Publications

The war with Iran is not only a humanitarian crisis but a costly economic shock, raising prices, straining global supplies, and locking the US into higher military spending for years.

A sharp drop in hiring alongside low quits points to a stagnant labor market that may weaken further as economic uncertainty grows.

Higher energy costs and uncertainty tied to global conflict are likely to accelerate the shift toward renewable energy despite efforts to favor fossil fuels.

Market losses driven by economic uncertainty and policy choices are cutting into billionaire wealth, effectively acting as a de facto wealth tax while exposing contradictions in attitudes toward inequality.

Rising import prices, higher wholesale inflation, and policy-driven cost increases point to mounting inflation pressures that contradict earlier promises to bring prices down.

The economy’s shifting story from fears of too few workers to claims of too many older employees crowding out young graduates reveals a fundamental inconsistency in how demographic trends are interpreted.

The rapid price decline of Ozempic in global generic markets shows that patent protections not manufacturing costs are the main reason prescription drugs remain expensive in the United States.

The war with Iran is portrayed as an economic shock to US allies—raising energy costs, straining economies, and offering little clear benefit—undermining claims that other countries should be thankful for the conflict.

Trump’s proposed $200 billion for war in Iran represents a significant share of the federal budget, far exceeding commonly debated spending items and highlighting how misleading raw dollar figures can be without context.

While short-term economic data may appear similar, key differences in inflation, labor market strength, affordability pressures, and long-term policy choices suggest the Trump and Biden economies are meaningfully different.