Lone Candle
Champion of Truth
Congress was warned well ahead of time about how the lack of regulation and transparency would lead to a great crash when many big institutions were all making the same bets and making the same assumptions. Congress didn’t listen. They listened to the Ayn Rand follower Alan Greenspan instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ25uZtey34
Politicians used to talk more about saving or fixing social security. It is closer to running out now, and politicians irresponsibly ignore it!
Someone’s willingness to pay isn’t just a function of how much they want the product or service, but also their ability to pay. So, when you have limited seats available for a sports game or concert, the people who go are not simply those who love the sport or the artist the most, but those who can better afford expensive tickets. This can result in rich people who don’t even care that much, having the best seats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJPlYopcxmc
Considering all that’s going on in the world, the stock market is doing quite well. Investors expect world troubles to pass. Corporations are reporting higher earnings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rNLXroJmC4
Prediction markets are for some reason regulated as investments, when really they are gambling. They are prone to manipulation–not just insider trading, but someone can pay a person to throw a dildo in a basketball game and then bet that someone will throw a dildo in a basketball game; someone can bet that a certain guy will get punched in the face, and then go punch that guy in the face.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXpR9bsEVqE
The wisdom of the crowds and the efficient market hypothesis require an amount of independence of the people in the crowd. With the internet and social media, people are much more connected and therefore much less independent. The same fads, cults, and appeals that warp people’s political views may also warp their market views. So, markets may have gotten dumber.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1Iok2wyoCw
“”The most persuasive case against protectionism is not the standard one that undergraduate students are taught in their introductions to international economics, which goes like this: Tariffs distort the allocation of resources and impose a ‘deadweight burden,'” Mokyr wrote in the June 1996 issue of Reason. “The standard argument is certainly correct, but somehow it has failed to persuade many people since it was first enunciated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo.”
The better argument, instead, is that “protectionism and insularism impede innovation, depriving our children of the comfort and security that progress and economic growth bring,” he said. “Free trade and international competition not only lead to a better allocation of resources; they ensure that countries do not lull themselves into the technological lethargy that is the archenemy of economic growth.””
https://reason.com/2025/10/13/this-years-nobel-winners-for-economics-explained-how-innovation-makes-us-rich/?nab=1
Wealthy people and great entrepreneurs aren’t going to not start that great business because they will pay more taxes if they make it big. Either way, if successful, they would have done something great and will be rich.
The most profitable and flexible workforce for Americans is illegal immigrants.
When we put tariffs on China, we are saying every country on Earth can get low inputs from China except America, making American business less competitive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKLdzBun4sk
“Basically, the feds impose damaging new taxes and trade restrictions on farmers for reasons mostly related to ideology and rent-seeking, then undo their effects by making farmers more dependent on government largesse. Often lost in the discussion, but one reason that U.S. farmers are so dependent on selling commodity crops to China and elsewhere is that past policies essentially subsidized them to do so.
Like with all things political, various federal farm policies have created a series of odd bedfellows. Many environmental groups have lauded past farm bills because they provide incentives for farmers to set aside land as open space, but overall the federal meddling has harmed the environment. For instance, federal sugar subsidies have greatly diminished the Florida Everglades by encouraging the conversion of wetlands into sugar fields.”
…
“All these policies drive up food prices for non-farmers and reduce our choices in meats and produce.”
…
“Instead of creating this convoluted, counterproductive policy that mimics a Rube Goldberg farce, the government should do the basics to help farmers. It should scuttle tariffs, halt subsidies, eliminate costly shipping levies, create a guest-worker program so farmers can have a consistent labor source, lower taxes, bolster water infrastructure and let markets do the rest.”
https://reason.com/2025/05/23/farmers-need-free-markets-not-tariffs-and-welfare/
The Housing Market Has New Rules. Realtors Are Evading Them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpuD0I0ta-Q
“Coal’s decline was not caused by a federal plot to transition away from coal, like Trump thinks, but rather by markets and innovation. Advancements in renewable energy technologies—which were, and continue to be, supported by subsidies—made the energy source more attractive to investors. Breakthroughs in horizontal drilling in the early 2000s brought a flood of cheap and abundant natural gas to the market. These technologies priced coal out, which lowered energy bills for consumers and significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
The energy source is also not as cost-effective as the executive order claims. Coal plants are expensive to build and operate, and transportation costs can exceed the price of coal at the mine. These economic factors have informed investors and utilities not to build coal-fired power plants—the most recent large plant was built in 2013—which has made the current fleet of these power plants less efficient than other energy sources.
To be sure, some regulatory barriers, including federal air quality standards and state-level bans, have made coal less competitive. However, “it is the market that explains coal’s decline better than regulations,” Philip Rossetti, an energy policy analyst at the R Street Institute, tells Reason.”
https://reason.com/2025/04/10/markets-dont-want-more-coal-trump-is-propping-up-the-industry-anyway/