Zerohedge

Throughout the more than three-year long Ukraine war, there have been various waves of reporting in the West suggesting that President Vladimir Putin is in extremely poor health. This typically takes the form of rumor and wild speculation from western tabloids.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has revived these rumors this week, going so far as to say in an interview that Putin “will die soon” – in response to yet more unverified reports of his poor health.

He made the unexpected claim in a sit-down interview with journalists alongside French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday in Paris.

Zelensky asserted that Putin “will die soon, and that’s a fact, and it will come to an end,” and added that death is “what he is afraid of.”

The Ukrainian leader was responding to the latest British tabloid stories which described that Putin has been shaking uncontrollably at public events.

“It was reported last week that Putin, 72, suffered a ‘mini stroke’ after shaking uncontrollably at a conference, The Standard reported,” one US media report said. 

Zelensky naturally didn’t offer any evidence or proof, and even Fox called his words ‘sensational‘…

Putin hopes to “remain in power until his death,” Zelenskyy said, adding that the Russian leader seeks “a direct confrontation with the West,” per the outlet. 

Of course, the Kremlin has rejected such reports, and there’s been no indications issued by US intelligence of some kind of dire health event impacting Putin’s ability to rule.

Zelensky’s motive in claiming this became evident elsewhere in the interview, when he said: “It is very important that America does not help Putin to get out of this global isolation now.”

Europe has been vocalizing stronger support to Kiev, even as Washington distances itself – and as it pursues bilateral talks and negotiations with Russia.

France’s Macron is even pushing a coalition of countries willing to deploy Western troops to Ukraine, which if followed through on would certainly spark broader war with nuclear-armed Russia.

Authored by Matthew Horwood via The Epoch Times,

U.S. President Donald Trump said he spoke with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney over the phone, and that the two leaders plan to meet “immediately” after the federal election. 

“It was an extremely productive call, we agree on many things,” Trump said on Truth Social on March 28, adding that the two would meet “immediately after Canada’s upcoming Election to work on elements of Politics, Business, and all other factors.”

Trump added that the discussion between the two leaders will “end up being great for both the United States of America and Canada.”

Carney has not yet commented on the call, and no readout has been issued by the Prime Minister’s Office. Carney is scheduled to meet with provincial and territorial leaders this afternoon.

On March 26, Trump announced he would put 25 percent tariffs on all vehicles and some car parts imported into the United States. 

The automobile tariffs are set to kick in on April 3, a day after the U.S. will impose reciprocal tariffs on all its trading partners. Tariffs on auto parts will take effect on May 3.

Trump also placed 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico on March 4, but soon after, announced a one-month tariff pause on all products compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Trump also imposed 25 percent tariffs on all imports of steel and aluminum, including from Canada, on March 12.

Following a U.S.-Canada cabinet commitee meeting on March 27, Carney announced he would hold a phone call with Trump in the coming days, where he said he would make clear that the two countries are “best served by cooperation and mutual respect.”

During that press conference, the prime minister said his government was considering “many options” to retaliate against the latest tariffs, and that these measures would have “maximum impact in the United States and minimum impacts here in Canada.”

Carney previously said on March 24 that a phone call with Trump would not happen until after the next Canadian election on April 28, as he said he thinks the U.S. president is “waiting for the outcome of the election“ before talks, to ”see who has a strong mandate from Canadians.”

Carney, who was sworn in as prime minister on March 14 after winning the Liberal leadership race, said that call would need to happen “on our terms as a sovereign country, not as what he pretends we are,” in reference to Trump’s repeated remarks that Canada should merge with the United States.

The Chinese Communist Party has been furious over Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing’s deal to sell Panama Canal ports to a consortium of investors that includes BlackRock, following pressure from President Trump as the US moves to bolster hemispheric defense—a massive security effort in which Panama plays a critical role. 

A new report from the South China Morning Post said Friday morning that Li’s flagship CK Hutchison Holdings, “will not go ahead with the expected signing of a deal next week to sell its two strategic ports at the Panama Canal … with Beijing saying it will launch an antitrust probe into the sale.”

There were multiple reports this week that Beijing was tightening the screws on Li’s CK Hutchison to stop the sale to BlackRock next week.

In one such report, The Telegraph noted, “Chinese authorities have effectively blacklisted CK Hutchison and the business interests of the Li family by telling Chinese state-backed firms they will struggle to get regulatory approval for any work involving the group.”

Here’s more from SCMP’s report:

Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing’s CK Hutchison Holdings will not go ahead with the expected signing of a deal next week to sell its two strategic ports at the Panama Canal, the Post has learned, with Beijing saying it will launch an antitrust probe into the sale.

The State Administration for Market Regulation said on Friday it was looking into CK Hutchison’s US$23 billion deal to sell 45 ports spread over 23 countries to a consortium led by United States investment firm BlackRock.

The investigation was announced after pro-Beijing media Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao asked whether the deal required approval from the country’s antitrust review.

“We have noticed this transaction, and will review it in accordance with the law to ensure fair competition in the market and safeguard the public interest,” a spokesman from the anti-monopoly department under market regulator said in a written reply.

The watchdog did not reveal when the investigation would be launched.

The department is responsible for conducting antitrust reviews and providing guidance to companies over their response to mitigate risk and ensure compliance overseas.

What’s evident is that the sale of the Panama ports, including Balboa and Cristobal on either side of the canal, to the consortium that includes BlackRock has put the HK billionaire in the direct firing line of the CCP. 

In a separate report on the temporarily derailed deal, the Wall Street Journal cited sources familiar with the negotiations who said the April 2nd deadline will not be met.

Here’s more color on what sources are saying:

Some of the people said the delay in signing the documents and Beijing’s regulatory review didn’t mean that the deal would be called off—only that a little more time was needed. Others said Beijing believed it might be able to force a more substantial delay or rethinking of the deal.

People involved in the negotiations and outside analysts have said they expect the deal would ultimately go through. They pointed to the risks for Beijing if it appeared to block a commercial transaction that doesn’t involve ports in mainland China or Hong Kong.

. . . 

Chinese officials have telegraphed to Hutchison that they would call in BlackRock for a regulatory review if the parties went ahead with the transaction, people familiar with the matter said. Antitrust officials have started examining BlackRock’s businesses, especially its investments in China, some of the people said.

CK Hutchison has denied the sale was politically motivated, while HK newspapers slammed the deal, calling it “a spineless kneeling, profit-seeking and unrighteous act, ignoring national interests and national justice, and betraying and selling out all Chinese people.” 

The HK paper Ta Kung Pao warned that BlackRock could charge “special docking fees” to Chinese commercial ships and “suppress China’s development” in the region. 

More broadly, the CCP is expected to fight tooth and nail to block Trump’s hemispheric strategy in the Americas—from Canada to Greenland to Panama. But this will only push Trump to escalate the trade war until the communists in Beijing say “uncle.”

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

When we finally learn the full melodrama of the so-called Signal 1-2 day “scandal” of inviting a leftwing, Trump-despising, Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg onto a supposedly secure conference list, involving most of the top Trump security officials, lots of questions need asking and answering.

Most importantly, who exactly had Goldberg’s private number, and ostensibly (in error [?]) could have possibly inserted it into the cleared list of participants in the discussions? Why Goldberg, rather than some random person of some 345 million Americans? 

So why in the world would any top Trump officials or their staffers ever even have Goldberg’s private contact information—given his quite public record of a) fabricating stories with unnamed sources, and b) suffering from a decade of chronic Trump derangement syndrome? 

Did Goldberg know the mechanisms that had prompted and continued his stealthy presence on the secure discussions? 

Why did citizen Goldberg not simply come clean on day one that he realized he was mistakenly included in key national security conference communications, to which he did not belong, and thus should be obviously excluded immediately? Why stealthily listen in for eleven some days? Was the idea of informing his hosts of his own improper presence too old-fashioned morality? 

Did Goldberg’s publicizing these discreet discussions really affect in any way at all the otherwise completely successful mission to neutralize years of appeased Houthis aggression and begin to end their veritable destruction of Red Sea international maritime commerce? 

How did this blunder rank with prior diplomatic and military screw-ups? 

Did it rate with the indiscretion of Secretary of State Dean Acheson’s January 1950 Press Club speech de facto excluding South Korea from the American defense umbrella—an omission that may or may not have contributed to the June 1950 North Korean invasion of the South? 

Was it comparable to Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie’s assurance to Saddam Hussein, “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait”— a needless remark that may have mistakenly green-lighted his 1990 invasion of Kuwait? 

Was it comparable to Barack Obama’s March 2012 “hot mic” quid-pro-quo assurance to Russian president Medvedev? Obama got caught in front of the world promising Putin that he would have “flexibility” on American-Eastern European missile defense—if Putin gave him “space” during his “last” election. 

And indeed, it is forgotten that both kept their promises: Obama foolishly dismantled American-sponsored Eastern European plans for missile defense, and Putin stayed put for Obama, perhaps empowering Obama’s successful election cycle—postponing his preplanned invasions of Ukraine until 2014. Careerism at the expense of national security? 

Did it rank with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Mark Milley, stealthily contacting his Chinese communist counterpart Chinese Gen. Li Zuocheng, to warn him that he would likely prewarn the People’s Liberation Army leader, if he, Milley, had self-diagnosed his Commander-in-Chief Donald Trump as supposedly dangerously likely to trigger an existential war? 

Why would Hillary Clinton weigh in given her illegal use of a private server to transmit classified State Department information and her subsequent destruction of subpoenaed communication devices? 

Why would the serial fabulist Susan Rice weigh in, given in the election-year 2012 she flat-out lied to the nation on five Sunday news shows, claiming preposterously that the deadly preplanned terrorist attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi were actually unexpected “spontaneous” demonstrations incited by anger over an anti-Muslim video? Ditto her fallacious Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl “honor” narrative or her lie about the removal of Syrian WMD. 

Why would Leon Panetta weigh in, when he was one of the supposed “51 intelligence authorities” in 2020 who ridiculously claimed Hunter Biden’s FBI-authenticated laptop had all the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence disinformation effort—a lie designed to arm Joe Biden before the last 2020 debate, and which might well have affected the 2020 election and for which Panetta has never apologized? 

In the end, this was a blunder, but also what the left calls a “teachable moment”, in which a) all future similar conferences should be either held in person or its participants triple-checked on a secure line; and b) all Trump high appointees and their staffers should know enough to have nothing to do with those who wake up each morning wishing to destroy them – and go to bed each night lamenting that they have not done enough to advance that destruction.

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to step in and allow the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador while a legal battle plays out in lower courts.

The move comes two days after an appeals court upheld a temporary block on the Trump administration’s ability to deport illegal migrants under the Alien Enemies Act.

In their request, the DOJ argued that federal courts should not be allowed to interfere with diplomatic matters, the Associated Press reports.

“The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in the request. “The republic cannot afford a different choice.”

Earlier this month US District Judge James Boasberg paused the flights by ruling that alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua deserve a hearing to deny they belong to the gang. Boasberg also demanded details on two flights on March 15 to determine whether the administration defied his oral and written orders to block them.

The Trump administration also asked the Supreme Court to overturn Boasberg’s order pausing flights, and to put that order on hold while they consider that request.

“Those orders – which are likely to extend additional weeks – now jeopardize sensitive diplomatic negotiations and delicate national-security operations, which were designed to extirpate TdA’s presence in our country before it gains a greater foothold,” wrote Harris.

The Supreme Court has asked lawyers for some of the deported Venezuelans to respond by 10am Tuesday to the Trump admin request.

The DOJ has argued that Trump had the authority to declare TdA a foreign terrorist organization and deport them without hearings. Government lawyers also refused to release flight information on the deportations, arguing that it would reveal sources and methods behind the deportations.

“Once that secondary disclosure occurred, any opportunity for appellate review would be moot; the damage would be done, and the effect on United States foreign policy could be catastrophic,” the DOJ wrote.

The DOJ insists that the government obeyed Boasberg’s written order blocking the flights, but says that his earlier oral order while the flights were in the air weren’t enforceable. Government lawyers also contend that Trump had the authority to conduct the flights as commander-in-chief of the US military and the country’s head of foreign affairs.

Trump, meanwhile, has called for Boasberg’s impeachment – saying that the lifetime Obama-appointee is “a troublemaker and agitator.”

Are Democrats trying to spark a recession by crashing the stock market with their insanely partisan and outlier-ish survey responses?

Since President Trump was elected, ‘hard’ data – that is actual economic values – has been steady (strengthening recently). On the other hand, over the last three months, ‘Soft’ data – driven by surveys of Americans (left, right, and center) – has plunged…

Source: Bloomberg

One of the major drivers of that collapse in ‘soft’ data has been the University of Michigan sentiment survey, which has seen an unprecedented partisan divide of delusion send sentiment down (Democrats have NEVER been more fearful of the future) and inflation fears up (32 year highs thanks to Democrats)…

Source: Bloomberg

And while we have done our best, along with Goldman Sachs and Fed Chair Jay Powell, to urge investors to recognize the outlier (and partisan) nature of the UMich survey…

First, inflation expectations in the survey have become extremely partisan. 

Second, the share of respondents in the Michigan survey who are Democrats has always been consistently higher than the share of respondents who are Republicans

Third, switching from a phone-based to an online-based data collection process has led to more extreme answers on inflation expectations.

These three issues together have boosted short-term inflation expectations in the Michigan survey by about 1.3pp and long-term inflation expectations by 0.5pp since 2024Q4. In particular, the change in distribution across political parties and increased partisanship together generated an outsized 1.0pp boost to the 1-year inflation expectation in February.

…the reaction has been the same every time – stocks puked…

Every single University of Michigan survey since Trump became president has slammed the market as a result of outsized inflation expectations driven by Democrat responses. 

The S&P was down in kneejerk reaction after all six UMich reports this year (Prelim and Final).

Six out of six is not a bad track record – almost as if it was done on purpose to drag stocks down and trigger a recession (something that Trump likely would not want but wouldn’t mind the lower yields that would infer). If traders believe the Democrats’ inflation fears, why are they buying bonds?

Of course, with ‘Liberation Day’ imminent, will it be different this time?

Source: Bloomberg

Will we bounce here? Europe just folded – offering concessions – and for now, Canada is all talk.

For the traders amongst us, the next UMich print is on April 11 (prelim) and April 25 (final).

Vol markets are already looking forward to it.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Vice President JD Vance visited marines at Quantico Wednesday and managed to get in some time on the firing range with an M240B medium machine gun.

Vance was given a hero’s welcome.

Listen to how fired up the young Marines at Quantico were to welcome one of their own, Vice President JD Vance 🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/xTMGPcad5t

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 26, 2025

But it was this clip that went viral.

VP Vance is putting in time at the range with America’s Marines.

This is so cool to see. pic.twitter.com/xcIqwcBwkF

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 26, 2025

Vance letting her rip instantly had conservatives reaching for this clip of Tim Walz fumbling around unable to operate his weapon as a stark comparison.

Tim Walz previously claimed he kept a shotgun in his car so he could hunt pheasants after football practice.

This is Tim Walz attempting to load his shotgun this past weekend.⁩ pic.twitter.com/C52Q3S4rEA

— NRA (@NRA) October 15, 2024

Choose your fighter.

Which one of these men would you want next to you in a fire fight? https://t.co/ofcDlBGU4e

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) March 26, 2025

Don’t even think about what could’ve been.

Love the spotter in this clip. We are so back

— for Peanut (@pintail_decoys) March 26, 2025

Just enjoy this.

Some VP’s pose for Vogue. Ours is out here laying down suppressive fire. Priorities restored.

— Unfiltered Social Worker (@UnfilteredSW) March 26, 2025

This one scared the heck outta me 😂😂 pic.twitter.com/j6tRxvS53L

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) March 26, 2025

This says strong leadership.

Just got done firing a Howitzer, too 👀🔥pic.twitter.com/VDlk9uC4vn

— The Conservative Alternative (@OldeWorldOrder) March 26, 2025

Deputize all patriots and give us one of these, please.

— SportsData (@SportsDataUS) March 26, 2025

This does not.

We dodged a bullet, America. https://t.co/ICpMlFTn9T pic.twitter.com/Wz6qfR7Cgt

— Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) March 26, 2025

Walz waved that gun around more than he does his flappy Richard Simmons hands.

Tim is still trying to figure out how to correctly load a shotgun.

— Big Fish (@BigFish3000) March 26, 2025

We dodged a bullet. pic.twitter.com/mUzs07gLJv

— Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) March 26, 2025

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

In 1917, amidst the chaos of World War I, Vladimir Lenin declared that “the state is the instrument of class oppression.” Just months later, the Bolshevik Revolution transformed Russia into the world’s first socialist state—an experiment that would spiral into decades of authoritarianism, economic ruin, and millions of lives lost. But was it the failure of socialism itself or the perversion of its ideals by authoritarian regimes that doomed it?

Tonight, we dive into this centuries-old debate with Rutgers Professor Ben Burgis defending the promise of socialism, while Libertarian Institute editor Keith Knight argues that capitalism remains the only true path to freedom and prosperity. 

The Capitalist View: Consent

“Capitalism is a social system based on the explicit right of private property and voluntary contracts between consenting adults.” That was the position of Mr. Knight who emphasized several times that capitalism ultimately comes down to the concept of consent (aka volunteerism).

“Under a system of private property and voluntary exchange, no one can get a penny out of your pocket or a second of your time unless you voluntarily agree to it.”

Hear his full opening remarks:

pic.twitter.com/6dxvW4T8xv

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) March 28, 2025

The Socialist View: Equality

Now imagine a world where “working people collectively own the means of production and decided together how to divide up the proceeds.” This is Burgis’s vision and in it, he says, workers would have a “reasonable level of democratic input.” 

“If the mission was bring about economic equality and equal human dignity for everyone, it failed.” The disparity between the rich and the poor is “morally indefensible.”

Hear his opening remarks:

pic.twitter.com/sNzjU61Mok

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) March 28, 2025

“Exploitation”

An interesting faultline was exposed around the definition of ‘exploitation’.

To Marx, it’s the “forced extraction of labor by a ruling class.” Listen as our Libertarian Keith fires off questions to get to the root of Marxist logic:

pic.twitter.com/sZcCOYtNFh

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) March 28, 2025

Watch full debate below and subscribe to our YouTube Channel:

Update (1030ET):

There was widespread speculation over whether President Trump had actually pardoned Trevor Milton, the former founder and CEO of the now-bankrupt Nikola.

But according to CNBC, citing a White House official, that now appears to be true.

​Did anyone have “Trump pardons Trevor Milton” in their 2025 bingo card stack? ​

*   *   *

 

Trevor Milton—founder and former CEO of the now-bankrupt Nikola—claimed on X late Thursday that President Trump had issued him a “full and unconditional pardon” and said the president “called me personally.”

Quick refresher on Milton: In 2023, a jury found him guilty of lying to investors about Nikola’s electric and fuel cell semi-truck technology and sentenced him to four years in prison. 

Nikola was first exposed by short seller Nathan Anderson, founder of Hindenburg Research, after the startup released a 2020 promotional video, which showed its Nikola One truck rolling down a hill to simulate full functionality.

Last month, Nikola filed for Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The defunct-startup also filed a motion seeking permission to pursue an auction and sale process under Section 363 of the US Bankruptcy Code. 

Back to Milton, he wrote on X:

“This pardon is not just about me—it’s about every American who has been railroaded by the government, and unfortunately, that’s a lot of people. It is no wonder why trust and confidence in the Justice Department has eroded to nothing… I saw firsthand the tactics they use to guarantee convictions. I am incredibly grateful to President Trump for his courage in standing up for what is right and for granting me this sacred pardon of innocence.” 

Today I was issued a full and unconditional pardon by @realDonaldTrump himself. He called me personally to tell me.

This pardon is not just about me—it’s about every American who has been railroaded by the government, and unfortunately, that’s a lot of people. It is no wonder… pic.twitter.com/qpT0jjI6Fy

— Trevor Milton (@nikolatrevor) March 28, 2025

Milton’s video was immediately fact-checked by Community Notes, which pointed out that multiple U.S. government databases did not show evidence of a pardon.

“There is no mention of the pardon on the White House Website, or a Department of Justice catalog of presidential pardons.” 

Separately, Milton’s media team released a press release through PR Newswire, declaring:

“Founder of Nikola Motor Company, Trevor Milton, Pardoned by President Trump.” 

Here’s EV blog Electrek’s take on the situation:

So, despite us seeing no evidence yet that this pardon is actually real, maybe it’s an attempt to incept the idea of a pardon into the empty headcase of a vain ignoramus who for some reason has access to the pardon pen (despite there being a clear Constitutional remedy keeping insurrectionists like himself away from it).

It also seems quite similar to a proposed tactic by another corporate criminal, Sam Bankman-Fried. Fried had planned to “Go on Tucker Carlsen [sic], come out as a republican” in an attempt to angle for a pardon, again playing on the vanity, credulousness and love of fraud shown by the idiot-in-chief.

But then, in the last line of the press release, we get to what is perhaps the real point of this stunt – it ends with a link to a trailer for a documentary which purports to exonerate Milton. Kind of strange that someone would need to release a documentary making the case for exoneration when one has already been exonerated, isn’t it?

So, for these reasons, we think that this pardon didn’t actually happen.

. . . 

*  *   *

Having been widely mocked – and quantitatvely denigrated by Goldman Sachs – this morning’s final print for UMich consumer sentiment for March is now a must watch.

As a reminder, Goldman explained that the Michigan measure has been especially susceptible to the tariff news recently for three reasons.

First, inflation expectations in the survey have become extremely partisan. 

Second, the share of respondents in the Michigan survey who are Democrats has always been consistently higher than the share of respondents who are Republicans

Third, switching from a phone-based to an online-based data collection process has led to more extreme answers on inflation expectations.

These three issues together have boosted short-term inflation expectations in the Michigan survey by about 1.3pp and long-term inflation expectations by 0.5pp since 2024Q4. In particular, the change in distribution across political parties and increased partisanship together generated an outsized 1.0pp boost to the 1-year inflation expectation in February.

So, with all that in mind, let’s see what the final data looks like – did it get even crazier?

The short answer is – YES!

UMich 1Yr inflation expectations rose to 5.0% (from 4.9% preliminary) while the 5-10Y expectations jumped to 4.1% (from 3.9% flash) – the highest since August 1992…

Source: Bloomberg

The gaping chasm of propaganda-driven fear is evident below the surface with Republicans expected 0.1% inflation while Democrats expect – wait for it – 6.5% price rises in the next year…

Source: Bloomberg

Source: Bloomberg

Bear in mind that Democrat’s 1Yr inflation expectations are now more than 2 times higher than they were in June 2021 when inflation would actually rise to 9%. Back then the Democrats were only off by a factor of 3x.

The final March sentiment index declined to 57 from 64.7 a month earlier. The latest reading was below both the 57.9 preliminary number and the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of economists.

“Consumers continue to worry about the potential for pain amid ongoing economic policy developments,’’ Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, said in a statement. 

“Notably, two-thirds of consumers expect unemployment to rise in the year ahead, the highest reading since 2009.’’

The survey showed the expectations index plunged 11.4 points, the sharpest drop since 2021, to 52.6 this month. The current conditions gauge decreased to a six-month low of 63.8.

Source: Bloomberg

And the political divergence is exploding there too…

Source: Bloomberg

Labor market expectations worsened considerably across demographic and political groups in a sign of subdued spending over the coming months, the report showed. Moreover, expectations among high-income consumers sank.

“This trend reveals a key vulnerability for consumers, given that strong labor markets and incomes have been the primary source of strength supporting consumer spending in recent years,’’ Hsu said.

One thing we note is that if Democrats are so terrified about the loss of purchasing power in the next year, why (based on the slowing spending data this morning) are they not rushing out to buy any and everything they can before Trump’s terrible tariff tax trashes their wealth? Unless – of course – they are just making up their UMich responses as part of the #Resistance?

Starting this month, Democrats will unleash an historic spending spree as they scramble to preserve the purchasing power of their dollars ahead of what they view as runaway inflation. Unless, of course, they are just making up their UMich responses. https://t.co/k3cwmCrq3v

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 28, 2025

Finally, even Fed Chair Jerome Powell largely dismissed the Michigan survey as an outlier for longer-run expectations, and other policymakers have since echoed his remarks.