Negative ads often are just scare words such as: Communism, Socialism and Democratic Socialism which are all scare words, scaring you to vote for the other guy. Negative ads have worked in the past. I am hopeful however, that with the exhaustion of the Trump lies, that will change.

Hopefully this post will help you understand those scare words and make them not so scary.

A Few very short definitions:

Capitalism an economic system in which individuals and private businesses can own property, produce goods and services for profit, and compete in markets. Pure conservatives abhor government involvement. Government involvement in capitalism should be limited to:

Protecting property and contracts

Regulating businesses

Preventing monopolies

Providing public goods: Funding roads, education, national defense, infrastructure, and basic research.

Stabilizing the economy: Adjusting interest rates, government spending, or taxes to address inflation, unemployment, and recessions.

Correcting market failures:

NOT PICKING WINNERS

Socialism is an economic system in which society—often through the government, public institutions, or worker cooperatives—has greater ownership or control over major industries and resources. It generally emphasizes reducing economic inequality and providing essential services collectively. Socialism can still include private businesses and markets.

Communism is a political and economic ideology that seeks a classless society in which productive resources are collectively owned, private ownership of major productive property is eliminated, and goods are distributed according to social needs. In theory, communism ultimately involves a stateless society; historically, governments claiming to be communist have generally operated through centralized one-party states.

I find it interesting that Trump who calls communism the greatest threat to America. If that is true then why is he attempting to obtain another visit with his good friend Kim Jun Ung, probably the biggest communist leader on the planet. Why would he want such a visit now?

Democratic Socialism is a political and economic ideology that seeks to reduce economic inequality and expand public or worker control over major parts of the economy while preserving democratic government, civil liberties, and political pluralism.

It differs from social democracy in emphasis: Social democracy generally keeps a capitalist economy but regulates it heavily and funds extensive social programs.

Democratic socialism aims to move beyond capitalism in at least some significant sectors by expanding public or worker ownership.

It also differs from communism because democratic socialism explicitly emphasizes competitive elections, civil liberties, and democratic control rather than one-party rule or political repression.

Outstanding Presentation 10 Minutes, please take the time: Robert L Arnold!

Share

Trump’s Economic Policies: Trump’s economic agenda can be described as “picking corporate winners,” especially in his second term. Affording his winners key government contracts mostly without bids, then trading their stock around his proclamations. The key shift is from traditional free-market toward a more interventionist, nationalist form of industrial policy. How is this different from socialism? It’s not! The main mechanisms are:

Tariffs:

Targeted government deals:

Tax preferences:

Regulatory favoritism:

Politicians are poor at identifying future industries, lobbying determines who receives protection, and tariffs can preserve inefficient firms while imposing costs on businesses and households elsewhere.

Subscribe now

Here are some of Trumps picks for winners:

Sources: Stanford University, Springer, Cato Institute

We often see posts and conversations about income inequality. Could this inequality be reduced, even eliminated, if corporations and wealthy individuals had a greater responsibility to their workers and their communities?

Society works better when middle and lower middle class have rising income standards and they feel aspirational, not desperation about their life. Do you believe they currently feel that way? Not if you believe all the surveys on affordability.

A Personal Story: Upon college graduation, many, many moons ago (late 1960s) I went to work for Eastman Kodak Company in Rochester N.Y. Kodak to my way of thinking, displayed outstanding corporate responsibility; to its workers, management, and community.

Their profit sharing plan was the envy of western N.Y. The plan was a dollar amount (amount depended upon the annual profit) times every thousand you earned over the last 5 years. I recall billboards going up in the fall; Kodak employees buy now pay at bonus time (March). Company benefited, employees benefited, management benefited and so did shareholders. They enjoyed generational employees, parents, children, grand children when of age.

1932, third year of the “Great Depression”, was the only year they failed to pay profit sharing. Greedy companies might use “Great Depression” as a reason to not pay this year. How many companies today act in that Kodak manner. There are a few I am sure but not nearly what should be. JMHO!

Responsibility can take several forms:

Personal: owning your choices, actions, and their impact.

Work: meeting deadlines, following procedures, doing your part.

Social: considering how your actions affect others.

Leadership: setting expectations, supporting people, and addressing issues.

Responsibility of Corporations and the Wealthy

When we talk about corporate responsibility and responsibility of the wealthy; keep in mind, they are often one and the same.

The average large-company CEO earns hundreds of times more than the average median worker, (some I have seen 600, even 1000 times). This compares with roughly 20 times more in the 1960s. Income inequality, as workers are also responsible for the corporations success often as much as management.

Some Commonalities

Stewardship using resources well: investing in employees, customers, communities, and long-term sustainability rather than only short-term profit. It seems from what I read profit is all that counts these days.

There should be a duty to avoid harm: not cutting corners that endanger safety, breaking environmental rules, misleading customers, or exploiting labor, or leaving a small community in shambles without any consideration for the role the community played in your success.

Fairness in power: recognizing that huge companies and wealthy people can influence laws, markets, and opportunity; responsibility includes using that leverage in non-exploitative ways.

Ethical decision-making: considering stakeholders beyond shareholders—workers, customers, communities, and future generations (Remember Kodak example above)

A Moral Standpoint

They should use their power in ways that protect people’s basic interests, the interests of the communities in which they are located, and avoid serious harm. Often they justify wrongdoing by stating; it’s legal. Question; is it legal or is the profit shared in a justifiable fashion?

Key moral principles people use:

Avoid harm: Don’t endanger workers, customers, or communities.

Fairness: Don’t benefit from systems in ways that exploit others.

Truth and informed consent: Don’t mislead (marketing claims, hiding risks, opaque contracts).

Duties to the vulnerable: If your actions foreseeably harm those with the least power to protect themselves, you have stronger moral duties to mitigate it.

Accountability beyond rules: If damage happens, moral responsibility includes repairing harm—not just “complying and moving on.”

Reparative responsibility: When actions contribute to harm (especially long-term harm), moral duty may include compensation, remediation, and prevention.

Corporate Economic justice

Economic justice (moral responsibility for corporations and wealthy people) is the idea that economic systems and the distribution of wealth should be fair, and that those with power should not profit from unfairness or tolerate avoidable harm.

A common moral framework is that wealthy actors and corporations have responsibilities in a few areas:

Fair bargaining power / labor justice

Pay workers enough to live with dignity.

Don’t rely on wage suppression, union-busting, or unsafe conditions.

Avoid strategies that shift risk onto workers.

Fair competition and market power

Use influence to prevent monopolistic harms (predatory pricing, exclusionary tactics, barriers to entry).

Don’t lobby for rules that protect the powerful while externalizing costs onto others.

Opportunity and mobility

Moral responsibility can include policies/practices that widen access (training, fair hiring, not entrenching advantage through discriminatory or exploitative systems).

This is tied to the idea that unequal starting points shouldn’t lock people into unfair outcomes.

Corporations and wealthy people have a moral duty to ensure their profits and influence don’t depend on unfair exploitation, and to repair and prevent predictable harms produced by their market power—especially through fair wages, fair taxation, and internalizing costs.

Enjoyed this article or Learned from it? Quick ways to help

:• Tap the ❤️

• Leave a comment

• Re-stack to Notes forward to a friend who’d like it

If you are not familiar with Ray Dalio do a google search. Become familiar as he has authored many books and articles about the economy and politics. This post is based on some of his work. Below is a video of him explaining this system.

This post is based on his writings.

Subscribe now

In historical studies, the tribute system (or tributary system) refers to the network of international trade, diplomacy, and ritual relations centered around imperial China from the Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) until the early 20th century.

Rather than functioning purely as a system of economic extraction, it served as the foundational framework for international relations, foreign policy, and security across East and Southeast Asia.

In his commentary on global shifts—including essays such as “The Tribute System: The New World Order”—investor and macroeconomic strategist Ray Dalio uses the historical Chinese tribute system as a lens to analyze modern geopolitics and the evolving relationship between the United States and China.

Dalio’s core perspectives on how this historical framework applies to the modern world include the following:

1. Relational Hierarchy vs. Western Alliances

Superiors and Subordinates: Dalio points out that while the Western Westphalian model is built on the formal legal equality of sovereign nation-states, the traditional East Asian order was explicitly hierarchical. Relations were structured around defined roles of superiors and subordinates who acknowledged their relative positions in the geopolitical ecosystem.

Rejection of Formal Alliances: Dalio notes that China traditionally avoids formal, treaty-bound mutual defense alliances (which it views as rigid and provocative) in favor of asymmetric, relational networks where surrounding nations manage their proximity and alignment with Beijing.

2. Economics and Industrial Gravity over Direct Conquest

Efficiency of Power: According to Dalio, modern superpowers often find physical military conquest and direct imperial occupation to be extraordinarily costly and inefficient.

The Modern Equivalent: Instead of seizing territory, a modern “tribute-style” dynamic operates through industrial gravity, trade dominance, financial capital, and supply-chain centrality. As nations increasingly rely on China as a primary consumer market, manufacturing hub, and source of infrastructure investment, they are incentivized to respect Beijing’s core interests to maintain economic harmony.

3. “Winning Without Fighting” and Strategic Pressure

Strategic Culture: Dalio ties the concept to classical strategic thought (such as The Art of War), emphasizing that achieving dominance or compliance without engaging in destructive kinetic warfare is viewed as the ultimate sign of statecraft.

Shifting Deterrence: He argues that as relative U.S. security commitments and deterrent capabilities are perceived as stretched

or costly, regional powers and middle-income nations begin to hedge their bets. This shift encourages countries to navigate diplomacy

through economic accommodation rather than open confrontation, mirroring the diplomatic flows of the historical tributary era.

Ray Dalio is on Substack

The Tribute System: The new World Order

This video features Ray Dalio discussing how historical concepts like the Chinese tribute system and The Art of War are shaping modern geopolitical shifts and replacing traditional Western-led orders.

There is disagreement among historians about his interpretation. This audience being extremely smart can make up your own mind.

Enjoyed this article or Learned from it? Quick ways to help

:• Tap the ❤️

• Leave a comment (even a quick “reading!”

• Re-stack to Notes forward to a friend who’d like it

Share

I hope to make this a monthly feature since most are monthly reports. Perhaps adding weekly data as reports become available, in September (summer time off), in notes. Really depends upon feedback, so let me know. Is this what you would like?

Data as of Tuesday August 11, 2026

10Yr treasury–2Yr treasury < 0 (inverted): 2-year > 10-year

If short rates are higher than long rates → consistent with recession risk (or at least weaker growth ahead). This is why traders often treat inversion as a “recession signal.”

Yield Curve -predicted GDP growth

We use past values of the slope of the yield curve and GDP growth to provide predictions of future GDP growth and the probability that the economy will fall into a recession over the next year.

Consumer Price Index

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is an index that measures how the prices of a “basket” of everyday goods and services (like food, housing, transportation, medical care, and so on) change over time for consumers.

The Producer Price Index

(PPI) measures the change in the price of goods sold by manufacturers. It is a leading indicator of consumer price inflation, which accounts for the majority of overall inflation.

The Manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI)

measures the activity level of purchasing managers in the manufacturing sector. A reading above 50 indicates expansion in the sector; below 50 indicates contraction.

Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) are a type of Treasury bond that is indexed to an inflationary gauge to protect investors from a decline in the purchasing power of their money.

Median weekly earnings

Median weekly earnings of the nation's 120.9 million full-time wage and salary workers

Dollar Index

The U.S. Dollar Index is an index of the value of the United States dollar relative to a basket of foreign currencies,

Dollar / yen

The United States and Japan jointly intervened in currency markets to buy yen and sell dollars after the Japanese currency hit a 40-year low. If Japan had sold massive amounts of its U.S. Treasury holdings to defend the yen independently, it could have stressed U.S. debt markets and driven up American borrowing yields.

National Debt

The U.S. national debt represents the total amount of money the federal government has borrowed over time to cover budget deficits. When the government spends more than it collects in taxes and other revenue, it borrows the difference by issuing Treasury securities (bonds, notes, and bills).

National Debt as a percent of GDP

The U.S. national debt-to-GDP ratio is approximately 122.6% to 124.6% based on total public debt, while debt held by the public sits around 100.2% of GDP. This ratio compares what the federal government owes to the total economic output of the United States.

USMCA is the tariff-free framework for compliant goods traded among the US, Mexico, and Canada.

The original agreement called for reviews beginning July 2026, and the agreement’s future depends on renewal/changes and is currently being renegotiated. I for one wonder if it will remain tariff free, knowing Trumps penchant for tariffs and his advisors unwillingness to speak up.

Being a paid subscriber to Dean Blundell (based in Canada). I have enjoyed his writings and talks about Canadian relations with the U.S. Trumps treatment and prospects for trade. This is one of the reasons for this post.

Should the US move towards blanket higher tariffs on Canada imports, oil is one of the bigger categories at risk for consumers.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United States imported 8.51 million barrels per day from countries (2023 data). Canada responsible for 4.42 million b/d (52%), All though according to Dean its 63% of U.S. Imports now.

U.S. “theoretically oil independent ” it’s the refinery that produces end oil products, they require the right crude quality (and economics) to make the fuels the country needs.

U.S.-produced crude is often lighter; imports are often heavier. When domestic barrels are lighter, refiners may still import heavier crude to balance the blend and maximize profits/product yields.

Heavy crude can be economical to process in the right units. If a refinery has the capacity to handle heavier/medium crudes efficiently, importing those crudes can improve profitability.

Importing can be cheaper when you include delivered cost. The “refiner acquisition cost” includes freight/transport and can make certain imported crudes (often heavier/with different chemistry) cheaper to run even when the U.S. produces lots of oil.

What if, in response to negotiations, Trump imposes tariffs on Canadian oil?

A huge tariff on Canadian oil would mostly raise the cost of crude delivered to U.S. refiners, and that cost would likely show up as higher gasoline/diesel/heating oil prices and more volatility, with the biggest effects in parts of the U.S. that rely most on Canadian heavy crude.

Tariff raises the delivered price of Canadian crude at the U.S. border.

• U.S. refiners then could react by:

  Eating some of the cost (refiner profit margin shrinks),

  Passing it through to fuel prices,

  Or switching supply to other crudes (often more expensive and/or not a perfect fit for refinery equipment).

Likely consumer effect

If the tariff meaningfully raises crude costs, gasoline, diesel, and heating oil prices tend to rise.

Northeast U.S. (New England + Mid-Atlantic) is the key region: most residential heating-oil use is there, and imports commonly supplement domestic supply during winter.

Within the Northeast, the timing and severity would track winter heating demand and how quickly distillate inventories can be rebuilt.

What “heating oil” looks like in the system

Heating oil is a distillate product; it’s produced at refineries and then moved through pipelines/ships/barges/trucks to terminals and then to consumers.

Canada reacts:

Again, according to Dean Blundell, Canada is now building pipelines to their pacific coast (Vancouver) to be able to send their oil to Asia, probably at higher prices as well. If Canada has alternative markets what happens with Trump’s tariffs in the future?

Sources: US Energy Information Administration (EIA), CNBC, Wikipedia

Raphael Warnock: “Housing is stability. Housing is dignity. Housing is absolutely necessary, critical infrastructure.”

Read More

RENT

As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.

Adam Smith

Read More

Income & Household Expenses

Too many people spend money they earned..to buy things they don’t want..to impress people that they don’t like. --Will Rogers

The “hours of work required” comparison is one of the best ways to show changes in affordability because it accounts for both wages and prices. The values below are representative national estimates based on median wages and typical household costs; exact values vary by source and household type.

Read More

Enjoyed this article or Learned from it? Quick ways to help

:• Tap the ❤️

• Leave a comment (even a quick “reading!”

)• Re-stack to Notes forward to a friend who’d like it

Sources: Minneapolis fed, U,S, Census Bureaum, Neilsberg.com, jchs.harvard.edu, StLouisFed

Steady climb 2016–2018: $75,380 → $77,700, part of the pre-pandemic recovery.

Jump to 2019: $83,260

Pandemic-era decline, 2020–2022: income slid from $81,580 to $79,500

Recovery, 2023–2024: back up to $83,730 in 2024,

The big-picture story: incomes haven’t really moved much in real terms since 2019

The “hours of work required” comparison is one of the best ways to show changes in affordability because it accounts for both wages and prices. The values below are representative national estimates based on median wages and typical household costs; exact values vary by source and household type.

Subscribe now

Enjoyed this article or Learned from it? Quick ways to help

:• Tap the ❤️

• Leave a comment (even a quick “reading!”

• Re-stack to Notes forward to a friend who’d like it

Sources: Minneapolis fed, U,S, Census Bureau, Neilsberg.com, jchs.harvard.edu, StLouisFed

Raphael Warnock: “Housing is stability. Housing is dignity. Housing is absolutely necessary, critical infrastructure.”

The NAR Housing Affordability Index where 100 means the median-income family earns exactly enough to qualify for a mortgage on a median-priced home; higher is more affordable!

U.S. Median Home Price vs. Median Household Income (1950–2026)

Enjoyed this article or Learned from it? Quick ways to help

:• Tap the ❤️

• Leave a comment (even a quick “reading!”)

• Re-stack to Notes forward to a friend who’d like it

Obviously he was not a pacifist or outsider, but someone who understood defense needs firsthand. That made his warnings land differently than if it had come from a critic of the military.

Eisenhower spoke about the opportunity cost of the Cold War arms race—pitting military production directly against the welfare, infrastructure, and needs of the civilian population.

Subscribe now

The Cross Iron Speech: April 16, 1953 (73 years ago)

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

What the money could buy instead:

One Modern heavy bomber =

Modern brick school in 30+cities

Two Electric Power Plants serving 60,000 people

Two fully equipped hospitals

50 Miles of concrete highway

Half million bushels of wheat.

Relationships probably still hold.

Key Themes of Eisenhower’s Argument

The Human Cost of Militarization: He argued that excessive military spending (that beyond which is needed for defense, squanders not only money but human potential as welll. The arms race he said consumed “the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

Tangible Trade-Offs: To put the cost of military build-up into perspective for the American public, Eisenhower itemized what everyday public goods were being sacrificed for weaponry. He famously noted:

A single fighter plane cost the equivalent of a half-million bushels of wheat.

A single naval destroyer cost new homes capable of housing over 8,000 people.

“A Cross of Iron”: Eisenhower rejected the permanent war economy as a viable baseline for human civilization, famously concluding that under the cloud of a nuclear arms race, “humanity is hanging from a cross of iron.”

Context with the Military-Industrial Complex

Building directly on his 1953 “Cross of Iron” address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell speech on January 17, 1961, delivered his most famous warning: the rise of the military-industrial complex.

Key Takeaways from his Farewell Address

The Core Definition: Eisenhower defined the complex as a “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry,” While the nation had previously maintained a small peacetime military, the permanent global tensions of the Cold War created a permanent war economy.

The Economic and Political Threat: He warned that this alliance wielded total influence—”economic, political, even spiritual”—that was felt in every statehouse, every office of the federal government, and every local community.

The Danger of Misplaced Power: Eisenhower famously urged citizens to remain vigilant:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Eisenhower’s Broader Warnings

While the “military-industrial complex” is the most remembered phrase from the speech, Eisenhower actually issued a double warning regarding the future of American democracy and science:

1. The Scientific-Technological Elite: Eisenhower foresaw a danger where public policy could become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. He warned that invention, research, and development would become increasingly regimented, federally funded, and dominated by military objectives rather than broad human advancement.

2. The Peril of Financial Insolvency: Privately and publicly, Eisenhower worried that a nation could spend itself into ruin trying to maintain absolute military superiority against the Soviet Union. He believed that a strong domestic economy and a sound fiscal foundation were the true bedrock of national security, warning that excessive defense spending could destroy the very American way of life it was meant to protect.

Was any politician listening? Any military Generals? Any in the Pentagon? Or was everyone just interested in profit?

If you are not familiar with Eisenhower or the speech’s take the time to listen:

EISENHOWER CROSS OF IRON SPEECH 1956

EISENHOWER FAREWELL ADDRESS JANUARY 1961

Enjoyed this article or Learned from it? Quick ways to help:

• Tap the ❤️

• Leave a comment (even a quick “reading!”)

• Re-stack to Notes forward to a friend who’d like it

Thomas Jefferson

While many seem to be worried as to how Trump will interfere with the election, the insurrection act has been mentioned in meetings and even brought forth by the Vice President. What’s it all about?

The Insurrection Act is a U.S. federal law that allows the president to deploy the military or federalize the National Guard to enforce federal law or restore public order in limited circumstances. Its authority is primarily found in 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255.

The Act can generally be invoked in three situations:

1. At a state’s request: If a state legislature (or governor, if the legislature cannot convene) requests federal assistance to suppress an insurrection.

2. To enforce federal law: When unlawful obstruction or rebellion makes it impracticable to enforce federal law through ordinary judicial means.

3. To protect constitutional rights: When violence, domestic unrest, or state authorities’ inability or unwillingness to act deprives people of rights protected by the Constitution.

Subscribe now

President Trump has threatened to invoke it a few times:

Late 2025 (Oct): He threatened it over protests/clashes in Chicago and Portland, after courts blocked National Guard deployments there.

January 2026: He renewed the threat over ICE protests in Minneapolis, following the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis woman, and Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old American intensive care nurse for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, was shot ..by an ICE agent.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said she’d discussed using the Act with Trump and that he “certainly has the constitutional authority to utilize that.” The Pentagon put 1,500 active-duty troops from the Army’s 11th Airborne Division on standby, and Minnesota’s Governor Walz mobilized the state National Guard.

Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison said he’d challenge any invocation in court.

The Insurrection Act is a federal law dating to 1792 that lets the president deploy the U.S. military domestically to suppress insurrection, rebellion, or domestic violence — it’s the main exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which otherwise bars federal troops from civilian law enforcement.

Key points:

Section 252 lets the president federalize/deploy the National Guard or regular military to enforce laws or suppress rebellion, even without a state’s request.

Section 253 allows the president to use the military on U.S. soil in certain other circumstances.

It’s only been invoked around 30 times in U.S. history, most recently in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush deployed troops to Los Angeles at the governor’s request after the Rodney King verdict riots.

Early History: George Washington used militia forces under precursor laws to put down the Whiskey Rebellion (1794).Abraham Lincoln invoked it at the outset of the Civil War. The Brennan Center

Reconstruction & Civil Rights: President Ulysses S. Grant used it to suppress the Ku Klux Klan and protect the civil rights of Black Americans. In the 20th century, Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower; (Little Rock, Arkansas, 1957) and John F. Kennedy (University of Mississippi, 1962) invoked it to enforce federal court-ordered school desegregation against the wishes of southern governors.

Modern Era: The last time the Insurrection Act was formally invoked was in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush deployed federal troops to Los Angeles at the request of California Governor Pete Wilson to quell civil unrest following the Rodney King verdict.

An excellent further discussion on the insurrection actinsuThe Brennan Center

Enjoyed this article or Learned from it? Quick ways to help:

• Tap the ❤️

• Leave a comment (even a quick “reading!”)

• Restack to Notes

• Forward to a friend who’d like it

NEXT: We Were Warned 70 years ago about exactly what our country looks like today!

Sources: Brennan Center.org, States United Democracy Center, Wikipedia, Karsh Institute,

Year-Over-Year Drop: Large corporations paid $65 billion less in federal income taxes in 2025.

At least 88 Fortune 500 corporations collectively generated $105 billion in U.S. pre-tax profits in 2025 but paid $0 in federal corporate income taxes. Instead of paying the 21% statutory rate, they received $4.7 billion in net tax rebates, totaling $26.7 billion in corporate tax savings.

105*21%=105*21%=$22.05 billion + 4.7 = $26.75 billion

Membership in the zero tax club shifts based on financial years and accounting cycles, notable examples of profitable companies that have reported $0 in federal corporate income tax include:

Tesla: Earned ~$5.7 billion in U.S. pre-tax income with $0 federal tax owed.

United Airlines & Southwest Airlines: Paid $0 in federal income tax on $4.3 billion and $561 million in domestic profits, respectively.

Yum brands: (Parent company of KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut) Paid $0 on over $1 billion in U.S. profits.

Palantir: Reported paying $0 in federal income tax. Revenues 1.6 billion GAAP Earnings $871 million

Subscribe now

Wealthy & High-Net-Worth Individual Savings Gained

Tax policy data shows that the top 1% to 10% of earners capture the vast majority of tax savings from high-earner provisions:

Average Household Impact

Top 1% of Households: Gained an average tax savings of $50,000+ per household per year. There are approximately 1.5 million households in the top 1%.

1.5 million * 50K= $75 billion. $75,000,000,000

Top 10% of Households: Gained an average tax savings of $14,700+ per household per year.

There are approximately 13.1million families in the top 10%.

13.1 - 1.5 (top 1%) leaves 11.6 million families making up the remainder of the top 10%. 11.6 million*14,700 each = 170.52 billion

Post-9/11 Wars: The Long-Term Reckoning

The cumulative financial toll of U.S. post-9/11 operations (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, and counterterrorism) sits at ~$8 trillion. However, the vast majority of future financial obligations are yet to be paid.

The Cumulative Interest Multiplier: Because post-9/11 military engagements were funded almost entirely through deficit spending rather than tax hikes or war bonds, cumulative interest on war-related borrowing is projected to exceed $6.5 trillion by 2050.

Recent & Ongoing Regional Expenditures (2025 estimates)

Recent major conflicts and regional security posture have required substantial congressional appropriations:

Ukraine Aid & European Defense: Congress has made available ~$195 billion in spending related to the war in Ukraine. Roughly $127 billion represents direct military, financial, and humanitarian support, while a significant portion funds U.S. defense manufacturing to replenish depleted U.S. stockpiles.

2025 = $6.7 billion

Middle East & Regional Operations: Total U.S. government spending on military assistance, naval deployments, and counter-strike operations in the region since late 2023 is estimated between $31 billion and $35 billion.

1/3 (split the 31-35) of $33 billion = $11 billion

Indo-Pacific & Strategic Rivalry: U.S. defense posture focused on deterrence in the Indo-Pacific averages ~$260 billion annually, accumulating over $3.4 trillion in military aid.

Again this not an argument for what is or is not necessary. That is up to Congress, specifically the people’s House of Representatives. If they are not doing the job according to your wants and needs, in November; Fire them!

U.S. Government Spending FYTD 2026. Top 10 by category.

Below some of the major cuts in the big beautiful bill. Extending the affordable care act subsidies could have been left alone for $30 billion.

NEXT: THE INSURRECTION ACT - WILL TRUMP USE THIS FOR TJE ELECTION?

Enjoyed this article or Learned from it? Quick ways to help:

• Tap the ❤️

• Leave a comment (even a quick “reading!”)

• Restack to Notes

• Forward to a friend who’d like it

Sources: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP),Commerce Trust, Square accounting, BiPartisen policy center, JP Morgan, Institute on taxation, Thompson Reuters.

Dark money groups spent approximately $242 million on TV ads targeting federal candidates during the 2024 election cycle, according to news reported to the FEC. As explained in the methodology below, this study’s dark money total of $1.9 billion avoids double counting the small amount of spending that may be included in both data from the Wesleyan Media Project and FEC data.

Federal rules only require certain campaign ads to be reported to the FEC. Ads that do not expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate using unambiguous phrases like “vote for” or “vote against” are generally not subject to reporting requirements, except for TV and radio ads run within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of Election Day.

By running ads that avoid explicit calls to vote for or against a particular candidate outside of the mandated reporting windows, dark money groups can bypass FEC disclosure rules. Some of this spending can still be tracked because it is available through TV ad tracking services, and those ads are reflected in this analysis. But additional TV spending on streaming applications like Hulu and local TV ad buys means the actual total exceeds the $242 million discussed here.

Firms that reported political ad sales for 2024 are Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube, X, and Snapchat. Spending totals for Facebook, Instagram, Google, and YouTube were collected by OpenSecrets, and spending totals for X and Snapchat were obtained directly from those platforms.

Social media platforms owned by Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, attracted the majority of documented online spending by dark money groups for the 2024 cycle — about $238 million. Google and YouTube, which are owned by Alphabet Inc., attracted about $66.2 million in dark money over the same period. Snapchat documented about $7 million. X reported around $3.9 million in dark money ad spending, though analysts have raised questions about the completeness of its data.

Importantly, each online platform makes its own decisions about how to define reportable political advertising, and these definitions can shift over time. Other practices, including what information is provided for ads and the format in which it is presented, also differ considerably. Researchers have documented significant gaps in multiple political ad archives. And even the most comprehensive archives generally exclude certain categories of spending, such as payments to influencers for content or political endorsements, further obscuring the whole picture.

Direct Spending Reported to the FEC

Nonprofits that do not disclose their donors reported about $43 million in direct spending to the FEC during the entire 2024 cycle. That amounts to less than 2.5 percent of all dark money in last year’s election. A small portion of this FEC-disclosed spending went to ads that are also included in TV and online ad data discussed above, but this analysis avoids double counting those expenditures.

The $43 million in direct spending is an increase over the prior cycle. During the 2022 midterms, dark money groups reported less than $25 million in spending to the FEC, the lowest total since the Citizens United decision. Spending reported to the FEC peaked at around $309 million in 2012. However, as groups switched to a strategy of largely funding allied super PACs, direct spending reported to the FEC gradually dropped.

Spending That Cannot be Tracked

Several other types of election spending by dark money groups have not been included in this analysis because they are difficult or impossible to track. As noted, not all online platforms release spending data, and none publishes data on certain forms of expenditures, like paid influencers. This analysis also does not include data for radio ads that are not reported to the FEC, and, as mentioned above, streaming video applications and some TV spending. Other forms of communication, like billboards and flyers, are also generally left out of FEC data unless they expressly advocate for or against a candidate.

Dark Money by Party

Both Democrats and Republicans benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money in 2024. More spending backed Democrats, as has been the case since the 2018 midterm elections (before which more dark money typically favored Republicans). The presidential race was the source of much of this disparity in last year’s cycle.

Overall, dark money groups boosting Democrats put up about $1.2 billion to influence 2024 elections, while groups boosting Republicans accounted for about $664 million.

The Presidential Contest

Future Forward USA Action, the main dark money group supporting Joe Biden and then Harris, gave the most. The 501(c)(4) nonprofit poured more than $304 million into spending on ads and contributions to its closely . super PAC, Future Forward USA. That means that $1 out of every $6 from undisclosed sources in the 2024 election cycle came through a single dark money group.

At the same time, multiple dark money groups also worked to elect Trump, and the flow of money increased substantially in the final months of the election cycle. Securing American Greatness, after its incorporation in March 2024, spent more than $81 million, about $67 million of which went to super PACs.

Another major supporter of Trump’s presidential bid was Building America’s Future, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that reportedly received funding from Musk. It contributed more than $35 million to super PACs that spent heavily on seemingly pro-Harris ads falsely suggesting that her campaign supported divisive policies.

Congressional Leadership

The presidential election was not the only race to attract large sums of money from secret donors in 2024. The main dark money groups aligned with the Democratic and Republican Parties in Congress spent more than $432 million, up from about $346 million during the 2022 midterms and $320 million during the 2020 cycle. These groups are 501(c)(4) nonprofits that each have ties with party leadership and sharestaff and resources with an affiliated super PAC.

Majority Forward, a dark money nonprofit affiliated with Senate Democratic leadership, poured more than $136 million into key Senate races. More than $81.7 million of that money went to Senate Majority PAC, the main super PAC aligned with Senate Democrats in recent cycles. But unlike prior cycles, Senate Majority PAC did not spend the funds directly. Instead, it seeded a new super PAC named WinSenate that spent the money on ads to influence Senate races.

One Nation, the main dark money group with ties to Senate Republicans, spent about $123 million in 2024. Of that, $59.3 million went toward advertising, mainly to TV ads. More than $53 million worth of airtime made One Nation the top dark money spender on TV ads during the 2024 election cycle, according to research by the Wesleyan Media Project. One Nation also steered more than $63 million to an allied super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund.

House Republicans’ dark money group, the American Action Network, poured $69 million into the 2024 elections. The main dark money group affiliated with House Democrats, House Majority Forward, gave about $61 million to influence congressional races.

Online Ad Spending

Digital ads are another form of dark money spending that is often missing from FEC data, and data from the largest online platforms shows that hidden sources spent $315 million. Like TV ads, online ads can avoid disclosure requirements if they do not explicitly advocate for the election or defeat of a particular candidate. Unlike TV and radio ads, online ads that mention candidates are not subject to FEC reporting regardless of proximity to Election Day.

Nevertheless, some major online platforms voluntarily maintain databases of political ad sales. These datasets indicate that about 320 groups that do not disclose their donors collectively spent more than $281 million on online ads during the 2024 election cycle without disclosing any spending to the FEC. Another 38 nonprofits that do not disclose their donors but reported at least some spending to the FEC spent an additional $34 million on online ads. (As with TV spending, this analysis does not double count spending that appears in both data from online platforms and FEC data.) Without standardized disclosure regulations for online political advertising, however, the full extent of digital election spending remains difficult to quantify.

The major platforms that reported political ad sales for 2024 are Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube, X, and Snapchat. Spending totals for Facebook, Instagram, Google, and YouTube were collected by OpenSecrets, and spending totals for X and Snapchat were obtained directly from those platforms.

Social media platforms owned by Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, attracted the majority of documented online spending by dark money groups for the 2024 cycle — about $238 million. Google and YouTube, which are owned by Alphabet Inc., attracted about $66.2 million in dark money over the same period. Snapchat documented about $7 million. X reported around $3.9 million in dark money ad spending, though analysts have raised questions about the completeness of its data.

Importantly, each online platform makes its own decisions about how to define reportable political advertising, and these definitions can shift over time. Other practices, including what information is provided for ads and the format in which it is presented, also differ considerably. Researchers have documented significant gaps in multiple political ad archives. And even the most comprehensive archives generally exclude certain categories of spending, such as payments to influencers for content or political endorsements, further obscuring the whole picture.

Conclusion

Dark money spending in federal elections broke records in 2024, even as it became harder to track. Fueled by Citizens United, secretive political spending has eroded accountability and Americans’ trust in the political process. The trend toward secrecy in U.S. campaigns is likely to continue until Congress takes action to require disclosure of large political contributions and expenditures. streaming applications like Hulu and local TV ad buys means the actual total exceeds the $242 million discussed here.

NEXT: MONEY SPENT - WOULD YOU HAVE DONE IT DIFFERENTLY?

Enjoyed this article? Quick ways to help:

• Tap the ❤️

• Leave a comment (even a quick “reading!”)

• Restack to Notes

• Forward to a friend who’d like it

Sources: Cybersafetyresearch.org, Pew research.com , BrennanCenter.org, Politico, Medium, Washington Post, NY Times, Opensecrets.org.

Robert C. Byrd (U.S. Senator): "It is money, money, money! Not ideas, not principles, but money that reigns supreme in American politics."

One thing we all can agree on, is that money has a greater – and mostly negative – influence on politics. Among liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, large majorities favor limits on campaign spending and say the high cost of campaigning discourages many good candidates from running for president.

While perceptions of influence are subjective, there’s clearly more money in the U.S. political system now than at any time since the campaign finance reforms of the 1970s, according to a new Pew Research Center data analysis of contributions and spending. That’s the case whether you look at presidential, House or Senate elections.

Share

Dark Money Hit a Record High of $1.9 Billion in 2024 Federal Races

Spending by groups that do not disclose their donors has increased and become harder to trace.

The 2024 federal election cycle was the most secretive since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010. Brennan Center Dark money groups, nonprofits and shell companies that spend on elections without revealing their donors, (Billionaires buying their government) plowed more than $1.9 billion into last year’s election cycle, a dramatic increase from the prior record of $1 billion in 2020.

Citizens United, which allowed corporations and unions to raise and spend unlimited amounts on elections, was premised significantly on the Court’s assumption that all of this newly permitted election spending would be transparent. In reality, many of the groups the Court allowed to spend money on elections were not required to disclose their donors. Since Citizens United, dark money groups have spent at least $4.3 billion on federal elections.

Since at least 2020, dark money groups have largely shifted toward making large transfers to allied super PACs — in amounts that far exceeded any previous direct ad spending. These totals can only be tabulated by reviewing each super PAC’s campaign finance reports. Dark money groups also increasingly run ads, including many online ads, that are worded and timed such that they do not trigger FEC disclosure requirements.

The $1.9 billion figure reported in this analysis necessarily — and perhaps substantially — underestimates the true scale of dark money spending in 2024.

Super PACs are required to report their donors, but they can easily hide the original sources of their funds by taking money from dark money groups. This practice has exploded in recent elections. Many of the top-spending super PACs in 2024 — including Future Forward USA, which worked to elect Harris, the Senate Leadership Fund, which is tied to Republican Party leaders — had affiliated dark money groups that provided eight- or nine-figure sums.

NEXT: MONEY IN POLITICS PARTII - DARK MONEY

Enjoyed this article? Quick ways to help:

• Tap the ❤️

• Leave a comment (even a quick “reading!”)

• Restack to Notes

• Forward to a friend who’d like it

Source: Pew Research, BrennanCenter

Globally, life expectancy has dramatically increased over the last century, but it varies significantly depending on where you live, your gender, and local socioeconomic factors.

Subscribe now

Health expectancy (also called healthy life expectancy, or HALE) is a measure of how many years a person can expect to live in good health — not just alive, but free from significant disability or disease. It’s different from plain life expectancy, which just counts total years lived regardless of health status.

The most common version, HALE, is published by the WHO and combines mortality data with disability/morbidity data to estimate “disability-adjusted” years of healthy life. For example, a country might have a life expectancy of 80 years but a health expectancy of 70 years — meaning the average person spends the last 10 years dealing with chronic illness or reduced function.

It’s a useful metric because it shifts the focus from how long people live to how long people live well, which matters more for healthcare planning and quality-of-life comparisons between countries.

You would think that in the richest country in the world would place higher than 62nd of 234 countries. Highest rank is Monaco at 86.73 years (both sexes average) vs U.S. ai 79.76 a difference of almost 7 years (6.07).

For our Canadian friends; you rank 25th; average life expectancy of 83.05 years, that’s 3.29 years more than your southern neighbors. 3.68 years less than Monaco, so you still have some work to do.

If you do some research you will find most of the higher ranked countries provide Universal healthcare.

An old article from early June: CAN THE U.S. AFFORD A SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE SYSTEM?

NEXT: Money in politics

Subscribe now

Enjoyed this article? Quick ways to help:

• Tap the ❤️

• Leave a comment (even a quick “reading!”)

• Restack to Notes

• Forward to a friend who’d like it

Source: Worldometers, Wikipedia, World Health Org,

The inspiration for creating a government that kept the economic playing field level came from those before, who had seen what happened when a few wealthy men controlled the government. In the early twentieth century, when corporations dominated the economy and their millionaire owners threw their weight into political contests, Republican president Theodore Roosevelt fulminated against that “small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power.

He insisted that America must break up this class in order to return to “an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.” He called for government to regulate business, prohibit corporate funding of political campaigns, and impose income and inheritance taxes. He demanded a “square deal” for the American people.

Teddy Roosevelt responded to the era’s income inequality less by trying to directly redistribute income from top to bottom, and more by limiting the power of the very richest and protecting workers—on the belief that unchecked corporate dominance hurt ordinary people and stability.

How he connected inequality to his policies

• Trust-busting: He targeted large “trusts” and monopolistic practices (especially in oil, railroads, and other major industries. That was aimed at preventing the super-rich from capturing too much of the economy through market power.

• Regulating corporations: He pushed for stronger regulation so companies couldn’t externalize costs onto workers and consumers (wages, safety, rates, and business practices.

• Labor protections: He intervened in major labor disputes more often than his predecessors, and his administration supported reforms that improved working conditions. He’s known for “Square Deal” policies—fairness for labor and business, but with the government active on labor’s behalf.

• Progressive taxation and “revenue reforms”: He supported more progressive approaches in the tax and regulation direction meaning higher ability to pay should contribute more, though the U.S. did not become highly redistributive during his presidency.

  Becoming a FREE subscriber gives you unlimited access and gets fact-based

  information like this in front of more people. Your support is why we exist.

That was then, what have we learned from History?

There is no single policy that “cures” income inequality. Most economists view it as a matter of balancing economic growth, opportunity, and redistribution. Different approaches reduce inequality in different ways, and each involves tradeoffs.

Policies with the strongest evidence

Research generally finds strong evidence for:

• High-quality early childhood education. Think New York Cities 3K and 2K programs.

• Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit for workers.

• Improving access to education and skills training.

• Removing barriers to housing construction in high-opportunity areas. (Bi-Partisan housing bill DJT refused to sign)

• Encouraging competition in labor and product markets.

These policies aim to increase earnings rather than only redistribute income.

More ambitious proposals

Some proposals that are debated include:

• Universal basic income (UBI).

• A wealth tax on very large fortunes.

• Universal healthcare or a single-payer system.

• Guaranteed jobs programs.

• Employee ownership and profit-sharing.

Supporters argue these could reduce inequality more substantially. Critics raise concerns about costs, economic incentives, implementation, or effects on growth.

OTHER COUNTRIES WITH MUCH LOWER INEQUALITY

Countries with lower income inequality generally don’t rely on one policy. Instead, they combine market economies with stronger social insurance, broader access to public services, and different tax structures. Most are not purely “socialist” economies—they have private businesses, competitive markets, and significant international trade.

A COMPARISON

Some Supports.

1. Strong support for families

   • Paid parental leave.

   • Subsidized childcare.

   • Child allowances.

2. Education and workforce development

   • Affordable higher education.

   • Apprenticeships and vocational training.

3. Labor market institutions

   • Higher unionization and collective bargaining.Z

   • Active job-placement and retraining programs.

Advantages

• Lower poverty rates.

• Lower income inequality.

• Longer average life expectancy in many cases.

• Lower rates of medical bankruptcy.

• Greater economic security during unemployment or illness.

Challenges

• Higher taxes for many households, including middle-income earners.

• Larger public sectors.

• Some procedures in public healthcare systems may have longer wait times, depending on the country and service.

• Less disposable income after taxes for some workers.

Could the U.S. adopt the same model?

The United States is much larger and more diverse than the Nordic countries, with a different constitutional structure and political system. Many analysts believe that directly copying their systems would be difficult.

However, some individual policies have been proposed in the U.S., including:

• Expanding the Child Tax Credit.

• Universal preschool. (See NYC 3K program in Conclusion Section)

• Paid family leave.

• Expanding affordable healthcare coverage. (In which the big beautiful bill did just the reverse, knocking millions off healthcare entirely)

• Increased investment in workforce training and apprenticeships.

Economic performance

An important point is that lower inequality does not necessarily mean slower economic growth. Countries like Denmark and Sweden rank highly in measures of innovation, business formation, competitiveness, and quality of life. At the same time, the U.S. has historically had stronger growth in areas such as venture capital, technology entrepreneurship, and high-growth startups.

CONCLUSION:

In this exercise as well as the previous two posts, I have provided you with plenty of data to dwell on. This is your country, demand the best, you deserve it. Use any and all to challenge your representatives, and those running for election. You at least want them to be on same wavelength.

Preschool: New York City, as an example, has a 3K program, i.e. Kindergarten for 3 year old’s. It’s run by the public schools, it provides very early education, social interaction, and day care. I have a grandson that attends, great program.

Think of the daycare savings! Think of the advantages for these children going forward! Think of the potential home sales for couples who can now afford a home because daycare costs have been eliminated! Could this work in your community? Sure, it’s an investment in the future, not just a cost.

From Teddy Roosevelts trust busting, I did a couple of back of the envelope thoughts: Meta split into Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp, Alphabet maybe spin off Google search, You Tube, Android, Google Cloud. I’m sure you can think of many more behemoths with spin off candidates. Government should prioritize spending based on what will bring the most benefit to its citizenry.

The point being they would no longer have the immense power they now enjoy to influence governments, other corporations, the media, etc.

Share

Enjoyed this article? Quick ways to help:

• Tap the ❤️

• Leave a comment (even a quick “reading!”)

• Restack to Notes

• Forward to a friend who’d like it

NEXT: Life Expectancy.. How does the U.S. and Canada rank? In a few days!

Sources: Wikipedia. YouTube, Economic help.

The term “Gilded Age”—coined by Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner in their 1873 novel—perfectly captures the economic reality of late 19th-century America (roughly 1870 to 1910). It implies a society that looked brilliantly glittering on the surface with unprecedented industrial wealth, but underneath was plagued by severe economic inequality, poverty, and corruption.

During this period, rapid industrialization, the rise of massive corporations (trusts), and a lack of federal regulation created a stark chasm between the ultra-wealthy elite and the working class.

Key characteristics

• Extreme concentration of wealth. Industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and J. P. Morgan accumulated fortunes unprecedented in American history. Reliable income tax data didn’t exist until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913, but economic historians have reconstructed the wealth distribution of the late 1800s through probate records, property assessments, and census data.

• The concentration of wealth during this period reached levels never before seen in American history: The Top 1%: By 1890, the richest 1% of Americans owned more than 50% of the nation’s total wealth. The Top 10%: The wealthiest 10% controlled roughly 75% to 80% of the country’s wealth. The Bottom 50%: The lower half of the population owned virtually no property or savings, holding less than 1% of national wealth combined.

• Low wages for many workers. Factory employees commonly worked 10–12 hour days, six days a week, with limited workplace safety and few labor protections.

• Weak labor bargaining power. Labor unions were relatively small early in the period, and major strikes were often suppressed by employers or government intervention.

• Urban poverty. Millions of immigrants settled in crowded cities, where many families lived in overcrowded tenements despite fueling industrial growth.

• Little redistribution. There was no federal income tax until 1913, and social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare did not yet exist.

Subscribe now

JUST HOW UNEQUAL WAS IT?

Although precise historical estimates vary, economists generally conclude:

• The top 1% controlled roughly 40–50% of U.S. wealth by the late 1800s.

• The bottom half of Americans owned only a very small share of total wealth.

• The United States’ level of wealth inequality was among the highest in its history.

What caused the inequality?

Several factors contributed: How many sound familiar today?

• Rapid industrialization and technological innovation (sound familiar today?)

• Railroad expansion and national markets

• Limited regulation of monopolies and trusts

• Low taxes on high incomes and wealth

• Weak labor protections

• Massive immigration that increased the labor supply

Public reaction

Growing inequality led to:

• The rise of the labor movement

• Major strikes such as the Pullman Strike and Homestead Strike

• The Sherman Antitrust Act to curb monopolies

• The Progressive Era reforms of the early 1900s, including stronger antitrust enforcement, workplace regulations, and eventually a federal income tax.

HOW DOES IT COMPARE WITH TODAY?

Many historians and economists argue that today’s U.S. wealth inequality is the highest since the Gilded Age.

The major difference is that modern America has a much larger middle class and far more government programs that reduce hardship, even though wealth remains highly concentrated.

Here’s a simplified view of the long-run trend in U.S. wealth inequality. The values are approximate estimates of the share of total wealth owned by the top 1%.

Timeline of major events

The big story

1. Gilded Age (1870–1910)

   • Wealth became highly concentrated among industrial and railroad fortunes.

   • The top 1% owned roughly 40–50% of all wealth.

2. Progressive Era and New Deal (1910–1950)

   • Antitrust laws, labor protections, progressive taxation, and the shocks of the two World Wars and the Great Depression reduced concentration.

   • Wealth inequality fell substantially.

3. Postwar Middle-Class Era (1950–1980)

   • Strong unions, rising wages, expanding homeownership, and high top tax rates helped create the most broadly shared prosperity in U.S. history.

   • The top 1%’s share reached its modern low.

4. Modern Era (1980–2025)

   • Globalization, technology, lower top tax rates, declining union membership, and rising asset prices increased wealth concentration.

   • The top 1%’s share rose back toward levels not seen since before the Great Depression.

NEXT: CAN WE GET BACK TO AT LEAST RELATIVE EQUALITY? Next Week

Sources: Statista.com, World Inequality Database, Data.census.gov, Abfir.org, Apps.bea.gov, nber.org, macrotrends..

Subscribe now

Income inequality is the uneven distribution of income among individuals or households within a society. It describes the gap between those who earn high incomes and those who earn low incomes. How severe has it become?

U.S. income inequality over the last 75 years follows what economists call a distinct “U-shaped” progression. The period begins at the tail end of the “Great Compression” (an era of historically low inequality following World War II) and transitions starting in the late 1970s into the “Great Divergence” (a period of rapidly accelerating concentration of income and wealth at the top).

What the graph shows:

• Income inequality was relatively stable from the 1950s through the late 1970s.

• Beginning around 1980, the share of income going to the top 10% increased substantially.

• By the 2020s, the top 10% received close to half of all U.S. income, one of the highest levels recorded in modern U.S. history.

Top 1% share of total household net worth owned. 1950 - 2025

What this chart shows

• 1950–1980: The top 1% owned roughly 23–27% of all household wealth, with a gradual decline through the postwar decades.

• 1980–2000: Wealth concentration began rising again, reaching nearly 30%.

• 2000–2025: The top 1%’s share climbed to about 31–32%, the highest level in the modern Federal Reserve data series.

Median wages vs. top incomes

After adjusting for inflation:

• Median wages have grown modestly over the past several decades.

• Productivity has increased much faster than median pay.

• Executive compensation has risen dramatically—CEO pay at many large companies is now hundreds of times that of the typical worker.

• Investment income has grown much faster than wages, benefiting households that own substantial financial assets.

One notable difference between income inequality and wealth inequality is that wealth is much more concentrated. Even when the top 1% receives about 20–22% of annual income, it owns about 32% of all household wealth, which is more than the bottom 90% combined, 95% globally. It reflects the cumulative effects of savings, investment returns, inheritances, and business ownership over time.

The Gini coefficient is a crucial statistical measure used to represent the income or wealth inequality within a nation or social group. It is expressed as a value between 0 and 1, with 0 representing perfect equality and 1 representing one person owns everything. This powerful metric is a standard tool for comparing income distributions across different populations and tracking trends over time.

To truly appreciate the nuances of economic disparity, it is essential to look not just at single figures like the Gini coefficient, but at a comprehensive visual representation of data. To help you understand and visualize income inequality more clearly, below is a chart that compares hypothetical and real-world income distributions using the Lorenz Curve and related metrics.

US household income inequality has climbed steadily, from 0.428 in 1990 to 0.488 in 2024 (Census Bureau data).

A few key patterns stand out:

1950s–1970s: The “Great Compression” — The Gini trended downward until the late 1960s, then remained stable or slightly increased during the 1970s. High union membership, strong wage growth, and top marginal tax rates of 91% kept inequality relatively low.

1980s: The turning point — Income inequality began increasing rapidly after 1980. Tax cuts, deregulation, declining union power, and globalization all contributed.

1980s–2019: Steady climb — Using the Gini coefficient, American inequality rose steadily for 50 years and reached its highest point of the post-WWII era.

2018–2021: Record highs — Income inequality reached then-record levels in 2018 with a Gini of 0.485, followed by 0.488 in 2020 and 0.494 in 2021, per pre-tax money income.

Context: The U.S. Gini coefficient is among the highest of any developed economy — closer to the level seen in Latin America than in Europe. Note that these figures measure pre-tax cash income; after taxes and transfers, the effective Gini is meaningfully lower.

Bottom 90% and bottom 50%

What this shows

• The bottom 50% owns only about 2–3% of all U.S. household wealth today, down from roughly 5–6% in the 1950s.

• The bottom 90% still owns about two-thirds of total wealth (around 68% today), meaning the top 10% owns the remaining ~32% under these estimates.

• Most of the decline in wealth share has been concentrated in the bottom half, while households between the 50th and 90th percentiles continue to hold a substantial share of wealth through home equity, retirement accounts, and other assets.

INCOME INEQUALITY BY STATE:

Income inequality is commonly measured using the Gini coefficient, where:

• 0.00 = perfect equality (everyone has the same income)

• 1.00 = perfect inequality (one person has all the income)

Why do some states have more inequality?

States with higher inequality often have a combination of:

• Very high-income industries (finance, technology, entertainment)

• Expensive metropolitan areas

• Large differences in educational attainment

• High housing costs

• Greater wage dispersion

States with lower inequality often have:

• More evenly distributed wages

• Smaller gaps between high- and low-income occupations

• Lower housing costs

• Smaller concentrations of ultra-high-income households

NEXT: Have we been here before? In a few days!

Sources: World Inequality Database, census bureau tables, macrotrends.net, Federal Reserve database, Wikipedia, Researchgate.net, American compass.org,

According to a recent 2026 report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), at least 88 profitable U.S. corporations—many of which are in the S&P 500—paid $0 in federal income tax for the 2025 fiscal year.

Collectively, these 88 companies reported over $105.2 billion in U.S. pretax income. Instead of paying the statutory 21% rate, they utilized various tax credits, deductions, exemptions to eliminate their liability.

Notable S&P 500 Companies with $0 Federal Tax (2025)

The table below highlights some of the largest companies from the report along with their reported U.S. pretax income:

The Age of the Robber Barons

Following the Civil War, a small group of powerful industrialists established massive empires across vital sectors of the American economy. Mark Twain famously dubbed this era The Gilded Age—reflecting a society that was glittering on the surface but rotten underneath.

By 1900, wealth inequality had reached an extreme peak: the wealthiest 1% controlled more wealth than the bottom 99% combined. Sound familiar? While corporate giants amassed unprecedented fortunes, ordinary workers endured 12-to-16-hour workdays in highly dangerous conditions for poverty-level wages.

Corporate Titans and their Industry

Supporters often called them “captains of industry” because they also:

• expanded railroads and factories

• lowered prices through mass production

• funded universities, libraries, and charities

• helped turn the U.S. into an industrial power

Today’s 10 wealthiest Americans, net worth, and industry

Share

Theodore Roosevelt unexpectedly assumed the presidency in 1901 following the assassination of President William McKinley, an administration that had been deeply aligned with corporate interests. Despite his wealthy, aristocratic New York background, Roosevelt viewed giant monopolies (known as “trusts”) as a direct threat to American democracy.

While the Sherman Antitrust Act had been on the books since 1890, it had been largely ignored. Roosevelt immediately began enforcing it to break the corporate stranglehold on the government.

44 Antitrust Suits: Roosevelt’s administration filed 44 antitrust lawsuits—more than all previous presidential administrations combined.

Ending Backroom Deals: When J.P. Morgan visited the White House and suggested they send their respective representatives to “fix it up,” Roosevelt firmly refused, signaling an end to the era of quiet, corporate collusion.

Key actions Roosevelt took

Trust-busting

He enforced the Sherman Antitrust Act against monopolies.

Most famous case:

• breakup of Northern Securities Company, a giant railroad monopoly backed by J.P. Morgan.

Later presidents, especially William Howard Taft, actually filed even more antitrust suits, but Roosevelt changed the public expectation that presidents could challenge giant corporations.

Regulation

Roosevelt pushed for:

• railroad regulation

• food and drug safety laws

• inspections of meatpacking plants

This led to laws like:

• Pure Food and Drug Act

• Meat Inspection Act

“Square Deal”

Roosevelt promoted what he called the “Square Deal”:

• fairness for workers

• consumers

• and business

He was more willing than earlier presidents to intervene in labor disputes. During the 1902 coal strike, he pressured mine owners to negotiate rather than automatically siding with business.

Bigger historical significance

The clash between the robber barons and Roosevelt reflected a major shift in American government:

• Before: laissez-faire (“government stays mostly out”)

• After: growing belief the federal government should regulate concentrated economic power

That shift helped lay groundwork for later reforms under:

• Woodrow Wilson

• Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal

Many modern debates about:

• Big Tech

• billionaires

• monopolies

• campaign influence

• worker power

still echo the Roosevelt vs. robber baron era.

This is not an attempt to vilify all billionaires. Some are very conscious of their societal responsibility, many unfortunately are not, hoarding even more billions, gaining even more, buying congress with their wealth in order to create even more tax breaks. Some are using their wealth to take over the media. Then you will see only what they want you to see. Is it time for a modern day Teddy Roosevelt?

Subscribe now

*Information is gathered from Internet AI searches.

Here is a breakdown of the most influential historical third parties, their core focus, and how their stories concluded.

Subscribe now

1. Ideological Shift & Co-Optation

These parties never won the presidency, but their core ideas were so popular that a major party absorbed them to win over their voters, effectively ending the third party but enacting its agenda.

The Populist Party (People’s Party) — 1890s

The Focus: Championed by Western and Southern farmers, they fought against the tight monetary grip of banks and railroads. They demanded the free coinage of silver, a graduated income tax, and the direct election of U.S. Senators.

The Peak: In 1892, James B. Weaver won over 1 million popular votes and 22 electoral votes.

The Conclusion: Seeing the Populists’ massive appeal, the Democratic Party co-opted their core platform in 1896, nominating William Jennings Bryan (famous for his “Cross of Gold” speech). The Populist Party fused with the Democrats and subsequently dissolved, but almost all their ideas eventually became law via Constitutional Amendments (the 16th and 17th Amendments).

The Socialist Party of America — Early 1900s

The Focus: Led by Eugene V. Debs, the party advocated for public ownership of industries, labor rights, and social safety nets during the harsh industrialization of the Gilded Age.

The Peak: Debs won 6% of the popular vote in 1912, and the party elected hundreds of local officials across the country.

The Conclusion: The party’s momentum was blunted when mainstream Democrats and progressive Republicans began adopting moderate versions of their platform. Decades later, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal incorporated several early Socialist concepts, such as Social Security, minimum wage laws, and unemployment insurance, leaving the formal party marginalized.

2. The Great Disruptors (The “Spoiler” Effect)

These parties fractured an existing major party coalition, often resulting in a change of power at the White House.

The Progressive Party (”Bull Moose”) — 1912

The Focus: Formed by former President Theodore Roosevelt after he lost the Republican nomination to his conservative successor, William Howard Taft. The platform pushed for women’s suffrage, worker safety, and aggressive trust-busting.

The Peak: Roosevelt won 27.4% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes—the most successful third-party run in modern history.

The Conclusion: Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican base down the middle. This hand-delivered the presidency to the Democratic nominee, Woodrow Wilson, despite Wilson winning only 41.8% of the popular vote. The Progressive Party dissolved shortly after Roosevelt returned to the GOP fold.

The American Independent Party — 1968

The Focus: Led by segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace, this party ran on a platform of states’ rights and opposition to the Civil Rights movement, tapping into white working-class resentment during a turbulent decade.

The Peak: Wallace won 13.5% of the popular vote and swept five states in the Deep South, capturing 45 electoral votes.

The Conclusion: Wallace failed to force the election into the House of Representatives as he hoped, but his strong showing permanently altered American politics. Richard Nixon realized that the Solid South was breaking away from the Democratic Party, leading to the creation of the Republican “Southern Strategy,” which realigned the region for decades to come.

The Reform Party — 1992 / 1996

The Focus: Anchored by Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot, the party ran against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and focused intensely on eliminating the federal budget deficit and national debt.

The Peak: Perot won 18.7% of the popular vote in 1992—nearly 20 million votes—without winning a single state.

The Conclusion: Perot siphoned votes from both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, though political scientists still debate whom he hurt more. The massive public anxiety Perot highlighted regarding fiscal responsibility forced both Clinton and a Republican-led Congress to focus on the deficit, eventually leading to a balanced federal budget by the late 1990s. The party fractured after 1996 due to internal infighting.

3. The Ultimate Success: Total Realignment

There is only one instance in American history where a minor party successfully destroyed an existing major party and took its place.

The Republican Party — 1854

The Focus: Formed as a coalition of former Whigs, Free Soilers, and anti-slavery Democrats, the early Republican Party united around a single urgent mission: preventing the westward expansion of slavery into new U.S. territories.

The Peak/Conclusion: The slavery issue completely shattered the existing Whig Party, which dissolved into history. In 1860, just six years after its founding, the Republican Party elected Abraham Lincoln to the presidency. The GOP instantly transitioned from a regional third party to one of the two dominant political forces in the country—a position it maintains today.

Sources: Wikipedia, Mother Jones, PBS, Live Now from FOX, History.com, UVA today,