Articles by Antonio Graceffo

Image courtesy of the U.S. House Select Committee. Stand Up to China’s Bullying and Defend Taiwan, 2022.
The U.S., as the world’s most powerful country, should have an independent foreign policy. Currently, the U.S. abides by the One-China policy to appease Beijing.
The U.S. should no longer allow Beijing to dictate its foreign policy and should recognize the independence of Taiwan, a high-functioning, multi-party democracy whose citizens enjoy a high degree of freedom, education, and standard of living.
The U.S. needs to inform Xi Jinping that the U.S. and its allies will no longer allow China to dictate their relations with Taiwan.
One of the largest sticking points in U.S.-China relations is Beijing’s ongoing threat to capture Taiwan, a key U.S. ally in the Indo-Pacific region. While Taiwan is not officially recognized as a sovereign country by the U.S., it plays a critical role in American strategic interests.

Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the U.S. is committed to providing Taiwan with the means to defend itself. Preserving Taiwan’s de facto independence is crucial to maintaining regional stability and ensuring a rules-based international order.

If Taiwan were to fall to China, it would signal to authoritarian regimes globally that military force can be used to seize other nations without consequence, severely undermining global security.
Beyond its symbolic importance, Taiwan’s strategic location makes it vital for global trade. The Taiwan Strait, through which approximately 30-40% of the world’s containerized shipping passes, would come under Beijing’s control if China were to occupy Taiwan.
This would give China a significant advantage in controlling a major maritime trade route.
Moreover, China’s occupation would allow it to claim Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), expanding its reach toward Japan and the Philippines, both of which are key U.S. allies already involved in territorial disputes with China. Such a shift in power would have severe implications for regional and global stability.
Another reason to recognize Taiwan as a foreign country is that, under the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, Taiwan meets the criteria for statehood.
The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States was signed in 1933 during the Seventh International Conference of American States in Montevideo, Uruguay. The convention was primarily developed by Latin American states and the United States, and it defines a country by four key criteria:

A permanent population,
A defined territory,
A government, and
The capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Taiwan satisfies all of these requirements, as it has a stable population, clearly defined borders, a functioning government, and engages in unofficial diplomatic relations with numerous countries around the world. Thus, based on international law, Taiwan qualifies as a sovereign state.
Beyond the Montevideo Convention, Taiwan possesses several other attributes that not only qualify it as a country but also make it one of the most stable, affluent, and free nations in the world.
Taiwan is the 21st richest country by GDP, with a robust and stable economy that has consistently delivered a high standard of living for its citizens. It has its own currency, the New Taiwan Dollar, and a well-established government that operates as a multiparty democracy.
Taiwan is politically stable, having experienced no coups or civil wars in its modern history. Furthermore, Taiwan maintains a professional army capable of defending its sovereignty.
While Taiwan is not universally recognized as a country due to political pressures from China, it already has diplomatic relations with 12 countries, including the Holy See (Vatican State), and engages with the international community through its economic, political, and cultural influence.
Taiwan also holds membership in various international organizations, even if under alternative names, such as Chinese Taipei, further demonstrating its capacity to operate as an independent nation. These factors underscore Taiwan’s status as a fully functioning, sovereign state.
After years of the trade war and the steadily increasing tariffs and trade restrictions, recognition of Taiwan would send a clear message to Beijing that the U.S. will no longer tolerate China’s trade cheating, IP theft, espionage, and constant military threats.
Beyond addressing economic and military concerns, recognizing Taiwan would reaffirm the U.S.’s commitment to democratic values and the defense of free nations.
It would strengthen alliances across the Indo-Pacific, signaling to both allies and adversaries that the U.S. stands firm against authoritarian aggression.
Moreover, it would encourage other nations to resist China’s coercive tactics and empower Taiwan’s position on the global stage, further isolating China diplomatically.
Recognition of Taiwan is not just a symbolic move; it is a strategic decision that would reinforce global stability and uphold the principles of sovereignty and self-determination.” […]

Photo courtesy of the Texas Military Department: “Texas National Guard engineers continue to secure the Texas-Mexico border.”
Under the Biden administration, over 10 million illegal immigrants have entered the U.S. Harris and other liberal Democrats have refused to protect the border, claiming that the U.S. benefits from illegal immigration. However, their arguments are spurious.
Below is a list of the top reasons they claim illegal immigrants and open borders benefit the U.S., each of which is easily refuted.
Many people argue that illegal immigrants benefit the economy by filling crucial labor gaps, particularly in low-skill sectors such as agriculture, construction, and hospitality.
However, these alleged labor gaps are the result of two factors: the Biden-Harris administration’s policies that have increased financial assistance and transfer payments, leading to a decline in labor force participation, as many recipients find work less appealing compared to receiving free money.

Simultaneously, open borders have dramatically increased the size of the labor pool, driving down wages.

These depressed wages cannot compete with the financial incentives for some individuals to remain at home, further exacerbating the labor shortage.
Simple supply and demand economics demonstrates that an increased labor pool, willing to accept lower wages, depresses wages across low-skill sectors.
Some studies have argued that this only occurs in certain sectors, but by displacing native-born workers in those areas, the overall pool of labor seeking jobs in other sectors grows, driving down wages across the board.
Construction and the building trades are prime examples of industries where liberal social benefit payments, anti-masculine ideology, and open borders have combined to decrease the number of boys (yes, boys) willing to enter the trades, while also driving down wages. This has made the trades less attractive as a career path.
Claims that illegal immigrants contribute to the economy are misleading. Yes, every dollar spent by anyone in the U.S. contributes to the economy, but legal immigrants and citizens contribute more.
The average wages of illegal immigrants are lower, so their contribution to GDP is smaller. Additionally, citizens generally do not send a large portion of their earnings abroad as remittances, whereas many illegal immigrants do.
Furthermore, while some illegal immigrants may pay taxes, all native-born and citizens are required by law to pay taxes and are prosecuted if they fail to do so.
The concept of net benefit is often overlooked by proponents of illegal immigration. The percentage of illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, and asylum seekers relying on public benefits is dramatically higher than that of native-born citizens.
Native-born citizens contribute more per capita, earning higher wages, paying more in taxes, and are less likely to receive government benefits compared to undocumented immigrants.
Consequently, the overall economic contribution per person is much higher among native-born individuals. Additionally, when undocumented immigrants do rely on public services—such as healthcare or education—they create a net strain on these resources, which offsets the positive impact of their economic contributions.
Liberals often dismiss national security concerns regarding open borders, but these concerns are very real and well-documented. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reports that encounters with Chinese nationals at the border have increased by 8,000% since 2021.
Under China’s National Intelligence Law, all PRC citizens are required to assist in intelligence gathering, which qualifies them as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Encounters with Russian and Iranian nationals have also increased, raising fears that authoritarian regimes are exploiting U.S. freedoms to position agents within the country.
Additionally, encounters with individuals on the terrorist watch list have risen, with many slipping through custody and being admitted to the country, further exacerbating national security risks.
They claim that most undocumented immigrants are law-abiding. However, many crimes committed by undocumented immigrants go unreported or are underrepresented in crime statistics due to sanctuary policies and catch-and-release practices.
After being released without posting bail, many offenders do not return for their court date and consequently never become part of the statistics on convictions, further skewing the data regarding crime rates among undocumented immigrants.
Even if it is true that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate, the total number of crimes increases with their presence.
Furthermore, the nature of the crimes, particularly those committed by transnational criminal organizations such as MS-13, Tren de Aragua, and cartel-affiliated groups, is often violent and linked to drug trafficking.
These transnational crime groups are growing in the U.S., fueled by human trafficking and illegal immigration. Closing the border would help to bring these groups under control and limit their ability to expand their operations within the country. […]

Image source: Screenshot from YouTube, “10,000 ISIS Fighters: The Hidden Army in the Desert” Full Documentary, Java Discover | Free Global Documentary, January 2024
Trump is often vilified for the so-called “Muslim Ban,” but there was no such ban. Executive Order 13769, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, imposed a 90-day suspension of entry for individuals from seven countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—due to their links to terrorism.
Some of these nations are where U.S. soldiers and ships are currently under attack. The order did not affect nationals from the other 43 Muslim-majority countries. Trump was right to recognize the threat these seven nations posed to U.S. security.
Sudan was removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism in 2020, but at the time of Executive Order 13769, it had a history of harboring groups like al-Qaeda.
Today, Sudan teeters on the brink of failure due to ongoing conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

This violence has caused widespread destruction, economic collapse, and displacement, further eroding government authority.

Sudan’s instability leaves it vulnerable to extremist groups in the Sahel and North Africa, who could exploit the chaos to increase terrorism in the region.
Yemen, home to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), has long been a terrorism hotspot, with groups exploiting the ongoing civil war to bolster their operations. AQAP and the Iranian-backed Houthis both play key roles in the conflict.
The Houthis, designated as a terrorist organization by several countries, receive support from Iran and have launched missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia and U.S. interests, linking their actions to Iran’s broader regional strategy (as discussed in the Iran section of this report).
Iran, designated as a major state sponsor of terrorism, provides extensive support to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and militias across the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Syria.
This support includes not only financial backing but also arms, training, and strategic guidance, enabling these groups to carry out attacks on U.S. interests. Between October 2023 and February 4, 2024, Iran-backed groups, supported by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), launched over 60 attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.
In Yemen, Iran supplies the Houthis with military support, including drones and missiles, which have been used to target Saudi Arabia and U.S. ships in the Red Sea, threatening global shipping. Iranian leaders, such as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, frequently promote anti-U.S. rhetoric, with “Death to America” often chanted at state-sponsored rallies.
Libya has been in chaos since the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, creating a power vacuum exploited by militant groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates.
In 2015, ISIS established a stronghold in Sirte, aiming to create a base after its defeats in Iraq and Syria.
Although Libyan forces, with U.S. air support, recaptured Sirte in 2016, ISIS has reconstituted in desert regions, continuing to carry out guerrilla attacks such as the May 2020 strike on the Libyan National Army (LNA).
Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and other militants remain entrenched in southern Libya, using it for operations, fundraising through smuggling, and moving weapons across North Africa.
They engage in kidnappings targeting Westerners, with American citizens among those captured or killed. Libya’s instability has also turned it into a transit hub for arms and fighters, fueling conflicts in the Sahel and beyond, threatening U.S. allies and global security.
Somalia is home to Al-Shabaab, a powerful terrorist group affiliated with al-Qaeda. Al-Shabaab frequently carries out attacks on military and civilian targets, using suicide bombings, vehicle-borne explosives, and coordinated assaults.
One of the deadliest attacks occurred in October 2017, when they bombed Mogadishu, killing over 500 people. In 2022, the group also claimed responsibility for an attack on the Hayat Hotel in Mogadishu.
Al-Shabaab controls rural areas in southern and central Somalia, operating training camps, recruiting fighters, and taxing locals to fund its operations.
In these strongholds, the group undermines stabilization by targeting Somali military forces and African Union Mission (AMISOM) personnel. Al-Shabaab’s influence extends beyond Somalia, with attacks in Kenya, such as the 2013 Westgate Mall attack and the 2015 Garissa University massacre, which killed nearly 150 students.
These attacks highlight its regional threat and ability to destabilize East Africa, posing challenges to U.S. and allied interests.
Syria is a designated state sponsor of terrorism and remains a key battleground for extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates.
Although the ISIS caliphate collapsed in 2019, the group continues insurgent attacks, particularly in eastern Syria’s desert regions. ISIS focuses on ambushes, bombings, and hit-and-run attacks, such as the February 2021 ambush on an oil tanker convoy, which killed over 30 Syrian soldiers and civilians.
Al-Qaeda-linked groups, particularly Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), dominate Syria’s northwest, especially in Idlib province.
While HTS has shifted focus to local governance, it continues attacks on Syrian forces and rivals, clashing with Russian and Syrian military forces, using drone strikes and bombings.
In September 2022, HTS killed five Syrian soldiers in Hama, showing its ongoing military capability. Smaller al-Qaeda affiliates like Hurras al-Din have also emerged, complicating the security situation by targeting Syrian military convoys and assassinating rival militants and leaders.
All seven countries designated in Executive Order 13769 were linked to terrorism and continue to pose a threat to the U.S. Trump was right to pause admissions from these countries and subject visa applications to extensive scrutiny.
This raises the question of why Democrats and liberals opposed the order and pushed for more people from these nations to be admitted to the U.S. […]

Image courtesy of Antonio Graceffo

Imagine a world where, the Green New Deal has given way to a grim existence where individual aspirations and family bonds are eroded by constant government intervention and an economy that no longer works for the people. The promised vision of a green, sustainable world has instead become a nightmare of scarcity, control, and despair, leaving society trapped in a Socialist cycle of dependency with little hope for the future.
This oppressive control stems from an executive order that granted the government sweeping, COVID-like powers to shut down the economy and impose severe restrictions on everyday life. The central government now controls essential resources such as power and water, with meters installed in every home to strictly limit usage. Each family is allotted a minimal amount of energy and water, barely enough to get by, and any attempt to exceed these limits is met with harsh penalties.
The state has also established a force of “climate police” who enforce these draconian laws. They regularly check for violators, looking for those who might disable the government-installed detectors in an attempt to take an extra shower or use more electricity than their ration allows.
Adding to this atmosphere of distrust, neighbors are encouraged to inform on one another. Those who report violations are rewarded, while those caught breaking the rules face public shaming or worse. The government even goes so far as to pit communities against each other by awarding a virtual certificate of achievement to the commune that uses the least water and power. This certificate, a meaningless digital token, is sent by the police as a so-called honor, but in reality, it serves as a tool to further divide and control the population.

Parents no longer have absolute rights over their children. The state has taken control of their education, with schools indoctrinating children into the government’s climate ideology, treating it as an unquestionable truth. It has become illegal for parents to provide their children with any information that contradicts the government narrative, labeled as “disinformation.” Although parents are closely monitored by government surveillance, this technology is almost unnecessary because children have been conditioned to believe that it is their duty to report any violations by their parents. The result is a society where the bond between parent and child is eroded, replaced by a climate of fear and distrust, with families living in constant anxiety over the possibility of being turned in by their own children.
Digital IDs and digital payment systems have become tools of control, allowing the government to punish those who dare to speak out or violate its strict laws, such as growing their own food. Individuals who defy the state find their payment systems shut down, leaving them unable to buy necessities or access public transportation. Without a digital ID, they are effectively imprisoned within their own commune, unable to leave or enter. Exclusion from government services also means exclusion from essential resources like energy; those who fall out of favor with the government are left without heating, though cooling is no longer a concern as air conditioning has been abolished. This digital stranglehold ensures that dissent is swiftly and ruthlessly crushed, forcing the population into submission under the constant threat of losing even the most basic means of survival.
With the economy in ruins and personal freedoms eroded, life under this regime has become a bleak and joyless existence. The government’s grip on power, bolstered by these extreme measures, has turned the Green New Deal into a dystopian nightmare where survival, not thriving, is the only option. The freedoms and opportunities once taken for granted have been replaced by a suffocating reality where the state dictates every aspect of life, from how much water you can use to how often you can heat your home.
In this world, the dream of a better future is overshadowed by the harsh reality of a government that wields unchecked power over its people. The executive order that was meant to protect the environment has instead created a society where fear, control, and deprivation are the norm, and where the basic human needs of freedom and dignity have been sacrificed in the name of sustainability. […]

Image source: Screenshot from YouTube, “Kamala Harris word salad speech at pro-abortion rally blasted by critics,” New York Post
She is the daughter of a Marxist professor, and it shows.
The reason socialists often win at the polls is not because socialism is better, but because the message is more popular: “The government will take money from the rich and give it to you,” or “You will no longer have to work for an evil capitalist; the government will take care of you.”
Socialists believe that extreme taxation and government transfer programs are necessary to address income inequality.
The capitalist message is less popular. Capitalist candidates say they will address racism by ensuring companies hire based on merit, not race, and they will address income inequality by encouraging people to improve their skills and get better jobs.

Hard work, investment, delayed gratification, and other forms of discipline just do not resonate with socialists.

Kamala attacks companies for making high profits.
First off, the profits she criticizes are largely nominal, inflated by the very policies she and Joe enacted—shutting down the economy for two years while printing and giving away free money, which caused inflation.
She and other socialists believe companies should give profits to workers rather than shareholders.
But this raises the question: why would anyone buy shares if they couldn’t receive a distribution of profits?
McDonald’s stock costs $288 a share right now. People buy these shares to earn a return on their investment. If the company gave the profits to the workers rather than the shareholders, there would be no incentive to buy shares or invest in companies anymore.
Additionally, there are legal concerns: the company has a legal contract with workers to pay them a certain wage, not the wage plus all profits.
At the same time, the company has a legal obligation to act in the best interest of shareholders and maximize their value.
Legally, the profits belong to the shareholders. If the CEO decided to give the profits to someone else, that would be stealing.
Another issue with Kamalaites and socialists is that they focus on gross profits because they want to show a big, scary number to prove how evil and greedy the company is.
Gross profit is the revenue minus the cost of goods sold, but it doesn’t account for other expenses like taxes, interest, and operational costs.
All of these expenses must be paid, or the company would be in legal violation, facing lawsuits, and its assets could be seized by banks, creditors, contractors, suppliers, service providers, and employees.
Once all expenses are paid, what’s left is net profit, which is much smaller than gross profit.
The board of directors then decides how to allocate this net profit, determining how much to reinvest in the company and how much to distribute as dividends to shareholders.
Reinvesting might involve opening new locations, expanding existing ones, or buying new technology, machinery, or vehicles—investments that help the company earn more in the future.
Whether the company holds onto this cash or reinvests it, it remains an asset and doesn’t decrease the stock price.
However, giving it all away would reduce the company’s assets, negatively impact the current share price, and decrease future profitability, as there would be no funds for purchasing new equipment or expanding operations—both of which are crucial for achieving economies of scale and lowering per-unit costs.
Usually, the board strikes a balance between reinvestment and distributions to shareholders through dividends or stock buybacks.
If socialists had their way and the board decided to give all net profits to employees, the company wouldn’t be able to reinvest or expand, which would halt job creation. Shareholders would receive nothing, causing the stock price to plummet.
Without profit incentives, there would be no future shareholders.
Any loans secured by stock or future profits would become risky, likely leading to defaults. With no stock to sell off, and no cash reserves or retained earnings, the company would most likely go bankrupt.
Claims that Kamala would be better for the deficit and national debt than Trump overlook the fact that she would be giving away billions of dollars, wrecking the economy, and incentivizing more people to live on government handouts.
Supporters argue that these policies have a lesser impact on the deficit because she would couple them with egregious taxes, such as taxing unrealized capital gains. This would mean paying taxes every time your home, retirement account, or Bitcoin increases in value on paper, whether you cash out or not.
Forcing companies to distribute all of their net profits as compensation to employees would reduce government tax revenue to zero.
If the distribution is classified as compensation, it would be treated as a cost, reducing the company’s net profit to zero, regardless of when it was calculated.
This means the distribution would be deducted from revenue as an operating expense, effectively reducing taxable income to zero. Consequently, there would be no profit left to tax, and the company would not owe corporate income taxes.
All of Kamala’s Marxist policies will incentivize government dependence while stifling investment, crippling the economy, and reducing job creation. But the message of taking from “evil, greedy” companies and giving to “good, hard-working” people is easier to sell. […]

EL TREN DE ARAGUA: Así es como la MEGABANDA VENEZOLANA controla el CRIMEN EN LATAM | El Comercio, 2023, Diario El Comercio, screenshot from YouTube.

Open borders, woke ideology, hate speech regulations, and other liberal constructs are weakening U.S. national security. Illegal immigrants are no longer called illegal, and even a violent gang, recognized by the U.S. government as a national security threat, is being handled with kid gloves to avoid offending law-abiding illegal immigrants from Venezuela and their supporters.
Back in June, I reported on Tren de Aragua, a violent transnational Venezuelan gang that entered the USA through the southern border and is now operating in states across the country. The existence and threat of this group, as well as its growth in America, are well-documented in government reports. The National Security Council has issued a statement on this new threat to national security, the Treasury Department has recognized them as a transnational crime organization, and the U.S. Department of State is offering a $12 million bounty for information leading to the arrest of several of its leaders.
Clearly, the group exists and poses a major threat to the nation. However, in recent days, a series of stories have appeared in second-tier, regional, and right-leaning media outlets, claiming that Tren de Aragua is taking over several towns in Colorado, specifically Aurora and Denver. These reports state that the mayors have asked the governor for help, but the governor said the gang takeover was simply a figment of their “imagination.” Simultaneously, other media outlets are claiming that the story of a gang takeover is false. For the most part, the largest mainstream, national media are not covering the story.
According to the New York Post, the gang has taken over numerous apartment buildings, and viral videos circulating on social media apparently support these claims. These videos are also being aired by local affiliates of larger news organizations, such as KDVR in Denver, NBC Montana, and CBN News. The Denver Post, however, claims that landlords are inventing this story to distract from their own shoddy maintenance of the buildings, which seems extremely unlikely. This landlord narrative would be a first in the documented history of gang violence. The story reported by Fox seems more plausible—that the landlords were unable to perform maintenance because the gang had taken over the properties.

CBS reported that after the videos went viral, local police confirmed the presence of Tren de Aragua and acknowledged that the gang has committed violent acts in the area. However, they seem hesitant to link the videos or claims of building takeovers to the gang. Axios and Newsweek are two of the biggest mainstream media outlets covering the story, and both were careful to emphasize that most illegal immigrants from Venezuela have no connection to crime. Axios noted that the presence of Tren de Aragua, “known for human smuggling and money laundering, raises concerns about the safety of residents and newly arrived migrants from Venezuela, most of whom have no connection to criminal activity.”
The coverage in Newsweek seems to both corroborate that the violence is happening while attributing the claims about the apartments being taken over to Trump, implying that he lied. At a recent rally in Pennsylvania, Trump told supporters, “These stupid people that we have leading our country are allowing these people, these criminals, to come into our country, and we’ve got to get them the hell out of here.”
Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman also blames federal policies at the southern border for the mess his police force now faces in combating Tren de Aragua. Senator Marco Rubio agrees, stating that the blame lies with the Biden administration: “Our local communities continue to face the consequences of President Biden’s open border policy, which has enabled Tren de Aragua mercenaries to wreak havoc across the U.S. On repeated occasions, I demanded the Biden administration designate this criminal organization for what it truly is.”
It’s well known that Tren de Aragua members enter the country illegally and are involved in human trafficking. Some trafficked individuals even agree to work for the gang in exchange for passage to the United States. We are living in dangerous times where the fear of offending people outweighs the fear of being killed. Our elected officials are failing to protect us, which is a primary function of government. The media is complicit, either too afraid to report the story or unwilling to acknowledge that it exists. How can a gang’s takeover of part of a town be considered imaginary? Where are the interviews with the victims on the streets? Where are the CNN helicopters? And while we’re at it, where are the crime stats that show the dangers of letting these gangs into the country? […]

Kamala’s Destructive Economic Policies, Screenshot from YouTube: “Good, Bad, and Ugly: Analyzing Kamala Harris’ DNC Speech,” The Majority Report w/ Sam, August 28, 2024.

As someone with a degree in Misesian (Austrian) economics, I find that Kamala Harris has given me an unlimited supply of ill-informed economic policies to tear apart. Take, for instance, her proposed ban on grocery price gouging. Such a policy is almost certain to lead to shortages, as it disrupts the natural market mechanisms that balance supply and demand. Moreover, the concept of “profit-driven inflation” is fundamentally flawed. Inflation is not caused by corporate greed but is, in fact, a monetary phenomenon. The real culprit behind inflation is the Biden administration’s reckless expansion of the money supply, soaring debt, and excessive government spending.
Under Biden, the M2 money supply—which includes cash, checking deposits, and easily convertible near money—has ballooned. In 2019, the M2 money supply was approximately $15.4 trillion. By 2024, it had surged to around $21.02 trillion, representing an increase of nearly 36%. This unprecedented growth in the money supply is the primary driver of the inflation we’re experiencing today, not the actions of individual companies.
The basic law of supply and demand tells us that when supply increases while demand remains the same, prices go down. The same principle applies to money. When the government prints more money, the value of each dollar—its buying power—decreases. This is why your grocery bills are much higher now than they were under Trump.

Kamala’s proof of price gouging relies on a questionable calculation that she believes shows milk producers increased prices beyond the decades-high inflation created by the Biden administration. First off, production quantities are set months in advance of when products will be sold. As a result, prices are set based on expectations about future inflation. So, while inflation may have been 5% when production was underway, analysts rightly anticipated that inflation would be higher by the time the products reached the market, and therefore, they set the prices accordingly.

The reason socialism fails is because governments are backward-looking, while companies have to be forward-looking. The government, after the fact, has the benefit of perfect data and no skin in the game. They then analyze retrospectively the actions of corporations and decide what the companies did wrong. Another issue with the government is that they intentionally use limited information to arrive at a desired narrative. For example, when they claimed gasoline companies made record profits in the second year of the pandemic, they ignored the fact that these same companies suffered incredible losses in the first year of the pandemic because no one was driving. The companies average those gains and losses and arrive at a normal average profit. The Kamalites, however, just look at the gains, ignore the losses, and claim higher-than-usual profits.
Capping prices and forcing companies to sell at a price lower than what they believe the market price should be will inevitably result in shortages. Companies will simply stop producing a product if the government forces them to sell it at a price lower than the cost plus a normal profit. Moreover, the government should not have the authority to determine what constitutes a “normal” profit because it lacks the detailed information that corporations gain through countless interactions between buyers and sellers, happening millions of times every day.
Another point the Biden White House misses is that profits were higher in nominal terms because of inflation. The number of dollars was higher than the previous year, but those dollars were worth less than before. So, when you take a normal 3-8% profit margin and multiply it by the 13% inflated dollars, you end up with a staggering number, which Kamala and Joe claim was price gouging. In reality, it wasn’t price gouging—it was just the normal effects of inflation.
When oil prices go up, the price of everything else follows. Joe Biden’s approach of insulting Saudi Arabia and refusing to engage with them as Trump did caused oil prices to rise. Add to this the Bidenflation factor, and costs skyrocketed. To stay in business, companies had to charge prices that covered the added costs from Biden’s policies plus a normal profit margin, which, once again, resulted in big, scary numbers. Kamala’s response was to raise the minimum wage, which accounts for 20%-40% of prices. So, raising the minimum wage further increased prices…
Getting back to the milk example Kamala is harping on: Her portrayal is that big, greedy, Republican-voting milk companies gouged the price of milk because they supposedly hate children and families and want kids to underperform in school for some reason. According to this narrative, the milk companies all spontaneously decided to call each other and say, “Let’s raise the price of milk really high.” And apparently, they chose this exact moment in history to do it because, for some reason, they had never thought of it before.
If the narrative that big, evil corporations raised prices out of greed were true, then it should also be true that nice, kind, children-loving, Democrat-voting farmers and small milk producers would be selling milk at a lower price. However, if you look at prices at big-box stores like Target and Walmart, everything, including milk, is actually cheaper than at mom-and-pop stores. This shows that the antitrust narrative falls apart. Big-box stores, large producers, and commercial farms end up dominating the sector because they are more efficient and can sell goods cheaper than small producers. If this weren’t the case, small producers would enter the market, sell at lower prices, and make more money—but they can’t.
Kamala’s economic policies are the exact answers you’d get from a five-year-old. If you ask a child, “Milk is really expensive, what should the government do?” your kid might say, “The government should make them sell it cheaper.” As much as you love your children, you probably don’t let them make major decisions for your family. It would be just as misguided to have them write national economic policies. […]

Screenshot from YouTube video, How Socialism Wiped Out Venezuela’s Spectacular Oil Wealth, Reason TV.
As Venezuela descends deeper into chaos in the wake of a highly irregular election, fingers are being pointed, and there is a lot of speculation about just what it is that made Venezuela poor, causing more than a quarter of the population to flee the country and now about two-thirds of the population supporting the opposition protesters clashing with the police in the streets.
Apologists for Venezuela’s socialist regime claim that U.S. sanctions made the country poor. And while sanctions didn’t help, the reason the country is poor is because of the socialist policies of the Maduro and Chávez regimes. The transition to socialism and the crash of the economy all happened long before Trump imposed sanctions in 2017.
Venezuela’s economy, while not as centrally planned or restrictive as communist Cuba’s, has been trending in that direction since Hugo Chávez took over in 1999.
Central planning steadily increased during the Nicolás Maduro regime, which began in 2013 and has lasted through the recent election, which was so flawed that the results were rejected not only by Western nations and The Organization of American States (OAS) but even by some socialist allies in Latin America, including Colombia’s leftist President Gustavo Petro and Chile’s leftist leader Gabriel Boric.

Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999 with grand promises of social justice, economic equality, and wealth redistribution.

His socialist agenda, popular among the poor, centered on nationalizing key industries, including oil, telecommunications, and electricity. Companies were nationalized, including banks, foreign-owned firms, and domestic farms.
The proceeds were then used to fund “wealth distribution” schemes, buying him popular support. While these moves were intended to redistribute wealth, they instead led to inefficiencies and rampant corruption.
Government ownership of private enterprises disrupted the market economy. Chávez introduced price controls on basic goods to make them affordable for the poor.
However, these controls led to widespread shortages as producers could not cover their costs, causing decreased production and an explosion of black market activities.
Chávez’s government-funded extensive social programs through oil revenues. While these programs initially improved living standards for many, they were not sustainable.
As oil prices fell, the government faced budget deficits, leading to increased borrowing and inflation. The state sector had become so inefficient due to subsidies and gross mismanagement that even when the price of oil surpassed $100 a barrel, Venezuela’s economy remained in freefall.
Nicolás Maduro, Chávez’s chosen successor, continued the socialist policies, but the situation worsened under his leadership.
Maduro’s tenure has been marked by hyperinflation which reaching six-digits, mass emigration, and a humanitarian crisis. Destructive socialist policies and the general collapse of the economy led to a collapse of domestic savings and investment, which in turn reduced overall economic output.
The absorption of much of the private sector into the mismanaged state sector eliminated the benefit of diversification, leaving the country even more dependent on oil—a sector which is state-owned, state-controlled, rife with corruption, and which distributes wealth to the political ruling class.
Oil production declined, and then exogenous factors such as a reduction in the global price were effectively the death knell of the economy.
The printing of money to cover budget deficits devalued the currency, wiping out savings and incomes. The government’s inability to maintain infrastructure and public services led to frequent blackouts, water shortages, and deteriorating healthcare.
Hospitals lacked basic supplies, leading to a public health crisis. Facing economic hardship, nearly 8 million Venezuelans have fled the country in search of better opportunities. This exodus further weakened the economy as the workforce shrank.
The economic policies of Chávez and Maduro, rooted in socialist ideology, emphasized state control and wealth redistribution. These policies ignored basic economic principles, leading to inefficiencies and corruption.
By stifling private investment and entrepreneurship, the government hindered economic growth. Nationalized industries became inefficient, and corruption flourished.
All of these problems were homegrown, resulting from the Chávez/Maduro choice to turn the country into a socialist paradise, which now boasts the highest level of undernourishment in Latin America.
In a recent poll, about 25% of participants said they were planning to leave the country, which will certainly mean more illegals entering the U.S. southern border.
In case anyone missed the horrendous effects of socialism/communism on Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, and Laos, Venezuela should serve as a cautionary tale to American voters to reject socialism. […]

Screenshot from “Earth Needs a Prosecutor. Kamala Harris Is on the Case,” Mother Jones, August 9, 2024.
Kamala supports legislation in favor of socialist/liberal environmental policies, which will crash the economy and lower living standards.
For example, the Green New Deal, which aims to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and drastically cut carbon emissions, would lead to destructive outcomes, including the potential elimination of private property rights in favor of communal ownership, severe restrictions on personal movement, and government-imposed limits on energy consumption in homes, such as controlling heating, cooling, and water usage, which could drastically reduce individual freedoms and lower living standards.
The goal of carbon neutrality by 2030 is nearly impossible. Currently, about 75% of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels. To even attempt this goal, they would have to shut down the economy the economy.
At the same time, they want to ban fracking which is a terrible idea because it will lead to job losses in the energy sector, increase energy prices, and reduce energy independence by making the U.S. more reliant on foreign oil. Fracking has also been credited with reducing carbon emissions by displacing coal with natural gas, which burns cleaner.

The Harris economic agenda, as well as her energy agenda, is expected to be an extension of Biden’s but more extreme. The White House claimed, “President Biden has led and delivered on the most ambitious climate agenda in history, which is lowering energy costs for hardworking Americans, creating millions of good-paying jobs, safeguarding the health of our communities, and ensuring America leads the clean energy future.”

This statement is inconsistent with reality. However, climate restrictions have not created jobs, and energy is much more expensive than it was under Trump.
Biden vowed to “shut down the oil and gas industry.” Apparently, he thought we could reach carbon neutrality instantly and that we would no longer need food, manufacturing, shipping, transportation, light, or heat. To this end, he issued an executive order prohibiting new oil and gas leases on federal lands.
Biden waged war on US liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. However, pausing US LNG exports is unlikely to reduce emissions meaningfully because demand and usage will remain relatively stable. Other countries will simply source LNG from different suppliers, potentially from nations with less stringent environmental regulations. If alternative sources are less efficient or more polluting, emissions could actually increase. It would also undermine relationships with international allies who rely on U.S. LNG. For example, US LNG exports help Europe wean itself off of Russian energy.
Additionally, pausing LNG exports could harm the U.S. economy by reducing revenue from natural gas sales. Reduced income also means reduced tax revenue for an administration that wants to give away trillions of dollars.
The Biden-Harris assault on American energy increases US dependence on the Middle East, Russia, and Venezuela. Even if the US did not buy energy from Russia and Venezuela, both countries would benefit from the increased price of oil caused by the US buying more foreign oil. This would, in turn, increase the prices Americans pay at the pumps which will not benefit the families Kamala claims to want to help.
Environmental justice is another of her rallying cries, a movement that claims minorities are more severely impacted by climate change and pollution. The so-called Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which, despite its name, actually increased inflation and added to the national debt, is the biggest climate spending law in U.S. history.
Its focus on environmental justice has already led to increased debt and inflation and could lead to overly restrictive regulations, hindering economic opportunities and development in the very communities it aims to protect, potentially exacerbating poverty and limiting growth.
Across the board, Kamala’s goals are logical contradictions.
She supports guaranteed jobs for everyone but then wants to reduce energy use which will cause businesses to slow down or close.
She wants to reduce the price of food and other goods while increasing the cost of manufacturing, processing, and transportation.
She wants to create jobs by increasing taxes on the wealthy by a total of $3 trillion, which will discourage new companies from opening and existing companies from expanding and hiring.
Raising the minimum wage will decrease jobs and funneling billions in tax dollars to low-income renters will cause shortages of apartments and an increase in rents for everyone else. […]

Eric Swalwell, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Although the US is considered a capitalist country, there are now more government employees than factory workers. President Biden claims to have created more jobs than any other president, yet the sector with the largest job gains was government, while manufacturing was near the bottom. The US currently has 23 million government workers compared to just 13 million factory workers. Out of the entire workforce of 268.6 million, government jobs account for 8.5% of total employment in the US. In Austria, a country that is much more socialist than the US, government employment makes up only 3.9% of the workforce.
The key difference between a factory worker and a government employee is that a factory worker contributes directly to the economy. In the first quarter of 2024, manufacturers contributed $2.87 trillion to the U.S. economy. Manufacturing, not government, is also a major attractor of foreign direct investment (FDI). In 2023, U.S. manufacturing attracted $2.2 trillion in FDI, accounting for about 40% of the total $5.39 trillion in FDI.
FDI is another area where the government sector impact on the economy differs from manufacturing. When the government prints money, it leads to a decrease in the value of the dollar due to increased supply, which drives inflation. In contrast, FDI involves foreign investors buying U.S. dollars to invest in domestic companies, which increases demand for the dollar, raises its value, and helps to curb inflation.
When Biden extended the economic lockdown and then drove up the deficit and national debt to mitigate the problem he helped create, he told the country that his $1.9 trillion fiscal package would have a multiplier effect. The idea is that if the government gives you a dollar you didn’t earn and you buy groceries, the grocery store gets the dollar and uses it to pay wages, and the workers buy things… So each dollar the government gives away for free supposedly has an impact of $2.50 on the economy.

The multiplier effect is real, though the exact impact—whether $2.50 or $2.69—is debatable. The same concept applies to dollars earned. When a factory sells products, it uses the revenue to pay wages, and workers then spend that money, similar to the government stimulus scenario. However, the key difference is that government stimulus increases the deficit and debt, which must be repaid later, along with interest. Moreover, the ‘free money’ from the government also contributes to inflation. Therefore, it makes more sense to grow the economy by encouraging people to work in productive fields rather than relying on government stimulus.
The irony in all of this is that despite the destructive COVID lockdowns leading to the loss of 1.4 million manufacturing jobs, the manufacturing sector is now facing a labor shortage. The sector is expected to have a shortfall of 2.4 million workers by the year 2030.
The government’s solution to the labor shortfall in manufacturing is focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). A government report titled “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Key to Filling High-Skilled Manufacturing Jobs” emphasized statistics showing that the manufacturing sector has become more diverse, with more minorities and women entering the field or co-owning companies. While this may be true, it doesn’t address how DEI will solve the overall worker shortfall. There’s no evidence that the shortfall exists because owners refused to hire certain demographics. The real issue is that fewer people are interested in working in factories.
A basic premise at the heart of all capitalist economic models is that people want to improve their own well-being. In 2022, the average manufacturing worker earned $98,846, including pay and benefits, compared to the average American’s earnings of $83,992. The fact that people are turning down these manufacturing jobs suggests they believe they have alternative options that make them better off, but not necessarily because they will earn more money. They just feel they would be better off not working.
In the Biden economy, it has become more comfortable and socially acceptable to claim unemployment or disability and avoid working. As much as 12% of young people are neither working nor attending school. The percentage of young people on government benefits is now higher than at any point in U.S. history. The labor force participation rate, or the number of people willing to work, remains nearly half a percentage point below what it was under Trump. This indicates that close to 1 million people have decided to stop working and stop looking for work.
Democrats continue to push for a higher minimum wage as a solution to poverty in America. However, high-paying jobs are already available, yet many people are unwilling to work in them. Instead, we’re seeing a rising percentage of people who do not contribute meaningfully to the economy—they’re not making products, they’re not being trained in critical skills, and they’re increasingly relying on government support. This reliance drives up the deficit, debt, and inflation.
Meanwhile, if these factory jobs remain unfilled, companies will either move their operations overseas or lobby for laws allowing illegal immigrants to fill positions that Americans are apparently unwilling to take. Parallel to the growing welfare rolls is the endless creation of government jobs. Whether people are working for the government or living on benefits, they’re relying on tax dollars from a shrinking workforce and are not contributing to production. […]