8.18.25 The fight over abortion pill reversals, what’s driving higher prices, and the 1775 Proclamation of Rebellion

Summary

Podcast Summary: The World and Everything In It

Episode Date: August 18, 2025
Main Segments:

• The fight over abortion pill reversal and legal battles facing pregnancy resource centers
• Monday Money Beat: Inflation, wages, and the drivers of higher prices
• World History Book: The 1775 Proclamation of Rebellion and its impact on U.S. independence

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores contentious and timely issues:

• Legal challenges to pregnancy centers offering abortion pill reversal information
• What’s really behind inflation and why government subsidies drive up prices in housing, healthcare, and college
• The Proclamation of Rebellion from King George III—how it marked a point of no return between the colonies and Britain, setting the stage for American Independence

The show features expert interviews, real-life stories, and in-depth analysis, all delivered in a thoughtful, conversational tone.

---

Segment 1: The Fight Over Abortion Pill Reversal

[08:12–18:21]

Key Discussion Points

• Personal Story: Elizabeth Barrett

  • Barrett, an expectant mother in crisis, expresses her desire for support during an unexpected pregnancy.
  • She describes ambivalence about abortion, reluctantly taking the first abortion pill and then learning about “abortion pill reversal.”

• Legal Landscape:

  • New York Attorney General Letitia James and California Attorney General Rob Bonta are suing pregnancy centers (e.g., Heartbeat International), alleging deceptive advertising for promoting abortion pill reversal protocols.
  • James: “I chose to have an abortion. I walked proudly into Planned Parenthood and I make no apologies to anyone. To no one. To no one.” [09:23]
  • The lawsuits claim there’s no scientific evidence for abortion pill reversal; the protocol is not FDA approved.

• Medical Debate:

  • Abortion pill protocol: Mifepristone followed by misoprostol
  • Reversal advocates say progesterone administered after the first pill may “save the baby.”
  • Critics (ACOG, AMA) argue there’s a lack of high-quality clinical evidence and potential risk.
  • Supporters point to case studies, animal studies, and the longstanding use of supplemental progesterone in other contexts.
  • Peter Breen (Thomas More Society): “It’s unethical to tell a woman who wants to save her baby, we're going to give you a placebo instead of giving you progesterone.” [12:58]
  • Breen highlights: Medical societies often rely on case studies in other reproductive health recommendations.

• Freedom of Speech & Legal Implications:

  • Breen argues it’s unconstitutional for states to gag one side of a debate or silence pregnancy resource centers.
  • “These attorneys general are not just suing to say, well, you're wrong, they're suing to say you're wrong and a court should enjoin you, silence you from saying this message.” [17:43]
  • Appeals are pending in both states; Supreme Court may ultimately be involved.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Elizabeth Barrett’s Experience:

  • On seeing her ultrasound: “They didn't want to show me. And when I finally got to see it, I was like, oh, wow, okay, I gotta get out of here. I'm not ready.” [14:21]
  • After taking the first pill and receiving an encouraging text from her baby’s father, Barrett found the abortion pill reversal hotline and began the reversal process, facilitated by a compassionate pharmacist.
  • "She was born healthy, and it's been the best decision I ever made." [15:58]
  • “I hate the thought that other people will be robbed of the opportunity to even try. And I just don't think it's fair to shut that opportunity off to anybody who wants it.” [16:46]

• On Legal Principles:

  • Peter Breen: “She needs help right away. And so the state has no role in stopping a woman who is trying to save her baby from a chemical abortion in progress. Abortion pill reversal provides her that alternative. It gives her a fighting chance for her and her baby.” [17:14]

---

Segment 2: Monday Money Beat – What’s Driving Higher Prices?

[19:23–29:25]

Key Discussion Points

• Tariffs & Inflation:

  • Producer price index rose nearly 1% in July, much of it attributed to tariffs.
  • David Bonson challenges the narrative that tariffs inherently cause inflation:
    • For everyday understanding, tariffs can raise specific prices (e.g., coffee), but may not affect aggregate inflation if money supply and overall production remain unchanged.
    • Some price increases are temporary; competition may drive prices back down or reduce corporate profits.

• The “Three Hs” Problem:

  • Over 25 years, consumer prices overall grew ~2.5% annually.
  • Housing, healthcare, and higher education ("the three Hs") have seen the highest price inflation—outpacing other costs due chiefly to government subsidies:
    • “If you want more of something, then subsidize it. In other words, if something costs $5 and I'm going to put money into it now the seller can charge $6.” [24:01]
    • Subsidies distort price signals, causing sellers to increase prices without increasing value.

• Wages vs. Cost of Living:

  • Over 25 years, average wages outpaced most price increases except in healthcare and college.
  • In the last five years (since COVID-19), real (inflation-adjusted) wages lag for basic necessities—fueling middle-class anxiety.
  • Bonson: “You have a 25 year period where, in macro, for the most part, wages had gone up more than prices. But those really significant areas of housing, big ticket items, college… were growing more and more and leaving more people out.” [25:51]
  • He emphasizes housing as “the elephant in the room”—a result of government policies inducing supply shortages, regulatory burdens, and misaligned subsidies.

Notable Quotes

• David Bonson, on government subsidies:
  • “When the government is making something more readily available […] either through cheaper financing, through Fannie [and] Freddie mortgages, or an unlimited student loan market in higher education, or quite literally being the buyer in healthcare… then the price function has to respond accordingly.” [24:01]
• On Cost of Living:
  • “It's kind of a disingenuous thing when people say, can you believe an ice cream cone used to cost 5 cents? But they don't ever mention that the average salary used to be $9,000.” [25:51]
  • “There are always some people where the cost of living has grown more than their wages have...those really significant areas [housing, college] leaving more people out.” [25:51]

---

Segment 3: World History Book – The 1775 Proclamation of Rebellion

[30:07–36:07]

Key Discussion Points

• Backdrop:

  • August 23, 1775: King George III issues a Proclamation declaring the American colonies in “open and avowed rebellion.” [30:38]
  • Parliament asserts rights to tax colonies; colonists protest (Boston Tea Party, boycotts).
  • Patriots contest taxation without representation, citing Magna Carta and ancient English rights.

• Chain of Events:

  • The Proclamation followed rejection of the Olive Branch Petition, ending prospects for reconciliation.
  • The King declares colonists “traitors”; calls loyalists to suppress the rebellion.
  • This hardline stance pushes the Continental Congress toward full independence.

• Historical Perspective:

  • Professor Mark David Hall (Regent University): “We might have had a very different universe in which we live had the king been more responsible and not issued that proclamation.” [34:46]
  • America's founding marked by striving for liberty, even as original constitutional ideals are still being worked out today.

Notable Quotes

• Proclamation of Rebellion:
  • “They have at length proceeded to an open and avowed rebellion by arraying themselves in hostile manner to withstand the execution of the law and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us.” — King’s proclamation [31:02]
• Mark David Hall on the King’s miscalculation:
  • “Even in 1775, I think a lot of Americans would have been perfectly happy to reconcile with Great Britain. They just wanted their rights respected.” [34:28]

---

Important Timestamps

• [08:12] Abortion pill reversal – Elizabeth Barrett’s story
• [09:23] Letitia James on abortion and her stance as NY Attorney General
• [11:15] Peter Breen on legal strategies
• [12:58] Breen on medical ethics and lack of randomized trials
• [14:21] Barrett's experience at Planned Parenthood
• [15:58] Outcome of Barrett’s reversal
• [17:43] Breen on free speech implications
• [20:10] David Bonson’s take on tariffs and inflation
• [24:01] How government subsidies drive up prices
• [25:51] Wages, price growth, and middle-class challenges
• [30:38] World History Book: The Proclamation of Rebellion
• [34:46] Mark David Hall: implications if King George III had chosen differently

---

Conclusion

This episode dissects the battles on multiple fronts: from reproductive rights and free speech to the economic realities of inflation and price controls, all the way back to the foundational debates on liberty and governance in America. With personal testimony, sharp legal analysis, and rich historical narrative, the episode offers insight into ongoing struggles over choice, cost, and freedom.

Transcript

[Mary Reichert]

Good morning. Attorneys general in two states want to gag pregnancy centers. So women like this never hear about abortion, pill reversal.

[Elizabeth Barrett]

Seeing the ultrasound, I was like, oh, wow, okay, I gotta get out of here. I'm not ready. I'm not ready.

[Nick Eicher]

That's ahead on Legal Docket. Also today, the Monday Money Beat. David Bonson standing by, will talk about wages, prices and the real inflation story. And the World History Book 250 since a proclamation that may have sparked the American War of Independence.

[Mark Mellinger]

We might have had a very different universe had the king not issued that proclamation.

[Mary Reichert]

It's Monday, August 18th. This is the world and everything in it. From listener supported World Radio, I'm Mary Reichert.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Eicher. Good morning.

[Mary Reichert]

Time for news. Here's Mark Mellinger.

[Mark Mellinger]

Leaders from the European Union and NATO will join Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for his high stakes White House meeting with President Trump today. The meeting comes after Trump's summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin Friday where the White House says significant progress was made toward a possible peace deal to end Russia's war on Ukraine. Among the breakthroughs Putin agreed the US And Europe could could provide Ukraine with security guarantees similar to what NATO gives its member nations. US Special envoy Steve Witkoff tells Fox News Sunday. We agreed on much more robust security guarantees.

[David Bonson]

The Russians agreed on enshrining legislatively they would attest to not attempting to take any more land from Ukraine after a peace deal.

[Mark Mellinger]

Trump is expected to share details of the summit with Zelenskyy and the European leaders today and talk more about what a peace agreement Putin could look like. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warns the war won't end without concessions from both sides. You can't have a peace deal between two warring factions unless both sides agree to give up something and both sides agree that the other side gets something right. Otherwise, if one side gets everything they want, that's not a peace deal. It's called surrender. Leaders from Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Finland will be joining Zelenskyy for today's meeting. It's an effort to display a united front in support of Ukraine to help ensure this Oval Office visit goes better than one in February in which Trump and Zelensky got into a heated dispute. Protesters interrupted everyday life across Israel Sunday demanding a peace deal to end Israel's war with Gaza, a key factor driving the protests. Fears that plans for a stepped up Israeli military offensive against Hamas in Gaza could endanger the lives of remaining hostages in Hamas captivity. Frustrated protesters blocked roads and gathered outside politicians, homes and military headquarters. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, interpreted through a translator, says the protests are counterproductive.

[Nick Eicher]

Those who are calling today for an end to the war without defeating Hamas not only harden Hamas position and delay the release of our hostages, they also.

[David Bonson]

Ensure that the horrors of October 7th.

[Nick Eicher]

Will be repeated and that we will be forced to fight an endless war.

[Mark Mellinger]

Organizers representing hostages families say hundreds of thousands of people took part in the protests. Police say they arrested at least 38 people. The US is suspending visitor visas for people from Gaza. The State Department says it's making the move while it looks into how a small number of medical humanitarian visas were issued over the past few days. The visas were issued to children in need of medical aid who were accompanied to the US by adults. The State Department says several congressional offices have since reached out with concerns that the organizations arranging the visas have ties to terror groups like Hamas. Conservative activist Laura Loomer first posted concerns about the children arriving from Gaza Friday on social media. The State Department has not said whether its decision had anything to do with Loomer's posts. Hundreds more National Guard troops are coming to Washington, D.C. to support the Trump administration's security takeover there. Republican governors from three states, West Virginia, Ohio and South Carolina have agreed to send a combined total of 650 to 750 soldiers. They'll join the 800 D.C. national Guardsmen and hundreds of federal agents patrolling the streets after President Trump's federalization of the city's police force last week. U.S. attorney for D.C. jeanine Pirro says it's past time to tackle Washington's crime problem. 45 teenagers killed in the last year and eight months by weapons, by shotguns, by firearms.

[Mary Reichert]

Firearms?

[Mark Mellinger]

Okay, but DC's mayor calls using the military to police American citizens on American soil un American Democratic. Maryland US Senator Chris Van Hollen agrees, telling ABC's this Week this is all an opportunity for Donald Trump to play dictator in Washington, dc. Since Trump's federalization of the police force, there have been at least 240 arrests and close to 40 illegal guns taken off the streets. Governor Gavin Newsom is calling for a special election to allow for a new congressional map in California. Lawmakers in that Democrat controlled state are planning to circumvent the usual independent commission in charge of redistricting and redraw district lines, giving their party more of an advantage this week then hold a special election in November, giving voters a chance to approve the new maps. This move is to counter efforts by President Trump and Republican controlled states like Texas to create more GOP friendly congressional districts ahead of next year's midterms through early redistricting. Democratic California Congressman Eric Swalwell. I'm not going to wake up the day after the election and look at democracy in ashes and say, well, at least we protected California's independent redistricting commission. No, I'm going to support fighting fire with fire. Democratic Texas lawmakers who fled their state to break quorum and delay a vote on pro GOP redistricting could be returning this week. Hurricane Erin has weakened to a Category 3 storm, but forecasters say that doesn't wipe out its potential to cause chaos. Though its maximum winds diminished Sunday, its actual size grew. The storm's outer bands pelted parts of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and this week and Aaron could produce life threatening surf and riptides anywhere from Florida to New England. National Hurricane Center Deputy Director Jamie Rome.

[Nick Eicher]

As these waves come and strike the coast, all that energy is going to.

[David Bonson]

Break with these big breakers at the coastline and that's going to increase the rip current risk significantly through the week.

[Mark Mellinger]

Forecasters don't expect the storm to hit the east coast of the US Directly, but county leaders in North Carolina's Outer Banks and have declared a state of emergency as a precaution. I'm Mark Mellinger. Straight ahead defending Pregnancy Resource centers and the abortion pill reversal treatment. Plus the Monday money beat with economist David Bonson. This is the world and everything in it.

[Nick Eicher]

It's the world and everything in it for this 18th day of August 2025. We're so glad you've joined us today. Good morning. I'm Nick Eichert.

[Mary Reichert]

And I'm Mary Reichard. Time now for legal docket.

[Elizabeth Barrett]

I was in crisis mode because I always wanted the baby. I just really needed one person to say we'll do this together. Whether it was like my sister or my neighbor. I just wanted someone to say like, you're not alone, like we're gonna do this, you know?

[Mary Reichert]

That's Elizabeth Barrett. She lives in California. She was pregnant, but it was not planned. The timing was all wrong. Still, she hesitated before choosing abortion, only reluctantly taking the abortion medication and even then desperate for an off ramp abortion pill reversal. But is it a real option?

[Nick Eicher]

Not for Letitia James it isn't. As attorney general of New York, she's using the power of her office to fight abortion pill reversal. Twenty years ago she was pregnant and the timing was wrong. But to hear her tell it, for her, there was no hesitation, no turning back. Here she is in 2022 telling the.

[Mark Mellinger]

Story As a former city council member.

[Mary Reichert]

Many moons ago, I came to this.

[Mark Mellinger]

Issue in a very personal way.

[Mary Reichert]

I was just elected and I was faced with the decision whether to have an abortion or not. And I chose to have an abortion. I walked proudly into Planned Parenthood and I make no apologies to anyone. To no one. To no one. Now she's working to shut down pregnancy centers that tell women they have more than one choice. Last year, James sued Heartbeat International and 11 affiliated pregnancy centers in New York. Her claim was that they had engaged in false advertising. James alleges the centers are deceiving women by promoting abortion pill reversal.

[Nick Eicher]

The abortion pill protocol involves two medications, mifepristone and misoprostol. The first cuts off the baby's nutrition. The second drug is taken about 48 hours later. Misoprostol is what expels the baby from the womb. But supporters of abortion pill reversal say that if a woman takes progesterone after the first drug instead of misoprostol, that drug can counteract the deadly effects, possibly keep the pregnancy going and save the baby.

[Mary Reichert]

But James says there's no scientific evidence to support that and the FDA hasn't approved it. She's not alone in that view. California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a similar lawsuit against five pregnancy centers and Heartbeat International.

[Mark Mellinger]

We sued a chain of five so.

[David Bonson]

Called crisis pregnancy centers in Northern California.

[Mark Mellinger]

And an anti abortion group for misleading patients about so called abortion pill reversal.

A risky and experimental protocol.

[Mary Reichert]

One of the lawyers defending the pregnancy centers is Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society. Breen says they've been fighting for a couple of years now.

[Peter Breen]

They wanted to use state false advertising and deceptive practices laws. Started with Illinois. They actually passed a new law to try to target pregnancy center speech. We were able to go to court and get that enjoined and eventually defeated entirely.

[Nick Eicher]

Breen's team is both defending and filing counterclaims. And they're up against a medical establishment that says abortion pill reversal is not supported by scientific evidence. Acog, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, as well as the ama, the American Medical association, both of them insist abortion pill reversal may be harmful.

[Mary Reichert]

So I contacted ACOG and the AMA and requested an expert to make that case, or at least to point me to the scientific studies they rely on. Only ACOG responded, declining an interview, but pointing me to the organization's fact sheet. So I read it. Here's what I was able to find out. The studies that it cites are inconclusive they show neither clear harm nor clear benefit. And yet supplemental progesterone has been used for decades to help women at risk of miscarriage.

[Nick Eicher]

When you go to trial, you need expert testimony to help make your case. Both sides do have experts, but Breen says ACOG has no study that shows that supplemental progesterone is harmful. Indeed, supporters of abortion pill reversal point to case studies, animal studies, evidence of the mechanism of action, and hundreds, if not thousands of women who say it worked for them. The other side says, sure, but what they don't have are gold standard clinical trials. Breen says there's a very good reason that they don't.

[Peter Breen]

It's unethical to tell a woman who wants to save her baby, we're going to give you a placebo instead of giving you progesterone. I mean, you just can't do that study. And what was funny is ACOG was saying, well, there's no randomized control trial. Well, we went back through ACOG's other recommendations. In other areas of reproductive health, they repeatedly rely on case studies. The same thing we have in this situation. Because a lot of times it's unethical to do a randomized controlled trial on human women who are pregnant or considering being pregnant.

[Nick Eicher]

Now, this is not just about science. It's also about politics. Similar to what's happened in policy fights over gender, transitions for minors, professional medical societies sometimes mix political values into their medical recommendations, even when long term, good quality evidence isn't there. And that means women who want objective and pressure free advice may not get it.

[Mary Reichert]

Elizabeth Barrett knows that frustration firsthand. You heard her a few minutes ago. Conflicted, uncertain, searching for help. The moment that changed everything came right in the middle of a breakup.

[Elizabeth Barrett]

I was not trying to get pregnant. And so everyone around me was like, it's the easiest way. Hold off till you're ready. Have an abortion.

[Mary Reichert]

She made multiple appointments at Planned Parenthood. During one visit, she says staff did not want her to see the image.

[Elizabeth Barrett]

Of her baby seeing the ultrasound, which I had to fight to see. They didn't want to show me. And when I finally got to see it, I was like, oh, wow, okay, I gotta get out of here. I'm not ready. I'm not ready.

[Mary Reichert]

Still, she was torn. She went back, she swallowed the medication, and then she heard from the baby's father, Ben.

[Elizabeth Barrett]

Maybe a minute, maybe at most, after I took the first pill, he texted me, you know what? Kids are wonderful. I don't regret my two children. Let's do this. We can do this. If you haven't taken the pill yet, get out of there.

[Nick Eicher]

Of course she had taken it. So they googled frantically and buried on page three of Google search results found the abortion pill reversal hotline.

[Elizabeth Barrett]

I didn't want to call because I was like, this is a gimmick and they're going to want a credit card number. So I did call, and they never asked for a credit card. And that was kind of the beginning of our journey that way.

[Nick Eicher]

Within 20 minutes, a local doctor had called in a prescription. But when she got to the pharmacy, she found out her insurance wouldn't cover it. She didn't have the money. And at the counter she broke down in tears until someone stepped in.

[Elizabeth Barrett]

He was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, is this a life saving medication? Is this something that someone will die if they don't have it? And I said, yes. He said, okay, oh, I can put it through as an emergency order then, and I can give it to you right now. And so that's what he did, and I started taking it that night.

[Nick Eicher]

Barrett had been through a chemical abortion before that time. She began to miscarry even before taking the second pill. So she braced for the worst.

[Elizabeth Barrett]

And I got a completely different result this time from taking the progesterone. She was born healthy, and it's been the best decision I ever made.

[Nick Eicher]

They named the baby Evelyn, only later learning that the name means wished for child or desired. Her parents are now engaged, and they are expecting a baby boy soon. The pregnancy center offered free counseling that helped them work through the challenges and stay together. Barrett believes women deserve the chance to try to save their babies and to make decisions based on accurate medical information.

[Mary Reichert]

She sees miracles in the chain of events that saved baby Evelyn appointments. She didn't keep a hotline. She almost didn't find a pharmacist who could have locked the door.

[Elizabeth Barrett]

And I hate the thought that other people will be robbed of the opportunity to even try. And I just don't think it's fair to shut that opportunity off to anybody who wants it.

[Mary Reichert]

Medical societies like the AMA say baby Evelyn does not prove abortion. Pill reversal works, only that some pregnancies survive that first abortion pill. For attorney Peter Breen, the issue is both medical and legal.

[Peter Breen]

For a woman who has started a chemical abortion in that two pill regimen, she is desperately wanting to change her mind. She needs help right away. And so the state has no role in stopping a woman who is trying to save her baby from a chemical abortion in progress. Abortion pill reversal provides her that alternative. It gives her a fighting chance for her and her baby.

[Mary Reichert]

Breen argues the Constitution will not tolerate courts silencing one side of a public debate.

[Peter Breen]

What is the upshot here? These attorneys general are not just suing to say, well, you're wrong, they're suing to say you're wrong and a court should enjoin you, silence you from saying this message.

[Mary Reichert]

Appeals are pending in both states and this matter may eventually reach the U.S. supreme Court. And that's this week's legal docket.

[Mark Mellinger]

Additional support comes from Ambassadors Impact Network, inviting entrepreneurs to access faith friendly financing.

[Nick Eicher]

[e-mail] from Cedarville University, equipping students for professional excellence and gospel impact cedarville.edu world.

[Mark Mellinger]

And from Eyewitness, powerful audio dramas bringing faith, courage and history to life in unforgettable ways at the letter I witnesspod.com.

[Mary Reichert]

Coming up next on THE WORLD and everything in it, the Monday MONEY beat.

[Nick Eicher]

Time now to talk business, markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bonson. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bonson Group, and he is here now. Good morning to you, David.

[David Bonson]

Well, good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, the July producer price index came in jumping almost a full percentage point. This, of course, the biggest in years. A lot of it looks tariff driven. But you've said in your dividend cafe devoted entirely to inflation, David, that inflation quote unquote is politically convenient but an economically sloppy way of looking at it. Why do you say it's wrong to say that tariffs cause inflation? And what's a better way to think about tariff driven price changes like this?

[David Bonson]

What I first have to do to answer the question is encourage listeners to understand the definition of inflation. And as long as we're defining inflation the way a regular person would, if we're just defining inflation as when a price goes up, then I'd certainly believe tariffs are very often going to be inflationary for a period. And then what happens is some prices that go up because of the new cost of tariffs then can go down because companies start to lose market share and they have to compete and it's going to be different product by product. And so I use the example of coffee, where there is really not a lot of options. People are going to drink coffee even if it's 20 or 30% more, so that price tends to stay higher. But then there's other things that can be easily substituted, easily competed for. And so then what companies have to do is give up the price increase and take a cut in profits, which becomes a Different economic problem. I don't believe it is less of an economic problem and in fact I think it leads to greater economic problems because corporate profits serve as the bedrock for, for job creation, wage growth, new investment and what we call the factors of production. If inflation is meant to be, when there's real economic inflation, meaning the monetary phenomena of a broad and aggregate price level, well, if there's a new tariff on coffee and coffee prices go up, but there's no new money supply and no new production of goods and services, there's just an increase in price on coffee in theory that would mean something else in the economy went down in price. And so that's why I say tariffs are in and of themselves not inflationary, but they do cause prices to rise for the thing being tariffed. The issue though that nobody has wanted to really address is the fact that health care, higher education and housing that all conveniently start with the letter H are the only three things that have had substantial price inflation above the level of broad inflation. CPI consumer prices have grown about 2.5% over 25 years. It had been lower than that until the post Covid boom that we had. And those things to me represent a really embedded systemic policy error driven problem impacting society, creating a rift in society that's not being discussed. So that's the two headed monster I'm trying to take on. Number one being understanding the data around tariffs and prices and economic growth with more than just what prices went up this week. And then number two, looking at the deeper level of inflation that I think is more significant to our understanding of the economy.

[Nick Eicher]

I'm glad you brought that up because that was on my list of things to ask about because I appreciated the fact that you had done that 25 year analysis and showing that inflation has been running along at about two and a half percent a year even with the COVID era spike. So that's interesting. You mentioned those three items. Housing, healthcare, college costs racing ahead of everything else and they're all subsidized by government. So I think this is a good opportunity to talk about why government subsidies tend to cause those prices to go up.

[David Bonson]

Well, if you want more of something, then subsidize it. In other words, if something costs $5 and I'm going to put money into it now the seller can charge $6. There is a very easy explanation the way the price function works. Prices are pockets of information and humans respond to it. And that's intuitively understood with things like coupons and sales. Right. You're going to move more product when prices go lower. And then when people hear their prices have gone lower, they respond. And when they hear prices are going to go higher, they might respond quicker. And that's embedded in the way, you know, retail prices might work. But all those things are just a basic logical outflowing of the price mechanism. So when the government is making something more readily available and helping to pay for it, either through cheaper financing, through Fannie Freddie mortgages, or an unlimited student loan market in higher education, or quite literally being the buyer in healthcare, particularly Medicare and Medicaid, then the price function has to respond accordingly.

[Nick Eicher]

David, you also pointed out in the Dividend Cafe this week that wages have outpaced prices over that 25 year stretch. But then you zoom in on the things where people really feel it. Food, shelter, utilities, that everyday basket of goods, wages are not keeping up with those. So how do we square rising wages over the long term with this middle class angst?

[David Bonson]

Well, and what I did is I put two different charts in Dividend Cafe and one was 25 years showing that wages had surpassed price increase other than in healthcare and higher education. But that in the last five years, basically since COVID the study referred to it as a common man basket. What utilities and food, shelter and energy, things like that, that are kind of unavoidable expenditures. And that is where real wages have not kept up. This was a data point that really played to the President's advantage. In his first term. President Trump saw a good period of real wage growth, meaning after inflation, wages had grown. And this is, I think, likely the most practical element of how a society's standard of living is growing. It's kind of a disingenuous thing when people say, can you believe an ice cream cone used to cost 5 cents? But they don't ever mention that the average salary used to be $9,000. You know, you kind of have to take both to really get an understanding of how it has been applied to our quality of life. The problem, of course, Nick, is averages are averages. There are always some people where the cost of living has grown more than their wages have. And yet all we can do at the macro is look at the overall big picture. You asked how these two things square, and this is, I think, a really important point for world listeners. You have a 25 year period where in macro, for the most part, wages had gone up more than prices. But those really significant areas of housing, big ticket items, college big ticket items, they were growing more and more and leaving more people out, creating a little bit of this rift, of there's an outsider insider divide in the economy. There's people can afford a house and go to a good university, send their kids to college, and there's people that can't. The people that can't, well, it's true their cost of a VCR because it became a cheaper DVD player and then became a cheaper DVR and then it became streaming. You know, their prices did not grow as much as wages, but there was still a part of the economy that was becoming more unaffordable. And I believe housing is the elephant in the room. It's the subject I've probably talked about the most over the years. It's not a monetary inflation issue. It's a government subsidy on the loan side, pushing prices up, distorting a market. You have politicians that want to go throw money at it by giving people tax credit to buy a home or giving people the money for the down payment. And yet we have this mass massive supply problem where we haven't built enough housing and too much of regulation impediment and burden to do so. That's the area where I think the common man angst has struggled. The wage growth will come back, but not if corporate profits are being eroded. Real wages have to be able to grow through market forces in order for all quality of life to go up. And that's the area where I think there's tension and a lot of misunderstanding as to what has really gone on.

[Nick Eicher]

All right, David Bonson, founder, managing partner and chief investment officer at the Bonson Group. He does write regularly for World Opinions and [e-mail] important piece this week on inflation. David, thank you so much. We will see you next week.

[David Bonson]

Thanks so much Nick SA.

[Mary Reichert]

Today is Monday, August 18th. Good morning. This is the world and everything in it from listener supported World Radio. I'm Mary Reichert.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Eicher. Next up, the world history book. 250 years ago this week, King George III issues a proclamation from the court claiming that the British colonies in America are in a state of open rebellion.

[Mary Reichert]

That does not go away over too well with the colonists. The proclamation dramatically changes the relationship between the colonies and the crown and ultimately leads to the Declaration of independence in 1776. World's Emma Eicher has the story.

[Nick Eicher]

Whereas many of our subjects in diverse parts of our colonies and plantations in North America misled by dangerous and ill.

[Rich Rosl]

Designing men, on August 23, 1775, the King of England issues a declaration condemning revolutionaries in America. And it becomes the last Straw for the colonies. Voice actor Rich Rosl reads from the Proclamation of Rebellion.

[Nick Eicher]

Have at length proceeded to an open and avowed rebellion by arraying themselves in hostile manner to withstand the execution of the law and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us.

[Rich Rosl]

King George III wants to send a strong message to the colonies across the pond. It's been 11 years of what he labels insubordination. But it isn't insubordination to the colonists. It's a fight for the rights they'd been guaranteed in various charters. And the British Parliament has overstepped its authority.

[Mark Mellinger]

In 1764, for the first time, the Parliament decided to tax the Americans to raise revenue.

[Rich Rosl]

Mark David hall is a professor of politics at Regent University in Virginia. The colonists boycott British products and they even set up smuggling rings for goods to avoid paying taxes. It's a peaceful protest against unlawful taxation, but Parliament believes it can legitimately tax all British citizens, including American colonists, under the 1766 Declaratory act, which basically says.

[Mark Mellinger]

We can do whatever we want. There are no limits on our power. And to the patri, it sounded like tyranny. No limits on governmental power. That's the very definition of tyranny.

[Rich Rosl]

The Protesters remind Parliament that they still aren't allowed to tax the colonists without equal representation. It's unconstitutional and a denial of their rights as Englishmen. These rebelling colonists are called Patriots. They fiercely defend liberty and individual rights. Think of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson. These Founding Fathers draw on even older laws, going all the way back to 1215.

[Mark Mellinger]

Now, according to the Patriots, if you go back to the Magna Carta, you cannot be taxed without being represented.

[Rich Rosl]

But Parliament doesn't back down and neither do the colonists. The tension results in a standoff in April 1775, culminating in the shot heard round the world at the Battle of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts, as the colonists defend their munitions against British soldiers.

[Mark Mellinger]

There hadn't really been armed conflict prior to 1775, but beginning in 1775, there is armed conflict. And so the Americans saw this as a defensive war.

[Rich Rosl]

In July, the Continental Congress sends an olive branch petition to the King, pleading for his intervention. But he refuses to even look at it.

[Mark Mellinger]

The King responds by saying, I'm not going to receive your petition and moreover, I'm going to declare you out of my protection.

[Rich Rosl]

There will be no compromise with the Patriots. The King writes that revolutionary colonists are now considered traitors to the Crown from the proclamation of rebellion.

[Nick Eicher]

Again, we do accordingly, strictly charge and command all our obedient and loyal subjects. To use their utmost endeavors to withstand and suppress such rebellion and to disclose and make known all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which they shall know to be against us.

[Rich Rosl]

The king's proclamation does more than just disavow revolutionaries. To all the colonists, it seems that the king has just forfeited his authority over them. And now the Continental Congress has a choice to continue to peacefully resist and seek compromise or take up arms to defend their rights.

[Mark Mellinger]

Even in 1775, I think a lot of Americans would have been perfectly happy to reconcile with Great Britain. They just wanted their rights respected.

[Rich Rosl]

What would have happened if the king had tried to make amends with the patriots? Hall says America may still have remained under British rule for much longer.

[Mark Mellinger]

We might have had a very different universe in which we live had the king been more responsible and not issued that proclamation.

[Rich Rosl]

So the Continental Congress splits from England. On July 4, 1776, Britch Roswell reads from the Declaration of Independence.

[Nick Eicher]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Mark Mellinger]

It has been said that America is the only nation founded on a proposition, on a set of principles. Really what the founders did is extraordinary. Not only do they stand up to the greatest military military power of the age, they crafted a regime based on these principles, principles that they didn't live up to fully, but they attempted to work out. And we're still attempting to work out today.

[Rich Rosl]

That's this week's world history Book. I'm Emma Eicher.

[Nick Eicher]

Tomorrow, what's next for Russia and Ukraine? We'll talk about that and a special report on Russia's persecution of Ukrainian Christians. That and more tomorrow. I'm Nick Icarus.

[Mary Reichert]

And I'm Mary Reichardt. The world and everything in it comes to you from World Radio. World's mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates and inspires. The Bible records that soon afterward, Jesus went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the 12 were with him. And also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities. Mary called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out. And Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager. And Susanna and many others who provided for them out of their means. Verses 1 through 3 of Luke, chapter 8, go now in grace and peace.