I've spent 20+ years in global financial markets. I've learned that markets don't move in isolation. Commodities connect to geopolitics. Geopolitics connects to politics. Politics connects to economics. Economics connects to markets. This account is where I'll break down those connections markets, commodities, geopolitics, business and the forces shaping the world. No noise. No hype. Just ideas, analysis and observations from the markets. Follow along.

The silence for two years was deafening. Now suddenly, Albanians, Croats, Bosnian political circles, Kurti, Von der Leyen and Western left-wing parties have discovered their love for Serbian democracy. 😂 Where was all this enthusiasm when the protests were happening? Funny how the diplomatic smiles appear the moment they think there’s a new government they can influence. The objective, from a Serbian nationalist perspective, is obvious: get close to Belgrade, flatter the new political players, and push Serbia towards policies that serve Brussels’ agenda rather than Serbia’s national interests. These are the same political establishments that made grand promises about Russia, climate policy and COVID, only to leave plenty of people questioning their judgment, priorities and results. Yet somehow, they still present themselves as the unquestionable guardians of truth and progress. Two years of silence, followed by 15 hours of sudden affection. 😂 Serbia should remember one thing: foreign applause is not proof of domestic legitimacy, and Western approval is not a substitute for Serbian sovereignty. 🇷🇸 xitter.cf/bundeskanzler/status/2…

🇷🇸 MAKE SERBIA GREAT AGAIN! BUT WHO EXACTLY IS GOING TO LEAD IT? Let’s put names to the question. Ilija Srdanović, a cardiologist and university professor? Željko Hubač, a playwright? Tihomir Stanić, an actor? Dejan Bodiroga, a former basketball star? Or Dejan Šoškić, an economist and former governor of Serbia’s central bank? An impressive range of professions—but where is the clearly identified prime ministerial candidate? Where is the governing team with a detailed plan for Serbia’s economy, energy security, foreign policy, Kosovo and national interests? You can organise protests, win public support and campaign against a government. But governing a country requires more than a list of names and a promise of change. And while these questions remain, Brussels is already welcoming the prospect of political change in Serbia. Ursula von der Leyen, Marta Kos and Alex Soros are names Serbs should be paying attention to—not because their approval proves anything, but because the EU has its own strategic interests. So, here is the question: WHO is actually going to lead this project, who will make the decisions, and who will take responsibility when the promises collide with reality? Serbia is not a university experiment. It is a sovereign country, and its citizens deserve to know who will govern them before being asked to trust an entire political project. 🇷🇸 Name the leader. Show the team. Publish the plan. Serbia deserves answers. xitter.cf/business/status/211466…

🇷🇸 SERBIA’S ELECTIONS: WHY IS BRUSSELS SO EAGER TO CELEBRATE? The ink is barely dry, and Brussels is already rolling out the red carpet for the Student List. Ursula von der Leyen, António Costa and Marta Kos are all signalling that a new chapter in Serbia’s EU integration can begin. So let’s ask the question nobody should be afraid to ask: Why is Serbia suddenly so important to Brussels? What does the EU expect in return for its support? Is this simply about democracy and anti-corruption, or does Brussels see an opportunity to reshape Serbia’s foreign policy, its relationship with Russia, its national priorities and ultimately its place in Europe? Serbia sits at a geopolitical crossroads. Its future matters far beyond its borders. Whoever governs in Belgrade will influence the balance of power in the Balkans and Serbia’s relationship with the EU, Russia and the wider world. The Student List has won an election. It has NOT been given a blank cheque to surrender Serbia’s sovereignty or outsource the country’s future to unelected officials in Brussels. EU membership is a choice for Serbia—not an obligation dictated by foreign politicians. Democracy must mean that the Serbian people decide their own future, even when Brussels disagrees. 🇷🇸 Serbia is not a chessboard. Serbia is a sovereign nation. The real test begins now: WHO will the new leadership answer to—the Serbian people who elected it, or the European power brokers already celebrating its victory? xitter.cf/democrats_eu/status/21…

This is exactly how communist movements have operated throughout history: first, they claim the moral high ground in the name of the people, justice and fighting corruption. Then political opponents become enemies, dissent becomes unacceptable, and intimidation replaces tolerance. Serbia has seen this chapter of history before. Changing the slogans doesn't change the ideology, and winning an election does not give anyone the right to silence their opponents. 🇷🇸 xitter.cf/javiernegre10/status/2…

The Student List will prove to be the EU’s Trojan horse in Serbia. 🇷🇸🇪🇺 For years, Vučić and his government were constantly described as pro-European and committed to EU integration. Yet where were the EU leaders publicly celebrating Vučić as their preferred partner? Where was this enthusiasm? Now, before a new government has even been formed, Brussels is already congratulating the Student List and offering its support. Serbians should ask one simple question: Is this really about fighting corruption and democracy, or about who gets to shape Serbia’s political future? 🇷🇸 xitter.cf/BBCWorld/status/211449…

Interesting, isn't it? The votes are barely counted, and Brussels is already welcoming the Student List with open arms. Ursula von der Leyen and other European officials are talking about reforms and Serbia’s European future. So here is the question nobody should be afraid to ask: Is the Student List prepared to govern Serbia—or has it simply become the political vehicle through which Brussels hopes to reshape Serbia? Where is the detailed programme? Where are the concrete commitments on Kosovo, energy, foreign policy, wages, investment, and national sovereignty? The campaign is over. The slogans must now become policies, and the promises must face reality. xitter.cf/vonderleyen/status/211…

Serbia, elections over. Student List won as Vucic concedes defeat. Hats off to all the Student List and their supproters on your victory. You got what you voted for. Now enjoy the consequences. 🇷🇸 And while you’re at it, ask your mom and dad what life was really like under communism. History has a way of repeating itself when people forget its lessons. Good luck—you’re going to need it. xitter.cf/SlavicNetworks/status/…

As we enter the finally counting process for Serbia most import elections. My wish for Serbia tonight? 🇷🇸 A political earthquake that forces the Student List to confront the difference between making noise and earning a mandate to govern. For months, the Student List has been presented by its supporters as the answer to Serbia’s political future. But let’s be brutally clear: opposing Vučić is not a programme. Blocking roads is not leadership. Chanting about democracy does not give anyone a monopoly on it. And calling yourselves the future does not mean the Serbian people have chosen you. So, let’s hear the substance behind the slogans. What is the economic plan? What happens to jobs, investment and living standards? What is the strategy for Kosovo and Metohija, for Republika Srpska, and for protecting Serbia’s national interests? What concrete policies unite this movement beyond opposition to one man? Serbia is a country, not a political experiment. Its future is not a trophy to be handed to whoever can generate the loudest protests, trend the most hashtags or attract the most applause from abroad. Governing means making difficult decisions, taking responsibility and answering to the people—not hiding behind the romantic language of a revolution. And to the foreign commentators and diaspora cheerleaders who speak as though they have the right to dictate Serbia’s political direction: you can express your opinions, but you do not get to cast Serbia’s collective future as your personal project. Those living in Serbia will live with the consequences of its decisions. The real test of the Student List is not how loudly its supporters can denounce Vučić. It is whether they can explain, in detail, what they would do differently—and accept that voters have every right to scrutinise, challenge and reject their promises. No movement is above accountability. No protest is a substitute for a governing programme. No self-appointed representative speaks for an entire nation without earning that trust at the ballot box. 🇷🇸 Serbia’s future belongs to its citizens. Not to political grandstanding. Not to slogans dressed up as solutions. Not to anyone who mistakes opposition for a mandate. Let the voters judge the arguments, the policies and the record—and let democracy deliver its verdict. xitter.cf/Wahlfieber/status/2114…

🇷🇸 ELECTION DAY, SERBIA. Before Serbs at home and abroad vote for the Student List, one question deserves an answer: WHO EXACTLY ARE YOU VOTING FOR? Beyond “Down with Vučić,” where is the detailed programme? What are their economic policies, their position on Kosovo, national sovereignty, Russia, the EU and Serbia’s future? A broad coalition united by opposition to one man is NOT the same as a coherent plan to govern a country. And what happens when the far-left elements behind this movement begin shaping policy? Will voters get the Serbia they want—or discover too late that their vote advanced an agenda they never examined? The irony would be extraordinary: Serbs voting without scrutiny, only to find their political choices celebrated by nationalist circles in Croatia, Bosnia and Albania whose priorities may conflict with Serbia’s. “Anyone but Vučić” is a slogan, not a governing programme. Ask questions BEFORE you vote. Serbia’s future is at stake. 🇷🇸 xitter.cf/EWB_eu/status/21143334…

“In Serbia, an exciting experiment.” — The New York Times. Read that headline again. An experiment. Serbia is not a laboratory, Serbian democracy is not a testing ground, and the Serbian people are not political subjects to be managed until they produce an outcome acceptable to foreign powers. The article describes a student movement challenging Serbia’s political establishment. But the bigger question is what happens when domestic political struggles become intertwined with the geopolitical interests, expectations and narratives of powerful Western actors. Who defines the experiment’s success? Who decides which political forces are legitimate? And what happens when the choices made by Serbian voters do not align with what influential voices abroad want to see? Western governments and institutions frequently invoke democracy, the rule of law and popular sovereignty. Those principles must apply consistently — including when a country’s electorate makes choices that outsiders dislike. Democracy cannot mean celebrating the people’s will only when it produces the politically preferred result. Serbia has its own history, institutions, national interests and electorate. Its political future must be shaped through the choices of Serbian citizens, not reduced to a geopolitical contest in which the country becomes a pawn between competing interests. There is a profound contradiction in presenting Serbia as an “exciting experiment” while claiming to defend its democratic development. A sovereign nation is not a laboratory, its citizens are not guinea pigs, and its democracy is not a Western policy project. If democracy is genuinely the objective, then the principle is simple: respect the Serbian people’s right to decide their own future even when that decision is inconvenient for those watching from abroad. 🇷🇸 archive.is/20261022065754/ht…

“A real chance” according to whom? 🇷🇸 POLITICO is confusing student mobilisation, social-media hype and opposition wishful thinking with an actual electoral result. Serbia is not decided by viral posts, diaspora commentary or the number of people in a Belgrade square. Vučić and the SNS have spent over a decade building a nationwide political organisation. Sunday’s test is ballots, turnout, local networks and political arithmetic not foreign media predictions. Count the votes first. Write the headline afterwards. xitter.cf/POLITICOEurope/status/…

🇷🇸 SUNDAY IN SERBIA: WHY UNDERestimating ALEKSANDAR VUČIĆ COULD BE THE OPPOSITION’S BIGGEST MISTAKE. There is a reason I have repeatedly warned people not to underestimate Aleksandar Vučić. They look at the demonstrations, the social media campaigns, the headlines coming out of Brussels and the enthusiasm of the opposition, and they convince themselves that the political outcome is already decided. That is precisely how political miscalculations happen. Vučić understands Serbian politics from the inside out. His opponents are still trying to prove that the political reality they see on social media is the same reality that exists across the entire country. Those are two very different things. Let us look at the situation without wishful thinking. 1. THE OPPOSITION HAS DEMONSTRATED MOBILISATION. SNS HAS AN ESTABLISHED ELECTORAL MACHINE. The student movement has demonstrated that it can mobilise substantial crowds. That is a political fact, and no serious analysis should pretend otherwise. But mobilisation is only one part of an election. Winning requires reaching voters beyond the most politically active cities, persuading undecided citizens, maintaining support among existing voters and translating that support into ballots across the country. SNS enters this contest with years of electoral experience, an established national party structure and a recognisable political leadership. The opposition's challenge is to turn its momentum into a sufficiently broad electoral coalition. It cannot simply assume that people who attend demonstrations, share posts or express anger online will all vote for the same list. A packed square is a photograph. An election is a nationwide calculation. 2. NEVER MAKE THE MISTAKE OF THINKING VUČIĆ DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE GAME. Whatever one's opinion of Vučić, dismissing his political experience would be a serious analytical error. He has spent years operating within Serbia's political system, contesting elections, managing alliances and maintaining a substantial base of support. His opponents know how to criticise him. They have demonstrated that repeatedly. But defeating an established political leader requires more than criticism. It requires a credible electoral strategy, sufficient organisation, a coalition capable of holding together and the ability to persuade voters who do not already agree with you. The question is not whether the opposition can generate headlines. The question is whether it can turn those headlines into enough votes. You can dominate the political conversation and still fail to win the election. 3. THE NUMBERS MATTER MORE THAN THE NARRATIVE. Serbia's National Assembly has 250 seats. A majority requires 126. That means the decisive question is not simply which political camp generates the most excitement. It is how the votes are distributed, which lists cross the applicable electoral threshold and how the final parliamentary seats are allocated. Smaller parties can influence that calculation. Coalition arrangements can matter. A narrow difference in vote shares can have consequences for the composition of parliament. This is where simplistic predictions fall apart. An opposition movement can be highly visible without securing a parliamentary majority. Equally, an established ruling party can retain substantial support while facing a much more competitive contest than it expected. The electoral arithmetic must be examined, not wished away. 4. THE FINAL DAYS ARE AN ORGANISATIONAL TEST. The final rallies have put the competing camps' mobilisation efforts on display. For SNS, the challenge is to turn its established support into actual votes and demonstrate that its political organisation remains effective. For the opposition, the challenge is to show that its public momentum extends beyond the people already convinced by its message. These are not the same challenge. A party with an established electorate does not need every supporter to attend a rally. It needs its supporters to vote. A movement that generates enormous demonstrations still needs to convince enough voters elsewhere to support its electoral list. That distinction could be critical on Sunday. 5. DO NOT CONFUSE A CLOSE CONTEST WITH AN INEVITABLE CHANGE OF POWER. Polling can indicate a competitive election without establishing who will win. Different surveys can produce different results, and undecided voters, turnout and the performance of smaller lists can all affect the final outcome. Anyone declaring the result before the ballots are counted is getting ahead of the evidence. SNS has reasons to take the challenge seriously. The opposition has reasons to believe it can compete. Neither conclusion tells us what the final count will be. But one thing is clear: writing off an experienced political organisation before election day is not serious analysis. It is an assumption. 6. THE QUESTION THE OPPOSITION MUST ANSWER. Where is the evidence that its public visibility will translate into a winning result across the entire electorate? How many of its supporters will actually vote? How many voters outside its strongest areas will back its list? How will smaller parties perform? And what happens if the final parliamentary arithmetic does not match the expectations created by the demonstrations? These are the questions that matter. SNS faces the same fundamental test: whether its support is sufficient, whether its voters turn out and whether the final distribution of seats allows it to retain power. That is why Sunday matters. Not because the outcome is predetermined, but because the difference between political momentum and electoral power will finally be measured. MY CONCLUSION: NEVER UNDERESTIMATE VUČIĆ'S EXPERIENCE. The opposition may have the crowds. It may have the international attention. It may have enormous confidence in its own momentum. But none of those things automatically delivers 126 seats for a majority in Parliament. Vučić knows the Serbian political landscape, understands the mechanics of electoral competition and has an established party organisation behind him. Those are tangible factors that any serious assessment must consider. The opposition must prove that its mobilisation can overcome those advantages. SNS must prove that it can still translate its support into a parliamentary majority. That is the contest. And when the results arrive, the only figures that will matter are the votes counted and the seats won. 🇷🇸 Never mistake a political narrative for an election result. Serbia's voters will decide — and Sunday Vucic and Co will show which side understood the electorate more accurately. xitter.cf/Anewz_tv/status/211338…

France's 10-year government bond yield has hit 5% for the first time since 2002. Read that again. This isn't a corporate junk bond. It's French sovereign debt. When investors demand higher yields to finance a major economy, the implications extend beyond its bond market. Higher borrowing costs → tighter fiscal choices → greater debt-service pressure → less room to respond to the next shock. And with the France–Germany yield spread widening, the market is asking a question Europe cannot ignore: How much does political instability cost when a government already has a debt problem?

Remember September 2019, when JPMorgan Chase ($JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon said the bank couldn’t lend more into the repo market because of its internal reserve limits? The repo market seized up. The Fed intervened with billions in emergency liquidity, then began buying Treasury bills to rebuild bank reserves. Then COVID hit—and the money-printing machine went into overdrive. The result? Asset inflation, soaring prices and an affordability crisis that working Americans are still living with. Since December 2019: Food +34.5%. Rent +33.3%. Vehicle repairs +55.2%. Overall CPI +30.4%. Wall Street’s liquidity problem became everyone else’s cost-of-living problem. The Fed stabilized the financial system. But who’s bailing out the American worker? xitter.cf/KobeissiLetter/status/…

America’s housing market is breaking. Pending home sales reportedly just hit an all-time low—even below the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID crash. After years of monetary excess, asset-price inflation and a 30%+ surge in consumer prices, millions of Americans are being priced out of the very market they were told hard work would let them enter. Mortgage rates. Sky-high home prices. Cost-of-living pressures. Wages struggling to keep pace. The financial system was rescued. Asset holders benefited. Wall Street survived. But ordinary Americans are increasingly unable to afford a home of their own. What good is an economy built on rising asset prices when the people who keep it running can no longer afford to buy a house?

THE WORLD DIDN’T SUDDENLY LOSE ITS MIND. THE PEOPLE RUNNING IT LOST THE PLOT. This has been brewing since 2008. The Global Financial Crisis exposed a brutal truth about the modern economic system: When Wall Street wins, the rewards are private. When Wall Street loses, the consequences become everyone’s problem. Banks were rescued. Markets were stabilised. Central banks embarked on an extraordinary monetary experiment that pushed interest rates towards zero and pumped liquidity into the financial system. Then came 2020. COVID triggered another unprecedented wave of monetary and fiscal intervention to prevent economic collapse. The system survived. Asset prices recovered. Equities soared. Property became a wealth machine for existing owners. And the people who already had capital were perfectly positioned to benefit. But what about everyone else? The young couple saving for a deposit while house prices run away from them. The worker whose paycheque buys less every year. The family spending an obscene share of its income just to keep a roof over its head. The young graduate discovering that a degree, a job and hard work no longer guarantee the independence previous generations took for granted. They were told the economy was recovering. They were living the opposite. And let's be honest about the distribution of power. Billionaires can watch their portfolios compound. Wealthy investors can buy assets when money is cheap. Large corporations can access financing and opportunities unavailable to ordinary households. Politicians celebrate economic growth while ordinary people increasingly question what that growth is actually doing for them. Not every wealthy person benefited equally. Not every government decision was corrupt. And the post-2008 response did prevent a financial catastrophe from becoming even worse. But the distributional consequences were real, and the political establishment was far too comfortable treating them as someone else's problem. They measured the recovery in stock prices. People measured it in rent, groceries, mortgage payments and what was left at the end of the month. Those are two very different economies. And now the consequences are becoming impossible to ignore. Housing becomes unaffordable. Living costs eat into paycheques. Young people stop believing the promises. Trust in institutions collapses. Frustration becomes anger. Anger becomes mobilisation. And eventually, people take to the streets. Different countries. Different grievances. Different political systems. But one question keeps resurfacing: If the system is working so well, why does an entire generation feel increasingly locked out of it? This is what happens when governments confuse saving the financial system with fixing the economy. When policymakers focus on stabilising asset prices but fail to confront the affordability crisis beneath them. When leaders expect public patience without offering a credible path towards a better future. And when every crisis is met with emergency intervention, but the underlying distribution of opportunity remains untouched. You cannot keep telling people that the economy is thriving when they cannot afford a home. You cannot keep celebrating record markets to people who own no meaningful assets. You cannot tell an entire generation to work harder while the finish line keeps moving further away. And you certainly cannot expect people to trust institutions that appear more capable of rescuing powerful interests than restoring economic security for ordinary citizens. The protests erupting around the world are not one coordinated revolution. But dismissing them as isolated outbursts misses the deeper warning. For nearly two decades, governments have repeatedly bought time. Time after the financial crisis. Time during the pandemic. Time through extraordinary monetary and fiscal intervention. But buying time is not the same as solving a problem. And public patience is not an inexhaustible resource. 2008 exposed the system. 2020 amplified the experiment. The years that followed deepened the affordability crisis. Now the political consequences are showing up in the streets. The establishment is still control the institutions. It still controls the microphones. It still has money. But it is losing something much harder to recover: The belief that the system works for everyone. And when that belief disappears, the problem is no longer just economic. It becomes a crisis of legitimacy. The bill for the post-2008 era is coming due. And this time, it isn't just financial. It's political. xitter.cf/MarioNawfal/status/211…

“MORE PROTESTS + MORE CHAOS,” Steve? That’s a headline, not an explanation. Albania’s unrest began with opposition to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump’s proposed luxury developments on the Albanian coast, including environmentally sensitive areas. It has grown after months of protests into a wider revolt over corruption, education, economic opportunity and a government accused of ignoring its own citizens. <Cite refs={["turn696216news20","turn696216search3"]}/> And this is where the bigger story begins. Since 2008, central banks have deployed trillions in emergency liquidity, slashed interest rates and purchased financial assets to stabilize the system. These policies helped prevent a deeper economic collapse—but rising asset prices disproportionately benefited people who already owned property and financial investments. Working people didn't get the same advantage. They watched housing become less affordable, living costs eat into wages, and the promise that their children would enjoy a better life than their parents grow increasingly fragile. IF YOU OWN ASSETS, THE SYSTEM CAN MAKE YOU RICHER. IF YOU LIVE ON A PAYCHECK, YOU CAN END UP CHASING A DREAM THAT KEEPS MOVING FURTHER AWAY. Now look at Albania. While ordinary citizens demand a voice in their country's future, a proposed luxury development associated with Kushner has become a symbol of the wider question: who gets access to valuable land, who makes the decisions, and whose interests come first? Kushner did not cause the 2008 financial crisis, and there is no established evidence that he committed wrongdoing in this Albanian project. But the controversy highlights the growing public frustration with a world where billionaire investors can pursue enormous opportunities while ordinary families struggle to afford the basics. THIS IS BIGGER THAN KUSHNER. BIGGER THAN RAMA. BIGGER THAN ONE COUNTRY. It's about an economic and political model that always rewards asset ownership and access to power while leaving working people feeling shut out of prosperity. So condemn the destruction of public buildings—but don't pretend that explaining the violence means ignoring the months of peaceful protests that came before it. WHEN PEOPLE NO LONGER BELIEVE HARD WORK WILL BUY A HOME, SUPPORT A FAMILY OR DELIVER A BETTER FUTURE, THE PROBLEM ISN'T SOLVED BY COUNTING BROKEN WINDOWS. YOU HAVE TO ASK WHY PUBLIC TRUST HAS COLLAPSED. The billionaire class and its political enablers keep chasing the next big deal while working people watch the future they were promised slip further out of reach. THAT IS THE STORY BEHIND THE CHAOS. 🇦🇱 xitter.cf/NationalIndNews/status…

🔥 2008: THEY CRASHED THE ECONOMY. 2026: THEY’RE STILL TAKING EVERYTHING. Since the Great Financial Crisis, we’ve witnessed one of the greatest monetary experiments in history: TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS pumped into financial markets, interest rates slashed, and asset prices inflated. Who was best positioned to benefit? The people who already owned stocks, property, businesses, and investment portfolios. And who was left struggling to afford a home, pay rent, raise a family, and keep up with the cost of living? THE WORKING CLASS. For nearly two decades, the system has repeatedly protected financial markets while ordinary people have been told to tighten their belts. The wealthy watch their assets soar while younger generations wonder whether they’ll ever own a home. This is how the divide grows: if you already own assets, rising prices can make you richer. If you depend on a paycheck, those same rising prices can push your dreams further out of reach. Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has documented how unconventional monetary policy supported economic activity while higher profits and equity prices disproportionately benefited wealthier households. AND NOW COMES THE NEXT CHAPTER. The billionaire class doesn't just want your labor. It wants the land, the housing, the infrastructure, the businesses, and every profitable opportunity governments can put within reach. Look at Albania. Jared Kushner's proposed luxury developments have become a flashpoint in protests that now extend far beyond real estate. Young Albanians are demanding accountability, better living conditions, and a government that listens to its own people. THIS IS BIGGER THAN JARED KUSHNER. It's about a political and economic system in which the wealthiest can access decision-makers, pursue enormous deals, and turn public resources into private opportunities—while ordinary citizens are told to accept whatever remains. The elite keep testing the limits. A little more wealth concentrated at the top. A little more housing beyond the reach of working families. A little more public land committed to private profit. A little more sacrifice demanded from people who have already sacrificed enough. And when people finally push back, the question becomes whether THEY are the problem. NO. THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH MORE THE PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO GIVE WHILE THOSE AT THE TOP KEEP TAKING. This isn't about hating success. It's about rejecting a system where money buys access, connections open doors, and ordinary people are expected to live with the consequences. From Wall Street to the world's luxury property developments, the same fundamental question keeps coming back: WHO DOES THE SYSTEM SERVE—the people who build society, or the people wealthy enough to buy their way to the front of the queue? The working class isn't an ATM. Countries aren't billionaire playgrounds. Democracy isn't supposed to be a concierge service for the rich. THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS HAS HAD DECADES OF UPSIDE. WORKING PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF CARRYING THE DOWNSIDE. 🔥 xitter.cf/FT/status/211114366077…

EUROPEAN VALUES — OR CROATIAN DOUBLE STANDARDS? Croatia is an EU member, yet scenes in Split involving antisemitic chants and Nazi-era references have once again raised the question of how seriously the country confronts its fascist past. The Ustaše regime collaborated with Nazi Germany and committed atrocities against Serbs, Jews and Roma. Today, the continued appearance of Ustaše symbolism demands a clear and unequivocal response from Croatian leaders. Where is the EU & Croatian government’s outrage? Where is the political leadership drawing a firm line? Prime Minister Andrej Plenković’s government must answer serious questions about whether it has done enough to prevent the normalization of this extremist symbolism. Condemnation must be consistent, not selective. And where are the EU leaders who constantly lecture others about European values? You cannot invoke democracy, human rights and “Never Again” while treating the resurgence of Nazi-era symbolism inside an EU member state as somebody else’s problem. Croatia’s government must be held accountable for its response. Brussels must demand consistency. And fascist glorification must never be normalized. European values mean nothing if they stop at Croatia’s borders. telegraph.co.uk/football/202…

GOOD MORNING. WALL STREET MAY BE MISPRICING THE BIGGEST RISK IN THE AI TRADE. This week delivered three important signals: Inflation is accelerating. Higher prices are putting the prospect of interest-rate cuts under pressure. Treasury yields are falling despite hotter inflation. Investors are seeking safety as concerns about growth and financial risk intensify. AI stocks are under pressure. The debate is shifting from how transformative AI will be to whether the returns justify the enormous capital investment and debt required to build it. Read those signals together. The market isn't just dealing with an inflation problem anymore. It's dealing with a cost-of-capital problem. When money gets more expensive, the weakest investments are often the ones that need cheap financing, optimistic assumptions and years of future growth to justify today's valuations. That creates a difficult equation: Higher inflation → tighter financial conditions → more expensive capital → greater scrutiny of earnings and debt. AI may transform the global economy. That doesn't mean every company investing in it will generate attractive returns. And here's the risk investors need to understand: A technology boom will remain intact while the stocks and debt financing that support it come under pressure. Meanwhile, oil near $105 a barrel keeps the inflation threat alive, and gold near $4,187 reflects continued demand for protection amid uncertainty. <Cite refs={["turn625266news4","turn625266search0"]}/> The focus today: Treasury yields, oil prices, AI credit risk and whether the stock market's recovery has real breadth behind it. A rebound is not the same as a resolution.