Military spending makes up a dominant share of discretionary spending in the United States; military personnel make up the majority of U.S. government manpower; and military industry is a leading force in the U.S. economy. This report finds that as a result, other elements and capacities of the U.S. government and civilian economy have been weakened, and military industries have gained political power. Decades of high levels of military spending have changed U.S. government and society — strengthening its ability to fight wars, while weakening its capacities to perform other core functions. Investments in infrastructure, healthcare, education, and emergency preparedness, for instance, have all suffered as military spending and industry have crowded them out. Increased resources channeled to the military further increase the political power of military industries, ensuring that the cycle of economic dependence continues — militarized sectors of the economy see perpetual increases in funding and manpower while other human needs go unmet.
Tag: economy
And the Winner Is…Not You
Of all the government or quasi-government institutions, there is perhaps none as openly opaque in its operations and unaccountable for its failures as the Federal Reserve. For, unlike its top rivals for this most dubious of distinctions, like the CIA, NSA, or DOD, which do their law bending and money wasting largely of sight and out of mind, the nation’s money supply is so ubiquitous, so ever-present in the lives of the ordinary person that its activities must of necessity take place before the public eye. Hence, the gradual development of Fed Speak; that is, the art of speaking so technocratically that none but the most arcanely initiated have any hope of understanding what is being said or done.
Consider a few commonplace examples, which one can find in the regularly published minutes of the Federal Reserve’s meetings:
The Fed will “conduct overnight reverse repurchase agreement operations at an offering rate of 0.8 percent and with a per-counterparty limit of $160 billion per day,” and further “engage in dollar roll and coupon swap transactions as necessary to facilitate settlement of the Federal Reserve’s agency MBS transactions.”
Mm-hm. Yes. Indeed—perfectly clear.
Translated: the Fed intends to “buy and then sell back at a set date and price any qualifying security from any qualifying corporation or institution,” essentially, a futures contract meant to help operations that are either illiquid or overleveraged stay in business; and, further towards that end, the Fed intends to “continue to sell short various portions of its now nearly $3 trillion in mortgage backed security holdings,” again in an effort to help illiquid or highly levered dealers and traders of these securities stay liquid.
That Fed Speak elides more than it illuminates is, of course, intentional and operates on a number of levels: first, no ordinary person understands any of this; second, those who do understand benefit from these arrangements, i.e. the major banks, and consequently love it and have lobbied for it; and, lastly, the above combination along with their desire to pass the buck to anyone else means your congressional reps have no interest in intervening with the Fed’s activities, even when it blatantly violates the rules Congress put in place when it set the Federal Reserve up—all Fed purchases having been statutorily mandated to occur in the “open market,” that is at market prices (i.e. not executed as futures contracts).
Lev Menand’s latest book, which I reviewed last year, for all its sympathy for the Federal Reserve’s activities (having been himself an employee), could not avoid deeming the Fed completely out of control, acting since 2008 and through COVID without any bounds at all: an exploding balance sheet, unlimited credit facilities for troubled banks—this is not “Free Market Capitalism,” but rank corporatism, and a major reason young people increasingly view socialism or populist conservatism as preferable alternatives.
For, much like the national security establishment, it isn’t as though these gross violations of the principles of liberal, capitalist government have even produced any notable successes: quite to the contrary, they have produced little but abject failure.
This Is A Tale Of Two Americas, And Those At The Bottom Of The Economic Food Chain Are Being Hit Extremely Hard
If you have plenty of money and you are able to shield yourself from what is happening to the tens of millions of people that are wallowing in poverty, life in America is still good in 2024. Stock prices have been hovering near record highs, and companies that cater to the rich and famous have been raking in the cash. But for most of the rest of the country, things are not going so well. Homelessness has been rising at the fastest rate we have ever seen, crime is out of control all over the nation, and large companies are laying off workers at a very frightening pace.
If you live in the version of America that is still living the high life, good for you.
But if you live in the version of America that the rest of us live in, conditions are rapidly deteriorating.
Earlier today, I came across an article in the San Francisco Standard that detailed what life is like in Oakland, California these days…
A Prius hanging out of a dumpster. Stripped-down cars. Burning trash cans. These are some of the East Oakland sights set to a new catchphrase that’s blowing up on social media: “Oakland, California, … donde la vida no vale nada.”
Even cops, government officials, firefighters and kids are repeating the catchphrase on social media and on the streets of the Town.
That catchphrase was created by a man named Gregorio Ramon.
He has posted hundreds of videos on social media that document what is happening to the city where he has his home…
The Sindex: Cigarette Prices Outpacing Inflation
Inflation stressing you out? Making you wish you had just a touch of nicotine in your system? Unfortunately, that’ll cost a lot. While prices economywide have risen 3.1 percent in the last year, cigarette prices have jumped 8 percent. On top of federal and state taxes that often make up half the price of a pack, tobacco companies tend to raise their prices faster than inflation to make up for declining sales volume. These and the rest of the numbers in the Reason Sindex use data from November 2023.
How Progressive Policies Are Designed For Civilizational Suicide
We all understand, in the timeless words of the poet Robert Burns, that the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.
Most Americans are accustomed to assessing the various failed initiatives of our country’s leaders as well-intended actions that turned out badly. The Vietnam, Afghan, and Iraq wars, the 2008 financial meltdown, and the COVID pandemic overreaction, all in hindsight, can be viewed as simply the unfolding of human stupidity in the contingency of time.
In accordance, it is understandable that many are inclined to believe that our country’s current serious problems are, once again, merely the failed result of well-intentioned policies.
But what if, we ask, seemingly fumbled programs were intended to be the initial throes of civilizational suicide? What if apparent missteps were actually directed at the purposeful destruction of a prosperous, free, safe, and secure society?
As we examine the policies pushed by the Biden administration progressives regarding climate, national security, crime, and the border, we can rationally conclude that they are being purposely implemented to render our society unsuccessful, not successful, in its traditional aims, causing what could be the ultimate destruction of a thriving, liberal enlightenment society.
Let us begin with escalating climate mandates, now reaching gas stoves and tires, seeking the total elimination of fossil fuels. Because our mainstream media, more out of reflexive conformity than malevolence, constantly amplify climate alarmism, most Americans believe climate programs are designed in good faith to protect us from planetary disasters. Climate subsidies are aimed, they are led to believe, at increasing prosperity through good “green” jobs in emerging “green” industries, all part of the supposedly improved “Bidenomics” economy, however counterintuitive many think them to be.
When Biden, immediately upon assuming office, stopped issuing new drilling leases, canceled the Keystone Pipeline, and issued EPA regulations effectively shutting down multiple power plants in the near future, was he, however idealistically, trying to wean our country off of fossil fuels in favor of clean, “renewable” energy? If so, what could be wrong with that?
If the administration had calculated that lost energy from stifling fossil fuel sources could actually be replaced, these initiatives, even if overly optimistic, could be viewed as well-intended.
However, within the climate camp, it has been well known that fossil fuels, which power 82% of world energy needs, cannot conceivably be replaced by renewable energy to any substantial degree. So, as these policies take effect over the coming years, our hospitals and medical centers, relying on petroleum-based plastic furniture, fixtures, and equipment, energy-dependent stainless-steel implements, and high-power physical plants, will be hit hard. Health care costs will soar, while treatment will decrease to emerging society levels. Our food costs, already rising dramatically, will skyrocket as petroleum fertilizer, now tripling yields, becomes economically impractical. Housing costs, dependent on fuel-powered equipment and concrete and steel needing massive energy inputs to manufacture, will put homeownership out of reach for all but the rich and reduce housing to cramped, third-world levels. And, of course, transportation will become an expensive luxury for both people and products.
But isn’t this all meant well? For trusting, uncritical moderates and traditional liberals, yes. For the progressives pulling the strings, no.
California Senate Hopeful Barbara Lee Wants $50 Per Hour Minimum Wage
Minimum wage advocates are often asked why, if they think prosperity can be achieved by setting a floor on what people are allowed to charge for their labor, they don’t just hike it until everybody is wealthy? A candidate for the U.S. Senate has now risen to that challenge, proposing to set wages as high as $50 per hour. That could be a pathway to making everybody wealthy—if only the minimum wage made sense as policy, which it doesn’t.
This week, the four leading candidates for the U.S. Senate seat opened by the overdue departure of Dianne Feinstein met for a televised debate. Under California’s open primary system, Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, and Barbara Lee, Republican Steve Garvey, and all other candidates for the seat will go against each other March 5, with the two top vote-getters facing off in November.
Unsurprisingly for California and the year 2024, the spotlight was on bad ideas.
Biden’s Bizarre ‘Shrinkflation’ Nonsense
When President Joe Biden was running for office in 2020, he explicitly promised that putting him in the White House would mean that “you’ll actually see your standard of living go up and your costs go down.”
That, uh, hasn’t happened.
We don’t need to relitigate the entire economic history of the Biden administration in this space, but here’s a quick recap: Inflation surged to a 40-year high, peaking above 9 percent in June 2022. Prices are now rising less quickly, but inflation remains well above the Federal Reserve’s target rate of 2 percent. (It was 3.4 percent for the 12 months ending in December. We’ll get January’s numbers on Tuesday morning.) Biden’s policies—specifically, the $2 trillion spending package he signed in March 2021—certainly contributed to that inflationary spiral. Economists will continue to debate how much of a factor it was, but voters tend to operate on a more facile level of rewarding presidents for good economic times and punishing them for bad economic times. And rightly or only semi-rightly, Biden’s name is attached to this bout with inflation.
You might expect the president, now that he’s in the middle of a re-election campaign, to try to avoid anything to do with that topic. Don’t remind voters of how rough the past few years have been, focus on the future, talk about the positive signals coming from the economy, and above all else don’t make yourself look like an old man yelling at a cloud.
‘Not Normal’: Over One Million Jobs Reported In 2023 Didn’t Actually Exist
The federal government in 2023 overestimated the number of jobs in the U.S. economy by an average of 105,000 per month in initial reports, equating to a cumulative monthly difference of 1.3 million, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
The cumulative number of jobs reported each month was 1,255,000 less than previously thought, with new seasonal and census data affecting total employment estimates, according to data from the BLS calculated by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The huge downward revisions are in spite of a 115,000 upward revision in December, the only month that saw an upward revision to the employment level in 2023.
The biggest revision was for March, which was revised down by a total of 266,000 jobs, followed by January at 234,000 and April at 205,000, according to the BLS. The lowest downward revision was in November, with only 2,000, followed by 11,000 in October.
“Revisions are a normal part of the reporting process, but large changes, or adjustments that consistently move in the same direction, are not normal,” E.J. Antoni, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Instead, they’re indicative of something problematic with the BLS’ methodology. That can happen when market conditions change drastically enough to be outside of the assumptions used in their models.”
The Bankruptcy of Bidenomics
President Joe Biden spent much of his third year in the White House trying to brag about what he’d done for the American economy.
In February, speaking to a chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Maryland, he declared, “For the past two years, we’ve been carrying out my economic plan that grows the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, not the top down.” Biden then recited a laundry list of economic indicators. The unemployment rate was 3.4 percent. Gas prices had dropped by $1.60 per gallon. In his first two years in office, he said, “we created 800,000 new manufacturing jobs.” Inflation was down from its peak, and take-home pay was up. “We’ve got more to do, but I’m telling you, the Biden economic plan is working because of you all,” he said, pausing for applause. “And I really mean it.”
This was typical of Biden’s prepared public remarks. In at least a dozen speeches and statements in 2022 and 2023, the president referred to either “my economic plan” or “the Biden economic plan,” crediting himself and his administration with the state of the economy. “My economic plan is showing results,” he said in a prepared statement in November 2022. “My economic plan is working,” he said in July 2023.
In summer 2023, Biden finally gave that plan a name. Or rather, he adopted the name his critics had already used to describe his policies: Bidenomics.
The term had begun as a derisive label for the president’s economic foibles. An unsigned July 2022 editorial in The Wall Street Journal bore the headline “Bidenomics 101.” It took issue with Biden’s public demand that “companies running gas stations and setting prices at the pump” bring down their prices—a sort of Nixonian jawboning where you respond to inflation by trying to bully companies into keeping prices low. The president, the editorial charged, “doesn’t appear to know anything about how the private economy works.”
Nearly a year later, in a speech in Chicago, Biden set out to claim Bidenomics as his own. The president framed his approach as “a fundamental break from the economic theory that has failed America’s middle class for decades now.”
Rather than “trickle-down economics” that helped only the already well-off, Biden said, he was pursuing an economic agenda that rejected the “belief that we should shrink public investment in infrastructure and public education.” He touted his record,crediting three major laws he’d signed—the American Rescue Plan (ARP), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act—with helping to set the U.S. economy on a better track. “Guess what?” he said. “Bidenomics is working.”
Biden’s speeches were defensive in tone, and for a reason: Voters have consistently reported broad unhappiness with the economy. Surveys find low support for Biden’s handling of economic policy across nearly every demographic, including the younger voters and minorities who are typically Democratic stalwarts. The president’s embrace of Bidenomics was an attempt to convert skeptics into believers by arguing, more or less, that the economy was actually pretty great and that this was because of him and his policies.
Record number of Americans are homeless amid nationwide surge in rent, report finds
A growing number of Americans are ending up homeless as soaring rents in recent years squeeze their budgets.
According to a Jan. 25 report from Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, roughly 653,000 people reported experiencing homelessness in January of 2023, up roughly 12% from the same time a year prior and 48% from 2015. That marks the largest single-year increase in the country’s unhoused population on record, Harvard researchers said.
Homelessness, long a problem in states such as California and Washington, has also increased in historically more affordable parts of the U.S.. Arizona, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas have seen the largest growths in their unsheltered populations due to rising local housing costs.
That alarming jump in people struggling to keep a roof over their head came amid blistering inflation in 2021 and 2022 and as surging rental prices across the U.S. outpaced worker wage gains. Although a range of factors can cause homelessness, high rents and the expiration of pandemic relief last year contributed to the spike in housing insecurity, the researchers found.
“In the first years of the pandemic, renter protections, income supports and housing assistance helped stave off a considerable rise in homelessness. However, many of these protections ended in 2022, at a time when rents were rising rapidly and increasing numbers of migrants were prohibited from working. As a result, the number of people experiencing homelessness jumped by nearly 71,000 in just one year,” according to the report.
Rent in the U.S. has steadily climbed since 2001. In analyzing Census and real estate data, the Harvard researchers found that half of all U.S. households across income levels spent between 30% and 50% of their monthly pay on housing in 2022, defining them as “cost-burdened.” Some 12 million tenants were severely cost-burdened that year, meaning they spent more than half their monthly pay on rent and utilities, up 14% from pre-pandemic levels.
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.