It’s One Of Those Political Ironies That’s Too Rich To Ignore

By J. André Faust (March 29, 2025)

It’s one of those political ironies that’s too rich to ignore:

Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre — two men from Canada’s elite class — now cast as if they’re on opposite ends of some grand ideological spectrum.

Both are highly educated. Both are powerful insiders. Both have operated at the highest levels of government and finance. And yet… they’re telling very different stories to Canadians right now.

 Carney is the globalist technocrat, calm, calculated, and fluent in the language of markets, central banks, and international cooperation. He appeals to those who value competence, stability, and data-driven policy.

 Poilievre is the anti-elite insider — a career politician who now brands himself as the lone warrior against the system he’s always been part of. He refuses security briefings not out of negligence, but because doing so would legally restrict what he can say. It’s a strategic move — positioning himself as the only guy who’s “not in on it.”

Same tower. Different floors.

One says: “Trust the system — I helped build it.”
The other says: “The system is rigged — and I’m the only one willing to tear it down.”

This next election isn’t just about left or right — it’s a battle over the storyline.

Which narrative is winning where you live?

---

Tariffs, Tension, and Trump: The Art of the Trade War

 

By J. André Faust (March 27, 2025)

The markets reacted today after Trump moved ahead with hefty tariffs on auto imports, prompting a noticeable dip across the major indices. The Dow and S&P both fell, and the Nasdaq took the hardest hit. What’s going on here isn’t just about economics — it’s about strategy.

From a game theory perspective, Trump appears to be operating from a zero-sum framework, where gains for others are seen as losses for the United States. This is a departure from cooperative trade models that have dominated global economics for decades.

But it doesn’t stop there. His latest comments — threatening even larger tariffs on Canada and the EU if they "do economic harm" to the U.S. — suggest a brinkmanship strategy. This kind of move involves pushing tension to the edge of collapse, creating uncertainty in order to force concessions. It's risky, and it depends heavily on whether the other players believe you're willing to go all the way.

Markets don’t like uncertainty. Investors know brinkmanship can spiral if miscalculated. We're no longer looking at a simple negotiation — this is a game where credibility, bluffing, and escalation are all on the table.

The question now is whether Canada and the EU will call the bluff, or fold under the pressure. Either way, we’re seeing the global chessboard shift.

---

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.

---

Analysis of Liz Truss' Criticism of Mark Carney

Whatever happened to objective reporting?

From mainstream media, the challenge isn’t just accessing information but deciphering the political bias each outlet carries. Whether the bias leans left or right, the issue remains the same—they frame the narrative to support their ideological stance, often at the expense of an accurate representation of the facts.

Take, for example, The Toronto Sun’s interview with Liz Truss, former Conservative Prime Minister of the UK. In the interview, Truss exaggerates Mark Carney’s responsibility for Britain’s financial challenges, blaming him for policies that continued long after his departure from the Bank of England. While Carney’s tenure had lasting economic effects, the UK’s financial struggles are also the result of Brexit, Truss’s own failed economic policies, and broader global financial conditions.

As a conservative-leaning publication, The Toronto Sun amplifies Truss’s narrative, making the interview more of a political attack than a balanced economic analysis. This is not objective journalism.

The following is an analysis of The Toronto Sun’s interview with Liz Truss.

Key Claims & Their Validity

1. Carney’s Role in Quantitative Easing (QE) and Inflation

Claim: Carney oversaw excessive money printing (QE), which devalued the economy and caused high inflation.

Fact Check: Carney implemented QE in response to the 2008 financial crisis and Brexit instability. However, QE continued under his successors, including during COVID-19. Inflation in the UK rose sharply in 2021–2022, after Carney had already left office, due to supply chain disruptions, Brexit effects, and the Ukraine war.

Verdict: Partially misleading—Carney set the foundation for QE, but inflation was a multi-causal problem post-Carney.

2. Carney's Alleged Responsibility for Britain's Stagnation

Claim: Carney's leadership led to low economic growth, with UK GDP per capita stagnating compared to the US.

Fact Check: UK economic stagnation is more tied to Brexit and government policies than Carney’s central banking policies. The Bank of England is responsible for monetary policy, not economic policy, which is the government's job.

Verdict: Mostly inaccurate—Carney had influence, but stagnation is largely a result of Brexit and policy choices post-2016.

3. Carney’s Net Zero Policies & UK Energy Prices

Claim: Carney was a major proponent of Net Zero, which harmed the UK’s energy sector and led to record-high energy prices.

Fact Check: Carney promoted green finance, but energy price hikes were due to Brexit-induced supply chain disruptions, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and global oil market instability.

Verdict: Misleading—Carney promoted green finance, but energy price hikes were due to geopolitical and structural issues, not his policies.

4. Carney’s Influence on the 2022 UK Pension Crisis

Claim: Carney set a Bank of England culture that led to pension fund instability, which collapsed during Truss’s short tenure as PM.

Fact Check: The pension crisis occurred in September 2022, triggered by Truss’s own mini-budget, which caused bond yields to spike. The Bank of England intervened to stabilize markets, but the root cause was Truss’s unfunded tax cuts and market panic.

Verdict: Blame shifting—Truss's own budget decisions triggered the crisis, not Carney.

5. Carney’s Political Ambitions & Canadian Context

Claim: Carney wants to become Prime Minister of Canada, following a Davos/WEF-inspired globalist agenda.

Fact Check: Carney has expressed political interest and is involved with the Canadian Liberal Party, but he has not officially announced a leadership bid.

Verdict: Speculative and politically charged—Carney is politically active, but claims of him being "appointed" as PM are exaggerated.

Assessing Bias in the Interview

• The Toronto Sun is a right-leaning publication, and Brian Lilley is a known conservative commentator.
• The interview heavily promotes Pierre Poilievre’s conservative narrative, portraying Carney as a Davos elite with disastrous economic policies.
• Truss’s criticisms align with right-wing attacks on green policies, central banks, and international financial institutions.

Overall Conclusion

Liz Truss and the Toronto Sun frame Carney as a primary cause of Britain’s economic troubles, but this oversimplifies complex economic issues.

• Some criticisms (like QE concerns) have merit but ignore the broader economic context (Brexit, government policy failures, and global market forces).
• Many claims shift blame from Truss’s own failures (such as the pension crisis) onto Carney.
• Energy crisis and economic stagnation were not directly caused by Carney, though he supported Net Zero finance.

Final Verdict: Carney is not beyond criticism, but blaming him entirely for Britain’s economic struggles is misleading and politically motivated.

---

.

---

Game Theory: An Analytical Perspective

I have changed the format of my posts from critiques to analyses of the world issues that face us. My analogy is that “life is like a chessboard” where we are all players trying to maximize our outcomes. These outcomes can be financial, spiritual, or anything else that gives us a sense of accomplishment.

One of the best tools I use to analyze these issues is Game Theory, initially conceptualized by John von Neumann. Later, John Nash developed the concept known as the Nash Equilibrium, which significantly expanded the scope of Game Theory. While von Neumann’s minimax theorem focused on two-player zero-sum games, Nash Equilibrium extended Game Theory to include non-zero-sum games and multi-player interactions. This advancement made the theory applicable to real-world scenarios where cooperation and competition coexist—such as in political science, psychology, biology, business, and computer science.

What is Game Theory?

Game Theory can best be explained as the study of strategic interactions among rational players, often under conditions of uncertainty, with the aim of maximizing their payoffs. This aligns with the core belief that “there are no absolutes, only probabilities that reside on a spectrum ranging from highly unlikely to very likely.”

Game Theory becomes a way of thinking that is not always intuitive. It is highly abstract, yet it is constantly evolving as new applications and insights emerge.

Below, I have included a glossary of game theory-specific terms to demonstrate that Game Theory goes far beyond the level of simple board games.

 

A

Adverse Selection: A situation where one party has more information than another, often leading to inefficient outcomes (e.g., in insurance markets).

Agent: A decision-maker in a game, often representing individuals, groups, or organizations.

Asymmetric Game: A game where players have different strategies, payoffs, or information available to them.

Auction: A game where participants bid for an item, and the highest bidder wins, with variations like English, Dutch, or sealed-bid auctions.

B

Backward Induction: Solving a sequential game by reasoning backward from the end of the game to determine optimal strategies.

Bayesian Game: A game where players have incomplete information but hold beliefs about unknown factors, represented as probabilities.

Best Response: A strategy that maximizes a player’s payoff given the strategies of other players.

Bounded Rationality: The idea that players have limitations in their ability to process information or make perfectly rational decisions.

C

Chance Node: A point in a game tree where an outcome is determined by chance, rather than a player's decision.

Chicken Game: A game where players face off to avoid mutual destruction, often illustrating the concept of brinkmanship.

Coalition: A group of players who collaborate to achieve a better outcome than they could individually.

Cooperative Game: A game where players can form binding agreements or coalitions to achieve mutual benefits.

Correlated Equilibrium: A solution concept where players coordinate their strategies based on a shared random signal.

Cost-Benefit Analysis: Evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of a strategy or decision.

D

Decision Node: A point in a game tree where a player chooses a strategy.

Discount Factor: A measure of how much future payoffs are valued compared to immediate ones in repeated or dynamic games.

Dominant Strategy: A strategy that yields a higher payoff for a player regardless of what others do.

Dominated Strategy: A strategy that always results in a worse payoff than another strategy, regardless of opponents’ actions.

E

Equilibrium: A state where no player can improve their payoff by unilaterally changing their strategy.

Evolutionary Game Theory: A framework that applies game theory to evolving populations, focusing on strategies that persist over time.

Expected Utility: The weighted average of all possible payoffs, where the weights are the probabilities of each outcome.

F

Focal Point: A solution or strategy that players naturally gravitate toward, often due to cultural or contextual clues.

Free Rider Problem: A situation in cooperative scenarios where individuals benefit from shared resources without contributing to their cost.

G

Game of Perfect Information: A game where all players know the entire history of moves and decisions made so far.

Game Theory: The study of strategic interactions where players make decisions to maximize their payoffs.

H

Hawk-Dove Game: A model of conflict where players can either compete (Hawk) or share (Dove), balancing aggression and cooperation.

Heuristic: A rule-of-thumb or simplified strategy used by players to make decisions when full rationality is impractical.

I

Imperfect Information: A game where players do not have full knowledge of all actions taken by others.

Information Set: The collection of decisions or events known to a player at a particular point in a game.

Iterated Game: A game played repeatedly by the same players, often with strategies evolving over time.

K

Knowledge Assumptions: The shared understanding among players about the game’s rules, structure, and other players’ rationality.

L

Learning in Games: The process where players adjust their strategies over time based on past outcomes or observations.

Loss Aversion: The tendency for players to prefer avoiding losses over acquiring equivalent gains.

M

Mechanism Design: The creation of rules or systems (a “game”) to achieve specific outcomes, often in economics or auctions.

Minimax Strategy: A strategy that minimizes the maximum possible loss for a player.

Mixed Strategy: A strategy where a player randomly chooses between multiple actions, assigning probabilities to each.

Moral Hazard: A situation where one player takes risks because another player bears the consequences.

N

Nash Equilibrium: A situation where no player can improve their payoff by unilaterally changing their strategy.

Non-Cooperative Game: A game where players make decisions independently without binding agreements.

Non-Zero-Sum Game: A game where the total payoff can vary, and players’ outcomes are not strictly opposed.

O

Opportunity Cost: The value of the next best alternative that is forgone when making a decision.

Outcome: The result of all players’ strategies in a game.

P

Pareto Efficiency: A state where no player can be made better off without making someone else worse off.

Payoff: The reward or outcome a player receives from a particular strategy or decision.

Payoff Matrix: A table that shows the payoffs for each player based on all possible strategy combinations.

Prisoner's Dilemma: A classic game showing how two rational players might not cooperate, even when it benefits both.

Q

Quantal Response Equilibrium: A solution concept where players choose strategies with probabilities that increase with the expected payoff.

R

Rationality: The assumption that players will act in their best interest to maximize their payoffs.

Repeated Game: A game that is played multiple times, allowing players to develop strategies over time.

Risk Dominance: A strategy that is safer or less risky when there is uncertainty about other players' choices.

S

Shapley Value: A solution concept in cooperative games that fairly distributes payoffs based on each player’s contribution.

Stackelberg Competition: A model of market competition where one firm (leader) moves first, and the other firms (followers) respond.

Strategy: A plan of action a player follows in a game to achieve the best possible outcome.

Subgame Perfect Equilibrium: A refinement of Nash Equilibrium applicable to games with a sequential structure.

T

Tit-for-Tat: A strategy in repeated games where a player replicates the opponent’s last move, often used in cooperation scenarios.

Transferable Utility: A property of some cooperative games where payoffs can be redistributed among players without loss.

U

Ultimatum Game: A game where one player proposes a division of resources, and the other player accepts or rejects it.

Utility: A measure of satisfaction or payoff a player receives from a particular outcome.

V

Value of Information: The benefit a player gains from acquiring additional information before making a decision.

Von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility: A utility function that satisfies the axioms of expected utility theory.

W

Weak Dominance: A strategy that performs at least as well as another strategy in all scenarios and better in at least one scenario.

Winner’s Curse: The tendency for the winning bidder in an auction to overpay due to incomplete information.

Z

Zero-Sum Game: A game where one player’s gain is exactly balanced by the losses of other players, making the total payoff constant.

---

.

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Trump Takes A Wrecking Ball To America's Governing Institutions

Courtesy of Munk Debates (Friday Focus Podcast)

In this episode of the Friday Focus podcast, Rudyard Griffiths and Janice Stein discuss the week’s dramatic developments in U.S. politics, focusing on President Trump’s controversial appointments. They reflect on the lack of competence and merit in key nominations, which have drawn widespread shock and criticism from observers, including those sympathetic to Trump’s agenda. Specific appointments, such as Pete Hegseth to the Department of Defense and Tulsi Gabbard to Director of National Intelligence, are critiqued for prioritizing loyalty and media presence over experience. They also highlight troubling trends, including the absence of standard background checks and ethical concerns.

The discussion then shifts to Elon Musk’s unprecedented involvement in U.S. government affairs, including conversations with Ukrainian and Iranian leaders. Musk’s dual role as a major contractor and de facto advisor raises concerns about conflicts of interest and oligarchic tendencies within the administration.

Finally, Rudyard and Janice debate the broader implications of these developments, likening Trump’s administration to historical authoritarian regimes while emphasizing its radical and revolutionary agenda. They consider whether American institutions outside of Washington can withstand the administration’s erosion of norms and governance. The episode concludes with a call for listener feedback and reflections on these pressing issues.

---

Canadians Idolizing Donald Trump Defies Logic

 

 

  By J André Faust (Nov 19, 2024)

 

Why Do Some Canadians Support Donald Trump?

Why do some Canadians support Donald Trump when the potential imposition of 10% to 20% across-the-board tariffs by the United States under his leadership could have devastating repercussions for the Canadian economy? Approximately two-thirds of Canada's exports are destined for the U.S., making our economy deeply intertwined with theirs.

These tariffs would likely drive up the cost of Canadian goods in the U.S. market, reducing demand and delivering a severe blow to Canadian industries reliant on exports. Analysts have already raised alarms that such a move could trigger a recession in Canada, disrupting trade flows and destabilizing our economic foundation.

The impact wouldn’t stop there—it would hit the Canadian oil industry particularly hard. Provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, and Labrador, which depend heavily on petroleum exports, could experience crippling economic downturns. Canadian oil would become less competitive in the United States, our largest buyer, which currently accounts for nearly all of our crude oil exports. With tariffs in place, American buyers could easily pivot to domestic or other international suppliers, leaving Canada to bear the brunt of the loss.

I fail to understand the logic behind admiring a would-be president who shows such blatant disregard for Canada. Trump does not give a rat’s ass about our economy or the devastating domino effect these policies could have on our entire country.

Conclusion

The potential for tariffs under a Trump-led U.S. administration highlights the vulnerability of Canada's trade-dependent economy. Such policies could wreak havoc on industries like petroleum, driving regional and national economic instability. While free trade agreements such as the USMCA offer a framework for collaboration, the review scheduled for 2026 adds uncertainty to an already precarious relationship.

It is imperative for Canadians to critically assess the economic and political implications of U.S. leadership choices. Supporting a leader who threatens the core pillars of Canada’s economy seems counter-intuitive, particularly when the consequences could reverberate across the nation. The need for robust, strategic responses to safeguard Canadian interests has never been clearer.

---

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.

---

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.

---

NDP Leader Comments as The Bloc Québécois Threatens to Topple Liberal Government

Video aired on CPAC on October 30, 2024

 Andre Faust (Oct 30, 2024)

If an election were called today, it seems nearly inevitable that the Liberal Party would face a resounding defeat. Current polls and the public discourse on social media echo a discontent that cannot be ignored. The Bloc Québécois has now issued an ultimatum to the Trudeau government: either support an increase in old-age pensions, or we’ll join forces with other parties to push for a vote of non-confidence.

Poised at the ready, Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives recognize the opportunity before them. Knowing this could be their best shot at taking power, they would undoubtedly throw their support behind the Bloc to bring down the Liberal government. The question mark, however, lies with the NDP. While a premature election may not be in their favor—they need time to solidify their campaign strategy—they could still act as a spoiler, effectively paving the way for a Conservative victory. Regardless, the Trudeau government has seen its popularity dwindle over the past year. For the Liberals to reclaim their footing, it may be time for Trudeau to step aside for the party’s greater good.

Meanwhile, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has declared his party’s opposition to the Bloc’s motion, refusing to play into Poilievre’s hands. Singh lists the challenges Canadians face—rising housing costs, soaring grocery bills, an overwhelmed healthcare system. Yet, therein lies a glaring gap: Singh, like his political counterparts, stops short of presenting concrete solutions.

So, whether an election comes early or waits until October 2025, Canadians deserve answers. Voters must demand clarity from all candidates: what are your party’s tangible solutions to the mounting problems this nation faces? In the end, the promise of change means little without a clear path forward.

---

Understanding Socialism: Sharing and Caring for Everyone that Your Grade 5 Child can Understand

 By Andre Faust (Oct 23, 2024)

political and social ideologies are filled with complexities, and the "game" is influenced by so many factors that predicting outcomes is extremely difficult. Every ideology, including socialism, capitalism, or democracy, operates within unique cultural, historical, and economic contexts. Even the most carefully designed systems can have unpredictable results due to human behaviour, random events, and unforeseen circumstances.

When I look at the most common posts regarding political ideologies, I realize that many who post have little to no understanding of political ideologies, provincial and international relations (geopolitics), and how they are interconnected. (Fortunately, there are others who have a deep understanding of these relationships and comprehend how the game is played.)

I look at our southern neighbour, the United States, and the way they handle their politics reminds me of classic TV shows like "The Gong Show" or "The Mickey Mouse Club." The band Green Day captured this sentiment well with their song "American Idiot." Why do Canadians want to become Americanized? Character assassinations does not deal with issues that we face as a country.

Both Trump and Harris have used false information and half-truths. The only difference between the two is that Harris is more refined when it comes to debates.

What amazes me is that some very intelligent people still can't grasp these concepts. Despite life experience or formal post-secondary education, they seem to have no clue how the game is played. In general, it seems like they can't see past their own backyard.

What gave me the idea was a Facebook post in response to my critique of the capitalist system. The person replied, "Is socialism better?" Before answering, I wanted to understand his level of knowledge, so I asked, "How do you define socialism?" There was no response.

As a result, I formulated a definition of socialism in terms that a fifth grader would understand.

Socialism: Socialism is like when a group of friends decides to share everything so that no one is left out. Imagine you and your friends all have toys, but some have a lot, and some have very few. In socialism, everyone agrees to share the toys so that everyone has enough to play with. It's a system where people work together and make sure everyone gets what they need, like food, housing, and education, so no one goes without. The idea is to help everyone have a good life, not just a few people. - that is as simple as it gets.

The common one dimensional rebuttals are:

1. Less Motivation to Work Hard: Imagine if everyone in your class got the same grade, no matter how hard they studied. Some might think, "Why should I study if I’m going to get the same grade anyway?" Socialism can sometimes make people feel less motivated to work hard because everyone gets the same rewards, even if they don’t do the same amount of work.

2. Not Enough Freedom to Choose: In socialism, the government often makes decisions about what jobs people can have or what things they can buy. Some people don’t like this because they feel they should be free to make their own choices, like choosing their favourite games or hobbies, instead of someone deciding for them.

3. Sharing Might Not Always Be Fair: While sharing is a good thing, some people think socialism isn’t always fair because if someone works very hard and someone else doesn’t work much at all, they both still get the same amount of things. Some people believe that those who work harder should get more rewards.

At this tells me is that they don't understand socialism, they only have a general idea, but there are many other forms of socialism.

To provide some examples:

Many forms of socialism emphasize meeting people's basic needs while still encouraging creativity and hard work. Some people are motivated by more than just money, like contributing to their community or gaining recognition for their skills.

Still in other versions of socialism, people still have many choices, but the government or community helps provide basic services, like healthcare and education, so everyone can live well.

Lastly, those who have a worldview of socialism, beyond what the propaganda machine tries to sell, will argue that fairness also means ensuring no one struggles to survive just because they had fewer opportunities or faced challenges beyond their control, like illness or bad luck.

---