Author: haroldblackphd

Lisa Cook at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding the president’s attempt to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook. Fed governors are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to fixed terms. A governor cannot be fired by the president except “for cause.” Prior to this president, it has been understood if there were a legitimate “for cause” then the governor would be impeached by the Senate rather than fired by the president. However, this president loves to test the boundaries of the power of the executive and “fired” Cook. The reason was an alleged misrepresentation of primary residence on a mortgage application. Mind you, the president had done exactly the same thing on two mortgage applications himself. But never mind. The allegations were that in doing so Cook (and Trump) received a lower mortgage interest rate.

When Trump’s attack dog Bill Pulte head of the Federal Housing Financing Agency produced copies of Cook’s mortgage documents, Trump “fired” Cook who, of course, ignored it all saying that the president did not have the authority to fire her. Cook actually was not being fired “for cause” but “because” the president wanted to intimidate and take over the Fed. The lower courts allowed her to stay in place while the matter was being adjudicated.

There are two issues here. The first is whether the president can fire a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors. The second is whether the governor can be relieved of duties prior to a court hearing and due process. At the Supreme Court all the justices appeared skeptical of the arguments made by the president’s attorneys. First it appeared that they all rejected the assertion that Cook could be fired and removed from office without due process. So the fact that she remained at the Fed conducting her duties while the case was being litigated seemed reasonable to the justices despite Trump’s arguments to the contrary. 

Thus, an allegation of mortgage fraud did not rise to immediate removal. Justice Alito questioned the “hurried manner” of the “firing” without a substantive review of the fraud allegations saying that Trump’s attempt to fire Cook was “handled in a very cursory manner.” Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to also rule on what constitutes “for cause.” Other justices questioned about clarity regarding due process and whether an accused could remain in position while the case was being litigated. Justice Kavanaugh worried about Fed independence and Trump’s attempt to fire Cook “at will” saying that a newly elected president could then attempt to fire all of the governors that did not support his economic objectives. 

As to the gravity of the charges, the president’s attorney said that Cook’s mortgage applications showed “deceit” or “gross negligence” and that “Even if it was inadvertent or a mistake, it’s quite a big mistake.”  He also said “The governors set interest rates for ordinary Americans all across the country. And, here, there’s the appearance of having played fast and loose or at least been grossly negligent in getting favorable interest rates for herself.” It is difficult to believe that Trump’s attorney even took his own arguments seriously and said this with a straight face. The savings amounted to only a few thousand dollars and the “crime” is rarely, if ever, prosecuted. The court rightly viewed that comment with skepticism. That such a frivolous charge would rise to the firing of a Fed governor is laughable. By the way, if this were really an impeachable offense don’t you think Al (Full of Fire) Green, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wouldn’t be filing articles of impeachment against the president who in the words of Trump’s own attorney committed mortgage fraud himself?

Fed chairman Powell attended the hearing and was promptly criticized by Trump’s new spokesman, Treasury secretary Bessent who said of Powell’s presence, “I actually think that’s a mistake. Because if you’re trying not to politicize the Fed, for the Fed chair ⁠to be sitting there, ​trying to put ​his thumb on the scale is a real mistake.” I guess Bessent conveniently forgot that he, himself, had attended a court hearing on Trump’s tariffs. Bessent sat in the front row of the gallery during Supreme Court arguments in November about Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs alongside Commerce secretary Lutnick and trade negotiator Jamieson Greer. Clearly, the administration is grasping at straws.

What’s that saying about glass houses?

I fully expect the court will be unanimous in its decision and it will be to rule against Trump specious argument.

Bye Bye UN and Where’s Tulsi?

Bye Bye UN?

The president signed an executive order withdrawing US support for 66 international organizations. My initial reaction was “sixty-six?” Marco Rubio’s State Department issued a statement “The Trump Administration has found these institutions to be redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity.” Sounds like “woke” and “diversity” to me. The withdrawal from the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (with its “net zero” madness) in line the previous administration actions including leaving the Paris Accord and the president’s calling of climate change a “hoax.” 

Of course, the usual suspects are complaining. A former White House climate advisor groused “This Administration is forfeiting our country’s ability to influence trillions of dollars in investments, policies, and decisions that would have advanced our economy and protected us from costly disasters wreaking havoc on our country.” That’s exactly the point. Let the others waste their scare resources making Al Gore and the climate change industry rich. The White House’s own statement verified this: “These withdrawals will end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over U.S. priorities, or that address important issues inefficiently or ineffectively such that U.S. taxpayer dollars are best allocated in other ways to support the relevant missions.” Rand Paul tweeted his approval “While the President and I have our occasional difference, we agree far more than we disagree. A good example, defunding left wing, globalists groups is a policy I wholeheartedly support.” I am surprised the president didn’t have a sarcastic tweet thanking Paul for his “wholehearted support.”

Actually US financial support for the total amounts to only $130 million. Some of the organizations are within the UN general budget and are not directly funded by its members, so US withdrawal is likely in participation rather than funding. Half are not in the UN and so they will receive no more US financial support. UN Secretary General Antonio Gueterres has said that regardless the US is still legally obligated to pay its UN dues. “Assessed contributions to the UN regular budget and peacekeeping budget, as approved by the General Assembly, are a legal obligation under the UN Charter for all member states, including the US.” Of course the president has said that it is his intention to stop funding organizations whose mission and actions are contrary to that of his administration. So will the US actually cut its funding to the UN and withdraw its ambassador? Currently, it is the organization’s largest contributor, funding 22 percent of its budget. But it has not paid its dues and owes the UN $1.5 billion. If it did stop the payments it would lose its vote in the General Assembly and on the Security Council. Then the next steps should be to recall our ambassador and expel the UN from New York. It rightly belongs in Brussels.

Also I guess Trump’s “Board of Peace” could be his first step in replacing the UN. The only problem is that such a board only exists to curry favor with the president and once he leaves office, he likely takes the $1 billion entry fees with him and the organization dies. If the president were serious about peace he would continue to demand that NATO strengthens itself and instead of leaving the UN, demand a change in charter where no nation has veto powers.

Where is Tulsi?

Speaking of international, where is Tulsi? Gabbard is supposed to be the director of national intelligence but was left out of the planning for the actions taken in Venezuela. While the rest of the president’s national security team was planning the operation, Gabbard posted pictures of herself on a Hawaiian beach. Seems like CIA director Radcliffe is involved more than Gabbard. Word is that Rubio did not want her involved. I wonder if the president is still fuming from Gabbard’s testimony that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon prior to the US strike? Recall that Trump said “I don’t care what she said.” Given the exclusion, some people would resign. But apparently Gabbard likes the gig and will stay on until Trump fires her.

Bye Bye Bondi?

Trump hasn’t fired a member of his cabinet – yet. In his first term, he had difficulty with his attorney generals. He fired Jeff Sessions over his recusal to oversee the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the election in 2016. Trump said at the time “Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else.” As is Trump’s wont, he belittled Sessions as “VERY weak” and “DISGRACEFUL”. Then there was Bill Barr who served twice as Trump’s AG and with whom Trump also had a rocky relationship which essentially ended when Barr said that there was no widespread voter fraud costing Trump his re-election in 2020. Trump then said that Barr was a “loser” and a “RINO who couldn’t do the job. However, Barr is not one to mince words and called Trump’s defenses for his handling of classified documents “absurd” and compared Trump to a “defiant 9-year-old kid” also saying that Trump’s verbal skills were “limited.”

Now Trump is expressing his displeasure over his current AG, Pam (Blondie) Bondi for not more aggressively pursuing his enemies. Trump who once praised her is not saying that she is weak and ineffective. Trump is even contemplating appointing special counsels to pursue his wishes rather than leaving the tasks up to Bondi. He is especially upset over the handling of the Epstein files. His aide Susan Wiles had told Vanity Fair that Bondi had “whiffed” on the files and Trump agreed. Trump also expressed frustration that the Justice Department hasn’t done more to pursue those he claims helped steal the 2020 election – (Bill Barr redux). Trump however is saying “Pam is doing an excellent job. She has been my friend for many years. Tremendous progress is being made against radical left lunatics who are good at only one thing, cheating in elections and the crimes they commit.” Hum. That sounds like a vote of confidence.

Trump’s MAGA folk are after Bondi. Steve Bannon, in particular, seems to be pressing for her ouster, Also noteworthy was Bondi was MIA when Trump announced Maduro’s capture even though the Department of “Justice” will be tasked with leading the prosecution. I think the first inkling of Trump’s dissatisfaction was when he was critical of Bondi for not aggressively prosecuting James Comey, Letitia James and Adam Schiff. Trump has also demanded that Bondi investigate prominent Democrats who were named in the Epstein documents, mainly because they had accused him of misdeeds. Bondi then directed Manhattan’s U.S. attorney to lead the probe.

Then there is the witch hunt directed at the Fed’s Jerome Powell. Fox’s own Jeanine Pirro is heading that investigation. Some media sources say that the Washington office has be further demoralized by the Fed subpoenas resulting in lawyers “leaving in droves.” At a White House event where Bondi’s prosecutors (persecutors?) were at the White House the president lambasted them criticizing them as ineffective and complaining they weren’t moving fast enough to prosecute his enemies. But thus far where there have been prosecutions, the president’s lawyers have failed to either get indictments or convictions, perhaps indicating the flimsiness of the charges or as some MAGA folk would say, the biasness of the sitting judges – even those appointed by Trump himself. But maybe, just maybe, the charges are so flimsy that seasoned attorneys are reluctant to pursue them. That could be the reason why Trump had to turn to less qualified attorneys like Lindsey Halligan to take over the prosecutions.

Five federal prosecutors thus far have resigned in protest of Trump’s Somali welfare fraud investigation when the president used this as a pretext to send his immigration force into Minneapolis. Several more resigned when directed to investigate the wife of the woman who was killed by an ICE agent rather than investigate the shooting itself. All told 50 of the 135 attorneys assigned to the Minneapolis office have left since Trump’s re-election. Again this may not be so bad if they are not on board with his agenda. A president needs people who are loyal to him. But even if loyal, it is important for them to explain why they should not pursue certain actions. Perhaps this is the difficulty that he has had with his AGs who were loyalists but fired for not bending to the president’s wishes.

Speaking of Somalis, the Department of Homeland Security has revoked the “temporary protected status” of several thousand of them. The right wing media acted like this was a big deal. It isn’t. My reaction was “what took so long?” Immigration Services says that there are only 2,471 who are affected. Mind you the department ended the status for over 350,000 Haitians and 600,000 Venezuelans.

The Supremes and transgender athletes

The Supreme Court is hearing a case related to whether males can compete against females in athletic events. Not a lawyer, I assume that the case is on the constitutionality of what the states can do and does not apply to a nationwide ban or lack of a ban. The states involved are Idaho and West Virginia which have statutes prohibiting males competing against women in women’s sports. The side arguing against the state laws claims that forbidding men from competing in women’s sports somehow violates the Constitution by engaging in discrimination on the basis of sex. Further, they argue that discriminating on the basis of “gender identity” constitutes the same thing as sex discrimination. Mind you, I think that this argument is far narrower than arguments relating to Title IX and whether men can use women’s bathrooms and shower facilities.

So is gender the same as sex. Not in my book. I may not be a biologist but it seems to me that gender today is defined socially not by biology. Anyway the left says that there are at least 72 genders and I am pretty certain that there are not 72 sexes.

Again, not a lawyer but whatever ruling comes down from the court I think it would say that it is constitutional for a state to write such laws rather than the court to mandate that all the states must do the same thing. So if California says it is okay and Georgia says that it is not okay, then both are permissible under the Constitution. By the way, it may be okay but certainly it is not fair. Men who are mediocre in men’s competition have claimed to be transgender in order to win women’s events – see William (Lia) Thomas denying women athletes success in their own events. Also it is interesting that while the NCAA ban men from competing in women’s events, it allows women to compete in men’s.

In the arguments, only Justice Jackson appears to have used the term “cisgender.” I can find no record that either Justices Kagan or Sotomayor used the term in their questioning. Here is a sample. She was asking of the West Virginia solicitor general if it was unfair for “cisgender girls”—girls who don’t claim to identify as boys—to compete in girls’ sports while also barring “transgender girls”—boys who claim to identify as girls—from competing with them. She said “For cisgender girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity, for transgender girls, they can’t.” She asked the Idaho attorney “The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women can’t play on women’s sports teams, so why is that not a classification on the basis of transgender status?”

The response was “The question is whether the application of the law turns on transgender status, and it doesn’t. It turns on sex. The legislature did not want to exclude transgender people from sports, it wanted to keep women’s sports women-only and exclude males from women’s sports.” Jackson then responded “But with respect to two individuals, a cis woman and a trans woman, who both want to play on a team that reflects their gender identity, this law operates differently based on their sex, right?” The response was obvious. “The law does operate differently based on their sex, as your honor just said. It does not operate differently based on their transgender identity.”

Jackson is obviously trying to get both attorneys to say that gender identity is the same as one’s sex when she said “But it treats transgender women differently than cisgender women, doesn’t it?” That is why she insists on using the terms “cisgender” and “transgender.” But the attorneys – who apparently know the difference between a man and a woman – are saying that they are not the same. By the way, what about the term “sex assigned at birth”? 

Again, please tell me why women on the left won’t defend (real) women athletes. They will talk about boys who transitioned before puberty should be allowed to compete with girls or males who have taken drugs to reduce their levels of testosterone to compete with women. What I want to know is if there is empirical evidence to support those claims? Are the results for boys who transitioned before puberty statistically different in competition with girls? Do males who take testosterone reducing drugs have similar outcomes as the women against whom they compete?

Regardless, I don’t think these questions are relevant in this case. I hope that the decision made by the Court would not even consider these questions but rather only address whether states should be allowed to write their own laws regarding males competing against women in women’s sports. I guess the ruling will be 6-3 in favor of the states’ rights. I would also guess that Jackson would write the dissenting opinion which should make for interesting reading. But on the slim chance that the justices rule with Jackson, then look for the formation of transgender teams to dominate women’s sports. Remember that boys’ soccer team that drubbed the women’s Olympic team?

Apparently Trump really really really wants a Nobel Peace Prize

When I read that Trump sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Gahr Støre saying that he wanted Greenland because he wasn’t given the Nobel Peace Prize, I thought it was from the Babylon Bee. No. Instead the Bee said that Trump was going to disguise himself as a Muslim migrant so Europe would let him invade Greenland. That bit of parody was just as funny as the president’s letter. Only the letter apparently was no parody. Here is the letter:

“Considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”

If this were anyone else, even the most MAGA among us would say that the president is making a idiot out of himself. But of course, those who only have their lofty status because of Trump like Treasury Secretary Bessant will say “I think it’s a complete canard that there’s any kind of equivalence with the Nobel Prize.” Sure. Mind you, Trump says he is threatening the Danish protectorate of Greenland because Norway didn’t give him the Nobel Peace prize. Never mind that these are two different countries. Never mind that the Norwegian government has little if any say so in who gets the Nobel prizes. That would be like Trump deciding who gets Britain’s BAFTA award for Best Actress (actually I would not put that past him to try to do so). If Trump is mad at Norway, then why didn’t he threaten to seize its Bouvet Island instead?

Now Trump has taken a page from the playbook of Chairman XI Jinping when he raised the tariffs on our NATO allies by 10 percent for supporting Denmark and promising to increase them 25% more if they didn’t knuckle under by the end of June. The Chinese do this all the time, using economic coercion to force countries to bend to their demands. Trump’s action is probably because he remembers that in 2010 China hit trade sanctions on Norway after the Nobel Peace Prize committee awarded the peace prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. China is a leading buyer of Norwegian salmon which ultimately forced Norway to make them some concessions. In the case of Greenland, what concessions can Norway make to Trump? Is Trump saying that if he gets the peace prize that he will stop trying to intimidate Denmark to hand over Greenland? Pardon me if I am a bit confused.

Nonetheless, it is a bit weird that the president would choose to raise tariffs to punish our allies when the tariffs punish Americans instead. Studies find that 96% of the costs of the tariffs are borne by Americans and not by the exporting country. So Trump’s solution is to have Americans pay more for European goods and services. Wow! That’ll show those Europeans! The result of the new tariffs is upset and unsettled markets. The Nasdaq promptly had its worse day since October. The dollar retreated against world markets, gold soared to a new record, and importantly for Trump, the 10 year Treasury went to its highest rate since August.

Mind you, the president wants the Fed to lower its Fed funds rate, thinking erroneously that it will lower government borrowing costs, while his pique fit is causing borrowing costs to rise. Gee, doesn’t the Fed control interest rates? No. The market determines the rates, not the Fed and the yields on Treasurys are going up as markets react to Trump’s tariffs and concern over Fed independence.

What this episode has shown is that because Trump’s trade deals are unilateral and nonbinding that he can and will change them on a whim. Markets, businesses, importers and exporters cannot plan in the face of such uncertainty about what mood the president might be in on any given day. Trump first said that the tariffs were a result of an imaginary national emergency caused by trade deficits. But in reality, the tariffs were a flexing of the US’s economic might to bend the rest of the world to its will – much like the Chinese have been doing for years. What is significant is that these latest tariffs undermine any argument that the administration will have before the Supreme Court about the use of presidential emergency powers to levy tariffs – especially these tariffs.

There is an obvious economic counter that has just been employed when a Danish pension fund, AkademikerPension, sold its entire portfolio of US Treasurys. Although it was only $100 million, the sale is significant. Anders Schelde, AkademikerPension’s investing chief said that the decision was driven by “poor [U.S.] government finances” and “not directly related to the ongoing rift between the [U.S.] and Europe. But of course that didn’t make it more difficult to take the decision.”  

European investors hold over $8 trillion in US debt nearly double that of the rest of the world combined. What if they started to unload their holdings – or even threatened to do so? What then? Europeans weaponing capital markets would be more disruptive than Trump’s weaponizing of trade market. European investors dumping dollar-denominated assets and repatriating those funds in retaliation to Trump’s actions along with growing concerns that those assets may no longer be safe havens would have devastating effects on the US. The US would then have to self-finance its enormous appetite for borrowing to spend with concomitant increases in borrowing costs and inflation. You would think that the uptick in the 10 year Treasury due to threats on Greenland would send Trump a message to back off. And maybe it did because the president announced while at the World Economic Forum in Davos that he had reached an agreement with NATO and would withdraw the additional tariffs.

The question becomes whether the threat of the Europeans selling Treasurys would impact on Trump’s continued desire to project his will around toward Greenland in particular and to the globe writ large.

I am reminded of the story of the dog chasing the car. What is he going to do with it if he actually catches it? Currently, Denmark sends Greenland about $600 million a year in a block grant to fund the island’s welfare state. This is half of Greenland’s budget and about 20 percent of its GDP. It pays public sector salaries, funds free health care, pensions and municipal services. It also pays for Greenland’s airports. One third of those employed on the island work for the government. Unemployment is high. So presumably, if the US took over Greenland it would have to keep paying for these handouts to its residents. I guess AOC and Bernie would demand that we do the same for all US citizens. Hey but $600 million is a rounding error in the US budget. There is a poll that says that 76 percent of the Greenlanders do not want to be part of the US. Do you think it is because they love Denmark or do they just love the subsidies?

Economically, Greenland’s primary industry is fishing, accounting for more than 90 percent of its export revenues. What do they do in the winter? Greenland’s per capita disposable income is the lowest in the Arctic other than Russia’s and less than one third that of Alaska’s. One of my readers has sent me the perfect solution regarding Greenland. Instead of negotiating with Denmark, why don’t we just offer each of the 57,000 residents $2 million – $114 billion total – if they vote to join the US? Again, this is chump change and amounts to only 1.63% of the US budget for 2025. Greenlanders may be marching around carrying signs saying “Greenland is not for sale.” Wanna bet?

Good news or bad news?

I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is the inflation rate is 2.6%. The bad news is the inflation rate is 2.6 percent and that number does not include food or energy costs.

How quickly they forget. December’s CPI came in at 2.6%. The conservative media trumpeted that it was a win for the president. Here is one typical headline “Positive Inflation Report Delivers Economic Win for Trump.” Huh? I guess everyone has conveniently forgotten that 2.6% is still above the Fed’s target of 2 percent. Also once again after Trump got rid of all the resident number crunchers at the Department of Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we have gotten nothing but numbers that favor the president. Is that a coincidence?

Apparently, I am the only one who thinks that this is a bit suspicious. Nonetheless, the president declared that inflation was defeated and again badgered the Fed to lower the Fed funds rate even further. He said that Joe Biden (naturally) “gave us a colossal stagflation catastrophe but my administration’s rapidly and very decisively ended that.”  He also said “We have very low inflation. That would give ‘too late Powell’ the chance to give us a nice beautiful big rate cut.” “If I had the help of the Fed, it would be easier, but that jerk will be gone soon.” His Truth Social tweet was “Great (LOW!) Inflation numbers for the USA. That means that Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell should cut interest rates, MEANINGFULLY!!! If he doesn’t he will just continue to be, ‘TOO LATE!'”

Good grief. Speaking of grief, the media is finally realizing that when Powell’s term as chairman ends, he can stick around for two more years when his term as a governor ends. Although odds are that he will leave, the prospect of giving Trump another Fed nominee and the possible threat to Fed independence might compel him to stay. I repeat that if I were Powell I would stay just to stick it to the president. Can you imagine Trump’s indignation and frustration? But Powell is likely pretty fed up (pun alert!) and will leave and go back to making serious dollars on Wall Street. Take this job and shove it!

Who let the dogs out?

I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that there was an election in the southern African country of Malawi and a peaceful trasition of power. The bad news is that although the ex-president left he took the office’s guard dogs with him enbroiling the nation in controversy.

The nation is divided over who gets custody of the presidential guard dogs. Guard dogs? Yes guard dogs. When the past president lost re-election he took his dogs – a Dutch shepherd and three Belgian Malinois – with him saying they were part of his personal security team. The newly elected president begged to differ and insisted that the dogs were civil servants employed by the president’s office. He demanded the return of the dogs. The ex-president refused.  The new president Peter Mutharika sent 80 policemen to the ex-president’s home to get the dogs. The ex-president Lazarus Chakwera refused. Meanwhile the former president’s allies in Parliament rushed to his home to prevent the dogs’ removal. President Mutharika then would not move into the presidential palace saying his full security team wasn’t in place. The country is divided with each party supporting one or the other president. The matter is in the courts. 

Speaking of presidential dogs, remember when Obama got a dog because someone told him that presidents should have one? Ted Kennedy gave him a Portuguese Water dog named “Bo” that Obama kept around until his term ended and promptly gave the dog to his press secretary. Then there was Biden’s German Shepherd Commander who was supposed have bitten Secret Service personnel at least 24 times. At least two had to get medical treatment for severe bites. Trump doesn’t have a dog and may be the first president who doesn’t even have a pet.

A new spate of minimum wage laws

I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that we are raising your minimum wage to $16 and hour. The bad news is that you are fired.

The politicians again showed that they know exactly how much workers should be paid when they spawned a multitude of new minimum wage laws across the fruited plain with 19 states raising the minimum wage. Although it has always been a favorite of the democrats to increase dependency by increasing unemployment, this time they were joined by several republican led states. Thirty states now have minimums above the Federal minimum of $7.25 an hour. The highest is Washington state at $17.13. Hawaii’s is now $16 and Nebraska and Missouri’s are $15. Raising the minimum is always popular with 90 percent of democrats and nearly half of republicans supporting the measure. Localities in some states can raise the minimum even more. Seattle’s is $21.30 and Los Angeles set a minimum for hotel and airport workers at$30 beginning in 2028.

Since the buzzword is “affordability” raising the minimum is even more popular than before. What the increase in the minimum does is to reward those workers who can keep their jobs. Others will be terminated and there will be fewer new hirings. Not surprisingly, turnover rates also fall as workers know when they have a good thing. One of the not noticed effects is on those who are unemployed and on those who are just entering the workforce. These people will need to have job skills that merit the new wage and many don’t. That is why teenage unemployment rates are always the highest and will likely rise in the face of the increases in the minimum wage. When a subminimum is suggested for teenagers it is generally rejected. What people do not understand is that the real minimum wage is $0. Raising the minimum only increases welfare dependency as unemployment rises and labor force participation falls.

The chart below shows that over time the number of workers in manufacturing is decreasing while worker productivity is increasing. This of course mirrors what happened in agriculture. Now the increasing minimum wage prompts employers to substitute labor saving methods for labor itself. We saw that in California when the minimum wage for fast food workers was raised to $20. Workers are being displaced and menu prices have increased. There has been an increase in automation and self-service technology. Restaurants have self-order kiosks, kitchen automation software and other labor-saving technologies.  Restaurants are reducing employee hours, having fewer workers per shift to control labor costs, others are letting go of staff. Some franchisees are not opening new restaurants while others are actually closing not being able to operate profitably with the increased labor costs. For example, Rubio’s Coastal Grill shut down 48 of its locations in California. Fast-food restaurants are raising menu prices for customers between 8% and 10% and many are still losing money.

BTW, all this is well known but raising the minimum remains popular among politicians and among the public. I used to ask my class how many favored raising the minimum wage and nearly every one would raise their hands – and these were business majors. I told them that once they stopped being employees and became employers they would change their minds. I then would show them graphically by plotting the demand for labor and its supply to show the increased unemployment. I would ask “Why have a minimum wage?” Often the answer would be “It prevents employers from paying a zero wage.” I then would tell that student that they need to transfer to sociology (or education). Then there are those who say that the minimum wage is to lift workers out of poverty and give them a “living wage.” I usually answer that means that those workers must currently be dead if they are not earning a living wage. Also why not really lift them out of poverty by mandating a minimum wage of $1,000 an hour? I was then told “Well they are not worth $1,000 an hour.” To which I reply “Many are not worth $15 an hour either.”

One striking consequence of minimum wages creating unemployment among the lowest skilled and least educated workers was found in an important paper by Bayer, Charles and Derenoncourt. It finds that the income inequality gap between black men and white men in 1950 is basically the same as today’s. However, among the college educated, the income gap has narrowed almost to the point of statistical insignificance. Some may point to the roles of affirmative action and DEI which researchers have previously found benefitted only well educated blacks and had little if any impact on the economic status of poorer educated blacks. That is a topic for another day. Nonetheless, increases in the minimum wage lead to an increase in dependency by closing the door to gainful employment for the less educated.

Click to access wp343_Derenoncourt_racial-inequality-labor-market.pdf

Is Trump’s blind trust blind? Somaliland. Tariff’s regulatory costs.

Just another glass house moment for the president

If the president has his assets in a “blind” trust, then how did he just buy $2 million in Netflix and Warner Bros. bonds? At least he bought the bonds after Netflix agreed to pay $72 billion for Warner Bros and HBO Max’s streaming business. But isn’t this a bit unusual to say the least? This is from the Wall Street Journal:

“Trump has made public comments about a potential Warner acquisition, saying in December that Netflix’s proposed purchase “could be a problem” because it already holds a large share of the streaming market. The deal would require approval from federal regulators. “I’ll be involved in that decision,” he said on Dec. 7, just days after the Netflix deal was announced.”

Didn’t Trump rage at Nancy Pelosi for her “success” in the stock market? Well yes. “Crooked Nancy Pelosi, and her very ‘interesting’ husband, beat every Hedge Fund in 2024. In other words, these two very average ‘minds’ beat ALL of the Super Geniuses on Wall Street, thousands of them. It’s all INSIDE INFORMATION! Is anybody looking into this???” Trump then said that he would “absolutely” sign legislation to ban congressional stock trading if it reached his desk. “Well, I watched Nancy Pelisiget rich through insider information, and I would be okay with it. If they send that to me, I would do it,” 

Trump’s wealth has increased by $3 billion since he has become president. What is the saying about glass houses? Ironically, Trump’s purchases of Netflix and Warner Bros. were announced in an “ethics” disclosure form. I am waiting for the republicans in the House and the Senate to hold hearings. Just saying.

Israel recognizes Somaliland

The first country to recognize the breakaway country of Somaliland is Israel? Yes Israel and a Muslim country sitting on the Bab al-Mandab Strait that connects the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean are now officially buds. It is directly across the Gulf of Aden from the Iran-allied Houthis in Yemen. And our “peace president” played no part in it. Actually reports have it that the State Department was surprised by the agreement. This poses at last a legitimate threat to the Houthis whose leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi called the recognition a “hostile and illegitimate act.” 

Also, in addition to its strategic importance, recall the post I made a while back that Israel was talking with several African countries about relocating the Palestinians to those countries? Well Somaliland is one of them along with Libya, Syria and South Sudan. 

Israeli officials argue that their recognition of Somaliland is grounded in the fact that it has an effective democratic electoral system, with its own military and government acting independently from Somalia for decades. It is also free from the lawlessness and chaos embodied in Somalia which Trump calls a “hellhole, filthy, dirty and ridden with crime. The only thing they’re good at is going after ships.” Somaliland, In addition to its strategic location the country has an underutilized port and airfields with long runways. I wonder if Israel might even put a military base in the country? Regardless, this is a bold move.

Don’t forget about tariff compliance costs

The president from day one set out in a series of executive orders to reduce business regulatory costs. The White House said that during Biden’s term over $2 trillion in new regulatory costs had been imposed and the president’s actions have reduced those costs significantly. Well the White House probably omitted the increase in the cost burden imposed by trying to comply with Trump’s tariffs. Federal Reserve economists estimated that U.S. manufacturers would alone pay between $39 and $71 billion each year to comply with just content and reporting requirements in only four of Trump’s tariff actions. Mind you these are in addition to having to pay the tariffs (rather than the exporters as the president continues to assert). 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/trade-compliance-at-what-cost-lessons-from-usmca-automotive-trade-20250718.html?s=03

Tariff compliance has always been a Rube Goldberg machine but Trump has added layer upon layer of additional regulatory minutiae to an already unwieldy mess. The Cato Institute points out that “measures imposed by the Trump administration in 2025 have made the US tariff system excessively convoluted and complex” increasing from three tariff regimes in 2017 to 20 now. By the way, here is a tariff compliance guide.

https://geodis.com/us-en/blog/goods-transportation-integrated-logistics-solutions/how-stay-compliant-us-tariffs-and-reduce

Will Trump leave NATO over Greenland?

The president keeps rattling his sword over possession of Greenland saying that anything less is unacceptable. He doesn’t appear to be joking sending vice president Vance and Marco Rubio to meet with the Danish foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenland’s Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen. The meeting did not appear to yield any tangible results with Denmark and Greenland sternly resisting the siren call of the US. Rasmussen said that “their perspectives differed” and diplomatically “We agreed that it makes sense to try to sit down on a high level to explore whether there’s possibilities to accommodate the concerns of the president while we at the same time, respect the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark. I must say, the president has made his view clear, and we have a different position.” Rasmussen added “Ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people are, of course, totally unacceptable.”

Also noteworthy is that Greenland’s residents overwhelmingly do not want to be taken over by the United States. Greenland’s Premier Nielsen said “Greenland does not want to be owned by the USA. Greenland does not want to be governed by the USA. Greenland will not be part of the USA. We choose the Greenland we know today, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.” But that is of no concern to the president. Trump responded “That’s their problem. I disagree with him. I don’t know who he is. Don’t know anything about him, but that’s going to be a big problem for him.” The president then said that NATO should be supporting his efforts to take over Greenland. “NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! Militarily, without the vast power of the United States, much of which I built during my first term, and am now bringing to a new and even higher level, NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent – Not even close! They know that, and so do I.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt did not turn down the heat when she said “The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the US Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.” Trump, himself, had hinted at military action, “I would, I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way,” he said. “But if we don’t do it the easy way we’re going to do it the hard way.”

Well apparently NATO does not support the president. Quite the contrary. They are showing their support for Greenland in a most remarkable way. They are sending their military to Greenland! The Danes started sending reinforcements to the island and their NATO allies did the same. I guess the Danes were responding to Trump’s mocking Greenland’s defenses as little more than”two dogsleds.” Denmark said its armed forces were “deploying capacities and units in connection with exercise activities from today, which will result in an increased military presence in and around Greenland of aircraft, ships and soldiers, including from NATO allies, in the coming period.” Sweden, Germany, France, the UK, the Netherlands and Finland all have joined the Danes by sending forces to Greenland. Also the head of the European Commission came down solidly on the side of Denmark and not the United States. 

This is a stunning development having our NATO allies sending military forces indicating to Trump that he had better think about using the US military to take over Greenland by force. Trump was not amused saying that Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland have “journeyed” to Greenland, for “purposes unknown,” posing a very dangerous situation for the safety, security and survival of our planet. That shakes NATO to its very foundation to have members responding with a show of force to ward off the threats of another member. Would Trump really exit NATO over Greenland?

NATO says it is offering is to help bolster Greenland’s security by handling air and sea patrols and boosting surveillance and defense and not to counter Trump’s threat. Trump is saying that he is going to send in more troops and it doesn’t matter what NATO does because he wants ownership of the country and if NATO doesn’t support him then he will slap additional tariffs on them and Greenland. “I may do that for Greenland too. I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland, because we need Greenland for national security. So I may do that.” Then he actually did exactly that by putting an additional 10 percent on them still pretending that the exporters are paying the tariff saying “This Tariff will be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” He then said the tariffs will increase to 25% on June 1^st.

The Europeans responded by suspending the bilateral trade agreements with the US negotiated due to the tariffs and some are threatening to retaliate by raising their tariffs – something that they have yet to do. In particular, the European Parliament has frozen the EU’s agreement with Trump and are threatening to retaliate. France’s Macron says “No intimidation nor threat will influence us.” Ulf Kristersson, the prime minister of Sweden says “we will not let ourselves be blackmailed.” Trump is attending the World Economic Forum in Davos and I am certain this will be much discussed. Right now the Europeans are rightly worried about the status of NATO and their dependency on the US for its protection against Russia. They are also worried that Trump may play his trump card by threatening to cut off all assistance to Ukraine. 

As to retaliation, although the Europeans could impose reciprocal tariffs on American imports they would really get the president’s attention if they levied fines and restricted the American high tech firms, banks and service providers that are dependent upon Europe for a substantial portion of their business and profitability. Then it will indeed be Smoot Hawley redux. The president has seemingly forgotten the art of the deal and now its his way or the highway.

Meanwhile, a bipartisan congressional committee met with Danish and Greenland officials in Copenhagen (don’t you love those congressional junkets?). Delaware’s Chris Coons and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, both no friends of the president issued statements stating that Greenland was an ally not an asset and whose sovereignty should be respected. Murkowski and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire have introduced legislation that would prohibit the use of U.S. Defense or State department funds to annex or take control of Greenland or the sovereign territory of any NATO member state without that ally’s consent or authorization from the North Atlantic Council. It would be interesting to see how the senate would vote on such legislation and whether there would be enough votes to override a presidential veto. The chair of the Nuuk Inuit Circumpolar Council, said that it was clear “how the US administration views the people of Greenland, how the U.S. administration views Indigenous peoples, and peoples that are few in numbers.” She then said that the indigenous Inuit in Greenland do not want to be colonized again. Ouch!

Do you think Trump cares?  Nope. “One way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland.”

Are you smarter than a seventh grader?

To starkly illustrate how far our education standards have fallen here is an entrance exam to Jersey City High School in 1885. It appeared in the Wall Street Journal in 1992. And keep in mind, the standards in 1992 were well above those in our schools today and this was what the seventh grader in those days was expected to know.

You Go Iowa!

I have often said that I am not a fan of charter schools if they have to adhere to the same curriculum as other schools. I firmly believe that it is the curriculum that prevents most kids from learning – see the Chicago public schools. Well in Iowa, the public charter schools are free to innovate. The state has received a $43 million grant from the federal government to support its public charter schools. Iowa’s public charter schools are authorized by the State Board of Education, tuition-free, operate under a governing school board, and are not required to adhere to state laws that govern public schools’ curriculum and instructional methods. Hallelujah!  

Iowa’s governor Kim Reynolds said “Public charter schools provide yet another school choice for parents and guardians looking for the education option that’s best suited for their children’s abilities and needs. This $43 million grant recognizes Iowa as a leader in educational freedom and supports our innovative work to expand high-quality, tuition-free, public charter schools as an option for Iowa students and families.” The state’s education head said “With the support of this grant, Iowa’s dedicated educators will continue to improve, innovate and grow new learning environments that see every child, meet them where they are and provide what they need to realize their incredible potential.” I wonder what the Iowa teachers’ unions had to say about all this?

In announcing the grant Education. Secretary Linda McMahon said “A one-size fits all education system is not working for our students. Charter schools allow for innovative educational models that expand learning opportunities for students. The Trump administration will continue to use every available tool to advocate for meaningful learning, advance school choice, and ensure every student is well-positioned to succeed.” Since charter schools have been shown to dramatically increase the reading and math skills of minority children, the Trump administration is continuing republican efforts to push forward on this issue in the face of opposition from the left, the teachers’ unions and those who profess to have minority kids interests at heart.

Also Iowa is a leader in STEM education in k-12. My esteemed niece who is a renowned professor of engineering and now president of California’s Harvey Mudd College – the country’s leading science focused undergraduate institution – probably loves that Iowa has a Govern’s STEM advisory council “to ensure that every Iowa student in every geographic location and from every background has access to cutting- edge educational opportunities.” 

With all these accomplishments it should come as no surprise that Iowa is the first state granted an education funds waiver meaning that the state’s funds are unrestricted. Iowa can now use the funds as it sees fit and doesn’t have to incur all the federal compliance costs. This is a step in returning education decisions to the states. McMahon said “Iowa now has the flexibility to cut paperwork and simplify a hundred percent of state activities funding streams. It can invest in proven strategies to build a world-class teacher pipeline, close achievement gaps, and open post secondary opportunities to prepare for a great career.”

I couldn’t agree more. Iowa is only the first of many more to get this waiver as part of the Trump administration’s effort to wind down the Department of Education. Of course the democrats are hopping mad. Bobby Scott of Virginia said “Congress must not sit idly by as the Trump administration makes every effort to drag students, educators, and parents back into an era where students were denied the opportunities and resources they needed to succeed.” Well what I want to know from Rep. Scott is what are the reading scores in your district? If they are at or above grade level then keep talking. If they are not then shut up.

Lastly, I would hope that the administration will grant the waivers only to those states that are actively trying to increase their students’ reading and math proficiencies like Mississippi, Arkansas and maybe Tennessee. States like Illinois, California and New Jersey should never get the waiver.