This marks a $5 trillion increase since 2023 alone. Looking ahead, debt levels are projected to increase faster than previously expected as government policies fail to address debt risks amid aging populations and increasing healthcare costs. Going further, rising geopolitical tensions could lead to higher spending on defense, adding strain to government budgets.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows government debt by country in 2024, based on data from the IMF’s October 2024 World Economic Outlook.

Ranked: Government Debt by Country

As the world’s largest economy, the U.S. debt pile continues to balloon, accounting for 34.6% of the world’s total government debt.

Overall, net interest payments on the national debt soared to $892 billion in the 2024 fiscal year. By 2034, these costs are forecast to reach $1.7 trillion, with total net interest costs amounting to $12.9 trillion over the next decade. A rising mountain of debt and higher interest rates are among the primary factors driving up net interest costs.

Below, we show the gross government debt of 186 countries worldwide in 2024:

*The above table uses IMF data from October 2024, however, the most current up-to-date number for U.S. government debt is $36.1 trillion based on data from the U.S. Treasury for December 12, 2024.

China, ranking second globally, holds 16.1% of the world’s government debt.

Over the next five years, China’s debt to GDP ratio is projected to hit 111.1% of GDP, up from 90.1% in 2024. Going further, Chinese officials recently stated they are prepared to deploy stimulus measures to support the economy if Trump imposes sweeping tariffs on goods imported from China. As a result, China’s debt to GDP could rise even faster than current projections.

India, ranked seventh globally, has amassed $3.2 trillion in debt, an increase of 74% since 2019. However, thanks to its strong economic growth and fiscal policies that are increasing government revenues, debt as a percentage of GDP is projected to fall gradually from 83.1% in 2024 to 80.5% by 2028.

In Europe, the UK has amassed the most debt, about $3.65 trillion, equal to 101.8% of GDP. This is far higher than the regional average, standing at 77.4% of GDP in 2024. Europe has a lower debt to GDP than North America and the Asia-Pacific, but European budgets likely face increasing pressures looking ahead, due to sluggish economic growth, trade wars, and aging populations.

A Regional Outlook for Global Debt

Below, we show how government debt by region is projected to change over the next five years:

As we can see, average debt by country in North America is set to swell to 125% of GDP, the highest across global regions.

With governments increasingly using stimulus measures to boost the economy, it poses a greater threat to fiscal sustainability. In order to stabilize debts, the IMF stated that major spending cuts and tax hikes are needed over the next five to seven years.

Like North America, debt to GDP ratios are set to increase across Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.

Overall, world government debt is projected to exceed 100% of global output by 2029, driven by several large countries including the U.S., China, Brazil, and France, among others.

To learn more about this topic from a forward-looking perspective, check out this graphic on G7 government debt projections over the next five years.

Released annually by the Sound Money Defense League and Money Metals Exchange, the Sound Money Index is a comprehensive scorecard evaluating how each US state promotes or impedes sound money policies. Ranked policies include sales, income, and gross revenue taxes connected with precious metals, state affirmation of gold and silver as money, strengthening protections of gold and silver clause contracts, and state precious metals depositories. Additional criteria include issuing or investing in gold bonds, inclusion of physical gold or silver in state pension or reserve funds, state mechanisms to accept and remit taxes and other payments in gold and silver, and crippling regulatory burdens imposed on precious metals dealers and investors.

The 2025 Index saw several states improve their rankings dramatically after having enacted pro-sound money tax legislation in 2024. Nebraska’s elimination of capital gains taxes on precious metals propelled it from 22nd to 8th place, while Alabama leapt almost twenty spots from 28th to 9th place. Both of these states had already eliminated their state sales tax on purchases of gold and silver coins, bars, and rounds, so removing income taxes on sales was the next logical step.

Louisiana jumped from 17th to 12th place after Governor Jeff Landry signed a bill reaffirming gold and silver as legal tender in the state. Wisconsin and New Jersey also saw major improvements from their previous year’s ranking after repealing sales taxes on precious metals. Wisconsin climbed from 44th to 26th place, and New Jersey moved from 49th to 39th.

“Money Metals has spent a full decade promoting state-level sound money reforms, and I’m proud to say these bills tend to be among the most popular proposals considered in recent legislative seasons,” said Stefan Gleason, CEO of Money Metals. “For example, today there are 45 states that have partially or fully exempted sales taxes on precious metals.” […]

— Read More: mises.org

Dr. Shelton engages these questions in the context of academic debates, but she also uses the lens of rational economic planning to evaluate how the monetary system contributes to or detracts from economic growth. At the end of the day, the case for sound money rests on the claim that it will generate more stable and greater long-run economic prosperity. Dr. Shelton believes sound money will do just that. But what would such a sound money regime look like?

Although Dr. Shelton would prefer a system along the lines of a classical gold standard, she would probably be content with other monetary systems that dramatically reduced the discretion of policymakers. The real problem with our current monetary regime is not primarily technical. It is behavioral. Because public officials have strong incentives to inflate the currency, bail out various corporations, and underwrite extensive government borrowing, they do a poor job conserving the value of fiat currency or providing a predictable stable system of interest rates, credit, liquidity, etc.

In the first couple chapters of “Good as Gold,” Dr. Shelton takes the Federal Reserve to task. The wide discretion Fed officials can exercise makes monetary policy unpredictable. Although Fed officials argue that their decisions are countercyclical, that may not always be the case. As Milton Friedman famously noted, the effects of monetary policy decisions have “long and variable” lags. Despite claims to being “data-driven,” Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decisions remain unpredictable. Data can change rapidly and unpredictably, which can make policy change rapid and unpredictable too.

Another problem is that the “data-driven” mantra invokes the assumption that the data always clearly indicate what ought to be done. In fact, this is rarely the case. Not only do a wide variety of inflation measures exist, but there are also a wide range of time intervals over which to compare inflation trends. But that’s not the worst of it!

Employment, unemployment, GDP, and a host of other economic numbers suggest different things are going on in the economy. Retailers expect strong record spending this holiday season while the N.Y. Fed just released a study where the number of people reporting concern about their ability to make debt payments hit its highest level since 2020. How to weigh these various factors is far from clear.

Another problem with Fed policy is the rapid change in its interest rate targets. Three years ago, the short-run interest rate was ~.5 percent. Within two years it was over 5 percent. That rapid change created many issues in the economy, only some of which we have recognized. The rate-hike cycle created significant turmoil in the banking industry with Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank failing entirely while many large regional banks shrank or were enfolded into larger national banks.

The commercial real estate market has also been upended. While the owners of office buildings were already facing strong headwinds from the pandemic’s normalization of remote work, the Fed delivered a one-two punch when it raised interest rates. Most large commercial real estate investors use variable rate debt to finance their portfolios—which means the interest rate they pay moves with the market. Adding a couple percentage points to one’s debt rapidly changes the viability of a venture. In addition to higher debt-servicing costs, commercial real estate investors saw the market value of their holdings decline precipitously as buyers disappeared, financing costs rose, and future potential cash flows were more heavily discounted.

The previous rate-hike cycle in 2006 and 2007 preceded a major recession and financial crisis. Even as the Fed creates disruptions in markets, it has also overseen the relentless decline in the value of the dollar—ironically in the name of pursuing their mandate to maintain price stability. A dollar in 2024 is worth what a quarter was in 1980 and what a dime was in 1965. And a 2024 dollar is worth about what a penny was worth in 1900.

This downward march in the value of the dollar creates problems.

It drives up asset prices, favoring those who have investment savvy while eating away at the value of people’s savings and undermining the prosperity of those on fixed incomes. The steady fall of the dollar also distorts price calculations and expectations.

I’ve argued elsewhere that the Fed has been a prime culprit in boosting housing prices and, as a result, creating a “transitional gains trap” where homeowners with significant equity, juiced in large part by easy money, have organized to protect their equity by putting up local legal barriers to building new housing.

But “Good as Gold” includes much more than criticism of the Fed. Dr. Shelton points out that unstable money and exchange rates create costs to doing business. International firms must devote time, energy, and money to protect themselves from erratic fluctuations in currency exchange rates. Creating these “hedges” to protect their profitability from exchange-rate risk necessitates additional classes of assets and asset traders—contributing to greater “financialization” of the economy. While the services being offered create real value for corporations, they come at a price and would not be needed under more stable monetary arrangements.

Besides the frictions and costs that unstable money introduces into day-to-day business operations, it also creates long-term consequences when it comes to investing. If certain exchange rates can move 15 percent, 30 percent, or more in a single year, Dr. Shelton asks, then how can investors rationally allocate capital based on real factors and comparative advantage? The structure and mix of capital investment we currently have across countries and within the same country looks very different than it would in a world of stable money.

Dr. Shelton makes this point indirectly in a fascinating chapter about the monetary debate between Milton Friedman and Robert Mundell. Both were staunch advocates of free markets, but they differed in what monetary regime they thought best. Friedman argued in favor of freely floating exchange rates set by market participants. In this world, governments would feel pressure from markets, in the form of capital outflows, if they engaged in domestic monetary policy shenanigans. Mundell, on the other hand, favored more stability in exchange rates that would require domestic prices to adapt to changes in trade and capital flows. Friedman and Mundell both agreed, however, that government officials and central bankers should have very little discretion in how they managed a country’s monetary system.

In a later chapter, Shelton offers the problem of “currency manipulation” as a reason for implementing a sound money regime. Her argument basically asserts that countries that actively depreciate or weaken their domestic currency experience short-run benefits (in the form of more competitive exports) and long-term costs (in the form of inflation and capital outflows). Other countries, however, feel short-run pain as their exports decline and their factories shut down—even though they also receive cheaper goods and reallocate much of the displaced labor and capital. I find this line of reasoning a bit curious.

Shelton rightly champions free trade and argues that it works best when countries do not artificially manipulate the value of their currencies. No objection here. But I am not convinced that a sound money regime, even a gold standard, would change other countries’ incentives to devalue their currency. Gold convertibility of one currency does not prevent the issuer of a different fiat currency from issuing large amounts of that fiat currency to reduce the relative price of its exports.

I suppose one could argue (and Dr. Shelton does) that currency manipulation becomes easier to discern because currencies will be valued in terms of a fixed standard (gold), rather than in terms of another fluctuating fiat currency. For example, the price of gold in terms of dollars increased by 77 percent from May 2014 to May 2024.

The currencies of the largest trade partners with the United States lost far more value relative to gold in that period: Euros (129 percent), Mexican Peso (131 percent), Canadian dollar (122 percent), Chinese yuan (105 percent), and Japanese yen (165 percent). But that probably matters relatively little to the devaluing regime. Using gold as a benchmark might reveal relative changes in the value of currencies better. It could also defuse the language of “currency manipulation.”

Instead of attributing motives to foreign central bankers, policy makers could set relatively straight-forward criteria for when another country’s currency declines in a distortive way. Shelton suggests that some level of tariffs should be imposed in response to another country’s currency devaluation to offset the monetary distortion to international trade. This idea may not be crazy from a purely technical standpoint, yet I would hesitate to recommend it because of the likely distortions and co-opting of such policies by special interests. I also question whether the costs of not imposing tariffs on depreciating currencies is as high as Dr. Shelton believes.

Sound money advocates like Shelton must explain how we could get to a sound money regime. On the one hand, advocating a gold standard seems archaic and implausible. On the other hand, it would not be technically difficult to implement. And, in fact, given the dominance of the U.S. dollar, if another major currency, such as the Euro, also chose to move back to gold redeemability, it is not hard to imagine other major currencies (Yen, Yuan, Pound, etc.) following suit. The political difficulty, of course, is getting the United States to take the first step and then getting the EU to follow suit.

The odds of successful reform are highest when pursuing the easiest path to transition the current system to a sound monetary regime. Abolishing the Federal Reserve is not on that path. So tying dollars back to gold using the Fed makes more sense than moving back to a pre-Fed world. Similarly, constraining the FOMC seems far more plausible than abolishing it.

It may be worth raising a few other important secondary questions. At what price will the currency be convertible into gold? Dr. Shelton has suggested that incorporating a gold clause in Treasury bonds could be a good method for discovering the right price of convertibility. In fact, putting gold convertibility into government bond contracts may be sufficient, in and of itself, to tie dollars back to gold.

Afterall, depreciation of dollars would create consequences for the federal government and the Federal Reserve, the very institutions primarily responsible for managing the dollar and maintaining the monetary system. Shelton also makes the important point that currency should be seen as being like a weight or measure—something standardized for the public to use. It should not be viewed as a policy instrument or lever for managing the economy. This simple point rarely arises in modern commentary on the Fed and on monetary policy—yet it has deep legal and historical roots in the American founding and beyond.

Another benefit of moving to gold redeemability for U.S. bonds is that it utilizes U.S. gold reserves more effectively. Currently, the United States is the largest holder of gold in the world. But ironically, that gold is severely undervalued on the government’s ledger. Its book value is less than two percent of its market value (i.e., on the ledger the gold is valued at less than $50/oz when its market value is over $2700/oz). Offering gold redeemability might also open up the option for extremely long-dated debt (50 years or more) and lower interest rates because the most significant risk to lending to the federal government, the devaluation of future dollars, has been taken off the table.

The likely benefits of such bonds are so significant that it may seem surprising that they have not been implemented. The problem, of course, is that this form of bond would reveal the man behind the curtain. It would show that government officials can and do play fast and loose with the dollar and with the U.S. financial system to enable themselves and their friends a free hand to borrow and spend, and to actively “manage” the economy.

Dr. Shelton’s proposed changes will be vigorously resisted by those who benefit from the existing status quo—large commercial banks and financial institutions, Federal Reserve officials and bureaucrats, politicians and regulators—everyone who benefits from the Fed’s tendency to loose monetary policy. Still advocates of freedom and prosperity should continue to make the arguments and offer proposals for moving to a sound monetary regime.

And that is exactly what Dr. Shelton does in “Good as Gold.”

The results are in, and on Nov. 5, Americans officially rejected the high prices and spiraling costs that defined much of the Biden-Harris administration—including the least affordable housing market in U.S. history.

Rather than being chastened by the national shellacking he, his vice president, and his party received, President Joe Biden’s Justice Department is pursuing an audacious move that could throw the housing market into disarray and put homeownership even further out of reach for middle-class Americans.

In a high-profile lawsuit filed last month, the DOJ is seeking to crack down on a case of alleged home-appraisal bias in Colorado, but the lawsuit could set a worrisome new precedent for the relationship between mortgage lenders and appraisers. The consequences could be sweeping, and they may weigh most heavily on the black homeowners and aspiring homeowners who the DOJ is ironically trying to protect with this lawsuit.

The DOJ is alleging that an appraiser, Maksym Mykhailyna, undervalued a black woman’s Denver home while she was applying for a refinance. Undervaluation typically results in a higher interest rate and a lower loan amount.

The Biden administration has made cracking down on this kind of alleged discrimination a focus, and Vice President Kamala Harris has led the White House’s efforts. Yet, the DOJ’s case hardly proves the appraiser undervalued the home. Even more importantly, the DOJ fails to show that unlawful racial bias skewed the appraisal results or that this singular incident is indicative of systemic discrimination permeating the appraisal industry.

These crackdowns over an illusory problem have been repeatedly and correctly criticized. The administration is fundamentally trying to expand the federal government’s role in housing with little understanding of how meddling with the appraisal process would ultimately affect prices and homebuyers.

The DOJ lawsuit and much of the Biden administration’s efforts on this issue are misguided. In this latest effort, the Justice Department is going beyond holding an allegedly prejudiced appraiser accountable. Along with Mykhailyna, the DOJ also names Rocket Mortgage, the lender with whom the homeowner was seeking a refinancing, as a co-defendant.

The DOJ’s decision to go after the mortgage lender for the actions of an appraiser in this case not only contradicts federal law, but also risks reversing years of housing industry reforms that keep home prices in check.

Setting precedent to hold lenders accountable for the actions of independent appraisers would reintroduce the conflicts of interest that helped inflate home prices and created a housing bubble in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. A repeat of those circumstances would make homes even more expensive and put homeownership even further out of reach for many Americans.

Passed in the wake of the 2008 crisis, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act explicitly bars mortgage lenders from influencing appraisers. The legislation established appraiser independence by mandating that lenders order appraisals through third-party companies called appraisal management companies. These companies are a critical degree of separation between lenders and appraisers that protect the housing industry from the conflicts of interest that led to the 2008 disaster. The DOJ’s efforts to punish the lender in the Colorado lawsuit threaten to erode the independence of appraisers.

Before 2008, there were no appraisal management companies, and appraisers were heavily dependent on the mortgage lenders that assigned them work. That conflict of interest led appraisers to overvalue homes in order to authorize bigger and more profitable loans for the mortgage lenders. That fueled the market bubble that eventually popped, tanking the global economy, nearly toppling the entire financial sector, and setting many American families back years.

If the Biden DOJ has its way, the U.S. could return to the pre-2008 housing industry. The potential for baseless lawsuits alleging undervaluation will incentivize both appraisers and lenders to overvalue properties—fueling yet more home price inflation and injecting more risk into the system.

Housing costs are already out of control. Minority communities across this country are disproportionately locked out of homeownership. Rather than pursuing splashy headlines for baseless lawsuits that would ultimately hurt Americans and further exacerbate prices, the government should be diminishing the footprint of the government-sponsored enterprises—namely, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—that have helped create a second housing bubble in the past 20 years.

The bottom line is that the DOJ’s misguided efforts here could wind up hurting all aspiring homeowners, including the very people of color who the Biden administration says that it is trying to stand up for.

Existing civil right laws already protect homeowners against racially biased appraisal practices. These laws should continue to be enforced. Regulators or legislators could task the appraisal management companies with keeping a more watchful eye over the appraisers and potential trends in their work. But the effort to burden the mortgage lenders with the responsibility of solving appraisal discrimination is not only misguided, it is deeply harmful to aspiring homeowners, the housing sector, and the financial industry.

The incoming Trump administration should immediately audit the Biden administration’s backward housing reforms and halt this lawsuit before it causes damage to the system. Woke, affirmative action policies are misguided and wind up hurting everyone. Voters want a return to simple, logic-driven policy, and this is one area to start with.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

(The Epoch Times)—Who doesn’t know them: the blood-sucking vampires, the eerie undead, immortalized in countless films, and inspired primarily by Bram Stoker’s novel “Dracula” (1897). Just think of iconic movies like the silent film “Nosferatu—A Symphony of Horror” (1922), “Dracula” (1958) with Christopher Lee, Roman Polanski’s parody “The Fearless Vampire Killers” (1967), or “Nosferatu—Phantom of the Night” (1979), starring Klaus Kinski as Count Dracula.

Vampires are demons who rise from their graves at night, seeking to drain the blood of innocent victims. Not only do they steal the life force that sustains them, but they also spread their curse. Many victims, bitten by vampires, are “turned,” becoming undead themselves, thus joining the vampire’s dark domain.

The enemies and hunters of vampires face a formidable challenge: vampires can disguise themselves, transforming into creatures like wolves or bats, and often display immense, superhuman strength. They can only be repelled by traditional defenses—garlic cloves, rosaries, holy water, or the Christian cross. But truly destroying a vampire requires decapitation, driving a wooden stake through its heart, or bright sunlight that turns them to dust.

The vampire is an ancient and widespread myth. The image of a blood-sucking undead creature, or similar concepts, has existed across many cultures. This demon embodies superstition—acting as a projection of primal fears, the inexplicable, and evil as the counterpart to good. The notion of a creature that emerges at night, drains its victims’ blood, and draws them from light into darkness is undoubtedly a profoundly threatening one.

When you reflect a little longer on the horror story of the vampire demon, you will inevitably begin to see parallels (or at least points of contact) with the fiat money system that exists worldwide today.

Under Cover of Darkness

It takes place under the cover of darkness: It is fair to say that the vast majority of people are unaware of how today’s fiat money system is structured, how it operates, or what its effects are. Students in schools and universities are, for the most part, left in the dark about it, and the consequences of the fiat money system, therefore, take most people by surprise—unprepared and relentless. Indeed, how many people know that our current fiat money system is a system in which the state’s central bank holds a coercive monopoly on the creation of fiat central bank money, while commercial banks issue their own fiat commercial bank money based on central bank fiat money.

Who knows that fiat money is literally created out of thin air, representing a form of money creation that has no connection whatsoever to “real savings”? And who explains to people that, from an economic perspective, expanding the fiat money supply is inflationary, leading to uneven higher prices for goods and services compared to a situation where the money supply had not been increased? It is also unknown to many that the issuance of fiat money via the credit market causes a misallocation of capital, initially triggering a boom, only to be followed by a bust; that it drives economies into excessive debt; and that it allows the state to grow ever larger at the expense of the freedoms of citizens and entrepreneurs.

In short, for most people, the damage caused by fiat money is unknown; it creeps upon them under the cover of darkness, like a vampire.

Vulnerable Victims and Life Sucked Away

The victims are often helpless and unaware, with the fruits of their labor effectively being siphoned away. Fiat money has something vampire-like about it, enabling one group (those allowed to create fiat money) to live at the expense of others (those forced to use the monopolized money). The first recipients of newly-created fiat money are the beneficiaries. They can use the new money to purchase goods and services whose prices have not yet risen, making them wealthier.

As the money changes hands, it increases demand, and prices of goods rise accordingly. As a result, the late recipients of the new money can only buy goods at higher prices, leaving them at a disadvantage. The first recipients improve their position at the expense of the late recipients. The most severely affected are those who receive nothing from the newly-created money supply—they are, in effect, the ones “sucked dry.”

The vampire-like redistributive effect of fiat money, which operates in the shadows, particularly benefits commercial banks that create fiat commercial bank money, as well as those in a position to take out new bank loans in fiat money.

First and foremost, it is the state and those who benefit from it who are among the biggest winners of the vampire fiat money system. The state finances a significant portion of its expenditure with newly-created fiat money, using it to pay its representatives, employees, and their pensions, as well as the companies from which it purchases goods and services. The state and its beneficiaries are among the early recipients of the newly-created fiat money, making them the primary beneficiaries at the expense of the many who are not closely connected to the state.

One might argue that a redistribution of income and wealth, brought about by the increase in fiat money, would also occur in a commodity or precious metal money system. This is true in principle, but the increase in, say, a gold money system, would be less pronounced than in a fiat money system. The fact is that the latter was deliberately chosen for its vampire-like nature. It benefits the state, banks, and big business at the expense of the general population, keeping them below their economic potential.

Creating Minions

Like a vampire, fiat money infects its victims, turning them into accomplices of the fiat money system. Fiat money quite literally enslaves its users, making them dependent. For instance, fiat money incentivises firms and private households to incur debt and live beyond their means, made possible through artificially low interest rates. People are also encouraged to invest in assets (such as houses and companies) because the chronic inflationary nature of fiat money ensures a continual rise in asset prices. Once people are lured into exposure to fiat money, their economic and financial well-being becomes dependent on the continuation of the inflationary fiat money system and on it being “rescued” by the state and its central bank during times of crisis—even at the expense of those who do not benefit from the system, or benefit much less.

Politicians, bureaucrats, bank employees, and companies that receive government contracts all develop a vested interest in ensuring that the fiat money system is maintained. In this sense, they become fiat money vampire thralls, feeding off the lifeblood of those engaged in productive work by claiming a share of their income.

Moreover, holders of fiat money are the ones who lose out, as fiat money continually loses its purchasing power. In a fiat money system, the central bank ensures that interest rates are kept artificially low—often negative after accounting for inflation—so that savings in time deposits, savings accounts, and bonds are effectively eroded.

Aversion to Light

The vampire and the fiat money system cannot withstand the bright light of day; both will crumble to dust when exposed to sunlight. If people truly understood the negative effects of fiat money and the damage it causes to the world, they would likely reject it—along with the production and employment structures it creates. This is likely why so little is taught about fiat money in schools and universities. Its darker aspects are concealed, with the statist education system as particeps criminis ensuring the bright light of knowledge does not shine on the fiat money system.

Remember that central bank councils are typically referred to as “the guardians of the currency,” and it is said that they “fight” inflation. Nothing could be further from the truth—much like a vampire who welcomes his guests and engages in witty conversation without revealing his true nature. Just as sunlight kills a vampire, sound economic knowledge would destroy the fiat money system, especially when coupled with a simple, well-understood ethic like “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Until that day comes, investors should be aware of the serious economic and ethical flaws of fiat money. The uncomfortable truth is that long-term prosperity and peace cannot be sustained under a fiat money system. Therefore, it is in everyone’s best interest for the bright light of truth to expose and thus end the fiat money system. But how can this be achieved?

By proactively and honestly informing people about the evils of fiat money; by advising them to reduce their dependence on it, both in their lives and their savings; and by promoting a free market for money, while encouraging technological innovations in the monetary sphere that lie beyond the state’s control. Together, these efforts will act like a ray of sunlight striking the vampire-like fiat money system—ultimately causing it to crumble to dust.

#1 The number of Americans filing first time claims for unemployment benefits just hit the highest level in over a year…

The number of people filing for unemployment for the first time was at its highest levels in more than a year, partly due to storm damage and labor stoppages.

Initial jobless claims for the week ending Oct. 5 came in at 258,000, up 33,000 from last week’s level of 225,000, and the highest since it hit the same level in August 2023, data from the Labor Department shows.

#2 According to Primerica’s latest Financial Security Monitor report, the percentage of middle-income households that “rate their personal financial situation negatively” has hit the highest level that they have ever recorded…

Primerica’s latest Financial Security Monitor report for the third quarter found 55% of middle-income households now rate their personal financial situation negatively, a 6-point jump from the previous survey.

“For the first time in a year, a majority of middle-income households are feeling negative about their personal finances,” said Glenn Williams, CEO of Primerica. “In fact, this latest report represents the highest negative rating we’ve seen since we began fielding the survey exactly four years ago.”

#3 I am old enough to remember a time in this country when you were set for life if you had a million dollars.  Unfortunately, thanks to our endless cost of living crisis it now costs 4.4 million dollars to live “the American Dream” over the course of a lifetime…

You can live the American Dream, but it will cost you.

The lifetime tab for such aspirations as owning a home, driving new cars, raising kids and taking annual vacations comes to a cool $4.4 million, according to Investopedia, the financial media site.

That’s more than the average American earns in a lifetime.

#4 The company that produces more french fries than anyone else in North America is cutting production and laying off workers due to a dramatic slowdown in consumer demand…

Lamb Weston, the largest producer of french fries in North America and a major supplier to fast-food chains, restaurants and grocery stores, is closing a production plant in Washington state. The company announced last week that it would lay off nearly 400 employees, or 4% of its workforce, and temporarily cut production lines in response to slowing customer demand.

#5 At one time Boeing was flying high, but now it has decided to lay off approximately 10 percent of its entire workforce…

The CEO of Boeing told employees late Friday that the company plans to cut 10% of its total staff “over the coming months.”

“Our business is in a difficult position, and it is hard to overstate the challenges we face together,” said Kelly Ortberg, who started at CEO of the troubled aircraft maker two months ago and has been dealing with a strike by 33,000 hourly workers for half his time on the job.

#6 The banking industry continues to deeply struggle.  So far this year, banks in the United States have permanently shut down over 700 local branches…

US banks closed more than 700 branches in the first nine months of the year, forcing thousands to travel further to access vital services.

Bank of America closed the most locations of any bank, shuttering 132 between January and September.

U.S. Bank followed swiftly behind, having closed 101 of their own branches.

#7 After 75 years, True Value has been forced to file for bankruptcy and will be “selling substantially all of its operations to a rival”…

True Value, a 75-year old hardware store brand, has filed for bankruptcy and is selling substantially all of its operations to a rival, the company announced Monday.

In a press release, True Value said it will continue day-to-day operations of selling hardware and other homeware tools to its 4,500 independently operated locations during the Chapter 11 process, which includes a $153 million stalking horse bid from rival company Do it Best.

#8 Did you ever think that you would live to see a day when hundreds of 7-Eleven stores would be closing?  Sadly, that time has now arrived…

Several hundred “underperforming” 7-Eleven locations across North America are closing, the convenience store announced.

Seven & I Holdings, the chain’s Japan-based parent company, revealed in an earnings report Thursday that 444 locations of 7-Eleven are shutting down because of a variety of issues, including slowing sales, declining traffic, inflationary pressures and a decrease in cigarette purchases.

#9 Home Depot apparently believes that rough times are ahead, because they are dumping millions of square feet of warehouse space…

Home Depot is hastily exiting warehouse space, to the tune of 3.2 million square feet in a month, according to Bisnow.

Since late August, Home Depot has put up nearly 4 million square feet of warehouse space for sublease, including a 1.3M SF Phoenix warehouse and a 1.1M SF distribution center in the Inland Empire, according to CoStar Analytics.

#10 At this point, things are so bad that even Disney is laying off workers…

According to sources cited by Deadline, Disney is pushing ahead with new layoffs as part of a broader “cost-saving initiative.” About 300 employees across Disney’s corporate divisions will be impacted this week.

The layoffs of 300 employees began on Tuesday and will continue until the end of the week. They are all US-based employees who work across the company’s corporate operations, including legal, HR, finance, and communications.

If you have recently lost your job, I feel very badly for you, because the employment market has gotten a lot more “complicated” than it was in the old days.

Once upon a time, being good at what you do was enough.

But now other considerations are often more important than pure merit…

A top Oregon state official has been put on administrative leave after a pink-haired, DEI-obsessed subordinate complained he was making hiring decisions based on qualifications instead of personal identity considerations, according to a report.

Mike Shaw, who until recently served as the Oregon Department of Forestry’s second-in-command, was put on blast by Megan Donecker, the department’s former DEI strategy officer, for looking “beyond gender and identity in hiring, seeking only candidates most qualified for the job,” OregonLive reported.

He was formally placed on administrative leave Aug. 6 after Donecker filed a formal complaint, according to the Daily Mail.

Isn’t that nuts?

Our society is getting crazier with each passing day, and I am deeply concerned about where all of this is heading.

Sadly, the tough economic times that we are experiencing now are not even worth comparing to the pain that is coming if we don’t turn things around.

Our system is literally crumbling right in front of our eyes, and unless something dramatic happens economic conditions in this country will soon become extremely harsh.

Michael’s new book entitled “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.