Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts

Thursday, January 22, 2026

Having gotten the dope slap from somebody on Greenland, Trump now turns his attention to, Cuba.

At least that's the inside information.

Interestingly, Trump apparently thought about asking Denmark if it wanted Puerto Rico, which is close to Cuba, in exchange for Greenland in his first Presidency, or as we should more accurately state, his Presidency.  He was talked out of that, as that's a stupid idea.

Something talked him out of Greenland, and I don't think it was the stock market.  Somebody pretty clearly told him to wrap that up or else.  We just don't know what the else was.  It was probably that he'd be removed, however.

Cuba is probably thought to be a better bet, except that you can't really effect regime change by kidnapping a country's leader, and changing the government in Cuba would take a full scale invasion.  It's a big island and the Cuban military will fight back.  That's what kept the Kennedy Administration from trying that.  Yes, we could win, but at the cost of U.S. lives.

Of course, economic pressure will be applied first.

Cuba is an easy target as it has no real friends who can aid it. Trump's a bully and its easier for him to kick sand in the face of Cuba than it turned out be for Denmark, who has a lot of friends, including a lot of friends in the U.S.  And Marco Rubio is likely fixated on it.

Funny thing is, we could achieve the same by just lifting our long running embargo on the country and let its population get a taste of what a non communist economy can provide.

And what will be the causa belli?  It's not drug running.  It doesn't have oil.

Democracy?  Well, we haven't installed that in Venezuela. 


Trump's post-globalist era is going to make everyone poorer | Jonah Goldberg

 

Trump's post-globalist era is going to make everyone poorer | Jonah Goldberg

The 2026 Election, 4th Edition: The Wasting No Time Edition*

 

The Wyoming races went from speculative to active virtually overnight, thanks to Sen. Lummis' announcement that she was not going to run again.

We'll note, before looking at the state of the races, that not a single Democrat has announced for any of these offices so far.  It is early, of course, but hopefully some do.  Otherwise, given recent examples, the races tend to be "how far right can we go", which isn't conducive to democracy or health politics in general.

December 24, 2025

Cynthia Lummis political future was barely deceased before the opportunities that it presented were being exploited.  It's caused a lot of shifting about and pondering, as this news article relates:

Degenfelder 'Strongly Considering' Run For Governor, Others Ponder Higher Office

We'll take a look, therefore, at where we current are in the 2026 races, now that the charge has started.

U.S. Senate

GOP

Harriet Hageman.

Our prediction came true amazingly fast.  Harriet Hageman announced for the Senate yesterday.

Well. . . of course she did.  She nearly had to, before other state Republicans volunteered to pick up the Senatorial baton and run past her, which is how Lummis obtained the seat in the first place, announcing before Liz Cheney could.  And in doing so, she immediately picked up endorsements from those whom she should have feared would run, and who very well may have.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder, for instance, endorsed Hageman, stating:

She is the fighter that we need to defend the conservative movement in this country and in Wyoming,  I endorse Congresswoman Hageman for her campaign for US Senate. Harriet has advanced our Wyoming values as a member of the US House, protecting Wyoming industries and our way of life.

Degenfelder is somebody who clearly has political ambitions beyond the office she holds, as noted below.  

Chuck Gray, who clear does also, also came immediately out of the chute to endorse Hageman, although probably nobody really cares about Gray's endorsements.  He stated:

She will do the same as our US Senator. Congresswoman Hageman has my complete and total endorsement for US Senate.

There were, as we noted, already two filed candidates, although we can now doubt that one of them will go for the Senate, as we'll discuss below.

Hageman also picked up the endorsement of Donald Trump, which in spite of  Wyoming being the state that is the most enamored with the illegal occupant of the White House, probably doesn't really mean all that much.  As Wyoming is also the the state with the highest percentage of citizens who are enrolled in the AHCA, by the primary date that may be a bit of a liability, if Wyomingites wake up to the fact that they're played the fool by Donald Trump nearly daily.1

The local state of the economy might play a role in that as well.  The price of Wyoming oil today is $43.91/bbl. Hageman has already made a statement about Wyoming contributing to the great state of the economy (as she sees it) due to energy, but the fact of the matter is that the current price is a good $20.00/bbl below what Wyoming needs it to be in order for Wyoming crude to be economic.  Nationally oil is at $58.60/bbl, which is right at the break even point.  Moreover, if the agricultural markets decline, and save for beef they're in bad shape, she might end up bearing the brunt there as well.

Reid Rasner

Rasner filed forever ago, and he's running for something, but what isn't exactly clear.  Earlier it was apparently Lummis' seat, after having failed to push Barrasso out of his. Now it appears, however, that he's reconsidering.

Rasner is simply deluding himself on his chances for any office, but it's not for want of trying.

Jimmy Skovgard.

Nobody really knows anything about Skovgard, but he is, or at least was, running.

U.S. House of Representatives

GOP

Gavin Solomon

One dipshit carpetbagger of New York Gavin Solomon has filed as an annoyance.

The state needs to do something about out of state residents running for Wyoming offices, as in make it criminal.

Other possibilities.

It's clear that Chuck Gray, discussed in more depth below, has his eyes set on this seat.  He has to run for it, or for Governor, or his political career is over.  

If Gray runs, other Republicans will as they won't wont to see him in this office.  My guess is that Casper's Tim Stubson may do so, and might whether Gray runs for this office or not.  It's likely some current members of the legislature will as well, including both moderate Republicans and Freedom Caucus members.

Governor

The Lummis reshuffling of the deck has caused politicians to reassess their aims, as we're very quickly seeing.  That's impacting the race for Governor.

GOP

Eric Barlow

Barlow is running, and is the front runner. He's a rancher and a traditional conservative.  He wisely got out in this race first, and has been campaigning for awhile.  So far, he's pulled way ahead of the pack.

Brent Bien

Bien was a career Marine Corps officer and is running on the archetypical "I spent my entire career elsewhere sucking on the Government tit and I'm here to tell you why you won't get to".

That's really harsh, but in recent veterans who had guaranteed pay and guaranteed retirement have come into or back to Wyoming and campaigned on hating the government, which if they do, they should have resigned their careers and worked in the uncertain world of American capitalism like the rest of us.  Their position is really hypocritical.  They've never had to punch a clock or write down their time daily, or worry about income and expenses.

Bien, I'll note, was a Marine Corps aviator and retired as a Colonel.  That's honorable service, which fully qualifies him to be a Marine Corps aviator.

Bien is a figure of the far right, as would be predictable.  Most of the returning or imported candidates who are veterans have been.

Meggan Degenfelder

The State Sueprintendant of Education indicates that she's  "Strongly Considering"  running, which practically means that she is.  She was probably pondering this move all along, but may have been hedging her bets on inside information to see what Hageman would do.  If Hageman hadn't announced for Senate, she probably would have, and she likely would have been a strong candidate.  It's surprising for that reason that she didn't announce for the House.

I have mixed feelings about Degenfelder, who has tacked to the generally far right, but not so much that she's a Freedom Caucus type.

Reid Rasner

Rasner has filed early for Senate, as noted above, which has been ignored by the press, but is now publicly indicating he many run for Governor.  A person has to wonder if Delgenfelder's announcement will cause him to back off.

He's sure running for something.

Other possibilities.

Chuck Gray is running for something, and has taken a page out of Rasner's book and has recently run a television ad in which he boosts himself without saying what he's running for.

Gray has a loyal pack of acolytes, like Donald Trump, but he's worn increasingly thin over while he's been Secretary of State.  He's locked horns constantly with Gov. Gordon and other members of the State Land Board, which means that if Degenfelder runs she's going to skewer him like a pot sticker.  He's not from Wyoming and doesn't come across as a guy who could survive in the state for more than a brief vacation if he wasn't backed by family money, although perhaps that's deceptive.  He rose to his current office in part by backing election lies and has tried to make the mission of the Secretary of State's office to return Wyoming elections to the year 411.  He's intensely disliked by a lot of people, and openly so.  While in office he's operated the same way that Rep. Jim Allemand has, by claiming to be from the far right but then embracing local environmental issues when convenient.

A dark horse candidate right now would be Governor Gordon himself.  While theoretically blocked by term limits, it's well known that they are unconstitutional and would not survive a legal challenge.  Having said that, the entry of Barlow into the race would strongly suggest that Gordon will not attempt a run.

Treasurer

GOP

Curt Meier

Curt Meier is running for reelection and will be successful.

December 25, 2025

Hageman's Senate Run Reignites Criticisms Over Public Lands

As well it should.

December 30, 2025

Chuck Gray, surprising noone, announced that he's running for Congress.  In announcing, the fish out of water Californian stated:

I’m running for Congress to continue fighting for Wyoming’s way of life. With Congresswoman Harriet Hageman running for U.S. Senate, Wyoming needs a representative who will build on her strong record, advance our shared Wyoming values, and advance the Trump agenda that has delivered the largest margin of victory in the nation in three straight presidential elections.

Chuck Gray announces bid for U.S. House

On the last item, Gray fully endorsed the lie that Trump beat Biden, and is still apparently wedded to the outright fabrication, along with some new "margin of victory" lies.

The Californian is a Freedom Caucus member, and was immediately endorsed by them.  He released a video for his campaign that makes it clear that he's awkward in Wyoming settings, as to be expected, and fully wedded to MAGA and its hero, Donald Trump.

January 3, 2026

Reid Rasner has announced that he isn't running for Governor but will announce what he's running for this week.

Footnotes

*Regarding the coloration on this post, blue is recognized worldwide as the color of the right, and red of the left.  In the U.S. in recent years the opposite has been the case as some total bufador reversed it.  At least in this thread, we're not doing that.

1.  Regarding the primary:

Party Changes

The state of Wyoming passed legislation affecting when a registered voter is allowed to change their party affiliation.

  • You MUST appear in person in the Elections office on or before May 13, 2026 to declare or change your party affiliation.    
  • NO party changes at the polls on Primary Election Day.
  • Qualified voters who are not yet registered will still be able to register and choose their party on the day of the Primary Election.

Absentee Voting

The timeframe for voting absentee has shortened from 45 days to 28 days.

  • Absentee ballot request may be made by phone, mail, emailonline or in person.
  • Your ID is required to vote in person or to pick up a ballot.

Absentee voting for the Primary Election:     July 21 - August 17, 2026
Absentee voting for the   General Election:     October 6 - November 2, 2026

January 6, 2026

George Conway, former Republican, former spouse of  Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, and a conservative is running as a Democrat for Congress in NY-12:

January 8, 2026

Reid Rasmer announced that he's throwing himself in a flaming blaze of misbegotten hubris ignited glory into the race for the U.S. House.

So we now have two far right candidates who will be in favor every stupid thing Donald Trump says even as he takes steps to wreck the American standing in the world, screw the Wyoming economy, and wreck the environment Wyoming depends on.  

There's room for a moderate candidate, or a conservative one, here.

My prediction is that this will get nasty.  Chuck Gray has been full of shit so long that he won't be able to help himself and he'll start slinging it like a zoo chimpanzee  Rasner will ignore it, but will seek the embrace from the political right, which will reject it as he's an acknowledged homosexual.

That Rasner is "out" and unapologetic about it, while not making a big deal about it, is really to his credit actually.  His sexual orientation does appear to have been the source of a vile rumor campaign against him which he justifiably brought suit over, but that entire episode reveals a lot about the state of the GOP.  The person sued was himself the father, in Florida (most of the Freedom Caucus are actual or intellectual Confederate ex pats), of a child by way of an underaged teenagef girl when he was an of age teenager.  There's a pretty strong anti homosexual bias in the GOP far right which really, at the same time, in spite of its embrace of Evangelical Christianity is basically okay with sexual immorality, at least if its of a conventional type.  But if people are going to raise flags on the issue, they ought to explain the mysteries they present themselves.

That's not the normal Wyoming norm, where such questions are not usually openly asked, but its probably time that they are. Rep. Hageman has for years indicated how strong family values are to her, but she has no children of her own.  Nephew's and nieces aren't substitutes for your own children.  There may be a tragic medical reason for this, but it could be avoidance for career, which is neither traditional or admirable.

This campaign will focus in people's minds, although they will not admit it, that Chuck Gray, age 36, isn't married.  It's not the case that everyone has to be married, and at one time it wasn't regarded as particularly abnormal that a 36 year old man or woman would not be married and have no known significant other, but following the Sexual Revolution it has been.  And frankly it is odd.  What does that say about his character that he can draw such public attention, but not a suitable spouse (and no, I'm not claiming he's a homosexual, but rather that being unmarried at 36 is odd).

Nasty questions?

Yes, but in an age where Wyoming elected somebody like Bill Allemand, and in one in which Republican figures where the symbols of Crusaders on their chest, when those Crusaders would have found them to be heretics, it might actually be time to ask them.

January 2026

This news makes puts Degenfelder on the don't vote for, for anything again, every list.

‘RUN MEGAN, RUN!’ Trump Promises Endorsement If Degenfelder Runs For Governor

Involving a current client:

Gordon To Gray At Wind Meeting: 'Do You Want To Step Outside?'

In Gordon's defense, all sentient life forms would like to invite Gray outside and point him back towards California, which is what I'm going to assume Gordon meant.

January 12, 2026

Megan Degenfelder is now officially running for Governor.  She claims she announced after an insane clown urged her to do so on X.

January 13, 2026

Barrasso Endorses Hageman's Candidacy For U.S. Senate

Former Democratic Alaska Rep. Mary Peltola is running for the Senate.

January 14, 2026

Jillian Balow, former Wyoming Superintendent of Public Instruction announced for the House.

I don't know what I think of Balow, other than she's actually from Wyoming, and a better candidate than Rasner or Gray.  When she was Superintendent of Public Instruction, I didn't pay all that much attention to the position.  She must have been fairly well thought of as she was recruited away by Virginia, where the position is not elected.

Balow was, by my recollection, a breath of fresh air compared to Cindy Hill who came before her, who was the first Wyoming politician who fell into what we might now regard as the Wyoming Freedom Caucus camp, although it wasn't called that at the time, and probably didn't even really exist.  Hill ended up being very controversial and hugely unpopular, and should have served as a warning sign as to what was to come.

So, right now for the House, we have:

Chuck Gray, who is a carpetbagging founding member of the Freedom Caucus.

Reid Rasner, who is a gadfly.

Jillian Balow, who is the only palatable candidate to announce so far.

Well, that is that Solomon guy, but he's a joke. And a Daniel Verl Workman has done so as well, as an Independant, and he's a joke.

Following up on yesterday's news, the Demented Caudillos endorsement of Degenfelder probably means that unthinking MAGAs are now in her corner, dooming the campaign of Brent Bien.  Frankly, that's a good thing as both Degenfelder and Barlow are leagues better than Bien.  Having said that, Barlow is clearly a much better choice than Degenfelder who is still pretending to drink the Koolaide.

January 17, 2026

It didn't take Gray long to go full weasel:

My record shows that I’m the  only candidate in this race that has  the track record of getting com mon sense conservative priorities  done. My track record is in sharp con trast to the others in the race. Jillian  Barlow [sic] has a Liz Cheney 2.0 profile.

Having a Cheney 2.0 profile would be a good reason to vote for Barlow, but that's pretty much baloney.  Gray went on to accuse Reid of being all talk.

The Trib reports that  David Giralt, a former advisor to Lummis, plans on joining the race.  I don't know much about him, but he's noted to be a veteran, which isn't a reason to vote for or against him.  He's also a member of the Knights of Columbus, which means he's Catholic.  Gray is also Catholic, which doesn't seem to have kept him from telling some whopping lies in the past.

January 20, 2026

Knezovich drops out of Wyoming governor race due to eligibility requirement

We failed to even note him, but after reading the article about him, he would have been on our don't vote for list, fitting into a whopping three categories.

January 21, 2026

Forcibly retired Admiral Nancy Lacore is running for South Carolina's 1st Congressional District.

I don't know anything about the district, but what this symbolizes is that Trump's enemies lists are lining up to get into Congress.

We will conclude this edition with this entry.

January 22, 2026

Skovgard, whom we mentioned above, is in fact running for the U.S. Senate.

Skovgard publishes a blog, which might reveal his positions on things.  Otherwise he's really a bit of a mystery right now.

One thing about Skovgard is that, right now, the other two candidates in this race, Hageman and Rasner, are on the don't vote for list.  That may simply be because we don't know anything about him.  Having said that, if the election were held today, we'd seriously consider Skovgard as we won't vote for the other two.

Related threads:

Pollice Verso. The 2026 Political Negative Endorsement. The Don't Vote For List.

Last edition:

The 2026 Election, 3rd Edition: The Self Inflicted Wound Edition.

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Prime Minister Mark Carney at Davos

Carney is an economist with a doctorate, as opposed to Donald Trump, who is an idiot.  His speech not only reflects reality, it marks the day American superpower status came to an end, murdered by Donald Trump.

Today, I'll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints.

But I also submit to you that other countries, particularly middle powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that embodies our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.

The power of the less powerful begins with honesty.

It seems that every day we're reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.

This aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable — as the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along. To accommodate. To avoid trouble. To hope that compliance will buy safety.

It won't.

So, what are our options?

In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless. And in it, he asked a simple question: How did the communist system sustain itself?

And his answer began with a greengrocer. Every morning, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: "Workers of the world, unite!" He doesn't believe it. No one does. But he places the sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists.

Not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.

Havel called this "living within a lie." The system's power comes not from its truth but from everyone's willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source: when even one person stops performing — when the greengrocer removes his sign — the illusion begins to crack.

Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful. And American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

This bargain no longer works.

'A rupture, not a transition'

Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.

But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.

You cannot "live within the lie" of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.

The multilateral institutions on which middle powers have relied — the WTO, the UN, the COP — the very architecture of collective problem solving, are under threat.

And as a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions — that they must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains.

And this impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.

But let's be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.

And there's another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from "transactionalism" will become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships.

Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. They'll buy insurance, increase options in order to rebuild sovereignty — sovereignty that was once grounded in rules, but will be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.

This room knows, this is classic risk management — risk management comes at a price. But that cost of strategic autonomy — of sovereignty — can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortresses. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum.

And the question for middle powers, like Canada, is not whether to adapt to the new reality — we must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls or whether we can do something more ambitious.

Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture.

Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumptions — that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security — that assumption is no longer valid.

And our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed "values-based realism" — or, to put another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic.

Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter and respect for human rights.

And pragmatic in recognizing that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner will share our values. So we're engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait around for a world we wish to be.

We are calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values. And we're prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given the fluidity of the world order, the risks that this poses, and the stakes for what comes next.

And we are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength.

We are building that strength at home.

Since my government took office, we have cut taxes on incomes, on capital gains and business investment. We have removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade. We are fast-tracking a trillion dollars of investment in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors and beyond.

We are doubling our defence spending by the end of this decade and we're doing so in ways that build our domestic industries.

And we are rapidly diversifying abroad. We've agreed a comprehensive strategic partnership with the EU, including joining SAFE, the European defence procurement arrangements.

We have signed 12 other trade and security deals on four continents in six months.

In the past few days, we have concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar.

We're negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines and Mercosur.

We're doing something else. To help solve global problems, we are pursuing variable geometry — in other words, different coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests.

So on Ukraine, we're a core member of the coalition of the willing and one of the largest per-capita contributors to its defence and security.

On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland's future.

Our commitment to Article 5 is unwavering.

So we're working with our NATO allies — including the Nordic-Baltic Eight — to further secure the alliance's northern and western flanks, including through Canada's unprecedented investments in over-the-horizon radar, in submarines, in aircraft and boots on the ground.

Canada strongly opposes tariffs over Greenland and calls for focused talks to achieve our shared objectives of security and prosperity in the Arctic.

On plurilateral trade, we're championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the European Union, which would create a new trading block of 1.5 billion people.

On critical minerals we're forming buyer's clubs anchored in the G7 so the world can diversify away from concentrated supply.

And on AI we're co-operating with like-minded democracies to ensure we won't ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyperscalers.

This is not naive multilateralism. Nor is it relying on their institutions. It's building coalitions that work, issue by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together. In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations.

What it's doing is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.

'Middle powers must act together'

Middle powers must act together because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu.

But I'd also say that great powers can afford, for now, to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what's offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.

This is not sovereignty. It's the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.

In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact.

We shouldn't allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong — if we choose to wield them together.

Which brings me back to Havel.

What would it mean for middle powers to "live the truth"?

First it means naming reality. Stop invoking "rules-based international order" as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is: a system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.

It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.

It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the old order to be restored, it means creating institutions and agreements that function as described.

And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion. Building a strong domestic economy should always be every government's immediate priority. And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence — it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.

'Honesty about the world as it is'

So Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world's largest and most sophisticated investors. In other words, we have capital, talent, we also have a government with the immense fiscal capacity to act decisively.

And we have the values to which many others aspire.

Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability.

We are a stable and reliable partner in a world that is anything but. A partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.

And we have something else. We have a recognition of what's happening and a determination to act accordingly.

We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.

We are taking the sign out of the window.

We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn't mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy.

But we believe that from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger, more just.

This is the task of the middle powers. The countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from genuine co-operation.

The powerful have their power. But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home and to act together.

That is Canada's path. We choose it openly and confidently.

And it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.

The Agrarian's Lament: Rejecting Avarice. Some radical rethinking.

The Agrarian's Lament: Rejecting Avarice. Some radical rethinking.: Cease being intimidated by the argument that a right action is impossible because it does not yield maximum profits, or that a wrong action ...

Rejecting Avarice. Some radical rethinking.


Cease being intimidated by the argument that a right action is impossible because it does not yield maximum profits, or that a wrong action is to be condoned because it pays.
Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac

We just published this item here on Donald Trump's insatiable lust for the destruction of land, lands even beyond our borders.
The Agrarian's Lament: Lex Anteinternet: Manifest Destiny and the Second ...: Lex Anteinternet: Manifest Destiny and the Second Trump Administrati... : Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way, dramatizing Manifest ...

In the movie The Patriot, which is okay but not great, commences with these lines:

I have long feared, that my sins would return to visit me, and the cost is more than I can bare.

In a lot of ways, that opening scene is the best one in the movie.

No nation has a singular linear history, even though people tend to hear things that way. "This happened, and then that happened, resulting in this. . . ".  In reality, things are mixed quite often, and things are quite fluid with juxtapositions.  

Shakespeare claimed:

“There is a tide in the affairs of men

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of their life

Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

On such a full sea are we now afloat;

And we must take the current when it serves,

Or lose our ventures.”

Perhaps.  But in reality the tide in the affairs of men drags everyone along with it. But it's a rip tide.  People's individual goals, desires and aspirations often are quite contrary to the tide on the surface.

That's certainly been the case with the United States.

If you have a Trumpian view of the world, the history of the United States looks like this, sort of:

This again.  It never occurs to many that the mines and cities aren't really everyone's dream.  It particularly doesn't occur to a rich real estate developer who isn't smart and whose values are shallow.

Lots of people have that view.  We came, we saw, we exploited, and everyone got happy working for Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk.

Trouble is, that's not true for a lot of reasons, a core one being it doesn't comport with who we really are.  The entire worship of wealth and what it brings, and the wealthy and who they are, is deeply contrary to our natures, and frankly men like Jeff Bezos, Donald Trump, and Elon Musk are deeply perverted.  Not because of their relationship with women, or because their names appear in the Epstein files in some context, although in the case of Trump, we really still don't know what context, but because of their shallow avaricious acquisition for and desire for wealth.

Timothy warns us:

Those who want to be rich are falling into temptation and into a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction.  For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.

And not only have their pierced themselves, but they pierce others, and entire societies with them.

So let's look at a few concrete things that we feel should be done.

Among the rich you will never find a really generous man even by accident. They may give their money away, but they will never give themselves away; they are egotistic, secretive, dry as old bones. To be smart enough to get all that money you must be dull enough to want it.

G.K. Chesterton, A Miscellany of Men

Revisit the Homestead Act.

Right from the onset of English colonization of North America, there was a pull between business exploitation and the simple desire for an agrarian place of one's own.

The truth of the matter is that when the nation started off, most people weren't "Pilgrims" seeking shelter from religious oppression.  Nor did they wish to be servants of big mercantile enterprises.  Most of the early English colonists were from agriculture or the trades and wanted to just work for themselves.  That's about it. 

The American Revolution was as much about that as anything else.  When American Colonials dumped tea in harbors, they were protesting taxes, but what they were also doing is dumping mercantile controlled property into waste.  It was grown somewhere else and it belong to rich remote classes.

The struggle was always there. The American South in particular had the planter class which depended upon enslaved labor to raise a market crop.  That was about generating wealth.  Most Southerners, in contrast, were Yeoman who had small places of their own.  When the Civil War came the wealthy had the South fight the war.

The analogies to the present day are simply to thick to ignore.

The Homestead Act came about during that war, and in real ways, it expressed a Jeffersonian dream. People willing to invest their own labor could acquire a place of their own.

The drafters of the Act never envisioned the wealthy controlling the land.  In some very real ways it was wealthy landowners that the North was fighting at the time.

Over the last few days residents of Wyoming have read about Chris Robinson, CEO of Salt Lake City-based Ensign Group, L.C., buying the Pathfinder Ranch.  I have nothing about him personally, but the listed price for the ranch was $79.5M due to its giant size.

I can personally recall when it was owned by locals  At that price, rather obviously, Robinson isn't planning on making money from cattle.  And to make matters a bit worse, residents of Natrona County got to read about another local outfit going up for sale, which is much smaller, for $9M.

Even into my adult years, by which time it was already impossible for somebody not born into ranching or farming to buy a place such that it could be their vocation, most ranches were owned by locally born ranchers.  This trend of playground pricing is making the status of the land the same as that which English colonists were seeking to escape from.

This could be fixed by amending the Homestead Act. The homesteading portion of that is fixed, but it would still be possible to go back and amend it such that land deeded to individuals under it, had to remain in agricultural use, and had to be held by families that made their money that way. exclusively.

I know it won't be, anytime soon, but it should be.

Revisit "Ad coelum ad damnum"

One of the absolute absurdities of the original Homestead Act is that it gave away not only the surface of the land, but the mineral rights as well.  This made the system sort of like buying lottery tickets. Some people got rich just of because of where they'd chosen to homestead.

I really struggle with the concept of private ownership of minerals, including oil and gas, in the first place.  I understand private enterprise exploiting it, but owning it?  Why?  It's not like private enterprise put the minerals in the ground.

Addressing this creates real constitutional problems, but ideally the mineral wealth of the nation should belong to everyone in it, not private parties.  And it should be exploited, or not, in the national interest, not in the primary economic interest of those who claim to own it.

I know that this brings up the cry of "that's Socialism".  It probably really is, but an unequal accidental distribution of mineral wealth on lands taken from the native inhabitants isn't just.  At a bare minimum, something needs to be looked into.  Indeed, as there was no intent to transfer that mineral title in the first place, perhaps it could collectively be restored and held in truth for the descendants of those original inhabitants.

Tax the wealthy

Every since Ronald Reagan there's been a ludicrous idea that taxing the wealthy hurts the economy. We know that this is completely false.  We also know that a certain percentage of the wealthy will allow themselves to become obscenely wealthy if allowed to, and that they'll harm everyone else as a result.

There's no reason on earth that anyone ought to be a billionaire.  Indeed, if you have more than $50M in assets, you have too much and something is potentially wrong with your character.  High upper income tax rates and wealth taxes can and should address this.  Elon Musk can be nearly just as annoying if his net worth was $50M as whatever it currently is, but he'd be a lot less destructive.

An alternative to this, if this is simply too radical, is to prevent corporations from owning most things, and to provide that once they get to be a certain size, at least 50% of their ownership goes to employees of those corporations.  It'd at least distribute the wealth some, and keep avarice from defining our everyday existence.

Final thoughts

What seems to be clear in any event is that we cannot keep going in this directly. Today's "conservatives" serve the very interests that the American Patriots rebelled against, remote wealth.  In spite of their tattoos and car window stickers, they'd form the Loyalist Militia trying to put down an an agrarian revolution in 1776.  The thing is, that those conditions always lead to revolution. They did in 1776 in North America, and then again in more extreme form in France a few years later.  They lead to the uprisings of 1848, the Anglo Irish War in 1916 and the Russian Revolution in 1917.  It's time to address this while we can, as it will be addressed.

Is the Sun Setting on America’s Financial Empire? | The Ezra Klein Show

Saturday, January 17, 2026

The 2026 Wyoming Legislature, Part 2. Pre Legislative Committee Edition.

 


November 15, 2025

Wyoming ‘Tim Tebow’ Rule Heads To Lawmaking Session


I'm frankly not keen on this at all.  Playing sports and being in activities are vital parts of school.  They help socialization.  Parents who seek to avoid socialization are harming their children and there are nwo a lot of private school options that would be better choices for those seeking to evade the perceived dangers, often fictional, of public schools

A long time legislator has passed away.

Wyoming Rep. John Eklund dies: Legislators say they will remember Eklund for his mentorship, kind spirit and thoughtful approach to lawmaking.

November 18, 2025

November 19, 2025

November 22, 2025

This is flat out irresponsible and insane:

Wyoming Legislators Advance Plan To Kill All Residential Property Taxes

December 16, 2025

Five takeaways from the Wyoming Legislature’s budget hearings: The Joint Appropriations Committee wrapped up its first round of hearings Friday.

December 19, 2025

 A Q&A with Pine Bluffs’ Justin Fornstrom, Wyoming’s newest state lawmaker: Laramie County commissioners selected Fornstrom to represent a House seat vacated by the late John Eklund.

January 8, 2026

We had this news posted here yesterday:

Abortion in Wyoming and the Law of Unintended Consequences.

 This is what happens when a dumb, paranoid,  amendment to the Constitution is made.

The amendment that brought down the state's abortion laws was passed due to right wing paranoia that the AHCA would create "death panels". That fear was frankly stupid, but it was adopted by far right Republicans who really believed it.  The prime architect of the amendment has gone on record that he'd feel awful if the amendment caused the abortion laws to fail, and in fact he should feel awful.

I'll confess that when I first posted this, I was harsher on the paranoia of the Wyoming Republican Party that gave us the dumbass head in the sand amendment to the Wyoming Constitution based on fear of the ACHA.  I'm obviously being less kind here.

Anyhow, the Tribune notes:

Wyoming Republicans seek to amend constitution

The flaming dipshits that passed the amendment that caused this to occur in the first place ought to just repeal that amendment.  Indeed, they ought to cal lit "B______ B_________was a dumbass paranoid moron amendment repeal".

They won't, as the best thing to do when somebody does something rampagingly stupid is to double down on the stupidity, apparently. After all, look at the ongoing Republican support for Donald Dipshit Trump.

Anyhow, they're going to address their failure with a proposed amendment to the Constitution. That amendment will fail to get support from the electorate, which they'll find basically likes the idea of killing babies as it means they can complain about gays and the transgendered while being sexually immoral themselves.

January 9, 2026

Rep. Elissa Campbell files resolution for Wyoming abortion amendment

That was fast.

Wyoming Democrats, I'd note, are making the classic blunder.  They should simply say nothing at all, and not go out to own a result that they don't really own.  The Wyoming Supreme Court's ruling came about as the far right of the Wyoming GOP went out and shot itself in the foot.  Now it's going to go to the voters.  A smart Democratic policy would be just to sit back and do nothing at all.  But, they  just can't help themselves:

Laramie lawmakers celebrate abortion ruling

The state supreme court ruled abortion is a fundamental constitutional right. Provenza, Chestek and Rothfuss say it’s a win for individual liberty and they’ll resist calls to change the constitution.

Chances are high that not enough Wyoming voters are going to vote for the proposed constitutional amendment for it to pass, and if there are, the Democrats are going to effect that anyhow.  Indeed, by making it an issue and embracing abortion, it'll drive GOP voters who likely would vote against the amendment or sit the election out, into voting as they'll want to vote against the Democrats.  Given the immorality of abortion, it's truly an example of errare humanum est perseverare diabolicum.

January 10, 2026

Lawmaker Unveils Bill To Prevent DUI Charges For Drunk Horseback Riding

January 13, 2026

Wyoming Freedom Caucus aims at state spending, voting machines and the judicial branch in 2026 priorities: The group of conservative Republicans has promised cuts since last spring, but won’t say where and how deep.

Lawmakers question Wyoming Public Media’s funding

The public radio station is headquartered on the UW campus and receives some state funding via UW’s block grant. WPM weathered a 10% cut when the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was axed.

January 14, 2026

The freakishly dumb caucus votes to keep everyone else as dumb as possible.

Lawmakers vote to axe UW’s block grant, defund Wyoming Public Media: Wyoming Freedom Caucus members on a key budget committee take aim at the state’s lone four-year public university.

My opinion, of course, is harsh, but frankly many of the Dukes of Hazzard crowd in the Freely Dumb Caucus don't trust education.  People who are educated don't believe the same dumb stuff they do, so they don't like it.

And they're going after the Wyoming Business Council.

This one at its core is a completely unthinking objection to socialism.  We don't like socialism, because it's socialism.  Not much more thought behind it than that.

I'll often hear that the WBC picks "winners and losers" which might be right, but the state's economy otherwise is pretty much making all Wyomingites losers.

January 16, 2026

Gov's Office: "This Is Nuts" As Bill To Kill Wyo Biz Council Heads To Legislature

January 17, 2016

Sigh . . . 

Last edition:

The 2026 Wyoming Legislature, Part 1. The way too early edition.