Billionaires vs. Mamdani: Democracy for Sale

The billionaire class is spending millions to block Zohran Mamdani’s rise — not because he threatens New York City’s stability, but because he threatens their supremacy. Mamdani’s agenda of taxing the ultra-rich to fund housing, public transit, and child care strikes at the heart of a system that lets the few profit while the many struggle. His opponents — hedge-fund moguls, property tycoons, and Wall Street donors — are pouring unprecedented sums into super PACs to drown out a movement built on ordinary citizens.

This isn’t about protecting the economy; it’s about protecting privilege. The same billionaires who hoard wealth offshore suddenly claim to care about fiscal discipline. Their fear is ideological — that Mamdani’s victory will prove that grassroots politics can defeat corporate cash. They see democracy not as a marketplace of ideas, but as an asset they can buy, trade, and hedge against.

By weaponizing money to silence dissenting voices, they expose the fragility of American democracy. A candidate advocating fairness is branded a threat, while those funding inequality are hailed as “defenders of growth.” The irony is suffocating.

Mamdani’s campaign is more than a local contest — it’s a referendum on whether voters or billionaires rule America. Every dollar spent against him is a vote against equality, against the idea that power should serve the people, not purchase them. If billionaires succeed in crushing his candidacy, it will not be a victory for democracy — it will be its price tag.

Why Trump Took So Long to End Israeli Killing in Gaza?

As Gaza bled, Washington watched. For weeks, bombs rained on civilians while the so-called champion of “peace through strength” stayed silent. Donald Trump, quick to boast of brokering deals, turned hesitant when the cost of morality threatened his politics. His long silence over Israel’s brutality was not confusion — it was complicity.

Trump’s trademark swagger vanished when Gaza burned. The self-proclaimed deal-maker watched from the sidelines as Israel’s relentless bombing turned a crowded strip into a graveyard. His hesitation wasn’t diplomacy — it was political calculation dressed as caution.

He delayed action because he feared offending the Israel lobby and evangelical base that bankroll and bolster his politics. Their loyalty mattered more than the lives lost under Israeli bombs.

Washington’s silence was not indecision; it was endorsement. By refusing to restrain Tel Aviv, Trump aligned moral blindness with political convenience.

Behind the scenes, his advisers argued that Israel remains America’s indispensable proxy in the Middle East, and any pressure might embolden Iran or upset Gulf partners.

In truth, Trump was unwilling to challenge a policy that defines US dominance in the region — where stability is measured by arms sales, not peace. Gaza’s children simply did not fit into that equation.

But the cost of silence mounted fast. The world watched in horror, and even US allies began questioning Washington’s humanity.

When images of famine and flattened hospitals flooded global screens, Trump finally called for restraint — a gesture too late to cleanse the blood on American hands.

His eventual push for ceasefire wasn’t moral awakening; it was damage control. The U.S. was losing global credibility, and Trump’s “America First” mantra was turning into “Morality Last.”

For all his talk of strength, Trump blinked when leadership demanded courage. Gaza will remain the chapter where his silence spoke louder than his slogans.

Western Media Starts Wailing When Crude Oil Prices Fall

One of the greatest ironies of the global economy is that when oil prices rise, Western media cries about “global inflation,” but when prices fall, the same voices start lamenting “economic instability.” It seems oil prices are not an energy concern but rather the emotional thermostat of the West — every fluctuation sends their headlines into fever or frost.

Whenever OPEC decides to cut production to stabilize prices, Western analysts call it a “cartel manipulation.” Yet when American shale oil producers flood the market with excess supply, driving prices down, the same pundits celebrate it as a “victory of the free market.” The contradiction is so striking that even economists find themselves wondering — where does the real crisis lie: in the market or in the Western conscience?

If Russia sells oil to sustain its economy, it’s branded a “war economy.” But when the United States sells off its strategic reserves to reduce its fiscal deficit, it’s hailed as an act of “economic wisdom.” The truth is, every drop in oil prices hurts not the ordinary consumer — who might finally breathe easier at the pump — but the investors whose profits are tied to every dollar movement in Brent crude.

To the Western media, oil is no longer just fuel; it’s a narrative weapon — used to control markets, moods, and minds. When oil is expensive, the threat comes from Russia or OPEC; when it’s cheap, the “global economy” is suddenly in peril. The rest of the world can only watch, amused, as the same newsrooms that cheer for capitalism begin to mourn when the market actually behaves like one.

Perhaps one day, crude prices will drop — and Western media won’t start wailing. But until then, every fall in oil prices will sound like a siren in newsroom.

Why analysts are talking about declining oil prices only?

Somewhere I read a story about the energy giants ‘seven sisters’ which virtually control the global economy. All analysts are talking about declining earnings of these companies but not about the benefits of low oil prices. The same is also true about Pakistan where analysts are too worried about earnings of less than half a dozen oil & gas exploration companies but hardly demand the government to stop persistent hike in taxes on petroleum products.

A few months back I raised a question in one of my blogs, who are the beneficiaries of declining oil prices? At that time my own inference was that the US is the biggest beneficiary, being the largest consumer of energy products. After lapse of a few months I still withstand my point of view. I even go to the extent of saying that not only all other oil producing countries are plunging into serious financial crisis but Saudi Arabia and Russia are worst hit. Lower oil prices may keep proceeds from oil export low for Iran but it may gain the most after easing of sanction it had endured for more than three decades. Its non-oil exports are likely to increase substantially and it may also succeed in attracting enormous foreign direct investment in virtually every sector. 

Declining oil prices have enabled the US in increasing its strategic reserves, oil imports remain high and indigenous oil production still hovers at record high levels, above 9.2 million barrels a day. Reportedly the US crude inventories have surpassed the 500 million barrels milestone. Two of the global benchmarks WTI and Brent bounced up and down throughout the week ended on 5th February. However, faltering global economies offer a chance to the US Fed not to hike the interest rate, resulting in weak dollar and pushing oil price higher again. 

The western media is now trying to create an impression that the collapse in oil prices is now bleeding over into the broader global economy. They talk about the ongoing down turn in oil exporting countries, from Saudi Arabia to Russia, Venezuela, Iraq, Nigeria, and more. They have strange rationalization that cheap energy should bolster consumption, but the drop in commodity prices has been so sharp that questions continue to arise about the creditworthiness of some oil producers, Venezuela tops the list. With billions of dollars in debt due this year a rapidly shrinking ability to deal with the crisis, a debt default may not be too far off.

Citigroup added its voice to those concerned about the health of the global economy, citing four interlinked forces – a strong U.S. dollar, low commodity prices, weak trade, and soft growth in emerging markets – for the sudden fragility and potential for a global recession. "It seems reasonable to assume that another year of extreme moves in U.S. dollar (higher) and oil/commodity prices (lower) would likely continue to drive this negative feedback loop and make it very difficult for policy makers in emerging markets and developing markets to fight disinflationary forces and intercept downside risks," Citigroup analysts warned.

ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) made news this week when it became the first US-based oil major to slash its dividend. Italian oil giant Eni (NYSE: E) was the only other oil major to have done so – it cut its dividend almost a year ago. ConocoPhillips cut its dividend by 65 percent this week, and the company’s CEO argued that the move would save $4.4 billion in 2016.

The oil majors are having trouble covering spending and also their shareholder payouts with their underlying cash flow. By and large, they are making up for the shortfall with new debt. Chevron took on an additional $9.6 billion in debt to cover dividend obligations, ExxonMobil added $10.8 billion in fresh debt, and BP took on another $4.6 billion. At some point, something has to give. S&P downgraded a long list of oil companies this week, including Chevron and Shell. It also put BP and ExxonMobil on review for a possible downgrade.

A quick rundown of the full-year earnings from some of the oil majors:

•    BP (NYSE: BP) lost $6.5 billion in 2015, one of the company’s worst on record.
•    ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) posted a loss of $4.4 billion in 2015.
•    ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) saw profits halve to $16.2 billion.
•    Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS.A) posted a profit of $3.8 billion, down 80 percent from 2014.
•    Chevron (NYSE: CVX) reported a loss of $588 million, its first loss since 2002.