Despite yesterday’s wide-ranging Israel aerial assault on Yemen, the Houthis have hit back – showing they remain undeterred in their willingness to attack Israel – having launched an overnight ballistic missile on Tel Aviv.

The missile was reportedly intercepted by air defenses before it entered Israeli airspace, but a Houthi spokesman claimed that Ben Gurion international airport was targeted in a significant escalation. The Houthis even claim it was hit.

Times of Israel notes that the population of central Israel has been on edge: “For the fifth night in the last eight days, sirens sounded in large swathes of central Israel overnight Thursday-Friday, after another ballistic missile attack by Yemen’s Houthis.”

The same report indicated that some 20 people were hurt amid the panic and evacuations, with 18 of those slightly injured while rushing to bomb shelters and two suffering anxiety attacks.

The Houthi statement said that “the missile succeeded in reaching its target despite the enemy’s censorship, and the operation resulted in casualties and the cessation of navigation at the airport.”

But the Israeli military confirmed that there were no strikes which hit the airport or its vicinity. A drone was also reportedly sent from Yemen but didn’t appear to cause damage.

Despite Israel stepping up its attacks on Yemen, including Netanyahu’s recent vow to hunt down Houthi leadership, the Houthis have vowed to not stop the attacks “until the aggression on Gaza stops and the siege is lifted.”

Days ago, Defense Minister Israel Katz said that the leaders of the Yemeni group have made themselves targets. Taking them out will now be a top priority for the Israeli military.

“Just as we took care of Sinwar in Gaza, Haniyeh in Tehran and Nasrallah in Beirut, we will deal with the heads of the Houthis in Sana’a or anywhere in Yemen,” Katz has said in the Tuesday comments, making reference to the slain leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas.

“We will act both against their infrastructure and against them to remove the threat,” he pledged while inspecting an Arrow air defense system battery which just intercepted the latest Houthi missile attack.

NEW: Yemen’s Houthis launched another ballistic missile toward Tel Aviv following Israeli airstrikes on Yemen yesterday.

The missile was intercepted by Israel. pic.twitter.com/ElZO1SJ20G

— Clash Report (@clashreport) December 27, 2024

He also again called out Iran, warning that “whoever sponsors the Houthi terror in Hodeida or Sana’a will pay the full price.” Washington has for years documented Tehran’s support to the group, which has included advanced missiles and drone technology. This has allowed the threat out of Yemen to grow significantly.

Last Saturday saw one of the biggest Houthi strikes to date, coming in the form of a reported hypersonic ballistic missile which hit Tel Aviv, leaving 16 people injured. And Tuesday morning saw another Houthi missile launch on Israel, which at that point had marked the third such attack in less than a week. 

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times,

Economists have described the past four years as the “vibecession,” a disconnect between Americans’ feelings about the economy and the data.

It was the consensus view on Wall Street that the economy would slide into a recession, but economic conditions have defied expectations. Gross domestic product (GDP) has expanded at a solid pace, the labor market has added millions of new jobs, and the inflation growth rate has eased from its June 2022 peak.

If this is the current state of the world’s largest economy, why have U.S. households been down?

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell was asked about this at the December post-policy meeting press conference, and he attributed this pessimistic view to the “tremendous pain” of high prices.

“Prices went up by a great deal, and people really feel that, and it’s prices of food and transportation and heating your home and things like that. So there’s tremendous pain in that burst of inflation that was very global,” Powell said.

“Now we have inflation itself is way down, but people are still feeling high prices. And that is really what people are feeling.”

Indeed, inflation has been and continues to be the main story in today’s economy.

Inflation and GDP

Over the past four years, inflation has eaten away many gains made throughout the economy.

Consumer prices have soared by about 21 percent, while producer prices—a gauge of prices paid by businesses for goods and services at the wholesale level—have surged by about 24 percent. Americans’ purchasing power has also eroded by 17 percent.

The current administration has touted the labor market’s strength, with wage growth at the top of its accomplishments. While nominal (non-inflation-adjusted) wage growth has soared, real (inflation-adjusted) wage growth has been stuck in subzero terrain throughout President Joe Biden’s term.

As a result, households have been struggling to keep up with sky-high living expenses, whether utilities or food.

At the same time, the inflation bomb that went off in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic also weighed on economic advances.

Retail sales, for example, have soared, indicating that consumers have strong balance sheets. However, after adjusting for inflation, retail sales have flatlined, suggesting that consumers spent more for the same or less.

Some economists assert that inflation might have been undercounted and growth overstated.

In October, economists EJ Antoni and Peter St Onge published a study in Brownstone Journal, concluding that the cumulative inflation has been understated by nearly half and cumulative growth might have been “overstated by roughly 15 [percent].”

“Even without considering population growth and per capita GDP, the adjusted real GDP values imply that the nation entered a recession in the first quarter of 2022 and remained in that contraction through the second quarter of 2024,” they wrote.

That said, the official U.S. government data suggest that growth prospects have been robust, even in a climate of higher interest rates and geopolitical risks.

Under the Biden administration, real GDP rose by 12.6 percent, according to the White House. In 2024, the United States is poised to register a 2.5 percent growth rate.

By comparison, his predecessor, President Donald Trump, oversaw an economy that expanded by about 7 percent.

Spending and Deficits

The federal government is running a sizable budget deficit as if it were in a recession, war, or pandemic.

Despite that the economy is growing and running at full employment, the deficit as a share of the GDP is about 7 percent. The last times the deficit-to-GDP ratio was this high were during the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The national debt clock at a bus station in Washington on Nov. 26, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Washington faces a challenge because spending continues to grow. Federal outlays are up by 47 percent from before the public health crisis, exceeding $7 trillion.

Likewise, the national debt has increased by more than $8 trillion since January 2021, reaching $36.2 trillion.

Although resilient consumers and their spending patterns have been the main drivers of meteoric growth, government consumption has also played a prominent role in the economy’s growth.

In the third quarter, when the U.S. economy rose by 3.1 percent, expenditures from all three levels of government contributed 28 percent to the rise in GDP.

At the federal level, net government outlays account for less than one-quarter of the GDP, up from about one-fifth before the pandemic.

The economic literature states that cutting government spending would be a net benefit for the economy. More resources would stay in the private sector and be efficiently allocated toward productive uses rather than government edicts.

A significant portion of federal revenues has been dedicated to debt servicing payments, which are taxpayer funds that will not produce anything critical for the long-term success of the broader economy.

Consumer Sentiment

From higher prices to ballooning debt, households maintained a sour outlook on the economy.

NBC News exit poll data show that heading into the voting booth on Election Day in November, nearly half (45 percent) of voters said they were financially worse off than they were four years earlier.

Consumer sentiment improved in December for the fifth consecutive month. Despite the jump, the public’s view of the economy has failed to return to pre-crisis levels.

The widely watched University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index reached an all-time high in February 2020. After plummeting to a record low in June 2022, it has steadily rebounded, although it is still below the high observed under the previous administration.

Alternatively, the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index has also failed to recover from its highs in 2018 and 2019.

Over the past four years, households have endured daily sticker shocks, whether for a carton of eggs or a visit to the dentist. Many goods and services are more expensive, and consumers see their paychecks unable to cover these higher costs.

This has forced millions of Americans to take on more debt.

According to New York Fed statistics, household debt has soared by about $3.3 trillion since the first quarter of 2021. One culprit of this upward trend has been credit card debt, which rose by approximately $400 billion in this span to a record $1.17 trillion.

An October Civic Science survey found that 41 percent of Americans rely on debt to stay afloat.

The 2025 Outlook

According to a recent Bankrate survey, 44 percent of Americans think their personal financial situation will improve next year, up from 37 percent at the end of 2023.

The top financial objective for 21 percent of Americans? Paying down debt.

“Inflation has faded, but it hasn’t gone away,” Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst at Bankrate, said in a statement.

“With interest rates still elevated, it is encouraging to see the top financial goal is to pay down debt. Average credit card interest rates top 20 [percent], still close to a record high. Targeting high-cost debt can provide an immediate benefit.”

Eradicating price inflation from the collective consciousness of the American people might be the road to bolstering consumer sentiment in 2025 and beyond.

Oil prices were slightly higher on Friday as Israeli strikes against Yemen’s Houthi rebels triggered what Tom Essaye, founder and president of Sevens Report Research described as a “fear bid” for the commodity.

“This is a geopolitics-driven market,” Melek said.

“We’re a little worried about events around the Red Sea and potentially getting shipments interrupted in the broader region,” he added.

U.S. crude oil inventories fell by more than expected last week and product stocks were mixed as refineries raised their capacity use, according to official data released (on a delay due to the holiday) from DOE.

• Crude -4.24mm

• Cushing -320k

• Gasoline +1.63mm

• Distillates -1.69mm

This is the 5th straight week of crude stock drawdowns and sixth straight week of gasoline builds…

Source: Bloomberg

Cushing stocks fell back near ‘tank bottoms’ once again (lowest since Oct 2023)…

Source: Bloomberg

WTI extended the day’s gains on the crude draw, holding solidly above $70…

Source: Bloomberg

Crude is on track for a modest annual loss, with trading confined in a narrow band since mid-October.

There are widespread concerns the market may be oversupplied next year as China’s demand slows and global production expands, although traders remain cautious about potentially tighter US sanctions against flows from Iran under Donald Trump.

The prompt spread on WTI futs – with the nearby contract trading at a premium of more than 40 cents a barrel to the next in line – points to near-term supply tightness.

Authored by John Haughey via The Epoch Times,

The state of New York will charge carbon-emitting companies an estimated $75 billion in climate damage they allegedly caused between 2000 and 2018 under a law enacted on Dec. 26.

Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Climate Change Superfund Act into law on Thursday. The law is certain to be challenged in court as a state preemption of federal regulatory oversight.

Adopted by lawmakers in June, the law—which goes into effect in 2028—will annually assess large companies’ carbon emissions across those first 19 years of the 21st century to “repair damage caused by extreme weather” they said aggravated by greenhouse gas emissions.

“New York has fired a shot that will be heard round the world: the companies most responsible for the climate crisis will be held accountable,” said Democratic state Sen. Liz Krueger, a lead sponsor of the New York Climate Change Superfund Act.

The bill estimates compliance will cost about three dozen of the state’s largest carbon-emitting companies about $3 billion collectively each year for the next 25 years—$75 billion in total. That would be 15 percent of the $500 billion the Fiscal Policy Institute estimates the law could actually end up costing by 2050.

“With nearly every record rainfall, heat wave, and coastal storm, New Yorkers are increasingly burdened with billions of dollars in health, safety, and environmental consequences due to polluters that have historically harmed our environment,” Hochul said in a Dec. 26 statement released by her office, noting that $500 billion equates to “more than $65,000 per household.”

The money will go into a Climate Change Adaptation Cost Recovery Program to restore and protect coastal wetlands, and upgrade roads, bridges, and stormwater systems, among other infrastructure resiliency projects and programs.

New York’s law is modeled after the 1980 federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund law, which requires companies responsible for pollution to pay for cleanup and remediation of polluted land, water, and air.

New York is the second state to adopt a “polluter pays” liability law. Vermont lawmakers earlier in 2024 adopted its law that was enacted July 1 without Republican Gov. Phil Scott’s signature.

It requires the state treasurer to calculate damages from “climate change-caused disasters,” as well as the expenses the state is incurring to adapt to changing conditions such as increasing precipitation in assessing carbon emitters.

Once those calculations are tabulated, Vermont will assess companies responsible for more than 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the past 30 years, levied as a “proportional to its share of global emissions.”

New Jersey lawmakers, in recess from an underway 2024–2025 session, are likely to adopt in early 2025 Senate Bill 3545, the Climate Superfund Act, which would be similar to New York’s law.

It was introduced in the Senate in September, advanced through a Senate Environment and Energy Committee hearing on Dec. 12, and has been referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee.

This year, “polluter pays” bills were also introduced in Massachusetts, California, Maryland, and Minnesota that are likely to be reintroduced when 2025 state legislative sessions convene.

Advocates such as 350 Mass, an environmental nonprofit, say adopting a 2025 version of 2024 SB 481 is a top priority in Massachusetts.

California’s SB 1497, the Polluters Pay Climate Cost Recovery Act of 2024, passed through Senate appropriations, judiciary, and environmental quality committees and died on the Senate’s “inactive file” in November.

Maryland’s RENEW Act of 2024 seeks to levy penalties on the 40 biggest greenhouse gas emitters over the past two decades to generate $900 million a year in revenues.

New York State Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan) and members of Met Council on Housing, Common Cause, and the Fair Elections Coalition on Aug. 12, 2013, at the REBNY headquarters in Midtown Manhattan. Ivan Pentchoukov/The Epoch Times

‘New Horizons’

The mushrooming number of “polluter pays” state liability laws is a way for states to establish stable regulatory standards in a time of federal upheaval, economists suggest.

As documented in a Columbia University Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law March 2024 analysis by Martin Lockman and Emma Shumway, and in a July 2024 National Law review analysis by Aliza R. Cinamon, state Superfund laws are a “new horizon” in shielding taxpayers from costs imposed by polluters.

The state Superfund bills, including New York’s, have drawn heated opposition and rebuke from businesses and industry that coalesced as the Better Plan, No Bans coalition.

Also among opponents are the National Fuel Gas Co., New York Farm Bureau, National Mining Association, New Yorkers for Affordable Energy, and the American Petroleum Institute.

“An ‘all-of-the-above’ approach that uses renewables, natural gas, and current delivery systems can help New York State reach emission mandates while prioritizing energy affordability and reliability,” National Fuel Gas Co. in a Dec. 10 X post appealed to Hochul to veto the bill.

The New York Business Council, a statewide association of 3,200 employers, maintains local governments and states should not be making federal energy policy, saying “polluter pays” concepts “unjustly focus on the energy sector,” damaging an industry that every segment of the economy benefits from.

Krueger said New York state and corporate accountability advocates are ready to defend the law in the courts and in legislative chambers nationwide.

“Too often over the last decade, courts have dismissed lawsuits against the oil and gas industry by saying that the issue of climate culpability should be decided by legislatures,” she said in the Dec. 26 statement.

“Well, the Legislature of the State of New York—the 10th largest economy in the world—has accepted the invitation.”

The latest note from Barclays’ Brandt Montour on Vail Resorts, the world’s largest ski resort operator—including Vail Mountain, Breckenridge, Park City Mountain, Whistler Blackcomb, Stowe, and 32 other resorts across North America—maintains an optimistic outlook on the 2024-2025 North American ski season.

Montour said the ski season has seen “solid season-to-date snowfall and temperatures, although we note that snow depth has recently dipped slightly below historical averages (still well ahead of last year).” 

He noted snowfall across resorts in the western regions plateaued in late November and early December, while average temperatures have risen slightly. However, he said that overall season-to-date snowfall and below-freezing days remain solidly above long-term averages. 

Snow Depth Season-to-Date: Western Resorts

Average Daily Temperature Season-to-Date At Park City, Breckenridge, Vail, Heavenly, Whistler Blackcomb, Stowe, and Hunter Mountain Resort 

Cumulative Days Below Freezing Season-to-Date At Park City, Breckenridge, Vail, Heavenly, Whistler Blackcomb, Stowe, and Hunter Ski Resorts

Snowfall Season-to-Date Across Park City, Breckenridge, Vail, Keystone, Beaver Creek, Heavenly, Whistler Blackcomb, Stowe, Okemo, Mount Snow, and Hunter Mountain Resorts

Snowfall Season-to-Date: Eastern Resorts Across Stowe, Okemo, Mount Snow, and Hunter Mountain Resort 

Snowfall Season-to-Date: Pacific Northwest Resorts, Including Whistler Blackcomb Mountain Resort

The good news is that colder temperatures and snowier conditions across the Northeast this ski season have improved conditions compared to previous years.

However, Montour pointed out, “Bigger picture, the season is off to a solid start from a weather stand-point, but though it’s still early, the realization of ski demand is more uncertain.” 

And why is that?

Too costly to ski? 

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

In a temporary victory for common sense, a Cook County Judge acted in the best interest of the City…

Story Background

On December 20, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s hand-picked school board voted unanimously to fire Chicago Public Schools CEO Pedro Martinez without cause.

Johnson’s entire board resigned unanimously in November when Johnson told them to fire CPS CEO Pedro Martinez. Johnson sought to terminate Martinez because Martinez didn’t support Johnson’s push to take out a high-interest loan to cover CPS’ $300 million shortfall.

The Chicago Teachers’ Union (CTU) proposal includes annual raises of 10-12 percent after factoring in cost-of-living adjustments. And the union demands 13,000 new positions despite falling school enrollment.

Martinez filed suit on his removal from the CTU negotiations because his contact calls for 180 days extension if he is fired without cause.

Martinez Wins Temporary Restraining Order

Yahoo!Finance reports Pedro Martinez Wins Temporary Restraining Order Against School Board After Ouster.

Mayor Brandon Johnson’s handpicked school board was blocked from modifying Chicago Public Schools CEO Pedro Martinez’s duties by a Cook County Judge on Tuesday, giving the embattled schools chief a victory as he battles with City Hall over the district’s future.

Judge Joel Chupack granted Martinez a temporary restraining order against CPS board members after hearing arguments that they obstructed Martinez’s performance of his job duties.

The Tuesday hearing — which lasted over an hour and a half — included an assertion by Martinez’s lawyer William J. Quinlan that CPS board members appointed by Johnson met with the teachers union but not their own team while negotiating the teachers contract Monday.

“They’re not shy about the interference. They’re brazen. They’re bullish. And they’ll tell you that,” said Martinez’s attorney Quinlan of Quinlan Law Firm LLC before the judge.

Quinlan filed a lawsuit in the Cook County Court last Friday to prevent the board from firing the CEO, and then amended the complaint early Tuesday morning.

“The CEO, is the ‘sole representative of the Board’ authorized to conduct such negotiations,” according to the complaint.

“(The board) didn’t even go to my team. They went directly to CTU, and even went after to strategize,” Martinez told the judge. “They feel empowered … They have the mayor and the board. And so they’re telling my team to agree.”

The conflict dates back to September when the mayor asked CPS CEO Martinez to take out a $300 million high-interest loan to cover a new proposed teachers contract and a pension payment previously paid for by the city. Facing deficits of around $500 million in each of the next five years, Martinez said the loan would be fiscally irresponsible.

Johnson then gave directives for Martinez to resign, according to an internal memo obtained by the Tribune. The mayor’s board resigned in October around the dispute, and Johnson — a former teacher and union organizer — appointed a new board.

Quinlan handwrote an injunction that he handed to the judge before signing off for the holidays. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for Jan. 9 at 3:15 p.m.

The corrupt CTU will no doubt take this up with the equally corrupt Illinois Supreme Court that is continually in bed with unions.

Would the higher court be willing to do the right thing? I suspect we will find out.

Conceivably, the US Supreme Court could eventually get involved. But such maneuvers can only last for 180 days.

Eventually, the CTU is likely to get what it wants despite the fact there is no way to pay for it.

The CPS Budget

The district’s budget is about $10 billion. It’s up nearly 30% increase in five years while serving fewer students.

By 2029 or 2030, the deficit is projected to be $4 billion per year on a $10 billion budget.

The city is broke.

The Corruption and Incompetence of Chicago’s Mayor Has No Bounds

For further discussion, please see The Corruption and Incompetence of Chicago’s Mayor Has No Bounds

I can’t help but think Johnson will eventually find jail because history suggests corrupt Illinois politicians eventually get there.

Meanwhile, the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent kids are destroyed in a worst in the nation public school system.

Meanwhile, please note that In Chicago There’s Under a 50 Percent Chance Police Show Up If You are Shot

Good luck in Chicago getting the police to show up if you are shot, stabbed, a victim of domestic violence, or any number of other serious crimes.

But hey, Chicago hired 179 new community services administrators. How’s that working for you?

If you voted for Johnson, you got what you deserve. Unfortunately, it’s not what the city deserved.

Exports from America’s eighth liquefied natural gas facility began this week, highlighted by an LNG carrier departing for Europe. This reinforces the US’ position as the world’s leading LNG exporter and provides tailwinds for President-elect Donald Trump as he urges Europe to increase US energy product purchases in his upcoming second term. 

Venture Global, one of the largest US LNG developers, shipped its inaugural cargo of LNG from its Plaquemines export facility in Louisiana via a company-owned carrier named “Venture Bayou.”

🇺🇸 Snapshots of Venture Bayou traveling down the Mississippi River, carrying the first export cargo from Plaquemines LNG

The ship is expexted to arrive in Germany on Jan 8th. 🇩🇪

(📷: Richie Blink)#LNG #ONGT #NatGas #Shale #OOTT #NOLA #Louisiana #Germany #Europe pic.twitter.com/4AszVXKtnV

— Sergio Chapa (@SergioChapa) December 26, 2024

According to Bloomberg ship tracking data, the newly built carrier is en route to deliver the first LNG cargo from Plaquemines to the German utility company EnBW. The shipment is expected to arrive in early January. 

More details on the vessel via Bloomberg…

Venture Global wrote in a statement cited by Bloomberg that the Plaquemines will “produce and export LNG while construction and commissioning continue for the remainder of the project’s 36 trains and associated facilities.”

Plaquemines has several long-term customers, including European utility Electricite de France SA, Polish energy firm Orlen SA, China’s Sinopec and Cnooc Ltd., and Shell plc.

When the Plaquemines LNG facility becomes fully operational, expected in late 2025 or early 2026 according to Venture Global’s project timeline, it will rank among the world’s largest LNG export plants, further securing the US’ position as the world’s top LNG exporter. This development is pivotal, as US LNG has been offered to Brussels as a replacement for Russian piped NatGas.

Venture Global CEO Mike Sabel wrote in a statement: “In just five years, Venture Global has built, produced and launched exports from two large-scale LNG projects which has never been done before in the history of the industry.”

 The potential LNG export boom will likely please President-elect Trump, who recently threatened Europe with tariffs unless it increased its purchase of US energy products next year. 

Also, Venture Global has filed for an initial public offering, with JPMorgan analysts estimating the enterprise value is around $100 billion.

In response to Trump’s comments about the US-EU LNG trade, Goldman analysts said US LNG could “theoretically” replace piped Russian NatGas to the EU.  

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

When the Obama Administration first suggested the Affordable Care Act following the Financial Crisis, we argued that the outcome would be substantially higher, not lower, healthcare costs. It is interesting today that economists and the media complain about surging healthcare costs with each inflation report but fail to identify the root cause of that escalation.

The chart below tells you almost everything you need to know, but in this blog, we will revisit why the Affordable Care Act failed to make healthcare affordable and some solutions to fix the problem.

When it was conceived, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was hoped to improve healthcare access. At the time, roughly 20 million Americans were uninsured. The bill hoped to lower the rising cost of healthcare in the economy by providing a Government mandate.

However, as is always the case when “Big Government” steps in, the outcomes are generally worse, not better. Such should not be surprising. At a press conference on August 12th, 1986, US President Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

A decade after the launch of the Affordable Care Act, we can not look back at the results. In 2023, roughly 25 million Americans still lack healthcare coverage. The government continues expanding programs, like Medicaid, to insure more individuals at a hefty cost to taxpayers. While the uninsured population has fallen by 3 million since 2014, the question is whether the costs justify the results.

Unsurprisingly, as we discussed initially, the Affordable Care Act led to a hefty increase in healthcare costs. Although its goals were noble, several key provisions – including pre-existing conditions, reduced consumer choice, and government subsidies – strained the system financially. These problems, compounded with other structural challenges, are further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving insurers, taxpayers, and patients grappling with rising premiums and expenses.

We will examine these issues.

The Many Problems Of The Affordable Care Act

Pre-Existing Conditions and Insurance Pools: Spreading the Risk Unevenly

One of the ACA’s most controversial provisions required insurance companies to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions without charging higher premiums. This ensured vulnerable individuals could access necessary care and altered the insurance risk pool. Before the ACA, insurers could price premiums based on the health profile of the insured population. Using data from the healthy pool, costs could be effectively calculated, keeping prices down. However, with the inclusion of high-risk individuals who immediately started drawing from the pool, insurers faced higher costs, which had to be passed on to everyone through increased premiums.

From 2013 to 2017, individual premiums more than doubled in some areas, driven by the need to balance the new risk. Younger, healthier individuals who previously benefited from lower premiums saw the steepest increases, making it less attractive for them to maintain coverage.

Reduced Consumer Choice: Fewer Plans, Less Competition

The ACA aimed to ensure standardized health plans, but this inadvertently led to reduced consumer choice. Insurance providers were required to offer a certain set of essential benefits. While the intention was good, the demands forced many insurers to exit markets where compliance became too costly. In some states, consumers were left with only one or two insurance carriers on the exchanges.

The resulting lack of competition gave insurers more leverage to raise prices without fear of losing market share. Premiums continued to climb as consumers had few options and no bargaining power, forcing many to accept higher deductibles for basic coverage.

The Cost of Subsidies and the Burden on Taxpayers

The ACA introduced subsidies that reduced the price of premiums for those who qualified, making coverage affordable for lower-income individuals. These subsidies, however, came with a steep price tag for taxpayers. The federal government currently subsidizes ACA plans with over $50 billion annually. Additionally, expanded subsidies after the pandemic increased the federal budget burden, locking higher costs even as inflation strained public resources.

While subsidies provide short-term relief for individuals, they distort the healthcare market. Providers are less pressured to lower premiums when the patients are shielded from the underlying costs. This dynamic creates a feedback loop that drives prices higher over time, especially as insurers set premiums in anticipation of ongoing subsidy support.

Failed State Exchanges and Their Impact

The early rollout of the ACA included state-run insurance exchanges intended to offer consumers access to competitive plans. However, several states—such as Oregon and Hawaii—saw their exchanges collapse due to technical issues, poor enrollment, and mismanagement. When these exchanges failed, the federal government absorbed the costs, passing the financial burden on to taxpayers. Billions were wasted on these failed systems, while insurers withdrew from the exchanges due to instability, further reducing competition.

These failed exchanges added to federal costs and undermined the ACA’s objective of creating sustainable marketplaces. Fewer participating insurers meant even higher consumer premiums, as the limited competition eroded the benefits of market-based pricing.

How the COVID-19 Pandemic Amplified ACA-Related Problems

The COVID-19 pandemic placed unprecedented pressure on the healthcare system, compounding the ACA’s existing challenges. Hospitals and providers experienced soaring operational costs due to increased demand, labor shortages, and supply chain disruptions. Insurers responded by raising premiums to account for higher claims and uncertainty. These price hikes hit already stretched consumers, with many households facing insurance costs that outpaced wage growth.

The government’s response to the pandemic—extending ACA subsidies and relaxing enrollment deadlines—further strained the system. While these measures helped many individuals access coverage during the crisis, they also deepened the financial burden on taxpayers.

A Cost We Can’t Afford

The design of the Affordable Care Act was deeply flawed at the outset, and as we noted in 2013, such would lead to an obvious outcome. To wit:

“It is when the full impact of the Affordable Care Act lands on those working class individuals that sentiment will turn deeply negative towards the government as higher costs, and taxes, not only impact their individual standards of living but continues to erode the economic growth in the U.S.”

Unsurprisingly, the very negative sentiment and division in the country today over the quality and costs of healthcare have come home to roost. Of course, this additional “welfare program” that is part of the mandatory spending side of the budget equation has also come to fruition.

“The current pace of increase in the participation of social welfare programs, from food stamps and disability claims to social security and Medicare, is creating an ever-increasing consumption of current revenues. Implementing another social welfare program will only create an additional drag on the revenue/expense equation.” – 2013

According to the Center On Budget & Policy Priorities, in 2023, roughly 90% of every tax dollar went to non-productive spending. 

“In fiscal year 2023, the federal government spent $6.1 trillion, amounting to 22.7 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). About nine-tenths of the total went toward federal programs; the remainder went toward interest payments on the federal debt. Of that $6.1 trillion, only $4.4 trillion was financed by federal revenues. The remaining amount was financed by borrowing.”

Notice that 24% of spending goes to Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and Marketplace Subsidies. That will only get worse over time. However, here is the issue. In 2023, 90% of all expenditures went to social welfare, non-productive spending, and interest on the debt. Those payments required $6.1 trillion, roughly 138% more than the tax dollars collected.

Those concerned about debt and deficit should question the continued support for the Affordable Care Act.

There are options.

Options For Lowering Healthcare Costs

Given the ongoing surge in healthcare costs, policymakers must reassess whether the ACA can achieve sustainable, affordable care in its current form. One option is to unwind or significantly revise key ACA provisions. For example, creating separate risk pools for individuals with pre-existing conditions could allow insurers to offer lower premiums to healthier individuals while ensuring coverage for those needing it most.

Another approach would involve deregulating the healthcare market to foster more competition. Allowing insurers to sell plans across state lines could increase consumer options and reduce premiums. Additionally, reforming subsidies by linking them to healthcare outcomes rather than premium levels could help contain costs at the source.

Revisiting antitrust enforcement in healthcare markets is also crucial. Mergers between hospital systems and insurers have reduced competition, driving prices higher. Strengthening competition policies would encourage providers to lower costs, benefiting consumers in the long run.

The ACA brought essential reforms but failed to control costs, burdening many households and taxpayers with unsustainable healthcare expenses. Revisiting the structure of insurance pools, increasing market competition, and reforming subsidies offer a way to address the root causes of rising costs. While unwinding parts of the ACA may be politically challenging, it could be a necessary step to build a healthcare system that delivers both access and affordability.

The slowdown in the global personal luxury goods market resulted in a year of record wealth losses for France’s top billionaires. 

According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Bernard Arnault, Françoise Bettencourt Meyers, and François Pinault had $71 billion erased from their collective wealth this year.

The three French billionaires are in the index’s top five for largest wealth losses (in dollar amount) on the year.

These billionaires control LVMH, L’Oréal SA, and Kering SA. It was a bloodbath for the industry… 

Gucci-owner Kering tumbled 41% on the year, L’Oréal SA -24%, and LVMH -13.5%. 

A recent note by Bain & Company, in partnership with Italy luxury goods manufacturers’ industry association Altagamma, showed that the personal luxury goods market entered its first slowdown since the Great Recession. 

Global luxury spending is expected between -1% and 1% in year-over-year growth in 2024, reaching 1.5 trillion euros, or approximately $1.6 trillion, as cash-strapped consumers from China to Europe to the US continue dialing back on discretionary items.

Looking ahead, Bain forecasts a slight improvement in luxury spending in 2025 but anticipates a shaky industry through the decade’s end.

LVMH is the world’s largest luxury goods company, and in its latest earnings report, it warned about an “uncertain economic and geopolitical environment” denting global sales. 

Meanwhile, Elon Musk remains firmly at the top of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Is rocket man set to become the world’s first trillionaire by the end of the decade?

Building rockets is a much better business than selling purses made in sweatshops.

President-elect Donald Trump warned federal employees last week that they must return to the office, or “they’re going to be dismissed” – an announcement which comes on the heels of several major corporations taking swift action to end work-from-home, a pandemic-era policy that saw a considerable portion of the US workforce adapt to remote work.

During the pandemic, approximately 2.3 million federal employees shifted away from traditional office spaces. This shift was not just a temporary adjustment, but a transformational move that many hoped would persist post-pandemic due to its perceived benefits in work-life balance and reduced operational costs.

The Biden administration, acknowledging these benefits, continued to support telework, facilitating the reduction of government-owned real estate and integrating flexible work arrangements into the fabric of federal employment. However, with Trump’s election, a quick pivot is on the horizon.

Unsurprisingly, Trump’s call for a return to office has been met with resistance from federal employees and unions. Approximately 56 percent of the civil service is covered under collective bargaining agreements that include telework provisions, while a full 10% of federal jobs are now designated as fully “remote,” according to the Washington Post.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, agrees with Trump.

“The pandemic is long over, and it is past time for the federal workforce to return to in-person work,” Comer said in a statement – adding that the Biden administration never provided evidence that work-from-home didn’t harm service.

“On the contrary, the evidence suggests that Americans have suffered under these lenient telework policies,” Comer added.

Other GOP lawmakers have introduced bills mandating that chronically “absent” employees be seen in their office chairs, and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who leads a caucus aligned with Musk and Ramaswamy’s commission, said this month that she tracked down “bureaucrats relaxing in bubble baths, playing golf, getting arrested, and doing just about everything besides their jobs.” -WaPo

Meanwhile, as the Epoch Times notes, big business has already been taking action to get people back into the office.

Starting Jan. 2, 2025, Amazon is requiring all of its 350,000 employees to return to the office five days a week to foster collaboration and strengthen company culture, according to an announcement made by Amazon CEO Andy Jassy on Sept. 16.

While companies including Boeing, Disney, Apple, Starbucks, UPS, Dell and banks such as Chase, Barclays, and CitiGroup have called employees back to work on at least a hybrid schedule, Amazon’s move has heightened the belief that remote work options are drying up.

In recent months, various surveys have revealed that business leaders are becoming more resolute in their push to reinstate pre-pandemic work practices.

A September KPMG report highlighted that 83 percent of U.S. CEOs expect a full return to the office within the next three years, up from 64 percent in 2023. Likewise, an August survey by Resume Builder showed that 90 percent of businesses will have adopted return-to-office policies by next year, with 30 percent requiring full-time office attendance.

The latest Flex Index, which monitors the RTO activity of 100 million employees across more than 13,000 companies, showed that 43 percent of U.S. firms on an industry-adjusted basis have employed a structured hybrid model in the fourth quarter, up from 38 percent in the third quarter and 20 percent in the first quarter of 2023. Additionally, 32 percent of firms had fully returned to in-office work.

Reasons CEOs Push Return-to-Office Policies

The main reasons for return-to-office mandates include: fostering collaboration and teamwork, improving communication, strengthening company culture, boosting productivity, and simplifying employee management, according to a recent survey by Resume.org.

Kevelyn Guzman, the regional vice president at Coldwell Banker Warburg, is one of many business leaders that have embraced the return-to-office trend.

“We see the office as more than a workspace—it’s a hub for connection, collaboration, and growth,” Guzman told The Epoch Times.

“In-person collaboration has been a game changer for our agents, sparking spontaneous brainstorming sessions, allowing them to collaborate on listings, referrals, ideas, real-time problem-solving, and the kind of energy that can only come from face-to-face interaction.”

Tim Stassi, founder of Dwell One Realty echoed this sentiment. “Returning to the office feels a bit like reuniting with an old friend you forgot how much you missed—except this friend brings fresh ideas, spontaneous brainstorming sessions, and the undeniable aroma of freshly brewed coffee that no Zoom background can replicate,” he told The Epoch Times.

Cyndi Gave, leader of The Metiss Group, a consulting firm specializing in talent selection and development, offered another perspective on why companies are implementing return-to-office policies.

She said that while remote and hybrid work models have enabled flexibility and broadened talent pools, they have also posed challenges to collaboration, resulted in reduced engagement, and introduced phenomena such as “job stacking,” which refers to employees taking on multiple jobs simultaneously.

“They were just doing things on a list and then going out to fish or walk the dog. They became task focused,” Gave told The Epoch Times.

“So, then they realized they could get their tasks done in less than 40 hours, so they took on another full-time job and pulled in two salaries. I’ve heard of people actually taking on three. If you’re working multiple full-time jobs, you can’t tell me you’re putting in full-time work.”

Gave said that job stacking has started to wane now that employees are going back to the office.

Recent data from SurveyMonkey seems to bolster this opinion. According to its report, 46 percent of hybrid or remote workers admit to multitasking during a work call, with activities ranging from using bathroom to browsing social media or online shopping. Another 46 percent confessed to doing house chores during work, and 4 percent revealed they were working a second job simultaneously.

‘The Great Resistance’

On the other hand, it is no secret that many workers have resisted the call to return to their desks at a centralized location.

Two of the most common concerns about return to work are cost and control.

Last month, Owl Labs research found that workers spend more than $60 per day to work from the office, be it their commute or buying lunch.

“If you’re being asked to go into the office five days a week, an additional $300 a week in expenses is really, really high,” said Owl Labs CEO Frank Weishaupt in a statement.

This past spring, MyPerfectResume’s 2024 Return to Office Survey revealed that 77 percent of workers believe companies are mandating return to office because they seek more control over their staff members.

Some other concerns employees have with being asked to return to the office on a hybrid or full-time basis revolve around the disruption of family dynamics with commuting time and the need to begin paying for childcare again.

Whatever the causes of pushback to returning to the office may be, Stanford’s Institute for Economic Policy Research referred to this phenomenon in July 2022 as “The Great Resistance.”

As more companies move toward bringing remote workers back to the office, the prevailing question for some employees is, “Do they have the legal right to do this, and can they fire me if I don’t?”

Scott Herndon, an employment attorney in Berkeley, California, said the answer is “yes and yes.”

The vast majority of America’s non-union workforce is employed under an “at will” contract, meaning they can leave at any time or be let go for whatever reason their employer deems necessary, Herndon said.

“I think people are misled at how robust their rights are in the workplace. That doesn’t mean there aren’t key protections that might interfere with this return-to-work policy but not in general,” he told The Epoch Times.

“The employees have very little leverage. It’s basically supply and demand and there’s no intrinsic rights for those working remotely at all. They’re being called back because it’s a matter of businesses attempting to be more efficient.”

However, John Hubbard, an employment attorney with Hubbard Snitchler & Parzianello in Detroit, said that one of the most significant downsides for companies giving return to office ultimatums to employees is the potential to lose talented people.

“People moved due to prior policies and then are told the company changed policy. But many in that circumstance are not coming back and are leaving the company. Because everybody is on an at-will contract basis, they can make their own decisions,” he told The Epoch Times.

“Employers may be making the decision to have you back in the office, but it’s up to the employee to decide whether that is acceptable or not.”

A survey of 2,585 Amazon professionals conducted by the anonymous forum provider Blind, just one day after the company’s announcement, shows that 73 percent were considering quitting because of the five-day mandate.

However, the Resume.org survey also showed that almost half (49 percent) of employers were not concerned about the risk of their employees resigning due to their return to office policies, given the current state of the job market.

Another survey, conducted across six major cities—Paris, London, New York, Singapore, Sydney, Toronto—revealed that more than 60 percent of employees in each city will comply with their companies’ return-to-office policies. In New York, for instance, 72 percent said they would comply, with 44 percent doing so willingly while 28 percent reluctantly.

‘Not a One-Sided Initiative’

Nevertheless, businesses are trying all ways to attract workers to the office.

“Companies must fundamentally reimagine and reconfigure workspaces to provide seamless and immersive collaboration experiences,” said Snorre Kjesbu, senior vice president and general manager of collaboration devices at Cisco, in the company’s recent Global Hybrid Work Study.

This, said Kjesbu, consists of designing and installing customized collaborative workspaces, concentrating on room layouts, screen visibility, and audio coverage.

Understanding initial hesitation among personnel, Guzman’s office has tried to make the atmosphere more engaging. Over the past year, the business has hosted various art, charity, and wellness events.

Simply Noted, an Arizona-based handwritten notes platform, has utilized a hybrid model to facilitate the benefits of working in the office and remotely. While the company offers remote work options, management has stressed the importance of an in-office presence to bolster professional growth.

“Team members can build stronger relationships, learn through osmosis, and take advantage of mentorship opportunities that are harder to replicate remotely,” Rick Elmore, the founder of Simply Noted, told The Epoch Times.

“We’ve also communicated how collaboration in person can accelerate decision-making and innovation—benefits that positively impact everyone’s workload and outcomes.”

At the same time, it is not a one-sided initiative as return to office also requires improving in-office culture, says Elmore.

“We’ve been intentional about making the office a place employees enjoy coming to,” he said, alluding to different perks, like catered lunches, wellness programs, team-building activities, and flexible schedules.

“Ultimately, our goal is to create a workplace that everyone feels proud to be part of—whether they’re contributing from home or in the office,” Elmore stated.

Kevin Connor, founder and CEO of Modern SBC, told The Epoch Times that the company focused on making the office “worth coming back to.”

“We targeted our efforts on growing a workplace in which humans desired to be.”

Kraig Kleeman, founder and CEO of The New Workforce, said he encountered resistance. He told The Epoch Times the company handled it by offering flexibility in office hours and working on solutions “to the real challenges people face, like providing travel allowances and support for parents who are caring for children.”

These efforts are consistent with surveys.

A June BambooHR poll of human resources professionals and managers found that the objectives behind working from the office are to enhance employee development, boost customer interactions, and improve company culture.

Prakash Mana, the CEO of California-based cybersecurity firm Cloudbrink, has a message to other executives: “Work-from-anywhere isn’t going anywhere.”

Despite return-to-office mandates observed over the last year, Mana thinks remote work will persist in 2025 and beyond for two primary reasons.

“First, Gen Z, the first true digital-first generation, is fast becoming the primary new talent pool,” he told The Epoch Times. “Second, secure remote connectivity now offers the speed, performance, and security to match the in-office environment.”

RedBalloon’s December Freedom Economy Index, a monthly survey of 100,000 small businesses shared ahead of publication with The Epoch Times, found that a fifth of employers expect remote work to be more prevalent in the year ahead.