Send us a text

Kamala Harris' recent announcement that she would not be seeking to become the next governor of California was not a total surprise given the shellacking she suffered in the 2024 presidential election coupled with the squandering of a $1 billion campaign fund in 3-months. Many anonymous donors have said that they do not view her as a viable candidate for future presidential runs but acknowledge that she would be the leading candidate for governor in California due to her name recognition and the fact that she is unburdened by what has been and what will be. Adam and Jeff, noted experts in career opportunities for ex-presidents, suggest that she might be better suited for a university position as a linguistics professor or perhaps a name partner at a leading law firm if she could be locked into a sound proofed corner office without access to a phone or email. Turning to Gavin Newsom, the Omaha Bugle correspondents both concede that whoever is the head of the Democratic Party in California is virtually immune from challenge because policy results simply don't matter very much. Adam and Jeff believe that Newsom's disastrous record would not play well at the national level but they do acknowledge that his hair will not move even in hurricane-force winds.

Send us a text

Would-be Fed governor applicants Adam and Jeff consider whether the incessant demands by American presidents that the Fed lower interest rates really makes any difference. Jeff points out that the historical interest rates for the past century or so have averaged around 6% to 8% with a few outliers in which rates were extraordinarily high or low. Politicians want lower rates because it reduces the costs of borrowing which theoretically causes people to borrow more money to build homes and factories and improve productivity. Or maybe it does nothing at all in the end. Adam, who is very accurate on occasion, suggests that the Fed funds rate has very little to do with the actual interest rates that banks charge their customers. However, Jeff argues that the Fed acts as a signal-caller for the national economy and that its actions carry tremendous psychological weight when lenders are deciding whether to raise or lower the rates for credit cards, for example, from a comparatively low 28% to a lofty 33% rate. Both Adam and Jeff feel that the fact that the dollar, like every other modern currency, is not tied to any actual tangible asset such as gold, creates enormous potential for banker mischief--which has resulted in a 96% reduction of purchasing power in the dollar in the past century.

Send us a text

In the wake of the American bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, Adam and Jeff discuss the apparent lack of response by either Russia or China to the attack. Adam believes that the lack of response is due to the reluctance of both countries to call attention to themselves due to their failure to respond in any meaningful way. Jeff suggests that neither Russia or China have any type of mutual defense treaty obligations with Iran, because they would both be concerned that Tehran would pull them into a war with Israel and the United States. Indeed, any patronage by Russia and China of Iran may be nothing more than a coldhearted calculation of influence buying in the Middle East. Iran could be seen by both Russia and China as a foothold whereby they can challenge the hegemony of the United States in the Middle East without getting their hands too dirty. Jeff suggests the muted responses of both China and Russia to the bombings reflects the increasingly poor prospects facing both countries due to declining economic growth rates, declining populations, and a generally deteriorating geostrategic position in the international system.