When the spender isn't a person

 by Monty Donohew

In February, Coinbase Developer Platform released Agentic Wallets, infrastructure built specifically so that AI agents can hold funds, spend them, trade them, and earn yield on their own, without a human clicking “approve” on each transaction.

 

The system runs on x402, a payments protocol Coinbase introduced in 2025 that lets software send and receive money directly, modeled on an old and mostly unused piece of the internet’s plumbing: the HTTP “402 Payment Required” status code, sitting dormant in web standards for decades until someone finally built the machinery to use it.

 

An agent wallet comes with programmable spending caps and an audit trail, installable in minutes through a command-line tool. There’s no login, no recovery phrase taped to a monitor. There is a piece of software with a bank balance and permission to spend it.

By June, according to blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis, agentic payments running through this system on Coinbase’s Base network had crossed 100 million transactions in roughly nine months. Most of it is small: nearly all of that transaction volume consists of payments under a few dollars, machines buying data, compute, or access to other machines’ services, one micropayment at a time. Chainalysis also found, though, that transfers of $1 or more had come to account for 95 percent of the value moved.  The x402 protocol itself now sits under Linux Foundation governance, with Coinbase, Cloudflare, and Stripe among its backers.  

This is no fringe experiment. It’s becoming plumbing.

CEO Brian Armstrong has been quite candid about the reasoning behind it. His argument, made repeatedly and in public, is that banks cannot serve AI agents because traditional finance requires identity verification, and a piece of software cannot produce a government ID or a Social Security number.

Crypto wallets, by contrast, can be created and funded by code in seconds, with no identity check required.

Armstrong’s conclusion follows in a straight line: banks are structurally excluded from this market, so crypto becomes the default rail for an entire category of financial actor that didn’t exist five years ago. He has said directly that he expects the agentic economy to “eventually transact far more per day than all humans combined.”

It is worth stating what that argument actually is, apart from its technical merits: it is a description of regulatory arbitrage as a matter of technical necessity.

Banks exclude agents because agents cannot satisfy identity rules Congress wrote for humans.

Crypto doesn’t ask. Framed that way, calling crypto “the default rail” mostly describes where regulation hasn’t caught up yet.

Set aside for a moment whether Armstrong’s larger prediction is right. Assume it’s even half right.

What does it mean for a financial system built, from the ground up, around the assumption that money moves at the direction of a legal person?  

Suppose an agent front-runs a market, drains a counterparty through a manipulated smart contract, or launders proceeds through a chain of other agents faster than any compliance officer can flag the pattern.

Who answers for it? The model vendor, perhaps, if the conduct can be traced to a design choice rather than to behavior nobody anticipated.

Maybe the person who wrote the prompt and set the spending limits, if they can be found and if a court decides that setting a limit is the same thing as authorizing everything within it.

Or Coinbase, since it holds the keys and built the rails the agent moved on.

The protocol itself, which answers to a foundation, not to a chartered bank or a licensed money transmitter.

Or no one at all, because the entire point of the system was to let the payment clear without a human in the loop to hold responsible.

Every one of those answers is plausible. None of them has been tested in a courtroom, because the case that would test it hasn’t happened yet.

Speed is the product. Review is the casualty.

Congress has not resolved this, because Congress has barely begun to ask the question. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, still moving through the legislative process, was drafted for a world where the customer buying and selling crypto is a person or a firm. Armstrong himself said publicly, when the bill was headed to markup, that Coinbase couldn’t support it as written, and that was before agentic wallets existed as a live product moving real transaction volume.

Be clear that this is not a call to halt the technology. Machine-to-machine payments solve a real problem, and the market clearly wants them badly enough to have pushed volume past a hundred million transactions in under a year. It is a call to notice that the infrastructure has outrun the legal categories meant to govern it, and that this gap will not close itself.  

Regulators tend to write rules in response to a crisis that has already happened. The honest question raised by Agentic Wallets is whether anyone is willing to write the rules before the crisis, for once, rather than after it,  while accountability can still be designed into the system rather than reconstructed from the wreckage of a case nobody saw coming.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/08/when-the-spender-isn-t-a-person/

What Happened To The So-Called AI Job Apocalypse?

 by Joe Bertolami via RealClearMarkets,

A recent report from Stanford reviewed the latest employment data and found that, so far, AI has not resulted in large scale job destruction. Meanwhile, new hiring data from the Economic Times reveals that AI is actively fueling unprecedented job creation, with AI skills now powering nearly two-thirds of new Global Capability Center hiring. Together, these recent dispatches from the front lines of the labor market point to a calming reality: the much-dreaded AI job apocalypse hasn't materialized as a sudden extinction event.

The (sometimes buried) lede: AI is delivering real impact, and it is broadly changing the nature of work. But disruption is not a new phenomenon. The economy has always dismantled old work to build new work. What determines whether this evolution feels like progress or collapse isn't just the number of jobs lost, it's the speed at which that loss hits the labor market.

In 1995, Bill Gates circulated a memo titled "The Internet Tidal Wave," calling the web the most important computing development since the IBM PC. If the internet was a tidal wave, artificial intelligence is a tsunami. It is arguably the biggest advancement in computing since the Turing machine. Yet, from a distance, it's difficult to appreciate the speed of this wave, leading many to wonder when the broader economy will truly feel its impact.

To put this in context, we must understand the historical pattern already visible in the labor market. Combining decades of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Reserve yields a remarkably consistent story of overlapping curves: job loss and job creation. Over the last two decades, nearly 20 million U.S. jobs vanished in disrupted sectors. Over the same period, total payrolls grew by 25.7 million. That equates to roughly 1.3 new jobs for every one destroyed. Classic examples include jobs in video rentals (-98.9%) and word processing (-83%) which largely vanished, but new work sprung up at the same time in areas like data processing (+54%) and warehousing (+260%) to support the digital economy.

The data also reveals an early signal that separates an absorbable decline from a brutal collapse: the disruption half-life, or how long an occupation takes to lose half its peak employment. Across the largest technological disruptions of the last few decades, the median half-life is about 10 years. Fast disruptions, like photo processing, take one to five years. Typical disruptions take eight to 13 years. And time is the ultimate shock absorber. When the economy transitions over ten years it feels like progress rather than a fast collapse, because it gives older workers time to retire and younger workers time to prepare.

If we track the most AI-exposed occupations-customer-service reps, IT support, telemarketers-since modern LLMs arrived in 2022, the early data is measured. After three years the current disruption looks closer to "typical" than a fast collapse, even before discounting the effects of offshoring, automation, and post-COVID corrections. This is Amara's Law playing out in real time: we tend to overestimate the effect of technology in the short run and underestimate it in the long run. The dire early warnings have given way to more cautious rhetoric. In 2025, Anthropic's Dario Amodei warned AI could erase half of entry-level white-collar jobs within five years. By 2026, he and OpenAI's Sam Altman are emphasizing productivity, economic growth, and the continued demand for human labor.

However, looking solely at total employment numbers masks a dangerous structural threat. Current evidence does not foretell the end of human labor, but AI is quietly breaking the mechanism by which we create experienced workers.

Software engineering is the canary in the coal mine. By most aggregate measures, employment looks stable; unemployment held at 4.2% in June 2026, and groups like the Yale Budget Lab find no clear AI effect yet on exposed occupations' absolute job totals. But the composition is shifting underneath our feet. Per AP and Oxford Economics, junior developer postings are down roughly 40% in four years. Employment for 22-to-27-year-old computer and math grads has fallen 8% since 2022, even as older grads in the same fields have edged up. This same erosion is surfacing wherever entry-level work once meant routine tasks: paralegals, junior analysts, and first-line support.

The paradox is that these industries keep growing even as their entry-level doors narrow. The BLS still projects software developers and QA analysts to grow 15% through 2034. But that projection relies on a pipeline that turns juniors into senior talent-precisely the pipeline now being choked off.

The reason lies in the nature of the work. Software development is a process of judgement and accountability: deciding what to build, executing it, and owning the result. AI is fluent at the middle layer-the well-specified, routine coding that once served as a junior's apprenticeship. But it remains far weaker at the judgment required on either side. The tasks AI automates are precisely the ones juniors were hired to learn on.

This is not merely an academic concern; it is a capital allocation problem. Misjudge the speed of disruption and you risk premature layoffs followed by a scramble to rehire, or funding the transition years too late, leaving you with a critical talent shortage when the leadership pipeline runs dry.

The challenge of the next decade isn't surviving the end of work. It is training the next generation of experts when the traditional paths to apprenticeship no longer exist. And businesses are beginning to realize this new reality as demand for AI continues to grow. IBM is tripling its entry-level hiring, redesigning those roles around the oversight of AI and systems thinking rather than cutting them. Rebuilding the entry-level on-ramp is now a competitive imperative.

Junior roles are not charity; they are talent capex. If AI creates more work than it destroys, companies will still need people who know how to run it, judge it, and fix it. AI may be the broadest technology yet, but that breadth is its best reason for optimism. A general-purpose technology seeds new work across every sector. The firms that recognize this, protect their entry-level pipelines, and keep training now are the ones who will own the senior labor market later.

Joe Bertolami is the Co-Founder and CTO at Clifton AI, an agentic context engine for investment research. Previously at Snap, Google, and Microsoft, with a couple of startups in between. He holds an M.B.A. from the University of Washington and likes using AI to write code, stories, and music, which he posts at https://www.bertolami.com.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/what-happened-so-called-ai-job-apocalypse

US Steps Up Africa Push As China Expands Economic, Security Footprint

 by Arthur Zhang via The Epoch Times,

The Trump administration says it has helped close 37 commercial deals worth $25.67 billion in Africa as Washington moves to compete with a much larger Chinese economic footprint across the continent.

"China continues to flood Africa with exports," Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Frank Garcia told Fox News in an interview published Aug. 27.

Garcia said Chinese state-subsidized overcapacity threatens local industries and has left African countries exposed to debt and economic coercion.

China's General Administration of Customs recorded approximately $348.1 billion in two-way goods trade with African nations in 2025. Chinese exports accounted for about $225 billion, while imports from Africa totaled about $123 billion.

U.S. goods trade with Africa was about $83.35 billion last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Pressure on African Manufacturers

Chinese imports have already hurt manufacturers in parts of Africa.

A 2025 study published in Energy Economics found that Chinese import competition reduced productivity among African manufacturers, with particularly pronounced effects on small and medium-sized firms facing financial and electricity constraints.

Research published in International Affairs in November 2025 found that more than 400 Chinese-owned manufacturers registered operations in Ghana between 2004 and 2024 as some private Chinese companies shifted from trade toward local production.

In South Africa, Chery Auto inaugurated the former Nissan plant in Rosslyn in July after acquiring it. The Chinese automaker plans to begin production there in mid-2027.

Chinese investment has also generated resentment in some communities. Chinese rights activist Jie Lijian, who spent more than seven months traveling overland through Africa in 2019 while fleeing the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) persecution en route to the United States, told the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times in October 2020 that he repeatedly encountered complaints about Chinese companies.

In Ethiopia, Jie said police officers who initially mistook him for a Chinese company employee complained that Chinese businesses had polluted water and air and harmed livestock.

Local resistance has also at times turned violent.

In October 2024, residents of Konkoï in Guinea protested against Chinese-owned Hongxing Mining Guinea SARL over alleged damage to farmland and the local environment. Guinean and regional reports said two people died after security forces intervened, including a young man who was shot and a child who inhaled tear gas. The local prefect said at the time the company was operating legally and paying taxes, according to Guinea-based online news platform Guineematin.

Minerals Become a US Security Issue

Critical minerals are an area where China's dominant control directly impacts U.S. national security.

U.S. Africa Command's (AFRICOM) 2026 posture statement states Beijing is using investments in African mining, infrastructure, and transportation to secure critical minerals and strategic infrastructure.

The command singled out graphite.

"Beijing dominates 90 percent of battery-grade graphite processing," AFRICOM said.

The command called that concentration a "structural vulnerability" for the U.S. defense industrial base.

Separately, a 2026 U.S. Geological Survey report put China at 79 percent of natural graphite production, along with 98 percent of primary refined gallium, 83 percent of mined tungsten, and 68 percent of mined rare earths.

The United States is trying to build alternative supply routes.

The Washington-backed Lobito Corridor is designed to link the copper belt in Congo and Zambia to Angola's Atlantic port at Lobito.

Bernard Swanepoel, chairman of South Africa's African Exploration Mining and Finance Corp., told The Epoch Times in July 2025, "Judging from how often he mentions it, copper is central to Trump's ambitions."

He pointed to the Washington-backed Lobito Corridor.

Former Zambian Mines Minister Paul Chongo Kabuswe also told The Epoch Times at the time that China had pledged to invest $5 billion in Zambia's copper industry by 2031, including $800 million in one mine. He said Zambia was also discussing more U.S. investment with the Trump administration.

"Just because we have Chinese interest here doesn't mean we don't want United States companies here," Kabuswe said.

Armed Groups and Mining Security

In some mining regions, Chinese-linked operations have also become entangled with armed groups.

In the Central African Republic, the mining minister revoked three exploitation permits held by Chinese mining company Daqing SARL in June 2024. A 2025 U.N. Panel of Experts report said government sources found that the company had mined without authorization, interacted with armed group members, and brought unauthorized foreign workers to the site.

A July 2016 Global Witness investigation found that Chinese-owned Kun Hou Mining paid $4,000 and supplied two AK-47 rifles to Raia Mutomboki, armed factions in eastern Congo, in 2014 and 2015 to secure access to gold deposits.

Global Witness said a February 2015 letter from four Raia Mutomboki factions confirmed receipt of the money and rifles. The group also reported that Kun Hou supplied armed factions with communications equipment and food.

Chinese companies have also used overseas security contractors to protect commercial operations.

A Chinese security contractor in Sudan told the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times in April 2023 that his work included preparing security plans and supervising foreign security personnel.

Huaxin Zhong'an Security Group, a Beijing-based Chinese private security company, stated in a corporate news release in March 2022 that retired military personnel accounted for 100 percent of its overseas security employees.

Huaxin Zhong'an has hired more than 1,000 armed guards in host countries for overseas projects, and its overseas Communist Party organization helped select, vet, train, and manage security personnel sent abroad, according to a separate March 2022 statement.

Beijing Expands Military and Political Training

China is also expanding military, police, and political training in Africa.

Under the Forum on China - Africa Cooperation Beijing Action Plan for 2025-2027, Beijing pledged a 1 billion yuan ($140 million) military grant, training for 6,000 African military personnel and 1,000 police and law-enforcement officers, and visits to China for 500 young African officers.

At least 50 African countries regularly take part in Chinese professional military education, according to Paul Nantulya of the U.S. Defense Department's Africa Center for Strategic Studies.

In an October 2023 analysis, Nantulya wrote that African officers attending Chinese military schools are exposed to the CCP model of political control over the People's Liberation Army, including political commissars and the principle that the armed forces answer to the ruling party.

In a May 2023 report, the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, an institution under the U.S. Department of War and part of the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., said a South African police unit sent to China's People's Armed Forces Academy for training in 2016 was later illegally deployed into the country's top security agencies as a "hit squad" to intimidate and assassinate political rivals.

The CCP has expanded political training as well.

The Mwalimu Julius Nyerere Leadership School in Tanzania trains cadres from six Southern African ruling parties. In a November 2023 report, the Africa Center said CCP Central Party School instructors participated in the school's programs, which included party recruitment, management, administration, mass mobilization, leadership, and propaganda systems. The center said in 2025 that the school remained part of Beijing's expanding party-training network in Africa.

Ports and Strategic Access

AFRICOM is also watching Chinese-built and Chinese-controlled infrastructure for potential military use.

China operates its overseas military base in Djibouti, near the entrance to the Red Sea.

AFRICOM's 2026 posture statement said Beijing's investments in transportation infrastructure can support a persistent security presence.

In a response to The Epoch Times, a U.S. Africa Command spokesperson said AFRICOM leadership has "consistently warned" that Beijing is trying to expand its military footprint beyond Djibouti and establish a permanent naval presence or dual-use port facility on Africa's Atlantic coast, particularly in the Gulf of Guinea.

The spokesperson said AFRICOM is also tracking Beijing's efforts to gain access to African natural resources and to control critical minerals, infrastructure, and key sea lines of communication.

"The United States delivers enduring value as a partner of choice with capabilities only we can provide," the spokesperson said, adding that Washington's approach is based on transparency, respect for sovereignty, and mutual prosperity.

The State Department and the African Union did not respond to inquiries for further information by publication time.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-steps-africa-push-china-expands-economic-security-footprint

The Monumental Mistake Of Raising Rates In September

  by Daniel Lacalle,

Three members of the Federal Open Market Committee voted to raise rates in July. However, the Committee held the federal funds target at 3.5%-3.75% by a 9-3 vote. Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, and J.P. Morgan all expect a September hike. Across the Atlantic, the European Central Bank raised rates by 25 basis points in June and is expected to raise them again in September.

It would be a monumental mistake. The diagnosis is wrong on both sides of the Atlantic. There is no overheating, no private credit excess, and no runaway private money creation. In fact, what we have is imported temporary energy shock and a fiscal problem. Raising rates will not solve any of those issues and punish those who did not cause the persistent inflation problem.

The United States grew at an annual rate of 1.5% in the second quarter, slightly down from 2.1% in the first. Federal spending is flat. Nonfarm payrolls fell by 23,000 in July, and annual job creation is lower than the potential of the economy. This is not an overheated economy with a credit boom and a red-hot labor market that would justify a rate hike.

The European situation is not just worse. It is abysmal. Euro area GDP rose 0.4% in the second quarter, but Ireland’s 3.9% quarterly increase inflated that figure. Excluding Ireland, growth was just 0.3%. Using Irish modified domestic demand, the measure the ECB itself considers closer to real activity, euro area growth is barely 0.1% in the second quarter, estimated at 0.1% in the third, and 0.2% in the fourth, according to Eurosystem projections from June 2026. Germany, France, and Italy each grew 0.2% after a 0.2% contraction for the bloc in the first quarter. The Eurosystem projects a dreadful 0.8% for 2026, and the European Commission expects 0.9%, which was revised down. Unemployment stands at 6.3% with 11.1 million out of work, according to Eurostat.

The U.S. business lending boom has already moderated. Commercial and industrial loans grew at a 15.8% annualized pace in April, 10.8% in May, 4.0% in June, and minus 1.1% in July, according to the Federal Reserve. In the euro area, the ECB’s July survey on bank lending reports that credit standards tightened for firms on higher perceived risks, most severely in the car industry and energy-intensive manufacturing, while household loan demand fell. Tightening is already happening without central banks making it worse.

The ECB’s own monetary statistics, published this week, demolish the overheating thesis. Broad money M3 grew 3.4% annually in July, up from 3.3% in June, averaging 3.2% over three months, while M1 decelerated to 3.1% from 3.5%. With real GDP up 1.0% year on year and a deflator near 3%, money is growing at or below the pace of nominal GDP. Adjusted loans to households rose 3.1% and to non-financial corporations 4.4%. This increase is normalization after years of credit stagnation, not excess. Crucially, bank claims on euro area governments fell by 0.5%.

Admittedly, U.S. money growth looks faster, as M2 reached $23.22 trillion in July, up 5.4% year on year, according to FRED, but this figure is below the historic trend in growth periods. Furthermore, we must look at where it comes from. It is not a private lending boom, as the H.8 data show. It is the reflection of a reserve regime accommodating a massive level of Treasury issuance. The Fed’s balance sheet still holds about $6.7 trillion in Reserve Bank credit, bank reserves are $2.94 trillion, and the overnight reverse repo facility has been drained to under $1 billion. The Federal Reserve Committee explicitly states it is “continuing its policy of maintaining ample reserves in the banking system.” The only excess is in the public sector, not the private one. Consumer spending decelerated in July and flatlined against inflation.

US headline CPI eased to 3.4% in July while core inflation fell to 2.5%, with energy prices up 14.7% over twelve months. Euro area inflation was 2.9% in July, but the breakdown says everything: energy plus 10.0%; the index excluding energy, 2.2%; food, alcohol, and tobacco, 1.2%; and non-energy industrial goods, just 0.9%, according to Eurostat. Both central banks attribute the spike to the Middle East conflict.

Hiking rates would solve nothing in the energy complex and would arrive just as oil prices correct themselves, which has been happening for the past weeks.

No interest rate has ever created a barrel of oil or a cubic meter of gas. Higher rates do not make energy cheaper. They just destroy demand for everything else.

Mortgage holders and small businesses would be penalized to offset a temporary imported cost shock they did not create.

Here is the biggest problem. Monetary tightening is being loaded onto families and small firms while every mechanism that disguises sovereign solvency stays intact. The ECB keeps the Transmission Protection Instrument available to intervene in government bond markets, and Eurosystem excess liquidity still stands at €2.1 trillion, according to the ECB. The Fed maintains ample reserves and a balance sheet nearly triple its pre-2008 size versus GDP. Sovereign risk spreads remain artificially compressed, so no government faces market discipline. Governments ignore rate hikes; they just push the cost to taxpayers and continue spending. Thus, the entire burden of rate hikes falls on the shoulders of the private sector that keeps the economy afloat despite suffering persistent inflation.

That is why a hike will not produce the inflation improvements that some people imagine. No government cuts spending because rates rise. Higher debt service does not deliver budget control, only higher taxes on the private sector. Therefore, central banks would only create a double punishment, more expensive or no access to credit, and even heavier taxation, with zero effect on energy prices.

If the Fed and the ECB genuinely want to control inflation, they must stop subsidizing government borrowing; shrink the balance sheet faster; drain reserves and excess liquidity; and remove the sovereign backstops, instead of dumping the adjustment on the people who create jobs and wealth.

A September hike would be tightening for the productive economy and reckless spending for the state. A textbook monumental mistake.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/monumental-mistake-raising-rates-september

Sunday talkies: Homan, Cruz, Mast, Emmer, Moody

 Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures”: Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla), Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), Sen. Ashley Moody (R-Fla.).

Fox News’s “Fox News Sunday”: Former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

NewsNation’s “The Hill Sunday”: Panel: Bill Sammon, Tal Kopan and Michelle Price.

ABC News’s “This Week”: Ontario Premier Doug Ford.

CBS News’s “Face the Nation”: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Rep. John James (R-Mich.).

CNN’s “State of the Union”: Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Border czar Tom Homan.

NBC News’s “Meet the Press”: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.).

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/6059207-sunday-shows-trump-gop-economic-tensions-foreign-relations/