Trump’s Biggest Deal That Never Happened: The Nobel Peace Prize

I am the center of the universe

Why Donald Trump Did Not Receive the Nobel Peace Prize

There are two prevailing schools of thought on why President Donald Trump should or should not have received the Nobel Peace Prize.

In my opinion, there are many reasons why he didn't receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The first point is that by repeatedly claiming he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, Donald Trump has effectively politicized the award. The Nobel Prize is not a prize that one can demand that they deserve or should be nominated for. By politicizing the award, he may have biased the committee in the sense that they feel manipulated, and awarding him that award may make them feel that they are complying with his “I deserve the Nobel Prize” campaign (BBC News, 2020).

As an observer, it appears that Donald Trump creates crises so that later he can claim that he alone resolved the problems he created.

Throughout his political career, Donald Trump has shown a recurring pattern of amplifying or even manufacturing crises, only to later claim credit for resolving them. This approach creates the illusion of decisive leadership while concealing the fact that the instability often originated from his own actions (Reuters, 2020; Washington Post, 2024).

A clear example is the North Korea nuclear crisis. Early in his first term, Trump's confrontational rhetoric — “fire and fury like the world has never seen” — brought the region to the brink of open conflict. Months later, when tensions subsided and diplomatic talks began, he presented the outcome as a personal triumph, claiming to have “stopped a war.” Yet North Korea's nuclear arsenal remained intact, and experts noted no verifiable disarmament (AP News, 2019; PBS NewsHour, 2019).

A similar pattern emerged in trade policy. Trump's imposition of sweeping tariffs on allies and rivals alike triggered retaliatory measures that harmed global markets and U.S. consumers. When partial deals were later struck — often restoring conditions that had existed before the tariffs — he framed them as “historic victories.” In effect, the damage and the “solution” were two parts of the same political performance (Financial Times, 2019; CNBC, 2020).

The same strategy can be seen in the Middle East. U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement reignited regional instability, while unconditional support for Israel's military actions deepened the Gaza crisis. When Trump later proposed his 20-point “peace plan,” he positioned himself as the architect of resolution — despite having helped enable the escalation that made such a plan necessary in the first place (PBS NewsHour, 2025; Al Jazeera, 2025).

---

The same pattern of manufactured crisis and self-justification is also evident within the United States. Domestically, Donald Trump's approach has increasingly centred on punitive politics — the pursuit of personal retribution against perceived opponents. Rather than fostering unity, his rhetoric and actions have deepened existing divisions, transforming political disagreement into moral hostility (New York Times, 2025).

Recent indictments and investigations targeting prominent Democrats have been presented by Trump and his allies as necessary acts of “justice,” yet to many observers they resemble political vengeance more than impartial law enforcement. When leaders use the instruments of the state to punish rivals, the effect is not restoration but corrosion — it weakens trust in democratic institutions and fuels the very instability that such actions claim to resolve (Guardian, 2025).

This domestic polarisation mirrors his foreign conduct: crises are created or magnified, and then authority is asserted as the sole path to order. The pattern sustains a cycle in which conflict becomes both the justification for power and the proof of its necessity. In this way, Trump's brand of leadership depends on division; peace, whether at home or abroad, is valuable only insofar as it can be personally credited to him.

---

Lastly, his 20 points, which were originally interpreted as an ultimatum — if all 20 points were not agreed to by Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement — implied that the consequences would be significant (PBS, 2025).

The problem with the entire 20 points is the complexity involved, and there are infinite ways players can respond. Therefore, accurately predicting the final outcome is based on what the probable outcome should be. This dynamic reflects the unpredictability described in game theory, where every player acts under uncertainty and strategic manipulation can destabilise any path to peace (Nash, 1950).

Donald Trump operates within a self-constructed paradox: he appears unpredictable, yet his unpredictability functions as strategy. To adversaries and observers alike, it can be difficult to distinguish whether he is an impulsive provocateur or a deliberate manipulator of perception. In either case, he has cultivated an image of absolute control — a political chess master who positions every piece, domestic and foreign, to ensure victory on his own terms. His willingness to employ distortion and false narratives — from linking Canadian trade to fentanyl trafficking, to claiming that immigrants are “eating dogs” — demonstrates a pattern of manufacturing emotional responses that reinforce his dominance within the public arena (Politico, 2025; CBC News, 2025).

From a game-theoretical perspective, this behaviour reflects a form of information warfare in which truth itself becomes a negotiable asset. By flooding the board with misinformation, he destabilises his opponents’ capacity for rational response. The objective is not persuasion but confusion — to make the opponent’s next move uncertain while his own appears decisive. This is the political equivalent of asymmetric play, where the perceived “madman” advantage keeps adversaries reactive, unable to coordinate effectively against him (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944).

In the end, the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded for dominance, negotiation, or spectacle. It recognises those who elevate humanity beyond division — individuals who pursue peace not as leverage, but as conviction. Donald Trump’s pattern of manufacturing crises, weaponising disinformation, and treating diplomacy as a contest of ego stands in direct contrast to that moral foundation.

And then he and his supporters wonder why he didn’t receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

About the author

J.  André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are provisional; hidden layers and feedback loops are often still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.

---

References

• Al Jazeera. (2025). Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan: full text.
• AP News. (2019). Trump claims success in talks with North Korea despite lack of progress.
• BBC News. (2020). Trump says he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize but will never get it.
• CBC News. (2025). Trump’s remarks about Canadian fentanyl and immigrant “dog-eating” claims draw criticism.
• CNBC. (2020). Trump’s tariffs hurt American consumers, economists say.
• Financial Times. (2019). U.S.-China trade war: the real costs of Trump’s tariffs.
• Guardian. (2025). Trump’s use of indictments against Democrats raises fears of political retribution.
• Nash, J. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49.
• PBS NewsHour. (2019). Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong-un: what did it achieve?
• PBS NewsHour. (2025). Trump’s 20-point proposal to end the Gaza war.
• Politico. (2025). Trump stokes outrage with false claims about immigrants and fentanyl.
• Reuters. (2020). Trump’s manufactured crises and self-claimed victories: a pattern of governance.
• Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press.
• Washington Post. (2024). Trump’s politics of chaos: creating disorder to claim control.
• New York Times. (2025). Trump’s domestic strategy: divide and dominate.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

The Unfinished Pursuit of Peace

Trump and the Nobel Peace Prize: A Game Still in Play

About the Nobel Prizes

In his will, Alfred Nobel directed that his fortune support annual prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace, awarded to those who have conferred the greatest benefit on humankind (NobelPrize.org).

The framework later expanded to include the Prize in Economic Sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel, funded by Sweden’s central bank and awarded alongside the original categories (NobelPrize.org).

Although the Peace Prize recognises direct efforts to prevent or resolve conflict, many laureates in Economic Sciences have shaped how we understand cooperation and competition. John Nash’s equilibrium concept, for example, influences diplomacy and conflict modelling (NobelPrize.org; Britannica).

In short, the Nobel constellation links scientific discovery, literature, economics and peace. The common thread is measurable contribution to humanity’s capacity to coexist.

Image: Alfred Nobel, public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

It is through this wider lens that we can now examine Donald Trump’s pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize.

---

By J. André Faust | The Connected Mind | October 10, 2025

---

It is possible that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee has looked beyond the surface in deciding not to award Donald Trump the prize, at least not yet (NobelPrize.org, nomination process).

The Gaza crisis is still unfolding. While an initial phase regarding the return of hostages and prisoners appears to have been achieved (BBC News, Middle East analysis), many key questions remain unresolved.

Reports confirm that the exchange of hostages and prisoners has taken place, but accounts remain conflicting over whether Israel has fully halted its bombing campaign. Some international outlets cite continued strikes in limited areas, while others report a complete pause pending verification by neutral observers. This lack of consistency highlights how fragile the ceasefire remains and why global monitoring is essential to confirm whether the violence has truly stopped. For further details on these conflicting reports, see the verification note below.

Has Israel fully stopped its bombing campaign (Reuters, Middle East updates)?
What happens with Israeli settlements and disputed lands (UN Peacebuilding)?
Who will govern Gaza, and how will reconstruction be designed and funded (Al Jazeera, Gaza coverage)?

These are not small details; they are the structural issues on which any lasting peace depends.

Beyond the Middle East, the committee may also weigh Trump’s domestic record, including immigration policy proposals (CNN Politics overview), the use of the National Guard in domestic contexts (NBC News reporting), and the alignment of such actions with broader human-rights norms (Human Rights Watch).

It is not that I am anti-Trump. In some areas, he takes a step forward. In others, it can feel like three steps back (Pew Research Center, public opinion).

It is possible that, at a later stage, if outcomes prove durable and balanced, he could still receive the recognition he seeks. But so far, Trump may be unusual for openly seeking the prize rather than allowing outcomes to speak for themselves (The Guardian, 2020).

---

Context and Analysis

Further insight into recent developments comes from John Lyons of ABC News (2025), who credits President Trump with using his office to force a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, leading to the release of hostages and the suspension of Israel’s bombing campaign.

Lyons writes that Trump “may have closed the latest — and most violent — chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” yet his claim to have “brought peace to the Middle East” is exaggerated. The ceasefire, while significant, leaves unresolved the devastation of Gaza, Hamas’s ideological persistence and Israel’s settlement expansion.

The report notes that Trump’s plan succeeded in halting immediate bloodshed, but the broader political structure remains unchanged. Lyons observes that both Hamas and Israel’s Netanyahu government oppose a two-state solution — the framework that over 150 countries, including Australia, have endorsed through UN recognition of a Palestinian state.

From this perspective, Trump’s achievement is a necessary pause rather than a lasting peace. The humanitarian toll may have been halted, but without addressing sovereignty, statehood and occupation, the deeper conflict remains unresolved.

---

For most laureates, the Nobel Prize is not something they pursue; it is the consequence of sustained efforts that improve the human condition (NobelPrize.org, Peace Prize).

About the author

J.  André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are provisional; hidden layers and feedback loops are often still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.

---

True peace is not declared; it is demonstrated.

---

Verification Note

Conflicting reports have emerged regarding whether Israel has completely halted its bombing operations following the hostage–prisoner exchange. Reuters and BBC cite intermittent strikes in northern Gaza, while Al Jazeera and Associated Press describe a broader pause aligned with Trump’s ceasefire terms. As of this writing, verification from neutral observers such as the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has not yet confirmed a full cessation of hostilities.

This summary reflects available reporting as of October 11 2025 and may be updated as corroborating evidence becomes available.

---

References

1. “Alfred Nobel’s Will,” NobelPrize.org. link
2. “The Prize in Economic Sciences,” NobelPrize.org. link
3. “John F. Nash Jr. – Facts,” NobelPrize.org. link
4. “Nash equilibrium,” Britannica. link
5. “Nomination and Selection of the Peace Prize Laureates,” NobelPrize.org. link
6. “Middle East – latest,” BBC News. link
7. “Middle East news,” Reuters. link
8. “UN Peacebuilding,” United Nations. link
9. “Middle East updates,” Al Jazeera. link
10. “Trump immigration policy overview,” CNN Politics. link
11. “National Guard usage reports,” NBC News. link
12. Human Rights Watch – Reports. link
13. Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics. link
14. “Trump’s Nobel Prize nominations and claims,” The Guardian, 2020. link
15. “Nobel Peace Prize – about and laureates,” NobelPrize.org. link
16. Lyons, John. “Donald Trump deserves credit for stopping the war on Gaza, but his key claim is overblown.” ABC News (Australia), October 11, 2025. link

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

The Integration Trap: How Global Economics Locked Us Into Climate Collapse

By J. André Faust (Sept 06, 2025)

1. The Personal Paradox

Most of us are trapped in a contradiction. To survive, we must earn money. To earn money, we must participate in an economy that accelerates the destruction of the environment that keeps us alive. I see this contradiction every day. If I stopped working to focus full time on writing and producing the kind of intellectual content that could help others see the big picture, I could not pay for food, shelter, or electricity.

Every paycheck, every purchase, every click on a digital ad connects me to the same global web that is heating the oceans, thinning the ice caps, and releasing ancient gases from the permafrost. It is not hypocrisy; it is structure. The system demands participation. Refusal comes at the cost of survival.

2. Geoeconomics: Power in the Age of Interdependence

We often talk about the global economy as though it were a neutral machine. In truth, it is a geopolitical battlefield disguised as a marketplace. Nations use trade, energy, and technology to pursue power under the banner of prosperity.

Each country competes for advantage: cheaper labor, cheaper energy, looser environmental laws. Every ton of carbon burned to sustain that competition becomes another contribution to the planetary debt. Even when governments promise cooperation, the incentives push toward self-interest. The result is a global race where everyone speeds up while pretending to brake.

3. Climate Feedback: The Planet Mirrors the Market

The Earth’s climate behaves much like the global market; it amplifies what it receives. When emissions rise, warming accelerates. When ice melts, reflectivity drops and more heat is absorbed. When permafrost thaws, methane escapes, trapping even more heat.

Economics follows the same feedback logic. When profits rise, investment accelerates. When consumption expands, industries grow. When debt fuels spending, growth becomes mandatory just to keep balance sheets alive. Both systems are self-reinforcing loops, and both now run beyond the point where simple adjustments can restore equilibrium. The climate is not our opponent; it is our mirror.

4. Complexity at Diminishing Returns

Anthropologist Joseph Tainter described how civilizations collapse when the costs of complexity exceed the benefits. In modern terms, our complexity is the global economic machine itself: supply chains, data networks, financial derivatives, multinational regulations. Every time we add a new layer to solve a problem, we create new vulnerabilities that require still more layers to manage.

Each summit, each climate accord, each innovation adds more structure without reducing the total stress on the planet. The energy required to maintain this complexity—both literal and political—keeps rising. The returns keep shrinking. Collapse, in Tainter’s sense, is not moral failure. It is an energy imbalance that can no longer be paid for.

5. The Lost Capacity for Collective Action

For any hope of reversal, the world would need unified effort: shared technology, synchronized energy transitions, and transparent resource management. But the geopolitical environment rewards fragmentation, not cooperation.

Tariffs on green technologies, competition over critical minerals, and rival energy blocs reflect a deeper truth: the system’s self-preservation instinct now overrides the planet’s. The same logic that drives corporations to maximize quarterly profits drives nations to prioritize GDP over stability. When cooperation becomes politically impossible, the window for reversal closes. The tipping point is no longer just environmental; it is institutional. The global economy has become too self-interested to save itself.

6. The Human Dilemma

Here is where it turns personal again. Knowing all this does not free me from it. Like billions of others, I am bound to a currency system that values growth more than life. Even the act of writing about collapse depends on electricity, servers, and manufactured devices—processes sustained by the very machinery I critique.

This is the emotional cost of awareness: understanding that every solution still draws from the same finite pool of energy and materials. There is no clean exit, only degrees of participation.

7. What Remains Possible

Perhaps the goal is not salvation but clarity. We can still choose honesty over illusion, cooperation over denial, and resilience over blind optimism. Local economies, cultural memory, and intellectual integrity become forms of resistance when global systems refuse correction.

We may not stop the collapse, but we can shape how consciously we experience it. Every act of truth-telling slows the descent a little and preserves knowledge for whatever comes next.

8. Closing Reflection

Civilizations do not fall because people stop caring. They fall when caring is no longer profitable. The integration that once made us powerful now binds us to the consequences of our own design. The global economy, the climate system, and human survival have merged into a single equation whose solution we can no longer balance.

We are living within that equation—each of us an input, each of us a signal echoing through the system we built. Understanding that is not despair; it is the beginning of wisdom.

9. What Game Theory Has to Say

From a game-theory perspective, the climate crisis behaves like a global Prisoner’s Dilemma. Each nation knows that cooperation—cutting emissions, sharing technology, and limiting extraction—would benefit everyone in the long run. Yet the fear of losing competitive advantage makes defection the safer short-term choice. The result is a rational race toward collective ruin.

In game-theory terms, the global economy is locked in a non-cooperative equilibrium where each player pursues individual gain, even while knowing that mutual restraint would yield a higher collective payoff. The system rewards exploitation over preservation, competition over trust, and growth over equilibrium.

Economists and political theorists call this a coordination failure, but in deeper terms it reveals a civilization unable to rewrite its own rules. Collapse, therefore, is not only a physical or economic event; it is the logical outcome of the strategies that once made us successful. The tragedy is not that humanity is irrational, but that our rationality now serves the wrong game.

For readers interested in cooperative strategies and the mathematics of coordination, classic works in game theory explore how trust, reciprocity, and reputation can stabilize systems that would otherwise self-destruct. These ideas will be central to any future rethinking of global governance.

---

References

Tainter, J. A. (1988). The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth. Universe Books.

Smil, V. (2017). Energy and Civilization: A History. MIT Press.

Jackson, T. (2017). Prosperity Without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow. Routledge.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.

Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

About the author

J. André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics, and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.

His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact, and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are therefore provisional. When outcomes are hard to predict, it is often because hidden layers and feedback loops are still at work.

Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback, and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

Testing the Gospel Ethic in Israel and Palestine

Where the Jesus ethic meets the daily reality of Israel and Palestine

By J. André Faust (Oct 04, 2025)

The Motif

The figure of Jesus is a moral North Star: peace, mercy, forgiveness, love of enemy, care for the vulnerable. The Sermon on the Mount, the call to peacemakers, the command to love those who hate you, and the preference for humility over status set a clear ethic. It is an ethic of means, not only ends, and it measures success by the dignity preserved in those who suffer.

Where the Contradiction Appears

Modern states operate inside a hard world of borders, deterrence, and survival. Leaders are rewarded for security outcomes, not for moral beauty. The result is a visible gap between the motif and the methods often used in its name. This gap is not new. It is a repeating pattern: an ideal rises, power consolidates around it, power drifts toward self-preservation, then renewal is needed to realign means with the original purpose.

The Dialectic: How Ideals Drift

1. Ideal: a unifying moral vision invites sacrifice and trust.
2. Power: institutions stabilize the vision and guard the community.
3. Corruption: incentives tilt toward control, secrecy, and punishment.
4. Renewal: voices of conscience expose the drift and call the system back.

Mechanics of the Contradiction

• Security dilemma: one side’s “defense” looks like “aggression” to the other, so each escalation invites the next.
• Trauma memory: communities with deep wounds overweight worst-case risks and accept harsher measures as “insurance.”
• Bureaucratic survival: agencies protect budgets, reputations, and doctrines, even when conditions change.
• Signaling politics: leaders prove strength to domestic audiences, which narrows room for de-escalation.
• Moral licensing: doing some good becomes a pass for doing harm “for the greater good.”
• Media incentives: outrage and spectacle reward maximal responses and punish restraint.
• Path dependence: once you invest in a tool, you keep using it, even when it is no longer the right tool.

Practical Tests: Are We Close to the Motif?

• Means vs ends: are the means humane, or only the goal?
• Enemy image: do we leave space for the opponent’s repentance, or only for their defeat?
• Proportionality: are responses limited, precise, and revisable?
• Protection of the vulnerable: are noncombatants, prisoners, and the poor actively shielded?
• Transparency: can citizens audit the policy, the data, and the costs?
• Burden sharing: do decision makers share the costs, or export them downward?
• Room for dissent: are critics treated as partners in truth-seeking, or as enemies?

What Renewal Looks Like

Renewal begins when conscience regains jurisdiction over strategy. In practice that means verifiable de-escalation steps, humanitarian corridors with third-party monitors, time-limited emergency powers, protection of journalists and medics, restorative elements for the innocent, and language that recognizes the other’s dignity. None of this guarantees safety, yet each step closes the gap between the motif and the method.

Why This Matters

The point is not to romanticize power or to shame those who exercise it. The point is to keep power answerable to the very ideal that gave it birth. Every era repeats the same spiral. The question is whether we notice the drift early enough to correct it without catastrophe.

---

References (APA 7)

1. Allison, G. T., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (2nd ed.). Longman.
2. Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Charles Scribner’s Sons. (Original work published 1923)
3. Cohen, S. J. D. (1999). The beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, varieties, uncertainties. University of California Press.
4. Goodman, M. (2007). Rome and Jerusalem: The clash of ancient civilizations. Penguin.
5. Heschel, A. J. (1955). God in search of man: A philosophy of Judaism. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
6. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon.
7. Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167–214.
8. Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344–357.
9. Nash, J. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49.
10. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.
11. Schäfer, P. (Ed.). (2003). The Bar Kokhba War reconsidered: New perspectives on the second Jewish revolt against Rome. Mohr Siebeck.
12. Schelling, T. C. (1966). Arms and influence. Yale University Press.
13. Smallwood, E. M. (1976). The Jews under Roman rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. Brill.
14. The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version. (1989). National Council of Churches. (Citations used: Matthew 5:9; Luke 6:27; Matthew 5:39; John 18:36)
15. Yoder, J. H. (1994). The politics of Jesus (2nd ed.). Eerdmans.
16. Sacks, J. (2002). The dignity of difference: How to avoid the clash of civilizations. Continuum.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

Correlation or Coincidence? Carney’s Premiership and Canada’s Market Boom

 

Markets, Monetary Policy, and Mark Carney: Why the TSX Surged in 2025

Correlation, context, and the Bank of Canada’s role

---

Mark Carney, the Bank of Canada, and the TSX rally — visual theme

Since Mark Carney became Prime Minister on March 14, 2025, the S&P/TSX Composite Index has risen strongly. At first glance, this looks like a story of political leadership. But the market’s movement reflects a deeper interplay of fiscal signals, monetary policy, global equity trends, and Canada’s commodity cycle.

What the numbers say

• TSX March 2025 close: ~24,917
• TSX October 1, 2025: ~30,108
• Price return: about +20.9% in just over six months
• Total return: likely closer to +23–25% once dividends are included

The Bank of Canada factor

Monetary policy has been central. In March, the BoC rate stood at 3.00%. By Sept 17, 2025, it was lowered to 2.50%. These cuts reduced borrowing costs, buoyed corporate expansion, and supported exporters via a softer Canadian dollar.

TSX climbing while the BoC eases: March–October 2025 (blue = TSX, red = BoC rate)

Global alignment

• U.S. equities also gained through 2025, reflecting a wider risk-on environment.
• Canada’s resource-heavy index benefited from strong oil and metals.
• The TSX remains highly correlated with global markets, amplifying moves.

So, is there a “Carney effect”?

There is a positive correlation between Carney’s first months in office and the TSX’s rally. But causation is harder to prove. A balanced assessment is that Carney’s credibility bolstered confidence, while monetary policy and global conditions did the heavy lifting.

Why this matters

Markets and politics interact through expectations. A strong index gives Carney political capital, but sustaining momentum will depend on factors beyond Ottawa — commodity prices, U.S. markets, and future Bank of Canada moves.

---

Sources and notes

• Bank of Canada interest rate announcement, Sept 17, 2025.
• TMX monthly stats for March 2025 — closing reference.
• TradingEconomics and Investing.com — current TSX levels.

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

Gun Control: Rights, Privileges, and Consequences

 by  J. André Faust (Sept 13, 2025)

Gun violence once again dominates the headlines. While I won’t focus on any single incident, the timing underscores a simple truth: the United States is in a very different place than other democracies when it comes to firearms.

So then, why does the United States appear to have little or no gun control compared to other democracies? The answer lies in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the “right to keep and bear arms.” For many Americans, this is more than a law — it is part of their national identity, rooted in the Revolutionary War, the distrust of government power, and the belief that citizens should be able to defend themselves against both criminals and tyranny. That makes gun ownership a constitutional right, not a regulated privilege. As a result, sweeping restrictions are politically and legally difficult, and rules vary widely from state to state. By contrast, countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia treat gun ownership as a privilege granted by law, not an inalienable right.

At a Glance

The infographic below tells the story clearly. Where Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia treat firearms as a regulated privilege, the United States enshrines them as a constitutional right. That difference shapes every outcome.

Comparing the Rules

Category	United States	Canada	United Kingdom	Australia
Ownership status	Right	Privilege	Privilege	Privilege
Licensing required	Some states only	YES	YES	YES
Semi-auto rifles	YES	BANNED (mostly)	BANNED	BANNED
Handguns	YES	RESTRICTED	BANNED	RESTRICTED
Public carry	YES (varies)	NO	NO	NO
Guns per 100 people	120	35	5	14

The legal framework explains the contrast: the U.S. has more guns than people, 120 per 100 residents, while Canada has 35, Australia 14, and the UK only 5.

Homicide Rates

Country	Firearm Homicides (per 100,000, latest)
United States	~4.3 (CDC, 2021)
Canada	0.72 (2023, Statistics Canada)
United Kingdom	<0.2 (typical year)
Australia	<0.2 (typical year)

By international standards, the U.S. homicide rate is striking: roughly ten times higher than other high-income countries with strong gun control.

Suicides vs Homicides

Country	Gun Suicide Rate (per 100,000)	Gun Homicide Rate (per 100,000)	Share of Gun Deaths by Suicide
United States	~8.0 (CDC, 2021)	~4.3 (CDC, 2021)	~54%
Canada	~1.2 (StatsCan, 2020–23)	~0.7 (2023)	~75%
United Kingdom	<0.1	<0.2	Majority suicides
Australia	~0.8	<0.2	Majority suicides

In Canada, about three out of four firearm deaths are suicides, but the overall gun suicide rate is still far lower than in the U.S. The U.S. leads both in homicide and suicide by firearm, reflecting the sheer number of guns in circulation.

Conclusion

The contrast is clear. Countries that treat firearms as a regulated privilege see fewer guns, fewer shootings, and fewer deaths. Canada shows that even when most gun deaths are suicides, the actual suicide rate by firearm remains far lower than in the United States. The U.S., by enshrining guns as a right, has chosen a different path — and lives with the consequences. The question is whether the American definition of freedom is worth the price paid in blood.

---

Sources: Statistics Canada (2023); CDC (2021); Commonwealth Fund (2024); RAND (on Australia’s NFA); Public Safety Canada. Figures simplified for clarity.

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

Money, Power, and the Drug War: Reflections on Tony Tracy’s Review of Crackdown

Crackdown, Capitalism, and the Logic of Dependency

By J. André Faust (July 31, 2025)

My good friend Tony Tracy recently published a compelling review of Garth Mullins’s new book Crackdown: Surviving and Resisting the War on Drugs. Tony and I go back to our days of activism in the International Socialist Organization in the 1990s and in student politics, so I was naturally curious to read his thoughts. His review is powerful, and Mullins’s work clearly serves as both memoir and manifesto, an urgent call to confront the state violence and systemic injustice that fuel the drug war.

Tony highlights Mullins’s lifelong activism, his role in user‑led movements like VANDU and BCAPOM, and his refusal to tell a conventional “recovery story.” Instead, Mullins presents a narrative of resistance, centring drug users as agents of change, not passive victims. Tony frames the book as a revolutionary testament, an “essential weapon of resistance” against criminalization and oppression.

Why Tony’s Review Resonates

Tony captures what makes Mullins’s work so important. The book situates drug prohibition in its racist and classist origins, critiques disastrous policies like British Columbia’s 2014 Methadose switch, and celebrates grassroots harm‑reduction strategies. These are all vital issues, and Mullins’s voice, rooted in lived experience, is essential to the fight for safe supply, decriminalization, and user autonomy.

Looking Beneath the Surface

While I agree with Tony’s perspective, my own lens looks deeper at the mechanics that drive both capitalism and the illicit drug industry. At their core, both systems thrive on creating dependency to sustain profit and power. Corporations market addictive products, cultivate brand loyalty, and even build obsolescence into consumer goods. Drug cartels similarly exploit chemical dependency, maintaining control through profit and coercion.

Even artificial intelligence: These systems all share the same underlying logic: create demand, foster dependency, and maximize profit “by any means necessary.”

Money, Power, and the State

What fascinates me is how money, power, and the State reinforce each other. Sometimes this is deliberate, through lobbying, policy capture, or outright corruption. Other times, it simply emerges from the nature of the system itself. Capital generates wealth, which captures political influence. The State enforces laws that protect those flows of capital, whether for corporations or, indirectly, for cartels. Power then reinforces the structures that keep wealth concentrated at the top.

The opioid crisis offers a stark example. Companies like Purdue Pharma aggressively marketed highly addictive drugs with state approval until the crisis became politically untenable. Meanwhile, illicit drug networks flourish in places where the State is weak, complicit, or selectively permissive. Both legal and illegal markets operate according to the same logic: profit through dependency.

A Complementary Perspective

Tony and Mullins are absolutely right to focus on state violence and the harm done to drug users. Harm reduction, decriminalization, and user‑led activism are vital steps toward saving lives and empowering communities. What I extend the conversation to recognize is that even if prohibition ended tomorrow, the exploitative profit structures might remain intact. Power could simply shift from cartels to corporations like Big Pharma.

Understanding this helps bridge our two perspectives. Mullins’s work shines a light on the urgent need to dismantle punitive drug laws and support grassroots activism. But a full critique must also ask how capitalism itself, legal or illicit, thrives on dependency, shaping human behaviour for the sake of profit.

Reflecting on Tony’s review reminded me that confronting the drug war is one part of a larger struggle. To truly liberate people from exploitative systems, we need to challenge not just prohibition, but the more profound logic of money, power, and the State that makes such systems possible in the first place.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

Canada Faces a Choice: Paycheque or Future in a Warming World

By J. André Faust (July 25, 2025)

Canada’s Climate Crisis: A Stark Choice Ahead

In Canada, we are experiencing climate change at an unprecedented rate. The western provinces now face severe droughts and wildfires almost every summer. Ironically, these regions—now living the consequences of global warming—continue to support fossil fuel extraction and distribution, often ignoring the social and economic hardships these environmental changes impose.

Some pro‑fossil‑fuel proponents argue that climate has always changed. While technically true, they overlook the rate of change: past shifts occurred over thousands or even millions of years—not within a single human lifespan. Multiple lines of evidence (ice-core and sediment records, isotope analyses, fossil data) reveal that current changes are far more rapid (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2024).

Scientific consensus strongly indicates that the accelerated warming we’re now witnessing is primarily due to human activities, especially greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2024). The environment is an interconnected system—what happens to one component affects the rest. Increased CO₂ raises global temperatures, leading to glacier retreat and permafrost thaw. Thawing permafrost releases methane—a potent greenhouse gas—amplifying warming. Meanwhile, hotter, drier summers fuel megafires, which in turn emit large amounts of CO₂, reinforcing the greenhouse effect and triggering dangerous feedback loops (Climate Institute, 2023; Natural Resources Canada, 2024).

The 2023 wildfire season stands out as one of Canada's most destructive: approximately 7.8 million hectares burned, more than six times the long-term annual average (World Resources Institute, 2023). These fires contributed nearly 23% of global wildfire carbon emissions that year (Le Monde, 2024). Canada’s wildfire season is broader, earlier, longer, and more intense—especially in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (World Weather Attribution, 2023; Washington Post, 2025).

Since 1948, Canada’s average temperature has risen by about 1.7 °C, and in northern and western regions, warming has been even greater—up to 2–2.5 °C (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2024). Today’s accelerated warming creates conditions increasingly hostile to ecosystems and communities.

Given what we know about the speed and effects of climate change, we face a stark choice: a short‑term paycheque or the long‑term preservation of our biosphere.

---

References

Climate Institute. (2023). Fact sheet: Climate change and wildfires in Canada. Climate Institute Canada.

Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2024). Climate change in Canada: Greenhouse gas emissions and impacts.

Le Monde. (2024, August 15). Gigantic wildfires in Canada, the Amazon and Greece have been amplified by global warming. Le Monde – Environment.

Natural Resources Canada. (2024). Canada’s record‑breaking wildfires in 2023: A fiery wake‑up call.

World Resources Institute. (2023). Canada’s 2023 forest fires caused major climate impact.

World Weather Attribution. (2023, August 22). Climate change more than doubled the likelihood of extreme fire weather conditions in Eastern Canada. Retrieved from https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/

Washington Post. (2025, July 14). What to know about the fires dotting the western U.S. and Canada. The Washington Post.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

Selective Sympathy: Gaza, Ukraine, and the Media’s Blind Spot

Why Is Putin Demonized While Netanyahu Gets a Pass?

By J. André Faust (July 09, 2025)

In an age of instant information and moral posturing, one reality is hard to ignore: Vladimir Putin is relentlessly demonized in Western media for the war in Ukraine, while Benjamin Netanyahu largely escapes similar treatment for Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Yet if we compare civilian casualties, blockade-driven starvation, and infrastructure destruction, Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza have arguably caused more civilian suffering in a shorter period.

By the Numbers

• Ukraine (Feb 2022–Mid 2025): ~13,300 civilian deaths, 70,000–80,000+ military deaths, millions displaced.
• Gaza (Oct 2023–Mid 2025): ~57,000+ Palestinian deaths (majority civilians), tens of thousands wounded, famine and medical collapse due to blockade.

Framing: “Self-defense” vs. “Aggression”

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is framed as an illegal, aggressive war, justifying Western sanctions and unified condemnation.

Netanyahu’s war in Gaza is framed as “self-defense” against Hamas, with civilian casualties rationalized as Hamas’ fault, even as aid is blocked and starvation spreads.

Why the Double Standard?

1️⃣ Geopolitical Interests: Supporting Ukraine helps counter Russia, while supporting Israel aligns with Middle East influence and security alliances.
2️⃣ Media and Cultural Bias: Western media often mirrors government priorities, with deep cultural ties creating sympathy for Israel.
3️⃣ Legal Framing: Russia’s invasion clearly violates sovereignty; Israel claims self-defense under international law.
4️⃣ Economic and Strategic Factors: Israel’s tech, intelligence, and regional role align with Western interests.

Violence as a Means of Resource Control

As noted by Mises, Mills, and Strauss, violence has historically been the main way to acquire resources, control territory, and expand power. In both Ukraine and Gaza, violence is used to achieve political or territorial aims, yet the Western response differs.

What This Means for Us

It’s not about ignoring Hamas’ attacks or Russia’s invasion but about recognizing selective moral outrage. If tens of thousands die under Gaza’s bombardment with muted Western response while Ukraine’s suffering draws global condemnation, we must ask:

Are we truly committed to human rights and the value of civilian life, or only when it aligns with our interests?

Closing Thoughts

Selective moral blindness excuses violence when it suits us while condemning it when it does not. The people of Ukraine and Gaza both deserve consistent standards of justice, accountability, and empathy—without geopolitical double standards.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

Why Groups Demand Punishment: The Psychology of Public Outrage

By J. André Faust (June 27, 2025)

When a violent crime shocks a community, public demands for punishment often drown out calls for understanding and nuance. Even in cases where severe mental illness is a factor, many insist “justice must be served,” often equating justice with retribution.

Why does this happen?

Groups amplify emotions. Fear, grief, and anger spread quickly, creating a collective urgency to act. In these moments, we think with our hearts, not our heads.

Psychologists Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo described this with the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM): instead of carefully processing information (the central route), groups often rely on quick emotional cues and surface signals (the peripheral route). When tragedy strikes, the public reaction is driven by headlines, victim stories, and visceral images, not by deep evidence-based reasoning.

Cognitive shortcuts like the availability heuristic (thinking vivid crimes are common) and the representativeness heuristic (believing offenders are “monsters”) push societies toward harsh responses that feel justified in the moment.

Sociologist Stanley Cohen described moral panics—moments when societies fixate on a perceived threat and demand disproportionate punishment. Calls to reinstate the death penalty or push for severe sentences often follow, despite little evidence that they improve safety or justice outcomes.

Individually, people can understand that severe mental illness can remove moral agency and that proper treatment can protect society. But collectively, fear and anger overshadow this understanding, replacing fact with emotion.

Real justice requires balancing society’s need for safety with evidence, compassion, and facts—not fear-driven vengeance.

It is also important to recognize that satisfying emotional desires with harsh punishment does not necessarily mean fewer crimes will occur. During my years volunteering with the John Howard Society, I spoke with a former death row inmate whose sentence had been commuted to life. He told me that at the time of his crime, he believed he could only be executed once, so it did not matter how many people he killed during a robbery that had gone wrong. For him, the threat of capital punishment was not a deterrent—it placed a ceiling on punishment, not a boundary. This is a clear example that while harsh punishment may feel like justice, it does not always translate into a safer society.

The next time a shocking crime leads to calls for harsh punishment, pause and ask: Is this about real safety, or just about satisfying collective outrage?

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.