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

I am the center of the universe

Why Donald Trump Did Not Receive the Nobel Peace Prize

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the author

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

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

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

---

References

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

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

The Unfinished Pursuit of Peace

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

About the Nobel Prizes

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

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

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

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

Image: Alfred Nobel, public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Context and Analysis

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

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

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

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

---

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

About the author

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

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

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

---

True peace is not declared; it is demonstrated.

---

Verification Note

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

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

---

References

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

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

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

By J. André Faust (Sept 06, 2025)

1. The Personal Paradox

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

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

2. Geoeconomics: Power in the Age of Interdependence

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

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

3. Climate Feedback: The Planet Mirrors the Market

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

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

4. Complexity at Diminishing Returns

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

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

5. The Lost Capacity for Collective Action

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

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

6. The Human Dilemma

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

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

7. What Remains Possible

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

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

8. Closing Reflection

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

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

9. What Game Theory Has to Say

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

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

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

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

---

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the author

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

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

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

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

Testing the Gospel Ethic in Israel and Palestine

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

By J. André Faust (Oct 04, 2025)

The Motif

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

Where the Contradiction Appears

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

The Dialectic: How Ideals Drift

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

Mechanics of the Contradiction

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

Practical Tests: Are We Close to the Motif?

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

What Renewal Looks Like

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

Why This Matters

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

---

References (APA 7)

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

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

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

 

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

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

---

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

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

What the numbers say

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

The Bank of Canada factor

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

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

Global alignment

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

So, is there a “Carney effect”?

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

Why this matters

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

---

Sources and notes

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

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

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

Why Is Putin Demonized While Netanyahu Gets a Pass?

By J. André Faust (July 09, 2025)

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

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

By the Numbers

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

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

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

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

Why the Double Standard?

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

Violence as a Means of Resource Control

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

What This Means for Us

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

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

Closing Thoughts

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

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

Editorial: A Minority Win, a Unified Tone, and a Chance to Stabilize Canada

 

 By J. André Faust (April 29, 2025)

🗳 Canada’s 2025 Election: Leadership, Entropy, and the Energy to Hold a Nation Together

Throughout this campaign, I focused on a comparative assessment: academic, experiential, and strategic, between Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre. My focus wasn’t partisan. It was based on a specific and pressing challenge: Donald Trump’s return to the world stage, and what that means for Canada.

Trump’s tariffs and confrontational trade policies didn’t create our economic issues, but they intensified them. Inflation, global supply shocks, labour market shifts. These already made Canada vulnerable. Trump’s return escalates those vulnerabilities into strategic threats. That's why, after months of analysis, I concluded that Carney was best equipped to lead. Not because he's perfect, but because he brings the economic literacy, international credibility, and measured temperament needed to manage this external pressure.

Ironically, the more objectively I evaluated the landscape, the more subjectively committed I became to that outcome. I became biased, not by ideology, but by logic.

I began to see Canada’s challenges through the lens of entropy. In physics, entropy is the drift of systems toward disorder unless energy is invested to maintain structure. In politics, it’s the loss of institutional trust, national cohesion, and civic dialogue. Trump’s policies, and the populist backlash they energize, add fuel to that drift.

Last night’s election offered a narrow reprieve. Carney’s minority win is fragile, not triumphant. But it may be enough to stabilize the system, at least for now.

And in one of the most unexpected turns, the tone shifted.

Poilievre, who fought hard and sharp throughout the campaign, delivered a concession speech that was humble, gracious, and statesmanlike. He acknowledged not only Carney’s victory but also the efforts of the NDP, Bloc, and Greens. That is something rarely seen in this era. He even offered cooperation on the Trump tariff issue, vowing to work constructively while holding the government accountable. At the time, he didn’t yet know he had lost his own seat. A dramatic end to a political chapter, yet he remained composed.

Carney, in turn, offered unity. He reminded Canadians that his mandate is for all of us, regardless of party. Even the Bloc’s leader emphasized national cooperation alongside Quebec's interests. And Jagmeet Singh, after a disappointing result, stepped down with grace.

For one night, entropy was held at bay.

A Personal Note

To all the fellow debaters, analysts, and commenters I’ve interacted with, especially those who supported the Conservative vision, I want to say thank you. Your passion matched my own. You sharpened my thinking, challenged my assumptions, and reminded me how differently each of us is wired.

I never took our differences personally. In fact, I grew to appreciate them.

It is through that clash of ideas, not avoidance or hostility, that a democracy stays alive. You were part of that, and I’m grateful for the exchange.

Let’s carry that spirit into the next chapter. The work isn’t over. But maybe, just maybe, the energy we invest now will keep the system from falling apart.

---

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.

The Tariff Standoff: Who Will Blink First in the U.S.– China Showdown?

By J. André Faust (April 08, 2025)

Asymmetric War of Attrition: US vs. China Trade War

Understanding the Game of Attrition

In game theory, a "war of attrition" is when two players compete not by direct confrontation, but by waiting each other out. Think of it like a staring contest—each side pays a cost for staying in, and the last one to quit takes the prize. It’s used to explain animal behavior, business strategy, and politics. In this case, we're applying it to the US-China trade war, where both nations are enduring economic strain hoping the other backs down first.

With Trump recently slapping a 104% tariff on Chinese EVs, the game has clearly entered a new phase. The stakes are high, and so are the risks. But is there really a winner in a game where the longer you stay, the less there is to win?

Fig. 1 – Asymmetric War of Attrition: US vs. China Trade War

This graph is generated from the Python code below and illustrates how both countries approach the trade war with different cost structures and reward decay rates:

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np

# Simulation parameters
rounds = 20
initial_reward_us = 100
initial_reward_china = 100
reward_decay_us = 3
reward_decay_china = 2
cost_per_round_us = 4
cost_per_round_china = 2

# Arrays for plotting
x = np.arange(1, rounds + 1)
reward_us = np.maximum(initial_reward_us - reward_decay_us * (x - 1), 0)
reward_china = np.maximum(initial_reward_china - reward_decay_china * (x - 1), 0)
cumulative_cost_us = cost_per_round_us * x
cumulative_cost_china = cost_per_round_china * x
net_gain_us_if_china_concedes = reward_us - cumulative_cost_us
net_gain_china_if_us_concedes = reward_china - cumulative_cost_china

# Plotting
plt.figure(figsize=(12, 7))
plt.plot(x, reward_us, label='US: Remaining Reward ($)', linewidth=2)
plt.plot(x, reward_china, label='China: Remaining Reward ($)', linewidth=2)
plt.plot(x, cumulative_cost_us, label='US: Cumulative Cost ($)', linestyle='--', linewidth=2)
plt.plot(x, cumulative_cost_china, label='China: Cumulative Cost ($)', linestyle='--', linewidth=2)
plt.plot(x, net_gain_us_if_china_concedes, label='US: Net Gain if China Concedes ($)', linestyle=':', linewidth=2)
plt.plot(x, net_gain_china_if_us_concedes, label='China: Net Gain if US Concedes ($)', linestyle=':', linewidth=2)

plt.xlabel('Rounds of Trade War')
plt.ylabel('USD Value')
plt.title('Fig 1. Asymmetric War of Attrition: US vs. China Trade War')
plt.legend()
plt.grid(True)
plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()

Explanation: This figure shows how each side bears costs over time and how the potential reward they’re fighting for diminishes. The U.S. burns through more money per round, with rewards decaying faster, while China maintains a slower cost burn and a more gradual reward loss. This imbalance makes it an asymmetric war—each side is playing with different tools and different pain thresholds.

Fig. 2 – War of Attrition with Shrinking Reward

This second graph, generated by the code below, takes it a step further by showing what happens when the total reward shrinks over time—not just because of internal costs, but because of external factors like global economic downturns:

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np

# Time axis
time = np.linspace(0, 10, 100)

# Reward decay function (e.g., exponential decay)
initial_reward = 10  # Starting reward value
decay_rate = 0.3
reward = initial_reward * np.exp(-decay_rate * time)

# Plotting
plt.figure(figsize=(10, 6))
plt.plot(time, reward, label="Shrinking Reward Over Time", linewidth=2)

# Labels and Title
plt.title("Fig 2. War of Attrition with Shrinking Reward", fontsize=14)
plt.xlabel("Time (Rounds of Trade War)", fontsize=12)
plt.ylabel("Reward Value (Billion $)", fontsize=12)
plt.grid(True)
plt.legend()
plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()

Explanation: Fig. 2 captures a bigger problem: what if the prize you’re fighting for is evaporating? Even if a country “wins” by outlasting its opponent, the final reward might be a fraction of what it once was. Global recessions, shifts in alliances, inflation—these can all chip away at the prize until there’s nothing left worth fighting for.

Closing Thoughts

Looking at Fig. 1, we see the broader picture: an asymmetric war of attrition between the U.S. and China. The U.S. enters the game with higher costs per round and a steeper reward decay, while China plays a more patient, lower-cost game. Each round that goes by chips away at the potential payoff. If either side drops out early, the other could win big—but if they both hold out too long, the prize may not be worth the fight.

Then there’s Fig. 2, where the game gets even trickier. Here, the reward itself shrinks over time, not just because of cost but due to external economic pressure—like global market contractions or public fatigue. It’s a warning: sometimes, there’s no glory in winning if the reward has already vanished.

Trump’s latest move—slapping a 104% tariff on Chinese EVs—might look tough on the surface. But from a game theory lens, it’s a signal. He’s testing China’s resolve, daring them to respond, all while trying to frame the narrative on his terms. The question isn’t just who wins—it’s when they decide the game isn’t worth playing anymore.

That’s the heart of a war of attrition. It’s not about who throws the biggest punch—it’s about who can outlast their opponent, and whether the prize is still worth it by the time someone gives in.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

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?

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

.

---

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.

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.

---

.

Structural entanglements, layered systems, humble forecasts.