The New York Times today reports that the US Attorney’s office in the District of Columbia has opened a criminal investigation into Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. Ostensibly and officially, the investigation is into the nature of the Federal Reserve’s renovation of its Washington headquarters, and whether or not Powell lied to Congress about the scope of the project. In the world of politics, stated reasons rarely match the actual reasons, however. 

In his press conference on January 3 concerning the arrest of Venezuelan “narco-dictator” Nicolas Maduro, President Donald Trump talked about US oil companies restoring the former productivity of Venezuela’s oil industry and using that money for 1) compensation for the nationalization of the industry a couple decades ago; and, 2) (somehow) benefiting the people of Venezuela.

The Mail reports Trump has asked the Joint Special Operations Command to come up with an invasion plan, but the joint chiefs are resisting because they believe an invasion would be illegal and lack congressional support.

I want to begin by asking a simple question: Why can’t I have my own money printer? It may seem like a silly question, but the principles and effects that emerge from thinking about it are profound.

To understand the effects, we must also ask another question: What would happen if I had my own money printer? The answer is simple: I’d print my own money, of course. The consequences of having the power to print money would be innumerable, as it would change almost everything, from the decisions I make to the whole direction of my life.

According to the leader of the monetarists school, Milton Friedman, our knowledge of the world of economics is elusive. Consequently, it does not really matter what the underlying presuppositions of a theory employed to ascertain the nature of reality are. In fact, anything goes, as long as the theory can yield good predictions. By this thinking, any theory that is applied on historical data could be valid as long as it could produce accurate predictions.

President Trump has told The New York Times that he expects to “run” Venezuela for many years following the US attack on Caracas to abduct President Nicolas Maduro.

In modern political debate, rising costs of living are usually blamed on markets. Housing is “unaffordable.” Healthcare is “broken.” Education is “too expensive.” The proposed remedy is almost always the same: more public spending, more intervention, more emergency programs funded by government credit.

But what if the affordability crisis is not a failure of markets at all? What if it is the predictable outcome of how modern governments finance themselves?

Money is often described as neutral, technical, or merely instrumental—a passive medium facilitating exchange within an otherwise political society. This view is not only mistaken; it is profoundly misleading. Money is the hidden constitution of every political order. It determines which actions are possible, which institutions survive, which risks are rewarded, and which failures are forgiven. While constitutions proclaim rights and legislatures debate policy, money silently governs outcomes. For this reason, the structure of a monetary system is never merely economic.