Wednesday, July 2, 2025
Friday, June 20, 2025
Wednesday, June 4, 2025
Friday, May 30, 2025
Thursday, May 29, 2025
Friday, May 16, 2025
Thursday, May 15, 2025
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Tuesday, May 6, 2025
America’s Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out From Under Us
America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out From Under Us
"We were taught in Economics 101 that countries could not for long sustain large, ever-growing trade deficits. At a point, so it was claimed, the spree of the consumption-happy nation would be braked by currency-rate adjustments and by the unwillingness of creditor countries to accept an endless flow of IOUs from the big spenders. And that's the way it has indeed worked for the rest of the world, as we can see by the abrupt shutoffs of credit that many profligate nations have suffered in recent decades. The U.S., however, enjoys special status. In effect, we can behave today as we wish because our past financial behavior was so exemplary—and because we are so rich. Neither our capacity nor our intention to pay is questioned, and we continue to have a mountain of desirable assets to trade for consumables.
In other words, our national credit card allows us to charge truly breathtaking amounts. But that card's credit line is not limitless. The time to halt this trading of assets for consumables is now..."
Wednesday, April 23, 2025
America’s Silent Inheritance: The Hidden $150 Trillion
I am hearing radio advertisements for this. Maybe they are trying to get people to invest. Maybe it is a scam.
I don't know how accurate this is. If there were natural resources that could be used to pay off the National Debt, then that would be a good thing.
What's Actually Hidden?
According to Rickards, the "silent inheritance" includes an enormous supply of strategic materials—copper, lithium, silver, rare earths—buried beneath government-controlled land across the western United States.
"We have all these essential materials right under our feet," says Rickards. "Incredibly, insanely, however, the United States is the only nation in the world that locks them up."
The sheer value is hard to fathom:
"It's enough to pay off the national debt four-times over… enough to take a 100% stake in every company listed on the NASDAQ… and buy every private home in the United States."'
Sunday, April 20, 2025
What If China Wins the Trade War?
'The Trump administration believes that it has the upper hand in this fight. "We export one-fifth to them of what they export to us," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently remarked, "so that is a losing hand for them." That view has things backwards. The fact that the American economy is hooked on Chinese goods is a massive weakness for the U.S., not an advantage. For many categories of goods, China is not only America's top supplier but also the world's dominant supplier, meaning that the U.S. can't simply get them from other countries. According to data gathered by Jason Miller, a professor at Michigan State University who specializes in supply-chain management, China produces more than 70 percent of the world's lithium-ion batteries, air conditioners, and cookware; more than 80 percent of the world's smartphones, kitchen appliances, and toys; and about 90 percent of the world's solar panels and processed rare earth minerals, the latter of which are crucial inputs to cars, phones, and several key military technologies.
Pivoting to producing these goods at home would take years, if not decades: It would involve forming new companies, building new factories, creating supply chains from scratch, and training fleets of workers. For it to happen at all, companies would have to be confident that the tariffs would be in place for the long term. China, meanwhile, is only heavily dependent on the U.S. for a small fraction of its imports, and most of those items, such as soybeans and sorghum, can be imported from elsewhere.
Chinese businesses will be hurt by losing access to the American market, but that is an easier problem to solve. China can redirect some of its exports to countries in Europe and East Asia, whose citizens also need phones, toys, and toasters. Beijing could also give money to its own citizens to create more demand for its products at home and provide subsidies to its businesses to help them remain solvent. This asymmetry gives China what the economist Adam Posen calls "escalation dominance": the ability to inflict disproportionate harm on its economic enemy.'
Pivoting to producing these goods at home would take years, if not decades: It would involve forming new companies, building new factories, creating supply chains from scratch, and training fleets of workers. For it to happen at all, companies would have to be confident that the tariffs would be in place for the long term. China, meanwhile, is only heavily dependent on the U.S. for a small fraction of its imports, and most of those items, such as soybeans and sorghum, can be imported from elsewhere.
Chinese businesses will be hurt by losing access to the American market, but that is an easier problem to solve. China can redirect some of its exports to countries in Europe and East Asia, whose citizens also need phones, toys, and toasters. Beijing could also give money to its own citizens to create more demand for its products at home and provide subsidies to its businesses to help them remain solvent. This asymmetry gives China what the economist Adam Posen calls "escalation dominance": the ability to inflict disproportionate harm on its economic enemy.'
Friday, April 11, 2025
Sunday, March 30, 2025
Why you should sign up for a My Social Security Account Now
Why You Should Sign Up for a My Social Security Account Now.
On April 1st, the government will increase its requirements for proving your identity for any changes to Social Security. In some cases, you may have to go to your local Social Security office.
They claim that this is not a problem if you have a My Social Security account. I believe it is best to create the account now so you won't have to worry about it later. With a My Social Security account, you can access your Social Security benefits online. Signing up took me about 25 minutes.
Part of this process involves creating an account with login.gov. They asked me to set up two-factor authentication, which was no problem. The catch is that they also recommend downloading an authentication app on my phone as an additional way to verify my identity. I tried this, but I had no idea how the app works, so I skipped this step.
--
Tuesday, February 18, 2025
A Sleeping Giant Awakens
China does import commodities and natural resources, such as oil and iron ore, as well as advanced semiconductors that it hasn't figured out how to engineer. But China's dominance in manufacturing and exports cannot be overstated.
Take automobiles, the anchor of so many industrialized countries' manufacturing sectors for the past century. Around 20 years ago, China was a nonfactor in automaking. By 2018, it had the capacity to produce 40 million gasoline-powered cars per year, far more than the 25 million its economy needed. Since then, it has added, thanks in part to substantial government subsidies for the industry, the capacity to make 20 million electric vehicles annually, a number that may soon rise to 30 million. Annual global automotive demand is 90 million cars; China has the capacity to produce around two-thirds of that.
This pattern is replicated in sector after sector. China routinely produces more than half of the global supply of steel, more than half of the world's aluminum and more than half of the world's ships. In clean technology sectors such as solar cells and batteries, China can produce many multiples of current global demand, and there are fears that it could replicate these successes in memory and automotive chips. What's more, China has partly made up for the fall in domestic steel demand (caused by the housing implosion) by subsidizing the building and equipping of new factories that use domestic steel in churning out yet more manufactured exports for overseas markets.
All told, Chinese export volume is growing three times as fast as global trade. This means China's success is directly coming at the expense of manufacturers in other countries, which increasingly cannot compete and face pressure to abandon sectors that China targets. With China's real estate market still in the doldrums, the pattern shows no signs of changing. This points to a world economy in which China has no need for the industrial inputs of other countries while leaving those countries dependent on Chinese-made goods — and vulnerable to Beijing's political and economic pressure.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/opinion/china-xi-jinping-trade-manufacturing-tariffs.html
Monday, February 17, 2025
Milton Friedman - The Robber Baron Myth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk
I found this text on Facebook that I wrote 9 years ago:
I've been asked to share my opinion on how the government should handle monopolies.
Before addressing the issue of monopolies, I want to discuss core beliefs. But before that, I have a question to ask.
By my calculation, government spending in 2015 was about 37.5% of GDP. In recent years, this figure has been closer to 40%. The real number is worse because all government spending is included in the GDP calculation. So my question is: At what point would government spending have to rise before those on the left would say, "Enough is enough"? Would it be at 50% of GDP? How about 60% or 70%? The same question applies to taxation—would a 90% tax rate be considered fair?
I could make a similar argument about immigration. I genuinely believe that hundreds of millions of people would come here if they could, so we must set some reasonable limit.
I ask these questions because there doesn't seem to be any clear limit on how much some people are willing to expand government spending or increase government control over our lives.
If we look at two extreme forms of government—on one end, countries where the government controls 100% of GDP, such as the former USSR or North Korea, and on the other, places that have temporarily had little to no government, resulting in chaos—we see that neither extreme works well. However, as we move away from these extremes, conditions improve. That improvement happens more quickly at the lower end of government spending than at the higher end. Studies suggest that GDP growth tends to peak when government spending is around 20–25% of GDP, though some argue that because we lack examples of governments spending less than 20%, lower spending might be even better.
For this reason, I believe that minimizing government leads to greater prosperity, less poverty, and even reduced wealth disparity.
The Libertarian principle states that everyone has the right to do as they please, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. This includes the right to own property, engage in business, and make decisions without unnecessary government interference. If Walmart is one of the richest companies in the world, it is because people choose to shop and work there.
The issue of monopolies is so insignificant that I'm surprised it still comes up. I've debated this topic for decades. At one time, people claimed that Netscape had a monopoly on internet browsers, Microsoft had a monopoly on operating systems, and Lotus had a monopoly on spreadsheets. Yet, all of these have changed.
OPEC once appeared to have a monopoly on oil production, but that, too, has shifted.
Historically, monopolies have often been created by governments. Centuries ago, governments granted individuals exclusive rights to specific businesses and markets. More recently, government-created monopolies existed in industries such as telecommunications, and even today, many utility companies still operate as monopolies. Often, government regulations are used to prevent competition, with industries sometimes lobbying for these regulations to maintain their dominance.
In a free market, as a business begins to dominate a sector, it becomes more profitable, which naturally attracts competition. Even the mere threat of competition can keep businesses in check. For example, we've long known that artificial fuels can be produced for about $5.50 per gallon. OPEC has openly stated that they price oil at a level that keeps alternative fuels unprofitable.
There are many myths about monopolies in the late 19th century. In reality, this period saw some of the greatest economic growth in American history.
I found this text on Facebook that I wrote 9 years ago:
I've been asked to share my opinion on how the government should handle monopolies.
Before addressing the issue of monopolies, I want to discuss core beliefs. But before that, I have a question to ask.
By my calculation, government spending in 2015 was about 37.5% of GDP. In recent years, this figure has been closer to 40%. The real number is worse because all government spending is included in the GDP calculation. So my question is: At what point would government spending have to rise before those on the left would say, "Enough is enough"? Would it be at 50% of GDP? How about 60% or 70%? The same question applies to taxation—would a 90% tax rate be considered fair?
I could make a similar argument about immigration. I genuinely believe that hundreds of millions of people would come here if they could, so we must set some reasonable limit.
I ask these questions because there doesn't seem to be any clear limit on how much some people are willing to expand government spending or increase government control over our lives.
If we look at two extreme forms of government—on one end, countries where the government controls 100% of GDP, such as the former USSR or North Korea, and on the other, places that have temporarily had little to no government, resulting in chaos—we see that neither extreme works well. However, as we move away from these extremes, conditions improve. That improvement happens more quickly at the lower end of government spending than at the higher end. Studies suggest that GDP growth tends to peak when government spending is around 20–25% of GDP, though some argue that because we lack examples of governments spending less than 20%, lower spending might be even better.
For this reason, I believe that minimizing government leads to greater prosperity, less poverty, and even reduced wealth disparity.
The Libertarian principle states that everyone has the right to do as they please, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. This includes the right to own property, engage in business, and make decisions without unnecessary government interference. If Walmart is one of the richest companies in the world, it is because people choose to shop and work there.
The issue of monopolies is so insignificant that I'm surprised it still comes up. I've debated this topic for decades. At one time, people claimed that Netscape had a monopoly on internet browsers, Microsoft had a monopoly on operating systems, and Lotus had a monopoly on spreadsheets. Yet, all of these have changed.
OPEC once appeared to have a monopoly on oil production, but that, too, has shifted.
Historically, monopolies have often been created by governments. Centuries ago, governments granted individuals exclusive rights to specific businesses and markets. More recently, government-created monopolies existed in industries such as telecommunications, and even today, many utility companies still operate as monopolies. Often, government regulations are used to prevent competition, with industries sometimes lobbying for these regulations to maintain their dominance.
In a free market, as a business begins to dominate a sector, it becomes more profitable, which naturally attracts competition. Even the mere threat of competition can keep businesses in check. For example, we've long known that artificial fuels can be produced for about $5.50 per gallon. OPEC has openly stated that they price oil at a level that keeps alternative fuels unprofitable.
There are many myths about monopolies in the late 19th century. In reality, this period saw some of the greatest economic growth in American history.
Is The Penny *Finally* Dead?
In my childhood, you could buy candy with one-cent coins, but by the early 1980s, you couldn't buy anything with them. Since everyone used cash in those days, I found the coin annoying. I called the penny pocket-lint. In 1982, I wanted the government to get rid of them. Since then, the value of money has dropped by 2/3, making the one-cent coin even more worthless.
If we got rid of pennies, sales tax rates would have to be rounded to the nearest nickel.
Saturday, February 15, 2025
Monday, February 3, 2025
Tariffs will be Trump's Downfall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uQt0hlTbK4
I watched this video last night. The original title was, "Tariffs will be Trump's Downfall." I think this depends on how Trump uses the tariffs.
Video creators often start with a click-bait title and change it later, or they change the title because they aren't getting the views they hoped for.
I don't understand this idea of "returning control of the monetary system to the American people.' The Constitution gives Congress the power to create money. If we hypothetically turned this over to the banks, it would just result in a different concentration of power. We already see that with the Federal Reserve System and central banks around the world.
Sunday, February 2, 2025
Thursday, November 7, 2024
Tuesday, November 5, 2024
Sunday, November 3, 2024
Saturday, November 2, 2024
Friday, October 18, 2024
The Hershey's Kisses Rate of Inflation
In 1968 or 1969, my sister and I went to one of those old-fashioned corner markets in Madison, Indiana, and bought Hershey's Kisses at the price of two per penny. These weren't in a package but sold in pairs.
Today, the packages of Hershey's Kisses at Walmart vary slightly in price depending on the size, but they average about $8 per pound. So the average price of a Hershey's Kiss is 8 cents each. (Each Hershey's Kiss weighs 4.5 grams or roughly 1/100th of a pound.)
This makes the Hershey's Kiss rate of inflation over 55 years 1600%. During the same period, the official rate of inflation, which I always find suspect, is 850%. Either the official rate is wrong, or Hershey's Kisses rose faster than inflation.
--
Best wishes,
John Coffey
http://www.entertainmentjourney.com
Today, the packages of Hershey's Kisses at Walmart vary slightly in price depending on the size, but they average about $8 per pound. So the average price of a Hershey's Kiss is 8 cents each. (Each Hershey's Kiss weighs 4.5 grams or roughly 1/100th of a pound.)
This makes the Hershey's Kiss rate of inflation over 55 years 1600%. During the same period, the official rate of inflation, which I always find suspect, is 850%. Either the official rate is wrong, or Hershey's Kisses rose faster than inflation.
--
Best wishes,
John Coffey
http://www.entertainmentjourney.com
Wednesday, October 16, 2024
Friday, September 27, 2024
Saturday, August 3, 2024
Monday, July 29, 2024
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)