Why Etsy made the 2022 Dirty Dozen List — Take Action! thumbnail

Why Etsy made the 2022 Dirty Dozen List — Take Action!

By National Center on Sexual Exploitation

SIGN THE PETITION

Each year, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation releases the Dirty Dozen List, an annual campaign that names twelve entities that have facilitated or profited from sexual exploitation – and each year, we see significant victories and progress that give us hope for a world truly free from these abuses.

You’ve probably heard of some of the companies that are on the list this year, and some may be new or even confusing to you. In 2022, we’ve gotten questions about Etsy in particular.

I love Etsy – most of the art in my own home comes from talented Etsy artists. So why is NCOSE calling them out on the Dirty Dozen List?

While Etsy supports thousands of creators making handmade and unique products, the company is also in the business of selling:

  • pornographic merchandise,
  • image-based sexual abuse,
  • misogynistic apparel,
  • sex dolls – including ones resembling children and young teens.

That’s why we are calling on Etsy to fulfill their obligation to stop profiting from and normalizing child sex abuse and exploitation, and to improve their moderation and filtering techniques.

We are now about halfway through 2022, and your voice and support are more important than ever!

Help us encourage Etsy to stop selling sexual exploitation by taking action here, and join the thousands of other concerned advocates by signing this petition!

The power of our collective voices cannot be understated. We need more to join us, and I know you are just as passionate about changing the world for the better as we are here at NCOSE.

SIGN THE PETITION

©NCOSE. All rights reserved.

Fed’s QT Kicks Off: Total Assets Drop by $74 Billion from Peak, New Era Begins thumbnail

Fed’s QT Kicks Off: Total Assets Drop by $74 Billion from Peak, New Era Begins

By Wolf Richter

QE creates money. QT does the opposite: it destroys money.

Total assets on the Fed’s weekly balance sheet as of July 6, released this afternoon, fell by $22 billion from the prior week, and by $74 billion from the peak in April, to $8.89 trillion, the lowest since February 9, as the Fed’s quantitative tightening (QT) has kicked off. The zigzag pattern is due to the peculiar nature of Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) that we’ll get to in a moment.

Treasury securities fell by $20 billion for the week, and by $27 billion from peak.

Run-offs: twice a month. Treasury notes and bonds mature mid-month and end of the month, which is when they come off the Fed’s balance sheet, which in June was June 15th and June 30th.

Tightening deniers. Last week’s balance sheet was as of June 29 and didn’t include the June 30th run-off. However, the army of tightening-deniers trolling the internet and social media doesn’t know that, and so a week ago, they fanned out and announced that the Fed had already ended QT, or was backtracking on it because Treasuries hadn’t dropped in two weeks, which was hilarious. Or more sinister: hedge funds manipulating markets through their minions.

Inflation compensation from TIPS adds to balance. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities pay inflation compensation that is added to the face value of the TIPS (similar to the popular “I bonds”). So if you hold a fixed number of TIPS, their face value will rise with the amount of the inflation compensation. When they mature, you will receive the total amount of original face value plus inflation compensation.

The Fed holds $384 billion in TIPS at its original face value. It has received $92 billion of inflation compensation on those TIPS. This inflation compensation increased its holdings of TIPS to $476 billion.

Over the month of June, inflation compensation increased by $4 billion. In other words, until those TIPS mature and run off the balance sheet, the Fed’s holdings of TIPS will increase by the amount of inflation compensation – currently around $1-1.5 billion a week!

No TIPS matured in June. But next week, July 15, TIPS with an original face value of $9.6 billion-plus $2.5 billion in inflation compensation will mature, for a total of $12.1 billion, that the Fed will get paid. After that, the next maturity of TIPS on the Fed’s balance sheet is on January 15, 2023. And the TIPS balance will increase from July 15 through January 15 due to inflation compensation.

The thing to remember about the Fed’s TIPS is that the inflation compensation is added to the balance of TIPS and therefore to the balance of Treasury securities, at around $1-1.5 billion a week currently.

The balance of Treasury securities fell by $20 billion from the prior week and by $27 billion from the peak on June 8, to $5.74 trillion, the lowest since February 23:

  • Note the two run-offs on the balance sheets on June 16 and today.
  • Note the small steady increase of around $1-1.5 billion a week after QE had ended from mid-March into June, which is the inflation compensation from TIPS.

MBS fell by $31 billion from the peak.

Pass-through principal payments. Holders of MBS receive pass-through principal payments when the underlying mortgages are paid off after the home is sold or the mortgage is refinanced, and when mortgage payments are made. As a passthrough principal payment is made, the balance of the MBS shrinks by that amount. These pass-through principal payments are uneven and unpredictable.

Purchases in the TBA market and delayed settlement. During QE, and to a much lesser extent during the taper, and to a minuscule extent now, the Fed tries to keep the balance of MBS from shrinking too fast by buying MBS in the “To Be Announced” (TBA) market. But purchases in the TBA market take one to three months to settle. The Fed books its trades after they settle. So the purchases included in any balance sheet were made one to three months earlier.

This delay is why it takes months for MBS balance to reflect the Fed’s current purchases. The purchases we see show up on the balance sheet in June were made somewhere around March and April.

And these purchases are not aligned with the pass-through principal payments that the Fed receives. This misalignment creates the ups and downs of the MBS balance, that also carries through to the overall balance sheet.

In addition, MBS may also get called by the issuer (such as Fannie Mae) when the principal balance has shrunk so much that it’s not worth maintaining the MBS (the issuer then repackages the remaining underlying mortgages into new MBS).

Tightening deniers. So when the tightening-deniers – including a hedge-fund guy with a big Twitter following – trolled the internet and the social media about QT not happening because MBS balance ticked up by $1.2 billion on the June 23 balance sheet, they got tangled up in their own underwear. The following week, the MBS balance fell by $19.5 billion. That’s how MBS on the Fed’s balance sheet work. These folks just didn’t know, or more insidiously, tried to manipulate the markets…..

*****

Continue reading this article at Wolf Street.

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

SUPPLY CHAIN CRISIS: 70,000 Self-Employed Truckers in California Forced Off The Road Under New Democrat State Law thumbnail

SUPPLY CHAIN CRISIS: 70,000 Self-Employed Truckers in California Forced Off The Road Under New Democrat State Law

By The Geller Report

The Democrats war on the hard working American ratcheted up another unimaginable notch. But this time, it not only outs the small businessman out of business, throw in massive shortages (food, supplies etc.), supply chain issues etc. It’s a catastrophe

Sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a review on whether California Assembly Bill 5 (AB-5) violates the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 as it applies to self-employed truck drivers.

70,000 Self-Employed Truckers in California Face Shutdown Under New State Law

Industry says it’s ‘pouring gasoline’ on supply chain crisis

By Allan Stein, The Epoch Times, July 8, 2022:

Tens of thousands of independent California truck owner-operators could be out of business soon under a new statewide worker classification law designating them as employees.

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a review on whether California Assembly Bill 5 (AB-5) violates the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 as it applies to self-employed truck drivers.

“Gasoline has been poured on the fire that is our ongoing supply chain crisis,” the California Trucking Association (CTA) wrote in a June 30 response to the high court’s decision regarding the association’s legal challenge to the bill.

“In addition to the direct impact on California’s 70,000 owner-operators—who have seven days to cease long-standing independent businesses—the impact of taking tens of thousands of truck drivers off the road will have devastating repercussions on an already fragile supply chain, increasing costs and worsening runaway inflation,” the association added.

“We are disappointed the court does not recognize the irrevocable damage eliminating independent truckers will have on interstate commerce and communities across the state.

“The legislature and [Gavin] Newsom administration must immediately take action to avoid worsening the supply chain crisis and inflation.”

The California State Assembly adopted AB-5 in September 2019, sparking CTA’s legal challenge and the Supreme Court’s latest decision.

The bill’s primary sponsor was Lorena Gonzalez (D), a union leader and former Assembly member.

Under AB-5, a self-employed commercial truck owner must satisfy a three-part test to be considered an independent contractor, with exceptions for construction trucking services.

The bill adds that existing law “creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission.”

Existing law defines employees for purposes that include “any individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an employee.”

Self-Employed Truckers Entitled to Benefits

The bill would entitle those self-employed truck drivers and owners to the same benefits and workers’ compensation as regular employees.

According to Globecom Freight Systems, a leading provider of transportation services, owner-operators make up 9 percent (350,000) of the commercial truckers on the road today. Their average salary is about $50,000.

A recent study by the American Trucking Association found that the nationwide shortage of 80,000 truck drivers could double by 2030. In light of the shortage, many trucking companies now offer lucrative sign-on bonuses and salaries to attract more drivers.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration recently launched an apprenticeship driver program for those aged 18–to–20 that would allow them to cross state lines to help further alleviate the shortage.

Tony Bradley, president and CEO of the Arizona Trucking Association, criticized AB-5 as a “horribly misguided piece of legislation” by California labor unions that will have a “drastic impact across all trucking.”

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden Economics: Natural Gas Soars 700% thumbnail

Biden Economics: Natural Gas Soars 700%

By The Geller Report

“Best economy in history.” — White House

Natural Gas Soars 700%, Becoming Driving Force in the New Cold War

(Bloomberg) — One morning in early June, a fire broke out at an obscure facility in Texas that takes natural gas from US shale basins, chills it into a liquid and ships it overseas. It was extinguished in 40 minutes or so. No one was injured.

It sounds like a story for the local press, at most — except that more than three weeks later, financial and political shockwaves are still reverberating across Europe, Asia and beyond.

That’s because natural gas is the hottest commodity in the world right now. It’s a key driver of global inflation, posting price jumps that are extreme even by the standards of today’s turbulent markets — some 700% in Europe since the start of last year, pushing the continent to the brink of recession. It’s at the heart of a dawning era of confrontation between the great powers, one so intense that in capitals across the West, plans to fight climate change are getting relegated to the back-burner.

In short, natural gas now rivals oil as the fuel that shapes geopolitics. And there isn’t enough of it to go around.

It’s the war in Ukraine that catalyzed the gas crisis to a new level, by taking out a crucial chunk of supply. Russia is cutting back on pipeline deliveries to Europe — which says it wants to stop buying from Moscow anyway, if not quite yet. The scramble to fill that gap is turning into a worldwide stampede, as countries race to secure scarce cargoes of liquefied natural gas ahead of the northern-hemisphere winter.

The New Oil?

Germany says gas shortfalls could trigger a Lehman Brothers-like collapse, as Europe’s economic powerhouse faces the unprecedented prospect of businesses and consumers running out of power. The main Nord Stream pipeline that carries Russian gas to Germany is due to shut down on July 11 for ten days of maintenance, and there’s growing fear that Moscow may not reopen it. Group of Seven leaders are seeking ways to curb Russia’s gas earnings, which help finance the invasion of Ukraine — and backing new LNG investments. And poorer countries

that built energy systems around cheap gas are now struggling to afford it.

“This is the 1970s for natural gas,” says Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners LLC, a Washington-based research firm. “The world is now thinking about gas as it once thought about oil, and the essential role that gas plays in modern economies and the need for secure and diverse supply have become very visible.”

Natural gas used to be a sleepy commodity that changed hands in fragmented regional markets. Now, even though globalization appears to be in retreat across much of the world economy, the gas trade is headed in the opposite direction. It’s globalizing fast — but maybe not fast enough.

Keep reading……

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: EU Declares Fossil Fuel To Be ‘Green’ Energy As ‘Climate Change’ Narrative Self-Destructs

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Elon Musk Terminates Twitter Deal thumbnail

Elon Musk Terminates Twitter Deal

By The Daily Caller

Tesla CEO Elon Musk canceled his bid to purchase Twitter Friday, according to a letter from his lawyers published in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

Twitter “appears to have made false and misleading representations” and “has not complied with its contractual obligations,” according to the letter. Mike Ringler, attorney for Skadden Arps, accused the company of refusing to provide information requested by Musk, including what percent of its monetizable users were fake or spam accounts.

Musk threatened to cancel his deal with Twitter June 6 after the company reportedly refused to hand over user data reports he had requested. The company has claimed that only 5% of its accounts are fake or spam, but Musk speculated that number could be four times higher.

“We are committed to closing the transaction on the price and terms agreed upon with Mr. Musk and plan to pursue legal action to enforce the merger agreement. We are confident we will prevail in the Delaware Court of Chancery,” the Twitter board said in a statement provided to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Twitter Board is committed to closing the transaction on the price and terms agreed upon with Mr. Musk and plans to pursue legal action to enforce the merger agreement. We are confident we will prevail in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

— Bret Taylor (@btaylor) July 8, 2022

“Twitter has not provided information that Mr. Musk has requested for nearly two months notwithstanding his repeated, detailed clarifications intended to simplify Twitter’s identification, collection, and disclosure of the most relevant information sought in Mr. Musk’s original requests,” the letter from Musk’s attorney read.

Musk agreed to buy Twitter for about $44 billion April 25 after the company attempted to thwart his buyout efforts.

This story is breaking and will be updated as the situation develops. Please check back for updates.

AUTHOR

LAUREL DUGGAN

Social and culture reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Civilization Serialized’: Musk Laments Declining US Birth Rate, Claims Humanity Will ‘Cease To Exist’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

EU Declares Fossil Fuel To Be ‘Green’ Energy As ‘Climate Change’ Narrative Self-Destructs thumbnail

EU Declares Fossil Fuel To Be ‘Green’ Energy As ‘Climate Change’ Narrative Self-Destructs

By The Geller Report

When reality meets propaganda, it’s brutal.

Trump was right. Right about “green energy’ farce, right about the climate accord, right about the Paris Agreement …. he was right about everything.

“EU Parliament backs green label for nuclear and natural gas, defying climate Left,” reports the Washington Examiner. The decision will, “ease construction of infrastructure for those power sources over the objections of some environmentalists and members of the bloc.”

When Trump spoke at the UN and called out countries for depending on Russian oil, the German delegation laughed at him.

Trump was right. pic.twitter.com/lD92gLyKk4

— Hananya Naftali (@HananyaNaftali) March 7, 2022

This decision is the first sign that European leaders may be pulling back from the green energy suicide cult that now typifies socialist, progressive “libtard” governments that are more interested in virtue signaling than allowing their own domestic economies to function. The fraudulent, junk science narrative of “climate change” has caused western nations (including the USA) to dismantle much of their fossil fuel infrastructure over the last 20 years. With Russia’s energy exports suddenly cut off due to economic sanctions, Western Europe is finding itself mired in an unprecedented energy crisis with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Suddenly, European nations are panicking to try to rebuild their energy infrastructure. But since they’ve officially blocked most funding for non-green energy projects, the only way to get funds to rebuild fossil fuel infrastructure is to declare fossil fuels to be “green.”

And that’s exactly what the EU parliament just did with natural gas, delivering a devastating blow to the climate change narrative, which was always based on so much quackery and bunk that I’ve called it “atmospheric transgenderism.” If men can get pregnant, then CO2 is a pollutant, you see. If you’re fabricating reality, then anything goes.

It turns out that even “progressive” national leaders of European nations are being dragged back to reality, kicking and screaming, reluctantly admitting that fossil energy is the only thing that can power modern economies at the moment, at least until hot fusion or cold fusion are commercialized…… (more here)

EU parliament backs labelling gas and nuclear investments as green

By Kate Abnett, Reuters, July 6, 2022

Lawmakers back ‘green’ EU investment label for the fuels

Likely to become law unless super-majority of states veto

Gas, nuclear rules have split EU countries and lawmakers

Luxembourg, Austria to challenge law in court

BRUSSELS, July 6 (Reuters) – The European Parliament on Wednesday backed EU rules labelling investments in gas and nuclear power plants as climate-friendly, throwing out an attempt to block the law that has exposed deep rifts between countries over how to fight climate change.

The vote paves the way for the European Union proposal to pass into law, unless 20 of the bloc’s 27 member states decide to oppose the move, which is seen as very unlikely.

The new rules will add gas and nuclear power plants to the EU “taxonomy” rulebook from 2023, enabling investors to label and market investments in them as green.

Out of 639 lawmakers present, 328 opposed a motion that sought to block the EU gas and nuclear proposals.

The European Commission welcomed the result. It proposed the rules in February after more than a year of delay and intense lobbying from governments and industries.

“The Complementary Delegated Act is a pragmatic proposal to ensure that private investments in gas and nuclear, needed for our energy transition, meet strict criteria,” EU financial services chief Mairead McGuinness said.

The rules have split EU countries, lawmakers and investors. Brussels redrafted the rules multiple times, flip-flopping over whether to grant gas plants a green tag. Its final proposal fuelled fierce debate about how to hit climate goals amid a crisis over dwindling Russian gas supplies.

Gas is a fossil fuel that produces planet-warming emissions – but far less than coal, and some EU states see it as a temporary alternative to replace the dirtier fuel.

Nuclear energy is free from CO2 emissions but produces radioactive waste. Supporters such as France say nuclear is vital to meet emissions-cutting goals, while opponents cite concerns about waste disposal.

Read more

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dutch Farms Seized To Make Way For Migrants

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre: ‘Our Economy is Stronger Now Than Ever Before!’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report us republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

DEATH CLAIMS UP $6 BILLION: After Covid ‘Vaccines’ Unleashed thumbnail

DEATH CLAIMS UP $6 BILLION: After Covid ‘Vaccines’ Unleashed

By The Geller Report

Fifth Largest life insurance company paid 163% for more working-age deaths in 2021.


The massive media cover-up of the death toll and injuries sustained in the largest medical experiment in human history could not remain hidden for too long. The body count and the life insurance costs cannot be ignored.

The lies and deceit are monumentally criminal …… And the medical establishment has destroyed the public trust by going along with this horror.Just this week:

Two-time Olympic artistic swimmer Anita Alvarez was in danger of drowning after fainting while performing at the World Championships in Budapest, Hungary, on Wednesday and was dramatically rescued by her coach, Gateway Pundit reports.

Death claims up $6 BILLION: Fifth-largest life insurance company paid out for 163% more working-age deaths in 2021 after covid “vaccines” were unleashed

(Natural News) Another major life insurance company in the United States is facing turmoil as death claims soar due to Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines.”

According to reports, Lincoln National, the country’s fifth-largest life insurance carrier, reported a massive 163 percent increase in death benefits paid out under its group life insurance policies in 2021.

Annual statements filed with state insurance departments, which were provided to Crossroads Report in response to public records requests, show that Lincoln National paid out almost three times as much money in 2021 compared to yearly totals in both 2020 and 2019.

Last year, an astounding $1.45 billion left Lincoln National’s coffers – this compared to $548 million in 2020 and just over $500 million in 2019. (Related: Earlier this year, OneAmerica, another major life insurance carrier, reported a 40 percent increase in death claims after covid injections were released.)

“From 2019, the last normal year before the pandemic, to 2020, the year of the Covid-19 virus, there was an increase in group death benefits paid out of only 9 percent. But group death benefits in 2021, the year the vaccine was introduced, increased almost 164 percent over 2020,” Crossroads Report explains.

“Lincoln National is the fifth-largest life insurance company in the United States, according to BankRate, after New York Life, Northwestern Mutual, MetLife and Prudential.”

More than 20,000 people covered by Lincoln National died in 2021 because of Fauci Flu shots

Group life insurance policies typically cover working-age adults, which range in age from 18 to 64. This should be an otherwise healthy demographic, and one that clearly did not have much of a problem with “covid” pre-vaccine.

“How many deaths are represented by the 163% increase? It is not possible to determine by the dollar figures on the statements,” Crossroads Report further explains.

“But the average death benefit for employer-provided group life insurance, according to the Society for Human Resource Management, is one year’s salary.”

Estimating based on an average annual salary in the United States of $70,000, it is safe to assume that more than 20,000 working-age adults covered just by this one insurance company died last year because of the jabs – and keep in mind that this is just one insurance company.

While we do not yet have numbers for New York Life, Northwestern Mutual, MetLife and Prudential, these each are more than likely seeing similar figures, suggesting that hundreds of thousands of working-age adults in America are now dead as a result of becoming “fully vaccinated.”

There are also ordinary death benefits, which are not paid out under group policies. In 2019 pre-plandemic, such policies paid out $3.7 billion, In 2020, that figure increased to $4 billion. In 2021, however, after almost 260 million Americans took at least one jab, the number ballooned to $5.3 billion.

“The statements show that the total amount that Lincoln National paid out for all direct claims and benefits in 2021 was more than $28 billion, $6 billion more than in 2020, when it paid out a total of $22 billion, which was less than the $23 billion it paid out in 2019, the baseline year,” reports explain.

“A $6 billion increase in expenses is something few companies could absorb, but Lincoln National has been working to do just that – by increasing sales of new insurance policies.”

It remains to be seen if the life insurance industry survives what has happened, is still happening, and will happen in the future once the remaining survivors of the injections develop ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement) and VAIDS (vaccine-induced AIDS).

Fauci Flu shots are a deadly affair. To keep up with the latest news about the injuries and deaths being caused by them, check out VaccineDamage.news.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

NFL Linebacker Jaylon Ferguson Passes Away Mysteriously at 26

NFL legend Tony Siragusa, who helped Ravens win Super Bowl, dies at the age of 55

Caleb Swanigan, former Purdue standout and first-round NBA draft pick, dead at 25

X-Factor’ Star’s Bride Dies On Her Wedding Day

Scientists Discover Jab Decimates Sperm Count

COVID Vaccines Increase Menstrual Irregularities Thousandfold, Fetal Abnormalities Hundredfold: Doctors’ VAERS Analysis

‘Significant’ Cases of Neurological Disorder Associated with Covid Vaccine

Data Proves ‘Sudden Adult Death Syndrome’ Fiction Is Death by Covid Vaccination

Uruguay Judge Orders Pfizer And Government to Disclose Covid Vaccine Ingredients Immediately

CDC Caught Using False Data To Recommend Kids’ COVID Vaccine

New UK government data shows the COVID vaccines kill more people than they save

Here’s Why Officials Are Desperate to Get COVID Vaccine on Childhood Schedule Before ‘Emergency’ Ends

CDC Caught Using False Data To Recommend Kids’ COVID Vaccine

Vaccines for 6-Month-Olds ‘Makes Absolutely No Sense’: Dr. Jeffrey Barke

Publix Publicly Announced Its Refusal To Offer Vaccinations For Children Under 5

MIT: COVID Vaccines ‘Significantly Associated’ with Spike in Heart Attacks in Young People

FDA Authorizes Emergency Use COVID Vaccine Boosters for Children Ages 5 -11

3-year-old girl dies of heart attack one day after taking COVID vaccine

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Mass Immigration Won’t Stimulate Post-COVID Economic Recovery thumbnail

Mass Immigration Won’t Stimulate Post-COVID Economic Recovery

By Federation for American Immigration Reform

Washington, D.C. — A new study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) finds that calls to increase already record levels of immigration would only add to existing economic woes like decreased labor force participation and growing income disparities, while doing nothing to curb soaring inflation.

Proposals currently being pushed by business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and far-left mass immigration advocates would further harm American workers struggling to cope with 40-year high inflation. The study reveals that an even greater influx of new immigrants would drive down their wages even as prices continue to rise across the board.

“The so-called labor shortage is largely the product of poor policymaking by the White House – from massive economic shut-downs triggered by COVID to reckless spending,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “The same folks who created these ruinous policies and made poor decisions now propose to solve non-existent or unrelated problems with even more ruinous immigration policies.”

With a focus on the period between the height of COVID and March 2022, Mass Immigration Won’t Stimulate Post-COVID Recovery: Debunking America-Last Economic Myths finds that:

  • Labor force participation rates have been steadily increasing since bottoming out in April 2020, and are likely to continue rising. The U-6 unemployment rate (workers who are unemployed, underemployed, or discouraged from even seeking jobs) stood at 6.9 percent at the end of the examined period and remains stagnant, dropping slightly to 6.7 percent last month. When combined with those who left the labor force due to COVID but haven’t yet rejoined it, there are around 14 million available American workers to fill some 11 million job vacancies.
  • An end to massive government stimulus programs (a key cause of inflation) means that more sidelined American workers are seeking to return to the labor market.
  • An even greater infusion of immigrant workers would not lower inflation. It would merely inflict more economic pain on middle- and lower-income Americans as the law of supply and demand drives down wages that are already inadequate to keep up with rising costs.

“If mass immigration were a panacea for inflation and spot shortages in the labor market, these problems would have already solved themselves. Between September 2020 and March 2022, the foreign-born population of the U.S. has grown by 2.5 million and now totals some 49 million, largely due to disastrous open borders policies of the Biden administration,” noted Stein.

“There is more than an ample supply of labor in this country. What is lacking? Sound policymaking to properly tame inflation while encouraging idled American workers to fill available jobs. As is typical of the Biden administration and a cheap labor lobby with access to lawmakers in both parties, their proposal is to compound these problems by putting already failed immigration policies on steroids,” concluded Stein.

The full report, Mass Immigration Won’t Stimulate Post-COVID Recovery: Debunking America-Last Economic Myths, can be found here.

EDITORS NOTE: This FAIR report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

UPDATE: Holland’s Eco-War Against Farmers thumbnail

UPDATE: Holland’s Eco-War Against Farmers

By Matthys van Raalten

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.” ― George Orwell, 1984


Since Monday the Fourth of July, there has been an uprising of Dutch farmers. Though the farmers break laws, their protests should be considered peaceful and within the spirit of democracy.

Their case is justified. The Dutch Government says it wants to protect Nature and the farmers pollute heath with too much Nitrogen from their cattle. However, Nitrogen is beneficial for Nature and changes barren heath into beautiful green forest. Do you know that 78% of the air you breathe consists of Nitrogen?

Dutch farmers belong to Holland, just as cowboys belong to the USA. Holland was made a great nation by farmers, preachers and merchants.

As I wrote you before, the real reason that the Dutch Government wants to expel farmers from their farmlands is, that they need the land to build homes for mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East. Holland will become a city state, full of ugly modern architecture, meant for foreigners.

Dutch police and even part of the Military have responded aggressively to the farmers’ protests. There has even been an occasion in which a police officer shot at a 16 year old boy, who was unarmed and drove away from the protest without being a threat to anyone.

This is 16-year-old farmer to be Jouke. He was being shot by Dutch police in Heerenveen late last evening whilst leaving the protest.

Then he was being arrested. Contact with his mother is not allowed. #DutchFarmers #DutchUprising #boerenprotest pic.twitter.com/09UXdzOoF9

— Kaktus (@MenuKaktus) July 6, 2022

This happened in Heerenveen and there is video of the incident on Twitter.

🇳🇱 Netherlands – Heerenveen (Police shoots at Farmers) [Jul 5, 2022]

So, this is where the Netherlands is at. Police firing shots at Farmers, who have been peacefully demonstrating for their existence!

This country is lost.#boereninopstand #politiegeweld #FarmerProtests pic.twitter.com/ZAIrpwIeE0

— 🏛️ BMedia 🇳🇱📵 (@BananaMediaQ) July 5, 2022

Prime Minister Mark Rutte, a fake conservative, doesn’t seem to be impressed by the protests. He has offered that a friend of his mediate between the Government and the farmers. But Rutte has said that the plan to expel farmers will not be negotiable, so negotiations are meaningless. The mediator is also a driving force behind the climate hysteria in Holland.

🇳🇱 Police use tear gas to disperse the blockade of a distribution center by farmers tonight in Heerenveen in the Netherlands.#FarmerProtests pic.twitter.com/15DbcMGlgI

— PPCNEWS24 (@ppcnews24) July 4, 2022

#Police are now shooting at protesting citizens in the Netherlands.

So much for a free country…#FarmersProtest #boereninopstand #policeshooting #FarmersProtest #Heerenveen #freedom pic.twitter.com/7SdqiNx23B

— JulesAmiens (@JulesAmiens) July 5, 2022

I see a bleak future for Dutch farmers. But also for Dutch fishermen. They are also under attack by the Government. They have to diminish their fleet, so that wind turbines can be erected in the North Sea.

And what we also see happening, is that slowly but steadily a police state is developing in Holland. The Dutch Constitution is merely an obstacle that can be overcome by declaring “emergency” situations.

Yes, Holland is in deep trouble. Only immediate elections could offer a way out. But then again, would the people vote wisely? They are so misinformed by state run media and by media supporting the state.

RELATED TWEETS:

Dutch farmers burn hay bales in the middle of the highway near Apeldoorn. At the same time, Mark Rutte’s police in Heerenveen shot Dutch farmers in at least two instances. pic.twitter.com/m713Smm7MP

— RadioGenova (@RadioGenova) July 6, 2022

💢 Despite the state thugs firing teargas in Heerenveen & Sneek, the Dutch farmers protests have been second to none, blocking borders, highways, distribution centres, media companies, ports, bringing the world’s attention, as the sun goes down, they celebrate.#DutchFarmers pic.twitter.com/gFhRDYunjw

— puritan (@puritan_777) July 5, 2022

©Matthys van Raalten. All rights reserved.

Inflation And The Rule of 72 thumbnail

Inflation And The Rule of 72

By Connor Mortell

In the world of investing, there is a well-known concept referred to as the Rule of 72. It states that because of compound interest, 72 divided by your rate of return will always yield the number of years necessary to double your initial investment. The simplest math to do it with would be that it takes 10 years to double your investment at a 7.2% interest rate (72 / 7.2 = 10). However, below is an excel sheet drawing out the rule with rates of one through ten percent.

Because inflation detracts from your return, the most accurate way to find how often the real value of your investment doubles is to actually measure 72 divided by the rate of return minus the inflation rate. Forty years ago, to achieve a fairly large real rate was fairly feasible even in the face of what was considered fairly high inflation. In 1982, exactly forty years ago, the average CD was a little over 14%. So even though inflation was over 6%, all it took to earn an 8% real return was a simple short-term CD. At that difference of about 8%, it would only take 9 years to double your money!

Times have changed. Inflation today is right about 8.6%. However, artificial interest rates being held low by the federal reserve has led to the average CD rate sitting below one percent. As a result, the real return is between negative seven and eight percent! This means that it would take between nine and ten years, not for your money to double, but rather it would take less than a decade for your investment to be cut in half!

Even this is only telling part of the story. This is because between 1982 and today, we’ve also changed the way in which inflation was measured. By the old metric, inflation would actually be sitting at about seventeen percent. Plugging that into the Rule of 72 would give us 72 / (0.73 – 17), which tells us that it will take under five years for your investment to be cut in half!

Realistically speaking, it’d be all but impossible to maintain this 8.6% (or 17% by the old metric) inflation for ten years or even five years. Such prolonged inflation would either have to snap into a recession or snowball into hyperinflation as Americans gave up all faith in the dollar. However, it is an important lesson in just how impactful inflation really is. It’s not always the most exciting, front-page topic, but inflation is so much worse than the brutal gas and home prices we are dealing with – though those are already crippling. It is on a high speed track to crippling and most literally halving the real return of your savings.

No matter what we’re facing, inflation like this is never worth it. As Ludwig von Mises has said:

No emergency can justify a return to inflation. Inflation can provide neither the weapons a nation needs to defend its independence nor the capital goods required for any project. It does not cure unsatisfactory conditions. It merely helps the rulers whose policies brought about the catastrophe to exculpate themselves.

*****

This article was published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

Will ESG Reform Capitalism—or Destroy It? thumbnail

Will ESG Reform Capitalism—or Destroy It?

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

What “stakeholder capitalism” really means for the world.

Stakeholder capitalism has taken the global economy by storm in recent years. Its champions proclaim that it will save—and remake—the world. Will it live up to its hype or will it destroy capitalism in the name of reforming it?

Proponents pitch stakeholder capitalism as an antidote to the excesses of “shareholder capitalism,” which they condemn as too narrowly focused on maximizing profits (especially short-term profits) for corporate shareholders. This, they argue, is socially irresponsible and destructive, because it disregards the interests of other stakeholders, including customers, suppliers, employees, local communities, and society in general.

Stakeholder capitalism is ostensibly about incentivizing business leaders to take these wider considerations into account and thus make more “sustainable” decisions. This, it is argued, is also better in the long run for businesses’ bottom lines.

Today’s dominant strain of stakeholder capitalism is the doctrine known as ESG, which stands for “environmental, social, and corporate governance.” The label was coined in the 2004 report of Who Cares Wins, a joint initiative of elite financial institutions invited by the United Nations “to develop guidelines and recommendations on how to better integrate environmental, social and corporate governance issues in asset management, securities brokerage services and associated research functions.”

Who Cares Wins operated under the auspices of the UN’s Global Compact, which, as the report states, “is a corporate responsibility initiative launched by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2000 with the primary goal of implementing universal principles in business.”

Much progress has been made toward that goal. Since 2004, ESG has evolved from “guidelines and recommendations” to explicit standards that hold sway over huge swaths of the global economy.

These standards are set by ESG rating agencies like the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and enforced by investment firms that manage ESG funds. One such firm is Blackrock, whose CEO Larry Fink is a leading champion of both ESG and SASB.

In December, Reuters published a report titled “How 2021 became the year of ESG investing” which stated that, “ESG funds now account for 10% of worldwide fund assets.”

And in April, Bloomberg reported that ESG, “by some estimates represents more than $40 trillion in assets. According to Morningstar, genuine ESG funds held about $2.7 trillion in managed assets at the end of the fourth quarter.”

To access any of that capital, it is no longer enough for a business to offer a good return on investment. It must also report “environmental” and “social” metrics that meet ESG standards.

Is that a welcome development? Will the general public as non-owning “stakeholders” of these businesses be better off thanks to the implementation of ESG standards? Is stakeholder capitalism beginning to reform shareholder capitalism by widening its perspective and curing it of its narrow-minded fixation on profit uber alles?

To answer that, some clarification is in order. First of all, “shareholder capitalism” is a misleading term for laissez faire capitalism. It is true that, as Milton Friedman wrote in his 1970 critique of the “social responsibility of business” rhetoric of the time:

“In a free‐enterprise, private‐property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.”

Since the owners of a publicly traded corporation are its shareholders, it is true that they are and ought to be the “bosses” of a corporation’s employees—including its management. It is also true that corporate executives properly have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders.

But that does not mean that shareholders reign supreme under capitalism. As the great economist Ludwig von Mises explained in his book Human Action:

“The direction of all economic affairs is in the market society a task of the entrepreneurs [which, according to Mises’s technical definition includes shareholding investors]. Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe that they are supreme. But they are not. They are bound to obey unconditionally the captain’s orders. The captain is the consumer.”

The “sovereign consumers,” as Mises calls them, issue their orders through “their buying and their abstention from buying.” Those orders are transmitted throughout the entire economy via the price system. Entrepreneurs and investors who correctly anticipate those orders and direct production accordingly are rewarded with profits. But if one, as Mises says, “does not strictly obey the orders of the public as they are conveyed to him by the structure of market prices, he suffers losses, he goes bankrupt, and is thus removed from his eminent position at the helm. Other men who did better in satisfying the demand of the consumers replace him.”

Under laissez faire capitalism, consumers, not shareholders, are the principal stakeholders whose preferences reign supreme. And shareholder profit is a measure of—and motivating reward for—success “in adjusting the course of production activities to the most urgent demand of the consumers,” as Mises wrote in his paper “Profit and Loss.”

This is highly relevant to the “stakeholder capitalism” discussion, because it means that, to the extent that the profit-and-loss metric is discounted for the sake of competing objectives (like serving other “stakeholders,” the sovereign consumers are dethroned, disregarded, and relatively impoverished.

Now it’s at least conceivable that ESG standards are not competing, but rather complementary to the profit-and-loss metric and thus serving consumers. In fact, that’s a big part of the ESG sales pitch: that corporations who adopt and adhere to ESG standards will enjoy higher long-term profits, because breaking free of their fixation on short-term shareholder returns will enable them to embrace more “sustainable” business practices.

In a free market, whether that promise would be fulfilled or not would be for the sovereign consumers to decide, and ESG would rise or fall on its own merits.

Unfortunately, our market economy is far from free. The State has rigged capital markets for the benefit of its elite lackeys in the financial industry: like the “Who Cares Wins” fat cats who started the ESG ball rolling in 2004 under the auspices of the United Nations.

One of the prime ways the State rigs markets is through central bank policy.

The prodigious amount of newly created money that the Federal Reserve and other central banks have pumped into financial institutions in recent years has transferred vast amounts of real wealth to those institutions from the general public. As a result, those institutions—big banks and investment companies—are now much more beholden to the State and much less beholden to consumers for their wealth.

As they say, “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” So it’s no surprise that these institutions are stumbling over themselves to get on board the State’s ESG bandwagon.

And that means that non-financial corporations also have to get with the ESG program if they want access to the Fed’s money tap and thus to capital. Especially as the average consumer becomes increasingly impoverished by disastrous economic policies, the incentive for corporations to earn market profit by pleasing consumers is being progressively superseded by the incentive to gain access to the Fed’s flow of loot by meeting the State’s “social” standards.

By increasingly controlling capital flows, the State is gaining ever more control over the entire economy.

This may explain the recent willingness of so many corporations to alienate customers and sacrifice profits on the altar of “green” and “woke” politics.

It is no coincidence that Klaus Schaub, the preeminent champion of the “Great Reset” also co-authored a book titled Stakeholder Capitalism. The upshot of stakeholder capitalism is that the State supplants the consumer as the supreme stakeholder in the economy. The sick joke of stakeholder capitalism is that it “reforms” capitalism by transforming it into a form of socialism.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Monmouth Poll Reveals What’s Most Important to 2022 Voters — It’s the economy, stupid! thumbnail

Monmouth Poll Reveals What’s Most Important to 2022 Voters — It’s the economy, stupid!

By The Geller Report

It’s not what you think.

Monmouth Poll Reveals What’s Most Important to 2022 Voters – You Won’t Believe What Outranks Abortion

By: Mike Vance, Daily Patriot Report, July 5, 2022

With the recent response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, you would think that abortion/reproductive rights would be at the top of what’s most important to 2022 voters. Well, it turns out that is not the case, according to a Monmouth poll.

The top three issues at the top of the poll are inflation at 33%, gas prices at 15% and the economy at 9%.

Going down the list the next thing is everyday bills, groceries etc. at 6% and it’s followed by abortion/reproductive rights at 5%. If you look at the bottom of the poll results, you can see there is another issue that’s viewed as more important than abortion.

“I don’t know” checks in at 6%. That’s right, there are more people that don’t know what is important to them as a 2022 voter than there are people who prioritize abortion/reproductive healthcare.

Take a look:

This poll also resulted in an all-time low approval rating for President Joe Biden at 36% and 58% of people disapproving of him. The poll also marks a full year since his approval rating was greater than his disapproval rating.

Read the rest…..

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

We are living through a Communist revolution

CA Gov. Newsom Bans State Workers From Traveling to Certain States, Then Prances Off To Vacation In One of Them

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Investments End Second Quarter on A Sour Note thumbnail

Investments End Second Quarter on A Sour Note

By Neland Nobel

The stock market ended the second quarter on a sour note.  It has had the worse start for a year in five decades. While this is not exclusively the fault of the current President, his attitude towards inflation, energy production, and social policy, has certainly contributed to the losses.

Starting very early in the year, stocks began to decline, and with only minor rallies interrupting the downward trend, continued to slide throughout both the first and second quarter. If anything, losses have accelerated. Just in the last month, the market slid 8%. Total losses for all indices now exceed 20%, and in the case of the NASDAQ 30%, placing the market solidly in bear territory.

Stocks were not alone, however. Bonds also have been very weak, making the standard 60% stock, and 40% bond asset allocation a loser in both areas. According to market analyst Jesse Felder, this is the worst year for bonds since 1788.

Other areas that usually offer diversification have also failed to help. In particular, the new asset class of cryptocurrencies has collapsed 75-80%, putting those losses within shouting distance of the great market wipe-out for stocks in the late 1920s.

There is growing evidence that the speculative bubble in cryptos has spilled into other markets, due to the manner some were collateralized and leveraged.

Gold has sat on its hands, seemingly impervious to stimuli that normally have sent it higher. Gold bullion has gone essentially flat, which is not a terrible outcome. However, gold mining stocks have been surprisingly disappointing. Both are supposed to go up when other markets go down, so their action has been sub-optimal.

Really only energy stocks and some commercial real estate funds have made any progress against the outgoing tide. Crude oil is up about 40% and the XLE, the ETF representing energy stocks is up about 30%.

The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve is at the lowest level since 1986. As one oil analyst put it, Biden canceled the insurance policy just before flood season. US gasoline stocks are the lowest ever going into the key summer driving season. Despite all that, the chokehold of the green agenda on energy production continues.

Interestingly, many investors were denied the portfolio boost of energy shares because their fund manager or advisor was busy adhering to ESG rules rather than doing the best they could for their client. That is the problem when you don’t act in the interests of your client but instead act in the interests of something as ethereal as the highly subjective as the biased ESG movement. To be a fiduciary means to act in the client’s interests. Instead, many managers posing as fiduciaries act with your money in the interests of the environmental movement, Hollywood stars, or investment managers like Larry Fink at Blackrock. Hopefully, we will see some lawsuits when managers breach their fiduciary responsibilities.

Commodities started the year very robustly, but by the second quarter, many have started to weaken. Whether this is just a correction within an ongoing advance or the beginning of another bearish trend, is not known at this time. Copper prices have been particularly weak. Copper has often been a good indicator of the health of economic demand. Even with the increase in demand from the government forcing the use of electric vehicles, weak prices suggest weak demand.

Even in the face of food shortages, wheat and corn look toppy and have declined from recent tops.

Real estate prices have held up relatively well, but new home sales are starting to sag and there are other signs that real estate, clearly a beneficiary of low-interest rates and easy money, will soon start to join the other victims of excess.

Investor and business pessimism is high. The drop both in commodity prices and sentiment suggests that the market has shifted from fear of inflation, to increasingly, fear of recession. The next big test for the markets is how they will react to falling earnings estimates.

Several times in the past two quarters, short-term rates have come close to exceeding long-term rates. This so-called “inversion of the yield curve”, has been a good predictor of recession, although often there is a time lag of a year or so.

Markets supported by easy money policies suffer when the easy money goes away. That is the fundamental problem for all investments levitated by record easy money conditions.

How long this will continue, is not known. Markets sense that until inflation retreats significantly, tighter policies will continue. The problem is that dominant component of the CPI, such as housing (rental equivalent) are yet to fully make their way into the index. This suggests that posted inflation will stay high for some time. Inflation may come off the peak level, but stay uncomfortably high for several years. This will make it hard for the FED to ease up and take the pressure off markets.

Historically though,  after periods of market outperformance, it is usual for markets both to correct and then provide subnormal returns. Regression to the mean is one of the iron laws of markets, and perhaps that process has simply been delayed by years of ultra-low interest rates and rapid money printing.

It is the symmetry of markets that has many market historians concerned. Periods of excessive speculation and valuation are usually followed by downside action roughly in line with the upside excess. If that proves again to be the case, we are all in for more pain because the upside excess during this cycle was record-breaking.

Psychology plays a role in markets, and one can think of FDR’s famous statement of “having nothing to fear but fear itself.” Good political leadership can certainly help, but it is hard to schmooze your way out of natural corrective forces.

Rising interest rates lower the market’s PE, (the multiple) reduce growth rates and reduce earnings.  It is hard to know if negative psychology is more of a reaction to the market’s retreat as opposed to being a cause of the market mayhem.

But investing does require a leap of faith that things will be better in the future, so psychology plays a major, if not quantifiable role.  We could use some inspiration from leaders that demonstrate they understand the problems and can work within our two-party system to get positive things done.

Unfortunately, in this situation, the market has nothing to fear but political dysfunction itself.

The President hardly helps by blaming others for inflation and expansive money supply growth.

Market participants know we are in perilous times, both domestically and internationally, and it does not help if the chief executive needs to read from a cue card written for someone at the third-grade level.

He is not an inspiring leader.  He comes off as a poorly informed, largely manipulated senile figurehead.  The focus of Democrats is not on fixing the economy but on destroying Donald Trump.  We see a lot of criticism, some deserved, that Trump needs to move along and quit obsessing about the last election. However, little is written about Democrats moving along and dropping their obsessive hatred of Trump.

This is not the kind of leadership from either party that can do much to reverse entrenched negative psychology.

Two things could help.  One would be for the economy to slip officially into recession, giving the Fed an opportunity to back off a bit.  Secondly, a resounding defeat for Democrats in the fall election could signal that the natural balance built into our political system will limit the damage Democrats can inflict on the economy.

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

SCOTUS Message to EPA, Agencies: You’re Not Legislatures thumbnail

SCOTUS Message to EPA, Agencies: You’re Not Legislatures

By Larry Bell

A landmark June 30 Supreme Court ruling in favor of plaintiff states in West Virginia v. EPA will have enormously profound and far-reaching separation of powers implications limiting de facto lawmaking powers of executive branch-controlled regulatory agencies.

Whereas certain special interest groups are vehemently criticizing the court’s 6-3 vote determination as “anti-environmental,” this is a grossly unfair mischaracterization of deliberative substance.

Rather, the majority ruling was founded on a central constitutional principle that Congress alone has legislative authority to decide major policy issues with sweeping impacts.

A related legal “Major Question Doctrine” (MOD) holds that federal agencies must point to clear authorization from Congress before exercising new significant and transformative regulatory powers.

The controversy that gave rise to this case and decision can readily be traced back to a war on coal agenda clearly articulated by then-Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama during a 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board: “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

That promise was echoed by then-presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who also pledged that, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

The subsequent Obama-Biden administration, including Clinton as secretary of state, accomplished great progress toward that goal under the auspices of its congressionally approved Clean Air Act declaring CO2 plant food a climate “pollutant.”

Although the 2015 Obama “Clean Power Plan” (CPP) that would have required states to reduce CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity primarily by forcing them to shift away from coal-fired plants never took effect, regulatory pressures were nevertheless very successful.

The U.S. coal industry lost 50,000 jobs during Obama’s first term, and another 33,000 during his second…about 11,000 in his last year alone.

By the end of Obama’s presidency, at least 400 coal mines had been shuttered.

Although the Supreme Court had blocked CPP implementation in 2016 by a 5-4 vote, the legal fight continued. After Donald Trump took office, and his EPA repealed the Obama-era plan altogether, 22 mainly Democrat states, the District of Columbia, and some of the nation’s largest cities sued back for its regulatory reintroduction.

In the recent West Virginia case joined by 18 mostly Republican-led states and coal companies, the Supreme Court ruled that CPP exceeded the authority Congress granted to EPA in the Clean Air Act which had been broadly interpreted by the agency as allowing a “beyond the fence line” approach.

Removing the original “inside the fence line” limit essentially allows EPA to fashion any “system” it chooses, leaving every energy production and user industry vulnerable to periodic politically directed White House whims which preferentially dictate winners and losers

This overreach would have allowed EPA to set standards that are impossible to meet at coal-fired plants, using a national cap-and-trade program covering all electricity production, grid management, and consumer use.

If allowed, EPA’s Clean Air Act would have been transformed to enable the agency to impose regulations cloaked as “environmental protection” that put them unaccountably in charge of our nation’s entire energy industry.

To be clear, the June 30 SCOTUS decision does not reverse the court’s earlier ruling authorizing EPA to regulate greenhouse gases — primarily interpreted to mean CO2 emissions — as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act.

According to the ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts: “…the only interpretive question before us, and the only one we answer, is more narrow; whether the ‘best system of emission reduction’ identified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. For the reasons given, the answer is no.”

Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion stated that while “capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,”’ the Clean Air Act nevertheless doesn’t give EPA the authority to do so.

“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote.

The West Virginia v. EPA ruling comes at a particularly critical time when the current Biden administration is routinely using federal agencies under its control to unilaterally usurp and/or ignore congressional powers and authority in other major policy arenas.

Examples include Homeland Security’s transparently open illegal migrant southern border policy, Department of Interior withholdings of federal oil and gas leases and permits, and the January Supreme Court blockage of an OSHA COVID vaccine-or-test rule for employees of large private companies.

The West Virginia ruling should not, however, be viewed as exclusively a conservative victory. Looking forward, American democracy is a sure winner.

Let’s credit some wise advice from Justice Stephen Breyer, a Bill Clinton nominee generally associated with the liberal wing of the court who is retiring this very same day on June 30.

In his book “The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics” (2021), Justice Breyer wrote: “The accumulation of powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

*****

This article was published by  CFACT, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

Biden Administration Looks To Halt Offshore Drilling In Atlantic, Pacific Amid Energy Crisis thumbnail

Biden Administration Looks To Halt Offshore Drilling In Atlantic, Pacific Amid Energy Crisis

By Jack Mcevoy

The Biden administration announced a five-year plan Friday that prevents new offshore oil drilling projects in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

The proposed plan will give the administration the ability to hold no new lease sales at all, according to the Interior Department. The plan could allow a maximum of 11 oil lease sales for offshore drilling, ten in the Gulf of Mexico and one in the Cook Inlet off of the south-central Alaska coast over the course of the next five years. (RELATED: Biden Admin Considers Banning All Offshore Drilling As Energy Crisis Worsens: REPORT)

“A Proposed Program is not a decision to issue specific leases or to authorize any drilling or development,” said Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Deb Haaland.

“From Day One, President Biden and I have made clear our commitment to transition to a clean energy economy,” she continued.

The proposal comes amid rising gas prices and inflation and calls for increasing oil production as well as President Joe Biden’s commitment to tackling climate change. Biden also vowed to ban offshore fossil fuel drilling during his campaign.

Any new offshore leases are unlikely to have a short-term impact on fuel prices as it often takes years after a sale is completed for companies to begin drilling.

The announced plan is part of the federally required process to implement a new five-year plan for offshore oil drilling. The DOI last held an offshore oil and gas auction in November, located in the Gulf of Mexico; however, a court order later stopped the sale on the grounds that the administration had failed to properly account for its impact on the climate.

The DOI intends to open this matter to public comment and may reduce the areas they open up for new drilling based on the public’s reaction.

The White House did not immediately respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. The DOI referred TheDCNF to its statement issued at the time of the decision.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

The Boom-Bust Cycle is Not a Greed-Fear Cycle thumbnail

The Boom-Bust Cycle is Not a Greed-Fear Cycle

By Peter Jacobsen

The CNN Index invites a simple question. “What emotion is driving the market now?”

If you ever find yourself on the business section of CNN’s website, you’ll notice a peculiar thing on the top of your screen. There you’ll find a small ticker labeled “Fear and Greed Index.”

The ticker invites a simple question. “What emotion is driving the market now?”

As an economist, I was very interested in the underlying theory and methodology CNN business was using to determine what was driving the market. Presumably, anyone who understands what drives the stock market better than anyone else is making a lot of money on it. So I looked into the details.

On the index explanation page, a detailed explanation is given.

“The Fear & Greed Index is a way to gauge stock market movements and whether stocks are fairly priced. The theory is based on the logic that excessive fear tends to drive down share prices, and too much greed tends to have the opposite effect.”

So we have the theory now. What about the application? Well, the site says, “the Fear & Greed Index is a compilation of seven different indicators” and “tracks how much these individual indicators deviate from their averages compared to how much they normally diverge.”

Unfortunately, armed with this information, it’s clear that the Fear and Greed Index isn’t any good for understanding markets at all. There are fundamental problems with both the underlying theory and the measurement of the index.

The theory behind the CNN Fear & Greed Index is not new. In fact, it’s just a new way to talk about one of the most discussed ideas in macroeconomics—animal spirits.

The idea of “animal spirits” working in investment was created by mathematician John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was convinced that irrational waves of optimism and pessimism seized control of investors and drove them to make poor investment decisions. He referred to these forces as “animal spirits.”

Have you heard of bear and bull markets? These are Keynes’ “animal spirits.”

Keynes’ thinking on this topic has so permeated culture, that most of my students come into my macro class as default Keynesians without even knowing who Keynes is. I like to start my first-day macro class with a quiz that asks students what they think causes recessions. Some variation of “fear” always tops the list.

In Keynes’ own words,

“There is the instability due to the characteristic of human nature that a large proportion of our positive activities depend on spontaneous optimism rather than mathematical expectations, whether moral or hedonistic or economic. Most, probably, of our decisions … can only be taken as the result of animal spirits—a spontaneous urge to action rather than inaction”.

So what’s wrong with the animal spirits idea? Well, there are many issues. I’ll discuss four.

First, and most importantly, the explanation isn’t an explanation at all. It’s more of a label.

Consider that instead of saying waves of optimism and pessimism seize investors randomly, we could say that the universe generates good vibes and bad vibes that seize investors randomly. Or perhaps real spirits randomly control investors. How does this change the Keynesian animal spirits story?

It doesn’t. And that’s the problem with the idea. Keynes’ animal spirits explanation is essentially saying that something random (in the mathematical sense of the word) and beyond further explanation grabs hold of people and makes them do things. In other words, the explanation is something unexplainable. Fear and greed. Bear and bull. Unicorns and gargoyles.

Second, the animal spirits explanation displaces other explanations about what drives investment behavior. Before Keynes, the economics profession had a strong explanation for changing investment behaviors.

The idea is simple, and it follows the logic that undergirds all of microeconomics. As it becomes more expensive to borrow money over time, investors will borrow less money and take on more short-term projects. When it becomes less expensive, investors borrow more and take on more long-term projects.

The price of borrowing is called the interest rate, and interest rates are affected by savings. If people save more and increase the supply of funds available to borrow, that drives interest rates down making borrowing cheaper. Businesses make long-term expensive projects while consumers save for them.

Although Keynes was unclear about his belief about saving and investment (in some places he says savings equals investment and in other places he says it does not) the effect of animal spirits was to break the theoretical linkage between the two among economists. Basic economics was out and animal spirits were in. “Macroeconomics” was born.

Third, Keynes’ theory of random fear and greed leads to an underdeveloped view of how expectations are formed. In the quote above, Keynes argues investors won’t be “mathematical” about expectations. In other words, they aren’t acting in an internally consistent way given different probabilities and uncertainties.

This may sound reasonable at first. Economists who believe people do not consistently make the same mistake over and over (sometimes called rational expectations) are often derided because some think it implies people make their decisions by doing mathematical equations.

But this is a straw man. These economists do not believe people actually run sets of equations in their head. They believe that human behavior happens in a way that looks like they do.

For example, I don’t believe mountain goats calculate their jumps down to determine if the distance is fatal or not. But I do believe they act like they do that. Mountain goats who consistently misjudge jumps will literally die out. Similar channels operate in investment.

This under-developed expectations theory led to problems for Keynesian economists in the 1970s. These Keynesians wrongly believed they could consistently lower unemployment by printing money and tricking workers into taking jobs that seemed to be high paying. However, when inflation hit, workers’ expectations changed and unemployment soared. This was the first instance of “stagflation”—a situation involving high inflation and slow or negative economic growth—in US history.

So what is a good theory of expectations in place of Keynes? My position on this is with economist Ludwig von Mises who quotes Lincoln’s law (which may not have been said by Lincoln) in saying, “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

Fourth, Keynes applied his theory of animal spirits inconsistently. In investment markets, irrational pessimism and optimism reigned, but, as economist Murray Rothbard points out, Keynes excluded the possibility of animal spirits for the class of politicians and technocrats. As Rothbard highlights,

“this class, this deus ex machina external to the market, is of course the state apparatus, as headed by its natural ruling elite and guided by the modern, scientific version of Platonic philosopher kings. In short, government leaders, guided firmly and wisely by Keynesian economists and social scientists (naturally headed by the great man himself), would save the day.”

While this asymmetry in Keynes’ work does not undermine the explanation of animal spirits like the above three arguments do, it does undermine any application of the idea to policy-making unless a good reason for the asymmetry can be explained.

I’ve done my best to provide a list of fundamental issues with the theory of animal spirits. But, CNN’s Fear and Greed Index suffers from application too.

Even if Keynes was completely right about animal spirits, the index would still not be much good.

Remember the methodology. The index tracks today’s deviations in asset values and compares them to historical averages of past deviations. But there is a fundamental problem here. Historical averages have nothing to do with modern valuations, and historical deviations tell us nothing about what modern deviations should be.

Imagine you built your house in 1970 and put in shag carpets. Now you’re selling the house and buyers tell you the shag carpets is something that takes away from the value of the house. You reply, “but I spent $300 on this carpeting!”

Alas, it doesn’t matter what shag carpets were worth in the 70s. It matters what people value them today. The same hold for deviations of value. If hardwood floors are still popular in 2050, the shag carpet seller can’t argue that shag carpets shouldn’t deviate in value since hardwood floors didn’t. It simply does not follow.

There are plenty of good reasons why modern assets should deviate further below average than usual. For example, natural disasters and weather patterns could cause assets to fall below their average more than usual. Also, even if investors don’t systemically error, they can still error. Bad policies could drive investors to make bad investments which, when realized, cause the value of assets to fall further from average than usual.

In other words, an asset falling further in value than usual does not imply the market is responding to “fear.” These assets could be responding to real changes or discovered facts about the economy.

To use an extreme example, imagine an earthquake destroyed the headquarters of most major companies in the US and they all temporarily suspended operations. This would certainly take stocks to historic lows.

The CNN Fear and Greed Index would measure this drop and say that fear is driving the market. But it’s obvious that fear isn’t the cause of this drop—the earthquake is. The fact that people may feel afraid is irrelevant to the cause.

Perhaps not coincidentally, this measurement of “fear and greed” makes the same fundamental mistake of the animal spirits. The index observes when asset prices are further down than usual and simply names the phenomena “fear.”

But labeling a market change “fear” does not mean fear is driving the market. It means you named something.

The index simply assumes what has yet to be proved. A bust by any other name is just as sour. And calling the bust fear doesn’t make us any more informed about it.

*****

This article was published by FEE, Foundation for Economic Education and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

The Great Reset in Action: Ending Freedom of the Press, Speech, and Expression

By Birsen Filip

Governments, corporations, and elites have always been fearful of the power of a free press, because it is capable of exposing their lies, destroying their carefully crafted images, and undermining their authority. In recent years, alternative journalism has been growing and more people are relying on social media platforms as sources of news and information. In response, the corporate state, digital conglomerates, and the mainstream media have been increasingly supportive of the silencing and censoring of alternative media outlets and voices that challenge the official narrative on most issues.

At the recent World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, “Australian eSafety commissioner” Julie Inman Grant stated that “freedom of speech is not the same thing as a free for all,” and that “we are going to need a recalibration of a whole range of human rights that are playing out online—from freedom of speech … to be free from online violence.” Meanwhile, the Canadian government is seeking to restrict independent media and the freedom of expression via the implementation of Bill C-11, which would allow it to regulate all online audiovisual platforms on the internet, including content on Spotify, Tik Tok, YouTube, and podcast clients.

Similarly, the UK is seeking to introduce an Online Safety Bill, the US “paused” the establishment of a Disinformation Governance Board following backlash, and the European Union approved its own Digital Services Act, all of which aim to limit the freedom of speech. Attempts by elites and politicians to silence dissenters and critical thinkers is not something new. In fact, history is full of examples of “the persecution of men of science, the burning of scientific books, and the systematic eradication of the intelligentsia of the subjected people.”

However, these current efforts to curtail freedom of speech and press by supposedly liberal governments are still somewhat ironic, given that even “the most intolerant of churches, the Roman Catholic Church, even at the canonization of a saint, admits, and listens patiently to, a ‘devil’s advocate.’ The holiest of men, it appears, cannot be admitted to posthumous honors, until all that the devil could say against him is known and weighed.”

The corporate state, digital conglomerates, and the mainstream media want to ensure that they have the exclusive authority to dictate people’s opinions, wants, and choices through their sophisticated propaganda techniques. To do so, they have even resorted to transforming falsehoods into truth. In fact, the word truth has already had its original meaning altered, as those who speak the truth on certain subjects are now regularly accused of spreading hate speech, misinformation, and disinformation.

Presently, truth is no “longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in any particular instance the evidence (or the standing of those proclaiming it) warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of the unity of the organized effort, and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it.”

However, modifying the definition of truth comes with the potential for great peril, as truth-seeking often contributes to human progress in that it leads to discoveries that ultimately benefit society at large. It should be noted that truth is by no means the only word whose meaning has been changed recently in order for it to serve as an instrument of propaganda; others include freedomjusticelawrightequalitydiversitywomanpandemicvaccine, etc. This is highly concerning, because such attempts at the “perversion of language, the change of meaning of the words by which the ideals” of the ruling class are expressed is a consistent feature of totalitarian regimes.

As a number of liberal-democratic governments increasingly move toward totalitarianism, they want people to forget that there is “the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation.” According to them, “public criticism or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken public support.”

In fact, they believe that all views and opinions that might cast doubt or create hesitation need to be restricted in all disciplines and on all platforms. This is because “the disinterested search for truth cannot be allowed” when “the vindication of the official views becomes the sole object” of the ruling class. In other words, the control of information is practiced and the uniformity of views is enforced in all fields under totalitarian rule.

The suppression of freedom of the press, speech, expression, and thought means that current and future generations will be “deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” They are also at risk of becoming ignorant of the fact that the only way in which a person can know “the whole of a subject” is by “hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind.” That is to say, current and future generations will be unaware that “the steady habit of correcting and completing” one’s own “opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it.”

At present, it is likely that the masses do not regard freedom of the press, speech, expression, and thought as being particularly important, because “the great majority are rarely capable of thinking independently, that on most questions they accept views which they find ready-made, and that they will be equally content if born or coaxed into one set of beliefs or another.” Nevertheless, no one should have the power and authority to “select those to whom” freedom of thought, enlightenment and expression is to be “reserved.”

In fact, John Stuart Mill went so far as to claim that “if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” He further added that silencing the expression of an opinion is essentially an act of “robbing the human race,” which applies to both current and future generations. Even though the suppressors can deny the truth to people at a particular point in time, “history shows that every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions, now general, will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present.”

If current efforts to suppress freedom of the press, speech, expression, and thought to succeed, then the search for truth will eventually be abandoned and totalitarian authorities will decide what “doctrines ought to be taught and published.” There will be no limits to who can be silenced, as the control of opinions will be extended to all people in all fields. Accordingly, contemporary authoritarian policymakers need to be reminded about the crucial importance of freedom of speech, expression, and thought, which the US Supreme Court recognized in the 1957 case Sweezy v. New Hampshire when it ruled that

to impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. No field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new discoveries cannot yet be made…. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise, our civilization will stagnate and die…. Our form of government is built on the premise that every citizen shall have the right to engage in political expression and association. This right was enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Exercise of these basic freedoms in America has traditionally been through the media of political associations…. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups, who innumerable times have been in the vanguard of democratic thought and whose programs were ultimately accepted. Mere unorthodoxy or dissent from the prevailing mores is not to be condemned. The absence of such voices would be a symptom of grave illness in our society.

Company Contrast: Christian Brothers Automotive thumbnail

Company Contrast: Christian Brothers Automotive

By 2ndvote .com

Each week 2ndVote takes a look at popular companies that either score well or score poorly  and then try to provide alternatives that either better align with the 2ndVote values or should be avoided to the best of your ability. This series is called The Company Contrast, and the company we will be focusing on this week is Christian Brothers Automotive (4.08).

With all the summer festivities amping up, the last thing we want our 2ndVote supporters to worry about is where to take their vehicles for maintenance. Which is why we have picked an automotive company that aligns with our values, and we think it’ll align with yours too! Christian Brothers Automotive is our top recommendation to ensure you have all the fun this summer instead of those pesky car troubles. The automotive company has been running since 1982 and prides themselves on the customer service they continue to provide. The company is led by the Christian principle of “love your neighbor as yourself” – Matthew 22:39. Not only will they ensure your car is handled with care, but they will also give you peace of mind while aligning with your values. Christian Brothers Automotive scores a 4.08 here at 2ndVote, and for good reason. The company donates and partners with organizations that support one of our core values, life. They also show support for fighting the ongoing issue of human trafficking by providing anti-human trafficking organizations with donations. They are an openly Christian organization founded on Christian values. Christian Brothers Automotive cares for you, your vehicles, and your values. Plan your next summer outing with ease knowing this repair shop is right around the corner. Check out our website to find out more information about Christian Brothers Automotive and why they score so well with 2ndVote!

At 2ndVote, we know it can be overwhelming to keep track of day-to-day activities. Especially vehicle maintenance. It is our goal to help you spend your time and hard-earned money where your values are met firsthand. That is why we do not recommend O’Reilly Auto Parts (2.96) to you when you are in need of vehicle maintenance! They  scored low on life, one of our key values.  O’Reilly Auto Parts has made donations to organizations that directly fund or support Planned Parenthood. They have made donations to the United Way, a known organization that also supports common core. Supporting proper education for the future generations is something we value. O’Reilly Auto Parts donation history can be found on our website as well as the research and information behind its score. Our 2ndVote supporters can make a change, reach out to O’Reilly Auto Parts and voice how they can improve their donation patterns!

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Biden Adviser Defends ‘Liberal World Order’ thumbnail

VIDEO: Biden Adviser Defends ‘Liberal World Order’

By The Geller Report

They’re not hiding it any more.

Video of Biden Adviser Defending ‘Liberal World Order’ Viewed Over 1M Times

By Zoe Strozewski, July 1, 2022:

A video of Brian Deese, a political adviser serving under President Joe Biden, speaking about the “liberal world order” in the context of gas prices has racked up 1.4 million views on Twitter.

While in Madrid for the NATO summit on Thursday, Biden was asked by a reporter: “How long is it fair to expect American drivers and drivers around the world to pay that premium for this war?” in reference to Russia’s war in Ukraine, which Biden has blamed in part for rising U.S. gas prices.

Biden said: “As long as it takes” and stressed that Russia could not be permitted to win the war.

Deese, who is the director of the National Economic Council, was being interviewed Thursday by CNN’s Victor Blackwell, who referenced Biden’s comments when asking what he would say to American families who can’t afford to pay gas prices such as $4.85 a gallon for the months or years it takes the Russia-Ukraine war to end.

CNN: “What do you say to those families that say, ‘listen, we can’t afford to pay $4.85 a gallon for months, if not years?’”

BIDEN ADVISOR BRIAN DEESE: “This is about the future of the Liberal World Order and we have to stand firm.” pic.twitter.com/LWilWSo72S

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) July 1, 2022

“Well, what you heard from the president today was a clear articulation of the stakes,” Deese said. “​​This is about the future of the liberal world order and we have to stand firm. But at the same time, what I would say to that family and Americans across the country is you have a president and an administration that is going to do everything in its power to blunt those price increases and bring those prices down.”

The Biden administration has been facing heavy pressure to combat U.S. inflation, which hit a 40-year high in May and has elevated costs for products like gas, food and clothing. Though Biden has partly attributed rising costs to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, a Newsweek fact check determined that while the conflict has impacted inflation, it was not the trigger.

According to World101, an online course from the Council on Foreign Relations think tank, the “liberal world order” refers to a “series of international organizations and agreements to promote global cooperation on issues including security, trade, health, and monetary policy.” It was created by world leaders in the wake of World War II in an effort to prevent the world from devolving into such violence again, and the U.S. has “championed” the system since, according to the explainer.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Survey: More Than 750,000 Dead, 30 Million Injured Because of Covid Vax

Here’s Why Officials Are Desperate to Get COVID Vaccine on Childhood Schedule Before ‘Emergency’ Ends

Brazil’s President Bolsonaro Tells Tucker Carlson Left-Wing Lula Win Will Sever Alliance With America’s Last Remaining American Ally In Latin America

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How Bad Were Recessions before the Fed? Not as Bad as They Are Now thumbnail

How Bad Were Recessions before the Fed? Not as Bad as They Are Now

By John Kennedy

With a recession looming over the average American, the group to blame is pretty obvious, this group being the central bankers at the Federal Reserve, who inflate the supply of currency in the system, that currency being the dollar. This is what inflation is, the expansion of the money supply either through the printing press or adding zeros to a computer screen. It has gotten so bad that in the last twenty-two months, 80 percent of all US dollars in existence have been printed, from $4 trillion in January 2020, to $20 trillion in October 2021.

This is always how recessions start: the expansion of easy money, the creation of bubbles, and heightened prices caused by the devaluation of the currency supply. But recessions occurred long before the Fed’s establishment in 1913.

Were these market failures, as many are taught to believe, or were they still the fault of a central bank or government policy? How bad were pre-Fed recessions? Did they rival the Great Depression or 2008?

The Continental Dollar

During the days of the American Revolution, the Continental Congress convened to figure out how to finance the Revolution. In June 1775, Congress issued six million paper currency notes known as continental dollars in order to pay for the new army and the supplies needed to fight a war. Those who supported the Revolution would jump in line to support this new fiat currency, as it was the patriotic thing to do.

By 1780, the number of continentals in circulation had reached 241 million, and the continental had done its damage. The patriots who bought into the fiat dollar suffered the most, while people like David Hall, who by order of Congress was permitted to print out fiat bills, and the Loyalists, who kept their gold and silver specie were able to stay financially afloat.

The continental was turned back en masse, as it now held no value. Those who trusted the continental over gold were left with nothing. Certain Founding Fathers, after witnessing people’s livelihoods ruined by fiat paper money, decided to make provisions to make sure this mistake would not happen again.

Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution states:

No state shall make any thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

This section would be violated throughout US history, from the Civil War to 1933, when President Franklin Roosevelt confiscated US citizens’ gold and prevented them from exchanging the dollar into gold.

It’s clear what caused the failure of the continental: Congress and printing presses. This, however, would not be the last economic problem that would face America, the next major downturn came in 1819.

The Recession of 1819

After the War of 1812, state-chartered banks and the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), which was established in 1816, expanded the money supply. Murray Rothbard’s book The Panic of 1819 notes how these state banks expanded the amount of banknotes from $46 million to $68 million in 1815. The problem was that banks printed more paper notes than there was gold specie to back them.

In fact, from 1817 to 1818, the SBUS expanded credit by 57 percent, outdoing the credit expansion in 1815–17, when it expanded credit by 25 percent. This credit expansion caused prices to rise in certain areas of the economy, such as agriculture and shipbuilding. All of these markets received the biggest loans that were granted by SBUS branches and state banks.

Eighteen eighteen spelled trouble for both the state banks and the SBUS: the money supply fell by 10 percent and there was a credit contraction of 41 percent. Foreigners and other citizens started to trade in their banknotes for specie, and many state banks refused to convert paper to gold as their gold reserves ran dry, as did the SBUS reserves.

Thomas Jefferson, who warned against central banking, gave his thoughts in a letter to John Taylor in 1816. Jefferson states:

And I sincerely believe with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; & that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

His suspicion was confirmed when in 1819 a recession ignited by the inflationary policy and agriculture and turnpike workers’ wages fell 60–80 percent.

Despite this bank failure, markets were allowed to handle the recession, or the readjustment period. Because of this, the economy bounced back quite quickly. At the start of the recession, gross domestic product per capita only fell 1.1 percent, but from the latter half of 1819 until 1824, GDP per capita grew 1.5 percent. This was before urbanization, so many still lived on farms. Even though wages fell, the recession was still nowhere as bad post-Fed recessions like the one in 1929.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 put a 55 percent tax on all foreign imports, this practically eliminated all exports. Agriculture suffered the most. Tens of thousands of farms were closed and sold for as low as $50. At the beginning of 1920, there were 28,885 banks, and by 1933, roughly fifteen thousand remained, the Federal Reserve Board of 1937 noted that two-thirds of these banks were in towns with less than twenty-five hundred people and that the majority failed.

Wages may have dropped in 1819, but the economy bounced back. It did not drag for sixteen years, nor did thousands of farms and banks fail.

Isn’t Gold Supposed to Prevent This?

Another reason why recessions during the “gold standard” days happened is that nations rejected using the simple units of measurements for weighing gold and inflated paper notes using small amounts of gold. For example, one pound of gold is sixteen ounces, sixteen ounces is 453 grams, etc.

Each nation had its own sovereign money, such as the dollar, the mark, and the franc, and while each was tied to gold, each had different exchange rates for gold. This allowed nations to go off the gold standard and inflate the currency supply.

In his book What has the Government Done to our Money? (p. 14), Murray Rothbard states:

The dollar was defined as 1/20 of an ounce of gold. It was therefore misleading to talk about exchange rates of one country to another. The pound sterling did not really exchange for five dollars. The dollar was defined as 1/20 of a gold ounce and the pound sterling was, at that time, defined as the name for 1/4 of a gold ounce, simply traded for 5/20 of a gold ounce.

Rothbard later explains how in a pure free market, gold would be exchanged directly, in grams, grains, or ounces.

Panic of 1873

Just before the American Civil War, there was around $200 million in banknotes issued by fifteen hundred state banks. In 1861 after the outbreak of the war, there was much debate on how to finance it. All options were on the table, and it seems President Abraham Lincoln chose them all.

In 1861, the Revenue Act imposed a 3 percent tax rate on incomes between $600 and $5,000. Greenbacks were introduced, and these were not backed by gold but printed on paper. Secretary of the US Treasury Salmon Chase asked Congress to approve the printing of 150 million notes, and in 1862, he got the order to do it.

Secretary Chase got two similar orders in 1863 and 1864, both equating to $150 million. By 1865, there were $835 million in both national and state banknotes, but the banks did not stop until 1873, when there was around $1.964 billion in circulation.

One of the founders of the bond system was Jay Cooke. The House of Cooke distributed Treasury bonds during and after the Civil War. Cooke also became head of the government-subsidized Northern Pacific Railroad. Cooke was fervently antigold and considered it a hard coin of a “bygone age.” The previous inflationary policies of the banks caused the House of Cooke bond system and the Northern Pacific railroad to fail, which sparked the Panic of 1873.

But even though a government-subsidized company crumbled under its own weight, the country did not fall into a long depression. In fact, the years from 1873 onward would be a very prosperous time, Rothbard notes:

The decade from 1869 to 1879 saw a 3-percent per-annum increase in money national product, an outstanding real national product growth of 6.8 percent per year in this period, and a phenomenal rise of 4.5 percent per year in real product per capita.

This was not a depression. In fact, most recessions or panics up until 1921 were over quickly because neither the government nor a central bank got involved. But in cases like the Great Recession of 2008, the Fed and government got involved.

The housing boom and bust of 2006 began because the Fed kept interest rates lower than they should have been. This contributed to the demand for housing, since lower interest rates mean lower mortgage payments. Eventually, the Fed kicked interest rates back up, which caused those who had bought houses they normally wouldn’t be able to afford to pay higher mortgages.

All the financial institutions that financed the housing boom, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, took massive losses and had to be bailed out by the US government. In the end, six million people had their homes foreclosed on, unemployment reached 10 percent, and GDP fell by 4.3 percent.

Panic of 1893

While previous examples showed the expansion of paper money outpacing the amount of specie American banks had in store, the Panic of 1893 was sparked by an expansion of silver and silver paper certificates. Hans Sennholz writes that “from 1878 on to 1893 there had been an expansion of money based on silver.”

This recession was not a matter of printing notes beyond the amount of gold banks had, but instead one of congressional meddling. In 1878, the Bland-Allison Act allowed for the Treasury to mint silver coins and issue silver certificates. In 1890, the Sherman Silver Purchase Act decreed that the government would buy 4.5 million ounces of silver every month. This expansion of silver caused the gold supply to drop because of heightened prices and the easy money legislation.

Eventually, President Grover Cleveland called a special session in Congress, pleading for the repeal of the previous silver acts to stop the drain on US gold reserves. They were repealed, which stopped the inflation of silver and allowed for a recession to readjust the market.

*****

This article was published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.