Hassett Says Trump Can Offer Fed Advice But Won’t Set Its Action

Olivia Brooks

Political

Economic

Central Bank

Summary:

National Economic Council head Kevin Hassett said he'd consider President Donald Trump's policy opinions if picked to lead the Federal Reserve, but that the central bank's interest rate decisions would remain independent.

The president "has very strong and well-founded views about what we ought to do," Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser at the White House, said Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation.

"But in the end, the job of the Fed is to be independent and to work with the group of people that are on the Board of Governors, the FOMC, to drive a group consensus on where interest rates should be," he said.

Hassett was responding to questions about Trump's comment Friday that he should be able to make recommendations on rates set by the Fed.

Trump and senior advisers have pressed Fed Chair Jay Powell to lower rates for months — while also weighing his choice to replace Powell, whose term at the helm of the Fed ends in May.

Hassett is seen as the frontrunner for the post, though Trump also met last week with former Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh. The president named the two men as his top choices to the lead the Fed in a Wall Street Journal interview on Friday.

"We'll soon have a good head of the Fed who's going to want to see interest rates go down," the president said during a holiday reception at the White House on Sunday. "But we're fighting through higher interest rates."

Hassett sought to suggest on Sunday that Trump is one of many experts that can fairly be consulted, even if he ultimately offers only advice.

Even as Fed chair, "I would be happy to talk with the president every day until both of us are dead because it's so much fun to talk" with him, Hassett told CBS.

He rebuffed the notion that the president's voice would have equal weight to voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee, however, saying the policymakers would be free to reject his opinion and "vote in a different way."

"No, no, he would have no weight," Hassett said. "It's just, his opinion matters if it's good, if it's based on data."

Source: Bloomberg Europe

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Strategic Alignment Against U.S. Tariff Moves

Recent developments point to a growing alignment between China and Europe as both economic powers confront rising trade tensions with the United States. The convergence comes at a time when the Biden and Trump administrations alike have embraced more aggressive tariff measures targeting Chinese imports, with ripple effects on global supply chains and industrial competition.

In response, Beijing is actively engaging with European partners to explore coordinated trade frameworks that can dilute Washington's leverage. This includes reinforcing multilateralism, deepening dialogue on World Trade Organization (WTO) reform, and advancing bilateral cooperation on standards, climate policy, and digital economy rules.

The growing collaboration is not coincidental but stems from a shared economic exposure to U.S. policy unpredictability. While Europe has often aligned with the U.S. on strategic issues, it increasingly views unilateral tariffs as damaging to its own industrial base particularly sectors like green tech, automotive, and aerospace, where both China and the EU are heavily invested.

From Competition to Cooperation in Critical Sectors

Although the EU and China have their own frictions ranging from market access to human rights concerns there is a growing recognition that coordinated opposition to certain U.S. trade tactics may serve mutual interests. This is especially true in the green economy, where American subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) have been criticized for distorting fair competition.

China’s dominance in EV battery materials and Europe’s push to revive its industrial competitiveness through the Green Deal Industrial Plan are intersecting in strategic ways. Both sides now face pressure to defend their positions not only against American tariffs but also against the risk of losing investments to U.S. reshoring incentives.

The correlation here is clear: the more aggressive U.S. trade policies become, the more likely China and the EU are to synchronize trade countermeasures and regulatory strategies, even if cautiously.

Challenges of Coordinated Action

Despite the shared pressure, a fully unified front remains unlikely. Europe continues to maintain a nuanced stance toward China, wary of overdependence in critical supply chains, particularly after COVID-19 disruptions and rising geopolitical friction over Taiwan and Ukraine.

However, sector-specific coordination especially in WTO negotiations, anti-dumping frameworks, and joint standard-setting bodies is expanding. These moves represent not an ideological alliance, but a pragmatic shift toward mutual risk management.

The evolving trade dynamics between China, Europe, and the U.S. are reshaping global economic alliances. As the U.S. continues to weaponize tariffs in pursuit of industrial policy goals, China and Europe appear increasingly motivated to forge points of coordination. While not a formal alliance, this growing collaboration underscores the emergence of a more multipolar trade environment one in which economic self-interest drives unexpected partnerships against protectionist pressures.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Shorter Lifespan, Bigger Problem: AI’s Hardware Dilemma

The AI gold rush has triggered a $400 billion wave of investment in chips and data centers this year, but concerns are mounting over whether the financial infrastructure supporting this expansion is built on realistic assumptions. At the heart of the issue lies an uncomfortable truth: the expected lifespan of AI chips estimated at five to six years by most hyperscale cloud operators is proving far too optimistic.

Michael Burry, famed for predicting the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, has called out what he describes as “accounting fraud” in how tech companies depreciate AI chips. According to his estimates, actual chip lifespans are closer to just two or three years. By maintaining inflated depreciation timelines, companies like Meta and Oracle are allegedly overstating their profitability, with potential underreporting of $176 billion in depreciation costs from 2026 to 2028. If corrected, Burry projects that Oracle and Meta’s net income could be overstated by 26.9% and 20.8%, respectively, by 2028.

Obsolescence Accelerates with Nvidia’s Relentless Roadmap

Mihir Kshirsagar of Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy echoes these concerns, emphasizing the dual challenges of physical wear and technological redundancy. Nvidia, the dominant player in AI GPUs, illustrates this perfectly: less than a year after launching its Blackwell architecture, it has already unveiled the upcoming Rubin chips offering 7.5 times the performance and expected to ship in 2026.

Gil Luria, head of technology research at D.A. Davidson, notes that this pace of innovation causes AI chips to lose 85–90% of their market value within three to four years. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang reinforced this dynamic in March, admitting that the moment Blackwell arrived, demand for its predecessor Hopper effectively vanished. Even Nvidia's own November 2025 defense of a 4–6 year chip lifespan did little to ease skepticism, as field data continues to contradict such projections.

Hardware Failure and Heat: Physical Decay Compounds Financial Risk

Beyond obsolescence, hardware reliability is under pressure. According to Luria, AI processors are running hotter and degrading faster than traditional chips. In one Meta study involving its Llama model, annual failure rates for GPU clusters reached 9%. Jon Peddie, founder of Jon Peddie Research, warns that if companies are forced to shorten depreciation schedules, the hit to net profits will be immediate and substantial.

This presents a clear causal sequence: overstated chip lifespans lower accounting costs and inflate profitability, but as the physical and functional lifespan proves shorter, firms will be forced to recognize previously hidden losses undermining their financial health.

Financial Engineering and the Risk of Asset-Backed AI Loans

Compounding the issue, many AI infrastructure firms are leveraging chip inventories as collateral to secure financing. Luria warns that companies like Oracle and CoreWeave both heavily indebted and reliant on rapid AI infrastructure growth are especially vulnerable. If chip value collapses sooner than expected, their debt structures may be exposed, making future borrowing prohibitively expensive.

The correlation here is direct: when underlying assets like chips depreciate faster than expected, the risk profile of the loans they back increases sharply. This could trigger a broader credit tightening for AI infrastructure players, slowing expansion or forcing distressed sales.

Patchwork Solutions and Secondary Use Markets

To mitigate risk, some companies are exploring ways to repurpose older chips. Jon Peddie suggests that GPUs from 2023 could be reassigned to lower-priority tasks or used as backup compute in less latency-sensitive environments. However, these secondary uses will only partially recoup lost value and are unlikely to change the larger economic reality.

The AI chip boom is thus revealing a structural misalignment between technological evolution and financial planning. As depreciation assumptions unravel and replacement cycles tighten, the sustainability of current AI infrastructure economics is called into question.

The AI industry’s rapid growth may be built on shaky ground. With hardware becoming obsolete in as little as two years and financial models lagging behind technological realities, companies face the risk of profit distortions, funding shocks, and balance sheet erosion. While giants like Amazon or Google can absorb these stresses, debt-laden infrastructure specialists may face an existential reckoning. As investors, policymakers, and CFOs awaken to the true costs behind AI’s breakthrough era, the next wave of innovation may be defined not by speed but by financial resilience.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Federal Reserve Policy Shift Fuels Dollar Bearishness

As the Federal Reserve continues its policy pivot by cutting interest rates three times already in 2025 and potentially two more times in 2026 leading Wall Street institutions are sounding alarms over the future trajectory of the U.S. dollar. Investment giants including Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan have aligned in their view that the dollar is likely to lose ground against major currencies like the euro, the British pound, and the Japanese yen in the coming year.

The rationale is causally linked to monetary divergence. While the Fed is easing policy amid cooling job growth and persistent inflation, other central banks such as the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) are holding firm or even contemplating rate hikes. This divergence encourages capital flows away from the U.S. toward higher-yielding assets elsewhere, thereby applying downward pressure on the dollar’s value.

Morgan Stanley Forecasts 5% USD Drop by Mid-2026

Morgan Stanley stands out with a particularly stark prediction: the dollar may drop as much as 5% in the first half of 2026. JPMorgan’s global macro research head, Luis Oganes, echoed similar concerns, citing that the structural outlook appears increasingly unfavorable for the dollar. This is a consequence not only of Fed policy but also of shifting global capital dynamics and investor positioning.

The ripple effects of a weakening dollar are multifaceted. On one hand, U.S. exports are poised to benefit as dollar-denominated goods become cheaper for international buyers. This supports the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to reduce trade deficits. However, a weaker dollar would also raise import costs, potentially contributing to a rebound in consumer inflation a dynamic the Fed is already trying to manage.

For multinational U.S. corporations, the depreciation of the dollar offers a potential windfall. Revenues earned overseas, when converted back to dollars, become more profitable, boosting bottom lines. This creates a correlative advantage: the weaker the dollar, the greater the earnings lift for companies with global exposure.

Emerging Markets and Carry Trade Revival

Emerging markets are positioned to benefit even more. The decline in the dollar’s value fuels interest in “carry trades,” in which investors borrow in low-yielding currencies like the USD and invest in higher-yielding emerging market currencies. According to analysts at JPMorgan and Bank of America, the Brazilian real, South Korean won, and Chinese yuan are among the currencies expected to strengthen as capital flows return to these markets.

The revival of the carry trade is causally tied to lower U.S. interest rates and global rate spreads. When borrowing in USD becomes cheaper and alternatives yield more, the strategy becomes increasingly attractive especially after a decade-long pause due to the Fed's aggressive tightening from 2016 to 2022.

Optimism for G10 Currencies: CAD and AUD in Focus

Goldman Sachs highlights that G10 currencies such as the Canadian dollar (CAD) and the Australian dollar (AUD) are also gaining investor favor, bolstered by better-than-expected economic data. The firm argues that the global macro backdrop is shifting in favor of non-USD assets, particularly as regions outside the U.S. begin to re-accelerate economically.

Goldman’s view suggests a correlation between global growth divergence and USD weakness: when the rest of the world accelerates while the U.S. cools, the dollar historically tends to underperform.

Dissenting Views: Citigroup and Standard Chartered Remain Bullish

Not all analysts agree with the bearish consensus. Citigroup and Standard Chartered argue that the U.S. economy’s surprising resilience, driven in part by massive investment in artificial intelligence and automation, may defy expectations. They believe that capital inflows driven by AI expansion and the robust performance of U.S. equities could offset the dollar’s structural vulnerabilities.

This view reflects a different causal mechanism: technological innovation and equity market momentum sustain investor confidence and inflows, supporting the dollar despite rate cuts.

Furthermore, the Fed has revised its 2026 GDP growth forecast upward, even while leaving room for additional rate reductions. This reinforces Citigroup’s forecast of a possible dollar rebound by mid-2026, especially if inflation remains sticky and the labor market avoids a steep downturn.

Valuation Warning: Is the Dollar Overpriced?

Deutsche Bank’s George Saravelos and Tim Baker warn that the dollar may already be overvalued. In a late-November note, they described the greenback as benefitting from an “unexpectedly resilient” U.S. economy and soaring equity markets, but cautioned that valuation pressures and capital reallocation may soon reverse this strength.

If realized, such a shift would mark the end of the dollar’s unusual decade-long bull cycle. The potential causal endpoint is clear: once rate advantages, growth divergence, and equity strength fade or reverse, so too will investor appetite for holding dollar-denominated assets.

The outlook for the U.S. dollar in 2026 is increasingly uncertain, caught between the gravity of monetary easing and the buoyancy of AI-led growth. While major banks warn of a decline driven by capital outflows and global rate divergence, others bet on America's innovation engine to keep attracting investment. As the Fed prepares its next move, the dollar’s trajectory will serve as a barometer for broader global economic realignments and perhaps a signpost for the end of an era in currency dominance.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

The AI Hardware Boom Meets a Harsh Reality Check

The global tech industry has invested approximately $400 billion this year alone into AI chips and data centers, riding a wave of enthusiasm largely driven by ChatGPT and generative AI. Yet behind the euphoria lies a growing anxiety: the foundational assumption that AI hardware especially high-performance chips can remain effective for six years may be dangerously optimistic.

Large cloud service providers like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft initially anticipated a hardware lifecycle of around six years. But experts now suggest this projection underestimates the combined impact of rapid technological obsolescence and physical degradation. Mihir Kshirsagar from Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy estimates that the functional lifespan of AI chips may be closer to just 2–3 years a reduction that could drastically alter financial models across the sector.

Rapid Chip Innovation Fuels Accelerated Obsolescence

Chipmakers, led by Nvidia, are innovating at breakneck speed. Just months after launching the high-end Blackwell GPU, Nvidia announced the Rubin chip for 2026, promising a 7.5x performance leap. This relentless product cycle diminishes the market value of existing chips by up to 90% within three to four years, according to Gil Luria of D.A. Davidson. This rapid devaluation, although predictable in a high-tech industry, challenges the cost-recovery assumptions baked into data center planning.

The causal relationship here is stark: as newer chips offer exponential performance improvements, older hardware rapidly becomes commercially and computationally irrelevant. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang even remarked in March that no one would want to use Hopper chips once Blackwell became available a declaration that underscores the pressure to constantly upgrade.

Artificial Cost Optimism Masks Long-Term Risks

In November 2025, Nvidia publicly defended the 4–6 year chip lifespan used in financial models, claiming it reflected real-world usage and durability. However, analysts like Kshirsagar argue that these estimates create an “artificially low” cost structure behind AI deployment, delaying an inevitable reckoning over actual hardware turnover rates and true cost of ownership.

Jon Peddie of Jon Peddie Research points to a key financial implication: if companies are forced to accelerate chip depreciation schedules, their net income will be immediately affected. This is not a theoretical issue shortening the amortization period from six to three years can cut expected profits in half, especially for firms with thin operating margins.

Wider Economic Dependence on AI Magnifies Exposure

With the U.S. economy increasingly tethered to the perceived growth potential of AI, any systemic adjustment in asset valuation or return on investment will send ripple effects through markets and policy. While diversified tech giants like Amazon and Microsoft may absorb these shifts, smaller and AI-centric firms could face solvency challenges.

Luria singles out Oracle and CoreWeave both aggressively expanding AI infrastructure while carrying significant debt. Their business models rely on rapid customer acquisition and the competitive edge of cutting-edge chips. A shortened hardware lifecycle implies more frequent capital expenditures, tightening margins, and greater exposure to credit risk.

The correlation between rapid chip turnover and financial vulnerability is particularly strong in these mid-tier players. Unlike the hyperscalers, they cannot cross-subsidize AI operations with other revenue streams and must instead compete directly on performance and price in a market defined by constant hardware escalation.

The AI chip lifespan dilemma is not merely a technical challenge it is a macroeconomic fault line that could reshape how tech infrastructure is financed, deployed, and valued. As generative AI becomes more central to enterprise strategy and national policy, the hidden cost of rapid hardware obsolescence demands urgent attention. Without recalibrating financial assumptions to match technological reality, the AI boom may carry within it the seeds of an unsustainable investment cycle one that threatens not just profits, but the foundations of digital infrastructure itself.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Scientific Cooperation or Strategic Expansion?

China’s recent collaboration with Brazil to establish a joint laboratory for space technology has reignited tensions over Beijing’s growing presence in Latin America. The China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (CETC) announced that it has partnered with Brazil’s Federal Universities of Campina Grande and Paraíba to launch the China–Brazil Laboratory for Radio Astronomy Technology. The facility is expected to conduct advanced research on deep-space exploration and radio astronomy, further cementing technological ties between the two nations.

This move builds upon the progress of the BINGO (BAO from Integrated Neutral Gas Observations) radio telescope project, a flagship scientific initiative jointly supported by the two countries. Designed to study the large-scale structure of the universe and dark energy, BINGO is slated to become South America’s largest radio telescope, with construction projected to conclude by 2026. The main structural components were completed in China and shipped from Tianjin Port to Brazil in June, signaling high-level logistical and financial coordination between the partners.

Washington’s Anxiety Over Strategic Dual-Use Capabilities

Despite the scientific framing of the initiative, U.S. officials have raised alarm over its potential military applications. American defense analysts warn that high-performance radio telescopes such as BINGO can be repurposed for space situational awareness tracking satellites, predicting orbital paths, and supporting anti-satellite operations. The 2022 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report explicitly identified such infrastructure as enabling capabilities for military surveillance and counterspace strategy.

These concerns are rooted in a causal assessment: while the technology itself is civilian, its proximity to U.S. strategic zones and potential for dual-use raises the risk of data collection on American assets and operations in what Washington considers its geopolitical backyard. The optics of Beijing enhancing its space-based sensing infrastructure in South America, a region of historical U.S. influence, deepen these concerns.

Beijing Pushes Back Against Accusations

China has dismissed U.S. objections as unwarranted interference and politicization of scientific exchange. CETC insists the lab’s mission is purely academic, aiming to foster cutting-edge research and expand human understanding of space. Chinese officials argue that the U.S. is using security rhetoric to undermine legitimate scientific collaboration and restrict China’s access to global research partnerships.

Nevertheless, the correlation between China's expanding space infrastructure and its diplomatic strategy is widely acknowledged. Over the past two decades, Beijing has systematically used science and technology agreements including satellite launches, telescope installations, and talent training programs to bolster ties in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The dual benefit of fostering goodwill and potentially gaining access to strategic data forms the backbone of China’s soft-power scientific diplomacy.

Growing Pattern of Project Suspensions Amid Geopolitical Pressures

China’s space initiatives in the region are increasingly subject to geopolitical friction. In April, plans to build a major observatory in Chile’s Atacama Desert were suspended, and in November, a radio telescope project in Argentina was indefinitely shelved as Buenos Aires pursued closer financial ties with Washington.

These cases illustrate a causative impact: U.S. pressure particularly in contexts where countries seek financial support can directly halt Chinese-backed infrastructure. Argentina’s case especially reflects how international finance and diplomacy intersect to shape decisions around technology partnerships.

The China–Brazil space laboratory and its integration with the BINGO telescope project symbolize more than a scientific endeavor; they are part of a broader geopolitical contest over influence, technology, and trust in Latin America. While Beijing frames the collaboration as a win for scientific progress, Washington views it as a strategic maneuver with latent military implications. As the U.S. and China compete for technological and diplomatic clout in the region, the future of such cooperative projects will increasingly depend on how partner nations balance scientific ambition with geopolitical alignment.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Steady Momentum and Ambitious Trade Outlook

Indonesia has unveiled a robust mid-term export expansion strategy, setting a target to grow export earnings from an estimated $294 billion in 2025 to $315 billion in 2026, ultimately reaching approximately $406 billion by 2029. The plan, disclosed by Trade Minister Budi Santoso, outlines a compound growth ambition of nearly 30% over four years. This signals Jakarta’s confidence in the nation’s trade fundamentals and its ability to capitalize on global economic opportunities, even as annual growth moderates slightly in the short term.

According to the Ministry of Trade, the expected export growth for 2026 stands at 7.09%, marginally below the projected 7.1% for 2025. This downward adjustment is attributed not to weakening performance, but to the strong export base built over recent years, which naturally tempers incremental growth rates. This distinction highlights a causal relationship: a higher base leads to slightly slower percentage increases without indicating structural weakness.

Gradual Acceleration in Export Value Targets

The Indonesian government’s roadmap forecasts a progressive rise in annual export revenue:

2025: $294 billion

2026: $315 billion

2027: $340.2 billion

2028: $370.04 billion

2029: $405.69 billion

This translates to a consistent year-on-year increase and a 38% cumulative gain over five years. The steady trajectory reflects a correlative alignment between export sector growth and broader national development goals, as Indonesia seeks to diversify its trade portfolio beyond raw commodities and towards higher-value sectors.

Institutional Support and Trade Partnerships Drive Confidence

To meet these goals, the Ministry of Trade is working closely with the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Kadin) and the Indonesian Exporters Association (GPEI). These collaborations aim to deepen business connectivity, organize trade promotion forums, and fully leverage the suite of international trade agreements Indonesia has signed.

The government’s approach blends private-sector engagement with state-led facilitation. This public-private partnership model plays a causal role in shaping export dynamics, ensuring that policy instruments align with on-the-ground exporter needs and that international market access is continuously expanded.

Trade Agreements and Market Integration as Growth Catalysts

Indonesia’s recent participation in multiple regional and bilateral trade pacts—such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and agreements with countries in the Middle East and Europe—is expected to enhance its trade competitiveness. The utilization of these agreements will reduce tariff barriers, enhance logistics networks, and attract new investment into export-oriented sectors.

The causal relationship here is clear: trade agreements lower external frictions, which, combined with targeted promotion strategies, lead to stronger market penetration and export volume growth.

Indonesia’s export growth strategy for 2026–2029 represents more than numerical targets; it reflects a coordinated effort to solidify its place in global supply chains and elevate the sophistication of its trade portfolio. Despite a minor deceleration in growth in the immediate term, the country is positioning itself for sustained medium-term expansion through strategic alliances, institutional reform, and enhanced private-sector engagement. As the world’s fourth most populous nation with abundant natural resources and rising manufacturing capacity, Indonesia’s export ambitions are not just plausible—they are central to its long-term economic identity.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites