For once we had to cut down on the number of news items we selected for inclusion in the news notes. There were just too many of them, and they were getting quite repetitive; all saying the same thing in not so different ways. Frankly, the only way to stop this is to adopt the Economic Democracy Act:
• Housing is Increasingly Expensive. Once upon a time, the American Dream was to own a farm or a business. Then it was to have a good job and own your own home. Then it was to get as much in the way of fixed benefits and wages and buy a house you could flip for a quick profit. Of course, that left people with housing that was priced for speculation, not for living in. Now it’s time to pay the piper, and the tune is not one that many people want to hear. Housing has become so expensive that people earning six-figure incomes now qualify for housing assistance. As reported in the Washington Post, “Across the country, as housing and other costs continue to outpace income increases, many middle-class home buyers . . . are finding they can’t easily scrape together a down payment on their own. That has prompted city, state and nonprofit programs to expand eligibility for down-payment support — with some areas offering loans to people making more than $200,000.” What’s the answer? In the short-term, something along the lines of the Homeowners Equity Corporation could be of great benefit to bring down housing costs and make homes affordable to more people. People still have to afford even affordable housing, however, which means having an income — and that is what the Economic Democracy Act is designed and intended to address.
• Oil and Labor. It might come across as a direct attack on Truth (or Trvth), Justice (Ivstice?), and The American Way (umm, okay, leave it alone), but there are two “commodities” we might want to think about phasing out for different reasons — or at least start thinking of them as something other than commodities. The first of these is human labor, and the second is oil. As reported in an article in Yahoo! Finance, “A weak jobs report for February quashed the notion that the labor market is stabilizing, but it likely won’t push the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates this month, given the oil price shock from the Iran war poses a risk of higher inflation.” As we see it, the fundamental problem here is that AI (and some bizarre immigration policies) is affecting the so-called “jobs market” and oil is an increasingly scarce fuel source monopolized by relatively few providers. The answer, as we see it, is for the human beings replaced by AI should own the AI that is replacing them, and alternative energy sources (biofuels, hydrogen, fission and fusion — when developed — solar, wind, and others) should replace petroleum as the primary fuel source. Financial technologies are already in place with the ESOP and similar vehicles to help workers become owners of advancing technologies that are taking their jobs, while some biofuels and other power sources are already feasible to some degree and only need further development to replace petroleum completely. Financing worker (and universal) capital ownership as well as alternative energy can be done with the Economic Democracy Act. All it takes is the will to implement it.
• Labor Gains and Losses. It (of course) “shocked” the experts. The 92,000-job loss in February when “they” (the so-called experts) were expecting a 50,000-job gain has given rise to a question in the minds of some regarding the complacency with which many have been regarding the rise of AI in the workforce and its effect on (other people’s) jobs . . . with some people suddenly realizing that when others don’t have income, they can’t buy what you are selling. As reported in an article in Fortune magazine, “The shocking news that U.S. payrolls dropped by 92,000 in February—market watchers were expecting a 50,000 gain—trained the spotlight on what’s probably today’s most worrisome issue for everyone from money managers to Main Street shareholders to office workers: What’s the looming impact of AI on jobs? The widely accepted view, of course, holds that AI has already started generating gigantic efficiency gains empowering enterprises to do everything quicker and better while deploying far fewer people. But is that what’s really going on? Or is it possible there’s another explanation? . . . We know there’s been a huge jump in global capital spending on AI, a number that Gartner expects to reach $2.5 trillion this year, up 44% over 2025. And that money’s got to come from somewhere. So some experts are starting to theorize that the narrative is backwards: Companies aren’t curbing headcount because AI’s accelerating their processes right now. Instead, they’re offsetting a lot of those lavish AI outlays by tightening the biggest expense item on their income statements, labor costs.” Yes, there is another explanation, and it’s not cost-cutting, which decreases the number of producers but leaves the number of consumers unchanged. Nor does the standard solution of redistribution really solve the underlying problem: if the government takes away wealth from producers and redistributes it to non-producers, the non-producers spend the wealth to purchase the goods and services provided by the producers, which ends up being a closed loop. Producers make a profit on what they sell, even if redistribution lowers the real profit, it’s still profit, and consumers end up poorer than before, and demand more redistribution . . . which only makes them poorer. The solution? Adopt the Economic Democracy Act so that every producer can consume and every consumer can produce.
• Halfway There. It’s at least pointing in the right direction. A growing number of people are proposing that people with low(er) incomes pay no taxes on the income they need to survive. As reported in The Washington Post, “A Democratic senator viewed as a potential 2028 presidential candidate will unveil a plan that he says would ensure roughly half of all U.S. workers pay no federal income taxes, according to details shared with The Washington Post. Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland is expected to release the measure next week as Democratic lawmakers search for a sharp economic message to counter last year’s Republican tax law. Under Van Hollen’s proposal, workers making at or below a ‘living wage’ — $46,000 for taxpayers filing individually, or $92,000 for married couples filing jointly — would not have to pay federal income taxes. Tens of millions of additional middle-class workers would also receive a tax cut under the proposal, but they would still have to pay taxes. The measure would be paid for by a new surcharge on millionaires that would raise roughly $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.” Presidential hopeful Cory Booker has come up with a similar proposal. This is a nice idea, and we have often advocated something similar. As a matter of fact, during the first round of income taxes during the Civil War, relatively few people paid the tax — the average urban worker in the North earned approximately $600 per year, and the tax consisted of a flat 3% on incomes above $800. The original 1913 income tax, implemented via the Revenue Act of 1913 after the 16th Amendment, started with a low 1% rate on net income above $3,000 ($4,000 for married couples). Rates were progressive, rising to a top marginal rate of 7% (often cited as 6% or 7% depending on source, with a 6% surtax typically mentioned on top of the 1% base) on income over $500,000. In 1913, the average annual income for a US worker was between $200 and $400 for many laborers, with average annual wages for non-governmental employees slightly higher, though often under $750. Clearly, the intent was that ordinary people would not pay the income tax. That changed with the New Deal and the perceived need to impose Fabian “soft” socialism to save capitalism through strict control of the poor for the benefit of the rich. The real solution is to adopt the Economic Democracy Act.
• Can’t Sell Cars to Robots. It might depend on what day of the week you look at an issue. While some are worried about robots and AI taking away jobs, others are promoting robots and AI as a way of solving the problem of not being able to find enough people to fill available jobs. As reported in the Business Insider: “Backflipping robots make for splashy demos and viral videos, but Agility Robotics sees humanoid bots doing something simpler — solving an urgent global labor issue inside manufacturing plants.” Okay, stop right there. It’s the same old issue. Yes, you can replace human workers with robots . . . but those robots don’t buy the product you produce. As Walter Reuther once said in response to a Ford executive when twitted about how hard it would be to collect union dues from the machines in a newly automated factory, “You’ll have an even harder time selling them automobiles.” The solution (as we have pointed out endlessly on this blog) is to adopt the Economic Democracy Act.
• Not Everything in Place. Despite the vacillating optimism and pessimism about “the market” (which doesn’t mean where anyone can go to get the basics of food, clothing, and shelter), there is sometimes cause for hope. This is not one of those times. As reported in The Street, Bank of America is warning its customers that things might not be getting better any time soon: “The stock market appears to be in the middle of a reset, but Bank of America feels investors shouldn’t expect a major rebound just yet. BofA’s chief investment strategist, Michael Hartnett, argues that the conditions that usually signal the end of a brutal market correction are only partially in place.” No kidding. Until the U.S. has a sound, asset-backed reserve currency, a greatly reduced national debt, and the Economic Democracy Act., the “conditions” won’t be signaling the end of a market correction, brutal or otherwise, anytime soon. True, the market will likely rebound, but it won’t be because the conditions are right. It will be because the gamblers start throwing money around again.
• An “Unexpected” Turn? There appears to be no news as surprising, even astonishing as what is painfully obvious — at least to the so-called experts and the powers-that-be. According to an article in The Street, American confidence in the “labor market” (a term with which we already have some difficulties) has dropped. Blaming it on the “K-shaped economy” (which is a little like saying shivering causes the temperature to drop), the article says, “While the war in Iran wreaks havoc on the stock market, the real economy is also showing signs of stress, particularly in the labor market. This week, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released its February 2026 Survey of Consumer Expectations, which showed that while short-term inflation expectations have declined, labor market expectations decreased, and confidence in finding a new job also fell.” Of course, the so-called experts and the powers-that-be are oblivious to the fact that there are underlying structural problems which must be addressed if we want to get rid of the K-shaped economy: anything and everything that prevents or inhibits ordinary people from being or becoming productive with both capital and labor — and that means expanded capital ownership as proposed by the Economic Democracy Act.
• This Is What “They” Call “Delulu”. Everyone (except those people who aren’t) is worried about the effect AI will have on their jobs . . . but not to worry. As reported in an article in Fortune magazine, “As consensus grows in Silicon Valley and Wall Street about the incoming artificial intelligence ‘job apocalypse,’ there are few answers on what comes next. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and Microsoft AI chief Mustafa Suleyman have predicted that most white-collar jobs could be automated within the next one to five years, and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said last month that now is the time to start thinking about large-scale AI labor disruption. A recent analysis from Morgan Stanley offered a more tempered outlook for workers: Your current job may be eliminated, but you won’t be unemployed forever as new jobs replace old ones.” Uh, huh. At least the Fortune article goes on to say, “Regardless of which predictions are correct in the long term, AI layoffs are here, and they bring with them looming economic uncertainty for newly unemployed workers in a stagnating job market. Many could turn to unemployment insurance benefits designed to tide workers over while they find new work, and Amodei has repeatedly called on the government to prepare for high unemployment. But in 2022, nearly 75% of unemployed people didn’t even apply, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Experts who spoke to Fortune say that number is still accurate today.” The problem, of course, is that the amount of money allocated to unemployment benefits is limited, and the problem isn’t solved by telling more people to apply for them. The problem is solved by people owning the AI that is replacing them. This can be done by adopting the Economic Democracy Act.
• Soak the Rich and We All Take a Bath. It’s an idea whose time will never come: impose a wealth tax on the ultra-rich. It sounds good when you first throw it out but then come the buts. Here’s the “good idea” part of it, according to the Associated Press: “With affordability a hot topic in statehouses this session, a handful of progressive states are at least considering some kind of wealth tax. Perhaps the most ambitious tax-the-rich effort is taking place in California – a state that already taxes its millionaire class. Advocates are working on a ballot measure that would place a one-time 5% tax on the assets of those with a $1 billion net worth. The proposal, backed by a large health care union, would use the extra revenue to backfill federal funding cuts to health services for lower-income people that were signed by President Donald Trump last year.” Here’s one of the “buts”: . . . Just who is going to buy the assets the rich will have to sell to raise the cash to pay the tax on unrealized capital gains? Other rich Americans who must come up with the gobs of cash to pay the tax? No. Rich foreigners? Not acceptable for some of us. The government? Ummm . . . no . . . unless you really like National Socialism (which we don’t, even ignoring the slight, er “odor” attached to the term). The solution? Tax ALL income above a generous exemption at the same flat rate. Allow deferred taxes on income used to purchase capital assets up to a level of capital self-sufficiency, but otherwise, treat everyone equally. This is what is proposed in the Economic Democracy Act.
 |
| It's interconnected |
• Unintended Consequences. It turns out that a lot of those immigrants weren’t taking jobs from Americans. Instead, they were creating them. As noted in an article in Fortune magazine, it turns out that immigrants were doing jobs that Americans refused to do . . . but that the jobs they would do depended on the jobs that they wouldn’t do. Sort of a Catch-22 in reverse. The solution, of course, is to stop obsessing on what others might have, and start looking at what you might be able to have . . . if the powers-that-be adopted the Economic Democracy Act, instead of taking away from others and concentrated on helping everyone have something without taking anything away from anyone.
 |
| Kent Smetters |
• He Could Be Right. According to an article in Fortune magazine, the national debt isn’t a staggering $39 trillion, it’s a mind-blowing $100 trillion. It’s all how you calculate it: “According to Kent Smetters, faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model and one of the country’s most respected fiscal economists, that $39 trillion number is a polite fiction. The real tab, he argues, is closer to $100 trillion. It has to do with the accounting distinction between explicit obligations — legally binding debts the government must repay — and implicit “pay-as-you-go” obligations — expected future spending commitments that carry moral or political, but not legal, force. “What we call implicit obligations are twice the size of explicit obligations,” Smetters told Fortune in a recent interview, referring to the unfunded liabilities buried inside programs like Social Security and Medicare.” Meanwhile, others are simply stating the dangers of a national debt that dwarfs any other in U.S. history. The obvious solution, of course, is to get rid of all government debt as soon as possible except for short-term loans to meet tax shortfalls or emergencies, and that can be done by adopting the Economic Democracy Act.
• Greater Reset “Book Trailers”. We have produced two ninety-second “Book Trailers” for distribution (by whoever wants to distribute them), essentially minute-and-a-half commercials for The Greater Reset. There are two versions of the videos, one for “general audiences” and the other for “Catholic audiences”. Take your pick.
• The Greater Reset. CESJ’s book by members of CESJ’s core group, The Greater Reset: Reclaiming Personal Sovereignty Under Natural Law is, of course, available from the publisher, TAN Books, an imprint of Saint Benedict Press, and has already gotten a top review on that website. It can also be obtained from Barnes and Noble, as well as Amazon, or by special order from your local “bricks and mortar” bookstore. The Greater Reset is the only book of which we’re aware on “the Great Reset” that presents an alternative instead of simply warning of the dangers inherent in a proposal that is contrary to natural law. It describes reality, rather than a Keynesian fantasy world. Please note that The Greater Reset is NOT a CESJ publication as such, and enquiries about quantity discounts and wholesale orders for resale must be sent to the publisher, Saint Benedict Press, NOT to CESJ.
• Economic Personalism Landing Page. A landing page for CESJ’s latest publication (now with an imprimatur), Economic Personalism: Property, Power and Justice for Every Person, has been created and can be accessed by clicking on this link. Everyone is encouraged to visit the page and send the link out to their networks.
• Economic Personalism. When you purchase a copy of Economic Personalism: Property, Power and Justice for Every Person, be sure you post a review after you’ve read it. It is available on both Amazon and Barnes and Noble at the cover price of $10 per copy. You can also download the free copy in .pdf available from the CESJ website. If you’d like to order in bulk (i.e., 52 or more copies) at the wholesale price, send an email to info@cesj.org for details. CESJ members get a $2 rebate per copy on submission of proof of purchase. Wholesale case lots of 52 copies are available at $350, plus shipping (whole case lots ONLY). Prices are in U.S. dollars.
• Sensus Fidelium Videos, Update. CESJ’s series of videos for Sensus Fidelium are doing very well, with over 155,000 total views. The latest Sensus Fidelium video is “The Five Levers of Change.” The video is part of the series on the book, Economic Personalism. The latest completed series on “the Great Reset” can be found on the “Playlist” for the series. The previous series of sixteen videos on socialism is available by clicking on the link: “Socialism, Modernism, and the New Age,” along with some book reviews and other selected topics. For “interfaith” presentations to a Catholic audience they’ve proved to be popular, edging up to 150,000 views to date. They aren’t really “Just Third Way videos,” but they do incorporate a Just Third Way perspective. You can access the playlist for the entire series. The point of the videos is to explain how socialism and socialist assumptions got such a stranglehold on the understanding of the role of the State and thus the interpretation of Catholic social teaching, and even the way non-Catholics and even non-Christians understand the roles of Church, State, and Family, and the human persons place in society.
Those are the happenings for this week, at least those that we know about. If you have an accomplishment that you think should be listed, send us a note about it at mgreaney [at] cesj [dot] org, and well see that it gets into the next “issue.” Due to imprudent and intemperate language on the part of some commentators, we removed temptation and disabled comments.
#30#
