Random thoughts #81

The Obama Tomb

Apparently, President Obama is a Raiders of the Lost Ark fan. How else to explain the obelisk tomblike structure passing for his presidential library? I wonder if it has crypts in it for him and Michelle? A friend sent me a picture of the Obama tomb alongside Trump Tower saying both cost $850 million. That’s not fair since Trump tower was built in 2009 which would be $1.3 billion in today’s dollars. But seriously the architect must have been inspired by Stonehenge or a trip to a local cemetery or some ancient tomb. I would say it looks spooky but don’t want to be accused of making a racist slur.

Paraguay 1 Türkiye 0

In the World Cup, the US won its qualifying round when Paraguay beat Türkiye despite having a player given a red card for talking while covering his mouth. Two things here. First, Türkiye is how the Turks want their country to be called. Tired of being mistaken for a Thanksgiving bird, Turkey’s er Türkiye’s strongman Reccep Tayyip Erdogan dictated in 2021that the world now call his country Türkiye. The UN recognized the change and apparently so has FIFA. Türkiye translates to “land of the Turks” and has been used since the founding of the country in 1923 out of the Ottoman Empire. Second, why the red card for covering one’s mouth? Turns out that that is an automatic red card put in place when players started using racial epithets to opponents but covering their mouths not to be understood by onlookers. I wonder if the player from Paraguay called the Türkiye a “jive Türkiye”?

Drones over Moscow

Remember that embarrassing meeting where Trump sic-ed Vance on Zelenskyy trying to force him to sign over territory to the Russians saying “Either you make a deal, or we are out?” That was the confrontation where Trump said “You’re in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel … You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position … You don’t have the cards right now with us.” Well Ukraine apparently does have the cards with its drones. It has kept the far greater Russian army at bay, has recovered 600 kilometers of lost ground and is now attacking the Russian infrastructure as far away as Moscow. Russia has increased its attacks on Kiev and other cities but Ukraine is repaying the favor attacking Moscow shutting down the city’s four airports.  Ukrainian drone attacks on oil refineries and processing facilities have threatened a fuel shortage with rationing being implemented at gas stations. You have to admire the Ukrainians for their ingenuity in advancing the technology and production of drones which have saved that country. Now the Ukrainians are advising the Americans and Gulf allies who are being hit by Iranian drones. I guess Zelenskyy can tell Trump “No cards? I guess you didn’t notice that ace up my sleeve.”

DC joins the socialist column

The new mayor-elect of Washington, DC Janeese Lewis George is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Well at least the press can’t blame her election on college educated white women. Like her socialist brethren or sisteren (?) she makes all the required socialist clucking noises. In a town that is 92 percent democrat and with a city council with nothing but libs her election is no surprise. That she is a socialist is good street cred in a town where a fifth of the city is on food stamps and forty percent are on Medicaid. They are living in a socialist world so why not elect a real live socialist as mayor?

Naturally she is antisemitic saying she will not attend “events focused on obfuscating the realities ofoccupation or promoting Zionism and apartheid.” Mamdani would be proud. She pledges to end all cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I really don’t know what she can do because although DC has city rule, it is still the stepchild of the federal government. Trump threatens to take it over. Hey, but Trump threatens to take over everything. In response Lewis George said “We are not going to get ICE off our streets by fearing this president. We are not going to protect our rights or Home Rule by obeying in advance. Threatening Home Rule because you do not like how residents vote is an attack on democracy itself. The people of DC elect the mayor of DC. And they want someone who will stand up to Donald Trump.” Trump knows that he would need congressional approval to take over the city. He is legally barred from unilaterally trying to take it over. But hey, where has the formality of legality stopped him before?

Happy Fathers’ Day!

Note: My Dad loved corny jokes. So Happy Father’s Day Dad. I sure do miss you.

My wife always complains that I have no sense of direction. So I packed up my stuff and right.

I love my furniture. My recliner and I go way back.

I hired a handyman and gave him a list of 6 things that needed fixing, but he only did jobs 1, 3, and 5. I guess he only does odd jobs.

What word can you make shorter by adding two letters? Short.

It’s not easy being a mom. Otherwise, dads would do it.

I ordered a chicken and an egg from Amazon. I’ll let you know.

What do Alexander the Great and Winnie the Pooh have in common? Same middle name.

Where do dads go to dance on Father’s Day? Golf clubs.

How do dads like their steak on Father’s Day? On a plate.

What kind of test is just for dads? A pop quiz!

What do you call a dad who falls through the iced? A popsicle.

Why do dads take an extra pair of socks when they go golfing?
In case they get a hole in one.

What’s Dad’s favorite kind of music? Pop.

What did the baby corn say to the mama corn? “Where’s popcorn?”

My dad said he wanted something groundbreaking for Father’s Day. So I got him a shovel.

I took my dad camping for Fathers’ Day. It was in-tents.

For Father’s Day I got my dad a book on gravity. Now he can’t put it down.

My dad opened a gym once . But it didn’t work out.

My dad is really bad at golf. I told him to join the club.

My dad used to be addicted to the hokey pokey. But then he turned himself around.

My dad fell into a vat of invisible ink. He now is at the hospital waiting to be seen.

Dad wanted to listen to some music while we were fishing. So I put on something catchy.

Why are fathers so great? Because they are dad-u-cated.

Random thoughts #80

Behold! The three handed lib! Right handed! Left handed! And underhanded too!

Would you believe that the US spent $360,000 storing contraceptives that would have been sent to Africa through USAID? Now only $1.7 million of the original $9.7 million remain usable and those have expiration dates looming soon.

Seems like everyone wants us old folk to downsize. Southern Living says that 1,500 square feet is the ideal size. Maybe for some but not for me. I happen to be emotionally attached to my home. I designed it myself. It is perfect. It even has a place for me when I get too old to climb the stairs to my office and bedroom. I had a first floor two bedroom apartment incorporated into the plans for my aging parents. Of course, they refused to leave Atlanta. But I can move into there – unless I decide to die at the family farm in Georgia where I designed a space that even Southern Living would be proud. It is 1,100 square feet with a 900 square foot garage apartment.

A bit of sad news, A B-52 crashed shortly after takeoff from Edwards Air Force Base in California killing all 8 crew members. I misted up. My late brother was a B-52 pilot who also flew out of Edwards. The commanding officer said “My thoughts are with the bomber and test communities during this difficult time. I am keeping the families, friends, and loved ones affected in my prayers.” I too send out my deepest condolences as well. My brother loved that plane.

Did you see the report where a majority of law professors say that they keep their opinions to themselves for fear of backlash from the students? I was shocked. Most of the law professors I know are liberal and I would have thought that their views would be in line with those of their students. However, for those few law professors who are conservative, I can see where some might want to avoid controversy. I was not a law professor. I was still one of very few conservatives – even in the business school. I was never shy about tying real world examples of harm done by laws such as minimum wages and usury ceilings. I even would say when some employees were protesting for a “living wage” that it was curious because none of them appeared to be dead and yet they were managing to work – however badly. One student later said that her sociology professor kicked her out of class for saying “My finance professor said……” So basically, I have concluded that the “majority of law professors” citied were wimps. BTW, fittingly the article appeared in “Legal Insurrection.” https://legalinsurrection.com/2026/06/survey-majority-of-law-professors-self-censor-to-avoid-backlash/

Something called the World Inequality Lab released a perfectly stupid report saying that to narrow income inequality and to fight climate change, the developed countries should stop growing so the “resulting ecological space” would allow poorer countries to grow. Did AOC pen this nonsense? The report calls for caps on economic growth in rich countries, top income-tax rates of 90 percent, and a World Sovereign Fund to redistribute wealth to poorer countries. – probably distributed by the authors of the report. This again is the Marxist notion of a fixed economy where if one portion grows it is at the expense of the others.

George Mason’s Veronique De Rugy rightly tears the argument to shreds. She calls it an exercise in envirodictatorship. How apt. Importantly she references a paper by Pritchett and Lewis that debunks this nonsense. https://www.theunseenandtheunsaid.com/p/more-pritchell-less-piketty

Pritchett and Lewis find the following:

The relationship with GDP per capita has four features that hold across every specification:

• The relationship is strong. GDP per capita alone predicts basic human wellbeing with a correlation of around 0.90. The statistical significance is, in the authors’ own word, ‘astronomical.’
• The relationship is non-linear. Growth matters most where countries are poorest. For the world’s bottom billion, an extra dollar of GDP per capita does two to eight times as much for basic human well-being as the same dollar does in a middle-income country. The poorer you are, the more growth transforms your life, which is precisely why capping it is most cruel to those Piketty claims to be helping
• Third, GDP per capita is empirically sufficient. There are no countries with high GDP per capita that have low scores on basic human wellbeing.
• Fourth, GDP per capita is empirically necessary. There are no countries with low GDP per capita that have achieved high scores on basic human wellbeing. You cannot get there without it. No combination of targeted programs, clever NGOs, redistribution schemes, or foreign aid has produced a poor country with rich-country health, nutrition, and education outcomes.

Despite always being debunked, most academics will continue to be leftist and produce poorly crafted papers to justify it. I am reminded of what the sainted Milton Friedman said on why academics tended to the left. He said it was not the sharing of ideas but rather the desire to impose them on others was why academics were on the left. I also think that the almost total absence of real world experience comes into play. Many, if not most academics, went straight through school from kindergarten to PhD to the college classroom. Very few even have work experience in the areas where they teach. I was often asked in seminars “where do you get your ideas?” The answer was always real word experience on corporate boards and from regulating financial institutions – rather than reading about it.

The president’s words come back to bite him

In January 2020, Donald Trump posted “Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!” The Iranian embassy in India mocked that media post in which Trump was ridiculing Barack Obama, over the 2015 US-Iran nuclear deal in which, as per Trump, Iran managed to extract more than the US. The Iranian embassy in India then tweeted that not only has Iran “never lost a negotiation”, it “also recently won a major war” against the US.

Now with the memorandum of understanding just signed by the president, his words have resurfaced. Fox’s Peter Doocy recently reminded the president of his words. Doocy said I just want to ask you about this — a wise man once said, in January of 2020, ‘Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation.” The president said “Who said that?” Doocy said “Donald Trump,’ to which Trump responded “That’s what I thought you were going to say.” The president then said “Well, look, here they lost militarily, okay? It’s very tough, because I know that no matter what — if I would go, by the way, if I’d go another three or four weeks, those same people that are critical would say he went too long, he shouldn’t have, you know — no matter what.”

I am not going into all the details here but none of the reasons given by the president for launching his attack on Iran have been accomplished. But the agreement did bring back memories of John Negroponte’s comment after Nixon’s 1972 bombing campaign over North Vietnam (in which my brother’s B-52 was a participant) ““we bombed them into accepting our concessions.”

Israel Hayom says “The deal gives the Iranian regime a lifeline from the lowest point it has reached and resources to rebuild its capabilities. Instead of forcing Tehran to sever its ties with Lebanon, it strengthens Iran’s hold there. With an outcome like this, the Trump administration is making itself a laughingstock in the countries of the region.” Israel is unhappy. Vice President Vance basically told them too bad and “the interests of the US in an agreement with Iran may be different from those of Israel. Israel will like it or not like it, but this is the interest of the US.” This is because the agreement tells Israel to stand down its campaign against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. But as the article concludes “
“Israel is not a party to the deal. It must adhere to its traditional position, according to which it will do what is necessary to defend its security. This applies to all fronts, and certainly to the Lebanese one.”

https://www.israelhayom.com/2026/06/15/iran-never-won-a-war-but-never-lost-a-negotiation

Here is what the president posted after signing the agreement:

I wondered how the president’s own fake news press would report the agreement. Red State’s editors wrote: Editor’s Note: For decades, former presidents have been all talk and no action. Now, Donald Trump is eliminating the threat from Iran once and for all. 

Now that is a singular opinion if ever there was one!

https://redstate.com/jenniferoo/2026/06/18/peace-through-strength-president-donald-trump-officially-signs-the-memorandum-of-understanding-with-iran-n2203467

The president at the G7 meetings made clear that the reason for signing the agreement was the impact of the closing of the Strait of Hormuz on the world economy. Trump said that “the alternative would be a worldwide depression” arguing that if he had not struck a deal, “the strait [of Hormuz] would never have been opened.” Trump called it a victory for the US. Iran and Hezbollah disagreed. Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said: “The agreement is a record of US failure. People will see it and judge.”  Hezbollah chief, Naim Qassem called it a “great victory.” Israel seemed dismayed and vice president Vance lashed out at Israeli critics saying that Tel Aviv couldn’t just “kill your way out” of every national security problem warning them that “No. 1: Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time. If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”

Trump himself lashed out at critics saying those who think he hasn’t been tough enough on Tehran were either “jealous, bad people or stupid.” “If you don’t adhere to the agreement, I don’t want to do that, but we’re going to bomb the hell out of you,” Where have we heard this before? Will this be another TACO moment? Regards, this “peace in our time” blather coming out of the administration seems like a Neville Chamberlain moment. Yes I know that Iran is no Germany in 1938 and has been severely beaten down by this war, but the same could be said about Germany after World War I.

Federal Reserve Independence and the Constraints of Political Reality

The most recent Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting provided a instructive case study in the tension between institutional independence and political reality. Despite near-universal consensus among monetary policy models that the federal funds rate warranted an increase, the Committee voted unanimously to hold rates within the existing target range. That outcome was anticipated by futures markets, policy commentators, by me and, evidently, by the Fed itself—yet it stood in direct contradiction to the prescriptions of eleven of the twelve internal models the Fed employs to assess appropriate policy settings. 

However, I could have predicted a unanimous vote to hold. Anything else would have Fed watchers and markets screaming that Warsh had lost the committee in his first FOMC meeting and the Fed was in disarray. So despite the divergence between the reserve bank presidents and the Board of Governors preceding the meeting, I expected the committee to be united – this time. However, prior to the meeting, at least four reserve bank presidents made public statements suggesting that a rate increase merited consideration. There is reason to believe that a majority of the twelve presidents, polled privately, would have supported tightening. An exception may be the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose proximity to the political and financial centers of power appears to engender a somewhat greater sensitivity to prevailing political pressures. Nevertheless, appearances are important and the Fed has put on a happy face for all to see.

Political Influence on Monetary Policy: Institutional Background

The susceptibility of Federal Reserve governors to political influence is well-documented in the academic literature. Research has consistently demonstrated that governors residing in the Washington, D.C. area exhibit monetary policy preferences more closely aligned with those of the sitting administration and of the Congress—an effect that persists even absent any formal threat to the governors’ tenure or compensation. The structural relationship between the Fed and Congress reinforces this dynamic: the Fed is a creature of Congress, its governors testify before congressional committees and it operates under formal legislative oversight. Presidential commentary on monetary policy, while non-binding, adds an additional layer of pressure. The current administration has been notably outspoken in this regard. 

After the meeting of the committee in July 2025 when rates were unchanged the president posted “Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair.” It is in this institutional context that the unanimous vote to hold rates must be interpreted. The decision was not, in all likelihood, a reflection of the committee’s collective assessment of what policy the economic data warranted. Rather, it reflected the practical constraints under which the FOMC operates—constraints that are structural, not incidental.

I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall during the committee’s deliberations. The published minutes will offer only a sanitized summary, but I am confident that a significant portion of the discussion centered on what the models were actually prescribing—and the uncomfortable gap between those prescriptions and the committee’s intended action. Eleven of the twelve Fed models called for a rate increase. When I reviewed those results before the meeting, my immediate reaction was: “They would never dare.” The market reached the same conclusion, and so, evidently, did the Fed itself.

Taylor Rule Prescriptions and Model Evidence

The models underlying the FOMC’s internal deliberations, those of the market and those of academics are largely variants of the Taylor Rule, originally formulated by Stanford economist John Taylor in 1993. The rule provides a systematic basis for setting the federal funds rate as a function of two primary inputs: the deviation of inflation from its target level, and the deviation of real output (or unemployment) from its long-run potential. Formally, the rule prescribes a higher policy rate when inflation exceeds its target or when output runs above potential, and a lower rate under the converse conditions.

Given that inflation has persistently exceeded the Fed’s 2 percent target, virtually all Taylor Rule variants produce recommended rates above the current target range., some significantly so. A simplified heuristic—the “naïve” Taylor Rule—approximates the appropriate rate as current inflation plus two percentage points. At an inflation rate of 4 percent, this implies a federal funds rate of approximately 6 percent.

The naïve model that I use in my undergraduate class is:

However, Taylor’s original formulation is available from the Atlanta Fed’s data portal and is the one used in my Phd class:

https://www.atlantafed.org/research-and-data/data/taylor-rule

Of all the models surveyed, only one placed the appropriate federal funds rate within the current target range; the rest called for an increase, with one estimate reaching as high as 5.91 percent. Among the variants employed by the Fed, the Holston-Laubach-Williams (HLW) model—published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose president, John Williams, is a co-author—is perhaps the most widely cited. In its standard form, the HLW model prescribes a federal funds rate of 5.71 percent; the composite of all other variants yields 5.91 percent. When smoothing parameters and price-volatility adjustments are applied, these estimates decline to 3.69 percent (HLW) and 3.79 percent (composite)—with the adjusted HLW estimate falling just within the current target range of 3.50–3.75 percent. 

Detailed model outputs are available at:

https://fedagenda.substack.com/p/monetary-rules-report-b79

Implications and Outlook

The policy implications are significant. Should inflation fail to moderate in the coming months, the next FOMC meeting is unlikely to produce a unanimous decision. The structural divide between the Board of Governors—more exposed to political pressure by virtue of their being Washington-based —and the reserve bank presidents, who are institutionally more insulated, is likely to manifest more openly in the vote. 

For a comprehensive treatment of the current divergence between model prescriptions and Fed policy, see Matthew Schaffer’s analysis, “Nearly All Monetary Rules Say the Fed Should Raise Rates”:

Nearly All Monetary Rules Say the Fed Should Raise Rates

More broadly, this episode reinforces longstanding concerns about the practical limits of central bank independence. When the Fed’s own quantitative frameworks call for policy tightening and the institution nonetheless holds rates steady, it is difficult to sustain the claim that monetary policy is insulated from political considerations. The most striking historical precedent remains the period in which the Fed maintained near-zero rates as inflation rose first to 4 percent and subsequently to 9 percent—a sequence widely regarded as a consequential policy error. Whether the current committee will demonstrate greater fidelity to its own analytical frameworks remains to be seen. 

Competing big brothers? The wisdom of Ayn Rand (and Stevie Wonder)

One of my closest friends to leans to the left mused “will we end up in a world controlled by competing big brothers?” What a question! Well, Trump’s populism on the right and the progressives’ populism on the left both end up with big government control. Trump wants to buy it while Bernie wants to expropriate it. This almost sounds like a version of Ayn Rand’s distinction between socialism and communism (see below) except Trump is socialism – lite.

Trump wants government involvement in industries that he deems vital to the national interest. Those companies are intimidated to sell and Trump or his cronies end on the boards overseeing executive decisions. Trump has gone where no president has gone before taking a personal hand in the Food and Drug Administration’s drug approvals, the Federal Trade Commission’s merger reviews and the Federal Communications Commission’s authority over broadcast licenses. Bernie must be envious. No conservative would even consider doing these things. The left keeps calling Trump and those on the right “Nazis.” That shows their ignorance because the Nazis were on the left – socialists (National Socialist German Workers’ Party). Doesn’t that sound Marxist? Of course it does because the Nazis, Marxists, fascists and socialists are all peas in much the same big brother pod.

Ayn Rand said it best:

There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.

The difference between socialism and fascism is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open. The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretence of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.

Needless to say, under either system (socialism or fascism) the inequalities of income and standard of living are greater than anything possible under a free economy – and a man’s position is determined,not by his productive ability and achievement, but by political pull and force. Under both systems, sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution to any crisis – and “the public good” is the altar on which victims are immolated.

The social system based on and consonant with the altruist morality-with the code of self-sacrifice- is socialism, in all or any of its variants: fascism, Nazism, communism. All of them treat man as a sacrificial animal to be immolated for the benefit of the group, the tribe, the society, the state.

All “public interest’ legislation (and any distribution of money taken by force from some men for the unearned benefit of others) comes down ultimately to the grant of an undefined undefinable, non-objective, arbitrary power to some government officials. The worst aspect of it is not that such a power can be used dishonestly, but that it cannot be used honestly. The wisest man in the world, with the purest integrity, cannot find a criterion for the just, equitable, rational application of an unjust, inequitable, irrational principle.

It’s not that I don’t suffer, it’s that I know the unimportance of suffering. I know that pain is to be fought and thrown aside, not to be accepted as part of one’s soul and as a permanent scar across one’s view of existence.

There is only one institution that can arrogate to itself the power legally to trade by means of rubber checks: the government. And it is the only institution that can mortgage your future without your knowledge or consent: government securities (and paper money) are promissory notes on future tax receipts, i.e., on your future production.

Integrity is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake your consciousness, just as honesty is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake existence.

There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them.

I am opposed to all forms of control. I am for an absolute, laissez-faire, free, unregulated economy.

Capitalism is the only system in history where wealth was not acquired by looting, but by production, not by force, but by trade, the only system that stood for man’s right to his own mind, to his work, to his life, to his happiness, to himself.

Finally, remember Stevie Wonder’s “Big Brother”?

Big Brother

Stevie Wonder

Your name is Big Brother 
You say that you’re watching me on the telly 
Seeing me go nowhere 
Your name is Big Brother 
You say that you’re tired of me protesting 
Children dying every day 
My name is nobody 
But I can’t wait to see your face inside my door

Your name is Big Brother 
You say that you got me all in your notebook 
Writing it down every day 
Your name is I’ll-see-ya 
I’ll change if you vote me in as the pres 
The President of your soul

I live in the ghetto 
You just come to visit me ’round election time

I live in the ghetto 
Someday I will move on my feet to the other side 
My name is Secluded, we live in a house the size of a matchbox 
Roaches live with us wall to wall

You’ve killed all our leaders 
I don’t even have to do nothin’ to you 
You’ll cause your own country to fall

A Real Ceasefire? Or Just Another Cease farce?

So we have a “ceasefire” with Iran. Previous “ceasefires” were more like cease farces with occasional attacks on our Gulf allies, the US firing on a ship and killing three Indian sailors, a few Iranian missiles lobbed at Israel with Israeli continuing operations in southern Lebanon against Hezbollah. Trump reportedly had a heated argument with Netanyahu telling him to stand down but in more colorful language. We don’t know what Netanyahu said back, but Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz told Trump to pound sand— the Israelis will stay in Lebanon “without any time limit” and will clear the Lebanese population from the areas it holds. So much for that.

Now comes a bilateral agreement between the US and Iran that leaves Israel out entirely. Of course the Iranians were never going to sit at the same table with the Israelis making the United States serve as Israel’s de facto proxy.  For the agreement to hold, Israel would presumably have to accept its terms. Yet that raises an equally difficult question: would Israel be expected to withdraw from southern Lebanon, leaving Hezbollah’s military infrastructure intact and the security of northern Israel compromised threatening the lives of thousands of Israelis?

We don’t know the full terms. What we do know is that Iran will reopen the Strait of Hormuz and we will lift our blockade. Trump, never one to miss a moment, went full NASCAR on us: “Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!” There are reports that the US will also release some of Iran’s frozen assets — which is interesting, given how loudly Trump criticized Obama for doing the exact same thing in his “peace” agreement. And let’s be clear about what this actually is: a 60-day truce, during which the two sides will try to hammer out a final deal. Where have we heard that before?

Iran has broken every agreement it’s ever made. You’d have to be an optimist to think this one will be any different. That said, there is one small reason not to be completely pessimistic. Iran’s military has been seriously degraded – even though they do seem to have an unlimited supply of missiles and drones. Breaking the agreement would likely cause Trump to go full UFC and really try to bomb them into oblivion – a prospect the Iranian leadership would be unwise to dismiss.

Whether Israel convinced Trump to enter the United States into the conflict remains a matter of debate. What is less debatable is whether Trump’s stated objectives have been achieved. Is Israel safer now that Iran’s military has been severely diminished? What about the nuclear threat and Iran’s capability of delivering warheads to Europe? Trump said that he was going to war with Iran to accomplish three goals: the destruction of Iran’s ability to wage war; stopping its nuclear weapons program; regime change and the liberation of its people. So when the final deal is signed – if it is signed at all – will any of these goals be accomplished? 

On the military side, Iran has been weakened militarily, which is good news for its Gulf neighbors. On nukes, Iran has always insisted its program was purely civilian and not military. Almost nobody believed them. Whether the program gets fully dismantled and whether Iran will accept real inspections, are still open questions. And regime change? Forget it. Regime change is not part of the agreement. In fact, when the ceasefire was announced, many Iranians took to the streets in protest — not against the government, but against the deal. Crowds chanted “death to the compromiser” – Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi – who was called on to resign. A member of the Iranian parliament Mahmoud Nabavian called the agreement a “total loss.” Back here at home, I’d bet Tucker Carlson, Lindsey Graham and other war hawks are equally unhappy, pushing for the war to keep going until the Iranian government actually falls.

So does Trump get anything out of this? The Iranians have played seven US presidents and Trump has been no exception. The TACO label — “Trump Always Chickens Out” — has been following him around for a reason. His latest reversal came when he threatened to bomb and occupy Kharg Island to shut down Iran’s oil supply entirely, then backed off at the last minute claiming that more fruitful discussions were underway. A friend of mine said that threats are the only thing the Iranian regime understands, which is why Trump does what he does. Maybe. But couldn’t he make those threats quietly, instead of publicly, looking like he’s constantly backing down making him seen like a wuss?

It looks like Trump wanted one thing above everything else, to get the Strait of Hormuz open. And he got it. I suggested early on that if Iran just offered to rename it the Strait of Trump, this whole thing would have been over much sooner. But the broader problem hasn’t gone away. Iran will find a way to eventually get a nuclear weapon. I wonder why they haven’t just bought one or two from North Korea? And if Trump can’t get Israel to stop fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, how does the deal survive? Iran seems to consider Hezbollah a core strategic asset and will defend it — and its foothold in southern Lebanon — no matter what.

At a minimum, here’s what Trump should have demanded: no highly enriched uranium, with real inspections to back it up; limits on how much Iran can rebuild its military; a guaranteed open Strait of Hormuz; and an end to Iran’s support for its proxies — Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. After World War II, both Germany and Japan were forced to cap their military capabilities. The same standard should apply to Iran. And it should be made crystal clear: violate any term of the final agreement, and the bombing starts again — this time for real and no TACO.

Three-handed Libs. A Tariff Exception and why Blanche as AG Is a Losing Bet

Believe Only Liberal Women

A photo of Maine’s Graham Platner showed him surrounded entirely by women. Around the same time, a news article reported that Maine women were deeply conflicted about the Senate race—torn between voting for Platner, who faces allegations of abusing women, sending explicit texts, and subscribing to a website associated with pedophilia, or voting for incumbent Susan Collins. They say the conundrum is Collins’ vote for Bret Kavanaugh. If this is the case, then I have seen no better argument than taking away the vote from these women. 

One woman put it plainly: “This is a very painful choice for a lot of women. One choice is to vote for somebody who I simply don’t think has the experience, the character, or even the political orientation that I find valuable”—referring to Platner. She added that Collins’s Kavanaugh vote “was disappointing, and it has been devastating for women.” Another woman tried to excuse Platner‘s behavior: “Given his background, his time in the Marines, his PTSD, I can see him as a flawed candidate. I’m not saying he’s perfect, but I generally vote on policy.”

The underlying excuse of Collins’ vote for Kavanaugh and Kavanaugh’s vote on Roe v. Wade—is an obvious canard. Approximately 70% of Maine women support abortion access in all cases. Collins, notably, also supports abortion rights and has voted to confirm every liberal woman currently serving on the Supreme Court. Collins also sponsored a bill to codify abortion rights. But apparently that is not good enough for the women of Maine who should be honest and admit that Collins’ vote was immaterial. They would vote against Collins even had she voted against Kavanaugh because she has an “R” attached to her name.

Remember Christine Plasey Ford who suddenly materialized to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault when they were in high school? There was zero corroboration for her allegation. No high school classmate materialized to vouch for Ford. On this basis, Collins voted for Kavanaugh and showed her political courage because even if she had voted against him, he still would have been approved by the senate. I wonder what excuse would the Maine women use had she voted against Kavanaugh? Because it is Trump they are after and Collins is standing in their way. It reminds me of what Trump once said “In the end, they’re not coming after me. They’re coming after you — and I’m just standing in their way.”

What struck me at the time was that the Democrats, for all their effort, could not produce a single classmate willing to corroborate Blasey Ford. Nevertheless, the party was firmly in its “believe all women” mode. Elizabeth Warren was outraged that Republicans pressed forward with their support despite the accusations. Now, with far more corroboration against Platner than ever existed against Kavanaugh, Warren is out on the trail for him, declaring, “He’s my man.” Good grief.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) was among the most vocal during the Kavanaugh hearings: “Today I stand with women who are brave enough to come forward with their stories of abuse and mistreatment. They deserve to be heard and credible allegations must be investigated. We must believe survivors, not bully them.”

That was then. What about now? Whitehouse supports Platner and describes the multiple women’s allegations as “a lot of nothing.” “I mean, the only one who had anything to say that seemed unsettling’ was a woman who works for

right-wing political operations.” It matters little that at one Platner accuser provided corroboration. Translation: “believe only those women that the democrats can dredge up.”

To be fair, not all of Maine’s women have abandoned their principles. One voter put it: “I’m a Democrat, so I want Democrats to win. But I also care how we win. And our argument can’t be that character only matters when it’s candidates from the other party.” It’s a shame that many of Maine’s other women and the entire democrat establishment (except for John Fetterman) have no principles. I called the libs “three handed”. Why? Recall the Lucky Peterson song “Three handed woman.” Left handed, right handed and underhanded too.

Did I Just Say Something Nice About Tariffs?

Say it ain’t so! In a recent post titled “Costco Emulates China!” I wrote that “I support tariffs on subsidized imports equal to the value of the subsidy—not as protectionism, but as a corrective measure to level the playing field.” The reaction was swift. One reader texted: “WHAT???!!! Harold Black for a tariff? I see your reasoning though.” Another asked, “What would Adam Smith say?”

My friend Don Boudreaux has the answer. In one of his letters addressing a critic of free trade, Don notes that Smith himself identified four, and only four, exceptions to free trade: national security; using tariffs to pressure other governments to reduce their own duties; ensuring that imports face the same tax burden as domestically produced substitutes; and, in some cases, phasing out tariffs gradually to ease workers’ adjustment to open trade. So there you go. Adam Smith would, in fact, endorse the Harold Black tariff.

Speaking of Costco, I bemoaned the fact that they were discontinuing Kirkland’s organic salsa and were out in Knoxville. There is a Costco 50 miles from the farm. While at the farm, I called and they had 330 jars left. Well now they have 258 because I bought 72 of them. That should last me a couple of years. 

Todd Blanche’s Nomination for Attorney General Is a Loser

President Trump has nominated Todd Blanche—one of his myriad of personal attorneys who currently serving as acting AG—to be the next Attorney General. I bet you a dollar that Blanche will not get confirmed and may well pull his nomination when he realizes that there are enough republican senators who do not favor him as AG. No democrat will vote for him so the republicans need to be united if he is to be confirmed.

Fat chance.

The office has been in disarray. Trump first nominated the deeply problematic Matt Gaetz, who withdrew after finding little support. Pam Bondi followed, only to be fired for not pursuing the president’s political enemies aggressively enough. Blanche then stepped into the acting role and, knowing what was expected of him, pursued those enemies with considerable zeal.

The National Review’s piece “No to Todd Blanche as Attorney General” notes that Trump’s DOJ has waged “an unabashedly vindictive agenda of leveraging the government’s awesome prosecutorial powers—its public trust—against the president’s political enemies.” Central to that effort is Blanche’s creation of the Orwellian “Weaponization Working Group,” which serves two purposes: generating cases against Trump’s political opponents and discrediting the Biden-era DOJ by branding its special counsel indictments of Trump as fraudulent—thereby rationalizing the pardons of Capitol rioters and financial fraudsters.

In short, under Trump the Attorney General’s office has become little more than a mechanism for deploying the president’s lawyers against his political enemies—without the president having to pay their fees. When Blanche was confirmed as deputy AG, it passed along party lines—at a moment when Trump’s political standing was near its peak. That standing has since eroded. A bloc of Republican senators who have each faced Trump’s ire—Collins, Murkowski, Paul, McConnell, Cassidy, Tillis, and Cornyn—would likely vote against Blanche. Alaska’s Dan Sullivan is another possible no. I would be stunned if any of them supported the nomination.

The nomination is a loser. Trump likely floated it believing he could bully reluctant Republicans into compliance. That may have worked before. It won’t work now. The more probable outcome: Trump keeps Blanche in the acting role as long as legally possible, eventually nominates someone else, and lets Blanche continue doing his dirty work as deputy AG.

This week’s Open Market Committee Meeting: Will the Fed hold?

The latest inflation numbers are in and its not good. Consumer prices in May were up 4.2%, mainly due to gas prices. We have had this discussion before so what about “core” inflation that excludes energy and food? Well it was up 2.9 percent, above the Fed’s target of 2 percent. All this means is that at the next Fed Open Market Committee meeting this week (June 16-17), there is zero chance of a decrease in the Fed funds target rate. In fact, I fully expect the discussion to be whether there should be an increase in rates and virtually no sentiment for lowing rates since Miran is no longer there. Even if the current spike is deemed transitory, there is that worrisome 2.9 percent in the core rate that is troublesome. In the end, though, the committee will vote to hold. What will be interesting is to see whether the announced vote is unanimous.

What the Fed Futures Market Is Telling Us

The market is predicting with a 97.4% certainty that the committee will vote to hold. Now how does the market know? It is from the Fed funds futures rates for the next month. Investopedia says that “Fed funds futures are financial contracts traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) that track the fed funds rate which is the overnight lending rate between banks. Their prices reflect market expectations of future rate changes, allowing banks and traders to hedge or speculate on U.S. interest rates influenced by Federal Reserve policy.”

“CME’s 30-day fed funds futures are monthly contracts listed for 60 consecutive months and cash-settled on the last business day of every month. The CME also lists options on fed funds futures contracts expiring within two years.

The 30-day fed funds futures’ contract price is the arithmetic average of the daily effective federal funds rates during the contract month as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, subtracted from 100. So if the effective fed funds rate were to average 1.75% for a given month, the settlement price of the fed funds futures contract expiring that month would be 100 – 1.75 = 98.25.

The minimum contract size is expressed in U.S. dollars by multiplying the contract price by $4,167. In the example above, it would be 98.25 x $4,167 = $409,407.75.

Options on the fed funds futures contracts are American-style, meaning they can be exercised on any business day prior to expiration.”

Got that?

Going to CME’s website shows CME FedWatch probabilities represent the market’s expectations regarding the likelihood of changes to the federal funds target rate at upcoming Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings. 

https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/interest-rates/cme-fedwatch-tool.html

So there you have it! The markets have spoken. Now will the Fed listen? Stay tuned. 

Global Central Banks Are Already Moving

Other central banks, not faced with Donald Trump’s threats, are raising their rates. The Bank of Japan has raised its rates to a 30 year high, prompting a sell off of government bonds raising those rates to over 2 percent for the first time since 1999. The rate is only raised by 25 basis points to 0.75% but Japan has been running negative rates for some time now. Real rates in Japan (rates adjusted for inflation) are still negative. The European Central bank also raised its rates 25 basis points from 2 percent to 2.25 percent. Central banks in Australia, Norway and the Philippines have also raised rates in the face of increasing inflation.

Meanwhile back in the USA, although the short term Fed funds futures market is predicting a hold, the longer term market is not as certain. The ten year Treasury is rising. The graph shows the Treasury yield curve for June 12, 2026. The sharp rise in long term Treasurys shows that the market is expecting the inflation to continue as long term Treasurys rise relative to short term Treasurys. One prominent economist is actually calling for an increase in rates at this month’s meeting. 

Fat chance! 

But when the Fed meets again July 28-29? Now that will be a closely watched meeting especially if inflation is not coming down. Indeed, CME’s FedWatch is now predicting that there is a 70 percent likelihood that the Fed will raise rates at its October meeting. All I can say to Kevin Warsh is BEWARE THE DONALD!!!

The regressive progressives

“Hey, I only care about right-wing Nazis. Left-wing Nazis are okay in my book.” So says the “progressive” left — more accurately, the “regressive” left. I suppose I am old-fashioned, but would you actually want your senator to look like Graham Platner, who embodies the appearance of an axe murderer? Yes, I know — it’s that rugged outdoorsman look that supposedly personifies rural Maine. Never mind that it’s all an affectation from a prep school kid whose parents lent him $200,000 to buy a house he claimed was financed through the VA, and who calls himself an oyster farmer whose only client is his mother’s restaurant. It’s all for show.

What are Platner and his ilk actually for? Packing the court, ending the Electoral College, adding Puerto Rico and DC as states, abolishing ICE, open borders, cutting the military, raising the minimum wage, imposing rent controls and usury ceilings, taxing the rich, free daycare, free college, free universal single-payer healthcare, a government takeover of the means of production, ending right-to-work laws, legalizing abortion, more “gender-affirming” care, DEI, men in women’s sports, the Green New Deal, no nukes, a universal guaranteed income, reparations, higher corporate income taxes, defunding the police, globalizing the Intifada, free public transportation, more affordable housing, government grocery stores, caps on drug prices, social justice, no work requirements for government assistance, a living wage for all, ending mass incarceration, expanding gay rights, eliminating voter ID requirements, increased oversight of financial institutions, reducing income inequality, and increased regulatory oversight of industry — and whatever else I may have left out.

I have lost respect for my left-wing friends who refuse to disavow Platner. They try to throw Ken Paxton back at me — but I dislike Paxton, too. I feel sorry for the people of Texas who have to choose between Talarico and Paxton. Yet I have a particular contempt for those on the left who continue to support Platner over Susan Collins in order to flip the Senate at any cost. This is part of the far left’s effort to continue its takeover of the democratic party. In many cases, the progressives seek to oust the establishment democrat with someone on the far left who wants to literally blow up the economy and the country. Personally, if either Paxton or Platner were elected, I would hope that the Senate would have the guts not to seat either one.

As one of Platner’s defenders has put it: “The days of weak, apologetic Dems are over. Our Tea Party is here.” Progressives compare themselves to the Tea Party? That’s an insult to the Tea Party, which was pro-America, not anti-America. I would not want to live in the progressive version of America — and frankly, if their agenda were ever fully implemented, most progressives wouldn’t either. Interestingly, the base of this movement — though driven by communist ideology — is not what Marx envisioned. It is not “workers of the world, unite” but rather college-educated whites, most notably white women, who are its driving force, not the aggrieved union worker.

Red Rabbits

What is particularly disturbing, however, is the mobilization of a militant, Antifa-style cadre of trained agitators — the Red Rabbits, a name that is all too fitting. Note that they did not call themselves “blue”rabbits after the “red” state/ “blue” state nonesense. The Red Rabbits are the militant arm of the Democratic Socialists of America. The name stems from the Richard Adams’ novel Watership Down in which anthropomorphized rabbits escape the destruction of their warren and seek a place to establish a new home.

https://nypost.com/2026/06/09/opinion/socialist-red-rabbits-are-training-for-national-uprising-against-cops

The group wants the DSA to become a “revolutionary force” that will “prepare for a national uprising against federal agents and police brutality.” Whoa! Insurrection? It certainly sounds like it. The DSA and its “Liberation Caucus” are led in part by an avowed Maoist — internet personality Christopher Winston — who, like Platner supporter Cenk Uygur, has a long history of inflammatory rhetoric. The DSA is constructing a nationwide apparatus of disruption to support its protests against ICE and facilitate direct-action demonstrators. Recently, organizers from Minnesota, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Tucson, Austin, and Portland compared notes. Their training has included martial-arts sparring, evacuation planning, wound-packing, radio communications, the use of umbrellas and signs to shield participants from and obstruct “fascists,” and even chemical-exposure training, in which participants practiced being pepper-sprayed.

In New Jersey, “DSA’s immigrant justice working group has become a go-to security resource for immigrant organizations and Palestine affinity groups.” In Philadelphia, the Red Rabbits began with abortion clinic “defense” efforts before expanding to assist groups focused on everything from “immigrant justice” to “Palestinian solidarity.” That work has also drawn the DSA into closer alliance with other radical organizations. Tucson’s Red Rabbits, for example, work with the Party for Socialism and Liberation — a would-be revolutionary political party with close ties to the Communist Party of China. Portland DSA cited its collaboration with the National Lawyers Guild — a left-wing legal organization with historic ties to the Soviet Union — to provide know-your-rights trainings.

So if the DSA is the kook left of the progressives, the Red Rabbits are the kook left of the DSA. That growing militancy worries me much like the terrorist wing of any political group. One would expect that Trump’s Department of Justice, the IRS, and the FBI will be taking a much closer look at the DSA and their “Red Rabbits.”