Originally published on Substack. 

America is in an insurance affordability crisis. Home and auto premiums are soaring—some up 40% or more in just two years. And instead of addressing the root causes, politicians are reaching for their favorite broken tool: price controls.

According to a Wall Street Journal report, lawmakers in states like Illinois, Louisiana, and New York are rushing to cap insurance rates as families revolt against 30%–50% increases. The story is the same across red and blue states alike. Regulators want to “protect consumers” from big insurers—but their interventions are the reason affordability collapsed in the first place.

The Real Causes Behind Rising Insurance Costs
​
Let’s start with the basics. Insurance premiums reflect risk and cost. When the cost of rebuilding a home or repairing a car goes up, so do premiums. And those costs are rising not because of greed—but because of government-induced inflation, tariffs, and regulation.

• Tariffs and protectionism have driven up prices on steel, lumber, and glass—all key materials in construction and auto repair. When it costs more to rebuild, insurers must charge more.
• COVID-era restrictions disrupted supply chains and triggered cost spikes that still linger today. Many local governments locked down markets, banned elective construction, and forced insurers to pay out more for delayed claims.
• Federal overspending and a bloated Federal Reserve balance sheet of over $6.6 trillion fueled inflation, which raised costs across the economy—insurance included.
• Regulatory mandates—from state-by-state price filing rules to federal environmental and liability regulations—have made it harder for insurers to compete, innovate, or price accurately.

It’s a vicious cycle: government interference raises costs, consumers feel the squeeze, and politicians respond with even more control.

Price Controls Are the Wrong “Solution”

Price caps don’t solve affordability. They destroy it.

When California capped insurance premiums for decades, insurers left the state. Now its regulators are scrambling to approve double-digit rate hikes just to lure them back. Louisiana tried deregulating to attract more insurers—then flipped again, imposing “excessive rate” controls this year. The result? Confusion, fewer carriers, and a less stable market.

As S&P Global analyst Tim Zawacki told the Journal, “Price controls don’t lead to affordability. Ultimately, they just chase insurers out of the market.”

He’s right. You can’t legislate away risk. The only way to bring prices down is through competition, efficiency, and innovation—none of which survive when government fixes prices.

Deregulation: The Real Path to Affordability

If politicians truly cared about helping families, they’d focus on freeing the insurance market, not strangling it.

1. End protectionism. Tariffs and trade barriers raise input costs for construction and auto repair, inflating claims and premiums.
2. Streamline state regulation. America’s insurance system is a patchwork of 50 regulatory regimes, each adding compliance costs that get passed to consumers. States should reduce red tape and allow competition across borders.
3. Stop using insurers as political punching bags. Demagoguing companies for “profiteering” ignores actuarial reality—and drives them out of states entirely.
4. Cut government spending. Inflation is the ultimate premium driver. When Washington spends and borrows without restraint, every policyholder pays the price.

Trying to solve a government-caused problem with more government always fails. Affordability won’t come from mandates—it will come from markets free to adjust, compete, and innovate.

The Bigger Picture: The Housing Affordability Squeeze

This isn’t just about insurance. It’s about the broader housing affordability crisis. Rising premiums, property taxes, tariffs, and interest rates all share a common thread—too much government. From local building codes to federal trade policy, intervention has made housing less affordable for millions.

Families don’t want subsidies or price caps—they want predictability and opportunity. They want to build, buy, and insure a home without government distortions turning every step into a financial burden.

Closing Thoughts

When politicians talk about “protecting consumers,” it usually means protecting themselves from political backlash. The truth is that markets—not bureaucrats—are best at setting prices and balancing risk. If we want affordable insurance and housing, we must get government out of the way, not invite it in further.

Freedom—not force—creates prosperity. That’s as true for homeowners and drivers as it is for every sector of the economy.
​
Let people prosper.

Originally published on Substack. 

The Federal Reserve isn’t just in the headlines for interest-rate policy this week. It’s in the headlines for raw politics.

On Tuesday, the Senate narrowly confirmed Stephen Miran, who will remain on the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, to the Fed’s Board of Governors in a razor-thin 48–47 vote. The confirmation fills the seat vacated by Adriana Kugler, who resigned effective August 8. Miran will serve out the remainder of her term, which ends in January 2026, making him a short-term but potentially influential voice at the table.

At the same time, a D.C. appeals court upheld a lower-court ruling blocking President Trump from removing Governor Lisa Cook, who holds statutory protection against dismissal except “for cause.” This means Cook remains a voting member of the Federal Open Market Committee, which is already preparing to announce its latest decision on the target interest rate.

Two fights, two outcomes—but both tell the same story: the Fed is drowning in politics.

Why This Matters

The FOMC is made up of the seven governors in Washington and five of the twelve Reserve Bank presidents on rotation. That means twelve people decide the price of money for a nation of 330 million. If it’s “bad” for twelve officials to dictate the cost of borrowing and lending, it’s even worse to obsess over the swing vote of one official.

And yet here we are—Miran’s confirmation sends ripples through markets because traders think his presence as a Trump surrogate could tilt the committee toward more aggressive rate cuts. Cook’s survival keeps alive another vote perceived as dovish. The message? It’s not fundamentals setting expectations—it’s personnel drama. That should bother everyone.

The Case for Markets Over Committees

1. Price controls don’t work. We’d never tolerate a government committee deciding the price of beef, cars, or Bitcoin. Why do we accept twelve officials setting the most important price in capitalism—the interest rate? Prices are signals. They convey information about scarcity, preferences, and risk. Suppress them, and you suppress the information markets need to function.
2. Personnel fights reveal the flaw. Whether Miran, Cook, or anyone else fills the seats, the fact remains: presidents appoint, the Senate confirms, and now courts even referee whether members can be fired. That’s politics. It’s not about neutral technocrats parsing data—it’s about partisans maneuvering for control of a lever that moves trillions.
3. Rules beat discretion, and markets beat rules. Some reformers argue for stricter policy rules like the Taylor Rule or Nominal GDP Targeting, and those would be steps away from today’s “seat-of-the-pants” discretion. But the real solution is to shrink the Fed’s balance sheet and let market interest rates emerge from competition among lenders and borrowers. The Hayekian lesson is clear: dispersed knowledge and millions of decisions beat centralized guesses from Washington.

A Better Roadmap

• Narrow the mandate. Today the Fed claims a dual mandate—price stability and maximum employment—but the Fed’s own longer-run goals read like a politician’s platform. Strip it down to protecting the currency’s value, and stop trying to engineer macroeconomic outcomes.
• End credit allocation. During crises, the Fed hands out targeted loans to chosen sectors. That’s fiscal policy in disguise and opens the door for political pressure. Let markets, not central bankers, decide who gets capital.
• Let interest rates clear. The Fed’s job while it exists should be a lender of last resort—not deciding what a 30-year mortgage “should” cost. If inflation is a hidden tax, manipulated rates are hidden subsidies, benefiting today’s borrowers at the expense of tomorrow’s.
• Transparency over theatrics. Stop turning every FOMC meeting into a global guessing game. Publish a simple operating framework, stick to it, and let the market price risk. Right now, traders are pricing personalities instead of fundamentals.

The Bottom Line

Miran’s confirmation and Cook’s court-protected tenure don’t “save” or “doom” the economy. They just highlight the absurdity of centralizing control of money in Washington. If twelve people shouldn’t set interest rates, then neither should one. Not the Fed Chair. Not the President. Not a judge.

The solution isn’t finding the “right” central banker. It’s admitting that no central banker has the knowledge or incentive to do what millions of borrowers, lenders, and investors already do every day—discover prices through voluntary exchange.

That’s why the Fed, and the president, should step back unless it is to get government out of the way. Markets know better!

Let People Prosper.

​What if I told you the most important tool for building generational wealth isn't sitting in a 401(k)—it’s digital, decentralized, and already here?

This week on the Let People Prosper Show, I sat down with Stewart Arthur Pelto, host of Sat Chats, to talk about why Bitcoin is not just a financial instrument—it’s a movement. A movement about freedom, about family, and about finally reclaiming control of your financial future.
Stewart’s journey is compelling: from PAC manager to tech sales to now full-time Bitcoin evangelist. His passion isn’t just philosophical—it’s deeply personal. “I do it for my kids,” he told me. And frankly, that hit hard. Because Bitcoin isn’t just for the tech-savvy—it’s for anyone who wants real ownership in a world of manipulated, fiat money.

For more insights, visit vanceginn.com. You can also get even greater value by subscribing to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. Please share with your friends, family, and broader social media network. 

(0:00) – Introduction to Bitcoin and Generational Wealth
(3:08) – The Journey to Bitcoin Advocacy
(5:51) – The Importance of Helping Others
(8:49) – Bitcoin as a Superior Form of Money
(10:44) – Understanding Bitcoin's Value Proposition
(13:04) – The Dollar's Decline and Bitcoin's Rise
(16:53) – Bitcoin's Unique Supply Dynamics
(21:23) – The Future of Money and Bitcoin's Role
(27:18) – The Impact of Government on Bitcoin
(31:10) – Envisioning a Bitcoin Standard World

This is not “mission accomplished” territory. It’s more like “inflationary trench warfare.”

The Fed’s Real Problem: Its Balance Sheet

The real driver of persistent inflation isn’t a mystery — it’s the Fed itself. The Fed’s balance sheet now sits at $6.6 trillion, down from the nearly $9 trillion peak during the COVID lockdowns but still far above the $4 trillion pre-pandemic level (Fed data). That’s ~23% of GDP being steered by unelected central bankers, distorting credit markets, propping up asset prices, and undermining the purchasing power of the dollar.

This massive balance sheet expansion was used to monetize unprecedented federal spending under both the Trump and Biden administrations — flooding the economy with cheap money that helped trigger the price spikes we’re still paying for today. Unless the Fed aggressively unwinds these holdings, inflationary pressures will keep simmering.

Why Rate Cuts Now Would Be Dangerous

The Fed’s current target range for the federal funds rate is 4.25–4.50%, and there’s a growing chorus — including two dissenters at the latest FOMC meeting — calling for cuts. They’re making the same mistake they made in 2021 when they claimed inflation would be “transitory.”

Here’s the reality:

• Inflation has been above the Fed’s 2% target since March 2021.
• The Fed’s target is “flexible,” but flexibility doesn’t mean tolerating a three-year miss, especially on the high side.
• Cutting rates now would further fuel asset bubbles, weaken the dollar, and penalize savers while inflation remains above target.

The Fed should hold rates steady until inflation is consistently below 2% for several months — and even then, only if the balance sheet is meaningfully smaller.

The Bigger Picture: Monetary Manipulation Hurts the Poor Most

Inflation isn’t just a number — it’s a hidden tax that hits low- and middle-income Americans hardest. Renters see it in higher lease renewals. Families feel it at the grocery store. Workers see their raises disappear before they even reach their bank accounts.

And because the Fed’s money creation and bond-buying funnel disproportionately flows into financial markets, the benefits accrue to those who already hold assets, thereby widening inequality. Meanwhile, political games at agencies like the CFPB, with the Chopra Rule, and harmful state-level interventions (such as interchange fee carveouts and credit card interest rate caps) make credit more expensive and less accessible, compounding the damage.

What Needs to Happen Now

The Fed has one job it can control: the money supply. It can’t reform Congress’s spending addiction, but it can stop enabling it.

Key steps:

• Cap the Fed’s balance sheet at 6% of GDP and commit to steady reductions.
• Maintain the current target interest rate until inflation is well below 2% for a sustained period.
• End mission creep into climate policy, ESG, DEI, and other political causes.
• Full independent audit for transparency until elimination.

These reforms would restore credibility, stabilize prices, and lay the groundwork for deeper changes — including a long-term plan to end the Fed’s monopoly on money.

Bottom Line

The Fed’s oversized balance sheet is still having a greater impact on the economy than the interest rate it sets. Until that intervention unwinds, inflationary pressures will linger — and any premature rate cut will exacerbate the situation. This is a moment for monetary discipline, not political expediency.