Tag: economy

Why is Keynesian Economics Collapsing?

In his 1936 book, ‘The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,’ John Maynard Keynes argued that aggregate demand was too volatile to be stable and would lead to inflation or recession. His theory honed in on spending as a means of price control. Low aggregate demand, Keynes argues, would lead to high unemployment and stagflation. Government could intervene through fiscal policies to increase aggregate demand, as an example, increased government spending could tame inflation. According to Keynes, interest rates could also be adjusted to encourage spending and stimulate demand. So why are these theories failing miserably today?

To begin, the United States had a balanced budget when Keynes presented his theory. The government is now the biggest borrower, acting in its own self-interest under Adam Smith’s theory of the invisible hand that Keynes spent his career attempting to deny. According to Keynes, “there is no self-correcting mechanism in a free market economy that automatically restores full employment.” He believed that the government could change the business cycle but arguably regretted this notion on his deathbed.

Keynesian economics gave the government the green light to manipulate the economy, or at least make numerous failed attempts to do so. There is that old joke about communism that you can vote your way in, but must shoot your way out, seemingly fitting to the utter disaster governments have created regarding our economic situation.

Keep reading

The Apocalyptic Shortage That Never Happened: Democrats’ Tariff Doomsday Narrative Imploded  

Remember earlier this year when President Trump was locked in a tit-for-tat trade war with China? Then, a broad coalition of Democrats, corporate media outlets, mainstream economists, and left-leaning think tanks warned that higher tariffs would spark pandemic-era supply-chain chaos and trigger price spikes for consumers. Two quarters later, those dire predictions have yet to materialize.

MSM propagandists sounded the apocalypse alarm:

  • March: KOMO News: ‘It’s worse than COVID’: Point Roberts seeks state aid amid US-Canada tariff crisis
  • April: NBC News: Product shortages and empty store shelves loom with falling shipments from China
  • April: Fortune: Tariffs threaten a pharmaceuticals shortage, as 95% of ibuprofen comes from China
  • April: CNBC: The trade war’s wave of retail shortages will hit U.S. consumers in stages.
  • April: Axios: How Trump tariffs could cause a global recession
  • April: Vox: America may be headed for this rare type of economic crisis
  • April: CNN: Trump took the US economy to the brink of a crisis in just 100 days
  • May: The Guardian: Trump’s tariffs: ‘It feels like Covid 2.0. So many things are getting disrupted’
  • May: Business Insider: The worst is yet to come: Trump’s tariffs could mean even higher prices and empty shelves within weeks

Democratic Party and MSM’s supply-chain apocalypse alarm peaked in mid-April, then resurfaced in a smaller echo wave by August, according to Bloomberg data tracking mainstream media headline counts for the term “tariff.”

Keep reading

Almost 150,000 children were living in jobless households this Christmas as number of homes without an income hits 11-year high

Almost 150,000 more children spent Christmas in a home without an income this year after the number of jobless households hit an 11-year high under Labour, official figures show.

There were 1.52 million youngsters living in a house where not a single adult family member is employed as of September, according to data from the Office for National Statistics.

Last year, 1.37 million children were in a workless household in October to December 2024, meaning an extra 146,000 children spent Christmas in a home without an income this year.

The figures also reveal that the number of children in workless households is at its highest level for 11 years. The last time there were more children in a house where no adult family member is employed was in October to December 2014, when the total was 1.54 million.

The Conservatives blamed the rise on Labour’s £25billion raid on employer National Insurance contributions and minimum wage hikes, which have driven up the cost of taking on workers.

They claim that with firms scaling back and jobs disappearing, more families are being pushed out of the workforce entirely, leaving children to bear the consequences.

Helen Whately, Tory spokesman on work and pensions, said: ‘Too many parents are being priced out of work by Labour’s Jobs Tax and Unemployment Rights Bill.

‘It’s a tough Christmas for people who have been made redundant and can’t find new work, and for those still in jobs seeing their taxes go up to pay for more benefits. Labour is offering more and more handouts to people on benefits, making welfare the rational choice rather than work.

Keep reading

A Bipartisan Push to Revive a 1930s Law Could Make Grocery Prices Even Higher

Groceries, like almost everything these days, are seeing prices rise. Millions of Americans have tempered some of these hikes by purchasing bulk goods at wholesale prices at warehouse club retail stores such as Costco, Sam’s Club, and BJ’s Wholesale Club. But these savings could soon cease. A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers is looking to crack down on wholesale prices by reviving a nearly 90-year-old antitrust statute.

In the weeks leading up to Congress’ winter recess, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) solicited the signatures of fellow Senate Republicans on a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Andrew Ferguson asking them to investigate supply practices that hurt small businesses, particularly grocers. Reason has acquired a copy of the letter, which calls on Bondi and Ferguson “to utilize all federal laws…to bring enforcement actions against any discriminatory conduct that you may discover in violation of…the Robinson-Patman Act.”

The Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) is a 1936 antitrust law that bans discrimination “in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality…where the effect of such discrimination may…tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.” After a period of strong enforcement in the mid-20th century, recent decades have witnessed a marked decline in federal RPA cases: Before the FTC, under the leadership of Chairwoman Lina Kahn, sued Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits for selling alcohol to larger retailers at lower per-unit prices in December 2024, it had been more than 20 years since the federal government filed an RPA suit. Then–FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak dissented from Khan’s complaint, which she characterized as “elevating the interests of competitors over competition” in a way that was “at odds with the plain text” of the RPA.

Grassley argues that the statute recognizes certain forms of price discrimination as harming competition, but he doesn’t acknowledge that the RPA allows price differentials that reflect “differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered.”

Grassley claims that a lack of competition is forcing independent grocers “to accept increasingly discriminatory terms and conditions for their products, including less favorable…price terms”—even as he rightly describes the grocery business as “experienc[ing] high turnover and low margins.” Such phenomena are textbook indicators of a competitive industry, not a monopolized one.

Grassley also claims that “independent businesses are often the only source of groceries, consumer goods, or pharmaceuticals in many small towns and urban centers.” If this were true, such small businesses needn’t worry about larger firms receiving bulk price discounts; they wouldn’t be competing with them at all.

Of course, the opposite is true. Local businesses face intense competition from Amazon, Walmart, Target, FreshDirect, CVS, Walgreens, and the myriad other firms that ship groceries, goods, and drugs directly to consumers. These large firms enjoy bulk discounts and attract customers by passing on part of their savings to them in the form of lower prices.

Keep reading

Bernie Sanders Wants To Pause New Data Centers To Stop the Economy From Growing Too Much

The United States is leading a global data center boom. Investors are plowing some $7 trillion into the infrastructure necessary to support AI development, with 40 percent of that investment happening here in the United States.

This boom in data center investment is so pronounced that many analysts argue it’s propping up an economy that’d otherwise be wobbling under the strain of tariffs and high borrowing costs.

Some skeptics credibly argue that the money flowing into AI research and the physical infrastructure needed to support it is a bubble that will eventually pop.

Unconvinced by the skeptics is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), who seems to believe that data center investment will generate large profits, produce technological innovations, and drive economy-wide productivity growth.

Therefore, he wants to shut it down.

In a video posted to Instagram, the socialist senator called for a federal moratorium on data center construction until our politicians can figure out just what the hell is going on.

According to Sanders, the development of artificial intelligence and robotics technologies powered by data centers “is moving very, very quickly, and we need to slow it down.”

He warns that the current boom, if left unchecked, could well end up enriching already wealthy billionaires investing in the technology, leading to job automation and powering a distracting and alienating technology.

A “moratorium will give democracy a chance to catch up with the transformative changes that we are witnessing and make sure the benefits of these technologies work for all of us,” Sanders concludes.

Given general bipartisan support for “winning the AI race” and the amount of growth being generated by data center investment, it’s unlikely that any such moratorium will come to pass.

The fact Sanders is proposing it anyway is reflects just how much anxiety he and other members of the socialist left feel whenever capitalism is working.

Whether it’s driverless cars or choices in deodorant brands, Sanders cannot stop worrying and learn to love it when capitalists make productive investments and give consumers what they want.

Any economic growth that is not planned by the bureaucrats and approved by the electorate is inherently suspicious and perhaps downright malicious.

Sanders’ call for a data center moratorium is to prevent investment in this infrastructure from yielding productive fruit.

He’s worried that investors will reap profits from data center construction. Those same profits would be a signal that their investments were a prudent use of capital that’s driving real growth in the economy.

Likewise, the job automation Sanders worries about would be another sign that data center investments were well-placed. A primary purpose of capital investment and technological innovation is to shift more labor off the backs of human beings and onto machines.

Keep reading

Germany’s Municipal Financial Crisis: The Green Transformation Backfires

For years, politicians managed to hide the damage caused by the green transformation. Now, deep cracks are appearing in municipal finances amid the severe economic crisis gripping the country. Cities like Stuttgart serve as showcases for the future of the republic.

For a long time, Stuttgart’s city treasurer was more than just a steward of solid numbers. He was regarded as the uncrowned king of fiscal policy in the region—and held a position envied by many colleagues. The robust foundation of the automotive industry and its extensive supplier network funneled generous tax revenues into the city’s coffers for years, particularly from trade taxes.

As recently as 2023, Stuttgart recorded a record 1.6 billion euros in trade tax revenue—a sum that gave the city extraordinary financial leeway. Social projects, infrastructure initiatives, municipal ambitions—the local government could spend freely.

Cracks in the Model Municipality

Then came 2024. Early cracks in Germany’s economic foundation, building up over years, began to appear in Stuttgart as well. By the end of the fiscal year, the city faced a deficit of 6.8 million euros—a first warning that things might be spiraling out of control.

In green-led Baden-Württemberg, officials explained the shortfall with one-off effects and general problems in the German economy—problems they firmly believed could be managed under the state’s green transformation.

Then 2025 arrived—and with it, shock. Trade tax revenues collapsed, expected to bring only around 850 million euros into the city’s coffers for the year. The supplementary budget shows Stuttgart now faces a deficit of 890 million euros—a fiscal hammer blow, reflecting the massive collapse of Germany’s core industries, including automotive, machinery, and chemicals.

The Moment of Truth

The picture is the same across the country. For 2025, the German County Association forecasts a cumulative municipal deficit of around 35 billion euros—a historic figure unseen since World War II, and notably, for Germany, once considered a model of fiscal prudence.

The moment of truth has arrived. Ideologues have run their course. What follows are retreating maneuvers, frantic repair attempts, and the reflex to stabilize past policies artificially with ever-larger debt programs. The house of cards is stacked higher before it inevitably collapses.

Recent experiences with Berlin’s debt policies allow a fairly precise prediction of what comes next. Parts of the so-called “special fund”—new federal debt taken on outside the regular budget—will likely be repackaged into municipal aid packages to plug ever-growing budget holes.

If municipal finances worsen, the next escalation stage is already prepared: a consolidation of debt across the states, accompanied by the issuance of so-called special bonds. Initially through the federal states, guaranteed by the federal government, possibly involving the KfW Bank, labeled as infrastructure investments. Political imagination knows almost no bounds—at least until the bond market puts its foot down and abruptly ends the spree.

Germany has become, as a result of prolonged, fatal political mismanagement, a fiscal parasite. The attempt to pull tomorrow’s purchasing power into the present through debt is fundamentally flawed. It generates growing mountains of debt, forces higher levies, and gradually erodes citizens’ purchasing power through rising inflation.

Keep reading

The Inevitable Decline of Developed Nations’ Fiat Money

Governments assume they can print as much currency as they like and it will be accepted by force. However, the history of fiat currencies is always the same: first governments exceed their credit limits, then ignore all the warning signs and finally see the currency collapse.

Today, we are living the decline of developed economies’ fiat currencies in real time. The global reserve system is slowly but decisively diversifying away from a pure fiat currency anchor towards a mixed regime where gold plays the dominant role, not fiat currencies.

IMF COFER data show that, while the US dollar still dominates, its share of reported reserves has drifted down towards the high 50s. Gold has overtaken the US dollar and euro as the main asset in central banks for the first time in 40 years.

There is a reason for this historic change. Developed economies have surpassed all their limits to indebtedness.

Public debt is currency issuance, and the credibility of developed nations as issuers is fading fast. It started when the ECB, the Fed and major global central banks reported large losses. Their asset base was yielding negative returns as inflation and solvency issues became evident. Mainstream economists and governments dismissed these losses as insignificant, yet they demonstrated the extreme risk associated with the asset purchases made in previous years.

Inflation is a form of de facto gradual default on issued obligations, and global central banks are avoiding the debt of developed nations because they see a deterioration in the fiscal and inflationary outlook. Sovereign debt is not a reserve asset anymore.

Global public debt has reached about 102 trillion dollars, a new historical record, well above pre‑pandemic levels and close to the peaks hit during the most aggressive monetary expansion. Sovereign debt has driven this phenomenal rise, with countries like France and the United States running enormous annual deficits in non-crisis periods. Bidenomics in the United States was the clearest evidence of imprudent fiscal policy, running record deficits and increasing spending by more than two trillion US dollars in a period of strong economic recovery.

How did this loss of confidence happen? Monetary sovereign nations do not have an unlimited ability to issue currency and debt. They have clear limits that, when surpassed, generate an immediate loss of global confidence. Developed economies have breached the three limits, especially since 2021:

The economic limit is reached when ever-higher debt leads to a decrease in marginal growth. Government spending has bloated GDP, but productivity has stalled and net real wages are stagnant or declining.

Keep reading

War with Venezuela Won’t Solve America’s Economic Woes

n April 1939, American unemployment reached 20.7 percent. For Henry Morgenthau Jr., Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury, this was bad news. In a private meeting he confessed to two senior congressmen: “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work… After eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And an enormous debt to boot.” 

Today, Americans know how the Great Depression ended. It ended with the onset of war in Europe. FDR truly believed that, if Britain and France went to war with Germany, the quagmire would make the British and French Governments heavily dependent on access to U.S. credit markets and resources, thereby ending America’s economic Depression. FDR welcomed the stimulus that war provided.

In 1939, Joseph Stalin hoped war in the West would be a quagmire fatally weakening Germany and its opponents. Stalin believed this development would open the door to a massive Soviet invasion from the East that would supplant Nazism with Communism. Thus, Stalin eagerly supplied the German war machine with the oil, iron, aluminum, grain, rubber, and other mineral resources Berlin needed to launch its war against Britain, France, and the Low Countries.

Ultimately, both FDR and Stalin miscalculated just how costly and risky the new conflict in Europe would be. War broke out in 1939, and in 1940 German military power rapidly defeated Western allies, though Britain fought on. The next year Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

Today, the Trump administration faces some conditions that FDR would recognize. Scott Bessent, President Donald Trump’s Treasury Secretary, confronts a national sovereign debt of approximately $38 trillion. Liquidity strains also persist in parts of the financial system, and the dollar’s long-term reserve status is under significant pressure and scrutiny. 

Among the ideas under discussion by Bessent is a more enthusiastic official embrace of stablecoins—cryptocurrencies deliberately engineered to remain boringly pegged one-for-one to the dollar by holding equivalent reserves of cash or high-quality cash-equivalents in regulated accounts. In plain language: digital dollars that promise never to fluctuate like Bitcoin but can circle the globe in seconds without ever touching a traditional bank. 

Bessent publicly argues that well-regulated stablecoins will also extend the dollar’s dominance into the blockchain era. Trump appears sympathetic; there is, after all, not enough gold on the planet to return to a metallic standard, and simply printing more fiat currency will further debase the dollar. Wall Street, ever helpful, is delighted to assist in kicking the can a little further—ideally down a blockchain-paved road.

Meanwhile, the Trump White House is charting a new course to war, this time in the direction of Venezuela. Has the administration concluded that the rapid conquest of Venezuela could induce the kind of economic stimulus that rescued FDR’s failed policies and restore economic prosperity inside the United States?

Compared with the Russian or Iranian armed forces, Venezuela’s military is almost Lilliputian. Nicolás Maduro presides over a hard-left, bitterly anti-American regime that is bankrupt, internationally isolated (save for Havana, Moscow, and Tehran), and yet sits atop the world’s largest proven oil reserves—303 billion barrels, according to OPEC’s latest assessment.

Keep reading

Don’t Fall in the China Trap

Is the Chinese economy collapsing? Or is something worse waiting in the wings? The short answer is that we could be looking at something much worse than a crashing economy. China could be part of a collapse of the global monetary system.

We’ll begin the analysis with the latest official economic releases from China. These releases showed some of the weakest performance by the Chinese economy since the 2020 pandemic collapse.

Things Aren’t Looking Good

Industrial production growth for October declined to 4.9% (year-over-year) from a prior level of 6.5%. This was the weakest reading since August 2024. Some sectors receiving state support such as autos, computers, shipbuilding and telecommunications did better than average, but the broader manufacturing sector slowed materially, and mining output also weakened.

Retail sales in October were also fragile. There was overall growth of 2.9%, but certain sectors crashed, including household appliances (- 14.9%), building materials (- 8.3%), and automobiles (- 6.6%).

Sectors showing strength included jewelry (+37.6%, although this can be partly a proxy for buying gold in the form of jewelry) and cosmetics (+9.6%). This was the smallest increase in retail sales in years and is especially weak considering that October traditionally marks the beginning of a seasonal buying surge.

The most disastrous data came from fixed-asset investment (FAI), which showed a 1.7% year-to-date decline. This is the steepest decline since the pandemic crash year of 2020.

Keep reading

The AI Economy And The Public Risk Few Are Willing To Admit

Artificial intelligence is being sold as the technology that will “change everything.” Yet while a handful of firms are profiting enormously from the AI boom, the financial risk may already be shifting to the public. The louder the promises become, the quieter another possibility seems to be:

What if AI is not accelerating the global economy – but masking its slow down?

The headlines declare that AI is transforming medicine, education, logistics, finance, and culture. But when I speak with people in ordinary jobs, a different reality emerges: wages feel sluggish, job openings are tightening, and the loudest optimism often comes from sectors most financially invested in the AI narrative.

This raises an uncomfortable question: Has AI become a true engine of prosperity — or a financial life-support system?

The Mirage of Growth

Recent economic data suggests that a significant portion of U.S. GDP growth is being driven not by broad productivity, but by AI-related infrastructure spending — especially data centers.

A study from S&P Global found that in Q2 of 2025, data center construction alone added 0.5% to U.S. GDP. That is historic. But what happens if this spending slows? Are we witnessing genuine economic expansion — or merely a short-term stimulus disguised as innovation?

This pattern is not new. In Ireland in 2008 — before the housing collapse — construction boomed, GDP rose, and skepticism was treated as pessimism. The United States experienced something similar the same year: real estate appeared to be a pillar of prosperity — until it wasn’t. On paper, economies looked strong. In reality, fragility was already setting in.

Today, echoes of that optimism are returning — except this time, the bubble may be silicon, data, and expectation.

The Productivity Paradox

AI has been presented as a labor-saving miracle. But many businesses report a different experience: “work slop” — AI-generated content that looks polished yet must be painstakingly corrected by humans. Time is not saved — it is quietly relocated.

Studies reflect the same paradox:

  • According to media coverage, MIT found that 95% of corporate AI pilot programs show no measurable ROI.
  • MIT Sloan research indicates that AI adoption can lead to initial productivity losses — and that any potential gains depend on major organizational and human adaptation.
  • Even McKinsey — one of AI’s greatest evangelists — warns that AI only produces value after major human and organizational change. “Piloting gen AI is easy, but creating value is hard.”

This suggests that AI has not removed human labor. It has hidden it — behind algorithms, interfaces, and automated output that still requires correction.

We are not replacing work. We may only be concealing it.

AI may appear efficient, but it operates strictly within the limits of its training data: it can replicate mistakes, miss what humans would notice, and often reinforce a consensus version of reality rather than reality itself. Once AI becomes an administrative layer — managing speech, research, hiring, and access to capital — it can become financially embedded into institutions, whether or not it produces measurable productivity.

As I explore in the book Staying Human in the Age of AI at that point, AI does not enhance judgment — it administers it. And then we should ask:

Is AI improving society — or merely managing and controlling it?

Keep reading