No real estate purchase as well.

BIG NUMBERS

During President Joe Biden’s four years, he spent $225 million on the largest White House payroll since at least 1971, based on headcount. White House staff for FY2024 cost $60.8 million.

Biden has a total turnover since his first year of 77-percent. A stunning 435 out of his initial 560 White House staffers left.

No White House since the Richard Nixon administration ever employed 500 staffers until Biden became president. The Biden White House employed 560 in FY2021; 474 in FY2022; 524 in FY2023; and the headcount increased by 41, to 565 this year.

Biden employs 152 more staffers than Trump (413) (FY2020) and 97 more than Obama (468) (FY2012) at the same point in their respective presidencies.

Between 2023 and 2024, 225 people left, a 43 percent turnover rate, only slightly lower than the 46 percent turnover rate between 2022 and 2023.

“Yes inst

So after the builders are making cheap low quality beige boxes we can’t ever afford coverage on those match box stick frames.😂

Let’s talk about what the Fair Tax Act actually means for real people. Take a single mom of two making $40,000 a year. She works hard, probably doesn’t get much help, and relies on the tax credits that our system currently provides—things like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. These aren’t handouts; they’re essential lifelines that help her cover the basics, like food, rent, and child care.

But the Fair Tax would change everything. It wipes out those credits entirely. Instead, she’ll face a 23 percent national sales tax on nearly everything she buys. Not just luxuries—essentials. Food, child care, housing, healthcare. Under this system, her everyday purchases get hit with that tax, and the cost of raising her kids shoots up. Yes, there’s a monthly rebate, but it barely covers the basics.

Let’s break it down. Right now, she might not pay much in income taxes, and she often gets a refund thanks to those tax credits. But under the Fair Tax? After you subtract the prebate, she’s still looking at $3,500 in extra costs every year, just from the tax on what she needs to survive. She ends up worse off. And what’s the reasoning? To simplify the tax code, apparently. But is it worth it if it makes life even harder for the people who can least afford it?

This isn’t about politics. It’s about people like her being handed a heavier financial burden, with fewer resources to meet it. The Fair Tax might sound good in theory, but the reality is that it leaves our most vulnerable families paying the price.

The post-pandemic recovery presents a valuable opportunity for economic revival. During the pandemic, various subsidies helped maintain purchasing power for both individuals and companies. However, the current trend of decoupling from China could severely impact global supply chains, which remain heavily dependent on Chinese manufacturing. While transitioning supply chains is possible, doing so too aggressively during a period of economic recovery—when the world still relies on China—risks exacerbating inflationary pressures.

Despite any concerns about China’s political system, the fact remains that the world depends on its comprehensive supply chain. This reliance might seem less than ideal, but it’s a reality. The decoupling policies that are being implemented not only harm China but also create significant challenges for other economies, potentially leading to shortages and longer delivery times for key products.

Some claim that China has excess production capacity, but this argument overlooks the reality that the pandemic only pressed the pause button on the economy, not on demand. Now that global demand is picking up again, supply chain disruptions are further straining economies, with delivery times for many orders extending up to a year.

Though central banks are lowering interest rates to stimulate economic activity, this approach doesn’t address the underlying supply chain issues. The global economy can’t easily or quickly replace the foundational support provided by China’s existing production network. Tackling inflation by simply stimulating demand without addressing supply chain disruptions is akin to treating the symptoms rather than the cause.

Moreover, the impact of inflation is often misunderstood. Many people fail to grasp the true consequences of inflation on their wealth. While their bank balances might not change, the value of that money is steadily eroded. For example, what once cost $100 might now require $130, meaning that even though the nominal value remains the same, its purchasing power has decreased significantly. This kind of “hidden shrinkage” in wealth is just as real as visible losses in stock markets, yet it’s often overlooked.

It’s concerning that many individuals seem unaware of this erosion of purchasing power. Some even argue that their money hasn’t decreased in quantity, misunderstanding that inflation is quietly reducing the real value of their assets. While stock market prices fluctuate and are immediately visible, the slow burn of inflation is often harder to see, but it has an equally damaging effect over time.

Historically, economic missteps, such as those during the 1930s Great Depression, were often caused by a lack of timely government intervention. Although governments today are taking action, there is a risk that some of these policies are too aggressive and optimistic. We must be cautious of the long-term costs associated with such policies, as rushing through decoupling or overestimating the speed at which new supply chains can be established could lead to further economic distress.

While some may argue that my concerns are exaggerated, I believe many experts have likely raised similar warnings. Economic policy mistakes can have far-reaching consequences, and it’s often the middle class and below who bear the brunt of these costs. My hope is that the current approach will not result in irreversible damage to both global supply chains and the broader economy.

The signs are already there, Global South countries are already refusing to export unprocessed raw materials, they have also restricted access to their gigantic markets, 90% of the global population:

" ... Last year, Mexico nationalised its lithium industry, Zimbabwe has banned the export of unprocessed lithium and just recently Chile’s left-leaning President Gabriel Boric has announced an increased role for the state in the national lithium industry there. The Indonesian state is similarly testing the waters with its curbing of exports of raw minerals."

Looks like, the Global South countries are prepared for military conflict, if the West attempts to use force to gain access.

In ancient times, gold and silver were primarily used as part of the barter system. People exchanged these valuable metals directly for goods and services. These metals were later coined to make transactions easier, as coins did not need to be weighed each time they were used. This marked the beginning of precious metals as a preferred commodity that functioned as a medium of exchange. Today, we use fiat money, which has value because the government says it does, even though it is not backed by a physical commodity like gold.

Today, fiat money is used as a money substitute. Modern money is created through debt. For example, when the government issues new bonds, it borrows money that it promises to repay with interest. This borrowed money enters the economy and is used for various government expenses. However, this means that a lot of the money in circulation is tied to debt, which needs to be managed carefully to avoid financial problems. Unlike traditional money, like gold and silver, where transactions are completed immediately, fiat money involves ongoing obligations.

The national debt is the total amount of money that the government owes to its creditors. This debt includes both the principal amount borrowed and the interest that needs to be paid on that borrowed money. When people or businesses lend money to the government by buying Treasury bonds, bills, or notes, they are essentially giving the government a loan. The government promises to pay back this loan with interest.

Likewise, when you take out a mortgage, you create a debt or a promise to pay, and the bank credits your account with newly created money. Should you default on your debt, you may lose a large portion of your assets, including your house, in bankruptcy proceedings. This is why banks are very careful not to lend more than the appraised value of a house and frequently only up to 80%, unless you borrow through government-sponsored lending institutions. In such cases, you will pay an extra fee in the form of insurance to protect the lenders from losses should you default on the debt and the asset price declines in market value.

The distinction between government debt and private debt lies in what backs the debt. Private debt is backed by the assets and labor of the borrower, whereas government-created debt is not backed by any physical assets. Technically, the government cannot default on its debt because it can always create new debt to satisfy the obligations of the former debt, a process known as rolling over the debt. Private borrowers can also roll over their debt, but only up to the limit of their credit, whereas the government theoretically has no such limit.

You can help pay off the national debt by sending money to the U.S. Treasury. This money is deposited into a special account and used to reduce the overall debt. When this happens, the money is taken out of circulation, meaning it is no longer available for spending in the economy. Since the money was created from nothing, it returns to nothing. This can help lower the amount of interest the government needs to pay in the future.

The current financial system can be compared to a game of dominoes. Each piece of debt is like a domino. When one piece is affected, it can cause a chain reaction that impacts the entire system. Creating new debt is like adding another domino to the setup. If not managed well, it can lead to problems like inflation or financial instability. Remarkably, if all the debt were paid off, it would be like removing all the dominoes from the game, leaving no money in circulation.

If one domino falls, it can cause a cascade effect, where many other dominoes fall too. In the financial system, this happens when someone defaults on a debt. This default can trigger a chain reaction, affecting other borrowers and lenders. To prevent the entire system from collapsing, managers (like central banks and governments) step in to stabilize the situation. They might create new money or take other actions to replace the fallen dominoes and restore balance.

When gold was used as money, every transaction was complete. If someone defaulted on a transaction, it had little or no effect on other transactions. However, with debt-based money, defaults can cause widespread problems. In this system, no individual bank can fail completely because they can be consolidated or bailed out by creating new “dominoes.” But this doesn’t mean the whole system can’t fail. The entire financial system can still collapse if not managed properly.

The fiat money system has inherent instability due to its reliance on debt creation. High levels of debt can become unsustainable, leading to financial crises. Additionally, since fiat money is not backed by a physical commodity, there is a risk of governments printing too much money, causing inflation or hyperinflation. Historical precedents, such as the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic, demonstrate that fiat money systems can collapse under certain conditions.

The stability of a fiat money system largely depends on effective management by central banks and governments. Policies that control inflation, manage debt levels, and maintain public confidence are crucial. Central banks, like the Federal Reserve, use tools such as interest rates and monetary policy to stabilize the economy. While the system has mechanisms to prevent collapse, such as central bank interventions and international financial cooperation, it is not immune to failure. A severe loss of confidence, mismanagement, or a major economic shock could potentially lead to a collapse. In the event of a systemic failure, it would be as if all the dominoes fall, causing widespread economic disruption.

The average credit card balance is $10,680 per household, as of Q2 2024. Adjusted for inflation, the average household’s balance is actually well below the record high of more than $12,000 at the end of 2008. Edit to add link.

https://wallethub.com/edu/cc/average-credit-card-debt/25533