Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Citigroup reversed its policy requiring retail business clients to refrain from selling firearms to those who haven’t passed background checks, the bank announced in a June 3 statement.

Citigroup instituted the policy in March 2018. It also included restricting clients from selling high-capacity magazines and bump stocks, and selling guns to individuals under 21 years of age.

That policy has now changed. In the statement, Citibank said that following “recent Executive Orders and federal legislation that impact this area ... [it will] no longer have a specific policy as it relates to firearms.”

The bank said concerns were being raised about “fair access” to banking services, adding that the corporation is following regulatory developments, presidential executive orders, and federal legislation under the current Trump administration related to fair banking access.

“In light of those developments, we took an objective look at our policies and practices with the intent of striking the right balance between our commitment to fair and unbiased access to our products while continuing to manage all risks to the bank appropriately,” the bank added.

Furthermore, Citigroup said it will update the employee Code of Conduct and the Global Financial Access Policy, “to clearly state that we do not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation in the same way we are clear that we do not discriminate on the basis of other traits such as race and religion.”

The bank’s policy reversal follows President Donald Trump signing an executive order on Feb. 7 calling for a review of all policies, projects, rules, and government action under the Biden administration related to Second Amendment rights.

During the World Economic Forum annual summit in Davos on Jan. 22, Trump said entities aligned with conservative causes are being discriminated against by banks, and asked the sector to change its ways.

“I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that included a place called Bank of America,” Trump said, addressing Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan.

“I don’t know if the regulators mandated that, because of Biden or what, but you and Jamie [Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO] and everybody, I hope you open your banks to conservatives because what you’re doing is wrong.”

Protecting Gun Rights

Activist group March For Our Lives criticized Citigroup’s policy reversal as a “shameful decision” in a June 3 statement.

“Seven years ago, after 17 of my peers and teachers were murdered, Citi found the courage to say ‘no more’—no more financing gun sales to teenagers. Today, they’re saying our lives matter less than their politics,” said executive director Jackie Corin.

Citigroup’s March 2018 policy came after a man killed 17 individuals at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida in February that year in one of the deadliest mass shooting incidents in American history.

Meanwhile, the Firearms Industry Trade Association welcomed Citigroup’s latest decision, the group said in a June 3 statement.

Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president at the association, said they were “guardedly optimistic” about the bank’s announcement.

“We will see if this is a substantive change in policy or just a superficial change while Citigroup continues to discriminate in private beyond closed doors where it is harder for the public to detect.”

John Commerford, executive director at the National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action, hailed the Citigroup policy change in a June 4 Instagram post.

The NRA “welcomes the news that Citigroup has rescinded its discriminatory debanking policies targeting gun manufacturers and dealers. Citigroup and other banks were pressured by left-wing activists to implement these measures in an attempt to restrict the lawful sale of firearms,” he said.

Commerford called on the Senate to pass the Fair Access to Banking Act, a law aimed at preventing financial institutions from “denying banking services to constitutionally protected services.” The bill was introduced in the House and Senate in February and is under consideration by lawmakers.

Authored by Carl Deconinck via Brussels Signal,

The “vast majority” of new homes in England will soon be fitted with solar panels as standard, UK energy secretary Ed Miliband has confirmed.

Developers warned of added costs and bureaucratic hurdles.

The announcement, part of the forthcoming Future Homes Standard set for release this autumn, aimed to slash household energy bills and nudge the UK closer to its net-zero ambitions.

Miliband, speaking to the BBC on June 6, called the plan “just common sense,” claiming solar panels could save homeowners around £530 (€629) annually, based on current energy price caps

The British Government’s proposal mandated solar panels on almost all new builds, with “rare exceptions” for homes shaded by trees or otherwise impractical for solar generation.

Unlike the previous Conservative Party government plan, which required panels to cover 40 per cent of a building’s ground area or none at all, the ruling Labour Party’s approach insisted on at least some solar coverage, even if the 40 per cent target was not met.

Miliband insisted this flexibility would ensure near-universal adoption without letting developers off the hook.

We’re kickstarting a solar rooftop revolution.

All new-build houses will come with solar panels as standard.

Delivering lower bills, energy security, and tackling the climate crisis.https://t.co/wXHwZolpiO

According to the Home Builders Federation, which indicated support for solar integration, “burdensome” paperwork could slow down the government’s ambitious target of 1.5 million new homes by 2029.

Neil Jefferson, head of the Home Builders Federation, told the BBC that an estimated two in five new homes had solar panels and that the industry was “getting increasingly used to incorporating solar panels within the building of new homes”.

“The government just needs to take care to make sure that it does not prescribe and mandate to much on rooftops.

“If every single home needs to be applied for on an exemption basis that will slow up the delivery of desperately-needed new homes, that administration will be burdensome,” he said.

Solar Energy UK’s CEO Chris Hewett said there was a need for more trained installers to meet demand, a point echoed by industry voices calling for investment in skills to sustain this “rooftop revolution”.

Meanwhile, the government’s own figures suggested solar power, while growing from 42 per cent since 2024 and 160 per cent over the past decade, remained a minor player, trailing gas, wind and nuclear in the UK’s energy mix.

Developers estimated solar installations could add £3,000 (€3,560) to £4,000 (€4,750) to construction costs per building.

Miliband dismissed concerns that these would be passed onto buyers, claiming house prices would not rise.

The policy dovetailed with Labour’s broader green agenda, including relaxed planning rules for heat pumps and a £13.2 billion (€15.68 billion) insulation scheme.

The Climate Change Committee insisted near-total decarbonisation of housing was essential for the 2050 net-zero target, a goal Labour inherited from the Conservatives who appeared to have turned against it.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said it was “impossible” without tanking living standards, while Reform UK wanted it scrapped entirely, citing higher energy bills.

Supporters, including Liberal Democrat MP Max Wilkinson, hailed the move as a win for both wallets and the planet.

Industry figures including Octopus Energy’s Nigel Banks claimed smart tech and storage could slash energy costs by up to 90 per cent for some households.

Drug abuse has long been a serious issue in the United States, with the so-called “War on Drugs” dating back to 1971 under President Nixon.

Despite decades of efforts to fight addiction, the problem remains widespread and deadly. More than 80,670 Americans died from drug overdoses in the 12 months ending November 2024. As new threats like fentanyl spread—enough was seized last year for 380 million lethal doses—it’s more urgent than ever for policymakers to act.

But where is the crisis worst? A new report from WalletHub ranks all 50 states and the District of Columbia across key metrics like drug use, overdoses, and access to treatment.

Chip Lupo, an analyst at WalletHub, explains: “Drug problems can start from multiple sources, like taking illegal substances with friends or getting hooked on a prescription that was originally given for a legitimate medical issue. As states fight drug addiction, they need to consider all angles and make sure they are not just addressing things from a law enforcement perspective but also providing the resources necessary to help people with addictions get clean.”

WalletHub’s analysts compared states using 20 metrics organized into three main categories: drug use and addiction, law enforcement, and drug health issues and rehab. These metrics included measures like the percentage of adults and teens who reported using illicit drugs, overdose death rates, opioid prescriptions, and availability of treatment facilities. 

New Mexico tops the list with the biggest drug problem in America. The state has the highest percentage of teens using drugs, the most teens reporting marijuana use before age 13, and the third-highest rate of adult illicit drug use. New Mexico also struggles with high overdose deaths and ranks near the bottom in offering help to those with addiction.

West Virginia ranks second, with the highest overdose death rate in the country and one of the top college campus drug arrest rates. A lack of addiction treatment resources means many residents have nowhere to turn for help.

Nevada comes in third. Nearly 30% of students there report being offered or sold drugs at school. Nevada also ranks high for teens trying marijuana early and has too few treatment facilities to meet the need.

Other high-ranking states include Alaska, the District of Columbia, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Colorado. Each faces unique challenges, from high rates of opioid prescriptions to limited treatment options.

The report also highlights troubling data on teen drug use. New Mexico, Arizona, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Alaska have the highest percentages of teenagers who admit using drugs in the past month. Meanwhile, states like Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas report much lower teen drug use.

Students being offered drugs at school is a big concern, too. California, Nevada, Georgia, New Jersey, and Hawaii top the list for that category, while states like Connecticut and South Dakota report much lower numbers.

The crisis shows no sign of ending on its own. Experts recommend a mix of strategies to combat addiction, including making rehab more accessible and expanding education on the risks of drug use. The federal government and states alike must prioritize treatment alongside law enforcement to help communities recover.

Twenty-four years after being the first in the nation to roll it out, a major perk for illegal aliens in Texas has vanished after the Trump administration filed a federal lawsuit to stop it and the Lone Star State's attorney general quickly agreed with the White House stance. Specifically, illegals will no longer be charged the in-state rate for college tuition.  

The end came quite suddenly. Within hours of the US Department of Justice filing a complaint in the Northern District of Texas, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a motion asking Judge Reed O'Connor to rule in favor of the DOJ and declare in-state tuition for illegals unconstitutional. On the same day, O'Connor issued an order declaring that discounts favoring illegal aliens over non-Texan American citizens -- in contradiction of federal law -- violate the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, and permanently blocking Texas from giving such discounts.

Starting this fall, it will cost illegal aliens an extra $28,000 a year to attend Texas A&M University's College Station campus

Paxton, who's mounting a 2026 challenge of incumbent Republican John Cornyn to represent Texas in the United States Senate, raced to take credit for the outcome: 

“Today, I entered a joint motion along with the Trump Administration opposing a law that unconstitutionally and unlawfully gave benefits to illegal aliens that were not available to American citizens. Ending this discriminatory and un-American provision is a major victory for Texas.” 

In 2001, Texas became the first state to offer in-state tuition to illegals. Back then, Democrats had a slim majority in the state House, but the "Texas Dream Act" had bipartisan support, with only four of 181 legislators voting against it. Republicans bought into the idea that better-educated illegals would bolster the state's labor force and its economy, and then-Governor Rick Perry gave full support -- a stance he had to defend at a Republican debate during his failed 2012 presidential campaign. While this clip stops short, the audience answered with a mix of vigorous applause and hearty boos:

2011: Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry says on a national debate stage if you don’t support discounted tuition for illegal aliens, you don’t have a heart.

2025: President Donald Trump’s DOJ sues Texas for giving discounted tuition to illegal aliens.

How far we’ve come! #txlege pic.twitter.com/zmI4cGisWZ

Since then, more than 20 other states created their own such rules. The tide is now clearly turning. In February, Florida's legislature eliminated a 10-year-old law granting in-state tuition to illegals who attended a Florida high school for three consecutive years before graduating. A bill that would have repealed the practice made it out of a Texas Senate committee earlier this year, but didn't have enough strength to be brought to the full Senate vote. That's all moot now. 

For the 2024-25 academic year, in-state tuition discount saved a student attending Texas A&M University in College Station $27,894 a year, and the discount at the University of Texas at Austin was worth $33,220 a year, to take just two examples from the state's sprawling higher education system.  

“Under federal law, schools cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,” said US Attorney General Pam Bondi in a statement. “The Justice Department will relentlessly fight to vindicate federal law and ensure that U.S. citizens are not treated like second-class citizens anywhere in the country.” 

While the rules vary depending on the student's exact circumstances and status under DACA, about 30 states provide some level of in-state-tuition access for illegals. According to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, the most freewheeling states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.  

So, Ms. Bondi -- who's next? 

Authored by Daniel Morena Vitonvia The Mises Institute,

In the previous article, I discussed the social consequences of the welfare state; now I want to focus on inflation—or more precisely, on central bank policy. Inflation can broadly be defined as an artificial increase in the money supply that ultimately drives up prices, but this definition overlooks the fact that it is a process in which prices first rise in the capital goods of industries furthest from final consumption and then gradually spread throughout the entire system. Therefore, in an inflationary process, there are a few winners who reap substantial profits, and many losers whose purchasing power declines.

It can be said that inflation is caused by governments, both through monetizing debt and by allowing commercial banks to violate general legal principles regarding the deposit contract. Inflation is a hidden tax with devastating economic and moral consequences; it encourages the population to go into debt by making credit cheaper, and it penalizes saving, increasing the length of time preference. Not only that, but it is also a spiritual burden. It drives people to seek ways to protect their savings, making society more materialistic, causing people to prioritize money over happiness, and often forcing them to migrate, thereby breaking family and patriotic ties.

As Jesús Huerta de Soto explains, the Peel Act of 1844 forms the foundation of modern banking systems. This law correctly prohibited the issuance of banknotes without 100 percent backing, but not that of deposits, as it failed to recognize that deposits are part of the monetary base (M). While issuing unbacked banknotes constitutes forgery and fraud, fractional reserve banking is a form of embezzlement. The ruling issued by Judge Lord Cottenham in 1848 in the case of Foley v. Hill concluded that deposits were under the custody of the banker and, therefore, considered his money to do with as he pleased. This jurisprudence was both binding and disastrous. Moreover, it occurred at a time when grain depositors who had appropriated their clients’ deposits to speculate on the Chicago market were declared to be engaging in fraudulent activity.

On the other hand, human creativity produced a solution that lasted for half a century until World War I: the gold standard. The classical gold standard is a rigid system that prevents disproportionate expansions of the money supply, since the gold stock grows by only about 1-2 percent per year. At the same time, it also prevents any sharp contraction of that supply, and the process of credit expansion through loans not backed by voluntary savings—which creates intertemporal discoordination—cannot occur. With productivity growing at about 3 percent during that period, the years from 1865 to 1896 were marked by deflation. Yet this did not prevent it from being a time of great capital accumulation.

While there were inflationary episodes when rulers manipulated the currency, society did not live under constant inflation as it has in the 20th and 21st centuries. The key difference lies in the central banks. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 granted the Fed the privilege of issuing banknotes and required all banks to hold their reserves in demand deposit accounts with it. The Fed, in Murray Rothbard’s words, is inherently inflationary because it acts as a lender of last resort and can expand its reserves without facing the constraints of a decentralized banking system.

It is no surprise that the Fed reduced the reserve requirements for commercial banks from an average of 21.1 percent to just 3 percent by 1917. Coincidentally, this system came into effect in 1914, and World War I greatly favored its implementation, just as the system facilitated the US entry into the war. Without the Fed, the government would have had to raise taxes directly or print greenbacks, which were highly unpopular. With this system, however, they managed to double the money supply between 1914 and 1919. By 1917, they had obtained permission to issue gold exchange notes and required banks to hold them as deposits with the Fed instead of in physical cash. These measures gradually detached the average American from the habit of using gold in daily life and accustomed them to checks and paper money.

Inflation caused by fiduciary media (although there are other types of inflation, which are neither as obvious nor as persistent over time) has the same redistributive effects as the welfare state, because credit expansion unfolds in several stages. New money enters the economy through specific channels, increasing the purchasing power of those particular actors, who can also consume goods at lower prices. Meanwhile, for the rest of the population, consumer prices rise, leaving them worse off and contributing to a redistribution of income. One could say that inflation promotes capital concentration.

Guido Hülsmann’s claim that the growth of the welfare state and the militarized state would not have been possible without inflation is entirely accurate. This phenomenon has transformed the economic structure since the 20th century. Industrial firms and corporations once relied on retained earnings for financing, with financial intermediaries playing a secondary role. But with the global regime of inflationary fiat money, the tables have turned, and debt has risen at all levels. This is because fractional reserve banking and fiat money violate the non-aggression principle: the latter does so by creating a product that would not survive in a free market and is only used because it is protected by legal tender laws.

As a result, the state’s potential monetary resources are unlimited, since the central bank has unlimited credit through the issuance of national paper money. Investors are aware of this, which is why they continue to buy government bonds even though they know that public debt will never truly be repaid. Credit offered at artificially low interest rates creates perverse incentives, whereby entrepreneurs take on massive debt—but the truth is that an entrepreneur-capitalist operating with only 10 percent equity and 90 percent debt is merely an executive. The real entrepreneur-capitalists are the banks, which act as creditors. Inflation reduces the number of true entrepreneurs—independent men operating with their own money.

The social consequences are numerous. Under inflation, Wilhelm Röpke describes the massive rise in consumer credit and installment purchases as a disorder worthy of parasites and freeloaders, contrary to the idea of living within one’s means—that is, maintaining a balance between income and expenses and living a coherent life. For him, the novelty of democratic-socialist inflation, brought about by the ideologies of mass democracy, is a moral disease stemming from mistaken beliefs about full employment. Inflation causes a vertical surge in investments not backed by real savings, thereby eliminating all incentives to save.

The culture of sacrifice is undermined. As Hülsmann states, “civilization crucially depends on the ability and willingness of at least some of its members to make genuine sacrifices, at least some of the time.” Saving, which is linked to sacrifice, also benefits the economy of giving, and deflation supports it—because falling prices discourage leverage, especially in households. As capital use becomes less profitable, the opportunity cost of making donations drops, which increases charitable giving both in absolute and relative terms. Inflation, by contrast, is harmful because it reduces the value of inheritances, and one of the strongest incentives to save before death is the desire to leave something to one’s loved ones. From this, it follows that one of the most powerful motivations for preserving wealth is the ability to make donations.

The reality is that human motivations are heavily influenced by the political and economic context. Hülsmann continues explaining that monetary expansion first reduces the incentives to save. Families are the school of love and virtue, and they are sources of sacrifice and generosity—but they are not only founded on spiritual grounds, but also on economic ones, rooted in the division of labor and capital accumulation. Inflation forces all participants to dedicate more time to money and investments rather than to starting a family. Under a debt-based system, family ties represent a far greater sacrifice, contributing to rising divorce rates, later ages of first marriage, and fewer children. Inflation has pushed women into the labor market, reduced the costs of leaving the family unit, and increased the number of single mothers and divorces.

To conclude, Hülsmann finally explains how inflationary culture also reduces the time spent on selfless activities like simply being with others, which becomes instrumentalized as “networking”—transforming friendships from relationships of trust into utilitarian arrangements. Every society has individuals with perverse attitudes, but they are usually few and must bear the consequences, including the cost and loss of good company. With inflation, however, these attitudes are subsidized, and the meaning of good and evil is reversed. It also creates tensions between taxpayers and recipients, employers and employees, men and women, or retirees and young professionals, fostering a sense of identity-based conflict or group polarization. Incentives to save in cash are eroded, and savings must either be spent on consumption or invested. In low-income households, the former is more common. The average worker, who only saves in ways he understands—namely, in cash—and who distrusts opening investment accounts with banks or brokers and knows nothing about financial markets, is left with no savings. Inflation has destroyed the working class’s culture of saving, erasing its sense of transcendence.