Let's just say that there are some pockets being filled, and they are not yours or mine. Kerry called climate change a gold mine for investors, and he sure has been right.

Walter E. Williams -- “What is the noblest of human motivations? I would say greed.”

In this video, Friedman explains how socialism relies on force to achieve good. But using force corrupts, no matter how pure the intentions.

This is key to understanding why centralized control systems inevitably fail.

Poverty exists everywhere. The difference lies in which system gives people a real chance to rise.

Milton Friedman explains it in 2 minutes—why freer markets consistently deliver better lives for the poor, without government interference.

In less than two minutes, Milton Friedman dismantles the myth that government redistribution drives prosperity.

Spending isn't what matters. Production is.

rhhardin | July 21, 2025 at 6:23 pm
The Fed matches the number of dollars circulating to what the economy can do at once, so that the dollars don’t bid up the price of stuff that’s more than the economy can do at once, or have parts of it fall idle for lack of bidding dollars.

It does this by creating or destroying dollars.

It creates or destroys dollars by selling stuff it has (e.g. bonds) at a greater rate, or buying back stuff with newly created dollars (buying back debt, e.g.).

What regulates this selling or buying back is the target interest rate. They change this target rate in monthly meetings according to leading indicators of inflation. If inflation looks rising, it sells more debt and burns the dollars it gets. You can’t spend debt so that restricts bidding for goods and services. If inflation looks falling, it buys back more debt with newly printed dollars so there can be more bidding on goods and services. In between setting new targets, whether the market short term interest rate is above or below the target tells the fed to buy or sell more to hold the interest rate at the target.

Something gold can’t do for you.

What most people don’t understand, I think, is that money is not wealth. It is to an individual, but not to a country. Money is a ticket in line to say what the economy does next, presumably something for you. The Fed creates and destroys tickets to match what the economy can do at once.
There’s no increase or decrease in wealth, anybody’s wealth.

Maybe that takes some of the sinister magic out of it. //

rhhardin in reply to CommoChief. | July 21, 2025 at 8:36 pm
If productivity goes up 10% as well, then your $100 buys exactly what it did before. LIkewise is money velocity declines by 10%. Stuff changes and the Fed responds to keep the value of the dollar constant. Actually 2% inflation is the target because that adds stability to the economic system against sudden failures. //

Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | July 22, 2025 at 3:03 am
Chief, the problem with a gold standard is that the gold supply grows at random, at rates that have no connection with the need for an expanded money supply. The gold supply grows and shrinks as new mines are discovered and old ones play out. If you suddenly have a huge influx from newly opened mines, you get inflation; even hyperinflation, as Europe experienced when the gold from the New World started flowing in. And if production has a major spurt, and the gold supply doesn’t increase enough to match it, then you have deflation, which is even worse than inflation; no one wants to invest money in anything, because they’re better off just sticking it in a vault and letting it appreciate on its own.

The idea of the Fed is to control the money supply and make it grow at the same rate as production does, or as close to it as possible. Now at times the Fed has failed to do this, but at least when it’s doing its job properly we can expect good results, whereas with gold it’s always up to pure chance. //

Milhouse in reply to destroycommunism. | July 22, 2025 at 2:57 am
Money doesn’t need to be “backed” by anything. It’s a medium of exchange in itself, and its value comes entirely from the fact that people are willing to accept it in exchange, confident that other people will be equally willing in turn. And they get that confidence from the fact that the IRS guarantees it will accept it, so if worse comes to worst you can use it to pay your taxes, and also from the fact that it’s legal tender, so you can discharge private debts with it whether your creditor likes it or not.

The idea that the government must be willing to sell you gold for dollars, at a fixed price, is obsolete and stupid. It reflects a mindset stuck in the olden days when gold was money and dollars weren’t themselves money but merely represented money. It’s the opposite now; dollars are money, and gold is merely a commodity, exactly like diamonds or wool. //

Milhouse in reply to rhhardin. | July 21, 2025 at 8:30 pm
What most people don’t understand, I think, is that money is not wealth. It is to an individual, but not to a country.

As Smith taught us 250 years ago! The Wealth of Nations should be required reading before anyone comments on economics in any way.

Smith destroyed the “gold equals wealth” myth by pointing out that Spain was flush with gold, but was a very poor country. Beggars had gold plates but nothing to eat off them. Whereas Poland had very little gold, but was a very rich country. Therefore the quantity of gold in a country could not be a measure of its wealth.

The Heritage Foundation's Defense Budget Tool provides a user-friendly method to aid in both the analysis and transparency of the U.S. defense budget and facilitate more informed debate about how the Department of Defense ought to be directing spending.

Until now, individual line items of the defense budgets have only been published on the website of Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) each year. This data is published in disparate PDFs and spreadsheets, with no mechanism for viewing all the data at once.
This tool:

• Provides an itemized accounting of the U.S. defense budget for analysis by national security experts.
• Allows a user to create customizable defense budgets that can be saved and shared for future reference.
• Makes defense budget data more accessible to Americans interested in the composition of the U.S. national security budget.

Reagan warned about unchecked government spending.

Billionaire Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone has done a 180 after blasting Trump's sweeping tariffs, explaining, "When you made a mistake, admit it."

Rapid Response 47 @RapidResponse47
·
LANGONE: "I am sold on Trump ... I think he's got a good shot at going down in history as one of our best presidents ever."

CNBC: "That is a real turnaround because you didn't want to vote for him!"

LANGONE: "When you made a mistake, admit it."

🔥🔥🔥

12:16 PM · Jul 15, 2025

They have gone to court, they have gone to the media, and they have gone to Corporate America rather than loosen their own pursestrings with an endowment estimated at over $53 billion.

Harvard and its defenders claim that accessing the money creates massive complications, due to terms and conditions of the donations and the structure of the endowment itself. A new analysis from the Wall Street Journal suggests that the main complication is that a significant amount of that money may be imaginary -- and that may open a Pandora's box on Wall Street:

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) recently sought an investigation into Harvard’s financial disclosures to bondholders. She might as well have fired a bazooka at the entire private-equity industry. //

So if the SEC investigates Harvard over the valuations, it should also investigate the private-equity firms that provide them, if not the whole private-equity sector. This could be helpful. With a full-court press under way in Washington to get private-market funds, like private equity, into Americans’ 401(k) retirement plans, it’s more urgent than ever that alternative investments reflect market realities, not wishful thinking. //

The act of liquidating assets or selling stakes to raise funds for operating costs would force transparency on the true value of the endowment, and that would have a ripple effect throughout the economy. That itself might give Harvard some leverage with corporate America to kick in some cash as a donation rather than liquidate assets that might impact their own wealth estimates in the long run.

With these comments, Pulte is demonstrating that he, like his boss Donald Trump, subscribes to the standard Yellen-Bernanke inflationist model of monetary policy: the job of the central bank is to forever force down interest rates, churn out more easy money, and devalue the currency.

Pulte claims publicly that this somehow makes homes more affordable. As we’ll see below, though, the Fed’s easy-money policy of recent decades has not made home more affordable. Rather, Fed policy has helped to relentless increase home prices through the Fed’s asset purchases, interest rate policy, and monetary inflation. //

There are many factors that affect mortgage rates, of course, but over the past thirty years—and especially since 2009—falling interest rates have coincided with rising home prices. In fact, falling interest rates slightly precede rising home prices, suggesting a causal relationship.

Under MFN, U.S. drug prices would be tied to the lowest amount paid by any OECD country with at least 60 percent of our GDP per capita. That includes many countries where government-run health systems routinely undervalue breakthrough medicines and decide which treatments patients can access — and when.

That’s not competition. That’s central planning. A market price originates from voluntary exchange, not foreign bureaucrats operating under fixed budgets and political incentives.

We know where that road leads. In countries using arbitrary price-setting benchmarks, patients are routinely denied or delayed access to new medicines. By late 2022, just 34 percent of new drugs launched globally were available in France, 37 percent in Italy, and 52 percent in Germany. Compare that to nearly 75 percent in the United States. Import their pricing models, and we’ll import their rationing — and avoidable suffering. //

Strong trade pressure best confronts these abuses. Other wealthy countries should be required to meet minimum spending targets on new medicines — benchmarked to what the United States invests relative to GDP. Those spending expectations should be written into binding agreements with clear enforcement mechanisms and consequences for noncompliance.

But overseas is not the only issue; we also need to fix what’s distorting prices at home.

Begin with the supply chain middlemen. The three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) now control more than 80 percent of the prescription drug market, acting as gatekeepers between manufacturers and patients. These entities, which play no role in innovation, dictate which drugs are covered, how much patients pay, and who profits. /

In 2023 alone, the “gross-to-net bubble” — the gap between the list prices of branded drugs and net prices after rebates and other discounts — was $334 billion. In an ideal market, those savings would dramatically lower out-of-pocket costs for patients.

Instead, the system is cloaked in secrecy. Most patients are unaware of the discounts that PBMs negotiate, and they don’t see a dime of those discounts when they pick up their prescriptions. Patient cost-sharing is still based on the inflated, publicly disclosed list price — not the much lower negotiated price. //

We also need to crack down on hospital conglomerates that abuse the federal 340B program. Initially created to support low-income and rural hospitals, 340B has ballooned into a multibillion-dollar loophole.

These hospitals purchase medicines at heavily discounted prices and resell them at a steep markup — up to five times their acquisition cost — with no obligation to deliver additional care or pass savings to patients. Most 340B hospitals provide less charity care than the national average.

That said, the past few days have demonstrated how eager U.S. lawmakers are to abdicate their constitutional responsibilities entirely. House leaders — or, should I say, “leaders” — have reportedly welcomed the release of the “pocket rescission” paper, because it gave them a roadmap to lower federal spending without lawmakers having to vote on spending reductions. You know, the thing that taxpayers pay them to do.

The whole episode makes Nancy Pelosi’s “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it” seem trivial by comparison. It also illustrates how Congress has transformed into an episode of The Simpsons, where lawmakers’ posture on reducing spending amounts to “Can’t Someone Else Do It?”

In that sense, the “pocket rescission” strategy would not only constitute a major change in the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. It also would let lawmakers “off the hook” and absolve them for their role in creating an unsustainable federal budget — an absolution they do not deserve.

In September 2007, Hillary proposed giving every American child a $5,000 “baby bond” at birth. The Republican National Committee immediately condemned it as a “budget busting baby fund.” Rudy Giuliani dismissed it as pure “pandering” to voters.

They were right then. What changed?

Trump’s version offers $1,000 per child — originally branded “MAGA Accounts,” now called “Trump Accounts.” With around 4 million births annually, taxpayers face a minimum $4 billion yearly obligation. The same policy framework Republicans spent months attacking has somehow become Republican orthodoxy. //

From a corporate finance perspective, this program creates perverse incentives that benefit wealthy families and financial institutions while providing minimal help to working Americans.

The structure allows families to contribute an additional $5,000 annually to these government-seeded accounts. Wealthy families who can afford maximum contributions receive ongoing tax shelters, while working families get a one-time $1,000 payment they likely can’t afford to supplement.

Meanwhile, Wall Street firms are already positioning to manage these accounts. Billions in new assets under management mean substantial fee income for financial institutions. Taxpayers fund the initial deposits, Wall Street collects the management fees, and wealthy families get tax advantages — a perfect trifecta for everyone except the middle class citizens who foot the bill.

Trump’s version contains another critical flaw that makes it worse than Hillary’s income-restricted proposal: no income limits and minimal citizenship verification. While children must be U.S. citizens, parents only need Social Security numbers.

This creates a massive incentive for illegal border crossings. //

Genuine America First policy should focus on proven strategies: cutting spending so working people aren’t killed by government-caused inflation, reducing regulatory burdens on small businesses, curtailing the skyrocketing costs of health insurance by repealing Obamacare, and eliminating corporate welfare programs that benefit connected elites.

Instead of creating new government programs, Republicans should expand existing vehicles like Education Savings Accounts and Health Savings Accounts that already provide tax advantages without requiring taxpayer funding.

Real pro-family policy means letting families keep more of their own money through tax cuts and other conservative reforms, not redistributing taxpayer dollars through government accounts managed by Wall Street firms.

President Trump and Sen. Cruz are sound conservatives who received bad advice from establishment insiders. But they can still correct course.

The test of conservative leadership isn’t avoiding all mistakes — it’s recognizing bad advice quickly and changing direction.

Or why I hate costly nuclear. //

Poverty has a Lost Life Expectacy(LLE) of the order of tens of billions of years per year. And we reject should-cost nuclear for fear of an occasional release that worst case, Chernobyl, properly handled, will have a public LLE of less than a 1000 years? This makes sense only if we assume a malthusian level of selfishness. But that is precisely where the nuclear establishment is. //

Jack Devanney
May 19
Edited

I rarely compliment the choir, but I do want to give a shout out to the choristers for whom nuclear's main attraction is its low CO2. For them, this was a very tough sermon. It was a call to change focus, metanoeite if you will, from what nuclear can do for the climate to what nuclear can do for the poor, and for all humanity. That's not an easy switch. For one thing, it implies that costly nuclear is not good enough. It's immoral. We must have should-cost nuclear, and that will require a complete rethink about how we regulate nuclear.

I expected something like a 5% subscriber cancellation rate. Instead we lost 7 of 2900. I thought that was impressive.

Here's your reward. If and only if we push nuclear down to its should-cost, not only will nuclear push fossil fuel out of power generation except for a bit of peaking and backup fo r unplanned outages and do so automatically, not only will EV's now be very attractive economically, but now we can talk seriously about synfuels starting with synthetic methane.

We shouldn't be stockpiling bitcoins," Dimon said when asked about how industrial policy is entwined with national security policies during a panel. "We should stockpiling guns, bullets, tanks, planes, drones, you know, rare earths. We know we need to do it. It's not a mystery."

Stock up on bullets, he advised:

"We should be stockpiling bullets," he continued. "Like, you know, the military guys tell you that, you know, if there's a war in the South China Sea, we have missiles for seven days. Okay, come on. I mean, we can't say that with a straight face and think that's okay. So we know what to do. We just got to now go about doing it. Get the people together, roll up our sleeves, you know, have the debates." //

Chelan Jim Mildred's Oldest Son
16 minutes ago
I see someone who changes their spots. His bank was still promoting DEI in February of this year and has been involved with it since 2021.

I believe he sees momentum with Trump's plan. He does not want to be left out and does not want government to harm his business. He wants to be included in the decisions.

His negativity toward BitCoin is also telling. He wants everyone still tied to the current banking system where they could tighten the screws such as was being entertained with the idea of coercing DEI on loan recipients. //

bk
4 hours ago
Here's how what identifies as the Drudge Report now linked to it:

Dimon issues chilling warning: Trump-Era Mismanagement Could Bring Down USA...

'Enemy within'...

Assemblyman David Alvarez, D-San Diego, commented, “We have a crisis on our hand that may have been self-created by the actions perhaps taken by the state, by regulators.” Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, D-Irvine added, “If California companies were raking it in, why did we have two refineries announce their intent to close?”

Even the California Air Resources Board (CARB) now admits a significant blind spot. Chair Liane Randolph conceded during the hearing that CARB does not currently assess how its clean air policies impact consumer costs. This means working Californians pay a hidden price — one policymakers haven’t properly quantified or addressed.

Global Economy vs Rural Culture

Localization Is the Answer
●Every home a land grant college
●Local self-sufficiency for national security
●Best of both worlds for young rural families with children

HOW? -- County Currency

To grow “big enough” local economies, county governments gradually issue their own currencies in the form of transferable tax credits good for county tax liabilities.

That’s it!

President Joe Biden, with strong backing from environmental lobbyists and a last-minute defection from West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, pushed through the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Bill. These measures allocated billions of dollars in federal credits and loan guarantees to favored industries, all under the banner of environmental protection.

What followed was a Soviet-style industrial strategy in which a handful of Washington bureaucrats determined the winners and losers of America's energy future. //

Biden's green agenda had another critical flaw: financing. Much of it depended on borrowing from China—ironically benefiting Chinese companies dominating the very industries Biden sought to boost. Since the launch of China's "Made in China 2025" initiative, Chinese firms—heavily subsidized by their government—have taken over more than 85% of the global rooftop solar panel market. Battery components for solar installations have even higher Chinese market dominance. In effect, Biden borrowed money from China to finance the growth of Chinese companies that sold solar products to U.S. installers.

The new House bill aims to dismantle this entire framework in one stroke. It eliminates the trading of green credits between corporations, revokes low-interest green loans, and entirely phases out subsidies for renewable energy initiatives.

To those who claim this approach is irresponsible, we pose a simple question: How many more decades should the green energy sector rely on government aid to stay afloat? Sustainable energy and transition projects are essential, but they must prove their viability in the open market—just like oil and gas companies do every day. This is classic Adam Smith-style capitalism: let competition and innovation—not government favoritism—determine success.

Trump also supports nuclear power, one of the cleanest and most efficient methods of generating electricity. //

By issuing appropriate permitting waivers, Trump aims to unlock this potential, even if a modest federal investment is necessary to overcome ideological resistance from the Left.

Whenever I've had occasion to offer career advice to a young person entering the workforce, I have always pointed out that success in the workplace isn't hard; you just have to do three things: 1) Show up before the other guy, 2) Work a little harder than the other guy, and 3) Never pass up the chance to learn something new. I learned those lessons, primarily, at Woolco, my first real corporate job, and those lessons stuck with me.

All work is worth doing, and if anyone ever harbors any doubt about whether the work they are doing is worth doing, I would ask one thing: Is someone paying you to do it? If so, then you are producing value, therefore, the work is worth doing. There are no lousy jobs, my father used to say, only lousy people. A part-time job for a teenager instills all these lessons early, which means when one settles on a career, those values, those habits, those skills are already in place.

There are a couple of things that are likely causing the dropoff in teen employment. One of them is a matter of policy: Minimum wage laws. //

There are no good reasons why teenagers shouldn't have part-time jobs, and many reasons why they should. This will require some reforms: Changing minimum wage laws, perhaps (if it will make it happen), to implement a reduced minimum wage for those part-time workers under 20 to avoid pricing young people out of the entry-level workforce. I'd rather see minimum wage laws done away with completely, but politics is the art of the possible, and in this case, a tiered system may be the good that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of.