate shot, uh, but are still at the center of a growing and, and rent dependent economy. And again, uh, this conversation with Claudia reinforced something that I’ve been talking about a long time, which is the biggest investing mistakes usually happen when people zoom in too far and forget to zoom back out. I’ve made that mistake myself. I am not immune. I have made lots of mistakes, and that’s one of them. So this is a great conversation. Hopefully you’ll enjoy it, especially if you want a thoughtful, nons sensational data-driven discussion. Where we are actually at in this cycle and what these indicators really mean. I think you’ll get a lot of this episode and we will have this conversation for you right after these messages. Wealth formula banking is an ingenious concept powered by whole life insurance, but instead of acting just as a safety net. The strategy supercharges your investments. First, you create a personal financial reservoir that grows at a compounding interest rate much higher than any bank savings account. As your money accumulates, you borrow from your own bank to invest in other cash flowing investments. Here’s the key. Even though you borrowed money at a simple interest rate, your insurance company keeps. Paying you compound interest on that money even though you’ve borrowed it at result, you make money in two places at the same time. That’s why your investments get supercharged. This isn’t a new technique. It’s a refined strategy used by some of the wealthiest families in history, and it uses century old rock solid insurance companies as its backbone. Turbocharge your investments. Visit Wealthformulabanking.com. Again, that’s wealth formula banking.com. Welcome back to the show, everyone. Today my guest on Wealth Formula podcast is Dr. Claudia Sahm. Uh, she’s an American, uh, macroeconomic expert, uh, known for her work, uh, on monetary and fiscal policy and real-time economic indicators. She developed this som rule, which I think, uh, people have mentioned on this show before, so this is a great opportunity to talk to her about that. Uh, it’s a widely, uh, followed recession signal based on unemployment. She’s also a former Federal Reserve economist and senior policy advisor in government. Um, so welcome, uh, Dr. Sahm. Great. Happy to be here. Thank you. Well, let’s, let’s kind of start out with this som rule because, uh, you know, it’s funny, we, we have had a few different people, uh, at various times bring up the SOM rule, and I think one had actually said that it was triggered, but I don’t don’t think it was at any rate, let’s, let’s start with that. What is the som rule? Lemme start with why is there a som rule, and then we’ll then we’ll get to specifically what the, what the rule is itself. So when I started out on the project, it wasn’t so much about. Calling a recession, like there are some really fancy technical ways that economists like look at the tea leaves and the data and either try to forecast a recession, which is incredibly hard, or even just say we’re in a recession in real time. So like that’s a useful endeavor. But what actually was behind the development of my recession indicator was more of a call to action. How do we develop policies that, that the Congress can put into place very quickly if a recession comes? So these kind of what are referred to as automatic stabilizers, so they’re decided upon ahead of time, but then you do need a trigger that says a recession is here. So now that enhance the unemployment benefits, send out the stimulus checks, whatever it is that we kind of have as our typical tools that are used in recessions, we could have those ready to go as kind of guardrails. Then like you, you turn the policy on. So that was really my emphasis was on how do we do better policy and recessions, get the support out quickly. ’cause that’s the best chance of kind of stabilizing the situation. And then it’s like, well it was in a, it was in a policy volume that they asked for, like a really concrete proposal. So if I’m gonna say an automatic stabilizer, I need to have a proposal for what a trigger could be. So that’s really where the som rule came. So I think it is important. It’s definitely important to me to, I always remember like what the kind of reason for it’s sure. Now that also guided what the indicator itself looks like. So again, it was gonna be in, in fiscal policy. It needs to be simple, it needs to be something that we track it and it needs to, I felt it was important that it capture the reason that we. Fight recessions, why there’s such a bad, uh, you know, outcome. And so it looks at the, the unemployment rate. I use the national unemployment rate, take a three month average. ’cause we wanna smooth out, like there’s bumps and wiggles in the data from month to month. So you kind of, you know, three month average. One way to smooth it out. So you take that series of three month averages, you look at the current value, you compare to the lowest value over the prior 12 months, if you’ve seen an increase of a half, a percentage point or more. Which is really pretty modest, but half a percentage point or more. Historically, we have been in the early months of a recession, so it’s not a forecast. It’s supposed to be like we’re in it. Let’s go. It’s an empirical pattern. It’s one that’s worked in the United States. It reflects kind of our labor market institutions, the way unemployment rate moves and recessions. It historically is the case that once you get past a certain threshold of increased unemployment rate, it tends to build on itself. And in a typical recession, we see increases of. Two, three or more percentage points in the unemployment rate. Uh, so that’s, that’s what the summer rule is. And in fact, it did trigger in the summer of 2024. At that time I had said like, look around, we are not in a recession. GP is still expanding. Job creation is still happening. We don’t see the other hallmarks of a recession. And pointed to the fact that we’d had a very disrupted labor market after the pandemic in particular. You know, there had been a lot of immigration at that point. The unemployment rate is the total number of unemployed. So people who don’t have a job but are actively looking for one out of the labor force, right? And so these people that have to either be employed or looking for jobs, and so we actually saw from the pandemic. Both with the pandemic and then later with the surge and now the reversal in immigration. We’ve seen a lot of movement in the, in the labor force, which makes unemployment rate a little tricky to interpret. And then I’d also argue, we saw early in the pandemic, the unemployment rate dropped very rapidly. We even had labor shortages. So in some ways unemployment rate rising and it has risen over. I mean, it continued to rise last year in 2025. A lot of that’s also normalization. We’d had a very low unemployment rate. So I think the, the pandemic recession has a lot of features that were very unusual. We’ll talk probably more about the labor market continued to be kind of unusual. So the, you know, the somal was not the only recession indicator to fall flat on its face in the cycle. Um, but I think it’s still a useful, useful guide and I, and. You know, even if it’s not a recession, the, the unemployment rate is a full percentage point above, its low in 2023. So, I mean, that, that could, that could be a reason for policymakers to respond, even if it’s not responding to a recession. Right. That was the first time that it, that triggered and, and actually didn’t. End up in a recession, right? There’s some back in the 1950s, earlier, but it’s, it’s the first time where there’ve been some false positives in the past or, or near false positives. Like in 2003. It was kind of close, uh, is like the unemployment rate rises a little bit and then it falls back down. What we saw after it triggered in 2024 is it stabilized. Then last year it continued to rise. So this the pattern that we’ve seen since the pandemic of rapid recovery dropping unemployment rate and then it’s like gradually rising and yet has risen a full percentage point that you go all the way back in the post World War II period. We don’t see anything that looks like that. So that is a very unusual. Paris. So something’s more is going on in the labor market than just our typical business cycle, boom, bust, recession type dynamics. So what is that? What is the thing that’s happening that’s unusual right now in the labor market? Right? So the thing that is driving the unemployment rate up, I think this is a good lesson, a reminder to all of us. It’s not about layoffs. The rate of layoffs in the United States is really quite low. You look at unemployment insurance claims, they’re also quite low. What’s been pushing the unemployment rate up over the last two and a half years has been a very low rate of hiring and, and it’s, and it is something that over time will at least gradually put upward pressure on the unemployment rate and frankly. Until hiring picks up and we really don’t have many signs of it. Even as we enter 2026 unemployment rate’s gonna probably keep drifting up ’cause we’re not keeping job creation’s, not keeping up with, you know, people coming into the, into the labor market and, and that what’s, I think the puzzle right now is that hiring has been very low. But what we’ve seen in terms of consumer spending, business investment, so the kind of the big pieces of GDP, they’ve really held up pretty well, so. Business. It’s not, again, not that recession of the customers have disappeared. And so we’re not hiring, or we may even be firing workers. The customers are there for the businesses, but they’re choosing in this environment not to add, uh, to their payrolls. And that’s slowly pushing up down point rate. Yeah. Um, you know, it, it’s interesting what you’re, you’re talking about, but essentially you’re, people aren’t getting fired. They’re just, when they retire or leave, they’re just not replacing those. Individuals, you know, makes me think a little bit about what’s going on in the big, you know, in the tech push with artificial intelligence and that kind of thing, and increased in efficiency. Certainly you see that in the larger companies like Amazon and all that, where they’re just becoming massively more productive and cutting expenses essentially by, you know, using tech. Do you think that this is sort of an early indication, potentially of that kind of movement? So it. It’s possible, but I think we’re at the very front end of AI disrupting the labor market. This low hiring rate that we’ve talked about. You see this across all kinds of industries, including ones that don’t show high levels of AI adoption, and frankly, a AI adoption is pretty low. I mean, there are some sectors like tech and increasingly finance and some professional services have higher adoption rates. Uh, but in terms of it being able to explain the low hiring. I think it’s pretty tough ’cause the low hiring is such a, such a broad based, um, phenomenon. Now, AI might be, I think, indirectly contributing in that one of, one of the hypotheses about why, um, businesses have been, uh, not hiring despite, you know, economic activity. Continuing to push ahead could be that there’s a lot of uncertainty. Now there is a long list that we could draw of, of factors that might be causing businesses to be uncertain and hesitant to add to their payrolls. Uh, a lot of times you talk about things with tariffs or, you know, economic policy, regulations changing, you know, so there’s a lot going on there. But it could also be, there’s a lot of uncertainty about what this technology means for the future. Maybe you don’t need to bring on more workers because your ability to kind of use and adapt this technologies coming online. And so like that could be part of it. I think there’s another piece, you know, we have a lot of discussion about ai, but I do think that there’s, there could be a, a technology angle to this that’s, that is. Not in the AI technologies, but maybe just some of the more basic kind of automation is again, right after, you know, the, the pandemic recession as we came out of a, you know, very rapid recovery, uh, there was, there was a lot of hiring or that, ’cause businesses had done a lot of firing and they needed to bring back workers really rapidly and we actually had a period of labor shortages. There were workers moving around a lot and there were, that also put a lot of pressure on some employers, particularly in service sector, to automate more ’cause they just couldn’t get the workers, so they needed to bring technology. Online to help, you know, fill the gap. And over time, you know, businesses though, they haven’t done as much hiring, they have been firing. So the workers, they have longer tenures, have more experience, they’re probably more productive. So maybe businesses can kind of, you know, get away with not doing more hiring. ’cause the people they have there can kind of keep up with it. Um, and they’ve done some more automation. I don’t think those are sustainable. I think we’re going to need to see hiring pickup in terms of, of staying with, um, you know, as expanding, uh, demand from customers. But I won’t pretend to know what AI means for the future of the labor force. Right. So like there could be, I think that’s a big conversation about we’re headed, where we’re headed. I think it’s probably a pretty small slice of explaining. Where we’re at right now. You know, it’s interesting because obviously there was a lot of concerns about rising inflation, and particularly in the context of, you know, tariffs and, and among those types of things that were, were, um, coming down the pipe. And as it turns out, inflation seems to be coming down. How do you explain that from where you sit? Because it, it, it seems sort of to contradict a lot of what, you know, many economists believe to be likely. So when thinking about the effects of tariffs on inflation and this, this idea that it didn’t end up being as much of a factors we had really feared, uh, you know, a year ago. I think there’s a few things to keep in mind. One, the announced tariffs, uh. Didn’t come to pass fully. Right? So there’s a big difference between some of the, the, the initial announcements, whether it was on Liberation Day, April 2nd, or the initial kind of retaliation tit for tat with China, where we ended up with some triple digit, uh, tariff numbers. Those didn’t end up being where we, we ended now tariff, the effect of tariff rate. Is much higher than it was before. Right. Uh, president Trump came into office for the second time, so like, I don’t wanna minimize the, the, the increase in tariffs and the US government collected about $200 billion last year in, in additional tariffs. But there is a, there’s a good bit of daylight between what was announced and where we actually ended up. Businesses also proved very capable of trying to avoid those tariffs and not in like a. Illegal kind of way of avoiding them, but, but using inventories like trying to get ahead of them. We know the tariffs are tariffs. There’s been some evidence that, that it’s businesses are gonna start passing on the tariff cost increase when it’s actually tied to the inventories that they’re putting out in front of customers. And for some of our goods, like say apparel or things that have long seasons or come from, you know, all across the world, it actually takes quite a bit of time from the inventories being what actually shows up in front of customers. So there’s been the ability to. Kind of get around the tariffs ’cause they were rolling in. And so do be smart in terms of your inventories. And then it just takes time for those inventories to be, you know, um, to come down. Mm-hmm. By, there’s been several studies at this place, at this point that, that demonstrate that the, the tariffs, the cost of the tariffs is coming into the us. So the, it’s always the importer that pays the tariff, like literally writes the check to the US government. But it’s possible that the foreign producer could say, reduce their prices on what they’re, you know, paying or what they’re asking to be paid for that, uh, imported good. And then that would be a way of the foreign producer sharing the cost of the tariff. But everything that we see from the M Court data suggests that a very small fraction, probably less than 10%. Of the total tariff burden is being born by, at least at this point, born by the foreign producers. So it’s coming into the us. It’s sitting with either US businesses that are importing the goods or have the goods at some point in their, you know, in their supply chains and, and with us customers, the consumers we have, we’ve seen. I think you can really look at the inflation data. You can see the goods prices, which often are kind of a drag on inflation that they did turn around. They’re, they’re putting upward pressure on inflation. It’s not massive. It doesn’t explain all of these, you know, 200 billion in tariff costs, but then it is, it’s sitting with businesses. The effects still, it’s still just not that long enough to really understand. You know what, what the implications. It’s possible. I, I think that’s true with any, with any big policy change. Like it doesn’t happen overnight. I think that’s one thing that a lot of, a lot of economic models that, like, they’re, they’re very sensitive, right? Like as soon as a policy change happens, the models will kind of tell us something pretty dramatic in terms of adjustments. But this last year was a reminder, like when there’s, when there’s a big cost, there’s gonna be a lot of attempts to adjust around it to try to minimize that cost and then. It takes time, like in the real world, like the interactions are much more complex. You know, inventory lags all of the, like, it takes time to move its way through. So I think we’re not done with the pass through. I think we’ll probably still see more come to consumers, but businesses could decide to bear that cost. They, they could, you know, with profit margins. I mean some of, some of the inflationary environment in the pandemic did allow. There were very broad base increases in prices. You did see some companies be profitable from that because it was, there was a, you know, some of the costs were more targeted, but the, you know, the, the price increases were broad. So it could be a time where businesses see that, you know, consumers are more price sensitive now than they were in 21, 20 21, 20 22, so they’re not passing as much on it. Could be that that’s part of where. Like the cost businesses are dealing with that cost by maybe doing less hiring as opposed to passing it on to consumers. Uh, you know, they could be taking a hit with their profits. They, you know, so like, it doesn’t have to go all the way through to consumers. There are different levers that can be pulled. I do think we’ll still see some pass through in the, in probably the first half of this year, and that’s assuming that our whole tariff regime. Sit still, right? It looks like once again we might be, uh, increasing those tariffs, but, um, so yeah, I think it’s just tracing, you know, the tariffs through the system is really complicated. And one last thing I’ll say about the tariffs is they’re not just tariffs on goods that go to consumers. These tariffs have been broad enough that we’re also taring imported goods that are used by our manufacturers used for our, by our businesses in their production. So then it can take a really long time for that to end up with the, you know, the end customer could be a business to start with, and then it moves its way down. So I think these are just, you know, the costs are real. We can see the tariffs have been collected, the costs are there. We can see in the import data, there haven’t been import price data, there haven’t been a lot of adjustments by the foreign suppliers. So then it’s just a question of, we have these costs. Where did the cost go? I believe the last GEP was 4.3% and, uh, inflation was around 2.6, 2.7, or at least core. You’ve obviously, uh, worked at the Fed. Um, give us a sense of the situation that the Fed is trying to figure out here. Like what do they do with these numbers and, you know, all of the issues that surround them. The work at the Fed, I mean, it, it’s laser focused on the, the response, the mandates that the Fed has. So with maximum employment and price stability and with maximum employment, that’s not something that can be easily defined. It’s not like it’s a particular unemployment rate, it’s not a particular payroll number. But I mean, broadly speaking, it’s, you know, do, are, you know, the people who wanna work, are they working? In such a way that it’s not putting pressure on inflation, right? Like labor shortages that end up with wage increases that just, you know, end up with inflation. Like that would be a situation where the Fed would actually want to kind of help restrain some of the. Uh, employment growth. And we, we saw that in this cycle. I mean, the Fed raised rates a lot in 2022 and 2023. Uh, so that’s the maximum employment on the stable prices. The Fed has set a target of the 2%, uh, year over year PCE inflation. So a little different than the CPI inflation, but very much related. And, and it’s one, I mean, that’s, that’s the goal, right? And it, uh. So it starts with those two pieces and, and what’s been, I think what’s been challenging in say the last year as the Fed was, you know, trying to figure out what it was gonna do with interest rates was the fact that it, there was pressure on both sides of the mandate. Mm-hmm. Um, and not necessarily the, well, I mean, inflation itself has, was above the 2%. It continues to be above the 2%. Target has been. Since 2021. Now the Fed’s policy doesn’t have a look back, but I mean, they do worry that the longer inflation stays closer to three than two businesses. Consumers are gonna start to kind of embed three into their actions, their expectations. Then you kind of get stuck there. So like that, that both, you know, they were missing on the inflation mandate and there were, there were concerns that the, that we might see inflation get stuck above the mandate and the way you dislodge it if it gets stuck. Could end up risking a recession, right? So the Fed doesn’t want that to happen. So that’s a real concern. But then on the employment side, you know, we started out talking about the small rule, the rising unemployment rate. We’ve seen the unemployment rate rising. And then last year in particular, it wasn’t just the unemployment rate rising, we saw job creation just really take a leg down. Um. Some of that probably is less immigration population aging, so less supply of workers, which isn’t something the Fed would react to. ’cause that, I mean, if you don’t have as many people that wanna work, you don’t need to create as many jobs. But the unemployment rate was rising, so it’s clear, like there just wasn’t, there wasn’t enough job creation to keep up with, um, the workers who were there, uh, to work. And, and there was a concern that this could, could spiral out. Those small increased unemployment rate that, that very low level of job creation. And frankly, if you look at, I mean the, I mean, we have multiple months and probably more after revisions of declines in payroll employment. Mm-hmm. Like if you looked at the labor market data, you’d be like, aren’t we in a recession or like on the edge of one? Again, that’s not where we’re at, but it, it certainly gave that, that risk. Things could be slowing down. And, and the, the last piece that was really important in the Fed’s decisions was where, where’s the federal funds rate? Where are the interest rate, the policy interest rate they control? And it was still relatively high. For, for recent history, right. Not in the long history of the Fed, but mm-hmm. And so, like the Fed had raised, they’d raised interest rates quite aggressively to fight the inflation in 2022. They’d very gradually lowered it. Some was taken out in 2023 because made some pro, made quite a bit of progress on inflation in, or in 2024, they lowered the rates in 2025, the 75 basis points of cuts that the Fed did. It was out of concern. Of the labor market unraveling a risk, not a, not saying, hey, the labor market is unraveling, but saying the risk that the downside risk to employment are larger and more worrisome than the upside risk to inflation. So this inflation getting stuck, is that still the case as a going into 2026 here? So, you know, even, even last year we saw, we listened to Fed officials, there’s quite a bit of disagreement. Because it was a tough situation to read. There are some Fed officials that were more focused on inflation, some that were more focused on the employment side. Uh, and it really was just a matter of kind of reading the economy and trying to figure out this, a very unusual situation, like where, where was this headed? What did the Fed need to do? In the end, the consensus on the Fed was to do the rate cuts, kind of front load them. They talked a lot about it as insurance. They’re taking out insurance against the labor market deteriorating. And I think with that approach, in all likelihood, and there’s been certainly signaling of this, that when they meet at the end of January, it’ll, they’re unlikely to move again. That this is, this will be an opportunity to hold steady, be patient the Fed has, has taken out their restriction. So they don’t have the higher rates, so they’ve pulled rates down. We also know that early this year there’s various kinds of fiscal support that are coming online or tax cuts to households and to businesses that should give a little extra lift, uh, to the economy. So I think it’s a period of the Fed waiting to see what the effects of their policy changes are, seeing what the effects of the fiscal policy with the expectation this will be enough to stabilize the labor market. Even help get it back on track and really what the Fed would like. I mean, we’ll see what they get, but they’d really like the next cut to be a good news cut. Like inflation. Oh look, it’s moving back down again. We’re making clear progress back to 2%. I think that’s probably gonna take maybe even till the middle of this year to build that case. A strong case for the disinflation. Mm-hmm. But that’s, that’s what they would, would like to do. But they’re gonna keep an eye on the labor market. But nothing we’ve seen in the most recent data suggests that they gotta get moving like that. There’s some, you know, real pressure building. Um, in fact, the labor market looks a little bit better probably than when they met in December and inflation. Showing some signs of progress, but it, it’s pretty bumpy in terms of, there’s a lot of noise in the data at the moment. You mentioned, um, the Fed’s mandate and you know, certainly that’s something, um, that, uh, you know, that, that we know the Fed looks at these unemployment numbers that look at inflation. I’m curious though, that there’s, you know, there is this push and pull with the treasury. In particular, you know, looking at the amount of, of, of, of bonds that need to be refinanced, that kind of thing. I mean, presumably that’s one of the reasons why the Trump administration is pushing so hard, uh, on the Fed to reduce, um, you know, to reduce rates so that you know, this sovereign debt can be refinanced at a, something a little bit more palatable. How much of that actually. I know it’s not supposed to play a part in the Federal Reserve’s actions, but in reality is there, is there that kind of, you know, thinking that, you know, they have to, they, they may try to play ball a little bit with the, with the situation, with the debt. Yeah. There, the, the Fed is not playing ball right now with the administration. Uh, but, but there have been, there have been times in our past. So during World War II, there was an explicit cooperation between the Fed and the Treasury. The Fed kept interest rates low. Both the federal funds rates, so the short term interest rates, they also did, uh, some purchases of longer term to help keep longer term rates down. Right. So I mean, the, the Fed really, they, their policy was oriented exactly on this objective, keeping the borrowing cost of the US government low because it was financing the war effort. So, so there have been times where the Fed has cooperated with treasury. Now, when they came out of World War ii. What happened is, you know, treasury wants to keep interest rates low. This is good for, you know, the economy, good for growth, but it was, it really was creating a lot of inflationary pressures and it took until the early 1950s for the Fed to kind of regain its kind of operational independence from treasury and then go back to pursuing, you know, inflation as a key goal. And then also in the late seventies and maximum employment was added as an explicit goal. So we’re in a place now where. It’s employment, it’s inflation, it, there was quite, um, I mean, president Trump and some other officials have been, you know, very open about saying rates should be low to help with the deficit, with funding the gov. So like, it’s, it’s been in the discussion in the air. But that’s not, that’s not a mandate that Congress has given the Fed. That’s not what they’re pursuing. It does, you know, but things can change at the Fed. We’re gonna see a change in leadership this year with a new Fed chair. Um, the Fed always, I mean, Congress created the Federal Reserve. It’s changed its abilities, its responsibilities over time. I don’t wanna say that we’ll never get back to a place where the Fed thinks about. Its effect on the deficit. I mean, they’re watching it, they know, right? They’re tracking all these aspects of the economy. But in terms of what’s driving the Fed’s decisions about what the, the federal funds rate should be, that’s not part of the calculus right now. Yeah. Um, you know, another, just another question is for clarity. You know, the, the, um, officially right now there’s, there’s no quantitative easing. However, there is. Uh, you know, I’ve been reading, uh, about even, I think even today, there was a, a fair amount of liquidity, uh, being injected in by the Fed. Can you, for people who don’t understand the mechanics of this and what the difference in terminology is, can you explain to us maybe what the difference is between quantitative easing and what’s being done right now? So just as for context, where quantitative easing even came from. So if we go back to the global financial crisis in 2008, the Federal Reserve, in response to that recession, pulled the federal funds rate all the way to zero. Cut rates to zero And as sure many of us remember that that recession was a very deep and long recession. So, and the unemployment rate was, you know, 10% and inflation was not a problem. So the, the Fed would want in that environment to do more to support the economy. But when the federal funds rate is at zero, that’s, its, that has been its primary tool. Well, that’s, that’s. Stepped out. So then as a question of, well, what else could we do to help support the economy? And, and there, there were. Different possibilities. Uh, some European central banks looked at, you know, they actually did negative interest rates or tried to pull their policy rates, and that’s not what the US did. What was done was to do purchases of, uh, treasuries. Uh, there’s also been purchases of mortgage backed securities, and this is where the Fed is. I mean, and, and they’re creating reserves. So the fed, I guess, secretary, uh. Treasury doesn’t refer to it as magic money. Um, you know, they create reserves and then they’re going out and they’re buying tr so they’re pushing that liquidity, that demand into markets. And if you’re, if there’s a lot more demand for treasuries, well, the price of the treasuries will go up. The yield comes down. Interest rates go down. Yep. Interest rates go down. So they. They were, the Fed wanted to support the economy more. That was the tool that they used to do it. So when, when the Fed talks about quantitative easing, it’s not just the tool, the asset purchases, it’s also the intent, right? They wouldn’t do quantitative easing right now. ’cause if the Fed thought they really need to stimulate the economy more, they’ve still got like. More than three percentage points they could cut from the federal funds rate. Like if the issue were right now, we need to like get the economy going, they’re gonna like cut the funds rate and do it that way. They wouldn’t be pur like purchasing assets, purchasing treasuries to do that. But what what happened is between the global financial crisis, the Great recession, so all the asset purchases done then. There was some, some runoff of the balance sheet, but then again, in the pandemic there were a lot of asset purchases. Uh, the Fed has a really big balance sheet, and it has, uh, it, it kind of changes the way that the Fed can even just move around the federal funds rate. Like, I don’t wanna get too much into the, the technicals, but it’s, it’s just, you know, when the Fed says, well, we wanna lower the, the funds rate to 3.5%. In the old days, they could kind of do, you know, with the bank reserves and they could like, make these small purchases and it would, it would make that stick. Now with, there’s, uh, banks have a lot of reserves, so they’re not as responsive. And so just to kind of, there’s like the, the technical, the tools, the Fed has to just make it happen. In terms of operationally, it means that they have to do some purchases now and then they call their, I mean the new name they have for these are reserve management. Purchases. So it’s really about operations. It’s not about, but it does mean they’re purchasing assets. So if you’re just focused on like the Fed’s purchasing assets, they’re putting liquidity into the system. Yes, they are doing that, but it’s not with the intent to kind of push the economy to run harder. It’s just enough liquidity to keep. The federal funds rate stable at the level that they wanted to be at, to just make sure that all these operations are short in the very short term lending markets amongst banks, that it’s all kind of working as mm-hmm. As it should be. So it’s more about operations and it’s about stimulus policy. Right. A lot of our, um, a lot of our listeners are real estate owners, investors, and they’re, you know, they think about, um. Mortgage rates and that kind of thing. There was recently a, a pretty significant, well, I don’t know how significant it really was. I think it was about, was it maybe $250 billion worth of mortgage backed securities purchased by Fannie Mae. Um, that ca can you talk about the purpose of that and really the, you know, what kind of effect that would actually, we could actually expect from that. It’s certainly been, I mean it’s, it is clear. You know, we talked about one reason that the administration would want interest rates down. It’d be like financing the deficit. Right. Another reason that very much pulls into kind of the affordability debate is we want interest rates lower, one of them lower for consumers. Now the White House has put a lot of pressure on the Fed for them to lower rates even faster than they have. Has not played ball with that. But then the Fed has lowered its rates. The Feds rates are very short term rates, and the federal funds rate is like an overnight rate with between banks. Right. So it, and it has an effect on, you know. Credit card rates, short term rates, but it’s not one, it, it has an effect, but it’s really not like driving necessarily 30 year mortgage rates or you know, some of the longer term rates. There’s a lot of other factors that go into that, and so in this kind of, you know, push for lower mortgage rates. Pushing on the Fed is not the only lever to pull, right? The administration has other levers that they could potentially pull, um, in trying to influence mortgage rates. Now, there, I’d argue the administration’s tools here, like the, the $200 billion, Fannie and Freddie purchase that you mentioned. That really is about trying to reduce the spread. Between mortgages and treasuries. So in some ways it sounds similar, like, oh, fed and Franny, which are, you know, GSEs. So part, part of the, you know, government right now, at least they were privatized during the global financial crisis. You think, oh, they’re going out and purchasing this Sounds a lot like the Fed going out and purchasing. There are there, there’s some parallels, but we need to remember, Fannie and Freddie don’t create money. The Fed, when they start, when they start the process of their quantitative easing, they’re creating reserves like they’re actually creating liquidity and money supply. Fannie and Freddie have authorization to be able to make these purchases, but they’re not like the fed. They’re not creating reserves, but they can, so I don’t wanna think about them like bringing down the whole set of interest rates, but they can affect this spread between mortgages and say treasuries. Right? And so, because again, if you’re, if the. If the GSEs are going out, they’re purchasing mortgage backed securities, well that’s increasing demand for those, and that can push down the rates, that can like squeeze that spread. And, and while the announcement has been made, you know, I mean they’re, they’re in the early stages of putting that in place, but we even on the announcements, saw a response in financial markets and you’re seeing some movement down, uh, in mortgage rates now. It was. Pretty modest, right? And, and 200 billion while, you know, not nothing, uh, really pales in comparison to like the scale of say, the quantitative easing that the Fed did. Um, and there are probably other, but the, you know, the administration’s not done. It doesn’t necessarily have to be that Fannie and Freddie do more purchases. The the spread between mortgage rates and treasuries is pretty substantial. There’s other places where, you know, the fees that go into getting a mortgage are quite a bit larger than they were before the, the global financial crisis. So maybe they go in and try to chip away at the fees and, you know, so there’s, there’s different levers. And I fully expect, and I think we’re gonna get some announcements here again soon on the White Houses. Housing affordability agenda. So there may be other, other ways that they’re trying to, uh, influence, uh, the mortgage spreads. But that’s, that’s what that is all about. And it, it should have, and it looks like, you know, it’s having some effect in terms of bringing rates down, but it likely, it’d be modest, like in the 10 basis points, maybe 20 if they ramp up the program some. But like, it, you know, it’s, it, it, you know, every, every bit counts. But this is not a. Uh, this won’t be enough to, you know, move rates down, dramatic mortgage rates down dramatically, uh, when you, when you look at the economy. Um, and I, I, I think just, you know, one last question. I mean, I just in terms of, you know, the people listening to this are. They’re, they’re people, you know, with jobs and who are trying to invest their money, and they’re trying to, you know, build long-term wealth, but they’re, you know, everybody’s worried about what’s happening with the economy. What, what, what do you think, like, just as, um, um, you know, perspective for people to understand or try to have some framework for how to look at what’s going on in the economy. How they should judge it. Like what would you suggest, like just for mom and pop investors trying to, what is happening with the economy? I’m not an economist. What, what are the, what are the things that you think they should consider studying up on, looking into a little bit? One challenge for a lot of investors, I mean, frankly, it’s, it’s been a challenge that I try to deal with too. Uh, we’re, we’re in an environment where there’s just. There’s so much news coming out of DC uh, with the White House and policies and the Fed, and you know, I mean, like, there’s just, there’s a lot. The headlines are big. And like I talked about with the tariffs, we had like really big tariff announcements. The really scary numbers were, and then it like dialed back and then we pushed through it and it’s like, and it’s this remembering that, um. There’s always a tendency to have this idea that the, the president really runs the economy. I mean, that’s not just about this administration. That’s like a longstanding, you know, the president gets, uh, blame or credit for the economy when really, right. Like we have a over 33, $30 trillion economy, hundreds of millions of workers, tens of millions of businesses. Like this is not about one administration. And so we always need to be careful about. Putting too much weight on the policies coming out of dc. Uh, and you know, last year if you really just listened to all the, you know, we’re cutting immigration, we’re raising tariffs, we’re doing, you know, all, there’s a lot of uncertainty in Doge. Well then you might have missed, like, there’s a bunch of AI investment happening and we’ve got a lot of growth in the economy and while consumers are still pretty resilient, so you, it’s kind of like. Tuning down the volume, some coming out of Washington, especially the like every twist and turn. Uh, and then kind of focusing in on the fundamentals. I will say, you know, you don’t wanna turn down DC too far because we, we do have some like big picture events that could play out over many years. Right. So kind of keeping an eye on it, but for the long game. As opposed to reacting to every twist and turn, every policy announcement, because a lot of this clearly is more of a negotiation than it is like, we’re gonna actually do this. So, you know, as investors, you don’t wanna get whipped around by the latest headline, but you also can’t put your head in the sand. Like you gotta kind of try and find a way to pull the signal out of the noise. And it is really. It’s really hard. Yeah. Like this has been a challenging time and the, the US economy’s been doing things that are not typical. We talked about some of the things with the labor market and we are running some policy experiments that haven’t been run in a long time, so things could change pretty dramatically. But I think it’s just trying to absorb the information, not get too wound up about it, but like also keep an eye on like what’s good for long-term growth. Yeah. Because it’s good for long-term productivity. Thank you so much Dr. Sahm. It’s uh, it’s been a pleasure talking to you on, uh, wealth Formula Podcast today. Great. Thank you so much. You make a lot of money but are still worried about retirement. Maybe you didn’t start earning until your thirties. Now you’re trying to catch up. Meanwhile, you’ve got a mortgage, a private school to pay for, and you feel like you’re getting further and further behind. Now, good news, if you need to catch up on retirement, check out a program put out by some of the oldest and most prestigious life insurance companies in the world. It’s called Wealth Accelerator, and it can help you amplify your returns quickly, protect your money from creditors, and provide financial protection to your family if something happens to you. The concept. Here are used by some of the wealthiest families in the world, and there’s no reason why they can’t be used by you. Check it out for yourself by going to wealthformulabanking.com. Welcome back to the show everyone. Hope you enjoyed it. It was Claudia Sahm. She is, uh, she’s a very, very smart lady. And, uh, just a reminder, if you have not done so, uh, I, I don’t frequently ask to do, do this, but, uh, make sure you give the show. Five stars and a positive review because that’s how we’re getting, you know, really high quality people like Claudia on the show, I’ve been around for a long time. It helps that the show is, you know, like over a decade old and all that stuff too. But, uh, anything you can do to support would be very helpful. And also one more reminder, uh, if you have not done so and you weren’t a credit investor, make sure you sign up for that investor club. At Wealth formula.com. That’s it for me. This week on Wealth Formula Podcast. This is about Joffrey signing out. If you wanna learn more, you can now get free access to our in-depth personal finance course featuring industry leaders like Tom Wheelwright and Ken m. Visit wealthformularoadmap.com.

George Saunders is one of America's most celebrated writers. His worlds and characters often live in a reality just beyond or behind our own, and his latest novel “Vigil,” is no exception. The novel opens with an angel falling to earth with the task of comforting an unrepentant oil tycoon in his final hours alive. What spills forth from this zany setup is a comic novel about climate change, personal responsibility, and the kind of honesty that matters most. Guests: George Saunders, author, "Vigil"; MacArthur Genius Grant Fellow; his previous books include "Lincoln in the Bardo," "Tenth of December" and "Liberation Day; English professor, Syracuse University Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Who bore the cost of 2025's sweeping tariffs? UChicago economist Brent Neiman returns to The Pie to discuss his new research with co-author Gita Gopinath examining the effects of last year's tariffs. Neiman reveals a gap between statutory rates and what was actually collected, explains why US importers absorbed the vast majority of costs, and discusses China's dramatic collapse as a US trading partner. He also explores the longer-term implications, including potential retaliation, shifting global alliances, and diplomatic costs that may outlast any short-term revenue gains.

George Saunders is the author of thirteen books, including the novel Lincoln in the Bardo, which won the Booker Prize in 2017, and five collections of stories including Tenth of December, which was a finalist for the National Book Award, and the recent collection Liberation Day (selected by former President Obama has one of his ten favourite books of 2021). Three of Saunders' books - Pastoralia, Tenth of December, and Lincoln in the Bardo - were chosen for the New York Times' list of the 100 Best Books of the 21st Century. Saunders hosts the popular Story Club on Substack, which grew out of his book on the Russian short story, A Swim in a Pond in the Rain. In 2013, he was named one of the world's 100 Most Influential People by Time magazine. He teaches in the creative writing program at Syracuse University. On this episode of Little Atoms he talks to Neil Denny about his latest novel Vigil. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Joe is furious after a "monster" 2,000-mile snowstorm cancels his Florida getaway, leaving him trapped inside to tear apart Jane Fonda's unhinged rant on Colbert regarding ICE. The show pivots to President Trump's surprising alignment with Elizabeth Warren on capping credit card interest and his ambitious plan for a "Golden Dome" missile defense system over Greenland. Plus, Carol Roth joins the show to grade Year One of the new Trump economy—from "Liberation Day" tariffs to gas prices—and roasts Gavin Newsom for offering "Trump signature knee pads" at Davos. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Joe Concha and Carol Roth kick things off by commiserating over the Chicago Bears' overtime playoff loss and celebrating the New York Giants' "steal" of a new coach. The duo then pivots to roasting Gavin Newsom's performance at Davos, mocking his "knee pad" comments about Donald Trump and the hypocrisy of climate elites flying in on private jets. Finally, looking back at the first year of Trump's new term in 2026, Carol issues a no-nonsense economic report card, grading everything from "Liberation Day" tariffs and inflation to the administration's foreign policy wins. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today marks a year since President Donald Trump took office for a second time, and a lot has happened. Amidst all the threats to take over Greenland, the Liberation Day tariffs, and the crackdown on education, artificial intelligence development has continued to accelerate — and it's only getting faster. Over the last few months, you may have heard about Claude Code – a product of Anthropic – that makes coding incredibly easy. But the thing about Claude Code that's really cool is that it might be learning how to improve itself. So to talk more about Claude Code, what it does, and what it could do in the future, we spoke to Lila Shroff. She's an assistant editor at The Atlantic, with a focus on AI.And in headlines, President Donald Trump exchanges some heated texts with the Prime Minister of Norway, new research finds Americans are footing the bill for Trump's tariffs, and Americans in all 50 states are staging a walkout to protest the Trump administration's "escalating fascist threat."Show Notes: Check out Lila's piece – https://tinyurl.com/mr39butwCall Congress – 202-224-3121Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A wild mix of Trump’s “Liberation Day” speech, Houston’s I‑45 meltdown, Sky Mike vs. Jennifer Reyna traffic drama, and Mattress Mack’s high‑stakes gambling stories—plus cold weather panic and MLK parade chaos.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Our U.S. Thematic Strategist Michelle Weaver and U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst Chris Snyder discuss a North America Big Debate for 2026: Whether investments in efficiency and productivity will spark a transformation of U.S. manufacturing. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist. Chris Snyder: I'm Chris Snyder, U.S. Multi-Industry Analyst. Michelle Weaver: Today: Will 2026 be the year of U.S. Manufacturing's transformation? It's Tuesday, January 13th at 10am in New York. U.S. reshoring has been an important component of our multipolar world theme, and manufacturing is one of those topics we have always had our eyes on. We've been making some big predictions about a transformation in this sector, so it makes sense that it features prominently in the big debates we've identified for North America in 2026. In the last few years, there's been a steady stream of investments in automation controls and upgrades across U.S. manufacturing. And this is happening against a backdrop of shifting global supply chains and lingering policy uncertainty. Now, the big market debate is whether these investments will generate a whole wave of greenfield projects – that is brand new, multi-year construction initiatives to build facilities, factories, and infrastructure from the ground up. Chris, what exactly is driving this current wave of efficiency and productivity investment in U.S. manufacturing? And how long term of a trend is it? Chris Snyder: I think what's driving the inflection is tariffs. The view that has underpinned my U.S. reshoring call is that I believe companies have to serve the U.S. market. The U.S. accounts for 30 percent of global consumption – equal to EU and China combined. It is also the best margin region in the world. So, companies have to serve the market, and now what they're doing is they're going back and they're looking at their production assets that they have in the U.S. and they're saying, how can I get more out of what's already here? So, the quickest, cheapest, fastest way to bring production online in the U.S. is drive better productivity and efficiency out of the assets you already have. And we're seeing it come through very quickly after Liberation Day. Michelle Weaver: And you think these investments are an on ramp to larger greenfield projects. What evidence do we have that this efficiency spend is setting the stage for a ramp up in new factory builds? Chris Snyder: I think this is absolutely the leading indicator for greenfields because this is telling us that the supply chain cost calculation has changed. What all of these companies are doing are saying, ‘Okay, how can I get products into the U.S. at the cheapest cost possible?' What we're seeing is the cost of imports have gone higher with tariffs, and now it's more economically advisable for these companies to make the product in the United States. And if that's the case, that means that when they need a new factory, it's going to come to the United States. They might not need a factory now, but when they do, the U.S. is at least incrementally better positioned to get that factory. Other data that we're seeing; I think the most interesting data that's come out of all of this is the bifurcation in global PPI or producer price data. If you look at it on a regional basis, North America markets saw PPI go higher in 2025. They were all the tariff exempt regions – U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Every other region in the world saw PPI down year-to-date. That means that these companies and factories are having to lower prices to stay competitive in the global market and sell their products into the United States. That tells us also where the next factory is going. If you have a factory in the U.S. and a factory in Malaysia, and your U.S. factory is pricing up, that means the return profile is getting better. If your factory in Malaysia is pricing down, it means the returns are getting worse and you're pricing down because it's over-capacitized. That's not a region where you're going to add a factory. You know, what I like to say is – price drives returns, and supply is going to follow returns. And right now, that price data tells us the returns are in the United States. Michelle Weaver: And, for people that might not be familiar with PPI, can you explain it to everyone? It's sort of like CPIs cousin, but how should people think about it? Chris Snyder: Yeah, yeah, so PPI, Producer Price Inflation, it's effectively the prices that my companies, the producers of goods are charging. So maybe this is the price that they would then charge a distributor, who then the distributor ultimately is selling it to a store. And then that's, you know, kind of factoring its way into CPI. But it starts with PPI. Michelle Weaver: And what are some of the key catalysts investors should be looking for in 2026 that could confirm that this greenfield ramp is underway? Chris Snyder: The number one, you know, metric I think the market looks at is manufacturing project starts. Every month there's data that comes out and says how many manufacturing projects were announced in the U.S. that month. And what we've seen coming out of Liberation Day is that number on a project value has gone higher. You know, it hasn't totally inflected, but it has pushed higher. The thing that has inflected is the number of announcements. So, this is not like two or three years ago where we had these mega projects. What we're seeing right now is very broad. And to me that's more important because that shows that there's durability behind it. And it shows that this is because the economics are saying it makes sense. It's not necessarily just because, okay, I got an incentive and I'm trying to follow alongside that. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. The market seems skeptical though, pointing out that the ISM manufacturing purchasing managers index has been shrinking. This could be a sign that demand isn't strong enough to justify building new factories right now. How would you address that concern? Chris Snyder: Yeah, no, I mean, you're definitely right. Like the biggest pushback on the reshoring theme is the demand for goods is not very strong. Consumers are not in a good place. So why would companies add capacity in this backdrop? That's never happened before. Companies only add capacity when they're producing a lot and the utilization goes up. This is not a normal cycle. Throughout history, the motivation to add capacity was when your production rates go higher, your utilization hits a certain level, and then you add capacity. So, it always started with demand to your point. The motivation right now is tariff mitigation. And you do not need higher demand to support that. The U.S. is a $1.2 trillion trade deficit. So, that more than anything gets me confident in the theme and the duration behind it. And I think it's a very different outlook when you look across the international markets. They're the ones that need to find incremental demand to justify investment. Michelle Weaver: And given the scale of U.S. purchasing power and the shift in global capital flows, how do you see these manufacturing trends impacting broader performance in 2026? Chris Snyder: We published our outlook and we're calling for the U.S. Industrial Economy to hit decade high growth levels in the back half of [20]26 and into [20]27. And this is a big reason why. We think about this a lot from a CapEx perspective. And we're seeing the investment, we think that ramps into larger greenfields. But we're also seeing it in the production economy. If you look at the delta between U.S. consumer spend and U.S. manufacturing production, that has really narrowed in recent months. And that tells us that we're increasingly serving U.S. demand through domestic production. So that's another factor that's going to drive activity higher and it doesn't need a cycle. And I think that's what's really important. And I think that is what creates this as a more secular and also durable opportunity. So obviously reassuring is something that's, you know, very close to me and important for the industrial economy. But as you think about the multipolar world theme more broadly, how do you think that evolves in 2026? Michelle Weaver: Yeah, absolutely. Last year the multipolar world was an incredibly powerful theme. And when investors were thinking about the multipolar world last year, it was largely about how are companies going to mitigate the risk of tariffs in the near term. We had the policies come out and surprise everyone in terms of the breadth and the magnitude of the tariffs we saw. We had a lot of policy uncertainty around what is that final level of tariffs going to look like. And a lot of the reaction was really short term. It's how can we use our inventory buffers to try and preserve our margins? How much of these additional tariff costs can we pass off to the end customer? How can we insulate ourselves in the near term? I think this year it's going to turn to more longer-term strategic thinking. Reshoring and a lot of the greenfield projects you were talking about, I think will absolutely be an important component of the multipolar world this year. I think we're also likely to see a greater emphasis on U.S. defense. With the action we just saw in Venezuela. I think we're going to see more of that defense component of the multipolar world starting to be expressed in the U.S. It was a big part of the expression of the theme in Europe last year, but I think it will gain relevance in the U.S. this year. Chris Snyder: Yeah. And I think the next chapter in U.S. industrial growth is just getting going. It's taken 25 years for the U.S. to seed roughly 12 percentage points of global share in manufacturing. We don't think they take that much back. But we think this is a very long runway opportunity. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. And as we watch for the next wave of greenfields, it's clear that efficiency and productivity investments are more than just a stop gap. They're a longer-term theme and they're a foundation for a new era in U.S. manufacturing. Chris, thank you for taking the time to talk. Chris Snyder: Great speaking with you, Michelle. Michelle Weaver: And to our listeners, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen to the show and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.