Tag: economy

Chicago moves toward reparations with bus tours and town halls as $150M deficit looms

Chicago took its first step after establishing a reparations task force two years ago.

Now, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson plans to hold a public engagement forum called Repair Chicago to “gather lived experiences of harm of Black Chicagoans” in an effort to provide reparations for Black residents.

“Your experience is evidence, and we’ve placed it at the center of our work,” Johnson said. “By engaging directly with residents, we are grounding this work in the voices and lived realities of the people it is meant to serve.”

The first event took place Tuesday, and two more events are scheduled through April.

Johnson’s office announced the Repair Chicago effort would involve “bus tours, panel discussions, town halls and hearings,” helping the task force members gather input for the administration’s reparations study. 

“The community engagement process will gather input from Chicagoans across the city to better understand Black Chicagoans’ experiences across generations and how systemic racism has shaped their lives, opportunities and well-being,” Johnson said.

The move comes two years after Johnson named his chief equity officer, Carla Kupe, to lead the reparations task force with $500,000 in funding. 

In 2024, Johnson signed an executive order establishing a reparations task force of 40 members that addresses “historical harms committed against Black Chicagoans and their ancestors through the form of reparations.”

Keep reading

California’s $20 fast food wage yields higher prices, fewer jobs, more automation

Two years ago, a hotly contested law imposing a $20-per-hour minimum wage on franchised fast food outlets took effect.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 1228, emerged from months of intense political conflict, pitting fast food behemoths such as McDonalds against service worker unions, arguing not only over the wage itself but what the industry saw as an effort to undercut its business model.

Eventually the industry agreed to a higher wage in exchange for unions leaving the franchise system unmolested and the creation of a commission to oversee wages and working conditions.

Ever since, fast food corporations and labor interests have jousted over the law’s impact, with both waving economic reports to bolster their positions.

The industry warned that the FAST Act, as it was dubbed, would push fast food prices upward and employment opportunities downward. Unions and their allies contended it would benefit fast food workers with few, if any, negative impacts.

The situation cried out for independent evaluation, not only to settle the arguments but to provide guidance on the consequences of political intervention on wages in any industry.

Thankfully, we may have that study.

Keep reading

The Donald Gets a Double-Whammy

It sure looks like the Donald is on the receiving end of a double-whammy. His victory declaration in Iran looks to rank right up there with George Dubya Bush’s “mission accomplished” pratfall on the deck of a US aircraft carrier in 2003; and that also means that his SOTU boasting about defeating “Joe Biden’s” inflation and getting the gas pump price under $2 per gallon is out the window, too.

What’s back in play front and center, therefore, is the AFFORDABILITY issue come November. The Dems have no clue about how to fix it, of course, but they sure as hell will be brutally pounding the GOP candidates and the Donald with the latter’s own bogus hot air on the matter.

For want of doubt, consider the conflagration in the global oil markets at this very moment. At ground zero in the Persian Gulf, the major crude oil from the region have already shot the moon.

Thus, Oman crude prices are up to $154/barrel, crossing $150 for the first time ever. At the same time, Dubai crude is up to $130/barrel, while Brent is trading at $110.

This means, in turn, that the gap between Oman and world prices is off-the-charts wide, and now stands at 30% or $44 per barrel. By comparison, before the Iran War, the difference between all benchmarks was just $5 per barrel during January and February.

In very short-run, of course, Brent and WTI are priced based on US and European supply conditions, while the actual disruption is concentrated in the Middle East, meaning they do not fully capture the severity of the physical shortage. YET.

On the other hand, global crude oil markets everywhere and always eventually get arbitraged, causing the major marker grades to fully reflect worldwide supply, demand and inventory conditions. So unless the Gulf is re-opened within a matter of days, the marker grades will soon rise toward these Gulf prices as global inventories continue to be liquidated.

Keep reading

Power Without Principle: The Rise of the Bully Presidency

“When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything… Grab ‘em by the pussy. You can do anything.”— Donald J. Trump on seizing women, Access Hollywood (2005)

“I think I can do anything I want with it. Whether I free it, take it, I think I can do anything I want with it.”—Donald Trump on seizing Cuba (2026)

It’s been 20 years since Donald Trump bragged that, as a star, he could do anything—even assault women—and get away with it.

Two decades later, what once sounded like crude bravado has become a governing philosophy: might makes right, power excuses everything, and accountability is for other people—not this president.

Despite the Access Hollywood recording—and everything it revealed about his character—Trump was elected to the White House twice. And ever since, he has governed exactly as he promised: as a man who believes he is unaccountable, entitled, and free to act without limits.

The same mindset that once bragged about being able to “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters” has now been scaled up and weaponized through the presidency.

With a core MAGA following that seems unwilling to hold him accountable for any wrongdoing, Trump has justifiably earned his nickname as “Teflon Don.”

He can be accused of sexually assaulting young girls, and he won’t lose any voters. He can, as commander-in-chief, sanction the bombing of a girls’ school in Iran—killing young girls, their mothers and teachers—and he won’t lose any voters. He can torpedo a thriving economy, sending inflation and gas prices soaring, and he won’t lose any voters. He can dismantle a government structure that has been in place for over 200 years, and he won’t lose any voters. He can be a walking—talking—living contradiction of everything Christians claim to stand for, and he won’t lose any voters. He can send Americans servicemen and women to die in wars that the U.S. had no business starting, and he won’t lose any voters.

This is the mindset now shaping American policy.

Keep reading

The $3 Trillion Private Credit Crisis Nobody Is Talking About

Blackstone raided its own balance sheet to cover record $3.8B in redemptions. Blue Owl froze withdrawals. PE stocks down 25-61%. Steve Eisman and forensic accountant Tom Gober say the insurance industry is the missing piece of the next financial crisis.

Sup, freaks.

The private credit market is cracking in real time. Blackstone just had to raid its own balance sheet and its employees’ wallets to cover a record wave of redemptions from its flagship $82 billion credit fund. Blue Owl permanently froze redemptions on a retail fund two weeks ago. Private equity stocks are down 25% to 61% from their highs. And the man who called the 2008 crisis, Steve Eisman, just sat down with a forensic accountant who says the insurance industry is the missing piece of the puzzle. This is a story that should be front page news but isn’t. Today we dig in.

Keep reading

How War in Iran Affects Grocery Prices for Everyday Americans

Walmart has essentially eradicated all of the mom & pop grocery stores where I live in western Kentucky. Which, for better or worse, forces virtually the entire city’s population to descend on the store for grocery shopping. As you walk into the store, you will inevitably be bombarded with messages from the intercom to get a flu shot or some other seasonal vaccine. This will be followed by a reminder that soda and potato chips are on sale.

Shopping in the local Walmart presents a fair picture of middle America. The county’s poverty rate is above 17%, homes are unaffordable, drug addiction is rampant, and wages remain stagnant. Among all of these issues, the rising cost of grocery prices make it challenging for many people in the community to afford real, whole foods. The unfortunate alternative is to purchase cheap junk food, go to a local food pantry, or simply go without. The simple reality is that many Americans can no longer keep up with rising costs in the grocery store.

But what does this have to do with war in Iran?

We often hear that Congress has passed a new defense budget, ever again surpassing its previous allocations. The most recent appropriations allocated $838 billion to military services in FY26 and now both President Trump and his domestic allies are calling for an increase to $1.5 trillion. For everyday Americans, that number is frankly unfathomable. But have you ever questioned, how does America pay for war?

Income tax has not always been permanent in America. But to give you the short version of the story, it was created to fund war and then later adopted as a permanent fixture. During times of war, Congress has periodically increased taxes to fund operations. However, politicians can only raise taxes so much before citizens begin caring about where their dollars are going. As a result, we no longer increase taxes for the sole purpose of funding wars.

Instead, we use debt. Because the public would be unwilling to fund wars through taxes, the American government defers to borrowing money. But where does that money come from? There is never enough capital in circulation to fulfill the American bloodlust, so it must be printed.

The American government’s incessant use of debt as a means to pay for wars of choice directly devalues the dollar’s purchasing power by forcing banks to digitally print money. Every dollar borrowed inflates our currency which, in turn, increases prices for everyday goods while working class compensation remains stagnant. It has held true for decades that wages do not and will not keep up with inflation.

Keep reading

Report: NAFTA Cut Lifespans for American Factory Workers

The economic impact of the 1994 free trade deal with Mexico chopped a year off many Americans’ lives, according to a report in the New York Times.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) boosted Wall Street by sending millions of U.S. jobs to lower-wage workers in Mexico. The civic cost is described in a new study titled ‘Trading Goods for Lives: NAFTA’s Mortality Impacts and Implications.”

“In the first 15 years of NAFTA, about 3 percent of 45-year-old men lost a year of their remaining life expectancy as a result of the trade deal,” hte newspaper reported, adding:

The researchers saw increases in mortality across most major causes of death, including illness, drug overdoses and suicides. The overall trends particularly affected working-age men, and were more pronounced in the Southeast and parts of the Midwest, like Michigan.

Matthew Notowidigdo, one of the report’s authors, said in an interview that the work highlighted an “underappreciated cost of globalization.” In the cities and towns facing new competition from Mexican factories, “life expectancy falls, and it hits really hard on men,” he said.

“We’re talking about a lot of life years lost,” he added.

The study concluded:

In the 15 years post-NAFTA, an area with average NAFTA exposure experienced an increase in annual, age-adjusted mortality of 0.68 percent … an increase that more than erases prior estimates of the welfare gains from NAFTA’s nationwide economic benefits. Mortality increases appear across all broad age by sex groups, but are particularly pronounced among working-age men, a demographic that also experienced disproportionate NAFTA-induced declines in (primarily manufacturing) employment

President Donald Trump renegotiated the three-nation NAFTA deal in 2018 to help Americans. This year, he is expected to review the replacement treaty, dubbed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), with Mexico and Canada.

Keep reading

As NYC Considers a $30 Minimum Wage, Business Owners Are Warning About the Consequences

New York City stands to make a decision about its minimum wage that can only hinder growth, create layoffs, and result in price hikes.

City Council recently introduced a bill to set the minimum wage at $30 per hour. Democratic City Councilwoman Sandy Nurse put the “$30 for Our City” legislation forward, WPIX reported on Tuesday.

The outlet laid out the wage hike scheme from the bill.

Businesses and franchises that employ more than 500 people must pay $20 an hour in 2027, $23 in 2028, $26 in 2029, and $30 by 2030.

Small employers have a different road map, with a $19 minimum in 2027, $21.50 in 2028, $24 in 2029, $27 in 2030, and $29 in 2031.

The increase would include a cost-of-living adjustment and yearly hikes that account for inflation.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Melissa Fleischut, president of the New York State Restaurant Association, anticipating one of the consequences of this potential change, said that “we feel like we’re at a tipping point with consumers” with respect to price increases that would offset higher wages.

“There’s only so much you can charge for a slice of pizza or a cheeseburger,” she added.

The Wall Street Journal also reported comments by Moe Chan, who has a coffee and tea company in Queens: “As much as I would like to pay $30, we don’t have money.”

According to the New York state government website, the minimum wage for the city is set at $17, seeing a $0.50 increase at the beginning of 2026.

Although The Wall Street Journal said food delivery drivers who make $21.44 under other regulations are not impacted, 1.68 million workers stand to see an increase. The outlet said Democratic Mayor Zohran Mamdani — unsurprisingly — supported the $30 wage during his campaign.

Keep reading

AI Won’t Fix America’s Looming Debt Crisis

Last month, Congress sparred with the president over a partial budget, but with few real cuts, America’s slow march toward an epic debt crisis went on undeterred. With over $38 trillion in debt and interest payments exceeding defense or Medicare spending, one would expect lawmakers to confront reality and do the difficult work needed to restore fiscal sanity. But why would they? Cutting entitlements and increasing middle-class taxes rarely make for winning campaign slogans.

It’s no surprise, then, that some prefer to pin their hopes on AI as America’s fiscal savior. Vanguard’s chief economist Joe Davis argued there’s as high as a 50 percent chance AI will prevent a debt-driven economic malaise. Elon Musk voiced a similar conclusion late last year, claiming AI and robotics are “the only thing that’s going to solve the US debt crisis.”

The argument goes like this: an AI boom drives explosive economic growth and tax revenue, while, at the same time, productivity gains impressively offset any upward pressure on interest rates. The deficit becomes a surplus and the overall debt shrinks, possibly disappearing entirely.

If that sounds less like a policy plan and more like a retirement strategy built around winning the lottery, you’re not wrong. The entire scenario hinges on a massive if: that AI generates extraordinary revenue and does it quickly enough to outrun rising interest costs.

But even if the government hits the tax revenue jackpot before Congress drives us off a fiscal cliff, it would be naïve to assume lawmakers would pay down the debt. 

The More the Government Gets, the More the Government Spends

For the sake of argument, suppose the tech optimists are right, and the federal government enjoys a massive AI-driven revenue windfall. Understanding what happens next requires understanding the incentives of politicians and their voters.

This is where public choice shines. Rather than assuming politicians and voters act in everyone’s best interest, this branch of economics recognizes that people don’t become angels once they interface with the government. Incentives matter, especially for politicians.

Incentives are why we have a deficit in the first place. The public isn’t particularly interested in financial restraint because high spending and low taxes benefit them now, and the resulting debt is some future generation’s problem. Politicians surely see the crisis brewing, but solving it is a sure way to get voted out of office. And so the incentive is to run constant deficits and grow the debt year after year, decade after decade.

Without changing incentives, it will be hard to avoid spending new revenue. Ballooning coffers mean voters will demand that the government dole out more goodies (especially if AI displaces workers along the way). Washington already excels at entertaining expensive ideas: healthcare subsidies for well-off families, a universal basic income, generous tax cuts, a fifty-percent increase in military spending, all despite the pushback the current deficit’s able to muster. Imagine the wish list after it drops even a little.

Keep reading

No, Governments Don’t Give Money Value

Your dollar bought less at the grocery store this year than last. The Federal Reserve added trillions to the money supply. These facts are connected, but understanding how requires grasping one of economics’ deepest puzzles: why does money have value at all when it cannot directly satisfy our needs?

You hand a bill to a merchant in exchange for bread. This simple act, repeated billions of times daily, reveals a profound mystery. The paper in your wallet feeds no one, yet everyone accepts it. Why?

For most of human history, money was a tangible commodity: precious metals, cattle, salt, shells—goods with inherent utility. Gold and silver served as money for millennia because people valued them as ornaments before anyone thought to use them in trade. Modern fiat currency—unbacked paper declared valuable by government decree—is a recent innovation spanning barely a century.

When the Federal Reserve chairman announces another round of monetary expansion, he acts on assumptions about money’s nature that would have seemed absurd to every generation before ours. Understanding what actually makes money valuable—and what happens when authorities manipulate it—reveals truths central to the current inflation debate.

Supply and Demand: The Foundation

Like any good, money’s value is determined by supply and demand. When the money supply increases while demand remains constant, each unit becomes less valuable—its purchasing power declines. This is not a complex theory, it is simple economics applied to money.

But what exactly is the “price” of money? It is purchasing power—the array of goods and services that money can buy. If a dollar purchases five pounds of rice or twenty minutes of labor, these exchange ratios constitute money’s price.

Yet money is no ordinary commodity. Unlike rice or labor, money’s utility lies solely in its exchange value. This creates consequences that central bankers consistently ignore.

The Special Nature of Money

Money differs fundamentally from other goods: it appears on one side of every transaction. This creates a counterintuitive effect that confounds monetary authorities. While more wheat feeds more people, more money merely dilutes the value of each unit. When the Fed doubles the money supply, prices increase unevenly. No new wealth is created.

Understanding this principle demolishes the notion that monetary expansion creates prosperity. The size of the money supply matters less than how the market adjusts to changes in its purchasing power. Yet policymakers act as if printing money were to generate real resources.

Keep reading