Economics

Gas prices are up. This is true, visible, and felt at the pump by every American who drives. Since the onset of the Iran war on February 28, the national average has risen by roughly 35 cents per gallon. Crude oil, whether measured by WTI or Brent, has spiked well above its pre-war baseline. The political commentary has followed the price upward with a simple thesis: high gas prices are bad for the president’s party, and this will hurt Republicans in November.

On April 3, 2026, something happened in the oil markets that has occurred only a handful of times in modern history. West Texas Intermediate crude — the benchmark for North American oil — closed above Brent crude, the global benchmark. WTI at $111.54 per barrel, Brent at $109.24.

Every drive to work, every drive home, every news clip, every pundit seems to have something to say about the so-called “Fiscal Cliff”. Each side claims the other is holding “the middle-class tax cuts hostage”, or that the other side’s plan is laughable or unworthy. Sadly, while there isn’t really a cliff, both sides are right about each other. Here is why. They are both wrong.

Just thought I’d share that with those of you buying into the oft-repeated lie. When someone talks of it, ask them how it is fundamentally different from the “old economy”. New technology doesn’t make a new economy. Advances in how a business operates or interacts with purchasers do not change the economy - they improve or detract from that specific aspect.

On his Blog recently, Jimmy Zuma had this to say:

Unemployment has the desired intent of acting as a safety net for people who lose their jobs suddenly and unexpectedly. So how can this be bad? It can be bad for several reasons. First it is biased against those who make decent money. How? Consider this scenario:

In a recent post I made the assertion savings are important. I’d like to expand on that a bit. We all think we understand it, but I posit we don’t fully grasp it.

Forest fires suck. Once upon a time, we thought if we protected our forests from forest fires the forests, and we, would be better off. It took a long time, but eventually it became clear this was a bad policy. So we have, slowly, begun to realize it is better to focus on being able to recover from a fire, and able to minimize property and personal damage from fires than to take the naive and reckless position of preventing them in the first place.