Category: Economy

  • U.S. Company Headwinds 2025 [Web App]

    Fundamental Headwinds Impacting U.S. Companies

    An analysis of core, non-market challenges affecting a curated list of corporations as of October 3, 2025.

    About This Analysis

    This report identifies and ranks significant, fundamental business headwinds affecting a diverse group of publicly traded, U.S.-based companies. The analysis deliberately excludes security prices, market capitalization, sector, industry, employee count, tariff uncertainty, and government shutdowns to focus purely on the underlying operational and economic challenges that are independent of these factors.

    Headwind Prevalence Across Analyzed Companies

    The chart below visualizes the estimated prevalence of each fundamental headwind. A higher prevalence score indicates a more widespread challenge impacting a larger percentage of the companies in the study group. Use the category filters below the chart to narrow your focus.

    (more…)
  • Abolish the BLS Jobs Report

    There’s a compelling argument that the government’s method of mass counting jobs serves to obscure, rather than clarify, the true composition of the labor force. The BLS itself acknowledges that its surveys likely include illegal aliens, as the system isn’t designed to identify their legal status. This aggregate approach allows for the convenient bundling of all workers, making it impossible to discern the number of jobs held by citizens versus non-citizens, including undocumented workers or those on temporary visas. A system of transparent, individual company reporting would bring immediate clarity. If companies were responsible for reporting their own hiring data, any significant reliance on non-citizen labor would be far more apparent, holding both the companies and policymakers accountable for the real-world effects of immigration and labor policies.

    The monthly BLS jobs report is an obsolete and harmful system that should be abolished. Its monthly release is a recurring trap for retail investors, who are systematically disadvantaged by high-frequency trading algorithms that instantly trade on the numbers before the public can react (you’re literally at work and they’re gaming you). This turns a supposedly transparent economic indicator into a tool for institutional players to profit from manufactured volatility.

    Furthermore, the data itself is often unreliable, with significant upward or downward revisions frequently undermining the accuracy of the initial reports that cause these market shocks.

    Fundamentally, a free country should not rely on the government to be the central arbiter of economic information. This mass counting of jobs is an overstep of its role. Instead, we should foster a system where companies report their own data, allowing for a more organic and less centralized flow of information. This would end the monthly market convulsions and restore a measure of fairness for the individual investor.

  • Tariffs for Stimulus Checks: The Winning Formula Democrats Don’t Understand

    The Democrat worldview, fixated on outdated economic dogma, stands as a direct impediment to American prosperity in the AI era. Their response to every new opportunity is a tired chorus of recycled criticisms, stale arguments, and unimaginative calls for more debt. It’s time to dismantle their flawed logic and embrace a forward-looking economic plan that puts American ingenuity and the American people first.

    Stimulus Checks: Fueling Innovation, Not Inflation

    Let’s start with the core of the plan: sending stimulus checks to the American people, funded by the massive influx of new tariff revenue. Predictably, the old guard cries “inflation, bad investment, and boom-bust” cycles. This thinking is completely out of touch with the reality of the modern American economy.

    This is the era of AI. Individual “Mom and Pop” investors, and even tech-savvy teenagers, are smarter and more connected than ever. The money from a stimulus check isn’t just disappearing into a black hole; it’s circulating, it’s being invested, it’s fueling small businesses, and it’s driving innovation from the ground up.

    The United States of America needs to “double down” on creativity. We are collecting hundreds of billions of dollars annually from President Trump’s 2025 tariffs, a massive windfall. To suggest this extra revenue should just be used to “directly pay down the debt” is not just boring, it’s uncreative, and frankly, un-American. Our nation thrives on dynamism, not just fiscal austerity. This tariff revenue is a direct windfall, earned by putting our nation first, and it should be returned to the American people as stimulus checks to ignite a new wave of entrepreneurship and consumption. The notion that this creates only “bad investment” shows a profound lack of faith in the American people’s ability to make smart decisions.

    The Delusion of “Free Association” in Global Trade

    This brings us to the source of this revenue: tariffs. Democrats cling to a naive fantasy of “free trade,” arguing that it allows “humans to freely associate” in the global marketplace. This completely ignores the brutal realities of international competition and thousands of years of human history, which are driven by power and self-interest.

    Go watch or read Frank Herbert’s “Dune.” In that universe, the Great Houses of the Imperium each possessed their own family atomics (nuclear weapons hidden away). While their use against humans was forbidden, the existence of those weapons shaped every single interaction. The Atreides, for instance, had a cache of atomics on Arrakis; they knew they could obliterate the very spice production that powered the galaxy if they chose. The point is, there was no true “free association” among the Great Houses because each had instruments of immense power held in reserve.

    To suggest that nations like China, with their state-subsidized industries and strategic market manipulation, are engaging in “free association” is equally delusional. They operate with the equivalent of “family atomics” in their economic arsenal. Our tariffs are not about hindering association; they are about imposing a real-world cost on their predatory practices and defending American industries, ensuring our (the United States of America’s) economic security and strength.

    The Real Tax Burdens: Income and Corporate Taxes

    The Democrat fixation on certain taxes is a masterclass in misdirection. They ignore the real drags on our economy. The federal income tax, for example, does far more to “discourage capital formation and savings” than any other tax. President Trump has rightly targeted this, stating his intention on a tarmac around April 27, 2025, to seek “no income tax Federal that is for those making $200,000 or less a year.” That’s a bold vision to free up the vast majority of American households. He’s already shown his commitment with “The Bill,” which effectively eliminated the federal income tax on Social Security for most seniors.

    Likewise, corporate income taxes are a first-order, direct punishment on businesses, making American companies less competitive. This is a real “disincentive to productivity.” Furthermore, let’s not forget the huge excise taxes on highway-related activities and air travel, particularly in what are essentially Democrat-run city-states like California and New York. These taxes directly increase the cost of doing business and kill growth.

    Capital Gains: A Necessary Guard Against Speculation

    Finally, let’s dismantle their primary attack: the ludicrous claim that a capital gains tax “stops productivity.” This argument is completely backward. The capital gains tax, particularly its distinction between short-term and long-term gains, is a crucial governor against rampant, destabilizing speculation.

    We live in the era of “Flash Boys,” the term coined by author Michael Lewis, where high-frequency trading can create incredible market volatility. A robust capital gains framework, which taxes short-term trades at a higher rate, tempers the kind of reckless gambles that produce little real value. The preferential treatment for long-term gains is a strategic incentive for patient, productive investment, the very definition of capital formation. To dismantle this system would be to open the floodgates to massive foreign entities who would flood our tech incubators with speculative cash, creating artificial bubbles and blowing out genuine American innovators. We need the capital gains tax on paper assets to protect our competitive edge.

    The choice is clear. We can cling to the tired, failed economic theories of the Democrat worldview, or we can embrace a bold, creative, and uniquely American path. Tariff revenue should empower the American people through stimulus checks, fueling innovation, not just vanish into the bureaucracy of debt repayment. Let’s trust our investors, our innovators, and our creative spirit.

  • The Debt is a Cancer, Not a Curve to Be Flattened

    The Debt is a Cancer, Not a Curve to Be Flattened

    The analogy comparing the national debt to the COVID-19 “flatten the curve” mantra is a profoundly misleading and dangerous simplification of the crisis we face. The comparison is particularly flawed when one recalls the data inconsistencies during the initial wave of COVID-19. In early 2020, many observers noted with suspicion that official data from sources like Johns Hopkins University showed a startlingly low number of recoveries in the United States. This data “weirdness,” born from the chaos of tracking a novel virus in real-time, highlights a key difference: the COVID-19 curve was a matter of incomplete, real-time data, while the national debt curve is a matter of precise, cumulative accounting.

    The national debt isn’t a virus that will simply “burn out” or be defeated by a short-term, emergency response. It is a chronic, metastasizing cancer on the body politic, the result of decades of policy decisions. Proposals for a “debt ceiling app” or other simple fixes are shortsighted political theater. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to raise the debt ceiling, rendering it more of a talking point than a genuine constraint.

    The real technological revolution that offers a path forward is not in financial gimmicks, but in artificial intelligence, LLMs, and robotics. Their promise is not magical “growth,” but something far more valuable: the ruthless elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse. The potential for automation to overhaul the medical and insurance industries—the true drivers of our debt—is immense. Imagine humanoid robots, like Tesla’s Optimus, providing comprehensive elder care. These machines could handle everything from showering a grandparent to monitoring their vitals, ending the soul-crushing and financially ruinous nursing home industry. This isn’t science fiction; it is a necessary step to slash the costs that are bankrupting our nation.

    (more…)
  • Business Tax Devolutions: A Critical Dissection of Title XI, Subtitle B, Parts 1 & 2

    The recently proposed business tax measures under Title XI, Subtitle B, Parts 1 & 2, are presented as beneficial reforms. However, a closer examination reveals a series of provisions that range from questionably effective to deeply detrimental to American interests and fiscal responsibility.

    Sec. 111001: Extension of Special Depreciation Allowance (Bonus Depreciation) – A Recipe for Misallocation

    This section proposes extending 100% bonus depreciation for property acquired after January 19, 2025, and placed in service before January 1, 2030. This isn’t sound economic policy; it’s a blatant handout, likely to benefit well-connected insiders. Reports of companies already stockpiling assets suggest this will merely accelerate a pre-existing rush to capitalize on a temporary distortion. Such a policy actively encourages a misallocation of resources, incentivizing potentially unnecessary capital expenditure over more sustainable investments or debt reduction. It’s a short-sighted pump for certain sectors that will only exacerbate our national debt, not alleviate it.

    (more…)
  • Reforming Individual Income Taxes: A Focused Approach (Part I of a BBB Critique)

    The current discourse around individual income taxes is cluttered with temporary fixes, unpopular mandates, and provisions that miss the mark for many Americans. Instead of a sprawling bill, a more focused approach is needed, prioritizing permanent, common-sense changes while jettisoning controversial or ineffective measures. Here’s a look at what such a refined individual income tax bill should, and shouldn’t, include.

    Core Tax Provisions: Stability and Simplicity

    At the heart of a sensible tax reform should be the permanent extension of several key provisions initially from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). This includes making permanent the modified individual income tax rates, the increased standard deduction, and the termination of personal exemptions. These measures offer a baseline of stability for taxpayers.

    However, the idea of a temporary enhancement to the standard deduction, proposed for taxable years 2025-2028, should be rejected. Such short-term measures are often gimmicks, creating fiscal uncertainty and providing future leverage for increased government spending without addressing the immediate need for significant fiscal discipline now.

    (more…)
  • Deconstructing the “Buy American Exclusively” Mandate & Hypocrisy Accusation

    Mark Cuban said on April 13, 2025 that “I don’t care who you are. If you are complaining we need tariffs to bring manufacturing and jobs to the USA, and you don’t buy American EXCLUSIVELY , YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE You want to bring manufacturing back, lead by example and get friends and family to do the same”.

    He was trying to be anti-Trump. This article refutes all this bullshit.

    1. “Complaining” vs. Strategic Threat Mitigation.

    The premise incorrectly labels advocacy for domestic manufacturing/tariffs as mere “complaining.” The primary driver, particularly regarding specific sectors (ref: Section 232 – steel, aluminum, etc.), is national security. This involves mitigating strategic dependencies on potentially adversarial nodes in the global supply network. Framing this as complaining ignores the documented risk assessment driving these policy considerations.

    (more…)