Author

admin

Browsing

America runs on gas stations. The US has more gas stations than any other country in the world, around 196,000. These rest stops and corner pumps supply the country with the gas it needs for its commerce and road trips.

Not only do they fuel the wheels of the American economy, they have also been an icon in American culture. To the average person, the legal history of filling stations might seem boring, even pointless. But to the trained eye, the history of gas stations reveals a political economy shaped by public-private collusion, cronyism, and even violent attempts to eliminate competition.

Self-service laws, statutes that prevent customers from pumping their own gas, are almost obsolete in 2025. In fact, only one state, New Jersey, has this law on its books. For years, Oregon and New Jersey were the last remaining states to have self-service laws on the books, but the Oregon Legislature repealed them in 2023.

While it may seem strange to some readers, the concept of self-service was not always the historical norm. In 1905, the first gas station was opened in St. Louis, Missouri. Fifteen years later, the United States experienced a boom in gas station construction, with roughly 20,000 service stations operating by 1920. Full-service stations, where an employee of the gas station pumps gas for the customer, were originally the norm. The concept of self-service did not emerge until the 1930s, and because of bans, self-service stations did not become widespread until the 1960s. But why was that the case? Simply put: the history of self-service laws is a history of rent seeking.

In 1930, Indiana became the first state to ban self-service at fuel stations. This ban did not occur in a vacuum; it was a direct response to the political entrepreneurship of businessmen. Following the opening of two self-service stations in 1930, the Indiana Petroleum Association lobbied the state fire marshal to ban self-service. This was done as this new model at the pump threatened the profits of full-service stations.

This story repeats itself across the country. In NJ, for example, a self-service ban was passed in 1949. According to Paul Mulshine, local full-service station owners had entered into a price-fixing agreement with each other. Naturally, this gas cartel was formed as a way of protecting their profits and keeping out competition. But a man by the name of Irving Reingold opened a self-service station offering gas at a few cents lower than the price-fixed rate. This drew in major business for Reingold, but the cartel was not happy. They shot up Reingold’s gas station, but he simply installed bulletproof glass. With this attempt not working, the cartel turned to lobbying and the Retail Gasoline Dispensing Safety Act was passed. Not only does this story show the public choice history of self-service laws, but also how easily cartels collapse under price competition.

Despite their popularity with the public, self-service threatened the profits of incumbent gas stations. Full-service stations saw their customers buy gas at the cheaper, newly opened self-service stations. Naturally, these businesses did not want to face this new competition, and all across the country, the lobbying of state fire marshals took place to eliminate self-service gas stations. In 1948, nine states had banned self-service.

Economists Ronald Johnson and Charles Romeo note in their article on self-service bans that “in 1968, only 27 states allowed the self-service dispensing of gasoline, and some of those states required that attendants be standing by.” Things began to change, however, and self-service laws were repealed, bringing back freedom of choice at the pump. By 1977, every state except for New Jersey and Oregon had removed self-service bans.

While many claim self-service laws were passed because of benevolent politicians’ care for the public interest, history shows these efforts had far more to do with cronyism than public safety. 

More than just a story in public choice, self-service bans also reiterate basic Econ101 principles.

Self-service bans make the market for gasoline less competitive. Firms must pay more for labor to comply with self-service laws. These higher costs act as a barrier to entry for new firms. These bans also have the distorting effect of making gas stations compete on narrower margins. Economist Vitor Melo notes that gas prices fall by 4.4 cents per gallon when self-service bans are repealed. While self-service bans may seem minuscule, they ultimately harm the common good by limiting competition, violating property rights, and making gas less affordable for consumers.

Self-service laws hold a more interesting history than initially perceived. This story of cronyism and rent seeking vs. entrepreneurship and innovation has played out millions of times across countries and years. Despite the claims by many that laws are passed in the name of the public interest, the history of self-service laws makes one take a step back to examine that claim. Just like other regulations, self-service laws were passed as a way of protecting business against competition.

To learn the full story, read my article published in the Independent Review on the topic.

Senate Democrats have begun to ramp up their push for the full release of documents related to the late, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, while Senate Republicans have tried to focus their attention elsewhere.

‘The story Republicans hoped would quietly fade is growing louder by the hour,’ Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor.

Schumer has led the charge among Senate Democrats in demanding more transparency on the Epstein issue, and has used the drama in recent weeks as a political cudgel to go after congressional Republicans and the White House.

His remarks come after a recent Wall Street Journal report alleged that President Donald Trump’s name appeared in the documents surrounding Epstein, and that he was told by the Justice Department about it before publicly saying he was not among the untold number of names within the documents.

Trump also ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to ‘produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony’ on the matter, and top Justice Department official Todd Blanche met with Epstein accomplice Ghislane Maxwell in Florida on Thursday to discuss the late pedophile and alleged sex trafficker.

‘It has the stench of a cover-up,’ Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital. ‘The only right outcome here is to release and disclose all the files. There should be no secret meetings or secret deals.’

However, the Epstein saga has not had near the effect in the Senate as in the House, where House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sent lawmakers home early this week for a monthlong break after some Republicans and Democrats joined forces in their calls to bring the so-called Epstein files out in the open.

Senate Republicans, meanwhile, have downplayed the issue, arguing that Congress has far less power to obtain the information than the Justice Department does.

Sen. Ron Johnson, who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, told Fox News Digital that he does not like ‘duplicating efforts,’ but noted that he is still curious to know more information about the Epstein documents.  

‘I’m like every American who knows anything about this – I’m curious,’ the Wisconsin Republican said. ‘It doesn’t make any sense to me, starting back with his original trial and very light sentence. But I think there are far more important things to worry about.’

Senate Democrats are trying to force the issue, however. Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., again tried to introduce a non-binding resolution that called on Bondi to release all files related to Epstein, and the move was again blocked by Sen. Markwaye Mullin, R-Okla. 

Gallego said that the White House continues to make the issue ‘political theater,’ something that began on the campaign trail.

‘They fed this monster, and now they have to figure out the solution to what the American public is asking for, which is, you know, resolution and answers to their questions,’ he said.

Mullin, however, introduced his own resolution that comported with the president’s order for state and federal courts to release all Epstein documents surrounding the criminal investigation and prosecution against him. But when Gallego offered to combine the two, he objected, and accused him of turning the issue into a ‘political football.’

‘One, in this particular case — in a lot of cases — we’re not willing to stretch the truth to tell something that’s not accurate,’ Mullin said. ‘We want to be accurate with what we’re telling the American people. And the truth is, what can Congress do?’

So far, Mullin’s resolution is the only action offered by Senate Republicans in the ongoing Epstein saga. When asked if he would be interested in bringing the resolution to the floor for a vote, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said ‘obviously there is some interest in taking action on it, and we’ll see how intense that feeling is.’

Still, some Republicans want to focus their efforts elsewhere.

‘I hope we don’t waste our time on that,’ said Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX, and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. ‘We’ve got enough to do.’ 


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump said Friday that former President Barack Obama ‘owes me big’ following the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling. 

Trump on Tuesday claimed that Obama was the ‘ringleader’ of Russiagate, calling for him to be criminally investigated amid new claims that members of his administration allegedly ‘manufactured’ intelligence that prompted the Trump–Russia collusion narrative. Obama has denied the allegations, with a spokesperson for him describing them as ‘bizarre.’

‘It probably helps him a lot. Probably helps a lot. The immunity ruling, but it doesn’t help the people around him at all. But it probably helps him a lot,’ Trump said Friday. ‘He’s done criminal acts, there’s no question about it. But he has immunity, and it probably helps him a lot… he owes me big, Obama owes me big.’ 

The intelligence community did not have any direct information that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to help elect Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election, but, at the ‘unusual’ direction of then-President Barack Obama, published ‘potentially biased’ or ‘implausible’ intelligence suggesting otherwise, the House Intelligence Committee found, according to a Fox News report earlier this week.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had declassified a report prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence back in 2020.

The report, which was based on an investigation launched by former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was dated Sept. 18, 2020. At the time of the publication of the report, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was the chairman of the committee.

The committee focused on the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment of 2017, in which then-CIA Director John Brennan pushed for the inclusion of the now-discredited anti-Trump dossier, despite knowing it was based largely on ‘internet rumor,’ as Fox News Digital previously reported.

According to the report, the ICA was a ‘high-profile product ordered by the President, directed by senior IC agency heads, and created by just five CIA analysts, using one principal drafter.’

‘Production of the ICA was subject to unusual directives from the President and senior political appointees, and particularly DCIA,’ the report states. ‘The draft was not properly coordinated within CIA or the IC, ensuring it would be published without significant challenges to its conclusions.’

The committee found that the five CIA analysts and drafter ‘rushed’ the ICA’s production ‘in order to publish two weeks before President-elect Trump was sworn-in.’

In a statement Tuesday, Obama denied Trump’s ‘bizarre allegations’ that he was the Russiagate ‘ringleader.’

‘Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,’ Obama spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement. ‘But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one.’ 

‘These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,’ Obama’s spokesman continued. ‘Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes.’ 

Gabbard later told ‘Jesse Watters Primetime’ on Wednesday that there were ‘deep state obstacles’ to releasing her information about the Trump-Russia collusion investigation and that some people within the intelligence community (IC) didn’t want it to ‘see the light of day.’

‘There are a lot of deep state actors still here within Washington. President Trump wants us to find the truth. I want to find that truth. The American people deserve the truth, and they deserve accountability,’ she said.

Fox News’ Brooke Singman and Ashley Carnahan contributed to this report. 


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Here are some charts that reflect our areas of focus this week at TrendInvestorPro. SPY and QQQ are leading the market, but the tech trade is looking extended and ripe for a rest. Small-caps are still underperforming large-caps. Even though Utilities are not leading in percentage terms, XLU is leading on the chart as it confirms a bullish continuation pattern. Elsewhere, metals are leading in 2025 and the Home Construction ETF is hitting its moment of truth. 


A 20+ ATR Move for QQQ

In 14-period ATR terms, QQQ is up 23.65 ATRs in the last 65 days. This is the highest number ever. The indicator window shows the 65-day point change divided by ATR(14). The blue dotted lines show when this indicator exceeds 15, and this is the sixth occurrence in seven years. Values above 15 reflect strong upside momentum, and this is long-term bullish. Short-term, however, high values mean QQQ is overbought and ripe for a rest. This indicator is one of 11 indicators in the TIP Indicator-Edge Plugin for StockCharts ACP.


Healthcare is the Weakest Sector  

The Healthcare SPDR (XLV) is the most unloved sector over the last 200 days (since October 4th). SPY is up 10.72% with five offensive sectors leading the way (XLK, XLC, XLI, XLY, XLF). Healthcare is down 10.47%, and severely lagging. Elsewhere, Staples, Real Estate, Materials and Energy are down, but Utilities are up (3.68%).


XLV Becomes Long-term Oversold

The Healthcare SPDR (XLV) is long-term oversold and this could pave the way for a recovery, eventually. The chart below shows weekly bars with 40-week Rate-of-Change in the lower window. ROC(40) dipped below -10% for the fourth time in the last 12 years. After the first three dips below -10%, XLV was up over 20% in the following two years.


This week at TrendInvestorPro

  • Sentiment and seasonality indicators to watch in the coming months.
  • Breadth improves, but S&P 1500 indicators are short of bullish signals.
  • Bitcoin, Blockchain and Telecom ETFs break out.
  • Copper and Palladium ETFs follow through on breakouts.

Click here to take a trial and gain immediate access to our reports and videos.


XLU Leads with New High

Even though the Utilities SPDR (XLU) cannot keep pace with the Technology SPDR (XLK) and Communication Services SPDR (XLC), it is in a leading uptrend. XLU formed a cup-with-handle from November to July and broke to new highs the last two weeks. ETFs hitting new highs are in strong uptrends and should be on our radar.


Metal Mania in 2025

In a tribute to Ozzy, metals are leading the way higher in 2025. The PerfChart below shows year-to-date performance for the continuous futures for 12 commodities. Copper, Platinum and Palladium are up more than 45% year-to-date, while Gold is up 28.38% and Silver is up 35.30%. QQQ is up 10.52% year-to-date, but lagging these metals. The other commodities are mixed.


Multi-Year Highs for Silver and Copper

The next chart shows 11 year bar charts for five metals. Gold broke out in early 2024 and led the metals move with an advance the last 21 months. Silver and copper broke out to multi-year highs. Platinum broke above its 2021 high and Palladium got in the action with an 18 month high. There is a clear message here: metals are moving higher and leading as a group.  


Home Construction Hits Moment of Truth

The Home Construction ETF (ITB) hit its moment of truth as it rose to its falling 40-week SMA. Notice that ITB failed just below this moving average in August 2023. During the 2023-2024 uptrend, the 40-week SMA was more friendly as ITB reversed near this level in October 2023 and June 2024. ITB surged to the falling 40-week SMA in July, but the long-term trend is down and this area could be its nemesis.

Thanks for Tuning in!

See TrendInvestorPro.com for more…



JERUSALEM— The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is under growing pressure to extradite the self-confessed female Hamas terrorist Ahlam Aref Ahmad al-Tamimi, who engineered the terrorist bombing at a Jerusalem pizzeria in 2001 that murdered three Americans among 16 people, half of whom were children.

Frimet and Arnold Roth, the parents of Malki Roth, a 15-year-old U.S. citizen murdered in the 2001 Sbarro pizzeria bombing, held a virtual meeting on July 17, 2025 with Jeanine F. Pirro, United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. 

The U.S. State Department has a $5 million reward for information leading to al-Tamimi’scapture, even as reports claim Jordan’s King Abdullah II has played hardball, refusing to extradite the accused mass murderer. 

‘You have the capacity to push for her extradition, to ensure that the 1995 treaty is honored, to show Jordan and its population along with the watching world that harboring terrorists has consequences,’ Arnold Roth told Pirro during the meeting, according to a family press release following the meeting. 

The 24th anniversary of the Aug. 9, 2001 bombing is next month.

Roth added, ‘We’re here today to implore you to act. Jordan needs to know the U.S. cannot tolerate the protection of a murderer of American citizens. U.S. justice needs to be respected by the world and, without hammering this point too hard, by America’s lawmakers and senior officials.’ 

The Roths said that the meeting focused on the need for ‘concrete steps’ to advance the long-delayed extradition of al-Tamimi.  

Al-Tamimi’sterrorist bombing also killed Judith Shoshana Greenberg and Chana Nachenberg in the 2001 attack. ‘All the victims deserve justice,’ Arnold Roth said, stressing that Tamimi’s extradition should become a ‘true priority’ for the U.S. Department of Justice. 

When asked if the extradition of al-Tamimi was raised by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in his Wednesday meeting with Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi, a State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital, ‘The United States has continually emphasized to the Government of Jordan the importance of holding Ahlam al-Tamimi, the convicted terrorist released by Israel in a 2011 prisoner swap, accountable in a U.S. court for her admitted role in a 2001 bombing in Jerusalem that killed 15 people, including Americans Malka Chana Roth, Judith Shoshana Greenbaum, and Chana Nachenberg. The United States continues to impress upon the Government of Jordan that Tamimi is a brutal murderer who should be brought to justice.’

The State Department referred Fox News Digital to the Department of Justice for more information about the U.S. criminal case against al-Tamimi.

The Justice Department and Pirro’s office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital press queries.

Al-Tamimi is on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list. She is the second female to appear on the terrorism list.

Frimet Roth told U.S. Attorney Pirro that ‘We cannot carry this fight alone any longer. Judge Pirro, please, be the voice for Malki and the other American victims. Be the advocate for justice that has been denied for too long. We beg you to act—not for our sake alone, but for the integrity of American law and the sanctity of every life lost to terror.’ 

The Roths also delivered a petition to U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee in May 2025, with some 30,000 signatures urging the Trump administration to press Jordan for al-Tamimi’s extradition. 

Arnold Roth told Fox News Digital that ‘No senior figure from State has ever, in all the years of our fight for justice, agreed to speak with us. Their treatment of us and of the Tamimi case is deplorable. Victoria Nuland, then one of the top-ranking figures in the State Department. Nuland wrote to us in the names of President Biden and then-Sec of State Antony Blinken, and told us that the Tamimi case was quote ‘a foremost priority’ for the U.S. And that they would keep us informed. She then [they] ignored every follow-up letter that I sent her, and of course so said Biden and Blinken.’

Jordan’s government is a major recipient of U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF).

According to a January 2025 U.S. State Department fact sheet, ‘Since 2015, the Department of State has provided Jordan with $2.155 billion in FMF, which makes Jordan the third-largest global recipient of FMF funds over that time period.  In addition, the Department of Defense (DoD) has provided $327 million to the Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF) under its 333 authority since 2018, making Jordan one of the largest recipients of this funding.’

Al-Tamimi reportedly boasted about her terrorist operation in the Arab media and called for more terrorism against Israel. ‘Of course. I do not regret what happened. Absolutely not. This is the path. I dedicated myself to jihad for the sake of Allah, and Allah granted me success. You know how many casualties there were [in the 2001 attack on the Sbarro pizzeria]. This was made possible by Allah. Do you want me to denounce what I did? That’s out of the question. I would do it again today, and in the same manner,’ she said in 2011, according to a MEMRI translation.

In 2017, the U.S. Justice Department publicly announced that it had charged her with the Jerusalem suicide bombing. 

Fox News Digital sent multiple press queries to Jordan’s government and its embassies in Washington, D.C., and Tel Aviv.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

House Republicans are already discussing contours for a potential second ‘big, beautiful bill’ advancing President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The Republican Study Committee (RSC), the 189-member-strong group that acts as a de facto ‘think tank’ for the House GOP, is launching a working group to look at what a second budget reconciliation bill would look like, Fox News Digital has learned.

It’s the largest organized effort so far by congressional Republicans to follow through on GOP leaders’ hopes for a second massive agenda bill.

‘We must capitalize on the momentum we’ve generated in the first 6 months of a Republican trifecta in Washington,’ RSC Chairman August Pfluger, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital. ‘To fulfill the promises we made to the American people, conservatives must begin laying the groundwork for the second reconciliation bill to ensure we continue to drive down the cost of living and restore America’s promise for future generations.’

House Republicans left Washington on Wednesday to kick off a five-week recess period, where they’re readying to sell the benefits of their first massive agenda bill to their constituents. 

Meanwhile, Pfluger also directed lawmakers part of the new working group to begin reaching out to colleagues, conservative senators, and GOP organizations about potential policy proposals for a new bill, Fox News Digital was told.

The goal of the new group is to create a framework for what a second ‘big, beautiful bill’ could look like, and to recommend that framework to GOP leaders.

The first bill was a massive piece of legislation advancing Trump’s agenda on taxes, the border, immigration, defense, and energy.

It made much of Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) permanent, while imposing new work requirements on Medicaid and food stamps, among other measures.

After passing the House and Senate, Trump signed it into law during a celebratory event on the Fourth of July.

But the political fight to get just one reconciliation bill took Herculean political efforts across both the House and Senate, with debates and even heated arguments ongoing for months before the bill passed.

Notably, however, Republicans did get the legislation to Trump’s desk by July 4 – meeting a goal that many in the media and even within GOP circles thought impossible.

The budget reconciliation process allows the party controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress to pass massive partisan policy overhauls, while completely sidelining the other side – in this case, Democrats.

Reconciliation bills can pass the Senate with a simple majority rather than 60 votes, lining up with the House’s own passage threshold. But the legislation must adhere to a specific set of rules and only involve measures related to fiscal policy.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told ‘Sunday Morning Futures’ earlier this month that he was eyeing multiple reconciliation bills.

‘With President Trump coming back to the White House, and us having the responsibility for fixing every metric of public policy that Biden and Harris and the Democrats destroyed over the previous four years –  so the big beautiful bill was the first big step in that,’ he told host Maria Bartiromo.

‘But we have multiple steps ahead of us. We have long planned for at least two, possibly three, reconciliation bills, one in the fall and one next spring.’


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Writing in the New York Times on Monday, longtime Democratic political strategist James Carville outlined a compelling message for Democrats to unite around ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Carville urged Democrats to delay the ‘civil war’ that will eventually erupt between the party’s moderate and progressive wings, and to coalesce around a single ‘oppositional message’ focused entirely on repealing President Donald Trump’s agenda.

With all due respect to Mr. Carville, his myopic focus on a strategy of resisting Trump above all else is simply too narrow to be truly effective.

Put another way, a Democratic agenda built entirely around repealing the Republican agenda may be enough for 2026, but it falls far short of what Democrats must do if they hope to take back the White House in 2028.

Indeed, nowhere in the Times piece is any description of actual policies that Democrats should advance as an alternative to what Republicans are offering, either next year or in three years.

There are no calls for an entirely new economic agenda, one that replaces Democrats’ tendency for profligate spending with a more fiscally conservative plan focused on managing the debt while also protecting the social safety net.

In many ways, Democrats today should look to former President Bill Clinton, who was able to reduce the debt, leave a budget surplus and still protect vital social programs.

Speaker Johnson: Everything is

Moreover, the word ‘immigration’ is not even mentioned. 

This comes despite 2024 election polling showing that immigration was a top issue for voters, and exit polls showing voters trusted Trump over former Vice President Kamala Harris by a 16-point margin (52% to 36%), per Fox News.

To that end, if Democrats hope to take back more than just one chamber of Congress, the party needs an agenda that prioritizes securing the border, combined with a pathway to citizenship for legal migrants and Dreamers.

And, while I do agree with Mr. Carville that the midterms will be decided based on kitchen table issues rather than foreign policy, that does not mean Democrats can afford to ignore this issue.

As a party, Democrats must advance an agenda that positively asserts democratic values at home and abroad. 

The Democratic Party is

This entails rejecting the belief of the far left – and increasingly the far right – that any use of American power is inherently bad.

To be sure, formulating an entirely new Democratic agenda takes time. And it will require the emergence of moderate candidates at a time when Zohran Mamdani’s win in New York City has energized the progressive wing of the party. 

Nevertheless, as the 2024 election made clear, Democrats cannot afford to run from the center toward the far left. What the party needs is a candidate who can win, not one chosen because they passed progressives’ ideological purity test.

Interestingly, Carville cites former President Clinton as a figure who emerged as Democrats’ ‘savior’ in 1992. 

James Carville takes aim at DNC vice chair as civil war escalates:

But Clinton was able to do so because, at a time when the party was moving further to the left, Clinton dragged the party toward the middle on the economy and crime.

Finally, the crux of Carville’s message – ‘we demand a repeal’ of Trump’s agenda – overlooks the core factor behind who Americans cast a vote for.

Voters choose candidates who have plans and policies that will improve their lives. 

Slogans, no matter how catchy, may work for the midterms, but if Democrats then fail to deliver actual change between 2026 and 2028, its unlikely voters will trust them.

Bill Maher warns Democrats: This looks like

Quite simply, voters want a strong economy, safe streets, a government that is not excessively bloated and secure borders, not candidates whose only agenda is resisting the president. 

Now, this is not to say that the agenda outlined by Carville will not be successful next year – it very well may.

Rather, it is to point out that even if it helps Democrats reclaim the House of Representatives, it will not be enough to take back the White House in 2028.

For that, the party needs to advance its own agenda, one that addresses the above issues and actually provides a real, viable alternative to the Trump-GOP agenda. 


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

America runs on gas stations. The US has more gas stations than any other country in the world, around 196,000. These rest stops and corner pumps supply the country with the gas it needs for its commerce and road trips.

Not only do they fuel the wheels of the American economy, they have also been an icon in American culture. To the average person, the legal history of filling stations might seem boring, even pointless. But to the trained eye, the history of gas stations reveals a political economy shaped by public-private collusion, cronyism, and even violent attempts to eliminate competition.

Self-service laws, statutes that prevent customers from pumping their own gas, are almost obsolete in 2025. In fact, only one state, New Jersey, has this law on its books. For years, Oregon and New Jersey were the last remaining states to have self-service laws on the books, but the Oregon Legislature repealed them in 2023.

While it may seem strange to some readers, the concept of self-service was not always the historical norm. In 1905, the first gas station was opened in St. Louis, Missouri. Fifteen years later, the United States experienced a boom in gas station construction, with roughly 20,000 service stations operating by 1920. Full-service stations, where an employee of the gas station pumps gas for the customer, were originally the norm. The concept of self-service did not emerge until the 1930s, and because of bans, self-service stations did not become widespread until the 1960s. But why was that the case? Simply put: the history of self-service laws is a history of rent seeking.

In 1930, Indiana became the first state to ban self-service at fuel stations. This ban did not occur in a vacuum; it was a direct response to the political entrepreneurship of businessmen. Following the opening of two self-service stations in 1930, the Indiana Petroleum Association lobbied the state fire marshal to ban self-service. This was done as this new model at the pump threatened the profits of full-service stations.

This story repeats itself across the country. In NJ, for example, a self-service ban was passed in 1949. According to Paul Mulshine, local full-service station owners had entered into a price-fixing agreement with each other. Naturally, this gas cartel was formed as a way of protecting their profits and keeping out competition. But a man by the name of Irving Reingold opened a self-service station offering gas at a few cents lower than the price-fixed rate. This drew in major business for Reingold, but the cartel was not happy. They shot up Reingold’s gas station, but he simply installed bulletproof glass. With this attempt not working, the cartel turned to lobbying and the Retail Gasoline Dispensing Safety Act was passed. Not only does this story show the public choice history of self-service laws, but also how easily cartels collapse under price competition.

Despite their popularity with the public, self-service threatened the profits of incumbent gas stations. Full-service stations saw their customers buy gas at the cheaper, newly opened self-service stations. Naturally, these businesses did not want to face this new competition, and all across the country, the lobbying of state fire marshals took place to eliminate self-service gas stations. In 1948, nine states had banned self-service.

Economists Ronald Johnson and Charles Romeo note in their article on self-service bans that “in 1968, only 27 states allowed the self-service dispensing of gasoline, and some of those states required that attendants be standing by.” Things began to change, however, and self-service laws were repealed, bringing back freedom of choice at the pump. By 1977, every state except for New Jersey and Oregon had removed self-service bans.

While many claim self-service laws were passed because of benevolent politicians’ care for the public interest, history shows these efforts had far more to do with cronyism than public safety. 

More than just a story in public choice, self-service bans also reiterate basic Econ101 principles.

Self-service bans make the market for gasoline less competitive. Firms must pay more for labor to comply with self-service laws. These higher costs act as a barrier to entry for new firms. These bans also have the distorting effect of making gas stations compete on narrower margins. Economist Vitor Melo notes that gas prices fall by 4.4 cents per gallon when self-service bans are repealed. While self-service bans may seem minuscule, they ultimately harm the common good by limiting competition, violating property rights, and making gas less affordable for consumers.

Self-service laws hold a more interesting history than initially perceived. This story of cronyism and rent seeking vs. entrepreneurship and innovation has played out millions of times across countries and years. Despite the claims by many that laws are passed in the name of the public interest, the history of self-service laws makes one take a step back to examine that claim. Just like other regulations, self-service laws were passed as a way of protecting business against competition.

To learn the full story, read my article published in the Independent Review on the topic.

Industrial researchers are sounding the alarm as thousands of AI companies are being eliminated in the wake of the first wave of AI fever sparked by OpenAI.

At the same time, however, prominent tech leaders and Silicon Valley CEOs such as Jensen Huang continue to promote the narrative of China’s technological leadership in AI. While it is understandable that hardware manufacturers may emphasize growth potential in China for commercial reasons, it is more puzzling to see segments of US media and academia amplifying what increasingly resembles a state-driven narrative. This disconnect warrants closer scrutiny — not just of China’s capabilities, but of how narratives around them are constructed and disseminated globally. 

It was the Soviet Union that launched the first artificial satellite Sputnik into space, on October 4, 1957. And then three months later, on January 31, 1958, the US launched the Explorer I, making it the second country in the world that could send a satellite into space. No one cares who was next, especially when the third country was France, and especially when its first satellite wasn’t launched until November 1965 — nearly eight years later. When I asked ChatGPT why this is the case, it put it simply: “History remembers the winner, not the runner-up, let alone the third place.” 

Fewer people remember that in the late 1950s, there was another country obsessed with launching satellites: China.  

At the time, under Mao Zedong, China was one of the poorest countries in the world. Yet my grandfather, who was a team leader in a rural production unit in northern China, recalled how everyone was talking about “launching satellites.” My grandfather was no college graduate or rocket scientist. And of course, they weren’t launching real satellites — they were referring to faking economic data. 

During the Great Leap Forward, “launching a satellite” became a euphemism for exaggerated production figures. If an acre of land supposedly produced 10,000 kg of rice, a satellite had been launched. If a pig farmer claimed he raised a pig the size of a Volvo car, and it made national headlines — another satellite was launched. And the worst part? Everyone believed it. Even Mao himself. 

That’s why, despite widespread famine, Mao refused to believe food shortages existed. Instead, he was more concerned about what to do with China’s “excess” agricultural production. And since China had “plenty” of food, he decided to send free grain to its Communist allies, such as Romania and Albania, even as millions of Chinese starved. That’s exactly what he did in 1960 during the three years of great famine which resulted in the death of approximately 20 to 40 million people.

Fast forward to today. Since DeepSeek CEO Liang Wenfeng was invited to a meeting with China’s Premier Li Qiang earlier this year, its chatbot has been widely talked about and considered a competitor of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Meanwhile, my French colleagues and American friends kept asking me about Chinese AI products with strange names. And I couldn’t help but think of the Great Leap Forward and its “satellites.”  

As much as I’d wish China could lead in AI, I am not convinced.

Here’s a three-part explanation: 

What Does AI Mean to China? 

AI is a powerful tool, a symbol of technological advancement, and a potential driver of economic growth. But that’s not why China is investing heavily in AI. 

China is betting on AI for one reason: great power competition. 

In Silicon Valley, there’s a concept called FOMO — “Fear of Missing Out.” Investors fear missing the next big opportunity. But in geopolitics, nations fear missing the next big strategic advantage. China develops AI not because of domestic demand, but because the US is doing it. 

The same logic explains many of China’s past industrial pushes. Great power competition is why China developed its nuclear bombs and hydrogen bombs, why China also was blamed for overcapacity in solar panels and infrastructure of 5G telecommunication. In developing nuclear weapons, China was fearful that missing out would be equivalent to dying out. It had to develop its own nuclear weapons to survive in a volatile global environment. Fortunately, when it comes to overproducing solar panels or 5G base stations, what’s at stake is not life or death.  

AI in China is following the same pattern: a copycat breakthrough sparks mass investment, a semi-commercialized product grabs nationalist attention, but in the end: fraud is exposed, resources are wasted, and bubbles burst. 

China Faces Institutional Barriers to AI Leadership

Just like the roaring years of personal computers and the Internet, Silicon Valley tech geniuses, angel investors, and early adopters of cutting edge technology are indispensable in AI development. But many people in the West overlook the institutional environment for developing technology. Silicon Valley’s AI boom was not just about talent, money, or research. It was about a unique institutional environment that fosters risk-taking, open data, and creative destruction. 

China’s biggest obstacles to developing technology have never been a lack of talent or resources, but the lack of a free environment. What holds China back is censorship, a lack of tolerance for failure, and an intrinsic disgust for entrepreneurship.  

Censorship also impedes AI growth. Chatbots such as ChatGPT can draw on 95 percent of the information on the Internet that is English, whereas its Chinese counterparts can only utilize a small portion of the information on the Internet due to the Great Firewall that isolates China from the rest of the world. There are complexities: few Chinese users speak English, the Chinese language is a high-context language, and the Chinese language has been highly polluted because of censorship (for example, there are over 3,000 ways of referring to a political figure without directly naming him). Chinese chatbots are a lot like a middle-aged political prisoner who constantly minces words, dodging sensitive topics, or simply refusing to respond. This environment also restrains the training sources for Chinese chatbots. As people say, garbage in, garbage out. If this is the kind of AI advantage we see in Chinese AI products, I don’t know what kind of intelligence we are talking about.

China has no shortage of technical talent. But AI isn’t just about technical skill — it’s about curiosity, questioning assumptions, and challenging authority. Whereas Silicon Valley thrives on disruption, China’s political culture fears it. Startups need freedom to experiment, but China’s AI strategy is heavily state-directed. 

China develops AI as if it were going through another Great Leap Forward. How do I know? I checked some white papers on AI development, and my oh my, can you believe that China had an AI development roadmap back in 1979? And can you believe that by the end of last year, there were over 4311 leading artificial intelligence enterprises in China? Yes, it is only high-performing Unicorns that lead, but 4,311? I bet most of these companies are not developing AI, just like many solar panel producers in the early 2000s were footwear producers before government subsidies and supportive policies kicked in. 

Therefore, I think China’s AI leadership is highly exaggerated.  

AI’s Application Compared to the Input is Infinitesimal.  

AI will not help China’s economy — it will hurt it. AI is created for a reason, and if that reason is to assist human beings, not surpass human beings, its application is reasonable and acceptable. AI is, at best, human-like in its capabilities, or at worst, a powerful tool like a computer or a calculator, or a self-driving car. AI will, for the foreseeable future, substitute for humans in doing tedious, repetitive, and non-essential tasks. If we use AI in factories, shops, or restaurants, fewer workers, cashiers, or waiters are needed. Good. But we wouldn’t want to use AI in situation rooms, in UN Security Council meetings, or in nuclear weapon facilities.   

In economic history, technological advances have driven higher productivity. The West became wealthy largely due to the Industrial Revolution, while China’s rise was primarily fueled by offshoring and outsourcing of those same functions. The West will need to get by with fewer workers, especially hard laborers, but in China, it is not a desirable thing to replace human labor with AI. China’s population numbers 1.4 billion, over half in cities and mostly without a high school education. At least one third of them need jobs — not high-paying programming jobs, but relatively low-paying, low-tech jobs — to survive.  

Recently, an article made its rounds in Chinese media with a title something like “AI civil servants take office, completing three months’ worth of work in just three days.” The civil servant who wrote this article soon realized the irony and withdrew it. Being a civil servant in China is a relatively fancier job than being a factory worker or a shopkeeper. But any economist will tell you that civil servants don’t create wealth — they live on taxpayer money. And Chinese civil servants spend most of their time not working for taxpayers’ interests, but attending meetings, study sessions, and writing journals listing how they have benefited from those study sessions. By far, the most effective use of AI in China, I dare say, is civil servants using chatbots to write pages and pages of “Party Member Study Notes.”  

Creating jobs, not reducing jobs with AI, is a more urgent issue for the Chinese government. If you’ve visited China, you might discover some very interesting and unfathomable jobs. For example, there are still “elevator operators,” people who press the button in an elevator. There are actually businesses called “Computerized Fortune Telling and Naming Services” (I swear I’m not making this up), where computers are used to predict fortunes or generate names for newborns — likely among the earliest commercial computer applications in China. You can still see such shops in big cities like Beijing or Shanghai. Such odd jobs indicate that the application of technology can be so different than what’s intended for the technology when it’s created. And China simply cannot afford to replace human jobs with AI.  

Shortly after the conclusion of the Two Sessions, the graduation season will arrive. According to forecasts from China’s Ministry of Education, 12.22 million university students are expected to graduate and enter the job market in the spring and summer of 2025. In 2024, China saw 11.79 million university graduates, marking what was already recognized as the “toughest job market in history.” With an even larger number of graduates in 2025, finding employment is expected to be even more challenging than last year. Many of these university graduates are not going to want to do factory jobs, they want to work in offices, but AI can increasingly replace office workers nowadays. Add the university graduates to the already underemployed workforce in China, and any rational decision maker will think twice before embracing AI.  

What Is China’s AI Future?

This round of AI fever might generate one of three scenarios for Chinese AI.  

  1. Application of AI is very much limited to certain areas, such as military or economic planning, stimulating another round of discussion about “socialist calculation” and the possibility of planned economy. In the meantime, a skeletal, censored version of AI is commercialized for the consumer market, isolated from the outside world, and heavily censored. How heavily? That is a top secret since officially, there is no censorship in China at all.  
  2. Regulations catch up, and AI is banned in labor-intensive industries to protect jobs. Discussions of whether a company should still be forced to pay into state pensions when they replace workers with AI or robots is already underway. It’s ridiculous, but it is happening.
  3. China treats AI like the Apollo Program — a political prestige project. The actual mechanics of AI are at least successful enough to bridge the hype until China moves on to its next ‘global leadership’ project (perhaps Mars exploration, just because the Americans are pursuing it) But AI will not be heavily put to use in schools, government agencies, or factories, as its appearance, rather than its functionality, will be paramount.  

True, China might be charging ahead in areas such as computer vision, facial recognition, and AI surveillance. Yes, Chinese companies such as Alibaba and Tencent have integrated AI deeply into daily life via e-commerce and fintech. And sure, China has heavily invested in AI talent and chips. But China is not going to lead in AI, because its powerful institutions do not allow it to lead, only to follow.

As the global economy shifts toward electrification and clean energy, lithium has emerged as a cornerstone of the energy transition, and the US is racing to secure its place in the supply chain.

Lithium-ion batteries are no longer just critical to electric vehicles (EVs); they’re becoming vital across sectors to stabilize power systems, particularly amid growing reliance on intermittent renewables.

According to Fastmarkets, demand for battery energy storage systems (BESS) is accelerating, driven by data centers, which have seen electricity consumption grow 12 percent annually since 2017.

In the US, where data infrastructure is heavily clustered, BESS demand from data centers alone could make up a third of the market by 2030, with a projected compound annual growth rate of 35 percent.

As the US works to expand domestic production and reduce import dependence, policy uncertainty, including potential rollbacks of EV tax credits and clean energy incentives, clouds the investment outlook.

1. Sociedad Química y Minera (NYSE:SQM)

Year-to-date gain: 10.43 percent
Market cap: US$10.82 billion
Share price: US$40.64

SQM is a major global lithium producer, with operations centered in Chile’s Salar de Atacama. The company extracts lithium from brine and produces lithium carbonate and hydroxide for use in batteries.

SQM is expanding production and holds interests in projects in Australia and China.

Shares of SQM reached a year-to-date high of US$45.61 on March 17, 2025. The spike occurred a few weeks after the company released its 2024 earnings report, which highlighted record sales volumes in the lithium and iodine segments. However, low lithium prices weighed on revenue from the segment, and the company’s reported net profit was pulled down significantly due to a large accounting adjustment related to income tax.

In late April, Chile’s competition watchdog approved the partnership agreement between SQM and state-owned copper giant Codelco aimed at boosting output at the Atacama salt flat. The deal, first announced in 2024, reached another milestone when it secured approval for an additional lithium quota from Chile’s nuclear energy regulator CChEN.

Weak lithium prices continued to weigh on profits, with the company reporting a 4 percent year-over-year decrease in total revenues for Q1 2025.

2. Lithium Americas (NYSE:LAC)

Year-to-date gain: 9.67 percent
Market cap: US$719.1 million
Share price: US$3.29

Lithium Americas is developing its flagship Thacker Pass project in Northern Nevada, US. The project is a joint venture between Lithium Americas at 62 percent and General Motors (NYSE:GM) at 38 percent.

According to the firm, Thacker Pass is the “largest known measured lithium resource and reserve in the world.”

Early in the year, Lithium Americas saw its share rally to a year-to-date high of US$3.49 on January 16, coinciding with a brief rally in lithium carbonate prices.

In March, Lithium Americas secured US$250 million from Orion Resource Partners to advance Phase 1 construction of Thacker Pass. The funding is expected to fully cover development costs through the construction phase. On April 1, the joint venture partners made a final investment decision for the project, with completion targeted for late 2027.

Other notable announcements this year included a new at-the-market equity program, allowing the company to sell up to US$100 million in common shares.

3. Lithium Argentina (NYSE:LAR)

Year-to-date gain: 8.46 percent
Market cap: US$467.28 million
Share price: US$2.90

Lithium Argentina produces lithium carbonate from its Caucharí-Olaroz brine project in Argentina, developed with Ganfeng Lithium (OTC Pink:GNENF,HKEX:1772).

The company is also advancing additional regional lithium assets to support EV and battery demand.

Previously named Lithium Americas (Argentina), the company was spun out from Lithium Americas in October 2023.

While shares of Lithium Argentina spiked in early January to a year-to-date high of US$3.10, the share price has been trending higher since June 19 to its current US$2.90 value.

Notable news from the company this year includes its name and ticker change and corporate migration to Switzerland in late January and the release of the full-year 2024 results in March.

In mid-April, Lithium Argentina executed a letter of intent with Ganfeng Lithium to jointly advance development across the Pozuelos-Pastos Grandes basins in Argentina. The plan includes a project fully owned by Ganfeng as well as two jointly held assets majority-owned by Lithium Argentina.

The company released its Q1 results on May 15, reporting a 15 percent quarter-over-quarter production reduction, which it attributed to planned shutdowns aimed at increasing recoveries and reducing costs.

Overall, the production guidance for 2025 is forecasted at 30,000 to 35,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate, reflecting higher expected production volumes in the second half of the year.

Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, currently hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com