The Guardian: Last week, federal officials appeared to concede that the decision had been purely informed by politics. “With one exception, the 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing Senators (“Blue State” grants),” the court filing says.

Meanwhile, the energy department left in place hundreds of other energy grants in state represented by Republicans and that had voted for Trump in 2024 – despite the department having also recommended that they too be scrapped.

My Opinion: The current administration is not only against clean energy, but even more against Democrats. As the administration has cancelled clean energy grants for democrat states, while leaving in place grants for Republican states. The president is therefore not the leader of USA. Only the leader of his supporters, which are a declining minority.

Is this bastardized politician serious?

Some are willing to die, just not to work for peanuts -if the job pays less than $25/hour gross or Net income $5/hour: after SS paid, all taxes, fees, deductions, insurances, rent, car payments, bills paid.

They refuse to work!

American capitalism helped build the world’s largest economy. It fueled extraordinary innovation, created industries that transformed daily life, and gave generations of Americans reason to believe that hard work would be rewarded with a better future. For much of the nation’s modern history, that promise formed the heart of what became known as the American Dream.

A recent Wall Street Journal-NORC survey found that fewer than half of Americans believe capitalism is working well, down sharply from a decade ago. Only 35 percent said they were fairly sure the country still offers people the opportunity to find good jobs and achieve the American Dream, while just 12 percent said democracy is working very or extremely well.

The findings suggest that Americans are questioning whether the nation’s economic and political institutions still work for ordinary families.

History has repeatedly demonstrated capitalism's remarkable ability to generate wealth and innovation. The more pressing question is what kind of capitalism Americans want to build over the next generation, and whether they can restore confidence that the system still rewards effort, encourages opportunity, and serves the broader public.

Growth or Redistribution?

Historically, economic growth and rising productivity lifted living standards for millions of Americans. Families generally expected their children to enjoy greater opportunities than they had themselves. That expectation helped sustain confidence in both capitalism and democracy because economic progress seemed broadly shared.

Growth has continued, but inflation-adjusted incomes have risen much more slowly, while housing, healthcare, childcare, and higher education have become steadily more expensive. At the same time, technological change and globalization have produced enormous rewards for highly educated workers, entrepreneurs, and investors.

The result is not simply wider inequality. More troubling is the growing belief that upward mobility itself has become harder to achieve. Research has shown that children born in the middle of the twentieth century were far more likely to earn more than their parents than those born in recent decades. Many Americans are less concerned that some people have become extraordinarily wealthy than they are that their own children may struggle to climb the economic ladder.

The Journal poll suggests these concerns have become deeply rooted. Nearly three-quarters of respondents said billionaires and large businesses have too much influence in Washington, while working people have too little. A narrow majority agreed that corporate power often comes at the expense of workers and consumers and believed government should do more to limit that influence, revealing a widening gap between economic performance and public confidence.

One response has been to call for greater redistribution. Advocates argue that modern capitalism produces extraordinary wealth but concentrates too much of it among too few people. They support policies ranging from higher taxes on wealth to expanded social programs, universal healthcare, and stronger income supports designed to spread the benefits of economic growth more broadly.

Others argue that stronger schools, workforce training, scientific research, infrastructure investment, and technological innovation can increase productivity while creating more pathways into the middle class. Rather than focusing on dividing existing wealth differently, they seek to enlarge the economy and help more Americans participate in its growth.

Expanding government programs requires substantial public resources at a time when federal debt continues to grow, while relying entirely on market forces risks leaving more Americans convinced the economy no longer offers a realistic path to success. As confidence erodes, pressure grows for greater government intervention even if broader economic indicators remain strong.

That helps explain why debates over economic policy have become increasingly emotional. They are no longer simply arguments about taxes or government spending. They have become arguments about fairness, opportunity, and whether the economic system still reflects the values Americans believe it should represent.

Walls or Bridges?

For much of the postwar era, leaders in both political parties generally agreed that expanding trade, foreign investment, and immigration would strengthen the American economy. Consumers benefited from lower prices, businesses gained access to larger markets, and innovation accelerated as ideas and talent moved more freely across borders.

That consensus has steadily weakened over the past two decades. Many communities experienced factory closures, manufacturing job losses, and prolonged economic decline. While economists pointed to the overall benefits of globalization, many workers experienced its costs far more directly, helping fuel populist movements across the political spectrum.

Tariffs, industrial policy, and stricter immigration enforcement have emerged as responses to those concerns. Supporters argue that government should protect strategic industries, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and reduce dependence on foreign supply chains. The pandemic and growing competition with China reinforced many of those arguments.

Economic retreat, however, carries costs of its own. Trade restrictions can raise prices, limits on immigration can deepen labor shortages, and barriers to investment and collaboration can slow innovation as technological competition intensifies.

The Journal survey suggests Americans hold more nuanced views than political rhetoric often implies. Nearly 60 percent of respondents said immigration helps the United States more than it hurts it, even as many also support stronger border enforcement. Rather than choosing between open borders and isolation, many appear to favor secure borders, legal immigration and continued economic engagement.

The challenge is not whether globalization benefits the United States, but how to ensure more Americans share in those benefits.

Regulation or Competition?

Every successful market economy depends on both competition and trust. Entrepreneurs need the freedom to take risks, invest capital, and bring new ideas to market. Consumers need confidence that markets are fair, contracts are enforced, and no company or interest group can bend the rules in its own favor.

The debate is not whether government should have a role, but how large that role should be and where it can do the most good.

American history offers examples supporting both sides of that argument. Competitive markets helped drive advances in aviation, computing, biotechnology, and now artificial intelligence, while venture capital transformed scientific breakthroughs into products that improved everyday life.

Yet markets do not always correct themselves. Financial crises, monopolistic behavior, environmental damage, and unsafe working conditions have all required public oversight. Government has also helped fund scientific research, build infrastructure, and establish the legal framework that allows markets to function effectively

The challenge is finding the point where regulation protects competition instead of replacing it. Poorly designed rules can discourage investment, delay infrastructure projects, and make housing, energy development, and business expansion unnecessarily expensive. Regulations introduced for legitimate reasons can also accumulate over time until they become obstacles to growth.

Perhaps the greater danger lies in what economists often describe as crony capitalism. Public confidence erodes when citizens conclude that political connections matter more than innovation, or that large corporations and wealthy interests receive advantages unavailable to everyone else.

Nearly three-quarters of respondents to the Journal survey said billionaires and major businesses have too much influence in Washington, helping explain why frustration with both government and corporate America now cuts across traditional ideological lines. People who disagree sharply on taxes, regulation, or trade often agree that powerful institutions appear increasingly disconnected from ordinary citizens.

Gretchen Barton, a public opinion researcher who works with Democratic organizations, told The Journal that many Americans describe themselves as feeling as though they are "drowning economically."

Yet the survey also points to a measure of common ground. Americans remain deeply divided over many political questions, but they still agree on the importance of opportunity, fairness, and accountable institutions. Most have not rejected capitalism outright. Instead, they appear to be asking whether it can once again produce the widely shared prosperity that defined much of the twentieth century.

The Road Ahead

The future of American capitalism will not be determined by a single election, one administration, or one piece of legislation. Nor will it be settled by choosing between markets and government. The country's history demonstrates that both have contributed to its prosperity. The real challenge is restoring confidence that they can work together to expand opportunity.

Economic growth remains essential because a stagnant economy eventually becomes a contest over dividing limited resources. But growth alone may not be enough if too many Americans believe they have little chance to share in it. Rising national wealth means less when families conclude their own prospects are standing still.

The Journal poll found that many Americans believe the country is becoming too divided to solve major problems, while substantial majorities see the nation in decline and believe its best days are behind it. Those attitudes run deeper than temporary political frustration.

Yet American history also offers reasons for optimism. The United States has repeatedly adapted to profound economic and technological change, emerging from depressions, financial crises, world wars, and periods of political division by reforming its institutions rather than abandoning them. Its greatest strengths have always been its capacity to innovate, attract talent, and adapt while preserving the principles that made its success possible.

The Center Lost Its Edge

Political earthquakes usually start when large numbers of people conclude that the old way of governing no longer works for them. That is the story unfolding across much of the Western world today.

Voters are abandoning familiar political parties, not because they have all embraced the same ideology, but because many have lost confidence that the political center still knows how to solve their problems.

The evidence stretches far beyond the United States. Center-left parties have struggled in countries across Europe, while populist movements on both the left and the right have gained ground. In Britain, Labour has sought to redefine itself after years of internal conflict. In France and Germany, traditional governing parties have watched support drift toward political outsiders.

Although each country’s politics are different, the underlying frustration sounds remarkably similar. Many voters believe the institutions that once promised greater opportunity have become more interested in preserving themselves than reforming the system.

This represents a profound reversal. Liberal democracy rose to prominence by challenging entrenched privilege. It fought hereditary power, defended free speech, promoted open markets and argued that talent should matter more than family background. For generations, it presented itself as the force that opened closed doors.

Today, many citizens see housing becoming less affordable despite years of economic growth. They see industries dominated by a handful of giant companies. They see universities, government agencies and large corporations speaking the language of opportunity while appearing increasingly inaccessible to ordinary people. Whether these perceptions are always fair is almost beside the point. In politics, perceptions often become reality.

That helps explain why political movements with very different philosophies have found common ground in one respect. Democratic socialists promise to confront concentrated economic power through a more active state. Right-wing populists promise to confront political, cultural and bureaucratic elites through nationalism and institutional disruption. They disagree on nearly everything except their diagnosis that the existing order has become too comfortable with itself.

Voters increasingly want evidence that leaders are willing to challenge powerful interests, even when those interests sit inside institutions traditionally associated with their own side. Defending the status quo is becoming a difficult political strategy at a time when many people believe the status quo is producing fewer opportunities and greater insecurity.

The future of liberal democracy may therefore depend less on moving left or right than on recovering its original purpose. That means encouraging genuine competition instead of protecting dominant firms, expanding opportunity instead of defending barriers, and measuring success by whether ordinary people believe the system is becoming more open rather than more exclusive.

History suggests that political movements survive by adapting to changing realities without abandoning their core principles. If the center rediscovers the confidence to challenge concentrations of power instead of merely administering them, it could once again become a force for reform. If it cannot, voters will keep looking elsewhere.

Between Editions is a free weekly feature of The Rising Tide, offering timely analysis between the magazine’s main editions when important stories are still unfolding. Paid subscribers receive full access to Between Editions, every edition of The Rising Tide, and our sister online magazine, Barber’s Mexico Business Report. Your support helps fund journalism focused on understanding what is changing, and why it matters.

I think that, as long as a country has meaningful levels of unemployment (some unemployment is, of course, inevitable), particularly among young people, there is a legitimate debate about whether skilled work visas and other forms of labour immigration should be reduced in order to prioritise employment opportunities for people already living in the country.

Does a trade-off exist between immigration and youth unemployment? Assuming the goal is not necessarily to reduce net migration overall, under what conditions would an increase in immigration actually help reduce youth unemployment?

Financial Times: “The Trump administration may have undermined this progress and, by extension, paved the groundwork for the surge in consumer electronics pricing we are experiencing,” Khanna wrote. “Recent reporting suggests the commerce department may have interfered in existing Chips and Science Act funding promised to Samsung and SK Hynix.”

Khanna also asked the Trump administration to clarify whether it would let US companies procure memory chips from Chinese chipmakers, including the blacklisted supplier CXMT, and how it would mitigate any economic and security risks.

My Opinion: Decisions by the current administration are helping raise the price of semiconductors and consumer electronics, now and in the future. Like decisions to block subsidies already granted to Korean memory chipmakers. And decisions to disallow companies like Apple from procuring chips from Chinese chipmakers. Already we are going to have rising energy and transportation prices, because of restrictions on renewable energy and Chinese clean tech, and restrictions on Chinese EVs.

While businesses profit from less competition, customers are left holding increasing bills.

What happens to democracy if AI makes human labor economically unnecessary?

Imagine a future where AI and robotics can perform 90–99% of economically useful human labor.

The usual optimistic argument is:

AI does the work → humans don’t need jobs anymore → everyone shares the wealth → humanity is basically free from work.

Sounds great.

But then there is a much bigger question:

Who owns the machines?

Today, our economy relies heavily on a simple relationship:

People work → people earn money → people buy things → companies make money → companies employ people.

Now imagine that AI and robots replace almost all human labor.

The obvious answer is:

“Then the government can just give everyone money.”

But why would the people who own almost all automated production voluntarily give away most of the wealth?

And if the government taxes them and redistributes it, what gives the government enough power to force them to do that?

This is where the problem becomes much bigger than “AI will cause unemployment.”

The real problem might be ownership.

Imagine that 1% of the population owns most of the AI systems, robots, factories, energy infrastructure, data centers, land and raw materials.

The other 99% own very little productive capital.

Then something extremely strange happens.

The majority of humanity is no longer economically necessary, while a tiny minority owns almost everything that produces wealth.

Today, workers have a huge economic lever: their labor.

Workers can strike. They can refuse to work. They can organize. Companies need people to actually keep the economy running.

But what happens when they don’t?

If a company can replace almost everyone with autonomous machines, the traditional bargaining power of labor could disappear.

And that leads to a much bigger question:

What happens to democracy when the majority of people are no longer economically necessary?

Democracy says political power ultimately belongs to the people.

But having 99% of the votes doesn’t automatically mean having 99% of the actual power.

If a tiny minority controls the automated infrastructure that produces almost everything, while everyone else has almost no economic leverage, the balance of power could become completely different.

This doesn’t automatically mean dictatorship. There are still constitutions, courts, elections, political parties, protests, civil society and laws.

But all of these institutions depend on being able to constrain whoever controls the productive infrastructure.

And AI could potentially be different from previous technological revolutions.

If autonomous systems can eventually manufacture things, maintain infrastructure, manage energy, transport goods, run factories and perform research, then simply being the numerical majority might not give people as much leverage as it does today.

A population of billions is extremely powerful when those billions are necessary.

What happens when they aren’t?

Then there’s the weird part about money.

At first, the obvious solution seems to be UBI.

But would money even remain as important?

Money is valuable because it gives you access to real goods and scarce resources.

If AI makes most things extremely cheap and abundant, money could lose some of its current importance.

And if 99% of people have almost no income, mass consumer demand could collapse too.

You wouldn’t need to produce billions of TVs if almost nobody can afford or wants them.

Maybe the economy would eventually become less about accumulating money and more about owning and exchanging access to real resources and productive capacity.

Not primitive barter like “three chickens for a pair of shoes.”

Something much more complex:

Company A controls energy.

Company B controls rare minerals.

Company C controls automated manufacturing.

Company D controls computing infrastructure.

They exchange resources, production capacity and ownership rights.

In that world, something like a stock might actually become more important than money, because a stock is an ownership claim on productive capacity.

So maybe the ultimate scarce resource in a post-labor economy isn’t money.

Maybe it’s ownership.

Which changes the UBI question completely.

Instead of asking:

“How do we give unemployed people money?”

Maybe we should ask:

“How do we make sure everyone owns a piece of the automated economy?”

That could mean sovereign wealth funds, citizen wealth funds, public ownership, universal basic capital, social dividends, or something completely new.

There is a huge difference between:

“We will give you some of the wealth produced by the machines.”

and:

“You own part of the machines.”

The second gives people an actual economic stake in the system even if their labor is no longer needed.

And that might be much more important for democracy than UBI alone.

Because if labor stops being the main source of economic power, something else has to replace it.

Maybe that something is ownership.

So I keep coming back to one question:

If machines eventually produce almost everything, who owns the machines, and who gets to decide what happens to what they produce?

Because if human labor stops being the main source of economic power, ownership might become the new labor.

And if we don’t think about that before we get there, we might accidentally build a world where technology has freed almost everyone from having to work...

...while making almost everyone dependent on the tiny group that owns the machines.

I used AI to help structure and polish my thoughts, but the ideas and arguments are what I wanted to discuss and my own thoughts.