Tag: inflation

WHAT MEDIA BIAS? Look How CNN Framed Inflation Under Joe Biden Versus Trump

CNN is a horribly biased outlet. Everyone with a brain knows this, but sometimes their bias is so stunning it deserves to be pointed out.

They recently tweeted something about inflation, and one smart Twitter/X user from the Daily Wire held it up alongside a similar tweet from when Biden was still in office.

Even though the numbers are far better under Trump, the Biden era tweet sounds like good news, while the recent Trump era tweet sounds negative.

FOX News reports:

CNN called out for framing of inflation under Trump versus Biden in viral post

CNN is facing social media backlash after a social media user pointed out a perceived disparity in how the outlet framed the economy under President Donald Trump versus former President Joe Biden.

Following a Tuesday post on X from CNN regarding inflation under Trump, Daily Wire senior editor Cabot Phillips pointed to a contrast in how inflation is framed now compared to Biden’s time in office.

In March 2023, CNN posted to their X account that “US inflation is still high, but it’s falling,” noting that the previous month’s “Consumer Price Index measured 6%, down from January’s 6.4%.”

Fast-forward to 2026, the outlet wrote on X that “US inflation remained at 2.7% in December, underscoring persistent cost of living challenges.”

This disparity in framing prompted Phillips to upload an image showing both statements, pointing out the difference between how CNN framed 6% inflation under Biden versus 2.7% inflation under Trump.

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

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

Trump’s Republican Party insists there’s no affordability crisis and dismisses election losses

Almost two weeks after Republicans lost badly in elections in Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia, many GOP leaders insist there is no problem with the party’s policies, its message or President Donald Trump’s leadership.

Trump says Democrats and the media are misleading voters who are concerned about high costs and the economy. Republican officials aiming to avoid another defeat in next fall’s midterms are encouraging candidates to embrace the president fully and talk more about his accomplishments.

Those are the major takeaways from a series of private conversations, briefings and official talking points involving major Republican decision-makers across Washington, including inside the White House, after their party’s losses Nov. 4. Their assessment highlights the extent to which the fate of the Republican Party is tied to Trump, a term-limited president who insists the economy under his watch has never been stronger.

That’s even as an increasing number of voters report a different reality in their lives.

But with few exceptions, the Trump lieutenants who lead the GOP’s political strategy have no desire to challenge his wishes or beliefs.

“Republicans are entering next year more unified behind President Trump than ever before,” Republican National Committee spokesperson Kiersten Pels said. “The party is fully aligned behind his America First agenda and the results he’s delivering for the American people. President Trump’s policies are popular, he drives turnout, and standing with him is the strongest path to victory.”

Keep reading

Why Are Things Unaffordable?

With the election of Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York, much conversation has been made of his appeal to “affordability.”

As I’ve written previously, this is a noble conversation, but one that has been dishonestly framed (by Democrats and media) to date.  I will use Mamdani’s comment in his acceptance speech to re-frame the debate.

We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.

Mamdani and the Democrat party have effectively defined a binary choice: Should government or “the market” control affordability?  The Democrats are seemingly all in on expanding the size and scope of government, to the point of eventually seizing the means of production.

First let’s look at the role that government has already played and its effect on affordability.  What areas in the economy have seen the greatest increase in costs for the consumer?  Education, housing, healthcare, and food.  Ironically, these are all areas of the economy that the government has interjected itself in the form of subsidies, regulations, government-backed loans, and transfer payments.  

In the 1960s, tuition costs were a reasonable expense.  The best and brightest pursued advanced degrees and had good-paying high-skilled jobs available upon graduation.  Government-backed loans were buffeted by a competitive “private loan” market.

In 2010, Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program, which had let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates.  Now the Department of Education is the only place to go for such loans.

Private lenders (prior to 2010) would lend money based on a risk model, where student loans could be obtained with the lender determining their degree of risk associated with repayment. It didn’t serve their interest to make loans to a large swath of students that might likely not repay the loan.  Tuition was mostly held in check, as students and lenders evaluated the cost-benefit analysis of higher education.  Universities couldn’t raise tuitions beyond what “the perceived market” for return on investment would support.

Eliminating the private lending market placed government as the sole provider of student loans.  The government abandoned risk-benefit analysis and effectively provided loans to anyone and everyone who wanted to attend university.  This act ballooned the number of people (qualified and unqualified) who obtained government-backed student loans and removed the “market” pressure on tuitions, causing tuition rates to rise exponentially.

Housing unaffordability has three distinct (government-created) problems.

One: Rent control.  New York offers us a glimpse at the impact of rent control programs on price and availability.  Controlling rents on some subset of housing creates hyperactive demand on the balance of housing in a generalized area.  Wherever rent control has been instituted, rents throughout said market rise above and beyond where “the market” might otherwise settle.

Two: Supply and demand (price controls and regulations).  Wherever rent controls have been instituted, local governments (i.e., New York, San Francisco) alternately impose strict regulations on the building and upkeep of housing within said market.  These regulations, as we see playing out in Pacific Palisades in California, make it near impossible to rebuild and repair, and they discourage private investment.

Three: Illegal immigration.  Unfettered illegal immigration has placed extreme demand for housing above and beyond what the market might otherwise require.  Cost supports (transfer payments) to illegal aliens, like government-backed student loans (above), removes some cost pressure against entry for many, causing prices to rise above what the market might otherwise demand, making housing unaffordable in many, primarily urban markets.    

Obamacare, or the inaptly named Affordable Care Act, we were told, was necessary to “bend down the healthcare cost curve.”  Conservatives, Republicans, health care industry analysts, and economists warned that the opposite would occur, with costs rising and care becoming rationed to curb hospital outlays.  This is exactly what occurred, as we see with the debate over Obamacare subsidies as part of the Democrats’ rationale for shutting down the government.  Temporary Obamacare subsidies implemented by Democrats in 2021, expiring at the end of 2025, are necessary, say Democrats; otherwise, Americans (and non-Americans) will see a doubling or tripling of their health insurance premiums.

If only someone had warned Democrats that this might occur.

Keep reading

Newsom’s Latest Anti-Trump Talking Point Just Got DESTOYED by Facts

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s latest attack on Donald Trump is a masterclass in political distortion. 

He claims Trump has “betrayed the American people,” citing rising prices for beef, coffee, cars, utilities, and healthcare as proof. But when you look past the rhetoric and examine the actual data, every one of those claims falls apart. 

Inflation and supply issues exist—but they stem from long-term global pressures, not Trump’s economic policies.

Take beef, for example. The average retail price of ground beef reached $6.32 per pound in September 2025, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s higher than in previous years, but the cause isn’t government mismanagement—it’s the smallest U.S. cattle herd in seventy years. 

Droughts, high feed costs, and export disruptions have all contributed to increased prices. Coffee prices tell a similar story. 

Weather disasters in Brazil and Vietnam, two of the world’s largest coffee-producing countries, caused crop shortages and sent global prices soaring. These trends are tied to supply chain and climate issues, not to anything Trump has done.

Car prices are another misleading talking point. The BLS consumer price index for new vehicles rose just 1.3% over the past year, a fraction of the massive spikes Americans saw in 2021 and 2022. 

Those earlier surges stemmed from pandemic-era supply chain disruptions and chip shortages—issues that had taken root well before Trump returned to the White House. 

Utility bills have also climbed modestly, up about 2.8% year-over-year, primarily due to higher natural gas costs and state-level regulations. 

In California, which has the highest energy rates in the country, those costs are driven by Newsom’s aggressive renewable mandates and bureaucratic inefficiency, not federal energy policy.

The most outrageous claim from Newsom is that “healthcare is about to triple.” In reality, the medical care index rose only 3.3% in the last 12 months—steady, but nowhere near a tripling. 

Keep reading

U.S. ranchers oppose Trump’s plan to import more Argentine beef, experts doubt it will lower prices

President Donald Trump’s plan to cut record beef prices by importing more meat from Argentina is running into heated opposition from U.S. ranchers who are enjoying some rare profitable years and skepticism from experts who say the president’s move probably wouldn’t lead to cheaper prices at grocery stores.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association along with the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America and other farming groups – who are normally some of the president’s biggest supporters – all criticized Trump’s idea because of what it could do to American ranchers and feedlot operators. And agricultural economists say Argentine beef accounts for such a small slice of beef imports – only about 2% – that even doubling that wouldn’t change prices much.

South Dakota rancher Brett Kenzy said he wants American consumers to determine whether beef is too expensive, not the government. And so far there is little sign that consumers are substituting chicken or other proteins for beef on their shopping lists even though the average price of a pound of ground beef hit its highest point ever at $6.32 in the latest report before the government shutdown began.

Keep reading

$400 Inflation Refund Checks Now Being Mailed Out to 8.2 Million NY Households

The state of New York will be mailing “inflation refund checks” to 8.2 million households, the governor’s office announced Friday.

Gov. Kathy Hochul’s office said that up to $400 checks “will be mailed directly to eligible New Yorkers, with deliveries to continue throughout October and November” and that households do not need to apply, sign up, or take any other action to receive the checks.

According to Hochul’s office, joint tax filers with income up to $150,000 will receive a $400 payment, and joint tax filers with income between $150,001 and $300,000 will receive $300.

Single tax filers who have an income up to $75,000 will get $200, and single tax filers with incomes between $75,000 and $150,000 will get $150, the announcement said.

“Starting today, we’re sending inflation refund checks to over 8 million New Yorkers because it’s simple—this is your money and we’re putting it back in your pockets,” Hochul said in a statement about the checks.

But the check will only be sent if the person filed a New York state resident income tax return, or Form IT-201, reported income within qualifying thresholds, and was not claimed as a dependent for the tax year 2023, the New York Department of Taxation and Finance said.

Keep reading

Venezuela’s Crypto Adoption Surges Amid Inflation Surge And Currency Collapse

Cryptocurrencies are becoming a core part of the economy in Venezuela as citizens turn to digital assets to shield themselves from a collapsing currency and tighter government controls.

From small family stores to large retail chains, shops across the country now accept crypto through platforms such as Binance and Airtm. Some businesses even use stablecoins to pay employees, while universities have begun offering courses dedicated to digital assets.

“There’s lots of places accepting it now,” shopper Victor Sousa, who paid for phone accessories with USDt, told the Financial Times. “The plan is to one day have my savings in crypto.”

Venezuela ranked 13th globally for crypto adoption, according to the Chainalysis 2024 Crypto Adoption Index report, which noted a 110% increase in usage in the year.

Bolívar’s crash pushes Venezuelans into crypto

The continued slide of the bolívar currency has intensified demand for crypto. Since the government stopped defending the currency in October, it has lost more than 70% of its value. Inflation reached 229% in May, according to the Venezuelan Finance Observatory (OVF).

“Venezuelans started using cryptocurrencies out of necessity,” said economist Aarón Olmos. He noted that they face inflation, low wages, foreign currency shortages and difficulty opening bank accounts.

However, access is not always smooth. With US sanctions on Venezuela’s financial sector, Binance restricts services linked to sanctioned banks and individuals. Connectivity issues also hinder widespread use. Still, experts say the ecosystem is resilient, per the FT report.

The government’s stance on crypto remains inconsistent. Venezuela launched its own digital currency, the petro, in 2018, but the project collapsed last year. The main exchange regulator was shut down in 2023 following corruption allegations tied to oil-linked transactions.

Cointelegraph reached out to Binance for comment, but had not received a response by publication.

Keep reading

Central Banks Do Not Prevent Financial Crises Or Control Inflation

Central banks have become the dominating force in financial markets.

Easing and tightening decisions move all assets from bonds to private equity. Their role is supposed to be to control inflation, provide price stability, and ensure normal market functions. However, there is little evidence of any success in achieving their goals. The era of central bank dominance has been characterised by boom-and-bust cycles, financial crises, policy incentives to increase government spending and debt, and persistent inflation. Recently developed economies’ central banks have taken an increasingly interventionist role.

The creation and proliferation of central banks over the past century promised greater financial stability. Nevertheless, as history and current events continually show, central banks have not prevented financial crises. The frequency and severity of these crises have fluctuated but have not declined since central banks became the leading figure in financial market regulation and monetary interventions. Instead, central banking has introduced new fragilities and changed the nature, but not the recurrence, of financial turmoil.

Empirical evidence dispels the myth that central banks ended the era of frequent financial crises. Regardless of central bank oversight, a credit boom preceded one in three banking crises. Who created those credit booms? Central banks, through the manipulation of interest rates. According to Laeven and Valencia’s comprehensive database, there were 147 banking crises between 1970 and 2011 alone, in an era of near-universal central bank dominance. Financial crises remain a persistent global phenomenon, occurring in cycles that coincide with episodes of credit expansion. Central banks have often prolonged boom periods with low rates and elevated asset purchases and created abrupt bust moments after making mistakes about inflation and credit risks.

According to Reinhart and Rogoff’s work, the rate of crises has not dramatically changed with central banking. Instead, the forms of crises evolved. Twin crises (banking and currency) remain common, and the severity, measured in output loss or fiscal costs, has often increased, especially as financial institutions and governments grew intertwined with monetary authorities.

The Great Financial Crisis of 2008, the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis, and the 2021–2022 inflationary burst rank among the events with the highest costs in history, contradicting the view that central banks have neutralised the risk or costliness of crises.

Central banks act as “lenders of last resort” and regulators. However, with each subsequent crisis, the solution is always the same: larger and more aggressive asset purchase programmes and negative real rates. This means that central banks have gradually moved from lenders of last resort to lenders of first resort, a role that has amplified vulnerabilities. Due to the globalisation of modern central banking and financial innovations, crises tend to be larger in scale and more complex, impacting most nations. The profound involvement of central banks in markets means their policies, such as emergency liquidity or asset purchases, mask systemic risks, leading to delayed but more dramatic failures.

In many advanced economies, recent waves of crises were triggered by debt accumulation and market distortions engineered by central banks, often under the guise of maintaining stability. The IMF and World Bank both note that about half of debt accumulation episodes in emerging markets since 1970 involved financial crises, and episodes associated with crises are marked by higher debt growth, weaker economic outcomes, and depleted reserves—regardless of central banking.

Keep reading