The main concern of the Federal Reserve is that the inflation rate has gone up from the beginning of Trump’s term. In February of 2025, the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, the most widely used measure of inflation, saw average prices up 2.4% from a year earlier. But as of August 2026, average prices were up 3.4% from a year earlier, up about 1% since Trump’s second term began.

The increase in inflation has outpaced wage increases, so that the purchasing power of wages has gone down for five months in a row. This is feeding the so-called “affordability crisis” where more people are unable to make ends meet. To get by, credit card debt has risen every month for the last year. More and more people are working side gigs such as Uber or Lyft driving, street vending, etc.

The Fed is trying to bring down inflation by reducing borrowing and spending by businesses and consumers. A drop in total demand will tend to bring down the rate of inflation. A problem is that in most cases, this goes too far, and the economy ends up in a recession.

The Fed faces four obstacles to bringing down inflation by raising interest rates, because this policy does not address the fundamental reasons that inflation has been on the upswing during the second Trump administration.

The first cause of higher inflation was Trump’s trade war, with higher tariffs and import restrictions that began April 2, when he imposed higher tariffs on almost every country in the world, including some places where no humans live. While Trump hasn’t followed through on some tariffs, has made deals with some countries, and often had his tariffs ruled illegal by federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme court, the average tariff across all countries has gone from about 2.3% when he took office in January of 2025, to about 11% today, almost a five-fold increase. This can directly increase the price of imported consumer goods, as well as increase the price of goods made in the United States with imported parts. The Fed’s move on interest rates has no impact on tariffs.

A second big cause of rising inflation is the current war on Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, when the United States and Israel launched a massive attack using missiles and stealth bombers on the Iranian military and top leadership, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his family. Iran struck back, closing the strait of Hormuz, where about 20% of the world’s oil consumption passes through. Oil prices shot up from about $70 a barrel to as much as $120 a barrel, and it is back above $100 a barrel, or up about 50% after more than six months of war.

Because of this, gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum products also shot up in price. Not only did the raw material, oil, go up in price, but the “crack spread” or margin between the oil used and the price at the pump also went up, pushing oil company profits to record highs. The price of diesel fuel is at an all-time high of $6.40 a gallon (national average price), up almost 75% from a year ago.

While most households do not put diesel in their cars, the trucks that move the vast majority of goods in the United States do run on diesel, pushing up the cost of anything that has to be shipped. Farm and construction equipment also mainly run on diesel. Farmers are especially hard hit, with many of their crops affected by Trump’s trade war as other countries, especially China, are buying more from other countries and less from U.S. farmers. Prices of fertilizer are also rising because of the Iran war and tariffs.

Rising interest rates will not slow the war in Iran, but it does increase the cost of borrowing. Federal spending on interest on the U.S. government debt is about a trillion dollars a year and bigger than direct U.S. military spending.

A third cause of rising inflation is the AI (artificial intelligence) building boom of data centers. While much of the local opposition to these data centers is because of rising electricity prices and concerns over water supplies, the AI boom is also driving up the prices of semiconductors that are also used in cars and consumer electronics such as cellphones. Again, higher interest rates will not slow the AI race as U.S. companies try to outdo each other.

Even if the Fed did succeed in slowing down tech companies’ investment in AI, a slowdown in businesses’ spending on new buildings and equipment is one of the two most common triggers for a recession, the other being a sharp slowdown in construction of new homes and apartments.

#SanJoseCA #CapitalismAndEconomy #Economy #FederalReserve #Inflation #Iran #AI #Oil #Tarriffs

At the end of August, Venezuela signed a major oil deal with the U.S. Because President Trump is widely viewed as a thief, liar and a braggart, the nature of the agreement is difficult to grasp at first glance. But we can and must seek truth from facts, which requires sifting through Trump and Rubio’s statements, the media’s framing, and the reality of the situation.

After a decade of punishing sanctions, Venezuela has endured invasion by the U.S., the bombing of its capital city, the kidnapping of its elected president and first lady, devastating earthquakes, and eight months of constant threats and blackmail. Delcy Rodríguez remains loyal to the Bolivarian Revolution, but she is locked in a delicate and existential negotiation for the future of Venezuela. It requires a sober grasp of reality to see that Venezuela is attempting to navigate an asymmetrical balance of power with a blood-thirsty pack of ghouls hell-bent on claiming dominance over the entire Western Hemisphere.

Eight months after the U.S. raid that kidnapped democratically-elected President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and National Assembly Deputy Cilia Flores, Trump bragged that he ”refills U.S. oil reserves with Venezuelan oil.” While his followers might believe this claim, the reality is very different. A major part of the new deal is a $100 billion investment so that North American Blue Energy Partners can expand its existing production from three oil fields to 17. Building infrastructure, extraction and refining are not quick operations, and will not be filling U.S. oil reserves in the near future. They are, however, recognized by oil workers and trade unionists throughout Venezuela as a major step forward to return to previous production levels and beyond.

While the Bolivarian Revolution has used oil revenue to invest in other sectors to diversify its economy, its main economic engine is still petroleum. It has been the golden goose that funded so many important, transformational achievements, like alleviating super-poverty and illiteracy while creating access to free health care and education. The involvement of U.S. oil companies in Venezuela is not unprecedented; the U.S.-based Chevron Corporation has continued to operate in Venezuela under Chavez, Maduro, and now Rodríguez.

Speaking to the weekly videoconference of international trade unionists on September 4, Jorge Arreaza, a deputy of the National Assembly and head of the National University of the Communes, shared how this deal aligns with exactly what President Chavez had said for years. “Even on his hospital bed in 2013, El Comandante said: we need to increase oil production, we need to be selling to the U.S. market.” Fellow National Assembly deputy and past president of the Venezuela Transport Workers Union, Francisco Torrealba, added this deal “achieves concrete results that will benefit the working class, improve our telecommunications sector, provide funding to improve our national electrical infrastructure, hospital and care services.”

A poll on September 7 by the Venezuela firm Hinterlaces showed 82% of Venezuelans support the deal. Acting President Delcy Rodríguez also highlighted the potential of $200 billion in tax revenue for Venezuela over the 25 years of the deal. With a goal of yielding an added 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd), the oil deal would more than double current production.

To put this into context, since 1965, Venezuela has produced 3 million-plus bpd 20 times, and 2.5 million bpd another 12 times. In fact, production had not dropped below 2.5 million bpd since 1993, until 2014. That is when the Obama administration started sanctions that have only ramped up year after year. This was a major factor that caused Venezuela to lose its biggest oil export market, some 40% of its total global oil exports, as exports to the U.S. went from 300,000 barrels to zero by 2020. This constituted a loss of over $200 billion in revenue and the equivalent to 213% of Venezuela’s GDP.

In addition to economic warfare, the U.S. also deployed political interventions. Both the Obama and Trump administrations supported the wealthy opposition in their hoarding and price gouging, fomenting unrest and violence, declaring self-selected presidents, and assassination attempts. All of these attempts, to either force regime change or bring Venezuela’s government to the negotiations table to privatize its oil sector, failed.

With the U.S. market closed to it, Venezuela adapted and shifted the majority of its exports to China. After 2020, Venezuela experienced a remarkable recovery in which the economy grew, achieving some of the highest GDP growth in Latin America from 2022 to 2024. This recovery screeched to a near halt in 2025 when the U.S. invaded the South Caribbean with 15,000 military personnel, hundreds of aircraft, and dozens of warships; began extrajudicial killings of fisherpeople; and resorted to piracy, as naval vessels seized tankers carrying Venezuela oil headed for Cuba and China.

Even as the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) built up its forces clearly to engage Venezuela, President Maduro and the PSUV made sure that the masses had access to democratic organs to participate in their own self-defense and defense of the revolution. This effort to deepen the revolution created more communal councils, restructured top leadership with gender balance, aligned trade unions in the military-civic union, and nearly doubled the numbers of citizens in the militias and provided military training. This level of preparation demonstrated to the whole world that a traditional invasion and land battle would be a difficult one for the U.S. So that option for the U.S. was off the table; instead they resorted to kidnapping President Maduro and First Lady Flores.

After January 3, the U.S. did not simply withdraw all of its military forces back to the states. The U.S. SOUTHCOM has stayed nearby and quickly moved 2000 troops, allegedly to support earthquake relief. And it continues to use force to flex its power in the region. Recently, the U.S. conducted its 68th extrajudicial killing, bringing the death toll up to 227.

With an elected president kidnapped, a capital city bombed and that military threatening further destruction and higher toll, what was Venezuela to do? As yet, no international or domestic movement has been strong enough to force the U.S. to drop its sanctions on Venezuela, to allow Venezuela full access to its $5 billion in assets in the IMF, or to compel the Bank of England to return Venezuela’s $5 billion in gold. Venezuela remains a country dependent upon oil production for economic, social and political maintenance of daily life and future progress. Now, it stares down the barrel of U.S. imperialism stalking its shores and airspace. What other options remained?

The Bolivarian Revolution needed to adjust, endure a setback, and yet still benefit from a deal that aligns with their goals and needs in both the short and long term.

The PSUV is still in power, and the Bolivarian Revolution continues to roll on. Trump and Rubio must go through the people’s government to get deals. Marina Corina Machado and the reactionaries are not in power. This all signals that the revolution remains popular, and that it can endure setbacks, overcome obstacles, and seek a rebirth.

#Venezuela #International #NicolasMaduro #DelcyRodriguez #Trump #PSUV #Oil

Canon Ball, ND – Resistance to the $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline continues to grow. The Standing Rock Sioux, members of hundreds of tribes from around the country, as well as non-Natives have gathered to stop the pipeline.

The pipeline, which is scheduled to run under the Missouri River less than a mile north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, extends 1134 miles and connects the Bakken and Three Forks production areas in North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois. It is projected to transport 450,000 barrels of crude oil per day along this route.

If completed, the pipeline would destroy more sacred burial sites. A leak in the pipeline will pollute the river and poison the people at Standing Rock as well as millions downstream. Furthermore, this represents a continued and expanded use of fossil fuels rather than a shift to environmentally friendly energy like wind or solar.

On Nov. 3, demonstrators put out a call to “make our way to the river” for a “river action.” Water protectors, as they call themselves, built a bridge across the Cantapeta Creek to be able to get to the sacred burial sites on the other side to pray. Despite a heroic and prolonged effort to save the bridge, it was destroyed by law enforcement in boats. Then at least 60 protectors swam across the creek. They stood in the cold water up against a line of 100 police in riot gear who peppered sprayed and tear gassed them.

Supporters on the other side chanted “the whole world is watching.” During the three-hour confrontation, 100 were injured. According to the camp medics 60 were treated for hypothermia, many for pepper spray and at least two for wounds from rubber bullets, including a journalist doing an interview.

The following day, Nov. 4, over 500 clergy from around the world, representing many faiths, came to the camp to stand in solidarity with the Standing Rock tribe. Before walking to the police blockade closest to the pipeline building site to pray, sing and speak, they burned the Doctrine of Discovery, a religious document issued in the 1400s sanctioning the taking of lands from indigenous people.

That afternoon, 100 of the clergy and supporters traveled to Bismarck, where they went to the state house and the governor’s mansion. When the governor refused to meet with them and they refused to leave, 14 were arrested and held in jail overnight.

Supporters continue to answer the call to come stand in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux tribe who are committed to stay as long as it takes to stop the pipeline.

#CanonBallND #PeoplesStruggles #IndigenousPeoples #Protest #oil #EnvironmentalJustice #Antiracism #StandingRock #IndigenousRights

U.S. military and political preparations for a new war against Iraq are at a fever pitch.

The Washington Post reports that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed a deployment order to send 'significant' ground forces, combat aircraft and other units to the region. The Post also reported that a final buildup toward war could involve up to 250,000 Reserve and National Guard troops.

All movement of troops must, of course, be accompanied by the massive deployment of lies and misinformation. In mid-December, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that the U.S. found the Iraqi report to the U.N. Security Council to be 'incomplete' and that it constituted a 'material breach' of UN resolutions.

Let's get this straight. In the view of the U.S. government, Iraq doesn't need to do anything or own anything or deploy anything in order to be in 'material breach.' According to Powell, Iraq's not reporting (nonexistent) 'violations' is a violation.

But let's leave aside the political fantasy being created by the Bush administration to justify its war and look at reality. While the Bush administration pushes ahead with its war plans, humanitarian aid agencies have warned that a new war in Iraq could create one million refugees.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers, said last week, “A war in Iraq will be a disaster from the humanitarian perspective.” Representatives of major relief organizations working in Iraq – Oxfam, Christian Aid, British Overseas Aid Group, ActionAid and the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development – have warned against war.

The Observer newspaper in Britain reported that the UN agencies believe that 'conditions in Iraq after years of sanctions are far worse than they were after the last Gulf war, with high levels of vulnerability and dependence.' This makes the people of Iraq very susceptible to disease and starvation.

As well as carrying out a buildup of U.S. military forces, there are reports that Washington is looking for some political or military force inside Iraq to carry out a coup.

The U.S. is preparing this war not out of any concern for the Iraqi people, but instead to put the U.S. in position as the dominant power in the oil-rich Persian Gulf region. All the talk of 'weapons of mass destruction' and inspections only provides a political cover for the war the U.S. wants to wage.

A statement issued by the International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition spelled out the position of the Bush administration: “The Bush administration has never intended the 'inspections' process to serve as anything but a trigger for war. This is why the Iraqi cooperation with the inspection process and disclosure has failed to produce even the slightest slowing in the preparations for war and, in fact, has seemed to escalate the rhetoric from Washington, including recent policy statements confirming Bush's plans for the first use of nuclear weapons.”

MSNBC reported recently, “The most visible dogfight over Iraq's future is playing out in diplomatic circles, as the U.S. tries to convince its skeptical allies that a 'regime change' is imperative and military action inevitable. But another high stakes, yet much less visible, struggle is also quietly taking shape. Once U.N. economic sanctions on Iraq are lifted, who will develop – and control – Iraq's vast oil reserves?”

Iraq is believed to have an estimated 112 billion barrels of crude oil, second only in size to Saudi Arabia.

MSNBC also reports, “So far, U.S. oil companies have been stuck on the sidelines of the Iraqi oil rush. Even if Saddam wanted to enlist U.S. firms in the rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure, U.N. sanctions – as well as U.S. laws – have barred American oil companies from dealing with Baghdad. But some analysts say it's unlikely that American firms will be left empty handed if the U.S. follows through on threats of military action.”

“If you turn up and it's your tanks that dislodged the regime and you have 50,000 troops in the country and they're in your tanks, then you are going to get the best deals,” said Credit Suisse First Boston oil analyst Mark Flannery. “That's the way it works. The French will have three men and a 1950's tank. That's just not going to work.”

Modern political and economic power needs military power. Modern U.S. capitalism depends on U.S. military force to maintain its position around the world.

The break-up of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp brought the cold war to an end. As a practical matter, an important block of countries that challenged U.S. attempts at hegemony ceased to be a political factor. Right now, Washington intends to use the political atmosphere created by the events of Sept. 11, 2001, to carry out a series of military interventions around the world. The Bush administration is looking to create the conditions for the U.S. to reign as the dominant world power.

While the war pressure builds against Iraq, the anti-war movement in the U.S. and around the world also grows.

But the anti-war movement will also face great pressures, especially if the U.S. initiates its war.

During the Persian Gulf War in 1991, a great hoopla was created by commentators, saying the 'country would welcome home the G.I.'s as heroes, not spit on them like the returning Vietnam veterans.'

Out of thin air, a great lie was created that the anti-war movement during the Vietnam war spat on returning G.I.'s.

In fact, returning G.I.'s entered the anti-war movement in great numbers, led many anti-war actions and spoke with a voice of moral authority against the government and its war. One of the reasons the U.S. had to pull out of Vietnam was that G.I.'s were in open rebellion against the war and their officers. The Pentagon was afraid of the G.I's.

But, in order to disorient the anti-war movement, the lie that G.I.'s were spat on was repeated so many times it became accepted as the truth in many circles, including among some of those actively opposing the Gulf War.

The way to 'support the troops' is to prevent the war, and to support the active duty G.I.'s who resist the war. The troops are not being sent on a humanitarian mission, but as the armed wing of U.S. corporations that see conquering Iraq as a step on the path towards dominating the world.

#Iraq #Editorial #Editorials #IraqWar #oil #MiddleEast