Home🔒 SSL Verified

Table of Contents

• ↓ Authority Metrics: Score 87/100
• ↓ Global Reach of Newworldeconomics
• ↓ Competitor Analysis for .COM Domains
• ↓ Top Alternatives to newworldeconomics.com

6-Month Traffic Trend Estimate

Official Contact & Profiles

Visual representation extracted from newworldeconomics.com

Content Snippets from newworldeconomics.com

"#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; width:374px;}<br /> /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.<br /> We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */<br />"

"(This item originally appeared at Forbes.com on July 13, 2026.) The Social Security system might have been a good idea in 1936, when seniors faced the collapse of asset values in the Great Depression — including the devaluation of their bank savings in 1933 – while their adult children were also out of work and struggling to feed their own children. The original tax rate was 1% paid by both employer and employee, or 2.0% combined. It reflected a world in which about 6.3% of the population was over Age 65, compared to 18.9% today, or 22.0% in 2040. It might have been a good idea in 1950, when the ratio of payers to recipients was 16.5:1, and the tax rate had climbed to 3.0% combined. But it is definitely not a good idea in 2026, or for the foreseeable next fifty years. At present, there are about 2.7 workers paying into the system for every beneficiary. By 2035, this is expected to fall to 2.3. The combined payroll tax to pay for this is now 15.30%, not the 3.0% of 1950. But that is not covering the bill. Payroll tax revenue covered 91.2% of expenditures in 2024, and that percentage will go down. The Social Security system itself is drawing on its retirement savings, as it has since 2010.  Pretty soon the Social Security retirement savings fund (known as the Social Security Trust Fund) will run out. The Congressional Budget Office now expects this Trust Fund to be depleted by 2032, at which time either taxes will rise or benefits will be cut, by as much as 28%. But this “Trust Fund” is itself something of a figment of Congressional imagination. Basically it is a commitment by the Federal Government to fund Social Security payments. Since the Federal Government"

"(This item originally appeared at Forbes.com on June 10, 2026.) Remember the Federal Reserve’s “2% Inflation Target”? It has been 63 consecutive months since that target has been met. In May, the official Consumer Price Index (which has been continually modified since the 1980s to make it look better) was 4.2% higher than a year earlier. But even if the Federal Reserve was able (har!) to meet this target, it smells suspiciously like a plan to gradually devalue the currency over time. This makes political sense – a cheaper currency benefits debtors, at least for as long as interest rates don’t reflect expectations of continual currency debasement. Since the government is the biggest debtor, and since a lot of voters are also big debtors, there is a kind of constant political wind toward cheapening the currency. This CPI target is somewhat informal. It has been mentioned many times, but does not form an institutionalized part of the Federal Reserve’s procedure. Other than this element, which added a sense of legitimacy before it became an embarrassment, the Federal Reserve pretty much just makes it up as they go along. This gives rise to a catalog of various “rules-based systems,” promoted by various organizations (notably the Cato Institute) who think they can do better. But can they? I don’t think so. What is the purpose of floating fiat currencies? Why do they exist? As I describe in my eight-part YouTube series on monetary topics, the basic motivation is macroeconomic manipulation, often devolving into government finance. Borrowing the terminology of Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond economist Thomas Humphrey, I called this the “Mercantilist” approach to money, or the Soft Money Paradigm. There is a lot of similarity with today’s proposals (including those of the Cato Institute) and the Mercantilist economists of the eighteenth century. They will deny"

Key Topics & Focus Areas for newworldeconomics.com:

Authority Metrics: Score 87/100

Global Reach of Newworldeconomics

Competitor Analysis for .COM Domains