Economics takes ends and goals of action as a given and—in matters of value judgments—it assumes neutrality (i.e., non-normativity), which is characteristic of a science. However, questions of suitability of means and various policies adopted to attain chosen ends are not beyond the scope of economic analysis.

The “Dismal” Task of the Economist

The competent economist—when presented with a proposed plan of action—always asks: Is the means adopted suitable for the attainment of the end in view? He critically analyzes the means in question and declares their fitness or unfitness on the basis of logical demonstrations that are unassailable and apodictly true. This peculiar task of the economist is often misapprehended as an expression of his value judgments and an attempt to frustrate the attainment of ends chosen. Thus, the economist is often met with disapproval.

More significant in the history of the science are the several attempts to discredit the economists through a denial of economics as a universally-valid science, applicable for all peoples, times, and places. This is a pernicious attempt because the social, political, and economic consequences tend to be disastrously far-reaching. This article attempts to establish a connection between a denial of economics and the emergence of totalitarianism.

Historicism as a Precursor of Totalitarianism

Historicism was one of such concerted attempts at denying the universal validity of the body of economic theorems. The historicists advanced the view that economic theories are not valid for all peoples, places, and times; and thus, are only relevant to the specific historical conditions of their authors. The German Historical School’s rejection of the free trade theories, propounded by the classical economists, was not on grounds of inherent inadequacies in these theories—given that they never unmasked any logical errors as to the untenability of these theories—but motivated by ideological pre-possessions. Mises puts it very succinctly in Epistemological Problems of Economics:

The historian must never forget that the most momentous occurrence in the history of the last hundred years, the attack launched against the universally valid science of human action and its hitherto best developed branch, economics, was motivated from the very beginning not by scientific ideas but by political considerations.

Historicism is bound to lead to some form of logical relativism, and it is not surprising that the doctrine of racial polylogism gained a general acceptance among many Germans in the early twentieth century. In order to invalidate the relevance of a theory on grounds of historical or racial origins of the author, one has to proceed with the indefensible assumption of differences in the logical character of the human mind amongst different peoples and within the same people at different historical epochs. But in fact, there is no scientific evidence as to the existence of these differences in the logical structure of the human mind. Thus the historicists’ arguments against the universal validity of economic theory are unfounded.

The social, economic, and political significance of a denial of economics would also imply the denial of insights from economics about the preservation of society—concerted action in voluntary cooperation. Economic theory asserts that there is greater productivity to be obtained from social organization under the division of labor than would be obtained in individual self-sufficiency. The Ricardian Law of Association explains the tendency of humans to intensify cooperation given a rightly-understood interest in better satisfying wants under the social order of the division of labor. While there are many ways for people to coexist in the world, there are fewer ways for them to coexist peacefully and prosperously. This is the central lesson of classical economics about human society.

Historicism’s denial of the universal validity of these theories on non-logical grounds betrays a prejudice for policies aimed at attaining the alternative of autarkic self-sufficiency and the substitution of the social apparatus with coercion and compulsion. In fact, the Nazi totalitarian regime, whose intellectual precursor was German historicism, never relented in applying force to induce cooperation while simultaneously pursuing autarkic self-sufficiency by means of disastrous policies. Thus, German historicism, in denying the universal validity of economic theory and the general laws of human action as advanced by praxeology, played a causal role by creating a favorable intellectual climate for arbitrariness and the subsequent emergence of Nazi totalitarianism.

Marxism as Pseudo-Economics

Marxist socialism, on the other hand, denies the validity of economic theories on grounds of the “class origins” of the economists. Like historicism, it subscribes to a variant of polylogism in which it asserts the existence of a difference in the logical structure of mind for the respective social classes—even though Marx never defined what he meant by “class.” Consequently, for the Marxians, the science of economics becomes mere ideological expression of the class interest of the exploiting class—the bourgeoisie.

It is precisely the fact that Marxism rejects the essential teachings of economics in favor of utopian ideas which fail to achieve the ends sought wherever it was tried. The ultimate goals of Marxians—improvement in material and social conditions of its adherents—are no different from those of their liberal counterparts of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries who enjoyed considerable improvements in standard of living; it is in the choices of means that they differ. But it is the unsuitability of the means adopted by the Marxians that always and everywhere frustrated the attainment of ends sought by Marxism.

Furthermore, as with the capitalist system, based on private ownership of the means of production, the pure socialist commonwealth must be faced with the problem of allocation of resources in view of satisfying the most urgent wants of its citizens. And in this regard, Mises, in his irrefutable criticism of the socialist commonwealth, exposes the impossibility of socialism. He argues that, given the absence of a price structure for factors of production, the problem of impracticality of economic calculation must emerge in a socialist community. The planner, without recourse to tools of economic calculation, would be lost amid the sea of economic possibilities.

That capitalism has succeeded in improving the lives of men wherever its institutions are left unhampered is because those societies recognize the validity of economic theory about the potential benefits of the free market. They did not adopt arbitrary policies that economists declared unfit for the ends they sought to attain. Thus, the horrors brought about by the series of abortive attempts to implement the utopian ideas of socialist thinkers are the logical consequences of a denial of economics.

The Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Totalitarianism

The doctrine of interventionism wrongly conceives of a compatibility of the market and violent interventions by the state, between social cooperation and the apparatus of coercion and compulsion. It purports to be a third economic system—a compromise between capitalism and socialism. But, as the logical demonstrations of the economists show us over and over, interventionism, so-called middle-of-the-road policy, inevitably leads to socialism. Interventionism is, in fact, a denial of economics in that economics recognizes that interventions of any sort in the market tend to produce outcomes that—judged from the point of view of their initiators—are even more dissatisfactory than the previous problems that they pretend to fix.

Mises clearly remarks in his short book The Historical Setting of the Austrian School of Economics that “the worst illusion of our age is the superstitious confidence placed in panaceas, which—as the economists have irrefutably demonstrated—are contrary to purpose.” Interventionism, carried to its logical conclusion, is bound to lead to totalitarianism, given that the more its policies fail to produce the desired outcomes, the more the statesmen who wrongly believe in the appropriateness of interventionist measures find it necessary to employ the coercive state apparatus to compensate for their failures.

Economics and the Free-Market System

The science of economics is a rational science that recognizes the primacy of the laws of human society. Economics teaches that the market is a system of logically necessary relations brought about by the actions of individuals seeking to satisfy their most urgent wants. It teaches that any instance of coercion aimed at influencing the actions of individuals is disruptive to the market process. A denial of these teachings would inevitably lead to the state of affairs in which force becomes the only means of eliciting the cooperation of individuals in society.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who are famous for reporting on Watergate while working at the Washington Post, released a statement stating their disappointment. Former executive editor Martin Baron called the decision “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.” Nineteen Washington Post columnists signed an op-ed calling the lack of an endorsement a “terrible mistake.” And the unions of both publications released statements expressing their concern over such a move.

Across the board, the cited concern is that we are just days away from a consequential election where one of the candidates poses a major threat to democracy itself. The rest of the media see the billionaires who own each outlet as “preemptively self-censoring” themselves to avoid offending Donald Trump. This “self-censorship” then, we’re told, makes it more likely that Trump will get elected.

The assumptions that underlie these concerns are worth unpacking. The first, and perhaps most foolish notion, is that an endorsement from the LA Times or Washington Post will be a consequential factor in this election. The audience of both papers already skews heavily Democrat. Also, it is no mystery to anyone who spends as little as thirty seconds scrolling through editorial headlines that the papers’ editors support Harris over Trump, and why.

A short look at the opinion and news stories in either paper is also enough to dispel the notion that either outlet’s executives are worried about displeasing Trump. Even in the “hard news” sections, Trump is framed as an unhinged fascist set to destroy the country to nurse his fragile ego, while Harris is a serious, stern, problem-solving public servant who, at worst, has made a few tactical mistakes on the campaign trail. No honest observer can seriously say these papers are “staying silent” about this election.

Above all, the intensity of the meltdown we’re seeing from media figures both inside and outside of these two publications reveals how profoundly out-of-touch most of the establishment media is about their own importance.

There was a time, mainly back in the mid-to-late-1800s, when the public got virtually all its news from newspapers. It’s hard to overstate how much power that put in the hands of the printers, and later editors and executives, who produced these papers.

As we go about our lives, we are constantly building and refining an internal model of reality that helps us better act to achieve our desired ends. Much of this model is fashioned from our own experience or the experience of our friends and families—which gets shared with us through advice and stories. To understand all parts of the world that exist outside the experience of ourselves and those we personally know, we rely on media. In the nineteenth century, the media consisted almost exclusively of books, pamphlets, and newspapers.

Because our internal models of reality are indistinguishable from reality itself and newspapers were effectively the sole source of information about current events, newspaper editors exerted an enormous amount of control over how the population saw the world. And their near-monopoly over public discourse about current events gave them a lot of authority when analyzing or endorsing the actions of politicians.

As other forms of media gained traction, however, the dominance of newspapers began to wane. That started with magazines—the first truly national news outlets—and it really accelerated with the rise of radio and television news. But the high cost of starting a new publication and the government’s early seizure of the airwaves kept control over the information space mostly in the hands of a small, establishment-friendly group.

That changed in the 1990s with the introduction of internet blogs. Suddenly, anyone with an internet connection could reach readers without filters, editors, or space constraints. It wasn’t obvious at first, but with this one seemingly-innocuous development, the establishment’s monopoly on the information space was shattered forever.

Now, three decades later, the consequences of such a change are much harder to ignore. From Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, and the campaigns of Ron Paul and later Donald Trump at home, to the Arab Spring and the passage of Brexit abroad, the internet has changed the world. Not only because it allowed people to see and hear dissenting views, but because it showed people that those views were popular.

In an election this close, neither candidate has been able to ignore the new reality we find ourselves in. Both Harris and Trump have appeared on popular podcasts, with Trump making such appearances a central part of his campaign. Last week, Trump sat for a three-hour discussion on the Joe Rogan Experience, which is technically the most-watched talk show of any kind in the world by far.

Trump’s appearance on Rogan has been viewed nearly forty million times on YouTube alone (Spotify and Apple Podcasts don’t publish download numbers, but both also account for a large portion of Rogan’s listenership, so the total number is likely much higher.) The interview towers over Kamala Harris’s recent interview with Fox News, which, at 8 million viewers, had been celebrated as the highest-rated interview of the 2024 election. The internet is no longer a sideshow in our media environment. It’s the main stage.

Which is why it’s absurd to see an absolute meltdown over whether two newspapers print formal endorsements for one of the candidates. The panic can only be understood as a symptom of the legacy media being unable or unwilling to face the fact that they are no longer the main force influencing and controlling how the public sees the world.

The establishment press does still pose a serious threat with all the various ways they distort our perceptions of the truth in ways that are politically-expedient for them and their friends in government. But the hysteria last week over the withdrawn editorial endorsements demonstrates that many are still hyper-focused on some media practices that today are largely irrelevant. And that’s grounds for optimism.

Those numbers are not surprising to anyone who consumes a lot of political media. Tune into the establishment-friendly press and you’ll be inundated with stories about voter suppression in red states, recaps of the most dramatic skirmishes that happened outside the Capitol on January 6, and warnings about how Trump and his allies could actually take power after losing the upcoming election.

The fear, from the establishment’s perspective, is that after losing, Trump will successfully pressure Republican legislators in battleground states to appoint “alternate” electors that will keep Harris below the 270 electoral votes needed to win, which would send the election to the likely Republican-controlled House.

Without very explicit evidence of decisive voter fraud that the political class outright ignores, it’s hard to see a scheme like this working—considering that Trump isn’t already in power, Democrats have passed laws in recent years making it harder to appoint alternate electors, and many of the Republican legislators Trump would rely on have shown a reluctance to go along with the former president absent strong pressure from their constituents. But that hasn’t stopped the fear-mongering.

On the other side, the Trump-friendly alternative media is full of stories about local and state officials overturning election security laws, deleting drop box surveillance footage, actively registering non-citizens to vote, losing entire trays of mail-in ballots, and other tales of vote manipulation and even outright fraud.

Pair these stories with all the left’s freakouts about “voter suppression” in red states and the various assertions of foreign influence operations and it’s easy to see how so many voters became convinced that a victory by the other side would be illegitimate. Now add the establishment panic about a MAGA plot to overturn the election if they lose and the right’s awareness of the political establishment’s preparations to do the exact same thing had they lost in 2020 and it becomes clear why many are worried about what awaits us after election day.

The collapse of the public’s trust in elections mirrors the collapse in trust in several other institutions, like the federal judicial system, public health authorities, and the news media. While uncomfortable, the public losing trust in untrustworthy institutions is a good thing. It’s a necessary first step if the country is ever going to get on a better path.

The federal justice system has been used to go after the establishment’s political enemies since the beginning, public health authorities demolished any credibility they may have had with their deadly, totalitarian response to COVID-19, and the American news media has been actively misinforming the public in politically-expedient ways for essentially it’s entire history.

In the past decade or so, the American public has developed a much healthier level of skepticism toward these institutions. It is perfectly reasonable for that skepticism to carry over to federal elections.

After all, the political class—which includes politically-connected businesses—is making trillions of dollars in revenue thanks to various wars, innumerable regulations that protect them from competition, easy money from the Fed, and other lucrative government programs. It is not much of a jump to assume that, if able, the very people who have repeatedly lied us into unnecessary wars to line their pockets would be willing to use whatever means necessary to expand and protect their power and profits.

Together with the establishment-friendly media, the political class has placed a very high social cost on questioning the security of our elections in every instance except when it conveniently places the blame on a foreign government that Washington wants to demonize. Questioning the legitimacy of elections is “dangerous” unless you’re accusing Russia or Iran.

And whenever someone with a big enough voice casts doubt on past elections in an “unacceptable” way, the establishment is quick to shout them down with the same meaningless denunciation that there is no evidence of “widespread” election fraud.

Of course, if there were to be a conspiracy to either foment or permit voter fraud in a way that successfully flipped a national election, it would not be “widespread,” it would be targeted. Elections like this one come down to a handful of precincts—most of which are toss-up suburban and rural areas that surround blue cities in swing states. A conspiracy to commit or allow “widespread” voter fraud would be pointless and all but guarantee its discovery.

This is not to say you should accept every claim made about voter fraud or even that there is definitive proof that any previous elections were stolen in this fashion. And it’s certainly not to say that violence is an appropriate or productive response if the upcoming election appears like it was stolen.

Only that it would be healthy for more members of the American public to start questioning whether our system really works the way we learned it did in elementary school—where the president represents our collective will and acts as we would act to address the problems we face at home and abroad.

That simple story is an illusion that conveniently frames whatever the government is doing to us as an embodiment of everyone’s wishes and any opposition as a selfish stand against what everybody else wants. Many Americans are appropriately questioning a lot of what they’ve previously accepted as true. They ought to question this too.

Image Source: Mises Institute. Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The Politico article, “The ever-widening gender gap,” sketches a more specific picture,

In 2004 and 2008…that gap was seven points. By 2012, that number increased to 10 points and it grew to 11 four years later. In 2020, it rose again to 12 points, powered by Trump’s 15-point loss among female voters — 57 percent to 42 percent. Polling ahead of the 2024 race shows signs the divide has widened even further…The most recent New York Times/Siena College poll in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin revealed that 55 percent of registered men support Trump compared to just 39 percent of women — a staggering 16-point difference. The Times/Siena poll conducted last week in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina likewise found the exact same difference.

The gap seems especially wide among Generation Z or those under 30 years old. The Brookings Institute reports, “In politics, we are seeing a gender gap amongst today’s youngest voters—aged 18 to 29—with young women being significantly more Democratic in their political leanings than young men.” Much of the young female vote is being driven by the US Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling, which reversed Roe v. Wade and returned jurisdiction over abortion to the states. Reproductive rights is now a passionate election cause.

Young men seem to be motivated, not so much by a specific issue, but by their resentment of the current culture. If true, the upcoming elections will express the “Breitbart Doctrine,” named after the late conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart. This doctrine states “politics is downstream from culture.” To change the politics of a society, you must change its culture because politics originates from culture which, in turn, originates from the values of individuals who constitute society. Simply stated, if a person’s values and culture are transformed, his politics transforms accordingly.

The culture surrounding young men is dramatically different from that of their fathers, and the change has not been kind. The Brookings Institute notes, “Young men increasingly feel as though they have been experiencing discrimination.” For decades now, prominent voices of political correctness, which is now called social justice, have blamed men as a gender class for a long slate of social wrongs. And, for young men, the past few decades constitute all of their lives. This means they have heard about their collective guilt since birth, and it would be natural for them to feel resentful for being castigated as a class for social wrongs. Such young men are reportedly turning to Donald Trump as a symbol of more traditional and proud manhood.

What grievances or sense of discrimination are young males likely to bring into the voting booths with them? The International Council for Men and Boys lists twelve:

1. Education. OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment’s states: “…boys are significantly more likely than girls to be disengaged from school, get lower marks, repeat grades, and play video games in their free time.” It also claims that, “Gender differences in achievement” are explained by “social and cultural contexts reinforce stereotypical attitudes and behaviours.”
2. Health. According to World Data, men in the US “will live to be 74.8 years old on average. On average, US women are 5.4 years older, reaching an age of 80.2.”
3. Child Labor. Globally speaking, International Labor Organization claims that, on a global level—of boys aged 5 to 17—11.2 percent are in child labor, compared to 7.8 percent of girls.
4. False Allegations, Violence, and Partner Abuse. An international survey by End to DV finds that men are the victims of most false allegations. An article in Cambridge’s American Political Science Review concludes that men experience more violence than women. For example, “Estimates across conflicts classify men as between 1.3 and 8.9 times as likely to be killed in war as women.” With Partner Abuse, most studies confirm that men and women are victimized at roughly equal rates, even though far fewer resources are available to male victims.
5. Parenting. In their work, Benevolent Sexism in Judges, a Cornell Law School professor and a Magistrate Judge detail the severe disadvantages divorced men face in family courts, especially regarding custody.
6. Crime. The results of the study “Does the Criminal Justice System Treat Men and Women Differently?” indicate that, “while men and women are treated differently by the criminal justice system, these differences largely favor women.”
7. Homelessness. Of the nations that keep sex-specific data on homelessness, Davia Research finds 76% of the homeless are men.
8. Work Place. Davia Research also indicates that men face 15 times the number of occupational deaths, compared to women.
9. Reproduction. A recent Newsweek article points out, “men are legally responsible to financially support any biological child, yet have never enjoyed the right” to refuse the responsibilities of legal fatherhood. Most women can choose to terminate their pregnancies.
10. Media. The International Council for Men and Boys offers the following stats on coverage: “Men: 69 percent unfavorable, 12 percent favorable, and 19 percent neutral or balanced.”

Whatever you think of the listed grievances, they may have power through young male voters.

Fortunately, the mainstream media is waking up to this issue and the need to address cultural alienation of men, which has too often been ignored or denied. No longer. The mainstream media is sounding an alert about how losing so much of the male vote could spell defeat for the Democrats. As early as 2020, USA Today discussed how male voters may have determined Biden’s election victory. Newsweek’s recent coverage of the issue, cited above, is an in-depth treatment of how male disillusionment leans into a Trump victory. A YouTube video inspired by a Wall Street Journal poll asked, “Why are young men turning Republican?” On CNN, left political commentator Michael Smerconish stated that men, especially white, working-class men, are the new swing voters. An Axios headline reads, “Boys vs. girls election intensifies.” The issue of male voters has received more attention in the last few months than it has in several years.

It is a sad reflection on society if push-for-power elections are the spark that brings the general gender gap to the forefront of attention. Men are doing badly, and it is partly because society has been structured against them in favor of women. This imbalance hurts women as well as men. Women need healthy and well-adjusted men to be life partners, loving family members, friends, good neighbors, co-workers, and the peaceful strangers you pass on the street. The last thing women need is to live beside a generation of resentful men who act on their resentment, especially if the feeling is justified.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Since then, we have seen a chain of fresh stimulus policies implemented by developed economies, adding to the large fiscal packages already in place. Multi-trillion-dollar investment packages like the EU Next Generation Fund now include massive deficit spending plans. However, money velocity is not rising. All these programs only lead to secular stagnation. Government projects and current expenditures are consuming money at an unprecedented rate.

Developed economies cannot live without new and larger spending plans. The result is more debt, weaker productivity growth, and declining real wages.

In a recent report, Bank of America showed that the rise of unproductive debt has created a significant problem for the United States economy. For every dollar of new government debt, the gross domestic product impact has slumped to less than fifty cents. The United States is drowning in unproductive debt. However, at least the United States has some productivity growth. If we look at the euro area, the negative multiplier effect of new government debt is extremely evident. Despite enormous stimulus plans and negative nominal rates, the euro area has been stagnating for years.

Many of you may believe that bad policies and careless government spending are to blame, but I think this is intentional. It is a slow process of nationalizing the economy. Slowly depleting the middle class’s savings due to consistently declining real wages, the government expands its influence in the economy, garnering support from a substantial portion of the populace.

Market participants love this. A new stimulus plan means more money printing, which will bring more liquidity to markets and fuel multiple expansions regardless of weak economic figures. However, my esteemed colleagues should be wiser when hailing the next stage of financial repression. Discontent is rising among citizens, and one way or another, this will end badly.

Debt crises may not appear the same way as they used to. It is not a cataclysmic event but a slow boiling that leads to the same impoverishment.

Neo-Keynesians look at the past four years of the United States economy and claim victory. However, for many in the United States middle class, their impoverishment over the past four years has been like that of Greek citizens in 2009.

When central banks think of a soft landing, they are looking at a gradual erosion of the purchasing power of salaries and deposits. This is precisely what we are experiencing, compounded by the additional burden of higher taxes. There is no such thing as a soft landing. Only government bureaucrats and those who can conceal their wealth from money destruction can benefit from a soft landing.

This new increase in money supply may not bring a fresh burst of inflation because money velocity is not rising as well. However, that means lower investment, lower growth, and lower productivity. Market prices, multiple expansions, and bubbles may appear again, while families and small businesses find themselves in a tougher spot.

The back-to-back chain of stimulus plans shows the failure of Keynesian policies. We used to witness the introduction of a new spending and rate-cutting program a few years after the previous one. Now, governments simply add new programs on top of each other and claim that the economy is about to turn the corner.

Government spending consumes the majority of newly created money, leaving the productive economy with decreasing access to credit, declining currency purchasing power, and wealth confiscation through taxes and currency printing.

According to the most recent OECD report, inflation will be 3.5% with a global growth rate of 3.3% in 2025. The introduction of massive new spending and financial repression programs has resulted in 80% of OECD countries experiencing annual inflation that exceeds their central banks’ target. There is a global policy of absorbing productive and private sector wealth. A few years ago, someone dared to say, “You will not have anything, but you will be happy,” and most people understood the dangers of that promise. Nowadays, no one says it anymore. They’re just implementing it slowly. You will be poorer. Protect yourself from inflation and financial repression, or you will be a dependent subclass.

But when Kennedy got to his third concern, it was striking how absent any discussion of it has been from our hyper-active national discourse. The issue was the scale of chronic disease affecting the American population and, especially, American children. Kennedy explicitly called this “the most important issue” and, as he laid out the scale of the problem, it’s easy to see why he feels that way.

As Kennedy said in the speech, two-thirds—or around 222 million Americans—suffer from chronic health issues. In the 1970s, the rate was lower than one percent. On top of that, nearly three out of every four Americans are now overweight or obese, and the childhood obesity rate stands at 50%.

There has been an explosion in diabetes in both kids and adults, as well as neurological illnesses and disorders like Alzheimer’s and autism. Kennedy also highlighted the sharp increase we’re seeing in food allergies, ADHD, and cancer, among others. His point is that, at the same time Americans are paying more for healthcare than the populations of nearly every other country, we are also quickly becoming the sickest.

What’s astonishing about all of this is that almost nobody denies the health emergency Kennedy lays out. Some argue that he is exaggerating a few of his numbers slightly or is misleading people with some rates of increase that are inflated by changes in how chronic diseases are defined and screened—something Kennedy and those he cites claim to have corrected for. But most of Kennedy’s critics in the media simply ignore what he says about this topic.

So, if the scale of the problem is this extreme and its existence is not controversial, why is this not the central issue in every national election? Simply put, because the chronic disease epidemic is making the political class absurdly rich.

In many ways, the problem has its roots in the Progressive Era at the end of the 1800s. At the time, there were several competing approaches to treating sick and ailing patients, each with its own network of doctors and professional associations. One such group was what their rivals called allopathic physicians. Their approach was to treat patients with painkillers and other drugs aimed specifically at reducing patient suffering.

Of course, for certain ailments, that is a perfectly reasonable approach. And, as one of many available in the early healthcare market, it provided many Americans who required such an approach the care they needed. But in the early 1900s, the allopathic doctors’ professional group—the American Medical Association (AMA)—decided to get with the times and lobby the government for special privileges.

As Patrick Newman explained in a lecture based on a chapter from his upcoming book, the AMA maneuvered its way into setting the official accreditation standards for the nation’s medical schools. With that newfound power, the association was able to both greatly restrict the supply of doctors—by forcing half of the country’s medical schools to close—and to certify their allopathic approach as the preeminent, legitimate, government-recognized form of medical care.

And the AMA was not alone. In most industries, powerful corporations and professional associations realized they could make a lot more money if they lobbied the government for monopoly privileges, lucrative subsidies, and cartel-preserving supply quotas. Similar efforts in the food industry resulted in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and many so-called nutrition programs at universities with deep ties to the biggest food companies.

On the agricultural side, farming and meatpacking groups successfully lobbied for the creation of what would become the recurring five-year farm bill. This law contains a multitude of handouts and privileges for agricultural giants, such as supply restrictions that artificially raise the prices of some kinds of produce and subsidies that over-saturate the market with other crops and products.

Finally, drug manufacturers were able to get the government to criminalize competition in the pharmaceutical industry and to protect companies from liability for the side effects of many drugs. The government even mandates the purchase of some drugs with its immunization schedule—much of which is required to attend school.

Together, all these companies and interest groups use their government privileges to fill their pockets.

Big agricultural companies flood the market with highly subsidized crops which have alternative uses, like corn syrup and seed oils, that crowd out healthier options that consumers actually prefer. Food companies can then use these artificially cheap ingredients to produce highly addictive ultra-processed foods that their friends in the government and university nutrition programs then say are part of a healthy diet.

Americans, who are taught from a young age to trust the government and university-trained, state-licensed medical professionals, are easily hooked on these ultra-processed foods. That’s great for the food companies but terrible for our bodies. Many of the chronic diseases plaguing Americans can be drawn back to our consumption (or our parents’ consumption) of these addicting food-like substances.

But it doesn’t stop there. The flood of chronic illnesses caused by ultra-processed food is lucrative for the medical industry, whose allopathic approach ensures the root cause is never discussed, much less addressed, but is instead treated with a barrage of prescription drugs that solely attack the resulting symptoms. After all, addressing the root cause would be bad for the pharmaceutical industry’s bottom line. And doctors who don’t play along are systemically denied official, government-recognized credentials.

The extensive drug cocktail that most Americans are swallowing and injecting each day allows them to stay hooked on toxic foods that their bodies are trying to tell them are hurting them and, thanks to side effects, can even aggravate or cause other chronic diseases. The deadly cycle keeps accelerating and the large, politically-connected businesses in the agricultural, meatpacking, food processing, healthcare, and pharmaceutical industries grow absurdly rich.

But they’re not the only ones benefiting. Government bureaucrats enjoy an ever-increasing level of power and resources as companies lobby for them to intervene even more in their respective industries. Universities are gifted millions by food and drug companies to run friendly academic programs. And politicians get to appear heroic to both sides as they exploit how obviously awful the healthcare system is to fight distracting, meaningless battles over whether to cap the prices of a couple drugs—usually while pushing to send even more taxpayer money into the healthcare industry.

Government officials, industry insiders, and state-credentialed experts have nothing to gain and everything to lose by actually addressing our country’s health issue. That’s why there is no urgency, even in theatrical political fights, to talk about how sick Americans have gotten. As the problem worsens, however, it will be harder and harder to ignore.

Still, the path forward must start with rolling back the government policies and privileges that this massive, deadly racket is built upon. Because it is a grave mistake to rely on those benefiting from a problem to solve it.

The speaker of the video, Ryan McMaken, argues that the recent rise in prices is due to monetary inflation, which is the increase in the money supply. He criticizes the claim that greed is the cause of inflation, citing the fact that prices have been rising steadily for over a decade, even before the pandemic.

McMaken points out that the money supply has increased by 185% since 2009 and by 32% since early 2020. He argues that this increase in the money supply is the direct cause of rising prices.

He also criticizes the claim that there is not much inflation, citing the fact that food prices have increased by 26% in the past four years. He argues that the real cause of rising prices is the government’s policy of money printing.

McMaken concludes by calling on elected officials to stop printing money and to address the real cause of inflation.

Summary generated by Gemini.

The speaker of the video, Ryan McMaken, argues that the recent rise in prices is due to monetary inflation, which is the increase in the money supply. He criticizes the claim that greed is the cause of inflation, citing the fact that prices have been rising steadily for over a decade, even before the pandemic.

McMaken points out that the money supply has increased by 185% since 2009 and by 32% since early 2020. He argues that this increase in the money supply is the direct cause of rising prices.

He also criticizes the claim that there is not much inflation, citing the fact that food prices have increased by 26% in the past four years. He argues that the real cause of rising prices is the government’s policy of money printing.

McMaken concludes by calling on elected officials to stop printing money and to address the real cause of inflation.

Summary generated by Gemini.

A newspaper article published after Nixon’s resignation detailed the CIA Watergate cover-up, sourced from the Watergate prosecutor’s office, the FBI, and CIA staff. The Watergate investigation obstruction of justice began in the White House when it was revealed some of the five Watergate burglars had a CIA background. “This gave the White House conspirators an idea. They might be able to use the CIA to cover up their own connection with the crime,” using CIA resources.

Members of Congress claimed Watergate evils came from the misuse of presidential power, including use of the spy agency for unauthorized citizen surveillance from the White House. One solution to limit increased unauthorized surveillance of US citizens was to enact a law to limit the president and federal personnel from authorizing surveillance of US citizens. This response led naturally to expanded centralized surveillance power which was the opposite of their stated intention.

Beginning on January 27, 1975, a special 11-member Congressional investigative body looked into abuses of power by the nation’s intelligence agencies. Chaired by Idaho Democratic Senator Frank Church, the Church committee called more than 800 witnesses over nine months, including several former officials from the FBI and CIA.

The Church Committee findings resulted in Congress creating permanent intelligence oversight committees in the Senate and House. They proposed creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bipartisan bill passed the House 246-128 and the Senate 95-1, and was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 25, 1978. The FISA was designed to prevent secret surveillance by the president and others in the federal government after Watergate. History shows how federal government surveillance grew over time when governing personnel were granted a new power by law.

The act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) as a tribunal tasked with reviewing requests from federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies like the FBI and National Security Agency (NSA) who sought permission to begin wiretap surveillance on any “foreign power or an agent of a foreign power” within the US The FISC was comprised of seven federal district court judges (expanded to 11 judges in 2001). Each one is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and each judge serves staggered, non-renewable terms of seven years.

Details of warrant requests are not publicly disclosed, except the number of approved or denied requests. More than 34,000 requests were made and only a dozen rejected (although the government has withdrawn some requests) as of 2013. The FISC faces criticism by many, including civil liberty advocates, who see it as a rubber stamp of government surveillance requests. After the September 11, 2001, terror attacks the newly-signed USA Patriot Act expanded FISA surveillance orders duration, allowed authorities to share information placed before a grand jury with other federal agencies, and permitted authorities to gather foreign intelligence information on US citizens and non-citizens.

Federal surveillance powers expanded through the 2007 Protect America Act, passed after revelations of widespread warrantless wiretapping during the George W. Bush administration. The 2007 law amended FISA by removing warrant requirements for federal surveillance of foreign intelligence targets outside the US and anyone in the US (including US citizens) that communicated with them. The 2007 law granted immunity to telecommunications companies who provided access to data to federal law enforcement agencies without a federal search warrant.

Surveillance powers metastasized by the 2015 USA Freedom Act, passed after the scandal of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, that aimed to end the NSA’s bulk collection of US telephone records and provide greater transparency in the FISA court system operations.

What started out after Watergate to prevent secret unauthorized surveillance of US citizens by the president and others in the federal government resulted with an abundance of secret and warrantless surveillance of US citizens and non-US citizens by the federal government. The executive branch surveillance power has grown in the past fifty years through use of the FISA courts. One lesson of supposed “reform” in Washington was really more centralization and expansion of federal surveillance power.

We must begin by clarifying the question. It is true that inflation is slowly decreasing, but we cannot say that it is under control. Let us remember that the latest CPI data in the United States was 3% annualized and that in the eurozone it is 2.6%, with eight countries publishing data above 3%, including Spain.

This is why central banks need to give the impression of hawkishness and maintain rates or lower them very cautiously. However, monetary policy is far from being restrictive. Money supply growth is picking up, the ECB maintains its “anti-fragmentation mechanism,” and the Federal Reserve continues to inject money through the liquidity window. We can say, without a doubt, that monetary policy is beyond accommodative.

At the end of this article, the price of gold is above $2,400 an ounce, up 16.5% between January and July 19, 2024. In the same period, gold has performed better than the S&P 500, the Stoxx 600 in Europe, and the MSCI Global. In fact, over the past five years, gold has outperformed not only the European and global stock markets, but also the S&P 500, with only the Nasdaq surpassing the precious metal. This is a period of alleged recovery and strong expansion of the stock markets. On the one hand, the market is discounting the central banks’ continued accommodative and expansionary policies, even possible high debt monetization, given the unsustainable deficits in the United States and developed countries. That is, the market assumes that the Federal Reserve and the ECB will not be able to maintain the reduction of their balance sheets in the face of rising debt and public spending in many economies. As a result, gold protects many investors against the erosion of the currency’s purchasing power, i.e., inflation, without the extreme volatility of Bitcoin. If the market discounts further monetary expansion to cover the accumulated deficits, it is normal for the investor to seek protection with gold, which has centuries of history as an alternative to fiduciary money and offers a low-volatility hedge against currency debasement.

Another important factor is the central bank’s purchase of gold. JP Morgan is credited with the phrase “gold is money and everything else is credit.” All the world’s central banks include treasury bonds from countries that serve as global reserve currencies in their asset base. This allows central banks around the world to try to stabilize their currencies. When we read that a central bank buys or sells dollars or euros, it is not making transactions with physical currency but with government bonds. Hence, as the market price of government bonds has fallen 7% between 2019 and 2024, many of these central banks are facing latent losses from a slump in the value of their assets. What is the best way to strengthen a central bank’s balance sheet, thereby diversifying and reducing exposure to fiat currencies? Purchase gold.

The rising purchases of gold by central banks are an essential factor justifying the recent increase in demand for the precious metal. Central banks, especially in China and India, are trying to reduce their dependence on the dollar or the euro to diversify their reserves. However, this does not mean full de-dollarization. Far from it.

According to the World Gold Council, central banks have accelerated their gold purchases to more than 1,000 tonnes per year in 2022 and 2023. This means that monetary authorities account for almost a quarter of the annual demand for gold during a period when supply and production have not grown significantly. The ratio of output to demand stands at 0.9 in June 2024, according to Morgan Stanley.

Global official gold reserves have increased by 290 net tonnes in the first quarter of 2024, the highest since 2000, according to the World Gold Council, 69% higher than the five-year quarterly average (171 metric tonnes).

The People’s Bank of China and the Central Bank of India are the biggest buyers as they aim to balance their reserves, adding more gold to reduce loss-making exposure to government securities. According to Metals Focus, Refinitiv GFMS, and the World Gold Council, China has been increasing its gold purchases for seventeen months, and since 2022, it has shot up its reserves by 16%, coinciding with the increase in global polarization and the trade wars.

That does not mean full de-dollarization, as the People’s Bank of China has 4.6% of its total reserves in gold. US Treasury bonds are the most important asset, accounting for more than 50% of the Chinese central bank’s assets. However, its goal is to raise gold reserves to at least 14%, according to local media. Thus, it would imply a significant annual purchase of gold for years.

India’s central bank increased its gold reserves by 19 metric tonnes during the first quarter. Other central banks that are diversifying and buying more gold than ever are the National Bank of Kazakhstan, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Central Bank of Qatar, the Central Bank of Turkey, and the Central Bank of Oman, according to the sources cited above. During this period, both the Czech National Bank and the National Bank of Poland increased their gold reserves in Europe, reaching the highest level since 2021. In these cases, the aim is to balance the exposure in the asset base with more gold and less eurozone government bonds.

The goal of this central bank trend is to increase the weight of an asset that does not fluctuate with the price of government bonds. It is not about de-dollarization but about balancing the balance sheet from the volatility created by their own misguided expansionary policies. For years, the policy of central banks has been to reduce their gold holdings, and now they must come back to logic and rebalance after suffering years of latent losses on their government bond holdings. In fact, one could say that the world’s central banks anticipate their own widespread erosion of the purchasing power of reserve currencies due to the saturation of fiscal and monetary policies, and for that reason, they need more gold.

After years of thinking that money can be printed without limits and without creating inflation, monetary authorities are trying to return to logic and have more gold on their balance sheets. At the same time, many expected that the trade war between China and the United States and global polarisation would be reversed in the Biden years, and the opposite has happened. It has accelerated. Now, the latent losses in the sovereign bond asset portfolio are leading all these central banks to buy more gold and try to protect themselves from new bursts of inflationary pressures.

In an era of high correlation between assets and perpetual monetary destruction, gold serves as a low volatility, low correlation, and strong long-term return addition to any prudent portfolio.