Read original post

In an era of economic uncertainty, a new trend has emerged among tens of millions of Americans, according to a recent study by Intuit reported on by CNBC. Termed 'doom spending,' this phenomenon signifies the practice of expending beyond one's financial means as a coping mechanism for stress, particularly stress related to the economy. The alarming data underscores a bleak picture: a nation grappling with financial insecurity and a diminishing hope for the future.

Intuit's study reveals a staggering 96% of Americans harbor concerns about the current economic climate. Over half believe that economic conditions have deteriorated over the past six months. With 56% living paycheck to paycheck and less than $2,000 in savings, nearly one-fourth of Americans have no savings at all, painting a dire picture of financial preparedness.

[

Forget doom scrolling, Americans now doom spend to cope with stress

Nearly every American is concerned about the current state of the economy (96%) – and it’s stressing them out about their finances. According to a study conducted by Qualtrics on behalf of Intuit Credit Karma, the top economic concerns among Americans who are concerned about the economy include inflation (56%), the cost of living increases […]

Intuit Credit Karma

](https://www.creditkarma.com/about/commentary/forget-doom-scrolling-americans-now-doom-spend-to-cope-with-stress?ref=tftc.io)

The concept of 'doom spending' is not a marginal one; it affects approximately 27% of American households—that's around 35 million households or 90 million individuals—falling deeper into financial distress. The drivers of this trend are twofold: the relentless rise of inflation and the growing inaccessibility of housing, leaving nearly half of the population struggling to afford basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter.

The predicament is particularly acute among younger generations. A quarter of Generation Z report difficulties in locating well-paying jobs, and an overwhelming majority of both Gen Z and Millennials experience financial anxiety. In terms of 'doom spending,' young adults are at the forefront, with 35% of Gen Z and 43% of Millennials admitting to spending beyond their means to manage stress.

Additionally, the younger demographic reports the most significant increases in spending, indicating a shift away from long-term financial planning towards immediate gratification. This shift is attributed to a growing sense of hopelessness about the economy's prospects, with only a fraction of optimists believing in the leveling out of inflation or improvement in the job market.

The socioeconomic impact is evident as a quarter of Gen Z and Millennials are moving back with their parents, a stark departure from previous generations' milestones of starting a family and homeownership. The Intuit study points out that the age once prime for family formation is now marked by retreat and indulgence in ephemeral experiences, such as vacations, over long-term investments.

“When houses are a million dollar plus and an older couple will likely outbid us anyway, we’re gonna relinquish any lingering delusions about homeownership”

Gen Z doom spending is a *rational* coping mechanism pic.twitter.com/YWG5gp2yg4

— Amy Nixon (@texasrunnerDFW) December 22, 2023

The roots of this economic dilemma can be traced back to the year 2000 when the economy began its shift towards a Federal Reserve-dominated system characterized by high expenditure and sluggish growth. This shift has resulted in a disproportionate increase in living costs compared to income growth. For instance, rents have climbed by 135% since 1999, outpacing the 77% rise in incomes. The median house price has skyrocketed to 274% of its 1999 value, according to the Census Bureau, leaving incomes lagging far behind despite many Americans taking on multiple jobs.

As the economic landscape continues to challenge the younger generations, there is a theoretical hope that this demographic might pivot towards advocating for smaller government, reduced regulation, and increased entrepreneurial activity. However, the study suggests that a significant shift in sentiment may require further hardship before such a transition occurs.

The Intuit study paints a concerning portrait of an American populace increasingly resorting to 'doom spending' in response to economic pressures. With the youth at the forefront of this trend, the long-term implications for the economy and society at large remain to be seen.

We need to fix the money.

Read original post

Fresh GDP numbers came in and it was a blowout. The kind of blowout that only a $2.7 trillion government deficit can buy while the private economy crumbles around it.

Another couple blowout GDP reports like this and Americans will be living under an overpass.

Biden’s GDP Miracle

First the numbers. The Bureau of Economic Analaysis reported GDP for the fourth quarter came in at 3.3% annualized. Which blew away estimates of 2.0%.

And it brought growth for all of last year to 2.5%.

Which is very healthy.

On paper.

Note the numbers are preliminary, so they're subject to revision.

Still, the regime media rolled out their finest adjectives: CNN called it "shocking" -- in a good way. The New York Times called it "stunning and spectacular."

Visit our Lead Sponsor, Unchained. Protect Your Bitcoin, Reduce your Taxes Coupon Code PETER for $100 off a Bitcoin IRA.

So what's the problem? Debt.

Your grand-kids bought it all. And then some.

To see why, in the past 12 months the federal deficit increased by $1.3 trillion. Yet we only got half that in GDP -- about $600 billion.

In other words, everything else shrank.

It's even worse for that brave and stunning Q4 -- there we got just $300 billion in extra GDP for -- wait for it -- $834 billion of new federal debt.

Thanks for reading Peter St Onge, Ph.D.! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

GDP vs Wealth

Remember that GDP isn't measuring wealth, it's measuring spending -- production which is sold.

As Megan McArdle put it, GDP “counts the dollar value of our output, but not the actual improvement in our lives, or even in our economic condition."

For example, if you dig holes and fill them, it’s GDP. In fact, you could build a missile, blow up the Golden Gate bridge and every house within 5 miles of it, and it shows up as GDP. The missile cost money after all, and the government paid for it.

Of course, mainstream media -- indeed, mainstream economics -- pretends that GDP is identical to wealth. Pumping out articles celebrating GDP as prosperity.

That's close enough when it's private firms or individuals producing more to sell more — in that case, rising GDP means the country is getting richer. Because more stuff is being produced.

But it's actually the opposite when it's government spending. Because government's job is taking wealth and lighting it on fire. That means when GDP is growing from government spending it's not measuring wealth.

It's measuring dissipation of wealth at best, destruction of wealth at worst.

Essentially, the pace at which we're going Soviet, replacing private wealth with government waste.

Enter for free chance to win 50 American Silver Eagle coins — valued at over $1,500! Rated Top Precious Metal dealer by Investopedia.

So translating that brave and stunning GDP into the real world, we're destroying wealth at rates not seen since 2008.

This actually lines up with what we've seen in jobs -- in a recent video I mentioned that over half the jobs last year were actually government and government related social service jobs.

In some states it was literally more than all the jobs created -- in other words, the private sector is shrinking.

All these government jobs, of course, are unproductive -- they're not making us more prosperous as a society.

On the contrary, they're taking wealth earned from productive activities and squandering them on vote-buying or worse -- think of the wealth-destruction contained in a single EPA bureaucrat.

What’s Next

The lapdog media will keep playing alone with the government statisticians and the gaslighting academics.

They'll keep trashing regular Americans for posting their grocery bills and mortgage payments, praying they can maintain the illusion long enough for the next election.

Fortunately, there's millions of us who can see the emperor is buck nekkid.

I'll be speaking at the Restore Freedom Rally, February 2 to 5 in beautiful Orlando, on the coming Tidal Wave of Taxes: What's driving it. Who they'll go after first. And why they won't quit.

There’ll be great speakers every single day, and you can get tickets at Restore Freedom Rally. Use promo code PJ10 to get 10% off.

I hope to see you there!

Sign up for my free newsletter to get weekly articles on the economy and freedom.

Also check out the weekly podcast rounding up all the week’s videos in a single 20 minute podcast.

Originally published in profstonge.com

Read original post

In an unexpected twist that has left fiscal conservatives reeling, the newly-appointed Speaker Johnson seems poised to concede to a substantial budget agreement, much to the delight of Congressional Democrats. The 2024 budget agreement, hailed by Democrats as a significant triumph, raises questions about the necessity of a Republican majority when budgetary concessions are so easily given.

The agreement, which is set to channel a staggering $1.7 trillion into various governmental departments such as Energy, Housing, and Transportation, has been criticized for its minuscule spending cuts. A mere $16 billion has been trimmed from the vast sum, an amount that is less than one percent of the total and equates to roughly five days of interest on the national debt.

via Zero Hedge

Speaker Johnson, in a statement that was far from reassuring, noted that the final spending levels "will not satisfy everyone." Critics argue that this understatement glosses over the deal's failure to address critical issues such as the burgeoning border crisis. The taxpayer burden of illegal immigration, reportedly $144,000 per migrant per year according to New York City's estimates, remains unaddressed.

Furthermore, Senator Lankford of Oklahoma has proposed an immigration deal that seems to prioritize the interests of GOP donors over American workers by offering work visas to illegal migrants. The budget maintains the military spending at $886 billion, ostensibly for foreign conflicts, and $704 billion in non-defense spending, which skeptics view as a means for further government handouts and power consolidation.

Despite the pushback from conservatives within Congress, the deal is seen as a concession that prioritizes military spending and the interests of big donors over a fiscally responsible agenda. Senator Mike Lee of Utah has pointed out that the budget exceeds initial proposals by $100 billion, marking a negotiating failure that hands President Biden nearly all he desired.

As Speaker Johnson's position appears increasingly precarious, critics speculate on the potential for a shake-up in GOP leadership. However, until a greater number of populists and America-first representatives make their way into office, bipartisan budget agreements are likely to persist, perpetuating the cycle of rising federal spending and debt.

In conclusion, the latest budget agreement has exposed deep rifts within the Republican Party and casts doubt on their ability to effectively negotiate and manage the nation's fiscal policy. As federal expenditures continue to grow, the implications for the economy and the future of fiscal conservatism in Congress remain uncertain.

For continued coverage on this developing story, stay tuned to Peter St. Onge's weekday updates.

Read original post

In a recent report that could have significant implications for global economic policy, the United Nations has presented an eye-watering estimate for addressing what it refers to as the "climate crisis." The World Economic Situation and Prospects report, spanning 167 pages, puts forward a figure of $150 trillion as the cost of tackling the environmental challenges we face.

via The World Economic Situation and Prospects report

Due to the fact that this kind of spending would have massive implications on the global economy, it is important to unpack the magnitude of this figure. To put it into perspective, $150 trillion is roughly equivalent to half of humanity's accumulated wealth since the dawn of bipedal hominids. This staggering amount, which verges on the inconceivable, is projected to be necessary over the course of the next half-century.

The UN's calculations are primarily based on substantial subsidies for green energy, meant to "transform the global energy sector." This sector is purportedly in need of an investment of around $5.3 trillion per year, which by itself exceeds the entire GDP of an economic powerhouse like Japan. If maintained over 50 years, the total would surpass the already astronomical initial estimate, reaching $265 trillion.

Further breakdown of the proposed spending includes trillions to incentivize poorer nations to join the energy transition, as well as a "loss and damage fund," purportedly designed to compensate for the impacts of global warming on these nations. However, critics argue that such funds may merely line the pockets of corrupt elites rather than foster genuine environmental protection or improvement.

The report also recommends diverting existing development funds to climate-related projects, a move that could potentially undermine infrastructural development such as road and railway construction crucial for economic growth in developing regions.

These proposed expenditures, while monumental in their scope, are not merely theoretical. A summit in Paris, attended by U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen among others, saw commitments to channel approximately four trillion dollars per year towards these climate initiatives, including the controversial payments to third-world elites.

Despite the seemingly unassailable sums involved, public support for such measures is limited. Surveys consistently reveal that the average voter is unwilling to contribute more than a token amount to the climate change agenda, a figure dwarfed by the ambitions of the climate lobby, which wields significant influence over global policy.

In conclusion, the UN's report signals a potential redirection of trillions of dollars towards combating climate change, a move that is not without controversy. While the efficacy and practicality of these measures are debated, one thing is certain: the conversation around climate change funding is set to intensify as these figures come under greater scrutiny.