One reason housing is so expensive is because we don’t have enough houses. One reason we have fewer houses is because local regulations make building more expensive. Until local politicians get serious about limiting regulations, or the federal government withholds funds to localities that do not do so, these politicians are not serious about housing affordability.
For low-value medical care, it helps to have consumer skin in the game, but that isn’t what drives healthcare costs. Healthcare costs are driven by needed care and not the overuse of unneeded care.
“”Walmart just announced that the cost of their standard Thanksgiving meal is reduced by 25 percent this year from last year,” Trump said recently, failing to account for the fact that the price change is due to Walmart…changing the goods offered via their Thanksgiving meal bundle (and drastically shrinking its size) to get prices lower for cost-burdened consumers.”
New York City is way too expensive. It is unaffordable by any hungry person who doesn’t already have a lot of money or parents who will pay for them to live in New York. Even people who make good money have trouble flourishing in New York because basic things are too expensive.
“The ongoing federal shutdown could cost the U.S. economy between $7 billion and $14 billion, according to a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.”
“American goods are losing ground fast. A recent KPMG survey finds that “60% of businesses reported decreased overseas sales” in the first six months of President Donald Trump’s tariffs. For instance, U.S. liquor exports tumbled 9 percent in the second quarter of this year, with steep declines across the European Union, Canada, Britain, and Japan, which together buy about 70 percent of these exports. In another example, China—once a key customer for U.S. farm goods—has turned instead to Argentina and other suppliers, and total U.S. soybean exports are down 23 percent this year.
Smaller companies are also adversely affected. A valve and gas component maker in Napa Valley just announced that it will shut down a plant and discharge 237 employees, citing weak overseas demand linked to tariffs. Let’s not forget the upcoming Supreme Court case of V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, where U.S. importers and resellers of wine, electronics kits, apparel, and other goods argued that the April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs disrupted their supply chains, forced steep price increases, and threatened their viability.
American consumers, too, are paying the price. KPMG finds that nearly half of American companies have already raised prices because of tariffs; two-thirds have passed at least part of those costs on to shoppers; and nearly 40 percent have paused hiring, with a third cutting jobs.
CEOs overwhelmingly expect tariffs to weigh on business for years. Goldman Sachs estimates U.S. consumers are now footing 55 percent of the total tariff bill, while foreign exporters bear only a sliver of the costs.”
“States that embrace renewable energy are far more likely to save money for electricity consumers than those relying on fossil fuels or nuclear power, a POLITICO analysis of federal and industry data shows — findings that undermine one of the Trump administration’s main justifications for its aggressive rollback of federal clean energy policies.”
“the Energy Department announced that it will offer $625 million in funding to “reinvigorate and expand America’s coal industry.” The funding includes $350 million to modernize outdated coal power plants or recommission closed ones, and up to $175 million for coal power projects in rural communities. This announcement was coupled with an Interior Department directive to open 13.1 million acres of federal land for coal mining at lower royalty rates. The Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, announced on Monday it would roll back several Joe Biden-era regulations on coal plants
…
In May, the Energy Department issued an order to prevent a Michigan coal plant from closing in order to prevent blackouts. The order failed to keep the lights on and cost the utility $29 million over five weeks, which is expected to be, at least in part, paid for by ratepayers
…
These cost hikes are likely to escalate if the federal government continues to force power plants to stay open. An August report from Grid Strategies, a power sector consulting firm, estimates that ratepayers could pay more than $3 billion per year through 2028 if the Energy Department “mandates that the large fossil power plants scheduled to retire between now and the end of 2028 remain open.” This figure could soar to $6 billion per year through 2028 if additional power plants move up their retirement dates to secure government subsidies.
…
the federal government has opened up millions of dollars in funding for coal projects and passed several measures to benefit coal, including subsidizing coal production overseas. The cost of those actions won’t necessarily show up in monthly utility bills—but it will force the federal government to borrow more heavily in the future, at a time when the national debt is already unsustainably large
…
Ben King, director of the Rhodium Group’s energy program, told Semafor “the price of coal would need to fall by at least half,” to “change the calculus” and make coal more attractive to investors than natural gas or renewables. Brendan Pierpont, director of electricity modeling at the think tank Energy Innovation, told the outlet, “this funding is essentially cash for clunkers, but without trading in the clunkers.”
Trump’s latest coal maneuver will benefit utilities and coal companies, but it will come at the expense of taxpayers, who will be forced to finance yet another wasteful government spending account, and ratepayers who will likely see their utility bills continue to climb.”
“Even as some Republicans mocked economists for predicting prices would rise as a result of tariffs, there was a whistling-past-the-graveyard quality to the snickering. Yes, tariffs that had been threatened, delayed, and only partially implemented hadn’t yet much increased costs for consumers, but there were clear signs that importers were rushing to beat high customs duties, and that trouble was on the way. Now we’ve had a weak jobs report and a higher-than-expected producer price index (PPI), and it’s clear that tariffs perform just as we were warned: They raise prices for domestic businesses and consumers.”
“The Trump administration’s 50 percent tariffs on imported steel and aluminum were expanded this week to cover hundreds of imports that plainly are not steel or aluminum. Among the items targeted by the new tariffs: dairy products like milk and cream, as well as gasoline and other fuels, fire extinguishers, baby strollers, furniture, engines, and motorcycles. In short, anything that contains steel or aluminum or that is (as with dairy products) transported or stored in steel or aluminum containers could now be subject to those massive import taxes.”