By Owen Miller

On Jan. 17, 2025, three days before Inauguration Day, U.S. President Donald Trump released a cryptocurrency called the Trump meme coin, which trades under the ticker symbol $TRUMP. Within two days, its market capitalization soared to $15 billion, making the coin more valuable than companies such as Dollar Tree, Logitech, and Moderna. 

Two days after the successful launch of the $TRUMP coin, the first lady released her own $MELANIA coin. Within a few hours, $MELANIA surpassed a market capitalization of $2 billion. 

These “meme coins” demonstrate a fundamental problem within the cryptocurrency market: The price at which a cryptocurrency trades often has little correlation with its intrinsic value or long-term viability as an investment. Unlike traditional investments that generate cash flow and earnings, cryptocurrencies rely solely on perception and speculation. 

“Meme coins” are generally defined as cryptocurrencies created primarily for entertainment value, with limited real-world utility. Outside of $TRUMP and $MELANIA, notable examples include Dogecoin, which has a market capitalization of $53 billion*, and Fartcoin, which represents a measly $1.5 billion* market capitalization. While these names seem comical, the reality is that billions of dollars are riding on their success. Somewhere, someone is anxiously watching Fartcoin’s price action, hoping for life-changing returns. 

Many investors dismiss meme coins as speculative nonsense while simultaneously viewing more established cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, as legitimate assets. Bitcoin, with an immense valuation of $2.1 trillion*, is widely considered to be a safe investment. It is often referred to as “digital gold.” Major companies, like Tesla, and even governments such as El Salvador, hold Bitcoin reserves. 

Bitcoin’s market dominance, however, is built on a paradox. According to popular thought, Bitcoin has real-world utility and is a legitimate store of value. Bitcoin investors claim it is a quick and efficient way to make payments online without a third-party intermediary, such as a bank. Furthermore, since the supply of Bitcoins is capped at 21 million coins, they claim it will act as a natural hedge against inflation. 

However, these two arguments directly contradict each other. One cannot have a means of exchange that is used for everyday purchases but is also meant to be an inflation hedge and speculative asset. With a limited supply, Bitcoin is inherently deflationary. 

Over time, the demand for Bitcoin will theoretically go up forever as productivity and production increase in the underlying economy. However, since its supply is finite, this continuous increase in demand for the currency will also push the price of Bitcoin upward forever. In this scenario, holders would be discouraged from spending their coins today, as holding onto them promises greater value tomorrow. This deflationary nature undermines Bitcoin’s legitimacy as a practical medium of exchange. Government-backed currencies, by contrast, incorporate inflation precisely to encourage spending and other economic activity. The way Bitcoin is structured makes it highly unlikely to be used as a medium of exchange in the future. 

So, with Bitcoin’s value being based largely on perception, how is it any different from $TRUMP, $MELANIA or even $FARTCOIN? Fundamentally, these coins share key characteristics. They are built on blockchain technology, have a fixed supply, and can be transacted while being decentralized. Yet, Bitcoin is seen as a legitimate investment, while meme coins are dismissed as speculation. This distinction is steeped in market perception rather than objective utility. If enough people suddenly decide that $FARTCOIN is as legitimate as Bitcoin, who’s to say it couldn’t surpass Bitcoin’s market cap? Maybe, in the future, we will be paying for gas bills in $FARTCOIN and groceries in Bitcoin. 

The reality is that cryptocurrency investing resembles a popularity contest more than a rational market. Bitcoin leads not because of its inherent supremacy but because it has the most credibility with investors. Bitcoin is the modern-day version of tulips, while meme coins are the weeds. Investors flock to the shinier option, reinforcing its dominance, but that dominance lasts only as long as collective perception sustains it. 

As $TRUMP and $MELANIA have demonstrated, the underlying nature of the cryptocurrency market is concerning. There is little inherent value in any cryptocurrency, from $TRUMP to $BTC. $TRUMP had just as much of a right to be worth $15 billion at its peak as Bitcoin has in its current valuation of $2.1 trillion. Ignoring the mania around these coins, future use cases of crypto do not look bright. Buyers of cryptocurrencies are not investors, but rather speculators, hoping to offload their holdings to someone willing to pay more in the future. The release of recent meme coins has painfully proven that cryptocurrency prices are not driven by real-world utility, but merely the shininess of their appearance.

*All pricing information is accurate as of Feb. 9, 2025

By Nathan Balis 

During the last two decades, China has outpaced the U.S. in Africa, building a vast economic footprint through trade, investment, and infrastructure. While Beijing’s engagement is slowing, Washington’s response remains tepid — risking a long-term loss of influence on the continent. The Biden administration has taken steps in the right direction, increasing engagement and investment, but these efforts remain insufficient. Meanwhile, a return to the transactional foreign policy of the Trump era — marked by skepticism of long-term development aid and attacks on USAID — would only weaken America’s ability to build lasting economic partnerships on the continent. To compete effectively, the U.S. must commit to sustained, strategic investment that fosters genuine economic growth and stability in Africa.

In 2000, General Secretary Jiang Zemin of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) announced the Go Out policy as a national strategy, incentivizing its enterprises to invest overseas. In 2013, Xi Jinping launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), seeking to establish global trade routes, including in Africa, by investing in infrastructure projects such as railways, ports, highways, and energy facilities. In addition, the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) has met every three years since 2000, creating three-year action plans that include Chinese pledges of loans, grants, and export credits.

China is now sub-Saharan Africa’s largest bilateral trading partner, with 20% of the region’s exports going to China and about 16% of imports coming from China, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Simultaneously, China has become the largest bilateral creditor to Africa. China’s share of total sub-Saharan African external public debt grew from 2% before 2005 to 17% by 2021, according to the World Bank. Furthermore, China’s foreign direct investment (FDI) in the region has surged, accounting for nearly 23% of annual FDI inflows in 2021. Through three principal geoeconomic instruments — trade, investment and credit — China has achieved a staggering level of influence across the continent.

Yet since 2017, Beijing’s economic engagement with Africa has lost momentum. China’s lending to sub-Saharan Africa has dwindled, dropping from nearly $29 billion in 2016 to under $1 billion in 2022—its lowest level in two decades. A struggling real estate sector, demographic pressures, and external shocks like COVID-19 and trade tariffs have all weighed on growth. The slowdown has consequences: the IMF estimates that a one percentage point dip in China’s growth rate drags Africa’s average growth down by 0.25 points within a year. Additionally, China’s shift toward green energy and Russian oil is squeezing African exporters by reshaping trade flows.

This shift presents the U.S. with an opening to expand its economic presence in Africa while promoting better lending standards and financial transparency. Chinese lending to the region increasingly undermines debt transparency, including terms that bar debtors from revealing terms or even the existence of certain loans. Debt transparency is crucial to mitigating risks of armed conflicts, trade fragmentation, inflation, and weak growth. Additionally, China frequently retains the right to demand repayment at any time, enabling its use of funding as diplomatic leverage.

With China retreating from major infrastructure projects, Washington has a prime opportunity to step in. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) has identified three key sectors — health, clean energy, and transportation — where the U.S. could make the most impact. Strategic investments in these sectors would not only support Africa’s development priorities but also reinforce America’s economic leadership by:

1.    Leveraging the Development Finance Corporation (DFC): By offering better financing terms for African governments and businesses, the U.S. would unlock investment in sectors where Chinese engagement has slowed, such as infrastructure.

2.    Strengthening trade partnerships: The African Continental Free Trade Area represents a massive opportunity. Washington should explore ways to align U.S. trade policy with Africa’s regional trade initiatives and diversification objectives more closely.

3.    Developing early-stage pipelines: Unlike China’s state-driven economic model, U.S. firms often struggle to find viable, well-structured projects. Early-stage collaboration with African governments could improve project pipelines and create more opportunities for U.S. private-sector investment.

4.    Scaling up health and humanitarian assistance: Expanding programs in vaccine distribution and medical infrastructure strengthens diplomatic and cultural ties while opening doors for economic collaboration.

President Biden’s recent visit to Angola and his administration’s $600 million railway investment mark a step in the right direction but remain negligible compared to China’s multi-billion-dollar commitments. U.S.-Africa trade, currently valued at $69 billion, still lags far behind China-Africa trade, which stands at $262 billion.

Despite Trump’s late-term embrace of foreign aid, most notably through the creation of the DFC, his recent attacks on USAID and unnecessary antagonization toward the South African government are strategic missteps. The abrupt termination of numerous global programs, including critical health initiatives in countries like Uganda, undermines U.S. soft power and creates a void that Beijing is eager to fill. As China’s influence grows, African nations have increasingly aligned with it on key global issues, such as Taiwan, with 53 of 54 African nations recently signing a joint statement supporting China’s reunification efforts. If Washington hopes to maintain support and credibility in global conflicts, it must recognize that economic leadership in Africa is not just about development; it’s about securing partnerships in an era of intensifying great-power competition.

By Shalin Bhatia

In the United States, health disparities contribute significantly to economic inequality and mortality rates. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, low socioeconomic status is positively correlated with an increased risk of developing and dying from cardiovascular diseases. The correlation exists in terms of mental health, too; low levels of household income per capita, as well as parental education, are directly associated with increased mental health problems in children and adolescents. The connection between low-income levels and greater health problems is deeply rooted in systemic social inequalities, often perpetuated by the privileges or disadvantages assigned to different communities.

Social inequality manifests in numerous forms, including stark differences in living conditions. Neighborhoods facing higher poverty rates often lack access to nutritious food, clean water, adequate healthcare, and safe living environments. These factors increase the likelihood of illness as well as reduce overall life expectancy. Consequently, people living in underprivileged areas face a disproportionate burden of diseases like diabetes, asthma, and hypertension. The health problems exacerbated by these living conditions not only lead to premature deaths but also hinder economic productivity. Those who are frequently ill or have family members needing constant care are often unable to work consistently, which reduces their lifetime earnings and limits economic mobility.

Thus, health disparities are not only devastating for individuals but also contribute to major economic losses on a national scale. When people in lower-income communities experience poorer health outcomes, their communities collectively face both economic hardship and social decline. Additionally, the country as a whole suffers due to reduced workforce productivity, which directly impacts GDP growth and financial stability. Without addressing these disparities, the status quo remains dire, as inequality in health and economics is interwoven with residential segregation and geographic disadvantage. Living conditions determine access to healthcare, the lack of which frequently leads to early mortality and economic hardship.

Health technologies offer a promising solution to these deeply ingrained problems. These technologies are expanding rapidly, providing innovative ways to increase healthcare access across socioeconomically diverse populations. From telemedicine to mobile health clinics, these technologies reduce barriers to care and help bridge the gaps caused by social inequalities and gentrification. By improving access to healthcare services in underserved communities, health technologies mitigate some of the harmful effects of unequal living conditions. As a result, despite currently holding low adoption rates among lower-income populations, health technologies hold the potential to not only improve individual health outcomes but also protect the United States from further economic downturns associated with health disparities.

Sources

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213700

www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/health_equity/socioeconomic.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/health_equity/neighborhood.htm

https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/health-technologies

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6589829/#:~:text=Mobile%20health%20(mHealth)%20technologies%20could,elderly%2C%20and%20populations%20with%20disabilities.

By Owen Miller

Since Russia’s forceful annexation of Crimea and the advent of the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2014, Western powers have been continuously sanctioning Russian goods and finances. When Russian forces directly invaded Ukraine in a major escalation in 2022, Western governments promised economic sanctions that would cripple the Russian economy. Many government officials called it an economic “nuclear bomb” that would send the entire country into free-fall. Two years later, Ukraine is still fighting for its sovereignty and the Russian economy has not seen the collapse that much of the world has hoped for. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that Russia has had plenty of growth, while Europe is disproportionately suffering from sanctions. With much of their pre-war exports and finances sanctioned, how realistic is Russia’s supposed economic health?

Pre-invasion, energy exports to the European Union and the U.S. were a cornerstone of the Russian economy. Many analysts attributed Russia’s energy export to a form of Dutch disease, where a major part of a country’s economy is dependent on one sector. In 2021, about 20% of Russia’s GDP was attributed to energy exports. At the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, global energy prices soared, and Russian companies saw a surge in energy profits as Europe remained dependent on Russian energy. However, these tailwinds were short-lived. Western powers quickly diversified their energy imports away from Russia and sanctioned Russian industries. As a response, Russia turned eastward, shifting its exports to countries such as China, Turkey, and India, who were all ready to take advantage of cheap Russian energy. Despite this strategic realignment to non-Western customers, government revenues from energy exports have still decreased by over 40% since 2022, as the value of the lost European market has not been fully replaced.

In addition to sanctions on energy exports, Russia’s financial system was effectively cut off from the global economy. In 2022, most Russian banks were banned from using the international Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) payment system, and Russia lost access to US dollars and other key global currencies. As a result, Russia has had to turn to conducting international trade in Russian rubles and Chinese yuan. The ruble has experienced high volatility, which is a weight on the Russian economy as consumers and businesses lose faith in Russian financial institutions. This instability, combined with handling trade in uncommonly used currencies, has made Russian imports and domestic business harder to conduct due to higher premiums and costs.

The war and the compounding effects of sanctions have led the Russian government to adopt increasingly unsustainable fiscal policies. At first glance, Russia’s reported GDP growth of 3% for 2024 seems promising, but the vast majority of this growth is a result of massive government military spending. This spending is not conducive to long-term growth and stability. Military spending is chewing into Russia’s emergency reserves and leaving the country vulnerable to an economic downturn. 

Furthermore, military spending is now over a third of all government expenditures, while government revenue from energy and trade is massively down. As a result, the government is running a large deficit and using emergency reserves, such as the National Wealth Fund, to cover for its losses. These are quickly being depleted, and thanks to U.S. and E.U. sanctions, $300 billion in Russian sovereign reserves – nearly half of all Russian reserves pre-war – have been confiscated. Combined, Russian deficit spending and the depletion of their reserves have  led to very high inflation rates. Russian consumers will experience a nearly 7% inflation rate this fiscal year, which is about double the pre-war amount. Russia’s ability to finance itself has been cratered by sanctions, which is detrimental to its long term growth and consumer health.

Sanctions against Russia have fallen short of the impact many had anticipated, but they have succeeded in cutting off large portions of the Russian economy from the rest of the world. Additionally, sanctions have made domestic business operations increasingly difficult. The government’s massive expenditures are propping up the short-term economy, but they are unlikely to translate into sustainable long-term growth. Therefore, despite sanctions not having the magnitude of predicted effect, they are still having a noticeable negative impact on the long-term prospects of the Russian economy.

Sources

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/sanctions-are-working-just-ask-russias-friends

https://www.brookings.edu/events/sanctions-on-russia-whats-working-whats-not/

https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/two-years-war-ukraine-are-sanctions-against-russia-making-difference

https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/RUS/Year/LTST/TradeFlow/E

xport/Partner/by-country/Product/27-27_Fuels

By Ava Karthikeyan

Introduction 

When Charli XCX’s “Brat” became the defining album of the summer, the popularity of other similar fast-paced electronic music rose alongside it. Albums such as Chappell Roan’s “Rise and Fall of a Midwest Princess” and singles by Katy Perry and Kesha signified a shift towards upbeat dance music.  

Characterized by electronic beats in rapid succession and lyrics about partying and letting go, the genre has been dubbed “recession pop.” The term itself isn’t new, finding its popularity during the 2008 recession when Pitbull and Kesha dominated radio waves. Songs such as Rhianna’s “Don’t Stop the Music” and Lady Gaga’s “Just Dance” glamorized clubbing and liberation through dance. Now, Charli XCX’s “Brat” reflects this culture with music rife with recreational drugs, letting go, and partying. However, something is interesting about this recent resurgence: Brat’s popularity didn’t coincide with a recession.  

History 

Although the term “recession pop” was coined during the 2008 recession, the notion behind this concept can be seen in earlier recessions throughout the 20^th century, namely through the creation and popularization of disco and house music. During times of economic crisis, upbeat and danceable music becomes a popular form of catharsis. 

 The economic recession from 1973-1975 saw unemployment rise to 9%, and its effects continued to be felt until the 1980s. This time coincides with the rise of disco, a genre that mixes funk and jazz with upbeat syncopation and carefree lyrics. Americans found escape in Disco, and its underground scene became a place to find community.  

Similarly, the 1980s saw two recessions from 1980-1982 – made worse by policies meant to aid inflation and the energy crisis from the Iranian revolution –  and unemployment soared to 10.8%. House music, one of the earliest forms of electronic dance music, emerged, again featuring uninhibited lyrics and rapid tempos.  

The 2008 and 2020 recessions also featured faster music than times of economic expansion, with the BBC stating that “The average tempo of 2020’s top 20 best-selling songs is a pulse-quickening 122 beats per minute. That’s the highest it’s been since 2009.” 

Implications

Cultural factors have always reflected economic trends in fashion or media consumption. During difficult times, music becomes a form of escape.  

However, this recent resurgence of recession pop indicates that this correlation isn’t an entirely accurate picture of the state of the economy. Despite widespread worries, wages have increased for many people, and Americans are on average wealthier. 

This emergence of recession pop is instead a reflection of the undercurrents of economic uncertainty within the general population. While we technically may not be in an economic recession, Americans are still feeling the lasting impacts of COVID-19 inflation and layoffs. It’s not just negative economic indicators that affect the general mood of Americans; Media headlines have become more pessimistic as the financial press doom-washes the workplace. Although the job market has drastically improved, with over 254,000 jobs added in September and inflation decreasing in recent months, Americans still perceive the economy as doing poorly. According to a Harvard poll, 63% of voters in September believed the economy was on the wrong track, with 62% describing it as weak. 

There is a disconnect between consumer sentiment and economic data. The emergence of trends such as recession pop, instead of reflecting the realities of the economy, can also express current cultural opinion. But it also is a reminder that even in times of uncertainty, people seek joy, freedom, and connection through artistic expression. 

Sources
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/21/recession-pop-explained-how-music-collides-with-
Economic-trends.html

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/unemployment_wa.html

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-irans-1979-revolution-meant-for-us-and-global-oil-markets/

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/recession-of-1981-82#:~:text=Both%20the%201980%20and%201981,known%20as%20the%20Phillips%20Curve.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53167325

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/09/business/economy-voters-election-data/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/04/economy/us-jobs-report-september-final/index.html

https://www.conference-board.org/topics/consumer-confidence