Incoming Feed Items

One of many executive orders issued by Trump in the first week of his second term is facing litigatory pushback for allegedly violating two amendments to the constitution by sending trans women to men’s prison facilities and denying them access to necessary medication.

As Australia enters a new school year, a submission from The Australia Institute highlights the growing disparity between public and private school funding, revealing that taxpayers are helping fund lavish private school facilities and the high salaries of private school principals.

In a submission to a New South Wales inquiry into private school profits, the Institute reveals that tax-deductible donations to private school building funds cost the Australian government millions of dollars annually in lost revenue. These funds often go toward extravagant facilities that only benefit wealthy school communities. Examples include:

• Cranbrook School in Sydney, which spent $125 million on a five-story sandstone building featuring an Olympic-sized pool and 267-seat theatre.
• The Scots College, which spent $29 million to renovate its library into a Scottish Baronial-style castle.
• The King’s School paid $15 million for land near Lane Cove National Park for staff and student camps.

The report also exposes the massive pay gap between public and private school principals. While public school principals in NSW earn between $140,000 and $216,000, elite private school principals in Sydney can earn an average of $687,000 annually.

Key Recommendations:

Allison Chapman helps decode the Trump executive orders and their legal ramifications.

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

The year 2008 signaled to many the weak foundations of modern capitalism in the hands of the greedy, untethered financial sector—the “vampire squid” investment banks as journalist Matt Taibbi called them. Rising from the ashes of the crash, these banks used government money—”socialism for the bankers”—to enrich themselves and Big Business. This money never got to the masses. Instead shares were bought back in traditional capitalist industries and an emerging powerful bloc—the Jeff Bezos’s, the Microsoft’s, the Google’s of the world—invested in what guest Yanis Varoufakis calls, “cloud capital.”

Read my full toast below:

Ruba, when we met for our first class, gave me a taste of what I would soon discover to be her unique version of a charm offensive. "My friends," she told me, "say you are famous. But I've never heard of you." And there it was, her characteristic brutal honestly, whether I wanted it or not. This was followed by unsolicited fashion advice consisting of letting me know that my baggy Brooks Brothers suits made me look fat on the screen and Ruba's peculiar system of classroom incentivization. When I am distracted or unprepared she admonishes me by saying "If you don't focus, I'm not going to charge you."

Today’s inflation figures revealed the official CPI is well within the Reserve Bank’s target range of 2% to 3% and underlying inflation is coming down at a solid pace. These figures will have Australians looking forward to a rate cut, but the RBA is making them wait longer than they should.

Every other year before now, the Reserve Bank board would have been meeting next week on the first Tuesday of February. For some apparent reason that has not been shared with the public, the RBA board will only meet in 3 weeks time on the 17th and 18th of February. This will mean that the RBA board will not have met for 2 months since its last meeting – crucially at a time when inflation has been falling and households are dealing with interest rates set at levels that were put in place when inflation was 4.1%, not the current level of 2.4%.

The December quarter inflation figures reveal just how behind the times is the RBA. In the final three months of 2024, overall prices grew just 0.2% – that would annualise to just 0.8%! We are at a point where prices are rising slower than the Reserve Bank aims for them to rise.

Australia’s inflation has also fallen faster than in the USA. This is mostly because Australia’s inflation problem has been helped by government policy.

While some conservative economists have attempted to argue that government spending has fuelled inflation, today’s figures show government policy has directly led to inflation falling.

Claremont Institute scholars, including me, Ed Erler, Tom West, John Marini, and Michael Anton, President Trump’s incoming Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, have been contending for years—decades, really—that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause does not provide automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances. Other prominent scholars, such as the late University of Texas law Professor Lino Graglia, University of Pennsylvania Professor Rogers Smith, and Yale Law Professor Emeritus Peter Schuck, have come to the same conclusion based on their own extensive scholarly research.

President Trump’s second term thrusts the question of birthright citizenship to the forefront of American politics: should the United States automatically grant citizenship to any child who happens to be born on U.S. soil? Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution requires doing such a thing. Yet defenders of birthright shut down any debate by framing opposition as cruel and racist—and obviously wrong as a legal matter.

But there is a strong constitutional and moral case for limiting birthright citizenship. It’s the argument that led the Trump Administration to issue an executive order that defines a new status quo: going forward, children of illegal aliens won’t receive recognition of their citizenship by the U.S. Department of State or any other executive agency.

Start with the Constitution. The question of birthright citizenship goes back to the 14th Amendment, one of the three ratified in the immediate wake of the Civil War. The relevant portion reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The phrase at issue is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (known as the jurisdiction clause). Proponents of birthright maintain that the phrase merely means subject to the laws and courts of the United States.

New findings released today reveal alarming trends in firearm ownership across Australia, showing that the number of guns in private hands has grown significantly since the Port Arthur massacre, and regulation across states and territories is failing to keep pace with community expectations.

Key Findings:

• There are more guns in Australia than there were before the Port Arthur massacre.
• Firearms are not confined to rural areas, with a third of guns in New South Wales located in Sydney, Newcastle, and Wollongong.
• All states and territories are failing to meet key criteria for effective gun control, including data transparency and limits on the number of firearms a person can own.
• On average, a firearms licence holder owns more than 4 guns, with two individuals in suburban Sydney each owning over 300 firearms.
• Three-in-four Australians support limits on the number of firearms an individual can possess.

The report found gun ownership in Australia varies significantly across states. Western Australia is the only state with a cap on the number of firearms a licence holder can own, while New South Wales is the only state making comprehensive data on gun ownership publicly available. This inconsistency across the country has facilitated access to new weapons that are illegal in one place but not another.

Following a lawsuit for alleged mistreatment, a major medical care provider in Pennsylvania is expanding its care for LGBTQ+ people.

Universities in Ohio value DEI over academic programs. From looking at the program reviews that three notable universities in the state recently undertook, however, this is not immediately obvious.

By all appearances, these institutions made assessments based mostly on budgetary metrics. Kent State University announced a four-year plan to cut nearly $70 million from its budget. The University of Toledo is suspending or consolidating 48 degree programs to save more than $21 million. Miami University has cut or consolidated 18 programs according to its new program prioritization process.

Programs with low enrollments, fewer majors, high faculty-to-student ratios, and little grant potential are also being put on the chopping block. While humanities used to have some of the highest enrollment numbers compared to other departments, they have seen enrollments collapse in the last several decades.

Before the Coronavirus pandemic gripped the American consciousness in early 2020, America was seized by a pandemic of another kind: a hysteria among the nation’s elites over President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. The frenzy generated by the progressive-liberal press, Hollywood radicals, progressive politicians (both Democrat and Republican), the minions of the Deep State, academics, and law professors was unprecedented.

It was driven, for the most part, by the Trump Administration’s attempts to curtail illegal immigration by the adoption of a zero-tolerance policy for illegal border crossers; significant restrictions on asylum policies; the use of the National Emergencies Act to shift funds allocated for other purposes to build a border war; the use of the “remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers while their claims are evaluated; and the end of the long-standing “catch and release” policy.

But nothing engendered as much hysteria as the president’s bare suggestion that, in 2018—the year of the sesquicentennial of the adoption of the 14th Amendment—the policy of granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States should be ended.

I expected the reaction to a recent op-ed I published calling for the end of birthright citizenship to be cantankerous. I even expected it to be hysterical—from the Left. I did not expect self-described “conservatives” to be just as hysterical as the Left, and to use precisely the same terms. “Nativist.” “Xenophobe.” “Bigot.” “Racist.” “White nationalist.” “White supremacist.”

One point I’ve been making for a while is that one faction of “conservatism”—let’s call it the anti-Trump wing, although the phenomenon long predates Trump—sounds and acts with every passing year more like a “conservative” subdivision of the Left. Like the Left, they don’t want to debate; they want to call those they disagree with evil. For what are those epithets supposed to mean, if not “evil”?

Whether or not to have birthright citizenship for the children of noncitizens is one such fundamentally political question. But like so many other political questions, this one is ruled out of bounds by scholars, lawyers, experts, pundits, and professional moralists.

The American people did not willingly, knowingly, or politically adopt birthright citizenship. They were maneuvered into it by the Left and by the Left-allied judiciary. They’ve never debated it or voted on it. They’ve simply been told that it’s required by the Constitution.

On my last Q&A, a commenter asked me how I prevent myself from partaking in tribal hatred of the other, and instead focus my critiques on centers of power. I replied by discussing the nature of good & evil, and how both manifest within all of us, as well as in the most dire, distressful times. I repeatedly experienced this—the "miracle of human kindness"—as a war correspondent.

Does Restricting Treasury Purchases to the “Open Market” Matter? Long Forgotten & Secret Federal Reserve Memo Says “No”. #MonetaryPolicy201

 — Author: Nathan Tankus — Publication: Notes on the Crisis — Tuesday 28th January 2025

#MonetaryPolicy201 is a monthly series about the basics of monetary policy. It’s a “201” series because I will be grounding the basics of monetary policy on their largely forgotten legal foundations. The beginning of this series will focus on various aspects of the question: “What is Money Finance”? This is the Second Part, find Part 1 here. You will need a paid subscription to read the full series. You can subscribe here. Your reader support which makes my Freedom of Information Act project, archival research and general writing possible. 

Please recommend an institutional subscription to your academic library, or employer (details here)

More…

America’s “Grand Housing Bargain” Is Broken. It’s Time for a New One.

 — Organisation: Strong Towns — Monday 27th January 2025

More…

Lessons from Australian Cities: How Limited Powers Shape Dynamic Capabilities

 — Organisation: UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) — Monday 27th January 2025

By Bec Chau, Dan Hill and Daniel Pejic

More…

How Do You Build More Housing When No One Wants Neighborhood Change?

 — Organisation: Strong Towns — Monday 27th January 2025

More…

Trump 2.0: What It Means for Markets and Fiscal Flows

 — Organisation: Applied MMT — Friday 24th January 2025

The Trump 2.0 era has officially begun, and it’s off to a fast-paced start. In just a few days, we’ve seen sweeping changes, executive orders, and policy shifts that are already making waves. While political discussions abound, my focus here is on what really matters to traders and investors: the markets. Specifically, how will this new administration’s fiscal priorities impact market movements in the months and years ahead?

Setting the Stage: A Bull Market in Transition

As we stand today, markets are on the edge of all-time highs. This follows nearly two years of a relentless bull market that has pushed asset prices steadily higher. The key question is whether this momentum will continue in the Trump 2.0 environment, or whether we’re about to see a shift.

To answer that, we need to focus on the primary driver of markets over the past several years: fiscal flows. The fundamental idea here, rooted in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), is that government spending adds financial assets to the private sector. Those assets, whether saved or spent, ultimately funnel into financial markets, driving asset prices higher.

In short, fiscal flows are the lifeblood of the markets. When government spending accelerates, markets tend to follow suit. Conversely, when spending slows, so do markets.

More…