Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Bloomberg Opinion: Think of College Like You Would a Junk Bond
NEW YORK, Dec. 2 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Dec. 1, 2025, to Bloomberg Opinion:
* * *
Think of College Like You Would a Junk Bond
By Allison Schrager
Don't miss the newsletters from MI and City Journal
The decision to attend college was a no-brainer during the second half of the 20th century. It almost assured higher earnings and job security. Tuition wasn't even very expensive. None of this is true now. The economic returns associated with a college degree are falling. Adding insult to injury, unemployment rates for recent graduates are the
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Dec. 2 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on Dec. 1, 2025, to Bloomberg Opinion:
* * *
Think of College Like You Would a Junk Bond
By Allison Schrager
Don't miss the newsletters from MI and City Journal
The decision to attend college was a no-brainer during the second half of the 20th century. It almost assured higher earnings and job security. Tuition wasn't even very expensive. None of this is true now. The economic returns associated with a college degree are falling. Adding insult to injury, unemployment rates for recent graduates are thearen't much lower than those with only a high school degree, especially for young men.
But this doesn't mean college isn't worth the expense for many people; it's just that the decision has stopped being a no-brainer. Think of higher education like you would a risky asset in that the odds are it will pay off but there are no guarantees. That may sound trite but the financial stakes have never been higher, with the average cost to attend college topping $38,000 per student per year and student debt hovering around $1.7 trillion.
Continue reading the entire piece here at Bloomberg Opinion (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-12-01/think-of-college-like-you-would-a-junk-bond?taid=692d83567b21c80001b3e897&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=business&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter)
* * *
Allison Schrager is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/think-of-college-like-you-would-a-junk-bond
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary to Eurasia Daily Monitor: Georgian Education Reform Aligns With Geopolitical Reorientation
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Dec. 1, 2025, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Georgian Education Reform Aligns With Geopolitical Reorientation
By Beka Chedia
Executive Summary:
* Georgia has proposed education reforms that would shorten schooling, weaken alignment with the Bologna Process, and threaten access to Western universities. This signals a continued shift from European integration efforts.
* The ruling Georgian Dream party is reshaping language and university policies by restricting Western-oriented programs, curbing foreign student
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Dec. 1, 2025, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Georgian Education Reform Aligns With Geopolitical Reorientation
By Beka Chedia
Executive Summary:
* Georgia has proposed education reforms that would shorten schooling, weaken alignment with the Bologna Process, and threaten access to Western universities. This signals a continued shift from European integration efforts.
* The ruling Georgian Dream party is reshaping language and university policies by restricting Western-oriented programs, curbing foreign studentenrollment, closing the International Education Center, and promoting Chinese and Russian language instruction over English.
* Increasing cooperation with Chinese institutions and new state-supported study opportunities in the People's Republic of China highlight a broader geopolitical pivot. Reforms redirect educational pathways eastward while officials justify the shift as a strategy to reduce youth emigration.
On November 14-16, Georgian Minister of Education Givi Mikanadze attended the World Chinese Language Conference in the People's Republic of China (PRC). During his presentation to the Chinese audience, he outlined planned reforms to Georgia's education system and the strengthening of Chinese-language instruction in Georgia (Facebook/MESGeorgia, November 14). Following this event, on December 1, Georgia's Deputy Minister of Education, Science and Youth, Baia Kvitsiani, met with President of Hubei University of Education Zheng Jun, who was visiting Georgia. Zheng expressed special gratitude for the steps taken in Georgia in recent years to promote the study of the Chinese language and confirmed readiness for further cooperation in this direction. The meeting highlighted the importance of implementing joint and exchange projects between Hubei University and higher educational institutions of Georgia (Facebook/MESGeorgia, December 1).
On October 16, the Georgian government announced a large-scale and fundamental reform affecting both secondary schools and universities (Facebook/KobakhidzeOfficial, October 16). This reform introduces substantial elements of de-Europeanization into Georgia's education sector. Following the official withdrawal from EU accession efforts last October, this reform may prove one of the most damaging steps for Georgia's European integration. The ruling Georgian Dream party aims to shorten the duration of school education from 12 years to 11, and university studies from its current structure of six years (4+2 for a bachelor's and master's) to four years (3+1) (Georgian Ministry of Education, Science, and Youth, accessed December 1).
Former Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili claimed that the reform disconnects Georgia from both its European political future and the European education system (Facebook/salome.zourabichvili, October 17). These reforms put Georgia's education system at odds with the Bologna Process, which the country joined after the Rose Revolution and has, for years, facilitated closer integration with the European Union. This reform may close doors to Western universities for Georgian youth for a prolonged period.
Suspicions that the Georgian government is trying to align the education system with the Russian model have intensified after Georgian Dream announced a shift in school education from 12 to 11 years, as practiced in Russia. A week later, however, Deputy Secretary of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation Vladislav Grib proposed a switch to 12-year schooling in secondary schools, after which the Georgian authorities postponed the decision to fully implement the 11-year education cycle (TASS, October 31).
Evaluating the planned education reform, Mikanadze indirectly confirmed that one of the reform's goals is to create barriers to the outflow of Georgian students to Western universities. He justified this as a desire to curb migration, stating:
Studying abroad contributes to migration processes, and many students do not return, which is harmful to our country. We want to provide high-quality education so that young people do not feel the desire to go abroad, but instead receive the education offered by the state here in Georgia (Facebook/Mtavarinow, October 21).
Under the reform, Georgian Dream plans to limit the presence of foreign students in public universities. This restriction primarily targets students from Asian countries. Local media reports, however, indicate that the number of students from Russia is steadily increasing and that the number of Russian-language places at universities is growing. Since 2012, with Georgian Dream's coming to power, the number of Russian-language courses at Georgian universities has grown. One of the country's largest public universities, the Georgian Technical University, explains the increase in seats in Russian-language programs as a response to market demand. While the private sector is usually more sensitive to market needs, in Georgia, private universities do not offer Russian-language programs. Public universities have nevertheless decided to develop Russian-language tracks, and at the Georgian Technical University approximately 662 students are enrolled in Russian-language programs (Batumelebi.netgazeti.ge, November 6). Among them are both Georgian citizens and international students.
This education sector reform will also seriously affect foreign languages. For example, after the Rose Revolution, when Georgia set a course for modernization and subsequent Westernization, the government undertook significant efforts to strengthen English's position. The then-president, Mikhail Saakashvili, who is now in prison, recalled in November that, on his initiative, around 2,000 teachers from the United States came to Georgia each year to teach English to schoolchildren. When Georgian Dream came to power, however, this English-teaching program was shut down (Facebook/SaakashviliMikheil, November 4).
Currently, instead of English, Georgian Dream has gradually begun promoting the study of Chinese and the revival of Russian. In October, local media reported that Georgian schoolteachers from the city of Gori--the city the Russian army bombed most heavily during its 2008 invasion of Georgia--were sent to Saint Petersburg as part of a Russian state professional development program (Tvpirveli.ge, October 17). This could not have happened without the Georgian government's encouragement.
On October 21, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze issued a decree abolishing the International Education Center under the Ministry of Education as of January 1, 2026 (Legislative Herald of Georgia, October 21). This center encouraged sending young Georgians to Western countries and provided government funding for their studies at the most prestigious universities in the United States and Europe. According to the center's rules, all students sent abroad were required to return to the country after completing their studies and working in state institutions for at least five years. This indicates that the abolition of this institution is not necessarily linked to Georgian Dream's declared desire to stop the outflow of young Georgians emigrating abroad for permanent residence. Instead, it represents a restriction on Western education in Georgia.
On November 12, the updated Erasmus+ Programme Guide showed that Georgian authorities will no longer be eligible for Erasmus+ programmes from 2026 onward due to "political developments in Georgia." Georgia is now listed among the countries "not associated with the programme" (European Commission, November 12). At this stage, however, it appears that these restrictions apply only to programs implemented directly through the Georgian government and state institutions. Participation of Georgian youth through university channels will not be interrupted for the time being. The National Erasmus+ Office in Georgia clarified on November 17 that educational institutions "continue to participate in Erasmus+ mobility and cooperation activities" (Facebook/erasmusgeorgia, November 17).
Georgia is seeing an increasing number of alternative educational opportunities for its youth in the PRC. The International Education Center under the Ministry of Education, operating in a transitional mode, announced on November 17 the recruitment of young people for studies in the PRC at the undergraduate, master's, and doctoral levels, as well as support for participation in programs for researchers and Chinese language courses, including coverage of necessary living expenses, for the 2026-2027 academic year (Facebook/iec.gov.ge, November 17). The involvement of a state institution in promoting higher education in the PRC, rather than Western universities, highlights Georgia's transforming foreign policy orientation.
According to the EU Delegation to Georgia, Georgia ranks fourth worldwide among partner countries outside the European Union in terms of outgoing Erasmus+ mobility. As of October 31, the delegation reported that over the past decades, "More than 13,000 Georgian students and academic staff have studied, taught, or trained across Europe through Erasmus+, with the European Union covering travel, tuition, and living costs." Additionally, "over 22,000 young people from Georgia have participated in EU-funded youth learning mobility, cultural projects, and training programs, strengthening dialogue, inclusion, and shared European values" (Facebook/EUinGeorgia, October 31).
Georgian Dream's planned education reforms signal a significant geopolitical shift. By shortening school and university programs, limiting opportunities oriented toward Western countries, and promoting Chinese and Russian instead of English, the government is distancing the education system from Europe and moving it toward Eastern influence. Officials justify these changes as a way to curb youth emigration, but the reforms risk isolating Georgian youth from Western universities and undermining decades of European integration, reshaping the country's future generations in line with Georgian Dream's new strategic priorities.
* * *
Dr. Beka Chedia is a political scientist from Tbilisi, Georgia. He is currently a professor of political science and a Tbilisi-based Country Expert (Georgia) for the independent research institute Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) at the Department of Political Science of the University of Gothenburg, in Sweden.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/georgian-education-reform-aligns-with-geopolitical-reorientation/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary to Eurasia Daily Monitor: Flaws in Putin's Art of No-Deal for Peace Become Apparent
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Dec. 1, 2025, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Flaws in Putin's Art of No-Deal for Peace Become Apparent
By Pavel K. Baev
Executive Summary:
* On November 19, a 28-point U.S.-Russia draft peace proposal was leaked that heavily favored Moscow, sparking backlash from Ukraine and the European Union.
* Several rounds of U.S. revisions with Ukrainian input have curtailed and clarified the updated, roughly 19-point proposal, which Special Envoy Steve Witkoff is set to present to Russian President Vladimir Putin
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Dec. 1, 2025, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Flaws in Putin's Art of No-Deal for Peace Become Apparent
By Pavel K. Baev
Executive Summary:
* On November 19, a 28-point U.S.-Russia draft peace proposal was leaked that heavily favored Moscow, sparking backlash from Ukraine and the European Union.
* Several rounds of U.S. revisions with Ukrainian input have curtailed and clarified the updated, roughly 19-point proposal, which Special Envoy Steve Witkoff is set to present to Russian President Vladimir Putinin Moscow this week.
* Putin insists on maximalist pro-Russian terms throughout peace negotiations so he can blame Ukraine when peace falters. Consistent and collective Western pressure is necessary to change the Kremlin's calculus and neutralize Putin's obsession with subjugating Ukraine.
Frantic negotiations for a truce in Russia's 45-month-long war against Ukraine in the last two weeks of November are likely to continue into December. U.S. negotiators have faced backlash from other Western leaders following the November 19 leak of a draft U.S.-Russian peace proposal that heavily favored Moscow. Leaked phone calls between top Kremlin advisers Yuri Ushakov and Kirill Dmitriev and between Ushakov and U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff heightened the controversy (Carnegie Politika, November 27). Ukrainians were shocked by Witkoff's readiness to integrate many Russian demands into the 28-point proposal. The initial proposal was at least partly drafted during a meeting between unofficial U.S. advisor Jared Kushner, Witkoff, and Dmitriev (The Insider; Reuters, November 26). European leaders were angered by their exclusion from the drafting process. They took issue with the proposed appropriation of frozen Russian financial assets, the majority of which are in European banks and remain a matter of internal debate in the European Union (Meduza, November 21).
Several rounds of revisions and Ukrainian input have curtailed and clarified the now roughly 19-point proposal, which Witkoff is set to present to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow this week (RBC, November 28). The problem for Putin is that rejecting this updated plan could antagonize U.S. President Donald Trump. Suggesting changes would mean accepting the basic framework of the updated draft, which reportedly dismisses aspects of the Russian demand to address "root causes" of the war by increasing the number of troops that Ukraine is allowed to keep and potentially leaving the question of Ukraine's future North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership open (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, November 26). Even the initial 28-point plan departed from many of the Kremlin's maximalist demands that it has presented as non-negotiable since the start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which some hyper-nationalist Russian commentators criticized (Topwar.ru, November 24). The initial leaked plan's ceiling of 600,000 for Ukrainian troops--which Kyiv rejects as a matter of principle--is seven times higher than Moscow's original demand. Without any restrictions on key weapon systems, Ukraine's army could become a "steel porcupine," extensively armed to deter further Russian aggression (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, November 23).
The stance that Putin appears to assume to avoid further compromises is the demand for a full retreat of the Ukrainian forces from the Donetsk oblast, justified by the assumption that continued steady Russian advances are inevitable (Izvestiya, November 27). The real situation in the battle for Pokrovsk is somewhat different from the triumphant reports from Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov, but what matters for Putin's intention to delay genuine peace talks is the assumption that giving up Ukrainian-held territory is unacceptable to Kyiv (The Insider, November 28). Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy may nevertheless be compelled--amid a very difficult domestic political situation--to take the risk of agreeing to withdraw from Donbas on the condition of Russian retreat from smaller occupied territories in the Dnipro, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Sumy regions, if a "stabilization force" of European "coalition of the willing" is deployed, backed by strong U.S. security guarantees (The Moscow Times, November 25; Radio Svoboda, November 27). This diplomatic maneuver is likely to be resented by Ukrainian troops, but their anger can be redirected toward Putin, who is loath to accept any conditions that would ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and its anchoring to Europe (Novaya Gazeta Europe, November 28).
The main incentive Witkoff can offer Putin to show greater flexibility is the prospect of a new meeting with Trump. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said during his Moscow visit last Friday that Budapest would be a perfect place to make a peace deal (Izvestiya, November 29). Russian public opinion is ready to accept a cessation of hostilities as a "victory," and some mainstream pundits are advancing arguments for the benefits of preserving the Kremlin's territorial gains, even if incomplete, and for rehabilitating the new provinces and restoring Russia's strength (Rossiiskaya Gazeta, November 24). The Kremlin's war of attrition has depleted Russia's human and financial resources, and many regions are reducing payments to sign up for contracts to serve in the war zone (see EDM, October 21; Radio Svoboda, November 30). Underfunding for infrastructure inevitably results in various breakdowns, with the serious damage to the space launch site at the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan and the failed test of the Sarmat intercontinental missile just two examples (Naked Science, November 29; The Moscow Times, November 30).
Putin may have a more positive view of Russia's economic performance than most experts, but the enforcement of new U.S. sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil has clearly upset him (Kommersant, November 28). The sharp drop in oil export revenues is a serious setback for government efforts to slow the rapidly rising budget deficit, but Putin appears to be less concerned about macroeconomic impacts and more concerned about the unexpected application of U.S. sanctions (Glavportal, November 26). Putin
Putin appears to hope for a swift resumption of unimpeded economic relations with the United States. The drafts disregard EU reservations about lifting sanctions, and the initial 28-point draft contained the odd provision that all "ambiguities of the last 30 years" would be considered settled (Vedomosti, November 21). Corrupt and sanctioned "oligarchs" with close ties to Putin, such as Yuri Kovalchuk and Gennady Timchenko, have already begun discussing new joint ventures, including access to gas fields and rare-earth metals, with anonymous U.S. partners (The Moscow Times, November 30). Ukraine, in the meantime, has expanded its war against the Russian energy sector by directly hitting two tankers of the Russian "shadow fleet" in the Black Sea with naval drones (Vzglyad, November 29).
Putin makes proposals for an end to his war so beneficial for Russia that they are unacceptable for Kyiv, and attempts to blame Ukraine for the lack of peace. This art of no-deal has repeatedly been exposed as fraud through determined efforts by Zelenskyy, his many allies in Europe, and some politicians and experts in Washington. Profits from doing business with Russia are a mirage--the economic environment in Putin's militarized autocracy would remain, even after a hypothetical ceasefire, harsh and severely corrupt. No beautiful peace can come from the ugly war that makes a lot of sense for the ageing dictator in the Kremlin. If Putin's calculus is altered by consistent and collective Western pressure, however, a difficult compromise could be reached that would neutralize his obsession with subjugating Ukraine.
* * *
Dr. Pavel K. Baev is a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO).
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/flaws-in-putins-art-of-no-deal-for-peace-become-apparent/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: Material Shortages in German Manufacturing Worsen
MUNICH, Germany, Dec. 2 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
Material Shortages in German Manufacturing Worsen
German manufacturing is struggling with more and more bottlenecks in the supply of intermediate products. In a recent survey by the ifo Institute, 11.2% of the companies surveyed reported difficulties in obtaining the materials they need for production - compared to 5.5% in October. "The shortage of semiconductors is exacerbating the already difficult situation in the industry," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of ifo Surveys.
The shortage has become particularly acute
... Show Full Article
MUNICH, Germany, Dec. 2 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
Material Shortages in German Manufacturing Worsen
German manufacturing is struggling with more and more bottlenecks in the supply of intermediate products. In a recent survey by the ifo Institute, 11.2% of the companies surveyed reported difficulties in obtaining the materials they need for production - compared to 5.5% in October. "The shortage of semiconductors is exacerbating the already difficult situation in the industry," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of ifo Surveys.
The shortage has become particularly acutein the automotive industry. More than one in four companies (27.6%) reported bottlenecks in the supply of intermediate products. In October, the figure was less than 1%. Manufacturers of electronic and optical products are also experiencing increasing problems: The figure for them rose from 10.4 to 17.5%. The picture is similar for manufacturers of electrical equipment: 16% reported a shortage, up from 10% in the previous month. In mechanical engineering, the figure rose to 8.2%.
However, the long-term average before the last crisis from 2021 to 2023 is 5.2%. A similarly high figure of 12.4% was recorded in April 2024. The supply problems for manufacturing peaked in December 2021, when 81.9% of companies were affected by material shortages.
* * *
More Information
Survey (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2025-12-01/material-shortages-german-manufacturing-worsen)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2025-12-01/material-shortages-german-manufacturing-worsen
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: Companies in Germany Want to Cut Jobs and Investments If the Minimum Wage Rises
MUNICH, Germany, Dec. 2 (TNSrep) -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
Companies in Germany Want to Cut Jobs and Investments If the Minimum Wage Rises
More than one in five affected companies (22 percent) plans to cut jobs due to the upcoming minimum wage increase. It will be raised to EUR 13.90 effective January 1, 2026. In addition, more than a quarter of them (28 percent) expect to invest less, according to a recent study by the ifo Institute. Every second company affected (50 percent) plans to increase prices. Other consequences cited by respondents were lower profits
... Show Full Article
MUNICH, Germany, Dec. 2 (TNSrep) -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:
* * *
Companies in Germany Want to Cut Jobs and Investments If the Minimum Wage Rises
More than one in five affected companies (22 percent) plans to cut jobs due to the upcoming minimum wage increase. It will be raised to EUR 13.90 effective January 1, 2026. In addition, more than a quarter of them (28 percent) expect to invest less, according to a recent study by the ifo Institute. Every second company affected (50 percent) plans to increase prices. Other consequences cited by respondents were lower profitsand a poorer competitive position.
"The upcoming minimum wage increase at the turn of the year represents a significant rise in wage costs for the companies affected," says ifo researcher Sebastian Link. "The reactions of companies show that raising the minimum wage is particularly damaging in the current phase of economic weakness. Although companies are similarly affected as was the case with the last large increase in 2022, more of them are planning to cut jobs and investments." The rise from EUR 12.82 to EUR 13.90 per hour corresponds to an increase of 8.4 percent. The minimum wage will therefore rise far more strongly than the general collectively agreed wages, which are expected to increase by just three percent in 2026.
More than a third of the companies surveyed (37 percent) stated that they were directly affected - with hospitality (77 percent) and retail (71 percent) leading the way. Among manufacturing companies, the textile and clothing industry (62 percent) and food and beverage manufacturers (59 percent) are mainly impacted by the minimum wage increase. The effects on the construction industry, where a higher minimum wage applies, are the lowest.
The study is based on data from the October 2025 ifo Business Survey of over 4,600 companies in Germany. It also compares the current survey with the reactions of companies to the minimum wage increase in 2022, when the companies affected expected far lower effects on their profitability and demand and were therefore less likely to plan to respond by cutting jobs and investments.
* * *
Publication
2025 Article in Journal
Mindestlohnerhohung in der Wirtschaftsflaute: Erwartete Reaktionen der Unternehmen
Sebastian Link, Stefan Sauer, Daria Schaller
ifo Schnelldienst digital, 2025, 6, Nr. 22 01-06
Learn more (https://www.ifo.de/en/publications/2025/article-journal/mindestlohnerhohung-wirtschaftsflaute)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2025-12-02/companies-germany-want-cut-jobs-and-investments-if-minimum-wage-rises
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center: Fight Over National Park Fees Exposed the Sierra Club as Fake Conservationists
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Dec. 1, 2025:
* * *
The fight over national park fees exposed the Sierra Club as fake conservationists
The Property and Environment Research Center is a conservation NGO. The far richer Sierra Club is an anti-energy NGO that pretends to care about conservation
By Ken Braun
This past July I drove into Yosemite National Park, whereupon I purchased an "America the Beautiful" annual entrance pass. For $80 this allows me to drive one personal vehicle into all of our national parks for one year. Even at the busiest
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Dec. 1, 2025:
* * *
The fight over national park fees exposed the Sierra Club as fake conservationists
The Property and Environment Research Center is a conservation NGO. The far richer Sierra Club is an anti-energy NGO that pretends to care about conservation
By Ken Braun
This past July I drove into Yosemite National Park, whereupon I purchased an "America the Beautiful" annual entrance pass. For $80 this allows me to drive one personal vehicle into all of our national parks for one year. Even at the busiestparks, that flat fee covers me and up to three passengers.
"Eighty dollars... is that okay?" the ranger asked tepidly.
"Um, yeah," I laughed. "That's pretty cheap."
"I agree," he smiled. "A lot of people don't."
Whether he meant them or not, he was referring to the Sierra Club.
Last week, the Trump administration introduced a new fee schedule for our national parks. On Wednesday morning, the Sierra Club blasted the changes in a news release that concluded Trump's policies were seeking to turn the national parks into "playgrounds for the super-rich."
Lifestyles of the super-rich
I never thought of us as super-rich, or rich at all. But the national parks will remain our playground, because even with the new fee schedule, my America the Beautiful pass will still cost $80 per year.
To say we're getting away with legalized plunder is an understatement.
Two years ago, in the span of 12 months on one $80 national park pass we visited eight parks over two vacations totaling less than three weeks. This included headliners such as Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Zion and the Grand Canyon. That works out to just five bucks per person, per park.
And when I turn 62 (which isn't that far off) eighty bucks will buy me an unlimited pass that will last the rest of my life.
An annual pass to Disney's Florida theme park empire is $1,629 per person (plus tax). And just two adults visiting one Disney park for one day will spend roughly $250 just to get in the gate. Families with young kids regularly spend thousands for just a few days at Disney.
I would not begrudge even a tripling of my annual pass fee, plus the elimination of that silly-generous break when I turn 62. The people who deserve a break on entrance fees are not Gen Xers with grown kids, but young American families with small children. Young families have less time and resources to visit eight national parks in one year, even though their federal taxes have already paid for those parks.
Why Sierra is sad
The new national park fee schedule does impose some steep price increases, just not on Americans.
According to last week's announcement from the Department of the Interior:
Beginning Jan. 1, 2026, the Annual Pass will cost $80 for U.S. residents and $250 for nonresidents, ensuring that American taxpayers who already support the National Park System receive the greatest benefit. Nonresidents without an annual pass will pay a $100 per person fee to enter 11 of the most visited national parks, in addition to the standard entrance fee.
This addresses several longstanding concerns that are clear to anyone who has recently been to the most visited parks. First, the popular parks are piteously overcrowded, which isn't surprising since it's so inexpensive to get in. Second, foreign visitors make up a disproportionate share of the overcrowding, which . . . isn't surprising since it's so inexpensive to get in.
In addition to not paying for our national parks through their taxes, foreign visitors who can afford to fly here to park hop are also obviously quite well off. Some are even "super-rich." Hiking their entrance fees isn't going to drive most of them away, any more than it would deter me from visiting.
And to the extent the new fees do reduce foreign visits, that will alleviate overcrowding for the Americans who paid for this stuff in the first place.
The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), a real conservation group, has been advocating for a more rational fee structure for years.
PERC CEO Brian Yablonski had nothing but praise for the new fees on foreigners:
This is a big win for everyone who loves America's national parks. A $100 international visitor surcharge could generate $55 million annually at Yellowstone National Park alone, more than quadrupling that park's revenue to address deteriorating trails, failing wastewater systems, and crumbling bridges.
The Sierra Club response ignored the potential revenue boost and didn't acknowledge any potential benefit at all from the cash infusion. Instead, they used the opportunity to denounce the Trump administration for a variety of alleged misdeeds and ended with this sour note:
Gouging foreign tourists at the entrance gate won't provide the financial support these crown jewels of our public lands need. Without that support, we run the risk of our true common grounds becoming nothing more than playgrounds for the super-rich.
Apparently a 4x revenue boost for Yellowstone alone isn't "financial support" that registers with the Sierra Club.
Whose side are they on?
Why is an alleged conservation NGO siding with rich foreign tourists while dismissing the strong possibility that more Americans will be able to better enjoy their own national parks?
Unlike PERC, the Sierra Club has long since ceased to be concerned primarily with conservation. But assuming instead that Sierra is just a left-wing anti-energy NGO explains nearly all of their policy choices.
No energy systems chew up more land (i.e.: "the environment") than weather dependent wind turbines and solar panels. Even Bloomberg News has conceded that kicking out a kilowatt from wind and solar requires at least 100 times more land than doing the same with natural gas and nuclear power plants. And, because sunshine and breezes don't magically appear whenever energy demand spikes, even more land must be filled up to build and park battery back-up systems.
But these environment-gobbling energy options are the only ones you'll find supported on the Sierra Club website. The supposed conservationists who oppose offshore drilling for oil and natural gas enthusiastically endorse filling the oceans with wind turbines instead.
And their hypocrisy doesn't end there.
While claiming to favor energy systems that do not produce greenhouse gas emissions, Sierra has for decades been "unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy." According to the Department of Energy, American nuclear reactors currently produce more than triple the combined energy provided by all of our land hogging wind turbines and solar panels.
Nuclear power is the only limitlessly scalable, infinitely reliable, energy system we have that does not provide greenhouse emissions. It is impossible to claim you care about the environment and hate nuclear power.
The Sierra Club once knew this. Until half a century ago it was a promoter of nuclear power.
"Nuclear energy is the only practical alternative that we have to destroying the environment with oil and coal," claimed famed landscape photographer Ansel Adams, a Sierra Club director back when they were not an anti-energy group.
But today's Sierra Club is now on the opposite side of the man whose photos made the Sierra Mountains so famous.
In their last publicly available tax filing, the Sierra Club reported annual revenue of more than $173 million. PERC reported less than $6.8 million.
Keep those numbers in mind if you think you can afford to pay more than $80 a year to visit all of the national parks and want to put a little extra into the cause for some people who genuinely care about what happens in them.
* * *
Ken Braun
As managing editor and director of content of CRC, Ken Braun edits Capital Research magazine. He also conducts investigative research and drafts profiles for InfluenceWatch.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-fight-over-national-park-fees-exposed-the-sierra-club-as-fake-conservationists/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Looking for Exports
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Dec. 1, 2025:
* * *
Looking for Exports
By William Alan Reinsch
One of the dividing lines on trade policy is whether to look at it from the standpoint of exports or imports. If you view it from the perspective of imports, then the focus is on costs--to workers and domestic industries. If you view it from the perspective of exports, then the focus is on benefits--growing the economy and creating jobs.
Most people don't articulate it that way, but it shows in their choice of topics. If
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Dec. 1, 2025:
* * *
Looking for Exports
By William Alan Reinsch
One of the dividing lines on trade policy is whether to look at it from the standpoint of exports or imports. If you view it from the perspective of imports, then the focus is on costs--to workers and domestic industries. If you view it from the perspective of exports, then the focus is on benefits--growing the economy and creating jobs.
Most people don't articulate it that way, but it shows in their choice of topics. Ifyou find yourself always talking about domestic industries and the need to protect them from unfair competition, you are on the protectionist side of the debate, and currently, you have a lot of company in both political parties.
Conversely, if you focus on economic growth and find yourself reminding others that with 96 percent of the world's consumers outside the United States, the best path to long-term growth lies with exporting, you are on the free trade side of the debate, and you are probably pretty lonely. (It hasn't always been that way, but that's a story for another time.)
I am not going to try to resolve that difference because it is only part of the larger competitiveness debate, which has a number of elements beyond the trade balance. That can be the topic of a subsequent column. But I do want to comment on the peculiar lack of interest in exports that has characterized the current administration and its predecessor. There is one illustrative anecdote I've found compelling: cabinet-level trade missions.
When I served in the Clinton administration, the secretary of commerce was frequently leading them. Clinton's first secretary of commerce, Ron Brown, died on one when his plane crashed in Croatia, and we lost some good friends and outstanding public servants. I recall subsequent administrations doing trade missions as well. These were not always grand, news-making events. Most of the deals had been negotiated in advance, but the cabinet secretary was the closer. Everyone loves a good photo op, and the chance to have one with the secretary and his foreign counterparts in several countries was too good for many corporate executives to pass up. It also signaled the U.S. government's commitment to international economic engagement and specifically to exporting. Secretary Brown called it commercial diplomacy, and the name stuck.
There is no precise data on the number of cabinet-level trade missions administrations took, but during the Biden administration, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, among others, led a number of them. Trump has obviously been very active on trade, but his agreements have focused primarily on tariffs and inbound investment, although some of his tariffs contain provisions addressing other countries' market access barriers.
This is odd because there are two ways to reduce the trade deficit--decrease imports or increase exports--and we seem to be talking about only one of them. (Economists, of course, would say the deficit is the result of domestic consumption exceeding savings and that the most effective remedy is to reduce demand. That's a fancy way of saying have a recession. Nobody recommends that as a policy choice, but it does do the job, most recently during the 2008-2009 financial crisis.)
U.S. exports of goods and services are growing--from $2.2 trillion in 2015 to $3.2 trillion in 2024--despite a pandemic-induced dip in 2019 and 2020, but the rate of increase is slow, and I have the nagging feeling that the United States could be doing better. The most significant influencer of exports (and imports) is macroeconomic fluctuation. If the economy is growing, exports will grow along with it, so if the government gets macro policy right, it will help increase exports. Dollar depreciation would also help and has been happening--down about 11 percent so far this year.
One specific metric is the level of activity of the U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM). That has been quite volatile in the past due to EXIM's authorization expiring for several years during the Obama administration and the pandemic. EXIM activity peaked in 2012 at $35.7 billion. In 2024, that number had declined to $8.4 billion, down from $8.7 billion in 2023. This is certainly an improvement over the years the bank was effectively out of business, but it is far from the boom years of 2012-2014.
The extent to which government should actively promote U.S. exports has been controversial, involving infighting between the Department of State and the Department of Commerce over who should do it, but in 2019, Congress passed the Championing American Business Through Diplomacy Act of 2019 (H.R. 1704), which became law as part of a larger appropriations bill (Pub. L. 116-94). Unfortunately, implementation has been slow. The bureaucratic structure to implement it was not named until mid-2024, and the required private sector advisory committee has yet to be appointed.
This is disappointing. U.S. diplomats have not always wanted to get their hands dirty engaging in commercial salesmanship rather than concentrating on diplomacy, but the need for ambassadorial and cabinet-level salesmen is greater than ever, because the United States is leaving money on the table by failing to promote U.S. goods and services. Exports are win-win. They create jobs and growth and help lower the trade deficit. It would be nice if Trump spent as much time on that part of the equation as he does on stopping imports.
The United States needs a chief salesman.
* * *
William A. Reinsch is senior adviser and Scholl Chair emeritus with the Economics Program and Scholl Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/looking-exports
[Category: ThinkTank]
