Originally published at The Daily Economy. 

Driven by progressive policies that stifled growth and burdened Americans with skyrocketing debt, elevated inflation, and economic malaise, has President Biden’s administration cemented its economic legacy as a failure? Despite promises of a “build back better” economy, the results are troubling, with policies rooted in overspending, overtaxing, and overregulating, pushing many Americans further from prosperity. 

Under President Biden, the national debt grew substantially, especially without a war or pandemic, surging past $36 trillion — a staggering $10 trillion increase since 2020. This debt explosion stemmed from massive spending initiatives, including the American Rescue Plan Act, the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, and many other reckless spending packages. Far from stimulating growth, this spending fueled inflation and undermined economic stability.

The Federal Reserve, charged with combating inflation, was forced to hike interest rates at a record pace, raising the federal funds rate from near zero to over five percent in just two years. These hikes directly responded to the monetary inflation crisis created by the Federal Reserve and exacerbated by Biden’s profligate fiscal policies. While interest rates have come down some over the last year, Americans face higher borrowing costs for homes, cars, and businesses, squeezing family budgets and discouraging investment.

Though there are signs of an economic recovery, real weekly earnings have declined by two percent since Biden took office as inflation outpaced wage growth for most of his presidency. This decline in purchasing power disproportionately hurts low- and middle-income households, the very groups progressive policies claim to champion.

Adding to the economic woes is a labor market hampered by a declining labor force participation rate. While the unemployment rate appears low at around four percent, this masks the reality that millions of Americans remain out of the workforce. Policies that disincentivize work — such as enhanced unemployment benefits, expanded welfare programs, and increased regulatory burdens on businesses — have created a perfect storm of lower productivity and higher dependency on government programs.

Regulatory overreach has further compounded economic challenges. According to the American Action Forum, the Biden administration issued $1.8 trillion in costly final rules, making it one of the most regulatory-heavy administrations in US history. These rules, which include onerous environmental regulations, expansive labor mandates, and restrictions on energy production, acted as a hidden tax on us. They drove driven up costs for businesses and consumers.

The administration’s war on artificial intelligence (AI) and corporate mergers were among the most damaging regulatory efforts. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) aggressively sought to stifle innovation and business growth under the guise of protecting competition through antitrust action. Instead of fostering a dynamic economy, these agencies created a climate of uncertainty that discourages investment in new technologies and impedes market efficiency. AI, which holds transformative potential for economic growth, was targeted with heavy-handed oversight that risks driving innovation overseas.

One of the most glaring examples of regulatory overreach was the Biden administration’s stance on mergers and acquisitions (M&A). The FTC and DOJ adopted a hostile posture toward M&A activity, essential for fostering business growth and increasing efficiency. By blocking mergers without sound economic justification, these agencies undermined businesses and sent a chilling message to investors. Such interference in private-sector decisions contradicted free-market capitalism and harmed the economy by stifling growth opportunities.

Similarly, the administration’s push for sweeping regulations on artificial intelligence threatened to derail a promising industry. Instead of embracing AI as a tool for economic advancement, the administration appeared intent on imposing burdensome compliance requirements that would discourage innovation and reduce America’s competitiveness on the global stage.

The path to reversing this economic malaise lies in rejecting the overspending, overtaxing, and overregulating policies that define Bidenomics. President Trump and Congress must prioritize fiscal discipline by cutting government spending to at least pre-pandemic levels and limiting it to sustainable levels. This should be done through a strict fiscal rule that caps expenditure growth at a maximum rate of population growth plus inflation. Spending less can alleviate the debt burden that threatens future generations.

Second, tax reform should focus on lowering tax rates, broadening the base, and simplifying the tax code to incentivize work, investment, and innovation. High taxes discourage productivity and entrepreneurship, while a pro-growth tax system can unlock the potential of American workers and businesses.

Third, regulatory reform is essential to restoring economic freedom and unleashing the full potential of the private sector. This includes reining in agencies like the FTC and DOJ, which have overstepped their bounds in pursuing ideological goals at the expense of economic progress. It also means adopting a balanced approach to AI governance that promotes innovation while addressing legitimate concerns without stifling progress.

The economic legacy of Bidenomics will be remembered as a cautionary tale of how progressive policies undermine prosperity. The administration’s decisions imposed significant costs on the American people, from an explosion in national debt to inflation, higher interest rates, regulatory overreach, and declining real wages. Voters chose a different direction with Trump.
​
The better approach is returning to the principles that have historically driven American prosperity: limited government, fiscal responsibility, and economic freedom. By embracing these principles, we can chart a path toward sustainable growth, higher living standards, and greater opportunities for all Americans.

Overview
The Trump administration, supported by a Republican-led Congress, has a pivotal chance to reverse the damage inflicted by the Biden administration's misguided antitrust policies. This report outlines the path to unleashing America’s tech potential through innovation, competition, and free-market principles.

Key Points

• Restore the Consumer Welfare Standard: Antitrust enforcement should prioritize consumer benefits rather than penalizing success or favoring bureaucratic control.
• Boost Innovation and Investment: The U.S. tech sector leads global innovation with $450 billion in annual R&D investments, which drive advancements in AI, biotechnology, cybersecurity, and energy.
• Empower Small Businesses and Entrepreneurs: Platforms like Amazon and eBay provide tools for small businesses to reach global markets and fuel regional economic growth.
• Create High-Paying Jobs: The tech industry directly employs 9.4 million workers, with a ripple effect creating additional opportunities in manufacturing, logistics, and construction.
• Enhance National Security: U.S. leadership in AI and quantum computing is essential for maintaining a strategic edge against China and other global adversaries.
• Reject Regulatory Overreach: Excessive regulation under Biden stifled innovation and increased costs for consumers. Removing these barriers will restore competitive markets.
• Encourage Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A): Smart M&A policies enable technological breakthroughs and ensure the U.S. remains an innovation hub, unlike Biden-era policies that blocked critical deals.
• Protect Financial Security: The tech sector underpins the financial stability of millions of Americans, playing a vital role in retirement accounts and pension funds.
• Strengthen Global Competitiveness: By rejecting European-style overregulation and authoritarian state subsidies, the U.S. can maintain its technological dominance and foster free-market innovation.

Conclusion
​The report highlights a roadmap for the Trump administration and Congress to promote free-market policies, secure America’s technological leadership, and prioritize innovation and economic growth. Confirming regulatory leaders who support these principles is vital to achieving these goals.

​As President Biden’s term ends, we see a flurry of last-minute legislation. Meanwhile, President-elect Trump is gearing up for his inauguration next week, setting the stage for a new chapter in national politics. The policy landscape is heating up at the state level as legislative sessions get underway. In Texas, the 89th Legislative Session kicks off tomorrow, and I’ll be closely monitoring key bills.

In this week's episode, I discuss these topics and more. You can watch it on YouTube below, listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, or visit my website vanceginn.com for more information.

​In the Energy News Beat - Conversation in Energy with Stuart Turley, Dr. Vance Ginn is interviewed about various pressing economic and political issues. They discuss the recent presidential debate, the state of the U.S. economy, the implications of red-state policies on job growth, and the impact of high energy costs on inflation. The conversation also covers the importance of school choice, immigration reform, Supreme Court rulings on free speech, the Chevron Supreme deference Court decision on regulatory issues, and the challenges of achieving net zero emissions amidst global economic shifts. Dr. Ginn emphasizes the need for sound financial policies and reducing government spending.


Please follow Vance on his substack HERE: https://vanceginn.substack.com/. It is a great source of finance and political insights. 


Vance, I would like to have you back and on the 3 Podcasters Walk into a Bar with David Blackmon and Rey Trevio. - Thanks again for your time, and talk soon - Stu 

Originally published at AIER. 

​The US economy faces numerous challenges, exacerbated by policy uncertainty and excessive government intervention. Milton Friedman famously said, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” This sharp observation underscores the inefficiencies often associated with government intervention. Instead, we should advocate for free-market solutions that empower individuals and businesses to drive innovation and growth.

Election years heighten policy uncertainty, driving economic volatility. Businesses and investors become cautious, waiting to see which policies will prevail. This hesitation can slow economic activity, affecting job creation and investment in new projects. More than half of Americans think we are in a recession even when the headline data say otherwise, reflecting a disconnect between reported statistics and personal experiences.

Policy uncertainty during election years exacerbates these issues. The upcoming elections could significantly impact economic policies, depending on the direction taken by the administration. Whether it’s Biden’s continued interventionist policies or a shift under Trump, the stakes are high. Businesses, investors, and consumers are left guessing, which stalls responsible decision-making and hampers economic growth. 

The recent meeting of the Business Roundtable highlighted these concerns as both Biden and Trump pitched their economic visions. According to the Tax Foundation, Biden’s tax plan, which includes increases on corporations and the wealthy, could reduce GDP by 2.2 percent and eliminate 788,000 jobs over time. On the other hand, Trump’s tariff proposals that hike taxes on Americans would have economic consequences, increasing consumer prices and reducing household incomes.

The Federal Reserve’s decisions also play a crucial role in shaping the economic landscape. Recent hikes in interest rates to curb inflation have added another layer of uncertainty. Higher borrowing costs can dampen consumer spending and business investment, slowing economic growth. The Fed’s policy trajectory remains uncertain, contributing to a cautious outlook among businesses and investors.

Biden’s regulatory approach further complicates matters. His administration has introduced numerous regulations affecting various sectors, from energy to finance. While intended to address climate change and market stability, these regulations often have significant compliance costs and operational challenges. The regulatory burden can stifle innovation and deter investment, particularly in industries struggling with economic headwinds.

Another key aspect is the role of institutions. Friedrich Hayek, in his seminal work “The Road to Serfdom,” cautioned against the overreach of central planning. He emphasized that central planning often leads to inefficiencies and a loss of individual freedoms. His insights are particularly relevant today as we navigate the complexities of modern economies. To truly flourish, governments should embrace free-market capitalism and resist the creeping influence of socialism.

This principle applies across sectors. By focusing on the efficient use of resources, reducing regulatory burdens, and fostering competition, we can build a more prosperous future. The bottom-up approach ensures better utilization of resources and empowers entrepreneurs, businesses, and local communities. Policies such as eliminating unnecessary regulations, reducing corporate tax rates, and promoting school choice are vital. These policies drive economic growth and ensure that resources are used where they are most needed.

Policy uncertainty during election years can create a precarious economic environment. Given the numerous issues in Washington, states must lead the way in our system of federalism. The increasing divergence between red and blue states on taxes, labor, and education highlights this trend. Red states cut taxes and promote business-friendly policies, while blue states often expand government programs. This divergence allows states to set examples of effective governance through free-market principles. By reducing regulatory burdens, passing sustainable budgets, and fostering competition, states can mitigate some national policy uncertainties that stall economic progress.

The next big step in federalism involves states innovating beyond traditional policies. For instance, states should focus on restraining government spending, eliminating bad taxes like income taxes, and reducing onerous regulations. Policies promoting school choice can also drive education reform and better outcomes, ensuring that all children have access to quality education regardless of their socioeconomic background. In addition, more freedom in technology and innovation should be ensured to support the next big revolution that improves our lives and livelihoods.

To move forward, we must build from our past experiences and rise to overcome obstacles. We can foster innovation and resilience by acknowledging and learning from our failures. It’s essential to recognize that failure provides valuable lessons and opportunities for growth. Expanding government intervention in response to failures often stifles this learning process and leads to greater inefficiencies.

Policy uncertainty during election years can create a precarious economic environment. States must lead the way in our system of federalism, setting examples of effective governance through free-market principles. By passing sustainable budgets, reducing regulatory burdens, and fostering competition, states can mitigate some national policy uncertainties that stall economic progress.

Let’s leverage the strengths of the free market, prioritize efficiency, and ensure that our policies truly benefit Americans. By embracing free-market principles, reducing regulatory burdens, and fostering competition, we can pave the way for a stronger and more prosperous America. Together, we can build a future where smart policies and strong institutions that support life, liberty, and property pave the way for economic resilience and growth.

​Don’t miss the latest economic news in 9 minutes:

💸New CPI inflation report shows a 3.4% increase over the last year, while real average weekly earnings have dropped 4.4% since Biden took office. The Fed must act faster to cut its balance sheet, as I discussed on Fox Business with Cavuto. #Bidenomics #Inflation

📈Biden's tariff practices are a tax hike on those earning less than $400K, despite promises. Join me on the Sean Hannity Show, Lars Larson Show, and NTD News where I discussed the high costs and the failure of Bidenomics. #Tariffs

📚Government schools in Texas are fully funded, NOT UNDERFUNDED like some are saying! Despite declining enrollment and failing test scores, progressives still push for more funding. It's time for universal ESAs to empower parents and lower property taxes. #SchoolChoice

💬 Like, subscribe, and share my take on key economic issues every week. For more info, subscribe to my newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com and check out vanceginn.com.

Originally published at Econlib.

​Through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Biden administration has proposed a regulation to cap how much credit card companies can charge us when we’re late on a payment to just $8. 

This sounds great on the surface, right? 

Lower fees mean less stress when we’re struggling to make ends meet, as inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings have been down 4.2 percent. But, as with many things that seem too good to be true, there’s a catch. 

This well-meaning price control could make things the most challenging for those it’s supposed to help.

First, why do credit card companies charge late fees? It’s not just about making an extra buck. These fees support more credit available for everyone and encourage us to pay on time, which helps the credit system run smoothly.

Now, the CFPB is shaking things up by setting a price ceiling on these fees at $8. While it could save us some money if we slip up and pay late, credit card companies will find ways to compensate for this lost income. 

And how do they do that? Well, they might start charging more for other things, tightening who they give credit to, or increasing interest rates. That means, in the end, credit could be more expensive and harder to get for all of us.

Not just individuals who could feel the squeeze, but small businesses, too. 

Many small businesses rely on credit to manage their cash flow and growth. If banks start being pickier about who they lend to or raise their fees, these small businesses will find it more costly to get credit. This isn’t just bad news for them; it’s bad news for everyone, as the result will be higher prices for consumers, lower wages, and fewer jobs for workers.

Remember that small banks and credit unions are a big deal for the local economy. These institutions often depend on fees to keep things running. If they can charge less for late payments, they might not be able to lend as much. This could hit communities hard, making it tougher for people to get loans for starting a small business, buying a home, or building a project.

Economists have long warned about the dangers of well-intentioned but poorly thought-out regulations. By setting a one-size-fits-all rule for late fees, the government would make credit more expensive and less accessible for everyone. The idea is to protect us from unfair fees, but the real-world result would be different if access to credit were limited for those who need it most.

History proves that often the biggest challenge is to protect consumers from the consequences of government actions. In trying to shield us from high late fees, the government will set us up for a situation where credit is harder to come by and more expensive. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to protect consumers. Still, we need to think carefully about the consequences of our actions and let markets work, which is the best way to protect consumers as they have sovereignty over their purchases.

While capping credit card late fees sounds like a simple fix, the ripple effects would be complex and wide-reaching. It’s crucial to keep credit accessible and affordable, support small businesses, and ensure the financial system remains robust. 

Let’s look at the implications of this price control regulation before rushing into it. Price controls never work as intended, as history has proven. Instead, we should ensure people in the marketplace determine what’s best for them rather than the Biden administration’s top-down, one-size-fits-none approach. 

Originally published at AIER. 

R​ecently, the Biden administration handed  $1.5 billion to the nation’s largest domestic semiconductor manufacturer, GlobalFoundries, the biggest payout from the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 so far.

The argument for this corporate welfare is America is too dependent on chips from China and Taiwan so more should be made domestically. Instead of seeing how America should reduce the cost of doing business for all semiconductor businesses here, some businesses will be picked as winners and others as losers. The cost of this form of socialism gives capitalism a bad rap and should be rejected.

This move echoes a broader trend of governments worldwide intervening in their economies through industrial policy. A cocktail of targeted subsidies, tax breaks, and regulatory tinkering, industrial policy aims to sculpt economic outcomes by favoring specific industries or firms, all for the supposed benefit of the national economy. Industrial policy puts business “investment” decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats. What could go wrong? 

While its champions tout its potential to boost competitiveness and spur innovation, the reality often tells a different story, especially in light of massive deficit spending. In practice, industrial policy tends to fan the flames of higher prices and sow the seeds of economic destruction. 

Politicians too often meddle with voluntary market dynamics by artificially bolstering favored sectors through subsidies and tax perks, resulting in the misallocation of resources and distorted prices. Moreover, the infusion of government funds to bankroll these initiatives with borrowed money can contribute to the Federal Reserve helping finance the debt, increasing the money supply, and stoking inflation.

The nexus between deficit spending and prices looms large over industrial policy. 

When politicians resort to deficit spending to bankroll industrial ventures, they put upward pressure on interest rates by issuing more debt and competing with scarce private funds. Elevated interest rates disturb private investment, ushering in a likely economic slowdown. 

Suppose deficit financing leans heavily on monetary expansion, whereby the central bank snaps up government debt. In that case, it fuels inflation by flooding the market with money that chases fewer goods and services.

The national debt is above $34 trillion, and the Federal Reserve has already monetized much of the increase in recent years. Racking up even more deficits is insane: repeating the same mistakes and expecting a different result. Excessive spending and money printing have landed us with above-target inflation for over three years running. 

The repercussions of industrial policy ripple beyond inflation to encompass the broader economic landscape. 

Excessive government meddling in specific industries crowds out private investment and entrepreneurship. When particular firms enjoy subsidies and preferential treatment, it distorts the competitive landscape and deters innovation. This stifles economic vibrancy and impedes the rise of new industries or technologies crucial for sustained growth.

For a cautionary tale of how Biden’s recent move could play out, look no further than Europe. 

Nations like Sweden, heralded by the West as a utopian example of big government yielding big benefits, spent the last year grappling with economic strife driven by dwindling private consumption and housing construction. Europe’s penchant for industrial policy, marked by subsidies, high taxes, and regulatory hoops, has contributed to its economic stagnation. 

To sidestep the dilemma of industrial policy missteps, policymakers should stop propping up their favorite sector or industry and instead unleash people to flourish by getting the government out of the way.

Politicians should foster an environment conducive to entrepreneurship, innovation, and competition. This entails cutting government spending, reducing taxes, trimming red tape, and championing trade by removing barriers to private sector flourishing.

By allowing market forces to determine resource allocation and rewarding entrepreneurship and risk-taking, people here and elsewhere can unleash their full potential and adapt to changing circumstances more effectively than under industrial policy frameworks.

​Biden’s billion-dollar amount to one company may seem like a lot, but that’s just a drop in the bucket of what’s to come from the CHIPS Act. Instead, these funds should be eliminated, preventing Congress from taking us further down the road to serfdom.