"When the richest man in the world wants to pick a fight with the most powerful man in the world, you know, it's not hard to see where the money's going to go"

When the richest man in the world wants to pick a fight with the most powerful man in the world, you know, it's not hard to see where the money's going to go," said political analyst Joe in an interview on Skey News, Australia.

In response to ongoing national conversation sparked by Elon Musk’s recent announcement of his “America Party,” veteran political analyst Joe offered commentary on the implications for the U.S. political landscape during an interview earlier this week.

“The idea of launching a third party because one feels excluded from Washington or has had a falling out with former allies strikes me as politically naïve,” Joe stated. “Elon Musk is a visionary—a generational genius with a profound impact on technology and business—but navigating the emotional terrain of American politics is an entirely different arena.”

Referencing the market's reaction following Musk’s announcement, Joe pointed out that Tesla’s stock experienced a sharp 7% drop, compounded by a report of a 14% decrease in second-quarter vehicle deliveries.

“This feels less like a political movement and more like a very public divorce,” Joe added. “Third parties have historically failed to gain traction in the U.S.—the system simply isn’t designed for them. It’s hard to view this latest development as anything but disruptive.”

He also emphasized the contrast in thinking between Elon Musk and Donald Trump.

“Musk is focused on the long game—Mars colonization, electric mobility, the debt ceiling decades from now. Trump, on the other hand, is thinking short-term. These are two men driven by radically different timelines and philosophies.”

Joe concluded his remarks with both caution and respect:

“There’s no doubt that Musk has changed the world. But politics is not just about logic—it’s about feelings, coalitions, and human unpredictability. That’s a dimension even the sharpest mind can struggle to calibrate.”

In lighter commentary, Joe ended the discussion with a nod to July 4th traditions and cultural quirks—highlighting competitive eater Joey Chestnut’s triumph in the Coney Island Hot Dog Eating Contest.

“Even in a divided America, we can still marvel at someone downing 70.5 hot dogs in 10 minutes,” he quipped.

“Gold is a barometer of anxiety”

Adrian Ash

“Gold is a barometer of anxiety,” said Adrian Ash, director of research at BullionVault, the world-leading physical gold, silver, platinum and palladium market for private investors online.

Adrian Ash has been quoted saying this in Washington Post's article titled "Gold keeps setting records as uncertainty buffets other assets" of today.

The main points discussed in the article are as under:

The surge in gold prices is tied to a mix of economic uncertainty and geopolitical instability. Adjusted for inflation, gold has reached its highest value since 1980, exceeding $3,200 per ounce. Factors driving this include geopolitical tensions such as the Ukraine war, economic disruptions triggered by the Trump administration's tariff plans, sanctions on Russia, and a growing global effort to diversify away from the U.S. dollar.

Gold has historically been a refuge for investors during times of financial instability. Central banks have been accumulating gold to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar, especially in regions like Asia and the Middle East. Retail investors, influenced by headlines and economic fears, have shown heightened interest in gold, whether through exchange-traded funds (ETFs), small gold bars, or coins. Younger investors are increasingly drawn to this commodity, as firms such as Monetary Metals and Money Metals Exchange report record transactions and the opening of new accounts.

While ETFs have made gold investments more accessible by eliminating the need for physical storage, many investors prefer holding physical gold due to concerns about financial institution reliability. Costco has even started selling gold bars, suggesting gold is gaining appeal among mainstream consumers. For many, physical gold represents security in a volatile world—fewer fees, fewer middlemen, and a tangible asset they can hold.

The popularity of gold is also tied to its historical performance during periods of low interest rates or poor stock market conditions. However, skeptics argue that gold offers no dividends or yields, which might limit its attractiveness as an investment. They foresee potential corrections in gold prices if economic conditions stabilize, particularly for its industrial and jewelry applications. Despite this, proponents like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hail gold as a reliable and accessible investment.

Notably, the shift toward gold investments has been amplified by a series of major events, including the coronavirus pandemic, the Ukraine war, and the 2023 regional bank crisis. These occurrences fueled anxiety among investors, leading to spikes in gold transactions. Retail demand for gold bars and coins has been robust, with firms reporting increased interest from buyers across demographics.

In summary, gold's rise reflects its enduring appeal as a safe-haven asset during times of crisis. Its growing accessibility through platforms like ETFs and retailers such as Costco highlights its relevance in both institutional and individual portfolios. Although its price trajectory may face headwinds in the future, gold remains a symbol of stability amid uncertainty.

Read full article here.

“We’ve now got an alliance between a Russian president who wants to destroy Europe and an American president who also wants to destroy Europe.”

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz

“We’ve now got an alliance between a Russian president who wants to destroy Europe and an American president who also wants to destroy Europe,” said a senior EU diplomat, granted anonymity to speak candidly to Politico. “The transatlantic alliance is over,” the EU diplomat added.

Recent developments at the Munich Security Conference have raised profound questions about the future of NATO and the transatlantic alliance that has maintained peace in Europe for over seven decades. This alliance, founded in 1949 with just twelve members, has grown to thirty nations united by common values and mutual defense commitments. Yet today, we find ourselves at a crossroads that few could have imagined even a decade ago. As we analyze these developments, we must understand their implications and chart a course forward that ensures our collective security in an increasingly uncertain world.

The first crucial point is the shifting landscape of security guarantees. U.S. Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth's recent remarks in Brussels suggesting that 'realities' will prevent the U.S. from being Europe's security guarantor represent a seismic shift in transatlantic relations. This isn't merely a policy adjustment - it potentially signals what former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis calls 'the advent of the twilight of NATO.' The implications of this shift extend far beyond diplomatic rhetoric into the realm of practical security considerations. We must consider what this means for Article 5, the cornerstone of NATO's collective defense principle, which has only been invoked once in our history - after the September 11 attacks. The potential weakening of this commitment raises serious questions about the future of European security architecture and the deterrence that has kept peace on our continent for generations.

The current situation bears striking similarities to 1938, when appeasement policies ultimately failed to prevent conflict. As Chatham House's Keir Giles pointedly observes, the acceptance of territorial aggression in exchange for promises of peace eerily echoes past mistakes. We must recognize these patterns to avoid repeating them. The word 'appeasement' has returned to European discourse, and with it comes all the historical weight and warning that term carries. But let's be specific about what's at stake: We're witnessing patterns of territorial aggression, the undermining of international law, and the testing of alliance commitments that mirror the lead-up to previous conflicts. The difference today is that we have the benefit of historical hindsight - if we choose to use it. The question is whether we will learn from these lessons or be condemned to repeat the costly mistakes of the past.

Former German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger's statement that 'maybe Europe needed to be tasered' into self-reliance reflects the shocking reality we face. As Kęstutis Budrys emphasizes, 'We are late, really. We have to speed up and show that we have real defense, and that we are ready and capable and trained to fight.' This isn't just about military capability - it's about political will and strategic vision. We need to consider concrete steps: increasing defense spending beyond the 2% GDP threshold, developing integrated European defense industries, strengthening our cyber capabilities, and creating robust rapid response forces. The European Defense Agency estimates that we need to invest at least €300 billion in military modernization over the next decade. But beyond the numbers, we need to foster a new mindset - one that acknowledges that European security must ultimately be guaranteed by Europeans themselves.

The challenges of today are not insurmountable, but they require immediate attention and decisive action. The potential twilight of NATO doesn't have to mean the end of European security - but it does mean they must adapt to new realities. The erosion of traditional guarantees, the dangers of historical repetition, and the need for European self-reliance all point to one conclusion: the time for action is now for the EU.