The Shale Revolution

It is incredible to see how the United States has been transformed from the largest importer of oil in the world to the one of the largest exporters of oil over the last 20 years.

None of this would have been possible without The Shale Revolution.

In the 2005-2010 period the United States was importing as much as 450 million barrels of oil per month while exporting less than 50 million. A trade deficit of 400 million barrels per month.

Today the United States is a net exporter of oil that totals about 100 million barrels per month.

This is largely due to the shale revolution that, more than anything, has made the United States energy independent. 

The United States has also become the largest oil producer in the world.

 

In fact, the United States now produces more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia (#2 and #3) COMBINED.

It is also allowing President Trump to negotiate deals with Europe, China and others to buy our oil and gas and reduce our overall trade deficit.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/trump-says-china-wants-buy-oil-us-2026-05-15/

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-share-europes-lng-imports-increased-60-january-2026-01-30/

Natural gas from shale drilling has also saved American consumers trillions of dollars in energy bills over the last 20 years.

A recent analysis by UC Berkeley's Energy Institute at Haas concluded that cheaper natural gas due to shale drilling in the United States had resulted in around $5 trillion in savings for natural gas consumers since 2007.

Let it not be forgotten that none of this would have occurred if liberal Democrats had their way.

When Donald Trump ran for President in 2016 he often referred to his energy policy this way,

"Drill Baby Drill".

At the same time, Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were opposed to exploration of shale oil and gas.

Democrat-run New York is one of the liberal states that bans fracking exploration for shale oil and gas despite having some of the largest reserves in the United States within its borders.

When Barack Obama was President in 2012 he said that "we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices".

He said that at a time when gas prices nationally were $3.72 per gallon.

The Shale Revolution proved Obama wrong.

We did drill our way to lower prices. 

This chart of U.S. crude oil production shows how it was done..

The United States is producing over twice as much crude oil as it did in 2012.

Source: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_crude_oil_field_production

Natural gas production in North America has increased from 65 BCF (billion cubic feet) in 2010 to 110 BCF day.

That increase is almost entirely due to The Shale Revolution.

This is the major reason as to why natural gas consumers in the United States saved $5 trillion over the last 20 years.

 

Credit: https://x.com/jackprandelli/status/2056845087653417019

For most of the last 15 years gas prices at the pump have been well below that $3.72 Obama-era price due to U.S. drilling of shale oil reserves.

Increased supply kept gas prices in check.

For some portions of the first Trump term, gas prices actually were below $2 per gallon.

Source: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W

Adjusted for inflation, that $3.72 price for a gallon of gas in 2012 would be $5.40 today.

Yes, gas prices are high right now due to what is going on with Iran but the enhanced national and economic security that the shale revolution has provided to the United States cannot be overstated.

It is yet another reminder how important it is on who we elect as our representatives.

If you think it is bad right now, you really have no idea how bad it could have been if the shale revolution was never allowed to evolve.

The Collapse of Connection

There has been an enormous decline in the percentage of seniors in high school who say that they have consumed alcoholic drinks.

From over 90% in the 1980's to less than 50% today.

On its face, this should be viewed as a positive development.

However, this trend in likely not because teens are more health conscious.

They just are not hanging out with friends.

They are not socializing and making connections with others.

They are not dating as much and not having sex.

More than 50% of high school students had engaged in sex in 1991.

Less than one-third have today.

They are not even driving as much.

Only 25% of 16 year-olds have a driver's license.

 

That is about half of what it was in 1981.

Even more surprising to me, only 60% of 18 year olds were licensed drivers.

And only 80% of adults in their 20's had a driver's license in 2021.

I guess it is great that young adults are not drinking and driving and having sex.

However, what are the implications and why has so much changed in the last 30-40 years?

The reasons for the collapse in connection is undoubtedly multi-faceted.

However, it is hard to overlook the fact that the trends accelerated after the introduction of smartphones in 2008.

Almost half of teenagers say they are online "almost constantly."

That is double what it was ten years ago.

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/teens-and-internet-device-access-fact-sheet/

It goes without saying that if you have your head buried in your phone you are not going to be connecting very much with other human beings.

You also apparently are not very motivated to get your driver's license.

It must just be easier to use your phone and have an Uber take you where you want to go.

The use of smartphones and internet usage is also a reason why most marriages today result from meeting others online than through traditional connections such as via friends, work, school or the bar scene.

Notice how the personal connections (friends, family and neighbors) that used to dominate the "meet market" have dropped the most.

When you are not in the real world interacting with others there is a lot that is missing in the formative period that used to transform adolescents into adults.

Adjusting to life as an adult has never been easy. 

Dealing with social hierarchy, responsibility, accountability, rejection, shame, courage and all the rest.

Living life and having to deal with other human beings provided a lot of these lessons in the past during the adolescent years.

The collapse of connections is delaying this maturation process.

It is also delaying marriages.

Later marriages also reduces the overall fertility rate.

The biological clock of a woman is immutable.

Consider fertility rates in the United States over time.

Source: https://x.com/biancoresearch/status/2055408053952860331

This graph tells us there will be a lot fewer children in primary and secondary schools in the coming years.

Colleges are going to come under increasing pressure due to fewer prospective students, due not only to lower birth rates beginning in 2008, but also increasing questions about the value proposition of college considering its high costs and uncertain job prospects.

The Financial Times recently did an article that suggests that fertility rates around the world have

 collapsed in the wake of the introduction of the smartphone.

Perhaps it is merely correlation rather than causation but there seems to be no denying that the collapse of connection is also having an effect on the collapse in birth rates.

From the article.

Nathan Hudson and Hernan Moscoso-Boedo of the University of Cincinnati published a paper last month looking at birth rates through the lens of the rollout of 4G mobile networks in the US and UK.

The number of births fell first and fastest in the areas that received high-speed mobile connectivity earliest. The authors argue that smartphones have transformed how young people spend time with one another, sharply reducing in-person socialising and leading to the collapse in their fertility.

FT research indicates the same trend has affected other countries.

For example, US, British and Australian birth rates for teens and young adults were broadly flat during the early 2000s but began to fall markedly from 2007.

The same slide began in France and Poland around 2009, and in Mexico, Morocco and Indonesia around 2012. What had been steady declines in fertility in Ghana, Nigeria and Senegal became precipitous drops between 2013 and 2015.

All of these inflection points coincided with the mass adoption of smartphones in local markets — as measured by Google searches for mobile apps.

In country after country the birth rate plunged after the introduction of smartphones, no matter what the previous trend was. The younger the age group, the more pronounced the downturn — a mirror image of smartphone usage patterns.

Melissa Kearney, professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame, says it is “quite plausible that the modern digital media environment has had profound effects on society that have led to a decline in romantic coupling”.

Indeed, Hudson and Moscoso-Boedo’s thesis that the key factor is less time spent socialising in person is supported by evidence from dozens of countries. In South Korea young adult in-person socialising has halved in 20 years.

“To meet a person you are going to marry requires filtering through a lot of people,” says demographer Lyman Stone. “If you socialise much less, it takes you much longer to find a match if you find one at all.”

He adds: “If you spend lots of time socialising with your peers in the real world, your standards [for a potential partner] are anchored in the real world. If you spend your time on Instagram, your standards are anchored to an artificial sense of what is normal.”

It is useful to consider the total implications of all of this and where the trends take us.

1. Collapse of Connection

2. Collapse of Coupling

3. Collapse of Children

4. Collapse of Civilization

If you doubt it, consider this eye opening factoid about where Thailand ends up if it continues with its current 0.8 fertility rate.

You don't need to get to 200 years to find out.

The civilization will be gone long before then.

An 0.8 fertility rate will result in a reduction in the population of a civilization of 60%-80% within two generations.

By that time most of the connections humans have may be limited to their personal robots.

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/robot-personhood-rights-responsibility-safety-europe-1.4044741

A Day Late And A Dollar Short

A groundbreaking ceremony was held last week for construction of a new bridge that will span the Ohio River between Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky carrying traffic on Interstates 71 and 75.

It will replace the Brent Spence Bridge that has carried interstate traffic through that corridor since 1963.

The new bridge is projected to cost over $4 billion.

This bridge project has been talked about for years.

In fact, I wrote about it in 2012 when then President Obama was using it as the type of project that could benefit from the infrastructure package he was trying to get through Congress.

Obama referred to the Brent Spence Bridge as a "broken down" bridge that people "were having to drive an hour and a half of extra commuting just to get across the Ohio River."

Of course, none of that was true.

The bridge is not broken down. It has decades of life left in it.

In fact, the Brent Spence Bridge will continue to be used after the new span is completed. It will be repurposed for local traffic,

There are backups in rush hour onto the bridge but it has far less congestion than many major traffic arteries in other big cities I have visited.

No one is certainly driving an hour out of their way in their commute to avoid it.

It is true the bridge was originally designed to carry 85,000 vehicles and in the Obama years it was approaching 180,000 cars and trucks per day.

However,  traffic over the bridge today is actually seeing less traffic than it was 15 years ago.

None of the projections about future traffic on the bridge have turned out to be accurate.

Source: https://x.com/bradleywthomas/status/2054558613222396251

The bridge project was also not "shovel ready" as Obama liked to say about much of the infrastructure spending he was promoting during his administration.

We are 15 years beyond when Obama visited Cincinnati and used the Brent Spence Bridge as a backdrop in promoting his infrastructure stimulus package.

It is still standing and actually has less traffic on it today than it did 15 years ago.

What I find most interesting is the cost.

$4+ billion!!!

How much did the original bridge cost that was opened in 1963?

$10 million.

Just since Obama visited Cincinnati the cost of the project has risen from $2.5 billion to over $4 billion.

How does a bridge that cost $10 million 60 years ago come to cost over $4 billion today? That is a 400,000% increase. Have steel and concrete costs increased that much? How about labor costs? It is not even close.

Adjusting merely for the consumer price index that $10 million bridge in 1963 would cost $110 million today. That is a long way from $4+ billion. Where are all the extra costs coming from?

A big part of the reason is clearly related to the enormous amount of regulations that any major infrastructure or capital project must adhere to today compared to 1963. 

Environmental impact studies, urban impact studies, minority hiring regulations, wage and hour rules, OSHA regulations and many more. 

Many of these government regulations are important and well meaning. However, we need to fully understand the burden of these costs on our economy. The benefits as well as the costs. 

There are also opportunity costs involved in a project as large as this Ohio River bridge project.

The federal government has provided a grant of $1.6 billion for the project but Ohio's share is estimated to be at least $1.5 billion with Kentucky making up the remainder.

Considering that Ohio spends about $2.5 billion per year on all road projects in the state (excluding federal dollars) that sum will absorb a good size share of the entire road budget in Ohio for the next several years.

It is obviously one of the reasons that Ohio Governor Mike DeWine recently stated he is opposed to providing a gas tax holiday as other states (including neighboring Kentucky and Indiana) have done to try to alleviate some of the pain of recent gasoline prices as the pump.

Source: https://www.wlwt.com/article/andy-beshear-mike-dewine-ohio-kentucky-gas-tax/71233931

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear has signed an emergency regulation to suspend a pending increase in the state's gas tax and is proposing a 10-cent reduction, citing the impact of the U.S. war with Iran on fuel prices.

Across the river in Ohio, Gov. Mike DeWine has taken a different stance, stating he does not support freezing or cutting Ohio's gas tax despite acknowledging the financial strain on residents.

"It's a big, big shock," DeWine said, referring to rising fuel costs.

DeWine explained that inflation has reduced the value of the gas tax by 30% compared to six years ago, "which simply means that the money doesn't go nearly, nearly as far."

"These are always tough choices. But the answer is, I think it would be a very grave disservice to the people of the state of Ohio to suspend that user tax," DeWine said.

He added, "I think Ohioans would feel the pain of that in the months ahead as our roads deteriorated."

For context, Ohio's gas tax is 38.5 cents per gallon.

Indiana is 59.3 cents per gallon but has been reduced to zero until at least June 7, 2026.

Kentucky is 26.4 cents (currently reduced to 16.4 cents).

DeWine says Ohio cannot afford a temporary gas tax holiday to pay for a $4 billion bridge but he apparently was fine with what appears to be billions of dollars in Medicaid fraud that seem to have been centered on Somalian immigrants that was going on right under his nose in Columbus, Ohio.

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6395009476112

For context, Ohio spends about $40 billion per year on Medicaid.

If fraud only accounts for 5% of the total Medicaid spend, that is almost equal to what state tax dollars go to roads annually in Ohio

Meanwhile, Governor DeWine says that Ohio taxpayers should not be concerned with the reports of fraud since he announced this week that new fraud  prevention initiatives are being implemented that have been "LONG IN DEVELOPMENT".

He claims this will enhance Ohio's nation-leading work in protecting taxpayer funds from those trying to defraud the State.

The question is why were these initiatives LONG IN DEVELOPMENT but never got to the point of DEPLOYMENT until an independent journalist did his own investigation into the fraud that apparently has bee ongoing for a number of years.?

The bridge construction and the Medicaid fraud in Ohio tell the same story.

The bridge project made more sense 15 years ago when traffic was heavier than it is today.

The project also only got more expensive in the intervening years.

Investigating Medicaid fraud after billions of dollars have already been stolen (and money that could have been used for education, highway projects, etc) doesn't make me feel better as an Ohio taxpayer.

When it comes to government providing what we need, how is it that the solutions almost always end up being a day late and a dollar short?

Plenty Of Enemies

The primary foreign policy objective of the United States for most of my lifetime was to prevent and contain the spread of communism around the world.

This was based on the fundamental principle that people should have as much freedom to conduct their lives as they wished and government should have a limited role in the ownership of property and controlling the means of production.

Hindering the growth of collectivism around the world where the government determined the needs of each citizen and redistributed income and wealth as it saw fit.

In a communist society the people are subservient to the government and dependent on it for all things in order to meet the goal of being a classless society in which there is no economic inequality. Collectivism is seen as the ideal state in that the government determines the needs of each citizen and redistributes income and wealth as it sees fit.

Communism was viewed as in direct contravention of the foundational principles of the United States---both democracy and capitalism---which was seen as not only a threat to the United States but also to the world at large.

Preventing the spread of communism from the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc of Europe was the major reason for the creation of NATO.

Over the 75 years of NATO's existence the United States spent trillions of dollars on Europe's defense to deter the further the spread of communist ideology westward from the Soviet Union.

In the Cold War era, as many as 500,000 U.S, military personnel were based in Europe as part of the NATO force. Recently, those numbers have been in the range of 100,000 to provide for the defense against aggression from Russia.

The United States entered the Vietnam War to defend South Vietnam from the communists from North Vietnam and to prevent the spread of communism to other Asian countries.

That conflict cost the lives of 58,220 Americans which are now memorialized on a wall in Washington, D.C.

In recent years we have had to increase defense spending to meet the emergence of the global ambitions of Chinese communists and their provocative actions in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

Source: https://saisreview.sais.jhu.edu/a-calm-before-the-storm-south-china-sea-powder-keg/

I recount this history as context for the following graphic that I recently came across that compares the amount of public spending as a % of total GDP for various countries.

Here is a broader look at the data as compiled by a Dutch site.

Notice that most of the Western European countries have public spending approaching or exceeding 50% of GDP.

Credit: https://x.com/RubenWizard88/status/2053203110298833305

What is incredible about the data is that the so-called Communist countries have lower percentages of public spending than what are supposed to be those nations dedicated to freedom, democracy and capitalism.

Vietnam, who we lost much blood and treasure to save from communism, is spending only about half as much on public spending as the United States.

Communist China also spends a lower percentage on government spending than the United States does.

France spends more on public spending today than the Soviet Union did  at the height of the communist Soviet Union in 1990 before it collapsed in 1991 along with its Eastern bloc countries such as Poland

Today the United States share of public spending as a % of the GDP is actually higher than Russia.

Russia's public spending was at 36.9% of GDP in 2024 compared to 37.6% in the United States.

At the same time, Europe's share of public spending as a % of GDP averages 10 points higher than Russia today.

This all occurred while we were supposedly defending Europe from the evils of collectivism.

We didn't want them to be taken over by the Soviet Union.

Instead, they largely did it to themselves.

The further irony in all of this is that while United States foreign policy was opposing communism around the world, its own domestic policy moved further and further to the left.

The United States has suffered far less from communist aggression than it has from self-inflicted wounds from socialist and leftist policies within our own body politic.

There is almost no sphere of life that government interference, spending and control has not become more entrenched in the United States than it was 75 years ago.

We did to ourselves what no foreign adversary could so to us.

You would think that there has never been a real life example of taking a country with the same people and dividing them into two parts to see which system works better---one dedicated to democracy, free enterprise and capitalism and another to central governmental control and collectivism.

Has anyone heard about Korea and Germany?

Same people. Same language. Same historical culture. 

They chose different economic and political systems from what once was a single country.

Korea.

Germany.

Could it be any clearer?

All of this also shows that the biggest dangers we face are almost always greater within our gates than on outside.

This was observation that Cicero also made over 2,000 years ago in speaking about what was then the Roman republic.

"The enemy is within the gates; it is with our own luxury, our own folly, our own criminality that we have to contend." ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero

Some lessons seems to be particularly hard to learn and remember.

A Builder At Heart

There continues to be complaints by Democrats and the liberal media about President Trump's plans to build a ballroom addition as part of a new East Wing of The White House.

This is despite the fact that the old East Wing has already been demolished, construction is ongoing and  an attempted assassination of the President at a less than secure hotel ballroom in Washington, DC is fresh in everyone's mind.

A lawsuit by those who oppose the White House renovation is moving forward even though the Department of Justice made a request for the plaintiffs to drop the lawsuit.

 

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/27/trump-ballroom-whcd-doj-lawsuit.html

I wrote about the ballroom project and dispelled many of the myths about it in a blog post last August just before construction began.

One of the biggest myths was that Trump was wasting taxpayer dollars.

The fact is that it is all being paid for by Trump and private donors.

The White House cannot currently host any more than 200 for a dinner or other gathering.

It does not have any rooms that can accommodate anything larger.

Large state dinners require the construction of a temporary tent on the premises.

The tent look is not exactly in keeping with what you would expect from the nation's executive mansion.

On the other hand, the new Ballroom looks spectacular and can seat up to 1.000.

I also pointed out that none of the improvements were going to benefit Trump in any meaningful way.

The ballroom and the attendant facilities will not be completed until the final few months of his term (expected completion is late 2028) even if everything stays on schedule.

Trump is doing all of this to benefit future occupants of The White House and the nation. 

He is looking at this as a legacy project that will be an asset to the country that will last well beyond his time on earth.

All of the controversy was put into better perspective for me recently as I read a book written by the Chief Usher of The White House, J.B. West, who served from the time of FDR until Nixon.

This was the man charged with running White House operations, its maintenance and any construction projects, for six Presidents. 

In the book he recounts many controversies dealing with changes to the The White House buildings and grounds during his tenure.

The East Wing was not even added to The White House until shortly after World War II began when the primary objective was the need to build a bomb shelter on the grounds. The East Wing was built over it to to disguise the bomb shelter and provide additional office space needed for the war effort.

The East Wing that was demolished to make way for the new Ballroom was hurriedly constructed in less than nine months largely to disguise a bomb shelter.

It was almost one hundred years old and from all reports was in need of much repair.

This makes it of "historical significance" to never be touched again?

You can be assured that the Ballroom will sit above a much improved and secure bomb shelter and much more when it is completed.

West also shared the story of how Harry Truman wanted to construct a balcony directly above the South Portico of The White House.

This was intended to protect the portico below from the elements as well as allow the First Family direct access to a porch area above.

Truman wanted a nice area to sit in the evening overlooking the Washington Monument as well as removing awnings that he intensely disliked which were used to keep the sun and weather from the lower portico.

This is what the South Portico looked like before the Truman balcony was added.

Credit: http://www.tysto.com/floor2/truman-balcony.htm

Truman's idea was met with a storm of criticism, which according to West, included "a hullabaloo through the entire country about that balcony and how it would destroy America's heritage." They called it 'Truman's folly".

The Fine Arts Commission in D.C. (who advise and approve architectural plans for the nation's capital) refused to approve the change.

Truman said, "The hell with them; I'm going to do it anyway" he told West and others.

He did it and shortly after replaced the chairman of the Fine Arts Commission who was the biggest critic of the project.

This is what The White House looks with the Truman Balcony today.

Credit: https://drpence.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/upstairs-at-the-white-house/

It seems like a big improvement to me. What did the Fine Arts Commission know?

You can appreciate it even more if you are standing on that balcony as the President or First Lady. 

What a view!

Credit: https://www.whitehouse.gov/gallery/independence-day/

Trump was a little smarter about the Ballroom project. He got the Fine Arts Commission (all Trump appointees) to approve the project so he did not have to say "to hell with them" like Harry did.

Trump was also smarter in that he put his own money behind what he wanted to do and lined up private donations to fund the project rather than rely on congressional funding.

A common theme that runs through the West book is the ongoing problem of finding money to fund the improvements and enhancements that the President and/or First Lady needed to fund their projects. The last thing any of them wanted to do was to go to Congress for the funds.

That was true even when Jackie Kennedy undertook her Rose Garden project and the major revamp and renovation of The White House she undertook during the term of her husband. No funds were forthcoming from the Kennedy fortune to put into any government property. Kennedy money apparently was only used to benefit the Kennedys.

Most projects were funded with creative accounting or having it paid out of another executive branch budget.

Say what you want about Trump but he has been willing to use his own money or find private donations for improvements to The White House.

He did it for the rework of The Rose Garden in which he replaced the grass in the middle with pavers to make the space more functional for large crowds.

Updated Rose Garden where women and others no longer have their shoes sink into wet grass

He also recently used his own funds to pay for redoing the West Wing Colonnade walkway from decades-old flagstone to a flame-finished, non-slip charcoal black granite.

Here is President Trump and King Charles walking on the newly installed walkway that Trump paid for with his personal funds.

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/i-spotted-king-charles-telling-off-mic-comment-directly-after-donald-trump-s-speech/ar-AA21VQhZ

I continue to be amazed at the antagonism and animosity that President Trump engenders no matter what he does.

When it comes to renovations and improvements at The White House it seems that he has not been alone.

There seem have been plenty over the years that would like to see the President's house frozen in time based on some "historical significance" or "heritage" argument.

Preservationists must like the days when everyone lived in tents, nights were only lit with candlelight and there was an outhouse at the back of The White House.

Thank goodness we have a President who is more concerned with making the future better than living in the past.

There is nothing that shows that more graphically than the renovation that Trump recently did to the bathroom that adjoins the famous Lincoln bedroom at The White House.

This is the bathroom that Trump inherited to begin his second term.

Does this look like anything fit for the Executive Mansion in the year 2025?

I have stayed in run down motels with better facilities.

Credit:https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/nation/2025/11/01/lincoln-bathroom-trump-white-house-renovation/87035396007/

It looks like it had not been touched since Winston Churchill stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom on visits during World War II.

Here is the recent Trump renovation.

Credit: https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/nation/2025/11/01/lincoln-bathroom-trump-white-house-renovation/87035396007/

Credit: https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/nation/2025/11/01/lincoln-bathroom-trump-white-house-renovation/87035396007/

I rest my case.

Trump is just not the President.

He is a builder at heart with a lot of vision for making things better.

As an added bonus, he also is willing to bring his checkbook.

Keep Your Eyes On The Size Of The Pie

We constantly hear from Liberals in the United States that it is not fair that the Top 1% have so much income

We are told they have too great a share of the national income.

The 1% should pay more in taxes.

We would all be much better if we were more like Europe or another country.

Let's take a step back and put the issue in context.

In 2024, it took $650,000 of income to put you in the Top 1% in the United States.

Let's compare that to some European countries.

Would the United States really be a better place to live if it was more like Europe?

Granted, there is more so-called income inequality today in the United States than in Europe.

I pointed that out in an earlier blog post on that subject in February titled "Income and Wealth Inequality"

It is true that the United States has more income and wealth inequality than European countries that have adopted stronger socialist welfare states than the U.S has.

However, the actual gap has not really changed much in the last 45 years between the United States and these other countries.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality

You also have to take into account the relative differences in the amount of income and wealth there is to divide between various countries.

The size of the pot of income and wealth also matters.

For example, Czechia has a Gini coefficient of .33 which is the top income equality score in the world.

However, Czechia's GDP per capita is almost $30,000 less than the United States.

There is a big difference in being in the bottom half of income earners in 'equitable' Czechia compared to living in the so-called 'inequitable' United States.

The size of the income pot matters a great deal.

The numbers above show that it is clearly better to be in the top 1% in the United States than in other countries.

However, the same can be said for every other group as you go down the income ladder because of the fact that the income pie is so much larger in the United States.

You really see that by comparing the United States 1% to some other countries in the world.

  

The fact is that a high percentage of the United States population would qualify for the top 1% in many countries in the world.

You can be sure that the people from many of these countries who want to immigrate to the United States are not concerned about "income inequality" in the United States.

They want a piece of that larger income pie for themselves and their family.

That includes those who might be 1% earners in countries like Australia and Canada who see the potential difference in their income potential in the United States.

You can put all of this in further context by looking at the 1% income level from a state level perspective.

It took $1.2 million of income to break into the Top 1% of earners in Connecticut.

West Virginia has the lowest threshold---$420,000.

However, that is still almost twice the level of income to qualify to be in the top 1% as you will find in much of Europe, Australia and Canada.

All of this reinforces the conclusion that I made in my earlier post this year on income equality.

The most important thing is to keep your eyes on the size of the pie.

We should not ignore the issue of income inequality in public policy discussions but our time would be much better spent working to make the economic pie bigger rather than worrying about how to slice it.

The bottom line is that we are in this together in this country.  President Kennedy said it best 60 years ago when he said, "A rising tide raises all boats".   

The reality is that when the rich do better it follows that everyone generally does better.  If the rich become poorer, we all most certainly will become poorer.  

We need to start recognizing that if the 1% and 99% work together we will get much more than 100% in the end. 

If we pit the 99% versus the 1%, it is guaranteed that we will get much less than 100%.

Last Rites For LIV Golf?

I have written about the LIV Golf Tour several times in these pages over the four years it has been in existence.

LIV was formed in 2022 with financial backing by the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund which is the sovereign wealth fund for that nation.

LIV offered players big signing bonuses to join its tour as well as no-cut events in which every player was guaranteed a portion of a purse that was significantly larger than most PGA events.

LIV ultimately attracted high profile names to its tour including Bryson DeChambeau, Brook Koepka, Jon Rahm, Patrick Reed, Cameron Smith, Dustin Johnson and Phil Mickelson among others.

From the outset, it was difficult for me to figure out what the Saudis saw as the end game in all of this so that they would see a return on what looked liked a couple of billion dollars of investment.

Was the expectation that they were going to force a merger with the PGA Tour where they would get a large share of the equity or a big pay off through some type of legal settlement?

This has usually been the outcome when other upstart professional leagues (AFL, ABA etc) set out to compete with established pro circuits.

However, it was difficult for me to see there was enough money in the game to justify the high upfront payments that LIV was paying to its players.

I predicted that LIV was likely to be a failed enterprise due to the fact that while it may have talented players, it appeared that it did not have a good path for distribution of the product.

Content my be king. However, distribution is the kingdom.

Think of the traditional music or movie business. You could have the greatest song or film (content). However, if no one had the ability to hear the song on a radio station or see the film in a movie theater (distribution) it meant nothing. 

LIV started with no tv deal the first season. LIV gradually improved its tv deals but almost no one watched anyway. Attendance at the international events drew pretty well but the U.S. events struggled. 

If no one is watching your product, you have a hard time attracting sponsors for tv and tour events.

I suggested at the outset that if LIV was not able to convince any of the big name, big spending PGA Tour sponsors such as FedEx, Schwab, RBC, AT&T. Coca Cola etc. to spread some of their money around to LIV it was not likely to live.

It never happened.

I wrote this in "Will The LIV Golf Tour Live?" as the new golf tour was just getting started four years ago.

If sponsors decide to start spreading their marketing dollars to include LIV, the PGA Tour is going to have problems.

However, until that happens, LIV's prospects are not good.

As for LIV's players, I hope they got the money upfront and have good investment advisors to invest the money for their futures.

Their future in golf is likely to be irrelevant going forward.

Some of these guys may have (or could have) been kings of the game.

However, the fact is that they don't rule the kingdom.

And those who control the majors and PGA Tour do right now.

Saudi Arabia and LIV want a piece of that kingdom.

LIV may get some type of monetary settlement from the PGA Tour in the end.

Perhaps a couple of LIV events will be incorporated into the PGA Tour when this is all over.

The PGA Tour may lose its tax-exempt status due to the scrutiny it will be under.

The charities that the PGA Tour supports may end up with less.

However, I will be shocked if an independent LIV Golf Tour exists in three years time.

I am not betting on LIV living long term.

All that I wrote four years ago was pretty much on target. 

However, my prediction on how long LIVE would last was off by a year.

Why? 

I could not conceive that the Saudis would pour as much much money into a failing enterprise as it did before pulling the plug.

The Saudis invested a reported $6 billion into LIV since its inception as it was never able to build any other sustainable revenue sources.

Last week, the Saudis said they would stop funding LIV at the end of the current season.

Even rich Middle Eastern oil sheiks apparently have their limits.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/sports/golf/liv-golf-pga-tour-bryson-dechambeau-3abf7b85

The Saudis will have spent that $6 billion on the venture while apparently having nothing to show for it.

There was no monetary settlement.

There was no merger.  There was a lot of talk and negotiating but no deal was consummated.

The PGA Tour did restructure and established a for-profit entity as a holding company for the tour events that still benefit charities as a tax-exempt entity.

The PGA Tour did attract additional capital investors that solidified its financial position and gave its players the ability to become equity owners.

Top tier PGA Tour players saw tournament purses grow for so-called Signature events with limited fields that gave them more opportunity to fatten their bank accounts.

Brooks Koepka and Patrick Reed saw the writing on the wall and left LIV earlier this year and have found a path back to PGA Tour status.

Other star players such as DeChambeau, Rahm and Cameron Smith now face a more painful road back.

As I pointed out four years ago and repeated above,

"I hope they got the money upfront and have good investment advisors to invest the money for their futures."

These were the reported financial penalties associated with the eventual reinstatement of Brooks Koepka to the PGA Tour.

Source: Google AI Overview

Bear in mind, this was a one-time "preferential" deal offered to former major champions earlier this year.

DeChambeau and Rahm did not take the PGA Tour up on the offer.

This would suggest that the road back to the PGA Tour for those two and others who bolted to LIV will be very painful indeed.

There is a lot of resentment that PGA Tour regulars carry because of the defections of their fellow players to LIV.

That is particularly true for DeChambeau and Rahm.

Bryson joined an antitrust lawsuit against the PGA Tour that cost millions and millions of dollars in legal fees to defend.

Rahm was not in the original group that went to LIV but joined for the 2024 season when LIV was already showing signs that it might fail or be forced to merge with the PGA Tour.

As a result of the timing of Rahm's defection, LIV and the Saudis were infused with a new sense of optimism that undoubtedly extended the entire drama by at least another year over what it should have,

PGA Tour players and the PGA Tour Board will not forget either instance when considering the futures of DeChambeau and Rahm.

Newly appointed PGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp told The Wall Street Journal recently that plenty of people at the PGA Tour have "scar tissue" regarding everything to do with LIV, the lawsuit and the defections. All of these will factor into how painful the road back will  be for individual players.

You also have to wonder about the future of Yasir Al-Ramayyan, the head of the Saudi Arabian Permanent Investment Fund, who was the mastermind and catalyst for LIV Golf. 

Al-Ramayyan stepped down as the Chairman of LIV on April 30. 

Yasir Al-Ramayyan
Source: https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/newcastle-united-told-pif-funding-33863040

Could his PIF duties also be at risk? I can't imagine the Saudi royal family is happy at the loss of $6 billion. Then again, it is just a drop in the oil bucket considering where oil prices are today.

In the aftermath of the loss of the Saudi PIF funding, LIV stated that there were developing a "strategic path forward" searching for new investors.

Perhaps LIV can find someone with money to burn to continue its golf tour in 2027.

I probably have a better chance of beating Scottie Scheffler in a $5 Nassau bet on the golf course.

The best strategic path forward for LIV right now appears to me to be this.

Created by Grok