The movies, like everything else, are getting more expensive. With the trend toward streaming at home, you might think attending the cinema is a thing of the past. Nevertheless, theaters are hanging in there, even as they've lost their former glory.

 

The average price of a movie ticket has more than doubled over the last two decades. In 2004, ticket prices hovered around $6.21; today, they are $12.75 nationwide for an adult ticket, according to EntTelligence data. A Harvard Gazette survey found that the percentage of moviegoers who saw films frequently fell from 39 percent in 2019 to 17 percent in 2025.

 

We all know the answer. A Harvard poll last year found that 75 percent of Americans had opted to stream a movie at home rather than watch it in a theater. Why that would be the trend is twofold — convenience and cost. Higher ticket prices due to Inflation, production and labor costs, upgrades and extra fees, to name just a few variables, simply cannot compete with the price of streaming a film on television for a fraction of the cost.

 

Convenience is another almost insurmountable barrier to movie-going. No hassle to find a parking space, no having to "dress up" (whatever that means in a land of hoodies and sweat pants), no dog or babysitting expense, raiding the fridge for dinner or snacks while watching (rather than buying $15 popcorn), you can make at home for less than a dollar. I am sure readers can come up with some other convenience reasons as well.

 

With all that stacked against them, why are movie theaters investing in new luxurious seating, wine bars and gourmet food, sound systems that would blow out your hearing aids, and advanced projection technology costing $90,000 or more that puts you dead center in that cockpit soaring through the solar system?

 

In many ways, hope for better days ahead keeps movie houses spending. Streaming has disrupted their market, and rather than give up, companies have attempted to adapt and extend their relevance. The death knell for movies predicted by many at the outset of the pandemic never quite occurred.

 

What COVID-19 did was force many theaters to rethink their business. Theater chains began offering other amenities beyond simply showing films. Bowling, arcade lounges, gaming, and whatever else they could come up with to keep their patrons lingering longer. Comfortable seating where Baby Boomers and others can assume the couch potato position also helped.

 

For an old Baby Boomer like me who watches his pennies, I find the prices for those 65 and over reasonable. A family of four, however, could easily spend close to $100 after tickets, food, and drinks. And the theater knows this is where their profit margins lie, which is why most houses prohibit bringing in any food or beverages (even water).

 

Call me paranoid, but ever since COVID, I still mask up and have been wary of crowds no matter where I go, so sitting in a crowded theater for two-plus hours is less than appealing. For me to expose myself to a theater, the movie must be terrific — something that just screams big screen and totally immersive surround sound. Preferably, I'll choose an unpopular screen time to avoid the crowds. Not so my wife, Barbara.

 

To Barbara, movies are an event, right down to the popcorn. She enjoys the collective atmosphere, celebrating films like "Barbie" with friends, focusing more on company than the movie itself.

 

Keep in mind, too, that no matter how long I slave over a hot popcorn maker at home, she swears movie popcorn is better. Readers, be warned — she does not share her popcorn even with me. It appears she is not alone. The Gen Z population appears to be a growing segment of in-theater event attendees.

 

They are particularly attracted to anniversary screenings, blockbuster movies, and special events. Gen Z is now the most active cinemagoing demographic, attending more films per year than their elders, according to a Fandango study. They also spend more per visit on concessions and premium format screens like IMAX.

 

An update to Cinema United's annual Strength of Theatrical Exhibition report analyzes industry metrics beyond mere box-office numbers. They found that 77 percent of Americans (more than 200 million) saw at least one movie in a theater last year, and the number of habitual moviegoers (six or more movies per year) increased by 8 percent. Gen Z attendance increased by 25 percent last year, the largest increase of any age group.

 

These youngsters averaged 6.1 visits per year, up from 4.9 in 2024. But it was not all about blockbusters. In fact, Gen Z, while seeking experiences like Barbara's, was also looking for immersive moviegoing and unique concessions. This desire translates into bigger screens, enhanced sound systems, and more snacks on their minds. Consequently, it appears that the more than $1.5 billion theater owners spent last year upgrading their theaters was well spent.

 

And on the price front, a record of sorts was just announced by Regal Cinemas. It appears they are charging $50 per ticket for advance opening-night seats at 70-millimeter IMAX screens to see "Dune: Part Three" in December.

 

Rest assured, I won't be in the audience, but I'll likely see it at my local theater with my wife. Even if I wait three months after its release, I could probably see it on a streaming channel for the price of my monthly subscription. I reason it's a small price to pay for a date with my wife. After all, you can't put a price on true love.

 

It seems you can't keep a good market down. Oh, the bears tried, but equities managed another up week of record highs even as oil prices surpassed $100 a barrel.

 

The market's gains were helped by some mega-cap stocks that blew out earnings expectations (two exceptions: Meta and Microsoft). Big tech certainly delivered, sending markets higher on a day when oil hit $108 a barrel. And the Fed chair's swan song turned out to be anything but — at least for the president.

 

On Wednesday, Jerome Powell, the outgoing Chairman of the Federal Reserve, first announced that "nothing done" regarding interest rates. However, during the Q&A session, he told financial markets that he would not be stepping down from his position on May 15 as previously expected. He explained that political pressure was "battering" the institution, influencing his decision to stay.

 

It was almost comical, given the pressure on the Fed and its officials over the past year, to watch the president and his henchmen huff and puff at how this was an unorthodox position, and so political, etc., etc. The news was just a warm-up for what I see changing in the staid Federal Reserve Bank's future.

 

For example, the dissension among Fed board members at this week's meeting was the greatest since 1992. Four dissenting members (the Trump appointees) wanted further interest rate cuts, while the rest leaned toward holding rates steady; three dissented because they did not support the FOMC's easing bias in the statement.

 

Powell will remain a board governor and voting member for the foreseeable future. So, with Powell and others ready to "batter" back against any further politicization of the Fed, the new chair, Keven Warsh's job could be problematic. The divisions could also lead to greater volatility in financial markets, making FOMC meetings and policy far less predictable.

 

The latest data from the Fed's key Personal Consumer Expenditures Index (PCE) highlighted the need for an independent Fed as inflation expectations reignited. In March, PCE prices rose by 0.7 percent, the sharpest monthly increase since June 2022. Goods prices climbed 1.4 percent, mainly due to a 20.9 percent surge in gasoline and other energy goods.

 

In addition, the U.S. first-quarter 2026 GDP growth, a measure of the country's economy, expanded at an annualized rate of 2.0 percent, up from the previous quarter's 0.5 percent. Be cynical of government data. There is a tendency by the government to present the economy's best foot forward on their first estimate of quarterly GDP, only to revise downward the numbers later.

 

As investors try to stay focused on big tech, AI plays, and earnings, we are closing out the ninth week of a war that, it seems, nobody but the president wanted. It has gone on far longer than promised, with the annihilation of Iran's military capabilities greatly exaggerated. There doesn't seem to be any off-ramp.

 

The president continues to try to cow the Iranian Revolutionary Guard into submission with social media posts of death and destruction. These are followed by further extensions of a ceasefire based on nonexistent peace talks. In the meantime, the Straits of Hormuz remain closed, oil climbs higher (up 75 percent since Feb. 28), OPEC is on the ropes, and the polls, well, the polls say it all. The midterms are approaching, and nobody's happy.

 

The equation is quite simple. Rising oil price = higher inflation = higher-for-longer interest rates. And yet, we are at all-time highs. April was the best one-month return for the S&P 500 Index since November 2020, roughly a 13.6 percent gain. The Nasdaq and small-cap Russell Index gained even more. Are we overbought and extended? Yes. Are markets in nosebleed territory? Yes.

 

Given that the oil/Iran story is getting worse and is beginning to impact the world economies, why are markets celebrating? They believe that everything will come out all right in the end. The war will be over, or, if not, higher oil prices will surely slow economies, which in turn will reduce inflation growth, allowing the Fed to cut interest rates.

 

In the meantime, earnings have been stellar over this last quarter, so why complain? As for the future, we will worry about it when it gets here. Short-sighted? Uh-huh, welcome to the nature of the new market.

 

Tariff refunds started this week. The first tranche totals $166 billion — the largest repayment program in history. Large corporations and thousands of small businesses will receive some of the money they shelled out in unconstitutional tariffs. However, American consumers will once again receive the short end of the stick.

 

Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court in February. Anyone with knowledge of the U.S. Constitution knew that the president's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was illegal. Certainly, our trading partners knew this. It was only here in America that there was any question at all. Wonder why?

 

I believe it was one of the chief reasons that foreign nations targeted by Trump did not retaliate with their own salvo of triple-digit tariffs. They knew it was simply a waiting game. While they waited for the Supreme Court to do its job, they appeased Trump by "promising" to invest "trillions" in the U.S.

 

But promises are worth little without legal, signed documents to back them up. Few nations inked any kind of legal agreements. Nonetheless, it gave the president a never-ending conga line of photo ops and daily bragging rights. See how many countries are falling over themselves to invest in America, he chortled over and over again. In the meantime, prices on everything rose, supply chains were disrupted, and almost daily changes in tariffs, driven by presidential whims, left businesses worldwide in chaos.

 

The administration gave almost a weekly tally of how much was collected. The proceeds were used to reduce the U.S. deficit. On several occasions, Donald Trump suggested he would give the proceeds to voters in the form of a check. Then there was the oft-repeated argument that tariffs could replace the income tax. Now all that rhetoric has disappeared as refunds will return the deficit to its former highs.

 

Readers are aware that I was and still am dead set against tariffs. They are a tax, pure and simple, in my opinion, regardless of what anyone claims. The administration taxed American businesses and consumers, called it tariffs, and then used the proceeds to reduce the nation's burgeoning deficit. Thanks to the law of the land, that process now needs to be reversed.

 

In March, the U.S. Court of International Trade ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection to refund the money collected under the unlawful tariffs, citing the Supreme Court's decision and its mandate. More than 330,000 importers could receive refunds. Over 56,000 importers have already completed the necessary steps to apply for refunds online, with current claims totaling $127 billion. Following the launch of the refund process, the president stated he would "remember" companies that did not seek a refund — implying potential future benefits for those that complied, which some view as a questionable use of executive influence.

 

For large corporations like Costco or FedEx, lawsuits have already been filed, and refunds should be issued post haste (within 60 to 90 days). It is among small businesses that refunds could be problematic. Over the past year, the small-business community has been hit hard by these tariffs. Owners' jubilation at Trump's election gave way to a change of attitude. Their companies were already operating on tiny margins of profitability. Tariffs devastated many bottom lines.

 

What's worse, these owners do not have large legal departments or the resources to navigate the labyrinth of government legislation. For many, a single company accountant, unskilled in government paperwork, is being asked to file eligibility claims for refunds. Add to that the tight timeframe required to apply for eligibility at the newly created Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) department, and you have a typical governmental recipe for disaster.

 

There may also be the added uncertainty of delay if the Trump administration decides to appeal the court-ordered refund in its entirety. That would lock up the process for possibly years to come as appeals move through the judicial system. But what of the consumer? Where are their refunds?

 

The CNBC Chief Financial Officer Council quarterly survey, released on Monday, indicated that CFOs at companies across multiple sectors have no plans to pass along the billions of dollars in refunds consumers are owed, while acknowledging that their customers bore the brunt of tariff increases over the past year.

 

If the refunds actually do go through, it becomes clear that American consumers are left with the bill for Trump's tariffs. The burden is not on foreign nations, as the president claims, nor on corporations or small businesses. Instead, consumers, including you and me, will bear 100 percent of that bill.

 

What is even worse? The Trump administration is planning on hosing you yet again, this time with the aid of a Republican majority in Congress. Their Plan B is to reinstate these tariffs. Some of them are already in place. No one can stop them unless, of course, consumers reconsider what is best for them in November.

 

Stocks held firm this week. That was quite a feat, given the conflict and shaky ceasefire. Headlines will continue to drive markets, but strong earnings should provide some support.

 

First-quarter earnings are running at an 80 percent "beat" rate, but guidance matters more than everything else. Companies that beat but neither raised nor beat estimates were taken to the woodshed. Those who offered cautious guidance, however, really got smacked.

 

Next week, on Tuesday, four of the big mega caps report (Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Amazon), and all but Microsoft are expected to be strong. On the same day, the Federal Open Market Committee meets again, but expectations are that they will keep "on hold" until the data suggest otherwise.

 

Chairman Jerome Powell will be departing next month, and the new chair, Kevin Warsh, will take the reins at the Fed. There had been some question of exactly when Warsh would take over. One U.S. senator, Thom Tillis, had vowed to vote against his nomination unless the Department of Justice backed off their criminal case against Powell. The DOJ did just that on Friday, abandoning its Trump-directed case concerning cost overruns of the new Fed building.

 

Warsh, who spoke this week before the Senate Banking Committee, denied there was any quid pro quo between his appointment and the president's desire to reshape the Fed or loosen monetary policy further. I ignored the whole circus. Given the nature of today's politics, did anyone expect Warsh to say anything different?

 

To me, the whole affair was just another TACO moment. It can be chalked up to a president who delights in pursuing one simple strategy — Attack, Deny, and then claim Victory. Whether that works or not in fighting a war remains to be seen.

 

As it stands, traffic through the Straits of Hormuz is now locked in a double blockade. One conducted by the Navy and another by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard navy (that was supposed to be "totally destroyed" but isn't). Every day this continues is another day when the world's oil supply is diminished, and as it does, the price of oil creeps higher.

 

Markets were cheered this week when the Israelis and Libyans agreed to a ceasefire. It was supposedly a precondition of the ceasefire with Iran, according to the third-party negotiators and Iran (but subsequently denied by both the U.S. and Israel). So, two weeks later, another Kabuki performance is inked. I would expect a White House photo op shortly as both presidents join Trump in a kumbaya moment.

 

Of course, no one dared to mention that the party Israel is actually fighting, Hezbollah, was not included in the negotiations. Riddle me this, Trump man, how does this resolve the conflict, if at all? Hezbollah is still an independent, Iran-sponsored terrorist body, roaming at will throughout Lebanon. But heck, what do I know about it?

 

In any case, rather than selling off hard, equities consolidated this week. It is one of two ways that an overbought market can correct or work off that condition. The longer the consolidation, the higher the probability that markets will regain the primary trend. That trend is still up, so until something negative happens on the geopolitical front or next week's earnings disappoint, stay the course.

 

"In the meantime, our great military is Loading Up and Resting, looking forward, actually, to its next Conquest. AMERICA IS BACK."  — President Donald Trump, posted on Truth Social, April 8, 2026

 

America, as the president posted, is back. But the critical question is: Back to what? For the first time since Vietnam, we are entering a wartime economy — a shift with vast consequences, the most significant of which is inflation.

 

As the president prepares the armed services for his next conquest, estimates are that the Iran War costs the U.S. about $1 billion per day. This amount does not include other economic costs, such as higher energy prices and fertilizer costs.

 

The serious consequence of a wartime economy will be rising inflation. History is clear: war is always inflationary. Enormous fiscal spending and monetary expansion guarantee price spikes, worsening when the economy is already expanding. This, combined with our $38 trillion national debt, magnifies the economic challenge ahead.

 

My experience of a wartime economy during the Vietnam era ended in crazy inflation. President Lyndon Johnson refused to raise taxes to fund the war. He also spent billions to expand his Great Society program. This "guns and butter" strategy led to double-digit inflation and years of stagflation.

 

Aside from inflation, if history is any guide, unemployment would fall, especially if the U.S. instituted a draft next year, which looks increasingly likely. Employment might rise across the labor force if there are enough recruits to fill the military's quotas and if there are enough workers to replace them.

 

The administration has already raised the maximum recruitment age to 42 from 35. There is also a plan to make registering with the Selective Service mandatory for all Americans of draftable age by the end of this year. Manpower may still be a problem unless Trump relaxes his immigration policies to find new recruits for the military and the labor force.

 

And who will fight these wars? Look no further than the younger generations. The sad fact is that the young have always provided the cannon fodder for nations at war. Incentives are growing. It was no accident that service members received a $1,777 after-tax present from the president last Christmas. He also wants to increase wages for those in the lower echelons of the military.

 

As for other areas of the economy, labor might see an uptick among defense contractors, arms manufacturers, cybersecurity firms, and energy exporters, but AI would likely significantly reduce the workforce required. The administration has already asked several manufacturers to increase their roles in military production. General Motors, Ford, GE Aerospace, and Oshkosh are just some of the companies asked to divert more of their output to the wartime economy.

 

I date the Russian invasion of Ukraine during the Biden administration as our entry into a war economy. Until now, the great powers — the U.S. and China — have used proxy wars rather than face-to-face conflict. Ukraine, our proxy, has received trillions of dollars in U.S. aid. Russia (China's proxy) now spends over 7 percent of its GDP fighting them. Since then, American war spending has spread worldwide. This now includes money for Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Israel, Venezuela, Iran, Ukraine, and soon Cuba. That is only a partial list.

 

Europe is also entering a wartime economy. NATO members have pledged to spend 5 percent of GDP on arms and security. As in the U.S., this requires deep cuts to social welfare and health care. It also crowds out private investment.

 

Over the last year, a strategic plan has also been forming within the EU for a new European-only NATO ( excluding the U.S.). Germany and France, among others, are already preparing their own military conscription programs. Germany, for example, is switching from cars to cannons and reinventing itself as a weapons manufacturer.

 

In this wartime economy in the U.S., American taxpayers and consumers will likely bear the greatest burden. Purchasing power, already reduced by higher prices — especially for fuel — is slowly declining. Expect more of the same. As for investments, protection will come from owning assets that benefit from wartime and inflation.