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 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.

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.

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.

The Complexities of the Russia–Ukraine Conflict: Analyzing Propaganda, Identity, and Strategic Performance

Propaganda, Perception, and the Dangers of Assumption

 By J. André Faust (June 07, 2025)

I don't know what Zelenskyy was thinking when he authorized the use of stealth drones to attack Russian airfields. Strategically, yes, it was an audacious and calculated move, clearly planned well in advance. But it also had to be obvious that such a strike—targeting the pride of Russia’s long-range bomber fleet—would escalate the conflict dramatically. In war, strikes like these don’t just damage infrastructure; they strike at the heart of a nation’s dignity. Historically, when national pride is wounded, the response is rarely measured.

What makes this moment even more difficult to analyze is that it came just as Russia and Ukraine were reportedly engaged in prisoner exchanges, including the repatriation of the deceased, and were actively discussing a limited ceasefire framework. That context adds a strange duality: a step toward de-escalation on one front, and a direct provocation on another. It makes me wonder if we’re seeing one layer of reality, or just the version we’re meant to see.

Both Russia and Ukraine are clearly invested in propaganda. That much is undeniable. Each side has something to gain by shaping public perception, both domestically and internationally. And for those of us watching from the outside, trying to assess truth through that fog is no easy task.

Lately, I’ve even begun to question how authentic some diplomatic encounters are. Take the recent meeting between Zelenskyy and Donald Trump. Trump and Vance appeared condescending and dismissive, but Zelenskyy—former actor that he is—didn’t push back much at all. Was that real? Or was it a scripted performance designed to serve different narratives for different audiences? I know that sounds far-fetched, but when war and politics intersect with public theatre, performance becomes part of statecraft.

One area I find especially difficult to pin down is the actual proportion of pro-Russian separatists within Ukraine. The Western narrative emphasizes unity, and much of the polling does support that, but Russia claims to be protecting persecuted Russian speakers. The truth likely lies somewhere in between, but it's important to understand just how much that proportion has shifted.

Before 2014, there were sizable pro-Russia sympathies in parts of eastern Ukraine, especially in Donetsk and Luhansk. Some surveys from that time suggested that up to 25–30% of people in those regions supported separation or stronger ties with Russia. But that support declined sharply after the annexation of Crimea and the onset of war. In more recent years—particularly since the 2022 full-scale invasion—nationwide support for Ukrainian unity has soared. Today, over 80–90% of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions, including many in formerly skeptical eastern regions. Even Russian-speaking Ukrainians have, in many cases, grown more pro-Ukraine due to the ongoing violence.

It’s tempting to draw a parallel with the Quebec independence movement, especially the "Oui/Non" referenda under René Lévesque. But that comparison only goes so far. Quebec’s debate was largely peaceful and democratic. Ukraine’s situation is defined by invasion, occupation, and military violence. What might have been a cultural or regional disagreement years ago has now become, for many Ukrainians, a matter of existential survival.

As I continue to follow this conflict, I remind myself constantly to watch for signs of confirmation bias. It's easy to see what you want to see, or what one side wants you to believe. But if we want to understand the deeper realities of this war, we have to question the narratives—on both sides—and pay attention not just to what’s being said, but what’s being left out.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

Trump’s 90-Day Tariff Pause: Strategic Masterstroke or Calculated Bluff?

World domination: Countries will dance to my tune

 By J. André Faust (April 10, 2025)

Trump’s recent 90-day pause on most retaliatory tariffs isn't random—it’s a calculated maneuver in a multi-player strategic game.

In game theory terms, this looks like a deliberate pivot within a sequential game. Faced with simultaneous signals from over 75 countries, Trump appears to have shifted to a pause-and-observe strategy, maintaining flexibility while testing the responses of other players.

He didn’t pause everything. Tariffs on Chinese imports were hiked to 125%, which looks like asymmetric signaling—rewarding cooperative states with relief, while punishing non-compliance with intensified pressure. The outcome? A 9.5% surge in the S&P 500, one of the strongest market rebounds since WWII. If that’s not anticipation of payoff, I don’t know what is.

To me, it seems likely that Trump had already mapped out potential player responses, including how financial markets would react. This is not improvisation; it’s the behavior of a player operating several moves ahead, likely within a zero-sum frame, where one player's gain is another’s loss.

His reference to Mark Carney as the “Prime Minister of Canada” instead of “Governor” wasn’t a gaffe. In strategic communications, that’s a public signal meant to undermine Pierre Poilievre while elevating a preferred alternative. If we interpret this as a soft annexation narrative, it fits within a framing tactic: shifting perceived legitimacy from one actor to another.

Poilievre’s electoral strategy, on the other hand, has been highly predictable. He’s adapted rhetoric, not strategy. In the context of a repeated game, voters eventually see through surface-level repositioning when no deeper change occurs.

Now, what’s the biggest threat to Trump’s strategy? Coalition formation. If all 75 countries moved in unison against him, the payoff matrix would shift dramatically. But the global interdependence of economies makes such unity improbable—too many players have something to lose in a full-scale standoff.

Trump’s Tariff Pause: A Game Theory Perspective

Trump’s recent 90-day pause on most retaliatory tariffs isn't random—it’s a calculated maneuver in a multi-player strategic game.

In game theory terms, this looks like a deliberate pivot within a sequential game. Faced with simultaneous signals from over 75 countries, Trump appears to have shifted to a pause-and-observe strategy, maintaining flexibility while testing the responses of other players.

He didn’t pause everything. Tariffs on Chinese imports were hiked to 125%, which looks like asymmetric signaling—rewarding cooperative states with relief, while punishing non-compliance with intensified pressure. The outcome? A 9.5% surge in the S&P 500, one of the strongest market rebounds since WWII. If that’s not anticipation of payoff, I don’t know what is.

To me, it seems likely that Trump had already mapped out potential player responses, including how financial markets would react. This is not improvisation; it’s the behavior of a player operating several moves ahead, likely within a zero-sum frame, where one player's gain is another’s loss.

Here's a brief explanation of the payoff matrix: The assigned values mean that the higher the number, the better the outcome, and the lower the number, the worse the outcome.

• (Pause Tariffs, Cooperate) = (3, 3): Mutually beneficial outcome. Trump gets economic relief and positive optics, countries avoid economic retaliation.

• (Pause Tariffs, Retaliate) = (1, 2): Trump shows flexibility but gets undercut; countries benefit slightly from autonomy but at a minor economic cost.

• (Enforce Tariffs, Cooperate) = (4, 1): Trump gains dominance and appears strong; countries yield but suffer economically.

• (Enforce Tariffs, Retaliate) = (0, 0): Worst-case scenario. Trade war escalates, and both sides suffer
• If all 75 countries moved in unison against him, the payoff matrix would shift dramatically. But the global interdependence of economies makes such unity improbable—too many players have something to lose in a full-scale standoff.

Bottom line: this move isn't just about tariffs. It’s about shifting perception, testing loyalty, and managing risk while positioning for longer-term gains. The game is very much in motion—and Trump, for now, is dictating the tempo.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

Thinking of Joining the U.S.? Consider What’s at Stake

 

By J. André Faust (Mar 08, 2025)

Canada vs. U.S. Social Safety Nets

Some Canadians, particularly in the western provinces, have expressed interest in joining the United States. However, one important question arises: have they fully considered what would be lost if Canada were absorbed into the U.S.? Beyond economic and political implications, there are significant differences in social policies and protections. The United States, for example, has a strong gun rights culture, which has contributed to higher levels of violence compared to Canada. Before advocating for such a change, it is crucial to examine the differences in social safety nets between the two countries.

1. Health Care

Canada: Universal health care covers doctor visits, hospital stays, and some prescription drugs. No out-of-pocket costs for basic services.

United States: No universal system. Private insurance dominates, and medical debt is a major issue.

Advantage: Canada (Lower costs, universal access).

2. Unemployment Insurance

Canada: Employment Insurance (EI) provides up to 55% of earnings for up to 45 weeks.

United States: State-run benefits vary widely, typically paying less and for shorter durations.

Advantage: Canada (More generous and standardized).

3. Paid Leave (Maternity, Parental, Sick Leave)

Canada: Up to 18 months of paid parental leave, paid sick leave varies by province.

United States: No federal paid maternity leave, sick leave depends on employer.

Advantage: Canada (Stronger worker protections).

4. Social Assistance (Welfare)

Canada: Provincial welfare programs provide income support but can be low.

United States: Welfare (TANF) has a 5-year lifetime limit with strict work requirements.

Advantage: Mixed (Canada is less punitive, but U.S. has more food aid).

5. Education & Student Aid

Canada: Public universities are subsidized, student loans have lower interest rates.

United States: Higher education is significantly more expensive.

Advantage: Canada (More affordable higher education).

6. Retirement & Pensions

Canada: Canada Pension Plan (CPP), Old Age Security (OAS), and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS).

United States: Social Security (similar to CPP), but lacks equivalent low-income support.

Advantage: Canada (Better support for low-income seniors).

Final Verdict

Canada has a stronger social safety net overall due to universal health care, better unemployment benefits, paid leave, and a more comprehensive pension system. The U.S. relies more on private-sector solutions, employer benefits, and state-level programs, making support less consistent and more dependent on income or employment.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

Profiting from Power: Trump's Financial Moves in Office

By J. André Faust (Jan 23, 2025)

President Donald Trump's recent ventures into cryptocurrency, including the launch of meme coins such as $TRUMP and $MELANIA, as well as the establishment of a cryptocurrency working group through an executive order. These developments have raised ethical concerns among watchdogs, who argue that Trump appears poised to benefit financially from his presidency in new and potentially lucrative ways.

Ethics experts have expressed apprehension that Trump's direct involvement in cryptocurrency ventures could lead to conflicts of interest, especially given his administration's role in regulating the crypto market. The launch of these meme coins has been particularly controversial, with some analysts labeling them as speculative and opportunistic, lacking intrinsic value. The rapid appreciation of these coins has further intensified scrutiny, as it suggests potential for significant personal financial gain for the President.

Additionally, the executive order establishing a cryptocurrency working group has been viewed by some as a move that could disproportionately benefit Trump's personal crypto ventures. The order's directives to explore the creation of a national cryptocurrency stockpile and to propose new regulatory frameworks have led to concerns about the potential for policy decisions that could favor the President's financial interests.

In summary, This highlights the ethical debates surrounding President Trump's recent cryptocurrency initiatives, reflecting concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the propriety of a sitting president engaging in ventures that could result in personal financial gain.

---

Sources:

BBC News. (2025). Trump launches cryptocurrency, raising ethics concerns. Retrieved January 23, 2025, from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98y47vrv2jo

The Times. (2025). If lawless crypto wins, so do the billionaires. Retrieved January 23, 2025, from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/if-lawless-crypto-wins-so-do-the-billionaires-7g3wkqbcd

MarketWatch. (2025). Trump has called himself a 'crypto president.' Here's what his new executive order does. Retrieved January 23, 2025, from https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-has-called-himself-the-crypto-president-heres-what-his-new-executive-order-does-91c6394b

The Atlantic. (2025). The crypto world is already mad at Trump. Retrieved January 23, 2025, from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/01/donald-trump-crypto-billionaire/681388

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

High-Stakes Bargaining: Trump's Tariff Ultimatum Through Schelling's Lens (Game Theory)

By J. André Faust (Jan 20, 2025)

President Trump's recent announcement to overhaul U.S. trade policies, now coupled with the explicit threat of 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods by February 1, can be analyzed through the lens of Thomas Schelling's The Strategy of Conflict, which delves into bargaining, communication, and limited war.

Strategic Communication and Signalling

Schelling emphasizes the role of communication and signalling in strategic interactions. The addition of a firm deadline and explicit tariff threat changes the nature of the signalling dynamic:

• Demonstrating Immediate Resolve: The deadline underscores the administration's commitment to escalating trade reforms if demands are not met.
• Eliminating Flexibility: By setting a firm date, the U.S. reduces room for negotiation and signals a willingness to escalate further if necessary.
• Increasing Psychological Pressure: The looming 25% tariffs create urgency, forcing Canada and Mexico to reassess their strategies and potentially offer concessions.

Tacit Bargaining and Focal Points

Schelling discusses how parties often engage in tacit bargaining, where actions and statements serve as indirect negotiations. In this scenario:

• The February 1 deadline becomes the new focal point, concentrating efforts to avoid the threatened tariffs.
• The explicit threat removes ambiguity, pressuring Canada and Mexico to respond decisively.

Limited Retaliation and Controlled Escalation

The 25% tariff threat represents a significant escalation in the U.S.'s strategy:

• Escalation Initiated: The explicit tariffs signal a move beyond controlled signalling to a potential trade conflict.
• Risk of Retaliation: Canada and Mexico may respond with their own measures, potentially triggering a trade war.
• Strategic Leverage: While bold, this move risks long-term relationships if perceived as overly aggressive.

Implications for Canada

For Canada, the stakes have increased dramatically. Recognizing the strategic underpinnings of this threat is essential:

• Urgent action is required to either negotiate favourable terms or prepare for retaliatory measures.
• Aligning with Mexico to form a unified response could strengthen bargaining power.
• Misjudging the U.S.’s resolve could lead to significant economic consequences.

In summary, applying Schelling's insights reveals that President Trump's escalatory tariff threat transforms the dynamic from strategic signalling to high-stakes bargaining. The explicit deadline and severe tariffs serve as a calculated move to influence Canada's and Mexico's actions while leaving little room for misinterpretation. Remember Game Theory is based on probabilities, what is least likely to most probable. The million dollar question is if he doesn't modify his tariffs what are the chances that a trade war will take place between the two countries.

---

Reference

Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict (pp. 53–80). Harvard University Press.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

GAME THEORY ANALYSIS OF THE SMOOT-HAWLEY TARIFF ACT

 By J André Faust  (Jan 19, 2025)

Below is a game theory analysis of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (Tariff Act of 1930) and its repercussions. While this historical event predates the formalization of many game-theoretic concepts, we can nonetheless interpret the behaviour of the United States and its trading partners in strategic, game-theoretic terms.

President Trump informed Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, following their meeting at his Mar-a-Lago resort, that he plans to move forward with a 25% tariff on Canadian goods. This statement implies he is not bluffing. Examining the situation through the lens of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, game theory suggests that other nations (or “players”) would likely respond in a similar manner. While this does not necessarily mean we would be plunged into another depression, it suggests we might see outcomes reminiscent of those experienced during the Smoot-Hawley era.

While history does not repeat itself exactly, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act offers a cautionary tale. If Trump continues his tit-for-tat tariff strategy, it could have serious economic consequences similar to those of the trade war of the 1930s, which served as the catalyst for the Great Depression. The key question now is whether international actors will de-escalate or whether this will spiral into a modern trade war with long-term consequences.

1. Setting the Stage: Players and Strategies

Players:

• The United States, aiming to protect domestic industries and farmers.

• Major U.S. trading partners (e.g., Canada, France), seeking continued access to U.S. markets and to safeguard their own industries.

Strategies:

1. Impose High Tariffs (Protectionist): Unilaterally raise or maintain high import duties to shield domestic producers from foreign competition.

2. Maintain or Lower Tariffs (Cooperative): Keep tariffs low or reduce them to foster international trade, despite short-term pressure from domestic industries.

In the Smoot-Hawley context, the United States chose Protectionist (raising tariffs), while its trading partners could respond by either accepting the tariffs or retaliating with tariffs of their own.

2. Game Structure: A Multi-Player “Trade War” Scenario

Game theory often models trade interactions as a variant of the Prisoner’s Dilemma:

• Short-Term Gain: If one player imposes high tariffs while others do not retaliate, that player can enjoy short-term benefits (domestic industry protection, potential political support).
• Retaliation Risk: However, if the other players also impose high tariffs, overall trade suffers—everyone is worse off.

When the U.S. raised tariffs drastically under Smoot-Hawley, it essentially made a unilateral “defection” move. This spurred other nations to retaliate with their own tariffs, dragging all parties into a non-cooperative equilibrium where trade volumes declined significantly.

3. Payoffs and Outcomes

• U.S. Short-Term Payoff: Protection for certain domestic industries and a political narrative of “protecting jobs.”
• U.S. Long-Term Payoff: Retaliatory tariffs severely reduced exports, contributing to a deeper economic downturn. Industries relying on international sales were particularly harmed.
• Trading Partners’ Payoff: They faced higher barriers to exporting goods to the U.S. Imposing retaliatory tariffs helped them politically at home but shrank global trade overall.
• Collective Outcome: The strategy profile where everyone imposes high tariffs is Pareto-inferior. No single country benefits enough to offset the overall loss in global trade, contributing to worsening conditions during the Great Depression.

4. Retaliation and Repeated Games

In a single-shot game, one might gain by imposing high tariffs while others keep them low. However, global trade is typically a repeated game, with ongoing interactions over time. Retaliation (tit-for-tat) is common:

• Tit-for-Tat: After Smoot-Hawley, countries like Canada immediately raised tariffs on U.S. goods, mirroring U.S. action.
• Persistent Non-Cooperation: Once both sides enacted protectionist stances, reversing course required significant policy shifts (which did not occur until the mid-1930s with reciprocal trade agreements).

5. Information and Expectations

Over 1,000 economists opposed Smoot-Hawley, indicating a strong belief it would backfire. In game theory terms, this reflects:

• Incomplete Information: U.S. policymakers underestimated other nations’ willingness to retaliate.
• Overoptimistic Beliefs: Officials presumed other countries might not retaliate or that domestic gains would outweigh any global drawbacks.

6. Lessons Through a Game Theoretic Lens

• Mutual Gains Through Cooperation: International trade is often more beneficial if nations lower tariffs collectively.
• Danger of Defection: One nation’s decision to raise tariffs can trigger a chain reaction, leading to a “trade war” that hurts all players.
• Importance of Repeated Interactions: Over time, trust and stable agreements (like GATT and the WTO) serve to prevent destructive cycles of retaliatory tariffs.

From a game theory perspective, Smoot-Hawley exemplifies how short-term political gains can lead to non-cooperative equilibria with long-term collective losses.

Conclusion

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act represents a classic case of defection in an iterated trade game. By dramatically raising tariffs, the U.S. encouraged other nations to do the same, resulting in economic isolation and a deeper global crisis. The severe consequences of this non-cooperative strategy helped pave the way for more cooperative, rules-based global trade policies in the decades that followed, which may be how the Trump game will end.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

History in the Making or Repeating? The Perils of Trump’s Protectionism

 By J André Faust  (Jan 19, 2025)

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (officially the Tariff Act of 1930) was a U.S. law enacted on June 17, 1930. Sponsored by Senator Reed Smoot (R-UT) and Representative Willis C. Hawley (R-OR), it raised tariffs on thousands of imported goods to historically high levels. While it was initially intended to protect American farmers and industries from foreign competition in the wake of declining agricultural prices, it ended up having far-reaching negative consequences for both the U.S. and the global economy.

1. Context and Motivations

• Agricultural Decline: American farmers had already been struggling throughout the 1920s due to falling crop prices and overproduction. Legislators believed raising tariffs on agricultural imports would help farmers compete and recover.
• Great Depression Onset: The stock market crash of 1929 deepened economic woes, increasing political pressure to protect domestic industries and jobs. Protectionism seemed, at first glance, like a way to bolster American businesses at home.
• Widespread Opposition by Economists: Over 1,000 economists signed an open letter urging President Herbert Hoover to veto the bill, warning that it would stifle international trade and hurt the U.S. economy in the long run.

2. Main Provisions

• Significant Tariff Increases: The Act raised tariffs on thousands of products, including agricultural items and various manufactured goods. In some cases, tariffs rose to levels that effectively priced foreign goods out of the U.S. market.
• Trade Policy Shift: Smoot-Hawley marked a shift away from the relatively more open trade policy of the 1920s, setting the stage for retaliatory measures from other nations.

3. Immediate Effects

• Retaliatory Tariffs: Countries such as Canada, France, and others responded with tariffs on U.S. exports. As a result, American farmers and manufacturers found it harder to sell products abroad.
• Decline in Global Trade: The Act contributed to a rapid decline in international trade. Although the Great Depression had multiple causes, the sharp rise in tariffs and subsequent retaliation exacerbated the global economic downturn.
• Economic Isolation: Higher tariffs diminished opportunities for global cooperation and trade, reinforcing a trend toward economic isolation among major industrialized nations during the early 1930s.

4. Longer-Term Consequences

• Deepening the Great Depression: While not the sole cause of the Great Depression’s severity, Smoot-Hawley is widely regarded by historians and economists as intensifying the crisis by shrinking world trade and aggravating financial instability.
• Shift in Trade Policy: Over time, the negative experience with protectionist policies led to a major shift in U.S. trade policy. By the mid-1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration began negotiating reciprocal trade agreements to lower tariffs and encourage international commerce.
• Lessons for Policy: Smoot-Hawley remains a textbook cautionary tale about protectionism. Economists and policymakers often cite it as an example of how raising trade barriers can cause significant economic harm, especially during periods of global financial stress.

5. Legacy

• Changed View of Tariffs: The negative repercussions of Smoot-Hawley influenced future generations of leaders to seek more cooperative trade policies, culminating in multilateral trade arrangements after World War II (e.g., the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, later the World Trade Organization).
• Cautionary Example: Discussions about protectionist measures often reference the Smoot-Hawley Act to highlight the dangers of triggering trade wars and isolating domestic industries from global markets.

In Summary

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was a protectionist measure born out of efforts to shield U.S. farmers and industries during an economic downturn. Instead, it provoked retaliatory tariffs from trading partners, contributed to a collapse in international trade, and worsened the global depression of the 1930s. Its legacy endures as a strong argument against aggressive tariff hikes and isolationist trade policies, especially during economic crises.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

The Price of Protectionism: How Trump’s Policies Could Hurt Canada’s Economy Yet Some Canadians sees Trump as a God Sent

 By J André Faust (Nov 10, 2024)

It is puzzling why Trump seems to garner so much support from some Canadians. This sentiment echoes from the streets, coffee shops, and across social media. At first glance, it seems illogical: first, as Canadians, we don’t have a vote in the United States; and second, his protectionist policies could ripple unfavourably throughout the Canadian economy from coast to coast.

To understand Trump’s protectionist stance, let’s briefly examine the impacts of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) and some key trade restrictions his administration placed on Canada:

Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

In March 2018, the Trump administration imposed tariffs of 25% on Canadian steel and 10% on Canadian aluminum, citing national security under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. In response, Canada implemented retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, including steel, aluminum, and various consumer items. Although these tariffs were eventually lifted in May 2019 after negotiations, they marked a shift in U.S.-Canada trade relations.

Softwood Lumber Tariffs

Trump's administration claimed Canadian provinces were unfairly subsidizing the lumber industry, resulting in duties ranging from 10% to 24% on Canadian softwood lumber imports. This impacted construction costs and strained trade relations.

Dairy Trade Restrictions

During the USMCA renegotiation, Trump criticized Canada’s dairy supply management system, which limited U.S. imports to protect Canadian farmers. The USMCA required Canada to ease restrictions on U.S. dairy, poultry, and egg products.

Threatened Tariffs on Auto Imports

Trump repeatedly threatened tariffs on Canadian auto imports as part of a broader negotiation strategy, though these were never enacted. This tactic pushed Canada to make concessions during USMCA talks.

These measures, most of which were lifted or adjusted by the end of Trump’s presidency as USMCA took effect in July 2020, underscored his "America First" approach. This stance brought a new tension to U.S.-Canada trade relations, favouring U.S. interests at Canada’s expense.

When it comes to trade, Canada’s bargaining power with the U.S. is limited. As such, USMCA primarily benefits the United States. Realistically, given the power disparity, it hardly matters if Trudeau or Poilievre is in office—the dynamic remains a zero-sum game where the United States typically benefits to Canada’s disadvantage.

So, why do some Canadians appear to support a foreign leader whose policies could jeopardize Canada’s economic relationship with the United States? Given that Canada’s economy is highly integrated with the U.S.—particularly through trade that supports agriculture and energy exports—this seems counterintuitive. Nonetheless, ideological and cultural alignments sometimes supersede economic pragmatism.

Here are a few factors that might explain why Trump’s protectionism hasn’t dissuaded some Canadians from supporting him:

Ideology Over Economics

For some supporters, ideology outweighs economic concerns. Canadians who align with Trump’s values—such as strong borders, nationalism, or conservative social policies—may view his economic policies as secondary. They might even believe Canada could adapt or benefit from a renegotiated relationship, hoping it fosters self-sufficiency.

Misperceptions of Economic Impact

Not all Canadians fully understand the risks protectionism poses to our economy. Tariffs and trade barriers may seem abstract, especially if they don’t immediately affect daily life. Media portrayals often simplify or sensationalize economic issues, making the true consequences of protectionist policies harder to grasp.

Discontent with Canadian Policy and Institutions

Some Canadians dissatisfied with the current state of Canadian politics or institutions may see Trump as a desirable alternative, even if his policies could harm Canada’s economy. This perspective often reflects a desire for radical change, regardless of the economic logic for Canada.

Belief in U.S.-Canada Resilience

Some Canadians assume that the close Canada-U.S. relationship would shield us from the full effects of American protectionism. They might believe that U.S. businesses, particularly those reliant on Canadian resources, would press against harsh tariffs, thereby maintaining some stability despite Trump’s policies.

Populism and National Pride

Canadian populist sentiments sometimes mirror those in the U.S., advocating for national pride and reduced global dependence. Trump’s rhetoric may inspire Canadians who believe in reducing reliance on U.S. or international trade, especially those favouring local industry, even at a cost.

Canada’s negotiating power with the U.S. is indeed limited, and a protectionist American leader could seriously impact critical Canadian sectors like manufacturing, agriculture, and energy. However, when ideology and populism come into play, economic concerns may take a back seat. Some Canadians may assume that, despite protectionist measures, Canada’s adaptability and resource-based economy could provide stability through turbulent times.

Summary

Donald Trump's administration implemented protectionist policies that negatively impacted Canada’s economy, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum, which were later lifted in 2019, and restrictions on dairy trade, as well as threats of auto tariffs. Despite these policies, which disrupted sectors of the Canadian economy, some Canadians continue to support Trump. For these individuals, ideological alignment with Trump on issues like nationalism and conservative social values often outweighs concerns about economic impacts. Additionally, some Canadians hold misconceptions about the effect of protectionist policies, believe in the resilience of the U.S.-Canada relationship to withstand economic tension, or seek alternatives to Canadian policy and institutions. Populist views favouring economic independence and national pride further contribute to Trump’s appeal, despite risks to Canada’s economic stability. These findings underscore the way cultural values often eclipse economic pragmatism in shaping political preferences.

Conclusion

In examining the support some Canadians have for Donald Trump despite his protectionist policies, it becomes clear that ideology can overshadow practical economic concerns. Although Trump’s policies—such as tariffs, restrictions, and trade renegotiations—have adversely affected Canada, including initial tariffs on steel and aluminum later lifted in 2019, his supporters persist due to deeper ideological and cultural affinities. This alignment demonstrates a broader trend: cultural identity and ideology frequently override economic interests, shaping public opinion in unexpected ways. While Canada’s reliance on the United States creates a vulnerable trade position, many supporters seem to believe Canada’s adaptability and close economic ties with the U.S. will sustain stability despite protectionist policies.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

The Great Divide: An Ideological Perspective for Modern Voters (Part Two)

By J André Faust (Nov 10, 2024)

Part Two of Two

As it stands, the first-past-the-post voting system, at least for now, allows for only two dominant parties; that is not to say this couldn’t change. However, it is highly unlikely that such a change would occur.

Understanding the game of politics can be a daunting task, as the game is complex within Canada and becomes even more complicated when international issues are introduced, such as trade agreements, treaties, maintaining alliances, and so forth. One explanation behind the complexity is that each player’s strategy is to maximize their payoffs. To gain insight into how the game is played from a Canadian perspective, it helps to have a basic understanding of the dominant parties' political philosophies and ideologies. All ideologies, after all, have their roots in philosophy.

Currently, at the federal level, the Canadian political landscape has two dominant political ideologies: conservatism, which aligns with the Conservative Party, and liberalism, which aligns with the Liberal Party.

The current Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) philosophy and ideology reflect a blend of traditional conservative principles, populist influences, and an emphasis on individual freedoms. The party is shaped by its historical roots in both the Progressive Conservative (PC) and Reform/Canadian Alliance legacies, which has led to a unique combination of right-leaning values focused on economic, social, and political issues. Here’s an overview of the CPC’s current philosophy and ideologies:

1. Fiscal Conservatism and Economic Policies

• Pro-Business, Low-Tax Approach: The CPC promotes a business-friendly environment through policies aimed at reducing taxes, deregulating industries, and encouraging investment. It advocates for corporate tax cuts, reduced income taxes, and tax credits to stimulate economic growth and maintain a competitive economy.
• Balanced Budgets and Limited Government Spending: The party emphasizes fiscal responsibility, advocating for balanced budgets and a reduction in national debt. It generally opposes extensive government spending and prefers a more restrained role for the federal government in economic matters.
• Free-Market Policies: The CPC supports free-market capitalism, favouring private enterprise over government intervention, especially in sectors like healthcare and energy.

2. Individual Freedoms and Personal Responsibility

• Limited Government Intervention: The CPC emphasizes personal freedom and responsibility, favouring minimal government involvement in individuals' lives. It encourages individual choice in areas such as healthcare, education, and personal finance.
• Support for Charter Rights: While the party advocates for limited government, it generally supports rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including freedoms of speech and religion. However, this is sometimes balanced with conservative social policies, particularly where social conservatism plays a role.

3. Social Policies and Cultural Conservatism

• Social Conservatism: While ideologically varied, social conservatives within the CPC influence its stance on issues like abortion, family values, and same-sex marriage. The party as a whole, however, tends to avoid making these issues central to its platform, balancing between traditional conservative values and mainstream voters.
• Traditional Family Values and Social Institutions: The CPC traditionally supports policies that reinforce family structures and social institutions. It favours policies that support families, such as tax breaks for families and parental leave options.

4. Populism and Regional Representation

• Populist and Grassroots Appeal: The CPC often adopts populist rhetoric to address the concerns of ordinary Canadians, particularly on issues like affordability, inflation, and perceived government overreach. It presents itself as a voice for average Canadians against political elites and bureaucracy.
• Western and Rural Advocacy: The CPC has strong roots in western Canada and often addresses the specific concerns of western provinces, such as energy policy and provincial rights. The party advocates for fair treatment of all provinces and is cautious about policies that could disproportionately benefit specific regions, like Quebec.

5. Energy and Environmental Policy

• Support for the Energy Sector: The CPC is a strong advocate for the energy industry, particularly oil and gas. It supports pipeline development and resource extraction as part of a balanced approach to energy policy, arguing that Canada can lead in responsible resource development.
• Balanced Approach to Climate Change: While the CPC acknowledges climate change, its policies emphasize a balanced approach that supports economic growth and the energy sector. It generally favors market-based solutions over government-imposed restrictions, focusing on innovation and carbon capture technology rather than stringent regulations.

6. National Security and Foreign Policy

• Strong Defense and Border Security: The CPC advocates for increased defense spending, border security, and support for law enforcement. It supports a robust military and aims to strengthen Canada’s national security.
• Skeptical of Foreign Interventions: In foreign policy, the CPC tends to emphasize Canadian sovereignty and is often skeptical of international agreements or treaties that could undermine national interests. However, it supports strong alliances with traditional allies, particularly the United States.

7. Provincial Rights and Decentralization

• Advocacy for Provincial Autonomy: The CPC often emphasizes decentralization, supporting greater autonomy for provincial governments. It opposes federal policies perceived as infringing on provincial jurisdiction, such as certain healthcare mandates or environmental regulations.
• Opposition to Centralization: Reflecting its western Canadian roots, the CPC typically argues against centralization of power in Ottawa, advocating for policies that respect provincial rights and reduce federal influence in areas traditionally managed by provinces.

To give context to the CPC: In 2003, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance (the successor to the Reform Party) merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada. This merger aimed to unite the right-wing vote and challenge the Liberal Party's dominance. The modern Conservative Party reflects both the fiscally conservative and populist influence of the Reform/Canadian Alliance while maintaining some centrist, traditional conservative elements of the Progressive Conservatives.

While there are some overlaps in political philosophy, there is a significant difference between the two dominant parties.

As mentioned earlier, the Liberal Party follows liberalism but integrates a range of ideologies emphasizing social equality, economic growth, and individual freedoms. Here’s an outline of the key ideological components that shape the Liberal Party’s approach:

Liberalism

• Individual Rights and Social Equality: The Liberal Party advocates for policies promoting inclusivity, social justice, and civil liberties, supporting programs like universal healthcare, education, and environmental regulation.

Progressivism

• Progressive Values: The party often aligns with progressive values, particularly on social issues such as LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive rights, and multiculturalism.
• Social Inequities: It seeks to address social inequities and improve representation and opportunities for marginalized groups.

Social Democracy

• Mixed Economy: The Liberal Party leans toward social democratic principles by supporting a mixed economy where the government plays a strong role in regulating business and redistributing wealth.
• Welfare Programs: Policies include welfare programs, social safety nets, and progressive taxation to reduce income inequality and support low- and middle-income Canadians.

Environmentalism

• Environmental Protection: The Liberal Party promotes policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions, investing in renewable energy, and addressing climate change.

Economic Liberalism

• Trade Liberalization: While socially progressive, the party supports economic liberalism, advocating for trade liberalization, foreign investment, and private enterprise.

Multiculturalism

• Diversity: The Liberal Party has historically championed Canadian multiculturalism, supporting diversity and immigration as core values.

Globalism

• International Alliances: The Liberal Party often adopts a globalist approach, supporting international alliances, trade agreements, and a strong role in international organizations like the United Nations.

The Liberal Party's blend of liberalism, social democracy, and progressivism reflects a commitment to balancing economic growth with social equity, environmental protection, and a global perspective on key issues. This broad ideological spectrum aims to appeal to a wide range of Canadians, particularly those who value both individual freedom and social welfare.

It can’t be stressed enough how important it is to understand the principles, ideologies, and philosophies of the respective parties. Joe Clark's departure from the Conservative Party of Canada was based on ideological differences between the Progressive Conservative Party and the Conservative Party of Canada. The following is an example of how understanding political ideologies can affect decision-making.

Joe Clark, former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, opposed the merger of the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party due to concerns about the party’s future direction. The Conservative Party’s political ideology now combines more right-leaning elements from the Reform/Canadian Alliance with a strong focus on the interests of Western Canadians. Rather than compromise his political beliefs and values, Joe Clark left the party in 1998, unwilling to see the party he had led transform into a more right-wing, populist movement that, in his view, would betray the legacy of the Progressive Conservatives.

Summary

In Canada’s current federal political environment, the Conservative and Liberal parties dominate, each reflecting a distinct political ideology rooted in conservatism and liberalism, respectively. This piece outlines the Conservative Party of Canada’s core principles, which integrate traditional conservative values with populist elements. These principles include a pro-business, low-tax approach, support for individual freedoms, and advocacy for provincial autonomy, especially in Western Canada. The Conservative Party, as it stands, is shaped by the merger of the Progressive Conservative and Reform/Canadian Alliance legacies, resulting in a unique combination of fiscally conservative and populist perspectives.

In contrast, the Liberal Party emphasizes social equity, inclusivity, and environmental stewardship, integrating liberalism with elements of social democracy and progressivism. Its policies focus on universal healthcare, multiculturalism, and global cooperation, seeking a balance between economic growth and social welfare. Together, these two parties present differing visions for Canada, each with its own ideological framework.

The piece also touches on the historical opposition by Joe Clark, former Progressive Conservative leader, to the merger with the Reform Party. Clark’s departure reflected a broader ideological rift, highlighting concerns that the merger would dilute traditional conservative values and shift the party toward a more populist stance. This background provides context for the evolution of Canada’s conservative landscape and its implications for today’s political dynamics.

Conclusion

In understanding Canada’s political landscape, it is essential to recognize the distinct ideological bases of its two dominant parties. The Conservative Party’s philosophy reflects a blend of conservatism and populism, shaped by a commitment to economic freedom, personal responsibility, and a decentralized federal structure. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, aligns with liberalism’s core tenets, promoting social justice, inclusivity, and environmental protection within a mixed economy.

Both parties have roots in broader philosophical traditions, and understanding their principles offers insights into Canada’s political challenges and policy debates. While Canada’s first-past-the-post system may limit the diversity of voices in mainstream politics, examining these dominant ideologies provides a clearer perspective on the political choices Canadians face. As politics continues to evolve, these ideological foundations will play a crucial role in shaping the country’s future, with each party’s approach representing a distinct path forward for Canada.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.