Archive

March 12, 2025

Browsing

In this video, Dave analyzes the bearish rotation in his Market Trend Model, highlighting the S&P 500 breakdown below the 200-day moving average and its downside potential. He also identifies five strong stocks with bullish technical setups despite market weakness. Watch now for key technical analysis insights to navigate this volatile market!

This video originally premiered on March 10, 2025. Watch on StockCharts’ dedicated David Keller page!

Previously recorded videos from Dave are available at this link.

The S&P 500 ($SPX), Nasdaq Composite ($COMPQ), and DJIA ($INDU) are trading below their 200-day simple moving averages (SMAs). It doesn’t paint an optimistic picture, but the reality is that the stock market’s price action is more unpredictable than usual.

When President Trump imposed an additional 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports from Canada, the stock market sold off. However, the selloff eased in afternoon trading, when there was a narrative shift in the tariff and Ukraine/Russia tensions front. But that changed towards the end of Tuesday’s close, with the broader indexes closing lower.

Navigating a headline-driven market is challenging. The Cboe Volatility Index ($VIX), the market’s fear gauge, eased a little on Tuesday, but has risen relatively steeply since February 21. All investors should monitor this closely, especially in a market that fluctuates several times on any given trading day.

Percentage Performance

It’s also important not to lose sight of the bigger picture. From a percentage performance point of view, how much damage has been done? To answer this question, it helps to view a PerfChart of the three broader indexes, S&P 500, Nasdaq, and Dow (see chart below).

FIGURE 1. ONE-YEAR PERFORMANCE OF S&P500, DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE, AND NASDAQ COMPOSITE. All three indexes are displaying weakening performance, but are still in positive territory.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

Over the last year, the performance of the three indexes is in positive territory. The Dow is the weakest of the three, with a 6.87% gain. During the April 2024 low, performance was negative, but during the August low, the Dow skirted the zero level but was able to hang on. Given the trend in the performance of all three indexes is pointing lower, investors should be cautious when it comes to making decisions.

Value Performance

The daily chart of any of the three indexes is bleak. The one that looks the bleakest is probably the tech-heavy Nasdaq. Tech stocks have taken a beating of late, and the Nasdaq has been trading below its 200-day SMA for a few days (see chart below).

The bottom panel displays the percentage of Nasdaq stocks trading below their 200-day SMA. As you can see, it’s below 30%, which indicates an oversold level. There are no signs of reversal on this chart. In August, when the Nasdaq slipped below its 200-day SMA, it quickly recovered.

On Wednesday morning, investors will be tuned in to the February CPI data. Be sure to save the PerfChart in Figure 1 and the chart of the Nasdaq Composite in Figure 2 to your ChartLists. Click on the charts to see the live chart. Monitor them closely, since we’re likely to see a seesawing stock market for a while.

Closing Position

Note that when viewing a PerfChart, you can also compare the performance of different sectors or industry groups in addition to the broader indexes. All you have to do is change the symbols on the chart. If you see confirmed signals of a reversal in any asset class or group, it may be time to reevaluate your portfolio allocations.


Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.

The gold standard hasn’t been used in the US since the 1970s, but during Donald Trump’s first term from 2017 to 2021 there was some speculation that he could bring it back.

Rumors that the gold standard could be reinstated during Trump’s presidency centered largely on positive comments he made about the idea. Notably, he suggested that it would be “wonderful” to bring back the gold standard, and a number of his advisors were of the same mind — Judy Shelton, John Allison and others supported the concept.

Now that Trump is back in the White House, some are again wondering if he will return the country to the gold standard. Speaking on his War Room podcast back in December 2023, Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, said he believes the president could ditch the US Federal Reserve and bring back the gold standard in his second term in office.

More recently, the Heritage Foundation included a whole chapter on the Federal Reserve in its Project 2025 (a proposed blueprint for Trump’s second term), and mentioned the option of eliminating the Federal Reserve to make way for a return to the gold standard.

While Trump has publicly disavowed Project 2025, its creators say he is privately supportive of the initiative, and he has implemented many of their suggestions. Additionally, the chapter’s author, Paul Winfree, is a former member of Trump’s 2016 transition team and 2017 administration.

Since re-entering office, Trump has also shown interest in the physical gold stored in Fort Knox, Kentucky. The president and Elon Musk have repeatedly questioned whether some of the gold may have been stolen, and Musk has suggested an audit of the 147 million ounces of gold stored in the vault. It remains to be seen whether the audit will take place, but it has added an extra unknown to the gold space.

Read on to learn what the gold standard is, why it ended, what Trump has said about bringing back the gold standard — and what could happen if a gold-backed currency ever comes into play again.

In this article

    What is the gold standard?

    What is the gold standard and how does it work? Put simply, the gold standard is a monetary system in which the value of a country’s currency is directly linked to the yellow metal. Countries using the gold standard set a fixed price at which to buy and sell gold to determine the value of the nation’s currency.

    For example, if the US went back to the gold standard and set the price of gold at US$1,000 per ounce, the value of the dollar would be 1/1000th of an ounce of gold. This would offer reliable price stability.

    Under the gold standard, transactions no longer have to be done with heavy gold bullion or gold coins. The gold standard also increases the trust needed for successful global trade — the idea is that paper currency has value that is tied to something real. The goal is to prevent inflation as well as deflation, and to help promote a stable monetary environment.

    When was the gold standard introduced?

    The gold standard was first introduced in Germany in 1871, and by 1900 most developed nations, including the US, were using it. The system remained popular for decades, with governments worldwide working together to make it successful, but when World War I broke out it became difficult to maintain. Changing political alliances, higher debt and other factors led to a widespread lack of confidence in the gold standard.

    What countries are on the gold standard today?

    Currently, no countries use the gold standard. Decades ago, governments abandoned the gold standard in favor of fiat monetary systems. However, countries around the world do still hold gold reserves in their central banks. The Fed is the central bank of the US, and as of February 2025 its gold reserves came to 8,133.46 metric tons.

    Why was the gold standard abandoned?

    The demise of the gold standard began as World War II was ending. At this time, the leading western powers met to develop the Bretton Woods agreement, which became the framework for the global currency markets until 1971.

    The Bretton Woods agreement was born at the UN Monetary and Financial Conference, held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in July 1944. Currencies were pegged to the price of gold, and the US dollar was seen as a reserve currency linked to the price of gold. This meant all national currencies were valued in relation to the US dollar since it had become the dominant reserve currency. Despite efforts from governments at the time, the Bretton Woods agreement led to overvaluation of the US dollar, which caused concerns over exchange rates and their ties to the price of gold.

    By 1971, US President Richard Nixon had called for a temporary suspension of the dollar’s convertibility. Countries were then free to choose any exchange agreement, except the price of gold. In 1973, foreign governments let currencies float; this put an end to Bretton Woods, and the gold standard was ousted.

    What is the US dollar backed by?

    Since the 1970s, most countries have run on a system of fiat money, which is government-issued money that is not backed by a commodity. The US dollar is fiat money, which means it is backed by the government, but not by any physical asset.

    The value of money is set by supply and demand for paper money, as well as supply and demand for other goods and services in the economy. The prices for those goods and services, including gold and silver, can fluctuate based on market conditions.

    What has Trump said about the gold standard?

    While it’s perhaps not common knowledge, Trump has long been a fan of gold.

    In fact, as Sean Williams of the Motley Fool has pointed out, Trump has been interested in gold since at least the 1970s, when private ownership of gold bullion became legal again. He reportedly invested in gold aggressively at that time, buying the precious metal at about US$185 and selling it between US$780 and US$790.

    Since then, Trump has specifically praised the gold standard. In an oft-quoted 2015 GQ interview that covers topics from marijuana to man buns, Trump said, “Bringing back the gold standard would be very hard to do, but boy, would it be wonderful. We’d have a standard on which to base our money.”

    In a separate interview that year, he said, “We used to have a very, very solid country because it was based on a gold standard.”

    According to Politico’s Danny Vinik, “(Trump has) surrounded himself with a number of advisors who hold extreme, even fringe ideas about monetary policy. … At least six … have spoken favorably about the gold standard.” Shelton and Allison, mentioned above, are not alone. Others include Ben Carson and David Malpass. The last two, Rebekah and Robert Mercer, eventually distanced themselves from Trump, but had a strong influence before that.

    Emphasizing how unusual Trump’s support for the international gold standard is, Joseph Gagnon, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told the news outlet, “(It) seems like nothing that’s happened since the Great Depression.” Gagnon, who has also worked for the Fed, added, “You have to go back to Herbert Hoover.”

    Back in 2017, Politico also quoted libertarian Ron Paul, another gold standard supporter, as saying, “We’re in a better position than we’ve ever been in my lifetime as far as talking about serious changes to the monetary system and talking about gold.”

    What does Project 2025 say about the gold standard?

    In its chapter on the Federal Reserve, Project 2025 discusses the pros and cons of a return to the gold standard or other commodity-backed monetary system. The chapter’s author, Paul Winfree, weighs several monetary reform options, listing the gold standard as the second most effective option ‘against inflation and boom-and-bust recessionary cycles.’

    Project 2025 aims to severely reduce the current powers of the Federal Reserve, including its ability to purchase federal debt and other financial assets as well as bail out big financial institutions. Winfree also proposes removing maximizing employment from the Fed’s mandate.

    The document offers several paths to a potential gold standard, including gold-convertible treasury instruments or a parallel fiat dollar and gold standard system to make a transition easier. However, Winfree writes, ‘We have good reasons to worry that central banks and the gold standard are fundamentally incompatible—as the disastrous experience of the Western nations on their ‘managed gold standards’ between World War I and World War II showed.’

    On the more extreme end, the policy playbook also explores dismantling the Federal Reserve in favor of the gold standard alone. In the view of Project 2025, this would reduce the risk of inflation because there would be no central bank to print money and bail-out the banks. On the other hand, Winfree states that the two-year election system means they should be cautious about causing too much disruption to financial markets and the economy.

    While the Trump Administration 2.0 has yet to implement any of the Project 2025 recommendations on the Federal Reserve discussed above, the president did sign an Executive Order in mid-February that would give the Executive Branch oversight and control of regulatory agencies like the Fed. However, the order does provide an exemption for the central bank’s ability to set interest rates.

    Would it be feasible for the US to return to the gold standard?

    Trump’s first term as president passed without a return to the gold standard, and the consensus seems to be that it’s highly unlikely that this event will come to pass — even with him at the helm once again.

    Even many ardent supporters of the system recognize that going back to it could create trouble.

    As per the Motley Fool’s Williams, economists largely agree that moving to a lower-key version of the gold standard in 1933 was “a big reason why the US emerged from the Great Depression,” and a return would be a mistake.

    This is the take of Kevin Bahr, chief analyst of the Center for Business and Economic Insight. ‘History has shown that the gold standard was highly ineffective in dealing with inflation and economic downturns. Although the gold standard can limit the printing of money which could cause inflation, the printing of money is not always the reason that inflation occurs,’ explains Bahr. ‘Inflationary pressures caused by World War I resulted from supply shortages and the ramp-up in demand for certain products and resources caused by the war effort. Simply having a fixed money supply tied to gold didn’t solve the problems; consequently, countries bailed from the gold standard to gain more control over monetary policy and inflationary pressures.’

    Bahr also states that the gold standard would not have prevented the most recent bout of inflation that followed the global COVID pandemic. Quite the opposite, in fact. ‘Rather, the lack of a gold standard helped countries deal with the effects of inflation. The gold standard could have exacerbated the inflationary problem by preventing any central bank actions,’ he wrote.

    But if Trump or a future president did decide to go through with it, what would it take?

    According to Kimberly Amadeo at the Balance, due to trade, money supply and the global economy, the rest of the world would need to go back to the gold standard as well. Why? Because otherwise the countries that use the US dollar could stand with their hands out asking for their dollars to be exchanged for gold — including debtors like China and Japan, to which the US owes a large chunk of its multitrillion-dollar national debt.

    Is there enough gold to return to the gold standard?

    The fact that the US doesn’t have enough gold in its reserves to pay back all its debt poses a huge roadblock to returning to the gold standard. The country would have to exponentially replenish its gold reserves in advance of any return to the gold standard.

    ‘The United States holds around 261.5 million troy ounces of gold, valued at approximately $489 billion. The total US money supply exceeds $20 trillion, necessitating about 272,430 metric tons of gold at current market prices,’ explained Ron Dewitt, Director of Business Development at the Gold Information Network, in a June 2024 LinkedIn post.

    ‘The supply remains insufficient, even including global gold stocks, which total around 212,582 metric tons.’

    In addition, it’s understood that returning to the gold standard would require the price of gold to be set much higher than it is currently. What would the price of gold need to be worth if the US returned to the gold standard? Financial analyst and investment banker Jim Rickards has calculated the gold price would need to jump up to at least US$27,000 an ounce.

    That means the US dollar would be severely devalued, causing inflation, and since global trade uses the US dollar as a reserve currency, it would grind to a halt. Conversely, returning to the gold standard at a low gold price would cause deflation.

    What would silver be worth if the US returned to the gold standard? It’s not a guarantee that silver would follow in gold’s footsteps if a gold standard was re-established due to its many industrial and technological applications. While silver has a long history as a precious metal and played an important role as currency for much of human history, its value today is intrinsically linked to that demand as well.

    What would happen if the US returned to the gold standard?

    Returning to the gold standard would have a huge impact on all levels of the US economy and make it impossible for the Fed to offer fiscal stimulus. After all, if the US had to have enough gold reserves to exchange for dollars on an as-needed basis, the Fed’s ability to print paper currency would be incredibly limited.

    Supporters believe that could be the perfect way to get the US out of debt, but it could also cause problems during times of economic crisis. It’s important to remember that because 70 percent of the US economy is based on consumer spending, if inflation rose due to the gold price rising, then a lot of consumers would cut spending.

    That would then affect the stock market as well, which could very well lead to a recession or worse without the ability of the government to soften that blow via money supply. ‘Transitioning to a gold standard during an economic crisis would severely limit monetary policy options and could lead to economic instability,’ Dewitt warned.

    For that reason, a return to the gold standard would also expose the US economy to the yellow metal’s sometimes dramatic fluctuations — while some think that gold would offer greater price stability, it’s no secret that it’s been volatile in the past. Looking back past the metal’s recent stability, it dropped quite steeply from 2011 to 2016.

    Moreover, speaking to Congress on this issue in 2019, Fed Chair Jerome Powell warned against a return to the gold standard.

    “You’ve assigned us the job of two direct, real economy objectives: maximum employment, stable prices. If you assigned us (to) stabilize the dollar price of gold, monetary policy could do that, but the other things would fluctuate, and we wouldn’t care,” Powell said. “There have been plenty of times in fairly recent history where the price of gold has sent a signal that would be quite negative for either of those goals.”

    As can be seen, returning to the gold standard would be a complex ordeal with pros and cons. The likelihood of the US bringing back the gold standard is slim, but no doubt the question will continue to be up for debate under future presidents.

    Securities Disclosure: I, Melissa Pistilli, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Energy transition company Condor Energies (TSX:CDR,OTC Pink:CNPRF) said on Tuesday (March 10) that it has secured its second critical minerals mining license in Kazakhstan.

    The Kolkuduk license, awarded to the firm by the Kazakh government, grants Condor exclusive rights to explore and mine solid minerals across a 6,800 hectare site for a six year term.

    Kolkuduk is situated near Condor’s existing 37,300 hectare Sayakbay critical minerals license, with both sites located in a geothermally active region known for its rich mineralized brine deposits.

    According to data from the Kazakh geology ministry, a previously drilled well in the Kolkuduk territory encountered brine deposits containing lithium concentrations of up to 130 milligrams per liter. Historical wireline logs and core samples indicate a 1,000 meter brine reservoir, suggesting significant potential for resource development.

    Additional minerals identified in the region include rubidium, strontium and cesium.

    “Condor’s focus on developing critical minerals in Kazakhstan aligns with the strategic focus of multiple countries to accelerate the development of diverse, secure, and sustainable supply chains of critical minerals,’ said Condor President and CEO Don Streu in the company’s release, emphasizing the strategic significance of its licenses.

    “Kazakhstan is one of the select group of minerals-producing countries identified as strategic to these efforts.’

    Critical minerals have emerged as a cornerstone of global energy security and economic policy, with countries seeking to secure reliable sources for technologies such as batteries, renewable energy infrastructure and advanced manufacturing.

    Condor’s expansion into critical minerals exploration complements its existing natural gas production operations in Uzbekistan and its liquefied natural gas (LNG) transportation fuel business in Kazakhstan.

    Last year, the company signed its first LNG framework agreement with Kazakhstan Temir Zholy National Company (KTZ), the country’s national railway operator, and Wabtec (NYSE:WAB), a US-based locomotive manufacturer. The deal lays the groundwork for using LNG to fuel Kazakhstan’s rail locomotive fleet, a major step in reducing reliance on diesel fuel.

    KTZ and Wabtec have been working to retrofit existing locomotives and incorporate LNG into new builds as part of a broader fleet modernization initiative. Under the agreement, Condor will serve as the primary LNG supplier and distributor, coordinating production volumes with the rollout of LNG-powered rail locomotives.

    The LNG initiative is also poised to play a critical role in the expansion of the Transcaspian International Transport Route, a vital corridor for freight movement between Asia and Europe. Condor has already completed front-end engineering for its first modular LNG facility, with detailed engineering slated to commence soon.

    The facility, to be built near Aktobe, Kazakhstan, will have an annual production capacity of 120,000 metric tons of LNG, equivalent to 450,000 liters of diesel per day.

    Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Willem Middelkoop, founder of Commodity Discovery Fund, shared his thoughts on the commodities space, saying that an ‘era of shortages’ is arriving.

    He believes that will propel prices up from today’s rock-bottom levels, creating investment opportunities.

    Middelkoop also discussed geopolitics, looking at recent moves from the Trump administration.

    Watch the interview above for more of his thoughts on those topics.

    Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Another Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) convention has come and gone.

    The 2025 iteration of the biggest mining event globally was a success, with more than 25,000 attendees converging on the Metro Toronto Convention Center over the four day event.

    Several key themes emerged at this year’s PDAC, with the most prevalent being the need for more exploration and funding, government support for the mining sector and the growing importance of critical minerals.

    Setting the tone for the event, Mike Henry, CEO of BHP (ASX:BHP,NYSE:BHP,LSE:BHP), underscored in an hour-long keynote address the vast amount of critical minerals that will be needed in the years ahead.

    ‘In copper alone, we anticipate 70 percent growth in demand by the middle of this century. Billions of people depend on our industry’s ability to deliver the critical minerals the world needs in a timely, reliable and cost-effective manner,” he said.

    The CEO went on to underscore the abundant resource potential offered by Canada, Australia and Chile, while also noting the massive investments needed to propel the energy transition and global decarbonization.

    “Done well, the meeting of the world’s growing need for critical minerals can transform communities, economies and countries for the better, and one need look no further than Canada or Australia or Chile, three resource-rich nations that have harnessed their resource endowment for the effective benefit of the people,” Henry said.

    He added that this continued effort requires capital, offering investors strong returns by supporting the right companies, commodities and standards. As Henry explained, for copper alone an investment of US$250 billion will be needed over the next five to 10 years to keep pace with “surging local demand.”

    When extrapolated to include other in-demand metals, that number balloons to US$800 billion between now and 2040.

    The need for exploration investment was also reiterated by Kevin Murphy, director of metals and mining research with S&P Global Commodity Insights. During his presentation, he noted that mining exploration spending has dropped sharply from its highs in 2011 and 2012, with gold remaining the top target, followed by copper, uranium and lithium.

    “I would consider exploration the canary in the coal mine for the mining industry in general; it’s the base of the pyramid, where mines are at the top and a huge amount of exploration, in theory, should be at the bottom,’ said Murphy. “If we look at where we currently are in exploration spending compared to historic amounts, we’re actually down a fair bit.”

    Over the last decade, exploration expenditure has also shifted focus, from greenfield to mine site exploration.

    “if you go back into the ’90s, even the early 2000s, generative, purely generative exploration, looking for new deposits. That was actually the preferred place to put your money,” explained Murphy.

    “That has shifted greatly, so much so it’s now the least preferred. People are exploring their mines. They’re exploring assets with resources already proven, and they are moving further and further away from doing generative exploration.”

    According to Murphy, greenfield exploration dropped significantly in 2024, raising concerns about long-term supply, particularly for copper, where major new discoveries have slowed. Gold has long focused on mine site exploration, while lithium and uranium, as younger commodities, are targeting assets with proven but undeveloped resources.

    With financing challenges persisting in 2025 and market uncertainty growing, exploration budgets are expected to shrink further, except possibly for gold amid policy shifts.

    Capital investment and supply growth

    To ensure the long-term success of the energy transition and mineral pipeline, most presenters and panelists at PDAC agreed that capital investment is imperative.

    During a lithium panel discussion, the vast amount of lithium needed for the electric vehicles (EVs) and energy storage was underscored as a crucial indicator of the amount of CAPEX the sector needs in the years ahead.

    Lithium has been especially challenging, as the market swung into over supply in 2023 pushing prices down, also new technologies considered to still be in infancy are having issues ramping up output.

    Near-term lithium supply faces challenges as key projects, especially in China, Chile, and Africa, struggle with delays due to financing, environmental, and permitting issues, Siddarth Subramani, director of lithium at Hatch told PDAC attendees.

    He added that many projects are also ramping up slower than expected due to the industry’s lack of maturity.

    In Argentina, lithium production is expected to grow from 75,000 tons to 300,000 metric tons by 2027, but technical and execution challenges could hinder this. A significant supply gap may emerge, pushing prices higher, but not enough to drive long-term production expansion.

    A similar tone was struck during the Benchmark Summit, an event that coincides with PDAC. The day-long symposium focused on the supply chain of raw materials needed for the energy transition.

    Increasing copper production will be pivotal in achieving global carbon reduction goals, as well as ensuring the energy transition can continue its implementation rate. To meet this demand, the globally diversified miner is looking to Latin America, especially Argentina and Chile, which represents a significant growth opportunity for copper supply in the coming years if the supportive policy environment continues.

    During his address to Benchmark Summit guests, Tony Power, CEO of Anglo American’s (LSE:AAL,OTCQX:AAUKF) Peruvian operations, highlighted the growth potential Anglo’s Los Bronces asset in Chile possesses, describing it as the ‘gift that keeps giving.”

    As Anglo works to expand the asset through underground development, Power was also forthcoming with the challenges that are facing the copper sector.

    “It’s not getting cheaper to make copper mines. It’s getting more and more expensive,” said Power. “So the only way to offset that is the price of copper to go up to be able to sustain that capital investment.”

    The impact of AI

    While financing and supplying the energy transition were obvious themes, the unexpected demand forecasted by AI data centers and generative technologies emerged as an equally important focus at the world’s largest mining-centric conference.

    The world’s growing adoption of AI paired with mass electrification are projected to push electricity demand up by 80 percent by 2050, a factor many energy transition reports did not take into consideration.

    Getting ahead of this demand several tech companies penned nuclear power agreements deals in 2024. While the headline making deals brought attention to the nuclear sector, little attention was paid to the required upstream growth needed to supply U3O8 to those reactors.

    Per Jander, director of Nuclear Fuel at WMC underscored the magnitude of nuclear energy needed to meet the ever growing global electricity demand.

    Unlike traditional data centers, AI facilities require immense power and advanced cooling systems, such as liquid cooling, due to their high-intensity computing needs. This sector is still in its early stages, yet demand is already surging, with AI operations consuming 50 terawatt-hours annually, explained Jander.

    “Then 100 terawatt hours by 2027,” he said, adding that he got that figure from Deepseek. “So it comes from itself.”

    Additionally, Jander also asked several AI assistants which energy source they preferred.

    “Three out of four said I want fusion,” said Jander, noting he didn’t limit the AI to specific energy types. “But one … said that (it) wanted to use nuclear power.”

    Uranium isn’t the only sector expected to see a demand spike from the AI data center proliferation.

    Noting that electrification is already pushing copper towards deficit, Micheal Meding, VP and GM at McEwen Copper (TSX:MUX,NYSE:MUX) believes AI electricity needs could tip that scale further.

    “Data centers require huge amounts of copper and require a lot of energy, that energy needs to be generated and transported,” he said during a copper panel discussion at the Benchmark Summit. “So I think we haven’t really understood how much of this metal is going to be needed in the future.”

    Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Greenland’s pro-business Demokraatit opposition party won Tuesday’s closely-watched parliamentary election with 29.9% of the vote, according to official results.

    US President Donald Trump’s idea to annex the territory has thrown an international spotlight on the election and raised questions about the island’s future security as the United States, Russia and China vie for influence in the Arctic.

    All the dominant parties in Greenland, a Danish autonomous region rich in oil and gas, agree on the desire for independence from Denmark.

    Demokraatit takes a slower approach to the question of independence that has loomed over this election, according to Reuters.

    The ousted ruling democratic socialist party, Inuit Ataqatigiit, view independence it as a long-term project requiring years of negotiation with Denmark and further economic improvement.

    The main opposition party Naleraq – which has campaigned to sever ties with Denmark more quickly and wants to pursue a defense agreement with the US – fell behind in the polls, winning 24.5% of the vote, results showed.

    Denmark ruled Greenland as a colony until 1953, when the island achieved greater powers of self-governance. Then, in 2009, it gained more powers pertaining to minerals, policing and courts of law. But Denmark still controls security, defense, foreign and monetary policy. Greenland also benefits from Denmark’s European Union and NATO memberships.

    Greenland holds elections every four years, with 31 seats in parliament at stake. With Tuesday’s results, the previous two-party coalition – Inuit Ataqatigiit and the Siumut party – is expected to lose their parliamentary majority, Reuters reported. They won a combined 36.1% of the vote, down from 66.1% in 2021.

    Trump rhetoric

    In almost every election in recent years, Greenland’s politicians have promised to take steps to achieve autonomy. None of them have offered a concrete timeline, though.

    But Trump’s aggressive stance has actually given the Arctic territory more bargaining power with Denmark, analysts say, and kicked the independence movement into high gear.

    A poll in January, commissioned by Danish and Greenlandic newspapers, found that 85% of Greenlanders did not want to become part of the US, with nearly half saying Trump’s interest was a threat, Reuters reported.

    “I strongly believe that we will very soon start to live a life more based on who we are, based on our culture, based on our own language, and start to make regulations based on us, not based on Denmark,” said Naleraq candidate Qupanuk Olsen, according to Reuters.

    While Greenlandic politicians have repeatedly signaled that they’re uninterested in annexation, they are open to deals with the United States for rare earth mining, expanding tourism, stronger diplomatic connections and other investments.

    The United States already has a military base in the Arctic Circle in far northwest Greenland.

    This post appeared first on cnn.com

    An elected leader once dubbed “The Punisher” is on his way to The Hague to face trial for crimes against humanity during a brutal war on drugs, in a breathtaking reversal of fortune for a politician who once openly boasted about killing people and placing opponents on hit lists.

    Rodrigo Duterte ran the Philippines for six turbulent years, during which he oversaw a brutal crackdown on drugs, openly threatened critics with death and tongue-lashed a host of global leaders from the Pope to former US President Barack Obama.

    A former prosecutor, congressman and mayor, Duterte built his no-holds-bared reputation in the southern Philippine city of Davao. He swept to the presidency in 2016 on a populist – and popular – promise to replicate the hardline tactics of his hometown and wage war against drugs and drug pushers across the Southeast Asian nation.

    “All of you who are into drugs, you sons of b**ches, I will really kill you,” he told a huge crowd in one of his many characteristically profane-laced 2016 campaign speeches. “I have no patience, I have no middle ground. Either you kill me or I will kill you idiots.”

    Once in power he unleashed what rights groups called “death squads” to eradicate drug pushers – many of the victims young men from impoverished shanty towns, shot by police and rogue gunmen as part of a campaign to target dealers.

    Police data said 6,000 people were killed. Some rights groups say the death toll could be as high as 30,000 with innocents and bystanders often caught in the crossfire.

    Duterte’s blood-soaked presidency ended in 2022. Three years later, only 8 policemen had been convicted for 5 of the victims killed in the war on drugs, according to court documents.

    The ICC launched an investigation into allegations of “crimes against humanity” committed by Duterte during both his time as national leader and mayor of Davao.

    Duterte has long denied the accusations of human rights abuses and contends the drug issue is one for domestic law enforcement. He has repeatedly said he will not kowtow to foreign jurisdiction and taunted the ICC, urging prosecutors to “hurry up” and move on him.

    Two days before his arrest, he slammed the ICC in a typically fiery speech to supporters in Hong Kong.

    “From my own news, I have a warrant…from the ICC or something… these motherf***ers have been chasing me for a long time. What did I do wrong ?” he said.

    A sudden arrest

    But the tide had suddenly turned. Authorities were waiting for Duterte to return from Hong Kong, and arrested him at the main airport in Manila, sparking chaotic scenes.

    As the news filtered out, many were left in shock.

    Some flocked to churches in the majority Catholic country to attend impromptu mass to commemorate the thousands of victims of his drug war, seeing the move as a first step towards overdue justice.

    And just before midnight, Duterte was back on a plane – this time bound for the Netherlands what appeared to be a stunning end to stormy and violent stint at the top of Philippine politics.

    Why now?

    The arrest likely owes more to Duterte being on the wrong side of a feud between two of the Philippine’s most high-profile families than the might of the ICC, which cannot carry out arrests on its own and relies on the cooperation of national governments to execute warrants

    Duterte’s clan was previously in an alliance with the famed Marcos political dynasty, with his daughter his daughter Sara Duterte-Carpio serving as deputy to current President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

    But in recent months the alliance collapsed, descending into public tirades and name-calling.

    In October, Duterte-Carpio aired a litany of grievances against the president in a two-hour livestreamed press conference, saying she “wanted to chop his head off.”

    Then she said in an online news conference on November 23 that she had contracted an assassin to kill Marcos, his wife and Romualdez if she were killed, a threat she warned wasn’t a joke.

    Marcos had said the Philippines will “disengage” from any contact with the ICC, as Manila does not recognize its authority over matters of national sovereignty.

    That’s because Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the court in 2019.

    But under the ICC’s withdrawal mechanism, the court keeps jurisdiction over crimes committed during the membership period of a state.

    But President Marcos said he was obliged to follow Interpol’s request to arrest Duterte.

    “Interpol asked for help, and we obliged because we have commitments to the Interpol, which we have to fulfil. If we don’t do that, they will not, they will no longer help us with other cases involving Filipino fugitives abroad,” Marcos said in a late-night presser after the plane carrying Duterte took off.

    What comes next?

    Carlos Conde, a Philippines researcher for Human Rights Watch (HRW) Conde said Duterte’s swift arrest and removal was a “pleasant surprise” that caught also a lot of people off guard.

    “But there is this mixed feeling of joy and hope and anxiety because we do not exactly know where this will end up to what will be the outcome. Will there really be accountability?” said Parong, who is also co-chair of the Philippine Coalition for the ICC (PCICC).

    But she cautioned it would be an excruciatingly long road to justice.

    “It is time consuming. It will take years before there will be a conviction at the International Criminal Court. The waiting is really difficult for the victims and the families of the victims of the bloody war on drugs.”

    What is the ICC?

    Located in The Hague in the Netherlands, the ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and crimes of aggression against the territory of its member states, of which there are 125.

    Duterte’s arrest and transfer is a significant victory for the body. The court cannot carry out arrests on its own and relies on the cooperation of national governments to execute warrants – which often rests on domestic politics and political will on whether to follow through.

    Many of those on its wanted list remain at large, unruffled by the serious charges laid against them.

    The court has been rounded on by the United States for seeking the arrests of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for Israel’s military actions in Gaza following Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack.

    The ICC simultaneously sought the arrests of top Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, who was later killed.

    Neither the US nor Israel are members of the ICC.

    The court has also issued a warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for his invasion of Ukraine, although it is unlikely the warrant will be served any time soon. Putin travelled to ICC member Mongolia last year, but was not arrested.

    This post appeared first on cnn.com

    Armed groups killed entire families, including women and children, during an outbreak of sectarian violence in Syria last week, the United Nations’ human rights office said on Tuesday.

    The bloodshed in the coastal heartland of former ruler Bashar al-Assad saw more than 800 people killed in clashes between armed groups loyal to the toppled dictator and forces loyal to the new Syrian regime, according to a war monitor.

    Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCR) spokesperson Thameen Al-Kheetan said the agency had documented at least 111 killings, though the number was believed to be far higher.

    “Some survivors told us that many men were shot dead in front of their families,” Al-Kheetan told a regular press briefing in Geneva, adding that many of the “summary executions” targeted members of the Alawite minority.

    The Assad family, which ruled Syria for more than half a century, are members of the minority Shiite Muslim sect, which lives predominantly in Sunni-majority Syria.

    Al-Kheetan said the killings “appear to have been carried out on a sectarian basis, in Tartus, Latakia and Hama governorates – reportedly by unidentified armed individuals, members of armed groups allegedly supporting the caretaker authorities’ security forces.”

    “In a number of extremely disturbing instances, entire families – including women, children and individuals hors de combat – were killed, with predominantly Alawite cities and villages targeted in particular,” he said.

    The United Kingdom-based Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) said on Tuesday that among the 803 killed, “non-state armed groups” loyal to Assad were responsible for the deaths of 383 people, including 172 members of state security forces and 211 civilians.

    The men abducted Mousa and he was found five hours later lying in the street with gunshot wounds to his chest and abdomen, the relative said. Mousa died in hospital the next day, they said.

    Throughout Assad’s rule, the Alawite sect became increasingly linked, in the eyes of his opponents, to the atrocities committed by his regime during the Syrian civil war.

    Interim Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, who once led the al Qaeda-linked group that toppled Assad late last year, has previously promised political equality and representation to the various sects of Syria’s diverse ethnic and religious populations.

    The caretaker authorities announced the end of security operations in the coastal areas on March 10, but intermittent clashes continue to be reported.

    Sharaa has blamed the violence on the remains of Assad’s forces, claiming they were trying to incite sectarian strife.

    On Sunday, Sharaa said his government would hold accountable anyone involved in the deaths of civilians during the heavy fighting. Sharaa had previously described the violence as “expected challenges.”

    Syria’s interim government has vowed to form an independent committee to investigate the violence and submit a report to the presidency within 30 days.

    This post appeared first on cnn.com