The massive debt milestone was reached just over three months after the previous $35 trillion benchmark, highlighting the rapid accumulation of federal borrowing in recent years. It comes as policymakers brace for renewed debates over spending and taxation, with the incoming Trump administration and the 119th Congress having to contend with the nation’s fiscal trajectory.

“As if lawmakers needed any other reasons to take America’s fiscal health seriously, the gross national debt of the United States has now officially reached $36 trillion,” Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), said in a statement. “Government borrowing is becoming as certain as the changing of the seasons these days.”

MacGuineas highlighted the risks of rising debt, including slower economic growth, higher inflation, and increased interest rates. She warned that high debt loads constrain fiscal flexibility, hampering the government’s ability to respond to economic downturns or global crises, pointing to $13 trillion in projected interest payments over the next decade as a stark example.

“The incoming Trump Administration and Members of the 119th Congress face several fiscal hurdles from the moment they take office–starting with the reinstatement of the debt ceiling in January and a $1.7 trillion PAYGO scorecard waiting to greet them,” MacGuineas said. “The way they approach that and other crucial decisions ahead like the expiration of discretionary spending caps and the 2017 tax cuts, as well as how they choose to offset the costs of their new policies, will determine our fiscal health for a long time.”

Meanwhile, respondents to a New York Federal Reserve survey that was cited in the Fed’s newly released semi-annual Financial Stability Report identified U.S. fiscal debt sustainability as the most frequently cited near-term risk to financial stability, overtaking concerns about persistent inflation and monetary tightening.

“Concerns surrounding US fiscal debt sustainability were atop the list this survey, followed by escalating tensions in the Middle East and policy uncertainty,” the report’s authors wrote. Fears of a potential U.S. recession and a global trade war also moved up in importance in the latest survey compared to the one carried out in spring.

In the Fed’s discussion of the near-term risks identified in the survey, which was conducted among some two dozen financial sector participants and observers from August to October, the central bank noted that rising geopolitical tensions and potential economic slowdowns could amplify vulnerabilities tied to the nation’s fiscal challenges and lead to “broad adverse spillovers.”

Escalation in conflicts such as the Middle East crisis or the war in Ukraine could disrupt global energy and commodity markets, triggering inflationary pressures and heightened market volatility. The Fed also warned of the potential for a sharp downturn in economic growth, which could lead to steep corrections in asset prices, particularly in overvalued sectors like equities and real estate.

High levels of corporate and nonbank financial institution leverage could exacerbate financial stress, while elevated public debt might limit the government’s ability to respond effectively to such shocks, the report’s authors noted. Further, the report underscored the growing risk of cyberattacks, which could disrupt the financial system by exploiting interdependencies among institutions and components of market infrastructure.

The Fed’s own financial stability assessment focused on a framework of risks across four key areas: asset valuations, borrowing by households and businesses, leverage in the financial sector, and funding risks.

The report noted that asset values “remained elevated,” with liquidity in financial markets remaining low, raising the risk of strain during periods of volatility. Vulnerabilities from business and household debt were described as “moderate,” though delinquencies in auto and credit card loans were elevated.

The banking system was described in the financial stability report as “sound and resilient,” though banks’ market-adjusted capital levels improved only “modestly” and so remain sensitive to interest rate changes. Hedge fund leverage was at its highest level in over a decade, while vulnerabilities in some short-term investment vehicles continued to grow.

“The increase contributes to inflation, the high cost of living in California, and has a disproportionate and adverse impact on lower income Californians,” wrote Professor Michael A. Mische. “To compensate for the increases, the average Californian driving an internal combustion vehicle will have to earn an additional $600.00 to $1,000.00 a year in pre-tax income in order to “breakeven” with 2024 prices, depending on the grade of gas they purchase.”

Days after the November election, the California Air Resources Board — a regulatory commission almost entirely appointed by the governor — passed new updates to the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, requiring producers of “dirty” transportation fuel to purchase more credits from producers of “clean” transportation fuel. The new LCFS will provide an estimated $105 billion in EV charging credits and $8 billion of hydrogen credits largely paid for by fees on gasoline and diesel, which the state estimated would be passed on to drivers and consumers.

Mische first estimated that the state’s newly passed carbon credit requirement will increase retail prices for regular grade gasoline in 2025 somewhere between 40 and 65 cents per gallon — similar to that estimated by the University of Pennsylvania Kleinman Center for Energy Policy.

He then estimated that the governor’s new refinery regulations he passed during a special legislative session last month would increase prices between 5 and 27 cents per gallon, and that the shutdown of the Phillips 66 refinery announced after the new refinery regulations would add another 8 to 14 cents per gallon.

Because California gas taxes rise with the state’s price index, Mische estimates the gas tax will go up between one to two cents per gallon in 2025.

Combined, these changes add up to an increase of 55 to 90 cents per gallon of regular-grade gasoline in 2025, and 95 cents to $1.15 for premium-grade gasoline.

Republicans pointed out that the governor has now moved away from Sacramento, the state’s capital, and will now be chauffeured to work in a gasoline car.

“Newsom is completely out of touch, recently purchasing a $9.1 million mansion in Kentfield, a wealthy town that’s 90 miles away from his job in Sacramento,” said Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, R-San Diego, in a statement. “While regular Californians face tough choices between putting food on the table or gas in their cars, Newsom will be chauffeured to work from his luxury home in a taxpayer-funded car, running on taxpayer-funded gas, on the rare occasions he decides to show up.”

Treasury International Capital (TIC) data published on Nov. 18 show foreign investors purchased $169 billion in U.S. government bonds in September, totaling a record $8.673 trillion.

Foreign investors bought a mix of short- and long-term bonds. Treasury bills—maturities between 30 days and 1 year—continue to appeal to bond investors, providing yields as high as 4.6 percent.

Japan and China, the two largest holders of U.S. debt, trimmed their holdings in September.

Tokyo erased about $6 billion, lowering its portfolio of Treasury securities to $1.123 trillion. Beijing reduced its holdings of U.S. government bonds by more than $2 billion to $772 billion.

While China has steadily decreased its exposure to Treasurys over the past several years, its holdings have changed little since September 2023.

Belgium ($41 billion), the United Kingdom ($21 billion), France ($16 billion), and Singapore ($9 billion) were the leading buyers, TIC figures show.

Hong Kong was the only other foreign market to register a nearly $3 billion decline.

The trend of foreign investment into U.S. Treasury securities has been unsurprising, given their vast demand at auctions over the last several months.

During the $42 billion auction of 10-year bonds on Nov. 5, indirect bidders—commonly foreign entities—purchased 62 percent of the supply. Direct bidders—domestic investors—bought less than a quarter of the issued bonds.

Foreign investors also acquired nearly two-thirds of the supply of 30-year bonds at the $25 billion auction on Nov. 6.

The yields in the United States bond market are some of the highest in the world. The U.S. Treasury market is also one of the largest and most liquid corners of international financial markets. Investors are hungry for yields with central banks unwinding their restrictive policy stances and launching a new easing cycle by cutting interest rates.

Despite the Federal Reserve following through on its rate-cut endeavors, Treasury securities have remained elevated. The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield, for example, has climbed nearly 80 basis points since the Fed lowered the federal funds rate for the first time in more than four years in September. As of Nov. 19, the 10-year bond is hovering at about 4.4 percent.

Treasury yield increases have also helped support the U.S. dollar.

The U.S. Dollar Index (DXY), a gauge of the greenback against a weighted basket of currencies, has surged nearly 2 percent over the past month, lifting its year-to-date gain to close to 5 percent. It also rallied to a one-year high of above 107.00 on Nov. 14.

The international reserve currency has rocketed on the futures market recently, shifting Fed policy expectations, with investors penciling only three quarter-point rate cuts by the end of next year, according to the CME FedWatch Tool.

“The potential for fewer cuts from the Fed and a more dovish ECB [European Central Bank] has been a big factor behind the dollar’s advance over the last few months,” said Adam Turnquist, the chief technical strategist at LPL Financial, in a note emailed to The Epoch Times.

Charles Seville, the senior director at Fitch Economics, believes the ECB will reduce interest rates faster amid weakening economic data.

“Although unemployment has yet to rise, labour markets are cooling and wage pressures subsiding,” Seville said in a research note last month.

“Past monetary tightening is clearly still affecting the economy. The ECB appears concerned that eurozone economic growth will undershoot its September forecasts, putting more downside pressure on inflation when it’s already close to target.”

The rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee will hold its next two-day policy meeting on Dec. 17 and 18.

The U.S. dollar’s future direction will also depend on Wall Street’s confidence that President-elect Donald Trump will extend the expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and enact his sweeping tariff plans.

While a strengthening dollar benefits consumers and importers, it can also harm domestic companies that export their goods and services to foreign markets. The president-elect and his team have previously questioned the long-standing strong-dollar policy as they try to resurrect U.S. manufacturing.

“We have a big currency problem,” Trump told Bloomberg Businessweek this past summer, calling it a “tremendous burden” on U.S. businesses.

“Nobody wants to buy our product because it’s too expensive.”

However, Trump also pledged to protect the dollar hegemony and its chief reserve currency status, telling an audience of business leaders at the Economic Club of Chicago in October that the country could transition to “third-world status” if it the king dollar were dethroned.

According to Adam Glapiński, the esteemed governor of the National Bank of Poland (NBP), the central bank currently holds an impressive total of 420 tons of gold, thereby officially securing Poland’s position among nations with some of the largest gold reserves worldwide.

“Poland has entered the club of the world’s largest gold reserve holders,” Glapiński announced, emphasizing that this achievement surpasses that which is held by the United Kingdom.

Strategic Goals for Poland’s Gold Reserves

The governor confirmed that one primary objective for NBP is to elevate gold holdings to comprise 20% of its total foreign exchange reserves.

“This move will align us with the world’s leading economies,” Glapiński noted. At present, approximately 15% of Poland’s reserve assets are constituted by gold—a reflection that signifies substantial progress toward achieving this ambitious target.

In recent months, specifically over a period spanning five months, Poland has expeditiously intensified its efforts in acquiring additional quantities of gold—adding an impressive 39 tons—to bolster its already considerable reserves. Such strategic buildup serves as a testament to Poland’s proactive stance against potential global financial disruptions.

The Case for Gold: A Financial Shield

Glapiński has been an unwavering advocate for utilizing gold as a safeguard against financial crises and market volatility. He reiterated its unique qualities when he stated,

“Gold retains its value even in the event of a systemic collapse in the global financial network, where digital assets may fail.”

He further emphasized that this enduring asset remains impervious to credit risks and devaluation wrought by monetary policies—making it not merely valuable but remarkably durable as well.

Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize that Poland’s renewed focus on accumulating wealth through golden assets is deeply entrenched within historical contexts and national experiences; memories etched into collective consciousness regarding German occupation during World War II and subsequent Soviet-era dominance remind citizens alike about both tangible security measures and their undeniable importance amidst turbulent times ahead.

Cultural Significance and Economic Resilience

This profound sentiment resonates deeply within many Polish hearts; Marta Bassani-Prusik—the head expert overseeing precious metals trade at Mint Polska—highlighted such cultural significance succinctly:

“For many families, gold has been a lifeline through turbulent times, a tradition passed down for survival and security.”

By placing paramount importance upon acquiring more extensive stocks related directly back towards physical manifestations like golden bullion bars or coins themselves rather than relying solely upon fluctuating currencies alone ensures ultimately greater preparedness while simultaneously conveying determination towards enhancing national economic resilience moving forward into uncertain future landscapes ahead filled with challenges yet unseen across our globe today!

Undoubtedly then—we see here indeed how these achievements undeniably underscore wider commitments made toward attaining newfound autonomy concerning fiscal independence alongside ambitions directed solely aimed at long-term stability.

Article generated from corporate media reports.

Speaking at the APEC CEO Summit in Lima, Peru, on Nov. 14, Dimon criticized the regulatory environment for hindering lending, highlighting stringent capital requirements introduced after the financial crisis of 2008–09 that have forced banks to reduce their loan-to-deposit ratios.

“A lot of bankers, they’re, like, dancing in the street because they’ve had successive years and years of regulations, a lot of which stymied credit,” the JPMorgan chief said, according to a Bloomberg video of his remarks at the summit. “You could have kept the banks equally safe but had them do more credit.”

He noted that banks now lend only $65 for every $100 in deposits, compared to $100 previously, which he said stifles economic growth.

Dimon suggested that these regulations, while well-intentioned, have become a headwind for the economy.

“And if that’s what you want, if for some reason the regulators think they’re geniuses and that’s the best way to run the banking system, so be it,” Dimon said, adding that he believes it is possible to maintain financial stability without hindering lending.

Deregulation, he said, could benefit industries beyond banking. Dimon pointed to the slow permitting process for rare-earth mining in the United States as another example of regulatory inefficiency hampering economic growth.

“Ten years—they haven’t got their permits yet,” he said of companies seeking to extract critical minerals crucial for technology and defense industries. “It’s a shame. And we’re doing this to ourselves, and it’s a mistake.”

Dimon also praised President-elect Donald Trump’s proposal for a new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which aims to streamline bureaucracy.

“You could talk to any industry and they’ll give you examples of regulation that could be reduced to make it easier for them to do business while keeping the country safe,” he said.

When asked about the market’s strong reaction to Trump’s election victory, Dimon said it reflects optimism for a “pro-growth shock” as businesses prepare to make aggressive capital investments.

“You’ve already seen the markets have responded quite well,” he noted. “And I think America needs a growth strategy, so I literally applaud that,” he said.

Dimon emphasized that the agenda should go beyond slashing red tape to include broader reforms like improving the efficiency of the permitting process. “Collaboration between government and business is the way to have growth,” he said.

While the Trump administration appears poised to pursue a deregulatory agenda, the administration of President Joe Biden has emphasized consumer protections and systemic risk management.

Under the Biden administration, for example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has seen a significant restoration of its authority, reversing the more hands-off approach taken during Trump’s first term. Since 2021, the CFPB has ramped up its oversight, launching investigations and enforcement actions against financial institutions accused of engaging in predatory lending, discriminatory practices, or misleading marketing. It has also cracked down on banks for practices such as “junk fees,” unauthorized account openings, and withholding of credit card rewards.

Also, during Biden’s term, U.S. banking regulators have focused more heavily on addressing systemic risks in the financial system, with a particular emphasis on implementing the final phase of Basel III reforms, often referred to as the “Basel III endgame.”

These reforms, developed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, aim to bolster the resilience of the banking sector by increasing capital requirements, enhancing risk-weighting measures, and introducing stricter leverage ratios.

Critics, including Dimon, have said that the stricter rules would not have prevented past bank failures and could have a negative impact on the economy.

The results are in, and on Nov. 5, Americans officially rejected the high prices and spiraling costs that defined much of the Biden-Harris administration—including the least affordable housing market in U.S. history.

Rather than being chastened by the national shellacking he, his vice president, and his party received, President Joe Biden’s Justice Department is pursuing an audacious move that could throw the housing market into disarray and put homeownership even further out of reach for middle-class Americans.

In a high-profile lawsuit filed last month, the DOJ is seeking to crack down on a case of alleged home-appraisal bias in Colorado, but the lawsuit could set a worrisome new precedent for the relationship between mortgage lenders and appraisers. The consequences could be sweeping, and they may weigh most heavily on the black homeowners and aspiring homeowners who the DOJ is ironically trying to protect with this lawsuit.

The DOJ is alleging that an appraiser, Maksym Mykhailyna, undervalued a black woman’s Denver home while she was applying for a refinance. Undervaluation typically results in a higher interest rate and a lower loan amount.

The Biden administration has made cracking down on this kind of alleged discrimination a focus, and Vice President Kamala Harris has led the White House’s efforts. Yet, the DOJ’s case hardly proves the appraiser undervalued the home. Even more importantly, the DOJ fails to show that unlawful racial bias skewed the appraisal results or that this singular incident is indicative of systemic discrimination permeating the appraisal industry.

These crackdowns over an illusory problem have been repeatedly and correctly criticized. The administration is fundamentally trying to expand the federal government’s role in housing with little understanding of how meddling with the appraisal process would ultimately affect prices and homebuyers.

The DOJ lawsuit and much of the Biden administration’s efforts on this issue are misguided. In this latest effort, the Justice Department is going beyond holding an allegedly prejudiced appraiser accountable. Along with Mykhailyna, the DOJ also names Rocket Mortgage, the lender with whom the homeowner was seeking a refinancing, as a co-defendant.

The DOJ’s decision to go after the mortgage lender for the actions of an appraiser in this case not only contradicts federal law, but also risks reversing years of housing industry reforms that keep home prices in check.

Setting precedent to hold lenders accountable for the actions of independent appraisers would reintroduce the conflicts of interest that helped inflate home prices and created a housing bubble in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. A repeat of those circumstances would make homes even more expensive and put homeownership even further out of reach for many Americans.

Passed in the wake of the 2008 crisis, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act explicitly bars mortgage lenders from influencing appraisers. The legislation established appraiser independence by mandating that lenders order appraisals through third-party companies called appraisal management companies. These companies are a critical degree of separation between lenders and appraisers that protect the housing industry from the conflicts of interest that led to the 2008 disaster. The DOJ’s efforts to punish the lender in the Colorado lawsuit threaten to erode the independence of appraisers.

Before 2008, there were no appraisal management companies, and appraisers were heavily dependent on the mortgage lenders that assigned them work. That conflict of interest led appraisers to overvalue homes in order to authorize bigger and more profitable loans for the mortgage lenders. That fueled the market bubble that eventually popped, tanking the global economy, nearly toppling the entire financial sector, and setting many American families back years.

If the Biden DOJ has its way, the U.S. could return to the pre-2008 housing industry. The potential for baseless lawsuits alleging undervaluation will incentivize both appraisers and lenders to overvalue properties—fueling yet more home price inflation and injecting more risk into the system.

Housing costs are already out of control. Minority communities across this country are disproportionately locked out of homeownership. Rather than pursuing splashy headlines for baseless lawsuits that would ultimately hurt Americans and further exacerbate prices, the government should be diminishing the footprint of the government-sponsored enterprises—namely, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—that have helped create a second housing bubble in the past 20 years.

The bottom line is that the DOJ’s misguided efforts here could wind up hurting all aspiring homeowners, including the very people of color who the Biden administration says that it is trying to stand up for.

Existing civil right laws already protect homeowners against racially biased appraisal practices. These laws should continue to be enforced. Regulators or legislators could task the appraisal management companies with keeping a more watchful eye over the appraisers and potential trends in their work. But the effort to burden the mortgage lenders with the responsibility of solving appraisal discrimination is not only misguided, it is deeply harmful to aspiring homeowners, the housing sector, and the financial industry.

The incoming Trump administration should immediately audit the Biden administration’s backward housing reforms and halt this lawsuit before it causes damage to the system. Woke, affirmative action policies are misguided and wind up hurting everyone. Voters want a return to simple, logic-driven policy, and this is one area to start with.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

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.

GOBankingRates conducted an analysis of the 100 largest U.S. cities by population, using the average Social Security benefits for married couples to assess how far this income stretches when set against living costs.

The recent study reveals that in many U.S. cities, Social Security benefits fall far short of covering even half a month’s living expenses for married retirees. In particular, six major cities—including Irvine, Fremont, San Jose, San Francisco, Honolulu, and San Diego—offer the briefest financial coverage from Social Security, with benefits lasting between just 6.73 and 9.59 days, according to GoBankingRates.com.

Irvine, California, stands out as the city where benefits stretch the least, covering under a week’s worth of expenses, with a monthly cost of living that exceeds $9,700 for a couple.

The findings show that California is a challenging state for retirees relying on Social Security alone, with 15 of its cities appearing in the top 50 cities where benefits last the shortest.

Within the top 10 cities with the shortest Social Security coverage, California holds seven spots, underscoring the high cost of living in the state. While Irvine ranks as the most expensive, Stockton, California, provides the most days of coverage in the state at nearly 18 days—though even this is well below a full month.

At the other end of the spectrum, Saint Petersburg, Florida, ranks as the city where Social Security lasts the longest among the 50 cities analyzed, stretching to 19.38 days for married couples. This reflects the lower cost of living in Saint Petersburg, where expenses amount to $1,584 monthly.

Florida’s comparatively affordable living costs mean that, while Social Security coverage still falls short of a full month, retirees may face less financial strain.

The GoBankingRates.com study showed that beyond California and Florida, cities like Arlington, Virginia, and Seattle also show limited Social Security coverage, lasting only around 10 to 11 days. Arlington, with a monthly cost of $5,307, and Seattle, at $4,733, both represent high-cost areas where retirees might struggle to maintain financial stability on Social Security alone.

Honolulu is the sole representative from Hawaii in the top six, where the high cost of living cuts Social Security coverage to just over 8 days.

The study’s detailed breakdown shows a significant disparity between cities, where monthly costs range from $9,794 in Irvine to $1,584 in Saint Petersburg. Even cities with more affordable housing and expenses, such as Gilbert, Arizona, and Austin, Texas, provide just around 16 days of coverage, demonstrating that even in lower-cost cities, retirees would need supplementary income to cover basic living expenses each month.

Ultimately, the findings illustrate the pressing financial challenge facing retirees in urban areas across the United States. With the cost of living continually rising, retirees must consider alternative income sources or substantial savings to bridge the gap left by Social Security benefits, especially in cities where expenses drastically outpace what Social Security provides.

You can view the study’s methodology and full results here.

Americans “overwhelmingly rejected the ideological takeover of political and civic life by narrow-minded identity politics” in the Nov. 5 election, a coalition of 38 financial officers wrote in letters warning companies that the new administration will “hasten the demise of DEI.”

“You stand at an important crossroads,” the letter states. “Either you can heed the voice of the American people—your shareholders, customers, and employees—or you can bow to fringe activists who demand that you double down on a failing ideology.”

Companies scored on the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Viewpoint Diversity index, along with Fortune 1000 companies not scored, received letters from the investor advisor coalition.

ADF’s 2024 Viewpoint Diversity index revealed that 91 percent of companies scored use critical race theory in their training materials for employees. The index measured the 85 biggest technology and finance companies on their respect for free speech and religious freedom.

Jeremy Tedesco, senior vice president of corporate engagement for Alliance Defending Freedom, told the Daily Caller News Foundation it’s clear that diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) is already “on its way out.”

“What the Trump administration does could really speed up that process, which will ultimately be good for those corporations, for their workforce, for the broader society, because DEI is a toxic ideology that harms everybody it comes into contact with,” he said.

Some companies have already changed DEI policies as a result of pressure from consumers and shareholders, ending their participation in the left-wing Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index and abandoning diversity initiatives, Tedesco noted. Under pressure from conservative activist Robby Starbuck, companies like Lowe’s and Tractor Supply Co backtracked on DEI policies, including sponsoring LGBTQ pride parades.

Companies began rolling back their DEI programs after the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action in higher education in 2023 and conservatives increased their focus on specifically targeting corporations with legal challenges.

“While we urge you to distance yourself from DEI and highly divisive groups like the Human Rights Campaign—which bullies companies into adopting radical, wrong-headed, and reputationally disastrous policies—we also want to caution you against retracting your goal of protecting the civil liberties and dignity of all employees,” the letter continues. “As fiduciaries of your companies, we manage over $16 billion in assets, and we represent working Americans who depend on us to safeguard their financial future, retirement planning, and more. You owe these investors transparency and, when necessary, proactive changes that are in their best financial interests to serve and foster a healthy civil society.”

Inspire Investing director of corporate engagement Tim Schwarzenberger, whose company signed onto the letters, said shareholders “expect those in the c-suite to deliver positive financial results that meet customer demand and contribute to a healthy, civil society.”

“That’s not too much to ask,” Schwarzenberger said in a statement to the DCNF. “For too long, however, corporate leaders have been bullied into taking increasingly extreme positions on hot-button cultural issues and implementing harmful DEI policies that divide up the workforce and society itself.”

Dr. OJ Oleka, Chief Executive Officer of the State Financial Officers Foundation, said public employees “like teachers, law enforcement officers, and fire fighters rely on state financial officers to make and recommend sound fiduciary decisions to secure their financial future.”

“I know this firsthand, as my mother is the beneficiary of my late father’s public pension from his career as a public university professor,” he said in a statement. “My mother deserves the promise of my late father’s pension, and so does everyone else who worked hard to earn one. The DEI regime does not deliver on that promise.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

But now with President Trump once again taking the White House, one investment bank is advising ESG fund managers to “keep their lawyers very close”, as the full scale death of ESG may very well be on the door step, according to Yahoo Finance.

Aniket Shah wrote in a note this week: “We’d encourage all ESG fund managers to have a lawyer on the team, or on speed-dial.”

He continued: “Antitrust risk remains high for asset managers in ESG; there haven’t been any cases yet, thus there is no legal precedent. Further, legal risks regarding fiduciary duty will stay relevant as states enforce anti-ESG laws.”

Yahoo reports that Trump’s victory has already hit green sector stocks, with wind-energy companies among the hardest hit. Beyond potential bans and obstructive policies, the ESG sector faces rising legal risks.

Key GOP figures argue ESG-focused firms neglect fiduciary duties, while Republican attorneys general accuse financial firms using ESG metrics of collusion against fossil fuels and fueling inflation.

In response, “greenhushing”—keeping ESG efforts quiet—is likely, Jefferies analysts note. Corporate CEOs are also expected to seek legal guidance to adapt to this shifting landscape.

Jeffries said: “General counsels are in the ear of CEOs, frightened about legal retaliation to ESG initiatives. The backlash could lead to more focused and pragmatic companies, engaging in strategic discussions closely tied to their business model.”

Analysts argue that a public backlash, similar to 2016, could pressure companies to address issues like abortion and diversity. Conflicting state policies on ESG could create a “nightmare” of fragmented requirements, they warn.

Shareholders may still push for ESG risk disclosures aligned with the International Sustainability Standards Board, even as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce maintains it isn’t against ESG or climate disclosures. Notably, these observations focus on the ESG label itself, not the broader clean energy transition.