Scamming the Scammer: A Hilarious Case Study in Ethical Propaganda

 By J. André Faust (Mar 03, 2025)

Introduction

Online scammers prey on unsuspecting victims daily, with seniors often being their prime targets. The playbook is simple: establish trust, introduce an emotional hook, and apply just enough pressure to convince the victim to send money. But what happens when the scammer meets someone who not only refuses to fall for the con but actively turns the tables? This blog explores a real exchange where a scammer was lured into a web of confusion, absurdity, and frustration—ultimately wasting their time and disrupting their operation.

The Setup: Baiting the Trap

Like many scams, this one began with a seemingly harmless message. The scammer feigned familiarity, pretending to be someone in need of help. The request? A modest sum of money, just enough to be believable—$50, supposedly to help their child. It was clear from the awkward sentence structure and grammatical errors that English was not their first language, which is often a hallmark of online fraud operations run from overseas.

Instead of shutting them down immediately, I decided to engage. Why? Because the best way to fight these scammers is to waste their time. Every second they spend engaging with me is a second they aren’t trying to con someone more vulnerable.

The Troll Begins: The Haunted Gift Card Gambit

When the scammer inevitably asked for money, I offered to buy them a Steam gift card. However, I added a twist: "I bought the card, but the cashier told me it's haunted. Should I still send it to you?" To my amazement, they replied "Yes." At this point, I knew I was dealing with someone either desperate or completely oblivious to the absurdity of the situation.

This led to a series of hilarious interactions. I insisted that the card had supernatural properties, suggesting that previous users had mysteriously disappeared. Rather than questioning this, the scammer remained fixated on one thing: getting the gift card.

The Final Blow: The Fake Apple Gift Card

Recognizing that the scammer likely relied on copy-pasting messages into a translation tool, I sent them an image of a completely fake Apple gift card. The card was intentionally absurd, featuring an impossible balance of $1,000,000 and a disclaimer that read, "Not valid for scammers." Since they couldn’t copy-paste the text, they were trapped, unable to figure out what had just happened.

Their response? A confused, garbled message: "Where are there??"—a clear sign that their brain had entered full meltdown mode.

The Ethics of Scammer Trolling: Fighting Fire with Fire

While it may seem like a joke, wasting scammers' time serves a larger purpose. These operations rely on high-volume engagement, targeting thousands in hopes that a small fraction will fall for the scam. If more people engaged in scammer trolling, we could collectively disrupt their ability to function. This is an ethical use of deception—a form of counter-propaganda that uses their own tactics against them.

Final Thoughts: Why This Works

1. It disrupts the scam economy. Every moment a scammer spends being trolled is a moment they aren’t extorting someone else.

2. It exposes their tactics. By engaging, we learn more about how these scams work and can educate others.

3. It makes scamming less profitable. If enough people wasted scammers’ time, their success rate would plummet.

Conclusion: Turn the Tables, Have Some Fun

Scammers rely on emotional manipulation, but their Achilles’ heel is lack of adaptability. They operate on scripts and struggle to deal with unexpected responses. By using humor, absurdity, and ethical trolling, we can disrupt their efforts and maybe even make them question their life choices.

Next time you get a scam message, consider engaging—not as a victim, but as a prankster. Who knows? You might just leave them haunted by the experience.

---

Podcast Episode: Debunking Trumps 200 Billion Dollar Claim About Canada

Transcription:

 00:03
                  Welcome to another episode of the reality check where we break down political claims analyze policies and separate fact from fiction I'm your host J. Andre Faust and today we're diving into Donald Trump's latest claims his assertions that the United States spends up to $200 billion a year to protect Canada is this true let's analyze it Donald Trump has has been in the headlines almost daily since his inauguration often making bold and at times exotic claims one of his most recent assertions is that the United
              
                  00:42
                  States spends $200 billion annually to defend Canada however this figure is both inaccurate and misleading let's break it down Trump has a history of exaggerating numbers particularly concerning trade deficits at times he has claimed that the US has a 2 200 billion trade deficit with Canada despite evidence showing the US often runs a trade surplus when it comes to defense the US defense budget is approximately 916 billion per year covering global Military operation the key word here is global Military operation not just the defense of Canada
              
                  01:28
                  the amount allocated specifically to Continental defense including nored North American Aerospace Defense command is only a fraction of this total NORAD established in 1958 is a bational military command where both Canada and United States share responsibilities and costs for Aerospace defense of North America this partnership ensures Mutual protection rather than one-sided financial support Canada's defense contributions include a $40 billion investment over 20 years to modernize NORAD the purchase of 88 F35
              
                  02:11
                  fighter jets to enhance its air defense capabilities NATO's commitments while NATO recommends members spend 2% of GDP on defense Canada spends around 1.37% below the target but not a requirement plans to increase spending to 1.7% of GDP by 2030 Trump's claims ignores the fact that Canada actively invests in its own military and defense Partnerships to further assess Trump's claims let's look at the US military aid to Israel and Ukraine neither country directly pays the US for Military Support despite Trump's
              
                  03:01
                  implication about NATO members not paying their fair share Israel the US provides $3.8 billion annually through the foreign military financing otherwise known as the FMF program a part of a 10-year agreement between 2016 and 2026 unlike other countries Israel can use some of this funding to develop its own military industry the Ukraine since Russia's 22 Invasion the United States have provided over 10 billion in military aid including weapons ammunition and training this Aid is approved by Congress and is not part of the pre-plan
              
                  03:49
                  funding agreement this highlights a key distinction NATO members invest in their own defense while Israel and Ukraine receive us military funding without direct Financial reimbursement does the US provide military protection for Canada Beyond NORAD let's examine the facts joint air defense NORAD Canada and the United States Monitor and defend North American airspace together Canada contributes military personnel operates raadar stations in the Arctic and shares intelligence military train training exercises Camp Gagetown New Brunswick a
              
                  04:33
                  major training ground for Canadian and Allied Forces where US troops train for cold weather and urban Warfare Arctic training the Canadian Armed Forces train US troops in Arctic survival due to Canada's extreme climate expertise joint Naval operations the US and Canada cooperate on naval missions in the Atlantic and Pacific importantly the US does not have permanent military bases in Canada the relationship is cooperative not dependent Trump's narrative suggests Canada is ring on US military support but the reality is
              
                  05:18
                  quite different the US benefits from norid by using Canadian airspace and radar stations to monitor threats from Russia and China the US would defend Canada regard of nored due to strategic importance Canada maintains a strong defense at a fraction of the cost thanks to Shared responsibilities Canada's Global reputation is a peacekeeping nation contrast with the United States more aggressive military stand so does Canada rely on the US for defense in the way Trump's suggest the answer is a resounding no can Canada funds its own
              
                  06:01
                  military and shares responsibility through NORAD the US benefits such as much if not more from the agreement Trump's claim of $200 billion spent on Canadian defense is completely unsupported by facts and with that we wrap up today's episode of the reality checks thanks for tuning in until next time this is J. Andre Faust take care

---

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.

---

.

---

Transcription: Canada's Trudeau announces 25% counter tariffs on US goods

 

Photo: courtesy of Global News

February 02, 2025 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Response to U.S. Tariffs

Good evening. Today, the United States informed us they will be imposing a 25% tariff on Canadian exports to the United States and 10% on Canadian energy, a decision that, should they elect to proceed with, should take effect on Tuesday, February 4.

Tonight, first, I want to speak directly to Americans, our closest friends and neighbours. This is a choice that, yes, will harm Canadians, but beyond that, it will have real consequences for you, the American people. As I have consistently said, tariffs against Canada will put your jobs at risk, potentially shutting down American auto assembly plants and other manufacturing facilities. They will raise costs for you, including food at the grocery stores and gas at the pump. They will impede your access to an affordable supply of vital goods crucial for U.S. security, such as nickel, potash, uranium, steel, and aluminum. They will violate the free trade agreement that the President and I, along with our Mexican partner, negotiated and signed a few years ago.

But it doesn't have to be this way. As President John F. Kennedy said many years ago, "Geography has made us neighbours; history has made us friends; economics has made us partners; and necessity has made us allies." That rang true for many decades prior to President Kennedy's time in office and in the decades since. From the beaches of Normandy to the mountains of the Korean Peninsula, from the fields of Flanders to the streets of Kandahar, we have fought and died alongside you during your darkest hours. During the Iranian hostage crisis, those 444 days, we worked around the clock from our embassy to get your innocent compatriots home. During the summer of 2005, when Hurricane Katrina ravaged your great city of New Orleans, or mere weeks ago when we sent water bombers to tackle the wildfires in California. During the day the world stood still, September 11th, 2001, when we provided refuge to stranded passengers and planes. We were always there, standing with you, grieving with you, the American people. Together, we've built the most successful economic, military, and security partnership the world has ever seen, a relationship that has been the envy of the world.

Yes, we've had our differences in the past, but we've always found a way to get past them. As I've said before, if President Trump wants to usher in a new golden age for the United States, the better path is to partner with Canada, not to punish us. Canada has critical minerals, reliable and affordable energy, stable democratic institutions, shared values, and the natural resources you need. Canada has the ingredients necessary to build a booming and secure partnership for the North American economy, and we stand at the ready to work together.

Let's take a moment to talk about our shared border. Our border is already safe and secure, but there's always more work to do. Less than 1% of fentanyl, less than 1% of illegal crossings into the United States come from Canada. But hearing concerns from both Canadians and Americans, including the American President himself, we're taking action. We launched a $1.3 billion border plan that is already showing results because we too are devastated by the scourge that is fentanyl, a drug that has torn apart communities and caused so much pain and torment for countless families across Canada, just like in the United States, a drug that we too want to see wiped from the face of this earth, a drug whose traffickers must be punished. As neighbours, we must work collaboratively to fix this. Unfortunately, the actions taken today by the White House split us apart instead of bringing us together.

Tonight, I am announcing Canada will be responding to the U.S. trade action with 25% tariffs against $155 billion worth of American goods. This will include immediate tariffs on $30 billion worth of goods as of Tuesday, followed by further tariffs on $125 billion worth of American products in 21 days' time to allow Canadian companies and supply chains to seek to find alternatives. Just like the American tariffs, our response will also be far-reaching and include everyday items such as American beer, wine, and bourbon, fruits and fruit juices, including orange juice, along with vegetables, perfume, clothing, and shoes. It'll include major consumer products like household appliances, furniture, and sports equipment, and materials like lumber and plastics, along with much, much more. And as part of our response, we are considering, with the provinces and territories, several non-tariff measures, including some relating to critical minerals, energy procurement, and other partnerships. We will stand strong for Canada. We will stand strong to ensure our countries continue to be the best neighbours in the world.

With all that said, I also want to speak directly to Canadians. In this moment, I'm sure many of you are anxious, but I want you to know we are all in this together. The Canadian government, Canadian businesses, Canadian organized labour, Canadian civil society, Canada's premiers, and tens of millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast are aligned and united. This is Team Canada at its best. Now is also the time to choose Canada. There are many ways for you to do your part. It might mean checking the labels at the supermarket and picking Canadian-made products. It might mean opting for Canadian rye over Kentucky bourbon or forgoing Florida orange juice altogether. It might mean changing your summer vacation plans to stay here in Canada and explore the many national and provincial parks, historical sites, and tourist destinations our great country has to offer. It might mean doing all of these things or finding your own way to stand up for Canada. In this moment, we must pull together because we love this country. We pride ourselves on braving the cold during the long winter months. We don't like to beat our chests, but we're always out there waving the maple leaf loudly and proudly to celebrate an Olympic gold medal. Canada is home to bountiful resources, breathtaking beauty, and a proud people who've come from every corner of the globe to forge a nation with a unique identity worth embracing and celebrating. We don't pretend to be perfect, but Canada is the best country on earth. There's nowhere else that I and our 41 million strong family would rather be, and we will get through this challenge just as we've done countless times before, together.

Thank you. Merci, Canada.

---

Source: Global News Read the transcript of Trudeau’s response to U.S. tariffs on Canada

---

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.

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.

---