Home Blog Page 4

The New Face of Catholicism?

0

For many years the story of Catholicism in much of the Western world has revolved around falling membership, older congregations and increasing secularization.

This weekend Pope Leo XIV gave a quite different impression.

Continue reading with TerreneGlobe Premium

Unlock unlimited access to every TerreneGlobe article for just $5.99/month.

Get independent, MBA-led coverage of finance, markets, business and the global economy, with reporting that goes beyond the headline to explain what happened, why it matters and what could come next.

Subscribe today for full access to TerreneGlobe. Cancel anytime.

Already a subscriber? Log in with email to continue reading.

You Cannot Be Catholic and Anti-Semitic: Antisemitism in America, Zionism and the Catholic Church

Good morning, guys. Before I go to work, I want to talk about something I’ve been seeing.

I’ve literally watched dozens of videos where American citizens in the United States of America get denied service at salons, hair salons, barber shops, delis and bakeries because they’re Jewish.

It’s something you would think would have happened in 1930s Germany before World War II. You would never imagine this happening today.

Because I support the Catholic Church’s official position, and I say official position because I’ll come out here and tell you abortion is the gravest of mortal sins.

They’ll say, “Oh, well, most people that have abortions are Catholics, blah, blah, blah.”

I’m telling you the official position of the Catholic Church, not what some Catholic on YouTube says. I’m saying the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

When it comes to abortion, you can be automatically excommunicated if you have an abortion. Pope Francis said it’s the gravest of mortal sins.

With this topic, I’m going to give you the official Church teaching.

But first, I want to give you a little background.

What I Remember About Newark

One of my best friends growing up in Jersey was a guy named John Scabilia. He came over from Sicily, Italy, in the fourth grade. We became really tight friends.

His old man had a pizzeria on Bloomfield Avenue in Newark, and he married a wonderful girl, Tony Imperiale. She happens to be the daughter of Anthony Imperiale.

If you’re not familiar with him, if you look him up, the liberals on Wikipedia and everything else will say he was a racist.

According to the left and the media in this country, he was a racist who took matters into his own hands.

The reality is, during the Newark riots, when the Black Panthers were burning down Newark, I literally had to stay in my house because the apartment building across the street had a Black Panther sniper sniping any white person who walked by.

In fact, a National Guard sniper shot him, and he fell right across the street from my house and splattered on the ground.

It was a brutal time back then.

Anthony Imperiale lived in a time when you had what they called ghettos back then. You had the Italian section, the Portuguese section, the Polish section, the Irish section and all different types of neighborhoods.

In the Italian section of Newark, where Anthony Imperiale lived, the North Ward, he gathered all the men in that neighborhood and said, “The cops ain’t coming to help us, man. We need to defend our neighborhood.”

They set up a wall, and nothing burned in the North Ward.

In fact, he became so popular that they elected him. He was the first independent state senator from New Jersey.

In fact, The Many Saints of Newark, the movie, tried to portray us Italians as these violent, nasty people. They wanted to center it around him, Anthony Imperiale, but his family saw the script and said these were all lies. They sued, so he’s not even mentioned in that movie.

The interesting thing Anthony said was that he had a lot of connections. He was a well-connected guy, and he knew that there was a planned riot.

He brought this information to the cops. He was saying they were going to set up snipers and start a riot. He believed the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam wanted to start a race riot and a race war.

The police ignored him.

Then, I think it was a cab driver who hit a Black kid, or a white cop beat up a Black guy. I forget. It’s been so many years.

The narrative in the media was that this started the race riot, that Black people in Newark were just fed up.

But the day it started, there were snipers. The FBI testified that there were snipers already set up.

Anthony Imperiale was saying, okay, if this happened spontaneously the way the government and the media are telling us, why did they have snipers in something like 20 different locations throughout Newark?

So he believed it was pre-planned.

The way Black people were treated was horrible back then. Thank God the Republicans passed the Civil Rights bill in the 1960s.

But I believe it was planned, and I’ve seen the same thing happening with the Jews.

On October 7, when the Hamas savages came in and butchered, I think, 1,200 innocent people, they weren’t just Jews. There were Americans as well.

Then they took more than 200 hostages. They weren’t just Jews. There were Americans as well.

Immediately, at all these Ivy League schools, people came out in Hamas garb, not to protest what Hamas did, but to protest Israel.

These people had just gotten attacked.

The next day, within 24 hours, they had all these planned protesters, all these liberal professors and communist professors out there saying, “Oh, we’re finally fighting back.”

One guy from Cornell University said it was so thrilling and made him feel so happy to see these people get butchered.

I believe it was planned.

We know the Muslim Brotherhood donates money to these Ivy League schools. The Iranian Experts Initiative sends scholars and people I consider propagandists to these universities to convince these young students that the jihadists are the good guys and Americans and Jews are the bad guys.

For years, the Muslim Brotherhood and these other organizations that donate money have been influencing these schools and convincing these young students.

You’ve always had this alliance on the left with Islamist extremists, and we’ll get to that in a minute.

I’ve talked about that a lot on this channel through speeches of their own, and I’ve shown a few in the past.

The Muslim Brotherhood has talked about influencers on YouTube, both on the right and the left, supposedly right-wingers as well, spreading their propaganda.

One of the things they do is twist words.

The left is very good at changing definitions.

A woman is now someone who identifies as a woman. I am going to do a video about how these two NBA guys are going to identify as women and play in the WNBA because it’s ridiculous.

The mentality of the left is ridiculous in this country.

They changed the definition of a baby.

“It’s not a baby until it’s born.”

Are you that anti-science? You can’t look at an ultrasound?

And they changed the definition of Zionist.

What Is the Real Definition of Zionism?

Now a Zionist is something really bad.

Someone says, “Oh, I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m an anti-Zionist.”

It’s okay to be an anti-Zionist, but it’s bad to be an anti-Semite.

So what is the real definition of Zionist?

I don’t care what your favorite YouTuber says it is.

This is the Oxford definition of Zionism: a political movement that originally sought to establish an independent state for Jewish people and now supports the development and protection of the State of Israel. Oxford definition of Zionism

Basically, Israel and the Jews have a right to a nation in Israel and they have a right to protect themselves.

Pope St. John Paul II said that the Jewish people have a right to have a nation in Israel and to protect themselves.

The Catholic Church’s official position on Israel is that they have a right to exist and protect themselves.

Then people try to twist it by saying these aren’t the Jews of the Old Testament.

According to the Catholic Church, they are.

According to the Catholic Catechism, paragraph 121, the Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 121

You hear people say, “Oh, the Old Covenant was revoked. We replaced them. The Jews have no place in salvation history.”

Not according to the Church.

No one said it more explicitly and better than Pope Benedict XVI, one of the greatest theologians of our Church. He called the Jewish people “the fathers of our faith.” Catholic-Jewish dialogue and Pope Benedict XVI’s description of Jews as the fathers of our faith

Now I want to show you a couple of examples of what I’ve been talking about.

Refused Service Because He Was Jewish

The first case was in Mississippi.

A news report examined whether Mississippi law could allow a restaurant owner to deny a customer because of his religion.

Rabbi Ted Riter said the words caught him off guard. Report on Rabbi Ted Riter’s restaurant incident in Mississippi

He said:

“I asked the owner if I could have a Greek salad to go, and he said, ‘The regular size or the Jewish size?’ I was taken aback a little bit, and I said, ‘What do you mean by that?’ And he said, ‘Well, you know, Jews are cheap and are small, and everyone knows this.’ And I said to him, ‘Did you really say that?'”

Riter claimed that when he told the owner, John Ellis, that he was Jewish, Ellis threw him out.

“He just goes into a tirade, throwing out all these expletives and cursing at me and saying, ‘Get out. Get out of here.'”

Restaurant owner John Ellis claimed the whole thing was a misunderstanding.

When asked if he told him to get out, the response was:

“The guy said he didn’t want to do any business with us because he was probably offended because we offered different salads. That’s all.”

Then:

“No, I said a Greek salad or Jew. We have several different salads.”

The reporters looked at the restaurant menu in the store and online, but there was no mention of a “Jewish salad.”

Some viewers asked whether Mississippi’s religious freedom law would allow a restaurant to deny service.

The legal response was:

“Factually, it’s hard to imagine. Legally, it’s impossible.”

Mississippi College law professor Matt Steffey said Ellis would have to prove that serving the rabbi infringed on his religious belief, which he said would be next to impossible.

“I don’t know anybody’s religious strictures that demand engaging in anti-religious sentiment or slurs.”

At that stage, Riter said he didn’t plan to take legal action.

“I don’t want to do anything to cause a further rift between the store owner and the larger Jackson community.”

Ellis said he was ready to move on too.

That was Mississippi.

Clear discrimination. Antisemitism.

Even Pope Francis, who was very critical of Israel’s response to the October 7 attack, said a Christian cannot be anti-Semitic.

You cannot be Catholic and anti-Semitic. Pope Francis on why a Christian cannot be an anti-Semite

That brings me to another guy who used to be a really good Catholic apologist.

He wasn’t at the level of Trent Horn or Tim Staples or anywhere near Doug Beaumont, but he was a pretty decent Catholic apologist.

About six months ago, maybe even longer, I believe he turned into a full jihadi apologist.

I don’t know why.

I had Dr. Dale Comstock on. He was a former Delta Force operator during the War on Terror. He’s also a Green Beret and a former CIA special operations officer.

He said people could be radicalized very quickly, with 60 days of hearing the same lie over and over.

So I don’t know if this gentleman was radicalized.

You also have the far left teaming up with Islamists, and this guy seems definitely like a left-winger based on his political comments over the years.

He’s always leaned left, and now he’s far left.

I don’t know if he’s just a left-winger teaming up with Islamists, as I believe they do, or if he’s just a grifter.

One person commented that they worked for him and claimed that once he started doing this anti-Semitic stuff, anti-American videos and pro-Islam videos, his lifestyle got much better.

That’s what they claim.

I don’t know him personally, so I don’t know if this is the case.

Dale Comstock, again, was a Delta Force operator and saw the worst in the Middle East when he was in Delta Force.

He’s the toughest guy I’ve ever met.

Tough as nails.

Delta Force is the tip of the spear. To even try out, you’ve got to be a Navy SEAL, Green Beret, Army Ranger, Marine Raider or Marine Recon.

Only a very small percentage of those guys make it through the tryouts, and even fewer make it through the training.

These guys are tough.

They’re the tip of the spear.

He told me he had 100% PTSD.

I was surprised.

He said he had no problem killing terrorists, but said:

“When you see what these Islamist terrorists do to children, you just can’t get it out of your mind. These people are vicious. This is evil. I’ve seen the face of evil.”

He also said:

“I’m not saying all Muslims. I’m married to a Muslim girl.”

He’s actually married to an Asian Muslim.

But he said:

“These Middle Eastern Muslims who are still under Sharia law and believe in Sharia law, it’s a different type.”

He said they’re very vicious and they’re trying to come to the West and take over.

Another Iraq War veteran, Lieutenant Colonel West, a brilliant officer who was a congressman down here in Florida, said they have a four-phase plan.

He said it’s migration, population, agitation and domination.

In England, he says they’re in the fourth phase.

In America, maybe they’re in the second or third phase. It depends on which part of America.

If you look at Michigan and Minnesota, he believes they’re probably in the fourth phase, and he says they have to be stopped.

He also points out that the Islamic calendar doesn’t start in 610. It starts in 622, when Muhammad migrated to Medina.

A lot of Catholics, or a lot of people, think Catholics are pacifists.

We’re not.

When Islam started attacking Catholics and taking their cities, Catholic bishops stood up and raised armies. They were called bishop warriors.

If you’ve ever seen the show Vikings on the History Channel, and now I think it’s on Netflix, it shows you a really cool bishop warrior.

Of course, it’s Hollywood, so they show you all his weaknesses too.

But they show an example of a fierce Catholic bishop warrior leading Catholic men into battle against Muslims and the Vikings, who were pagans at the time.

The Muslims were so vicious and brutal, killing so many Catholics, that eventually Pope Urban II started the Crusades.

We’ve been fighting these battles ever since.

A Salon Owner in Virginia

The next example happened in Virginia.

To give you some background, this woman put down a deposit to have some work done at a salon.

Apparently, whatever she was having done was expensive, so she put down a deposit and gave the salon owner money.

She walked in.

It appeared the salon owner might have been from Afghanistan.

They started talking, and the customer said something along the lines of, “Oh, I love Afghan culture. I’m actually writing a book about Afghanistan.”

It was a positive book about an Afghan boy and, I think, an American woman.

I don’t know the whole gist of it, but she was just striking up a conversation.

Then this woman finds out she’s Jewish and refuses her service.

The first example was Mississippi.

This one is Virginia.

And I don’t believe this could happen to Muslims without a huge reaction.

The Democrats would be up in arms.

The media would be up in arms if you discriminated against someone.

Can you imagine someone saying, “I can’t serve you because you’re a Muslim?”

But I believe it’s happening to Jewish Americans.

The video was introduced by saying the Israeli-American woman was refused service because “she supports Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians.”

Although the commentator acts like he doesn’t take sides, I believe he already loads it up for his viewers.

The Muslim woman is denying service to this Jewish woman because this Jewish woman supposedly supports genocide.

I believe this is a lie.

Again, my understanding of the official position of the Church is that what Israel did in Gaza was not genocide.

They asked Pope Leo directly, “Do you believe Israel committed or is committing genocide in Gaza?”

He said, “No, I do not believe that.”

I also had a scholar on, Robert P. George, one of the most renowned legal scholars in the world.

He’s literally one of the most renowned legal scholars.

I can’t believe he came on this channel, but he’s a humble guy and he’s a devout Catholic.

He said this is definitely not even close to meeting the definition of genocide.

In 2005, when Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians and said, “You run it however you want,” there were about 1.3 million people living in Gaza.

Today there are about 2.1 million.

So I don’t believe it’s a genocide.

I believe this is a lie that Lofton and others on the left keep saying over and over.

Like I said, according to Dale Comstock, if you hear the same lie for 60 days straight, you become radicalized. You become brainwashed, as they say.

In 2005, if you’re not familiar with the history, Israel agreed to give Gaza to the Palestinians so they could have their own government.

The United States gave them billions of dollars, and the world gave them billions of dollars to help them be free and have their own elections.

Then they elected Hamas, a known terrorist group.

I believe the money everybody gave them to build themselves up was instead used for weapons and attacks.

That’s what terrorists do.

Israel has always responded.

Israel has a philosophy: You hit me with a stick, I’m going to hit you with a baseball bat.

That’s their philosophy.

Then, on October 7, when these guys viciously came in and did what they did, jihadi apologists said, “Oh, they didn’t do this. They didn’t do that. They didn’t put babies in ovens.”

I have friends and people I know who claim they saw videos and that babies were put in ovens in front of their parents after people were brutally raped.

They claim men and women were raped and that parents were forced to see their babies killed.

If you notice, Pope Leo was a very harsh critic of Israel’s response until he met with Marco Rubio, a devout Catholic and our secretary of state.

From what I’m hearing, Rubio shared videos and showed Pope Leo what they were dealing with.

I’ve noticed that he hasn’t been criticizing Israel as much lately.

The response was overwhelming.

I was asking, when are they going to fight back?

It was about two weeks.

If you remember, Hamas took more than 200 hostages, including kids, babies and teenagers. Some were Americans.

I was asking, when are we going to do something?

We had Biden.

I was saying, Biden, you need to go after these people. These are Americans.

The world did nothing for about two weeks, and then Israel finally responded.

They responded fiercely.

According to the Gaza Health Ministry, Israel killed about 3% of the population.

According to Doctors Without Borders, which went into Gaza to help the wounded, it was about 2% of the population.

PBS NewsHour also reported figures around 2%.

So let’s just say it’s 2.5%.

I argue that it would take hundreds of years to complete a genocide at that rate by one of the most powerful militaries in the world today.

If they wanted to commit genocide, I believe they could have.

Israel also dropped leaflets warning civilians about areas that were going to be bombed.

A lot of Israelis were angry that they did this because Hamas fighters could then prepare ambushes.

Israeli soldiers died because Hamas knew they were coming.

Israel sent medical aid in and sent food aid in.

I believe Hamas terrorists also interfered with civilians going for aid, so they had to come up with creative ways to get food and medical help to people.

So I don’t believe there’s a genocide.

People keep repeating that there is a genocide.

Pope Leo, as I understand his position, says there is no genocide.

Robert P. George, one of the greatest legal scholars of our day, says there is no genocide.

But people will keep saying it’s a genocide.

Then the conversation in the salon continued.

The Israeli-American woman said:

“I’m Israeli-American.”

The salon owner said:

“You were doing this, and then you’re defending it, which is totally fine. You can defend as much as you want, but this is my business. This is mine.”

The customer responded:

“That’s fine. That’s totally fine, but you should give me my deposit back. And if you don’t, I’m going to have to take legal action.”

The salon owner replied:

“Yeah, you can take legal action.”

The customer said:

“I came here to do a service. I had no idea that my ethnicity mattered. I didn’t speak politics at all about Israel.”

The salon owner responded:

“No, but I made a post on my Instagram that said if you support Israel, I’m not interested.”

The customer said:

“I didn’t see your Instagram. I didn’t look at your Instagram. I heard wonderful things about you.”

Back in the day in Germany, they would say, “No Jews allowed.”

Now there’s Instagram.

This woman posted on Instagram that if you support Israel, you’re not allowed.

In the 1960s there would be signs saying Black people weren’t allowed, except they didn’t use the word “Black.”

I remember when I was in the Navy in the 1980s.

I went somewhere with four guys. One guy was from Philly, one from Boston and one from New York. I forget where the other guy was from.

One of the guys was Black, and we went into a bar.

We were going to a school in Mississippi, and there was a sign excluding Black people, except it didn’t use the word “Black.”

I was like, “Holy crap.”

Then a guy came over while we were in our sailor uniforms and said:

“Hey, bro. I appreciate your service, but you better get out of here. I’ll pay for a cab to get you out of here, but you guys better get out.”

That’s another story I’ll share sometime because I don’t run from people.

That went down a little differently than you would imagine.

Back at the salon, the customer told the owner:

“I’ve heard cool things about you.”

The owner said:

“Well, thank you very much for that. All my clients are really happy. I really like it, but I really don’t support it. I even have a sticker right here that says ‘Free Palestine.’ I’m big Free Palestine. I’m huge Free Palestine. I’m massive Free Palestine.”

The customer said:

“I didn’t do anything wrong. I didn’t say anything political. I just told you about the conversation we had about Afghanistan.”

The salon owner responded:

“Everything is politics, even aside from Israel. But for me, Israel isn’t politics. There’s a genocide.”

The customer said it would be different if she had said, “Yes, there is a genocide. I don’t support what the Israeli government is doing.”

That’s exactly my point.

If you had agreed with my political opinion that there is a genocide, I would have served you.

But because you’re saying, based on the facts and the definition of genocide, that there is no genocide, I’m not serving you.

The conversation ended with the customer saying:

“I’m going to leave, but I will be contacting somebody to get my deposit.”

And the salon owner responded:

“Go ahead. Go ahead.”

A salon owner in Virginia kicked out an Israeli-American because she supposedly supports Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians.

That’s how the video was framed.

This Is America

The person who showed that video used to be a Catholic apologist, but his audience now appears to me to be far left and heavily Muslim.

Just look at some of the comments.

Like I said, I believe if you watch someone repeating the same thing for 60 days, you can become radicalized just like I believe he has.

One comment from someone named Muhammad said:

“That is a human response to refuse services to a Zionist.”

In other words, the comment was saying it’s a normal human response.

If you’re a decent human being, you’ll refuse service to a Zionist.

Another said:

“Kick her out.”

Another said:

“Bravo,” with a big heart.

Another said:

“People are fed up and they don’t understand it. They still don’t get it.”

Another said:

“Murdering 80,000 people is unacceptable. That is not an ethnic group. Why do they keep telling people that?”

Another said:

“More power to you, queen.”

It goes on and on.

Not one statement saying, “Hey, this is America. You don’t discriminate against people based on their religion or their ethnicity.”

That’s the reality I’m concerned about.

And again, when I talk about Islamists, I’m not talking about every Muslim.

Dale Comstock, the Delta Force operator I interviewed, is married to a Muslim from Asia.

I’m talking about Islamists coming from the Middle East who, in my view, want to dominate us.

I see Islamism not simply as a religion but as a theo-political movement.

I believe it has been a political movement from the very beginning.

I believe Islamists want to dominate the world, and they find useful people on the left and work together with them.

They’ll come up with far-left socialist policies to get the left to follow them and put them in power.

I believe that’s what’s happening today, and we’ve got to stop it.

I’ve got good news.

I believe we are stopping it.

That was going to be my video yesterday, and then it was going to be my video today.

But watching the latest example of what I believe is antisemitism happening in America just made me sick to my stomach.

God bless, and stay Catholic.

I do have to go to work.

God bless.

Why U.S. Ethanol Is Being Excluded from India’s E20 Fuel

India would like to have more ethanol in its petrol.

It has no desire for American ethanol to go into the tank.

From 1 April 2026 onwards, E20 petrol, which is petrol containing 20 per cent ethanol, has become the only type of standard petrol available at fuel stations all over India. The aim of this policy is to reduce India’s reliance on imported oil, to help Indian farmers and to lower emissions.

But an unexpected thing is occurring.

Indian drivers are objecting to the use of E20 on the grounds that it affects fuel economy, especially in older vehicles. Indeed, one of the top economic advisers to Prime Minister Narendra Modi has now suggested that E10 should be made available again as an option. Yet at the same time India has clearly declined to open its fuel-blending programme to large-scale imports of U.S. ethanol.

This situation is unusual for American ethanol producers and farmers.

India has established one of the largest ethanol-blended fuel markets in the world and has effectively kept American fuel ethanol out of the market.

Why does India use E20 fuel yet reject U.S. ethanol?

India is blending use E20 in order to cut down on its imports of oil, to help its domestic agricultural sector and to promote its own biofuel industry. The country, however, has required that the ethanol it uses for its fuel-blending scheme should come from within the country and has not agreed to allow U.S. fuel ethanol into that market. Pressure on the policy is now increasing because of consumer concerns about E20.

The pressure has now gotten to the economic leadership of the country.

Reuters said on August 17 that V. Anantha Nageswaran, India’s Chief Economic Adviser, had called for E10 petrol to be offered once more in conjunction with E20, mainly due to concerns about the large number of older vehicles in India.

Writing with Department of Economic Affairs consultant Akash Poojari, Nageswaran argued:

Saying that E10 is made available at the pumps again, together with the possibility of purchasing E20, would calm the majority of public concern.

It is a notable recommendation in view of where India was aiming to go.

The government took many years to move the nation towards the E20 standard. As the official Indian government data on the Ethanol Blended Petrol Programme shows, the amount of ethanol blended increased from about 8.1% in the 2020-21 supply year to 19.2% in 2024-25 and reached 20% in the current 2025-26 ethanol supply year.

India did not get into E20 by accident.

It formulated a policy aimed at promoting industry around this idea.

Drivers are being asked to accept the trade-off

The debate isn’t merely concerned with whether ethanol is good or bad.

It is about choice.

E20 was introduced nationwide and then became the sole type of petrol available at petrol stations from April 1st. As a result, owners of a large number of older vehicles will not be able to just choose E10 at the next pump if they prefer a lower ethanol content.

Complaints regarding mileage and compatibility then came in.

The government disagrees with a number of the more dramatic assertions regarding engine damage, and the car manufacturers have likewise defended E20.

Although Nitin Gadkari, the Minister for Road Transport and Highways, admitted to a measurable mileage penalty, in a written reply to Parliament he stated:

The fuel efficiency of vehicles could be reduced by between 2 and 6 per cent according to the category and age of the vehicle.

Gadkari also stated that tests had not revealed any engine failures caused by E20. The parliamentary reply referred to in July was based on testing carried out by the Automotive Research Association of India, the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers and the Indian Oil Corporation.

Maruti Suzuki has offered a similar defense.

Rahul Bharti, a company executive, stated at an industry event arranged by the government that the lower energy content of E20 as compared to E10 results in a fuel economy effect of about 3% to 3.5%. Maruti also mentioned that in servicing over 15 million older vehicles which had not originally been certified as E20, it had not come across any cases of corrosion or problems with the length of life of components. The findings from India’s Petroleum Ministry were published in July.

The government’s argument is therefore quite simple.

E20 does result in a slight reduction of mileage, but the officials and the car manufacturers claim that it does not indicate the widespread mechanical danger that some drivers fear.

The political issue is more difficult.

Indian consumers have very little opportunity to choose an alternative.

America is sitting outside a huge fuel market

The American section of the story is now reached.

In theory the Indian government could meet part of its ethanol demand by importing ethanol.

The United States definitely has a great deal to offer for sale.

Rather, New Delhi has set a limit around its fuel market.

On August 6, India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry released an unusually direct statement available at this link stating that the ethanol used as part of the country’s fuel-blending programme is obtained entirely from domestic producers.

The ministry said there had been:

There are no concessions or commitments concerning the import of ethanol for use in fuel blending from the U.S.

It went on to say that the idea that India intended to allow large-scale imports of U.S. fuel ethanol was misleading.

The fact that India imports American ethanol is important.

It doesn’t permit those shipments to support its E20 gasoline program.

According to a trade-barrier filing, Growth Energy, which is the U.S. ethanol industry association, stated that India was the third-largest export market for American ethanol in 2024 and that it purchased almost 187 million gallons worth about $441 million.

However, those exports were intended for use in industry.

Growth Energy states that India prohibits the use of imported ethanol in its fuel-blending programme.

That is precisely the market which American producers would presumably want to reach.

The most recent figures on trade show how greatly business with India has already declined.

The American ethanol exports to India between January and May 2026, as stated in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s August Grain Transportation Report, were 55% lower than they had been in the corresponding period of 2025.

In April India ceased to buy any U.S. ethanol and was not present in the American export market in May.

U.S. ethanol exports were up by 12 percent over the period in total.

India was going in the opposite direction.

The USDA linked that decline specifically to India’s rapid expansion of its ethanol-production capacity.

For American corn farmers and producers of ethanol, the message could not possibly be more clear.

India wants ethanol.

It wants Indian ethanol.

India’s domestic ethanol strategy is developing another problem

There is one more complication which makes the decision to exclude foreign fuel ethanol all the more interesting.

Ethanol must have a source.

In India production takes place in considerable amounts from sugarcane and is increasingly coming from grains such as maize.

It means that the fuel programme competes, at least indirectly, with food markets for agricultural resources.

Sugar prices have now become an issue.

Reuters reported on 18 August that India was considering importing sugar duty free in limited amounts because wholesale sugar prices at home had reached record levels in certain markets.

The authorities were also looking at decreasing the quantity of sugarcane being diverted to ethanol production so that more sugar could be left for consumers.

That adds another odd part to the puzzle.

India has the possibility of importing sugar since the prices within the country are too high.

It might be used to decrease the amount of sugarcane that is used for ethanol.

It continues to oppose the introduction of imported American ethanol into the fuel-blending system.

There are valid reasons for adopting that strategy since it helps Indian farmers, decreases the country’s foreign-exchange exposure and leads to local investment. Allowing the market to be opened up to cheaper or more abundant foreign ethanol could undermine those objectives.

There is a cost involved in protecting the domestic industry.

India has deliberately set up a very large new demand for ethanol and at the same time limited the sources that could meet this demand.

E10 could expose the real weakness in India’s strategy

Nageswaran’s suggestion does not involve giving up the E20.

That is important.

He is suggesting choice.

Cars that are older can use E10, while those which are newer and compatible with E20 will still use the higher blend.

That does sound like a fairly small adjustment.

Yet in economic terms it could reopen a much bigger question.

How long does it make sense to fully sever one of the world’s fastest-growing ethanol markets from one of the world’s largest ethanol producers if India eventually decides that drivers need a variety of fuel options, if sugar supplies become more restricted, or if domestic ethanol production becomes more costly?

The United States possesses a large corn industry, a well-developed ethanol sector, and an export system which is already able to sell ethanol worldwide.

India has a large population, a huge demand for fuel, and a national policy which requires ethanol to replace some of its petrol consumption.

In theory, the two markets appear to be natural trading partners.

The policy has kept them separate.

At the moment, Modi’s government seems to be committed to ensuring that India’s ethanol revolution becomes a story about Indian production.

However, the negative reaction to E20 is revealing the trade-off.

The Indians are being informed that 20 per cent ethanol is important enough to become the standard type of petrol in the country, while in the United States it is told that the fuel market which calls for all that ethanol is still off limits.

The greater the pressure which is placed on E20 at home, the more difficult that contradiction may be to ignore.

Russell 2000 vs S&P 500 2026: Why Small Caps Are Winning Despite High Rates

A strange thing is taking place underneath the surface of the stock market.

The long-term interest rates have risen to levels which ought to be causing a difficult time for smaller American companies, yet the Russell 2000, being the index most closely linked with U.S. small-cap stocks, is exceeding the S&P 500 by a large margin in 2026.

Until Thursday, August 20, the Russell 2000 had risen by 20.6% during the year, as opposed to 11.6% for the S&P 500, according to the Associated Press. The Nasdaq had also increased by 12.2%.

At the same time, the 30-year yield on U.S. Treasury bonds has reached as high a level as 5.34%, its highest point since 2007, because investors are dealing with ongoing concerns about inflation, huge federal borrowing and uncertainty concerning monetary policy.

The two developments are not meant to go together smoothly.

Small companies usually place greater reliance on financing, have weaker balance sheets and possess a higher amount of floating-rate debt compared to larger companies. They should therefore be the first to suffer from high rates.

On the contrary, they have been winning.

Why is the Russell 2000 outperforming the S&P 500 in 2026?

In 2026 the Russell 2000 is doing better than the S&P 500 since the effect of improved earnings, the fact that valuations had previously been low, the shift in investment away from the large-cap stocks and the strong demand for smaller companies in the technology, energy and industrial sectors have more than made up for the harm caused by higher interest rates. A new group of small-cap winners has also been produced by spending on AI infrastructure.

The final point might have been the one that Wall Street failed to appreciate.

For many years the artificial intelligence industry was mainly associated with companies like Nvidia, Microsoft, Alphabet and some of the other large firms that are included in the S&P 500.

The money is spreading.

Small caps found their own AI trade

The development of the AI system involves much more than just the use of advanced processors.

Data centres require power equipment, cooling systems, testing equipment, networking components, semiconductors, construction materials and an ever-growing energy infrastructure.

A large number of the companies that sell those products are not close in size to Nvidia.

Reuters said in June that the Russell 2000 technology index had increased by 45% during the year then, as against a 25% rise for the S&P 500 technology sector. Small-cap technology stocks had risen by about 70% from the market’s low in March.

The amount that hyperscalers are spending on capital this year is estimated to be about $800 billion, some of which is going to smaller companies that provide equipment, power infrastructure and AI testing.

Keith Lerner, who is the chief investment officer at Truist Advisory Services, said that over a dozen small-cap semiconductor companies had already increased in value by more than 100%.

This shows how great and far-reaching that demand has been.

The July market review published by the FTSE Russell Global Investment Research team reached the same conclusion. It stated that the strength seen in the small-cap sector had extended to include the technology, health care, industrial and financial sectors, while AI investments were increasingly providing benefits to what it referred to as “second-order beneficiaries” of the buildout.

That alters the story of the Russell 2000.

It is well past the point of merely being a wager that the Federal Reserve will reduce interest rates.

Certain sections of the index are taking a direct part in one of the biggest capital-spending cycles in modern American business.

Higher rates may be telling investors something else

There is yet another reason why the Russell 2000 has been resilient.

It doesn’t follow that if interest rates rise the economy will collapse.

Yields go up since the economy is still strong enough to enable investors to require higher returns on bonds.

That difference is of enormous importance to small companies.

Francis Gannon, who is one of the co-chief investment officers at Royce Investment Partners, said that the current strong economic conditions and earnings are outstripping the rate issue.

In my opinion, the earnings performance of the smaller companies is more than making up for some of the concerns about higher interest rates.

Gannon stated to MarketWatch that higher interest rates may also indicate that the economy is performing rather well.

This helps to account for a market movement which at first sight appears irrational.

It is possible that investors have concluded that for some small businesses stronger revenue and earnings growth are more important than having moderately cheaper financing.

The July market analysis carried out by Truist also mentioned starting prices.

Small caps started the year at around 20-year relative price and valuation lows, as Truist pointed out, before small-cap technology companies saw a surge as investment shifted away from the biggest stocks in the market.

The effect of that rotation can be enormous.

The company Truist points out that each of the five largest companies in the S&P 500 is greater in size than the whole of the S&P SmallCap 600 index.

You don’t need a large amount of money invested in mega-cap stocks in order to produce a strong movement in a smaller stock.

The interest-rate problem has not disappeared

This does not mean that the bond market is irrelevant.

It could in fact be the greatest threat to the rally of the Russell 2000.

Russell Investments points out that a great many small-cap companies have a greater level of exposure to floating-rate debt than do large companies and that a significant part of the Russell 2000 includes businesses which are not profitable.

That means that refinancing becomes a lot more difficult when borrowing costs stay high.

The pressure can already be seen.

On Thursday, August 20th, the Russell 2000 dropped by 1.3 per cent, which was a more significant fall than the 0.9 per cent loss suffered by the S&P 500, since Treasury yields had risen once again. The 10-year Treasury yield was about 4.7 per cent, and the 30-year yield stayed above 5 per cent.

The selloff had little effect in wiping out the Russell’s large lead for the year, but it did show exactly where the vulnerability is.

So long as yields keep rising and economic growth stays strong, robust earnings will continue to offset the extra financing risk for investors.

When inflation is accelerating and at the same time economic growth starts to weaken, the calculation changes rapidly.

Small firms would then have to deal with the situation they most dislike: costly money and fewer customers.

The Russell 2000 may be sending a bigger stock-market signal

The comparison between the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500 in 2026 is important not only to investors who hold small-cap stocks.

This could be revealing something about the entire bull market.

For most of the last few years the main worry of Wall Street has been concentration, since a small number of very large technology companies have accounted for a greater than proportionate share of market returns.

It’s starting to change now.

On August 14 the Russell 2000 closed at a record level of 3,068.42, whereas both the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq dropped on that day. The Russell had risen by 23.6% by that point in 2026, as compared to 13.7% for the S&P 500.

Small caps have since pulled back as bond yields rose, but their lead for the year to date is still considerable.

That means that the following few months will be particularly important.

If small companies are able to keep on producing strong earnings even though they are facing long-term Treasury yields of 5 per cent, the 2026 rally might turn out to be something more wholesome than yet another massive-cap technology boom. This would indicate that investors are discovering growth in a much broader part of corporate America.

The bond market is currently testing that thesis.

Small caps have already shown that they are able to outperform the S&P 500 while interest rates are high.

The more difficult question is how high those rates can be before earnings cease to be sufficient.

Why Are So Many Bodies Being Found in Houston’s Bayous?

The bayous of Houston are meant to carry floodwater through one of America’s biggest cities, but nowadays they are transporting something different.

Bodies.

On August 11 Houston police were contacted at the banks of Buffalo Bayou close to Nance Street after a second man’s body was found.

They stated that the remains were in an advanced state of decomposition and displayed no apparent signs of trauma. The man was subsequently identified as Carl Mueller, a 73-year-old man who had been reported as missing less than two weeks before.

A day before that, a man had also been found dead in Brays Bayou close to the Gulf Freeway, and the investigators stated that there were no obvious external injuries which could account for his death.

There were two discoveries, occurring two days apart in the Houston bayous.

This pattern is such that the cases in question are merely the most recent examples and has become increasingly difficult to dismiss as being ordinary.

The Numbers Changed

Death cases have always occurred in Houston’s waterways, the city being built around a huge network of bayous, drainage channels and flood-control infrastructure.

The only thing that has changed is the frequency.

The medical examiner’s records for Harris County obtained by KPRC indicate that there were 20 deaths in the Bayou area in 2017, 18 in 2018, 12 in 2019, 27 in 2020, 16 in 2021, 20 in 2022 and 22 in 2023.

Then came 2024.

That year thirty-five people were discovered dead in the bayous around Houston and an additional 34 were recorded in 2025.

From 2017 to 2023 the average number of bayou deaths in Houston was about 19 each year. The figure for 2024 was about 82 per cent higher than the earlier average, and the number in 2025 was approximately 76 per cent higher.

That is not a slight increase.

Buffalo Bayou exhibited an even more remarkable pattern.

Data obtained by KPRC from the Houston Police Department revealed that six bodies were recovered there in 2015, five in 2016, one in 2017, five in 2018, two in 2019, seven in 2020, three in 2021, seven in 2022 and four in 2023.

The number of times Buffalo Bayou was recorded in 2024 was nine.

In 2025, a total of 12 bodies were retrieved from Buffalo Bayou, which is the highest number in at least ten years of HPD data.

That is important since the average number of bodies from 2015 to 2023 was only around 4.4 per year.

Twelve is about three times as much.

A significant limitation applies when making the wider historical comparison since Harris County only started regularly recording bayou recoveries under its present system in 2017, which means the earlier countywide figures cannot be compared on the same basis.

However, when looking at the period for which comparable records are available, 2024 and 2025 are unlike the others.

The Most Unsettling Number Is 40%

It is not the number of bodies alone that accounts for the rise in public suspicion.

It is not known how many of these people died.

The data on bayou deaths that KPRC examined from Harris County, covering the period from 2017 up to February 2026, included 208 cases.

Of these, 84—amounting to 40.4 per cent—had an undetermined manner of death.

Four十七 of the cases were due to accidental drownings, 25 were suicides, 18 were homicides, 12 were the result of other accidents and seven were caused by natural deaths. At the time the data were compiled, seven of the cases were still pending.

The cause of death also presents an incomplete account of the circumstances.

In the 208 cases, 69 had an undetermined cause and 62 were said to have died from drowning.

It by no means implies that 40% of the cases are suspected murders.

What it means is that it is at times impossible for investigators to be certain about what took place on the basis of medical evidence.

The presence of water makes that problem much worse.

Erin Barnhart, the chief medical examiner for Galveston County, stated in an interview with the Houston Chronicle that bodies which have been submerged can lose important contextual information as they drift and decompose, since Houston’s hot climate speeds up the decomposition process and the water might separate the body from its personal effects, any witnesses, or the location where the fatal incident actually took place.

It is possible that the person who was found in Buffalo Bayou did not enter the bayou in the area where the body was finally recovered.

The water then becomes part of the mystery.

In April, when another body was found in Buffalo Bayou, HPD Detective Mike Nicotra observed that the recent rainfall and the high water levels might have caused the body to have been moved from somewhere else.

The bayou goes beyond simply hiding evidence.

It can move it.

There Are Plausible Explanations, But None Explains Everything

The authorities in Houston have been clear on one theory that is popular.

It is said that there is no evidence of a serial killer who is responsible for the deaths.

Sean Teare, the district attorney for Harris County, said to KPRC that the investigators had found no evidence to suggest that a serial killer was operating in Houston and had instead pointed to a combination of homelessness, mental-health issues, and substance abuse.

The explanation is supported in part by evidence.

An investigation carried out by the Houston Chronicle discovered that drugs or alcohol had caused or played a part in at least 17 deaths in the bayou area since 2017; heart conditions were responsible in 11 cases, seven involved motor-vehicle accidents, and drowning was the main established cause.

The waterways in Houston also pass straight through densely built-up urban areas, and the data from the county indicate a particularly high number of deaths linked to the ZIP codes 77002, 77003 and 77023, which include Downtown and the areas located east and southeast of the city centre.

This brings fast-moving water, steep banks, bridges, paths, and populations who are vulnerable together in an unusual way.

Flooding introduces yet another factor.

The bayous in Houston can change very quickly following heavy rain. A person who has fallen into water that appears to be calm might in fact be facing currents, debris and conditions quite different from those in a swimming pool.

There is as well an issue concerning safety infrastructure.

The Houston Chronicle discovered that no one organisation has overall responsibility for safety in the bayou system; some sections are protected by barricades, others have lighting or are subjected to surveillance, the Houston Parks Board has put up emergency markers, and the Buffalo Bayou Partnership looks after lighting and carries out private patrols in certain areas, but the level of protection is not the same throughout the system.

Each of these explanations might be responsible for individual deaths.

The more difficult question is this: do they give an explanation for the sudden sharp rise in the annual total?

2026 Has Not Repeated the Record, But the Bodies Keep Appearing

There’s one significant point to give you comfort.

Up to now, the year 2026 is not keeping up with the exceptional speed of 2024 or 2025.

KPRC stated that by July 22 at least 10 bodies had been found in the bayous and waterways in the Houston area, and the number raised to at least 12 by mid-August as a result of the discovery in Brays Bayou on August 10 and the recovery from Buffalo Bayou on August 11.

It is still much lower than the 35 recorded in 2024 and the 34 in 2025.

However, the latest cases have kept the issue open.

No credible evidence links all of these deaths to a single killer, a single criminal group or a single cause; on the contrary, the records suggest that such a simple explanation is unlikely.

In some cases the victims drowned, in others they committed suicide, and in some the deaths were due to drug use. There are at least 18 cases in the historical dataset which are listed as homicides and a large number of the deaths are still undetermined.

The mystery is in fact more complicated than the rumours indicate.

There is no evidence that Houston has a hidden killer who is prowling its bayous.

All that Houston has is a noticeable change in its figures, with numerous deaths that have no definite explanation, inconsistent safety measures, and families who on occasion get no clear explanation as to how their relatives ended up in the water.

This might not be as cinematic as the theories that are spreading online.

It is even more concerning.

The main question which has not yet been answered is not anymore whether Houston has a ‘bayou killer’.

This is the reason why so many more people started dying in the bayous around the city initially.

Trump Says ‘Try the Magnets’: Three Stocks Are Positioned for AI Demand

At the Pennsylvania Defense & Innovation Summit in July, President Donald Trump provided investors with some unusually direct advice.

According to the full transcript of his July 15 remarks, Trump said to the business and defence leaders, “I’ll tell you how to make money, do magnets,” adding that “we need magnets.”

It sounded as if it were almost too simple.

The reason for the investment is not.

Rare earth permanent magnets are now part of a growing number of technologies which Washington regards as strategically important, such as drones, robotics, advanced electronics, semiconductor manufacturing and increasingly the infrastructure that supports artificial intelligence.

When investors are looking for magnet stocks, the following three companies are particularly noteworthy: MP Materials, USA Rare Earth and Energy Fuels.

They are not equally attractive and are by no means equally risky.

Why Trump Keeps Talking About Magnets

Trump’s comments weren’t entirely unexpected.

In January the administration’s proclamation on processed critical minerals stated that rare earth permanent magnets are essential to “nearly all electronics and vehicles”; it also cautioned that U.S. production fulfils only a small part of defence needs and explicitly named artificial intelligence and data centres as factors behind the increasing demand for critical minerals.

It means that magnets are more than just another commodity to trade.

They are now included in the industrial policy.

The rare earth elements related to magnetism identified by the U.S. Geological Survey currently include terbium, dysprosium and gadolinium, all of which are found in supply chains that have some of the highest disruption risks.

In reply, the government is providing financing, guaranteeing purchases, offering incentives for domestic manufacturing and making direct investments.

Trump said it in a more vivid way.

“Do magnets.”

AI Is Adding Another Source of Demand

The most obvious physical need of AI is semiconductors, with Nvidia GPUs receiving the spotlight.

An AI data center is certainly not just a rack of chips.

The International Energy Agency says that data centres used about 415 terawatt-hours of electricity globally in 2024 and expects this figure to increase to around 945 TWh by 2030 in its base scenario. At efficient hyperscale facilities, cooling alone can account for approximately 7% of electricity consumption and more than 30% at certain enterprise data centres.

Those facilities need cooling equipment, pumps, fans, storage systems, backup equipment, and other motor-driven infrastructure.

Rare earth magnets are also being used in an increasing number of applications in robotics and in autonomous machines, which may make the magnet aspect more significant as AI moves from being purely software to what companies are now more frequently referring to as physical AI.

The magnets that MP Materials intends to produce at its new plant in Texas will be used in a variety of technologies, including AI data centres, robotics, drones and advanced semiconductor fabrication.

Yet investors ought to consider the scale in relation to the overall situation.

AI is just one reason for demand. It is not the whole pull of the magnet idea. Defense, cars, drones, factory automation, electronics, and robots could be just as important.

The fact that diversification could make the investment case stronger.

MP Materials Looks Like the Strongest Magnet Stock

For anyone seeking the best direct investment in a U.S. magnet company, MP Materials (NYSE: MP) currently has the strongest case.

The MP company is already running the rare earth mine at Mountain Pass in California and has been developing downstream processing and magnet manufacturing capacity in Texas.

The company’s second-quarter 2026 results indicate that this situation is going beyond the stage of mere development.

The company stated that its NdPr production had reached 840 metric tons, a rise of 41% compared with the previous year, while NdPr sales increased by 127%. The Magnetics segment earned $16.5 million in revenue for the quarter and $7.5 million in adjusted EBITDA.

The government has a demand that is rare among new industries.

As a result of its agreement with the Pentagon, the government has committed to maintaining a price floor of $110 per kilogram for certain NdPr products over a period of 10 years. Furthermore, the agreement includes support measures aimed at ensuring that customers buy the output from MP’s planned 10X magnet facility for 10 years following its construction.

That greatly alters the risk profile.

Then there is Apple.

Apple has committed $500 million to a long-term partnership with MP Materials in order to buy rare earth magnets that are made in America and to increase its capacity for recycling and manufacturing in the United States.

The company is currently developing the 10X campus in Northlake, Texas, at a cost in excess of $1.25 billion, and this move is expected to increase its total annual capacity for NdFeB magnets to about 10,000 metric tons when the project is running. Work on commissioning is set to start in 2028.

The problem is the risk involved in valuation and in carrying out the transaction. The company is no longer an untapped rare-earth business, and investors have already priced in a good deal of future growth.

Of the three magnet stocks, MP currently has the most evident combination of current production, government support, major customers and real magnet revenue.

USA Rare Earth Offers More Upside and More Risk

USA Rare Earth (Nasdaq: USAR) is the more speculative of the two options.

Its ambitions are enormous.

The company is establishing an integrated supply chain which includes mining, processing, the production of rare earth metals and finished neodymium magnets.

In June USA Rare Earth completed agreements which would give it potential access to as much as $1.6 billion from the U.S. Department of Commerce, comprising up to $277 million in federal funding and $1.3 billion in senior secured loan capacity linked to project milestones.

The company has likewise chosen Blacksburg, South Carolina, as the site for an operation which is intended to deal with 6,400 metric tons per year of NdFeB magnets.

Together with its proposed expansion in Stillwater, USA Rare Earth anticipates having a total domestic capacity of about 10,000 metric tons per year.

This places its intended scale within serious territory.

But USAR still depends much more on what happens next than MP.

In the second quarter USA Rare Earth recorded an adjusted net loss of $33.5 million and used about $57 million of operating cash over the period; its expansion strategy also includes major acquisitions and facilities which are still under development.

That would make USAR’s situation potentially more explosive if its projects are successful, but at the same time considerably more speculative.

It could be the stock among the group that offers the greatest potential for gain for those investors who are willing to accept development risk.

Energy Fuels Is Becoming the Wild Card

There’s also Energy Fuels (NYSE American: UUUU).

Energy Fuels is still known by many investors mainly as a uranium company.

The description is now out of date.

The company Energy Fuels is trying to develop a wider business in critical materials, covering everything from mining and the separation of rare earth elements to the production of finished magnets.

The recent acquisition of Australian Strategic Materials has received the approval of shareholders. By doing so, ASM will be adding to the commercial-scale capabilities for producing rare earth metals and alloys at Energy Fuels’ present White Mesa operations in Utah.

The major move is the proposed acquisition of VAC for $1.9 billion, which is a significant deal involving an advanced magnet manufacturer.

If the transaction is completed, Energy Fuels will move much further down the value chain and the resulting company will have access to the automotive, defence, robotics, electronics and data-centre markets.

It could turn UUUU from a company mainly involved in mining into one that is more like a vertically integrated strategic-materials company.

It also presents considerable risk in terms of acquisition and integration.

The VAC transaction does not expect to be completed until early 2027 and is still subject to regulatory approvals and other conditions.

That means Energy Fuels is the wildcard for investors.

The company is already engaged in the production of magnets.

USAR is making one vigorously.

Energy Fuels is making an attempt to gain a foothold in one.

The Magnet Trade Is Bigger Than AI

Trump’s suggestion to ‘do magnets’ should not be regarded as a standard piece of advice from the president.

It must be seen as an indication of the direction in which American industrial policy is heading.

Washington would like to see more domestic magnets. Defence contractors require them. The car manufacturers need them. Robotics companies need them as well. Those involved in advanced electronics use them too. Another level of demand is created by AI infrastructure.

The government is actually investing real money in the initiative.

MP Materials is currently the leading U.S. magnet stock.

If one is aiming for a much greater potential gain but at the same time assuming a considerably higher level of development risk, then USA Rare Earth should be given attention.

Energy Fuels could provide the most unusual option by combining its present uranium and critical minerals operations with a bold step in the direction of a full mine-to-magnet business.

The key thing is that the opportunity isn’t due to magnets suddenly becoming popular.

They were already being used as a basis for modern technology.

AI, robotics, and drones, together with America’s attempt to reestablish domestic manufacturing, are simply making it harder for investors to ignore that dependence.

This article is provided for informational and analytical use and should not be taken as personal investment advice. Shares in rare-earth and development-stage mining companies can be very volatile, and any planned facilities, acquisitions or government financing are still subject to risks relating to execution and regulation.

Malaysia’s PERKESO Claims Triple as Worker Safety Net Expands

Malaysia’s expansion of worker social protection is beginning to produce something policymakers had already warned about: a sharp increase in claims.

Claims under the Social Security Organisation’s Lindung 24 Jam programme more than tripled in July, rising from 616 cases in June to 2,135, according to figures reported by The Edge Malaysia. More than RM3.45 million in benefits was paid during July alone.

For Human Resources Minister Datuk Seri R. Ramanan, the surge is not entirely unexpected.

Two months earlier, Ramanan warned that PERKESO’s annual claims across its expanding protection programmes could eventually rise by as much as 200% from the previous average of roughly 170,000 cases a year. The projection was tied to programmes including Lindung 24 Jam, the Gig Workers Act 2025 and a planned Traveller Scheme.

The numbers now arriving from Lindung 24 Jam offer an early glimpse of what broader coverage could mean financially.

More workers are protected.

More workers can also make claims.

Claims are already moving higher

Lindung 24 Jam took effect on June 1 and expanded PERKESO protection beyond accidents connected directly to employment.

The programme covers qualifying non-work-related accidents occurring outside working hours, effectively extending social protection into workers’ personal lives. PERKESO describes the programme as round-the-clock protection that can include medical treatment and other benefits for eligible accidents.

By the end of July, PERKESO had received 2,751 Lindung 24 Jam claims, averaging about 45 a day. Total benefit payments had reached RM4.69 million, excluding more than RM2 million in longer-term benefits to eligible family members.

More than RM800,000 of July payments went toward temporary disability benefits designed to replace income while contributors were unable to work.

Another RM2.5 million-plus went toward rehabilitation equipment and implants.

Those figures highlight the financial argument behind social insurance. A serious accident does not only create a hospital bill. It can temporarily remove a worker’s income while leaving a family’s normal expenses untouched.

Ramanan made that broader point when discussing the potential rise in claims in June.

“This surge will require more efficient and integrated rehabilitation service capacity,” he said, according to Bernama.

The 200% forecast needs context

The headline number is dramatic, but it should not be misunderstood.

Ramanan did not say PERKESO had already experienced a 200% increase in total annual claims. He said claims could eventually increase by as much as 200% as Malaysia brings more workers and more types of accidents within its protection system.

There is also an important policy change.

Lindung 24 Jam initially required Malaysian employees to contribute 0.75% of their wages during its first phase. Following public criticism of the additional payroll deduction, the Cabinet reversed course in July and made participation voluntary for local employees. It remains mandatory for foreign workers.

That change could ultimately affect how closely actual claims track Ramanan’s earlier projections.

Still, the first two months show that the underlying demand is real.

PERKESO chief executive Datuk Seri Mohammed Azman Aziz Mohammed told The Edge Malaysia that the programme should not be viewed simply as another insurance product.

“We are a social protection agency, the safety net for workers. We are the last net. If you fall below this net, you will go into poverty,” Mohammed Azman said.

That distinction matters.

Private insurance is generally built around an individual policyholder and the coverage purchased. PERKESO’s role is broader, providing a base level of income and social protection intended to prevent an accident from becoming a financial crisis.

Malaysia is widening its social safety net

Lindung 24 Jam is part of a wider effort to expand social protection beyond the traditional employer-employee model.

Freelancers and gig workers are becoming a larger part of Malaysia’s labour market, creating a challenge for systems originally designed around conventional full-time employment.

Sunway University economics professor Dr Yeah Kim Leng told The Star that making programmes offered through PERKESO and the Employees Provident Fund more inclusive is “a step in the right direction.”

“This is especially since freelancers have become a large and integral part of the workforce,” Yeah said.

He argued that access to retirement savings and financial protection is important if freelance and gig employment is going to provide sustainable long-term livelihoods.

Financial planner Linnet Lee has made a similar argument about extending social protection to groups facing greater health and financial risks.

“Household work carries physical risks regardless of age,” Lee told The Star, arguing that wider coverage can help families manage medical costs and financial risk.

More protection comes with a price

PERKESO’s challenge now is not simply expanding eligibility.

It has to prove the expanded system can process claims quickly, fund benefits sustainably and convince workers that contributing is worthwhile.

There are positive early signs. PERKESO said more than 90% of Lindung 24 Jam claims submitted in July were approved within five days.

But the financial equation becomes more important as coverage grows.

The programme’s contribution rate begins at 0.75% for participating Malaysian employees, with the original structure providing for increases to 1% and later 1.25%. Contributions are borne by workers rather than employers.

That helps protect employer labour costs, but it also explains some of the public resistance. Workers see the deduction directly in their paychecks, while the value of insurance may remain invisible until an accident occurs.

Malaysia is effectively confronting the central dilemma of every social protection system.

A broader safety net costs money.

But having no safety net can cost considerably more when a worker suddenly cannot earn.

The early claims data suggest Malaysians are already testing exactly where that balance lies.

Inflation, Debt and China Are Testing America’s Economic Strategy

0

The American economy is still growing, but certain pressures underlying it are becoming more difficult to ignore.

Inflation is still above the level that the Federal Reserve has set as its target.

The American government is paying more than one trillion dollars each year in net interest.

Instead of relying on trade policies and sanctions overseas, Washington is depending heavily on tariffs and sanctions abroad, while China is opening up trade links with dozens of African countries and continues to have an extraordinary hold on the processing of critical minerals.

When you put those trends together, they lead to a bigger question: that is, is U.S. economic strategy helping to strengthen America’s position or instead making its vulnerabilities more costly?

Inflation is cooling, but it is not gone

The most recent Consumer Price Index contains both positive and negative points.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that prices paid by consumers increased by 3.4% over the 12 months up to July, a small decrease on the 3.5% increase seen in June.

Core inflation, which omits food and energy, was 2.5%.

That is an improvement.

It is still higher than the Federal Reserve’s 2 per cent longer-run inflation target.

Kevin Warsh is now in a difficult position when it has to decide if the recent slowdown is sufficient a reason to exercise patience.

A poll released by Reuters on Monday available here showed that the majority of economists anticipate the Federal Reserve maintaining its base rate between 3.50 and 3.75 per cent until the end of the year.

The applied economist Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins takes a more monetarist approach to the issue, claiming that broad money growth should be given considerably more attention when forecasting inflation and having warned that “the inflation genie is out of the bottle.”

There is at least one current piece of data to support that concern.

In June, the Center for Financial Stability found that its wide-ranging Divisia M4 measure of the U.S. money supply had increased by 6.8% on an year-on-year basis, as compared with 6.9% in May.

That fact does not show that inflation must speed up; the Fed has likewise mentioned energy shocks and tariffs as causes of the recent pressure on prices.

Yet it does indicate that the inflation debate is not over just because the most recent figures have improved.

Debt makes higher rates more dangerous

The greater issue is the fact that the current high rates now come into collision with.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that federal net interest payments will surpass $1 trillion in fiscal 2026, which is an increase from $970 billion in 2025; by 2036 the CBO anticipates annual net interest costs will have reached $2.1 trillion.

Phillip Swagel, Director of the CBO, has been particularly straightforward in stating that the country’s “fiscal trajectory is not sustainable”.

People are currently asking for a large amount of compensation in order to lend money to Washington over a number of decades.

On August 14th the Treasury’s official yield data indicated that the 30-year Treasury yield was 5.25% and the 10-year yield was 4.68%.

Even if the Federal Reserve keeps its short-term rate the same, ongoing inflation and large amounts of government borrowing can cause long-term financing to remain expensive.

A government which has a much larger debt has less scope in which to ignore it.

Sanctions can produce unintended consequences

The same question about costs comes up in other countries.

The United States is still employing sanctions as a major means of dealing with Iran.

According to Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-wants-more-economic-pressure-iran-what-are-his-options-2026-08-16/), the U.S. has identified over 1,000 individuals and organisations as the Trump administration looks into adopting more stringent measures, such as applying further pressure on Chinese refiners and possibly on financial institutions linked to Iranian trade.

The case for imposing sanctions is simple in that access should be restricted to money, markets and technology until the economic suffering causes the government to alter its behaviour.

The history record is not so clear.

Recent academic research has discovered that sanctions can have a “rally-round-the-flag” effect in certain authoritarian countries, which results in a strengthening rather than a weakening of support for the government in question.

A different review, this time using the TIES sanctions dataset, gives the success rate as about 25 per cent, even though the results differ according to the objective and the circumstances.

Hanke puts the argument more forcefully by asserting that sanctions can have the effect of strengthening the countries they are meant to weaken.

Iran shows what the problem is.

According to a report by Reuters in June available at this link, China was purchasing approximately 90% of Iran’s oil even though the sanctions regime was in place.

Pressure may harm Iran even if it fails to cut it off.

China is turning trade into influence

The greater worry is that nations which are experiencing economic pressure from the United States are finding themselves with other options.

China is ensuring that this will be the case.

Starting on May 1, Beijing has removed tariffs on imports from 53 African countries with which it maintains diplomatic relations.

Meanwhile, China-Africa trade has surged, and Beijing is also expanding the use of the yuan on the continent.

Standard Bank and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China were later given the authority to run a renminbi clearing system for 19 African countries.

Richard de Roos, a senior executive at Standard Bank, stated that the arrangement places the bank in a better position to support Africa’s increasing trade with China.

It by no means implies that the dollar is about to give up its position as the dominant currency.

Yet the impact on the economy varies depending on the margins.

The importance of critical minerals is clear when looking at those margins.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, China is still a major source for 14 of the 33 critical minerals on which the United States is most dependent for imports.

China’s position in the area of rare earths is even more notable.

According to a report by Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/science/bachelors-rare-earths-china-there-are-schools-that-2026-06-01/), China produces more than 90% of the world’s processed rare earths and rare-earth magnets.

These materials are used in electronics, electric vehicles, power systems, aircraft and military technology.

America still has huge advantages, including leading capital markets, innovative companies, major universities, the dollar and a large consumer economy.

The risk lies in thinking that those advantages cannot be lost.

All of these factors, the inflation that is above target, the interest bills amounting to a trillion dollars, the sanctions becoming increasingly complicated, and China’s growing commercial presence, point to the same conclusion.

Economic power is not merely something that a country has.

It has to continuously earn it.

Five Beaten-Down Stocks Still Riding the AI Boom

For much of 2026 Wall Street has been facing an unpleasant question: what occurs when a firm’s business continues to grow but investors become tired of the stock?

The gap is appearing in various areas of the artificial-intelligence industry.

Although Oracle, Innodata, Sterling Infrastructure, MasTec and AppLovin are quite different companies, each of them puts forward the same line of argument: while substantial revenue, contracts or demand are already evident, the market is concentrating on the possible problems.

It doesn’t mean that they are therefore cheap.

That’s why they deserve a more detailed examination.

Oracle’s $638 billion receipt comes with a warning

Oracle is the most clear-cut case of this.

The company had $638 billion in remaining performance obligations at the end of fiscal 2026, which is an increase of 363% compared with the previous year.

Revenue from cloud infrastructure in the fourth quarter increased by 93%, and total quarterly revenue rose by 21% to $19.2 billion.

The catch is enormous.

In fiscal 2026 Oracle produced operating cash flow of $32 billion but had negative free cash flow of $23.7 billion since it had invested large amounts in AI infrastructure.

The company also stated that it raised $43 billion through debt financing during the fiscal year and expects to secure about $40 billion in debt and equity financing in fiscal 2027.

Reuters has reported that almost half of Oracle’s RPO is linked to OpenAI, which poses a concentration risk.

Colby Stilson, who heads fixed income at Brown Advisory, stated that an investment thesis based on future revenue from such risky companies becomes “even more tenuous”.

That concludes the discussion about the Oracle.

The order book is remarkable, but investors are being asked to place their trust in the idea that huge future demand will make it worthwhile to carry out huge spending at present.

Innodata and Sterling sell the picks and shovels

Innodata is smaller and much more speculative, yet its figures show that investors continue to go back to the company.

The AI data-engineering company reported second-quarter revenue of $92.1 million, an increase of 58% compared to the previous year, with adjusted EBITDA rising by 92%.

Customer concentration is likewise on the rise.

Innodata stated that its largest customer accounted for 37% of second-quarter revenue, a decrease from 56% in the first quarter, while another major technology customer increased its share to 34%.

Sterling Infrastructure presents a more physical expression of the same ‘picks and shovels’ idea, since its E-Infrastructure business builds up sites and electrical systems for data centres, semiconductor factories and other important facilities.

At the close of June Sterling reported a signed backlog of $4.33 billion and a combined backlog of $5.62 billion (https://www.strlco.com/news/sterling-reports-record-second-quarter-results-and-raises-full-year-2026-guidance/).

Ninety-two per cent of the E-Infrastructure backlog consisted of mission-critical projects and second-quarter revenue increased by 90% to $1.17 billion.

The valuation still requires execution, but a great deal of the work has already been booked.

MasTec is betting on the power behind AI

MasTec is one stage further along the infrastructure chain since data centres require electricity, transmission, communications and ever more complex electrical construction.

The company announced that it had achieved a record second-quarter revenue of $4.4 billion and that its 18-month backlog now stands at a record $21.4 billion, which is $4.9 billion more than the figure from the previous year.

Furthermore, since it has acquired The Superior Group, MasTec is now more involved in the electrical work for data centres.

As Investor’s Business Daily pointed out, the Baird researchers referred to the transaction as “incrementally positive”, although they also cautions regarding regulatory exposure, economic sensitivity and competition.

Those risks are real.

So is the backlog.

AppLovin may be the quality outlier

AppLovin is unlike the others since it doesn’t have to spend tens of billions of dollars on building up physical infrastructure; instead, its AI-driven advertising platform is generating large amounts of cash.

Revenue in the second quarter was $1.92 billion, a year-on-year increase of 53 per cent.

Net income amounted to $1.27 billion and free cash flow was $863 million.

The company had guided its adjusted EBITDA margin for the third quarter to 83 per cent.

AppLovin can therefore be considered the highest-quality business in the group, but its large fluctuations illustrate how quality and volatility can coexist.

The larger opportunity

The five stocks in question aren’t part of a single trading opportunity.

Oracle faces financing risks as well as risks due to its concentration of customers.

Innodata is small in size and is highly valued.

Sterling and MasTec rely on ongoing infrastructure spending and on successful execution.

AppLovin is still vulnerable to changes in advertising economics and to the high expectations that have been placed on it.

Yet the common thread is hard to overlook.

AI investing is no longer focused on chip companies; the next phase is becoming more concerned with cloud capacity, training data, building facilities, electricity, and monetization.

This is evident from recent investments in infrastructure and the development of data centres, showing just how much capital is flowing into that ecosystem.

Companies which currently have work that is signed, are experiencing an increase in their backlogs or are generating strong cash flow should receive greater attention whenever their share prices fall.

The chance involved is not merely the act of purchasing something that had fallen.

Working out whether the business went with it.

Disclaimer:

This article is for informational and educational use only and should not be regarded as financial, investment or trading advice.

The stocks mentioned may be volatile and previous performance does not ensure future results.

Individuals who are considering making investment decisions should carry out their own research and perhaps seek advice from a qualified financial professional.

Pope Leo Brings Global Finance Expertise into Vatican Oversight

0

The Vatican is not a bank, not an investment fund or a multinational corporation.

Yet it still has billions of euros’ worth of assets to manage, thousands of properties to look after, and a financial system which has taken years to move past scandals and opaque accounting.

The Pope has now included a number of individuals who have serious experience in the private sector in one of the bodies which is responsible for keeping an eye on that system.

On August 11 Leo named new members to the Vatican’s Council for the Economy, among them an executive from UBS, the chief executive of a financial-services firm in Liechtenstein and other lay professionals together with four cardinals.

The appointments might appear to be ordinary changes in Vatican personnel.

They are more interesting in that way.

Leo is introducing people who are knowledgeable about wealth management, investment banking, insurance, and corporate finance into an organisation which has been set up particularly to oversee the way in which the Holy See manages its money, at a time when the Vatican’s assets are increasing but its basic operating finances are still under pressure.

A UBS executive is joining Vatican financial oversight

Elena Wettstein Principato is one of the new members and is currently in charge of sales management for Europe International at UBS Group.

The Holy See Press Office states that Wettstein Principato has worked in the field of wealth management and financial services in Italy, the United States and Switzerland; she also possesses a master’s degree in economics with a specialization in accounting and financial analysis.

Princess Gisela of Liechtenstein was likewise made the chief executive of Industrie und Finanzkontor Etablissement and has worked in investment banking and engineering in London, Canada, Singapore and Switzerland.

The Pope also appointed Denis Duverne, who has a great deal of experience in the insurance and financial fields, and Paolo Nusiner, an economist who has occupied senior positions in the industry, in Catholic publishing, academia and healthcare.

It’s not just a matter of enclosing church officials with more businesspeople.

The Council for the Economy does in fact have real responsibility.

When he set it up in 2014, Pope Francis assigned the council responsibility for the administrative and financial aspects of the Roman Curia, which consists of institutions associated with both the Holy See and the Vatican City State. The council’s structure was intentionally arranged so as to include not only senior church officials but also lay people who have professional expertise in finance. (Holy See)

At this stage Leo is deciding which of them will take up some of those seats.

The fact that he makes those choices shows that practical financial experience is important.

The Vatican has assets, but it also has a money problem

The timing is important.

In 2025, the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, which is the Vatican’s asset-management body, stated that its net assets had risen by €89 million to a total of €2.686 billion.

It sounds strong when the operating figures are looked at.

The operating surplus of APSA dropped from €62.2 million in 2024 to €22.8 million in 2025, a fall of over 60 per cent, the Vatican stating that the previous year had been aided by a one-off restructuring of its investment portfolio.

The reason why the balance sheet was rising was mainly due to the value of the assets already in possession.

The net wealth of the Vatican was increased by €40.8 million as a result of the revaluation of its gold holdings, by €39.2 million because of higher real-estate values and by €16.3 million from its securities. Moreover, the Vatican has responsibility for almost 5,500 properties around the world.

That makes for a strange financial situation.

Although the Vatican has a number of assets such as property, securities and physical gold, it still needs them in order to generate an adequate income to help pay for the operations of the Holy See.

In 2025 APSA passed on €22.7 million to the Holy See’s operations.

Archbishop Giordano Piccinotti, who is the president of APSA, stated to Reuters that the aim is “not to maximise profit but to preserve and strengthen the Church’s patrimony”.

That distinction matters.

The Vatican cannot just act like a hedge fund seeking the highest possible return; it must also take account of the Church’s ethical principles, its institutional requirements and its willingness to accept financial risk.

This does not mean that the need for professional management is eliminated merely by avoiding excessive risk.

It may make it more important.

Leo is inheriting a financial system Francis spent years rebuilding

Vatican finance has a complicated past.

During his time as Pope, Francis made considerable efforts to reorganise the way the Holy See manages its investments, budgets and financial reporting; the Council for the Economy was included in this reform together with the Secretariat for the Economy and the Office of the Auditor General.

Reforms came after several years during which the Vatican’s finances had drawn criticism for their lack of transparency and when major scandals occurred, such as the failed investment in London property which led to a Vatican fraud trial. According to Reuters, this incident helped to promote a greater emphasis on the professional management of Vatican real estate.

Leo has not merely copied each of the financial decisions made by Francis.

In October 2025 he ended the Vatican bank’s exclusive control over investments, and thus enabled the various departments of the Vatican to make use of external financial intermediaries if the competent authorities judged it to be more efficient or convenient. However, the general Vatican investment policies stayed in effect.

The decision together with this week’s appointments suggests an interesting course.

Leo is willing to keep financial oversight but at the same time grant Vatican institutions access to a broader range of professional expertise and greater flexibility.

The Vatican is starting to look more like an institutional investor

That could be the main story.

The Holy See is fundamentally unlike a pension fund, a sovereign wealth fund or a university endowment since its aim is religious not commercial.

Its financial difficulties, nevertheless, are very obvious.

It has real estate which has to be managed efficiently; it holds bonds, stocks and gold; it has operating expenses; it needs to have sustainable income; it has to control risk; it has to prevent misconduct, and it must ensure that the financial decisions taken today do not result in liabilities which future church leaders will find it difficult to pay.

Before Leo was elected, the senior cardinals were openly talking about whether the Vatican’s finances could be sustained. In April 2025 Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who was in charge of the Council for the Economy, laid out the financial problems and put forward proposals with the aim of ensuring that the Vatican’s economic arrangements could properly support the work of the papacy. (Vatican News)

Leo has now reconfirmed Marx’s position as coordinator of the council and has also added some new expertise from the private sector.

The Pope is not going to turn the Vatican into Wall Street.

Yet it seems that he realizes faith by itself is not sufficient to manage a balance sheet worth several billion euros.

The Vatican took many years to draw up rules in order to control its money.

Leo’s next challenge could be getting that money to work better without losing sight of the reason it is there.