This is the tragedy most families never see: a blessing delayed is often a blessing lost.

Money doesn’t carry the same power in every decade. Most families give it at the stage of life when it accomplishes the least. A dollar at 25 can change a destiny. A dollar at 55 barely moves the needle. //

Then there’s the confusion between “spoiling” and “equipping.” Spoiling is Cancun trips and Teslas for teenagers. Equipping is a down payment, cleared debt, or tools that create stability and responsibility. One creates softness; the other creates potential.

This fear sits beneath almost every hesitation. But money doesn’t create character; it exposes it. It amplifies what is already there. A grateful child grows with it. A disciplined child multiplies it. A foolish child reveals his foolishness, but at an age when the mistakes are still recoverable.

The danger isn’t giving. The danger is giving without guidance or waiting until bad habits have hardened. A young adult will waste less and learn far more with $10,000 at 23 than with $200,000 at 45. Early mistakes are small; late mistakes are catastrophic. What ruins a child isn’t generosity; it is handing real power to an undiscipled heart and walking away. //

Money needs structure, expectations, and accountability. Like fire, it warms the house when it is controlled, and it burns the whole thing down when it is not.

Because money is powerful, it must match the child you are actually raising, not some idea of fairness. Equal giving is not wisdom. Wise giving is. Some children can handle more. Some need guardrails. Some need coaching before capital. Some need smaller steps. Your job is not to divide everything evenly; it is to be a good steward of all that you have been blessed with.

And here is what most parents miss: by the time your child is 25, your authority is basically gone, but your influence is not. You cannot command an adult to avoid foolish debt, but you can position them to avoid it. You cannot force stability, but you can create the margin that makes stability possible.

Looking back, I wish I could shake my 20-something self by the shoulders and sternly say: “You are a financial fool. Your future will be here before you know it. Have you saved for it?” I wish I had practiced the discipline of living on only 70 percent of my income, leaving margin for 10 percent of my money for tithes, 10 percent for routine saving, and 10 percent for the unexpected — which could be good opportunities or bad experiences. But I would also say to my 20-something self: “The God you do not yet know or serve is fully trustworthy. One day soon you will learn that and begin worshiping Him. From that moment on, keep your eyes open for the needs He puts before you, for you will find there is immense joy in giving. The provision you will receive is not just for your consumption; it is for your investment in what carries into eternity.”

Funds in ‘Money Safe’ accounts are only available when customers appear for face-to-face verification

Andrew M. Bailey
National University of Singapore

I am a Professor of Philosophy at the National University of Singapore. I read, write, and teach classes in the humanities and social sciences. I was a founding faculty member at Yale-NUS College, where I taught for the duration of its existence. I am also a Senior Fellow with the Bitcoin Policy Institute and consult often with journalists and lawmakers on topics related to bitcoin, cryptocurrency, money, and society. //

My research is mostly about money, people, and God. My work on money with B. Rettler and C. Warmke, culminating in a monograph, aims to understand and evaluate bitcoin in a way that integrates philosophy, politics, and economics. Early articles in philosophy defend the view that we are living human animals (as opposed to, say, brains or luminous spiritual beings). More recent metaphysical work, culminating in two monographs, concerns our value as people and links between human nature and conceptions of the divine.

If you have money, you probably think about it a fair bit. And if you don't have money, you might think about it even more. In this module, we will think about money a lot. One goal of the module is to reach a clearer understanding of questions concerning money and its place in a well-lived life. But it is not just the questions and proposed answers (considered as theoretical problems) that are important. I also hope to see students grapple with the topic in a personal way, and to adjust their own opinions and practices in light of the experiences and evidence we uncover in the module.

This module lies at the intersection of philosophy, politics, and economics. It will therefore require engagement with both theoretical and empirical concepts, analysis, and arguments. Reading assignments will draw from recent philosophical articles, some literature (short stories) and relevant work in the social sciences.

But as is often the case when it comes to apocalyptic warnings related to climate change, real-world data doesn’t support the narrative.

In reality, the insurance industry, which provides coverage related to hurricanes, fires and other extreme events, is enjoying a streak of record profits. //

In the second half of 2025, things got even better, thanks in large part to hurricanes missing the United States for the first time in a decade.

S&P Market Intelligence announced of third quarter results, “For US P/C insurers, it just doesn’t get any better than this . . . the US property/casualty insurance industry had its best quarter in at least a quarter of a century—and maybe longer.”

The industry’s bountiful financial results of 2025 follow its most profitable year in at least a decade in 2024, according to the NAIC. //

Starting about a decade ago, the industry’s regulators began raising alarm about the possible effects of changes in climate on banking and finance. //

As far as the actual effects of changes in climate on expected annual losses in the insurance industry, Verisk, a catastrophe modeling firm long pre-dating the “climate risk” industry, estimates an annual impact of just 1%.

Insurance companies have spent many decades estimating risk. Perhaps regulators should allow them to come to their own conclusions, rather than insisting they use dodgy science and charge customers even more.

New York City singles need to earn a sizable $184,420 per year to live comfortably, new research has revealed. //

Using the 50/30/20 finance rule — 50% of spending for essentials, 30% for leisure, and 20% for savings — the researchers determined a salary of $92,210 was needed in New York City simply to get by living alone. The team then doubled that figure to determine their definition of “living comfortably.” //

Meanwhile, the most expensive American city in which to live comfortably is San Jose, per the GOBankingRates study.

Given that the average price of a single-family home is just over $1.5 million, mortgage costs are sky-high.

Lukas (computer) @SCHIZO_FREQ

Biggest "the kids are f**d" moment I've had recently was buying a car

Walked into the dealership, told them what I wanted and said I'd pay up-front. Expected them to be thrilled

Instead they were horrified. Spent the next 20 minutes trying to get me to finance it at some absurd rate

Got me curious so after I left I read about car sale profit models. Apparently most US dealerships make more financing now than from the cars themselves

I was such a boomer I assumed they'd want CASH

In reality they want your ETERNAL SLAVERY at 19% APR

Sage @SoulSageSay

This experience shows how deeply the system is rigged against true ownership.

It’s not about providing value anymore.. it’s about creating life-long customers chained to debt.

Paying in full should be a sign of strength.

But in a world built on credit addiction, it makes you a threat.

Financial institutions don’t profit when you’re free.

They profit when you’re trapped in “manageable” monthly payments for life.

This isn’t just about cars.

It’s about a culture that normalizes living beyond your means and calls it success.

It’s about conditioning people to chase luxuries they never actually own.

True wealth is quiet.

It’s found in people who own their life .. not just rent their lifestyle.

Learn to think long-term.

Every contract you sign in desperation becomes a cage.

Choose freedom.

Every dollar you own outright is a vote against their system.

Stay smart. Stay sovereign.

Indiana’s state treasurer repeatedly stood against big banks canceling accounts and releasing customer data of Christians and conservatives for viewpoint discrimination. A pending must-pass bill in Indiana’s Republican-run legislature would strip some of Treasurer Daniel Elliott’s powers and could give them to those same banks.

A measure currently part of state budget negotiations due to conclude April 29 would demote Elliott from manager of a $3 billion local government investment fund to one of a five-member board managing that fund. Three other members of the board would be banking executives. The fifth would be the director of Indiana’s Department of Financial Institutions, the state’s bank regulator.

The arrangement would create a financial conflict of interest because any bank stands to benefit from where these government funds are invested. The measure currently inside must-pass House Bill 1001 is being pushed by the Indiana Bankers’ Association

A customer received $100,000 from American Airlines after getting a ticket they bought for $1,000 refunded. //

The honest customer did not want to keep the money since it wasn't theirs. So the person dialled customer care at American Airlines and told them about the mistake. However, every agent insisted that the refund was perfectly correct. When that didn't work, the person wrote emails to the airline's Revenue Protection group and even put the matter on social media. But nothing worked. //

So the customer then filed a "dispute" about the refund with American Express. //

The refund was received on Feb 21, and the airline acknowledged that a mistake had happened days later. However, it still couldn't be fixed. The airline processed an adjustment on Feb 27, and to the shock of the passenger, charged them $28 million.

This spiralled into a whole other issue since American Express suspended their account due to “high credit exposure" on March 1. The person tried to get in touch with people at Amex but could not reach a person of authority outside of normal business hours. Others who were available at those hours did not have the authority to correct a $30 million error.

Finally, Amex acknowledged the multiple errors on March 3 and removed the $28 million charge the next day. Things didn't end there as the process of fixing the problem had led to $300,000 being refunded, besides currency conversion costs and losses of $75,000.

American Airlines and American Express have apologised for the error and offered an undisclosed amount as compensation to the passenger.

Earlier on Friday afternoon, the House passed the third version (AKA Plan C) of a continuing resolution (CR) crafted by Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, in an effort to avoid a partial government shutdown before many in Washington head home for winter recess. As RedState's Susie Moore wrote:

The House has now passed the "Plan C" CR, with a total vote of 366 to 34, with one voting "present." The 34 nay votes were Republicans. All Democrats voted in favor of it, save for the one who voted "present."

...The measure will now move onto the Senate, where, given the latest developments, it appears it will likely pass. //

Senators began voting on the stopgap government spending bill just before 12:30 a.m. EST. It will need 60 ayes to pass.

Now, the Senate has spoken:

The Senate has voted 85 to 11 to pass the stopgap spending bill approved in the House earlier today and keep the government open.

Here's some of what is (and isn't) in the bill:

The final bill did not include anything related to the debt limit, though House Republicans agreed to increase the borrowing limit by $1.5 trillion in exchange for $2.5 trillion in net cuts to mandatory spending. That would take place during next year’s budget reconciliation process. //

Senate Press Gallery @SenatePress
·
As promised here is the breakdown -

Senators voting against - Bruan, Crapo, Hawley, Johnson, Kennedy, Lee, Paul, Risch, Romney, Sanders, and Schmitt

Senators Manchin, Rubio, Schiff and Vance did not vote.
Senate Press Gallery
@SenatePress
By a vote of 85-11 the #Senate passed H.R. 10545 (The Continuing Resolution )

Breakdown to come

This was the last vote of the 118th Congress.
12:02 AM · Dec 21, 2024

Nancy Mace
@NancyMace
·
Follow
It’s not the number of pages that matter - it’s what’s in those pages.

This CR had the same level of spending today as it did yesterday, but the debt ceiling was suspended, meaning there was no limit on the debt. I don’t trust Congress or the government to spend responsibly… Show more
6:50 PM · Dec 19, 2024

Hakeem Jeffries
·
Dec 18, 2024
@RepJeffries
·
House Republicans have been ordered to shut down the government.

And hurt the working class Americans they claim to support.

You break the bipartisan agreement, you own the consequences that follow.

Elon Musk @elonmusk
·
You seem to think the public is dumb.

They are not.
4:51 PM · Dec 18, 2024 //

Elon Musk @elonmusk
·
The voice of the people was heard.

This was a good day for America.

Chad Pergram @ChadPergram
GOP KY Rep Barr on CR: The phone was ringing off the hook today. And you know why? Because they were reading the tweets, the X from musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, and they were telling me that they were, that they were listening to them.. this shows the influence that president,…
5:12 PM · Dec 18, 2024

I'm asking congressional Republicans to read this slowly because it might confuse them, but they have a majority. That means they can now pass a clean CR. If Democrats then vote it down, angry that they didn't get their pork-filled 1,500-page monstrosity, then they will be the ones shutting the government down. Jeffries would be forced to eat his own words about hurting "everyday Americans."

The same thing applies to all the emotional pleas about "disaster relief."

Again, make Democrats own this. If they want to make disaster relief a marker, then pass a standalone bill and make them vote it down. What excuse would they have to do so after they proclaimed how vital it is? And if Democrats do scuttle it, then Republicans can go to the podium and place the blame where it belongs.

It's so simple, and I'm at a loss as to why that wasn't the plan in the first place. If Republicans can't grow a backbone and play hardball now, especially when the opportunity is being handed to them on a silver platter, then when can they? Democrats have no leverage, and it's long past time they are made to understand what losing actually entails. It means not getting all your priorities passed because you scream "crisis" every few months after refusing to govern in a normal fashion.

Republicans need to put their differences aside and come together to do the smart thing. Pass a clean CR and force the hand of Democrat leadership.

Actual Budget is a super fast and privacy-focused app for managing your finances. At its heart is the well proven and much loved Envelope Budgeting methodology.
You own your data and can do whatever you want with it. Featuring multi-device sync, optional end-to-end encryption and so much more.

“…as a condition of participating in the modern economy, Americans are forced to disclose details of their private lives to a financial industry that has been too eager to pass this information along to federal law enforcement.”

A report from the House Judiciary Committee and Government Weaponization Subcommittee exposed the FBI for abusing the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) to spy on Americans’ bank accounts without a warrant.

“Documents show that federal law enforcement increasingly works hand-in-glove with financial institutions, obtaining virtually unchecked access to private financial data and testing out new methods and new technology to continue the financial surveillance of American citizens,” according to the report.

The Susu club is a universal feature of the Liberian workplace. Hardly any agency, trading firm, or NGO is without a Susu Club. The Susu club comes in two variety, the non-profit and the commercial. The non-profit is the more benign of the two. It is normally organized rather informally. The employees of a company, or even a section of a company agree to form a Susu club and will pay a certain amount of their salary to the club cashier every month. In an non-profit Susu, the percentage of the salary pledged tends to be higher than in a commercial Susu. The drivers of one NGO operating in Liberia pay 70 USD, about one third of their salary, into their Susu account every month. But every month one of them is the lucky one. He will receive the combined input of the other Susu members. In this particular Susu club the payout is 700 USD. The next month it is another persons term to collect the 700 USD. So, the Susu club is in effect, a revolving loan given by the paying members to the receiving member. The advantage for the member is that, once or twice a year, depending on the structure of the Susu club he gets paid 700USD instead of his regular salary of 250 USD.

Friday, Socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders used a post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, to announce that he was willing to work with the incoming Trump administration to accomplish mutually beneficial legislation.

I look forward to working with the Trump Administration on fulfilling his promise to cap credit card interest rates at 10%.

He received a quick reply from Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley. "An anti-usury bill capping outrageous credit card rates," said Hawley, "ought to be a top priority of the next Congress." //

In my view, the number of times the government has intervened in markets directly and produced the intended result can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. The obvious problem with a return to the medieval system of slapping usury laws on lenders is that when interest rates spike, banks lose the ability to adjust their interest rates. This, by definition, creates a drought in the credit market, which is quickly felt by commercial enterprises that rely on credit card transactions. If one is hellbent on regulating credit cards to save people from themselves, then allow a certain rate against the Fed's bank rate. //

Years ago, the Fed sponsored a study of the impact of usury ceilings:

Economic research clearly supports the current legislative moves toward deregulation of usury ceilings. The evidence on the impact of usury ceilings shows that they have not achieved their objectives. According to the empirical studies surveyed, usury ceilings have significantly reduced the availability of credit and created hardships for those who were supposed to be protected. Ceilings have encouraged lenders to use credit rationing devices such as higher down payments, shorter maturities, higher fees for related non-credit services, which increase the effective interest rate. They have curtailed the amount of credit available to lower income and higher risk borrowers, harming primarily those individuals whom the ceilings are intended to benefit. Finally, the lack of uniformity in usury laws across states has distorted credit flows and economic activity, favoring those states and regions which are less regulated.

What is worse, a guy holding a credit card that carries a 30% interest rate or his car breaking down and losing his job because he can't get to work all due to some well-meaning Karen in DC deciding it is more virtuous for him to be destitute than enrich some bank?

Trump needs to back off faux-populist issues like this. I understand the sugar rush of applause as well as the next guy, but cutting off credit card access from banks doesn't mean that poor people won't pay exorbitant interest rates.

How much does a payday loan cost? //

We have two parties here, and only two — one is the evil party, and the other is the stupid party. I’m very proud to be a member of the stupid party. Occasionally, the two parties get together to do something that’s both evil and stupid. That’s called bipartisanship. —M. Stanton Evans //

DaleS an hour ago edited

The graphes don't go back that far, but I'm old enough to remember when the federal funds rate (the rate when banks borrow from each other) was well over 10%. What do you suppose happens to the credit card market when credit card holders can borrow from the bank at a lower rate than they can borrow from each other?

Even if you thought an anti-usury law was a good idea, it would be madness to peg it to a fixed rate. I believe every card I've ever had (ignoring promotional rates) has been set at an offset on prime. Pegging the maximum interest to Prime+5 would still allow the banks to offer credit cards as a product no matter where interest rates go -- but it would be to a far smaller group of consumers. Markets work better than government. Lowering interest rates for everybody means that good credit risks lose their rewards, and bad credit risks lose their credit. This would not be a good thing. //

Musicman an hour ago

The Founding Fathers created a government that required consensus to get anything done. But don't confuse consensus with "bipartisanship." Bipartisanship means each Party gets something it wants. And often that means the two most extreme elements of our body politic--the far right and the far left--get something they want. It's also called log rolling. It's too often a compromise that benefits Washington insiders rather than the country. It's why we have a 35 trillion dollar debt.

A consensus is where you can get more than a pure majority, say 60 or 70 % of the people behind something. Or in the case of a Constitutional Amendment, 75% (of the states). Trump can reach a consensus without giving the Dems--or at least their left wing base--a damn thing. He just needs to get most Republicans and independents, and then a slice of the Democrat Party behind whatever he does. That is how to build a lasting movement.

European Union regulators warned Elon Musk's X platform that it may calculate fines by including revenue from Musk's other companies, including SpaceX, according to a Bloomberg article published today.

X was previously accused of violating the Digital Services Act (DSA), which could result in fines of up to 6 percent of total worldwide annual turnover. That fine would be levied on the "provider" of X, which could be defined to include other Musk-led firms. //

Bloomberg's report says that Tesla "sales would be exempt from this calculation because it's publicly traded and not under Musk's full control."

"In considering revenue from his other companies, the commission is essentially weighing whether Musk himself should be regarded as the entity to fine as opposed to X itself," Bloomberg's sources say.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) climate disclosure rule posts real problems for public companies. The SEC’s mission is to do facilitate capital formation and maintain market efficiency, but for the first time in its 90-year history, the SEC has injected political risk factors into its traditionally principles-based disclosure framework.

Leading up to the new rule, the SEC buckled under pressure from left-wing special interests to impose the first environmental disclosure mandate on public companies. If the SEC’s final rule is allowed to go into effect by the courts, it will be a financial disaster for the public markets. //

The climate rule will require most large and mid-sized public firms to report annual and quarterly disclosures that account for an endless range of climate risk factors. This translates to approximately 3,488 firms spending upwards of $628 million on direct disclosure costs and millions on indirect costs.

Consequentially, firms will need to expend great resources hiring climate scientists, ESG experts, lawyers, and accountants to properly prepare their disclosures for SEC review, neglecting the time normally spent on enhancing their market value.

Corporate boards will lose much of their discretionary decision making, forced to prioritize environmental risk factors over purely financial concerns. In its place, corporate boards must infuse speculative climate science to determine which climate risks warrant inclusion in their SEC disclosure.

With the SEC’s 12 new climate disclosure categories, investors will be spammed with a flood of confusing and potentially contradictory environmental data. This will undermine the ability of investors to navigate the actual meaningful risks in the markets or assess the health of a company. The doom and gloom of climate risks will imperil sensible financial analysis. //
As many as 25 state attorneys general have pursued two lawsuits against the SEC for exceeding its statutory authority and violating the major questions doctrine by promulgating climate regulation.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was chosen by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate nine challenges into one case against the SEC. Soon after, the SEC halted the rule’s implantation to fend off its legal challenges.

The SEC is in the unenviable position of trying to defend the indefensible. //

Mandatory climate disclosures represent an undemocratic form of ESG policymaking that neither Congress nor the U.S. electorate actually approved.