US Incentives 4-4-25

Trump is offering foreign manufacturing companies incentives to locate their plants in the US. This is not a new idea. In the 1950s, European countries began to require the US to locate their “final assembly” plants in their countries as a condition to allowing these US goods to be sold in their countries. “Turnabout if Fair Play”. In the 1950s, Europe was broke and the US was healthy. Now the US is broke and needs private sector jobs to be reshored. 

While there isn't a single year where European countries universally demanded US manufacturers establish final assembly plants, the pressure for this type of investment intensified in the post-World War II era, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s. 

Here's a more detailed explanation: 

Post-War Economic Recovery: Following World War II, European nations were rebuilding their economies and sought to attract foreign investment to stimulate growth and create jobs.

Trade Barriers and Local Content Requirements: To protect their domestic industries, European countries implemented trade barriers and increasingly demanded that foreign manufacturers establish local production facilities to meet local content requirements.

US Manufacturers Respond: Faced with these pressures, US manufacturers began establishing assembly plants in Europe to gain access to the growing European market and avoid high import tariffs.

Examples:

Volkswagen: In the 1950s, Volkswagen began exporting cars to the United States, and by the 1960s, they had established a plant in Germany to meet the growing demand for their vehicles.

General Motors: General Motors established a plant in Belgium in the 1950s, which was a major step in their expansion into Europe.

Increasing Pressure:

The pressure for local assembly plants continued to grow throughout the 1960s and 1970s as European countries sought to further integrate their economies and develop their own manufacturing sectors.

In the 1960s International Shoe closed it’s St. Louis manufacturing plant. Shoes were being made overseas.

In the 1990s, the US began to off-shore all manufacturing to countries with lower labor costs and no regulations. Other countries were subsidizing their manufacturers and dumping their lower cost products in the US. The US CEOs were faced with lower cost competition and were ignoring product quality. Japan took first place beginning in the 1980s with better cars that got better mileage. Toyota and Honda became the best sellers in the US. 

Source: Google Search

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

US Tariff Revenue History 4-4-25

The US used Tariffs to pay War Debt and fund the Federal Government from 1789 to 1913. Tariffs on European Furniture allowed the US furniture industry and other manufacturing to develop to serve the needs of US Citizens. Importing goods was slow, expensive, risky and unreliable. 

From 1880 to 1920, tariffs were a major source of US federal revenue, particularly after the Civil War, but their dominance began to wane with the rise of the federal income tax in the early 20th century. 

Here's a more detailed look:

Dominant Revenue Source:

For much of the 19th century, tariffs were the primary source of revenue for the US federal government, used to finance government operations and pay off debts. 

Post-Civil War:

After the Civil War, tariff rates rose to finance new programs and pay off the war debt. 

Protectionist Measures:

High tariffs were also used to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. 

Examples of Tariff Acts:

The McKinley Tariff of 1890 and the Dingley Tariff of 1897 raised tariff rates to levels higher than any since the Civil War. 

Shifting Revenue Sources:

The rise of the federal income tax in the early 20th century, particularly after 1913, gradually reduced the importance of tariffs as a revenue source. 

Internal Taxes:

By 1911, internal levies (chiefly alcohol excises, tobacco taxes, and estate/gift levies) surpassed tariffs as the main source of revenue. 

Tariff Revenue as a Percentage of Total Revenue:

In 1880, customs duties and excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco made up nearly 90% of all federal government receipts. 

Tariff Revenue in 1915:

In 1915, tariffs generated 30.1% of federal revenues. 

End of High US Import Tariffs:

The 1913 Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act lowered tariffs and the 1913 Federal Reserve Act established a permanent federal income tax. 

Post-WWI Protectionism:

After WWI, the US reverted to protectionist policies, with the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921 and the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922 raising tariffs again. 

In the 1990s, the US began to off-shore manufacturing. The US continued to increase federal spending and put it on the “credit card”. The National Debt increased from $3.2 trillion to $36.6 trillion.

Tariffs were ignored in the US until 2016, when Trump made lowering the US Trade Deficit an issue. Trump also closed the border to end illegal immigration and provide jobs to US citizens.

Now in his Second Term, with a US National Debt approaching $37 trillion. Now in 2025, Trump was reelected to end illegal immigration and restore the US economy by increasing oil and natural gas production, downsizing the bloated $7 trillion federal government and reshoring manufacturing. The US Trade Deficit is now over $1.1 trillion.

Source: Google Search

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Trump Tariff Plan 4-3-26

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our National and Economic Security, The White House, April 2, 2025 

PURSUING RECIPROCITY TO REBUILD THE ECONOMY AND RESTORE NATIONAL AND ECONOMIC SECURITY: Today, President Donald J. Trump declared that foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency, and his order imposes responsive tariffs to strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers.

Large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits have led to the hollowing out of our manufacturing base; resulted in a lack of incentive to increase advanced domestic manufacturing capacity; undermined critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries.

President Trump is invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to address the national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries.

Using his IEEPA authority, President Trump will impose a 10% tariff on all countries.

This will take effect April 5, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT.

President Trump will impose an individualized reciprocal higher tariff on the countries with which the United States has the largest trade deficits. All other countries will continue to be subject to the original 10% tariff baseline.

This will take effect April 9, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT.

These tariffs will remain in effect until such a time as President Trump determines that the threat posed by the trade deficit and underlying nonreciprocal treatment is satisfied, resolved, or mitigated.

Today’s IEEPA Order also contains modification authority, allowing President Trump to increase the tariff if trading partners retaliate or decrease the tariffs if trading partners take significant steps to remedy non-reciprocal trade arrangements and align with the United States on economic and national security matters.

Some goods will not be subject to the Reciprocal Tariff. These include: (1) articles subject to 50 USC 1702(b); (2) steel/aluminum articles and autos/auto parts already subject to Section 232 tariffs; (3) copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and lumber articles; (4) all articles that may become subject to future Section 232 tariffs; (5) bullion; and (6) energy and other certain minerals that are not available in the United States.

For Canada and Mexico, the existing fentanyl/migration IEEPA orders remain in effect, and are unaffected by this order. This means USMCA compliant goods will continue to see a 0% tariff, non-USMCA compliant goods will see a 25% tariff, and non-USMCA compliant energy and potash will see a 10% tariff. In the event the existing fentanyl/migration IEEPA orders are terminated, USMCA compliant goods would continue to receive preferential treatment, while non-USMCA compliant goods would be subject to a 12% reciprocal tariff.

TAKING BACK OUR ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY: President Trump refuses to let the United States be taken advantage of and believes that tariffs are necessary to ensure fair trade, protect American workers, and reduce the trade deficit—this is an emergency.

He is the first President in modern history to stand strong for hardworking Americans by asking other countries to follow the golden rule on trade: Treat us like we treat you.

Pernicious economic policies and practices of our trading partners undermine our ability to produce essential goods for the public and the military, threatening national security.

U.S. companies, according to internal estimates, pay over $200 billion per year in value-added taxes (VAT) to foreign governments—a “double-whammy” on U.S. companies who pay the tax at the European border, while European companies don’t pay tax to the United States on the income from their exports to the U.S.

The annual cost to the U.S. economy of counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets is between $225 billion and $600 billion. Counterfeit products not only pose a significant risk to U.S. competitiveness, but also threaten the security, health, and safety of Americans, with the global trade in counterfeit pharmaceuticals estimated at $4.4 billion and linked to the distribution of deadly fentanyl-laced drugs.

This imbalance has fueled a large and persistent trade deficit in both industrial and agricultural goods, led to offshoring of our manufacturing base, empowered non-market economies like China, and hurt America’s middle class and small towns. 

President Biden squandered the agricultural trade surplus inherited from President Trump’s first term, turning it into a projected all-time high deficit of $49 billion.

The current global trading order allows those using unfair trade practices to get ahead, while those playing by the rules get left behind.

In 2024, our trade deficit in goods exceeded $1.2 trillion—an unsustainable crisis ignored by prior leadership.

“Made in America” is not just a tagline—it’s an economic and national security priority of this Administration. The President’s reciprocal trade agenda means better-paying American jobs making beautiful American-made cars, appliances, and other goods.

These tariffs seek to address the injustices of global trade, re-shore manufacturing, and drive economic growth for the American people.

Reciprocal trade is America First trade because it increases our competitive edge, protects our sovereignty, and strengthens our national and economic security.

These tariffs adjust for the unfairness of ongoing international trade practices, balance our chronic goods trade deficit, provide an incentive for re-shoring production to the United States, and provide our foreign trading partners with an opportunity to rebalance their trade relationships with the United States.

REPRIORITIZING U.S. MANUFACTURING: President Trump recognizes that increasing domestic manufacturing is critical to U.S. national security.

In 2023, U.S. manufacturing output as a share of global manufacturing output was 17.4%, down from 28.4% in 2001.

The decline in manufacturing output has reduced U.S. manufacturing capacity.

The need to maintain a resilient domestic manufacturing capacity is particularly acute in advanced sectors like autos, shipbuilding, pharmaceuticals, transport equipment, technology products, machine tools, and basic and fabricated metals, where loss of capacity could permanently weaken U.S. competitiveness.

U.S. stockpiles of military goods are too low to be compatible with U.S. national defense interests.

If the U.S. wishes to maintain an effective security umbrella to defend its citizens and homeland, as well as allies and partners, it needs to have a large upstream manufacturing and goods-producing ecosystem.

This includes developing new manufacturing technologies in critical sectors like bio-manufacturing, batteries, and microelectronics to support defense needs.

Increased reliance on foreign producers for goods has left the U.S. supply chain vulnerable to geopolitical disruption and supply shocks.

This vulnerability was exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and later with Houthi attacks on Middle East shipping.

From 1997 to 2024, the U.S. lost around 5 million manufacturing jobs and experienced one of the largest drops in manufacturing employment in history.

ADDRESSING TRADE IMBALANCES: President Trump is working to level the playing field for American businesses and workers by confronting the unfair tariff disparities and non-tariff barriers imposed by other countries.

For generations, countries have taken advantage of the United States, tariffing us at higher rates. For example:

The United States imposes a 2.5% tariff on passenger vehicle imports (with internal combustion engines), while the European Union (10%) and India (70%) impose much higher duties on the same product. 

For networking switches and routers, the United States imposes a 0% tariff, but India (10-20%) levies higher rates.

Brazil (18%) and Indonesia (30%) impose a higher tariff on ethanol than does the United States (2.5%). 

For rice in the husk, the U.S. imposes a tariff of 2.7%, while India (80%), Malaysia (40%), and Turkey (31%) impose higher rates. 

Apples enter the United States duty-free, but not so in Turkey (60.3%) and India (50%).

The United States has one of the lowest simple average most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff rates in the world at 3.3%, while many of our key trading partners like Brazil (11.2%), China (7.5%), the European Union (5%), India (17%), and Vietnam (9.4%) have simple average MFN tariff rates that are significantly higher.

Similarly, non-tariff barriers—meant to limit the quantity of imports/exports and protect domestic industries—also deprive U.S. manufacturers of reciprocal access to markets around the world. For example:

China’s non-market policies and practices have given China global dominance in key manufacturing industries, decimating U.S. industry. Between 2001 and 2018, these practices contributed to the loss of 3.7 million U.S. jobs due to the growth of the U.S.-China trade deficit, displacing workers and undermining American competitiveness while threatening U.S. economic and national security by increasing our reliance on foreign-controlled supply chains for critical industries as well as everyday goods.

India imposes their own uniquely burdensome and/or duplicative testing and certification requirements in sectors such as chemicals, telecom products, and medical devices that make it difficult or costly for American companies to sell their products in India. If these barriers were removed, it is estimated that U.S. exports would increase by at least $5.3 billion annually.

Countries including China, Germany, Japan, and South Korea have pursued policies that suppress the domestic consumption power of their own citizens to artificially boost the competitiveness of their export products. Such policies include regressive tax systems, low or unenforced penalties for environmental degradation, and policies intended to suppress worker wages relative to productivity.

Certain countries, like Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, and Vietnam, restrict or prohibit the importation of remanufactured goods, restricting market access for U.S. exporters while also stifling efforts to promote sustainability by discouraging trade in like-new and resource-efficient products. If these barriers were removed, it is estimated that U.S. exports would increase by at least $18 billion annually.

The UK maintains non-science-based standards that severely restrict U.S. exports of safe, high-quality beef and poultry products.

Indonesia maintains local content requirements across a broad range of sectors, complex import licensing regimes, and, starting this year, will require natural resource firms to onshore all export revenue for transactions worth $250,000 or more.

Argentina has banned imports of U.S. live cattle since 2002 due to unsubstantiated concerns regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy.  The United States has a $223 million trade deficit with Argentina in beef and beef products.

For decades, South Africa has imposed animal health restrictions that are not scientifically justified on U.S. pork products, permitting a very limited list of U.S. pork exports to enter South Africa. South Africa also heavily restricts U.S. poultry exports through high tariffs, anti-dumping duties, and unjustified animal health restrictions. These barriers have contributed to a 78% decline in U.S. poultry exports to South Africa, from $89 million in 2019 to $19 million 2024.

U.S. automakers face a variety of non-tariff barriers that impede access to the Japanese and Korean automotive markets, including non-acceptance of certain U.S. standards, duplicative testing and certification requirements, and transparency issues. Due to these non-reciprocal practices, the U.S. automotive industry loses out on an additional $13.5 billion in annual exports to Japan and access to a larger import market share in Korea—all while the U.S. trade deficit with Korea more than tripled from 2019 to 2024.

Monetary tariffs and non-monetary tariffs are two distinct types of trade barriers that governments use to regulate imports and exports. President Trump is countering both through reciprocal tariffs to protect American workers and industries from these unfair practices.

THE GOLDEN RULE FOR OUR GOLDEN AGE: Today’s action simply asks other countries to treat us like we treat them. It’s the Golden Rule for Our Golden Age.

Access to the American market is a privilege, not a right.

The United States will no longer put itself last on matters of international trade in exchange for empty promises.

Reciprocal tariffs are a big part of why Americans voted for President Trump—it was a cornerstone of his campaign from the start.

Everyone knew he’d push for them once he got back in office; it’s exactly what he promised, and it’s a key reason he won the election.

These tariffs are central to President Trump’s plan to reverse the economic damage left by President Biden and put America on a path to a new golden age.

This builds on his broader economic agenda of energy competitiveness, tax cuts, no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security benefits, and deregulation to boost American prosperity.

TARIFFS WORK: Studies have repeatedly shown that tariffs can be an effective tool for reducing or eliminating threats that impair U.S. national security and achieving economic and strategic objectives.

·       A 2024 study on the effects of President Trump’s tariffs in his first term found that they “strengthened the U.S. economy” and “led to significant reshoring” in industries like manufacturing and steel production.

·       A 2023 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission that analyzed the effects of Section 232 and 301 tariffs on more than $300 billion of U.S. imports found that the tariffs reduced imports from China and effectively stimulated more U.S. production of the tariffed goods, with very minor effects on prices.

·       According to the Economic Policy Institute, the tariffs implemented by President Trump during his first term “clearly show[ed] no correlation with inflation” and only had a temporary effect on overall price levels.

·       An analysis from the Atlantic Council found that “tariffs would create new incentives for US consumers to buy US-made products.”

·       Former Biden Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen affirmed last year that tariffs do not raise prices: “I don’t believe that American consumers will see any meaningful increase in the prices that they face.”

·       A 2024 economic analysis found that a global tariff of 10% would grow the economy by $728 billion, create 2.8 million jobs, and increase real household incomes by 5.7%.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Gold Price 4-3-25

Gold is over $3100 per ounce in March 2025. It is driven by Supply and Demand. 

Global gold mine production has fluctuated, with a peak of around 3,300 metric tons in 2019, then a slight decline to 3,027 tons in 2020, and a further drop to 3,000 tons by 2023. 

In 2025, the top gold-producing countries are expected to be China, Australia, and Russia, with China likely retaining its position as the world's largest gold producer. 

Nixon Ended Convertibility of U.S. Dollars to Gold and Announces Wage/Price Controls in August 1971.

With inflation on the rise and a gold run looming, President Richard Nixon's team enacted a plan that ended dollar convertibility to gold and implemented wage and price controls, which soon brought an end to the Bretton Woods System.

by Sandra Kollen Ghizoni, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

President Richard Nixon’s actions in 1971 to end dollar convertibility to gold and implement wage/price controls were intended to address the international dilemma of a looming gold run and the domestic problem of inflation. The new economic policy marked the beginning of the end of the Bretton Woods international monetary system and temporarily halted inflation.

The international monetary system after World War II was dubbed the Bretton Woods system after the meeting of forty-four countries in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1944. The countries agreed to keep their currencies fixed (but adjustable in exceptional situations) to the dollar, and the dollar was fixed to gold. Since 1958, when the Bretton Woods system became operational, countries settled their international balances in dollars, and U.S. dollars were convertible to gold at a fixed exchange rate of $35 an ounce. The United States had the responsibility of keeping the dollar price of gold fixed and had to adjust the supply of dollars to maintain confidence in future gold convertibility.

Initially, the Bretton Woods system operated as planned. Japan and Europe were still rebuilding their postwar economies and demand for U.S. goods and services—and dollars—was high. Since the United States held about three-quarters of the world’s official gold reserves, the system seemed secure.

In the 1960s, European and Japanese exports became more competitive with U.S. exports. The U.S. share of world output decreased and so did the need for dollars, making converting those dollars to gold more desirable. The deteriorating U.S. balance of payments, combined with military spending and foreign aid, resulted in a large supply of dollars around the world. Meanwhile, the gold supply had increased only marginally. Eventually, there were more foreign-held dollars than the United States had gold. The country was vulnerable to a run on gold and there was a loss of confidence in the U.S. government’s ability to meet its obligations, thereby threatening both the dollar’s position as reserve currency and the overall Bretton Woods system.

Many efforts were made to adjust the U.S. balance of payments and to uphold the Bretton Woods system, both domestically and internationally. These were meant to be “quick fixes” until the balance of payments could readjust, but they proved to be postponing the inevitable.

In March 1961, the U.S. Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF), with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York acting as its agent, began to intervene in the foreign-exchange market for the first time since World War II. The ESF buys and sells foreign exchange currency to stabilize conditions in the exchange rate market. While the interventions were successful for a time, the Treasury’s lack of resources limited its ability to mount broad dollar defense.

From 1962 until the closing of the U.S. gold window in August 1971, the Federal Reserve relied on “currency swaps” as its key mechanism for temporarily defending the U.S. gold stock. The Federal Reserve structured the reciprocal currency arrangements, or swap lines, by providing foreign central banks cover for unwanted dollar reserves, limiting the conversion of dollars to gold.

In March 1962, the Federal Reserve established its first swap line with the Bank of France and by the end of that year lines had been set up with nine central banks (Austria, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Canada). Altogether, the lines provided up to $900 million equivalent in foreign exchange. What started as a small, short-term credit facility grew to be a large, intermediate-term facility until the U.S. gold window closed in August 1971. The growth and need for the swap lines signaled that they were not just a temporary fix, but a sign of a fundamental problem in the monetary system.

International efforts were also made to stem a run on gold. A run in the London gold market sent the price to $40 an ounce on October 20, 1960, exacerbating the threat to the system. In response, the London Gold Pool was formed on November 1, 1961. The pool consisted of a group of eight central banks (Great Britain, West Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France, and the United States). In order to keep the price of gold at $35 an ounce, the group agreed to pool gold reserves to intervene in the London gold market in order to maintain the Bretton Woods system. The pool was successful for six years until another gold crisis ensued. The British pound sterling devalued and another run on gold occurred, and France withdrew from the pool. The pool collapsed in March 1968.

At that time the seven remaining members of the London Gold Pool (Great Britain, West Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and the United States) agreed to formulate a two-tiered system. The central banks agreed to use their gold only in settling international debts and to not sell monetary gold on the private market. The two-tier system was in place until the U.S. gold window closed in 1971.

These efforts of the global financial community proved to be temporary fixes to a broader structural problem with the Bretton Woods system. The structural problem, which has been called the “Triffin dilemma,” occurs when a country issues a global reserve currency (in this case, the United States) because of its global importance as a medium of exchange. The stability of that currency, however, comes into question when the country is persistently running current account deficits to fulfill that supply. As the current account deficits accumulate, the reserve currency becomes less desirable and its position as a reserve currency is threatened.

While the United States was in the midst of the Triffin dilemma, it was also facing a growing problem of inflation at home. The period that became known as the Great Inflation had started and policymakers had put anti-inflation policies in place, but they were short lived and ineffective. At first, both the Nixon administration and the Federal Reserve believed in a gradual approach, slowly lowering inflation with a minimum increase in unemployment. They would tolerate an unemployment rate of up to 4.5 percent, but by the end of the 1969-70 recession the unemployment rate had climbed to 6 percent, and inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, was 5.4 percent.

When Arthur Burns became chairman of the Board of Governors in 1970, he was faced with both slow growth and inflation, or stagflation. Burns believed that tightening monetary policy and the increase in unemployment that accompanied it would be ineffective against the inflation then occurring, because it stemmed from forces beyond the control of the Fed, such as labor unions, food and energy shortages, and OPEC’s control of oil prices. Moreover, many economists in the administration and at the Fed, including Burns, shared the view that inflation could not be reduced with an acceptable unemployment rate. According to economist Allan Meltzer, Andrew Brimmer, a Fed Board member from 1966 to 1974, noted at that time that employment was the principal goal and fighting inflation was the second priority. The Federal Open Market Committee implemented an expansionary monetary policy.

With inflation on the rise and a gold run looming, Nixon’s administration coordinated a plan for bold action. From August 13 to 15, 1971, Nixon and fifteen advisers, including Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur Burns, Treasury Secretary John Connally, and Undersecretary for International Monetary Affairs Paul Volcker (later Federal Reserve Chairman) met at the presidential retreat at Camp David and created a new economic plan. On the evening of August 15, 1971, Nixon addressed the nation on a new economic policy that not only was intended to correct the balance of payments but also stave off inflation and lower the unemployment rate.

The first order was for the gold window to be closed. Foreign governments could no longer exchange their dollars for gold; in effect, the international monetary system turned into a fiat one. A few months later the Smithsonian agreement attempted to maintain pegged exchange rates, but the Bretton Woods system ended soon thereafter. The second order was for a 90-day freeze on wages and prices to check inflation. This marked the first time the government enacted wage and price controls outside of wartime. It was an attempt to bring down inflation without increasing the unemployment rate or slowing the economy. In addition, an import surcharge was set at 10 percent to ensure that American products would not be at a disadvantage because of exchange rates.

Shortly after the plan was implemented, the growth of employment and production in the United States increased. Inflation was practically halted during the 90-day wage-price freeze but would soon reappear as the monetary momentum in support of inflation had already begun. Nixon’s new economic policy represented a coordinated attack on the simultaneous problems of unemployment, inflation, and disequilibrium in the balance of payments. The plan was one of the many prescriptions written to cure inflation, which would eventually continue to rise.

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/gold-convertibility-ends

Besides jewelry, gold is used in electronics, aerospace, dentistry, medicine, and as a store of wealth and for financial transactions. 

Here's a more detailed breakdown of gold's various uses:

Electronics:

·       Electrical Conductivity:

Gold's excellent electrical conductivity makes it ideal for manufacturing chips, connectors, and other components in electronic devices like computers, smartphones, and appliances.

·       Corrosion Resistance:

Gold's resistance to corrosion ensures reliable signal transmission and durability in electronic components. 

Aerospace:

·       Infrared Radiation Shielding:

Gold's ability to reflect infrared radiation makes it crucial in aerospace technology, used in windshields of jets, visors of astronauts' helmets, and on satellites and other space vehicles. 

·       Temperature Protection:

Gold is used in satellites and spaceships to protect instruments from extreme temperatures and radiation. 

Dentistry and Medicine:

·       Dental Restorations:

Gold is non-toxic and durable, making it a good choice for crowns, fillings, and other dental restorations. 

·       Medical Applications:

Gold salts are used as anti-inflammatory agents in medicine, and gold can be used to treat certain conditions like rheumatoid arthritis. 

Other Uses:

·       Financial Investments:

Gold is a traditional store of wealth and is used by governments, central banks, and investors as a hedge against economic uncertainty. 

·       Decoration:

Gold leaf is used to decorate cakes, desserts, and other food items, and gold flakes are sometimes used as a decoration on top of food. 

·       Specialty Glasses:

Gold is used to create specialty glasses for climate-controlled buildings, reflecting solar radiation and helping to regulate temperature. 

·       Art and Medals:

Gold is used in art, medals, and other decorative objects. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+gold+used+for+besides+jewelry

Comments

Substitutes for gold need to be found and gold production needs to be increased. Investing in gold as a hedge against inflation has resulted in less supply and raised the price.

I think the Bitcoin Fad offers an alternative to investors who are looking for “buy to hold” investments like Gold.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Hospital Costs 4-2-25

In the 1950s, Hospital Room and Board was $24 per day and included diagnostic lab fees. Most Hospitals were owned by Catholic Orders of Nuns who lived in convents, provided with room and board, medical insurance, transportation and $50 per month.  All were Nurses. They had a lot of fundraising drives. Doctors did “house calls” and some had “charity practices”. Rural family farmers paid my grandfather in produce to reimburse him for the medicine he brought them every Saturday.  

In 1962, the 2^nd Vatican Council encouraged Nuns to do social work. In 1965, Medicare was established for US Retirees.

In the 1970s. The Nuns sold their hospitals to accountants and costs began to rise.

Hospitals were legally obligated to treat indigent patients in the US in 1986 when the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) was passed. Hospitals began “cost shifting” to have paying patients pay for non-paying patients.

Prior to the 1990s, Medical Insurance had a $1 million lifetime cap. After the 1990s, the cap was removed and became “unlimited”.

In 2009, Obama passed Obamacare. Prior to Obamacare, Medical Insurance was limited to “medically necessary”, rescue and repair.

U.S. total medical care costs have increased significantly from 1990 to 2025, with projections estimating $5.3 trillion in 2025, a substantial rise from the $666.2 billion spent in 1990. 

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

·       1990: Total health care expenditures reached $666.2 billion. 

·       2000: Health expenditures reached about $1.4 trillion. 

·       2022: The amount spent on health tripled to $4.5 trillion. 

·       2023: U.S. health care spending grew 7.5 percent, reaching $4.9 trillion or $14,570 per person. 

NIH Funding:

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a major public funder of biomedical research, saw significant growth in its budget from 1995 to 2022.  In 1995, the NIH budget was around $6.021 billion, while by 2022 it had grown to $24.200 billion. 

Medical Insurance Fads

While the concept of private plans in Medicare existed before, President Bill Clinton signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which created Medicare Part C (later renamed Medicare Advantage), allowing beneficiaries to choose HMO-style plans instead of traditional fee-for-service Medicare. 

Among the most commonly cited reasons are excessive prior authorization denial rates and slow payments from insurers. In 2023, Becker's began reporting on hospitals and health systems nationwide that dropped some or all of their Medicare Advantage contracts. Dec 26, 2024

NIH Grants increased from $10 billion in 1995 to $45 billion in 2024.

https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/category/1

Comments

The history of allowing medical insurance costs to go out of control began in 1965. We need to repeal Obamacare to return to “rescue and repair” insurance for necessary medical treatment. This would cover hospital and surgical costs and annual physical exams. All other coverage would be optional. The average annual premium for employer-sponsored family health insurance in 2024 is $25,572. 

In 2023, approximately 25.3 million people ages 0 to 64 were uninsured, and the uninsured rate for this population was 9.5%. KFF estimates that this number remained statistically unchanged from 2022. Medical Insurance is unaffordable.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Healthcare Costs 4-2-25

President Donald J. Trump Announces Actions to Make Healthcare Prices Transparent

The White House, February 25, 2025 

EMPOWERING PATIENTS THROUGH RADICAL PRICE TRANSPARENCY: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to empower patients with clear, accurate, and actionable healthcare pricing information.

The order directs the Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services to rapidly implement and enforce the Trump healthcare price transparency regulations, which were slow walked by the prior administration.

The departments will ensure hospitals and insurers disclose actual prices, not estimates, and take action to make prices comparable across hospitals and insurers, including prescription drug prices. The departments will update their enforcement policies to ensure hospitals and insurers are in compliance with requirements to make prices transparent.

LOWERING COSTS FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES: When healthcare prices are hidden, large corporate entities like hospitals and insurance companies benefit at the expense of American patients. Price transparency will lower healthcare prices and help patients and employers get the best deal on healthcare.

·       Prices vary widely from hospital to hospital in the same region. One patient in Wisconsin saved $1,095 by shopping for two tests between two hospitals located within 30 minutes of one another.

·       One economic analysis found that President Trump’s original price transparency rules, if fully implemented, could deliver savings of $80 billion for consumers, employers, and insurers by 2025.

·       Employers can lower their healthcare costs by an average of 27% on 500 common services by better shopping for care.

·       The Biden Administration was sued in 2023 for not enforcing the prescription drug transparency requirements. The Trump Administration will work to hold health plans accountable for making drug prices transparent.

DELIVERING ON PROMISES TO PUT AMERICAN PATIENTS FIRST: President Trump is delivering on his promise to once again put American patients first by holding the healthcare industrial complex accountable for delivering transparent prices.

·       In his first Administration, President Trump took historic action by mandating that hospitals and insurers make prices public.

·       While the prior Administration failed to prioritize further implementation and enforcement of these requirements, President Trump is delivering on his promises to make the healthcare system more affordable and easier to navigate for patients.

·       American patients are fed up with the status quo – 95% deem healthcare price transparency an important priority, with six in ten saying it should be a top priority of the government.

·       President Trump has long pushed for radical price transparency to ensure the healthcare system puts American patients first:

President Trump: “Our goal was to give patients the knowledge they need about the real price of healthcare services.  They’ll be able to check them, compare them, go to different locations, so they can shop for the highest-quality care at the lowest cost.  And this is about high-quality care.  You’re also looking at that.  You’re looking at comparisons between talents, which is very important.  And then, you’re also looking at cost.  And, in some cases, you get the best doctor for the lowest cost.  That’s a good thing.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-announces-actions-to-make-healthcare-prices-transparent/

Comments

Patients need to take control of their own “preventive” program. They can avoid becoming obese and avoid Diabetes II.

They can schedule annual physical exams and get their bloodwork to tell them what vitamins and minerals are lacking.

They can read up on Nutrition and change their Diets. They can be more careful to avoid injuries. Healthcare is now unaffordable.

In 2025, expect a 7% rise in average private health insurance premiums, reaching $7,452 per year or $621 per month,

In 2025, U.S. healthcare spending is projected to reach $5.3 trillion, with an average cost of $16,000 per employee for employer-sponsored health care coverage, reflecting an 8% to 9% increase from 2024. 

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

College Costs 4-1-25

When I graduated from St. Louis University in 1965, tuition was $1000 per year. In 1965, 10% of high school grades had BS degrees. High ACT scores were required for entry and all courses were “occupational”. I commuted to class from home, worked as a musician 6 nights per week throughout my college years from 1961 to 1965 and paid my own tuition. The classrooms were in 100 year-old buildings that were well maintained. I was allowed to take graduate courses for undergraduate credit and graduated a semester early in January 1965. 

In 1980-81, the average total cost for tuition, room, and board at a private 4-year institution like Saint Louis University was approximately $3,617. 

In the 1989-1990 academic year, the average full-time graduate tuition and required fees were $4,135.

In the 1999-2000 academic year, Saint Louis University's undergraduate tuition was $16,138. 

For the 2010-2011 academic year, Saint Louis University's undergraduate tuition was $31,342. 

For the 2020-2021 academic year, Saint Louis University's undergraduate tuition was $54,250. 

For the 2025-2026 academic year, Saint Louis University's undergraduate tuition is $55,760. 

In the 1970s St. Louis U began spending $billions expanding their campus and replacing old buildings. This allowed them to double enrollment. Students were more interested in a plush 4 years in a vacation resort.

42.7 million Americans have federal student loan debt. The total federal student debt balance is $1.64 trillion dollars, which has roughly tripled since 2007. Including private student loans, the total student debt balance is $1.77 trillion dollars.

In 1965, Saint Louis University (SLU) had a total enrollment of 4,629 students, Saint Louis University (SLU) anticipates a total student enrollment of around 15,000 for the 2025 academic year.

In 2025, Saint Louis University School of Medicine has a total enrollment of 729,

Student Loan Debt

42.7 million Americans have federal student loan debt. The total federal student debt balance is $1.64 trillion dollars, which has roughly tripled since 2007. Including private student loans, the total student debt balance is $1.77 trillion dollars.- Feb 11, 2025.

The average student loan debt per borrower is $38,883. The average student loan interest rate is 6.53% (for federal undergraduate Direct Loans for the 2024–25 school year).Feb 24, 2025. Students with “non-occupational” Degrees are not able to repay their Student Loan Balances. 

Comments

College is now unaffordable. High School Grads are looking at Trade Schools. Scholarship Winners work part-time, live “off-campus” and some have their parents buy a home near the college and they rent out rooms.

Many High School Grads join the US Military to attend “Electronic School”. Some Pre-Med Students sign up to serve in the Military for 4 years after they graduate to get tuition aid. Those who serve 4 years in the Military get Veterans Education Benefits and go on to Law School and Med School.

Americans' total credit card balance is $1.211 trillion as of the fourth quarter of 2024, according to the latest Federal Reserve data.

Americans owe $12.61 trillion on 85.10 million mortgages. That comes to an average of $148,120 per person with a mortgage on their credit report. Single Family Home Owners should be able to recoup this cost in rising home equity.

US consumers are swimming in debt.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Georgia Education Plans 4-1-25

Closing the US Department of Education and the transfer of Education to the States under the 10rh Amendment will give Republican-led States to focus on basic skills and occupational paths for K-12.  

Georgia’s K-12 English Language Arts Standards Update: What Schools Need to Know

Georgia is making a significant shift in K-12 English Language Arts (ELA) education with the adoption of new state standards for the 2025-2026 school year. Much like the previous overhaul of math standards, these updates are designed to provide a more rigorous and tailored approach to literacy instruction. The revised ELA standards will go into effect for the 2025-26 school year, replacing the Georgia Standards of Excellence (GSE) for ELA.

Here’s a breakdown of what’s changing, what it means for educators and students, and how Progress Learning is ready to support schools through the transition.

What’s Changing in Georgia’s K-12 ELA Standards?

The new standards are a departure from the remnants of Common Core, reinforcing a more structured approach to literacy.

Key changes include:

A Stronger Literacy Foundation: The new standards emphasize early literacy through a dedicated Foundations domain that focuses on phonics and the science of reading​.

Clear Learning Progressions: Built-in learning progressions across grades allow for targeted remediation or acceleration based on student needs​.

More Teacher Input: The revised standards were developed with direct input from Georgia teachers, parents, and community members to ensure they are “Georgia-grown” and developmentally appropriate​.

New Assessments Aligned to Standards: Georgia Milestones assessments will reflect the new ELA standards starting in the 2025-26 school year​.

Why Are These Changes Happening?

The push for updated standards comes as only about one-third of Georgia third-graders scored proficient or better in ELA on the 2022 Georgia Milestones assessment​. Recognizing that early literacy is critical to future success, the state aims to ensure all students develop strong reading, writing, and communication skills.

Additionally, the General Assembly has prioritized reading instruction, passing two literacy-focused bills that reinforce

evidence-based reading practices, such as phonics-based learning​.

How Progress Learning Supports Georgia Schools

Progress Learning is fully aligned to Georgia’s evolving standards and is committed to supporting schools as they transition to the new ELA curriculum. Here’s how we help:

Standards Aligned Content: While the transition happens, schools still need resources aligned to the current Georgia Standards of Excellence and will continue to need GSE aligned content in all other subject areas, excluding math and ELA. Progress Learning provides custom and pre-built assessments, targeted remediation, and progress monitoring for all Georgia state standards.

Support for All Subjects: We don’t just cover ELA—we also support math, science, and social studies in Georgia, including the recently updated math standards, for elementary, middle, and high school.

Individualized Learning Paths: Our platform ensures that students receive targeted intervention to bridge learning gaps as they adapt to new standards.

Actionable Insights: Our robust reporting and progress monitoring tools help educators track student mastery and adjust instruction accordingly.

https://progresslearning.com/news-blog/new-georgia-ela-standards-25-26/

Comments

School Districts are managed by County and each County has a School Superintendent. These County Schools will be required to comply with State Laws and State Education Department requirements. Rural Counties have already developed more useful courses, but Democrat-led Big-City County Schools are likely to resist and continue to support “activism”. School Choice Vouchers will be needed to allow parents to move their school taxes to private schools in the Big Cities.

I look forward to seeing the actual curriculum for K-8 and 8-12. This should include reading, writing and math in K-8 and occupational courses and life-skills for 9-12.

School Boards have had little to no say on curriculum. School Boards have always been limited to tearing down schools and building new schools. It’s cheaper to keep schools well maintained. They routinely fund these schools funded by Bonds and this costs double. A $20 million school funded by Bonds costs $40 million when the 30 year Bond pays 5%. Schools should be maintained to last 100 years. School Boards need to use “accrual”, not Bonds. Inflation should be limited to 1% to slow down this wasteful spending. In 1965, a good family income was $10,000 per year. In 2000, a good family income was $100,000 per year. In 2050, a good family income will be $1,000,000 per year.

I was home-schooled from 1943 to 1949. I attended Catholic Schools from 1949 to 1965 in 100 year old, well maintained and upgraded buildings. In grade school, there was no tuition. It was funded by the Parish. Nuns lived in Convents on the premises. Funding was provided by gifts to the Church. My Catholic High School tuition was $500 per year. Christian Brothers lived on campus. My Catholic University tuition was $1000 per year. Jesuit Priests lived on campus.

My Grandparents bought their large family home in 1907 for $5,000. It was well maintained and upgraded. It now belongs to my cousin and is 118 years old. It continues to be well maintained and upgraded.

In Europe, family homes are typically hundreds of years old. They continue to be well maintained and upgraded. I rest my case.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader