Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

In a recent development, a House Committee subpoena has forced the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to reveal details of its parole program designed to allow entry for thousands of individuals from several nations.

The program, established in October 2022, was initially tailored to facilitate entry for Venezuelans who had American sponsors and passed a vetting process. However, the scope of the program rapidly expanded, encompassing individuals from Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua as well - eventually flying illegal aliens to more than 45 cities across the United States.

According to the DHS documents, between January and August 2023, the parole program allowed over 200,000 individuals to enter the United States. While the program did not cover the cost of flights for these individuals, it permitted them to enter the country and make travel arrangements independently. Among the program's participants, Florida emerged as a leading destination, with around 80% of the 200,000 choosing to settle in cities such as Miami, Tampa, and Fort Lauderdale. Other prominent destinations included New York, California, Texas, Nevada, and Georgia.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas defended the program, stating that it provided "a safe and orderly way to reach the United States" and asserting, though without presenting specific evidence, that the program "resulted in a reduction in numbers of those nationalities." Mayorkas also highlighted its global relevance, noting its role in addressing "the unprecedented level of migration throughout our hemisphere" and suggesting that other countries might see it as a model to manage irregular migration.

That said, the documents revealed that at least 1.6 million applications were still pending as of October 2023. The program currently admits approximately 30,000 individuals per month, granting them work permits and authorizing them to live in the country for two years.

Congressman Mark Green (R-Tenn.), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, expressed strong criticism of the program, stating, "These documents expose the egregious lengths Secretary Mayorkas will go to ensure inadmissible aliens reach every corner of the country, from Orlando and Atlanta to Las Vegas and San Francisco." Green labeled the parole program "an unlawful sleight of hand" aimed at concealing the worsening border crisis from the American public.

In response to perceived poor handling of the border crisis, Mayorkas faced impeachment by the House of Representatives in February. This marked the second impeachment of a Cabinet secretary in U.S. history, and the first in nearly 150 years. However, the Senate's Democratic majority ultimately voted to end the trial without proceeding to a vote on conviction or acquittal, following repeated delays.

The disclosure of the DHS parole program documents has reignited debate over U.S. immigration policy and the handling of migration at the southern border, reflecting persistent tensions on these issues at both the national and international levels.

A lawyer who was involved in negotiations between former President Donald Trump and two women denied that payments made to them constituted "hush-money," and instead used the word "consideration."

Keith Davidson, who negotiated deals with both Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) and model Karen McDougal, disputed Manhattan prosecutor Joshua Steinglass's language during a May 2 court appearance.

"It wasn’t a ‘payout’ and it wasn’t ‘hush money.’ It was consideration in a civil settlement," said Davidson.

"Would you use the phrase hush money to describe the money that was paid to your client by Donald Trump?" Steinglass shot back.

"I would never use that word," Davidson replied.

When asked what he would call it, he said it was a "Consideration," comparing it to a contract in which one pays to have one's lawn mowed.

Trump attorney Emil Bove pressed Mr. Davidson on his understanding of extortion law, grilling him about previous instances in which he solicited money to suppress embarrassing stories, including one involving wrestler Hulk Hogan.

Mr. Bove suggested to the witness that by the time he negotiated the payments for Ms. McDougal and Ms. Clifford, he would have been “pretty well versed in coming right up to the line without committing extortion.”

“I had familiarized myself with the law,” Mr. Davison replied. -Epoch Times

Davidson also told Steinglass that he worked out the "consideration" deal with former Trump attorney Michael Cohen just days before the 2016 election, but that Trump never signed it.

Avenatti pipes up from prison

Trying to reclaim his 15 minutes of fame from prison, former Trump foe and Stormy Daniels' ex-attorney Michael Avenatti posted on X that Davidson is a liar - and had in fact tried to extort Trump.

"Keith Davidson is lying," claimed Avenatti. "After I confronted her w/ her own text msgs, Daniels admitted to me in early 2019 that she & Davidson had extorted Trump in Oct. 2016 – it was a shakedown."

Keith Davidson is lying. After I confronted her w/ her own text msgs, Daniels admitted to me in early 2019 that she & Davidson had extorted Trump in Oct. 2016 - it was a shakedown. This was one of the many reasons I fired her as a client in Feb. 2019

Last month, Trump publicly thanked Avenatti "for revealing the truth about two sleaze bags who have, with their lies and misrepresentations, cost our Country dearly!," referring to the gag orders placed on Trump in his Manhattan trial.
 

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

A major intellectual revelation from my youth came from reading Murray Rothbard’s “What Has Government Done to Our Money?” (1963). He includes a passing opinion that private markets are perfectly capable of producing money with no help from government. Under a sweeping monetary reform, private mints could compete in offering this good with full associated services. There is no need for any government intervention here.

It was the kind of claim that, at some point in one’s life, causes the jaw to hit the floor. Investigating this assertion more, I came to see that there was a large literature on the topic. Historically, money originated in the market economy itself, a naturally evolving institution that met the needs of trade. Whatever good was generally valued by everyone, and was as capable of being divided into consistent units with a stable value, could be deployed as money, with no need for government to do anything but watch.

But of course history has not panned out that way. Every government has a strong incentive to monopolize the good called money because this is how they can tax their citizens, reward the most compliant industries, cultivate close relationships with bankers, and inflate the currency at will through a variety of methods depending on the technology of the time.

We can of course imagine primitive tribes or pre-colonial native populations using rocks and shells, but is there a modern case where private coinage became normalized? In a major but often overlooked work of historical scholarship, economist George Selgin has written the most extensive treatment of the private coinage industry in the UK at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

His book “Good Money” is beautifully produced with color photographs of some of the most alluring coins you will ever see. The historical narrative is endlessly fascinating. At the dawn of the factory system, the Royal Mint didn’t care in the slightest bit about small denomination coins of silver and copper to enable small businessmen to pay their workers. The Royal Mint only produced large denominations in gold for big business doing big trade deals.

Frustrated with the inability to pay workers, the entire period from 1700 through 1813 saw the evolution of a sophisticated industry focused on coinage. Old button factories were converted to producing coins of various weights and sizes based on copper and silver. They were used to pay workers and accepted widely by merchants.

The system worked just fine and it could have continued forever. The new industry alleviated the coin shortage and yielded healthy competition among many producers of new money. It was all made to be inflation resistant and verifiable according to standard weights and measures. This was a full industry of private coinage, in operation in one of the most advanced and industrious societies in the world at the time.

Sadly, the Royal Mint eventually became upset about this. Driven by the eternal need of government to control the money in its realm, Parliament passed a series of acts in 1812–1813 to cartelize the function of the mint and make the Royal Mint the only legal producer. The entire industry was destroyed very quickly. So from this one case, we can see that the monopolization of money is not an outgrowth of market forces but imposed by government. It has always been this way.

The digital age birthed new attempts to privatize money, stemming from a very real problem of financial verification (revealed in the 2008 financial crisis) and using money without the need for intermediaries. The result was Bitcoin, which was born in January 2010. It grew in sophistication and value over the course of the year. In the following seven years, adoption exploded and incentivized the creation of new private methods of settling transactions and accepting credit cards. It was a solid competitor to nationalized money.

As in 1813, governments did not much like it. The code of Bitcoin itself was deliberately throttled to prevent the new private money from scaling, prompting a fork in the transaction chain and the birth of general chaos in the industry, even as Bitcoin itself kept growing in value. Government responded by taking control of the on-ramps, the off-ramps, all exchanges, and then put heavy taxation and reporting requirements on all dealings. Right now, the crackdown is full-on, with websites and wallets being shut down and top investors investigated and even subject to criminal trials.

As in 19th century Britain, we see here another tragic case of government intervention strangling a wonderful new industry in the interest of maintaining a monopoly on power, the first condition of which is always to control the money of the realm.

I think back to my own shock at the discovery that free enterprise was fully capable of managing money as a good. It had never occurred to me because it had always been otherwise. And yet, if you think about it, there are all sorts of conditions in which market forces invent money as a method of moving beyond primitive barter arrangements.

Every prison has its own form of money. It used to be cigarettes but now is more commonly canned fish or some other valued good. The only reason this is not common in society at large is that governments do not want it this way.

A feature of government management in modern times has been periodic reforms that always end in making the system worse. We had a government-backed gold standard in the late 19th century that was compromised by a fixed price relationship between gold and silver that was unsustainable. Then we got the Federal Reserve in 1913, with the promise that it would control inflation even as it took off soon after the Fed accommodated the need for war funding.

In 1933, we got another reform that devalued the currency from the center, changing the definition of a dollar from 1/20 an ounce of gold to 1/35 an ounce. That massive devaluation was accompanied by a nationwide gold confiscation that included criminal penalties and jail time for noncompliance. At the close of World War II, a new system called Bretton Woods forbid domestic conversion and only allowed gold for international exchange. This was completely unsustainable because every nation has different fiscal and monetary policies so of course the value of money could not be frozen in place. This led to the end of the gold standard completely in 1971–73, resulting in a disastrous inflation bout.

No question that the next great monetary reform will be to globalize a central bank digital currency with track-and-trace capability and the power to turn money on and off on political whim. In order to make this possible, government now needs to eliminate all the competition, just as they did in 1813.

None of this mucking around with the money is in the public interest. It is in the government’s interest and also its industrial partners in banking and finance. A full denationalization of money is the fix for the whole problem but getting there from here will require dislodging the government of its penchant for controlling the economic forces of the whole realm. It’s an age-old problem and perhaps the greatest challenge of all ages.

Via SchiffGold.com,

California’s government bet that they knew better than the free market. And now millions are paying the price...

The story begins in 1919, when the city of Berkley, California instituted legislation setting aside districts that would only allow the construction of single-family housing. The idea spread, and soon much of California’s urban areas had adopted the zoning policy. Today, approximately 40% of the total land in Los Angeles is set aside for single-family homes, while only 11% is reserved for multi-family residences. 

In 2021, a bill was signed which was intended to end single-family zoning in California. But politics is rarely that simple. The decision was met with widespread protests and an LA County Court recently declared the law unconstitutional, preventing its passing in 5 Southern California cities. While many celebrated the ruling, the decision has perpetuated California’s housing crisis.

The logic behind the original legislation was to preserve the “charm” of California’s neighborhoods. In the eyes of policymakers, multi-family residences such as apartment complexes or duplexes would sully the white-picket fence aesthetic which they saw as a staple of Californian life. While this may appear like a harmless notion, this idealism came with devastating consequences.

The problem with this policy is apparent to those with an understanding of supply and demand. By preventing high-capacity residences from being built, the supply of housing has been artificially constrained by the legislation. Even as demand rises for increased housing, companies cannot produce the necessary residences to meet the desire. When demand rises while supply remains fixed, prices will surge. And that’s exactly what happened.

California has the second highest home prices of any state, behind only Hawaii. Housing costs have increased by 10.1% in the past year, while the number of homes sold has decreased by 6.9%. As of March 2024, the average price of a house in LA is a staggering $974,000. In San Francisco, that figure is 1.29 million.

These soaring rates have heavily affected the citizenry. California has the 4th highest homelessness per capita rate among U.S. states. Over 180,000 Californians are homeless, which is almost a third of the nation’s entire homeless population.

While the cause of some homelessness is self-inflicted, studies have found a direct correlation between the cost of housing and rates of homelessness. With the second-highest housing costs of any state, it’s safe to say daunting housing prices are at least partially to blame for a vast number of California’s displaced citizens.

Another consequence of the legislation is an increase in class inequality. California has the fourth-most unequal income distribution of any state. The zoning law contributes to this problem by acting as a gatekeeper that excludes low-income families from better neighborhoods, sacrificing equality for community “quality.” Accompanied by the state’s stringent school choice laws, many citizens are left attending lower-caliber schools in worse neighborhoods. This harms future career opportunities and feeds the vicious generational cycle of poverty.

These issues are all either caused or exacerbated by the single-family zoning legislation which has constrained the state’s housing market for decades. The directive prevents the construction of apartment complexes, or other housing structures which would cater to a larger constituency, keeping prices too high for many to afford. From 1919 to the present, politicians have continued to turn a blind eye to single-family zoning’s detrimental effects in the pursuit of the perceived good of protecting neighborhoods.

The Fundamental Problem with Government Intervention

Government intervention always leads to unintended consequences. It’s a tale as old as government. But why does it so often result in disaster?

There’s a fatal flaw at the root of all bureaucratic intervention: a lack of information. In any centralized decision, there is an incalculable amount of pertinent decentralized information that is not available to governmental bodies.

In the absence of intervention, this information is communicated through prices. Even though all of the information will never be understood by the same person at once, we’re still able to coordinate our plans to reach a productive end. That’s the beauty of the price system. You may have no idea that a cocoa farm in Ghana had a poor yield, but you will buy less cocoa when it costs more than usual. A series of complex events can all be boiled down to a simple price hike.

Government intervention is the wrench in the works. No centralized body can know all of the variables in a given situation. While protecting Californian neighborhoods sounds good, it is a gross simplification of the actual issues at play. Restricting the supply of housing leads to a bevy of consequences, including skyrocketing prices, rampant homelessness, and pervasive inequality. The pursuit of a solution in the absence of information usually ends up hurting more people than it helps.

Economics is often regarded as a dismal science reserved for bookworms and professors. But for the homeless who are struggling to survive because of market-hampering governmental policies, economics is about life and death. When the government intervenes in the market system because it “knows best,” it far too often doesn’t, and innocent people pay the price. It’s up to us to hold our leaders accountable for the consequences of their actions and to help those harmed by their political arrogance.

America First Legal revealed documents on Thursday from its lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), showcasing emails from Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine and indicating that the Biden Administration has engaged privately with "gender affirming care providers" from states that have outlawed these practices, pledging federal support to counteract such state laws.

In particular, Levine expressed significant concern for the LGBTI+ community in Idaho, emphasizing ongoing efforts to challenge these state measures nationally, the site pointed out. The documents were acquired through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request concerning Levine’s correspondence about pediatric transgender clinics.

Previously, in March 2023, Levine stated that the federal backing for transitioning children was comprehensive, even at presidential levels, and framed any opposition as politically motivated. The newly revealed records elaborate on the administration's covert operations with advocates to push this agenda.

THERE IT IS.

America First Legal (@America1stLegal) has uncovered documents proving the Biden administration coordinated with radical activists to find ways around state laws to g*oom children to become "transgend*r."

"New internal docs obtained through our lawsuit against HHS… pic.twitter.com/UOfhiskOsE

One notable communication from June 2022 involves HHS Regional Director Ingrid Ulrey discussing an Idaho meeting about impending legislation aimed at prohibiting certain medical treatments for minors. Ulrey's message to Levine highlighted her empathy for Idaho's LGBTQ community, particularly in light of legislative efforts she described as harmful.

Among other things, the report noted that in her memo, Ulrey highlighted concerns about the impact of Idaho's proposed law on "Gender Affirming Care" (GAC), including a doctor shortage and the high costs of such treatments without insurance subsidies.

She noted that only one provider was offering GAC to a significant state prison population, with a few others too intimidated to attend a meeting or preferring to stay under the radar. Ulrey also relayed that the care providers had specific definitions of GAC, controversially suggesting the removal of parental consent requirements, which could include requiring consent from just one parent or both if divorced. This approach appears to be advocated by a high-ranking HHS official following discussions with these providers.

Ulrey's discussions with "gender-affirming care providers" led to a disturbing proposal to simplify legal barriers, including reducing parental consent requirements for such treatments, according to America First Legal. 

Following these meetings, a high-ranking HHS official advocated for the removal of parental consent as part of the definition of "gender-affirming care."

The meeting's summary called for federal intervention to override state laws restricting such care, with suggestions for using Medicaid to mandate coverage across all states and queries about providing such care in prisons, indicating a push to extend "gender-affirming care" despite local restrictions.

The summary also reflected provider concerns about parental rights obstructing children's access to these treatments. On June 5, 2022, Assistant Secretary Levine expressed ongoing support for the LGBTI+ community in Idaho, promising to continue advocacy efforts nationally.

Further details emerged from a June 2022 roundtable in Anchorage, Alaska, where discussions focused on integrating mental health counselors in schools amidst concerns about parental opposition. A local clinic, Identity, Inc., was noted for providing non-surgical gender-affirming care, with surgical treatments sought outside Alaska. The report also mentioned potential local legislation in Anchorage impacting transgender individuals' participation in school sports, signaling continued legislative challenges for the transgender community.

America First Legal Senior Advisor Ian Prior commented: “The Biden Administration is leveraging the full power of the federal government to engage in an anti-science war on reality, with America’s children as the collateral damage. While European nations are drastically pulling back on these dangerous experiments and a number of states are legislating against them, the Biden Administration is plowing full steam ahead in its goal of redefining the foundations of biology, from the doctors’ offices to the athletic fields. This comes even as the United States Supreme Court has held that states have a right to enact such legislation. The Biden Administration is supporting crimes against humanity, and America First Legal will continue to fight back until these dangerous practices end.”

You can read the full trove of emails here.

Authored by John Seiler via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

So much for California’s mandate that “all new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles by 2035,” according to the California Air Resources Board. It imposed the mandate at the request of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The all-electric F-150 Lightning from Ford is displayed at the Los Angeles Auto Show in Los Angeles on Nov. 18, 2021. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)

On April 24, Ford reported it lost $132,000 for each of its 10,000 electric vehicles sold in the first quarter of 2024, according to CNN. The sales were down 20 percent from the first quarter of 2023 and would “drag down earnings for the company overall.”

The losses include “hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford. Those investments are years away from paying off.” Ford is the only major carmaker breaking out EV numbers by themselves. But other marques likely suffer similar losses.

Californians bought 1.78 million new vehicles in 2023, reported the California New Car Dealers Association. Multiply that number by $132,000 and you get $235 billion. That would bankrupt every car manufacturer, meaning they just would pull out of selling anything in the state.

The California government would have to set up socialist, government-owned companies to make the cars, like the infamous Yugo. Dubbed “the worst car in history,” it was sold in America in the 1980s and was made by the communist Yugoslav government just before the country itself broke up in 1991.

A man works on one of the last Yugos at Serbia's Zastava car plant on the production line in Kragujevac on Nov. 9, 2008. The car became popular in the local market due to its low price and fuel consumption. (Aleksandar Stankovic/AFP via Getty Images)

Battery Problems

The Epoch Times also reported that same day, April 24, “Ford Recalling More Than 55,000 SUVs and Trucks in Canada Over Battery Issues.” The Transport Canada notice read, “A sudden loss of power to the wheels or a vehicle that doesn’t restart after a start-stop event could increase the risk of a crash. Additionally, hazard lamps that don’t work could make the vehicle less visible and increase the risk of a crash.”

Also, most of Canada gets really cold in the winter. “The effects of cold weather on car batteries start to become pronounced when the temperature drops below freezing for an extended period,” explained United Tire & Service. “At a temperature of 32 degrees Fahrenheit, your battery will lose about 30 percent of its power. Your battery will continue to get weaker as the temperatures get colder. In fact, your battery will lose about 60 percent of its power at 0 degrees Fahrenheit.”

In Montreal, the average low temperature in January is 10 degrees Fahrenheit. In Edmonton it’s 8 degrees.

Most of California enjoys the balmiest weather on earth. But in January 2023, the temperature around Bridgeport, near Yosemite National Park, dropped to minus 27 degrees. In such areas, EVs are almost completely useless except for rich people in the summer.

Cheap Electric Cars?

But isn’t Tesla working on cheaper models, not just the expensive ones? Aren’t they figuring out what Ford couldn’t? “Exclusive: Tesla scraps low-cost car plans amid fierce Chinese EV competition,” headlined Reuters on April 5.

However, on April 24 Yahoo Finance headlined, “Tesla stock surges as EV maker will ‘accelerate’ the launch of cheaper cars. Tesla had previously said it would focus on its robotaxi product after paring back plans for a lower-cost car.”

Who knows what’s going on with mercurial Tesla CEO Elon Musk? But I would never count him out.

So what about those cheap cars financed by communist China? In February, the Biden administration announced it would investigate Chinese “smart” cars, which like your cell phone—probably also made in China—scoop up increasing amounts of data about your life.

“China is determined to dominate the future of the auto market, including by using unfair practices,’' President Joe Biden said. “China’s policies could flood our market with its vehicles, posing risks to our national security. I’m not going to let that happen on my watch.’’

On April 11, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) called for banning Chinese EVs as “an existential threat to the American auto industry. Ohio knows all too well how China illegally subsidizes its companies, putting our workers out of jobs and undermining entire industries, from steel to solar manufacturing. We cannot allow China to bring its government-backed cheating to the American auto industry.”

So far no action has been taken. But presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump in March promised he would impose a 100 percent tariff on Chinese cars, EV or otherwise, built in Mexico.

No CO2 Threat

Meanwhile, the carbon monoxide emitted by gas and diesel engines is being shown not to cause global warming. Reported No Tricks Zone, “Three Polish physicists have focused their attention on this saturation principle as it applies to CO2 in three recently published papers (Kubicki et al., 2024, 2022, and 2020). Their latest (Kubicki et al., 2024), published in Applications in Engineering Science, summarizes the experimental evidence from their 2020 and 2022 publications substantiating the conclusion that ‘as a result of saturation processes, emitted CO2 does not directly cause an increase in global temperature.’

“The authors are concerned about the recent push to rely on modeling and assumptions about CO2’s capacity to drive changes in global temperature rather than observational evidence. They point out the current CO2-is-the-climate-control-knob zeitgeist is no more than a hypothesis.”

The scientists themselves wrote: “This unequivocally suggests that the officially presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact.”

As I have written several times in The Epoch Times, the CO2 from California vehicles is minuscule compared to the massive spewing from coal plants still being built in massive numbers in communist China. See from March 25, “‘Green Innovation’ Study Shows California CO2 Policies Mainly Help China.”

Conclusion: EV Mandates Are a Delusion

California’s 100 percent zero-emission vehicle mandate by 2035 is a tailpipe dream. It’s pushed by ambitious politicians like Mr. Newsom and financed by billionaire environmentalists like Bill Gates. It has no basis in reality.

At some point in a couple of years, a coalition will form to get rid of these mandates, as well as President Biden’s national goal of more than half of all vehicles sold being EVs by 2030. Auto dealers, especially in California, will work with automakers and the Democratic-aligned United Auto Workers union to push the mandates further into the future, say 2045. Later, the date will be pushed to 2055, and so on.

Mr. Newsom’s term as governor ends in January 2027. President Biden, if reelected, must leave in January 2029. California’s term limits also mandate a maximum of 12 years in the Legislature.

Today’s politicians will be gone soon enough, their green battery dreams wafted away like the thick exhaust from a classic 1957 Chevy.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

By Jeffrey Jones at Gallup

For the third year in a row, the percentage of Americans naming inflation or the high cost of living as the most important financial problem facing their family has reached a new high.

The 41% naming the issue this year is up slightly from 35% a year ago and 32% in 2022. Before 2022, the highest percentage mentioning inflation was 18% in 2008. Inflation has been named by less than 10% in most other readings since the question was first asked in 2005.

The latest results are from Gallup’s annual Economy and Personal Finance poll, conducted April 1-22.

Gallup has asked Americans at least annually since 2005 to name, without prompting, the top financial problem facing their family. Inflation has topped the list for the past three years. The cost of owning or renting a home ranks second this year at 14%, a new high for that issue.

Other significant problems Americans identify include having too much debt (8%), healthcare costs (7%), lack of money or low wages (7%), and energy costs or gas prices (6%).

Over the past 19 years, healthcare costs and lack of money or low wages have frequently ranked near the top of the list, while the cost of energy or gas has done so at times of elevated gas prices, as in 2005, 2006 and 2008.

Inflation Named Most Often by All Subgroups

Inflation is named the most important financial problem by all key societal subgroups but garners higher mentions from certain age, income and political groups.

• 46% of older Americans (those aged 50 and older) mention inflation, in contrast with 36% of younger Americans (those under 50).
• Inflation is a more top-of-mind concern for middle-income (46%) and upper-income Americans (41% of those with an annual household income of $100,000 or more) than for lower-income Americans (31% of those with a household income of less than $40,000).
• 56% of Republicans, compared with 39% of independents and 26% of Democrats, name the issue as the most important financial problem facing their family.

Younger and lower-income Americans may be less likely to name inflation than their counterparts because other immediate financial concerns are more pressing for them. For example, 21% of adults under age 50 say housing or rental costs are their top concern, compared with 8% of those aged 50 and older.

Lower-income Americans are more inclined than upper-income and middle-income Americans to say personal debt, healthcare costs, lack of money and job loss are the top concerns facing their family.

Retirement, Medical Emergencies Also Worrisome

A separate question in the survey asks Americans to say how much they worry about each of eight specific personal financial matters. Inflation is not one of those issues, but its influence is apparent in the heightened percentage who worry about not being able to maintain their standard of living. Fifty-five percent are very or moderately worried about maintaining their living standards, the third straight year a majority has done so after being below that level from 2017 through 2021.

Since the question was first asked in 2001, an average of 47% of U.S. adults, including a high of 58% in 2011, have worried about being able to maintain their standard of living.

Maintaining one’s standard of living ranks as one of the three economic matters Americans worry most about, along with not having enough for retirement and being unable to pay medical bills in the event of a serious illness or accident. The latter two issues have consistently ranked first or second each year in Gallup polling dating back to 2001.

Less than half of U.S. adults worry about the five other financial matters, including normal medical costs, normal monthly bills, housing costs, paying for their children’s college and making minimum payments on credit cards.

Compared with last year, there have been slight declines in the percentages worried about medical costs for a serious illness or accident (from 60% to 56%) and not having enough money for retirement (from 66% to 59%). Both issues are now closer to their historical averages after being slightly above them last year. For the other six financial matters, the percentages worried about them are essentially unchanged from a year ago.

As would be expected, those with a lower household income worry more than those with greater resources about nearly all of these financial matters. The one exception is affording college for a child, which shows no meaningful differences by income. Across the eight financial matters, an average of 60% of lower-income Americans express worry, compared with 47% of middle-income and 31% of upper-income Americans.

Majorities of lower-income adults worry about six of the eight financial matters, compared with three issues for middle-income adults and only one for those in upper-income households.

The greatest disparity in worry on any single issue between income groups is being able to pay one’s normal monthly bills, which concerns 67% of lower-income adults but only 21% of upper-income adults.

Ratings of Personal Finances Remain Subdued

Forty-six percent of Americans rate their personal finances as excellent or good, similar to what Gallup has measured the past two years but a worse evaluation than in 2017 through 2021. Meanwhile, 36% describe their finances as “only fair,” while 17% rate them as “poor.”

Americans’ ratings of their personal financial situation were worse than now between 2009 and 2012, as the U.S. was coming out of the Great Recession and unemployment was high. During those years, an average of 42% of Americans rated their personal finances positively.

All income groups remain less positive about their financial situation now compared with 2021. Currently, 72% of upper-income, 42% of middle-income and 25% of lower-income Americans rate their situation as excellent or good.

Another question in the survey finds 62% of Americans saying they have enough money to live comfortably, similar to the 64% recorded last year but down from 2022 (67%) and 2021 (72%). Gallup has only had one lower reading on this question since 2002 -- 60% in 2012. The high point was 75% in 2002, the first year the question was asked.

Eighty-three percent of upper-income, 62% of middle-income and 37% of lower-income adults say they have enough to live comfortably, with similar declines in each group since 2021.

Americans Slightly More Optimistic Their Financial Situation Is Improving

There has been a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who say their financial situation is getting better -- 43% say this, up from 37% in both 2022 and 2023. The current figure is still significantly below the 52% measured in 2021.

At the same time, 47% say their financial situation is getting worse, up by 17 percentage points since 2021.

A slim majority of upper-income Americans, 52%, believe their financial situation is improving, as do 43% of middle-income and 34% of lower-income Americans.

Bottom Line

Inflation continues to be an issue for Americans and is likely why less than half are positive about their financial situation. In addition to being named the most important financial problem facing their family, inflation also ranks as one of the domestic problems Americans worry most about. The issue trails only immigration, the government and the economy in general when Americans are asked to name the most important problem facing the country.

The U.S. inflation rate has declined significantly since its peak in 2022, but that has done little to alter Americans’ perceptions of their finances. This could reflect the cumulative effect of higher prices for the past few years and the fact that inflation has remained above the lower rates in the U.S. between 2012 and 2020. The latest government reports suggest inflation may be increasing again. That news persuaded the Federal Reserve to delay interest rate cuts it was expected to make this year.

The issue also stands to be a key election issue, and renewed inflation would hamper President Joe Biden’s chances of reelection.

The markets took on a Dickensian dimension this week as while "it was the worst of times (for economic data), it was the best of times (for stocks)"...

The US Macro Surprise Index continued its serial disappointment plunge into the red - the weakest since Feb 2023 (not helped at all by today's payrolls miss)...

Source: Bloomberg

With growth data plunging while inflation data soared...

Source: Bloomberg

Bad news was good news though as the market only had eyes for Powell's big taper and the buyback bonanza (from AAPL and the rest), and today's NFP Goldilocks results (175k vs. 240k expected) as wage softness helps to ease inflation fears.

Small Caps leading the bunch amid a big short-squeeze and S&P lagging (but all green on the week)...

All the majors rallied up to their 50DMAs but were unable to breakout...

Nasdaq performed well with MAG7 stocks wildly choppy, but overall pushing back up towards record highs...

Source: Bloomberg

'Most Shorted' stocks suffered the biggest squeeze in two months (and biggest two-week squeeze since Jan 2023)...

Source: Bloomberg

Of particular note was Utes outperforming (while energy lagged) as the 'Next AI Trade' goes mainstream. Financials were also red on the week...

Source: Bloomberg

Bonds were also bid all week with yields down 12-20bps as the short-end outperformed...

Source: Bloomberg

And 2Y yields at 5.00% were thoroughly rejected as yields plunged today back below pre-CPI spike levels..

Source: Bloomberg

The dollar dropped this week, erasing almost all of the post-CPI gains...

Source: Bloomberg

Gold prices were lower on the week (second week in a row), despite the weak dollar and 'easing' by The Fed...

Source: Bloomberg

Despite a decent bounce back today, bitcoin was down on the week, testing back up to $62,000...

Source: Bloomberg

...after an ugly week of aggregate net outflows from BTC ETFs...

Source: Bloomberg

Oil prices plunged this week - down all five days for the worst in three months - back to near two-month lows...

Source: Bloomberg

And finally, rate-cut expectations have surged this week with 2024 now pricing in two full cuts and 2025 three more cuts...

Source: Bloomberg

Is this what Powell wanted? To ease financial conditions again!?

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmetntAdvice.com,

Investor psychology is one of the most significant reasons individuals consistently fall short of their investment goals. While one of the most common truisms is that “investors buy high and sell low,” the underlying reason is the behavioral traits that plague our investment decision-making.

George Dvorsky once wrote that:

“The human brain is capable of 1016 processes per second, which makes it far more powerful than any computer currently in existence. But that doesn’t mean our brains don’t have major limitations. The lowly calculator can do math thousands of times better than we can, and our memories are often less than useless — plus, we’re subject to cognitive biases, those annoying glitches in our thinking that cause us to make questionable decisions and reach erroneous conclusions.“

Behavioral traits and cognitive biases are anathemas to portfolio management as they impair our ability to remain emotionally disconnected from our money. As history all too clearly shows, investors always do the “opposite” of what they should when it comes to investing their own money. They “buy high” as the emotion of “greed” overtakes logic and “sell low” as “fear” impairs the decision-making process.

In other words:

“The most dangerous element to our success as investors…is ourselves.”

Here are the top five most insidious behavioral traits keeping us from achieving our long-term investment goals.

Confirmation Bias

Probably one of the most insidious behavioral traits is “confirmation bias.” Confirmation bias is a term from cognitive psychology that describes how people naturally favor information that confirms their previously existing beliefs.

“Experts in behavioral finance find that this fundamental principle applies to investors in notable ways. Because investors seek out information that confirms their opinions and ignore facts or data that refutes them, they may skew the value of their decisions based on their cognitive biases. This psychological phenomenon occurs when investors filter out potentially useful facts and opinions contradicting their preconceived notions.” – Investopedia

In other words, investors tend to seek information that confirms their beliefs. If they believe the stock market will rise, they tend only to read news and information that supports that view. This confirmation bias is a primary driver of individuals’ psychological investing cycles. As shown below, there are always “headlines” from the media to “confirm” an investor’s opinion, whether it’s bullish or bearish.

As investors, we want “affirmation” that our current thought process is correct. That is why we tend to join groups on social media that confirm our thoughts and ideals. Therefore, since we hate being wrong, we subconsciously avoid contradicting sources of information.

For investors, it is crucial to weigh both sides of each debate equally and analyze the data accordingly.

Being right and making money are not mutually exclusive.

Gambler’s Fallacy

The “Gambler’s Fallacy” is another of the more common behavioral traits. As emotionally driven human beings, we tend to put tremendous weight on previous events, believing that future outcomes will be the same.

At the bottom of every piece of financial literature, Wall Street addresses that behavioral trait.

“Past performance is no guarantee of future results.”

However, despite that statement being plastered everywhere in the financial universe, individuals consistently dismiss the warning and focus on past returns, expecting similar results in the future.

This particular behavioral trait is a critical issue affecting investors’ long-term returns. Performance chasing has a high propensity to fail, pushing individuals to jump from one late-cycle strategy to the next. The periodic table of returns below shows this. Historically, “hot hands” last 2-3 years before going “cold.”

I highlighted the annual returns of both Emerging and Large-Cap markets for illustrative purposes. Importantly, you should notice that whatever is at the top of the list in some years tends to fall to the bottom in subsequent years. 

“Performance chasing” is a significant detraction from investors’ long-term investment returns.

Probability Neglect

Third, when it comes to “risk-taking,” there are two ways to assess the potential outcome.

There are “possibilities” and “probabilities.” 

When it comes to humans, we tend to lean toward what is possible, such as playing the “lottery.” The statistical probabilities of winning the lottery are astronomical. You are more likely to die on the way to purchasing the ticket than winning it. However, it is the “possibility” of being fabulously wealthy that makes the lottery so successful as a “tax on poor people.”

As investors, we neglect the “probabilities” of any given action. Such is specifically the statistical measure of “risk” undertaken with any given investment. As individuals, our behavioral trait is to “chase” stocks that have already shown the largest increase in price as it is “possible” they could move even higher. However, the “probability” is that the price reflects investor exuberance, and most gains have already occurred.

Probability neglect is another contributory factor as to why investors consistently “buy high and sell low.”

Herd Bias

Though we are often unconscious of this particular behavioral trait, humans tend to “go with the crowd.” Much of this behavior relates to “confirmation” of our decisions and the need for acceptance. The thought process is rooted in the belief that if “everyone else” is doing something, I must do it also if I want to be accepted.

In life, “conforming” to the norm is socially accepted and, in many ways, expected. However, the “herding” behavior drives market excesses during advances and declines in the financial markets.

As Howard Marks once stated:

“Resisting – and thereby achieving success as a contrarian – isn’t easy. Things combine to make it difficult; including natural herd tendencies and the pain imposed by being out of step, since momentum invariably makes pro-cyclical actions look correct for a while. (That’s why it’s essential to remember that ‘being too far ahead of your time is indistinguishable from being wrong.’

Given the uncertain nature of the future, and thus the difficulty of being confident your position is the right one – especially as price moves against you – it’s challenging to be a lonely contrarian.”

Investors generate the most profits in the long term by moving against the “herd.” Unfortunately, most individuals have difficulty knowing when to “bet” against the stampede.

Anchoring Effect

Lastly, “Anchoring,” also known as the “relativity trap,” is the tendency to compare our current situation within the scope of our limited experiences. For example, I would be willing to bet that you could tell me exactly what you paid for your first home and what you eventually sold it for. However, can you tell me exactly what you paid for your first soap bar, hamburger, or pair of shoes? Probably not.

The reason is that the home purchase was a major “life” event. Therefore, we attach particular significance to that event and remember it vividly. If there was a gain between the purchase and sale price of the home, it was a positive event, and therefore, we assume that the next home purchase will have a similar result. We are mentally “anchored” to that event and base our future decisions around very limited data.

When it comes to investing, we do very much the same thing. If we buy a stock that goes up, we remember that event. Therefore, we become anchored to that stock instead of one that lost value. Individuals tend to “shun” stocks that lost value even if they were bought and sold at the wrong times due to investor error. 

After all, it is not “our” fault that the investment lost money; it was just a bad stock. Right?

Make Better Bad Choices

My nutrition coach had a great saying about dieting; “make better bad choices.”

We are all going to make bad choices from time to time. The goal is to try and make bad choices that don’t have an outsized effect on our plan. When it comes to dieting, if you eat a burger, order it without cheese and mayonnaise.

If you make speculative bets in your portfolio, do it in smaller amounts. Or, if you are leaning towards “panic selling” everything, start by selling some but not all of your holdings.

Importantly, focus on the rules and your investment discipline.

• Do more of what is working and less of what isn’t. 

• Remember that the “Trend Is My Friend.”

• Be either bullish or bearish, but not “hoggish.” (Hogs get slaughtered)

• Remember, it is “Okay” to pay taxes.

• Maximize profits by staging buys, working orders, and getting the best price.

• Look to buy damaged opportunities, not damaged investments.

• Diversify to control risk.

• Control risk by always having pre-determined sell levels and stop-losses.

• Do your homework.

• Not allow panic to influence buy/sell decisions.

• Remember that “cash” is for winners.

• Expect, but do not fear, corrections.

• Expect to be wrong, and will correct errors quickly. 

• Check “hope” at the door.

• Be flexible.

• Have the patience to allow your discipline and strategy to work.

• Turn off the television, put down the newspaper, and focus on your analysis.

Importantly, keep your market perspectives and behavioral traits in check. Our goal is to ensure that our decisions are influenced by reliable data and psychological emotions.

Most importantly, if you don’t have an investment strategy and discipline you are stringently following, that is an ideal place to begin.

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Modernity.news

Republican lawmakers are moving to prevent the Biden administration resettling Palestinian refugees in the United States, asserting that it represents a “national security threat” since large numbers of them support Hamas.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that the White House is considering using the United States Refugee Admissions Program to hand Palestinians permanent residency and “resettlement benefits like housing assistance and a path to American citizenship.”

Although CBS News reported that the “eligible population is expected to be relatively small,” European natives were given similar assurances before the 2015 refugee crisis that ended up with millions of migrants flooding the continent.

In a letter to House Appropriators, Reps. Andy Ogles (R-TN), Tom Tiffany (R-WI), and Scott Perry (R-PA) have asked that a provision be included in the Fiscal Year 2025 spending bill that prevents expenditures “of any funds to issue a visa or grant parole to any alien holding a passport issued by the Palestinian Authority.”

“Whatever fanciful leftist notion to the contrary, the United States of America cannot be expected to absorb the rest of the world’s problems. It would make much more sense for states in the region to take in those in need. If the administration is indeed working in concert with our allies in the region to pave the way for peace, that should come with the expectation that those allies are working in good faith to “do their part,” states the letter.

35 Senate Republicans are also demanding more specifics on the resettlement program, asserting that it represents “a national security risk to the United States.”

“With more than a third of Gazans supporting the Hamas militants, we are not confident that your administration can adequately vet this high-risk population for terrorist ties and sympathies before admitting them into the United States,” said the Senators.

A leaked Israeli intelligence document revealed in late October last year revealed a plan to ‘expel’ 2.2 million Palestinian refugees and send them to Europe, Canada and the United States.

The document, produced by Israel’s Intelligence Ministry, stated that one of the goals of the war with Gaza was to encourage western countries to facilitate the “absorption and settlement” of Gazan refugees.

Back in March, Jared Kushner said it was “unfortunate” that Europe isn’t taking in more Palestinian refugees, suggesting that the “cleaning up” of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip should be accelerated.

Meanwhile, as we highlight in the video below, while Americans could be set to see yet another influx of migrants thanks to Israel’s destruction of Gaza, criticizing the Middle Eastern country could technically become illegal under the draconian Antisemitism Awareness Act.

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Ahead of today's payrolls report, in our preview we said that while we knew we would get a slowdown, the question was how big it would be (and before that we also asked if Yellen had leaked the weaker number to Japan ahead of their multiple interventions this week to prevent them from wasting tens of billions in intervention dry capital for nothing).

So the question is: did Yellen leak to the BOJ what the next NFP and CPI prints will be? https://t.co/ugDVXhDvOq

We got the answer moments ago when the BLS reported that in April the US added just 175K jobs, a nearly 50% drop from the upward revised 315K (was 303K), the lowest print since October 2023...

... and a two-sigma miss to estimates of 240K.

In fact, as shown below, this was the biggest miss since Dec 2021 

As usual, prior data was net revised lower, with the change in total nonfarm payroll employment for February revised down by 34,000, from +270,000 to +236,000, and the change for March was revised up by 12,000, from +303,000 to +315,000. With these revisions, employment in February and March combined is 22,000 lower than previously reported. 

What was behind the unexpected payrolls plunge? Blame government, which added just 8,000 jobs in April the least since Dec 2021, almost as if the government itself was goalseeking the final result.

Remarkably the result would have been even worse had it not been for a massive 363K addition from the birth death model.

It wasn't just the Establishment survey: the Household survey showed that in April, the US added just 25K jobs, a huge drop from the 498K in March...

... which means that the already record divergence between the number of people employed and those who have jobs expanded by another 150K.

The weakness was pervasive, and while payrolls were a huge miss, the unemployment rate also rose more than expected, from 3.8% to 3.9%, - the highest since January 2022 - versus estimates of an unchanged print.

The unemployment rate for Blacks (5.6 percent) decreased, offsetting an increase in the prior month. The jobless rates for adult women (3.5 percent), teenagers (11.7 percent), Whites (3.5 percent), Asians (2.8 percent), and Hispanics (4.8 percent) showed little change over the month

Despite the increase in unemployment, the participation rate was unchanged at 62.7%

Wages also eased back with average hourly earnings rising 0.2% MoM, below the expected 0.3% increase and down from last month's 0.3% print. On an annual basis, earnings rose 3.9%, down from 4.1% last month and below the 4.0% estimate.

Looking at the composition of the April job gains, the BLS notes that job gains occurred in health care, in
social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing, offset by a big slowdown in government hiring.

• Health care added 56,000 jobs in April, in line with the average monthly gain of 63,000 over the prior 12 months. In April, employment continued to increase in ambulatory health care services (+33,000), hospitals (+14,000), and nursing and residential care facilities (+9,000). 
• Employment in social assistance increased by 31,000 in April, led by a gain in individual and family services (+23,000). Social assistance had added an average of 21,000 jobs per month over the prior 12 months.
• In April, transportation and warehousing added 22,000 jobs, with gains in couriers and  messengers (+8,000) and warehousing and storage (+8,000). Over the prior 12 months, employment in transportation and warehousing had shown little net change.
• Employment in retail trade continued to trend up in April (+20,000). Over the prior 12 months, the industry had added an average of 7,000 jobs per month. In April, employment increased in general merchandise retailers (+10,000), building material and garden equipment and supplies dealers (+7,000), and health and personal care retailers (+5,000). Electronics and appliance retailers lost 3,000 jobs. 
• Construction employment changed little in April (+9,000), following an increase of 40,000 in March. Over the prior 12 months, construction had added an average of 22,000 jobs per month. 
• Employment in government changed little in April (+8,000). Over the prior 12 months, government had added an average of 55,000 jobs per month. In April, local government employment was  unchanged, following an increase of 51,000 in March. 

And visually: