Empire Destroying Wars Are Coming to America Under Trump – Part 3

The first two parts of this series focused on how Trump-specific factors could lead the American empire into another series of foolish and highly destructive wars. Part 1 discussed my concerns regarding Iran deal certification, as well as Trump’s increased coziness with Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, who appears to get turned on by the use of violent force. Part 2 considered how Trump might sell his wars by promoting an environment of slobbering, superficial patriotism, and also speculated that corporate media might rally behind Trump if the target of his aggression happens to be Iran.
Today’s piece will be slightly different. The prior posts focused on Trump-specific angles with regard to how America’s forthcoming military mistake might play out, but I want to make one thing clear. While Trump carries his own unique risks when it comes to militarism overseas, this is all much bigger than Trump.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, I’ve become convinced that the U. S. empire will never reform on its own. There’s simply too much money and power at stake, and we already know oligarchs are above the law under our two-tier justice system. The biggest financial criminals of a generation were not only spared prison for their actions, but were handsomely rewarded. Wall Street ran the Obama administration before, and it runs the Trump administration now. It’s become clear to me that these lawless elite crooks and their enablers will continue with their insane and oppressive policies until the whole thing collapses. Whether Trump, Pence or Hillary Clinton run the charade doesn’t change where this train is headed.

This post was published at Liberty Blitzkrieg on Oct 12, 2017.

2009 – 2016: Was the Eight-Year Experiment in Maintaining the Status Quo a Success or a Failure?

Clearly, the core strategy of maintaining the status quo is to borrow and spend trillions of additional dollars every year.
The Obama presidency was a grand experiment to test this thesis: the status quo of the U. S. is a self-correcting mechanism. Left to its own devices, it will automatically correct any socio-economic-political imbalances, given enough time.
The Grand Strategy of the post-Global Financial Crisis era was simple: maintain the status quo as is. The Obama administration’s major policy initiative, ObamaCare, a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act, was nothing but the formalization of the existing status quo in healthcare, i.e. the taxpayers subsidize private-sector profiteering.
That is the Affordable Care Act in a nutshell. Costs have not declined, the health of Americans can hardly be said to have improved significantly, but garsh, did healthcare sector profits soar. Most importantly, the status quo was maintained: nothing actually changed in the insurance, pharmaceutical or hospital sectors.
The same can be said for every other sector of the economy: nothing really changed, just more of the same. Higher education: nothing changed, just more student loan debt was issued. The defense industry: more of the same. Global War on Terror, a.k.a. The National Security State–more billions sluiced into the shadows.
President Obama was a master of telling everyone what they wanted to hear while changing nothing in the basic structure of the Empire. The Imperial Imperative of destabilizing nations that didn’t meet with Imperial approval continued unchanged. The murder-by-drone campaign expanded, the support of a hopelessly corrupt regime in Afghanistan continued unchanged, and so on.

This post was published at Charles Hugh Smith on OCTOBER 01, 2017.

Matthew Stein: When Disaster Strikes

With major hurricanes in our immediate past, present & future, the topic of how to prepare for a natural disaster is an extremely timely one. The right advance preparations can literally mean the difference between life and death.
And of course, hurricanes aren’t the only reasons to prepare for an emergency. As emergencies can be naturally-caused — like a flood, tornado or earthquake — or man-made — such as a financial crisis, social unrest, or war — everyone listening to this podcast has a vested interest in taking steps today to reduce their vulnerability should one of these unfortunate events occur where they live in the future.

This post was published at PeakProsperity on Saturday, September 9, 2017,.

The Government Debt Paradox: Pick Your Poison

Lasting Debt ‘Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,’ said President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November of 2008. ‘They are opportunities to do big things.’
Rahm Emanuel looks happy. He should be – he is the mayor of Chicago, which is best described as crisis incarnate. Or maybe the proper term is perma-crisis? Anyway, it undoubtedly looks like a giant opportunity from his perspective, a gift that keeps on giving, so to speak. [PT]
Photo credit: Ashlee Rezin / Sun-Times
At the time of his remark, Emanuel was eager to exploit the 2008 financial crisis to raid the public treasury. With the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009, Emanuel’s wish was granted. The Obama administration had the opportunity to do big things.
Politically, the passage of the Recovery Act was a huge success. Washington was able to dole out funds to their preferred projects like never before. What could be better for a Congressman than to direct massive amounts of funds to infrastructure, healthcare, energy, security, law enforcement, and just about everything else?

This post was published at Acting-Man on September 9, 2017.

Antifa is Playing Right Into the Hands of a Burgeoning Police State

Don't use words the government wants you to use.
The government wants us to start calling each other terrorists.
Don't do it.
— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) August 31, 2017

Many people involved in politics swear by the notion that ‘the ends justify the means,’ which is typically the sign of a self-serving actor attempting to justify questionable if not downright evil action in order to get what he or she wants. While pursuit of ‘the greater good’ is often put up for public consumption, the driving force behind this sort of action is almost always personal gain of some sort. This is what most politicians do for a living, which is why they are justifiably hated by the general public.
The moment you justify one very wrong action to achieve a noble goal, what’s to stop you from next even more unethical action, or the next and the next? Nothing. This is what’s so dangerous about going down such a path. Indeed, those who fight monsters often end up becoming the exact thing they claim to be fighting. The world doesn’t benefit from this, only the person who has gained power as a result does, at least superficially. Ultimately, even that person doesn’t benefit when all is said and done. A person who attains their goal by sacrificing principles is a tormented, miserable person. They may seem to ‘have it all’ from the outside, but deep down they hate themselves and what they’ve become. There is no peace. I believe karma eventually catches up to everybody one way or the other.
– From May’s post: Do Ends Justify the Means?
One of the primary motivating factors that drove me to start writing publicly on a daily basis, was a recognition that the chaos and cultural lack of cohesion resulting from the thievery of the financial crisis and the increasingly corrupt, socioeconomic paradigm we live under would provide the pretext for ‘the state,’ whether governed by a Democrat or Republican, to further dismantle civil liberties and usher in a country increasingly defined by less freedom. This was a motivating concern under Obama and it remains a motivating concern under Trump.

This post was published at Liberty Blitzkrieg on Sep 1, 2017.

Mega-Banks Blow 100% of Earnings on Share-Buybacks & Dividends, Crimp Lending, Constrain Economy

‘The real economy has little to gain, and much to lose.’
When tighter regulations were imposed on the banks after the Financial Crisis, the largest among them, the very ones that threatened to bring down the financial system, began squealing. Those voices are now being heard by Congress, which is considering deregulating the banks again. In particular, they claim that current capital requirements force banks to curtail their lending to businesses and consumers, and thus hurt the economy.
Nonsense! That’s in essence what FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig told Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo and the committee’s senior Democrat, Sherrod Brown, in a letter dated Tuesday, according to Reuters. The senators are trying to find a compromise on bank deregulation.
If banks wanted to increase lending, they could easily do so without lower capital requirements, Hoenig pointed out.
Rather than blowing their income on share-buybacks or paying it out in form of dividends, banks could retain more of their income, thus adding it to regulatory capital. Capital absorbs the losses from bad loans. Higher capital levels make a bank more resilient during the next crisis. If there isn’t enough capital, the bank collapses and gets bailed out. But banks that increase their capital levels through retained earnings are stronger and can lend more.

This post was published at Wolf Street on Aug 2, 2017.

Share-Buybacks & Dividends Eat 100% of Bank Earnings, Crimp Lending, Constrain Economy: FDIC’s Hoenig to Senate

‘The real economy has little to gain, and much to lose.’
When tighter regulations were imposed on the banks after the Financial Crisis, the largest among them, the very ones that threatened to bring down the financial system, began squealing. Those voices are now being heard by Congress, which is considering deregulating the banks again. In particular, they claim that current capital requirements force banks to curtail their lending to businesses and consumers, and thus hurt the economy.
Nonsense! That’s in essence what FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig told Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo and the committee’s senior Democrat, Sherrod Brown, in a letter dated Tuesday, according to Reuters. The senators are trying to find a compromise on bank deregulation.
If banks wanted to increase lending, they could easily do so without lower capital requirements, Hoenig pointed out.
Rather than blowing their income on share-buybacks or paying it out in form of dividends, banks could retain more of their income, thus adding it to regulatory capital. Capital absorbs the losses from bad loans. Higher capital levels make a bank more resilient during the next crisis. If there isn’t enough capital, the bank collapses and gets bailed out. But banks that increase their capital levels through retained earnings are stronger and can lend more.

This post was published at Wolf Street on Aug 2, 2017.

Bolivia’s Evo Morales Declares ‘Total Independence’ from World Bank & IMF

21st Century Wire says…
Since Bolivian leader Evo Morales came to power in 2006, the country’s overall standard of living has risen. Increases in spending on health, education, and lifting residents out of poverty programs has increased by more than 45%. Much of Bolivia’s success has been credited to its decoupling from the global neoliberal, predatory financial system.

Following his recent speech at the Mercosur Summit in the city of Mendoza, Morales live-tweeted:
‘In view of the global financial crisis of capitalism, we are in a moment of integration for the liberation of the people.’
During the regional forum with many other international leaders present, Morales also spoke of ‘First the Great Homeland,’ and warned that, ‘Our Mercosur cannot repeat the bitter history of the Organization of American States (OAS): for political or ideological reasons expel or exclude some nations.’
Morales is not shy about articulating the nature of the geopolitical threat. He added, ‘Interventions in Libya, Iraq and other countries are conducted to appropriate natural resources. The main purpose in Venezuela is oil.’

This post was published at 21st Century Wire on JULY 24, 2017.

Former ‘Plunge Protection Team’ Member Warns “Blockchain Is Freaking Governments Out”

Dr. Pippa Malmgren, a US policy analyst and former member of the Working Group on Financial Markets, a government entity better known by its nickname, the ‘Plunge Protection Team,’ appeared on Erik Townsend’s MacroVoices podcast to discuss bitcoin and the European refugee crisis, while also offering some clues about how the PPT, famous for its secrecy, operates.
On The Financial Implications of Europe’s Refugee Crisis
Townsend started the interview by asking Malmgren, who also served as a special assistant to the president during the Obama administration, her thoughts about the thousands of refugees who continue to pour into Europe. Surprisingly, despite her liberal views regarding the free movement of people, Malmgren said she’s ‘quite worried’ about the crisis, and believes it will only worsen as governments in Northern Africa become increasingly unstable, potentially leading to a financial crisis in Europe.
Erik: What do you see the outcome of this refugee crisis being? We had Italy the other day threatening to issue EU visas to refugees to force other countries to do their part to absorb more people. We have seen German politics affected by what seems like a growing divide in the German populace in their attitude towards accepting refugees. mIs this going to lead to a bigger problem or is it coming under control?


This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jul 23, 2017.

Could Donald Trump Save the Internet?

Ludwig von Mises dedicated a great amount of ink to the role that ideas play in shaping society. Not only does his analysis illustrate why it is so important to educate the public on topics such as economics, but also explains the enormous danger posed by widely accepted political myths. Examples include various false narratives such as deregulation caused the financial crisis, that American healthcare costs are driven up due to ‘capitalism,’ or FDR saved America from the Great Depression. Of course these various fictions, which all enjoy the support of most of the ‘intellectual’ class, all conveniently lead to policy prescriptions that justify ever greater government intervention into the economy and individual’s daily lives.
In recent years another dangerous myth has worked its way into the American zeitgeist: that government is the only thing guaranteeing us a free and open internet.
Cloaked in the friendly phrase ‘net neutrality’ is an agenda of greater government control. The idea turned into political action in 2015 when the Obama administration ordered that internet providers be treated as public utilities when the FCC reclassified them under Title II of the Communications Act. This move gave the government the ability to regulate the services provided by broadband companies. As a Title II utility, a company would be required to treat all websites equally, and prevented from engaging in behavior like making Netflix load faster than MySpace. While this was sold as a way to protect small companies from being bullied by larger ones, we’ve actually seen the opposite happen in practice. T-Mobile, for example, was criticized for violating net-neutrality when it offered free video streaming as a way to build its positioning among mobile network providers.

This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on June 13, 2017.

Joe Biden Claims He Was “Personally Involved” In ‘Saving’ Greece From Grexit

The Obama administration played an important role to make sure Greece remains in the eurozone, former Vice President Joe Biden said. As KeepTalkingGreece.com reports, in an interview to newspaper Kathimerini, Biden said that he was personally involved in the issue and described the efforts and difficulties he faced to avoid the financial collapse of Greece.
The Obama administration and you personally also played an important role in making sure that Greece remained a part of the eurozone. Could you describe for us these efforts and the difficulties you faced? Was there a close call when you got very concerned about a Grexit and a destabilized Greece? Do you believe that the risk of a Grexit is gone? President Obama and I were engaged with all parties in the Greek financial crisis, because we wanted to prevent Greece from experiencing financial collapse. Grexit would have had very serious long-term consequences for Greece and Europe – and could potentially have triggered a wider crisis of confidence in the global economy.
We were concerned that in the high-stakes negotiation between Greece and its creditors, failure to reach a sensible agreement would have made all parties much worse off in the end. But because of each side’s desire to secure the best possible terms, this worst-case scenario was a real possibility.
While the ultimate decision was up to the leaders of Greece, the IMF, and the eurozone countries, I think we helped steer the conversation in a more pragmatic direction because of the credibility we had in Athens, Brussels and Berlin.

This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jun 5, 2017.

Are Auto-Makers Bailing On Their Job-Creation Pledges?

Carmakers quickly kowtowed to Trump after his upset victory over Hilary Clinton on Nov. 8, allowing the then-president-elect to take credit for their pledges to hire thousands of workers and keep U. S. factories open.
At the time, fears of a 35% import tariff were enough to keep them in line. But while Trump still has the support of his voter base, the administration is having a hard time whipping up votes in Congress. Trump has struggled to pass a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare – a law that almost nobody in the Republican party wants to keep. So it’s difficult to imagine the administration passing something as controversial as the import tax any time soon.
But, now that its become apparent that Trump doesn’t wield absolute authority over Republicans in Congress, The Wall Street Journal is asking: When will the corporate sector jump ship?
From WSJ:
Detroit has been an engine of growth for U. S. employment since the financial crisis, with General Motors Co. , Ford Motor Co. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV adding tens of thousands of jobs to keep pace with growing demand and fund autonomous-car engineering and other moonshot programs. Total auto employment manufacturing, including parts suppliers, hit 945,000 in April, 50% higher than industry employment in 2009 when GM, Chrysler and several auto suppliers were undergoing bankruptcy restructuring.

This post was published at Zero Hedge on May 17, 2017.

Are U.S. Taxpayers Now on the Hook for Risky Wall Street Real Estate Backed Bonds?

I’m fairly certain very few of you have heard of broker price opinions, or BPOs, but it’s something I think we should all become aware of given the influence of BPOs in the market for valuing residential real estate securitized bonds.
Before we get to that, let’s revisit a little contemporary American robber baron history. In the immediate aftermath of the U. S. financial crisis, financial oligarchs immediately got to work helping Main Street climb out of the Wall Street created ditch by buying foreclosed homes from hordes of newly destitute Americans and then renting them back to those same people.
I wrote many articles about this trend over the years, starting with the January 2013 piece, America Meet Your New Slumlord: Wall Street. Here’s an excerpt:
Well they aren’t really your ‘new’ slumlord in the sense you have been debt slaves to the financials system for decades. What I really mean is that it is now becoming overt and literal. Literal because financiers are now the main players in the real estate market and are buying all the homes ordinary citizens were kicked out of over the past few years. Yep, we bailed out the financial system so that financiers with access to cheap credit can buy up all of America’s real estate so that they can then rent it back to you later.
Fast forward a few years, and private equity is frantically packaging these real estate rental properties into bonds. In order to value the real estate collateral you need some sort of appraisal, but the normal process of actually looking at properties is seen as too costly and time consuming, so market players are cutting corners by using ‘broker price opinions,’ or BPOs.

This post was published at Liberty Blitzkrieg on May 9, 2017.

THE HORROR! THE HORROR! (PART THREE)

In Part One and Part Two of this article I detailed the decades of propaganda, false flags, and misinformation campaigns used by the Deep State to gain power and control over the U. S. government. When war or a financial crisis is necessary to keep the profits flowing, events will be steered to such an outcome. With the latest financial plundering operation running out of steam, the Deep State is pushing the world toward global conflict.
If at first you don’t succeed with a false flag gas attack, try try again. Knowing a vast swath of the American populace is incapable of critical thinking or able to discern between fake news and factual events, the Deep State and their media lackeys unquestioningly promoted the story of children being killed by a sarin gas attack by Assad. The photos of rescue workers helping victims without gloves immediately invalidated the narrative, as the rescue workers would be dead if they handled sarin gas victims without protective gear.
The faux journalists, pretending to be neutral observers, did not question this blatant lie. They did not ponder why Assad would commit such an idiotic atrocity when he was clearly in control of the battlefield and on the verge of defeating his American funded rebel enemies.

This post was published at The Burning Platform on May 7, 2017.

Student Loans and Healthcare – Two Issues that Will Define American Politics Going Forward

Poverty demoralizes. A man in debt is so far a slave; and Wall-street thinks it easy for a millionaire to be a man of his word, a man of honor, but, that, in failing circumstances, no man can be relied on to keep his integrity.
– Ralph Waldo Emerson, Wealth
Liberty Blitzkrieg readers know that I’ve been extremely critical of our modern U. S. economy for nearly a decade now. I’ve used harsh, but entirely appropriate language, such as rent-seeking, parasitic and criminally corrupt to describe our current financial/economic system. These are not words I use lightly.
I have absolutely no problem with wealth differences within a society, even large discrepancies are fine as long as the general population is benefits substantially from overall growth trends. This is not the case in today’s economy.
I support a real free market economy where barriers to entry are low, and in which small business and competition thrives. Unfortunately, this is not the case in today’s economy. Rather, America has largely become a neo-feudal society where a mass of debt slaves are lorded over by government protected, monopolistic, rent-seeking oligarchs and racketeers.
Societies work when people think the system is fair enough and have genuine opportunity for success and standard of living improvement. Societies work when the people who become fabulously wealthy are individuals who have created a product or service that benefits society at large. In contrast, people shouldn’t become wealthy by preying on their fellow citizens and driving them into destitution and debt bondage, but that’s precisely what is happening in many industries today. Our society rewards the worst sort of behavior, and as we observed in the aftermath of the financial crisis, protects and further empowers white collar criminals for destroying the global economy.

This post was published at Liberty Blitzkrieg on May 4, 2017.

Ryancare is Failing – What Should Happen Next?

The beltway Republicans are scrambling now that it seems the Obamacare replacement package put forward for Paul Ryan and endorsed by Donald Trump can’t get enough support to get through the House. The failure of the American Health Care Act should surprise no one, as it is a piece of legislation that managed to please no one. The Freedom Caucus, made up of the ‘true believers’ of the Tea Party, balked at its similarities to Obamacare, while more moderate members found the bill’s modest change to the ACA too radical for their tastes.
While the failure of the Ryan/Trump/Whatevercare represents a political defeat for the president and GOP leadership, it is probably a net-win for those who oppose socialized healthcare. After all, nothing could be more beneficial to the Bernie Sanders-wing of the Democratic party than for the nominally ‘free market’ Republicans passing its own brand of reform that fails to fix America’s insurance market. Much like the 2008 financial crisis, its collapse would absurdly be seen as a defeat for ‘capitalism’ and be used as justification for even more government control.
The unfortunate reality going forward is that more significant approaches to healthcare reform, such as the bill pushed by Senator Rand Paul and his allies in the House, are unlikely to find enough support in the Senate. Further, considering the way the media portrayed the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the ACHA, which noted that 14 million consumers may no longer purchase healthcare without an individual mandate and therefore are ‘losing coverage,’ any healthcare plan that comes close to pricing real healthcare risks (like properly accounting for the costs of those with pre-existing conditions) will be skewered relentlessly. This is all before even addressing the problems caused by Medicare and Medicaid.

This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on March 24, 2017.

Ryancare Failed – What Should Happen Next?

The beltway Republicans are scrambling now that it seems the Obamacare replacement packaged put forward for Paul Ryan and endorsed by Donald Trump can’t get enough support to get through the House. The failure of the American Health Care Act should surprise no one, as it is a piece of legislation that managed to please no one. The Freedom Caucus, made up of the ‘true believers’ of the Tea Party, balked at its similarities to Obamacare, while more moderate members found the bill’s modest change to the ACA too radical for their tastes.
While the failure of the Ryan/Trump/Whatevercare represents a political defeat for the president and GOP leadership, it is probably a net-win for those who oppose socialized healthcare. After all, nothing could be more beneficial to the Bernie Sanders-wing of the Democratic party than for the nominally ‘free market’ Republicans passing its own brand of reform that fails to fix America’s insurance market. Much like the 2008 financial crisis, its collapse would absurdly be seen as a defeat for ‘capitalism’ and be used as justification for even more government control.
The unfortunate reality going forward is that more significant approaches to healthcare reform, such as the bill pushed by Senator Rand Paul and his allies in the House, are unlikely to find enough support in the Senate. Further, considering the way the media portrayed the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the ACHA, which noted that 14 million consumers may no longer purchase healthcare without an individual mandate and therefore are ‘losing coverage,’ any healthcare plan that comes close to pricing real healthcare risks (like properly accounting for the costs of those with pre-existing conditions) will be skewered relentlessly. This is all before even addressing the problems caused by Medicare and Medicaid.

This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on March 24, 2017.

Why No One’s Going to Drain this Swamp

Financial Sector threw $2 Billion at Congress during the Election. Biggest Spenders? Not the Banks.
The Financial Sector – whose products, risk-taking, and shenanigans blew up the sector and everything around it during the Financial Crisis – has finally gotten the memo in a serious way: During the past election cycle (2015-2016), it doused the members of the US Congress with a record amount of money to ‘influence decision making’ and get what they want: deregulation, handouts, and subsidies.
So how much? Over $2 billion.
That’s over $3.7 million per sitting member of Congress, according to a report released today by Americans for Financial Reform. The $2 billion tab fell into two categories:

This post was published at Wolf Street by Wolf Richter ‘ Mar 8, 2017.

Connectivity, Not Primacy, Is the Way of the World

Editor’s Note: The Global Affairs column is curated by Stratfor’s board of contributors, a diverse group of thinkers whose expertise inspires rigorous and innovative thought. Their opinions are their own and serve to complement and even challenge our beliefs. We welcome that challenge, and we hope our readers do too.
As surprising as it may seem, speaking of “deglobalization” as an unstoppable trend became fashionable long before Donald Trump was elected the United States’ 45th president. Citing the persistent after-effects of the 2008 financial crisis, such as lower cross-border interbank lending, rising tension in Asia and pressure to bring manufacturing back within America’s borders, the arguments for “peak globalization” held a certain appeal before Trump’s “economic nationalism” agenda of tearing up trade agreements took center stage this year.
But as in every previous episode, the rumors of globalization’s demise have been drastically overstated. Today’s reality – and the megatrend of the 21st century – remains a massive expansion in the volume of cross-border connectivity within and across the regions of the world, and in the scale of movements of people and transactions of goods, services, capital, and data. Globalization is alive and well. The question that really matters for American strategists is whether the United States is being left out of the loop as the rest of the world’s regions deepen their connections with one another.
Get on Board or Get Left Behind
Trump’s worldview rests on the belief that America’s economic might gives it almost unlimited leverage – and that the rest of the world will need to play ball if it wants access to American customers and finance. That may have been true once. But a closer look at just how global trade has been realigning suggests that it’s likely to keep growing with or without the United States.

This post was published at FinancialSense on 03/08/2017.

Trump to Undo Fuel Efficiency Standards

The Trump administration is set to undo one of former President Obama’s signature achievements. On Tuesday, the EPA and the Transportation Department are expected to jointly announce the rollback of fuel efficiency requirements for the nation’s auto fleet, a move that will not require the approval of Congress.
In the wake of the financial crisis and the crumbling of top U. S. automakers, the federal government bailed out General Motors and Chrysler, while other companies were severely damaged and barely survived the downturn. With their backs against the wall, the Obama administration was able to push through historic fuel efficiency requirements, known as corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, the most stringent in decades. For cars made between 2012 and 2016, car companies had to achieve an average fuel economy of 35.5 miles per gallon, up from 25 mpg previously. For model years 2017-2025, fuel efficiency had to jump to 54.5 mpg.
The requirements have successfully boosted the efficiency of the nation’s auto fleet, with cars and trucks steadily achieving ever higher ratings on fuel efficiency. Car companies have ratcheted up efficiency on multiple fronts, introducing new electric vehicles and electric-hybrid models, while also boosting the fuel efficiency of traditional cars and trucks.

This post was published at FinancialSense on 03/06/2017.