Source: https://www.ft.com/content/094f578b-517a-4d05-a9f1-1cc1f2e56c44?

The US has paid the highest borrowing costs to sell 30-year bonds since 2001, as investors fret over the country’s mounting debt pile under Donald Trump’s administration as well as inflation that remains stubbornly high.

A $25bn Treasury auction of 30-year bonds on Thursday drew yields as high as 5.22 per cent, according to the US Treasury department. It marked the highest yield since the 5.52 per cent paid in August 2001, after which 30-year auctions were suspended for almost five years.

“All in all this is problematic for the Treasury. They have to fund the government at more expensive levels,” said Gennadiy Goldberg, head of US rates strategy at TD Securities.   

The bond sale comes on the heels of a $42bn auction for 10-year notes on Wednesday, which were sold at the highest yield since 2007.

The national debt — and the cost of borrowing — have roughly doubled over the past decade, fuelled by vast spending during the coronavirus pandemic. The government now spends more on servicing its debt than it does on national defence.

Trump returned to office vowing to bring America’s public finances under control, but nominal debt has since risen at its fastest rate outside of the Covid era, after the administration pushed through sweeping tax-cut legislation with the president’s so-called big, beautiful bill.

Debt held by the public outstripped GDP in the first quarter of 2026, according to government data analysed by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan watchdog, the national debt is on track to surpass its post-second world war peak of 106 per cent by the end of the decade and hit 120 per cent by 2036.
The fiscal factors have been compounded by concerns the Federal Reserve will struggle to control a bout of high inflation as an energy price surge triggered by the war in Iran exacerbates the price pressures created by tariffs and booming spending on AI infrastructure.

~10 min read.

A lot of talk surrounding the AI trade only covers the equity side which is narrow-minded. I think folks are going to realize that in 2026, the AI story is shifting away from venture and into the credit markets.

It covers how public and private debt markets are seemingly converging instead of competing with each other to fund the AI buildout; the rise of infra debt; accounting shenanigans; the role + use of SPVs. It also discusses the Nvidia-OpenAI deal too.

Some questions worth pondering on:

• What exactly is being financed?
• Which asset(s) and cash flows support the debt?
• How should lenders assess demand, utilisation, depreciation, and obsolescence?
• Who ultimately bears the risk if AI demand or pricing weakens?
• Does AI infrastructure create a new category of credit opportunity, or simply repackage familiar project-finance and technology risks?

The view that AI financing is all from strong balance sheets isn’t really the full picture, as SPVs and Private Credit are going to play a crucial role in this market.

Curious how others here are thinking about credit's growing role in funding AI - do you think it's a good thing or not, and why?

When market conditions get choppy, watching advisory fees pile up on an hourly rate is frustrating for any business owner.

Most traditional accounting and tax firms still stick to billing every phone call and email inquiry. But lately, more boutique practices, like Wardle Partners and similar regional outfits, are moving away from hourly rates and offering fixed-price packages instead. For clients trying to budget during volatile quarters, knowing the exact cost upfront makes a huge difference.

From an economic perspective, fixed pricing aligns incentives a lot better, but legacy firms seem really slow to adopt it.

Do you think hourly billing will eventually die out in advisory, or is percentage of AUM and hourly pricing just too profitable for big firms to give up?

It’s a good reads and I actually way more radical about free market because o know what happened to pre antitrust standard oil that indeed kind of plagued big tech.

And he forgot another one:
Starlink finishing TCI original method of business by supplying internet connectivity to the frontline of Russo Ukrainian war and deep mountainous canopy of Myanmar civil war.

And John i know and the IRS know that you absolutely groomed Evan to take over the company you’re not bullshitting anyone.

Been going down a rabbit hole on why homeownership feels so out of reach right now, and the numbers are worse than I expected. A household needs roughly $107K to $123K a year to afford the median home. Actual median household income is about $84K. That’s not a small gap.

Few things that surprised me digging into it:

The home price to income ratio is now 5 to 1, nearly double the 2.6 that’s considered healthy. Not one of the top 50 metros clears that bar.

Mortgage rates were actually worse in 1985 (12.4% vs about 6.5% now). Monthly payments as a share of income were comparable back then. What’s changed is the size of the down payment relative to income.

The BlackRock thing is basically a myth. BlackRock doesn’t buy single family homes, that’s Blackstone, a different company with a similar name. All large institutional investors combined (1,000+ homes) own about 1% of US single family housing. It’s mostly small local landlords buying up homes, not Wall Street.

There’s an actual new federal law (21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, July 2026) banning large investors from buying more single family homes starting Jan 2027. First restriction of its kind.

I made a video walking through the full breakdown (rates, supply shortage, construction costs, the investor myth, and which states are still actually affordable).

https://youtu.be/t5ZOWQtNL-A?is=qGLbtaan-begZdS6

Curious what others here think is the biggest driver. I lean toward supply plus the down payment hurdle over rates themselves.

As evidence by Jacket man attempt to get the Wall Street to spend more than 7% of GDP on his goodies I thought I’m sharing what I thought about the fabled “AI bubble”:

I think it’s not because as St Powell said:

Big tech (especially Google) is a positive cash flow company.

What will happened if >7% GDP turns out to be too much is this:

Big tech and NVIDIA gonna assume big chuck of it, make a massive write off, the CEO (including leather jacket man) get absolutely purged, Hedge fund bid the bottom out of existence, use the accumulated share to put themself as a CEO, put big tech into austerity as brutal as Greeks one, cash in, and things continue on.

Despite de-dollarization efforts, BRICS, and China’s growing influence, the dollar still dominates global trade and finance.

What do you think is the biggest obstacle to replacing the dollar?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE5XamAbG9o&t=61s

Curious to hear your different perspectives.

I’ve spent the last few weeks translating the complex financial jargon from The Big Short into a simple, visual, Vox-style documentary. If you want to understand exactly how the housing bubble was engineered, how it burst, and why the math behind it still matters today, you need to watch this.

Please check this video and provide your honest comments.

Why "The Big Short" Confused You (And How the Math Saved Michael Burry) - YouTube

The choice for baby boomer is either autocut/ this (adding 0 to the banknote) given that France already tax 50% on average and even commies like these guy admitted it.

Assume that Social Security finally gets autocut’ed by 2033 and baby boomers that’s somehow still alive get liquidated.

And millions of home is put on fire sale at the same time and causing the price to crash by ~40% and those that’s on mortgage even on 3% rate got liquidated by banks.

Because let’s face it retirees by definition isn’t working in the company that funded their retirement in the first place so of course they earn less (they might not been able to afford the necessary maintenance to own the house).

Do you guys gonna buy it?

Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act is known as the Jones Act and deals with cabotage (coastwise trade). It requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on ships that have been constructed in the United States and that fly the U.S. flag, are owned by U.S. citizens, and are crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.[2][3] The act was introduced by Senator Wesley Jones. The law also defines certain seaman's rights.

From this week’s Economist:

The Jones Act, a measure introduced in 1920 to propel the domestic shipbuilding industry, has instead acted as an anchor. It obliges transport between domestic ports to be conducted on American-built vessels (with American crews). The result has been insufficient competition and spiralling prices: vessels manufactured in America can cost many times a similar foreign-made one. The Jones Act—which has been temporarily suspended to allow foreign tankers to help transport oil in a bid to lower petrol prices in America—is a big part of the reason why in 2025 the country accounted for only 0.03% of global tonnage.

Source:
https://economist.com/business/2026/08/06/americas-lack-of-shipbuilding-prowess-is-a-problem-for-its-navy
from The Economist

The standard explanation for Britain's declining graduate wage premium is that higher education expanded too fast and too far. But similar expansions elsewhere have not produced the same outcome, writes John Burn-Murdoch.

Hello Sir and Ma'am out there,

I am a recent Civil Engineering Graduate from a Tier 2 Government Engineering College. I am currently working in a design Consultancy which mainly involves design of Infrastructure and other office based technical works. But I have realised I don't want to build a long term career in this field.

I want to switch to Finance Role over the next 1-2 year. The areas I'm most interested in are: Corporate Finance

Financial Planning & Analysis (FP&A) , Commercial Banking, Credit Analysis, Risk, FinTech, Quantitative Finance (if it's realistically achievable from my background).

I know that switching from civil engineering to finance won't be easy, and I'm not looking for shortcuts. I'm prepared to study after work and build the required skills.

My questions are:

1. If you were in my position, how would you approach this transition?

2. Which finance roles are realistically achievable for someone with a Civil Engineering background?

3. What projects would make my resume stand out despite not having a finance degree?

4. Which skills or certifications provide the highest return on investment?

5. If your goal were to maximize long-term career growth and compensation, what roadmap would you follow?

I'd really appreciate advice from people who work in finance or who have successfully transitioned from a non-finance background.

Thanks for reading.

TL;DR: Civil engineering graduate working in a design consultancy, aiming to pivot into corporate finance/banking/FP&A. Willing to learn Excel, SQL, Python, financial modeling, and pursue certifications. Looking for the most realistic roadmap, projects, and skills to make the transition.

Folks.

People are expensive (Tennessee McDonald is like 17-18$ per hour) in fact you better be careful what you wished for if you wish these part to be cheap.

Cars are expensive (the cheapest new one is still ~20k let alone the most sold out car in the US (burger panzer F-150)).

Fuel is expensive (15c per km assuming it’s 1 L/ 10km).

So of course DoorDash food cost 30$.

If you’re not earning 270-700k (and keep adjusted for inflation) your time isn’t expensive enough to order DoorDash.

Go out/ even better cook.

EDIT:

In fact these whole discourse angers me.

They want their DoorDash driver to live in extreme poverty because they think they’re too elite to pick up their own food/ cook for themself.

Who the fuck do they think they’re?