Monday, September 23, 2024

Jamie Dimon is bothered by federal employees not working in their D.C. offices 5 days a week

 Jamie Dimon is bothered by federal employees not working in their D.C. offices 5 days a week (msn.com)



JP Morgan’s CEO Jamie Dimon is not a fan of hybrid working—so much so, that he’s even taking issue with the few days Washington, D.C. federal employees work from home. 

While speaking on stage about the state of politics in America at The Atlantic Festival in the nation's capital, Dimon said he’d “make Washington, D.C. go back to work.”

“I can't believe, when I come down here, the empty buildings. The people who work for you not going to the office,” Dimon added. "That bothers me. I don't allow that at JP[Morgan].” 

“Well, we know what he would do on day one as president,” Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic responded.

“Yeah, you’re all going back to work,” Dimon joked.

In reality, JPMorgan employees and D.C. federal workers have been subjected to similar return-to-office mandates lately. 

Currently, workers at most agencies have to be in the office at least three days a week.

According to a report to Congress from the Office of Management and Budget last month, only about half of federal employees even have the option to work remotely—the other half are already working entirely in person.

Washington’s mayor, Muriel Bowser, who has repeatedly called out the government's lax RTO, has even ordered her own city workers to return to the office four days a week.


Likewise, JPMorgan workers are expected to work from the office three days a week—except for those in leadership roles and in certain divisions like trading, who are required to work from their cubicles full time.

Fortune has reached out to Mayor Bowser's office. JPMorgan declined to comment. 

The finance industry isn’t a big fan of working from home

It’s hardly surprising that Dimon thinks D.C.’s federal workers should be subject to stricter RTO mandates. The CEO—and the finance industry, for that matter—have been among the loudest opposers of remote working.

After over a year in and out of lockdowns, JPMorgan was one of the first major employers to start ushering its employees “back regularly” to their desks in June 2021. 

Since then, the investment bank has taken an increasingly strict stance against working from home including using badge swipe data to enforce in-office quotas. 

Meanwhile, its CEO Dimon has consistently berated remote working for suppressing “spontaneous idea generation” and being incompatible with managing a team. 

"I completely understand why someone doesn't want to commute an hour and a half every day, totally got it," he told The Economist. "Doesn't mean they have to have a job here either."

Likewise, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon famously referred to remote working as an “aberration,” and has insisted employees return to in-person work full-time.

Meanwhile Citigroup, HSBC and Barclays have all ramped up their in office requirements and made it tricker for Wall Street to dial in from home—partly because of new Finra rules. 

Even banking giants which promised to keep flexible working forever, including Santander and Nationwide, are backtracking and launching RTO mandates.

Dimon and D.C.’s federal office have the same issue: RTO dodgers 

If D.C.’s federal office buildings are as “empty” as Dimon says, despite the government’s in-office mandate, then it points to one thing: RTO dodgers—and it’s a conundrum Dimon, the government, and many CEOs share.

In London, employers are asking staff to come in to the office for 3.1 days a week on average—employees are actually showing up only 2.7 days.

Likewise, in New York workers are being asked to work from the office for 3.7 days of the week—but are only showing up for 3.1 days.

The report from the think tank Centre for Cities highlighted that this pattern is followed in most major global cities, including Toronto, Singapore and Sydney. 

To that end, Dimon himself has had to send out numerous exasperated reminders to JPMorgan's workforce about his own company’s in-office policy, while threatening “corrective action” for workers who were still failing to comply with the mandate some years after it was announced.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

The Three Branches of Rule


Last week, some of us took the time to remember that it was the 237th anniversary of our US Constitution, 17 September 1787. Sadly, I do not think most of this country or this republic was aware of this. The week prior, we had a presidential debate in the National Constitution Center, and no mention was made of the constitution. We heard about folks eating pets and boring rallies. It's interesting, considering that an American president takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, our rule of law.

Constitutional conservatives revere the U.S. Constitution and see it as our rule of law. It is a document that is a limiting prescription for the federal government. The question is whether or not the progressive socialist, Marxist left sees the Constitution in the same way. The answer is quite apparent: they do not. The Constitution establishes three coequal branches of government, separation of powers, and delineates each branch's enumerated duties and responsibilities. Leftists seek not to be bound in their quest for power, control, and domination.

Leftists embrace the three branches of rule.

The first branch of the left is the courts, and we see it reflected in their pursuit of this concept called "lawfare." It is a desire to use the court system not to do as the Constitution prescribes—judicial review and interpretation of the law. For the left, courts are the place for judicial activism and the advancement of that which is not attainable through a legislative process. Leftists believe that courts can make law, meaning a failure to understand basic civics. Why else would leftists go apoplectic about packing the U.S. Supreme Court other than the fact that they want judicial control? If judicial decisions do not go the way leftists desire, then a court is deemed unlawful...let us not forget Chuck Schumer's threats to Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

Why is it that New York Judge Merchan can manipulate rulings in his court and even take a case where he should recuse himself? Why do leftists always call for conservative justices to recuse themselves but not leftist justices? Here in Texas, during the 2018 midterm election cycle, George Soros focused on wiping out conservative judges in Harris (Houston) and Dallas counties. The result, when combined with District Attorneys who do not prosecute criminal cases, has been a revolving door of violent criminals being released back onto our streets...ala Alvin Bragg.

Control of the courts by the left means the ability to implement their rule under the guise of justice, which they have reclassified as “social.”

The second branch of rule for leftists is academia; just take a look at the chaos and support for anti-Semitism and Islamic terrorism emanating from our campuses. Marxism has always sought to establish itself among the institutions of higher learning; now, it aims to be extended into every level of academia. Teachers’ unions are more concerned about their political agenda instead of the education of our children and grandchildren. When you go onto an American campus, the lack of any equality of conscience, thought, or diverse perspective is highly alarming. To the point that many young people believe that censorship is warranted against those who do not surrender to leftist groupthink. 

The mantra of leftism is that if one can control the minds of the young, they will control the future. Too often, we read about leftist indoctrination and what is the number one enemy of this—educational freedom. How could it be that concerned parents showing up at school board meetings would have the full weight and power of the federal government brought against them as “domestic terrorists?” The left does not want any disruption of their second branch of rule, academia.

The last branch of rule for the left is the media. Do I need to expound upon this? How can it be that someone with a lower approval rating than Joe Biden is now heralded as a viable presidential candidate? The leftist media has decided that it will run cover for one Kamala Harris and shield her from any scrutiny. They have colluded in suppressing any story that is not favorable to the progressive socialist left. They are willing co-conspirators—complicit accomplices—in driving a narrative replete with deception. The media refused to accept the mental decline of Joe Biden, which Kamala Harris hid until it was an inconvenient truth. The media did everything to hide and provide cover for the disaster that has become the border security situation in America until it was no longer hideable. The media has aided and abetted the violent and disturbing rhetoric that has contributed to not just one but two assassination attempts on the life of Donald Trump.

Why?

Simple, leftists are not concerned with governing; they aim to rule, and the courts, academia, and the media are their tools of implementation. It is time that we speak with courage and conviction in defining the left, its goals, objectives, ends, and means. This is not a game, but it is indeed the ultimate ideological battle between liberty and tyranny.



X22, And we Know, and more- Sept 23

 




‘Finish The Job’: DOJ Publishes Bounty Offer From Latest Would-Be Trump Assassin

Prosecutors for the U.S. Department of Justice released a letter, allegedly penned by the man arrested for attempting to assassinate former President Donald Trump as he golfed in West Palm Beach last week, which offers a $150,000 reward to anyone who could “complete the job” of murdering the Republican candidate.

“This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump but I am so sorry I failed you,” the letter addressed to the “World” reads. “I tried my best and gave it all the gumption I could muster. It is up to you now to finish the job; and I will offer $150,000 to whomever can complete the job.”

The alleged author of the letter, Ryan Routh, attributed Democrat and corporate media rhetoric painting Trump as “unfit to be anything, much less a US president,” as motivation for his crime. He also blamed Trump’s decision to cut ties with Iran as the primary reason the “Middle East has unraveled.”

“U.S. presidents must at bare minimum embody the moral fabric that is America and be kind, caring and selfless and always stand for humanity,” Routh wrote, noting that “Trump fails to understand.”

According to court papers, Routh dropped off the letter in a package with an unnamed person “several months prior” to the golf course assassination attempt. It wasn’t until days after Routh’s arrest, however, that the “civilian witness” reportedly first opened the box containing “ammunition, a metal pipe, miscellaneous building materials, tools, four phones, and various letters” and alerted authorities.

The circumstances surrounding the letter’s appearance raise many questions. The content of the letter, however, makes clear that the would-be assassin’s ultimate goal in hiding in the bushes at Trump International Golf Course on September 15 was to permanently remove Trump from the planet by whatever means necessary.

If he couldn’t personally finish the job with his scoped SKS rifle, Routh repeatedly encouraged others, including America’s foreign enemies, to follow through on murdering the former president. In his February 2023 bookUkraine’s Unwinnable War: The Fatal Flaw of Democracy, World Abandonment and the Global Citizen-Taiwan, Afghanistan, North Korea and the end of Humanity, Routh apologized to Iran on behalf of the U.S. for letting “brainless” Trump ever hold office.

“You are free to assassinate Trump as well as me for that error in judgment and the dismantling of the deal,” Routh wrote. “No one here in the US seems to have the balls to put natural selection to work or even unnatural selection.”

 https://thefederalist.com/2024/09/23/finish-the-job-doj-publishes-bounty-offer-from-latest-would-be-trump-assassin/

Oh Yeah, They Tried To Kill The President … I Forgot About That


You might think that an attempt to shoot the president – okay, the former president and likely the next one, but you know what I mean – would be a big deal. And you might think that two attempts to shoot him in the space of a couple of months might be an even bigger deal. But you would be wrong. They are no deal at all, and that’s not a good thing. Not at all.

We are on a very scary path, and it’s unclear that there is a turn-off we can take that brings us someplace good.

What is happening now is unprecedented. I was a junior in high school when that rabid and very misguided Jodie Foster fanboy shot President Reagan. A few years before, a couple of Charles Manson bimbettes had made feeble attempts to murder Gerald Ford, but Hinckley managed to shoot Rawhide as well as three others. That happened while I was a high school junior. I am not sure if school let out or if we just watched it in class, but that was a huge deal. And it remained a huge deal for a while.

Now, one scuzz wounds the president and a couple of other people, plus kills Corey Competore, and it’s no biggie. Next, some Harris-Walz voter tried to ambush Trump on the fairway. And is this a huge story? Nah. They did not even interrupt the sportsball games for a special report. I mean, sure, an assassination attempt is no pet-noshing narrative. It’s just a couple of committed Democrats trying to change the course of American history with guns because Orange Man Bad.

And the regime media is okay with that. The reaction to Attempt No. 1 was simply muted as if they were measuring their words to provide plausible deniability that they thought the shooting was a bad thing for reasons beyond the fact that it gave the courageous candidate an iconic photograph and more combat time than the pseudo-sergeant major Dem VP nominee. But after Attempt No. 2, the regime media’s journohacks did not even try to pretend. They went right into their bullSchiff narrative. Why, Trump being mean to illegal aliens for dining on Fido means he brought it on himself. Stop hitting yourself, Donald. You were asking for it with that short skirt.

But beneath the garbage narrative to try to turn yet another Democrat murder freak into a MAGA NRA GOP White Nationalist Christian Guy, you could detect something else.

Disappointment. It was as if the unspoken question was not “How can we stop our allies from trying to murder our political opponents?” and was, instead, “Can’t anybody here shoot straight?”

Am I saying that Democrats want someone to blow Trump’s brains out?

No. I don’t have to say that. A majority of Democrats are saying that, or at least not denying it.

A poll in the wake of the latest would-be leftist murder spree – let’s not forget the baseball diamond Democrat shooter and the spate of trans freaks slaughtering innocents for insufficiently catering to their sick gender delusions – found some stunning numbers. Well, they were stunning only if you have not been paying attention. About 28% of Democrats surveyed said that yes, America would be better off if Trump was assassinated. As astonishing as it seems, over a quarter of Democrats were willing to confess to a stranger that they were hoping for the murder of a political opponent. Look, there will always be some fringie weirdos in any group. If even 5% had said it, okay, one in twenty of any group is probably a sociopath. But better than a quarter? Sick.

And then another 25% were unsure if America would be better off if Trump was assassinated. Unsure? Like you need to deeply ponder where you stand on shooting people for disagreeing with your politics? Like this takes some complex weighing of the pros and cons? And, of course, many of those respondents actually totally want Trump to be assassinated; they just had the self-control not to admit that to the total stranger taking the poll.

What we have, then, is a Democrat Party where the majority of its members do not unequivocally think that killing Donald Trump is a bad thing. And the Democrat leadership is cool with this. It’s not like Kamala Harris is out there explaining to her fans that assassinating political opponents is definitely not brat. In fairness to her, it’s not as if she’s out there explaining where she stands on anything – if she did offer a comment, it would probably be, “I was born into a middle-class family.”

But then, what do you expect? Trump is a threat to our Democracy! There will never be another election if he is elected! He’s a racist Nazi! He’s literally Hitler! Seems pretty dire, pretty extreme. Who wouldn’t prefer that some assassin had got through and capped Der Fuhrer before he goose-stepped into the Sudetenland?

So, it’s not unreasonable to assume that the Democrat leadership would be okay with it if one of their inept killbots managed to waste their opponent. All the pieces fit. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and gets eaten by random Haitian illegal aliens like a duck, it’s a duck.

But you cannot have a free country with norms like that. You cannot have a society where people compete for votes and where the people govern themselves if one faction decides – as the Democrats have – to change the rules so that their opponents never get to win. The laws passed by our representatives say that flooding America with illegals is illegal. The Democrats ignore the law and do it anyway. We’re supposed to be able to speak freely, but the Democrats label anything they don’t like as “misinformation” and attempt to censor or prosecute it. We’re supposed to have one system of justice for everyone, but the Democrats have established a special system for Republicans that bears no resemblance to the real justice system. And now, the Democrats dog whistle for nutty killers to murder their main opponent and a substantial number of their constituents feel comfortable either not caring or cheerleading it.

How do they imagine this ends? They tell themselves that this is just an expedient because Trump is a unique threat, but you know who else was a unique threat? Everyone – Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, McCain, and even that simpering sissy Mitt Romney. Of course, once the Hitler du jour is retired or expired, they are suddenly good Republicans. We all know the game. Every GOP candidate in the future will be even worse than Trump. Oh, that JD Vance – he’s not just Hitler but Hitler squared! And DeSantis, well, he’s Hitler cubed.

Do they think these New Rules are not going to be applied to everyone? They are thinking about getting a short-term advantage, not about the long-term destruction of our norms, norms that incidentally protect them from us. But could they walk it back even if they wanted to? How? Leftist change is only possible through crisis, by convincing people that things are so especially awful that the normal guardrails of society have to be torn down and the Old Rules (especially the ones giving their opponents the chance to have a say in their own governance) must be thrown out the Overton Window.

I do not know where this goes from here, though I have written about it in my books. But I do know that it is nowhere good. Maybe a massive electoral repudiation in November will cause the Democrats to change course from this perilous path, but I am afraid it will only make them double down in desperation.



Yes, We Should Defend the Term “Capitalism”

Yes, We Should Defend the Term “Capitalism”

Positive capitalism

Perhaps nothing is so vilified as “capitalism” in the modern world. According to a study by North Dakota State University, only a quarter of college students have a positive view of capitalism. Bernie Sanders was wildly popular in 2016, nearly dethroning the neoliberal Hillary Clinton, in part because of his disdain for “millionaires and billionaires” and “capitalism” in favor of socialism (though his views of “millionaires” changed once he became one!). As a sad response, proponents of free markets have fled from the term “capitalism” in favor of lukewarm terms like “market processes.”

Many may point to the popular coining of the term by French socialist Louis Blanc or Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as an example. Their argument has been that “capitalism is a term invented by our enemies and so we shouldn’t play into their paradigm.” But Mises, and the insights of the Austrian school, provide a picture why the term should be embraced rather than shunned or apologized for.

Let’s start with what Mises himself says about the term “capitalism” in Human Action:

The system of free enterprise has been dubbed capitalism in order to deprecate and to smear it. However, this term can be considered very pertinent. It refers to the most characteristic feature of the system, its main eminence, viz. the role the notion of capital plays in its conduct. (emphasis added)

It appears that Mises is favorable towards the term. In fact, a simple CTRL+F search through Human Action shows that the term is used 213 times, including sections specifically defending the system. Mises certainly uses the term “markets” to refer to the market economy in many parts of his treatise, but he does not shy away from using the word “capitalism” like many of his modern followers.

Mises is correct that the term “capitalism” is very pertinent. Capitalism is characterized by the private ownership of capital. It is a vitally important feature of the market economy that sadly goes overlooked by many. Private capital ownership allows for economic calculation, first and foremost.

Value is imputed backwards from ends, to consumer goods, to higher-ordered producer goods (capital goods), but every exchange along the way is the purchasing of means for someone’s satisfaction. Someone creating a higher-order good for others is seeking to increase their cash holdings. Economic calculation appears here doubly—in the ultimate profit and loss of industries that create the consumer goods and in those higher-ordered industries. The profit and loss mechanism cannot exist absent private actors being able to engage in valuation and exchange.

But it goes further than this simple insight. Capital is a broader term describing capital goods as a whole. Capital goods are those goods which aid in the creation of consumer goods, those which are indirectly serviceable towards our wants. Capital goods are only accumulated through deferring consumption. The classic example is from Murray Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State describing Robinson Crusoe accumulating capital goods.

Crusoe may be able to pick berries to satiate his hunger in leisure but he also may be able to prepare a special stick that will increase his berry-picking output. To do so, however, he must forgo berry picking or leisure to prepare the stick (his capital good). He must forgo consumption, the enjoyment of berries or leisure, to create capital goods. As Rothbard writes, “The restriction of consumption is called saving, and the transfer of labor and land to the formation of capital goods is called investment.”

All capital goods are the result of deferring consumption and investing. These goods increase the output of real consumer goods. The development of modern industry is traceable back to the beginning of capital accumulation. Because earlier humans invested in creating further farm equipment, more food was produced and more people could specialize. Because earlier humans invested in the creation of tools for uncovering metals we have modern manufacturing today.

Kamala Harris has become a joke in conservative political circles for her comment: “You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.” 

There is some truth to it if we adjust it just a bit. It may work to say: You exist in the context of our capital structure and all that was saved before you. Modern society is built upon the foundations of earlier capital accumulation that allowed us to produce greater consumer and capital goods. Society and civilization has been built upon past saving and investment, upon the actions of past capitalists.

Capitalists provide an even greater service to society and growth than even just mere saving and investment. Capitalists bear risk, not risk in the sense of the natural sciences, but entrepreneurial risk. Mises outlinesthe crucial role of the entrepreneur: 

[T]he entrepreneur is always a speculator. He deals with the uncertain conditions of the future. His success or failure depends on the correctness of his anticipation of uncertain events. If he fails in his understanding of things to come, he is doomed. The only source from which an entrepreneur’s profits stem is his ability to anticipate better than other people the future demand of the consumers.

The capitalist-entrepreneur is what spurs the entirety of the market economy forward. The entrepreneur engages in investment, by deferring consumption, forwarding current funds and capital goods in anticipation of what future consumers will desire. The capitalists are those who will suffer the loss if their predictions are incorrect. However, if they succeed, they will have provided a consumer or producer good that their fellow man values, and thus they reap a profit. The capitalist, hated by all, bears risk for their fellow man. Laborers employed by a capitalist-entrepreneur are given current funds for their labor before any profit or loss can be realized by the product they help create.

Capitalist-entrepreneurs drive the economy forward in their desire to satisfy the demands of consumers. Capital goods themselves are the causes of economic growth and progress. Everything we see around us is the fruit of capital accumulation and saving by capitalists. 

Rather than decry the term “capitalism,” we should be more willing to use the term than ever. Capitalists and capital are the cause of growth and progress. The whole of the market system relies upon them. Capitalism should be readily embraced by all defenders of free markets as a descriptive term. Capital is a central part of society. The term that Marx gave as a mark of derision is, in fact, a perfect descriptor of the benefits of the market system—one that advocates of free markets should make a term of pride.


🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Mike Rowe Interviews Victor Davis Hanson


Mike Rowe brought Victor Davis Hanson onto his podcast for an interview to discuss Class Warfare as contrast against the 2024 election stakes. The impetus for the interview was an article written by VDH a few months ago about the shift in the American electorate – SEE HERE.

Within the interview VDH walks through a summary of how a modern muscular tech industry replaced Mainstreet on the financial side of financial economics and American wealth.  Essentially, how a small group of tech companies replaced the blue chip titans and industrialists on the global wealth scale.

As 8 billion people started being able to purchase the goods and services of a small American group of entrepreneurs, all focused heavily inside the tech and finance sector, the people who owned wealth shifted dramatically.  Decades later, against the backdrop of globalism, the issue surfaces as the industrialists (Main Street corps) offshored their manufacturing, while the tech industrialists (Muscular Wall Street) started to be the wealthiest people in the USA as a result of selling their tech products to the world.

Within the discussion, the academically disposed VDH points out empirical data that bolsters his theories and analysis.  Rowe is in general agreement as they both discuss the granular consequences.  However, there is one fascinating part (prompted below) where VDH accurately identifies conservative economic hero Milton Friedman as one of the early globalist villains.

VDH is correct when he says that Friedman was a rabid open borders advocate, who had no issue with lowered wages for U.S. workers and embraced the global system of manufacturing which led to a destroyed U.S industrial base creating the Rust Belt.  Few people on the conservative side of politics will ever admit how Milton Friedman was the original Bush-class economist.  It’s good to see VDH set the record straight.  WATCH:



Keep in mind, Milton Friedman was vociferously against tariffs of any kind.  Friedman believed once the entire world was connected, all prices and economies would equalize.  The pain felt within the American economy was simply something that had to be endured until American wealth was distributed and the entire world was balanced.

What follows below was my review of what would happen with Donald Trump policies put into place.  This is very deep and in the weeds. This was originally written in December of 2016.

Traditional economic principles have revolved around the Macro and Micro with interventionist influences driven by GDP (Gross Domestic Product, or total economic output), interest rates, inflation rates and federally controlled monetary policy designed to steer the broad economic outcomes.

Additionally, in large measure, the various data points which underline Macro principles are two dimensional.  As the X-Axis goes thus, the Y-Axis responds accordingly… and so it goes…. and so it has historically gone.

trump convention 2
Traditional monetary policy has centered upon a belief of cause and effect: (ex.1) If inflation grows, it can be reduced by rising interest rates.  Or, (ex.2) as GDP shrinks, it too can be affected by decreases in interest rates to stimulate investment/production etc.

However, against the backdrop of economic Globalism -vs- economic Americanism, CTH is noting the two dimensional economic approach is no longer a relevant model.  There is another economic dimension, a third dimension. An undiscovered depth or distance between the “X” and the “Y”.

I believe it is critical to understand this new dimension in order to understand Trump economic principles, and the subsequent “America-First” economy his policies build.

As the distance between the X and Y increases over time, the affect detaches – slowly and almost invisibly.  I believe understanding this hidden distance perspective will reconcile many of the current economic contractions. I also predict this third dimension will soon be discovered and will be extremely consequential in the coming decade.

To understand the basic theory, allow me to introduce a visual image to assist comprehension.   Think about the two economies, Wall Street (paper or false economy) and Main Street (real or traditional economy) as two parallel roads or tracks.  Think of Wall Street as one train engine and Main Street as another.

The Metaphor – Several decades ago, 1980-ish, our two economic engines started out in South Florida with the Wall Street economy on I-95 the East Coast, and the Main Street economy on I-75 the West Coast.  The distance between them less than 100 miles.

As each economy heads North, over time the distance between them grows.  As they cross the Florida State line Wall Street’s engine (I-95) is now 200 miles from Main Street’s engine (traveling I-75).

As we have discussed – the legislative outcomes, along with the monetary policy therein, follows the economic engine carrying the greatest political influence.  Our historic result is monetary policy followed the Wall Street engine.

a17b2-hip-replacement-recall-bribery[…]  there had to be a point where the value of the second economy (Wall Street) surpassed the value of the first economy (Main Street).

Investments, and the bets therein, needed to expand outside of the USA. hence, globalist investing.

However, a second more consequential aspect happened simultaneously.  The politicians became more valuable to the Wall Street team than the Main Street team;  and Wall Street had deeper pockets because their economy was now larger.

As a consequence Wall Street started funding political candidates and asking for legislation that benefited their interests.

When Main Street was purchasing the legislative influence the outcomes were beneficial to Main Street, and by direct attachment those outcomes also benefited the average American inside the real economy.

When Wall Street began purchasing the legislative influence, the outcomes therein became beneficial to Wall Street. Those benefits are detached from improving the livelihoods of main street Americans because the benefits are “global” needs. Global financial interests, investment interests, are now the primary filter through which the DC legislative outcomes are considered.

There is a natural disconnect. (more)

Here is an example of the resulting impact as felt by consumers:

economy-1

♦ TWO ECONOMIES – Time continues to pass as each economy heads North.

Economic Globalism expands.  Wall Street’s false (paper) economy becomes the far greater economy.  Federal fiscal policy follows and fuels the larger economy.  In turn the Wall Street benefactors pay back the politicians.

Economic Nationalism shrinks.  Main Street’s real (traditional) economy shrinks.  Domestic manufacturing drops. Jobs are off-shored.  Main Street companies try to offset the shrinking economy with increased productivity (the fuel).  Wages stagnate.

Now it’s 1990 – The Wall Street economic engine (traveling I-95) reaches Northern North Carolina.  However, it’s now 500 miles away from Main Street’s engine (traveling I-75).  The Appalachian range is the geographic wedge creating the natural divide (a metaphor for ‘trickle down’).
By the time the decade of 2000 arrives – Wall Street’s well fueled engine, and the accompanying DC legislative attention, influence and monetary policy, has reached Philadelphia.

However, Main Street’s engine is in Ohio (they’re now 700 miles apart) and almost out of fuel; there simply is no more productivity to squeeze.
From that moment in time, and from that geographic location, all forward travel is now only going to push the two economies further apart.  I-95 now heads Northeast, and I-75 heads due North through Michigan.  The distance between these engines is going to grow much more significantly now with each passing mile/month….

However, and this is a key reference point, if you are judging their advancing progress from a globalist vessel (filled with traditional academic economists) in the mid-Atlantic, both economies (both engines) would seem to be essentially in the same place based on their latitude.

From a two-dimensional linear perspective you cannot tell the distance between them.

It is within this distance between the two economies, which grew over time, where a new economic dimension has been created and is not getting attention.  It is critical to understand the detachment.

Within this three dimensional detachment you understand why Near-Zero interest rates no longer drive an expansion of the GDP.  The Main Street economic engine is just too far away to gain any substantive benefit.

Despite their domestic origin in NY/DC, traditional fiscal policies (over time) have focused exclusively on the Wall Street, Globalist economy.   The Wall Street Economic engine was simply seen as the only economy that would survive.  The Main Street engine was viewed by DC, and those who assemble the legislative priorities therein, as a dying engine, lacking fuel, and destined to be service driven only….

Within the new 3rd economic dimension, the distance between Wall Street and Main Street economic engines, you will find the data to reconcile years of odd economic detachment.

brexit-letter-1

Here’s where it gets really interesting.  Understanding the distance between the real Main Street economic engine and the false Wall Street economic engine will help all of us to understand the scope of an upcoming economic lag, which, rather remarkably I would add, is a very interesting dynamic.

Think about these engines doing a turn about and beginning a rapid reverse.  GDP can, and in my opinion, will, expand quickly.  However, any interest rate hikes (fiscal policy) intended to cool down that expansion -fearful of inflation- will take a long time to traverse the divide.

Additionally, inflation on durable goods will be insignificant – even as international trade agreements are renegotiated.  Why?  Simply because the originating nations of those products are going to go through the same type of economic detachment described above.

Those global manufacturing economies will first respond to any increases in export costs (tariffs etc.), by driving their own productivity higher as an initial offset, in the same manner American workers went through in the past two decades.  The manufacturing enterprise and the financial sector remain focused on the pricing.

♦ Inflation on imported durable goods sold in America, while necessary, will ultimately be minimal during this initial period; and expand more significantly as time progresses and offshored manufacturing finds less and less ways to be productive.   Over time, durable goods prices will increase – but it will come much later.

♦ Inflation on domestic consumable goods ‘may‘ indeed rise at a faster pace. However, it can be expected that U.S. wage rates will respond faster, naturally faster, than any fiscal policy because inflation on fast-turn consumable goods become re-coupled to the ability of wage rates to afford them.

The fiscal policy impact lag, caused by the distance between federal fiscal action and the domestic Main Street economy, will now work in our favor.  That is, in favor of the middle-class.

Within the aforementioned distance between “X” and “Y”, a result of three decades traveled by two divergent economic engines, is our new economic dimension, which, if successful, will be forever known as “MAGAnomics”….

Trump thumbs up

We support reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which prohibits commercial banks from engaging in high-risk investment,” said the platform released by the Republican National Committee. (link)

What you just read above was written in December of 2016, before President Trump’s economic policies were put into place.

Compare what was stated, what was predicted, a completely new paradigm in American economic perspective, to what happened.

It was the Fourth Quarter of 2019…..

Right before the pandemic would hit a few months later, despite two years of doomsayer predictions from Wall Street’s professional punditry, all of them said Trump’s 2017 steel and aluminum tariffs on China, Canada and the EU would create massive inflation – it just wasn’t happening!

Overall, year-over-year inflation was hovering around 1.7 percent [Table-A BLS]; yup, that was our inflation rate.  The rate in the latter half of 2019 was firmed up with less month-over-month fluctuation, and the rate basically remained consistent.   [See Below]  The U.S. economy was on a smooth glide path, strong, stable, and Main Street was growing with MAGAnomics at work.

A couple of important points.  First, unleashing the energy sector to drive down overall costs to consumers, and industry outputs was a key part of President Trump’s America First MAGAnomic initiative.  Lower energy prices help the worker economy, middle class and average American more than any other sector.

Which brings us to the second important point.  Notice how food prices had very low year-over-year inflation – 0.5 percent.  That is a combination of two key issues: low energy costs, and the fracturing of Big Ag’s hold on the farm production and the export dynamic:

(BLS) […] The index for food at home declined for the third month in a row, falling 0.2 percent. The index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs decreased 0.7 percent in August as the index for eggs fell 2.6 percent. The index for fruits and vegetables, which rose in July, fell 0.5 percent in August; the index for fresh fruits declined 1.4 percent, but the index for fresh vegetables rose 0.4 percent. The index for cereals and bakery products fell 0.3 percent in August after rising 0.3 percent in July. (link)

For the previous twenty years, food prices had been increasingly controlled by Big Ag, and not by normal supply and demand.   The commodity market became a ‘controlled market’. U.S. food outputs (farm production) was controlled and exported to keep the U.S. consumer paying optimal prices.

President Trump’s trade reset was disrupting this process.  As farm products were less exported, the cost of the food in our supermarket became reconnected to a ‘more normal’ supply and demand cycle.  Food prices dropped, and our pantry costs were lowered.

The Commerce Dept. then announced that retail sales climbed by 0.4 percent in August 2019, twice as high as the 0.2 percent analysts had predicted. The result highlighted retail sales strength of more than 4 percent year-over-year.   These excellent results came on the heels of blowout data in July, when households boosted purchases of cars and clothing.

The better-than-expected number stemmed largely from a 1.8 percent jump in spending vehicles. Online sales, meanwhile, also continued to climb, rising 1.6 percent. That’s similar to July 2019, when Amazon held its two-day blowout Prime Day sale. (link)

Despite the efforts to remove and impeach President Trump, it did not look like middle class America was overly concerned about the noise coming from the pundits.   Likely that’s because blue collar wages were higher, Main Street inflation was lower, and overall consumer confidence was strong.  Yes, MAGAnomics was working.

Additionally, remember all those MSM hours and newspaper column inches where the professional financial pundits were claiming Trump’s tariffs were going to cause massive increases in prices of consumer goods?

Well, exactly the opposite happened [BLS report] Import prices were continuing to drop:

[Table 1 – BLS report link]

This was a really interesting dynamic that no one in the professional punditry would dare explain.

Donald Trump’s tariffs were targeted to specific sectors of imported products.  [Steel, Aluminum, and a host of smaller sectors etc.]  However, when the EU and China responded by devaluing their currency, that approach hit all products imported, not just the tariff goods.

Because the EU and China were driving up the value of the dollar, everything we were importing became cheaper.   Not just imports from Europe and China, but actually imports from everywhere.   All imports were entering the U.S. at substantially lower prices.

This meant when we imported products, we were also importing deflation.

This price result is exactly the opposite of what the economic experts and Wall Street pundits predicted back in 2017 and 2018 when they were pushing the rapid price increase narrative.

Because all the export dependent economies were reacting with such urgency to retain their access to the U.S. market, aggregate import prices were actually lower than they were when the Trump tariffs began:

[…]  Prices for imports from China edged down 0.1 percent in August following decreases of 0.2 percent in both July and June. Import prices from China have not advanced on a monthly basis since ticking up 0.1 percent in May 2018. The price index for imports from China fell 1.6 percent for the year ended in August.

[…]  Import prices from the European Union fell 0.2 percent in August and 0.3 percent over the past 12 months.

[Page #4 – BLS Report, pdf] – BLS press release.

So yes, we know President Trump can save Social Security and Medicare by expanding the economy with his America First economic policy.  We do not need to guess if it is possible or listen to pundits theorize about his approach being some random ‘catch phrase’ disconnected from reality.  Yes folks, we have the receipts.

This was MAGAnomics at work, and this is entirely what created the middle class MAGA coalition.  No other Republican candidate has this economic policy in their outlook, because all other candidates are purchased by the Wall Street multinationals.

America First MAGAnomics is unique to President Trump, because he is the only one independent enough to implement them.

That’s just the reality of the situation.  They hate him for it…