Is It Too Late?

Note: Behind the green door, there is a post about Russell Brand and what his case suggests about the state of the law, a post about using AI as an editorial team for the posts on this site, and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.


One of the questions rarely asked regarding the ongoing American crisis is whether we have passed the point where reform is possible. Few want to consider that possibility for obvious reasons. If reform through the regular political process is no longer possible, then only unpleasant alternatives remain. One of those alternatives is some form of collapse. Like Gorbachev’s Soviet Union, America may be headed over the cliff with nothing to prevent it.

Last week, we caught a possible glimpse of the answer. Trump rolled out his tariff regime, and the stock markets went wild. It was not just a global selloff; volatility was off the charts, which is worse than the decline itself. A steady selloff occurs during a correction when markets are overbought. A chaotic, erratic decline signals panic setting in among the algorithms. It means their code cannot interpret the conditions they are programmed to use for trading.

Just as things began to stabilize, the bond market started to “get the yips”, as Trump noted on Thursday. No one in the mass media understands this, so they kept claiming the bond market crashed, which is far from accurate. The issue was that market players were dumping treasuries. It is unclear why, for instance, the Japanese central bank was selling treasuries. This uncertainty is just as worrisome as the actual dumping, so everyone was spooked.

Typically, the reason for dumping treasuries is a liquidity issue, either in the system as a whole or in a segment of it. In this case, the consensus is that hedge funds were raising cash due to the market decline. That could be true, but it is also possible the basis trade was unraveling. This is when hedge funds bet on tiny changes in treasury yields—a major way they generate profits within the system.

Here is how it works: Imagine you believe the value of an asset like a treasury will decline over the next six months. You hold this asset, but it is collateral for another transaction. You cannot sell it now, so you agree to sell it in the future at the current price rather than the market price at that time. If the price surges, you lose potential profits when the contract expires, but if the price drops as expected, you are protected from those losses.

There is much more to it, but that is the gist, and this happens across markets for everything, even treasuries, which have been very stable. Even earning a tiny percentage on these transactions can net millions for a fund handling tens of billions in trades. In fact, the financial system relies on clever quants coding models to exploit these small discrepancies between current and future prices to generate wealth.

When Trump’s tariffs caused this system to go haywire, triggering a panicked demand for cash, he had no choice but to back off. It was not that the bond market revolted due to a philosophical disagreement with the policy. Rather, this massive system is a house of cards that cannot tolerate even minor disruptions. Trump’s tariff regime should not have caused chaos, but the fact that it did suggests even small changes are no longer viable.

That is not the end of it. The central bank could mitigate this by injecting enough cash to resolve the liquidity issue. In fact, it can inject enough to counter deliberate revolts. You cannot beat the Fed. This should have happened last week, but Jerome Powell either refused to act or was too inept to grasp the situation. He has been the worst Fed chair since Arthur Burns, so incompetence is a strong possibility.

That said, the Fed held an emergency meeting just before Trump announced his tariff plan last week, likely in response to it. Given the Federal Reserve’s composition and its attitudes toward the American public, it is possible they intended to undermine the process. The Bank of England toppled Liz Truss’s Tory government, so it is not unthinkable. The head of the Bank of England at the time was Mark Carney, who is now the dictator of Canada.

This would imply that normalizing the American economy is no longer possible, at least not through standard political processes, because the entrenched interests profiting from the system will not allow it. That is what we will discover in the next ninety days as the Trump team navigates this challenge. Bessent has suggested they will use this time to strike individual deals with countries rather than unilaterally imposing a tariff schedule.

Of course, they could also have Jerome Powell killed, thus sending a message to the parasite class that they must fall in line or else. They never take no for an answer, so this approach never works. The Russians had to execute a lot of oligarchs before the rest finally fell in line with the new program. Falling in line usually meant fleeing the country with their cash. Maybe it does not have to come to that with the bankers, but last week was not a positive sign.

What the events of last week show is that normalizing American economic policy is not going to be easy within the current process. It also suggests it may not be possible without radical approaches to implementation. We may have reached the point where even with enough coercion, the system cannot be reformed. We may have blown past the point of no return as far as the political and economic order, so what lies ahead is chaos no matter what is done.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


Back To Work

Warren Buffet famously said, “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.” The point of this metaphor is that in economic downturns you learn who has been taking excessive risks. Another way of putting it is that in easy times, everyone can be a hero or a genius. This has been the case for the American financial system for over thirty years. As long as credit money kept expanding, everyone had a chance to look like a financial genius.

This explains the prevalence of people in the financial media who somehow get everything wrong but maintain their status as experts. The most notable of this sort is Jim Cramer who has made a career out of being outlandishly wrong. Paul Krugman wrote a column for years about the economy, despite never being right about it. These are two famous examples, but the commentariat is littered with these types. As long as the arrow kept going up, being wrong was good money.

The trouble is that the entire financial industry is built on this premise. Being wrong comes with no penalty, because wrongness rarely comes with a cost. Sure, the MegaBrain Capital Fund might not perform as well as random guessing, but because the arrow always goes up, even the bad bets pay off. This also means anyone spouting random gibberish can present himself as an expert. Tens of thousands of mortgage payments, maybe hundreds of thousands, rest on this assumption.

The main reason for this, of course, is the United States has been both the global mint and the global bank since the 1980’s. You can see it in the markets. From 1985 to the present, the DJIA has increased by about nine percent per year. That includes the many busts that were backstopped by the global bank. From 1965 to 1985 the markets suffered a long bear market, after the long twenty-year bull market that kicked off after the end of the Second World War.

Another way to think about it is the American stock market boomed by about ten percent per year when the rest of the world was in rubble. Europe was literally in rubble after the war. Much of it was controlled by communists. China was a feudal, agrarian society trying to implement Marxist-Leninism. Japan only stopped glowing after that long bull market ended. In other words, the American economy and the equities markets had a great run when there was no global competition.

Somehow, as if by magic, equities had a run like the post war decades, despite the hollowing out of the economy. The run has also been longer. The twenty-year post-war boom ran out of steam even though Asia was not online yet, just because Europe was starting to recover. We have experienced a forty-year run while at the same time the American economy transitioned from inventing things and making them to driving each other around in Ubers.

It turns out that if the mint can make as much money as it likes, being the only mint on earth anyone values, and they give what they mint to the only banking system anyone values, the people in this system can do no wrong. For decades it has been like being at a casino with an endless line of credit. Not only that, but the dealers would also occasionally give you some insider information on the decks. It is not hard to look like a genius when you are playing with house money.

That world is coming to an end. The shock therapy we are seeing is not just a bluff to get better tariff deals. It is in anticipation of the fact that the world is shifting from where the dollar dominates all global trade to one where local currency arrangements will often be preferred over the dollar. If you want to buy from China, it will mean doing so in their currency, not dollars. The same is true for other major trading countries. The Russians have been the proof of concept for this approach.

This does not mean the dollar collapses or people revert to carrying sacks of gold while riding to town on their donkey. The primitive use of shiny bits of metal as currency only comes back if we enter a dark age. What is happening instead is a change in how the world views dollars and more importantly, dollar denominated debt. That means the days of unlimited credit money is coming to a close. The dollar and dollar denominated debt will reconnect with the American economy.

This is all bad news for the flim-flam men who dominate the financial services industry as it means being wrong once again comes with risk. The bad bets from MegaBrain Capital Fund no longer just mean a lower return. Those bad bets now put the firm in jeopardy and get the smart guys fired for making those bad bets. Swimming naked will now come with the risk of the tide going out and staying out. Like the fox in the hen house, risk is returning to the money game.

What is about to happen to the financial sector is like what we see happening with the government sector. The tens of thousands of people who do not do anything necessary will be let go, and that includes the experts in the media. In a world where risk is real, no one will tolerate a television clown dispensing bad advice, unless he is in a fright wig and wearing floppy red shoes. The clowns will back in the circus while the serious men do the serious work.

This is the end of America’s long holiday from reality. Playing make believe in government, finance or the media is no longer possible. Making money will not be about finding clever ways to get that sweet sweet credit money, but about inventing things, improving things and making things. That will not leave a lot of room for diversity experts or chattering skulls. Those people can be put to work in the new factories and repair shops, perhaps sweeping the floors.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


The Bell Ringing At The Top

In the fullness of time, we may look at the sale of the NBA franchise, the Boston Celtics, as the bell that rang at the peak of the financialized economy. The team sold for a record-breaking $6.1 billion to a group led by billionaire William Chisholm, the managing partner of Symphony Technology Group. That firm has nothing to do with music or technology. It is a private equity firm. The deal still must be approved by the league and must go through the usual legal process.

The team is one of the crown jewels of the league, so it makes some sense that it commands the highest value. Since the beginning of the NBA, the Boston Celtics have been something like the New York Yankees—winning numerous titles and featuring some of the game’s greatest players. Wyc Grousbeck, whose family leads the ownership group that bought the team in 2002 for $360 million, made, on average, thirteen percent per year on his investment in the franchise.

By comparison, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose about six percent a year on average, accounting for several crashes along the way. Median home prices in the United States have increased at about the same rate over that time. Some areas, like the Washington, D.C. area, have seen even larger jumps. Given that official inflation numbers are roughly half that figure, it shows that assets, even common ones like houses and equities, have experienced a steady increase.

Now, a golden rule of life is that a thing is worth what someone will pay for it, but value is supposed to be linked to reality. The value of a business, for example, is tied to the value of its assets, its cash flow, and future profitability. A buyer expects to recoup his investment over a specific period, which means the business either has profits or assets that can be sold for a profit. The Boston Celtics are a business, so does that mean the business is worth $6 billion?

The answer is no, not in the conventional sense. Most sports franchises are break-even businesses, with many losing money. They often have negative cash flow due to player salaries, which means they carry a lot of debt. The NBA is experiencing a sharp downturn in its popularity, with television ratings down 60% from the peak. The Celtics do not own their arena, so they lack that asset to supplement their business. Most likely, the franchise is a money-loser by conventional standards.

Of course, the new owners do not care about the business side. They are billionaires who want to be in the billionaire club. It is as much about status as it is about business, but the business side still matters. They no doubt look at the massive inflation in franchise values and think they will have no trouble flipping this property for a nice profit once they get bored with it. In other words, they assume the asset inflation we have seen since the 1980s will continue.

This makes sense in the context of the current American economic model, the one Donald Trump is determined to replace with a new model. The economy that emerged in the 1980s is based on unlimited, cheap credit money that gets plowed into assets like equities, startups, and frivolous things like modern art and sports franchises. William Chisholm is a billionaire, despite never having invented or built anything, because he is highly skilled in the legerdemain of modern finance.

Another aspect of the new economy explains why certain assets, like sports franchises and some tech sectors, have outperformed houses and stocks. The NBA is financed, in large part, by taxes it levies on every household. These taxes come in the form of cable and television bills. If you have a television service, you are paying for all those games you don’t watch. Channels like ESPN are bundled into the bill, and they are a significant part of it. That money subsidizes the NBA.

If, tomorrow, everyone could simply pay for what they watch, like software as a service, sports channels like ESPN would go bankrupt within a month. Right behind them would be all the sports leagues. The reason? Sports networks would lose about 80% of their revenue. That means ESPN could not spend billions on live sports content, and without that revenue, the leagues would collapse. That $6 billion sale of the Celtics would look like the worst bet in history.

The reason regular people feel so much economic angst, despite the appearance of material prosperity, is that we have reached the end of the line for this model, where costs are socialized but profits are privatized. The NBA is one example where the quality of the product has been disconnected from its financial success. In a true market economy, the owners of the Celtics would struggle to give it away, because the NBA, as an entertainment product, is in steep decline.

If you look closely, you will see this dynamic everywhere. The offset to those cheap products at big-box stores is the collapse of American manufacturing, and the social capital that came with it. The offset to cheap labor via immigration has been stagnant wages and emergency rooms that resemble Tijuana bus stops. The offset to a rising stock market is endless financial insecurity. The hidden costs have accumulated to the point where they can no longer be ignored.

The reason Trump is trying to usher in a new economic model is that the old one, the financialized economy, is running out of places to hide the costs of endless credit creation and the auctioning off of social capital. It is not just that we cannot borrow more money. It is that we cannot continue to socialize the costs of creating more credit money. Just as critically, we can no longer tolerate an oligarchy built on privatizing the profits of this system.

That is why the sale of the Celtics may be the bell ringing at the peak of the massive asset bubble that is the American economy. The absurdity of it should offend even the most zealous believer in the transactional economy. In a country with serious problems that require elite investment, watching rich parasites plow billions into a human flea circus brings revolutionary thoughts to mind. It may be the last grotesque gesture of an economic model that has run its course.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


The Great Transition

Note: Behind the green door, there is a post about an old post I did on Vladimir Putin as the antidote to Peter the Great, a post about the Amazon series The Bondsman, and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.


Last week, Trump stunned the world by following through on what he has been promising since he came down the escalator in 2015. He imposed across-the-board tariffs on every country in the world—except Russia. The reason Russia was excluded is that they are already sanctioned to the maximum. The tariff knob does not go past one hundred, so they were not on the list. Every other country was hit with a tariff, even Israel, which should cause some people to rethink things.

This set off the Great Trump Stock Market Crash, which promises to continue this week as the rest of the world responds to the new world order. The old trading models no longer work, so the default fallback in these conditions is cash. The quants were working feverishly last week to update their models in order to find the bargains that will inevitably be sitting there, waiting for the lucky. The smart money thinks the floor is a twenty percent correction, followed by stability.

The yesterday men and the crazies are sure this is the Great Depression, because their history of the world starts in the 1930s. It is a stylized history, such that every modern event can be jammed into the 1930s, the 1960s, or the 1980s. Since they are sure Trump is secretly Hitler, this must be the 1930s—even though we have witnessed many stock market corrections in the last thirty years. The COVID crash, the mortgage bubble, and the dot-com bubble are easy examples.

In reality, what we are seeing is the long-overdue return to normalcy, where American economic policy is aimed at benefiting the American people, rather than abstract concepts from economics departments. If Canada has tariffs on American goods, then the United States should have tariffs on Canadian goods—unless it can be shown that the American people benefit in some way from the imbalance. The same is true for every other country in the world.

One of the weird things about decades of American trade policy is that it has created the same sense of entitlement as government racial policy. Just as nonwhites think they are entitled to be near white people without conditions, the world thinks it has a right to access the American market without conditions. This is most obvious in Europe, which has taken this lopsided arrangement for granted. They have also assumed they are entitled to American defense, while doing nothing in return.

The logic behind this arrangement has always been nonsense—but people love to believe in nonsense, especially their own. We see this with the free trade crowd, who are claiming tariffs will only harm the American people. If that were true, then the rest of the world should have been miserable for the last thirty years. Further, if that were true, then the rest of the world now has a chance to usher in a golden age for their people by eliminating their tariffs instead of raising them.

The truth of the matter is that all economic policy is about trade-offs—especially in global trade. This is why it is called trade, rather than “free.” Having a tariff-free relationship with Canada could make sense if the Canadian government could be trusted, as the American and Canadian economies are so similar. The same is not true for Mexico or Bangladesh. Trade is never just about money—it is also about culture and the national interests of the trading countries.

Of course, what we are seeing is not really about trade so much as it is about getting the American financial house in order. Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary and architect of the Trump economic policy, has made this clear. Normalizing American trade relations is just one arrow. Another is the mass reorganization of government that kicked off in January. For the first time in the life of anyone reading this, the size and scope of government will be reduced.

Another arrow is the changes in the tax code that are slowly working their way through both houses of Congress. The Senate passed its version of spending and tax cuts, so now it is on to the House. What is shaping up is a two-pronged approach: one is to put into law the cuts made by the DOGE boys, and the other is a radical revamping of the tax code to reflect the new economic approach. Removing taxes on tips and overtime, for example, is part of the Senate model.

What we are seeing is the most radical alteration to the American economic model since the 1980s. The reason for it is that the old model is unsustainable. As Bessent pointed out, there is a limit to borrowing. For a long time, the American model relied on creating unlimited credit money in the banking system and massive federal borrowing. We have reached the limits of this model. Now, that model threatens the integrity of the American economy, so changes must be made.

More important are the changes in how we think and talk about the economy. For the longest time, the economy has been treated as a god. Americans were expected to tolerate anything to please it. If the economy demanded Haitian cannibals in your town, you had to accept it. If the economy demanded that the quality of your hand tools decline, you just lived with it. If the economy required you to work two jobs to make ends meet, then you did it. The economy was a remorseless god.

This sort of thinking makes sense to an alien overclass that sees the United States as an opportunity to be exploited. It does not make sense if the ruling elite feels a connection and obligation to the people. Shifting from the old transactional model of economics to a nationalistic model requires a new language. Simply pointing at a graph that trends upward is no longer enough. The political class will now have to possess some economic literacy.

It is too soon to know if these changes can make it through Congress. The winners under the old exploitative model will not go quietly. No one knows if the American public will tolerate the pain that must come with the transition. It is not all bad news, though, so the pain may be limited. Energy costs are falling—crude is under sixty dollars a barrel. This could tame inflation enough for the Fed to cut rates. Low taxes and cheap energy will go a long way toward cushioning the transition.

In the end, Bessent is correct. America cannot continue to create credit in the financial system and borrow trillions to hire government workers. We either have an orderly transition back to a normal economy, or we have a disorderly transition. The name for that is collapse—and that is vastly worse than a stock market correction. This is the reason the economic elites are backing this move. They know that the people who suffer the most from failure are the elites.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Car

Last week the Chinese announced what could be a great leap forward in electric car technology when the Chinese firm BYD announced a five-minute charger. They claim their new technology, it is not just a charger but a battery system as well, will allow a driver to get a 250-mile charge in just five minutes. No one knows if this is true, as Chinese companies are almost as dishonest as American media. Even if it is an exaggeration, it could still be a big deal.

The reason this is viewed as a potential game changer is that it is assumed that the main obstacle to widespread adoption of EV’s is the long recharge. It is unreasonable to expect people to take an hour to recharge when on a road trip. Even a thirty-minute recharge time is unappealing. Decades of needing just a few minutes to fill the tank have conditioned people to expect it. Getting EV technology to this point, therefore, is assumed to be the final boss in the game.

That is not true, but the faithful believe it. The main problem with EV’s is that they do not solve a problem. They are a solution in search of problem and so far, the problems they claim to solve have proven to be either nonsense or grotesque boondoggles executed by the worst people in society. Making the weather potato happy is not motivating anyone to buy an electric car, especially when the total cost of ownership remains significantly higher than conventional vehicles.

The electric car is a lot like the electric book in that the engineering challenges somehow blind the proponents to the central problem. Technology is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. Electronic messaging has displaced written letters because the former is better, cheaper, and faster than the latter. If email came with a small risk of electrocution, we would still be writing letters. If every email cost a dollar to send, there would be no such thing as email.

That was the problem with eBooks. They were not better in any way that mattered to people, and they were not cheaper. There were some advantages, like speed of acquisition and the availability of obscure texts. You could also load up on out of copyright material at a pittance. The trouble is not many people need ready access to Summa Theologica, so these advantages made little difference. It is why the old-fashioned book remains dominant.

The same problem plagues the electric car. For ninety percent of drivers, the car is a practical way to move humans from one place to another. Current technology does that as well as anyone could need. Therefore, the new technology is simply trying to match what the old technology does. Outside of enthusiast and technologists, the electric car will always be pointless. Add in the expense and it becomes an expensive solution to a cheaply solved problem.

There are other reasons why the electric car will remain a niche item. The biggest is the cost, which can never be overcome. The cost of powering an electric car is about three times that of powering a normal car. This is despite the fact that we subsidize electricity in America, and we artificially increase the price of gas and diesel. Strip away the policy choices and electric cars have no market. Natural gas-powered cars would have far more promise as an alternative.

Then there is the cost of production and disposal. For generations old cars have been sent to the scrap yard to be stripped for parts and recycled. We have become amazingly good at recycling our cars. Electric vehicles require special handling due to the batteries. Of course, the cost of production is much higher, even with government subsidies all along the way. Then there is the added cost to the power grid that comes in once adoption reaches a certain point.

Enthusiasts insist that all of this is wrong or can be addressed, but the point here is that the charge time is the least of their worries. If the EV was better, faster, and cheaper than regular cars, the charge time would be ignored. The truth is they are not better in any important ways, they are certainly not cheaper. The electric car is certainly faster, but outside the enthusiast niche, this does not matter and what we see is that it does not matter to the sports car enthusiast either.

Now, of course, there is a new problem. The electric car is not cool. It was never really a cool car, but the beautiful people embraced the idea, so that provided the necessary social proof for upper-middle-class white people. The trend setters are now vandalizing Tesla’s, so the cool factor is gone. In fairness, the novelty was wearing off before the kooks took aim at Elon Musk, but now the coolness is gone. The ridiculous looking cyber truck did not help either.

The bigger issue may be a social one. Cars in general, but electric cars, in particular, make the “owner” into a serf. Fixing your own car is now an expensive proposition, meaning you need to depend on the repair system. This is deliberate. Car dealerships make more profit from the repair of cars than the sale of them, so the game is to make the owner dependent on the dealer. Electric cars are the worst for this as they are terrifyingly dangerous to repair.

The most terrifying part is you may not even own the car. You pay for it and have the title, but features are increasingly dependent on the manufacture agreeing with your lifestyle and political choices. Tesla can disable your car remotely. Other car makers are going down this same path. Soon, features like heated seats will be software as a service, meaning you must get permission to use them. The electric car is the face of this dystopian future of man and machine.

None of this means the electric car is dead. There is a place for the technology, just as there is a niche for eBooks. The developers churning out corporate housing projects could install fast charging stations for the soulless automatons who move into these God-forsaken eyesores. Urban areas could be a good use for electric microcars that only go short distances. Young people could also benefit from cars that can be speed limited and tracked at all times.

In the end, the electric car is going to follow the path of other clever engineering projects in that its primary benefit is secondary. The quest for the electric car has made batteries much better. The hunt for new features to justify the cost premium has led to better electronics, information displays and safety features. The dangers of disposal have been a good lesson in reality. The cars themselves may be niche items, but the industry will have benefitted from the exercise.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


The New Deal Bookend

The assault on the Blob has taken up most of the attention in Washington, along with the reproachment with Russia, but the biggest item on the Trump agenda is the restructuring of the American economy. If you listen to what Trump says when asked about what has been happening thus far, it often circles back to the economy and how he imagines it to be after his changes. The thing is no one in the media follows up on it so Trump is never asked about that end goal.

There were some hints in the Russia coverage. One of the participants from the Russian side was the head of their sovereign wealth fund. This is something Trump has said he wants to create for the American government. A sovereign investment fund is a state-owned investment fund that does the same things a private investment fund, except it also has an eye on policy. A sovereign wealth fund acts as an additional level in both foreign and domestic policy.

This is not a thing you typically see in the West, as the Western economic model is built on the assumption that the government should not meddle in markets. This is a big lie, of course, as Western governments regulate everything. The thing is the regulations are dictated by the market makers through the miracle of regulatory capture, so the political class has limited control of the regulations. A sovereign wealth fund would put the political class on an even footing with the market makers.

That brings us back to the administrative state and the Blob that has consumed it over the last thirty years. In theory it regulates the economy in the interests of the people, but in reality, it has been a conduit so that the parasites within the blob can suck the blood, as in money, from the system. That money is used to maintain control of the host and launch projects abroad. Trillions are sent into the system, but what comes out does not make any sense to anyone, even the people inside it.

Take the Department of Education, for example. It was organized under Jimmy Carter for the purpose of housing all educational programs under one agency. Today it has a quarter trillion-dollar budget and employs 3900 people. Now, that does not mean those employees have a sixty-million-dollar salary. Most of the money gets sent to the states via grants and subsidies. Put another way, a tiny number of people in Washington dictate education policy to the country through this agency.

Trump has ordered its dismantling, but it is not about the money. Pell Grants, for example, are not going away yet. They would be shifted to another agency and eventually either automated or killed off by Congress. The reality is things like Pell Grants are a subsidy to colleges and universities, not students. All government subsidies end up in the pockets of the industry getting the subsidy. If you create grants for buying BMW’s, then BMW raises its prices by the amount of the grant.

From the Trump perspective, the federal government meddles in the economy far too much, but even worse, it meddles in the wrong things, while at the same time it ignores the big things that it should be managing. The federal government spends hundreds of billions subsidizing colleges and universities but ignores the bizarre trade relations we have with Canada and Mexico. In other words, Trump-o-nomics is not rebranded conservatism or libertarianism. It is a radical reordering of priorities.

One way to think of what Trump has in mind is the corporate model, but the start-up variety rather than the late stage decline model. American Inc. is an aging company like IBM that is bogged down in old rules and old thinking. It survives, not on making new and better products, but on the proceeds of past success. If you were to revitalize IBM, you would strip out the good stuff into a new company and hand it to smart people and leave the old stuff to the investors.

That is the goal of the Trump program. The new model for American Inc. is to be like a startup where the people running it, the Executive branch, set the general goals and the broad operational outlines, but the people inside of it, the states, business, and the people, are left to figure out the rest. Things like tariffs, global trade deals and the sovereign wealth fund are tools for setting the broad agenda and correcting imbalances that arise inside the economy.

Anyone familiar with startups or growth companies knows that the enemy of growth and innovation is management. In the 1990’s, for example, ambitious people would see the hiring of human resources people as a sign to move onto the next startup, because they understood that human resources were the death of innovation. The assault on the Blob, therefore, is like the termination of the human resources, diversity, and training departments of a struggling corporation.

There is much more to this, but the thing to take away is that what is happening is just the small setup parts for a larger reshaping of the economic order. Those meetings with the Russians are more about economics than war. In fact, you already hear the change in language regarding Ukraine away from ideology and to economics. For Trump and America Inc., Ukraine is a bad business deal. The goal now is to bring it to a quick close and claw back some of the money.

In this regard, the Trump era may one day be seen as the bookend to the New Deal era that gave rise to the managerial state. It has been lost to the need to recast the New Deal to fit modern narratives, but the FDR people were inspired by what was happening in Europe at the time. This is what gave Burnham the inspiration to write the book, The Managerial Revolution. The irony of the man they swear is Hitler bringing to an end a system partially inspired by Hitler should not go unnoticed.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


The Great Economic Shakeup

Imagine a society made up of farmers who produce what they need to live but also trade extra to one another for things they do not produce. This is not the most efficient society, but as long as everyone is self-sufficient, it works. At the minimum, each farm produces enough food for the family, even in lean years. Perhaps like the Amish, they voluntarily come together on larger projects that are shared by everyone and individual projects that require a lot of hands.

One day, someone comes along with an offer to one of the farmers. Instead of that farmer trading with the other farmers, this stranger will buy the excess for what the farmer wants in trade. He makes this deal with other farmers and before long he makes his living as the middleman. He does the trades between the farmers, keeping a little extra for himself in the process. Before long there are others doing similar and they all live in what they call town.

Now, imagine all the farmers decide to quit farming altogether and move to town to be traders and merchants. Obviously, that cannot work as now there are no farmers to produce the things the traders are trading, and the merchants are selling. Some of the farmers can quit, but not all. Additionally, some can begin to specialize to the point where they are no longer self-sufficient. They now rely on the traders and merchants in town to get the things they need to live.

In other words, the original model works just fine, but it is not efficient. The farmers are all just above the sustenance line. The introduction of middlemen makes for more efficient use of farm labor, so everyone can do a little better. Specialization in farming and in trading increases productivity. Somewhere in this model there is a mix of farmers, traders, merchants, and specialization that attains the maximum amount of productivity for this society.

That productivity, however, must benefit everyone. Otherwise, we get the problem of the farmers looking at the townspeople and deciding they would prefer to be a trader, rather than a farmer. There also must be a balance with regards to specialization, as this could make the productive class overly dependent upon the middlemen, who can then maximize their profits from the productive class. A society with a small number of people controlling all the profit is inherently unstable.

Therein lies the problem Trump inherits in terms of the economy. Starting in the 1970’s with the microprocessor revolution, the American economy has been hellbent on maximizing efficiency. Wherever technology can increase the output from labor, it has been done, often overdone. In fact, the data shows that efficiency has gone up far faster than wages, so we tipped past the happy balance long ago. While the overall economy continues to grow, it grows only for a minority of citizens.

On top of that, we long ago blew past the balance between producers and middlemen described in that prior scenario. A couple of generations of Americans have been trained to work in the middleman economy, often doing busy work related to boutique beliefs like diversity of climate change. Meanwhile, the productive sector atrophied or was shipped off to other parts of the world. The American economy is more like a global counting house now, rather than a self-sufficient economy.

The global bank model has run its course. The rest of the world, for various reasons, is disconnecting from the American model. The rest of the world is unwilling to do like the farmers in that model and turn everything over to the middlemen. That town full of merchants and middlemen is noticing that the farmers are not coming to town to trade their goods as much they did in the past. Suddenly, the skim from the work of the farmers is getting too small to sustain the townsfolk.

It is not a perfect way to think about it, but it helps understand the economic problems Trump inherits as president. It is why he is convinced that shifting from a tax system focused on labor to one focused on trade is a winner. It will help shift labor from busy work in cubicles back to doing productive things because the cost of imports will rise relative to locally produced items. Foreign producers will adjust by investing in production inside America.

The practical problem Trump inherits is the American economic model evolved to favor the middleman over the producer. Over time it led to the imbalance we see between producers and facilitators. It also led to a narrowing of profit to a shrinking number of players in the economy. In some ways, the American economy has become a digital version of the Bronze Age palace economies in that everything flows through financial and information centers that operate as skimming houses.

Fixing the imbalances within the rules of the system is impossible. This post by an economist calling himself Jack Rasmus explains how the tools available to government no longer work to address the practical imbalances. The people controlling Joe Biden poured almost four trillion in extra money into the system, but it did nothing to mitigate the problem of shrinking middle-class budgets. Prices keep rising while wages remain static, which means most people are getting poorer.

The only way out of the current trap is through systemic changes. That is why Trump is fixated on tariffs as an economic and policy tool. On the one hand this brings costs back in line with prices, so the market regains some coherence. If the real cost of an item is in the price of the item, then people will reward the genuinely lower cost items. In the current model, the cost of cheap goods turns up in the loss of social capital, delayed family formation and, of course, high crime.

A simple example is prepared food. These are cheap for the consumer but are packed with hidden costs. The refrigeration units used to be made in America, but those plants were shipped abroad by the miracle or tariff free trades deals. Of course, the plants are often staffed with cheap foreign labor, the cost of which turns up in your property taxes, the crowded schools, and the healthcare system. That frozen pizza turns out to be vastly more expensive than the price on the box.

Multiply this out all over the economy and it is easy to see the problem. Fifty years ago, middle-class families could get by on one income. Today, it takes two-incomes which is why there are far fewer families. Ours is an economy that looks prosperous on the outside, but the internals are littered with hidden costs. The only way to remedy this is to bring the costs back to the front of that frozen pizza and that can only be done through systemic change.

There are three challenges. One is the small number of people profiting from the current model will fight reform. That is not insurmountable. Trump having some of the richest men on earth in his corner will help a great deal. The bigger problem is the transition cost, which will come in the form of recession. There is no escape from it. The early 1980’s were the cost of transitioning from the productive economy to the middleman economy, so expect similar as we transition back.

The biggest challenge in this project is a dysfunctional managerial class that sees any change as a challenge to their position. The middleman economy was very good for the sorts of people who have a long list of impressive sounding credentials but view tangible accomplishment as a disqualifier. The army of managers in the managerial state cannot survive a transition out of a middleman economy. Like the aristocracy in 18th century France, they will not go quietly.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


Troubled Youth

Over the last week a dispute has erupted on Twitter about the relative difficulties faced by young people. One camp, current young people, claim they are entering a world that is much more difficult for them than youth of prior generations. They do not think they have the same opportunities as their parents and grandparents. Another camp thinks that young people are entering relatively good times economically but may have unrealistic expectations regarding adulthood.

To be accurate, there is at least one other camp in this debate. That camp thinks the youth face a demographic reality for which they have not been properly prepared and a prevailing culture that works to prevent that preparation. The relative state of the economy for young people does not matter if they are entering a society that is about to come apart along demographic lines. Young white people have been poorly trained up for a world that should not exist.

As is often the case, the two camps squaring off over economics are on the main stage while the camp looking at upstream issues is marginalized. While economics is downstream from demographics and culture, it still matters. We see this with the oldest demographic who remain stubbornly committed to the system. Baby boomers, overall, have it pretty good, so they still believe in the system, even it means they must endure an emergency room that looks like a Tijuana bus stop.

The economic question for young people is difficult, because it is more about expectations than objective measures. For example, about 16% of native-born teenagers have jobs today, compared to 32% in 1990. On the one hand, this is a bad thing because it means fewer young people getting necessary training to be an adult once they finish their education. On the other hand, it means they have an easier time of it than prior generations who had to work.

Those over the age of fifty love telling stories about the terrible jobs they had as young people, while no one under the age of thirty complains about not having had crappy jobs to make ends meet. In fact, the main complaint from college graduates in their twenties is that they have crappy jobs. This is where the great divide opens between those two main camps debating the issue. Old people roll their eyes, because having a crappy job is a rite of passage. Young people see it as a broken promise.

If you are in that third camp, you can see how both sides are right. On the one hand, young people should stop moaning about crappy jobs and being poor, because that is what every generation faced. In fact, prior generations had it far worse. On the other hand, this was not the deal promised to young people who went into debt to get a college diploma. They were told that this investment would let them bypass the struggle portion of their life and get right into the middle-class.

Here you see the root cause of the complaint from young people. The breakdown of order has eroded the social contract. In fact, the social contract is now a terms of service agreement. They were told to click “accept” in high school, but once they exited college, they were told the terms of service have changed. Just in case they objected, they were also told that the privacy policy had changed as well. “Please click accept” quickly became “accept or else.”

There is more to this broken social contract than economics. The conditioning of young people comes with the assumption that if they follow the rules and tick the correct boxes, they will find meaning and purpose in life. Instead, what they find is life in a cubicle, paying off school debts while living at home. Half of college graduates live at home, which is not as high as you might think, but they continue to live at home long after they have left college. That is a novelty.

In effect, young people were sold a program that said if they went to college, took on the debt and followed the rules, they would come out the other end with the sort of fulfilling life they saw in the media. Instead, they are faced with what feels like a pointless existence as an economic unit. That philosophy major at the coffee shop is not just a punch line. She is a bitter victim. Telling her that she now must find her own meaning in this struggle sounds like another lie to her.

That said, the youth of the past did not like working in high school and would have preferred to hang out with friends playing video games. College grads of the past would have preferred to get a job in their field at the same wage as an experienced man, rather than working retail until they could get their foot in the door. The struggle for today’s youth is relatively easy, even if it is the result of a broken promise. In fact, young people probably have it too easy in many respects.

This generational conflict is, in the end, a proxy for the larger conflict which revolves around the failure of the ruling class over the last thirty years. Instead of upholding the rules, especially the rules of the social contract, they turned the country into a smash and grab where everyone is on their own. As a result, the powerful, for example colleges, exploit the weak, their students. It should be no surprise that the victims of such a system are not its biggest fans.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


A Radical Departure

An interesting subtext to the election of Donald Trump is one that has been largely ignored by the usual sources. It was not cultural issues, foreign policy or the ineptitude of Kamala Harris that drove the election. It was the economy. Widespread anxiety over the economy is what drove down support for Harris, despite the billion-dollar campaign and the billions spent in media gaslighting. No amount of jawboning could convince the public that the economy is doing as good as claimed.

There is a good reason for this. As some have predicted, inflation has been creeping back up after having moved down for a period. The American economy is experiencing what happened in the 1970’s. Contrary to popular belief, inflation did not rage for the entire decade but ran in spurts. There were periods where inflation rose, plateaued and then fell to a tolerable level. The latest data on the CPI and the PPI indicate the current economy is stuck in a similar pattern.

Regime media dismisses this as a minor blip in an otherwise glorious economy, managed by the wise and noble Biden administration, but that has not convinced anyone who buys things. The government does not measure inflation the same way it used to measure it in the 1970’s, so no talk of stagflation. If they used the old methods, inflation would be a daily feature. Of course, you also have the fact that the government now lies about all of the economic data.

This is why the gaslighting failed so miserably in the election. One of the secrets to trick people is to overcome the expectations gap. This is the difference between what people expect to be the basis of the argument and the actual basis of the argument. If you confirm what people think is true and make your argument from that basis, you can convince people of most anything. If you start from an alternative reality as your basis, then you have little chance, no matter how clever the argument.

That does not alter the fact that the economy may be in worse shape than the government and media are willing to admit. There are systemic problems that go back a long way that may finally being coming to the fore. Twenty years ago, everyone talked about what would happen to the labor force when the baby boomers started to retire, but no one talks about it now that they are retiring. Of course, no one dares talk about is replacing those baby boomers in the workplace.

For his part, Trump talks about the need to reform the economic model away from everyone doing each other’s laundry back to building things again. Part of his approach to China is to bring back important parts of the industrial base. Trump is committed to a form of Abenomics which means massive new spending to attract private capital, along with policies to coerce those investments. He will come to office just as government spending is setting new records.

This sort of worked in Japan because they have a strong industrial base that supports their export economy. They also have a homogenous culture with a commitment to self-sufficiency and a savings rate to prove it. For America, this can only work with low interest rates and that can only happen if the dollar returns to its dominant position in global trade and investment. It is why Trump is threatening to nuke any country thinking about going off the dollar.

The trouble is, people will trade in a currency if it is backed by something accepted everywhere like gold or the issuing country produces things that the rest of the world covets, like food, manufactured goods and energy. Alternatively, as has been the case for decades, countries will transact in a currency if it is viewed as a stable store of value by the rest of the world. The dollar has been the reserve currency because of the petrodollar and because it came with a stable set of rules.

Constant rule breaking by Washington has depressed the trust in the dollar because the rules behind it have collapsed. The only reason that the BRICS countries are working on an alternative payment system is they fear dependence on the dollar makes their governments unstable. Added to this is the fact that the Saudis have not renewed the petrodollar agreement signed in the 1970’s. This has not resulted in a change in policy, but China just sold dollar-denominated bonds in Riyadh.

This is one reason the foreign policy establishment is committed to creating chaos in the Middle East. The United States is not just the world’s banker. It is also the world’s protection racket and the countries that need protection the most are those near places with lots of instability. You can be sure that the collapse of Syria is keeping the sheiks in Riyadh tossing and turning at night. Here you see the connection between foreign policy and economic policy. In the end, it is always about money.

This is what Trump will inherit next month. On the one hand, the economic model of the American empire relies on the world being a dangerous place. This is what makes the world willing to put up with Washington in exchange for protection. At the same time, that model is slowly hollowing out the American middle-class. The imperial model works just fine if American citizens accept being mere subjects alongside the rest of the world’s population. Clearly they do not like this.

To some degree you can understand why permanent Washington has reacted to Trump and the populist movement that has made him possible with such fear. They understand the risks that come with putting the American people first. It is not just the cultural stuff or the paranoid fear of the past. It is the understanding that the imperial economic system cannot prioritize Americans over the others getting protection. Protection rackets must protect everyone inside the racket.

Whether or not Trump understands this is a mystery, but he is committed to an American form of Abenomics. It was not an accident that he hosted Abe’s widow last week at Mar-a-Lago. Scott Bessent, Trump’s pick to run Treasury, is known as “The Man Who Broke the Bank of Japan” because his hedge fund made billions from Abenomics by understanding it in great detail. Whether it can work in America is unknown, but we will know soon enough.

That is the irony of the Trump election. He was elected in large part to fix the economy, by which people mean lower inflation and increase wages. Republicans have done this with tax cuts and corporate giveaways and Democrats have done it with spending programs and corporate giveaways. The Trump plan is to restructure the economy, which will require massive spending and a considerable amount of pain. It is a radical departure from what people have come to expect.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at sa***@*********************ns.com.


Trumponomics 2.0

The next few weeks will bring a flurry of news regarding various names for jobs in the next Trump White House. Some of it will be gaslighting from people who just make things up for regime media. Some of it will disappoint Trump supporters hoping to get something from their efforts this time. One area that has gotten no coverage, but will be one of the most important, is the economy. Trump appears determined to fundamentally change how Washington controls the economy.

That is the first thing to understand. The United States is not a free-market economy or even close to one. There are millions of lines of regulatory code covering every aspect of economic activity. It is not exactly a command economy and in no way a centrally planned one, but it is a tightly controlled economy. Washington has its tentacles in every nook and cranny, even the black markets. Therefore, a president’s view on how to control the economy matters a great deal.

When it comes to economic policy, the placed to start is former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Trump was a fan of Abenomics, in addition to be on very good personal terms with him. Trump has often spoke highly of what has come to be known as Abenomics. Reportedly, Trump has talked to Scott Bessent about a position in the administration, maybe even Treasury Secretary. Bessent is also a proponent of the “three arrows” approach to the economy.

The “three arrows” term is how Shinzo Abe described his approach. One arrow or prong was loose money. Get as much money into the economy as quickly as possible, even if it creates inflation. The second arrow is to direct that new money into areas of the economy that either need revitalization or startup capital. If this means growing the budget, then so be it. The third arrow is to encourage (compel) private investment in the domestic economy over yield chasing.

Applied to the American economy, it probably means a blend of loose money, the slashing of regulation and tariffs to direct investment into the domestical economy, especially the supply chain and industrial base. One obvious lesson of the Covid panic, one entirely ignored by Washington, is complex supply chains, especially those flowing through Asia, are highly fragile. The growing rift with China makes untangling those supply chains even more important going forward.

Trump has made it clear that he wants to use tariffs to redirect investment into the domestic economy. Another name turning up as a possible addition to the Trump team is Robert Lighthizer, who is both a China hawk and the architect of Trump’s trade policy in his first term. It is important to note that the changes Trump ushered in were not rolled back under Biden. Taken together, it is a clear sign that Trump 2.0 will be much more hawkish on the trade front.

Those familiar with the regulatory world remember the wild ride it was in Trump’s first term as they went on a deregulation spree. Expect Trump 2.0 to be even more aggressive, especially on the environmental front. His nominee for the EPA is Lee Zeldin, who the Gaia worshipers detest. Trump made it clear with the announcement that his job will be to clear the dense thicket of environmental regulations that make it hard to put a shovel in the ground for any reason.

Trump 2.0 will be helped by the courts in this regard. This year the Supreme Court ended what had been termed the Chevron deference. This was the rule that said the courts should defer to the regulatory agencies whenever there was ambiguity in the laws passed by Congress. Of course, this meant that everything passed by Congress was as vague as possible, to give total control to the agencies. This has been turned on its head by the courts.

What we are likely to see is a three-pronged assault on the administrative state in Trump’s second term. One prong will be the aggressive slashing of regulations that we saw in Trump’s first term. The second prong will be a flood of litigation aimed at the vagaries of the enabling legislation. There are many cases in the system. The final prong is an effort by Congress to clean up the language to both limit the agencies, but also reassert oversight.

Where things get interesting is fiscal policy. Inflation remains an issue, despite claims to the contrary, but the Fed is signaling cuts in interest rates. Will Trump demand big new spending on infrastructure? This would be one way to soak up some of the extra money being generated by lower interest rates. Anyone who goes outside knows there is a desperate need to rebuild the infrastructure. Go to an airport and you are suddenly embarrassed to be an American.

All this stuff is boring and does not get the same attention you see with some of the other stuff allegedly on Trump’s agenda. Catapulting left-wing crazies into the sea provides a much bigger dopamine rush than deregulation. On the other hand, Trumponomics is the most radical part of his agenda. Those old enough to remember Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan see the point. Trump is repudiating half a century of conservative economic dogma.

The Trump economic agenda is not without its problems. In Washington, every mortgage payment, college tuition bill, access to elite schools and universities depends on nothing changing in Washington. Trump 1.0 was largely undone by his own party, who is as invested in the status quo as the Democrats. The lawfare industrial complex is also gearing up for round two against Trump. Maybe his team is ready this time, but even if they are prepared, it will be a long slog.

The bigger question is if it will work. What Trump is proposing sounds a lot like old fashioned liberal economics from the last century. Instead of tax and spend it will be print and spend. The difference is the deregulation and tariffs. The point of this approach is to redirect investment back into the American economy and direct it to tangible things like supply chains and manufacturing. It is the approach we saw with growth economies last century.

Another thing he has on his side is the economic elites have come around to this approach to the economy. Investors love cheap money and deregulation, but Wall Street also sees it needs a replacement for Asia. The days of getting rich from the China trade are gone. If the United States replaces China as an investment option, they will get onboard with it. As we saw with the election, it is always good when the rich people are backing your play.


If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!


Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at sa***@*********************ns.com.