Agreeing to participate in Robert Tucker’s Pacific Coast Futures Retreat in Santa Barbara has challenged me to explore some of the trends and forces that will influence America’s future. The most impactful forces that define periods in history are often not linear. They are cyclical, a tension of forces that force movement between two extremes. Defining such tensions and where we are on them can open us to opportunity and possibly save us from disasters of our own making. Here are ten tensions in play at this time in history:

Energy Scarcity or Energy Abundance: Affordable energy is needed for economies to prosper and citizens to reach their own potential. With the current administration’s rejection of fossil fuels and promotion of specific alternative energies, energy scarcity with its inflationary pressure is winning the day. Within the next ten years, increased use of nuclear energy, less restrictions on fossil fuels, and developments in fusion energy will help reestablish energy abundance.

Embracing Technological Innovation or Rejection of Technology: Rapid technological innovation and artificial intelligence (AI) have increased our dependence on devices to perform daily activities. This trend will increase with those rejecting such advances falling behind and limiting their employment opportunities. Today, embracing innovation is winning the future, but there are dangers on the horizon. Will the AI innovations we create eventually create machine cognition that becomes hard to control increasing resistance?.

Human Relationships or Virtual Reality: You don’t have to look far to see the preoccupation with smart phone interaction in place of actual social conversations. Expect that metaverse advances in the use and quality of virtual reality (VR) interaction and augmented reality (AR) headsets will become more intense and attractive. True relationships take time, can be frustrating, and are seldom as consistently satisfying. Sadly, pornography will likely be leading the way in driving the expansion of virtual reality. This powerful force will strike a blow at our social fabric and cohesion.

Government Dependence or Personal Responsibility: Biden’s administration has argued for guaranteed income and established more government entitlements. With a small Republican majority in the House and Biden’s veto power, more citizens remain dependent on the government, and those producing services and products face increased taxes. The conflicting draw of socialism and capitalism will always be with us, but free-enterprise capitalism will win the future on the basis of economic results.

Soft on Crime or Strong Enforcement: We’ve witnessed increased criticism of law enforcement abuse and growing demands to defund the police. Traditionally, one of the basic functions of a civil society is for authorities to hold people accountable for crimes and protect citizens and their property. Far too many district attorneys and politicians are refusing to prosecute criminals and are calling for gun control. With citizens feeling unsafe, guns and private security systems have proliferated. The growing call for stricter enforcement will continue to grow in response to the riots and increases in crime. Law and order is a winning campaign issue for 2024 and beyond.

Peace or War: The longing for peace and the reality of war have always been with us. With the proliferation of more powerful weapons, waging war is far more destructive. There is hope that diplomacy, global economic interdependence, and the resulting economic opportunity will be enough to maintain world peace and limit destructive conflict. Unfortunately, the existence of biological, nuclear, EMT weapons makes the likelihood of mutual destruction a frightening reality. The current open conflict in Ukraine gives war a scary advantage for the immediate future.

Out of Many One or Out of Many Tribes: The civil rights movement and the dream of Martin Luther King Jr. was to make our motto e pluribus unum, “out of many one,” a reality. Since that time there has been a strong focus and progress in eliminating racial bias. Recent societal forces have worked to divide citizens by skin color to justify ‘special interest” rewards for certain groups. A reaction to this new “tribal racism” is beginning to gain support and fuel a fight against special interest reparations for past racism. Expect a hard-fought resistance to reparations and a renewed call common rights and responsibilities for all citizens, no matter their age, gender, race, or ethnicity.

School Choice or Public Schools: After the poor performance and questionable indoctrination from public schools, there is a strong drive for school choice. Parents want more control over what schools children attend and what they are taught. With strong minority support, this is a trend that will win the day and result in a better education for our children.

Open Borders or Controlled Immigration: There is no question that we need more workers to continue to drive our economy. With the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants adversely impacting cities throughout the country, there is renewed interest in controlling our borders. Expect a resurgence in demands for secure borders, accountability for drug cartels, and increases in legal immigration.

Greed or Compassion: America has always supported individuals pursuing happiness and success, but it has valued others being able to do the same. A commitment to compassion supports benevolent self-interest where compassion for one’s fellow man is realized as the only way for all to thrive. Care for one’s community over selfishness will remain a strong force that should win the day in coming years.

Secular or Sacred: America has been a Judeo-Christian country that anchored its freedoms and future in the assurance of a loving God who cares about every individual and demands ethical behavior. Dostoevsky’s would observe, “If there is no God, everything is permissible.” Without faith, ethical absolutes are not shared. Although there’s been a decrease in church attendance, there seem to be signs of a spiritual revival. In tough times, people search for and depend on God. Expect a renewed focus on faith, ethics, and involvement in religious communities in the challenging times ahead.

At any given time, all of these tensions become forces that define what the future holds for countries and individuals. There are dangers ahead that must be managed, but tough times develop stronger citizens and demand more responsive politicians. Those who thrive in these times will do so by finding ways to tap and capitalize on the ascending forces impacting society. Thankfully for America, President Biden’s radical liberal changes have created strong counter forces that will result in a rejection of many unpopular changes and fuel a call for more conservative policies and priorities.

Purchase Dr. Paulson’s newly released ”Joy Comes with the Morning” course today! Get ready to enjoy the 31 short, recorded messages on your computer or smart phone. Each message is designed to expand and enhance your joy-filled faith experience whenever you need or want it. Visit tomeapp.com/joy to start bringing more Christian joy to your morning today. Contact him at [email protected]

Want to learn how to trade Crypto and Forex? Click here for all the details!

As a conservative, I have watched with increasing concern as the left wing of the Democratic Party has pushed for greater control over the US banking system. This push has been fueled by a misguided belief that the banking system is inherently corrupt and that only government intervention can save it.

However, as renowned conservative economist Milton Friedman once said, “The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.” In other words, the left wing’s proposed solution of greater government control over the banking system would likely only exacerbate the problem.

If the left wing of the Democratic Party continues down this path, they risk bankrupting the very system they seek to control.

One of the key ways in which the left wing of the Democratic Party seeks to take over the banking system is through increased regulation. However, as Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek once observed, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

In other words, the left wing’s attempts to design a better banking system through regulation are likely to fail. As Hayek noted, the economy is too complex for any group of individuals, no matter how well-intentioned, to fully understand or control.

Indeed, history has shown that increased regulation often leads to unintended consequences. For example, the 2008 financial crisis was in part caused by regulations that encouraged banks to take on risky loans in the name of increasing home ownership.

As conservative economist Thomas Sowell has noted, “It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.”

The same principle applies to the banking system. If the left wing of the Democratic Party seeks to take over the banking system through increased regulation, they will have to pay for an enormous government bureaucracy to administer those regulations. This will ultimately prove to be more expensive than any benefits that might be gained.

Furthermore, increased regulation will stifle innovation and competition in the banking industry. As renowned conservative economist Adam Smith once observed, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

In other words, if the banking industry is tightly regulated, it will be much more difficult for new entrants to compete with established players. This will lead to less innovation and higher prices for consumers.

Another way in which the left wing of the Democratic Party seeks to take over the banking system is through the creation of a government-run “public option” for banking. However, as conservative economist Milton Friedman once noted, “A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want.”

In other words, the creation of a government-run “public option” for banking would be a classic case of the government picking winners and losers. It would also create an unfair advantage for the government-run option over private sector competitors.

Furthermore, a government-run “public option” for banking would likely be inefficient and expensive. As conservative economist Friedrich Hayek once observed, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

In other words, the government’s attempts to design a better banking system are likely to fail. The government simply does not have the knowledge or expertise necessary to run a successful banking operation.

Ultimately, the left wing of the Democratic Party’s attempts to take over the banking system are misguided and dangerous. As conservative economist Thomas Sowell has noted, “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it.”

In the case of the banking system, the left wing’s attempts to take over the system through increased regulation and the creation of a government-run “public option” would only exacerbate scarcity by stifling competition, innovation, and economic growth.

As renowned conservative economist Friedrich Hayek once observed, “The market is not a place, a thing, or a collective entity. The market is a process, actuated by the interplay of the actions of the various individuals cooperating under the division of labor.”

In other words, the market is made up of individual actors who, through their own self-interest, work together to create a more efficient and innovative system. By allowing the free market to operate in the banking industry, we can create a system that is both more efficient and more responsive to the needs of consumers.

Furthermore, by allowing the free market to operate in the banking industry, we can ensure that the system remains solvent and financially stable. As conservative economist Thomas Sowell has noted, “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.”

In other words, by allowing the free market to operate, we can ensure that market forces, rather than government bureaucrats, are the ones making decisions about which banks succeed or fail. This will ultimately lead to a more stable and sustainable banking system.

The left wing of the Democratic Party’s attempts to take over the banking system through increased regulation and the creation of a government-run “public option” are misguided and dangerous. Instead, we should trust in the power of the free market to drive innovation and competition in the banking industry. By doing so, we can ensure that the banking system remains solvent and financially stable, and that consumers are able to benefit from a more efficient and responsive system. As conservative economist Milton Friedman once said, “Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.” Let us hope that the ideas of the free market continue to lie around, so that we can avoid a crisis in the banking system and ensure a prosperous future for all Americans.