Skip to content

2026-08-28 ATS briefing

A Great Rebalancing Is Coming

Ref: A1 Item-ID: article-a4f1e51f90 Source: Foreign Affairs

Pettis's historical ledger is brutally consistent: of the six major imbalance episodes he catalogues, five ended in crisis, and the one that didn't required the unusual condition of capital controls directing borrowed funds into genuinely productive investment. The current configuration lacks that condition entirely. China, Germany, and a handful of others run persistent surpluses; the United States absorbs them by running the world's largest deficit, financing it with rising debt that Pettis argues will surface as either unemployment or insolvency.

The analytical core is the distribution of adjustment costs, and here Pettis is refreshingly unsentimental about power. China is the most vulnerable, burdened by high debt relative to productivity and a growth model that depends on suppressing household consumption to feed export industries. The United States has the most capacity to reduce its exposure, because its currency and financial system let it export inflation and force others to absorb the contraction. Europe holds latent power but lacks the institutional coherence to deploy it. Each player's self-protective manoeuvres, from Beijing's resistance to income redistribution to Washington's tariff threats, will not reduce the aggregate cost of the coming adjustment. They only determine who eats the loss.

The 1920s parallel is the sharpest. Then, as now, a productivity surge that did not translate into rising wages produced enormous surpluses, protectionist escalation, and ultimately a collapse in global trade that hit the surplus economy hardest. The United States absorbed a disproportionate share of Depression-era costs because its domestic debt had ballooned to fund consumption and speculation. The structural echo is uncomfortable: the country that appears strongest on the surface may be carrying the most fragile balance sheet underneath. Pettis's conclusion is not that crisis is inevitable, but that coordinated preemptive adjustment is politically impossible given the mutually incompatible diagnoses each power offers. The only open question is who bears the brunt when the rebalancing arrives by force rather than by design.

US nears deal to secure stake in Venezuelan oil fields, insiders say

Ref: A2 Item-ID: article-accca5e9be Source: Al Jazeera

The lease model under discussion is the giveaway. A lease implies ownership stays put while access is rented, which is the fiction Washington needs to square a US government stake in Venezuelan oilfields with a constitution that reserves the industry's core activities to the state. The legal workaround is the substance of the deal, not a technicality.

Seventeen fields spanning the Orinoco Belt's green acreage and Lake Maracaibo's mature wells, some currently run by a small Chinese firm contracted under Maduro, would be auctioned among US producers. The Chinese operator's presence is the awkward detail the headline omits: this is not just Washington extracting concessions from a defeated adversary, it is the active displacement of one foreign claimant by another. Inter-imperialist rivalry here operates at the level of individual contracts, not grand strategy.

The domestic pressures driving the timeline are concrete. Midterm elections in November, petrol prices rising, a Strategic Petroleum Reserve left depleted after two military adventures and now too cash-strapped to refill itself. The reserve's funding shortages deserve attention: the US state cannot afford to stockpile the very commodity it is negotiating to secure. That is the measure of how far fiscal exhaustion has penetrated the security apparatus itself.

Venezuela's reported consideration of leaving OPEC, a founding member since 1960, would mark the formal end of an era. But the organisation has been hollowed out for years by quota-busting and the cartel's disciplinary power has long been more rhetorical than real. Caracas abandoning it signals less a geopolitical realignment than the simple recognition that the institution no longer serves a producer now tethered to a single buyer.

The constitutional challenges are real but unlikely to bite. Courts can rule, but the occupying power writes the appeals process.

Is China Really a Champion of the Global South?

Ref: A3 Item-ID: article-e710fc5b15 Source: Project Syndicate

Adekeye Adebajo, writing from Pretoria, cuts through the rhetoric of South-South solidarity to ask what China’s leadership of the Global South actually consists of. His answer is that Beijing’s embrace of the G77 and its “developing country” self-image serve a narrower purpose: consolidating its position inside an international system the United States built and is now vacating. China wants a larger share of the existing order, not a different one.

The framing is useful because it refuses the two lazy alternatives. China is neither the anti-imperialist saviour its own propaganda suggests, nor a straightforward new hegemon replicating Washington’s playbook. It is a revisionist power with a conservative programme. The Belt and Road Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS expansion: all of these operate within the institutional architecture of global capitalism, seeking to reweight it toward Beijing rather than transcend it. The Global South is a constituency to be mobilised, not a project to be built.

What Adebajo leaves implicit is the material basis for this posture. China’s overaccumulated capital needs outlets, and the Global South offers both markets and infrastructure contracts. Its state-led capitalism can absorb losses that private Western investors would not tolerate, which is what makes it attractive to governments tired of IMF conditionality. The debt traps are real, but so is the alternative they displace.

For the left, the lesson is uncomfortable. The US decline creates space, but the force filling it is another capitalist power with its own hierarchies. The class question does not disappear because the flag changes.

Hormuz transits still limited even as Iran, Oman near deal; carriers eye return to Suez route

Ref: A4 Item-ID: article-24a729c03f Source: Hellenic Shipping News

Five vessels through Hormuz on 25 August, all under the Iranian Unilateral Scheme, four of them shadow tankers. The strait that carries roughly a fifth of global oil consumption is being run as a toll gate for sanctioned cargo, with the IRGC turning back an Indian tanker that tried the Oman Corridor. Iran and Oman are reportedly close to a deal, but the Fars framing makes the condition explicit: Tehran reopens if Washington stops obstructing. The closure is a bargaining chip in a sanctions war, not a breakdown of order.

Container shipping has largely shrugged off Hormuz because less than 2% of its capacity transits there. The prize is Suez. MSC has announced a partial return, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are shifting Gemini services back through the Red Sea, and the Ocean Alliance is offering partial operations. Lars Jensen expects normalisation by end-2026, with some services still rounding Africa to absorb the excess capacity a full return would release. Rates sit at their highest since 2024, inflated by three years of Cape rerouting and bunker costs; a Suez reopening floods the market with ships and pushes them down.

The Houthis complicate the timeline. They have said they will keep attacking Saudi tankers through Bab el-Mandeb, which guards the Red Sea's southern entrance. A partial return can route around that specific threat, but full normalisation requires the Houthis to stand down, and nothing in their statement suggests they will. The industry is pricing in a return that depends on a ceasefire nobody has secured.

For the chemical sector, the stakes are concrete: polymers and TiO2 move in containers, so rate movements hit input costs directly. The wider point is that these chokepoints are political instruments, and the capacity glut waiting at Suez is capital overaccumulated in newbuildings during the crisis, now needing deployment.

Does generative AI save time at work?

Ref: A5 Item-ID: article-a20166acfa Source: FRED Blog

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is now tracking how much time generative AI saves American workers, and the numbers it publishes are almost absurdly small. By the second quarter of 2026, AI assistance had freed up 2.2 percent of work hours. That is the headline achievement after two years of the most hyped technology since the smartphone. The survey behind the tracker, run by Bick, Blandin and Deming, shows adoption broadening from 28.2 to 39.2 percent of employed adults, with assisted hours rising from 4.1 to 6.3 percent. The gap between those last two figures is the interesting part: workers are using the tools for roughly six percent of their hours but saving barely a third of that time. The productivity gain per assisted hour is vanishingly thin.

The Fed's framing treats this as a coherent story of gradual, real gains. It is a story told entirely through self-reported "time saved," which the authors concede is approximate. What the data actually suggests is that generative AI has been absorbed into the labour process without transforming it. Capital invested heavily in these tools on the promise of a productivity leap; what it has received is a rounding error in aggregate output. This is the familiar pattern of a new general-purpose technology in its early phase, but the direction of travel matters. If the productivity dividend stays this thin while adoption keeps climbing, the cost of AI infrastructure becomes a pure drain on surplus value, a form of overaccumulation in server farms rather than factories.

For workers, the survey's own categories obscure the real dynamic. "Time saved" is measured as hours freed, not as hours returned to the worker. The question the Fed does not ask is where those saved hours go. In the current balance of class forces, the answer is almost certainly into intensified work within the same shift, not into leisure or shorter days. The technology's promise of liberation and its actual function as a speed-up tool are the same data point read two ways.

Europe and the War in Ukraine

Ref: A6 Item-ID: article-7c92a1e21c Source: Project Syndicate

Four and a half years in, Joschka Fischer's warning to Europe is blunt: the continent's collection of small and middle powers is facing geopolitical extinction. The war in Ukraine has ceased to be a regional conflict and become the terrain on which the post-Cold War order is being settled, and Europe is not a principal in that settlement. It is the battlefield, the financier, and the anxious neighbour, but not the strategist.

Fischer's core argument rests on a simple arithmetic. Russia's economy, though battered, has been reorganised onto a permanent war footing, and Moscow calculates that time is on its side. Ukraine's Western backers, by contrast, are navigating electoral cycles, inflation, and war fatigue. The longer the attrition continues, the more the asymmetry favours the aggressor, not because Russia is winning militarily, but because the political sustainability of Western support is the real front line. Europe's problem is that it has outsourced its own security to the United States for seventy years, and now discovers that the American guarantee is conditional on European strategic relevance.

The uncomfortable truth Fischer gestures toward is that Europe's weakness is not a failure of will but a structural condition. A continent of nation-states, each with its own defence procurement, energy policy, and domestic politics, cannot generate the concentrated power that a single imperial state can. The EU's attempts at strategic autonomy have produced committees and summits, not divisions and deterrence. Meanwhile, the war has accelerated Germany's rearmament and Nordic NATO accession, but these are reactive adjustments, not a new European project.

What Fischer leaves implicit is the class dimension. The burden of this war of attrition falls on European workers through energy prices, inflation, and the diversion of public spending toward arms. The ruling classes of Europe are asking their populations to accept permanent sacrifice for a security architecture they did not build and cannot control. That is a combustible formula, and the coming years will test whether European solidarity survives contact with European inequality.

Ref: A7 Item-ID: article-586803a651 Source: Tempest

Trump's own legal machinery has become the clearest measure of his weakness, and the uneven outcomes across Prairieland and the big cities expose something the NSPM-7 decree could not legislate away: the regime can indict, but it cannot convict without the cooperation of the people it is trying to cow. In Prairieland, where the movement was thin, ten people drew 450 years for a demonstration that involved fireworks and vandalism. In LA, Chicago, and Minneapolis, where opposition ran deep into the working and middle classes, grand jurors and jurors simply refused to play their assigned parts. Prosecutors watched their cases collapse and dismissed them.

The contrast is a question of social weight, not legal strategy. A prosecution is only as strong as the political consensus that backs it, and Trump's consensus has evaporated. He gambled that the spectacle of federal power would demoralise the movement, but the indictments had the opposite effect: defendants who had never faced federal charges organised, defence committees formed, and the legal fight became another front of the same struggle. The regime's threat to "disband and uproot" the Left depended on isolating militants from their communities. Instead, the communities absorbed the blow.

Prairieland is the "true face of Trumpism" because the brutality worked there. It was the policy functioning as designed in a place with no countervailing force. The cities show that the same policy is unenforceable where the movement has roots. Fascist legalism is not invincible, but it is also not self-defeating. It wins where the Left is weak and loses where it is strong. The task is to build the kind of movement that turns every Prairieland into a Chicago.

Port congestion is getting worse in container shipping: who is responsible?

Ref: A8 Item-ID: article-80e57faabb Source: Hellenic Shipping News

Maersk’s CEO blames fifteen years of underinvestment in terminal capacity, and there is something in that, but Drewry’s data tells a more awkward story. Between 2019 and 2026, nine major ports expanded capacity by 21% while volumes grew 28%. That gap is real, yet it is not the product of neglect. Rotterdam actually closed a terminal in 2020. Terminal operators are behaving exactly as their ownership structures demand: they run assets at 90% utilisation because that is where the returns are, and they accept that a one-day disruption then costs a week to absorb. A 75% utilisation model would recover in two days, but it would also be a worse investment.

The congestion is therefore a feature of how the industry is financed, not a failure of foresight. Carriers are no different. Blank sailings and ad hoc extra loaders maximise returns on their own fleets while spiking the peaking factors that clog yards. Every actor in the chain optimises its own balance sheet, and the system-level cost shows up as waiting time. Global average berth waiting has nearly doubled since 2019, and the share of port time spent queuing rather than handling cargo has grown. Typhoons in China made week 32 worse, but the trend predates any single weather event.

Drewry’s conclusion is that no one will finance buffer capacity because no one can capture its value. That is the actual contradiction: resilience is a collective good in a supply chain built on individual cost minimisation. The question of who is responsible is therefore misdirected. The responsible parties are all of them, and none of them, because the structure rewards the behaviour that produces the congestion. For shippers and workers, the cost arrives as delay and unpredictability, but there is no actor inside the system with both the incentive and the power to change it.