Incoming Feed Items

Viral V. Acharya, Nicola Cetorelli, and Bruce Tuckman

As the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence approaches, Spencer Klavan invites us to reflect on the origins of that document and its fate. He asks us to consider an array of questions: Are the principles of the Declaration the final truth at the end of history? Is the end of history lamentable? Does the war in Iran refute the end of history? Is the Declaration informed by a rational view of the universe or by revealed religion?

I have access neither to the world-historical spirit nor to prophetic signs, so I’ll begin with what has become a necessary task: to establish that the Declaration marks the founding of the American nation, to explain what it means, and to defend it against popular criticisms.

Some have tried to define America by the year 1619, because that is when slavery was established. Others opine that 1607 is the beginning of the United States, because that is when the English first settled in Jamestown. However, these are not true national origins, in part, because they do not recognize the independence of the United States from Great Britain. More importantly, they are wrong because neither of these events recognizes the fundamental principles of right that define the United States.

Recommended video: Are we at a Galileo moment in economics? Richard Murphy What if everything you think about money is wrong? And does it matter…

The post Recommended video: Are we at a Galileo moment in economics? appeared first on Economic Reform Australia.

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Greg and Elinor discuss the rationale for the Reserve Bank’s third interest rate hike for 2026 and how changing the way trusts are taxed could reduce inequality.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 7 May 2026.

Visit The Point for research, analysis, explainers and factchecks from experts at the Australia Institute and beyond.

Host: Greg Jericho, Chief Economist, the Australia Institute // @grogsgamut

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

In this budget, all eyes are on CGT. But Labor’s rumoured family trust tweaks might also help fight tax inequality by Greg Jericho, Guardian Australia (May 2026)

In 1964, the Supreme Court of the United States revolutionized our country’s understanding of the First Amendment. More specifically, the Court’s ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan caused a fundamental change in how we think about the relationship of the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of the press, on the one hand, and the problem of libel, on the other.

According to the traditional view swept aside by the Sullivan Court, libel—or publication of defamatory falsehood—was simply outside the scope of the freedom of the press, a licentious abuse that the Founders never intended to enjoy constitutional or legal protection. During the lengthy period that this view prevailed, those who published false and defamatory matter were open to being sued successfully for damages, whether the victim of the libel was a private or a public person.

White House lawn speeches greeting foreign heads of state are usually sleepy pro-forma affairs, filled out with the clichés of long-standing ties and mutual interests. But President Trump’s speech welcoming King Charles was no mere boilerplate. It was a masterpiece of ironic and subtle mischief on multiple levels—triggering the Left, offering a ground of unity for the Right as we draw near to the 250th anniversary of the American Founding, and, for those who listened closely, a rebuke both to Britain and the rest of Europe for their supine and rapidly declining civilizations. Making all the “No Kings” protestors look silly was just a bonus.

As everyone knows—especially Pope Leo XIV—Trump is not typically known for subtle rebukes, so kudos are deserved for his speechwriting staff for crafting a succinct and enthymematic message worthy of Aristotle, though it was fully in accord with Trump’s main instincts and central purposes.

We don’t need billionaires, and we can structure the market so we don’t have them Extracted from an article by Dean Baker [1] The Economist…

The post We don’t need billionaires, and we can structure the market so we don’t have them appeared first on Economic Reform Australia.

US war on Iran shows renewable energy is an inflation management tool [1] Ingrid Walker The growing energy crisis shows that fossil fuels present a…

The post US war on Iran shows renewable energy is an inflation management tool [1] appeared first on Economic Reform Australia.

Comparative economic evolution of three countries – and how to improve New Zealand’s mismanaged economy Steven Hail Steven Hail argues that New Zealand is enduring…

The post Comparative economic evolution of three countries appeared first on Economic Reform Australia.

Why the rich don’t pay taxes Lars Syll Beneath the civic ideal of taxation as a collective, equitable endeavour lies an entrenched hypocrisy: the architecture…

The post Why the rich don’t pay taxes appeared first on Economic Reform Australia.

Neoclassical economics vs MMT on the status of savings Jim Byrne The following link – https://www.linkedin.com/feed [1 ] – which appeared on 1 Apr 2026…

The post Neoclassical economics vs MMT on the status of savings appeared first on Economic Reform Australia.

Why Minsky still matters Lars Syll Perhaps the foremost financial crisis theorist of our time, Hyman Minsky, had as his central idea that crises are…

The post Why Minsky still matters appeared first on Economic Reform Australia.

On this episode of Follow the Money, journalist and writer Nick Feik joins Ebony Bennett to discuss the NACC’s handling of its Robodebt investigation, its decision not to hold public hearings so far, and concerns about the legal experience required of some senior leaders.

This episode was recorded on Tuesday 5 May and some things may have changed.

The latest Vantage Point essay, Rich Kid Poor Kid: The Battle for Public Education by Jane Caro, is available now for $19.95. Use the code ‘PODVP’ at checkout to get free shipping.

Guest: Nick Feik, journalist and writer // @nickfeik

Host: Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Show notes:

Built to fail? NACC: the integrity body undermined from the start by Nick Feik, Michelle Fahy & Elizabeth Minter, The Point (April 2026)

While the policy provides clear proof that Australia never had a ‘gas shortage’ and has been suffering from excessive gas exports, a gas reservation policy won’t change the sad fact that Australia is giving away more than half of the gas it exports for free.

Dr Richard Denniss, co-CEO of The Australia Institute, says the policy is a distraction after the government caved into the gas lobby and appeared to rule out a gas export tax in next week’s federal budget.

“The government is trying to shift attention away from its determination to keep giving more than half the gas Australia exports away for free,” Dr Denniss said.

“The Albanese Government wants Australians to think it’s doing something about gas, but instead of collecting $350 million per week from a gas export tax, it is pursuing a new policy that won’t raise a cent.”

“Labor has the numbers in parliament. It has the support of unions, crossbenchers and, most importantly, voters. One nation voters want a gas export tax. Clive Palmer supporters want a gas export tax. Labor voters want a gas export tax.”

Dr Denniss has branded a gas reservation as the “wrong solution” to a problem which has been deliberately engineered by the gas industry, which has created fake fears of shortages in Australia while it was exporting vast  quantities of Australian gas overseas.

At this very moment, humanity is venturing beyond the limits of Earth.

NASA’s Artemis II mission to the far side of the moon was a reminder that this is no longer science fiction. Commercial launches are becoming more frequent, private missions are expanding, and durable off-world habitats—once the stuff of far-flung imaginings—are well within reach. What was once a set of hypothetical word problems has become a collection of real-world challenges to solve.

Those of us who believe in America’s ideals, political structure, and folkways have to start thinking now about how to preserve them in outer space. Human nature is not going to change. But the parameters of human life will—and dramatically. The question is how, in this unprecedented scenario, we can make the American way of life one of the things we carry with us. We are taking our humanity to space. How can we take our freedom too?

To meet this challenge, the University of Austin has initiated the Torchlight Summit. Torchlight convenes astronauts, scientists, engineers, classicists, and political theorists to address a question that is too often ignored: What are the political and institutional consequences of life beyond Earth, and how can we shape them before they solidify?

The summit is structured around three core pillars:

Listen to the full conversation on the Perspectives Journal podcast, available to subscribe on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Amazon Music, and all other major podcast platforms.

At the 2026 Progress Summit, David Adler highlighted the organized right-right’s network of actors and institutions — what he calls the ‘Reactionary International.’ Adler is the Co-General Coordinator of the Progressive International, an group that unites, organizes and mobilizes the world’s progressive forces to fight for democracy.

Most corporate mission statements are real snoozers. Especially in the case of large public defense companies, they’re designed to present boilerplate language to the public: “We develop science and technology to help people, and we produce some other things (weapons) that we won’t directly mention here, but which you can find on page five of our annual report.”

Palantir recently broke from this mode of anodyne corporate communication in a manifesto-style post titled “The Technological Republic, in brief,” which itself is a summary of a book of the same title by Palantir executives Alex Karp and Nicholas Zamiska.

Here are some paraphrased highlights from the 22-point declaration: